Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans"

See other formats


REV. W. SAN DAY, D.D., LL.D., Lnr.D. 




Tin Rifht* <tf Tt*ntl*i*ox aW tf Refioduftton art 










ECTO or WBLWTO, HUTS, ro*ME*LY mum or AU. oct cotiica, o 






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

naps 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 


Ic like the Romans is really to be understood and 
grasped at once as a whole and in its parts, the argument 
should be presented in several different ways and on several 
different scales at the same time. And it is an adva 
< T of a commentary can be so broken u: 
by means of headlines, headings to sections, sunn: 
paraphrases, and large and small print notes, the reader 

not cither lose the main thread of the argument in the 

1 of dctaib, or slur over details in seeking to 
a general idea. While we are upon this subject, we 
explain that the principle which has guided the choice of 
large and small print for the notes and longer discu: 
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- 
set the possibility of improvement was hardly worth the 
trouble and expense of resetting. 

The other main object at ul ivc aimed is 

iking our exposition of the Epistle historical, :' 
of assigning to it its true position in place and time on 
the one hand in relation to contemporary Jewish thought, 
and on the other hand in relation to the growing body of 

: :an teaching. We have endeavoured always to bear 

:id 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 arc cast, but 
also the position of the Epistle in < 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 

i and associations to us obscure were still fresh 
and vivid. The problem which a commentator ought to 
propose to himself in tl cc is not what a; 


docs 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 


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 100 B.C. and 100 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 

ice 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 

tare 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 
ing the common origin of systems of thought which 

developed very differently, partly by the striking 
contrasts which it has afforded to Christian teaching. 

Our object is historical and not dogmatic Dogmatics 
are indeed excluded by the plan of this series of commen- 

(-. but they are excluded also by the conception which 
kve have formed for ourselves of our duty as commentators. 
We have sought before all things to understand St. Paul, 


and to understand him not only in relation to his sur- 

iings but also to those permanent facts < 

on which his system is based. It is possible 
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 a< 

have not been in our thoi 
To this general aim all other features of the commentary 

:bordinatc. It is no part of our design to be in the 
least degree exhaustive. If we touch upon the history of 
exegesis it js less for the sake of that history in itself than 
as helping to throw into clearer relief that int< 
which we believe to be the right one. And in like n 

ive not made use of the Epistle as a means for 
illustrating New Testament grammar or New Testa: 

deal with questions of gramnur and diction 

<> far as they contribute to the exegesis ot 
before us. No doubt there will be omis> o not 

to be excused in this way. The literature on the Iv 
to the Romans is so vast that we cannot pretend to 
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. Bruc 
Conception of Christianity, uhich came out as our 
work was far advanced, we thought it best to be quite 
independent. On the other hand been ^lad to 

have access to the sheets relating to Roman 
forthcoming Introductions to Romans and 
through the kindness of the editors, have been in our 
possession since Dccemb 

The Commentary and the- Introduction h.ive been about 
equally divided between the t hut they 

each been carefully over th of the other, and they 

desire to accept a joint responsibility for the whole 


editors themselves arc 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 

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. 
Brightman of the Pusey House. Dr. Plummer, as editor 
of the series, has read through the whole of the Com- 
mentary more than once, and to his courteous and careful 
criticism they owe much. To Mr. Brightman they are 
indebted for spending upon the proof-sheets of one half of 
the Commentary greater care and attention than many men 
have the patience to bestow on work of their own. 

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


OXFORD, Whitsuntide, 1895. 


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

OXFORD, Ltnt t 1896. 


Tin: demand for a new Edition has come upon us so 
suddenly in the midst of other work, that we have 
confined ourselves to small corrections, the knowledge of 

h we owe to the kindness of many friends a 
We have especially to thank Dr. Carl Clemen of Halle, 
not only for a useful and helpful review in the Thco- 
logischc Litcraturzeitung, No. 26, Nov. 7, 1896, p. 590, but 
also for privately communicating to int-. 

We have also to thank the R- 

nd, Mr. John Humphrey Harbour of the U.S.A., 

lie Rev. C. Plummcr for corrections and suggestions. 
We should like also to refer to an article in the Exf 
(Vol. IV, 1896, p. 124) by the late K irmby, on The 

ing of the 'Righteousness of God 1 in the Epistle to the 
Romans, in which he works out more fully the opini< 

referred on p. 24. We are glad again to express 
our obligations to him and our sense of the loss of on< 
was a vigorous and original worker both in Church 1 1 
and Testament Exegesis. 

We can only now chronicle the appearance of the first 
volume of the elaborate Einlcitung in das N. T. (Li 
1897) of Dr. Zahn, which discusses the questions re! 
to the Epistle with th s accustomed thorou^' 

and learning, a new ' improved ' edition of the Einlcitung of 

'.. Weiss, and an edition of the Greek text c : 
Pauline Epistles with concise commentary by the same 
author. Both these works have appeared during th 
year. The volume of essays dedicated to Dr. 
on his seventieth birthday, Theol. Stmiien 6-r. (Gottingcn, 
1897), contains two papers which have a bearing upo 

Ic, Zur panlinischfn Tlu'odiccc by Dr. Ernst Kiihl, and 

ig* surpaulin. Rhetorik by Dr. Joh. V lould 

hope to take account of these and other works if at some 
future time we arc permitted to undertake a fuller re 
of our commcntu. 


A. C. II. 

OxronD. ZVermArr, 1897. 


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

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

A very excellent and thorough survey of the whole 
subject will be found in the article ' Romans ' in Hastings' 
\>nary of the Bible by Dr. A. Robertson. The corre- 
sponding article in the Encyclopaedia Biblica has not yet 
appeared. For more detailed exegesis the most important 
recent event is probably the appearance (in 1899) of the 
ninth edition of Meyer's Commentary by Dr. B. Weiss, who 
has done us the honour to include systematic reference to 
our own work. In any revision of this it would be our first 
duty to give to the points on which Dr. Weiss differs from 
us renewed consideration. In Knglish the most consider- 
able recent commentary is Dr. Denney's in the Expositors 
( Testament (1900). Dr. Denney is in the main a 
judicious and capable writer ; but we may remark in 
passing that a criticism of his upon p. xli of this com- 
nuntary, which another writer has repeated with further 
embellishments, seems to us strained and gratuitous, and 
to rest on a less accurate use than our own of the word 


'fundamental.' There is also a thoughtful and > 
little commentary in the Century BibU by .A 

laps the most conspicuous of the problems raised 
by tl <. which have been or arc being carried on 

beyond the point at which we had left them, would be 
tii the question as to the meaning of the ' righteousness 

.1' in i. 17, &c. Something was said on this subject 
in the New Testament portion of the article 'Go 
:ionary, ii. 210-12, where reference is 
to an interesting tract by Dalman, Die r if liter I if /if G< 
tigkeit im A. T. (Berlin, 1897), and to other literature. 
Something also was said in the Journal of Thtc! 

s, i. 486 ft., ii. i98fT. And the question is 
raised by Dr. James Drummond in the first number of the 
Hibbert .- pp. 83-95. This paper is to be con- 

tinued ; and the subject is sure to be heard of fu 
(ii) Another leading problem i> that as to the relation of 

ml to the Je :i which perhaps the most 

important recent contributions have been those by Sieftert 
ic d. paulin. Gcsci nach den 

4 Hauptbricfen d. Apost.') in the volume of .^ 
honour of B. Weiss (Gottingen, 1897) and by i'. 
(Das gest: Evangclium vj, Leipzig, i 

A third deeply important question is being : 
agitated at the present time; t as to the 

c and significance of the ' 1 Union' described 

.ml viii. This is even more a question of 

Biblical and Dogmatic Theology than of Kxcgesis, and it 

is from t) scusscd in Mich books 

a Dr. Mobcrly's A ton 

ichmond's Essay <m Personality 
phifa. n>oc), and more 

works by Mr \V \\ Inge, (iv) Various questions raised 
in the Introduction are discussed in Moffatt, His: 
New Ttstamt :>ur^h. 1901), but the value of the 

book :i just where do^niat 

not needed. 

ACE TO THI-: i i! m I.I.ITION i.\ 

Co more general subjects are receiving special attcn- 
;it the present time. One of these is the his 
toncal position and character of New Testament Greek, on 
which much new light is thrown by the study of inscrip- 
tions and of the mass of recently discovered papyri We 
associate these studies especially with the names of 
A. Dcissmann, whose Bible Studies have recently been 
published in English (Edinburgh, 1901), A. Thumb, 
Dieterich, and others. It is the less necessary to 
go into details about these, as an excellent account is 
v en of all that has been done in a series of papers by 
1 1. A. A. Kennedy in the Expository Times, vol. xii (1901). 
Dr. Kennedy was himself a pioneer of the newer move- 
ment in Kngland with his Sources of New Testament Greek 
tlinburgh, 1895). We ought not however to forget the 
1 earlier work of Dr. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek 
(Oxford, 1889), which was really at the time in advance 
of similar research on the Continent. 

The other subject might be described as the Rhetoric 

of the New Testament. A comprehensive treatment of 

vicnt rhetorical prce in general has been undertaken 

by Prof. E. Norden of Breslau in Die antike Kunstprosa 

(Leipzig, 1898). Dr. Norden devotes pp. 451-510 to an 

analysis of style in the New Testament, and also pays 

attention to the later Christian writers, both Greek 

M Latin. The 'Rhetoric of St. Paul* in particular is 

the subject of a monograph by Dr. Johannes Weiss in the 

volume dedicated to his father. Nor should we close this 

rvcy without a special word of commendation for Tlie 

Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought by 

Mr. H. St. John Thackeray (London, 1900). 

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

W. S. 
A. C. H. 




S 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 . . . xxxvi 

5. Argument xliv 

6. Language and Style 1" 

7. Text Ixiii 

8. Literary History . Uxiv 

9. Integrity .Ixxxv 

10. Commentaries .xcviii 




The Theological Terminology of Rom. i. 1-7 17 
The word &aioff 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 . . .51 

The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice ... 91 
The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by 

St. James 102 

Teaching on Circumcision . . . . 108 
The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of 

St. Paul 116 

Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of 

Justification? 122 

xii cor- 

- Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement .... 

c Effects of Adam's Fall in Jewish Theology . .136 

-. Conception of Sin and of the Fall . 
<>ry of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of 

diKaiWu -147 

The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ 
The Inward ConftV .... 184 

SL Paul'* View of the Law ... 

The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit . 199 

The Renovation of Nature 210 

The Privileges of Israel . 

The Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5 233 

The Divine Election , ... 

The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament . 257 

The Power and Rights of God as Creator .... 266 
The Relation of St. Paul's Argument in chap, ix to the Book 

;sdom ... . 267 

A History of the Interpretation of Rom. ix. 6-29 ... 269 
The Argument of ix. 3O-x. 21 : Human Responsibility . 300 

St. Paul's Use of the Old Testament 

The Doctrine of the Remnant 316 

The Merits of the Fathers 330 

The Argument of Romans ix .... 341 

St Paul's Philosophy of History 

The Salvation of the Individual : Free -\\ill and Pre<!< 


Spiritual Gifts 358 

Church and the Civil Power 369 

The History of the word aydvf 374 

The Christian Teaching on Love . . 
The early Christian belief in the nearness of the wapowria . 379 
The relation of Chapters xii-xiv to the Gospels . 381 

\Vhat sect or party i referred to n Ron . -399 
Aquila and 1'risuiU 418 


tin Wore! 443 

III Greek \\onis 


i. ROME IN A. D. 58. 

IT was during the winter 57-58, or early in the spring of the 
vcar 58, according to almost all calculations, that St. Paul wrote 
ustle 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*. 
lie 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 
!es: '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 V The imagery of citizenship has impressed itself 
upon his language 4 . 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 

1 The main authorities used for this section are Farneanx, Tkt Annals of 
Tacittu, vol. ii, and Schiller, Gexhitht* dts ftSmiscHtn /Cauurrtub unttr 
4tr Rtgitntng det Ntro. 

Rom. IS- 1 5. 

' Acts xix. 21 ; xxiii. 1 1. 

' PfcB, i liph. ii. 19; Acts xxiii. i. 

> THE ROMANS [$ 1. 

rces of evil opposed lo ii '. The worst persecution 
had been while Judaea was under the rule of a 
! verywhere the Jews had stirred up persecution 
upcrial officials had interfered and protected the Apostle. 
so both in this Epistle and throughout his life S: 
emphasizes the duty of obedience to the civil governm- 
necessity of fulfilling our obligations to r .ul was 

himself a Roman citizen. This privilege, not then so common as 
it became later, would naturally broaden the view and 
imagination of a provincial; and it is significant that the fir 
conception of the universal charac 
first bold step to carry it out, and the capacity to r< 
ancc of the Roman Church should come from an Apostle who was 
not a Galilaean peasant but a citizen of a universal cm; : . \V, 
cannot fail to be struck with the strong hold that Roman ideas bad 
on the mind of St. Paul,' writes Mr. Ramsay, ' we feel 
to suppose that St. Paul had conceived the great idea of 
as the religion of the Roman world ; and that he thought of the 
various districts and countries i: had preached as parts of 

the grand unity. He had the mind of an organizer ; and t 
the Christians of his earliest travels were not men of Iconium and 
of Antioch they were a pan of the Roman world, and 
addressed by him as such V 

It was during the early years of Nero's rei^ 
came into contact with the Roman Church. And the period is 
significant It was what later times called the Quinqumnium of 
Nero, and remembered as the happiest period of the Empire 
the death of Augustas 1 . Nor was the judgement unfounded. It is 

1 s Then. ii. 7 i ar\ar. 6 ri mrix<*. It U well known r 

interpretation of these words among the Fathers was the Roman 

Empire (see the Lattma of passages in Alford. . and this accords 

most suitably with the time when the Epistle was . The 

only argument of any value for a later date and the unauthentic character of 
the whole Epistle or of the eschatological sections (it. i-ia) it the att< 
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 MM* Usj dkSl dsM irei .....:: .< \ -.-.'.:, t 

evil which might at any time burst out. and this be calls the 'mystery of 
iniquity,' and describes in the language of theO.T. prophets. But everywhere 
the power ui government, aa embodied in the Roma: 

artf x or) and visibly personif. nperor (* **rix~). restrain. 

forces. Such aa interpretation, either of the eschatological passages 
Epistle or of the Apocalypse, does not destroy their deeper spiritual meaning ; 
for the writers of the New Testament, as the prophets of th .\] to us 

and generalUe the spiritual forces of good and underlie the surface 


' Ramsay, 7ki Ckttrtk in tkt Roma* Emfiirt, pp. 147. 148; cf. also pp. 60, 
70. 158 n. See also Ligbtfoot, Hiblital E, . 105. 

> Aur VL-trw Catt c I- ft! 11 t Tml* anti/mmt *m r 

A 'Hd*o*iA*mpr*/idf>*. Traia**m sditttm 

. >t (ttmfffi frimtiptt a Atrtntt fui*fiun*it. The expreasion 

1.] ROME IN A.D. 58 xv 

probable that even the worst excesses of Nero, like the worst cruelty 
of Tiberius, did little harm to the mass of the people even in Rome ; 
and many even of the faults of the Emperors assisted in working 
out the new ideas which the Empire was creating. But at present 
we have not to do with faults. Members of court circles might 
have unpleasant and exaggerated stories to tell about the death of 
g ; tales might have been circulated of hardly pardon- 
able excesses committed by the Emperor and a noisy band of 

in ions wandering at night in the streets ; the more respect- 
f ihe Roman aristocracy would consider an illicit union 

i freedwoman and a taste for music, literature, and the drama, 

of degradation, but neither in Rome nor in the provinces 
would the populace be offended ; more far-seeing observers might 
be able to detect worse signs, but if any ordinary citizen, or 
if any one acquainted with the provinces had been questioned, he 

! certainly have answered that the government of the Empire 

was good. This was due mainly to the gradual development of 

.is on which the Empire had been founded. The structure 

i 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 

<o to the wise administration of Seneca and of Burrus. It 
was due apparently also to flashes of genius and love of popularity 
on the part of the Emperor himself. 

The provinces were well governed. Judaea was at this time 
preparing for insurrection under the rule of Felix, but he was 
a legacy from the reign of Claudius. The difficulties in Armenia 
were met at once and vigorously by the appointment of Corbulo ; 
the rebellion in Britain was wisely dealt with ; even at the end of 
Nero's reign the appointment of Vespasian to Judaea, as soon as 
the serious character of the revolt was known, shows that the 
Emperor still had the wisdom to select and the courage to appoint 
able men. During the early years a long list is given of trials 
for repchwdae ; 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, 

nor of Sardinia, was condemned for extortion; in 57, 

>. the 'Cilician pirate/ was struck down by the senate 
wuh a righteous thunderbolt/ Amongst the accusations against 

fMtWfswMffurJM may have been suggested by the ttrtamftt quitujuttwal* which 
Nero founded in Rome, as Dio tells us, i*)p rip atnrjpiat -rip r &ajor$f TOW 
parovt avrov. Dio, Epit. Ixi. 21 ; Tac. Ann. xiv. ao; Suet. Nero la; c the 
coins described, Eckhel, vi. 264; Cohen, i. p. a8a, 47-65. CEK. QUIKQ. 

xvi !: TO THE ROMA [J 1. 

Stnilius in 58 was the misgovernment of Asia. And not on!. 

ouritcs of Claudius condemned, better men were apj> 
in their place. It is recorded that freedmen were never 
procurators of imperial provinces. And the Emperor was a 
many cases, in that of Lyons, of Gyrene, and probably of Ephesus. 
to assist and pacify the provincials by acts of gen 
benevolence '. 

v, perhaps, by too much stress on some of the 
measures attributed to Nero; but many of them show, 
policy of his reign, at any rate the tendency of the En ; 
police regulations of the city were strict and well executed 
attack was made on the exactions of publicans, and on the excessive 
power of freedmen. Law was growing in exactness owing to the 
influence of Jurists, and was justly administered except wh< : 
Emperor's personal wishes intervened '. Once the Emperor was it 
a mere freak or was it an act of far-seeing ht? 

proposed a measure of free trade for the whoU 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 o: 
rights meant that the provincials were being graduall\ 
and more on a level with Roman citizens. And th< 

hed for the most pan under this rule. It seemed almo 
the future career of a Roman noble might depend upon the goodwill 
of his provincial subjects V And wherever trade could floun>h there 
wealth accumulated. Laodicea was so 

rebuild the city without aid from Rome, and Lyons could 

Sute 4,000,000 sesterces at the time of the great fire*. 
When, then, St. Paul speaks of the 'powers that be* as ' 
'ordained by God'; when he says that the ruler is a min 
God for good; when he is giving directions to pay 'tribu: 
' custom ' ; he is thinking of a great and beneficent power 
has made travel for him poss !i had often interfered to 

protect him against an angry mob of his own countrv; 
which he had seen the towns through which he passed ei 
peace, prosperity and civilization. 

1 For the provincial administration of Nero Me Farocaux, ef eit. pp. 56, 57 ; 

' A'**** Sytttm of Pmincial Admi*ist> < : 
Tc. .-/ x.ii. 30, 3'. : 

Suetonius, J\n 1 6. 4 ;o 

Schiller, pp. 381. 38) : 'In dcm MechanUmas dct gericbtlichen Ver 
Una* im Privatrecht, in der Autbildung nod rofderong der i 

chaft, Kltnt aof 

kaom erhoben werden. Die kiiwlicbe Kegiennff Item die VcrhahniMe bier 
rob ig den Gang geben, welch en ibnen fruhere Kegteranfcn aogewieaen batten.' 
' Tac Ann. xv. 20, Ji. 

Arnold. ; 

1.] ROME IN A.D. 58 xvii 

But it 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. 

.ore perliaps for that of the principles which prepared the way 

spread of Christianity, the fact is of extreme significance. It 

:,e first public appearance of Stoicism in Rome, as largely in- 

mg 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 

iilosophic basis for the new imperial system, and this was not 
the last time that an aristocracy perished in obedience to their own 
morality. What is important for our purpose is to notice that the 
m and univcrsalist 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 \\ In 

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 

individual conduct they gradually moulded and changed the 

nd 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 

unity. 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 

ided Greek and Oriental assistance. The Emperor must have 
teachers in philosophy, and in acting, in recitation and in flute- 

:., and few of these would be Romans. The statement of 

ostom that Su Paul persuaded a concubine of Nero to accept 
Christianity ami forsake the Emperor has probably little foundation \ 
the conjecture that this concubine was Acte is worthless ; but it may 
te 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 

y of the names in any of the Columbaria of the imperial period 

1 See Lightfoot, Sf. Paul and Sentca* Pkilippians, p. 68. To this period 
of his life belong the dwooXovrTw<ri, the Dt CUmentia, the Dt Vita Bca/a, 
the Dt Btntjiiiis, and the Dt Cowtantia Sapitnti*. See Tcuflcl, History of 
Roman IMtrature, translated by Warr, ii. 41. 

Tac. Ann. xiv. 43-45. 

Chrysostom, Horn, in Act. Afp. 46. 3. 


!: TO THE ROMA [$ 

will illustrate ho wat. Men and women of 

race lived together in the great Roman slave n they 

had r gift of freedom remain 1 as clici 

i^reat houses, often united by ties of the closest 
ty with their masters and proving the means 
form of strange superstition could penetrate into the highest 
sof socir 

And foreign superstition was beginning to spread. The earliest 
monuments of the wo I ithras date from the lime 

in his Pharsalia celebrates the worship of 

renced the Syrian Goddess, who was called b> 
names, but is known to us best as Astarte ; Judaism 
throne with Poppaea Sabina, whose influence o \ 

year 58; while the story of Pomponia G in ihe 

husband for trial on the charge of 
'foreign superstition' and whose long old age was cloud* 
continuous sadness, has been taken as an instance of I 

are not inconsiderable grounds for tl. 
case the accusation against her is an 01 

a path by which a new and foreign relig; . could 

make its way into the heart of the Roman aristocr. 


There are indications enough that when he looked to 
Rome St. Paul thought of it as the seat and centre of t 
But he ha .ime time a smaller and a narrower object. 

His chief interest lay in those little scattered groups of Christians 
of \\hom he had heard through Aquila and Prisca, and pn 

have collected the following names from the contents of one colum- 
941). It dates from a period rather earlier than this. 
It must be remembered that the proportion of foreigner* would really t 
than appears, for many of them would take a Roman name, Amaranthns 5 1 80, 
Chrysanttts 5183, Serapio (to) 5187, Pylaemenianut 5188, Creticu 
Ascleptades :s 5*17. Antigonos 53:7 

Aman . Apamea 087 a, Ephesia 5299, Alcxandrianns 

:c 5344, Diadamenns 5355. Philnmenus 5401. 

Philogenes 5410. Graniae Nicopoltnis 5419. Corinthus 5439, Antiochu 5437, 
Athenais M78. Encharistus 5477, Mclitenc 5490, Samothrace, Mystiu 

The following, contained among the above, seems to have 
-t : 'ilferof ftofcv */N00fvn}f ^a^yoptirt^ TMT mvd Bowvopor, 

.* section was written the author has had access to i 

ft ; Frankfurt a. " A hich hat enabled him to 

The facts arc aUo excellently put together 


through others whom he met on his travels. And the thought of the 
< I uirch would at once connect itself wiih that larger 
community of which it must have been in some sense or other an 
offshoot, 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 under Judas ' (who died in 160 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 

anda and were in consequence sent home by the praetor 

us 4 . 

This was only preliminary contact. 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 
ui.uuimitted. 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 emperors favoured the Jews. They passionately 
bewailed the death of Julius, going by night as well as by day to 
his funeral pyre T ; 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. 

1 i Mace viii. 17-33. i Mace. adi. 1-4, 16. 

i Mace. xiv. 14; xv. 15-24. 

This statement is made on the authority of Valerias Maximus I. iii. 2 
(Excerpt. Parid.) : JuJatos qui Sabati Jovis cultu Komanot injutrt more) 
tonati sttnt, rtfttert domes tttas totgit. Doubt is thrown upon it by Berliner 

hut without sufficient reason. Val. Max. wrote under Tiberius, and made 
use of good sources. At the same time, what he says about Jupiter Sabazius 
is 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 ff . , who points out that Philo, Leg. 

:>m 33, from which the statement is taken, makes no mention of Pompey. 
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 beet, other and older settlers in Rome to account lor the 
language 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 Libcrtini* (Acts vi. lo). 

r frMtoa. Caesar 84. 

' This was the quarter usually assigned to prisoners of war (Buckr(ibu* d. 
Stadt Rom, III. iii. 578). 

C 2 


Here tho Jrws icon took root and rapidly increased in numbers, 
still under the Republic (B.C. 59) tl 

nded to drop his voice for fear of them 1 . And 

came from Judaea to complain of th< 
rule of Archclnus, no less than 8000 Roman Jews attached 
elves to ii f . Though the main so: is beyond the Tiber 

it must soon have overflowed into other parts of Rome. The 
Jews had a synagogue in con: :h the crowded Subura' 

and another probably in the Campus Martius. There 
gogues of MytvirrfiouH and *A>pannj<ruM (i.e. either of the house- 
hold ( ; patronage of Augustus : Agrippa). 
the position of which is uncertain but which in any case t> 
the importance of the community. Traces of Jewish cem 
have been found in several out-lying regions, one near the 
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 son. in the reign of Tiberius the Jewish colony 

flourished without interruption. Bui in A.D. 19 two scan 
cases occurring about the same time, one connected with the ; 
, and the other with a Roman lady who having I 
a proselyte to Judaism was swindled of money um! 
of sending it to Jerusalem, led to the adoption of rcj 
measures at once against the Jews ami :! ms. Four 

thousand were banished to Sardinia, nominally to be emplo\ 
pulling down banditti, but the historian scornfully hints that : 
fell victims to the climate no one would '. 1 '. 

The end of the reign of Caligula was another anxiou- 
critical time for the Jews. Phik> has given us a gr. arc of 

the reception of a deputation which came with himself at its head 
to beg for protection from the riotous mob of Al 
half-crazy emperor dragged the deputation after him from on 
to another of his gardens only to jeer at them and refuse any further 

1 The Jewt were interested in thb trial as KUcctts had laid band, on the 
money collected for the Temple at Jerusalem. Cicero', speech makes it clear 
that the Jews of Rome were a formidable body to offend. 

Joseph. Ant. XVII 

There b mention of an d^r Xtlovppb*. C. I G. 6447 (Schiirer, 
Gtm*i*dxrf<Htuns d. Jmdt* in Kern. 

synagogues were not allowed within the /v*<*n'. c may 

suppose that the synagogue itself was without the walls, but that its frequenters 
came from t 

4 Berliner conjectures that the complimentary title may have been given as 
a tort of equiralent for emperor- worship 

1 Data relating to the synagogues have been obtained from inscriptions, 
which hare been and commented upon by S 

*. r. ... ' . a . ! . :..;. lift . ||SO ::. R |i tljf ' Bd : .' : / - ;/ 
p. 46 : 

a: us ii. 85 ti 06 gravitattm (at. :*mnum. 



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. I Jut a 
mysterious notice of which we would fain know more shows them 
once again subject to measures of repression. At a dale 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. 2). And Suetonius in describing what is 
probably the same event sets it down to persistent tumults in the 
Jewish quarter 'at the instigation of ChrcstusV 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 s . 

Any one of three interpretations may be put upon imfuhort Chreslo 
assidut tumultuantes. (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 
view of Meyer and \\ieseler. (ii) Or it is very possible that there may be 
a confusion between ' Chrestus' and 'Christus.' Tertnllian accuses the 
Pagans of pronouncing the name ' Christians ' wrongly as if it were Chrts- 
tiani, and so bearing unconscious witness to the gentle and kindly character 
of those who owned it. Std et cum fxrperam Chrtstianus pronundatur 
a vobis (nnm ntc ncminis certa est n otitia pent* tw) tU nuaritatt vel btnigni- 
tate tompositum ut (Apol. 3 ; cf. Justin, ApcL i. f 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 I.nnge and others including in part Lightfoot (/Vtf/r//MMr, p. 169). 

There remains the third possibility, for 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 Antioch of Pisidia or Lystra (Acts xvii. 5 ; xiv. 19; 

<g. ad Camm 44, 45. 
' Sneton. Claud. 25 Judatos impulsore Ckresto assidtt* tumtdtuantu Roma 

* Dio Cassius, Ix. 6 rovt r 'lovotu'ovr, vXtovaaayra* afrit Start x****** * 
4rv rapa x ^t ford TOW oxAov oj* rip vdAta* tlp\^ai. ov JfijAa<r /nV, r? M 

ras T< trmi 


50). That it did d, and that this b the met alluded to bv 
the opinion of the majority of German scholars from llaor onwards, 
imrx r.fy any one of the three h)jx>thcc ; but the lart would fit 

in well with all that we know and would add an interesting tou 

The edict of Claudius was followed in about three years ! 

Under Nero the Jews cert.i .ot lose but 

-ther gained ground. We have seen 
wrote 1 ;oea was beginning to exert her influ 

many of her class she dallied with Judaism and befriended Je* ^ 

Aliturus was a Jew by birth and stood in . 
Agrippa II was also, like his father, a fxrsona gra: 

o Cassius sums up the history of the Jews uiu! 

which describes well their fortunes at Rome. 
Though their privileges were ot: creased t 

an extent as to force their way to the recognition and toleration of 
their peculiar customs*. 

(2) Organization. The policy of the emperors toward 
Jewish nationality was on the whole liberal ami i They 

saw that they had to deal with a people which it was at o: 

ress and useful to encourage ; and they freely coi. 
the rights which the Jews demanded. Not only were they al 
the free of their rcli r xcepliona! 

granted them in connexion with it. Joscphus (An:. 
quotes a number of edicts of the lime of Julius Caesa: 
after his death, some of them Roman and some local, securing tc 
the Jews exemption from service in the army (on religious gr< 
freedom of worship, of building synagogues, of forming clubs and 
collecting contributions (especially the di drachma} for t 
at Jerusalem. Besides this in the K i ore largely 

permitted to have their own courts of justice. And the wonder 
is thai in spile of all the:; 

rights were never permaru irawn. As late as the end of 

the second century (in the pontificate of Victor 189-199 A. o.) 

1 A suggestion was made in the Chart k Quarterly Review for Oct. 1894, 
MX. that the dislocation of the Jewith com- 

inanity canted by the edict of Claudius may explain ' why the Church of the 
capital did not grow to the same extent as elsewhere out of the synagogue, 
fcten when St. Paul arrived there in bonds the chiefs of the restoredjewish 
organisation ptofcseed to have heard nothing, officially or unofficially, of the 
A panic, and to know about the Christian sect just what we may suppose the 
rioter* ten years earlier knew, that it was "everywhere spoken against"' 

(p. : 

W./M/A.3: An II, 

. d rap* roft Tto/ia<oii ru 7rot rovro, oAot*f ir 
M iwi 


Callistus, who afterwards himself became Bishop of Rome, was 
banished to the Sardinian mines for forcibly breaking up a Jewish 
meeting for worship (Uippol. Refut. Haer. ix. 12). 

There was some natural difference between the East and the 

corresponding to the difference in number and concentration 
of the Jewish population. In Palestine the central judicial and 
ivc 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 

.1 board or senate, for the management of the affairs of the 
community. At Rome, on the other hand, it would appear that 

synagogue had its own separate organization. This would 
consist of a ' senate ' (ytpowia), the members of which were the 
' elders ' (irp<r/3vTpo). The exact relation of these to the ' rulers ' 
(ivxorm) is not quite clear : the two terms may be practically 
equivalent ; or the a^omr may be a sort of committee within the 
larger body ! . The senate had its ' president ' (ypownapxn*) I and 
among the rulers one or more would seem to have been charged 
with the conduct of the services in the synagogue (dpxun>vay*yot, 
<ip;irwdywyoi). Under him would be the vmipinjt (Chazari) who 
performed the minor duties of giving out and putting back the 
sacred rolls (Luke iv. 20), inflicted scourging (Matt x. 17), and 
acted as schoolmaster. The priests as such had no special status 
in the synagogue. We hear at Rome of wealthy and influential 
people who were called father ' or mother of the synagogue ' ; 
mill be an honorary title. There is also mention of a vpo- 
ffronjr or palronus, who would on occasion act for the synagogue 
in its relation to the outer world. 

(3) Social status and condition. There were certainly Jews of 

rank and position at Rome. Herod the Great had sent a number 

sons to be educated there (the ill-fated Alexander and 

Aristobulus as well as Archclaus, Antipas, and Philip the telrarch 9 ). 

later date other members of the family made it their home 
1 the first husband of Herodias, the younger Aristobulus, 

: one time Herod Agrippa I). There were also Jews attached 
in one way or another to the imperial household (we have had 

on of the synagogues of the Agripfxsii and Augusltsii). These 
would be found in the more aristocratic quarters. The Jews' 

1 This is the view of SchUrer (GtmeintUvcrf. p. a a). The point is not 
discussed by Berliner. Dr. Edersheim appears to regard the 'elders' as 
identical with the ' rulers,' and the dpxn*y*ryo* ** chief of the body. He 
would make the functions of the yipov<Trtp\rp political rather than religious, 
and he speaks of this office as if it were confined to the Dispersion of the Wert 
(/.*/> md Timts, Ace. i. 438). These are points which must be regarded as 
more or less open. 

Jos. Ant. XV. x. i ; XVII. i. 3. 


quarter proper was the reverse of aristocratic. The fairly plentiful 
notices which have come down to us in the works of the Satirists 
lead us to think of the Jews of Rome as largely a population of 
beggars, vendors of small wares, sellers of lucifer m 
of broken glass, fortune-tellers of both sexes. They haunt 
Avcntine with (heir baskets and wisps of hay *. Thence they : 

orth and try to catch the ear especially of the wealthier 
Roman women, on whose superstitious hopes and fears they might 
play and earn a few small coins by their pains '. 

Between these extremes we may infer the existence of a more 
substantial trading class, both from the succes^ ;.eriod 

had begun to attend the Jews in trade and from the existence of 
the numerous synagogues (nine are definitely attested) *l 

have required a considerable amount and some diffusion of 
. to keep up. But of this class we have less direct cvi 

In Rome, as everywhere, the Tews impressed the observer by 
their strict performance of the Law. The Jewish sabbath was 
proverbial. .ction of meats was also carefully mainta 

Hut along with these external observances the Jews did suo < 
ng home to their Pagan neighbours the contrast o! 

to the current idolatries, that He whom they served 
did not dwell in temples made with hands, and that He was : 
be likened to ' gold or silver or stone, graven by an 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 cu 
and the rigid cxclusiveness with v kept aloof from all 

others, offended a society which had come to embrace all the varied 
national religions with the same easy tolerance and whkh 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. A: 
ours, educated and populace alike, retaliated with 
hatred and so 

me all and there were many w ho were in search 

1 The purpose of this u somewhat uncertain : it may have been used to pack 
their warn. 

1 The passages on which thU detention is bawd are well known. .Small 

,', :: V . .' . - !*::;:. \il :.. ; . : , Jfarf I -, I. -.,:.-.:. 

ff. Prutfytism: Horace, Sat. I. 
xiv. 96 ff. 

Horace. Sal. I. U. 69 f. ; Jormal, Sat. xir. 96 ft. (of proaelytes) ; Penm*. 
Sat. v. 184 : Soeton. Aug. 76. The text* of ( ,rcrk and Latin author* relating 
to Judaism have recently been collected in a complete and convenient form by 
Theodore Reinach ( Ttxttt rtlatift au Jmlaismt, Paris, 1895). 


of a purer creed than their own, knew that the Jew had something 
to give them uhi h they could not get elsewhere. The heathen 
.on was losing its hold, and thoughtful minds were 'feeling 
; naply they might find ' the one God who made heaven and 
i. nth. Norwmi 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 ' (fwrif, trc/Sopotx, 
ai&tuKu rAy 6oV, ^O/SOI'/MMM TO* Gd) 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) Origin. The most probable view of the origin of the 
< hurch in Rome is substantially that of the commen- 
tor known as Ambrosiaster (see below, 10). This fourth- 
miry writer, himself probably a member of the Roman Church, 
not claim for it an apostolic origin. He thinks that it arose 
ig the Jews of Rome and that the Gentiles to whom they 
eyed a knowledge of Christ had not seen any miracles or any 
Apostles*. Some such conclusion as this fits in well with 

1 Jnvcnal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. 

the very ample collection of material on this subject in Schttrer, 
fattest. Ztitgtsck. ii. 558 ff. 
* Conital itaq** t*mforib*s apostolorum Ju.iatos, propttrta quod tub regn* 

' W agtrtnt, Roma* habitats* : tx quibus hi qui crtJUerant, tradidtntnt 

us tit Ckruttun frofit*ntes t L*&m scrvarent . . . KomantJ autem trout 
tUhtit, ud ft landart JUem illorum ; quia nulla insignia virtuium 

Li 3 

nomena of the Kpistle. St. Paul woul : 
iloes if the Church . U-.-n founded by an Apostle. 

He dearly regards it as coming if own province as Apostle 

of the Gentiles (Ron; 

it down as a principle governing all his missionary labours t: 
will not 'build upon an< .s foundation' (Rom. x\ 

If an Apostle had been before him to Rome the only supposition 
would save his present letter from clashing with this would 
a there were two distinct churches in Rome, one Jcwish- 
. in the other Gentile-Christian, and that St. Paul wro; 
to the latter. But not only is th .: of such a state of 

. but the letter itself (as we shall s s a mixed 

community, a community not all of one colour, but cml : 
in substantial proportions both Jews and Gentiles. 

At a date so early as this it is not in itself likely that the Apostles 

ii grew up under the shadow of Jewish |.. 
would have had the enterprise to cast their glance so far 
west as Rome. It was but natural that the first Apostle 
this should be the one who both in theory and in practu 
struck out the boldest line as a missionary; the one who had 
formed the largest conception of the possibilities of t 
the 01. .cd 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 cono : long chei 

the purpose of himself making a journey to Rome (Ac 
Rom. . 22-24). It was not however to/iW at 

at least in the sense of first foundation, for a Church a 
existed with sufficient unity to have a letter written to it. 

If we may make use of the data in ch. xvi and reason 
be given for using them with some confidence the origin of the 
Roman Church will be fairly clear, and it will agree 
the probabilities of the case. n the course of previous 

history had there been anything like the freedom of 

movement which now existed in the Roman Empire 1 . And 

followed certain definite lines and set 
definite directions. It was at its greatest all along ii. 
snores of the Mediterranean, and its general trend was to an 
Rome. The constant coming and going of Roman officials, as 
one provincial governor succeeded another ; the moving of troops 

vidtntti, mtc altqutm afottobntm, nuftftrtatl /idem Ckrut 
(S. Ambrosit Off 1 see that 

exaggerates the strictly Jewish influence on the Church, but in his general 
coocTosion be is more right than we might have expected. 

> 'The conditions of travelling, for ease, safety, and rapidity, over the 
greater part of the Roman empire, were rach as in part have only been reached*> th. bctfutac * th. pc~ ca.uor'VHcJUadc,. 

$3.] THE ROMAN CIIfKciI xxvii 

from 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 attraction 

: 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, 

ss, pleasure drew a constant stream from the Eastern pro- 
vinces to Rome. Among the crowds there would inevitably be some 

ians, and those of very varied nationality and antecedents. 

ul himself had for the last three years been stationed at one of 
the greatest of the Levantine cmporia. 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- 

i' was most active. We may be sure that not a few of his 

lisciples would ultimately find their way to Rome. And so 

we may assume that all the owners of the names mentioned in 

had some kind of acquaintance with him. In several cases 

be adds some endearing little expression which implies personal 

t 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) 
1 (erodion 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 

ul'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 
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 

, we can easily understand that he might have Christians 
about him. That Prisca and Aquila should be at Rome is just 

we -might expect from one with so keen an eye for the 
of a situation as St. Paul. When he was himself esta- 
and in full work at Ephesus with the intention of visiting 
?, 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 

: 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, 


some fiom F.phcsus and other parts of proconsular Asia, possibly 
some from Tarsus and more from the Syrian Ann 
the first instance, as we may believe, nothing c< . 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 
h, but such a fortuitous assemblage of Christians is 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 (hat there was a synagogue sj 
assigned to the Roman 'Libcrtini' at Jerusalem and that this 
synagogue was at an early date the scene of public debates between 
Jews and Christians (Acts vi. 9). with the further fact that regular 
communication would be kept up by Roman Jews free; 
feasts, it is equally clear that Palestinian Chr 
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 I 

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 conjc< 

If the view thus given of the origin of the Roman Church it con 
Involve* the rejection of two other view*, one of which at least ha* imposing 
authority ; via. (i) that the Church wssfoundcd by Jewish pilgrim* from the 
i cntecost, nod (ii) that it* troe founder wa* St 

(i) \Ve 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 
bora Jew* of the Diipcrwon and proselyte*. When these return, 
would naturally take with them new* of the strange thing* which were 
happening in Palestine. Dot unles* they remained for soov 
and unless they attended very diligently to the teaching of the Apostles. 

ih- wouM go 

mity: they 

might' be at a similar stage to that of the disciple* of St. John the Baptist at 
Epbesus (Act* xix. i ff.) ; and under the sncce*ivc impact of later visits 
(their own or their neighbours') to Jerusalem, we could imagine ih. 
faith would be gradually comolidat t would take more than they 

brought away from the Day of Pentecost to lay the foundations of a 

< ii) The traditional fonder of the Roman Church 



rue that there is hardly an it. m in the eridencr 

some deduction. The evidence which i* ue. and the 

evidence which is early is either too uncertain or too slight and vague to 


only in a very qualified arose that this tradition can be made good 
may my at once that we are not prepared to go the length of those 
would den the connexion of St. Peter with the Roman Church alto 


carry a clear conclusion '. Most decisive of all. if it held good, would be 
the alluvion in St. Peter's own Firt Epistle if the ' llabylon from which be 
write i .;) is really a covert name for Rome. This was the view of 

: !> Church, and although perhaps not absolutely certain it is in accord- 
ance with all jr., (.ability. The Apocalypse confessedly puts 'Babylon* for 
. xiv. 8; xvi. 19, Sic.;, and when we remember the common 
c among the Jewish Rabbis of disguising their allusions to the op- 
pressor*, we may believe that Christians also, when they had once become 
suspected and persecuted, might have fallen into the habit of using a secret 
language among themselves, even where there was less occasion for secresy. 
NY hen once we adopt thU view, a number of details in the Epistle (such 
as the mention of Silvanus and Mark, and the points of contact between 
i Peter and Romans) find an easy and natural explanation *. 
The genuine F.pistle of Clement of Rome (t. 97 A.D.) couples together 
tcr and St. 1'aul in a context dealing with persecution in such a way 
as to lend some support to the tradition that both Apostles had perished 
there 4 ; and the Kpistle of Ignatius addressed to Rome it. 115 A.D.) appeals 
'i Apostles as authorities which the Roman Church would be likely to 
recognize * ; 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 
i of Home as they had none previously that of Corinth '. Hut this 
:!e 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- 
must be taken to qualify the statements of Irenacus'. By the beginning 
of the third century we get in Tertnllian* and Cains of Rome* explicit 
references to Rome as the scene of the double martyrdom. The latter writer 
points to the trophies * (ra rplwtua *) of the two Apostles as existing in his 
day on the Vatican and by the Ostian Way. ThU is conclusive evidence as 
to the belief of the Roman Church about the year aoo. And it is followed 
by another piece of evidence which is good and precise as far as it goes. 

1 The summary which follows contains only the main points and none of the 
t evidence. For a fuller presentation the reader may be referred to 
toot, St. Cltmtnt ii. 490 ff., and Lipsius, Apckr. Apostelgesch. ii. 1 1 ff. 
1 On this practice, see Biesenthal, Trosttchrtilxn an dit Htbratr, p. 3 ff. ; 
and for a defence of the view that St. Peter wrote his First Epistle from Rome, 
>ot, St. Clemtnt ii. 491 f. ; Von Soden in Handtommtntar III. ii. 105 f. 
! T. Hurt, who had paid special attention to this Epistle, seems to have 
held the same opinion Judaistic Christianity, p. i ; 

There is a natural reluctance in the lay mind to take Jr Bo0ifAm in any 
other sense than literally. Still it is certainly to be so taken in Graf. SitylL v. 

VwisrO; and it should he remembered that the advocates of this view 
include men of the most diverse opinions, not only the English scholars 
mentioned above andDollinger, but Renan and the Tubingen school generally. 
^</C0r.v.4ff. * AdRom.vv. 3. 

Eus. ff. E. II. xxv. 8. ' Adv. f/aer. III. iii. a, 3. 

Seorp. 15 ; De Praetcript. 36. Eus. //. E. II. xxv. 6, 7. 

19 There has been much discussion as to the exact meaning of this wotd. 

The leading Protestant archaeologists (Lipsius, Erbes, V. Schultzc hold that 

it refers to some conspicuous mark ot the place of martyrdom (a famous 

.nth ' near the naumathium on the Vatican (Mart. Pet. ft /W. 63) and 

a | me-tree ' near the road to Ostia, The Roman Catholic authorities would 

refer it to the 'tombs' or 'memorial chapels' (memoriae}. It seems to us 

probable that buildings of some kind were already in existence. For statements 

of the opposing views see Lipsius. Apokr. Aposttlgttck. ii. ai ; De Waal, Dit 

ttlgntft adCatafumfias, p. 14 ff. 

TO Till I:<>MANS [$ 3. 

Two fourth-century documents, both in texts which have undergone some 
corruption, the Martyrcbpum Hitr<mymi***m (ed. Duchesne, p. 84) and 
a /V/Mfto Marty ,*m in the work of Philocalus, the so-called ' chrono- 
of the year 354,' connect a removal of the bodies of the two Apostles with 
the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus in the year ac8. There is some 
n* to the localities from and to which the bodies were moved ; 
but the most probable at in the Valerian persecution wt> 

cemeteries were closed to Christiana, the treasured relics were transferred to 
the site known as Ad Caicuumbas adjoining the present Church 
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. t 

- we have a chain of substantial proof that the Roman Church fully 
believed itself to be in possession of the mortal remains of the two Apostles 
as far back as the year too. a tradition at that date already firmly established 
and associated with definite well-known local y**i^'ff" > fT*1* The tra> ! . ' 
to the twenty-five years' episcopate of St. Peter presents some points of re- 
semblance. That too appears for the nr*t time in the fourth centu 
Eusebius (c 325 A.I.) and Ms follower Jerome. By skilful anal) . 
traced back a full hundred years earlier. It appears to be u a list 

drawn up probably by Hippolytus'. Lipsius would carry back thu list 
a little further, and would make it composed under Victor in the last 
of the second century*, and Ughtfoot seems to think it possible t 
figures for the duration of the several episcopates may have been present in 
the still older list of Hegesippns, writing under Elentherus t. 175-1 </ 

Thus we have the twenty-five years' episcopate 

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 1 
a time when a continuous tradition is beginning to be possible. And 
difficulties in the way of bringing St. Peter to Rome at a date so early as the 
year 42 (which stenn to be indicated) are so great as to make the acceptance 
of this chronology almost impossible. Not only do we find St. Peter to all 
appearance still settled at Jerusalem at the time of the Connci 

vc have seen that it is highly improbable that he had visit*! 
when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church there. And it is har 
improbable that a visit had been made between this and (he later I 

m.). The relations between the two Apostles and of 
both to the work of missions in general, would almost compel some allusion 
to such a visit if it had taken place. Between the years $8 or 6 1 
thrre i quite time for legend to grow up; and Lipsins has pointed out 
a possible way In which it might arise *. There is evidence that 
of our Lord's command to the Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for 
years after His Ascension, was current towards the end of the second century. 
The travels of the Apostles are usually dated from the end of this period 

1 The best account of this transfer is that given by Duchesne, Libtr . 

So Lipsins. after Erbes. Atokr. Afottttgach 

Clemtnt ii. 500. The Roman Catbt . 

d connect the story with the jealousies of Jewish and Gentile Christian* in 
the first century: see the latter'* // ApoiMgntft ad Cateuumbas, \. 
49 ft". This work contains a full survey of the contiovcisy with new archaeo- 


Af. l.igbtfoot. pp. J37. 333- ' /M* 


u : 


(i.e. about 41-42 A.D.). Then the traditional date of the death of St. Peter 
is 67 or 68 ; and subtracting 43 from 67 we get just the 25 years required. 
It was assumed that St. Peter's episcopate dated from his first arrival in 

Mr the ground is fairly clear. But when Lipsius goes further than this 
and denies the Roman visit in loto, his criticism seems to us too drastic 1 , 
lie arrives at his result thus. He traces a double stream in the tradition. 
( >n 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 sketched above. On the other hand there is the tradition 
of the conflict of St. Peter with Simon Magus, which under the figure of 
i Magus made a disguised attack upon St. Paul*. Not only does 
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. 
ioes not seem to us to be a satisfactory explanation. The traces of the 
;>auline 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. 

(2) Composition. The question as to the origin of the Roman 
has little more than an antiquarian interest ; it is an isolated 
or series of facts which does not greatly affect either the picture 
ich we form to ourselves of the Church or the sense in which 
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 

1 It is significant that on this point \Veizsacker parts company from Lipsius 
(Afoit. Zfitalt. p. 485). 

Of. <if. p. 1 1 ff. Ibid. p. 28 ff. 

Ibid. p. 6a ff. 

1 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 (June 29), 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 
year the evidence is very insufficient. Professor Ramsay (Th* Churtk 
in the Koman Emfirt, p. 279 ff.) would place the First Epistle of St. Peter in 
lie of the Flavian period, A.D. 75-80 ; and it must be admitted that the 
.ties 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 to 
<> the great persecution of A.D. 64; but the state of things implied in 
Epistle does not look as if it were anterior to this. On the other hand. 
' isor Ramsay's arguments have greatly shaken the objections to the tradi- 
date of the death of St. Paul 


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

< 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 
mined not by the minute exegesis of panic ular passages 1 
a broad and comprehensive view of what seems to him to be the 
argument of the Epistle as a whole. To him the 1 
be essentially directed against Jewish Christians. The ; 
of gravity of the Epistle he found in chaps, ix-xi. St. i 
grapples at close quarters with the objection that if his d. 
held good, the special choice of Israel its privileges ai 
promises made to it all fell to the ground. At first there- 
doubt that the stress laid by Baur on these three chapters in com- 
parison with the rest was exaggerated and < 
disciples criticized the position which he took up on this poii 
he himself gradually drew back from i: 
a like tendency ran through the earlier portion of t. 
There too St. Paul's object was to argue with the Jewish 
and to expose the weakness of their reliance on formal obe 
to the Mosaic Law. 

The writer who has worked out th Baur's most elabo- 

rately is Mangold. It b not difficult to show, when th 
closely examined, that there is a large element in 
essentially Jewish. The questions 
the validity of the Law, the nature of Rcdcm] 
which man is to become righteous in the sight of God. the 
of Israel. It is also true that the arguments with which S 
meets these questions are very largely such as wot 
specially to Jews. His own views are linked on directly 
teaching of the Old Testament, and it is to the Old Testament 
that be goes in support of th hat sort of 

nee arguments of this character would have as addressed to 

is also possible to point to one or two expressions in detail 
might seem t :hc assumption of Jewish readers, 

would be here Abraham is described ( 

most probable text) as ' our forefather ac 

vpororupa q/j** card <ra>ra). To that h 

'or. x. i St. Paul spoke of the Israelites in the 



ness as ' our fathers,' though no one would maintain that the 
Corinthian < . were by birth Jews. There is more weight 

indeed there is real weight in the argument drawn from the 
section, Rom. vii. 1-6, where not only are the readers addressed 
as <id<X$o4 pov (winch would be just as possible if they were con- 
verts from heatheni>m) but a sustained contrast is drawn be 
an earlier state under the Law (6 npos vv. 1,4, 5, 6 ; not w. a, 3 
where the force of the article is different) and a l.iu-r stale of free- 
dom from the Law. It is true that this could not have been 
written to a Church which consisted wholly of Gentiles, unless the 
Apostle had forgotten himself for the moment more entirely than 
he is likely to have done. Still such expressions should not be 
pressed too far. He associates his readers with himself in a manner 
somewhat analogous to that in which he writes to the Corinthians, 
as if their spiritual ancestry was the same as his own. Nor was 
ithout reason. He regards the whole pre-Messianic period 
: criod of Law, of which the Law of Moses was only the most 
uous example. 

a minor point, but also to some extent a real one, that the 
exhortations in chs. xiii, xiv are probably in part at least addressed 
to Jews. That turbulent race, which had called down the inter- 
ference of the civil power some six or seven years before, needed 
ning 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. 

\\V 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 
i which St. Paul addresses the Gentiles in ch. xi. 13 ff. (fytuf 
\<y*> roif t$H<nv .r.X.) would be proof sufficient of this. But it 
further clear that St. Paul regards the Church as broadly and in 
in a Gentile Church. It is the Gentile element which gives 
its colour. This inference cannot easily be explained away from 
passages, Rom. L 5-7, 13-15; xv. 14-16. In the first St Paul 
the Church at Rome among the Gentile Churches, and 
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 
ut exception are his province. In the third he in like manner 
s himself courteously for the earnestness with which he has 
tten by an appeal to his commission to act as the priest who 
lys upon the altar the Church of the Gentiles as his offering. 


E TO TO NS [$ 3. 

then is the natural construction to put upon the Apostle's 
language. The Church to which he is writing is Gentile in its 

il complexion; but at the same time it contains so many 
born Jews that he passes easily and freely from the one 1 
the other. He does not feel bound to and wci. 

, because if he u rites in the manner >mes most 

> himself he knows that there will be in the Church 
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 s- 
more at his ease in this respect. We shall see in the next v 
that the force which impels the Apostle is behind rather tl 
front It is not to be supposed that he had any exact st . 
before him as to the composition of the Church to which \. 
writing. It was enough that he was aware that a letter such as he 
has written was not likely to be thrown away. 

If he had stayed to form a more exact estimate v. .c the 

greetings in ch. xvi as a rough indication of the lines tl. 
follow. The collection of names there points to a mixture of 
nationalities. Aquila at least, if not also Prise a *, we ki 
been a Jew (Acts xviii. 2). Andronicus and Juni rodion 

are described as ' kinsmen ' (ffvyymic) of the Apostle : 

his means is not certain perhaps 'members of the 
tribe ' but in any case they must have been Jews, 
is a Jewish name ; and Apelles reminds us at once of ludaeus 
(Horace, .*> oo). And there is besides 'the household of 

Aristobulus,' some of whom if Aristobulus was really the gra 
of Herod or at least connected with that dynasty would pr< 
have the same nationality. Four names (Urbanus, 
Kufus, and Julia) are Latin. The rest (ten in numU-r) are Greek 
v.ith an indeterminate addition in 'the household of Nan 
Some such proportions as these might well be represented in the 
Church at large. 

(3) Status and Condition. The same list of names n 
some idea of the social status of a representative group 
Christians. The names are largely those of slaves an! 
In any case the households of Narcissus and Aristot 
belong to this category. It is not inconceivable, though of course 

oveable, that Narcissus may be the well-kn- 
in to death in the 

of the house of Herod We know that at the 

Se the note rence it made to the view (avowed 

:cm and : 
to the well-known family of ' 

* wa A Roman lady belonging 
family of that name. 



.ul 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. \\V 
should therefore probably not be wrong in supposing that not 
only the poorer 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 Flavius 
Clemens and Domitilla, the near relations and victims of Domitian, 
had come under Chri.siiun influence 1 . 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/ 

ii exception, it was at Rome. 

When we look again at the list we see that it has a tendency to 
fall 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 Narcissus, of Asyncritus, &c. 
'and the brethren that are with them/ of Philologus and certain 
companions 'and all the saints that arc with them.' It would only 
be what we should expect if the Church of Rome at this time 

-:ed 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 * founded ' (Iren. 
Adv. liter. 111. i. i ; iii. 3) or 'planted* (Dionysius of Corinth in 

7 / 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 
ed whole. 

must not however exaggerate the want of organization at 
the time when St. Paul is writing. The repeated allusions to 
4 labouring ' (mwrio*) 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 Konu* i Thess. 
v. 12; i Tim. v. 17). It is evident that Prisca and Aquila took 
the Ic.ul 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 
articulation of function. When St Paul and St. Peter arrived we 

htfoot, CUmtnt. i. 30-39, &C. 

d : 

[$ 3- 

: k hair done ; still it would 

ic seal of their presence, as the Church of Samaria wai 
the coming of Peter and John (Acts viii. 14). 


(i) Time and Place. The time and place at \vi 
was written are easy to determine. And the simple a: 
way in which the notes of both in the Epistle itself dovetail into the 

vc of (he Acts, together with the perfect consistency 
whole group of data subtle, slight, and incidental as they are in 
the two documents, at once strongly confirms the truth < 
history and would almost alone be enough to dispose of the 
doctrinaire objections wl. been brought again ^ 


St. Paul had long cherished the desire of paying a visit to Rome 
(Rom. i. 13; xv. 23), and that desire he hopes very soon to see 
fulfilled; but at the moment of writing his 1 not 

westwards but eastwards. A collection has been made 
Greek Churches, the proceeds of which he is with an anxious mind 
about to convey to Jerusalem, lie feels that his < 
that of the Churches of his founding to the Palestinian Chi 
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 

g. Great issues turn upon it ; and he does not know i. 
will be received '. 

We hear much of this collection in the Epistle '.bout 

this date (i Cor. xvi. i fT. ; 2 Cor. viii. i ft 
Acts it is not mentioned before tl. 
the course of St. Paul's address before Felix alh: 
it: 'after many years I came to bring alms to my nation and 
^s' (Actsxxiv. 17). Though the collection is not mentioned 
in the earlier chapters of the Acts, the order of the joun 
mentioned. When his stay at Ephesus was drawing to an end 
We read that ' Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had patted 
through Macedonia and .' go to Jerusalem, saying, After 

I have been there, I must also see Rome' (A. 
this programme has been accomplished. A 
St. Paul seems to be at the capital of Achaia. The al 

1 On thU collection ice an excellent article by Mr. Kendall in r-.c / ./V//AV , 
1893, ii 3*1 (I. 



which point to this would none of 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 
: 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. 23); and a Gaius St. Paul had baptized at 
Corinth (i 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 would 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. 2, 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 Epistle (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 unobtrusivencss of all these 
mutual coincidences affixes to the works in which they occur 
the stamp of reality. 

The date thus clearly indicated brings the Epistle to the Romans into 
close connexion with the two Epistles to Corinthians, and less certainly with 
the Epistle to Galatians. We have 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. Ligbtfoot in Journ. of Class, and 
Satr. PhiloL iii [1857], p. 289 ff.; also Ga/.ifians, p. 43 ff., cd. a). The 
tclative position of i and a Corinthians and Romans is fixed and certain. 
If Romans was written in the early spring of A.D. 58, then i Corinthians 
would (all in the spring and a Corinthians in the autumn of A.D. 57'. In 
regard to Galatians the data are not so decisive, and different views ate 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 

-s to the early part of St Paul's long stay at Ephesus, A. D. 54 or 55. 

inland Bp. Light foot found a number of followers in bringing it into 
closer juxtaposition with Romans, about the winter of A.D. 57-58. The 
Question however has been recently reopened in two opposite directions: on 
the one hand by Dr. C. Clemen (Ckronohgit dtr pauliniicktn Brit/t. Halle, 
1 893). who would pbce it after Romans; and on the other hand by 

1 Julicher, in his recent Einleitnng, 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 
gather that when he wrote the first Epistle St. Paul did not contemplate staying 
in Ephesus longer than the next succeeding Pentecost 

[} * 

'II In // jtywfer for April, 1194 
>n ycn r. 

I . . ' .< '' I '.,>>.'' I .nil 

I < . .ir 4.r K 
. Mr. 

(f) (VniiitfN, 

At the begin i 

lie protpci 


it lulfiilcii in lubtUncr 


:. i 

{ 4.] OCC M> I'UKI'OSE XX 

to Ron I--, I -MI only after two years' forcible detention, and as 

oner a wail in}.; i-i 

J'urposf. A more lomplii.r- ion meets us wh.n 

from the occasion or proximate cause of the Fpistlr to tin- Romans 
we pass to >sc or ulterior cause. The Apostle's reasons 

to Rome lir upon the MI.I.ICC; his reasons for writing 
Mar letter he did write will need more consideration. 
1, a I.I..M.I. me in it. It was willed that such 
BI shonlil IK- written for the admomtioi. .iges. Hut 

\\h.u p . al channels did that ; owork? 

ra we pass on t< latcd ground; and it will peilup^ 

hrlp ii. i! \\. I- 'in l>v presenting the opposing theories in as 

:tn as possible. 

When tli<- diileirn: \irws which have been held come to be 

i Me to two main types, 

\\ln. h dittei not on .1 single point hut on a number of co-ordinated 

; < might be described as primarily historical, the other 

pnmaiily d ne din i is attention mainly to the Church 

;h. i mainly to the writer; one adopts the view 

I .1 pi. .!..n. i. in- : \< \ i Ii ( luislian readers, the other pre- 

vuppnses i. -a Irrs who are predominantly Gentile Christians. 

a^ain the epoch making impulse came from liaur. It was 

Ham \\h. in t worked out a coherent theory, the essence of which 

was that it < laimrd to )>< lnst.iu al. He argued from the analogy 

4 f the oth< i I | i. > \\hiih he allowed to be genuine. The cir- 

inihiaii ('Inn ili are reflected as in a glass in 

itl< s to the Ciiiinthiaiis; the circumstances of the Galatian 

Chnu h< -s iome out clearly from that to the Galatians. Did it not 

:ol! ,\\ that the circumstances of the Roman Church might be 

! from the Kpistle to the Romans, and that the 

< itsell was writtt it with <l<hl><ratc reference to them? Why 

all this Jewish-sounding argument if the readers were not Jews? 

these constant answers to objections if there was BO one to 

( ? 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 

ill' ! was a lik< isy, only milder and more tempered^ at 

, and that the A)K>stle wished to deal with it in a manner 

correspondingly milder and more tempered? 

\\as truth in all this; but it was truth to some extent 
one-sided and exaggerated. A little reflexion will show that the 
cases of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were not exactly 
patalld to that of Rome. In Galatia St. Paul was dealing with 
me state of things in a Church which he himself had 
founded, and the cm umstancei of which he knew from within and 
not merely by hearsay. At CVnnth he had spent a still longer 

xl [$ 4. 

time ; when he wrote he was not far distant ; there had been 
frequent communications between the Church and the Apostle; 
i ase of i Corinthians be had actually before him a letter 
containing a number of questions bfl was requested to 

answer, while in of a Corinthians he had a personal report 
brought to him 1 v Titus. What could there be like this at K 
The Church there St. Paul had not founded, had not even seen ; 

we are to believe Baur and the great majority of his followers, 
he had not even any recognizable correspondents to ke< ; 
informed about it. For by what may seem a strange inconsistency 
it was especially the school of Baur which denied the genuineness 

xvi, and so cut away a whole list of persons from one or 
other of whom St. Paul might have really learnt something about 
Roman Christ i.; 
These contradictions were avoided in the older theory \ 

cl before the time of Baur and which has not been v 
adherents, of whom the most prominent perhaps is Dr. Be r 

. since his day. According to this theory the main object of 
the Epistle is doctrinal; it is rather a theological tr 
a letter ; its purpose is to instruct the Roman Church in central 
principles of the faith, and has but little reference to the c! 
stances of the moment 

ould be wrong to call this view at least in its recent forms 
unhistorical. It takes account of the situation as it presented 
itself, but looks at another side of it from that which caught the 
eye of Baur. The leading idea is no longer the position of the 
readers, but the position of the writer : every thing is made to turn 

truths which the Apostle wished to place on record, and for 

he found a fn recipient in a Church which seemed to have so 
commanding a future before it. 

Let us try to do justice to the different aspects of the problem. 
The theories which have so far been mentioned, and others of 

we have not yet spoken, are only at fault in so 
are exclusive and emphasize some one point to the neglect 
rest. Nature is usually more subtle than art An 

o write a letter on matters of weight would be 
likely to have several influences prc 

his language would be moulded now by one and now by an( 
Three factors may be said to have gone to the shaping < 


first of these will be that which Baur took almost for the 
only one. The Apostle had some real knowledge of t! 
the Church to which he was wr re we sec the impo: 

of his connexion with Aquila and Prisca. i 
them would probably give the ;lse to th.r \\i-h \\\. 

tells us that he had entertained for to visit Rome in 




person. When first he met them at Corinth they were newly 

1 from the capital ; he would hear from them of the state of 

things they left behind them ; and a spark would be enough to 

. > imagination at the prospect of winning a foothold for Christ 

he Gospel in the seat of empire itself. We may well 

the speculations about Prisca are valid, and even with- 

nving 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 

re the way for his coming. We cannot afford to lose so 

le 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 \\liat there is of local colour in the Kpislle. If the argument is 

^sed 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) it is from his friends in 

Rome that the Apostle draws his knowledge of the conditions with 

which he is dealing. 

The second factor which helps in determining the character of 
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 irnpodoair 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. 
He will not 'lay again' a foundation which is already laid. He 
will not speak of the ' first principles' of a Christian's belief, but 
:o on unto perfection/ Hence it is that just the most funda- 
it.\l doctrines the Divine Lordship of Christ, the value of His 
the nature of the Sacraments are assumed rather than 
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 something 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 Kpislle would be that it consisted 
Christian commonplaces. It is one of the most original of 
itings. No Christian can have read it for the first time without 
that he was introduced to heights and depths of Christianity 
which he had never been conscious before. 

[5 4 - 

most powerful of all the influences v. 
shaped the contents of the Epistle is the experience of the 

object which he has in view is really not far to seek, 
ng Rome his desire was to 'have some 
fruit ' there, as in the rest of the Gentile world (Rom. i 
longed to impart to the Roman Christians some ' spirit u.. 

ts he knew that he had the power of imparting 
29). By this he meant the effect of his own personal presence, 
c gift was one that could be exercised also in absence, i it- 
has exercised it by this letter, which is itself the outcome of a 
mtvpancfe x<iprpa, a word of instruction, stimulus, and w.v 
addressed in the first instance to the Church at Rome, . . 
it to Christendom for all t 

The Apostle has reached another turning-point .ireer. 

He is going up to Jerusalem, not knowing what i lain 

there, but prepared for the worst. He is aware that the 
be is taking is I ol and he has no confidence that ! 

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 an 
up the result as he felt it for himself. It is not exactly a coi 
summing up, but it is the momentum of this past experience 
guides his pen. 

Deep in the background of all his thought lies that one great 

:i brought him within the fold of Chr 

had been nothing less than a revolution ; and it fixed permanently 
his conception of the new forces which came with 

;n Christ,' 4 to be baptized into C 

these were the watchwords ; and the Apostle fell that they 
pregnant with intense meaning. That new personal relation of 
the believer to his Lord was henceforth the motive-f 
dominated the whole of his life. It was also n. 
marvellous >m above. We cannot doubt : 

version onwards St. Paul found himself endowed with ex 
energies. Some of them were what we should call i:. 
but he makes no distinction between those which were : 
and those which were not. He set them all down as miraculous 
^cnse of having a cii :*. And when he looked 

around him over the Church he saw : 

:ifcrior to 
diffused. They wr: mark ot 

took a form which would be commonly described as 
supernatural, unusual powers of heal, 
an unusual magnetic influence upon others; partly they coi, 

1 This b impiwiively stated in Hort, Kom. a- ; : ff. 


a strange elation of spirit which made suffering and toil seem 
_ht and insignificant ; but most of all the new impulse was moral 
working, it blossomed out in a multitude of attractive traits 
Move, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 
meekness, temperance.' These St. Paul called ' fruits of the 
1 he act of faith on the part of man, the influence of the 
is only another way of describing the influence of 
Himself) from the side of God, were the two outstanding 
facts which made the lives of Christians differ from those of other 

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. Mis own ruling 
principles, 'faith' and 'the Spirit/ made no distinction between 
Jew and Gentile ; he had no choice but to contend for 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 
t question which was intellectually more troublesome a question 
brought home by the actual effect 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 
intending for Gentile liberties would come first, the philosophic 
theological assignment of the due place of Jew and Gentile in 
Divine scheme would naturally come afterwards. This more 
iced stage has now been reached ; the Apostle has made up 
mind on the whole series of questions at issue; and he takes 
opportunity of writing to the Romans at the very centre of the 
to lay down calmly and deliberately the conclusions to 
he has come. 

The Epistle is the ripened fruit of the thought and struggles of 
eventful years by which it had been preceded. It is no merely 
tract 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 particular local circumstances, and at 
least one emphatic warning (ch. xvi. 17-20) against a danger 
which had not reached the Church as yet, but any day might reach 

1 See the notes on ch. viii. 9-17 ; compare also ch. vi 1-14. 

xliv i: TO THE ROMA [ 4. 

full urgency of which the Apostle knew only too well ; 
but the main theme of the letter is the gathering in of the harvest, 
at once of the Church's history since the departure of its M 
and of the individual history of a single soul, that one 

God had had the most active share in making the cot: 
external events what it was. St. Paul set himself to gi-> 
Roman Church of his best ; he has given it what was per!) 
some ways too good for it more we may be sure than it would be 
able to digest and assimilate at the mon 
reason a body of teaching which eighteen centuries < 
interpreters have failed to exh richness in this re- 

the incomparable hold which it shows on the c 

s religion, and the way 

Bible in general, it pierces through the conditions of a particular 
time and place to the roots of things which are permanent and 


In the interesting essay in which, discarding all t radii i 
seeks to re-interpret the teaching of St. Paul directly fr< 
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 elc\ 
of the Epistle to the Romans the chapters which c< : 
theology, though not h .iny scholastic purpose or in any 

formal scientific mode of exposition of thes< 
first, second, and third arc, in a scale of impo 
a scientific criticism of Paul's line of thought, s ; the 

fourth and fifth are secondary; the sixth and eighth are pi .: 
the seventh chapter is sul ; the nm: 

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 pi piers, the sixth and 

i, the cigrr .ry down only to the end of the t 

: verse; from thence to the c -quern, yet 

e purpose of a scientific critic ology 

econdary ' (S/. Paul and Protestantism, p. 92 f.). 

may serve as a ; -point for our 

t) of the argument : and it may conduce to clearness of 

the summ:r 
s fresh and bright mam 




' The first chapter is to the Gentiles its purport is : You have 
not righteousness. The second is to the Jews its purport 
is : No more have you, though you think you have. The third 
r assumes faith in Christ as the one source of right- 
<ss 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 
fulness and exultation in the boon of righteousness through 
in Christ; and applies illustratively, with this design, the 
history of Adam. The sixth chapter comes to the all-important 
n : " 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 filled 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 
~ ml 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 
tre of gravity upon chapters ix-xi, and held that the rest of the 
was written up to these: but this view would now on 
all hands be regarded as untenable. The problem discussed 
these chapters doubtless weighed heavily on the Apostle's mind ; 
the circumstances under which he was writing it was doubtless 
problem of very considerable urgency ; but for all that it is 
which belongs rather to the circumference of St. Paul's 
it than to the centre ; it is not so much a part of his funda- 
ching as a consequence arising from its collision with an 
Sieving world. 

On this head the scholarship of the present day would be on the 
f Matthew Arnold. It points, however, to the necessity, in 
:empt 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 
tre to be assigned. Baur's object was historical to set the 
'..' in relation to the circumstances of its composition. On 
<umption his view was partially though still not more than 
' ally justified. Matthew Arnold's object on the other hand 
what he calls a scientific criticism of Paul's thought ' ; by 
he seems to mean (though perhaps he was not wholly clear 
his own mind) an attempt to discriminate in it those elements 
:h are of the highest permanent value. It was natural that he 
h the greatest importance to those elements in particular 
:h seemed to be capable of direct personal verification. From 

xlvi !: TO THE ROMA [$ 5. 

int of view we need not question his assignment of a j : 
ance to chap: production of the thought 

c chapters is the best th book, and we have drawn 

upon it ourselves in the commentary ujon them (p. 163 f.). There 
is more in the same connexion that well deserves attentive 
But there are other portions of the Epistle which are not capable of 
verification precisely in the same manner, and 
importance to St. Paul himself and may be equally of j 
importance to those of OB who are willing to accept his testimony 
in spiritual things which lie beyond the reach of our \ 
experience. Matthew Arnold is limited by the methc 
applies and which others would no doubt join with I. 
applying to the subjective sii! c emotioi 

efforts generates in Christians. But there is a i . 

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 auti. :ld also give to that 

question, he and they alike are led up into regions where 
human verification ceases to be possible. 

quite true that faith in Christ ' means attachment to ( 
a strong emotion of love and gratitude. But that emotion 
confined, as we say, to 'the historical C object 

not only Him who walked the earth as ' Jesus of Nazu: 
directed towards the same Jesus 'crucified, risen and a 
the right hand of God.' St. Paul believed, and we also believe, 

i:s transit across the stage of our earth was accompan 
consequences in the celestial sphere which transcend our fa 
We cannot pretend to be able to verify t 
v.hich passes in our own minds. And yet a certain kind of ii 

ition there is. The thousands and tens of thousands of 
.ins who have lived and died in the firm conviction < 
truth of these supersensual realities, and who upon the 
them have reduced their lives to a harmonious unity si 
the war of passion, do really afford no slight presumption that the 
beliefs which have enabled them to do this an 
the universe approves, and such as aptly fit into the ct< 
Whatever the force ot unption to the outer world, it is one 

ore do no 10 treat as anything lc?^ 

: which was certain! :1. We entirely 

the view that chap - also 

feel bound to place 1 le the culn. 

il passage 
were, c ites the problci 

,n 1-28). 
problem is, How is man to become righteous in the sight of God I 



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 
-t of what is thought to be a stricter science. But whatever 
lue 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 belief, 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. 

I. Introduction (i. 1-15 

a. The Apostolic Salutation (i. i-;\ 

ft. St Paul and the Roman Church (i. 8- if). 

II. -Doctrinal. 

THE GREAT THESIS. Problem : How is Righteousness 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. Righteousness as a state or condition in the sight of God (Justification) 

(i. i8-v. 21). 
i. Righteousness not hitherto attained (i. i8-iii. 20). 

[Rather, by contrast, a scene which bespeaks impending Wrath], 
a. Failure of the Gentile (i. 18-32). 
(i.i Natural Religion (i. 18-20) ; 
(ii.) deserted for idolatry (i. 21-25) ; 

(iii.) hence judicial abandonment to abominable sins (26. 27). to 
every kind of moral depravity 1,28-31), even to perversion of 
conscience (32). 

0. [Transitional]. Future judgement without respect of persons such as 
Jew or Gentile ii. 1-16). 

wish critic and Gentile stater u the ume position . 
>M- 'a : . . ' .-:.-. 

iRement: Uw of Motes for the Jew ; Law of Coo- 

:. To mi. ROMAJ [$ 6. 


science 1 6). 

7. Failure of the Jew (ii. 17-39). Profession and reality, as regards 


Answer to casuistical objections from Jewish stand- 
point (iii. 1-8). 
(i.) The Jew's advantage as recipient of Divine Promises 

(ii ) which promises are not invalidated by Man's unfaithfulness 

Vet God's greater glory no excuse for human sin (iii. 5-8% 
i venal failure to attain to righteousness and earn acceptance 

trated from Scripture (iii. o-ao). 
a. Consequent Exposition of New System (iii. ai-ji) : 
a. (i.) in its relation to Law, independent of it, yet attested by it 

(ii.) in its universality, as the free gift of God (j 2-34) ; 

) in the method of its realization through the propitiatory Death 
of Christ, which occupies under the New Dispensa 
tame place which Sacrifice, especially the ceremonies of the 
Day of Atonement, occupied under the Old . 
(iv.) b its final cause- the twofold manifestation of God's righteous- 
ness, at once asserting itself against sin and conveying pardon 
to the sinner (a6). 

0. Preliminary note of two roam consequences from this : 
Jew and Gentile alike accepted (29-31). 

j. Relation of this New System to O. T. considered in reference to the 

crucial case of Abraham (iv. i-af). 
(i.) Abraham's acceptance (like that described by David) turned 

on i : S) ; 

(ii.) nor Circumcision (iv. 9-1 a) 

[so that there might be nothing to prevent him from 
being the spiritual father of uncircumcised as well as 
circumcised (it, ia)J, 
nor Law, the antithesis of Promise (iv. i 

[so that he might be the spiritual father of alt believers, 

not of those under the Law only], 
(iv.) Abraham's Faith, a type of the Christ: < .-5) : 

[he too lielieved in a birth from the dead]. 
4. Blissful effects of Righteousness by Faith (v. i 
a. (i.) It leads by sure degrees to a triumphant hope of final sal- 
vation (v. 1-4). 
(ii.) That hope guaranteed a fortiori by the Love display 

Christ s Death : 

B. Contrast of these effects with those of Ada 
(i.) like, in the transition from one to all (i: 

hat where one brought sin, condemnation, deat 
other .ron K ht grace, a declaration of unmerited righteous. 

(iii.) Summary. -f Fall. Law, Grace (i8-ai) 

[The Fall brought sin; Law increased it; but Grace more 
than cancels the ill effects of 1 




B. Progressive Righteousness in the Christian (Saoctification) (vi-uii). 
I. Reply to further casuistical objection : ' If more sin means more 
grace, 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, most not, sin (vi. 1-14). 
. The Christian's Release : what it is, and what it is not : shown by 

two metaphors. 

a. Servitude and emancipation (vi. 15-23). 
0. The marriage- bond (vii. 1 -6). 

[The Christian's old self dead to the Law with Christ ; so that 
he is henceforth free to lire with Him]. 

3. Judaistic objection from seeming disparagement of Law : met by an 

analysis of the moral conflict in the soul. Law is impotent, 
and gives an impulse or handle to sin, but is not itself sinful 
(vii. 7-24). The conflict emled by the interposition of 
Christ (35). 

4. Perspective of the Christian's New Career (via). 

The Indwelling Spirit. 

a. Failure of the previous system made good by Christ's Incarnation 
and the Spirit's presence (viii. 1-4). 

0. The new regime contrasted with the old the regime of the Spirit 

with the weakness of unassisted humanity (viii. 5-9'. 
7. 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). 
. That glorious inheritance the object of creation's yearning (viii. 


and of the Christian's hope (viii. 33-35). 

fj. Human infirmity assisted by the Spint's intercession (viii. 36, 37); 
9. and sustained by the knowledge of the connected chain by which 

God works out His purpose of salvation (viii. 38-30). 

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 tad 
privileges (ix. 1-5). 
I. Justice of the Rejection (ix. 6-39). 
a. The Rejection of Israel not inconsistent with the Divine promises 

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

(i.) The absoluteness of God's choice shown from the O. T. (ix. 

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

(iii.) The alternate choice of Jews and Gentiles expressly reserved 

and foretold in Scripture (ix. 34-39). 
. Cause of the Rejection, 
o. Israel sought righteousness by Works instead of Faith, in their own 

way and not in God's way (ix. 30-1. 4). 
And this although God's method was 

Not difficult and remote but near and easy (x. 5-10); 
Within the reach of all. Jew and Gentile alike (x. 11-13). 
0. Nor can Israel plead in defence want of opportunity or warning 
(i.) The Gospel has been folly and universally preached (x. 14-18). 


(II.) Israel had been warned beforehand by the Prophet that they 

would reject God'* Message x. 19-11 ). 
3. Mitigating considerationa. The purpose of God (xi). 
a. The Unbelief of Israel U now as in the past only partial xi i to . 
0. It is only temporary 

(i.) Their fall has a special purpose-the introduction of the 

Gerties (>li 1-15). 
That Israel will be restored is Touched for by the holy stock 

from which it comes < 

7. In all this may be teen the purpose of God working upwards 
through seeming severity, to a beneficent molt the final 
restoration of alf(xi. 15-31). 
Doxology (xi. 33-36). 
I II. -Practical and Hortatory 

(i) TheChruiiansa,: i. i). 

(a) The Christian as a member of the Church 'xii. 3-8). 
(3) The Christian in his relation to others (xii. 921). 
The Christian's vengeance ( x 

U) Church and State (. 

The Christian's one debt; the law of lore (xiii. 8-10 . 
The day approaching (xiii 11-14). 
(6) Toleration ; the strong and the weak (xiv. i -XT. 6). 

The Jew and the Gentile (XT. 7-13). 

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

Rome (XT. 14-33). 

. Greetings to various persona (xvL 1-16). 
A warning fxvi 17-30). 
Postscript by the Apostle's companions and amanuensis (xvi. 

Benediction and Doxology (xvi 34 

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 und< 
the argument which St. Paul is working out and the conclu 

:i he is leading 

The first idea which comes prominently before us is that o 
Gospel'; it meets us in the Apostolic salutation at the beg : 
in the statement of the thesis of the 1 Q the doxology 

end where it is expanded in th< : unusual form ' according 

to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ* So ag 
xi. 28 it is incidentally shown that what St Paul is describing 
method or plan of the Gospel. a of the Gospel t: 

hought of the Epistle ; and it seems to mean this. 
There are two competing systems or plans of life or salvation 
before St. Paul he one is the old Jewish system, a know- 

ledge of which is presupposed ; the other is the Christian system, 




a 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. 
Tliis 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 lime 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 
so, 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. 
lion'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 difiercnt 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 fact that the whole is one great argument; 
the purpose of which is to explain the Gospel of God in Jesus the 
\h. and to show its effects 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 of God's purpose for mankind. 

e 2 

Hi El : > THE ROMANS [$ 6. 


(i) Language^. It will seem at first sight to the uninitiated 
reader a rather strange paradox that a letter addressed to the 
capital of the Western or Latin world should be written in Greek. 
Yet there is no paradox, either to the classical scholar who is 
acquainted with the history of the Early Empire, or to the ecclesias- 
tical 1: o 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 s- 
among which was to be sought the main body of the readers of 

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 f to be Apollonius 
offered 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. (2) Next 
would come in the middle of the third century a more considerable 
body of Latin literature, the writings of Novatian and the corre- 
spondence between the Church of Rome and Cyprian at Carthage. 

there would be the definite Latinizing of the . 
of the West which followed upon the transference of the ^ 
empire to Constantinople dating from 330 A.D. 

(i) The evidence of Juvenal and Martial refers to the latter half 
first century. Juvenal speaks with indignation of the extent to which Home 
was being converted into ' a Greek city V Martial regards ignorance of Greek 
as a mark of r h.deed, 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 clissct there were swarms of Greeks and 

Greck-fpeakmg Orientals. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was 
the fashion to speak Greek ; children were taught it by Greek nones ; and in 
after Hie the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation . 

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

1 The question of the use of Greek at Rome has been often discussed 
and the evidence for it set forth, but the classical treatment of the subject is by 
the late Dr. C. P. Caspari, Professor at Christian ia, in an Excursus of 200 
pages t f hi* work Qutlle* mr Ctukifktt <Us 7 

: Ttrt*ni*mMi frtitytr muu dtm*m frimms pert Vittonm 

I.' .-',',.. f:::.-. .';.': >:.-. .- S%ST, 

' Altttttmentt oj . iianity (London, 1894), p. 20 ff. 

4 Juv. Sat. iii. 6c 

-.urn TaufiymM. ui. a86 f. 

T CtmfinJtTtrfajfKMjr, ; tcriptions referred to are all from 

>o one inG: rtus. 


Latin ; and if one of the Greek inscription* it in Latin character*, conversely 
three of the Latin are in Greek character*. There do not teem to be any in 

Of Christian inscriptions the proportion of Greek to Latin would seem to be 
about i : a. Bat 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. Aurelius and Septimiu* Sevens at about 160, 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 Linns to Elentheras (c. 174-189 A.D.) are twelve in 
number : of these not more than three (Clement, Sixtus I - X ystus, 1'ius) 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 Hennas, 
the author of The Shepherd/ was the brother of Pius ', and he wrote in Greek. 
Indeed all the literature that we can in any way connect with Christian Rome 
down to the end of the reign of M. Anrelius is Greek. Beside* the work* 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 4 . Justin 
and Tatian who were settled in Rome wrote in Greek ; so too did Rhodon, 
a pupil ot Tatian's at Rome who carried on their tradition *. Greek was the 
language of Polycarp and Hegesippus who paid visit* 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 Valentinus, 
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 Gnostic* combated by Justin and Irenaeus. Irenaeus himself spent some 
time at Rome in the Episcopate of Lleuiherus, 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 Litn 
go back to the same place and time. Such would be 
(Luke ii. 14) repeated in Greek at Christmas, the Trishagi'on, h'yrie eleiton 
and Ckristt eleison. On certain set day* (at Christmas, Easter, Ember day*, 
and some others) lections were read in Greek a* 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 RecLiilio Symbol?) both 
the Apostles' Creed (in its longer and shorter forms) and the Niccne were 

1 Comp. also Berliner, t 54. Ap. Caspari, p. 303. 

' 1'ius is described in the Liber Pontificalis as natione /taint . . . <U civitatt 
Aquileia ; but there is reason to think that Herma* was a native of Arcadia. 
The assignments of nationality to the earliest bishop* are of very doubtful 

* It wa* to 1 c kept in the archive* and read on Sundays like the letter of 
Clement (Ens. H. E. IV. xxiii. n). 

Eus. H. E. V. xiii. i. 

It was in pursuit of the origin of this Creed that Caspari was drawn into 
his elaborate researches. It is generally agreed that it wa* in use 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 i* a problem 
which we may look to have solved by Dr. Kattenbusch of Giessen, who i* 
continuing Casparfs labours (Das Apottolisck* Symbol, Bd. L Leipzig, 
IN, 4 

irgies which ultimately 
the Hymnus an ft/if us 

liv [$ 0. 

1 and the questions pot first in Greek and then in Latin 1 . These are 
all survival* of Koman usage at the tin.' . : uaL 

(a) The dates of ApoUonius and of Bp. Victor are fixed, bat rather 
uncertainty hangs over that of the first really classical Christian v. 

This has been much debar- 

opinion seems to be veering round to the earlier date', which would br 
into near proximity to Apollonius, perhaps at the end of the reign of 

uelius. The period which then begins and extends from c, 180-3 
shows a more even balance of Greek and Latin. The two prominent writers, 
Hippolytus and Caius, still make use of Greek. The grounds perhaps pre- 
fer regarding the Iforatorian Fragment as a translation. But 
of the period we have Minncius Felix and at the end Novatian, 
i begins to have the upper hand in the names of bishops 
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 show* us 
at last Latin m powession of the field. 

(3) The Hcllcnihng character of Roman Christianity was due in tl 
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 the Atr Roma** on the 
Aegean, this intercourse was greatly interrupted. Thus Greek influences lost 
their strength. The Latin Church, Rome reinforced by Africa, bad now 
a substantial literature of its own. Under leaden like Tertullian, Cyprian, 
and Novatian it had begun to develop its proper individuality. It could 
stand and walk alone without assistance from the East. And a decisive 
impulse was given to its independent career by the founding of Constantinople. 
The stream art from that time onwards towards the Bosphoras and no longer 
towards the Tiber. Rome ceases to be the centre of the Empire to become 
in a still more exclusive sense the capital of the West. 

(2) Style. The Epistles which bear the name of St. Paul present 
a considerable diversity of style. To such an extent is it 
case that the question is seriously raised whether they en: 
the same author. Of all the arguments urged on the n< 
side this from style is the most substantial ; and whatever cl< 
we come to on the subject there remains a problem of much 
complexity and diffi. 

It is well known that the Pauline Epistles fall into four groups 
which are connected indeed with each other, but at the sarn< 

s. These groups are : i, a Thess.; 
i. 2 Cor., Rom u. ; \\\*. 

four Epistles of the second group hang very closely together; 
those of the third group subdivide into two \ rn. on 

the one hand, ai '>!. on the other. It is hard t> 

Col. from 1 ml the very strong prcsumj: >ur of 

the genuineness of ti ;>istle reacts upon the for: 

nquiry at the present moment our of 

Colossians and somewhat les in favour of 

It is, for instance, significant that Julichcr in his r : ilung 

1 More pcecise and full details will be found in Caspari's Excursus, Of. (it. 
p. 466 ff. 

ager. Alt< krittl. Lit. p. 88. 


(Freiburg i. 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 
Kom., we may institute a comparison with it. 

The difference is not so much a difference of ideas and of 
vocabulary as a difference of structure and composition. There arc, 
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 so 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 light and shade, in the play of feature, in 
the temperament to which the two Epistles seem to give expression. 
\Vi \\ ill 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 orator}-. 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 1 We cannot speak here of 
. y, 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 
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. 

1 The difference between these Epistles on the side we are considering is 
(e. g.) than that between Romans and the Pastorals. 

Ivi K TO THE ROMANS [$ 8. 

There is, as we shall see, another side. We have perhaps 
exaggerated the opposition for the sake of making th< 
dear. 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 Epbesians ; and when we ex 
the Epistle to the Ephesians we shall find in it much to remind us 
s 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 Kpistles 
to be really the work of the same man, can the difference t < 
them be adequately accounted for ? 

There to always an advantage in presenting proportions to the eye and 
reducing them to some sort of numerical estimate. This can be done m 
the present case without much difficulty by reckoning up the number of 
longer pauses. This b done below for the two Epistles, Romans and Ephe- 
sians. The standard used U that of the Revisers' Greek Text, and the 

cstimstc of length is bated on the number of ?T/X M or printed line- 
will be worth while to compare the Epistles chapter by chapter : 


nx. () (.) (0 

Ch. I. 64 13 '4 

II. 51 14 7 8 

III. 47 ao 12 16 

45 6 14 7 

V. 47 6 15 - 

4' 8 14 8 

VII. 49 16 ao 5 

VIII. 70 17 a6 14 

8 19 

6 16 9 

55 >9 10 

37 6 16 9 

XI 63 16 a7 i i 

Total for doctrinal portion 570 130 _ 1^4 _ 88* 


XII. 36 14 13 

i; H 15 I 

41 ii a; 3 

63 8 - 

J? -J J_ 

Total for the Epistle 789 181 190 _ 91 

Here the proportion of major points to fix * b &* the doctrinal chap- 
ter* 402 : 570 - (approximately) I in 1-4; and for the whole Epistle not 
very different, 563 : ;S 9 - i in 1-418. The proportion of interrogative 
sentences b for the whole Epistle, 91 : 789, or I in 8-6 ; for the doctrinal 

chapters only, 88:570, or : rvl for the practical portion only, 

5. This last item Is 

instructive, because it hows how very 

1 The counting of these is approximate! anything over half a line 
reckoned as a whole line, and an)thing less than half a line not reckoned. 



greatly, even In the tame Epistle, the amount of interrogation varies with 
the subject-matter. We aUo observe that in two even of the doctrinal chap- 
ten interrogative sentence* are wanting. They lie indeed in patches or 
thick clutter*, and are not distributed equally throughout the Epistle. 
Now we tarn to Ephesians, for which the data are as follow* : 






vlx M 













I ; 











* 70 




This gives a very different result. The proportion of major points is for 
Eph. i-iii, roughly speaking, i in 4, as against I in 1*4 for Kom. i-xii, and 
for the whole Epistle rather more than i in 3, as against I in 1-418. The 
proportion of interrogations is i in a 70 compared with i in 8-6 or 6.5. 

