Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 

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

AND 

REV.  A.  C  HEADLAM,  B  D. 


T.  ft  T.  CLARK,  EDINBURGH 


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


THE  INTERNATIONAL  CRITICAL  COMMENTARY 


CRITICAL  AND  EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 

OH 

THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 


BY  THE 

REV.  WILLIAM  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LLJD.,  LlTT.D. 


•    CAMOII  Or  OMUST  CMUBCM,  OW«U> 

AND  THE 

REV.  ARTHUR  C.  HEADLAM,  B.D. 

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


FIFTH   EDITION 


EDINBURGH 
T.  ft  T.  CLARK,  38  GEORGE  STREET 

1902 


Bs 


PREFACE 


THE  commentaries  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
which  already  exist  in  English,  unlike  those  on  some  other 
Books  of  the  New  Testament,  are  so  good  and  so  varied 
that  to  add  to  their  number  may  well  seem  superfluous. 
Fortunately  for  the  present  editors  the  responsibility  for 
attempting  this  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 
deserves. 

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 
b 


li  PREFACE 

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; 


PREFACE  iii 

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 

elf. 

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, 
b2 


iv  PREFACE 

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 


PREFACE 


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 
inevitable. 

It  only  remains  for  them  to  express  their  obligations  and 
thanks  to  those  many  friends  who  have  helped  them 
directly  or  indirectly  in  various  parts  of  the  work,  and 
more  especially  to  Dr.  Plummer  and  the  Rev.  F.  E. 
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). 

W.  SANDAY. 
A.  C.  HEADLAM. 

OXFORD,  Whitsuntide,  1895. 


'PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION 

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,  Ltntt  1896. 


I'KKI-'.VE   TO   THE   THIRD    EDITH 

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  God1  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. 

W.S. 

A.  C.  II. 

OxronD.  ZVermArr,  1897. 


PREFACE  TO  THI1    FIFTH  EDITION 


<  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 


FO    Till.    1  1KTM    KIUTION 

'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   prc»e   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. 

I90J. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION  v 

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 

ABBREVIATIONS cx-ocii 

:OMMENTARY 1-436 

DETACHED  NOTES: 

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<!< 

347 

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 

437 

tin  Wore! 443 

III  Greek  \\onis 


INTRODUCTION 


§  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  Augustas1.    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: 

a«rtfxor)  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 


oft 

'  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«  &aj«or$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. 
ROM.  CO. 


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>  < : 
T»c.  .-/»«   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  dwo«oXo«vrTw<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. 

C 


!•:  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 
t«y  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. 


§  2.    THE  JEWS  IN  Ro- 

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, 

30- 
.*  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 
fff. 


THE  JEWS  IN   ROME  XIX 

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 

us4. 

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 


K  TO  THE  ROMA  [J  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  them1.     And 

came  from  Judaea  to  complain  of  th< 
rule  of  Archclnus,  no  less  than  8000  Roman  Jews  attached 
•elves  to  iif.  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*d«xrf<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  Ann.tl  ii.  85  ti  06  gravitattm  (at.  :*mnum. 


Till:   JEWS   IN   ROME 


xxi 


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******  *» 
4r«v  rapa x^t  ford  TOW  oxAov  oj£*  rip  vdAta*  tlp\^ai.  ov«  JfijAa<r«  /nV,  r?  M 

ras  T<  trmi 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [$  2. 

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>thc»c»  ;  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  cxcrci.se  of  their  rclir  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  7«rot  rovro,  «oAot*f  ir 
M    iwi 


§2.]  THE  JEWS  IN  ROME  XXl'ii 

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/3vT«po«).  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;i«rwdywyoi).  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  telrarch9). 

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  dpx«n»*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. 


ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [$  2. 

quarter  proper  was  the  reverse  of  aristocratic.    The  fairly  plentiful 
notices  which  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  works  of  the  Satirists 
lead  us  to  think  of  the  Jews  of  Rome  as  largely  a  population  of 
beggars,  vendors  of  small  wares,  sellers  of  lucifer  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). 


§  3.]  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH  XXV 

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  '  (fwr«£«if,  trc/Sopotx, 
ai&tuKu  rAy  6«oV,  ^O/SOI'/MMM  TO*  G«d»)  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
For  the  student  of  the  origin  of  the  Christian  Church  this  class  is 
of  great  importance,  because  it  more  than  any  other  was  the  seed 
plot  of  Christianity ;  in  it  more  than  in  any  other  the  Gospel  took 
root  and  spread  with  ease  and  rapidity  *. 


§  3.    THE  ROMAN  CHURCH. 

(i)   Origin.    The  most  probable  view  of  the  origin  of  the 
<  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*ntest  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  Empire1.     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 
2gMtaJbi.it.*> 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, 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [$  3. 

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 

those 

altogether. 

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 


THE  ROMAN  CHURCH 

carry  a  clear  conclusion '.  Most  decisive  of  all.  if  it  held  good,  would  be 
the  alluvion  in  St.  Peter's  own  Fir»t  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 
there4;  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  Bo0ifA«m  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  . 
cvit 

•  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- 
logical deta.ls. 

•  UgK 

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

(S**(SM*. 


u  •„: 


3.]  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH  XXXI 

(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 
Rome. 

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  drastic1, 
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 


ISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [$  3. 

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 
considerable. 

<  •  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 


THE  ROMAN   CHURCH 


XXXIII 


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. 

d 


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. 


Till.    Kn.MAN    CHURCH 


XXXV 


.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  influence1.  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). 


5  4.    THE  TIME  AND  PLACE,  OCCASION  AND  PURPOSE, 
OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

(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 ^ 

lie. 

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. 


$4-] 


TIME  AND   PLACE 


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«  yc«n  r.« 

I  .      .  '  .<  ••'•'••   I      •         '.,>>.''  I     »«  .nil 

I  < .  .ir  »»4.r  K 
.«•  M«r. 

(f)  (VniiitfN, 

At  the  begin i 

lie  protpci 

1 
. 

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  •  tn.il. 

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<  l»atcd  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 

i»tl<  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  th.it  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  < 

il's. 

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 


§4.] 


OCCASION  AND  PURPOSE 


xli 


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  irnpodoa«ir  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<ip«rpa,  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. 


4.]  OCCASION   AND  PURPOSE  xliil 

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 
men. 

These  are  the  postulates  of  Christianity,  the  forces  to  which  the 
Apostle  has  to  appeal  for  the  solution  of  practical  problems  as  they 
present  themselves.  His  time  had  been  very  largely  taken  up 
with  such  problems.  There  had  been  the  great  question  as  to 
the  terms  on  which  Gentiles  were  to  be  admitted  to  the  new  society. 
On  this  head  St.  Paul  could  have  no  doubt.  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 


§  5.  THE  ARGUMENT. 

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 
ahthcad 
s  fresh  and  bright  mam 


5.] 


THE  ARGUMENT 


xlv 


'  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 


ARGUM! 


xlvii 


And  the  answer  is  (i)  by  certain  great  redemptive  acts  on  the 
part  of  God  which  take  effect  in  the  sphere  above,  though  their 
consequences  are  felt  throughout  the  sphere  below ;  (a)  through 
a  certain  ardent  apprehension  of  these  acts  and  of  their  Author 
Christ,  on  the  part  of  the  Christian;  and  (3)  through  his  con- 
tinued self-surrender  to  Divine  influences  poured  out  freely  and 
unremittingly  upon  him. 

It  is  superfluous  to  say  that  there  is  nothing  whatever  that  is  new 
in  this  statement.  It  does  but  reproduce  the  belief,  in  part  implicit 
rather  than  explicit,  of  the  Early  Church ;  then  further  defined  and 
emphasized  more  vigorously  on  some  of  its  sides  at  the  Reformation ; 
and  lastly  brought  to  a  more  even  balance  (or  what  many  would 
fain  make  a  more  even  balance)  by  the  Church  of  our  own  day.  Of 
course  it  is  liable  to  be  impugned,  as  it  is  impugned  by  the 
attractive  writer  whose  words  have  been  quoted  above,  in  the 
-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. 

&j 

science  1 6). 

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

.rcun.cUio:. 

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

'.a); 
(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 : 
ltoastingeiclnded{J7.a8); 
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  ».ronKht  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 


*••] 


Till.  ARGUMENT 


Xlix 


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. 

18-32); 

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 

(ix.6-13); 
P.  nor  with  the  Divine  Justice  (ix.  14-39). 

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

14-18). 
(ii.)  A   necessary  deduction  from    His  position  as  Creator  (ix. 

19-33). 
(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). 


1  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [$  6. 

(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). 
IV.-Epilocue. 

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, 


THE  ARGUMENT 


li 


§6] 

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. 

§  6.  LANGUAGE  AND  STYLE. 

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


$  6.]  LANGUAGE  AND  STYLE  liii 

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 
ew'. 

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  Greek4.  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 
value. 

*  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  Latin1.    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. 


§  6.]  LANGUAGE  AND  STYLE  Iv 

(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/XM  or  printed  line- 
will  be  worth  while  to  compare  the  Epistles  chapter  by  chapter  :  — 

ROMANS. 

«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* 

4oa 

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  fix0*  b  &*  the  doctrinal  chap- 
ter* 402  :  570  -  (approximately)  I  in  1-4;  and  for  the  whole  Epistle  not 
very  different,  563  :  ;S9  -  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. 


LANGUAGE  AND  STYLE 


Ivii 


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* : — 


Total 


Ch.I. 

II. 
111. 

IV. 
V. 
VI. 


EPHESIANS. 

vlxM 

C) 

0 

(0 

45 

4 

3 

— 

40 

9 

6 

— 

36 

a 

6 

— 

lai 

I  ; 

15 

—  ' 

55 

8 

I 

50 

ii 

»7 

— 

« 

3 

'3 

— 

*  70 

30" 

58 

I 

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. 


EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [$  6. 

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. 
a«fraoAor  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  :  **lA«a  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. 


5  6.]  LANGUAGE  AND  STYLE  lix 

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. 

A«y  94  Gat  a. 

A«'7*»  c5r  Rom.  a. 

Aiy*  N  TOVTO  $TI  I  Cor.  I. 

woAir  Atf-yw  a  Cor.  3. 


lx 


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. 
Cor 

Rom.  i,  a  Cor.  i. 
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.] 


*••] 


LANGUAGE  AND  STYLE 


Ixi 


ROM.  iii.  a  1-26. 

Vvvl   84    X8"/*1   *6t*ov  8«reuo<rvri7 
ipofrat, 


e«oC  mp, 
rov  ro/iov  »al  rwr  ipxfnjrvv  8i 
<rvVi7  8*  ««ov  W  «/<rr««f  'Ii7<rov 
Xparov  tit  wdrrat  rovf  v«rr<vorr«tr 
ov  yap  tart  RHUTTO\T)'  *drr«f  >up 

fjttapTOV,   tal    60T«00VrrtU   rip  Sufljf 

rov   e«o£J 


EPH.  iii.  1-7. 

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


ovviai*  itov  It 


>  X.  1..  6r  wpolBtro  6  6«df 
lAatrr^/Moy  8id  T^T  *i'<rr««*  Jr  r£ 
avrov  ai/jari,  iff  lvbti£iv  rip  8uraio- 
avrov,  8«d  rrjr  wafHaiv  riv 
t  anaprrjuaTojv  fV  rp 
p  TOV  6«ov  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/j«art  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  «V8«ifir.  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. 


Ixii 


ROM.  x.  5-8.  Era.  !••-.  7-1  1. 

^>  7pi*«.  5r,  r^r  9un»o-  'Erl  tt  J«a<rrr  ^  i 

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

ft<r«nu  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§ 
TW 


GAL.  iv.  35-31. 

TA  »i  'A>ap  lira  £pot  J*rir  4r  rp  'A^i?.  <TV<TTO,X««'  W 
>Ari>i  7dp  /MT^  rarr  r«'«y«r  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/i«r.     «LXA'  &<yw«p   - 
TOT  card  flri  I-/M,  oCra*  m2  rvv.     «i  ' 


;  'B«daA«  r^r  vattiotfp  mi  rir  •,!«*  a^f,  ov  fap 
<(r*i7f  M«ra   roG  i/IoG 
,  dAAa  rip  jA«vtt/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 


thr 


can--  won 


•lion  of  different  au  •>  though  any  single 

My  be  enough  to  account  t»r  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 
straining. 

§  7.    THE  TEXT. 

(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  : 

(i)    GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS. 
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  B1. 

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. 


ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [$  7. 


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*0-    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,Gr 

<  '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«7a;  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- 
plete. 

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  [d»oAer7ov 
*  a&«m  ^  ^K]  iii.  5  ;  viii.  35  0«df  &  &«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. 

Minuscules. 

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 
Museum. 

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- 

(a)  YFRSIONS. 

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

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

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

The  Peshitto  (Pes! 
The 

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' 

vi.6-io. 

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 

*<!tolhet 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 


§7.1 


I  ill.   TEXT 


Ixvii 


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 

Vulgate. 

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 ;  N«H,  Arm.,  Euthal.,  and  in  less  degree 
a  number  of  minuscules ;  D  [E]  F  G. 

MB, 

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 

f* 


\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  detctm.ne  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(p€r  Cyfria*iukt  Ttxt  d.  Aft*  Afottohrum,  Berlin,  1893,  p.  24). 


Ixix 


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  Pamphilus1.  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 
other. 


Ixx  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [§  7. 

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 


l.STLK  TO  THE  ROMANS  [$  7. 

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  th.it  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..  a1,  <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 
place. 

The  specific  characteristics  of  the  textual  apparatus  of  Romans  may  be 
said  to  be  these  :  (i)  the  general  inferiority  in  boldness  and  originality  of  the 

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. :  d»o*u-<Jrr*t  rel. 
:>  Katpj,  8ouA«vorr«f  D*  F  G,  CfcftV.   Za/.  a/,   Micron,  a/. 
Orig.-laL  Arabrstr.  :  ry  Ki-p<V  *ofA«««>rr«j  /r/. 
13  roTt  /jr««ut  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  ^  a«ay- 
9oA/^«rcu  ^  (Ifftfiycr  xiv.  a  I  ;  y^as  xv.  7;  r^r  [«ai/xi?<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)  x««r  ''<2  ri  tpy°*  ovittri  tori  x*l**  (fie  B;  f/ryor  a/.) 

is  shared  by  B  with  KCL.     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  • 

5 

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. 


§  8.  LITERARY  HISTOI 

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  e«ow,  oi  o 


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

6ftftaroit 


rov   9poa»6ftftaroit  •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 
«oi 


{•oar,  ATW,  «*da- 


5 


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

V/MfC. 

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

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


§8.] 


The   following  passages  seem 
thoughts  and  words  : 

Rom.  xii.  3  dAAd  fpw<:*  tit  rd 
ffoi^poKfiV  .  .  . 
6  lxorr«t 


LITERARY   HISTORY  Ixxv 

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. 
17 


drri   «a«ov 
vporoov/Mroi 


18  «1 

_£*.__.  J-.fl 


,  rd 


Cf.  also  vr.  9,  14. 

Rom.  xiii.  i  «d< 
v»«p«Xovaoir  {tworaaoioBw 
ov  -yap  l<rriy  ^owia  <I  ^  w»d  «  «  o  v, 
al  M  ot<rai  tnrJ  6«ov  ~ 
«ia«V  .  .  . 

3«< 


4  6«ov  -yap 


i<mr, 


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


I  Peter  iv.  7-11  •drr«r  8<  rd 


•/r  iavrovt  dYav^r  4«rfr^  I  \otrn. 
ftri  d-ydn;  «aAvrr«i  wA^or  d/iaprtwr* 
«/r  dA  A  17  A  out,  dV«v  7oyyv» 


fia,  «/f  iairroit  avri  0io«orowvr«fft 
a/t  /roAoi  oUof6ftot  woutiXip  x  dpi  TO* 
e«oi/'  «f  rit  AoA«r,  OK 
nt  8ia«or«f,  u/i 


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


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


Aoi8op<ar,  rovvarrior 
,  5n  «/»  rovro 


«ai 


rw  d^atfuv* 


«a«ov, 


I  Peter  ii.  13-17 

irg    rriati    8id    TAr    Ki/pior, 
rt    6»f/>«  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. 


LITERARY   HISTORY 


Ixxvii 


The  passages  referred  to  are  the  following : 

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

ortvat  0«ov  rov  £a»wo«ovrrot  TOVT  8vro/iir     tit    *ora£oA^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  (4«arofra<n7t  JMW    otd   «o2  d^'  4»>of 

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

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


Rom.  xii.  19 


Heb.    x.    30 


i«8.'»,<r,t, 


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 


»>6pwwt 

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


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

AO/K,  do«A^o/.  o«araAaA£r 
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^ 


I 
Rom.  iv.  I  rlovvlpovfjHr  <vpi)«<irat 
'ABpadp    Tcif   vpovdropa    i}/**" 
irord    capita  ; 
t 

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


dxpoaral  mapa* 


ai 

OVK    If 


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


avrov 

James  i.    6    a*r«irou   8i    Iv    wlortt 
uucp(r 
/our* 


James  i.  a-^  wdtrco' 

or   wtipaanotf    wiptwi<rrjT« 


W  4Avit  ov  •ara49xv*r«» 
row  e«ov  <«««  xvrai. 


vvo/iori)  /p7or 
r«A«io«. 


•  The  LXX  of  Deut  naii.  35  reads  4r 
<rovt  ovr£r. 


«'««unj<y«ai  d^rowoo^rw,  5ror 


Ixx  .  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  8. 


Rom.  vii.  a  3  **<»•  W  Jr./wr  r*>*  J«ro«  IT.  i 

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

r«vo'>j«ror  TV  rljif  row  root  jiov,  jici  At'  ip£r  rfir 

«0J  alx,«aA«mCorra  JM  Jr  r«  r<$^  y^t  T«I  jilA  «  <r 
djtfpriaf  rf  orri  ir  TMI  ^«'A.<ri  ^v. 

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

rov  <r«oroirt,  <rfc»Ai|i«Oa  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  i7M,'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 


{  8.]  LITERARY   HISTORY  Ixxix 

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

One  other  book  of  the  N.T.  may  just  be  mentioned.  If  the 
doxology  at  the  end  of  Jude  be  compared  with  that  at  the  end  of 
Romans  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  they  are  quite  independent 
It  may  be  that  they  follow  a  common  form  derived  from  Jewish 
doxologies,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  the  concluding  verses  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 
another. 


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 


txxx 


[58. 


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  th.it  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 
r«rot  oftrwr 


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


4  d<rt          Ocm.  36  fct 


4  4<7. 


Clem.     51 
otrwr 


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

8 


•yd*  oVo/ia  row          Clem.  47  aVr«  m 

4r       J».^>o-«a<  rf  orojiar*  K»pW  lid 


ov 


Gem.    50 
ioav  al 


al 


?o    /ia«afiap<}r    our    o&rot 
r*r   »»P«T«>^r;  *  «aj  id  r$r 


ir 

>ia 

J  06  M^  Xo^/tf  IJTOI  Kv«iet 
n'ar.     oW^<mr  ir  r£  <rr£m 
avrov  WAot.     otrot  i  jia«ai<*ji«t 


Rom.  rt    I    T!    ovr    j/>o£fi«r; 
,9,  tro  4 


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


«a/^>  roCro  4dmu  4 


Rom.  i.  19 


*   «<T,  :n.  35   dwo^'faxr.r  d*' 

,flMMo,       va<rar  d8i«lar    «a2   dVofu'ar, 
r«^'ar,   f^cir, 


dXa(orat. 


T«  col  dXafor«iar, 

• 

ravra    -yd^    oi 


wA«o- 
r«   ca2 
«ara- 
a»'( 
r« 


TOW,  fl<Ti^w< TOVT t  o^T^^^fovf .  ojf  A€^*       <r  o  p  T  4  f  ^ vin^^ui  TV  V4v  vwitfj^ov^if* 
ofrir«t,  rd  &«aMrMa  TOV  e«e«       oft  /i^ror  M  ol  wpao#orT«i  aura. 
L    ort    ol    rd    roiavra      dXXd  col  ol  «»r«v8o«evrr«t  aftraTf. 


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

card  «ap«a. 


^MlY    VVtMlT9PVM9   w999Umw9*     IB 


Clem.  31  i/  avroi; 
Anwnu  •arr«t   ol 

tlMl&fTHftqf     TOV     0MV* 

•ftnMhf*' 

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


Ajiir  rfr 

I/far     -..> 

^  .  . 


LI'II.KAKY    HISTORY 


1  x  x  x  i 


rp  rov 

8« 

forrcu. 


lavrott 


trrott, 
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 

rvvov 


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

18  wow  xaisx*?*"  TWT  Aryo- 


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


*' 


Eph.     19     6«OW 

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<  oovA«v«ir  ^di 
«aivuri7ri  wy<v/MTOf  «ai  ov  vaAojo- 
yTi  7pd^i/iarof. 

n    viii.   ii   u  lyiipat  X.  T 
r««parK. 

Rom.  ix.  33  <r««i/i7  U«ovr  A  »po- 


Mag.  9  ol    JK  roAcuotir 

t    tit    KCUV^TIJTB, 


Rom.    xiv.    17    ov    yap   ianv    j 
/3aaiA«m    row    6<ov    Qpwatt    gal 


Trail.  9 

vtxpwy,     iytipafrot     aurJv     rot/ 
warpts  avTuv. 

Eph.    9     wporjTMnaonbot    tit   olto- 
lo^v  e«oi;  irar/ifa. 

Trail,   a   ov 

VOTUJV 


ga 


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 
lr«por  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  irr«k  p 


•ydp  lx«ur  d^d  vi^x  ftagpaf  i<rrtr  waffifl 


B 


-NS  [$  8. 

Root.  xiv.   10  »arr«t  f&p  wapa-  Pol.    6    *al     vdrrat     8«f     vapa- 

<rri704p«fa  ry  £q/jar<  row*  6«ov       orijrai    T*    £qpan     rov    Xptarov, 

*<U     fcaaror    inip    iavrov    A 

Jj<fpa  [ovr]  f«a<rror  i)p£r  w«pj       0o£ra«. 
Javrov  A^or  0<va«i*  Lrf  <*£]'. 

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  school4,  and  to  BasileidesT. 
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  *r«v/<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  dV8p«f 
wapa  ry  e«y.  .  di«aio«'  <iot  vopd 


tern  MM)  Syrian. 
•  d»ott<r«. 


: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 


\KV    HISTORY 

Test    Bcnj.    3 


Ixxxiii 


Rom.    \i     i 


Rom.    vi.    7    & 
8«8i«ai«7ai  d»d  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  oi3a»j«y  82  &n  rofi 
u-ya»<i<Tc  rdx  Hiuf  wdrra  <rvf* 
•  PV1  «/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  O«ox 


Tcit.Ncph. 


Rom.  xii.  I  wapaarjjaai  ra  owpara 
vnaiv  Ovaia*  faca*,  by  lav, 


p<«  o^wa«j«i'  TOW 
fu 

3 


motti   TM 
8)  Kvpiy 


Rom.  xii.  a  I  f«^  Ki«i  wr<i  rov  nuov, 


Rom.  xiii.  12  dvoftv/j«0a  owf 
Ip^a  TOW  <r«orovr,  l»^vao/fM0o 
rd  5«Aa  TOW  tfxurut. 

Rom.   xv.  33    o  8)   e«ut  T 

tipijVIJI  /l«Td  WaVTO/K   V/MUT. 

Rom.  xvi.  30  <J  8i  e«ot  r^t  «^ 
ov*Tpi\}ti  TUK  ZaTayay  vvd  T 
w^aj  v^y  b  TQX«I. 


Test  Beoj. 

*a  TU  «a«of. 

Test.  Ncph.  a  OWT«WT  owoi  ir  a««T€i 
voiijacu  tpya  <potr6t. 


Test.  Dan.  5  l^orr**  rwr  B«u 

rrjt. 
Test  Aser.  7  «tu 


8T 


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  e«u».     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 

theology. 

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 
longer. 

The  origin  of  the  early  order  is  by  no  means  clear.    Zahn's 

conjecture,  that  it  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  collection  of  Pauline 

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 


§  9.  INTEGRITY  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

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*ait  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  * 

Ktramton... 
.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/*0""/*1"  >"  ycr.  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  Church1.  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 

ism. 

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  (»A«ora«rj7  .  .  -  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 


$9.] 


INTEGRITY  Ixxxix 


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 
only. 

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 
authorities. 

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 
inlormation. 

'  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<tud  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  e«t 
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*ntiokabitotpostpassiom*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  t:.ir  i«.i:.:>. 


§9.]  INTEC! 


XCI 


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 

>tle. 

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 
•Btm. 

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 
Rome. 

In  examining  this  hypothesis  we  must  notice  at  once  that  it  does  not  in 
any  way  help  us  to  solve  the  textual  difficulties,  and  receives  no  assistance 
from  them.  The  problems  of  the  concluding  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 
contrary. 

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, 

b»w2eii«ca«iosr3a. 

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 


§9.] 


INTEGRITY  XCV 


scepticism  to  look  upon  such  evidence  as  worthiest,  although  it  might  not 
wnL;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  .logy—which  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 

:ford. 

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. 


INTEGRITY  XCvii 

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  yiy«t^o9tu  wtpiropip  Mp  dXrj$tiat  e«ov,  which  he 

most  certainly  could  not  have  used.     Still  more  is  this  the  case  with  regard  to 

ver.  4,   which  directly  contradicts  the  whole  of  his  special  teaching.     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 

h 


\  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 
f€ri*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  conclodinK  >  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  ; 


10-] 


tKNTARItS 


XCIX 


of  this  edition.  One  or  two  which  have  not  been  used  are  added 
as  links  in  the  historical  chain.  Some  conception  may  be  formed 
of  the  general  characteristics  of  the  older  commentators  from  the 
sketch  which  is  given  of  their  treatment  of  particular  subjects;  e.g. 
of  the  doctrine  of  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 
exegesis. 

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 
1769-1774. 

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 
noted. 

OPHYLACT  (TheoplO 
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. 


10.]  COMMENTARIES  ci 

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.    Erasmus1  Greek  Testament 


$10.]  CO.'-  KIES 


GUI 


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  p»ra- 

•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 
rest 

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 


$10.]  COMMENTAI  CV 

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 
lived. 

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 

cxegetes. 

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  s1 
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 

Burro 

* 7- 1 878;  Professor  at  Princeton,  New  J 


§  10.]  COMMENTARIES  Cvii 

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 
interpretation. 

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 


K  TO  THE   ROMANS  [$  10. 

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. 


§  10.]  COMMENTARIES  cix 

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 
exposition. 

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. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Eccltsiastieal  Writert  (sec  p.  xcviii  ff.). 

Amb 

Ambrstr 

Ath 

Aug.    . 

Bas 

Chrys.          .... 

Clem.-Alex. 

Clem.-Rom. 

Cypr.  .        - 

Cyr 

-Jcnis.  .... 
I*.        . 
. 

. 
HippoL        . 

Ign 

Jer.  (Hieron.)       . 

Jos 

!.        . 
NovaL         ... 

Occum 

Orig.  ... 

Orig.-Ut  .        . 

Pelag. 

Phot  . 

Ru 

Sedul. . 

TCI  ... 

Th«x!.-M..j.s.       . 

Theodrt. 

The  ... 


Ambrose. 

Ambrosiaster. 

Athanasius. 

Ai:  juv.inc. 


Chrysostom. 

Clement  of  Alexandria. 

Clement  of  Rome. 


of  Alexandria. 
of  Jcrusa! 
hanius. 

:uius  Zigabenus. 
;>olytus. 

.us. 

Jerome. 
Josephus. 
Methodius. 

Oecumenius. 

Origcn. 

Latin  Version  of  Orij 

i 

Rufinus. 

Term 

Theodor. 

Theodoret. 

. 


AUUREVIATIONS 


CXI 


Versions  (see  p.  Ixvi  f.). 
Aegyptt. 
Boh.     . 

.     Egyptian. 
.     Bohairic.     ^ 

Sah.     . 

•    Sahidic. 

Acth.  . 
Arm.  .        .        • 

•        .        .    Ethiopia 
•        •        .    Armenian. 

Goth.  . 

.        •        •    Gothic. 

Latt.    . 

•        •        .    Latin. 

Lat.  VeL      . 
Vuhr 

,        •        ,    Vetus  Latino. 
.        .        .    Vulgate. 

•        .        .    Syriac. 

Pesh.   . 
Hard  .        . 

.        .        .    Peshitto. 

Cov.    . 

.        .         .     Coverdalc. 

Rhcm. 

.... 

.       '.. 

•        •        •    Rheims  (or  Douay). 
.    Tyndale. 
.    Wiclif. 

AV.    . 

•        .        •    Authorized  Version. 

RV.    . 

•    •    •        •    Revised  Version. 

Editors  (see  p.  cv  ff.). 

T   R 

1  .  K.                •            . 

Tisch. 

•        •        .    Textus  Receptus. 
.    Tischendorf. 

<*              •          • 

WH. 

.        .        .    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. 

noNs 


C./.C7.          .         .          .          .  '  '  »;us         Inscnptionum 

ifcarum. 

CJ  Corpus 

im. 
Grm.-T  ....     Grimm -Thayer's    / 

con. 

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. 

tdd.pr cdiiorcs    priorcs     (older 

editors). 

om omiitit.  omittunt,  Ac. 

ftauf.    ....  luci. 

pier plerique. 

plur plures. 

praem.          ....  ;>racmittit,     j>raemittutit, 

Ac. 

rel  ....     reliqui. 

a/3.  4/5i  Ac,        ... 

r  out  of  five  tiroes, 
Ac. 

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 
Epiphanius. 

N.B.-The  toxt  oomroent«d  upon  U  that  commonly  known  M  the 
ReriMra  OtMk  'I  •  he  Greek  Text  pro«uppo»«d  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 


THE 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 

THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION. 

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  Godt   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  slt 
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 


2  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [I.  1    7 

to  David,  as  the  Messiah  was  lo  do,  4and  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 
Name. 

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. 
them. 

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. 


I.  1.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION 


G  XpiaroG  :  ««rXo»  e«oG  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  (&poir»r  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  Xp«rrov  '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). 

CI.il.  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  'I»7<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  lli<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  *I«7<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 


ISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [I.  1. 

Jott  about  the  group  i  and  3  Cor.  Rom.  there  it  a  certain  amount  of 
doubt 

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?<ro£f  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  mX«I»  occurs  in  a  highly  typical 

passage,   Hos.   XI.    I    «£  Aiyvvrot;  p«r«KdX«ra  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  «AijT«Jt  to  <«A«rrJt  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  ««x««ro{  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 


I.  1.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  5 

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 
Christ. 

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  «voyy«Xta). 

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  («voyytX«or,  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 


6  EPISTLE  T"  [I 

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  *voyy«Xior  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   «royy«XiX   /»oyy«AA«(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  A«7<rm  fir  otco*  *IoK*»3  «ic  W*?0"  «*  .'*  «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  c«p.  Acts  xiti.  32,  > 
some  eight  times  each  in  Rom.  and  GaL,  both  J»ary«Aia  «nd  4«0rr«'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  Jvorr«A4u  »«' 
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. 


I.  3,  4.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION 

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  A«i/«2  an  &p\npia  ml  t* 
rov  'lovta  <fr  0a<r<Ato,  e«4r  *al  rft^Mnror  :  Gad.  8  8w«tt  nuijovotv  lot/far  ml 
A«t'«i-  on  «f  avrSiv  dyar«A«f  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&  irv«Cpa  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.  6pia0«Vros:  '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  o»6y>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- 


S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  R  [I.  4. 

sance),  yet  in  the  vMl.U-  manifestation  of  Sonship  as  addressed  to 
the  understanding  of  men  (cf.  esp.  Phil.  ii.  9  M>  *al  6  e«o»  aM» 

lm<pty*o<,  *a<  t\apHTOTo  ai<r+  TO  5roH<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  0€oC      •  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  po»oy«»^ct  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 


I.  4.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  9 

pre-existent  Logos.  There  is  no  sufficient  reason  to  think  that 
the  Early  Church,  so  far  as  it  reflected  upon  these  terms,  under- 
stood them  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<niatt  <iXXa  £7  «V  oWa/irar  6foO.  This  parallel  de- 
termines the  connexion  of  «V  for. 

HOT*  irv«Cjia  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; 
ii. 


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,  £>cgmf»gesc*.  §  39,  3).  For  d^cwr  see  on  ayu*  ver.  7. 


«'$  dva<rrdafws  r«KpMK  :  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  u»«rrM  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>-  36»  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  £«iX«ri    trovl    £ccl.   X.    12    Xrfyot   ffToparot 
(ro^>ov  x*P">  Luke  iv.  22  Xoyot  x°l*?**  •    (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 


I.  6.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  II 


(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  ^P4*  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. 

uw€p  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). 


ISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [I 

0  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 
possession. 

.  'P«ififl  :   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  e«w).  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  .. 


I.  7.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  13 

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^<7«r« 
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<l»au<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  roUa«T«  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»Trl  «»«'«M™*  dyo  /rrai  6/j4V)  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  »OA«it  oJ  4wi'«Aip-o<  roTt  vIoTt 

Is.  i.  13  '  the  calling  of  a  convocation  '  is  represented  in  LXX 
•;y,  an«l  iv.  5  'all  her  convocations'  by  rd  *«p««t«Af>  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$&  (•  called1). 


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. 
51  [37])  or  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.,  *  «oA«rr*  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!  crvra£f  i  Xao»  oy»or,  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 

bbi»txp*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 

instate- 

•iiscussions  will  be  foot  x-rtson 

f'..  140    1401!.  ifoed.  ^  ;  Schullf. 
Tktology  of  Ikt  Old  7'ttta*  J    Agar 


I.  7.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  15 

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 
«*X»7<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<up«ty,  and 
the  common  Heb.  salutation  Shalom,  *  Peace.'  xnpit  and  «V»7»?  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<ip«r,  «A«or,  tlpfa  in  the  Epistles  to  Timothy 
and  a  St.  John  ;  «A«w  «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)  KOT«t>i\ij<Tav:  CXix.  [cxviii.]  165  tlpqrri  flroXAi)  TO«f 
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$ 


1  6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [l.  7. 


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  'peace1  (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  rcally.be  distinguished   from  it.     The  assignment  of  the 
respective  titles  of  '  Father  '  and  '  Lord  '  represents  the  first  begin- 
ning of  Christological  speculation.     It  is  stated  in  precise  terms 
and  with  a  corresponding  assignment  of  appropriate  prepositions 

in  I  Cor.  viii.  6  a'XX'  t?pjy  «ff  6«6f  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  ^p£r.     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  cla«s  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 


II    7.J  TIIK  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  17 

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 
r£y]  (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  T»V  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 

c 


18  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [I.  8-15. 


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,  o0«purp4»oc)  ;  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,  Xop«, 
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 
appropriates 


o>»o.  )  ;  in  yet  others  we  have  a  new  coinage  («r&m»Xoc, 

which  however  in  these  instances  is  due,  not  to  St  Paul  or  the 

other  Apostles,  but  to  Christ  Himself. 


ST.  PAUL  AND  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH. 

I.  8-15.  God  knows  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 

wli.it  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 


20  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [I.  8   10. 

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,  v«rrfuom  &  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  : 
of.). 


once  somewhat  wider  and  somewhat  narrower  In  mfanfftg 
than  A«irovfT«iV:  (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 


<«r«»fi'f  Aarp«Cor,  cf.   K»m.  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  ni.im.-r  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*. 

«uoo«6^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>    \ 


I.  10-15.]     ST.  PAUL  AND  THE   ROMAN  CHURCH  21 


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.). 
«Xe«iv  :  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  6«X«*  :  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  0«Xq/nm  TOW  e»oC  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»]  «i«yy«X/(rocT^ii,  '  hence  the  eager- 
ness on  my  pan  (is)  to  preach.'     I; 
>  «ur'  «>.  =  •  my  affairs.' 


THESIS  OP  THE  EPISTLE  :    THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS 
OP  OOD  BY  PAITH. 

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 

m€t  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  ('»  «n«Arw»  mptr  ftwtff 


I   10.]  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  GOD  BY  FAITH  23 

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 
late. 


is  the  word  properly  used  of  the  manifestations  of  Divine 
{x>wer.  Strictly  indeed  dwa/ut  is  the  inherent  attribute  or  faculty, 
«i«>y«ia  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 
«Wpy«ia  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  /A«y  uiroXAv/A«HMf  pvpia  «'<rn,  rolr  d«  awfo/K'yotff  wur  dv»o/ur  6«ov  «<m 
I  Cor.  i.  1  8  ;  cf.  i  Cor.  ii.  4,  iv.  20  ;  i  Thess.  L  5. 

cis  awTTipia*.  The  fundamental  idea  contained  in  <r«»rnpui  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  '  (M.uk  x.  308; 

John  iii.  15,  16,  &c.).     Both  these  sides  are  alrea 

the  earliest  extant  Epistle  (5r«  o«  ?*ro  ^f  6  o««t  tit  •vyj?',  <ixx'  m 

trfptvoiV  <r<*TTjpiis  out  ruu  Kvpiov  ^f  'lr;<ruu  Xpurrov,  roC  offodaxfimx 
MT«p   ^wy,  Im    «tr«    yprjyopvfu*   tlrt    Kat'ii-dw^r    opa   <TV»   atrip  ffjawfU* 

oss.  v.  9,  i 

wp«Tor:  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. 


I   17-1  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OK  COD  BY   FAITH  25 

known  His  salvation'.  His  righteousness  hath  He  revealed  (ajr««o- 
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. 
e«ot/  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  &*.  e«oO  is 

a  gift  of  righteousness  bestowed  upon  man  are  hardly  less  con- 

•.£.     (i)  The  righteousness  in  question  is  described  as  being 

revealed  «'*  mW«o>c  tit  nianv ;  and  in  the  parallel  passage  iii.  2  2  it  is 

qualified  as  doc.  0«oC  d<A  trurr«»t  '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 
fta«rat.  (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  0«oO  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. 


26  ISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [I.  17. 

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. 


I.  17.J  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  COD  BY  FAITH  27 

(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 

««  oVmju»r  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«  »«rr««f  ,«<*  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 
.Cet^ 


The  word  diVcaiof  and  its  cogna 

BUaiot.  Bucaio7v¥t|.     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 


I.  17.]  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  GOD  BY  FAITH  29 

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 

th.it  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<xrvr»7  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  e«ov  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  passar 
•  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- 
sideration*: — 

(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.] 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  COD   BY  FA11H  31 


(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/rya£o/*/ry, 
»i<rr«vom  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  e«ov 
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  wiffr«i*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  pa«ei 
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  ».<yr«w.     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  !<Xr.fr>>Wr»ry  hr&totfit.  wpa;  .    t  oi  tfAiio^o-a. 

ve  not  only  runs  throur  1  the  places 

the  word  occurs  (I lei  .  is  not 


I.  17.]  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  COD  BY  FAITH  33 

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/i«r,  «•'  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. 

D 


EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA'  [I.  16,17. 

\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 


'  vc  have  teen  that  it  U  not  merely  assent  or  adhesion  but 

tnthunaii 

.  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  Biblit.il  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  e«oC  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  . 


1. 16,  17.]      RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  GOD  BY   FAITH  35 

My  salvation  shall  be  for  ever,  and  My  righteousness  shall  not  be 
abolished.' 

In  all  these  passages  the  righteousness  of  God  is  conceived  as 
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  6«oO  (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  forth1  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 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [I   16,  17. 

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 
God. 

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 


I.  16, 17.]      RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  GOD  BY  FAITH  37 

insist  that  it  must  also  be  complete  in  a  negative  sense,  and  that 
it  excludes  any  further  conditions  of  acceptance,  because  no  such 
conditions  are  mentioned,  is  to  forget  the  nature  of  a  parable. 
It  would  be  as  reasonable  to  argue  that  the  father  would  be 
indifferent  to  the  future  conduct  of  the  son  whom  he  has  recovered 
because  the  curtain  falls  upon  the  scene  of  his  recovery  and  is 
not  again  lifted.  By  pressing  the  argument  from  silence  in  this 
way  we  should  only  make  the  Gospels  inconsistent  with  them- 
selves, because  elsewhere  they  too  (as  we  shall  see)  speak  of 
further  conditions  besides  the  attitude  and  temper  of  the  sinner. 

We  see  then  that  at  bottom  and  when  we  come  to  the  essence  of 
things  the  teaching  of  the  Gospels  is  not  really  different  from  the 
teaching  of  St.  Paul.  It  may  be  said  that  the  one  is  tenderly  and 
pathetically  human  where  the  other  is  a  system  of  Jewish  Scho- 
lasticism. But  even  if  we  allow  the  name  it  is  an  encouragement 
to  us  to  seek  for  the  simpler  meaning  of  much  that  we  may  be 
inclined  to  call  '  scholastic.'  And  we  may  also  by  a  little  inspection 
discover  that  in  following  out  lines  of  thought  which  might  come 
under  this  description  St.  Paul  is  really  taking  up  the  threads  of 
grand  and  far-reaching  ideas  which  had  fallen  from  the  Prophets 
of  Israel  and  had  never  yet  been  carried  forwards  to  their  legitimate 
issues.  The  Son  of  Man  goes  straight,  as  none  other,  to  the 
heart  of  our  common  humanity ;  but  that  does  not  exclude  the 
right  of  philosophizing  or  theologizing  on  the  facts  of  religion,  and 
that  is  surely  not  a  valueless  theology  which  has  such  facts  as  its 
foundation. 

What  has  been  thus  far  urged  may  serve  to  mitigate  the  apparent 

•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 

system. 

In  the  first  place  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  doctrine  belongs 
strictly  speaking  only  to  the  beginning  of  the  Christian's  career. 
It  marks  the  initial  stage,  the  entrance  upon  the  way  of  life.  It 
was  pointed  out  a  moment  ago  that  in  the  Parable  of  the  Prodigal 
Son  the  curtain  drops  at  the  readmission  of  the  prodigal  to  his 
home.  We  have  no  further  glimpse  of  his  home  life.  To  isolate 
the  doctrine  of  Justification  is  to  drop  the  curtain  at  the  same 
place,  as  if  the  justified  believer  had  no  after-career  to  be  re- 
corded. 

But  St.  Paul  does  not  so  isolate  it  He  takes  it  up  and  follows 
top  in  that  after-career  till  it  ends  in  the  final  glory  (ofc  N 
fttraWf,  rovrotw  rat  «Ao£a<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- 


38  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [I.  16,  17. 

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. 


I.  18-32.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES  39 

vi-viii,  as  yet  a  fifth  great  expression  of  the  Righteousness  of  God 
as  energizing  amongst  men.  We  too  think  that  it  might  be  so 
regarded.  It  stands  quite  on  a  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. 


THE  UJUVKRflATi  NEED:    FAILURE  OP 
THE  GENTILES. 

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 
them. 

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 


I.  18.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES  41 

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  e«ov,  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  wo«a  A  V»T»TOI  «.T  A.  Jr  ^p/p?  tylonta  «pfo««r. 
\\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.  «aT«x«i»  =  (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> 

v«v0a/  TOV  Ifcir  W  AaAfj<r«i  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  AaA«r  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 

experieBoa. 


20.  Aw6  RTi9«wf  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 


.  20.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES  43 

le  fabric  of  the  created  world  is  in  any  case  contained  in  the 
context. 

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  xarapa»6av<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  &<nr«p  /fyorfc  6p$  xa&pfc  ; 
i)  in  Num.  XXIV.  2  BaXau/i  .  .  .  xadop?  TO*  'lapaijX  «arparoir«d«VKora 
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«»>p«lTai  [<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  a«4  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.  ;ne,  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 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [I.  20,  2 

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  ti«u  :  «'r  r«J  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.     6a£df»  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  «o£a  it  merely  =  '  tojc 
an  opinion  about  '  (&o£a(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  oa£o(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. 
8). 

Comp.  Emotk  xcix.  8,  o  '  And  they  will  become  godleu  by  reaaon  of  the 
foolishnca.  of  their  hearts,  and  their  eyes  will  be  blinded  throuKh  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, 


I.  21-24.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES  45 

the  seat  of  feeling  (Rom.  ix.  a  ;  x.  i)  ;  will  (i  Cor.  iv.  5  ;  vii.  37  . 
cf.  Rom.  xvi.  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 

(Ro:: 

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>$al^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  d9«6rrjt,  gal  0«oO 
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 

Mfan«v  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  0«as  -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  vm«r. 


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/4«r  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  guit  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  cr«3a£«a&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 


I.  28-30.]  1AILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES  47 


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 +66«x>,  +<$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.  »A«c*.  with  K  A,  Pesh.  «?  : 
WH.  marf.  also  recognizes  «ur.  worqp.  vX«or.  with  C,  Boh.  al. 

«X«ov*|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  vA«or«*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.  «|n0up«rrds,  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  3«f.  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  oCr«r  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<rr«rt'   ^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  '  (<w0j«o4)  ;  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. 

J»t7iJ«w*or7«f  (B)  80,  WH.  marg. 

ovrcu&oKovai.     There  has  been  some  disturbance  of 
the  text  here  :  B,  and  apparently  Clem.  Rom.,  have  r 
<n/wvdoffov»m  ;  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<rao»r«r.     Note  that  * 
facnt,  to  produce  a  cer  :  ;  vpaaatur  =  agtrf,  to  act  as 

moral  agent  :  there  may  be  also  some  idea  of  repeated  action. 

9VMuoo«ouai  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 


I.  18-32.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES  49 

0t/r/rp«x«t  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. 


I.  18-32.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES 


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. 


Romans. 

L  ao.  rd  7d/»  Mpar*  abroi  dvd  /rri- 
aton    xuafiov   roit   wcxij^aai    roov/Kva 


f)  T«  tU&ot  a 


31. 

/ioff  airro/x.  KCU 
ovrir  «ap&a. 
a  a. 


If  Toft  210X0719. 
i)  d<n/r«rot 


«7«u  oofol 


Gaprov  Ocev  iv  Aftotuftart  tlxo 

TOV  dr^ponrov  «o2  rnvrtanav  «o2  rirpa- 


Wisdom. 


xiii.  i. 


wpootxovt** 


xiii.  5.  i«  T^p  ptyiOovt  «o2 


OVTWV  Otvpt  trm. 

\\.  23.  [<J  e«dt  «/ 
vow  .  .  .  «J*ora  7 
(Cod.  948  a/.,  Method.  Athan.  Epiph.  ; 
KAB,    Clem.-Alex.     &c.) 


xviii.  9.  rdr  r^t  0«t6njrot  r«J/ior. 

xiii.  8.  vdAir  M  oM*  ovroi  ai^i-oH 
<rrof. 

xiii.  I.  /uSrtuoi  7^  vorrn 
<f>v<Ht,  oh  wapfjv  9«ov  dyvaioia  f. 

xii.    3.  c 


dri/io, 

T«f. 

xii.  I.  rd  &p$afrr6v  oov  wv«v/ia. 
xiv.  8.  rd  9)  ^a/yrdr  e«i* 


xiii.  10.  TaAa/wai/KH  8J  «a2  ir  r««/K>Tr 
avrwr,    o«rir«f 


•  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 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [I.  18-32. 

:;>.    14.   dv«uraa«i 


15.  mnrcf  /Mr^XXa^ar  rip  dXi^«iar  1 7    sqq.    ofcr 

rov  e«ov  Ir  v$  tiito,,  **l  loi&o+j.  tyvYf  wpwrXaXir-  «al 
tfar  «<U  lA^r^tvaar  rp  «ri'a«<  vapd  tvr  ri  d<r*Vrir  i»i*aA*i~raj, 
mVarra.  vtgpiv  d^ioi  «.  r.  X . 

II.  M  TOVTO   «a2    Ir 

•MS* 


xiv.  31.  TO  dVoirwnTror  2ro/ia  Alfoti 
mrifuXc 

34.  &i  •apl&MTtfr  «.  r.  X. 
36.  &d  revro  *a^e«««r  «.  r.  X.  «ifeJ 

sfn  Ir  X^rat  «porvr*ii 


:j.  «r  « 
(Tflku  w.pi  T  i^r  roC 
Ir  /wyaXy  (firr«ff  d-yroaif 


. 

^  ;*pu^« 

.fir 

f  o«r« 


potrir.^^Xoxfirilro^* 

.  'in. 

irorra  M    Ivi/uf  lx(<   a'Ma   *a* 
***,«>»** 


p«TT<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 


II.  1-16.]  TRANSITION  TO  THE  JEWS  53 


TRANSITION  FROM  GENTILE  TO  JEW.     BOTH 
ALIKE  GUILTY. 

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  Jewt 
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  pi»Cl 
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, 


54  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [II.  1. 

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  :  ufor  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.     UI  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.' 


II.  1-4.]  TRANSITION  TO  THE  JEWS  55 

There  I*  evidence  that  Marcion  kept  vv.  a,  i  a-  14,  16.  ao  (from  I*0*™"-  *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.  oWXop<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- 
ttttur. 

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 


ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [II.  4-6. 

fro  •xigtrt;  tt  multat  miuritordiM,  omomiam  mttltiplitat  magis  mistri- 
tordttu  kit  f»i  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 
panvM/Umriktminmm. 

•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*  V«f*?  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*p»ffiif  TO*  0«ov.     Ibid.  \  5  A^<0*  Imkon*  mi 
mpd  -rip  otgOiOMptolat  rov  e«ov. 

6.  Of  diroo^ti :   I'rov.  >. 

,    though   in    full   accord   \viilt   the    teaching   ot 


II.  6-9.]  TRANSITION  TO  THE  Jl  57 

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  duuu«4i)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 
done. 

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  «/ud«v«  '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,  «orayvf«a*  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.' 


twl 

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    0   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.  *voa«nroA^mf*  Acts  X.  34  J 

Jas.  ii.  9;  *rpo<r*iroX7»T*r   I    Pet.  i.  17):  *vxfcr»iror 
=  (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  •  e«i«  .  .  .  06  favpafu  s?tat*sw  oMT 
o&  M  *4*p  ttpor,  which  U  adopted  in  A.  Sol.  ii.  19  4  e««t  «pr*f  feouot  «»2 
oi  to»pa««<  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 


II.  12-14.]  TRANSITION   TO  THE  JEWS  59 

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-njxovn«vot  <«  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 


60  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [II. 

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 
doctrine.' 

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. 

<rvr«i&)<rt«*.    Some  such  distinction  as  this  is  suggested  by  the  < 
meaning  and  use  of  the  word  <rvr«ifc?<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. 


II.  15.]  TRANSITION  TO  THE  JK  6l 


[ill 
Philo 


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  fir»t  with  its  full  tense  in  Wisd.  xvii.  10. 
0)  »po<r«i'Air^«  T<!  xoA«»«i  [™»"?/*a]  <n/Mxo/iVn7  ry  <7W«i«^<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<m£v  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  ntra£v  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<I£U  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 

«ap3«9  (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« 


62  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [II.  ir,    1H 


'if/x/mi*  Aoyi<rMor,  4  devise  devices  *),  and  of  the  : 
intentions  (Jcr.  xxix  [xxxvil  n  Xoyu>v/uu  /<£*  i-/i£t  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  dAA»jX«ur  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  d»roX.  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-  Wn  1  /:  Jr  Mn  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  *pu«i,  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  4ta«i 

ml  spoke  of  •  his  Gospel1  1» 
the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke. 


II.  17-20.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  JEWS  63 

FAILURE  OP  THE  JEWS. 

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. 
25-29). 

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  Mand  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. 
*4As  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 


64  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [II.  17 

: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*  tttntt  tt  quasi  still  t 


:  '  bearest  the  name  '  :  /jrovopd£«t*='  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)«u»r  :  '  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 


66  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [II.  20   23. 

expression  of  Divine  truth,  so  Tar  as  it  went.     It  is  more 
account  for  2  Tim.  iii.  5  «Vrr«r  /"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  jifrj»ytt  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/*W«r  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* 
iuquiuala. 


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  0»«  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  J«jw*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  J«po*vJUa  was  just  one  of  the  crimes  which  a  provincial  governor  could 
proceed  against  by  his  own  imftrium. 

The  Eng.  Versions  of  J«pxr*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  6«ov. 

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  \i»t\  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  ropo6«r«£r,  rofio$vA<ur««r,  Arc.,  vopoeinp,  ro><o&5d<r«aAof,  &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.  Y°V«V  :  •  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,  T«A«ir  ;  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  ;  T«X«>  -  •  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 
judged. 

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  Pl.il.  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^  «r«Xi7p«top«u»  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). 


CASUISTICAL    OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED. 

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 


III.  1-8.]     CASUISTICAL  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED  69 

the  prophecies  of  the  Messiah.  [Here  the  subject  breaks  off; 
a  fuller  enumeration  is  given  in  ch.  ix.  4,  5.] 

'You  say,  But  the  Jews  by  their  unbelief  have  forfeited  their 
share  in  those  prophecies.  And  I  admit  that  some  Jews  have 
rejected  Christianity,  in  which  they  are  fulfilled  What  then? 
The  promises  of  God  do  not  depend  on  man.  He  will  keep  His 
word,  whatever  man  may  do.  4To  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 


70  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [III    1    L> 

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,  w«poy,  but  comes  out 
in  w«p«7(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. 
Orig.-Ut.«/.,(7a,]V. 

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 
Messiah. 

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. 


III.  2-4.]'    CASUISTICAL  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED  71 

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*p€m.  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  t£iK\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 
<nr«ma  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. 
Y«YPa7TTQl  :  '  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  T«r  <pyo*c  (v.  1.  r««v*»v  :    (  f    I.k.  •. 
avr^t.      Test.  XII  Pair.  Sym.  6  o**r  ducai«^«  airo  nj»  Apapriat  rir 
^rvx«r  i'/««r.      />J.    .SW.   U.    1  6   «>«  OUCOMMTM  cr«  6  6«or.      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  :  n«i7<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  Vjp«r:  a  general  statement,  including  orrcrr/a.     In 
like   manner  e«ov  Jtmiiogfry  is  general,   though  the   particular 
instance  which  St.  Paul  has  in  his  mind  is  the  faithfulness  of  God 
promises. 

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* 


III.  5-7.]      CASUISTICAL  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED  73 

(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*<ur«iV, 
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 
inN.T. 

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  X«yw  :  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 
XaXi. 

6.  <ir«l  ir£f  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. 

dXrj0«ia:  the  truthfulness  of  God  in  keeping  His  promises; 
^•wrjia,  the  falsehood  of  man  in  denying  their  fulfilment  (as 
in  \cr.  4). 

«dY»5:    '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  M«T«"vw"»T»<7a)  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«  «>. 

[ri] 


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  ar  rlf;  he  contents  himself  with  brushing  away 

an  excuse  which  is  obviously  unreal 


UNIVERSAL    FAILURE    TO    ATTAIN    TO 
RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

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,: 


III.  9-20.]  UNIVERSAL  FAILURE  75 

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 


76  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [III.  9. 

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<V«0o  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.  =  irp«V/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.  «\«>i«V  ri  irA«o» 
*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<»Xont»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  vom»t.   (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  ? ' 

•bntefmni 

•t  the  best,  tentmtts  amf.'ius   :  a  glou  captaining  »po«x-  in  the  same 


III.  0, 10.]  UNIVERSAL  FAILURE  77 

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  wdrr«i  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.  K«A),  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.  0   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, 

le.in  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  avn£r:   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  ov»i«,  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  -wt  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 
D.B. 

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. 

o£«if  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 
aurotr]. 


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  *4»w)  A  N  :  oltaat  K'  B  Q*.  &c.:  i-poxta*  A  Q1  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  «vxxf»7T«rd  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,  XoA«u»  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  (r«y  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 
term. 

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 


verdict. 

woUra  arfpt  :  man  in  his  weakness  and  frailty  (  i  Cor.  i.  29  ;  i  Pet. 
i.  24). 

:  'clear  knowledge';  see  on  i.  28,  32. 


THE   NEW   SYSTEM. 

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.  t4Yet  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 

o 


82  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [ill    2L 

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  .  .  .  $ai«ptt&'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«   a»rn£  « 

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  6«ov  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  $oWp«atr  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 
particular. 

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 


84  :VTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [III   22 

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  e«o*  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.  marS  ) ;  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  4p£aro  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  ite£aat»  with  Rom.  v.  2  «V  /XtriBi  T^« 


III.  23,  24.]  THE  NEW  SYSTEM  85 


TOW  Btov,  viii.  18  T^  itt\\owra»  Wfw  oiro«aXw^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 
spiritual. 

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  (/WXX«i) 
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  «ro»niTai  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  woX«wv  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«*<r««K  $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^  'I»7<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 

Jesus. 

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  Xp«rrif  irpoiypdfa  <Wov/M»/i«W.  But  when  we  turn  to  the 
immediate  context  we  find  it  so  full  of  terms  denoting  publicity 
(ir<(fxnn'ptaTcu,  eh  ("poulty,  irpor  n)»  «WWt£u')  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  0£pa  on  the 
analogy  of  awrijpiov,  Tt\t<rrf)ptovt  xopMrr^/Mor.  This  too  is  strongly 


88  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [III.  25. 

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 


III.  25.]  THE  NEW  SYSTEM  89 


8ta  rit«  wtor**:  &4  »«<TT«<W  NC«D«FG  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'<rr«»r  (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 
below. 

•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  wdp«ai*  :   not  '  for  ihe  remission/  as  A  Vn  \\ 
a  somcuh.it   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,  dj«a^^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  vop«m  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  *:»  *atp<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?  n»or,  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  ;  C»l.  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*K«r&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 
tears.' 

After  all  the  writer  of  this  and  the  Evangelical  Preacher  whom 
he  repudiates  are  not  so  very  far  apart.  It  may  be  hoped  that  the 
Preacher  too  may  be  willing  to  purify  his  own  conception  and  to 
strip  it  of  some  quite  unbiblical  accretions,  and  he  will  then  find 
that  the  central  verity  for  which  he  contends  is  not  inadequately 
stated  in  the  impressive  words  just  quoted. 

The  idea  of  Vicarious  Suffering  is  not  the  whole  and  not 
perhaps  the  culminating  point  in  the  conception  of  Sacrifice,  for 
Dr.  Westcott  seems  to  have  sufficiently  shown  that  the  centre  of 
the  symbolism  of  Sacrifice  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? 


CONSEQUENCES  OP  THE  NEW  SYSTEM. 

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 


III.  27,  28.]  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  NEW  SYSTEM  95 

Jew  and  Gentile  are  on  the  same  footing.  If  they  are  not,  then 
God  must  be  God  of  the  Jews  in  some  exclusive  sense  in  which 
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 
acceptance. 

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  ydpt  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 
th.it  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. 

8i«aioGa6ai:    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  9«p  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 inK-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  T»JS  iriarcu,  >tcs  '  source,'  &MI  •  attend- 

ant circumstances.'  The  Jew  is  justified  «'«  ni<rrt»t  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- 
tioned.' 

;il.  KaTopYowfic^:  sec  on  vcr.  3  above. 

ropo?  urrwfi«K.     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: 


IV    1-8.]  THE   FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  97 

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  jrXtyx»pa  oZ*  *o/iov  9  ayuvrj  compared  with  Gal.  v.  6 

vumr  dt*  uy cinqs 


THE  FAITH  OP  ABRAHAM. 

IV.  1-8.  Take  the  crucial  case  of  Abraham.  He,  like 
the  Christian,  was  declared  righteous^  not  on  account  of  his 
works — as  something  earned \  but  by  the  free  gift  of  God  in 
response  to  his  faith.  And  David  describes  a  similar  state 
of  things.  The  happiness  of  which  he  speaks  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.' 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [l\ 

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 
ch.  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 


IV.  1,  2.]  THE   FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  99 

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  e«y  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  Si«aioavnr)f  :  was  reckoned  as  equivalent 
standing  in   the  place  of,  *ri.  s/     The  con 


common  in  I.XX:  cf.  i  R<^. 


xxix.  17  (  =  xxx»i.  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. 
loulton). 

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 


IV.  3-6.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  IO1 

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<rr«t  om 
2n  8i/yarcu  &  6«dr  TUP  Iv  aot&tiy  /3«£<aMrura,  rovrov  i(ai<fn-iji  06  puvw  JAtv» 
Otpwaat  tfoAd<r«at,  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  fui«ap«r/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. 


102  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [IV.  7,  8. 

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 
reading. 

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*jft«W  (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 


IV.  1-8.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  IOJ 

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- 

ing. 

>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 


IV.  1-8.]  THE  FAITH  OF   ABRAHAM  105 

that  the  two  New  Testament  writers  are  discussing  independently 
of  each  other  a  current  problem,  and  that  there  is  no  ground  for 
supposing  a  controversial  relation  between  them.  We  are  not  sure 
that  we  are  prepared  to  go  quite  so  far  as  this.  It  is  true  that  the 
bearing  of  Gen.  xv.  6  was  a  subject  of  standing  debate  among  the 
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 
th.it  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.  0    12. 

•:g  pitched  on  a  more  every-day  level  and  ap; 
to  larger  numbers,  which  is  the  check  and  safeguard  against  possible 
misconstruction. 


FAITH  AND  CIHCUMCIBION. 

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 


IV    11.]  THE   FAITH   OF  ABRAHAM  IOJ 

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 

Delitzsch). 

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  <! 
Ao«it  tit  <r</>pa-yi3a.  dAAct  »o»  Xvpot  itol  'Aptuft  ml  warr«f  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..ix«u»  is  a  well-known  military  term,  meaning 
strictly  to  '  march  in  file  '  :  Pollux  viii.  9  rA  M  0a6ot  oroide*  caXdrai, 

<tal  TO  p«r  «</*£»)*  »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  |i£vov  rather  than  rf  jdror  in  this  rcne  and  in  rcr.  16  MC  Barton, 
.*mtr.i4Si. 


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 


IV.  13   17.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  109 

they  will  omit  this  circumcision  of  their  sons,  and  all  of  them,  sons 
of  Belial,  will  have  their  sons  uncircumcised  as  they  were  born. 
And  there  shall  be  great  wrath  from  the  Lord  against  the  children 
of  Israel,  because  they  have  forsaken  His  covenant  and  turned  away 
from  His  word,  and  provoked  and  blasphemed,  according  as  they 
have  not  observed  the  ordinance  of  this  law ;  for  they  treat  their 
members  like  the  Gentiles,  so  that  they  may  be  removed  and  rooted 
out  of  the  land.  And  there  will  be  no  pardon  or  forgiveness  for 
them,  so  that  there  should  be  pardon  and  release  from  all  the  sin 
of  this  error  for  ever.' 

So  absolute  is  Circumcision  as  a  mark  of  God's  favour  that  if  an 
Israelite  has  practised  idolatry  his  circumcision  must  first  be 
removed  before  he  can  go  down  to  Gehenna  (Weber,  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. 


PROMISE  AND  LAW. 

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.  I4lf  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 


1 10  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [IV.  13. 

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 
Cbristfenfc 

•  .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. 


IV.  13  15.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  III 

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 
dominion. 

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  VK  A  BC  &c.). 
wapd0a<n$  is  the  appropriate  word  for  the  direct  violation  of 


I  '*  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IV.  16. 

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  «Voyy«Xiay  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. 

ABRAHAM'S  FAITH  A  TYPE  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN'S. 

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 
dead: 

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 


IV.  17.]  THE   FAITH  OF  ABRAI  113 

full  note  of  the  barrenness  of  Sarah  his  wife ;  "and  yet  with  the 
promise  in  view  no  impulse  of  unbelief  made  him  hesitate ;  his 
faith  endowed  him  with  the  power  which  he  seemed  to  lack;  he 
gave  praise  to  God  for  the  miracle  that  was  to  be  wrought  in  him, 
•'  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 
effectual). 

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  6«ou  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)  =  4to  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 

i 


H4  l.I'ISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [IV.  17   2O. 

obtdiunt  tibi.     For  the  use  of  *oA«u»  see  also  the  note  on  ix.  7 

18.  ci«  T&  Y"6r6<"  =  *****  y»»«VAu:  '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*um«t  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*  't»faf  Mitel  I1  lEfld  bt 

rather  'showing  weakness  'or  'becoming  weak.'    Sec  also  Burton,  At. 
IMS- 


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  «/r«u  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  (<f»r*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.  •*  8w«fHti|:  'did  not  hesitate'  (rovr^r.r  oiM  ir.ioLr.r 
3oA«Chry».  .  &a«p,V«ir  act. 

between  two  things  (  Matt  *v  :.  xi.  39,  31'  or  persons''  A  ctsxv.  9; 

I  C«  :  t>etween  two  p«r- 

*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 


IV.  20.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  115 


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<rr«t^  :  Rom.  xiv.  33  i  W 
t,  tAv  ^ayp,  mraJtigfurat,  bn  oil*  J«  *l<m*i  :  Ja*.  i.  6  olrurw  W 


«V  w<<7r«i  fu^if  lkaiti*»vn«vot  :  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*pi»Tj  h  Jai/rfj  \iyovoa,  «.rX  (quoted  by  Mayor  on 
las.  i.  6)  :  Clem.  Homil.  i.  ao  »«pi  rift  wofaMtlffv  aot  IkJMm  SKurpftw  : 
ti.  40  w«pi  rov  /IOFOV  «aj  dTotfoC  e«ov  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  air«rn?  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«»/i«Wy 
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  fX«3< 
rai  irapa  Kaipov  tjXtxias  .  .  .  010  «al  aVp*  iv&t  tytmnj&^aav^  *a\  ravra 
Mw<rpw/i«wv,  nadus  ra  otrrpa  TOW  oipavoO  T^>  n\r)6n  (observe  CSp.  btvapt* 

cXa/sir,  ww»p<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* 

<>mA«iKviV'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 


Ii6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IV.  21 


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*  o£T*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  ) 


IV.  17-25.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM 

(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  (>  £  «'x°M«*  ^  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 


Jl8  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [V.  1    11 

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. 


BLISSFUL  CONSEQUENCES  OP  JUSTIFICATION. 

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 
sprang. 

•More:  our  hope  is  one  that  cannot  prove  illusory;  because 
(and  here  a  new  factor  is  introduced,  for  the  first  time  in  this 
connexion)  the  '  .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- 


V.  1-11.]       CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  119 

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. 
Evai 

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.  dunuW«Vr<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.  &4HU«Mrr«f  in  K  -jrrjf  ?\*n<r.     iir 

cootends  that  it  denote*  not  to  much  the  rtasem  for  entering  upon  the  Mate 


V.  1,  2.]        CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  121 

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<uttftW«v  =  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 
omits). 

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?Karicf :  '  stand  fast  or  firm '  (see  Va.  and  Grm.-Thay.  s.  v. 

ttrnjfu  H.  2.  d). 

*»'  Awfoi:  as  in  iv.  18. 

•rijs  So£ip.  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 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  1,  2. 


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  e«oC  | 

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  ih 

virip  fffMUft  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  6«oi  rovt  ITI(TT«W»T,.. 

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.'<rr«w«  'Ii^oC  *iv  ducauwrra  r6r  U.T.  ;JC  context  : 

•  It  &umo<Tvnj»  tra»ri  T^  invrtvatnt  (Schadcr,  Op.  ri.  ;   cf. 

also  Glo«l,  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 


V    1.  2.]        CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  123 

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. 

19). 

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 


V.  8-5.]       CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  125 


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  tri.il, 
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<rrt»t  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 
text). 

^  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  *AYI'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*ȣr  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  ca»c*  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  lrt  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 


V.  0,  7.]        CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  12; 

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 


rip 


id 

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  uv«p  rov  ayafov.    They  are  not  expressions  which 
e  taken  as  roughly  synonymous  (Mey.-W.  Lips.  Ac.),  but  it 


128  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  7-0. 


is  implied  tli.it  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.' 


TV,v   Jovrov  dYam|v   «U  fct&t   &  O«6s  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, 


V.  9-11.]      CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  129 

No  clearer  passage  can  be  quoted  for  distinguishing  the  spheres 
of  justification  and  sanctification  than  this  verse  and  the  next— the 
one  an  objective  fact  accomplished  without  us,  the  other  a  change 
operated  within  us.  Both,  though  in  different  ways,  proceed  from 
Christ. 

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.  Kauxwp«roi  (N  B  C  D,  &c.)  is  decisively  attested  for  «avx«/i«0u, 
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/i«Ai).    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/>t«0p«Voi>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 


130  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  12-14. 

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- 
reconciliation 


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 
o«oC  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/ 


THE  FALL  OF  ADAM  AND  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

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.  14Yet  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 


132  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [V 

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.] 


ADAM  AND  CHRIST 


'33 


marked  distinction  that  we  do  between  this  life  and  the  life  to 
come.  The  mention  of  death  in  any  sense  is  enough  to  suggest 
the  contrast  of  life  in  all  its  senses.  The  Apostle's  argument 
is  that  the  gift  of  life  and  the  benefits  wrought  by  Christ  are 
altogether  wider  in  their  range  than  the  penalty  of  Adam's  sin  ; 
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  as1  ('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  <i»0*  Sir.  if  Sir.  Si'  £r.  In  N.  T.  the  phrase  occurs  three 
times,  always  as  it  would  seem  -/rp/fcr«a  quod,  'because*:  cf.  a  Cor.  v.  4 
fftwSCofW  frpotfjMW  If  $  ol  MAo/ur  J«tor<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  'Arri«oi,  ofor  1^'  $  r^r  cXov^r  tlpfdatt  ('because  you  com- 
mitted the  theft  ')  «.r.A. 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  ll>    l.i 


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  ^r400  *  -T  X-     At  l  r  :   ^^-  tn's  SC«ns  to  p 
reason  for  just  the  opposite  of  what  is  wanted  :  it  seems  to 
not  that  *djT«r  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  JyAo7«rrat)K«BCDEFGKLPt  &c., 
jMA<xy«*ro  «*,  JAAo>aro  A  53  108  ;  imputaoatur  Vulg.  (odd.  Ambr»tr.  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  r«W  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. 


136  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [V.  14. 

Cyprian  and  Victorian*-*  statement  which  we  are  not  at  patent  able  to 
venfy.  He  account*  for  the  Greek  reading  by  the  u»ual  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 

TV»O*  (nfcrr*):  (i)  the  'impression1  left  by  a  sharp  blow  (rdr  rv»or 
rfir  4A«r  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 
pAA«i>  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  come1  (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  !«rio«r  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) 
c«on<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 
tuamt  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)  0  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^»*M»I)  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  : 


ADAM  AND  CHRIST. 

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. 

18-21). 

"In  both  cases  there  is  a  transmission  of  effects:  but  there 
the  resemblance  ends.  In  all  else  the  false  step  (or  Fall,  as  we 
call  it)  of  Adam  and  the  free  gift  of  God's  bounty  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- 
ness—much 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 
Lord. 

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  AVr.,  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  6«por  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  6«p«(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  «V«WTO  :  *  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".  £i«cu'<»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  8wp«as  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  3uca«Wt»  fat. 

Si*  Jr£s  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  duuu»parof  rov  X.  TTJV  aitpav  6i*aw<rvn)i' 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  18,  19. 


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  «4«a*V  (Mey.-W.  Va. 
Gif.)  rather  than  masc.  (Lipe.). 

oiKoWir  l«ijs.    '  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  *&r«i  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*/rr«t  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 

^  «m«rr^«u/«,  where 


/COTtKTT.   -  «If    TOVf    d/>XI«OVt    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 
Chry*. 


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*  i«£d<r«£f  lor*.  Ov  -yap  ««* 
rovro  i&0n  ifa  m\«**<rQ,  dAA1  IMtoj  jiJr  Sxrrt  nuatocu  «ai  dyf  Acfr  rd  wapd- 
rratna-  ^i&rj  5i  rofoayrior,  ov  wapa  rip  rov  r4/iov  <j>\>oivt  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 


144  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  12   21 

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  s1  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  Zara»a  «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<ut  «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  vurr««it  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 


<iATJ0«ia»'  &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 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [V.  12  21 

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!^  e«ov  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 
\itpfot  ovrv  xal  j  ^vx^  w«va*t«5w,  giving  vafxott  the  meaning  of  '  para- 
lysis/ the  paralysis  of  spiritual  life  which  has  resulted  from  sin.  Generally 
3i«ai<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  do«0f<?  0«i<aMrura  rovror  i(ai<pyijt  ot>xl  «oXaa«a* 
U«i*«p£<7tn  p&vov,  dAAd  gal  ttraior  »orij<roi,  .  .  .  «1  -yd/>  fuutapot  oCroit 
v  Aaftvr  dV»«7.r  d»«i  \af*ro*  woXAy  /laAAox  6  3urcua*m,  and  on  iv.  25  //cm. 
-i  rowry  •yelp  «oJ  d*i9a»n  «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  ealtsi.ie  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  e«or»  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  06C«y, 
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 
virtues. 

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. 


THE  MYSTICAL  UNION  OP  THE  CHBI8TIAN 
WITH  CHRIST. 

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 


VI.  1-14.]  UNION  WITH  CHRIST  155 

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.  10For  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.  l4You 
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 


15$  ISTLE  TO  THfc  ROMANS  [VI 

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  ;, 
r««povt  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 


VI.  3-5.]  UNION  WITH  CHRIST  157 

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 
believer. 

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^)rttuv,  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  &O£TJS  TOU  KaTpos  i  do£i?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.vs  ISTLE  T<  OMANS  [VI.  5,  6. 

ry  4/*oi«M.  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  ^fi£v  a*4otnrof  :  'our  old  self';  cp.  esp.  Suicer,  Tha. 
i.  352,  where  the  patristic  interpretations  arc  collected  (7 
vc\tT,ia  Theodrt  ;  6  «aT«yv»<7H«Vot  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.). 


9WMrravp«fc|  :  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  <r«M<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 


VI.  6-10.]  UNION  WITH  CHRIST  159 

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*o6a»i>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'. 


l6o  EPISTLE  TO  TIIK   ROMA  [VI.  1C 


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  £rotipr«r,  *  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. 

iS). 

•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  e»y  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 
puagmph, 

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 


VI.  11-14.J  UNION   WITH   CHRIST  l6l 

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*  Xp«rr$  in  Clem.  Rom.  and  i* 
'Iijoov  Xp«rr£  which  is  frequent  in  Ignat  The  distinction  between  ir  'Iiprou 
Xp«rTy  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  :  wap«rrd*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. 


l6l  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [VI    1    11 


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 


VI.  1-14.]  UNION   WITH  CHRIST  163 

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  an«Kvri<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, 


VI    1-14.]  UNION   WITH  CHRIST  165 

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  rou»t  be 


i">  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS          [VI.  15   23. 

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. 


TRANSITION  FROM  LAW  TO  GRACE. 
ANALOGY  OF  SLAVERY. 

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 
Righteousness. 

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 
Afiaprqoofttv. 

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*.~  trap«6i(^:  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<r«iar  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\    <Xryrrf    oiri    a*6p*viK»9    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  d»ayi*Mrr«oir  TO  Ttva  ovv  napvov  tl^trt  rort,  «ira  Kara 
axugpttrt*  *</>'  ofr  »Cr  i*ai<j  x»v<  &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<rX. 
•  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  K«BD*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 
d«MOtnmm  (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 
*•>«*»*, 


THB  THAN8ITION  FROM  LAW  TO  GRACE 
ANALOGY  OF  MARRIAGE. 

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  'self1  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 
Law. 

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 
consequences. 

In  the  working  out  of  this  illustration  there  is  a  certain  amount 
of  intricacy,  due  to  an  apparent  shifting  of  the  stand-point  in  the 
middle  of  the  paragraph.  The  Apostle  begins  by  showing  how 
with  the  death  of  her  husband  the  law  which  binds  a  married 
woman  becomes  a  dead  letter.  He  goes  on  to  say  in  the 
application,  not '  The  Law  is  dead  to  you,'  but '  You  are  dead  to 
the  Law'— which  looks  like  a  change  of  position,  though  a 
legitimate  one. 


i-:  EPISTLE  T<  [VI  J 

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 

Christiai 
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  yu>n1  :  ['  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  «py«tr  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  'Axriox««V  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  *«V«iv,  roO  yripou  Tt\tvrf)(ravTof  ov 
fioi\tias,  av&pl  ytvuptvm  iripip.    *AXX'  OVK  tiirtv  OITUS,  oXXa  Tro»t  ;  ' 

T»0iiT<  r«p  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  «uX«Af  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  IT'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  • 
bodvf  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  r£r  o>apn£r:  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  roV0"-     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  e»y  above. 

6.  vw\  W  KaTT)pv^Ov)|i€K  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$a»o*rti  we  must  supply 
p,  just  as  in  n.  a  i  we  bad  to  supply  <  *«  WK. 


iv  w  KaT«ix^c0o.  The  antecedent  of  <V  f  is  taken  by  nearly  all 
commentators  as  equivalent  to  T<J>  xJ/iy  (whether  «V««W  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  *anH»yi7%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 


LAW  AND  SIN. 

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 .  sr//    Christ  <; 

I5> 

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 
tli.it  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 
hideousness. 

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 


178  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [VII.  7-25. 

way,  I  act  another.     I  hate  a  thing,  but  do  it.    uAnd  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 
horror. 

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 
place. 

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/3«I*  =  «  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 


l8o  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [VII.  b 


show  that  i:   is   better  taken  with  *arufry<iffaro  t<:  " 

Ao0.  (WoXi}  is  the  single  commandment  ;  **/*<*  the  code  as  a 
whole. 

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  |>o»itirc  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  vr«p3oX^r)  Sin 
capable. 

14.  The  section  which  follows  explains  more  fully  by  a  psycho- 
logical  analysis  how  it  is  that  the  Law  is  broken  and  that  Sin 
works  such  havoc.  There  is  a  germ  of  good  in  human  nature, 
a  genuine  desire  to  do  what  is  right,  but  this  is  overborne  by  the 
force  of  temptation  acting  through  the  bodily  appetites  and 
passions. 

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  (<rap«ixJr  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  <r«rf 
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 
expression. 

L6.  KaT*p<yft£o|iat  —  pcrjiei«tp€rp€trot « to  carry  into  effect,'  •  put  into  execu- 
tion ' :  wpdoooj  —  ago,  to  act  as  a  moral  and  responsible  being :  rai  •/oat, 


iS:  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [VII    15   21 

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  0o»Ao>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  cVouro«7.<  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 
existence. 

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*K«iTcu  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  rr«por  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  e«oo :  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 
cr«poc, '  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 
passion. 

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  <r«paroff  ('  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$  0«y.    The  true  reading  is  probably  x°P«  Tr 
idence  stand*  thu». 


T*  6«f  B,  Sab.,  OriK.  temtl  Hieroo.  um<l. 

U  rf  e«f  K*  C«  (d*  C*  mm  liqutt   mintuc.  a/if..  Bob.  Ann  ,  Cyr, 
Alex  Jo.-Damasc. 


tv/  X^stW  V*  e«f  Epiph.  <dd.pr.-vuL  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, 
rep 


X*plC   AC  T$  6c<p  N    X*P'C   TOY  Otoy   (Of) 

M   XAP»C  TOY    KYpiOY   (Kf) 

The  other  possibility  would  be  that  ttxapHrrw  r$  e«f  had  got  reduced  to 
XOpf  rf  e«r  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  wr»ir«i£«*  /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 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [VII.  7-25. 

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  «V»yi*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 


VIII.  1-4.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  189 

kept— at  all.  There  was  a  Rabbinical  commonplace,  a  stern 
rule  of  self-judgement,  which  was  fatal  to  peace  of  mind:  'Who- 
soever shall  keep  the  whole  law  and  yet  stumble  in  one  point, 
he  is  become  guilty  of  all*  (Jas.  ii.  10;  cf.  Gal.  iii.  16;  Rom. 
x.  5).  Any  true  happiness  therefore,  any  true  relief,  must  be 
sought  elsewhere.  And  it  was  this  happiness  and  relief  which 
St.  Paul  sought  and  found  in  Christ.  The  last  verse  of  ch.  vii 
marks  the  point  at  which  the  great  burden  which  lay  upon  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  (r«Xot  yap 

fofAov   Xptorir  tit   durnuxrvriji'  itan\   r«p  irtartvonri  Rom.  X.   4)  ;    and 

his  own  pages  reflect,  better  than  any  other,  the  new  hopes  and 
energies  by  which  it  was  succeeded. 


LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT. 
THE  FRUITS  OF  THE  INCARNATION. 

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 
accomplished. 

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 


190  ISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [VIII.  1.  2. 

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  *li7«7oO  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,  6W«fia  ;    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 


<rdp«a  mptiraTovaxv,  dXAd  na-rA  wvrifta.  An  interpolation 
introduced  (from  ver.  4)  at  two  steps:  the  first  clause  jn)  «ar4  ottpco  v«pra- 
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. 


VIII.  2,  3.]  LIFE  IN   THE  SPIRIT  191 

lv  Xpurrw'iijaou  goes  with  qX«vcVp«<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 

^X«v«fp»Kr«  |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$  e«y  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  d«w.  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 


STLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [VIII    3 


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$  »4«f  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  {*»  j»x£r  J««A**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£  e«f . 

<?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. 


VIII.  3.]  LIFE   IN   THE  SPIRIT  193 


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  Kar«Kp<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: 

O 


ISTLE  TO  THE   I;  [VIII.  3-6. 

(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*ri«9>  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 
(Lips.). 

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  &«oM»pa  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  &«ai»jia  the  tease 
rd  r«Aof  , 


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. 


THE  LIFE  OP  THE  FLESH  AND  THE  LIFE  OF 
THE  SPIRIT. 

VIII.  5-11.     Compare  the  two  states.      The  life  of  self- 

indulgence  involves   the  breach  of  God's  law,  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: 


VIII.  5,  6.]  LIFE   IN   THE  SPIRIT  195 

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  e»or, 
«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 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [VIII    0   0 

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  «v«u|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.. 

:.     0;««;v   «V   denotes  a  settled  permanent   ; 
influence.     Such  an  influence,  from  th- 
assumes  to  be  inseparable  from  the  higher  life  of  the  C 


VIII.  9,  10.]  LIFE  IN   THE  SPIRIT  197 


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 
degree. 

10.  ci  S«  Xpioros.  It  will  be  observed  that  St.  Paul  uses  the 
phrases  nui/m  e«ov,  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  w«poV  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  C«7—  '  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.     C««7  is  to  l>c  taken  in  a  wide 
sense,  but  with  especial  stress  on  the  futu  i  life,     ow  OUOMO- 

0«»ip  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 

ry). 

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»/et 
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 


VIII.  12-16.]  LIFE   IN    THE   SPIRIT  2O1 

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 
v.hr.  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. 


80NBHIP  AND  HEIRSHIP. 

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  e«oO 
ayotrrtu,  TO  UiHvpa  wmtaprvpii  rtf  invi^um  WIMP,  are  clear  pro 

the  other  group  of  phrases  «V  m«v/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.    aot4,  nv.   rrAai^trfwt  Is.    xix.   1 4  J  «•. 

«pt'<r<»f  Is.  xxviii.  6;  trr.  Kara*i'£««»c  Is.  xxix.  to  (=  Rom.  XL  8); 


VIII.  16-17.]  LIKE   IN  THE  SPIRIT 


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  *n«v/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  (0«ror  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   UP   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 
body. 


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;i«»opfr  «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. 

SUFFERING  THE  PATH  TO  OLORY. 

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.    lfFor  the  sons  of  Gc*l 

forth  revealed  in  the  glories  of  their  bright  inheritance.     And  for 


VIII.  18.]  LIFE  IN   THE  SPIRIT  205 

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 
fortitude. 


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^> 
fo£av  will  =  '  not  worth  (considering)  in  comparison  with  the  glory/ 
Or  we  may  regard  this  as  a  mixture  of  two  constructions,  ( 
•~>£ia  iTjt  M£i7t,  i.  e. '  not  an  equivalent  for  the  glory  ' ;  comp 

I    909  M  rijuoc  oi'c  <7£tor  avnjf  (sc.  rijv   cro^iat)  tar. 
ovocnor  \6yov  a£ta  irpot  r^r  &o£ar :   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  - 


uU»r  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 


208  IVTLE  TO  THE  ROMAN  VIII    1 

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£). 

dir«ico«'x«Tai :  another  strong  compound,  where  Aro-  contains  the 
same  idea  of '  conctntrated  waiting '  as  in  d»o«apooWa  above. 

20.  TTJ  .  .  .  |i«T<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. 
19). 

oox  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.    &>iA«i'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 


VIII.  22-24.]          LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  209 

the  apprehension  of  it  may  not  have  been  so  common  as  he 
assumes)  to  which  the  Apostle  appeals. 

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:  0ocA«rm  & 
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  £Xnrop«W),  makes  it  practically  equivalent  to  Hope.  But 
that  is  just  one  of  the  points  of  distinction  between  Ep.  to  Heb. 

p 


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{tt 
and  rif  «oJ  brojiJr«  [t»o^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 


VIII.  18-25.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  111 

be  held  to  warrant  most  of  the  statements  in  the  Apocrypha  and 
Talmud. 

The  idea  of  the  '  new  heavens  and  new  earth '  is  based  directly 
upon  Is.  Ixv.  17,  and  is  found  clearly  stated  in  the  Book  of  Enoch, 
xlv.  4  f.  « I  will  transform  the  heaven  and  make  it  an  eternal 
blessing  and  light.  And  I  will  transform  the  earth  and  make  it 
a  blessing  and  cause  Mine  elect  ones  to  dwell  upon  it '  (where  see 
Charles'  note).  There  is  also  an  application  of  Ps.  cxiv.  4,  with 
an  added  feature  which  illustrates  exactly  St.  Paul's  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- 


21  a  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS          [VIII.  26,  27. 

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. 


THE  ASSISTANCE  OP  THE  SPIRIT. 

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  ; 


VIII.  28.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  213 

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  y«p  TI  irpoa«u$wji«6a.  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 
same. 

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  =  ri»a  r/xSrw 
3«i  n>xxm'£,  which  also  answers  well  to  «rra  e«k  in  the  next 
verse. 

frirep«KTUYxA«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 


214  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [VIII.  26   29. 

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  e«dr  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*. 


THE  ASCENDING  PROCESS  OF  SALVATION. 

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. 


VIII.  28.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  215 

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*cpY«i  :  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  6«4*  :  '  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/»«/»y«f  <J  6«o*,  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 
interpretation. 

For  the  use  of  awtfftl  there  are  two  rather  close  parallels  in  Ttst.  XII 
Patr.  :  Issach.  3  &  e«k  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 


2l6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [VIII.  28. 

theology,  marking  the  succession  of  stages  into  which  he  divides 
the  normal  course  of  a  Christian  life — all  being  considered  not 
from  the  side  of  human  choice  and  volition,  but  from  the  side  of 
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  *p60«nt  rov  e«ow, 
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 

«««Ai7«vrot  «o2  r^y  favr£r.     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<r«i)  the  way  of  the 
righteous';  cxliv  [cxliii].  3  'Lord,  what  is  man  that  Thou  takest 
knowledge  of  him  (or*  tyvwa&jf  o£ry  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  6«dt  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$0«ffif)  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  W£a,  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 

i««pwr,   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  M£a  in  which  the  career  of  the  Christian  cul- 
minates, the  Apostle  now  goes  back  and  resolves  the  latter  part  of 
the  process  into  its  subdivisions,  of  which  the  landmarks  are 
tKuX«rt*,  «£ucaiW«*,  c&£a<rff.  These  are  not  quite  exhai 
fjyiaatf  might  have  been  inserted  after  «duuuW«r;  but  it  is  suffi- 
ciently implied  as  a  consequence  of  <&uuu*vn  and  a  necessary 
condition  of  «W£o<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   «'dt«uW«»  are  both 

naturally  in  the  aorist  tense  as  pointing  to  something  finished 
and  therefore  past  :  «3o£i<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  «W£a<r«» 

is  both  complete  and  certain  in  the  Jv..ne  counsels.     To  God 
ib  DOtbei  '  before  nur  *::•  :.' 


VIII.  31-39.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  219 


THE  PROOFS  AND  ASSURANCE  OP  DIVINE  LOVE. 

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. 


220  EPISTLE   TO  THE   ROMA  [VIII.  32,33. 

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  e«H  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  J7«oAfoc<  ;  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  8o«4«r,  and  to  make  n't 
n'r  &  «aT<ur/»r£r  ;  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*M»l»i  . 

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 
God?' 

i*\i*ruv.     \V«    Live    already  seen  (note  on   i.   i)   that   with 
;I  *Xi7roi'  and  ^X««roi  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 


VIII.  33-36.]  LIFE   IX  THE  SPIRIT  221 

the  avenue;  but  «'«X««r£»  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  &«ai£r 


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(dt  p.  67  f.). 

35.  dv&  TT)f  dydinis  TOO  Xpurrou.   There  is  an  alternative  reading 
TOM  8«oO  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  e«oO  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. 

6Xi4»is  K.T.X.  We  have  here  a  splendid  example  of  cot/xipnc  <V 
mic  Aty«ro  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*ow»o«  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. 

fr«««r  is  decisively  attested  here  :  in  the  Psalm  B  has  fr«o,  K  A  T  i»«««r, 
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-  <aff 

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. 

marg.). 

The  Latin  texts  of  this  verse  are  marked  and  characteristic,  Tertulllan, 
S:orf>.  1  3  Tua  causa  mortijuamur  Ma  die,  Jef  ut.it  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  dut 

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\(nanjtt   no*    oro/ia    <m>/ia£op«roi'  : 

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*>»  oyy«A«»  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  oiro«araXXd£<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 
<Jyy«Aof.  There  is  al«o  a  tendency  in  the  Western  and  later  authorities  to 
insert  o£r«  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<  p«XAorra.  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  crroiXo{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\0«VT«  <lt  i)^i(>o»  tpiotvt,  vo<ij<j<u  IK&*I)OI*  4r  rott  vr«v/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 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [VIII.  39 

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  «'traipdji«ro»  «.:- 
rov  6«ot/. 


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*<A«iar.     Origen  (in  Cramer's  Catf*a)  explains  fy«pa  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  6«oo  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 

39)- 


IX.  1-5.]  THE   UNBELIEF  OK   ISRAEL  225 

THE  APOSTLE'S  SORROW  OVER  ISRAEL'S  UNBELIEF. 

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  O«oC  «V  X/nary  XaAoi>«r:  xii.  19.     St.  Paul  lias  just 


IX.  1,  2.]  THE   UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  227 

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 
credence. 

oo  iftuoofwu.  A  Pauline  expression,  i  Tim.  ii.  7  aX^uv  X«y«, 
ou  ^r«i&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  0«X«t  tlxtlv,  &o  wpoofawoul  ry  wicmvft)»att 
fWi0«pd/i«i>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  p«XXw<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"  Jn«  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*ot  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. 


2:S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  K  [IX.  3. 

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. 

<W9«p.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>  a»Q09  4*6|piMrof  ftp  Kipi'y  .  .  .  oi«  cnroow<7«rat 
ovui  Xvrpaxrfrtu  ...  cat  fray  &  fur  uvartBtj  airo  r£i>  a»0pwir«ir  ov  Xvrp»6q- 
a«rai,  uXXa  Awfry  foanrvOfarTfu  I  Deut.  vii.  26  ;    Josh.  \i.    i 
if  vJAir  <mjd«/ia,  avrff  gal  rdrra  oaa  iar\v  «V  o  aa$a»0.      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.  . 


IX.  3,  4.J  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  229 


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  ad«X<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*X««o- 
TFJTOV  awir«/>/9X^rov,  irappqaiafrrai  Oipdnw  irpos  Kupiov,  air«ir<u  <T0*air  T« 
ir\t')0«t  f)  Km  iavriv  «£uX«i$lqMu  JUT  avritv  ii£toi.  In  answer  tO  those 

•who  have  found  difficulties  in  the  passage  it  is  enough  to  say  with 
Prof.  Jowett  that  they  arise  from  'the  error  of  explaining  the 
language  of  feeling  as  though  it  were  that  of  reasoning  and 
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 
economy. 

'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  amjXXorpi6»p«Voi  rffs  iro\irtiat  TOW  'tapaqX  col  £iVot  fir 

flmfVi*  Tf»f  «'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  p«p<r  fat  f)  jcXijpoyo/ua  rov  6«ov  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 


230  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [IX.  4. 

ayafa  Mrrpm/A  «V  tnmrywyp  (/wXwr,  4  *mq<rfi  6  e«»r.      ro^vroi  6  8*oc  riri 

*l<r,HiijX  ri  fX«oi  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).     W£a  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. 


IX.  4,  5.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  231 

its  practical  bearing  on  Jewish  life  sec  SchUrer  Getchichtt,  ii. 
S8. 

^  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>ot 

rols  ayonSurof  ouro*  «V  dAq&tf  .  .  .  ro«r  ffoptvo/i/Mxr  *V  dtxcufxrvyi;  irpoaroy- 
HUTW  avrov,  iv  ro/*y  us  «V*T«iAaro  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 
promises. 

^  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  wary«A«u  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. 


EPISTLE  TO  TI!  [IX.  5. 


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 

profound. 

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 


IX.  5.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF   ISRAEL  233 

Messiah's  own  people,  seemed  to  be  cut  off  and  rejected  from  the 
blessings  which  it  had  itself  prepared  for  the  world.  How  was  this 
problem  to  be  solved?  (Cf.  4  Ezra  xiii;  SchUrer,  Getchuhl€, 
ii.  45*  «q.) 

The  Punctuation  of  Rom.  ix.  5. 


ml  l(  £r  6  Xparib  ru  «aro  oap*a,  &  u»  Jwl  wdyraw,  e«dt  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 
rftfy>  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. 


234 


ILE  TO  THE  RO.V 


[IX.  6. 


History  of 

pretation. 
(i)  The 
Versions, 
(a)  The 

rather*. 


MSS. 


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 
«Tir«f,  and  another  between  'lapa^inu  and  &V,  there  is  no  reason  as  far  as 
punctuation  is  concerned  why  &  •>  should  not  refer  to  X^<rr«J»  as  much  as 
mr«»«t  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  e«it  to  Christ  difficult,  for  S 

had  already  called  him  tttt  0«o«.    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. 


IX.  5.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  235 

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    r«i  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  adp«a  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  e«dt  xal  warfjp  rov  Kvpiov  'lyaov  o78«K,  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  AaA«f:  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  J»j  mirror  *«<*  refer  to  what  precedes  nnles* 


EPISTLE  TO  TI!  [IX.  5. 

they  suggest  so  great  an  antithesis  to  his  mind  that  he  could  not  refer  them 

ist. 

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 
e«4r  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  6«4f  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*  0«4t  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 
•arr«r,  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 
JA«7fr4t  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  t«ss  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 


IX.  5.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  237 

•  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  «J«ir  roO  e«ov  (a  Cor.  iv.  4  ;  Col.  i.  15).  as  I*  iiof+v  e«ov 
iwapx**,  and  Too  e«$  (Phil.  ii.  6  ,  he  ascribes  to  Him  no  lesser  dignity 


than  would  be  implied  by  e«ot  as  predicate.  The  question  rather  is  this  : 
was  e«4t  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  e«of 
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 


238  ISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [IX.  0    13. 

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  re»uh  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.' 


THE  REJECTION  OP  ISRAEL  NOT  INCONSISTENT 
WITH  THE  DIVINE  PROMISES. 

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,  Tno  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 


IX.  6.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  239 

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 
purpose. 


240  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IX.  6,  7. 

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  oix  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 

,6.) 

{•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  X6Yo*  TOO  6co«i:    '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  e«oO  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. 


IX.  7.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  241 

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  vd»m  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 
desc- 

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<7«Tcu  aot  <nr«ppa:  '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$  uPXom  r£v  &upoyt*>r  :  i  Cor.  vi.  3. 
anipfta  (cf.  Gen.  Xli.  7  T$  <nr«p/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 
section. 

'  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  avr«Jr)  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 


242  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IX.  7-9. 


(althoogh  cXirrJf  is  to  used  Matt  The  fall  construe  • 

r«ra  tit  n,  I  The*,  ii.  13  rov  «aAo£rrot  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 
principle. 

Td  W«ra  -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>oit  «arA  *Ia<w«  ctrcryycXior 


All    these    expressions  (r«»a    roC  0«oO,   T«Vra  rJjt  <troyy«X«af)  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  <rdp«a;  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 


IX.  0-1L]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  243 

does  not  necessarily  imply  a  share  in  the  /royy«X&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 
clearly.' 

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  r«cowra  flraioat,  /« 
roO  'icraajt  «r«K«r  dptporff'povf*  aXX  opwf  oi  rfx&'rrrf  roO  avrov  irarpoc 
orrc c,  rjjt  aut^f  prjTpot,  ras  avrdr  \vaarrtt  ciAIwf ,  icai  6fMnrarptot  orr»t  *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 


ISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [IX.  11. 

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- 
clared/ 

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  tf«Ar.. 

ii   cara  np60ioiv  r«v  alw*»v  9p  /roiijatv  «V  TO* 
2  Tim.  i.  9  TOV  eWayrot  fjftas  cai  caAcVairof  «Xij<r«t  «tyia. 
«>ya  9M«r.  a'XXa  nor    I'diciv  *pd&0i»  cat  !)  also  is   found 

once  in  the  same  sense,  Eph.  i.  9  «nra  r^  «t«o«i ;  .  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 


IX.  11,  12.]         THE   UNBELIEF  OF   ISRAEL  245 

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  e«fe 

'itrpoqX  tit  fjpipa*  A«ov  iv  ti\nyio,  tit   tjnt'pa*  «VA«ytjc   «»  d»a£ii  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. 

fU»TI  :  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  B«ow  of  the  RV.  the  TR.  reads  rov  e«ow  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*  dovX«Mr«i  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  Z«urt«r  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  rfju«n)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;'  M.il.  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 


IX.  13.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  247 

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  an  Edomite,  for  he  is  thy  brother,'  later 
events  had  obliterated  this  feeling  of  kinship ;  or  perhaps  rather  the  feeling  of 
relationship  had  exasperated  the  bitterness  which  the  hostility  of  the  two 
nations  had  aroused.  At  any  rate  the  history  is  one  of  continuous  hatred  on 
both  sides.  So  in  Ps.  cxxxvii.  7  and  in  the  Greek  Esdras  the  burning  of  the 
temple  is  ascribed  to  the  Edomites  (see  also  Obadiah  and  Jer.  xlix.  7-  a  a). 
Two  extracts  from  Apocryphal  works  will  exhibit  this  hatred  most  clearly. 
In  Enoch  Ixxxix.  H-ia  (p.  233,  ed.  Charles)  the  patriarchal  history  is 
symbolized  by  different  animals:  '  But  that  white  bull  .Abraham  which  was 
bcrn  amongst  them  begat  a  wild  ass  (Ishmacl)  and  a  white  bull  with  it 
(Isaac),  and  the  wild  ass  multiplied.  But  that  bull  which  was  bora  from 
him  begat  a  black  wild  boar  (Esau)  and  a  white  sheep  (Jacobs ;  and  that 
wild  boar  begat  many  boars,  but  that  sheep  begat  twelve  sheep.'  Here 
Esau  is  represented  by  the  most  detested  of  animals,  the  pig.  So  in 
Jubiltft  xxxrii.  aa  sq.  (trans.  Charles)  the  following  speech  is  characteristi- 
cally put  into  the  month  of  Esau :  •  And  thon  too  (Jacob)  dost  hate  me  and 
my  children  for  ever,  and  there  is  no  observing  the  tie  of  brotherhood  with 
thee.  Hear  these  words  which  I  declare  unto  thee :  if  the  boar  can  change 
its  skin  and  make  its  bristles  as  soft  as  wool :  or  if  it  can  cause  horns  to 
sprout  forth  on  its  head  like  the  horns  of  a  stag  or  of  a  sheep,  then  I  will 
observe  the  tie  of  brotherhood  with  thee,  for  since  the  twin  male  offspring 
were  separated  from  their  mother,  thou  hast  not  shown  thyself  a  brother  to 
me.  And  if  the  wolves  make  peace  with  the  lambs  so  as  not  to  devour  or 
rob  them,  and  if  their  hearts  turn  towards  them  to  do  good,  then  there  will 
be  peace  in  my  heart  towards  tbee.  And  if  the  lion  becomes  the  friend  of 
the  ox,  and  if  he  is  bound  under  one  yoke  with  him  and  ploughs  with  htm 
and  makes  peace  with  him,  then  I  will  make  peace  with  thee.  And  when 
the  raven  becomes  white  as  the  raza  (a  large  white  bird),  then  I  know  that 


:  ;S  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IX.  6 

I  shall  love  thee  and  make  peace  with  thee.    Thou  shah  be  rooted  out  and 
thy  son  shall  be  rooted  oat  and  there  shall  be  no  peace  for  thee.'     (See  also 
aoarath.  New  TtttamvU  Timu.  vol.  i.  pp.  67, 68, 
Eng.  Trant) 

Divine  Election. 

SL  Paul  has  set  himself  to  prove  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
promise  made  to  Abraham  i  God  had  '  pledged  Himself  to 

Israel '  (Gore,  Studia  Biblica,  iii.  40),  and  bound  Himself  to  allow  all 
those  who  were  Abraham's  descendants  to  inherit  these  promises.  He 
proves  this  by  showing  that  in  two  cases,  as  was  recognised  by  the 
Jews  themselves,  actual  descendants  from  Abraham  had  tx 
eluded.  Hence  he  deduces  the  general  principle,  •  There  was  from 
the  first  an  element  of  inscrutable  selectiveness  in  God's  di 
within  the  race  of  Abraham '  (Gore,  ft.).  The  inheritance  of  the 
promise  is  for  those  whom  God  chooses,  and  is  not  a  necessary 
ge  of  natural  descent  The  second  point  which  he  raises, 
that  this  choice  is  independent  of  human  merit,  he  works  out 
further  in  the  following  verses. 

On  the  main  argument  it  is  sufficient  at  present  to  notice  that  it 
was  primarily  an  argumentum  ad  homintm  and  as  such  was  abso- 
lutely conclusive  against  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed.  The 
Jews  prided  themselves  on  being  a  chosen  race ;  they  prided  them- 
selves especially  on  having  been  chosen  while  the  Ishmaelit 
the  Edomitcs  (whom  they  hated)  had  been  rejected.  S: 

•'.•3  the  principle  on  which  the  one  race  was  chosen  and  the 
other  rejected,  and  shows  that  the  very  same  principles  would 
perfectly  justify  God's  action  in  further  dealing  with  it    God 
choose  some  of  them  and  reject  others,  just  as  he  had  oii, 
chosen  them  and  not  the  other  descendants  of  Abr. 

That  this  idea  of  the  Divine  Election  was  one  of  the  most  funda- 
mental in   the  O.  T.  needs  no  illustration.     We   find  it  in  the 
(uch,  as  Deut.  vii.  6  'For  thou  art  an  holy  people  unto  the 
Lord,  thy  God:   the  Lord,  thy  God,  hath  chosen  thee  to  be  a 
peculiar  people  unto  himself  above  all  peoples  that  are  on  the  tace 
in  the  Psalms,  as  Ps.  cxxxv.  4  '  For  the  Lord  hath 
chosen  Jacob  unto  himself,  and  Israel  for  his  peculiar  treasure ':  in 
the  Prophets,  as  Is.  xli.  8,  thou  Israel,  my  ser 

whom  I  have  chosen,  the  seed  of  Abraham  my  friend ;  thou 
I  have  taken  hold  of  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  and  called  thee 

he  corners  thereof,  and  said  unto  thee,  Thou 
I  have  chosen  thee  and  not  cast  thee  away.'    A 
Israel  being  the  elect  people  of  God  is  one  of  those  i 
veized  and  grasped  most   tenaciously  by  - 
thought.     But  between  the  conception  as  held  by  St.  Paul's  con- 


IX.  6-13.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  249 

temporaries  and  the  O.  T.  there  were  striking  differences.  In  the 
O.  T.  it  is  always  looked  upon  as  an  act  of  condescension  and  love 
of  God  for  Israel,  it  is  for  this  reason  that  He  redeemed  them  from 
bondage,  and  purified  them  from  sin  (Deut.  vii.  8;  x.  15;  Is.  xliv. 
) ;  although  the  Covenant  is  specified  it  is  one  which  involves 
obligations  on  Israel  (Deut  vii.  9,  Ac.):  and  the  thought  again  and 
again  recurs  that  Israel  has  thus  been  chosen  not  merely  for  their 
own  sake  but  as  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God,  and  not  merely 
to  exhibit  the  Divine  power,  but  also  for  the  benefit  of  other  nations 
(Gen.  xii.  3  ;  Is.  Ixvi.  18,  &c.).  But  among  the  Rabbis  the  idea  of 
Election  has  lost  all  its  higher  side.  It  is  looked  on  as  a  covenant 
by  which  God  is  bound  and  over  which  He  seems  to  have  no  control. 
Israel  and  God  are  bound  in  an  indissoluble  marriage  (Slumolh 
rabba  1.  51) :  the  holiness  of  Israel  can  never  be  done  away  with, 
even  although  Israel  sin,  it  still  remains  Israel  (Sanhtdrin  55) :  the 
worst  Israelite  is  not  profane  like  the  heathen  (Bammidbar  rabba  1 7): 
no  Israelite  can  go  into  Gehenna  (Ptsikla  38  a) :  all  Israelites  have 
their  portion  in  the  world  to  come  (Sanhfdnn  i),  and  much  more 
to  the  same  effect.  (See  Weber  Altsyn.  ThtoL  p.  51,  &c.,  to  whom 
are  due  most  of  the  above  references.*) 

And  this  belief  was  shared  by  St  Paul's  contemporaries.  '  The 
planting  of  them  is  rooted  for  ever :  they  shall  not  be  plucked  out 
all  the  days  of  the  heaven :  for  the  portion  of  the  Lord  and  the 
inheritance  of  God  is  Israel*  (Ps.  So/,  xiv.  3);  'Blessed  art  thou  of 
the  Lord,  O  Israel,  for  evermore'  (ib.  viii.  41) ;  •  Thou  didst  choose 
the  seed  of  Abraham  before  all  the  nations,  and  didst  set  thy  name 
before  us,  O  Lord :  and  thou  wilt  abide  among  us  for  ever  (ib.  ix. 
1 7, 1 8).  While  Israel  is  always  to  enjoy  the  Divine  mercy,  sinners, 
i.e.  Gentiles,  are  to  be  destroyed  before  the  face  of  the  Lord 
(ib.  xii.  7,  8).  So  again  in  4  Ezra,  they  have  been  selected  while 
Esau  has  been  rejected  (iii.  16).  And  this  has  not  been  done  as  part 
of  any  larger  Divine  purpose ;  Israel  is  the  end  of  the  Divine  action ; 
for  Israel  the  world  was  created  (vi  55) ;  it  does  not  in  any  way 
exist  for  the  benefit  of  other  nations,  who  are  of  no  account ;  they 
are  as  spittle,  as  the  dropping  from  a  vessel  (vi.  55,  56).  More 
instances  might  be  quoted  (Jubilees  xix.  16 ;  xxii.  9 ;  Apoc.  Baruch 
xhiii.  20,  23;  Ixxvii.  3),  but  the  above  are  enough  to  illustrate  the 
position  St.  Paul  is  combating.  The  Jew  believed  that  his  race 
was  joined  to  God  by  a  covenant  which  nothing  could  dissolve, 
and  that  he  and  his  people  alone  were  the  centre  of  all  God's 
action  in  the  creation  and  government  of  the  world. 

This  idea  St.  Paul  combats.  But  it  is  important  to  notice  how 
the  whole  of  the  O.  T.  conception  is  retained  by  him,  but 
broadened  and  illuminated  Educated  as  a  Pharisee,  he  had 
held  the  doctrine  of  election  with  the  utmost  tenacity.  He  had 
believed  that  his  own  nation  had  been  chosen  from  among  all  the 


ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IX.  14-20. 

kingdoms  of  the  earth.  He  still  holds  the  doctrine,  but  the 
Christian  revelation  has  given  a  meaning  to  what  had  been  a  nar- 
row privilege,  and  might  seem  an  arbitrary  choi  -.  tew  is 
now  widened.  The  world,  n<  :  is  the  final  end  of  God's 
action.  This  is  the  key  to  the  explanation  of  the  great  difficulty 
the  rejection  of  Israel.  Already  in  the  words  that  he  has  used 
above  9  «ar*  «*Xayq>  trpoftatr  he  has  shown  the  pr. 
is  working  out  The  mystery  which  had  been  hidden  from  the 
ion  of  the  world  has  been  revealed  (Rom.  xvi.  26). 

«Xoyi7,  but  it  is  now  realized  i:  the  result 

of  a  ir/xJ&<m,  a  universal  Divine  puqxxsc  which  had  worked  through 
the  ages  on  tht  principle  of  election,  which  was  now  beginning  to 
be  revealed  and  understood,  and  which  St.  Paul  will  cxpla 

ate  in  the  chapters  that  follow  (cf.  Eph.  i.  4,  1 1  ;  iii.  1 1). 

-hall  follow  St.  Paul  in  his  argument  as  he  gradi: 
it  out.    Meanwhile  it  is  convenient  to  remember  the  exact  point  he 
has  reached.     He  has  shown  that  God  has  not  been  untrue  to  any 
promise  in  making  a  selection  from  among  the  Israel  of  I. 

lie  is  only  acting  on  the  principle  He  followed  in  sc 
the  Israelites  and  rejecting  the  Edomites  and  Ishmaelites.     By  the 
introduction  of  the  phrase  ij  far  «'«Aoy^r  npttoms  St.  Paul  has  also 
suggested  the  lines  on  which  his  argument  will  proceed. 


THE  REJECTION  OP  ISRAEL  NOT  INCONSISTENT 
WITH  THE  DIVINE  JUSTICE. 

IX.  14-20.  But  secondly  it  may  be  urged:  '  Surely  then 
God  is  unjust'    No,  if  you  turn  to  the  Scriptures  you  will 
see  that  He  has  the  right  to  confer  His  favours  on  whom  He 
will  (as  He  did  on  Moses)  or  to  withJiold  them  \ 
from  Pharaoh)  (w.  14-18). 

If  it  is  further  urged.  Why  blame  me  if  I  like  Pharaoh 
reject  Gods  offer \  and  thus  fulfil  His  will1.     I  ; 
your  part  not  to  cart!  but  to  submit.     The  cr,  ay  not 

complain  against  the   Creator,  any   more  than   the 
st  the  potter  (vv.  19-21).     Still  less  when  Gcd's  / 
has  been  so  benefit  that  to  a  body  so  mixed  as  this 

tian  Church  of  ours ',  chosen  not  only  from  the  Jews  but 
also  from  the  C  -) ;— as  indeed  was  / 

»9> 


IX.  14-20]         THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  251 

14  But  there  is  a  second  objection  which  may  be  raised.  '  If 
what  you  say  is  true  that  God  rejects  one  and  accepts  another 
apart  from  either  privilege  of  birth  or  human  merit,  is  not  His 
conduct  arbitrary  and  unjust?'  What  answer  shall  we  make  to 
Surely  there  is  no  injustice  with  God.  Heaven  forbid  that 
I  should  say  so.  I  am  only  laying  down  clearly  the  absolute  character 
of  the  Divine  sovereignty.  l§  The  Scripture  has  shown  us  clearly 
the  principles  of  Divine  action  in  two  typical  and  opposed  incidents: 
that  of  Moses  exhibiting  the  Divine  grace,  that  of  Pharaoh  ex- 
hibiting the  Divine  severity.  Take  the  case  of  Moses.  When  he 
demanded  a  sign  of  the  Divine  favour,  the  Lord  said  (Ex.  xxxiii. 
17-19) '  Thou  hast  found  grace  in  my  sight,  and  I  know  thee  by 
name  ...  I  will  make  all  my  goodness  pass  before  thee  ;  I  will  be 
gracious  to  whom  I  will  be  gracious,  and  will  show  mercy  on 
whom  I  will  show  mercy.'  w  These  words  imply  that  grace  comes 
to  man  not  because  he  is  determined  to  attain  it,  not  because  he 
exerts  himself  for  it  as  an  athlete  in  the  races,  but  because  he  has 
found  favour  in  God's  sight,  and  God  shows  mercy  towards  him : 
they  prove  in  fact  the  perfect  spontaneousness  of  God's  action. 
17  So  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh.  The  Scripture  (in  Ex.  ix.  16)  tells  us 
that  at  the  time  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt  these  words  were  ad- 
dressed to  him :  '  I  have  given  thee  thy  position  and  place,  that 
I  may  show  forth  in  thee  my  power,  and  that  my  name  might  be 
declared  in  all  the  earth.'  u  Those  very  Scriptures  then  to  which 
you  Jews  so  often  and  so  confidently  appeal,  show  the  absolute 
character  of  God's  dealings  with  men.  Both  the  bestowal  of  mercy 
'iir  and  the  hardening  of  the  human  heart  depend  alike  upon 
the  Divine  will. 

19  But  this  leads  to  a  third  objection.  If  man's  destiny  be 
simply  the  result  of  God's  purpose,  if  his  hardness  of  heart  is 
a  state  which  God  Himself  causes,  why  does  God  find  fault  ?  His 
will  is  being  accomplished.  There  is  no  resistance  being  offered. 
Obedience  or  disobedience  is  equally  the  result  of  His  purpose. 
'••Such  questions  should  never  be  asked.  Consider  what  is  in- 
volved in  your  position  as  man.  A  man's  relation  to  God  is  such 
that  whatever  God  does  the  man  has  no  right  to  complain  or  object 
or  reply.  The  Scriptures  have  again  and  again  represented  the 
relation  of  God  to  man  under  the  image  of  a  potter  and  the 


252  :STLE  TO  THE  R«  [IX.  20-20. 

vessels  that  be  makes.    Can  you  conceive  (to  use  the  words  of 
the  prophet  Isaiah)  the  vessel  saying  to  its  maker :  '  Why  did  you 
make  me  thus?'    fl  The  potter  has  complete  control  over  the  lump 
of  clay  with  which  he  works,  he  can  make  of  it  one  vessel  for  an 
honourable  purpose,  another  for  a  dishonourable  purpose.    This 
exactly  expresses  the  relation  of  man  to  his   Maker.    God  has 
made  man,  made  him  from  the  dust  of  the  earth.     He  has  as 
absolute  control  over  His  creature  as  the  potter  has.    No  man 
before  Him  has  any  right,  or  can  complain  of  injustice.     He  is 
absolutely  in  Cod's  hands.    "This  is  God's  sovereignty;  even 
if  He  had  been  arbitrary  we  could  not  complain.     But  what 
becomes  of  your  talk  of  injustice  when  you  < 
acted?    Although  a  righteous  God  would  desire  to  exhi! 
Divine  power  and  wrath  in  a  world  of  sin;  even  thou1/ 
dealing  with  those  who  were  fit  objects  of  His  wrath  and  had 
become  fitted  for  destruction ;  yet  He  bore  with  them,  full  of  long- 
suffering  for  them,  *  and  with  the  purpose  of  showing  all  the  wealth 
of  His  glory  on  those  who  are  vessels  deserving  His  mercy,  whom 
as  we  have  already  shown   He  has   prepared   even    fro: 
beginning,  "  a  mercy  all  the  greater  when  it  is  remembered  that 
we  whom  He  has  called  for  these  privileges  are  chosen  not  only 
from  the  Jews,  but  also  from  the  Gentiles,  Gentiles  who 
bound  to  Him  by  no  covenant    Surely  then  there  has  be 
injustice  but  only  mercy. 

*  And  remember  finally  that  this  Divine  plan  of  which  you 
complain  is  just  what  the  prophets  foretold.  They  prophesied  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles.  Hosea  (i.  10,  and  ii.  23)  described  how 
those  who  were  not  within  the  covenant  should  be  brought  into  it 
and  called  by  the  very  name  of  the  Jews  under  the  old  Covenant, 
'the  people  of  God,'  'the  beloved  of  the  Lord/  'the  sons  of  the 
living  God/  "And  this  wherever  throughout  the  whole  world 
they  had  been  placed  in  the  contemptuous  po  cing,  as  he 

expressed  it,  'no  people/    r  Equally  do  we  find  the  rejection  of 
Israel — all  but  a  remnant  of  it — foretold.     Isaiah  (x.  22)  stated, 
.  though  the  number  of  the  children  of  Israel  be  as  the  sand 
of  the  seashore,  yet  it  is  only  I  shall  be  saved,  "for 

a  sharp  and  dec  .11  the  Lord  execute  upon  the  earth.' 

^Andsimi  he  had  foretold  the  com- 


IX.  14,  15.]         THE  UNBEUEF  OF   ISRAEL  253 

plete  destruction  of  Israel  with  the  exception  of  a  small  remnant : 
'  Unless  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth  had  left  us  a  seed,  we  should  have 
been  as  Sodom,  and  we  should  have  been  like  unto  Gomorrah.' 

14-20.  St.  Paul  now  states  for  the  purpose  of  refutation  a 
le  objection.  He  has  ju>t  shown  that  God  chooses  men 
independently  of  their  works  according  to  His  own  free  determina- 
tion, and  the  deduction  is  implied  that  He  is  free  to  choose  or 
reject  members  of  the  chosen  race.  The  objection  which  may  be 
;f  what  you  say  is  true,  God  is  unjust,'  and  the  argument 
would  probably  be  continued,  '  we  know  God  is  not  unjust,  there- 
fore the  principles  laid  down  are  not  true.'  In  answer^  St.  Paul 
shows  that  they  cannot  be  unjust  or  inconsistent  with  God's  action, 
for  they  are  exactly  those  which  God  has  declared  to  be  His  in  those 
very  Scriptures  on  which  the  Jews  with  whom  St.  Paul  is  arguing 
would  especially  rely. 

14.  TI  o3r  JpoufMr;  see  on  iii.  5,  a  very  similar  passage:  «i  &'  9 

ddiKi'u    f)n»*  O«oi/   dutatovvmjv  atw'trrijai,   ri  «poi>«y;    pi)  <i&«of  6  8«6r 

o  iirttfttptuf  T)V  &pyi» ;  . .  .  pi)  ytrotro.  The  expression  is  used  as 
always  to  introduce  an  objection  which  is  stated  only  to  be 
refuted. 

fill :  implying  that  a  negative  answer  may  be  expected,  as  in 
the  instance  just  quoted. 

irapdrw  6cw.  Cf.  ii.  II  ov  yap  tori  vpofftanaXipfria  irapa  ry  6«y : 
Eph.  vi.  9 ;  Prov.  viii.  30,  of  Wisdom  dwelling  with  God,  jw 

nap  airy  app6fowra. 

^  yfroiTo.  Cf.  iii.  4.  The  expression  is  generally  used  as  here 
to  express  St.  Paul's  horror  at  an  objection  '  which  he  has  staled 
for  the  purpose  of  refutation  and  which  is  blasphemous  in  itself  or 
one  that  his  opponent  would  think  to  be  such. 

15-10.  According  to  Origen,  followed  by  many  Fathers  and 
some  few  modern  commentators,  the  section  w.  15-19  contains 
not  St.  Paul's  own  words,  but  a  continuation  of  the  objection  put 
into  the  mouth  of  his  opponent,  finally  to  be  refuted  by  the 
indignant  disclaimer  of  ver.  20.  Such  a  construction  which  was 
adopted  in  the  interest  of  free-will  is  quite  contrary  to  the  structure 
of  the  sentence  and  of  the  argument.  In  every  case  in  which  M* 
yivoiTo  occurs  it  is  followed  by  an  answer  to  the  objection  direct  or 
indirect.  Moreover  if  this  had  been  the  construction  the  inter- 
rogative sentence  would  not  have  been  introduced  by  the  particle 
M«i  expecting  a  negative  answer,  but  would  have  been  in  a  form 
which  would  suggest  an  affirmative  reply. 

15.  TV  Y*P  M*KH)  My".    The  W>   explains  and  justifies   the 
strong  denial  contained  in  m  y«*xTo.    Too  much  stress  must  not 
be  laid  on  the  emphasis  given  to  the  name  by  its  position ;  yet  it  is 
obvious  that  the  instance  chosen  adds  considerably  to  the  strength 


:]4  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IX.  15,  10. 

of  the  argument.     Moses,  if  any  one,  mipht  be  considered  t. 
deserved  God's  mercy,  and  the  name  of  Moses  would  be  that  most 
respected  by  St.  Paul  s  opponents.    X«y »  without  a  nominative  for 
>  a  common  idiom  in  quotations  (cf.  Rom.  xv.   10; 
s;  v.  14). 

Ad7<rw  lv  A*  Acw.  .  •  mercy  on  whomsoever 

I  ha\v  The  emphasis  is  on  the  i»  «*,  and  the  words  are 

quoted  to  mean  that  as  it  is  God  who  has  made  the  offer  of  salva- 
tion to  men,  it  is  for  Him  to  choose  who  are  to  be  the  recipients  of 
His  grace,  and  not  for  man  to  dictate  to  Him.     The  quota 
from  the  LXX  of  Ex.  xxxiii.  19  v: 

It  is  a  fairly  accurate  translation  of  the  original,  there  bein. 
a  slight  change  in  the  tenses.    The  Hebrew  is  '  I  am  grac: 
whom  I  will  be  gracious/  the  LXX  '  I  \u!l  t>c  gracious  to  whom- 
soever I  am  gracious/    But  St.  Paul  uses  th  th  a  some- 
what different  emphasis.     Moses  had  said,  '  Show  me,  I 
thy  glory/    And  He  said,  '  I  will  make  all  my  goodness  pass  before 
thce,  and  will  proclaim  the  name  of  the  Lord  before  thec 
I  \\ill  be  gracious  to  whom  I  will  be  gracious,  and  will  show  : 
on  whom  I  will  show  mercy/     The  point  of  the  words  in  the 
original  context  is  rather  the  certainty  of  the  Divine  grace  for  those 
whom  God  has  selected  ;  the  point  < 
is  the  independence  and  freedom  of  the  Divine  choice. 

A«TJaw  .  . .  oUrtip^ffw.  The  difference  between  these  words 
seems  to  be  something  the  same  as  that  between  Xwnj  and  oii'yij  in 
vcr.  2.  The  first  meaning  'compassion/  the  second  'distress'  or 
'pain/  such  as  expresses  itself  in  outward  manifestation.  (Cf. 
Godet,  adloc.) 

16.  apa  OUK  introduces  as  an  inference  from  the  special  instance 
given  the  general  principle  of  God's  me: 

TotV  fort*,  .  where  the  logical  method  in  each  case  is  the 

same  although  the  form  of  expression  is  different. 

TOW  OAorros,  K.T.X.     'God's  i  in  the  power  not  of  human 

desire  or  human  effort,  but  of  the  Divine  compa^  The  geni- 

tives are  dependent  on  the  idea  of  mercy  deduced  from  the  r>r 
verse.    With  ftXorror  may  be  compared 

/{ourunr   Woo   8fov   y«y«fr&u  .  .  .  ol  OIK   «'£   <«,'.. <ir«y,   o£W   «Vr   AXiJ^oroi 

myMuJf,  o£M  ««  ftAtyjoror  artpot,  oXX'  A  e«oC  •V^Ayvay.     Th. 

phor  of  TOO  rp/xo^t  -ourite  one  with  St.  Paul  (i  Cor.  ix. 

7). 

.  Paul  might  seem  to  !»••  ••  ith  f.imi! 

s  of  people;  here  howe\  ^:th  in- 

iys  down  the  principle  that  God  s  grace  does  not 
necessarily  depend  upon  but  God's  will.    'N< 

1  have  not  reasons  to  do  it,  but  that  I  need  not,  in  distribu: 

b  which  have  no  foundation  in  the  merits  of  men,  render 


IX.  16,17.]         THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  :  ;,  ', 

any  other  reason  or  motive  but  mine  own  will,  whereby  I  may  do 
what  I  will  with  mine  own/     Hammond. 

The  MSS.  vary  curiously  in  the  orthography  of  Jx»/«,  Jx«<i«.    In  m.  16 
K  A  B  D  E  F  G  support  JA«i«  (4X«£rrot),  B'K  &c.  Jx««o,  (^•ovrrot)  ;  in 

1  8  the  position  is  reverted,  Jx«fo  (jA«a)  having  only  DFC 
favonr;  in  Jnde  aa  JA«i«  (4x«ar«)  is  supported  by  KB  alone.    See  \VH. 
App.  p.  166. 


17.  X«yei  yip  ^  ypa^  :  'and  as  an  additional  proof  showing 
that  the  principle  just  enunciated  (in  ver.  16)  is  true  not  merely  in 
an  instance  of  God's  mercy,  but  also  of  His  severity,  take  the 
language  which  the  Scripture  tells  us  was  addressed  to  Pharaoh.' 
On  the  form  of  quotation  cf.  Gal.  iii.  8,  22  ;  there  was  probably  no 
reason  for  the  change  of  expression  from  ver.  15;  both  were  well- 
known  forms  used  in  quoting  the  O.  T.  and  both  could  be  used 
indifferently. 

T$  •apow.  The  selection  of  Moses  suggested  as  a  natural 
contrast  that  of  his  antagonist  Pharaoh.  In  God's  dealings  with 
these  two  individuals,  St.  Paul  finds  examples  of  His  dealings  with 
the  two  main  classes  of  mankind. 

cfc  o6r&  TOOTO,  K.r.X.  :  taken  with  considerable  variations,  which  in 
some  cases  seem  to  approach  the  Hebrew,  from  the  LXX  of  Ex.  ix. 
1  6  (see  below).  The  quotation  is  taken  from  the  words  which  Mose? 
was  directed  to  address  to  Pharaoh  after  the  sixth  plague,  that  of 
boils.  '  For  now  I  had  put  forth  my  hand  and  smitten  thee  and 
thy  people  with  pestilence,  and  thou  hadst  been  cut  off  from  the 
r.inh  ;  but  in  very  deed  for  this  cause  have  I  made  thee  to  stand, 
for  to  show  thee  my  power,  and  that  my  name  may  be  declared 
throughout  all  the  earth.'  The  words  in  the  original  mean  that 
God  has  prevented  Pharaoh  from  being  slain  by  the  boils  in  order 
that  He  might  more  completely  exhibit  His  power  ;  St.  Paul  by 
slightly  changing  the  language  generalizes  the  statement  and 
applies  the  words  to  the  whole  appearance  of  Pharaoh  in  the  field 
of  history.  Just  as  the  career  of  Moses  exhibits  the  Divine  mercy, 
so  the  career  of  Pharaoh  exhibits  the  Divine  severity,  and  in  both 
cases  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  is  vindicated. 

<^Y«lPa  :  '  I  haye  raised  thee  up,  placed  thee  in  the  field  of 
history.'  There  are  two  main  interpretations  of  this  word  pos- 
sible. (i)  It  has  been  taken  to  mean,  'I  have  raised  thee  up 
from  sickness/  so  Gif.  and  others,  '  I  have  preserved  thee  and  not 
taken  thy  life  as  I  might  have  done/  This  is  in  all  probability  the 
meaning  of  the  original  Hebrew,  'I  made  thee  to  stand/  and 
certainly  that  of  the  LXX,  which  paraphrases  the  words  kmiptfnt. 
It  is  supported  also  by  a  reading  in  the  Hexapla  otm^ijad  <r«,  by  the 
Targum  of  Onkelos  Susftnui  te  ut  ostcndtrem  tibi,  and  the  Arabic 
Te  rtstrccni  ut  ostenderem  tibi.  Although  «'£ry«tp">'  does  not  seem 
to  occur  in  this  sense,  it  is  used  i  Cor.  vi.  14  of  resurrection  from 


Ell  I* 


the  dead,  and  the  simple  verb  tyl(»i»  in  15  meanv 

ing  from  sickness/     The  words  may  possibly  therefor- 

sense,  but  the  passage  as  quoted  by  St.  Paul  could  not  be  so  inter- 

Setting  aside  the  fact  that  he  probably  altered  the  i 
of  (he  LXX  purposely,  as  the  words  occur  here  without  any  a! 
to  the  previous  sickness,  the  passage  would  be  meaningless  •. 

ice  were  made  to  the  original,  and  would  not  justify  the 
deduction  drawn  from  it  I*  c«  &'A««  cncAi^tm. 

(2)  The  correct  interpretation  (so  Calv.  Beng.  Beyschlag  Go. 
Weiss.  Lips.  Gore)  is  therefore  one  which  makes  St.  Paul 
generalize  the  idea  of  the  previous  passage,  and  this  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  almost  technical  meaning  of  the  verb  •'£«>«  i,**  in  the 
LXX.  It  is  used  of  God  calling  up  the  actors  on  the  stage  of 
history.  So  of  the  Chaldaeans  Hab.  i.  6  *«m  ;&»  ,„  row 

:  of  a  shepherd  for  the  people  Zcch.  xi.  16  &ur<  .'do*  />•. 
vot/imi  «Vi  T+I*  W*  '  of  a  great  nation  and  kings  Jer. 

41     ttot>    Anof    tptfTOi  ano   0oppa,   *<u    t6vas   ptya   cai   fkuriXtls  iroXXoi 

t£«y«P&)<To»Tat  tar  ivxarov  rrj*  yn<.    This  interpretation  seems  to  be 
supported  by  the  Samaritan  Version,  subsis:  .',   and  cer- 

tainly  by  the  Syriac,  ob  id  te  constihd  ut  oskndtrtm  \  and  it  ex 
presses  just  the  idea  which  the  context  demands,  that  God  had 
haraoh's  position  was  owing  to  His  sovereign  will 
and  pleasure  —  in  order  to  carry  out  His  Divine  purpose  and  plan. 
The  interpretation  which  makes  c'£«-y«i>»v  mean  '  call  into  being.' 
4  create,'  has  no  support  in  the  usage  of  the  word,  although  not 
inconsistent  with  the  context  ;  and  *  to  rouse  to  anger  '  (Aug.  de 
:i.  &c.)  would  require  some  object  such  as  6v^,  as  in 
a  Mace.  xiii.  4. 

The  reading*  of  the  Latin  Venice*  are  a*  follow*  :   Quia  in  koc  ipsum 
txcitavi  tt.  d  e  f.  Vulg.  ;  quia  ad  hoc  ipsum  tt  tustUaoi,  Oritf.-lat  :  ptia  in 
kee  if  sum  txntaari  tt  tuxitavi  tt,  g;  <juia  in  koc  ipnun  tt  strvatfi,  Ambrrtr., 
who  add*  alii  todttts  tit  kaUnt,  ad  koc  tt  nuatatri.    Sit*  urn 
nucitavi  ttntti  tit  so. 


The  reading  of  the  LXX  i*  «a2  fr«*«r  rovrov  lunjp^jji  &a  Mti^anuu  I* 
90}  rip  laxw  i4ov,  MI  SVM  &a<y7«Af  rd  <ro/id  /iov  if  nan  Paul's 

it  ions  are  interesting. 

(i)  tit  otr*  rofro  i*  certainly  a  better  and  more  emphatic  reprcsc; 
of  the  Hebrew  than  the  »omewhat  weak  roim>v  ?r«««r.     The  cxpreuion  U 
characteristically  Pauline  (Rom.   x  i  *,  aa  ; 

iv.  8). 

(a)  ^«h««p«  09  represents  better  than  the  LXX  the  grammar  of  the  Hebrew, 
'I  made  tbee  to  stand,'  bat  not  the  *cnje.    The  varin. 
(&«nypi7«Ta)  and  other  version*  suggest  that  a  mure  literal  translation 
existence,  bat  the  word  was  rcry  probably  St.  Paul's  own  choice,  sel 
bring  oat  more  emphatically  the  meaning  of  the  paawge  as  he  t 


(3i  J»*4~pai  IF  <r,,4.     Si  Paul  here  follow*  the  incorrect  translation  of 

cs  as  the  purpose  of  God*  a, 

may  know  God'*  power,  and  as  a  further  consequence  that  God's  name  may 

X  assimilates  the  first  clan»c  to  the  second 
lad  give*  tt  a  »mtlar  meaning. 


IX    17,  18.]          THE  UNBELIEF  OF   ISRAEL  257 

(4)  owon  . . .  £v»f.    Here  St.  Paul  obliterates  the  diitinctioo  which  the 
I  X  \  (following  the  Hebrew)  had  made  of  «Vo  .  . .  fa*.    But  this  alteration 
was  only  a  natural  result  of  the  change  in  the  LXX  iuelf,  by  which  the  two 
clauses  bad  become  coordinate  in  thought. 

(5)  For  twantv  the  LXX  reads  lo-^w-    The  reading  of  St.  Paul  appears 
as  a  variant  in  the  Hcxapla. 

18.  opa  our  Just  as  ver.  16  sums  up  the  argument  of  the  first  part 
of  this  paragraph,  so  this  verse  sums  up  the  argument  as  it  has 
been  amplified  and  expounded  by  the  additional  example. 

atcXrjpuVei :  '  hardens ' ;  the  word  is  suggested  by  the  narrative  of 

Exodus  from  which  the  former  quotation  is  taken  (Ex.  iv.  2 1 ;  vit. 

12;  x.  20,  27;  xi.  10 ;  xiv.  4,8,  17) and  it  must  be  translate.!  in 

accordance  with  the  O.  T.  usage,  without  any  attempt  at  softening 

or  evading  its  natural  meaning. 

The  Divine  Sovereignty  in  the  Old  Testament. 

A  second  objection  is  answered  and  a  second  step  in  the  argu- 
ment laid  down.  God  is  not  unjust  if  He  select  one  man  or  one 
nation  for  a  high  purpose  and  another  for  a  low  purpose,  one  man 
for  His  mercy  and  another  for  His  anger.  As  is  shown  by  the 
Scriptures,  He  has  absolute  freedom  in  the  exercise  of  His  Divine 
sovereignty.  St.  Paul  is  arguing  against  a  definite  opponent, 
a  typical  Jew,  and  he  argues  from  premises  the  validity  of  which 
\v  must  admit,  namely,  the  conception  of  God  contained  in 
the  6.  T.  There  this  is  clearly  laid  down— the  absolute  sove- 
reignty of  God,  that  is  to  say,  His  power  and  His  right  to  dispose 
the  course  of  human  actions  as  He  will.  He  might  select  Israel 
for  a  high  office,  and  Edom  for  a  degraded  part:  He  might 
select  Moses  as  an  example  of  His  mercy,  Pharaoh  as  an  example 
b  anger.  If  this  be  granted  He  may  (on  grounds  which  the 
Jew  must  admit),  if  He  will,  select  some  Jews  and  some  Gentiles 
for  the  high  purpose  of  being  members  of  His  Messianic  kingdom, 
while  He  rejects  to  an  inferior  part  the  mass  of  the  chosen  people. 

This  is  St.  Paul's  argument.  Hence  there  is  no  necessity  for 
softening  (as  some  have  attempted  to  do)  the  apparently  harsh 
expression  of  ver.  18,  'whom  He  will  He  hardeneth.'  St.  Paul 
o  more  than  he  had  said  in  L  20-28,  where  he  described  the 
final  wickedness  of  the  world  as  in  a  sense  the  result  of  the  Divine 
action.  In  both  passages  he  is  isolating  one  side  of  the  Divine 
action ;  and  in  making  theological  deductions  from  his  language 
these  passages  must  be  balanced  by  others  which  imply  the  Divine 
love  and  human  freedom.  It  will  be  necessary  to  do  this  at  the 
close  of  the  discussion.  At  present  we  must  be  content  with 
St.  Paul's  conclusion,  that  God  as  sovereign  has  the  absolute  right 
and  power  of  disposing  of  men's  lives  as  He  will. 


V,s  I    TO  THE   I:  [IX.  18,  19. 

not  soften  the  passage.    On  the  other  hand 
not  read  into  it  more  than  it  contains :    as,  for  example,  < 
does.     He  imports  various  extraneous  ideas,  that  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  election  to  salvation  and  of  reprobation  to  death,  that   men 
\\cre  created  that  they  might  perish,  that  God's  action  not  only 
might  be  but  was  a:  Hoc  enim  vull  effictrc  apud  nos,  vl 

in  (a  qitae  apparel  inter  dectos  tl  reprobos  d 
contenta  sit  quod  Ha  visum  fuerit  Dto,  alios  tlluminare  in  salutem, 
alios  in  mortem  txcatcare  . . .  Corruitfrgofrirolum  ilimirffugium  quod 
de  praescicntia  Scholaslici  habtnt.  Nfque  fnim  praerultn  ruinam  im- 
pwrum  a  Domino  Paulus  Iradit,  sed  tius  consilio  tl  roluntalt  ordinari, 
imi-dum  d.Solomo  docet,  non  modo  praecognitum  fuisse  impiorum 
inter  itnm,  sed  impios  ipsos  fuisse  destinato  creates  ui 

The  Apostle  says  nothing  about  eternal  life  or  death.     He  says 
nothing  about  the  principles  upon  which  God  does  act ;  he  never 
says  that  His  action  is  arbitrary  (he  will  prove  eventually  tl 
is  not  so),  but  only  that  if  it  be  no  Jew  who  accepts  the  Sc: 
has  any  right  to  complain.    He  never  says  or  in  •.  God 

has  created  man  for  the  purpose  of  his  damnation.     \Vi.  i:  he  does 
say  is  ;  lis  government  of  the  world  God  reserves  to 

self  perfect  freedom  of  dealing  with  man  on  His  own  conditions 
and  not  on  man's.    So  Gore,  r/  ment : 

'  God  always  revealed  Himself  as  retaining  !  of  choice, 

as  refusing  to  tie  Himself,  as  selecting  the  historic  examples  of 
His  hardening  judgement  and  His  compassionate  good  will,  so  as 
to  baffle  all  attempts  on  our  part  to  create  His  vocations  by  our 
own  efforts,  or  anticipate  the  persons  whom  He  will  use  t 
purposes  of  mercy  or  of  judgement.1 

19.  /pels  pot  OUK.     Hardly  are  the  last  words  I*  6«  &X<i  a*\rj- 
pvm  out  of  St.  Paul's  mouth  than  he  imagines  his  oppon 
controversy  catching  at  an  objection,  and  he  at  once  takes  it  up  and 
forestalls  him.     By  substituting  this  phrase   for  the  more 
rl  o2r  «>oC/*«»,  St.  Paul  seems  to  i  h   his 

opponent's  objection. 

/IM  ovr  is  the  reading  of  K«  A  B  P,  Orig.  1/3  Jo.-Damasc.;  oSr  /MM 
TR.  U  supported  Sec,  Volg.  Boh.,  Orik'.  3/3  and  Orig.-l*t. 

Chrrf.  Tbdrt.    It  U  the  substitution  of  the  more  tm-.al  o: 

ri  |Uji4«Tu  •  it  is  God  who  h.\: 
me  does   He  still   i  docs  he  first  produce  a 
position  of  disobedience  t  c  me  for  : 
into  it  ?     The  <V*  implies  n  has  been  pro- 
duced which  makes  the  continuation  of  the  previous  r 

prising.      So  Rom.  iii.  7  fi  W  7  aXtfoia  roC  e«oC   «V  ry  «'p 
<9if>to<r  r^K    oo^Of  •  r/«   we    c5^ia^r»»X' 

Rom.  %"i.  2  o«n»«t  antffafOftttf  rij  ipapruf,  ir»t  in  ftavptv  <v 


IX.  19-21.]         THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  359 

ri  In  tfpfHTai  is  read  by  TR.  and  RV.  with  M  A  K  L  P  Ac,  Volg.  Syrr. 
Boh.,  and  many  Father*.    B  D  E  F  G,  Orig.-lat.  Hieron.  insert  oir  after  rL 


which  occurs  in  only  two  other  passages  in  the  N.  T. 
(Acts  xxvii.  43  ;  i  Pet.  iv.  3)  seems  to  be  substituted  for  the 
ordinary  word  ftXwia  as  implying  more  definitely  the  deliberate 
purpose  of  God. 

d*0ArnjKt.    Perfect  with  present  sense  ;   cf.  Rom.  xiii.  a  &tm 

f>   urnTao-ffdfWKoc  TV  j£ov<ri<f   rg   TOW   Qtov   dioroyg  di&imjiMv,    Winer, 

§  xl.  4,  p.  342,  E.  T.  The  meaning  is  not:  'who  is  able  to 
resist/  but  '  what  man  is  there  who  is  resisting  God's  will?'  There 
is  no  resistance  being  offered  by  the  man  who  disobeys  ;  he  is  only 
doing  what  God  has  willed  that  he  should  do. 

20.  w  arfpwirc.  The  form  in  which  St.  Paul  answers  this  question 
is  rhetorical,  but  it  is  incorrect  to  say  that  he  refuses  to  argue. 
The  answer  he  gives,  while  administering  a  severe  rebuke  to  his 
opponent,  contains  also  a  logical  refutation.  He  reminds  him 
that  the  real  relation  of  every  man  to  God  (hence  &  &6p*rt)  is 
that  of  created  to  Creator,  and  hence  not  only  has  he  no  right 
to  complain,  but  also  God  has  the  Creator's  right  to  do  what  He 
will  with  those  whom  He  has  Himself  moulded  and  fashioned. 

pcKouryc  :  '  nay  rather,'  a  strong  correction.  The  word  seems 
to  belong  almost  exclusively  to  N.  T.  Greek,  and  would  be  impossible 
at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence  in  classical  Greek.  Cf.  Rom.  x.  18  ; 
Phil.  iii.  8  ;  but  probably  not  Luke  xi.  28. 

&  Mptnt  fwrovryt  is  read  by  M  A  B  (bnt  B  om.  yt  as  in  Phil.  iii.  8), 
Orig.  1/4  Jo.-Damasc.  ;  ptvovryi  is  omitted  by  DFG,  defg  Vulg., 
Orig.-lat.,  and  inserted  before  &  &*/>«»•  by  «•  E*  K  L  P  and  later  MSS.. 
Orig-  3/4»  Chrys.  Theod.-mops  Tbdrt  &c.  The  same  MSS.  (F  G  d  f  g)  and 
Orig.-lat.  omit  the  word  again  in  x.  18,  and  in  Phil.  iii.  8  B  D  E  F  G  K  L 
and  other  authorities  read  pir  oSr  alone.  The  expression  was  omitted  as 
unusual  by  many  copyists,  and  when  restored  in  the  margin  crept  into 
a  different  position  in  the  verse. 

|i*j  <p«i  TO  wXoVpa,  K.T.X.  The  conception  of  the  absolute  power 
of  the  Creator  over  His  creatures  as  represented  by  the  power  of 
the  potter  over  his  clay  was  a  well-known  O.  T.  idea  which 
St.  Paul  shared  with  his  opponent  and  to  which  therefore  he  could 
appeal  with  confidence.  Both  the  idea  and  the  language  are  bor- 
rowed from  Is.  xlv.  8-IO  ry«l»  <ipt  Kvptot  &  grunt  <rt  •  wmor  3«Xnor 


iroKir,  or*  ovc  tpyofg  oiti  «xtif  X9^Patt  M  oirofpi&rjvrrat  TO  n\d<rpa 
wpos  rbv  irXdaayra  avro*  and  Is.  XXix.  l6  oi'^  wr  6  irqXuf  roO  ««po- 
^«o»v  Xoy«r^;<r»atff  ;  ^117  ipt\  TO  irXd<r^a  Tf  wXaa-arTi  avrb  Ov  av  fit 
•irXaaar  ;  ^  TO  iroti?pa  T«p  irotijaam  Ov  avvtritt  fit  Arotipra*  ',  C*f.  also 
Is.  Ixiv.  8  ;  Jer.  xviii.  6  ;  Eccles.  xxxvi  [xxxiii.]  13. 

21.  *i  OUK  ?xci  igouai'ar  :  •  if  you  do  not  accept  this  you  will  be 
compelled  to  confess  that  the  potter  has  not  complete  control  over 
his  clay  —  an  absurd  idea.'  The  unusual  position  of  TOV  njAov,  which 

S  2 


a6o  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IX.  21.  22. 


should  of  course  be  taken  with  ffwuw,  is  intended  to  emphasize 
the  contrast  between  wpojwi*  and  mjX^,  as  suggesting  the  true 
relations  of  man  and  God 

4upa>aros  :  '  the  lump  of  clay.'    Cf.  Rom.  xi.  16;  i  Cor.  v 

9.  The  exact  point  to  which  this  metaphor  is  to  be  pressed 
may  be  doubtful,  and  it  must  always  be  balanced  by  language  used 
elsewhere  in  St  Paul's  Epistles;  but  it  is  impossible  to  argt: 
there  is  no  idea  of  creation  implied  :  the  potter  is  represented  not 
merely  as  adapting  for  this  or  that  purpose  a  vessel  already  made, 
but  as  making  out  of  a  mass  of  shapeless  material  one  to  which  he 
gives  a  character  and  form  adapted  for  different  uses,  some 
honourable,  some  dishonourable. 

$  fA«V  els  TipV  CKCUOS,  K.T.X.  :  if.  \V.-  !.  x\.  7  (see  below): 
2  Tim.  ii.  20  if  M*y«*0  W  ou«>  our  fcm  MOW  <r«^  xpwra  «oi 
apyvpa,  oAAii  KOI  £vAiMi  tat  o<rr/xun*a,  mi  A  piv  tit  ri/jqr,  A  <*«  «ir  urip/nv. 

But  there  the  side  of  human  responsibility  is  emphasized,  &>  oCr  m 
iacoMfv  fovrir  <hri  rovrwr,  ?<mu  <r*tvo*  «ic  TI^V,  K.T.\. 

The  point  of  the  argument  is  clear.    Is  there  any  injustice  if 
God  has  first  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart  and  then  condemned  him. 
1  is  rejected  and  then  blamed  for  being  rejecu  aiswer 

is  twofold.   In  w.  19-21  God's  conduct  is  shown  to  be  right  under 
all  circumstances.     In  vv.  22  sq.  it  is  explained  or  perhaps 
hinted  that  He  has  a  beneficent  purpose  in  view.     In  w.  19-21 
St.  Paul  shows  that  for  God  to  be  unjust  is  impossible.   As  I  : 
made  man,  man  is  absolutely  in  His  power.    Just  as  we  do  not 
consider  the  potter  blameable  if  he  makes  a  vessel  for  a  dishonour- 
able purpose,  so  we  must  not  consider  God  unjust  if  He  chooses  to 
make  a  man  like  Pharaoh  for  a  dishonourable  part  Post- 

guam  dftnonslratum  «/,  Deum  ita  tgt'ssc,  demonslratum  etiam  esl  omni- 
bus, qui  Afosi  credunt,  turn  convenicnter  tuae  ius;. 

As  in  iii.  5  St  Paul  brings  the  argument  back  to  the  at 
fact  of  God's  justice,  so  here  be  ends  with  the  absolute  f 
God's  power  and  right    God  had  not  (as  the  Apostle  will  show) 
acted  arbitrarily,  but  if  He  had  done  so  what  was  n. 
should  complain  ? 

22.  c  I  S«  6«XwK  6  Gtos.  *  if  God,  &c.,  what  will  you  say 

then?'  like  our  English  idiom  '  What  and  if.'    There  is  no  apo- 
dosis  to  the  sentence,  but  the  construction,  although  gramm 
incomplete,  is  by  no  means  unusual  id  <>i,  62  TOI'T 

crttuAiA.'C.i  ;    fc  <fa  ^«p7T*   ro»  vlor   roC  o^^irov    a*a^a.Voxra    OITOV 

^  ri  »pdr«po»;  Acts  xxiii.  9  ov&V   «a«o.  -i   n*6?**v 

«1  W  wvtina  fX&fjiriv  at-ry  9  Jyy«Xoi  ;    Luke  XIX.  4  i 
«*»  t^»  wo.\«r  «"<Aav<r«r  «V  airg  \<y**  5rt  Ei  fy»»»i 

<ai  av  ra  trpot  «.»fjx.     There  is  no  difficulty  (.1 
seems  to  think)  in  the  length  of  the  sentence.     All  other  con- 
structions, such  as  an  attempt  to  find  an  apodosis   in  «ai  ua 


IX.  22  J  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  261 

ywpi<rj7,  in  ofcc  KOI  /«aX«<rtr,  or  even  in  vcr.  31  ri  oflr  tpovptv,  are 
needlessly  harsh  and  unreal. 

The  a«  (which  differs  from  o& :  cf.  Jo.  vi.  6a ;  Acts  xxiii.  9), 
although  not  introducing  a  strong  opposition  to  the  previous 
sentence,  implies  a  change  of  thought.  Enough  has  been  said  to 
preserve  the  independence  of  the  Divine  will,  and  St.  Paul  suggests 
another  aspect  of  the  question,  which  will  be  expounded  more 
fully  later ; — one  not  in  any  way  opposed  to  the  freedom  of  the 
Divine  action,  but  showing  as  a  matter  of  fact  how  this  freedom 
has  been  exhibited.  '  But  if  God,  notwithstanding  His  Divine 
sovereignty,  has  in  His  actual  dealings  with  mankind  shown  such 
unexpected  mercy,  what  becomes  of  your  complaints  of  injustice?' 

6Awr.  There  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  whether  this 
should  be  translated  'because  God  wishes,'  or  'although  God 
wishes/  (i)  In  the  former  case  (so  de  W.  and  most  commenta- 
tors) the  words  mean,  'God  because  He  wishes  to  show  the 
terrible  character  of  His  wrath  restrains  His  hands,  until,  as  in  the 
case  of  Pharaoh,  He  exhibits  His  power  by  a  terrible  overthrow. 
He  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart  in  order  that  the  judgement  might 
be  more  terrible.'  (a)  In  the  latter  case  (Mey.-W.  Go.  Lips, 
Gif),  '  God,  although  His  righteous  anger  might  naturally  lead  to 
His  making  His  power  known,  has  through  His  kindness  delayed 
and  borne  with  those  who  had  become  objects  that  deserved  His 
wrath.'  That  this  is  correct  is  shown  by  the  words  tV  *oXA£  /uurpo- 
ffvfwf,  which  are  quite  inconsistent  with  the  former  interpretation, 
and  by  the  similar  passage  Rom.  ii.  4,  where  it  is  distinctly  stated 

ri  xpifar&r  rov  8«ou  «fc  /Mrdvotav  <7«  ay»t.  Even  if  St  Paul  occa- 
sionally contradicts  himself,  that  is  no  reason  for  making  him  do  so 
unnecessarily.  As  Liddon  says  the  three  points  added  in  this 
;ice,  the  natural  wrath  of  God  against  sin  and  the  violation  of 
His  law,  the  fact  that  the  objects  of  His  compassion  were  OMV? 
opyf/t,  and  that  they  were  fitted  for  destruction,  all  intensify  the 
difficulty  of  the  Divine  restraint. 

IrScigaoOcu  T?)r  fyyV  KC"  YKWP*a°l  ^  So^arif  avrou  are  reminis- 
cences of  the  language  used  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh,  tvkifauu  «V 

<roi  TT)»  bvvafju*  ftov. 

antuT|  ipyrjs :  '  vessels  which  deserve  God's  anger ';  the  image  of 
the  previous  verse  is  continued.  The  translation  'destined  for 
God's  anger '  would  require  antwi  tls  opy^v :  and  the  change  of  con* 
struction  from  the  previous  verse  must  be  intentional. 

KanjpTiaiilra  cif  AmSXciar :  '  prepared  for  destruction/  The 
construction  is  purposely  different  from  that  of  the  corresponding 
words  A  *pt»rn>fauH*.  St  Paul  does  not  say  '  whom  God  prc- 
pared  for  destruction '  (Mey.),  although  in  a  sense  at  any  rate  he 
could  have  done  so  (ver.  18  and  i.  24,  &c.),  for  that  would  conflict 
with  the  argument  of  the  sentence;  nor  does  he  say  that  they 


26a  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS         [IX.  22,  23 

cd  themselves  for  destruction  (Chrys.  Theoph.  Oecum. 
u  Beng.),  although,  as  the  argument  in  chap,  x  shows,  he 
could  have  done  so,  for  this  would  have  been  to  impair  the  con- 
ception of  God's  freedom  of  action  which  at  present  he  wishes  to 
emphasize ;  but  he  says  just  what  is  necessary  for  his  immediate 
purpose — they  were  filled  for  eternal  destruction  (oriUUia  opp.  to 
<r»n}pta).  That  is  the  point  to  which  he  wishes  to  attract  our 
attention. 

23.  «al  IVa  yyvpio]).  These  words  further  develop  and  explain 
God's  action  so  as  to  silence  any  objection.  St.  Paul  states  that 
God  has  not  only  shown  great  long-suffering  in  bearing  with  those 
fitted  for  destruction,  but  has  done  so  in  order  to  be  able  t- 
mercy  to  those  whom  He  has  called :  the  «W  therefore  couj 
ytwpurg  in  thought  with  «V  *roXX£  paxpodv/u?.  St.  Paul  is  no  longer 
(see  ver.  24)  confining  himself  to  the  special  case  of  Pharaoh, 
although  he  still  remembers  it,  as  his  language  shows,  but  he  is 
considering  the  whole  of  God's  dealings  with  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
and  is  laying  down  the  principles  which  will  afterwards  be  worked 
out  in  full— that  the  Jews  had  deserved  God's  wrath,  but  that  He 
bad  borne  with  them  with  great  long-suffering  both  for  their  own 
sakes  and  for  the  ultimate  good  of  His  Church.  In  these  verses,  as 
in  the  expression  $  «or  «Aoy^r  *p6to<nt,  St.  Paul  is  in  fact  hinting 
at  the  course  of  the  future  argument,  and  in  that  connexion  they 
must  be  understood. 

On  the  exact  construction  of  these  words  there  has  been  great  variety  of 
opinion,  and   it   may  be  convenient   to  mention   some  divergent  views. 
(I)  WH.  on  the  authority  of  B,  several  minuscules,  Vnlg.  Boh.  Sab.,  Or 
3/3  omit  mi.   This  makes  the  construction  simpler,  but  probably  for  t 
reason  should  be  rejected.    A  reviser  or  person  quoting  would  naturally  omit 
«* :  it  i*  difficult  to  understand  why  it  should  be  inserted :  moreover  on  such 
a  point  as  this  the  authority  of  versions  is  slighter,  since  to  omit  a  pleonastic  «oi 
would  come  within  the  ordinary  latitude  of  interpretation  necessary  t 
purpose.    There  it  tome  resemblance  to  xvi.  17.    In  both  cases  we  t 
same  MS.  supporting  a  reading  which  we  should  like  to  accc 
has  much  the  appearance  of  being  an  obvious  correction.    (a 
de  \V.  Alf.  and  others  make  «J  couple 


couple  MA«r  and  im  'yMpfop. 
this  obliges  us  to  take  MAor  . . .  ivki(ao$<u  as  expressing  the  purpose 
of  the  sentence  which  is  both  impossible  Greek  and  gives  a  meaning 
inconsistent  with  jnupofejil?.  (3)  Fri.  Beyschlag  and  others  couple  tro 
TTtyfof  and  tit  dm*\tiav ;  but  this  is  to  read  an  idea  of  purpo> 
•onjpriff^ra  which  it  does  not  here  possess.  (4)  To  make  mJ  fro 
give  the  apodods  of  the  sentence  «J  W  4"7«"  (Ok  Ewald,  &c.\  or  to 
create  a  second  sentence  repeating  «(,  mi  tl  Ira  ...  (supposing  a  second 
ellipse),  or  to  find  a  verb  hidden  in  foaAmr,  supposing  that  St.  Paul  meant 
•c  «o2  «I  im  T**pioj> . . .  i«oA«<r€r  but  changed  the  construction  and  pot 
rb  into  a  relative  sent-  •  >!tnunare);  all  these  are  quite  an 

j  ..:.:';.  :  .  ' :  •.    ' . 

TO*  wXooTor,  K  T  •'  4  ;   Eph.  iii.  16  «ori  rA  vXoi>oc  T 


IX.  23-26.]         THE   UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  263 

&  wpoT)Toiftcur«i'  «it  &o{ar  :  the  best  commentary  on  these  words 
is  Rom.  viii.  28-30. 

\Vc  may  note  the  very  striking  use  made  of  this  metaphor  of  the  potter's 
wheel  ana  the  cap  by  Browning,  Jtabbi  ton  Etra,  xxvi-xxxii      \Ne  may 
especially  illustrate  the  words  a  vpo^roi^atv  tit  Ufa*. 
But  I  need  now  as  then, 
Thee,  God,  who  mouldest  men; 


So  take  and  use  thy  work  ! 

Amend  what  flaws  may  lurk, 
What  strain  o*  the  stuff,  what  warping*  past  the  aim  I 

My  times  be  in  Thy  hand! 

Perfect  the  cup  as  planned  ! 
Let  age  approve  of  youth,  and  death  complete  the  same1 


24.  oGs  KGU  frdXcffcy  ^pas  :    '  even  us  whom  He  has  called.' 
The  ovs  is  attracted  into  the  gender  of  WMK.     The  relative  clause 
gives  an  additional  fact  in  a  manner  not  unusual  with  St.  Paul 

Rom.  i.  6  tv  ulf  «<rr«  icoi  ifttlt  :  2  Tim.  i.  IO  ^Mmaoyrot  &  {ittqir  «a< 
a<j>$apoia*  &UJ  rot)  «uayy«Aiov,  tit  &  iri&i)v  «'y*»  *ipv£.  The  calling  of  the 

Gentiles  is  introduced  not  because  it  was  a  difficulty  St.  Paul  was 
discussing,  but  because,  as  he  shows  afterwards,  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles  had  come  through  the  rejection  of  the  Jews. 

There  have  been  two  main  lines  of  interpretation  of  the  above 
three  verses,  (i)  According  to  the  one  taken  above  they  modify 
and  soften  the  apparent  harshness  of  the  preceding  passage  (19-21). 
That  this  is  the  right  view  is  shown  by  the  exegetical  con- 
siderations given  above,  and  by  the  drift  of  the  argument  which 
culminating  as  it  does  in  a  reference  to  the  elect  clearly  implies 
some  mitigation  in  the  severity  of  the  Divine  power  as  it  has  been 
described.  (2)  The  second  view  would  make  the  words  of  ver.  22 
continue  and  emphasize  this  severity  of  tone  :  '  And  even  if  God  has 
borne  with  the  reprobate  for  a  time  only  in  order  to  exhibit  more 
clearly  the  terror  of  His  wrath,  and  in  order  to  reveal  His  mercy 
to  the  elect,  even  then  what  right  have  you  —  man  that  you  are  — 
to  complain  ?'  Cf.  Calvin  :  Ea  si  dominus  adaliquod  kmpus  patitnttr 
sustinet  .  .  .  ad  demonstranda  suae  sevtritalis  iudicia  .  .  .  ad  virtultm 
suam  t'/fas/randam,  .  .  .praeUrea  quo  inde  notior  fiat  el  clarius  elucescat 
suae  in  electos  misericordiae  amplitude:  quid  in  hac  dnpematione 
miser  ii  ordiat  dignum  t 

25.  ws  K<H  :  •  and  this  point,  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles,  is  foretold  by  the  prophet'     St.  Paul  now 
proceeds  to  give  additional  force  to  his  argument  by  a  series  of 
quotations  from  the  O.  T.,  which  are  added  as  a  sort  of  appendix 
to  the  first  main  section  of  his  argument 

KoXfo*  .  .  .  ^yoinj|i^r»jK—  quoted  from  the  LXX  of  Hosea  ii.  23 
with  some  alterations.  In  the  original  passage  the  words  refer 
to  the  ten  tribes.  A  son  and  daughter  of  Hosea  are  named  Lo- 


264  EPISTLK  TO  THE  ROMA'  [IX.  25,  20. 

1  not  a  people  '  and  Lo-ruhamah,  '  \\  ithout  mercy/  to 
the  fallen  condition  of  the  ten  tribes  ;  and  Hosea  prophesies  their 
restoration  (cf.  Hosea  i.  6,  8,  9).     St.  Paul  applies  t: 

underlies  these  words,  that  God  can  take  into  His  covenant 
those  who  were  previously  cut  off  from  it,  to  the  calling  of  the 

•-S.  A  similar  interpretation  of  the  verse  was  held  by  the 
Rabbis.  Pesachim  viii.  f.  Dixit  R.  Elieztr  :  Non  alia  de  causa  in 
exilium  tt  capHvilaltm  misit  Dcus  S.  B.  IsraeUm  inter  nalionts,  nisi 

rent  mullos  firostlytos  S.  D.  <  >  stram  earn 

mi  hi  in   for  ram.     Numquid  homo  seminal  salum   nisi  ul  colligat 
mullos  cores  //;/../-     V- 


The  LXX  reads  U«*>w  **i*  o*«r  ^A^/i/rijr,  raj  J/w  rf  06  Aoy  JMV  Aa<Jt  mm 
J  <rv,  bat  for  the  first  clause  which  agree*  with  the  Hebrew  the  Vatican 
substitutes  tyowfr*  n)r  dm  jyor  u  the  older  of  the 

clause*,  so  that  the  reference  to  rdr  06  Aav*  /iov.  which  seems  particularly  to 
Mitt  the  Gentiles,  comes  first,  and  for  ipSt  substitutes  mXiov  which  naturally 
crept  in  from  the  J«aA«r<r  of  the  previous  verse,  and  changes  the  construc- 
tion of  the  clause  to  suit  the  new  word.  In  the  second  clause  St  Paul  seems 
to  hare  used  a  text  containing  the  reading  of  the  Vatican  MS.,  for  the  latter 
can  hardly  hare  been  altered  to  harmonize  with  him  makes  use  of 

the  passage  with  the  reading  of  the  majority  of  MSS.  :  oJ  wori  oi>  Xavt,  rvr  W 


a  double  accusative  can  only  mean  '  I  will  : 
although  the  word  has  been  suggested  by  its  previous  occurrence 

in  .iii'  iiht.T  BBJSttq 

26.  KM  toroi,  <r  TY  TtSirw  .  .  .  4K(;  K.T.X.    St  Paul  adds  a  passage 
with  a  similar  purport  from  another  part  of  Hosea  (I  10). 
meaning  is  the  same  and  the  application  to  the  present  purpose 
based  on  exactly  the  same  principles.     The  habit  had  probably 
arisen  of  quoting  passages  to  prove  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  ;  and 
these  would  become  commonplaces,  which  at  a  not  much  lat< 
might  be  collected  together  in  writing,  so-  in  Biblical 

Grt(kt  p.  103,  and  cf.  Rom.  iii.  10.     The  only  difference  tx 
St.  Paul's  quotation  and  th  •  :  s  insertion 

seems  to  emphasize  the  idea  of  the  place,  and  it  is  s<  .  tficult 

to  understand  what  place  is  intended,    (i)  In  the  original  th 
referred  to  is  clearly  Palestine  :  and  if  that  be  St.  Paul's  nv 
he  must  be  supposed  to  refer  to  the  gathering  of  the  nat; 
Jerusalem   and  the  foundation  of  a  Messianic    kingdom    there 
26).  St.  Paul  is  often  strongly  influenced  by  the  langua^ 
he  ideas  <•:  schatology,  although  in  his  more  sj. 

passages  be  seems  to  be  quite  freed  from  it.    (2)  If  we  neglect 
4  of  the  original,  we  n.  whole 

1  Wheresoever  on  earth  there  may  be  Gentiles 
hail  to  end  the  reproach  of  being  not  God's  people,  in 

that  p:  hall  be  called  God's  people,  for  they  will  become 

members  of  His  Church  and  it  will  be  i. 


IX.  27-20.]         THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  365 

27,  28.  St.  Paul  has  supported  one  side  of  his  statement  from 
the  O.  T.,  namely,  that  Gentiles  should  be  called  ;  he  now  passes 
on  to  justify  the  second,  namely,  that  only  a  remnant  of  the  Jews 
should  be  saved. 

27.  a*  j  o  dpi  Vfe  .  .  .  iwl  rn«  ynt  :  quoted  from  the  LXX  of 
Is.  x.  23,  but  considerably  shortened.  The  LXX  differs  considerably 
from  the  Hebrew,  which  the  translators  clearly  did  not  understand. 
But  the  variations  in  the  form  do  not  affect  the  meaning  in  any 
case.     St.  Paul  reproduces  accurately  the  idea  of  the  original 
passage.    The  context  shows  that  the  words  must  be  translated 
4  only  a  remnant  shall  be  saved,'  and  that  it  is  the  cutting  off  of 
Israel  by  the  righteous  judgement  of  God  that  is  foretold.    Prof. 
Cheyne  in  1884  translated  the  Hebrew  :  '  For  though  thy  people, 
O  Israel,  were  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  only  a  remnant  of  them  shall 
return  :  a  final  work  and  a  decisive,  overflowing  with  righteousness  1 
For  a  final  work  and  a  decisive  doth  the  Lord,  Jehovah  Sabaoth, 
execute  within  all  the  land.' 

28.  X6yor  ydp  flrurrtXwr  KOI  ourri'ftiw  iroi^ati  Kupios  4wl  rf\s  yrjs  : 

'accomplishing,'  owr«>iw,  'abridging/    Cf.  Is.  xxviii.  aa 

ai/KT«T<A«(7/i«Vu    icoi    <n-ir«rpi)/j«Va    irpdynara    rjfnvoa    irapa    Ki/u'ou 

4  woifatt  t'vl  iratra*  rfjv  yij*.  '  For  a  word,  accomplishing 
and  abridging  it,  that  is,  a  sentence  conclusive  and  concise,  will 
the  Lord  do  upon  the  earth/ 

Three  critical  points  are  of  some  interest  : 

(i  )  The  variations  in  the  MSS.  of  the  Gr.  Test  For  Iw^ti^ia  (Imbu^a 
\\H.)  of  the  older  MSS.  (KAB,Ea*.),  later  authorities  read  «ar<iA«ijij«i 
to  agree  with  the  LXX.  In  ver.  aS  A£yor  yip  <rvrr«A«r  «o2  ffvrr4jswr 
»04^<T««  Kt'/Mot  i*l  TI?T  717*  is  the  reading  of  K  A  B  a  few  minn&c.,  Pesh.  Boh. 
Aeth.,  Eus.  a/3;  Western  and  Syrian  authorities  add  after  ovrr  <>***,  Jr 
auKuoovrp  5ri  \6yov  ownr^™*  to  suit  the  LXX.  Al/ord  defends  the 
TR.  on  the  plea  of  homoeotcleuton  (ovrr^/iywr  and  TvrrcTMwfo*'),  but  the 


insertion  of  yap  after  A^yor  which  is  preserved  in  the  TR.  (where  it  is 
ungrammarical)  and  does  not  occur  in  the  text  of  the  LXX,  shows  that  the 
shortened  form  was  what  St  Panl  wrote. 

The  variations  from  the  LXX.    The  LXX  reads  ««2  44* 
4  Aa4*  1<r/xn)A  <fe  i>  o'/^oj  rip  OaXdaajjt,  rd  «T 
A^yor  avrrt  A£r  «a2  ovrrip*uv  if  8unuo<rvrp  Sri  A^ 


jr  rp  olgovfUty  5Ap.     St.  Paul  substitutes  d^f/tdt  r«r  vttr 
a  remuiscence  from  Hosea  i.  10,  the  words  immediately  preceding  those 
ouoted  by  him  above.    The  later  part  of  the  quotation  he  considerably 

(3)  The  variations  of  the  LXX  from  the  Hebrew.  These  appear  to  arise 
from  an  inability  to  translate.  For  '  a  final  work  and  a  decisive,  overflowing 
with  righteousness,'  they  wrote  '  a  word,  accomplishing  and  abridging  it  in 
righteousness,'  and  for  «  a  final  work  and  a  decisive/  'a  word  abridged  will 
the  Lord  do/  &c. 

29.  Tpo«i'pi)MK  :  '  has  foretold/     A  second  passage  is  quoted  in 
corroboration  of  the  preceding. 

el  jit)  Kupios  K.T.X.,  quoted  from  the  LXX  of  Is.  i.  9,  which 


266  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IX.  10-29. 

again  seems  adequately  to  represent  the  Hebrew.     '  Even  in  the 
that  book  Iron  >u  draw  your  hopes  1  that 

Israel  would  be   completely  annihilated   and    forgotten   but  for 
a  small  remnant  which  would  preserve  their  seed  and  name.' 


The  Power  and  Rights  of  God  as  Creator. 

St.  Paul  in  this  section  29)  expands  and   strengthens 

the  previous  argument     He  bad  proved  .  1 8  the  a 

character  of  the  Divine  sovereignly  from   the  O.  T. ;   he   now 
proves  the  same  from  the  fundamental  relations  of  God  t 
implied  in  that  fact  which  all  his  antagonists  must  admi: 
God  had  created  man.    This  he  applies  in  an  image 
common  in  the  O.  T.  and  the  Apocryphal  writings,  that  of  the 
potter  and  the  clay.     God  has  created  man,  and,  as 
question  of  'right*  and  ' justice '  goes,  man  cannot  complain  of 
his  lot.     He  would  not  exist  but  for  the  will  of  God,  and  whether 
his  lot  be  honourable  or  dishonourable,  whether  he  be  destined  for 

.1  glory  or  eternal  destruction,  he  has  no  ground  for  speak- 
ing of  injustice.    The  application  to  the  case  in  p< ; 
clear.    If  the  Jews  are  to  be  deprived  of  the  Messianic  sah 
they  have,  looking  at  the  question  on  purely  abstract  grounds, 
no   right    or  ground  of  complaint.      Whether  or  no  God  be 
arbitrary  in  His  dealings  with  them  does  not  matter:  they  must 
submit,  and  that  without  murmuring. 

is  dearly  the  argument.     \Vc  cannot  on  the  one 
minimize  the  force  of  the  words  by  limiting  them  to  a  purely 
earthly  destination :  as  Beyschlag,  •  out  of  the   material   of  the 

.  race  which  is  at  His  disposal  as  it  continues  to 
existence  to  st.  this  or  that  h  stina- 

tion,'  implying  that  St.  Paul  is  making  no  reference  either  to  the 
original  creation  of  man  or  to  his  final  destination,  in  both  points 
erroneously.  St.  Paul's  argument  cannot  be  thus  limit.  !.  It  is 

y  based  on  the  ass  hat  God  has  crcau. 

the  use  of  the  words  m  M&*»,  m  <nrwA»Mw  prove  conch 
he  is  looking  as  much  as  he  ever  does  to  the  final  end  and 
destination  of  man.     To  limit  them   thus   entirely  deprives  the 

j  .4-     .        ,  .    ;    -.       .     .'.         r. .-     :..:..-. 

But  on  the  other  side  it  is  equally  necessary  to  see  exactly  how 

<  K.-S  say,  and  how  much  he  does  not 
he  carefully  avoids  saying,  that  God  has  created  n. 
reprobation  rgument  would  her 

we  is<>  :»:s*  of  man  against  God  or  of  God 

against  man,  th  :  God  had  created  man  for  reprobation, 

man  could  have  no  grounds  for  complaint. 


IX.  19-20.]          THE   UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  267 

We  must  in  fact  remember— and  it  is  quite  impossible  to  under- 
stand St.  Paul  if  we  do  not— that  the  three  chapters  ix-xi  form 
one  very  closely  reasoned  whole.  Here  more  than  anywhere  else 
in  his  writings,  more  clearly  even  than  in  i.  16 — iii.  26,  does  St.  Paul 
show  signs  of  a  definite  method.  He  raises  each  point  separately, 
argues  it  and  then  sets  it  aside.  He  deliberately  isolates  for  a  time 
the  aspect  under  discussion.  So  Mr.  Gore  (op.  tit.  p.  37) : 
method  may  be  called  abstract  or  ideal :  that  is  to  say,  he  makes 
abstraction  of  the  particular  aspect  of  a  subject  with  which  he  is 
immediately  dealing,  and— apparently  indifferent  to  being  misun- 
derstood—treats it  in  isolation;  giving,  perhaps,  another  aspect  of 
the  same  subject  in  equal  abstraction  in  a  different  place/  He 
isolates  one  side  of  his  argument  in  one  place,  one  in  another, 
and  just  for  that  very  reason  we  must  never  use  isolated  texts. 
We  must  not  make  deductions  from  one  passage  in  his  writings 
separated  from  its  contexts  and  without  modifying  it  by  other 
passages  presenting  other  aspects  of  the  same  questions.  The 
doctrinal  deductions  must  be  made  at  the  end  of  chap,  xi  and  not 
of  chap.  ix. 

St.  Paul  is  gradually  working  out  a  sustained  argument.  He 
has  laid  down  the  principle  that  God  may  choose  and  reject  whom 
..!s.  that  He  may  make  men  for  one  purpose  or  another  just 
as  He  wills,  and  if  He  will  in  quite  an  arbitrary  manner.  But  it  is 
already  pointed  out  that  this  is  not  His  method.  He  has  shown 
long-suffering  and  forbearance.  Some  there  were  whom  He  had 
created,  that  had  become  fitted  for  destruction — as  will  be  shown 
tventually,  by  their  own  act.  These  He  has  borne  with — both 
for  their  own  sakes,  to  give  them  room  for  repentance,  and  be- 
cause they  have  been  the  means  of  exhibiting  His  mercy  on  those 
whom  He  has  prepared  for  His  glory.  The  Apostle  lays  down 
the  lines  of  the  argument  he  will  follow  in  chap.  xi. 

The  section  concludes  with  a  number  of  quotations  from  the 
O.  T.,  introduced  somewhat  irregularly  so  far  as  method  and 
arrangement  go,  to  recall  the  fact  that  this  Divine  plan,  which  we 
shall  find  eventually  worked  out  more  fully,  had  been  foretold  by 
the  O.  T.  Prophets. 

(The  argument  of  Rom.  ix-xi  is  put  for  English  readers  in  the 
most  accessible  and  clearest  form  by  Mr.  Gore  in  the  paper  often 
quoted  above  in  Studio,  Biblica,  iii.  37,  '  The  argument  of  Romans 
ix-xi.') 

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

In  a  note  at  the  end  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  Romans  the  rery  marked 
resemblance  that   exists  between   St.  Paul's  language  there  and  certain 


y,S  i;  TO  THE  ROMANS          [IX.  10  29. 

passages  In  the  Book  of  Wisdom  has  been  pointed  oat.    Again  in  the  ninth 
chapter  the  lame  r-rT^nf*  meets  as,  and  demands  some  slight  treatment 


ilace.    The  passages  referred  to  occur  mostly  in  Wisdom  x 
TherJ  U  first  o/dPsimilariiy  of  subject.    Wisdom  x-xix  for:. 
Rom.  fe-ria  sort  of  Philosophy  of  History.    The  writer  devotes  himself  to 
exhibiting  Wisdom  as  a  power  in  the  world,  and  throughout  (influenced 
perhaps  by  associations  connected  with  the  place  of  his  residence  contrasts 

•;.     :    rtoJMI   Of    ".       hi    >••        •       •    1    ••••••      :     ,         •  St    i    Ml    Baku    M     «• 


and  Pharaoh  his  two  typical 

And  this  resemblance  is  cfMrtJroH  in  details. 

The  impossibility  of  resisting  the  Divine  power  is  more  than  once  dwelt 
on,  and  in  language  which  has  a  very  dose  resemblance  with  passages  in  the 


',  i  \Visd.  xi.  31   «a< 

avroC       oov  rit  &*Tiorr,<nr<n  ; 
rlt  AvOiorii*<;   .  .  .  p)  if*i  T*  iwolijoat;  f 

vAda/«x  ry  wA&rarn,  Ti  M«  4»of-       n't  drntrrrjcMrai   rf  gpiftari  oov; 
ijtfa  t  ovrut  ;  '  «  J7«aA^a«i  001  mr*  j»r«r  <UoA». 

,  A  0v  iwoiqaat;  $  rit  «f. 
<r«  JA«ta«rat  f«flurof  cord  u3«- 


Doth  writers  again  lay  great  stress  on  the  forbearance  of  Cod. 
Rom.  ix.   32,   23   tl  W  0«AMr  4          \Viid.  xii.  10  «pa«r  tt  w 


x^.  M,^  »o»  i-l 


if   voAAp   pajpofv/il?   <r««W7   ipY^t       A?«Xo/*Jro»f  farary  /MTO 
«aTi?pri0j<4ra     «it     dw6X«iar.       rijt  Intiuprjeat  wpo<io\^t  gttljkrjoivi, 

aurov  J«2  <r««i/i}  JX^owt  •. 


So  again  we  have  the  image  of  the  potter  used  by  both,  although  r 
the  context  nor  the  purpose  is  quite  similar. 

Rom.  ix.  ai  ^  ov«  fx«  t/Mtffcr  Wis.1.  XT.  7 

A  ««pa/i«vi  roC  wijAov,  J*  rou 


«lt  dn/u'ar;  aCroO  vnXov  driwAdcaro  rd  r«  rvr 


8oCXa    ocfvi;. 
Jraxria,  wdW'  J/wtwr  rovrwr  »1 

Ti.       t  V  1    "  T     I       4    ."  T .  y      1} 


The  particular  resemblanoe  of  special  passages  and  of  the  general  < 
the  argument  combined  with  similar  eTidcncefrom  other  paru  ol 
seems  to  suggest  some  definite  literary  obligation.     But  here  the  indebted- 
ness ceases.  Tfhe  contrast  U  equally  instrectiire.    The  writer  of  the  Book  of 
Wisdom  uses  broad  principles  without  understandir..; 
sclf-contrmdictory,  and  combines  with  ideas  drawn  from  his  Hellenic  culture 
crude  and  inconsistent  views.    The  problem  is  the  distinction  between  the 
positions  of  Tews  and  Gentiles  In  the  Divine  economy.    Occasionally  we 
find  wide  nnivemlist  sentiments,  but  he  always  comes  back  to  a  strong 
At  one  time  be  says  (xi.  23*36} :  •  But  Thou  hast  mercy  upon 


all ...  Thou  lovest  all  the  things  that  are.  and  abhorrest  nothing  which 
Thou  hast  made . .  .  Thou  sparest  all :  for  they  a: 

Lover  ol  soul*.'    But  shortly  after  we  read  (xii.  10) :  •  Thou  gavest  them 
place  for  repentance,  not  being  ignorant  that  their  cogitn 
be  changed.*    We  soon  find  in  fact  th«t  the  philosophy  of  the  Book  of 
d  by  the  nationalist  sympathies  of  the  » ir .  r .     The 


IX.  6-29.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  269 

Gentiles  are  to  be  punished  by  God  for  being  enemies  of  His  people  and  for  n 

their  idolatry.  Any  forbearance  has  been  only  for  a  time  aad  that  largely 
for  the  moral  instruction  thus  indirectly  to  be  given  to  the  Jew*.  The  few* 
have  been  punished,— but  only  slightly,  and  with  the  purpose  of  teaching 
them  :  the  Gentiles  for  their  idolatry  deserve  '  extreme  damnation/ 

If  St.  Paul  learnt  from  the  Book  of  Wisdom  some  expressions  illustrating 
the  Divine  power,  and  a  general  aspect  of  the  question :  he  obtained  nothing 
further.  Hts  broad  views  and  deep  insight  are  his  own.  And  it  is  interesting 
to  contrast  a  Jew  who  has  learnt  many  maxims  which  conflict  with  his 
nationalism  but  yet  retains  all  his  narrow  sympathies,  with  the  Christian 
Apostle  full  of  broad  sympathy  and  deep  insight,  who  sees  hi  human 
affairs  a  purpose  of  God  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  world  being  worked  out. 

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

The  difficulties  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Romans  are  so  great  that  few 
will  ever  be  satisfied  that  they  have  really  understood  it :  at  any  rate  an 
acquaintance  with  the  history  of  exegesis  upon  it  will  make  us  hesitate  to  be 
too  dogmatic  about  our  own  conclusions.  A  survey  of  some  of  the  more 
typical  lines  of  comment  (nothing  more  can  be  attempted)  will  be  a  fitting 
supplement  to  the  general  discussion  given  above  on  its  meaning. 

The  earliest  theologian*  who  attempted  to  construct  a  system  out  of  Gnostics. 
St.  Paul's  writings  were  the  Gnostics.  They  found  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  or  to  speak  more  correctly  certain  texts  and  ideas  selected  from  the 
Epistle  'such  as  Rom.  v.  14  and  viii.  19;  cf.  Hip.  Ref.  vii.  35)  and  generally 
misinterpreted,  very  congenial.  And,  as  might  naturally  be  expected,  the 
doctrine  of  election  rigidly  interpreted  harmonized  with  their  own  exclusive 
religious  pretensions,  and  with  the  key-word  of  their  system  <pv<m.  We  are  not 
surprised  therefore  to  learn  that  Rom.  ix,  especially  ver.  14  sq.,  was  one  of  their 
strongholds,  nor  do  we  require  to  be  told  how  they  interpreted  it  (see  Origen 
Dt  Princ.  III.  ii.  8,  vol.  xxi.  p.  267,  ed.  Lomm.  -  Pkiloc.  xxL  voL  xxv.  p.  1 70; 
Conim.  in  Rom.  Praef.  vol.  vi.  p.  i ;  and  Tert.  Adv.  Mar  don.  ii.  14). 

The  interest  of  the  Gnostic  system  of  interpretation  is  that  it  determined  Origen. 
the  direction  and  purpose  of  Origen,  who  discusses  the  passage  not  only  in  his 
Commentary,  written  after  344  vii.  15-18,  vol.  vii.  pp.  160-180),  but  also  in 
the  third  book  of  the  Dt  Printipiis,  written  before  a*i  (D*  Prim,  III.  ii.  7-aa, 
vol.  xxi.  pp.  165-303  -  Pkiloc.  xxi.  vol.  xxv.  pp.  164-190),  besides  some  few 
other  passages.  His  exegesis  is  throughout  a  strenuous  defence  of  freewill. 
Kxegetically  the  most  marked  feature  is  that  he  puts  w.  14-19  into  the 
month  of  an  opponent  of  St  Paul,  an  interpretation  which  influenced  sub- 
sequent patristic  commentators.  Throughout  be  states  that  God  calls  men 
because  they  are  worthy,  not  that  they  are  worthy  because  they  are  called ; 
and  that  they  are  worthy  betame  they  have  made  themselves  so,  Cf.  md 
Kom.  vii.  17  (Lomm.  vii.  175)  Ct  tnim  laeob  esstt  vat  ad  ktnortm  saneti- 
fcatttm,  ft  utilt  Domino,  ad  omtu  opus  bonum  faratum,  ANIMA  BlUS 
EMENDAVERAT  SEMET  IPS  AM :  tt  vidttu  Dtus  punlatem  eius,  tt  poUstattm 
hab<ns  ex  eadtm  massa  faare  aliud  vas  ad  honortm,  ali*d  ad  contttnuliam, 
laeob  fuitfem,  qui  ut  diximus  emundaotrat  stmtt  if  sum,  fteit  vat  ad 
honorem,  Eton  VE1O,  CUIUS  ANIMAM  KON  ITA  PURAM  NEC  ITA  SIM- 

ri.iCEM  VIDIT,  tx  tadem  massa  fteit  vas  ad  eontumtiiam.  To  the  question 
that  may  be  asked,  how  or  when  did  they  make  themselves  such,  the  answer  . 

I  a  state  of  pre-existence.'  Dt Princ.  II.  ix.  7,  Lomm.  xxi.  935  igitursifut 
dt  Esau  tt  laeob  diligent  i*s  ptnerutatn  serif  tuns  invtnitur,  ouia  mm  «* 
iniustitta  afud  Dtum  ...  si  EX  PRAECBDEKTIS  VIDELICET  VITAE  MERITIS 
dignt  turn  datum  tat  sentiamus  a  Deo,  Ha  utfratri  pratfoni  mtreretur. 


270  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA:  [IX.  6   20 

See  also  1 1  nm.  xxL  300.    The  hardening  of  Pharaoh'*  heart  he 

explains  by  the  simile  of  rain.    The  rain  U  the  MUM  for  all,  bat  11: 
influence  well -cultivated  fields  tend  forth  good  crops,  ill-cultivated  fields 
thistles,  &c  (cf.  !  .s  a  man's  own  soul  which  hardens 

itself  by  refusing  to  yield  to  the  Divine  grace.    The  simile  of  the  potter  he 
explains  by  comparing  a  Tim.  ii.  to,  21.    'A  soul  which  has  not  cleanted 
itself  nor  porged  itself  of  its  sins  by  penitence,  becomes  thereby  a  vessel  for 
dishonour/   And  God  knowing  the  character  of  the  souls  He  has  to  deal 
with,  althocgh  He  does  not  foreknow  their  future,  makes  use  of  them— as 
xample  Pharaoh— to  fulfil  that  part  in  history  which  U  necessary  for 
purpose. 

Origin's  interpretation  of  this  passage,  with  the  exception  of  his  doctrine 
o!  Origen.        of  pre-existence,  had  a  very  wide  influence  both  in  the  East  and  West.    IB 
the  West  his  .interpretation  is  followed  in  the  main  by  Jerome 
ed  Htdibiam  A  imautionibu,  12,  cap 


(Migne  xxx.  687-691),  and  Sedulius  Scotus  (Migne  ciii.  83-93).  In  the  East, 
alter  its  influence  had  pro-ailed  for  a  century  and  a  half,  it  became  the 
starting  point  of  the  Antiochene  exegesis.  Of  this  school  Diodore  is  un- 
fortunately represented  to  us  only  in  isolated  fragments;  Theodore  U  strongly 
influenced  by  Origen;  Chrysostom  therefore  may  be  taken  as  its  best  and  most 
distinguished  representative.  His  comment  is  contained  in  the  XVIth  homily 
on  the  Romans,  written  probably  before  his  departure  from  Antioch,  that  is 


before  the  year  398. 
Chrysostom  is  like 


Chrysos-  Chrysostom  is  like  Origen  a  strong  defender  of  Freewill.    As  might  be 

expected  in  a  member  of  the  Antiochene  school,  he  interprets  the  passage  in 
accordance  with  the  purpose  of  St.  Paul,  i.e.  to  explain  how  it  was  the  Jews 
had  been  rejected.  He  refers  ver.  9  to  those  who  have  become  true  sons  of 
God  by  Baptism,  '  You  see  then  that  it  is  not  the  children  of  the  flesh  that 
are  the  children  of  God,  but  that  even  in  nature  itself  the  generation  by 
means  of  Baptism  from  above  was  sketched  out  beforehand.  An<i 
tell  me  of  the  womb,  I  have  in  return  to  tell  you  of  the  water.'  On 
he  explains  that  Jacob  was  called  because  be  was  worthy,  and  was  known  to 
be  such  by  the  Divine  foreknowledge:  A  car'  J«Aoyi>r  wp4*«<m  rov  6«ov  is 
explained  as  A  J«Aoy^  if  «ord  vp40«o<r  «u  vplyrawiy  fivoptrij.  On  vv.  14-20 
Chrysostom  does  not  follow  Origen,  nor  yet  does  be  interpret  the  verses  as  ex- 
pressing St.  Paul's  own  mind;  but  he  represents  him  in  answer  to  the  objection 
that  in  this  case  God  would  be  unjust,  as  patting  a  number  of  hard  cases  and 
texts  which  his  antagonist  cannot  answer  and  thus  proving  that  man  has  no  right 
to  object  to  God's  action,  or  accuse  Him  of  injustice,  since  he  cannot  understand 
or  follow  Him.  '  What  the  blessed  Paul  aimed  at  was  to  show  by  all  that 
he  said  that  only  God  knoweth  who  are  worthy.'  Verses  20.  21  are  not 
introduced  to  take  away  Freewill,  but  to  show  up  to  what  point  we  ought 
to  obey  God.  For  if  he  were  here  speaking  of  the  will,  God  would  be 
Himself  the  creator  of  good  or  evil,  and  men  would  be  free  from  all 
responsibility  in  these  matters,  and  St.  Paul  would  be  inconsiste: 
himself.  What  he  does  teach  is  that  '  man  should  not  contravene  God,  but 
yield  to  His  incomprehensible  wisdom.'  On  %  !  haraoh 

has  been  fitted  for  destruction  by  his  own  act ;  that  God  has  left  undone 
nothing  which  should  save  him,  while  he  himself  had  left  undone  nothing 
which  would  lead  to  his  own  destruction.    Vet  God  had  borne  * 
great  long-snflering,  wishing  to  lead  him  to  repentance.    '  Whence  comes 
it  then  that  some  are  vessels  of  wrath,  and  some  of  mercy?    Of  th< 
free  choice.  God  however  being  very  good  shows  the  same  kindness  to  both.' 

:  ••.:'.  .  :    <    •  :\         '    ::.    '  .  ••:,•::.'••   1    .'.;•'   N  .  •% 


Chrysostom  became  supren 
largely  influenced  all  later  Greek  commentators,  Theodoret  (sec 
(sec.  ix),  Oecumenius  (sec.  x),  Theophylact  (* 
,  Ac 


IX.  6   29.]          THE   UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  271 

The  tradition  of  the  Greek  commentators  is  preserved  in  the  Russian  Church.  Russian 
Modern  Sclavonic  theology  presents  an  interesting  subject  for  study,  as  it  is  comment* 
c'erivrd  directly  from  Chrysostom  and  John  of  Damascus,  and  hat  hardly  arks, 
been  illuminated  or  obscured  by  the  strong,  although  often  one-sided,  Influ- 
ence of  Augustine  and  Western  Scholasticism.  In  the  Commentary  of  Bishop 
Theopbanes*  on  tbe  Romans  (he  died  in  1894)  published  at  Moscow  in 
1890.  we  find  these  characteristics  very  cleatly.  Just  as  in  Chrysostom  we 
tincl  the  passage  interpreted  in  accordance  not  with  A  priori  theories  at  to 
and  Predestination,  but  with  what  was  clearly  St.  Paul's  purpose,  the 
1  roblcm  of  the  '  Unbelief  of  the  Jews  in  tbe  presence  of  Christianity.'  And 
also  as  in  Chrysostom  we  find  w.  1 1 ,  i  a  explained  on  the  grounds  of  Fore- 
knowledge, and  Pharaoh's  destruction  ascribed  to  his  own  act.  On  ver.  18: 
'  The  word  "  he  bardeneth  "must  not  be  understood  to  mean  that  God  by  His 
power  effected  a  hardening  in  tbe  heart  of  tbe  disobedient  like  Pharaoh,  but 
that  the  disobedient  in  character,  under  the  working  of  God's  mercies,  them- 
selves, according  to  their  evil  character  do  not  soften  themselves,  but  more  and 
more  harden  themselves  in  their  obstinacy  and  disobedience.'  So  again 
on  vv.  33,  33 :  '  God  prepared  the  one  to  be  vessels  of  mercy,  the  others 
fashioned  themselves  into  vessels  of  wrath.'  And  tbe  commentary  on  these 
verses  concludes  thus :  '  Do  not  be  troubled  and  do  not  admit  of  the  thought 
tli.u  there  is  any  injustice,  or  that  the  promise  bat  failed ;  but  on  tbe  contrary 
believe,  that  God  in  all  his  works  is  good  and  right,  and  rest  yourselves  in 
devotion  to  His  wise  and  for  us  unsearchable  destinations  and  divisions.' 
There  is,  in  fact,  a  clear  conception  of  tbe  drift  and  purpose  of  St.  Paul's 
argument,  but  a  fear  of  one-sided  predestination  teaching  makes  a  complete 
grasp  of  the  whole  of  the  Apostle's  meaning  impossible. 

The  commentary  generally  quoted  under  the  name  of  Ambrosiaster  hat  an  Augustine 
interest  as  containing  probably  tbe  earliest  correct  exposition  of  vv.  14-19. 
Hut  it  is  more  convenient  to  pass  at  once  to  St.  Augustine.     His  exposition 
of  this  passage  was  to  all  appearance  quite  independent  of  that  of  any  of  his 
predecessors. 

The  roost  complete  exposition  of  tbe  ninth  chapter  of  Romans  is  found  in 
the  treatise  Ad  Simplicianum,  i.  qu.  a,  written  about  the  year  397,  and  all  the 
leading  points  in  this  exposition  are  repeated  in  his  last  work,  the  Ofta 
imperfectum  contra  Jutianum,  i.  141.  Tbe  main  characteristics  of  the 
commentary  are  that  ( i )  he  ascribes  w.  14-19  to  St.  Paul  himself,  and  considers 
that  they  represent  his  own  opinions,  thus  correcting  tbe  false  exegesis  of  Origen 
and  Chrysostom,  and  (a)  that  he  takes  a  view  of  the  passage  exactly  opposite 
to  that  of  tbe  latter.  The  purpose  of  St.  Paul  is  to  prove  that  works  do 
not  precede  grace  but  follow  it,  and  that  Election  is  not  based  on  foreknowledge, 
l»r  if  it  were  based  on  foreknowledge  then  it  would  imply  merit  AdSimpiit. 
\  qu.  a,  (  a  Ut  scilicet  non  te  qnisque  arbitretnr  ideo  iercepisse  grot  torn,  quia 
bene  operatus  est ;  sed  bene  operari  non  posse,  nisi  per  JUem  perceperit 
gratiam  . .  .  f  3  Prima  est  igitur  gratia,  secvnda  opera  oona.  The  instance 
of  Jacob  and  Esau  proves  that  the  gift  of  the  Divine  grace  is  quite  gratuitous 
and  independent  of  human  merit— that  grace  in  fact  precedes  faith,  f  7  ASsss* 
tnim  credit  qni  non  vocatur  . .  .  Ergo  ante  omne  merit nm  est  gratia.  Even 
the  will  to  be  saved  must  come  from  God.  Nisi  eitu  votatione  mm  vohtmut. 
And  again :  f  10  Nolttit  ergo  Esau  et  non  cucwrrit :  sedet  ri  votuisstt  et  cucur* 
tissft,  Dei  adiutorio  peroenisset,  qni  ei  etiam  velle  et  cnrrere  votandoprae- 
slant,  nisi  vocationis  contemptn  t  ttottetijittwt  It  is  then  shown  that  God 
can  call  whom  He  will,  if  He  only  wills  to  make  His  grace  congruous.  Why 
then  does  He  not  do  so?  The  answer  lies  in  tbe  incomprehensibility  of  the 
Divine  justice.  Tbe  question  whom  He  will  pity  and  whom  He  will  not 

*  For  a  translation  of  portions  of  this  Commentary,  we  are  indebted  to  tbe 
kindness  of  Mr.  W.  J.  Birkbeck,  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 


K  TO  Til  [IX.  6-2P. 

depends  upon  the  hidden  justice  of  God  which  no  human  standard  can  measure. 

ftxum  atquo  immobiU  m  mtntt  tobria  pittatt  atqu< 
injidt,  quod  nulla  tit  iniquitat  apud  Deum  :  atqm  ita  tftuuisrim*  /> 
mtqut  crt.  :'  .  m  quod  Deus  cuiut  vult  mittrttur  ft  qucm  vutt  oodurat. 

koc  fit,  fttius  T'u.'f  mittrttur,  tt  fains  turn  vuit  tun  mittretur,  tstt  alUuiut 
offu/taf  atout  at  humane  modulo  i*9titigMH*  oxquitatit  :  and  so  again,  atqui- 
;<ulthHm*«*kmmm***Um*nm«iuim*iudifat.    God  is  always 
just.    His  mercy  cannot  be  understood.   Those  when  He  calls  oat  of 

pity;  those  whom  He  does  not.  He  refuses  to  call  out  of  just  ice.    Itisnotmerit 


or  necessity  or  fortune,  bat  the  depths  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God 
which  distinguishes  vessels  of  wrath  from  vessels  of  mercy.  And  so  it  is  for 
the  sake  of  the  vessels  of  mercy  that  He  postpones  the  punishment  of  the 


vessels  of  anger.  They  are  the  instruments  of  the  safety  of  others  whom 
God  pities. 

Enough  has  "been  said  to  show  the  lines  of  St.  Augustine's  interpretation. 
Although  from  time  to  time  there  might  be  controversies  about  his  views  on 
Grace,  and  there  might  be  a  tendency  to  modify  some  of  the  harder  sides  of 
his  system,  yet  his  exegesis  of  this  passage,  M  compared  with  that  of  Origen 
or  Cbrysostom,  became  supreme  in  the  West  It  influenced  first  the  exegesis 
and  doctrine  of  the  Schoolmen,  and  then  that  of  the  Reformation  and  of  Calvin. 
For  the  middle  ages  it  may  be  sufficient  to  take  Abelard  (1079-1143)  and 
Thomas  Aquinas  (1227-1274).  Both  were  largely  influenced  by  Augustine; 
but  whereas  in  the  case  of  Abelard  the  influence  was  only 
Aquinas  we  have  the  clearest  and  most  perfect  example  of  the  Aogustinian 
exposition. 

Abelard.  Abelard  (Mignr  1  1)  makes  a  somewhat  strange  division  < 

Epistle,  attaching  the  exposition  of  ix.  1-5  to  the  end  of  ch 
begins  his  fourth  book  with  ix.  6.  In  w.  6-13  he  sees  a  vindication 
freedom  of  the  Divine  will  in  conferring  grace,  but  only  in  relation  to  Jacob. 
•  That  the  election  of  Jacob/  he  says,  'that  is  the  predestination,  may  remain 
unmoved.'  The  choice  depends  solely  on  the  Divine  grace-  Verges  i  4 
explains  as  the  objection  of  an  opponent,  to  which  St.  Paul  gives  an  answer, 
ver.  20,  '  Who  art  thonl*  The  answer  is  a  rebuke  to  the  man  who  would 
accuse  God  of  iniquity.  God  may  do  what  He  will  with  those  whom  He  has 
»  1  :  into  mullopetius  Dto  liter*  omcmmom  motto  volucrit  creaturam  tuam 
trattarf  off  HO  ditpoutrt,  qui  obnoxius  nuUo  ttnttur  dtbito,  anttquam  quid- 
mum  ilia  promtrtatur.  Men  have  no  more  right  to  complain  than  the 
animals  of  their  position.  There  is  no  injustice  with  God.  He  does  more 
for  mankind  by  the  impiety  of  Judas  than  by  the  piety  of  Peter.  Quit  omim 
Jtdtlium  neuiat,  quam  Optimo  usus  tit  summa  ill*  impiitaU  ludat,  cuius 
fjctOfraAM  perditions  totims  k*ma*i  gtntris  rttUmptiontm  tit  oficratus. 
Then  he  argues  at  some  length  the  question  why  man  should  not  complain. 
:«  not  called  as  others  are  called  to  glory  ;  and  somewhat  inconsistently 
be  finds  the  solution  in  perseverance.  God  calls  all,  He  gives  grace  to  all, 
but  some  nave  the  energy  to  follow  the  calling  whtle  others  are  slothful 
and  negligent.  Sit  ft  Dto  mooit  quotidi*  rtgmum  codormm  o/fremte,  aliut 
rtgmi  tf  silts  dttidtrio  oxttiutu  m  torn*  fortntrat  optribus,  aliut  in  sua 

navia.     On  w.  22,  23  he  savs  God  bore  with  the  v 

Pharaoh  both  to  give  him  an  opportunity  to  repent,  and  that  He  might  use 
his  crimes  for  the  common  good  of  mankind. 

A  ;-;  r,  a.  In  contrast  with  the  somewhat  hesitating  and  inconsistent  character  of 

Abelard's  exposition.  Aquinas  stands  out  as  one  of  the  best  and  clearest  com- 
mentaries written  from  the  Augustinian  standpoint  The  modern  reader  must 
learn  to  accustom  himself  to  the  thoroughness  with  which  each  point  is 

sub-divisions, 


discussed,  and  the  minuteness  of  the  sub-divisions,  but  from  few  exponn 

s  discussed,  or  the 


be  gain  so  much  insight  into  the  philosophical  questi 
logical  difficulties  the  solution  of  which  is  attempted. 


IX.  6-20.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  373 

The  purpose  of  the  section  is,  be  says,  to  discuss  the  origin  of  Grace,  to  do 
which  the  Apostle  makes  use  of  the  opportunity  afforded  by  the  difficulties 
implied  in  the  rejection  of  the  Jews.  Apostolut  supra  nettttitatem  etwir- 
Mem  gratia*  dtmonstravit :  hit  tncipit  agere  &  origin*  gratia*,  utrum  tjt  tola 
Dei  tltctiont  dttur,  ant  detur  ex  meritis  praotedentium  oftrum.  otrmriom 
aettpta  ex  to,  quod  ludati  quivukbantur  divinis  obttquiis  mameipc:: 
derant  *  gratia.  In  w.  6  13  the  errors  of  the  Jews,  of  the  Msnirtmnni 
(who  believed  that  human  actions  were  controlled  by  the  stars  which  appeared 
at  the  time  of  their  birth  ,  of  the  Pelagians,  of  Origen  (the  pre- existence  of 
souls)  are  condemned,  and  it  is  shown  that  God  chose  men,  not  because  they 
were  holy,  but  that  they  might  be  holy :  unum  alteri  praedigit,  no*  quia 
tanctus  erat,  ted  ut  samtus  esstt.  In  TT.  14-18  St.  Paul  shows  from  Scripture 
that  there  is  no  injustice  either  in  Predestination  or  in  Reprobation.  God 
has  predestined  the  just  to  life  for  merits  which  He  has  Himself  conferred  on 
thrm,  the  wicked  to  destruction  for  sins  which  come  from  themselves.  Deus 
profosuit  s*  f  unit  mum  malot  frofter  p*tcata,  qua*  a  tt  if  its  kabent  non 
a  Deo.  lustos  aulem  frofosuit  tt  fraemialttrum  propter  merit  a  qua*  a  tt 
if  sis  no*  habtnt.  All  lies  in  the  will  of  God ;  we  notice  indeed  that  ^sMsf 
other  erroneous  opinions  one,  that  of  merita  constquentia  gratiam, — the  new 
apparently  of  Abelard— is  refuted.  There  is  no  injustice.  '  Distributive  justice 
has  a  place  in  cases  of  debt,  but  not  in  cases  of  pity.'  If  a  man  relieves 
one  beggar,  but  not  another,  he  is  not  unjust ;  he  is  kind-hearted  towards  one. 
Similarly  if  a  man  forgives  only  one  of  two  offenders,  he  is  not  unjust ;  he  is 
merciful  towards  one.  just  towards  the  other. 

In  the  instance  of  Pharaoh  two  readings  are  discussed,  tervavi  and  txtitavi. 
If  the  first  be  taken  if  shows  that,  as  the  wicked  are  worthy  of  immediate  de- 
struction, if  they  are  saved  it  is  owing  to  the  clemency  of  God ;  if  the  second, 
God  does  not  cause  wickedness,  except  by  permitting  it ;  He  allows  the 
wicked  by  His  good  judgement  to  fall  into  sin  on  account  of  the  iniquity  they 
have  committed.  Quod  quidem  non  esf  inttUigendum  koe  modo  quod  Dm* 
in  komine  causat  malitiam,  ted  tit  inttlligendum  permissive,  quia  sciliett  I'M 
iutto  suo  iudicio  permittit  aliquot  ruere  in  feceatum  propttr  praeceJenta 
ittiqui fates.  Deus  malitiam  ordinat  non  causat.  In  w.  19-24  he  says 
there  are  two  Questions.  ( I )  Why,  speaking  generally,  should  He  choose  some 
men  and  not  choose  others?  (a)  Why  should  He  choose  this  or  that  msnisjj 
not  someone  else  ?  The  second  of  these  is  treated  in  vr.  19-21 ;  to  it  there  is 
no  answer  but  the  righteous  will  of  God.  No  man  can  complain  of  being 
nnjnstly  treated,  for  all  are  desenring  of  punishment  The  answer  to  the  first 
is  contained  in  vv.  22-24.  In  or°er  to  exhibit  both  His  justice  and  His 
mercy,  there  must  be  some  towards  whom  He  shows  His  justice,  some 
towards  whom  He  can  show  His  mercy.  The  former  arc  those  who  are  naturally 
fitted  for  eternal  damnation  :  God  has  done  nothing  but  allow  them  to  do 
what  they  wish.  Vasa  afta  in  interitum  he  defines  as  in  se  kabtntia  aptitu- 
dinem  ad  aetemam  damnationem ;  and  adds  Hoc  autem  solus  Deus  area  eot 
agitt  quod  eot  ptrmittit  agere  quae  concufiscunt.  He  has  in  fact  borne  with 
them  both  for  their  own  sakes.  and  for  the  sake  of  those  whom  He  uses  to 
exhibit  the  abundance  of  His  goodness— a  goodness  which  could  not  be 
apparent  unless  it  could  be  contrasted  with  the  fate  of  the  condemned. 
Signanter  autem  dicit  (ut  ostenderet  divitias  gloria*  tnoe]  quia  ipta  eon- 
demnatio  tt  reprooatio  malorum  qua*  ttt  setundum  Dei  iustitiam,  mani/ettat 
tt  eommendat  sanctorum  gtoriam  qui  ao  ipta  tali  miseria  liberantur. 

The  antithesis  which  was  represented  among  patristic  commentators  by 
Augustine  and  Chrysostom  was  exaggerated  at  the  Reformation  by  Calvin 
and  Arminius.  Each  saw  only  his  own  side.  Calvin  followed  Augustine, 
and  exaggerated  his  harshest  teaching  :  Arminius  showed  a  subtle  power  of 
finding  Freewill  even  in  the  most  unlikely  places. 

The  object  of  SL  Paul,  according  to  Calvin,  is  to  maintain  the  freedom  of 


274  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX 

Calvin,  'ivine  election.    ThU  is  absolutely  gratuitous  on  God's  part,  and  quite 

independent  of  man.     la  the  salvation  of  the  just  there  U  nothing  above 
G<xTs  goodness,  in  the  ponUhment  of  the  wicked  there  U  nothing  at . 
severity :  the  one  He  predestinates  to  salvation,  the  other  to  eternal  damna- 

This  determination  is  quite  independent  of 

can  be  nothing  in  man's  fallen  nature  which  can  make  God  show  kindness  to 
him.    The  predestination  of  Pharaoh  to  destruction  U  dependent  on  a  just 


but  secret  counsel  of  God:  the  word  •  to  harden '  must  be  taken  not  oolyyvr- 
mistive,  but  as  signifying  the  action  of  the  I  Mvjne  wrath.  The  rain  of  the 
1  it  described  not  as  foreseen,  but  as  ordained  by  His  will  and  counsel 
It  was  not  merely  foreknown,  but,  as  Solomon  says,  the  wicked  were  created 
that  they  might  perish.  There  is  no  means  of  telling  the  principle  b> 
one  is  taken  and  another  rejected;  it  lies  in  the  secret  counsels  of  God. 
None  deserve  to  be  accepted.  The  wrath  of  God  against  Pharaoh  was  post- 
poned that  others  might  be  terrified  by  the  horrible  judgement,  that  God's 
power  might  be  displayed,  and  His  mercy  towards  the  elect  made  more  clear. 
As  God  is  especially  said  to  prepare  the  vessels  of  glory  for  glory,  it  follows 
that  the  preparation  of  the  vessels  of  wrath  equally  comes  from  1 
wise  the  Apostle  would  have  said  that  they  had  prepared  themselves  for 
destruction.  Before  they  were  created  their  fate  was  assigned  to  them.  They 
were  created  for  destruction. 

Armhi  *  Anninius  represents  absolute  antagonism  on  every  point  to  these  views. 

The  purpose  of  the  chapter  is,  he  says,  the  same  as  that  of 
looked  at  from  a  special  point  of  view.     While  the  aim  le  is  to 

prove  •  Justification  by  Faith/  in  this  chapter  St.  Paul  defends  hit  argument 
against  Jews  who  had  urged :  'It  overthrows  the  promises  of  God,  t 

I'.y  the  words  addressed  to  Rebecca  He  signified 

from  eternity  resolved  not  to  admit  to   i  —es  all  the  children  of 

Abraham,  but  those  only  whom  He  should  select  in  accordance  with  the 
plan  He  had  laid  down.    ThU  plan  was  to  extend  !  to  those  who 

had  faith  in  Him  when  He  called  and  who  believed  on  Christ,  not  to  those 
who  sought  salvation  by  works.     The  passage  that  follows  (ver. 
shows  that  God  has  decided  to  give  His  mercy  in  His  own  way  and 
own  plan,  that  is  to  give  it  not  to  him  who  runs,  to  him  that  U  wh 
after  it  by  works,  but  to  him  who  seeks  it  in  the  way  that  He  has  aj ; 
And  this  is  perfectly  just,  because  He  has  II. 
method.    Then  the  image  of  the  potter  and  the  clay  U  introdi 

sovereignty  of  God,  but  Hit  right  to  do  what  He  will,  that 
is  to  name  His  own  conditions.    He  has  created  man  to  become  something 
better  than  be  was  made.     God  has  made  man  a  vessel :   man  it 
makes  himself  a  bad  vessel    God  decrees  on  certain  conditions  to  make 
men  vessels  of  glory  or  vessels  of  wrath  according  as  they  do  or  do  i. 
these  conditions.    The  condition  is  Justification  by  1 

The  systems  of  Arminins  and  Calvin  were  for  the  most  part  supreme 
during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  in  the  exegesis  of  this  chapter, 
although  there  were  from  time  to  time  signs  of  historical  methods  of  inter, 
pretation.     Hammond  for  example,  the  English  divine  of  the  seve 
century,  in  hU  paraphrase  adopts  methods  very  much  beyond  those 

But  gradually  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  century  the  defects  or 
Inadequacy  of  both  views  became  apparent.     It  was  quite  clear  that  as 
against  Arminins  Calvin's  interpretation  of  chap,  tx  was  cor 
Paul's  object  in  it  was  not  to  prove  or  defend  justification  by  • 
behind  it,  why  it  was  that  •omc  had  ol  • 
But  equally  clear  was 

.  was 

with  chap,  x,  and  the  language  *:  1  habitually  uses 

This  apparent  inconsistency  then  must  be  rccogn 


ram  s  ooject  in  11  was  not  10  prove  or  oeicnu  j 

discuss  the  question  behr  ::  was  that  *oi 

•h  and  others  had  equally  clear 

pretation.  or  rather  much  of  what  he  had  read 


IX.  SO— X.  13.]     THE   UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  275 

must  it  be  treated  f  Various  answers  hare  been  given.  Fritnche  asserts  F 
that  St  Paul  is  carried  away  by  bis  argument  and  aocoasdonsly  nrlT*4*1^! 
himself.  '  It  is  evident  that  what  St.  Pan!  writes  is  not  only  tfThtmt  with 
itself  but  absolutely  contradictory.'  If  the  Jews,  it  is  asserted  in  chap.  ix, 
were  first  chosen  and  then  rejected,  it  was  the  malignity  of  God  and  not  their 
own  perversity  which  caused  their  (all.  If  God  Mid  decreed  their  tall  for 
a  time  (chap,  xi),  they  could  not  be  blamed  if  they  had  fallen ;  and  yet  in 
chap,  x  they  are  blamed.  Mult  it  taeft  aecidit  tit  amicum  fortunat  fulmin* 
fcnussum  erteluri  studio  consolanJi  argument  is  eufiJe  uttrtntur  nequt  ab 
omni  forte  Jirmis  tt  quorum  u**m  turn  altero  forum  eonsitteret.  El 
melius  sibi  Paulus  consensisset,  ti  Aristotelis  mm  GamalitUs  Alumnus 
fuiitet. 

•  admits  the  discrepancy  but  explains  it  differently.  '  As  often  as  we  Meyer. 
treat  only  one  of  the  two  truths,  God  is  absolutely  fret  and  all-iuffuitnt,  and 
man  has  moral  freedom  and  u  in  virtu*  of  kit  proper  self-determination  and 
responsibility  a  liberum  agnu,  tkt  author  of  kit  salvation  or  ptrdition,  and 
carry  it  out  in  a  consistent  theory  and  therefore  in  a  one-sided  method,  we 
are  compelled  to  speak  in  such  a  manner  that  the  other  truth  appears  to  be 
annulled.' . . . '  The  Apostle  has  here  wholly  taken  his  position  on  the 
absolute  standpoint  of  the  theory  of  our  dependence  upon  God,  and  that 
with  all  the  boldness  of  clear  consistency/  . . .  'He  allows  the  claims  of 
both  modes  of  consideration  to  stand  side  by  side,  just  as  they  exist  side  by 
side  within  the  limits  of  human  thought.'  According  to  Meyer  in  fact  the 
two  points  of  view  are  irreconcileablc  in  thought,  and  St.  Paul  recognizing 
this  does  not  attempt  to  reconcile  them. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  enumerate  all  the  different  varieties  of  opinion 
in  the  views  of  modern  scholars.  One  more  specimen  will  be  sufficient. 
The  solution  offered  by  Beyschlag.  He  maintains  that  all  interpretations  are  Beyschlsj- 
wrong  which  consider  that  St.  Paul  is  concerned  with  anything  either  before  or 
after  this  life.  It  is  no  eternal  decree  of  God,  nor  is  it  the  future  destiny  of 
mankind  that  he  is  dealing  with.  It  is  merely  their  position  in  history  and 
in  the  world.  Why  has  he  chosen  one  race  (the  Jews)  for  one  purpose, 
another  race  (the  Egyptians)  for  another  T  He  is  dealing  with  nations  not 
individuals,  with  temporal  not  spiritual  privileges. 

The  above  sketch  will  present  the  main  lines  of  interpretation  of  these 
verses,  and  will  serve  as  a  supplement  to  the  explanation  which  has  been 
given  above.  We  must  express  our  obligations  in  compiling  it  to  Weber 
I  Dr.  Valentin),  h'ritisckt  Gesckickt*  dtr  Exegtst  des  9.  Kapitels  rtsp.  der 
Vtrs*  14-23  des  Romerbritfes,  au  auf  Ckrysottomus  und  .luptitinus  tin* 
ickitssluk,  and  to  Beyschlag  (Dr.  Willibald),  Du  pauliniiJu  Tktoduee, 
Romtr  1X-XI,  who  have  materially  lightened  the  labour  incurred. 


ISRAEL  ITSELF  TO  BLAME  FOR  ITS  REJECTION. 

IX.  30 -X.  13.  The  reason  that  God  has  rejected  Israel 
is  tfiat,  though  they  sought  righteousness*  they  sought  it  in 
their  own  way  by  means  of  works*  not  in  God's  way  through 
faith.  Hence  when  ttte  Messiah  came  they  stumbled  as  had 
been  foretold  (w.  30-33).  They  refused  to  give  up  their 
own  method*  that  of  Law*  although  Law  had  come  to  an  end 
in  Christ  (x.  1-4),  and  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  old 

T  a 


276  STLE  TO  THE  R<  IX.  30-X.  a 

system  teas  difficult  if  not  impossible  (vcr.  5).  while  th 

u  easy  and  within  the  reach  of  all  (w.  6- 1 
•rsal  in  its  scope  (vv.  11-13). 

IX.  "  What  then  is  the  position  of  the  argument  so  far  ?     One 
clear.    A  number  of  Gentiles  who  did  not  profess  to  be 

in   pursuit  of  righteousness  have  unexpectedly   come  uj 
a  righteousness  however  c  -:  ••  characteristic  is  that  it  is  not 

earned  by  their  own  efforts  but  is  the  product  of  faith  in  a  power 
outside  them.  "  Israel  on  the  other  hand,  the  chosen  people  of 
God,  although"  making  strenuous  efforts  after  a  rule  of  moral  and 
religious  life  that  would  win  for  them  righteousness,  have  not 
succeeded  in  attaining  to  the  accomplishment  of  such  a  rule. 
w  How  has  this  come  about?  Because  they  soug!  .:  own 

•t  in  God's  way.    They  did  not  seek  it  by  faith,  but  th 
was  to  pursue  it  by  a  rigid  performance  of  works.    **  And  hence 
that  happened  to  them  which  the  Prophet  Isaiah  foretold,     i!-- 
spoke  (xxviii.  16)  of  a  rock  which  the  Lord  would  lay  in  Zion 
and  foretold  that  if  a  man  put  his  tn:  he  would  never 

have  cause  to  be  ashamed.    But  elsewhere  (u.i.   14)  he  c 
'a  stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of  offence,'  implying  that  those 
who  have  not  this  faith  will  consider  it  a  stumbling-block  in 
way.    This  rock  is,  as  you  have  always  been  told,  the  Messiah.    The 
Messiah  has  come;  and  the  Jews  through  want  of  faith 
regarded  as  a  cause  of  offence  th..  the  corner  stone  of 

the  whole  building. 

X.  '  Let  me  pause  for  a  moment,  brethren.     It  is  a  serious 
accusation  that  I  am  bringing  against  my  fellow-countrymen. 

I  repeat  that  I  do  it  from  no  feeling  of  resentment.     How  great  is 
my  heart's  good  will  for  them  I     How  earnest  my  prayer  to  God 
for  their  salvation  1    'For  indeed  as  a  fellow-countryman,  as  one 
who  was  once  as  they  are,  I  can  testify  that  they  are  full  of  zeal 
for  God.     That  is  not  the  point  in  which  they  have  : 
that  they  have  not  guided  their  zeal  by  that  true  knowledge- 
is  the  result  of  genuine    spiritual  insight.     'Righteousness  they 
strove  after,  but  there  were  two  ways  of  attaining  to  it.     The  one 
was  God's  method :   of  that  they  remained  ignorant.    The 
was  their  own  method:    to  this  they  clung  blindly  a: 
<  d  to  submit  to  God's  plan  of  salv.i 


Z.  4-12.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  277 

4  Their  own  method  was  based  on  a  rigid  performance  of  legal 
enactments.  But  that  has  been  ended  in  Christ  Now  there  is 
a  new  and  a  better  way,  one  which  has  two  characteristics ;  k  is 
based  on  the  principle  of  faith,  and  it  is  universal  and  for  all  men 
alike,  '(i)  It  is  based  on  the  principle  of  faith.  Hence  it  is  that 
while  the  old  method  was  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  the  new  b 
easy  and  open  to  all.  The  old  method  righteousness  by  law,  that 
is  by  the  exact  performance  of  legal  rules,  is  aptly  described  by 
Moses  when  he  says  (Lev.  xviii.  5),  «the  man  who  docs  these 
things  shall  live/  i.  e.  Life  in  all  its  fulness  here  and  hereafter  was 
to  be  gained  by  undeviating  strictness  of  conduct ;  and  that  con- 
dition we  have  seen  (i.  i8-iii.  20)  was  impossible  of  fulfilment. 
*  But  Ibten  to  the  proclamation  which  righteousness  by  faith 
makes  to  mankind.  It  speaks  in  well-known  words  which  haw 
become  through  it  more  real  4  There  is  no  need  for  you  to  say, 
Who  will  go  up  into  heaven  ?  Heaven  has  come  to  you ;  Christ 
has  come  down  and  lived  among  men.  T  There  is  no  need  to 
search  the  hidden  places  of  the  deep.  Christ  has  risen.  There 
is  no  need  therefore  to  seek  the  living  among  the  dead.  You  are 
offered  something  which  does  not  require  hard  striving  or  painful 
hbour.  •  The  word  of  God  is  very  nigh  thee,  in  thy  heart  and  in 
thy  mouth.'  And  that  word  of  God  is  the  message  of  faith,  the 
Gospel  which  proclaims  'believe  and  thou  shalt  be  saved';  and 
this  Gospel  we  preach  throughout  the  world.  *  All  it  says  to  you 
is :  •  With  thy  mouth  thou  must  confess  Jesus  as  sovereign  Lord, 
\\ith  thy  heart  thou  must  believe  that  God  raised  Him  from  the 
dead/  "For  that  change  of  heart  which  we  call  faith,  brings 
righteousness,  and  the  path  of  salvation  is  entered  by  the  con- 
fession of  belief  in  Christ  which  a  man  makes  at  his  baptism. 

11  (a)  This  is  corroborated  by  what  the  Prophet  Isaiah  said  (xxviii. 
1 6)  in  words  quoted  above  (iz.  33),  the  full  meaning  of  which  we 
now  understand :  '  Everyone  that  belicveth  in  Him  (L  e.  the 
Messiah)  shall  not  be  ashamed/  Moreover  this  word  of  bis, 
4  everyone/  introduces  the  second  characteristic  of  the  new  method. 
It  is  universal.  u  And  that  means  that  it  applies  equally  to  Jew 
and  to  Greek.  We  have  shown  that  the  new  covenant  is  open  for 
Greeks  as  well  as  Jews;  it  is  also  true  to  say  that  the  conditions 
demanded  are  the  same  for  Jew  as  for  Greek.  The  Jew  cannot 


278  .1:  TO  THE  ROMA  [ix  so. 

keep  to  his  old  methods;  he  must  accept  the  new.    AT 
must  be  so,  because  there  is  for  all  men  alike  one  Redeemer, 
who  gives  the  wealth  of  His  salvation  to  all  those  whoever  they 
may  be  who  call  on  His  name.     "  And  so  the  prophet  Joel,  fore- 
telling the  times  of  ihe  foundation  of  the   Messianic  kingdom, 
says  (ii.  32)  4  Everyone  that  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord 
(i.  e.  of  the  Messiah)  shall  be  saved/     When  the  last  days  come,  in 
the  times  of  storm   and  anguish,  it  b  the  worshippers  of  the 
Messiah,  those  who  are  enrolled  as  His  servants  and  call  c 
Name,  who  win  find  a  strong  salvation. 

IX.  30-X.  21.  St.  Paul  now  passes  to  another  aspect  of  the 
i  he  is  discus^:.-.  He  has  considered  the  rejection  of 
Israel  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Divine  justice  and  power,  he 
is  now  to  approach  it  from  the  side  of  human  responsibility. 
concluding  verses  of  the  ninth  chapter  and  the  whole  of  the  tenth 
are  devoted  to  proving  the  guilt  of  Israel.  It  is  first  sketched  out 
in  ix.  30-33.  Israel  have  sought  righteousness  in  the  wrong  way, 
in  that  they  have  rejected  the  Messiah.  Then  St.  Paul,  over- 
whelmed uith  the  sadness  of  the  subject,  pauses  for  a  moment 
(x.  i,  2)  to  emphasize  his  grief.  He  returns  to  the  discussion  by 
pointing  out  that  they  have  adhered  to  their  own  method  instead 
of  accepting  God's  method  (w.  2,  3).  And  this  in  spite  of 
several  circumstances  ;  (i)  that  the  old  method  has  been  done 
away  with  in  Christ  (ver.  4);  (2)  that  while  the  old  method 
was  hard  and  difficult  the  new  is  easy  and  within  the  reach  of 
all  (w.  5-10);  (3)  that  the  new  method  is  clearly  universal  and 
intended  for  all  alike  (w.  11-13).  At  vcr.  14  he  passes  to  another 
aspect  of  the  question:  it  might  still  be  a 
opportunities  of  knowing?  I:.  .-i  it  is  shown  that  both 

through  the  full  and  universal   preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and 
through  their  own  Prophets,  they  have  had  every  opportunity 
them. 

30.  TI  ouf  fpoCfu*;  The  oS*,  as  is  almost  always  the  ca 


ul,  sums  up  the  results  of  the  previous  paragraph. 
then  is  the  conclusion  of  this  discussion  ?  '  It  is  not  that  God's 
promise  has  failed,  but  that  while  Gentiles  have  obtained  "righteous- 
ness," the  Jews,  though  they  strove  for  it,  1 

of  the  result  so  far  arrived  at  leads  to  the  question  being  asked  ; 
.s  it  so?    And  that  introduces  the  second  point  in  St.  Paul's 
discussion  —  the  guilt  of  the  Jews. 

5ri  «$ni  K  re  arc  two  constructions  possible  for  these 

words,     i.  The  sentence  irtort*t  may  contain  the 

answer  to  the  question  asked  in  TI  <*r  ty.  s  interpretation 


IX.  30,  31.]         THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  279 

is  probably  right.  The  difficulty,  however,  is  that  nowhere  else  In 
this  Epistle,  where  St.  Paul  uses  the  expression  r/  o£*  «povM«r,  does 
he  give  it  an  immediate  answer.  He  follows  it  by  a  second 
question  (as  in  ix.  14);  and  this  is  not  a  mere  accident.  It  is 
a  result  of  the  sense  of  deliberation  contained  in  the  previous 
words  with  \\hich  a  second  question  rather  than  a  definite  state- 
ment seems  to  harmonize,  a.  The  alternative  rendering  would  be 
to  take  the  words  5ri  .  .  .  ty&uw,  as  such  a  second  question. 
•  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Shall  we  say  that,  while  Gentiles  who 
did  not  seek  righteousness  have  obtained  it,  Israel  has  not  attained 
to  it?'  The  answer  to  this  question  then  would  be  a  positive 
one,  not  given  directly  but  implied  in  the  further  one  fair/;  'Yet* 
but  why?'— The  difficulty  in  this  construction,  which  must  tell 
against  it,  is  the  awkwardness  of  the  appended  sentence  Awmxrv**^ 
JW  r^y  IK  ir&rr**tr.  Lipsius'  suggestion  that  5™  =  '  because '  is  quite 
impossible. 

*0tt| :  '  heathen/  not  '  the  heathen ' ;  some,  not  all :  nam 
nonnulli  pagani  fidcm  turn  Christo  adiunxtran/,  rd  vX^/ia  r*» 
tf  xttp  ad  Christi  sacra  nondum  atccsserat.  Fri. 

StwKorra  .  .  .  xarAapc :  'correlative  terms  for  pursuing  and 
overtaking'  (Field,  Otium  Norvicens€%  Ui.  p.  96).  The  metaphor 
as  in  r/M'xorrof  (ver.  16)  is  taken  from  the  racecourse,  and  probably 
the  words  were  used  without  the  original  meaning  being  lost  sight 
of:  cf.  i  Cor.  ix.  24.  The  two  words  are  coupled  together 
Exod.  xv.  9  ;  Ecclus.  xi.  10;  xxvii.  8;  Phil.  iii.  12  ;  Herod,  ii.  30; 
Lucian,  Hermot.  77.  &»*«<»  is  a  characteristic  Pauline  word  occur- 
ring in  letters  of  all  periods:  i  Thess.  (i),  i  Cor.  (i),  Rom.  (4), 
Phil,  (a),  i  Tim.  (i),  a  Tim.  (i). 

SiKaKxninr)?  &{  limits  and  explains  the  previous  use  of  the  word. 
4  But  remember,  (and  this  will  explain  any  difficulty  that  you  may 
have),  that  it  was  «'«  wuww* ':  cf.  iii.  22  dutauxrvyq  &  e«o£:  i  Cor. 

U.  6  trot/Ma*  d<  AaAof/j«y  «V  rote  r«X«t'otr*  eo$ia»  i«  ow  rov  aiwror 
Tovrow. 

Some  small  variations  of  reading  may  be  jost  noticed.  In  rer.  31  the 
second  kmocvmji  after  tit  n$/ior  of  the  TR.  U  omitted  by  decisive  authority, 
as  also  is  rljiov  (after  f?7«»)  in  rer.  32,  and  70?  after  mf*9lsa+a».  In  vcr.  33 
war  read  by  the  TR.  has  crept  in  from  x.  1 1,  and  Western  MSS.  read  ob  M 
•oTcu<rxvt^  to  harmonize  with  the  LX  X. 

31.  MapafjX  W  K.T.X,  These  words  contain  the  real  difficulty  of 
the  statement,  of  which  alone  an  explanation  is  necessary,  and  is 
given.  'In  spite  of  the  fact  that  some  Gentiles  even  without 
seeking  it  have  attained  righteousness,  Israel  has  failed.' 

ropor  &iKcuoaunf|s  :  '  a  rule  of  life  which  would  produce  righteous- 
ness ' :  cf.  iii.  27  r4*or  wurTtwf  :  vii.  ai. 

OUK  ;+6curc :  '  did  not  attain  it ' ;  they  are  represented  as  con- 
tinually pursuing  after  something,  the  accomplishment  of  which 


280  K   ROMA  [IX.  31 

as  continually  escapes  them.    All  idea  of  anticipation  has  been 
lost  in  *At*»  in  later  Greek,  cf.  Phil.  iii.  16;  Dan.  iv.  19  (Theod) 

1<f)O€UFt9  tit  TOP  OvfMV&V. 

82.  4n  ofo  U  wiorcwf  .  .  •  wpoa/Ko^o.     Two  constructions  are 
possible  for  these  words,    (i)  We  may  put  a  comma  at  «",o*"  and 
supply  &Mo*T«r.     Then  the  passage  will  run  :   •  Why  did  tl. 
it  ?  because  pursuing  after  it  not  by  faith  but  by  work 
stumbled/  &c.  ;  or  (2)  we  may  put  a  full  stop  at  <py*»  ancj 
tbi»ta».     '  Why  did  they  not  attain  it?  because  they  pursued  after 
it  not  by  faith  but  by  works,  they  stumbled/  Ac.     The  sentence  has 
more  emphasis  if  taken  in  this  way,  and  the  grammatical  construc- 
tion is  on  the  whole  easier. 

dXX*  ws  4(  <pyw.    The  •*  introduces  a  subjective  idea.     S: 
wishes  to  guard  himself  from  asserting  definitely  that  «'£  «*  ry»»  was 
a  method  by  which  961*9  &«a«xr^«  might  be  pursued. 
fore  represents  it  as  an  idea  of  the  Jews,  as  a  way  by  which  they 
thought  they  could  gain  it.    So  in  2  Cor.  ii.  1  7  <IAV  <W  «£  «i*Xurpt»«tar 
represents  the  purpose  and  aim  of  the  Apostle  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  1  7 
I  XoAtt,  oi  KOTO.  Ktpio*  XoX«,  JXX*  <U  fV  aQpoaCrjj  represents  an  aspect 
from  which  his  words  may  be  regarded  ;  Philem.  1  4  i*a  w  «r  *ara 

drdyKTjv  TO  oyaM*  oov  I  oXXa  cara  «courtoy  :    '  even   the   apfx 
of  constraint  must  be  avoided  '  (cf.  Lightfoot,  ad  /oc.).    The  «*t 
gives  a  subjective  idea  to  the  phrase  with  which  it  is  placed,  but  the 
eiact  force  must  be  determined  by  the  context. 

YfxxT/Kotar  :   wpoamfarcu'  ru>«  means   not  'to  stumble  over  by 
inadvertence/  but  'to  be  annoyed  with/  '  show  irritaiioi 
Jews,  in  that  the  cross  was  to  them  a  vnMa^o^  had  stumbled 
,  shown  themselves  irritated  and  annoyed,  and  expressed 
their  indignation,  see  Grm.  Thayer,  sub  roc. 

T$  XI$Y  T®5  »poan6pjiaTos  :    '  a   stone   which   causes  nv 
stumble/    Taken  from  the  LXX  of  Is.  viii.  14.    The  stone  at 
which  the  Jewish  nation  has  stumbled,  been  to  them 

a  cause  of  offence,  is  the  A  ho  has  come  in  a  v 

owing  to  their  want  of  faith,  has  prevented  them  from  recognizing 
or  accepting  Him,  cf.  i  Pet.  ii.  8. 