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 
account for it. 

(i) First would be the natural variation of style which comes 
from dealing with different subject-mailer. The Epistles of the 
second group are all very largely concerned with the controversy 
as to Circumcision 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 
ommunication between those of older standing, brings to the 
front the conception of the Church as a whole, and invests it with 
ised imprcssiveness. 

These facts are reflected on the vocabulary of the two Epistles. The 
controversy with the Jcdaizers gives a marked colour to the whole group 
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 Kpistles and in the rest of the Pauline Corpus. Of course 
some of the instances will be accidental, but by far the greater number are 
significant Those which follow have a direct bearing on the Jndaistic 
controversy. < Elsewhere ' means elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles. 


1 'A0faAr Rom. 9, a Cor. I, Gal. 9 ; not elsewhere in St. Paul 

.!. I.] 

A*po0v*rta Rom. 3, I Cor. a, Gal. 3 ; elsewhere 3. 
dmxrroA*; Rom. I , I Cor. I, Gal. I ; not elsewhere in St. Paul 
***** Rom. 15. i Cor. a, Gat 3; elsewhere j. 
lunivjMi Rom. 5 ; not ebewbere. 
tt*ai*ott Rom. a ; not elsewhere. 

awra/ryf i*r Rom. 6, I Cor. o, a Cor. 4, Gal. 3 ; elsewhere 4. 
r^/off Rom. 76, i Cor. 8, Gal. 32 ; elsewhere 6. 

/r*j4 Rom. 15, i Cor. i. Gal 7 ; ebewbere 8. 
0<>/M Rom. 

9, i Cor. i. a Cor. i, Gal. 5; elsewhr 
Connected with this controversy, though not quite so directly, would be :- 
tfVfavftjr Rom. I, I Cor. lo, a Cor. i. < ..!. i ; elsewhere I. 
dafirm Rom. 4, j Cor. 6 ; elsewhc 

a, i Cor. a, a Cor. 6, Gal. i ; elsewh 
om. i ; not elsewhere. 

a, i Cor. 6, Gal. 6; elsewhere a. 
jA<v4/wvr Rom. 4, Gal I ; not elsewhere. 

i. I Cor. i, a Cor. i, Gal. i ; not elsewhere. 
Rom. 5, i Cor. 5 (i v.L), a Cor. 20, Gal. a ; elsewhc: . 
Rom. i, i Cor. 3, a Cor. 3, Gal i ; elsewh 
Rom. *. a Cor. 6; elsewhere i. 

Rom. a ; not elsewhere. 
om. 3, Gal. i ; not elsewhere. 
Rom. i ; not elsewhere. 
afraoAor Rom. 4, i Cor. i, Gal i ; not elsewhere, [ravfe 
r. 3, a Cor. I, Rom. i r. I] 
Rom. i, i Cor. a, Gal i : **lAa Rom. i ; neither elsewhere. 

Two other points may be noticed, one in connexion with the Urge use of 
the O.T. in these Epistles, and the other in connexion with the idea of 
rive periods into which the religious history of mankind is divided : 
Tparrcu Rom. 16, i Cor. 7, a Cor. a. Gal. 4; not elsewh 
St. Paul. 

of Rom. I, I Cor. a. Gal. s (i T.I) ; not elsewhere, 
fear \p.*o* 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 : tuumtt cattM, ttttat t/ecttu. 

(2) Hut it is not only that the subject-matter of Ephcsians d 
from that of Romans, the circumstances under . 
also differ. Romans belongs to a period of contr 
although at the time when the Epistle is written the worst is over, 
and the Apostle is able to .e field calmly, and to state his 

case uncontrov. 1 the crisis through has pasted 

has left its marks behind. The echoes of war arc - ears. 

The treatment of his subject is concrete and not abstract. H 
sees in imagination his adversary before him, and be argues much 
as he might have argued in the synagogue, or in the presence of 
refractory converts. The atmosphere of the Epbtle is that of 
personal debate. This acts as a stimulus, it makes the blood 

* These examples are selected from the lists in Bishop Lightfoot's classical 
essay 'On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galauans,' in /*;*. of 
Clftt. am/Sofr. 1'kilol. iii. (1857) 308 ff. 


circulate more rapidly in the veins, and gives 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 
Ephcsians, written in all probability not to a single Church but to 
a group of Churches, with its personal edge thus taken off, and 
:i too under confinement after some three years of enforced 
i 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 
bst, the allowance which ought to be made for thi special temptra- 
mrnt of the Apostle. His writings furnish abundant evidence of 
ly strung nervous organization. It is likely enough that the 
il infirmity from which he suffered, the 'thorn in the flesh* 
: had such a prostrating effect upon him, was of nervous 
origin. But constitutions of this order arc 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 
inii-n-ity 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 srcm to be very 

y a difference in the amount of vital energy thrown into tbe 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 

.c Christendom with his sword drawn, prepared to meet all comers ; in 

we have ' such an one as Paul the aged, and now a prisoner also of 

Jesus Christ' 

Among the expressions specially characteristic of this aspect of Ep. to 
Romans would be the following : 

ffa, beginning a sentence, Rom. o, I Cor. i, a Cor. a, Gal. 5 ; elsewhere 
Epp. Paul. 3, I Icb. a. [dpi ofr Rom. 8 (or 9 v. 1.), Gal. i ; elsewhere 
3 : &pa without o5r Rom. I (or a T. 1 ), I Cor. I, Gal. 3, Heb. a,] 

dAAA A/?* Rom. a. 

Ay 94 Gat a. 

A'7* c5r Rom. a. 

Aiy* N TOVTO $TI I Cor. I. 

woAir Atf-yw a Cor. 3. 


o . 

'. i. 

iy* flovAot *yw tpTr .> Gal. I. 
wow ; 9oi> oir ; Rom. i, I Cor. 8, Gal. I ; not elsewhere. 

'r; rfo olr; Rom. n, i Cor. 5, Gal. i . not cUewbere. [TI our 
ipot'nt*; Rom. 6; n' Jpovjitr; Rom I.] 

-, (Afpi, fte.) Rom. 3. Gal. i ; not eliewhere. 
Iiari Rom. i, I Cor. 3, a Cor. i ; not clicwbere, 
Mf, unusual compounds of 

.r. i. 

Rom. i, a Cor. i. 

(4) A last cause which we suspect may possibly have been at 
work, though this is more a matter of conjecture, is the employment of 
difffrent amanufnsts. 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 shortly 
and then written out fair. \Ve 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 dictart 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 
(Eus. H. E. VI. xxiii. 2). But we can wcl. that if 

this were the case some scribes would be more expert than others, 
and would reproduce what was dictated to them more exactly. 
Tcrtius, we should suppose, was one of the best of those 
St. Paul employed for this purpose. An inferior scribe \\u\\ 
down the main words correctly, but the little connecting links he 
may have filled in for himself. 

This is rather speculation, and we should not wish to lay stress upon 
any particular instance. It b however interesting to note th.v 
below the superficial qualities of style at the inner tendencies of mind to 
which it gives expression the resemblance between Ephesians and Romans 

marked, so that we may well ask whether we hare not before 
M 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 .rn at 

the end. This is specially noticeable in abstract doctrinal passages, just as 
a briefer, more broken, and more direct form of address u adopted in the 

exhortations relating to matters of practice. A certain laxity of | 

We wiUpUe* sic* b? side 01* or two passage wixich may help to show 
the fundamental resemblance between the two Epistles. ; i 
the ounctistion of the extract from Romans reference may be made to the 
notes */ lie.] 




ROM. iii. a 1-26. 

Vvvl 84 X 8 "/* 1 *6t* ov 8reuo<rvri7 

eoC mp, 
rov ro/iov al rwr ipxfnjrvv 8i 
<rvVi7 8* ov W /<rrf 'Ii7<rov 
Xparov tit wdrrat rovf vrr<vorrtr 
ov yap tart RHUTTO\T)' *drrf >up 

fjttapTOV, tal 60T00VrrtU rip Sufljf 

rov eoJ 

EPH. iii. 1-7. 

Tot/rov X^P ty '7* IlavAof A Uff/uot 
rov X/MffTov ITO-OV (rw\p l)tai* rwv 
kQvSnr, ttyt jjoi/<rar 
rijt x<*P* Tof T 
</r i>*a, on card 

ovviai* itov It 

> X. 1.. 6r wpolBtro 6 6df 
lAatrr^/Moy 8id T^T *i'<rr* Jr r 
avrov ai/jari, iff lvbtiiv rip 8uraio- 
avrov, 8d rrjr wafHaiv riv 
t anaprrjuaTojv fV rp 
p TOV 6ov wpot r^y IrJWi^if 
dunuo<ri/>^7ff owrow ir Ty rvf 
, h TI) tr^eu curd? Junior o2 
i vra rdr IK wurrcatt li^ffov. 

TOV X., ft < . 

ov* lyvatploQij roit vlwt rwv drtponrcvr, 
cvt KVK 4*4*0X1*^0*7 roif. d-y/oif dvooro- 
Ao<j avrov a2 wpotpfjTaii Jy n*<i/>iarr 
fKU rd 10*17 avycAiTpor^/M *a2 ovoovpa 
ital ffvuniroxa rift twayytMat 4r X. 'I. 
via rov va'yyf Ai o v ov 4^4x^""*i' oia- 
ovo cord rfff iotptatf rfjt \apt-rut rov 
6<ov rijt 8004(9171 /MM ard r^v irip- 
fttav rijt 8vra/jart avrov. 

In toe Komans passage we have first the rerclauon of the rigbteotunett of 
God, then a specification of the particular aspect of that righteousness with 
a stress upon its universality, then the more direct assertion of this univer- 
sality, followed in loose construction (fee the note ad toe.) 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 
ssary, 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 ^wtT^piw on 
which that mission to the Gentiles is based, then refers back to the previous 
mention of this itvoriptov, which the readers are advised to consult, then 
gives a fuller description of its character, and at last states definitely its 
substance. Dr. Clifford has pointed out (on Rom. iii. 26) how the argu- 
ment works round in Eph. to the same word ftwr^pior as in Rom. to the 
same word V8ifir. And we have similar examples in Rom. ii. 16 and iii. 8, 
where two distinct trains of thought and of construction converge upon 
a 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. Hut 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 
Eoh. and has abundant analogues in Rom. (i. 1-7, 18-24 : >' 5~ l6 5 " "- 
20; iv. 11-17; v - n-i-4; i*- 22-29; xv. 14-28). 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 
ice is really super ticial, 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 Galattaas. 


ROM. x. 5-8. Era. !-. 7-1 1. 

^> 7pi*. 5r, r^r 9uno- 'Erl tt Ja<rr r ^ i 

T*r J *4jM 4 voo^ot <f- rard ri j^rpor rip fcptar rov Xporov. 

ft<rnu Jr a*ry. A M In i lot pxjiaA*. 

fepi Jr ry yMf <rov Ti'f Jra*)- TOM d^par. (ri M 'A 

eft rAr oipayl*; TOVT' Ian, J / n ai car /t rd .; 

rir, ira 

T, UTO^ ?^ 

Janr. jr ry artftari aov gal Jr r 

GAL. iv. 35-31. 

TA i 'A>ap lira pot J*rir 4r rp 'A^i?. <T V< TTO, X ' W 
>Ari>i 7dp /MT^ rarr r'yr our^r. ij 84 dr> 'I/>oi<TaA^>i itovttpa 
ijrif J<rri /i^rijp ^^K. fiypavrat y<S/>, Ev^pdi^ri, 0n i>a i ow rurrovtfa . . . 
'I<raa Iwayyttiat Tio-a i<r/ir. LXA' &<ywp - 
TOT card flri I-/M, oCra* m2 rvv. i ' 

; 'BdaA r^r vattiotfp mi rir ,!* a^f, ov fap 
<(r*i7f M ra roG i/IoG 
, dAAa rip jAvtt/NU. 

It would be interesting to work oat the comparison of this pauagr of 
Eph. with the earlier Epistles phrase by phrase (e.g. c; 
Rom. xii. 3, 6 ; I Cor. \ r. I. It) j bat to do this would be really 

endless and would hare too remote a bearing on oar present subject. Enough 
will have been said both to show the individuality of mans ' 

and also to show its place in connexion with the range of &t ! .mline 

Epistles generally, as seen in a somewhat extreme example. 1 
especially in Germany, to take Ep. to Romans with its companion Epistles 
as a standard of style for the whole of the Corpus Pan 
foot has pointed out that this is an error, this group of Epistles having been 
written under conditions of high tension which in no *: rly 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 
-. t their style is in some sense an exceptional one, called 
forth by peculiar circumstances, just as at a late period the style 
Pastoral Epistle* is also exceptional though in a different way. The t 
style of the Apostle is rather to be sought for in the Kpistlcs to the Tbessa- 
, and those of the Roman captiv. 

n we look back over the whole of the data the impression 
which they that although the difference, taken 

extremes, is no doubt c. iy bridged 

It does not seem to be anywhere so great as to necessitate 


can-- won 

lion of different au > though any single 

My be enough to account tr it, \. quite 

Besides the passages commented upon here, refetence may be made to the 

^incidences between the doxology, Rom. - 
rphfriini These are fully pointed oat ad he , and the genuineness of the 
doxology is defended in t 9 of this Introduction. 
' Jtu //A. P- 30J- 

7.] THE TEXT Ixiii 

well have been a concurrence of causes. And on the other hand 
the positive reasons for supposing that the two Epistles had n ally 
ane 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 may be ranged without 


(i) Authorities. The authorities quoted for the various readings 
to the text of the Epistle are taken directly from Tischcndorf's 
great collection (Nov. Test. Grace, 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 : 

Primary uncials. 

H 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 
S" contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second 

MS. of high value; 

t* 6 attributed by Tischendorf to saec. vi ; 
N* attributed to the beginning of saec. vii. Two hands of 

about this date are sometimes distinguished as N* and 


A. Cod. Alexandrinus, saec. v. 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 Vaticane de Paul Hi a Paul v, 

p. 86). Complete. 

The corrector B* is nearly of 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 1 . 

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 wjrA ftj njr . . . wrA TO 

1 Dr. Gregory would carry back the evidence farther, to 1531 (ProUg. 
p. 360), bat M. Batiffol could find no trace of the MS. in the earlier lists. 


xi. 31 rf 
,fui xiii. 10. 

D. Cod. Claromontanus, sacc. vi Gracco-Latinus. Once at 
Clcrmont, near Beauvais (if the statement of Beza is to be 

tl), now in the National Library at Paris. Conta 
Pauline Epistles, but Rom. L i, iiuiXot . . . aya*?* e*oi 
^ing, and i. 27 ifrKmAvra* . . . tyrvprrA* o*i i. 30 
(in the Latin i. 24-27) is supplied by a later band. 
. Cod. Sangcrmancnsis, sacc. ix. Graeco- Latin us. Formerly 
at St. Gcrmain-dcs-Pres, now at St. Petersburg. [Tl 
might well be allowed to drop out of the list, as it is nothing 
more than a faulty copy of i 

F. Cod. Augiensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Laiinus. Bought by Bcntlcy 

in Germany, and probably written at Reichenau (Augia 
Major); now in the Library of Trinity College, Cam 
Rom. i. i DovXoc . . . V ry *>{/*?] " 19 is missing, both 
in the Greek and Latin texts. 

G. Cod. Boerncrianus, saec. ix ex. Graeco-Latinus. Written at 

St. Gall, now at Dresden. Rom. i. i tyvpuriutot . . . itlart** 
i. 5, and ii. 16 ri */nnmk . . . bpov r ii. 25 are missing. 
Originally formed pan of the sani h A (Cod. San- 

gallcnsis) of the Gospels. 

It has been suggested by Traobe (Wattenbach, Anltitung tar Grittk 
Pataografkit, ed. 3, 1805, p. 41) that this MS. was *r c same 

hand as a well-known Psalter in the library of the Arsenal at Paris 
bean the signature Si^vAiOf l^rrof J-yw lif* 1 * - 1" hc resemblance of the 
handwriting is dose, as may be seen by comparing the facsimile of the Paris 
Psalter published by Omont in the M4a*gu ( h that of the 

all Gospel* in the Paiaeographical Society's series 
fact naturally raises the farther question whether the writer ,,f tlu 

aul's Epistles is not also to be identified with the compiler of the com- 
mentary entitled ColUttanta in cmmt B. / - 

IM. ciii. 9-1 18), which is also ascribed to a Sednlms Scotns. 1 The answer 
must be in the nemdve. The commentary presents none of the charac- 
teristic readings of the MS., and appears to represent a higher grade of 
scholarship. It is more probable that the scribe belonged to the fratrti 
:>o formed a sort of guild in the m.T.a < iall (see the 

authorities quoted in Caspari, Qtu.'len turn Taufsym n. and 

compare Bergcr, f/ittoirt tU /a Vulgate, p. 137). There are se\ 
of the name ' Sedulius Scotus ' (Mignc. 

iould be noted that of these ^ C are parts of 

were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter 
throughout the LXX and Greek ! G arc all 

Graeco-Latin, and are different MSS. from those whit 
same notation on the Gospels and Acts. Ii 
Introduction they arc -is D, E, F,G r 

< 'od. Cois! ;ily in 

fragments, is unfortunately wanting for : see below. 

5 7 ] THE TEXT IxV 

Secondary uncials. 

K. Cod. Mosquensis, saec ix. Broaght to Moscow from the monastery of 
Diunysius on Mount Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Caih , Ejn>. Paul. 
Rom. x. 1 8 dAAd A 7 a; to the end U misting. 

L. Cod. Angclicus, saec. ix. In the Angelicon Library of the Augnstinian 
monks at Rome. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Romans com- 

P. Cod. Porphyrianus, saec. ix in. A palimpsest brought from the East by 
Tischendorf and called after its present owner Bishop Porphyry. Contains 
Acts, Epp. Cath.. Epp. Paul, Apoc. Rom. U. 1 5 [doAer7ov 
* a&m ^ ^K] iii. 5 ; viii. 35 0df & &OIO/K . . . 4 *a[T' 

ix. 1 1 ; xi. a a *al dworo/Jor . . . Qvoiav 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. 

a. Cod. Patiriensis, saec. v. 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. Batiflbl, L'AUay* de Rossano, pp. 6, 
79 and 61, 71-74). Twenty-one palimpsest leaves, containing portions 
of Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. These include Kom. xiii. 4-xv. 9. 
A study of readings from this MS. is published in the Revut Bibliqtu 
for April, 1895. 


A few only of the leading minuscules can be given, 
5. (- Ew. 5, Act. 5), saec. xiv. At Paris; at one time in Calabria. 
17. (- Ew. 33, Act 13), saec. ix (Omont, ix-x Gregory). At Paris. 
Called by Li ch horn the oueen of cursives.' 

31. (-Act. 35, Apoc 7). Written 1087 A.D. Belonged to John Covell. 
English chaplain at Constantinople about 1675; now in the British 

32. ( - Act a6\ saec xii. Has a similar history to the last. 

37. ( Ew. 69, Act 31, Apoc. 14), saec xv. The well-known 'Leicester 
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 Chalds. 

67. (Act. 66, Apoc 34), saec. xi. Now at Vienna: at one time in the 
possession of Arsenius, archbishop of Moncrnvasia in Epidaurns. 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. 

7 1 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, but as yet collated only in 
a few places. 

(-Ew. 263, Act. 117), saec xiii-xiv. At Paris. 
351. (Gregory, a6o Scrivener - Ew. 489. Greg., 507 Scriv.; Act 195 Greg., 
-criv.). 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 (fittr*/. p. 166), and partly those which Bousset connects with his 
< Codex Pamphiir (see below). 

OlfANS [$ 7- 


The versions quoted are the following : 
The Latin (Latt). 

Vctus Latina (Lat. \ 
I Vulgate (Vulg.). 
The Egyptian (Aegypt). 

The Sahidic (Sah.). 
The Syriac (S\ 

The Peshitto (Pes! 

The Armenian (Arm.). 
The Gothic (Goth.). 
The Ethiopia (Aelk). 

Of these the Veto* Latina b very Imperfectly preferred to us 
possess only a small number of fragments of MSS. These are : 

gue. Cod. Gnclferbytanns, saec. vi, which contains fragments of Rom. xi. 

5 ; J"*. 9-2 

risingcnsU. saec. v or vi, containing Kom. xiv. 10 xv 
r,. Cod. Gottvicensis, saec vi or vii, containing Rom. T. i' 


The texts of these fragments are, however, neither early (relatively to the 
history of the Version) nor of much interest To supplement them we have 
the Latin versions of the bilingu mentioned above, 

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 O!<M. 
not in all cases altered to suit t g is based on th 

bat is very much ma the Vulgate translation, altered * 

help of g or a MS. closely akin to g. For the Fathers we are mainly 
indebted to the quotations in Tertnllian (w Cyprian (sa- 

the Latin Irenaetts (saec ii, or more probably iv), Hilary of Poitiers (saec, 
and to the so-called Sftfu/um S. Augulttni (cited as m), a Spanish 

:o of the fourth century see below, p. 134). 
One or two specimens are given in the course of the commentary 
evidence furnished by the Old-Latin Version (see on i. 30 ; v. 5 
which may also serve to illustrate the problems raised in connexion v 
history of the Version. They have however more to do hanges 

in the Latin diction of the Version than wr The fuller 

ment of t! o! St. 1'aul's Epistles will be found in 2 

etmmgm vcr Hurmymtu, Miinchen, 1879; 
but the subject has not as yet been sufficiently worked at for a general 

* < !tolhe t Vulgate the following MSS. are occasionally quoted : 
am. Cod. Amiattnus c 700 
fold. Cod. Faldensii c 


ad. Totetanns. Saec x, or rather perhaps viii (see Derj; 
toirtdtl* V'Hlsatt.? 14 

The Vulgste of St. I'aul's Epistles is a revision of the Old Latin so slight 
and cursory as to be hardly an independent authority. It was however made 


I ill. TEXT 


with the help of the Greek MSS., and we have the express statement of 

r!f that in Horn. xii. 11 he preferred to follow Greek MSS. 

and to say Domino strvientts for temfori servienUs of the older Version 

; 3 ad Afarctllam}. And this reading U found in the text of the 


Of the Egyptian Versions, Bohairic is that usually known as Memphitic 
( - * me.' \V H.) and cited by Tisch. as Coptic ' (' cop.'). For the reasons 
which make it correct to describe it as Bohairic see Scrivener, Introd. ii. 106, 
ed. 4. It is usually cited according to TUchendorf (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. aS; 
x. 5 ; xvi. 37. This suggests that not only a fresh edition of the text, but 
also a fresh collation with the Greek, is much needed. 

.he Sahidic (Thtbaic) Version (--tab.* Tisch., 'the.' \V!I.) some 
few readings have been added from the fragments published by Amc'lineau 
in the Ztitsckrift fur Atgypt. Sfrache, 1887. These fragments contain vi. 
ao-aj; vii. i-ai ; viii. 1^-38; ix. 7-33 ; xi. 31-36; xiL 1-9. 

The reader may be reminded that the Pcshitto Syriac was certainly carrrnt 
much 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. pTosterior] ' Tisch.. hi. 1 \VH.) b a re- 
cension made bv the Monophysite Thomas of Harkhel or Heraclea in 616 
A D., of the older Philoxenian Version of 508 A. D., which for this pan 
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 from three (v. 1. two) approved and accurate Greek copies ' in the 
monastery of the Enaton near Alexandria (WH. Introd. p. 156 f). 

The Gothic Version is also definitely dated at about the middle of the 
fourth century, and the Armenian at about the middle of the fifth. The dates 
of the two Egyptian Versions and of the Lthiopic are still uncertain 
ivener, 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 such as it is 
hoped will cause no difficulty (but see p. ex). 

(2) Internal Grouping of Author Hits. 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 Epistles the groups most affected by 
recent researches are NB ; NH, Arm., Euthal., and in less degree 
a number of minuscules ; D [E] F G. 


The proofs seem to be thickening which connect these two great MSS. 
with the library of Ensebius and Pamphilns at Caesarea. That is a view 
which has been held for some time past (e.g. by the late Canon Cook, 
Knistd Version of the First Three Gotfels, p. 159 ff. ; and Dr. Scrivener, 
Collation of Cod. Sinaiticus, p. xxxvii f ), but without resting upon any very 
solid arguments. And it roust always be remembered that so excellent 
a palaeographer as Dr. Ceriani of Milan (ap. Scrivener, Introd. i. lai. ed. 4} 
thought that B was written in Italy (Magna Graccia;, and that Dr. Hort 


\h 7 - 

also ghrea tome reasoas for ascribing an Italian origin to AC arc 

however confronted by the fact that there is a distinct probability that both 

scribes. It was first pointed out by Tischendorf (fi ac, 1867, 

i ). oo grounds which seem to be sufficient, that the witter whom 

It was first pointed out by Tischendorf (M T. 

;oo grounds which Mem to be wfi 
the ' fourth scribe ' of K wrote also the N.T. poi 

were not written in the same place had atjeast in part the same 

he calls the ' fourth scribe ' of K wrote also the N.T. portion of B. And, as 
it has been said, additional arguments are becoming available for connecting 

:> at Caesarea (see Rr: .smttry, p. ; 

essay of Bousset referred to I - 

The frovtHantt of K would only carry with it approximately and not 

exactly that of R The conditions would be satisfied if it were possible, or 

not difficult, for the same scribe to have a hand in both. For instance, the 

hat K had would not be inconsistent with the 

tttafly to the same region. But when Herr Bousset goes further and 
tains that the text of B represents the recension of Hesy chins ', that is another 
matter, and as it seems to us, at least prim* f*ei*. 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 1 Icsychius. If we admit that the MS. may be Egyptian. 
it i* 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 * - 

agreement carries does not depend on the independence of their testi- 
mony so much as upon its early date. That the date 
readings is in fact extremely early appears to be proved by the nun. 
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 atitl. 

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 Fa < has 

a clear infusion of Western readings. It is possible that all these may have 
come in from a single copy ; but it is leas likely that all the 
all the 'Alexandrian* readings which are found in K had a s 
Indeed the history of K since it was written doet but reflect the history of 
- only to suppose the corrections of K* embodied in 
the text of one MS., then those ot M rte 1 in the margin and then 

embodied in the teit of a succeeding MS., then th< % third and 

R* in a fourth, to form a mental picture of the process by which our present 
MS. became what it is. It remains for to rrconstn 

process, to pick to pieces the different elements of which the 
MS. consists, to arrange them in their order and their affinities. 
. doubtless be carried further than it has been. 

Arm , Euthsl. 

A number of scholars working on K have thrown oat suggestions which 
would tend to group together these auth 
some further connexion with KB. TheM- . 

1 A similar view is held by Corsv irds the modern text based on 

K II a 

Jakrkttmdtrtt(pr Cyfria*iukt Ttxt d. Aft* Afottohrum, Berlin, 1893, p. 24). 


caid, not extant for Romans" bears upon itt face the trace* of it* connexion with 
the library of Caesarca, as the subscription to Ep. to Titos states expressly 
that the MS. was corrected ' with the copy at Caesarea in the library of the 
holy Pamphilos written with his own hand.' Now in June, 1893, Dr. Kemlel 
Harris pointed out a connexion between this MS. H Paul, and Euthalios 
(Mtc hornet ry. p. 88). This bad alto been noticed by Dr. P. Consen in the 
second of the two programmes cited below (p. u). Early in 1894 Herr 
\V. lloujuct brought out in Gebhardt and Hamack's Text* m. L'n.'er 
ntekuKgt* a series of Ttxt-kntiuht Studun turn M 7*., in the course of 
which (without any concert with Dr. Kendel Harris, but perhaps with 
tome knowledge ot Corssen) he not only adduced further evidence of this 
connexion, but also brought into the group the third corrector of M (1C*). 
A note at the end of the Book of Esther said to be by his hand speak* 
in graphic terms of a MS. corrected by the Hexapla of Oiigen, com- 
paied by Antoninus a confessor, and corrected by Pampbilns ' in prison ' 
(\. e. just before his death in the persecution of Diocletian). Attention had 
often been drawn to this note, but Herr Bousaet was the first to make the 
full 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 K* and those of H and Euthalius which were inde- 
pendently associated with Pamphilus 1 . Lastly, to complete the series of 
novel and striking observations, Mr. F. C. Conybeare comes forward in the 
current number of the Journal of Philology (no. 46, 1895) and maintains 
a further connexion of the group with the Armenian Version. These 
researches are at present in full swing, and will doubtless lead by tiuutm 
to more or less definite results. The essays which have been mentioned 
all contain some 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 famous of 
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 
'unity received its greatest expansion; the prestige not only of 
Eusebius and Pamphilus, but of the still more potent name (for some time 
yet to come) of Ongen, attached to it It would have been strange if it bad 
not been consulted from far and wide and if the influence of it were not felt 
in many parts of Christendom. 

D KG, Goth. 

Not only is E a mere copy of D, but there is a very close relation between 
K 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 Light foot, 
Biblical Essays, p. 33 1 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 (IntroJ, 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- 
i the older view, adopted by Scrivener (Jntrod. p. 181. ed. 3) and 
maintained with detailed arguments in two elaborate programmes by 
Corssen (//. fan/in. Codd. Aug. Botrn. Clarom., ib8; and 1889). 

1 Since the above was written all speculations on the subject of Euthalius have 
superseded by Prof. Armitage Robinson's admirable easay in Texts attd 
, Both the text of Euthalins and that of the Codtx Pamfkili are 
i to be as yet very uncertain quantities. Still it is probable that the authorities 
on are really connected, and that there are elements in their text which 
lay be traceable to Euthalius on the one hand and the Caesarean Library on 


ire not rare that the ovation can Hill be regarded at settled in thi 
sense. aod rt's original view u not to be preferred. Dr. Cornea 

admit* that there are tome phenomena which he cannot explain (1887. 
Theae would (all naturally mto their place if K (ik U a copy of G ; aod the 
argument* on the other ride do not teem to be decisive In any case it 
should be remember*! are practically one witness aad 

not two. 

Cornea reached a number of other interesting conclusions. Examining 
the common element bj showed that they were ultimately derived 

from a single archetype (Z), and that this archetype was written ftr ttla tt 
or in flautCT cot tttpood ing to the sense (sometimes called 

<). as may be seen in the Palaeographical Society's facsimile 
(ser. L pi. 63, 64). Here again we have another coincidence of inde- 
pendent workers, for in 1891 Dr. Rendel Harris carrying farther a suggestion 
of Rettig'. had thrown out the opinion, that not on Iv did the same system of 
oolometry lie behind Cod. A Ew. (the other half, as we remember, of 
.ul.j 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 
tant Uld.Latin MS. k (Cod. Bobiensis), and even to the Curetonian 
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. U not likely to have 
been written before the time of St. Chrysoatom, or 407 A 

Thus Dr. Conaen thinks that there arose early in the fifth century 
a ' (Jraeco- Latin edition/ the 1-atin of which was more in agreement with 
Victorious Ambrosiaster and the Spanish Sftftt/um. For the inter-connexion 
of this group be adduces a striking instance from I C< and he 

argues that the locality in which u arose was more probably lu 
Africa. As to the place of origin we are more inclined to agree with him 
than as to the date, though the S*tf*/*m contains an African e'.eme: 

then points out that this Graeco-Latin edition hat affinities with the ( . 

Version. The edition did not contain the Epistle t. 

Epittle to the Romans in it ended at Rom. xv. 14 (see f 9 below); it was 

. ithout the doxology (Rom. 

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

.-. Corssen writes this sketch is suggestive and likely to be 
fruitful, though we cannot express our entire agreement v <- only 

regret that we cannot undertake here the systei; h certainly 

le into the history of this gro 

I mr::; : ! 

poawblc the common archetype o: >v,l,tr the 

ought to be made into the history of this group. Th- lines which it should 
follow would be something of It should reconstruct as far as 

peculiar element in both MSS. and distinguish between earlier a 
readings. The instances in which the Greek has been conformed 
will probably be found to be late and of little teal important 
peculiar and ancient readings in Gg should be carefully 
studied. An opportunity might be found of testing more closely the hypo- 
thesis propounded in $ 9 -iuction. (iv) The relations of the 
Gothic Version to the group should be determined as accurately as possible, 
(v) The characteristics both of D and . fix; should be 
DOM m I witt ::. iof< 0& BtMX I the OJ ! itin MSS, ol the Goeptfc 
and Acts. 

:s//f to Romans. The textual 
j>istles generally is inferior in interest to 

7.] THE TEXT Ixxt 

that of the Historical Books of the New Testament When this is 
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 light 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 docs 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 

s 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; N B ; NACLP. These really corre- 
spond to like groups in the other Books : DEFG correspond 
to the group which, in the nomenclature of Westcolt and Hort, is 
called 4 Western ' ; N B appear (with other leading MSS. added) to 

the line which they would call * Neutral ' ; N A C L P would 
dude, but would not be identical with, the group which they call 
Alexandrian.' The later uncials generally (with accessions every 
and then from the older ranks) would constitute the family 
h they designate as 'Syrian/ and which others have called 

chene/ 'Byzantine,' ' Constantinopolitan,' or 'Ecclesiastical/ 
ption is taken to some of these titles, especially to the term 

crn/ which is only retained because of its long-established 
use, and no doubt gives but a very imperfect geographical descrip- 

t 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 8-text (=' Western'), the p-text(=' Neutral'), 
the a-text ( = ' Alexandrian '), and the t-text or a-text (=' Ecclesi- 
astical 'or 'Syrian'). Such terms would beg no questions; they 
would simply describe facts. It would be an advantage that the 


same term ' o-tcxt ' would be equally suggested by the 1< 
Gospels and Acts, and in the Taulino Kj.i.silrs 
' 0-tcxt,' while suggested by It. would car 

a-text ' would recall equally 

:d '-tcxt' or -Aould not 

ut would only describe the undoubted 
facts, i the text in question was : 

the Church through' . ! lie Ages, or 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 

s) appears in the fourth air md spread 

-> to the debated point of its previous history nothing 

would be cither affirmed or dei 

If some such nomenclature a> this were adopted a further step might I e 
taken by distinguishing the earlier and later stages of the same lex 
V, ficc.. a 1 , <r*, &c. It would alto have to be noted that although 
ran 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 
even be ranged on the opposite side. This would occur most oft, 
the a-text and A, but it would occur also occasionally with the B-text and 
B (as conspicuously in Rom. xL 6). 

t being the broad outlines of the distribution of authorities on the 
Epistle to the Romans, we ask, What are its distinctive and in. 
features T These are for the most pan shared with the rest of the 1 

'.cs. One of the advantages which most of the oth 

Romans is without : none of the extant fragments of Cod. 11 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 K* and Ann. Sufficient note has unfor- 
innately not been taken of them in the commentary, as the due was 
the writer's hands when it was written. In this respect the reader : 
asked to supplement it He should of course apply the new t 
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 out of 

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 

c fact that there is a dis 

B, which therefore when it is combined with authorities of the t> 
type is diminished in value ; (iii) the consequent rise in importance of the 
group K AC ; (iv} the exUtence of a few scattered readings either of B alone 
or of B in comb one or two other authorities which have con- 

siderable intrinsic probability and may be r 

(i) The first must be taken with the reservations noted above. The 
Western or R text has not it is true the bold and interesting variations which 
are found in the Gotpels and Acts. It has none of the striking 
poUtions which in those Books often bring In ancient and valu 
That may be due mainly to the fact that the interpolations in question are 
for the most part historical, an ! therefore would naturally be looked 
af Books. In Ep. to Roman* the more important S-v 
^lauon* but omissions (as e.g. in the Gospel of St. Lnke; 

7] THE Ti bcxiii 

these variants preserve some of the freedom of correction and paraphrase to 
which we are accustomed elsewhere. 

. g. ill. 9 ri MtMvJjpyMi w><f*cr ; D* G, Chrys. Orig.-lat aL : T our ; 

*po*xun<fa \ rel. 
iv. 19 ov itartvbiotv DEFG, &c. Orig.-lat Epiph. Ambrstr. /.: 

anroipcr K A H C &1. 

V. 14 \m\ rovt Anapr^ayrat 6a, 63, 67**. Orig.-lat CodJ. Lot. a/. 
Aug., Arobrstr. : M TOV ^ AnapTijaavrat rel. 
f> rov 6afdr DEI G, CoJJ. af. Orig.-lat al. : do*u-<Jrr*t rel. 
:> Katpj, 8ouAvorrf D* F G, CfcftV. Za/. a/, Micron, a/. 
Orig.-laL Arabrstr. : ry Ki-p<V *ofA>rrj /r/. 
13 roTt /jrut TWT a-yiorv D*FG, CW</. a/. Theod. Me 
Orig.-lat. I lil. Ambrstr. al.\ rail xP^ a T " ^7^ 
two readings were perhaps due in the first instance to 
errors of transcription.] 
XT. 1 3 wiTjfKHfvpfau B F G : wXijpuaat rel. 
aa voXA&m B D E F G : rd voAAa rr/. 
31 topo+opia B D* F G, Ambrstr. : &<uorfa /. 

The most interesting aspect of this branch of the text is the history of its 
antecedents as represented by the common archetype of D G. and even more 
by the {xculiar clement in G. The most prominent of these reading* are 
discussed below in o, but a still further investigation of them in connexion 
with allied phenomena in other Epistles is desirable. 

(ii) It will have 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 
fvparror i. 16 ; om. yap in. a ; om. rf? *<<rr(i v. 2 ; *ins. /*V vi. at ; &d rj 
JrouroOr avrov llvtv^a viii. 1 1 (where however there is a great mass of other 
authorities); *om. Irjaovt and *om. 4* tmtpwf viii. 34 ; i) 940^^*17 ix. 4; ins. 
ovv ix. 19; 'uri after r$/iov and faura in&. after wturfuat x. 5 ; Jr [rots] x. 
ao ; *om. yap xiv. 5 ; om. cvr, Amoowou, torn. rS> 6(4; xiv. 1 3 ; 'add ^ aay- 
9oA/^rcu ^ (Ifftfiycr xiv. a I ; y^as xv. 7; r^r [ai/x i ?< y '3 ** >7- 

ts perhaps significant that in all the instances marked with * the group 

:ied by N. It may be through a cony related to the 'Codex Pam> 

. ' that these readings came into B. We also note that the latest and 

worst of all the readings found in B, the long addition in xi. 6 <l <) If ffyor 

ov/ri (om. iarl B) xr ''<2 ri tpy* ovittri tori x*l** (fie B; f/ryor a/.) 

is shared by B with K C L. In the instances marked with f, and in xv. 13 

wAipo^op^rcu. B agrees not with D but with G ; but on the other hand in 

, 4 (om. 'Irjaovt) and in xv. 7 it agrees with D against G ; so that the 

resemblance to the peculiar element in the latter MS. does not stand out 

quite clearly. In the other instances both D and G are represented. 

(iii) When Bthus goes over to the Western or 5-gronp the main support 
of the alternative reading is naturally thrown upon K A C. 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 
pal 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. n. The combination is strengthened where KA are 
joined by the Westerns as in iii. a8. In this instance, as in a few others, 
they are opposed by DC, a pair which do not carry quite as much weight 
in the Eputles as they would in the Gospels. 

(iv) It may appear paradoxical, but the value of B seems to rise when 
deserted by all or nearly all other uncials. Appearances may be 

F.I ) THE ROMANS [5 7. 

deceptive, bat there it not a little reason for thinking that the following 
readings belong to the soundest innermost kernel of the MS. 

i om. t 
v. 6 


J4 & ya^ /U*i, TII JXr 

'n Ki>oi 'VoCf. 

. . <. 

xv. 10 nrcvparot without addition. 

As all these readings have been discwaed mot* or lets folly in the 
mentary, they need only be referred to bete. Two more readings 

BOB : : :.i! c lltni ll Hi 

- 3 om. MI. 
xvi. a; om. y. 

They are however open to some suspicion of being corrections to ease the 
construction. The quotion it whether or not they are valid exceptions to 

le that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. Sn 
there undoubtedly are ; and it is at least a tenable view that these are 
among them. 

Other singular, or subtfagntar, readings of B will be found in zv. 
30, 3 a. But these are less attractive and less important. 


The literary history of the Epistle to the Romans begins 
than that of any other book of the N.T. Not o learly 

and distinctly quoted in the writings of the Apostolic Father 
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 consul 

shall be. :le of St Peter. In the 

following table the passages in which there is a similarity between 
the two Epistles are compared : 

Rom. ix. 35 coAfow rir o Xoor i Peter ii. 10 oi wort 06 Aaot, rw 

JMV Aair pov, aa2 r^r alt* 1^70*17- W Aadr eow, oi o 

Rom. ix. 31, 33 rfo<ri*ofav T? 6-S 'l&ov. 

6ftftaroi t 

rov 9poa6ftftaroi t oftLt Iio/r Xlfor dxpoyvntucv t 

w viarivwr iw' avrj, 
Aifor m peoit6ft(taTO9 *al wtr- oft jti) gar<uo xv*9y . ovrot 

tit *i^aA^r TaWat, a 

06 arai<rxvr07- Ai*of wpo9*6pitarot aj wirpa 

. ol />o<r o FTOKTI rf 

{oar, ATW, *da- 


ror T* f , r^r Airy.^ Aar^iar V 


Rom x; i pt) <Tv<rxi7^ar t - i Pctrr i. 14 /i^ <ri 

r? oia^i rovry. ^roi Tai'r v^rpor jr rp tiyKix _i 


The following passages seem 
thoughts and words : 

Rom. xii. 3 dAAd fpw<:* tit rd 
ffoi^poKfiV . . . 
6 lxorrt 


to be modelled on St. Paul's 

3 Jirdtrry At A e)t 

Cf. also Rom. xiii. 11-14; 8-10; 
xii. 9, 13- 

Rom. xii. 9 i) Ayavrj drvwl- 
tpiroi . . . IO rp <piAa8tA4>if 

Rom. xii. 16 rd avri Ir dAAiJAow 
fporovrrtr /i^ rd tyqAd 
rovrro, dAAd roTf 

ap* iavrott. 

drri aov 

18 1 

_*.__. J-.fl 

, rd 

Cf. also vr. 9, 14. 

Rom. xiii. i d< 
vpXovaoir {tworaaoioBw 
ov -yap l<rriy ^owia <I ^ wd o v, 
al M ot<rai tnrJ 6ov ~ 
iaV . . . 


4 6ov -yap 


oOT wa<ri rdt 
rdr ^$pof rdr ^opor, rf rd r/Aot 
rd TAo, ry nir ^^^or T^r <p60or, 

I Peter iv. 7-11 drrr 8< rd 

/r iavrovt dYav^r 4rfr^ I \otrn. 
ftri d-ydn; aAvrri wA^or d/iaprtwr* 
/r dA A 17 A out, dVv 7oyyv 

fia, /f iairroit avri 0ioorowvrff t 
a/t /roAoi oUof6ftot woutiXip x dpi TO* 
eoi/' f rit AoAr, OK 
nt 8iaorf, u/i 

i Peter i. aj rdt 
4rr...fff ^iAa 
piror 4/r /rapJiaj 

I Peter iii. 8, 9 rd W T/AOT. wdrrtt 

Aoi8op<ar, rovvarrior 
, 5n / rovro 


rw d^atfuv* 


I Peter ii. 13-17 

irg rriati 8id T A r Ki/pior, 
rt 6f/> xofn, fr 
, a 8' ourov v/*vo/Urotr /t 
irajrovcxwr iwatvov U 

. . . vdrrar 

Although equal stress cannot be laid on all these passages the 
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. 32 
(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. 
ii. 5), and the same rare words, such as (rwrx^/ianfratfai, dmnrd- 
r, but in one passage (Rom. xiii. 1-7; i Pet. ii. 13-17) we 

Ixxvi EPISTLE T< [J 8. 

have what must be accepted at conclusive evidence, the same ideas 
same order. Nor can there be any doubt that of 
the two the Kj.istlc 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 S: r < x.imj.le, 

in Rom. xiii. 7 we have a broad general principle 
St. Peter. 'ut-nced by the phraseology of that passage, 

merely gives three rules of conduct In Su Paul the language 
and ideas come out of the sequence of thought; in St. 
they are adopted because they had already been used for the same 

I relation between the two Epistles is supported by 
independent evidence. The same relation vi 

rst Epistle of Su Peter and th .ins is also 

found to exist between it and the Epistle to the Ephesians, and 
the same hypothesis harmonizes best with t it case 

also. The three Epistles are all connected ;e: one of 

them being written to tl e other two in all prol 

being written from it. We cannot perhaps be quite cert 
to the date of I Peter, but it must be earlier than the Aj 
Fathers who quote it ; while it in its turn quotes as we see a 
two Epistles of St. Paul and these the most important, 
notice that these conclusions harmonize as f.i: 
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 ea history arguments are rarely concl 

and the even partial coincidence of different lines of investigation 
adds greatly to the strength of each* 

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews again was pro 
indebted to the Romans, the resemblance betwe< 

. Jeb. xi. 1 1 is very close and has been brought out in the 
notes, while in Rom. xii. 19. Hcb. x. 30, we have the same 
passage of Deuteronomy qu the same marked 

gences from the text tin it.-df con 

evidence; there may have been an earlier form of the version 
fact there are strong grounds for thinking so; bu: the 
hypothesis that the author of the Hebrews used the i 

mplest. We again notice that the Hcbr. 
a book closely connected with the Roma: 
its early use in that Church, and if it were, as is possible, v 
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 an 
to be quoted, yet it is quite conceivable tl. -f the 

words and phrases in 

have been om an acquaii. :le. 



The passages referred to are the following : 

Rom. iv. 17-91 KaTtvarri ov Im't- llcb. xi. II, I a wforta}< 

ortvat 0ov rov awoovrrot TOVT 8vro/iir tit *oraoA^r 

r/>ovr . . . ital /*i) datfirijaof rp iAa<r ai vapd taupiar 

viarn xarttwjat TO 4avrov ow/ia viarur ^y^aaTo Tuf 

i^ov; vtvtKfttftivov (4arofra<n7t JMW otd o2 d^' 4>of 

TOV v*d^yair),o2r4' >4pvffir r^t ai ravra rr^>^rov . . . 
^rjrpat Jeppar tit 8i V 4*07* 19 Ao7i<rd/Mi'OT 81 

7Atar rov 0<ov ov onxpi&rj rp Iftiptur o war tit A 
d.<7Ti>, dAA' 

Rom. xii. 19 

Heb. x. 30 


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 
I 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. it 

8id dva 
wt A itpivw 


K pi rut ri)r trtpov, atavrbv ara 
yd fap avrd wpaaatit 

T. 2 James IT. 1 1 ^ araAaA<*r 

AO/K, doA^o/. oaraAaAr 
moiwv TUK d<A03r ai/rov, araAaA~ 
i, *ai Kpivti ropo*' f 8i rd/tor ^>i- 

Rom. ii. 13 ov T^fl o/ d/rpoara) James i. a 

&IMUOI apd [Ty ] 6<f dAA' w A^TOV, a2 >i^ 

Rom. iv. I rlovvlpovfjHr <vpi)<irat 
'ABpadp Tcif vpovdropa i}/**" 
irord capita ; 

Rom. T. 3-5 avx<v/*ta ir roTr 
. <OoVf Sn i) 0AiVit vvo- 

dxpoaral mapa* 



Rom. iv. ao fit 8* tip InyytMar 
rov Ocov ov tuttpidrj rp 


James i. 6 a*rirou 8i Iv wlortt 

James i. a-^ wdtrco' 

or wtipaanotf wiptwi<rrjT 

W 4Avit ov ara49x v * r 
row eov < xvrai. 

vvo/iori) /p7or 

The LXX of Deut naii. 35 reads 4r 
<rovt ovrr. 

'unj<yai d^rowoo^rw, 5ror 


Rom. vii. a 3 **< W Jr./wr r*>* Jro IT. i 

if TM'I pJA<ri /ov. drnerpa- p4j(< '" ^"* 

rvo'>jror TV rljif row root jiov, jici At' ipr rfir 

0J alx,aAmCorra JM Jr r r<$^ y^t TI jilA <r 
djtfpriaf rf orri ir TMI ^'A.<ri ^v. 

Rom. xiit. u <Uo0^.*a olr Jamet I. ai 4vo04^roi vfirar 

rov <roroirt, <rfcAi|iOa M finrnftv cd mt/HOoiiav nttias Ir 

may be expressing an excessive scepticism, but these resem- 

s seem to us hardly close enough to be convincing, and the 

priority of SL James cannot be proved. The problem of literary 

indebtedness is always a delicate one ; difficult to find 

a definite objective standpoint ; and writers of competence draw 

< conclusions from the same facts. In order to 

our sceptical attitude we may point out that resemblances 

roseoJogy between two Chris: s do not necessarily 

imply literary connexion. The contrast between acpoorrn' and no^rai 
was not made by either St. Paul or St. James for the first time ; 
metaphors like Oyravpi&u, expressions like /r jp/pf opy^t compared 
with V i7 M ,'pa a^ay^ (both occur in the O.T.), the phrase *JM<* 
<\<v6<plat might all have independent sources. Nor are 
any passage* where we find the same order of thought (as in 
i Peter) or the same passage of the O.T. quoted with the same 

ons cither of which would form stronger evidence. The 
resemblance is closest in Rom. v. 3-5 = James i. 2-4 and in 
Rom. vii. 23 = James iv. i, but these are nit 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 
as an example of works and endeavours to show that the 
Xoytfouu is inconsistent with this.' I Jut the contn 
been carried on elsewhere than in these writings, and it is equally 
probable that both alike may be dealing wr Mem as it 

came before them for discussion or as : .critcd from the- 

schools of the Rabbis (see further the note on p. 102). 
we may add, no marked resemblance in style in the controversial 
passage fu: . would be the necessary result of <! 

ie same subject-matter. There is not); 
obligation on the pan of either Epistle to the other or to 
the priority of either. The two Epistles wer. So the same 

small and growing commune.- ned or created 

a phraseology of its 

nence. It is quite possible that the Epistle of 
SL James deals with the same controversy as does t! 
Romans; it n. possibly be directed against 

:ig or the leaching :!' followers; but there is no 


proof that either Epistle was written with a knowledge of the 
oihrr. There are no resemblances in style sufficient to prove literary 

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 of 
the Romans formed a model which was widely adopted in the 
i. in 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. 20. The resemblance in form 
of the doxologies may be seen by comparing them with one 

Rom. xvi. 35-27 r 9) 8wra- Jude 34, 1$ rf 8) 

pivy Ipat orrjpi^ai . . . itvvy <pv\aj<u fy*d drraiaroi/r, a2 arijoai 
owtf &<$, ltd 'ITJ oov \ptorov, . . . ditvuovt . . . plr? 
[$] ^ 8^a Jr rovt alwrat. 4)nS, 8td 'lijoov Xpior 

i}/*r, tu(a, /iryaAwovn?, itparot 
t(ow}ia, rpA wayr^t rot; alvvot ml 
a2 <if vdrraf roitf aiwrat. 

When we enter the sub-apostolic age the testimony to the use 
of the Epistle is full and ample. The references to it in Clement of 
Rome are numerous. We can go further than this, the discus- 
sions on mVm and dtcauxrv*^ (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 different types of Apostolic teaching. The Apostles 
belong to an older generation, their writings have become subjects 
of discussion. Clement is already beginning to build up, however 
inadequately, a Christian theology combining the teaching of the 
ni writers of an earlier period. If we turn to Ignatius' 
what will >tiikc 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 
him his vocabulary and form the source of his thoughts. Polycarp 
quotes more freely and more definitely. His Epistle is almost 
a o-iito of N.T. passages, and among them are undoubted quota* 
tions from the Romans. As the quotations of Polycarp come from 
Rom., i Cor., a Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., i Tim., a Tim., it is 
diOkult not to believe that he possessed and made use of a collec- 
tion of the Pauline Epistles. Corroborative evidence of this might 
be found in the desire he shows to make a collection of the letters 
of Ignatius. He would be more likely to do this if he already pos- 
ested collections of letters ; and it is really impossible to maintain 



that the Ignatian letters were formed into one collection before 
those of St. Paul had been. Assuming then, as we are enti 
do, that the Ajx.stohc Fathers represent the first quarter of the 
second cm i pisue to the Romans at time 

widely read, treated as a standard authority on Apostolic teaching, 
and taking its place in a collection of Pauline letters. 

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

Rom. i. ai 
rrot oftrwr 

Rom. \\. 14 
8*' t><ai 

4 d<rt Ocm. 36 fct 

4 4<7. 

Clem. 51 

Rom. IT. 7 Ma.a^.o, 
trjoar al dro/iiai al 
aAi/f *ij<rar. aJ 


yd* oVo/ia row Clem. 47 aVr m 

4r J.^>o-a< rf orojiar* KpW lid 


Gem. 50 
ioav al 


?o /iaafiap<}r our o&rot 
r*r PT>^r; * aj id r$r 



J 06 M^ Xo^/tf IJTOI Kviet 
n'ar. oW^<mr ir r <rrm 
avrov WAot. otrot i jiaai<*jit 

Rom. rt I T! ovr j/>ofir; 
, 9 , tro 4 

Clem. 33 rf eSr 
oJ; a>ria.r d.d r^f 

a/^> roCro 4dmu 4 

Rom. i. 19 

* <T, :n. 35 dwo^'faxr.r d*' 

,flMMo, va<rar d8ilar a2 dVofu'ar, 
r^'ar, f^cir, 


T col dXaforiar, 

ravra -yd^ oi 

r ca2 
a' ( 

TOW, fl<Ti^w< TOVT t o^T^^^fovf . ojf A^* <r o p T 4 f ^ vin^^ui TV V4v vwitfj^ov^if* 
ofrirt, rd &aMrMa TOV ee oft /i^ror M ol wpao#orTi aura. 
L ort ol rd roiavra dXXd col ol rv8oevrrt aftraTf. 

Rom. ix. 4, 5 **...* 
M2 al 

card apa. 

^MlY VVtMlT9PVM9 w999Umw9* IB 

Clem. 31 i/ avroi; 
Anwnu arrt ol 

tlMl&fTHftqf TOV 0MV* 


^r ord Tor laOv, 
Clem. 61 a^, Wirwora, Ik 

Ajiir rfr 

I/far -..> 

^ . . 


1 x x x i 

rp rov 




r< oov. 

References in the letters of Ignatius are the following : 

Rom. i. 3 row ftropivov If ovtp- 
/wrof Ao^lfl ord odpxa. rou 

Smyr. I 
Aa&ld *ard a apt a, 

Rom. ii. 34. 

Rom. in. 37 wow owV 1} , 

Rom. vi. 4 o0rw u2 
Rom. vi. 5 ; viii. 17, 39. 

Rom. vi. 17 Ji 6V 


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

18 wow xaisx*?*" TWT Aryo- 

(Close to a quotation of I Cor. i. ao.) 


Eph. 19 6OW 

pivov tit /rairvTifra dlfiiov 

Mag. 5 ' o5 
fvw^Mr TO civotfaxftV <i> T<) avrot/ 
wd^oj, T^ {qr avrov oint tonv i> jJ/uV. 

Trail. 9 /cord TU u/iotwpa if a2 ^pd 

a our 

war^p avrou IK X. 1., ow X"/** 
dA^^tfur ^ ot* l\optr. 

Mag. 6 < 

Rom. vii. 6 <rr< oovAvir ^di 
aivuri7ri wy<v/MTOf ai ov vaAojo- 
yTi 7pd^i/iarof. 

n viii. ii u lyiipat X. T 

Rom. ix. 33 <ri/i7 Uovr A po- 

Mag. 9 ol JK roAcuotir 

t tit KCUV^TIJTB, 

Rom. xiv. 17 ov yap ianv j 
/3aaiAm row 6<ov Qpwatt gal 

Trail. 9 

vtxpwy, iytipafrot aurJv rot/ 
warpts avTuv. 

Eph. 9 wporjTMnaonbot tit olto- 
lo^v eoi; irar/ifa. 

Trail, a ov 



xv. 5 T(i cwTd $ poruY Jr Eph. I 6> <t/xo>uu aTd *L X. t/ai 

i ard X. 1. d'yarai', gal wdxrat w/*dt awry Jr d/imv* 

TIJTI 7reu. 

The following resemblances occur in the Epistle of Polycarp : 
Rom. vi. 13 gal rd fu'Ai; ir/jor Pol. 4 4wAiao;/i<0a rpfr wAoif 

Rom. xiii. 13 
rd 2vAa rov ipttrot. 

Rom. xii. 10 T? 

y dAA^Aovv 

Rom. xili. 8 <J -ydp 
lrpor rJ/ior 

iv ro> 

Pol. 10 fraternitatis amatores 
:fft invictm, in veritatc social j, 
mansuetndinem Domini alltrutri 
ftatstoiantes, nullum despicientes. 

Pol. 3 idr 7<ip Tit Tovrvr irrk p 

ydp lxur d^d vi^x ftagpaf i<rrtr waffifl 


-NS [$ 8. 

Root. xiv. 10 arrt f&p wapa- Pol. 6 *al vdrrat 8f vapa- 

<rri704pfa ry q/jar< row* 6ov orijrai T* qpan rov Xptarov, 

*<U fcaaror inip iavrov A 

Jj<fpa [ovr] fa<rror i)pr wpj 0ora. 
Javrov A^or 0<vai* L rf <*]'. 

It is hardly worth while to give evidence in detail from later 
authors. We find distinct reminiscences of the Romans in Ar 
and in .:crcsting also is the evidence 

heretical writers quoted by Hippolytus in the Rtfulatio omnium 
hatraium ; it would of course be of greater value if we cou 
< rtainty the date of the documents he makes use of. 
find quotations from the Epistle in writings ascribed to the Naas- 
scnes *, the Valentinians of the Italian school 4 , and to Basileides T . 
In the last writer the use made of Rom. 19, 22 

is exceedingly curious and interesting. 

If we turn to another direction we find interesting evidence of 
a kind which has not as yet been fully considered or estimated. 
The series of quotations appended from the Testament of the 
Twelve Patriarchs can hardly be explained on any other hypo- 
thesis than that the writer was closely acquainted with the 1 
to the Romans. This is not the place to enter into t 
critical questions which have been or ought to be raised concern- 
ing that work, but it may be noticed here 

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

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

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

Rom. L 4 TOW JptfftJrrot rio 6*a9 Tot LerL 18 o2 *rv/<a 
Jr two/Mi card wriv/ia Afto*- o \ivijt f<mu 4* a&roit. 

Rom. ii. 13 06 rip of Ajtpcaral Test. Ater. 4 ol t&p d-yalal dV8 p f 
wapa ry ey. . diaio' <iot vopd 

tern MM) Syrian. 

:n. iL 4 - Dial. 47 ; Ro- - Dial. 33 ; 

Rom. i 44 ; Ron , - Dial. 3. Uom. x. 18 - 

Apol. t. 40 .- . 3 - Dial 39. 

76 - Rom. i. 10-26 
jso. 9-10 ti. 

370. 80 - Rom. 1 id. p. 368. 75 - Ron 

Rom. T. 6 In ftp X/xorot 
vwv In ard ai/wr 


Test Bcnj. 3 


Rom. \i i 

Rom. vi. 7 & 
88iai7ai dd TIJI dpapriar. 

Rom. vii. 8 d^op/ii)* 2) AafloCaa 
^ dpapTta 8<d rift JrroAqt *a- 
ritpyAaaro Ir J/*oj wa<ra> info/iiar. 

Rom. viii. 28 oi3ajy 82 &n rofi 
u-ya<i<Tc rdx Hiuf wdrra <rvf* 
PV 1 /t d-yaflu*'. 

Rom. ix. 21 ^ od f\i ifovaiav 
> pa/*i>r row *t;Xov. TOW aw- 
rov <pupnfM7at woifpai 6 /Ur /t n/i^r 
<; Cot, & 

Test. Levi. 
immvovOi* Iv rait otuuatt. 

Test. Sym. 6 
r^v d/io^r/ 

Test Neph. 8 ai wo IrroXal 
<iaf ml tt rtiivwrcH \v rafti avrarr, 

Test. Bcnj. 40 dYa0 
rur Oox 


Rom. xii. I wapaarjjaai ra owpara 
vnaiv Ovaia* faca*, by lav, 

p< o^waji' TOW 


motti TM 
8) Kvpiy 

Rom. xii. a I f^ Kii wr<i rov nuov, 

Rom. xiii. 12 dvoftv/j0a owf 
Ip^a TOW <rorovr, l^vao/fM0o 
rd 5Aa TOW tfxurut. 

Rom. xv. 33 o 8) eut T 

tipijVIJI /lTd WaVTO/K V/MUT. 

Rom. xvi. 30 <J 8i eot r^t ^ 
ov*Tpi\}ti TUK ZaTayay vvd T 
w^aj v^y b TQ X I. 

Test Beoj. 

*a TU aof. 

Test. Ncph. a OWTWT owoi ir aTi 
voiijacu tpya <potr6t. 

Test. Dan. 5 l^orr** rwr Bu 

Test Aser. 7 tu 


So far 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 

ns 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 Aposlolicon, ascribing it directly to St. Paul. 

avc we any reason to think that he originated the idea of 

making a collection of the Pauline Epistles. The very fact, as 

X.ihn points out, that he gives the same short titles to the Epistles 

that we find in our oldest MSS. (*pot pM^o/ow) implies that these 

: ormed part of a collection. Such a title would not be 

nt unless the books were included in a collection which had 
a distinguishing title of its own. In the Apostolicon of Marcion the 
Kpistles were arranged in the following order: (i)Gal., (2) i Cor., 

Cor, (4) Rom., (5) i Thess., (6) 2 Thess., (7) Laodic. = 
(8) Col., (9) Phil., (10) Philem. The origin of this 

Ixxxiv I. TO THE ROMA [$ 8. 

arrangement we cannot conjecture with any certainty ; but it may 

the Galatians is the < ; 
irily rested his case and in which the ant;- 
.ul is most prominent, while the four Epistle* of the 
<- grouped together at the conclusion. Anotl. 
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 
undoubted. In the Romans particularly he omitted chaps. 

r, x. s-xi. 32; xv.-xvi. Nor 

again can we doubt that he omitted and altered short passages in 
order to harmonize the teaching with his own. For instai 
x. a, 3 he seems to have read oynoofrrwr *w rfo eu. Both these 
statements must be admitted. But two further questions remain : 
Can we in any case arrive at the text of the J 
Marcion, and lias Marcion's text influenced the variations of our 
MSS. ? An interesting reading from this point of view is the omis- 
sion of wp*ro in i. 1 6 (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 ? 

need not pursue the history of the Epistle further. Frc : 
time of Irenaeus onwards we have full and complete citations in 
all the Church writers. The Epistle is recognized as being by 
ul, is looked upon as canonical ', and is a groundwork of 


One more question remains to be discussed its \ ! 
collection of St Paul's Epistles. According to the 
fragment on the Canon the Epistles of St. Paul were ea 
into two groups, those to churches and those to ; and 

this division permanently influenced the arrangement in the Canon. 
accounting of course incidentally for the varying place occuj 
the Epistle to ti. *. It is with the former groi 

we are concerned, and here we find that there i- 

i the order. Speaking roughly the earlier lists a., 
the Epistle to the Romans at the end of the collec 
lists, as for example the Canon of the received text, plac 
the beginning. 

For the earlier list our principal evidence is the Mura 
fragment on the Canon : cum t'pse btatus apostolus Paulus, stquens 
prodtttssoris sui lohannis ordintm, nonnisi nominatim s<; 
.':: aJC\f 

id Colossensa (quar : 
Tlussalcm ad Romanes (sfptimd). Nor dot 

.nek's theory that the i tic* had at the close 

eeood century ICM canonical authority than the Got pelt, tee Sanday. / 
Ltd.- 66. 

9.] IVlT.r.KITY l.KXXV 

stand alone. The same place apparently was occupied by Romans 
in the collection used by Tertullian, probably in that of Cyprian. 
It is suggested that it influenced the order of Marcion, who per- 
lups found in his copy of the Epistles Corinthians standing first, 
\\hile the position of Romans at the end may be implied in 
a passage of Origen. 

The later order (Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil, Col., Thcss.) is 
that of all writers from the fourth century onwards, and, with the 
rxception of changes caused by the insertion of the Epistle to the 
I lebrews, 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 

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 

I'.pistlcs was first made at Corinth, is ingenious but not conclusive, 

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 lime 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 Apostolic on \ by the end it appears 
to be definitely accepted as canonical 


The survey 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 
early date is not only relatively but absolutely very strong. Setting aside 
doubtful quotations, almost every Christian writer of the early pan 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 strong 
is this evidence and so clear are the internal marks of authenticity that the 
Epistle (with the exception of the last two chapters of which we shall speak 
presently) has been almost universally admitted to be a genuine work of 
was accepted as such by Banr, and in consequence by all members 
of the Tubingen school ; it is accepted at the present day by critics of every 
of opinion, by Hilgcnfcld, Holtzmann, Weizsickcr, Lipsius. liarnack, 
as definitely as by those who are usually classed as conservative. 

1 On this subject see Zahn, Gtschuktt, &<x, U. p. 344. 

Ixx EI'ISTI IE ROMA [$ 9. 

To this general acceptance there have been few exceptions. The r 
who denied the genuineness of the Epistle appears to have been 

.- ). The arguments on which be relied are mainly ht 
inpiies the existence of a Church in Rome, but we know from the 
Acts that no >uch Church existed. Equally impossible is it t 
should hare known such a number of persons in Rome, or that Aqnila 
and Priscilla should have been there at this time. He interact* XM. i.. 
literally, and asks why the aged mother of the Apostle should have wandered 
to Rome. He thinks that si. ia, 15, ai. aa must have been written a: 

The same them was maintained by Bruno Bauer*, and 
has been revived at the present day by certain Dutch and Swiss theologians, 
notably Loman and Steck. 

Loman (1883) denied the historical reality of Christ, and considered that all 
the Pauline Epistles dated from the second century. Christianity itself was the 
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 be should have done so at such an early period in the history 

t Unity would demand a miracle to account for its history ; a r 
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 ha 
with regard to the composition of the Roman Church prove (he argues) that 
there is no clear historical situation implied . Steck (i 888) has devoted himself 
primarily to the I j istlc to the Galatians which he condemns as inconsistent 
with the Acts of the Apostles, and as dependent upon the other leading Epistle*, 
but be incidentally examines these also. All alike he puts in the second 
century, arranging them in the following order : Romans, 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 Atmmptio Moris 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 distinguish different recensions. Earliest of 
these was \\eissc (1867), who in addition to certain more reasonable t 
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(i8S6), Michelsen (1886), Voelter (1889, 90), Van Manen (1891). 

Pierson and Naber* basing their theory on some slight allusions in Josepbus, 
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 Panlus Episcopns, a Christian who incorporated them 

1 Evanson (Edward), T*t Ditto*** *f tk* four ttntrmlfy nahtd Eva*. 


Bruno t. . 1853. Ckruttu *nd di< C&tmnn, 

, QuaaH*i*s Pa*li*ai t TktcUgistk Tijdtckrifl, 1883, 1883, 

! *-^ 

k (Rudolf), Dtr Gatattrtritf *acA tti*tr Ecklktit unttnucht. Berlin, 

ntr&gt mr Krittk dtr rauliniitkt* Britft an dtt 
Cntalir. KSmtr, rkiliffir * 

.itclodami, 1880. 

$0.] iNTttikiiY Ixxxvii 

in letter* which be wrote in order to nuke op for his own poverty of religious 
and philosophical idea*. An examination of their treatment of a tingle chapter 
may be appended. The basis of ch. vi it a Jewish fragment (admoJum 
mtmorabiie) which extends from ver. 3 to vcr. n. This fragment Paulo* 
Episcopus treated in his usual manner. He begins with the foolish <; 
ot vcr. a which shows that he dues not understand the argument that follows. 
He added interpolations in ver. 4. Itiatm odor am ur m.tnum tiut ver. 5. 
If we omit T A/* ""/* 1 " >" y cr. 5 the difficulty in it vanishes, Ver. 8 again is 
feeble and therefore was the wotk of Panlus Episcopus: non tnim crtdimut 
nos tut vUturot, ttd novimus not vivcrt (ver. il). w. 11-33 Wltn 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 uses of the Church 1 . It will probably not 
be thought necessary to pursue this subject further. 

Michclscn* basing his theory to a certain extent on the phenomena of the 
last two chapters considered that towards the end of the second century 
three recensions of the Epistle were in existence. The Eastern containing 
ch. i-xvi. 24; the Western cb. i-xiv and xvi. 25-37; the Marcionite ch. 
i-xiv. The redactor who put together these recensions was however also 
responsible for a considerable number of interpolations which Michelsen 
undertakes to distinguish. Voltcr's* theory is more elaborate. The original 
Epistle according to him contained the following portions of the Epistle. 
.?; 5. 6; &-J7; v. and vi. (except v. 13, 14, ao ; vi. 14,15): xu, xiii ; 
\v. i4-.u; xvi. 31-33. This bears all the marks of originality ; its Christology 
is primitive, free from any theory of prc-cxistcnce or of two natures. To the 
first interpolator we owe i. 18; iii. 30 (except ii. 14, 15); viii. i, 3-39: 
i. ib-4. Here the Christology is different ; Christ is the pre-existent Son of 
God. To the second interpolator we owe iil 31 iv. 35; v. 13, 14, ao; vi. 
14, 15 ; vii. 1-6 ; ix. x ; xtv. i xv. 6. This writer who worked about the year 
70 was a determined Antinomian, who could not see anything but evil in the 
Law. A third interpolator is responsible for vii. 7-35 ; viii. 3 ; a fourth for 
14.15; xv. 7-13; a fifth for xvi. 1-30 ; a sixth for xvi. 34 ; a seventh 
for xvi. 35-37. 

Van Mancn * 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 

seem 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 of 

Christian history would be futile. There is no criterion of style or of language 

uhich enables us to distinguish a document from the interpolations, and we 

should be compelled to make use of a number of writings which we could not 

or trust or criticize. If the documents arc not trustworthy, neither is our 


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 tne documents of early Christianity. 

1 Of. /., pp. 139-143- 

iielsen (J- H. A.), Thtologisck Tijdsckrift, 1886, pp. 373 ft, 473 ff.; 
1887, p. 163!!. 

her (Danicl\ Thtolo^ch Tijduhrift, 1889, p. 365 ff.; and Dit Com- 
petition dtr ptatL Hauptbrieft, /. Dtr Romtr- ttnd Galattrbritf, 1890. 

Van Manen (W. d), Thtologisek Tijduhrift, 1887. Mardon'i Britf va* 
P**ltu MM dt Galatilt, pp. 383-404, 451-533; and P&xlut II, D* brief 
man dt Komtintn. Leiden, 1891. 

IE ROMA [} 9. 

It has been pointed out that interpolation theories are not as absurd at they 
'rimafatit be held to be, for we have instances of the process actually 
taking place. The obvious examples are the Ignatbn 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 Didatkt for example 
M hen included in the Apostolic Constitutions. Nor are we without evi<! 
interpolations in the N. T. ; the phenomenon of the Western text presents 
exactly the same characteristics. May we not then expect the same to have 
happened in other cases where we have little or no information? N 
dealing with a document which has come down to us in a single 
version, or on any slight traditional evidence this possibility must always be 
considered, and it b necessary to be cautious in arguing from a single passage 
in a text which may have been interpolated. Those who doubted the genuineness 

of the Armenian fragment of Arutidcs 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 

Hunan*** 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 b used in favour of interpolation theories 
is the difficulty and obscurity of some passages. No doubt there are passages 
which arc difficult ; but it is surely very gratuitous to imagine that everything 
1$ genuine b easy. The whole tendency of textual criticism b to prove 
that it is the custom of * redactors' or 'correctors' or ' interpolators' to produce 
.1 text which is always superficially at any rate more easy than the genuine 
1 ;ut on the other side, although the style of St. Paul b certainly not 
always perfectly smooth ; although he certainly b 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 b 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 
terpolation. But in the case of St Paul we may go further. Even where there 
is a break in the argument, there b almost always a verbal connexion. When 
St Paul passes for a time to a side issue there b a subtle connexion in thought 

has been pointed out in the notes on xi. 10; xv. 20, where the question of 
interpolation has been carefully examined; and if any one will take the 
trouble to go carefully through the end of ch. v and the beginning of ch. vi, 
he will see how each sentence leads on to thr instance, the first 

part of v. jo, which b omitted by some of these critics, leads on immediately 
to the second (Aorarj7 . . - JwXstWw), that suggests <,*,( wipieo,,*, then 
come* sriUsffaVy in vi. i ; but the connexion of sin and death clearly suggests 
the words of ver. a and the argument that follows. The same process may 
be worked out through the whole Epistle, r or the most part there b a clear 
and definite argument, and even where the logical continuity is brok< 
it always a connexion either in thought or words. The Epistles of St. Paul 
present for the most part a definite and compa 

nal evidence which b given in detail 
.hove, we may feel reasonably cor. he historical conditions under 



which the Epistle has come down to ns make the theories of this new school 
of critics untenable '. 

\\e have laid great stress on the complete absence of any textual justifica- 
tions for any of the 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- 
, and a careful examination of them and of the theories suggested to 
explain them is necessary'. 

ill be convenient first of all to enumerate these facts: 
The words ir T^p in i. 7 and 15 are omitted by the bilingual MS. G 
both in the Greek and Latin text (K is here defective). Moreover the cursive 
47 adds in the margin of vcr. 7 TV i* 'Po>Ml? oOrt iv TJJ ifrj^ati ovrt Jr ty 
forty pvTinoi ; n 'htfoot attempted to find corroborative evidence for 

this reading in Origen, in the writer cited as Ambrosiaster, and in the reading 
of D Jr dytivrj for dynwrjTuit. That he U wrong in doing so seems to be shown 
by Dr. Hurt ; 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 sufficient ; 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, but evidence sufficiently good to 
demand an explanation. 

(a) There U considerable variation in existing MSS. concerning the place of 
the final doxology (xvi. 25-37). 

a. In MBCDI minute, fiaut. eodd. a/. Orig.-lat., def Vulg. Pesh. Boh. 
Aeth., Orig.-lat Ambrstr. Pelagius it occurs at the end of chap. xvi. and there 

b. In L minute, plus quam aoo, codJ. af. Orig.-lat., Hard., Chrys, Thcodrt 
Jo.-Uamasc. it occurs at the end of chap, xiv and there only. 

c. In A P 5. 17 Arm. todd. it is inserted in both places. 

d. In I-'*', i ; v,/./ <j*. llieron. (fit Eph. iii. 5), g, Marcion (vuf* infra) it Is 
entirely omitted. It may be noted that G leaves a blank space at the end of 
chap, xiv, and that f b taken direct from the Vulgate, a space being left in V 
in the Greek corresponding to these verses. Indirectly D and Sedulius also 
attest the omission by placing the Benediction after ver. 24, a transposition 
which would be made (see 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 the end of the Epistle, and 
there only, (ii) That the variation in position a variation which must be 
explained U early, probably earlier than the time of Origen, although we 
can never have complete confidence in Kufinus* translation, (iit) That the 
o for complete omission goes back to Marcion, and that very probably 
his excision of the words may have influenced the omission in Western 

1 The KnglUh reader will find a very full account of this Dutch school of 
owling, Tkt Witness of tk* Epistles, pp. 133-343. A very 
careful compilation of the results arrived at is given by Dr. Carl Clemen, Die 
Einheitlickkeit der rau'.inischt* Bnefe. To both these works we must 
express our obligations, and to them we most refer any who wish for further 

' The leading discussion on the last two chapters of the Romans b con- 
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 in 
Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 287-3^4. 

NS [ 9. 

There b very considerable evidence that Marcion omitted the whole of 
the last two chap: 

vol. Til, p. 453, e<L Lomm. write* : Cafiut hot 

Harden, a amo Scriptural Evangtlieo* at?** Afostoiua* interfolatae - 
hot epiitcla finite abttmlit ; tt mom solmm ko< t ud tt ab <o Ixo.ubi > 
tit: omnc autcm quod noo est ex fide, peocatmn est : usque ad Jiium cuncta, 
dnttci.. vero exemplar*! t. kit quae turn nut/ a Marti*** 

ttmonta, hoc iptum eapmt atvers* positmm invenimus, im monnullis 

eodieibms post turn locum, quern suf>ra diximus hot at: omnc autcm quod noo 
est ex fide, peccatum est : ttatim coktrems kaoetur: ei autem, qoi potent et 
vos confumarc. Alii 9ero eodic*s i* Jin* id, ut mmme est fositum, continent. 

This extract is quite precise, nor is the attempt made by Hort to cmr 
all successful. He reads in for ab, havm. a Paris MS., 

and then emends koc into hit ; reading *t mom sotum kit uJ et in to loco, Ac, 
and translating and not only here bat also/ at xtv. .-.; he cut out everything 
quite to the end.' He applies the words to the Doxolorr alone. The change* 

in the text are tltght and might be justified, but with this change the words 
that follow become quite meaninglm : usqut ad fincm emmet* tliueemit can 
only apply to the whole of the two chapters. If Origen meant the doxology 

they would be quite poinUeat. 

b. But we have other evidence for Marcion's text Tertullian, Adv. Marc. v. 
14, quoting the words tribunal Ckristi (xir. lo), states that they o 
elamsula of the Epistle. The argument is not conclusive but the words 
probably imply that in Marcion's copy of the Eputle, if not in all those known 
rtullian, 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 Tertullian, Marcion, Irenaeus, and probably Cyprian 

vcr quote from these last two chapters. The argument however is of little 
value, because the same may be said of I Cor. xvi. The chaters 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 capitula- 
tions in MSS. of the Vulgate. In Codex Amiatinus the table of contents gives 
fifty-one sections, and the fiftieth section is described thus : D* periemlo com- 
tristamt* fratrem mum eua sua, et quod nom sit regnum Dei etc* et potmt ted 

. et pax ttgaudimm im Spirit it Samcto ; this is followed by the t 
and last section, which is described as De mysterio Domini ant* passionem in 
$il*ntiokabito t postpassiom*m9*roipsiusrevelato. The obvious deduction is 
that this system was drawn up for a copy which omitted the greater part at any 
rate of chaps, xv and xvi. This system appears to have prevail*! 
In the Codex Fuldcnsis there are given in the table of contents i. 
sections : of these the first twenty-three include thr whole Epistle up to the 
end of chap, xiv, the last sentence being headed Quod jUc let Dei mom debeant 

deooat divino iudicio ptmpatmrt mt ante tribunal Dei tine confusion* potsit 

op*rum suorum praejlare rationem. Then follow the last t* 

of the Amiatine system, beginning with the twenty-fourth at ix. i. 

chaps, ix xiv are described twice. The scribe seems to have bad 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 up 

what he felt to be the right number of fifty-one. 

Both these systems seem to exclude the last two chapters, whatever reason 
we may give for the phenomenon. 

(5) Lastly, some critics haw discovered a certain amount of significance in 

t.s.'v i.i:.:>. 

9.] INTEC! 


a. The prayer at the end of chap, xv is supposed to represent, ehber wUh 

or without the d/|r (which is omitted in some MSS., probably incorrectly), a 

conduct -n 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 


c two conclusions xvi ao and 34 of the T R are supposed to represent 

endings to two different recensions of the Epistle. But as will be seen by 

referring to the note on the passage, this is based upon a misreading. The 

is a late conflation of the two older forms of the text The 

.ion stood originally at ver. ao and only there, the verses that followed 

being a sort of postscript Certain MSS. which were without the doxology (sec 

above) moved it to their end of the Epistle after ver. 33, while certain others 

placed it after ver. a?. 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 out ; 

e these verses will not support the deductions made from them by 

.. 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 rale had 
attracted notice, and Semler (1769), Griesbach (1777) * d <*&*** 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 hypothecs 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 l , although, as was usual with him, on purely 
a 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 
a miniver of circumcision,' which is inconsistent with bis 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 
large number of critics in condemning the result may excuse our pursuing 
em in further detail. Doctrinally his views were only consistent with a one- 
led theory of the Pauline position and teaching, and if that theory is given 
up then his arguments become untenable. As regards his literary criticism the 
opinion of Kenan may be accepted: 'On est surpris qu'un critique aussi 
habile que Baur se soil content* d'une solution aussi grossiere. Pourquoi un 
faussaire aurait-il invent* de si insignificants details! Pourquoi aurait-il ajoutc 

:.ige sacrc une liste de noms propresM*. 

But we are not without strong positive arguments in favour of the genuine- 
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 U 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 or 
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 Paul 
elsewhere in the Epistle. No theory therefore can be accepted which does not 

i. l : 


ridad tl 

n tl an 

1 Tkvltgixk* Zeitung, 1836, pp. 97, 144. /./;. 1866, pp. 393 & 
St. Paul, p. Ixxi, quoted by Lightfoot, Biblical Essay$ t p. 890. 

1. TO THE ROMANS [$ 9. 

recognize that xiv and XT. 13 form a single paragraph which matt not be 

irther than this the remainder of chap. XT shows every sign of being 
a genuine work of the Apostle. The argument of Pdey baaed upon the collec- 
tion for the poor Christian* at Jerusalem is in this case almost demo: 
(tee p. xxxvi). The reference to the Apostle's intention of visiting Spain, to the 
circumstances in which be is placed, the dangers be U expecting, hit hope of 
viaiting Rome fulfilled in such a very different manner, are all inconsistent with 
poriousnets ; while most readers will feel in the personal touches, 
combination of boldness in asserting his mission with consideration 
feelings of his readeis, in the strong and deep emotions which are o<xn 
allowed to come to the surface, all the most characteristic marks of the 
Apostle's writing. 

Banr's views were followed bv Schwegler, Holrten, Zeller, and other*. 
bat have been rejected by Mangold. Hilgenfr! tsicker. and 

Upsra*. A modified form is put forward by Locht , who considers that parts 

are genuine and part spurious : in fact he applies the interpolation theory to 

by Upsios). Against 
any such theory the arguments are conclusive. It has all the disadvantages of 

these two chapters (being followed to a slight extent 

the broader theory and does not either solve the problem suggested by the mann- 
script evidence or receive support from it. For the rejection of the last two 
chapters as a whole there is some support, s we have seen ; for believing that 

tain interpolations (except in a form to be considered immediately) there 
is no external evidence. There is no greater need for suspecting interpolations 
in chap, xv than in chap 

may dismiss then all such theories as imply the spur i ousness of the last 
two chapters and may pajs on to a second group which explains the pheno- 
mena of the MSS. by supposing that our Epistle has grown up through the 
combination of different letters or parts of letters 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 n 
explaining all the facts, is that of Kenan '. He supposes that the so-called 

to the Romans was a circular letter and that it existed in four < ; 

1 i:..> : 

(i) A letter to the Romans. This contained chap, i-xi and chap. xv. 

: to the Ephesians. Chap, i-xiv and xvL i -ao. 
A letter to the Tbessalonian*. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 2 1-24. 
(iv) A letter to an unknown church. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 25-37. 
In the last three letters there would of course be som 
chap, i, of which we have a reminiscence in the variations o! 

theory is supported by the following amongst other argum 
' e know, as in the case of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that St. Paul 
wrote circular letters. <,, :le as we hav it has four endings, 

xvi. ao, - Each of these really represented the ending of a separate 

llpistle. (iii) There are strong internal giounds for 
was addressed to the Ephesian Church, (iv) The Macedonian name* oc 

4 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 win !..-. i such little knowledge as that 

d i, M, 

This theory has one advantage, that it accounts for all the facts : but there 
are two arguments agai: are absolutely conclusive. One U that 

there are not four codings in the l-.piit le at all ; xv. 33 U not like any uf the 

1 Lncht, Cbtrdit b<Men Utttt* Capittl du Romtr!- 

ory is examined at great length by 
ghUoot, of. -, ff. 

9.] INTEGK; xciii 

endings of St. Paul's Epistles ; while, as is shown above, the origin of the 
duplicate benediction, xvi. ao and 24, must be explained on purely 
ground*. If Kenan's theory had been correct then we should 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, xiv from the 
Tint thirteen rerses of chap. XT. The arguments on this subject need not be 
repeated, but it may be pointed out that they are as conclusive against Kenan's 
hypothesis as against that of IJaur. 

nan's theory has not received acceptance, 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, xvi 

ciss, 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, dome consider that it 
includes vv. 17-21, others make it stop at ver. 16. 

The arguments in favour 'of this view are as follows: I. It is pointed out 
that it is hardly likely that St Paul should have been acquainted with such 
a Urge 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 detail* 
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. 2. This opinion is corroborated, it is said, by an examination of the 
list itself. Aqnila 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). 
y next name Epaenetns 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 

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 doxology and of the omission of 
the last two chapters remain as they were. It is only if we insert a benc- 
tx>th at ver. ao and at ver. 24 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 must 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 
>, 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 

But this evidence cannot be called very strong. It is admitted by Weiss 
and Mangold, for instance, that the a priori 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 i* 
admitted again that it would be natural that, in writing to a strange church. 
St. Paul should lay special stress on all those with whom he was acquainted or 

xciv !E ROMA [J 9. 

of whom he had heard, in order that be might thus commend himself to them. 
Again, when we come to examine the names, we find that those actually con- 
nected with Ephesus are only three, and of these persons two are known to 
have originally come from Rome, while the third alone can hardly be con- 
sidered sufficient support for this theory. When again we come to examine 
the warning against heretics, we find that after all it is perfectly consistent 
c body of the Epistle. If we conceive it to be a warning against false 
teachers whom St. Paul (ears may come but who have not yet done so, it 
exactly suits the situation, and helps to explain the motives he had in 
!},c i . He . - ". ' ' :. ' :. bl h MB ... ' that the] u.v, 


Tbt arguments against these verses are not strong. What is the value of 
the definite evidence in their favour? This bo" two classes, 
archaeological evidence for connecting the names in Rome, 

(ii) The archaeological and literary evidence for connecting any of the persons 

MBti Md here u ;: . t:.c Rl BJM : . : .. 

(i) In his commentary on the Philippians, starting from the tex 
a<r*aCovTat (IUQ.I ... MaAi0Ye> ol i* TOV KaUfOfot olnat, Up. 1 
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 in*, 
of certain columbana 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. 
xvi. 3-16 may be found amongst these, and the publication of th 
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 

Now what does this prove? It does not prove of coarse that these are 
the persons to whom the Epistle was written ; nor does it give over* 
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 
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, 
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 Hennas may be paralleled elsewher 

have attempted to institute some comparison, but it is not very easy and will 

not be until we have more satisfactory collections of Grr< 

we take the Greek Cerfus we shall find that in the inscriptions of Ephesus 

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 uhat this 

comparison suggests is that such a combination of names - < 

u-oidd as a matter of fact only be found in the mixed population which 

formed the lower and middle classes of Rome -t con- 

elusive, but it shows that there is no afriori improba 

Roman, and that it would be difficult anywhere else to illustrate such an 

To this we may add the further evidence afforded by the explanation given 
by Bishop Lightfoot and repeated in the notes, of the households of Narcissus 
andAristobuTus: evidence again only corrobor of some w, ; 

r chaeological evidence is that for connecting the names 
us, and Apelles definitely with the ca 

have been discussed sufficiently in the 
nd it is only necessary to say here that it would be an excess of 



scepticism to look upon such evidence as worthiest, although it might not 
wn L ;h much if there were strong evidence on the other side. 

To sum op 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 priori. Thev 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 
<! rawing of the picture which we have been able to present must be allowed to 
weigh in the evidence. 

iche (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 pcrifof* adultcnu 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 
further evidence there is for this omission, and are confronted with a large 
number of arguments which inform us that it is clearly unpanline because it 
in style, in phraseology, and in subject-matter with non-paulmc 

Epistles that to the Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. This argument 

It will be 

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. 

.it 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. Ughtfoot He considers that the 
original Epistle to the Romans written by St. Paul contained all our present 
Kpistle except xvi. 25-27; that at a somewhat later period the period 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 Jr 'Pw/*p 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. 

1 ightfoot 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 us 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. Liphtfoot 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 till) BsHI 
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 Til [$ 9. 

must refer I and to Dr. Hort's own essay for the reasons v 

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 sh- 

oocc more to sum up the great ideas of which the Kputle it full and j 

clearly and strongly before his readers is quite in accordance with the whole 

mind of the Apostle. He does so in fact at the conclusion of the Calaliaji 

although not in the form of a doxology. 

i iort then proceeds to criticixe and explain away the textual phenomena. 
We have quoted his emendation of the passage in Origeo and pointed oat that 
it is to us most unconvincing. No single argument in mvour of the existence 
of the shorter recension may be strong, but the combination of reasons is 
in oar opinion too weighty to be explained away. 

Hurt's own cooclusioos are: (i) He suggests that as the last two 
chapters were considered unsuitable for public reading, they might be on 
systems of lectionaries w 1 .logywhich was felt t was 

appended to chap, xiv, that it might be read. (>) Some such theory as this 
might explain the capitulations. The analogy of the common Greek capita, 
labons shows how easily the personal or local and as it were temporary portions 
of an epistle might be excluded from a schedule of cha, 
(3) The omission of the allusions to Rome is due to a si 
acddent. (4) ' When all is said, two facts have to be explained, the insertion 
of the Doxology after xiv and its omission/ This latter is due to Mardon, 
which must be explained to mean an omission agreeing with the reading in 
Maroon's copy. 'On the whole it is morally certain that the omission to 
his only as having been transmitted by him, in other words that it is a genuine 
ancient reading.' Dr. Hort finally concludes that though a genuine reading it 
is incorrect and perhaps arises through some accident such as the tearing off 
of the end of a papyrus roll or the last sheet in a book. 

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

c ourselves incline to an opinion suggested first we believe by 


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. XT si .mitted ; w 

at this place, certainly not a suitable one, that the break occurs? As we have 
seen, a careful examination of the text shows that t teen verses of 

chap, xv are linked closely with chap, xiv *o closely that it is impossible to 
believe that they are not genuine, or that the ApostlV 
them off from the context in publishing a sh- 
tended for a wide circulation. Nor again to it probable that any one arranging 

,r church services would have made ti. 

The difficulty of the question to of coarse obscured for us by the 
into chapters. To os if we wished to cut off the more personal part of the 

time before the present or 
probably any 'division int 

Now if there were no solution possible, we might possibly ascribe thU 
division to accident; but as a matter of (act internal evidence and r 
testimony slike point to the same cause. We have seen that there to con 
siderable testimony for the (act that Marcion excised the last two chapters, and 
xamine the beginning of chap, xv we shall find that as far as regards 
cca verses hardly any other coarse was possible he held 

Epistle.a rough and ready method might suggest 
last two chapters, but we are dealing with a 
probably any division into chapters existed. 


re ascribed to him. To begin with, five of these 
contain quotations from the O. T. ; but further ver. 8 contains an exj 

ip X/xardr kaxorov yiyt^o9tu wtpiropip Mp dXrj$tiat eov, 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. The 

words at the end of chap, xiv might seem to make a more suitable ending 

.tier of the next two verses, and at this place the division was drawn. 

mainder of these two chapters could be omitted simply because they 

.x-los for the definite dogmatic purpose Marcion had in view, and the 

Doxology which he could not quite like would go with them. 

It we once assume this excision by Marcion it may perhaps explain the 

aena. Dr. Hort has pointed out against Dr. Ughtfoot'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. 

to be added on the strength of the blank space after xiv, yet ***& it 

leaves out the Doxology.' We may add also the capitulations of Codex 

Fuldensis which again, as Dr. Hort points out. have no trace of the Doxology. 

ulence therefore points to the existence of a recension simply leaving 

last two chapters. 

Now it is becoming more generally admitted that Marcion 's Apcstolicon had 

some if not great influence on variations in the text of the N.T. His 

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 

.;. it was natural to make the division at a place where in a current 

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 

:^ in order to give a more suitable conclusion, or to preserve it for 

reading at this place, and subsequently it dropped oat 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 put 

t only at xiv. 33. 

mains to account for the omission of any reference to Rome in the first 
of G. This may of course be a mere idiosyncracy of that MS., arising 
either Irom carelessness of transcription (a 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. 
tion was made with a strongly dogmatic purpose. Local and personal 
as would have little interest to him. The words 4r *Po//*?j could easily be 
! 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. DFG. 
In the second of these, he suggests that the archetype from which these MSS. 
ved (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- 
ic may be admitted indeed, that the capitulations of the Codex 
have been made for a copy which ended at xv. 13, bat they 
present no solid argument for the existence of such a copy. Dr. Corssen 
points out that in the section xv. 14 xvi. 23, there are a considerable number 


\ NS [$ 9. 

t source for 

of variation* in the tent, and suggests that that implies a differen 

that portion of the epistle, The number of variations 
fri*t>p aJultetat are. it to well known, considerable ; and in the Mune way 
be would argue that this portion which has all these variations most come from 
a separate source. Bat the (acts do not support hit contention. It true 
that in forty-ihree vene be is able to enumerate t went) -four variation* ; 
we examine the twenty-three verse* of chap, xiv we shall find fourteen 
us, a still larger proportion. Moreover, i ie are as numerous 

and as important variations as in any of the following verses. Dr. Cornea's 
arguments do not bear out bis conclusion. As a natter of fact, as I 
pointed out against Dr. Hotfoot, the text of I) F G presents exactly the same 
phenomena throughout tbe 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 

ibstantially the Epistle 
enbb brief] SH 

perhaps prove, that the archetype contained tbe last two chapters. The scribe 

archetype is alone of almost alone amongst our sources for the : 
omitting the Dpxology. It also omits as we have seen Jr 'Pwjty in both places. 
:ld 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 reprc 
that St. Tanl wrote to the Romans, and it remains only t 
somewhat complicated ending. At xv. 13 the didactic portion of it is 
eluded, 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. i, a) ; then salutations (3-16). The Apostle might 
now close the Epistle, but his sense of the danger to which the Roman * 
may be exposed, if it is visited by false teachers, such as he is acquaint, 
in the Ka*t. leads him to give a final and direct warning against then 
find a not dissimilar phenomenon in tbe Eputle to the Philippians. '1 
iii. i he appears to be concluding, but before he concludes be breaks * 
a strong, even indignant warning against false teachers (iii. Z-.M), an 
after that dw ells long and feelingly over his salutations. The *. . 
of ending need not therefore surprise us when we meet it in tbe Romans. 
Then comes (xvt ao) the conclodin K > a postscr., 

salutations from the companions of Then finally the Apostle, wish- 

ing perhaps, as Dr. Hort suggests, to rai* to the serene 

tone which has characterized it throughout, adds the con 
summing up the whole argument of th< There is surely nothing 

unreasonable in supposing that there would be an absence of complete same- 
ness in the construction of the different letters. ! cly that all would 
exactly correspond to the same model. Tbe form in each ca*e would be 
altered and changed in accordance with the fe< : Apostle, and there 
b abundant proof throughout that the Apostle felt earnestly tbe 
need of preserving the Roman Church from the evils of disunion and false 

$ 10. ( 

A very complete and careful bibliography of the Epistle to the 
Romans was added by the to the 

s Commit: not be 

a few leading v .ioned, 

as have been roost largely used in the ; 




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 AuuiWif at p. 147 ff., and of the interpretation of 
ch. ix. 6-29 on p. 269 ff. The arrangement is, roughly speaking, 
chronological, but modern writers arc grouped rather according to 
their real affinities than according to dates of publication which 
would be sometimes misleading. 

i. Greek Writers. 

ORIGEN (Orig.); ob. 253: Comment, in Epist. S. Pauli ad 
Romanes in Origenis 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. Kocischau, and in England by 
Prof. Armitage Robinson and others is however much needed. 

The Commentary on our Epistle belongs to the latter part of 
Origen's life when he was settled at Cacsarea. A few fragments of 
the original Greek have come down to us in the Philocalia (ed. 
Robinson, Cambridge, 1893), anc * in Cramer's Catena, Tom. iv. 
(Oxon. 1844); but for the greater part we are dependent upon the 
condensed translation of Rufinus (hence ' 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 
'Oris.-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 ORIGENFS in 
Diet. Chr. Biog. iv. 115-118. 

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 angering as he is in propounding them Origen would have left 
little 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 
average reader. 

VSOSTOM (Chrys.) ; ob. 407 : Homil. in Epist. ad Romano*, 
Field: Oxon. 1849; a complete critical edition. A translation 
h i 

c C TO THE B [ 10. 

(not i of Savilc's text which is superior t< 

B, Morris, was given in the Library of the Fathers, 
i: Oxford. 1841. The Homilies were delivered at A: 
probably between 387-397 A. D. They show the preacher 
best and arc full of moral enthusiasm and of sympathetic human 
insight into the personality of the Apostle ; they are also tin- 
of an accomplished scholar and orator, but do not always sou: 
i of the great problems with which the Apostle is wr< 

at once the merits and the limitations of Antiochene 

ODORET (Theodrt., Thdrt.) played a well-known moderating 
part in the controversies of the fifth centu s A. D. 

As a commentator he is a p<di*juus but one of the best of the 
many pedisequi of St. Chrysostom. His Commentary on ti 
to the Romans is contained in his Works, ed. Sirm< 
1642, Tom. iii. 1-119; a ^ cd* Schulze and Noesselt, i 

JOANNES DAMASCENES ( Jo.-Damasc.) ; died before 754 
commentary is almost entirely an epitome of Chrysostom 
printed among his works (ed. Lequien : 1 
c so-called Sacra ParaUcla 
name are now known to be some two c- 
probably in great part the work of Leon ;rn (see the 

brilliant researches of Dr. F. Loots : Studicn tibtr die dem Johannes 
von Damascus tugeschricbfnen Parallels, Halle, 1892). 

OECVMENIVS (Oecum.) ; bishop of Tricca in Thessaly in the 

Commentary on Romans occupies pp. 

413 of his Works (ed. Joan. Hentenius: Paris, 1631). It is prac- 
tically a Catena with some contribution msclf ; 
udes copious extracts from Photius (Phot.), the en 
:ch of Constantinople (c. 82O-*. 891) ; these are occasionally 

VII Ducas( 107 1-1078), and still Ir- 
is one of the best specimens of its kind (Of>p. ed. Vi 
, torn. ii. 1-118). 

,ABENUs(Euth>: : living at: monk 

in a monastery near Constantinople and in h the 

. Comnci. - on St i 

s were not published until 1887 (ed. Calogeras : A! 
.: reason they have not been utihzol m j 

drawn D] i 

heir tcrsenesv of thought, 

but like all the writers of this date they follov :. the foot- 

steps of Chrysostom. 


a. Latin Writers. 

AMBROSIASTER (Ambrstr.). The Epistle to the Romans heads 
a series of Commentaries on thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, whi< h 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 

;y in 1690, argued against their genuineness, \\hich lias been 
defended with more courage than success by the latest editor. 
P. A. Ballorini (S. Ambrosii Opcra^ 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 Hilarius 
(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 

in an address delivered at Bonn in 1880, but has since given 
the substance of them in his GeschichU d. rom. Kirctu, 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 still 

ut an owner. It has come out in the course of discussion 
that it | Moments a considerable resemblance, though not so much 
as to imply identity of authorship, with the Quaesliones ex ulroque 
Tfs/amfn/o, 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, 
i, but it has been used in this edition more for its interesting 
text than for the permanent value of its exegesis. 

\GIUS (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 Kpi-tles which is now known to proceed 
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 
( vlorus, and perhaps others, made excisions in the interests 
of orthodoxy. 

cii [$ 10. 

ii OF ST. VICTOR (Hugo a S. Victor- 
c. io< Amongst the works of the great mv 

ire published Atitgoria; in Xortim Testamentum, 
Alltgoriu ./// ad Romano* (\ 

P. L. elxxv, col. 879), and Quacslwnfs tt Decisi i 

i. In f'f'is/o/am ad Romano* (Migne, clxx-. 
The authenticity of both these is disputed. St. Hugh was a typical 
representative of the mystical as opposed to the rationalizing 
tendency of the Middle Ages. 

PETFR ABELARD, 1079-1142. Petri Abaelardi commtnlariorum 
S*. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanes libri quinqut (Migne, /'. / 
clxxviii. col. 783). The commentary is described as being ' 1 
theological, aqd moral. The author follows the text ex 

hrase, often each pan of a phrase separately, and 
ts (not always very successfully) to show the connexion of 
it. Occasionally he discusses theological or moral qu 
often with great originality, often showing indications of the opinions 
for which he was condemned* (Migne, op. cit. col. 30). So 
we have c< we have found it based partly on Origen . 

on Augustine, and rather weak and ind iractcr. 

THOMAS AQUINAS, c. 1225-1274, called Doctor Angelicus. 
Expositio in Epiitola* omnes Din Pauli Apostoli (Opp. Tom. xvi. 
1-93) formed part of the preparation wh; le for 

his great work the Sum ma Theologiae a preparation i sis ted 

careful study of the sentences of Peter Lombard, the Scri , 
with the comments of the Fathers, and the works of An 
commentary works out in great < method of exegesis ^ 

by St. Augustine. No modern reader who turns to it 
be struck by the immense intellectual po 

nd completeness of the logical a; 

chiefly as a complete and methodical exposition from a : 
point of view. That in attempting to fit 
St. Paul into the form of a scholastic syllc. 
every thought harmonize with the Augustinian doctrine of grace, 
there should be a tendency to make Su Paul's words fit a precon- 
ceived system is not unnatural. 

Information and Post-Rtforn. 

COLET, John (f. 1467-1 of St. Par t, the 

rasmus, delivered a series of lectures on the E{> 
the Romans about the year 1497 of Oxford. 

These were published in 1873 with a translation 1 upton, 

v arc' lull of interest 
as an historical mem 

Desiderius, 1466-1536. Erasmus 1 Greek Testament 

$10.] CO.'- KIES 


with a new translation and annotations was published in 1516; 

iraphrasis Xoi'i Ttstamenti, a popular work, in 1522. He 

was greater always in what lie conceived and planned than in the 

r in uhich he accomplished it. He published the first 

edition of the GredrNew 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. 

I h was more successful in raising questions than in solving them ; 

md his commentaries suffer as much from timidity as did those of 

r 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. 

LUTHKR, Martin, 1483-1546. Luther's contribution to the 
literature of the Romans was confined to a short Preface, published 
m i .-,.23. But as marking an epoch in the study of St. Paul's 
writings, the most important place is occupied by his Commentary 
on the Galatians. This was published in a shorter form, In epist. 
P. ad Galatas Mart. Luther i comment, in 1519; in a longer form, 
.j7. P. ad Gal. commentarius ex praelectionibus Mart. Luthtri 
colltclus, 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 Su 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. 

MKI.ANCHTHON, Philip (1497-1560), was the most scholarly of 
the Reformers. His Adnotationes in tp. P. ad Rom. with a preface 
by Luther was published in 1522, his Commentarii in Ep. ad Rom. 
in 1540. 

CALVIN, John (1509-1564). His Commentarii in omnes epistolas 
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 Question is an interesting one, how far Calvin brought his peculiar 
views ready-made to the study of the Epistle and how far he derived them 
from it by an uncompromising exegesis, we are glad to place before the 
reader a statement by one who is familiar with Calvin's writings (Dr. A. M. 
Kairhaim, 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: Expositions 
(i) of the Decalogue ; (u) of the Apostolic Creed ; (iii) of the Lord's Prayer; 

[$ 10 

(iv) of the Sacraments: (v) of the Roman or false doctrine of Sacraments; 
and vi ) of Christian Liberty or Church Polity. There U just a tingle pra- 

r ; !i . :. i ; : 1 : : , : ; ';:. ;-. :.' '>. en 

Romans and the and edition of the Iwtituitt. And the latter are greatly 
expanded with all his dlstinctire <!octhne fully developed. T\ 

icvclopmcnt was due to hit study (i) of Augustine, 
especially s -, and (a) of St. Paul. I: 

read through Augustine. The excgetical stamp is peculiarly distinct 
m the doctrinal parts of the Institutes ; and so I should say that his idea* 
were not so much philosophical as theological and exegeticaf in their bub. 
I ought to add however as indicating his philosophical V 
studies before he became a divine were on Seneca, Dt 

BEZA, Theodore ( 1 5 1 9-1 605). His edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment with translation and annotations was first published by 
H. St ; - his AJnota.'ionts majorts in X. T. at Paris 

in i->94. 

ARMI NIL'S (Jakob Harmensen), 1560-1609, Professor at L< 
1 603. As a typical example of the opposite school of in 
to that of Calvin may be taken Arminiu com- 

paratively few, and he produced few commentaries. icts of 

his however were devoted to explaining Romans 1I< 

admirably illustrates the statement of Hallam 
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 LAPIDE (van Stein), ob. 1637, a Jesuit, published 
his Comncntaria in omncs d. Pauli epnhlas at Antwerp in 1614. 

ESTI .n Est), ob. 1613, was Provost an lor of 

Douay. II:* In omnts Pauli tt aliorwn apostolor. tpislolas com- 
mentor, was published after his death at Dot: 4-1616. 

GROTIIS (Huig van Groot), 1583-1645. His A 
in N. T. were published at Paris in 1644. 
publicist and statesman had 1 - younger day* 

J. J. Scaliger at Leydcn, and his Commentary on the Bible was 
the first attempt to apply to its elucidation the more exact 
logical methods which he had learnt from i He had 

hardly the philological ability for the task he 
although of great personal piety was too much destitute of dogmatic 

The work of the philologists and scholars of the sixteenth and the 
first half of the seventeenth century on the Old and New Test 
was summed up in Critici A .shed in 1660. It 

MS extracts from the leading scholars from V .ismus 

to Grotius, and represents the point which philological * 
had up to th.i 

Two English commentators belonging to the seventeenth century 
deserve no 


HAMMOND, 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 Polyghtt. 
His Paraphrase and Annotation* of~the New Testament appeared in 
1 653, a few years before his death, at a tiro- 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 ezegeiical 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 
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 

LOCKE, John (1662-1704), the well-known philosopher, devoted 
his last years to the study of St Paul's Epistles, and in 1705-1707 
were published A Paraphrase and Notes to the Epistle of St. Paul 
to the Galaltans, the first and second Epistles to the Corinthians, and 
the Epistles to the Romans and Ep fusions. 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. 

BKNGKL, J. A. (Beng.), 1687-1752; a Lutheran prelate in 
WUrtemberg. 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. 

WKTSTEIN (or Wettstein), T. 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 
ment 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 Mill and Richard Bentley ; and 
besides his collation of MSS. he collected a mass of illustrative 
r on the N. T. from classical, patristic, and rabbinical sources 
which is still of great value. 

4. Modern Period. 

TIIOLUCX, F. A. G., 1799-1877 ; Professor at Halle. Tholuck 
was a man of large sympathies and strong religious character, and 

cvi i: TO TJI MS [ 10. 

both personally and through his commci 

in 1824 and has been more than once translated) exercised 

influence outside Gen , is specially marked in the Am 


FRITZSCHF, C. F. A. (Fri.), 1801-1846, Professor at Giessen. 

lie on R< 1 836-1843), like LOcke on St. 

and Bleek 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. Mr 
engaged in a controversy with Tholuck the asperity o: 
regretted before his death. He was however no doubt the better 
scholar and stimulated Tholuck to self-improvement in this r 

METER, H. A. W. (Mey.) t 1800-1873; Consist. n the 

kingdom of Hanover. Meyer's famous commentaries first began 
to appear in 1832, and were carried on with unresting cneiv 
succession of new and constantly enlarged editions 
There is an excellent English translation of the Com- 
Romans published by Messrs. T. and T. Clark under the 
ship of Dr. W. P. Dickson in 1873, 1874. Meyer and De 
c said to have been the founders of the modern s 1 
commenting, at once scientific and popular : scientific, 
rigorous at times too rigorous application of grami; 
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 edit< 
equal conscientiousness and thoroughness by Dr. Bernhard 

^or at Berlin (hence 'M< Dr. Weiss has not all his 

predecessor's vigour of style and is rather difficult to folio 
especially in textual criticism marks a real advance. 

Di WETTE, W. M. L. (De W.), 1 780-1849 ; Professor for a 
time at Berlin, whence he was dismissed, afterwards at Basel. I ! 
A'urggt/asstfs extgetisches Handbuch MUM Neufn Tes/amfr: 
appeared in 1836-1848. De Wette was an ardent lover of freedom 
uionalistically inclined, but his commentaries are models of 
brevity and pret 

STUART, Moses, 1780-1852 ; Professor at Andover, Mass. Comm. 
on Roman* first published in 1832 (British c<: ice by 

-Smith in 1833). At a time when Biblical exegesis was 
not being very actively prosecuted in G: :i two works of 

produced in America. One of these was by 
Moses Stuart, who did much to naturalize German met!. ' . I It- 
expresses large obligations to Tholuck, but is independent as 
a commentator and modified con of his 


* 7- 1 878; Professor at Princeton, New J 


His Comm. on Romans first published in 1835, rewritten in 1864, 
is a weighty and learned doctrinal exposition based on the principles 
of the Westminster Confession. Like N oses 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 
Grtfk Testament (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-Smilh) 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 (1856-1860, 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- hut a litnary scholar of a high 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 

JOWETT, B., 1817-1893; widely known as Master of Balliol 

e and Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford. 
His edition of St. 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 

. but the exegesis is loose and disappointing. 
Y.UGHAN, Dr. C. J. (Va.); Dean of Llandaff. Dr. Vaughan's 
edition first came out in 1859, and 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. 

W. ; associated at one time with the textual critic 
Tregelles. His Notes on the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1873), 

ritten from a detached and peculiar standpoint ; but they are 
tin- fruit of sound scholarship and of prolonged and devout study, 
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: 

:s from a very carelul exposition of the text, but is intended 
throughout as a contribution to systematic theology. The first 


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

GODET, Dr. F. (Go.), Professor at Neuchatcl. Commenlaire sur 

e mix Remains, Paris, Ac., 187 

T. and T. Clark's series, 1881. Godet and Oltramare are both 
-Swiss theologians with a German training ; and their com- 
-ries are somewhat similar in character. They are extremely 
full, -iving and discussing divergent interpretations under the : 

ir supporters. Both are learned and thoughtful works, 
strongest in exegesis proper and weakest in textual criticism. 

OLTRAMARE, Hugues (Oltr.), 1813-1894; Professor at Geneva. 
Commcnlairt fur Remains, published in 1881, 1882 

(a volume on chaps, i-v. n had appeared in 1843). Reset 
Godet in many particulars, Oltramare seems to us to ha 
stronger grip and greater indivith. exegesis, i 

original views of which he is fond do not always commend 
selves as right 

MOULB, Rev. H. C. G. (Mou.); Principal of Ridley 
Cambridge. Mr. Moule's edition (in the Cambridge Bible /or 
Schools) appeared in 1879. It reminds us of Dr. Vaugh 
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 Engli-h Churchman is likely to a <> Cal- 

vinism. Mr. Moule has also commented on the Epistle 
Expositor's Bible. 

i ORD, Dr. E. H. (Gif.) ; sometime Archdeacon of London. 
The Epistle to the Romans in The Speakers Commentary (1881) 
was contributed by Dr. Gilford, but is also published sepa 
We believe that this is on the whole the best as it is the most 
judicious of all English commentaries on th< There are 

few difficulties of exegesis which it docs not full . 1 the 

solution which it offers is certain to be at once st 
considered : it takes account of previous work both ancient and 
modern, though the pages are not crowd names and 

references. Our obligations to this comraentar -bably 

higher than to any 

;*>x, Dr. I .natory A' 

Epistle to the Romans, published posihunioti 
in an earlier fo; acd privately among Dr. Lukion's 

during his tenure of the Ireland Cliair (1870-188. 
was first printed in 1876, but after that date much cnla 

s, an analysis of the argument with v 

notes, but not a complete edition. It is perhaj .t the 

analysis is somewhat excess led and ub: 

exegesis it is largely based on 
hand of a most lucid writer and accomplished theologian. 


BARMBY, Dr. James; formerly Principal of Bishop HatfieUI's 
Hall, Durham. Dr. Barmby contributed Romans to the Pulpit 
Com mentary (London, 1890); a sound, independent and vigorous 

LIFSIUS, Dr. R. A. (Lips.), 1830-1892 ; Professor at Jena. This 
unwearied worker won and maintained his fame in other 
than exegesis. He had however written a popular com- 
mentary on Romans for the Protestanlenbibel (English translation, 
published by Messrs. Williams & Norgate in 1883), and he edited 
the same Epistle along with Galatians and Philippians in the 
Handcommentar turn Neuen Testament (Freiburg i. B., 1891). 
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. 

SinAiriR, Dr. A.; Professor at Monster. Dr. Schaefer's Er- 
kl.ining d. Brief es an die Romer (Mdnster 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. 

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

THEOPHANES, ob. 1893; was Professor and Inspector in the 
orsburgh 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 
I'M .uid 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 
often historical in his treatment, like him he sometimes fails to 
grasp the more profound points in the Apostle's teaching. 


Eccltsiastieal Writert (sec p. xcviii ff.). 




Aug. . 


Chrys. .... 



Cypr. . - 


-Jcnis. .... 
I*. . 

HippoL . 


Jer. (Hieron.) . 


!. . 
NovaL ... 


Orig. ... 

Orig.-Ut . . 


Phot . 


Sedul. . 

TCI ... 

Thx!.-M..j.s. . 


The ... 






Clement of Alexandria. 

Clement of Rome. 

of Alexandria. 
of Jcrusa! 

:uius Zigabenus. 





Latin Version of Orij 









Versions (see p. Ixvi f.). 
Boh. . 

. Egyptian. 
. Bohairic. ^ 

Sah. . 


Acth. . 
Arm. . . 

. . Ethiopia 
. Armenian. 

Goth. . 

. Gothic. 

Latt. . 

. Latin. 

Lat. VeL . 

, , Vetus Latino. 
. . . Vulgate. 

. . Syriac. 

Pesh. . 
Hard . . 

. . . Peshitto. 

Cov. . 

. . . Coverdalc. 



. '.. 

Rheims (or Douay). 
. Tyndale. 
. Wiclif. 

AV. . 

. Authorized Version. 

RV. . 

Revised Version. 

Editors (see p. cv ff.). 

T R 

1 . K. . 


. Textus Receptus. 
. Tischendorf. 



. . . Tregelles. 
. . Westcott and Ilort 

Alf. . f . . 

. Alford. 

Beng. . . 
Del. . 

... Bengcl. 
. Delitzsch. 

DeW. . . 

. DeWettc. 

Ell. . . . 

. . Ellicott. 

1-ri. . 
Gif. . 

. . . Fritzsche (C. F. A.). 
. Gifford. 

Go. . . . 

. Godet 

Lft . . . 
Lid . 

'. . Lightfoot 
. . Liddon. 

I ... 
Mov.-W. . 
Oltr. . 

. Lipsius. 
. Meyer. 
. . Meyer-Weiss. 
. Oltramarc. 

V.i. . 

. . Vaughan. 


C./.C7. . . . . ' ' ;us Inscnptionum 


CJ Corpus 

Grm.-T .... Grimm -Thayer's / 


Trench, .Spr. .... I: ,. ^\nonymt. 
Win. . . . \\ 'ini-r'i Grammar. 

. Expositor. 

JBExt^. .... Journal of the Socifty of 

/ :. ;iure 
and Kxfgesis. 

ZwTh Zeittchrij. 

schaflliihf Th< 

add. .1 ! ir. ;i Mum, &c. 

al. ...... alii, alibi. 

cat. (ca/tn.) catena. 

codd. codices. 

edd. cditores. cdiiorcs priorcs (older 


om omiitit. omittunt, Ac. 

ftauf. .... luci. 

pier plerique. 

plur plures. 

praem. .... ;>racmittit, j>raemittutit, 


rel .... reliqui. 

a/3. 4/5i Ac, ... 

r out of five tiroes, 

In text-critical notes adverbs (bis, temtl, &c.). ',, V $ ) and 

cod. codd., ed. edd. % ftc., always qualify the \vord \\lndi precedes, not 

Kpiph. cod. or Epiph. A/.= a MS. or some printed edition of 

N.B.-The toxt oomroentd upon U that commonly known M the 
ReriMra OtMk 'I he Greek Text prouppod in the Bericed 

Version of 1881) publiahed by the Clarendon PreM. The few inaUnoea 
in which the editors dissent from this text are noted as they occur 




I. 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 o\vn peculiar people. May the free unmerited favour of 
God and tho 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 

I. 2-6. I preach, in accordance with our Jewish Scrip- 
. Jesus the Son of David and Son of God t whose 
commission I bear. 

'The message which I am commissioned to proclaim is no 
startling novelty, launched upon the world without preparation, 
but rather the direct fulfilment of promises which God had 
d the prophets of Israel to set down in Holy Writ s lt 
relates to none other than His Son, whom it presents in a twofold 
aspect ; on the one hand by physical descent tracing His lineage 

this one Instance we have ventured to break op the long and heavily- 
weighted sentence in the Greek, and to treat its two main divisions separately. 
Bat the second of these is not in the strict sense a parenthesis : the construction 
of the whole paragraph is com im 


to David, as the Messiah was lo do, 4 and on the other h. 
virtue of the Holiness inherent in His q !y designated or 

declared to be Son of God by the miracle of the Resurrection 
I say, is the sum and substance of my message, Jesus, the Jew's 
Messiah, and the Christian's Lord Ami it was through Him that 
I, like the rest of the Apostles, received both the general tokens of 
God's favour in that I was called to be a Christian and also the 
special gifts of an Apostle. *My duty as an Apostle is among 
all Gentile peoples, and therefore among you too at Rome, to win 
men over to the willing service of loyalty to Him ; and the end 
to which all my labours are directed is the honour of His Holy 

1-7. In writing to the Church of the imperial 
had not yet visited, St. Paul delivers his creder h some 

solemnity, and with a full sense of the magnitude of the JSN 

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 Chr. 

The leading points in the section may be summarized 

Paul, am an Apostle by no act of my own, but ! 
deliberate call and in pursuance of the long-foreseen plan of God 
(w. i, 7). (ii) You, Roman Christians, are also social obi 
the Divine care. You inherit under t: n the 

same position which Israel occupied under the Old 
i he Gospel which I am commissioned to preach, ; 
in the sense that it puts forward a new name, the Name o! 
:ulissolubly linked to the older dispensation 
it fulfils and supersedes (w. a, 7 ; see note on cXi/rot tyouY 
Its subject is Jesus, Who is at once th< id the 

Son of God (w. 3, 4). (v) From Him, the Son, and from the Father, 
may the blessedness -us descend upon > 

opening section of the Epistle affords a g;ood opportunity 
to watch the growth of a Christian Theology, in the s<-: 
reflection upon the significance of the Life ami Deat: 
and the relation of the newly inaugurated order of things to the 
old. We have to remember (i) that th< about 

the vear 58 A.D., or within thirty years of the As. 
in tht the doctrinal language of Cl 

be built up from the foundatioi II to note 

of the terms used are old and which new, and how far old 

had a new face put upon them. We will return to this point 
at the end of the paragraph. 


G XpiaroG : rXo eoG or Kvptov is an Old Testa- 
ment phrase, applied lo the prophets in a body from Amos onwards 
(Am. iii. 7 ; Jer. vii. 25 and repeatedly; Dan. ix. 6; Ezra ix. 1 1) ; 
also with slight variations to Moses (&poirr Josh. i. a), Joshua 
(Josh. xxiv. 29 ; Jud. ii. 8), David (title of Ps. xxxvi. [xxxv.J ; Pss. 
Ixxviii. [Ixxvii.J 70; Ixxxix. [Ixxxviii.] 4, 21 ; also wait cvptov, title 
of Ps. xviii. [xvii.]), Isaiah (naif Is. xx. 3); but applied also to 
worshippers generally (Pss. xxxiv. [xxxiii.J 23; cziii. [cxii.] i 
im&tf, cxxxvi. [cxxxv.] 22 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 
o\\n Master in a connexion hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah. 

rov. 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. Pauls Epistles the MSS. vary between 'lijoov 
X/*<TTOV and Xprrov 'Irjoov. Thc/e 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. L I 'It?<roC X/xorf unquestioned. 
a Thess. i. i "Irjool Xpary Edd.; X/x(rr$ 'Ifjaov DEF"G, AmDntr. 

(sic ed. Ballerini). i. i 'Iijaov Xparnv unquestioned. 
I Cor. i. i JLptorov 'Itpov DDE KG 17 a/. fane., Vulg. codd., Chrys 

Ambrstr. Aug. stmel, Tisch , \VH. marg. 

* Cor. i. i Xfxerol 'lr,aov N B M P 17 marg., Harcl, Euthal. cod. Theodrt 
Tlsch. WH. RV. 

Rom. i. I X/N0Tov 'I7<ToD B, Vnlg. codd., Orig. bis (contra Oiig.-lat bit) 

Aug. semel Amb, Ambrstr. al. Lot., Tisch. WH. marx. 
Phil. i. i Xptorov "In^otJ K HDE, Boh., Tisch. WH. RV. 

Eph. i. i Xfxorov l li<rov BI)EPi7, Vulg. (odd. Boh. Goth. Hard, 
Orig. (tx Cattn.) To.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. 

Col. i. i X/MtfTov 'Ifjaov N A H F G L P 1 7, Vulg. (odd. Boh. Hard., Eothal. 

cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. Hieron. a/., Tisch. WH. RV. 
Philem. i. i XfxaroC 'I^oO KAI>FGKP(^/. B), Ac, Boh., Hieroii. 

(ttt vid.} Ambrstr. a/., Tisch. WH. RV. 

n. i. i X/xaroC 'Irpov D F G P (///. B), Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., 

To -Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. 
a Tim. i. i X/MCTTOW 'Ii^oO KDEFGKP (dtf. B) 17 /., Vnlg. codd. 

Boh. Sah. Hard., Euthal. cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. a/., Tisch. WH. 

Tit. i. i liprov Xp<rrov K EKE KG &c.. Vulg. codd. Goth. Pesh. Arm. 
Acth., Chrys. Euthal. cod. Ambrstr. (ed. Ballerin.) a/., Tisch. WH. 
(ttd X^ffrov [l7<rov] marg.} RV. ; X^rrow Irpov A minusc. trts, Vnlg. 
(odd. Boh. Hard., Cassiod. ; Xp<rrov tantum 

It will be observed that the Epistles being placed in a ronghlv chrono- 
logical order, those at the head of the list read indubitably *I7<rov Xpi<rrow 
(or Xf*OT$\ while those in the latter part (with the single exception of Tit, 
which is judiciously treated by WH.) as indubitably read X/*<rrov 

B 2 


Jott about the group i and 3 Cor. Rom. there it a certain amount of 

Remembering the Western element which enter* into IS in Enp. I 
looks at if the evidence for x . in Cor. Rom. might he 
but that is not quite clear, and the reading mar possibly tw r^'.'t. In any 
catch would teem that just about thi< ! into the habit of 

writing XjMffKi *li?<rot*. The interest of this would lie in the fact 
Xporur 'Ii?<rof the first word would teem to be rather more disti; 
proper name than in 'I^ovt Xp*Tot. No donbt the latter phca*e is r 
pawing into a proper name, bat X^<rr<Jf would seem to have a littl 
seme as a title ttill cl inging to it : the phrase would be in fact transitional 
between Xp<rror or A X**r2< of the Gospels and the later X/*<rr<if lipovt or 
X/M*r</f simply as a proper name (see Sanday, BamNon I.ttturtt, p. 280 f., 
and an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in >/. 1 888. i. 386 ff.). The 
subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction. 

dvoVroXos. cXqirir is another idea which has its roots in 
the Old Testament. Eminent sen-ants of God become so by an 
express Divine summons. The typical examples would be 
Abraham (Gen. xii. 1-3), Moses (Ex. iii. 10), the prophets (I 
8, 9 ; -,. Ac.). The veib mXI occurs in a highly typical 

passage, Hos. XI. I Aiyvvrot; prKdXra ra rc'cua pov. For the 

particular form nXi/ru* we cannot come nearer than the ' guests ' 
> of Adonij.ih (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 \\i:h the Twelve who had been 'called' 
expressly by Christ (M.irk i. 17; ii. 14 u). The same con 
tion cXfrrof airdar. occurs in i Cor. i. i, but is not used els< 
Paul or any of the other Apostles. In these two 1 
St Paul has to vindicate the parity of his own call (on the way 
to Damascus, cf. also Acts xxvi. 17) with that of the elder 

On the relation of AijTJt to <ArrJt see LA. or 
a difference between the usage of the Gospels and 1 
Ai/roi are all who are invited to enter C bust's kingdom, whether or t 
accept the invitation ; the xro{ are a smaller group, selected to special 
honour (Matt xxii. 14). In St. Paul both words are applied to the 
cAijrJf implies that the call has been not only given bat 

dw&rroXof. 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 k iii. 14 v.l., and .1 

ich it includes c< : rnabas (Acts >. ;) and 

probably James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. > 
(Rom. xvi. 7\ and many others (cf. i 

>2 ff. ; 
- speaking 

bim to be an Apostle in th< 
lion of the term ; he laj-s stress, however, justly on the fa< 

airocrroXoi, i. e. not merely an Apov ue of possessing 


such qualifications as are described in Acts i. 21, 22, 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^wpiaptot : in a double sense, by God (as in Gal. i. 15) and 
by man (Acts xiii. 2). 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, dovXor, 
nXrjrot, dtjxapuTntvot, all serve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural 
doctrine that human ministers, even Apostles, are but instruments 
in the hand of God, wiih no initiative or merit of their own. 

This conception is not confined to the Canonical Books : it is found also 
in At sump. Moys. i. 14 itaqu* txtogitavit tt invtnit mi, qui ab initio orbit 
Urraruw pratparatu* sum, ut sim arbiter tutamenti illius. 

els cuayyAior 6coG. 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 pa/ticular 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 

cuayyAioy. 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 

4 the reward of good tidings ' ; the more common form is voyyXta). 

It would seem, however, that there was some influence from the 

I frequent use (twenty times) of fwryyiXi'Cw, MyytXi{fffflai, 

n Second Isaiah and the Psalms in connexion with the 

f ihe Great Deliverance or Restoration from the Captivity. 

A conspicuous passage is Isa. Ixi. i, which is quoted or taken as 

a text in Luke iv. 18. The group of words is well established in 

; lie usage (voyytXor, Matthew four times, Mark eight, Acts 

fi-oyyfXiff 00<u, 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 (oyy'X>i sixty 


times Vsidcs in Epp. and Apoc. < 

y<\i(<o6tn twenty times in Epp. Paul., besides once mid. seven 
pass.). The disparity between St. Paul and the other N 

v. Synopt. Acts is striking. The use of *voyyXior for 
a Book lies beyond our limits (Samlay, Bamp. Lect. p. 317*.)! 
the way is prepared for it by places like R ; Apoc. xi 

2. wpocwTjYYCiXoTO. The words royyXiX /oyyAA(rda occur 
several times in LXX, but not in t; il sense of the great 

* promises' made by God to His people. The first instance of 

C is Ft. Sol. Xii. 8 col wtwt, KVpiov *\*ip 

icvpiov : cf. vii. 9 rov A7<rm fir otco* *IoK*3 ic W*? " * .'* i 
oirolr, and xvii. 6 ou ovc orTyyri'Xw, / '/niXorro : a group of 

passages which is characteristic of the attitude of wistful ex 
lion in the Jewish people during the century before the l'> 
. No wonder that the idea was eagerly seized u 
.c Church as it began to turn the pages of the ( > 
find one feature after another of the history of its Founder and of 
its own history foretold there. 

\\c notice that in strict accordance with what we may believe to hare been 
the historical sequence, neither iwa-niMa nor im-niMtotou (in the technical 
sense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke xxir. 49, where tny- 
fitia bused of the promised gift of the Holy > we no sooner crora 

over to the Acts than the use becomes frequent The words 
promises made by Christ, in particular the promise of the ! 
is referred to the Father in Acts L 4); so Jwory'Aj'a three timr m the Acts, 
Gal. iii. 14, and 1 c promises of the O. T. fulfilled in 

tianity; so fcraypAia four times in Acts (note cp. Acts xiti. 32, > 
some eight times each in Rom. and GaL, both JaryAia nd 40rr'AA<rftii 
repeatedly in Heb., Ac. ; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet 
fulfilled or unfulfilled, e.g. > Cor. L Sofa* <j4f JvorrA4u ' 
i Tim. ir. 8 ; a Tim t > iwayyitfa rip wapovoiai ovroC. 

: perhaps the earliest extant instance of the use 
of this phrase (Philo prefers 2/xu ypaQat, i*pni /S^SXoi, 6 l*pl>t 
cf. Sanday, Bamp. Lect. p. 72) ; but the use is estab- 

lished, and the idea of a collection of autl looks goes 

back to the prologue to Ecclus. In ypafalt Ayuus the abs< 
the art. throws the stress on &yiatt ; the books are ' holy ' as con- 
taining the promises of God Himself, written down by ii 

men (&A rw wpafari* avrov). 

,<w>p,/^>. .ntrasted with tpto&mt, ytvofu'w denot- 

ing, as usually, 'transition from one state or mode of subsi 
to another ' (.S/. Comm. on i Cor. i. 30) ; it is rightly paraphrased 
' [Who] was born,' and is practically equivalent to the Joh 

AAJrroc ,l< rl nfa^or. 

4* cnr/pfiarot Aaprt. For proof that the belief in the descent of 
'-ssiah fr : Belief see Mark xi . 

04 ypaftfutrt^t on . *'* tan Ao#<d ; (cf. 


xi. 10 and x. 47 f.) : also Pt. So/, xvii. 23 ff. to>,cvp, *a 
adroit rov /3a<rtA/a avrvv vlor Aai;id ir TO* Kntpov otf ot&ar <rv, 4 Otor , row 
(taatXtvatu V *l<rpa^X waiou aov ic.rA. ; 4 Kzra xii. 32 (in three of the 
extant versions, Syr. Arab. Armen.); and the Talmud and Targums 
(passages in Weber, Allsyn. Theol. p. 341). Our Lord Himself 
appears to have made little use of this title : he raises a difficulty 
about it (Mark xii. 35-37 l). But this verse of Ep. to Romans 
shows that Christians early pointed to His descent as fulfilling one 
of the conditions of Messiahship ; similarly a Tim. ii. 8 (where the 
assertion is made a part of St. Paul's ' Gospel ') ; Acts ii. 30 ; Heb. 
%ii. 14 'it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah' (see 
also Eus. H. E. I. vii. 1 7, 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 

rst 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- 

its present shape before A.D. 70 (cf. Swete, Apost. Creed, 
P- 49). 

In Test. XI f. Patriarch, we find the theory of a double descent from Levi 
and from Judah (Sym. 7 dyo<rn^i yap Kvptot J TOV Ai/2 an &p\npia ml t* 
rov 'lovta <fr 0a<r<Ato, e4r *al rft^Mnror : Gad. 8 8wtt nuijovotv lot/far ml 
At'i- on f avrSiv dyarAf Ki/por, aojrr^f ry 'lapaij\. &c. ; cf. Hamack's 
note, Patr. Apost. \. 52). This is no doubt an inference from the relationship 
of the Mother of our Lord to Elizabeth (Luke L 36). 

aa'pxa . . . KQT& irvCpa are opposed to each other, not as 
' human' to 'divine/ but as 'body* to 'spirit/ both of which in 
are human, though the Holiness which is the abiding pro- 
perty of His Spirit is something more than human. See on Kara 

wwt/i. Ayt<a<r. below. 

4. 6pia0Vros: 'designated.' It is usual to propose for this 
word an alternative between (i) ' proved to be/ ' marked out as 
being ' (fcix&Wof, airo^xw^'rro* 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 oSr6t <m 6 wpiafuW ur& rov e*oO 
KpiTtjt (vrrvv xal muepMr, and xvii. 31 fiAXct Kpit*i . . . V o6y>i ^ 
ZfHot. 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. 

mdoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; 

- ; cf. Col. i. 15-19). At the same time he did regard the 

n as making a difference if not in the transcendental 

relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond our cogni- 


sance), yet in the vMl.U- manifestation of Sonship as addressed to 
the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil. ii. 9 M> *al 6 eo aM 

lm<pty*o<, *a< t \apHTOTo ai<r+ TO 5ro H< i rA iir> irur feopa). 'I 

sufficiently expressed by our word 'designated. might 

perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts. 
It is true that Christ btcomes Judge in a sense in He does 

not become Son ; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external 
creation but by an inher< c la ration, as it 

were, endorses and proclaims that right. 

The Latin rentals are not very helpful. The PHMIOB rendering was 

JnMfatfMTKi (o eipcraly Rufinot rOrif-lat.] c.i Introd. f 7). 

v of Poitkn has dtittMtta, which Kofinw aUo prefers. Tertullian 
reads dtfinitm. 

uloG 0oC Son of God/ like ' Son of Man/ was a recognized 
tide of the Messiah (cf. Enoch cv. a ; 4 Ezra vii. 28, 29 ; x 
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 o; 
John x. 36, cf. Matt. xxi. 37 f. a!. t it cannot be said t 
not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made 
upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mark iii. n, v. 7 c ; tl 
turion, Mark xv. 39 |), and it is implied by the words of the 
Tempter (Matt. iv. 3, 6 B) and the voice from 
i. ii|, ix. 71). The crowning instance is the confession of 
St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the ZqpiVr, 
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God/ Mat:, xvi. 16. It 
is consistent with the whole of our Lord's method that 
have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims, at 
He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spon- 
taneous working of the minds of His disciples. 
prising that the title should have been chosen by t: 
to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of 

: see esp. the common text of the Gospel of St. " 
the words, if not certainly genuine, in any case are an 
early addition), and this passage, the teaching of \\\ 

explicit. The further history of th- ::h its 

strengthening addition pooy^c t may be followed in Swcte, Apost. 
Cretd, re recent attempts to restrict the 

Christ to His earthly manifestation a 
In this passage we have seen that the declaration of S< ; 
from the Resurrection: but we have also seen t .ul re- 

garded the Inc rist as existing bef uion ; 

ami it is as certain th.r speaks of Him as 4 c-V 

(Rom. viii. 32), & iavrov v . he intends to jxrriod 

.ence, as that St. J lies the /Mwoyvr^r \uth the 


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 differently. 

There are three moments to each of which are applied with variations the 
word* of Ps. ii. 7 ' Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee.' They 
are (i) the Baptism (Mark i. n I) ; (ii) the transfiguration (Mark ix> 71); 
(iii) the Resurrection (Acts ziii. 33). We can see here the origin of the Lbio- 
nitc idea of progressive exaltation, which is however held in check by the 
doctrine of the Logos in both its forms, Pauline (a Cor. iv. 4, flee, ut sup.) 
and Johannean (John i. i ff.). The moments in question are so many steps 
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 his 

: not with vlov Qtov, as Weiss, Lips, and others, ' Son 
of God in pcwfr* opposed to the present state of humiliation, but 
rather adverbially, qualifying opKr&Vrot, ' 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 
loravpuOr) ac6<niat t <iXXa 7 V oWa/irar 6foO. This parallel de- 
termines the connexion of V for. 

HOT* irvCjia dyiw<ronr)s : not (i) = nwC/ia'Ayav, the Third Person 
in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally and some moderns), 
because the antithesis of <m> and m*i>a requires that they shall 
be in the same person ; nor (ii), with Beng. and other moderns 
(even Lid.) = the Divine Nature in Christ as if the Human Nature 
were coextensive with the <rop and the Divine Nature were co- 
extensive with the imC/M, which would be very like the error of 
Apollinaris; but (iii) the human trwi/m, like the human <rdp, 
uished however from that of ordinary humanity 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'). 

fryuxrvvT), not found in profane literature, occurs three times in LXX of 
the Psalms, not always in agreement with Heb. (Pss. xcv. 6 [xcvi. 6 
'strength']; xcvi. la [xcvii. la 'holy name,' lit. 'memorial']; cxliv. 5 
[cxlv. 5 'honour']). In all three places it is used of the Divine attribute; 

but in a Mace. iii. la we have i> rov TWTOV Aytuavni. In Tut. XI 1. Patr. 
Levi 1 8 the identical phrase w*ti>n. d-poxr. 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 presumption would be that it was not 
coined for the first time by St Paul The same instance would show that 
the phrase does not of itself and alone necessarily imply divinity. The 
vrtvfta *yM*rinp, though not the Divine nature, ii that in which the Divinity 
or Divine Personality resided. The clear definition of this point was one of 
the last results of the Christ ological controversies of the fifth and sixth 
centuries (Loofs, >cgmfgesc*. 39, 3). For d^cwr see on ayu* ver. 7. 

'$ dva<rrdafws rKpMK : a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ. 
1 1> uas not a ' resurrection of dead persons' (' ajenrisynge of dead 

10 ISTLE T< [I. 4, 5 

men' Wic.) but of a single dead person. We might expect rather 
r wi^r (a :s probable that this 

form is only avoided because of tumoraoi** coming just before. 
But t*piM> coalesces closely in meaning with urr M so as to y 
very much the force of a compound word, 'by a dead-rising* 
(Todtntauftrsfihung), ' a resurrection such as that when dead per- 
sons rise.' ' the first-born from the dead' (Col. i. 18). 

TOW Kupi'ou ^fi*r. Alili ipplied to God 

as equivalent of A word does not in itself 

necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah 

xi >- 3 6 37 D J P*> SoL xvii. 36 faaiXri* ourir xpurrk ><*) 
without thereby pronouncing Him to be 'God'; they expressly 
distinguished between the Messiah and the Mtmra or ' Word ' of 
Jehovah (Weber, Alisyn. Thcol On the lips of 

Kyptof denotes the idea of ' SON selves 

as the society of believers (Col. i. 18, &c.), but also oveY all cr 
(Phil. ii. lo.'n ; Col. i. 16, 17 le was given to our Lord 

even in Mis lifetime (John xiii. 13 'Ye call me, Master (6 &&- 
ffcoXot), and. Lord (6 Kt'ptor) : and ye say well ; for so I am '), but 
without a full consciousness of its significance : it was only after 
the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their c 
belief (Phil, ii. 9 fT.. &c.). 

5. Aapopcr. The best explanation of the plur. seems to be that 
ul associates him '.f with the other Apostles. 

X<fuf is an important word with theological use 

and great variety of meaning: (i) objectively, 'sweetness/ 'at- 
tractiveness,' a sense going back to Homer (Od. viii. 175); Ps. xlv. 

(xllV.) 3 <<nv&n xu>f V iXri trovl ccl. X. 12 Xrfyot ffToparot 
(ro^>ov x*P"> Luke iv. 22 Xoyot xl*?** ( 2 ) tvour,' 

' kindly feeling/ ' good will/ especially as shown by a superior 
towards an inferior. In Eastern despotisms this personal : 
on the part of the king or chieftain is most import.. 

\af*9 is the commonest form of phrase in the O. T. (Gen. 
vi. 8; xviii. 3, &c ) ; in many of these passages (esp. in anthropo- 
morphic scenes where God is represented as holding colloquy 
with man) it is used of 'finding favour' in the sight of G<*1. Thus 
the word comes to be used (3) of the or ' good will ' 

of God; and that (a) generally, as in Zech. xii. 10 'KV 
xaptrot ml o&rrifM more comnx I'. (Luke ii. 40; 

John i. 14, 1 6, Ac.) ; (d) by a usage which is specially charac 
of SL Paul (though not confined to him), with oj : 
^*iV, Rom. iv. 4), and to Ipyo,' works' (implying merit, 

'.;, ' um<ir -tress up< 

herefore as bestowed not up hteous 

but on sinners - sense the 

vord takes a p: ilary of J 


(4) The cause being put for the effect xw* denotes (a) ' the state 
of grace or favour' which the Christian enjoys (Rom. v. a), or 
(/3), like xopiff/M, any particular gift or gifts of grace (wX^ *dp.rot 
Acts vi. 8). We note however that the later technical u*e, 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 ^P 4 * or 'kindly feeling' in the 
donor evokes a corresondin xdptr or ' ratitude ' in the reciient, 

corresponding xdptr or ' gratitude ' in the recipient, 
it comes to mean simply ' thanks ' ( i Cor. x. 30). 

X<ipiy here = that general favour which the Ap. shares with all 
Christians and by virtue of which he is one ; dwooroX^i' = the more 
peculiar gifts of an Apostle. 

We observe that St. Paul regards this spiritual endowment as 
conferred upon him by Christ (&i ov) we may add, acting through 
His Spirit, as the like gifts are described elsewhere as proceeding 
from the Spirit ( i Cor. xii, Ac.). 

el? iwciKoV TTWTTCWS i may be rendered with Vulg. ad okdiendum 
fdei provided that tW. is not hardened too much into the sense 
which it afterwards acquired of a 'body of doctrine* (with art. 
Tfj tnVrit Jude 3). At this early date a body of formulated doctrine, 
though it is rapidly coming to exist, does not still exist: 

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. 1 6). Faith is the act of assent by which the Gospel is 
appropriated. See below on ver. 17. 

iv dai TOIS 6K<7iK. 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 

-.: irdrra ra M*) (cf. Gen. xviii. 1 8, &c.). But St. Paul's com- 

n as an Apostle was specially to the GtniiUs (Gal. ii. 8), and it 

is 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 

the word is used in ver. 13. Cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. ai f. 

uwp TOO droparos aurou. This is rather more than simply ' for 

His glory.' The idea goes back to the O. T. (Ps. cvL [cv.] 8 ; 

Kzck. xx. 14; Mai. i. n). The Name of God is intimately 

connected with the revelation of God. Israel is the instrument or 

vr 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 : 

ami hence the gaining of fresh converts and their fidelity when 

gained serves in like manner to commend the further revelation 

of God in Christ (OVTOV, cf. Acts v. 4 1 ; Phil, it 9). 


i* ol: not merely in a geographical sense of a Jewish com- 
munity among Gentiles, but clearly numbering the Roman Church 
among Gentile communities. 

.XTJTCH 'itjaou Xpurrou: 'called ones of Jesus Christ': gen. of 

. 'Pififl : om. G g, tchol. cod. 47 (rA r 'Pipy ofr V rg 7yi7<m 

oCn iv ry pirry pt^/toMvf*, i. c. some commentator whom the Scholiast 
had before him). G reads wart nit ofcn* i* Apart 9 l " (similarly 

;lg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. seem to imply 
*a<n rois ofot* i* 'P*w V ay&ry ew). The same MS. omits rolf 
A 'Plug iii These facts, taken together with the fluc- 

.: position of the final doxology, xvi. 25-27, would seem 
to give some ground for the inference that there were in circi 
in ancient times a few copies of the Epistle from : local 

references had been removed. It is however important to 

:.e authorities which place the doxology at the end of ch. xiv 
are quite different from those which omit V 'i'/i.7 1- 
ver. 15. For a full discussion of the question see the Introduction, 


tXTjToIs AyiW KAirr$ fyta represents consistently in I.X 
phrase which is translated in A V. 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 I. XX translators were not familiar. V. 
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 X7"} Ayia, i.e. specially appointed, chosen, 

tiished, holy (day)/ This is a striking instance of th 
:;-. \\h.. !i > kcs a phrase which wa :\ the first 

instance a creation of the LXX and current wholly through 
it, appropriating it to Christian use, and recasts 
ing, substituting a theological sense for a liturgical. Obviously 
K\T)Tolt has the same sense as cX^r . i : as he him.v 

'called* to be an Apostle, so all < .lied' to be 

ins; and they personally receive the consecration 
under the Old Covenant was attached to ' times and seasons.' 

For the following detailed rtitemtnt of the evidence respecting A?r} a>/a 
we arc indebted to Dr. Dnvrr : 

XTT^ corresponds to K^^P, from K^t? to call, a technical term alox 
wholly confined to the Priest*' Code, denoting apparently a j 
r * convocation,' held on certain sacred day*. 

tented by mXifnj i6b; Lev. xxiii. 7, 8, . 

Nun Now in all these pas**ges, where the Hcli. htt'M uch 

a day there shall bo a holy convocatio; have ' such a day thall 

be Xirr^ a .^y alter the form of the sentence, make day 

and use ATTI) with its proper force as an adj. shall be .. 


a specially appointed, chosen, distinguished*), My (day) ' ; cf. A. in //. ix. 
165 and Rom. i. I. They read analogously with ITJiH? in Ley. xxiii. a o/ 
lopral itvpiov. &* mXiatrt airr&t fAi/rdf dyiat (cf. v. 37 , 31 o2 oA^<7r 
rai TTIV ri)r Wpa* Ai7r^' d>/a fora* Ajifr. In Lev. xxiii. 3 (cf. v. *4\ 
Ai7T^ d-pa seem* to be in apposition with df<lau<rif. The usage of Ai;n7 
in Lev. xxiii is, however, such as to suggest that it was probably felt to 
have the form of a subst. (sc. M") I cf- J'kAijroj. 

This view of *A. is supported by their rendering of K")|3O elsewhere. In 
vii. 1 6 a, Lev. xxiii. 4 they also alter the form of the sentence, and 
render it by a verb, itXr^atrat &yia. and Aflat roUaT respectively. 

Num. xxviii. 18, a6 (ml T$ i)^P9 rfir r/r ---- IvtttlijTo* *y *<" 
6/iiV : similarly xxix. i, ;, la), they express it by iwin^rot (the same word 
used (4 trip* 4 *P Tr l 'M* dyo /rrai 6/j 4 V) i3. i. 16; xxvi. 9, for the 
ordinary panic. calUd, summomuf), i.e. I suppose in the same sense of 
specially appointed (cf. Josh. xx. 9 <U OAit oJ 4wi'Aip-o< roTt vIoTt 

Is. i. 13 ' the calling of a convocation ' is represented in LXX 
;y, anl iv. 5 'all her convocations' by rd *ptAf> avrfjt 
m all this, it occurs to me that the LXX were not familiar with the term 
tOpC, and did not know what it meant. I think it probable that they pro- 
nounced it not as a subst. K"Ji>D, but as a fartitiflt VT$& ( called 1 ). 

The history of this word would seem to be very parallel 
to that of KAijroIf. 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 
! 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. i Kings vii. 
5 1 [37]) o r persons (e.g. Ex. xxii. 31 [29]). But (3) inasmuch as 
thai 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. 
vi. 20). And in proportion as the conception of God itself 
became elevated and purified, the word which expressed this 
1 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 

Biel (Luc. I'M LXX.} cites from Phavorinus the gloss, A., * oArr* raJ * 

- in?. 

14 D THE ROMANS [I. 7. 

would be reflected back over all the lower uses, and the tei 
be more and more to assimilate the idea of holin 

aiurc to that of holiness in the Creator. This tendency 
is formulated in the exhortation, 'Ye shall be holy; for I. the 
Lord your God, am holy ' (Lev. xix. 2, Ac.). 

i would appear to have been the history of the word 

ac when S ide 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 i ighest but one rather 

midway in the scale. When he describes the Roman Christians as 
ifyioi, he does not mean that they reflect in their jxrrsons th- 
bates of the All-Holy, but only that they are ' set apart ' or conse- 
crated' to HU ; At the same time he is not content to rest 

lower sense, but after his manner he takes it as a basis or 
starting-point for UK- Because Ci i.oly ' in the 

sense of ' consecrated/ they are to become daily more fit for the 
to which they are committed (Ro: 18, 22), they are 

to be 'transformed by the renewing* of \ii. 2). 

He teaches in fact implicitly if not ex; same les 

St. Peter, ' As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves also 
holy in all manner of living (AV. conversation); becaus< 

Ve shall be holy, for I am holy ' (i Pet. i. 15, 16). 
We note that Ps. Sol. had already described the Mes 

people as Xoo oyu* (M! crvraf i Xao oyor, of o^>7y^<rrra V hxaioav 

- 8 ; cf. Dan. vii. 1 8 

.;, where ' books of the holy ones = the roll of the members 
of the Kingdom ' (Charles). The same phrase had been a dt 
lion for Israel in O.T., but only in Pout. (vii. 6 ; I 
19; xxviil 9, varied from Ex. xix. 6 Iflw fyor). \V 
another instance in which St. P.uil transfers to ( 
hitherto appropriated to the Chosen People. But in this case the 
Jewish Messianic expectation had been beforehand with 

There is a certain clement of conjecture b the above sketch, w) 
Inevitable from the fact that the earlier stages in the history of the word had 
been already gone through when the Hebrew literature 1-c-mv The instances 
above given will show this. The main problem is how to account 
application of the same word at once to the Creator and to 1 
both things and persons. The common view (accepted also by 
that io the latter case it means ' separated ' or set apart ' for God. and in 
the former case that it mean* separate from 

bbitxp*n\ lint the link between these two meanings is little more than 
verbal ; and it seems more probable that the idea o: Set her 

in the sense of eiahcdnm (Baadisain) or of , 

rather than primary. There are a number of monographs on the subject, of 
. perhaps the best and the most accessible it that by Kr. Pclitxsch 


iiscussions will be foot x-rtson 

f'.. 140 1401!. ifoed. ^ ; Schullf. 
Tktology of Ikt Old 7'ttta* J Agar 


Beet i on a good method, but U somewhat affected by critical questions at 
to tbe sequence of the documents. 

There is an interesting progression in the addresses of St. Paul's 
Epp.: I, 2 Thess. Gal. r cxxAipn? (rolr mAi|9Mur) ; I, a Cor. TO 
V*A. + ro'tt Ayimt ; I Cor. Rom. KXijrou Ayioit ; Rom. Phil, iraai rait 
; Eph. Col. TOIC Ayiott *a\ irurrois. 

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 <u&ii<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 
*X7<ri'a 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 A*ir<k**rtckt (Leipzig, 1893) starts from the 
assumption that the prior idea is that of the Church as a whole. But jntt 
this part of his learned work has by no means met with general acceptance. 

ical ctp^Kfj. Observe the combination and deepened re- 
ligious significance of the common Greek salutation x<upty, and 
the common Heb. salutation Shalom, * Peace.' xnpit and V7? arc 
both used in the full theological sense : jape* = the favour of God, 
ilpw = 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 
in St. James ; xdptt *ai (Ipw in Epp. Paul, (except i, a Tim.) 
ami in i, a St. Peter ; x<ipr, Aor, tlpfa in the Epistles to Timothy 
and a St. John ; Aw ai f Ipfa * a \ dymnj in St. Jude. 

ip^nf|. We have seen how ^dpis had acquired a deeper sense in 
N. T. as compared with O. T. ; with tlpfa this process had taken 
place earlier. It too begins as a phrase of social intercourse, 
marking that stage in the advance of civilization at which the 
assumption that every stranger encountered was an enemy gave 
place to overtures of friendship (tipw <r<* Jud. xix. ao, Ac.). But 
tin- \vonl soon began to be used in a religious sense of the cessation 
of the Divine anger and the restoration of harmony between God 
.iii.l man (Ps. xxix. [xxviii.J 1 1 Ki'pior <Aowm ro Ao6* avrnv i* 
>W : 1XXXV. [IxXXiv.] 8 XaXiJaci tlpfjt*,, it\ TOV Xaor avrov I ibid. IO 
OMraMXTtVrj *m il^n) KOTt>i\ij<Tav: CXix. [cxviii.] 165 tlpqrri flroXAi) TOf 
dyanwri rir yo/ioy : Is. liii. 5 iraioWa tlp^t 9/wir rir* aurrfr : Jer. XIV. 
13 iX^ia Km tlpw ftWw M r^c y^v : Ezek. XXXIV. a$ 


dwitfijin;* .Ktjj [cf. xxxvii. 26]. Nor is this use confined 
to the Canonical Scriptures : cf. Enoch v. 4 (other reff. in Charles, 
ad lot.) ; Jubilee is one 

of ihe functions of the Messiah lo bring 'peace 1 (Weber, Alltyn. 
Theol. p. 362 f.). 

The nearest parallel for the ate of the word in a *alutation as hen? U 
Dan t ,i. 98 [3,]; ri. ,5 (Tbeodot.) to 

dwo OcoG worpis 4|ifir al Kupi'ov 'lijaou XpurroO. The juxta- 
position of God as Father and Christ as Lord may be added 
proofs already supplied I if not formally 

enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view 
cannot 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 a'XX' t?pjy ff 66f 6 warfjp, ' ov ra r. . 

aiTOf. .of *l7<7otf \purr 6( t &' ol ra ITU*TCI, a< ',n*~it it' 

The opposition in that passage between the gods of t. 
and the Christians' God seems to show that w*r = at lea 

Christians' rather than ' us n. 

Not only does the juxtaposition of ' Father ' and ' Lord ' 
a stage in the doctrine of the Person of ks an 

important stage in the history of the doctrine of tl 
found already some six years before the composition of . 
Romans at the time when St. Paul wrote 

(i Thess. i. i ; cf. 2 Thess. i. a). 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 partia: 
Ep. to Romans the form in which it appears is incomplete, the 
triple formula concludes an Epistle written a few months 
(a Cor. xt. .ere is nothing more wonderful in 

of human thought than the silent and impci 
this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place \vithout Strug/ 
without controversy amc 

irarpos ^pr. The singling out of this title must be an echo of 
its constant and distinctive use by our L< 
of the Fatherhood of God was taught in tli 

xxxix. 26; Deut. x 16; Ixiv. 8; Jer. 

xxxi. 9; Mai. i. 6; ii. 10) ; but there is usually some r< 
qualification God is the Father of Israel, of the Messianic King, of 
r clas such as the weak and friendless. It may also be 
hat the doctrine of I icrluxxl is im; 

in the stress wh on the ' loving-kindness' of God (e. g. in 

.il passages a* 
; 3). But this idea which lies as a partially developed germ in 


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 warfip i^i* [?M*I 
ry] (e. g. twenty limes in St. Matt), and 6 irar^p pav [A varqpl 
(e.g. twenty-three times in St. Matt.). In particular this second 
phrase marks the distinction between the Son and the Father ; so 
ilu: when the two are placed in juxtaposition, as in the greeting of 

:ul other Epistles, 4 Uarfip is the natural term to use. The 
mere fact of juxtaposition sufficiently suggests the iroi^p nv Kvplw 
wi*>y 'Iiprov XpurroC (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 
wuf, to bring out the connexion between the source of ' grace and 
peace ' and its recipients. 

It is no doubt true that irorijp is occasionally used in N. T. in the 
more general sense of 'Creator' (lames i. 17 'Father of lights,' 

I the first instance, Creator of the heavenly bodies; Heb. xii. 9 
' Father of spirits ' ; cf. Acts xvii. 28, but perhaps not Eph. iv. 6 
vorqp irayrwf, where TTUKTWV may be masc.). It is true also that 
narfip TV oXa* in this sense is common in Philo, and that similar 
phrases occur in the early post-apostolic writers (e. g. Clem. Rom. 
ad Cor. xix. 2 ; Justin, Apol. i. 36, 61 ; Tatian, Or. c. Grate. 4). 
But when Harnack prefers to give this interpretation to Paler in 
the earliest creeds (Das Apost. Glaubcnsbekenntniss, p. 2o\ the 
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. 
Swcte, Apost. Creed, p. 20 ff. 

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 
mere salutation should contain so much weighty 
teaching of any kind ; but it is still more remarkable when we think 
ihat 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 



i, and also in its transcendental reality, as revealed by or 
inferred from the words and acts of Christ Himself; (5) A some- 
what advanced stage in the discrimination of distinct Persons in 
the Godhead. We observe too how St. Paul connects together 
these groups of ideas, and sees in them so many parts of a vast 
Divine plan which covers the whole of human history, and indeed 
stretches back beyond its beginning. The Apostle has to the fall 
that sense which is so impressive in the Hebrew prophets that he 
himself b only an instrument, the place and function of which are 
dearly 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 ranp 

When we come to examine particular expressions we find that 
large proportion of them are drawn from the O. T. In some 
cases an idea which has been hitherto fluid is sharply formulated 
(Xirrrfr, o0purp4oc) ; in other cases an old phrase has been 
adopted with comparatively little modification (fcr> ro frfritw 
ovroC, and perhaps w~i}', in others the transference involves 
a larger modification (ftoftor 'i*w) Xpomn, X op, 
Kvpoc, e*o nnjp); in others again we have a term which has ac- 
quired a significance since the dose of the O. T. which Christianity 

o>o. ) ; in yet others we have a new coinage (r&mXoc, 

which however in these instances is due, not to St Paul or the 

other Apostles, but to Christ Himself. 


I. 8-15. God knows haw long I have desired to set you 
a kopt which I trust may at last be accomplished and 
to deliver to you, as to the rest of the < ^orld, my 

writing to you I must first offer my humble thanks to 
God, through Him Who as High Priest presents all our \ 
and praises, for the world-wide fame which as a united i 

r 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 cons: of prayer which my spirit addresses 

:n in my work of preaching the glad tidings of His Son. 

nows how unceasingly your Churt h i* upon my lips, and how 
every time I kneel in prayer it is my petition, that at some near day 

I. 8.] ROMAN C11LK I! 19 

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 abaft 
receiving or that you have nothing to bestow, far from it, but 

myself may be cheered by my intercourse with you (V {/*), 
<>r 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 

:ion whether of language or of culture, I must discharge 
the debt which Christ has laid upon me. " Hence, so far as the 

n rests with me, I am bent on delivering the message of 

on to you too at Rome. 

8. Sid. Agere autem Dto gratias, hoc est sacrificium hud is 
offerre: ft idea addit per Jesum Christum; velut per Pontificem 
magnum Orig. 

Vj Yiorif UJIWK. For a further discussion of this word see below 

on ver. 1 7. 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 

in d the question were always consciously asked, Who or 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 

faith ' is nearly always ' faith in Christ' The object 

lesscd in iii. 22, 26 but is left to be understood elsewhere. 

case of Abraham faith ' is not so much ' faith in God ' as 

' faith in the promises of God/ which promises are precisely those 

whiih are fulfilled in Christianity. Or it would perhaps be more 

to say thai 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 

hole 'economy' of which the Incarnation of Christ formed 

Thus i: is <Jod Who justifies though the moving cause of 

ually defined as ' faith in Christ.' And inasmuch 

as it i. both promised that Christ sheuld come and also 

C 2 


Himself brought about the fulfilment of the promise, even justifying 
faith may be described as 'faith in God' The most consj. 
example of this is ch. iv. 5 ry M rf fVyofouVy, vrrfuom & fV r! 
ducoioirro tor aat^, Xoyifrrot fj wurru airov tit durtutxrvyip. 

9. Xarpcu'tt connected with Xarptr, ' hired servant/ and Xarpo,'hirc': 

Jady in classical Gk. applied to the service of jx>wer 

to TIT row droO Xorpttav Plato, Afx>l. 23 H) ; (ii) in I. XX always of 
the service cither of the true God or of heathen divinities. Hence 
Augustine : \arptla . . . aut semftr ant tarn frtqutnttr ut /ere 
stmfxr, ea dicitur sari/us guat fxrtitut ad colcndum Dcum (T : 

once somewhat wider and somewhat narrower In mfanfftg 
than AirovfTiV: (i) it is used only (or almost wholly) of the senrice of God 
where Afirov/ryitV (AcirovpTfo) is used also of the service of men (Josh, i. I 
,-s i 4, MX. 21 ; 2 Kings iv. 43. vi. 13. Ac) : ii) bat on the other 
band it is used of the senrice both of priest and people, esp. of the service 
rendered to Jahveh by the whole race of Israel (Acts xxvi. 7 rO 

<rfi'f AarpCor, cf. Km. ii. 4); Aurow/rviiV is appropriated to the 
ministrations of priests and Lerites (Heb. z. n. 5cc.). Whrre ittT 

vet more or less co 

not strictly in this sense, there is vet more or less conscious 
reference to it c. g. in Kom. xiii. 6 and esp. xv 

-nf wwujian p>. The VMV/MI is the organ of service; the 

(=TO djpvy/ia row ciayycXtov) the Sphc: ii the 

service is rendered. 

iwl ri*- vpoacuxwr fioo : ' at my prayers/ at all my times of j 
(cf. i Thcss. i. 2 ; Kph. i. 16 ; Philem. 4). 

10. cCwMt. On the construction see Burton, Mcods and Ttmtt, f 376. 

: a difficult expression to render in 1 ; 'now at 

length' (A V. and RV.) omits voW, just as 'in ony sumtymc' 
i omits 489; ' sometime at the length ' (Rhcm.) is more accu- 
rate, ' some near day at last/ In contrast with ri (which denotes 
present time simply) fa denotes the present or near future in 
relation to the process by which it has been reached, an ! 
a certain suggestion of surprise or relief that it has Ucn reached so 
soon as it has. So here fa = 'now, after a.: 
makes the moment more indefinite. On fa see Baumlcin, ' / 

fin, p. 1386*. 

uoo6^aofKu. The word has usually dropped the idea of 666* 
and means 'to be prospered' 

& tioowrai, where it is used of profits gained in trade ; 

r.d so her 

It docs not, h low that because a mcta; 

often drop; v not be recalled where it is directly suggested 

by the are thus tempted to r< : 

Engli> is and Vulg. prosper urn iUr habcam ('I have 

a spedi wc> \ 


lv ti OtX^iian TO etou. 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 doubtful whether 
anything that he intends will be accomplished (Hort, Jtom. and 

I. 42 IT.). 
Xeiv : probably for &ert iAftiV (Hurt on, f 371 r). 

11 lirnroto: W marks the direction of the desire, 'to you- 
wanl ' ; thus by laying stress on the personal object of the verb it 
rather strengthens its emotional character. 

xdpiafia irycupariKoV. 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. xiv. 18), 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 otda M on /p^oVm* 

irpits vfiae V TrXifpaifum d'Xoyi'ar XptoroC Atuao/jai). His was COn- 

spicuously a case which came under the description 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 believer in Christ 
should himself become a centre and abounding source of spiritual 
influence and blessing to others. 

ii TO <rn)pix(Kjveu : b r& with Infin. expressing purpose ' is employed 
with special frequency by Paul, bat occurs also in Heb. I Pet and Jas.' 
(liurton, $ 409). 

12. oujiirapaiiXi)0Tii'ai : the subject is >', which, from the avr- in 
wpirapaxX. and V /*!, is treated in the latter part of the sentence as 
equivalent to forif. 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. 

oO 6X* : OVK oSofteu (D) G, MOM arbitror d e g Ambrstr. ; an instance 
of Western paraphrase. 

<7X ; ' I may get: 

14. "EXXtjai TC KQI pappdpoi? : a resolution into its parts of truvra 
TO !6t*i, according to (i) divisions of language, (ii) degrees of culture. 

15. TO KOT* jpl. It is perhaps best, with Gif. Va. Mou., to take 
<> as subject, np&vpov as predicate : so g Vulg. quod in m* 

promtum tst. In that case TO nor >' will = ' I, so far as it rests 
with mo,' i. c. ' under God ' L'homme propose, Dieu dispose ; cf. / 
Ty 0Xq/nm TOW eoC above. Differently Orig.-lat. (Rufmus) who 

22 !. TO THE ROMA [I. 16, 17. 

makes r* cor' V adverbial, quod in me ttt prom/us sum : so too 
d e Ambrstr. The objection to this is that St. Paul would have 
written wpMvpot >. Mey. Lips, and others take - irp66- 

iu together as subject of [Vrt] iyyX/(rocT^ii, ' hence the eager- 
ness on my pan (is) to preach.' I; 
> ur' >. = my affairs.' 


I. 16, 17. That message, humble as it may seem, casts 
a new light on the righteousness of God: for it tells how 
ighteousness flows forth and embra :cJiin it is 

mt by Faith % or loyal adhesion to Q; 

M 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 af 
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 
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 s 
life by his faith, or loyalty to Jehovah, while his proud oppressors 

16. fwawrxuVojMu. St. Paul was well awan- Gospel was 

'unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles foolishness' 
(i Cor. i. 23). How could it be otherwise, as Chrysostom says, be 
was about to preach of One who ' passed for the son of a car; 
brought up in Judaea, in the house of a poor won . 1 who 

died like a criminal in the company of robber- rdly needed 

the contrast of imper :ocmphas; 

1 for St. Paul see the Introduction, i ; also : 
in Stud i a /'////,;. iv. 1 1. 

have an instance bcrr of a corruption coning into the (.reck text 
through the Latia : JKU<TX. 'i it-arr A ' or ( ' nArw mptr ftwtff 


confunJor de twutgtlio Aug. The Latin renderings need not imply any 
various 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 I Jttin. This is only mentioned as a clear case of a kind of 
corruption which doubtless operated elsewhere, as notably in Cod. Bezae. 
It is to be observed, however, that readings of this kind are necessarily quite 

is the word properly used of the manifestations of Divine 
{x>wer. Strictly indeed dwa/ut is the inherent attribute or faculty, 
i>yia is the attribute or faculty in operation. But the two words 
are closely allied to each other and ftMnyur is so often used for 
exerted power, especially Divine superhuman power, that it practi- 
cally covers <Wpywia. St. Paul might quite well have written 
Wpyia here, but the choice of ftwapic throws the stress rather more 
on the source than on the process. The word dvpa/ur 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 

; I ink 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 
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 

l a real force, not a sham force like so many which the 
Apostle saw arouiul him ; its true nature might be misunderstood, 
but that did not make it any less powerful : 6 Auyot yup 6 row arovpou 
Tols /Ay uiroXAv/AHMf pvpia '<rn, rolr d awfo/K'yotff wur dvo/ur 6ov <m 
I Cor. i. 1 8 ; cf. i Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20 ; i Thess. L 5. 

cis awTTipia*. The fundamental idea contained in <rrnpui 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. 
<y*r. is simply deliverance from physical peril (Jud. xv. 18 ; i Sam. 

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. 

}, xv. 2, the Passage of the Red Sea; Is. xlv. 17, xlvi. 13, lil 
to, &c., the Return from Exile), (iii) Thus by a natural transition 
it is associated with the Messianic deliverance ; and that both (o) in 
the lower forms of the Jewish Messianic expectation (Ps. SoL x. 
9 ; xii. 7; cf. Test. XII. Pair. Sym. 7; Jud. 22 ; Benj. 9, 10 [the form 
used in all these passages is ffwrwior] ; Luke i. 69, 71, 77), and (0) 
in the higher form of the Christian hope (Acts iv. 12; xiii. 26, &c.). 

^4 I HE ROMA [I 10, 17. 

isc <r*nipia covers the whole range of the Messianic 

. U/.h in its negative aspect as a rescuing from the 

:iole world is lying (ver. 18 ff.) and in its 

e aspect as the imparting of 'eternal life ' ( x. 308; 

John iii. 15, 16, &c.). Both these sides are alrea 

the earliest extant Epistle (5r o ?*ro ^ f 6 ot tit vyj?', <ixx' m 

trfptvoiV <r<*TTjpiis out ruu Kvpiov ^f 'lr;<ruu Xpurrov, roC offodaxfimx 
MTp ^wy, Im tr yprjyopvfu* tlrt Kat'ii-dw^r opa <TV atrip ffjawfU* 

oss. v. 9, i 

wpTor: o/w. BGg, Tert adv. Marc. Lachmann Tre^r 
bracket, because of the combination of I : 
y do no more than bracket because : 

Western element, to which this par: -nay belor 

that case it would rest entirely upo: 

appears to have omitted vp&rw as well as the quotation from 
Habakkuk, and it is possible that the omissi mail group 

MSS. may be due to his influ 

For the precedence assigned to the Jew com p. R- 

also Matt. xv. 24; Jo. iv. 22 : .46. The 

point is important in view of Baur and his followers who exaggerate 
the opposition of St. Paul to the Jews. He defends himsc 
his converts from their attacks ; but he fully concedes th< 
their claim and he is most anxious to conciliate them (Rom. >. 
. i IT., x. i if.; xv. 8, &c.: see also Introduction 

17. SiK<uooun>) 6cou. For some lime past it has seemed to 
be almost an accepted exegetical tradition that the * rigl 
neat of God ' means here * a righteousness of which God 
author and man the recipient,' a righteousness not so mu 
God' as 'from God/ i.e. a slate or condition of righteousness 
bestowed by God upon man. But quite recently two protests 
have been raised against this view, both English and bo 
it happens, associated with the I m, one by 

Dr. Bannby in the Pulpit Commentary on Romans, an ' 
by Dr. A. Robertson in The Thinko also a 

concise note by 1 : . T. K. Abbott adloc. There can be 
that the protest is justified; not so much tl. 
wrong as that it is pa: : ; lete. 

The righteousness of God ' is a great and comprehensive 
which embraces in its range both God and m 
fundamental passage of ti 

of. (i) In proof that the righteousness imarily 

the righteousness of Goii maybe urged: i 

is consistently the sense of the righteousness of God in ti 

.ind more par; passages close!, 

present, such as Ps. \cvii.J 2, The Lord hath made 

The point i, however, beginning to attract some attci. any. 


known His salvation'. His righteousness hath He revealed (ajro- 
Avi//**) in the sight of the nations,' which contains the three key- 
words of the verse before us ; (ii) that elsewhere in the Kpistle 
&K. eioO = ' the righteousness of God Himself (several of the 
passages, e. g. iii. 21, a 2, x. 3, have the same ambiguity as the 
text, but iii. 5, 25, 26 are quite clear); (iii) that the marked 
antithesis oiroKaAwrrerat yap o/ryij Giov in ver. 18 compared with 
KtnaifHTvtnj yap Btuv airoKuXvtrrrrai in vcr. 1 7 requires that the gen. 
eot/ 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 &*. eoO is 

a gift of righteousness bestowed upon man are hardly less con- 

.. (i) The righteousness in question is described as being 

revealed '* mWo>c tit nianv ; and in the parallel passage iii. 2 2 it is 

qualified as doc. 0oC d<A trurrt 'Iijiroi/ XptffroO tit irdrror roit manvov 

rnv, 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 dimioc is applied not to God but to 
Observe the logical connexion of the two clauses, iixato<rvtnj 

yip Ofov oiroffaXt/frrrrat . . . xaffvt yiypavTat, *O 6i diicaiof tt ititrrtttt 
ftarat. (iii) Lastly, in the parallel Phil. iii. 9 the thought of the 
Apostle is made quite explicit : M tx** /*?' buttuovwii* rip wJ/iov, 
ciAXii rr)v dm trioTfox XptaroC, n)v V 0oO docauxrvyi/r Art r# irtarti. The 

insertion of the preposition or transfers the righteousness from 
God to man, or we may say traces the process of extension by 
\\liu h it passes from its source to its object 

F r (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 
usness of which the Apostle is speaking not only proceeds 
( iod but M the righteousness of God Himself: it is this, how- 
ever, not as inherent in the Divine Essence but as going forth and 
t mhmcing the personalities of men. It is righteousness active and 
/.ing; the righteousness of the Divine Will as it were pro- 
jected and enclosing and gathering into itself human wills. St. Paul 
fixes this sense upon it in another of the great key-verses of the 
', ch. iii. 26 tit TO emu aivuv dt'xatoy at ducatotrra rir niartttt 
The second half of this clause is in no way opposed to the 
from it by natural and inevitable sequence : God 
attributes righteousness to the believer because He is Himself 
>us. The whole scheme of things by which He gathers to 
ous 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 
-o is the burden of the Gospel.' For a fuller development 
of the idea contained in ' the righteousness of God ' see below. 


IK irurrcwf. This root -conception with St. Paul means in the 

-f Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah 
and Son of God ; the affirmation of that primitive < 

we have already had sketched in w. 3, 4. It is the ' Yes ' of 
the soul when the central proposition of Christianity is preset 
r. We hardly need more than this one fact, thus barely stated, to 
explain why it was that St. Paul attached such immense imp- 

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 < : 
because they are content, if we may say so, to take their sec ; 
doctrine lower down the line and to rest in secondary causes instead 
of tracing them up to prin o influences in particular seem 

to have impelled the eager mind of St. Paul to his more pern 

One was his own experience. He dated all his own 
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 tli 
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 Na/ 
whom he had persecuted as a pretender and blasphemer, was really 
exalted to the right hand of God, and really charged v. 
gifts and blessings for men. The conviction then dec 
sank into his soul, and became the master-key which he api 
the solution of aM problems and all straggles ever afterw 
But St. Paul was a Jew, an ardent Jew, a Pharisee, 
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. 
did so two passages seemed to him to stand out above all others. 
The words wumr, wumv are not very common in the IX 
they occurred in connexion with tv. 
turning-points in the history of Israel as the embracing of 

had been a turning-point for himself. The Tews \\- 
the habit of speculating about At 
response to the promise made to him. The le.i 
dealt with this was ' 

u's had consequences beyond 

anoth term was connected with it : ' Abraham 1 

God a: belief) was reckoned unto him for righteousness.' 

Again just before the beginning of the great Chaldaean or 
Ionian h was to take away their 'place a 

\\s but uhkh was at the same time to purify ti. 


(he furnace of affliction, 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 ; 
ami \\ hen 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 \\ork of the Messiah, and subjectively to the appropriation of 

ork 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 clement in this con- 
ception which has to be kept distinct. As we advance further in 

pistle, 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 
of placing the worshipper in a position of fitness for ap- 

i to God ; so once for all the sacrifice of Christ had placed 
the Christian worshipper in this position. That was a fact objec- 

:K! external to himself of which the Christian had the benefit 

simply by being a Christian; in other words by the sole act of 

faith. If besides this he also found by experience that in following 

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 ultimately referable to the same cause; it too 

fatted from the same moment, the moment of the acceptance of 

And although in this case more might be said to be done 

man himself, yet even there Christ was the true source of 

strength and inspiration ; and the more reliance was placed on this 

: h and inspiration the more effective it became ; so much so 
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 life itself. But even 
here the critical moment was the first, because it established the 

28 ISTLE TO THE I: [l 17. 

relation. It was like magnetism which begins to act as soon as 
the connexion is complete. Accordingly we find that sir 
constantly laid upon this first moment the moment of 

;zed into Christ* or ' putting on Christ,' although 
means implied that the relation ceases where it began, and on the 
contrary it is rather a relation which should go on strengthening, 
too the beginning is an act of faith, but the kind c : 
proceeds wfonaw tit wl<m*. We shall have the process 
described more fully when we come to chapters vi 

JK wurrtMt els irian*. The analogy of Ps. Ixxxiii. 8 (Ixx 

oVmjur lit dvra/uv, and Of 2 Cor. ii. l6 '< < : ,i:-,ir,.i- \ Airaror . . . 

it (n* f C^i seems to show that this phrase should be taken as 
v 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 
(tx fide prcdicantium in fdem credenlium Sedulius): bot 
included: the phrase means * starting from a smaller qua:: 
faith to produce a larger quantity/ at once im- \ ex- 

lual and in so 

6 Siitaios U irurrcwt. Some take the whole of this phrase 
together. ' The man whose righteousness is based on 
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 harmot 
St Paul's teaching as expressed more fully in Rom. iii. . 
Gal. ii. 16: but it was certainly not the meaning of Habakkuk, 
and i: had intended to emphasize the point here 

::d to write 6 W it *i<rr<*t oucaioc, and SO 

ambiguity. It is merely a question of emphasis, because 
ordinary way of taking the verse !;ed that the 

motive of the man, the motive which gives value to his righteous- 
and gains for him the Divine protection, is bis faith. 

A few authentic* (C*, Vulg. (*U. mm opt. Hard., Orig.-l.v 
insert pov (A W &. /iov I* WI'OTM*, or & W ur. J rrf ,<* C^r<u) from 
the LXX. Marc ion, a we sboold expect teems to have omitted r. 
w/^ror bat the quuUtion from Habakkuk ; thU would naturally 
from hi* antipathy to everything Jewish, though he wa not quite consistent 
in cutting out all quotations from the O. uns the same quotation 

(not, however, as a Quotation which he is able 

n against the Jew*. For the belt examination of Marcion's text see 

The word diVcaiof and its cogna 

BUaiot. Bucaio7vt|. In consideting the meaning and application of these 
terms it is important to place ourselves at the right point of view- at the 

f $L Paul himself, a Jew of the Jews, and not 
or mediaeval or modem. Two main facts have to be b- : 
in regard to the history of the words 3'uot and IsMSMtVf, The first 
although thcte was a sense in which the Greek word* covered the whole 


range of right action 'Eth. Nit. V. i. 15 Suta,oovnj-rt\<ia dfn-nj with the 
single qualification that it is *p4t rc/wr, the doty to one's neighbour 
in practice it was far more commonly used in the narrower sense of Justice 
(distributive or corrective ibti. a ft*.). The Platonic designation of lumtoowii 
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 I'lato was only following the genius of his 
people. The real standard of Greek morals was rather rd oAor that which 
was morally noble, impressive, admirable than rd 8tca*or. And if there 
was this tendency to throw the larger sense of ftccuoovn? 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 fur the wider meaning of kxcuoavrr). It had to fall back n\onjusfiti.t, 
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 from the Stoics and Plato, and that the four 
I Pagan virtues were still further thrown into the shade by the Christian triad. 
. i'ily for ourselves we have in English two distinct words for the two 
distinct conceptions, 'justice* and ' righteousness.' And so especially from 
the lime 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 
Gtrtthtigkett 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 nndiminishcd. 

. a subordinate Question what was the origin of the fundamental idea. 
A recent writer tSmend, Ablest. Ktligiensetsck. 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 81*17 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 lest, of speculation. In any case the Jew of 
mi'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 

I Tpo^X 8) fcaMraw vvpov &*<uo<TvvT}t tit K*/ior ov* fyftur*, is St. Paul's 

:.tul verdict (Rom. ix. 31). For a Jew the whole sphere of ri^hUnnaBBai 

was taken up by the Mosaic Law. His one idea of righteousness wa that 

of conformity to this I .aw. 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 his view of obedience to the law became formal and mechanical. It is 

impossible for an impartial mind not to be deeply touched by the spectacle 

* Aristotle quotes the proverb Jr 8) 8,m<xrvr7 ovAA^fyr waa a/xn) fo. 

30 K TO THE ROMA [I. 17 

of the religion* leader, of a nation devoting themselves with so much ca 
MM and leal to the study of a law which they believed to come, and which 
in a certain tense and measure really did come, from God. and yet tailing so 
disastrously as their best friends allow that they .'rasping the 

law's true spirit No one felt more keenly than St. Paul himself 
pathos of the situation. HU heart bleeds for them (Ron cannot 

withhold bis testimony to their teal, though unhappily it U not 
according to knowledge (Ron. x. a). 
was that all this 

Hence it was that all this mast we must allow of honest though ill- 
rected effort needed reforming. The more radical the reformation the 
better. There came One Who laid His finger upon the we 
pointed out the remedy at first as it would seem only in words in w! 
Scripture loving Rabbis had been befo: i hou shalt 1 

thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy n>. 
and ... Thou shalt lore thy neighbour as thyself , 39 |>. 

and then more searchingly and with greater fulness ol n and 

application, ' There is nothing from without the man that going into him 
can defile him : bat the things which proceed out of the man are those that 
defile the man ' (Mark vii. 15 |) ; and then yet again more searching 
' Come onto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden . . . 1 
upon yon and learn of Me ... For My yoke U easy, and V 

So the Master ; and then came the disciple. And he too seized th 
of the secret He too saw what the Master had refrained from utti 

a degree of emphasis which might have been misunderstood (at lea 
majority of His reporters might leave the impression that this had been 
case, though one, the Fourth Evangelist, makes Him speak more j 

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 
Christian is to be a righteousness of faith! Enough will have been 
the next note and in those on J i<rr* and auouwviny eov as to the 
nature of this righteousness. It is sharply contrasted with the Jewish con- 
ception of righteousness at obedience to law, and of course goes far 
than any Pagan conception as to the motive of righteousness. The 
Pauline feature in the conception expressed in this passa r 
declaration of righteousness' on the part of God, the Divine v 
acquittal, runs in vtvatut of the actual practice of righteousness, and 
forth at once on the sincere embracing of Christ in 

ButcuoOv, BiMtoQfta*. The verb AuMiefir means properly ' to prof 
righteous.' It has relation to a verdict pronounced by a judge. In so far 
the person * pronounced righteous' is not really righteous it has the sense of 
'amnesty' or 'forgiveness.' But it cannot mean to 'make righ 
There may be other influences which go to make a person righteous, bat 
they are not contained, or even hinted at, in the word luttovr. 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 
to be righteous is really so, the word itself neither affirms nor <! 