33.  iSou,  Ti9i||u  iv  IIWK  K.T.X.  The  quotation  is  taken  from  the 
..f  Is.  xxviii.  16,  fused  with  words  from  Is.  viii.  14.  The 
part  of  the  verse  is  quoted  again  x.  ii,  ami  the  whole  in 

A  comparison  of  the  different  variations  Is  interesting,     (i)  The  I  XX 
reads  (Joft  Ifu  JftfoAAw  tit  rd  0<^A(a  liai-.     Iti  l.,,th  the  p«Mge»  in  the 


the  worth  are  I3od  rtf^/M  Jr  X«wr.     (•)  1 
i*\<rrt*  (Ltpo-yxrio/or  fm^or,  St.  Peter  reads  Agpayvnatov  i«x««r  Jr  frnpor  : 
while  St.  Paul  sutxtitutet  X/0or  wpoo^fiarot  mi  w/rpar  0*a*&i\ov  ukeo 
from  I..  v;ii    14  gal  ovx  in  A/for  wpoat^nnan  awavrrptott  oiM  At  fir  pat 
»TU//.  -  agrees  with  >t  .  I'aul  in  ,-i  <rcarftaAov 

(otwirpas  wrufutrt.     (3)  The  LXX  proceeds  tit  rd  f«/*«Aia  avrift,  which  both 


IX.  33.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  l8l 


St  Peter  and  St  Paul  omit     (4>  The  LXX  proceed*  «o2  4 

«aroi<rxv»«9.     Both  St.  Peter  and  St  Paul  bnng  oat  the  personal  reference 

by  inserting  !»'  owrf,  while  St  Paul  read*  caTajax1'**^""*'  »*>d  in  x.  it 

iir*  oorf  Personal,  of  the  Messiah,  '  He  that  believeth  on  Him 
shall  not  be  ashamed.'  St.  Paul  inserts  the  words,  both  here  and  in 
>.  ii,  to  emphasize  the  personal  reference.  If  the  reference  were 
impersonal,  the  feminine  would  be  required  to  agree  with  the 
nearest  word  mVpo. 

Karaioxui^acTai.  Either  an  incorrect  translation  of  the  Hebrew. 
or  based  on  a  different  reading.  The  RV.  of  Isaiah  reads  '  shall 
not  make  haste/ 

In  the  O.  T.  neither  of  these  passages  has  any  direct  Messianic 
reference.  In  both  Jehovah  is  the  rock  founded  on  Zion.  In 
Is.  viii.  14  He  is  represented  as  a  'stumbling-block'  to  the 
unbeliever  ;  in  Is.  xxviii.  16  He  is  the  strength  of  those  that  believe 
in  Him.  But  from  the  very  beginning  the  word  MA*  was  applied 
to  Christ,  primarily  \\iih  reference  to  Ps.  cxviil  22  'the  Stone 
which  the  builders  rejected*  (Matt.  xxi.  42  ;  Mark  xii.  10;  Luke 
xx.  1  7  ;  Acts  iv.  1  1  by  St.  Peter).  The  other  passages  in  which 
the  word  Xtlof  was  used  in  the  LXX  came  to  be  applied  as  here, 
an  1  in  Eph.  ii.  20  a'*poytt*a/oi>  is  used  almost  as  a  proper  name. 
By  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  \lffos  is  used  almost  as  a  name  of  the 

Christ  :  f<rra>  KOI  ravra  ovrut  fgoyra  a>r  X«'y«ir.  *a*  on  wa&jrof  Xpurror 
irpotQrjTildij  n*\\iu>  «&>a<  *al  Xi'lor  KinXi/rai  (Dial.  36.  p.  122  C.  ed. 
Otto)  :  6  yap  XptOToff  /3a<nXrvff  itai  it  pi  it  gal  6tot  KOI  tvptot  *al  'ryyi\ot 
itn\  ni-Opumos  «al  dpxurrpa-nryot  KOI  \i6ot  (ib.  34.  p.  112  D.)  These 

quotations  seem  to  imply  that  \ifos  was  a  name  for  the  Mcs-hh 
among  the  Jews,  and  that  Justin  wishes  to  prove  that  Christ  fulfils 
that  title,  and  this  seems  to  be  corroborated  by  quotations  from 
Jewish  writings,  not  only  in  later  books  but  even  earlier.  In  Is. 
viii.  14,  Sanhcdrin  38.  I  Fitius  Davidis  non  venit  donee  duo* 
domus  patrum  ex  hraele  dtficiant,  quae  sun/  Aechmalotarcha  Baby- 
hnicus  tt  princcps  terrae  hrailiticae  q.  d.  Et  trii  in  Sanctuarium 
it  in  lapidtm  percussion's  tt  fxtram  o/tnsionis  duabtu  domibus 
Israel.  Is.  xxviii.  16  is  paraphrased  by  the  Targum  Jonathan, 
Ecce  ego  constiluam  in  Sion  regtm,  regem  fortem,  polrnUm  et 
terribiUm  ;  corroborate  cum  et  confer  tabo  eum  dicit  Propheta* 
Justi  aultm  qui  crediderint  haec  cum  venerit  tribulatio  non  com- 
movcbuntur,  and  some  apparently  read  rtgem  Messia*  regem 
polentcm.  Ps.  ex  viii.  22  is  paraphrased  by  the  same  Targum, 
Pucrum  dfsf>t.vtrunt  aedificatores,  qui  fuit  inter  filios  Itrael  et 
mcruit  conslilui  rex  et  dominator.  For  these  and  other  reflf.  sec 
Schoettgen,  ii.  160,  606. 

A  comparison  of  Romans  and  i  Peter  shows  that  both  Apostles 
agree  in  quoting  the  same  passages  together,  and  both  have 


282  >TLE  TO  THE  ROMANS      [IX.  33   X.  1. 

a  numl>cr  of  common  variants  from  the  normal  text  of  t;  -    I.  XX. 
This  i;  i'oter's  acquaintance   with   the 

Romans;  but  another  hypothesis  may  be  suggested,  which  \vill 
perhaps  account  for  the  facts  more  naturally.  We  know  t: 
prove  from  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  was  the  constant 
practice  of  the  early  Christians.  Is  it  not  possible  that  even  as  early 
there  may  have  been  collections  of  O.  T.  texts  used  for  con- 
troversial purposes  arranged  according  to  their  subjects,  as  were 
the  later  Testimonia  of  Cyprian,  where  one  of  the  chapters  is  headed: 
Quod  idem  et  lapis  die/us  si/  (  Test.  ii.  1  6)  ?  See  on  ix.  25,  26  supra. 
X.  1.  There  is  no  break  in  the  argument  between  this  chapter 
and  w.  30-33  of  chap,  ix  ;  but  before  expanding  this  part 
subject,  the  Apostle  pauses  for  a  mom'  is  own 

strong  feelings  and  the  deep  tragedy  of  his  c< 
to  express  his  sorrow  and  afTecticn. 

Mardoo  admitted  into  his  text  rer.  3-4,  which  he  was  able  to  nse  as 
a  proof  text  of  his  fundamental  doctrine  that  the  Jew*  had  been  ignorant  of 
the  '  higher  God.'  The  whole  or  almost  the  whole  passage  which  follows 
x.  5-xi.  3^,  he  appears  to  hare  omitted.  Zahn,  p.  518.  Tcrt.  Adv.  Mart.  T.  13. 

d&cX+ot.    The  position  increases  the  emphasis  of  a  word  always 
used  by  the  Apostle  when  he  wishes  to  be  specially  em; 
The  thought  of  the  Christian  brotherhood  intensifies  the  c 
\\itl>  the  Israelites  who  are  excluded. 

plv  :  without  a  corresponding  oY.    The  logical  antithesis  is  given 
in  vcr 

cuooiu'a  :  '  good  will/  '  good  pleasure,'  not  'desire/  which  the  word 
never  means. 

The  word  tiferia  means  'good  pleasure'  either  (i)  in  relation  to  oneself 
when  it  comes  to  mean  'contentment,'  Eoclns.  xxix.  a  3  1*1  *<i«w  «d  pt-,a\v 
«ido«.ay  *X«  :  ">•  •'  4p*K<»"'  "p»K°wn  i*Be«i.r  :  a  Thess. 

i    i  t  ml  wAijjwop  raw  «tao«iar  dto*»gii»fi  *d  l^yor  vi<rr««r  /r  «i-r<i,. 
Sol.  xri  la:  or  (^  in  relation  to  others,  'good  will,'  '  bencrolcnce,1  Ecclns. 
I  rf  ,Mo*w,  if  fv*o«'?  <Uc^r  .  A*  &a  ^Mror  *o2 

I**,  TiKJt  84  «a2  «.'  «Wo»or  Tor  \(*<TT«V  tqptoeov  this  sense  it 

came  to  be  used  almost  technically  of  the  good  will  of  God  to  mar 

<>r4  r^r  (Manor  rod  *Aft>ar»f  ouroC:   i.  9  «ard  ri)r  tv&oda*  avrov: 

lU^vc  interpretation  of  the  word  is  different  from  that  taken  by  Fritzsche 
(**/<*.),  Lft  (a.:  ind  Tholock 

(aJ  lot).    The  word  vcms  never  to  be  used  unqualified  to  mean  '  den  : 
instance  quoted  by  Lft.  does  not  sopp<  • 

Vj  oVi)9if  :  non  orassel  Paulus  si  absolute  rcprobati  tssent.     \ 

tis  owrqpi'ar  =  tra  a*6*  .    4    «.\  dxtdioaii^K   .. 


The  additions  4  before  »/*W  r>  e«Jr  and  i<rnr  before  «ft  ron^'ar  in 
the  IK.  are  giammatical  explanations.     '1  he  reading  rov  'lap 
may  have  been  mrreljr  an  explanatory  gU>«s,  or  may  hare  arisen  through  the 
*ene  being  the  beginning  of  a  lesson  in  church  ten 


X.  2-4.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  283 


2.  iioprupw  ydp.    This  gives  the  reason  for  St.  Paul's  grief. 
He  had  been  a  Jew  *fp«r<ror«p»f  frXwrqr  v*apx*»  (Gal.  i.  14;  cf. 
Acts  xxii.  3)  and  hence  he  knew  only  too  well  the  extent  both  of 
their  zeal  and  of  their  ignorance. 

f^Xor  e«ou.  Obj.  genitive  :  4  zeal  for  God  '  (not  as  in  s  Cor. 
xi.  a).  An  O.  T.  expression  :  Judith,  ix.  4  «'£?^'M<raj'  r^"  fiM*  *<*: 
Ps.  Ixviii  [Ixix]  ;  cxviii  [cxix].  1  39  6  ft\ot  roG  ouov  aov  :  i  Mace. 
ii.  58  ftXof  vopov.  Jo  wett  quotes  Philo,  Leg.  ad  Caium,  §  16  (Mang. 
ii.  562)  '  Ready  to  endure  death  like  immortality  rather  than  suffer 
the  neglect  of  the  least  of  their  national  customs.'  St.  Paul  selects 
the  very  word  which  the  Jew  himself  would  have  chosen  to  express 
just  that  zeal  on  which  more  than  anything  else  be  would  have 
prided  himself. 

HOT*  JiriyrtMnr.  The  Jews  were  destitute,  not  of  y»A<rir,  but  of 
the  higher  disciplined  knowledge,  of  the  true  moral  discernment 
by  which  they  might  learn  the  right  way.  «Wy»«*<nr  (see  Lft,  on 
Col.  i.  9,  to  whose  note  there  is  nothing  to  add)  means  a  higher 
and  more  perfect  knowledge,  and  hence  it  is  used  especially  and 
almost  technically  for  knowledge  of  God,  as  being  the  iiighe* 
and  most  perfect  form  :  see  on  i.  28  and  cf.  iii.  20. 

3.  dy^oouirfs  ydp.    This  verse  gives  the  reason  for  ov  <or* 
«iriyy«9iy,  and  the  antithesis  to  9  /*«V  «£oWa.    ayrooGrm  means  *  not 
knowing/  '  being  ignorant  of/  not  '  misunderstanding.'    St.  Paul 
here  states  simply  the  fact  of  the  ignorance  of  his  fellow-country- 
men ;  he  does  not  yet  consider  how  far  this  ignorance  is  culpable  : 
that  point  he  makes  evident  later  (w.  1  4  sq.). 

TV  TOO  6coG  8iKaioau»nr)y  .  .  .  TY)*  ft"".  St.  Paul  contrasts  two 
methods  of  righteousness.  On  the  one  side  there  was  the  righteous* 
ness  which  came  from  God,  and  was  to  be  sought  in  the  manner 
He  had  prescribed,  on  the  other  was  a  righteousness  which  they 
hoped  to  win  by  their  own  methods,  and  by  their  own  merit. 
Their  zeal  had  been  blind  and  misdirected.  In  their  eagerness  to 
pursue  after  the  latter,  they  had  remained  ignorant  of  and  had  not 
submitted  to  the  method  (as  will  be  shown,  a  much  easier  one) 
which  God  Himself  had  revealed. 

6ir«T<iYT}aa*.  Middle,  «  submit  themselves,'  cf.  Jas.  iv.  7  ;  i  Pet. 
ii.  13  ;  v.  5  ;  Winer,  §  xxxix,  a.  p.  327  E.T. 

The  second  &«ai<xn/n)v  after  Itiav  of  the  TR.  to  supported  by  K  only 
among  good  authorities,  and  by  TUch.  only  among  recent  editors;  it  u 
omitted  by  A  B  D  E  P,  Vnlg.  Boh.  Arm.,  end  many  Fathers. 


4.  WXos  y*P  "¥°°  "-T.X.  St.  Paul  has  in  the  preceding  verse 
been  contrasting  two  methods  of  obtaining  our<uo<rvnj;  one,  that 
ordained  by  God,  as  ix.  32  shows,  a  method  «V  wtW*»r  ;  the  other 
that  pursued  by  the  Jews,  a  method  &a  vd/iov.  The  latter  has  ceased 
to  be  possible,  as  St.  Paul  now  proves  by  showing  that,  by  the  coming 
of  Christ  Law  as  a  means  of  obtaining  righteousness  bad  been 


-V4  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [X.  4. 

brought  to  an  end.    The  yap  therefore  introduces  the  reason,  not 
for  the  actual  statement  of  u  the  Jews  had  not  submitted 

10  the  Divine  method,  but  for  what  was  implied — that  they  were 
wrong  in  so  doing. 

WXos  :  •  end/  '  termination/    Law  as  a  method  or  principle  of 
righteousness  had  been  done  away  with  in  Christ.    *C 
end  of  law  as  death  is  the  end  of  life/    Gif.  Cf.  Dem.  C.  Eubulidcn, 
1306,  25  carrot  woe  iv  «<m*»  cb4p«Mrotr  r«'Aot  rov  ftiov  dararor  (quoted 
by  Frl  and  by  many  writers  after  him). 

The  theological  idea  of  this  verse  is  much  expanded  in  later 
Epistles,  and  is  connected  definitely  with  the  death  of  Christ :  Eph. 
'He  abolished  in  His  flesh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of 
commandments  contained   in  ordinances ' ;    Col.  ii.   14  •  I . 
blotted  out  the  bond  written  in  ordinances  that  was  against  us, 
which  was  contrary  to  us :  and  He  bath  taken  it  out  of  the  way, 
nailing  it  to  the  cross.'    This  last  passage  is  paraphrased  by  Lft : 
'Then  and  there  [Christ]  cancelled  the  bo: 
against  us  (for  it  bore  our  own  signature),  the  bond  which  engaged 
us  to  fulfil  all  the  law  of  ordinances,  which  was  our  stern  ; 
tyrant.    Ay,  this  very  bond  hath  Christ  put  out  of  sight  fo; 
nailing  it  to  His  cross,  and  rending  it  with  His  body,  and  killing 
i  lis  death/    And  as  he  points  out,  a  wider  reference  must 
be  given  to  the  expression;  it  cannot  be  confined  to  the  Jews. 
The  ordinances,  although  primarily  referring  to  the  Mosaic  law, 
4  will  include  all  forms  of  positive  decrees  in  which  moral  or  social 
principles  are  embodied  or  religious  duties  defined ;  and  the  "  bond  " 
is  the  moral  assent  of  the  conscience  which  (as  it  were)  signs  and 
seals  the  obligation.' 

4  Although  the  moral  law  is  eternal,  yet  under  the  Gospel  it  loses 
its  form  of  external  law,  and  becomes  an  internal  principle  of  life/ 
Lid. 

»-ofiou  :  '  Law '  as  a  principle  (so  Weiss,  Oliramare,  Gif.),  not 
the  Law,  the  Mosaic  Law  (so  the  mass  of  commentators), 
not  possible  indeed  to  lay  stress  on  the  absence  of  the  article  here, 
because  the  article  being  dropped  before  r<Xn(  it  is  naturally  also 
dropped  before  yrfpov  (see  on  ii.  13),  and  although  St.  . 
have  written  TO  yap  r«Xot  roC  nrf/iou,  yet  this  would  not  exactly  have 
suited  his  purpose,  for  r«X<x  is  the  predicate  of  the  sentence  thrown 
forward  for  emphasis.  But  that  the  application  of  the  term  must 
be  general  U  shown  by  the  whole  drift  of  the  argument  (see  below), 
by  the  words  wowl  ry  wtirrtvotm  proving  that  the  passage  cannot  be 
confined  to  the  Jews,  and  cons  v,  and 

by  the  correct  reailin:  njr  ««  *Wv  (s<  note). 

The  interpretation  <  rsc  has  b  •  on  fused  owing 

to  incorrect  translations  c>:  :ilincnt,  aim),  the  confusion  of 

90fUH  and  6  ro/"*,  and  a  misapprehension  of  the  drift  of  the  passage. 


X.  4,  5.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  285 

That  the  version  given  above  is  correct  is  shown  (i)  by  the  mean- 
ing of  r«Xor.  It  is  quite  true  that  Christ  is  the  r«X«t»<7<r  of  the 
Law,  that  in  Him  what  was  typical  has  its  fulfilment;  but  WXoc 
never  means  rfXuWtr  (as  it  b  taken  here  by  Orig.  Erasmus,  ftc.). 
Again,  it  is  equally  true  that  the  Law  is  the  *<utay*yot  that  brings 
men  to  Christ,  and  that  Christ  can  be  described  as  the  object  or 
goal  of  the  Law  (as  the  passage  is  taken  by  Chrys^  other  fathers, 
and  Va.  amongst  English  commentators)  :  but  WXoc  is  only  used 
once  in  this  sense  in  St.  Paul's  Epbtles  (i  Tim.  i  5),  Xpumfe  would 
become  the  predicate,  rAor  would  then  require  the  article,  and  «>/*<* 
would  have  to  be  interpreted  of  the  Jewish  Law.  The  normal 
meaning  of  the  word,  and  the  correct  one  here,  b  that  of  '  termina- 
tion '  (so  Aug.  De  W.  Mcy.  Fri  Weiss,  Oltramare);  (a)  by  the 
meaning  of  *y*o*  (see  above).  Thb  b  interpreted  incorrectly  of  the 
Jewish  Law  only  by  almost  all  commentators  (Orig.  Chrys.  and 
all  the  Fathers,  Erasmus,  Calv.  De  W.  Mcy.  Va.);  (3)  by  the 
context.  Thb  verse  b  introduced  to  explain  ver.  3,  which  asserts 
that  of  two  methods  of  obtaining  righteousness  one  b  right,  the 
other  wrong.  St.  Paul  here  confirms  this  by  showing  that  the  one 
has  come  to  an  end  so  as  to  introduce  the  other.  It  b  his  object 
to  mark  the  contrast  between  the  two  methods  of  righteousness 
and  not  their  resemblance. 

But  the  misinterpretation  is  not  confined  to  this  verse,  it  colours 
the  interpretation  of  the  whole  passage.  It  b  not  St.  Paul's  aim  to 
show  that  the  Jews  ought  to  have  realized  their  mistake  because 
the  O.  T.  dispensation  pointed  to  Christ,  but  to  contrast  the  two 
methods.  It  is  only  later  (w.  14  f.)  that  he  shows  that  the  Jews 
had  had  full  opportunities  and  warnings. 

cif  &iKcuo<runr)p  varrl  TW  morcuorn  :  'so  that  bueatowin)  may  come 
to  everyone  that  believes/  'so  that  everyone  by  believing  may 

Obtain 


Omni  trtJtnti,  tract  atur  ri  crtdenti  T.  5  »q.,  ri  omni  v.  II  sq.     warn, 
0m  Hi  €X  ittdeuii  tt  stntihu.    Beng. 

6-10.  St.  Paul  proceeds  to  describe  the  two  modes  of  obtaining 
tttatoaivrj  in  language  drawn  from  the  O.  T.,  which  had  become 
proverbial. 

6.  M**njs  yap  YP<*+"  "-T.X.  Taken  from  Lev.  xviii.  5,  which  b 
quoted  also  in  Gal.  iii.  1  2.  The  original  (A  *ot^rav  a«4p«vof  ftrtnu 
•V  avroic)  is  slightly  modified  to  suit  the  grammar  of  this  passage, 
TT)»  dtxaMxrvn?*  rq»  «'«  w^ou  being  made  the  object  of  vot^ac.  St.  Paul 
quotes  the  words  to  mean  that  the  condition  of  obtaining  life  by 
law  is  that  of  fulfilment,  a  condition  which  in  contrast  to  the  other 
method  described  immediately  afterwards  is  hard,  if  not  im- 
possible. On  this  difficulty  of  obeying  the  law  be  has  laid  *••• 
again  and  again  in  the  first  pan  of  the  Epistle,  and  it  is  this 


286  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [X.  5-8. 

that  he  means  by  ro»  »6>o»  r«r  «WoX6r  in  Eph.  il    15  (quoted 
above). 

IwrcTcu :  shall  obtain  life  in  its  deepest  sense  both  here  and 
hereafter  (sec  pp.  180,  196). 

There  ire  a  nnmber  of  mull  variations  in  the  text  of  this  verse,    (i)  Sri 
b  pUoed  before  TT>,  8,«o<o<nVip  by  K*  A  D*,  Vnlg.  Hon.,  Orig.-lr 

.  Chrys.  Thdrt.  &c.     (a)  I*  r<W 


rov  r<W  by  the  mass  of  later  authorities.     (3)  6  trocar  is 
read  without  any  addition  by  K«  A  D  E,  Vul,  aura  it  added  by 

B  F  G  K  L  P  &c.  Syrr.,  Chrys.  Thdrt.  Ac.,  tarn  by  d  "e  f.    (4)  «£i^«rot  is 


B.  by  F  G,  Chrys.    (5)  Jr  a£r$  is  read  by  K  A  B  mimuf.  fauf.t  Vulg.  Bob, 
Orig.-laU  4r  a1n«  I  L  P  Ac.  Syrr,  Chrys.  Thdrt.  Ac. 

The  original,  text  was  on  rV  &«<uo<rvn7r  rV  /*  r^fuw  6  »o.»7<rat  ^b^pmof 
4r  a£rj>.     The  alteration  of  ovrd  .  .  .  avrott  came  from  a  dr 


make  the  passage  correspond  with  the  LXX.  or  Gal.  iii.  la  (hence  the 
omission  of  Jrij^nrot),  and  this  necessitated  a  change  in  the  position  of  on. 
rov  vopov  arose  from  an  early  misinterpretation.  The  mixr<l  text  of  H  fpa<f»t 

«U-T$  and 


of  D  7p»^«i  Sri  r^r  &«04<xri/n7r  r^r  <«  rov  ro/tov  i  votijacu  drQfxuvo.  . 
4r  avroTi  are  curious,  bat  help  to  support  K  A  Vulg.  Bob. 

6-8.  The  language  of  St.  Paul  in  these  verses  is  based  upon  the 
I  NX  of  Deut  xxz.  11-14.    Moses  is  enumerating  the  blessings  of 
Israel  if  they  keep  his  law  :  '  if  thou  shall  obey  the  voice 
Lord  thy  God,  to  keep  His  commandments  and  His  statutes 
are  written  in  this  book  of  the  law;  if  thou  turn  unto  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul  '  ;  he  then  goes  on 
(the  RV.  translation  is  here  modified  to  suit  tl.  or  this 

commandment  which  I  command  thec  this  day,  it  is  not  to 
for  thec,  nor  is  it  far  from  thee.     u  Not  a  above]  . 

Who  shall  go  up  for  us  into  htaven  [and  receive  it  f<  • 
heard  of  it  we  shall  do  it  ?    u  Nor  is  it  beyond  the  sea], 
Who  will  go  ovtr  to  the  further  side  of  the  sfd/^r  us,  [and  rec 
for  us,  and  make  it  heard  by  us,  and  we  shall  do  it  ?  j     u  But  the 
word  is  very  nigh  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  [and  in  thy 
hands,  that  thou  mayest  do  ill.'    The  Apostle  selects  a 
out  of  this  passage  and  uses  them  to  describe  the  characteristics  of 
the  new  righteousness  by  faith  as  he  conceives  it. 

It  U  important  to  notice  the  very  numerous  variations  between  the 
quotation  and  the  LXX.  In  the  first  place  only  a  few  phrases  are 
selected  :  the  portions  not  quoted  are  enclosed  in  brackets  in  the  translation 
given  above.  Then  in  those  sentences  that  are  quoted  there  are  very  con- 
siderable changes:  (i)  for  the  A*Y<W  of  t  .ich  U  an  ungrammatical 

translation  of  the  Hebrew,  and  :  •-•!  ^ 

tivpi  •>  rp  xafAq  aov  from  Dent  >  •  .n*  tit 

,or  rip  OaXaoffiji  it  substituted  TII  *ara;  •  »•  d/tarcror  in  order 

to  make  the  paiaage  better  suit  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  quoted  :  (3)  in 

t  The  Bohairic  Version  is  quoted  incorrectly  in  support  of  this  reading. 
The  taut  read  there  does  not  imply  a  variant,  but  was  demanded  by  tb 
of  the  language. 


X.  6.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  287 

ver.  8  the  word*  o+Upa  . . .  Ir  nut  x«/»(  «o»  axe  omitted  (ibis  agree*  with 
the  Hebrew;,  as  also  wouiV  aurl. 

6.  ^  W  JK  Turret*  oncaioauVrj  oJrv  Xrfyti.     It  is  noticeable  that 

ul  does  not  introduce  these  words  on  the  authority  of  Scripture 

(as  vcr.  1 1),  nor  on  the  authority  of  Moses  (as  ver.  5),  but  merely 

as  a  declaration  of  righteousness  in  its  own  nature.    On   the 

personification  compare  that  of  Wisdom  in  Prov.  i.  ao;  L!L  xi.  49 ; 

Of  jropcwAijtric  Heb.  xii.  5. 

TI'S  dfap^acrai  cts  ror  ooparoV ;  In  the  original  passage  these 
words  mean :  The  law  which  I  command  you  is  not  far  off,  it  is 
not  in  heaven,  so  that  you  will  have  to  ask,  Who  will  go  up  to  bring 
it  down  for  us  ?  it  is  very  near  and  not  hard  to  attain.  St.  Paul 
uses  the  same  words  to  express  exactly  the  same  idea,  but  with 
a  completely  different  application.  *  The  Gospel  as  opposed  to 
the  Law  is  not  difficult  or  hard  to  attain  to.' 

TOUT*  «<m,  Xpioro*  KaTayay*!*' :  '  that  is  to  say,  to  bring  Christ 
down.'  Just  as  Moses  had  said  that  there  was  no  need  for  anyone 
to  go  up  into  heaven  to  bring  down  the  law,  so  it  is  true — far  more 
true  indeed— to  say  that  there  is  no  need  to  go  into  heaven  to 
down  the  object  of  faith  and  source  of  righteousness— Christ 
Christ  has  become  man  and  dwelt  among  us.  Faith  if  not  a 
difficult  matter  since  Christ  has  come. 

The  interpretations  suggested  of  this  and  the  following  verses 
have  been  very  numerous,  rowr  tort*  occurs  three  times  in  this 
passage,  and  we  must  give  it  the  same  force  in  each  place. 
In  the  third  instance  (ver.  8)  it  is  used  to  give  a  meaning  or 
explanation  to  the  word  r&  ftpa,  which  occurs  in  the  quotation ;  it 
introduces  in  fact  what  would  be  technically  known  as  a  '  M  id  rash ' 
on  the  text  quoted  (so  Mey.  Lid.  Lips,  and  apparently  Va.  Gif.). 
That  is  the  meaning  with  which  the  phrase  has  been  used  in 
ix.  8,  and  is  also  the  meaning  which  it  must  have  here.  The 
infinitive  cannot  be  dependent  on  iW  ?<m  (for  in  all  the  passages 
the  phrase  is  used  the  words  that  follow  it  are  in  the  same 
construction  as  the  words  that  precede),  but  is  dependent  on 
am&f}(T<Tai  which  it  explains :  so  Xen.  Mem.  I.  v.  a  (Goodwin,  Greek 
Moods  and  Tenses^  §  97)  «« /SovXm/M&i  r$  <mrp<+ai  f>  wal&at  iratotMrat. 
9  XPWurra  ouMrtMrm.  In  this  and  similar  cases  it  is  not  necessary  to 
emphasize  strongly  the  idea  of  purpose  as  do  Fri.  (nempt  ul  Christum 
in  orbem  tcrrarum  deducat]  and  Lips,  (ndmlich  um  Christum  hcrabw- 
holcn\  the  infinitive  is  rather  epexegetical  (so  apparently  Va.  Gif.). 
The  LXX  here  reads  m  baftfpmu  . .  .  *ol  X^rtu ;  the  construction 
is  changed  because  rovr*  <<m»  ml  nard^i  would  hardly  have  been 
clear. 

Of  other  interpretations,  some  do  not  suit  the  grammar.  •  That 
would  be  the  same  thing  as  to  say  Who  will  bring  Christ  down  ? ' 
would  require  m  rard^c  rfo  Xpurrdr.  Weiss  translates  •  that  would 


2SS  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA"  [X.  6-8. 

be  the  same  thing  as  to  bring  Christ  down/  apparently  making 
the  infinitive  dependent  on  rovr  fcn-ir.     Other 

s  do  not  suit  the  context:  'Do  not  attempt  g: 
only  believe  ' :  or,  'Do  not  waver  and  ask,  Is  Christ  really  come ? 

elicve.'    The  object  of  the  passage  is  not  to  exhort  to  faith 
or  to  show  the  necessity  of  faith — that  has  been  done  in  th< 
part  of  the  Epistle ;  but  to  prove  that  the  method  of  faith  was  one 

.  for  several  reasons,  should  not  have  been  ignored  and  left 
on  one  side  by  the  Jews. 

7.  ^.  Ti's  Kara^acToi  .  .  .  foayayw :    '  nor  is  it  necessary  to 
search  the  depth,  since  Christ  is  risen  from  the  dead.'     Si 
substitutes  rit  Karaftfiatiat  tit  r^r  ZJvaaov  for  the  more  ordin 
lunripaoit  fa*  tit  TO  tr.Vnv  r^r  dtiXaffo^r,  both  because  it  makes  a 
more  suitable  contrast  to  the  first  part  of  the  sentence,  and  because 
it  harmonizes  better  with  the  figurative  meaning  he  wishes  to  draw 
from  it.    a$v<r<ros  in  the  O.  T.  meant  originally  the  •  deep  sea 

•  leep'  or  'the  depths  of  the  sea,   Ps.  26  a*o3a/- 

rovaty  «*>t  TM*  ovpaMM>,  cm  rara/fcitroixn*  ««r  TUV  a&aauv,  and  the  deep 
places  Of  the  earth,  Ps.  1XX  (Ixxi).   2O  «ol  «'«  fir  aflixrouv  T^C  y'v 

voXtv  drqyayis  pt,  and  so  had  come  to  mean  Tartarus  or  the  Lower 
World;  rl»  &  rdpropov  ri)r  aSvaanv  Job.  xli.  23,  where  the  reference 
to  raprapot  is  due  to  the  I. XX  ;  c!  I  :r.  rhoen.  1632  (1605)  raprfyav 
a$va<ra  xaapara.  Elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  it  is  so  used  of  the  abode 
of  demons  (Luke  viii.  31)  and  the  place  of  torment  (Rev. 
:  l-mblc  association  of  the  word  made  it  V  I '.nils 

purpose;    it  kept  up  the  antithesis  of  the  origii.  :   also 

enabled  him  to  apply  the  passage  figuratively  to  the  Resurrection  of 
Christ  after  His  human  soul  had  gone  down  into  Hades. 

On  the  dtscensus  ad  inferos,  which  is  here  referred  to  in  indefinite 
and  untechnical  language,  cf.  Acts  ii.  27  ;  i  Peter  i; 
Lft.  on  Ign.  Magn.  ix ;  see  also  Swete,  Apost.-crctd,  p.  57  ff. 

8.  TO  j^pa  TTJS  more**.     '  The  message,  the  subject  of  wl. 

:  *umr  does  not  mean  ' ;  the  Gospel  message ' 

(Oltramare),  but,  as  elsewhere  in  this  chapter,  faith 
of  righteousness.     Nor  does  the  phrase  mean  the  Gospel  message 

appeals  to  faith  in  man  (Lul.).  l»ut  the  Gospel 

fa.th.  cf.  x.  17.      On  fapa  cf.  I  Peter  i.  25  ri  ft«  fi^   Kvpiov  |M*m 
tit  rir  oiwra.     rovro  61  ui  TO  c tayyt Xii7<:> 

S    «t|poaaop«K.      This    gives   the    reason    why   the    n< 

ousness  is  easy  to  attain,  being  as  it  is  brought  home  to 
one,  and  suggests  a  thou  Corked  out  more  fully  in 

'4  f- 

sense  does  St.  Paul  use  the  O.  T.  in  vv.  6-8  ?    The 
difficulty  is  this.     In  the  O.  T.  the  words  are  used  by  Moses  of 
ow  can  St.  Paul  use  them  of  the  Gospel  as  agaii. 


X.  8.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF   ISRAEL  a8o, 

The  following  considerations  will  suggest  the  answer  to  be  given : 

(1)  The  context  of  the  passage  shows  that  there  is  no  stress 
laid  on  the  fact  that  the  O.  T.  is  being  quoted.    The  object  of  the 
argument  is  to  describe  the  characteristics  of  ducmoovM}  »  mW««r, 
not  to  show  how  it  can  be  proved  from  the  O.  T. 

(2)  The  Apostle  carefully  and  pointedly  avoids  appealing  to 
Scripture,  altering  his  mode  of  citation  from  that  employed  in  the 
previous  verse.     Mosen  non  dial,  quta  sfnsum  Mom  mm  stquitur, 
s(d  tantum  ab  illo  verba  mu/uatur,  Vatablus,  ap.  Crit.  Sacr.  ad  loc. 

(3)  The  quotation  is  singularly  inexact.    An  ordinary  reader 
fairly  well  acquainted  with  the  O.  T.  would  feel  that  the  language- 
had  a  familiar  rincj,  but  could  not  count  it  as  a  quotation. 

(4)  The  words  had  certainly  become  proverbial,  and  many 
instances  of  them  so  used  have  been  quoted.    Philo,  Quod  omn. 
prod.  lib.  §  10  (quoted  by  Gilford),  'And  yet  what  need  is  there 
cither  of  long  journeys  over  the  land,  or  of  long  voyages  for  the 
sake  of  investigating  and  seeking  out  virtue,  the  roots  of  which  the 
Creator  has  laid  not  at  any  great  distance,  but  so  near,  as  the  wise 
law-giver  of  the  Jews  says,  "  They  are  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy 
heart,  and  in  thy  hands,"  intimating  by  these  figurative  expressions 
the  words  and  actions  and  designs  of  men  ? '    Bava  Mezia,  f.  94.  i 
(quoted   by  Wetstein)   Si  quis  dixerit  mulitri,  Si  adsctnderis  in 
firmamentum,  out  descender  is  in  abyssum,  eris  mihi  desponsata,  haec 
conditio  frustranea  est ;  4  Ezra  iv.  8  dicebas  mihi fortassis  :  In  abys- 
sum  non  descendi,  neque  in  inftrnum  ad  hue,  neqiu  in  cot/is  unquam 
ascendi;   Banich  iii.  29,  30  ris  dW3»?  m  rir  olpavov  «<u  «Ao3«»  awrijr, 
icai  «car«/3i/3a<r«v  avrtftf  «'<  TUP  jfC/xAwr ;  rt'r  SU'&T)  iripa*  rfjt  flaAmrcnjr  «ai 

<tp<v  avni»  (of  Wisdom) ;  Jubilees  xxiv.  32  •  For  even  if  he  had 
ascended  to  heaven,  they  would  bring  him  down  from  there  . .  . 
and  even  if  he  descends  into  Shedl,  there  too  shall  his  judgement 
be  great ' ;  cp.  also  Amos  ix.  2. 

(5)  St.  Paul  certainly  elsewhere  uses  the  words  of  Scripture  in 
order  to  express  his  meaning  in  familiar  language,  cf.  ver.  18  ;  xi.  i. 

For  these  reasons  it  seems  probable  that  here  the  Apostle  does 
not  intend  to  base  any  argument  on  the  quotation  from  the  O.  T., 
but  only  selects  the  language  as  being  familiar,  suitable,  and  pro- 
verbial, in  order  to  express  what  he  wishes  to  say. 

It  is  not  necessary  therefore  to  consider  that  St.  Paul  is  interpret- 
ing the  passage  of  Christ  by  Rabbinical  methods  (with  Mey.  Lid. 
and  others),  nor  to  see  in  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  a  prophecy 
of  the  Gospel  (Fri.)  or  a  reference  to  the  Messiah,  which  is  certainly 
not  the  primary  meaning.  But  when  we  have  once  realized  that  no 
argument  is  based  on  the  use  of  the  O.  T.,  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  use  of  its  language  is  without  motive.  Not  only  has  it  a 
great  rhetorical  value,  as  Chrysostom  sees  with  an  orator's  instinct : 
4  he  uses  the  words  which  are  found  in  the  O.  T.,  being  always  at 

u 


290  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [X.  8-12. 

pains  to  keep  quite  clear  of  the  charges  of  love  of  novelties  ;\ 
opposition  to  it';  but  also  there  is  to  St.  Paul  a  corrcspoi 
between  the  O.  T.  and  N.  T.  :  the  true  creed  is  simj 
Law  on  its  spiritual  side  or  Gospel  (cf.  Aug.  Dt  Nature 
§83). 

9.  STI  lay  6poXoY^<n)f  K.r.X.      This  verse  corresponds  to  and 
applies  the  preceding  verse.    The  subject  of  the  fiita  wl. 
preached  by  the  Apostles  is  the  person  of  Christ  and  the  truth 

s  Resurrection.     Kupu*  refers  to  ver.  6,  the  K 
(*ri  6  0*fo  avr6*  #y"po  «  rf«p*»»)  to  ver.  7.    The  power  of  ' 
lies  in  these  two  facts,  namely  His  In-  .ind  His  Resur- 

rection, His  Divine  nature  and  His  triumph  over  death. 
is  demanded  of  a  Christian   is  the  outward  confession  and  the 
inward  belief  in  Him,  and  these  sum  up  the  conditions  necessary 
for  salvation. 


The  ordinary  reading  in  this  rene  is  Jo,  J/ioXoytap  ir  rf  rrJparf  oov 
Kv/xor  'Irjaoiv,  for  which  \V1I.  substitute  rd  fifta  iv  T£  arvpori  009  6n 
Kv/xot  lipot*.  rd  fit*  has  the  authority  of  1  and  perhaps 

Cyril,  5ri  K.  X  of  B,  Boh.,  Cl«n.-Alex.  and  Cyril  a/5.  The  agreement  in 
the  one  case  of  B  and  Boh.,  in  the  other  of  B  and  Clem.-  Alex,  against  nearly 
all  the  other  authorities  is  noticeable. 

10.  Kapoia  yap  WKTTCU'CTCU  K.T.X.     St.  Paul  explains  and  brings 
out  more  fully  the  application  of  the  words  he  has  la 
beginning  of  the  Christian  life  has  two  sides  :  internally  it  is  the 
change  of  heart  which  faith  implies  ;  this  leads  to  rightcor. 
the  position  of  acceptance  before  God  :  externally  it  implies  the 
'  confession  of  Christ  crucified  '  made  in  baptism,  a; 

puts  a  man  into  the  path  by  which  in  the  end  he  attains  sal\ 
he  becomes  tr*(6ntt».t. 

n    Xi'yci  YAP  T>|  Ypa^  KT.X.    Quoted  from  Is.  xxviii.  16  (see 
above,  ix.  33)  with  the  addition  of  war  to  bring  out  the  point  on 
.  emphasis  is  to  be  laid.  introduces  a  proof  from 

Scripture  of  the  statement  made  in  the  previous  verse  that  faith  is 
the  condition  of  salvation,  and  at  the  same  time  makes  it  the 
occasion  of  introducing  the  second  point  in  the  argument,  namely, 
the  in  trader  of  this  new  method  of  obtaining  righteous- 


In  ver   4  he  has  explained  '  Id  system  of 

has  been  done  away  with  in  Christ  to  make  way  for  a  new 
one  which  has  two  characteristics :  (i)U  rrl<m*n:  this  has 

been  treated  in  w.   5-10;   (2)  that  it  is  universal:  this  he  now 
proceeds  to  develope. 

12     o*  Y^P  <<rri    &ca<rroX*)  'lou&mou   TC    *a!  'EXX^^os. 
first  explains  the  meaning  of  this  statement,  namely,  the  universal 
character  of  the  Gospel,  by  making  it  clear  that  it  is  the  sole 
method  for  Jews  as  well  as  for  Gentiles.   This  was  both  a  warning 


X.  12,  13.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  291 

and  a  consolation  for  the  Jews.  A  warning  if  they  thought  that, 
in  spite  of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  they  might  seek  salvation 
in  their  own  way ;  a  consolation  it  once  they  realized  the  burden 
of  the  law  and  that  they  might  be  freed  from  it  The  Jews  have 
in  this  relation  no  special  privileges  (cf.  L  16;  ii.  9,  10 ;  iii.  9; 
i  Cor.  i.  24  ;  xii.  13;  Gal.  iii.  28;  Col.  iii.  n);  they  must  obtain 
a<*aioffM*|  by  the  same  methods  and  on  the  same  conditions  as  the 
Gentiles.  This  St.  Paul  has  already  proved  on  the  ground  that 
they  equally  with  the  Gentiles  have  sinned  (iil  23).  He  now 
deduces  it  from  the  nature  and  the  work  of  the  Lord. 

A  YAP  °"T*«  Kupios  wdm*,  cf.  i  Cor.  xil  5.  This  gives  the 
reason  for  the  similarity  of  method  for  all  alike :'  it  is  the  same 
Lord  who  redeemed  all  mankind  alike,  and  conferred  upon  all  alike 
such  wealth  of  spiritual  blessings/  It  is  better  to  take  Kvpux  wr** 
as  predicate  for  it  contains  the  point  of  the  sentence, '  The  same 
Lord  is  Lord  of  all '  (so  the  RV.). 

must  clearly  refer  to  Christ,  cf.  w.  9,  n.    He  is  called 
Acts  x.  36,  and  cf.  ix.  5,  and  Phil.  ii.  10,  1 1. 
•  abounding  in  spiritual  wealth/  cf.  esp.  Eph.  iii.  8 
rolt  !&v*at»  <i-ayy<\i(ra(T&n  rb  aV«£«xna<rro»»  irAovrof  rou  XpttrroC. 

TOWS  liriicaXoup/rovs  aurtV  riruraAcur&u  TO*  Kvpior,  or  more  COr- 
rectly  «WaA«rcr0m  ri  o»/«i  TOV  Kvpiov,  is  the  habitual  LXX  transla- 
tion of  a  common  Hebrew  formula.  From  the  habit  of  beginning 
addresses  to  a  deity  by  mentioning  his  name,  it  became  a  tech- 
nical expression  for  the  suppliant  to  a  god,  and  a  designation 
of  his  worshippers.  Hence  the  Israelites  were  ol  «VucaAoiV««*  TO» 
Kvptoy  or  TO  oifofta  Kvpiov.  They  were  in  fact  specially  distinguished 
as  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah.  It  becomes  therefore  very  signifi- 
cant when  we  find  just  this  expression  used  of  the  Christians  as 
the  worshippers  of  Christ,  6  Kvpwt,  in  order  to  designate  them  as 
apart  from  all  others,  cf.  i  Cor.  i.  2  ow  ran  rot*  AruraAov^uWi*  ri 
o*ofia  TOW  Kvpiov  i?p«r  ^iiproG  Xpumv.  There  is  a  treatise  on  the 
subject  by  A.  Seeberg,  Die  Anbthtng  des  Herrn  bet  PauJus,  Riga, 
1891,  see  especially  pp.  38,  43-46. 

13.  was  Y^P  fe  &"  <vtKaX/<rr)T<u.  St.  Paul  sums  up  and  clenches 
his  argument  by  the  quotation  of  a  well-known  passage  of  Scripture, 
Joel  ii.  32  (the  quotation  agrees  with  both  the  LXX  and  the  Hebrew 
texts).  The  original  passage  refers  to  the  prophetic  conception  of 
the  '  day  of  the  Lord/  '  The  sun  shall  be  turned  into  darkness, 
and  the  moon  into  blood,  before  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the 
Lord  come/  At  that  time  '  whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord '  shall  be  saved.  This  salvation  (<r«^<r«rai,  cf.  ver.  9  u«ii>fc 
10  <7«*Va»),  the  Jewish  expectation  of  safety  in  the  Messianic 
kingdom  when  the  end  comes,  is  used  of  that  Christian  salvation 
which  is  the  spiritual  fulfilment  of  Jewish  prophecy. 

Kupiou.    The  term  Kvptot  is  applied  to  Christ  by  St.  Paul  in 
u  a 


29*  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [X  14-21. 

quotations  from  the  O.  T.  in  2  Thess.  i.  9;  i  Cor.  ii.  16;  x.  21, 

1 6,  and  probably  in  other  passages, 
quotation,  besides  concluding  the  argument  of 
suggests  the  thought  which  is  the  transition  to  the  next  point  dis- 
cussed—the opportunities  offered  to  all  of  hearing  this  message. 


ISRAELS  UNBELIEF  NOT  EXCUSED  BY  WANT  OF 
OPPORTUNI 

X.  14-21.   This  unbelief  on  the  part  of  Israel  was  not 
owing  to  want  of  knowledge.     Fully  accredited  messe»L 
such  a  body  as  is  necessary  for  preaching  and  for  / . 
kave  announced  the  Gospel.     There  is  no  land  but  has  / 
the  voices  of  the  Evangelical  preachers  (w.  14-18).    Nor 
was  it  owing  to  want  of  understanding.    Their  own  Prophets 
warned  them   that  it  was  through  disobedience  tlm: 
would  reject  God's  message  (vv.  19-21). 

14  All  then  that  is  required  for  salvation  is  sincerely  and  genuinely 
to  call  on  the  Lord.    But  there  are  conditions  prelimii 
which  are  necessary ;  perhaps  it  may  be  urged,  that  these  h  . 
been  fulfilled.  Let  us  consider  what  these  conditions  are.     I : 
is  to  call  on  Jesus  he  must  have  faith  in  Him  ;  to  obtain  faith  it  is 
necessary  that  he  must  hear  the  call ;    that  again  impli< 
heralds  must  have  been  sent  forth  to  proclaim  this  call. 
heralds  imply  a  commission.    Have  these  conditions  been  ful 
Yes.   Duly  authorized  messengers  have  preached  the  Gospel, 
fact  may  be  stated  in  the  words  of  the  Prophet  Isaiah  (lii.  7)  de- 
scribing the  welcome  approach  of  the  messengers  who  brin. 
of  the  return  from  captivity— that  great  type  of  the  other,  Messianic, 
ranee:  '  How  beautiful  are  the  feet  of  tl.  .good 

tidings.' 

*  But  it  may  be  urged,  in  sj  i  c  of  this,  all  did  not  give  It  a 
patient  and  submissi  -lots  not  imply  that  the 

message  has  not  bet  i  <  t  Isaiah  in  the  same  passage 

h  he  foretold  the  Apostolic  message,  spoke  also  of  t 
creduli  the  message  is  received  i  !,  who 

hath  believed  our  message 
me  were  saying  a  moment  ago :  Faith  can  only  come  from  the 


X.  14-21.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  293 

message  heard,  and  the  message  heard  implies  the  message  sent— 
the  message,  that  is,  about  Chi 

"  But  it  may  be  alleged :  We  grant  it  was  preached,  but  that 
does  not  prove  that  Israel  heard  it.  Is  that  possible,  when  in  the 
words  of  Psalm  xix  '  the  voices  of  God's  messengers  went  forth 
into  all  lands,  and  their  words  to  the  limits  of  the  known  world  ? ' 

'•  Or  another  excuse :  *  Israel  heard  but  did  not  understand.' 
Can  you  say  that  of  Israel  ?  From  the  very  beginning  of  its  history 
a  long  succession  of  its  Prophets  foretold  the  Divine  scheme. 
Moses,  to  begin  with,  wrote  (Deut  xxxii.  ai)  'I  will  excite  you 
to  jealousy  at  a  nation  outside  the  pale,  that  does  not  count  as  a 
nation  at  all.  I  will  rouse  your  anger  at  seeing  yourselves  out- 
stripped by  a  nation  whom  you  regard  as  possessing  no  intelligence 
for  the  things  of  religion/  "  Isaiah  too  was  full  of  boldness.  In 
the  face  of  his  fellow-countrymen  he  asserted  (Ixv.  i )  that  God's 
mercies  should  be  gained  by  those  who  had  not  striven  after  them 
(the  Gentiles).  u  And  then  he  turns  round  to  Israel  and  says  that 
although  God  had  never  ceased  stretching  out  His  arms  to  them 
with  all  the  tenderness  of  a  mother,  they  had  received  His  call  with 
disobedience,  and  His  message  with  criticism  and  contradiction. 
The  Jews  have  fallen,  not  because  of  God's  unfaithfulness  or  in- 
justice,  not  because  of  want  of  opportunity,  but  because  they  are  a 
rebellious  people —  a  people  who  refuse  to  be  taught,  who  choose 
their  own  way,  who  cleave  to  that  way  in  spite  of  every  warning 
and  of  every  message. 

14-21.  This  section  seems  to  be  arranged  on  the  plan  of  sug- 
gesting a  series  of  difficulties,  and  giving  short  decisive  answers  to 
each  :  (i)  '  But  how  can  men  believe  the  Gospel  unless  it  has  been 
fully  preached  ? '  (v.  14).  Ansuxr.  '  It  has  been  preached  as  Isaiah 
foretold*  (ver.  15).  (a)  'Yet,  all  have  not  accepted  it'  (ver.  i6V, 
Ansuvr.  'That  does  not  prove  that  it  was  not  preached.  Isaiah 
foretold  also  this  neglect  of  the  message'  (w.  16,  17).  (3)  '  But 
perhaps  the  Jews  did  not  hear*  (v.  18).  Answer.  'Impossible. 
The  Gospel  has  been  preached  even-where/  (4)  'But  perhaps 
they  did  not  understand'  (ver.  19).  Answer.  'That  again  is  im- 
possible. The  Gentiles,  a  people  without  any  real  knowledge, 
have  understood.  The  real  fact  is  they  were  a  disobedient,  self- 
willed  people.'  The  object  is  to  fix  the  guilt  of  the  Jews  by  re- 
moving every  defence  which  might  be  made  on  the  ground  of  want 
of  opportunities. 


21,4  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [X.  14.  16. 

'The  passage  which  follow*  (14-11)  is  in  style  one  of  the  most  obscure 
portions  of  the  Epistle.'  This  statement  of  Jowett's  U  baldly  exaggerated. 
•  The  obscurity  arises,'  as  be  proceeds  to  point  oat,  '  from  the  argument 
being  founded  on  passages  of  the  Old  Testament'  These  are  quoted  without 
explanation,  and  without  their  relation  to  the  argument  being  dearly 
out.  The  first  difficulty  is  to  know  where  to  make  a  divi- 


the  chapter.  Some  put  it  after  rer.  u  (so  Go.)  making  vv.  11-21  a  proof 
of  the  extension  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles ;  some  alter  rcr.  13  (Chrys. 
Weiss,  Oltr.  Gif.) ;  some  after  ver.  15  (l.«  L  \\  II.  I  ;  The  decision  of 
the  question  will  always  depend  on  the  opinion  formed  of  the  drift  of  the 
passage,  but  we  are  not  without  structural  ••**•!""•*  It  may  be  noticed 
throughout  these  chapters  that  each  succeeding  paragraph  U  introduced  by 
a  question  with  the  particle  o2r:  to  ix.  14  ri  ojr  JpovjMv;  30;  xi.  i.  n. 
And  this  teems  to  arise  from  the  meaning  of  the  particle :  it  turns  up  the 
conclusion  of  the 'preceding  paragraph  as  an  introduction  to  a  farther  step  in 
the  argument  This  meaning  wil  1  exactly  suit  the  passage  under  consideration . 
•  The  condition  of  salvation  is  to  call  on  the  Lord ' — that  is  the  conclusion 
of  the  last  section :  then  the  Apostle  goes  on,  •  if  this  be  so,  what  then  (ofcO 
are  the  conditions  necessary  for  attaining  it,  and  have  they  been  ful 
the  words  forming  a  suitable  introduction  to  the  next  stage  in  the  argument. 
This  use  of  oJJr  to  introduce  a  new  paragraph  is  very  common  in  S»t 
See  especially  Rom.  T.  1,  %L  i,  xii.  i  ;  Eph.  iv.  i ;  i  Tim 
besides  other  less  striking  instances.  It  may  be  noticed  that  it  is  not  easy 
to  understand  the  principle  on  which  \VH.  have  divided  the  text  of  these 
chapters,  making  no  break  at  all  at  ix.  29,  beginning  a  new  paragraph  at 
chap,  x,  making  a  break  here  at  ver.  15,  making  only  a  slight  break  at 
chap,  xi,  and  starting  a  new  paragraph  at  ver.  13  of  that  chapter  at  what 
is  really  only  a  parenthetical  remark. 

X.  14,  15.  The  main  difficulty  of  these  verses  centres  rout, 
points :  With  what  object  are  they  introduced  ?   And  what  is  the 
quotation  from  Isaiah  intended  to  prove  ? 

1.  One  main  line  of  interpretation,  following  Calvin,  coi 

;c  words  are  introduced  to  justify  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
to  the  Gentiles ;  in  fact  to  support  the  mat  of  the  previou^ 
God  must  have  intended  His  Gospel  to  go  to  the  heathen,  for 
commissioned  ministry  (and  >  thinking  of  1 

been  sent  out  to  preat  h  i:.     The  quotation  then  follows  as  a 
ficalion  from  prophecy  of  the  ministry  to  the  Gentiles.     The  possi- 
bility of  adopting  such  an  interpretation  must  depend  partly  on  the 
view  taken  of  the  argument  of  the  whole  chapter  (see  the  (i 
Discussion  at  the  end),  but  in  any  case  the  logi  i  ion  is 

wron^  -ndedto^ 

written, '  Salvation  is  intended  for  Gentile  as  well  as  Jew,  for  God 
has  commissioned  II  *  to  preach  to 

:ig,  preaching  implies  faith,  faith  implies  worship, 
and  worship  salvation.    The  conversion  of  the  Gentiles 
necessary  result  of  the  existence  of  an  apostolatc  of  the  Gentiles.' 
!         1  be  seen  that  St.  Paul  puts  the  argument  exactly  in  the 
opposite  way,  in  a  manner  in  fact  in  which  he  couM  : 
this  conclusion. 

2.  Roman  Catholic   commentators,   followed  by   LidJon   and 


X.  14.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  295 

Gore,  consider  that  the  words  are  introduced  in  order  to  justify  an 
apostolic  or  authorized  ministry.  But  this  is  to  introduce  into  the 
passage  an  idea  which  is  quite  alien  to  it,  and  which  is  unnecessary 
for  the  argument 

3.  The  right  interpretation  of  the  whole  of  this  paragraph  seems  to 
be  that  of  Chrysostom.  The  Jews,  it  has  been  shown,  have  neglected 
God's  method  of  obtaining  righteousness;  but  in  order,  as  he  desires, 
to  convict  them  of  guilt  in  this  neglect,  St.  Paul  must  show  that  they 
have  had  the  opportunity  of  knowing  about  it,  that  their  ignorance 
(ayvooCrrff  ver.  3)  is  culpable.  He  therefore  begins  by  asking  what 
are  the  conditions  necessary  for  '  calling  upon  the  Lord  ? '  and  then 
shows  that  these  conditions  have  been  fulfilled.  There  may  still 
be  some  question  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  quotation,  (i)  It  may 
be  introduced  merely  as  corroborative  of  the  last  chain  in  the 
argument  (so  most  commentators).  This  need  of  a  commissioned 
ministry  corresponds  to  the  joy  and  delight  experienced  when  they 
arrive.  Or  better,  (2)  it  may  be  looked  upon  as  staling  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  conditions.  '  Yes,  and  they  have  come,  a  fact  that  no 
one  can  fail  to  recognize,  and  which  was  foretold  by  the  Prophet 
Isaiah/  So  Chrysostom,  who  sums  up  the  passage  thus :  '  If  the 
being  saved,  then,  came  of  calling  upon  Him,  and  calling  upon 
Him  from  believing,  and  believing  from  hearing,  and  hearing  from 
preaching,  and  preaching  from  being  sent,  and  if  they  were  sent, 
and  did  preach,  and  the  prophet  went  round  with  them  to  point 
them  out,  and  proclaim  them,  and  say  that  these  were  they  whom 
they  showed  of  so  many  ages  ago,  whose  feet  even  they  praised 
because  of  the  matter  of  their  preaching ;  then  it  is  quite  clear  that 
the  not  believing  was  their  own  fault  only.  And  that  because 
God's  part  had  been  fulfilled  completely.' 

14.  irws  ofr  cVutaXfokMTcu.  The  word  o£»,  as  often  in  St.  Paul, 
marks  a  stage  in  the  argument  'We  have  discovered  the  new 
u  of  salvation :  what  conditions  are  necessary  for  its  acceptance?' 
The  question  is  not  the  objection  of  an  adversary,  nor  merely 
rhetorical,  but  rather  deliberative  (see  Burton,  M.  and  T.  §  169): 
hence  the  subjunctive  (see  below)  is  more  suitable  than  the  future 
which  we  find  in  ix.  30.  The  subject  of  £rucaA«'<r»mu  is  implied  in 
w.  12,  13,  '  those  who  would  seek  this  new  method  of  salvation  by 
calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord/ 

In  this  < erics  of  questions  in  w.  14,  15  the  MSS.  vary  between  the  sub- 
junctive and  the  future.  Generally  the  authority  for  the  subjunctive  strongly 
preponderates :  JwoAiVwrroi  K  A  B  D  E  F  G,  wrtvcmnr  K  B  D  E  F  G  P, 
KTjpvtua*  KABDEKLP.  In  the  case  of  <U<**0ir  there  is  a  double 
variation.  K«  A*  (A  lattt)  B  and  some  minuscules  read  AroArwriy ;  N 
G  K  P  and  some  minuscules  read  <Lrov*orra4 ;  L  etc,  Clem.-Alex.  Ath. 
Chrys.  «U.  Thcodrt.  and  the  TR.  read  d*ovoov<r<.  Here  however  the  double 
variant  makes  the  subjunctive  almost  certain.  Although  the  form  d*owiown 
is  possible  in  N.T.  Greek,  it  is  most  improbable  that  it  should  have  arisen  as 


2 1/>  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [X.  ! 

a  corruption  from  Arowrorrai,  and  it  it  too  weakly  supported  to  be  the 


correct  reading.  Arofovmr,  which  will  explain  both  variants  and  harmonize* 
with  the  other  subjunctive*,  is  therefore  correct.  B  here  alone  among  the 
leading  MSS.  is  correct  through 

ou  OUK  T)KOO<TOK:  'how  can  they  believe  on  Him  whom  they 
have  not  heard  preaching  ? '  ou  is  for  tit  rolro*  ol :  and  as  &OMI* 
ri*ot  means  not  ( to  hear  of  some  one,'  but  '  to  hear  some  one 
preaching  or  speaking,'  it  must  be  so  translated,  and  what  follows 

!>e  interpreted  by  assuming  that  the  preaching  of  t 
messengers  is  identical  with  the  preaching  of  (  This 

hat  of  Mey.  and  Gif.),  although  not  without 
robably  better  than  either  of  the  other  solutions  proposed. 
It  is  suggested  that  ol  may  be  for  oV,  and  the  passage  is  tr.i:. 
4  of  whom  they  have  not  heard' ;   but  only  a  few  instances  of  this 
usage  are  quoted,  and  they  seem  to  be  all  early  and  p< 
nterpretation  of  Weiss,  o^  =  where,  completely  brca! 
continuity  of  the  sentences. 

15.  KTjpofwair.  The  nominative  is  oi  m^uovorw,  which  is  implied 

By  means  of  this  series  of  questions  St.  Paul  works  out  the 
conditions  necessary  for  salvation  back  to  their  starting-point. 
Salvation  is  gained  by  calling  on  the  Lord;  this  implio 
Faith  is  only  possible  with  knowledge.  Knowledge  implies  an 
instructor  or  preacher.  A  preacher  implies  a  commission.  If 
therefore  salvation  is  to  be  made  possible  for  everyone,  there  mu*i 
have  been  men  sent  out  with  a  commission  to  prea 

By  introducing  this  quotation 

sioned  messengers  have  been  sent,  and  the 

necessary  for  salvation  have  been  fulfilled.    'Yes,  an  ! 

been  sent:  the  prophet's  words  are  true  describing  the  glorious 

character  of  the  Evangelical  preachers.' 

The  quotation  is  taken  from  Isaiah  lii.  7,  and  resembK 
Hebrew  more  closely  than  our  pres*  In  the  o: 

it  describes  the  messengers  who  carry  abroad  t: 
of  the  restoration  from  caj'iiu'.y.     But  the  whole  of  this  section  of 
Isaiah  was  felt  by  the  Christians  to  be  full  of  Messianic  imjx 

rsc  was  used  by  the  Rabbis  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah 
(see  the  references  .:•  179).     St. 

Paul  quotes  it  because  be  wishes  to  describe  in  O.  e  the 

fact  which  will  be  recognized  as  true  v  show 

that  these  facts  are  in  accordance  with  the  Divine  method. 

:o  the  appearance  of  the  A  jostles  of 

upon  the  scene  of  history.    Their  feet  are  «»pau*  in  hi 
as  they  announce  the  end  of  the  captivity  of .- 

-  rA  tltrffflto*  rijr  *lf>w)  made  by  Christ,  t. 


X.  15,  16.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  197 

blood  of  His  Cross,  between  God  and  man,  between  earth  and 
heaven  (a  Cor.  v.  18-20;  Eph.  ii.  17;  Col.  i.  20);  and  all  the 
blessings  of  goodness  (ra  ayaffd)  which  God  in  Christ  bestows  on 
the  Redeemed,  especially  dutnMxrvi^.'  Liddon. 


There  are  two  critical  question!  in  connexion  with  this  quotation  :  the 
reading  of  the  Greek  text  and  its  relation  to  the  Hebrew  and  to  the  l.XX 

(i)  The  RV.  reads  <fo  tipatot  ol  *6tot  rw  ffayMAjfrsiMp  dyaBd  :  the 
TR.  inserts  rfir  tvay.  ilpnnj*  after  ol  v&«f.  The  balance  of  authority  is 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  KV.  The  clause  is  omitted  by  K  ABC  minute. 
pome.  Aegyptt.  (Boh.  Sah.)  Aeth.,  Clcm.-Alex.  Orig.  and  Orig.-lat.  :  it  is  in- 
serted by  I)  E  F  G  K  L  P  &c.,  Vnlg.  Syrr.  (Pesh.  Harcl  )  Ann,  Goth.,  Chrys. 
lat.  Hit.  a/.  The  natural  explanation  is  that  the  insertion  has  been 
made  that  the  citation  may  correspond  more  accurately  to  the  l.XX. 
This  end  is  not  indeed  altogether  attained,  for  the  LXX  reads  d*oi}r  «^>?f, 
and  the  omission  might  have  arisen  from  Homoeotcleuton  ;  hot  these  con- 
siderations can  hardly  outweigh  the  clear  preponderance  of  authority. 

There  is  a  somewhat  similar  difficulty  about  a  second  minor  variation. 
The  RV.  reads  dyaOd  with  ABCDEFGP,  Orig.  Eus.  Jo.-Damasc,  the 
TR.  has  rd  dya»d  with  K  etc.  Clem  -Alex.  Chrys.  and  most  later  authorities. 
Here  the  LXX  omits  the  article,  and  it  is  difficult  anite  to  see  why  it  should 
have  been  inserted  by  a  corrector  ;  whereas  if  it  had  formed  part  of  the 
original  text  he  could  quite  naturally  have  omitted  it 

(a)  The  LXX  translation  is  here  very  inexact.  *<$p«i/u  in  &pa  1*1  rSnr 
Apfor,  o*  *43«r  «farpAifo/t4rov  d*ot)v  tif^nji,  wt  «6ary«Ai^>i«rof  dyata. 
St.  Paul's  words  approach  much  more  nearly  to  the  Hebrew  (RV.)  *  How 
beautiful  upon  the  mountains  are  the  feet  of  him  that  bringeth  good  tidings, 
that  publishcth  peace,  that  bringeth  good  tidings  of  good,  that  publuheth 
salvation.'  He  shortens  the  quotation,  makes  it  plural  instead  of  singular 
to  suit  his  purpose,  and  omits  the  words  '  upon  the  mountains,'  which  have 
locni  t^gnificuncy. 


only  a 

16.  dXX*  ou  irdKres.  An  objection  suggested.  '  Yet,  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  this  message  was  sent,  all  did  not  obey  the  Gospel/ 

ov  nuvrtt  is  a  mfiosis  ;   cf.  rt  yap  tl  ijrritmjaav  TII^S  ;   (ill.  3). 

6ir^Ko«KraK,  like  vtrrrdyi;<ray  (ver.  3),  seems  to  imply  the  idea  of 
voluntary  submission:  cf.  vi.  16,  17  oouAof  ^<rr«  f  vmutovm  .  .  . 

irTTT)Kov<TaTt  M  «  Kap&as  tit  6r  waptMtfrt. 

T«  €OaYY«Xi^.  The  word  is  of  course  suggested  by  the  quotation 
of  the  previous  verse. 

'Haatas  ydp  X/yci  K.T.X.  '  But  this  fact  docs  not  prove  that  no 
message  had  been  sent  ;  it  is  indeed  equally  in  accordance  with 
prophecy,  for  Isaiah,  in  a  passage  immediately  following  that  in 
whteh  he  describes  the  messengers,  describes  also  the  failure  of 
the  people  to  receive  the  message/  With  yap  cf.  Matt.  i.  ao  ff. 
The  quotation  is  from  the  LXX  of  Is.  liii.  i.  Krfptc,  as  Origcn 
pointed  out,  does  not  occur  in  the  Hebrew. 

dicoH*:  means  (i)  '  hearing/  'the  facuhy  by  which  a  thing  is 
heard  ;  (a)  'the  substance  of  what  is  heard/  '  a  report,  message/ 
In  this  verse  it  is  used  in  the  second  meaning,  'who  hath  believed 
our  report?1  In  ver.  17,  it  shades  off  into  the  first,  'faith  comes 
by  hearing/  It  is  quite  possible  of  course  to  translate  '  report'  or 


298  ISTLE   TO  THE  ROMA  [X.  16-18. 

1  message'  there  also,  but  then  the  connexion  of  idea  v 
P9  our  tjtowav  is  obscured. 

is  been  questioned  to  whom  St.  Paul  is  referring  in  this  and 
the  preceding  verses  —  the  Gentiles  or  the  Jews.    The  language  is 
quite  general  and  equally  applicable  to  either,  but  the 
of  the  argument  shows  that  it  is  of  the  Jews  the  Apostle 
Grotius  makes  \  1  5  the  objection  of  an  opponent  to 

St.  Paul  replies  i  r>  ff. 

17    apa  ^  mums.     «  Hence  may  be  inferred  (in  corroboration  of 
was  said  above)  that  the  preliminary  condition  necessary  for 
faith  is  to  have  heard,  and  to  have  heard  implies  a  message.' 
sentence  is  to  4  certain  extent  parenthetical,  merely  M 
a  fact  already  stated  ;  yet  the  language  leads  us  on  to  the 
for  unbelief  suggested  in  the  next  verse. 

foA  p^jxaros  Xpi<rrotj  :  '  a  message  about  Christ.'  Cf.  ver.  8  rA 
fan*  rrft  wiffTtvt  6  Kipvvvopt*.  St  Paul  comes  back  to  the  phrase  he 
has  used  before,  and  the  use  of  it  \\ill  remind  his  readers  that  this 
message  has  been  actually  sent 


is  the  reading  of  K  BC  D  E  mimue.  jamt.,  Vote.  Salt  Boh.  Arm. 
Aeth.0rig.-Ut.  a/a,  Ambrst.  Aug.-e«ov  of  K«ADk«KLPfl; 
Clcm.-Alex.  Chryt.  Tbeodrt. 

St.  Paul  has  laid  down  the  conditions  which  make  faith  possible, 

a  Gospel  and  messengers  of  the  Gospel  ;  the  language  he  has  used 

reminds  his  readers  that  both  these  have  come.     ':  ;  >ite  of 

he  Jews  have  not  obeyed    He  now  suggests  two  possible 

excuses. 

18.  dXXd  X/Y*»:  'but  it  may  be  said  in  excuse:  It  is  possible 
that  those  whom  you  accuse  of  not  obeying  the  Gospel  message 
have  never  heard  of  it  ?  '  On  MO  06  see  Burton,  M.  and  T.  §  468. 

fuvovryc  :  an  emphatic  corrective,  •  with  a  slight  touch  of  : 
(Lid.)  ;  cf.  ix.  20. 

els  waaa*  rJjr  y\v  K.r.X.  St  Paul  expresses  his  meaning  in  words 
borrowed  from  Psalm  xix.  (xviii.)  5,  which  he  cites  wo: 
according  to  the  I  X  hout  any  mark  of  quotation. 

stress  does  be  intend  to  lay  on  the  words  ?    Does  he  use 
for  purely  literary  purposes  to  express  a  well-known  fact  ?   or  does 
he  also  mean   to  prove  the  fact  by  the  authority  of  the  O.  T. 
it  ? 

:  any  rate  St.  Paul  wishes  to  express  a  v 
language.    '\VLit  do  you  s.  e  not 

heard  1  Why  the  whole  world  and  the  ends  of  the  earth 
heard.  And  have  you,  amongst  whom  the  heralds  abode 
a  Ion  1  of  whose  land  they  were,  n<  rys. 

ut  the  langua.  >t  used  without  a  point 

In  the  original  Psalm  these  words  describe  how  universally  the 


X.  18,  10.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  299 

works  of  nature  glorify  God.  By  using  them  St.  Paul  '  compares 
the  universality  of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  with  the  universality 
with  which  the  works  of  nature  proclaim  God'  Gif. 

A  second  difficulty  is  raised  by  older  commentators.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  the  Gospel  had  not  been  preached  everywhere ;  and  some 
writers  have  inverted  this  argument,  and  used  this  text  as  a  proof 
that  even  as  early  as  this  Christianity  had  been  universally  preached. 
But  all  that  St.  Paul  means  to  imply  is  that  it  is  universal  in  its 
character.  Some  there  were  who  might  not  have  heard  it ;  some 
Jews  even  might  be  among  them.  He  is  not  dealing  with  indi- 
viduals. The  fact  remained  true  that,  owing  to  the  universal 
character  of  its  preaching,  those  whose  rejection  of  it  he  is  con- 
sidering had  at  any  rate  as  a  body  had  the  opportunities  of  hearing 
of  it. 

19.  dXXA  X/YU,  ft?)  'lapaTjX  OUK  lyw ;  a  second  excuse  is  suggested : 
'surely  it  cannot  be  that  it  was  from  ignorance  that  Israel  failed?' 

(1)  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  somewhat  emphatic  introduction 
of  'icr/xujX?    It  has  been  suggested  that  it  means  a  change  of 
subject.    That  while  the  former  passage  refers  to  Gentiles,  or 
to  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  here  the  writer  at  last  turns  to  Israel  in 
particular.    But  there  has  been  no  hint  that  the  former  passage 
was  dealing  with  the  Gentiles,  and  if  such  a  contrast  had  been 
implied  'lapo^X  would  have  had  to  be  put  in  a  much  more  pro- 
minent place,  irtpl  M  TOV  'i<rpaf)\  X«y«*,  rf  out  ry»» ;  The  real  ream 
for  the  introduction  of  the  word  is  that  it  gives  an  answer  to 
the  question,  and  shows  the  untenable  character  of  the  excuse. 
Hi-  Israel,  Israel  with  its  long  line  of  Prophets,  and  its  religious 
privileges  and  its  Divine  teaching,  acted  in  ignorance?    When 
once  •  Israel '  has  been  used  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  answer. 

(2)  But,  again,  what  is  it  suggested  that  Israel  has  not  known? 
As  the  clause  is  parallel  with  M  our  tjkov<roi>,  and  as  no  hint  is  given 
of  any  change,  the  object  must  be  the  same,  namely  pwa  Xpurrov, 
the  message  concerning  the  Messiah.    All  such  interpretations  as 
the  'calling  of  the  Gentiles'  or  'the  universal  preaching  of  the 
Gospel*  are  outside  the  line  of  argument. 

(3)  But  how  is  this  consistent  with  oywxiCrm  ver.  3?    The 
contradiction  is  rather  formal  than  real.     It  is  true  Israel's  zeal 
was  not  guided  by  deep  religious  insight,  and  that  they  clung 
blindly  and  ignorantly  to  a  method  which  had  been  condemned ; 
but  this  ignorance  was  culpable :  if  they  did  not  know,  they  might 
have  known.     From  the  very  beginning  of  their  history  their 
whole  line  of  Prophets  had  warned  them  of  the  Divine  plan. 

(4)  The  answer  to  this  question  is  given  in  three  quotations 
from   the   O.  T.    Israel  has  been  warned   that   their  Messiah 
would  be  rejected  by  themselves  and  accepted  by  the  Gentiles. 
They  cannot  plead  that  the  message  was  difficult  to  understand; 


300  K   TO  THE  ROMA  [X.  10   21. 

even  a  foolish  people  (it  was  foretold)  would  accept  it,  at 

stir  up  Israel  to  jc.i' 

difficult  to  find ;  for  Isaiah  with  great  boldness  ha> 

who  never  sought  or  asked  for  it  would  find  it.     The  real  reason 

was  that  the  Israelites  are  a  disob<  :  a  stubborn  people, 

and,  although  God  has  all  day  long  stretched  forth  His  hands  to 

them.  not  hear  I 

irpwros  Mtxrijt .    <tto  Maxr/jr.   '  Even  as  early  in  Israel's  history  as 
Moses.' 

*yw  irapalrjXoSaw  u^ias  x.r.X. :   taken  from  Deut.  xxxii.  ai  sub- 
stantL  ;np  to  tin-  I. XX  <  .'^a*  is  substituted  for 

the  original  the  words  mean  that  as  Israel  has  roused  God's  j< 
by  going  after  no-gods,  so  He  will   rouse  Israel's  jealousy  by 
showing  His  mercy  to  those  who  are  no-pc« 

20.  'Hffotas  &  dworoXfia.     St.  Paul's  position  in  oppOMi: 
prejudices  of  his  countrymen  made  him  feel  the  boldness  of 
in  standing  up  against  the  men  of  his  own  time.    The  citation  is 
from  Isaiah  Ixv.   x   according  to  the   LXX,   the  clauses  of  the 
original  being  inverted.    The  words  in  the  ori^: 
apostate  Jews.     Si.  Paul  applies  them  to  the  Gentiles;  see  on 
ix.  25,  26. 


B  D*  F  G  with  perhaps  Sah.  and  Goth,  add  Jr  twice  before  roTf ,  a  Western 
tiding  which  hat  found  f 
:c*  and 


reading  which  has  found  iu  way  into  B  (cf.  iocs  not  o- 

my  Father*. 


21.  irp&s  EC  Tor  'laparjX  Xlyci  K.T  X.  This  citation  (Is.  1 
follows  almost  immediately  that  quoted  in  vi-r.  20,  and  ' 
is  tak<  uith  only  a  slight  <  the  order. 

In  the  original  both  this  verse  and  the  preceding  are  addressed 
to  apostate  Israel;  St  Paul  applies  the  first  part  to  the  Gentiles, 
the  latter  pan  definitely  to  Israel 

The  Argument  of  ix.  3O-x.  21  :  Human  Responsibility. 

have  reached  a  new  stage  in  our  argument.     The  firs: 
was  tl.  on  of  God's  faithfulness  and  justice:  the  - 

step  has  been  definitely  to  fix  guilt  on  ma: 
down  that  the  Jews  have  been  '-heir  own  fault. 

They  chose  the  wrong  method.     \\  Icssi.di  c. 

of  ace  d.    The\ 

zeal  for  God  to  be  controlled  by  a  true  spiritual  knowl 
the  respon  is  brought  ho:: 

excuses,  such   as   want  of  opportunity 

are  suggested,  but  rej« •• 
a  disobedient  people  and  they  have  U  r  dis- 


IX.  30-X.  21.]    THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  301 

Now  it  has  been  argued  that  such  an  interpretation  is  in- 
consistent  with  Chap.  ix.  That  proves  clearly,  it  is  asserted,  tfatt 
grace  comes  to  man,  not  in  answer  to  man's  efforts,  but  in  accord- 
ance with  God's  will.  How  then  can  St.  Paul  go  on  to  prove  that 
the  Jews  are  to  blame  ?  In  order  to  avoid  this  assumed  incon- 
;cy,  the  whole  section,  or  at  any  rate  the  final  portion,  has 
been  interpreted  differently:  w.  11-21  are  taken  to  defend  the 
Apostolic  ministry  to  the  Gentiles  and  to  justify  from  the  O.T.  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  rejection  of  the  Jews:  vv.  14,  15 
are  used  by  St.  Augustine  to  prove  that  there  can  be  no  faith 
without  the  Divine  calling;  by  Calvin,  that  as  there  is  faith 
among  the  Gentiles,  there  must  have  been  a  Divine  call,  and  so 
the  preaching  to  them  is  justified.  Then  the  quotations  in  w. 
1 8-2 1  are  considered  to  refer  to  the  Gentiles  mainly;  they  are 
merely  prophecies  of  the  facts  stated  in  ix.  30,  31  and  do  not 
imply  and  are  not  intended  to  imply  human  responsibility. 

An  apparent  argument  in  favour  of  this  interpretation  is  sug- 
gested by  the  introductory  words  ix.  30,  31.  It  is  maintained  that 
two  propositions  are  laid  down  there;  one  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles,  the  other  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  and  both  these  have 
to  be  justified  in  the  paragraph  that  follows.  But,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  this  reference  to  the  Gentiles  is  clearly  introduced  not  as 
a  main  point  to  be  discussed,  but  as  a  contrast  to  the  rejection 
of  Israel.  It  increases  the  strangeness  of  that  fact,  and  with  that 
fact  the  paragraph  is  concerned.  This  is  brought  out  at  once  by 
the  question  asked  &A  ri ;  which  refers,  as  the  answer  shows,  en- 
tirely to  the  rejection  of  Israel.  If  the  Apostle  were  not  condemning 
the  Jews  there  would  be  no  reason  for  his  sorrow  (x.  i)  and  the 
palliation  for  their  conduct  which  he  suggests  (x.  a);  and  when 
we  come  to  examine  the  structure  of  the  latter  part  we  find  that 
all  the  leading  sentences  are  concerned  not  with  the  defence  of 
any '  calling/  but  with  fixing  the  guilt  of  those  rejected :  for  example 

oXX'  ov  iroyr«f  viriiKowrav  (v.  1 6),  dXAa  Acy«,  /i«7  °wc  j*ovaa»;  fv.  1 8), 

W  'itrpafjX  out  fyvw;  (v.  19).  As  there  is  nowhere  any  reference 
to  Gentiles  rejecting  the  message,  the  reference  must  be  to  the 
:  and  the  object  of  the  section  must  be  to  show  the  reason  why 
(although  Gentiles  have  been  accepted)  the  Jews  have  been  rejected. 
The  answer  is  given  in  the  concluding  quotation,  which  sums  up 
the  whole  argument.  It  is  because  the  Jews  have  been  a  dis- 
obedient and  gainsaying  people.  Chrysostom,  who  brings  out  the 
whole  point  of  this  section  admirably,  sums  up  its  conclusion  as 
follows:  'Then  to  prevent  them  saying.  But  why  was  He  not 
made  manifest  to  us  also  ?  he  sets  down  what  is  more  than  this, 
that  I  not  only  was  made  manifest,  but  I  even  continued  with 
mds  stretched  out,  inviting  them,  and  displaying  all  the 
concern  of  an  affectionate  father,  and  a  fond  mother  that  is  set  on 


302  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IX    XI 

her  child.  See  how  he  has  brought  us  a  most  lucid  answer 
to  all  the  difficulties  before  raised,  by  showing  that  it  was  from 
their  own  temper  that  ruin  had  befallen  them,  and  that  they  are 
wholly  undeserving  of  pardon/ 

t   accept  the   interpretation  then  which  so- 
proof  of  the  guilt  of  the  Jews.    St.  Paul  is  in  fact 
looking  at  the  quest  a  point  of  view  different  fro: 

he  adopted  in  Chap.  ix.  There  he  assumes  Divine  Sovereignty, 
and  assuming  it  shows  that  God's  dealings  with  the  Je\ 
justified.    Now  he  assumes  human  responsibility,  and  shows  that 
assuming  it  the  Jews  are  guilty.    Two  great  steps  are  passed  in 
the  Divine  Theodicy.     We  need  not  anticipate  the  argumct 

tllow  it  to  work  itself  out  The  conclusion  may  suggest 
a  point  of  view  from  which  these  two  apparently  inconsistent 
attitudes  can  be  reconciled. 


Sf.  Pant's  Use  of  the  Old  Testament. 

In  Chaps,  ix-xi  St.  Paul,  as  carrying  on  a  long  and  sustained 
argument,  which,  if  not  directed  against  Jewish  opponents,  discusses 
a  Question  full  of  interest  to  Tews  from  a  Jewish  point  of  view, 
makes  continued  use  of  the  O.  T.,  and  gives  an  opportunity  for 
investigating  his  methods  of  quotation  and  interpret:! t. 

The  text  of  his  quotations  is  primarily  that  of  the  LXX.     Ac- 
cording to  Kautzsch  (D<  -Jo  Aposlolo 
alltgatis\  out  of  eighty-four  passages  in  which  Si  >>s  the 
O.  T.  about  seventy  are  taken  directly  from  the  LXX  or  do  not 
vary  from  it  appreciably,  twelve  vary  considerably,  bir 
signs  of  affinity,  and  two  only,  both  from  the  book  of  Job  (Rom. 
xi.  35  =  Job  xii                               M;  =  Jobv.  13)  are  (1 
dependent  and  derived  either  from  the  Hebrew  text  or  some  quite 
t  version.    Of  those                               XX  a  certain  number, 
such  for  example  as  Rom.  x.  15,  show  in  some  points  a  resemblance 
to  the  Hebrew  text  as  against  the  LXX.     We  have  probably  not 
sufficient  evidence  to  say  whether  this  arises  fron  >cence 
of  the  Hebrew  text  (conscious  or  unconscious),  or  from  a 
maic  Targum,  or  from  the  use  of  an  earlier  form  of  a 
It  may  be  noticed  that  St.  Paul's  quotations  sometimes  agree  with 
late  MSS.  of  the  LXX  as  against  the  great  uncials 
As  to  the  further  quest!                  r  he  cites  from  memory  or  by 
reference,  it  may  be  safely  said  that  the  majority  of  the  quotations 
are  from  memory ;  for  many  of  them  are  some*  i 
those  which  are  correct  are  for  the  most  part  short  and  from  well- 
known  books.    There  is                                  nction  l*twccn  these 
and  the  long  literary  quotations  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 


IX-XI.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OP  ISRAEL  303 

In  his  formulae  of  quotation  St.  Paul  adopts  all  the  various 
forms  which  seem  to  have  been  in  use  in  the  Rabbinical  schools, 
and  are  found  in  Rabbinical  writings.  Even  his  less  usual  expres- 
sions may  be  paralleled  from  them  (cf.  xi.  a).  Another  point  of 
resemblance  may  be  found  in  the  series  of  passages  which  he 
strings  together  from  different  books  (cf.  iii.  10)  after  the  manner 
of  a  Rabbinical  discourse.  St.  Paul  was  in  fact  educated  as  a  Rabbi 
in  Rabbinical  schools  and  consequently  his  method  of  using  the 
O.  T.  is  such  as  might  have  been  learnt  in  these  schools. 

Hut  how  far  is  his  interpretation  Rabbinical?  It  is  not  quite 
easy  to  answer  this  question  directly.  It  is  perhaps  better  to  point 
out  first  of  all  some  characteristics  which  it  possesses. 

In  the  first  place  it  is  quite  clearly  not '  historical '  in  the  modern 
sense  of  the  word.  The  passages  are  quoted  without  regard  to 
their  context  or  to  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  written. 
The  most  striking  instances  of  this  are  those  cases  in  which  the 
wonls  of  the  O.T.  are  used  in  an  exactly  opposite  sense  to  thai 
which  they  originally  possessed.  For  instance  in  ix.  25,  26  words 
used  in  the  O.  T.  of  the  ten  tribes  are  used  of  the  Gentiles,  in  x.  6-8 
words  used  of  the  Law  are  applied  to  the  Gospel  as  against  the 
Law.  On  the  other  hand  Rabbinical  interpretations  in  the  sense 
in  which  they  have  become  proverbial  are  very  rare.  St.  Paul 
almost  invariably  takes  the  literal  and  direct  meaning  of  the  words 
(although  without  regard  to  their  context),  he  does  not  allegorize 
or  play  upon  their  meaning,  or  find  hidden  and  mysterious  prin- 
ciples. There  are  some  obvious  exceptions,  such  as  Gal.  iv.  22  ff., 
but  for  the  most  part  St.  Paul's  interpretation  is  not  allegorical, 
nor  in  this  sense  of  the  term  Rabbinical. 

Speaking  broadly,  St.  Paul's  use  of  the  O.  T.  may  be  described 
as  literal,  and  we  may  distinguish  three  classes  of  texts.  There 
are  firstly  those,  and  they  are  the  largest  number,  in  which  the 
texts  are  used  in  a  sense  corresponding  to  their  O.  T.  meaning. 
All  texts  quoted  in  favour  of  moral  principles,  or  spiritual  ideas,  or 
the  methods  of  Divine  government  may  be  grouped  under  this  head. 
The  argument  in  ix.  20,  2 1  is  correctly  deduced  from  O.  T.  prin- 
ciples; the  quotation  in  ix.  17  is  not  quite  so  exactly  correct,  but 
the  principle  evolved  is  thoroughly  in  accordance  with  O.  T.  ideas. 
So  again  the  method  of  Divine  Election  is  deduced  correctly  from 
the  instances  quoted  in  ix.  6-13.  Controversially  these  arguments 
were  quite  sound ;  actually  they  represent  the  principles  and  ideas 
of  the  O.T. 

A  second  class  of  passages  consists  of  those  in  which,  without 

definitely  citing  the  O.  T.,  the  Apostle  uses  its  language  in  order 

to  express  adequately  and  impressively  the  ideas  he  has  to  convey. 

.il  instance  is  that  in  x.  18,  where  the  words  of  the  Psalm 

are  used  in  quite  a  different  sense  from  that  which  they  have  in 


304  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IX-XI. 

the  original,  and  without  any  definite  formula  of  citation.     S 
z.  6-8  (see  the  note)  the  O.T.  language  is  used  rather  than  a  text 
from  it  cited.    The  same  is  true  in  a  number  of  other  passages 
where,  as  the  text  of  Wcstcott  and  I  Ion  exhibits  cl< 
borrowed  from  the  O.T.  are  expressed   in   homage  wh 
borrowed,  but  w  ithout  any  definite  sign  of  quotation.     That 
the  natural  and  normal  use  of  a  religious  book  must  clearly  be 
recogi  i  or  [the  writers  of  the  N.T.  the  Scripture],  was 

the  one  thesaurus  o:  They  had  almost  no  other  books. 

The  words  of  the  O.  T.  had  become  a  part  of  their  mental  furni- 
.ey  used  them  to  a  certain  extent  with  the  freedom  \vith 
used  their  own  ideas'  (Toy,  Quotations 

is  a  use  which  is  constantly  being  made  of  the  \\\\ .  resent 

day,  and  when  we  attempt  to  analyze  the  exact  for. 
to  convey,  it  is  neither  easy  nor  desirable  to  be  precise.    Be 
the  purely  rhetorical  use  on  the  one  side  and  the  logical  proof  on 
the  other  there  are  infinite  gradations  of  ideas,  and  it  is  i 
possible  to  say  how  far  in  any  definite  passage  the  use  is  purely 
rhetorical  and  how  far  it  is  intended  to  suggest  a  definite  argi 

But  there  is  a  third  class  of  instances  in  which  the  words  are 
used  in  a  sense  which  the  original  context  will  not  bear,  and  > 
object  is  to  give  a  logical  proof.    This  happens  mainly  in  a  • 
class  of  passages;  in  those  in  which  the  cd  to  coi 

the  Law,  in  those  in  which  passages  no: 
a  Messianic  bearing,  and  in  those  (a  class  connected  with  tl. 
in  which  passages  are  applied  to  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles 
do  not  refer  to  that  event  in  the  original.    Here  controversially  the 
method  is  justified.    Some  of  the  passages  used  Messian 

ions  had  probably  been  so  used  by  the  Rabbis  before 
In  all  cases  the  methods  they  adopted  were  those  of  their  contempo- 
raries, however  incorrect  they  may  have  been.     1  « >f  the 
method  in  relation  to  our  own  times  ?    Are  we  justified 
The  answer  to  that  must  be  sought  in  a  c 

hat  of  the  Rabbis.    We  have  said  that  controver 
justified.    The  method  was  the  same  as,  and  as  good  as,  that  of 
their  own  time ;  but  it  was  no  better.    As  far  as  method  goes  the 
Rabbis  were  equally  justified  in  their  conclusions.    There 
fact  no  standard  of".  wrong,  when  once  it  is  permi: 

take  words  in  a  sense  which  t  >ntext  will  not  bear. 

i  an  be  proved  from 
re  then  does  the  superiority  of  the  N 

n  of  the  spirit  of  the  O.T.    'As  ex- 
pounders of  rcl  v  belong  to  the  whole  world  and  to  all 

clong  to  ;:. 

is  the  Divine  spirit  of  love  and  righteousm 
filled  ibeir  souls,  the  outer  shell  i*  the  intellectual  form  in 


IX-XI.]  THE   UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  505 

the  spirit  found  expression  in  words.  Their  comprehension  of  the 
deeper  spirit  of  the  O.  T.  thought  is  one  thing :  the  logical  method 
by  which  they  sought  formally  to  extend  it  is  quite  another '  (Toy, 
Quotations,  $c.  p.  xxi).  This  is  just  one  of  those  points  in  which 
we  must  trace  the  superiority  of  the  N.  T.  writers  to  its  root  and 
take  from  them  that,  and  not  their  faulty  exegesis. 

An  illustration  may  be  drawn  from  Church  History.  The  Church 
inherited  equally  from  the  Jewish  schools,  the  Greek  Philosophers, 
and  the  N.  T.  writers  an  unhistorical  method  of  interpretation ;  and 
in  the  Arian  controversy  (to  take  an  example)  it  constantly  makes 
use  of  this  method.  We  are  learning  to  realize  more  and  more 
how  much  of  our  modern  theology  is  based  on  the  writings  of 
St.  Athanasius ;  but  that  does  not  impose  upon  us  the  necessity  of 
adopting  his  exegesis.  If  the  methods  that  he  applies  to  the  O.  T. 
are  to  be  admitted  it  is  almost  as  easy  to  deduce  Arianism  from 
it.  Athanasius  did  not  triumph  because  of  those  cxegetical  methods, 
but  because  he  rightly  interpreted  (and  men  felt  that  he  had  rightly 
interpreted)  the  spirit  of  the  N.  T.  His  creed,  his  religious  insight, 
to  a  certain  extent  his  philosophy,  we  accept :  but  not  his  exegetical 
methods. 

So  with  the  O.  T.  St.  Paul  triumphed,  and  the  Christian  Church 
triumphed,  over  Judaism,  because  they  both  rightly  interpreted  the 
spirit  of  the  O.  T.  We  must  accept  that  interpretation,  although  we 
shall  find  that  we  arrive  at  it  on  other  grounds.  This  may  be 
illustrated  in  two  main  points. 

It  is  the  paradox  of  ch.  x  that  it  condemns  the  Law  out  of  the 
Law  ;  that  it  convicts  the  lews  by  applying  to  them  passages,  which 
in  the  original  accuse  them  of  breaking  the  Law,  in  order  to 
condemn  them  for  keeping  it.  But  the  paradox  is  only  apparent. 
Running  through  the  O.  T.,  in  the  books  of  the  Law  as  well  as  in 
those  of  the  Prophets,  is  the  prophetic  spirit,  always  bringing  out 
the  spiritual  truths  and  lessons  concealed  in  or  guarded  by  the  Law 
in  opposition  to  the  formal  adherence  to  its  precepts.  This  spirit 
the  Gospel  inherits.  '  The  Gospel  itself  is  a  reawakening  of  the 
spirit  of  prophecy.  There  are  many  points  in  which  the  «****Hy 
i'aul  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  that  of  the  old  Prophets. 
It  is  not  by  chance  that  so  many  quotations  from  them  occur  in 
r;tings.  Separated  from  Joel,  Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  and 
Isaiah  by  an  interval  of  about  800  years,  he  felt  a  kind  of  sympathy 
with  them ;  they  expressed  his  inmost  feelings ;  like  them  he  was 
at  war  with  the  evil  of  the  world  around.  When  they  spoke  of 
forgiveness  of  sins,  of  non-imputation  of  sins,  of  a  sudden  turning 
to  God,  what  did  this  mean  but  righteousness  by  faith?  When 
they  said,  "I  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,"  here  also  was 
imaged  the  great  truth,  that  salvation  was  not  of  the  Law  . .  .  Like 
the  elder  Prophets,  he  came  not  "to  build  up  a  temple  made  with 


ISTLE  TO  THE  K  [IX-XI. 

hands/'  but  to  teach  a  moral  truth :  like  them  he  went  forth  alone, 
and  not  in  connexion  with  the  church  at  Jerusalem :  like  them  be 
was  looking  for  and  hastening  to  the  day  of  the  Lord '  (J< 
This  represents  the  truth,  as  the  historical  study  of  the  O.  1 
prove  ;  or  rather  one  side  of  the  truth.    The  Gospel  is  not  merely 
the  reawakening  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy ;  it  is  also  the  fulfilment 
of  the  spiritual  teaching  of  Law.     It  was  necessary  for  a  later 
writer — the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — when  contro- 
versy was  less  bitter  to  bring  this  out  more  fully.     Christ  not  only 
revived  all  the  teaching  of  the  Prophets,  righteousness,  i 
peace ;  He  also  exhibited  by  His  death  the  teaching  of  the  Law, 
the  heinousness  of  sin,  the  duty  of  sacrifice,  the  spiritual  union  of 
God  and  man. 

The  same  lines  of  argument  will  justify  the  Messianic  use  of  the 
O.  T.     If  we   study  it  historically  the  reality  of  the  Me 
interpretation  remains  just  as  dear  as  it  was  to  St.  Paul.     Alle- 
gorical and  incorrect  exegesis  could  never  create  an  idea, 
only  illustrate  one  which  has  been  suggested  in  other  ways.     The 
Messianic  interpretation,  and  with  it  the  further  idea  of  the  uni- 
versality of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  arose  because  they  are  contained 
in  the  O.  T.    Any  incorrectness  of  exegesis  that  there  may  be  lies 
not  in  the  ideas  themselves  but  in  finding  them  in  passages 
have  probably  a  different  meaning.    We  are  not  bound,  and  it 
would  be  wrong  to  bind  ourselves,  by  the  incorrect  exegesis  of 
particular  passages ;  bat  the  reality  and  truth  of  the  Messianic  idea 
and  the  universal  character  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  as  prophesied 
in  the  O.  T.  and  fulfilled  in  the  N.  T.,  remain  one  of  the  most 
real  and  impressive  facts  in  religious  history.     Historic 
does  not  disprove  this ;  it  only  places  it  on  a  stronger  foun 
and  enables  us  to  trace  the  origin  and  growth  of  the  idea  more 
accurately  (cf.  Sanday,  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  404,  405). 

The  value  of  St.  Paul's  exegesis  therefore  lies  not  in  his  true 
interpretation  ot  \\  passages,  but  in  his  ii.^ht  into  the 

spiriti:  need  not  use  his  metho  : 

the  books  of  the  Bible  will  hav<  ne  for  us  if  we  are  not  able 

to  see  in  them  the  spirit \\  cause 

of  truth,  as  a  guide  to  r  ideas,  as  a  fatal  en- 

i  false  and  erroneous  and  harmful  doctrine,  historical  cr 
>n  are  of  immense  valui- ;  l>ut  if  they  be  dr 
from  a  spir  n  can  be  learnt  only  by  the  sj 

teaching  of  the  N.T.,  which  interprets  the  O.T.  from  the  stand- 

<>f  its  highest  and  truest  fulfill.  '-come  as  1 

and  unproductive  as  the  strangest  cone  or  the 

most  unreal  fancies  of  the  School  r. 

[Sec,  besides  other  works :  Jowett,  Contrasts  of  Prophecy,  in  his 

:i  of  the  Rom  .  :ment, 


XI.  1-5.]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  307 

New  York,  1884;  Kautzsch,  De  Vtteris  Testament*  loci*  a  Paulo 
Afostoh  allegatis,  Lipsiae,  1869;  Clemen  (Dr.  August),  Utl 
Gebrauch  dfs  Alien  Testament*  im  Neuen  Testament*  >  und  tpectell  in 
den  Reden  Jesu  (Einladungsschrift,  Ac.,  Leipzig,  1891);  Turpie 
(David  McCalman),  The  Old  Testament  in  th*  New,  London, 
1868.] 


THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  NOT  COMPLETE. 

XI.  1-10.  Israel  then  has  refused  to  accept  the  salvation 
offered  it;  is  it  therefore  rejected?  No.  At  any  ratt  the 
rejection  is  not  complete.  Now  as  always  in  the  history  of 
Israel,  although  the  mass  of  the  people  may  be  condemned  to 
disbelief^  there  is  a  remnant  that  shall  be  saved. 

1  The  conclusion  of  the  preceding  argument  is  this.  It  is  through 
their  own  fault  that  Israel  has  rejected  a  salvation  which  was  fully 
and  freely  offered  Now  what  does  this  imply?  Does  it  mean 
that  God  has  rejected  His  chosen  people?  Heaven  forbid  that 
I  should  say  this !  I  who  like  them  am  an  Israelite,  an  Israelite 
by  birth  and  not  a  proselyte,  a  lineal  descendant  of  Abraham, 
a  member  of  the  tribe  that  with  Judah  formed  the  restored  Israel 
after  the  exile.  'No,  God  has  not  rejected  His  people.  He 
chose  them  for  His  own  before  all  time  and  nothing  can  make 
Him  change  His  purpose.  If  you  say  He  has  rejected  them, 
it  only  shows  that  you  have  not  clearly  grasped  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  concerning  the  Remnant  Elijah  on  Ml  Horcb  brought 
just  such  an  accusation  against  his  countrymen.  *  He  complained 
that  they  had  forsaken  the  covenant,  that  they  had  overthrown 
God's  altars,  that  they  had  slain  His  Prophets;  just  as  the  Jews 
at  the  present  day  have  slain  the  Messiah  and  persecuted  His 
messengers.  Elijah  only  was  left,  and  his  life  they  sought  The 
whole  people,  God's  chosen  people,  had  been  rejected.  *So  be 
thought ;  but  the  Divine  response  came  to  him,  that  there  were  seven 
thousand  men  left  in  Israel  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to  BaaL 
There  was  a  kernel  of  the  nation  that  remained  loyal.  *  Exactly 
the  same  circumstances  exist  now  as  then.  Now  as  then  the  mass 
of  the  people  are  unfaithful,  but  there  is  a  remnant  of  loyal  ad- 

X  2 


3--s  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [XI.  6-1O. 

herents  to  the  Divine  message: — a  remnant,  be  >ered, 

chosen  by  God  by  an  act  of  free  favour :  '  that  is  to  say  those 
whom  God  has  in  His  gcod  pleasure  selected  for  that  positio: 
have  in  no  way  earned  it  by  any  works  they  have  done,  or  any 
merit  of  their  own.  If  that  were  possible  Grace  would  lose  all  its 
meaning :  there  would  be  no  occasion  for  God  to  show  free  favour 
to  mankind. 

is  necessary  then  at  any  rate  to  modify  the  broad  statement 
i.as  been  made.  Israel,  it  is  true,  has  failed  to  obtain  the 
righteousness  which  it  sought;  but,  although  this  is  true  of  the 
nation  as  a  whole,  there  is  a  Remnant  of  which  it  is  not  true. 
Those  whom  God  selected  have  attained  it.  But  what  of  tl>< 
Their  hearts  have  been  hardened.  Here  again  we  find  the  same 
conditions  prevailing  throughout  Israel's  history.  '  Isaiah  dc 

.10)  how  God  had  thrown  the  people  into  a  state 
of  spiritual  torpor.    He  bad  given  them  eyes  which  could  not  see, 
and  ears  which  could  not  hear.    Al^through  their  history  the  mass 
of  the  people  has  been  destitute  of  spiritual  insight.     '  And  again 
in  the  book  of  Psalms,  David  (Ixix.  23,  24)  declares  the  : 
wrath  against  the  unfaithful  of  the  nation :  '  May  th 
snare/    It  is  just  their  position  as  God's  chosen  pco; 
and  the  Scriptures,  which  are  their  boast,  use  of 

y  are  to  be  punished  by  being  allowed  to  cleau- 
fast  to  that  to  which  they  have  perversely  adhered.   10 '  L< 
be  blinded,  so  that  they  cannot  see  light  when  it  shines  upon  them : 
let  their  back  be  ever  U-nt  ui. 
so  obstinately  clung/    This  was  God's  judge 
for  their  faithlessness,  and  it  is  God's  judgement  on  tl. 

1-36.  St.  Paul  has  now  shown  "-29)  that  Go 

perfectly  free,  whether  as  regards  promise  or  His  right  as  Creator,  to 
reject  I  on  their  side  by  nep: 

the  I '  hod  of  salvation  ot:  -c  dcscrv. 

now  comes  to  the  original  question  from  wl. 
started,  but  wtm  ressed,  and  asks,  Has  God,  as  might 

be  thought  from  the 

cecdt 

to  justify  by  >h(  1-10), 

(a)  or 

iias  been  a  purpose  deeper  and  wiser  than  man  can  altogether 


XI.  1,  2.]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  309 

1.  X/yw  ofr.    This  somewhat  emphatic  phrase  occurring  here 
and  in  ver.  1 1  seems  to  mark  a  stage  in  the  argument,  the  ofo  at 
so  often  summing  up  the  result  so  far  arrived  at    The  change  of 
1  >  irticle  shows  that  we  have  not  here  a  third  question  parallel  to 

the  oXXu  Xryw  of  X.  1 8,  19. 

^  airuaaTo  6  Ocfc  ror  Xa&r  afrou ;  *  Is  it  possible  that  God  has 
cast  away  His  people?'  The  form  of  the  question  implies  neces- 
a  negative  answer  and  suggests  an  argument  against  it.  (i) 
By  the  juxtaposition  of  6  e«6t  and  TO»  Xoo*  O&TOV.  Israel  is  God's 
people  and  so  He  cannot  reject  them.  Ip*a  populi  eius  apfxllatio 
ration em  negandi  c online t.  Beng.  (a)  By  the  use  made  of  the 
language  of  the  O.  T.  Three  times  in  the  O.  T.  (i  Sam.  xii.  as; 
Ps.  xciii  [xciv].  14 ;  xciv  [xcv].  4)  the  promise  owe  orermu  Kvptot 
rb*  Xnov  a^roD  occurs.  By  using  words  which  must  be  so  well 
known  St.  Paul  reminds  his  readers  of  the  promise,  and  thus  again 
implies  an  answer  to  the  question. 

This  very  clear  instance  of  the  merely  literary  use  of  the  language 
of  the  O.  T.  makes  it  more  probable  that  St.  Paul  should  have 
adopted  a  similar  method  elsewhere,  as  in  x.  6  ff.,  18. 

JIT)  ylootTo.  St.  Paul  repudiates  the  thought  with  horror.  All 
his  feelings  as  an  Israelite  make  it  disloyal  in  him  to  hold  it 

icai  yAp  K.T.X.  These  words  have  been  taken  in  two  ways,  (i) 
!«roof  of  the  incorrectness  of  the  suggestion.  St.  Paul  was  an 
Israelite,  and  he  had  been  saved ;  therefore  the  people  as  a  whole 
could  not  have  been  rejected.  So  the  majority  of  commentators 
(Go.  Va.  Oltr.  Weiss).  But  the  answer  to  the  question  does  not 
occur  until  St.  Paul  gives  it  in  a  solemn  form  at  the  beginning  of 
the  next  verse;  he  would  not  therefore  have  previously  given 
a  reason  for  its  incorrectness.  Moreover  it  would  be  inconsistent 
with  St.  Paul's  tact  and  character  to  put  himself  forward  so  promi- 
nently. 

(a)  It  is  therefore  better  to  take  it  as  giving  '  the  motive  for  his 
deprecation,  not  a  proof  of  his  denial '  (Mey.  Gif.  Lips.).  Through- 
out this  passage,  St  Paul  partly  influenced  by  the  reality  of  his 
own  sympathy,  partly  by  a  desire  to  put  his  argument  in  a  form  as 
little  offensive  as  possible,  has  more  than  once  emphasized  his  own 
-.;>  with  Israel  (ix.  1-3;  x.  i).  Here  for  the  first  time,  just 
when  he  is  going  to  disprove  it,  he  makes  the  statement  which  has 
really  been  the  subject  of  the  two  previous  passages,  and  at  once, 
in  order  if  possible  to  disarm  criticism,  reminds  his  readers  that  he 
is  an  Israelite,  and  that  therefore  to  him,  as  much  as  to  them,  the 
supposition  seems  almost  blasphemous. 

'laparjXiTTjs  n.r.X.     Cf.  2  Cor.  xi.  a  a ;  Phil.  iii.  5. 

8v  irpofyvw.  which  is  added  by  Lachmann  after  r&r  XoJr  ofaw,  IMS  the 
rapport  of  A  D  Chrys.  and  other  authorities,  hot  dearly  came  in  from  vcr.  •. 

2.  OUK  AirwaaTo.    St.  Paul  gives  expressly  and  formally  a  negative 


310  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [XI.  2. 

answer  to  the  question  he  has  just  asked,  adding  emphasis  by 
repeating  the  very  words  be  has  used 
6r  wpotfyr«.    The  addition  of  these  words  gives  a  reason  f 

•ic  denial  of  which  they  form  a  part.    Israel  was  the  race 
God  in  His  Divine  foreknowledge  had  elected  and  chosen, 
and  therefore  He  could  not  cast  it  off.    The  reference  in  this 
chapter  is  throughout  to  the  election  of  the  nation  as  a  who'. 
therefore  the  words  cannot  have  a  limiting  sense  (O 
Aug.),  'that  people  whom  He  forck  those  of  His  people 

whom  He  foreknew;   nor  again  can  they  possibly  refer  • 
spiritual  Israel,  as  that  would  oblige  a  meaning  to  be  gi 
A*$f  different  from  that  in  ver.  i .     The  word  «pory»»  may  be  taken, 
(i)  as  used  in  the  Hebrew  sense,  to  mean  'whom  He  has  known  or 
chosen  beforehand/    So  yu*<rm*  in  the  LXX.    Anv 
tyvu*  it  naa»»  ri»  <£i»Xir  rqr  yip.     And  in  St.  Paul  I  Cor.  v 

ayar.q  ror  et<Sr,  afoot   «y»Mffrai  vw'  atrov.      Gal.   iv.   9   w  & 
•yvovrts  etoK,  fioXXoy  d«  yvwfffrVrfff  vvo  O*or.      2  Tim.  ii.  19  fym  Kvptot 

TOM  5*ror  ai-roC-.    Although  there  is  no  evidence  for  this  use  of 

vpoyuWxw  it  represents  probably  the  idea  which  St.  Paul  i 

his  mind  (see  on  viii.  29).    (2)  But  an  alternate 

taking  the  word  in  its  natural  meaning  of  foreknowledp- 

be  lost  sight  of,  '  that  people  of  whose  history  and  future  destiny 

God  had  full  foreknowledge.'    This  seems  to  be  the  m 

with  which  the  word  is  generally  used  (Wisd.  vi.  13;  viii.  8;  .v 

Mart.  Apol.  i.  28 ;  Dial.  42.  p.  261  B.);  so  too  irpoyi*><m  is  used 
definitely  and  almost  technically  of  the  Divine  foreknowledge 
ii.  23);  and  in  this  chapter  St.  Paul  ends  with  vindicating  the 
Divine  wisdom  which  had  prepared  for  Israel  and  the 
a  destiny  which  exceeds  human  comprehension. 

f|  oO«'  olSarf:  cf.  I  L  -M.     '  Y.>u  must  admit 

this  or  be  ignorant  of  what  the  Sen;  The  point  of  the 

quotation  lies  not  in  the  words  which  immediately  follow,  but  in  the 
contrast  between  the  two  passages ;  a  contra 
the  distinction  between  the  apparent  and  the  real  .it  the 

time  when  the  Apostle  wrote. 

HXi'a :  •  in  the  section  of  Scripture  which  narrates  the  story 
of  Elijah.'     The  O.  T.  S  >o  paragraphs  to 

were  given  titles  der  their  sut  ;  and  these 

came  to  be  very  commonly  used  in  quotations  as  references. 
instances  are  quoted  from  the  Talmud  and  fr  w  commen- 

tators: Berachoth,  fol.  2.  col.  I,  fol.  4.  col.  2  id  quod  scriptum  tsi  afiud 
Mi(ha<lt  referring  to  U  \i.  6.     S>  /  ;  Aboth  dc- Rabbi 

Mrflfll  .VA/r  hathirim  rabba  i.  <>  i^c  similar 

to  that  used  here,  'In  Elijah/  occurs,  and  the  same  pass 
quote.:  l  jealous  for  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Hosts.' 

So  also  Philo,  Dt  Agrtatlhtra,  p.  203  (i.  31 7  Mang  )  x«y*t  yat>  • 


XI.  2-4.]  HIE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  311 


ls,  referring  to  Gen.  iii.  15.  The  phrase  «Vi  np  /Sorov  Mark 
xii.  26  ;  Luke  xx.  37  ;  Clem.  Horn.  xvi.  14  ;  Apost.  Const,  v.  10,  is 
often  explained  in  a  similar  manner,  but  very  probably  incorrectly, 
the  «n  being  perhaps  purely  local.  The  usage  exactly  corresponds 
to  the  method  used  in  quoting  the  Homeric  poems.  As  the  Rabbis 
divided  the  O.  T.  into  sections  so  the  Rhtpioditte  divided  Homer, 
anil  these  sections  were  quoted  by  their  subjects,  «V'E«ropof  <i*up«<m, 
«V  »«KVia.  (See  Fri.  Delitzsch  ad  loc.t  Surcnhusius,  Bt£Xor  KaraXXayip, 

P-  3'-) 

^rrvyxdVei  :  '  he  accuses  Israel  before  God.'  The  verb  «V- 
Tvyx"v«»  means,  (i)  Mo  meet  with/  (a)  'to  meet  with  for  the 
purposes  of  conversation/  *  have  an  interview  with/  Acts  xxv.  24  ; 
hence  (3)  4to  converse  with/  'plead  with,'  Wisdom  viii.  at,  either 
on  behalf  of  some  one  (wr«>  woe)  Rom.  viil  27,  34  ;  Hcb.  vii.  25  ; 
or  against  some  one  (card  TUN*),  and  so  (4)  definitely  '  to  accuse'  as 

here  and  I  Mace.  XI.  25  «ol  <v<rvy%a*o»  cor*  avrov  ruxf  umpoi  riot  «c 

i  viii.  32  ;  x.  61,  63. 


The  TR.  adds  Aty«r  at  the  end  of  this  rent  with  K«L  a/.  pl*r.,  it  b 
omitted  by  K'ABCDEFGP  mi*,  fane.,  Vulg.  San.  Boh,  and  most 
Fathers. 

3.  Kopu,  TOOS  trpo^Tos  K.T.X.    The  two  quotations  come  from 
i  Kings  xix.  10,  14,  18;   the  first  being  repeated  twice.    Elijah 
has  fled  to  Mt.  Horeb  from  Jezebel,  and  accuses  his  countrymen 
before  God  of  complete  apostasy;   he  alone  is  faithful.     God 
answers  that  even  although  the  nation  as  a  whole  has  deserted 
Him,  yet  there  is  a  faithful  remnant,  7,000  men  who  have  not 
bowed  the  knee  to  Baal    There  is  an  analogy,  St.  Paul  argues, 
between  this  situation  and  that  of  his  own  day.    The  spiritual 
condition  is  the  same.    The  nation  as  a  whole  has  rejected  God's 
message,  now  as  then;  but  now  as  then  also  there  is  a  faithful 
remnant  left,  and  if  that  be  so  God  cannot  be  said  to  have  cast 
away  His  people. 

The  quotation  is  somewhat  shortened  from  the  LXX,  and  the  order  of  the 
clauses  is  inverted,  perhaps  to  pot  in  a  prominent  position  the  words  TOM 
vpo^rat  oov  dwfcrdw  to  which  there  was  most  analogy  during  St.  Paul's 
time  (cf.  Acts  rii.  52:1  Thess,  ii.  14).  The  «ol  between  the  clauses  of  the 
i  read  by  D  t  L  and  later  MSS.  Justin  Martyr.  Dial.  30.  p.  aw  D, 
quotes  the  words  as  in  St.  Paul  and  not  as  in  the  LXX  :  Eoi  7^  HAMS 
mfiti  TO*  6<dr  lvrvi\a»w  ourvt  \iyir  Ki5p««,  Tovf  •poffw  tfov 
ml  rd  evotaorfiptd  aov  jrarfaMfv  flif|A  tflXtlf*if  pon*  mi 
v  f  VXTTT  fww.  «o2  Avoxpirtrai  ovrf  ,  'En  tloi  fun  Jrrtuti(rx>AjcM 
,  ot  ov«  l«a/i^ay  y^nt  rp  BaaA. 

4.  6  xp^p-aTiajio's  :    'the  oracle.'      An  unusual  sense  for  the 
word,  which  occurs  here  only  in  the  N.  T.,  but  is  found  in  a  Mace. 
ii.  4  ;  Clem.  Rom.  xvii.  5  ;  and  occasionally  elsewhere.    The  verb 
xpwumffu'  meant  (i)  originally  '  to  transact  business';  then  (2)  '  to 
consult/  4  deliberate  ';  hence  (3)  '  to  give  audience/  '  answer  after 


NS  [XI.  4,  5. 

deliberation';  and  so  finally  (4)  of  an  oracle  Mo  give  a  response/ 
taking  the  place  of  the  older  X/XM  ;  and  so  it  is  used  in  the 

nc  warning  Mat.  ii.  12,  22  j^/umo-AWci  car'fcap:  Luke 
Acts  x.  22;  Ii  :.  Jos.  An: 

3  ;  XI.  ;  ;  4.    From  this  usage  of  the  verb  x^/«m(«  was  derived 
xptyiaria/iof,  as  the  more  usual  xPWt&  from  x,xio>.     See  also  ; 

Tfl  BdaX :  substituted  by  (as  also  by  Justin  Martyr,  loc. 

ft/.)  for  the  LXX  r?  D<ioX,  according  to  a  usage  common  in  other 
passages  in  the  Greek  Version. 