- rather sweeping proposition U made good by the following con- 

(i) By the nature of verbs In -4*: comn. St. Ccmm. on i 

v can fcfluovr possibly signify "to makt ngk: 
this ending from adjectives of pkyrital meaning may 1. 

to make blind." But when such words a. 
of moral meaning, as 4/iofir, taovr, &MUOWT, they do 
from the nature of things signify to dttm, to a^tunt, 
at worthy, holy, righteous.' 

I. 17.] 


(ii) By the regular use 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 there is no example in the whole of classical literature where the 
word - ' to makt righteous.' The word however U not of frequent occurrence. 

(iii) 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 U unmistakable. The nearest 
approach to an exception is Ps. Ixxiii [Ixxii] 13 dpa /jarcuo* i&a<Wa r^r 
Kap&ia* ftov, where, however, the word seems to - ' pronounced righteous,' in 
other words, 'I called my conscience clear.' In Jer. iii. 11 ; Ezek. xvL 51. 
5 3 &*. ' prove righteous.' 

(iv) From a like usage in the Psendepigraphic Books : e. g. Ps. Sot. ii. 16 ; 

iv. 9 ; viii. 7, 37, 31 ; ix. 3 (in these passages the word is used con- 

sistently of 'vindicating' the character of God); justijito 4 Err. iv. 18 ; 

; xii. 7 ; 5 K/r. ii. 20 (LM. Apocr. eA O. F. Fritzschc, p. 643) all 

these passages are forensic; A foe. Banick. (in Ceriani's translation from 

the Syriac) xxi. 9, 1 1 ; xxiv. i where the word is applied to those who are 

4 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, 35 ; x. 39 ; xvi. 15 ; xviiL 14; Rom. ii. 
13 ; iii. 4 ; I Cor. iv. 4; I Tim. iii. 16 to quote only passages which are 
absolutely unambiguous. 

(vi) The meaning is brought out in full in ch. iv. 5 ry 8i ^ t/ryao/*/ry, 
i<rrvom M iwl TOT 8ur<uovrra riv dot By, *o-fi{trcu j riant avrov tit 84*040- 
ovm\v. 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 ksaioovnj eov 
above and below. 

SucaCwpa. For the force of the termination -/ia reference should be made 
to a note by the late T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on i Cor. v. 6, part of which 
is quoted in this commentary on Rom. iv. 2. &JHUW/MI is the definite con- 
crete expression of the act of &<uaxm : we might define it as ' a declaration 
that a thing is ttraior, or that a person is Surcuof.' From the first use we get 
the common sense of ' ordinance,' 'statute,' as in Luke i. 6 ; Rom. i. 32, ii. 
26, and practically viii. 4 ; from the second we get the more characteristically 
Pauline use in Rom. v. 16, 18. For the special shades of meaning in these 
passages see the notes upon them. 

Sucaioxns. This word occurs only twice in this Epistle (iv. 35, v. 18), 
and not at all besides in the N. T. Its place is taken by the verb SumoCr, 
just as in the Gospel of St. John the verb wiffri*tr occurs no less than 
:\ -eight times, while the substantive wurru is entirely absent In 
meaning 8uraWit preserves the proper force of the termination -ait: it 
denotes the ' process or act of piononncing 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 vi<rn* has two leading senses, (i) fidelity and (2^ belief. The 
second sense, as we have said, has its more exact significance determined by 
its object : it may mean, (i) belief in God; (ii) belief in the promises of 
God ; (iii) belief in Christ ; (iv) belief in some particular utterance, claim, or 
promise of God or Christ. 

3* [I. 17. 

The la* of these senses U the one most common in the Synoptic Gospel*. 
usually belief in the miracle-working j , 

< i :.:..! .;:..::.! h .- <i :.. r. : . . -.-. : r : :.rl - 

the offer expressed or fan; 

himself or another to the offer expressed or Implied of that 

relief by means of miracles (Mark v. 34 | ; x. 5 a ||). The effect of the 
miracle U usually proportioned to the strength of thi 

mra rjr wionr ipi* 'yin^T* fcjiiV : for degrees of faith' see Matt. viii. 10, 

c faith which has jost before been 

: rfetd - ..' . :.. ::., N . - ' M !.:;, .,;... : . :..-;, : ,.- t 
into being by Christ* * ..Vms ft IT otrov). Faith it al*> (*) the confidence 
of the dUciple that be can exercise the like miracle- worki. g | ,,rr wh 
pressly conferred upon i , kind of faith our Lord 

in one place calls 'faith in God' (Mark d 

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 x meant 
faith in Hi-.. 

h in the performance of miracles U a sense which naturally paei 
over into the Acts (Act > 1 in that book also ' ik.- 

(ftviVrit Actsvi. ?; xiii. 8;xiv 

of Christians,' belief that Jesus is the Son of God. 'Ad. 
; i means 'an opening for the spread of this belief, 
used as an attribute of individuals (*Aft/*p storco* Acts vi. 5 of Stc j.h. 
24 of Barnabas) it has the Pauline sense of the enthusiasm and f< 
character which come from this belief in Jem. 

In the Epistle of St. James vurrtt is twice applied to prayer (Jas, i 

.t means the faith that God will grant what is prayed for. Twice 
it means 'Christian faith* (Jas. i la the controversial passage, 

Jas. ii. 14-26, wbete Faith is contrasted led U 

faith in God.' One example of it is the belief that Go 

mother U the trust in God which led Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Jas. ii. 
ai), and to believe in the promise of his birth (Jas. ii 
St. James b more often the faith which is common to Jew and Christian; 
even where -n faith, it stops short of the Christian cnthusu 

!e, whose Epistle most 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, bat, as we should say. ' the essentials 
of Christianity. 1 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 : 
In the two Kpisllcs of St. Peter faith is alwa> 

illy faith as 

ter speaks of Christians as 'gnardea inroogn nun unto saivm* 
tion ' his use approaches that of St. 1'ai. . . ated as the 

rig needful.' 

John, as we hare seen, very rarely uses the u 
though be makes up by his fondness for .<yrw. With him too : 
a very fundamental thing; it is the 'victory which owrcometh the w 
cnned to be the belief 'that Jesus U the S- 

. i ' B m .N ' . I St. 1 :. || 

rather contemplative and philosophic, where c and 

enthusiastic. In the Apocalypse faith comes nearer to fidelity ; it is belief 
steadfastly held 19; xiii. i _f. aUo *v 

10, & 

;*eof '(ait! th in 

the ft -Mi's Dromises, a firm belief of that which 

niatn !<>>Wrry hr&totfit. wpa; . t oi tfAiio^o-a. 

ve not only runs throu r 1 the places 

the word occurs (I lei . is not 


found in St. Paul of promise* the fulfilment of which is still future (for thU 
he prefer* JA vir : cf. Rom. viii. 35 J 8i A ou flArfwo/n* JAwifo/ir, ' fooporip 
dv&x4/M*i). St Paul does however UK ' faith ' for the confidence of O.T. 
saint* 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 hare the sense of ' fidelity 
to the O. T. religion.' In the Psalms of Solomon it is characteristic of the 
lf : 7V 

Messiah Himself : 7V. .W. zvii. 45 vm/jaJw rd voi/inor Kvpov Ir *for< aj 
ounuoovrp. In the other Hooks it is characteristic of His subjects. Thus 

4 Ezr. vi. rtflorebit auttmfiJes et vincetur comfit t la ; vii. 34 Vfritas stabit 
et fiats (onvaleseet\ 44 ( 1 14) soltUa tit intemptrantia, abscissa tst incredulitas 
( -dwuma). In A fee. Baruek. and Assump. Mays, the word has this sense, 
but not quite in the same connexion : A(oc. Bar. lir. 5 revelas abstondita im- 
maculate qui in fid* subiuerunt st Mi it Itgi huu\ at glorifitabis fideles 
iuxtafidtm eontm ; lix. a intrtdttlis tormentum ignis rescrvatum ; Ass. Aloys. 
iv. 8 a'uae out em tribus permanebunt inpraepositafidt. In Apoe. Bar Mi. a we 
have it in the sense of faith in the prophecy of coming judgement : fides iudicii 

futuri tune gignebatur. Several times, in opposition to the use in St Paul, 
we find opera it fides combined, still in connexion with the ' last things * but 
retrospectively with reference to the life on earth. So 4 Ezra ix. 7, 8 ft frit, 
omnis qui salvus factus fuerit et qui poterit effttgtre per opera sua vel per 
fiJem in qua credtdit, is relinquetur d* pratdictis ferifttlis ft videbit sat u tart 
meum in terra mta et in fin i bus me is ; xiii. 23 ifie custodibit qui in peritulo 
inciderint, hi sunt qui habent Optra et fidem ad Fortissimum. We might 
well believe that both these passages were suggested, though perhaps some* 
what remotely, by the verse of Habakknk which St Paul quotes. The same 
may be said of 5 Ezr. xv. 3, 4 net turbent te intredulitates dieentium, 
quoniam omnis incredulus in intredulitate sua morietur (Libb. Apo<r. p. 645, 
ed. O. F. r nt/sche). 

Among all these various usages, in Canonical Books as well as Extra- 
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 is 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 ' faithfulness ' (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 of 
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 : x. 8, 17; xvi. a6; 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, aa 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. aa q.v., a6. ThU to 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 L 17 ; iii. 



\Ve have seen that it is not merely assent or adhesion but 
besioo, personal adhesion; the highest and most ct 
f which human character U capable. It i. well to ren 
, all tbete meaning* before him ; and be glances from one to 

' v c have teen that it U not merely assent or adhesion but 


. r- power of 
. Paul has 
another as the hand of a violin-player runs over the strings of his violin. 

T/tf 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 esst 
a new one. It is one of those fundamental ideas 
tun through both Testaments alike and appear in a great variety of 
..IK The Hebrew prophets were as far as possible from 
conceiving of* the Godhead as a metaphysical abstraction. 
I AM THAT : the Book of Exodus is very different from 

the 3rr 3*, the Pure Being, without attributes because removed 
from all contact with matter, of the Platonizing philoso; : 
essential properties of Righteousness and 1 1 
terized the Lord of all spirits contained within -s the 

springs of an infinite expansiveness. Having brought into exi 
a Being endowed with the faculty of choice and capable ot 
and wrong action they could not rest until they 1 
that Being something of themselves. The Prophets and Ps^ 
of the Old Testament seized on this idea and pa- 
far-reaching expression. We are apt not to reali/ 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 combin.v 
righteousness,' 'salvation' and 'revelation' in Ps. xcviii. [xcvii.] 2: 

i My salvation is near to come, at 
ness to be revealed,' The double combination of 
and 'salvation' is more common. In I's. 
slightly obscured in the LXX: 'He shall receive a bl- 
the Lord and righteousness (AnHwxrvnjr) from the God 
salvation (vopa eoC cr^pov airoC-).' In the Second Pa 
it occurs frequently: Is. xlv. 21-25 ' There is no God besid 
a just God and a Saviour (dunuot *oi cr*r^p). Look unto Me and 
be ye saved . . . the word is gone forth from My mouth in rig). 
ness and shall not return (or righteousness is gone forth fr< 
mouth, a word ..ill not return R. V. marg.) . . . O 

the Lord shall one say unto Me is righteousness ai h. . . . 

In the Lord -h.ill all the seed of Israel 1* 
duoMoVomu), and shall glory': Is. x! 

righu :t shall not be far off, and My su ill not 

tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel M\ 
h. 5, 6 ' My righteousness is near, My salvation is gone forth . 


My salvation shall be for ever, and My righteousness shall not be 

In all these passages the righteousness of God is conceived as 
1 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 ty*'pa vpyfit *a\ airoicaAi^fur duratocpunaff TOW 6oO (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, 26 
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 (V TO> ovroO oifum) and acts as an Aacn^ptoir 
- q. v.) by virtue of which the Righteousness of God which 
reaches its culminating expression in it becomes capable of wide 
on amongst men. This is the great 'going forth 1 of the 
Divine Righteousness, and it embraces in its scope all believers, 
sscnce of it, however, is at least at first, whatever it may be 
ultimately that it consists not in making men actually righteous 
but in ' justifying ' or treating them as if they were righteous. 

D 2 


we reach a fundamental conception with St. Paul, and one 
all this pan of the Epistle to the Romans, so that 
dwell upon it in some <! 

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 gives to the process 

is 8uuu'<m (iv. 25, v. 1 8). More often he uses in resj 
it the verb dumovtrAu (iit. 24, 28, v. 1,9, viii. 30, 33). The full 
phrase is kuuoia&u in viar*t : which means that the believer, by 
virtue of his faith, is 'accounted or treated as if he were righteous* 

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 dvifat (Rom. iv. 5), an offender against 

There is something sufficiently startling in this. The 
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 duroiour&u 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 '.- 
Aunuow&u have the first sense and not the second ; that they are 
rightly said to be ' forensic* ; that they have reference to a y 

t, 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 d< 
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 

a man makes a great change such as that which the first 
Christians made when they embraced (' 'lowed 

to start on his career with a clean record : tained past 

is not reckoned against him. The change is the great thing ; it 
is that at which God looks. As with the Prodigal Son in the 
parable the breakdown of his pride and rel 
Father, I have sinned' is enough. The father does n<>: 
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 justi: ct is nothing more than the 'best 

robe ' and the ' ring ' and the ' fatted calf of the parable (Luke 

process of Justification is thus reduced to r 
:its we sec th.. I afu-r all nothing so \ 

about it. I , Forgiveness, Free Forgiveness. The Parable 

of the Prodigal Son is a to on two 

of its sides, as an expression of th 
the sinner, and of the reception accorded to him by Go 


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 

What has been thus far urged may serve to mitigate the apparent 

ness 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 


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- 

But St. Paul does not so isolate it He takes it up and follows 
top in that after-career till it ends in the final glory (ofc N 
fttraWf, rovrotw rat Aoa<r( 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- 


qucnces which flowed from it nother 

factor is introduced, the Mystical Union of the Christian v. 
Risen Christ This subject is prosecuted through three chapters, 

, which really cover (except perhaps the one secti* 
7-5)- and that with great fulness of detail the whole career 
Christian subsequent to Justification. We shall speak of 
the teaching of those chapters when we come to them. 

no doubt an arguable question how far these lat< : 
^htly be included under the same category as the < 
Dr. Liddon for instance summarizes their contents as ' Justification 
considered subjectively and in its effects upon life and c< 
Moral consequences of Justification. (A) The Life of Justification 
and sin (vi. 1-14). (B) The Life of Justification and the Mosaic 
Law (vi. 15 vii. 25). (C) The Life of Justification and the 
of the Holy Spirit (viii.).' The question as to the lei 
this description hangs together with the question as to the ni< 
of the term Justification. If Justification =Justitia in/usa as well 
as imputata, then we need not dispute the bringing of chaps, 
under that category. But we have given the reasons which compel 
us to dissent from this view. The older Protestant theologiat 
languished between Justification and Sanctification ; and \vc think 
that they were right both in drawing this distinction a: 
referring chaps, vi-viii to the second head rather than to tl. 
On the whole St. Paul does keep the two subjects separate from 
each other ; and it seems to us to conduce to clearness of thought 
to keep them separate. 

At the same time we quite admit that the point at issue is rather 
one of clearness of thought and convenience of thinking than 
anything more material. Although separate the two subjects run 
up into each other and are connected by real links. Thert 
organic unity in the Christian life. Its different parts and fur 
are no more really separable than the different parts and functions 
of the human body. An : cspect there is a true analogy 

between body and soul. When Dr. Liddon concludes hi- 
(p. 1 8) by saying, 'Justification and . .ay be dis- 

tinguished by the student, as are the arterial and nervous s\ 
in the human body ; but in the living soul they are coincident and 
inseparable/ we may cordially agree. UK- 
Justification and Sanctification or between the subjects of chaps, 
i. 1 6 v, and chaps, vi-viii is analogous to that between the a ; 
and nervous systems ; it holds good as much and no more no 
more, but as nr 

A further D may be raised which the advocates of the 

view we have ji: :;scussing would certainly answer ; 

.:ht not regard the whole working 
out of the influences brought to bear upon the Christian in chaps. 


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 like footing with oilier manifesta- 
tions of that Righteousness. All that can be said to the contrary 
is that St. Paul himself does not explicitly give it this name. 


I. 18-32. 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. 1 8). 

There are three stages: (i) the knowledge of God which 
all might have from the character imprinted upon Creation 
(vv. 19-20) ; (2) the deliberate ignoring of this knowledge 
and idle speculation ending in idolatry (w. 21-23) J (3) tne 
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 stifle and suppress the Truth within 
them, while they go on still in their wrong-doing (V <&.). ' 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 ROMA [l. 18-32. 

God: they gave Him no thanks; but they gave the rein to futile 
speculations; they lost all intelligence of truth, and their moral 
sense was obscured. * V. \- boasted of their wisdom, they 

were turned to folly. "In place of the majesty of the 1 
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 
y, and render divine honours and ritual observance to the 
creature, neglecting the Creator (Blessed be His name for ev 

" 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: 
w replete as they were with every species of wrong-doing ; 
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, 
10 slanderers ; in open defiance of God, insolent in act, arro^ 
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, ki 
full well the righteous sci h God denounces death 

upon all who act thus, are not content with doing the things which 
He condemns themselves but abet and applaud those who practise 

18. There is general agreement as to the structure of this 
port 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 
the obvious division, proof is given of a complete break-d< 
regard to righteousness (i) on the part of the (ii) on the 


part of the Jews. The summary conclusion of the whole section 
i. 1 8 iii. 20 is given in the two verses iii. 19, 20: it is that the 
whole world, Gentile and Tew 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 tome accident 
on his own part or in the MS. which he copied Zahn, ut ;/. p. 516; the 
rather important cursive 47 has the same omission . The rest of the chapter 
with ii. i he seems to have excised. He may have been jealous of this 
trenchant attack upon the Gentiles. 

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 <mocaXi*rrfra*, 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: <nro*aAi/irrmu 
1 8 = oiroicaAv^tr ii. 5; op-yrj i. 18, ii. 5,8; cmnroAoyirrof i. 20, 
. i. 

*| Ocou. (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, 2 Nadab and Abihu; Num. xvi. 33, 46 ff. Korah; xxv. 3 
Baal-peor), or (0) upon non-Israelites for oppression of the Chosen 
People (Jer. 1. 11-17; Ezek. xxxvi. 5). (2) In the prophetic 
writings this infliction of ' wrath' is gradually concentrated upon 
a great Day of Judgement, the Day of the Lord (Is. ii. 10-22, Ac. ; 
Jer. xxx. 7, 8 ; Joel iii. 1 2 ff. ; Obad. 8 ff. ; Zeph. iii. 8 ff.). (3) Hence 
the N. T. use seems to be mainly, if not altogether, eschatological : 
at. 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, Rcchtfcrtigung it. Vcrsoh- 
*ung, ii. 124 ff. ed. 2. 

Similarly Eutbytn.-Zig. 'A woa A VTTOI .T A. Jr ^p/p? tylonta pfor. 
\\e mutt remember however that St Pan! regarded the Day of Judgement as 
near at hand. 

iv doucia, ' living in unrighteousness the while* Moule. 

KOTcxorrwK. aTxi = (i) * to hold fast' Lk. viii. 15 ; i Cor. xi. a, 

&c. ; (ii) ' to hold down,' ' hold in check ' 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7, 

where ro Kor'xor, 4 ar\w>=the force of [Roman] Law and Order 

by \\hich Antichrist is restrained: similarly here but in a bad 

42 EPISTLE 1' [I 18-20- 

sense; it is the truth whk h is 'held down/ hindered, th 
checked in its free and expansive operation. 

SioVi : aht\ivs in Gk. Test. = because/ There are three uses : 
(i) for &V o T = propier quod, quamobrem, ' wherefore/ introducing 
a consequence ; (ii) for tta twro on = propUrea quod, or 
'because/ giving a reason for what has gone before; (iii) from 
Herod, downwards, but esp. in later Gk. = on. that.' 

TO yvuaroV. This is a similar case to that of *vo6w0?<ro/Mu above : 
yMKrrrff in Scripture generally (both LXX and N ms at 

a rule 'known (e.g. Acts i. 19, ii l.ut it does 

not follow that it may not be used in the stricter sense of 
'knowable/ 'what may be known' c iligible n 

Green, The Witness of God, p. 4) where the context favours 
that sense: so Orig. Theoph. Weiss. Gif., agaii 
De W. Va. There is the more room for i: 
as the word does not occur elsewhere in St. Paul and the in. . 
does not cover his writings. 

i* aurotf, ' \\ ithin them.' St. Paul repeatedly uses this preposi- 
tion where we might expect a different one (cf. Gal. i. 16; Rom. 
ii. 15): any revelation must pass through the human conscious- 
ness: so Mey. Go. Oltr. Lips., not exactly as Gif. (' in their very 
nature and constitution as men ') or Moule (' among them)/ 

Compare also Luther, Table Talk, A ph. dxlix : * Melanchthon discoursing 
with Luther touching the prophet*, who continually boast thus : " Thus satin 
the Lord/' asked whether God in person spoke with them or no. Luther 
replied : " They were very holy, spiritual people, who seriously contemplated 
upon holy and divine things: therefore God spake wb 
consciences, which the prophets held as tore and certain revelations." ' 

.> however possible that allowance should be made for the wider 

ustic use of 4r, as in the phrase XaA> iro*o> 

vv0a/ TOV Ifcir W AaAfj<ri I* Ipoi: cf. Zech. i. 9. 13, 14. . 4. 5 ; 

v. 5, 10; vi. 4; also 4 Kxr. v. 15 attgelus am Iwjutbatur in me. In that 

case too much stress most not be laid on the preposition as describing an 

internal process. At the same time the analogy of AaAr Jr does not cover 

the very explicit fcv^r Janr Jr avroit : and we most remember that 

St. Paol i* writing as one who had himself an 'abundance of revelations* 

and uses the language which corresponded to his own 


20. Aw6 RTi9wf itoafioo. Gif. is inclined to translate this ' from 
the created universe/ ' creation ' (in the sense of ' things created ') 
being regarded as the sourct of knowledge: he alleges Vulg. 
a criatura mundi. But it is not clear . was intended 

to have this sense; and the parallel phrases <o<r/*o 

(Matt XXiv. 21). citro Koro/SoX^ff xoV/iov (Matt, xx v. 34 ; Luke : 
Rev. x. lark x. 6; xiii. 19; 

seem to show that the force of the prep, is rather itmporal, 
'sinff the i rsc' (<ty ov xptvov 6 dpon*' crurA| 

Kuth>m.-Zig.). The idea of knowledge being derived from 


le fabric of the created world is in any case contained in the 

Turcw*: see Lft. Col. p. 214. criW has three senses: (i) the 
ct of creating (as here) ; (ii) the result of that act, whether (a) the 
ggregate of created things (\Visd. v. 18 ; xvi. 24; Col. i. 15 and 
robably Rom.viii. 19 ff.); or (3) a creature, a single created thing 
fieb. iv. 13, and perhaps Rom. viii. 39, q. v.). 

cUfoparcu: commonly explained to mean 'are clearly seen* 
*ara with intensive force, as in xarapa6av<iv, KOTO***) ; so Fri. 
irm.-Thay. Gif. &c. It may however relate rather to the direction 
f sight, are surveyed/ contemplated ' (* are under observation ' 
foule). Both senses are represented in the two places in which 
le word occurs in LXX : (i) in Job x. 4 7 &<nrp /fyorfc 6p$ xa&pfc ; 
i) in Num. XXIV. 2 BaXau/i . . . xadop? TO* 'lapaijX arparoirdVKora 
era <>vAuF. 

dtoios : aidior^c is a Divine attribute in Wisd. ii. 23 (v. 1., see 
*low) ; cf. also Wisd. vii. 26 <*rr6f mtiov, Jude 6. 

The argument from the nature of the created world to the 
haracter of its Author is as old as the Psalter, Job and Isaiah : 
>ss. xix. i ; xciv. 9; cxliii. 5; Is. xlii. 5; xlv. 18; Job xii. 9; 
xvi. 14; xxxvi. 24 if.; Wisd. ii. 23; xiii. 1,5, &c. It is common 
o Greek thought as well as Jewish : Arist. De Mundo 6 Miupirot 
r* avruv ru* tpyw 0>plTai [<J e*] (Lid.). This argument is very 
ully set forth by Philo, Dt Proem, ct Pocn. 7 (Mang. ii. 415). 
describing the order and beauty of Nature he goes on: 
Admiring and being struck with amazement at these things, they 
rrived at a conception consistent with what they had seen, that 
e beauties so admirable in their arrangement have not come 
ing spontaneously (ov* onmTo/iaruytfiVra yiya**), but are the 
rork of some Maker, the Creator of the world, and that there must 
ceds be a Providence (POMMO*); because it is a law of nature 
lat the Creative Power (rA irnro^KOf) must take care of that which 
;is come into being. But these admirable men superior as they 
ire to all others, as I said, advanced from below upwards as if 
y a kind of celestial ladder guessing at the Creator from His 
rorks by probable inference (ola ui ru-ot ovpaWov Ai>or a4 T 

0<i6rrjs : Btorrjt = Divine Personality, Onorrjt = Divine nature and 
roperties : dvra/ur is a single attribute, fatanjt is a summary term 
or those other attributes which constitute Divinity: the word 
ppears in Biblical Gk. first in Wisd. xviii. 9 r6r nj* dtunjrot 

Didymus (Trir. ;n e, P. G. xxxix. 664) accuses the heretics of 

leading 4rip here, and it is found in one MS., P. 

> certainly somewhat strange that so general a term as etitrrjt should 
be combined with a term denoting a particular attribute like 8vraptf. To 
this difficulty the attempt has been made to narrow down *4n}t to 


the signification of ^a, the .Urine glory or splendour. It it tug 

it te 


that this word was not used becauae it teemed inadequate to 

Rogge, Du A*uka***gt* d. Af 
9m d. rtlig*t-tiUl. Ckarakt. d, Htidtntumt, Leipzig, l8W, p. 10 .) 

;; TO tiu : 'r rJ denotes here not direct and \ irpose 

but indirect, secondary or conditional purpose. God d. 
design that man should sin ; but He did design that if they 
they should be without cxcu Is part all was d< 

a sufficient knowledge of Himself. Burton h 
(A foods and Tenses, 4") U^ * he M express! i 
purpose but result, because of the causal clause which follows. 
4 This clause could be forced to an expression of purpose only by 
supposing an ellipsis of some such expression as col ovrt 
and seems therefore to require that u r& emu be interpreted 
>ing result.' There is force in this reasoning, though the 
of tit r6 for mere result is not we believe generally recogni/ 

21 loogaaar. 6adf is one of the words which show a deepei 
significance in their religious and Biblical use. In classic 
in accordance with the slighter sense of oa it merely = ' tojc 
an opinion about ' (&oa(6n<vot afoot, ' held to be unrighteous,' ~* 
Rep. 588 B); then later with a gr . ation ' to 

honour to' or 'praise' (r* apnij fciofia/nVot JtApit Polyb. VI. ' 
10). And so in LXX and N. T. with a varying sense accoi " 
to the subject to whom it is applied : (i) Of the honour done 
man to man (Esih. iii. I ('oofuw 6 /SuriArt* 'Apruttpfo 
(ii) Of that which is done by man to God (Lev. x. 3 tV nd 
owayvy'n oao(rdproprn) ; (iii) Of the glory bestowed on man I 

(Rom. viii. 30 otr M .'o.Jtai'-^, rouroi/r itai .aJf . 

specially characteristic of the Gospel of St. John, of the 
manifestation of the glory, whether of the Fa 
(Jo. xii. 28), or of the Son by His own act (Jo. xi. 4), or of the 
by the act of the Father (Jo. vii. 39; xii. 16, 23, &c.), or 
Father by the Incarnate Son (Jo. xiii. 31 ; xiv 

IpaTOMttnffar, 'were frustrated/ 'rendered fut:. 
m'rrata = idols ' as ' things of nought.' The two words 

-' Kings xvii. 15 <r<u tuoptv&ivav unitr* rir 

as usually in LXX and N. T. in a bad sonse of 
1 pen-erse, self-willed, reasonings or speculations' (cf. Hatch, ss. 

Comp. Emotk xcix. 8, o ' And they will become godleu by reaaon of the 
foolishnca. of their hearts, and their eyes will be blinded throu K h thr 
their hearts aad through visions in their dreams. Through t 
become godless and fearful, because they work all their works in a lie and 
they worship a atone.' 

apoia : the most comprehensive term for the human faculties, 


the seat of feeling (Rom. ix. a ; x. i) ; will (i Cor. iv. 5 ; vii. 37 . 
cf. Rom. xvi. 1 8); thoughts (Rom. x. 6, 8). Physically xarfia 
belongs to the owluyx (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 
cither the home of lustful desires (Rom. i. 24), or of the Spirit 


23. vjXXafcK Iv : an imitation of a Heb. construction : cf. Ps. 
cvi. (cv.) 20 ; also for the expression Jer. ii. n (Del ad he.) Ac. 
' manifested perfection.' See on iii. 23. 

Corop. with thU verse Phito, Vit. Mos. Hi. ao (Mang. . 161) ol TOK 
d\rj9jf Otur KoraAivdrrft Tovt ^via>Kv^ovt ifyniovpyrjaar, tf>$a l ^nit xal yunjnui 
ovoitut T^V rov dytvrfrov *<** fyMfro* vpAepiptv Iwifrjuioarnt : also D* EMtt. 
38 (Mang. i. 374) vap' ft o2 ftawkeurrtfr drfantvot dyaXparw ml (odronr nil 
pvpivv d^Jpu/inrew {,\ait baftpott Ttrt^frtvftirojf ar/vA>7<r rip 
. . . jrarfi/rpuraro Ti ^*arrU>* o5 wpociMxijotv, drri AOIOTIJTOI 
r<i ydp wo\i>e<ov 4r rtut rwv d^p^rary \f,v\ait d96rrjt, gal 0oO 
ol rd ^vi/ 

4, uAA' 

24. irap^wiceK : 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 

Mfanv is not merely ptrmisstve (Chrys. Theodrt Euthym.-Zig.*), 
through God permitting men to have their way; or privative, 
through His withdrawing His gracious aid ; but judicial, the appro- 
punishment of their defection : it works automatically, one 
evil leading to another by natural sequence. 

This is a Jewish doctrine : Pirqt Abotk, iv. t ' Every fulfilment of dotr is 
rewarded by another, and every transgression is punished by another ' ; Shab- 
ktth 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 Kp. to Hum.). The Tews held that the heathen because of their 
>n of the Law were wholly abandoned by God : the Holy Spirit was 
withdrawn from them (Weber, Altsy*. Tktot. p. 66). 

to ourols N A BCD*, several cursives; frimnXt I>EFGKLP, 

rintcd editions of Fathers, Orig. Chrys. Theodrt., Vulg. (/ 

twi/umc/iu adficiant corpora sua in ipsis). The balance is strongly 

Similarly Adrian, an Antiochene writer (c. 440 A.D.) in his E 
Tib 0as -ypa^aj, a classified collection of figures and modes of speech em- 
ployed in Holy Scripture, refers this verse to the head T^r 4*2 rwr 
mixwv (rvrxtw* "V 
TOVTO ov vmr. 

4$ i: TO THE ROMA [I. 24 28. 

in favour of ovr ng drtpd'lcatcu is pass.. 

= ' among them ' : with anp. is n. 

On the forms, avro, avroC and Jovrov see Buttmann, O. */ A'. 7*. I, 
That ' Introd., Notes on Orthography, j 

In N. T. Greek there is a tendency to the disuse of strong reflexive forms. 

Simple possession is most commonly expressed by **, atrip, &c. : only 

- the reflexive character is emphasised (not merely mum, but tuum 

us) is iavrov used hence the importance of such phrases as r4r J 

vtt *J/4r Ron i hare denied the existence in 

of the aspirated oirroC : and it is true that there is no certain pro 

aspiration such as the occurrence before it of o&x or an elided preposit 

in early MSS. breathings are rare), but in a few strong cases, when 

omission of the aspirate would be against all Creek usage, it is retaine 

\VH. (e.g. in Jo. ii. 24; Lk 

25. OITU-. often called ' rel. of quality/ (i) deni 

a single object with reference to its kind, its nature, its capacil 
its character (' one who/ ' being of such a kind as t 
(ii) it frequently makes the adjectival sentence assign a cause 
the main sentence : it is used like gut, or quififx gui t with subj. 

TV AXVj0tiar . . . TW i|cuoci : abstr. for concrete, for n 

Ofdr . . . roic ^rvo<ri 6Votc, cf. I TheSS. i. 9. 

Iffcpcur&rjffar. This USC of cr3aa&u is an airn \ty6fit9O9 ; 

common form is ai&ta&u (see A - 

wopA TOf KTiaarra = not merely ' more than the Creator ' (\ 
which the preposition might bear), but 'passing by the < 
altogether/ to the neglect of the Creator/ 

Cf. Philo, D M**d. Of if. 3 (Mangey, t. a) rtrh ^ rir a^/wr ,<axAor 
rdr av9/Mwetdr ov^oairrtf (Loesner). 

o <<mr toXoyrjTos. Dozologies like this are of constant oci 
in the Talmud, and are a spontaneous expression of devout fcelii 
called forth either by the thought of God s adorable perfections 
sometimes (as here) by the forced mention of th 
would rather hide. 

27. dwoXafipdVoKTcs : <lrroX.= (i) ' to receive back* (as in 
34) ; (ii) * to receive one's dtu ' (as in Luke xx nd so 

28. <ooKi>aaar: dampaCw = (i) ' to test' (l 

to approve after testing ' (so here ; and ii. 1 8 ; xiv. 2 : 
similarly ootMu^or = 'rejected a ^/ ' reprobate/ 

iv Iviyrwcrci : iri'yyw<rt( = * afltr knowledge ': hence (i) 
tion (vb. ='to reco ;. 12. &c.) ; (ii) 

vanced ' or 4 further knowledge/ ' full knowledge/ Sec esp. 
Comm. on i Cor. xiii. 1 2 ; I .it. on Phil. i. 9. 

your = the reasoning faculty, esp. as concerned with 
action, the intellectual part of conscience : *oit and <n w. 
combined in Ti- either bad or good ; for 

good sense see Rom 


TO KaOnxorra : a technical term with the Stoics, ' what is morally 
fitting ' ; cf. also a Mace. vi. 4. 

29. \v,- must beware of attempting to force the catalogue 
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 +66x>, +<$rou, 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. 

: a comprehensive term, including all that follows. 

, : om. N A B C K ; probably suggested by similarity in 

SOUnd tO irotnjpia. 

iroKTjpi'a : 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 tronpui ; 
and no doubt the use of the word is extremely wide : but where 
!< tinition is needed it is in this direction that it must be sought 

: as compared with no^jpia denotes rather inward vicious- 
ness of disposition (Trench, Syn. p. 36 f.). 

The MSS. vary as to the order of the three words wonp/?, w\to*fa , vox*?, 
\\ II. text KV. retain this order with BL, Ac., Hard. Ann., Has. Greg.- 
Nvss. /.: Tisch. \VH. marg. read wonjp. mm. Ac*. with K A, Pesh. ? : 
WH. marf. also recognizes ur. worqp. vXor. with C, Boh. al. 

Xov*|io. 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 band: e.g. in 1 Thess. iv. 6 vAor*T<r is used of 
adultery, but rather as a wrong done to another than as a vice. 

: the tendency to put the worst construction upon 
hing (Arist. Rhet. ii. 13 ; cf. Trench, Syn. p. 38). The word 
occurs several times in 3 and 4 Maccabees. 

30. |n0uprrds, KOToXdXoos. The idea of secresy is contained in 
the first of these words, not in the second: <jn0. susurratores 
Cypr. Lucif. Ambrstr. susurronts Aug. Vulg. ; *oroX. detraclores 

Aug. Vulg., detrectatores (detract-) Lucif. Ambrstr. al. 
0co<mrycis : may be either (i) passive, Deo odibiles Vulg. : so 
l-'ri. 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. 
(row TO e*4 tuaovrrat), 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 (kwmryia 
clearly with an active signification, though he follows it by orvy^roi 
IY 3f. As one among a catalogue of vices this would give the 
more pointed sense, unless we might suppose that fawrrvyils had 
come to have a meaning like our ' desperadoes.' The three terms 

48 M TO THE ROMANS [I. 30-32. 

follow remind us of the bullies and braggarts of the Eliza- 
1*1 han stage. For the distinction between them see T 
p. 95 fr- 
it i* well preferred in the Cjrprianic Latin, initirioti, ntftrbi, i at tan! 
For the last phrase Lucif. h* glcrianiti ; either would be better than the 
rendering tlatot (Cod. CUrom. Cod. Boern. Ambntr. Aug. V 

dffwtrovt : iMM*fiw (' without conscience ') Eothpn.-Zig. 
clotelr the two words cwtan and owii&rjait are related will appear fro 

Pol) oi 8, Ji oCrr ofr &m Jtfri fo*;* ofrr. tar^y 

4 ffi?m f) ii*ar<MKov<ja 

in 4 ffi?m f) ii*ar<MKov<ja roTff *a<rrrt' ^vyo/i. [Bot is not th 

a gloat, oo the text of Pol) b. 1 It U found in the margin of Cod. Urbin.] 

' false to their engagements ' (<w0jo4) ; cf. Jer 
l*\ \ . 

bxnroVftovt after aWpywf (Trench, Spit. p. 95 ff.) is added 
from i . P]. 

32. omrcs : see on ver. 25 above. 

TO ftiKoutfia : nrob. in the first instance (i) a declaration that 
a thing is &*mnv [ru ouco/w/ia ToC rd/iov = ' that which the La 
down as right,' Rom. viii. 4]; hence, 'an ordinance' (Luk 
Rom. ii. 26 ; Heb. ix. i, 10) ; or (ii) ' a declaration that a person 
is oueoiof,' 'a verdict of not guilty/ 'an acquittal': so < 
St. Paul (e.g. Rom. v. 16). But see also note on p. 31. 

Jt7iJw*or7f (B) 80, WH. marg. 

ovrcu&oKovai. There has been some disturbance of 
the text here : B, and apparently Clem. Rom., have r 
<n/wvdoffovm ; and so too D Vulg. (am. fuld.) Orig.-lat. Lucif. 
and other i there, but inserting, non inltll< 

foMprav I >) \\ H. obelize the common text as prob. co; 
think that it involves an anticlimax, because to applaud an 
in others is not so bad as to do it oneself; but fro: 
of view to set up a public opinion in favour of vice is worse than 
to yield for the moment to temptation (sec the quotaiioi 
Apollinaris below). If the participles are wrong tlx >bably 

been assimilated mechanically to irpd<raorr. Note that * 
facnt, to produce a cer : ; vpaaatur = agtrf, to act as 

moral agent : there may be also some idea of repeated action. 

9VMuooouai denotes 'hearty approval' (Rendall on 
20. m J-'xpot. 1888, il 209) ; vcvoo; T^ -.^ r : 

the word occurs four times besides in N .;!.). 

19* it pu 


0t/r/rpxt avrf . A n'tv yip 
& 84 ffVMidoxwr, i*T>f &r TOW 
(Apollinaris in Cramer's Catena}. 

St. Paul's Description of the Condition of the 
Heathen World. 

It would be wrong to expect from St. Paul an investigation of 
the origin of different forms of idolatry or a comparison of the 
morality of heathen religions, such as is now being instituted in the 
Comparative Science of Religion. For this it was necessary to 
wait for a large and comprehensive collection of data which has 
only become possible within the present century and is still far from 
complete. St. Paul looks at things with the insight of a religious 
teacher ; he describes facts which he sees around him ; and he con- 
nects these facts with permanent tendencies of human nature and 
with principles which are apparent in the Providential government 
of the world. 

The Jew of the Dispersion, with the Law of Moses in his hand, 
could not but revolt at the vices which he found prevailing among 
the heathen. He turned with disgust from the circus and the 
theatre (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. pp. 58, 68). He looked upon the 
heathen as given over especially to sins of the flesh, such as those 
rhich St. Paul recounts in this chapter. So far have they gone as 
to lose their humanity altogether and become like brute beasts 
(Mid. p. 67 f.). The Jews were like a patient who was sick but 
with hope of recovery. Therefore they had a law given to them to 
be a check upon their actions. The Heathen were like a patient 
who was sick unto death and beyond all hope, on whom therefore 
the physician put no restrictions (ibid. p. 69). 

The Christian teacher brought with him no lower standard, and 
rdict was not less sweeping. 'The whole world,' said St. 
John, ' lieth in wickedness/ rather perhaps, ' in [the power of] the 
Wicked One' (i Jo. v. 19). And St. Paul on his travels must 
have come across much to justify the denunciations of this chapter. 
He saw that idolatry and licence went together. He knew that 
the heathen myths about their gods ascribed to them all manner 
of immoralities. The lax and easy-going anthropomorphism of 
Hellenic religion and the still more degraded representations, with 
at times still more degraded worship, of the gods of Egypt and the 

50 :.K TO THE ROMvV [l. 18 32. 

<> dark relief by his own severe conception of 
the Divine Holiness. It was natural that he should gi\ 
account he docs of this degeneracy. The lawless fancies 1 1 
invented their own divinities. Such gods as these left them free to 
follow their own unbridled passions. And the M.ij. -sty on 
angered at their wilful disloyalty, did not interfere to check 
downward career. 

all literally true. The human imagination, follow; 
own devices, projects even into the Pantheon the streak of < 

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 su . influ- 

ence that the religion of the Jew and of the Christian was kept 
dear of these corrupt and corrupting features. The st 
Pagan world betokened the absence, the suspension or 
holding, of such supernatural influence; and there was reason 
enough for the belief that it was judicially inflicted. 

At the same time, though in this passage, where St. Paul is 
measuring the religious forces in the world, he speaks without 
limitation or qualification, it is clear from other contexts tha 
demnation of the insufficiency of Pagan creeds did not m;i 
shut his eyes to the good that there might be in Pagan 
In the next chapter he distinctly contemplates the case of Gentiles 
who being without law are a law unto themselves, and who fnul in 
their consciences a substitute for external law (ii. 14, 15). He 
frankly allows that the * uncircumci .is by nature* put to 

shame the Jew with all his greater advantages (ii. 26-29). \V- 
therefore cannot say that a priori reasoning or prejudice 
him untrue to facts. The Pagan world was not wholly b.i 
had its scattered and broken lights, which the Apostle recognizes 

he warmth of genuine sympathy. But there can be < 
liulc 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. 

re is a monograph on the subject, \\hich however does not 
add much beyond what lies fairly upon the 

Anuhauungcn d. Ap. Paulu* Ton <:'. ittliihcn Charakttr d. 

, Leipzig, 1888. 


If the statements of St. Paul cannot be taken at once at toppling the place 
of scientific inquiry from the tide of the Comparative History of Religion, to 
neither can they be held to furnish data which can be utilized just at they 
stand by the historian. The standard which St. Paul applies is not that of 
the historian but of the preacher. He does not judge by the average level of 
moral attainment at different epochs but by the ideal standard of that which 
ought to be attained. A calm and dispassionate weighing of the facts, with 
due allowance for the nature of the authorities, will be found in Friedlander, 
s, Leipzig, 1869-1871. 

Utt oftht Book of Witdom in Chapter /. 

t. 18-31. In two places In Epist. to Romans, ch. i and ch. ix, there are 
clear indications of the use by the Apostle of the Book of Wisdom. Such 
indications are not wanting elsewhere, but we have thought it best to call 
attention to them especially at the points where they are most continuous and 
most striking. We begin by placing side by side the language of St. Paul 
and that of the earlier work by which it is illustrated. 


L ao. rd 7d/ Mpar* abroi dvd /rri- 
aton xuafiov roit wcxij^aai roov/Kva 

f) T tU&ot a 


/ioff airro/x. KCU 
ovrir ap&a. 
a a. 

If Toft 210X0719. 
i) d<n/rrot 

7u oofol 

Gaprov Ocev iv Aftotuftart tlxo 

TOV dr^ponrov o2 rnvrtanav o2 rirpa- 


xiii. i. 


xiii. 5. i T^p ptyiOovt o2 

OVTWV Otvpt trm. 

\\. 23. [<J edt / 
vow . . . J*ora 7 
(Cod. 948 a/., Method. Athan. Epiph. ; 
KAB, Clem.-Alex. &c.) 

xviii. 9. rdr r^t 0t6njrot rJ/ior. 

xiii. 8. vdAir M oM* ovroi ai^i-oH 

xiii. I. /uSrtuoi 7^ vorrn 
<f>v<Ht, oh wapfjv 9ov dyvaioia f. 

xii. 3. c 



xii. I. rd &p$afrr6v oov wvv/ia. 
xiv. 8. rd 9) ^a/yrdr ei* 

xiii. 10. TaAa/wai/KH 8J a2 ir r/K>Tr 
avrwr, orirf 

The more recent editor* as a rule 
read fe^n/rot with the uncials and 
Gen. i. 26 f. ; but it is by no means clear 
that they are right: Cod, 248 em- 
bodies very ancient elements and the 
context generally favours dlior^rot. 
It still would not be certain that St. 

Paul had this passage in his mind. 

f The parallel here is not quite 
exact. St Paul says, ' They did know 
but relinquished their knowledge,' 
Wisd. 'They ought to have known 
but did not.' 

\ 2 


:;>. 14. dvuraai 

15. mnrcf /Mr^XXa^ar rip dXi^iar 1 7 sqq. ofcr 

rov eov Ir v$ tiito,, **l loi&o+j. tyvYf wpwrXaXir- al 
tfar <U lA^r^tvaar rp ri'a< vapd tvr ri d<r*Vrir ii*aA*i~raj, 
mVarra. vtgpiv d^ioi . r. X . 

II. M TOVTO a2 Ir 


xiv. 31. TO dVoirwnTror 2ro/ia Alfoti 

34. &i apl&MTtfr . r. X. 
36. &d revro *a^er . r. X. ifeJ 

sfn Ir X^rat porvr*ii 

:j. r 
(Tflku w.pi T i^r roC 
Ir /wyaXy (firrff d-yroaif 


^ ;*pu^ 


f or 


. 'in. 

irorra M Ivi/uf lx (< a 'M a * a * 

pTT<Jr, iraraXdAovt, $t<xrrirfttt, bfifx- 30. xdpirot d/inyaia, ^vx&V ^a<T^i 
tfrof, vvt p^^orovf| oXo^orof , 4^vp4Taf ^frt ^f tt/f ^sexj croXXfl^^y ^o^iav QTO^M 

i eVTo^yowr, dreX C^/MTOS. 

<u i/f I jTiV. 

It will be seen that while on the one hand there can be no question of 
direct quotation, on the other band the resemblance is so strong both at to 
the main lines of the argument (i. Natural religion discarded, ii. idolatry, 
hi. catalogue of immorality) and in the details of thought and to tome 
extent of expression as to make it clear that at some time in hu 
must have bestowed upon the Book of Wisdom a considerable amount of 

[Compare the note on ix. 10-39 below, also an essay by E, Grafc in 
T*<ol. Abkandlumpn C. von Wriu&tktr gcwidmtt, Freiburg, 
p. 351 ft*. 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 
agrees substantially with that expressed above. It did not extend to any of 
the leading ideas of Christianity, and affected the form rath 

: of the arguments to which it did extend. Rom. L 18-32, ix. 19-33 
are the meet coospi 

t A.V. expands this as ' [spiritual] had something to do in suggesting the 
fornication * ; and so most modem.. thought of St. Paul 
But even to the phrase might have 



1 1 . 1-16. This state of things puts out of court the [ Jewish'] 
critic who is himself no better than the Gentile. He can 
claim no exemption, but only aggravates his sin by im- 
penitence (w.i-5). Strict justice will be meted out to all 
the Jew coming first then the Gentile (w. 6-1 1). T/te Jew t 
will be judged by the Law of Moses, the Gentile by the Law 
of Conscience, at the Great Assist which Christ will hold 
(w. 12-16). 

1 The Gentile sinner is without excuse ; and his critic who- 
ever he may be is equally without excuse, even though [like 
the Jew] he imagines himself to be on a platform of lofty superiority. 
No such platform really exists. In fact the critic only piCl 
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, \vho are so ready to sit in judgement on those who copy your 
<>wn 1-x.imple 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 Hb judgement is clear 
nij'Ic. lie 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, 


He will give that for which they st - ternal li! 

those mutinous spirits who are disloyal to the right and loyal only 
to unrighteousness, for such there is in store anger and fury, 
galling, nay crushing, pain: for every human being they are in 
store, who carries out to the end his course of evil, whether he 
be Jew or whether he be Gentile the Jew again having prece- 
dence. "On the other hand the communicated glory of the . 
Presence, the approval of God and the bliss of rcconciliati. 
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 : u for God regards no distinctions of race. 

" Do not object that the Jew has a position of privilege i 
will exempt him from this judgement, while the Gentile has no law 

oh 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 
[sec w. 14, 15]. The Jews live under a law, and by tl. 
will be judged. "For it is not enough to hear it read in :! 
synagogues. That does not make a man righteous before God. 

rdict will pronounce righteous only those who have done 

he Law commands. U I say that Gentiles too, although 
they have no written law, will be judged. For whenever any of 
them instinctively put in practice the precepts of the Law, their 
own moral sense supplies them with the law they need. "Be- 
cause their actions give visible proof of commandments writ 
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 : 
thoughts take sometimes the side of the prosecution and some- 
times (but more rarely) of the defence. " These hidden wo 

conscience God can see; and therefore He will judge 
e as well as Jew, at that Great Ass : at He 

!d through His Deputy, Jesus Messiah. 

i The transition from Gentile to Jew is conducted with much 
rhetorical skill, somewhat after the manner of Nathan's { 
to David Under cover of a general statement St. Paul sets be- 
fore himself a typical Jew. Such an one would assent c<> 
to all that had been said hitherto (p. 49. su/>.). It is now turned 
against himself, though for the moment the Apostle IK 
the direct .itlirmation, 'Thou art the man.' 


There I* evidence that Marcion kept vv. a, i a- 14, 16. ao (from I* *"- *9 : 
fur the rest evidence fail*. We might suppose that Marcion would o: 
17-20, which record (however ironically) the privileges of the Jew ; hot the 
retention of the last clause of ver. 20 is against this. 

otl links this section closely to the last ; it is well led up to by 
i. 32, but oVoiroX. pointing back to i. 20 shows that the Apostle had 
more than this in his mind. 

9. ofca^x ft; A BD &c., Hard.,Ortg.-lat. Tert. Ambrstr. Tbeodrt. al. NY H 
text K V. text : ollaptv yapXCijai. pane. Latt. (*xt. g) Boh. Ann.. Chrys., 
Ttsch. WH. marg. RV. marf. An even balance of authorities, both sides 
drawing their evidence from varied quarters. A more positive decision than 
that of \\H. RV. would hardly be justified. 

oi5a = to know for a fact, by external testimony ; 
to know by inner personal experience and appro- 
priation : see Sf>. Comm. iii. 299; Additional note on i Cor. viii. i. 

3. oif 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 ; 
(>il ii. 15; the passages quoted by Gif.; Weber, Altsyn. TSoL 
p. 69 f. 

There may be an element of popular misunderstanding, there is 
iv 1 1. 1 inly 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 privileges 
apart from the attempt to make practice conform to them. 

4. XP'I^TOTTJTOS : bont tali's Vulg., in Tit. iii. 4 bcnignilas: see 
Lft. on Gal. v. 22. x/wjardVijt = 'kindly disposition'; fuutpoOvpia 
= 'patience/ opp. to v^vOi-pia a 'short* or 'quick temper/ 'irasci- 
bility' (cf. /3poovf <lt lfrp\v Jas. i. 19); oVox? = ' forbearance/ 
' delay of punishment,' cf. oW X op<u to hold one's hand. 

Com p. Philo, Leg. Alltgor. i. 13 (Mang. i. 50) "Oror faf Cp pjr ran) 
oAamp, WTflfdf W jr rofr iprj^orarott twon&py . , . ri Irtpov mapia-ryot* ^ 
rtfv lwip6oXt)r rov r vAourov rai riff dyaOunjTot avrov ; 

!i naicpo6vfuat comp. a graphic image in A foe. Bantch. xii. 4 Evigi- 
laHt tontra tt furor qtti nunt tit longanimitatt tanqnam in frenis rtti- 

The following is also an impressive statement of this side of the Divine 
attributes : 4 Ezr. vii. 62-68 (132-1 38} Sao, Dominf, qwmiam ( - 5n ' that ') 
nune voeahts ut Altiwmtts mutritort, in to <ntod mistreatur ku f*i no*d*m 
in tatfulo tuhtntntnt; tt miterator in to quod iin'nufin lYi'i'i n\i ..... mi ijsjMBI 
faeiunt in Ugt tius ; tt hnganimis, qttoniam longanimitoJem fratstat his 
fui ftftavtrunt quasi tuts optri&ut ; tt muni/feus, auoniam qutdtm 


fro xigtrt; tt multat miuritordiM, omomiam mttltiplitat magis mistri- 
tordttu kit fi pratumtts tttmt tt yui traftcrierunt tt <;- 
ftu'm mom mullipluavtrit, mom vivt/Umoitmr uutvlum cum kit <ftti inhabitant 
in to; tt domator, ouomimm si mom ttontntrit dt bomitoJt ma at alleixntur hi 
ftcfrumt dt iuis iiriquitatibus, mom pottrit dttitt milUnma 

a-ra+povm : cf. Afoc. Baruek. xxi. to Immttotmt fottmtia ttta iV. 
fntant lomgtmimitattm tuam tsit imjtrmitatem. 

.icroVoiaV at oyci : its purpose or tendency is to induce you 
to repent 

4 The Conative Present is merely a specie* of the Progressive Present. A 
verb which of itself suggest* effort when used in a tense which implies action 
in progress, and hence incomplete, naturally suggests the idea of attempt ' 
Hurt on, n. 

* According "to R. Levi the words [Joel U. 13] mean: God removes to 
a distance His Wrath. Like a king who had two fierce legtot 
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 then. 
they may appease me and I shall be willing to be appeased. So also said 
God : Anger and Wrath are the messengers of destruction. I will se: 
far away to a distance, so that when the Israelites provoke Me to anger, they 
may come, before I send for them, and repent, and I may acce; 
repentance (cf. Is. xiil 5). And not only that, said R. li'xchak, bat be 
locks them up (Anger and Wrath) out of their way ; s- 
means: Until He opens His treasure-chamber and shuts it again, man 
returns to God and He accepts him' (Trtut. Tkaamitk U. i ap. Winter 
Wunsche, Jud. 1 

word : ' in accordance with/ secundum duritiam tuam Vulg. 
: see on i. 18 above. 

i* Vf*? 6m : to be taken closely together, ' wrath (to 
be inflicted) in a day of wrath.' 

The doctrine of a ' day of the Lord ' as a day of judgement is taught by 
the Prophets from Amos onwards (Amos v. 18 ; Is. i 

xiv. i ; M i. It also enters largely into the pteudeptatapbie 

literature : Knock xlv. ) ff. (and the passages collected in Charle*' 
ft. So/, xv IT. [vii. loa ff. ed. Bensly]; 

. Bariuk. li. i ; Iv. 6, Ace. 

oiKoioKpiaias : not quite the same as ouroinr *pta*t 2 The 

Vulg.), denoting not so much the character of the 
judgement as the character of the Judge (duuuo*, . c. xii. 

41 ; cf. 6 ofcuoc uptri* 2 Tim. iv. 8). 

The word occurs in the Quimta (the fifth vrruon included in Origrn's 
Atapfc) of Ho., vi. 5 ; it is also found 

4r r b*uo*pffiif TO* 0ov. Ibid. \ 5 A^<0* Imkon* mi 
mpd -rip otgOiOMptolat rov eov. 

6. Of diroo^ti : I'rov. >. 

, though in full accord \viilt the teaching ot 


generally (Matt. xvi. 27 ; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 7; Eph. vi. 8; 
Col. Hi. 24, 25; Rev. ii. 23; zx. 12; xxii. 12), may seem at first 
sight to conflict with St. Paul's doctrine of Justification by Faith. 
But Justification is a past act, resulting in a present state : it 
belongs properly to the beginning, not to the end, of the Christian's 
career (see on duuu4i)aorra4 in ver. 13). Observe too that there is 
no real antithesis between Faith and Works in themselves. Works 
arc 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. Hi. 12). 
But as a matter of fact the Law was not kept, the works were not 

7. Ka6* farofioriif fpyou dyaOou : collective use of >yo*, as in 
ver. 15, 'a lifcwork/ the sum of a man's actions. 

8. rots W 4g 4pi6cia? : ' 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 Jjudor ' a hired labourer ' 
we get /udv 'to act as a hireling/ <pi0<vopat a political term 
for ' hiring paid canvassers and promoting party spirit : ' hence 
4p<0'a = the spirit of faction, the spirit which substitutes factious 
opposition for the willing obedience of loyal subjects of the king- 
dom of heaven. See Lft. and 11. on Gal. v. 20, but esp. Fri. 
ad he. 

The ancients were strangely at tea about this word. Hesychins (cent 5) 
derived //*0ot from tpa 'earth ; the Etymologicum Magnum (a compilation 
perhaps of the eleventh century) goe* a step further, and derives it from tpa 
tip agricola mcrttdt tondttttut ; Greg. Nyssen. connects it with tp*o* ' wool * 
(IptOoi was used specially of wool workers) ; but most common of all is the 
connexion with f(*t (so Theodrt. on Phil. ii. 3; cf. Vulg. his out tx con- 
tention* [ptr contentiontm Phil. ii. 3 ; rixa* Gal. v. ao] ). There can be 
little doubt that the use of lf*9<ia was affected by association with tptt, 
though there is no real connexion between the two words (see notes on 
i. 7, orayvfa* xi. 8). 

. . Ou|i6 : see Lft. and Ell. on Gal. v. 20; Trench, Syn. 
.-, : tpyf) is the settled feeling, Qvpfa the outward manifestation, 
4 outbursts ' or ' ebullitions of wrath.' 


Orig. (in Cramer's Catena . 

9. 6XI4"S KCU (rrcroxwoia : iribulatio (firessura in the African form 
of the Old Latin) et angustia Vulg., whence our word ' anguish ' : 
<rr<mx*pia is the stronger words* torturing confinement ' (cf. 2 Cor. 
iv. 8). But the etymological sense is probably lost in usage: 
et angusliae h.e. summa calamilas Fri. p. 106. 

58 K ROMANS [II 12 

For fimilar comWnatiooi ('day of tribuUtioo and pain,' 'of ttibaUtioo 
and great shame." 'of .uttering and uibulation/'of anguish and affliction/ Ace.) 
tee Charles' note on Enoch xlv. a. 

= ' carry to the end ' ; card cither strengthening 
the force of the simple vb., as per in Jxrjictrc, or giving it a bad 
sense, as in jxrpetrai \ 07. 

1 1 7rpoawno\T^i'a : peculiar : ! and Ecclesiastical Greek 

cf. *voanroA^mf* Acts X. 34 J 

Jas. ii. 9; *rpo<r*iroX7T*r I Pet. i. 17): *vxfcriror 
= (i) to give a gracious reception to a suppliant or 
\ix. 15) ; and hence (ii) to show partial!; judge- 

ment In N. T. always with a bad sense. 

The Idol ttpe* back to Dent. x. 17 ei . . . 06 favpafu s?tat*sw oMT 
o& M *4*p ttpor, which U adopted in A. Sol. ii. 19 4 et pr*f feouot 2 
oi topa< v&Mrar, and explained \*J*Kltu v. 15 And lie u not one 
who will regard the person (oi any) nor receive gifts ; when He says 
will execute Judgement on each: If one gave him everything that U on the 
earth, He will not regard the gifts or the person (of any), nor accept any- 
thing at his hands, for be U a Righteous Judge' ; cf. A fee. Harut. 
Pirqt Abotk iv. 31 He is about to judge with whom there U no i 
nor forget iulneas, nor respect of persons, nor taking of a bribe.' 

13, 13. vipot and & vo^o*. The distinction between these two forms did 
not escape the scholarship of Origen, whose comment on Rom. iii. ai reads 
thus in Kufinus' translation (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. aoi): A! 
Grottos nomimioms fytpa pratpomi, qua* af>ud not fctsunt articuli ncmman. 
Si queutdo igihtr Afotis Itgtm nominat, soli turn nomini praemittit or tun/urn : 
n qtuutde vert mat ur alt** vult intelligi, situ ariitulo nominal Uftm. 
distinction howerer, though it holds good generally, does not corer all the 
cases. There are really three main uses: <.i) 3 rl/iot - the Law of Moses; 
the art. denotes something with which the readers are familiar, 'ttuir own 
law! which Christians in tome sense inherited from the Jews through t : . 

>ot- law in general (e.g. ill a, 14; iii. 20 f.; iv. 15; v. 13, &c.). 
there is yet a third usage where *&iun without art. really means the Law o 
Moses, but the absence of the art. calls attention to it not as proceeding fa 

Moses, but in its quality as law; nmania Metis udania Itx as ( Jif. expretse 

is comment on Gal. ii. 19 (p. 46). St. Paul r. 

period as essentially a period of Law, both for Jew and f< : Hence 

when be wishes to bring out this be uses r4jtor without art. even where be to 
referring to the Jews; because his main point is that they were under 
' a legal system 'who gave it and what name it bore was a secondary con- 
sideration. The I Jiw of the Jews was only a typical example of a state of 
things that was universal. This will explain passages like Kom. v. 2 

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 
when one word in a phrase drops the article another also drops it ; s 
these passages involve rather nice points of scholarship (see the notes on 

i. 8). On the whole subject compare esp. < 
also a monograph by Grafe. Dit fauliitiick* Ishrt von Ct r 
1884, ed. a, 1893 goes rather too far in denying the dUt 

n itfjiot and o r^oi. but his paper contains many just remarks and 

c : ; '. . .>;:. ^. 

12. dVojm*. The heathen are represented as dclitx cling 


not only the Law of Moses but even the Noachic ordinances. 
Thus they have become enemies of God and as such arc doomed 
to destruction (Weber, Altsyn. Thcol. p. 65). 

Barton (| 54} call* this a 'collective Aoritt,' represented in 
English by the Perfect 4 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 lime of speaking we must 
as in iii. 33 employ an English Perfect in translation. Prof. Burton 
suggests an alternative possibility that the aor. may be frobptic, as if it 
were spoken looking backwards from the Last Judgement of the sins which 
will then be past; but the parallels of iii. 33, T. la are against this. 

18. ot OKpooTol vofiow : cf. *a-njxovnvot < row rvfiov ver. 18 ; also /Vr<y 
.'fir 6 (Sayings of tk* Jewish fathers, ed. Taylor, p. 115) 'Thorah U 
acquired ... by learning, by a listening ear,* &c. It U interesting to note 
that among the sayings ascribed to Simeon, very possibly St Paul's own 
clan-mate and son of Gamaliel his teacher, is this : not learning but doing 
U the groundwork ; and whoso multiplies words occasions sin ' (J'irtjt Aboih. 
i. 1 8, ed. Taylor; relT. from Delitisch). 

v4pov situ artic. bis KABDG. The absence of the art. again (as in the 
last Terse) generalizes the form of statement, ' the hearers and the doers of 
law* (whatever that law may be) ; cf. viL I. 

SiKatwd^aotrai. The word is used here in its universal sense of 
1 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 than to the future (5uroM>&'rr<ff 
aor. cf. v. i , 9) ; the acquittal there dates from the moment at 
which the man becomes a Christian ; it marks the initial step in 
bis career, his right to approach the presence of God as if he were 
righteous. See on ver. 6 above. 

14. c0nr) : TO idvij would mean all or most Gentiles, fdwj means 
me Gentiles ; the number is quite indefinite, the prominent 
point being their character as Gentiles. 

Cf. 4 Ezr. iii. 36 horn tuts quiJtm ftr nomina invfnus 
tua, gtntts auttm non ittvfttus. 

xorra , the force of #117 is ' who ex hypolheri have not 
a law/ whom we conceive of as not having a law ; cf. TO w orra 
i Cor. i. 28 (gnat pro nihilo habentur Grimm). 

Jaurois tlai ropos : ubi Icgis implttio, ibi Ux P. Ewald. 

The doctrine of this vene was liberal doctrine for a Jew. The Talmud 
recognizes no merit in the good deeds of heathen unless they are accompanied 
by a definite wish for admission to the privilege* of Judaism. Even if 
a heathen were to keep the whole law it would avail him nothing without 
circumcision (Dtbarim XaUa i). If be prays to Jehovah his prayer is not 


heard (UU.\ If be commits sin and repents, that too does not h 
(Puikta 156*). Even for his alms be gets no credit (7Y/i>/a i. 

books* (i.e. in those in which God sets down the actions of the 
heathen) there is no desert* (Skir KaH* 86-). Sec Weber, Altiyn. Tk*l. 
p. 66 f. Christian theologians have expressed themselves much to the same 
effect. Their opinions are summed up concisely by Mark Pattison, Enayi, 
'In accordance with this view they interpreted the passage! in 
i AU! which speak of the religion of the heathen; e.g. Rom 
Since the time of Augustine ' Dt Sfir. tt IM.S 37) the orthodox interpreta- 
tion had applied this verse, either to the Gentile converts, or to the favouied 
few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine assistance. The 
i'rotestant expositors, to whom the words " do by nature the things contained 
in the law " could never bear their literal force, sedulously j 
Augusiinian explanation. Even the Pelagian Jeremy Taylor is obliged to 
gloss the phrase " by nature," thus : By fears and secret opinions which the 
Spirit of God, who is never wanting to men in things necessary, was pleased 
to put into the hearts of men " (Dtut. Dubit. B- 

rationalists, however, find the expression " t sense, 

exactly conformable to their own views (John Wilkins [ i '. V Nat. 

/. and have no difficulty in supposing the acceptableness of those 
works, and the salvation of those who do them. Burnet. on 
in his usual confused style of eclecticism, suggests both opinions without 
seeming to see that they are incompatible relics of divergent schools of 

15. omrtt : see on ; 

cVfciKyurrcu : Vo>t<c implies an appeal to facts ; demon 
rebus gesiisfacta (P. Ewald, Dt Vocis Zvrftdprw, Ac., p. 1 6 n.). 
TO pyof TOO ro'pou : ' the work, course of conduct belonging to ' 

in this context 'required by 'or 'in accon 

' : collective use of <pyw as in ver. 7 above. 

[Probably not as Ewald of. cit. p. 1 7 after Grotins, op*s Itflt trt id, q*od 
Itx in Jndati* tffuit, tump* togniti 

auTwf TTJS au^cioiiacws. This phrase is almost 
exactly repeated in ch. ix. i avpftapr. /MM rijr cn/wid. ftov. In both 
cases the conscience is separated from the self and personit 
a further witness standing over against i:. Here the quality of the 
acts themselves is one witness, and the approving judgement passed 
upon them by the conscience is another concurrent witness. 

<rvri&)<rt*. Some such distinction as this is suggested by the < 
meaning and use of the word <rvrifc?<r<r, which - ' co-knowledge,' the know- 
ledge or reflective judgement which a man has by tk* rid* ofot in conjttnetion 
u*/4 the original consciousness of the act. This second consciousness is easily 
projected and personified as confronting the first. 

The word is quoted twice from Menander (349-291 B.C.), Mono:: 
(cf. 654) draW )/> $ ffvMifcpm *<* (ed. Didot, pp. 101, 10 
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 btoics. The two forms, ri rvr,^, and * <rw V PP*r 
to be practically convertible. Epictctus (fragm. 97) compares the con- 
science to a ai&rprylf in a passage which is closely parallel to the comment 
of Origen on this verse of Lp. Kom. (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 



velut patdagegu* ei [te an f mat] quiJam tociatu* tt rtttor ml earn dt mtluritta 
montat vtl tit cuifis castigtt tt arguat. 

In biblical Greek the word occurs firt with its full tense in Wisd. xvii. 10. 
0) po<ri'Air^ T<! xoAi ["?/* a ] <n/Mxo/iVn7 ry <7Wi^<r. In 
T(i ffvMi&t is the form used. In N. T. the word it mainly Pauline 
(occurring in the speeches of Acts xxiii. i, xxiv. 16; Rom. i and a Cor, 
Past. Epp., also in Ilcb.) ; elsewhere only in i Pet. and the ffrif. adult. 
John viii. 9. It is one of the few technical terms in St Paul which seem to 
have Creek 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. 1 1). It can be 
over-scrupulous (i Cor. x. 25', 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 

modern times. Conscience, with the ancients, was the faculty which pasted 

judgment upon actions afttr they were doit* (in technical language the con- 

:.'ia consequent moralis}, not so much the general source of moral 

obligation. In the passage before us St Paul speaks of such a source 

laiTMt ilat v6poi) ; 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, Dt Voci* 2vrc<84<r* /**/ script. M T. w ac 

pcttitatt (Lipsiae, 1883). 

wf. 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 
n<mv oAAi?Xft> 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 ntrav dXXqXw* will = ' between one 
another/ ' between man and man/ ' in the intercourse of man 
with man'; and Xoyurpw* 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 M<T<IU ciXA^Aotr, which suggests a contrast between 
the two clauses, as if ihey described two different processes and 
not merely different parts or aspects of the same process. 

There is a curious parallel to this description in Asntmp. Moys. i. 13 
Creavit tnim orbtm terrarum proffer pltlxm mam, tt no* coeptl mm 
inctptiontm creaiurat . . . palam facer e, ttt I'M ta gtntts argtumtttr tt kumili- 
nter se ditfutationilms argtuutt tt. 

: the Xoyurfioi 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 

ap39 (iroAAol Aoyia/iioi V rapoV? d-op6f PrOV. XJX. 21 ; cf. Ps. XXXii. 1 1 J 

Prov. vi. 18): it is used of secret 'plots' (Jer. xviii. 18 6Vvr 


'if/x/mi* Aoyi<r M or, 4 devise devices *), and of the : 
intentions (Jcr. xxix [xxxvil n Xoyu>v/uu /<* i-/it Xoyurp/i* i>^f). 
In the present passage St. Paul is describing an internal process, 
though one which is destined to find external expression ; i 
process by which arc formed the moral judgements of me: 
their fellows. 

' The conscience ' and ' the thoughts ' both belong to the Mine persons. 
This is rightly seen by Klopper, who hat written at length on the passage 
before us (Paulittisck* Shu/**, Konigsberg, 1887, p. 10) ; bat it does not 
follow that both the conscience and the thoughts arc exercised upon the same 
objects, or that turafb dAAjXur most be referred to the thoughts 
sense that influences from without are excluded. The parallel quoted in 
support of this (Matt, xviii. 15 utrafb oov ro2 abrov irivov) derives that part 
s meaning from /ilrov, not from fura(v. 

TJ K<H : ' or even/ ' or it may be/ implying that droX. is the ex- 
ception, iconpy. the rule. 

16. The best way to punctuate is probably to put ( 
a colon aft< and a semi-colon at the end of ver. 1 5 

16 goes back to ducaM^rorrai in ver. 13, or rather forms a c 
sion to the whole paragraph, taking up again the V IJJM/* of 
The object of w. 13-15 is to explain how it comes about that 
Gentiles who have no law may yet be judged as if they had one : 
they have a second inferior kind of law, if not any written precepts 
yet the law of conscience ; by this law they will be judged 
quick and dead are put upon their trial. 

Orig., with his usual actrteness, sees the difficulty of connecting ver 16 with 
ver. 15, and gives an answer which is substantially right The ' t 
accusing and condemning* are not conceived as rising up at the last day but 
now. They leave however marks behind, velut in ctru. i/a in tord* ncstro. 
These marks God can see (ed. Lomm. p. 109). 

*v V*P ST. (*/ \VH. marrf s Ir f- W n 1 / : Jr M n J A, 

Pesh. Boh. a/., \VH. marg. 

8ta 'Ii]<rov Xpurrov (ft \VH. marg.') : W X/<n-o 'lr)ow KB, Orig., Tisch. 
\\ II . ft*/. 

might be *pui, as RV. marg., fut. regarded as cer: 
TO cuayyAior fioo. The point to Paul's Gospel, 

or habitual teaching, bears witness is, not that God will ju<: 
world (which was an old doctrine), but that He will judge it through 
Jesus Christ as His Deputy (which was at least new in 
tion, though the Jews expected the Mess: .is Judge, Enoch 

xlv, .\: harles' notes). 

The phrase rard r nVyy. pov occurs Rom. xvj. 35. of the specially 

Taulme doctrine of 'free grace': ir resurrection of 

.*t from the dead, (ii) of His descent from the seed of Da\ 

note hi passing the not very intelligent tradition (introduced by 4tai 

ml spoke of his Gospel 1 1 
the Gospel of St. Luke. 



II. 17-20. The Jew may boast of his possession of a special 
Revelation and a written Law, but all tJte time his practice 
shows that he is really no better than the Gentile ( w. 1 7-24). 
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 tlie Gentile also may share (w. 

17 Do you 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 ? 
l> 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 
i hey mere infants and you their teacher? You, who have all 
knowledge and all truth visibly embodied for you in the Law ? 
11 Boastful Jew! How does your practice comport with your 
theory ? So ready to teach others, do you need no teaching your- 
self? The eighth M 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 ? tt You vaunt the possession of a law ; and by the 
violation of that law you affront and dishonour God Who gave it. 
* 4 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 because of the gross incon- 
sistency in practice of those who claim to be His people. 

n 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 you 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? 
n And uncircumcised as he is, owing to his Gentile birth, yet if he 


:hc Law, his example will (by contrast) conden 
with the formal advantages of a written law ami circumcision, only 
break the law < : u boast. * For it is not he who has the 

rd and visible marks of a Jew who is the true J< 
is an outward and bodily circumcision the true circun. 
"But he who is inwardly and secretly a Jew is the true Jew 
the moral and spiritual circumcision is that which really deserves 
the name. The very word ' Jew 'descendant of Judah 
'praise' (Gen. .\ And such a Jew has his 'praise/ not 

from man but from God. 

17 E: U S \ B D* a/., Latt. Pesh. Boh. A , Ac.: 'lo. 

D L al, Hard., Chrys. al. The authorities for 0V include 
oldest MSS., all the leading versions, and the oldest Fathers : Id* is 
an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the const r 
slightly easier. Reading ' oY the apodosis of the sentence begins 
at ver. 21. 

'lou&cuot : here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew 
it would have a tendency to do) to 'IvpmjMnjt, a member of the 
Chosen People, opposed to the heathen. 

Strictly speaking, 'Etptuoi, opp. 'EXAfjncrr^t, calls attention to language ; 
1ov&u"off, opp. 'EAAip, calls attention to nationality ; 'lopaifMrip - a member 
of the theocracy, in possession of fall theocratic privileges (Trcnc 
{ xxxix, | The word 'lov&uot does not occur in LXX (though 

InMnJi is found four times in a Mace), but at this date it U the common 
word ; 'EBpat'ot and 'lopaijtirij, arc terms reserved by the Jews themselves, 
the one to distinguish between the two main divisions of their r.. 
Palestinian and Greek-speaking), the other to describe their esoteric M 
For the Jew's pride in bis privileges com p. 4 Ezra vi. 55 f. hatt autem 
ttia dixi toram //. Dcmim, quomam dunsti eat (sc. gentts} nil 
' saliva* auimUata* tttnt t tt quasi still t 

: ' bearest the name ' : /jrovopdt*=' to impost a i 
pass. ' to have a name imposed.' 

Jvaravaurj ropu : i.\.o a law to lean upon': .- art.) 

HABD*; but it is not surprising that the la- -hould 

make the statement more definite, ' lean upon the Law.' Fo. 
(rtquuscis Vulg.) cf. rd implies 

at once the sense of support and the saving of illV.ii. 
the Jew from the possession of a law. 

Kauxaaat iv 0<w : suggested by Jer. ix. 24 ' let him ti 
glory in this, that he understandelh and km> 
the Lord.' 

for ofX9, stoppbg at the first step in the process of con- 

t:.:. . . v ,.:., . i..' Mi , i . I;,;,, ! 

II 17-20.] FAILURE OF THE JI 65 

to be called * Alexandrine/ bat which simply belong to the popular Greek 
current at the time (Hort. Introd. p. 304). mvxaaat occurs alto in I Cor. 
iv. 7, Karaxavxaooi Rom. xl 18 : comp. Mvraotu I.uke xvi. 25, and from an- 
contracted verbs, faytotu . . . witaat Luke xrii. 8, tvraoat Mitt. v. 36 (but 
tVp Mark ix. a a) ; see Win. G>. xiii. a* (p. 90). 

18. TO eArjfio. Bp. Lightfoot has shown that this phrase was 
so constantly used for ' the Divine Will ' that even without the art. 
it might have that signification, as in i Cor. xvi. la (On Revision, 
p. 106 ed. i, p. 118 ed. a). 

ooKiprflcis -rd 8ia$porra : firobas v tili or a Cod. Clarom. Rufin. 
Vulg. ; non modo prae malts bona sed in boms optima Beng. on 
Phil. i. 10, where the phrase recurs exactly. Both words are 
ambiguous : dor.^w = (i) ' to test, assay,' discern ' ; (ii) ' to 
approve after testing' (see on i. 28); and ra duHptpopra 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. (duwrpiVm ra 

&ia<t>tpovra uAAi^Xttf olov ffaXAv cat caxbV, dprr^y itnl raxia*), Fri. De W. 

Oltr. Go. Lips. Mou. The rendering of RV. ('approvest the 
things that are excellent') is adopted by Latt. Orig. (ita ut non 
so/urn quac sin/ bona sciat, terum etiam quac sin/ meliora et itliliora 
discernas), most English Versions. Mey. Lft. Gif. Lid. (Chrys. does 
not distinguish ; Va is undecided). The second rendering is the 
more pointed. 

TOU roiOM : cf. Acts xv. 21. 

19. fcroi0a ff.rJl. The common conttraction after vlvmfof is Sn : ace. 
and infin. is very rare. It seems better, with Vangban, to take fftavror 
closely with mivottot, 'and art persuaded as to thyself that thou art/ Ac. 

iftiwdv . . . Tv+A&v. It is natural to compare Matt xv. 14 rvfAoi W 
o877oi rv^Xwr *.T.A. ; also xxiii. 1 6, 34. Lips, thinks that the first saying was 
present to the mind of the Apostle. It would not of coarse 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. YVUnsche, ErUtut. 
d. Evans, on Matt, xxiii. 16. The same epithet was given by a GaliUcan 
to R. Chasda, Bab* Kama fol. 53 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 mien.' 

20. vaiocuTt|r: 'a schoolmaster/ with the idea of discipline, 
correction, as well as teaching ; cf. Heb. xii. 9. 

rr)ur : ' infants/ opp. to rcXtux, 'adults/ as in Heb. v. 13, 14. 
' 'outline/ 'delineation/ 'embodiment.' As a rule 

outward form as opp. to inward substance, while popfa 
outward form as determined by inward substance ; so that 
is the variable, pop^q the permanent, element in things : see 
Lft. Phil. p. 125 ff. ; Sp. Comm. on i Cor. vil. 31. Nor does the 
present passage conflict with this distinction. The Law was a real 


expression of Divine truth, so Tar as it went. It is more 
account for 2 Tim. iii. 5 Vrrr /"vtf*-""' "O'frt** *& W 

See however LfL in Jour*, of Clots, mud Sacr. Pkilol. (i<- 
'They will observe that in two passages where St. Paul doet speak of that 
which is unreal or at least external, and doet not employ x 
avoids using *M>/*4 as inappropriate, and adopts jifrjytt instead (1 
30 ; a Tim re the termination -*w denotes " the aiming after or 

affecting the /Mff4." ' Can this quite be made good I 

21. ooV: resui reducing the apodosis to the long pro- 

tasis in w. 1 7-20. After the string of points, suspended as i 
in the air, by which the Apostle describes the Jew's comph 
he now at las,t comes down with his emphatic accusation. 
is the Thou art the man ' which we have been expecting sin 
vcr. i. 

: infm. because i7/*Wr contains the idea of command. 

22. pocXuroofuros : used of the expression of physical disgust; 
esp. of the Jew's horror at idolatry. 

Note the piling op of phrases in Deut viL 16 -2 ofcr J<rol<rm ^'Airypa 

the idols of the heathen : Auump. Aloys, viii. 4 togtntur palam baiulart id* 

passage just quoted (Deut. vii. 26 \\\\ 
Joseph. A> 10, and Acts xix. 37 (where the 

asserts that St. Paul and his companions were ' not kpAn/Aoi' i 
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 At^ to him unless 
it had been previously desecrated by Gentiles. But for this t! 
have thought that in depriving the heathen of their idol he was doing a good 
work. See the passages in DelHxsch ad tot. ; also on Jjw*vAm. which most 
not be interpreted too narrowly. on Stiff m. KeL p. 299 t; 

Ramsay, Tk* Chunk in tkt Roma* J uhrrc it i 

that Jpo*vJUa was just one of the crimes which a provincial governor could 
proceed against by his own imftrium. 

The Eng. Versions of Jpxr*Am group themselves thus: - robbest God of 
his honour* Tyn. Cran. Genev.; 'doe* sacrilege* Cor equivalent 
Rhem. AV. RV. marg. ; 'dost rob temples' 1 

23. It is probably best not to treat this verse as a question. 
The questions which go before are collected by a sun 

ith a delicate sense of Greek composition, sees 
a hint of this in the change from participles to the relative and 
(6 &da<nraM> ... or aavgmrai). 

II. 24-27] FAILURE OF THE Jl 67 

24. A free adaptation of Is. lu. 5 (LXX). Heb. 'And con- 
tinually all the day long My Name is blasphemed': LXX adds to 
this Hi i-pat and V rote tfaai*. St. Paul omits oWoiTof and changes 

fiov tO rov 6ov. 

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 (4V \it\ traces this reviling to the scandal caused 
by Israel's inconsistency. The fact that the formula of quotation 
i> thrown to the end shows that he is conscious of applying the 
passage freely : it is almost as if it were an afterthought that the 
language he has just used is a quotation at all. See the longer 
note on ch. x, below. 

86. vouov irpd<r<TQt. On the absence of the art. see especially the scholarly 
note in Va. : 'It is almost as if rv/ioy wpdoativ and v6pov vapa&iTjp were 
severally Hke ropo6rr, rofio$vA<urr, Arc., vopoeinp, ro><o&5d<raAof, &c., 
one compound word: if (km b* a law-dotr . . . if tkou be a law-trcuugrttsor, 
&c., indicating the (haraettr of the person, rather than calling attention to 
the particular form or designation of the law, which claims obedience.' 

Y. YVV : is by that very fact become.' Del. quotes the realistic ex- 
pression given to this idea in the Jewish fancy that God would send his 
angel to remove the marks of circumcision on the wicked 

26. <ts ircpiTOfif}*' Xoyio6ii9CT<u : \oyi(taffai tr TI = 

TI, tit denoting result, so as to be in place of/ ' reckoned as 
a substitute or equivalent for' (Fri., Grm.-Thay. s. v. \oylfofuu i a). 

Of the synonyms TWMT, <t>v\doot,y, TAir ; rip<** - to keep an eye upon,' 
' to observe carefully ' (and then do) ; fvlAoettv - ' to guard as a deposit,' 
' to preserve intact ' against violence from without or within ; TX> - to 
bring (a law) to its proper fulfilment ' in action ; r^ptw and fvX&oott* are 
both from the point of view of the agent, rcXn'r from that of the law which 
is obeyed. Sec Westcott on Jo. xvii. 1 3 ; i Jo. ii. 3. 

27. Kpircl: most probably categorical and not a question as 
AY. and RV. ; = 'condemn' by comparison and contrast, as in 
xii. 41,42 * 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 vv. 1-3; the judge of others shall be himself 

Vj IK +uacu>s dicpopuario : 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* (V <f>i'<r.=<v<r v. 14). 

OKI of 'attendant circumstances' as in iv. n, viu. 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 flab 
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. 2, 14 sup. We may 

W 2 

'>N :.K TO THE ROMANS [II. 27 20. 

compare ii St. Paul claims that Christians represent 

the true circumcision. 

28. & Iv T* avipy The Creek of thU and ihc next verse U elliptical, 
and there is tome ambiguity at to how much belongs to the subject and how 
much to the predicate. Eren accomplished scholars li- 

Vanghan differ. The Utter has some advantage in symmetry, making 
the mining word* in both clauses belong to the subject (' Not he who i 
fa Jew] ontwardly b a Jew ... bat he who U [a Jew] in secret U a Jew ') ; 
bat it U a drawback to this view of the construction that it separates npfVfsf 
and m/A'at : (iif , as it seems to us rightly, combines these ('he * 
inwardly a Jew [is truly a Jew], and circumcision of heart ... 
> ']). Similarly Lip*. Weiss (but ; 

28. wcpirop) itopoios. The idea of a spiritual (heart-) cfa 
cision goes back to the age of Deuteronomy ; Dcut. x. 16 *-/*r- 
luurto T^ rXi7ptopu ipS* : Jer. IV. 4 wiptTpSfan ry &<? v^, oi 
wtptTi'>u<r6< ri)* ffcXijpxMcapouiv vp*v I cf. Jer. ix. 26; Ezek. X 

Acts vii. 51. Justin works out elaborately the idea of the Ch 

>n, Dial. c. Tryph \ 

6 cwcurof. We believe that Dr. GifTord was the first to point 
out that there is here an evident play on the name ' J< 
= Praise ' (cf. Gen. xxix. 35 ; xlix. 8). 


III. 1-8. This argument may suggest three objections: 
(i) Ij // Centilf is better off than the immoral Jew, 

what becomes of the Jew's advantages /AN 

>:any. /it's (f.g-) are the / iw. 1-2). (ii) But 

has not the Jews unbelief cancelled thost 
ANSWER. No unbelief on the part if man can affect the 
pledged word of God: i: ^faithful- 

ness (w. 3, 4). (iii) If that is the result of his actior. 
shout* : V jttdgea ill be 

judged: we may not say (as I an: false I \ 
Do evil that good may come (vv. 5-8). 

1 If the qualifications which God requires arc il 

; \\ an objector may urge, What becomes of the privileged 
position of the Jew, his descent from Alx 

does he gain by his circumcision? * He does gain 
on all ikies. The first gain is that to the Jews were c ommitted 


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. 4 To suggest otherwise were 
blasphemy. Nay, God must be seen to be true, though all man- 
kind are convicted of falsehood. Just as in Ps. li the Psalmist 
confesses that the only effect of his own sin will be that (in 
forensic metaphor) God will be ' declared righteous ' in His sayings 
[the promises just mentioned], and gain His case when it is brought 
to trial. 

9 A new objection arises. If our unrighteousness is only 
a foil to set off* the righteousness of God would not God be unjust 
who punishes men for sin ? (Speaking of God as if He were man 
c.m hardly be avoided.) *That too were blasphemy to think 1 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. 

7 If, you say, as in the case before us, the truthfulness of 
God in performing His promises is only thrown into relief by my 
infidelity, which thus redounds to His glory, why am I still like 
other offenders (u) 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. 

1 iV. 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., 156*"., vii. 7 ff.). No 
doubt this is a way of presenting the dialectical process in his own 
mind But at the same time it is a way which would seem to 
have been suggested by actual experience of controversy with 
Jews and the narrower Jewish Christians. We are told expressly 


he charge of saying ' Let us do evil that good may come ' 
: ought as a matter of fact against the Apostle (ver. 8). 
15 restate this charge in Pauline language. The Apostle 
as it were takes it up and gives it out again as if it came in the 
logic of his own thought And the other charge of levelling down 
all the Jew's privileges, of ignoring the Old Testament and dis- 
paraging its saints, was one which must as inevitably have been 
brought against St. Paul as the like charges were brought against 
St. Stephen (Acts vi. 13 f). It is probable however that St. Paul 
had himself wrestled with this question long before it was pointed 
against him as a weapon in controversy; and he propoum! 
the order in which it would naturally arise in that stress of reason- 
ing, pro and con., which went to the shaping of his own system. 
The modified form in which the question comes up the second 
time (ver. 9) shows if our interpretation is correct that St Paul is 
there rather following out his own thought than contending with 
an adversary. 

1. TO -rrepiaaof. That which encircles a thing necc 
lies outside it. Hence *<pl would seem to have a latent n. 

' beyond/ which is appropriated rather by *po, wpoy, but comes out 
in wp7(ro<, ' that which is in excess/ ' over and above.' 

2. vpMToy ficV: intended to be followed by fircira 6V, 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. 

v/wror /iJr ><ip : om rv> B D E G mittHU. fame., vtru. f/ttr., Chrys. 

in the tense of ' entrust,' ' confide/ takes ace. of 

the thine entrusted, dat. of the person ; e. g. Jo. ii. 24 A *i 'Iqirovt . 
t*r fevrdr [rather afrrdr or atrlr] a&rmY 

[rather afrrdr or atrlr] a&rmY In the passive the dat. 
becomes nom. , and the ace remains unchanged ( Buttmann, pp. 1 75, 1 89, 1 oo ; 

p. a8;];c: 

ro Xoyio, St. Paul might mean by this the whole of the O. T. 
regarded as the Word of God, but he seems to ha\ 
those utterances in it which stand out as most unmistakably 1 
the Law as given from Sinai and the promises relating to the 

The old account of Ao-yior as a ditnin. of Aorot is probably correct, though 
Mcy.-W. make it neut. of At-pot oo the ground that Acryftor is the proper 
dimtn. The form Ae^or is rather a strengthened dirain. , which by a process) 
common in language took the place of A<Jyu>r when it acquired the special 
eme of 'oracle.' From Herod, downwards A^ior - 'oracle' as a brief 
conrtrnard faying; and so it came to - any 'inspired, divine utterance': 
e. g. in Philo of the ' prophecies ' and of the ' ten commandments ' mtpi rvr 
bra A*?*** is t: <. So in 1 X \ ,.oo if 

used of the ' word of the Lord ' fire times in Isaiah and frequently in the 
Psalms (no lesa than seventeen times in I's. . ' m this utage 

it was natural that it should be transferred to the 'sayings' of the Lord 
Jem (Poljc. ad Phil. MI. I it I* jMfefcvf rd A^yta rov K.y*W : cf. lien. 