The  word  Baal,  which  means  •  Lord/  appear*  to  have  been  originally 
wed  as  one  of  the  name*  of  the  God  of  Israel,  and  as  such  became  a  part  of 
many  Jewish  names,  as  for  example  Jerubbaa  i).  Eshbaal 

,  ,  Meribbaal  (I  Chron.  iz.  40),  &c.     But  gradur 

special  association  of  the  name  with  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  Phoenician 
god  caused  the  use  of  it  to  be  forbidden.  Hosea  ii.  16,  17  'and  it  shall  be 
at  that  day,  saith  the  Lord,  that  thou  shalt  call  me  Uhi ;  and  shah  call  me 
no  more  BaalL  For  I  will  take  away  the  names  of  the  Baalim  out  of  her 
mouth,  and  they  shall  no  more  be  mentioned  by  their  name.'  Owing  to  this 
motire  a  tendency  arose  to  obliterate  the  name  of  Baal  from  t! 
fast  as  owing  to  a  feeling  of  reverence  '  Elohim '  was  substituted  for  •  Jehovah ' 
in  the  second  and  third  books  of  the  Psalms.  This  usage  took  the  form  of 
substituting  Bothttk,  *  abomination*'  for  Baat  So  Eshbaal  (i  Chr.  •• 

o)  became  Ishboshcth    \  >x.  40) 

Mephibosheth  (a  Sam.  ix.  6  fU;  Jerubbaal  Jernbbesheth  (a  Sam.  x 
See  also  Hosea  iz.  i 

cms  in  one  passage  Baal  of  the  Hebrew  text,  3  Kings 
But  it  seems  to  have  been  more  usual  to  substitute  <-.'• 

written  BaoA,  and  as  a  sign  of  this  Qtri  the  feminine  article  was  written ; 
just  as  the  name  Jehovah  was  written  with  the  pointing  of  Adonai. 
usage  is  most  common  in  Jeremiah,  but  occur*  also  in  the  books  of  Kings, 
Chronicles,  and  other  Prophets.    It  appears  not  to  occur  in  the  Pentateuch. 
The  plural  nut  occurs  a  Chr  3.    This,  the  only  satisfactory 

explanation  of  the  feminine  article  with  the  masculine  name,  is  given  by 
Dillmann,  Momatttxruhtt  dtr  AkadtmU  <Ur  Wiutnukaft  s»  Btrim 
p.  601  fT.  and  has  superseded  all  others. 

The  LXX  version  is  again  shortened  in  the  quotation,  and  for  «aroA«ty« 
b  substituted  «arjA*vor  jparrf ,  which  is  an  alternative  and  perhaps  more 
exact  translation  of  the  Hebrew. 

5.  OUTWS  o3r.     The  application  of  the  preceding  instance  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  Apostle's  own  time.    The  facts  were  the 
same.     St.  Paul  would  assume  that  his  readers,  some  of 
were  Jewish  Christians,  and  all  of  whom  were  aware  o: 
ence  of  such  a  class,  would  recognize  this.     And  if  this  were  so 
the  same  deduction  might  be  made.    As  then  the  Jewish  people 
were  not  rejected,  because  the  was  saved ;  so  nov, 

is  a  remnant,  and  t  s  that  God  has  not  cast  awa 

j  oo|  U  M  in  b. 

Xilfifta  (on  the  orthography  cf.  V 
XI'WM),  4a  remnant.'     The  word  does  not  oc  .ere  in  the 

m  the  O.  T.  only  twice,  and  then  not  in  the  tc< 
sense  of  the  '  remnant.'     The  usual  word  for  that  is 


XI.  5-7.]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  313 


x<*PlTO$*  Predicate  with  yiyow.  '  There  has 
to  be  through  the  principle  of  selection  which  is  dependent  on  the 
Divine  grace  or  favour.'  This  addition  to  the  thought,  which  is 
further  explained  in  ver.  6,  reminds  the  reader  of  the  result  of  the 
previous  discussion  :  that  *  election  '  on  which  the  Jews  had  always 
laid  so  much  stress  had  operated,  but  it  was  a  selection  on  the 
part  of  God  of  those  to  whom  He  willed  to  give  His  grace,  and 
not  an  election  of  those  who  had  earned  it  by  their  works. 

6.  cl  W  xrfp"1  *  TA-  A  further  explanation  of  the  principle*  of 
election.  If  the  election  had  been  on  the  basis  of  works,  then  the 
Jews  might  have  demanded  that  God's  promise  could  only  be  ful- 
filled if  all  who  had  earned  it  had  received  it  :  St.  Paul,  by  reminding 
them  of  the  principles  of  election  already  laid  down,  implies  that 
the  promise  is  fulfilled  if  the  remnant  is  saved.  God's  people 
are  those  whom  He  has  chosen  ;  it  is  not  that  the  Jews  are  chosen 
because  they  are  His  people. 

tir«l  ^  x<*Pl*  outl"  yiVrrcu  x^Pl«  :  '  tn>s  follows  from  the  very 
meaning  of  the  idea  of  grace.'  Graft  j  nisi  gratis  sit  gratia  turn  tst. 
St.  Augustine. 


The  TR.  after  VMTOJ  x*f*'  *<M»  •*  W  Jf  Ipr",  °"«"  '<")  X^>**  '  «*  ** 
l/yyor  ov««V,  Joriy  l/rycr  with  K«  (B)  L  and  later  MSS.  ,  Syrr..  Chry*.  and  Tbdrt. 
(in  the  text,  bat  they  do  not  refer  to  the  words  in  their  commentary). 

rl  yd/M.     The 


B  reads  .1  ft)  Jf  Ipywv,  <K«IT,  X«P«r  i*<*  rJ  fpTor  ou^ri  l<rrl 
clause  is  omitted  by  K«  A  C  D  E  F  G  P,  Vulg.  Aegyptt  (Boh.  Sah.v  Arm., 
OriR.-lat.  Jo.-Damasc.  AmbrsL  Patr.-laU.  There  need  be  no  donbt  that  it  to 
a  gloss,  nor  to  the  authority  of  B  of  any  weight  in  support  of  a  Western 
addition  such  as  this  against  such  preponderating  authority.  This  to  con- 
sidered by  \VH.  to  be  the  solitary  or  almost  the  solitary  case  in  which  B 
possibly  has  a  Syrian  reading  (Introd.  li.  150). 

7.  TI  oo*  ;  This  verse  sums  up  the  result  of  the  discussion  in 
w.  2-6.  4  What  then  is  the  result  ?  In  what  way  can  we  modify 
the  harsh  statement  made  in  ver.  i  ?  It  is  indeed  still  true  that 
Israel  as  a  nation  has  failed  to  obtain  what  is  its  aim,  namely 
righteousness  :  but  at  the  same  time  there  is  one  portion  of  it,  the 
elect,  who  have  attained  it.' 

^  tt  rfuXoyrj:  i.e.  oi  «Af«ro/.  The  abstract  for  the  concrete 
suggests  the  reason  for  their  success  by  laying  stress  on  the  idea 
rather  than  on  the  individuals. 

ol  &«  Xotvol  *rtipw<K)aar  :  'while  the  elect  have  attained  what 
they  sought,  those  who  have  failed  to  attain  it  have  been  hardened* 
They  have  not  failed  because  they  have  been  hardened,  but  they 
have  been  hardened  because  they  have  failed  ;  cf.  i.  24  ft.,  where 
sin  is  represented  as  God's  punishment  inflicted  on  man  for  their 
rebellion.  Here  St.  Paul  does  not  definitely  say  by  whom,  for 
that  is  not  the  point  it  interests  him  to  discuss  at  present  :  he  has 
represented  the  condition  of  Israel  both  as  the  result  of  God's 
action  (ch.  ix)  and  of  their  own  (ch.  x).  Here  as  in  «mym<r/M»a 


3'4  ISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [XL  7,  8. 

ix.  22,  he  uses  the  colourless  passive  without  laying  stress  on  the 
the  quotation  8  represents  God  as  the  author, 

in  vcr.  1 1  suggests  that  they  are  free  agents. 

The  verb  9mp6tt  (derived  from  moot  a  callus  or  stone  formed  in  the 
bladder)  is  a  medical  term  used  in  Hippocrates  and  elsewhere  of  a  hone  or 
hard  substance  growing  when  bones  are  fractured,  or  of  a  stone  forming  in 
the  bladder.  Hence  metaphorically  it  is  used  in  the  N.  T.,  and  apparently 

callous:  so  Mark  vt 


there  only  of  the  heart  becoming  hardened  or  callous :  so  Mark  \ 

while  the  noon  vaywru  occurs  in 


Jo.  xii.  40 ;  Rom.  xi.  7 ;  a  <  while  the  notu 

the  same  sense,  Mark  iii.  5 ;  Rom  The  idea  is  in  all 

these  places  the  same,  that  a  covering  has  grown  over  the  heart,  making 
men  incapable  of  receiving  any  new  teaching  however  good,  and  making 
them  oblivious  of  the  wrong  they  are  doing.  In  Job  xvii.  7  (vrnipvm* 
yap  dvd  !>pfyt  of  tyfeA/iot  jiov)  the  word  is  used  of  blindness,  but  again  only 
of  moral  blindness ;  anger  has  caused  as  it  were  a  covering  to  grow  over 
the  eyes.  There  is  therefore  no  need  to  take  the  word  to  mean  '  blind,'  as 
do  the  grammarians  (Suidas,  **p&i,  o  vwfXot :  wraaWroi,  TtrffAvro* : 
Hesychius,  *<**p»>Urot,  r«n^A«/Uro«)  and  the  Latin  Versions  (uuauati, 
obtaetatt).  It  is  possible  that  this  translation  arose  from  a  confusion  with 
97)?*  (tee  on  «arorvf««r  below)  which  was  perhaps  occasionally  used  of 
blindness  (see  Prof.  Armitage  Robinson  in  Ac*kmy,  189;  though 

probably  then  as  a  specialized  usage  for  the  more  general  '  maimc 
though  the  form  wijpt*  occurs  in  some  MSS.  of  the  N.  T.,  yet  the  evidence 
against  it  is  in  every  case  absolutely  conclusive,  as  it  is  also  in  the  O.  T.  in 
the  one  passage  where  the  word  occurs. 

8.  KO&S  y*yp<nrTai.    St.  Paul  supports  and  explains  his  last 
statement  ol  cW  Xouroi  twwpvfyw  by  quotations  from  the  O.  T. 
The  first  which   in  form  resembles  Deut  xxix.  4,  modi:. 
Is.  xxix.  10;  vi.  9,  10,  describes  the  spiritual  dulness  or  torpor  of 
which  the  prophet  accuses  the  Israelites.    This  he  says  had  been 

tic-m  by  God  as  a  punishment  for  their  faithlessness.    1 
words  will  equally  well  apply  to  the  spiritual  condition  of  the 
Apostle's  own  time,  showing  that  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
position  of  Israel  as  God's  people,  and  suggesting  a  general  ' 
God's  dealing  with  them. 

The  following  extracts,  in  which  the  words  that  St  Paul  has  made 
use  of  are  printed  in  spaced  type,  will  give  the  source  of  the  quotation. 
Deut  xxix.  4  *o2  our  i3*««r  Ki//xot  J  e«4r  i^r  «o/>o*ar  •iMvcu  *al 
£^0aA>iovf  fikifitr  ital  wra  d«ot/«ir  tttt  rrjt  juipa. 

IO  ori  v«vJri««r  i/pdt  Kvptoi  *r«i/;*ar<  «arari/£ «a/i  :  cf.  Is.  \ . 
dffOf  d«oi/a«r«  ecu  06  p)  ovrqn  «a2  &\iwvrr<t  0\i^trt  *ol  o&  p)  MfT«. 
.  :<  <?*a  'Ka/t  wor«,  K.>« ;     \Vhilc  the  form  resembles  the  words  in 
Deut,  the  historical  situation  and  meaning  of  the  quotation  are  represented 
by  the  passages  in  Isaiah  to  .  aul  is  clearly  referring. 

vrcupk  Kararv(cMs :  '  a  spirit  of  torpor,'  a  state  of  dull  insensi- 
bility to  c\c  ; ritual,  such  as  would  be  produced  by  dn: 
nest,  or  stupor.    Is.  xxix.  10  (RV.)  •  For  the  L<  oured 
out  upon  you  the  spirit  of  deep  sleep,  and  hath  closed  your  eyes, 
the  prophets;  and  your  heads,  the  seers,  hath  He  cov< : 

The  word  mrdVi^tt  is  derived  from  «ar<uw<rofiai.    The  simple 
w»  is  used  to  mean  to  'prick'  or  'strike'  or  'dint  npound 


XI.  8-10.]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  315 


rcrb  would  mean,  (i)  to  'strike*  or  'prick  violently,'  and 
'  stun  '  ;  no  instance  it  quoted  of  it  in  its  primary  sane,  bat  it  is 
(3)  especially  in  the  LXX  of  strong  emotions,  of  the  prickings  of  last 
10  (Thcod.  ;  ;  of  strong  grief  Gen.  xxxiv.  7  ;  Ecclos.  xir.  i  ;  and  so  Acts  u.  37 
Kartnrpjffa*  rji  «a/>&?  of  being  strongly  moTed  by  speaking.  Then  . 
used  of  the  stunning  effect  of  such  emotion  which  results  in  irfirnlisauiai  : 
Is.  ri.  5  it  rdXat  ly*  6ri  mratirvyftai  :  Dan.  z.  I*  Item  rA  wp6<i9tw6v  pa* 
Iwl  T^  TP'  *«i  *aT«rvy»;i',  and  so  the  general  idea  of  torpor  would  be 
derived.  The  noun  *araw(it  appear*  to  occur  only  twice,  Is.  xux.  10 
wvtvfia  KQTO*  i>(  tan,  Ps.  lix  [lx\  4  oXror  *araM'l<wi.  In  the  former  case  it 
clearly  means  •  torpor  '  or  '  deep  sleep/  as  both  the  context  and  the  Hebrew 
show,  in  the  latter  case  probably  so.  It  may  be  noticed  that  this  definite 
meaning  of  'torpor*  or  'deep  sleep*  which  is  found  in  the  noun  cannot  be 
exactly  paralleled  in  the  verb;  and  it  may  be  suggested  that  a  certain  con- 
fusion existed  with  the  verb  rwrafw,  which  means  '  to  nod  in  sleep/  '  be 
drowsy/  just  as  the  meaning  of  J/xft/a  was  influenced  by  its  resemblance 
to  tp<t  (cf.  ii.  8).  On  the  word  generally  see  Fri.  U.  p.  558  & 


fos  Tt)f  orjficpoi'  ^i/oot  :  cf.  Acts  vii.  51  'Ye  stiflhecked  and 
unuriumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy 
Ghost:  as  your  fathers  did  so  do  ye/  Si  Stephen's  speech 
illustrates  more  in  detail  the  logical  assumptions  which  underlie 
St.  Paul's  quotations.  The  chosen  people  have  from  the  beginning 
shown  the  same  obstinate  adherence  to  their  own  views  and 
a  power  of  resisting  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  and  God  has  throughout 
punished  them  for  their  obstinacy  by  giving  them  over  to  spiritual 
blindness. 

0.  KOI  AapiS  X/yci  K.r.X.  :  quoted  from  the  LXX  of  Ps.  Izviii 

[Ixixj.  23,  24  yimj&?]Tu  9  rpantfn  avr£»»  cWjriop  ai-rwr  tit  rayi&a,  «a*  tit 
airairdoWiy  ral  <r«aj>oaAof  aKario&irwrav  it.r.X.  (which  is  ascribed  in 

the  title  to  David)  with  reminiscences  of  Ps.  zzxiv  [zxzv].  8,  and 
xxvii  [xxviiij.  4.  The  Psalmist  is  represented  as  declaring  the 
Divine  \vrath  against  those  who  have  made  themselves  enemies  of 
the  Divine  will.  Those  who  in  his  days  were  the  enemies  of  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  people  are  represented  in  the  Apostle's  days  by 
the  Jews  who  have  shut  their  ears  to  the  Gospel  message. 

^  rpdirclo  OUTWIT  'their  feast*  The  image  is  that  of  men 
feasting  in  careless  security,  and  overtaken  by  their  enemies,  owing 
to  the  very  prosperity  which  ought  to  be  their  strength.  So  to  the 
Jews  that  Law  and  those  Scriptures  wherein  they  trusted  are  to 
become  the  very  cause  of  their  fall  and  the  snare  or  hunting-net  in 
which  they  are  caught. 

9KdVSoXor  :  '  that  over  which  they  fall/  '  a  cause  of  their  destruc- 
tion/ 

drrowo'Sofia  :  Ps.  ixvii  [xxviii].  4.  'A  requital/  'recompense.' 
The  Jews  are  to  be  punished  for  their  want  of  spiritual  insight  by 
being  given  over  to  blind  trust  in  their  own  law;  in  fact  being 
given  up  entirely  to  their  own  wishes. 

10.  anoTio6t)T»)aoK  n.r.X.  '  May  their  eyes  become  blind,  so  that 
they  have  no  insight,  and  their  backs  bent  like  men  who  are  continu- 


[XI.  i  10 

i  about  in  the  chrk ! '    They  are  to  be  like  those  described 
l>ound  in  the  cave :  even  if  they  are  brought  to  the 
only  be  blinded  by  it,  and  will  be  unable  to  see. 
udgcment  upon  them  is  are  to  be  ever  bent  down 

w-ith  the  weight  of  the  burden  which  they  have  wilfully  tak 
r  backs. 

It  may  be  worth  noticing  that  Lipsius,  who  does  not  elsewhere  accept  the 
theory  of  interpolations  in  the  text,  suggests  that  TV.  9.  10  are  a  glow  added 
by  tome  reader  in  the  margin  after  the  (all  of  Jerusalem  cf  Hoist' 
v.  T.  i8;a,  p.  455;  Michelsen,  Tk.  T.  1887.  p.  163;  PrcttstaHUn-tibtl, 
p.  589;  E.  T.  il  154%  It  is  suggested  that  &ararr4f  is  inconsistent 
with  ver.  1 1  ff.  Hat  it  has  not  been  noticed  that  in  ver.  1 1  we  have  a  change 
of  metaphor,  trratoar,  whjch  would  he  singularly  oat  of  place  if  it  came 
immediately  after  ver.  8.  As  it  is,  this  word  is  suggested  and  accounted 
for  by  the  metaphors  employed  in  the  quotation  introduced  in  ver.  9.  If 
we  omit  w.  9,  10  we  must  also  omit  ver.  n.  There  is  throughout  the 
whole  Epiitle  a  continuous  succession  of  thought  running  from  verse  to 
verse  which  makes  any  theory  of  interpolation  impossible, 
doction,  *  9.) 

The  Doctrine  of  tJie  Remnant. 

The  idea  of  the  'Remnant'  is  one  of  the  m  1  and 

significant  in  the  prophetic  portions  of  the  O.  T. 
first  apparently  in  the  prophetic  narrative  which  forms  the  basis  of 
the  account  of  Elijah  in  the  book  of  Kings,  the  passage 
quoting.     Here  a  new  idea  is  introduced  into  I 
history,  and  it  is  introduced  in  one  of  the  most  solemn  a: 
pressive  narratives  of  that  history.    Th-  to  the 

desert  to  commune  with  God ;  he  is  taken  the  moun 

God,  which  played  such  a  large  pan  in  the  traditions  of  His  people, 
and  he  receives  the  Divine  message  in  that  form  >  ever 

marked  off  this  as  unique  amongst  thcophanies,  the 
voice/   contrast*  -he  thunder,  and    the    storm,   and    the 

earthquake.    And  the  idea  that  was  thus  introduced   m 
stage  in  the  religious  history  of  the  world,  for  e  first 

revelation  of  the  idea  of  personal  as  opposed  to  national  consecra- 
tion.    Up  to  that  time  it  was  the  nation  as  a  whole  th.r 
bound  to  God,  the  nation  as  a  whole  for  \\ 
offered,  the  nation  as  a  whole  for  'ought  and 

judges  legislated    But  the  nati 

ic  Prophet  records  that  it  i-  ity  of  the  ind; 

Israelites  who  had  r< :  .  that  must  henceforth  be 

reckoned    The  11  be  chastised,  but  the  i-  .ill  be 

r;cw  one,  '  :i  1  continuously 

from  this  time  onwards ;  v 
of  the  later  prophets.  8-10),  in 


XI    1   10.]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  317 

12,  v.  3),  in  Zephaniah  (iii.  12,  13),  in  Jeremiah  (xxiii.3),  in  Ezekiel 
(xiv.  14-20,  22),  but  most  pointedly  and  markedly  in  Isaiah.  The 
two  great  and  prominent  ideas  of  Isaiah's  prophecy  are  typified  in 
the  names  given  to  his  two  sons, — the  reality  of  the  Divine  vein 
geancc  (Mahcr-shalal-hash-baz)  and  the  salvation  of  the  Remnant 
(Shear- Jashub)  and,  through  the  Holy  and  Righteous  Remnant,  of 
the  theocratic  nation  itself  (vii.  3;  viii.  2,  18;  ix.  12;  x.  21,  24); 
and  both  these  ideas  are  prominent  in  the  narrative  of  the  call 
(vi.  9-13)  '  Hear  ye  indeed,  but  understand  not,  and  see  ye  indeed, 
rceive  not.  Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat,  and  make  their 
ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes  . . .  Then  said  I,  Lord,  how  long  ? 
And  He  answered,  Until  cities  be  waste  without  inhabitant  and 
homes  without  men,  and  the  land  become  utterly  waste.'  But  this 
is  only  one  side.  There  is  a  true  stock  left.  '  Like  the  terebinth 
and  the  oak,  whose  stock  remains  when  they  are  cut  down  and  sends 
forth  new  saplings,  so  the  holy  seed  remains  as  a  living  stock  and 
a  nctf  and  better  Israel  shall  spring  from  the  ruin  of  the  at 
state '  (Robertson  Smith,  Prophet*  of  Israel,  p.  234).  This  doctrine 
of  a  Remnant  implied  that  it  was  the  individual  who  was  true  to 
his  God,  and  not  the  nation,  that  was  the  object  of  the  Divine 
solicitude;  that  it  was  in  this  small  body  of  individuals  that  the 
true  life  of  the  chosen  nation  dwelt,  and  that  from  them  would 
spring  that  internal  reformation,  which,  coming  as  the  result  of  the 
Divine  chastisement,  would  produce  a  whole  people,  pure  and 
undented,  to  be  offered  to  God  (Is.  Ixv.  8,  9). 

The  idea  appealed  with  great  force  to  the  early  Christians.  It 
appealed  to  St.  Stephen,  in  whose  speech  one  of  the  main  currents 
of  thought  seems  to  be  the  marvellous  analogy  which  runs  through 
all  the  history  of  Israel.  The  mass  of  the  people  has  ever  been 
unfaithful ;  it  is  the  individual  or  the  small  body  that  has  remained 
true  to  God  in  all  the  changes  of  Israel's  history,  and  these  the 
people  have  always  persecuted  as  they  crucified  the  Messiah. 
And  so  St.  Paul,  musing  over  the  sad  problem  of  Israel's  unbelief, 
finds  its  explanation  and  justification  in  this  consistent  trait  of  the 
nation's  history.  As  in  Elijah's  lime,  as  in  Isaiah's  time,  so  now  the 
mass  of  the  people  have  rejected  the  Divine  call ;  but  there  always 
has  been  and  still  is  the  true  Remnant,  the  Remnant  whom  God 
has  selected,  who  have  preserved  the  true  life  and  ideal  of  the 
people  and  thus  contain  the  elements  of  new  and  prolonged  life. 

And  this  doctrine  of  the  '  Remnant '  is  as  true  to  human  nature 
as  it  is  to  Israel's  history.  No  church  or  nation  is  saved  en  masst, 
it  is  those  members  of  it  who  are  righteous.  It  is  not  the  mass 
of  the  nation  or  church  that  has  done  its  work,  but  the  select 
few  who  have  preserved  the  consciousness  of  its  high  calling. 
It  is  by  the  selection  of  individuals,  even  in  the  nation  that  has 
been  chosen,  that  God  has  worked  equally  in  religion  and  in  all 


318  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [XI.  11-14. 

the  different  lines  along  which  the  path  of  human  development  has 
pnmned 

[On  the  Remnant  see  especially  Jowett,  Contrasts  of  Prophecy, 
in  Romans  ii.  p.  290;    and  Robertson  Smith,   The  Prof 

pp.  1 06,  209,  234,  258.     The  references  are  collected  in 
Oehler,  Thtologu  da  alUn  Tata  aunts,  p.  809.] 


THE  REJECTION  OP  ISRAEL  NOT  FINAL 

XI.  11-24.  The  Rejection  of  Israel  is  not  coin; 
will  it  be  final.     Its  result  has  be,  \m  of  the 

Church  to  the  Gentiles.     The  sahation  of  //  stir  the 

to  jealousy ;  they  will  return  to  the  Kingdom 
mean  the  fi nal  consummation  (w.  10 

Of  all  this  the  guarantee  is  the  holiness  of  the  stock  from 
•which  Israel  comes.     God  has  grafted  you  Gentiles  into  that 
stock  against  the  natural  order ;  far  more  easily  ca 
restore  them  to  a  position  which  by  nature  and  dcsi 
theirs  (w.  1 6- 

11  The  Rejection  of  Israel  then  is  only  partial.  Yet 
is  the  great  mass  of  the  nation  on  whom  God's  judgement  has 
come:  what  of  these?  Is  there  no  further  hope  for  them?  Is 
this  stumbling  of  theirs  such  as  will  lead  to  a  final  and  complete 
fall  ?  By  no  means.  It  is  only  temporary,  a  working  out  of  the 
Divine  purpose.  This  purpose  is  ;  lied.  It  has  r< 

in  the  extension  of  the  Messianic  salvation  to  the  Gentiles.  It  is 
partly  in  the  future ;  that  the  inclusion  of  these  in  the  Kingdom 
may  rouse  the  Jews  to  emulation  and  bring  them  back  to  the  place 
.  should  be  theirs  and  from  which  so  far  they  have  been 
excluded.  "  And  consider  what  this  means.  Even  the  transgres- 
sion of  Israel  has  brought  to  the  world  a  great  wealth  of  spiritual 
blessings;  their  repulse  has  enriched  the  nations,  how  much  greater 
then  wUl  be  the  result  when  the  chosen  people  with  their  numbers 
completed  have  accepted  the  Messiah?  "In  these  speculations 
about  my  countrymen,  I  am  not  disregarding  my  proper  mission 
to  you  Gentiles.  It  is  with  you  in  my  mind  that  I  am  speaking. 

put  it  more  strongly.     I  do  all  I  can  to  glorify  my  n 
as  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  M  and  this  in  hopes  thai  I  may  succeed 


XI.  14-21.]         THE  REJECTION   OF  ISRAEL  319 

in  bringing  salvation  to  some  at  any  rate  of  my  countrymen  by  thus 
moving  them  to  emulation.  "And  my  reason  for  this  is  what 
I  have  implied  just  above,  that  by  the  return  of  the  Jews  the  whole 
world  will  receive  what  it  longs  for.  The  rejection  of  them  has 
been  the  means  of  reconciling  the  world  to  God  by  the  preaching 
to  the  Gentiles ;  their  reception  into  the  Kingdom,  the  gathering 
together  of  the  elect  from  the  four  winds  of  heaven,  will  inaugurate 
the  final  consummation,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the 
eternal  life  that  follows. 

"  But  what  ground  is  there  for  thus  believing  in  the  return  of  the 
chosen  people  to  the  Kingdom?  It  is  the  holiness  of  the  race. 
When  you  take  from  the  kneading  trough  a  piece  of  dough  and 
offer  it  to  the  Lord  as  a  heave-offering,  do  you  not  consecrate  the 
whole  mass?  Do  not  the  branches  of  a  tree  receive  life  and 
nourishment  from  the  roots?  So  it  is  with  Israel.  Their  fore- 
fathers the  Patriarchs  have  been  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  and  in 
them  the  whole  race ;  from  that  stock  they  obtain  their  spiritual  life, 
a  life  which  must  be  holy  as  its  source  is  holy.  "For  the  Church 
of  God  is  like  a  « green  olive  tree,  fair  with  goodly  fruit,'  as  the 
Prophet  Jeremiah  described  it.  Its  roots  are  the  Patriarchs;  its 
branches  the  people  of  the  Lord.  Some  of  these  branches  have 
been  broken  off;  Israelites  who  by  birth  and  descent  were  members 
of  the  Church.  Into  their  place  you  Gentiles,  by  a  process  quite 
strange  and  unnatural,  have  been  grafted,  shoots  from  a  wild  olive, 
into  a  cultivated  stock.  Equally  with  the  old  branches  which  still 
remain  on  the  tree  you  share  in  the  rich  sap  which  flows  from  its 
root.  "  Do  not  for  this  reason  think  that  you  may  insolently  boast 
of  the  position  of  superiority  which  you  occupy.  If  you  are 
inclined  to  do  so,  remember  that  you  have  done  nothing,  that  all 
the  spiritual  privileges  that  you  possess  simply  belong  to  the 
stock  on  which  you  by  no  merit  of  your  own  have  been  grafted. 
19  But  perhaps  you  say :  '  That  I  am  the  favoured  one  is  shown  by 
this  that  others  were  cut  off  that  I  might  be  grafted  in/  *  I  grant 
what  you  say;  but  consider  the  reason.  It  was  owing  to  their 
\v.\m  of  faith  that  they  were  broken  off:  you  on  the  other  hand 
owe  your  firm  position  to  your  faith,  not  to  any  natural  superiority. 
in  incentive  therefore  not  to  pride,  as  you  seem  to  think,  but 
to  fear.  For  if  God  did  not  spare  the  holders  of  the  birthright, 


320  i:  TO  THE  ROMA:  [xi.  n. 

no  grafted  branches  but  the  natural  growth  of  the  tree,  He  certainly 
will  be  no  more  ready  to  spare  you,  who  have  no  such  privileges 
to  plead.  *  Learn  the  Divine  goodness,  but  learn  and  understand 
the  Divine  severity  as  well  Those  who  have  fallen  have  ex- 
perienced the  severity,  you  the  goodness;  a  goodness  which  will 
be  continued  if  you  cease  to  be  self-confident  and  simply  trust : 
otherwise  you  too  may  be  cut  off  as  they  were.  "Nor  again 
is  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  irrevocable.  They  can  be  grafted 
again  into  the  stock  on  which  they  grew,  if  only  they  will  give  up 
their  unbelief.  -  For  they  are  in  God's  hands ;  and  God's  power  is 
not  limited.  He  is  able  to  restore  them  to  the  position  from  which 
they  have  fallen.  *  For  consider.  You  are  the  slip  cut  from  the 
hat  grew  wild,  and  yet,  by  a  process  wl.  must  admit 

to  be  entirely  unnatural,  you  were  grafted  into  the  cultivated  stock. 
If  God  could  do  this,  much  more  can  He  graft  the  natural  branches 
of  the  cultivated  olive  on  to  their  own  stock  from  which  they  were 
cut.  You  Gentiles  have  no  grounds  for  boasting,  nor  have  the 
Jews  for  despair.  Your  position  is  less  secure  than  was  theirs,  and 
if  they  only  trust  in  God,  their  salvation  will  be  easier  than  was 
yours. 

11    St.  Paul  has  modified  the  question  of  vcr.  i  so  far 
rejection  of  Israel  is  only  partial.     But  yet  it  t  the  rest, 

that  is  the  majority,  of  the  nation  are  spiritually  blind.     Th« 
stumbled  and  sinned.    Docs  this  imply  their  final  cxc! 
the  Messianic  salvation  ?    St.  Paul  shows  that  it  is  not  so.    It  is 
only  temporary  and  it  has  a  Divine  purpose. 

X4y*»  o3r.    A  new  stage  in  the  argument     •  I  a^k  then  as  to  this 
majority  whose  state  the  prophets  have  thus  described.' 
question  arises  immediately  out  of  the  preceding  verses,  but  is 
a  stage  in  the  argument  running  through  the  whole  c 
raised  by  the  discussion  of  Israel's  K  ;,o-x.  21. 

jit)  orrauray,  Ira  vfowai ;  '  have  they  (i.  c.  those  who  have  been 
hardened,  vcr.  8)  stumbled  so  as  to  fall  ?'    JV;<  fhndtrunt, 

ut  cadercni?    Is  their  failure  of  such  a  charai 
finally  lost,  and  cut  off  from  the  Messianic  salvation  ?    mi  expresses 
the  contemplated  result.    The  metaphor  in  ftrrouw  (which  i- 
used  elsewhere  in  a  moral  sense,  D< 
a  Pet  L  10)  seems  to  be  suggested  by  <rcdvdaXoy  of  vcr.  9. 

ng  of  the  passage  is  given  by  the  contrast  bctv 
and  T-  .m  who  stumbles  may  rccov« 

fall  a  nee  w«W".  used  of  a  complete  and 


XI.  11]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  321 

irrevocable  fall.    Cf.  Is.  xxiv.  20  .on*^*  yap  «V  o^»  4  b*^  «•) 

*«7<lr<u  na\  ov  nff  OVWJTCU  dwurr^Mu  :  Ps.  So/,  Hi.  1  3  t*ta<*  tn  vo«»pi» 
r6  trrwpa  a^roi-,  *ai  ov«  aKurrqcrmu  :  Hcb.  iv.  1  1.  It  is  no  argument 
against  this  that  the  same  word  is  used  in  w.  22,  23  of  a  fall 
which  is  not  irrevocable:  the  ethical  meaning  must  be  in  each 
case  determined  by  the  context,  and  here  the  contrast  with  Araw 
suggests  a  fall  that  is  irrevocable. 

There  is  a  good  deal  of  controversy  among  grammarians  as  to  the  admission 
of  a  lazer  use  of  Tra,  a  controversy  which  has  a  tendency  to  divide  scholars 
by  nations;  the  German  grammarians  with  Winer  at  their  head  (ft  hit.  10.  6, 
p.  573  K-  T.)  maintain  that  it  always  preserve*,  even  in  N.  T.  Greek,  its 
classical  meaning  of  purpose  ;  on  the  other  hand,  Engluh  commentators  such 
as  Lightfoot  on  Gal.  v.  17  ,  EWcott  (on  i  Toes*.  T.  4  ,  and  Evans  (on  I  Cor. 
vii.  29)  admit  the  laser  use.  Evans  say*  '  that  mi.  like  our  "  that,"  has  three 
uses  :  (  i  )/*«/  (in  order  that  he  may  go),  (a)  Jtftmitiv*  ,  I  advise  that  he  go), 
(3)  t*t>j«tn*ly  ttbatie  (have  they  stumbled  that  they  should  fall)  *  ;  and  it 
is  quite  dear  that  it  is  only  by  reading  into  passages  a  great  deal  which  is 
not  expressed  that  commentators  can  make  Era  in  all  cases  mean  *  in  order 
that.'  In  i  The**,  v.  4  t/uir  ««',  dfeA^of,  06*  J<rri  I*  oivrtt,  tra  4  jptfa. 
Ipdt  un  K\lvrrfl  raroxidlp,  where  Winer  states  that  there  is  «a  Divine 
purpose  of  God,'  this  is  not  expressed  either  in  the  words  or  the  context. 
In  I  Cor.  vii  ap  6  *aiplt  <n/x«0raA/*«ror  J<rr(,  TO  AatvOr  mi  «ai  of  l\arrn 
ywtun«a  Jjt  rf  /xorr«f  Stot,  '  is  it  probable  that  a  state  of  sitting  loose  to 
worldly  interests  should  be  described  as  the  aim  or  purpose  of  God  in 
curtailing  the  season  of  the  great  tribulation  ?  '  v  Evans.  1  Yet  Winer  asserts 
that  the  words  iVa  «ai  ol  lxorr«f  «.rX  express  the  (Divine)  purpose  for 
which  A  natptt  ow«rraXntvot  t<rri  So  again  in  the  present  passage  it  is 
only  a  confusion  of  ideas  that  can  see  any  purpose.  If  St  Paul  had  used 
a  passive  verb  such  as  isMpMfffsv  then  we  might  translate,  '  have  they  been 
hardened  in  order  that  they  may  fall  t  '  and  there  would  be  no  objection  in 
logic  or  grammar,  but  as  St.  Paul  has  written  ftrraKray,  if  there  is  a  purpose 
in  the  passage  it  ascribes  stumbling  as  a  deliberate  act  undertaken  with  the 
purpose  of  falling.  We  cannot  here  any  more  than  elsewhere  read  in 
a  Divine  purpose  where  it  is  neither  implied  nor  expressed,  merely  for  the 
sake  of  defending  an  arbitrary  grammatical  rule. 


St.  Paul  indignantly  denies  that  the  final  fall  of 
:  was  the  contemplated  result  of  their  transgression.    The 
result  of  it  has  already  been  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the 
final  purpose  is  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  also. 

T$  auriii'  irapairrwfiaTi  :    'by  their  false   step,'  continuing  the 

metaphor  of  «Vrm<rnv. 

Vj  owrnpia  roif  cOvcviy.  St.  Paul  is  here  staling  an  historical 
fact.  His  own  preaching  to  the  Gentiles  had  been  caused  definitely 
by  the  rejection  of  his  message  on  the  part  of  the  Jews.  Acts 
xiii.  45~4B;  cf.  viii.  4;  xi.  19;  xxviii.  28. 

<is  TO  Trapaf^Xiacu  aurou?  :  (to  provoke  them  (the  Jews)  to 
jealousy.'  This  idea  had  already  been  suggested  (x.  19)  by  the 
quotation  from  Deuteronomy  *By*  srapafrX«<rs»  vitas  «V  OMC  «&««. 

St.  Paul  in  these  two  statements  sketches  the  lines  on  which  the 
Divine  action  is  explained  and  justified.  God's  purpose  has  been 
to  use  the  disobedience  of  the  Jews  in  order  to  promote  the  calling 


322  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [XI.  11,  12. 

of  the  Gentiles,  and  He  will  eventually  arouse  the  Jews  to  give  up 
.•  emulation  of  the  Gentiles.    Ktra  *ara<7«n*iV 

TO  srraurpa  avritv  AtirX^y  oico*«/uay  ipyafrraC   rd  n  yap  tdvt]  avrti<ray<i 
Ka\  avroit  &  itafxucri(ov  «ni  <(xdi(o9  Jwi<rrp<<f>u,  /iq  faporrat  r^»  ro«ravnj» 


i-wr  Mwv  T«M'>.     Kuthym.-Zig. 

12.  St.  Paul  strengthens  his  statement  by  an  argument  i! 

he  spiritual  character  of  the  Jewish  people.     If  an 
\vhi<  h  has  been  so  disastrous  to  the  nation  has  had  such  a  bcnc- 

rcsult,  how  much  more  beneficial  will  be  the  result 
entrance  of  the  full  complement  of  the  nation  into  the  Me 

lorn? 

wXouTos  Koajioo  :  the  enriching  of  the  world  by  the  throwing  open 
to  it  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  :  cf.  z.  1  2  6  yap  avrot  Kvpto* 

narrvv,  frXovrwr  tit  irdvras  rovt  «fn«aAot'//«Vouf  UITO*. 

r6  TJTTTjjia  aurwK  :  '  their  defeat/  From  one  point  of  view  the 
unbelief  of  the  lews  was  a  transgression  (vopcmrw/ia),  from  another 
it  was  a  defeat,  for  they  were  repulsed  from  the  Messianic  kingdom, 
since  they  had  failed  to  obtain  what  they  sought. 


occurs  only  twice  elsewhere:    in   Is.   xxxi.  8    et  81   r«<m<r«o« 
foorra*  tit  fJTrrjua,  *«>/>?  fAp  wffKAiFfiOrpotrrcu  At  X*?**1  *<"  ^rrtjOricorrtu  : 
and  in  I  Cor.  n.  7  fly  jdr  <ir  2A«r  IjrniP*  »*"*  tany,  on  tpinar 
utO'  Jovrwr.    The  cornet  interpretation  of  the  word  as  derived  from  the 
verb  would  be  a  'defeat/  and  this  is  dearly  the  meaning  in  Isaiah.    It  can 
equally  well  apply  in  i  Cor.,  whether  it  be  translated  a  'defeat*  in  that  it 
lowers  the  Church  in  the  opinion  of  the  world,  or  a  '  moral  defeat,'  hence 
a  '  defect.'    The  same  meaning  suits  this  passage.    The  majority  - 
mentators  however  translate  it  here  'diminution'  (see  especially  G 
Co  mm,  pp.  194,  203).  in  order  to  make  the  antithesis  to  rA^pw/M  exact. 
Bat  as  Field  points  oat  (Otium  Noro.  lit.  97)  there  is  no  reason  why  the 
sentence  should  not  be  rhetorically  faulty,  and  it  is  not  much  improved  by 
giving  frrvjM  the  meaning  of  '  impoverishment'  as  opposed  to  '  replenish* 


TO  vX^pvpa  aurwf :  •  their  complement/  '  their  full  and  completed 
number/     See  on  xi.  25. 

The  exact  meaning  of  •A^/w/ia  has  still  to  be  ascertained,     i.  T: 
a  long  and  elaborate  note  on  the  word  in  Lft.  Col.  p.  323  IT.     He  starts  with 
asserting  that  *  substantives  in  -/M  formed  from  the  perfect  passive,  appear 
always  to  have  a  passive  tense.    They  may  denote  an  abstract  n 
a  concrete  thing ;  they  may  signify  the  action  itself  regarded  as  complete, 
or  the  product  of  the  action :  bat  in  any  case  they  give  the  result  of  the 
agencv  Involved  in  the  corresponding  vc  n  takes  the  verb  vAqpotr 


that  it  has  two  senses,  (i)  4  to  fill,'    ii) '  to  fulfil '  or  •  con 
and  deriving  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  word  vAww/M  from  the  Utter 
usage   makes   it   mean   in   the   N.  T.   always  'that   which   is   completed.' 
a.  A  somewhat  different  view  of  the  termination  -pa  is  given  by  the  late 

l-.van*  in  a  note  on  i  Cor.  v.  6  in  the  .s/.  Comm.  (part  of  *:. 
uooted  above  on  Rom.  iv.  a.)    This  would  favour  the  active  sense  id  quod 
tmfttt  or  adimpltt,  which  appears  to  be  the  proper  sense  of  the  I 
'  complement '  i  see  the  Philological  Society's  Ene.  Diet  s.  v.).     I'erhaps  the 

concrete  '  would  most  adequately  express  the  normal  meaning  of  the 


XI.  13,  14.]         THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  323 

13, 14.  These  two  verses  present  a  good  deal  of  difficulty,  of 
rather  a  subtle  kind. 

1 .  What  is  the  place  occupied  by  the  words  i?\*  M  X«y«  «.r A.  in 
the  argument  ?  (i)  Some  (Hort,  WH,  Lips.)  place  here  the  beginning 
of  a  new  paragraph,  so  Dr.  Hort  writes :  '  after  a  passage  on  the 
rejection  of  unbelieving  Israel,  and  on  God's  ultimate  purpose 
involved  in  it,  St.  Paul  turns  swiftly  round.'    But  an  examination 
of  the  context  will  show  that  there  is  really  no  break  in  the  ideas. 
The  thought  raised  by  the  question  in  ver.  1 1  runs  through  the 
whole  paragraph  to  ver.  24,  in  fact  really  to  ver.  32,  and  the 
reference  to  the  Gentiles  in  ver.  17  ff.  is  clearly  incidental.    Again 
ver.  15  returns  directly  to  ver.  12,  repeating  the  same  idea,  but  in 
a  way  to  justify  also  ver.  13.    (ii)  These  verses  in  their  appeal  10 
the  Gentiles  are  therefore  incidental,  almost  parenthetic,  and  are 
introduced  to  show  that  this  argument  has  an  application  to  Gentiles 
as  well  as  Jews. 

2.  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  iu*  ofr  (that  this  is  the  correct 
reading  see  below)  ?    It  is  usual  to  take  olv  in  its  ordinary  sense  of 
therefore,  and  then  to  explain  JM*  by  supposing  an  anacoluthon, 
or  by  finding  the  contrast  in  some  words  that  follow.    So  Gif. 
4  St.  Paul,  with  his  usual  delicate  courtesy  and  perfect  mastery  of 
Greek,  implies  that  this  is  but  one  part  (jur)  of  bis  ministry,  chosen 
as  he  was  to  bear  Christ's  name  "  before  Gentiles  and  kings  and 
the  children  of  Israel."    Winer  and  others  find  the  antithesis  in 
«t  trwf  irapafrX»><ra>.    But  against  these  views  may  be  urged  two 
reasons,  (i)  the  meaning  of  ?•*  ovv.    The  usage  at  any  rate  in  the 
N.T.  is  clearly  laid  down  by  Evans  on  i  Cor.  vi.  3  (Speaker's 
Comm.  p.  285), '  the  ol»  may  signify  then  or  therefore  only  when 
the  fwV  falls  back  upon  the  preceding  word,  because  it  is  expectant 
of  a  coming  ft*  or  ardp,'  otherwise,  as  is  pointed  out,  the  M«*  must 
coalesce  with  the  ow,  and  the  idea  is  either  '  corrective  and  substi- 
tutive  of  a  new  thought,  or  confirmative  of  what  has  been  stated 
and  addititious.'    Now  if  there  is  this  second  use  of  /nV  ofr  possible, 
unless  the  W  is  clearly  expressed  the  mind  naturally  would  suggest 
it,  especially  in  St.  Paul's  writings  where  \*v  ot/v  is  generally  so 
used :  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  no  instance  is  quoted  in  the  N.  T. 
where  ou»  in  /*«»  Q\>*  has  its  natural  force  in  a  case  where  it  is  not 
followed  by  W  (Heb.  ix.  i  quoted  by  Winer  does  not  apply,  see 
Westcott  ad  /<*.).    But  (ii)  further  ol*  is  not  the  particle  required 
here.    What  St.  Paul  requires  is  not  an  apology  for  referring  to 
the  Gentiles,  but  an  apology  to  the  Gentiles  for  devoting  so  much 
attention  to  the  Jews. 

If  these  two  points  are  admitted  the  argument  becomes  much 
clearer.  St.  Paul  remembers  that  the  majority  of  his  readers  are 
Gentiles ;  he  has  come  to  a  point  where  what  he  has  to  say  touches 
them  nearly ;  he  therefore  shows  parenthetically  how  his  love  for 

Y  2 


324  EPISTLE  T<  [XI 

his  co  and  his  zeal 

•s.  combine  towards  producing  the  same  end.    '  Do  no: 
that  what  I  am  saying  has  nothing  to  do  with  you  G 
makes  me  even  more  zealous  in  my  work  for 
of  mine  to  the  Gentiles  I  do  honour  to  and  exalt,  seeking  i; 

t   perchance  I  may  be  able  to  move  my  countrymen  to 

vcr.  15  he  shows  how  this  again  reacts  upon 

the  general  scheme  of  his  ministry.     *  And  this  I  do,  because  their 

to  the  Chun  :  ig  on  that  final  consummation  for 

we  all  look  for 

13.  ufiiK  S«  X«'yw  K.T.X.    The  W  expresses  a  slight  c 
thought,  and  tne  v/u»  is  emphatic :  '  But  it  is  to  you  Gentiles  I  am 
•peaking.    Nay  more,  so  far  as  I  am  an  Apostle  of  G« 
I  glorify  my  ministry :  if  thus  by  any  means/  Ac. 

IQvuv  dirooroXof :  comp.  Acts  xxii.  21  ; 

TV  Siaicotaay  pou  5o{d(w.     He  may  glorify  cither 

(i)  by  his  words  and  speech  ;  i:  :es  everywhere  the  duty  of 

iiing  to  the  Gentiles  he  exalts  tha 

better,  by  doing  all  in  his  power  to  make  it  successful:   comp. 
i  Cor.  xii.  26  «T«  fto£i{imu  MAo». 

This  verse  and  the  references  to  the  Gentiles  that  follow  so 
show  conclusively  that  St.  Paul  expected  the  majority  of  his  readers 
to  be  Gentiles.     Comp.  Hort,  Rom.  and  Eph.  p.  22  'Thou. 
Greek  is  ambiguous  the  context  appears  to  me  decisive  for 
6/iur  as  the  <  elf,  and  not  as  a  part  <  11  the  long 

previous  discussion  bearing  on  the  Jews,  occupying  nearly  t-. 
a  half  chapters,  the  Jews  are  invariably  spoken  of  in  the  third 
person.    In  the  half  chapter  that  follows  the  Geniiles  ar< 
spoken  of  in  the  second  person.    Exposition  has  here  passed  into 
exhortation  and  warning,  and  the  warning  is  exclusively  addressed 
to  Gentiles :  to  Christians  who  had  once  been  Jews  not  a  word  is 
addressed.' 

The  variation!  in  reading  in  the  particle*  which  occur  in  this  vene  suggest 

that  considerable  difficulties  were  felt  rpretatioo.     For  lj»  U 

.nusc. po*£.t  Syrr.  Boh.  Arm.,  Tbeodrt.  cod.  Jo.-Damasc ;  we  find 

in  C  t*u>  otr ;  while  the  Tl  &c.  Ong.-lat.  Chrys.  &c.  has 

IIH*  •&>.    Again  &  ob>  is  read  1     M  P,  Boh.,  Cjn  inasc, ; 

nlybyTR  with  L  &c.,  Orig.-lat  Chrys,  &c.  (to  Meyer);  while  the 

Western  group  D  E  F  G  and  some  minuscule*  omit  both. 

It  may  be  noticed  in  the  Epp.  of  St.  i'anl  that  wherever  ^  ovr  or  /Mrofr 

ccur  there  is  considerable  variation  in  the  reading. 
Rom  ix.  io:  ,i"o"Y«  KAKLP&c.,  Syrr.  Boh.;  ^rofr  B;  omit  al- 

i  ^ :  ptroiv-r*  om.  1  lat 

I  Cor.  vi.  4  :   pjr  oJr  moat  author 

N 

Bok 

The  \Ve«tero  MSS.  a*  a  rule  avoid  the  expression,  while  B  is  consu 


XI.  14,  16.]         THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  335 

14.  cl  wws  irapaf,T]Xw<jw.    «?  irwr  is  used  here  interrogatively  with 
the  aorist  subjunctive  (cp.  Phil.  iii.  10,  n).    The  grammarians 
explain  the  expression  by  saying  that  we  are  to  understand 
aoYrw*'.    <t  ir»f  occurs  Acts  xxvii.  12  with  the  optative,  Rom.  i.  10 
with  the  future. 

15.  The  two  previous  verses  have  been  to  a  certain  extent 
parenthetical ;  in  this  verse  the  Apostle  continues  the  argument  of 
ver.  i  a,  repeating  in  a  stronger  form  what  he  has  there  said,  but  in 
such  a  way  as  to  explain  the  statement  made  in  w.  13,  14,  that  by 
thus  caring  for  his  fellow-countrymen  he  is  fulfilling  his  mission 
to  the  Gentile  world.    The  casting  away  of  the  Tews  has  meant 
the  reconciliation  of  the  world  to  Christ.    Henceforth  there  is  no 
more  a  great  wall  of  partition  separating  God's  people  from  the 
rest  of  the  world.    This  is  the  first  step  in  the  founding  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom ;  but  when  all  the  people  of  Israel  shall  have 
come  in  there  will  be  the  final  consummation  of  all  things,  and  this 
means  the  realization  of  the  hope  which  the  reconciliation  of  the 
world  has  made  possible. 

diropoX^ :  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  for  their  faithlessness.  The 
meaning  of  the  word  is  defined  by  the  contrasted  wp6a\if+it. 

KOToXXoy^i  K&TI&OU:  cf.  w.  10,  ii.  The  reconciliation  was  the 
immediate  result  of  St.  Paul's  ministry,  which  he  describes  elsewhere 
(a  Cor.  v.  1 8,  19)  as  a  ministry  of  reconciliation;  its  final  result, 
the  hope  to  which  it  looks  forward,  is  salvation  (raraXAoy«Vr*r 
ffvthjooptQa) :  the  realization  of  this  hope  is  what  every  Gentile 
must  long  for,  and  therefore  whatever  will  lead  to  its  fulfilment 
must  be  part  of  St.  Paul's  ministry. 

irp&rXT)t|rts :  the  reception  of  the  Jews  into  the  kingdom  of  the 
Messiah.  The  noun  is  not  used  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.,  but  the 
meaning  is  shown  by  the  parallel  use  of  the  verb  (cf.  xiv.  3 ;  xv.  7). 

(uri)  in  vtKpuv.  The  meaning  of  this  phrase  must  be  determined 
by  that  of  KoraAXoyi}  coa/iov.  The  argument  demands  something 
much  stronger  than  that,  which  may  be  a  climax  to  the  section. 
It  may  either  be  (i)  used  in  a  figurative  sense,  cf.  Kzck.  x xxvii.  3  ff.; 
Luke  XV.  34,  33  4  <td«X$<fc  trov  OITOC  tngp&s  $r,  *ol  fC«7<™*  «"  <wroX»X«if, 
Kal  tipi&T).  In  this  sense  it  would  mean  the  universal  diffusion  of 
the  Gospel  message  and  a  great  awakening  of  spiritual  life  as  the 
result  of  it.  Or  (a),  it  may  mean  the  'general  Resurrection*  as 
a  sign  of  the  inauguration  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  In  this 
sense  it  would  make  a  suitable  antithesis  to  coroXXoy^.  The  recon- 
ciliation of  the  heathen  and  their  reception  into  the  Church  on 
earth  was  the  first  step  in  a  process  which  led  ultimately  to  their 
tromjpi'a.  It  gave  them  grounds  for  hoping  for  that  which  they 
should  enjoy  in  the  final  consummation.  And  this  consummation 
would  come  when  the  kingdom  was  completed.  In  all  contempo- 
rary Jewish  literature  the  Resurrection  (whether  partial  or  general) 


3*6  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [XI.  15   24. 

is  a  sign  of  the  inauguration  of  the  new  era.    SchUrcr,  GtschichU,  &c. 
ii.  p.  460;  Jubilees  xxiii.  29  'And  at  that  time  the  Lord  will  heal 
his  servants,  and  they  will  arise  and  will  see  great  peace  a; 
cast  out  their  enemies ;  and  the  just  shall  see  it  and  be  thankful 
and  rejoice  in  joy  to  all  eternity.'     Enoch  li.  i  (p.  139  ed  Charles) 
'  And  in  those  days  will  the  earth  also  give  back  those  who  are 
treasured  up  within  it,  and  Shedl  also  will  give  back  that  *! 
has  received,  and  hell  will  give  back  that  which  it  owes.    And  he 
will  choose  the  righteous  and  holy  from  among  them  :  for  the  day 
:r  redemption  has  drawn  nigh/    As  in  the  latter  part  of  this 
chapter  St.  Paul  seems  to  be  largely  influenced  by  the  language 
and  forms  of  the  current  eschatology,  it  is  very  probable  that  the 
second  interpretation  is  the  more  correct;  cf.  Ori^ 
Tune  enim  frit  atsumtio  Israel,  quando  tarn  et  morlui  vitam  r( 
tt  mundus  ex  corruptibili  incorruptibilis  Jict,  et  mor tales  immortalize 
donabuniur\  and  see  below  ver.  26. 

16.  St.  Paul  gives  in  this  verse  the  grounds  of  his  confidence  in 
the  future  of  Israel  This  is  based  upon  the  holiness  of  the  Patriarchs 
from  whom  they  are  descended  and  the  consecration  to  God 
has  been  the  result  of  this  holiness.  His  argument  is  expressed  in 
two  different  metaphors,  both  of  which  however  have  the  same 
purpose. 

dwopx*!  .  .  .  ^opojio.    The  metaphor  in  the  first  part  of  the 
verse  is  taken  from  Num.  zv.  19,  20  'It  shall  b« 
eat  of  the  bread  of  the  land,  ye  shall  offer  up  an  heave  o: 
unto  the  Lord.    Of  the  first  of  your  dough  (avopxv  ^vpfporor  I 
ye  shall  offer  up  a  cake  for  an  heave  offering :  as  ye  do  the  heave 
offering  of  the  threshing  floor,  so  shall  ye  heave  it.'    By  the  o:: 
of  the  first-fruits,  the  whole  mass  was  considered  to  be  consecrated ; 
and  so  the  holiness  of*  the  Patriarchs  consecrated  the  whole  people 
from  whom  they  came.    That  the  meaning  of  the  ma^ 
Patriarchs  (and  not  Christ  or  the  select  remnant)  is  <•!. 
parallelism  with  the  second  half  of  the  verse,  and  by  the  • 
of  St.  Paul's  argument  given  in  ver.  28  070*17™  ?., 

dyi'a :  '  consecrated  to  God  as  the  holy  nation '  in  the  technical 
sense  of  £>< 

£i'£a  .  .  .  nXdSoi.    The  same  idea  expressed  under  a  di: 
image.    Israel  the  Divine  nation  is  looked  upon  as  a  tree;  its 
roots  are  the  I  ;.il  Israelites  arc  the  bra: 

As  then  the  Patriarchs  are  holy,  so  arc  the  Israelites  who  belong 
to  the  stock  of  the  tree,  and  are  nourished  by  the  sap 
flows  up  to  them  from  those  roots. 

17-24.  The  metaphor  used  in  the  second  part  of  ver.  16  suggests 
an  image  which  the  Apostle  developes  s<  :  The 

image  of  an  olive  tree  to  describe  Israel  is  taken  from  the  Prophets ; 
ih  xi.  1 6  'The  Lord  called  thy  name,  A  green  olhv 


XI.  17-24.]        THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  327 

fair  with  goodly  fruit :  with  the  noise  of  a  great  tumult  He  hath 
kindled  fire  upon  it,  and  the  branches  of  it  are  broken ' ;  Hotea 
xiv.  6  '  His  branches  shall  spread,  and  his  beauty  shall  be  as  the 
olive  tree,  and  his  smell  as  Lebanon.'  Similar  is  the  image  of  the 
vine  in  Is.  v.  7  ;  Ps.  Ixxx.  8 ;  and  (of  the  Christian  Church)  in  John 
xv.  i  ff. 

The  main  points  in  this  simile  are  the  following : — 
The  olive  =  the  Church  of  God,  looked  at  as  one  continuous 

body;   the  Christian  Church  being  the  inheritor  of  the 

privileges  of  the  Jewish  Church. 
The  root  or  stock  (pi(a)  =  that  stock  from  which  Jews  and 

Christians  both  alike  receive  their  nourishment  and  strength, 

viz.  the  Patriarchs,  for  whose   faith  originally  Israel  was 

chosen  (cf.  w.  28,  29). 
The  branches  (ol  «XO&M)  are  the  individual  members  of  the 

Church  who  derive  their  nourishment  and  virtue  from  the 

stock  or  body  to  which  they  belong.    These  are  of  two 

kinds: 
The  original  branches ;  these  represent  the  Jews.    Some  have 

been  cut  off  from  their  want  of  faith,  and  no  longer  derive 

any  nourishment  from  the  stock. 
The  branches  of  the  wild  olive  which  have  been  grafted  in. 

These  are  the  Gentile  Christians,  who,  by  being  so  grafted 

in,  have  come  to  partake  of  the  richness  and  virtue  of  the 

olive  stem. 

From  this  simile  St.  Paul  draws  two  lessons,  (i)  The  first  is 
to  a  certain  extent  incidental.  It  is  a  warning  to  the  heathen 
against  undue  exaltation  and  arrogance.  By  an  entirely  unnatural 
process  they  have  been  grafted  into  the  tree.  Any  virtue  that 
they  may  have  comes  by  no  merit  of  their  own,  but  by  the  virtue 
of  the  stock  to  which  they  belong ;  and  moreover  at  any  moment 
they  may  be  cut  off.  It  will  be  a  less  violent  process  to  cut  off 
branches  not  in  any  way  belonging  to  the  tree,  than  it  was  to  cut 
off  the  original  branches.  But  (2)— and  this  is  the  more  im- 
portant result  to  be  gained  from  the  simile,  as  it  is  summed  up  in 
ver.  24— if  God  has  had  the  power  against  all  nature  to  graft  in 
branches  from  a  wild  olive  and  enable  them  to  bear  fruit,  how  much 
more  easily  will  He  be  able  to  restore  to  their  original  place  the 
branches  which  have  been  cut  off. 

St.  Paul  thus  deduces  from  his  simile  consolation  for  Israel,  but 
incidentally  also  a  warning  to  the  Gentile  members  of  the  Church — 
a  warning  made  necessary  by  the  great  importance  ascribed  to 
them  in  ver.  1 1  f.  Israel  had  been  rejected  for  their  sake. 

17.  iWs:  a  meiosis.  Cf.iii.  3  rl  yip  tl  tpuropnw  TUW»;  Tii^t  M 
ctVr ,  irapa/iudov/MMX  avrovr,  *>«  iroAAacir  •tpipapn',  «Wci  roXXy  w\ttavt  ol 
rnrurnprayrcr.  Eulhym.-Zig. 


328  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [XI.  17,  18. 

\d<r0T)<7ar.     The  same  simile  is  used,  with  a  different  applica- 

tion, Enoch  .'W  ty»6Vv<ra  tit  rA  piaov  .  »  3o* 

TVKW  T)i\oyr)ntro»t  if  £  ti'v&pa  fgorra  ifapatfwo6as  pcrot'crac  cai  /SAaoTmVar 
roC  fto&pov  «Mojr«Krof  . 

AyptAato*  :  '  the  wild  olive/    The  olive,  like  the  apple  and  most 
;uit  trees,  requires  to  have  a  graft  from  a  cultivated  tree, 
sc  the  fruit  of  the  seedling  or  sucker  will  be  small  and 
valueless.    The  ungrafted  tree  is  the  natural  or  wild  • 
often  confused  with  the  oleaster  (Eleagnu*  angusft/e/ius),  but  quite 
incorrectly,  this  being  a  plant  of  a  different  natural  order, 
however  like  the  olive  yields  oil,  although  of  an  inferior  character. 
See  Tristram,  A\:/urjl  Hist,  of  the  Bible,  pp.  371- 

MKcrrpuriK)*  4V  ovrotf  :  '  wen  grafted  in  amongst  the  branches  of 
the  cultivated  olive.'     St.  Paul  is  here  describing  a  wholly  unn 
process.    Grafts  must  necessarily  be  of  branches  from  a  cult 

inserted  into  a  wild  stock,  the  reverse  process  being  one 
would  be  valueless  and  is  never  performed.    But  the 
strength  of  St  Paul's  argument  depends  upon  the  process  being 
an  unnatural  one  (cf.  ver.  24  *ai  irapa  $wu>  ivtmrpttrfyt)  ;   it  is 
beside  the  point  therefore  to  quote  passages  from  classical  v. 
which,  even  if  they  seem  to  support  St.  Paul's  language,  describe 
a  process  which  can  never  be  actually  used.    They  could  only  show 
the  ignorance  of  others,  they  would  not  justify  him.  Cf.  Origen  •• 
p.  265  Sfd  iu  hoc  quidtm  lattat  nos  in  hoc  loco,  quod  non  to  or  dint 
Apostolus  cli-ae  et  oUeutri  similitudintm  posuit,  quo  apud  ag' 
habthar.     Jilt   enim   mart's  oliram   oltastro  inserere,  et  non   clirat 
oUastrum  talent  :   Paulus  vero  Apostolic  a  auctorilate  or  dint  com" 
mutato  ret  magis  catuis,  quam  causas  rebut  aplaviL 

I  Cor.  ix.  23  ;  .6  «tro<  TU 

\  awr<r»fta  KOI 
*Ii7<roC  &A  TOW  (tayytXiov. 

T»i«  ^*llS  ""I*  in<lTT]TOS  Ti]?  Aai'as  :  COmp.  Jud.  ix.  9  «ai  «»V«» 
ft  Aaai,  M>7  oiroX»«^a<T«i  rq*  inwjra  pov  .  .  .  iro^i  <r«/iai  ;  TfSi. 
Pat.  Levi,  8  6  ir«>frrof  «Xddov  /*°«  '"Xa/ar  «"*«*«  irtorr 

(  ntonjTot  is  taken  by  Weiss  as  a  genitive  of  qua! 
m  the  quotation  above,  and  so  the  phrase  comes  to  mean  '  the  fat 
root  of  the  olive.'    Lips,  explains  '  the  root  from  which  the  fatness 
of  the  olive  springs.' 

The  genitive  r$t  n</rnrof  seemed  clomty  and  unnatural  to  later  rerben, 
and  10  was  modified  either  by  the  insertion  of  «4  after  fifa.  a*  in  K*  A  ami 
later  MSS.  with  Vnlg.  Syrr.  Ann.  Aeth..  OriK.-lat.  Chryi.,  or  by  the 

of  TT  .  cstcrn  authontics  D  F  G  Ir-  :  . 


18.  JITJ  Karaxauxw  TWK  «X<£o*»r.     St.  Paul  seems  to  be  thinking  of 

'c   Christians  who  despised  the  Jews,  both  such   as  had 

become  believers  and  such  as  had  not.     The  Church  of  Corinth 

could  furui  noes  of  n<  :s  who  were  carried 


XI.  18-23.]         THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  329 

away  by  a  feeling  of  excessive  confidence,  and  who,  portly  on 
grounds  of  race,  partly  because  they  had  understood  or  thought 
they  had  understood  the  Pauline  teaching  of  Andt/xa,  were  full  of 
contempt  for  the  Jewish  Christians  and  the  Jewish  race.  Inci- 
dentally St.  Paul  takes  the  opportunity  of  rebuking  such  as  them. 

oo  <n>  TV  ^i(ov  K.T.X.  '  All  your  spiritual  strength  comes  from 
the  stock  on  which  you  have  been  grafted/  In  the  ordinary  process 
it  may  be  when  a  graft  of  the  cultivated  olive  is  set  on  a  wild  stock 
the  goodness  of  the  fruit  comes  from  the  graft,  but  in  this  case  it  is 
the  reverse ;  any  merit,  any  virtue,  any  hope  of  salvation  that  the 
Gentiles  may  have  arises  entirely  from  the  fact  that  they  are  grafted 
on  a  stock  whose  roots  are  the  Patriarchs  and  to  which  the  Jews, 
by  virtue  of  their  birth,  belong. 

10.  4p«tf  ouV.  The  Gentile  Christian  justifies  his  feeling  of 
confidence  by  reminding  St.  Paul  that  branches  (cXo&x,  not  ol 
xXoddi)  had  been  cut  off  to  let  him  in :  therefore,  he  might  argue, 
I  am  of  more  value  than  they,  and  have  grounds  for  my  self- 
confidence  and  contempt. 

20.  icaX&f.    St.  Paul  admits  the  statement,  but  suggests  that  the 
Gentile  Christian  should  remember  what  were  the  conditions  on 
which  he  was  admitted.   The  Jews  were  cast  off  for  want  of  faith,  he 
was  admitted  for  faith.    There  was  no  merit  of  his  own,  therefore 
he  has  no  grounds  for  over-confidence:   'Be  not  high-minded; 
rather  fear,  for  if  you  trust  in  your  merit  instead  of  showing  faith 
in  Christ,  you  will  suffer  as  the  Jews  did  for  their  self-confidence 
and  want  of  faith.' 

21.  cl  y&p  6  6e&s  K.T.X.    This  explains  the  reason  which  made 
it  right  that  they  should  fear.     '  The  Jews — the  natural  branches — 
disbelieved  and  were  not  spared ;  is  it  in  any  way  likely  that  you, 
if  you  disbelieve,  will  be  spared  when  they  were  not— you  who  have 
not  any  natural  right  or  claim  to  the  position  you  now  occupy  ? ' 

•HI 


4«(<r«Tui  is  the  correct  reading  (with  K  A  B  C  P  mi*.  /«*.,  BotL, 


into  <t»l<rrrnu  (mitt.  pout,  and  Chrys.)  for  the  sake  of  the  grammar,  and  found 
its  way  into  the  TR. 

22.  The  Apostle  sums  up  this  part  of  his  argument  by  deducing 
from  this  instance  the  two  sides  of  the  Divine  character.  God  is  full 


of  goodness  (xp^rr^s,  cf.  ii  4)  and  loving-kindness  towards  man- 
kind, and  that  has  been  shown  by  His  conduct  towards  those 
Gentiles  who  have  been  received  into  the  Christian  society.  That 
goodness  will  always  be  shown  towards  them  if  they  repose  their 
confidence  on  it,  and  do  not  trust  in  their  own  merits  or  the 
privileged  position  they  enjoy.  On  the  other  hand  the  treatment 
of  the  Jews  shows  the  severity  which  also  belongs  to  the  character 


330  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [XI.  22-24. 

of  God  ;  a  severity  exercised  against  them  just  because  they  trusted 
s.    God  can  show  the  same  severity  against  the  Gentiles 
and  cut  them  off  as  well  as  the  Jew. 

dworopia  and  x/»y«TaTi7t  should  be  remd  in  the  second  part  of  the  Terse, 
with  K  A  HC  Orig.  Jo.-Damasc  again*  the  accusative  of  the  Wcttcra  and 
Syrian  text  D  has  a  mixed  raiding,  droro/^ax  and  XPKr*"?*  :  the  as- 
similation was  easier  in  the  fint  word  than  in  the  second.  The  feov  after 
XWr^i  is  omitted  by  later  MSS.  with  Clem  -Alex,  Orig.  from  a  desire 
for  uniformity. 


The  condition  of  their  enjoying  this  goodness  is 
that  t:  .:»  it,  and  not  in  their  position. 

KCU  au  :  emphatic  like  the  ey*  of  v  ,u  too  as  well  as  the 

Jews.' 

23.  St.  Paul  now  turns  from  the  warning  to  the  G<  ^ians, 
which  was  to  a  certain  ext                ntal,  to  the  main  subject  of  the 
paragraph,  the  possibility  of  the  return  of  the  Jews  to  the  I 

grafting  into  the  Divine  stock. 
KU'I  /KCIHU  W  :  'yes,  and  they  too.' 

24.  This  verse  sums  up  the  main  argument.    If  God  is  so 
powerful  that  by  a  pur.  ly  unnatural  process  («opa  $un»)  He  can 
graft  a  branch  of  wild  olive  into  a  stock  of  the  cultivated  plant,  so 
that  it  should  receive  nourishment  from  it  ;  can  He  not  equal  1\ 

nay  far  more  easily,  reingraft  branches  which  have  been  Ci 

the  cultivated  olive  into  their  own  stock?    The  restoration  of 

Israel  is  an  easier  process  than  the  call  of  the  Gentiles. 


77.  of  the  Fail. 

In  what  sense  does  St.  Paul  say  that  Israelites  are  holy  because 
the  stock  from  which  they  come  is  holy  (UT.  16),  that  they  are 
070*171x4  dia  Toic  naripat  (vcr.  28)?  He  might  almost  seem  to  be 
taking  up  himself  the  argument  he  has  so  often  condemn- 
the  descent  of  the  Jews  from  Abraham  is  sufficient  ground  for 
their  salvation. 

The  greatness  of  the  Patriarchs  had  become  one  of  the  common- 
places of  Jewish  Theology.    For  them  the  world  was  created  (Af>oc. 
Baruth^  xxi.  24).    They  had  been  surrounded  by  a  halo  ot 
and  romance  in  popular  tradition  and  fancy  (see  the  note  on 
and  very  early  the  idea  seems  to  have  \  virtues 

had  a  power  for  others  as  well  as  for  themselves.    C 
in  the  interests  of  personal  religion  has  to  protest  against  some 
icw :  '  Though  these  three  men,  Noah,  I 
hey  should  deliver  but  their  own  s<  r  righteousness, 

saith  the  Lord  God  \iv.   14).     We  know  how  th 

developed  by  the  time  of  our  Lord,  and  the  cry  had  ari>.  n  :  •  \\V 


XI.  11-24.]         THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  331 

have  Abraham  for  our  father '  (see  note  on  ii.  3).  At  t  later  date 
the  doctrine  of  the  merits  of  the  Fathers  had  been  (hniofnd 
into  a  system.  As  Israel  was  an  organic  body,  the  several 
members  of  which  were  closely  bound  together,  the  superfluous 
merits  of  the  one  part  might  be  transferred  to  another.  Of 
Solomon  before  he  sinned  it  was  said  that  he  earned  all  by  his 
own  merit,  after  he  sinned  by  the  merit  of  the  Fathers  (Koktl 
rabba  60°).  A  comment  on  the  words  of  Cant.  i.  5  •  I  am  black, 
but  comely/  closely  resembles  the  dictum  of  St.  Paul  in  ver.  18 
4 The  congregation  of  Israel  speaks:  I  am  black  through  mine 
o\vn  works,  but  lovely  through  thi  works  of  my  fathers'  (Shtmolk 
rabba,  c.  23).  So  again:  'Israel  lives  and  endures,  because  it 
supports  itself  on  the  fathers '  (t'6.  c.  44).  A  very  close  parallel  to 
the  metaphor  of  ver.  17  f.  is  given  by  Wajjikra  rabba,  c,  36  '  As 
this  vine  supports  itself  on  a  trunk  which  is  dry,  while  it  is  itself 
fresh  and  green,  so  Israel  supports  itself  on  the  merit  of  the  fathers, 
although  they  already  sleep.'  So  the  merit  of  the  fathers  is  a  general 
possession  of  the  whole  people  of  Israel,  and  the  protection  of  the 
whole  people  in  the  day  of  Redemption  (Shemoth  rabba,  c.  44 ; 
Bertsch  rabba,  c.  70).  So  Pesikta  153^  'The  Holy  One  spake  to 
Israel :  My  sons,  if  ye  will  be  justified  by  Me  in  the  judgement, 
make  mention  to  Me  of  the  merits  of  your  fathers,  so  shall  ye  be 
justified  before  Me  in  the  judgement  (see  Weber,  A  toy*.  Theol. 
p.  280  f.). 

Now,  although  St  Paul  lays  great  stress  on  the  merits  of  the 
Fathers,  it  becomes  quite  clear  that  he  had  no  such  idea  as  this  in 
his  mind;  and  it  is  convenient  to  put  the  developed  Rabbinical 
idea  side  by  side  with  his  teaching  in  order  to  show  at  once  the 
resemblance  and  the  divergence  of  the  two  views.  It  is  quite  clear 
in  the  first  place  that  the  Jews  will  not  be  restored  to  the  Kingdom 
on  any  ground  but  that  of  Faith;  so  ver.  23  &»  w  /vi^u^ai  rj 
ciirurrif .  And  in  the  second  place  St.  Paul  is  dealing  (as  becomes 
quite  clear  below)  not  with  the  salvation  of  individuals,  but  with 
the  restoration  of  the  nation  as  a  whole.  The  merits  of  the  Fathers 
are  not  then  looked  upon  as  the  cause  of  Israel's  salvation,  but  as 
a  guarantee  that  Israel  will  attain  that  Faith  which  is  a  necessary 
condition  of  their  being  saved.  It  is  a  guarantee  from  either  of 
two  points  of  view.  So  far  as  our  Faith  is  God's  gift,  and  so  far 
as  we  can  ascribe  to  Him  feelings  of  preference  or  affection  for  one 
race  as  opposed  to  another  (and  we  can  do  so  just  as  much  as 
Scripture  does),  it  is  evidence  that  Israel  has  those  qualities 
which  will  attract  to  it  the  Divine  Love.  Those  qualities  of  the 
founders  of  the  race,  those  national  qualities  which  Israel  inherits, 
and  which  caused  it  to  be  selected  as  the  Chosen  People,  these  it 
still  possesses.  And  on  the  other  side  so  far  as  Faith  comes  bv 
human  effort  or  character,  so  far  that  Faith  of  Abraham,  for  which 


33*  JE  ROMA  [XI.  25-36. 

he  was  accounted  righteous  before  God,  is  a  guaran 
same  !  pcd  in  his  descendants.     After  all  it  is 

because  they  are  a  religious  race,  clinging  too  blindly  to  th-  . 
views,  that  they  are  rejected,  and  not  because  they  are  irrc! 
They  have  a  leal  for  God,  if  not  according  to  knowledge, 
the  day  comes  that  that  z  :ed  in  the  cause  of 

<_  won  for  •  -id  that  it  will  be  so 

sanctity  and  the  deep  religious  instinct  of  the  Jewish  stock  as 
exhibited  by  the  Patriarchs  is,  if  not  certain  proof,  at  any  rate  evi- 
dence which  appeals  with  strong  moral  force. 


MERCY  TO  ALL  THE  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  OP  GOD. 

XI.  25-36.  All  this  is  the  unfolding  of  a  myst 
whole  world,  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  shall  enter  the  Kingdom; 
but  a  passing  phase  of  disobedience  has  been  allowed  : 
yews  now,  as  to  the  Gentiles  in  the  past,  that  both 
as  well  as  may  need  and  r<\ 

(w.  25-32).     What  a  stupendous  exhibit  ion  of  / 
mercy  and  wisdom  (w.  33-36)  I 

**But  I  must  declare  to  you,  my  brethren,  the  purpose  hi 
concealed,  but  now  revealed  in  these  dealings  of  God  \vi 
people.     I    ir.ust  not  leave  you  ignorant     I   must  guard  you 
against  self-conceit  on  this  momentous  subject.     Tha 
of  heart  whu  h  has  come  upon  Israel  is  only  partial  and  temporary. 
It  is  to  last  only  until  the  full  complement  of  the  Genii! 
entered  into  Christ's  kingdom.   "When  this  has  come  about  then  the 
whole  people  of  Israel  shall  be  saved.    So  Isaiah  (li.x.  20)  described 
the  expected  Redeemer  as  one  who  should  come  forth  from  the 
Holy  city  and  shoul  icties  from  the  dev 

Jacob,  and  purify  Israel :  r  he  would  in  fact  fulfil  God's  co 
:  I  is  people,  and  \\\  elsewhere  e.\ 

9),  a  time  when  God  would  forgive  Israel's  si; 
our  ground  for  believing  that  the  Messiah  who  has  come  \\i: 

>n  to  Israel,  and  that  He  \. 

rogative  of  forp;  iel  now  needs  forgiveness  thi 

makes  us  more  confident  of  the  truth  of  the  prophecy.    "In  the 
Divine  plan,  according  to  which  the  message  of  salvation  has  been 
.cd,  the  Jews  are  treated  as  enemies  of  God,  that  roc: 


XI.  25-36.]  MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  333 

be  found  for  you  Gentiles  in  the  kingdom ;  but  this  does  not  alter 
the  fact  that  by  the  Divine  principle  of  selection,  they  are  still  the 
beloved  of  the  Lord,  chosen  for  the  sake  of  their  ancestors,  the 
Patriarchs.  "God  has  showered  upon  them  His  blessings  and 
called  them  to  His  privileges,  and  He  never  revokes  the  choice 
He  has  made.  M  There  is  thus  a  parallelism  between  your  case 
and  theirs.  You  Gentiles  were  once  disobedient  to  God.  Now  it 
has  been  Israel's  turn  to  be  disobedient ;  and  that  disobedience  has 
brought  to  you  mercy.  Sl  In  like  manner  their  present  disobedience 
\\ill  have  this  result:  that  they  too  will  be  recipients  of  the  Mae 
mercy  that  you  have  received.  "And  the  reason  for  the  dis- 
obedience may  be  understood  in  both  cases,  if  we  look  to  the  final 
purpose.  God  has,  as  it  were,  locked  up  all  mankind,  first  Gentiles 
and  then  Jews,  in  the  prison-house  of  unbelief,  that  He  may  be  able 
at  last  to  show  His  mercy  on  all  alike. 

**  When  we  contemplate  a  scheme  like  this  spread  out  before  us 
in  vast  panorama,  how  forcibly  does  it  bring  home  to  us  the  in- 
exhaustible profundity  of  that  Divine  mind  by  which  it  was  planned  I 
The  decisions  which  issue  from  that  mind  and  the  methods  by  which 
it  works  are  alike  inscrutable  to  man.  "  Into  the  secrets  of  the 
Almighty  none  can  penetrate.  No  counsellor  stands  at  His  ear  to 
•T  words  of  suggestion.  "Nothing  in  Him  is  derived  from 
without  so  as  to  be  claimed  back  again  by  its  owner.  M  He  is  the 
source  of  all  things.  Through  Htm  all  things  flow.  He  is  the 
fm.il  cause  to  which  all  things  tend.  Praised  for  ever  be  His 
name  I  Amen. 

25-36.  St.  Paul's  argument  is  now  drawing  to  a  dose.    He  has 

treated  all  the  points  that  are  necessary.    He  has  proved  that 

the  rejection  of  Israel  is  not  contrary  to  Divine  justice  or  Divine 

promises.    He  has  convicted  Israel  of  its  own  responsibility.     He 

has  shown  how  historically  the  rejection  of  Israel  had  been  the 

cause  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen,  and  this  has  led  to 

far-reaching  speculation  on  the  future  of  Israel  and  its  ultimate 

.uion ;  a  future  which  may  be  hoped  for  in  view  of  the  spiritual 

M  ter  of  the  Jewish  race  and  the  mercy  and  power  of  God. 

And  now  he  seems  to  see  all  the  mystery  of  the  Divine  purpose 

unfolded  before  him,  and  he  breaks  away  from  the  restrained  and 

formal  method  of  argument- he  has  hitherto  imposed  upon  himself. 

JIM  .1-  \\hcn  treating  of  the  Resurrection,  his  argument  passes  into 

..ion,  'Behold,  I  tell  you  a  mystery'  (i  Cor.  xv.  51):  so  belt 


334  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XI.  25. 

he  declares  not  merely  as  the  result  of  his  argument,  but  as  an 
authr  elation,  the  mystery  of  the  Divine  purpose. 

25.  o«  Y&pftAwuj&ot  Ay**!':  '  2  Cor. 

i.  8  ;    i  Thcss.  :  phrase  used  by  St.  Paul  tc  • 

something  of  especial  importance  which  he  wishes  to  bring  home 
to  his  readers.    It  always  has  the  impressive  addition  of  '  br< 
The  >ap  connects  the  verse  immediately  with  what  precedes,  but 
also  with   the  general  argument      St.  Paul's  argument   i 
a  ladder;  each  step  follows  from  what  precedes;  but  from  t 
time  there  are,  as  it  were,  resting-places  which  mark  a  il 
point  gained  towards  the  end  he  has  in  view. 

TO*  pxrnfauw  TOVTO.     On  .ning  of  'mystery'  in  S: 

see  Lightfoot,  Colossians,  i.  26;  Hatch,  Ess.  in  BibL  Gk.  p. 
Just  at  the  time  when  Cl  was  spreading.  ries  as 

professing  to  reveal  something  more  than  was  generally  k: 
especially  about  the  future  state,  represented  the  most  popular 
of  religion,  and  from  them  St  Paul  borrows  much  of  his  phraseology. 
So  in  Col.  i.  28,  i  Cor.  ii.  6  we  have  rA*u>»,  in   i 

,  in  Eph.  i.  13  crtfoxiyifrer&i*  ;  so  in  Ign.  Epks.  12  i 

But  whereas  among  the  heathen  nwnipuv  was  always 
used  of  a  mystery  concealed,  with  St.  Paul  it  is  a  n  \ealed. 

It  is  his  mission  to  make  known  the  Word  of  G 
which  has  been  kept  silent  from  eternal  ap- 
pealed to  mankind  (i  Cor.  ii.  7;  Eph  Kom.  x 

This  mystery,  which  has  been  declared  in  Chr  the  eternal 

purpose  of  God  to  redeem  mankind  in  Christ,  and  all 
plied  in  that.     Hence  it  is  used  of  the  In 

of  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  (i  Cor.  ii.  i,  7),  of  the  Divine  purpose 
to  sum  up  all  thin.  nd  especially  of  the 

inclusion  of  the  Gentiles  in  the  kingdom 
27;  Rom.  xvi.  25).  iiM-il  in  a  wide  sense  of  the 

plan  or  scheme  of  redemption  as  revealed  to  S; 
Jews  and  Gentiles  alike  are  to  be  included  in  the  I  ^dom, 

and  all  things  are  working  up,  although  in  ways  unseen  and 
unknown.  nd. 

Ira  ji»j  Vf  wop*  rfawTtns  tpoVijioi  :  •  that  you  may  not  be  w 
your  own  conceits,'  i.e.  by  imagining  that  it  is  in  ai 
your  own  merit  that  you  have  accepted  what  others  have  refused: 
it  has  been  part  of  the  eternal  purpose  of  God. 

if  iavrott  ought  probably  to  be  read  with  A  I),  Jo.-Damasc.  instead  of  wop* 
Javroit  KC  DLJfe,  Chry*.  Ac,  as  the  Utter  would  probably  be  introduced 
from  xii.  16.     Both  exprtMoos  occur  in  the  LXX.    Is.  v.  ai  of  o\-. 
Ian  ..<]  Jo9t  fpotHftoi  mpn  otavry. 


K  T  X      'a  l.-irJ-  I  •  •     • 

ul  asserts  one  is  constantly  insisted  on 

throughout  this  chapter,  that  this  fall  of  the  Jews  is  only  partial 


XI.  25,  20.]  MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  335 

(cf.  w.  5,  7,  17),  but  here  he  definitely  adds  a  point  to  which  he 
has  been  working  up  in  the  previous  section,  that  it  is  only  tem- 
porary and  that  the  limitation  in  time  is  '  until  all  nations  of  the 
earth  come  into  the  kingdom';  cf.  Luke  xxi.  24  'and  Jerusalem 
shall  be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  until  the  times  of  the 
Gentiles  be  fulfilled.' 

TO  vX^pwpa  TWC  <0t£r :  the  full  completed  number,  the  comple- 
ment of  the  Gentiles,  i.  e.  the  Gentile  world  as  a  whole,  just  as  in 
ver.  i  a  rA  v\t)p*na  is  the  Jewish  nation  as  a  whole. 

There  was  a  Jewish  basis  to  these  speculations  on  the  completed  number. 
Ap<x.  Bantck  xxiii.  4  quia  ftMMfr/NBWft  A  Jam  it  Jtcreta  /nit  mm  cotttrm 
ttj  qui  gigntrtntur,  tone  numeral*  est  multitude  eoram  ytd  gigturtntur, 
ft  numtro  iUi  fraffaratus  est  Ucut  «M  kMUavnt  vivrmtu  *  ubi  tusto- 
dirtntur  martttt.  nisi  ergo  com  pleat  or  oamena  pracdictos  M*»  cii*/  rrM/vni 
4  (5)  Ezra  U.  40,  41  (where  Jewish  ideas  underlie  a  Christian  work) 
reciff,  Sion,  nnmernm  toum  «/  ttmtludt  fmdidatos  tuot,  f»i  Ugtm  Domini 
fompltvtntnt :  Jiliorum  ttvmm,  quos  optaku,  plenns  est  numerus:  ngm 
imfxrium  Domini  ut  sa*ftij(<tt*r  popttiiu  tuns  gut  votahu  tit  ao  IMJ/IO. 

«u7«X6r)  was  used  almost  technically  of  entering  into  the  Kingdom 
or  the  Divine  glory  or  life  (cf.  Matt.  vii.  a  i ;  xviii.  8 ;  Mark  iz. 
43-47-).  and  so  came  to  be  used  absolutely  in  the  same  sense 
(Matt.  vii.  13 ;  xxiii.  13;  Luke  ziii.  24). 

26.  KOI  oJr»» :  '  and  so,'  i.  e.  by  the  whole  Gentile  world  coming 
into  the  kingdom  and  thus  rousing  the  Jews  to  jealousy,  cf.  ver.  1 1  f. 
These  words  ought  to  form  a  new  sentence  and  not  be  joined 
ui.h  the  preceding,  for  the  following  reasons:  (i)  the  reference  of 
o£ro>  is  to  the  sentence  fyp**  °*  «-r-X-  We  must  not  therefore 
make  our*  . . .  <r»&7<rmu  coordinate  with  wtpwit .  . .  yiyow  and 
subordinate  to  on,  for  if  we  did  so  <wr«  would  be  explained  by 
the  sentence  with  which  it  is  coordinated,  and  this  is  clearly  not 
St.  Paul's  meaning.  He  does  not  mean  that  Israel  will  be  saved 
bfcaust  it  is  hardened.  (2)  The  sentence,  by  being  made  in- 
dependent, acquires  much  greater  emphasis  and  force. 

was  'laparjX.  In  what  sense  are  these  words  used?  (i)  The 
whole  context  shows  clearly  that  it  is  the  actual  Israel  of  history 
that  is  referred  to.  This  is  quite  clear  from  the  contrast  with  rA 
*XtyM»pa  r«r  <&**»  in  ver.  25,  the  use  of  the  term  Israel  in  the  same 
verse,  and  the  drift  of  the  argument  in  w.  1 7-24.  It  cannot  be 
interpreted  either  of  the  spiritual  Israel,  as  by  Calvin,  or  the 
remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace,  or  such  Jews  as  believe, 
or  all  who  to  the  end  of  the  world  shall  turn  unto  the  Lord. 

(2)  was  must  be  taken  in  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word: 
'  Israel  as  a  whole,  Israel  as  a  nation,  and  not  as  necessarily  in- 
cluding every  individual  Israelite.  Cf.  i  Kings  xii.  i  «&1  «OT 
ZopovijX  irpot  wtura  'icrpo^X  :  2  Chron.  xii.  I  ryrarAorf  rac 
Kvpi'ov  «ai  was  'ivpo^X  fur  avrov  :  Dan.  ix.  1 1  <oi  was  *I<rpaijX 
ror  rouoy  aw  rat  t£iKXi*a»  row  ftfj  axovaa*  r^f 


33''  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [XI.  26,  27. 


:   •  -hall  attain  the  ffvnjpia  of  the  Messianic  age  by 
being  received  into  the  Christian  Chiml 

of  the  Messianic  <r«rw&i  being  fulfilled  by  the  spiritual  <r«*ri7p«i  of 
1 

So  the  words  of  St.  Paul  mean  simply  this.    The  people  of 
Israel  as  a  nation,  and  no  longer  «rA  JM/XH/C,  shall  be  united  with 
the  Christian  Church.    They  do  not  mean  that  every  Israelite  shall 
be  saved     Of  final  salvation  St.  Paul  is  not  now  thinking. 
nor  of  God's  dealings  with  individuals,  nor  does  he  ask  about  those 
ire  already  dead,  or  who  will  die  before  this  salvation  of 
Israel  is  attained.    He  is  simply  considering  God's  dealing 
the  nation  as.a  whole.    As  elsewhere  throughout  these  chapters, 
St.  Paul  is  dealing  with  peoples  and  classes  of  men.    He  looks 
forward  in  prophetic  vision  to  a   tin.  hole  earth, 

including  the  kingdoms  of  the  Gentiles  (ri  «Xqp«*fui  r*»  Mi**)  and 
the  people  of  Israel  (*as  'icrpoqA),  shall  be  united  in  the  Church  of 
God. 

26,  27.  Ka&s  ylypawrcu.      The  quotation  is  taken  from  the 

.  20,  the  concluding  words  being  add. 
9.    The  quotation  is  free:  the  only  important  chang- 
ever,  is  the  substitution  of  ««  2uu>  for  the  «*w  ZMM>  of  the  I  XX. 
The  Hebrew  reads  'and  a  Redeemer  shall  come  to  Zio; 
them  that   turn  from    transgression   in   Jacob.'      The  variation 
apparently  comes  from  Ps.  xiil  7,  lii.  7  (LXX)  T«\  ?,«><T<I  t\  2<«»  ri 


The  passage  occurs  in  the  later  portion  of  Isaiah,  just 
Prophet  dwells  most  fully  on  the  high  spiritual  destinies  of  Israel  ; 
and  its  application  to  the  Messianic  kingdom 
the  spirit  of  the  origi;  ration.     S 

uses  the  words  to  im;  he  Redeemer,  who  is  represented  by 

the  Prophets  as  coming  from  Zion,  orefore  concei 

him  as  realized  in  Christ,  will  in  the  end  redeem  tin 
The  passage,  as  quoted,  implies  the  complete  pur:! 
from  their  iniquity  by  the  Redeemer  and  the  forgiveness  oi 
sins  by  God. 

hese  speculations  St.  Paul  was  probably  strongly  influenced, 
at  any  rate  as  to  their  form,  by 

nccted  these  passages  with  the  Messiah:    d.  Trad.  Sanht  i- 
98.  i  '  R.  Jochanan  said:  When  thou  shall  see  tl. 
many  troubles  shall  come  like  Bd  ti  it- 

Messiah  himself  as  s  cover  a  universal  i 

rael  was  part  of  the  ci: 
should  be  collected  toge  1    r       I 
i  in  ordc: 
>  be  a  gei 
the  coming  in  of  the  fulness  of  the  <  .rallcl. 


XI.  20   29.]  MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  337 

Although  later  Judaism  entirely  denied  all  hope  to  the  Gentiles 
much  of  the  Judaism  of  St.  Paul's  day  still  maintained  the  O.  T. 
belief  (Is.  xiv.  a;  Ixvi.  12,  19-21;  Dan  .  So 

Enoch  xc.  33  'And  all  that  had  been  destroyed  and  dispersed  and 
all  the  beasts  of  the  field  and  all  the  birds  of  the  heaven  assembled 
in  that  house,  and  the  Lord  of  the  sheep  rejoiced  with  great  joy 
because  they  were  all  good  and  had  returned  to  his  house?  Orat. 

Sibyll.  iii.  710  f.  «<u  r6rt  iff  t^<rrn,  warm  w&ut  r   ifx'ovoi*  .  .  . 


r«.  Ps.  Sol  xvii.  33-35  '  And  he  shall  purge  Jerusalem  and 
make  it  holy,  even  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  old,  so  that  the  nations 
may  come  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  see  his  glory,  bringing  as 
gifts  her  sons  that  had  fainted,  and  may  see  the  glory  of  the  Lord, 
wherewith  God  hath  glorified  her/  The  centre  of  this  kingdom 
"ill  be  Jerusalem  (compare  the  extract  given  above),  and  it  is 
perhaps  influenced  by  these  conceptions  that  St.  Paul  in  ix.  26 
inserts  the  word  'there*  and  here  reads  «'«  2<«r.  If  this  be  so,  it 
shows  how,  although  using  so  much  of  the  forms  and  language  of 
current  conceptions,  he  has  spiritualized  just  at  be  IMS  broadened 
them.  Gal.  iv.  26  shows  that  he  is  thinking  of  a  Jerusalem  which 
is  above,  very  different  from  the  purified  earthly  Jerusalem  of  the 
Rabbis;  and  this  enables  us  to  see  how  here  also  a  spiritual 
conception  underlies  much  of  his  language. 

4  0u4|Mifot  :  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.    Cf.  i  Thess.  i.  10. 

27.  KCU  QOTTJ  K.T.X.  :  '  and  whensoever  I  forgive  their  sins  then 
shall  my  side  of  the  covenant  I  have  made  with  them  be  fulfilled.' 

28.  Kard  pfr  rd  cuayyAior  :  'as  regards  the  Gospel  order,  the 
principles  by  which  God  bends  the  Gospel  into  the  world/    This 
verse  sums  up  the  argument  of  w.  11-24. 

JftOpoi  :  treated  by  God  as  enemies  and  therefore  shut  off  from 
Him. 

Si*  ufias  :  '  for  your  sake,  in  order  that  you  by  their  exclusion 
may  be  brought  into  the  Messianic  Kingdom.' 

KaTA  &«  TV  iKXoy^r  :  '  as  regards  the  principle  of  election  :  ' 
'  because  they  are  the  chosen  race/  That  this  is  the  meaning  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  the  word  is  parallel  to  rvoyyAio*.  It  cannot 
mean  here,  as  in  w.  5,  6,  •  as  regards  the  elect,'  i.  e.  the  select 
remnant  It  gives  the  grounds  upon  which  the  chosen  people  were 
beloved  With  dyamj-roi,  cf.  ix.  25  ;  the  quotation  there  probably 
suggested  the  word. 

fed  rods  iroWpos  :  cf.  ix.  4  ;  xi.  16  f.  :  '  for  the  sake  of  the  Patri- 
archs '  from  whom  the  Israelites  have  sprung  and  who  were  well- 
pleasing  to  God. 

29.  St.  Paul  gives  the  reason  for  believing  that  God  will  not 
desert  the  people  whom  He  has  called,  and  chosen,  and  on  whom 
He  has  showered  His  Divine  blessings.    It  lies  in  the  unchangeable 

z 


338  LXI-  29-«t 

nature  of  God  :  He  does  not  repent  Him  of  the  choice  that  He  has 
made. 

dficTojiAijTa  :   2  Cor.  vii.  10.    The  Divine  gifts,  such  as 
been  enumerated  in  ix.  4,  5,  and  such  as  God  has  showered  upon 
the  Jews,  bear  the  impress  of  the  Giver.    As  He  is  not  on 
ver  do  that  for  \vh:.  is  feel  comj.r.: 

His  feelings  of  mercy  towards  the  Jews  will  never  change. 

Vj  nXfjais  3  to  the  Kingdom. 

The  grounds  for  believing  that  God  does  not  repent  f 
gifts  that  He  has  given  may  be  gathered  from  the  }>ar. 
between  the  two  cases  of  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles,  in  one  ot 
His  purpose  has,  been  completed,  in  the  other  not  so.    The  <  • 
converts  were  disobedient  once,  as  St.  Paul  has  described  at  length 
in  the  first  chapter,  but  yet  God  has  now  sho 
to  accomplish  this  He  has  taken  occasion  from  the 
the  Jews  :  the  same  purpose  and  the  same  plan  of  provident 
be  seen  also  in  the  case  of  the  Tews.     God  s  plan  is  to  mak 
obedience  an  opportunity  of  snowing  mercy.    The  disobedience 
of  the  Jews,  like  that  of  the  Gentiles,  had  for  its  result  the  mai 
tion  of  the  mercy  of  God. 

The  fyieit  shows  that  this  verse  is  written,  as  is  all  this  cl: 
with  the  thought  of  Gentile  readers  prominently  before  the  v. 
mind. 

31.  TW  upcr/pu  Mil  :  •  by  that  same  mercy  which  was  shown  to 
you.1     If  the  Jews  had  remained  true  to  their  covenant  God 
have  been  able  on   His  side  merely  to  exhibit  fid< 
covenant.    As  they  have  however  been  disobedient,  they  equally 
\\ith  the  Gentiles  are  recipients  of  the  Divine  mercy.    These 
T«  VIMT«'P?  Am  go  with  «Xfi?&xrt,  cf.  Gal.  ii.  10;  2  Cor.  xii.  7,  as  is 
shown  by  the  parallelism  of  the  two  clauses 


t'«t9 


col  atrol  vv» 


This  parallelism  of  the  clauses  may  account  for  the  presence  of 

the  second  *;*  \\  i:h  /x^W..  v,  i.  I  be  read  v.      x 

Jo.  Damasc,    It  was  omitted  by 

(AEFG,  &c.  Vulg.  Syrr  <  )ri^.-lat. 

seemed  hardly  to  harmonize 

are  too  varied  for  it  to  be  an  '  insertion  arising  from  a 

repetr 

89.  St.  Paul  now  . 

of  God's  plan,  and  concludes  i  Mth  a  n 

solves  the  riddle  of  t!  urpose 

in  the  .iikind  described  in  i.  i8-iii.  20;  there 


XI.  32,  33.]  MERCY  TO  ALL  COD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  339 

purpose  in  the  faithlessness  of  the  Jews.  The  object  of  both  alike 
is  to  give  occasion  for  the  exhibition  of  the  Divine  mercy.  If  God 
has  shut  men  up  in  sin  it  is  only  that  He  may  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  showing  His  compassion.  So  in  Gal.  iii.  22  oXAa 

tx\ii(Ttt>  f)  ypa^f)  ra  irdvra  vrro  u/iapruiy,  tva  f]  «Vayy«Xta  «V  wi<m*t 

\purruv  Mj  roic  wurrtvowi,  the  result  of  sin  is  represented  as  being 
to  give  the  occasion  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  and  the 
mission  of  the  Messiah.  All  God's  dealings  with  the  race  are  in 
accordance  with  His  final  purpose.  However  harsh  they  may 
seem,  when  we  contemplate  the  final  end  we  can  only  burst  forth 
into  thankfulness  to  God. 

oWicXeiac  yip  o  6«fe  :  cf.  i.  24  f.,  and  sec  below,  p.  347. 

ffiWuXciac  :  Ps.  l.xxviii  [IxxviiJ.  62  'He  gave  his  people  over 
unto  the  sword  (owti&ttm*  tit  /x>/*<fKiio»).'  Used  with  the  pregnant 
sense  of  giving  over  so  that  there  can  be  no  escape. 

TOUS  irdrras.  Not  necessarily  every  single  individual,  but  all  looked 
at  collectively,  as  the  trX^^ia  rw  «&£*  and  not  'icrpoqX.  All  the  classes 
into  which  the  world  may  be  divided,  Jew  and  Gentile  alike,  will  be 
admitted  into  the  Messianic  Kingdom  or  God's  Church.  The 
reference  is  not  here  any  more  than  elsewhere  to  the  final  salvation 
of  every  individual. 

93.  St.  Paul  has  concluded  his  argument.  He  has  vindicated 
the  Divine  justice  and  mercy.  He  has  shown  how  even  the  reign 
of  sin  leads  to  a  beneficent  result.  And  now,  carried  away  by  the 
contrast  between  the  apparent  injustice  and  the  real  justice  of  God, 
having  demonstrated  that  it  is  our  knowledge  and  not  His  goodness 
that  is  at  fault  when  we  criticize  Him,  he  bursts  forth  in  a  great 
ascription  of  praise  to  Him,  declaring  the  unfathomable  character 
of  His  wisdom. 

We  may  notice  that  this  description  of  the  Divine  wisdom  re- 
presents not  so  much  the  conclusion  of  the  argument  as  the  assump- 
tion that  underlies  it.  It  is  because  we  believe  in  the  infinite 
character  of  the  Divine  power  and  love  that  we  are  able  to  argue 
that  if  in  one  case  unexpectedly  and  wonderfully  His  action  has 
been  justified,  therefore  in  other  cases  we  may  await  the  result, 
resting  in  confidence  on  His  wisdom. 

Marcion's  text,  which  had  omitted  everything  between  x.  5  and  xi.  34  (see 
on  ch.  x)  here  resume*.  Tcrt.  quotes  w.  32,  33  as  follows:  o  prt/tutdmm 
dnitiantm  tt  tatuntia*  Dei,  tt  iniKUtstigabilts  via*  fins,  omitting  «al 
•Xnfcrww  and  At  d^^tptvi^ra  rd  gpifura  aim*.  Then  follow  w.  34,  35 
without  any  variation.  On  ver.  36  we  know  nothing.  See  Zahn,  p.  518. 


0d9os:  'inexhaustible  wealth/  Cf.  Prov.  xviil  3  frM* 
troubles  to  which  there  is  no  bottom.  The  three  genitives  that 
follow  are  probably  coordinate  ;  wXovrou  means  the  wealth  of  the 
Divine  grace,  cf.  x.  1  2  ;  aoQias  and  yiWc«K  are  to  be  distinguished 
as  meaning  the  former,  a  broad  and  comprehensive  survey  of  things 

Z   2 


ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [XI.  33   36. 

;ons,  what  we  call  Philosoprn  er  an 

intuitive  jxrnctraiing  perception  of  particular  truths  (see  Lit.  on 
9). 

•  P«Jnr)Ta:  :  and  perhaps  Jer.  x 

irchable  '  ;  npi'piTo.  not 
;.ts  on  the  ways  and  plans  of  life.    Cf.  1 
-•  biadw*  aiuvot  tartan?  fur  ainitt,  co)  ra  icpifumt  avrov  i  r. 
avrotr. 

aVc$ix*«»<rroi  :  '  that  cannot  be  traced  out/  Ej.h.  iii.  8  ;  Jol 
ix.  10  ;  xxx  iv.  .4      'ii,  passage  seems  t  iluenced  i  Clem. 

Rom.  XX.  5  a&iafftur  rt  attfrxvicurra  ....  cr\.'n\trm  wpoffrdypaat*. 

84.  TI'S  yip  «yw  K.T.X.    This  is  taken  froi; 
only  very  slightly  from  thr  I.  XX.     It  is  quoted  als 

86.  <\  Tts  wpoifofcMCCK  QUTW  ical  dKtairo&o^twTai  oO;  ,   from 

Job  xli.  1  1  ,  but  not  the  I  .  X  X  \\  hich  reads  <  »Tt<rnp<Ta< 

viro^iwl  ;     The  Hebrew  (  R  V.)  reads,  *  Who  hath  first  given  unto  me 
that  I  should  repay  him  ?  '     It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  only 

juotation  in  St.  Paul  which  varies  very  consideral 
LXX  is  also  taken  from  the  book  of  Job  (i  Cor 
seep.  302.    This  verse  corresponds  to  4  /3dA>»  irXovrw.     'So  rich 
arc  the  spiritual  gifts  of  God,  that  none  can  make  any  : 
He  needs  no  recompense  for  what  He  gives.' 

86.  God  needs  no  recompense,  for  all  things  that  are  c>. 

all  things  come  to  man  through  Him,  and  t< 
He  is  the  source,  the  agent,  and  the  final  goal  of  all  created 
and  all  spiritual  life. 

Many  commentators  have  attempted  to  find   in  these  \ 
a  reference  to  the  work  of  the  different  persons  of  the  Trinity  (see 
esp.  Liddon,  who  restates  the  argument   in  the  most  successful 
form).     But  (i)  the  prepositions  do  not  suit  this  interpretation: 
k*  a$ro5  indeed  expresses  the  attributes  of  the  Son,  1 
can  not  naturally  or  even  possibly  be  used  ol  .    (2)  The 

whole  argument  refers  to  a  different  line  of  thought.     It 
relation  of  the  Godhead  as  a  whole  to  the  universe  and  to  c 
things.    God  (not  necessarily  the  Father)  is  the  source  and  inspirer 
and  goal  of  all  things. 

TbU  fnndmmenul  uramplion  of  the  infinite  character  of  the  Divine 
wisdom  wm*  one  which  .St.  I'mul  would  nccowuily  inherit  from  JodaUm. 
It  U  exprewed  moct  clearly  and  c!  .vritinp  produced  imm. 

after  the  (all  of  Jerusalem,  when  the  pious  Tew  who  still  preferred  a 
in  the  Divine  favour  towards  Israel  could  find  no  hope  or  solution 
problem  hot  in  a  tenacious  adherence  to  what  he  could  hold  only  1 
God's  wars  are  deeper  and  more  wonderful  than  man  cou 
or  fathom  :  only  this  was  certain—  that  there  was  a  Dirine  nnrpose 
towards  Israel  which  would  be  shown  in  God's  own  time.    There  are  many 
resemblances  to  St.  Paul,  not  only  in  thought  K  -ion.     Af#. 


Benuk  xir.  8,  9  .W  ?»//,  nominator  Domint,  ainjuti-..  .'MM*  > 

out  fuit  itnuttigabit  frofumittm  via*  lutu  ?  out  quit  ntppntabit  fro: 


IX-XL]    MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  341 

temitat  tuae  t  ant  quit  foto  ontilinm  /nun  im.omfrtkfiuMbf 

attt  ywiV  uft<]nam  «jr  mitts  invtuiet  frincifium autfinem lofitttti+t  tutu t... 
xx.  4  tt  tutu  ostenJam  ttl-i  luJuium  virtutu  meae,  tt  viat  f-'-Y-n-ftffrrfrfftr 
.  .  .  xxi.  10  ttt  enim  solus  a  vivttu  immortalis  tt  [i*  imtttigmMit  it 
nitmtrum  horn  mum  ttoiti . .  .  liv.  I  a,  13  ttquis  eitim  asiimilaiitur  im  mira- 
tuts,  D<us,  out  quit  tompnktueUt  cogitationem  tuam 


vita*  t  Quia  tu  (onsilio  tuo  gulxrmu  omiut  trtaturat  quat  ertavii  atxtera 
tua,  tt  tu  outturn  f^nUm  lucts  afud  tt  teustituitti,  tt  tlusaurum  mftmtlm 
subtus  tkrouum  txum  fxtufarasti  . . .  Uxv  quit  assimilatitur,  Domtmt,  kmi- 
tali  tutu  t  tst  ftiim  imomprtktnsibilis.  Ant  quit  urutatiiur  JWIMTO/WMM 
tuas,  qua*  sunt  infinite  t  out  qttis  tomprtkcnJtt  itt/eUigentiam  tuamt  ant 
tfuis  pottrit  tomonart  togitatioius  mentis  tutu  f  4  Ezra  v.  34  ttrqutnt  mt 
rttw  m*i  p€r  omtttm  koram  qua*rt*t<m  afprtkcmurt  semi  lam  Alturimi  tt 
igart  farUm  iuduii  tius.  tt  #sit  3Zt  Nm  p**  . . .  40  ft  Six*  * 
mt  Quomodo  no*  fottt  fattrt  urtum  dt  kit  qua*  dicta  runt,  tie  turn  ftttrit 
tmvtnirt  iudidum  mtum  autfinem  taritatit  quum  po}ub  prtmiii. 


The  Argument  of  Romans  IX-Xl. 

In  the  summary  that  has  been  given  (pp.  269-275)  of  the  various 
opinions  which  have  been  held  concerning  the  theology  of  this 
section,  and  especially  of  ch.  ix,  it  will  have  been  noticed  that 
almost  all  commentators,  although  they  differed  to  an  extraordinary 
degree  in  the  teaching  which  they  thought  they  had  derived  from 
the  passage,  agreed  in  this,  that  they  assumed  that  St.  Paul  was 
primarily  concerned  with  the  questions  that  were  exercising  their 
own  minds,  as  to  the  conditions  under  which  grace  is  given  to  man, 
and  the  relation  of  the  human  life  to  the  Divine  will.  Throughout 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  a  small  number  of  com- 
mentators are  distinguished  from  the  general  tendency  by  laying 
stress  on  the  fact  that  both  in  the  ninth  and  in  the  eleventh  chapter, 
it  is  not  the  lot  of  the  individual  that  is  being  considered,  nor 
eternal  salvation,  but  that  the  object  of  the  Apostle  is  to  explain 
the  rejection  of  the  Jews  as  a  nation ;  that  he  is  therefore  /<**Mt>§ 
with  nations,  not  individuals,  and  with  admission  to  the  Christian 
Church  as  representing  the  Messianic  <r*n)pia  and  not  directly  with 
the  future  state  of  mankind.  This  view  is  very  ably  represented  by 
the  English  philosopher  Locke ;  it  is  put  forward  in  a  treatise  which 
has  been  already  referred  to  by  Beyschlag  (p.  275)  and  forms  the 
basis  of  the  exposition  of  the  Swiss  commentator  Oltramare,  who 
puts  the  position  very  shortly  when  he  says  that  St.  Paul  is  speaking 
not  of  the  scheme  of  election  or  of  election  in  itself,  but '  of  God's 
plan  for  the  salvation  of  mankind,  a  plan  which  proceeded  on  the 
principle  of  election.' 

It  is  true  that  commentators  who  have  adopted  this  view  (in 
particular  Beyschlag)  have  pressed  it  too  far,  and  have  used  it  to 
explain  or  explain  away  passages  to  which  it  will  not  apply ;  but  it 
undoubtedly  represents  the  main  lines  of  the  Apostle  s  argument 
Mid  his  purpose  throughout  these  chapters.  In  order  to 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX    XI 

his  point  of  view  oar  starting-point  must  be  the  conclusion  he 
arrives  at.  This,  as  expressed  at  the  end  of  that  God 

wishes  to  show  His  mercy  upon  all  alike ;  that  the  world  as  a  whole, 
the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  and  all  Israel,  will  come  into  the  Messianic 
Kingdom  and  be  saved ;  that  the  realization  of  this  end  is  a  mystery 

has  now  been  revealed,  and  that  all  this  shows  the  greatness 
of  the  Divine  wisdom ;  a  wisdom  which  is  guiding  all  things  t< 

onsummation  by  methods  and  in  ways  which  we  can  only 

!ow. 

The  question  at  issue  which  leads  St.  Paul  to  assert  the  I 
purpose  is  the  fact  which  at  this  time  had  become  apparent ;  Israel 
as  a  nation  was  rejected  from  the  Christian  Chun  h.     If  f.iith  in 
the  Messiah  was  to  be  the  condition  of  salvation,  then  the  mass  of 
the  Jews  were  clearly  excluded.    The  earlier  stages  of  the  argu- 
ment have  been  sufficiently  explained.     St.  Paul  first  proves  (ix. 
6-29)  that  in  this  rejection  God  had  been  neither  untrue  ; 
promise  nor  unjust     He  then  proves  (ix.  3O-x.  1 3)  that  the  Israelites 
were  themselves  guilty,  for  they  had  rejected  ti  hough 

they  had  had  full  and  complete  knowledge  of  His  message,  and 
full  warning.    But  yet  there  is  a  third  aspect  from  which   the 
rejection  of  Israel  may  be  regarded— that  of  the  Divine  purpose. 
What  has  been  the  result  of  this  rejection  of  I 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,— this  is  an  historical  fact,  and  ;• 

we  can  see  somewhat  further  into  the  futur. .  I! 
a  case  where  St.  Paul  can  remember  how  differmt  had  1>- 
result  of  his  own  failure  from  what  he  bad  expected.  ippcal 

to  his  own  experience.     There  was  a  day,  still  vividly  before  his 
>  in  the  Pisidian  Antioch,  full  of  bitterness  and  a  sense 

at,  he  had  uttered  those  memorable  words  '  from  hem 

1  go  to  the  Gentiles.'  This  had  seemed  at  the  mor 
fession  that  his  work  was  not  being  accomplished.  Nov. 
the  Divine  purpose  fulfilled  in  the  creation  of  ti  Oentile 

churches,  and  arguing  from  his  own  experience  in  this  one  case, 
God's   purpose  has  been    signally   vindicated,   he  looks 
forward  into  the  future  and  believes  that,  by  wa>  han  we 

can  follow,  God  is  working  out  that  etc 
of  the  revelation  he  has  to  announce,  the  reconciliation  of  thr 

in  Christ.     He  concludes  therefore  with  thi 
of  praise  to  God  for  His  wisdom  and 
belief  which  is  at  once  the  conclusion  and  the  logical  basis  of  his 

St.  Paul's  1  .of  IH> ' 

The  argument  then  of  this  section  of  the  Kj.istle  is  not  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  principles  on  which  grace  is  given  to  n. 

osophy  of  History.     In  the  bhort  concluding  doxology  to 


IX-XL]   MERCY  TO  ALL  COD*S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE   343 

the  Epistle — a  conclusion  which  sums  up  the  thought  which 
underlies  so  much  of  the  previous  argument— St.  Paul  speaks  of 
the  mystery  which  has  been  kept  silent  in  eternal  times,  1 
now  revealed,  •  the  Counsel,'  as  Dr.  Hort  (in  Lft.  Biblical  / 
p.  325)  expresses  it,  '  of  the  far-seeing  God,  the  Ruler  of  ages  or 
periods,  by  which  the  mystery  kept  secret  from  ancient  times  is 
laid  open  in  the  Gospel  for  the  knowledge  and  faith  of  all  nations.' 
So  again  in  Eph.  {.4-11  he  speaks  of  the  foreknowledge  and  plan 
God  had  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ;  a  plan  which 
has  now  been  revealed:  the  manifestation  of  His  goodness  to 
all  the  nations  of  the  world.  St.  Paul  therefore  sees  a  plan  or 
purpose  in  history  ;  in  fact  he  has  a  philosophy  of  History.  The 
characteristics  of  this  theory  we  propose  shortly  to  sum  up. 

(i)  From  Rom.  v.  12  ff.  we  gather  that  St.  Paul  divides  history 
into  three  periods  represented  typically  by  Adam,  Moses,  Christ, 
excluding  the  period  before  the  Fall,  which  may  be  taken  to  typify 
an  ideal  rather  than  to  describe  an  actual  historical  period.  Of  these 
the  first  period  represents  a  state  not  of  innocence  but  of  ignorance. 
•  t'n til  the  Law,  i.  e.  from  Adam  to  Moses,  sin  was  in  the  world  ; 
but  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law.'  It  is  a  period  which 
might  be  represented  to  us  by  the  most  degraded  savage  tribes. 
If  sin  represents  failure  to  attain  an  ideal,  they  are  sinful ;  but  if 
sin  represents  guilt,  they  cannot  be  condemned,  or  at  any  rate  only 
to  a  very  slight  degree  and  extent.  Now  if  God  deals  with 
men  in  such  a  condition,  how  does  He  do  so  ?  The  answer  is,  by 
the  Revelation  of  Law ;  in  the  case  of  the  Jewish  people,  by 
the  Revelation  of  the  Mosaic  Law.  Now  this  revelation  of  Law, 
with  the  accompanying  and  implied  idea  of  judgement,  has 
fulfilled  certain  functions.  It  has  in  the  first  place  convicted  man 
of  sin ;  it  has  shown  him  the  inadequacy  of  his  life  and  conduct 
'  For  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shall 
not  lust'  It  has  taught  him  the  difference  between  right  and 
wrong,  and  made  him  feel  the  desire  for  a  higher  life.  And  so, 
secondly,  it  has  been  the  schoolmaster  leading  men  to  Christ  It 
has  been  the  method  by  which  mankind  has  been  disciplined,  by 
which  they  have  been  gradually  prepared  and  educated.  And 
thirdly,  Law  has  taught  men  their  weakness.  The  ideal  is  there; 
the  desire  to  attain  it  is  there ;  ft  struggle  to  attain  it  begins,  and 
that  struggle  convinces  us  of  our  own  weakness  and  of  the  power  of 
sin  over  us.  We  not  only  learn  a  need  for  higher  ideals ;  we  learn 
a  No  the  need  we  have  for  a  more  powerful  helper.  This  is  the 
line  of  Law,  and  it  prepares  the  way  for  the  higher  and 
fuller  revelation  of  the  Gospel. 

These  three  stages  are  represented  for  us  typically,  and  most 
dearly  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  Even  here  of 
course  there  is  an  element  of  inexactness  in  them.  There  was 


344  [IX 


a  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong  before  Moses,  there  was  an 
increase  in  knowledge  after  him  ;  but  yet  the  stages  do  del 

And  they  may  be  found  also  running  through  the  whole  of 
history ;  they  arc  not  confined  to  the  Jewish  people.  The  stage  of 
primitive  ignorance  is  one  through  whi  .ably  every  race 

of  men  has  passed ;  some  in  fact  have  not  yet  passed  beyond  it : 
but   there  has  been  progress  upwards,  and  the  grea 

has  accompanied  and  made  possible  that  progress  is  Law. 
The  idea  o.  St.  Paul  is  clearly  not  exhausted  m  the  Jewish 

law,  although  that  of  course  is  the  highest  example  of  r 
peoples  have  been  under  law  in  some  form.    It  is  a  great  holy 
beneficent  principle,  but  yet  it  is  one  which  may  become  a  burden. 
It  is  represented  by  the  law  of  the  con  is  witnessed  by 

the  moral  judgements  which  men  have  in  all  ages  passed  on  one 
another ;  it  is  embodied  in  codes  and  ordinances  and  bodies  of  law ; 
ia«  i  which  distinguishes  for  men  the  difference  between 
right  and  wrong.  The  principle  has  worked,  or  is  w 
among  mankind  everywhere,  and  is  meant  to  be  the  preparation  of, 
as  it  creates  the  need  for,  the  highest  revelation,  that  of  the  Gospel. 

(a)  These  three  stages  represent  the  first  point  in  St.  i 
scheme  of  history.    A  second  point  is  the  idea  of  Election  or 
Selection,  or  rather  that  of  the  *  Purpose  of  God  whi 
by  Selection.1    God  did  not  will  to  redeem  i.  by  a  nod' 

as  He  might  have  done,  for  that,  as  Athanasius  puts  it,  would  be  to 
undo  the  work  of  creation ;  but  He  accepts  the  human  con 
which  He  has  created  and  uses  them  that  the  wor! 
its  own  salvation.    So,  as  St  Paul  feels,  He  has  selected  Israel  to 
be  His  chosen  people;  they  have  become  the  depositary  of  I 
truth  and  revelation,  that  through  them,  when  the  fulness  o: 
has  come,  the  world  may  receive  Divine  knowledge.  -  learly 

the  conception  underlying  St.  Paul's  teaching,  ami  looking  back  from 
the  vantage  ground  of  History  we  can  see  how  true  it  is.     To  use 
modern  phraseology,  an  'ethical  monotheism '  has  been  taught  the 
world  through  the  Jewish  race  and  through  it  alone.    Ai 
principle  may  be  extended  furtl.  nself  speaks  of  the  •  fulness 

of  time,'  and  it  is  no  unreal  philosophy  to  believe  that  the  purpose 
of  God  has  shown  itself  in  selecting  other  nations  also  for  excel- 
lence in  other  directions,  i  .  icncc,  in  states- 
manship;   that   the   Ron                         .is  built   up   in   or 
create  a  sphere  in  which  the  message  of  ti. 
work;   that  the  same  purpose  has  guided  the   Church 

;<-s  \\hich    have  followed.     An  historian  like  Kenan  would 
tell  us  that  the  freer  dcvcl  '  hurt  h  \\ 

made   possible   by   the   fall   of  Jerusalem  and  the  divorce  from 
Judas  ry  tells  us  ho  ..ions  occasioned 

the  conversion  of  the  Goths,  and  how  the  division  of  t 


IX-XI.]  MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE   345 

at  the  schism  of  East  and  West,  or  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
occasioned  new  victories  for  Christianity.  Again  and  ajain  an  event 
which  to  contemporaries  must  have  seemed  disastrous  has  worked 
out  beneficially ;  and  so,  guided  by  SL  Paul's  example,  we  learn  to 
trust  in  that  Divine  wisdom  and  mercy  which  in  some  cases  where 
we  can  follow  its  track  has  been  so  deeply  and  unexpectedly 
vindicated,  and  which  is  by  hypothesis  infinite  in  power  and 
wisdom  and  knowledge. 

(3)  These  then  are  two  main  points  in  St.  Paul's  teaching ;  first, 
the  idea  of  gradual  progress  upwards  implied  in  the  stages  of  Adam, 
Moses,  Christ ;  secondly,  the  idea  of  a  purpose  running  through 
history,  a  purpose  working  by  means  of  Selection.  But  to  what 
end?  The  end  is  looked  at  under  a  twofold  aspect;  it  is  the 
completion  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  and  the  exhibition  of  the 
Divine  mercy.  In  describing  the  completion  of  the  Messianic 
Kingdom,  St.  Paul  uses,  as  in  all  his  cschaiological  passages,  the 
forms  and  phrases  of  the  Apocalyptic  literature  of  his  time,  but 
reasons  have  been  given  for  thinking  that  he  interpreted  them,  at 
any  rate  to  a  certain  extent,  in  a  spiritual  manner.  There  is  per- 
haps a  further  difficulty,  or  at  any  rate  it  may  be  argued  that  SL  Paul 
is  mistaken  as  regards  the  Jews,  in  that  he  clearly  expected  that  at 
some  time  not  very  remote  they  would  return  to  the  Messianic  King- 
dom ;  yet  nothing  has  yet  happened  which  makes  this  expectation 
any  more  probable.  We  may  argue  in  reply  that  so  far  as  there 
was  any  mistaken  expectation,  it  was  of  the  nearness  of  the  last  times, 
and  that  the  definite  limit  fixed  by  St.  Paul,  'until  the  fulness  of  the 
Gentiles  come  in,'  has  not  yet  been  reached.  But  it  is  better  to 
go  deeper,  and  to  ask  whether  it  is  not  the  case  that  the  rejection 
of  the  Jews  now  as  then  fulfils  a  purpose  in  the  Divine  plan? 
The  well-known  answer  to  the  question,  '  What  is  the  chief  argu- 
ment for  Christianity  ? ' — '  the  Jews ' — reminds  us  of  the  continued 
nee  of  that  strange  race,  living  as  sojourners  among  men, 
the  ever-present  witnesses  to  a  remote  past  which  is  connected  by 
our  beliefs  intimately  with  the  present  By  their  traditions  to 
which  they  cling,  by  the  O.  T.  Scriptures  which  they  preserve  by 
an  independent  chain  of  evidence,  by  their  hopes,  and  by  their 
highest  aspirations,  they  are  a  living  witness  to  the  truth  of  that 
which  they  reject.  They  have  their  purpose  still  to  fulfil  in  the 
Divine  plan. 

St.  Paul's  final  explanation  of  the  purpose  of  God— the  exhi- 
bition of  the  Divine  mercy— suggests  the  solution  of  another  class 
of  questions.  In  all  such  speculations  there  is  indeed  a  difficulty. 
— the  constant  sense  of  the  limitations  of  human  language  as 
applied  to  what  is  Divine ;  and  St.  Paul  wishes  us  to  feel  these 
limitations,  for  again  and  again  he  uses  such  expressions  as 
oak  as  a  man.'  But  yet  granting  this,  the  thought  does 


34''  EPISTLE   TO  THE  ROMA  [IX 

a  solution  of  many  problen.  Joes  God  all* 

Iocs  He  shut  up  men  under  sin?     It  is  that  ul 
may  exhibit  the  depths  of  His  Divine  mercy.     We  m 
some  such  scheme  of  the  course  of  history  as  was  sketched  out 
above  explains  for  us  much  that  is  difficult,  but  yet  we  always 
come  back  to  an  initial  question,  Why  does  God  allow  such  a  state 
of  affairs  to  exist  ?    We  may  grant  that  it  comes  from  the  free-will 
of  man  ;  bu:  if  God  be  almighty  He  must  have  created  ma: 
that  free-will.    We  may  speak  of  His  limitation  of  His  own  powers, 
and  of  His  Redemption  of  man  without  violating  the  conditions  of 
human  life  and  nature;   but  if  He  be  almL 
that  He  could  have  prevented  all  sin  and  misery  by  a  single  act 
in  we  make  ?    We  can  only  say,  as  St.  Paul  does, 
that  it  is  that  He  may  reveal  the  Divine  mercy 
created  so  as  to  need  this  mercy,  we  should  never  have  known  the 
Love  of  God  as  revealed  in  His  Son.    That  is  the  fartlu 
our  speculations  may  legitimately  go. 

(4)  But  one  final  question.     What  evidence  does  St.  Paul  give 
for  a  belief  in  the  Divine  purpose  in  history  ?     It  is  twofold.     On 
the  one  hand,  within  the  limited  circle  of  our  own  knowledge  or 
experience,  we  can  see  that  things  have  unexpectedly  and  wonder- 
fully worked  out  so  as  to  indicate  a  purpose.    That  wa 
experience  in  the  preaching  to  the  Gentiles.    Where  we  have  more 
perfect  knowledge  and  can  see  the  end,  there  we  see  God's  purpose 
working.    And  on  the  other  hand  our  hypothesis  is  a  God  of 
infinite  power  and  wisdom.     If  we  have  faith  in  this  intel 
conception,  we  believe  that,  where  we  cannot  u  our  failure 

arises  from  the  limitations  not  of  God's  powt:  but  of  our 

own  intelligence. 

An  illustration  may  serve  to  bring  this  home.  read 

ii  Jewish  books  as  4  Ezra  or  the  Apocalypse  of  liaruch  the 
bewilderment  and  confusion  of  mind  of  a  pious  Jew  at  the  fall 
Every  hope  and   aspiration   that   he   had   seems 
shattered.     But  looked  at  from  th<  view  of  ( 

and  the  wider  development  of  Chri 
and  a  necessary  step  in  the  progress  of  the  Church.     I: 
in  a  1  ;-<*c  in  history,  we  can  see  r  here  quite 

•    t  to  many  a  contemporary  the  event  must  have  been 
.ibli-.     We  can  apply  the  argument  to  our  time.     In  the 
past,  where  we  <  he  course  of  cvmts  we  i  nee  of 

the  working  of  a  Divine  purpose,  and  so  in   the  present,  where  so 
much  is  obscure  and  Divine 

purpose  working,  ai  1  the  failures  -  and 

rebuffs  of  the  in;  :  steps  towards 

aJ  me  :  Initio  ttrrtni  orbit  et  anttquam  si :  >s  satculi 

anUquam  invest i.  >Jtscnl<s  anni,  tt  anUquam  al 


IX-XI.]   MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD*S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  347 

tor  urn  qui  nunc  ptccant  adinventiones  tl  consignali  tssntt  fxfJUi 
thesaumavnunt :  tune  cogitavi  et  facia  nmt  per  me  to/urn  et  MB 
per  ahum,  ut  et  finis  p<r  me  et  non  fxr  alium  (4  Ezra  vi.  1-6). 


The  Salvation  of  the  Indii>iduaL    Free-will  and 
Predestination. 

While  the  '  Nationalist '  interpretation  of  these  chapters  has  been 
adopted,  it  has  at  the  same  time  been  pointed  out  that,  although  it 
correctly  represents  St.  Paul's  line  of  argument,  it  cannot  be  legiti- 
mately used  as  it  has  been  to  evade  certain  difficulties  which  have 
been  always  felt  as  to  his  language.  St  Paul's  main  line  of  argu- 
ment applies  to  nations  and  peoples,  but  it  is  quite  clear  that  the 
language  of  ix.  19-23  applies  and  is  intended  to  apply  equally  to 
individuals.  Further  it  is  impossible  to  say,  as  Beyschlag  does,  that 
there  is  no  idea  in  the  Apostle's  mind  of  a  purpose  before  time.  It 
is  God's  purpose  '  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  *  which  is 
being  expounded.  And  again,  it  is  quite  true  to  say  that  the 
election  is  primarily  an  election  to  privilege ;  yet  there  is  a  very 
intimate  connexion  between  privilege  and  eternal  salvation,  and 
the  language  of  ix.  22,  23  '  fitted  unto  destruction/  'prepared  unto 
glory/  cannot  be  limited  to  a  merely  earthly  destiny.  Two  ques- 
tions then  still  remain  to  be  answered.  What  theory  is  implied 
in  St.  Paul's  language  concerning  the  hope  and  future  of  individuals 
whether  Christian  or  unbelievers,  and  what  theory  is  implied  as  to 
the  relation  between  Divine  foreknowledge  and  human  free-will? 

have  deliberately  used  the  expression  'what  theory  is 
implied  ? ' ;  for  St.  Paul  never  formally  discusses  either  of  these 
questions ;  he  never  gives  a  definite  answer  to  either,  and  on  both 
he  makes  statements  which  appear  inconsistent.  Future  salvation 
is  definitely  connected  with  privilege,  and  the  two  are  often 
looked  at  as  effect  and  cause.  '  If  while  we  were  enemies  we 
were  reconciled  to  God  through  the  death  of  His  Son,  much 
more  being  reconciled  shall  we  be  saved  by  His  life*  (v.  10). 
'  Whom  He  called,  them  He  also  justified :  and  whom  He  justified, 
them  He  also  glorified '  (viii.  30).  But,  although  the  assurance  of 
hope  is  given  by  the  Divine  call,  it  is  not  irrevocable.  '  By  their 
unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  HinrhlT  by  thy  faith.  Be 
not  highminded,  but  fear:  for  if  God  spared  not  the  natural 
branches,  neither  will  He  spare  thec'  (xi.  20,  21).  Nor  again  is 
future  salvation  to  be  confined  to  those  who  possess  external 
privileges.  The  statement  is  laid  down,  in  quite  an  unqualified 
way,  that  '  glory  and  honour  and  peace '  come  '  to  everyone  that 
worketh  good,  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek'  (ii.  10). 
Again,  there  is  no  definite  and  unqualified  statement  either  in 


[ix 

support  of  or  against  universalism ;   on  the  one   side  we 
•nts  such  as  those  in  a  later  Epistle  (i 

lleth  that  all  men  should  be  saved  and  . 
dgeoflhe  truth ';  or  again, 'He  has  shut  all  up  to  disobc 
but  that  He  might  1  y  upon  all'  (K 

other  side  there  is  a  strong  assertion  of  • 
and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgement  of  God,  \\ !;••  will 
to  every  man  according  to  his  works  ;  . . .  unto  them  that  arc  fac- 
tious and  obey  not  the  truth,  1  ::i  righteousness 
indignation,  tribulation  and  anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man  that 
workt                   5-9).    St.  Paul  asserts  both  the  goodness  a; 
severity  of  God.     He  does  not  attempt  to  reconcile  them,  nor  need 
we.     He  lays  down  very  clearly  and  definitely  the  fact  of  the  Divine 
judgement,  and  he  brings  out  prominently  three  characteristic 
that  it  is  in  accordance  with  works,  or  perhaps  more  correi ' 
the  basis  of  works,  that  is  of  a  man's  whole  life  and  car 
will  be  exercised  by  a  Judge  of  absolute  impartiality,  — there 
respect  of  persons ;  and  that  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  oppor- 
tunities which  a  man  has  enjoyed.    For  the  rest  we  must  lea 
solution,  as  he  would  have  done,  to  that  wisdom  and  knowledge 
and  mercy  of  God  of  which  he  speaks  at  the  close  of  the  c'. 
chapter. 

There  is  an  equal  inconsistency  in  St.  Paul's  language  regarding 
Divine  sovereignty  and  human  responsibility.    Ch.  ix  implies  argu- 
ments which  take  away  Free-will ;  ch.  x  is  meaningless  without  the 
presupposition  of  Free-will.    And  such  apparent  inconsisu : 
language  and  ideas  pervades  all  St.  I ' 

own  salvation,  for  it  is  God  that  workcth  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do 
of  His  good  pleasure  '  1 3).    Contrast  again  '  God  gave 

up  unto  a  reprobate  mind,'  and  '  wherefore  thou  art  without 
excuse '  (Rom.  i.  18 ;  ii.  i).     Now  two  explanations  oft! 
are  possible.    It  may  be  held  (as  does  1 

St.  Paul  is  unconscious  of  the  inconsistent  arises 

from  his  inferiority  in  logic  and  philosophy,  or  (a  i;  he 

i»  in  the  habit  of  isolating  one  p<>:  v,  and  lo<  -'f. 

question  from  that  point  of  view  aloi 
or  rather,  for  reasons  which  will  be  given  belo\ 
stated  more  strongly.    The  a:  1   it  so,  of 

chaps,  ix  and  z  is  one  which  :>e  the  cl 

of  all  religious  :  :id  experie: 

(i)  That  St.  Paul   recognized   the   contradiction,  a 
consciously,  may  be  taken  as  proved  by  the  fat 
was  shared  by  that  sect  of  the  Jews  among  !  been 

brought  up,  and  was  taught  in  those  schools  in  which  he  had 
been  ii  that  the  Pharisees  att. 

CUT)  thing  to  Fate  and  God,  but  that  yet  the  choice  oi 


IX-XI.]   MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S   ULTIMATE  PURPOSE   549 


wrong  lay  with  men  («o/>«raio<  .  .  .  «i>wjo0  n  *a\  6<+ 

rn   «.u   TO  /i«V  irpttTTtiv  ra   di'xaui,   rai  ^fj,   KOTO   TO  vXcurroo  «wi   rote 
^ximoiff   K«i<r&j<,  ftor^ttf  i«    «ir  «Va<rro*  cai  r^y  tlftapfuni*  //.    /.    II. 

viii.  14;  comport/.  XIII.  v.  9;  XVIII.  i.  3):  and  so  in  Pirqt  Aboih, 
iii.  24  (p.  73  cd.  Taylor)  'Everything  is  foreseen;  and  free-will 
is  given:  and  the  world  is  judged  by  grace;  and  everything  is 

!mg  to  work.'  (See  also  Ps.  Sol.  ix.  7  and  the  note  on 
Free-will  in  Ryle  and  James*  edition,  p.  96,  to  which  all  the  above 

nces  are  due.)  St.  Paul  then  was  only  expanding  and  giving 
.ning  to  the  doctrine  in  which  he  had  been  brought  up. 
He  had  inherited  it  but  he  deepened  it  He  was  more  deeply  con- 
scious  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  calling  him  ;  he  felt  more  deeply  the 
certainty  of  the  Divine  protection  and  guidance.  And  yet  the 
sense  of  personal  responsibility  was  in  an  equal  degree  intensified. 
'  But  I  press  forward,  if  so  be  I  may  apprehend,  seeing  that  also 
I  was  apprehended  by  Christ  '  (PhiL  iii.  12). 

(2)  Nor  again  is  any  other  solution  consistent  with  the  reality 
of  religious  belief.  Religion,  at  any  rate  a  religion  based  on 
morality,  demands  two  things.  To  satisfy  our  intellectual  belief 
the  God  whom  we  believe  in  must  be  Almighty,  i.  e.  omnipotent 
and  omniscient  ;  in  order  that  our  moral  life  may  be  real  our  Will 
must  be  free.  But  these  beliefs  are  not  in  themselves  consistent. 
If  God  be  Almighty  He  must  have  created  us  with  full  knowledge 
of  what  we  should  become,  and  the  responsibility  therefore  for 
wh.u  we  are  can  hardly  rot  with  ourselves.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
our  Will  is  free,  there  is  a  department  where  God  (if  we  judge  the 
Divine  mind  on  the  analogy  of  human  minds)  cannot  have  ciMted 

ii  full  knowledge.  We  are  reduced  therefore  to  an  apparently 
irreconcilable  contradiction,  and  that  remains  the  language  of  all 
deeply  religious  minds.  We  are  free,  we  are  responsible  for  what  we 
do,  but  yet  it  is  God  that  worketh  all  things.  This  antithesis  is 
brought  out  very  plainly  by  Thomas  Aquinas.  God  he  asserts  is 
ilhe  cause  of  everything  (Dfus  causa  est  omnibus  operantibus  ui 
\Tperentur,  Con/.  Gent.  III.  Ixvii),  but  the  Divine  providence  does 
not  exclude  Free-will.  The  argument  is  interesting  :  Adhuc  pro- 
•::identia  est  multipiicalira  bonorum  in  rebus  gubernatis.  Ittud  ergo 
per  quod  mulla  bona  subtrahercntur  a  rebus,  non  pertinet  ad  pro- 
ridcntiam.  Si  autem  liber  las  -coluntatis  lolUretur,  mulla  bona  sub- 
fraherentur.  Tolleretur  enim  laus  virtutis  humanae,  qua*  nulla  esl 
si  homo  liber  e  non  agit,  toller  ttur  enim  iustitia  praemiantiset  puniwtis, 
si  non  libert  homo  ageret  bonum  et  mafum,  cessaret  ttiam  circum- 
spectio  in  consih'is,  quae  de  his  quae  in  necessitate  aguntur,  /rustra 
tractarentur^  esset  igitur  contra  providential  rationem  ti  subtraheretur 
Toluniatis  libertas  (ib.  Ixxiii).  And  he  sums  up  the  whole  relation 
of  God  to  natural  causes,  elsewhere  showing  how  this  same 
principle  applies  to  the  human  will  :  paUt  etiam  quod  non  tic  idem 


350  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [IX 

tjftctus  causal  naturali  (t  dii-inat  virtuti  attrtbui.':. 
a  Dto,  partim  a  naturali  agtnli  fiat,  scd  lotus  ab  utroque  stcundum 
alium  modum,  suut  idtm   tfftctus   totus   attribuilur  mstrum 
principal  agenti  tttam  lotus  (to.  hex).     See  also  Summa  TJuologiae, 

M  Secundjc,  cxiii). 


This  is  substantially  also  the  view  taken  by  Mozlcy,  On  tkt  Aug 
Dextrine  of  PrttUstinatio*.    The  result  of  his  argument  is  summed  up  at 
follows,  pp.  336,  327:  'Upon  this  abstract  idea,  then,  of  the  Divine  1 
an  unlimited  power,  rose  up  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  Predestination  and 
good;  while  upon  the  abstract  idea  of  Fice-will,  as  an  unit 
rose  up  the  Pelagian  theory.    Had  men  perceived,  indeed,  more  clearly  and 
really  than  they  have  done,  their  ignorance  as  human  creatures,  . 
relation  in  which  the  human  reason  stands  to  the  great  truths  invol^^H 
this  question,  they  might  have  saved  themselves  the  trouble  of  this  whole 
controversy.    They  would  have  seen  that  this  question  cannot  be  determined 
absolutely,  one  way  or  another;  that  it  lies  between  two  great  contr  . 
truths,  neither  of  which  can  be  set  aside,  or  made  to  give  way  to  t  !. 
two  opposing  tendencies  of  thought,  inherent  in  the  human  mind,  v 
on  side  by  side,  and  are  able  to  be  held  and  maintained  together,  a. 
thus  opposite  to  each  other,  because  they  are  only  incipient,  and  i 
and  complete  truths;—  the  great  truths,  I  men: 

one  side,  and  man's  Free-will,  or  his  originality  as  an  agent,  on  the  other. 
And  this  is  in  fact,  the  mode  in  which  this  question  is  settled  b> 
common-sense  of  mankind.  .  .  .  The  plain  natural  reason  of  mankin 
always  large  and  comprehensive  ;  not  afraid  of  inconsistency,  but  a 
all  truth  which  presents  itself  to  its  notice.    It  is  only  when  minds  t 
philosophize  that  they  grow  narrow,—  that  there  begins  to  be  felt  the  appeal 
to  consistency,  and  with  it  the  temptation  to  exclude  truths.' 

(3)  We  can  but  state  the  two  sides  ;  we  cannot  solve  the  pr 
But  yet  there  is  one  conception  in  which  the  solution  i 
a  complete  realization  of  what  we  mean  by  asserting  that  God  is 
Almighty.    The  two  ideas  of  Free-will  and  t! 
cannot  be  reconciled  in  our  own  n.:n  i,  but  that  docs  not  prevent 
them  from  being  reconcilable   in  God's  n 
measuring  Him   by  our  own   intellectual 
otherwise.     And  so  our  solution  of  the  problem  of  Fr 
of  the  problems  of  hist  or 

the  full  acceptance  and  realization  of  v,  by  the 

infinity  and  the  omniscience  of  God. 


NEW  LIFE. 
XII.  1,  2.    With  this  nil  programme  of 

'•'  you  °ffii  f  °f  s^a: 

f  your  firing  set  own  fo<:  :  free 

blemish  ritual  service.     1 


XII.  1.]  THE   NEW  LIFE  351 

by  the  age  in  which  you  live,  but  undergo  complete  moral 
reformation  with  the  will  of  God  for  your  standard. 

Xn-XV.  12.  We  now  reach  the  concluding  portion  of  the 
>,  that  devoted  to  the  practical  application  of  the  previous 
discussion.  An  equally  marked  division  between  the  theoretical 
and  the  practical  portion  is  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Epbestans 
(chap,  iv) ;  and  one  similar,  although  not  so  strongly  marked,  in 
Galatians  (v.  i  or  2) ;  Colossians  (iii.  i);  I  Thessaionians  (iv.  i); 
a  Thessaionians  (iii.  6).  A  comparison  with  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Peter  and  St.  John  will  show  how  special  a  characteristic  of  St. 
I '.ml  is  this  method  of  construction.  The  main  idea  running 
through  the  whole  section  seems  to  be  that  of  peace  and  unity  for 
the  Church  in  all  relations  both  internal  and  external.  As  St.  Paul 
in  the  earlier  portion  of  the  Epistle,  looking  back  on  the  controversies 
through  which  he  has  passed,  solves  the  problems  which  had  been 
presented  in  the  interests  no  longer  of  victory,  but  of  peace,  so  in 
his  practical  exhortation  he  lays  the  foundation  of  unity  and 
harmony  on  deep  and  broad  principles.  A  definite  division  may 
be  made  between  chaps,  .xii,  xiii,  in  which  the  exhortations  are 
general  in  character,  and  xiv-xv.  12,  in  which  they  arise  directly 
out  of  the  controversies  which  are  disturbing  the  Church.  Yet 
even  these  are  treated  from  a  general  point  of  view,  and  not  in 
relation  to  any  special  circumstances.  In  the  first  section,  the 
Apostle  docs  not  appear  to  follow  any  definite  logical  order,  but 
touches  on  each  subject  as  it  suggests  itself  or  is  suggested  by  the 
previous  ideas ;  it  may  be  roughly  divided  as  follows :  ( i)  a  general 
introduction  on  the  character  of  the  Christian  life  (xii.  i,  2) ;  (ii) 
the  right  use  of  spiritual  gifts  especially  in  relation  to  Church 
order  (3-8) ;  (iii)  a  series  of  maxims  mainly  illustrating  the  great 
principle  of  0^0*17(9-2 1);  (iv)  duties  towards  rulers  and  those  in 
authority  (xiii.  1-7) ;  (v)  a  special  exhortation  to  oyoVi;,  as  including 
all  other  commandments  (8-10)  ;  (vi)  an  exhortation  to  a  spiritual 
life  on  the  ground  of  the  near  approach  of  the  wapovoia  (i  1-14). 

Tcrtullian  quotes  the  following  verses  of  this  chapter  from  Maroon :  9,  i ca, 
13,  14!),  ifib,  i;a,  18,  19.  There  is  no  evidence  that  any  portion  was 
omitted,  but  vcr.  18  may  have  stood  after  vcr.  19,  and  in  the  latter  yiipawnt 
is  naturally  cut  off  and  a  70?  inserted.  The  other  variations  noted  by  Zahn 
seem  less  certain  (Zahn,  G<uki<kte  «U*  N.  T.  A'omtnj,  p.  518;  Ten.  adv. 
Marc.  v.  14% 

1.  irapciKaXw  OUK.  A  regular  formula  in  St.  Paul :  Eph.  iv.  i ; 
i  Tim.  ii.  i  ;  i  Cor.  iv.  16.  As  in  the  passage  in  the  Ephesians, 
the  our  refers  not  so  much  to  what  immediately  precedes  as  to  the 
result  of  the  whole  previous  argument  '  As  you  arc  justified  by 
Christ,  and  put  in  a  new  relation  to  God,  I  exhort  you  to  live  in 
accordance  with  that  relation.'  But  although  SL  Paul  is  giving  the 


EPISTLE  T«  [XII    1 

cat  results  of  his  whole  previous  argument,  yet  (as  ofi< 
him.  cf.  xi.  1  1)  the  words  are  directly  led  up  to  l>\ 
of  the  previous  chapter  and  the  narration  of  the  wisdot 
mercy  of  God 

Sid   T<Lr  CKKTlpJiMV   TOG    OfOW.        Cf.    2   COT.  I.  $  O  WOTTjp  fi»  tHFrtpn**. 

Oitrtpufa  in  the  singular  only  occurs  once  (Col.  iii.  12)  : 
is  a  Hebraism  directly  derived  from  the  LXX  (Ps.  CN 

•o»  ooi-  voXXoi,  Kvpu,  <nj>6&pa).    There  is  a  reference 
preceding  chapter,  '  As  God  has  been  so  abundantly  merciful  to 
both  Jews  and  Greeks,  offer  a  sacrifice  to  i 
be  one  that  befits  His  holiness.' 

Tropaorqacu:  a  tech.  term  (although  not  in  the  O.T.)  for  presenting 
a  sacrifice  :  cf.  Jos.  Ant.  IV.  vi.  4  /S^ioi,  r,*  ,VTU  oWpaofa 

TO*  3aaiXi'a.   «ai  Ttxrovrovt  ravpovt  «oi  fpiaix  wapturriJKu.     The  word 
means  to  '  place  beside/  '  present  '  for  any  purpose,  and  so  is  used 
of  the  presentation  of  Christ  in  the  temple  (Luke  ii.  22),  of  S 
presenting  his  converts  (Col.  i.  28),  or  Christ  prc^ 
Church  (Eph.  v.  27),  or  of  the  Christian  himself  (c;. 
In  all  these  instances  the  idea  of  'offering'  (\ 
ce)  is  present. 

T<\  awpara  upwr.    To  be  taken  literally,  like  r«  ^,'\rj  i^j.v  in 
as  is  shown  by  the  contrast  with  rov  *«  is  the 

sacrifice  in  all  ancient  religions  must  be  clean  and  without  1 
so  we  must  offer  bodies  to  God  which  are  holy  and  free  from  the 
stains  of  passion.'     Christianity  does  not  condemn  the  boii 
demands  that  the  body  shall  be  purified  and  be  united  • 
Our  members  are  to  be  &rXo  ftunMxrvi>ip  ny  e«?  (vi.  1  3)  ;  our  bodies 


(ra   attftara)  are   to  be  pAi?   Xpwrrou  (i    Cor.  vi.  15);    they  a: 

temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (16.  ver.  19)  ;  we  are  to  be  pure  l> 
body  and  in  spirit  (;/>.  vii.  34). 

There  U  »omc  doubt  as  to  the  order  of  the  word*  «t^>«<rror  ri 
They  occur  in  this  on!  -.  L  and  Ut< 

and  Father*  ;  r^  0«y  tv.  in  K  A  I',  \rulg.     The  former  is  the  more  usual 
expression,  bat  St.  Panl  may  have  written  ry  H«^  «i\  to  prevent  am 

rf  e«^  comes  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  there  U  some  doubt  as  to 
whether  it  should  not  be  taken  with 


Ouaiar  £w<rar  :   cf.  VI.  13  irapatrnjo>.  ri  O»y,  •xr«i  «c  ***,»>* 

(itvrat.     The  bodies  presented  will  be  those  of  men  to  whom  new- 
ness  of  life  has  been  giv<  n  with  the  risen  Christ.     The 

relation  to  the  Jewish  rite  is  partly  one  of 
analogy.    The  Jewish  sacrifice  implio 

: .  ; 

requircmcr  -•  fulfilled  to  make  the  sacrifice  accept. i 

God,  so  in  c  our  bodies  must  be  holy,  without 

spot  or  bit- r 

-  ,'  '  free  from  .s: 


XII.  1,  2.]  THE  NEW  LIFE  353 


So  the  offering  of  the  Gentiles  (Rom.  xv.  16)  is  rjy*00^^  o  n*.  *Ay 
(See  on  L  7.) 

fid/*™  T?  6c«  :  cf.  Phil.  iv.  18  oVfJpoot  «opA  *E»afro&n»  ra 
irnp*  ir/ivy,  oa/iqr  tv*&ia<,Ov<Tia»  farrqv,  ttapttmv  ry  6«y  :  Rom.  XIV.  1  8  J 

:  pleasing  to  God/    The  formal  sacrifices  of  the  old  covenant 
mi^lit  not  be  acceptable  to  God  :  cf.  Ps.  li.  16,  17 

TV  XoymV  Xarpciar  u|i£r.  Ace.  in  apposition  to  the  idea  of  the 
sentence.  Winer,  §  lix.  9,  p.  669,  E.  T.  :  cf.  I  Tim.  U.  6  and  the 
note  on  viii.  3  above.  A  service  to  God  such  as  befits  the  reason 
(Xtfyor),  i.  c.  a  spiritual  sacrifice  and  not  the  offering  of  an  irrational 
animal  :  cf.  i  Pet.  il  5.  The  writer  of  Tut.  XII.  Pat.  Lev!  3 
seems  to  combine  a  reminiscence  of  this  passage  with  Phil.  iv.  18  : 
speaking  of  the  angels,  he  says  wpwn^'povat  to  Kupjy  &r/*i?r  rv«*&or 


We  may  notice  the  metaphorical  use  St.  Paul  makes  of  sacrificial 

language  :   «V»  rjj  cWi?  *ai  \tiravpyiif  njt  vurr«»r   vpiur  Phil.  ii.  17; 

*<TW  ftttdiar  (Lev.  L  9)  Phil.  iv.  18;  0^.7  »  Cor.  ii.  14,  16;  x,,- 

rovpytt,  hpovpyovrra,  irpoa<f>opti  Rom.  XV.  1  6.      This  language  pMMd 

gradually  and  almost  imperceptibly  into  liturgical  use,  and  hence 
acquired  new  shades  of  meaning  (see  esp.  Lightfoot,  CUment,  i. 
p.  386  sq.). 

2.  <rv<rxT)fiaTtl«(r6c  .  .  .  pcTapop+ouatic,  '  Do  not  adopt  the  external 
and  fleeting  fashion  of  this  world,  but  be  ye  transformed  in  your 
inmost  nature/  On  the  distinction  of  <rxw«*  and  nopttf  preserved  in 
these  compounds  see  Lightfoot,  Journal  of  Classical  and  Sacred 
Philology,  vol.  Hi.  1857,  p.  114,  Philippians%  p.  125.  Comp.  Chrys. 
ad  he.,  '  He  says  not  change  the  fashion,  but  be  transformed,  to 
show  that  the  world's  ways  are  a  fashion,  but  virtue's  not  a  fashion, 
but  a  kind  of  realyOrw,  with  a  natural  beauty  of  its  own,  not  needing 
the  trickeries  and  fashions  of  outward  things,  which  no  sooner 
appear  than  they  go  to  naught.  For  all  these  things,  even  before 
they  come  to  light,  are  dissolving.  If  then  thou  throwcst  the 
fashion  aside,  thou  wilt  speedily  come  to  the  form/ 

There  U  a  preponderance  of  evidence  in  favour  of  the  imperatives  (*»*w 
>«m'f«cr««,  /ura/ioptovo*)  in  this  verse,  B  L  P  all  the  vettion*  (Latt  Boh. 
Syrr.),  and  most  Fathers,  against  A  D  F  G  (K  varies^.  The  evidence  of  the 
Versions  and  of  the  Fathers,  some  of  whom  paraphrase,  is  pwticniarlj 
important,  as  it  removes  the  suspicion  of  itacism. 

•ni  OIMVI  TOUTW,  '  this  worldj*  '  this  life,'  used  in  a  moral  sense. 

'of  a  future  Messianic  age  became  a  part  of  the 

Jewish  Theology,  Time,  xpoVo*,  was  looked  upon  as  divided  into 

a  succession  of  ages,  oliw,  periods  or  cycles  of  great  but  limited 

duration;   and  the  present  age  was  contrasted  with  the  age  to 

come,  or  the  age  of  the  Messiah  (cf.  Schttrer,  §  29.  9),  a  contrast 

ommon  among  early  Christians  :  Malt  xii.  32  o«r»  k  iwry 

ry  at'ixt  oCrt  «V  ry  fw'AXom  :  Luc.  XX.  34,  35  ol  vtoi  rov  om»or  rovrov 

A  a 


354  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XII.  2. 


.  .  .  o!  &  Kara£iW«Vm  ToC  O?M»OF  /M(TOV  rt  >  •  oi  fufeo*  /» 

ry  ntwxi  rovry  oXXi  coi  «V  ry  /tAAarrt.      So  Enoch  XVJ.   I  /i«\,«r   W"/"" 
T*Anawr»ti>r  riff  rpur««»r  r^c  /irydXijf,  «V  17  6  a<wr  6  p«yar  T*X«<r0q<rcra*. 
As  the  distinction  between  the  present  period  and  the  futu; 
one  between  that  \\:  :id  that  which  is  i: 

between  the  imperfect  and  the  perfect,  between  that  in  wl. 
^Xorrtff  rov  olwroc  rovrov  (l  Cor  •  power  a: 

6  (ktfftXivt  fir  o2»i<wv  (Enoch  xii.  3)  will  rule,  <uw»  like  «oaMot  in 
St.  John's  writings,  came  to  have  a  moral  significance  :  Gal. 
roO   oiwrar   roC  iftori/ns  mmjpni  rrcpMirar^aarc  *oro  ri» 

roC  *ocrpov  rovrov  :  and  so  in  this  passage. 

From  the  idea  of  a  succession  of  ages  (cf.  Kph.  ii.  7  «V  TO«  aiW. 

c  fvipxafuwois)  came  the  expression  «/r  row  a&Kn  (xi.  36),  or 

r6»  ai«i>i«>v  to  express  eternity,  as  an  alternative  for  th< 
form  tit  rw  ai«M.    The  latter,  which  is  the  ordinary  and  original 
O.  T.  form,  arises  (like  OIMMOC)  from  the  older  and  original  m« 
of  the  Hebrew  V/JOT,  'the  hidden  time/  'futurity,'  and  contains 
rather  the  idea  of  an  unending  period. 

TTJ  dyojccur&m  TOO  rolf  :  our  bodies  are  to  be  pure  and  frc< 
all  the  stains  of  passion  ;  our  '  mind  '  and  '  intellect  '  are  to  be  no 
longer  enslaved  by  our  fleshly  nature,  but  renewed  and  purified  by 

the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  Cf.  Tit.  iii.  5  kb  Aoi/rpoG  fraAtyy«y«<ruir 
«ai  djtaxaiMiKrfttf  Uwt/iarof  'Ayiov  :  2  Cor.  iv.  16:  Col.  iii.  IO.  On 
the  relation  of  «murmWnr,  •  -.<>  naXifyi^^a  see  Trent! 

§  1  8.    By  this  renewal  the  intellectual  or  rational  print 
longer  be  a  roOr  <raprrfr  (Col.  ii.  18),  but  will  be  filled  with  the 
Spirit  and   coincident  with   the   highest  part   of  human   nature 
(i  Cor.  ii.   15,   16). 

Soiup,dl€iK  :  cf.  ii.  18  ;  Phil.  i.  10.     The  result  of  this  purification 
is  to  make  the  intellect,  which  is  the  seat  of  u  mcnt,  true 

and  exact  in  judging  on  spiritual  and  moral  questions. 

i*  6At)(io  TO«  e«K  That  which  is  in  accordance  with 

God's  will.'     This  is  further  define  !  iiree  adjec 

follow.  It  includes  all  that  is  implied  b  m  the 

religious  aim,  and  the  ideal  i  goal  of  life. 


THE  RIGHT  USE  OP  SPIRITUAL  GIFTS. 

xii   |  8.  Let  every  Christian  ith  his  f> 

place  and  functions.     The  soci  hich  we  belong  is 

a  single  body  :  >  s  a!!  related  one  : 

Hence  the  prophet  should  not  strain  after  ey 
his  faith    is    insufficient ;    the    minister,    //  >,    the 

cxhot:  .Id  each  be  intent  on  his  inty.     Th* 


XII.  3-5.J     THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  SPIRITUAL  GIFTS       355 

almsgivcr,  t/ie  person  in  authority,  the  doer  of  kindness, 
should  each  cultivate  a  spirit  appropriate  to  what  he  Joes. 

3.  St.  Paul  begins  by  an  instance  in  which  the  need  of  an 
enlightened  mind  is  most  necessary ;  namely,  the  proper  bearing 
of  a  Christian  in  the  community,  and  the  right  use  of  spiritual  gifts. 

fttd  TTJS  x^™*  K-T-^  gives  emphasis  by  an  appeal  to  Apostolic 
authority  (cf.  i.  5).  It  is  not  merely  a  question  of  the  spiritual 
progress  of  the  individual,  for  when  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  that  he 
uses  exhortation  (ver.  i),  but  of  the  discipline  and  order  of  the 
community;  this  is  a  subject  which  demands  the  exercise  of 
authority  as  well  as  of  admonition. 

worn  T$  3m.  An  emphatic  appeal  to  every  member  of  the 
Christian  community,  for  every  one  (l«a<rry)  has  some  spiritual 
gift. 

fit)  uircp+poMir,  '  not  to  be  high-minded  above  what  one  ought 
to  be  minded,  but  to  direct  one's  mind  to  sobriety.'  Notice  the 
play  on  words  wrt/x^poni* . . .  <f>pot«l* . . .  fyponlv . . .  aox^yoMur.  The 
</>poi*I*  tit  T*  (rv^poMty  would  be  the  fruit  of  the  enlightened  intellect 
as  opposed  to  the  ^pdiwa  rip  <rap«<*  (viii.  6). 

lKd<rr»>  is  after  •/*«'/><"»  not  in  apposition  to  warn  ry  &m,  and  its 
prominent  position  gives  the  idea  of  diversity ;  for  the  order,  cp. 
i  Cor.  vii.  17.  'According  to  the  measure  of  faith  which  God  has 
given  each  man.'  The  wise  and  prudent  man  will  remember  that 
his  position  in  the  community  is  dependent  not  on  any  merit  of  his 
own,  but  on  the  measure  of  his  faith,  and  that  faith  is  the  gift  of 
God.  Faith  '  being  the  sign  and  measure  of  the  Christian  life '  is 
used  here  for  all  those  gifts  which  are  given  to  man  with  or  as  the 
result  of  his  faith.  Two  points  are  fmphiriird,  the  diversity  fafcrrf 
.  .  .  p«Vpor,  and  the  fact  that  this  diversity  depends  upon  God :  cf. 
I  Cor.  vii.  7  oAX*  fccum*  3W  f%n  xdpurfta  •'•  6«ov,  6  /M>  ovrtn,  4  W 
ovrtts. 

4.  5.  Modesty  and  sobriety  and  good  judgement  are  necessary 
because  of  the  character  of  the  community :  it  is  an  organism  or 
corporate  body  in  which  each  person  has  his  own  dutj  to  perform 
for  the  well-being  of  the  whole  and  therefore  of  himself. 

This  comparison  of  a  social  organism  to  a  body  was  very 
common  among  ancient  writers,  and  is  used  again  and  again  by 
St  Paul  to  illustrate  the  character  of  the  Christian  community :  see 
i  Cor.  xii.  12;  Eph.  iv.  15;  Col.  i.  18.  The  use  here  is  based 
upon  that  in  i  Cor.  xii.  12-31.  In  the  Epistles  of  the  Captivity  it 
is  another  side  of  the  idea  that  is  expounded,  the  unity  of  the 
Church  in  Christ  as  its  head. 

5.  i*  W  tea?  ttf.    An  idiomatic  expression  found  in  later  Greek. 
Cf.  Mark  xiv.  19  tit  *off  tit :  John  viii.  9 :  3  Mace  v.  34  6  *aff  tit 
««  rAr  ^t'Xw :  Lucian  Solotcista  9 ;  Eus.  H.  E.  X.  iv,  ftc,    4r  «f 

A  a  t 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMA  [XII.  5,  6. 

•It  was  probably  formed  on  the  model  of  if  *aff  i*t  and  then  *aff 
tit  came  to  be  treated  adverbially  and  written  as  one  word  :  . 
it  could  be  used,  as  here,  with  a  neuter  article. 

6-13.  fxorT«»  M  xopurp0™'  *-T-*-    These  words  may  be  taken 
grammatically  cither  (i)  as  agreeing  with  the  subject  of  ia^v. 
a  comma  being  put  at  p/X?,  or  (2)  as  the  beginning  of  a  new 
sentence  and  forming  the  subject  of  a  series  of  verbs  supplic 
the  various  sentences  that  follow ;  this  is  decidedly  preferable,  for  in 
the  previous  sentence  the  comparison  is  grammatically  finish*. 
?xorm  W  suggests  the  beginning  of  a  new  sentence. 

Two  methgds  of  construction  are  also  possible  for  the  v 

conk  TT]V  a*a\oyia*  rijr  nicrrtttf  . .  .  «V  TJJ  faunm? , , 

be  taken  as  dependent  on  fxorw,  or  *  verb  must  be  si: 
each  and  the  sentences  become  exhortations.    ( i )  If  the  first  con- 
struction be  taken  the  passage  will  run,  '  So  are  we  all  one  I 
Christ,  but  individually  members  one  of  another,  having  gifts 
are  different  according  to  the  grace  whit 

have  prophecy  according  to  the  proportion  of  faith,  or  a  function 
of  ministry  in  matters  of  ministration,  or  whether  a  man  : 
in  the  exercise  of  functions  of  teaching,  or  one  who  exhort 
exhortation,  one  who  giveth  with  singleness  of  purpose,  on 
zealously  provides,  one  who  showeth  mercy  cheerfully.    (2)  Accord- 
ing to  the  second  interpretation  we  must  translate  'having  gifts 
which  vary  according  to  the  grace  given  us,— be  it  prophecy  let  us 
use  it  in  proportion  to  the  faith  given  us,  be  it  ministry  let  us  use  it 
in  ministry,'  Ac. 

That  the  latter  (which  i>  Icy.  Go.  Va.  Gif.)  is  pref 

is  shown  by  the  difficulty  of  keeping  up  the  former  interpretation 
to  the  end;  few  commentators  have  the  hardihood  to  c  . 
on  as  far  as  ver.  8;  nor  is  it  really  easier  in  ver.  7,  where  the 
additions  «V  rg  duucovj?  are  very  otiose  if  they  • 
understood.  therefore  of  the  somewhat  harsh  ellipse,  the 

second  construction  must  be  adopted  throughout 

6.    Kord    tV    AraXoyiar    TTJS    wurrcws    (sc.   vpafanvviuv). 
meaning  of  *un-f»c  here  is  suggested  by 
gifts  depend  upon  the  measure  of  faith  allotted  to  hn: 
and  so  he  must  use  and  exercise  these  gifts  in  proportion  to  the 
faiih  that  is  in  him.     If  he  be  <r4*l>p»»  and  his  mm 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  \vill  judge  rightly  his  ca; 
on  the  other  hand,  his  mind  be  carnal,  he  will  try  to 
himself  vain-gloriously  and  t!i  ;  -cacc  of  the  comnu; 

must  of  the  Latin   i 

roentators,  takes  wi<m*t  <  jn  of 

the  (objec  is  before  him 

iiets  and 
the  r«. :  >.  ir tance  of  particular  truths  to  the  neglec 


XII.  6-8.]     THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  SPIRITUAL  GIFTS       337 

But  this  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with  the  meaning  be  has 
himself  given  to  wiV™  in  vcr.  3,  and  gives  a  sense  to  oMtXoytov 
which  it  will  not  bear ;  the  difficulty  being  concealed  by  the  ambi- 
guity of  the  word  'proportion'  in  English. 

7-  SioKOffar,  '  if  we  have  the  gift  of  ministry,  let  us  use  it  in 
ministering  to  the  community,  and  not  attempt  ambitiously  to 
prophesy  or  exhort'  tauoWa  was  used  either  generally  of  all 
Christian  ministrations  (so  Rom.  xi.  13;  I  Cor.  xii.  5;  Eph.  ir. 
1 2,  &c.)  or  specially  of  the  administration  of  alms  and  attendance 
to  bodily  wants  (i  Cor.  xvi.  15 ;  a  Cor.  viii.  4,  Ac.).  Here  the 
opposition  to  npoifufnia,  didwrxoXui,  tra/xfcXiprif  seems  to  demand  the 
more  confined  sense. 

A  SiBdaickMf.  St.  Paul  here  substitutes  a  personal  phrase  because 
•Xiiv  a*8o<T«aXi'a»  would  mean,  not  to  impart,  but  to  receive  instruction. 

8.  6  ficra&i&xfe :  the  man  who  gives  alms  of  his  own  substance 
is  to  do  it  in  singleness  of  purpose  and  not  with  mixed  motives, 
with  the  thought  of  ostentation  or  reward.  With  6  jMrodi&M*,  the 
man  who  eives  of  his  own,  while  6  JWk&ovf  is  the  man  who  dis- 
tributes other  persons'  gifts,  comp.  Test.  XII.  Pair.  Is*.  7  *OJT) 

turOpvirtf  MwofMVy  <rvw<rr«»«a£a,  «al  irr*x<t  *""&«*<>  Tor  fyro*  pav. 

dirX<Srr)f .  The  meaning  of  this  word  is  illustrated  best  by  Test. 
A'//.  Pair.  Issachar,  or  iwpl  ArXrfnTrof.  Issachar  is  represented  as 
the  husbandman,  who  lived  simply  and  honestly  on  his  land.  'And 
my  father  blessed  me,  seeing  that  I  walk  in  simplicity  ((farXtfoft). 
And  I  was  not  inquisitive  in  my  actions,  nor  wicked  and  envious 
towards  my  neighbour.  I  did  not  speak  evil  of  any  one,  nor  attack 
a  man's  life,  but  I  walked  with  a  single  eye  (/»  <brXrfnyn  ty&XpAr). 
...  To  every  poor  and  every  afflicted  man  I  provided  the  good 
things  of  the  earth,  in  simplicity  (4*>Xtfri?r)  of  heart.  .  .  .  The  simple 
man  (6  <brXoOt)  doth  not  desire  gold,  dotn  not  ravish  his  neighbour, 
doth  not  care  for  all  kinds  of  dainty  meats,  doth  not  wish  for 
diversity  of  clothing,  doth  not  promise  himself  (ow*  vvoypo^Mi)  length 
of  days,  he  receiveth  only  the  will  of  God  ...  he  walketh  in  up- 
rightness of  life,  and  beholdeth  all  things  in  simplicity  (ArXrfnfn).' 
Issachar  is  the  honourable,  hardworking,  straightforward  farmer ; 
open-handed  and  open-hearted,  giving  out  of  compassion  and  in 
singleness  of  purpose,  not  from  ambition. 

The  word  is  used  by  St  Paul  alone  in  the  N.  T.,  and  was 
specially  suited  'to  describe  the  generous  unselfish  character  of 
Christian  almsgiving;  and  hence  occurs  in  one  or  two  places 
almost  with  the  signification  of  liberality,  a  Cor.  ix.  1 1,  13 ;  just  as 
'  liberality '  in  English  has  come  to  have  a  secondary  meaning,  and 
dtmuoavMy  in  Hellenistic  Greek  (Hatch,  Essays  in  Biblical  Greek, 
p.  49).  Such  specialization  is  particularly  natural  in  the  East, 
where  large-hearted  generosity  is  a  popular  virtue,  and  where 
words  as  ( good '  may  be  used  simply  to  mean  munificent 


358  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [XII.  8. 


6  wpotffrrfjicros,  the  man  that  presides,  or  governs  in  any  po 

«.T  ecclesiastical  or  other.    The  word  is  used  of  e«. 
officials,  i  Thess.  v.  ia  ;  i  Tim.  v.  17;  Just.  Mart.  ApoL  i.  67  ;  and 
of  a  man  ruling  his  family  (i  Tim  i  .•),  and  need  not  be 

any  further  defined.    Zeal  and  energy  are  the  natural  gifts  required 
ofai 

A  JXcwr.   '  Let  any  man  or  woman  who  performs  deeds  of  mercy 
in  the  church,  do  so  brightly  and  cheerfully/    The  value  of  1 
ness  in  performing  acts  of  kindness  has  become  proverbial,  1 
xxxii.  (xxxv.)  1  1  «V  itatry  do™  ft^MMroy  TO  *p&r«v6V  aov:  Prov.  xxii.  8 
ftopw  «i*  don}*  rvXoyti  6  8«o»  (quoted  2  Cor.  ix.  7  );   but  i 


singleminded  «incerity  became  an  eminently  Chr:  ue,  so 

cheerfulness  in  all  the  paths  of  life,  a  cheerfulness  wh 
from  a  warm  heart,  and  a  pure  conscience  and  a  serene  mind  set 
on  something  above  this  world,  was  a  special  characteristic  of  the 
early  Christian  (Acts  il  46;  v.  41  4,  18;  ii.  18,  Ac.; 

i  Thess.  v.  16). 

Spiritual  Gifts. 

The  word  x<ipt<r/ia  (which  is  almost  purely  Pauline)  is  used  of 
those  special  endowments  which  come  to  every  i  .is  the 

result  of  God's  free  favour  (\tp*<)  to  men  and  of  the  consequent 
gift  of  faith.  In  Rom.  v.  15,  vi.  13,  indeed,  it  has  a  wider  si 
cation,  meaning  the  free  gift  on  the  part  of  God  to  man  of  forgive- 
ness of  sins  and  eternal  life,  but  elsewhere  it  appears  always  to  be 
used  for  those  personal  endowments  which  are  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit.  In  this  connexion  it  is  not  confined  to  special  or  con- 
spicuous endowments  or  to  special  ofi  ;:ideed, 

T*  xapVpara  rA  pfifoKi  (i  Cor.  xii.  31),  which  are  those  apparently 
most  beneficial  to  the  community;  but  in  the  same  Epistle  the  word 
is  also  used  of  the  individual  fitness  for  the  married  or  the  un- 
married state  (i  Cor.  vii.  7)  ;  and  in  Rom.  {.13  it  is  used  of  the 
spiritual  advantage  which  an  Apostle  might  confer  on  the  com- 
munity. So  again,  xapivpara  include  miraculous  powers,  but  no 
distinction  is  made  between  them  and  non-miraculous  gifts.  In 
the  passage  before  us  there  is  the  same  combination  ot 
widely  differing  gifts;  the  Apostle  gives  specimens  (if  w«- 
express  it  so)  of  various  Christian  endowments  ;  it  is  probable 
that  some  of  them  were  generally  if  not  always  the  function  of 
persons  specially  set  apart  for  the  purpose  (although  not  | 
necessarily  holding  ecclesiastical  office),  others  would  not  be  con- 
fined to  any  one  office,  and  many  might  be  possessed  by  the  same 
person.  St.  Paul's  meaning  is  :  By  natural  endowments,  strengthened 
he  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  you  have  various  powers  and  capacities  : 
in  the  use  of  these  it  is  above  all  necessary  for  the  good  of  the 


XII.  3-8.]     THE   RIGHT  USE  OF  SPIRITUAL  GIFTS       359 

unity  that  you  should  show  a  wise  and  prudent  judgement, 
not  attempting  offices  or  work  for  which  you  are  not  fitted,  nor 
marring  your  gifts  by  exercising  them  in  a  wrong  s; 

This  being  the  meaning  of  xap«'<rpara  and  St.  Paul's  purpose  in 
this  chapter,  interpretations  of  it,  as  of  the  similar  passage  (chap. 
xii)  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  which  have  attempted 
to  connect  spiritual  gifts  more  closely  with  the  Christian  ministry 
are  unfounded.  These  are  of  two  characters.  One,  that  of 
Neander,  maintains  that  in  the  original  Church  there  were  no 
ecclesiastical  officers  at  all  but  only  xapiapara,  and  that  as  spiritual 


gifts  died  out,  regularly  appointed  officers  took  the  place  of  those 
who  possessed  them.  The  other  finds,  or  attempts  to  find,  an 
ecclesiastical  office  for  each  gift  of  the  Spirit  mentioned  in  this 
chapter  and  the  parallel  passage  of  the  Corinthians,  or  at  any  rate 
argues  that  there  must  have  been  vpo^Trm,  &&<r«aXo<  &c.,  existing 
as  church  officers  in  the  Corinthian  and  Roman  communities. 
Neither  of  these  is  a  correct  deduction  from  the  passages  under 
consideration.  In  dealing  with  the  xopurpora  St.  Paul  is  discussing 
a  series  of  questions  only  partially  connected  with  the  Christian 
ministry.  Every  church  officer  would,  we  may  presume,  be  con- 
sidered to  have  xapiapara  which  would  fit  him  for  the  fulfilment  of 
such  an  office;  but  most,  if  not  all,  Christians  would  also  have  j^mlm 
fiara.  The  two  questions  therefore  are  on  different  planes  which 
partially  intersect,  and  deductions  from  these  chapters  made  in 
any  direction  as  to  the  form  of  the  Christian  organization  are 
invalid,  although  they  show  the  spiritual  endowments  which  those 
prominent  in  the  community  could  possess. 

A  comparison  of  the  two  passages,  i  Cor.  xii.  and  Rom.  xii.  3-8, 
is  interesting  on  other  grounds.  St  Paul  in  the  Corinthian  Epistle 
is  dealing  with  a  definite  series  of  difficulties  arising  from  the 
special  endowments  and  irregularities  of  that  church.  He  treats 
the  whole  subject  very  fully,  and,  as  was  necessary,  condemns 
definite  disorders.  In  the  Roman  Epistle  be  is  evidently  writing 
\\ith  the  former  Epistle  in  his  mind:  he  uses  the  same  simile:  he 
concludes  equally  with  a  list  of  forms  of  jwmrjumi  —  shorter,  indeed, 
hut  representative  ;  but  there  is  no  sign  of  that  directness  which 
would  arise  from  dealing  with  special  circumstances.  The  letter  is 
written  with  the  experience  of  Corinth  fresh  in  the  writer's  mind, 
but  without  any  immediate  purpose.  He  is  laying  down  directions 
based  on  his  experience  ;  but  instead  of  a  number  of  different 
details,  he  sums  up  all  that  he  has  to  say  in  one  general  moral 
principle  :  Prudence  and  self-restraint  in  proportion  to  the  gift  of 
faith.  Just  as  the  doctrinal  portions  of  the  Epistle  an  written  with 
the  memory  of  past  controversies  still  fresh,  ilJKMifug  and  laying 
down  in  a  broad  spirit  positions  which  had  been  gained  in  the 
course  of  those  controversies,  so  we  shall  find  that  in  the  practical 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XII.  0. 

portion  St.  Paul  is  laying  down  broad  and  statesmanlike  positions 
are  the  result  of  past  experience  and  deal  with  circumstances 
may  arise  in  any  commi 


MAXIMS  TO  GUIDE  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE. 

XII.  9-21.  The  general  principles  of  your  life  should  be 
a  love  which  is  perfectly  sincere  \  depth  of  moral  /< 
consideration  for  others,  zeal,  fervour,  devoutness,  hopefulness, 
'nde  under  persecutions,  prayerful  ness,  eagerness  to  help 
your  fellow-  Christians  by  sharing  what  you  Assess 
them  and  by  the  ready  exercise  of  hospitality. 

BUss,  do  not  curse,  your  persecutors.     Sympathise 
others.     Be  united  in  feeling,  not  ambitious  but  modest  in 
your    aims.    Be    not   self-opinionated  or  revengeful.    Do 
nothing  to  offend  the  world.      Leave  vengeance  to   God. 
Good  for  evil  is  the  best  requital. 

9.  ^  dydhn),  cf.  xiii.  8.    The  Aposile  comes  back  from  direc- 
tions which  only  apply  to  individuals  to  the  general  direction  to 
Christian  Charity,  which  will  solve  all  previous  difficulties. 
Zig.  a«W<r*«»  yap  w«t  A»  TO  lipiptva  coropdw&ii},  (Vijyay*  rqy  wipa 
wrffw  rovr«y,  Xry»  dq  rip  m  dXAijAovf  dyirtnj*.     The  sequence  of 
ideas  is  exactly  similar  to  that  in  i  Cor.  xii,  xiii,  and  ob\ 
suggested  by  it.    In  the  section  that  follows  (9-21),  o-ydm?  is  the 
ruling  thought,  but  the  Apostle  does  not  allow  himself  to  be  con- 
fined and  pours  forth  directions  as  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  life 
which  crowd  into  his  mind. 

;     2   Cor.  vi.    6 


I  Tim.  i.  5  and  a  Tim.  i.  s  (w»<rr.k  17  (n  &>«&»  <ro#a); 

i  Pet  i.  22  (<£«Xafl«X(£t'a).    It  is  significant  thru  the  word  is  not 
used  in  profane  writers  except  once  in  the  adverbial  foru 
II  Aureliu- 

dmxrrvyoJrTtf  :  sc.  «Vr»  as  f<rr«  above,  and  cf.  I  IVt.  ii.  18  ; 
An  alternative  construction  is  to  suppose  an  anacoluthon, 
Charon  ifoflrocpiw  had  been  read  abo\-e;  cf.  2  Cor.  i.  7.    The 
word  expresses  a  strong  feeling  of  h<  <nro-  by  1 

emphasizing  the  idea  of  separation  gives  an  intensive  force,  w  hich 
is  heightened  by  contrast  with  ««XAb, 

rA  worrjpif  .  .  .  T$  Aya^f.     The  characteristic  of  true  genuine 

>  to  attach  one&df  to  the  goo  ! 

oil  in  him.    There  cannot  be  lovr  it  whoever 

has  love  in  him  can  see  the  good  that  there  is  in  all. 


XII.  10,  11.]    MAXIMS  TO  GUIDE  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE   361 

10.  TTJ  +iXaScX+t?,  'love  of  the  brethren';  as  contrasted  with 
aytmri,  which  is  universal,  $iXa&X$«a  represents  affection  for  the 
brethren;  that  b,  for  all  members  of  the  Christian  community, 

Cf.  3   Pet.  1.  7.     Eulhym.-Zig.  d&X^ot  for*  «oro   ri)»  otrj»   &A  roi 


4>iX&rropyoi  :  the  proper  term  for  strong  family  affection.  Euthym.- 
Zig.  roi/r«'<m  foppvf    *ui   dumi^Mtr  ^tXoCrm.      twlraais  y&p  (fuXiar   7 


K.T.X.  :  cf.  Phil.  ii.  3  *  in  lowliness  of  mind  each  accounting 
other  better  than  himself/  The  condition  and  the  result  of  true 
affection  are  that  no  one  seeks  his  own  honour  or  position,  and 
every  one  is  willing  to  give  honour  to  others.  The  word  wpoiryov- 
pcroi  is  somewhat  difficult  ;  naturally  it  would  mean  '  going  before/ 
4  preceding/  and  so  it  has  been  translated,  (i)  '  in  matters  of  honour 
preventing  one  another/  being  the  first  to  show  honour  :  so  Vulg. 
invictm  praevcnienks  \  or  (a)  'leading  the  way  in  honourable 
actions':  'Love  makes  a  roan  lead  others  by  the  example  of 
showing  respect  to  worth  or  saintlincss/  Liddon;  or  (3)  'surpass- 
ing one  another':  'There  is  nothing  which  makes  friends  10 
much,  as  the  earnest  endeavour  to  overcome  one's  neighbour  in 
honouring  him/  Chrys. 

But  all  these  translations  are  somewhat  forced,  and  are  difficult, 
because  vpoijy<'nr6ai  in  this  sense  never  takes  the  accusative.  It  is, 
in  fact,  as  admissible  to  give  the  word  a  meaning  which  it  has  not 
here,  as  a  construction  which  is  unparalleled.  A  comparison 
therefore  of  I  Thcss.  v.  13  ;  Phil.  ii.  3  suggests  that  St.  Paul  is 
using  the  word  in  the  quite  possible,  although  otherwise  unknown, 
sense  of  rr0^™  vntpixavras.  So  apparently  RV.  (  =  AV.)  'in 
honour  preferring  one  another/  and  Vaughan. 

11.  Tfj  <nrouSrj  |&?j  fcnjpoi,  'in  zeal  not  flagging';  the  words 
being  used  in  a  spiritual  sense,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  clauses. 
Zeal  in  all  our  Christian  duties  will  be  the  natural  result  of  our 
Christian  love,  and  will  in  time  foster  it  On  Amprfr  cf.  Matt  uv. 
26  :  it  is  a  word  common  in  the  LXX  of  Proverbs  (vi.  6,  Ac.). 

ry  wv«upm  llorrcs:  cf.  Acts  xviii.  25,  'fervent  in  spirit';  that  is 
the  human  spirit  instinct  with  and  inspired  by  the  Divine  Spirit. 
The  spiritual  life  is  the  source  of  the  Christian's  love:  'And  all 
things  will  be  easy  from  the  Spirit  and  the  love,  while  thou  an 
made  to  glow  from  both  sides,'  Chrys. 

TW  Kupiw  ftouXcuoircf.  The  source  of  Christian  zeal  is  spiritual 
life,  the  regulating  principle  our  service  to  Christ  It  is  not 
necessary  to  find  any  very  subtle  connexion  of  thought  between 
these  clauses,  they  came  forth  eagerly  and  irregularly  from  Si. 
Paul's  mind.  Kvp<y  may  have  been  SlggfMtfd  by  mtvpm,  just  as 
below  d««MCfur  in  one  sense  suggests  the  same  word  in  another 
I  BMb 


y>i  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [XII    11 

There  U  ft  very  considerable  balance  of  authority  in  favour  of  «••*> 

.:.  Syrr.  Boh.,  Gr.  Fathers)  as  against  «..- 

Latin  Fathers).  Cf.  Jcr.  Ep.  37  ad  Marcellam :  i.'/i  Jtgant  spe  gandentes, 
tempori  uroicntts.  n*t  Ueamut  domino  serrientes.  Orig.-lat  ad  fa.  uio 
auttm  in  nottnuUit  Latimtrum  uumplit  kakri  tempori  serrientes:  quod 
ntn  miki  vubhtr  fmtftniatttr  inurtum.  The  corruption  may  have  arisen 
from  ku>  I^MU  being  confused  together,  ft  confusion  which  would  lx 
from  rrminrsrences  of  such  expressions  as  Eph.  v.  16  ifrfopa&iu**  r^r 


12.  TTJ  Avioi  xaipoKTcs.    See  above  on  vcr.  8.    The  Christian 
hope  is  the  cause  of  that  Christian  joy  and  cheerfulness  . 
position  which  is  the  grace  of  Christian  love:   cf.  i  » 
'  Love  .  .  .  hopeth  all  things/ 

Tjj  0Xi>ci  uTroji/K>»Tis.     Endurance  in  persecut  .1  rally 

connected  with  the  Christian's  hope  :  cf.  i  Cor.  xiii.  7  '  Lo 
cndureth  all  things/ 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  how  strongly,  even  thus  early,  persecu- 
tion as  a  characteristic  of  the  Christian's  life  in  the  worl 
impressed  itself  on  St.  Paul's  phraseology  :  see  i  Thess.  i.  6  ;  iii. 
3,  7  ;  2  Thess.  i.  4,  6  ;  2  Cor.  i.  4,  &c.  ;  Rom.  v.  3  ;  viii.  35. 

T§  irpoaeoxfj  irooaitapTcpoCKTes  :   Acts.  i.   14;  ii.  42;  Col. 
Persecution  again  naturally  suggests  prayer,  for  the  strength  of 
prayer  is  specially  needed  in  tunes  of  persecution. 

rals  XJ"""S  Twr  dyiw*  KOtrwrourrcf.     This  verse  contain 
special  applications  of  the  principle  of  love  —  sharing  one's  goods 
\\ith  fellow-Christians  in  need,  and  exercising    that  hos; 
which  was  part  of  the  bond  which  knit  together  th  n  com- 

munity.    With  «om»wl»  in  this  sense  cf.  I  15;  Rom.  xv.  26; 

2  Cor.  ix.  13;  Heb.  xiii.  16. 


The  variation  roTr  /irtiou  (D  F  G,  MSS.  known  to  Theod.  Mops.,  Vulg. 
cod.  (am),  Ens.  Hut.  A/mrf.  Pal.,  ed.  Cnreton,  p.  i,  Mil.  Ambrstr.  Aug.)  is 
interesting.  In  the  translation  of  Origen  we  read :  Usibns  sanctorum  com- 
Mtmini  txtmplaribus  magi*  kabcri 


mm  ftuut  stiptm  imdigentibui 
fratbcrt,  tedunxum  nottrorum  cum  if  tit  gttodammodo  habtrt  commttt, 
Humimuu  tamtorum  trot  in  colltctit  toltmnilut,  tivt  pro  to.  u: 
tiont  tontm  proficiamus,  aptum  *  (otrvtnunt  vidttur.    The  variation  must 
have  ftrisen  at  a  time  when  the  '  holy  '  were  no  longer  the  members  of  the 
community  and  fellow-Christians,  whose  bodily  wants  required  relieving, 
but  the  'saints'  of  the  past,  whose  lives  were  commemorated.    Bt 
custom   arose  a*   early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century 

i  \ap>f  - 


4  Ks>of  JvircXdV  T^  rov  fMfrrvpio*  airrov  WPO»  •yfw'tfAiwy,  tit  r<  r^r  rwr 
•po^A^«Jr«r  rtw  «ai  rfir  ^XA^rrw  &a*r  -  tftaaiar:  and  the 

variations  may,  like  other  peculiarities  of  the  western  text,  easily  have  arisen 
so  soon.  We  cannot  however  lay  any  stress  on  the  passage  of  Origen,  as  it 
b  probably  due  to  Rnfmus.  See  Bingham,  A  •  ggest 

t  was  a  clerical  error  arising  from  the  confusion  of  xp  and 
a  badly  written  papyrus  MS. 


XII.  13-16.]  MAXIMS  TO  GUIDE  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  363 


ior.  From  the  very  beginning  hospitality  was  recognized 
as  one  of  the  most  important  of  Christian  duties  (Heb.  xiii.  2; 
i  Tim.  iii.  2  ;  Tit.  i.  8  ;  i  Pet.  iv.  9  ;  compare  also  Clem.  Rom.  §  i 

TO  ntyaXotrptnis  rfjs  0iXo£mar  v/uv  9^01  1  §  IO  of  Abraham  to  vumv 
«ai  0iAo^K»a»  <&&,  avry  tior  «V  >^p9  :  §  1  1  to  £*Ao£,Wa,  col  n'irfcThMp 
A«r  *<r±6f)  :  §  12  to  nicrru*  cat  <j*ko£<»ia*  4r«A|  'Paofl  17  ropnj  |  35). 

On  its  significance  in  the  early  Church  see  Ramsay,  Tht  Church 
in  the  Roman  Empire^  pp.  288,  368.  The  Christians  looked  upon 
themselves  as  a  body  of  men  scattered  throughout  the  world,  living 
as  aliens  amongst  strange  people,  and  therefore  bound  together 
as  the  members  of  a  body,  as  the  brethren  of  one  family.  The 
practical  realization  of  this  idea  would  demand  that  whenever  a 
Christian  went  from  one  place  to  another  he  should  find  a  home 
among  the  Christians  in  each  town  he  visited.  We  have  a  picture 
of  this  intercommunion  in  the  letters  of  Ignatius  ;  we  can  learn  it 
at  an  earlier  period  from  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
(2  Cor.  iii.  I  ;  viii.  18,  23,  24).  One  necessary  pan  of  such  inter- 
communion would  be  the  constant  carrying  out  of  the  duties 
of  hospitality.  It  was  the  unity  and  strength  which  this  inter- 
course gave  that  formed  one  of  the  great  forces  which  supported 
Christianity. 

14.  cuXoycirc  TOUS  StwKorraf.    The  use  of  the  word  to**!*  in  one 
sense  seems  to  have  suggested  its  use  in  another.    The  resem- 
blance to  Matt.  v.  44  is  very  close  :  '  But  I  say  unto  you,  Love 
your  enemies,  and  pray  for  them  that  persecute  you.'    Emphasis 
is  added  by  the  repetition  of  the  maxim  in  a  negative  form.    Cf. 
James  iii.  9. 

15.  xai'p<lr  f*<T^  xaifx*KTWK  x»T.X.     On  the  infinitive  cf.  Winer, 
§  xliii.  5  d,  p.  397,  E.  T.    But  it  seems  more  forcible  and  less 
awkward  to  take  it,  as  in  PhiL  iii.  1  6,  as  the  infinitive  used  for 
the  emphatic  imperative  than  to  suppose  a  change  of  construc- 
tion.   'But  that  requires  more  of  a  high  Christian  temper,  to 
rejoice  with  them  that  do  rejoice,  than  to  weep  with  them  that 
weep.    For  this  nature  itself  fulfils  perfectly  :  and  there  is  none 
so  hardhearted  as  not  to  weep  over  him  that  is  in  calamity  :  but 
the  other  requires  a  very  noble  soul,  so  as  not  only  to  keep  from 

:>g,  but  even  to  feel  pleasure  with  the  person  who  is  in 
esteem.  And  this  is  why  we  placed  it  first.  For  there  is  nothing 
that  ties  love  so  firmly  as  sharing  both  joy  and  pain  one  with 
another,'  Chrys.  adloc.  Cf.  Ecclus.  vii.  34. 

16.  -ri  ourd  .  .  .  tporourrcs,  '  being  harmonious  in  your  relations 
towards  one  another  '  :  cf.  xv.  5  ;  a  Cor.  xiii.  1  1  ;  Phil.  ii.  2  ;  iv.  a. 
The  great  hindrance  to  this  would  be  having  too  high  an  estima- 
tion of  oneself:   hence  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  condemn  such 
pride. 

P]  rd  o^XA  tpoKourrc?  :  cf.  xu  20  ;  i  Cor.  xiii.  5  '  Love  vaunteth 


3'>4  EPISTLE  TO  THE  R<  [XII.  10   10. 

not  itself,  is  not  puffed  up/  shows  bow  St.  Paul  is  still  carrying  out 
the  leading  idea  of  the  passage. 

TOIS  Taircirois:  prob.  neuter;  'allow  yourself  to  be  carried  along 

yourself  over  to,  humble  tasks:'  'consenting  to  meke 

rwawayiif  means  in  the  active  'to  lead 

along  with  one,'  hence  in  the  passive, '  to  be  carried  away  with/  as 
:!«>•• d  which  sweeps  everything  along  with  it  (Lightfoot  on 
Gal.  ii.  13  ;  cf.  2  P«  .md  hence  '  to  give  oneself  up  to.' 

The  neuter  seems  best  to  suit  the  contrast  with  ra  tygU 
the  meaning  of  the  verb ;  but  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  TO*. 
always  masculine,  and  so  many  take  it  here:   'make  your 
equall  to  them  of  the  lower  sorte/  Tyn.  Cov.  Gencv.     'Con- 
sentinge  to  the  humble/  Rhen.    So  <  is,  bring  : 

down  to  their  humble  condition,  ride  or  walk  v  ;  do  not  be 

humbled  in  mind  only,  but  help  them  also,  and  stretch  forth  thy 
hand  to  them.' 

fifj  yircfffo  tplnpoi  wop*  Joirroif :  taken  apparently  from  I'; 
7  w  (<r&  ^prfripor  vrapa  cr«avry.  Cf.  Origen  no  a  potesl  teram  s 
Ham  Dei  scirt,  qui  suam  stultitiam  gvasi  sapientiam  colit. 

17.  |*T)ftcrl  KOK&r  dKTi  KOKOU  dvo&iS&Tcs.     Anoihcr  result  of  the 
principle  of  love.     Mat.  v.  43,  44;   i  Thess. 

i  Cor.  xiii.  5,  6  '  Love  .  . .  taketh  not  account  o: 
not  in  unrighteousness,  but  rejoiccth  with  the  truth.' 

irporooupcroi  noXA  iKtSwior  irdrrui'  d^pwwwf :  cf.  Prov.  i 
a  Cor  i.  21.  'As  nothing  causes  offence  so  mi: 

offending  men's  prejudices,  see  that  your  conduct  will  commend 
itself  as  honourable  to  m  Xig.  o£  npot  fnV.n^. 

wp&t  dAurmiXuv,   «ai   brr<   fufrtl   ftovxu    vpd^aw  mtiaXov. 

seems  better  than  to  lay  all  the  emphasis  on  the  mbr«y(  as 
would  do. 

18.  el  SwKar^,  'if  it  be  possible,  live  peaceably  with  all  men,  at 
any  rate  as  far  as  concerns  your  part 

will  do  you  can  have  no  control,  and  if  they  break  the  peac- 
not  your  fault    '  Love  seeketh  not  its  own  '  (i  Cor.  xiii.  5). 

19.  dyain)Toi.   Added  because  of  the  difficulty  of  the  precc; 
to  avenge  oneself. 

Wn  rrfwor  TJJ  Apyij,  '  give  room  or  place  to  the  wrath  of  God/ 
Let  God's  wrath  punish.  Xig.  oXXo  napa^ptin  r^  «Vdi«7- 

fft*t  177  &py!j  rov  6*ot .  meaning  of  dort 

rAror  is  shown  by  Eph.  iv.  27  /ujW  W8or«  runov  T«ji  &a£4Xy,  do  not 
give  scope  or  place  to  the  devil ;  ;,  :h  of  God: 

cf.  Rom.  v.  9.     That  this  is  the  right  interpretation  of  the  v 
shown  by  the  quotation  which  follows. 

But  other  interpretations  have  been  often  held :  &r*  rdroi-  is 
translated  by  some,  'allow  space,  interpose  •:  check  and 

restrain  your  wrath ;    by   others,   '  yield   to  the  anger  of  your 


XII.  10  21.]       ON  OBEDIENCE  TO  RULERS  365 

opponent':  neither  of  these  interpretations  suits  the  context  or 
the  Greek. 

yfypairrat  yap.  The  quotation  which  follows  comes  from  Dcut. 
xxxii.  35,  and  resembles  the  Hebrew  '  Vengeance  is  mine  and 
recompense/  rather  than  the  LXX  «V  WM>?  «3«iia««K  dj*fnrod«<r» : 
and  the  Targum  of  Onkclos  more  than  either.  The  words  are 
quoted  in  the  same  form  in  Heb.  x.  30. 

20.  dXXA  'Ed*  wcim  6  irfpt*  <rov  K.T.X.  Taken  from  the  LXX ;  cf. 
Prov.  xxv.  21,  22,  agreeing  exactly  with  the  text  of  B.  but  varying 
somewhat  from  that  of  A  M.  The  term  &6po«cf  wvplt  clearly  means 

Me  pangs  or  pains,'  cf.  Ps.  cxxxix  (cxl).  1 1  (LXX) ;  4  (5)  Ezra 
xvi.  54  Xon  dicat  peccator  st  non  ptccass*,  quoniam  car  bents  ignis 
comluret  super  caput  eius  qui  dicit:  Non  peccavi  coram  domino  el 
gloria  ipsius.  But  with  what  purpose  are  we  to  '  heap  coals  of  fire 
on  his  head '  ?  Is  it  (i)  that  we  may  be  consoled  for  our  kind  act 
by  knowing  that  he  will  be  punished  for  his  mhrtfifilli  ?  This  is 
impossible,  for  it  attributes  a  malicious  motive,  which  is  quite 
inconsistent  with  the  context  both  here  and  in  the  O.  T.  In  the 
latter  the  passage  proceeds,  '  And  the  Lord  shall  reward  thce,'  im- 
plying that  the  deed  is  a  good  one ;  here  we  are  immediately  told 
that  we  are  not  to  be  '  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with 
good,'  which  clearly  implies  that  we  are  to  do  what  is  for  our 
enemies  benefit.  (2)  Coals  of  fire  must,  therefore,  mean,  as  most 
commentators  since  Augustine  have  said,  '  the  burning  pangs  of 
shame/  which  a  man  will  feel  when  good  is  returned  for  evil,  and 
which  may  produce  remorse  and  penitence  and  contrition. 
Potest  enim  fieri  ut  animus  ftrus  ac  barbarus  inimici,  si  sentiat 
beneficium  nostrum,  si  humanifalem,  si  afoctum,  si  pietatem  vtHtaf, 
compunctionem  cordis  capiat,  commissi  poenitudinem  gtrat,  et  tx  hoc 
ignis  in  to  quidem  svccendalur,  qui  turn  pro  commissi  consctentia 
torqueat  et  adural :  et  isti  trunt  carboncs  frus,  qui  super  caput  eius 
tx  nostro  misericordiae  et pittatis  opcrt  congrtgantur,  Origen. 

21.  »rf|  UK*  6iri  TO«  Kauri  it.rX,  « do  not  allow  yourself  to  be 
overcome  by  the  evil  done  to  you  and  be  led  on  to  revenge  and 
injury,  but  conquer  your  enemies'  evil  spirit  by  your  own  good 
disposition.'    A  remark  which  applies  to  the  passage  just  con- 
cluded and  shows  St.  Paul's  object,  but  is  also  of  more  general 
application. 

ON  OBEDIENCE  TO  RULERS. 

XIII.  1-7.  The  civil  power  has  Divine  sanction.  Its 
functions  are  to  promot*  well-being,  to  punish  not  the  good 
but  the  wicked.  Hence  it  must  be  obeyed.  Obedience  to  it  is 
a  Christian  duty  and  deprives  it  of  all  its  terrors. 


366  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XIII    1 

So  too  you  pay  tribute  because  the  machinery  of  govern" 
went  is  God's  ordi>.  In  this  as  in  all  things  giv€  to  all 

their  due. 

XIII.  The  Apostle  DOW  passes  from  the  duties  of  the  ii 
Christian  towards  m.  u::<  s  in  one 

sphere,  namely  towards  the  civil  rulers.    While  we  adhere  to 
has  been  said  about  the  absence  of  a  clearly-defined  system 
purpose  in  these  chapters,  we  may  notice  that  one  main  thr< 
thought  which  runs  through  them  is  the  promotion  of  peace  in  all 
the  relations  of  life.    The  idea  of  the  civil  jx>wer  may  have  been 
suggested  by  v*er.  19  of  the  preceding  chapter,  as  being  one  of  the 
ministers  of  the  Divine  wrath  and  retribution  (ver.  4):  at  ai 
the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  passages  would  serve  to  remind  St 
Paul's  readers  that  the  condemnation  of  individual  vengeance  and 
retaliation  does  not  apply  to  the  action  of  the  state  in  en: 

:e  is  God's  minister,  and  it  is  the  just  wrath  of  God 
which  is  acting  through  it. 

\\c  hare  evidence  of  the  use  of  TT.  8-10  by  Marcioo  (Tert.  aJv 
v.  14)  Merito  itcujut  Mam  crtateris  duciflutam  prindtoli  prattt; 
eomlusit,  Diligtt  proximum  tattauam  U.     Hoc  Ugit  ntfplemtn:. 
Ugt  tit,  quit  sit  dfus  Ugis  iam  tptoro.    On  the  rest  of  the  chapter  we  have 

i  .  •  •  i  :  .  t  •  i  :  :  i  .  .1  '.  :  •  n  . 


\<T&  ^UXT:   cf.  ii.  9.    The  Hebraism  suggests  prominently 
the  idea  of    individuality.     These  rules  apply  to  all   h< 

,-cd,  and  the  question  is  treated  from  the  point  of  view  of 
individual  •  ' 

Igouauus  :  abstract  for  concrete,  '  those  in  authority  '  ;  cf.  Luke 

i  ;  Tit.  iii.  i.    uwcpcxotkraif  'who  arc  in  an  eminent  po 
defining  more  precisely  the  idea  of  «£ov<rum  :  cf.  i   1 
Wisdom  v 

fororaacrfofa.  Notice  the  repetition  of  words  of  similar  sound, 
vn0rtuTffto0<*  .  .  .  rcroy/MHU  .  .  .  avrtraffffopivot  .  .  .  0407077,  and  cf. 
xii.  3. 

ou  yAp  Jonr  /gouaia  it.T.X.  The  Apostle  gives  the  reason  for 
this  obedience,  stating  it  first  generally  and  positively,  then  nega- 

•nanautho 

gift  of  God  and  springing  from  Him,  and  therefore  all  constituted 
powers  are  ordained  by  Him.  The  maxim  is  common  in  all 
Hebrew  literature,  but  is  almost  always  introduced  to  show  how 
the  Divine  power  is  greater  than  th.it  <  :  ns,  or 

to  declare  the  obligation  of  rulers  as  responsible  for  all  they  do  to 
One  above  them.  Wisdom  vi.  i,  3  ««OV<TOT»  •£*,  3o<rtX«It,  KOI  <rv*m, 

pafori  ducocrui  ftparvf  yrjc  .  .  .  or*  «A4&j  rrapa  rov  Kvpiov  f)  Kpanptt 
inly  col  17  avMtrr«/a  irapa  tyiarov  :  F.no<h  xlvi.  5  '  And  he  will  put 
down  the  kings  from  their  thrones  and  kingdoms,  because  they  do 


XIII.  1-4.]       ON  OBEDIENCE  TO  RULERS  367 

not  extol  and  praise  him,  nor  thankfully  acknowledge  whence  the 
kingdom  was  bestowed  upon  them'  :  Jos.  Btll.Jud.  II.  viii.  7  TO  w.<rri» 

vapi&ur  natri,  ftd\urra  &«  rots  Kparovour'  ov  yap  ofyo  6«ov  vifxyinafai 

rivt  TO  apx"*>  St.  Paul  adopts  the  maxim  for  a  purpose  similar  to 
that  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  last  instance,  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
subjects  to  obey  their  rulers,  because  they  are  appointed  and 
ordained  by  God 

The  preponderance  of  authority  (K  A  B  L  P  and  many  later  MSS.,  Bat. 
Chrys.)  U  decisive  for  «l  rf  iw*  e«o£.  The  Western  reading  dwd  e«o*  was 
a  correction  for  the  less  usual  expression  (DEFG  and  many  later  MSS., 
Orig.  To.-Damasc.).  The  reading  of  the  end  of  the  verse  should  be  at  W 
ovaai  Iwu  6«ou  way/iirai  tloiv  M  A  B  D  F  G. 

2.  WOT«   6  drriToaa<$|i€W)s   x.r.X.     The  logical  result  of  this 
theory  as  to  the  origin  of  human  power  is  that  resistance  to  it 
is  resistance  to  the  ordering  of  God  ;  and  hence  those  who  resist  will 
receive  «pl/ui—  a  judgement  or  condemnation  which  is  human,  for  it 
comes  through  human  instruments,  but  Divine  at  having  its  origin 
and  source  in  God.    There  is  no  reference  here  to  eternal  punish- 
ment 

3.  ol  yap  OPXOKTC*.    The  plural  shows  that  the  Apostle   is 
speaking  quite  generally.    He  is  arguing  out  the  duty  of  obeying 
rulers  on  general  principles,  deduced  from  the  fact  that  '  the  state  ' 
exists  for  a  beneficent  end  ;  he  is  not  arguing  from  the  special 
condition  or  circumstances  of  any  one  state.  The  social  organism, 
as  a  modern  writer  might  say,  is  a  power  on  the  side  of  good. 

TW  dyaOw  fpyw  :   cf.   ii.  7   mis  /nV  tuff  viro/ior^v  tpyov  ayaBov.      In 

both  passages  tpyw  is  used  collectively  ;  there  it  means  the  sum 
of  a  man's  actions,  here  the  collective  work  of  the  state.  For  the 
subject  cf.  I  Tim.  ii.  1,2:  we  are  to  pray  '  for  kings  and  all  in 
authority  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life  in  all  godli- 
ness and  honesty.' 

The  singular  r?  d-ya*£  Ipy?  dXAd  r?  nwf  U  read  by  K  ABDFGP.  Boh. 
Vnlg.  (6mt  optris  ud  maK\  Clem.-  Alex.  Iren.-lat  Terl  Orig-lat.  Jo.- 
Damasc  Later  MSS.  with  E  L,  Syrr.  Ann..  Chrys.  Thdrt.  read  r«r  *pMr 
Iprywr  .  .  .  Muwr.  Hoit  snggests  an  emendation  of  Patrick  Young.  r& 
d-ya«o«p7y,  which  has  some  support  apparently  from  the  Aeth.  ti  <pn  font 
bonum  :  but  the  antithesis  with  ««w  makes  this  correction  imrobable. 


8<Xtif  8«  .  .  .  ^ouaiar;  The  construction  is  more  pointed  if  then 
words  arc  made  a  question. 

As  the  state  exists  for  a  good  end,  if  you  lead  a  peaceable  life 
you  will  have  nothing  to  fear  from  the  civil  power. 

4.  6coG  ydf  Sidxoros  J<m.  Fem.  to  agree  with  «f>ua»a,  which 
throughout  is  almost  personified,  oot,  '  for  thee,'  ethical,  for  thy 
advantage,  cis  TO  dya9oV,  '  for  the  good,'  to  promote  good,  existing 
for  a  good  end. 

r?)r  fiaxaiPa|f-  ^ne  sword  is  the  symbol  of  the  executive  and 
criminal  jurisdiction  of  a  magistrate,  and  is  therefore  used  of  the 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS          [XIII.  4  7. 

power  of  punishing    inherent   in   the   government.     So  V 
^.6.  §8;  Tac.  '8;  Dio  Cassiu 

««SIKOS  «it  VrV»  '  infli*  'imcnt  or  vengeance  so  as  to 

exhibit  wrath,'  namely  the  Divine  wrath  as  administered  1 
ruler  who  is  God's  agent  t  > ).    The  repetition  of 

the  phrase  e*oC  feUo**  with  both  sides  of  the  sentence  « 
the  double  purpose  of  the  state.    It  exists  positively  for  the 
being  of  the  community,  negatively  to  c 

.nishment,  and  both  these  functions  arc  derived  from  God. 

6.  ftt4:  rulers,  because  as  God's  min:  have  a  Divine 

order  and  purpose,  are  to  be  obeyed,  not  only  because 
power  over  men,  but  also  because  it  is  right,  &a  rq»  avnifyoir  (cf. 

6.  Sid  TOVTO  Y&P  K<U,  sc.  &a  r^v  awtityrun   '  and  it  is  f 
reason  also/     St.  Paul  is  appealing  to  a  principle  which  . 
will  recognize.    It  is  apparently  an  admitted  rule  of  the  CL 
communities  that  taxes  are  to  be  paid,  and  he  points  out  tl. 
principle  is  thus  recognized  of  the  moral  doty  of  obeying  rulers. 

he  could  thus  appeal  to  a  recognized  practice  seems  to 
that  the  words  of  our  Lord  (Luke  xx.  20-25)  had  mould. 
habits  of  the  early  Church,  and  this  suggestion  is  corroborated  by 
7  (see  the  longer  note  below). 

Xfiroupyoi,  'God's  ministers.'     Although  the  word  is  used  in 
a  purely  secular  sense  of  a  servant,  whether  of  an  I  or  of 

a  community  (i  Kings  x.  5;  Ecclus.  x. 
meaning  which  X«<rovpy4r  e*ov  had  acquired  (Ecclus  vii.  30 ; 
viii.  2  ;  see  especially  the  note  on  Rom.  xv.  16)  adds  emphasis  to 
St  Paul's  expression. 

irpoaKoprcpoJiTcs  must  apparently  be  taken  absolutely  (as  in 
////.  VII.  \.  14),  'persevering  faithfully  in  their  office/  and 
els  aur&  TOVTO  gives  the  purpose  of  the  office,  the  same  a 
ascribed  above  to  the  state.  These  words  cannot  be  taken  im- 
mediately with  irpcxncoprtpoOrw,  for  as  in  xii.  13,  seems 
always  to  govern  the  da: 

7.  St.  Paul  concludes  this  subject  and  leads  on  to  the  nr 
a  general  maxim  which  covers  all  the  different  poin 
upon  :  '  Pay  each  one  his  due.' 

TW  T&V  4^por,  sc.  unmrovvrt.  <£dp<*  is  the  tribute  paid  by  a  subject 

nation  (Luke  xx.  22  .  rcprcscir 

customs  and  dues  which  wouM  se  be  paid  for  the  support 

^'ovcrnm.  .ji). 

+<£0os  is  the  respectful  a  is  felt  for  one  who  has  power 
in  his  hands ;  riM>)»  honour  and  reverence  paid  to  a  ruler :  cf 

-6*  OtAf  $o0«ur0f  rdr/3a<7i' 

A  strange  interpretation  -c   may  be  seen   in   the 

Gnostic  book  emit  -e. 


XIII.  1-7.]         ON  OBEDIENCE  TO  RULERS  369 


The  Church  and  tfo  Civil  Power. 

The  motive  which  impelled  St.  Paul  to  write  this  section  of  the 
Epistle  has  (like  so  many  other  questions)  been  discussed  at  great 
length  with  the  object  of  throwing  light  on  the  composition  of  the 
Roman  Church.  If  the  opinion  which  has  been  propounded  already 
in  reference  to  these  chapters  be  correct,  it  will  be  obvious  that 
here  as  elsewhere  St.  Paul  is  writing,  primarily  at  any  rate,  with 
a  view  to  the  state  of  the  Church  as  a  whole,  not  to  the  particular 
circumstances  of  the  Roman  community:  it  being  recognized  at 
the  same  time  that  questions  which  agitated  the  whole  Christian 
world  would  be  likely  to  be  reflected  in  what  was  already  an 
important  centre  of  Christianity.  Whether  this  opinion  be  correct 
or  not  must  depend  partly,  of  course,  on  our  estimate  of  the 
Epistle  as  a  whole ;  but  if  it  be  assumed  to  be  so,  the  character  of 
this  passage  will  amply  support  it.  There  is  a  complete  absence  of 
any  reference  to  particular  circumstances :  the  language  is  through- 
out general :  there  is  a  studied  avoidance  of  any  special  terms ; 
direct  commands  such  as  might  arise  from  particular  circumstances 
are  not  given :  but  general  principles  applicable  to  any  period  or 
place  are  laid  down.  As  elsewhere  in  this  Epistle,  St.  Paul, 
influenced  by  his  past  experiences,  or  by  the  questions  which  were 
being  agitated  around  him,  or  by  the  fear  of  difficulties  which  he 
foresaw  as  likely  to  arise,  lays  down  broad  general  principles, 
applying  to  the  affairs  of  life  the  spirit  of  Christianity  as  he  has 
elucidated  it. 

But  what  were  the  questions  that  were  in  the  air  when  he  wrote  ? 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  primarily  they  would  be  those 
current  in  the  Jewish  nation  concerning  the  lawfulness  of  paying 
taxes  and  otherwise  recognizing  the  authority  of  a  foreign  ruler. 
When  our  Lord  was  asked, '  Is  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar 
or  no?'  (Matt.  xxii.  18  f. ;  Luke  xx.  22  f),  a  burning  question 
was  at  once  raised.  Starting  from  the  express  command  '  thou 
mayest  not  put  a  foreigner  over  thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother ' 
(Deut.  xvii.  1 5),  and  from  the  idea  of  a  Divine  theocracy,  a  large 
section  of  the  Jews  had  refused  to  recognize  or  pay  taxes  to  the 
Roman  government  Judas  the  Gaulonite,  who  said  that  'the 
census  was  nothing  else  but  downright  slavery '  (Jos.  Ant.  XVIII. 
i.  i\  or  Theudas  (ibid.  XX.  v.  i),  or  Eleazar,  who  is  represented 
as  saying  that  «we  have  long  since  made  up  our  minds  not  to 
serve  the  Romans  or  any  other  man,  but  God  alone*  (Bfll.  Jud. 
VII.  viii.  6),  may  all  serve  as  instances  of  a  tendency  which  was 
very  wide  spread.  Nor  was  this  spirit  confined  to  the  Jews  of 
me ;  elsewhere,  both  in  Rome  and  in  Alexandria,  riots  had 
occurred.  Nor  again  was  it  unlikely  that  Christianity  would  be 

•  b 


370  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XIII    1   7. 

affected  by  it.    A  good  deal  of  the  phraseology  of  the  early 

:ins  was  derived  from  the  Messianic  prophecies  of  the 
O.  T.,  and  these  were  always  liable  to  be  taken  in  thai 
purely  material  sense  which  our  Lord  had  condemned.  The  fact 

Si  Luke  records  the  question  of  the  disciples,  'Lord,  dost 
ihou  at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel?'  (Acts  i.  6)  seems 
to  iinj.lv  that  such  ideas  were  current,  and  the  incident  at  Thessalo- 

•  here  St.  Paul  himself,  because  he  preached  the  •  kingdom,' 
was  accused  of  prea<  >thcr  king,  one  Jesus,'  shows  how 

liable  even  he  was  to  misinterpretation.    These  instances  arc  quite 
sufficient  to  ex;  question  was  a  real  one  when  St. 

Paul  wrote,  and  why  it  had   occupied  his  thoughts.     It  is  not 
necessary  to  refer  it  either  to  Ebionitc  dualislic  views  (so  I 
would  involve  an  anachronism,  or  to  exaggerated  (> 
ideas  of  Christian  liberty ;  we  have  no  record  that  these  were  ever 
perverted  in  this  direction. 

Two  considerations  may  have  specially  influenced  St.  Paul  to 
discuss  the  subject  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  ^t  was 

the  known  fact  of  the  turbulence  of  the  Roman  Jews ;  a 
would  be  brought  before  him  by  his  intercourse  w 
Aquila.    This  may  illustrate  just  the  degree  of  local  reference  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.     We  have  emphasized  more  than  once 
the  fact  that  we  cannot  argue  anything  from  such  passages  as  this 
as  to  the  stale  of  the  Roman  community ;  but  St.  Paul  would  not 
write  in  the  air,  and  the  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  Jewish 
population  in  Rome  gained  from  political  refugees  would  be  just 
sufficient  to  suggest  this  topic.    A  second  cause  which  would  lead 
him  to  introduce  it  would  be  the  fascination  which  he  felt  t 
power  and  position  of  Rome,  a  fascination  which  has  been  already 
illustrated  (Introduction,  §  i). 

It  must  be  remembered  thai  when  this  Epistle  was  written  the 
Roman  Km j. ire  had  never  appeared  in  the  character  of  a  persecutor. 
Persecution  had  up  to  this  time  always  come  from  the  Jews  or  from 
popular  riots.     To   St.   Paul  the  magistrates  who  represented 
the  Roman  power  had  always  been  associated 
restraint.    The  persecution  of  Stephen  had  probably  taken 
in  the  absence  of  the  Roman  K  >t  was  at  the  hands  of  ihe 

Jewish  king  Herod  that  James  the  brother  of  John  had  perished : 

I'hcssalonica,  at  Corinth,  at  Ephes 
found  the  Roman  officials  a  restraining  power  and  all  his  ex;  > 

!  support  the  statements  thai  he  makes  :  '  The  rulers  are  noi 

>r  lo  ihc  good  work,  but  to  the  evil : '  «  He  is  a  minister  of 

God  to  thec  for  good  : '  •  I  Ic  is  a  minister  of  God,  an  avenger  for 

to  him  that  doeth  >r  can  ai 

made  as  has  been  attempted  from  the  fact  that  Nero  was  at  this 
time  the  ruler  of  the  Em]  i y  be  doubted  how  far  the  vices 


XIII.  1-7.]         ON  OBEDIENCE  TO  RULERS  371 

of  a  ruler  like  Nero  seriously  affected  the  well-being  of  the 
provincials,  but  at  any  rate  when  these  words  were  written  the 
world  was  enjoying  the  good  government  and  bright  hopes  of 
Nero's  Quinquennium. 

The  true  relations  of  Christianity  to  the  civil  power  had  been 
laid  down  by  our  Lord  when  He  had  said  :  '  My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world/  and  again :  '  Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  be 
Caesar's  and  to  God  the  things  that  be  God's.'  It  is  difficult  to 
believe  that  St.  Paul  had  not  these  words  in  his  mind  when  he 
wrote  ver.  7,  especially  as  the  coincidences  with  the  moral  teaching 
of  our  Lord  are  numerous  in  these  chapters.  At  any  rale,  starting 
from  this  idea  he  works  out  the  principles  which  must  lie  at  the 
basis  of  Christian  politics,  that  the  State  is  divinely  appointed,  or 
permitted  by  God ;  that  its  end  is  beneficent ;  and  that  the  spheres 
of  Church  and  State  are  not  identical. 

It  has  been  remarked  that,  when  St.  Paul  wrote,  his  experience 
might  have  induced  him  to  estimate  too  highly  the  merits  of  the 
Roman  government.  But  although  later  the  relation  of  the  Church 
to  the  State  changed,  the  principles  of  the  Church  did  not  In 
i  Tim.  ii.  i ,  2  the  Apostle  gives  a  very  clear  command  to  pray  for 
those  in  authority :  '  I  exhort  therefore,  first  of  all,  that  supplications, 
prayers,  intercessions,  thanksgivings,  be  made  for  all  men:  for 
kings  and  all  that  are  in  high  place ;  that  we  may  lead  a  tranquil 
and  quiet  life  in  all  godliness  and  gravity ' ;  so  also  in  Titus  iii.  i 
1  Put  them  in  mind  to  be  in  subjection  to  rulers,  to  authorities.' 
these  words  were  written,  the  writer  had  to  some  extent  at 
any  rate  experienced  the  Roman  power  in  a  very  different  aspect. 
Still  more  important  is  the  evidence  of  i  Peter.  It  was  certainly 
written  at  a  time  when  persecution,  and  that  of  an  official  character, 
had  begun,  yet  the  commands  of  St.  Paul  are  repeated  and  with 
even  greater  emphasis  (i  Pet.  ii.  13-17). 

The  sab-Apostolic  literature  will  illustrate  this.  Clement  b  writing  to  the 
Corinthians  just  after  successive  periods  of  persecution,  yet  he  includes 
a  prayer  of  the  character  which  he  would  himself  deliver,  in  the  as  yet 
un systematized  services  of  the  day,  on  behalf  of  secular  rulers.  'Give 
concord  and  peace  to  us  and  to  all  that  dwell  on  the  earth  . . .  while  we 
render  obedience  to  Thine  Almighty  and  most  excellent  Name,  and  to  our 
rulers  and  governors  upon  the  earth.  Thoo,  Lord  and  Master,  hast  given 
them  the  power  of  sovereignty  through  Thine  excellent  and  unspeakable 
might,  that  we,  knowing  the  glory  and  honour  which  Thou  hast  given  them, 
may  submit  ourselves  unto  them,  in  nothing  resisting  Thy  will.  Grant  unto 
them  therefore,  O  Lord,  health,  peace,  concord,  stability,  that  they  may 
administer  the  government  which  Thou  hast  given  them  without  failure. 
For  Thou,  O  heavenly  Master,  King  of  the  ages,  givest  to  the  sons  of  men 
glory  and  honour  and  power  over  all  things  that  are  upon  the  earth.  Do 
Thou.  Lord,  direct  their  counsel  according  to  that  which  is  good  and  well- 
pleasing  in  Thy  sight.'  Still  more  significant  is  the  letter  of  Polycarp,  which 
was  written  very  shortly  after  he  had  met  Ignatius  on  his  road  to  martyrdom ; 
in  it  he  emphasizes  the  Christian  custom  by  combining  the  comma/id  to  pray 
B  b  2 


ISTLE  TO  THE   ROMA  [XIII.  1    7 

for  rulers  with  that  to  love  ov  eoemfes.  'Pray  also  for  king*  and  power* 
smd  princes  *fw^  for  ffyfiB  tfr*t  persecute  and  hate  TOO  unH  for  the  enemies  of 
the  doss,  that  your  fruit  may  be  manifest  among  all  men  that  ye  may  be 
per:  '  (Clem.  Rom.  Ix,  Ui ;  Polyc,  adPkil.  > 

>  not  necessary  to  give  farther  instances  of  a  custom  which  prevailed 
extensively  or  universally  in  the  early  Church.    It  became  a  commonplace 
of  apologists  (Just  Mart  Apd.  i.  17 ;  Athenagoras,  Leg.  xxxvii ;  Theophilna, 
in;  Tcitulluui,  A  pel  30,  39,  ad  Sea*.  *  ;  D>on.  Alex,  af  1 
Arnob.  iv.  36)  and  is  found  in  all  liturgies  (cf.  Ctmit.  Af 

One  particular  phase  in  the  interpretation  of  this  chapter  demands  a  passing 
notice.    In  the  hands  of  the  Jacobean  and  Caroline  divines  it  was  held  to 


a^»«  *|'tt*t  ••»    avis**    w»    a^v  *  w*  tJ«*i<.uif   X/VMI.**     i*««t   a*>   •^a^inmat^     isu*.     »ivusj    MM    m IT 

divine  right*    A  more  modified  type  of  this  teaching  may  be  represented  by 
a  sermon  of  Bishop  Berkeley  (Pas  trot  Okdum*  or  tkt  Christian  Dottrine 

«f  tkt  law  cfnaturt  in  a  discount  dtlivtrtd  at  tht  ColUgt  Ckaftl 
Woks,  iiu  p.  101).     He  takes  as  hit  text  Ko  isteth 

the  Power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God.'  He  begins  •  It  is  not  my  design 
to  inquire  into  the  particular  nature  of  the  government  and  constitution  of 
these  kingdoms.'  He  then  proceeds  by  assuming  that '  there  is  in  ever 
community,  somewhere  or  other,  placed  a  supreme  power  of  making  laws, 
and  enforcing  the  observation  of  them.'  His  main  purpose  is  to  prove  that 
'  Loyalty  is  a  moral  virtue,  and  thou  shall  not  resist  the  supreme  power, 
a  rule  or  law  of  nature,  the  least  breach  whereof  hath  the  inherent  stain  of 
moral  turpitude.'  And  he  places  it  on  the  same  level  as  the  commandments 
which  St  Paul  quotes  in  this  same  chapter. 

Bishop  Berkeley  represents  the  doctrine  of  Passive  Obedience  as  expounded 
in  its  most  philosophical  form.  But  he  does  not  notice  the  main  difficult ». 
St  Paul  give*  no  direction*  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  when  there  U 
a  conflict  of  authority.  In  his  day  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  the  rule  of 
Caesar  was  supreme  and  had  become  legitimate:  all  that  he  had  to  con- 
demn was  an  incorrect  view  of  the  '  kingdom  of  heaven '  as  a  theocracy 
established  on  earth,  whether  it  were  held  by  Jewish  tealots  or  by  Chr> 
He  doe*  not  discuss  the  question,  '  if  there  were  two  claimant*  for  the 
Empire  which  should  be  supported?'  for  it  was  not  a  practical  difficulty 
when  he  wrote.  So  Bishop  Berkeley,  by  hi*  use  of  the  expression  •  some- 
where or  other,'  equally  evades  the  difficulty.  Almost  always  when  there  is 
a  rebellion  or  a  ciul  war  the  Question  at  issue  is,  Who  is  the  rightful 
governor?  which  is  the  power  ordained  by  God  f 

But  there  is  a  side  of  the  doctrine  of  Passive  Obedience  which  requires 
and  which  was  illustrated  by  the  Christianity  of  the  first  three 
The  early  Christians  were  subject  to  a  power  which  required 
to  do  that  which  was  forbidden  by  their  religion.  To  that  extent 
and  within  those  limits  they  could  not  and  did  not  obey  it ;  but  they  never 
encouraged  in  any  way  resistance  or  rebellion.  In  all  things  indifTrn 
Christian  conformed  to  existing  law ;  he  obeyed  the  law  •  not  only  because  of 
the  wrath,  but  also  for  conscience  sake.'  lie  only  disobeyed  when  it  was 
necessary  to  do  so  for  conscience  sake.  The  point  of  importance  is  the 
detachment  of  the  two  spheres  of  activity.  The  Church  and  the  State  are 
looked  upon  a*  different  bodies,  each  with  a  different  work  to  perform.  To 
designate  this  or  that  form  of  government  as  and  support  it  on 

these  grounds,  would  have  been  quite  alien  to  the  whole  spirit  of  those  days. 
The  Church  must  influence  th<  bold  on  the  heart*  and  consciences 

of  individuals,  and  in  that  way,  and  not   by  political  power,  will  the 
0   L 


XIII.  8,  9.]     LOVE  THE  FULFILMENT  OF  ALL  LAW     373 


LOVE  THE  FULFILMENT   OF  ALT.  LAW. 

XIII.  8-1O.  There  is  one  debt  which  the  Christian  must 
vs  be  paying  but  never  can  discharge,  that  of  love.    All 
particular  precepts  are  summed  up  in  that  of  low,  which 
makes  injury  to  any  man  impossible. 

8.  St.  Paul  passes  from  our  duties  towards  superiors  to  that  one 
principle  which  must  control  our  relations  towards  all  men,  love.  In 
xii.  9  the  principle  of  love  is  introduced  as  the  true  solution  of  all 
difficulties  which  may  arise  from  rivalry  in  the  community;  here  it 
is  represented  as  at  the  root  of  all  regulations  as  to  our  relations  to 
others  in  any  of  the  affairs  of  life. 

64«iX«Tc  must  be  imperative  as  the  negatives  show. 


It  sums  up  negatively  the  results  of  the  previous  verse  and  suggests 
the  transition,  '  Pay  ever}*  one  their  due  and  owe  no  man  anything/ 

ci  p?)  TO  Ayaw£y  AXX^Xous  :  '  Let  your  only  debt  that  is  unpaid 
be  that  of  love—  a  debt  which  you  should  always  be  attempting  to 
discharge  in  full,  but  will  never  succeed  in  discharging/  Ptrmanert 
tamen  et  nunquam  ftssarc  a  nobis  debitum  caritatis  :  hoc  enim  ft  quo- 
tidie  solvtrc  et  sfmptr  debtre  expcdit  nobfs.  Orig.  By  this  pregnant 
expression  St.  Paul  suggests  both  the  obligation  of  love  and  the 
impossibility  of  fulfilling  it  This  is  more  forcible  than  to  suppose 
a  change  in  the  meaning  of  o^xiXcrt  :  '  Owe  no  man  anything,  only 
ye  ought  to  love  one  another/ 

6  yap  Ayairwr  K.r.X.  gives  the  reason  why  '  love  '  is  so  important  : 
if  a  man  truly  loves  another  he  has  fulfilled  towards  him  the  whole 
law.  ropo*  is  not  merely  the  Jewish  law,  although  it  is  from  it  that 
the  illustrations  that  follow  are  taken,  but  law  as  a  principle.  Just 
as  in  the  relations  of  man  and  God  irurm  has  been  substituted  for 
Mi/iot,  so  between  man  and  man  ayun?  takes  the  place  of  definite 
legal  relations.  The  perfect  ir«irXqp««*  implies  that  the  fulfilment 
is  already  accomplished  simply  in  the  act  of  love. 

9.  St.  Paul  gives  instances  of  the  manner  in  which  '  love  '  fulfils 
law.  No  man  who  loves  another  will  injure  him  by  adultery,  by 
murder,  by  theft,  &c.  They  are  all  therefore  summed  up  in  the 
one  maxim  '  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself/  as  indeed 
they  were  also  in  the  Old  Covenant. 

The  AV.  adds  after  ot  «Afym  in  this  Terse  06  ^vJo/M/m/^acif  from  the 
O.  T.  with  K  P  &c.t  Boh.  &c,  as  against  A  B  D  E  F  G  L  Ac,,  Valg.  codd.  and 
most  Fathers.  Jr  r£  before  dfowfatu  is  omitted  by  B  F  G.  For  <r«avrJr  of 
the  older  MSS.  (K  A  B  D  E),  later  MSS.  read  fevrlr,  both  here  and  elsewhere 
In  late  Greek  Javrlr  became  habitually  used  for  all  persons  in  the  re  flcxive, 
and  scribes  substituted  the  form  most  usual  to  them. 

The  order  of  the  commandments  is  different  from  that  in  the  Hebrew  text, 


374  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS       [XIII.  9.  10. 

both  to  Exodus  n.  13  and  Dent.  T.  17,  namely,  (6)  Thou  shall  do  no  mnrder, 
(7)  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  (8)  Thou  shalt  not  (teal.  The  MSS. 
of  the  LXX  vary;  in  Exodus  B  reads  7.  8,  6.  I  -rut.  B  reads 

7,  6,  8  (the  order  her  8.    The  order  of  Romans  b  that  also  of 

Lukexvm.  30;  James  ii.  1  1  ;  Philo  Dt  D«abgo-.  Clem.-  Alex  Strom 

Kal  cl  TIC.  Mp*  shows  that  St  Paul  in  this  selection  has  only 
taken  instances  and  that  he  does  not  mean  merely  to  give  a  sum- 
ming up  of  the  Jewish  law. 

:  a  rhetorical  term  used  of  the  summing  up  of 


a  speech  or  argument,  and  hence  of  including  a  large  number  of 
separate  details  under  one  head.  As  used  in  Fph.  i.  10  of  God 
summing  up  all  things  in  Christ  it  became  a  definite  theological 
term,  represented  in  Latin  by  rtcapitulatio  (Iren.  HI.  xxii.  a). 

"Ayamiacis  TOK  wXijaio*  aou   us  fauroV.      Taken  from   Lc\ 
;  <  where  it  sums  up  a  far  longer  list  of  commandmen 
is  quoted  Matt  xxii.  39;  Mark  xii.  31  ;  Luke  x.  27;  G.il.  \.  \\ 
James  ii.  8  where  it  is  called  /3a<nAurfc  xJ/ior. 

10.  Vj  dyrfmr)  •  •  •  «««  JpydlcTai.  Love  fulfils  all  law,  because  no 
one  who  loves  another  will  do  him  any  ill  by  word  or  deed.  These 
words  sum  up  what  has  been  said  at  greater  length  in  i  Cor.  xiii. 
4-6. 

TrX^pwpa,  'complete  fulfilment.*    The  meaning  of  - 
given  by  ver.  9  '  He  that  loveth  his  neighbour  has  fulfilled  (• 
law,  therefore  love  is  the  fulfilment  (irA^/m)  of  law. 