Adv. Hatr. I praef. ; also WetM, EM. ft 5. 4). But from the time of Philo 
onwards the word was used of any sacred writing, whether discoone or 
narrative; so that it is a disputed point whether the X^yia TOW Kvpio* which 
Papias ascribes to St. Matthew, as well as his own Koyw vpuumr ^TTJ 
(Eus //. /.. HI. xxxix. 16 and i) were or were not limited to discourse (see 
especially Lightfool, ts. on S*pm. KtL p. i;a ff.). 

3. ^wiVnjaoK . . . diri<ma. Do these words refer to ' unbelief 
(M.y. 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 ; (irt 
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 (oiriorcw occurs seven times, in which the only apparent 
exception to this sense is a Tim. ii. 13, and anurria eleven times, 
with no clear exception) ; (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. xi. 20 

rJ7 umcrTta tiK\av&r)<Tat>, av d rjj irt<rrti anjKar. At the Same time 

the one sense rather suggests than excludes the other ; so that the 
<nrma of man is naturally contrasted with the ir&mr of God 
(cf. Va.). 

wumr : ' faithfulness ' to His promises ; cf. Lam. iii. 33 woXAg 9 
wtffTiff <row : Ps. So/, viii. 35 9 m'<mr aov fttff fj^uv. 

Karofry^crci. narapytlv (from ara causative and apyof = eupyfa) 
= to render inert or inactive ' : a characteristic word with St. Paul, 
occurring twenty-five times in his writings (including a 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. \i. 6 ira KarapyriQg r6 aw/in r^r d/ia/mar, ' that the body as 
an instrument of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless'; 
(ii) in a figurative sense, ' to render invalid,' ' abrogate,' ' abolish ' 
(rq* cVoyyeXtoj' Gal. iii. 17 ; H$/AO* Rom. iii. 31). 

4. jirj Y^OITO: a formula of negation, repelling with horror 
something previously suggested. * Fourteen of the fifteen N. T. 
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 T. 177 ; cf. 
also Lft. on Gal. ii. 17). 

- 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 five times in LXX, not however standing alone as here, 
but worked into the body of the sentence (cf. Gen. xlir. 7, 17 ; Josh. zxii. 39, 

xxiv. 16; 1 Kings XX [xxi]. 3). 

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/ 
as keeping His plighted word. 

EPISTLE TO THE ROMA [ill. 4, 5. 

: in asserting that God's promises have not been fulfilled. 
YYP a7TTQl : ' Even as it stands written.' The quota: 
exact from LXX of Ps. It [1J. 6. Note the mistranslation \\\ I. XX 
(which St. Paul adopts), *xw* (or *i7<rm) for insons sis, V T 
KpivurPm (pass.) for in iudicando or dum iudicas. The sense of the 

il is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God's 
judgement upon him. The result of his sin is that God is pro- 
nounced righteous in His sentence, free from blam- : iging. 

il 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. 

8*1*1 v : to point* to an unexpressed condition, * in cue a decision it 

'that thou mightcst be pronounced righteous* by 
the judgement of mankind ; see p. 30 f. above, and comp 

19 itui jkxaiMh) f) aotfr'ia an 6 Tr <pyo*c (v. 1. rv*v : ( f I.k. . 
avr^t. Test. XII Pair. Sym. 6 o**r ducai^ airo nj Apapriat rir 
^rv x r i'/r. />J. .SW. U. 1 6 > OUCOMMTM cr 6 6or. The USdge 

occurs repeatedly in this book ; see Ryle and James ad toe. 

lv TO!? Xoyois <roo : not ' pleadings ' ( Va.) but * sayings,' i. e. the 
\oyta just mentioned. Heb. probably = 'judicial sentence/ 

riKi]<rgf : like vinccrt, of ' gaining a suit,' opp. to i^rraatfai : the 
full phrase is **&> r^r toa) (Eur. El. 955, Ac.). 

vucVuti B G K L Ac ; rn^rm K A D E, minute, aliq. Probably VMiftftit 
U right, because of the agrmnent of K A with the older type* of Western 
Text, thus representing two great families. The reading rur^rft in B appa- 
rently belongs to the small Western clement in that MS., which would stem 
to be allied to that in G rather than to that in D. There U a 
fluctuation in MSS. of the LXX : ni7<rpt is the readir N 

runprm of some fourteen cursive*. The text of LXX used by St. Paul differ* 
not seldom from that of the great uncials. 

: probably not mid. (' to enter upon trial/ ' go to law/ 
lit. ' get judgment for oneself .but pass. 

as in ver. 7 (so Vu). Weiss Kautzsch, &c. ; see the arguments 
from the usage of LXX and Heb. i: Test. Locis 

a Paulo alkgafo, p. 24 n.). 

5. ^ douua Vjpr: a general statement, including orrcrr/a. In 
like manner eov Jtmiiogfry is general, though the particular 
instance which St. Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God 

auKiaTTjai : <rvrurrwu (<rvn<rrai>w) has in N. T. two conspicuous 

meanings: (i) 'to bring together' as two persons, 'to introduce' 

or ' commend* to one another (e.g. Rom . : ; iv. a; 

&c. ; cf. cri rroAm 2 Cor. iii. i); (ii) 'to put 

together' or 'make good' by argument, 'to prove/ 'establish* 


(compositis eollectisqut quae rem contintant argument's aliquid dot to 
che), as in Rom. v. 8 ; a Cor. vii. n ; Gal. ii. 18 (where see 
Lft. and Ell.). 

Both meaning* are recognized by Ilesych. (ownj-rftmr 4*<uriV, 
fliBaiolv, vofartOfviu) ; but it U strange that neither comes oat clearly in the 
use* of the word in LXX; the second is found in Susann. 61 ttrlropw i*l 
rovt Mo tfHaffimt, tm owionja** aurovt AariqA jf vtopapTvprjoarras (Theod.). 

another phrase, like M? yowro, which is charac- 
of this Epistle, where it occurs seven times ; not elsewhere 

fit] aSiKOf : the form of question shows that a negative answer is 
expected (M originally meant ' Don't say that,' &c.). 

6 im^/pwi' -ri)v &pYf\y : most exactly, ' the inflictcr of the anger ' 
(Va.). The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on i. 18, 
xii. 19. 

Barton however makes A iviflpw strictly equivalent to a relative clause, 
and like a relative clause suggest a reason ('Who miteth '-' because He 
vUiteth'; jV.oWr. 428. 

icard aK0pwTroK Xyw : a form of phrase which is also charac- 
teristic of this group of Epistles, where the eager argumentation of 
the Apostle leads him to press the analogy between human and 
divine things in a way that he feels calls for apology. The exact 
phrase recurs only in Gal. iii. 15 ; but comp. also I Cor. ix. 8 

M'/ tara avGporrtov raira XaXi ; 2 Cor. xi. 1 7 ft XaXi, ov Kara Kvptor 

6. <irl irf Kptm : 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. 

Jw(: 'since, if that were so, if the inflicting of punishment necessarily 
implied injustice.' 'Emtl gets the meaning ' if so,' ' if not ' (' or else '), from 
the context, the clause to which it rxvnts being supposed to be repeated : 
here iw<i sc. 1 4&ot fora* A tw,+tpcjv r> &pw (cf Uattmann, Cr. #M T. 
C*- P. 359)- 

TO* Koapov : all mankind. 

7. The position laid down in ver. 5 is now discussed from the side 
of man, as it had just been discussed from the side of God. 

l W K A minutf. pauc., Volg. tod. Boh.. Jo.-Damasc., TUch. \VH. ttxt. 
RV. ttxt. : ( & B D E G K L P &c., Vulg. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. /., WH. 
marg. RV. marg. The second reading may be in its origin Western. 

dXrj0ia: the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises; 
^wrjia, the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as 
in \cr. 4). 

dY5: 'I too/ as well as others, though my falsehood thus 

74 ISTLE TO THE K [ill. 7 8 

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 ' 

; eld's elegant rendering of MT"vw" T < 7 a ) to himself and his 

1 A polios what really applied to his opponents. 

8. There are two trains of thought in the Apostle's mind : (i) 

the excuse \\hich 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 woi^^r 

TO cod "in *\6y TO aya4a is made to do duty for both these trains of 

thought, in the one case connected in idea and construciio. 

ui}, in the other with Myown* on. <. uld be brought 

out more clearly by modern devices of punctuation : T >. 


fiftat A)*i an votiprMfify .rX There is a very $>i: 
struction in vv. 25, 26, where the argument works up twice < 
the same words, ir [*f*><] TV V&ur rJjt iutoio<rtnj nirov, and the 
words which follow the second time are meant to complete both 
clauses, the first as well as the second It is someu 
when in ch. ii. ver. 16 at once carries on and completes %\. i - 
and i 

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 ff., 15 ff. 

WK TO Kpifio K :s points back tO rt n K.iyw gpivnpat ; the 

plea which such persons put in will avail them nothing ; the judge- 
ment (of God) 1 fall upon th- . Paul does 

not argue the point, or say anything further about the calumny 
directed a r rlf; he contents himself with brushing away 

an excuse which is obviously unreal 


Ill 9 20. If the cast of us Jews is so bad, arc tht 
Gentiles any better ? No. The same accusation covers both. 
The ^ ./ the universality of hit 

which is I '.ic ally di 

Psa. v, cxl, x, /// Is. lix, ami a,: 


the Jew 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 Laiv, has 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 (rrpot \ufu0a 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- 
32, ii. 17-29) 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 
ng to receive the corpse that will soon fill it with corruption, 
so the throat of the wicked is only opened to vent forth depraved 
ami lying speech. Their tongue is practised in fraud. Or in 
\1. 3 [also exactly quoted] : the poison-bag of the asp lies 
under their smooth and flattering lips. u So, as it is described in 
Ps. x. 7, throat, tongue, and lips are full of nothing but cursing 
.m I venom. u Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX 
lix. 7, 8] : They run with eager speed to commit murder. 
"Their course is marked by ruin and misery. "With smiling 
paths of peace they have made no acquaintance. I To sum up the 
ter 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 the 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 


that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse, 

it all mar t be held accountable to God. 

"This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By works of 
Law (I e. by an attempted fulfilment of Law) no mortal may hope 
to be declared righteous in God's sight For the only effect of 
Law is to open men's eyes to their own sinfulness, not to enable 
them to do better. That method, the method of works, has 
failed. A new method must be found. 

0. TI OUK ; ' What then [follows] ? ' Not with r/xw^fe, because 
that would require in reply o&V TOW, not - 

irpocx<V0o is explained in three ways: as the same 

sense as the active *po' x f as i its proper middle force, 

and as passive, (i) wpot^uOa mid. = irpV/w (praectlltn 
Vulg. ; and so the majority of commentators, ancient and modern, 

*Apa ir i pur a or i^ofuintapa rove "EXAip>ar ; Euthvm.-'/ig. \>iV ri irAo 
*a< rvfartfioO/Mi' ol 'lovlait* ; Theoph. ' Do we think ourselves t 
Gif.). But no examples of this use are to be found, and 
seems to be no reason why St. Paul should not have 
np< X ont t the common form in such contexts, (ii) V/XMX^M&I 
in its more ordinary middle sense, ' put forward as an excuse or 
pretext ' (' Do we excuse ourselves ? ' RV. marg., ' Have we any 
defence?' Mey. Go.). But then the object must be expressed, 
and as we have just seen ri ofr cannot be combined with *pon6n<6a 
because of ou vomt. (iii) vpoixfafa passive, ' Are we exc< 
1 Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles)?' a rare use, b 
one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, Ol. Norv. 1 
/<*.). Some of the best scholars (e. g. Lightfoot, Field) incline to 
\v, \\hich has been adopted in the text of KV. The prin- 
cipal objection to it is from the context. St. Paul has just asserted 
(vcr. 2) that the Jew has an advantage over the Gentile : how then 
does he come to ask if the Gentile has an advantage over th 
The answer would seem to be that a different kind of ' advantage ' 
is meant. The superiority of the Jew to the Gen 
lies in the possession of superior privileges; the practical e 
of Jew and Gentile is in regard to their present moral condition 
.-9 balanced against ch. i. 18-32). In this l.utcr respect 
il implies that Gentile and Jew might mgc places 

29). A few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take wpoixbufa as pass., 

the same sense as wfH*\om* t 'Are we (Jews) pr< 
(to the Gentiles) in the sight of God ? ' 


t the best, tentmtts amf.'ius : a glou captaining pox- in the same 


way as Vulg. and the later Greek commentators quoted above. A L read 

06 rrdrruf . Strictly speaking ou should qualify iru*rt>r, * not 
altogether/ ' not entirely, as in i Cor. v. 10 of> rarer <r tro/mxr 
roC xdV/jov TOVTOU : but in some cases, as here, irarrut qualifies <n , 
4 altogether not/ ' entirely not/ i. e. ' not at all ' (ntquaquam Vulg., 
otdapwf Theoph.). Compare the similar idiom in o& vd*v ; and see 
Win. dr. ! 

irpoT)Tiaaa>0a : in the section i. i8-ii. 29. 

x'4>' AjiapTiav. In Biblical Greek for> with dat. has given place entirely to 
ttw6 with ace. Matt. viii. 9 drtpaswvt tlfu l*b l(ovoia is a strong case. The 
change has already taken place in LXX ; e. g Deut xxxiii. 3 wdrri ol 
" *1 ovrw 

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 (Char as], 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, Ac. 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 
< ) 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 [xiii]. 1-3 (=Ps. liii. 1-3 [lii. 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. 
xxx vi [xxxvl. x. 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 a whole this conglomerate of quotations has had a curious history. 
The quotations in N.T. frequently react upon the text of O.T., and they have 
done so here: vv. 13-18 got imported bodily into Ps. xiv [xiii LXXj as an 
appendage to ver. 4 in the 'common* text of the LXX 11) rarq, i.e. the 
nnrcrised text current in the lime of Origen). They are still found in Codd. 
N K U and many cursive MSS. of LXX (om. KA), though the Greek 
nentators on the Psalms do not recognize them. From interpolated 
M-x such as these they found their way into Lat.-Vet, and so into 
Jerome's first edition of the Psalter (the ' Roman '\ also into his neoad 
edition (the 'Galilean,' based upon Origin's Hexafla , 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, wnich is practically 
the Gallican. From the Vulgate they travelled into Coverdales Hible 
(A.D. 1535); from thence into Matthew's (Rogers'; Bible, which in the 

78 | T< THE ROMA [III. 12 

Ptalter reproduces Corerdale (A.D. 1537), and *l*o into the 'Great i 
(first ismed by Cromwell in 1530, and afterward* with a preface by Cranmer, 1540). ThcP> 

the(.: a incorporated in the Book of Common Pr 

It was retained as being familiar and smoother to ting, even in the later 
revision which substituted elsewhere the Authorized Version of 161 1. The 
editing of the Great Bible was due to Coverdale, who pot an to the 
passages found in the Vulgate bat wanting in the i These marks 

however 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 
'.lated verses in Ps. xiv with nothing to dlstingmih them from the rest 
of ill- me himself was well aware that these verses were no part 

of the Psalm In his commentary on Isaiah, : . te that .V 

quoted Is. hx. 7, 8 in Kp. to Rom., and he adds, quod multi igntrontu. dt 
lertio Jtcimofialmot*mf>tump*tant. qtti vtrnu (an'x*] in tdttton* Vulgata 
( i. e. the r4 of the LXX] adJiti sunt tt in I/tbrauo non ktotntur ( ! I ieron. 

601 ; comp. the preface to the same bo. 
aUo the newly discovered Cvnmtntarioli in Ptalmu, ed. M onn. 1 895 , j 

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, ourou* for inxW 
xpiprronrra and ottl tit for owe for* <~c w. In the LXX i\r.* clause 
is a kind of refrain which is repeated cxactl 
there keeps to his text ; but we cannot be surprised that in the 
opening words he should choose a simpler form of phrase 
more directly suggests the connexion with his main argi 
The oucmot * shall live by faith ' ; but till the coming of < 
there was no true ouuuof and no true faith. The verse runs too 
much upon the same lines as the Psalm to be oil 
quotation, though it is handled in the free and bold manner 
c of St. Paul. 

11. oCit earif 6 avnr: rum nt qui intdligat (rather than fiu 
inttlligit); Anglice, 'there is none to understand.' [But ABG, 

< ': V. .1 m/rt^r, as also 

(B)C \\ H. A.V. .VC-/TU.V. \\ ithout the . k would = 

non fs/ intelligent, non est reguirens Deum (Vulg.) There is 
no one of understanding, there is no inquirer after God/j 

& owtAv : on the form see Win. Gr. \ xiv, 16 (ed. 8 ; xi ! lort. 

\sfts on OrtMor. p, 167; also for the accent ua 
iu and 

Both forms, ovniu and ovi, are found, and either accentuation, 
twit*, may be adopted: probably the latter is to be preferred ; cf . fa 

*+* Mk. i. 34. x 

12. ofia : 'one and all.' 

VjXP^fcFtt* : 1 Ifl>- = ' to go bad,' ' become sour/ like milk ; 
comp. the d^/xtof doOAot of Matt. xxv. 30. 
vwwv A B G &c. \VI i 

XpT)OTon)Ta = ' goodness ' in the widest sense, with the idea of 
1 utility ' ratlicr than sjxrcially of ' kindness,' as in 

Ill 12-19.] IMVERSAL FAILURE 79 

<* 'vot : cp. the Latin idiom ad unum omntt (Vulg. literally usqut md 
unum}. B 67**, \VH. marg. omit the second oi tort* [w* Ion* vmvr 
Xjnjoronjni * ir</f]. The readings of B and its allies in these verses are 
open to some suspicion of assimilating to a text of I. XX. In ver. 14 B 17 
add atrwr (&r r aro/M ovrvc) corresponding to ourou in li's text of Ps. x. 7 

[X. 38]. 

18. rd+of . . . rtoXioCaoK. The LXX of Ps. v. 9 [10] corre- 
ponds pretty nearly to Heb. The last clause = rather linguam 
suam blandam rcddunt (poliunt), or perhaps lingua tua bland mniur 
/sch, p. 34): 'their tongue do they make smooth* Cheyne; 
speech glideth from their tongue* De Wilt. 

Win. Gr. f xiii, 14 (cd. 8 ; xiii, a/. E. T.). The termina- 
tion -*av, extended from imperf. and and aor. of verbs in -fu to verbs in -w t is 
widely found ; it is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek, but by no 
means confined to it ; it i* frequent in Boeotian inscriptions, and is called by 
one grammarian a ' Boeotian form, as by others ' Alexandrian.' 

los dWowr: 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 xz. 16): see art. 'Serpent' in 

14. Ps. x. 7 somewhat freely from LXX [ix. 28]: ov apas ru 

arona avrov >>! na\ irigpiat cat ooAov. St. Paul retains the rcl. but 

changes it into the plural : <rr<J/ia avri> B 17, Cypr., WH. marg. 

iTtupio : Heb. more lit. =.fraudes. 

16-17. This quotation of Is. lix. 7, 8 is freely abridged from the 
I XX; 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. Hi. 15-17. Is. lix. 7, 8. 

oif ut fro&r avrutv orgeat alpa' ol cW w6&tt avrutf [VJ vomjpiav 

vvvrpifipa cat raAaiTrwpi'a cV raiff rp*%ovaC^ ra\ivo\ V^'cu alfta [cm oi 
dole avruv, itai oooy <lpf)*r)t OVK dtaXoyio-^iOi avruv dtaXo><r/*oi airo 
ryvwcray. ^ovwv]. vvrrpinfui Ktu raXaiirwpta 

V rair 6dotc atrwr icai 6d6 ilpf)in)t 
OIK otocuri [icat OVK cart splint if 

af/Mi dwu'nor Theodotion. and probably also Aquila and Symmachos. 
[From the Hexapla this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX.] 

**/** (for dvd *4w) A N : oltaat K' B Q*. &c.: i-poxta* A Q 1 marg. 
(Q Cod. Marchalianus, XII Holmes) minusc. aliq. 

19. What is the meaning of this verse ? Does it mean that the 
passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (6 x>/ior = O. T. ; 

80 LSTLE TV [III. 19 20. 

fc M>* ri vxxf7Trd Euthym.- 
Zig.) t and therefore they are as much guilty before God as the 
Gentiles? So most commentators. Or does it mean tl. 
guilt of the Jews being now proved, as they sinned they must also 
expect punishment, the Law (6 *>not = 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 whatefer happened to the Gentiles they would escape.] 
The question really turns upon the meaning of o rop^f. It is 
urged, (i) that there is only a single passa: i'aul where 

i ooyior clearly =O. T. (i Cor. xiv. 21, a quotation of Is. xx\ 
compare however Jo. x. 34 (= Ps. Ixxxii. 6), xv. 2-, (= IV 
xxxv. 19); (ii) that in the corresponding c! . V ry ro>* 

most = the Law, in the narrower sense ; (iii) that in vcr. 2 1 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 o opoc 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 Atmror in ch. v. 12). 

Oltr. also goes a way of hi* own. bat makes i rJjior - Law in the 
abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience, and for the 
Jew the law of MOMS), which is contrary to the use of 4 vtfjioc. 

. . . XaXtl : >,-/(* calls attention to the substance of 
is spoken, XoAu to the outward utterance ; cf. esp. 
Gosfcis, p. 383 ff. 
^poyrj : cf. oJwroXoyijTof i. 20, ii. i ; the idea comes up at each 

D the argument. 

uvootKot : not exactly 'guilty before God/ but 'answerable to 
God.' wr&uor takes gen. of the pen of the person injured 

tO Whom Satisfaction IS due (ry tar\a<ri*v tnr&urof for* ry #Xaj&Vr i 

Plato, Ltgg. 846 B). So here: all mankind has offended again?; 
God, and owes Him satisfaction. Note the use of a forensic 

20. Sum: bccau-e,' not 'therefore,' as AV. (see on i. 19). 

mi is liable for penalties as against God, because there is 

nothing else to afford them protectio; ;>cn men's 

to sin, but cannot rcmo- so is shown in 

7 ff- 

: ' -lall be pronounced righteous,' certain' 
be made righitous' (Lid.) ; the whole context (Zrq o* 

III. 21-26.] THE NEW SYSTEM 8l 

f, Wnnw ovroC) has reference to a judicial trial and 


woUra arfpt : man in his weakness and frailty ( i Cor. i. 29 ; i Pet. 
i. 24). 

: 'clear knowledge'; see on i. 28, 32. 


III. 21-26. Here then the new order of things comes in. 
Jn it is offered a Righteousness which cotnes 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 (vcr. 21); 
(ii) it is apprehended by faith in Christ, and is as wide as 
mans need (w. 22, 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 
afid gives the most decisive expression to His righteousness 
(w. 25, 26). 

" It is precisely such a method which is offered in Christianity. 
We have seen what is the state of the world without it. But now, 
since the coming of Christ, the righteousness of God has asserted 
itself in visible concrete form, but so as to furnish at the same 
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. t4 Yet estranged as they 
are God accepts them as righteous for no merit or service of theirs, 
by an act of His own free favour, the change in their relation to 
Him being due to the Great Deliverance wrought at the price of the 
Death of Christ Jesus. "When the Messiah suffered upon the 



Cross it was God Who set Him there as a public spccta 
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 

hroughout that signal exhibition of His Righteousness 
He purposed to enact when the hour should come as now 
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. rvn SI : ' now/ under the Christian dispensation. 
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 rvW may well have its first and most c ' 
meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Ron 

25, 26 pvtmjpiov . . . $aiptt&'rror . . . rvr, 12, 13 xiw 

:T)0TjTt y>iT, Col. 1. 26, 27 /iiNrrtyptor TO oiroftrK/nTJ/iiYor . . . 
& cV^aif/Mw&j, 2 Tim. i. 9. IO gape* r^r do&itrar . . . irpo 
vy, Hcb. X. 26 nvi o arn 

It may be observed < . 
writers constantly oppose the pre-Christian and th< 
dispensations to each other as periods (com; ion to the 

passages already enumerated Acts xvii. 30; (' 

4 ; H.-l.. i. 1 1 ; and (n) that </xwpotV&u b - used 

with expressions denoting time (add to passages alx 

fttupou loW, I Pet -ov ri xp*wr). The 1< 

1 :.. , i. COmDGOtBfei : - ! i>.<- ; : i - \ :r\\ . 

An allusion of Tertullian's nuket it proUble th.t Maroon reUtned thU 
vene; eridence Caili as to the rat of the chapter, and it is probable that he 
cot oat the whole of ch. iv. along with moat other references to the history 
of Abraham (Tcrt. on Gal. it. ai-*6, Adv. Mart. r. 4). 

X*ptf ropou: 'apart from law/ 'independently of 
a subordinate system growing out <>: as an alternative for 

Law and destined ultimately to supersede \. 4). 

oiRaioourri 6ov i sec on ch . Paul goes on to 

his meaning. The righteousness which he has in view is essentially 

III. 21, 22.] THE NEW SYSTEM 83 

the righteousness of God; though the aspect in which it is 
regarded is as a condition bestowed upon man, that condition is 
the direct outcome of the Divine attribute of righteousness, working 
its way to larger realization amongst men. One step in this 
realization, the first great objective step, is the Sacrificial Death of 
Christ for sin (vcr. 25) ; the next step is the subjective apprehension 
of what is thus done for him by faith on the part of the believer 
(ver. 22). Under the old system the only way laid down for man to 
attain to righteousness was by the strict performance of the Mosaic 
Law ; now that heavy obligation is removed and a shorter but at 
the same time more effective method is substituted, the method of 
attachment to a Divine Person. 

ire tare PWTCU. Contrast the completed $oWpatr in Christ and 
the continued uWuAi^tc in the Gospel (ch. L 16): the verb 
<f>at*pova6ai 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; a Tim. i. 10; i Pet. X. 20; i Jo. iii. 5, 8: of the 
Atonement, Heb. ix. 26: of the risen Christ, Mark xvi. 12, 14; 
John xxi. 14: of the future coming to Judgement, i Pet. v. 4 ; 
i Jo. ii. 28. The nearest parallels to this verse which speaks of 
the manifestation of Divine 'righteousness' are 2 Tim. i. 10, which 
speaks of a like manifestation of Divine grace/ and i Jo. X. a, 
which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the 
principle of ' life.' 

fiopTwpoti^ni . T. X. : another instance of the care with which 
St. Paul insists that the new order of things is in no way contrary 
to the old, but rather a development which was duly foreseen and 
provided for : cf. Rom. i. 2, iii. 31, the whole of ch. iv, ix. 25-33; 
x. 16-21 ; xi. i-io, 26-29; xv. 8-12; xvi. 26 Ac. 

22. Stf turns to the particular aspect of the Divine righteousness 
which the Apostle here wishes to bring out ; it is righteousness 
apprehended by faith in Christ and embracing the body of believers. 
The particle thus introduces a nearer definition, but in itself only 
marks the transition in thought which here (as in ch. ix. 30; i Cor. 
ii. 6 ; Gal. ii. 2 ; Phil. ii. 8) happens to be from the general to the 

iTiarcws 'Irjaoo Xpi<rrou : 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 (Dtr Glauk Jesu 
Christi it. der christiiche Glaubt, Leipzig, 1891). 

Dr. Haossleiter contends that the gen. is subjective not objective, that like 

the 'faith of Abraham' in ch. iv. 16, it denotes the faith (in God which 

: Himself maintained even through the ordeal of the Crucifixion, that 

G 2 


this (kith U here pot forward as the central feature of the Atonement, and 
that it U 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 
rood, * number of other passages (notably L 17) would be affected by it 
But, although ably carried out, the Interpretation of some of these passages 
seems to as forced ; the theory brings together things, like the <mt I?** 
X^roO here with the i<mt eo* in iii. 3, which are really disparate; and 
it has so far, we believe, met with no acceptance. 

'IiproO Xpttrrov. U, and apparently Mardoo as quoted by Tertullian, 
drop lipov (to too \V 1 1. mar S ) ; A reads Jr X^ri l^oS. 

Kdi M warra* om. ABC, -j h. Aeth. Arm, Clem.- Alex. 

O.ig. Did. Cyr.-Alcx. Aug.: inv ..L &c J>< *arraf alone is 

found in Jo. T>amasc. Volg. (odd., so that tit vdrrot gal twl vorrat would 
seem to be a conflation, or combination of two readings originally alterna 
tires. If it were the true reading tit would express 'destination for* all 
believers, M ' extension to' them. 

23. oo y<p <<rn otaoroX^. The Aposilc is reminded of one of 
his main positions. The Tew has (in this respect) no real adv.t 
over the Gentile ; both alike need a righteousness which is no: 
own ; and to both it is offered on the same terms. 

ijfiapTor. In English we may translate this 'have sinned' in 
accordance wiih the idiom of the language, which prefers : 
the perfect where a past fact or series of facts is not separated by 
a clear interval from the present : see note on 

uaTcpotJrrai : sec Monro, Homeric (> 8 (3); mid. vo! 

'feel want* Gif. well compares Matt. xix. 20 mp*; 

(objective, ' What, as a matter of fact, is wanting to me ? 
Luke XV. 14 al avr&r 4paro wrrf/Mur&u (sul nligal 

begins to fed his destitution). 

T^s Wfrjt. There are two wholly distinct uses of this word : 
(i) = 'opinion' (a use not found in N. T.) and 
particular 'favourable opinion/ 'reputation' (Rom. ii. 7. 10 ; 
John xii. 43 Ac.); (2) by a use which came in with the 
I. XX :: : lation of Heb. Tl33 = (i) 'visible brightness or 
splendour' (Acts xxii. n ; i Cor. xv. 40 ff.); and 
(ii) the brightness which radiates from the presence of God, 
the visible glory conceived as resting on Mount Sinai (Ex. 
1 6), in the pillar of cloud (Ex. xvi. 10), in the tabernacle 
(Ex. xl. 34) or temple (i Kings Chron. v. 14), and 

specially between the cherubim on the lid of the ark (Ps. h 

.'2; Rom. ix. 4 &c.); (iii) tl. splendour 

symbolized the Divine perfections, 'the majesty or goodness of 
God as manifested to men' (Lightfoot on Col. i. n ; comj 
:. 1 6); (iv) these perfections arc in a n. 
ted to man through Christ (esp. 2 Cor. 
iii. 18). Both morally and physically a certain transfigi:- 
takes place in the ( partially here, com; rcafter 

. e.g. Rom. viii. 30 iteaat with Rom. v. 2 V /XtriBi T^ 

III. 23, 24.] THE NEW SYSTEM 85 

TOW Btov, viii. 18 T^ itt\\owra Wfw oiroaXw^Kii, a Tim. 
ii. 10 Mfo aiWov). 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, Altsyn. Theol. p. 214). 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 

The meaning of &a in this connexion is well illustrated by 4 Err. vii. 41 
[ed. Bensly - vL 14 O. F. Fritzsche, p. 607], where the state of the blessed 
is described as neyut meridiem, neque ntxttm, neque antt lucem [perh. for 
antelufium ; rid. Bensly ad be.}, ntqut nitorem, neque claritattm, neque 
luctm, nisi tolummodo sflendorem claritatis Altusimt [perh. - Awavyaa^a 
MfV "ttiarov]. In quoting this passage Ambrose has tola Dei fulgebit 
elaritas; Domitnu enim trtt lux omnium (cf. Rev. xxi. 24). The blessed 
themselves shine with a brightness which is reflected from the face of God : 
ibid. w. 97, 98 f Hcnsly - 71, 72 O. F. Fritzsche] quomodo incipiet (/WXXi) 
vulttts eorum fulgert situt sol, et quomodo incipient steflarum adrimilari 
lumini . . .festinant enim vidert vultum \eiut \ eui serviunt vivente* et 
a quo incipient gloriosi mercedetn recifere (cf. Matt. xiii. 43). 

24. SiKcuoujicfoi. The construction and connexion of this word 
are difficult, and perhaps not to be determined with certainty. 
(i) Many leading scholars (De W. Mey. Lips. Lid. Win. Gr. xlv. 
6 b) make dticaioO/tfvoc mark a detail in, or assign a proof of, the 
condition described by wrrtpovrrm. In this case there would be 
a slight stress on fopta* : men are far from God's glory, became the 
state of righteousness has to be given them ; they do nothing for 
it. Hut this is rather far-fetched. No such proof or further 
description of \><rrtpo\>vr<u 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) wrrtpovrrai donuoufMyot is taken as = i<rr- 

poOrroi cat duratof rrai (Fri.) Or = iimpovfutKH dacmovirat (Tholuck). 
But this is dubious Greek, (in) dueaiovfirnM 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 * 
uvxw/M0a; (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 oi> yap 
. . . iffTtpoivrtu practically a parenthesis, and to take the nom. 
MOW ' as suggested by warm in ver. 23, but in sense referring 
rather to row frumvorrac in ver. 22.' No doubt such a construction 
would be irregular, but it may be questioned whether it is too 

86 '.I-; TO THE ROMANS [ill. 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 
would be a Cor. viii. 18, 19 <Tv*nrJn+a<* &' *** ak\<JK ... of 

6 frail** V TW (ioyyfXtw . . . ov /ioW oY, aXXu < ^i/JoronT&i'r (as if 

oc roniTai had preceded). 

owpc&r rjj aoToO x^P^i. Each of these phrases strengthens the 
other in a very emphatic way, the position of avrov further 
stress on the fact that this manifestation of free favour on the port 
of God is unprompted by any other external cause than the one 
.1 is mentioned (&A rip <hroXvrp<r*c). 

dwoXvrp*r**. It is contended, esp. by Oltraroare, (i 
Xvrpo* and <nroXvrp<** 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 gi 

owoXvr/xucm is Plut. Pomp. 24 woXwv aixpaXvrvv diroXiT^ . 

the word has this sense of ' putting to ransom ') ; < 
Xvrpovff&u is frequently used of the Deliverance i 
Exodus, in which there is no question of ransom (t< 

; ; Dcuu vii. 8 ; ix. 26 ; xiii. 5, &c. : cf. also <nroXvrp*<r 
Ex. xxi. 8, of the 'release ' of a slave by her master). The subst. 
<hroXurp<rtff occurs only in one place, Dan. iv. 30 [29 or 32], I. XX 
6 xp6Vor pov rijr AroXvrp*<rK $Xft of Nebuchadnezzar's recovery 
from his madness. Hence it is inferred (cf. also Westcot 
p. 296, and Ritschl, Richlfcrt. u. Vcrsdhn. ii. 220 ff.) that he: 
in similar passages bnXvrpwHt denotes 'deliverance ' simply without 

lea of 'ransom/ There is no doubt that <>f the 

metaphor might be dropped. But in view of the clear resolution of 
the expression in Mark x. 45 (Matt xx. 28) oCnu r^r v 
Xvrpor drri iroXXwr, and in I Tim. ii. 6 6 ftov* Wro dyrtXvrpov vwip 
irarrw, and in view also of the many passages in which Christians 
are said to be 'bought/ or 'bought with a price' (i Cor. vi. 20, 
vii. 23; Gal. iii. 13; 2 Pet. ; 9: cf. Acts xx. 28; 

i Pet. i. 1 8, 19), we can hardly resist the conclusion that ti. 
of the Xurpo* retains its full force, that it is identical with tl 
and that both are ways < 

emphasis is on the cost of man's redemption. We need not press 
the metaphor yet a step further by asking (as the anci< 
whom the ransom or price was \ d by that 

. c necessity wh .ide the whole course of : 

!>cen; but this necessity is far beyond our powers to grasp 
or gauge. 

,'v Xpurry 'Ii,<7ov. We owe to Haottleiter (Dtr Glaubt Jtin Ckritti, 
obterrBtion that whcrrrer the phnue i* X/x<rrf or Jr 

X^xrr^ 'I7<rot/ occur* there Is no tingle initance of the rananU tv 'I7<rov or 
<> lyrov Xfxarj,. Thi it ftigmftouit, became in other com' 

III. 24, 25.] THE NEW SYSTEM 87 

variants are freaoent. It it also what we should expect, because Jr 

and Jr Xpiarf Iipr. always relate to the glorified Christ, not to the historic 


25. vpotfrro may = 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 

in ch. ix. n (viii. 28); Eph. iii. n (i. n); a Tim. i. 9; also 

Gal. iii. i ofc cor* 

i Pet. i. 20. For (ii) compare esp. 
'iqomc Xprrif irpoiypdfa <Wov/M/iW. But when we turn to the 
immediate context we find it so full of terms denoting publicity 
(ir<(fxnn'ptaTcu, eh ("poulty, irpor n) WWtu') 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. 

IXaonipioK : usually subst. meaning strictly ' place or vehicle of 
propitiation/ but originally neut. of adj. iXaor^ptof (l\a<rrf)piw 
nrifopa Ex. xxv. 16 [17], where however Gif. takes the two words 
as substantives in apposition). In LXX of the Pentateuch, as in 
Heb. ix. 5, the word constantly stands for the ' lid of the ark/ or 
' 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, Rtchlftrt. u. Vtrsohn. 
ii. 169 if. ed. 2) take the word here in this sense, arguing (i) that 
it suits the emphatic avrov in <V T ovroO mport; (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 . . . etst 
ipsum et propitiatorium et pontificcm et hostiam quae offer lur pro 
populo (in Rom. iii. 8, p. 213 Lomm.). But although there is 
a partial analogy for this in Heb. ix. 11-14, 23-*. 22, where 
: is both priest and victim, it is straining the image yet further 
to identify Him with the ZAaon^Mo*. The Christian IXatrnjpiov, 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 irpmdcro) 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 tXatrrtyxo* is to supply with it 0pa on the 
analogy of awrijpiov, Tt\t<rrf)ptov t xopMrr^/Mor. This too is strongly 


supported (esp. by the leading German commentators, De \V 

;t there seems to be no clear instance of JWr^po* 
used in this sense. Neither is there satisfactory proof that 2X<urr. 
(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 or. There is evidence that the word was 

an adj. at this date (DuKm^xor pr^ia Joseph. Antt. XVI. 
\\aa-njpiov Ammw 4 Mac .-2 *, and other exx.V 

objection that the adj. is not applied properly to persons counts 
ry little, because of . of the sacrifice of 

a person. Here hou l>ersonal element \\\. 

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 part. are of 

such sacrifice. 

The Latin version* do not help us : they give all three rendering*, pr+ 
pitiasorium, frofitiatortm, and fnfiliatioH s also ambiguous. 

The Coptic clearly favour* the masc. rendering adopted above. 

It may be of tome interest to compare the Jewish teaching on the subject 
of Atonement. When a man thinks. I will jost go on * 

of Atonement. * When a man thinks. I will just go on sinning and repent 
later, no help is given him from above to make him repent. He who 
thinks, I will but just sin and the Day of Atonement will bring me forgive- 
ness, such an one gets no forgiveness through the Day of Atonement. 
Offences of man against God the Day of Atonement can atone ; offences of 
man against his fellow-man the Day of Atonement cannot atone until he has 
given satisfaction to his fellow-man ' ; and more to the same clT, 
Tract. Joma, viii. 9, a/. Winter u. Wiinschr. 

a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta, Tract. Joma, v : R. Ismael 
said, Atonement is of tour kinds. He who transgresses a positive command 
and repents is at once forgiven according to tin hack- 

sliding children, I will heal your backslidings" (J^- iewho 

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 Scriptur ansgrestion 

with the rod and their iniquity v. 

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 Scr 

: y thU iniquity shall not be expiated by yon till you die " 
This teaches that the day of death completes the atonen. 
and trespass-offering and death and the Day of Atonement all being no 
atonement without repentance, because it is written in Ji (?) 

when he turns from his evil way does he obtain atonement, 
otherwise be obtains no atonement ' (of. c. 

Some MSS. read here *.! ' aar^/Mov rov Aurfrov avrwr 


8ta rit wtor**: &4 <TT<W NCDFG 6;* a/., Tisch. \VH /<./. 
The art. teems here rather more correct pointing back as it would do to &4 
wiortan 1. X. in vcr. aa ; it is found in B and the mass of later authorities, 
but there is a strong phalanx on the other tide ; B is not infallible in such 
company (cf. xi. 6). 

Jr TW OUTOO aifion : not with irt'<rrr (though this would be 
a quite legitimate combination ; see Gif. ad foe.), but with irpojfaro 
iXao-rfjpiov: the shedding and sprinkling of the blood is a principal 
idea, not secondary. 

The significance of the Sacrificial Bloodshedding was twofold 
The blood was regarded by the Hebrew as essentially the seat of 
life (Gen. ix. 4 ; Lev. xvii. 1 1 ; Deut. xii. 23). Hence the death 
of the victim was not only a death but a setting free of life ; the 
application of the blood was an application of life; and the 
offering of the blood to God was an offering of life. In this lay 
more especially the virtue of the sacrifice (Westcott, Ep.Jo. p. 34 ff. ; 
Htb. p. 293 f.). 

For the prominence which is given to the Bloodshedding in 
connexion with the Death of Christ see the passages collected 

It frScigir : <ff denotes the final and remote object, trpoV 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 
:> 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 V&tr 
see on ch. ii. 15 : here too the sense is that of proof by an appeal 
to fact.' 

it croci^r rfjs otKaioourrjs auroo. In what sense can the Death 
of Christ be said to demonstrate the righteousness of God? It 
demonstrates it by showing the impossibility of simply passing over 
sin. It does so by a great and we may say cosmical act, the 
nature of which we are not able wholly to understand, but which 
at least presents analogies to the rite of sacrifice, and to that 
particular form of the rite which had for its object propitiation. 
The whole Sacrificial system was symbolical ; and its wide diffusion 
showed that it was a mode of religious expression specially 
appropriate to that particular stage in the world's development. 
Was it to lapse entirely with Christianity? The writers of the 
New Testament practically answer, No. The necessity for it still 
existed ; the great fact of sin and guilt remained ; there was still the 
same bar to the offering of acceptable worship. To meet this fact 
and to remove this bar, there had been enacted an Event which 
possessed the significance of sacrifice. And to that event the N. T. 
writers appealed as satisfying the conditions which the righteousness 

90 ^TLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 25, 26. 

of God required. See the longer Note on ' The Death of < 
considered as a Sacrifice ' below. 

oid Ttjr wdpai* : not ' for ihe remission/ as A V n \\ 
a unusual (though, as we shall sec on iv. 25, not 
impossible) sense to fat, and also a wrong sense to - 
4 because of the pretermission, or passing over, of foregone 
For the difference between wdptait and tytw see T; 
p. noflT. : naptau = ' putting aside I temporary suspension of 
punishment which may at some later date be inflicted ; od>m = 
complete and unreserved forgiveness. 

It it possible that the thought of this passage may hare been suggested by 
.-3 [24] ad wapopi, dja^^ra <&4*TC lt jMr4ro<7. There 
will be found in Trench, */..;/ ; . 1 1 1, an account of a controversy 
arose oat of this Terse in Holland at the end of the sixteenth and beginning 
of the seventeenth centimes. 

r : OS contrasted with Aftapria, apopnjpa = the 

act of sin, dpa/m'a = the permanent principle of \\i an act 

is the expression. 

iv TTJ dKoxfj: . i) denotes motive, as Mey., Ac. (Grimm, 

Lex. s. v. V, 5 e) ; or (ii) it is temporal, ' during the forbearance of 
God. 1 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. 

dyoxi) : see on ii. 4, and note that oVo^ is related to vopm as 
xfytt is related to <f>m. 

26. wpos TfjK frScigir : tobe connected closely wi:h the pn 
se : the stop which separates this verse from the last should be 

. removed, and the pause before &a rip nap son. 
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: \Yh m God set forth as j y 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 .. he display of His righteousne* 

moment, so that H- at ono (Himself) and 

declaring righteous him who has for .. in Ji>u- ' 

seems to be successful in proving that this is the true construction : 
(i) otherwise it is difficult to ai hange of the preposi- 

tion from ilt to rr,x5f ; (ii) the art. is on this view per unted 

:;c same display' as that just 1 ; (in) T "i r^iyo- 

9&r* &itnprjHutr*9 seems to be contrasted with V TW *: * at p<p ; (iv) the 
construction thus most thoroughly agrees with St. Paul's style 
: see Gi fiord's note and compare the passage quoted 

1 6. 

oiKaior KCU SutaioGrra. i so which estal 

the connexion between the &t<uoavn? nor, and the 

III. 21-26.] THE NEW SYSTEM 9! 

It is not that ' God is righteous and yd declares righteous 
the believer in Jesus/ but that ' He is righteous and a/so, we might 
almost say and therefore, 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. 

T&K i* irurrcwf : 'him whose ruling motive is faith'; contrast 
ol ' <p4&iW ch. ii. 8 ; foot vx *f*ov (' as many as depend on 
works of law') Gal. iii. 10. 

The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice. 

It is impossible to get rid from this passage of the double idea 
(i) of a sacrifice ; (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory. In any 
case the phrase V r<|> avrov m/urn carries with it the idea of sacrificial 
bloodshedding. And whatever sense we assign to iAacmfrptor 
whether we directly supply dCfia, or whether we supply V<'0<pa and 
regard it as equivalent to the mercy-seat, or whether we take it as 
an adj. in agreement with o* 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 mVa 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 (&A roO 
cu/iaror roi) aravpov). We have it for St. Peter in I Pet. i. 2 (poyrur/jor 
at/iarof) and 19 (rtpt? aipnri us a^v d/uupou <tni dcnriAov). For 

m 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, 
\\\. 1 1, 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 

>rds 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 Matt 
xxvi. 28 ; Mark xiv. 24 [perhaps not Luke xxii. 20]). 

9a ) THE ROMANS [ill. 21 

v of these passages besides the mention of bloodshedding 
, death of the victim (Apoc. v. 6, i2,xiii. 8 apt^ou ivjayni : 
cf. v. 9) call attention to other details in the act of sacrifice (e. g. 
the sprinkling of the blood, pomp** i Pet. i. 2; Heb. xr 
: b. ix. 13, 19, 21). 

observe also that the Death of Christ is compared not only 
to one but to several of the leading forms of Lcviiical sacrifice : to 
the Passover (John i 36; i Cor. v. 8, and the passages 

speak of the 'lamb' in i Pet and Apoc.); to the sa< 
Day of Atonement (so apparently in the passage from 
we start, R6m. iii. 25, also in H 

perhaps i Jo. ii. 2,iv. 10; i I ; to the ra of the 

Covenant (Matt. xxvi. 28, Ac. ; 1 5-22); to the sin-offering: 

(Rom. viii. 3; Hcb. xiii. 18, and pos 

under the earlier head, i Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10). 

(2) In a number of these passages as well as in others, both 
from the Epistles of St. Paul and from other Apostolic writings, 
the Death of Christ is directly connected with the forgiveness of 
sins (e.g. Matt. xxvi. 28; Acts v. 30 f., appar. -.'-.; i < 
a Cor. v. 21 ; Eph. i. 7 ; Cl. i. 14 and 20; i 
ix. 28, x. 12 al. : 24, iii. 18; i Jo. ii. 2,iv. 10; Arv 

The author of Ep. to Hebrews generalizes from the ri: 
of the Old Covenant that sacrificial bloodshedding is ncccss 

case, or nearly in every case, to place the worshipper in a 
condition of fitness to approach the Divine Presence (i 

ai <T\<&QV iv cu/ioTi rdrra cadaptfrrai Kara rdv yo^or, ai XM//IC 

ai/iarffKxi><ri<ir ov ytWrat <rif). The use of the different words 
denoting 'propitiation' is all to the same effect (IXa^piov Rom. 
iii. 25 ; iAmr/uSr I Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10 ; JXa*Kr&u 1 1 

This strong convergence of Apostolic writings of dtfl 
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 . : and warp of 

\c Christ: :i?, taking its K st our 

traditions) from word v.-c!f. \Vha: i: ,11 unou 

is that the religion of the New Testament, like the religion of the 
Old, has the idea of sacrifice as one of its central conceptions, not 
however scattered over an elaborate ceremonial system but concen- 
trated in a single mar :i<J far-reachin.- 

It \\ill t>c M-en that this throws back a light over the Old 
Testament sacrifices and indeed not or in but o. 

sacrifices of ethnic religion and shows that something 

more than a system of meaningless butchery, that 
-MCC, and that they embodied de< 
religion in forms suited to the apprehension of the age to 
were given and capable of gradual refinement an<! on. 

III. 21-26.] 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 (The 
Art of England, 1884, p. 14 f.), Mr. Ruskin wrote as follows: 
' None of you, who have the least acquaintance with the general 
tenor of my own teaching, will suspect me of any bias towards the 
doctrine of vicarious Sacrifice, as it is taught by the modern 
Evangelical Preacher. 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 noi to speak of any that is to come, must 
be bought still, as it always has been, with our toil, and with our 

After all the writer of this and the Evangelical Preacher whom 
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 lies 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 . d 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 I*TLE TO THE ROMA [ill. 27 

from idea into reality, and embodied in marvellous perfection upon 

wing the example of St i St. John and the I 

to the Hebrews we speak of something in this great Sacrifice, 
we call 'Propitiation.' We believe that the Holy Spirit spoke 
through these writers, and that it was His Will that w<- 
this word. But it is a word which we must leave it to Him to 
interpret. We drop our plummet into the depth, but tl. 
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 placc> 
and God is removed, and that there is a ' sprinkling ' which makes 
us free to approach the throne of grace. 

, it may still be objected, is but a 'fiction of mercy.' All 
mercy, all forgiveness, is of the nature of fiction. It coris 

-.;% 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? 


in 27 31. II cnce it follows (i) that no claim can be 
made on the ground of human merit, for there is 
in Faith (w. 27, 28) ; (2) that Jew and 
same footing, for there is but iwe God, and Faith is //< 
nsofacc*; (w. 29, 30). 

An objector may say that Law is thus abrogated. On the 
contrary its deeper /, as the /'. 

Abraliam will show (vcr. 3 1 ). 

17 There are two consequences which I draw, and one tli 
objector may draw, from this. The first is that such a method of 
obtaining righteousness leaves no room for In 
Any such thing is once for all shut out For the < 
is not one of works in which there might have been room for 

is (oJr, but see (' we believe 

s the condition on which a man is pronounced righteous, 
>t a round of acts done in obedience to l.iw. 
"The second consequence [already hinted at in ver. 22] i 


Jew and Gentile are on the same footing. If they are not, then 
God must be God of the Jews in some exclusive sense in which 
lie is not God of the Gentiles. M Is that so ? Not if I am right 
in affirming that there is but one God, Who requires but one 
condition Faith, on which He is ready to treat as 'righteous' 
alike the circumcised and the uncircumcised the circumcised with 
whom Faith is the moving cause, and the uncircumcised with whom 
the same Faith is both moving cause and sole condition of their 

M 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. IgdtXciaOt) : an instance of the 'summarizing* force of the 
aorist ; it is shut out once for all,' by one decisive act.' 

Paul has his eye rather upon the decisiveness of the act than upon its 
continued result. In Knglish it is more natural to as to express decisiveness 
by laying stress upon the result' is shut out.' 

oia iroiou ripou : w>/*oi/ here may be paraphrased ' system,' * Law ' 
being the typical expression to the ancient mind of a ' constituted 
order of things.' Under what kind of system is this result obtained ? 
Under a system the essence of which is Faith. 

Similar metaphorical uses of *<5/*ot would be ch. vii. a i, 33 ; viii. a ; x. 31 , 
on which see the Notes. 

28. OUK 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, 
Aoyifu/M&i ydp t helps that coherence. [The Jew's] boasting is 
excluded, became 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 they have the same God. 

ofr B C EK K L P &c. ; Syrr. (Pesh.-Harcl.) ; Chrys, Theodrt at. ; Weiss 
KV. \\ll. marg.'. yap K A D* E F G at. plur. ; Latt. (Vet.-Vulg.) Boh. 
Arm. ; Orig.-lat Ambr&t Aug. ; Tisch. \VH. 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 in 
Epp, is not so strong a combination as B C in Gotpp,]. We prefer the 
reading yap. 

96 ISTLE TO THE ROMA [HI. 28-31. 

8iaioGa6ai: we must hold fast to the rendering 'is </< 
righteous/ not is made righteous ' ; cf. on i. 17. 

ai^pwiroK : 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 emph.i 
asserts his main position. There is but one law (Faith), and there 
is but one Judge to admit Though faith is spoken of in 

abstract way it is of course Christian faith, frith in Chr 

jiAvov : ,W B al. flur, WH. marg. ; perhaps assimilated to 1*M~ 
4 IMF. 

SO. in <P : decisively attested in place of <wt'p. The old distinction 
drawn between w/> and tl y was that f 9p is used of a condition 
is assumed without implying whether it is rightly or wrongly asronv 
of a condition which carries with it the assertion of its own reality (Hermann 
on Viger, p. 831 ; Baumlein, Grittk. Partikeln. is doubtful 

whether this distinction holds in Classical Greek ; it can hanllj h 
N.T. Bat in any case both f *<p and f 7* lay some stress on the co: 
as a condition: cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, H 353. 354 4 The I 
wtp is eridently a shorter form of the Preposition wipt. which in its adverbial 
use has the meaning beyond. extetdingly. Accord in K -ly *.> it in/tnstvf, 
denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree, in 
its fullest sense, &c. . . . > is used like wi> to emphasize a particular word 
or phrase. It does not however intensify the meaning, or insist on the fact 

as tni4, bat only calls attention to the word or fact In a Conditional 

Protasis (with St. 5r. f, &c.) 7 emphasizes the condition as such : hence 
f yt if only, ahtays supposing that. On the other hand I np means 
**tpon*gcv<r mu<k, hence if really (Lai. si qui, 

CK iricrrcws ... Bid TJS iriarcu, >tcs ' source,' &MI attend- 

ant circumstances.' The Jew is justified ' ni<rrtt Ika irtptro^t : 
the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is 
circumcision. The Gentile is j rrurrttn oJ oia rijf witrrtus : 

no special channel, no special conditions are marked out; : 
the one thing n itself ' both law and imp 

8iA TTJS wiorews = ' the same faith/ ' the faith just men- 

;il. KaTopYowfic^: sec on vcr. 3 above. 

ropo? urrwfiK. If, as we must needs think, ch. iv coma:: 
proof >n laid down in this verse, K^O must = ulti- 

mately and But it = the Pentateuch not 

as an isolated Book but as the most conspicuous and represet 
expression of that peat system of Law which prevailed . 
until the coming of C 

The Jew looked at the O. T., and he saw there Law, Obedience 

to Law or Works, Circumcision, Descent from Abraham. St. Paul 

I ook again and look deeper, and you will see not Law but 

<e, not works but Faith of which Circumcision is only the 

seal, not literal descent from A ut spiritual descent All 

these things are realized in Ch: 


And then further, whereas Law (all Law and any kind of 
I.a\\) was only an elaborate machinery for producing right action, 
there too Christianity stepped in and accomplished, as if with the 
stroke of a wand, all that the Law strove to do without success 
(Rom. xiii. 10 jrXtyxpa oZ* *o/iov 9 ayuvrj compared with Gal. v. 6 

vumr dt* uy cinqs 


IV. 1-8. Take the crucial case of Abraham. He, like 
the Christian, was declared righteous^ not on account of his 
works as something earned \ but by the free gift of God in 
response to his faith. And David describes a similar state 
of things. The happiness of which he speaks is due* not to 
sinkssness but to God' s free forgiveness of sins. 

1 OBJECTOR. 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. 
1 For look at the Word of God, that well-known passage of Scrip- 
ture, Gen. xv. 6. What do we find there ? Nothing about works, 
but ' Abraham put faith in God/ and it (i. e. his faith) was credited 
to him as if it were righteousness. 

4 This proves that there was no question of works. For a work- 
man claims his pay as a debt due to him; it is not an act of 
favour. ' But to one who is not concerned with works but puts 
faith in God Who pronounces righteous not the actually righteous 
(in which there would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly to 
such an one his faith is credited for righteousness. 

Just as again David in Ps. xxxii describes how God 'pro- 
nounces happy ' (in the highest sense) those to whom he attributes 
righteousness without any reference to works : 7 ' Happy they/ he 
lays, not 'who have been guilty of no breaches of law/ but 
whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are 
veiled from sight. ' A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will 
not enter in His book.' 


If! V:. main argument of this chapter is quite clc. 
the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscur 
as it would seem to the crossing of other lines of thougl.* 

tin 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, 
exert some influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to 
the advantage of the Jew, (ii) the pride or boasting which was 
a characteristic feature in the character of the Jew but 

be 'excluded/ Hitherto these two points 
been considered in the broadest and most general mann< 

:1 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 

i, the latter broke down altogether. This is what St. 
now undertakes to prove ; but at the outset he glances 
side issues main issues in ch. iii which become side issues in 
c h. iv the claim of 'advantage,' or special privilege, and the pride 
which the 1 cm generated. For the sake of clearness we 

1 >ut these thoughts into the mouth of the objector. He is of course 
still a supposed objector; St. Paul is really arguing with h 
but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met 
with in actual controversy (see on ; 

1. The first question is one of reading. There is an important 

: turning upon the position or presence of cupT)K/rcu 
K I. I'. A:i\, Theodrt. and : <TS (the Syriac Versions 

are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it af 

upoisaropa WMir. It is then taken with <mi <7"."<i : ' \\ \\.\\ sh.lll wi- 
lt A. has gained by his natural po\- y the grace 
of God ? ' So Bp. Bull after Theodore: 

even with this reading, takes orA adp*a with varipa : \,n<p3aTJ>r yitp 
TO Kara aapua]. lUit this is inconsistent with the context, 
question is not, what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or 
without it, but whether the new system professed ail left 

him any gain or advantage at all. (2) H A C D E F G, som 
. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others. 

'i that case mk aapta goes not with cv^nW but 
\\itli TO vpomrropa qpw* which I defines, 'our i 

genitor.' < 
from the tenor of his commci 

..';*cVai altopcti t of 'gain* 

drops out and we translate as to 

. .c opponents of B \ 
the sense thus given is susp 


satisfactory than that of cither 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 cvpfrnVw as probable with WH. 
ttxt Tr. RV. marg. For the construction comp. John i. 15 

1-6. One or two small question! of form may be noticed. In vcr. i 
vpovAropa (N A B C a/.) is decisively attested for mripa, which is 
found in the later MSS. and commentators. In ver. .1 the acute and sleepless 
Origcn thinks that St. Paul wrote 'Atyap (with Hcb. of Gen. XT; cf. 
Gen. xvii. 5), but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the 
text of Scripture substituted 'ABpaAp. It is more probable that St. Paul had 
before his mind the established and significant name throughout : he quotes 
<;cn. xvii. 5 in vcr. 1 7. In v-r. 5 a small group (N D FG) have d<r/9ijr, on 
which form sec \VH. Itttrod. App. p. 157 I.; Win. Cr. ed. 8, ix. 8; Tisch. 
on Hcb. vi. 19. In this instance the attestation may be wholly Western, but 
not in others. 

TrpowoTopa ^PUK. 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 
4 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. Emhym.-Zig. Lips, he connects rAi irpondr. fa. 
with Kara adpta. It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort 
{Rom. and Eph. p. 23 f.) though relegating tvprjKtvat to the margin, 

Still does not take *nra adpua with rb* nponaropa 9M*" 

2. nauxTifto : ' Not maUries gloriandi as Meyer, but^ rather 
glorialio, as Bengel, who however might have added facia ' (T. S. 
I in Sp. Comm. 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 ut sup. It would not be wrong 
to translate here 'has a ground of boasting/ but the idea of 
4 ground' is contained in x"> or rather in the context 

dXV oo irpos TOK 8tor. It seems best to explain the introduction 
of this i iai:>e by some such ellipse as that which is supplied in the 

100 ISTLE T< [IV. 2, 3. 

paraphrase. There should be a colon after co^pa. S 
does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a 
absolutely before man he might have it and the Jews were not 
wrong in the veneration with which they regarded his memory, 

was another thing to have a cavywia before God. 
a stress upon rir edr which is taken up by ry ey in the quota- 
tion. A. could not boast before God. He might have done so 
if he could have taken his stand on works ; but works did not 
enter into the question at all In God he put faith.' On the 
history and application of the text Gen. zv. 6, see below. 

3. Aoyioti) : metaphor from accounts, ' was set down/ here ' on 
the credit side.' Frequently in I. XX v. ;h legal sense oi 
or non-imputation of guilt, e.g. Lev. vii. 8 o W <Jwyi 

otTf, Xvii. 4 Xoyiad^acTai ry dvdpMVf ixtinf m/io, &C. 

The notion arises from that of the ' book of remembrance 
iii. 1 6) in which men's good or evil deeds, the wrongs and 
sufferings of the saints, are entered (IV hi. 8 ; Is. Ixv. 6). Oriental 
monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the 
merit or demerit of their subjects (Ksth. vi. i flf.), and in like 
manner on the judgement day Jehovah would have the ' books ' 

it out before Him (Dan. vii. 10; Rev. xx. 12; com; 
1 the books of the living/ ' the heavenly tablets,' a common expres- 
sion in the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, and 'J\ :. XII Pair., on 
see Charles on Enoch xlvii. 3 ; and in more mo 
Cowper's sonnet ' There is a book . . . wherein the eyes of God 
not rarely look'). 

The idea of imputation in this sense was t the Jews 

(Weber, Altsyn. ITuol. p. z.u). They had also 
transference of merit and demerit from one person to an 
(ibid. p. 280 IT. ; Ezck. xviii. 2 ; John ix. 2). i is not 

in qu< ; the point is that one q is set do 

credited, to the individual (here to Abraham; in i>!.uc of u: 
:y righteousness. 

AoyiodT] aurw cts Siaioavnr)f : was reckoned as equivalent 
standing in the place of, *ri. s/ The con 

common in I.XX: cf. i R<^. 

xxix. 17 ( = xxxi. 15); T-am iv. 2', i exact 

phrase f\oyia$^ air? tit ducoiotr. recurs in Ps. cv f c vi]. 3 1 of the 
nehas. On the grammar cf. Win. xxix. 3 a. (p. 229. 

On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. Weber, Altsyn. PalSsl. 
Thtologie, \. Abraham was the only righteous : 

was chosen to be ancestor of the hol\ 
; ill..: :' ::. ; rcccpts of the Law which he 

hand by a kind of intuition. He was the first of seven 
righteous men whose merit brought back the Shck 


retired into the seventh heaven, so that in the days of Moses it 
could take up its abode in the Tabernacle (ibid. p. 1 83). According 
to the Jews the original righteousness of Abraham, who began to 
serve God at the age of three (ibid. p. 1 1 8) was perfected (i) by his 
circumcision, (2) by his anticipator)' 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 Mechilla 
on Ex. xiv. 31, quoted by Delitzsch ad toe. and by Lightfoot in the 
extract given below). 

4, 5. 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. iwl TOK SiKcuouKra: '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 must not I* misled by the comment of Euthym.-Zig. rovrtan wi<rrt om 
2n 8i/yarcu & 6dr TUP Iv aot&tiy /3<aMrura, rovrov i(ai<fn-iji 06 puvw JAtv 
Otpwaat tfoAd<rat, dAAd gal &*aiot> votfjoat (comp. the Mine writer on ver. 35 
iVa <a/oi* ij^iaj *o<i}<rp). The evidc-nce is too decisive (p. 30 f. sup. that 
htatovv not ' to make righteous ' but ' to declare righteous as a jndgr.' 
It might however be inferred from l(<u<t>n)t that iuuuw votiprau 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. 

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 oatdJj is probably suggested by 
the quotation which is just coming from Ps. xxxii. i. 

6. Aa0ft (Aauci'o). Both Heb. and LXX ascribe Ps. xxxii to 
. In two places in the N. T., Acts iv. 25, 26 (= Ps. ii. i, 2), 
Heb. iv. 7 (= Ps. xcv. 7) Psalms are quoted as David's which have 
no title in the Hebrew (though Ps. xcv [xciv] bears the name of 
David in 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&r paKaptafioV : not 'blessedness,' which would be fuura/Monp 
but a 'pronouncing blessed'; uaxapifa* Toa='to call a person 
blessed Or happy ' (rofc rf yap faovt fttucapifofuv . . . rni rwr (Mjpfi* 
TOW fcioreirow na*npi(on<v Arist. Elk. Nic. I. xu. 4 ; comp. Euthym.- 

iraair & rai xnpix^fj rtuqs cat fofrt 6 fuiapr/iuJf, ' Felicitation U 

the strongest and highest form of honour and praise '). St. Paul 
uses the word again Gal. iv. 15. Who is it who thus pronounces a 
man blessed ? God. The Psalm describes how He does so. 


7, 8. Monapioi. K r.X. This quotation of Ps. xxxii. i, a is th- 
in Heb. and LX introduced by Si. Paul as confirming his 

interpretation of Gen. xv. 6. 

jianapioi is, as we have seen, the highest term which a Greek 
could use to describe a state of felicity. In the quotation jus- 
from Aristotle it is applied to the state of the gods and those nearest 
to the gods among i 

SoK-ACD-FKL&c: ot at, rf K B D E (I) G, 67**. ot b 
also the reading of LXX (f K- R-;. The authorities for <& arc superior as 
they combint the oldest eridence on the two main lines of transmission 
s . . + D) and it to on the whole more probable that f has been assimilated 
to the construction of Xa^tfw^at In rr. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that ow has been 

assimilated to the preceding *r or to the O.T. or that it has been affected 
by the following 06: f naturally cstiblisbed itself as the more euphonious 

06 pfj XoyunjTai. There is a natural tendency in a declining 
language to the use of more emphatic forms ; but here a real 
emphasis appears to be intended, ' Whose sin the Lord will in no 
wise reckon': see Ell. on i Thess. iv. 15 [p. 154], and Win. Ivi. 
3. P- 634 f- 

The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul 
and by St. James. 

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 ir.Vr. 
tpywv (Rom. iii. 28 ; cf. iv. 1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is 
accounted righteous ' fpy*v *a\ ot* vi>TM*jftW (Jas ii. 24). 
notice at once that St. Paul keeps more strictly to hi 
xv. 6 speaks only of faith. St. James supports his con 
of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident i: 

e offering of Isaac (Ja . also appeals to 

Abraham's belit romise tlu 

.1 numerous progeny (Rom. iv. 18), and in the more < 

th of Isaac (R< 

is that St Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own 

il experience confirms the .ion of the 

Book of Genesis ; and he re able to take it as one of the 

foun Jatiuiib ot La system. St James, occupying a less exceptional 


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 St. Paul mean different things by 
' taiih,' and as was natural they impose these different meanings on 
the Book of Genesis, and adapt the rest 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 is 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 
4 Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory ' (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 
(frpoffttfroXi^ria). 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 side. 
Christianity is with him a tremendous over-mastering force. The 
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 
on will seem to him trivial and superfluous. He will almost 
suspect the questioner of attempting to bring back under a new 
name the old Jewish notion of religion as a round of legal 
observance. Of course action will correspond with faith. The 
believer in Christ, who has put on Christ, who has died with Christ 
ami risen again with him, must needs to the very utmost of his 
power endeavour to live as Christ would have him live. St. Paul 
is going on presently to say this (Rom. vi. i, 12, 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. 

I 4 El : > THE ROMANS [IV. 1 8. 

If we thu M! the real relation of the two Apostles, ! 

l>e easier to discuss their literary relation. Are we to suppose that 
cither was writing with direct reference to the other ? 1 
mean to c or did St. James mean to con 

ul? Neither hypothesis seems probable. If S: 
had before hen once he looked 

beneath the language to the ideas signified by the language, he 
would have found nothing to which he could seriously object. I It- 
would have been aware t - 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 Attainment ; but 

ould have been all. On the other hand, i: 
seen the Epistle to the Romans and wished to ar 
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 
as that conceived by St. Paul. Besides, St. Paul had too effectually 
guarded himself against the moral hypocrisy c was con- 


>uld thus appear that when it is examined the real m 
ground between the two Apostles shrinks into a c<>: 
narrow compass. It does not amount to more than i: 
both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, and both tr 
reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith. 

Now Bp. Lightfoot has shown (Ga/a/; 7 ff., ed. : 

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 52)? It is repeatedly quoted and 

commented upon by Philo (no less than ton timcs^ Lft.). The 
whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate 
allegory. The Talmudic Muhilta cxpou: rse at 

length: ' Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake 

.e world was. For as a reward for Isra 
the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in : In like n. 

findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world 
to come solely by the merit of faiih, whereby he believed in the 
Lord ; for it is said, " and he I ihe Lord, and 1 

it to him for righteousness " ' (quoted by Lft. ut j///. p. 1 60). 'J 
these examples with the lengthened discussions . 1 and 

i Mention was being a\n to 

this particular text : and it was indeed inevitable that it should be 
so when we consider the ; 

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 


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 
Kiith 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 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 cither 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 1) and often more 
or less seriously distorted, of his brother Apostle's teaching, should 
reach him. He did what a wise and considerate leader would 
do. He names no names, and attacks no man's person. He does 
not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true 
reports. At the same time he states in plain terms his own view 
of the matter. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him 
to be needed, and which the very language of St. Paul, in places 
like Rom. vi. i ff., 15 ff., shows to have been really needed. And 
thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths, 
suited to different types of mind and different circumstances, are 
stated side by side. We have at once the deeper principle of 
action, which is also more powerful in proportion as it is deeper, 
though not such as all can grasp and appropriate, and the plainei 

Besides what is said above, see Introduction (8. It is a satisfaction to 

t the view here taken is substantially that of Dr. Hort, Jtutaittic 

Christianity^ p. 148, 'it seems more natural to suppose that a misuse or 

misunderstanding of St Paul's teaching on the part of others gave rise to 

:ues's carefully guarded language.' 

ic'> ISTLE T< [IV. 12. 

:g pitched on a more every-day level and ap; 
to larger numbers, which is the check and safeguard against possible 


IV. 9-12. The declaration made to Abraham di 
depend upon Circumcision. For made before he was 

ncised ; and Circumcision only came in after the fact \ 
to ratify a verdict already given. The reason being 
Abraham might have for his spiritual descendants //.. 
circumcised as well as the circumci 

Here we have certain persons pronounced 'happy.' 1 
this then to be confined to the circumcised Jew, or i; 
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 uith it. Was Abraham circumcised when the dec!.. 
was made to him? No: he was at the time uncircumcised. 
11 And circumcision was given to him afterwards, like a teal 
affixed to a document, to authenticate a state of things already 
existing, viz. the righteousness based on faith which was his before 
he was circumcised. The reason being that he might be the 
spiritual father alike of two divergent classes : at once of believing 
Gentiles, who though uncircumcised ith like his, that they 

too might be credited with righteousness ; " and at the same time 
of believing Jews who do not depend o :cumcision only, 

but whose files march duly in the steps of Abraham's faith 
which was his before his circumcision. 

10. S:. Paul appeals to : Pivine 

recognition of Abraham's DM in order of time bcff 

xi.Mon : the one recorded in Gen. xv. 6, tl .< 

although it might be (and was) 
numcibion, it could not be due to it or < 

11 <nj|Mior wiptrofujf. Circumcision . r ition is s 

.if duitynp (Gen. xvii. n), between God and the 


circumcised. The gen. wtptro^f is a genitive of apposition or identity, 
a sign ' consisting in circumcision/ ' which was circumcision.' Some 
authorities (A C* /.) read wiptropii*. 

a<frpayZoa. 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 nrtkil 

His offspring with the sign of a holy covenant.' Comp. Targum 

iii. 8 'The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was 

sealed in the flesh of Abraham ' ; Shcmoth It. 19 ' Ye shall not eat 

of the passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh/ 

other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad loc. (cf. also 


At a very early date the same term <*f>payit was transferred from 
the rite of circumcision to Christian baptism. See the passages 
collected by Lightfoot on 2 Clem. vii. 6 (Cltm. Rom. ii. 226), also 
Gebhardt and Harnack ad /of., and Hatch, Hibbtrt 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 An rich, Das 
antike Mystericnwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum 
(Gottingen, 1894), p. 120 ff., where the Christian use of the word 
is is fully discussed. 

Barnabas (ix. 6) seems to refer to, and refute, the Jewish doctrine which 
he puts in the mouth of an objector: dAX* J/xfr Kal nty rf/Mrir/ii/rcu <! 
Aoit tit <r</>pa-yi3a. dAAct o Xvpot itol 'Aptuft ml warrf ol It put rwv tl&w\ojv. 
Spa OVK xdxtiroi I* Trjt Sin9rficrjt airrSnr tlaiv ; dXAd ital ol Alyvmot if wtpt- 
ro/iO tlai*. The fact that so many heathen nations were circumcised proved 
that circumcision could not be the seal of a special covenant. 

cis TO trcu, 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). r TO" denotes 
that all this was contemplated in the Divine purpose. 

irarYpa irdrrw* rur iriorcoorrwK. 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. i, in which it is proved that even 
the proselyte may claim the patriarchs as his O'D^ because 

108 r. TO THE ROMA [IV 11 

Abram became Abraham, ' father of many nations/ lit ' a great 
multitude ' ; ' he was so/ the Glossator adds, 4 because he 
them to believe.' 

oV dftpopuoriaf : 'though in a state of uncircumcision.' &u of 
attendant circumstances as in &A ypa^arot ol rf,uropr. . 

^warot taQlom xiv. 20. 

12. rolf oroixooai. As it stands the art. is a solecism 
make those who are circumcised one set of persons, and those who 
follow the example of Abraham's faith another distinct set, 
is certainly not St. Paul's meaning. He is speaking of lev 
are loth circumcised and believe. This requires in Greek the 
omission of the art before vnxownr. But ro'it or. is fouru'. 
ii^MSS. We must suppose therefore either (i) that 
has been some corruption. WH. think that role may be the 
remains of an original avntt: but that would not seem to be 
natural form of sentence. Or (2) we may think that Tcrtius made 
a slip of the pen in following St. Paul's dictation, and that this 
remained uncorrccted. 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. 

crroixouau <rr..ixu is a well-known military term, meaning 
strictly to ' march in file ' : Pollux viii. 9 rA M 0a6ot oroide* caXdrai, 

<tal TO pr </*)* ira rcmi fiq*os (vyt\V TO d </*qf KOTO &a6of a- 

4 the technical term for marching abreast is (vyii*, for marching in 
depth or in file, arwjn*' (Wets.). 

On 06 |ivov rather than rf jdror in this rcne and in rcr. 16 MC Barton, 

Jewish Teaching on Circumcision. 

The fierce fanaticism with which the Jews insisted upon the rite 
of Circumcision y brought out in the Rook of Juliltcs 

for all generations for ever, and il. 

no circumcision of the time, and no passing over one day out of 
the eight days ; for it is an eternal ordinance, ordained and v 
on the heavenly tables. And every one that is born, the flesh of 
whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs not to 

ildren of the covenant which the Lord made \viih Abraham, 
for he belongs to the on ; nor is there mo 

any sign on him that he is the Lord's, but (he is destined) to be 

yed and slain from the earth, and to be rooted out of the 
earth, for he has broken the covenant of the Lord our Go !. 
And now I will announce unto the children o: 

not keep true to this ordinance, and they will not circumcb 
sons according to all ilesh of their circun 


they will omit this circumcision of their sons, and all of them, sons 
of Belial, will have their sons uncircumcised as they were born. 
And there shall be great wrath from the Lord against the children 
of Israel, because they have forsaken His covenant and turned away 
from His word, and provoked and blasphemed, according as they 
have not observed the ordinance of this law ; for they treat their 
members like the Gentiles, so that they may be removed and rooted 
out of the land. And there will be no pardon or forgiveness for 
them, so that there should be pardon and release from all the sin 
of this error for ever.' 

So absolute is Circumcision as a mark of God's favour that if an 
Israelite has practised idolatry his circumcision must first be 
removed before he can go down to Gehenna (Weber, Af/syn. Thtol. 
p. 51 f.). When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took 
a part in the act (ibid. p. 253). It was his circumcision and antici- 
patory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the 
4 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. 


IV. 13-17. Again the declaration that was made to 
Abraham had nothing to do with Law. For it turned on 
J : aith 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 not dependent upon Law, but on a righteousness which was 
the product of Faith. I4 lf 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. 
18 For Law is in its effects the very opposite of Promise. It only 


serves to bring down God's wrath by enhancing the guilt of sin. 
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. " 1 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 
, on the side of God. So that the Promise depending as it 
did not on Law but on these broad conditions, Faith and Grace, 
mi-lit 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 (WMM>), as it is expressly stated in (> 
'A father* (i.e. in spiritual fatherhood) 'ot 
I made thee V 

13-17. In this section St. Paul brings up the key- words of his 
own system Faith, Promise, Grace, and marshals them in array 
-t the leading points in the current theology of the 
Jews Law, Works or performance of Law, 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 

od such abundant justification for all that -eemed new in 

.u yap. K.T.X. Thr immediate poi paragraph 

is introduced to prov< : hough 

spiritual sense, the father of Gentiles as well as Jews. '1 
object of the whole argument is to show that A brain 

1 aimed not as the Jews contended by themselves but 
by Christians. 
' oiA ropou: without art., any system of law. 

Vj JwayycXia: sec on ch. i. 2 (npotirw re the uses of 

the word and its place in < :ng are discuss* 

time of the Coming of Cli hole Jewish race 

was turned to the promises contained in the (). '1 

these promises were (so to speak) brought to a 
and definitely identified with their fulfilm 

The following example* may be added to those quoted on 

uc the diffusion ! romise* among the J< 

ccnli ' fortart qua* I'M tern for ihui iustn 

There is a slight awkwardness in making our break in the middle of 

.and of a sentence. ;lidc after his manner into a new subject. 

suggested to him by the vcrac which he quota in proof of what has gone before. 


repromiisa tun/ ; vii. 14 si ergo non ingrtditntes ingrtssi fuerint qui vivtatt 
angusta ft vatta ktue, no* poterunt rtcifxrt qua* sunt rtposita (-rd dvo. 
Ktintt-a. Gen. xlu. 10) ; ibti. 49 (119 ff. quid cnim nobit prodttt si promissum 
tit nobu immortal* tempus, not vero mortatia Optra egimus? dec. APot. 
Baruck. xiv. 13 profiler hoc etiam if si tint timort rtlinquunt mundum 
isturn. et fidentet in laetitia sftrant u rccttturos mundum quern fromiintt 
tis. It will be observed that all these passages are apocalyptic and eschato 
logical. The Jewish idea of Promise is vague and future ; the Christian idea 
is definite and associated with a state of things already inaugurated. 

TO nXtipo^oK auTor tW Koajioo. 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 ; ziii. 14 f. ; xv. 18 ; 
xvii. 8 ; cf. xxvi. 3 ; Ex. vi. 4) taken as a type of the world-wide 
Messianic reign; (2) 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 

8id Sutaio9unf)s irurrcws: this ' faith-righteousness ' which St. 
Paul lias been describing as characteristic of the Christian, and 
before him of Abraham. 

14. 01 1* KO/IOU: 'the dependants of law/ 'vassals of a legal system,' 
such as were the Jews. 

K\T]poK6 < fioi. 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. 

15. 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 light 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. 20, v. 13, 20, vii. 7 ff. 

oG 6< for ow -fa is decisively attested V K A BC &c.). 
wapd0a<n$ is the appropriate word for the direct violation of 


a code. It means to overstep a line clearly defined : 

re tineas Cicero, Parad. 3 (afi. Trench, Syn. p. 236). 
16. *n wurrcws. In his rapid and vigorous reasoning St. 
contents h .a few bold strokes, which he leaves it 

reader to fill in. It is usual to supj < vurrw either 

9 Xi7poH>^'a <m.r from v. 1 4 (Lips. Mey.) or 7 Vn- ; 

>, but as njr VoyyXiay is defined just below it seems 
better to have recourse to some wider thought which shall include 
both these. ' It was'=* The Divine plan was, took its start, from 
faith.' The bold lines of God's plan, the Providential or 
of things, form the background, understood if not directly expressed, 
to the whole ch. 

els r6 et^ai. Working round again to the same conclusion as 
before ; the object of all these pre-arranged conditions wa-s 
with old restrictions, and to throw open the Me 
blessings to all who in any true sense could call Abraham i 
:o believing Gentile as well as to believing Jew. 


IV. 17-22. Abrahams Faith was remarkable both J\ 

,th and for its object: the birth of Isaac 
Abraham believed might be described as a ' birth from the 

23-25. In this it is a type of the Christian s Fai: 
which is annexed a like acceptance n is for 

its object a 'birth from the dead'' tlu Death and 1. 
rection of Ch> 

17 In this light Abraham is regarded by God before whom 
represented as standing that God who infuses life into the dead 
(as He was about to infuse it into Abraham's dead body), and 
who issues His summons (as He issued it then) to generations 
yet unborn. 

' In such a God Abraham believed. Against all ordinary hope 
of becoming a father he yet had faith, grounded in hope, and 
enabling him to become the father not of Jews only but of 
spread nations, to whom the Promise alluded when it said (Gen. 
xv. 5) ' Like the stars of the heaven shall thy descendants be/ 

ithout showing weaknc 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 ; he took 


full note of the barrenness of Sarah his wife ; "and yet with the 
promise in view no impulse of unbelief made him hesitate ; his 
faith endowed him with the power which he seemed to lack; he 
gave praise to God for the miracle that was to be wrought in him, 
' I Living a firm conviction that what God had promised He was 
able also to perform. n 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, at 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 
on the same God who raised up from the dead Jesus our 
Lord, tt who was delivered into the hands of His murderers to atone 
for our sins, and rose again to effect our justification (i.e. to put 
the crown and seal to the Atonement wrought by His Death, and 
at the same time to evoke the faith which makes the Atonement 

17. iroWpa. K.T.X. Exactly from LXX of Gen. xvii. 5. The LXX 
tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the 
Heb., patrem frcmentts turbae, i. e. ingentis multiludinis populorum 
tK.iutzsch, p. 25). 

KartVam ou lirurrcuac 6cou : attraction for KoWwum 6ou y V<'- 
<rrrv<r : KtrnVavri describing the posture in which Abraham is 
represented as holding colloquy with God (Gen. xvii. i IT.). 

Iwoiroiourros : ' 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, (a) the Resurrection of Christ. On 
thi- Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Greek, p. 5. 

xaXoOrros f r.i ^ ovra o>; orral. There are four views : (i) coX.= 

'to name, speak of, or describe, things non-existent as if they 

existed' (Va.); (ii) = 4 to call into being, issue His creative fiat' (most 

commentators); (iii) = ' to call, or summon,' ' issue His commands 

to' (Mey. Gif.); (iv) in the dogmatic sense = 'to call, or invite to 

life and salvation ' (Fri.). Of these (iv) may be put on one side as 

loo remote from the context ; and (ii) as Mey. rightly points out, 

seems to be negatived by o>* orra. 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 

i.uivc grasp of the situation displayed by St. Paul. In favour 

of this view may also be quoted Apoc. Bar. xxi. 4 O qui fechti 

; audi me . . . qui vocasti ab initio mundi quod nondum eral, et 



obtdiunt tibi. For the use of *oAu see also the note on ix. 7 

18. ci T& Y"6r6<" = ***** yVAu: 'his failh enaK 
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. 

xv. 5 (I 

10. H &r*rn<r<M- Corop. Lft. in Jour*, of Clan, ami Saf. Fkilol. 
60.: The New Te*umt use of M with a participle... has a much 
wider range than In the earlier language. Yet this is no violation of 
principle, but quher an extension of a particular mode of looking at the 
subordinate event contained in the participial clause. It is viewed as an 
accident or condition of the principal event described by the finite verb, and 
is therefore negatived by the dependent negative *4 and not by the absolute ov. 
Rom. iv. 19 ... is a case in point whether we retain ov or omit it with 
Lachm. In the latter case the sense will be, " he so considered his own 
body now dead, * */** weak in the (7) frith."' This is well expressed 
::: KY V . * MfJ> VMfaMd,' Ml ft* 'tfaf Mitel I 1 lEfld bt 

rather 'showing weakness 'or 'becoming weak.' Sec also Burton, At. 

NABC some good cursives, some MSS. of Vulg. 
(including am.), Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat (which probably here preserves 
Origen's Greek), Chrys. and others; oi *ar*;<r, D E 1 < , K I. I' 
Ac., some MSS. of Vulg. (including ftdd, th more pro- 

bable that the negative has come in from the Old Latin ai 
it was not recognized by Jerome), Syr.-I I.irJ., Orig.-lat. bis, \ 
Ambrstr. at. 

Both readings give a good sense : carodV*, ' he didc< 
yet did not doubt* ; oi carobV*, ' he did not consider, and /'. 
did not doubt' Both readings are also early: but the r. 

nJi7<r is clearly of Western on be set 

down to Western laxity : the authorities which omit the negative 
are as a rule the most trust wo; 

v*4px<": 'being already about a hundred yean old.' May we not say 
that /ru denotes a present state simply as present, but that foa/>x<r denotes 
present state at a product of past states, or at least a ttnte in present time 
as related to past time (<fr*M*s, aastim, L* 

last word (M*X"^ difficult ; it seems to mean sometimes to be 
ally," M to be substantially or fundamentally,** or, as in Demosthenes, 
stored in readiness." An idea of propriety sometimes attaches to it : com j .. 
r "substance. The word however asks for 

, 'property'' or "substance. he wor owever asks 
mtkA/Comp. Schmidt, 1*. u. gr. Svnatymik. i ; 4 . 4 . 
SO. * 8wfHti|: 'did not hesitate' (rovr^r.r oiM ir.ioLr.r 
3oAChry. . &ap,Vir act. 

between two things ( Matt *v :. xi. 39, 31' or persons'' A ctsxv. 9; 

I C : t>etween two pr- 

* P <nc0<u mid. (and pass.) - U) 'to get a decisuu:. dispute.' or 

'contend* (Acts xi. 2; Jas. ii. 4; Jode9); U 

other ser. 
word occurs some thirty times), but this is wanting. It is however well 


established for N.T., where it appears as the proper opposite of 

So Matt xxi. 21 Mr Ix^* wVrw, *o2 pj} inur^^r* : Mirk xi. 3 & 
..*alrt &curp<p Jv TV op&'? auTotJ dAXd wi<rrt^ : Rom. xiv. 33 i W 
t, tAv ^ayp, mraJtigfurat, bn oil* J *l<m*i : Ja*. i. 6 olrurw W 

V w<<7ri fu^if lkaiti*vnvot : also probably Jude aa. A like use is found in 
Oimtian writings of the second century and later: e.g. ProUv. Jot. 11 
Ixovoaoa. 8) Mop^ ht*piTj h Jai/rfj \iyovoa, .rX (quoted by Mayor on 
las. i. 6) : Clem. Homil. i. ao pi rift wofaMtlffv aot IkJMm SKurpftw : 
ti. 40 wpi rov /IOFOV aj dTotfoC eov oteutfxtijrat. It is remarkable that a use 
':> (except as an antithesis to wrtimv) 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, but appears to hare had its beginning in near 
proximity to Christianity. A_parallel case is that of the word tyvx" (St. 
James, Clem. Rom., Herm., Didacht, &c.). The two words seem to belong 
to the same cycle of ideas. 

TTJ iriarci. r vltrrn 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 ri da$^tras 
TJI vioTfi above ; and the surrounding terms (bmtptffii, wAijpo^opij&i' j) 
might seem to point to a menial process. But it is tempting to 
make rfj irtVw instrumental or causal, like 177 airrn? to which it 
stands in immediate antithesis : Wft. TJJ mW. would then = ' he was 
endowed with power by means of his faith* (sc. TO r^*p/iWy 
auroO aZpa <WoWa/M>^). According to the Talmud, Abraham wurde 
in seiner Natur erneuert, eine neue Creator (Bammidbar Rabba xi), 
urn die Zeugung su 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 m'<rr ai avrg Zappa tlvvafuv tit xara/SoX^ <nr<pparos fX3< 
rai irapa Kaipov tjXtxias . . . 010 al aVp* iv&t tytmnj&^aav^ *a\ ravra 
Mw<rpw/iwv, nadus ra otrrpa TOW oipavoO T^> n\r)6n (observe CSp. btvapt* 

cXa/sir, wwp<wp'vou). This sense is also distinctly recognized by 

Kuthym.-Zig. (ift^wa^otdrj tit nm&oyoviav rg niariC f) CMdvNpsWf 

wpoff rr) uteri*). The other (common) interpretation is preferred by 
Chrys., from whom Euthym.-Zig. seems to get his 6 irum* 

< > mAiKviV'i'0( di/KtfMwr dfiToi irXf iovo(. 

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 
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 conditions which betokened only 
death but also in the faith of which they were the object. 

Sous o4{ar: a Hebraism: cf. Josh. vii. 19; i Sam. vi. 5; i 
Chron. xvi 28, &c. 

i a 


TT\t|po$opT]0cis: rXtyxxfaua = ' full assurance/ ' firm conviction/ 

i word especially common among 

Stoics. Hence wX^po^opcIirAu, as used of persons, = ' to be fully 
assured or convinced/ as here, ch. xiv. 5 ; Col. iv. 1 2. As used of 
things the meaning is more doubtful: cf. a Tin 17 and 

Luke i. i, where some take it as = ' fully or satisfactorily proved/ 
others as = ' accomplished ' (so Lat-Vct Vulg. RV. text Lft. On 
Rcvi* _ ) : sec note ad he. 

23. Si* oT*r fi<W. Jhresh. K. xl. 8 'Thou findest that all 
that is recorded of Abraham is repeated in ory of his 
children* (Wctstein, who is followed by Meyer, and IXlitzsch ad lot). 
Wetstcin also quotes Taanith ii. i Fratres nos/ri, dt Niruvitn 
non dictum est : et respexit Deus saccum eorum. 

24. TOIS wioreJooaiK : 4 to us who believe.' St. Paul asserts that 
iders are among the class of believers. Not ' if we b 

i would be vumtovai* (tint or tic.). 