Tht  History  of  the  word 

There  are  three  words  in  Greek  all  of  which  may  be  translated  by  the 
English  Move/  Jpi»,  *A«X  d-pmi*.  Of  these  J/>4»  with  its  cognate  form 
ipofteu  was  originally  associated  with  the  sexual  passion  and  was  thence 
transferred  to  any  strong  passionate  affection;  ftAfo  was  used  rather  of 
warm  domestic  affection,  and  so  of  the  lore  of  master  and  servant,  of  parents 
and  children,  of  husband  and  wit  ,  .  of  the  love  of  the  gods  for 

men.    if**  is  combined  with  J*.*t^«V  and  contrasted  with  f«A«V  as  in 
Xen.  li4Wfft4j*w«*f»Ar4M*4Mifaf*.    One  special  ose 

be  referred  to,  namely,  the  Platonic.    The  ir. 


and  ipa*  must 

and  strength  of  human  passion  seemed  to  Plato  to  represent  roost  adequately 
the  love  of  the  soul  for  higher  things,  and  so  the  philosophic  f/wt  was  used 
for  the  highest  human  desire,  that  for  true  knowledge,  true  virtue,  true 
taUDOCtalitjr. 

distinction  of  *<Afo  and  d-yraU  much  resembled  that  between  MM 
and  dilig*.  The  one  expressed  greater  affection,  the  other  greater  esteem. 
So  DtO  Cassias  xliv.  48  J*»A4<7ar«  avrdr  £t  waripa  «aJ  ^as^rarc  d 

;  and  John  xxi.  15-17  A«T«I  airr?  »oAj»'  «'«iri^r.  Xipw  'I«drov, 
d  70*91  >i«  ;  .'.'-,«»  ai  r<p.  N<u,  Ki'pii  ov  oSSai  Srt  <>iXw  at  «  r.A.  (tec  Trench, 
Sym.  f  xii).  It  is  significant  that  no  distinction  is  absolute;  but 


occasionally,  still  more  rarely  dy****,  are  both   used   inconectly  of  the 
sexual  passion.    There  is  too  close  a  connexion  between  the  different  forms 
of  human  affection  to  allow  any  rigid  distinction  to  be  made  in  the  use  of 
words. 
\\hcn  these  words  were  adopted  Into  Hellenistic  Creek,  a  gradual 


XIII.  8-10.]     I.OVK  THE  FULFILMENT  OF  ALL  LAW       375 

was  made  in  their  use.  I  pa*  and  its  cognates  are  very  rarely  used.  and 
almost  invariably  in  a  bad  sense.  In  the  N.  T.  they  do  not  occur  at  all.  the 
word  1wt»vni»  being  employed  instead.  Yet  occasionally,  even  in  biblical 
and  ecclesiastical  Greek,  the  higher  sense  of  the  Platonic  «/»*  finds  a  place 
(Prov.  iv.  6  ;  Wisdom  viii.  a  ;  Jnstin,  Dial.  8,  p.  225  B  ;  Clem.  -Alex.  Cok. 
ii,  p.  90;  see  Lightfoot,  Ignatitu  ad  Rom,  vii.  a).  Between  ayavav  and 
+t*iv  a  decided  preference  was  shown  for  the  former.  It  ocean  about 
a68  times  (Hatch  and  Redpath)  in  a  very  large  proportion  of  cases  as  a 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  3HK  ;  f<Afo  about  twelve  times  (Trommios),  ex- 
cluding its  use  as  equivalent  to  oscular.  This  choice  was  largely  due  to  the 
use  of  the  Hebrew  word  to  express  the  love  of  God  to  man,  and  of  man  to 
God  (Deut.  xxiii.  5;  xxx.  6;  Hosea  iii.  I);  it  was  felt  that  the  greater 
amount  of  intellectual  desire  and  the  greater  severity  implied  in  ayata*  fitted 
it  better  than  <fxA<'e>  for  this  purpose.  But  while  it  was  elevated  in  meaning 
it  was  also  broadened  ;  it  is  used  not  only  of  the  love  of  father  and  son,  of 
husband  and  wife,  but  also  of  the  love  of  Samson  for  Delilah  (Jnd.  xvi.  4) 
and  of  Hosea's  love  for  his  adulterous  wife  (Hos.  iii.  i).  Nor  can  there  be  any 
doubt  that  to  Hebrew  writers  there  was  in  a  pure  love  of  God  or  of  righteous* 
ness  something  of  the  intensity  which  is  the  highest  characteristic  of  human 
passion  (Is.  Ixii.  5  v.  dyaioM  in  the  LXX  corresponds  in  all  its  characteristics 
to  the  English  •  love.' 

But  not  only  did  the  LXX  use  modify  the  meaning  of  ayawaw,  it  created 
a  new  word  ayawij.    Some  method  was  required  of  expressing  the  conception 

' 


which  was  gradually  growing  pp.  'Epo*  had  too  sordid  associations.  *iXta 
was  tried  (Wisdom  vii.  14;  viii.  18).  but  was  felt  to  be  inadequate.  The 
language  of  the  Song  of  Solomon  created  the  demand  for  dyawij.  (2  Kings 
i  or  a  times  ;  Ecclesiastes  a  ;  Canticles  1  1  ;  Wisdom  a  ;  Ecclns.  I  ;  Jeremiah  i  ; 
Ps.  Sol.  i.) 

The  N.T.  reproduces  the  usage  of  the  LXX,  but  somewhat  modified. 
While  dyaiau  is  used  138  times,  fiAJa*  is  used  in  this  sense  aa  times  (13  in 
St.  John's  Gospel)  ;  generally  when  special  emphasis  has  to  be  laid  on  the 
relations  of  father  and  son.  But  the  most  marked  change  is  in  the  use  of 
470*17.  It  is  never  used  in  the  Classical  writers,  only  occasionally  in  the 
:  in  early  Christian  writers  its  use  becomes  habitual  and  general. 
Nothing  could  show  more  clearly  that  a  new  principle  has  been  created  than 
this  creation  of  a  new  word. 

In  the  Vulgate  dyanj  is  sometimes  rendered  by  dilectio,  sometimes  by 
cantos;  to  this  inconsistency  are  due  the  variations  in  the  English 
Authorized  Version.  The  word  can/as  passed  into  English  in  the  Middle 
Ages  (for  details  see  Eng.  Diet,  sub  sw.)  in  the  form  '  charity/  and  was  for 
some  time  used  to  correspond  to  most  of  the  meanings  of  ayawfj  ;  but  as  the 
English  Version  was  inconsistent  and  no  corresponding  verb  existed  the 
mage  did  not  remain  wide.  In  spite  of  its  retention  in  i  Cor.  xiii.  '  charity  * 
became  confined  in  all  ordinary  phraseology  to  'benevolence,'  and  the 
Revised  Version  was  compelled  to  make  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament 
consistent. 

Whatever  loss  there  may  have  been  in  association  and  in  the  rhythm  of 
well-known  passages,  there  is  an  undoubted  gain.  The  history  of  the  word 
dyawatu  is  that  of  the  collection  under  one  head  of  various  conceptions  which 
were  at  any  rate  partially  separated,  and  the  usage  of  the  N.  T.  shows  that 
the  distinction  which  has  to  be  made  is  not  between  <f*\iv,  d-yavaw  and 
ipav,  but  between  ayo^nj  and  Js-iffv/i/o.  The  English  language  makes  this 
distincti.  n  between  the  affection  or  passion  in  any  form,  and  a  purely  animal 
desire,  quite  plain  ;  although  it  may  be  obliterated  at  times  by  a  natural 
euphemism.  But  setting  aside  this  distinction  which  must  be  occasionally 
present  to  the  mind,  but  which  need  not  be  often  spoken  of,  Christianity  does 
not  shrink  from  declaring  that  in  all  forms  of  human  passion  and  affection, 


376  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [XIII    8   10. 

which  are  not  partly  animal  there  b  present  that  same  lore  which  in  itt 
highest   tod  most  pore  development  forms  the  etsence  and 
Christiaa  religion.    This  affection,  however  perverted  it  may  be,  Chrirtianity 
doe*  not  condemn,  but  so  Car  as  may  be  elevates  and  purifies. 


The  Christian  Teaching  on  Low*. 

The  somewhat  lengthy  history  just  given  of  the  word  070*17  is 
i  Me  introduction  to  the  history  of  an  idea  which  forms  a  fun- 
damental principle  of  all  Christian  thought 

The  duty  of  love  in  some  form  or  other  had  been  a  common- 
place of  moral  teaching  in  times  long  befor  .nd  in 

many  different  places.    Isolated  maxims  have  been  collected 
favour  from  very  varied  authors,  and  the  highest  pag 
approaches  the  highest  Christian  doctrine.     But  in  all  previous 
philosophy  such   teaching  was  partial  or   isolated,  it  was  never 
elevated  to  a  great  principle.     Maxims  almost  or  quite  on 
with  those  of  Christianity  we  find  both  in  the  O.T.  and  in  T 
writers.    The  command  '  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thy- 
self is  of  course  taken  directly  from  the  O.T.,  and  is  there  used 
to  sum  up  in  one  general  principle  a  long  series  of  rules.     S 
of  great  beauty  are  quoted  from  the  Jewish  fathers.    '  Hillel  said, 
Be  of  the  disciples  of  Aaron,  loving  peace  and  pursuing  peace, 
loving  mankind  and   bringing  them  nigh  to  the  Tor  ah'  (Pirqe 
Aboth  i.  13);  or  aga  is  hateful  to  thyself  do  not  to  thy 

fellow;  this  is  the  whole  Torah,  and  the  rest  is  comment..: 

,'  also  ascribed  to  Hillel.  It  is  however  true  in  all  cases  that 
these  maxims,  and  all  such  as  these,  are  only  isolated  instances,  that 
they  do  not  represent  the  spirit  of  earlier  institutions,  and  that  they 
form  a  very  insignificant  proportion  compared  with  much  of 
a  different  character. 

In   C  y  this  principle,  which  had  been  only  partially 

understood  and  imperfectly  taught,  which  was  known  o: 
isolated  examples,  yet  testified  to  a  universal  instinct,  was  finally 
put  forward  as  the  paramount  principle  of  moral  conduct,  i: 
our  moral  instincts  with  our  highest  religious  principles.     A  new 
virtue,  or  rather  one  hitherto  imperfectly  understood,  had  become 
recognized  as  the  root  of  all  virtues,  and  a  new  name  was  demanded 
at  was  practically  a  new  idea. 

In  the  first  place,  the  new  Christian  doctrine  of  love  is  universal 

.s  said,  Thou  shalt  1<  •-  htxnir  and 

hate  thine  enemy  :  but  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  cncmit 

pray  for  them  that  persecute  you  ;  '  and  a  very  definite  reason  is 

the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God.     This  universalism  which 

underlies  all  the  leaching  of  Jesus  is  put  in  a  definite  practical 

form  by  St.  Paul,  '  In  Christ  Jesus  tl.  :icr  Jew  nor  Gentile, 


XIII.  11.]  THE  DAY   IS  AT  HAND  377 

bond  nor  free,  male  nor  female/  As  it  is  summed  up  in  a  well- 
known  work  :  '  The  first  law,  then,  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  that 
all  men,  however  divided  from  each  other  by  blood  or  language, 
have  certain  mutual  duties  arising  out  of  their  common  relation  to 
God '  (Ecce  Homo,  chap.  xii). 

But  secondly,  the  Christian  doctrine  of  love  was  the  substitution 
of  a  universal  principle  for  law.  All  moral  precepts  are  summed 
up  in  the  one  command  of  love.  What  is  my  duty  towards  others  ? 
Just  that  feeling  which  you  have  towards  the  persons  to  whom  you 
are  most  attached  in  the  world,  just  that  you  must  feel  for  every  one. 
If  you  have  that  feeling  there  will  be  no  need  for  any  further 
command.  Love  is  a  principle  and  a  passion,  and  as  such  is  the 
fulfilment  of  the  Law.  Christ '  declared  an  ardent,  passionate,  or 
devoted  state  of  mind  to  be  the  root  of  virtue ' ;  and  this  purifying 
passion,  capable  of  existing  in  all  men  alike,  will  be  able  to  re- 
deem our  nature  and  make  laws  superfluous. 

And  thirdly,  how  is  this  new  Christian  spirit  possible?  It  is 
possible  because  it  is  intimately  bound  up  with  that  love  which  is 
a  characteristic  of  the  Godhead.  'God  is  love/  'A  new  com- 
mandment I  give  to  you,  that  ye  should  love  one  another  as  I  have 
loved  you/  It  is  possible  also  because  men  have  learnt  to  love 
mankind  in  Christ  •  Where  the  precept  of  love  has  been  given, 
an  image  must  be  set  before  the  eyes  of  those  who  are  called  on  to 
obey  it,  an  ideal  or  type  of  man  which  may  be  noble  and  amiable 
enough  to  raise  the  whole  race,  and  make  the  meanest  member  of 
it  sacred  with  reflected  glory/  This  is  what  Christ  did  for  us. 

These  three  points  will  help  to  elucidate  what  St.  Paul  means  by 
ay'arrj.  It  is  in  fact  the  correlative  in  the  moral  world  to  what  faith 
is  in  the  religious  life.  Like  faith  it  is  universal ;  like  faith  it  is 
a  principle  not  a  code;  like  faith  it  is  centred  in  the  Godhead. 
Hence  St.  Paul,  as  St.  John  (i  John  iii.  23),  sums  up  Christianity 
in  Faith  and  Love,  which  are  finally,  united  in  that  Love  of  God, 
which  is  the  end  and  root  of  both. 


THE  DAY  IS  AT  HA1TO. 

XIII.  11-14.  The  night  of  this  corrupt  age  is  flying. 
The  Parousia  is  near  ing.  Cast  off  your  evil  ways.  Gird 
yourselves  u'ith  tht  armour  of  light.  Take  Christ  into  your 
hearts.  S/inn  sin  and  self 'indulgence. 

11.  The  Apostle  adds  a  motive  for  the  Christian  standard  of 
life,  the  nearness  of  our  final  salvation. 

K<H  TOUTO,  •  and  that  too ' :  cp.  i  Cor.  vi.  6,  8 ;  Eph.  ii.  8,  Ac. :  it 


378  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [XIII.  11-13. 

resumes  the  series  of  exhortations  implied  in  the  previous  sections ; 
there  is  no  need  to  supply  any  special  words  with  it. 

TOT  KcupoV :  used  of  a  definite,  measured,  or  determined  time,  and 
so  almost  technically  of  the  period  before  the  second  coming  of 
Christ:  cf.  i  :.  29  6  KiufAt  <m*<rraA,i«W ;  Mark 

SO  4  cmpor  4  m<rr«(  (Hcb.  iz.  9). 

Sri  £pa  t)&7|  K.T.X.    fa  with  «VpApat.    The  time  of  trial  on  earth 
is  looked  upon  as  a  night  of  gloom,  to  be  followed  by  a  bright 
morning.     We  must  arouse  ourselves  from  slumber  and  prepare 
'•Ives  for  the  light. 

rCr  yip  iyyurcpoi'  «.r.X.  '  For  our  completed  salvation,  no  longer 
that  hope  of  salvation  which  sustains  us  here,  is  appreciably  nearer 
for  us  than  when  we  first  accepted  in  faith  the  Messianic  message/ 
.<rr<vffatt<»  refers  to  the  actual  moment  of  the  acceptance  of 
Christianity.  The  language  is  that  befitting  those  who  expect  the 
actual  coming  of  Christ  almost  immediately,  but  it  will  fit  the 
circumstances  of  any  Christian  for  whom  death  brings  the  « 

In  vcr.  1 1  the  original  Ipat  (K  A  B  C  P,  Clem.-Alex.)  has  been  corrected 
for  the  take  of  uniformity  into  4/^t  ;K«  I  >  E  K  G  L,  &c..  Boh.  Sah.).    In  vcr.  1 3 
Jr  tfxet  ml  ftAoit  is  a  variant  of  B,  Sah.,  Clem.- Alex.  Amb.      ! 
and  Clem. -Alex,  read  rdr  Xptarir  'Irjoovr,  which  may  very  likely  be  the 
correct  reading. 

12.  vpolitotcr,  '  has  advanced  towards  dawn.'    Cf.  Luke  : 
Gal.  i.  14  ;  Jos.  Btll.JuJ.  IV.  iv.  6;  Just.  Dial.  p.  277  d. 

The  contrast  of  wrw,  ™£,  and  «r«W  with  WM>I  and  ^  finds 
many  illustrations  in  Christian  and  in  all  religious  literature. 

diroewfi«6a.     The  works  of  darkness,  i.e.  works  such  as  befit  the 
kingdom  of  darkness,  are  represented  as  being  cast  off  like  the 
uncomely  garments  of  the  night,  for  the  bright  armour 
befits  the  Christian  soldier  as  a  member  of  the  kingdom  of  light. 
This  metaphor  of  the  Christian  armour  is  a  favourite  on< 
SL  Paul  (i  Thess.  v.  8;  a  Cor.  vi.  7;  Rom.  vi.  13;  and  especially 
Eph.  vi.  13  f.);   it   may  have  been  originally  suggested  I 
Jewish  conception  of  the  last  great  fight  against  the  armies  of 
Antichrist  (Dan.  xi ;  Orac.  Sib.  iii.  663  f. ;  4  Ezra  xiii.  33 ;  Enoch 
xc.  1 6).  but  in  SL  Paul  the  conception  has  become  com] 
spiritualised. 

13.  cuaxiP^""*    ircpiiro.Trjaw/iti'.       The    metaphor    ntfuwartuf    of 
conduct  is  very  common  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  where  it  occurs 

three   times  (never  in   the   Past.   Epp.);    elsewhere  in  the 
-ixtcen  times. 

•twfiois,    'riot::  .       :   ;    I    Pet,    IV.    3).      ju!A}  the 

drunkenness  which  would  be  the  natural  result  and  accompaniment 
dry. 

'unlawful  intercourse  and  wanton  acts.' 
iv  yap  nt   p<0i«i,    pt&v*v   oV   cot- 


XIII.  13, 14.]          THE  DAY  IS  AT  HAND  379 


W  <fo«Xyaii«i,  row  oZrow  TOVTOV  rg  irXija/iorg  rvp 

Euthym.-Zig. 


14.  ^SJaaa6«  rdr  Kupio*  'irjaooK  XpKrnJf.  Christ  is  put  On  first  in 
baptism  (vi.  3;  Gal.  iii.  27),  but  we  must  continually  renew  that 
life  with  which  we  have  been  clothed  (Epb.  iv.  24  ;  Col.  iii.  12). 

TT)S  <ropK^f  with  irpowMa*  :  the  word  is  thrown  forward  in  order  to 
emphasize  the  contrast  between  the  old  nature,  the  flesh  of  sin,  and 
the  new,  the  life  in  Christ. 

On  this  passage  most  commentators  compare  St.  Aug.  Confess. 
viii.  12,  23  Arripui,  aperui  et  legi  in  silent  io  capilulum,  quo  pri- 
mum  coniecti  sunt  oculi  met:  Non  in  conversationibus  et  ebrie- 
tatibus,  non  in  cubilibus  et  impudicitiis,  non  in  contentione  et 
aemulatione  :  sed  induite  Dominum  lesum  Christum,  et  carnis 
providentiam  ne  feceritis  in  concupiscent!  is.  Nee  ultra  volui 
Ifgerc,  nee  opus  erat.  Statim  quippt  cum  fine  huiusce  sentential  quasi 
luce  securitatis  htfusa  cordi  meo,  omnes  dubitationi*  tenebrae  diffu- 
gerunt. 

The  early  Christian  belief  in  the  nearness  of  the 
•napovoia. 

There  can  hardly  be  any  doubt  that  in  the  Apostolic  age  the 
prevailing  belief  was  that  the  Second  Coming  of  the  Lord  was  an 
event  to  be  expected  in  any  case  shortly  and  probably  in  the  life- 
time of  many  of  those  then  living;  it  is  also  probable  that  this 
belief  was  shared  by  the  Apostles  themselves.  For  example,  so 
strongly  did  such  views  prevail  among  the  Thessalonian  converts 
that  the  death  of  some  members  of  the  community  had  filled  them 
with  perplexity,  and  even  when  correcting  these  opinions  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  '  we  that  are  alive,  that  are  left  unto  the  coming  of  our 
Lord';  and  in  the  second  Epistle,  although  he  corrects  the 
erroneous  impression  which  still  prevailed  that  the  coming  was 
immediate  and  shows  that  other  events  must  precede  it,  he  still 
contemplates  it  as  at  hand.  Similar  passages  may  be  quoted  from 
all  or  most  of  the  Epistles,  although  there  are  others  that  suggest 
that  it  is  by  his  own  death,  not  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  that 
St.  Paul  expects  to  attain  the  full  life  in  Christ  to  which  he  looked 
forward  (i  Cor.  vii.  29-31;  Rom.  xiii.  n,  12;  Phil.  iv.  5;  and 
on  the  other  side  2  Cor.  v.  i-io;  Phil.  i.  23;  iii.  u,  20,  21  ;  see 
Jowett,  Thessalonians,  &c.,  i.  p.  105,  who  quotes  both  classes  of 
passages  without  distinguishing  them). 

How  far  was  this  derived  from  our  Lord's  own  teaching? 
There  is,  it  is  true,  very  clear  teaching  on  the  reality  and  the 
suddenness  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  very  definite  exhortation 
to  all  Christians  to  live  as  expecting  that  coming.  This  teaching 
is  couched  largely  in  the  current  language  of  Apocalyptic  literature 


380  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS      [XIII    11    11 

was  often  hardly  intended  to  be  taken  literally  even  by 
tors;   moreover  it   is  certainly  mingled  with   teaching 
which  was  intended  to  refer  to  what  was  a  real  manifestation  of  the 
Divine  power,  and  very  definitely  a  '  coming  of  the  Lord '  in  the 
O.  T.  sense  of  the  term,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.     All  this 
language  again  is  reported  to  us  by  those  who  took  i: 
sense.    The  expressions  of  our  Lord  quoted  as  prophetic  < 
speedy  return  are  all  to  a  certain  extent  us;  for  example, 

*  This  generation  shall  not  pass  away  until  all  these  things  be  ful- 
filled/ or  again '  There  be  some  of  them  here  who  shall  not  taste  of 
death  until  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  with  power.'  On  the 
other  side  there  is  a  very  distinct  tradition  preserved  in  documents 
of  different  classes  recording  that  when  our  Lord  was  asked  de- 
finitely on  such  matters  His  answers  were  ambiguous.  Ac 
1  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  times  and  seasons,  which  the  Father 
hath  set  within  His  own  authority.'  John  \ 
therefore  went  forth  among  the  brethren,  that  that  disciple  should 
not  die :  yet  Jesus  said  not  unto  him,  that  he  should  not  die ;  but, 
If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ?'  Moreover 
he  affirmed  that  He  Himself  was  ignorant  of  the  date  Mark  xiii.  32  ; 
Matt.  xxiv.  36  '  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not 
even  the  angels  of  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  < 

In  the  face  of  these  passages  it  is  reasonable  to  bclicv 
this  ignorance  of  the  Early  Church  was  permitted  and  th  .• 
a  purpose.    If  so,  we  may  be  allowed  to  speculate  as  to  the  service 
-  intended  to  fulfil. 

In  the  first  place,  this  belief  in  the  nearness  of  the  second  coming 
quickened  the  religious  and  moral  earnestness  of  tli 
Believing  as  intently  as  he  did  *  that  the  fashion  of  this  world  passeth 
away/  he  '  set  his  affection  on  things  above ' ;  he  lived  in  the  world 
and  yet  not  of  the  world.    The  constant  looking  forv 
coming  of  the  Lord  produced  a  state  of  intense  spiritual  zeal 
braced  the  Church  for  its  earliest  and  hardest  task. 

And  secondly,  it  has  been  pointed  out  very  ably  how  much  the 
elasticity  and  mobility  of  C  i  by  the  fa 

the  Apostles  never  realized  that  they  were  building  up  a  Church 
which  was  to  last  through  the  ages.     It  became  the  fashion  of 
a  later  age  to  ascribe  to  the  Apostles  a  series  of  ordinano 
constitutor  :heory  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  real 

spirit  of  their  time.    They  never  wrote  or  legislated  except  so  far 
as  existing  needs  demanded.    They  founded  iiutions  as 

were  clearly  required  by  some  immediate  want,  or  were  part  of  our 
Lord's  teaching.     But  they  never  administered  or  planned 

v  to  the  remote  future.  Their  writings  were  occasional, 
suggested  by  some  pressing  difficulty ;  but  they  thus  incidentally 
laid  down  great  broad  principles  which  became  the  guiding  principles 


XIII.  11-14.]  THE  DAY  IS  AT  HAND  381 

of  the  Church.  The  Church  therefore  is  governed  by  case  law,  not 
by  code  law  :  by  broad  principles,  not  by  minute  regulations.  It 
may  seem  a  paradox,  but  yet  it  is  profoundly  true,  that  the  Church 
is  adapted  to  the  needs  of  every  age,  just  because  the  original 
preachers  of  Christianity  never  attempted  to  adapt  it  to  the  needs 
of  any  period  but  their  own. 

The  relation  of  Chaps.  XII-XIV  to  the  Gospels. 

There  is  a  very  marked  resemblance  between  the  moral  teaching 
of  St.  Paul  contained  in  the  concluding  section  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  and  our  Lord's  own  words  ;  a  resemblance  which,  in  some 
cases,  extends  even  to  language. 

Rom.  xii.  14.  Matt  r.  44. 

«vAo7«~r«    roirt    fc^torrat    fyiar  Afavartrov*  ^8povii>pvr,  *al  *(**' 

«CAo7««>«,  «a2  p)  «ara/>a00«.  «vx«a0«  Mp  r£r  kvKuvrw  fyar. 

Rom.  xiii.  7.  Matt  xxii.  21. 

dw69or<  warn  rdt  ty«<Aci»  «.rX  d»&ort  ovr  rd  Kaloapot  Kaieap,, 

*a2  rd  rov  6<ou  T£  ««£. 

Rom.  xiii.  9.  Matt.  xxii.  39,  40. 

*o2  «f  nr  Iripa  «VroA>7.  Iv  rovry  8«t/Wpa  8<   upoia  avrrj,   'Ayarffotit 

T$    Av-yy   dvaKtifxiXaiovTai,    i*    T£       rOr  wAijai'or  <TOW  wt  tftavr^r.  <r  ravrair 
'A-yar»7<r«jf     rdr     wAijatoy    aov    At       rtut  8uaiV  /KroAafj  5Aor  <J 

/iarcu 


To  these  verbal  resemblances  must  be  added  remarkable  identity 
of  teaching  in  these  successive  chapters.  Everything  that  is  said 
about  revenge,  or  about  injuring  others,  is  exactly  identical  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ;  our  duty  towards  rulers  exactly 
reproduces  the  lesson  given  in  St  Matthew's  Gospel  ;  the  words 
concerning  the  relation  of  '  love  '  to  '  law  '  might  be  an  extract  from 
the  Gospel  :  the  two  main  lines  of  argument  in  ch.  xiv,  the  absolute 
indifference  of  all  external  practices,  and  the  supreme  importance 
of  not  giving  a  cause  of  offence  to  any  one  are  both  directly  derived 
from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  (Matt,  xviii.  6,  7,  xv.  1  1-20).  This 
resemblance  is  brought  out  very  well  by  a  recent  writer  (Knowling, 
Witntss  of  the  Epistles,  p.  312)  :  '  Indeed  it  is  not  too  much  to  add 
that  the  Apostle's  description  of  the  kingdom  of  God  (Rom.  xiv.  17) 
reads  like  a  brief  summary  of  its  description  in  the  same  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  ;  the  righteousness,  peace,  and  joy,  which  formed  the 
contents  of  the  kingdom  in  the  Apostle's  conception  are  found  side 
by  side  in  the  Saviour's  Beatitudes  ;  nor  can  we  fail  to  notice  -how 
both  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  contrast  the  anxious  care  for  meat 
and  drink  with  seeking  in  the  first  place  for  the  kingdom  of  God 
and  His  righteousness.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  Paul's 
fundamental  idea  of  righteousness  may  be  said  to  be  rooted  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus.' 


:STLE   TO  THE  ROMANS          [XII-XIV. 

well  known  that  there  are  definite  references  by  St.  Paul  to 
the  words  of  our  Lord:  so  i  Thes.  iv.  is  =  Matt.  xxiv.  31  ;  i  Cor. 

-•  x.  7 ;  as  also  in  the  case 

of  the  institution  of  the  Last  Supper,  i  Cor.  zi.  24.    Reminiscences 
also  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  may  be  found  in  other  F 
e.  g.  James  iv.  9  =  Matt.  v.  4  ;  James  v.  12  =  Matt.  v.  33 ;   i 
iii.  9  =  Matt.  v.  39  ;  i  Pet.  iv.  14  =  Mat'  . .  and  elsewhere. 

The  resemblances  are  not  in  any  case  sufficient  either  to  prove 
the  use  of  any  document  which  we  possess  in  its  present  form,  or 
to  prove  the  use  of  a  different  document  (see  below) ;  but  they  do 
show  that  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  was  based  on  some  common 
source,  which  was  identical  both  in  substance  and  spirit  with  those 
words  of  our  Lord  contained  in  the  Gospels. 

They  suggest  further  that  even  in  cases  where  we  have  no  direct 
evidence  that  Apostolic  teaching  is  based  on  the  Gosj 
it  does  not  follow  that  our  Lord  Himself  did  not  originate  it. 
For  Christianity  is  older  than  any  of  its  records.     The  books 
of  the  N.  T.  reflect,  they  did  not  originate,  the  teaching  ot 

anity.  Moreover,  our  Lord  originated  principles.  It  was 
these  principles  which  inspired  His  followers;  some  of  the  words 
which  are  the  product  of  and  which  taught  those  principles  are 
preserved,  some  are  not ;  but  the  result  of  them  is  contained  in  the 
words  of  the  Apostles,  which  worked  out  in  practical  life  the 
principles  they  had  learnt  directly  or  indirectly  from  the  Ch: 

A  much  more  exact  and  definite  conclusion  is  supported  with  very  great 
industry  by  Alfred  Reich  in  a  series  of  investigation*,  the  first  of  which  is 
Austtrtanonuckt   Evangrlitn-fragmtntt   in    Ttxtt  und 

' 


tucHungrtt,  v.  4.  He  argues  (pp.  28,  ao)  that  the  acquaintance  shown  by 
ul  with  the  words  and  teaching  of  Jesus  implies  the  use  of  an  L'r.anon- 
ijche  Qutlttmschrift,  which  was  also  used  by  St.  Mark,  as  well  at  the  other 
N.T.  writers.  It  would  be  of  course  beside  our  purpose  to  examine  this  theory, 
but  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  passages  we  are  considering  it  may  be  noticed : 
(i)  That  so  far  as  they  go  there  would  be  no  reason  why  all  St.  I'aul's  teach- 
ing should  not  have  been  derived  from  our  present  Gospels,  lie  does  not 
profess  to  be  quoting,  and  the  verbal  reminiscences  might  quite  well  represent 
the  documents  we  possess,  (a)  That  it  is  equally  impossible  to  argue  against 
the  use  of  different  Gospels.  The  only  legitimate  conclusion  is  that  there 
must  have  been  a  common  teaching  of  Jesus  behind  the  Apoitle's  words 
which  was  identical  in  spirit  and  substantially  in  words  with  that  contained 


in'onr  Synoptic  Gospels.    Some  stress  Is  laid  by  Resch  (pp.  345,  303  ff.) 
on  passages  which  are  identical  in  Romans  and  i  Peter.     So  Rom.  xii.  17- 
iii.  9;  Rot  14.     The  resemblance  is  un- 

doubted, but  a  far  more  probable  explanation  is  that  I  Peter  is  directly 
indebted  to  the  Romans  (see  Introduction  f  8).    There  is  no  reason  • 
these  as  '  Words  of  the  Lord  ' ;  yet  it  is  very  probable  that  much  more  of  the 
teaching  and  even  phraseology  of  the  early  Church  than  we  are 
1  to  imagine  goes  back  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 


XIV.  1-XV.  7.]       ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  383 


ON  FORBEARANCE  TOWARDS  THOSE  WHO  ABB 
SCRUPULOUS. 

XIV.  1— X"V .  13.  Receive  a  scrupulous  Christian  cordially. 
Do  not  be  continually  condemning  him.  Some  of  you  have 
grasped  the  full  meaning  of  Christian  faith,  others  whose 
conscience  is  too  tender  lay  undue  stress  on  particular  prac- 
tices, on  rules  as  to  food  or  the  observance  of  certain  days. 
Do  not  you  whose  faith  is  more  robust  despise  such  scruples; 
nor  should  they  be  censorious  (w.  1-5). 

Every  one  should  make  up  his  own  mind.  These  things 
are  indifferent  in  themselves.  Only  whatever  a  man  does  lie 
must  look  to  Christ.  In  life  and  death  we  are  all  His,  whose 
death  and  resurrection  have  made  him  Lord  of  all.  To 
Him  as  to  no  one  else  shall  we  be  called  upon  to  give  account 
(w.  6-12). 

We  must  avoid  censoriousness.  But  equally  must  we 
avoid  placing  obstacles  before  a  fellow-Christian.  I  believe 
firmly  that  nothing  is  harmful  in  itself,  but  it  becomes  so  to 
the  person  who  considers  it  harmful.  The  obligation  of  love 
and  charity  is  parafnount.  Meats  are  secondary  things. 
Let  us  have  an  eye  to  peace  and  mutual  help.  It  is  not 
worth  while  for  the  sake  of  a  little  meat  to  undo  God's 
work  in  a  brother  s  soul.  Far  better  abstain  from  flesh  and 
wine  altogether  (w.  13-21). 

Keep  the  robuster  faith  with  which  you  are  blest  to 
yourself  and  God.  To  hesitate  and  then  eat  is  to  incur 
guilt ;  for  it  is  not  prompted  by  strong  faith  (w.  22,  23). 

This  rule  of  forbearance  applies  to  all  classes  of  the  com- 
munity. Tlie  strong  should  bear  the  scruples  of  the  weak. 
We  should  not  seek  our  own  good,  but  thatofotliers  ;  following 
the  example  of  Christ  as  expounded  to  us  in  the  Scriptures; 
those  Scriptures  which  were  written  for  our  encouragement 
and  consolation.  May  God,  from  whom  this  encouragement 
comes,  grant  you  all — weak  and  strong^  Jew  and  Gentile — to 
be  of  one  mind,  uniting  in  the  praise  of  God  (xv.  1-7). 


3S4  I-  TO  THE   ROMANS  [XIV.  1. 

For  Christ  has  received  you  all  alike.     To  both  Jew  and 
Gentile  He  has  a  special  mission.     To  /  \hibit 

God's  veracity,  to  the  Gentiles  to  rn'cal  His  mercy ;  that 
Gentile  might  unite  with  Jew,  as  Psalmist  and  Prophet 
foreh  »tns  of  praise  to  the  glory  of  God.  May  God 

the  giver  of  hope  send  it  richly  upon  you  (w.  8-13). 

XIV.  1— XV.  13.  The  Apostle  now  passes  on" to  a  further  point ; 
the  proper  attitude  to  adopt  towards  matters  in  themselves  indifferent, 
but  concerning  which  some  members  of  the  comnr 
scruples.     The  subject  is  one  which  naturally  connects  itsi 
\\  lut  we  have  seen  to  be  the  leading  thought  which  underlies  these 
concluding  chapters,  and  in  fact  the  whole  Epistle,  name 
peace  and  unity  of  the  Church,  and  may  have  been  imim 
suggested  by  the  words  just  preceding:    St.  Paul  has  been  con- 
demning excessive  indulgence;   he  now  passes  to  the  opposite 
extreme,  excessive  scrupulousness,  which  he  deals  with 
different  way.    As  Augustine  points  out,  he  condemns  and  instructs 
more  openly  the  'strong'  who  can  bear  it,  while  indirectly  showing 
the  error  of  the  '  weak.'   The  arguments  throughout  are,  as  we  shall 
see,  perfectly  general,  and  the  principles  applied  those  cl. 
of  the  moral  teaching  of  the  Epistle — the  freedom  of  Christian  faith, 
the  comprehensiveness  of  Christian  chanty  and  that  duty  of  peace 
and  unity  on  which  St.  Paul  never  wearies  of  insisting. 

Tcrtullian  (Adv.  Mare.  r.  15)  refers  to  vcr.  10.  tnd  Origen  (Comm  in 
Rom.  x.  43.  Lomro.  rii.  p.  453)  to  vcr.  23.  Of  Marcion'a  me  of  the  rest  of  the 
chapter  we  know  nothing.  On  chap*,  xv,  xvi,  sec  Introduction,  f  9. 

1.  T&K  fce  doOcfoOvTCi  TTJ  mVm :  cf.  Rom.  iv.   :  7»  9» 

io,  ii  ;  ix.  22.  'Weakness  in  faith,'  means  an  inadequate  grasp 
of  the  great  principle  of  salvation  by  faith  in  Christ ;  the  conse- 
quence of  which  will  be  an  anxious  desire  to  make  this  salvation 
more  certain  by  the  scrupulous  fulfilment  of  formal  rules. 

TTfKxrXappdvfcrOe,  'receive    into    full    (  ::tcrcours< 

fellowship/    The  word  is  used  (i)  of  God  receiving  or  I. 
man :  Ps.  xxvi  (xxvii)  io  6  mrfjp  pov  «ai  9  ww  Mov  «>. 
4  W   *vpuK  ffpo9«Xa£«rd  fu:    so   in  vcr.   3   below  and   in 
Rom.  Xlix.  6  «V  aydvg  irpoa«Aa3«TO  wat  6  barurr,*.      But  (2)   it   is 
also  used  of  men  receiving  others  into  fellowship  or  companion- 
ship I    2  MacC.  I  ntwarat  «V  ry  'Iw&aurpy  irpo<r*a&ntK» 
tnrrfiyayo*  «'»  «'£«««<TAI  >es  are  c  i  XV.  7 
4  All  whom  Christ  has  willed  to  :                                       ( ommuniu , 
whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gr>                .incised  or  uncircumcised, 
i  ought  to  be  \tillirv                   as  broth' 

fii)    «is   Siaitpiocis  SiaXoYia^wr,    'but   not  to  pass  judgements 
on  their  thoughts.'     Receive  them  as  members  of  ti 


XIV.  1-4.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  385 

community,  but  do  not  let  them  find  that  they  have  been  merely 
received  into  a  society  in  which  their  somewhat  too  scrupulous 
thoughts  are  perpetually  being  condemned,  duupumr,  from  duurpW 
to  'judge,'  'decide/  'distinguish/  means  the  expression  of  judge- 
ments or  opinions,  as  Heb.  v.  14  'judgement  of  good  or  evil/ 
i  Cor.  xii.  10  'judgement  or  discernment  of  spirits.'  otoAoyMr/iir 
means  '  thoughts/  often,  but  not  necessarily,  with  the  idea  of  doubt, 
hesitation  (Luke  zxiv.  38),  disputes  (Phil.  ii.  14;  I  Tim.  ii.  8),  or 
generally  of  perverse  self-willed  speculations.  The  above  interpre- 
tation of  ttaxpiatis  is  that  of  most  commentators  (Mcy.-W.  Oltr.  Va.) 
ami  is  most  in  accordance  with  usage.  An  equally  good  sense 
could  be  gained  bv  translating  (with  Lips.)  'not  so  as  to  raise 
doubts  in  his  mind/  or  (with  Gif.) '  not  unto  discussions  of  doubts ' ; 
but  neither  interpretation  can  be  so  well  supported. 

2.  The  Apostle  proceeds  to  describe  the  two  classes  to  which 
he  is  referring,  and  then  (ver.  3)  he  gives  his  commands  to  both 
sides. 

fa  l*fe  . .  .  *  «  dofcvAv.  With  the  raralion  in  construction  cf.  I  Cor. 
xii.  8-10 ;  Mark  ir  4 ;  Luke  riii.  5.  The  «econd  6  is  not  for  k ,  hot  it  to  be 
taken  with  da***. 

wi«rrfu«i, '  hath  faith  to  eat  all  things ' ;  his  faith,  i.  e.  his  grasp  and 
hold  of  the  Christian  spirit,  is  so  strong  that  he  recognizes  how 
indifferent  all  such  matters  in  themselves  really  are. 

Xrfxaya  foOici,  'abstains  from  all  flesh  meat  and  eats  only 
vegetables/  Most  commentators  have  assumed  that  St  Paul  is 
describing  the  practice  of  some  definite  party  in  the  Roman 
community  and  have  discussed,  with  great  divergence  of  opinion, 
the  motive  of  such  a  practice.  But  St.  Paul  is  writing  quite 
generally,  and  is  merely  selecting  a  typical  instance  to  balance  the 
first.  He  takes,  on  the  one  side,  the  man  of  thoroughly  strong 
faith,  who  has  grasped  the  full  meaning  of  his  Christianity;  and  on 
the  other  side,  one  who  is,  as  would  generally  be  admitted,  over- 
scrupulous, and  therefore  is  suitable  as  the  type  of  any  variety  of 
scrupulousness  in  food  which  might  occur.  To  both  these  classes 
he  gives  the  command  of  forbearance,  and  what  he  says  to  them 
will  apply  to  other  less  extreme  cases  (see  the  Discussion  on  p.  399). 

3.  o  JoOiw*  .  .  .  A  S«  pi  fo6£wr.    St.  Paul  uses  these  expressions 
to  express  briefly  the  two  classes  with  which  he  is  dealing  (see  ver.  6). 
Pride  and  contempt  would  be  the  natural  failing  of  the  one ;  a  spirit 
of  censoriousness  of  the  other. 

6  0c6s  yof  ouror  irpootXdfJcTo.  See  ver.  i.  God  through  Christ 
has  admitted  men  into  His  Church  without  imposing  on  them 
minute  and  formal  observances;  they  are  not  therefore  to  be 
criticized  or  condemned  for  neglecting  practices  which  God  has 
not  required. 

4.  ad  7 is  ct;  St.  Paul  is  still  rebuking  the  'weak.'    The  man 

c  c 


386  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [XIV.  4,  5. 

whom  he  Is  condemning  is  not  a  household  slave,  but  the  servant  of 
God ;  to  God  therefore  he  is  responsible. 

TV  tfttw  nopiw.     Dal  of  rcf  5-8,     'It  is  to  his 

own  master  that  he  is  responsible.'  He  it  is  to  whom  he  must  show 
whether  he  has  used  or  misused  his  freedom,  whether  he  has  bad 
the  strength  to  fulfil  his  work  or  whether  he  has  failed,  vnrrti 
txi.  i  it  22)  of  moral  failure;  VT^KCI  (i  Cor.  x  .-7)  of 

moral  stability.     In  i  Cor.  z.  12  the  two  are  contrasted,  «*rrt  4 

docwr  «'<rrarm  0A  «*•>••  w  r« 

<rra0t|a«Tai  W :  -  5-    1°  8P>tc  of  your  censoriousness 

be  will  be  held  straight,  for  the  same  Lord  who  called  him  on 
conditions  of  freedom  to  His  kingdom  is  mighty  to  hoi  : 
uprigl  ive  grace  and  strength  to  those  wh. 

has  called 

For   avrar<r(KABCDFG),  which  Is  an   unusual  word,  later 
substituted  krarh  (P,  Bas.  Chrys  \  or  torarh  .  .  .  J<rnr  (T  K 
and  later  MSS.).    For  &  Kv/xof  (K  A  B  C  P.  Sah.  Boh..  &c.)  i  e«4t  was  in. 
troduced  from  ver.  3  (DE  KG  L,  &c,  Vulg.,  Orig.-lat  Bas,  Chrj*,,  &c.), 
perhaps  because  of  the  confusion  with  ry  Kiy»>  above. 

5.  The  Apostle  turns  to  another  instance  of  similar  scrupulous- 
ness,— the  superstitious  observance  of  days.     In  Galatia  he  has 
already  had  to  rebuke  this  strongly ;  later  he  condemns  the  Colos- 
sians  for  the  same  reason.    Gal.  iv.  10,  1 1  'Ye  observe  days,  and 
months,  and  seasons,  and  years.    I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest  I 
means  I  have  bestowed  labour  upon  you  in  vain.'    Col.  ii.  16,  17 
'  Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect 
of  a  feast  day  or  a  new  moon  or  a  sabbath  •: 
a  shadow  of  the  things  to  come ;  but  the  body  is  Christ's.'    S 
does  not  in  the  Romans  condemn  any  one  for  adherence  t 
practice,  but  simply  considers  the  principle^  !:e  the 

question,  as  illustrating  (hence  yap)  the  general  discussion  of  the 
chapter.  The  fundameiv  !c  is  that  such  things 

themselves  indifferent,  but  i  person  must  be  it. 

in  his  own  conscience  that  he  is  doing  r 

Various  commentators  have  discussed  the  relation  of  these  < 
tions  to  Ecclesiastical  ordinances,  and  have  attempted  to  make 
a  distinction  between  the  Jewish  rites  which  arc  condemned  and 

i  are  enjoined.    (So  Jerome,  Contra  Ic 
ii.  1 6,  quoted  by  Liddon  adloc.:   non  infer  inun 
atqualia  mcnlt  disjxnsat ;  std  contra  tos  loqu: 
crtdtnlts,  adhuf  iudaizabant.}    No  such  disiinction  is  possible. 
Apostle  is  dealing  * 

lays  down  the  principle  that  these  thin^-  -  are  indif- 

ferent ;  while  the  whole  tenor  of  his  argument  is  against  n 
loosness  in  any  form.     So  these   san  s  would 

equally  to  the  scrupulous  observance  of  Ecclesiastical  rales,*! 


XIV.  5,  6.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  387 

as  in  some  places  of  Sunday,  or  as  in  others  of  Saints  '  days  or 
Fast  days.  Such  observances  if  undertaken  in  a  scrupulous 
spirit  are  opposed  to  the  very  essence  of  Christian  freedom. 
When  once  this  principle  has  been  grasped  a  loyal  free  adhesion 
to  the  rules  of  the  Church  becomes  possible.  The  Jew  and 
the  scrupulous  Christian  kept  their  rules  of  days  and  seasons, 
because  they  believed  that  their  salvation  depended  on  an  exact 
adherence  to  formal  ordinances.  The  Christian  who  hat  giatped 
the  freedom  of  the  Gospel  recognizes  the  indifference  in  themselves 
of  all  such  ordinances  ;  but  he  voluntarily  submits  to  the  rules  of 
his  Church  out  of  respect  for  its  authority,  and  he  recognizes  the 
value  of  an  external  discipline.  The  Apostolical  Constitutions, 
which  representing  an  early  system  of  Christian  discipline,  seem  to 
recognize  these  principles,  for  they  strongly  condemn  abstinence 
from  food  if  influenced  by  any  feeling  of  abhorrence  from  it, 
although  not  if  undertaken  for  the  purpose  of  discipline. 

Tisch.  (ed.  8)  reads  here  At  /ilr  w  with  K  A  C  P,  Vulg.  Boh.  (which  he 
quotes  incorrectly  on  the  other  side),  lias.  Ambrstr.  Jo.-Damasc.  The  yaf  is 
omitted  by  N  1  I  •  1  1  G,  Syrr,  Orig.-lat.  Chrys.  Thdrt.  TR.  RV.  and  inserted 
between  brackets  by  \VH.  Lachmann.  The  insertion  is  probably  right; 
the  balance  of  external  evidence  being  in  its  favour,  for  B  here  is  clearly 
Western  in  character. 

Kptfci,  'estimates/  'approves  of:  Plat.  Phil.  p.  57  E  is  quoted. 
iroprf,  '  passing  by  '  and  so  '  in  preference  to.' 

irXtjpo^opciaOw.  The  difference  between  the  Christian  and  the 
Jew  or  the  heathen,  between  the  man  whose  rule  is  one  of  faith  and 
the  man  subject  to  law,  is,  that  while  for  the  latter  there  arc  definite 
and  often  minute  regulations  he  must  follow,  for  the  former  the 
only  laws  are  great  and  broad  principles.  He  has  the  guidance  of 
the  Spirit;  he  must  do  what  his  MI«,  his  highest  intellectual  faculty, 
tells  him  to  be  right.  On  the  word  frXi;/xxJ>op«»'<rd»  see  on  iv.  21 
and  cf.  Clem.  Rom.  xlii  trXqpo^wpif&Vrfc  &a  rijf  a»a<rr<i<r*«f. 

6.  The  reason  for  indifference  in  these  matters  is  that  both 
alike,  both  the  man  who  has  grasped  the  Christian  principle  and 
the  man  who  is  scrupulous,  are  aiming  at  the  one  essential  thing, 
to  render  service  to  God,  to  live  as  men  who  are  to  give  account 
to  Him. 

6  +poȣr  :  '  esteem/  '  estimate/  '  observe.  '  Kupi*,  emphatic,  is  Dat 
of  reference  as  above,  ver.  4. 

o  la&wy  ...  6  jif|  totiittv  :  see  ver.  3.  Both  alike  make  their 
int  .il  an  occasion  of  solemn  thanksgiving  to  God,  and  it  is  that 
which  consecrates  the  feast.  Is  there  any  reference  in  cdxapurm  to 
the  Christian 


After  Kv/*V  <H*nnl  the  TR.  with  later  authorities  (LP  Ac.,  Syrr.,  Bas. 
Chrys.  Thdrt.)  add  Ml  4  14  */x»wr  rifrr  4/4>or  Kvpiv  06  */wr«t~,  a  glow 
which  seemed  necessary  for  completing  the  sentence  on  the  analogy  of  the 
c  c  a 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  K  [XIV.  6-9. 

last  half  of  the  renc.    The  addition  of  this  dame  canaed  the  omission  of 
«u  More  &  Io9l«*  (TR.  with  tome  minaaeolea).    That  the  wocda  *aU  rf 
fporwr  were  not  parts  of  the  original  text  omitted  by  horooeotf  leuton  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  many  authorities  which  insert  them  still  pre»« 
supcrfluuu  lias.  Chrjrs.  Thdrt.  and  many  mina*cules  .     Various 

instances  of  homoeotcleulon  occur,  as  might  be  expected,  in  these  verse*,  bat 
they  arc  in  all  cases  confined  to  a  single  or  very  slight  authority.  L  omit*  *<w 
4  pi)  Ja***  ry  6f  y  :  66  omits  4/Wpcur  to  ^f*v  ;  minute.  3  omit 

' 


7-12.  St.  Paul  proceeds  to  develop  more  fully,  and  as  a  genera) 
rule  of  life,  the  thought  suggested  in  ver.  6.  To  God  we  are 
responsible  whether  we  live  or  die  ;  before  His  judgement-seat  we 
shall  appear  ;  .  therefore  we  must  live  as  men  who  are  to  give 
account  of  our  lives  to  Him  and  not  to  one  anoth 

7.  oo&«!«  yip  .  .  .  dwo6rrjan€i.     In  life  and  in  death  we  are  nol 
isolated,  or  solitary,  or  responsible  only  to  ourselves.    It  is  not  In- 
cur own  act  we  were  created,  nor  is  our  death  a  matter  that  con- 
cerns us  alone. 

8.  TW  Kupiw  :  '  but  it  is  to  Christ,  as  men  living  in  Christ's  sight 
and  answerable  to  Him,  that  we  must  1. 

shall  die.    Death  does  not  free  us  from  our  obligations, 
live  or  die  we  are  the  Lor  icin  compares  Pirqt  Aboth,  iv. 

32  'Let  not  thine  imagination  assure  thee  that  the  grave 
asylum;   for  perforce  thou  wast  framed,  and  perforce  thou  wast 
born,  and  perforce  thou  livcst,  and  perforce  thou  diest,  and  j>«  • 
thou  art  about  to  give  account  and  reckoning  before  the  King  of 
the  kings  of  kings,  the  Holy  One,  blessed  is  i 

It  may  he  noticed  that  in  these  verses  St.  Pan!  describes  the  Christian  life 
from  a  point  of  view  other  than  that  which  be  had  adopted  in  ch 
There  it  was  the  higher  aspects  of  that  union  with  • 

here  it  is  the  life  lived  as  in  His  sight  and  responsil 

0.  The  reason  for  this  relation  of  all  men  to  Christ  as  «=••: 
to  their  master  is  that  by  His  death  and  resurrection  Christ  has 
established  His  Divine  Lordship  over  all  alike,  both  dead  and 
.     Responsibility  to  Him  therefore  no  one  can  ever  escape. 
TOWTO  is  explained  by  u-u  *vpn*rjj. 

xal  c^acr  must  refer  to  Christ's  death  and  resurrection. 
cannot  refer  to  the  life  of  Christ  on  earth,  (i)  because  of  the 
order  of  words  which   St.  Paul  has  purposely  and  deliberately 
varied  from  the  order  (*?•*  «oi  Andrew*/**  »  of  the  previous  verses  ; 
(a)  because  the  Lordship  of  ( 
always  coi 
a  period  of  humiliation  (Rom.  viii.  34;    2  C«  r.  iv.  10,  n);  (3) 

e  of  the  tense  ;  the  aorist  ifa**  could  be  used  of  a 
definite  act  which  W.UH  the  begi:  it  could  not  be 

used  of  the  continuous  life  on  « 

IiK  K<U  (wrrwr.     The  inversion  of  the  usual  order  is  owing  to 


XIV.  0-12]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  389 


the  order  of  words  in  the  previous  part  of  the  sentence, 
«C*7<r.     For  the  «i-puJnj«  of  Christ  (i*t  xvpuwrg)  see  Phil.  ii.  9,  1  1. 

For  Xp<rrof  the  TR.  with  later  MSS..  Syrr,  Iren.-lat.  reads  «oi  X/*0r<h. 
Awi0an*  ml  Ifa***  the  older  and  most  difficult  reading  (K  A  BC,  lioh.,  Arm. 
Aeth.  Orig.-ht.  Chry*.  I/a)  has  been  explained  in  various  ways  ;  by  d»<0.  «o2 
d^ffTf?  F  G,  Vulg.  Orig.  and  other  Fathers  ;  by  dwie.  ml  &*i<rr.  «oj  (Wfraf* 
TR.  with  minute,  (perhaps  conflate)  ;  by  dwi*.  teal  &viar.  *al  tw**,  LP. 
&c,  Harkl.  and  some  Fathers:  by  Ifo.  '*ai  dwiO.  «ai  <W<rr.  DH.  Iren. 

10.  St.  Paul  applies  the  argument  pointedly  to  the  questions  he 
is  discussing.    We  are  responsible  to  Christ;    we  shall  appear 
before  Him  :    there  is  no  place  for  uncharitable  judgements  or 
censorious  exclusivcncss  between  man  and  man. 

ad  W  TI  KpiVcif  refers  to  6  ^  «<r&«v,  fj  nal  <ru  to  6  «a0<M». 

irapa<rrt)a6>e6a  TW  P^OTI  TOO  6cou.  Cf.  Acts  xxvii.  24  Kaurapf 
vt  H«:  irapaar^Kii.  For  fl^/ui,  in  the  sense  of  a  judge's  official  seat, 
see  Matt,  xxvii.  19;  Jo.  xix.  13,  &c.  God  is  here  mentioned  as 
Judge  because  (see  ii.  16)  He  judges  the  world  through  Christ. 
In  2  Cor.  V.  XO  the  expression  is  row  yap  varrar  fjpaf  $a>«p«ft)Mu  Afi 
<nirptxr6iv  TOI"  Bf)parot  rov  Xptorov.  It  is  quite  impossible  to  follow 
I.iddon  in  taking  9«oO  of  Christ  in  his  Divine  nature  ;  that  would 
be  contrary  to  all  Pauline  usage  :  but  it  is  important  to  notice  how 
easily  St.  Paul  passes  from  Xpumfc  to  e«of.  The  Father  and  the 
Son  were  in  his  mind  so  united  in  function  that  They  may  often 
be  interchanged.  God,  or  Christ,  or  God  through  Christ,  will 
judge  the  world.  Our  life  is  in  God,  or  in  Christ,  or  with  Christ 
in  God.  The  union  of  man  with  God  depends  upon  the  intimate 
union  of  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

6«ov  must  be  accepted  as  against  X^KTTOV  on  decisive  authority.  The 
latler  reading  arose  from  a  desire  to  assimilate  the  expression  to  a  Cor.  v.  i  a 

11.  St.  Paul  supports  his  statement  of  the  universal  character  of 
God's  judgement  by  quoting  Is.  xlv.  23  (freely  ace.  to  the  LXX). 
In  the  O.  T.  the  words  describe  the  expectation  of  the  universal 
character  of  Messianic  rule,  and  the  Apostle  sees  iheir  complete 
fulfilment  at  the  final  judgement. 

4(opoXoy^acT<u  TW  6cw,  '  shall  give  praise  to  God,'  according  to 
the  usual  LXX  meaning  ;  cf.  xv.  9,  which  is  quoted  from  Ps.  xvii 
(xviii).  50. 

{£  JTO>,  A/TW  Kvpiot  is  substituted  for  «ar*  J/iavrov  u/tyvw,  cf.  Num.  xiv.  28 
Ac.  ;  for  waaa  yXucffa  «.r.A.  the  LXX  reads  6p«mu  v.  7.  rdr  e«4r. 

12.  The  conclusion  is  :  it  is  to  God  and  not  to  man  that  each  of 
us  has  to  give  account.    If  e««»  be  read  (see  below),  it  may  again 
I*  noted  how  easily  St.  Paul  passes  from  KV/MOC  to  e«&  (see  on 
ver.  10  and  cf.  xiv.  3  with  xv.  7). 

There  are  several  minor  variations  of  text,  ovr  is  omitted  by  B  D  F  G  P 
aad  perhaps  the  Latin  authorities,  which  read  ita^tu.  For  &*«<  of  the  TR. 


390  EPISTLE  TO  THE  R<  LXIV.  U: 

\\\  I  .  read  4»ott<r«  with  B  D  F  C  Chrys.  ,  the  Latin  authorities  readim 
(hot  Cyprian  d*Kt'  .     rj,  e«?  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  U  omit: 
Cypr.  Aug.     In  all  these  caics  B  is  noticeable  a»  appearing  with  a  group 
which  is  almost  entirely  Western  in  character. 

13.  The  Apostle  now  passes  to  another  aspect  of  the  question. 
He  has  laid  down  very  clearly  the  rule  that  all  such  points  are  in 
themselves  indifferent  ;  he  has  rebuked  censoriousness  and  I 
that  a  man  is  responsible  to  God  alone.    Now  he  turns  completely 
round  and  treats  the  question  from  the  other  side.    All  this  is 
true,  but  higher  than  all  is  the  rule  of  Chris 

demands,  above  all,  consideration  for  the  feelings  and  consciences 
of  others. 

MTJIUTI  GUI'  ...  KpiVwp,eK  marks  the  transition  to  the  second 
lion  by  summing  up  the  first. 

icpiVoTt:  for  the  play  on  words  cf.  xii.  3,  14,  xiii.  i.  'Do  not 
therefore  judge  one  another,  but  judge  this  for  yourself,  i.  e.  deter- 
mine this  as  your  course  of  conduct'  :  cf.  2  Cor.  ii.  i. 

TO  |irj  TiOfau  .  .  .  T«  dSc\4>w  .  .  .  aKdV&oXoi>.  r«0«W  is  suggested 
by  the  literal  meaning  of  <7*ci»oaAort  a  snare  or  stumbling-block 
which  is  laid  in  the  path.  St.  Paul  has  probably  derived  the 
aavoaXor  and  the  whole  thought  of  the  passage  from  our  Lord's 
words  reported  in  Matt,  xviii.  6  f.  See  also  his  treatment  of  the 
same  question  in  i  Cor.  viii.  9  f. 

wpfcncojifta  .  .  .  4j  should  perhaps  be  omitted  with  B.  Arm.  Pesh.  As 
Weiss  points  out,  the  fact  that  <J  is  omitted  in  all  authorities  which  omit  »,  . 
proves  that  the  words  cannot  have  been  left  out  accidentally,  t/^ato^a 
would  come  in  from  I  Cor.  viii.  9  and  ver.  ao  below. 

14.  In  order  to  emphasize  the  real  motive  which  should  influ- 
ence Christians,  namely,  respect  for  the  feelings  of  other 
indifference  of  all  such  things  in  themselves  is  emphatically  : 

cV  Kupiw  'irjaoG.  The  natu  c  words  is  tin- 

same  as  that  of  cV  >.  :  to  St.  Paul  the  indifference  of  all 

meats  in  themselves  is  a  natural  deduction  from  his  faith  and  life 
in  Christ.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  he  is  here  referring  expressly 
to  the  words  of  Christ  (\  xv.  u);  when  doinjj 

SO  his  formula  is  irapAo/3o»  mro  rov  Kvpiov. 

KotvoV.  The  technical  term  to  express  those  customs  and  habits, 
.  although  'common'  to  the  world,  were  forbidden  to  the 

pioUS    Jew.       JOS.    An,'.    XIII.     i.     I    Tor    «owoi>    fro*    itpoSpw<*ovt  I 
C.   i.   47,   62;    Acts  X.   14  on  oW«VoT«  tyoyov  »u» 


Si*  <QUToG.  '  in  i:sclf/  '  in  its  own  nature/ 

That  It*  lavrol  is  the  right  reading  is  shown  by  (i)  the  authority  of  M 
alto  -JIMS,  see  Introduction,  |  7)  supported  by  ma: 

the  Vulgate,  and  the  two  cat  lint  commentaton  O: 

fr&  /uu  wiAi/  tomniUHt  ftr  ttmttiptum.  '..  -r.  an-J 

.  ^17  air  o*Mr  Arafefror  anti  contrast  v 


XIV.  14-17.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  39! 

&'  avrov,  'through  Christ*  (so  Theodrt.  and  later  comm.)  Is 


a  correction. 

ct  JIT)  TW  Xoyi£o}i«Vw  K.T.X.  Only  if  a  man  supposes  that  the 
breach  of  a  ceremonial  law  is  wrong,  and  is  compelled  by  public 
opinion  or  the  custom  of  the  Church  to  do  violence  to  his  belief,  he 
is  led  to  commit  sin ;  for  example,  if  at  the  common  Eucharisiic 
meal  a  man  were  compelled  to  eat  food  against  his  conscience  it 
would  clearly  be  wrong. 

15.  ti  ydp.     The  yap  (which  has  conclusive  manuscript  authority) 
implies  a  suppressed  link  in  the  argument.     'You  must  have 
respect  therefore  for  his  scruples,  although  you  may  not  share 
them,  for  if,'  Ac. 

Ximcmu.  His  conscience  is  injured  and  wounded,  for  he  wilfully 
and  knowingly  does  what  he  thinks  is  wrong,  and  so  he  is  in  danger 
of  perishing  (oirdXXw). 

uwJp  oo  Xpurros  dwlOart.  Cf.  I  Cor.  viii.  10,  II.  Christ  died 
to  save  this  man  from  his  sins,  and  will  you  for  his  sake  not  give 
up  some  favourite  food  ? 

16.  fxt)  pXa<r$T)fi€«j6<j  ic.r.X.   Let  not  that  good  of  yours,  i.  e.  your 
consciousness  of  Christian  freedom  (cf.  I  Cor.  x.  29  9  Awfrpt'a  j*oi/), 
become  a  cause  of  reproach.    St.  Paul  is  addressing  the  strong,  as 
elsewhere  in  this  paragraph,  and  the  context  seems  clearly  to  point, 
at  least  primarily,  to  opinions  within  the  community,  not  to  the 
reputation  of  the  community  with  the  outside  world.     The  above 
interpretation,  therefore  (which  is  that  of  Gilford  and  Vaughan), 
is  better  than  that  which  would  refer  the  passage  to  the  reputation 
of  the  Christian  community  amongst  those  not  belonging  to  it 
(Mey-W.  Lips.  Liddon). 

17.  Do  not  lay  such  stress  on  this  freedom  of  yours  as  to  cause 
a  breach  in  the  harmony  of  the  Church ;  for  eating  and  drinking  are 
not  the  principle  of  that  kingdom  which  you  hope  to  inherit. 

^  pcunXcia  TOO  6coG.  An  echo  of  our  Lord's  teaching.  The 
phrase  is  used  normally  in  St.  Paul  of  that  Messianic  kingdom 
which  is  to  be  the  reward  and  goal  of  the  Christian  life ;  so 
especially  i  Cor.  vi.  9,  10,  where  it  is  laid  down  that  certain  classes 
shall  have  no  part  in  it.  Hence  it  comes  to  mean  the  principles  or 
ideas  on  which  that  kingdom  is  founded,  and  which  are  already 
exhibited  in  this  world  (cf.  i  Cor.  iv.  20).  The  term  is,  of  course, 
derived  through  the  words  of  Christ  from  the  current  Jewish  con- 
ceptions of  an  actual  earthly  kingdom;  how  far  exactly  such 
conceptions  have  been  spiritualized  in  St.  Paul  it  may  be  difficult 
to  say. 

ppuKTi?  KOI  woaif.  If,  as  is  probable,  the  weak  brethren  are 
conceived  of  as  having  Judaizing  tendencies,  there  is  a  special  point 
in  this  expression.  '  If  you  lay  so  much  stress  on  eating  and  drinking 
as  to  make  a  point  of  indulging  in  what  you  will  at  all  costs,  you  are 


39*  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS       [XIV.  17-20- 

in  danger  of  falling  into  the  Judaizins  course  of 

Messianic  prophecies  literally,  and  imagin  :  siamc  kingdom 

to  be  one  of  material  plenty  '  (Iren.  V.  xxxiii.  3). 

These  words  are  often  quoted  as  condemning  any  form  of 
scrupulousness  concerning  eating  and  drink 
St.  Paul's  idea.     He  means  that  'eating  and  «!•  are  in 

themselves  so  unimportant  that  every  scruple  should  be  respected, 
and  every  form  of  food  willingly  given  up.  They  are  absolutely 
insignificant  in  comparison  with  '  righteousness  '  and  '  peace  '  and 
•joy.' 

SiKcuoru'n)   K.T  X.     This  passage   describes   man's  1 
kingdom,  and  these  words  denote  not  the  relation  of  the  Christian 
to  God,  but  his  life  in  relation  to  others,    ducauxrv*;  therefore  is  not 
used  in  its  technical  sense  of  the  relation  between  God  and  man, 
but  means  righteousness  or  just  dealing  ;  «<>w  is  the  state  of  peace 
with  one  another  which  should  characterize  Christians  ;  xop« 
joy  which  comes  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 

community;    cf.    Acts    ii.    46   /irrtXa/jtfow    rpo^fjt    «V  ayaXXiu 


18.  The  same  statement  is  generalized.     The  man  who,  on  the 
principle  implied  by  these  virtues  («V  To^-y,  not  /*  nwroit),  is  C 
servant,  i.e.  who  serves  Christ  by  being  righteous  and  conci! 

and  charitable  towards  others,  not  by  harshly  emphasizing  his 
Christian  freedom,  is  not  only  well-pleasing  to  God,  but  will  gain 
the  approval  of  men. 

S&tipos  TO!?  d*6p«iirois.  The  contrast  to  fftaofaptltrt*  of  ver.  1  6. 
Consideration  for  others  is  a  mark  of  the  Christian  character  which 
will  recommend  a  man  to  his  fellow-men.  &fap«r,  able  to  stand 
the  test  of  inspection  and  criticism  (cf.  2  Tin 

19.  oiKoSofiTJs  ')   «raiTa  vpbt  oito&opri*  yiria&i, 
I   TheSS.  V.  II  ouroftor                      .    ("no. 

(KABFGLP3)  U  really  more  expressire  than  the  lomewh.t 
rction  8ul«a  .  '  •  add  ^AO^/M  > 


20.  KQTctXuc  .  .  .  cpyor  keeps  up  the  metaphor  suggested  by 
'd  up,  do  not  destroy,  that  Christian  community 
which  God  has  founded  in  Chr.  9  e<oO  yap  tapt* 

<nn»pyoi    Qtov  yimpyiov,  e«ov  oUotopi)  tart.      The  words  '<P7*"?  and 
oin&oftil  both  point  to  the  community  rather  than  the  inch 

»drra  IM?  MQ0ap<i  :  cf.  I  Cor.  X.  23  irorra  ff<m»v  «iXXf  o*  wdrra 
<rvp<t>tpn.  warm  «"  \'  ov  wdrra  oito&opil. 

d\X4  Kax6r:  the  subject  to  this  must  be  supplied  from  war™.  It 
is  a  nice  question  to  decide  to  whom  these  words  refer,  (i)  Arc 
they  addressed  to  the  iose  who  by  eating  arc  likely  to  give 

offence  to  others  (so  \  and  the  majority  of  commentaries)  ? 


XIV.  20  23]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  393 

or  (2)  are  they  addressed  to  the  weak,  those  who  by  eating  what  they 
ihink  it  wrong  to  eat  injure  their  own  consciences  (so  Gif.Mey.-W. 
and  others)  ?  In  the  former  case  &A  irporaWoro*  (on  the  oui  cf.  ii. 
27,  iv.  n)  means  'so  as  to  cause  offence/  in  the  latter  'so  as  to 
take  offence'  (Tyndale,  'who  eateth  with  hurt  of  his  conscience'). 
Perhaps  the  transition  to  ver.  21  is  slightly  better  if  we  take  (i). 

21.  A  thing  in  itself  indifferent  may  be  wrong  if  it  injures  the 
consciences  of  others;  on  the  other  hand,  to  give  up  what  will  injure 
others  is  a  noble  act. 

•caXoV:  cf.  i  Cor.  vii.  i  and  for  the  thought  i  Cor.  viii.  13  &d>«p, 

it  flpvpa  (rjrardaXiff  i  TO*  d5«A$or  pot/,  ov  py  <pdyo»  «p«'a  «ic  TO*  alum,  tua 

/--'/  T(W  ad«X<p<{v  pov  cr*a*6aXi<ra>.  We  know  the  situation  implied 
in  the  Corinthian  Epistle,  and  that  it  did  not  arise  from  the  existence 
of  a  party  who  habitually  abstained  from  flesh  :  St.  Paul  was 
merely  taking  the  strongest  instance  he  could  think  of.  It  is 
equally  incorrect  therefore  to  argue  from  this  verse  that  there  was 
a  sect  of  vegetarians  and  total  abstainers  in  Rome.  St.  Paul 
merely  takes  extreme  forms  of  self-deprivation,  which  be  uses  as 
instances.  '  I  would  live  like  an  Essene  rather  than  do  anything  to 
offend  my  brother.' 

The  TR.  adds  after  «/xxr«o'vr«i  the  gloss  4)  0«ay3oA/f«rai  4)  d<rf«r«f  with  B 
Western  and  Syrian  authorities  (K«BD  EFGLP,  &c.,  Yulg.  San.,  Bas. 
Chrys.).  They  are  omitted  by  K  A  C  3,  Pesh.  Boh.,  Orig.  and  Orig.-lal  This 
is  a  very  clear  instance  of  a  Western  reading  in  U  ;  cf.  u.  6. 


22.  «rd  mari*  J|r  fxtis.  Your  faith  is  sufficient  to  see  that  all 
these  things  arc  a  matter  of  indifference.  Be  content  with  that 
knowledge,  it  is  a  matter  for  your  own  conscience  and  God.  Do 
not  boast  of  it,  or  wound  those  not  so  strong  as  yourself. 

The  preponderance  of  authorities  (K  A  BC,  Vulg.  (odd.  Boh.,  Orig.-lat.) 
comoels  ns  to  read  fa  *x«'»-  The  omission  of  fa  (DEFGLP3,  Vulg. 
(odd.  Syrr.  Boh.,  Chrys.  &c.)  is  a  Western  correction  and  an  improvement. 


K.T.X.  Blessed  (see  on  iv.  6,  7)  because  of  his  strong 
f.iith  is  the  man  who  can  courageously  do  what  his  reason  tells  him 
that  he  may  do  without  any  doubt  or  misgiving  xpivwr,  to  'judge 
censoriously  so  as  to  condemn/  cf.  ii.  i,  3,  27.  OMipoffu  (L  28, 
ii.  1  8)  to  '  approve  of  after  testing  and  examining.' 

23.  6  W  oioKpu'ojici'os  :  see  on  iv.  20.  If  a  man  doubts  or 
hesitates  and  then  eats,  he  is,  by  the  very  fact  that  he  doubts, 
condemned  for  his  weakness  of  faith.  If  his  faith  were  strong  he 
would  have  no  doubi  or  hesitation. 

irdf  0€  8  OOK  IK  in'orcus,  dfiapria  J<rri>.  w»'<mr  is  subjective,  the 
strong  conviction  of  what  is  right  and  of  the  principles  of  salvation. 
•Weakly  to  comply  with  other  persons'  customs  without  being 
convinced  of  their  indifference  is  itself  sin.'  This  maxim  (i)  is  not 
concerned  with  the  usual  conduct  of  unbelievers,  (2)  must  not  I* 


TO  THE  ROMANS    [XIV  23-XV.  L 

extended  to  cases  different  in  character  from  those  St.  Paul  is 
considering.    It  is  not  a  general  maxim  concerning  faith. 

This  Terse  has  bad  a  rery  important  part  to  play  in  controversy.     How 
important  may  be  seen  from  the  use  made  of  it  in  Augustine  Cots: 
iv,  one  passage  of  which  (|  33)  may  be  quoted :  Ex  quo  to. 

;        :         '.  :  .;        :..-•..;....  ,:,;.          •:.-  .  .         .....         :.  •         •:  • 

malis.     Jftontm  a*ttm  uu  ftuata  quitms  <t  l»n*  malt  fa 


quia  ta  ISM  /to/i,  ud  itt/Ut/i,  hoc  tst  stulta  tt  noxia  fadunt  voluntatt: 
qualit  voluntoj,  nullo  Ckristiano  dubitantt,  at+or  tit  mala,  quatfactrt  mm 
fottst  nisi  fruttus  maJos,  id  tit,  tola  ptttata,  Omne  enim,  tt/u  nolis,  quod 
non  est  ex  fide,  peccatum  est.  Since  this  time  it  has  been  used  to  support  the 
two  propositions  that  works  done  before  justification  are  sin  and  consequently 
that  the  heathen  are  unable  to  do  good  works.  Into  the  merits  of  these 
controversies  it  will  be  apart  from  our  purpose  to  enter.  It  is  sutTi 
notice  that  this  Terse  is  in  such  a  context  completely  misquoted.  As 
sostom  says,  •  When  a  person  does  not  feel  sure,  not  believe  that  a  thing  is 
clean,  how  can  he  do  else  than  sin?  Now  all  these  things  have  been 
spoken  by  Paul  of  the  object  in  hand,  not  of  everything.'  The  words  do 
not  apply  to  those  who  are  not  Christians,  nor  to  the  works  of  those  who 
are  Christians  done  before  they  became  such,  but  to  the  conduct  of  believing 
Christians ;  and  faith  is  used  somewhat  in  the  way  we  should  speak  of 
a  '  good  conscience ' ;  '  everything  which  is  not  done  with  a  dear  conscience 
is  sin.'  So  Aquinas,  Summa  i.  a,  qu.  xix,  art.  v.  omnt  quid  non  tit  ucJUt 
ptftatum  tst.  id  tst,  omnt  quod  tst  <ont>a  conuittttiam, 

On  the  doxology  (xvi.  25-27),  which  in  some  M£S.  finds  a  place  here,  see 
the  Introduction,  §  8. 

XV.  1.    The  beginning  of  chap,  xv  is  connected  imme <: 
with  what  precedes,  and  there  is  no  break  in  the  argument  until 

;  is  reached;  but  towards  the  close,  especially  i; 
the  language  of  the  Apostle  is  more  general.    He  passes  fr> 
special  points  at  issue  to  the  broad  underlying  principle  •  • 

and  especially  to  the  relation  of  the  two  great  sections  of  the 
Church — the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  Christians. 

o+«iXotMr  W.  Such  weakness  is,  it  is  true,  a  sign  of  absence  of 
faith,  but  we  who  are  strong  in  faith  ought  to  bear  with  scruples 
weak  though  they  may  be.  ol  ouraroi  •  i  Cor.  i.  26,  the 

rich  or  the  powerful,  but  as  in  2  Cor.  xii.  10,  xui.  9,  of  the  morally 
strong. 

Pcurrdlcir :   cf.  Gal.  vi.  2  uXX^Xwr  TO  /Sup?  &uara{<Tt.     In  classical 
Greek  the  ordinary  word  would  be  4>«p«»,  but  ftatrra^nv  se<  • 
have  gradually  come  into  use  r  sense.    It  is  used  of 

bearing  the  cross  both  literally  (John  xix.   17),  and  figur 
(Luke  xiv.  <  '    I      In  Aq.. 

od.  in  Is.  xl.  n,  Ixvi.   12;    in  the  two  la: 
17  quotin  :i  none  ot 

passages  is  the  word  used  in  tl  It  became  a  favour  it 

in  Christian  literature,  Ign  :  id  Diog.  §  10  (quoted 

ItX 

fir]    ^auroif    dp VaKCiK :     cf.    I    Cor.   X.    33    *a&iir    *a>«    iruxra 
•fHomtt,  pi  t?jr»*  i'aul  i.s  describing  ll»S 


XV.  2-4.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  395 

own  conduct  in  very  similar  circumstances.    He  strikes  at  the  root 
of  Christian  disunion,  which  is  selfishness. 

2.  els  TO  dyaOoK  irpo?  oiKoSop^r  :   cf.  xiv.  16  vpvv  r&  aya&r,  ig  ra 

TJj*  ouooo/jijf  rijs  tit  oAAgAoi/r.  The  end  or  purpose  of  pleasing  them 
must  be  the  promotion  of  what  is  absolutely  to  their  good,  further 
defined  by  oucodo/u?,  their  edification.  These  words  limit  and 
explain  what  St.  Paul  means  by  'pleasing  men/  In  Gal.  i.  10 
:  ;i.  \  i.  6 ;  i  Thess.  ii.  4)  he  had  condemned  it.  In  i  Cor.  ix. 
20-23  ne  nad  made  it  a  leading  principle  of  his  conduct.  The  rule 
is  that  we  are  to  please  men  for  their  own  good  and  not  our  own. 

The  yap  after  ««o<rrof  of  the  TR.  should  be  omitted.    For  >)/*£r  some 
authorities  (V  G  P2,  Vnlg.,  many  Fathers)  read  */«». 

3.  KCU  yip  6   Xpioros  K.r.X.   The  precept  just  laid  down  is 
enforced  by  the  example  of  Christ  (cf.  xiv.  15).    As  Christ  bore 
our  reproaches,  so  must  we  bear  those  of  others. 

K0.0WS  yfypcumu.  St.  Paul,  instead  of  continuing  the  sentence, 
changes  the  construction  and  inserts  a  verse  of  the  O.  T.  [Ps. 
Ixviii  (Ixix).  10,  quoted  exactly  according  to  the  LXX],  which  he 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  Christ.  For  the  construction  cf.  ix.  7. 

The  Psalm  quoted  describes  the  sufferings  at  the  hands  of  the 
ungodly  of  the  typically  righteous  man,  and  passages  taken  from  it 
are  often  in  the  N.  T.  referred  to  our  Lord,  to  whom  they  would 
apply  as  being  emphatically  'the  just  one/  Ver.  4  is  quoted 
John  xv.  25,  ver.  9  a  in  John  ii.  17,  ver.  9  b  in  Rom.  xv.  3,  ver.  12 
in  Matt,  xxvii.  27-30,  ver.  21  in  Matt,  xxvii.  34,  and  John  xix.  29, 
ver.  22  f.  in  Rom.  xi.  9,  ver.  25  a  in  Acts  i.  20.  (See  Liddon, 
ad  /Of.) 

ol  6rciStajioi  K.T.X.  In  the  original  the  righteous  man  is  repre- 
sented as  addressing  God  and  saying  that  the  reproaches  against 
God  he  has  to  bear.  St.  Paul  transfers  the  words  to  Christ,  who  is 
represented  as  addressing  a  man.  Christ  declares  that  in  suffering 
it  \vas  the  reproaches  or  sufferings  of  others  that  He  bore. 

4.  The  quotation  is  justified  by  the  enduring  value  of  the  O.  T. 
irpocypctyi),  'were  written   before/  in  contrast   with    ^/i«r«po»: 

cf.  Kph.  iii.  3 ;  Jude  4,  but  with  a  reminiscence  of  the  technical 
mr.ining  of  ypa^HUf  for  what  is  written  as  Scripture. 
SioaaKoXiaf,  'instruction':  cf.  a  Tim.  iii.  16  *aoa  ypafa  0«o- 

wrrvcrrof  cai  <ty«X*poff  npof  didaaxaAuif. 

•ri)f  Aiuoa :  the  specifically  Christian  feeling  of  hope.  It  is  the 
supreme  confidence  which  arises  from  trust  in  Christ  that  in  no  cir- 
cumstances will  the  Christian  be  ashamed  of  that  wherein  he  trusteth 
(Phil.  i.  20);  a  confidence  which  tribulation  only  strengthens,  for 
it  makes  more  certain  his  power  of  endurance  and  his  experience 
of  consolation.  On  the  relation  of  patience  to  hope  cf.  v.  3  and 
i  Thess.  i.  3. 


}t/>  1  I  BTL1   TO   THE  ROMA  [XV 

This  passage,  and  that  quoted  above  from  2  Tim.  i 

clearly  the  Ix-lief  in  the  abiding  value  of  th« 
Vrlies  St.  Paul's  use  of  it.     But  while  emphasizing  its 
value  they  ak<  The  Scriptures  are  to  be  read  for  our 

moral  instruction, '  for  reproof,  for  correction. 

righteousness';  for  the  perfection  of  the  Christian  character, 
the  man  of  God  may  be  com|  ^hed  unto  every  good 

work';  and  because  they  establish  the  Christian  hope  which  is  in 
Christ.    Two  points  then  St.  Paul  teaches,  the  permanent  value  of 
the  great  moral  and  spiritual  truths  of  the  O.  T.,  and  the  • 
of  the  O.  T.  to  Christ    His  words  cannot  be  quoted  to  prove  more 
ilj. in  ili.s. 

There  are  in  this  Terse  a  few  idiosyncrasies  of  B  which  may  be  noted  bat 
need  not  be  accepted;  iypa^  (with  Vnlg.  Orig.-lat.)  for  vorp**; 
wdrra  before  sir  rs>  s>-  (wi  wapa*\fat*t  repeated  after  . 

(with  Ciem.-Al.).    The  TR.  with  K«  A  L  P  3.  &<x  substitutes  wfotyp. 
IIP***  in  the  second  place,  and  with  C-»  D  1 .  i 
omits  the  second  &4. 

5.  After  the  digression  of  ver.  4  the  Apostle  returns  to  the  sub- 
ject of  vv.  1-3,  and  sums  up  his  teaching  by  a  prayer  for  the  unity 
of  the  community. 

6  Sc  6cos  TTJS  OvopoKTJf  KCU  rfjs  wapaKXr^<r<t>f :  cf.  6  O«or  r^t 
(ver.  33;  Phil.  iv.  9;   i  Thess.  v.  23;    i  20),  r 

(ver.    13),    irdin;!  *apa*Xii<r<*t   (2   Cor.  i.  3),  wdffrjt   xciptror    ('    Pet. 
v.  10). 

TO  auri  ipoviiv:  cf.  Phil.  ii.  2-5  trX^xia.ir/  /u>v  T>]V  x°P"*t  '"*  r" 

CUTO   fypOtnjTI   .   .   .  TOVTO  $p<>.  ' 

itard   Xptvror  'li)<rot)r :    cf.    2  i  ;    i  XaA£,   ov  »ara   Kvptor 

XaXi:   Col.   il    8   ov   *  .  4    r^r   «ai»or  Mp**i»  rfe 

«ara  e«o»  jrrta^'rra  (Rom.  ;s  generally  quoted,  is  not 

in  point).    These  examples  seem  to  show  that  the  expression  must 
mean  '  in  accordance  with  the  character  or  example  of  Christ* 

V1?  for  Wp,  a  later  form.  cf.  a  Thcts  Tim.  i    16. 

Eph.  i.  17  (bat  with  variant  &p  in  the  last  two  cases  .   X/».  'I?<r.  (HI 
Ac,  lk>h.  Chryv),  not  *I?o.  X/>.  K  . -. 

6.  Unity  and  harmony  of  worship  will  be  the  result  of  unity 
of  life. 

ojioOupaodr,  •  \.\\\  unity  of  mind.'    A  common  word  in  the  Acts 
fee.). 

TO?  e«OK  KOI  var/pa  TOO  Kopioo  ^jiwr  *lT)aou  Xptarou.    This  expres- 
sion occurs  also  in  2  Cor.  i.  3  ;  xi.  31 ;  1  1 1  v     In 
is  also  quoted,  the  correct  reading  is  ry  &«?  worpi 

-ov  Kvpiov  ip**  'I 

the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jc-su-  ' 

ur  of  this  it  is  pointed  out  that  while  worfip  e\; 
word,  9f&  is  naturally  ab>olutc;    and  that  6  c». 


XV.  6-8  ]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  397 


occurs  absolutely  (as  in  i  Cor.  xv.  24  £rav  rapaWoi  i>  /9a<ri- 
ry  e«y  cat  warp*),  an  argument  the  point  of  which  does  not 
seem  clear,  and  which  suggests  that  the  first  argument  has  not 
much  weight,  (a)  It  is  better  and  simpler  to  take  the  words  in 
their  natural  meaning,  *  The  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ'  ;  (Va.  Oltr.  Go.  and  others),  with  which  cf.  Eph.  i.  17  *  Mt 
TOG  Kupi'ou  WMJK  'i.  x.:  Matt,  xxvii.  46;  Jn.  xx.  17;  Heb.  i.  9. 

7.  The  principles  laid  down  in  this  section  of  the  Epistle  are 
now  generalized.  All  whom  Christ  has  received  should,  without 
any  distinction,  be  accepted  into  His  Church.  This  is  intended 
to  apply  especially  to  the  main  division  existing  at  that  time  in  the 
community,  that  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians. 

Sio  irpoaXappdycoflc  dXX^Xou?  K.T.X.  :  the  command  is  no  longer 
to  the  strong  to  admit  the  weak,  but  to  all  sections  of  the  com- 
munity alike  to  receive  and  admit  those  who  differ  from  them  ;  so 
St.  Paul  probably  said  v^Sr,  not  w*ar.  The  latter  he  uses  in  ver.  i, 
where  he  is  identifying  himself  with  the  '  strong/  the  former  he  uses 
here,  where  he  is  addressing  the  whole  community.  On  flu>  cf.  Eph. 
ii.  1  1  ;  i  Thess.  v.  n  :  on  *poo\ap$av«j&i  see  xiv.  i,  3. 

Mr  U  read  by  K  A  C  E  F  G  L,  Vulg.  L'oh.  Syrr..  Orig.-lat  Chryi  ;  4/*at 
by  B  D  P3.  B  U  again  Western,  and  iu  authority  on  the  distinction  between 
jpat  and  v^dt  is  leu  trustworthy  than  on  most  other  points  vscc  Wil.  U. 
pp.  a  1  8,  310). 


0coo  with  irpo<r<Xd3rro  :  'in  order  to  promote  the 
glory  of  God/  As  the  following  verses  show,  Christ  has  sum- 
moned both  Jews  and  Greeks  into  His  kingdom  in  order  to 
promote  the  glory  of  God,  to  exhibit  in  the  one  case  His  faithful- 
ness, in  the  other  His  mercy.  So  in  Phil.  ii.  n  the  object  of 
Christ's  glory  is  to  promote  the  glory  of  God  the  Father. 

8.  St.  Paul  has  a  double  object  He  writes  to  remind  the  Gen- 
tiles that  it  is  through  the  Jews  that  they  are  called,  the  Jews  that 
the  aim  and  purpose  of  their  existence  is  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles. 
The  Gentiles  must  remember  that  Christ  became  a  Jew  to  save 
them  ;  the  Jew  that  Christ  came  among  them  in  order  that  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  might  be  blessed  :  both  must  realize  that  the 
aim  of  the  whole  is  to  proclaim  God's  glory. 

This  passage  is  connected  by  undoubted  links  (&•'  ver.  7  ;  X«V> 
yap  ver.  8)  with  what  precedes,  and  forms  the  conclusion  of  the 
argument  after  the  manner  of  the  concluding  verses  of  ch.  viii.  and 
ch.  xi.  This  connexion  makes  it  probable  that  '  the  relations  of 
Jew  and  Gentile  were  directly  or  indirectly  involved  in  the  rela- 
tions of  the  weak  and  the  strong/  (Hort,  Rom.  and  Eph.  p.  29.) 

oidnofof  .  .  .  mpiTojujs:  not  'a  minister  of  the  circumcised/  still 
less  a  '  minister  of  the  true  circumcision  of  the  spirit/  which  would 
be  introducing  an  idea  quite  alien  to  the  context,  but  '  a  minister 
of  circumcision  '  (so  Giffbrd,  who  has  an  excellent  note),  L  e.  to 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XV.  8   10 

•miscs  implied  in  that  covenant  the  seal  of 
was  circumcision ;  so  2  Cor.  iii.  6  auu&ovr  «o«»^»  oiafl^f.     In  the 

'  the  Galaiians  <iv.  4,  5)  St.  Paul  had  said  that  Chri 
4  born  of  a  woman,  born  under  the  law,  i ! 

were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of 
sons.'    On  the  Promise  and  Circumcision  see  G<  ;.  xvii. 

The  privileges  of  the  Jews  which  St.  Paul  dwells  on  are  as  fol- 
lows: (i)  Christ  has  Himself  fulfilled  the  condition  of  being  c 
cised:  the  circumcised  therefore  must  not  be  condemned.  (2)  The 
:y  object  of  this  was  to  fulfil  the  promises  made  to  the  Tews 
?cf.  Rom.  ii.  9,  10).  (3)  It  was  only  as  a  secondary  result  of  this 
MessL  :  the  Gentiles  glorified  God.  (4)  While  the  blest- 

ing  came  to  the  Jews  vxip  aXi^'a*  to  preserve  God's  consists 
came  to  the  Gentiles  iir«>  A«W  for  God's  loving-kindness. 

•X<>«r5<r*u,  which  should  be  read  with  K  A  <  3  70^90*)  ;  it  was 
altered  into  the  more  usual  aorta  yi*4o*u  (BCDFG),  perhaps  because  it 
was  supposed  to  be  co-ordinated  with  femora. 

ris  i*avyt\icis  rwf  irar/pur :  cf.  ix.  4,  5. 

9.  T&  to  €0nrj  . . .  oofciacu.     Two  constructions  are  possil 
these  words:  (i)  they  may  be  taken  as  directly  subordinate  to  At'y* 
y^p  (Weiss,  Oltr.  Go.).    The  only  object  in  this  construction  would 
be  to  contrast  vwip  «AtW  with  ww>  uAj&uir.    But  the  real  an: 

of  the  passage  is  between  /3»/3oii<r«H  r*r  rtroyyt X/ar  and  ri  ;6^  dofi- 
•rm:  and  hence  (a)  ri  a« . . .  «Any . . .  oofiam  should  be  taken  as 
subordinate  to  «<'r  ro  and  co-ordinate  with  $<3<n»aai  (Gil 

v.i.'.      With  this  construction  the  point  of  the   passage 
becomes  much  greater,  the  call  of  the  Gentiles  is  shown  to  be  (as 
it  certainly  was),  equally  with  the  fulfilment  < 
Jews,  dependent  on  the  covenant  made  with  Abra 
1 6,  17). 

Ka9£»s  yt'Ypairreu.  The  Apostle  proceeds,  as  so  often  in  the 
Kpistle,  to  support  his  thesis  oy  a  series  of  passages  quoted  from 
iheO 

-WTO  K  T\  !most  exactly  from  the  I 

In  the  original  Da  >  author  of  the  Psalm,  is 

'ver  the  surrounding  : 
ition  Christ  is  represented  as  declar 
s,  i.e.  in  the  midst  of,  and  therefore  together  with  th< 
will  praise  God.    «'£o/*oX»-.  •  -raise  thcc ' :  cf.  •-.-..  1 1 . 

10.  Etyx£rft,T€  «-T.X. :  :  of  Deut.  E 

••d  literally,  appears  to  mean.  *  Rejoice,  O  ye  nations, 
loses  is  represented  as  calling  01. 

rejoice  over  the  sah  ^raeL     St. 

interpreted  by  the  LXX  that  the  G  ind  chosen 

people  shall  unite  in  the  praise  of  God. 


XV.  11-13.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  399 

11.  Almrc  K.T.X.  :  Ps.  cxvi  (csvii).  i.  LXX.    An  appeal  to  all 
nations  to  praise  the  Lord. 


There  are  slight  variation*  in  the  Greek  text  and  in  the  LXX.  For 
T£  t$n)  ri>¥  Kvputr  C  F  G  L  have  rdr  K.  v.  r.  I.  agreeing  with  the  order  of 
the  LXX.  kwaw&rvaa*  is  read  by  «  A  HC  I>  K  Chrys.  (so  LXX  A  N 
tmriaart  by  late  MSS.  with  later  LXX  MSS. 


12.  "Eorcu  ^  £i'lo  K.T.X.  :  from  Is.  xi.  10,  a  description  of  the 
mic  kingdom,  which  is  to  take  the  place  of  that  Jewish  king- 
dom which  is  soon  to  be  destroyed.  The  quotation  follows  the 
LXX,  which  is  only  a  paraphrase  of  the  Hebrew  ;  the  latter  runs 
(R  V.)  <  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  that  the  root  of  Jesse, 
which  standeth  for  an  ensign  of  the  peoples,  unto  him  shall  the 
Gentiles  seek/ 

18.  The  Apostle  concludes  by  invoking  on  his  hearers  a  bless- 
ing —  that  their  faith  may  give  them  a  life  full  of  joy  and  peace,  that 
in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  they  may  abound  in  hope. 

o  8tos  TTJS  Am'oos  :  cf.  ver.  5.  The  special  attribute,  as  in  fact 
the  whole  of  the  benediction,  is  suggested  by  the  concluding  words 
of  the  previous  quotation. 

irdVy)*  xapS«  K°i  «ip^«"|«-  The  joy  and  peace  with  God  which  is 
the  fcsult  of  true  faith  in  the  Christian's  heart.  On  •ipf)*r)  see  i.  7. 


For  vAi7/Nwroi  (most  MSS.)  B  F  G  have  the  cnrions  variant 
B  reads  if  *40p  x<ip?  «<u  tlpirv  and  omits  ttt  rd  v<fH<j<uvn*:  the  pecu- 
liarities of  this  MS.  in  the  last  few  verses  are  noticeable.  DEFG  omit 
Jr  r$  VKTMvtir. 

The  general  question  of  the  genuineness  of  these  last  two  chapters  is 
discussed  in  the  Introduction  (§  9%  It  will  b:  convenient  to  mention  in 
the  coarse  of  the  Commentary  some  few  of  the  detailed  objections  that  have 
been  made  to  special  passages.  In  xv.  1-13  the  only  serious  objection  is 
that  which  was  first  raised  by  Baur  and  has  been  repeated  by  others  since. 
The  statements  in  this  section  are  supposed  to  be  of  too  conciliatory  a 
character  ;  especially  is  this  said  to  be  the  case  with  ver.  8.  '  How  can  we 
imagine,'  writes  Baur,  '  that  the  Apostle,  in  an  Epistle  of  such  a  nature  and 
after  all  that  had  passed  on  the  subject,  would  make  such  a  concession  to  the 
Jewish  Christians  as  to  call  Jesus  Christ  a  minister  of  circumcision  to  confirm 
the  promises  of  God  made  to  the  Fathers?'  To  this  it  may  be  answered 
that  that  is  exactly  the  point  of  view  of  the  Epistle.  It  is  brought  out  most 
clearly  in  xi.  17-25  ;  it  is  implied  in  the  position  of  priority  always  given  to 
the  Jew  (i.  16  ;  ii  9,  10)  ;  it  is  emphasized  in  the  stress  continually  laid  on 
the  relations  of  the  new  Gospel  to  the  Old  Testament  (cb,  iv,  JtcA  and 
the  importance  of  the  promises  which  were  fulfilled  (i.  a  ;  ix.  4).  Baur's 
difficulty  arose  from  an  erroneous  conception  of  the  teaching  and  position  of 
ant  For  other  arguments  see  Mangold,  Dtr  Romtrbritf,  pp.  81-100. 


What  sect  or  party  is  referred  to  in  Rom.  XIV? 

There  has  been  great  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  persons 
referred  to  in  this  section  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  but  all 
commentators  seem  to  agree  in  assuming  that  the  Apostle  is 


:.    TO  THE   R'  \I  '.     X  . 

dealing  with  certain  special  circumstances  which  have  arisen  in  th<- 

Rome,  and  that  the  weak  and  the  strong  represei. 
•s  in  that  Chur 
i     it.    '  nation  appears  to  be  that  which  sees  in  these 

s  a  repetition  of  those  v.i:>.l  in  the  Con 

Church,  as  to  the  same  or  some  similar  form  of  Judaizingpr.. 
(Orig.  Aug.  Neandcr,  Ac.V  ,,ur  of  this  may  be 

quoted  the  earlier  portion  of  the  fifteenth  chapter 
.  a  reference  to  the  distinction  between  Jc\\ 

this  opinion  it  is  pointed  out  llu 
.1  objections  to  'things  offered  to  idols/  or  to  me  . 

inner,  or  to  swine's  flesh,  have  nothing  to  d 
the  typical  instances  quoted,  the  abstinence  altogether 
meat  and  from  wine  (w.  2,  21). 

2.  A  second  suggestion  (Eichhorn)  is  that  which  sees  in  these 
Roman  ascetics  the  influence  of  the  Pythagorean  and  other  heathen 
sects  which  practised  and  taught  abstinence  from  meat  anil  wine 
and  other  forms  of  st  <:    But  these  again  will  not 

all  the  .nces.    These  Roman  Christians  were,  it  is  s . 

the  habit  of  observing  scrupulously  certain  days :  and  this  custom 

did  not,  as  far  as  we  know,  prevail  among  any  heathen  sect. 

3.  Baur  sees  here  Ebionite  Christians  of  the  character  repre- 
sented by  the  Clementine  literature,  and  in  accordance  with  hi- 
general  theory  he  regards  them  as  representing  the  : 

the  Roman  Church.   That  this  last  addition  to  the  theor 

seems  impossible.     So  far  as  there  is  any  dcfiniteness  in 

language  he  clearly  represents  the  4  strong '  as  directing  the 

of  the  community.     They  are  told  to  receive  '  him  ilia; 

faith';  they  seem  to  have  the  power  to  admit  him  or  reject  him. 

All  that  he  on  his  side  can  do  is  to  indulge  in  excessiv 

part  of  the  theory 

the  later  Ebionites  we  have  very  considerable  knowledge  i! 
from  the  Clemcntin<  and  from  Ep  ;  xxx). 

but  it  is  an  anachronism  to  discover  these  dcvelopn.  j>cricKl 

nearly  two  centuries  earlier.     Nor  again  is  it  tout- 
St.  Paul  would  have  treated  a  developed  Judaism  in  the  i 
manner  in  which  he 

4.  Less  objection  pcrh  s  to  the  modification  of  this 
theory,  which  sees  in  these  sectaries  some  of  the  Essen 

prevailed  everywhere  throughout  the  J< 

three  conditions  of  the  ca 

ascetu  .  observed  cert  a  If  the  th«  in  the 

sen  ism  existed  as  a  sect 
>.ib!e,  but  that  there  was  Essene  influeix 

:  is  possible.     Vet  if  any  one  con 


XIV.  XV.  13.]         ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  401 

language  in  other  Epistles  with  that  which  he  uses  here,  he  will 
.  difficult  to  believe  that  the  Apostle  would  recommend 
compliance  with  customs  which  arose,  not  from  weak-minded 
scrupulousness,  but  from  a  completely  inadequate  theory  of  religion 
and  life.  Hort  (Rom.  and  Eph.t  p.  27  f.)  writes :  '  The  true  origin 
of  these  abstinences  must  remain  somewhat  uncertain :  but  much 
the  most  probable  suggestion  is  that  they  come  from  an  Essenc 
element  in  the  Roman  Church,  such  as  afterwards  affected  the 
Colossian  Church/  But  later  he  modified  his  opinion  (Judaistic 
Christianity,  p.  128):  '  There  is  no  tangible  evidence  for  Essenism 
out  of  Palestine.' 

All  these  theories  have  this  in  common,  that  they  suppose  St.  Paul 
to  be  dealing  with  a  definite  sect  or  body  in  the  Roman  Church. 
But  as  our  examination  of  the  Epistle  has  proceeded,  it  has  become 
more  and  more  clear  that  there  is  little  or  no  special  reference  in 
the  arguments.  Both  in  the  controversial  portion  and  in  the 
admonitory  portion,  we  find  constant  reminiscences  of  earlier 
situations,  but  always  with  the  sting  of  controversy  gone.  St.  Paul 
writes  throughout  with  the  remembrance  of  his  own  former  expe- 
rience, and  not  with  a  view  to  special  difficulties  in  the  Roman 
community.  He  writes  on  all  these  vexed  questions,  not  because 
they  have  arisen  there,  but  because  they  may  arise.  The  Church 
of  Rome  consists,  as  he  knows,  of  both  Jewish  and  heathen 
Christians.  These  discordant  elements  may,  he  fears,  unless  wise 
counsels  prevail  produce  the  same  dissensions  as  have  occurred 
ialatia  or  Corinth. 

Hort  (Judaistic  Christianity,  p.  126)  recognizes  this  feature  in 
the  doctrinal  portion  of  the  Epistle :  « It  is  a  remarkable  fact/  he 
,  '  respecting  this  Epistle  to  the  Romans  .  .  .  that  while  it 
scs  the  question  of  the  Law  with  great  emphasis  and  fulness, 
it  docs  so  without  the  slightest  sign  that  there  is  a  reference  to 
a  controversy  then  actually  existing  in  the  Roman  Church.'  Unfor- 
tunately he  has  not  applied  the  same  theory  to  this  practical 
portion  of  the  Epistle :  if  he  had  done  so  it  would  have  presented 
just  the  solution  required  by  all  that  he  notices.  'There  is  no 
reference/  he  writes,  '  to  a  burning  controversy/  '  The  matter  is 
with  simply  as  one  of  individual  conscience/  He  contrasts 
the  tone  with  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  All  these 
features  find  their  best  explanation  in  a  theory  which  supposes 
that  St.  Paul's  object  in  this  portion  of  the  Epistle,  is  the  same 
as  that  which  has  been  suggested  in  the  doctrinal  portion. 

If  this  theory  be  correct,  then  our  interpretation  of  the  passage 
is  somewhat  different  from  that  which  has  usually  been  accepted, 
and  is,  we  venture  to  think,  more  natural.  When  St.  Paul  says  in 
ver.  2  '  the  weak  man  eateth  vegetables/  he  does  not  mean  that 
there  is  a  special  sect  of  vegetarians  in  Rome;  but  he  takes 

Dd 


402  VfLE  TO  THE  ROMANS   [XIV.-XV.  13. 


ce  of  excessive  scrupulousness.    When  ag.i 
one  man  considers  one  day  better  than  another,'  he  does  not 
mean  that  this  sect  of  vegetarians  were  also  strict  sabba: 

iC  same  scrupulousness  may  prevail  in  other  matters. 
he  speaks  of  &  <fox»i»  r$r  4/uparf  6  w  «rfl«r  he  is  not  thinking 
special  body  of  people  but  rather  of  special  types.     When 
again  in  vcr.  21  he  says:  'It  is  good  not  to  cat  flesh,  or  drink 
wine,  or  do  anything  in  which  thy  brother  is  offended,'  he  does 
not  mean  that  these  vegetarians  and  Sabbatarians  are  also  total 
abstainers  ;  he  merely  means  '  even  the  most  extreme  act  of  self- 
is  better  than  injuring  the  conscience  of  a  brother.'    He  had 
spoken  very  similarly  in  writing  to  the  Corinthi.ins  :  '  Wherefore,  if 
meat  maketh  ny  brother  to  stumb!     :  it  no  flesh  for 

more,  that  I  make  not  my  brother  to  stumble'  (i  < 
is  not  considered  necessary  to  argue  from  these  word^ 
nence  from  flesh  was  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the 
sectaries  ;  nor  is  it  necessary  to  argue  in  a  similar  manner  here. 

St.  Paul  is  arguing  then,  as  always  in  the  Epistle,  from  past 
experience.     Again  and  again  difficulties  had  arisen  o\\ 
different  forms  of  scrupulousness.    There  had  been  the  difl. 
which  had  produced  the  Apostolic  decree  ;  there  were  the  difficulties 
in  Ga  >bserve  days,  and  months,  and  seasons,  anil  •- 

there  were  the  difficulties  at  Corinth.     Probably  he  ha  ! 
his  experience  come  across  instances  of  the  various  ascetic  t 
hich  are  referred  to  in  the  Colossian  and  Pastor 

vidence  both  in  Jewish  and  in  heathen  writers  of  the 
wide  extent  to  which  such  practices  prevailed.  In  an  age  when 
there  is  much  religious  feeling  th<  '.ways  be 

The  ferment  which  the  spread  ofChristianity  aroused  would 
them.     Hence  just  as  the  difficulties  which  he  had  experienced 
with  regard  to  Judaism  and  the  law  made  S- 
systematize  his  theory  of  the  relation  of  Ci. 
righteousness,  so  here  he  is  working  out  the  proper  attitude  of  the 
:an  towards  over-scrupulousness  and  over-conscicntiou 
not  dealing  with  the  question  controversially,  but  examining 
it  from  all  sides. 

And  he  lays  down  certain  great  principles.    Th«  of  all, 

the  fundamental  uplcs  are  in  matter  > 

indifferent   in   themselves.     Man    is  ju 
sufficient.     But  then  all  1.  r-sii:hted  faith 

do   not  really  think  sm  nd   if    tl 

.ir  conscience  their  injured.     Eaci 

is  he  would  do  with  the  full  consciousness  that  he  is  to 
appear  before  God's  judpcm*  •:  But  there   is  another  side 

to  the  question  ncc  to  external  obs<  .  re  may 

injure   another  man's  c<  To  ourselves  it  is  perfectly 


XV.  14.]  APOLOGY  FOR  ADMONITIONS  403 

indifferent  whether  we  conform  to  such  an  observance  or  not  Then 
we  must  conform  for  the  sake  of  our  weak  brother.  We  are  the 
strong.  We  are  conscious  of  our  strength.  Therefore  we  must 
yield  to  others :  not  perhaps  always,  not  in  all  circumstances,  but 
certainly  in  many  cases.  Above  all,  the  salvation  of  the  individual 
soul  and  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  community  must  be  preserved. 
Both  alike,  weak  and  strong,  must  lay  aside  differences  on  such 
unimportant  matters  for  the  sake  of  that  church  for  which  Christ 
died. 

APOLOGY  FOB  ADMONITIONS. 

XV.  14-21.  These  admonitions  of  mine  do  not  imply  that 
I  am  unacquainted  with  your  goodness  and  deep  spiritual 
knowledge.  In  writing  to  you  thus  boldly  I  am  only 
fulfilling  my  duty  as  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles ;  the  priest 
who  stands  before  the  altar  and  presents  to  God  tlte  Gentile 
Churches  (w.  14-17). 

And  this  is  the  ground  of  my  boldness.  For  I  can  boast 
of  my  spiritual  labours  and  gifts,  and  of  my  wide  activity  in 
preaching  the  Gospel,  and  that,  not  where  others  had  done  so 
before  me,  but  where  Christ  was  not  yet  named  (w.  18-21). 

14.  The  substance  of  the  Epistle  is  now  finished,  and  there  only 
remain  the  concluding  sections  of  greeting  and  encouragement. 
St.  Paul  begins  as  in  i.  8  with  a  reference  to  the  good  report  of  the 
church.  This  he  does  as  a  courteous  apology  for  the  warmth  of 
feeling  he  has  exhibited,  especially  in  the  last  section ;  but  a  com- 
parison with  the  Galatian  letter,  where  there  is  an  absence  of  any 
such  compliment,  shows  that  St.  Paul's  words  must  be  taken  to 
have  a  very  real  and  definite  meaning. 

Wvciffpcu  W :  cf.  viii.  38,  '  Though  I  have  spoken  so  strongly  it 
does  not  mean  that  I  am  not  aware  of  the  spiritual  earnestness  of 
your  church/ 

KCU  auros  4yw  ircp!  dpwr,  on  KOI  ooroi :  notice  the  emphasis  gained 
by  the  position  of  the  words.  '  And  not  I  inquire  of  others  to  know, 
but  /  myself %  that  is,  I  that  rebuke,  that  accuse  you/  Chrys. 

ficoroi :  cf.  Rom.  t  79,  where  also  it  is  combined  with  a 


'our  Christian  knowledge  in  its  entirety/    Cf. 

I  Cor.  xiii.    a    «cal  iav  fg«»  vpoQijrtiav  *ai  «i&«  ra  ftvar^pta  wdura    cat 
noo-ay  rq*  ytwir,  «a*  «ar  fgw  iraffav  njr  viarw  K.T.X.     yrixm  is  Used  for 

the  true  knowledge  which  consists  in  a  deep  and  comprehensive 
grasp  of  the  real  principles  of  Christianity. 

o  d  a 


4   4  ISTLE  TO  THE  K  [XV.  14,  1ft. 

it  read  by  KBP,  Clem.- A  lex.    To.-Damasc.       It    is    omitted    by 
At  Sec.,  Chrys.  Theodrt. 

dya8tKruKT)f :    cf.   2  Thes^    i.    i  i  ;  v.  9;  used 

only   in  the    LXX,  the  N.  T.   and  writing* 

illy  it  means  'goodness'  or  'uprightness'  in  contras 

is  in  Ps.  li.  (lii.)  5  rr1™!™*  *"«""  ***p  aya6»"iw.  «• 

more  accurately  the  idea  seems  to  be  that  derived  from  <ryo&fe  of 

beneficence  and  goodness  of  heart    Here  it  is  con 
with  y^xrif,  because  the  two  words  represent  exactly  the  qualities 

are  demanded  by  the  discussion  in 
demands  on  the  one  side  a  complete  grasp  of  th 
as  a  whole,  and  on  the  other  'goodness  «•• 

m  injuring  the  spiritual  life  of  his  I  •• 

by  disregarding  their  consciences.    Both  these  were,  St.  1 
fully  assured,  realized  in  the  Roman  commu: 

Forms  in  -avrr,  are  almost  all  late  and  mostly  confined  to  Hellenistic 
writers.  In  the  N.  T.  we  have  iAtifporfriy,  a>xw0*v*"?.  *7iowvrg,  JipoKrvn;, 
pryoAwvrq :  tee  Winer,  ft  xvi.  a  ft  (p.  118,  ed.  Moulton). 

ourdjicroi  KQI  dXX^Xous  >-ou6eT€0'.    Is  it  hying  too  much  stress  00 
the  language  of  compliment  to  suggest  that  these  words  give 
of  St.  Paul's  aim  in  this  Epistle?     He  has  grasped  clear 
importance  of  the  central  position  of  the  Roman 
moral  qualities,  and  he  realizes  the  power  tl. 
instruction  of  others  in  the  faith.     Hence  it  is  to  them  above  all 
that  he  writes,  not  because  of  their  defects  but  of  their  mcr 

It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  any  reader  will  find  an  inconsistency  between 
this  verse  and  i.  1 1  or  the  exhortations  of  chap.  xiv.  whatever  view  he  may 
hold  concerning  St.  Paul's  general  attitude  towards  the  Koran, 
would  be  perfectly  natural  in  any  case  that,  after  rebuking  them  on  certain 
points  on  which  he  felt  they  needed  correction,  he  should  proceed  to  com- 
pliment  them  for  the  true  knowledge  and  goodness  which  t 
condition  exhibited  He  could  do  so  because  it  would  imply  a  true  estimate 
of  the  state  of  the  Church,  and  U  would  prevent  any  offence  being  taken  at 
his  freedom  of  speech.  But  if  the  view  suggested  on  chap.  xiv.  and  throughout 
the  Epistle  be  correct,  and  these  special  admonitions  arise  rather  from  the 
condition  of  toe  Gentile  churches  as  a  whole,  the  words  gain  even  more 
point  '  I  am  not  finding  fault  with  you,  I  am  warning  you  of  dangers 
may  incur,  and  I  warn  you  especially  owing  to  your  prominent  and 


yon  may 
important 


16.  ToXjirjpoTfpoK.     The   boldness  of  which  St.   Paul   a< 
•.  sentiment,  but  in  mam  .>  0*6  n«r 

part  of  the 

\  ff.,  13  t!  .avc  been  suggested  as  instances. 

iwaKapip>^0Kwr.      '•  quotes  «ca<rroy   i'/jur.    gaimp   tutyx/fer 

«29oro,  op»f  twa*atuj<T<u  /Soufcopm  IXmosthcm  4,  7.     The 

«'»»'  seems  to  soften  the  expression  '  suggesting  t< 
MJ;  any  new  thing,  or  sa 


XV.  15-17.]       APOLOGY  FOR  ADMONITIONS  405 

a  properly  instructed  Christian  would  not  know,  but  putting  more 
clearly  and  definitely  the  recognized  principles  and  commands  of 
the  Gospel. 

Bid,  TV  x4>"  *V  &o0ciadr  pot-     On  St.  Paul's  Apostolic  grace 

cf.  i.  5   &V  ov  «Xa£oyMi'  JO/M*  uu  dfnxrroXiJ*  :    xii.   3 
dodfitrijr  /id. 


It  is  probably  preferable  to  read  roXiujporifoa  (A  H,  \MI.)  Tor 
T«pof.    The  TK.  adds  d8«A0oi  after  ffpafa  t/«V  against  the  best  authorities 
S  \  BC,  Boh.,  Orig.  Aug.  Chrys.)  ;  the  position  of  the  word  varies  eren  in 
MSS.  in  which  it  doe*  occur.    M  is  a  correction  of  the  TK.  for.dmi  (K  B  F 
Jo.-Damasc). 

16.  XciToupyoV  seems  to  be  used  definitely  and  technically  as  in 
the  LXX  of  a  priest.    See  esp.  a  Esdras  xx.  36  (Neh.  x.  37)  rofc 

u/xvat  roir  \tirovpy  ova  t*  <V  oury  Gcov  qpwp.      So  in  Heb.  viii.  2  of  our 

Lord,  who  is  apxupivt  and  r»»  <tyiW  Xiirovpys  :  see  the  note  on  i.  9. 
Generally  in  the  LXX  the  word  seems  used  of  the  Levitcs  as 
opposed  to  the  priests  as  in  a  Esdras  xx.  39  (Neh.  z.  40)  *<M  oi 
if/Mir  «ai  oj  Xtirov/iyni',  but  there  is  no  such  idea  here. 

Icpoupyourra,  '  being  the  sacrificing  priest  of  the  Gospel  of  God.' 
St.  Paul  is  standing  at  the  altar  as  priest  of  the  Gospel,  and  the 
offering  which  he  makes  is  the  Gentile  Church. 

Itpovpyii*  meant  (i)  to  '  perform  a  sacred  function,'  hence  (t\  especially 
to  'sacrifice'  ;  and  so  rd  i«/K»v/>yi}0«rra  means  '  the  slain  victims  ;  and  then 
(3)  to  be  a  prie*t,  to  be  one  who  performs  sacred  functions.  Its  con- 
struction is  two-fold  :  (i)  it  may  take  the  accusative  of  the  thing  sacrificed  ; 
so  Has.  in  Ps.  tjcv  ml  Itpovpyijav  eot  r^r  rip  oM<r«a*  fooia?  ;  or  (a) 
ltpovpi*iy  TI  may  be  put  for  hpovpyor  nvot  rfitu  (Galen,  dt  Thtriata  /n«m7- 
piw  hpovpytv),  so  4  Mace,  vii.  8  (Y.  1.)  rovt  Itpovfyovrrat  r&v  v&pov:  Greg. 
Naz.  Itpovpyuv  aurtrjpiav  nxof  (see  Fri.  tul  I<x.  from  whom  this  note  is  taken). 

f|  irpoa^opd.  With  this  use  of  sacrificial  language,  cf.  xii.  i,  2. 
The  sacrifices  offered  by  the  priest  of  the  New  Covenant  were  not 
the  dumb  animals  as  the  old  law  commanded,  but  human  beings, 
the  great  body  of  the  Gentile  Churches.  Unlike  the  old  sacrifice  s 
which  were  no  longer  pleasing  to  the  Lord,  these  were  acceptable 
(fvirp&rdfKrof,  i  Pet  ii.  5).  Those  were  animals  without  spot  or 
blemish;  these  are  made  a  pure  and  acceptable  offering  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  which  dwells  in  them  (cf.  viii.  9,  n). 

For  the  construction  of  vpxnpopa  cf.  Heb.  z.  10  w.  rov  awparot  'I.  Xp. 

17.  «xw  °"K  THK  nauxi<ni>.   The  r^r  should  be  omitted  (see  below). 
1  1  have  therefore  my  proper  pride,  and  a  feeling  of  confidence  in 
my  position,  which  arises  from  the  fact  that  I  am  a  servant  of 
Christ,  and  a  priest  of  the  Gospel  of  God/     St  Paul  is  defending 
his   assumption  of  authority,  and  he  does  so  on  two  grounds: 
(i)  His  Apostolic  mission,  &w  r^r  x"f>1*  **)*  ftofturay  /<ot,  as  proved 
by   his   successful   labours   (w.   18-20);    (a)   the  sphere   of  his 
labours,  the  Gentile  world,  more  especially  that  portion  of  it  in 
which  the  Gospel  had  not  been  officially  preached.     The  emphasis 


[XV.  17    10. 

therefore  is  on  <  ind  TO  *rpo»  rt*  6<»*.     \. 

>r.  xv.  31  ;  with  the  whole  verse,  a  Cor.  x.  13 

.  TU  apt  r  pa  nav^r}<r6fu$a  .  .  .  I  7  6  &«  «u  ^a>>if  rot  «V 


The  RV.  has  not  improved  the  text  by  addingr^r  before  ravyiprir.  The 
combination  K  A  L  P.  Itoh.,  Arm.,  Chrys.,  Cjrr.,  Thcodrt  is  stronger  than  that 
of]  cemi  uncertain. 


18.  oo  Y*P  roX^aw  K.r.X.     '  For  I  will  not  presume  to  mention 
•rks  but  those  in  which  I  was  myself  Christ's  agent  for  the 

conversion  of  Gentiles.'    S  giving  his  case  for  the  assump- 

tion of  authority  (xaix^rtt).     It  is  only  his  own  labour  or 
works  done  through  himself  that  he  cares  to  mention.    But  the 
value  of  such  work  is  that  it  is  not  his  own  but  Christ's  work 
him,  and  that  it  is  among  Gentiles,  and  so  gives  him  a  right  to 
exercise  authority  over  a  Gentile  Church  like  the  Roman. 

w»  («A  C  DEFG  L  P,  Be  i  Cor. 

x.  12;  there  seems  to  be  a  touch  of  irony  in  its  use  here 

KOTttfjyatraTo  2  Cor.  xii.   12,  Rom.   vii.    13,  &c.  ;   With  Aoyy  *oi  «V>*» 

'in  speech  or  action/  2  Cor.  x. 

19.  iv  OurojUl  OT)|iClMr  K.T.X.  !     cf.   2  Cor.  xii.   I  2   T.I  /ii'y  a^tia  TOV 
JinxrToXof  Korcipydoli?    •  navy  vtropovrj.  aijutiott  rt  gal  rtpaat  ca« 
bi'tdltiai  :   Heb.  ii.  4  avMir^Miprv/xivrrof  rov  O«oO  1/17/1.  .  r«pa<ri 
cat  voutXmr   duvd/ifai   ecu   n»«t'^arot   'Ayt'ov    ^«/Ma/iotr    KOTO   r^y   atrot; 

i  Cor.  xii.  a  8. 


The  combination  ^^MM  «oi  T//MTO  is  that  habitually  used  throughout  the 
N.  T.  to  express  what  are  popularly  called  miracles.    Both  words  have  the 
same  denotation,  but  different  connotations,    ripat  implies  anything  mar- 
vellous or  extraordinary  in  itself,  <njtulo»  represents  the  san. 
viewed  not  as  an  objectless  phenomenon  but  as  a  sign  or  token  of  the  agency 
by  which  it  is  accomplished  or  the  purpose  it  is  intended  to 
a  third  word  fcrd/im  is  added  which  .  are  the 

exhibition  of  more  than  natural  power  Paul  varies  the 

sion  by  saying  that  his  work  was  acco:.  the  power  of  signs  and 

wonders;  they  are  looked  upon  as  a  sign  and  ex*  ttion  of  the 

Apostolic  x<*/"f-    See  Trench,  Afireult:  !  tec. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  St.  Paul  in  this  passage  assames  that  he 
poatessts  the  Apostolic  power  of  working  what  are  ordinarily  called  n 
The  evidence  for  the  existence  of  miracles  in  the  Apostolic  Church  is  two- 
fold  :  on  the  one  hand  the  apparently  natural  and 
by  the  Apostles  on  behalf  of  themselves  or  others  to  the  power  of  \ 
miracles,  on  the  other  the  definite  historical  narrative  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.    The  two  witnesses  corroborate  one  another.    Against  them  it 
might  be  argued  that  the  standard  of  eridence  was  lax,  and  that  the 
miraculous  and  non-miraculous  were  not  sufficiently 

the  first  argument  hold  against  a  personal  assertion?   and  does  not  the 
narrative  <  :  clear  that  miracles  in  a  perfectly  co.rect  sense 

of  the  word  were  definitely  intended  f 

iv  Surd>ci  nrcuVorot  'Ayioo  :  i  ;.  and  on  the  rcadin. 

sec  below.  •.  Apostolic  labours  are  a  sign  of  comn 

because  they  have  been  accompanied  by  a  manifestation  of  more 


XV.  10.]  APOLOGY  FOR  ADMONITIONS  407 

than  natural  gifts,  and  the  source  of  his  power  is  the  Holy  Spirit 
with  which  he  is  filled. 

This  serins  one  of  those  passages  In  which  the  ralne  of  the  text  of  R 
where  it  is  not  vitiated  by  Western  influence  is  conspicuous  (cf.  IT.  l).  It 
reads  (alone  or  with  the  support  of  the  Latin  Fathers)  wMv/Mrrof  without 
any  addition.  N  L  P  Sec.,  Oiig.-ltt.  Chrys.  &c.,  add  tool,  AC  D  F  G  boh. 
Vulg.  Arm..  Ath.  &c.  read  Aytov.  Both  were  corrections  of  what  seemed  an 
unfinished  expression. 


dwo  'lepouaaXTjfi  KCU  nunXw  fit'xpi  TOU  'iXXupixou.     These   words 
have  caused  a  considerable  amount  of  discussion. 
i    The  first  question  is  as  to  the  meaning  of  «vcXy. 

(1)  The  majority  of  modern  commentators  (Fri.  Gif.  Mey-W.) 
interpret  it  to  mean  the  country  round  Jerusalem,  as  if  it  were  cm 
rov  irucXy,  and  explain  it  to  mean  Syria  or  in  a  more  confined 
sense  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  city.    But  it  may  be 
pointed  out  that  *£«>?  in  the  instances  quoted  of  it  in  this  sense 
(Gen.  xxxv.  5  ;  xli.  48)  seems  invariably  to  have  the  article. 

(2)  It  may  be  suggested  therefore  that  it  is  better  to  take  it  as 
do  the  majority  of  the  Greek  commentators  and  the  AV.  '  from 
Jerusalem  and  round  about  unto  Illyricum.'   So  Oecumenius  *i  *Xo> 

mi  pi)  TTJV  icor*  <i6<l«v  otuv  irdf/iijdgf,  n'XXu   cora  ra  wtpt£  and   to  the 

same  effect  Chrys.  Theodrt.  Theophylact.  This  meaning  is  exactly 
supported  by  Xen.  Anab.  VII.  i.  14  *ai  n6rtpa  &M  roO  upoC  Spovt  oVot 
irop«waflui,  )  fti-cAy  flta  /w<njr  r^t  Opfat,  and  substantially  by  Mark 
vi.  6. 

a.  It  has  also  been  debated  whether  the  words  'as  far  as  Illyria' 
include  or  exclude  that  country.  The  Greek  is  ambiguous; 
certainly  it  admits  the  exclusive  use.  JK'XP*  doAdcro^r  can  be  used 
clearly  as  excluding  the  sea.  As  far  as  regards  the  facts  the  narra- 
tive of  the  Acts  (rb  fttpr)  ,'Ktlra  Acts  xx.  2  ;  cf.  Tit.  iii.  i  a)  suggests 
that  St.  Paul  may  have  preached  in  Illyria,  but  leave  it  uncertain. 
A  perfectly  tenable  explanation  of  the  words  would  be  that  if 
Jerusalem  were  taken  as  one  limit  and  the  Eastern  boundaries 
of  Illyria  as  the  other,  St.  Paul  had  travelled  over  the  whole  of 
the  intervening  district,  and  not  merely  confined  himself  to  the 
direct  route  between  the  two  places.  Jerusalem  and  Illyria  in  fact 
represent  the  limits. 

If  this  be  the  interpretation  of  the  passage  it  is  less  important  to 
fix  the  exact  meaning  of  the  word  Illyria  as  used  here  ;  but  a  passage 
in  Strabo  seems  to  suggest  the  idea  which  was  in  St.  Paul's  mind 
when  he  wrote.  Strabo,  describing  the  Egnatian  way  from  the 
Adriatic  sea-coast,  states  that  it  passes  through  a  portion  of 
Illyria  before  it  reaches  Macedonia,  and  that  the  traveller  along  it 
has  the  Illyrian  mountains  on  his  left  hand.  St.  Paul  would  have 
followed  this  road  as  far  as  Thessalonica,  and  if  pointing  Westward 
he  had  asked  the  names  of  the  mountain  region  and  of  the  peoples 


4    S  i)  THE  K  [XV.  19-21. 

inhabi  would  have  been  told  that  it  w.i  '    The 

term  therefore  is  the  one  which  would  naturally  occur  to  1 
fitted  to  express  the  limits  of  bis  journeys  to  the  West  (Strata  vii. 

7-4). 

The  word  Illyria  might  apparently  be  used  at  this  period  in  two  seme*. 
(I)  Ai  the  designation  of  a  Roman  province  it  might  be  utcd  for  what  was 
otherwise  called  Dalmatia,  the  province  on  the  Adriatic  sea-coast  north 
of  Macedonia  and  west  of  Thrace,  (a)  Ethnically  it  would  mean  the 
country  inhabited  by  Illyrians,  a  portion  of  which  was  included  in  the  Roman 
province  of  Macedonia.  In  this  sense  it  it  n*ed  in  Ap; 
Jos.  BtU.  lud  II.  x  vi.  4  ;  and  the  passage  of  Mrabo  quoted  above, 


TO  cuayyAior  TOU  XpurroG  :  cf.  Col.  i.  25  $c 
iyit  OMMOMK  KOTO  rq*  oUorofiiav  rot)  O«oC  nj*  docVtrdi'  ftct  tit  vpii  • 

(moo*  TO*  Xayov  roC  e*oO.  In  both  passages  the  meaning  is  to 
'carry  out  completely/  and  so  in  the  AV.  'to  fully  preach.      In 
what  sense  St.  Paul  could  say  that  he  had  done  this,  see  below. 

20.  OUTM  U  +iXoTipouturor  K.r.X.  introduces  a  limitation  of  the 
statement  of  the  previous  verses.  Within  that  area  there  had  been 
places  where  he  had  not  been  eager  to  preach,  since  he  cared  only 
to  spread  the  Gospel,  not  to  compete  with  others.  o£r»  is  ex- 
plained by  what  follows.  $iXonpovp«M>r  (i  Thess.  ti]  2  Cor. 
v.  9)  means  to  '  strive  eagerly/  having  lost  apparently  in  late  Greek 
its  primary  idea  of  emulation.  See  Field,  O/ium  Norv.  iii.  p.  100, 
who  quotes  Polyb.  i.  83;  Diod.  Sic.  xii.  46;  xvi.  49; 
Cats.  liv. 

wrofubrfc)  :  'so  named  as  to  be  worshipped.'     Cf.  a  Tim. 
Isa.  xxvi.  13  ;  Amos  vi.  10. 

dXXorpior  ecpAior.      For  <iXX.Jrp.oK  cf.  2  Cor.  X.  I 
describes  his  work  (i  Cor.  iii.  10)  as  laying  a  'foundation  stone'  : 
wt    aodjo*    ApxirifTwr  0«/«fXio»   Mrjta'  dXAor    W    tiroucodo^t  :    and    SO 
generally  the  Church  is  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets  (Eph.  ii.  20). 

ciAXA  xaOws  yiypvirrcu.  St.  Paul  describes  the  aim  of  his 
mission  (the  limitations  of  which  he  has  just  mentioned)  in  words 
chosen  from  the  O  quotation  which  follows  is  taken 

verbally  from  the  LXX  of  I.-  which  differs  but  not  es- 

sentially from  the  Hebrew.  The  Prophet  describes  the  astonish- 
ment of  the  nations  and  kings  at  the  suffering  of  the  servant  of 
Jehovah.  'That  which  hath  not  been  toKl  them  they  shall  see.' 
The  I  :  ucs  this  '  those  to  whom  it  was  not  told  shall  see/ 

and  St.  Paul  taking  these  words  applies  them  (quite  in  accordance 
no  spirit  of  the  original)  to  the  extension  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  true  Servant  of  Jehovah  to  places  where  his  name  has  not 
been  mentioned. 

Verses  19-11,  or  rather  a  portion  of  them  i&<rr<  fit  .  .  .  <UAd\  arc  ttill 
objected  to  by  commentators  (as  by  Upsios)  who  recognise  the  iV. 


XV.  10-21.]       APOLOGY  FOR  ADMONITIONS  409 

the  objection*  to  the  chapter  as  a  whole.  In  a  former  caw  (xl  8-to)  the 
clumsiness  of  an  excision  suggested  by  Lipsiut  was  noticed  and  here  be  has 
not  been  any  happier.  He  omits  ver.  ao,  but  keeps  the  quotation  in  ver.  ai, 
yet  this  quotation  is  clearly  suggested  by  the  preceding  words  O£Y  &"» 
u*on&o9T)  \ptor6t.  It  would  be  strange  if  an  interpolator  were  to  make  the 
sequence  of  thought  more  coherent. 

The  general  objections  to  the  passage  seem  to  be— 

(i)  It  is  argued  that  St  Paul  had  never  preached  in  Jerusalem,  nor  would 
have  been  likely  to  mention  that  place  as  the  starting-point  of  his  mission ; 
that  these  words  therefore  are  a  'concession  made  to  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians,' and  hence  that  the  chapter  is  a  result  of  the  same  conciliation  ten- 
dency which  produced  the  Acts.  Most  readers  would  probably  be  satisfied 
with  being  reminded  that  according  to  the  Acts  St.  Paul  had  preached  in 
Jerusalem  (Acts  ix.  a8,  39).  But  it  may  be  also  pointed  out  that  St  Paul 
is  merely  using  the  expression  geographically  to  define  out  the  limits  within 
which  he  had  preached  the  Gospel ;  while  he  elsewhere  (Rom.  xi.  26)  speaks 
of  Sion  as  the  centre  from  which  the  Gospel  has  gone  forth. 

(a)  It  is  asserted  that  St.  Paul  bad  never  preached  in  Illyricnm.  There 
is  some  inconsistency  in  first  objecting  to  the  language  of  this  passage 

'  scanse  it 


because  it  agrees  with  that  of  the  Acts,  and  then  criticizing  it 
contains  some  statement  not  supported  by  the  same  book.  But  the  re- 
ference to  Illyricum  has  been  explained  above.  The  passages  of  the  Acts 
quoted  clearly  leave  room  for  St.  Paul  having  preached  in  districts  inhabited 
by  Illyrians.  Me  would  have  done  so  if  he  had  gone  along  the  Egnatian 
way.  But  the  words  do  not  necessarily  mean  that  be  had  been  in  Illyria. 
and  it  is  quite  possible  to  explain  them  in  the  sense  that  he  had  preached 
as  far  as  that  province  and  no  further.  In  no  case  do  they  contain  any 
statement  inconsistent  with  the  genuineness  of  the  passage. 

(3)  It  is  objected  that  St  Paul  could  in  no  sense  use  such  a  phrase  as 
nviTjfxuKtvcu  rd  •vayy^Ajo*'.  But  by  this  expression  he  does  not  mean  that 
he  had  preached  in  every  town  or  village,  but  only  that  every  where  there  were 

of  the  duties 
to  others  to 
tter  of  fact 

within  the  limits  laid  down  Christianity  had  been  very  widely  preached. 
There  were  churches  throughout  all  Ctlicia  (Acts  xv.  41),  Galatia,  and 
Phrygia  (Gal.  i.  i  ;  Acts  xviii.  33).  The  three  years'  residence  in  Ephesus 
implied  that  that  cit  was  the  centre  of  missionar  activit  extendin 
out  all  the 


, 

centres  from  which  Christianity  could  spread.  His  conception  of 
of  an  Apostle  was  that  he  should  found  churches  and  leave  to 
build  on  the  foundation  thus  laid  (i  Cor.  iii.  7,  10).  As  a  matt 


plied  that  that  city  was  the  centre  of  missionary  activity  extending  through- 
province of  Asia  (Acts  xix.  10)  even  to  places  not  visited  by 
St  Paul  himself  (Col.  ii.  i).    Thessalonica  was  early  ft  centre  of  Christian 


propaganda  (i  Thess.  i.  7,  8  ;  iv.  10),  and  later  St.  Paul  again  spent  some 
time  there  (Acts  xx.  a).  The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  contains  in 
the  greeting  the  words  air  roft  Ayiott  maoi  rofr  o5<nr  Iv  o\y  TV  'Ago/a, 
showing  that  the  long  residence  at  Corinth  had  again  produced  a  wide 
extension  of  the  Gospel  As  far  as  the  Adriatic  coast  St.  Paul  might  well 
have  considered  that  he  had  fulfilled  his  mission  of  preaching  the  Gospel. 
and  the  great  Egnatian  road  he  had  followed  would  lead  him  straight  to 
Rome. 

(4)  A  difficulty  is  found  in  the  words  '  that  I  may  not  build  on  another 
man's  foundation.'  It  is  said  that  St  Paul  has  just  expressed  his  desire  to 
go  to  Rome,  that  in  fact  he  expresses  this  desire  constantly  (i.  5,  13  ;  xii.  3  ; 
xv.  i  «),  but  that  here  he  states  that  he  does  not  wish  to  build  on  another  man's 
foundation  ;  how  then  it  is  asked  could  he  wish  to  go  to  Rome  where  there 
was  already  a  church  T  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  Christianity  had  been 
officially  or  systematically  preached  there  (Acts  xxviii.  aa),  and  only  a  small 
community  was  in  existence,  which  had  grown  up  chiefly  as  composed  of 
settlers  from  other  places.  Moreover,  St.  Paul  specially  says  that  it  is  for 
the  sake  of  mutual  grace  and  encouragement  that  he  wishes  to  go  there  ;  he 


4»0  :VTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [XV.  2'J 

implies  that  he  does  not  wish  to  sUy  long,  hot  desire*  to  press  on  further 
westward  (m.  84). 


APOSTLE'S  PLANS. 

XV.  22-33.  I  have  been  these  many  times  hindered  from 
coming  to  you,  although  I  have  long  eagerly  desired  it.    Now 
I  hope  I  may  accomplish  my  wish  in  the  course  of  a  journey 
to  Spain.    But  not  immediately.     I  must  first  take  to  Jeru- 
salem  the  contributions   sent    thither    by   Macedonia 
Achaia — a  generous  gift,  and  yet  but  a  just  recompense  for 
the  spiritual  blessings  the  Gentile  Churches 
from  the  Jews.     \Vhcn  this  mission  is  accomplished  I  hope 
I  may  come  to  you  on  my  way  to  Spain  (w.  22-29). 

Meantime  I  earnestly  ask  your  prayers  for   my  own 
personal  safety  and  that  the  gifts  I  bear  may  be  > 
the  Church.     I  shall  t/ifn,  if  God  will,  come  to  you 
a  light  heart,  and  be  refreshed  by  your  comf  '  iy  the 

God  of  peace  make  His  peace  to  light  upon  you  (w.  30-33). 

22.  oio  KCU.    The  reason  why  St.  Paul  had  been  so  far  prevented 
from  coming  to  Rome  was  not  the  fear  that  he  might  build  on 
another  man's  foundation,  but  the  necessity  of  preaching  C: 

the  districts  through  which  he  had  been  travelling ;  now  there  was 
no  region  untouched  by  bis  apostolic  labours,  no  further  pi 
action  in  those  districts.    «V«corr6>i;r :    Gal.  i 

1  Pet.  iii.  7. 

rd  woXXd, '  these  many  limes/  i.  e.  all  the  times  when  I  thought 
of  doing  so,  or  had  an  opportunity,  as  in  the  RV. ;  not,  a 
commentators,  '  for  the  most  part '  (Vulg.  plerumqut).    *oXAu«u. 
which  is  read  by  Lips,  with  BDEFG,  is  ano  nice  of 

rn  influence  in  I;. 

23.  rvrl  8t  fitjit/Tt  Towof  ?xwr»  'seeing  that  I  have  no  longer 
opportunity  for  work  in  these  regions.'    nfcror,  as  in  x 

;  Hcb.  xii.  17,  'oppc :  <cope  for  acti<  : 

•  tracts '  or  '  regions '  (2  Cor.  xi.  10  ;  Gal.  i.  21  ;  often  in  Po! 
ftnwottar  does  not  occur  c!  l>ut  iitnrot'- 

2  Cor.  v.  2  ;  .  i.  4; 
JameS  r- .  5  ;    I   i                   and  ^riirolipnr  (2  Cor.  v                     re  not 
uncommon.     On  its  signification,  'a  longing  desire,'  s< 

uritc  word  in  the  Acts  of  the  A 
i  8,  &c  ).     '  It  is  lik' 
in  the  D  community  a:  hough  hardly  \ 


XV.  23,  24.]          THE  APOSTLE'S  PLANS  411 

knowledge  of  it,  dates  from  his  acquaintance  with  Aquila  and 
Priscilla  at  Corinth.  This  was  somewhere  about  six  years  before 
the  writing  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  that  interval  would 
perhaps  suffice  to  justify  his  language  about  having  desired  to  visit 
them  oirA  uravwir  iruv  (a  rather  vague  phrase,  but  not  so  strong  as 
the  <nri  iroXXiv  <r£r,  which  was  easily  substituted  for  it)'  Ilort, 
Rom.  and  Eph.  p.  n. 

For  Jrivoft'or  «J  «x«r  Western  authorities  (D  F  G)  read  tx*.  «n  attempt 
to  correct  the  grammar  of  the  sentence,  brarwy,  rend  by  BC  37.  59.  71, 
Jo.-Damasc,  b  probably  right  for  woAAwr,  which  is  supported  by  all  other 
authorities  and  is  read  by  R.V. 

24.  In  this  verse  the  words  Awropat  «-p£r  v^as,  which  are  inserted 
by  the  TR.  after  2n<m'uv,  must  be  omitted  on  conclusive  manuscript 
evidence,  while  yap  must  as  certainly  be  inserted  after  «Xv/£*». 
These  changes  make  the  sentence  an  anacolouthon,  almost  exactly 
resembling  that  in  v.  1 2  ff.,  and  arising  from  very  much  the  same 
causes.  St.  Paul  does  not  finish  the  sentence  because  he  feels  that 
he  must  explain  what  is  the  connexion  between  his  visit  to  Spain 
and  his  desire  to  visit  Rome,  so  he  begins  the  parenthesis  «X»i£«  yap- 
Then  he  feels  he  must  explain  the  reason  why  he  does  not  start  at 
once ;  he  mentions  his  contemplated  visit  to  Jerusalem  and  the 
purpose  of  it.  This  leads  him  so  far  away  from  the  original 
sentence  that  he  is  not  able  to  complete  it;  but  in  ver.  28  he 
resumes  the  main  argument,  and  gives  what  is  the  logical,  but  not 
the  grammatical,  apodosis  (cf.  v.  18). 

6$  &>  wopcuwfMu.  The  <i>t  uv  is  temporal :  cf.  Phil.  ii.  23 ;  i  Cor. 
xi.  34 :  on  this  latter  passage  Evans,  in  Speaker's  Comm.  p.  328, 
writes :  '  \Yhen  I  come :  rather  according  as  I  come :  the  presence  of 
i  he  «iv  points  to  uncertainty  of  the  time  and  of  the  event :  for  this 
use  COmp.  Aesch.  Eum.  33  pavrtvo/MU  -yap  «r  &»  ^T04  toot.' 

Tpoireji^dTjrcu :  i  Cor.  xvi.  6,  ii ;  a  Cor.  L  16;  need  not  mean 
more  than  to  be  sent  forward  on  a  journey  with  prayers  and  good 
wishes.  The  best  commentary  on  this  verse  is  ch.  i.  1 1  ff. 

Lipsius  again  strikes  out  vv.  23,  24  and  below  in  ver.  28  oV  i/*«Lr 
•it  ri)v  XiraWov — a  most  arbitrary  and  unnecessary  proceeding. 
The  construction  of  the  passage  has  been  explained  above  and  is 
quite  in  accordance  with  St.  Paul's  style,  and  the  desire  to  pass 
further  west  and  visit  Spain  is  not  in  any  way  inconsistent  with 
the  desire  to  visit  Rome.  The  existence  of  a  community  there 
did  not  at  all  preclude  him  from  visiting  the  city,  or  from 
preaching  in  it ;  but  it  would  make  it  less  necessary  for  him  to 
remain  long.  On  the  other  hand,  the  principal  argument  against 
the  genuineness  of  the  passage,  that  St.  Paul  never  did  visit  Spain 
(on  which  see  below  ver.  28),  is  most  inconclusive ;  a  forger  would 
never  have  interpolated  a  passage  in  order  to  suggest  a  visit  to 
Spain  which  had  never  taken  place.  But  all  such  criticism  fails 


412  EPISTLE  TO  THE  R<  [XV.  24  27. 

absolutely  to  realize  the  width  and  boldness  of  St.  Paul's  schemes. 

He  n.  the  message  of  the  Gospel  ever  furthc 

will  stop  him  but  the  end  of  his  own  life  or  the  barrier  of  the 

ocean. 

25.  St.  Paul  now  mentions  a  further  reason  which  will  cause 
some  delay  in  his  visit  to  Rome,  and  his  missionary  journey  to 

ftioKorwr  roif  dyi'ois  :  cf.   3  Cor.  viii.  4   r^r  Kouwnay  rip  ftuicoWar 
The  expression  >  the  saints'  has 

become  almost  a  technical  expression  in  St.  Paul  for  the  contribu- 
tions made  by  the  Gentile  Christians  to  the  Church  at  Jerusalem. 

26.  cuooKTjaaK  in:;  lies  that  the  contribution  was  voluntary,  and 
made  with  heartiness  and  good-will  :  see  on  Rom.  x.  i 

i  Cor.  i.  21  ;  Gal.  i.  15. 
Koowi'ar:  of  a  collection  or  contribution  2  G 

Air\orrjrt   rip  KMJxn-i'uc    tit   avrovt    fa}    tit   vcuror    and    ffoo'wmr 
xii.  13  rait  x/xuur  ra*>  Aytta*  covwyoCrrrr. 

irrwxous:  cf.  Gal.  ii.  IO  /ufa*  rir  im»\Sn>  u-a  PMHIOMI  «/*«*.  On 
the  poor  Christians  at  Jerusalem  see  James  ii.  2  ff.  ;  I\ 
dfs  Origines,  &c.  voL  iv.  ch.  3.  In  Jerusalem  the  Sadducees,  who 
were  the  wealthy  aristocracy,  were  the  determined  opponents  of 
i.mity,  and  there  must  have  been  in  the  city  a  very  large 
class  of  poor  who  were  dependent  on  the  casual  employment  and 
spasmodic  alms  which  are  a  characteristic  of  a  great  religious 
centre.  The  existence  of  this  class  is  clearly  implied  in  the 
narrative  at  the  beginning  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
was  from  the  very  first  a  considerable  body  of  poor  dependent  on 
the  Church,  and  hence  the  organization  of  the  Christian  community 
with  its  lists  (i  Tim.  v.  19)  and  common  Church  fund  (on&  row 
KocyoD  Ign.  Ad  Polyc.  iv.  3)  and  officers  for  distributing  alms  (Acts 
vi.  1-4)  must  have  sprung  up  v 

27.  cuWnTjaQ*'  K.T.X.     St.  Paul   emphasizes   the  goo 

this  contribution  was  made  by  repeating  the  word  rf&fafw  ; 
he  then  points  out  that  in  another  sense  it  was  only  the  repa. 
of  a  debt    The  Churches  of  the  Gentiles  owed  all  the  sj'. 
blessings  they  enjoyed  to  that  of  Jerusal 
according  to  the  flesh/  and  they  could  only  repay  the  debt  by 

in  temporal  things. 
TOuparutoif  .  .  .  aopxiKois.     Both  are  i  \iuline 

Words.      I   Cor.  ix.   II    ««    ^/*m  v/iir  ra  mtv/iarata  iaitiipaptv,  pi'ya   tl 

,>«uca  Gtpbrotuv;  <np*uu*t  is  used  without  ai 
association. 


The  word  «M»«W«,  of  which  the  meming  u  of  conne  '  to 
be  *  sharer  or  participator  in/  may  be  uw  -he  giver  or  of  the 

receiver.    The  giver  shares  with  the  reorr 

\  (quoted  on  -  with  the  River  by  reccirinjj  contri- 

butions, to  here.     The  oo:inal  construction  in  .     i»  as  here  with  the 


XV.  27,  28.]  THE  APOSTLE'S  PLANS 

dative :  once  (Heb.  ii.  14)  it  b  used  with  the  genitive,  and  this  contraction  Is 
common  in  the  O.  T.  (Ut  oo  Gal  vt  6). 

The  contributions  for  the  poor  in  Jerusalem  are  mentioned  in 
Rom.  xv.  26,  27 ;  I  Cor.  xvi.  1-3 ;  2  Cor.  ix.  I  ff;  Acts  xxiv.  1 7,  and 
form  the  subject  of  the  ablest  and  most  convincing  section  in 
Paley's  Horae  Paulinae.  Without  being  in  any  way  indebted  to 
one  another,  and  each  contributing  some  new  element,  all  the 
different  accounts  fit  and  dovetail  into  one  another,  and  thus  imply 
that  they  are  all  historical.  '  For  the  singular  evidence  which  this 
passage  affords  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle,  and  what  is  more 
important,  as  it  has  been  impugned,  of  this  chapter  in  particular, 
see  Paley's  Horae  Paulinae ,  chap.  ii.  No.  i.'  Jowett,  ad  Joe.,  and 
for  some  further  reff.  see  Introd.  §  4. 

28.  fVircXtaas  . . .  atpayi9a>crof.  St.  Paul  resumes  his  argu- 
ment and  states  his  plans  after  the  digression  he  has  just  made 
on  what  lies  in  the  immediate  future.  With  «m«A«W  (a  Pauline 
word),  cf.  Phil.  i.  6 ;  it  was  used  especially  of  the  fulfilment  of 
religious  riles  (Heb.  ix.  6  and  in  classical  authors),  and  coupled 
with  Xarovpyiprcu  above,  suggests  that  St.  Paul  looks  upon  these 
contributions  of  the  Gentile  communities  as  a  solemn  religious 
offering  and  part  of  their  tv^apurria  for  the  benefits  received. 

ff+payurrfpcrof,  '  having  set  the  seal  of  authentication  on.'  The 
seal  was  used  as  an  official  mark  of  ownership :  hence  especially 
the  expression  'the  seal  of  baptism'  (2  Cor.  i.  22;  Eph.  i.  13; 
see  on  iv.  n).  Here  the  Apostle  implies  that  by  taking  the  con- 
tributions to  Jerusalem,  and  presenting  them  to  the  Church,  he  puts 
the  mark  on  them  (as  a  steward  would  do),  showing  that  they  are 
the  fruit  to  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  of  those  spiritual  blessings 
(frttfvparuea)  which  through  him  had  gone  forth  to  the  Gentile 
world. 

cis  iV  Xvariar.  It  has  been  shown  above  that  it  is  highly  prob- 
able that  St.  Paul  should  have  desired  to  visit  Spain,  and  that  therefore 
nothing  in  these  verses  throws  any  doubt  on  the  authenticity  of  the 
ch.iptcr  as  a  whole  or  of  any  portions  of  it.  A  further  question 
arises,  Was  the  journey  ever  carried  out?  Some  fresh  light  is 
perhaps  thrown  on  the  question  by  Professor  Ramsay's  book  The 
Church  and  the  Empire.  If  his  arguments  are  sound,  there  is 
i  son  to  suppose  that  if  St.  Paul  was  martyred  at  Rome 
(as  tradition  seems  to  suggest)  he  must  necessarily  have  suffered 
in  what  is  ordinarily  called  the  Neronian  persecution.  He  might 
have  been  beheaded  either  in  the  later  years  of  Nero's  reign  or 
even  under  Vespasian.  So  that,  if  we  are  at  liberty  to  believe 
that  he  survived  his  first  imprisonment,  there  is  no  need  to  compress, 
as  has  been  customary,  the  later  years  of  his  missionary  activity. 

It  is  on  these  assumptions  easier  to  find  room  for  the  Spanish 
journey.  Have  we  evidence  for  it  ?  Dismissing  later  writers  who 


414  >TLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [XV.  28-30. 

seem  to  have  had  no  independent  evidence,  our  authorities  are 
reduced  to  two,  the  Muratorian  Fragment  on  the  C 
Clement  of  R"mc.     We  cannot  lay  much  stress  on  the  former;  it 
is  possible  perhaps  that  the  writer  had  independent  knowlcdp 
it  is  certainly  more  probable  that  he  is  merely  drawing  a  conclu- 
sion, and  not  quite  a  correct  one,  from  this  Epistle  :  the  words  are 
ltd  tt  pro/tc  liontm  Pauli  ab  urbt  ad  Spaniam  proficisc 
passage  in  Clement  (§  5)  runs  as  follows  :  n<uXor  v*opon?ff  p. 


rt  ry  a»araXJ7  *n«   «V  r-j  dwm,  rA  yrwaio*  rijt 

gal  «Vi  TO 


ciir,  «ai  ftafnvpffaas  iir\  rir  Tyov/Mrwr,  ovrwr  tirrFjXXuyij  roO  <to<7fu>v  mt 

fyor  *ftroy  «Vo/)«iftj.    This  passage  is  much  stronger,  and 
Lighifoot's  note  in  favour  of  interpreting  the  words  TO  r«p/ia  T/)« 
dva«»f  as  meaning  Spain  is  very  weighty  ;   but  is  it  quite  < 
that  a  Jew,  as  Clement  probably  was  (according  to  Lightfoot  him- 
self), speaking  of  St  Paul  another  Jew  would  not  look  upon  i 
relatively  to  Jerusalem  as  the  rYpfia  rip  3i<r«a»j,  'the  western  limit'? 
We  in  England  might  for  example  speak  of  Athens  as  being  in  the 
Eastern  Mediterranean.     There  is  also  some  force  in  Hilgenfeld's 
argument  that  «A&»»  and  /mpn-pnaa*  should  be  taken  together.    For 
these  reasons  the  question  whether  St.  Paul  ever  visited 
must  remain  very  doubtful. 

29.  frXT)pwfi<m  :  see  on  xi.  12.     St.  Paul  feels  confident  t!. 
visit  to  Rome  will  result  in  a  special  gift  of  Christ's  blc>  ;::-      I  !«• 
will  confer  on  the  Church  a  v'/'"7^  wvporuror,  and  wili 
be  comforted  by  the  mutual  faith  which  will  be  exhibited. 

II.   12. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  bow  strongly  these  words  make  for  the 
authenticity  and  early  date  of  this  chapter.  No  one  could  possibly 
write  in  this  manner  at  a  later  date,  knowing  the  circumstances 
under  which  St.  Paul  actually  <  >me.  Sec  also 


The  TR.  reads  with  «•  L&c.,  Vnlg.-clcm.  Syrr.  Ann.,  Chrys.  Tl 
tlloyiai  rov  ti*rti\iov  rov  Xf  .    The  words  rov  tit.  rov  should  be  omitted  on 
decisive  Authority. 

30.  The  reference  to  his  visit  to  Jerusalem  reminds  St.  Paul  of 
the  dangers  and  anxieties  which  that  implies,  and  K-ads  i 
conclude  this  section  with  an  earnest  entreaty  to  the  Roman 
dans  to  join  in  prayers  on  his  behalf.     Hort  (I\om.  and 
pp.  42-46)  points  out  how  this  tone  harmonizes  \vith  the  dangers 
iie  Apostle  apprehended  (cf.  Acts  &c.): 

t  here  mistake  the  twofold  thoughts  of  tl. 

mind.  ,:11  of  eager  anticipation  of  visiting  Rome  with  the 

full  blessing  of  the  accomplishment  of  that  pecu! 


XV.  30-32.]  THE  APOSTLE'S  PL.V  415 

But  he  is  no  less  full  of  misgivings  as  to  the  probability  of  escaping 
with  his  life'  (p.  43). 

Rid  TTJS  dyciirrjs  TOO  DrcupaTof  .  That  brotherly  love  which  is  one 
of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  working  in  us  (cf.  Gal.  v.  a  a).  That 
is  personal  is  shown  by  the  parallelism  with  the  first  clause. 
'  He  breaks  off  afresh  in  an  earnest  entreaty  to 
them  to  join  him  in  an  intense  energy  of  prayer,  wrestling  as  it  were  ' 
(Hort,  op.  eft.  p.  43).  They  will  as  it  were  take  part  in  the  contest 
that  he  must  fight  by  praying  on  his  behalf  to  God,  for  all  prayer 
is  a  spiritual  wrestling  against  opposing  powers.  So  of  our  Lord's 
agony  in  the  garden:  Luke  xxii.  44;  Matt.  xxvi.  42.  Cp.  Origen 
ad  lot.  :  Vix  enrm  invenies,  ut  oranti  cuiquam  non  illiquid  inanis  ct 
alifnae  cogitationis  occurraf,  t/  intcntionem^  qua  in  Deum  mrns  diri- 
gitur,  dcclmet  ac/rangat,  atque  tarn  ptr  ea  qua*  non  comfxtit,  rapiat. 
Et  ideo  agon  magnus  est  orationis,  ut  obsntcntibus  inimtcis,  ft  ora- 
tionis  sensum  in  diver  sa  rapicntibus,  fixa  ad  Deum  stmptr  men*  stabili 
intcnlione  contendat,  ut  merito  possit  ttiam  ipse  dicer  e:  cerlamcn 
bonum  ctrtavi,  cur  sum  consumtr. 

31.  The  Apostle's  fear  is  double.    He  fears  the  attacks  upon 
himself  of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  to  whom  more  than  any  other 
Christian  teacher  he  was  an  object  of  hatred  :  and  he  is  not  certain 
whether  the  peace-offering  of  the  Gentile  Churches  which  he  was 
bearing  to  Jerusalem  would  be  accepted  as  such  by  the  narrow 
Jewish  Christians  at  Jerusalem.    How  strong  the  first  feeling  was 
and  how  amply  justified  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  show  (Acts  xx.  3, 
32;  xxi.  n). 

In  vcr.  30  ua«A<f*>»  is  omitted  by  676,  Aeth.,  Chrys.  alone,  bat  perhaps 
correctly.  In  vcr.  31  i)  fapo^o/x'a  lor  ftuuroria,  and  I*  'ItpovaaX^ft  for  tit  I. 
are  instances  of  Western  paraphrase  shared  by  B  (B  D  F  G). 

32.  But  the  prayer  that  the  Roman  Christians  offer  for  St.  Paul 
will  also  be  a  prayer  for  themselves.    If  his  visit  to  Jerusalem  be 
successful,  and  his  peace-offering  be  accepted,  he  will  come  to 
Rome  with  stronger  and  deeper  Christian  joy.    '  After  the  personal 
danger  and  the  ecclesiastical  crisis  of  which  the  personal  danger 
formed  a  part  '  (Hort)  he  hopes  to  find  rest  in  a  community  as  yet 
untroubled  by  such  strife  and  distraction. 

aurarairauawfiai,  '  I  may  rest  and  refresh  my  spirit  with  you.' 
Only  used  here  in  this  sense  (but  later  in  Hegesippus  ap.  Eus. 
//.  E.  IV.  xxii.  a).  Elsewhere  it  is  used  of  sleeping  together 
(Is.  xi.  6).  The  unusual  character  of  the  word  may  have  been  the 
cause  of  its  omission  in  B  and  the  alteration  in  some  Western  MSS. 
(see  below). 

There  are  several  variations  of  reading  in  this  Terse  : 

(i)  MAC,   Boh.  Aim.,  Orig.-lat.  read  lAfir  .  .  .  OTPMMfciajM  with 


some  variation  in  the  position  of  JAtor  (after  Ira  Kf  Boh.,  Orig.-lat  ;  after 
A  C  agreeing  in  this  with  other  authorities).    All  later  MSS.  with  the 


416  I   To  Till!   KOMAXS      [XV.  32   XVI    1 

Western  groap  read  f  Afe  aod  insert  ml  before  *vrorava6r«/M<.  B  is  alone  in 
baring  f  Afe  and  omitting  ffwomvaitfwjMU  t^V,  bat  receive*  support  in  the 

.      !       :..     '.  .         •          •   •     .    I-  I     :        !     .      .  ,.,..-,-     ...    1      ...   s 

f  vx«  *  *.,  agreeing  with  most  Latin  authorities,  rrj,t;ertr  tobiuum. 

For  «3  MtsJpOTW  e«ov  (A  (  :.;  -lat. 

Chrys.  Thdrt  .),  K  Amtrst.  bare  8.  9.  'haov  X^«rr«J,  D  E  FG 
fold.  X/*<TT  Kipi'ov  li^oC.    JJghtfoot  (On  ajntk  A'rw/ww.  Ac.. 

pp.  io6ff.)  snggetts  that  the  original  reading  was  ftAiiparot  used  absolutely 
of  the  Divine  will:  cf.  Rom.  ii.  18;  I  Cor.  xri.  12.  See  also  bis  note  on 
Ign.  Efk.  §  20.  AVw.  ^  I  (where  some  authorities  add  row  e«ow,  other* 
AOVMM  ,  Smyrn.  fi  i,  n.  Elsewhere  in  St.  Paul  the  expression  always  is 
9t\rjna  e«ov,  except  once,  Eph.  v.  17  ri  0^/n  rov  K»/M'OV. 


33.  4  W  6<6«  rijs  fipVJKtjs  :  cf.  vcr.  5.  St.  Paul  concludes  his 
request  for  a  prayer  with  a  prayer  of  his  own  for  them.  *  Peace/ 
a  keynote  of  the  Epistle,  is  one  of  his  last  thoughts. 

A  F  G  and  some  minuscules  omit  4/ojr.    On  the  importance  ascribed  to 
this  word  by  some  commentators  see  the  Introduction,  f  9. 


PERSONAL  GREETINGS. 

XVI.  1-16.  /  commend  to  you  Photfa  our  sister.    R< 
her  as  bccometk  members  of  a  Christian  Church.    For  she 
has  stood  by  many  ot/iers,  and  myself  as  well  (vv.  i,  2). 

Greet  Prisca  and  Aquila.  Greet  all  those  whose  names 
or  persons  I  know,  who  are  members  of  your  community 
(vv.  3-16). 

1.  aimanjfii.   The  ordinary  word  for  to  '  commend,' '  introduce ' ; 
see  on  iii.  5,  a  derivative  of  which  appears  in  the  phrase  rarrorurai 
foaraXoi  (*  Cor.  iii.  i ;  for  its  use  in  the  later  ccclcs:a!>: 
see  Suiccr,  Thesaurus).    These  letters  played  a  very  large  \ 
the  organization  of  the  Church,  for  the  tic  of  hospitality 
implying  also  the  reception  to  communion,  was  the  great  bond 
.  united  the  separate  local  Churches  together,  and  some  pro- 
tection became  necessary  against  impost 

+oipT]»'.  Nothing  is  otherwise  known  of  Phoebe,  nor  can  \vc 
learn  anything  from  the  name.  She  was  presumably  the  bearer  of 
this  letter. 

Sidnow, '  a  deaconess.'    The  onl>  ,  b  this  offic- 

ferredto  byname  in  the  N. T.  (for  i  Tim.        1 1    .    ; ::       :mot  be 
quoted).    The  younger  I  ks  ot  mm 

quo  mag  is   necessarium  crtdidi  ex  duabus  anctllis,  quae  m; 
dicebaniur,  quid  esset  veri  el  fxr  lormtnta  quatrtrf.     They  do  not 
appear  cUcwhere  to  be  referred  to  D  second-century 

^;   but  constant  reference  to  them  occurs  in  the  A/os/o/ic 


XVI.  1,  2  ]  PERSONAL  GREETINGS  417 

Constitutions,  in  the  earlier  books  under  the  name  of  &nWo»  (ii.  26 ; 
iii.  15),  in  the  later  of  &mn$H<r<ra  (viii.  19,  20,  28).  Of  the  exact 
relation  of  the  *  deaconess '  to  the  '  widows '  (i  Tim.  v.  3)  it  is  not 
necessary  to  speak,  as  we  have  no  sufficient  evidence  for  so  early 
a  date ;  it  is  quite  clear  that  later  they  were  distinct  as  bodies,  and 
that  the  widows  were  considered  inferior  to  the  deaconesses  (Apost. 
Const,  iii.  7) ;  it  is  probable  however  that  the  deaconesses  were  for 
the  most  part  chosen  from  the  widows.  That  the  reference  to 
a  '  deaconess '  is  in  no  sense  an  anachronism  may  be  inferred  both 
from  the  importance  of  ftuucona  in  the  early  Church,  which  had  quite 
clearly  made  it  necessary  for  special  male  officials  to  be  appointed, 
and  from  the  separate  and  secluded  life  of  women.  From  the  very 
beginning  of  Christianity — more  particularly  in  fact  at  the  beginning 
— there  must  have  been  a  want  felt  for  women  to  perform  for 
women  the  functions  which  the  deacons  performed  for  men. 
Illustrations  of  this  need  in  baptism,  in  visiting  the  women's 
part  of  a  house,  in  introducing  women  to  the  deacon  or  bishop, 
may  be  found  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (iii.  15,  Ac.).  So 
much  is  clear.  An  office  in  the  Church  of  this  character,  we 
may  argue  on  a  priori  grounds,  there  must  have  been;  but  an 
order  in  the  more  ecclesiastical  sense  of  the  term  need  not  have 
existed  &<i«o»of  is  technical,  but  need  hardly  be  more  $o  than  is 
frpocrrorir  in  vcr.  2.  (The  arguments  of  Lucht  against  the  au- 
thenticity of  portions  of  these  two  verses  are  examined  very  fully 
by  Mangold,  Der  Romerbriefund  seine geschichtlichen  I'oraussetzung, 
pp.  136  ff.) 

rfjs  <KKXi)<uas  TTJS  fr  Kcyxpcals.  Cenchrcae  was  the  port  of  Corinth 
on  the  Saronic  Gulf.  During  St.  Paul's  stay  at  Corinth  that  city 
had  become  the  centre  of  missionary  activity  throughout  all  Achaia 
(cf.  2  Cor.  i.  i),  and  the  port  towards  Ephesus,  a  place  where  there 
must  have  been  many  Jews  living,  could  easily  be  a  centre  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Its  position  would  afford  particularly  an  oppor- 
tunity for  the  exercise  by  Phoebe  of  the  special  duties  of  hospitality. 

2.  £{;•*  rif  dyiwK,  '  in  a  manner  worthy  of  the  saints/  i.  e. '  of 
the  Church.'  Not  only  to  provide  for  her  wants,  but  to  admit  her 
to  every  spiritual  privilege  as  *  in  the  Lord.' 

Tpoordnf,  a  'succourcr'  or  'helper';  this  almost  technical 
word  is  suggested  by  wapaar^rt.  It  is  the  feminine  form  of  rpo- 
ordnff,  used  like  the  Latin  patronus  for  the  legal  representative  of 
the  foreigner.  In  Jewish  communities  it  meant  the  legal  repre- 
sentative or  wealthy  patron :  sec  SchUrer,  Die  Gemeinde-  Ver/as- 

tttfff.&C.,  InS.  3i:   CK8A&C    KCITC  |   f*tC    npOCTATMC  |  OCIOC   CZMCCN  I  CTH    OB 

CN  €ipM  |  KOIMHCIC  COY,  cf-  also  C.  /.  G.  5361.  We  also  find  the  word 
used  of  an  office-bearer  in  a  heathen  religious  association,  see 
Foucart,  Associations  Rehgieuses,  p.  202,  Ins.  20,  line  34  (=  C.  /.  G. 

126)  dofti/uifcrtt  &  6  wpooranjt  rat  6  apxtfpatn<rrf)s  cai  6  ypappartvc  «ai 

ce 


418  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS          [XVI.  2-4. 


T.I.;.«  «•;,  pfatVsjN,    Hen  •'-.<•  «•*  rwrioa  MOMM  th.it 


a  person  of  some  wealth  and  position  who  was  thus  able 


to  act  as  patroness  of  a  small  and  struggling  community. 

.{    npiaKo*  «al  'AKuXar     So  the  j  by  preponderating 

authority  for  li,>.WAAa  «.  'A.    Priscilla  is  a  diminutive  for  Prisca,  and 
both  are  Roman  names. 

In  Acts  xviii.  a  the  reading  b  *A*vAor  . . .  «o2  n/*'<r*.xxar  Tvraan  • 
In  vcr.  18  n^anAAa  *al  'A«rvAa»;  in  I  Cor.  xvi.  19  'A*vAar  «aJ  Ilptam  (M> 
M  B  M  P,  Boh.,  bat  A  C  D  E  F  C.  Ac.,  Vulg.  Syrr.  llfio***.  •.  iv.  19 

n^<r«ar  mi  'AjrvAar  (by  preponderating  authority).     The  fact  that  Prisca  is 
to  often  mfBtJftftf1  first  suggests  that  she  was  the  more  important  of  the  two. 

4.  olrifcs  . .  .  ror  iaurwK  TpaxnXoK  K.T.\.  probably  refers  to  some 
great  danger  which  they  had  run  on  his  behalf.  It  may  have  been 
the  great  tumult  at  Ephesus,  although  this  was  somewhat  recent. 
If  so  the  danger  then  incurred  may  have  been  the  reason  that  they 
had  left  that  city  and  returned  for  a  time  to  Rome.  The  special 
reference  to  the  Churches  of  the  Gentiles  perhaps  arises  from  the 
fact  that,  owing  to  their  somewhat  nomadic  life,  they  were  well 
known  to  many  Christian  Churches. 


Aquila  and  Prise  ilia. 

The  increments  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  hare  been  considered  to  be  so 
complicated  as  to  throw  doubts  on  the  authenticity  of  this  section  of  the 

-.  or  to  suggest  that  it  was  addressed  not  to  the  Church  at  Rome,  but 
to  the  Church  ol  Ephesus. 

m  Acts  xviii.  i,  a  we  learn  that  Aquila  was  a  Jew  of  Pontus.    He  and 
bis  wife  Prisca  had  been  compelled  to  leave  Rome  in  53  A.  D.  by  the 

udius.    They  retired  to  Corinth,  where  they  first  became  acquainted 

•.  I-aul.     With  him  they  went  to  Ephesos,  where  they  remained  some 
time  ;  they  were  there  when  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  » 
and  had  a  church  in  their  house  (40w<i(«r<u  ifut  Ir  Kvfiw  voXAd  'A 
«oi  n/x'<7«a  ffirr  rp  wrr'  o&ror  aurwr  JmrAi;*/?  i  :•,  .     This  Epistle 

was  written  probably  about  twelve  months  before    th  to   the 

Romans.    In  a  Tim.  iv.  Ability  at  least  eight  years 

later,  they  appear  again  . 

Now,  is  not  the  life  ascribed  to  them  too  nomadic?  And  is  not  the 
coincidence  of  the  church  in  their  house  remarkable?  The  answer  is  that 
•  nomadic  life  was  the  characteristic  of  Tews  at  that  day.  and  was  certainly 
a  characteristic  of  Aquila  and  Priscil  :/4  al  Essajrs.  p.  aoo,  and 

Renan.Z*  Apttns,  0^96, 97,Zahn, Stuum.p.  169).    \Vc  know  th»t  although 
Aqnila  was  a  Jew  of  Pontus,  yet  he  and  1,  within  the  sj 

a  few  yean,  at  Rome,  at  Corinth,  and  at  Ephesns.     Is  it  then  ext: 
improbable  that  they  should  travel  in  after  years,  probably  for  the  s 

usiness?    And  if  it  were  so.  would  they  not  )>c  likely  to  make  their 
boose,  wherever  they  were,  a  place  in  which  Christians  couM  meet  to^ 

On  4  priori  grounds  we  cannot  argue  against  the  possibility  of  these 
chances.  Are  there  any  positive  arguments  for  connecting  them  with  the 
Roman  Chi.  -M.  in  the  course  of  his  archaeological  investigations, 

has  suggested  two  traces  of  their  influence,  both  of  which  deserve  investi- 


XVI.  4.]  PERSONAL  GREETINGS  4>9 


(i)  Amongst  the  older  churches  of  Rome  U  one  on  the  Arentine  bearing 
the  name  of  St.  Prisca,  which  gives  a  title  to  one  of  the  Roman  Cardinals. 
Now  there  U  considerable  evidence  for  connecting  this  with  the  names  of 
Aquila  and  Priscilla.  In  the  Liter  Pontificalu,  in  the  life  of  Leo  111 
(795-816),  it  U  described  as  the  'titulus  Aquilae  et  Priscae*  (Duchesne, 
jo)  ;  In  the  legendary  Acts  of  St.  Prisca  (which  apparently 
date  from  the  tenth  century)  it  U  stated  that  the  body  of  St.  Prisca  was 
translated  from  the  place  on  the  Ostian  road  wheie  she  had  been  buried,  and 
trans/erred  to  the  church  of  St.  Aquila  and  Prisca  on  the  Aventine  (Ada 
'rum,  Jan.  Tom.  ii.  p.  187  */  deduxerunt  ifjam  ad  urtem  A'emam 
cum  hymnit  et  (anticis  spiritualibus,  iuxta  Artum  Komanum  in  euUsia 
tathtorum  Marty  rum  Aquilat  et  Priscae},  and  the  tradition  is  put  very 
clearly  in  an  inscription  apparently  of  the  tenth  century  which  formerly 
stood  over  the  door  of  the  church  (C.  1m.  Christ,  ii.  p.  443)  : 

Hate  damns  tst  Aquilae  uu  Priscat  Virginia  Almat 

Quos  lup€  Poult  tuo  ot€  Vfhu  domino 
llic  ret  re  divini  Tribuebas  fcrcula  vcrbi 
Stfius  hocct  loco  smcrificans  domino. 

Many  later  testimonies  are  referred  to  by  DC  Rossi,  bat  they  need  not  here 
be  cited. 

For  the  theory  that  this  church  is  on  the  site  of  the  boose  of  Prisca  and 
Aquila,  De  Rossi  finds  additional  support  in  a  bronze  diploma  found  in  1 776 
in  the  garden  of  the  church  bearing  the  name  of  G.  Marius  Pudens  Cor- 
nelianns :  for  in  the  legendary  Acts  of  Pndens,  Pudenziana,  and  Praxedis, 
..la  is  stated  to  have  been  the  mother  of  Pndens  (Acta  Sonet.  Mai. 
Tom.  iv.  p.  207),  and  this  implies  some  connexion  between  the  names  of 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  and  the  family  of  Pudens. 

The  theory  is  a  plausible  one,  but  will  hardly  at  present  stand  examination. 
In  the  first  place  the  name  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  (or  Prisca)  is  not  the 
oldest  borne  by  the  church  ;  from  the  fourth  to  the  eighth  century  it  seems 
always  to  have  been  the  titulus  S.  Priscai  (see  Liber  Pontificate,  ed. 
Duchesne,  i.  501,  517°),  and  although  the  origin  of  this  name  is  itself 
doubtful,  it  is  hardly  likely  that  if  the  locality  had  borne  the  name  of  Aquila 
and  Priscilla,  that  name  would  first  have  been  lost  and  then  revived.  It  is 
much  more  probable  that  the  later  name  is  an  attempt  to  connect  the  biblical 
account  with  this  spot  and  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  name  of  Prisca. 

Nor  is  the  second  piece  of  evidence  of  any  greater  weight  The  acts  of 
Pudens  and  his  daughters,  supposed  to  be  narrated  by  the  person  called 
St  Pastor,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  Pius  the  bishop  and  addressed  his 
letters  to  Timothy,  are  clearly  legendary,  and  little  or  no  stress  can  be  laid 
on  the  mention  of  Priscilla  as  the  mother  of  I'udcns.  The  object  of  the  Acta 
is  in  fact  to  invent  a  history  for  martyrs  whose  names  were  known,  and  who 
were  for  some  reason  grouped  together.  But  why  were  they  thus  grouped  f 
The  reason  probably  is  given  in  the  statement  at  the  end,  that  they  were 
buried  in  the  cemetery  of  Priscilla.  These  names  would  probably  be  found 
in  the  fourth  century  in  that  cemetery,  attached  to  graves  close  to  one 
another,  and  would  form  the  groundwork  of  the  Acta.  There  may  still  be 
some  connexion  between  the  names,  which  may  or  may  not  be  discovered, 
but  there  is  not  at  present  any  historical  evidence  for  connecting  the  titulus 
St.  Priutu  with  the  Aquila  and  Priscilla  of  the  N.T.  (see  de  Rossi,  Bull. 
Arch.  Christ.  Scr  i.  No.  5  (1867),  p.  45  ft) 

(ii)  A  second  line  of  argument  seems  more  fruitful.  The  explorations  of 
De  Rossi  in  the  Coemetenum  Priscillae.  outside  the  Porta  Solaria,  have 
resulted  in  the  discovery  that  as  the  CocmeUrium  Domitilta*  starts  from 
a  bur)  ing-place  of  Domitilla  and  her  family,  so  that  of  Priscilla  originates  in 
the  burying- place  of  Acilius  Glabrio  and  other  members  of  the  AcUian  gens. 
This  seems  to  corroborate  the  statement  of  Dio  Cassius  (Ixvii.  14)  that  the 

E  e  2 


420  ISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS          [XVI.  4,  5. 

11  Glabrio  who  was  consul  with  Trajan  in  A.  D.  91  was  a  Christian  and 
died  as  such,  and  implies  that  Christianity  had  penetrated  into 
other  leading  Komtn  families.  Now  the  connexion  with  the  subject  immediate!  v 
before  us  is  as  follows.  The  fame  researches  have  shown  that  a  name  of 
the  females  of  the  Acilian  gens  is  Priscilla  or  Prisca.  For  instance,  in  one 
inscription  we  read : 

M'   ACILK'S   V 

PRISCII.LA  .  .  C 

Aauila  was  a  Jew  of  Pontui :  how  then  does  it  happen  that  his  wife 

•n-cli.  bore  a  Roman  name?  The  answer  seems  to  be  suggested  by 
these  discoveries.  They  were  freedmen  of  a  member  of  the  Actlian  fens, 
as  Clemens  the  Roman  bishop  was  very  probably  the  freedman  of  Flavius 
Clemens.  The  name  Prisca  or  Priscilla  would  naturally  come  to  an  ad 

t  of  the  fomily.    The  origin  of  the  name  Aquila  is  more  doubt! 
it  too  might  be  borne  by  a  Roman  freedman.    If  this  suggestion  be  correct, 
then  both  the  names  of  these  two  Roman  Christians  and  the  eiJttfnon  of 
Christianity  in  a  leading  Roman  family  are  explained. 

Two  other  inscriptions  may  be  quoted,  as  perhaps  of  interest.    Th 
is  dearly  Christian : 

AQUILIAX  PRISCAK  IN   PACK 

The  second  C.  I  :  3  may  be  so.    The  term  Kenata  might  suggest 

that  it  is  but  also  might  be  Mithraic : 

D.  M. 

AQUILIA  •   RKWATA 
QVAK  •  V  •   A   • 
SR  .  VIVA  •  POSVIT  •   SIBI 

r  ANTE  •  AQVILI 
ALVMNO  •   RT  •   AQV1LIO 
PR1SCO  •  PRATRR 

The  argument  is  not  demonstrative,  but  seems  to  make  the  return  of 
Aqnila  and   Priscilla  to   Rome,  and  their  permanent  connexion  »i 
Roman  Church,  probable,  .-*«,  Bull.   Arch.    Ch> 

No.  6  (1888-9),  p.  119  Aauila  t  .  .  Glatricm. 

,Kfm  and  E?H.  pp.  13-14),  following  a  suggestion  nude  by 
Dr.  Plnmptre  (BiMta/  StttJus,  p.  417),  points  out  that  it  is  a  curious  fact 
that  in  four  out  of  the  six  places  in  which  the  names  occur  that  of  the  wife  is 
the  first  mentioned.  He  connects  the  name  with  the  cemetery  of  St.  Prisca, 
and  suggests  that  Prisca  was  herself  a  member  of  some  distinguished  Roman 
family.  He  points  out  that  only  Aquila  is  called  a  Jew  from  Pontus,  not 
his  wife.  There  is  nothing  inconsistent  in  this  theory  with  that  of  the 
previous  argument ;  and  if  it  be  true  much  is  explained  It  may  however  be 
suggested  that  for  a  noble  Roman  lady  to  travel  about  with  a  Jewish  husband 
engaged  in  mercantile  or  even  artisan  work  is  hardly  probable  ;  and  that  the 
theory  which  sees  in  them  freed  members  of  a  great  household  is  perhaps 
the  most  probable. 


0.  MO!   iV    tear*   cuco?   aurwr   tmtX^aia.       There    is   no   (i 

itil  the  third  century  of  the  existence  of  special  bu 

H  seem  all  to  be  to  pla 

•  houses,  sometimes  very  probably  houses  of  a  larj. 
st  of  all  (Acts  house  1 1 

mother  of  I  ^ny  were  collected  togctli 

Col.  IV.   15    u0«u9u<r<:>  .  lotama   o&X^oi 


XVI.  6.]  USONAL  GREETINGS  421 


xar'  oiror  avrw  «Kf\ij<ria»  :    Philemon  2   ffai  T£  car*  ourrfr  aov 

l>esides  i  Cor.  zvi.  19.  At  a  later  date  we  have  Clem.  Recog.  x.  71 
Theophilus,  domus  suae  ingenttm  basilicam  ecclesiae  nomine  consecraret  : 
De  Rossi,  Roma  Soft.  i.  p.  209  Collegium  quod  tst  in  dome  Sergiae 
Paulinae.  So  in  Rome  several  of  the  oldest  churches  appear  to 
have  been  built  on  the  sites  of  houses  used  for  Christian  worship. 
So  perhaps  San  Clemente  is  on  the  site  of  the  house  of  T.  Flavius 
Clemens  the  consul  (see  Lightfoot,  Clement,  p.  94). 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  Church  was  the  meeting- 
place  of  all  the  Roman  Christians;  similar  bodies  seem  to  be 
implied  in  vv.  14,  15.  We  may  compare  A  eta  lustini  Marfyris  §  2 
(Ruinart)  where  however  the  speaker  is  of  course  intentionally 
vague  :  Quaesivit  Praefectus,  quern  in  locum  Christiani  convenient. 
Cut  respondit  fus/inus,  to  unumquemque  convenire  quo  vellet  ac  posset. 
An,  inquit,  existimas  omnes  nos  in  eumdem  locum  convenire  lolitos  ? 
Minime  res  ita  se  habet  .  .  .  Tune  praefectus  :  Age,  inquil,  dicas, 
quern  in  locum  conveniatis,  et  discipulos  tuos  congreges.  Respondit 
Ittstinus  :  Ego  prope  domum  Martini  cuiusdam,  ad  balneum  cogno~ 
mento  Timiotinum,  hactenus  mansi. 

'EircuycTos.  Of  him  nothing  is  known  :  the  name  is  not  an  un- 
common one  and  occurs  in  inscriptions  from  Asia  Minor,  C.  I.  G. 
2953  (from  Ephesus),  3903  (from  Phrygia).  The  following  in- 
scription from  Rome  is  interesting,  C.I.L.  vi.  17171  DIS  -  MAN  | 

EPAENETI  (tt'r)  |  EPAENETI.F  |  EPIIES1O  |  T  •  MVNIVS  |  PRIS- 
CIANVS  |  AMICO  SVO. 

dwapx^i  TTJS  'Aai'as  :  i.  e.  one  of  the  first  converts  made  in  the 
Roman  province  of  Asia  :  cp.  i  Cor.  xvi.  15  offlorc  rr\v  ot«ia»  Zr«^a»a, 

ori  /arty  airapx*)  r^r  'Avatar,  cat  f  if  haKovtav  roit  ayi'otr  fra^ar  iairoit. 

On  the  importance  of  first  converts  see  Clem.  Rom.  §  xlii  Kara  x«yxir 

out*  (tot  wo\tts  KTjpiHraovrtf  Knditrravov  rat  dnap^as  avrS»v,  boxtfiaffarrtf  r«ji 
nvtvpart,  tit  «V»<ritcJirow  not  Ouutovavf  rwr  /t«XXoir<«y  iturrtin*. 

This  name  caused  great  difficulty  to  Renan,  '  What  !  had  all  the 
Church  of  Ephesus  assembled  at  Rome?'  'AH'  when  analyzed  is 
found  to  mean  three  persons  of  whom  two  had  been  residents  at 
Rome,  and  the  third  may  have  been  a  native  of  Ephesus  but  is 
only  said  to  have  belonged  to  the  province  of  Asia  (cf.  Lightfoot, 
Biblical  Essays^  P.  30  0-  How  probable  it  was  that  there  should 
be  foreigners  in  Rome  attached  to  Christianity  may  be  illustrated 
from  the  Acts  of  Justin  which  were  quoted  in  the  note  on  an 
earlier  portion  of  the  verse.  These  give  an  account  of  the 
dom  of  seven  persons,  Justin  himself,  Charito,  Charitana, 
Euelpistus,  Hierax,  Liberianus,  and  Paeon.  Of  these  Justin  we 
know  was  a  native  of  Samaria,  and  had  probably  come  to  Rome 
from  Ephesus,  Euelpistus  who  was  a  slave  of  the  Emperor  was 
a  native  of  Cappadocia,  and  Hierax  was  of  Iconium  in  Phrygia, 
This  was  about  100  years  later. 


[XVI.  6  7. 


'Ac/at  U  supported  by  preponderating  authority  (MABCP 

;  lat.  Jo.'Domasc.  Arobrst.)  against 
Iheodrt.). 

For  the  'idea  of  illustrating  thU  chapter  from  inscriptions  we  are  of  come 
Indebted  to  Bishop  L^htfoot's  able  art>c!r  on  Caesar's  household 

of  vol.  vi. 
inscriptions 

of  the  city  of  Rome,  has  bod  provided  us  with  more  exten  material  and 
also  placed  it  in  a  more  convenient  form  for  reference  We  have  therefore 
gone  over  the  ground  again,  and  either  added  new  illustrations  or  given 


p.  169).    Since  that  paper  was  written,  the  appearance  of  a  portion  of  vol 
of  the  Ccrfut  of  Latin  Inscriptions,  that,  namely,  containing  the  inscripti 
of  the  city  of  Rome,  has  bod  provided  us  with  more  extend  material 
also  placed  it  in  a  more  convenient  form  for  reference    We  have  there 
gone  over  the  ground  again,  and  either  added  new  illustrations  or  gi 
references  to  the  Latin  Corpus  for  inscriptions  quoted  by  Lightfoot  from 
older  collections.     Where  we  have  not  been  able  to  idc: 
not,  except  in  a  few  cases,  thought  it  necessary  to  repeat  bis  reference*. 
A  large  number  of  these  names  are  found  in  Columbaria  containing  the 
monuments  and  ashes  of  members  of  the  imperial  household  during  the  first 
century  .  these  special  collections  are  kept  together  in  the  Corpus  (vi.  39*6- 
8397).    There  is  also  a  very  large  section  devoted  to  other  names  belong- 
ing to  the  domus  Augusli  (vi.  8398-9101).    A  complete  use  <: 
materials  will  not  be  possible  until  the  publication  of  the  Indues  to  vol.  vi. 
For  a  discussion  of  the  general  bearing  of  these  references,  see  Intrcx! 
§9- 


6.  Mapicw  (\\hich  is  the  correct  reading)  may  like  Mapiap  be 
Jewish,  but  it  may  also  be  Roman.  In  favour  of  the  latter  alter- 
native in  this  place  it  may  be  noticed  that  apparently  in  other  cases 
where  St.  Paul  is  referring  to  Jews  he  distinguishes  them  by 
them  his  kinsmen  (see  on  ver.  7).  The  following  inscription  from 
Rome  unites  two  names  in  this  list,  C.f.L.  vi.  22223  D-M-I 
MARIAE  |  AMPLIATAE  cet.  ;  the  next  inscription  is  from  the  house- 
hold, ib.  4394  MARIAE  •  M  •  L  •  XANTHE  |  NYMPIIE  •  FEC  •  DE  •  SVO. 

^TIS  iroXXd  ^oiuaae*-  c^  ufids.  This  note  is  added,  not  f 
sake  of  the  Roman  Church,  but  as  words  of  praise  for  .' 
herself. 

Ma/»'ar  U  read  by  A  B  C  P,  Boh.  Arm.  ;  MO/K^M  by  N  D  E  F  G  L,  -Scc..  < 
The  evidence  for  tit  Iftat,  which  is  a  difficult  reading,  is  preponderating 
(KABCP,  Syrr.  Boh.),  and  it  is  practically  supported  by  the  v 
group  (D  E  F  G,  Vnlg.).  which  have  Jr  l/iir.    The  correction  tit  4/*at  is  read 
by  L,  Chrys.  and  later  authorities. 


7  AyopoyiKor  :  a  Greek  name  found  among  members  of  the 
imperial  household.  The  following  inscription  contains  the  names 
of  two  persons  mentioned  in  this  Epistle,  both  members  of  the 
household,  C.  /.  L.  vi.  5326  DIS  •  MANIDVS  |  c  .  IVLIVS  •  HERMES  I 

-III  •  M  -V  |   DIEI1-  XIII      C-  IVLIVS-  ANDHONICVS  I 
CONLIBERTVS  •  FEC  |  DENE  •  MERENTI  •  DE  •  SE  !   SCC  also  5325  and 

1  1626  where  it  U  the  name  of  a  si  . 
'lovnor  :  there  is  some  doubt  as  to  whether  this  name  is 

:    u'ar  or  'Imnuf,  a  contraction  of  Junianus,  or  feminine 

Junia  is  of  course  a  common  Rom  md  in  that 

case  the  two  would  probably  be  husband  and  wife;  Junias  on  the 

hand  is  lets  usual  as  a  man's  name,  but  seems  to  re- 

present a  form  of  contraction  common  in  this  list,  as  Palrobas, 


XVI.  7.]  PERSONAL  GREETINGS  4*3 

Hennas,  Olympas.  If,  as  is  probable,  Andronicus  and  Juntas  are 
included  among  the  Apostles  (see  below)  then  it  is  more  probable 
that  the  name  is  masculine,  although  Chrysostom  does  not  appear 
to  consider  the  idea  of  a  female  apostle  impossible :  *  And  indeed 
to  be  apostles  at  all  is  a  great  thing.  But  to  be  even  amongst 
these  of  note,  just  consider  what  a  great  encomium  this  is  1  But 
they  were  of  note  owing  to  their  works,  to  their  achievements. 
Oh  1  how  great  is  the  devotion  of  this  woman,  that  she  should  be 
even  counted  worthy  of  the  appellation  of  apostle  1 ' 

rods  ffvyycrcls  pou.  St.  Paul  almost  certainly  means  by  '  kinsmen,' 
fellow-countrymen,  and  not  relations.  The  word  is  used  in  this 
sense  in  ix.  3,  and  it  would  be  most  improbable  that  there  should 
be  so  many  relations  of  St.  Paul  amongst  the  members  of  a  distant 
Church  (vv.  7,  n)  and  also  in  Macedonia  (ver.  ai);  whereas  it  is 
specially  significant  and  in  accordance  with  the  whole  drift  of  the 
Epistle  that  he  should  specially  mention  as  his  kinsmen  those 
members  of  a  Gentile  Church  who  were  Jews. 

nai  vurcuxfiaXwrous  pou.  Probably  to  be  taken  literally.  Al- 
though St.  Paul  had  not  so  far  suffered  any  long  imprisonment,  he 
had  certainly  often  been  imprisoned  for  a  short  time  as  at  Philip  pi. 
a  Cor.  xi.  23  «V  <£vXa*mr  inpuTtTOTt'p»t ;  Clem.  Rom.  ad  Cor.  v 
«'imurir  &<rpA  $op«<rar.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  the  word  should 
mean  that  Andronicus  and  Junias  had  suffered  at  the  same  time  as 
St.  Paul ;  he  might  quite  well  name  them  fellow-prisoners  if  they 
had  like  him  been  imprisoned  for  Christ's  sake.  Metaphorical 
explanations  of  the  words  are  too  far-fetched  to  be  probable. 

otnfls  ci<nr  4wi9T)|ioi  4?  rots  dmxrroXois  may  mean  either  (i) 
well  known  to  the  Apostolic  body,  or  (2)  distinguished  as  Apostles. 
In  favour  of  the  latter  interpretation,  which  is  probably  correct,  are 
the  following  arguments,  (i)  The  passage  was  apparently  so 
taken  by  all  patristic  commentators,  (ii)  It  is  in  accordance  with 
the  meaning  of  the  words.  <*i<rwott  lit '  stamped/  '  marked,'  would 
be  used  of  those  who  were  selected  from  the  Apostolic  body  as 
•distinguished/  not  of  those  known  to  the  Apostolic  body,  or 
looked  upon  by  the  Apostles  as  illustrious ;  it  may  be  translated 
'  those  of  mark  among  the  Apostles.'  (iii)  It  is  in  accordance  with 
the  wider  use  of  the  term  d*<krroAof.  Bp.  Lightfoot  pointed  out 
(Gafa/ians,  p.  93)  that  this  word  was  clearly  used  both  in  a  narrow 
sense  of '  the  twelve  '  and  also  in  a  wider  sense  which  would  include 
many  others.  His  views  have  been  corroborated  and  strengthened 
by  the  publication  of  the  Didache.  The  existence  of  these  'Apostles/ 
ml  Christian  Evangelists,  in  Rome  will  suggest  perhaps  one 
of  the  methods  by  which  the  city  had  been  evangelized. 

01  KCU  vpo  JfioG  yryoVaair  iv  Xpurn*.  Andronicus  and  Junias  bid 
been  converted  before  St  Paul :  they  therefore  belonged  to  the 
earliest  days  of  the  Christian  community ;  perhaps  even  they  were 


IE   ROMA'  [XVI.  7,  8. 

of  those  who  during  the  dispersion  after  the  death  of  S: 
began  almost  immediately  to  spread  the  word  in  Cyprus  and 
(Acts  xi.  19).  As  Dr.  Weymouth  points  out  (On  the  Render r 
English  of  tht  Grrtk  Aonsl  a>  p.  26)  the  perfect  should 

here  be  translated  '  were.' 

•It  it  utterly  amaxing,'  be  writes,  'that  in  Rom.  *rl.  7  ot  «J  w/A  J*» 
W^ao.r  Jx  Tip.  is  rendered  in  the  KV.  "who  alto  have  been  in  Christ  before 
English  idiom  U  here  simply  outraged.    What  officer  in  our 
Nary  or  Army  would  not  stare  at  the  fiaffh^ot  who  should  say  of  a  iiniot 
officer. "  He  has  been  uce  before  I  -  Nary 

before  me  "  is  the  only  correct  English  form. ...  The  English  mind  fastens 
on  the  idea  of  time  denned  by  "  before  me,"  and  therefore  uw>  the  simple 

Past The  Grttk  Perfect  is  correctly  employed,  because  it  it  intended  to 

convey,  and  d/xrs  convey,  the  idea  that  they  are  si  >t,  while  the 

English  "  hare  been  "  suggests  precisely  the  contrary.' 

8.  'AjxirXiaros  is  the  more  correct  reading  for  the  abbreviated 
form  'A/itrA.af  which  occurs  in  the  TR.     This  is  a  common 
Roman  slave  name,  and  as  such  occurs  in  inscriptions  of  the  in 
household.    C.I.L.  \i.  4899  AMPLIATVS  |  RESTITVTO  •  FRATRI| 

SVO  •  FECIT  •  MERENTI  :     5154    C    VIBIVS  •  FIRMVS  •  C  |  V1UIO  • 

AMPLIATO  |  PATRONO  •  svo,  &c.,  besides  inscriptions  quoted  by  Lft. 
But  there  is  considerable  evidence  for  connecting  this  name  more 
closely  with  the  Christian  community  in  Rome.    In  the  cemetery 
of  Domitilla,  now  undoubtedly  recognized  as  one  of  tli> 
Christian  catacombs,  is  a  chamber  now  known  by  the  name  of 
'Ampliatus'  owing  to  an   inscription   which   it   com., 
chamber  is  very  early :  pre-Christian  in  character  ii  not  in  origin. 
The  cell  over  which  the  name  of  Ampliatus  is  inscribed  is  a 
insertion,  which,  from  the  style  of  its  ornament,  is  ascribed  t 
end  of  the  first  or  beginning  of  the  second  century.    The  inscription 
is  in  bold,  well-formed  letters  of  the  same  date.   Not  far  off  is  another 
inscription,  not  earlier  than  the  end  of  the  second  century,   to 
members  of  apparently  the  san 
AMPLIAT[I]   ami   AVRELIAE  •  BONIFATIAE  |  CONIVCI  •  INCOM- 

PARABILI    |   VERAE   CASTITATIS   FF.MINAE  |  QVAF. 

M  •  II  |  DIEB  •  III1   •    IIOR  •  VI  |  AVREL  •  A"  CVM  | 

CORDIANO  •  FILIO.  The  boldness  of  the  lettering  in  tl. 
inscription  is  striking.  The  personal  name  without  any 

•sts  a  sl.v.  v  one  in  these 

the  honour  of  an  elaborately 

he  was  for  some  reason 
•  nt  in  the  earliest  Roman  The  later  ; 

.    suggests  that  there  was   a  Christian   family  b- 
name ;  and  the  connexion  with  Domiulh  seems  to  sho" 
.0  of  a  slave  or  freedman  through  whom  ( 

had  penetrated  into  a  second  gre.r  household.    See  de 

Rossi,  Dull.  A  r< !.  \  ol .  6  ( i  ^  -.aatm 


XVI.  8-11.]  PERSONAL  GREETINGS  425 

March  4,  1884,  p.  289;  the  inscription  is  just  referred  to  by  Lighl- 
foot,  Cltment.  i.  p.  39. 

9.  Ovp0ar6*« :    a  common   Roman  slave  name  found   among 
members  of  the  household,  C.  I.  L.  vi.  4237  (quoted  by  Lft.  from 

Murat.  920.  l)  VRDANVS  •  LYDES  •  AVG  •  L  •  DISPENS  |  INMVN1S  • 
DAT  •  IIERMAE  •  FRATRI  •  ET  |  CILICAE  •  PATRI  :    cf.  5604,  5605, 

and  others,  quoted  by  Lft.  (Grut.  p.  589.  10,  p.  1070.  i). 

TO*  aurcpyo?  Vjfiwr.  Where  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  personal 
friends  he  uses  the  singular  TO*  ayavrjrov  pov:  here  he  uses  the 
plural  because  Urbanus  was  a  fellow-worker  with  all  those  who 
worked  for  Christ. 

ITOXUF :  a  rare  Greek  name,  but  found  among  members  of  the 
imperial  household :  C.  /.  L.  vi.  8607  D.  M.  |  M.  VLPIO  •  AVG  •  L  | 

EROTI    |    AB   •    EPISTVLIS     •    GRAEC1S    |    EPAPHRODITVS    |    ET    • 
STACHYS  |  CAESAR -R-SER   |  FRATRI  •  KARISSIMO  •  ET  |  CLAVDIA 

•  FORMIANA  |  FECERVNT:  cf.  also  inscriptions  quoted  by  Lft 

10.  'AirfXXfjK.    Again  a  name  borne  by  members  of  the  house- 
hold and  by  Jews:  amongst  others  by  the  famous  tragic  actor. 
See  the  instance  quoted  by  Lft.  and  cf.  Hor.  Sat.  I.  v.  100  Credat 
Judaeus  A  fella,  non  ego. 

TO*  febupor :  cf.  i  Cor.  xi.  19 ;  a  Cor.  i.  18  ;  xiii.  7.  One  who 
has  shown  himself  an  approved  Christian. 

•rods  fe  TWK  'Api<rropou'Xou.  The  explanation  of  this  name  given 
by  Lft.  bears  all  the  marks  of  probability.  The  younger  Aristo- 
bulus  was  a  grandson  of  Herod  the  Great,  who  apparently  lived 
and  died  in  Rome  in  a  private  station  (Jos.  Bell.  lud.  II.  xi.  6 ; 
Antiij.  XX.  i.  2) ;  he  was  a  friend  and  adherent  of  the  Emperor 
( 'Kuulius.  His  household  would  naturally  be  ol  'Apurro/SotAov,  and 
would  presumably  contain  a  considerable  number  of  Jews  and 
other  orientals,  and  consequently  of  Christians.  If,  as  is  probable, 
Aristobulus  was  himself  dead  by  this  time,  his  household  would 
probably  have  become  united  with  the  imperial  household.  It 
would,  however,  have  continued  to  bear  his  name,  just  as  we  find 
KS  of  Livia's  household  who  had  come  from  that  of  Maecenas 
called  Maecenatiani  (C.  I.  L.  vi.  4016,  4032),  those  from  the  house- 
hold of  Amyntas.  Amyntiani  (4035,  cf.  8738):  so  also  Agrippiani, 
Germaniciani.  We  might  in  the  same  way  have  Anstobuliani  (cf. 
Lft.  Phil.  pp.  172,  3). 

11.  'HpwSi'wra  ror  OUYVCI'TJ  pou.    A  mention  of  the  household  of 
Aristobulus  is  followed  by  a  name  which  at  once  suggests  the 
Herod  family,  and  is  specially  stated  to  have  been  that  of  a  Jew. 

seems  to  corroborate  the  argument  of  the  preceding  note. 
•roOs  <*  rwr  Napiu'aaou,  '  the  household  of  Narcissus,'  '  Narcis- 
siani.'     The  Narcissus  in  question  was  very  possibly  the  well- 
known  frecdman  of  that  name,  who  had  been  put  to  death  by 
Agrippina  shortly  after  the  accession  of  Nero  some  three  or  (our 


1  IISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [XV  I.  11    UJ. 

years  before  (Tac.  Ann.  xiii.  i;   Dio  Cass.  Ix.  34).     His  slaves 
would  then  in  all  probability  become  the  property  of  the  Emperor, 
and  would  help  to  swell  the  imperial  household.     1  1 
common,  especially  among  slaves  and  freedmen,  cf.  C.I.L.  ^.4123 
(in  the  household  of  Livia),  4346,  5206  HELICONIS  NARCISSI  | 

AVGVST1ANI  I  :    22875   NARCISSVS  •  AVG  •  LID.      Lit.   quotes  also 

the  two  names  Ti.  Claudius  Narcissus  (see  below),  1 

cissus  from  Muratori,  and  also  the  form  Narcissianus,  TI  •  CLAVDIO  • 

•  NARCISSIANO  (Murat.  i  >.    The  follow: 

lion  belongs  to  a  somcv.  035  p.  M.  | 

AVIVS  •  AVG  •  LIB  |  NARCISSVS  •  FECIT  •  SIBI  |  ET  •  COELIAE  • 
SP  '  FILIAE  |  IERIAE  •  COMVGI  •  bVAE    .  1    lower  (1< 

FLAVIVS  •  AVG  •  LIB  •  FIRMVS  •  NARCISSIANVS  |  RELATOR  •  AVC- 

TIONVM  •  MONVMENTVM  •  REFECIT.    See  also  9035  a.    (Light  foot, 
Phil.  p.  173-) 

Dr.  riumptre  (Biblical  Stadia,  p.  428)  refers  to  the  following  interesting 
inscription.     It  may  be  found  in  C  I.  /..  v.  1  54*  being  reputed  to  h»\ 
from   Fcrrara.     D.  M.  |  CLAVDIAB  |  DICAEOSY.NAB  |  TI  NAR- 

CISSVS |  LIB.  AEID.  COIV  I  PIKNTISSIMAB  |  ET  FfcVGALISSI  I  R.  M.     1 
Claudius  suggests  the  first  century,  but  the  genuineness  of  the  Ins.  is  not 
sufficiently  attested.    The  editor  of  the  fifth  volume  of  the  Corfu*  writes  : 
Teitimonia  auctorum  out  inter  tot  urn  .  .  .  aut  frauJulcntontm  <!•  loco  cum 
ptrum    defendant  titulum  turn  txcltui,  quamftum  JUri  pottst 
gtnttinut  tttc  multum  corrupt**.    The  name  Vicatosyn*  is  carious  but  is 
found  elsewhere  C.  I.  L.  iii.  3391  ;  vi.  35866  :  x.  649.    There  is  nothing  dis- 
tinctively Christian  about  it 


12.  Tpii^airoy  «al  Tpu^wvar  are  generally  supposed  to  have  been 
two  sisters.     Amongst  inscriptions  of  the  household  we 

4866   D.    M.  |  VARIA   •  TRYPHOSA  |  PATRONA  •  ET  |  M 
CLEMENS  |  I    5035  D.  M.  |  TRYPHAENA  |  VALERIA   •   1 

|  MATRI  •  B  •  M  •  r  •  ET  |  VALERIUS  Nvs  (quoted  by  Lft. 

from  Ace.  di  Arched  ,  )  :  5343  TELESPHORVS  •  ET 

PHAENA,  5774,  6054  and  oilier  inscriptions  quoted  by  I 
tion  is  drawn  to  the  contrast  bet  s  which 

'  delicate/  *  dainty/  and  their  labours  in  the  Lord. 

The  name  Trjrphaena  has  some  interest  in  the  early  history  of  the  Churr  h 
as  being  that  of  the  queen  who  plays  such  a  prominent  part  in  the  stoiy  of 
Paul  and  Tbecla,  and  who  is  known  to  have  been  a  real  character. 

ritpaioa.    The  name  appears  as  that  of  a  freed  woman,  C.  I. 

23959   DIS  •  1IANIB  I  PER  •  SIDI  •  L  •  VED  |  VS  •  MITIIRES  |  VXORI. 

It  does  not  appear  among  the  inscriptions  of  the  household. 

13.  *PoC4>or:  one  of  the  commonest  of  >.    This  Rufus 
is  commonly  identified  with  the  one  mcntio: 

Simon  of  Gyrene  is  calk  :  r  of  Alexander 

St.  Mark  probably  urotc  at  Rome,  and  he  seems  to  speak  of 
Rufus  as  some  one  well  ki 

rir  JxXcKTor  if  Kup  not  here  used  in  the 


XVI.  13-15.]  PERSONAL  GREETINGS  427 

technical  sense  •  chosen  of  God/ — this  would  not  be  a  feature  to 
distinguish  Rufus  from  any  other  Christian,— but  it  probably  means 
4  eminent/  '  distinguished  for  his  special  excellence/ and  the  addition 
of  «V  Kvpitp  means  '  eminent  as  a  Christian '  (a  Jo.  i ;  i  Pet.  il  6). 
So  in  English  phraseology  the  words  '  a  chosen  vessel '  are  used 
of  all  Christians  generally,  or  to  distinguish  some  one  of  marked 
excellence  from  his  fellows. 

Koi  TTJK  fitjWpa  aurou  KCU  IpoG.  St.  Paul  means  that  she  had 
showed  him  on  some  occasion  all  the  care  of  a  mother,  and 
that  therefore  he  felt  for  her  all  the  affection  of  a  son. 

14.  'AauyKpuor :    the  following  inscription  is  of  a  freedman  of 
Augustus  who  bore  this  name,  C.  I.  L.  vi.  1 2565  D.  M.  |  ASYNCRETO  | 

AVG  •  LIB  •  FECIT  •  FL  |  A  VIA  •  SVCCESSA  |  PATRONO  BENE  |  ME- 

RENTI.  The  name  Flavia  suggests  that  it  is  somewhat  later  than 
St.  Paul's  time. 

*Xc'yoKTa.  The  inscriptions  seem  to  throw  no  light  on  this  name. 
The  most  famous  person  bearing  it  was  the  historian  of  the  second 
century  who  is  referred  to  by  Origen,  and  who  gave  some  informa- 
tion concerning  the  Christians. 

'EpiiYJr :  one  of  the  commonest  of  slave  names,  occurring  con- 
stantly among  members  of  the  imperial  household. 

narpopaK.  An  abbreviated  form  of  Patrobius.  This  name  was 
borne  by  a  well-known  freedman  of  Nero,  who  was  put  to  death  by 
Galba  (Tac.  //is/,  i.  49  ;  ii.  95).  Lft.  quotes  instances  of  other  freed- 
men  bearing  it:  TI  •  CL  •  AVG  •  L  •  PATROBIVS  (Grut.  p.  610.  3), 
and  TI  •  CLAVDip  •  PATROBIO  (Murat  p.  1329). 

'Epjias  is  likewise  an  abbreviation  for  various  names,  Hermagoras, 
Hermerus,  Hermodorus,  Hermogenes.  It  is  common  among 
slaves,  but  not  so  much  so  as  Hermes.  Some  fathers  and  modern 
writers  have  identified  this  Ilermas  with  the  author  of  the  '  Shepherd/ 
an  identification  which  is  almost  certainly  wrong. 

KCU  TOUS  oh  OUTOIS  dScX^ou?.  Tliis  and  the  similar  expression  in 
the  next  verse  seem  to  imply  that  these  persons  formed  a  small 
Christian  community  by  themselves. 

15.  •iX4Xoyos.    A  common  slave  name.    Numerous  instances 
are  quoted  from  inscriptions  of  the  imperial  household :  C.  /.  L.  vi. 

4116  DAMA  •  LI VI A  E  •  L  •  CAS  . . .  |  PHOEBVS  •  PHILOLOGI  |  quoted  by 

Lft.  from  Gorius,  Mon.Liv.  p.  168  ;  he  also  quotes  Murat.  p.  1586. 
3,  p.  2043.  a  J  Grut.  p.  630.  i.  He  is  generally  supposed  to  be 
the  brother  or  the  husband  of  Julia,  in  the  latter  case  Nereus,  his 
sister  Nerias,  and  Olympas  may  be  their  children. 

'louXiar.  Probably  the  commonest  of  all  Roman  female  names, 
certainly  the  commonest  among  slaves  in  the  imperial  household. 
The  following  inscription  is  interesting :  C.  /.  L.  vi.  20416  o.  M.  | 
IVLIAE  NEREI  •  F-  |  CLAVDiAE.  The  name  Julia  Tryphosa  occurs 
20715-7  in  one  case  apparently  in  a  Christian  inscription. 


428  TO  'INK  ROMANS      [XVI    15    16. 


/o     This  name  is  found  in  inscriptions  of  the  imperial  house- 
hold,   C.  f.    /  SAT  •  GERMAN  |  PEVCFNNVS  • 

GERMANICI  |  ANVS  •  NEROMS  •  CAESARIS.      It    is    hfSt    kn- 

the  Roman  Church  in  connexion  with  the  Acts  of  Keren 
Achilleus,  the  eunuch  chamberlains  of  Domitilla  (see  Ada  Sancto- 
rum >'  rtuchungen,  Band 

These  names  were,  however,  older  than  that  legend,  as  sec: 
be  shown  by  the  inscription  of  Damasus  (Dull.  Arch.  Christ.  1874, 
]>.   20  sq.  ;   C.  Jns.  Chris/,  ii.  p.  31)  which  represents  them  as 
soldiers.    The  origin  of  the  legend  was  probably  that  in  the  cata- 
comb of  Domuilla  and  near  to  her  tomb,  appeared  these  two 
names  very  prominently;   this  became  the  groundwork  f 
later  romance.    An  inscription  of  Achilleus  has  been  found  in  the 
cemetery  of  Domitilla  on  a  stone  column  with  a  corresponding 
column  which  may  have  borne  the  name  of  Kereus  :  both  date  from 
the  fourth  or  fifth  century  (Bull.  Arch.  Christ.  1875,  p.  8  sq.).  These 
of  course  are  later  commemorations  of  earlier  martyrs,  and  il 
well  be  that  the  name  of  Nereus  was  in  an  early  inscription 
that  of  Ampliatus  above).    In  any  case  the  name  is  one  con: 
\\ith  the  early  history  of  the  Roman  Church;  and  the  fact  that 
Nereus  is  combined  with  Achilleus,  a  name  which  does  not  appear 
in  the  Romans,  suggests  that  the  origin  of  the  legend  was  archaeo- 
logical, and  that  it  was  not  derived  from  this  Kpistle  (Lightfoot, 
Clement.  \.  p.  51  ;  Lipsius  Apokr.  Af>gesch.  ii.  106 
'oXuforos  :  an  abbreviated  form  like  several  in  this  list,  appa: 

<  'Xvpvrffepof  . 

10.  lv  ^iXiifian  dyi*:  so  i  Thess.  v.  26  ;  i  Cor.  xvi.  20;  a  Cor. 
xiii.  12;    I  IV:.  v.  14  <!<nru<ro<r6f  aXAijXoi-r  fr  0iX^j.i 
earliest  reference  to  the  'kiss  of  peace'  as  a  rep  of  the 

ian  sen-ice  is  in  Just  Mart  Apol  i.  65  oXX^Xovr  ^iX^um 
a<nro£op«&i  irawra/MMM  T£>  •  n  Tcrt.  eft 

1  4  (osculum  pact's}  ;  Const.  A  post.  ii.  '.it  became 

a  regular  part  of  the  Liturgy.    Cf.  Origen  ad  loc.  :  Ex  hoc  sermone, 
aliisque  nonnullis  similibus,  mcs  tcclesiis  traditus  tstt  ut  f>»s/  orationes 
osculo  tt  inviccm  tuscipianl  /ratrts.     Hoc  autem  osculum  j.. 
appellal  Aposlolus. 

ol  iKKXrjaiai  voacu  rov  XpiaroG  :  this  phrase  is  unique  in  the 
Phrases  used  by  St.  Paul  are  <ii  .V.X^auu  r«r  rfy;wr,  •}  .  • 

rov  $<  lieu  rov  6«  rjoiatt  rijt  'lovi.i  \(H9T$ 

(Gal  U  22),  rir  «VcXi7<nW  row  f>  I  >iAaif  iv  Xpurr^ 

'i-jffov,  and  in  Acts  ix.  28  we  have  the  uncertain  passage  r^»  «'*- 
jtX^/o*-  roC  Kvpiav  or  rov  OfoC,  where  e«ot   must,   if  the  correct 
reading,  be  used  of  Xp<rror.    It  is  a  habit  of  St.  Paul  t. 
behalf  of  tl  s  as  a  whole  :  cf.  x 

18;  xi.  28;  and   I  ^ts  that  this  unique 

phrase  is  used  to  express  'the  way  in  \\hich  the  Church  or  . 


XVI.  16,  17.]   WARNING  AGAINST  FALSE  TEACHERS      4*9 

was  an  object  of  love  and  respect  to  Jewish  and  Gentile  Churches 
alike'  (Rom.  and  Eph.  i.  52). 


WABNINQ  AGAINST  FALSE  TEACHERS. 

XVI.  17-20.  Beware  of  those  breeders  of  division  and 
mischief-makers  who  pervert  the  Gospel  which  you  were 
taught.  Men  such  as  these  are  devoted  not  to  Christ  but  to 
their  own  unworthy  aims.  By  their  plausible  and  faltering 
speech  they  deceive  the  nnicary.  I  give  you  this  warning, 
because  your  loyalty  is  well  known,  and  I  would  have  you 
free  from  every  taint  of  evil.  God  will  speedily  crush  Satan 
beneath  your  feet. 

May  the  grace  of  Christ  be  with  you. 

17-20.  A  warning  against  evil  teachers  probably  of  a  Jewish 
character.  Commentators  have  felt  that  there  is  something  unusual 
in  a  vehement  outburst  like  this,  coming  at  the  end  of  an  Epistle 
so  completely  destitute  of  direct  controversy.  But  after  all  as  I  lort 
points  out  (Rom.  and  Eph.  pp.  53-55)  it  is  not  unnatural.  Against 
errors  such  as  these  St  Paul  has  throughout  been  warning  his 
readers  indirectly,  he  has  been  building  up  his  hearers  against 
them  by  laying  down  broad  principles  of  life  and  conduct,  and 
now  just  at  the  end,  just  before  he  finishes,  he  gives  one  definite 
and  direct  warning  against  false  teachers.  It  was  probably  not 
against  teachers  actually  in  Rome,  but  against  such  as  he  knew 
of  as  existing  in  other  churches  which  he  had  founded,  whose 
advent  to  Rome  he  dreads. 

It  has  been  suggested  again  that  'St.  Paul  finds  it  difficult  to 
finish.'  There  is  a  certain  truth  in  that  statement,  but  it  is  hardly 
one  which  ought  to  detain  us  long.  When  a  writer  has  very  much 
to  say,  when  he  is  full  of  zeal  and  earnestness,  there  must  be  much 
\\lm-h  will  break  out  from  him,  and  may  make  his  letters  some- 
\\lut  formless.  To  a  thoughtful  reader  the  suppressed  emotion 
implied  and  the  absence  of  regular  method  will  really  be  proofs  of 
authenticity.  It  may  be  noted  that  we  find  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians  just  the  same  characteristics:  there  also  in  iii.  i,  just 
apparently  as  he  is  going  to  finish  the  Epistle,  the  Apostle  makes 
a  digression  against  false  teachers. 

17.  vKoirtiK,  '  to  mark  and  avoid/  The  same  word  is  used  in 
Phil.  iii.  17  crv/Afupijrcu  pov  yirtofo,  o£«X<£o«,  xw  acovfirc  TOW  ovr«» 
mptvaroCrrar  in  exactly  the  opposite  sense,  'to  mark  so  as  to 
follow.' 


43®  K   ROMANS        [XVI1710 

BiXo<7Ta<7i'cu :   cf.  G.il.  v.  20.      Those  divisions  which  ar 
result  of  the  spirit  of  strife  and  ri. 

eventually  if  persisted  in  lead  to  djxVm.     The  o*d»&aXa  are  the 
hindrances  to  Christian    progress    caused   by  theic  embittered 
>ns. 

TV  &i5axV,  not  '  Paulinism/  but  that  common  basis  of  Ch: 
doctrine  which  St.  Paul  shared  with  all  other   teachers  (i  Cor. 
xv.  i\  and  with  which  the  teaching  of  the  Judaizers  was  ; 
opinion  inconsistent 

IxKXfoiTc:   cf.  Rom.  iii.  n.     The  ordinary  construction  i 
M  and  the  genitive  (a)  of  the  cause  avoided  d«4  «uoC  i; 
:  i ),  or  (l>)  of  the  person. 

18.  These  false  teachers  are  described  as  being  self-interested 
in  their  motix-es,  specious  and  deceptive  in  their  manners. 

Phil.  iii.  19   lr  rA  rAot  <nr»Xrta,  Lv  6  toh   17  cotXia,  icui  13  6  i£a  «V  r>, 
aiffxvrij  at-rir,  o!  TU  tniytia  <£poroCrr»f. 

Tjj  JOUTWK  KoiXia.     These  words  do  not  in  this  case  app 
mean  that  their  habits  are  lax  and  epicurean,  but  that  their  motives 
are  interested,  and  their  conceptions  and  objects  are  inadequate. 
So  Origen :  Sed  el  quid  causae  si/,  qua  iurgia  in  ecclesiis  susa. 
€t  lites,  divini  Spiritus  imtinctu  af*iit.     I  V»/ri>,  inquit,  gratia :  hoc 
is/,  quatslus  et  evpiditatis.    The  meaning  is  the  same  proba 
the  somewhat  parallel  passages  Phil.  iii.  17-21;   Col.  : 
So  Hort  (Judaistic  Christianity,  p.  124)  explains  To«t»o^xKrv»^  to 
mean  '  a  grovelling  habit  of  mind,  choosing  lower  things  as  the 
primary  sphere  of  religion,  and  not  rA  5r«,  the  regie: 
is  seated  at  God's  right  hand.' 

Xpi)<rroXoYi'at    icat    tuXoyias,   'fair  and  flattering  speech 
illustration  of  the  first  word  all  commentators  quote  jul.  < 

•;jjf  13  (in  Hist.  August):  wyrri&&Y>* atmapftllanUsquibcnt 
loqiurttur  €t  mali/accrtt.  The  use  of  «iX«yia  which  generally  means 
'praise/  'laudation/  or  'blessing*  (cp.  xv.  29),  in  a  bad  sense  as 
here  of  '  flattering*  or  '  specious1  language  is  rare.  An  instance  is 
quoted  in  the  dictionaries  from  Aesop.  Fab.  229  1.  Av. 

iav  aii  ttXoyi'ar  fi'-wopjc  ?>«•>«  ff°v  °v  **}&opai* 

10.  ^  yap  ifii*'  foraKoij.     '  I  exhort  and  warn  you  because 
excellence  and  fidelity   although  they  give  me  great  cause  for 
rejoicing  increase   my  anxiety.'     These  words   seem   definitely 
to  imply  that  there  were  i  '  any  dissensions  or  erroneous 

teaching  in  the  Church.     They  are  (as  has  been  noiiccdt  quite 
inconsistent  with  the  supposed  Ebionite  character  of  the  Church, 
that  theory  was  j.  all  ground   for   holding   these 

words  spurious  was  taken  away. 

6A«  S«  upas.     St  lies  to  give    this  v.  :hout 

at  the  same  time  s.v  to  injure  their  feelings.       He 

gives  it  because  be  wishes  them  to  be  discreet  and  \\.iry,  and 


XVI.  10-23.]   WARNING  AGAINST  FALSE  TEACHERS     431 

therefore  blameless.  In  Matt.  z.  16  the  disciples  are  to  be 
4>/iuVipoi  and  d«<pa<o<:  see  also  Phil.  ii.  15. 

20.  A  U  ecfc  rfjs  ttfnHt.  See  on  xv.  13.  It  is  the  'God  of 
peace  '  who  will  thus  overthrow  Satan,  because  the  effect  of  these 
divisions  is  to  break  up  the  peace  of  the  Church. 

auKTpty€i  :  'will  throw  him  under  your  feet,  that  you  may  trample 
upon  him.' 

TOK  IQTQVQK.  In  a  Cor.  xi.  14  St.  Paul  writes  'for  even  Satan 
fashioneth  himself  into  an  angel  of  light.  It  is  no  great  thing 
therefore  if  his  ministers  also  fashion  themselves  as  ministers  of 
righteousness/  The  ministers  of  Satan  are  looked  upon  as  im- 
personating Satan  himself,  and  therefore  if  the  Church  keeps  at 
peace  it  will  trample  Satan  and  his  wiles  under  foot. 

v)  X<fpis  K.T.X.  St.  Paul  closes  this  warning  with  a  salutation 
as  at  the  end  of  an  Epistle. 

There  U  very  considerable  divergence  in  different  authorities  as  to  the 
benedictions  which  they  insert  in  these  concluding  verses. 

(i)  The  TR.  reads  in  ver.  ao  i)  \afnt  rov  Kvpiov  ij/wr  lipov  [Xporov] 
' 


This  is  supjwtcd  by  K  A  B  C  L  P,  Ac,  Vulg.  &c.  Orig.-lat. 
It  is  omitted  by  D  E  V  G  Setlul. 
In  ver.  24  it  reads  i>  \aptt  rov  Kvptov  ij/ifir  'I.  X.  >nrd  »o>T«ur 


This  is  omitted  by  K ABC,  Vulg.  c«U.  (am.  fuld.  hail.)  Boh.  Aeth. 

Orig.-lat. 

It  is  inserted  by  D  E  F  G  L,  Ac.,  Vulg.  Hard.  Chrys.  &c  Of  these 
FGL  omit  vv.  25-27,  and  therefore  make  these  words  the  end  of  the 
Epistle. 

(3)  A  third  and  smaller  group  puts  these  words  at  the  end  of  ver.  37 : 
P.  1 7.  80,  Pesh.  Arm.  Ambrstr. 


Anal  wing  these  readings  we  find : 
NABC,  Orig.-lat.  have  a 


benediction  at  ver.  ai  only. 
D  E  F  G  have  one  at  ver.  24  only. 

ulg.  <ltm.t  Chrys.,  and  the  mass  of  later  authorities  have  it  in  both 
places. 

P  has  it  at  ver.  at,  and  after  ver.  27. 

The  correct  text  clearly  has  a  benediction  at  ver.  ai  and  there  only;  it 
was  afterwards  moved  to  a  place  after  ver.  24,  which  was  very  probably 
in  some  MSS.  the  end  of  the  Kpistle,  and  in  later  KISS.,  by  a  natural 
conflation,  appears  in  both.  See  the  Introduction,  f,  9. 


GREETINGS  OF  ST.  PAUL'S  COMPANIONS. 

XVI.  21-23.  All  my  companions — Timothy %  Lucius^ 
and  Sosipattr — greet  you.  I  Terfius,  the  amanuensis^  also 
give  you  Christian  greeting.  So  too  do  Gains,  and  Erastus, 
treasurer  of  Corinth^  and  Quartos. 

21-23.  These  three  verses  form  a  sort  of  postscript,  added  after 


43*  To    TIN,    K< 

the  conclusion  of  the  letter  and  containing  the  names  of  SL  I 
companions. 

21.  TijuWcos  had  been  with  St  Paul  in  Macedonia  (a  Cor.  i.  i) : 
movements  since  then  we  have  no  knowledge.    The  pov 

>vnpy6t  is  omitted  by  B. 

Aouiuof  might  be  the  Lucius  of  Cyrcnc  mentioned  Acts  .\ 
'Ia?»»  is  probably  the  one   mentioned   in   Acts  xvii.  5-7,  9  as 
St  Paul's  host,  and  i*al*arpot  may  be  the  same  as  the  I*xarpot 
of  Acts  xz.  4,  who  was  a  native  of  Bcrea.    If  these  idcntifu 
are  correct,  two  of  these  three  names  are  connected  v. 
donia,  and  this  connexion  is  by  no  means  improbable.     Th 

Ives  to  St.  Paul  as  his  regular  companions,  or 
come  to  vi&it  him  from  Thessalonica.  In  any  case  they  were 
Jews  (o!  <rvyyo«tr  pw  cf.  ver.  7).  It  was  natural  that  St  Paul 
should  lodge  with  a  fellow-countryman. 

22.  A  ypctyaf.     St.  Paul  seems  generally  to  have  employed  an 
amanuensis,  see  i  Cor.  xvL  ai ;  Col.  iv.  18 ;   2  Thess.  iii.  17,  and 

cf.  Gal.  vi.  1 1  M«T«  rrrjX.'co.r  vpi*  ypu/i/ia«r»v  t'/pa^a  TV 

23.  rdios  who  is  described  as  the  host  of  St.  Paul  and  of 
the  whole  Church  is  possibly  the  Gaius  of  i  Cor.  i.  14.     In  all 
probability  the  Christian  assembly  met  in   his  house 

(cf.  2  Tim.  iv.  20)  who  held  the  important  office  of  ou&o/io*  r^t 
v6\t*t,  •  the  city  treasurer/  is  presumably  mentioned  as  the  most 
influential  member  of  the  community. 


CONCLUDING  DOXOLOQY. 

XVI.  25-27.  And  tti  :.*e  to  God,  who  can 

make  you  firm  believers*  duly  tra  establish 

ing  to   the  Gospel  that  /  proclaim,  the 

tncfs   Jesus   the  Messiah;    that  preaching 
God's  eternal  purpose,  the  of  his 

silent  since  the  world  began,  has  been  reve<;  n-pose 

which  the  rrophets  of  old  foretold,  which  ha* 
ftow  by  God's  express  <  to  all  the 

':!es  the  message  of  obtdience  in  faith  :  to  GV  . 
//////  who  is  ti.  .be  the  ^  tgh  Jesus 

Messiah. 

25-27.  The  Kpisilc  concludes  in  a  manner  unusual  in  S: 
\\\\\\  a  doxology  or  -My  all 

the  great   thoughts  of  the  Epistle  are   summed   up.      Although 


XVI.  25.]    THE  CONCLUDING  DOXOLOCY         433 

doxologies  are  not  uncommon  in  these  Epistles  (Gal.  L  5 ;  Rom. 
xi.  36),  they  are  not  usually  so  long  or  so  heavily  weighted ;  but 
Kph.  iii.  21  ;  Phil.  iv.  20;  i  Tim.  i.  17  offer  quite  sufficient  parallel*; 
the  two  former  at  a  not  much  later  date.  Ascriptions  of  praise  at 
the  conclusion  of  other  Epp.  are  common,  Heb.  xiii.  20,  21 ;  Jude 
24,  25;  Clem.  Rom.  §  Ixv  ;  Mart,  Polyc.  20. 

The  various  questions  bearing  on  the  genuineness  of  these 
verses  and  their  positions  in  different  MSS.,  have  been  sufficiently 
discussed  in  the  Introduction,  §  9.  Here  they  are  commented 
upon  as  a  genuine  and  original  conclusion  to  the  Epistle  exactly 
harmonizing  with  its  contents.  The  commentary  is  mainly  bMcd 
on  the  paper  by  Hort  published  in  Lightfoot,  Biblical  Essays, 

p.  3»«  & 

25.  T«i  W  SuKaji/fw  upas  <rrt|pi(cu :  cf.  Rom.  xiv.  4  <m}«»  j)  «iirr«r 

ara$f}(Ttrai   6*'    dvvarfi   yap   6    Kvptot   crrfjcra*    nvrdv.      A    more    exact 

parallel  is  furnished  by  Eph.  iii.  20  ry  d«  di/na/uVat  . .  .  wo^irtu  . . . 
mry  f)  &u£a.  <m)pi(*  is  confined  in  Si.  Paul  to  the  earlier  Epistles 
(Rom.  i.  1 1 ;  and  Thess.).  ftvMyioi,  dwarot,  £vrar««  of  God,  with 
an  infinitive,  are  common  in  this  group.  We  are  at  once  reminded 
that  in  i.  1 1.  St.  Paul  had  stated  that  one  of  the  purposes  of  his 
contemplated  visit  was  to  confer  on  them  some  spiritual  gift  that 
they  might  be  established. 

Hard  T&  €uayYAi<JK  fioo :  Rom.  ii.  16;  2  Tim.  ii.  8;  cf.  also 
Rom.  xi.  28  «nru  r6  noyyAioK.  One  salient  feature  of  the  Epistle 
is  at  once  alluded  to,  that  special  Gospel  of  St.  Paul  which  he 
desired  to  explain,  and  which  is  the  main  motive  of  this  Epistle. 
ul  did  not  look  upon  this  as  antagonistic  to  the  common 
faith  of  the  Church,  but  as  complementary  to  and  explanatory  of 
it.  To  expound  this  would  especially  lead  to  the  'establishment' 
of  a  Christian  Church,  for  if  rightly  understood,  it  would  promote 
the  harmony  of  Jew  and  Gentile  within  it 

KCU  TO  K^puypa  'Irjaoo  Xpurroo.  The  words  ffqpvypa,  *7pwr<mr 
occur  throughout  St.  Paul's  Epp.,  but  more  especially  in  this 
second  group.  (Rom.  x.  8;  i  Cor.  i.  21,  23;  ii.  4;  2  Cor.  L  19 ; 
iv.  5;  xi.  4;  Gal.  ii.  2,  &c.)  The  genitive  is  dearly  objective, 
the  preaching  'about  Christ  ;  and  the  thought  of  St.  Paul  is 
most  clearly  indicated  in  Rom.  z.  8-12,  which  seems  to  be  here 
summed  up.  St.  Paul's  life  was  one  of  preaching.  The  object 
of  his  preaching  was  faith  in  Jesus  the  Messiah,  and  that  name 
implies  the  t\vo  great  aspects  of  the  message,  on  the  one  hand 
salvation  through  faith  in  Him,  on  the  other  as  a  necessary 
consequence  the  universality  of  that  salvation.  The  reference 
is  clearly  to  just  the  thoughts  which  run  through  this  Epistle,  and 
which  marked  the  period  of  the  Judaistic  controversies, 

dwoKdXut|rir  pu<rn|piou   K.T.X.      Cf.  I  Cor.  U.  6,  7,  IO 
roir  re AciW  .  .  .  8«ou  atxfu'a* 
Ff 


434  >TLE  TO  THE  ROMANS      [XVI.  25,  28. 


.  JJM«»  W  ••' 
^«a  TOW  IIi-« 

and  for  separate  phrases,  Rom. 

thought  \\hkh  underlies  much  of  the  argun  ii.ips.  ix-xi, 

;  lied  in  the  first  eigi  csents 

in  fact,  the  conclusion  \\hieh  the  Apostle  has  arrived  a 
over  tiie  difficulties  which  the  problems  of  human  history  as  be 
i  had  suggested.    God  who  rules  over  all  the  aeons  or 
periods  in  tirm.  ive  passed  and  which  are  to  come,  is 

•  X  out  an  eternal  purpose  in  the  world.    For  ages  it  was 
now  in  these  last  days  it  has  been  revealed:  and  thir 
revelation  explains  the  meaning  of  God's  v  .the   past. 

The  thought,  then  forms  a  transition  from  the  point  of  v 
the  Romans  to  that  of  the  Ephesians.    It  is  not  unknown  in  the 
Epp.  of  the  second  group,  as  the  quotation  from  Corinthians  shows; 
but  there  it  represents  rather  the  conclusion  which  is  being  a: 
at  by  the  Apostle,  while  in  the  Epp.  of  the  Captivity  it  i«  as 
as  already  proved,  and  as  the  basis  on  which  the  idea  of  the  C 
is  developed.    The  end  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  the  first 
place  where  we  should  expect  this  thought  in  a  doxology 
coming  there,  it  exactly  brings  out  the  force  and  purpose  of  the 
previous  discussion. 

The  passage  «ora  airocaXv^iy  down  to  yfttpurftrror  goes  not 
anjpi'fti   but  with  Kqpvypa.      The   preaching  of  Christ   was  the 

ion  of  the  'mystery  which  had  been  hidden/  and  exj 
God's  purpose  in  the  world. 