25. W with ace. is primarily retrospective, =' because of: but 
inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution, &td n 
retrospective with reference to the idea, but prospective 
reference to the execution. Which it is in any particular cas. 

be determined by the context. 

&A ri wapmrr. may be retrospective, = 'because of our 
trespasses' (which made the death of Christ necessary) ; or . 
be prospective, as Gif. * because of our trespasses/ i.e. 'in 01 
atone for them.' 

In any case &A r^r &ciuWir is prospective, Svith a view to our 
justification/ 'because of our justification' conceived as a n 
i.e. to bring it about. Sec Dr. Gilford's two excellent notes 
pp. 1 08, 109. 

The manifold ways in which the Resurrection of 
connected with justification will appear from the exposition below. 
It is at once the great source of tlu h, the assurance 

of the special character of the object of that faith, the proof that the 

c which is the ground o: on is an accepted sa 

and the stimulus to that moral relation of the 

the victory which Christ has won becomes his o 
See also the notes <. 8. 

Tht Place oj tlon of Christ in the 

f .s /. j 

Th<- ist fills an immense place in the teaching 

of St. i the fact that it does so accounts for the en. 

inch he states the evidence for it (i Cor. \ . . i n ) 


(i) The Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the' 
of Christ (Acts xvii. 31 ; Rom. i. 4 ; x Cor. xv. 14, 15). 

(ii) As proving the Divinity of Christ the Resurrection ^ 
the most decisive proof of the atoning value of His Death 
for the Resurrection, there would have been nothing to show at 
least no clear and convincing sign to show that He who died upon 
the Cross was more than man. But if the Victim of the Cross had 
been man and nothing more, there would have been no sufficient 
reason for attaching to His Death any peculiar efficacy ; the faith 
of Christians would be ' vain/ they would be * yet in their sins ' 
(i Cor. xv. 17). 

(iii) In yet another way the Resurrection proved the efficacy of 
the Death of Christ. Without the Resurrection the Sacrifice of 
(\ilv.iry 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 4pw so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom. iii. 25, 
26) had passed away. This is the thought which lies at the bottom 
of Rom. vi. 7-10. 

(iv) The Resurrection of Christ is the strongest guarantee for 
the resurrection of the Christian (i Cor. xv. 20-23 > 2 C r * v * M 
Rom. viii. n ; Col. i. 18). 

(v) But that resurrection has two sides or aspects : it is not only 
physical, a future rising again to physical life, but it is also moral 
and spiritual, a present rising from the death of sin to the life of 
righteousness. In virtue of his union with Christ, the close and 
intimate relation of his spirit with Christ's, the Christian is called 
upon to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ And this 
moral and spiritual sense is the only sense in which he can repeat 
them. We shall have this doctrine fully expounded in ch. vi. i-i i. 

A recent monograph on the subject of this note (E. Schader, Die BtcUutung 
da lebtndigtn Ckristutfiir die Recktftrtigtmg nock Pott/us, Giitersloh, 1 893) 
has worked oat in much careful detail the third of the above heads. Heir 
Schader (who since writing his treatise has become Professor at KonigtbtM) 
insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrought by 
t ; that which redeems is not merely the act of Christ's Death but His 
Person (> 'xM* ^ 4woAvr/ttxnr Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14). It is as a Person 
that He takes the place of the sinner and endures the Wrath of God in his 
stead (Gal. iii. 13; a Cor. v. ai). The Resurrection is proof that this 
Wrath ' is at an end. And therefore in certain salient passages (Rom. iv. 35 ; 
vi. 9, 10 ; viii. 34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ as 
the cause of justification. The treatise is well deserving of study. 

It may be right also to mention, without wholly endorsing, Dr. Hort's 

.ticant aphorism : ' Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemp- 

. and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and resurrection one aspect 

of life' Hulsta* Ltctoru, p. aio). This can more readily be accepted if 

' one aspect ' in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other ptctfc 

At the same time such a saying is useful as a warning, which is especially 

needed where the attempt is being made towards more exact definitions, that 


all definitions of great doctrine* have a relative rather than an abtolote value. 
They are partial symbols of ideas which the human mind cannot grasp in 
If we could see as God sees we should doubtless find them 
running up into large and broad laws of His working. We desire to make 
this reserve in regard to oar own attempts to define. Without it exact 
exegesis may well seem to lead to a revived Scholasticism. 


V. l-ll. Tlv state which thus lies before the Chr: 
should have consequences both near and remote. The nearer 
consequences, peace with God and hope which gives courage 

> persecution (vv. 1-4): the remoter conscq 
assurance, derived from the proof of God f final 

fion and glory. The first step (our present accc; 
God) is difficult ; the second step (our ultiv; 
tion) follows naturally from the first (w. 5-11). 

1 \Vc Chri>tians then ought to enter upon our 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 

Him which we owe to our Lord Jesus Messiah. MI 
whose Death and Resurrection, the object of 01; 
have brought us within the range of the Divine favour. ' 
the sheltered circle of that favour we stand as C . in no 

merely passive attitude, but we exult in the hope of one day 

::;,' as in the favour of God so also in His gl< 
and this exultation of ours, so far from being shaken by per- 
secutions is actually founded upon them. For persecution only 
generates fortitude, or resolute endurance un<! 
then fortitude leads on to the approved courage of the veteran ; 
and that in turn strengthens the hope out of which it originally 

More: our hope is one that cannot prove illusory; because 
(and here a new factor is introduced, for the first time in this 
connexion) the ' .t, through \\hom God is brought into 

personal contact with man that Holy Sj.:r 
when we became Christians, floods our hearts with the conscious- 


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 us not as 
righteous men, but as godless sinners I 7 What a proof of love was 
there ! For an upright or righteous man it would be hard to find 
lling 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 of His unmerited 
Love towards us, in that, sinners as we still were, Christ died for us. 
' Here then is an a fortiori argument. The fact that we have 
been actually declared ' righteous ' by coming within the influence 
of Christ's sacrificial 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. lo For 
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. n 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. 

1-11. 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 (&d v. i, 2, n 
bis) but more particularly to the Death of Christ (ra/xftdA? iv. 25 ; 

airflow V. 6, 8 J Vr ry tuftart V. 9 ; & rov Awrrov V. IO). He COn- 

ceives of that Death as operating by a sacrificial blood-shedding 
(V ry opart: cf. iii. 25 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 
cxultingly over the physical dangers which threaten him ; they may 
strengthen his firmness of purpose, but cannot shake it 

1. The word duuuWty at the end of the last chapter recalls St. 
Paul to his main topic. After expounding the nature of his new 

120 IE ROMA [V. 1. 

method of obtaining righteousness in iii. 21- m to 

draw some of the consequences from this (the deathblo 

pride, and the equality of Jew and Gentile) in B 

suggested the digression in ch. iv, to prove that notu 

there was no breach of God's purposes as declared in the O. T. 

(strictly the Legal System which bad its charier in the O. T 

rather the contrary. Now he goes back to ' consequences 

traces them out for the individual Christian. He explains i 

is that the Christian faces persecution and death so joyful! 

has a deep spring of tranquillity at his heart, and a confident hope 

of future glory, 

X<*n"- The evidence for this reading stands thus : "X*M x * 

C D E K L, cursives, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. 
repeatedly Chrys. Ambrstr. and others : W* correctors 
FG (duplicate MSS. it will be remembered) in the Greek though 
not in the Latin, P and many curv 

three places out of four. Clearly overwhelming authority for 
fgwfui'. It is argued however (i) that exhortation out of 

place: 'inference not exhortation is the Apostle's purpose' 
(Scrivener. Inlrod.\\. 380 ed. 4); (ii) that o and u> arc- 
interchanged in the MSS., as in this very word 
i Cor. xv. 49) ; (iii) it is possible that a 
made by Tertius in copying or in some very 
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 
ment to exhortation; so in the near context vi. (i 

i j ; (ii) in "^O>^*K inference and exhortation are really com- 
bined : it is a sort of light exhortation, ' \\c strut J have ' (T. S. 

As to the meaning of *x*p<* it should be observed that it does 
not = ' make peace/ ' get ' or ' obtain peace ' (which wen. 

), but rather ' keep ' or ' enjoy peac< m* \aov rf 9om 

Ao!r icni Mtltraf Kara" s. ; cf. Acts i 

> , ' continued in a state of peace '). 

aor. part. dunuWVr<r marks the initial moment of the state 
?X*iu*. The declaration of 'not x h the sinner comes 

by a heartfelt nee does away 

he state of hostility in which he had stood to Go' 
substitutes for it a state of peace which he has only to realize. 
This declaration of ' not guilty' and the peace \\li. upon 

it are not due to himself, but are ha roC KI-/NOV w 'ii^ou x,H0W : 
how is explained more ft >.i below. 

J. Apmr Beet (Comm. ad /.) dftcnueft the exact shade of meaning 
conveyed by the or. put. &4HUMrrf in K -jrrjf ?\*n<r. iir 

cootends that it denote* not to much the rtasem for entering upon the Mate 


in question as the mtant of catering upon it No doubt this Is perfectly 
tenable on the score of grammar; and it is also tree that 'justification 
necessarily involves peace with God.' Bat the argument goes too much 
upon the assumption that //>. l\. - ' obtain peace/ which we have seen to 
be erroneous. The sense is exactly that of il\ tlprnnjv in the passage 
quoted from the Acts, and 8ura<0., as we have said, marks the initial 
moment in the state. 

2. TTJK wpoaaywYn*. Two stages only are described in w. i, a 
though different language is used about them : 6>ur<uttftWv = 9 
rpoaayvyfi, tlp^r) = ^dpir ; the nav^is is a characteristic of the 
state of x'ip**, at tne same time that it points forward to a future 
state of &>o. The phrase fj npwray^ * our introduction/ is a con- 
necting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. Eph. ii. 1 8 ; 
iii. 12): the idea is that of introduction to the presence-chamber of 
a monarch. The rendering 'access' is inadequate, as it leaves 
out of sight the fact that we do not come in our own strength but 
need an introducer' Christ. 

Jox^Kapcr : not ' we have had ' (Va.), but ' we have got or 
obtained,' aor. and perf. in one. 

Both grammar and logic will run in perfect harmony together If we 
render, " through whom we have by faith got or obtained our access into 
this grace wherein we stand." This rendering will bring to view two causes 
of getting the access or obtaining the introduction into the state of grace ; 
one cause objective, Christ: the other subjective, faith; Christ the door, 
faith the hand which moves the door to open and to admit' (T. S. Evans in 
xj>. 1883, L 169). 

qj morn om. B D E F G, Lat. Vet., Orig.-lat. tit. The weight of this 
evidence depends on the value which we assign to H. All the other evidence 
intern ; and B also (as we have seen) has a Western element ; so that 
the question is whether the omission here in B is an independent corrobora- 
tion of the Western group or whether it simply belongs to it (does the 
evidence - ft + 8, or 8 only?). There is the further point that omissions in 
the Western text deserve more attention than additions. Either reading con 
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 wiartt in brackets as Tieg. \V1I. K V. marg. (Weiss 

clt TV x*P r TauTt|i>: 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. xfyts 3. a). 

4<m?Ka r icf : ' stand fast or firm ' (see Va. and Grm.-Thay. s. v. 

ttrnjfu H. 2. d). 

*' Awfoi: as in iv. 18. 

rijs Soip. See on iii. 23. It is the Glory of the Divine 
Presence (Shckinah) communicated to man (partially here, but) in 
full measure when he enters into that Presence; man's whole being 
will be transfigured by iu 


Is tht Society or the Individual the proper object of 
Justification t 

It is well known to be a characteristic feature of the the 
of Ritschl that he regards the proper object of Justification as the 
iin Society as a collective whole, and not the individual as 
such. \v is based upon two main groups of arguments, 

(i) The first is derived from the analogy of the O. T. The great 
sacrifices of tfce 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 
.icl are to keep it (Ex. xii. 43 fT., 47). And still more 
ily as to the ritual of the Day of Atonement : the high 
is to 'make atonement for the holy place, because of \\. 

nesses of the children of Israel, and because of 
gressions. even all their sins'; he is to lay both 1. on the 

bead 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. 1 6, 21, also 33 f.). This argument gains in force from 
the concentration of the Christian Sacrifice upon a single 
accomplished once for all. I; .1 to think of it as having 

also a single and permanent object. (2) The second argun 
derived from the exegesis of the N.T. generally (most clearly 
perhaps in Acts xx. 28 r^ i*K\T\alav TOW eoC | 

CTpMVotipraro &ta TOW cuftnros rou idtov : but also in I Jo. ii. 2 ; iv. i o ; 
18; Apoc. .. Qf.), and more particularly in the 

os of St. Paul. The society is, it is true, most clearly 
indicated in the later Epp. ; e.g. Tit. ii. 14 a^pot i h 

virip fffMUf t mi \vrp*HTT]Tai rjftas . . . ii KnBapiffji farry Xo&v 
: Eph. v. 25 f. 6 \pttrr6t fymnprr ri;v t*K\T)oi 
vwip avrfff Ira avrqr byuurr) naOapiaas ir.r.X. (cf. I 

18; iii. 12; Col. i. 14). But Ritschl also claims the support of 
the earlier Epp.: e.g. Rom. viii. 32 wr> ^ wavr*v *ap<t**tv 

ovrtJ: Ui. 22 fatauxrvvrj fc 6oi rovt ITI(TTWT,.. 

the repeated writ in the contexts of three passages (Comp. Rccht- 

i6f, 1 60). 

In reply the critics of Ritschl appeal to the distinctly in- 
c cast of cssions as Rom. iii. 26 duuuovira ru*> 

V Tr.'<rrw 'Ii^oC *iv ducauwrra r6r U.T. ; JC context : 

It &umo<Tvnj trari T^ invrtvatnt (Schadcr, Op. ri. ; cf. 

also Glol, Der Hciligt Cast, p. 102 n.; Weiss, BibL Theol. 820, 
cd to by Schadcr). 

rue that ?:. I'.uil docs use language 

points to the t! cation of the 


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 that account throw over the other 
passages above quoted, which seem to be quite as unambiguous ? 
i hi< li brings benefit to the Church collectively of necessity 
brings benefit to the individuals of which it is composed. We 

: 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. 

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 slate under the 
figure of a fenced-off enclosure, it b natural to identify the area 

i 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 

nd natural 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 

it dwells more and more upon the Church as an organic 
he also conceives of it as doing for the individual believer 
he 'congregation' did for the individual Israelites under the 

:STU: TO THE K [V. 2-6. 

older dispensation. The Christian Sacrifice \\ith its effects, like 
the sacrifices of the Day of Atonemen: 
reach the individual through the commr. 

3-5. The two leading types of the Old-Latin Version of the Epistle stand 
out distinctly in these verses. We are fortunately able to compare the 
Cyprianic text with that of Tertullian (mom solum . . . eomfumdit and the 
European text of Cod. Clsrom. with that of Hilary (tribute! io . . . eom/umdif). 
The passage is also quoted in the so-called Speculum (m), which repn 
the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian (Classical Review, t 

Cvr t COD. C t. A ROM. 

.\'on solum autem, sod et gloriamur tfou solum autem, sed tt ftoriamur 
in frtnuris: scientes gutmiam prts- in tribulationibus , 
sura toUrantiam operator, toUramtia lotto patiemtiam ofcratur, / 
auttm probation**, probatio auttm autem probationem, probatio 
spem ; spes autem mom eonfmmdit, guia spem ; spa autem mom eomfumJ 

nfutaettcordibmmostris faritas Dei di/u 
per Spiritnm Sanctum ami dot us est moslru per Sftritum Sanctum ami 

datms estmobis. 

vermm eliam exti! (antes Tert ; ftrti 

quod Tert.; perjuiat Tert. (ed. Vin- spa vero 11 tL (Cod. Clarom. 
dob.) ; tol. vero Tert. ; spes vero Tert. 

:c. as elsewhere in Epp. Paul., there is a considerable amount of : 
common to all forms of the Version, enough to give colour to the supposition 
that a single translation lies at_tbeir root But the salient expressions are 
changed ; and in this ' 
the European texts. 
Tertullian elsewhere 

Rom -r. vii. a8; a C 

Col. . Gal i 4 ; AJ-K-. 14), as also diltrtio (to 

the quotation docs not extend in this passage, but which is found in 
Luke xi. 41 ; John xiii. 35 ; Rom. viii. 35, $., 

note however that Hilary and Tertvllian agree in ftrficit (ptrfieiaf), though 
in another place Hilary has allusively tribulatio /.. 
Perhaps this coincidence may poiut to an older rendering. 

3. ou iicW M (iffrfjfantv dXXu rai nv^tffa, or /cmjavrc t u> 

avxMfUKM): in this elliptical form 

esp. of this group of Epistles (cf. v 1 1 ; ix. 10 ; 2 Cor. 


tcavx^uvoi B C, Orig. his and others : a good group, but open to suspicion 
of conforming to ver. 1 1 (q. v.) ; we have also found a similar . 
whole inferior, in iii a8. If mrx^iunn were right it would be another 
example of that broken and somewhat inconsecutive structure v 
doubtless due, as Va. suggests, to the habit of dictating to an 

Note the contrast between th- ^au \\ hich is excluded ' 

watt. The one re ; -posed 

human privileges an'! he other draws all its force from the 

assurance of Divine love. 

The Jewish writers know of another ot/Yi?*ir (besides the empty boasting 
Is reserved f 

:?>unt cumjiduci 
JUebunt mm eon/usi, tt gaudebunt mom revertniei. 

on es at ter root ut te saent expressons are 
instance Tertullian goes with Cyprian, a- 

The renderings tolerantia and prttsura ore verified for 
(tolerantia Luke 


iv TCUS eXi'4(n. The tfXoJ'm are the physical hardships and 
sufferings that St. Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the 
Christian; cf. Rom. viii. 35 ft.; i Cor. iv. 11-13; vu - 26-32; xv. 
30-32; 2 Cor. i. 3-10; xi. 23-27. Such passages give us 
glimpses of the stormy background which lies behind St. Paul's 
Epistles. He is so absorbed in his ' Gospel ' that this makes very 
little impression upon him. Indeed, as this chapter shows, the 
overwhelming sense of God's mercy and love fills him with such 
exultation of spirit that bodily suffering not only weighs like dust in 
the balance but positively serves to strengthen his constancy. The 
same feeling comes out in the vntpvut^tv of viii. 37 : the whole 
passage is parallel. 

forofiOK^r: not merely a passive quality but a 'masculine con- 
stancy in holding out under trials ' (XYaitc on a Cor. vi. 4), 'forti- 
tude.' See on ii. 7 above. 

4. ooKiji^ : the character which results from the process of, 
the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit ; cf. 
Tames i. 12, &c. The exact order of Ciro^o^ and fourf must not 
be pressed too far : in St. James i. 3 rA ftcMi/uoy rfjs iri<rrtt produces 
vwo/iowj. If St. James had seen this Epistle (which is doubtful) we 
might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. The con- 
ception is that of 2 Tim. ii. 3 (in the revised as well as the received 

^ 8 SoKipf) AviSa. It is quite intelligible as a fact of experience 
ih.u the hope which is in its origin doctrinal should be strengthened 
by the hardening and bracing of character which come from 
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. 

5. oo KOTaioxut'ei : does not disappoint,' * does not prove illusory.' 
Tin- text Is. xxviii. 16 (LXX) caught the attention of the early 

;rom the Messianic reference contained in it ('Behold, 
I lay in Zion,' &c.), and the assurance by which this was followed 
(' he that belicveth shall not be put to shame ') was confirmed to 
them by their own experience : the verse is directly quoted Rom. 

, <j. v. ; i Pet. ii. 6. 

^ dydm) TOO 6coG : certainly ' the love of God for us,' not ' our 
love for God' (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns): aywn} thus 
comes to mean, ' our sense of God's love/ just as tlpm = ' our 
sense of peace with God.' 

jKKlxurai. The idea of spiritual refreshment and encourage- 

is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of 

ng. St. Paul seems to have had in his mind Is. xliv. 3 

' I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the 

dry ground : I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed,' &c. 

Sid nrcupaTos *AY I ' OU : without the art., for the Spirit at imparted. 

i: TO THE ROMA' [V. 5, 6. 

vrs all his conscious experience of the privileges of 
to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating fr< 
time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christiai 

6. n ydp. There is here a difficult, but not 
portant, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus 
summarized : 

fn yap at the beginning of the verse with At also after aa6<, 

the mass of M 
~n at the beginning of the verse only, some inferior V 

(later stage of the Ecclesiastical t< 
It ri ydp (possibly representing tra ri yap, ut quid cnim). 

Western text (Latin authorities). 
i ydp few authorities, partly Latin. 

< B. 

It is not easy to select from these a reading ill account 

for all the variants. That indeed which has the best authority. 1 1 it- 
double rri, does not seem to be tenable, unless we suppose an 
accidental repetition of the word either by St. Paul or hi- amanuensis. 

It would not be difficult to get in yap from two rl yap, or 

through the doubling or dropping of IN from the preceding 

nor would it be difficult to explain fn ydp from ' ydp, or 

might then work our way back to an a 

ydp or tt y. ght be confused with each other through the 

use of an abbreviation. Fuller details are given b< 
on the whole that it is not improbable that here, a B has 

preserved the original reading f y. For the meaning of t yt (' so 
surely as ' Va.) see T. S. Evans in Exp. 1 882, i. 1 76 f. ; and the note 
on iii. 30 above. 

In more detail the evidence stands that : In ydp here with In alto after 
40*r N A C I 

ut quid ewm Lat-Y ircn.-lat. Faiutin: I v'P 104 Greg. (-h 

Scnv.\ fold., Isid.-Pcln*. Au 

weak,' &.C.] : <l M Pesh [The reading* are wrongly given by Lip*., 

and not quite correctly even I 

The statement which is at once fullest and most exact will be four : in v. n j 
It thos appears: (i) that the reading most strongly support' 
with double In. which is impossible unless we suppose a latnu 
between St. Paul and his amanoensis. (a) The \V cetera reading : 
ydf, which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original iVa 

n ut quid titim of Irrn.-lat. &c.): thit is no doutt 
early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is J yap. (4) B alor 

So far as sense goes this i, the best, and th t few cac* in 

where the reading of B alone strongly commen 

But the problem is, how to account for the other readings? It wonl<i 
difficult palaeographically from it ydp to k -rt lr t yap by dittography of 

\p, cnpAp. CTI.-AP), or from this again to get tit ri ydp throng 
graphyof c and confusion with c ( 
mgenioBsly snggestcd by Gif., of supposing that the original reading was ira 


ri ftp, of which the first two letters had been absorbed by the previous )& 
(HMiNf.iNJATifAp). There would thos be no great difficulty in accounting for 
the origin either of in yap or of the group of Western readings ; and the 
primitive variants would be reduced to the two, ci rap and ci re. Dr. Hort 

. >sed 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 
resorting to conjecture by supposing confusion between ft *d the abbrevia- 

rb. [For this form see T. W. Allen, Notes OH Abbreviations in Greek 
MSS. (Oxford, 1889), p. 9 and pi. iii ; Lehmann, Die tatkygraphixktn At- 
ktirtvHgtn d. gritth. llandschriften (Leipzig, 1880), p. 91 f. taf. 9. We 

ve that the oldest extant example is in the Fragmenttim Alathematicum 
Bobunst of the seventh century (Wattenbach, Script. Grate. Sfxtim. 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. Ens. H. . 
VI. 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 ? 7*, as it makes the best sense, may also 
be the original reading. 

cir< (c?rb) 

cl'rc ei'rip 

en rip ci rip 



i'wK : ' incapable ' of 

ut quid enim 

incapable ' of working out any righteousness for our- 

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 striking link of connexion between 
the (practically) acknowledged and the disputed Epistles ; compare 
on the one hand Gal. iv. 4 ; a Cor. vi. a ; Rom. iii. 26; and on 
the other hand Eph. i. 10 ; i Tim. il 6 ; vi. 15 ; Tit L 3. 

7. fio'Xis Y^P. The yap 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 /nJAit the first hand of K and Orig. read /hnf, which has more 
attestation in Luke ix. 39. The two words were easily confused both in 
sense and in writing. 

oinciiou. There is clearly in this passage a contrast between 
ountov and uvp rov ayafov. They are not expressions which 
e taken as roughly synonymous (Mey.-W. Lips. Ac.), but it 


is implied it is an easier thing to die for the ayaff* than f 
ftuuuof. Similarly the Gnostics drew a distinction betwc< 
God of the O. T. and the God of the N.T., calling the one Auou* 
and the other uyufat (Iron. Adv. Haer. I. xxvii. i ; comp. other 
passages and authorities quoted by Gif. p. 123). The toou* keeps 
to the ' letter of his bond ' ; about the oyo&r there is something 
wanner and more genial such as may well move to sclf-sa 
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 
and Lips, (who make nv iyaBoi, neut.) and i y. and Dr. 

Abbott (Essays, p. 75) t! > no substantial difT 

between tocou* and oyoA*. We ourselves often use 'righteous' 
and ' good ' as equivalent without effacing the distinction tx 
them when there is any reason to cmphasiz- 
block of the art. before ayaOov and not before ftWov need no: 
in the way. This is sufficiently explained by Gif., who points out 
that the clause beginning with jtoX. .illy negative, so that 

a<<uov is indefinite and does not need th< the aflir: 

clause implies a definite instance which the art indicates. 

go therefore with most English and American scholars 
(Stuart, Hodge, Gif. Va. Lid.) against some leading Conn; 
names in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural 
sense of the passage. 

8. aurumiai : see on ii 

T?|K iauroo &ytfwv|i': 'His own love,' emphatic, prompted from 
within not from without. Observe that the death of Cl 
referred to the will of the Father, which lio he whole of 

what is commonly (and not wrongly) called the ' scheme of re- 
demption.' Gif. excellently remarks that the ' proof of Go-: 
towards us drawn from the death of Christ is strong in proportion 
to the closeness of the union between God and t 
death of One who is nothing less than * the Son.' 

T V,v Jovrov d Y am|v U fct&t & O6s P &C. : 4 e. 

om. & e^t B. There U DO ml rence of meaning, 

as tit 4/*os in any cue goes with avrlan^i, not 

owtp ^|iwv dvtfarc. S: i Cor. 

\ that this doctrine was not confined to himself but 
was a common property of Christians. 

0. > re separates bet 

'not guilty' of :he past and their final s 

i to come. He also 

he bloodsheddin^ of Christ: he woul h the 

author of I ro4 J^aw, see p. 92, 


No clearer passage can be quoted for distinguishing the spheres 
of justification and sanctification than this verse and the next the 
one an objective fact accomplished without us, the other a change 
operated within us. Both, though in different ways, proceed from 

fti* aurou: explained by the next verse V rjj fc.7 avrov. That 
which saves the Christian from final judgement is his union with 
ng Christ. 

10. taTTiXArfyr^ei'. The natural prfma facie view is that the 
reconciliation is mutual ; and this view appears to verify itself on 
examination : sec below. 

y TTJ IWTJ QUTOO. For the full meaning of this see the notes on 
ch. vi. 8-1 1 ; viii. 10, n. 

11. Kauxwproi (N B C D, &c.) is decisively attested for avx/i0u, 
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 Kavx&iutia. In any case it is present and 
not future (as if constructed with <r^(rd/iAi). We may compare 
a similar loose attachment of duccuov/KKM in ch. hi. 24. 

T/ie Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement 

The KoroAAayq described in these verses is the same as the 
of ver. i ; and the question necessarily meets us, What does this 
ffipw or KoroAXoy^ 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 : Wpris, " hostile to God," as the 
consequence of cnrr?AAoT/>t0pVoi>r not "hateful to God," as it is taken 
by some. The active rather than the passive sense of ixflpuh 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.' 

larly 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. i of.). There is "propitiation" in the matter of sin or of the 
sinner. The love of God is the same throughout; but He 
" cannot " in virtue of His very nature welcome the impenitent 
and sinful : and more than this, He " cannot " treat sin as if it 
were not sin. This being so, the 2Xa<r/fe, when it is applied to the 
sinner, so to speak, neutralizes the sin.' [A difficult and it may be 
i.t hardly tenable distinction. The relation of God to sin is 
not merely passive but active; and the term iAaa/ior is properly 


used in reference to a personal agent Somt otu is ' propitiated ' : 
and who can this be, but God?] 

The same idea is a characteristic feature in the theology of 
Ritschl (RfchJ. u. l'<rs. ii. 230 ff.). 

No doubt there are passages where **,** denotes the h- 

and uroXXay^ the reconciliation of man to God ; but taking the 
language of Scripture as a whole, it does not seem that it can be 
explained in this way. 

(1) In the immediate context we have r^v coroXXay^ A^Sop**, 
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 *<> ol <IM*J, to which is usually added ArA 
ooC in the greetings of the Epistles. 

(2) In Rom. XL 28 *0>x* is Opposed tO cryatnjTot, where ayamrroi 

must be passive ('beloved by God'), so that it is hardly possible 
that Wpoi 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 2X001^*0* (Rom. ill. 
25), tXao-MOf (i Jo. it 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 v 
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 : <n4 &0p*o Xry must be v 
large over all such language. We are obliged to use anthropo- 
morphic expressions which imply a change of attitude or r 
on the pan of God as well as of man ; and yet in some 
we cannot wholly fathom we may believe th . i m there is 

4 no variableness, neither shadow of turning/ 


V. 12-14. What a contrast docs t/tis List description 
suggest bchceen the Fall of Adam and tkt justifying Work 
of Christ! There. i* -cell as contrast. 

For it is trite that as Christ brought righteoit / /iff, 

so Adam's /-'all broug/:' '//. If ti 

throughoh : tic period, that could not be dut 

V. 12-14.] ADAM AND CHRIST 131 

to the act of those 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 Adams ; 
whose fall thus had consequences extending beyond itself, like 
the redeeming act of Christ. 

" The description just given of the Work of Christ, first justifying 
and reconciling the sinner, and then holding out to him the hope 
of final salvation, brings out forcibly the contrast between the 
two great Representatives of Humanity Adam and Christ. The 
act by which Adam fell, like the act of Christ, had a far-reaching 
effect upon mankind. Through his Fall, Sin, as an active principle, 
first gained an entrance among the human 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. 14 Yet they suffered the lull penalty of sin. All 
through the long period which intervened between Adam and the 
Mosaic legislation, the tyrant Death held sway; even though 
those who died had not sinned, as Adam had, in violation of 
an express command. This proved that something deeper was 
at work : and that could only be the transmitted effect of Adam's 
sin. It is this transmitted effect of a single act which made Adam 
a type of the coming Messiah. 

12. SiA TOOTO: points to the logical connexion with what pre- 
cedes. It has been argued, at somewhat disproportionate length, 
whether this refers to ver. 1 1 only (Fricke, De MenU dogmatica loci 
Paulini ad Rom. v. 1 2 sq., Lipsiae, 1 880, Mey., Philippi, Beet), or 
to w. 9-1 1 (Fri.), or to w. i-n (Rothe, Hofmann), or to the 
whole discussion from i. 17 onwards (Beng., Schott, Reichc, 
RUckert). 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 of 
that work, i. e. as far as w. i-i i 

c a 


t being so, we cannot with Frickc infer from % 
:ul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one 
case with that of life in the other. Fricke, however, is ri. 
saying that his object is not to inquire into the origin of death 
:. The origin of both is assumed, not propounded as 

ng new. This is important for the under*tanding of the 
bearings of the passage. All turns on this, that the effects of 
Adam's Fall were transmitted to his descendants; but St. Paul 
nowhere says haw they were transmitted ; nor does he even define 
in precise terms what is transmitted. He seems, however, to mean 
(i) the liability *to sin, (a) the liability to die as the punishment 

Anrcp. The structure of the paragraph introduced In 
word (to the end of ver. 14) is broken in a manner ict er- 

istic of St. Paul. He begins the sentence as if he intendc 
run : *rw<p &* tor a^p^rov * ^apria tit r4 c&rjio (ioqA*, coi &A 
rqr Apapriaf 6 tftucrror ovrtt ol ftt* toe a*6p**nov f] dooiMNrvnf 
rhrijXdf, KOI 8ta r^v ducaKxrvnyc t) fafj. But the words 3ta rijr Aftap- 
riat 6 &xiror 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 sufti 
for his purpose, he does not return to the form of sci 
which he had originally planned, but he attaches the clause 
comparing Christ to Adam by a relative (fc Vm rvnot rov jiAAowof) 
to the end of his digression : and so what should have been the 
main apodosis of the whole paragraph becomes merely sub- 
ordinate. It is a want of finish in style due to eagerness and 
intensity of thought ; but the meaning is quite clear. Compare 
the construction of ii. 16; iii. 8, 26. 

^ dpopTi'a: Sin, as so often, is personified: it is a malignant 
force let loose among mankind : see the fuller note at the end of 
the chapter. 

cl? -rir K&rpor i<rfjX9e : a phrase which, though it reminds us 

specially of St. John (John i. 9, 10; iii. 17, n> : \ 14 ; ix. 5, 

39; x. 36, Ac.), is not peculiar to him (cf. i 15; Heb. 

St John and the author of He!'. to the personal 

ition of the Logos; here it is applied to the impersonal 

self-diffusion of 

6 6droTot. Some have taken this to mean ' eternal <! 
chiefly on the ground of where it seems to be opposed 

to 'eternal life.' Oltr. is th renuous supporter of this 

view. But it is far and better to take vsical 

death': bccauv : it is 

the sense of G 

alluding. It seems probable that even 
is in the first instance physical But St. Paul d IK-> not dr 

V. 12.] 



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 ; 
vn<pnrtpi<r<r<v<rt* 17 x"P* s the keynote of the passage. It is not 
necessary that the two sides of the antithesis should exactly cor- 
respond. In each particular the scale weighs heavily in favour 
of the Christian. 

The Western text (DEFG, &c.) omits this word altogether. Aug. 
makes the subject of the rb. Dot death but sin : he makes it a charge against 
the Pelagians that they understood in the second place <J edrarot. 

: contains the force of distribution ; * made its way to 
each individual member of the race': na&cmip nt xX^pot warpot 
dta&at *Vt rovt ryyuMn/c (' like a father's inheritance divided among 
his children'), Euthym.-Zig. 

4+' <f. Though this expression has been much fought over, 
there can now be little doubt that the true rendering is ' because.' 
(i) Orig. followed by the Latin commentators Aug. and Ambrstr. 
took the rel. as masc. with antecedent 'Add/A : ' in whom,' i. e. 'in 
Adam.' But in that case (i) V would not be the right preposi- 
tion ; (ii) <p would be too far removed from its antecedent 
(a) Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc. 
with antecedent &urarof : 4 in which/ i. e. ' in death/ which is 
even more impossible. (3) Some moderns, taking ? as neut. and 
the whole phrase as equivalent to a conjunction, have tried to 
get out of it other meanings than because.' So (i) 'in like 
manner as 1 ('all died, just as all sinned'), Rothe, De Wette; 
(ii) (= </>' &roy) ' in proportion as/ ' in so far as ' (' all died, in to 
Jar as all sinned'), Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But 
the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) y is rightly 
taken as neut., and the phrase 0' f as conj.= 4 because' ('for 
that' AV. and RV.) by Theodrt. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass 
of modern commentators. This is in agreement with Greek 
usage and is alone satisfactory. 

J$* $ in classical writers more often means 'on condition that': cf. 
Thuc. i. 113 ffvor&u voiiprd/uxot ty $ rovt Art pat o/uoOrra*. 'on con* 
dition of getting back their prisoners/ &c. The plural 1+' oft is more 
common, as in <i0* Sir. if Sir. Si' r. In N. T. the phrase occurs three 
times, always as it would seem -/rp/fcra quod, 'because*: cf. a Cor. v. 4 
fftwSCofW frpotfjMW If $ ol MAo/ur Jtor<ur*u .r.A. ; I 'nil. iii. u 
*?' $ M* corcMfrfft/r fod X. 1. (where 'seeing that' or 'because' appears 
to be the more probable rendering). So Phavorinus (d. 1537; a lexico- 
grapher of the Renaissance period, who incorporated the contents of older 
works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) 4^' irri TOW StArt 
Myovotv 'Arrioi, ofor 1^' $ r^r cXov^r tlpfdatt ('because you com- 
mitted the theft ') .r.A. 


if J irdrrts TJfiapTor Here lies the rr.r of this difficult pas- 
sage. In what sense did 'all sin'? (i) Many, including 
Meyer, though explaining '<' y as neut. rather than ma> 
> the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equ 
to thit has if the antecedent of y is '.\W/. Bengel has 

this classical expression: cmnes ptccarunt, Adamo pcccante, 
' all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam/ his sin involved 
The objection is that the words suj.j ! .- too important 

to be left to be understood. If St. Paul had meant this, why did 
he not say so? The insertion of V 'Add/* would have re: 
all ambigi: The Greek commentators for the most pan 

supply nothing, but take juaprov in its usual sense : ' all 

ir own persons, and on their own 'So Euthym.- 

Zig. : dufrt natrrtf fjftapmr dxo\ov6f)<rarTff ry rrpontrropi KOTO y* ro 

Vymprot. The objection to this is that it destroys the para!. 
between Adam and Christ: besides, St. Paul goes on to show 
in the same breath that they could not sin in the same wa 
Adam did. Sin implies law ; but Adam's descendants had no law. 
(3) It is possible however to take tfriapTw in its ordinary sense 
without severing the connexion between Adam and his posterity. 
If they sinned, their sin was due in part to tendencies inherited 
from Adam. So practically Stuart, Fricke, Weiss, Ac. 
still remains the difficulty as to the connexion of this clause with 
what follows : see the next note. 

- a farther argument in fitronr 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 doe to that malignitas raditit 
which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in fall 
below), the writer goes on to describe this fin as a repetition of Adam's doe 
to the fact that they too had within them the cor malignum as he h 
<Uliqutr*t pri kabitab**t cnritaUm, in omnibut fvuni Adam 

t omtut gt**rati9tus tint, uttfxmhtr entm tt if si (ordt malig> 

. Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from Apoc. 
Banuk. 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 ^r 400 * - T X - At l r : ^^- tn ' s SCns to p 
reason for just the opposite of what is wanted : it seems to 
not that *djTr fnaprov, but that however much ; 
they had not at least the full guilt of sin. This is 
St. Paul aims at proving. There is an under-current all through 
the passage, showing h was some work 

besides the guilt of .-' 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 nt .: the absence of written law did 

away with all rcsponsil:: has alre. 

distinctly that (< 

V. 18, 14.] ADAM AND CHRIST 135 

tew enough to be judged by (ii. 12-16); and Jews before 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 
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. 

dfiapTia Sc OUK ^XXoycirai it.r.X. The thought is one which 
had evidently taken strong hold on St. Paul: see on iv. 15, and 
the parallels there quoted. 

IXXoyciTcu : * brought into account ' (Gif.), as of an entry made 
in a ledger. The word also occurs in Philenu 18, where see 
Lightfoot's note. 

(or JyAo7rrat)KBCDEFGKLP t &c., 
jMA<xy*ro *, JAAo>aro A 53 108 ; imputaoatur Vulg. (odd. Ambrtr. a/. 
The imperf. appears to be a (mistaken) correction due to the context. 
As to the form of the verb: JAA^ya is decisively attested in I'hilcm. 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. 
is rather to obliterate vernacular forms than to introduce them, there is 
perhaps a slight balance of probability in favour of jAAoyarai : see Westcott 
and I tort, Kates on Orthography in Appendix to Itttrod. p. 166 ff. 

14. JpoatXcuacr 6 0dVaTos. 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. Qtuust. ii. 59 Eodem citius tardiusvt vtnitndum est ... In 
omnes constitutum tst cafitaU sufplicium tt quidtm (onstihUiont ittstisnma. 
mun quod magnum soUt esse solatium txtrtma fassuris, quorum eadtm 
causa tt sors tadtm tst. Similarly Fhilo speaks of rW trvfupva f^r ^^, 
rd oupa (Dt Gigant. 3 ; ed. Mang. i. 264). Elsewhere he goes a step further 
and asserts 8ri mvrl yirrrjr? . . . <rv/if wit TO Anapriamv. For parallels in 
4 Exra and Afot. Baruch. see below. 

brl Tovt fit) 4pif>TT(aovTos. A number of authorities, mostly Latin Fathers, 
but including also the important margin 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. (Runnns) repeatedly and expressly, Latin 
MSS. known to Aug., the 'older Latin MSS.' according to Ambrstr. and 
Sedulins. 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 
sufficient command of MSS. to know the real state of the evidence. Ambrstr. 
prefers in this case the evidence of the Latin MS&, because those with which 
he is acquainted are older than the Greek, and represent, as he thinks, an 
older form of text. He claims that this form has the support of Tertnllian. 


Cyprian and Victorian*-* statement which we are not at patent able to 
venfy. He account* for the Greek reading by the uual theory of heretical 
corruption. There u a similar question of the insertion or omission of a 
negative in Rom. iv. 19 (q.% In two oat of ihe three cases the 

Western text omits the negative, but in ch. ir. 19 it inserts it 

TVO* (nfcrr*): (i) the 'impression 1 left by a sharp blow (rdr rvor 
rfir 4Ar John zz. 25), in particular the 'stamp' struck by a : 
inasmach as such a sump bears the figure on the face of the die, ' copy,' 
1 figure/ or representation '; (3) by a common transition from effect to cause, 
' mould," pattern.' 'exemplar'; (4) hence in the special sense of the word 
type, which we hate adopted from the Creek of the N. I., an event or 
person in history corresponding in certain characteristic features to another 
event or person/ That which comes first in order of time is properly the 
type, that which comes afterwards the antitype (dm'rmror i 1 
These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation : see 
esp. Cheyne, IiaiaM, ii. 170 ff. (Essay III, ' On the Christian Element in the 
Book of Isaiah'). 

TOW fUXXorros. (i) The entirely personal nature of the whole 
comparison prevents us from taking rov /w'XX. as neut. = 
which was to come' (Beng., Oltramare). If Si. Paul had 
intended this, 'he would have written rov /uXXorro* afoot, (a) 
obable that we have here a direct allusion to the 
Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as 6 fcvrvpor or 6 fa^oro* 
'A6o> (i Cor. xv. 45, 47). If St. Paul had intended this, he 
would have written TOV /tAXorror 'A&op. (3) The context makes 
it clear enough who is intended. The first representative of 
the human race as such prefigured its second Great Repre- 

hose coming lay in the future: this is sufli 
brought out by the expression 'of Him who was to be.' 6 
pAAi> thus approximates in meaning to 6 Vxo>oc 
3; Luke vii. 19; Hcb. x. 37), which however appears not to 
have been, as it is sometimes regarded, a standing designation 
for the Messiah *. In any case rov /icXXorroc = ' Him who . 
come' when Adam fell, not 'who it (still) to come 1 (Fri DC 

The Effects of Adams Fall in Jewish Theology. 

Three points come out clearly in these verses : ( i ) the Fall of 
Adam brought death not only to Adam himself but to his 
descendants; (2) the Fall of Adam also broiK 1 the 

tendency to sin; (3) in spite of this the individual does 

not lose his responsibility. All three propositions receive some 
partial illustration from Jewish sources, though the Talmud does 

be designation "The Coming One" (//oJfe), though a most truthful 
! with expectancy, was not one ordinarily nsed of the Messiah.' 
L. cV T. i. p. 6M. 

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' (Lift and Times, &c. i. 165). Still there are approxima- 
tions, especially in the writings on which we have drawn so freely 
already, the Fourth Book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch. 

(i) The evidence is strongest as to the connexion between Adam's sin and 
the introduction of death. There were,' says Dr. Edenhcim, two divergent 
opinions the one ascribing death to personal, the other to Adam's guilt ' 
(op. fit. L 166). It is however allowed that the latter view greatly pre- 
pooderated. Traces of it are found at far back as the Sapiential Books: 
e.g. \Yisd. ii. 23 f. 4 e<it !rior tov arOfxvwov iw' d&apoia . . . f*4r? W 
flaxa TUT tlarj\6ty tit TOV 40/ior, where we note the occurrence of 

1 aul's phrase ; Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] It atrip (sc, rip ft/routa) 
con<r wavrtt. The doctrine is also abundantly rec 

recognized in 4 Ezra and 

Apoc. Baruck. : 4 Ezr. iii. 7 et kuic (sc. Adamo) mandasti diligert viam 
tuam t et ptaeterivit tarn; tt statim instituisti in turn mortem tt in 
nationibus ( - gtnerationibus) eius: A foe. Baruch. xvii. 3 (Adam) mortem 
attulit tt absctdit annos eorum qui ab to geniti fuerunt : ibid. xiiii. 4 
Quando teccavit Adam tt dtcretafuit mart contra eos qui gignerentur. 

(a) We are warned (by Dr. Edersheim in St. Comm. Afocr. ad loc.) not 
to identify the statement of Ecclus. xxv. 34 [33] dwd fvratith aprf aitapruu 
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 (a*o yv.) the initium 
ptccandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra iii. ai f. Cor enim malignum baiulcuu 
primus Adam transgrcsnu et victtu tst, scd et omnes qui dt eo nati sunt : 
ta tst permanent infirmitas, et lex cum cord* /o/Wi, cum malignitat* 
radicis ; et discessit quod bonum tst, et mansit malignum : ibid. iv. 30 
Quoniam granum seminis malt seminatum tit in corde Adam ab initio, et 
ouantum impietatis generavit usque nunc. et gentrat usque dum veniat area : 
ibid. vii. 48 (i 1 8) tu qnidfecutt Adam t Sttnim tu pecccuti, ncn est foetus 
soli us tuus casus, sed et nostrum qui ex te advcnimus. 

(3) And yet along with all this we have the explicit assertion of responsi- 
on the part of all who sin. This appears in the passage quoted above 
on ver. la (aJ Jin.). To the same effect are 4 Ezr. viii. 59!. Aim enim 
Altissimus volutt hominem disftrdi, sed if si qui creati sunt coin^uinaverunt 
nomen eius qui fecit eos : ibid. ix. 1 1 qui fast tdierunt legem meant cum adkue 
erant kabentes libertatem. But the classical passage is Afoc. Baruck. 
liv. 15, 19 Si enim Adam prior fectavit, et attulit mortem super omnes 
immaturam ; sed etiam illi qui ex eo nati sunt, unusquisqut ex eis fratfa- 
ravit animai suae tormentum futurum : et iterum unusquisqut ex eis 
eltgit sibi gloriam futuram . . . Non est ergo Adam causa, nut animae suae 
tantum ; aw vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam. 

The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the 
Talmud. The latter is thus summarized by Weber (Altsyn. Tkeol. p. a 16) : 
4 By the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right 
relation to God is rendered difficult More than this cannot be said. Sin, 
to which the bent and leaning had already been planted in man by creation, 
had become a tact; the evil impulse w (- w */I^*MI) gained the mastery 
over mankind, who can only resist it by the greatest efforts ; before the Kail 
it had had power over him, but no such ascendancy (Uebermacht : Hma* 
when the same writer says a little further on that according to the Rabbis 
* there is such a thing as transmission of guilt, but not such a thing as tnuu- 

>MANS [V. 15-21. 

of tia (/ ji*/ ri/ ErbxkuU, abtr krimi Krhundt ; the negative 
proposition to doe chiefly to the clcaroc*. with which the Rabbi 
Bar*<k.} insist upon free-will and direct individual responsibility. 

It seems to us a mistake to place the teaching of St. Paul in too 
marked opposition to this. There is no fundamental inconsistency 
between his views and those of his contemporaries. He does not 
indeed either affirm or deny the existence of the cor maligmm 
before the Fall, nor does he use such explicit language as not 
tero unusquisqut fuit ant mat suae Adam : on the other hand he 
does define more exactly than the Rabbis the nature of human 
responsibility both under the Law 7 ff.) and without it 

.: here, as elsewhere in dealing with this mysterious 
subject (see p*. 267 below), he practically contents himseit 
leaving the two complementary truths side by side. Man is 
his nature ; and yet he must not be allowed to shift responsibility 
from himself: there is that within him by virtue of which he i 
to choose ; and on that freedom of choice be must stand or : 


V. 15-21. So far the parallelism: but note also the 
contrast. How superior the Work of Christ! (i) How 
different in quality: the one act all sin, the other act all 
bounty or grace! (ver. 15). (2) Hoiv different in quantity, 
or mode of working: one act tainting t/te whole race 
sin, and a multitude of sins collected together in one only to 
be forgiven ! (ver. 16). (3) How dijj\ passing in 

>:ole character and consequences: a reign of Death and 
n of Life! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adams Fall 
brought sin : Law increased it: but the Work of Grace has 
cancelled^ and more than c the effect of Law (w. 


"In both cases there is a transmission of effects: but there 
the resemblance ends. In all else the false step (or Fall, as we 
call it) of Adam and the free gift of God's bounty arc most unlike. 
The fall of that one representative man entailed death upon the 
many members of the race to belonged. Can w< 

be surprised if an act of such different quality the free un 
favour of God, and the gift of righteousness bestowed through 

V. 15-21.] 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- 
nessmuch more shall they also reign, not in death but in life, 
through the sole agency of Jesus Messiah. 

11 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 with 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. 
11 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 

15. traprfirrwfia : lit ' a slip or fall sideways/ ' a false step/ 
1 a lapse ' : hence metaph. in a sense not very dissimilar to A^prrjpa 

140 .IE ROMA [V. 15, 10. 

(which is prop, 'missing a mark'). It is however appro 
that wapdirr. should be used for a 'fall' or first deflection from 
uprightness, just is bapr. i* used of the failure of efforts towards 
recovery. On the word sec Trench, Syn. p. 237 f. 

TOO Mt : ' the one man/ 1. 1. Adam. 

<H voXXoi : * the many/ practically = wavrat ver. 1 2 ; wtbrar d^pi- 
wot* in ver. 18, 'all mankind.' It is very misleading to tr. 
as AV r ., ignoring the article, if ' through the offence of cnt, may 
be dead, by the obedience of ont 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 'm 
4 all 'to ' til/ that is potentially, if they embrace the redemption 
which is offered them. 

See Bentlejr, quoted bjr Ut Om RtviHo*, p. 97, By this accurate version 
some hurtful mistake* about partial redemption and absolute reprobation 
had been happily prevented. Our English reader* had then teen, what 
several of the Fathers saw and testified, that ol voAAof, the many, in an anti- 
thesis to tk* o*t, arc equivalent to warm, off, in ver. I a, and comprehend the 
whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusive only ol tlU .' 

woXX* poXXor. 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. 

is more fully defined below (\< . 17) as $ &*> 
: the gift is the condition of righteousness into 
the sinner enters, dwptd, ' boon,' like 6por contrasted with tyu, 
is reserved for the highest and best gifts; so Philo, Leg. Ai. 

70 Woo* nty<6mn rcXfiW tryater iijXoC<r (Lft. RcV. p. 77) ; COmp. 

also the ascending scale of expression in Jas. i 

iv x<fHTi goes closely with j 6p(i. In classical Greek we should 

.id the art. 9 <V x*(* Tt * but in Hellenistic Greek a 
phrase is attached to a subst. without repetition of the art. 
however and some others (including Lid.) separate fi om 9 

and connect it with j*ipia<7tv<n. 

is more often applied to God the Father, and b exhibited in the 
whole scheme of salvation. As applied to C that active favour 

towards "< which moved Him to intervene for their salvation (cf. csp. 
a Cor. viii. 9) ; (a) the same active favour shown to the individual 
Father and the Son conjointly (Rom. L 7 q. v.). 

16. The absence of verbs is another mark of compressed 
thetic style. \Vuh the first clause we may h the 

second VWTO : * And not as through one man's sinning, so 
boon. For the judgement sprang from one to c< : n, but 

the free gift sprang from many trespasses (and ended in) a d- 
tion of righteousness.' In the one case there is expansion out- 
wards, from one to many : in the other case there is contraction 

V. 10-18.] ADAM AND CHRIST 141 

inwards; the movement originates with many sins which are all 
embraced in a single sentence of absolution. 

SiKcuwpa : usually the decision, decree, or ordinance by which 
a thing is declared &KCUOV (that which gives a thing the force of 
1 right'); here the decision or sentence by which persons tie 
declared dtWoi. The sense is determined by the antithesis to KOTO- 
*,u/i". icu'<p<i bears to duoiWir the relation of an act completed 
to an act in process (see p. 31 sup.). 

17. woXX$ fidXXor 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. 

TTjy ircpuraciai' . . . TT)S 8wpas TTJS StKaioauiTjs XappdyoKTCS. 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 
: see pp. 35, 30 f., 36 above. 

pacriXcuffowt. The metaphor is present to St. Paul's mind; 
ami 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. 

Sid TOU Jrfe 'ITJOOU XpioroC. The &a 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 ofr, 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 vv. 20, ai. 

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 arc two difficulties, 
the interpretation of &' *W ducaiM/urn* and of 3ucaWt fat. 

Si* Jrs SmaaifiaTos. Does fataiupa here mean the same thing 
as in vcr. 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 wra*oij, of Christ? A 
number of scholars (Holsten, Va. Lips. Lid.) argue that it must 
be the latter in order to correspond with &' tor irapanrw/iarof. So 
tOO Eathym.-Zig. &' <Wr duuuparof rov X. TTJV aitpav 6i*aw<rvn)i' 


But it seems better, with Me\ ! others, to 

give the same sense to oWsya as in ver. 16. We saw that 
the sense was fixed by nmfcwia, which is repeated in the ; 
verse. On the other hand it is doubtful whether foofctpa can quite 
= ' 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. 

I best also to follow the natural construction of the Greek 
and make Mt ncut. in agreement with 4a*V (Mey.-W. Va. 
Gif.) rather than masc. (Lipe.). 

oiKoWir lijs. ' Life ' is both the immediate and ultimate 
of that state of things into which the Christian enters when be is 
declared ' righteous ' or receives his sentence of absolution. 

19. StA Ttjs wopoicoijf . . . Sid TTJS foroKofjs itural that 

this aspect of the Fall as ffopocoj should be made promin 
a context which lays stress on the effect of law or express command 
in enhancing the heinousncss of sin. It is natural a!>o i 
antithesis to this there should be singled out in the Death of 
Christ its special aspect as vram? : cf. Heb. v. 8, 9 ; V 
39 ; Phil. ii. 8. On the word mpagof, (' a failing to hear,' incuria, 
and thence inobtdientia) see Trench, Syn. p. 234. 

KQTeaT00Tj<7aK . . . KaTaara^aorroi: ' 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 fuu gawroflygomu has ; not to 

the Last Judgement but to future generations of C to all 

in fact who reap the benefit of the Cross. 

When St Paul wrote in Gal ii. 15 ffim *&ri lovSoax, o2 ofcr If J*r 
tafmfei, be implied (speaking for the moment from the stand-point of hit 
couiiU/meu) that Gentile* would be regarded as *fai dpa/rrwAo. 
belonged 'to the class' of tinners; jot as we might ipeak of a c 
belonging to the 'criminal class' before it bad done anything by in own act 
to justify its place in that class. The meaning of the text it very s 
so far as it relates to the effects of the Fall of Adam it must I 
by rr. 12-14; and so far as it relates to the effects of the Death of Christ 
. v. i a ftuMM*/rrt o*r [J wiartw] Wp^np 'x<>M' 'con- 
in ix***") ? rAc *** ** rov Kipov 4/r 1. X., ' ot o2 rip 
r*r Ms^SV clt r^r x<W *r | J<m^a^. use of ta*> 

there is a good parallel in Xen. Mem. ii. i. 9 '7* o^r T 

^ mrr^u / , where 

/COTtKTT. - If TOVf d/>XIOVt TaffO^O (iUf.) and J/MXVTwr TOTTW tit 

V. 20, 21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 143 

20. irapciorjXOcr : ' come in to the side of a state of things already 
existing.' St. Paul regarded Law as a ' parenthesis' in the Divine 
plan : it did not begin until Moses, and it ended with Christ 
(cp. iv. 13-16 ; x. 4). Here however he has in view only its late 
beginning : it is a sort of ' after-thought ' (see the Paraphrase). 

Why did he not say the Law was given, bat tht Law enttrtd by ttu way ? 
It was to show that the need of it was temporary and not absolute or 
claiming precedence* (vp&oitati** ofcrow fcurrvt r^v XP*'""' oZaw, o2 06 

irXcordUrQ. For the force of mi comp. If ri kat avrovt ajtnro- 
vf i. 20 : the multiplication of transgression is not the first 
and direct object of law, but its second and contingent object : law 
only multiplies trangression because it is broken and so converts 
into deliberate sin acts which would not have had that character if 
they had not been so expressly forbidden. 

Ti 8) Ira Jrravfti o alnoloylat watav <UA* id<rf lor*. Ov -yap * 
rovro i&0n ifa m\**<rQ, dAA 1 IMtoj jiJr Sxrrt nuatocu ai dyf Acfr rd wapd- 
rratna- ^i&rj 5i rofoayrior, ov wapa rip rov r4/iov <j>\>oiv t dAAa mpa rip rtur 
Itlanivw fia0viuav (Chrys.) : a note which shows that the ancients were quite 
aware of the ecbatic sense of fra (see on xi 1 1). 

, as Va. remarks, might be transitive, but is more 
probably intransitive, because of VA<mi<7f * 9 a^apr. which follows. 

TO irapQTTTwjia : seems expressly chosen in order to remind us 
that all sins done in defiance of a definite command are as such 
repetitions of the sin of Adam. 

21. iv TW Oa^ty. 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). 

Sid oiKcuoauKT)f. 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. 

/. PauVs Conception of Sin and of tiie Fall 

St Paul uses Greek words, and some of those which he uses 
cannot be said to have essentially a different meaning from that 
which attached to them on their native soil ; and yet the different 
relations in which they are placed and the different associations 
which gather round them, convey what is substantially a different 
idea to the mind. 

The word Aftaprla with its cognates is a case in point. The 
corresponding term in Hebrew has much the same original MOM 


of 'missing a mark/ Both words are used with a higher and a 
lower : 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 
they are connected. 

This appears upon the face of it from the mere bulk of li 

In classical Greek dpoprfa, a/ioprawu' are common enough 
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 :i,is group of words fills SGI n columns, 
averaging not much less than eighty instances to the column. 

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 arc placed. ' How can 
I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? ' (Gen. xxx 
'Agaii only, have I sinned, and done that wl 

. Thy sight' (Ps. li. 4). 'Behold, all souls a: .is the 

soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine : the soul 
that sinncth, 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 

.-.:! 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. injury or wound if the reaction which 

may be describ- ian terms as ' injury- ' or ' wound ' 

directed against the Holy One whose love is incessantly going forth 
towards man. It causes an estrangement, a deep gulf of separation, 
between God and n 

The guilt of sin is proportioned to the extent to v 
conscious and delibc i <ng actions done u/ know- 

ledge that they arc wrong are not imputed to the doer (dyuymci 
cXXoyflnti M? *"r >\> Rom. .-,). But as a matter 

of fact few or none can take advantage of this because everywhere 

imong the heathen there is some knowledge of God and of 
right and wrong (Rom. i. 19 (. ; ii. 12, 14 f-V .<i the ex 
knowledge the degree of iiere is a v 

law like that of the Jews s 1 he guilt is 

at its height. But this is but the climax of an ascending sc 

V. 12-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 145 

which the hcinousncss of the offence is proportioned to advantages 
and opportunities. 

Why did men break the Law ? In other words, Why did they 
sin ? When the act of sin came to be analyzed it was found to 
contain three elements. Proximately it was due to the wicked 
impulses of human nature. The Law condemned illicit desires, but 
men had such desires and they succumbed to them (Rom. vii. 
7 ff.). The reason of this was partly a certain corruption of 
human nature inherited from Adam. The corruption alone would 
not have been enough apart from the consentient will ; neither 
would the will have been so acted upon if it had not been for 
the inherited corruption (Rom. v. 12-14). But there was yet a third 
element, independent of both these. They operated through the 
man himself; but there was another influence which operated with- 
out him. It is remarkable how St. Paul throughout these chapters, 
Rom. v, vi, vii, constantly personifies Sin as a pernicious and deadly 
force at work in the world, not dissimilar in kind to the other great 
counteracting forces, the Incarnation of Christ and the Gospel. 
Now personifications are not like dogmatic definitions, and the 
personification in this instance does not always bear exactly the 
same meaning. In ch. v, when it is said that ' Sin entered into the 
world,' the general term ' Sin' includes, and is made up of, the sins 
of individuals. But in chaps, vi and vii the personified Sin is set 
over against the individual, and expressly distinguished from him. 
Sin is not to be permitted to reign within the body (vi. 1 2) ; the 
members are not to be placed at the disposal of Sin (vi. 13); to 
Sin the man is enslaved (vi. 6, 17, 20; vii. 14), and from Sin he is 
emancipated (vi. 18, 22), or in other words, it is to Sin that he dies 
(vi. 9, n); 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, n). 

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.V 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; 2 Cor. ii. n), but the direct tempta- 
tion of individual Christians (i Cor. vii. 5); he has his followers on 
whom he is sometimes invited to wreak his will (i Cor. v. 5; 

i4<* :STLE TO TIN; ROMA [v. i 

i Tim. i. 20); supernatural powers of deceiving or pen 

are attributed to him (2 ThesS. ii. 9 cor* Wpyuay roC Zaraa V vairg 
oWfMt *ai trrjunms cat rt'pmn jniAovs : cf. 2 Cor. xi. 14). 
Power of Evil does not stand alone but has at its disposal a whole 
army of subordinate agents (df>x<u t fwa'ai, corpac/Mro/Mf roC 
rour^ cf. Col. ii. 15). There is indeed a 

hierarchy of evil spirits as there is a hierarchy of good ( 
and Satan has a court and a kingdom just as God has. He is ' the 
god of the existing age* (6 toot rov olAm rovrov a Cor. iv. 4 
exercises his rule till the final triumph of the Messiah (2 Thcss. ii. 
8f.; i Cor. xv. 24 f.). 

see there/ore 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 
; chaps, v: re St Paul speaks most directly of the 

baleful activity of Sin, he does not intend to lay special stress on 
this ; his language is of the nature of personification and does not 
necessarily imply a person ; yet, when we take it in connexion with 
other language elsewhere, we see that in the last resort he 
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 
acting upon him in the way in which spiritual forces act. 

St. Paul regards the beginnings of sin as traceable to the Fall of Adam, 
in this be is simply following the account : : and the question 

naturally arises, What becomes of that account and of the inferences which 
St. Paul draws from it, if we accept the view which is pressed upon us by 
the comparative study of religions and largely adopted by modern criticism, 
that it is n..t to be taken as a literal record of historical fact, but as the 
w form of a story common to a number of Oriental peoples and going 
back to a common root f When we speak of a Hebrew form ' of this story 
we mean a form shaped and moulded by those principles of revel a 
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 (acts 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 ; 

race this mysterious seed of sin, which like other characteristics of the race 
is capable of transmission. The tendency to sin is present in every man who 
is born into the world. But the tendency does not become actual sin until 
it takes effect in defiance of an express command, in deliberate disregard of 
a known distinction between right and wrong. How men came to be 
possessed of such a command, by what process they arrived at the conscious 
distinction of right and wrong, we can but vaguely speculate. 
was we may be sure that it could not have been presented to the imagination 
c peoples otherwise than in such simple forms as the narrative 
assumes in the Book of Genesis. The really essential truths all come 
the recognition of the Divine Will, the act of disoU 
to the Will so recognized, the perpetuation of the tendency to such dis- 
obedience ; and we may add perhaps, though here we get into a region of 
surmises, the connexion between moral evil and physical decay, for the surest 
pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part of us, the soul. 

V. 12-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 147 

through righteousness to God. These salient principle*, which may have 
been due in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods, are 
naturally and inevitably 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 the sight of God 
are but as one day.' We who believe in Providence and who believe in the 
active influence of the Spirit of God upon man, may well also believe that 
the tentative groping* of the primaeval savage were assisted and guided and 
so led up to definite issues, to which he himself perhaps at the time could 
hardly 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 modern 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 
use is from that point of view abundantly justified, then the application which 
St. Paul makes of it is equally justified. He too expresses truth through 
symbols, and in the days when men can dispense with symbols his teaching 
may be obsolete, but not before. 

The 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 
interpretation of the N.T. 

History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrint 
of diKdfaxrt?. 

In order to complete our commentary on the earlier portion of 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 further 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 Clemens 
subject of Justification meets us. Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Komanus. 
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 from 
them constructs a system of life and action. He takes the typical example, 
that of Abraham, and asks, ' Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed!* 
The answer combines that of St. Paul and St Tames. ' Was it not because 
he wrought righteousness and truth through faith f ' ($31 mi\( iuauoffvvTjf o2 
fed vurrit vot^caf ;). And throughout there is the same co> 
We are justified by works and not 
6yott\ But again (f 3*} : 'And 
in Christ Tesus, are not justified 

through 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 the beginning.* But 

L 2 

<iATJ0ia' &d wtartan wm^cas ;). And throu 
onlination of different types of doctrine. W< 
by words ' ( 30 tpyott ftraiov/uroi o2 ftff \6^ 
so we, having been called through His will ii 


dangerous thrones as to conduct, which arise from holding such beliefs in 
too crude a manner, are at once guarded against ; -.: then must 

we do, brethren t Must we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love ? 
May the Master never allow this to befall us at least ... m that 

all the righteous were adorned in good works . . . Seeing then that we have 
this pattern, let us conform ourselves with all diligence to His will : let us 
with all our strength work the work of righteousness.' Clement writes as 
a Christian of the second generation wf. 

logy of the Apostolic perio* mines*,' ar 

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 
irTerent elements of this life is clearly realized. What St. Paul and 
lames each in bis different way arrived at to accomplish 
exact meaning of St. Paul, however, and the understanding of his teaching, 
we get no aid. Bishop Lightfoot, while showing bow Clement has caught 
the spirit of the Pauline teaching/ yet dwells, and dwells rightly, on 'the 
defect in the dogmatic statement/ (See Lightfoot. Clement, i. 96, ; 

The question of Justification never became a subject of controversy in the 
early church, and consequently the Fathers contented themselves as Clement 
had done with a clear practical solution. We cannot find in them either an 
answer to the more subtle questions which later theologians have asked or 
much assistance as to the exact exegesis of St. Paul's language. 

Origen. How little Origen had grasped some points i thought may be 

seen by his comment on Rom. iii. ao Ex operibus igitur legit quod non iusti- 
fitabitur omnis earo in conspectu eitis, hot modo intelligendum puto : quia 
omnis qui faro est et setundum eamem vivit, non potest iuitij. 
left Dei, ticut et alibi dUit idem Apottolut, quia qui in came sum Deo 
rlacere non possunt (in Rom. iii. 6; Of p. torn, v 1 ommatzsch). 

but in many points his teaching to clear and strong. All Justification to by 
faith alone iii. 9, p. 317 et dint suffitere tolius / .mem, ita ut 

credent quit tantummodo iuttijuetur, etiamst nikil ab eo opens fuerit 
i* the beginning of the Christian life, and is represented as 
the bringing to an end of a state of cnn. . > were followers of the 

devil, our tyrant and enemy, can if we will by laying down bis arms and 
taking up the banner of Christ have peace with God, a peace which has 
been purchased /or us by the blood of Christ -.;, on Rom 

TK nrn <- **( !M I <M !*** .-l.trlu . . r*f * imn*it<A ' / ti.ff, .// , ,. : f i' f ,si ni 

The process of justification to clearly one of ' imputation ' (fides ad in 
reputetur iv. i, p. 340, on Rom. iv. 1-8), an<i i with the Gospel 

teaching of the forgiveness of tins ; the two instances of it which are quoted 
being the penitent thief and the woman with the alabaster box of ointment 
(Lnk. 13). But the need for good works is not exclude 

for tat tit hate aliquis audiens resolvatur et bene agmdi negligent iam to fiat. 
si quidem ad iustifieandum fides tola suffitiat. ad quern duemut, quia post 

nduJgenti* namque non futurorum ted praeleritontm criminum datur 
,. p. 319, on R : without works is impossible 

rather faith is the root from which they spring : non ergo 
ex opertout rod, 
ill* uilieet rod. qua Deus aeeef: 

c also the comment on Rom. ii. 5. 6 i 

may further note that in the comment on Rom. i. 1 7 and m. .-4 the . 
Dei to dearly interpreted as the Divine attribute. 

Chrysos- The same criticism which was passed on Origen applies in an equal 
en greater degree to Chrysostom. Theologically and practically the 
well balano 

teaching to vigorous and well balanced, but so far as exegesis 
oeroed St Paul's conception and point of view are not understood. The 
circumstances which had created these conceptions no lontrer existed 

V. 12-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 149 

For example, commenting on Rom. ii. 10 he write*: 'it U upon worki 
that puni*hment and reward depend, not upon circumcision or uncircum- 
cision ' ; making a distinction which the Apostle doe* 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 : 4 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 
punishment, then the salvation which is by grace was henceforth necessary.' 

well brought out ' The declaring of 

The meaning of JUntoa!^ eov U 

^'htcousnes* is not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He 
doth also make them that are filled with the putrefying scan of sin suddenly 
righteous' (ffom. vii. on iii. 24, 35). It may be interesting to quote the 
exposition of the passage which follows. He explains &d rfr vafxotv rav 
vpoyrtovvTtov d/iapnjjjarwt' thus : &d ri)r vaptfftv, rovriori r^v viKpuour. 
oi!*Tt y*p trftiat llwlt ij*, dAA' Siowtp owfM *a/nAv*ir r^f fovOtv Jfcfro 
\itpfo t ovrv xal j ^vx^ wva*t5w, giving vafxott the meaning of ' para- 
lysis/ the paralysis of spiritual life which has resulted from sin. Generally 
3iai<xv seems clearly to be taken as 'make righteous,' even in tiaqyj 
where it will least bear such an interpretation ; for instance on iv. 5 (Horn. 
Vmrai u $tot rwr iv do0f<? 0i<aMrura rovror i(ai<pyijt ot>xl oXaaa* 
Ui*p<7tn p&vov, dAAd gal ttraior orij<roi, . . . 1 -yd/> fuutapot oCroit 
v Aaftvr dV7.r di \af*ro* woXAy /laAAox 6 3urcua*m, and on iv. 25 //cm. 
-i rowry yelp oJ d*i9an oJ drjcmj tva tumtott ipynajjrm. Yet his 
usage U 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 
justiticth." For when the Judge's sentence declares us just (&*aiovt dwo- 
p<uV), and such a judge too, what signifieth the accuser ?' 

No purpose would be sen'ed by entering further into the views of the TheodoreL 
Greek commentators ; but one passage of Theodoret may be quoted as 
an instance of the way in which all the fathers connect Justification and 
On Rom. v. I, a (vid. p. 53) he writes: ^ *iont iAv Ip* iS^/nj- 
d/tfv/M>vt *<u Siittuovt 8<d rr/t rov \.ovrpov 

I o 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 U as strong in Ignatius as in any later Father: 
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 
4 Law' and ' Gospel.' ' Faith ' and ' Works/ ' Merit ' and Grace/ 

The opinions of St. Augustine are of much greater importance. Although St. Angus- 
he does not approach the question from the same point of view as the tine. 
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 et LiUra and In Psalmum 
. / Enarratio //: this Psalm he describes as Psalmut gratia* Dri 
tt iustijicationu twstrtu mtUis prtuctdtntibtu meritu nostril, teJ prat- 
vfHi'fHtt not miuritordia Domini Dei ncstri . . . His purpose is to prove 

150 ISTLE TO THE ROMA [V. 12-21. 

as against any form of Pelagianism that oar salvation comes from no merits 
of our own bat 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 
valueless: ntmo computtt bona Optra ntm ante fidem: ubi fidts nom trot 
bonnm opus non trot (Enarratio f 4) Hence he explains Rom 
13 ff. of works done not in a state of nature but of grace. I 
Apostle is referring to the Gentiles who have accepted the Gospel ; and the 
Law written in their hearts* is the law not of the O.T. but of the 
he naturally compares a Cor. iii. 3 and Rom. ii. 16 (Dt Sp. tt Lit. ft 44. 
40). (a) 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 
graft. Men have failed without grace, and it is only by means of it that 
they can do any works which are acceptable to God. This from one point 

w 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 Faith to the gift of the Divine Grace received from God. Although in 
this relation, as often, St. Augustine's exposition is deeper than that of the 

. 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 more definitely interpreted 
MSfMi of ' making just' and that Augustine in one place admits the 
possibility of interpreting it either as 'making just* or 'reckoning just* 
(Dt Sp. etLit.S 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 So in his comment on 

he writes: katc est iustitia Dei, quat in Ttstamento Vettrirx 
Nffvo revetatnr: quat idee iustitia Dei dicitur, quod impertiendo earn iustos 
Dt Sp. et Lit. t 18) : and again : crtdo. . eum qui iustiJUat 

./ deputatur Jldes eius ad iustitiam. si iusti&atur imptus ex impio 
fit instus (Enarratio f 6) : so MM ttoi Deus rtddit deoitam potnam, sod 
donat indeoitam gratiam: so Dt f 56: kc< ;. Dei, 

quam non tolum dottt per legit praettptum, verum ttiam dot per : 

Augustine's theory Is fa fact this ; faith is a gift of grace which in- 
fostd into men, enables them to produce works good and acceptable to 
God. The point of view is clearly not that of St. Paul, and it is the source of 
the mediaeval theory of grace with all its developments. 

Aquinas. This theory as we find it elaborated in the Sttmma Tktobgiat. has so far 
as it concerns us three main characteristic*. (I ) In the first place it elaborates 
the Angnstinian theory of Grace instead of the Pauline theory of Justification. 
. nitc clear that in St Paul x/* is the favour of God to man, and not 
I given by God to man ; but gratia in St. Thomas has evidently this 
latter signification : aim gratia cmntm ttaturat crtatat fantltatfm txctdat, * 
quodnihil alittd sit attorn participate quatdam dnrinat natural qua* omntm 
"r (Summa Tk*lc& -xundae Qu 

also : dcmum gratiat . . . gratiae infuuo . . . irtfundit donum grot 

cxiii. 3). (3) SecpndlT, it interpr. .md'm 

conseonence looks upon justification as not only rtmittio / .. t also 

sn infusion of grace. >n is discussed fully in 

The conclusion arrived at is: quu. H rtpngmt potna 

vigtntt c*Jpa, nullins attltm keminis quatit modo nauitur. KOJUJ f^enat 
afaqnt gratia totli jurat ; ad tulpa* yuoqu* kominu quali* mode *. 

ff'. .:..' .: '. : ': -: ' Wl I Mf) I Th ] lifl If] te 

on which this conclusion is based is Rom. /<r gratiam 

V. 12-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 151 

if sins, which is therefore clearly interpreted to mean 4 made just by an infusion 
of grace '; and it it argued that the effect of the Divine love on us U grace by 
which a roan U made worthy of eternal life, and that therefore remission of 
guilt cannot be understood unless it be accompanied by the infusion of grace. 
(3) The words quoted above, ' by which a man is made worthy of eternal 
life ' (dignus vita atlerna introduce us to a third point in the mediaeval theory 
of justification : indirectly by its theory of merit dt congmo and </* condign* 
it introduced just that doctrine of merit against which bt. Paul had directed 
his whole system. This subject is worked out in Qu. cxiv, where it U argued 
(Art. i) that in a sense we can deserve something from Cod. Although 
a) a man cannot deserve life eternal in a state of nature, yet (Art. 3) 
after justification he can : Homo merttur nitam cutemam ex eondigno. This 
is supported by Rom. viii. 1 7 sifilii t haertdes, it being argued that we are 
sons to whom is owed the inheritance ex ipso iurc adoptionis. 

However defensible as a complete whole the system of the Summa may be, 
there is no doubt that nothing so complicated can be grasped by the popular 
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- 
tion put forward by St. Paul. It will be convenient to pass on directly to 
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 dt congruo and 
dt eondigno, was very much developed, substantially it represents a revolt 
gainst the whole mediaeval theory. 

Luther's main doctrines were the following. Through the law man learns Luther. 

his sinfulncis : he learns to say with the prophet, 4 there is none that doeth 

good, no not one.' He learns his own weakness. And then arises the cry : 

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 aie 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 

if>; Opp. ed. 155.1, p. 308.) 

As against the mediaeval teaching the following points are noticeable, 
(i) In the first place Justification is quite clearly a doctrine of ' iustitia 
imputata ': Dtus accept at sett rtptttat nos tut tot so/urn propttr fi.lem in 
Christum. It is especially stated that we are not free from sin. As long as 
we live we are subject to the stain of sin : only our sins are not imputed to 
ns. (a) Secondly, Luther inherits from the Schoolmen the distinction of 
fidts imformu and fidttformata cum ekaritatt ; but whereas they had con- 
sidered that itwasyfaVj/0rma/a which justifies, with him it is/</M in/ormis. 
He argued that if it were necessary that faith 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 dt ccmgruo and dt tondigno. He describes them thus : tali* 
monstra portent* et korribiles blasptumiat debtbant proponi Tttrciset ludatu, 
non Christi. 

The teaching of the Reformation worked a complete change in the exegesis Calvin, 
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 ceremonial 

[V. 12-21. 

Law, he entirely brushes away (on iii. ao) ; again, he interprets itutiftart as 
'to reckon just, in accordance with the meaning ot word and the 

com The scheme of Justification as laid down by Luther to 

applied to the interpretation of the Epistle, but his extravagant language to 
The distinction of&to injormu and formata to condemned as 
unreal; and it is seen that What St. Psul means by works being nn 
Justify to 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 to quite a natural sense, for reward does not 
imply merit, and on ii 13 that he applies the passage to (.entiles not in 
a state of grace, but says that the words mean that although < 

ledge and opportunity they had sinned, and therefore would be neces- 

The Reformation theology made St. Paul's point of view comprehensible, 
irodoced eor of exegesis of its own. It added to St. Paul's teaching 
aputation' a theory of the imputation of Christ's nu 

the basis of much unreal systematixation, and was an incorrect interpreta- 
tion of St. Paul's meaning. The unreal distinction ofjfcfo m/*nw and 
format*, added to Luther s own extravagant language, produced a strong 
antinomian tendency. Faith* almost comes to be looked upon as a meritorious 
cause of justification ; an unreal faith is substituted for dead works; and 
faith becomes identified with ' personal assurance ' or ' self-assurance,' More- 
over, for the ordinary expression of St. Paul, 'we are justified by faith.' 
was substituted 'we are saved by faith.' a phrase which, although once 
used by St. Paul, was only so used in the somewhat ragne sense of 06Cy, 
that at one time applies to our final salvation, at another to our present 
the fold of the Church ; and the whole Christian scheme of 
sanctification. rightly separated in idea from justification, became divorced 
in fcct from the Christian 1 

The Reformation teaching created definitely the distinction between ;. 
imputata and iustitia I'M/MM, and the Council of Trent defined Justification 
thus : iuitijitatio mom tit tola jxetatorvm remisiio, ltd ttiam famtijicatio 
novatto interior^ hominit per voluntarism nuteptiowm gratia* tt 
domtnum (Sets. VI. cap. vii). 

Cornelius A typical commentary on the Romans from this point of view is that of 
Lapide. 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 Gosel, namel all that is reached in the Gosel, the death an- 

He argues fron 
justification co: 

the gift to us of the Divine justice, that to, of grace and charity and other 

This summary has been made sufficiently comprehensive to bring o 
tin points on which interpretation has varied. It is clear fronTS: 

language that be makes a definite distinction in thought between three 
several stages which may be named Justification, Sancti heat ion, Sah 
Our Christian life begins with the act of faith by which we turn to < 
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 w! then if our life is consistent 

hese conditions we may hoj mal not for our own merits 

: Christ's sake. The t at of Remission of sins, is Justi- 

fication : the life that follows in the Christian comrou:. 
Sanctification. These two ideas are connected in time in M> far as the 
moment to which our sins are forgiven begins the new life; but they are 
separated to thought, and U to necessary for us th I be so, in 

order that we may rcaliic that unless we come to Christ in the self-surrender 

VI. 1-14.] N WITH CHRIST 153 

of faith nothing can profit us. There it a close connexion again between 
Justification and Salvation ; the one represents the beginning of the process 
of which the other is the conclusion, and in so far as the first step is the 
essential one the life of the justified on earth can be and is spoken of as 
the life of the saved ; but the two are separated both in thought and in 
time, and this is so that we may realize that our life, as we are accepted by 
faith, endowed with the gift of God's Holy Spirit, and incorporated Into the 
Christian community, must be holy. By our life we shall be judged (see the 
notes on ii. 6. 13): we most strive to make our character such as befits us 
for the life in which we hope to share : but we are saved by Christ's death ; 
and the initial act of faith has been the hand which we stretched out to 
receive the divine mercy. 

Our historical review has largely been a history of the confusion of these 
three separate aspects of the Gospel scheme. 


VI. 1-14. If more sin only means more grace, shall we 
go on sinning? Impossible. The baptized Christian cantiot 
sin. Sin is a direct contradiction of the state of things 
which baptism assumes. Baptism has a double function. 

(1) // brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, 
so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him. 

(2) // expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to 
the redeeming acts of Christ. 

Immersion = Death. 

Submersion = Burial (the ratification of Death). 

Emergence = Resurrection. 

All these the Christian has to undergo in a moral and 
spiritual sense, and by means of his union with Christ. As 
Christ by His death on the Cross ceased from all contact with 
sin, so the Christian, united with Christ in his baptism, has 
done once for all with sin, and lives henceforth a reformed 
life dedicated to God. [ This at least is the ideal t whatever 
may be the reality.] (w. i-n.) 'Act then as men who have 
thrown off the dominion of Sin. Dedicate all your powers 
to God. Be not afraid ; Law, Sins ally, is superseded in 
its hold over you by Grace (w. 12-14). 

OBJECTOR. Is not this dangerous doctrine? If more sin 
means more grace, are we not encouraged to go on sinning ? 

i.-,4 !STLE TO THE ROMA' [VI. 1 11 

ST. PAUL. A horrible thought ! When we took the d< 
step and became Christians we may be said to have died to 
such a way as would make it flat contradiction to live any longer 
in it. 

'Surely you do not need reminding that all of us who 
immersed or baptized, as our Christian phrase runs. 4 into Christ,' 
i. e. into the closest allegiance and adhesion to ere so 

immersed or baptized into a special relation to His D<ath. 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. 

4 When we descended into the baptismal water, that meant that 
we died with Christ to sin. When the water closed ov 
beads, that meant that we lay buried with Him, in proof that our 
death to sin, like His death, was real But this carries wi:h 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 im] 
a new principle of life. 

For it is not to be supposed that we can join with O 
one thing and not join with Him in another. If, in undergoing 
a death like His, we are become one with Christ as the graft 
becomes one with the tree into which it grows, we must also be 
one with Him by undergoing a resurrection like I / once 

a moral, spiritual, and physical resurrection. *F< ter of 

experience that our Old Self e before we became 

ins was nailed to the Cross with Christ in our baptism: 
it was killed by a process so like the Death of nd so 

wrought in conjunction with Him th.u it too may share in the 
name and associations of His Crucifixion. And the object of 
this crucifixion of our Old Self was that the bodily sensual part of 
us, prolific home and haunt of sin, might be so i and 


disabled as henceforth to set us free from the service of Sin. T 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. 10 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. 

11 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. u Do 
not, as you are wont, place hand, eye, and tongue, as weapons 
stained with unrighteousness, at the service of Sin ; but dedicate 
yourselves 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. l4 You 
may rest assured that in so doing Sin will have no claims or 
power over you, for you have left the rt'gimt of Law (which, as we 
shall shortly see, is a stronghold of Sin) for that of Grace. 

1. 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, is 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 


it however not by proving a non teiptitur, but by showing how this 
<f thought is crossed by another, even more fu 
thus led to bring up the second of his great pivot-do* : 

I Union of the Christian with Christ dating from his 
:n. Here we have another of those great elemental fo: 
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 unimportant There can be no 
question that we should read ivi/i/rw/icy for In/woC/Mr in rcr. i ; vV/" 
and not ftotvMr in vcr. 3 ; and that rf Kip? 4/ifir should be omitted at the 
end of vcr. n. In that rcne the true position of cZroi is after fat/row 
(KMtC, Cyr. Al.x. Jo.-Damasc) : some inferior authorities ;, 
rpovt JM* : the Western text (A D E F G. Tcrt. ; cf. also 1'csh. Boh. Arm. 
Aetb.) omits it altogether. 

2. olnrct dvc^droficK. Naturally the relative of quality : 
being what we arc, men who died (in our baptism) to sin/ Ac. 

3. ^ dyrocirc : Can you deny this, or is it possible tl 

not aware of all that your baptism involves ? ' St. Paul does not 
like to assume that his readers are ignorant of > 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. 

Ipaimaftnticr ds Xptoror 'itjaouK : 'were baptized unto D 
with' (not merely 'obedience to') 'Christ' The act of l>. 
was an act of incorporation into Christ Comp. esp. Gal. 

c<roi yap tts Xpurrir i^airria&rjrt, \pttrrb* ivtbi/aaafa. 

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. 

Is rof Orator ofrroG 43aim'06rjfur. This points back to a*iC 
above. The central point in the passage is death. 
dies because Christ died, and he is enabled to realize His death 
through his union with Ci 

said to be specially 'into Christ's d 
The reason is because it is ow ly to the Death of - 

that the conditi i.ich the Christian enters at his b 

is such a changed condition. 1 does 

ascribe to that Death a true objective rllu ^ the 

barrier which sin has placed between God a ice, as 

: tj.usm which makes a : 

of Ch. immunities 

*nd privileges. ;nkling of the Blood of Christ seals that 


covenant with Hb People to which Baptism admits them. But this 
is only 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 

4. auKtTctyTjjMK . . . Q&varw. A strong majority of the best 
scholars (M-\.-\V. Gif. Lips. Oltr. Go.) would connect tit T&* 
OiiiniTw with ha rov /Sovrur/uirof and not with owtru^)r tt uv, because of 
-T. tit T. 6a*. air. just before; (ii) a certain incongruity in 
the connexion of avvrrdQ. with m -r&v BaxtTov : 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 A vpoifftro . . . &a rfit nitrnvs 

tv TW avrov cii/iari, where V TO> avrov oT/iari goes with irpotdtro and 

not with diu TF> iri'tTtwt. (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 
tlie 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. ii. 12 ovvrafovrtt avr<p V ry /3<nrriff/Mm V w 

cis r6f ddfaror 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. 

Si& TTJS &OTJS TOU KaTpos i doi?f here practically = ' power ' ; but 
it is power viewed externally rather than internally ; the stress is 
Uul 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. 

5. <TU'H$UTOI : ' united by growth ' ; the word exactly expresses 

cess by which a graft becomes united with the Jife of a tree. 

So the Christian becomes 4 grafted into ' Christ. For the metaphor 

We may compare Xi. 1 7 <rv ti aypttXmos wv tUKtvrpiff&rjf V avrolf, cm 
ovyffocvwi^r ri}r pifijr *ai rij* irionjroi ri)f Aai'ar /yc'rov, and Tennyson's 
'grow incorporate into thee.' 

It is a question whether we are to take <w/i$. yryoV. directly with 
r<p 6po*/i. K.r.X. or whether we are to supply ry Xpurry and make 

i.v s ISTLE T< OMANS [VI. 5, 6. 

ry 4/*oiM. dat. of respect Probably the former, as being simpler 
and more natural, so far at least as construct i 
though no doubt there is an ellipse in meaning ^ ild be 

more < presented 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 
literary composition. 

6. yirwoKornt : see Sfi. Comm. on I Cor. viii. i (p. 299), I 
yu*KTK* as contrasted with ot&a is explained as signifying * apprecia- 
te tal acquaintance.' A slightly different explanation 
a by Gif. aJ he., ' noting this,' as of the idea involved in the 
knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding 

6 iraXeuos ^fiv a*4otnrof : 'our old self'; cp. esp. Suicer, Tha. 
i. 352, where the patristic interpretations arc collected (7 
vc\tT,ia Theodrt ; 6 aTyv<7 H Vo t ftot Euthym.-Zig., \ 

This phrase. with it* correlative & murdf Mponm. is a marked link of 
connexion between the acknowledged and dispute ' 

The coincidence U the more remarkable as the 

phnue 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 bowerer that 6 Jrrdt Jv*mror goes back to i 
Thay. s. Y. d**p*of, i.e.). 

9WMrravpfc| : cf. Gal. ii. 20 X/M*T awtaravf^^i. There is a differ- 
between the thought here and in /mil. \ ' Behold ! 

all doth consist, and all lieth in our dying there is no 

other war onto life, and unto true inward peace, but the way of the holy 
cross, and of daily mortification/ This U rather the 'taking up the cross* 
of the Gospels, which U a daily process. St. Paul no doubt leaves room for 
such a process (Col. iii. 5, 5cc.) ; bat here be is going back to that v 
its root, the one declare ideal act which he regards as taking ; 
baptism : in this the more gradual lifelong process U anticipated. 

KOTapyrjefj. For xarapyvur see on iii. 3. The \\nl is appro- 
priately used in this connexion : ' that the body of - 
paralyzed/ reduced to a condition of absolute imp 

ion, as if it were dead. 

TO 0|ia rrjf djtafmat : the body of which sin has taken poster- 
Parallel phrases arc vii. 24 rov <rM<m>r rov Amirov rotVov : 
r r6 atpa rfjt roirfir^r.wc ^ : Col. ii. 1 1 | 

wr] roC ovparot ij)t aap*6t. has the general sense of 

' belonging to/ but acquires a special shade of meaning it, 
case from the contcx 

' the body in its pre ofdegra<l .:ch is 

so apt to be the instrument of its own c.r 'ses.' 

r* ffitfta rift dpapr&ic must be taken clos. cause 

:.ot the b< . M such, which is to be killed, but the 


body as the seat of sin. This is to be killed, so that Sin may lose 
its slave. 

TOG tiTjK/Ti ftouXcucir. On ToC with inf. as eipressing purpose see 
esp. Westcott, htbravs, p. 342. 

rrj AfiopTi? : u/ia/m'a, as throughout this passage, is personified as 
a hard taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter. 

7. o yAp diroOawr . . . dfiaprtas . The argument is thrown into 
the form of a general proposition, so that 6 a*o6ai>v must be taken 
in the widest sense, ' he who has undergone death in any sense of 
the term' physical or ethical. The primary sense is however 
v 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 or* 6 water (rapid trrirmmu dftaprtaff : 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 to far a* to describe the idem as ao acknowledged hens 
communist which would considerably weaken the force of the literary 
coincidence between the two Apostles. 

ocoiKai*rcu dird rfjs djiapn'af. The Sense of feduca/Mrai 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. aul^Topcr. 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 
\vr. 10 is transitional, and in ver. n we are back again at the 
sta mi-point of the present. 

9. If the Resurrection opened up eternity to Christ it will do 
so also to the Christian. 

Kupicuci. 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. 6 yAp dirtfarc. The whole clause forms a kind of cognate 
accus. after the second uWtfa*** (Win. xxiv. 4, p. 209 E. T.) ; 
Euthym.-Zig. paraphrases rir Avaro* ftp <nr'&u om r^r dpapTMur 

ant&u* rq* wimpa*, where however rg apa/m? is not rightly repre- 
sented by dtd ri\9 dpapriai'. 


rrj fyiaprta dir'0ai hat sense did Christ die to rin? 

The phrase seems to point back to vcr. 7 above : Sin ceased to 
have a: . But how cot. vc a claim upon 

Him 'who had no acquaintance with sin ' (. !)? The 

same verse which tolls us this supplies the answer : TO* ^ yvrfrra 
6tu*fnia* vwip wu> A^utpruaf rotiprr, * the Sinless One for our sake 
was treated as if He were sinful/ The s ung abou 

and wreaked its effects upon Him was not His but ours (cp. 
24). It was in His Death that this pressure of nun 
culminated; but it was also in His Death that it came to an end, 
and for ever. 

J+dira$. 'Che decisiveness of the Death of Christ is specially 

insisted upon in Ep. to Hebrews. This is the great point of con- 

trast with the Lcviiical sacrifices : they did and it did not need to 

be repeated (cf. Heb. vii. 27; ix. 12, 26, 28; x. 10; also I Pet. 


i 6ei. Christ died for (in relation to) Sin, and lives hence- 
forth for God. The old chain which by binding Him to sin made 

iblc to death, is broken. No other power vpm' 
but God. 

This phrase Q ry ey naturally suggests ' the moral ' appli 
to the believer. 

11 Xoyilcofa iauTou?. The man and his 'self are distinguished. 
The 'self is not the ' whole self/ but only that part < 
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 
m is dead, so that sin has lost its slave and is balked of its 
prey; but his true self is alive, and alive for God, through its 
union with the risen Christ, who also lives only for God 

Xoyi'r,ca6 : not indie, (as Beng. Lips.) but imper, preparing the 
way, after St. Paul's manner, for the direct exhortation of the next 

iv Xpioni 'Irjaou. 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. I 
chief points seem to be these, (i) The relation is conceived as 
a local relation. The ( has his being 

living creatures ' in ' the air, as fish 

the earth (Deissmann, p. 84 ; see below}. (2) T of the 

words is invaria roC, not V I?<roG Xpwrry /Deissmann, 

p. 88 ; cp. also Hausslcitcr, as referred to on p. 86 sup.}. \\ 
however V r 'IIJT _*i, but not in the same 

gular usage of the words 

as wnitta, not to the historical C . The corn-si 

<.>.{: ; n V i rr... >' i : - 1. .-: t .\j 1. ..:.-..! l'\ tin. -..u. IBllOg] M 


T.' Man lives and breathes 'in the air,' and the air is also 
* in the man ' (Dcissmann, p. 92). 

Deiitmann's monograph is entitled Die Htiittstamtntluk* Formtl in 
Chrislojesu. Marburg, 1897. It is a careful and methodical investigation of 
the subject, somewhat too rigorous 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 Deissmanu 
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. 
Approximations however are found more or less sporadically, in I St Peter 

i ft; v. 10, 14; always in the correct text Jr Xp0r$), in the Acts (iv. a 
tv Tf> 'Irjovv : 9, 10 Jr r$ ofo/ian 'Irjoov X/MOTOV: 13 ; xiii. 39 Jr roi/ry dt 
& viorfvvv &a4oi/rai), and in full volume in the Fourth Gospel (4r '/', 
JIIMIT 4r Jjiof Jo. vi. 56; xiv. ao, 30; xv. a-7; xvi. 33; xvii. ai), in the 
First Epistle of St John (fv aur, jr T$ vly tiroi, jifrar ii. 5, 6, 8, 24, 27, 

:ii. 6, 14; v. u, ao; x' r r * uWr T. la), and also in the Apocalypse 
(ty 'Iqoov i. 9 ; 4* Kvpi? xiv. 13). Besides the N. T. there are the Apostolic 
Fathers, whose usage should be investigated with reference to the extent to 
which it is directly traceable to St Paul*. The phrase Jr X/M<TT$ 'Iiprow 
occurs in I Clem, xxxii. 4 ; xxxviii. i ; Ign. Efh. i. I ; Trail, ix. a ; Rom. 
ii. a. The commoner phrases are k* Xprr$ in Clem. Rom. and i* 
'Iijoov Xprr which is frequent in Ignat The distinction between ir 'Iiprou 
XprTy and <r X/N<rry 1i?aoG 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 but was destined afterwards to wider acceptance 
and expansion. 

12. poaiXco/rw: cf. v. 21 of Sin ; v. 14, 17 of Death. 

With this verse comp. Philo, D* Gigant. 7 (Mang. i. a66) Airier W rip 
tLff ai i) vp^t oapxa 

18. Observe the change of tense : waprrd*i*T, ' go on yielding,' 
by the weakness which succumbs to temptation whenever it presses ; 
TrapaarrjaoTe, ' dedicate by one decisive act, one resolute effort,' 

5irXo : ' weapons ' (cf. esp. Rom. xiil i a ; a Cor. vi 7 ; x. 4). 
adixtac and otxauxrvnjr are gtn. qualitatis. For a like military 
metaphor more fully worked out comp. Eph. vi. 11-17. 

14. Afiopria yap. You are not, as you used to be, constantly 
harassed by the assaults of sin, aggravated to your consciences by 
the prohibitions of Law. The fuller explanation of this aggravating 
effect of Law is coming in what follows, esp. in ch. vii ; and it is 
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 either 
by Bp. Lightfoot or by Gebhardt and Haroadc. There is more to the point in 
the excellent monograph on Ignatius by Von der Goltz in Ttxtt u. l'*Hn. 
xti. 3, but the particular group of phrases is not directly treated. 


him too to go off at the word rrfpo* into a digression, retort 
the subject with which the chapter opened, and looking at r 
another side. 

tical Ui. 

at this doctrine of the y nion? 

Doubtless by the guiding of the Holy Spirit But :ig, as 

it usually does, operated through natural and human ch 
The channel in this instance would seem to be psycholo.- 
basis of the doctrine is the Apostle's own experience. 1 ' 
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 clement in 
the life of the Apostle that by degrees it came to mean little less 

n actual identification of will. In the case of :.iend- 

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 pe; 

iit and feeling, that those who are joined together I 

ritual bond seem to act and think almost as if they 
were a single person and not two. But we can understand tl 

ul's case with an object for his affections so exahed as ( 
and with influences from above meeting so powerfully the u; 
motions of his own spirit, the process of identification had a 
than common strength and completeness. It was accompli^ 
that sphere of spiritual emotion for which the Apostle possessed 
buch remarkable gifts gifts which caused him to be singled out as 
the recipient of spec; is ihat 

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. N 

do justice to the degree of that identification of will which the 
Apostle attained to. He spoke of I. 

is thoughts were so con upon the culminating acts 

in the Life of Christ the acts i 

dated s redemption- icction 

that when h< . and to dissect 

this idea of mtncss. it was natural to him to see in it certain stages, 
corresponding to those great acts of Christ, to sec in it son. 
corresponding to death, something corresponding to I 
was only the emphasizing of death), and something corresp* 
to resurrection. 

imagination as lively as St. Paul's soon found 

process. ge beneath the running waters was like 


a 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 resurrection. 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 old self, to all that he 
had been, whether as Jew or Gentile, before he became a Christian. 
To what did he rjsc again ? Clearly to that new life to which the 
m 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 was 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 

rges to the same end ; and there b 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 Hi. 3), the being begotten again of incorruptible 

i Pet. i. 23), the comparison of baptism to the ark of Noah 
(i Pet iii. 20, 21) in St. Peter; and there is a certain partial 
coincidence even in the anKvri<n9 of St. James (Jas. i. 18). 

It is the great merit of Matthew Arnold's St. Paul and Prtttstantism, 
whatever its defects and whatever its one-sidednesa, 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 lucidity, the foundation 
of simple psychological fact on which the Apostle's mystical language is 
based. He gives to it the name of ' faith,' and it is indeed the only kind of 
faith 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. Ui. 17. It was 
really faith, the living apprehension of Christ, which lies 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- 
ment in a man for whom the moral sympathies and the desire for righteous- 
It 2 

1 11 

ness were all-powerful, might employ itself and work its wo: 
here. this power penetrate him ; and be felt, also, ! 

imself through it with Christ, and in no oth 

could he ever get (he confidence and force to do at Christ did. He thu 
found a point in which the mighty world outside man, and the weak world 
inside him. seeded to combine for his salvation. The struggling stream of 

which bad not volume enough to bear Urn to his goal, was suddenly 

reed by the immense tidal wave of sympathy and emotion. To this 
new and potent influence Paul gave the name of /i/4' (St. Paul amt 
Protestantism, p. 69 f.). 

is impossible to be in presence of this Pauline conception of 
without remarking on the incomparable power of edification which it con- 
tains. It is indeed a crowning evidence of that piercing practical religious 
tense which we have attributed to Paul. . . . The elemental power of sym- 
pathy and emotion in us, a power which extends beyond the limits of our 
own will and conscious activity, which we cannot measure and control, and 
which in each of us diners immensely in force, volume, and mode of mani- 
festation, be calls into full play, and sets it to work with all its strength and 
in all its variety. Hut one unalterable object is assigned by him to this 
power: to die with Christ to the law of thejiesh, to live with Christ to the 
law of the mind. This is the doctrine of the necrosis (a Cor. iv. 10 
central doctrine, and the doctrine which makes his profoundness am! 

. . . Those multitudinous motions of appetite and tc 
reason and conscience disapproved, reason ana conscience could ; 
govern, and had to yield to them. This, as we have seen, is what 
Paul almost to despair. Well, then, how did Paul's faith, working through 
love, help him here? It enabled him to reinforce duty by affe 
central need of his nature, the desire to govern these motions of 
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 hims 
attachment so that he enters into his feelings and lives 
a new creature; he can do, and does, what Chri suffers 

him. Christ, throughout His life and in Hi* death, presented His body 

S sacrifice to God; every* 
7 without respect of the universal 

respect of the universal order, be died to. You. 
his disciple, are to do the same. ... If yon 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, yon can suppress quite easily, because by sympathy yon become one 
with them and their feelings, this or that impulse of selfishness 
happens to conflict with them, and which hitherto yon have obeyed. 
-.:.- ; ..:,.-,:,. ,,-.-. w: -h< brist'sfcelinc , He tl * it U ,!>: ; 
to them all ; if you are one with Him by faith and sympathy, you can 
them also. Then, secondly, if you thus die u become trans- 

formed by the renewing of your mind, and rUe with ! 

to that harmonious conformity with the real and eternal ordi 
ente of pleasing God who tricth the hearts, which is life and peace, and 
which grows more and more till it becomes glory ' ;//./. j 

Another striking presentation of the thought of this passage will be found 
in a lay sermon, The f God, by the philosopher. T. 1 i 

(London. 18*3 ; also in H't- en was as far removed as Matthew 

n conventional theology, and there are traces ol 
- for which allowance should be ma 
affinity for this side of St. Paul's teaching, and be has expressed / 

i nd moral intensity. To t -A: 11 do but 

uxl the sermon is well worth 
* The death and rising aga. them, 


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 onto life, a life out of death, must then be in some way 
the essence of the divine nature most 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-cnactetl, and to be re-enacted, by man. If Christ died for all, all died 
inn: all were buried in His grave to be all made alive in His resur- 
rection ... 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 own 
effort and one in which the change is wrought from without The first 
' would be a self-renunciation which would be really the acme of self-seeking. 
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 us, but is not of us. Nay, it is just because not of us, that it may be 
in us. Because it is the mind of Christ, and Christ is God's, in the contem- 
;: we are taken out of ourselves, we slip the natural man and 
appropriate that mind which we behold. Constrained by God's manifested 
we cease to be our own that Christ may become ours* (Th* Wittuss of 
Cod, pp. 7-10). 

:.>ay 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 
lite, has 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* (itid. p. ai). 

One of the services which Mr. Green's lay sermon may do us is in helping 
us to understand not the whole but pan of the remarkable conception of 
The W.iy ' in Dr. Hort's posthumous TJu Way, th* Truth, and tkt Lift 
.V ridge and London, 1893). When it is contended, first that the whole 
seeming maze 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 
(Tk* Way. Sec. p. 20 f.), we can hardly be wrong, though the point 
might have been brought out more clearly, in seeking a scriptural illustration 
in St. Paul's teaching as to the Death, Burial, and Resurrection 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 Christ, 
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. 
4 Death unto life,' 4 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 an old self and the birth of a new. It rout be 


admitted that the group of conception! united by St. Paul, and, a i it would 
aeon, yet more widely extended by St John, is difficult to grasp intellect Dally. 
and hat doabtleat been acted upon in many a simple uospeculslivr 
which there was never any attempt to formulate it exactly in words. Out the 
conception belongs to the length and depth and height of the Gospel : here, 
as we see it in St. Paul, it bears all the impress of bis intense and prophet- 
like penetration : and there can be little doubt that it is capable of exercising 
a stronger and roofi* ^tf^iiJnr****^ influence on the Christian consciousness 
than it has done. This must be our excuse for expanding the doctrine at 
rather considerable length, and for invoking the assistance of those who, jutt 
by their detachment from ordinary and traditional Christianity, have brought 
to bear a freshness of insight in certain directions which has led them, if not 
exactly to discoveries, yet to new and vivid realization of truths which to 
indolent minds are obscured by their very familiarity. 


VI. 15-23. Take an illustration from common life t/if 
condition of slavery. The Christian was a 
his business was uncleanness ; his wages, death. L 
lias been emancipated from this service^ only to < 
another that of Righteousness. 

18 Am I told that we should take advantage of our liber 
subjects of Grace and not of Law, to sin ? Imjx>ssible I " Are 
you not aware that to render service and obedience to any one is 
to be the slave of that person or power to which obedience is 
rendered? And so it is here. You are either slaves of Sin, and 
the end before you death ; or you are true to your rightful Master, 
and the end before you righteousness. "But, thank God, the 
time is past when you were slaves of Sin ; and at your baptism you 
gave cordial assent to that standard of life and conch: 
you were first instructed and to the guidance of 
then handed over by your teachers. " Thus you were emancipated 
from the service of Sin, and were transferred to the service of 

M am using a figure of speech taken from c very-day human 
relations. If servitude ' seems a poor and harsh metaphor 
one which the remains of the natural man that still cling about you 

.: least permit you to understand. Yours must be a 
divided sen-ice. Devote the members of your body as unrcsci vc Jly 

VI. 15-23.] LAW AND GRACE 167 

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. 
31 What good then did you get from conduct which you now blu^h 
to think of? Much indeed 1 For the goal to which it leads is 
death. * But now that, as Christians, you are emancipated from 
Sin and enslaved to God, you have something to show for your 
service closer and fuller consecration, and your goal, eternal Life ! 
* For the wages which Sin pays its votaries is Death ; while you 
receive no wages, but the bountiful gift of God, the eternal Life, 
which is ours through our union with Jesus Messiah, our Lord. 

15-23. 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. 
Kach 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. 

15. 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 Lav/. St. Paul's reply in effect is that Christian 
freedom consists not in freedom to sin but in freedom from sin. 

ufnv : from ft late aor. 4/*dpri?<ra, found in LXX (Vcitch, frrrf. 
Verbs, p. 49). Chryt. (odd. Tbeodrt. and others, with minuscule*, read 

16. A general proposition to which our Lord Himself had 

168 I ! IE ROMA [VI. li; 

appealed in * No man can serve two masters ' : There 

are still nearer parallels in John \ , : 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. 

TJTOI . . . Jj : these disjunctives state a dilemma in a lirely and 
way, implying that one limb or the other roost be chosen (Baumlein j Par- 
\rt, p. 344 ; Kuhner, Cram, ft 540. 5). 

17. ;>'> . . . SiSax^s : stands for [6nyg<ntraT] TI'X* Ma) 
ir trop. ; o<V- v>v 'X|f-t rather It iV*.~ trap6i(^: 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 
lie experience of Christian converts. Before baptism they 
underwent a course of simple instruction, like that in the 

or first part of the DidacM (see the reff. in Hatch, Hibbcrt 
Ltcturts. p. 314). With baptism this course of instruclion ceased, 
and they were left with its results impressed upon their minds. 
\vas to be henceforth their standard of living. 

nnror SiSax^s. For TWW see the note on ch. v. 14. The third 
of the senses there given (' pattern/ ' exemp' 
far the most usual with St Paul, and there can be little dou: 
that is the meaning here. So among the ancients -.< & 6 

rvnot rrjt di&j^r; opfct fa al furit oX<riar apt'ori;*) Euthyi:. 
(tit rvirof, ifyovr ru cardra cat opor rf . . and 

among moderns all the English commentators with Oltr. an : 

To suppose, as some leading Continental scholars (De V. 

Go.) have done, that some special 'type of do nether 

Jewish-Christian or Pauline, i> to look with the < 

the nineteenth century and not with those of the firs' 

Rom. and Eph. p. 32 ' Nothing like this notion of a plurality of 

Christian riirot Ma^t occurs anywhere else in the 

quite out of harmony with all the contcv 

19. drtptewiroi' Xiytt. St. Paul uses this form of phrase (cf. 
.15 tri &4pwto9 Aryw) where he wishes to aj-ologize for 
having recourse to some common (or as he would have called it 
carn.L uion to express spiritual truths. So < 

explanation) *<TWK\ <Xryrr f oiri a*6p*viK9 Xoytcr^wK, QJTO rwv iv 

daft/may TTJS aapicot. Two explanations are pos^ 
(i) ' because of the moral i< h prcver; ice of 

Theodrt. Weiss and others); (2) 'because 
of the of apprehension, from defc ' ial expcri- 

r truths' (most 
moderns). Clearly this is more in keeping with the contex: 

VI. 19-21.] LAW AND GRACE 169 

any case the clause refers to what has gone before, not (as Orig. 
Chrys., Ac.) to what follows. 

adp( human nature in its weakness, primarily physical and moral, bat 
secondarily intellectual. It i* intellectual weakness in so far as this is deter- 
mined by moral, bv the limitations of character: cf. tyoMiV rd rip aapfut, 
4>p6njfta rip oaptb Rom. viii. 5 f. ; <ro$oj ard aap<ta i Cor. i. 26. The 
idea of this passage is similar to that of i Cor. iii. a 70X0 v^dt iwunoa, 06 

atadapaia and avopia fitly describe the characteristic 
features of Pagan life (cf. i. 24 ft.). As throughout the context these 
forms of sin are personified ; they obtain a mastery over the man ; 
and eh ITJ ayo/a'ay describes the effect of that mastery 'to the 
practice of iniquity.' With these verses (19-21) compare especially 
i Pet. iv. 1-5. 

cis Ayiafffior. Mey. (but not Weiss) Lips. Oltr. Go. would make 
dyicKT/ior here practically = Ayumrvnj, 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 Thcss. 
iv. 4, where it is joined with n/iq ; i Tim. ii. 15, where it is joined 
with fftVrir and <rydmj). 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 Syior 
ch. i. 7, and Dr. A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, p. 206 : 6yui<r/i<Sf = 'the 
process of fitting for acceptable worship/ a sense which comes 
out clearly in Heb. xii. 14 dtwcrrt p Ayicurpov ot \<p\* oi-ovir 
ctytrm TO* K/>M>*. The word occurs some ten times (two w. II.) 
in LXX and in Ps. Sol. xvii. 33, but is not classical. 

21. TiVa 08* . . . JwaiaxufcoOc ; Where docs 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 
tiraurxvnatit. In that case CKCI'*** must be supplied before '<!>' off, 
and its omission might be due to the reflex effect of W** in the 
sentence following (comp. chroloyorrfr * ? Kamxoiufa vii. 6 below). 
There would then be a common enough ellipse before T* yip rAot, 
' What fruit had ye . . .? [None :] for the end,' &c. (2) On the 
other hand several leading Germans (Tisch. Weiss Lips., though 
not Mey.) put the question at TOT, and make </>' ofr inaurx^"^ 
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 : *ar 

f. lurqaip dayi*Mrroir TO Ttva ovv napvov tl^trt rort, ira Kara 
axugpttrt* *</>' ofr Cr i*ai<j xv< &6i. Both interpretations are 
possible, but the former, as it would seem, is more simple and natural 

1 70 ISTLE TO THE ROMA [VII. 1 6. 

(Gif.). When two phrases link together so easily as ty* o*r W<r X . 
hat precedes, it is a mistake to separate them except for 
strong reasons; nor does there appear to be sufficient grou 
distinguishing between near consequences and remote. 

rd Y*p: *> /"' 1*f KBD*EFG. There is the osnal ambiguity of 
readings in which B alone joins the Western authorities. The proba: 
that the reading belong* to the Western element in B, and that piv was 

iucrd through erroneous antithesis to rvrl W. 

23. 64/wvvo. From a root - we get f*X tyor, cooked * meat, fish, &c. 

as contrasted with bread. Hence the compound ty*rio (*rlo/ai, to buy ') - 

roTision- money, ration-money, or the ration* in kind given to troops ; 

(2 in a more general tense, * wages.' The word U said to hare come in 

Nf enander t it i* proscribed by the Attidsts, bat found freely in Polybius, 

' ice. &c. (Stun, Dial. Maetd. p. 187). 

Xapunia. Teitulllan, with his usual picturesque boldness, translates this by 
dMOtnmm (Dt / . 4 7 Stifindia tmm delinquent ia< mort, donativum 

auUm dti vita a is not probable f: 

antithesis in his mind, though no doubt be intend* to contrast ** and 


VII. 1-8. Take another illustration from :v of 

Marriage. The Marriage Law only binds a wtnan 
her husband lives. So with the Christian 
as it were, to his old sinful state ; and all that time he was 
subject to the law applicable to that state. But this eld life 
of his was killed through his identification with the death of 
Christ; so as to set him free to contract a new marriage 
with Christ, no lottgcr dead but risen: a f that 

marriage should be a new life quickened by the Spirit. 

1 1 say that you are free from the Law of Moses and from Sin. 
You will see how: unless you need to be reminded of a fact 
your acquaintance with the nature of Law \vill readily sug^ 
you, tl. n who comes und< .ly in force 

durin. :ne. 'Thus for instance a woman in wedlock is 

forbidden by law to desert her living husband. But if her hi: 
should die, she is absolved from the provisions of the statute ' Of 
the Husband.' 'Hence while her husband is a!; ill be 

adulteress' if she marry another man: but r 

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. 

4 We may apply this in an allegory, in which the wife is the 
Christian's 'self 1 or 'ego'; the first husband, his old unregenerate 
state, burdened with all the penalties attaching to it. 

You then, my brethren in Christ, had this old state killed in you 
brought to an abrupt and violent end by your identification 
with the crucified Christ, whose death you reproduce spiritually. 
And this death of your old self left you free to enter upon a new 
marriage with the same Christ, who triumphed over death 
a triumph in which you too share that in union with Him you, 
and indeed all of us Christians, may be fruitful in good works, to 
the glory and praise of God. * 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 
as to engender acts that only went to swell the garners of 
Death. ' But now all that has been brought to an end. Law and 
the state of sin are so inextricably linked together, that in dying, at 
our baptism, a moral death, to that old state of sin we were absolved 
or discharged from the Law, which used to hold us prisoners under 
the penalties to which sin laid us open. And through this discharge 
we are enabled to serve God in a new state, the ruling principle of 
which is Spirit, in place of that old state, presided over by Written 

1-6. The text of this section and indeed of the whole chapter 
is still, ' Ve 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 

In the working out of this illustration there is a certain amount 
of intricacy, due to an apparent shifting of the stand-point in the 
middle of the paragraph. The Apostle begins by showing how 
with the death of her husband the law which binds a married 
woman becomes a dead letter. He goes on to say in the 
application, not ' The Law is dead to you,' but ' You are dead to 
the Law' which looks like a change of position, though a 
legitimate one. 


Gif. however may be right in explaining the trans i 
differently, viz. by means of the ita\au* Mp**ot ot 

of the man is doable ; there is an old self and a ' new self '; 
.or the 'self remains the same throughout, but it pastes 
through different states, or phases. Bearing this in mind we shall 
find the metaphor work out consistently. 

The Wife = the true self, or ego, which is permanent through 

all change. 
The (first) Husband = the old state before conversion to 

The 'law of the husband* = the law which condemned that old 

state. * 

The new Marriage = the union upon which the convert enters 
;i Christ. 

The crucial phrase is i><Ir <Pa*iT<^6ijTt in ver. 4. According to 
y in which we explain this will be our explanation of the 
whole passage* See the note ad he. 

There is yet another train of thought which comes in \\iih 
w. 4-6. The idea of marriage naturally suggests the offspring of 
marriage. In the case of the Christian the fruit of In 
: is a holy life. 

1. *H dyvocirt : f 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 doses all accounts, and therefore that 
the state of things to which Law belongs ceased through the death 
of the Chri t thai mystical death spoken of in the 
last chapter ? ' 

ymfcrnovoi ydp rrfpor XaXw: ' I speak ' (lit ' am talking ') ' to men 
acquainted with Law/ At once the absence of th< 
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 

al would possess any detailed knowledge, nor yet the 1 
Moses more particularly considered ut a gener 

of all Law; an obvious axiom of pc . c that death clears 

all scores, and that a dead man can no longer be prosecuted or 
bed (cf. Hort, Rom. and . 4). 

2. -f\ yip frrarftpoc y u>n 1 : [' tnc trutl ' of tllis ma >' ** 

a case in point.] For a woman in the state of wedlock is bound 
by law to her living husband.' vnu&pot : a classical word. 

Kanipyycu : 'is completely (perf.) absolved or discharge ' 

:mullcd,' her status as a wife is abolished). 
two c .** are treated by St. Paul as 

:ible: 'the wo: nulled from the law.' ai. 

is annulled to the v pytr sec on i 

VII. 2 4.] LAW AND GRACE 173 

d roG r6>ou TOW Af&fxfc : from that section of the statute-book 
vvhu h is headed 'The Husband/ the section which lays down his 
rights and duties. Gif. compares ' the law of the leper Lev. xiv. a ; 
1 thr law of the Nazirite' Num. vi. 13. 

3. XOTKaTi""* The meaning* of x/W""<C<<' ramify in two direction*. 
The fundamental idea is that of ' transacting business' or ' managing affair*,' 
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 ' (\pwi- 
T. S '( ttaot\u'i Tolyb. V. Kii. a); and so simply, as here, 'to be called or 
styled ' (Acts xi. 26 j-ytrtro . . . \fnjnariatu wporrov If 'AxrioxV rovt itafrjTat 
XpjtfTiaroi'j) ; and on the other hand (a) from the notion of ' baring dealings 
with/ 'giving audience to* a person, in a special sense, of the 'answers. 
communications, revelations,' given by an oracle or by God. So six times 
in I. XX of Jcrcra.. Joseph. Antiq., Plutarch, &c. From this sense we get 
past, 'to be warned or admonished* by God (Matt. ii. la, aa; Acts x. aa ; 

viii. 5; xi. 7). Hence also subst xpiHtaTiopoi, '* Divine or oracular 
response/ a Mace. ii. 4 ; Rom. xi. 4. Barton (Af. an./ T. \ 69) calls the 
fut. here a ' gnomic future ' as stating ' what will customarily happen when 
occasion offer*/ 

TOV p^ tv<u - Start rf <?rcu : the stress is thrown back upon I\<v6ipa, 'so 
as not to be/ ' causing her not to be/ not ' so that she is.' According to 
Burton TOV ^ here denotes ' conceived result ' ; but see the note on Sort 
ftoirAuiif in vrr. 6 below. 

4. Sum with indie, introduces a consequence which follows as a matter 
of fact 

KCU fyieis ^0afaTw0TjTe. 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 10 

yOU.' So ChryS. ait6\ov0o rjv *Viv, roO yripou Tt\tvrf)(ravTof ov 
fioi\tias, av&pl ytvuptvm iripip. *AXX' OVK tiirtv OITUS, oXXa Trot ; ' 

T0iiT< rp fo>w (cf. Euthym.-Zig.). In favour of this is the parallel 

itorr/pyijTat airu TOV vopov TOV dro'pot in Ver. 2, and itarrfpyr^6tjfjLtv dito TOV 

9ono\> 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 
Git., who makes i>Iv = not the whole self but the old self, i.e. 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 
I..i\\ iiad its hold upon him only through sin; but in discarding 
his sins he discards also the pains and penalties which attached to 
them. Nothing can touch him further. His old heathen or Jewish 
antecedents have passed away ; he is under obligation only to Christ. 

itol vjm. The force of *cu here is, ' You, my readers, as well as the wife 
in the allegory.' 

8iA TOW awjioTo? TOW Xpiarow. The way in which the death of 
the ' old man ' is brought about is through the identification of the 

174 EPISTLE TO THE K [VII. 4. 5. 

lie 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 'crt 
body': the Christian shares in that crucifixion, and so g- 
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 n' 
in TM cV n*p* /yvp&'m. The two lines of symbolism rc.r 
parallel to each other and it is easy to connect them. 

6 uXAf M{*m = The Husband : 

Crucifixion of the voX &*6. = Death of the Husband : 

Resurrection = Re-Marriage : 

Qv, doiAiiur TW 0f<j = 

U <r* ywfafet 4|Uk I T 'P*- Lips, take* this not of 'being married to 
another husband/ bat of 'joining another matter; on the grand that there 
U no marriage to the Law. This however (i) it unnecessary, because 
marriage to the ' old man ' carries with it subjection to the Law, so that the 
dissolution of the marriage involves release from the Law by a step which is 
close and inevitable ; (a) it is wrong, because of mpwo+ow*, which it is 
clearly forced and against the context to refer, as Lips, does, to anything hot 
the offspring of marriage. 

Kopvo+orfffwjMr TY e. The natural sequel to the metaphor of 

age.' The 'fruit' which the Christian, wedded to Ch 
to bear is of course that of a reformed life. 

6. ore y&p TJfitK I* TTJ aopxi. This verse develops the idea con- 
tained in tafnro^opfja^fttf : the new marriage ought to be 1- 
old on 

because the old one was. tfcrn V TB oapri is the opposite of 
V ry nm'-itart : the one is a life which has no higher object than 
the gratification of the senses, the other is a life permeated 
Spirit. Although <rap is human nature especially on the side of 
its frailty, it does not follow that there is any dual Paul's 

conception or that he regards the body as inherently sinful. 
Indeed this very passage proves the contrary. It implies 
is possible to be ' in the body ' without being ' in 
bodv f as such, is plastic to influences < 

worked upon by Sin through the senses, or it may be worked upon 
by the Spirit. In cither case the motive-force comes from without. 
The body itself is neutral. See esp. the excellent discussion in 
Gilford, pp. 48 

T& vaeVjfiara rr o>apnr: infApa hns the same sort of 
as our word ' passion.' It me. Impression/ esi 

ful impression' or suffering; (a) the reaction which follows 
some strong impression of sense ( The gen. ri 

. . ,9 = connect* .; to sins/ 

rA otA TOU roV "- Here St. Paul, a 
up a finger-post' which joints to the coming section <: 
ment isc 6ui rot rd/iov is it length in the next 

VII. 5, 6.] LAW AND GRACE 175 

paragraph: it refers to the effect of Law in calling forth and 
aggravating sin. 

4yv)pytiTo. The pricks and stings of passion were active in our 
members (cf. i Thess. ii. 13; a Thess. ii. 7; a Cor. i. 6, iv. 12; 
Gal. v. 6, &c.). 

TW Oaydry : dat. commodi, contrasted with a/wro$. ry ey above. 

6. vw\ W KaTT)pv^Ov)|iK dwo row ropou. ' But as it is we ' (in our 
peccant part, the old man) ' were discharged or annulled from the 
Law ' (i.t. 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). *f ij/mr wn^pyij^M* ; roO son \outmv 

irapa rrjf apaprtat oWfyximou iroXmoG uiro6a*$vTO( KOI ra&rrot Chrys. 

We observe how Chrys. here practically comes round to the same 
side as Gif. 

The renderings of itanjpy^erifitv are rather interesting, and show the diffi- 
culty of finding an exact equivalent in other languages : cvantati smmm 
Ten. ; soluti sttmus Codd. Clarom. Sangerm. Vulg. ( ' we were un- 
bonnden' \\ic. ; 'we are loosed' Rhcm.) ; 'we are delivered' Tyn. Cran. 
Gcncv. AV.; 'we are discharged' RV.: nous avons tti dtea&s Oltr. (// 
Nouivatt Ttst., Geneva, 1874); nun obtr rind wir fur das Gtstt* nukt 
mthrda Weusacker (Das Ntu* T(st. % Freiburg L B. i88a, ed. a). 

diro9ov6vr. AV. apparently read dvo^ororror, for which there is no 
Authority, but which seems to be derived by a mistake of Beza following 
Erasmus from a comment of Chrysostom's (see Tisch. ad /<*-.). The 
\Ve5tern text (D E F G, codd. ap. Orig.-lat. and most Latins) boldly corrects 
to TcO 0a>arov, which would go with TOW r^/iov, and which gives an easier 
construction, though not a better sense. After awo$ao*rti we must supply 
p, just as in n. a i we bad to supply < * WK. 

iv w KaTix^c0o. The antecedent of <V f is taken by nearly all 
commentators as equivalent to T<J> xJ/iy (whether VW or mvrtf 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 aitofat&vrit 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. 

fcKTTt oouXcucir: not 'so that we serve* (RV. and most com- 
mentators), but so as to serve/ i. e. ' enabling us to serve.' The 
stress is thrown back upon *anHyi7%4, we were so completely 
discharged as to set us free to serve. 

The tree distinction between &rrf with infin. and Snrrt with indie., which is 
not always observed in RV., is well stated by Goodwin, Moods and Tens**, ed. 
1889, 584 (with the quotation from Shilleto. Dt Fats. Ltg. A pp. in the note), 
and for N. T. by the late Canon T. S. Evans in the Expos, for 1882, i. 3 ft : 
wart with indie, states the definite result which as a matter of fact does 
follow ; &rr with infin. states the contemplated result which in the natural 

1 76 IK ROMA [VII. 7 25. 

coone ought to follow, fan with indie, lay stress on the effect ; &r - 
infm. on the cause. Thus in I Cor. i. 7 **r tor/><r*u - 'causing or 
Inspiring you to feel behindhand* (tee Sf. Comm.adl* 

ii VrVor, **r JA0 rri .r<.* mi ara<T*r / roOr - become * 
4/V n*tf A >r the bird* to cone/ Ac It will be seen that the div 
correspond* to the difference in the general character of the two mood*. 

vrcuparof . . . waXaio>r|Ti yprfpfiarof. In cac h case 
the gen. is what is called of ' apposition ' : it denotes that in 
the newness, or oldn is. The essential feature of th 

one of ' Spirit'; of the old state, that it is regulated 
i ittcn 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 juuyorqr mtiparot is given in ch 

It is perhaps well to remind the reader who is not careful to check the 
study of the English versions by the Greek that the opposition between 
Ifxipua and vMvpa is not exactly identical with that which we arr 
habit of drawing between 'the letter' and 'the spirit' as the 'literal 'and 
'spiritual sense of a writing. In this antithesis ypd^ta is with S 
always the Law of Moses, as a written code, while wiG/ja is the operation 
of the Holy Spirit characteristic of Christianity (cf. Rom. ii. 29; a Ccr 


VII. 7-25. If release from Sin means release from 1 
must we then identify Lout with Sin ? No. Law reveals 
the sinf ulness of Sin, and by this i-cry revelation stirs up the 
dormant Sin to action. But this is not bf>. 
itself is ei'il on the contrary it is good but that 
be exposed and its guilt agg> 1 3). 

This is u'hat takes place. I have a double self. Eh 

self is . 'to prevent me from doing wrong 

(vv. 14-17). // is equally impotent to make me do right 

(w. 18-21). There is thus a constant conflict going on, 

from which, unaiii I hope for no deli But, 

be Man . s r // Christ <; 


7 1 spoke a moment ago of sinful passions working through Law, 
and of the death to Sin as carrying with it a release from the Law. 
Does it follow that the Law itself is actually a form of Sin ? An 

VII. 7-25.] LAW AND SIN 177 

intolerable thought I 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 shall 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 lies dead inert and passive. * And while sin was dead, 
I my inner self was alive, in happy unconsciousness, following 
my bent with no pangs of conscience excited by Law. But then 
came 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. 10 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. lf The result is 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 

14 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 
self, which is the cause of the evil ; because my actions are exe- 
cuted blindly with no proper concurrence of the will I purpose one 


way, I act another. I hate a thing, but do it. u And by thi 
fact that I hate the thing that I do, my conscience bears testimony 
to the Law, and recognizes its excellence. 11 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. w Ft 
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 : 
to avoid. " But if I thus do what I do not wish to do, th 
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. fl I find therefore this law- 
ifso 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. * 4 I man that I am 

torn with a conflict from which there seems to be no issue 1 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, app: 
ing His Presence in humble gratitude, through Him to whotn the 
deliverance is due Jesus Messiah, our I 

iout His intervention so long as I am left to my own 
unaided self the state that I have been describing may be briefly 
summarized. In this twofold capacity of mine I sc: 

my conscience I serve the Law of God; with my bodily 
organism the Law of Sin. 

VII. 7, 8.] LAW AND SIN 179 

7. So far Sin and Law have been seen in such close connexion 
that it becomes necessary to define more exactly the relation 
between them. In discussing this the Apostle is led to consider 
the action of both upon the character and the struggle to which 
they give rise in the soul. 

It is evident that Marcion bad this section, as Tertullian turns against him 
St. Paul's refusal to listen to any attack upon the Law, which Marcion 
ascribed to the Demiurge : Abominatur afostolus criminationem Itgis . . . 
Quid dec imputas legis quod legi eius apostolus imputart non auJct f Atquin 
tt accumulat : Lex sancta, et praeceptum eius iustum et bonum. Si talitcr 
veneratur legem creator is, quomodo tfsum dcstruat nescio. 

dfiaprio. It had just been shown (ver. 5) that Sin makes 
use 0/"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 

dXXd contradicts emphatically the notion that the Law is Sin. 
On the contrary the Law first told me what Sin was. 

OUK cyywK. It is not quite certain whether this is to be taken 
hypothetically (for QVK &v tyvw, fa omitted to give a greater sense 
of actuality, Ktihner, Gr. Gramm. ii. 176 f.) or whether it is simply 
temporal. Lips. Oltr. and others adopt the hypothetical sense 
both here and with owe fifaw below. Gif. Va. make both ovr 
tyvw and otic jfoViv plain statement of fact. Mey.-W. Go. take 
our tyvw temporally, out #W hypothetically. As the context is 
a sort of historical retrospect the simple statement seems most in 

TTJV r yap JmOvfuav. re -yap is best explained as 'for also/ ' for indeed ' 
(Gif. Win. i liii. p. 561 E. T. ; otherwise Va.). The general proposition is 
proved by a concrete example. 

ryvwv . . . TJSciv retain their proper meanings : fytw, ' I learnt* implies 
more intimate experimental acquaintance; pfoiy is simple knowledge that 
there was such a thing as lust. 

The Greek word has a wider sense than oui 
' covet ' ; it includes every kind of illicit desire. 

8. d^opfif)*' Xapouaa : 4 getting a start/ finding a point d*appui, or, 
as we should say, ' something to take hold of.' In a military 
sense (tyopw = ' a base of operations ' (Thuc. L 90. 2, &c.). In 
a literary sense a^op^v Xo/3I* = to take a hint/ ' adopt a sug- 
gestion ' ; cf. Eus. Ep. ad Carpianum Vc row rroi^furrof row irpotip^- 
fjiivov ovdpo? iX?^)o)f fyopfuis. 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. 

jj dpopria: see p. 145, sup. 

Sid rfjs IKTO\T)S. The prep. d<a and the position of the word 
N a 


show that i: is better taken with *arufry<i ffaro t<: " 

Ao0. (WoXi} is the single commandment ; **/*<* the code as a 

xwpls Y*P *p4. A standing thought which we have had 
befo: -*o. 

0. lwf (to* B; Cow 17). St. Paul uses a vivid figi; 
expression, not of course with the full richness of meaning 
he sometimes gives to it (i. 17 &. .). He is desc 

the state prior to Law primarily in himself as a child bef 
consciousness of law has taken hold up ut he us 

experience as typical of that both of individuals and nations before 
they are restrained by express command. The ' natural 
flourishes ; he does freely and without hesitation all that he has 
a mind to do; he puts forth all his viuhty, unembarrassed by 
the checks and thwarting* of conscience. It is the kind of life 
which is seen at its best in some of the productions of Gn 
Greek life had no doubt its deeper and more serious sid< 
this comes out more in its poetry and philosophy : the fri 

rthcnon is the consummate expression of a life that does 
not look beyond the morrow and has no inward perplex it 
trouble its enjoyment of to-day. See the general discussion below. 

dr^rjacr : * sprang into life ' (T. K. Abbott). Sin 
there, but dormant ; not until it has the help of the Law docs it 
become an active power of mis 

11 4(T)irdrr)al jic. The language is suggested by the d. 
lion of the Fall (Gen. iii. 13 '. 2 Cor. xi. 3; i Tim. ii. 

14). Sin here takes the place of the Tempter there. In both 
cases the 'commandment' acknowledged only to be broken 
is the instrumci is made use of to bring about the disas- 

trous and fatal end. 

12. A per rofios. The ji expects a following o*. St. Paul had 
probably intended to write ^ M Aftapria wmjpyfwaro V V 
Amm, or something of the kind ; but he digresses to explain how 
a good Law can have evil consequences, and so he fails to com- 
plete the sentence on the same plan on which he had begun it. On 

;l's view of the nature and functions of the Law see Ix 

ll hardly safe to rgne with Zahn (Gttth >m the Ian- 

goage of Tenulluo (given above on ver. 7) that that writer had before him 
A corrupt Marcionitk text-not, Zaha thinks, actually due to Marcion, but 
corrupted since his time-* JrroA* otrw 2., 

more probable that Tcrt. is reproducing hit text rather freely : in De 
/WiV. 6 he leaves out o2 &ou 
tamtttm tttftimitm (the use of superlative for |>oitirc i fairly con 

. versions and writers). 

13. Why was this strange perversion of so cxt< ing as 
the Law permitted ? to aggravate the 

VII 13-15.] LAW AND SIN 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 (<^g) of what extremities (toff vrp3oX^r) Sin 

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 

TTKeufianKot. 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 4 Spirit-given/ but with the further 
connotation that the character of the Law is such as corresponds 
to its origin. 

adpKivof (<rapixJr N?LP at.) 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 controversy as to the bearing of the antithesis 
if] St. Paul between the o&rf and wri/M. It has been maintained that this 
antithesis amounts to dualism, that St. Pan! regards the oarf as inherently 
evil 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 11855, 1868), Rich. Schmidt (1870), Liidcraann (1872), 
and to some extent Pfleiderer (1873). [In the second edition of his Fauli*- 
ismus (1890'. Prtciderer refers so much of St. Paul's teaching on this bead 
as seems to go beyond the O. T. not to Hellenism, but to the later TcwUh 
<!o;trinc of the Fall, much as it has been expounded above, p. 136 ff. In this 
we need not greatly differ from htm.] The most elaborate reply was that of 
11. II. \\cndt, Di* Besrifft Fltisch und Ctitt (Gotha, 1878), which was 
made the basis of an excellent treatise in English by Dr. W. P. Dickson, 
St. Paul's Use of tkt Terms Flesh and Spirit, Glasgow, 1 883. Reference 
may also be made to the well-considered statement of Dr. Gifford (Aemans, 
pp. 48-53). The controversy may now be regarded as practically closed. 
Its result is summed up by Lipsius in th-se decisive words : * The Pauline 
anthropology rests entirely on an Old Testament base ; the elements in it 

h are supposed to be derived from Hellenistic dualism must simply be 
denied (sind tinfcuk M Ixstreite*}.' The points peculiar to St. Paul, 

Ming to Lipsius, are the sharper contrast between the Divine wtvpa and 
the human ^vxf, and the reading of a more ethical sense into oarf, which 
was originally physical, so that in GaL v. 19 ff., Rom. Yiii. 4 ff. the <rrf 
becomes a principle directly at war with the wtvfM. In the present passage 
(Kom. vii. 14-35) the opposing principle is dpo/mo, and the oatf is only the 
material medium (Substrat) of sensual impulses and desires. \Ve may add 
that this is St Paul's essential view, of which all else is bat the variant 

L6. KaT*p<yfto|iat pcrjiei t prptro t to carry into effect,' put into execu- 
tion ' : wpdoooj ago, to act as a moral and responsible being : rai /oat, 


to produce a certain result without reference to its moral character, and 
imply M it might be produced by inanimate mechanism (tee also the notes 
on ch. i. 32 : ii. 9). Of course the specific sense may not be always marked 
by the context, but here it is well borne out throughout. For a fuller 
account of the distinction see Schmidt, Lot. u. Gr. Synonymik, p. 394 ff. 

YIMMHU* appears to describe the harmonious and conscious working of 
will and motive, the former deliberately accepting and carrying out the 
promptings of the latter. The man acts, so to speak, blindly: he is not 
a fully conscious agent : a force which he cannot resist takes the decision out 
of his hands. 

8 MX. The exact distinction between Hi* and 0oAo>iai has been much 
disputed, and is difficult to mark. On the whole it seems that, espe, 
N. T. usage, lovAo/uu lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose, delibera- 
tion, *'x on the more emotional aspect of will: in this contc 
evidently something short of the final act of rolition. and practically ~ 
desire.' See especially the full and excellent note in Grm.-Thay. 

t url W : ' as it is,' ' as the case really lies ' ; the contrast is 
logical, not temporal. 

^ oUouao V Jjuu apaprta. [Read cVouro7.< S ' thod. 

(ap. Phot cod., turn autem ap. Epiph.)] This indwelling Sin cor- 
responds to the indwelling Spirit of the next chapter : a : 
proof that the Power which exerts so baneful an in flue 
not merely an attribute of the man himself but has an objective 

18. I* <|MH, TOUT* fcrnr, K.T.\. The part of the m.i: 
Sin thus establishes itself is not his higher self, his conscicn 
his lower self, the ' flesh/ which, if not itself evil, is too easily made 
the instrument of evil. 

wapd*KiTcu fiot : Mies to my hand/ ' within my r< 

o* K A B C 47 6: a/.. Edd. : o$* tlfto** D F i &c. 

20. 6 o* *'A, BCDEFG /., \VH. RV. : ft o* *<A, l> 
&c., Tiscb. W1L marg. 

21. cdpurxM opa TOK KOfiof : ' I find then ti con- 

ing principle/ hardly ' this constantly recurring experience/ 
. would be too modern. The *W* here n. 
to the rrpor vtpov of vcr. 23. It is not merely the obsem 
that the will to do good is forestalled b\ the coercion of 

the will that is thus exercised. Lips, seems to be nearest to the 
mark, das Gcselz d. h. die objectiv mir aufcrltgte Xothwrndi^ 

Many commentators, from Chrysostom onwards, ha 
make Tor o>>r = the Mosaic Law : but cither (i) t) 
passage more than the context will allow; or (in 
sentence a construction v The 

best attempt in this direction is prob. that < 
I find then with regard to the Law, that to me who won 
do that which is good, to me (I say i 

He supposes a double break in the construction : (i) vtpo* 
put as if the sentence had been intended to run ' I find tt. 

VII. 21-24.] LAW AND SIN 183 

Law when I wish to do good powerless to help me ' ; and (a) 
V"n' 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/ Ac. But the anacoluthon after r6* nJ/iov 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. aorrjSofiai TW v6p<* TOO eoo : what it approves, I gladly and 
cordially approve. 

ord rdr caw at4p*nroy. St. Paul, as we have seen (on vi. 6), 
makes great use of this phrase a*6p*nos, 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 > a*6p*ot 2 Cor. iv. 16), with the 
4 inner man/ the conscience or reason (2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16). 

23. l-rcpo? $por: 'a different law' (for the distinction between 
crpoc, ' different/ and oXA**, ' another/ ' a second/ see the commen- 
tators on Gal i. 6, 7). 

There are two Imperatives (*W) 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 

TW M>fi TOU rods pou. For vovs see on i. 28 : it is the rational 
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 tri*i>a 

(Eph. IV. 23 avavtovvQai T<p irwvfum row voor : cf. Rom. xii. 2), just as 

on the other hand it may be corrupted by the flesh (Rom. i. 28). 

24. TaXaiTTwpos iyw artiptnros. 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 extraordinary power. 
He has sal for his own likeness ; but there are ideal traits in the 
picture as well 

1*4 ^TLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 24, 25. 

/ TOO atftfiarof TOO 6ardrou TOVTOU. In construction rovrov might 
go with <rparoff (' from this body of death ') : but it is far better to 
take it in the more natural connexion with &wmn ; ' the body of 
this death ' which already has roe 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. opa'our K.T.X. A terse compressed summary of the previous 
paragr ; 24, describing in two strokes the state of things 

prior to the intervention of Christ. The expression is that which 
comes from deep feeling. The particular phrases hardly seem to 
need further explanation. 

T$ 0y. The true reading is probably xP T r 
idence stand* thu. 

T* 6f B, Sab., Ori K . temtl Hieroo. um<l. 

U rf ef K* C (d* C* mm liqutt mintuc. a/if.. Bob. Ann , Cyr, 
Alex Jo.-Damasc. 

tv/ X^stW V* ef Epiph. < Boowctscb, Mttkrimi 
VOH Olympus, i. 304.] 

easy to see how the reading of B would explain all the rest The 
reading of the mass of MSS. would be derived from it (not at once but by 
successive steps) by the doubling of two pairs of letters. 

The descent of the other readings may be best represented by a table, 

X*plC AC T$ 6c<p N X*P'C TOY Otoy (Of) 


The other possibility would be that ttxapHrrw r$ ef had got reduced to 
XOpf rf er by successive dropping of letters, but this must have taken 
place very early. It b also cc*cdvable that x^f M pwceded x&p.* only. 

The Inward Conflict. 

Two subjects for discussion are raised, or are commonly r 
as if they were raised, by this section, (i) Is ihc exr 
described that of the regenerate or unrcgcncrate man? (2) 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 unregcn . (i) Appeal is made to 

such expressions AS irrvpap&or ur& r*j ti^/na* vcr. 14, 

VII. 7-25.] LAW AND SIN 185 

[TO KaxoV] W. 19, 2O, raXaiirwpOf >w SvGpvirot ver. 24. It IS argued 

that language like this is nowhere found of the regenerate Mate. 
(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, e.g. the video meliora of Ovid and 
many other like sayings in Euripides, Xenophon, Seneca, Epictctus 
(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. 

(.1) 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, /u<r [r& a*6V] ver. 15, &'X 
iroMlv TO KaXdV ver. 21, arvyrj&opuH ry V? ver. 22. It is said that these 
are inconsistent with the ci^XXorpt^W *ai itfpoi 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 wriri* /iov 
TO 9w/*a icai dovXaywy. That even the regenerate may have this 
mixed experience is thought to be proved, e.g. by Gal. v. 17. 

Clearly there is a double strain of language. The state of things 
described is certainly a conflict in which opposite forces are struggling 
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 
Christians. In that sense there can be little doubt that the 
experience described may fairly come within it. 

But on the other hand, the higher stages of the spiritual life seem 
to be really excluded. The sigh of relief in ver. 25 marks a dividing 
line 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 
distinguished, (i) the life of unconscious morality (ver. 9), happy, 
but only from ignorance and thoughtlessness ; (ii) then die 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 
collision 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 inter 
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. St. Paul, it is true, regarded Christianity as operating 

186 i; TO THE ROMA: [VII. 7-25. 

a change in man. But here, whether the moment described is 
before or after the embracing of Christianity, in any case abstr 
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. 25 is there a single expression used 
belongs to Christianity. And the use of 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 ; t 
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 
:Iy wrung from the anguish of direct personal experience, 
: 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, hut 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 ti 
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 especi 
the period before his Conversion. It was then that the po\\ 
ness of the Law to do anything but aggravate sin was brought 
home to him. And all his experience, at whatever date, - 
struggle of the natural man with .<m is here gathered 

together and concentrated in a single portraiture. It would 
obviously be a mistake to apply a generalized experience like 
this too rigidly. The process described comes to differerr 
at different times and in different degrees; to o: to an- 

other later; in one man it would lead up to Chri 
another it might follow it; in one <: quick and sudden, 

in another the slow growth of years. V : lay down any 

rule. In any case it is the mark of a genuine faith to be able to 
say with the Ajostlc, 'Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 
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 
v suitable ; is the true conJuuion to 

VII. 7-25.] LAW AND SIN 187 

Sf. PauTs View of tlu Law. 

It was in his view of the Mosaic Law that St. Paul roust have 
seemed 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 
tly 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 
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 
tba: 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 
facing 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 dearly. 

The doubts began, as we have seen, in psychological experience. 
With the best will in the world St. Paul had found that really to 
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 


ended ; it gave no help towards the performance of that which it 
required. Nay, by a certain strange pt : human nature, 

it seemed actually to provoke to disobedi 
that a thing was forbidden seemed to make its a* 11 the 

greater (Rom. vii. 8). And so the last state was worse than the 
The one sentence in which St. Paul sums up his experience 
of Law is &A W Vyi*K7i aitapriat (Rom. iii. 20). Its effect 
therefore was only to increase the condemnation : it multipl; 
(Rom. v. 20); it worked wrath (Rom. iv. 15); it brought 
r 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 
practice of those who lived under it. The Jews were at th 
of all mankind in their privileges, but morally they wer 
better than the Gentiles. In the course of his travels S: 
led to visit a number of the scattered colonies of Jews, 
he compares them with the Gentiles he can only turn upon them 
^ irony (Rom. ii. 1 7-29). 

The truth must be acknowledged ; as a system, Law of 

kind had failed. The breakdown of the Jewish Law was 
most complete just because that law was the best It ste- 
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, &A xW n>i*xm V, 

Clearly the fault of all this was not with the Law. Th< 
lay in the miserable weakness of human tuiurc (R 
The Law, as a code of commandments, did all that -ended 

to do. But it needed to be supplemented. And it was jr. 
supplementing which Ch: r night, and l>\ 

the Law in its true light and in its right place in the evolution of 
the Dr. 1 sees spread before him the whole ex- 

panse of history iividing 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. tl en by 

God from Sinai. It was not to be supposed that this gift of law 
increased the sum of human happiness. Rather the co; 
In the infancy of the w< : the infancy of the 

there was a blithe unconsciousness of r npulse 

was followed wherever it led ; the primrose path of cnjm 

DO dark shadow cast ov v was this dark shadow. 

In proportion as it became stricter, it deepened the gloom. If 
law had been kept, or where law was kept, it brou 
a new kind of happiness; but to a serious spirit like 
it seemed as if the law was never kept never satisfactorily 


kept at all. There was a Rabbinical commonplace, a stern 
rule of self-judgement, which was fatal to peace of mind: 'Who- 
soever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, 
he is become guilty of all* (Jas. ii. 10; cf. Gal. iii. 16; Rom. 
x. 5). Any true happiness therefore, any true relief, must be 
sought elsewhere. And it was this happiness and relief which 
St. Paul sought and found in Christ. The last verse of ch. vii 
marks the point at which the great burden which lay upon ths 
conscience rolls a\\ay; and the next chapter begins with an 
uplifting of the heart in recovered peace and serenity ; ' There is 
therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.' 
Taken thus in connexion with that new order of things into 
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 bripht 
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 (rXot yap 

fofAov Xptorir tit durnuxrvriji' itan\ rp irtartvonri Rom. X. 4) ; and 

his own pages reflect, better than any other, the new hopes and 
energies by which it was succeeded. 


VIII. 1-4. The result of Christ's interposition is to 
dethrone Sin from its tyranny in the human heart, and to 
instal in its stead the Spirit of Christ. Thus what the 
Law of Moses tried to do but failed^ the Incarnation has 

1 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 


take upon Him that same human nature with all its attributes 
except sin: in that nature He died to free us from sin: a: 
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 S; 

1 ff. This chapter is, as we have seen, an expansion of X" 
e*y to *li77oO XpMrrot TOV Kvpiov tyi in the last verse of 
describes the innermost circle of the Christian Life from its begin- 
ning to its end that life of which the Apostle speaks else 
(Col. iii. 3) as 'hid with Christ in God.' li \u>rks gradually up 
through the calm exposition and pastoral entreaty of 
the more impassioned outlook and deeper introspection of vv. 18-30, 
and thence to the magnificent climax of vv. 31-39. 

There it evidence that Marcion retained w. i-t i of this chapter, probably 
with no very noticeable variation from the text which has come down to us 
(we do not know which of the two competing reading* he had in v 
TcrtullUn leaps from viii 1 1 to x. a, implying that much was cut out, but 
we cannot determine how much. 

1. Kardxpipa. One of the formulae of Justification : *or 
and KoriupijMi are correlative to &W<m, 6Wfia ; both sets' of 
phrases being properly forensic Here, however, the phrase roir 
V X. X which follows shows that the initial stage in tl. 
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 
condemnation, secured by a process explained more fully 

3 (cf. vi. 7-10). The gar&xpuns which used to fall upon the 
sinner now falls upon his oppressor 

<rdpa mptiraTovaxv, dXAd na-rA wvrifta. An interpolation 
introduced (from ver. 4) at two steps: the first clause jn) ar4 ottpco vpra- 
Townr in A D* i lias. Chrys. ; the second 

clause oXA* mi 0> in the maw of later authorities D- E K L P Ac, ; 
the older uncials with the Egyptian and Et hiopic Versions, the Latin Version 
, ; .>,-.. :. ! pvfap OrfMB UM !::- ; s \ ' nth- entwy dialogue attri- 
bated to him, Athanasius and others omit both, 

2. & *6>os roG nMu^aros = the authority exercised by the S 
We have had the same somewhat free use of H^O in : ; 

chapt< .-36 vopot rov WK>, 6 Hjpot r^f 4fuipr< 

longer a ' code ' but an authority producing r 
as would be produced by a code. 

TO n^Jfioros Tr|f IWT|S. The gen. expresses the ' effect wrought ' 
(Gif.), but it also expresses more : tbe Spirit brings life because it 
essentially is life. 


lv Xpurrw'iijaou goes with qXvcVp<r : the authority of the Spirit 
operating through the union with Christ, freed me, &c. For the 
phrase itself see on ch. vi. 1 1 

^XvfpKr |M. A small group of important authorities (MBFG, 
m I'esh , Tcrt i/a vet fotitts a/a Chrys. todd.) has )*t*$ip*oiv ot. The 
combination of K B with Latin and Svriac authorities shows that thU reading 
must be extremely early, going back to the time before the Western text 
diverged from the main body. Still it can hardly be right, as the second 
person is nowhere suggested in the context, and it is more probable that o 
is only a mechanical repetition of the last syllable of 4*'*ty" (). 
Dr. Hort suggests the omission of both pronouns ($/ioi also being found \ 
and although the evidence for this is confined to some MSS. of Arm. (to 
which Dr. Hort would add 'perhaps* the commentary of Origen as repre- 
sented by Rufmus, but this is not certain), it was a very general tmitocy 
among scribes to supply an object to verbs originally without one. We do 
not expect a return to first per*. sing, after roiV Jr X. 1., and the scanty 
evidence for omission may be to some extent paralleled, e.g. by that for the 
omission of ipiprfou in iv. i. for tl yi in v. 6. or for x^ptr r$ ey in vil a 5. 
But we should hardly be justified in doing more than placing /M in brackets. 

dvo TOU *o>ou rrjs dfiopTiaf lea! TOO Qav&TW = the authority 
exercised by Sin and ending in Death: see on vii. 23, and on 
6 >dp. T. imvfi. above. 

3. T& ydp dSuVaroy TOU ro*|iou. 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,' 
Ac. It seems, however, somewhat better to regard the words in 
apposition not as nom. but as accus. 

A most accomplished scholar, the late Mr. James Riddell, in his * Digest 
of 1'latonic Idioms' (TJkf Apolo& of Plato, Oxford, 1877, p. laa), 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 Jvi rovrmt rdr a&o$wa, draytdfa 
wpoofrW** .TA. Cf. Soph. 0. r. 603 aJ rwrf f Aryxor . . . if*w, and 
the Adverbs 4wf" d*/K t^r vpvnj*, &c. (it) Thev represent, by Appo- 
sition or Substitution, the stntetut itself. To say, that they are Cognate 
Accusatives, or in Apposition with the (nnexpreaied) 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 Ttuatt. given above is as clear 
as any.] This seems to criticize by anticipation the view of Va., who MfiPli 
rd dw. as accus. but practically explains it as in apposition to a cognate 
accus. which is not cxptcastd : The impossible thing of the Law . . . Cod 
[effected ; that is He] condemned tin in the flesh.' It is true that an apt 
parallel is quoted from a Cor. vi. 13 r^r M ovri^r dmjufffi'av *Aarvv*rr 
mi itfttit : bat this would seem to come under the same rule. The argument 
that if rd dftvr. had been accus. it would probably have stood at the end of 


the sentence, like ri^ Xo^yurV Xor/Mi<u> l^ in Rom. xii. I, appear* to be 
refuted by rOr aAo*ra in Tkttut. abov, 
while recognizing the acca*. DM (f lix. 9, p. 669 E. T.), items t 
So too Mey. Upt Ac 

(2) Is rA Mi*, active or passive? Gif., after Fri. (cf. also Win. 
ut tuf.) contends for the former, on the ground that if ddtY 
passive it should be followed by r$ 4f not rov rf/iov. Tertullian 
(Df fits. Cam. 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 rdpov as practically equivalent to ry yrfpy: 
quod . 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 TO 

SdvK active: &owtp yap q aptr) loiq <pvan iff^vpd, ovrw no, 
ra oar avrqt ao6it*i gal dovmra . . . rov rotovrov foftov q tpvaif a&warot 
<<m. Similarly Cyr.-Alex. (who finds fault with the structure of the 
sentence) : rA doMum*, rovr<m ro do6<*<>iv. Vulg. and Cod. Clarom. 
are slightly more literal: quod impossibile erat legit. The gen. 
mean that there was a spot within the range or domain of Law 
marked 'impossible/ a portion of the field which it could not 
control. On the whole the passive sense appears to us to be more 
in accordance with the Biblical use of dow. and also to give a some- 
what easier construction : if r6 abvv. is active it is not quite a simple 
case of apposition to the sentence, but must be explained as a son 
of nom. absolute (' The impotence of the Law being this that/ &c., 
Gif.), which seems rather strained. But it must be confess 
the balance of ancient authority is strongly in favour of this way of 
taking the words, and that on a point the natural interpretation of 
language where ancient authority is especially valuable. 

An induction from the use of LXX and N. T. would seem to show that 
dJfroroi masc. and fern, was always active (so twice in N. T., twenty-two 
times [3 vr. 11.] in LXX Wisd. xvii. 14 rj)r d*urar <rrm rvcra a2 tt 
aJwrfrov {* jxr JA**rar, being alone somewhat ambiguous and 
peculiar , while dMr. neat, was always passive (so fire times in LXX, seven 
in N. T.\ It is true that the exact phrase ro dJvroTor does not occur, but 
in Lake xriii. 27 we have rd o4foara vapd d*Ydtnroir owara <<m wapd T ef . 

<?M: not * because' (Fri. \\ Alf), but 'in whk: 

' wherein/ defining the point in which the ini[>os 
of the Law consisted. For tprft'i** haryt <rap<or comp. vii. 22, 23. 
Law points the \\ay to what is right, but frail humanity is 
tempted and falls, and so the Law's good counsels come to nothing. 

TOT JOVTOU uloV. The emphatic favrov brings out the com:: 
of nature between the Father and the Son : cf. rov tdi'ov t/lov vcr. 32 ; 

roC vfcw TV dywnjt avrov Col. i. 

* The text is not free fiom suspicion. 


aapK&$ AfiapTiaf : the flesh of Christ is ' like ' ours 
uch as it U ll<>h ; Mike.' and only Mike,' because it is not 
sinful: osUndit nos quidem habert carntm peccati, Ftlium vero Dei 
sintililudinem habuisst carnis fxccati, non carnem fxcfiili (Qi\%.~\a\.). 
derer and Holsten contend that even the flesh of Christ was 
:1 flesh/ i.e. capable of sinning ; but they are decisively refuted 
by Gif. p. 165. Neither the Greek nor the argument requires thai 
the flesh of Christ shall be regarded as sinful flesh, though it is 
His Flesh His Incarnation which brought Him into contact 
\\ith Sin. 

nal ircpl Afioprias. 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 factus tst Christus* et oblatus sit pro 
purgatione peccalorum, omms Scriptural testantur . . . Per hone ergo 
host i am farm's SUM, quae dicitur pro pcccato, 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 vpi 
Aftapr. 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. 

KOT^KPI^ TV dfiapTiar iv TTJ aapiu. 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 or.ce and for ever 
broke off all contact with Sin, which could only touch Him through 
mire. Henceforth 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-n, shows that this summary 
condemnation of Sin takes place in the Death of Christ, and not 
in His Life ; so that KarKp<i 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, 42 (' the men of Nineveh shall rise up in the 
judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it/Ac.) mup*w 
has this sense of 'condemn by contrast/ but there is a greater fulness 
of meaning here. 

The ancients rather min the mark in their comments on this pawage. 
Thus Orig.-Ut damnavit /<*/*, hot tst, fugavit fetcahim et abituli: 



(con <>tt, 'effectually condemned to ft* to expel*): but it does 

not appear how thi* was done. The commoner view it baied on Cory*,. 
who claims for the incarnate Christ a threefold victory over Sin, as not 
yielding to it, as overcoming it (in a forensic sense), and convicting it of 

u* in handing over to death His own sinless body as if it were tinfnl. 

arly Euthym..Ztg. and others in part. Cyr.-Alex. explains the victory 
of CbrUt over Sin as passing over to the Christian through the indwelling 
of the Holy Ghost and the Eucharist (B.A r*r ju*ri9> tUoyia,). 
at least right in so far as it lays stress on the identification of the Christian 
Hut the victory over sin does not rest on the mere fact of 
inlessness. but on the absolute severance from sin involved in the Death 
upon the Cross and the Resurrection. 

cV rfj aapiu goes \vi:h KorYc/xw. The Death of Christ has the 
efficacy which it has because it is the death of means 

of death He broke for ever the power of Sin upon Him (vi. 10 . 
Heb. vii. 16; x. 10; i IVt. iii. 18); but through the mystical 
union with Him the death of His Flesh means the death of ours 

4. TO oiKcu'wfia: 'the justifying,' W.c.. ':!.. justification,' Rhem. 
Vulg. iustificatio ; Tyn. is better, 'the rightewesnes requyred 
of (i.e. by) the la we.' < already seen that the proper sense 

of &oMpa is ' that which is laid down as right,' ' that which has the 
force of right ' : hence it = here the statutes of Uie Law, as righteous 
statutes. Comp. on i. 32 ; ii. 26. 

It is not clear how Chrys. ( - Euthym.-Zig.) gets for &aijia the tease 
rd rAof , 

rots firj naia aapxa ircpivarouaiK : * 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. 


VIII. 5-11. Compare the two states. The life of self- 

indulgence involves the breach of God's law, hostility to 

and death. Submission to the Spirit :th it 

tnu life and tfu sense of rec /. You therefore, 

if you are sincere Christians, have in the / ./ the 

fledge of immorta. 

'These two modes of life arc directly opposed to one another, 
roan 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 le: 


guide them fix their thoughts and affections on things spiritual. 
They arc 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. 

7 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. lo But if Christ, 
through His Spirit, thus keeps touch with your 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. tporouaiy: 'set their minds, or their hearts upon.' 
denotes the whole action of the <#w, i.e. of the affections and will 

1 as of the reason; cf. Matt. xvi. 23 w 4>pomr ra roO eor, 
AAa TO rwr artp^Ko* : Rom. xii. 1 6 ; Phil. iii. 19 ; Col. iii. a, Ac. 

6. +p4"f)pa : the content of </>/x>u>, the general bent of thought 
and motive. Here, as elsewhere in these chapters, <rorf is that side 
of human nature on which it is morally weak, the side on which 
man's physical organism leads him into sin. 

Odraros. Not merely is the ^pdnj/ia rip <rap*cot death in f/fff, 
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. 

m. I" contrast with the state of things just described, where 
the whole bent of the mind is towards the tilings of the Spirit, not 

o a 


there ' life ' in the tense that a career so ordered will issue in 
i 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. 

a striking presentation of the Biblical doctrine of Life Me ! 
jfi iMturu, pp. 98 ff., iSoff. The following may be quoted 
sense of life which Israel enjoyed was, however, be* expressed in the choice 
of the name "life" as a designation of that higher communion with God 
which grew forth in due time as the fruit of obedience and faith. The 
nalmist 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. 08). Add St Paul's doctrine of the in- 
dwelling Spirit, and the intensity of his language becomes intelligible. 

= as we have seen not only (i) the state of reconciliation 
with God, but (u) the sense of that reconciliatio: 
a feeling of harmony and tranquillity over the whole n. 

7. This verse assigns the reason why the 'mind of the flesh is 
death/ at the same time bringing out the further contrast lx 

the mind of the flesh and that of the Spirit suggested by the 
description of the latter as not only ' life ' but ' peace/ 
of the fle*h is the opposite of peace ; it involves hostility to God, 
declared by disobedience to His Law. This disobedience 
natural and inevitable consequence c : . the flesh. 

8. oi W : not as AV. 'so then/ as if it marked a consequence or 
conclusion from \ hut 'And': ver. 8 merely repeats the 
substance < 'iijhtly different form, no >stract 
but personal. The way is thus paved for a more i! cation 
to the readers. 

9. cV 9opKi, . . . iv vu|um. Observe how the thought n. 
gradually upwards, fboi V crape* = ' to be under the domination of 
[the] flesh ' ; corresponding to this mu v trw i'/Mm = ' to be under 
the domination of fine] spirit/ i.e. in th- 

Just as in the one case the man takes 
bias from the lower part of his nature, so in the other case he 
it from the highest part of his nature. But that highest part, the 
nwvfui, is what it is by virtue of its affinity to God. It is essentially 
that part of the man which holds communion with G< 
the Apo&tle is naturally led to think of the Divine influc; 

on the inw/io. He rises almost impe rough the 

ravpa of man t< > . i of God From thinkii 

which the wm^a in its best moods acts upon the charac 
passes on to that influence from without which keeps it in its best 
nuxxk ta what he means when he s.. 

:. ;;v V denotes a settled permanent ; 
influence. Such an influence, from th- 
assumes to be inseparable from the higher life of the C 


The way in which V aapul is opposed to V nwi^um, and further 
the way in which V mvpon 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 cf the 
varied expressions which the Apostle uses in such a sense as to 
infringe upon the distinctness of the human and Divine personalities. 
The one thing which is characteristic of personality is distinctness 
from all other personalities ; and this must hold good even of 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 i X/*<rry 'ii^oC in vi. 1 1 ; and for the anti- 
thesis of <rd/> and irwipa the small print note on vii. 14. 

cl W TI. 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,' Ac. 

There are some good remarks on the grammar of the conditional clauses 
in this verse and in TV. 10, 25, in Barton, M. and T. f ft 469, 242, 261. 

OUK fortr afrrou : he is no true Christian. This amounts to 
saying that all Christians 'have the Spirit' in greater or less 

10. ci S Xpioros. It will be observed that St. Paul uses the 
phrases nui/m eov, nm>a XpurroO, and Xpurrdr in these two verses 
as practically interchangeable. On the significance of this in its 
bearing upon the relation of the Divine Persons see below. 

TO pi? awfio rcKpor Si' dpapTiar. 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 imputalivt, in baptism (vi. a if.), as a consequence of 
sin which made this implication of the body in the Death of Christ 
necessary* (Lips.). But in the next verse, to which this clearly 
points forward, the stress lies not on death imputed but on physical 
lio.uh. (ii) 4 The body is dead myslict, as no longer the instrument 
of sin ( sans tncrgie produt trice dts acle* charntls\ because of sin 
to which it led ' (Oltr.). This is open to the same objection as th 
:th the addition that it does not give a satisfactory explanation 
of &' fyapriav. (i\\) It remains to take wpoV in the plain sense of 

n,S M TO THE ROMA [VIII 10, 11 

physical death/ and to go back for &V <W"nr not to vi. a ff. but 

. - ff., so that it would be the sin of Adam and his dcscei 
(Aug. Gif. Go.) perpetuated to the end of time. Oltr. objects that 
MKpof in this case ought to be dnrroV, but the use of *<tp>* gives 
a more vivid and pointed contrast to C7 ' a dead thing/ 

TO & >o|ia r,wr) Sia otKaioaunf)!'. Clearly the r. meant 

is the human tr< ; ropcrties of life infused into it 

by the presence of the Divine m*i>a. C7 is to l>c taken in a wide 
sense, but with especial stress on the futu i life, ow OUOMO- 

0ip is also to be taken in a wide sense : it includes all the senses 
h righteousness is brought home to man, first imputed, then 
imparted, then practised 

11 St. Paul is fond of arguing from the R i of Christ 

to the resurrection of the Christian (see p. 1 1 7 sup.). (. 
drrapxn (i Cor. xv. 2O, 23 : the same power which raise 
raise us (i Cor. vi. 14; a Cor. iv. 14); Phil. iii. 21 ; i Thess. 
iv. 14). But nowhere is the argument given in so full and complete 
a form as here. The link which connects tht 
and makes him participate in Christ's resurrection, is the possession 
of His Spirit (cp. i Thess. iv. 14 roi* M/u7&War ota rov 'Irja 


Sid TOO ifoticouKTos auTou nnu'fiaros. The authorities for the two 
readings, the gen. as above and the ace. & r6 fVoucoGr avrov i 
seem at first sight very evenly divided. For gen. we have a long 
line of authorities headed by H A C, Clem.-Alex. For a 
a still longer line headed by B D, Orig. I 

In follcr detail the evidence is as follows: 

&k roC Jrourovrror .v.A. A C P* a/., (odd, ap. I's.-Ath. Dial. e. Mcxtd<m ., 
Boh. Sab. Harcl. Arm. Acth , Clem hod. (eoM. Graff. 

kcor*m ab Epiphanio citatorum) Cyr.-Hieros (odd. plur. tt */. I 
Bas 4/4 Chrys. ad i Cor. xv 

&a TO Jrourov. V &c., codd. af. \\ -Ath. Dial. (. 

M<uedon.\ Valg. Peth. (Sah. (odd.}; Ircn.-bt On 
twrr. tlav. it (odd. Kpipha. * part* a/. *. cod. 

Did-lat. umtl {inttrf. Hieron.) Chrys. ad be. Tcrt. Hil. al /. 
\Vhen these lists are exami: '< seen at once that the authorities 

for the cen. are predominantly Alexandrian, and those for the ace. predomi- 
nantly Western. The question is how far in each case tin* main body is 
reinforced by more independent evidence. From thb point of riew a some- 
what increased importance attaches to Hard. Arm. Hippol. Cyr.-i 
lias, on the de of the gen. and to B, Orig. on the side of the ac, 
testimony of Method, b not quite clear. The first place in wl. 
passage occurs is a Quotation from Origen : here the true reading is probably 
id t* Jrourovr, as cUewhcre in that w ntcr. The other two places belong to 
Methodius him* >o the Slavonic version has in both cases ace ; 

the Greek preserved in Eptphanins has in one instance ace, in the other gen. 
It is perhaps on the whole probab. d. himself read ace. and that 

gen. it doc to Euiphanius, who undoubtedly was in the habit of uv 
In balancine the opposed evidence we remember that there i* a distinct 
rn infusion in both B and O : , o that the ace 

VIII. 5 11.] I.I1-L IN THE SPIRIT 199 

may rest not on the authority of two families of text, but only of one. On 
the other hud. to Alexandria we roost add Palestine, which would count 
for something, though not very much, as being within the sphere of Alexan- 
drian influence, and Cappadoda. which would count for rather more ; bat 
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 ot the orthodox controversial Ut in the Dial. t. Matttbniot, that 
gen. is found in * all the ancient copies ' ; the author of the dialogue allow* 
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 o/L/e t 
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. 

The 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. a), in relation to Prophecy (i Sam. x. 10; xi. 6 ; 
xix. ao, 23, Ac.), and in relation to the religious life of the individual 
(I's. li. ii) and of the nation (Is. Ixiii. 10 f.). It was understood 
thai 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. i. 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 |iiiiiMflri 
in which he uses precisely the same language of the Spirit of God 
and of God Himself, so also there are many others in which he 
uses the same language of the Spirit of Christ and of Christ 
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. n compared 
with ver. 6) and of Christ (Eph. iv. 1 1 compared with i 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. iil 17): a passage 
which has a seemingly remarkable parallel in Ignat. Ad Magn. xv 
iv Iponotf 6fov, manHMKN adidxptrov mrv/ia, of '<m 'I 

200 i: TO Ti< [VIII. 5 11 

\pi<rr6t (where however Dp. Light foot makes the antecedent 
not I*CM<I but the whole sentence ; his note should be read). 
key to these expressions is really supplied by the passage bet 
from v. pears that the communication of Christ to the soul 

And, strange to say, we 

find this language, which seems so individual, echoed not only possibly 

itius but certainly by St John. As Mr. Gore puts it (Bamflon 

132), ' In the coming of the Spirit the Son too was to 

come ; in the coming of the Son, also the Fatl; r, " H-: will come 

unto you," u I will come unto you," " We will come unto you " are 

interchangeable phrases ' (cf. St. John xiv. 16-23). 

is the first point wt. be borne clearly in min 

their relation to the human soul the Father and the Son act through 
and are represented by the Holy Spirit. And yet the > 
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 i; 
same sort of way in which the spirit of man is related to the man. 
In this very chapter the Holy Spirit is represented as standing over 
against the Father and pleading with Him (Rom. viii. 26 f. 
a number of other actions which we should call ' persona 
ascribed to Him 'dwelling' (w. 9, n), ' leading* (ver. 141. 
'witnessing' (ver. 16), 'assisting' (ver. 26). In the last verse of 
a Corinthians St. Paul distinctly coordinates the Holy 
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 x 
The language of identity is only partial, and is con! 
strict limits. Nowhere does St. Paul give the name of ' Spirit ' to 
Him who died upon the Cross, and rose again, and will 
once more to judgement. There is a method running through the 
language of both Apostles. 

The doctrine of the Holy Tri ally an extension, 

a natural if not necessary consequence, of the doctrine of the 
Incarnation. As soon as it came to I realized that the 

Son of God had walked the earth as an individual man u 
men it was inevitable that there should be recognized a dis- 
tinction, and st: in human language could only 
be described as 'personal' in the Godhead. But if thcr< 
a twofold distinction, then it was \ accordance with the 
body of ideas dcriv. to say also a threefold 
dboM tfak 

iff to observe that in the presentation of this last 
step in the doctrine there is a difference betwe< .1 and 

SL John corresponding to a in the c.\ of the 


two Apostles. In both cases it is this actual experience which 
gives the standpoint from which they write. St. John, uho 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 o: 

mother Paraclete.' St. Paul, who had not had the same 
privileges, but who was conscious that from the moment of his 
vi.-ion upon the road to Damascus a new force had entered into 
his soul, as naturally connects the force and the vision, and sees in he feels to be the work of the Spirit the work also of the 
exalted Son. To St. John the first visible Paraclete and the 
second invisible could not but be different; to St. Paul the in- 
visible influence which wrought so powerfully in him seemed to 
stream directly from the presence of Him whom he had heard 
from heaven call him by his name. 


VIII. 12-17. Live then as men bound for such a destiny, 
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 tlie glory to 
which Christ, your Elder Brother, has gone. 

"Such a destiny has its obligations. To the flesh you owe 
nothing. I3 If you live as it would have you, you mpst 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. 

14 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 LBV. 
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. u Two voices are distinctly heard : 

202 TO Till. ROMANS [VIII. 12-15. 

one we know to be that of the Holy Spirit ; the other is th< 

of our own consciousness. And both bear witness to ihc same 

at we are children of God "But to be a ch 
something more. The child will one day inherit 1 
possessions. So the Christian will one day enter upoi. 
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 glor . 
necessary first to share in the sufferings which lead to it. 

12. Lipsius would unite w. 12, 13 closely with the foregoing; 
and no doubt it is true that these verses o; n the 

conclusion of the previous paragraph thrown into a hortatory 
form. Still it is usual to mark this transition to exhortation by 
a new paragraph (as at vi. 12); and although a new idea 
of hcirship) is introduced at vcr. 14, that idea is only subor- 
dinate to the main argument, the assurance which the Spirit gives 
of future life. See also the note on ov in x. 14. 

i.< -rrvtofian. The antithesis to <rdp seems to show that this 
as in w. 4, 5, 9, the human irm>i, but it is the human 
m*vpa in direct contact with the Di 

TUS irpdgci? : of wicked doings, as in Luke xxiii. 

14. The phrases which occur in this section, iim'/iori eoO 
ayotrrtu, TO UiHvpa wmtaprvpii rtf invi^um WIMP, are clear pro 

the other group of phrases V mv/i<m &*, or TO rw^n <"; (CMMMI) 
V wl* are not intended in any way to impair the esserr. 
ness and independence of the human personality. There is no 
' 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 

influence may be still more subtle and penetrative, but it is 
not different in kind. 

oiol ecoG. The difference between vW and T'W appears to be 
that whereas Woor denotes the natural relationship of child to 
parent, vide implies, in addition to this, the recognized status and 
legal privileges reserved for sons. Cf. Westcott on St. John i. 1 2 
and the parallels there noted. 

15. irftCfia SovXci'at. This is another subtle variation in the 
use of *>i>a. From meaning the human spirit under ti 
fluence of the Divine Spirit mvC/ia comes to mean a par 
state, habit, or temper of the lit:- 

i frX*NT<tfv I 4, 30 J irr. atrj&at 1 m>. woprtiat 

Hos. i ' more often as due to sujK-rnatural influence, good 

: (irr. aot 4 , nv. rrAai^trfwt Is. xix. 1 4 J . 

pt'<r<f Is. xxviii. 6; trr. Kara*i'c Is. xxix. to (= Rom. XL 8); 


try. xdpirof o< oucrtpfioD Zech. xii. IO ; vr. cur&Muif Luke xiu. II ; 
w. fciX/at 2 Tim. i. 7 ; TO irr. T^C wXavqt i Jo. iv. 6). So here 
**. dovXciar = such a spirit as accompanies a state of slavery, such 
a servile habit as the human *nv/ui assumes among slaves. This 
was not the temper which you had imparted to you at your bap- 
tism (t\ufrn). The slavery is that of the Law : cf. Gal iv. 6, 7, 
24, v. i. 

miXi? cfc +400K : ' so as to relapse into a state of fear/ The 
candidate for baptism did not emerge from the terrors of the 

iily to be thrown back into them again. 

uioOcaias : a word coined, but rightly coined, from the classical 
phrase vlot n'&cr&u (0ror viJr). 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 Studia 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. 

'A00&, 6 wcmip. 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 

in both cases his familiar tongue. Lightfoot (/for. Heb. on 
Mark xiv. 36) thinks that in the Gospel the word 'A/30a only was 
used by our Lord and 6 nan?p added as an interpretation by 

irk, 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 all 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. aur& T& nrcG|ia : see on ver. 14 above. 

<ni|i)iapTup<i : 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 data are referred partly to the man himself, partly 
to the Spirit of God moving and prompting him. 

17. KXriporojioi. The idea of a Aijpo>jua i* ta ^ cn U P an( * 
develooed in N. T. from O.T. and Apocr. (Ecclus, Pt. So/. t 
4 Ezr.). It is also prominent in Philo, who devotes a whole 

2C4 IE ROMA [VIII. 18, 19. 

< to the question (' dninarum htrts sit 

-leaning originally (i) the simple possession of il 
Land, it came to mean (ii) its permanent and assured possession 
(Ps. xxv [xxiv]. 13; xxxvi [xxxvii]. 9, n &c.) ; hence (iii) 
specially the secure possession won by the Mess 
Ixi. 7 ; and so it became (iv) a symbol of a ic blessings 

v. 5; xix. 29; xxv. 34, Ac.). Philo, after his manner, 
makes the word denote the bliss of the soul \vhcn freed from the 

It i> an instance of the unaccountable inequalities of usage that wl 

rable times i *r<W 

occurs only fitjp times (once in Symmacbos) ; in N. T. there is much greater 
equality (.A^o^fr eighteen, *\if**opa fourteen, t^fxrifto, fifteen). 

Our Lord had described Himself as the : 
in the parable o: ked Husbandmen ( 

would show that the idea of Ai;/woM*a received its full Cbi 
adaptation directly from Him (cf. also Matt. xxv. 34). 

clwcp aupwdUrxcfMr. St. Paul seems here to be reminding his 
hearers of a current Christian saying: cf. a Tim <or4f 4 

Xo'yot, El yap ouwuitiofofuv tat ovfqcro/ifr* ' viro;iopfr ni trvn&aoi- 

\<C*ropt. 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 th 
of Christians must conform); cf. p. 196 above, and Dr. Hort's 
:ht Truth, and the Life there referred to. For uw/> see 
on iii. 30. 


VIII. 18-25. What though the path 
through suffering? The suffering and the gL>ry alii 
parts of a great cosmical movea 

creation joins with man. As it shared the results of his 
fall, so also :</// // sha 'icm. fts f>au. 

pangs of a new birth (w. 18-22). 

v tlie mute creation, we Christians too : fully 

for our d<. Our attitude is one of hope and 

possession (vv. 23- 

:i.u of that ? For the sufferings which we have to undergo 
in this phase of our career I count not worth a thou 
of that dazzling splendour which \\iil one day bn ;ik through 
the clouds upon us. lf For the sons of Gc*l 

forth revealed in the glories of their bright inheritance. And for 


that consummation not they alone but the whole irrational creation, 
both animate and inanimate, waits with eager longing; like 
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 pan and cries out in its pain. But 
where there is travail, there must needs also be a birth. 

53 Our own experience points to the same conclusion. True 
that in those workings of the Spirit, the charisma/a 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. 

"Hope is the Christian's proper attitude. We were sated 
indeed, the groundwork of our salvation was laid, when we became 
..ins. But was that salvation in possession or in prospect? 
Certainly in prospect. Otherwise there would be no room for 
hope. For what a man seit already in his hand he docs not hope 
for as if it were future. n But in our case we do not see, and we. 
do hope; therefore we also wait for our object with steadfast 

18. Xoyilopai yap. 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 tons of God. The thought of these 
privileges suddenly recalls to him the contrast of the sufferings 
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 

206 > THE ROMA [VIII. 18, 19. 

is nothing short of an universal law that suffering 
marks the road to glory. All the suffering, all the imperf< 

unsatisfied aspiration and longing of which the traces are so 
abundant in external nature as well as in man, do but p 
to a time when the suffering shall cease, the imperfection be re- 
moved and the frustrated aspirations wned and sat: 
and this time coincides with the glorious consummation 
awaits the Chris 

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 ;jgs of the new 

birth, the entrance upon their glorified condition of the rise: 
of God. 

Xoyilopcu : here in its strict sense, 'I calculate/ 'weigh me; 
' count up on the one side and on the other.' 

a$ia . . . irpoV In Plato, Gorg. p. 47 lave oC&Vroc 2< 

vpot njr aXifata* i so that with a slight ellipse owe o<a . . . vp>t n^> 
foav will = ' not worth (considering) in comparison with the glory/ 
Or we may regard this as a mixture of two constructions, ( 
~>ia iTjt Mi7t, i. e. ' not an equivalent for the glory ' ; comp 

I 909 M rijuoc oi'c <7tor avnjf (sc. rijv cro^iat) tar. 
ovocnor \6yov ata irpot r^r &oar : comp. ! 
irpln tor airor ; 

The thought has a near parallel in 4 Ezra rii. 3 IT. Compare (/..c 
following (rv. I a- 1 ; sun/ introitus kuitn satculi cut 

delenta ft laboriosi, pauci autem tt mali tt pericukrum fleni et fakrt 
magnc 9ftrt fmlti ; nam wtaiorit tattvli introitus tfalioti tt tt 

tt* immtrtoKtatufnittum. St rg* mm ngrtdunUt t ngrtui fuerimt- 
q*t vivunt august* tt wuta katt, MM ftUnmt red pert qua* tuxt rtf 
tusfi autem ftrtnt amrusta sperantu spatiota. Compare also the qo 
from the Talmud in Delitzsch ad I*. The question U askct i 
way to the world to come ? And the answer u, Through suffering. 

jUXXowrar : emphatic, ' is desOned to/ ' is certain to.' 
position of the word is the same as in Gal. . 1 serves to 

ust to rot' Kir coipov. 

oo^or : the heavenly brightness of Christ's appearing : see on 
iii. 23. 

cis V"* : lo reach and include us in its radiance. 
19. AwOKapa&OKia : . t. 1'lr.I. i. 2O Kara r^r aTroxapadoffuir col Airi&a 
MOV : the verb (nrocapadomcr occurs in A<; 
: . 7. and the subst. frequent. 

. s.v., an "n Phil. i. 20). A highly expressive 

word 4 to strain forward/ '. \\ith outstretched head. This 

sense is still further icd by th- . I. oiro- d- 

-.her things and concent: 

This passage ; especially % . ulared a considerable part in the 

..,!!:. . - ,, . :. ; II .; ' /-' mn //.;.-. vn. ;: .7. 

vin. 19.] i. in; IN THE SPIRIT 207 

: see on i. so. Here the sense is given by the 
context ; fj mW is set in contrast with the ' sons of God/ and 
from the allusion to the Fall which follows evidently refers to Gen. 
in. 1 7, 1 8 'Cursed is the ground for thy sake . . . thorns also and 
thistles shall it bring forth to thce.' 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 lace 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 mW, 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 rur 
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 surface as the seed-plot of life); 
(iii) the Apostle is rather taken out of the mental surroundings 
in which he moved than placed in them: see below on 'The 
Renovation of Nature/ 

The ancients generally take the passage as above (4 r<'<rir 1} 
expressly Eathym.-Zig ). Orig.-lat, as expressly, has creaturam titfote 
rationabiltm ; but he is qnite at fault, making TQ paT<u6njrt - the body.' 
Chrys. and Euthym.-Zig. call attention to the personification of Nature, 
which they compare to that in the Psalms and Prophets, while Diodoras of 
Tarsus refers the expressions implying life rather to the Powers (ford/im) 
which preside over inanimate nature and from which it takes its forms. The 
sense commonly given to fioTtuonyri is - 

uUr TOU 6cou. The same word airoKaXv^fu is 
applied to the Second Coming of the Messiah (which is also an 
Vt/>ama 3 Thcss. 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 ' (Wfo) both reflected and imparted. This revealing of 
the 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 dvocrfAi^ir : 4 Ezra xiii. 32 ft frit (umjunt hate, ft to*- 

timgmt sign* qua* out* osttndi tibi ft tune rtvelMtur jtlitts mtus f*tm 
vitfisti ui trirum ascendtittem ; ApK. Bar. xxxix. 7 ft frit, cum a/ftvftmjm 
vtrit ttmpus finis tins ut cadat, ht*t revdabitur principatiu Mestitu nut q*i 
si mi,' is tstfonlitl wVi, // cmm mtlattu fuerit eradicabit mttllitudintm ctn- 
gngationis tins (the Latin of this book, it will be remembered, is Ceriani's 
n from the Syriac, and not ancient like that of 4 Ezra). The object of 
the Messiah's appearing is the same as with St. Paul, to deliver creation 
trom its ills : 4 Ezra xiii. 26, 29 ifsf tst qutm totutroat AUusimw muftis 


ttmpnhu qui ftr stmttifium libtrMt creafuram snam tt if it disfcntt 

q*i tf dies Vfniunf, quango in 

tot iff lf*x. Bar. xxxii. 6 quattdo f*luru 

"i mam (- 4 Eira vii. 75 [Bendy] dome vttuamt Urn fora 
.tram rtmovart). The McnUh doe* not come 

loot no* pot trit qiiuque ntftr ftr ram vtitrt filittm muum 

t*/ eos qui cum eo s*ttt ttui in tern fort Jiti. He collect* ronn 
doable multitude, confuting partly of the ten tribes who bad been 
way into captirily, and partly of thotc who were left in the Holy Land 
/.TT. u, 39ff.,48). 

dirico'xTai : another strong compound, where Aro- contains the 
same idea of ' conctntrated waiting ' as in doapooWa above. 

20. TTJ . . . |iT<u6TTjTi : /ummmjr narawnrrw* is the refrain of the 
Book of Ecclesiastcs (Eccl. i. 2, &c 

i a] cxliv [cxliii]. 4) : that is paroio* whicli <in7), 

'ineff^ does not reach its end' the opposite of 

: the word is therefore appropriately used of the di 
character of present existence, which nowhere reaches the perfection 
of which it is capable. 

uirerdyT) : by the Divine sentence which followed the Fall (Gen. 

oo x 4icouaa : not through its own fault, but through the fault of 
man, i. e. the Fall. 

8iA TO* uwordfarra : by reason of Him who subjected it/ i.e. not 
(Lips.); nor Adam (Chrys. a/.); nor the Devil 
(Go.), but (with most commentators, ancient as well as modern) 
God, by the sentence pronounced after the Fall It is no argument 
against this reference that the use of did with ace. in such .. 
nexion is rather unusual (so Lips.). 

<' Awioi qualifies vntrayif. Creation was made subject to 
vanity not simply and absolutely and there an ci 
that,' &c. the defects and degradation < 

at least left with the hope of rising to t). 

21. OTI. The majority of recent commentators make on (= 
define the substance of the hope just mentioned, and not (= ' be- 
cause') give a reason for it. The meaning 

the same, but this is the simpler way to .. 

iuTT] ^ ttn'ais: note : n the mute creation 

with them. 

dwA ri|t SouXci'as TTJS +6opas. &>iAi'at corresponds to vtnray^, the 
state of subjection < in to dissolution and decay, 

opposite to this is the full and lopment of all the powers 

he state of Wfi. 'G!< poor 

translation and docs not express the idea : Ufa ' the glor 
is the 
chara of the glory of the children of God/ 

22. oiSo^cr ydp introduces a fact wledge (though 


the apprehension of it may not have been so common as he 
assumes) to which the Apostle appeals. 

ao<7iW;i ttol ffurwfttVci. It seems on the whole best to take the 
<rw- in both instances as = 'together,' i.e. in all the parts of which 
creation is made up (so. Theod.-Mops. expressly: 0ocArm & 
tl-ntlv ort <rvprpwt>*>s rmoVucri/rcu roDro ira<ra 17 m'cw Ira TO wapa v<t<njv 
r& avri ytix<T0at o^ot'wr, nat^ixr'] rovrovt r^v w/jAr airairar ou%i>iaf 
alpi'urffai rij T** \vnijpi>* Kaprtplq). Oltr. gets out of it the sense of 
'inwardly* (= V OVTO), 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 (<> /*uW W, oAAu *ai avroi). The two verses must be 
kept apart. 

23. oo fid**)* W. Not only does nature groan, but we Christians 
also groan : our very privileges make us long for something more. 

ri)r dwopxV TOO rirco'paros : '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. 22 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 fT.). 
ul calls this a 'deliverance/ i.e. a deliverance from the 'ill- 
that flesh is heir to' : for <nroXvrp<m see on iii. 24. 

Aims : jj/wft is placed here by K A C 5. 47. 80, also by Tiscb. 
RV. and (in brackets) by \VH. 

oio0<ri'oK : see on ver. 15 above. Here v\o$. = the manifested, 
realized, act of adoption its public promulgation. 

24. TH y*P Airi&i ^awfrjfn*. 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 modems 
(including Gif. Go. Oltr. Mou. Lid.) take it as dat. modi, ' in hope 
were we saved ; ' the main ground being that it is more in accord- 
ance with the teaching of St. Paul to say that we were saved by 
faith, or from another point of view looking at salvation from the 
side of God 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 (?<rr & *umr Xtrtfo/MMM' vfr&rrwru, wpayparw 
fXryxoc ov XnropW), makes it practically equivalent to Hope. But 
that is just one of the points of distinction between Ep. to Heb. 


210 !E ROMA II. 24, 25. 

and St. Paul. In Ilcb. Faith is used somewhat vaguely of belief 
in God and in the fulfilment of His promises. In : is far 

more often Faith in Christ, the first act of accepting Chri 
(see p. 33 above). This belongs essentially to the past, and to the 
present as growing directly out of the past -n St. Paul 

comes to speak of the future he uses anoti 
doubt when we come to trace this to its origin it has its root in the- 
strong conviction of the Mcssiahship of Jesus and its consequences ; 
two terms are not therefore identical, and it is best to 
keep them distinct. 

Some recent Germans (Holsten, ' ;.s.) take the c! 

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 
attribute or characteristic of the Christian life, but not it 

Awis Si pXeiro^KT] : Arm here = * the thing hoped for,' j 
irrum = ' the thing created ' ; a very common usage* 

* yip pXiirn, -rt JX<{ ; This terse reading is found only in B 47 marg., 
which adds Ti oJUudr rfw ! X : it is adopted by K\ 

Recept. has [6 r*/> *AI'., T,.] r, a, [tarfM, of which rl alone fe 
found in Western authorities (D F G, Vnlg. Pesh. a/.), and rai alone in 
N*47*. IJoth RV. and \VH. gire a place in the margin to ri u i\*i{t t 
and rif oJ brojiJr [to^r with A 47 marg.\ 

25. The point of these two verses is that the attitude of hope, 
nctive of the Christian, implies that there is more in store 
for him than anything that is his already. 

constancy and fortitude under persecution, &c., 
pointing back to the ' sufferings' of ver. 18 (cf. on 
for the use of dia ii. 27). 

The Renovation of Nature. 

We have already quoted illustrations of St. Paul's language 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 I 
literature. To all of it this idea of a renovation of Nam 
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 
thingv re to come from the face of the Lord (Acts 

21). The expectation had its roots in the O.T., especi.i 
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 Is. 1 


be held to warrant most of the statements in the Apocrypha and 

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 moK&v+ts ri 
n'iif TOV GfoC : 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 
\\ith 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. 4 f.). 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, Altsyn. 
Theol p. 380 ff.; SchUrer, Ncuttst. Zeitgesch. ii. 453 n% 458 f.; 
Edersheim, Lift and Times, &c. ii. 438). 

It is not surprising to find the poetry of the prophetic writings 
hardened into fact by Jewish literalism ; but it is strange when the 
products of this mode of interpretation are attributed to our Lord 
Himself on authority no less ancient than that of Papias of Hiera- 
polis, professedly drawing from the tradition of St. John. Yet 
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V. 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 branches, 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 ten 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. xxix. 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 prc- 


pared for it there was to be a renewed human! t> it not 

il 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/ Ac.), but also in a moral sense ; the root of evil was to be 
plucked out of the hearts of men and a new heart was to be im- 
planted in them : the Spirit of God was to rest upon them (Weber, 
Altsyn. Theol. p. 382). There was to be no unrighteousness in 
their midst, for they were all to be holy (Pt. So!, xvii. 28 f., 36, 
&c.). The Messiah was to rule over the nations, but not merely by 
force ; Israel was to be a true light to the Gentiles (Schiirer, of>. cit. 
p. 456). 

- compare these Jewish beliefs with what we find hrre 
Epistle to the Romans there are two ways in which the supc 
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 m< 
for him : it is creation's yearning for that happier state intended for 
it and of which it has been defrauded. (2) The main idea is not, 
as it is so apt to be with the Rabbinical writers, the mere glorifica- 
tion of Israel. By them the Gentiles are differently treated. 
Sometimes it is their boast that the Holy Land will be reserved 
exclusively for Israel : ' the sojourner and the stranger shall dwell 
with them no more* (Ps. Sol. xvii. 31). The only place for the 
Gentiles is 'to serve him beneath the yoke' (ibid. ver. 32). The 
vision of the Gentiles streaming to Jerusalem as a centre of religion 
is exceptional, as it must be confessed that it is also in O. T. 
Prophecy. On the other hand, with St. Paul the movement is 
truly cosmic. The 'sons of God' are not selected for the: 
sakes alone, but their redemption means the redemption of a world 
of being besides themselves. 


VIII. 2G, 27. Meanwhile the I My Spirit itself assists in 
our pra) 

"Nor are we alone in our st rumples. The Holy 
ports our helplessness. Left to ourselves we do not know what 
prayers to offer or how to offer them. But in those 
groan- ^c from the depths of our being, we recognize the 

voice of none other than the Holy Spirit. He ma). >sion ; 


and His intercession is sure to be answered. 'For God Who 
searches the inmost recesses of the heart can interpret 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. iaourws. 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 
< vent, to which the whole creation moves. 1 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' (Mcy. Ultr. Gif. Va. Mou.). 

ovmrnXajipdrcTai : dyrtXa/i^dxadoi = to take hold of at the 
side (am), so as to support ' ; and this sense is further strength- 
ened by the idea of association contained in ow-. The same 
compound occurs in LXX of Ps. Ixxxviii [Ixxxix]. 22, and in 
Luke x. 40. 

TJJ dcrfam'a : decisively attested for raits ao6<v<tait. 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 suffering implied in &' iVo/io^r. But as iiroMon; 
suggests rather a certain amount of victorious resistance, this appli- 
cation of avQitHta seems less appropriate. 

ri yp TI irpoau$wji6a. The art. makes the whole clause object 
of oida/M*. 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). ri irp<xr<v. 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 

Ka6i tot. It is perhaps a refinement to take this as = ' accord- 
ing to, in proportion to, our need ' (Mey.-W. Gif.) ; which brings out 
the proper force of *a86 (cf. Baruch L 6 v. 1.) at the cost of putting 
a sense upon fc! 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 a& fei = ria r/xSrw 
3i n>xxm', which also answers well to rra ek in the next 

frirepKTUYxA l : ^rrvyxa> 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 ; 
xi. 2). The verse contains a statement which the unready of 


speech may well lay to heart, that all prayer need not be formu- 

hut that the most inarticulate desires (springing from I 
motive) may have a shape and a value given to them beyond 
anything that is present and definable to the consciousness. 
verse and the next go to show that St. Paul regarded the action of 
i Ay Spirit as personal, and as distinct from the action of the 
Father. The language of the Creeds aims at taking account of 
these expressions, which agree fully with the triple formula of 
s Cor. xiii. : xxviii. 19. Olir. however makes TO * 

both verses = * the human spirit/ against the natural sense of 
frrfpoTvyxam and vrtip dyt'r, which place the object of intercession 
outside the Spirit itself, and against orA ecrfr, which would be by 
no means always true of the human spirit. 

r'/xrrvTt"" >* decisively attested (K* ABDFG Ac). Text. RecepL 

27. or*. Are we to translate this ' because ' (Weiss Go. Gi: 
or 'that' (Mcy. Oltr. Lips. Mou.)? Probably the latter; for 
take on as assigning a reason for oft ri r& <f>po*nta, 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 xora edr and 
not vtrip ttyutf*. It seems best therefore to make '.>e the 

nature of the Spirit's intercession. 

GCOK = KOTO TO 6t\ijfta rov Giovi cf. 2 Cor. vii. 9-11. 

The Jews had a strong belief in the value of the intercessory prayer of 
their great saints, such as Moses (Ass. Moyt. xi. i 
(Apoc. Ba> Weber, p. 287 But they hare nothing 1 

teaching of these Terse*. 


VIII. 28-30. /.' ..' a chain of Providential 

does God accompany the course of His chosen ! In eternity, 
the plan laid and their part in it fore* . first 

their call, then their acquittal, and finally their re*, 
into glory. 

* Vet 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 U. 
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 instruments of His purpose. 


Then, in the same eternity, He planned that they should share in 
the glorified celestial being of the Incarnate Son in order that 
He, as Eldest Born, 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. oiSaficr $4 passes on to another ground for looking con- 
fidently to the future. The Christian's career must have a good 
ending, because at every step in it he is in the hands of God and is 
carrying out the Divine purpose. 

irdKio au*cpYi : a small but important group of authorities, A B, 
prig, a/6 or 2/7 (cf. Boh. Sah. Aeth.), adds 6 e& ; and the inser- 
tion lay so much less near at hand than the omission that it must 
be allowed to have the greater appearance of originality. With 
this reading wnpyti must be taken transitively, ' causes all things 
to work/ 

The Bohairic Version, translated literally and preferring the idioms, is * Bat 
we know that those who love God. He habitually works with them in every 
good thing, those whom He has called according to His purpose.' The StMdfp 
Version (as edited by AmeMinean in Ztituknfl fur Aegypt. Strtukt, 1887) 
is in pan defective but certainly repeats 64* : ' But we know that those who 
lore God, God . . . them in every good thing,' &c. From this we gather 
that the Version of Upper Egypt inserted 4 8<Jt , and that the Version of 
Lower Egypt omitted it but interpreted awtpyti transitively as if it were 
present. It would almost seem as if there was an ezegetical tradition which 
took the word in this way. It is true that the extract from Origen's Com- 
mentary in the Pkilocalia (ed. Robinson, p. a 26 IT.) not only distinctly and 
repeatedly presents the common reading but also in one place (p. 229) clearly 
has the common interpretation. Bat Chrysostom (ad lot.) argues at some 
length as if he were taking ovrtppt transitively with i 6f<Jt for subject. 
Similarly Gennadius (in Cramer's Catena\ also Theodoret and Theodoras 
Monachus (preserved in the CO/MM). It would perhaps be too much to 
claim all these writers as witnesses to the reading <n//yf <J 6o*, 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 oat of the 

For the use of awtfftl there are two rather close parallels in Ttst. XII 
Patr. : Issach. 3 & ek owtprp: TJJ tatimrri pov, and Gad 4 rJ 7^ wtCjia 
TOV flftm . . . ovrtpytt ry Zarar? Jr vaotv tit tfdvaror rw *>9pvmr rd W 
- Jy luutpodv^ awtpjti ry rJpy TOW 6<ov tls 

TOIS norA wp&cffir nXt^-rot? oo<nr. With this clause St Paul in- 
troduces a string of what may be called the technical terms of his 


theology, marking the succession of stages into which he divides 
the normal course of a Christian life all being considered not 
from the side of human choice and volition, but from the side of 
care and ordering. This is summed up at the outset in the 
phrase corA nptfitn*, the comprehensive plan or design in accord- 
ance with which God directs the destinies of men. There can be 
no question that St. Paul fully recognizes the freedom of the human 
will. The large pan which exhortation plays in his letters is con- 
proof of this. But whatever the extent of human freedom 
there must be behind it the Divine Sovereignty. It is the \ 
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 whicl r any 

such inferences invalid. See further the note on Frce-Will and 
-lination 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 
acceptance of the Divine Call. This call is one link in th< 
of Providential care which attends them : and it suggests the 
links which stretch far back into the past and far forward into the 
future. By enumerating these the Apostle completes his proof 
that the love of God never quits His chosen ones. 

The enumeration follows the order of succession in time. 

For Wp66i(nt See on Ch. ix. II fj ' /cXoy^r *p60nt rov eow, 
which would prove, if proof were needed, that the purpose i 
of God and not of man (cor* ouumr wpoaiptw Theoph. and the 
Greek Fathers generally): comp. also Eph. i. n ; hi. 1 1 ; 2 Tim. 
i. 9. 

It was one of the misfortune* of Greek theology that it received a bis* in 

11 controversy from opposition to the Gnostics (cf. p. 269 in/.) 
erwards lost, and which seriously prejudiced its exegesis 

which it never afterwards 

wherever this question was concerned. Thus in the present instance, the great 
take ard wp&to* to mean ' in accordance 

of the Greek commentators 
with the man's own wpoafaait or free act of choice* (see the extracts in 
Cramer's Catnta ' e cod. Monac.' ; and add Thcoph. Oecum. Euthynv 
The two partial exceptions are, as we might expect, Origen and Cyril of 
Alexandria, who however both show traces of the influences current in the 
Eastern Church. Origen also seems inclined to take it of the fn>; 
Jmrwav tt kcnam voluntattm quam cirta Dei cultum gmatt ; but he admits 
the alternative that it may refer to the purpose of God. If *. 
this purpose as determined by His foreknowledge of the characters and 
conduct of men. Cyril of Alexandria asks the question, Whose purpose is 
intended? and decides that it would not be wrong to answer TV* 

VIII. 28, 20.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 217 

Ai7vrot o2 r^y favrr. He comes to this decision howercr rather on 
dogmatic than on exegetical grounds. 

It is equally a straining of the text when Augustine distinguishes two kinds 
of call, one secwtdum prtposihtm, the call of the elect, and the other of those 
who are not elect Non enim omnts vceati secondnm propositnm nail 
vocali: quoniam multi vocali, fauti eUcti. Ipri ergo tecundmm prefect urn 
mxati cut tlecti antt (onttitutionem mundi (Cent, anas Efut. ft lag. ii. 10. 
f a a, ci. Cent. Julian, v. 6, f 14). In the idea of a double call, Augustine 
seems to hare been anticipated by Origen, who however, as we have seen, 
gives a different sense to card wp6$atv : omius quidem vceati sunf, turn tame* 
omnts secundnm propositum voeati stint (ed. Lomm. viL I a8 . 

K\T]Totf : ' called/ implying that the call has been obeyed. The 
K\ff<ns is not au saint (Oltr.), at least in the sense of final salva- 
tion, but simply to become Christians: see on i. i. 

29. ort : certainly here ' because/ assigning a reason for ndvra 
avnpyi'1 6 Gtot tit dyado*, not ' that ' (= cest qut Oltr.). 

ofc Trpo/Y'w. 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 (yrvwi<ri) the way of the 
righteous'; cxliv [cxliii]. 3 'Lord, what is man that Thou takest 
knowledge of him (or* tyvwa&jf ory LXX) ? Or the son of man 
that Thou makest account of him?' Hos. xiii. 5 'I did know 
(tnoiuaun*) thce in the wilderness.' Am. iii. a 'You only have 
I known (V*) of all the families of the earth.' Matt. vii. 23 
4 Then will I profess unto them I never knew (?>) you/ Ac. 
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 irpMyn* 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 vcrv similar to that of Godet and which 
approaches, though it is not exactly identical with, that of a number of older 
commentators, who make vpoiynu - praediligere, approbari) 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, v/w 
Ttrfoat ovr A 6dt rf tlpny rarr loopbw, a2 Kararofaat /tovi^r rov If' 

(Phil**!, zxv. a. p. aa;, ed. Robinson ; the comment ad lee. is rather nearer 
the mark, cognovits* sues diritur, hoc est in diUctiotu kahtistt libiatu 
jociasst, but there too is added tciens quoits ustttf). Cyril of Alexandria 
(and after him Meyer) supplies from what follows wpocyvfatrjoa* in loorrat 
ovunofxjxx rijt Uorot rov TJov abrov, but this belongs properly only to 
Mate** \Videst from the mark are those who, like Calvin, look beyond 
the immediate choice to final salvation : Dei atttem praetogmitio, fttt'tu kit 
Paultts mtmim't, nan mm/a tst pratstitnti* . . . std adopt io qua JUm mm 
a rtprobis semper discrevit. On the other hand, Gif. keeps closely to the 
context in explaining, " Foreknew " as the individual objects of II is purpose 
l*/x$0ffif) and therefore foreknew as "them that love God."' The only 
defect in this seems to be that it does not sufficiently take account of the 
O. T. and N. T. use 

2l8 EPISTLE T< [VIII. 29. 30. 

irpoupiffc. The Apostle overleaps for the moment 
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.' 

aufi|i4p+o denotes inward and thorough and not merely super- 
ficial likeness. 

T7 ]S ei*<W As the Son is the image of the Father (a C 
4; Col. i. 15), so the Christian is to reflect the image < 
Lord, passing through a gradual assimilation of mind and character 
to an ultimate assimilation of His Wa, the absorption of the 
splendour of His presence. 

cis TO drou CLUTO* irpurroToico*' <r voXXoif d&X+oif. As the final 

cause of all th'ings is the glory of God, so the final cause of the 
Incarnation and of the effect of the Incarnation upon man 
the Son may be surrounded by a multitude of the redeemed. 
These He vouchsafes to call His ' brethren.' They arc a ' f 
the entrance into which is through the Resurrection. As ' 
was the first to rise, He is the 4 Eldest-born ' (wp*r&ro*ot 

ipwr, Ira yivqnu V wwrir avror npwTtvu* Col. i. 1 8). This is 

different from the ' first-born of all creation ' (Col. i. 1 5). irpwro- 
rocor 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 
to the state to which entrance is through the Resurrection 
(see Lightfoot's note on the passage in Col.). 

30. oCs & vpowpiac K.T X. II.i\ ng taken his readers to the end 
of the scale, the Ma 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 
tKuXrt*, ucaiW*, c&a<rff. These are not quite exhai 
fjyiaatf might have been inserted after duuuWr; but it is suffi- 
ciently implied as a consequence of <&uuu*vn and a necessary 
condition of Wo<r : in pursuance of the Divine purpose that 
.ms should be conformed to ( step is the call ; 

this brings wiih it, when it is obey ng out t> 

or justification; and from that there is a straight course to the 
crowning v c glory. <Su<r* and 'dtuW are both 

naturally in the aorist tense as pointing to something finished 
and therefore past : 3oi<7* is not strictly cither finished o: 
but it is attracted into the same tense as the preceding verbs; an 
attraction which is further justified by the : though not 

complete in its historical \\orking ou:, ;lu- ste] .in Wa<r 

is both complete and certain in the counsels. To God 
ib DOtbei ' before nur *:: :.' 



VIII. 31-30. With the proofs of God's love before him, 
the Christian has nothing to fear. God, the Judge, is on 
his side, and the ascended Christ intercedes for him 

(w. 31-34). 

The love of God in Christ is so strong that earthly 
sufferings and persecutions nay, all forms and phases of 
being are powerless to intercept it, or to bar the Christians 
mph (w. 35-39) 

"What conclusion are we to draw from this? Surely the 
strongest possible comfort and encouragement With God on our 
side what enemy can we fear ? * As Abraham spared not Isaac, 
so He spared not the Son who shared His Godhead, but suffered 
Him to die for all believers. Is not this a sure proof that along 
with that one transcendent gift His bounty will provide all that is 
necessary for our salvation ? ** Where shall accusers be found 
against those whom God has chosen? When God pronounces 
righteous, M 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. M His love 
is our security. And that love is so strong that nothing on earth 
can come between us and it The sea of troubles that a Christian 
has to face, hardship and persecution of every kind, are powerless 
against it ; * though the words of the Psalmist might well be 
applied to us, in which, speaking of the faithful few in his own 
generation, he described them as * for God's sake butchered all 
day long, treated like sheep in the shambles.' " We too are no 
better than they. And yet, crushed and routed as we may seem, 
the love of Christ crowns us with surpassing victory. * For I am 
convinced that no form or phase of being, whether abstract or 
personal ; not life or its negation ; not any hierarchy of spirits ; no 
dimension of time; no supernatural powers; "no dimension of 
space ; no world of being invisible to us now, will ever come 
between us and the love which God has brought so near to us in 
Jesus Messiah our Lord. 


32. 8f yt TOW ISiou ulov OUK {^uraro. A number of em ; 
expressions are crowded together in this sentence : same 

God who'; roO Mot t ; i, H:s own Son/ partaker of His own 
nature ; t '4xi'<r<m>, the word \\ hich is used of the offering of 
Isaac in Gen. xxii. 16, and so directly recalls that offering the 
greatest sacrifice on record. For the argument comp. v. 6 

88-35. The best punctuation of these verses is that wi, 
adopted in RV. text (so also Orig. Chrys. Thcodrt. 

a. Lid.). There should not be more than a colon b< 
the clauses eH 6 OUCUMK m 6 *ara*po ; God is conceived of as 
Judge: where He acquits, who can conden. then 

'.lately taken up by ver. 35 : C -d His lo . 

for us ; who then shall j >.m us from that love ? The Apostle 
clearly has in his mind Is. 1. 8, 9 ' He is nca: :ficlh men; 

who will contend with me? ... Behold, the Lord Go 
me; who is he that shall condemn me?' 'I :ly favours 

the view that each affirmation is followed by a question rela: 
that affirmation. The phrases 6 WOK/MMM' and 6 &<* 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. 

Oo the view taken above, *fe 6 Suoifir and X/M<rrdr l^ot* & 
are both answers to rii J7oAfoc< ; and rir 6 ar<ur/x*arr ; Wr i)>iat \upion ; 
are subordinate questions, suggested in the one case by Straw?, in the other 
r. iwip J)^K. We oUcnrc also that on this 5 is closely 

linked to ver. 34. The rapid succession of thought which is thus obtained, 
each step leading on to the next, is in full accordance with the spirit of the 

Another way of taking it is to pat a full stop at 8o4r, and to make n't 
n'r & aT<ur/rr ; two distinct questions with wholly distinct 

answers. So Fri. Lips. Weiss Oltr. Go. Others again (RV. marg. fieng. 

. Mp 

; ) make all the dames questions (*fc*Mli . 

i^/wr ;) 1 tut these repeated challenges do not give such a nervous concatena- 
tion of reasoning. 

33. TI'S fyKaX^m; another of the forensic terms which are so % 
common in this Epistle ; ' Who shall impeach such as are elect of 

i*\i*ruv. \V Live already seen (note on i. i) that with 
;I *Xi7roi' and ^Xroi are not opposed to each other (as they 
arc in Matt. xxii. 14) but are rather to be identified. By r 
into XF,r,4 the implication that the call is accepted, St. Paul shows 
that the persona of i rue are also objects of God's 

choice. By both terms S ignates not those who are de- 

stined for final salvation, but those who arc ' summoned ' c 
lected* for the privil. ;ng God and carrying out H 

If their career r . course i: 

the 'glory* reserved for c at the end of 


the avenue; but 'Xr 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. 

. text Mou. This is quite pouible, bat &air 

suggests the present. 

84. Xptaro* It^oOt K A C F G L, Valg. Boh. Arm. Acth., Orig.-Ut Did. 
Aug. i Xfx<rr<Jt (om. 'IipovO B D E K 5cc, Syrr., Cyr.-Jcru*. Chrys. /. 
Another instance of B in alliance with Authorities otherwise \Ve*tem ami 
Syrian. \VH. bracket 'Ii?*. 

tppfeU <K v.KfxLv X- A C a/. //Mr., RV. WIP : om. l r^ K BD E 
FGKL Ac, Ti. WIP. The group which inserts U imtpS* is practically 
the same as that which inserts 'Irjoov* above. 

os KCU. Stroke follows stroke, each driving home the last ' It 
is Christ who died nay rather (immo vtro} rose from the dead 
who (*ai 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, Afiost. Crt(d t p. 67 f.). 

35. dv& TT)f dydinis TOO Xpurrou. There is an alternative reading 
TOM 8oO for which the authorities are NB, Orig. (1/3 doubtfully in 
the Greek, but 6/7 in Rufinus' Latin translation) ; Eus. 46 ; Has. 
2/6 ; Hil. i/a and some others. RV. WH. note this reading in 
marg. But of the authorities B Orig.-lat. 2/7 read in full ArA nji 
<ryuiri)f rov eoO rfft V Xpiory 'irjaov, which is obviously taken from 
vcr. 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 Xpurrou may also be a correction from the same source. 
On the whole XOMTTOV seems more probable, and falls in better with 
the view maintained above of the close connexion of w. 34, 35. 

' The love of Christ ' is unquestionably ' the love of Christ for 
us/ not our love for Christ : cf. v. 5. 

6Xi4is K.T.X. We have here a splendid example of cot/xipnc <V 
mic Atyro of which St. Paul wrote in ch. v. 3 ff. The passage 
shows how he soared away in spirit above those ' sufferings of this 
present time ' which men might inflict, but after that had nothing 
more that they could do. On dXty<r 3 orcKo^pi'a see ii. 9 ; for 
oWyjM* cf. a Cor. xi. 23 ff., 32 f. ; xii. 10, &c. ; for X^ioc $ yv^j^n^, 
i Cor. iv. ii ; 2 Cor. xi. 27 ; for i*owo 2 Cor. xi. 26; i Cor. 
xv. 30. 

36. on Ircicd aoo. The quotation is exact from LXX of Ps. 
xliv [xliii]. 23 : on belongs to it. 

frr is decisively attested here : in the Psalm B has fro, K A T ir, 
where there is a presumption against the reading of B. 

222 TLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 36-38. 

6araTOu>cea oXtjr Ttjr ^pa* : ( f . I (Y- < a ff 

airoGrqam : ' tola die, hoc cst, omni vital meat Umporc ' Orig. 

vpo0ara a^ayv)S : sheep destined for slaupi xi. 4 

ri irpoiSora r^t a^ay^t (cf. Jer. xii. 3 po,3ara m <r#ayn Cod. Marchai. 


The Latin texts of this verse are marked and characteristic, Tertulllan, 
S:orf>. 1 3 Tua causa mortijuamur Ma die, Jef t sumus ut ptcora iugu- 
iationis. Cyprian, Tat. in. 18 (the tnu . < ausa tui 

otddimur tota dit. dfputati sumus ut ovts vittima*. Hilary of I 
Trot: ed. Zingcrle, p. 419) Pnpttr U mortij/uamur tota du t 

dtfutati sumus situt oves oecisumu. Irenaeui, Adv. Hatr 
(Satim ; . Propttr U mortt afficimur Ma a'u, atstimati sumus 

ut ov* ofdsioms. (Similarly Cod. Claroro. Sftfulum Augustini, co 
Vulgate (Cod. AmUt) Propttr tt mortifiamur Ma Jit, atstimati sumus 
ut eves otcisiouis. Here two types of text stand oat clearly : that of Cyprian 
at one end of the scale, and that of the Vulgate (with which we may group 
Ircn.-lat. Cod. Clarom. and the Speculum) at the other. Hilary stands 
between, having dtputati in common with Cyprian, but on the whole leaning 
rather to the later group. The most difficult problem is presented by 
Tertullian, who approaches Cyprian in Turn causa and dtputati, and the 
Vulgate group in mortiJUamur : in pttora iugulationis he stands alone. 
This passage might seem to favour the view that in Tertullian we had the 
primitive text from which all the rest were derived. That hypothesis how- 
ever would be difficult to maintain systematically; and in any case there 
most be a large element in Tertullian's text which is simply in<i: 
The text before us may be said to give a glimpse of the average position of 
a problem which is still some way from solution. 

37. uwcpKticwficv. T( rtullian and Cyprian represent this by the 
coinage suftn-infimus (Vulg. Cod. Clarom. Hil. fufxramus) ; 'over- 
come strongly ' Tyn. ; arc more than conquerors ' Gen 
adopted in AV. 

oid TOU dyainiaoKTOS ^a points back to r^t oyainji TOW X/xaroy 

38. ourf oyycXoi ovrt dpx<u. ' 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 pr , and the Elect Or 

the other powers on the earth, over the water, on that <! 
Ixi. ic :1 from time to time makes use of sim 

designations for the hierarchy of angels: so in i Cor. x 

u, K\(nanjt t no* oro/ia <m>/iaoproi' : 

lii. 10 :. 1 6 (0pt** t cvpuJrijT. .fmr/cn); ii. 10, 

world of spirits is summed uj. in Thil. ii. 10 as 
tvovponoc, Viy ;<M, .ora^tfuMoi. It is somewhat noticeable that whereas 
the terms used are . ibstract, in si s they arc 

made still more abstract by the use of the s 

brov farapyffiry waaa -ua- ni dimity I Cor. XV. 

ripar* waffjjs < 

i !. ii. 10. 

VIII. 38, 30.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 223 

It is also true (as pointed out by Weiss, BiM. Thtol. 104 ; 
Anm. i. a) that the leading passages in which St. Paul speaks of 
angels are those in which his language aims at embracing the 
whole o<r/i<*. He is very far from a Bpivnia r*> oyyA such as be 
protests against in the Church at Colossae (Col. ii. 18). At the 
same time the parallels which have been given (see also below 
under oW/mr) 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. i. 20 oiroaraXXd<u rA 

vdura tit avrov . . . 7r TU Vi rr)s yfjt <tr ra V roir ovpavots). 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 sovereignly 
of Christ (i Cor. xv. 24; cf. Eph. i. 10); and they form part of 
that kingdom which He hands over to the Father, that ' God may 
be all in all' (i Cor. xv. 28). On the whole subject see Everling, 
Die paulimschc Angelologic u. Dtimonologie, GOttingcn, 1888. 

For &yy<\ot the Western text (DEFG, Ambntr. Aug. Amb.) has 
<JyyAof. There is alo a tendency in the Western and later authorities to 
insert or i(ovaia before or after tyxcu, obviously from the parallel jiMMflU 
in which the words occur together. 

ovrc oWfieis. There is overwhelming authority (N A B C D Ac.) 
for placing these words after ofo< pXAorra. We naturally expect 
them to be associated with apxal, as in i Cor. xv. 24 ; Eph. i. 21. 
It is possible that in one of the earliest copies the word may have 
been accidentally omitted, and then added in the margin and re- 
inserted at the wrong place. We seem to have a like primitive 
corruption in ch. iv. 12 (TOK crroi X o{W). But it is perhaps more 
probable that in the rush of impassioned thought St. Paul inserts 
the words as they come, and that thus oOrt twd^tt 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 power* on 
the earth ' in the passage from the Book of Enoch quoted above ; also Test. 
.V// Patr. Levi 3 Jr T rpir^ (sc, ofywrf ) M al Jvr^m rfir w^/tfoXir, 
oi Ta\0VT <lt i)^i(>o tpiotvt, vo<ij<j<u IK&*I)OI* 4r rott vrv/Miai rip wXoj^t 
*ai row Bt\tap. 

39. ourc utfwfia ourc pd0o?. Lips, would give to the whole 
context a somewhat more limited application than is usually 
assigned to it. He makes ofo W(rr. . . fcOof all refer to angelic 
powers : ' neither now nor at the end of life (when such spirits 
were thought to be most active) shall the spirits either of the 


height or from the depth bar our entrance into the : 

where the love of Christ will be still nearer t . u . This is also 

the view of Origcn (see below). But it is quite in the manner of 

il to personify abstractions, and the sense attached t< 
cannot well be too large: cf. esp. Eph. iii. 18 T' r6 vXoror 

xai fv//ot cat &a$ot, and 2 Cor. X. 5 909 tywpa 'traipdjiro .:- 
rov 6ot/. 

The common patristic explanation of fywjm U ' thing* above the heaven*.* 
anil of rfitf.*, ' thine* beneath the earth/ Theod. Monach. 

ra <-yax dSafa. Theodoret 

0a*<Aiar. Origen (in Cramer's Catf*a) explains fypa of the 
spiritual hosts pf wickedne** in the heavenly pla . , and 

taton of rA mra\9bia. The expanded version of Kufinu* approaches still 

.' altitudo et profnndam 
ai debellant me de alt 

: de promndis clamavi ad tc, Dornine : turn at kit g:> . 
dtputati sunt tt gtJUnttat tfiritihu impttgmarttur. 

an o r mra\ia. e expane verson o 
more nearly to the theory of Lipsius : .' 

nant tut. sit ut et David ditit molti uai debe 
dubio cum a tpiritibut ntijuitiae d* eatltttibut urg 

OVT TIS KTi'ais Ir/pa. The use of rfrt'pa and not tXX^ seems to 
favour the view that this means not exactly ' any other 

but ' any other kind of creation/ any other mode of being,' 
besides those just enumerated and differing from the familiar world 
as we see it. 

Origen (in Cramer) would like to take the passage in this way. He asks 
if there may not be another creation besides this 

visible though not as yet seen 'a description which might seem to anticipate 
the discoveries of the microscope and telescope, Corop. Ualfour. FoundttioMt 
. 71 f. -It U impossible therefore to resist the conviction that 
there most be an indefinite number of aspects of Nature respecting which 
science never can give as any information, even in our dreams. We must 
conceive ourselves as feeling our way about this dun corner of the illimit- 
able world, like children in a darkened room, encompassed by we know 
not what ; a little better endowed with the machinery of sensation than the 
protozoon, yet poorly provided indeed as compared with a 1 
a one could be conceived, whose senses were adequate to the infinite variety 
of material Nature/ 

diro TO.S dyomjs TOO 6oo T^S iv XpiOTw'lr,aou This is the full 
The love of < lc of being 

isolated and described se; <), but 

the love of Christ is rea 

A striking instance of the way in hu.! the whole Godhead 

co-operates in this manifestation ^ ^ : the love of God 

is poured out in our hearts through the //'/>' Spirit, because Christ 

d God comm t>ecausc Christ died. 

The same ess*: .ncance runs through this section (note 




IX. 1-6. The thought of this magnificent prospect flit 

me with sorrow for those who seem to be excluded from it 

my oivn countrymen for whom I would willingly sacrifice 

my dearest hopes excluded too in spite of all their special 

ges and their high destiny. 

1 1 low glorious the prospect of the life in Christ ! How mournful 
the thought of those who are cut off from itl There is no 
shadow of falsehood in the statement I am about to make. As 
one who has his life in Christ I affirm a solemn truth ; and my 
conscience, speaking under the direct influence of God's Holy 
Spirit, bears witness to my sincerity. "There is one grief that 
I cannot shake off, one distressing weight that lies for ever at my 
heart * Like Moses when he came down from the mount, the prayer 
has been in my mind : Could I by the personal sacrifice of my 
own salvation for them, even by being cut off from all communion 
with Christ, in any way save my own countrymen ? Are they not 
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 1 

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 .K TO THE ROMA [IX. 1. 

ent with the jriuleged position of the Jews? Th< 
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. his 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 
tayyAiof if for both Jew and Greek, is yet for the Jew first (i. 16; 
It has k-d him to lay great stress on the fact that the Jews 
especially had sinned (ii. 17). Once indeed he has begun to 
discuss it .130 then is there in being 

a Jew ? ' but he postponed it for a time, feeling that it was necessary 
<> complete his main argument He has dwell 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 qur 
How is this conception of Christ's work consistent \\ ith the fact of 
the rejection of the Jews which it seems to in 

The answer to this question oo remainder of the 

dogmatic portion of the Epistle, chaps, ix-xi, generally considered 
to be the third of its principal divisions. The whole sectio: 
be subdivided as follows: in ix. 6-29 the faithfulness and ju 
God are vindicated ; in ix. 30-1. 2 1 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 whei. 
be restored, concluding the section with a description of the Wisdom 
of God as far exceeding all human speculation. 

Mmrcioo teem* to hare omitted the whole of thU chapter with the powible 
exception of vr. I -3. Tert, who msie* fron says tatio A 

kic amplisrimum abntptum i*i*rn*u tcriptunu {Adv. Mart. T. 14). See 
Zahn, Utitk. <U* N. T. A'a**u p. 518. 

1. We notice that there is no grammatical connexion with the 
preceding chapter. A new point is introduced and the sec, 
of thought is gradually made apparent as the argument proceeds. 
Perhaps there has been a pau^ 
ensis has for a time suspended his labours. We notice also that 

ul does not here follow his general habit 
subject he is going to discuss (as he does for example 
beginning of chap. Hi), but allows it gradually to becoi 
He naturally shrinks from mentioning too definitely a f. 
to him so full of sadness. It will be only too aj| 
refers; and tact and delicacy both forl : 

AX^Ociar X/yw Jr Xpiori: 'I speak the truth in Christ, as one 
united with Christ ' ; t f . - 7 oXX* < ;\X* <l>c 

9*ov, COT/MUTI OoC V X/nary XaAoi>r: xii. 19. St. Paul lias just 


described that union with Christ which will make any form of sin 
impossible; cf. viii. i, 10; and the reference to this union gives 
solemnity to an assertion for which it will be difficult to obtain full 

oo iftuoofwu. A Pauline expression, i Tim. ii. 7 aX^uv Xy, 
ou ^ri&yuu: 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Gal. i. 20. 

aufipapTupou<rr)s : cf. ii. 15; viii. 1 6. The conscience is personified 
so as to give the idea of a second and a separate witness. Cf. 

OcCUmenius ad foe. utya 0Xt tlxtlv, &o wpoofawoul ry wicmvft)at t 
fWi0pd/ii>of paprvpat, TO* XptoroV, r6 *Ayioi Hftv^a, cm r^r iavrou 

V nycupart 'Ayi'w with arvp/<aprvpou<rip. 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 atrrb TO nwGpa avppaprvpil r<p mKvpart fjpvr. 

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. wpunpo* & oWb/SfuoCrai mp\ L pAX* 
X'yfiv* oirtp woXXoir fdot voulv oray pXXw<7t n \tyuv irapa rots troXXoIr 
mtuTTovfHvov cat vwip ov affxXpa iavrovs <tat mniutarit. 

2. on : ' that,' introducing the subordinate sentence dependent on 
the idea of assertion in the previous sentence. St. Paul does not 
nu-mion directly the cause of his grief, but leaves it to be inferred 
from the next verse. 

XUVT) (which is opposed to x<V" J n xv '- 20) appears to mean 
grief as a state of mind ; it is rational or emotional : oouVrj 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 
which is the result 

With the grief of St. Paul for his countrymen, we may compare the grief 
of a Jew writing after the fall of Jerusalem, who feels both the misfortune 
and the sin of his people, and who like St. Paul emphasizes his sorrow by 
enumerating their close relationship to God and their ancestral pride : 
4 Ezra riii. 15-18 */ nttnc dicens difam, de omtti komini tit mafis stit, d* 
populo attttm t*o t ob <f*tm doUo, ft dt katnditatt t*a, frvftfr quam /Kg&, ft 
profttr Israll. frofter quern tristis sum, ft dt semtn* Jacob, froflcr quod 
conturbor. Ibid. x. 6-8 turn vitUs luclum nostrum ft qtiae ncbis conligtritnt f 
qHoniam Sion mater nostra omnium in tristitia rontristatttr, et kumilitatt 
kumtliata est. et Ittgtt vatidissim* . . . 2I-3J vidft enim quoniam sanftifi- 
fatio Hostra desert a tffttta est, et altare nostrum demoHtum est, ft templum 
nostrum destruttum est, et fsaltenum nostrum humiliatum est, et hymntu 
Hotter tonticutt, et ejuultaiio nostra dissoluta est, et lumen eandelaori nostri 
txtinttum est, et area testament* nostri dire/Ha est. Apoc* Baruek. JUOT. j 
quomodo enim ingtmutam super Stone, et quomodo lugtoo super Jerusalem f 
quia in loco isto ubi proslratus sum nunc, oiim summits sacerdos offerekat 
Bottoms santtas. 


3. This verse which is introduced by ydp does not give the 
reason of his grief but the proof of his - 

t^xo^*- : * the wish was in my mind ' or perhaps ' the ; 
::.' St. Paul merely states the fact of th< 
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 mi^ht affect iis possibility.' 
See also Acts xxv. 22, and Burton, M. and T. 33. 

<W9p.a : * accursed/ ' devoted to destruction/ The word was 

tily used with the same meaning as ora&ypa (of which 
a dialectic variation, see below), 'that which is offered or consecrated 
to God.' But the translators of the Old Testament required an 
expression to denote that which is devoted to God for destruction, and 
adopted anu&fia as a translation of the Hebrew O^n : see I 

28, 29 YOJ> & atttff/ui 6 <ui> aQ09 4*6|piMrof ftp Kipi'y . . . oi cnroow<7rat 
ovui Xvrpaxrfrtu ... cat fray & fur uvartBtj airo ri> a0pwirir ov Xvrp6q- 
arai, uXXa Awfry foanrvOfarTfu I Deut. vii. 26 ; Josh. \i. i 
if vJAir <mjd/ia, avrff gal rdrra oaa iar\v V o aa$a0. And 

with this meaning it is always used in the New Testament: Gal. i. 
8, 9; i Cor. xvi. 22. The attempt to explain the won! 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 

There b some doubt and has been a good deal of discmsion as to the 
distinction in meaning between dnafejia and (Uo^/ia. It was originally 
dialectic, <t*i*7/ia bring the Attic form (<W* 7 , drr,*r, d*rf. . 
Moem, p. 28) and <Uo*</M being found as A substitute in non-Attic works 
(Anth. P. 6. 16), C. /.(,'. ;69j<l and other instances are quoted 

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 confute the two words. In the 

. and Redpath make no distinction) our prev 

seem to preserve the difference of the two words. The only doubtful passage 
ads <Lvd$<pa where we should expect Avatojtta, 
but V the only other MS. quoted by Swete) and the anthoriti< 
and Parsons bare dt**,?*. In the N.T. dnt*;/* occur* 
and then cor re- ary,<b4*,*a B L,drd*>*a N 

Fathers often miss the distinction and explain the two words as id< 
so Ps.-Jnst Qtttust. ft Kttp. lai ; Theod. on ^>uidas; they 

languished in Cbrys. on K not in 

;uoted of Avafypa for d^tetfta, but d*a0<na 

could be and was used du r wd^^a. On the word generally 

see esp. Trench . QttL L t j Fri. on Kom. ix. 3. 

OUT<V, - 

the willingness for personal sacrifice ; and they have still more force 

when we remember that :- s just dei 

heaven or inm from the love of Christ. 

ad loc. ri Ac'ym, w I. . 


Aw* TOO Xpurrou : ' separated from the Christ/ a pregnant use of 
thr 1 1 reposition. The translation of the words as if they were vwi 
irises from a desire to soften the expression. 

Hard aapxa : 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 adX<po< 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, 
1 pray thce, out of thy book which thou hast written.' On this 
Rom. liii. 5 comments as follows: & juyoXip aydinjr, 6 r*Xo- 
TFJTOV awir/>/9X^rov, irappqaiafrrai Oipdnw irpos Kupiov, airir<u <T0*air T 
ir\t')0t f) Km iavriv uXi$lqMu JUT avritv iitoi. 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 
reflection. 1 

There arc one or two slight variations of reading in ver. 
placed before <W0. Y I v \ K 1. \ nl*, and later authorities with TR, and 
DEC) substituted for <l (K A B C &c.> Both variations arise from 
a desire to modify the passage. 

4. ouWs ctoir: ' inasmuch as they are.' St. Paul's grief for Israel 
arises not only from his personal relationship and affection, tat 
also from his remembrance of their privileged position in the Divine 

'l<rpo,T)Xirai : 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. Eph. ii. 1 2 amjXXorpi6pVoi rffs iro\irtiat TOW 'tapaqX col iVot fir 

flmfVi* Tff 'irayyfX<ar : and as such it could be used metaphorically 
of the Christians (6 *l<rpoijX roO e*oO Gal. vi. 1 6 ; cf. ver. 6 inf.) ; a use 
M hich would of course be impossible for the merely national designa- 
tion 'lov&moi. 

4 Israel ' is the title used in contemporary literature to express the 
special relations of the chosen people to God Ps. Sol. xiv. 3 vn 

17 pp<r fat f) jcXijpoyo/ua rov 6ov Sort* 6 'lerpaijX : Kcclus. xvii. 15 fttfHt 

Kvpiw 'lirpa^X W.V : Jubiltts xxxiii. 1 8 ' 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 
imes are 'the day of gladness of Israel' (Ps. Sol. x. 7), 
the blessing of Israel, the day of God's mercy towards Israel 

^ib. XVii. 50, 51 MOJtujMOt <M yuvfUK* V rait 


ayafa Mrrpm/A V tnmrywyp (/wXwr, 4 *mq<rfi 6 er. ro^vroi 6 8*oc riri 

*l<r,HiijX ri fXoi therefore St. Paul uses t! 

is his readers that hose for whos< n above 

all, according to every current idea, the Messiah was to 

he has come are apparently cut off from all share in the 
ges of his kingdom. 

ulo6<no : ' 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. i->- Here it implies tl... ship of Israel to 

God described in Exod. iv. 22 rat* , f irpwrur, 

"lapoijX : I> xxxii. 6 ; Jer. xxxi. 9 ; Hos. xi. i. So / 

1 be i Father unto tlu-m, and they shall be M 
and they shall all be called children of the living God. And every 
angel and every spirit will know, yea they will kno xe are 

hildren, and that I am their Father in uprightness and 
in righteousness and that I love them.' 

^ W{o : ' the visible presence of God among His people ' (see 
on iii. 23). Wa is in the LXX the translation of t: 
nw itap, called by the Rabbis the Shekinah ('Y?F), hc 
bright cloud by which God made His presence known on 
i o. &C. Hence ro caXXot rjjt Ufa ai-roC Ps. S 
0*6 6pwov fafrjt ib. ver. 20, Wisd. ix. 10, imj-: . 
beauty of the temple, and when St. Stephen, Acts vii. 2, speaks of 
6 e*fo np &p his words would remind his hearers of the 
presence of God which they claimed had sanctified Jerusalem a 
temple. On late Rabbinical speculations concerning the Sh< 
see Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 179. 

al Sia0iJRcu: 'the covenants/ see Hatch Essays r>: 
Grtek, p. 47. The plural is used not with reference to tl 
covenants the Jewish and the Chr because the original 

covenant of God with Israel was again and again renewed 
(Gen. vi. 18; ix. 9; xv. 18; xvii. 2, 7 L 24). Comp. 1 

: i fi*T<i row <rv'p/joror ai'rwr bantni aya$n xkijpovopia, ryo^<i 
V raif faa0> 22 Xay^ To* oXd{o-r opcovff 

varf/MMr ral iwi^rar t'-Tro^^aac. According to Irenaeus, III. 
(ed. Harvey) there were four covenants : ol iui roim rtvaa, . 

V rov r<fow bivrt'pa M rov 'A/J/*; <ro/*^c* 

rpirr) M fj vnpo&ain tit\ rov MwvaiwC rtrci^^ d 17 rov KiuyytXiW, &a 
rov Kvpiv qp*f 'Irjff'.i \pnrrov *. 

The Jeti-s believed that they were bound to God and that God 
was bound to them by a covenant v 
His | r ording to St. I 

those who were not bound t 

ic protection. On the idea of the Covenant and 

In the Latin rmioa the four cortfuot* are Adam, Noah, Motes, Christ. 


its practical bearing on Jewish life sec SchUrer Getchichtt, ii. 

^ rojiofleaio : 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 MS/UK 6 vnnpx** 
tit rur man* 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 those who kept the Law. So Ps. So/, xiv. i *MTT& Ki>o t 

rols ayonSurof ouro* V dAq&tf . . . ror ffoptvo/i/Mxr *V dtxcufxrvyi; irpoaroy- 
HUTW avrov, iv ro/*y us V*TiAaro 9/11* tit fay* ^leu*. 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 

^ Xarpci'a : ' the temple service/ Heb. ix. i, 6; i Mace. ii. 19, 22. 
As an illustration of Jewish opinion on the temple service may be 
quoted Pirqe A both, i. 2 (Taylor, p. 26) 'Shimcon 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 
hip, 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 Allsyn. Theol p. 359.) 

ol frayycXuu : ' 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. Ps. Sol. xii. 8); and in Jewish estimation sinners were the 
pHtilcs and saints the chosen people. Again therefore the 
choice of terms emphasizes the character of the problem to be 
discussed. See note on i. 2, and the note of Ryle and James on 
Ps. Sol. loc. cit. ; cf. also Heb. vi. 1 2 ; xi. 1 3 ; Gal. iii. 19;! Clem. x. 2. 

K C L, Valg. codJ. Boh. &c. has been corrected into 4 8.0*707 
B D F G, Vnlg. codd. fane. \ also J waryAu into JvarpAja D E F C, Bob, 
Both variations are probably doe to landed difficulties. 

5. ol waWpes: 'the patriarchs/ Acts iii. 13, vii. 32. On the 
1 merits ' of the patriarchs and their importance in Jewish theology 
see the note on p. 330. 

wr o Xpurros TO icard arfpKO. Cf. I Clem. XXxii. 2 avrov 6 
Kvpiot 'iiprovt TO KOTO ffa'pca. 6 xp. is not a 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 been 
selected has been fulfilled. The Messiah has come forth from 
them, and yet they have been rejected. 


6 &r Jvl TTQKTWK 6c6f, K.r.V : with Xpitrrtfr (see bclov 
1, God blessed for ever.' ituvr is probably neuter, cf. 
Icscription of the supreme dignity of Him who was < 
human side of Jewish stock serves to intensify the conception of 
the privileged character of the Jewish race. 

The Privileges of Israel. 

By this enumeration of the privileges of Israel St. Paul fulfils two 
purposes in his argument. He gives firstly the facts 
intensify his sorrow. Like the writer of 4 Ezra his grief is 
heightened by the remembrance of the j mtry- 

roen have held in the Divine econ ord 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 
> because of the great contrast suggested between 
the destiny of Israel and their actual conditii : > grief is so 


But the Apostle has another and more important thought to 
emphasize. He has to show the reality and the magnitude < 
problem before him. and this list of the privileges of Israel j 
sizes it. It was so great as almost to be paradoxi 
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 co: 
mat ion of its history, had appeared, and yet from any share in the 
glories of this epoch the Chosen People the- re cut off. 

All the families of the earth were to be blessed in Israel : Israel 
itself was not to be blessed. 

sons of God : but they were cut off from the inheriiance. They 
were bound by special covenants to God : the co-. ! 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 La 
a loyal preservation of the temple service ha>! : 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 

Such was the problem. The pious Jew, rcmemberin. 
sufferings of liis nation, pictured the Messianic time as one 
these should all pass away 

should be once more united; when the ten tribes should t>e 
collected from among the nations ; ul suffered 

much from the Gentiles should be at last triumphant 
All this he expected. J :. Messiah had come: and Israel, the 


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; SchUrer, Getchuhl, 
ii. 45* q.) 

The Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5. 

ml l( r 6 Xparib ru aro oap*a, & u Jwl wdyraw, edt tiloyrrrk tit rott 
olirar dM*. 

The interpretation of Rom. ix. 5 has probably been discussed at greater Special 
length than that of any other verse of the N. T. Besides long notes in literature. 
various commentaries, the following special papers may be mentioned: 
Schultz, in Jahrbiicher fur dtuttthe Ttuotogie. 1868, vol. xiii. pp. 462-506; 
n, ZwM., 1869, pp. 311-3;;; Harniscn. ib. 1872, pp. 510, 521 : bat 
England and America have provided the fullest discussions by Prof. 
Kennedy and Dr. Gilford, namely, The Divinity of Christ, a sermon 
frtachtd on Christmas Day, i88a. 'btfore the Utnvfrtity of Cambridge, witk 
an appendix on Rom. ix. 5 and Tuns ii. 13, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, 
, Cambridge, 1883; Caesarem Apt*!to, a Utter to Dr. Kennedy, by 
Edwin Hamilton Giflbrd, D.D., Cambridge, i8?3; and Pauline Ckrislobgy, 
imination cf Rom. ix. 5, being a rtjoinder to the Rev. Dr. Cijfonft 
rf tfy> ty Benjamin Hall Kennedy, 1 >.!>.. Cambridge. 1883 : by Prof. Dwight 
and Dr. Ezra Abbot, in /. B. Extg. June and December, 1881, pp. : . 
87-154 ; and 1883, pp. 90-1 1 a. Of these the paper of Dr. Abbot is much 
the most exhaustive, while that of Dr. Gi fluid seems to us on the whole to 
how the most exegetical power. 

missing minor variations, there are four main interpretations (all of Alternative 
them referred to in the RV.) which have been suggested : interpreta- 

(a) Placing a comma after odpxa and referring the whole passage to tions. 
Christ SofcV. 

(o) Placing a full stop after aapm and translating He who is God over 
all be blessed for ever,' or is blessed for ever.' So RV. tnarg. 

(e) With the same punctuation translating ' He who is over all is God 
blessed for ever.' RV. marg. 

(it) Placing a comma after oapm and a full stop at woVr*r, ' who is over 
all. God be (or is) blessed for ever.' RV.marf. 

It may be convenient to point out at once that the question b one of The ori- 
interpretation and not of criticism. The original MSS. of the Epistles were ginal MSS. 
almost certainly destitute of any sort of punctuation. Of MSS. of the first without 
century we have one containing a portion of Isocrates in which a few dots panctna- 
are used, but only to divide words, never to indicate pauses in the sense ; in lion, 
the MS. of the noAir'a 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 dose 
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 
scribes, both before and during the first century, the more important pauses 
in the sense were often indicated but lesser pauses rarely or never ; and. so 
far as our knowledge enables us to speak, in roughly written MSS. such as 
were no doubt those of the N.T., there is no punctuation at all until about 
the third century. Our present MSS. (which begin in the fourth century) 
do not therefore represent an early tradition. If there were any traditional 
punctuation we should have to seek it rather in early versions or in second 
and third century Fathers : the punctuation of the MSS. is interesting in 
the history of interpretation, but has no other value. 



[IX. 6. 

History of 

(i) The 
(a) The 



The history of the interpretation must be passed orcr somewhat car 
:r earliest evidence we should naturally turn to the older versi< : 
these seem to labour under the same obscurity as the original. 1 

true that the traditional interpretation of all ol them U to at 

About most of the Fathers however there is no doubt. An immen 
ponderance of the Christian writers of the first eight centi 

:ist This is certainly the case with Irenaeus, J/atr. II! 
Harvey; Tertullian, Adv. Pro*, i I ppolytus, Cent. A'ott. 6 (cf. 

60); Nova- vprian, 7V / ilartel; 

.Int. a<tv. PaitJ.Sam. in Ronth, Rtl.Satrat, m. 3<ji, 39* ; Athanasius, 
hanius. //.i.-r. Ivii. 3, 9, ed. Oehler; Basil, 

Eunom. iv. p. a8a ; Gregory of Nysu, Adv. Eunom. 1 1 ; Chrysostom, 
J/om. ad Rom. vi. 3, Ac,; Theod- . ir. p. 100; August: 

7.38; Ambrosius, Dt . 
Satuto, i. 3. 46; Hieronymts 

lul x .-S. It is true also of Origen (im Rom. viL 13) if we may 

tmtt Rufinns Latin translation (the subject has been discussed at length 
by Gifford, op. eit. p. 31 ; Abbot,/. B. Extg. 1883, p. 103 ; \VH. ,:' 
Moreover there is no evidence that this conclusion was arrived at on dogmatic 
grounds. The paaaage is rarely cited in controversy, and the word e<* was 
given to oar Lord by many sects who refused to ascribe to him full 
honours, as the Gnostics of the second century and the Arians of the t 
On the other hand this was a useful text to one set of heretics, the SaU 
and it is significant that Ilippolytns, who has to explain that the words do 
not favour Sabellianism, never appears to think of taking them in any 
other way. 

The strongest evidence against the reference to Christ is that of the leading 
uncial MSS. Of these M has no punctuation, A undoubtedly puts a point 
after oapxv, and also leaves a slight space. The punctuation of this chapter 
is careful, and certainly by the original hand ; but as there is a smiih 
SUM! space between \f*oro\> and Mp in ver. t, a point between odpga and 
Tirf, and another between 'lapa^inu and &V, there is no reason as far as 
punctuation is concerned why & > should not refer to X^<rrJ as much as 
mrt does to AfcAfwr. It ha* a colon after oap*a, but leaves no space, 
while there is a space left at the end ol the verse. The present colon is 
however certainly not by the first hand, and whether it covers an earlier 
top or not cannot be ascertained. C has a stop after 0o>ra. The difference 
between the MSS. and the Fathers has not been accounted for and is on 

Against ascribing these words to Christ some patristic evidence has 
Origen (Rufinos) aJ lot. tells v 

who thought the ascription of the word eit to Christ difficult, for S 

had already called him tttt 0o. The long series of extracts made by 

Wetstein ad he. stating that the words u J>2 mm* e<* cannot be used of 

the Son are not to the point, for the Son here is called not J i*i vorvw* 

but M sr^rrwr e<Jt. and some of the writers he quotes expressly interpret the 

passage of the Christ elsewhere. Again, Cyr 

; quotes the Emperor Julian to the effect t!. . never calls 

Chriit though t 

passage, wh 

Two writers, and two only. dorus 

(Cramer*! Catena Mutely ascribe the wor 

The modern criticism of the passage began with Erasmus, who pointed 

For information on this point and also on the 
' indebted to Mr. I- 

>> Museum. 


ont that there were certainly three alternative interpretation* possit le, and 
that as there was to much doubt about the verse it should never be ned 
gainst heretic*. He himself wavers in his opinion. In the Commentary 
he seems to refer the words to the Father, in the Paraphrase a la- 
popular work) he certainly refers them to the Son. Socinuf, it is mtcre.ting 
to note, was convinced by the position of tv\oyrfT6t (see below) that the 
sentence must refer to Christ. Horn 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 by 
authority or theological opinion but by considerations of language. 

The discussion which follows will be divided into three heads: 
(i) Grammar; (2) Sequence of thought; (3 Pauline usage. 

The first words that attract our attention are rO ard aap*a, and a parallel The gram* 
naturally suggests itself with Rom. i. 3, 4- As there St. Paul describes the mar of the 
human descent from David, but expressly limits it mrd oapta, and then passage, 
in contrast describes his Divine descent w& wvtvfM d-yiaxrvnjt ; so here the (i) r <}ard 
course of the argument having led him to lay stress on the human birth of ad/wo. 
Christ as a Tew, he would naturally correct a one-sided statement by 
g 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 fellow -country men, and put a culminating point to his 
argument ri card oapim leads us to expect an antithesis, and we find just 
what we should have expected in iJ iiv iwi marruv e$t. 

Is this legitimate? It has been argued first of all that the proper ami- 
to adrf is wtvua. Hut this objection is invalid. <* is in a con- 
siderable number of cases used in contrast iooarf (Luke iii. 6; i Cor. i. 29; 
Col. iii. 33; Philemon 16; 3 Chron. xxxii. 8; !'. Iv [Ivi]. 5; Jer. xvii. 5; 
Dan. ii. 1 1 : ct < iTord, p. 40, to whom we owe these instances). 

Again it is argued that the expression rd *ard <ra/>a as opposed to card 
0a>a precludes the possibility of such a contrast in words. While rard 
oapxa allows the expression of a contrast, rd *ard adpa 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 an 
expressed contrast to such limitations introduced with the article (see 
'. p. 39 ; he quotes Isocrates, p. 32 e ; Demosth. font. Eubul. p. 1299, 

Although neither of these objections is valid, it is perfectly true that 
neither ard <rd/*ra nor rd ard oap*a demands an expressed antithesis 
(Kom. iv. i ; Clem. Kom. i. 33). The expression rd rard oapm 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 J oV. (a) 4 4V. 
It is argued on the one hand that A & is naturally relatival in character and 
equivalent to 5t tan, and in support of this statement a Cor. xi. 31 is quoted : 
J edt xal warfjp rov Kvpiov 'lyaov o78K, 6 ott> <v\oyijrk (Iff TOV oiwrof. on 
ov ^v&>f*u 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 A <forf<r ipx^irot J*a virruv i<rrir A Ar 
Tijt T^t <* T^t jfjt Ian, o2 1* rip T^T AaAf: and ol 6tnn in Rom. viiL 5, 8. 
The question is a nice one. It is perfectly true that A dV can be used in both 
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 
as there is no finite verb in the sentence following, an ordinary reader would 
consider that the words <J orr Jj mirror *<* refer to what precedes nnles* 


they suggest so great an antithesis to his mind that he could not refer them 


further than this: no Instance seems to occur, at any rate i 

e participle 4r being used with a prepositional phrase and the 
noon which the prepositional phrase qu* ! . - noun is mentioned the 

substantive verb becomes onnecessary. Here o i*l dm* *4r wot 

the correct expression, if O^t to the subject of the sentence; if 4 to added 
e4r most become predicate. This excludes the translation (*.) ' He who to 
God over all be (or to) bleated for ever.' It still leaves it possible to translate 
: - who to over all is God blessed for ever,' but the reference to 
X(n<jrCt remains the most natural n, unless, as stated above, the 

word 64f suggests in itself too great a contrast 

(3) The It has thirdly been pointed out that if this passage be an ascription of 

position of blessing to the Father, the word &Aoyirrc* would naturally come first, jest 
as the word ^Blessed ' would in KnglUh. An examination of l.XX usage 
shows that except in cases in which the verb is expressed and thrown forward 
(as Ps. exit (cxiiil. a > rd ro/a Kvpio* .iAoyij/uror) this to almost in- 
variably its position. But the rale is clearly only an empirical one, and in 
cases in which stress has to be laid on some special word, it may be and is 
broken (cf. Pi. A/. viii 40. 41). As A *r Jri smrrs* 04t if it does n. 
to 6 Xptffrh 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 posr: 
6Aoyirr4f being as decisive as some have thought it. but do not prevr 
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 
that if St. Paul had intended to insert an ascription of praise to the Father 
we should have expected him to write rfAoyijTuf tit rovt a'vvtu 6 i*i warrvr 
0f<*. If the translation (d. suggested above, which leaves the v 
arrr, be accepted, two difficulties which have been urged are a'. 
tut the awkwardness and abruptness of the sudden O*4f tl\aytfrut sit 

make this interpretation impossible. We have seen that the portion 
JA7fr4t makes a doxology (*.) improbable, and th 
participle makes it very unnatural. The grammatical evidence is in favour 

of (a.), i.e. the reference of the words to & Xj*0T*, unless the words * aW in 
vftVra<r Otft contain in themselves so marked a contrast that they could not 
]x>Kibly be so referred. 

The coo- We tss next to the connexion of thought. Probably not manv 

oexion of doubt that the interpretation which refers the passage to Christ (a.) a : : 

the context. s -r* of Israel, and as the 

highest and last privilege he rernindi his readers that It wa* Jewish 

stock after all that Christ in His human nature had come, and then in order . 
this he dwells on the exalted character of Him who came 
to the flesh as the Jewish Messiah. This gives a r> 
ble interpretation of the passage. Can we say the same of any 
n whkh applies the words to the Fat 

who acV jnetation have generally taken the word* 

as a doxology, tie tha: e blessed : 

God over all be blessed for ever.' A natural criticism that at once ar . 
how awkward the sodden introduction of a doxology 1 how inconstotei 
the tone of sadness which pervades the passage ! Nor do the reasons alleged 
' :;.:; : .- :v. It fa H MM 

of cot ie for the privileges of his race and 

illy for the coming of the Messiah, but that is not the though: 
' is one of sadness and of i , necessary f< 

to argue that the promise of God has not failed. Nor again dors a rrt 
to Rom. i. 35 support the interpretation. It is quite true thai there we have 


doxology in the midst of a passage of great sadness ; but like a Cor. xi. 31 
that is an instance of the ordinary Rabbinic and oriental usage of adding an 
ascription of praise when the name of God has been introduced. That would 
not apply in the present case where there is no previous mention of the name 
i. It is impossible to say that a doxology could not stand here ; it is 
certainly true that it would be unnatural and out of place. 

So strongly does Dr. Kennedy feel the difficulties both cxegetical and Prot 
grammatical of taking these words as a blessing addressed to the Father, Kennedy'* 
that being unable to adopt the reference to Christ, he considers that they interpret*- 
occur here as a strong assertion of the Divine unity introduced at this lion. 
place in order to conciliate the Tews : ' He who is over all is God blessed 
for erer.' It is difficult to find anything in the context to support this 
opinion, St. Paul's object is hardly to conciliate unbelieving Tews, 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 usage makes it absolutely impossible to refer the Pauline 
expressions e*Jt and M wnw to Christ, or to address to Him such usage. 
a doxology and make use in this connexion of the decidedly strong word (i) e/t. 
6Ao-yi}r4f, the balance of probability is in favour of referring the ptMlft 
to Him. \Vhat 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 lingu ! .ml always looks upon Christ 

as being although subordinate to the Father at the head of all creation 
(i Cor. xi. 3 ; xv. 38 ; Phil. ii. 5-1 1 ; Col. i. H-ao), and this would quite 
justify the use of the expression 4*1 vrfrrwr of Htm. So also if St. Paul can 
speak of Christ as Jir roO eov (a Cor. iv. 4 ; Col. i. 15). as I* iiof+v eov 
iwapx**, and Too e$ (Phil. ii. 6 , he ascribes to Him no lesser dignity 

than would be implied by eot as predicate. The question rather is this : 
was e4t 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 
i ither as would the word van}/> if it were substituted? The most 
significant passage referred to is i Cor. xii. 4-6, where it is asserted that eof 
is as much a proper name as *vp<of or TMV/MI and is used in marked distinc- 
to v/xof. But this passage surely suggests the answer. Ki>ot is 
clearly used as a proper name of the Son, but that does not prevent St. Paul 
elsewhere speaking of the Father as Kvpot, certainly in quotations from the 
O.T. and probably elsewhere (i Cor. iiL 5), nor of Xp<rrwt as **/* 
(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 predicate vely would 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. 28 and perhaps Titus it. 1 4. 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 6*orP'k. (>> r*o** 
The distinction between .wAovjrot and tv\ow?**<" "Men it is attempted to logies ad- 
make cannot be sustained : and to ascribe a doxology to the Son would be dressed to 
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 dignity of the Messiah became realized, a change would 
take place in the use of words. Hence we find doxologies appearing 
definitely in later books of the N.T., probably in a Tim. iv. 18, certainly in 


Rev. r. 13 and 3 i Again we can uteri that we should not expect 

to early an Eplttle as the Romans, but, as Dr. Liddoo poir 
a The**, i :t as doe* 5-8; and there is no reason 

why language should not at this time be beginning to adapt itself to theo- 
logical idemTalready formed. 

r -- Throughout there has been no argument which we hare felt to be quite 

* ... conclusive, bat the reuh of our investigations into the grammar 

sentence and the drift of the argument is to incline as to the belief that the 
words would naturally refer to Christ, unless * is so definitely a proper 
name that it would imply a contrast in itself. \Vc have seen that that is not 
so. Even if St. Paul did not elsewhere use the word of the Chris 
certainly was so used at a not much later period. St. Paul's phraseology is 
never fixed ; he had no dogmatic reason against so using it. In these i 
stances with some slight, but only slight, hesitation we adopt the first alteraa- 
nd translate ' Of whom is the Christ as concerning the flesh, who is 
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.' 


IX. 6 13. For it is indeed tntf. \Vith all these privileges 
Israel is yet excluded ji promises. 

Now in the first place does this imply, as has been H 
that the promises of God ha ' rokcn f By ; 

The Scriptures show clearly that / :\- not 

enough. The children of Jshmael and the children of Esau> 
ilike descendants of Abraham to whom the P) 
en rejected. There is then no bn\: 
-.'w/Vr, if Cod rejects some Israelites as He has 
rejected them. 

Yet in spile of these privileges Israel is rejected. Now it 
has been argued : ' If this be so, then the Divine word has : 
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 ; a the Israel 

of privilege, T no more in fact than that all were to share the 
full rights of sons of Abraham because 

Two instances will prove was not the Divine intention. 

Take first the words used to Abraham in Gen. xxi. 12 when he 

i lagar and her > la Isaac shall thy seed be c 

These words show that altho \o sons of 

Abraham, one only, Isaac, was selected to be the heir, through 


whom the promise was to be inherited. 'And the general conclu- 
sion follows : the right of being ' sons of God/ i. 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. 10) 'At this 
time next year will I come and Sarah shall have a son.' The 
promise was given before the child was born or even conceived, 
and the child was born because of the promise, not the promise 
given because the child was born. 

10 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, born 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. 23 we learn 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. 
13 And the prophecy has been fulfilled. Subsequent history may 
be summed up in the words of Ma lac hi (i. 2, 3) 'Jacob have 
I loved, and Esau have I hated.' 

6. The Apostle, after conciliating his readers by a short 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 W 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 fall is not so absolute as to imply a break in God's 


ovx ocor Won:' the case is not as though/ ' This grief of 

:or 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 oi x d',. - not possible that ' : for the 

r is very rarely omitted, and the construction in this case is 

i the infinitive, nor does St. Paul want to state 
i possible should have happened, but what has not happened. 
The common cllijr- .ifibrds the best analogy, and the 

phrase may be supposed to represent ov rmovro* & tan *,l 


{wftrTuMr : ' fallen from its place/ i.e. perished and become of no 
effect. So i Cor. xiii. 8 i 070*17 ot&W* Wrtrr (TR) ; I 

6 X6 Y o* TOO 6coi: '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 . 
This is the only place in the N. T. where the phrase occurs 
in this sense; elsewhere it is used by St. Paul (2 Cor. . 
iv. a ; a Tim. ii. 9 ; TiL ii. 5), in Heb. xiii. 7, in Apoc. 
xx. 4, and especially by St. Luke in the Acts (t es) to 

mean ' the Gospel' as preached ; once (in Mark vii. 13), it seems 
to mean the O. T. Scriptures ; here it represents the O. T. phrase 

6 Xoyof roO KV/N'OV : cf. Is. XXXI. 2 al 6 Xuyot avrov (1. e. rot) Kvptov) ot> 

ol it 'lapa^X : the offspring of Israel according to the flesh, the 

viol 'ltrpai\ Of Vci 

ovroi 'laparjX. Israel in the spiritual sense (cf. vcr. 4 on 'la/xi^Xirai 
which is read here also by D E F G, Vulg., being a gloss to bring 
out the meaning), the 'fopoqX roO eoO of Gal. vi. 16, intended for 
the reception of the Divine promise. But St. Paul does not 
here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) 
from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel 
might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out 
from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants 
of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied 
in the sacred name Israel. This statement, which is the ground 
on which he contests the idea that God's word has failed, 1. 
now to pr 

7. ooo' on. The grammatical connexion of this passage 
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 be had asserted in the case of descent from Jacob, an 
establish his fundamental principle that inheritance of the pro- 
mises is not the necessary result of Israelitah des 

oWpfia 'A^padfi i <nr'pjui is used in this verse, f 

natural seed or descent, then of seed according to the promise. 


Both senses occur together in Gen. x.v and both are 

found elsewhere in the N. T., Gal. iii. 39 ? & iiult XptoroC, Spa rov 
'A#xia/i <rir>pa W< : Rom. xi. I >*... Vr oWp/uror *A$Mop. The 
nominative to the whole sentence is vdm ol ' 'lapo^X. 'The 
descendants of Israel have not all of them the legal rights of in- 
heritance from Abraham because they are his offspring by natural 

dXV. Instead of the sentence being continued in the same form 
as it began in the first clause, a quotation is introduced which com- 
pletes it in sense but not in grammar: cf. Gal. iii. 11, 12; i Cor. 
xv. 37. 

iv 'lead* K\Ti6rj<7Tcu aot <nrppa: 'in (i.e. through) Isaac will 
those who are to be your true descendants and representatives 
be reckoned.' (as in Col. i. 16 V oury cn'<r&7 TO vorra) im- 
plies that Isaac is the starting-point, place of origin of the 
: dants, and therefore the agent through whom the descent 
takes place ; so Matt. ix. 34 T$ u PX om rv &upoyt*>r : i Cor. vi. 3. 
anipfta (cf. Gen. Xli. 7 T$ <nrp/i<m <rou &W nj* yi> : Gen. XV. 5 ovr*< 
<TT<H Ti> <nr>Ma <rov) 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. i 3, 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 
indissoluble bond See the discussion at the end of this 

' reckoned/ ' considered/ ' counted as the true 
not as in ver. H, and as it is sometimes taken here, 
4 called/ ' summoned ' (see below). 

The nses of the word oA<' are derived from two main significations, 
(i) to 'call,* 'summon,' (a) to 'summon by name/ hence 'to name.' It 
may mean (i) to 'call aloud' Heb. iii. 13,10 'summon/ to 'summon to 
a banquet ' (in these senses also in the LXX), so i Cor. x. 27 ; Matt. nit. 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 (ty* 
A *4f i*dA<ro < 

Jr fercumrvrp), Is. li. 2 (6ri tit 
raj vAur7*a afovr aJ faivipra atrdr mi JvAipvra avrJr) approach it In 
this sense it is confined to the epistles of St. Paul with Hebrews and St. Peter, 
the word hardly occurring at ail in St. John and not in this sense elsewhere 


(althoogh cXirrJf is to used Matt The fall construe 

rra tit n, I The*, ii. 13 rov aAorrot t-^at m r^r Javrov 0aoi\<i<a> mi 
Ufar: but the word was early used absolutely, and so A Air of God (so 
Rom 14). The technical use of the term comes out 

most strongly in I Cor. vii and in the derived words (see on cAirrlf 
Rom. a) In the second group of meanings the ordinary con- 

struction is with a double accusative, Acts xiv. la taiAovr T rdr Ba^^ov 
Aia (so Kom. ix. 35, and constantly in I XX), or with to^an, , 
Mt*rt as Luke i. 59, 61, although the Ilct-raion <oA/<rov<ri TO foyM ovrow 
*^paM;X (Matt. i. 33) occurs. But to 'call by name' has associations 
derived on the one tide from the idea of calling over, reckoning, accounting; 
hence such phrases as Rom. ix. 7 (from Gen x . and on the other 

from the idea of affection suggested 1 <>f calling by name, so 

Rom. ix. 36 (from LXX Hos. ii. I [L 10]). These d< i of the word 

occur independently both in Greek, where <Xf?>u 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 na 
of expressing affection, gives a warmer colouring to the idea suggested. 

8. TOUT* <mr. From this instance we may deduce a general 

Td Wra -rift ffopcof : libtri guos corporis vis gemurit. Fri. 

Wicra TOO etou : bound to God by all those ties which have been 
the privilege and characteristic of the chosen race. 

ri T/ara TTJ? iwoyyeXio?: liberiqvos Dfipromissum procreaTi't. Fri. 

Cf. Gal. iv. 23 oXX* 6 M** '* r *) ( irm&<r*1t ora rrdpKa yrycvrt^rai, 6 & 
r^r c'XrvArpat * /jroyytXiat : 28 V*** *'. o^t\<f>oi t arA *Ia<w ctrcryycXior 

All these expressions (ra roC 0oO, TVra rJjt <troyyXaf) arc 

used elsewhere of Christians, bu not their meaning in this 

passage. St. Paul is concerned in c to prove n< 

any besides those of Jewish descent might inherit the promises, but 
merely that not all of Jewish descent necessarily and for tb 
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 thos- 
the promise was first spoken, and who might be considered to 1 
of the promise. This principle is capable of a far more ui 
application, an application which is made in the Epistle to the 

\. 28, &c.), but is not made here. 

0. iwoypXiat must be the predicate of the sentence t! 
forward in order to give emphasis and to show where the 

it lies. 'This word is one of \ 
you refer to the passage of Scripture you v. 
the child of promif* !>orn MTQ <rdpa; his birth therefore 

depends upon the promise \\hich was in fact the efficient cause of 
it, and not the Ami hence is deduced 

a general law : a mere connexion with the Jewish race rra 


does not necessarily imply a share in the /royyX&i, for it did not 
according to the original conditions. 

card TOK Kcupor rouTOf IXco'aofiat, KCU form rf Xetpp? uWf. St. Paul 

Combines Gen. XVlii. IO (LXX) inai*nrrpt<p<at> fa irp6t oi ori ri* 

roGrw ir &par, cat IMO* Zappa 7 yvrq <rov: and 14 (LXX) 

tit TOV xatpinf TOVTOV oVaorptyo* irpic a lr &par, al furai TIJ Zappa i-Zot. 

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. 

card TDK Kcupoy rot/Tor is shown clearly by the passage in Genesis 
to mean 4 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. oo fioW W : see on v. 3, introducing an additional or even 
stronger proof or example. 'You may find some flaw in the 
previous argument; after all Ishmacl was not a fully legitimate 
child like Isaac, and it was for this reason (you may say) that the 
sons of Ishmacl 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 

dXXd KCU 'Pep/KKd, R.T.X. : the sentence beginning with these words 
is never finished grammatically ; it is interrupted by the parenthesis 
in ver. 1 1 p^trw yap ytwiflivrv* . . . jcaXoOrror , and then continued 
with the construction changed ; cf. v. 12, 18; i Tim. i. 3. 

it *KOS 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 Ishmacl. Cf. Chrys. ad he. (Horn, in Rom. xvi. p. 610) 
9 yap 'PcSorra cat fi6vrj ry 'lotiac yryot* yvvrj, col dvo rcowra flraioat, / 
roO 'icraajt rKr dptporff'povf* aXX opwf oi rfx&'rrrf roO avrov irarpoc 
orrc c, rjjt aut^f prjTpot, ras avrdr \vaarrtt ciAIwf , icai 6fMnrarptot orrt *ai 
ApopflTptoi, *ai irpoc rovroit KOI didt'/int, ov rin> nurir air^XaMray. 

KoiTTjK exooao : ' having conceived ' ; cf. FrL ad loc. 

TOO irarpos ^(IMT : ' the ancestor of the Jewish race.' St. Paul is 
here identifying himself with the Jews, ' his kinsmen according to 
the flesh/ The passage has no reference to the composition of the 
Roman community. 

11. p^ww yo>. 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* 

R a 


jcctcd and Jacob chosen is quite sufficient to establish this. But 
the instance suggests another point which was in the Apostle's 
and the change in construction shows that a new din 
:icr another side of the question the relation of these events 
to the Divine purpose has come forward. It is because he * 
to bring in this point that be breaks off the previous sentence. 
ydp 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 l*a . . . j*0, lent shows also the 

absolute freedom of the Divine election and purpose, for : 
before the children were bora that the choice was made and de- 

fiijTTw . . . pj& : ' 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 estimati: 
significance of the event. The story is so well known th 
Apostle is able to put first without explanation the facts 
show the point as he conceives it. 

fro . . . |Urj). What is really the underlying principle of the 
action is expressed as if it were its logical purpose; for S 
represents the events as taking place in the way they did in order 
to ill;. perfect freedom of the Divine purpose. 

Vj war' frXoyV vp66cai< TOU 6<oo : 'the 1' 
has worked on ;;le of selection.' These words are the 

key to chaps, ix >olution of the problem before 

.!. irpo&crtc is a technical Pauline term occ 
not frequently in the three later groups of Epistles: Ro: 
i 3, II V atry, V Y cat iduifMnuv, npoop> 
wp66nru> TOU TO irdrra frf/yyovfrof aara T^V /SovXqr TOW tfAr.. 

ii cara np60ioiv rv alw*v 9p /roiijatv V TO* 
2 Tim. i. 9 TOV eWayrot fjftas cai caAcVairof Xij<rt tyia. 
>ya 9Mr. a'XXa nor I'diciv *pd&0i cat !) also is found 

once in the same sense, Eph. i. 9 nra r^ toi ; . wpo- 

jfao rf avry. From Ari> irds p66<au had been used to 

express purpose ; with St. 1 Divine purpose of God for 

the salvation of mankind/ the ' purpose of the ages ' determined in 
the Divine mind before i: 

appar. sscd elsewhere in the N. T. by fa 


ii nice of the word wp&ait in thi" 

seems to be quoted. The com \l>ostk 

with greater force and original 

he needs 

note on St. Paul's Philosophy of 
presses an essential! a (see below) >elf a new 


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) 
4 the process of choice/ * election.' Pt. Sol. xviii. 6 Kofeplcnu 6 efe 

'itrpoqX tit fjpipa* Aov iv ti\nyio, tit tjnt'pa* VAytjc daii Xpurrov 

a^ToC; ix. 7; Jos. B.J. 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 Pt. So/. 
ix. 7), but in the N.T. it is always used of God's election, (a) As 
abstract for concrete it means ArX*ro<' t those who are chosen, 
Rom. xi. 7. (3) In Aquila Is. xxii. 7 ; Symmachus and Theodo- 
tion, Is. xxxvii. 24, it means 'the choicest,' being apparently em- 
ployed to represent the Hebrew idiom. 

fUTI : the opposite to tx*nrrtut*v (ver. 6) : the subjunctive shows 
that the principles which acted then are still in force. 

OUR it cpyw? dXX* CK TOU KoAoGrrof. 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 fpya. We have no right either with Chrysostom 

(tva </>*'} <t>*]<T\ mil Gf oG fj iK\ayrj fj KOTO npufatnv *a* irpo^yvwair yivofttvri) 

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 ' 
tiling' to the kingdom. The gloss of Calvin dum altos ad 
saluUm praedestinat) altos ad aeternam damnationem is nowhere 
implied in the text. 

So Gore (Studt'a Biblica, iii. p. 44) The absolute election of 
Jacob, the "loving" of Jacob and the "haling" 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.' 

+avAov is the reading of the RV. and modem editors with K A B, a few 
minuscules, and Orig. KHK&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 wp6fc<n TOV Bow of the RV. the TR. reads rov eow vpoOiett with 
the support of only a few minuscules. 

12. 6 pcilur K.T.X. The quotation is made accurately from the 
I.. XX of Gen. XXV. 23 *m &rc Kv/xor avrfj Auo fAn? V 177 ywrrpi <rov 
flaw, rni fluo Xaol in rrjt cotXinc <row diaorciX^<rorrat* cat Xoit XooG vnipi^t^ 
ai 6 ptifa* dovXMri r^ <Xd<r<roM (cf. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 
p. 163). God's election or rejection of the founder of the race is 

246 -E ROMA [IX I'J. 

part of the process by which He elects or rejects the race. In 
ihe choice has been made independently of merits either 
of work or of ancestry. Both were of exactly the same descei 
the choice was made before either was born. 

6 jici'lwr ... T$ Adaoon : ' the elder,' ' the younger.' 
use of the words seems to be a Hebraism ; sec Gen. x. 2 1 

S.7M t'yvto . . . cifcX^j 'Ia<M > jm'Cw : ib. Xlix. 1 6 fopa TV, fuifo^t 
ai oyofia TV Kvri'pa 'Pa^A. But the dictionaries quote in 
support of the use Zurtr 6 piyas Pol. XVIII. xviii. 9. 
instances quoted of pixpfe (Mk. xv. 40; . 6, 10. i : 

are all equally capable of being explained of stati 

13. it* 'loufcp ^yawTjaa, r&r & 'Haao rfjun)aa. St. Paul con- 
cludes his argument by a second quotation taken freely from the 
LXX of Mai. i. a, 3 out a&X0oc fr 'Hvav rot 'Iojti/3 ; 

.t is the exact object with \\hich these words are introduced? 
(i) The greater number of commentators (s 
consider that they simply give the explanation of God's c 
' 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 S repre- 

sented as vindicating the independence of the Divine ch< 
relation to the two sons of Isaac. 

(2) This explanation has the merit of prob- 

ably too simple, (i) In the first place, it is quite clear that St. 
Paul throughout has in his mind in each case the dcs 
well as the ancestors, the people who are chosen cd as 

well as the fathers through whom the choice is made (cf. . 
In fact this is necessary for his argument. He has to j 
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 
both cases there is reference not merely to the children but to their 
descendants. Gen. xxv. 2.; .ire in thy womb, and two 

peoples shall be separated even from thy IxnuN;' i. 3 'But 
Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his 
heritage to the jackals of the wild A 'hcrcas Edom saith/ 

There is nothit il's method of quotation which could 

: him from using the words in a sense son ferent 

from the original ; but when the original passage in both cases is 
really more in accordance with his method and argumen* 
more reasonable to believe that he is not : the sense. 

LI will become more apparent later ^ argument is to 

that throughout Gods action there is running a 'purpose 


according to election.' He does not therefore wish to say that it 
is merely God's love or hate that has guided H mi. 

Hence it is better to refer the words, either directly or in- 
y, 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 aorisu 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.' 

^yaTTTjaa . . . J|u<rrjva. There is no need to soften these words 
as some have attempted, translating * loved more ' and ' loved leu.' 
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 by Wetstein, ii. 438) Tu 
s omnes transgressions, quas odit Dtus S. B.fuisse in Esavo. 

How very telling would be the reference to Esau and tdom an acquaint- 
ance with Jewish contemporary literature will show. Although in Dent xxiii. 7 
it was said ' Thou shall not abhor