26.  In  this  verse  we  should  certainly  read  fat  r«  vpatjAv  wpo- 
^irrurwr.  The  only  Greek  MSS.  that  omit  r<  are  DK,  and  the 
authority  of  versions  can  hardly  be  quoted  again  s 
the  sentence  is  much  simpler  if  it  be  inserted.  It  couples  together 
4ai«p»d«Vrof  and  yvwjNv&'rrof,  and  all  the  words  from  lu»  n  yp006» 
to  the  latter  word  should  be  taken  toother.  ۥǥ  rmrra  ri  ?6*i 
probably  goes  with  m  MTOXO^V  wan-rue  and  not  with  yvvptod,  > 

fcio   TC   ypo+wr  irpo^TjTiKw^  .  .  .  yvupwMrros.      All    the    i-l- 
this  sentence  are  ex  ccordancc  with  the  thouphts 

run  through  this  Ej  OKI  and  New  Testa- 

ments, th<  had   come   in  :h  the 

2),  that  the  new  method  of  s.r 
apart  from  law,  was  witnessed  to  by  the  Law  and  tl 

(/joprvpovpc'nj    viro    rov    vo^ov    «ai    TWK   irpo4>ijri>i>    R« 
constant   allusi-  n   chaps,   ix-xi   to   the   Old 

.    all  these  are  summed  up  in   the  phrase  to 


The  same  is  true  of  the  idea  expressed  by  «or'  «inrayq»  roi 

HMfrtm    «',  .  ,.       'I  i       n  s  of  the    Gospel 

is  brought  out  gene;  if.,  the  special  command 


XVI.  28,  27.]  THE  CONCLUDING  DOXOLOGY  435 

to  the  Apostle  is  dwelt  on  in  the  opening  vv.  1-5,  and  the  sense 
of  commission  is  a  constant  thought  of  this  period.  With  regard 
to  the  words,  oiwriov  is  of  course  suggested  by  x/>o»otr  ««•»•«§: 
truch  iv.  8,  Susanna  (Theod.)  42  (LXX)  35.  The  formula 
•tor*  iitiTtrpiv  occurs  i  Cor.  vii.  6  ;  a  Cor.  viii.  8,  but  with  quite 
a  different  meaning  ;  in  the  sense  of  this  passage  it  comes  again  in 
i  Tim.  i.  i  ;  Tit 

find  the  phrase  «<r  wnwcoq*  «urr««r  in  Rom.  i.  5.  As  Ilort 
points  out,  the  enlarged  sense  of  inaxofj  and  WTUJCOIW  is  confined  to 
the  earlier  Epistles. 

The  last  phrase  tir  ira'rra  TO  MMI  <y*»{*o6*rrot  hardly  requires 
illustrating  ;  it  is  a  commonplace  of  the  Epistle.  In  this  passage 
still  carrying  on  the  explanation  of  *npvyna,  four  main  ideas  of 
the  Apostolic  preaching  are  touched  upon  —  the  continuity  of  the 
Gospel,  the  Apostolic  commission,  salvation  through  faith,  the 
preaching  to  the  Gentiles. 

ji<W  <rot$  ©««:  a  somewhat  similar  expression  may  be  found 
in  i  Tim.  i.  17,  which  at  a  later  date  was  assimilated  to  this, 


being  inserted.  But  the  idea  again  sums  up  another  line  of 
thought  in  the  Epistle  —  God  is  one,  therefore  He  is  God  of  both 
Jews  and  Greeks  ;  the  Gospel  is  one  (iii.  29,  30).  God  is  infinitely 

wise    (i  &<*6ot  vXovrov   cal    <r<xf>iat  ital  yvaxrfwc   0*oO  xi.   33);    even 

when  we  cannot  follow  His  tracks,  He  is  leading  and  guiding 
us,  and  the  end  will  prove  the  depths  of  His  wisdom. 
27.  <?  ^  W{o  K.T.X.    The  reading  here  is  very  difficult. 

1.  It  would  be  easy  and  simple  if  following  the  authority  of 
B.  33.  72,  Pcsh.,  Orig.-lat.  we  could  omit  f,  or  if  we  could  read 
airy  with  P.  31.  54  (Boh.  cannot  be  quoted  in  favour  of  this 
reading;    Wilkins*  translation  which  Tisch.  follows   is   wrong). 
But  both  these  look  very  much  like  corrections,  and  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  f  came  to  be  inserted  if  it  was  not  part  of  the  original 
text.    Nor  is  it  inexplicable.    The  Apostle's  mind  is  so  full  of  the 
thoughts  of  the  Epistle  that  they  come  crowding  out,  and  have 
produced  the  heavily  loaded  phrases  of  the  doxology  ;  the  struc- 
ture of  the  sentence  is  thus  lost,  and  he  concludes  with  a  well- 
known  formula  of  praise  ?  ij  &£a  <r.r.A.  (Gal.  i.  15;  2  Tim.  iv.  18; 
Heb.  xiii.  21). 

2.  If  the  involved  construction  were  the  only  difficulty  caused 
by  reading  y,  it  would  probably  be  right  to  retain  it,     But  there 
are  others  more  serious.   How  are  the  words  to  'I.  X.  to  be  taken? 
and  what  does  y  refer  to  ? 

(i)  Grammatically  the  simplest  solution   is  to  suppose,  with 

Lid.,  that  £  refers  to  Christ,  and  that  St.  Paul  has  changed  the 

action  owing  to  the  words  to  'I.  X.     He  had  intended  to 

finish   'to  the  only  wise  God  through  Christ  Jesus  be  Glory/ 

as  in  Jude  25  fu5»y  Off  <rwr%M  wt£r,  to  'I.  X.  TOW  Kvptou 

rfi 


43$  i     TO  THE   ROMA  [XVI.  27 


«.r.X.,  but  the  words  'I^oD  Xptrro*  remind  him  that 
it  is  through  the  work  of  Christ  that  all  this  scheme  has  been 
developed;  he  therefore  ascribes  to  Him  the  glory.  This  is  the 
only  possible  construction  if  y  be  read,  but  it  can  hardly  be 
correct;  and  that  not  because  we  can  assert  that  on  a 
grounds  a  doxology  cannot  be  addressed  to  the  Son,  but  because 
such  a  doxology  would  not  be  in  place  here.  The  whole  purpose 
c  concluding  verses  b  an  ascription  of  praise  to  Him  who 
is  the  only  wise  God. 

(2)  For  this  reason  most  commentators  attempt  to  refer  the 
J  to  o*w.     This  in  itself  is  not  difficult:   it  resembl 
the  probable  construction  in  i  Pet.  iv.  n,  and  perhaps  in  Hcb. 
i.     But  then  o*<k  'I.  X.  becomes  very  difficult     To  take  it 
ro$^    would    be   impossible,  and  to  transfer  it  into  the 
relative  clause  would  be  insufferably  harsh. 

There  is  no  doubt  therefore  that  it  is  by  far  the  easiest  course 
to  omit  y.    We  have  however  the  alternative  of  supposing  that 
it  is  a  blunder  made  by  St.  Paul's  secretary  in  the  original 
We  have  seen  that  some  such  hypothesis  may  <  c  im- 

possible reading  in  i\ 

rob  olArat  should  be  read  with  BC  L,  !  vs.  Cyr.  Theodrt 

rfir  ol«r«r  was  added  in  K  A  I  .   1'cth.  Boh,  Orig.-laL  &c* 

owing  to  the  influence  of  i  Tim.  i 

The  doxology  sums  op  all  the  great  ideas  of  t! 
The  power  of  the  Gospel  which  St.  Paul  \vas  commissio: 
preach  ;  the  revelation  in  it  of  the  eternal  purpose  of  Go 
contents,  faith  ;  its  sphere,  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  ;  its  author, 
the  one  wise  God,  whose  wisdom  is  thus  vindicated—  all  these 
thoughts  had  been  continually  dwelt  on.    And  so  at  the  end 
feeling  how  unfit  a  conclusion  would  be  the  jarring  note  of 

-20,  and  wishing  to  'restore  to  t  at  its  close  its 

former  serene    loftiness/  the  Apostle  adds  these  vcr 

perhaps  with  his  own  hand  in  those  large  boU  1 
seem   to  have  formed  a  sort  of  authentic. 
(Gal.  vi.  n),  and  thus  gives  an  eloquent  conclusion  to  hi> 
argument. 


INDEX  TO  THE   NOTES 


I.  SUBJECTS. 


Abbot,  Dr.  Ezra,  p.  333. 

Abbott,  Dr.  T.  K.,  pp.  ia8;  185,  &c. 

Abelard,  pp.  cii;  373. 

Abraham,  Descent  from,  p.  55. 

Faith  of,  p.  97  ff. 

History  of,  in  St.  Pad  and  St. 
James,  p.  loa  ff. 

Promise  to,  pp.  109  if. ;  348. 

Righteousness  of,  p.  100  fL 
Accusative  case,  vi  10  ;  viii.  3. 
Acilius  Glabno,  p.  420. 
Actc,  p.  xvii. 
Adam,  pp.  130  ff. ;  343  ff. 

Fail  of.  p.  1360: 
Adrian,  p.  ,45. 
Agriff€sii,  pp.  xx ;  xxiii. 
Alexandrian  text,  p.  Ixxi. 
Altxandrinus,  Codex,  p.  Ixiii. 
Alford,  Dean,  p.  cviii 
Aliturus,  p.  xxii. 

Amanuensis,  xvi.  aa  ;  pp.  Ix;  127. 
Ambrotiaster,  pp.  xxv ;  ci. 
Amiatinui,  Codex,  pp.  Ixvi ;  xc. 
Ampliatns,  xvi  8 ;  pp.  xxvii ;  xxxiv. 
Andronicus,  xvi  7 ;  pp.  xxvii ;  xxxiv. 
Angtlinu,  L'oJex,  p.  Ixv. 
Angels,  pp.  146 ;  aaa  f. 
Aorist  tense,  ii.  13;  iiL  tj. 
A  pellet,  xvi.  18  ;  p.  xxxiv. 
Apollonios,  p.  hi. 
Apostle,  pp.  4  f. ;  4a3. 
Aquila    and    Priscilla    (Pri*ca\    pp. 
xviii;   xx\ii;  xjutiv ;  xl;  370;  411; 
414  ff. 

(tlului  of,  p.  419. 

the  church  in  their  house,  p.  xxxv. 
Aquilia  Phsca,  p.  430. 


Aquinas,  Thomas,  pp.  cii ;    150  f.; 

*7'  f- 1  349  J  394- 
Aristides,  p. Ixxxii 
Aristobulus,  xvi.  10;  pp.  xxiii ;  xxvii ; 

xxxiv;  xxxv. 

Armenian  Version,  pp.  Ixvii ;  Ixviii  C 
Arminius,  pp.  civ  ;  374. 
Arnold,  Matthew,  pp.  xliv;  163  f. 
Article,  Use  of,  ii.  la,  13;  iii.  u  ;  iv. 

i  a,  24  ;  viii.  a6;  ix.  4. 
Asia,  Province  of,  xvi  5. 
Astarte.  p.  xviii 
Asvncritus,  xvi.  14  ;  p.  xxxv. 
Athanasiu*,  St,  p.  305. 
Atonement,  pp.  88 ;  91  ff. ;  117;  I  a; ; 

Day  of,  pp.  85  ;  93  ;  laa  ff. 
Attraction,  Grammatical,  iv.  17;  vi 

17;  ix.  34:  x    14. 
Atisiftuis,  Codex,  pp.  Ixiv ;  Ixix. 
Angustttii,  pp.  xx ;  xxiii. 
Auguttine,  St.  pp.  149  f.;  185;  317; 

»7«fc;  379»  394.  *c. 

Babylon,  a»  a  name  of  Rome,  p.  xxix. 
Ralfoor,  Mr.  A.  J.,  p.  334. 
Baptism,  pp.  107;  153  ff. 
Barmby,  Dr.  J.,  p.  ax. 
Baruch,  Apoodypse  of,  pp.  33 ;  137  ; 

107,  &c. 

Ra*Hcide«,  p.  Ixxxii. 
Batiffol,  The  Abbe"  P.,  p.  IXT. 
Ilaumlein,  W.,  pp.  30,  dec, 
Banr,  F.  C.,  pp.  xxxii;  xxxix;  xci; 

400. 

Beet,  Dr.  J.  Agar,  p.  cvii 
Iknediction,  the  concluding,  p  xd. 


INDEX  T<  \OTES 


Bengel,  J.  A.,  p  cr. 

Beytchlag,  Dr.  WilliUv 

Kcza,  Theodore,  j 

UloodHhedding.  Sacrificial,   pp.  89; 

Boenurianui,  Codtx,  p; 

Bonsset,  NY.,  p.  I*. 
Browning,  Robert,  p.  163. 
BvtonTPrd  .:?,  p,  ao  and 

/MOM. 

Cains,  p.  x\ix. 
.1,  j..  it. 

Conception  of,  pp.  4 ;  a  17. 
Calhstus  the  Roman  Bishop,  p.  xxiii. 

51  f.;  373. 
to,  p.  XT. 

Caspari,  Dr.  C.  P.,  p.  UL 
Catacumbas,  ad,  p.  xxx. 
Cencbreae,  xvi.  i ;  p.  xxxrU. 
Ceriani,  Dr.,  p.  lx\n. 
Charles,  R.  H.,  pp.  145  ;  326,  Ac. 

Chrysostom,  St.,  pp.  xcix  ;  148  ;  370  ; 

Ac. 
Churches,  the  earliest  (buildings  for 

worship),  xrl  5. 
Cicero,  ; 

ctsion,  p.  106  ff. 
CiTil  Power,  pp.  365  ff. ;  369  ff. 
Clarom*nta*utt  CotUx,  pp.  lx.. 
Clemen,  Dr.  A.,  p.  307. 
Clemen,  Dr.  C.,  pp.  xxx\ii ;  xxxviii ; 

Clemens  Romano*,  pp.  xxix ;  Ixxix ; 

M7- 

Clement,  Flavius,  p.  xxxr. 
{  oislinianut,  CodtX,  pp.  Ixir  ; 

Colrt,  John,  , 

Collection  for  the  saints  in  Jerusalem, 

Columbaria,  p.  x 
Commandments,  The  Ten,  p 
Communication    in   Roman  EmpJri 

xri  f. 

Conflict,  The  Inward,  p.  184  L 
«       .•.>,-.     -  • 

>,::'•  r.A--.    I  .   •     .    ;        v   x. 

Cook,  Canon,  p.  . 

Corbolo,  p 

Corinthians,  Ftrrt  Epistle  to,  pp 
Comcn,Dr.P.,pp  xcviii 


Cyprian,  p 

Crrene,  p.  x 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  p.  . 


.  Johannes,  p.  c, 
Damastis,  the  Roman  Bishop,  p.  xxx, 
Date  of  the  Epistle,  pp.  xxxvi  ff.  ;  i. 
Daiire  case,  IT.  ao;  Ti.  5  ;  vii.  4,  5  ; 

DaTid,  Descent  of  Messiah  from,  i.  3; 

as  author  of  Psalm*,  IT.  6  ;  xi.  9. 
Dam  o    vwAC«  -:,  p.    -•  : 
Death,  Idea  of  (see  'Jesus  Christ, 

Death  of;  Abort*),  •: 
Deissmann,   Hcrr  G.  A.,  pp.  160  f  ; 

Deliusch,  Dr.  F.,  p.  45  »n<\  fiat  rim. 
Dtpotitio  Alartyrum.  p. 
DeRos  (i8ff. 

Dicks  I'.,  p.  cri. 

Dionysius  of  Corinth,  p. 
Domitilla,  p.  XXXT. 
Dnoj  |k  i  ;;•  -;'•  :  •*)  f 
Doxology,  The  (Rom. 
pp.  Ixxix  ;  Ixxxix  ;  x 
Dwight,  Dr.  T.,  p.  »33. 

Ebionite,  p.  400. 

Edershetm,  Dr.  A.,  pp.  xxiii  ;  136  ff. 
Version  v 

i  ;   ;     xx\.:. 


Ephesus.pp. 

Efkratmi,  Codfjc,  p.  1\ 

Epistles  of  St.   Paul.   Addresses  of, 

p.  15- 

Erasmns,  p.  ciL 
Erastns,  p.  x 
Esan,  ix.  13 
Essenes,  p.  400  C 
;  .  ciT. 

rsion,  p.  IxriL 
Euthahuv  p.  Ixix. 

ETans,  I>r.  T.  S.,  pp.99;  i*f.  . 

3»- 
ETanson,  E.,  p.  K 

*cr  ot  p.  145  C 

Ezra,    Fourth   Book   of,    p.   33    and 

fa;  :  I 


I.    SUBJECTS 


439 


Fairbairn.  Dr.  A.  M  ,  pi  cUL 

Faith,  pp.  19;  31  ff.;  83  f.  ;  94  ff.; 

97  ff. 

and  Works,  pp.  57  ;  105. 
Fall,  The,  pp.  85;  130  ff.;  136  ff.  ; 

M3ff.;  305. 
Felix,  p.  XT. 

Forensic  terms,  pp.  30  f.  ;  190;  330* 
Free-Will.  pp.  216;  347  f. 
Frickr,  Dr.  (i.  A.,  p.  131. 
Fricdlandcr,  Dr.  L.,  p.  51. 
Fritzsche,  C.  F.  A.,  pp.  cyi  ;  375,  &<x 
is,  Codtx,  pp.  Ixvi  ;  xc. 


Gains,  xvi.  33  ;  p.  xxxvii. 
Galatia,  Churches  of,  p.  xxxviii. 
Galatians,  Epistle  to  the,  p.  xxxrii. 
Genitive  case,  ill.  33;  iv.  u;  v.  5; 
vii.  5;  viii.  36;  XT.  5,  13,33;  XTi. 
ao,  ^5. 

Gentiles  (see  Wxi,),  I  5,  13,  i8-3a  ; 
li.  i4f.,  26;  111.9,  *3.  »9  f..*  »x.3°: 
x.  u  ;  XT.  9  ff.,  :6  f.  ;  xvi.  a6. 

Call  of  the,  ix.  34  ff. 
Gcnttle-ChrUtians,   i.  6;  IT.  17;   xi. 
13  ff.  :  XT.  9  ff.,  37. 

in  Church  of  Rome.  pp.  xxxii;  liif 
Gifford,  Dr.  E.  H.,  p.  cvni. 

S  pp.  269;  368. 

GOD,  as  Creator,  pp.  359  ;  366  f. 
as  Father,  pp.   16  f.  ;    aoi  ff.  ; 

396  f. 
LOTC  of,  pp.  1  18  f.  ;  1  35  ;  319  ff.  ; 

334. 

Mercy  of,  p.  33*  ff. 
Sovereignty  of,  pp.  310  ;  350  ff.  ; 

C.odct,  Dr.  F.,  p.  cviii,  &c. 
Gore,  Canon,  pp.  300  ;  367,  Ac, 
Gospel,  The,  pp.  xliii  ;  1. 

Universality  of  the  (see  'Gen- 

tiles'), p.  398! 
Gospels,  The,  pp.  8;  17;   30;  33; 

36  f.;  91;  381  f.;  431. 
Gothic  Version,  The,  pp.  Ixvii  ;  Ixix. 
Grace  (see  x^pt),  The  state  of,  p.  3  1  8  ff. 
Grafc,  Dr.  E.,  p.  53. 
Greek  Commentators,  pp.  xcix  ;  207  ; 

316. 

Greeks  in  Rome,  p.  xvii. 
(Ircen,  T.  H..  pp.  43;  164  f. 
Grimm,  Dr.  \\illibald,  p.  333. 

.;o,  p.  ciT. 
Grouping  of  MSS.,  p.  l.\ 

Hammond,  Henry,  p.  cr. 

1  ieathen  vscc  •  Gentiles,'  f  0nj\  p.  49  f. 


Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  pp.  Ixxvi; 

31:  9'I  *'5- 
Heirship,  p.  301  ff. 
Hennas,  xvi.  14. 
Hermes  xvi.  14. 

Herodion,  xvi.  1 1  ;  pp.  xxvii ;  xxxiv. 
Herods,  The,  p.  xxi  f. 
Hesychins,  p.  Ixviii. 
Hilary,  p.  ci. 
Hispalns,  p.  xix. 
l!M»j,    St   Paul's   Philosophy  of, 

p.  343  ff. 

Hodge,  Dr.  C.,  p.  cri. 
Hort.  Dr.  F.  J.  A.,  pp.  Ixvi;  Uix; 

Ixxxix;   xcr;    165;   401;   414  f. ; 

430;  439;  433. 
Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  p.  cii. 

Ignatius,  pp.  xxix ;  Ixxix;  161  ;  aoo. 
lllyria,  lllyricum.  p.  407  ff. 
Immanence.  The  Divine,  p.  197. 
Imperfect  tense,  ix.  3. 
Infinitive  (d.  «Jr  rt),  L  10;  ii.  ai ; 

xii.  15. 
Integrity  of  the  Epistle,  pp.  Ixxxi ; 

399- 
Interpolations  in  ancient  writers,  p. 

Ixxvi  f. 
Interpretation,  History  of,  pp.  147  ff. ; 

369  ff. 

Irenaeus,  p.  xxix. 
Isaac,  pp.  1 1 3  ff. ;  338  ff. 
Isis,  \N  onhip  of.  pp.  xviii ;  xx. 
Israel  (see  Jews,  dec.),  Privileges  of, 

pp.  34;  53  ff.;  68  ff.;  3*3;  398. 
Rejection  of,  pp.  338  ff. ;  307  ff.; 

318  ff.;  341  f. 
Restoration  of,  p.  318  ff. 
Unbelief  of,  p.  335  ff. 

Jacob,  ix.  13. 

James.  St.,  pp.  33;  loa  ff.;  135. 

Epistle  of,  p.  Ixxvii. 
Jason,  p.  xxxvii. 

Jerusalem,   Fall  of,   pp.    337;    346; 
380. 

Collection   for   poor    saints   in, 
pp.  xxx vi ;  xcii. 

St  Paul's  Tisit  to.  p.  414  f. 
JESUS  CHRIST  (see  '19001*  x/*<rr4t, 

X/x<rrJf  'Irjaovt,  Ir  X/Nory). 
Death  of,  pp.  91  ff. ;  160. 
Descent  of,  p.  6  f. 
Teaching  of  (,see  Gospels),  p.  37, 

Jewish  Teaching  (see  'Messianic  In- 
terpretation'). 


440 


IE   NOTES 


Teaching  on   Adam's   Fall, 

. 

oo  Orcumdsioo,  p.  108  £, 
on  ElccUoo.  p.  ; 

oo  Relation  to  Ciril  Power,  p.  369. 
on    Renovation  of    Nature,   p. 
aioff. 

00  Restoration  of  Israel,  p.  336  L 
Jews  (see 'Israel'). 

as  critics,  p.  53  & 
Failure  of  the,  p.  63  ff. 

banished  from  Rome,  ; 
their  organization,  p.  xxii  f. 
their  social  status,  p.  xxv. 

1  n  fl  u  ence  on  Roman  Society ,  p .  xx  v. 
their  migratory  character,  p.  xxvi. 
their  turbulence,  p.  x 

ohn,  St.,  pp.Qi  f. ;  163. 
bwett,  Dr.  B.,  p.  crii. 
'udaistic  Controversy,  p.  IviL 


odaiiera,  p.  400. 
ode,  St.,  p.  33. 

xix. 

Judgement,  The  Final,  p.  53  ff. 
Julia,  xvi.  15  ;  p. 
Julicher,  oo  Ephesians,  p.  lv. 
Julius  Caesar,  relation  to  the  Jews, 

p.  xix. 

Junia  (or  Junias),  xri.  17  ;  pp.  xxvii  ; 
xxxiv. 


Justification  (see  &«aiorriry  e«ov,  9t- 
aiovr,  &«u«0<f,  &«ai«/>ia),  pp.  30  f.  ; 


190, 


and  Sanctincalion,  p.  38. 
Justin  Martyr,  p.  h 
at,  p.  lii. 

Kaotach.  Dr.  E,,  pp.  73;  307. 

Kelly,  N 

Kenm  333. 

:34- 

Kldpper,  Dr.  A.,  p.  62. 
Knowling,  R.  J.,  p.  lx>  - 


aw,  loocepuoo  ot,  pp.  50  ;  109  n. ; 
161  ; 
and  Grace,  pp.  166  ff. ;   176  ff  ; 

Uddci. 


LUe.  Idea  of,  vi.  8;  rii.  9; 

Bp.,  pp.  Ixxxix  ;   xcv  and 


R.  A.,  p.  dx  and  paiiim. 
Literary  History  of  Epistle  to   the 

Romans,  p 
Locke,  John,  p.  or. 
Lomao,  A.  D.,j>.  Ixxxri. 

Low,  PP  373  "  ;  37^  f- 

Lucius,  xvi.  a  i  . 

Luther.  Martin,  pp.  cm  ;  41  ; 

Maccabees,  The.  p.  xix. 

Mangold,  Dr.  xdii  ; 


p  h 
Mardoo,  pp.  Ixxxiu  ;  xc  ;  xcvi  ;  38  ; 

55:  83;  179;  |8°;  "/> 


339  I  366  ; 
ark,  Bl 


Marriage,  Law  of,  p.  1  70  ff. 


Mary  (Miriam  \  pp.  xxxiv;  xxxv. 

Major, 

Mclanchthon,  Philip,  p 

Merit,  pp.  81  ;  86  ;  94  ff.  ;  97  ff.  ;  245  ; 

Messiah)  Coming  of  the,  pp.  63;  188; 

•07  ;  387  f.  ;  ao6  ;  336  L  ;  379  f. 
Messianic    Interpretation    of 

pp.  a8if.;  387  f.;  396;  306;  336. 
Meyer.  vi    and 

fiusim. 

Mmucius  1-V 

Afffjfuffitit,  Codex,  p. 
Moule,  11.  C.      . 

NaMseni,  p.  Ixxxii. 

Narcissus,  xv  <xivL 

Natural  Religion,  pp  39  &•  > 

' 

I'he  Qm'mauennium  of, 
Character  ol  hit  reign.  D.  xv. 
Law  and  Police  under  mm,  p.  xvi. 
Neutral  Text,  p.  Ixxi. 
Noratian.p 

Objections,   Treatment    of,    pp.    69; 

-93;  >95- 
Oecumenms,  p.  c, 


1.    SUBJECTS 


441 


Oebler.Dr.G.  F,  p.  318. 
Old  Testament,  Use  of  the,  pp.  77 ; 
a64;  a88  L;  soaff.;  396. 
Collcctioni    of    extracts    from, 

pp.  264 ;  a8a. 
Oltramaie,  liugues,  p.  c 
Olyropas,  xvi. 
Origen,  p.  xcix  and  pasrim. 


Original  Sin,p.  137. 
Ostian  way,  The,  p. : 


p.  xxix. 

Paganism,  p.  49  ff. 

Palcy,W.,j>.4i3. 

Parousia,  The,  p.  377  ff. 

Participle,   Force   of,   iv.   18;   v.    i; 

ix.  33. 

Passive  Obedience,  p.  372. 
PatiritHsis,  Codtx,  p.  Ixv. 
Patriarchs,  Testaments  of  the  Twelve, 

p.  Ixxxii. 
Patrobas,  xvi.  14. 
Patron,  p.  41 7  t 
1'attison,  Mark,  p.  60. 
Paul.  St.  (see 'St.  James,'  «St  John/ 
•St.  Jude."St.  Peter'). 
Collection  of  his  Epistles,  p.  Ixxix. 
Conversion  of,  p.  186. 
Courtesy  of,  pp.  ai ;  403. 
Death  of,  p.  xxxi. 
(•ricf  of,  over  Israel,  pp.  335; 

337. 

Jerusalem  visits,  p.  xlii. 
Journeys  of,  pp.  xxxvi  ff. ;  407  ff. ; 

413". 
Penetrating  insight  of,  pp.  a6  f. ; 

103;  186. 
Philosophy   of  History    of,    p. 

343  ff. 
Plans  of,  pp.  xxxvi  ff. ;    19  ff. ; 

41  off. 

Roman  citizenship,  p.  xiv. 
Rome  and  its  influence  on,  pp.  xiii ; 

xviii. 

Style  of,  p.  liv. 

Temperament  and  charnctcr.p  lix 
Paulus  Episcopns,  p.  Ixxxviii. 
Pedanins  Secundus,  p.  xvii. 
Pelagius,  p.  ci. 

t  tense,  v.  a ;  ix.  19 ;  xvi.  7. 
Penis,  xvi.  1 2 ;  p.  xxxv. 
Peshitto  Version,  The,  p.  Ixvii. 
Peter,  St. 

Death  of,  p.  xxxii. 

Roman  Church  and,  pp.  xxviii  ff. ; 

Ixxvi. 

I  In  twenty-five  yean*  episcopate, 
p.  xxx. 


Peter,  First  Epistle  of,  p.  Ixxiv  ff. 

Pharaoh,  ix.  17. 

Phtlo,  Embassy  to  Rome,  p.  xx. 

Philologus,  xvi.  15 ;  p.  xxxiv  £. 

Phlegon,  xvi  14. 

Phoebe,  xvi.  i ;  p.  xxxvi. 

Pierson,  A.,  p.  Ixxxvi. 

Plumplre,  Dean,  pp.  430;  436. 

Polycarp,  Epistle  of,  pp.  Ixxix;  371. 

Pompeius  Magnus,  p.  xix. 

Pomponia  Graecina,  pp.  xviii ;  xxii ; 
xxxv. 

Poor,  Contributions  for  the,  pp.  xxxvi ; 
xcii;  41  a  f. 

Poppaea  Sabina,  p.  xviii. 

Porphyrian**,  Cod*xt  p.  Ixv. 

Porta  Port  tutu  is,  Jcwuh  cemetery  at, 
p.  xx. 

Portus,  Jewish  cemetery  at,  p.  xx. 

Predestination  (see  '  Election,'  •  Re- 
sponsibility1), p.  347  & 

Prisca  (Prisdlla :  see  •  Aqnila '),  xvi.  3. 

Priseilltu  eotmtttrium,  p.  419. 

Promise,  Conception  of,  pp.  6;  18; 
looff. 

Propitiation,  pp.  g» ;  94;  itgf. 

Proselytes,  p.  xxv. 

Provinces  under  Nero,  p.  xv. 

Pythagoreans,  p.  400. 

Quinquennium  of  Nero,  p.  xiv. 

Ramsay,  W.  M.,    pp.    xir;   xxviii; 

xxxi. 

Reconciliation,  Idea  of,  p.  1 39  f. 
Reformation  Theology,  The,  pp.  cii ; 

i»C 

Regeneration,  p.  185  f. 

Reiche,  p.  xcv. 

Remnant,  Doctrine  of  the,  pp.  308  ; 

3i6ff. 

Kenan,  E.,  pp.  xcii:  421 
Kendall,  F.,  p.  xxx 
Reach,  Dr.  A.,  p.  38a. 
Resurrection,  p.  335  f. 

of  Christ,  pp.  1 1  a  ff. ;  1 16  I ;  159. 
Revelation  (cf.  dvoc&vfu).  pp.  39  ff.; 

Kiddcll,  Mr.  James,  p.  191. 
Righteousness,  p.  a8  ff. 

of  God,  pp.  34  ff. ;  134  ff. 
Roman  Church,  pp.  xxv ;  18  ff. ;  370; 
401  f.  I  404 

Composition  of.  p.  «x^i 

Creed  of,  p.  liii. 

Government,  pp.  xxxv ;  370  f. 

Greek  character  of,  p.  lit. 


X    TO  THE   NOTES 


Roman  Church 

Origin  of,  pp.  xxv  ;  1*  • 
Status  and  condition  of,  p  • 
Roman  dtbensbip,  St.  Paul's,  p.  xiv. 
Koman  J  n.;  Ire,  j>  x.v. 
:lc  to  the. 
Analym  of,  p.  x 
Argument  of.  p.  xliv. 
EpEesians  compared  with,  p.  Iv. 
Integrity  of,  p.  Ixxxv. 

;uage  and  Style  of,  lit. 

Ixxiv. 

Occasion  of,  p.  x\ 
Place   of,  in    Pauline    Epistles, 

p.  Ixxxiv. 

Purpose  of,  p  xxxix. 
Text  of,  p.  IxiL 

and  place  of,  p.  xxxvi. 
Rome  in  A.D.  58,  p.  xiii  ff. 

Influence  of,  on  St.  Paul,  p; 

XXM. 

Rnfns,  xvi.  13  ;  pp.  xxvii;  xxxhr. 
Ruskin,  Mr.,  p.  £ 

Sacrifice  of  Christ,  pp.  91  ff.;    119; 

Sacrifices,  the  Leritical,  pp.  gi 

Sahidic  Version,  r. 

Salvation,  pp.  33  : 

Sanctification,  pp 

Sangertnatunsit,  Lodtx,  p.  Ixix, 

Satan,  p.  i 

Schad.r  .11-. 

Schaetc 

Scholasticism,  pp.  37 ;  118;  133. 

Schultx,  l)r 

Schiirer,  Dr.  i  .nr;d  fastim. 

Scriv  ||.  A.,  p.  b 

SednliusSco 

Seneca,  p.  . 


*,  p.  xxix. 
13°  ff  :  136  ff  ;  143  ff  ; 

*frjr,  pp.  . 

Slavery  in  Rome,  p.  x% 
Smend.  Dr.  K..  j 
Smith.   Dr.   \V.    KoLertson,  pp.   14; 

Society,  the  Christian,  pp.  1 32  (. ;  355. 
Sohm,  Dr.  R.,  r 
Sonship,  p.  201  ff. 

ater.  p.  xxx 
Spain,  xv.  »4,  a8. 
.s/v,  «/«w.  "1 

; 
199! 


Spiritual  gifts,  pp.  at  :  358  ft 
Stachys,  xvi.  o  ;  p 
Bto  •.'  tbdo 


l  ; 
^x«),  p 

.s  !  <  i  ;    i   :  ;  i  ,  ]  .   x  \  .  . 

Stuart,  Moses,  p.  cvL 
Suetonius,  j  . 

Swetc.  i3i. 

Syriac  Versions,  p.  Ixxi  ff. 

Terminology,  Theological,  p.  1  7. 

Tort*  >.  XM   12. 

Teitnllian,  p 

Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs, 

p.  Ixxxii  and  /ttui/tt. 

Text  of  the  Kj.i>tlc,  p.  : 

New     nomenclature 

P.  . 

Theodoret,  pp.  c  ;  149  and  fattim. 
Theophanes,  p.  cix. 
Theophylact,  p.  c, 
Thestalonians,  Epp.  to,  j 
TholiUK  IKCT. 

Ti  mot  he  us.  x 
Toy,  1 
Trent,  Connc 

of   the,    pp.    16; 

aoo;  340. 

1  :•.  :    .  i   :     .  x    i.    I  :  ,    ;     x»  v. 
Tryphosa,  x-  \xv. 

Turpie.  Mr.  D  M'Calman,  p  307. 
Tyndale,pp.65;  175.  194  ;  393. 

Union  with  Christ,  pp.  : 

163  ff. 
Urbanus,  xri  9  ;  pp.  xx 

Valcntinians,  p.  lx 

Vatican  H. 

«/,   CaiV-r.  j.p    . 

r.,p.crii. 

rians,  pp.  385  ;  401  L 
Vicarious  suffering,  p.  93. 

\  :.          ..       :     •  ,  .   xv 

Voelter,  Dr.  D.,  p.  Ixxx 

' 

"*. 

cvi. 

•  • 


II.    LATIN   WORDS 


443 


Western  Text,  The,  p.  Ixxl  ff. 

WctJtcin,  J.  I.,  p.  cv. 

Weymonth,  Dr.  R.  K.,  p.  434. 

\Viclif,  pp.  9;  175  ; 

Wordsworth,  Dr.  Christopher,  p.  cvii. 


Works,  pp.  57:  »oa: 
Wrath  of  God,  pp.  47  ;  117. 

Zahn,  Dr.  Theodor,  p.  lxx*v. 
r,  L.,  p.  Uvi. 


II.  LATIN  WORDS. 


p.  57- 

p.  134;  375. 
Jefinitus.  p.  8. 
Jtputatiu,  p.  a  a  a. 
ebstinatus,  p.  8. 

;  375. 


iugulatie,  p.  aa». 
mortifitan,  p.  a  a  a. 


/w/Km.pp.57;  134. 
vutima,  p.  a  a  a. 


III.  GREEK  WORDS. 

[This  to  an  Index  to  the  Notes  and  not  a  Concordance ;  sometimes  however, 
where  it  is  desirable  to  illustrate  a  particular  usage,  references  are  given  to 
passages  which  are  not  directly  annotated  in  the  Commentary.  The  oppor- 
tunity is  also  taken  to  introduce  occasional  references  to  two  works  which 
appeared  too  late  for  use  in  the  Commentary,  Notts  on  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 
from  unpublished  (Jommtntaries  (including  the  first  seven  chapters  of  the 
Romans)  by  Bp.  Lightfoot,  and  Bibelstudien  by  G.  Adolf  Deissmann  (Mar- 
burg, 1895).  Some  especially  of  the  notes  on  words  in  the  former  work 
attain  to  classical  value  (a-yo^t  and  8/«cuot,  dvaM«pa\atovo$ai,  tytfoor),  and 
the  latter  brings  to  bear  much  new  illustrative  matter  from  the  Flinders  Pctric 
and  other  papyri  and  from  inscriptions.  In  some  instances  the  new  material 
adduced  has  led  to  a  confirmation,  while  in  others  it  might  have  led  to  a 
modification  of  the  views  expressed  in  the  Commentary.  We  cannot  however 
include  under  this  latter  head  the  somewhat  important  differences  in  tegard  to 
&«o<ovr  and  •oroAAdacrftv.  Hp.  Ligbtibot's  view  of  8c«cuoCr  in  particular 
seems  to  us  less  fully  worked  out  than  was  usual  with  him.] 

•A0/3o,  viii.  15. 

*pMt,  v.  7  (-Lit) ;  T*  dYofcSr,  xiiL 

4  ;  xiv.  16  ;  xv.  a. 
dyasWvyiy,  xv.  14. 
d-yawo*.  xiiL  8,  O. 
d-ytlwij,   v.  5,  8;    xii.    9;    xiiL   10; 

xv.  30 ;  pp.  374  ff. :  ct  Deissmann, 

p.  8of. 

&-rri\at,  viil  38. 
Aytaffftot,  vi.  19. 
<ryio*,  i.  7;  xi.  16;  xii.  I,  13; 


,  x.  3  ;  xi.  »5. 

17. 

x.  i  :  cf.  Deissmann,  p.  8a  (. 

i8,  a9;  i.L  5. 

i.  28. 

viii.  3. 
dfeor,  i.  ao. 

all*,  iii.  *s;  pp.  91  f.,  119. 
oiort',  xii.  a. 
<Uo*ajxria,  vi.  19. 


,  it 


X   TO  THE   NOTES 


Oi 

dAV,,n 
dA^yr 
dAAdA/7»,x.  18,19. 


dAA^r/aot,  «T.  20. 

'3 

i: 

iii.  25;  T.  13;  p.  1, 
T.  12;  vi  6,  7,  10  ;  vii  8. 


'5;  p-  '44. 


d**v«,r.  x.  6. 
vii.  O. 
ix    3- 

ft  x:i.  3. 
M+aJUuowrftu,    xiil.    9: 
Notes,  p.  321  f. 


drawo\oyrjr&t,  L  3O  ;  11.  I 
dra<rro<riff,  i.  4  ;  p.  18. 
dr^/xw-iTTOt.  xi.  33. 
dVl^,  xii.  20. 
drtyrfrriror  Afyw,  ri.  19. 
.  ix 

,  vii.  si. 

AwiWf,vt6;pp.  171,  174. 
«,,  TI.  19. 

x 

xi 


drw&r^irof,  x 

d/«ot  .  .  .  w^t,  vui.  18. 

df«f.  x 

dnyx^t  ^>ii  23  :  xi.  >6  ;  xvi.  5. 

«i»«*3<x«<T*a«,  viii.  19. 

dwioria,  dviffruV,  iii.  3. 

t,  xii  8. 
,  I  20;  dvd  /U^ovt.  XT.  15. 

.4 

.  rl  7,  10. 

T^,  i.  1  8. 

vii..  19. 

,  viil  19. 

,  i.  27. 

roAvr/^,,.  f    Lft.  W^W. 

and  p.  316. 

dv^roXot,  L  i  :  xu   7  ;  p   18. 
iMffflMta, 
dvoroA/ia*-,  x.  2O. 

dpa  oir.  v.  18  ;  rii.  25  ;  ix.  16,  18. 
XT.  i. 

iii  38, 
i.  ig. 

**«**.  IT.  5. 


13. 
vi.  19;  TULtl 

,  |   31  (T.  L). 
d<rvr«roi  i 

«*T*t.  ;    xv.    14. 


(T.  i.). 


,.     . 

33. 
3. 


»,i 

aaina  ToC  W< 
0a<riA«i/«ir,  T.  1  4  . 
$<urra{iir.  XT.  i  . 
^Awr<r«<rfai,  ii  22. 

.   10. 

,  xiv 


riotffe 


19. 
i8a.] 


7/ro.ro,  M.  j.i    4  ;    - 


..  4. 

:,  »s; 

[Ttti.  39]. 

XV.    I4. 

19. 

L  2;  p.  18:   cf.  Deissmann, 
p.  109. 

26. 

•  •> ;  p.  1 19. 

h'  tavTov,  x; 
&<urorur,  XT.  25. 

T. 

.  j  ;  xiv.  23. 
^  i.  3  i  ;  i 

fcotWpo:  i3[-Lft}. 

xv.  4 


III.    GREEK   WORDS 


445 


,  vt  17;  xv  1 
,  v 


&t*aioKp«jia,  ii.  5. 

ourtuot,  i.  17  ;  iii.  26  ;  T.  7  ;  p.  28  f. 


vn;,  pp.  a8  ft,  393. 

vrrj  W«oC  (ij  far.  TOW  e«ov),  i. 
17;  til  15,  31,  35;  x.  3;  p.  34  ff. 
84«a«wr,  aatoiovofcu,  ii.  13  ;  iii.  4.  30, 
a6,  a8  ;  iv.  5  ;  vi.  7  ;  Tiii.  30  ; 
pp.  30  f.  (otherwise  Lit.  ;  tee  how* 
ever  his  remarks  on  d^iovr,  A'otes. 

P   >°5)- 

&«k,«»,  I.  3»;  T.  16,  18;  Till.  4; 
p.  3  «  (cf.  Lft.  p.  393). 

iv.    35;    v.    18;    pp.   31, 


&4,  xiii.  5  ;  XT.  33. 
19;  iii.  30. 
r«u,xu.  .7. 
r,  ix.  30 ;  xii.  1 4. 

-S;   ii.  18;  Xil.  3. 
T.  4. 

33;  iii.  33;  T.  3;  vi.  4;  viii. 
18,  31  ;  ix.  4;  xv.  7;  xvi.  37. 
8of«Ca.  3°5  xi.  13;  XT.  9. 

0ot>A«'a,  viii.  15,  31. 
;  p.  18. 
r,  i.  4,  16  ;  viii  38. 

25. 

Si/KaruV,  xiv.  4. 
Swartt,  xii.  18. 
tyf,  xv-  5» 

8&0cdL  T      I  A 

J-ywaAfir,  viii.  33. 
lyittvrptfvt  xi.  1 7. 
J7«4rr«iir,  xv.  33. 
J8oA4oOw,  iii.  13. 

«^7»  i-  5 :  ii.  14 ;  i*»  30. 
«r7«,  v.  6  (T.  L) ;  [iii.  30]. 
<IKWV,  viii.  39. 
«?«•«/>,  iii.  30. 
cfrwr,  i.  10 ;  xi.  14. 

**-'i3,  33*:  XTL30;  p.  18. 
•ft,   ii.  36;   iv.  3;   viii.  18;  xi.  36; 

XT.  36  (cf.  Deissmann,  p.  113  ff.). 
«Ji  r6  with  inf,  i.  n,  30  ^ otherwise 

Lft.);  iv.  ii,  16,  18. 
•ft,  i,  T.  15,  17;  ix.  10, 
tlaip\<a6ait  \ 
i*,   i«.  8  (cf.  Lft/,;   iii.  36,  30  (cf. 

Lft)  ;  |T.  14,  16;  xi.  36;  xii.  18. 
««&«ot,  xiii.  4. 

,   36. 
^or,  xi.  17. 


xvi.  5.  16  ;  p.  15. 

',  xri.  17. 

viii.  33;  xvi.  13;  p   4. 
,  xi.  7,  38. 
•or'    JjrAoTqr,    ix.    n;    xi.    5  ; 


p.  350. 
,  ix.  6. 


Il 


T.  5. 
,  ix.  13. 
«A«u>,  ix.  15  ;  xii.  8. 
t\tvOtpiat  viii.  31. 

•EAA^,  i.  i4. 

JAAo7«f<rtoi  (I\\oyaff0at\  v.  13. 
lAw/r,  v.  4;  viii.  34;  xii.  13;  xv.  4. 

13- 

.  ,  i    iS  (otherwise  Lft.),  19,  13;  xi. 
3,    35  ;  xv.  6  :   cf.   Deissmann,  p. 
l  ft 

fr  Kv/rfy,  xvi.  13. 
ir  Kv/xV  1i7<roD,  xiv.  14. 
If  Xptor$,  ix.  i  ;  xvi.  7. 
Jr  X/MOTft  'l7«roC,  iii.  24  ;  vi.  M. 
Jr  ffop*/,  viii.  9. 
ir  vrii/^an,  viii.  9. 
4r  ^T,  viil  3. 

Msivwfef,  ii.  15;  ix.  17,  33. 
lr<«i/irt  iii.  35,  36. 
JrSvra/iotMrAu,  iv.  20. 
lrour«V,  vii.  17  ;  viii.  if. 
JrroAi},  vii.  8. 
imryx^«<r,   xL    a:    cf.    Deissmann, 

p.  H7f. 

l^ovaray,  vii.  If. 
^«7«<Hir,  ix.  17. 
ifono\o-jtt~o0<u,  XIV.  II. 
Ifoveta,  ix.  31  ;  xiii.  I. 
i»ary«A/a,  iv.  13;   ix.  4,  8;  p.  18 

(cf.  Lft.  on  iv.  ai> 
fvturor,  ii.  39. 

,  !.  16. 

t  xv.  15. 
,  ii.  17. 
<»«/,  iii.  6. 

4wit  L  9,  n  ;  iv.  18  ;  r.  a  ;  viii.  30. 
J^Vi  v.  13. 

>>>•  30;  x.  3. 

ii.  7  ;  p.  375. 
,  x.  I  a,  13,  i  j. 
,  xi.  a  a. 

,  i.  II. 

iwtw^ia,  xv.  33. 
t,  xvi.  7. 

lV,  XV.  38. 


i»lT«A«lV 


lit  5. 


17. 

t>yor.  ri  l/ryor,  U.  15;  xiil  3  I  *»*. 
30  ;  p.  102. 


X    TO  THE   NOTES 


if»?l  olr,  U    19;   xi.  10. 

T,  Ip. 

W  c5r  lp 

,  il.  8. 

i«ir,  xiv.  2,  3,  d. 
<r«pof,  vii.  33 

7  ;  T.  6;  J'T 

«uay7«A4£«70<u,  x.  15;  i 
f  i-ayy/Aiar,  i 

iii  *"  ;5- 


.xv.  26  £ 
•Mbafe,  x.  i. 
•AMyd 

«vAoyi7Tft,    i.   25;  ix,    5;  p.    336:  cf. 
Lft.,  p.  310. 

XT.  39  ;  xvi.  1  8. 

i.  10  (- 

.  iv.  i  (T.  L  ;  on  the  reading 
•ee  also  Lft.). 


'£,  v.  12. 

38;  ir.  a;  r.  i.  a  (-Lft.). 


:.   II. 
Ci»Xot    | 

rtr,  vii.  9  (cf.  Lft);  x.  5  ;   xii    i  , 
9- 

M,Ti, 

«,  iii.  39:  X 

4<t7ro«r.  I. 

^A 

^T«  .  .  .  <J,  vi.  16. 
^*»i  «•  ' 
'HA*fat 


»,    *,  II I     vi.    3,    4 

(•Lit);  x 

«rfAm.  1 6. 

fttauM,  rl,  i.  to;  ii.  18;  x: 

••,  XV.  3O. 

p.  337. 

•arty>,  i.  7  ;  p.  1 8. 
.3(cf.LfV). 


it  8. 

,  i 


f&or,   riii.    33  ;    x.    3  :    tee   however 
|>.  isof. 

v.  16. 

i 

*Ii7<rowt  X/«oToi,  ».    I  ;  pp.  3  f.,  83  f., 
l6of. 

iw,:.  i  ). 

r,     , 


.130: 

comp.  Lft.  and  Ddtanann,  p.  1  2  1  ff. 
M^yM 

iVa,  v.  30;  xi.  II. 

'3- 
tw«Q4'  ;  ;  p.  »J9. 

. 

p.  64. 

<  v.  4. 


I,  Tti,  i.  38. 

19. 
36. 

«U/&,  : 

«ard  jraip^r,   cord   rir  «Q4/x/f ,  ». 
x.  9. 

roAciV, 
•oAurt,  x 

flo^vo^op<ir,  vii.  4  'otherwise  Lft.). 
•ara,  i 

«OT*  oT«or.  > 
MXMXAMi  33. 

.  18. 


•ara.p,:. 
•araAiiAof,  i.  30. 
*araAap£<ir«M',  u    30. 
iroraAAa^,  v 
«araAAriaa«r,  v.  10. 
•araAi/«ir,  xiv.  30. 

garAnrfit,  xL  8. 

•aro^-  3.6. 

xarapr 

flar«iffor«iV, 

«aro 
«ar«/rjra^«oc 

.  s  (otherwitt 


III.    GREEK   WORDS 


447 


«an?x«fy,  ii.  1 8. 
ravxaaftu,  v.  3,  1 1. 

xai'xaaat,  ii.  17. 
*av\T)t*i,  iv.  3. 
wai/xt/a" .  v.  3 ;  xv.  17. 
K,nP.«;.  x 
K-flfHTjpa,  xvi.  35. 
itypvooHv,  x.  14,  15. 
««V8vro»,  viii  35. 
«Aato,  xi.  16. 
K\T)pot><!>nott  iv.  13,  14  ;  viii.  17. 

Klrjoti,  xi.  39. 

Klrjrfa,  i.  i,  6,  7  ;  viii.  28 ;  p.  18. 

«AITT^  dyia,  p.  1 3  fc 
«A//M,  xv.  33. 
«<*A/a,  xvi.  1 8. 
mtv6t,  xiv.  14. 

".  xii.  13 ;  xv.  37. 

xv.  36. 
7,  xiii.  13. 

Koirrjf  t\tur,  ix.  IO. 
•ton**,  xvi.  6. 
*6ffpott  6,  iii.  6 ;  v.  13. 
*f*mt>.  gfiftaOtu,  iii.  4  ;  xiv.  5,  13. 
/rrioit,  i.  30;  viii.  19,  31,  39. 
«v«Ay,  xv.  19. 
xvfxtimr,  vi.  9. 
Ki5/>iof,  i.  4,  7;  x.   13,  13;  x»i.    ii  ; 

xiv.  8;  xv.  6;  p.  18. 
«w/iof,  xiv.  14. 

AaA«iV.  iii.  19. 
Aaur,  xi.  i. 
\arptia,  ix.  4;   xii    I. 
Aarfxi/ur,  i.  9. 
A«ixai'a>  xix.  3. 

A^V*".  : 

dAAa  A/7tt/,  X.  1 8,  19. 

Xtfoj  ovy,  xi.  I,  II. 
\tinpa,  xi.  5. 
A(irov/rY«rr,   p.    30 :    cf. 

P-  137,'.     , 

Aurov/ryuf.  xiii.  6;  xv.  16. 
no  tn,  iii.  ]. 

iii.  18;  xiv.  14. 
kofifcato  <i»,  ii.  36 ;  iv.  3. 
tot,  xii   i. 

u.  15. 

A<JT«W.  iii.  4  :  ix.  6. 
AtfvfiVtfoi,  xiv.  15. 
ix.  2. 


,  ir.  7,8;  xir.  33. 
iv.  6. 

4. 

v.  1.). 
,  iii.  31 ;  x.  3. 


.  viii.  20. 

,  i    .M 
,  viii.  35. 
,  ix.  13. 

,  viii.  1  8. 
,  T.  14. 
X.  I. 
/drovr,  XI.  13;  p.  334. 


,  ix.  li. 
,  i.  39  ;  xv.  14. 
,  xii.  8. 
,  xii.  9. 

.  ii.  15. 
id,,  ii.  14;   UL   5;   ir.    19;   fat.    14; 

H|  7/rwro,  Hi.  4  ;  ix.  14  ;  xi.  i, 
It. 


xiL  13  (T.  1). 
/ilrot,  xvi.  36. 

ii.  30. 
or,  xi.  35  ;  xvi.  35. 


,  i.  4  fcf.Lft)  ;  viii.  10;  xi.  15. 

r««p£y,  vi.  13  (cf.  Lft). 
,  ii.  3a 

,  iii.  4;  xii.  31. 
vc>no9iala,  ix.  4. 
rvnot,  metaphorical  use  of,  ill.  37  ;  vil 

31,  33;  viii.  3;  x.  31. 
rtltot  (situ  artif.),  U.  13,  13,  14,  35  , 
iii.  31   (cf.  Lft.);  iv.   13;   T.  13; 
TiL  i  ;  ix.  31  ;  x.  4. 
vifot,  i,  u.  13,  14  ;  iii.  19  ;  ril  3, 

i  a. 

rovr,  i.  38  ;  vii.  33  ;  xii.  a. 
rwtf,  iii  si. 


U.  19- 

of8a/ur,  ii.  3  ;  viii.  33,  28. 
oixolofai,  xiv.  19. 
,  ix.  15. 
.  xii.  I. 
,  ix.  6. 
faryfc,  xilii. 

SAot  ,  Viii.  36. 

,  xv.  6. 
.  5  ;  viii.  3. 
t  ix.  9. 
xv.  3. 
L5;p.,8. 

xv.  3O. 
5»Aor,  vL  I  J, 


.  i.  i8;il.  5,8;  Hi.  5; 
xii.  19  ;  xiii.  4. 


\   TO  THE   NOTES 


Mta 

«t  7«,  TiiL  33. 

IT.  8. 

«*j*orft/,Tiii.  33;  U.  10. 
ovworr**,  . 
oJr,  iL  3i  ;  iii.  38  (V.  1.);  x.  t 

.  8  ;  XT.  i . 
'.  \i.  33  :    cf.   I  ft.  and 


^t.  ii.  30. 

voAoidr oV0f««M,  xi  6. 

•rf.iii.9. 

,  i.  35. 

»op*  Jatrroir,  xii.  16. 

»aj,  i.  34 ;  IT.  35;  Yi.  17. 

.    ..    oiV,  x    ly;   xi.  II. 
va/n«« i00ai,  Tit  1 8,  31. 
wa/xuroi-r,  Y.  19. 
wapawra'/in,  v.  15  ;  xi-   II    (cf.  Lft.  OO 

Y.  30). 

*ap4jrAi?<r(f,  XT.  5. 
wnp4iatp\ta9cu,  T.  3O. 
wa/M0if,  iiL  35. 

•»^NNria,pp.  379  f. 

war.  ix  xi.  36,  33. 

«art^>,  4,  i.  7;  l5;cf.XY.<5. 

warijp  (  -  patriarch),  ix.  5,  10 ;  xi  38  ; 

XY.  8. 

ii.  IQ. 

«f/Mvar. 

9tpta<nta,  T.  17. 

rtpta 

»«piTo/rtj,  ii.  39  ;  XY.  8. 

v.  31. 
wur^o, 
t,  x 

:-•  ;  xiv.  4. 
'««»-,  vi0T«i/«00ai,  iii.  3 ;  x.  10  ; 

-' :  TP-  31  ff- 

«i0Tif,  ^,  i.  8,   17;  iii.  3. 
30 ;  T.  a;  x.  8, 

30  (cf. 

. 

'X.  30. 
',  T.  30. 


.  i 

wAi;/>oirf  XT.  19. 
»Mf<^P«"'.    wA^^ofoftiWai,   IT.    31  ; 

•X4f»'  .-  ;  **•  39- 

»XovTi.r.  x.   I  i. 
vAovrof,  ix.  33;  x; 

»»«r/w.  rin.  o.  10.  1  1  ;  xii.  1  1  ;  XT.  JO. 
^T"*,  T.  5  ;  ix.    i 

19. 
• 
•  i  Jiptffrov,  '. 

f.  i    4. 
.  vui.  15. 


«  ;•  ;.  8. 

?«(T.<: 

,  IY  ry  wxcv/iOTi, 

*ara  wy«C^ 

•rtipttriiror,  i.  1  1  ;   v.    14; 
xv 
, 

w,  ol,  v 
WOAJUI,  Tli,  XT.  33. 

•anpfa,  i.  39. 

i.  39  (T 

,  viii.  39  ; 

*T.  4- 
xi.  ;,c. 
ix.  19. 
tgfBi, 
',  ix.  33. 
,  i 
t.  x 

hi.  28;  ix.  ii  ;  p.  350. 
i. 
,  ^ 

9pOHHl09<li  ,  > 

i-. 


,  :  18. 


^ 

WpOOl  UTiI,   X 

,  XT.  16. 

«o.  ti.  ii. 

35  (olbcnrUe  Lft.  «J 
/^cf.p.3.8). 

w^rror,  i.  1  6 
19. 


III.    GREEK   WORDS 


449 


vp*r4ro«of,  viii.  39. 
rro/«iK,  xi.  ii. 
rr*x<>«.  xr.  26. 
,  xi.  7. 
15. 


*.8,  17. 
xi  16  ff.  ;  XT.  i  a. 

J,  Xi.  26. 


XT.  37. 
,  vii.  14. 

,  iii.  ao;  ri.  19;  ix.  8;  x 
p.  181. 

Jr  «rap«/.  Jr  ry  oapxt,  rii.  5 

3.  9* 
•aid  aa^ra,  L  3;  IT.   I  ;  viii.  4, 

5  '.  >*•  3.  5  ?  P-  '33  ff- 
Zararat,  xvi.  ao;  p.  145. 
oi&a(<aOat,  i  35. 
oijftttov,  }T.  II  ;  xr.  19. 
(7«.ir£aAar,  xi.  9  ;  xiv.  1  3. 
<r««0ot,  ix.  ai,  aa. 
a«Ai7pw«iK,  ix,  1  8. 
0«o*«<V,  xri.  17. 
Zvario,  XT.  34,  a  3. 
, 

).  xii.  H,  ii. 
ii.  9. 
,  xiv.  4. 

v,  1.  II',  xvj.  35. 
r»,  IT.    ia   (on  T«t  aroix.   §ec 
I.u). 

°nnr«»'7»,  Ix.  3:  xvi.  7,  10,  ai. 
avycAtuir,  xi.  31. 
oiOr«Ai7por<J/iof.  Tiii.  17. 
ai/-)r«o«wHrw«,  xi.  17. 
(TiMMopTi^M.V,  ii.  15;  Tiil.  16;  ix.  i. 
79. 

<iit  L  13. 
»',  Tiii.  1  7. 


<u,  XT.  30. 


«,  XT.   33. 

rfai,  viii.  26. 


16. 

it  15;  U.i. 
Tiii.  a8. 

rr,  i 

4. 

(rvn<rrara4,  iii.  5  ;  xvi.  I. 
<7Wiaw.  iii.  1 1. 
<7irrriA«iV,  ix.  38. 
,  ix.  38. 
xvi.  ao. 


i  s 

<rvr«AV«.K,  viiL  33. 
ovrmtpouoAu,  vl  6. 

7»rxi}/MSr'CM'a4>  x"  a« 
0^07^,  Tiii.  36. 

,  XT.  33. 

T.  ii. 

,  ff»C«°*<",  v.  9  ;  Tiil   34  ;   xl 
36  :  <£  Lft.  p.  388. 
,  Ti  6;  Til  4,  34  ;  xiL  I. 

/tot,  xri  31. 
L  16  ;  x.  i  ;  xi.  1  1. 


rawiurfa.  xit.  16. 

r«  ^p,  TiL  7. 

rl«ror,  Tiii.  14,  17  ;  ix.  8  (cf.  Debt* 


p.  164). 
o.  (-end\  x.  4;  (-toll),  xlii.  7. 

TI  Ipevntv.  ill  5. 

riovr;  iii.  9;  Ti.  15;  xi.  7. 

rl  ojr  ipoi>«r  ;  iv.  I  ;  vt  1  ;  TiL 
7;  TiiLji;  ix.  14,  30. 

dAAd  n  A/7«  ;  x.  8  ;  xi  4. 
TI^,  xii.  NX 
r.^.t,  iii.  3;  xi.  17. 
ri  car'  J/i/,  i.  15. 
ToA/tar,  T.  7. 
ro^^rtpcr,  XT.  15. 
TO  »ot,  xii.  19;  XT.  33. 
rov  with  infill.,  Ti.  6  ;  TiL  3. 
Ca,  xi.  9. 


VWOt,  T.  14;   Tl  17. 


t  I  30, 
v'io6<ata,  vjii.  15. 
vUf  (of  Christ;  cf  Ddtnn*nn,p.i66  f.), 

L  4;  Tiii.  39;  (of  man),  vui.  14, 
vninpoi,  xi.  31. 
6wo*oiy,  i.  5  ;  T.  19  ;  xvi  19, 

16. 

,  Tii.  a. 
19. 

,  viiL  JO. 
,  xiii.  I. 
i.  30. 
iii  37. 
i'«ir,  T.  ad. 

xii.  3. 
W.  iii  9. 

in.  19. 

37. 
if. 

T.  3. 

viii.  ao  ;  x 


3  ;  xiii  i. 


33. 


450 


>:   TO  THE    NOTFS 


i.rii 

iii.  ai  ;  xrl  *. 

x::i.  31. 

afcA^Ja,  x 
T**"",  P  374  t 

>«,  m 
f* 

f,  xii.  10. 

<,  XT.    JO. 

.  i.  16  ;  riv.  6  ;  XT.  5. 

.  35  ;  xit  id. 
K,  ii.  26. 
*Wia,  ix    Jl  ;  xL  id. 

:.    .4. 


,xir.  17;  XT.  13. 
,  L  5  ;  v  5,6  ;  xii.  3  ; 

xv.  15  ;  xvj.  ao;  p.  18. 


,  '• 
L   1 1  ;    N 

.  Til  3. 
xri.  18. 

X^irrAf  'I^row,  Tiii.  34  (T.  1.  ,  39  ;  pp 

3  f .  i  <K>  f. 

/r  X/M<rr£  TtjffoG,  iii.  34  ;  rL  1 1. 

'•'"  *'.-'i'.  it.  I. 
^fMof. 

^M<r'^,  »L  4- 

5:  P- »35- 
At,  I*.  3». 

*f  d*,  XT.  94. 

' 

Sum  (*  •  ;  'with  Infin.), 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  CRITICAL  COMMHJTARY. 


THE  following  eminent  Scholars  have  contributed,  or  arc 
engaged  upon,  the  Volumes  named  below  :  — 


Genesis. 

Exodus. 
Leviticus. 

Numbers. 
Deuteronomy. 
Joshua. 
Judges. 

SamueL 
Kings. 

Isaiah. 
Jeremiah. 
Minor  Prophets. 
Psalms. 

Proverbs. 

Job. 

Daniel 


Ezra  and 

Nehemiah. 

Chronicles. 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT. 

The  Rer.  T.  K.  CHEYNE,  D.D.,  Oriel  Professor  of  the 

Interpretation  of  Holjr  Scripture.  Oxford. 
The  Kev.  A.  R  S.  KENNEDY,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

University  of  Edinburgh. 
The  Her.  J.  K.  STENNINO,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  Wadham 

College,  Oxford;    and  the  late  Rev.  H.  A.  WHITE, 

M.A..  Fellow  of  New  College,  Oxford. 
G.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Mans- 

field College,  Oxford.  [/»  tk*  Aw. 

The  Rev.  S.   R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  Regius  Professor  of 

Hebrew,  Oxford.  {Rtady,  iw. 

The  Rev.  GEORGE  ADAM  SMITH,  D.D.,  Professor  of 

Hebrew,  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 
The  Rev.  GEORGE  MOORE,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

Andover  Theological  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass. 

{Ready,  ia/. 
The  Rev.   II.   P.   SMITH,  D.D.,   Professor  of  Biblical 

History  and  Interpretation  in  Amherst  College,  Mass. 


The  Rev.  FRANCIS  BROWN,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew 

and  Cognate  Language*,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 

New  York  City. 
The  late  Rev.  A.  B.  DAVIDSON,  D  D.,  LL.D.,  Professor 

of  Hebrew,  The  New  College,  Edinburgh. 
The  Rev.  A.  F.  KIRKPATRICK,  D.D.,  Regius  Professor 

of  Hebrew,  and  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
W.  R.  HARPER,  Ph.D.,  President  of  the  University  of 

Chicago,  Illinois. 
The  Rer.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  Edward  Robinson 

Professor  of    Biblical   Theology,  Union  Theological 

Seminary,  New  York. 
The  Rev.  C.  H.  TOY,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Har- 

vard University,  Cambridge.  Massachusetts.  [Ready,  \  *$. 
The  Rev.  S.   R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,   Regius  Professor  of 

Hebrew,  Oxford. 
The  Rev.  JOHN  P.  PETERS,  Ph.D.,  late  Professor  of 

Hebrew,  P.   E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia,  now 

Rector  of  St.  Michael's  Church,  New  York  City. 
The  Rev.  L.  W.  BATTEN,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 
The  Rev.  EDWARD  L.  CURTIS,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

T 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  CRITICAL 


/•///.  A  vr. 

Synopsis  of  the   The  Rev  Udy  Marg* 

Four  Gospels.       fessor  of  Divinity.  Oxford ;  and  the  Rev.  W.  C.  ALLEN, 

M.A  3rd. 

Matthew.  The  Kcr.   \VM  LOUGH  BY  C.  ALLEN,  M.A.,  On 

Fellow,  and  Lecturer  in  Theology  and  Hebrew,  1 
College,  Oxford. 

The  Rev.  E.  P.  GOULD,  D.D ,  Professor  of  New  Testa- 
M  .:  EasfStJt,  l  .  1..  Divinity  Sen.  -.!,  Phila  I  l|    is. 


Luke.  The  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUM  ME  R.  D.D ,  Master  of  University 

College,  Durham.  (Kea 

Acts.  The  Rev.  FREDERICK  H.  CHASE,  D.D  ,  Chriu's  College, 

Cambridge. 

Romans.  The  Rev.  WILLIAM  .^  I).,  Lady  Margar 

fessor  of  Divinity,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Ox 
and  the  Rev.  A.  C  HEADLAM,  M.A.,  Fellow  < 
Souls  College,  Oxford.  [ A'w 

Corinthians.          The  Rev.  ARCH.  ROBERTSON,  D.D.,  Principal  of  King's 
College,  London. 

Galatians.  The  Rev.  ERNEST  D.  BURTON,  A.B.,  Professor  . 

Testament  Literature,  University  of  Chicago. 

Ephesians  and      The  Rev.  T.  K.  ABBOTT,  B.D.,  D.I -it.,  formerly  Professor 
Colossians.       of  Biblical  Greek,  Trinity  ColleK 

[*«•*>,  to*.  64 

Philippians  and   The    Rev.   MARVIN   R.  VIKCF  Professor  of 

mon.        Biblical  Literature,  Union  Theological  Semin.i 

York  City.  [/W/,  fc.  6* 

By  EDWARD  H    FRAME,  M.A.,  Assistant  Professor  of 
I  iteratmc,  Union  Theological  Seminary.  New 
York. 
The  Rev.  WALTER  I.<  ran  Ireland's  Professor 

of  Exegesis.  Oxford. 
The  Rev.  A.  NAIRNE,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Hebrew.  King's 

The   Rev.   JAMES   II.  ROPES,  A  H .,  Instructor  in  New 

Testament  Criticism  hi  Harvard  University. 
Peter  and  Jude.    The  Rev.  CIIARI.F. •  MOT  of 

Ecclesiast;  r»ity  of  Oi 

The  Johnnnine      The  Rev.  S,  I1  ;  al,  and  Pro- 

Epistles,        fessor  of  Systematic  Theology,   U«  < 'hsrch 

rge,  Aberdeen. 
Revelation.  The  Rev.  ROBERT    H.  CHARLES.    D  D.,  Professor  of 

.reek  in  the  Univ, 
•  tngapmtnJt  will  It  (mmmnetd  shortly. 


I  and  II 

I  In. ss.i loiiinns 

The  Pastoral 

Epistles. 

Hebrews. 


:  AkK.  38  GEORGE  STREET. 
MMI  NT  A  Co..  LTD. 


PUBLICATIONS    OF 

T.       &       T.      O    L    A.    IR, 

38    GEORGE    STREET,    EDINBURGH. 
LONDON:  SIMPKIN,  MARSHALL,  HAMILTON,  KENT,  &  CO.  LIMITED. 

Abbott  (T.  K..  B.D.,  D.Lit.)     KI'HKMVNS  AND  COLOSSI ANS.     (7n/er- 

iui-  il  Commentary.)     Post  8vo,  10*.  6d. 

Adam  <  J.,  D.D.)— Ax  EXPOSITION  OF  TII i:  Ki MSTLE  OF  JAMES.    8vo,  9s. 
Adamson  (Eev.  T.,  D.D.)— STUDIES  OF  THE  MINI-  IN  OHUK     Post 

Svo,  : 

'I'm:  SIM  i:  ir  "i    l'«»WER.     Second  Edition,  fcap.  8vo,  Is. 

Alilfeld  (Dr.),  etc.— THE  VOICE  FROM  THE  CROSS.    Cr.  8vo,  price  5s. 
Alcock  ( Deborah)— Tf IK  SEVEN  CHURCHES  OF  ASIA.    Is. 
Alexander  ( Prof.  W.Lindaay)— Bir.i.n  •  A  i. THEOLOGY.  TwovoU.8vo.21s. 
Alexander  (W.  Menzies,  B.Sc.,  B.D.,  M.D.,)— DEMONIC  POSSESSION  IN 

MI.  Port  Svo,  5s. 

Allen(Prof.  A.  V.  G..D.D.)— <  HKIVIIAN  INMIIUTIONS.    (International 

Theolojicnt  Libntty.)     Post  8vo,  12s. 

Ancient  Faith  in  Modern  Light,  The.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Andrews  (8.  J.)— Tin    I  >UR  LORD.    Large  post  8vo,  9s. 

Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library— A  COLLECTION  OF  ALL  THE  WORKS 

or  THK  FATHERS  or  THE  CHRISTIAN  PRIOR  TO  THE  COUNCIL  or 

NICAA.     Twenty-four    voU.    Svo,   Snbscn;  ,    £0,    6*.      8«lcrti..n 

iiirs    st    Sukscn:  Jl».      Additional    Volume, 

containing  MSS.  dixotvred  rinct  th*  completion  o/th*  Strut,  12>.  6.1.  net. 

Augustine's  Works— Edited  by  MARCUS  DODS,  D.D.      Fifteen  vols. 
8ro,  Sul-  -ice,  £3,  19s.  net     Selection  of  Four  Volumes  st  Sub- 

:ii>ii  j'lici'  0( 

Balfour  (R.  G.,  D.D.)— CENTRAL  TRUTHS  ,\xi»  SII»E  ISSUES.    Crown 

Svo,  8s.  6d. 

Ball(W.  E.,LL.D.)     Si  i   I;..MAN  1.  \\\.   I'o8t8vo,4s 

Ballard  (Prank,  M.A.,  B.Sc.)—  THK  MIRACLES  OF  UNBELIEF.    Third 

Post  8  TO,  6s. 

Bannerman  (Prof.)— THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST.    Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 
Baimerman  (D.  D.t  D.D.)— THE  DUCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH.   8vo,  12s. 
Bartlet  (Prof.  J.  Venion,  M.A.)     T  .      Ii-    I 

Do-  iv.    (Eras o/Ch H irh  History.)  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

Baumgarten  (Professor)— APOSTOLIC  HISTORY.    Three  vols.  Svo,  27s. 
Bayne  ( P.,  LL.D.)— THE  FREE  Ci i  ft  6fl  \  N  D.  Post  8vo,  3- 

Beck  (Dr.)— OUTLINES  OF  BIBLICAL  PSYCHOLOGY.     Crown  Svo,  4§. 

PASTORAL  THEOLOGY  01  1 1 1 »  XEW  TESTAMENT.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

Bengel— GNOMON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    With  Original  Notes, 

Explanatory  snd  Illustrative.      Five  vols.  Svo,  Subscription  price,  81s.  6d. 

Cheaper  Edition,  the  Jive  volume*  bound  in  thr,'t  24s. 
Besser's  CIIKI^I    IHK  I. in:  <.K  THK  \VoRLD.     Price  6s. 
Beyschlag   (W.,   D.D.)— Nr.w    TI^TAMEXT  THEOLOGY.     Two  vols. 

demy  Svo,  Second  Kilition,  18s. 

Bible  Dictionary.  rG8,D.D  I^rogjxctut 

on  application.       \  Four  Volntnos,   j.ri.'f  p-r  Vol.  in  cloth 

binding,  28s.     Also  to  be  had  in  various  lentlu-r  bindings. 

V  totalled  Catalogue/™  on  application. 


T.  a-  '/ark's  Publications. 


Bible-Class  Handbooks.     Crown  8v-  net,  Is. 

3§.  •  .KCUS  DODH,  I  »"!».,   ai.  . 

'(/r«e  cm  application. 
Bible-Glass    Primers.  -ur-1  in 


'l:  1'aj.rr    .OV.TH.    »ni.    CAi'h  I 

-•«  by  post,  »d.     ;  «l/nr  on  n 

Bigg   (Prof    C.,   D.D.i     Si.    TKIKI; 

•a/  ComtnfH/ary.)     Poet  8vo,  10*.  (hi. 

Blaikie  (Prof.  W.  G  ,  I)  ;  IKRS  OF  SCOTLAND  FROM  TIIK 

Y.     Post  8vo,  7«.  «d. 

Blake  (Buclianan,  B.D        B  i     UD   INK  IV  t  I.— 

r..pbaU  (with  Joel).     Seeoo  i  irt  II. 

—  Itttah 

i  .  h.-U.     7%«  5f  rv*  betii^  i»oir  complete,  Jteun.  da  / 


Bleek's  IXTKODIXTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    Two  voU.  8vo,  2  It. 
Briggs  (Prof.  C.  A.,  D.D.  >     <;KMI:\I.   !\ 

or  'plafiny   the   Author  t   'Biblical   Stud 

and  greatly  enlarged}.     8vo,  12t>. 

-  THE  MESSIAH  OP  THE  APOSTLES.    Post  8vo,  7> 

-  Tin    MKNMMI  OF  THE  GOSPELS.     Post  8vo,  6«» 

-  THE  HIISI.K,  THE  CHURCH  -Vs.  6d 
Brockelmann  (C.)—  LK  lessor 

<  "»LDP.KE.     Crown  4to,  80s.  net. 

Bruce  (Prof.  A.  BM  D.D.)—  THE  TRAINING  OF  THE  TWEI.N 
tbc  Twelve  Diiciplw  under  Discipline  for  the  Apo«tlt«hii 
8ro,  lOa.  6.1. 

-  THE  HUMILIATION  OF  < 

-  Tin:  KINUDOM  OF  GOD  ;  or,  Christ's  Teaching  according  to  the 

•«t8vo,  7§.  6<L 

-  APOLOGETICS;    OR. 

([tan-national  Thtologxal  Library.)    Third  Edition,  post  8vo,  10s.  Ad. 

-  -  :-.  6d. 

-  'I  -TLE    TO    'I  AjH.l,,-- 

:  oet  8vo,  7«.  «d. 

Bruco  W.  S..  D.D.  )     1  FESTAMKN  •>,  4s. 

FR.    Crov 
Buchanan  (  Professor)—  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  s    8vo,  10s.  6<L 

-  ON  COMFORT  IN  AFFLK  rown  8vo,  2s.  » 

-  ON  IMPROVEMENT  OF  AFFLICTION.    Crown  8vo,  2s.  6<L 

Buhl  (Prof.  F.)-  (  \D  TEXT  OF  i  TESTAMENT.    8vo, 

<kl. 
BiingenenFelix)—  ROMK  AM.IHK(  '..i  -N.  II.IN  r.r"C-  ('r.8vo,5s. 

Burton  <  Prof.   E.  D  TENSES 

\Mr.sr  Gi'.rr.K.     Poet  8vo,  5*.  6- 
Calvin's  I  NSTITUTESOF(  :«.8vo,14s. 

-  COMMENTARIES  \  ols. 

Calvini    Institutio    Christiana    Beligionis.      Curavit    A    THOI 
Two  roll.  STO,  Subccription  pric«,  14«. 

Candlish  (Prof  J  S  ,  D.D.)—  TH  M  OF  GOD,  BIBLICAI.M 

HltTOr.lCAlLT    CUNSMiBKBD.       8vo,   10».  6(1. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Candlish  (Prof.  J.  S.,  D.D  >     THK  (  'IIKIM  i  \\  >  M.VATION.     Lecture* 
rk  <>t  Christ.    8vo,  7*.  tkl. 

Gaspari  (G.  £.)— A  CHRONOLOGICAL  AND  GEOGRAPHH  AL   INTRODUC- 

i  ii K  Li rr  or  CHRIST.    8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Gaspers  (A.)— THE  FOOTSTEPS  OF  CHRIST.    Crown  8vo,  7s.  6<L 
OiMel  (Prof. )— COMMENTARY  ON  ESTHER.    8vo,  10s.  6<i 
Cave  (Principal  A.,  D.D.) — THE  SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE  or  SACRIFICE 

r.     Second  Edition,  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THEOLOGY.    Second  Edition,  8vo,  12*. 

Chapman  (Principal  C.,  LL.D.)— PRE-OKGANIC  EVOLUTION  AND  THE 

IDEA  or  (Ion.     Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Christlieb  (Prof.  T.,  D.D.) — MODERN  DOUBT  AND  CHRISTIAN  BELIEF. 

8vo,  10.i.  6d. 

HM.MII.KTIC:  Lectmvs  ..ii  Piv.u-hing.     7s.  6d. 

Clark  (Professor  W.  R.,  LL.D.,  D.C.L.)    Tin  LH   REFORMA- 

TION.    (Enu  of  Ckwrekf/ittorv)    6s. 

THE  PARACLBTK.    The  Person  and  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 

\\riNK.sM-    po  CHRIST.      \  Contribution  to  ( 'hri-tian  Apolo- 
getics.    Crown  8vo,  4s. 

Clarke   (Professor   W.     N.,  D.D.)— AN    OUTLINE    OF    CHRISTIAN 

THEOI.O<;Y.    Twelfth  Kdition,  \>o»t  8vo,  7«.  6d. 

WHAT  >n  M.I.  \VK  THINK  Of  ( ' ii i: > 1 1 .\NiTY  t    Cr.  8vo,  2«.  6d. 

-  CAN  I  HKi.iK.vr.  IN  GrOD  IMK  FATHER!    Crown  8vo,  3s. 

Concordance  to  the  Greek  Testament  — MOULTON  (\V.  F.,  D.D.)  and 

S«v.,u.l  K.liti..n,  .T..WII  4to,  26fc  net. 

Crawford  (J.  H.,  M.A.)— THE  BftOTHZBBOOO  OF  MANKIM>     cr.8vo,6«. 
Cremer  (Professor)— B  i  BLicoTHEO  LOGICAL  LEXICON  OF  NEW  TESTA - 

MKNT  GKKF.K.     Third  Edition,  with  Supplement,  demy  4to,  38s. 

Crippen  (Eev.  T.  0.)— A  POPULAR  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  HISTORY 

or  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.    8vo,  9s. 

Cunningham  (Principal) — HISTORICAL  THEOLOGY.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Curtiss  (Dr.  S.  I.)— THE  LEVITICAL  PRIESTS.    Crown  8vo,  5t. 

FRAN/.  DKU  i  /.-«  H     A  Memorial  Tribute.  Portrait,   Cr.  8vo,  3s. 

Dabney   (Prof.   R.   L.,   D.D.)— THE  SENHUALISTIC  PHILOSOPHY  OF 

IBKNTII  CBMTURY  CONSIDBRRD.    Crown  8vo,  6s. 
Dahle  (Bishop)  — LIFE  AFTKK  DEATH.     Demy  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Dalman  (Prof.  G.)  — Tin:  \\  .\uthori«fd  Translation. 

Davidson   (Prof.  A.B.,   D.D.,  LL.D.)— AN  INTRODUCTORY   HEBREW 
GRAMMAR.     With  Progress!™  Exercises  in  Reading  and  Writing.     17th 
on,  8  vo,  7s.  6d. 

A  SYM\\    i   mi  HEBREW  LANGUAGE.    3rd  Ed.,  8vo,  7t.  6d. 

Davidson,   Dr.   Samuel     Autobiography  and  Diary.     Edited  by  his 

K.     8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Davies  (Principal  D.  C.)— Tin:  ATONEMENT  AND  INTERCESSION  OF 

Onu^r.     Crown  8vo,  4s. 
Deaue    (Wm.,    M.A.)  — PsEUDEPlGRAi  HA      An   Account   of  Certain 

Apocryphal  Writings  of  the  Jews  snd  Early  Christians.     Post  8vo,  7s.  «d. 
Deissmanii  i  Dr.  G.  A.)— BlBLE  STUDIES.     8vo,  Os. 
Delitzsch    (Prof.)— SYSTEM  OF  BIBLICAL   PSYCHOLOGY,  8vo,  12s.; 

NEW  COMMENTARY  ON  GENESIS,  2  vols.  STO,  21s. ;  PSALMS,  8  Tols,,  31s,  6d. ; 
PROVERBS,  2  vols.,  21s. ;  SONO  OP  SOLOMON  AND  EOCLESIASTU,  10s.  6d.  ; 

i.  K..i.rth  K-iit:.>n.  rowritten,  2  vols.,  21s.  ;  HEBREWS,  2  vols.,  21s. 
*.*  Any  Four  Volumes  may  be  had  at  original  Subscription  price  of  21s.  net. 


T.  <r  /s  Publications. 


•nary  of  the  Bible,  A.     (>'"  y*/,/. 
A..  D.D.,     i 

lurntary.      Two  volt,,  21*. 

Doedat—  M  STAMENT  HERMENEUTICS.  Cr. > 

D511inger   D  i»  CALLISTUS.    8vo,  7s. 

DECREES, 

1869-1 8  v  ^U  Treiul  VQ  8»o,  3«,  6d. 

Dorner  (Professor)— HISTORY  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT  or  THE  D< 

or  THE  PEBKON  or  Ciiiimr.     Fire  roU.     Sub*  :  ,  2(U.  3d.  i 

SYSTEM  OF  C  *K.    SuU- 

SYSTEM  OF  <  'IN  ^vo,  14s. 

Driver  (Prof.  8.  R  .  D.D.      A 

or  rnalionnl    Thtologienl    .' 

•  - 

IM  MienUry, 

•'motional  '  .mtenlary.  )XMt  8 vo,  : 

Drummond     R     J       Hi 

TEACHING  TO  n,  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Du  Bo«e  (Prof.  W.  P..  D.D. 

urth  History.)     6». 

Duff  (Prof.  David,  D.D.)— Til K  EARI^ 

Dyke  (Paul  Vai  a  It»tr«. 

(Krat  of  '  ''*!!•)    *•• 

Eadie  < Professor) — COMV 

.  COLOJWIAXH.     New  and  Rerised  Editions,   1 
by  R«r.  W x.  Voi xi,  M.  A.     Three  voU.  8vo,  10c  «d 

Ebrard  (Dr.  J.  H.  A.)— THE Goeri  8vo,  10i* 

APOLOGETICS.   Three  vols.  8vo,  31  v 

COMMKN  i  Os.  6d 

Edgar  (R.  M»CM  D.D.)—  I  .st  8vo, 

Id. 

Elliott— ON  THE  IN>  KES.    8vo,  6s. 

Eras  of  the  Christian  Ci 

5s. 

AK*.    6». 

;>-,        IM      v  v.      IK.  A«  of  the  i;.-n.i-.-!,  ..    • 
LOCKE  ((  '-in.     6a. 

6t. 

: 

Ewald  (Heinrich) 

REVELATI*' 

Oi 

Expository  Tinu-s 

FairbainiiPrin.)— THE!:  .8vo,  10s.6d 

K/KKIKI.ANDTHEBOOKOI  SVO,  10s.  6l 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Pairbairn  (PriiL)— PROPHECY.    Second  I-Miti-n,  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

—  PASTORAL  THEOLOGY.    Crown  8vo,  6s. 
Fairweather    (Rev.    W.,    M.A.)— OICH;KN    AM.    <;KKKK    I'AIKIMK 

Falconer  <J.  W.,  B.D.)— FROM  APO8TLB  Tu  PRIEST.      A  Study  of 

Early  Church  Organisation.     Crown  8vo,  4».  0d. 
Fisher  (Prof.  G.  P.,  D.D.,  LL.D.  i     HIM..I:\  Of  <  'HKIMI  VN  DOCTRINE. 

(International  Tktoloyieal  Library.)    Second  Kdition,  |«oi»t  8vo,  12s, 

Forbes  (Prof.)— SYMMETRICAL  STRUCTURE  OP  SCRIPTURE.  8vo,  8s.  6U 

-  ANALYTICAL  COMMENTARY  ON  ROMANS.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

-  STUDIES  IN  THE  BOOK  OP  PSALMS.    8vo,  7s.  6d. 

TIIK  SERVANT  OK  THE  LORD  IN  ISAIAH  XL.-LXVI.    Cr.  8vo,  5s. 

Foreign  Theological  Library — Four  Volumes  for  One  (luin.-a.     De- 

ta ili-il  Lift  on  ajij'tffitii'n. 

Forrest   (D.   W.,   D.D.)— THK    CIIUWT   OP    HISTORY  AND  OF  Ex- 

I-ERIENCK.     Thii-l  K.liti-.M,  imit  8vo,  6s. 

Frank  (Prof.  F.  H.)— SYSTEM  OF  CHRISTIAN  CERTAINTY.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Funcke  (Otto)— Tin    \\    i  i  \.    K  1  \un  AND  THE  EVERYDAY  WORLD, 

^played  in  the  Footstep*  of  Abraham.     Post  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Garvie  (Alex.,  B.D.)— Tm   talORUAl  THKXXWT     -n.l  K.l.,8vo,  9s. 
Gebhardt  (H.)— THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE,  AND  ITS  RELATION 

TO  THE  DOCTRINE  or  THE  GOSPEL  AND  EPIKTLRM  or  JOHN.    8ro,  10s.  6d. 

Gerlach — COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Gieseler(Dr.  J.  C.  L.)— ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY.    Fourvol8.8vo,£2,2s. 
Gifford  (Canon)— VOICES  OF  THE  PROPHETS.    Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 
Given  (Rev.  Prof.  J.  J.)— THE  TRUTH  OF  SCRIPTURE  IN  CONNECTION 

f  Kr.vr.LATi  AND  THK  CANON.     8vo,  6s. 

Gladden   (Washington,  D.D ,  LL.D  >     TIIK  (HI:ISHA\  PASTOR  AND 

THK  InttriMtiviMl  Thtol.  Library.)    Post  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Glasgow  (Prof.)— APOCALYPSE  TRANSLATED  AND  EXPOUNDED.  8vo,  10/5. 
Gloag  (Paton  J.,  D.D.)— THE  MESSIANIC  PROPHECIES.    Cr.  8vo,  7*.  6d. 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  CATHOLIC  EPISTLES.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

EXEGETICAL  STUDIES.    Crown  8vo,  5s. 

[mMovonoM  ro  mr  SVN..ITIC  GOSPELS.    8vo,  7s.  ca. 

Tin:   PI:IMI\  \i    WOELD,     Crown  8vo,  3s. 

I  i  ii'»t  OHTS.     Crown  8vo,  4s. 

Godet  (Prof.  F.)— AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT— 

I.  THK  EPISTLES  or  ST.  PAI-L,    8vo,  12s.  6d.  net. 
II.  THE  GOSPEL  CoLLRcrioN,  AM  >r.  M  MTHEW'S  GOAPEL.     8vo,  6s.  net. 

COMMENTARY  ON  ST.  LUKE'S  GOSPEL.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

COMMENTARY  ON  ST.  JOHN'S  GOSPEL.   Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

COMMENTARY*  K  TO  THE  ROMANS.   Two  vols.  8  vo,  2  Is. 

COMMENTARY  ON  IST  EPISTLE  TO  CORINTHIANS.  2vols.8vo,21s. 

Any  Four  Volumes  at  the  original  Subscription  price  of  21s.  not. 

DEFENCE  OP  THE  CHUIMIAN  FAITH.    Crown  8vo,  4s. 

Goebel  (Siegfried)— THE  PARABLES  OP  JESUS.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Gotthold's  Emblems;  or.  INVISIBLE  THINGS  UNDERSTOOD  BY  THINGS 

i  H  v  r  ARE  MADE.    Crown  8vo,  5s. 


T.  and  T.  Claris  Pub: 


Gould    (Prof.    E.    P..    D.D  tuxd 

Commmtary.)     Tout  8vo,  10*.  6d. 

Grimm'R  • 

Ut.-,i,  Rerbed,  and  Enlarged  bj  Jo»r  ,  EK,  D.D.    Demy  4 to,  36*. 

Guyot  (Arnold  LL.D.i— <  he  Biblical  Cosmogony  in  the 

Light  of  Modern  Science.     With  Illustration*.     Crown  8m,  fe.  6d. 

Hagenbach  ( Dr.  K.  R.  >— H  ISTORY  or  DOCTRI N  ES.    3  vols.  8 vo,  3 1  > 

HISTORY  OP  TUB  REFORMAT;  ols.  8vo,  21s. 

Halcombe  (Rev  J.  J  .  M  A  (JosPELSf    A 

lUndbook  ofGoa(>el  Study.     Svo,  3«.  61. 

Hall  (Newman,  D.D.)— THE  LORD'S  1 

8ro,  is.  61 

GETHSEMANE  ;  or,  Leaves  of  Healing  from  the  Garden  of  < . 

.  crown  8ro,  4*. 

i>i VIM;  BROTHBBHOOD.    T  .»,  4s. 

Hamilton  ( T.,  D.D.)— BEYON  .mU, 

Occunatioiu,  a  ti,  crown  8vo,  3».  6L 

Harless  (Dr.  C.  I  TEM  OF  C'l  8vo,  10s,  6d. 

Harris   (8.,    D  Two 

rola.  post  8vo,  16H. 

Hauj  -Tun  I  ILE  OF  ST  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Havernick  (H.  A.  Ch.)— INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT.     10 

Heard  (Rev.  J.  B.,  M.A.)— THE  '1 

SOITL,  AKD  BOOT.     Fifth  Edition,  crown  8ro,  6k 

OLD  AND  NEW  THKOLWY.  AConstraotiveCi  «  r.  8vo,  6s. 

ALEX  THEOLOGY  VTED. 

The  Hulsean  Lecture*,  1892-93.    Crown  8ro,  6s. 

Hefele  (Bishop  —A    HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS  OF  THE  < 

Vol.  I . ,  to  A.  r».  325.  i>.  326  to  4 .  C!OM 

626  to  7 8 7.     8 ro,  12-.  each. 

Hengitenberg  (Professor)— COM  MEM  !  'SALM.S,  3  vols.  8vo,  33s. ; 

ZOOLBSIASTBS,   ETC.,    8vo,   9s.  ;  EXKKIRI.,  8vo,  10».  6d.  ;  TlIE  G> 

or  I 

21».  ;    CHRIMT<  vol*..    21*.    net 

i  GOSPEL,  2  Tola.  8vo. 

Herkless  (Prof.  J.,  D.I»  own  8vo,  3s. 

Herzog— KxcYri.op.f.inA    01  \IM>,    i  DE- 

(Supptfmfnt  to  lltrzogt  Atejfd» 
ptr  Svo,  8s. 

Hill    (Rev    J.    Hamlyn,    DD        li 

EVER  COMPILED  n  iteauron  of 

Tatun'   Literally  Transla1 
Four  Oocprla  worr: 

B     i 

Hodgson  M.,  M.A.,  D.Sc.,  D  I)  i     TBBOD 

On*  n  Svo.  3a.  6J. 

Holboni  (R»-v.  Alfre<l      T> 

Hutchison  (John,  D.D.)— CoMM>  8vo,  9s. 

COMMF  I  I'im.in 

OUR  LORI  i-EL.    Demy  8vo,  7s.  6d. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Innes  (A.  D.,  M.A.)— <'KANMKK  AND  THK   I  N-.IIMI    I;H..RMATION. 
Crown  8vo,  St. 

Innes  (A.   Taylor)— Tm  TRIAL  OF  JESUS  (  IIKIM      In  iu  Legal 

Aspect.     Post  8vo,  2*.  6U 
International  Critical  Commentary. 

s  R  (Prof,  a  R,,  D.D.)— Deuteronomy.     12». 
MOORE  (I1.-  I>.D.)-Judge«.     12s. 

D.D.)  -Samuel.     12*. 
TOY  ( Prof.  C.  H  ,  I ».  I ). )— Proverbs.     12s. 
GOULD  (Prof.  K.  P.,  D.D.)— St.  Mark.     10s.  6d. 
PLCMMER  (ALFRED,  D.D.)— St.  Luke.    12s. 

AY  (Prof.  W.,  D  D.)  an.l  HEADLAM  (A.  f.,  B  D.)— Romans.     12s. 
ABBOTT  (Prof.  T.  K. ,  I  |.he*isu»  and  Colosrians.     10s.  6d. 

KNT  (Prof.  M.  R.,  D.D.)-Philippian*  and  Philemon.     8s,  fld. 

>:..!  St.  Ju.lr.      10*.  6d. 
Lift  of  future  I'olumn  tee  p.  15. 

International  Theological  Library. 

DRIVER  (Prof.  S.  R.,  D.D.)— An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old 

Testament.     12s. 

SMYTH  (NEWMAN,  D.D.)-rhrMi*n  Kthics.     10s.  «J. 
BRUCE  (Prof.  A.  H.,  D.D.) -Apologetics.     10*.  «d. 
FISHER  (Prof.  (i.  P.,  D.D.,  LL.D.)— HUtory  of  Christian  Doctrine,     12s. 

N-  (Prof.  A.  V.  <;.,  I »  I).)- -Christian  Institution*.     12s. 
McGirrRRT  (Prof.  A.  C.,  Ph.D.)— The  Apostolic  Age.     12s. 
OLADDKN  (Washington,  D.I).)- The  Christian  Pastor.     10s.  fid. 
STEVENS  (Proi  I ).  ^-Th.-  Theology  of  the  New  Testament.     12s. 

KMNY  (iTin.  K.I     Tl  i tholic  Church.     12s. 

For  Lift  offutvr*  Volumu  SM  p.  14. 

Janet  (Paul) — FINAL  CAUSES.    Second  Edition,  demy  8vo,  12s. 

THE  THEORY  OF  MORALS.    Demy  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Johnstone  (P.  De  Lacy,  M. A.)— MUHAMMAD  AND  HIS  POWER.    3s. 
Johnstone  (Prof.  R.,  D.D.)— COMMENTARY  ON  IST  PETER.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Jones  (E.  E.  C. )— KLEMENTS  OF  LOGIC.    8vo,  7s.  G<I. 
Jouffroy— PHILOSOPHICAL  ESSAYS.    Fcap.  8vo,  5s. 
Kaftan  (Prof.  J.,  D.D.)— THE  TRUTH  OF  THK  <  HKISTIAN   Km., ION. 
ion.     2  vol*.  8vo,  16s.  net. 

Kant — THE  METAPHYSIC  OF  ETHICS.    Crown  8vo,  6s. 

PHILOSOPHY  UK  LAW.    Trans,  by  \\.\\  \  - 1 1  K,  D.D.    Cr.  8vo,  5s. 

PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS,  KTC.    Crown  8vo,  2s.  6d. 

Keil  (Prof.)— PENTATEUCH,  3  voU.  8vo,  31s.  6d. ;  Josnt  \,  .h  IKJES, 

AND  Krrii,  8ro,  10s.  6d.  ;  SAMUEL,  8vo,  10s.  6*1.  ;  KING*,  8vo,  10s.  6d.; 
CIIRONII  i.r-s  Svo,  10*.  6.1.  ;  KZRA,  NEHEMIAH,  ESTHER,  8vo,  10s.  6d.  ; 
JEREMIAH,  2  vol*.  Svo,  21*.;  EZEKIEI.,  2  vol*.  8vo,  21*.;  DAJTOL,  Svo, 
10s.  «d. ;  MINOR  PROPHET*,  2  rols.  8ro,  21*. ;  ISTRODUCTIOX  TO  THE 
CANOXH  AL  SCRIPTOREB  or  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  2  rob.  Svo,  21s. ; 

-BOOK  or  BIRLICAL  ARCHJtoLOOT,  2  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
*,"  Any  Four  Volumes  st  the  original  Subscription  price  of  21s.  net. 

Keymer  (Rev.  N.,  M.A.) — NOTES  ON  GENESIS.    Crown  Svo,  Is.  6d. 
Kidd  (James,  D.D.)— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 
KiUen  (Prof.)— THE  FRAMEWORK  OF  THE  CHURCH.    Svo,  9s. 
THE  OLD  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.    8vo,  9s. 

THK  I..VMIAN  Mi-iN-n.r.s  KMII:I  i  v  Sinuous.  Cr.  8vo,  2s.  6d. 

Kilpatrick  (Prof.  T.  B..  D.D.)— CHRISTIAN  CHARACTER.     Us.  6«l. 


8  us. 

Konig  <  Dr.  Ed. ,      I  s'BoOK<»  .  Isaiah). 

v  n  STO,  3».  M. 
Konig  ( Dr.  F.  K.) 

Krause  (F.  C.  F.i     THE  IDEAL  • 
Krummacher  (Dr.  F.  W.)— THKSIKKKKIV  ions 

.'««  L*»t  Day.-,  of  the  Sufferings  of  '  *  n  8vo,  6*. 

I>.\viii,  i  .ir  ISRAEL.    Second  Ko  *vo,  6s. 

A  •  rown  Svo,  6s. 

Kurtz  Prof.     11. \NDBOOKOI  ^.6d. 

!  K  OLD  C«  ree  vols.  Svo,  31s.  • 

Ladd  (Prof.  G.  T.)— THE  DOCTRINE  OF   SACRED   Sn  A 

al,  Iliatnrical,  and  Dogmatic  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and  Nature  of  the 
•iii-l  New  TeaUmenta.    Two  Tola.  8vo,  160- 

Laidlaw  (Prof.  J.,  D.D.) — THE  BIBLE  DOCTRINE  OP  MAN;  or, 

! tropology  and   Paychology  of  Scripture.      New  vised  and 

Rearranged,  poat  Svo,  7a.  0d. 

Lane  (Laura  M.)— LIFE  OF  ALEXANDER  VIXET.    Crown  Svo,  7s 
Lange  (J.  P.,  D.D.)  -  I  HK  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD  JESUN 
by  MARCUS  DOM,  D.D.    2nd  I 

COMMENTARIES  ON  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS 

by  PHILIP  SCHAFK,  D.D.    OLD  TICTAMKXT,  14  Tola.  ;  NEW  TEKTAMKNT,  10 
rola. ;  APOCRYPHA,  1  vol.     Subscription  ; 

ST.  MATTHEW  AND  ST.  M 

2  rola.  8vo,  18a. ;  ST.  JOB*,  2  vola.  8vo,  21s. 
*.* 

Le  CainuB  (E.,  Bishop  of  La  Rochelle)    TIIK  <  HM  i 
Fcap.  4  to.     4a. 

Lechler  (Prof.  G    V ,  DD.)— THE  APOSTOLIC  AND  POST-APOSTOLIC 

Tm  M.    Their  Diversity  and  Unity  in  Life  and  Doctrine.    2  voN.  cr.  8vo,  1 6a. 

Lehmann  (Pastor)— SCENES  FROM  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS.   Cr.  Svo,  3 
Lewis (Tayler,  LL  D. i     THF.SIX  luvsOFCRK 

Lilley  (J.  P.,  M.A.)  — THE  Lmin's  SITPER:  Its  O  .  and 

Ua«.    Crown  STO,  5». 

Tur   1 

I 

Lillie  (Arthur)— lit  I.I.HA    I 

T.  M.,  D.D.t  -  I. run 
TIOX.     Crown  Svo,  Sa. 

Lisco  (F.  G  i  — I'AIIABLES  OF  JESUS  1  Svo,  5s. 

Lock  I)  I) 

(RnuofCkurck  Hilary.)    6a. 
Lotze  (Hermann)— MICROCOSM  i  say  concerning  Man  an  i 

rel  ion,  2  TO!*.  STO  (1450 

Ludlow    iJ.    M.,    D.D.)— T  M   of 

Ck*rch  History.)     6«. 

Luthardt,  Kalinis,  and  Bruckner— Ti:  •>  Svo,  5a. 

Lutlianit  7>.6d. 

<  s  GOSPEL.  3  vola.  Svo,  31s.  6d. 

II 

Al'OUWJK-I 

(5  JW. ),  V  I . ).    3  Tola.  cr.  STO,  6a.  each 


W  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Macdonald  -INTRODUCTION  TO  PENTATEUCH.    Two  vols.  8vo,  2 it. 

THE  CREATION  AND  FALL.    8vo,  12*. 

Macgregor  (Bev.  Jaa.,  D.D.)  — Tin:   APOLOGY  OF  THE  CHRLM 

RELIOION.     8vo,  10§.  6d. 

THE  REVELATION  AND  THE  RECORD:  Essays  on  Matters  of 

Previous  guertion  in  th.  Proof  of  Christianity.    8vo,  7a.  6d. 

STUHES  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  NEW  TESTAMKST  APOLOGETICS. 

8vo,  It.  6d. 

Macgregor  (Rev.  0.  H.  G.,  M.A.)— So  GREAT  SALVATK  >N     *  1 

Macpherson  (Eev.  John,  M. A.)—  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  EPISTLE  TO 

HIANH.       8VO,   10*.  <M. 

CHKIMIVN   I  )....M. \rics.     Post  Svo,  9s. 

McCosh  (James),  Life  of.     8vo,  9s. 

McGiffert  (Prof.  A.  C.,  Ph.D.)— HISTORY  Of   rnKisn  VMIY  IN   THE 
AIIMTULIC  ACK.     (Internal tonal  Theological  Library.)    Post  Svo,  12s. 

lilt      \r  I'KKKII.      Its  Origin,    It-    rurjM.M-,   and  lU 

M 'Hardy  (G..  D.D.)— SAVONAROLA.    Crown  Svo,  3s. 
M-Intoah   (Rev.    Hugh,    HA.)     I-    nim.si    INKAI.I.IW.E   AND    THE 
Hi  in  Third  Kditifui,  |«Mt  8vo,  6a.  net. 

M-Realaham  (B.  D.)— ROMANS  DISSECTED.    A  Critical  Analysis  of  the 
EpMtle  to  the  Roman*.    Crown  8vo,  2s. 

Mair  (A.,  D.D.)— STUDIES  IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES.     Thinl 

K.  lit  ion.  Reviaed  and  Enlarged,  crown  8vo,  6s. 

Martensen  (Bishop)— CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

CHRISTIAN   ETHICS.     (GENERAL  —  INDIVIDUAL  —  SOCIAL.) 

Three  vola.  8vo,  lOa,  6d.  each. 

Matheaon  (Geo.,  D.D.)— GROWTH  OF  THE  SPIRIT  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  from 

the  First  Century  to  the  Dawn  of  the  Lutheran  Era.    Two  Tola.  8v<  . 

Meyer  (Dr.)  — CRITICAL  AND  EXBOETICAL  COMMENTARIES  ON  THE 

Twenty  vola.   STO.     Subscription  price,  X5.5a.fMl; 
Mltction  turns*  at  Subxription  price  of  2U;    Xom-SttbcriptioH 

price,  lOa.  6d.  each  volume, 

ST.  MATTHEW,  2  voU. ;  MARK  AND  LUKE,  2  vola. ;  ST.  JOHN,  2  vola, ; 
S  2  vola. ;  ROMANS,  2  vola.  ;  CORINTHIANS,  2  vola. ;  GALA TIANH,  one  vol.  ; 
EPHKSIANS  AND  PHI  LEMON,  one  vol.;  I'HU.IITIAN*  AND  COLOHHIANK,OD«TOI.; 
Tin  - M..M  \x*  (Dr.  Ltintma**),  one  vol. ;  THE  PAKTORAL  EPISTLES  (Dr. 
J/nthrr),  one  vol.  ;  HKBRKWs  (Dr.  Liinrma**),  one  vol.  ;  ST.  JAM»>  AND  ST. 
Ji»iiN \  KI-I-.M.KM  ( lltither),  one  vol.  ;  PETER  AND  JUDE  (Dr.  Huthrri,  one  voL 

Micliie  (Charles,  M.A.)— BIBLE  WORDS  AND  PHRASES.     18mo,  Is. 
Milligan  (George,  B.D.)— THE  THEOLOGY  OF  IHK  F.i  i 

ill  r.KEWS.       Post  8VO,  «8. 

Milligan   (Prof.    W.,    D.D.)     TIIK    KESURRECTION    OF    THE    DEAD. 

Second  F.<lition.  crown  8vo,  4».  6d. 
Milligan    (Prof.    W..   D.D.)    ,ml    Moulton   (W.    P.,   D.D.)  —  CoM- 

s  THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  JOHN.    Imp.  8vo,  9s. 
Moffatt  (James.  D.D.  •      IHK  HISTORICAL  NEW  TESTAMJ  -    ..n«l 

Kdition,  demy  8vo,  Ids. 

Mourad  (Dr.  D.  G.) — THE  WORLD  OF  PRAYER.    Crown  Svo,  4s.  6d. 
Moore   (Prof.  G.   F  .    D.D.) — JUDGES.      (International   Critical  Com- 
mentary.)   Set-on. I  Kditi»n,  post  Svo,  12a. 

Morgan  <  J  ,  D.D.)— SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY  TO  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  7s.  6d. 

K\  1  OF  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN.    8vo,  7s,  6d. 


io  T.  v*d  r  ( .'• 

Moulton    \V    I      1)  I).         1  Geden  (A.  S,  M.A.)     A  < 

I  4to,  20-*.  n.-t,  and  31  * 
' 

MUllenDr.  Julius,— T i  -  vols.8vo.21s. 

Murphy  ( Professor ) — Co M N  IB  PSALMS.    8 vo,  1 2s. 

A  i  »us.    9s. 

Naville  (Ernest  VIL.    Crown  8vo,  4s.  6d. 

1  IranslatedbyRev.T.J.DESPR&i.   Cr.8vo,4s.6d. 

M  <>,  5s. 

Neander  (Dr.)— niri:.  H  HIMMKY      Ki^K:  v..; 
Nicoll     W.    lofcertson.    M.A.,    LL.I' 

rice  3a.  6d. 

Novalis     Ih  THOUGHT^  :own8vo,  4*. 

Oehler  (Prof.  >— THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA v  vola.  8vo,  21s. 

Olshausen  (Dr.  H.)— I1.  IHE  GOSPELS 

Acre.     FourroU.,  2U.  net.     Crown  t .  volt.,  24*. 

ROMANS,  one  voL  8vo,  10s.  »  8vo, 

9s.  ;  I'm  one  rol.  8ro,  10s.  M. 

Oosterzee  (Dr.  Van*— TIIK  VKAK  «T  > 

MOSES :  A  Biblical  Study.    Crown  8vo,  6§. 

OreUi  (Dr.  C.  von)— <»  :KX;Y;  COM 

TKr.i:MiAii  4  roll.    Subcri: 

•  parmte  vol».,  10s.  6d.  each. 

Owen  (Dr.  John) -\\URKS.     Be*  and  only  Complete  Edition.     Edited 
by  R«Y.  Dr.  OOOLO.    Tw«n  la.  8ro,  Sal-- 

The  *  ffrtmn-  mmjr  b*  had  M|«i»Ulr 

Palestine,  Map  ot 

an  1 

Philippi  (F.  A.)— COMM 
Piper — LIVES  OF  LEADERS  01 
Popular  Commentary  on  the  New  Testamei  v   I'HII.II- 

ScHArr,  D.D.     With   Illustration,  and  Map*. 

Oo«rr.i>  ArorrLU. 

III.  — KOMAN-   TO    l'i 
In  four  rola.  imperial  8ro,  12*.  6U.  r.. 

Plummer  (Alfred,   D 

•    ••    •  '  i      .   ' '     }'.  :'.',.;••  >t  -  .  -.   :  .S. 

Pressens^  (Edward  i  F:  REDEEMER  :  Discourses.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

PUnjer   (Bernliard 

RELIGION  FROM  THE  REFORMA  :  >ro,  16». 

Rabiger  (Prof.)     1 
Eainy   (Principal)  —  DELFVERY   AND   DEVEI.UPMENT  OF  (i 

8ro,  10s.  6d. 

I 
/W 

(Pro1  Mosaie 

&1  Scieoo.  Two  vol*.  8vo,  21*. 

i  Professor                           TIIK  SACRED  E  K  NEW 
TEATAMEM.     640  pp.  8ro,  l&v 


T.  and  T.  Clark s  Publ  \  \ 

Eiehm  (Dr.  E.)— MESSIANIC  PROPHECY.    New  Edition.  Post  8ro,  7s.  6d. 

Kitchie  (Prof.  D.  0.,  M. A.)— PLATO.     <  Y..WH  8vo,  3s. 

Ritschl  (Albrecht,  D.D.)— THK  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIH 

:ON  AND  RKCONCILIATIOX.    Second  Edit iuii,  8rot  14*. 

Hitter  ( Carl)— COMPARATIVE  GEOGRAPHY  OF  PALESTINE.  4  vol*.  8vo,  21  •. 
Robinson  (Eev.  8.,  D.D.) — DISCOURSES  ON  REDEMPTION.    8vo,  7s.  6d. 
Robinson  <  E.,  D  D.) — GREEK  AND  ENO.  LEXICON  OF  THE  N.TEST.  8vo,9s. 
Rooke  (T.  G  .  B.A.       I \-niiATioN,  and  other  Lectures.     8vo,  7s.  6d. 
Ross  (0.)— OUR  FATHER'S  KINGDOM.    Crown  8vo,  2s.  6d. 
Rothe  (Prof.) — SERMONS  FOR  THE  CHRISTIAN  YEAR.    Cr.  8vo,  4s.  6d. 
Saisset — MANUAL  OF  MODERN  PANTHEISM.    Two  vols.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Salmond  (Princ.    8.  D.    F.,  D.D.)- Tin     CHKIMIAN    !»..«  TKINK   OF 

IMMORTALITY.     New  Kdition,  post  8vo,  9». 
Sanday   (Prof.   W.,   D.D.)  and   Headlam    (A.    C.,    B.D.)— ROMANS. 

(International  Critical  Commentary.)    Thinl  Kdition,  jx»t  8vo,  12*. 

Sartorius  (Dr.  E.)— DOCTRINE  OF  DIVINE  LOVE.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Schaff  (Professor)— HISTORY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.     (New 

•<<>n,  thoroughly  Revised  and  Enlarged.)     Six   'Divisions/  in  2  vols. 
each,  extra  8vo. 
1.    APO.HT..I  *.D.    1-100,  2  vols.   21s.      2.    AXTK-N 

A.  i..  10)  :i-j;.,  2  vols.,  21s.  3.  NIC-EXK  AND  Ponr-NicEJ«E,  A.D.  825-600, 
2  vols.,  21s.  4.  MEDIEVAL,  A.D.  590-1073,  2  vols.,  21s.  (Completion  of 
tku  Period,  1073-1517,  in  pr^xim  THE  SWIM  REFORMATION, 

2  vols.,  extra  demy  8vo,  21s.  6.  THE  GERMAX  REFORMATION,  2  vols.,  extra 
demy  8vo,  21s. 

Schleiermacher's  CHIMSTMAS  EVK.     Crown  8vo,  2s. 
Schubert  (Prof.  H.  Von.,  D.D. )— THK  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  PETER.   Synoptical 
Table*.     With  Translation  and  Critical  Apparatus.     8vo,  Is.  6d.  net 

Schultz  (Hermann)— OLD  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY.  Two  vols.   18s.net. 

Schilrer  (Prof.)— HISTORY  OF  THE  JEWISH  PEOPLE.    5  vols.    Subscrip- 
tion price,  26*.  3d.  in  t. 

*.*  In.l.-x.     In  separate  Volume.     2s.  <Sd.  n<  t. 

Schwartzkopff  (Dr.  P.)— THK  ri:»rnmES  OF  JESI  s  CMKIST.    Crown 
8vo,  5a. 

Scott  (Jas.,  M.A.,  D.D.) — PRINCIPLES  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  QUOTATION 
ESTABLISHED  AND  APPLIED  TO  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.    Cr.  8vo,  2nd  Edit,  4s. 
Sell  (K.,  D.D. )— THE  CHURCH  IN  THE  MIRROR  OK  HISTORY.  Cr.  8vo,3/6. 
Shedd — HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
—  SERMONS  TO  THE  SPIRITUAL  MAN.    8vo,  7s.  6d. 

DOGMATIC  THEOLOGY.    Three  vols.  ex.  8vo,  37s.  6d. 

Siine(James,M.A.)— WILLIAM  HKK-.  HJ.S\\'«.KK.  Cr.8vo.3s. 

Simon  Prof.  — TiiEBiBLE;  AnOutgrowthof  Theocratic  Life.  C'r.8T0,4/6. 

KKCONCILIATION  BY  INCARNATION.    Post  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Skene-Bickeil— THK  LORD'S  SUP rn:  A  THE  PASSOVER  RITUAL.  8vo,  5s. 
Smeaton  (Oliphant,  M.A.)     THK  MKHICI  AND  THK  ITALIAN 

Smeaton  (Professor)— Dot  THINE  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.   2nd  Ed.,  8vo,9«. 
Smith  ( Prof.  H.  P..  D.D. )     I.  AND  II.  SAMUEL.    (International  Critical 
Commentary.)    Post  8 TO,  12s. 


12 

Smith  (Professor  Thot.,  D.D.)  — MEDI.CV A i.  r.  8vo,  4*. 

Smyth  (John,  M.A..  D.Ph.  (      I  8vo,  4s. 

Smyth  (Newman,   D.D.)— <  /  .al  Theo- 

logical  Library.)    'I  \\,  j>o»t  8vo,  10*.  «d. 

Snell  (F.   J.,  M.A.)— WKM.I  Y  AM-  M  ",3s. 

Somerviile  (Rev.  D.,  I)  D  '  9*. 

Stahlin  (Leonh.)— KANT,  Loi  HI.    8vo,  9s. 

Stalker  (Prof.  Jas.,  D.D.)— LIFE  UK  ( 'HKIM.     Large  Typ« 
6d. 

I  Large  Type  !  \\  8vo,  3« 

8tanton(V  H  THlCfl  MESSIAH. 

A  Study  in  tb«  Earliest  History  of  Ci  8vo,  10*.  6d. 

Stead  (F.  BL)— THK  KIN-  DOM  OF  GOD.     Is. 

Steinmeyer  (Dr.  F.  L.,— THK  MII:A<  LES  OF  OUR  LORD.     8vo,  7* 

THK  HISTORY  OF  THE  PASSION  AND  RESURRK- 

LORD,  considered  in  the  Light  of  Modern  Criticism.     8ro,  lOt.  6d. 

Stevens  (Prof.  G  B.,  D.D.)     TH!  Tin  'i  • 

(l»ter,uitioMl  Thtological  Library.)    Po«t  8ro,  12«. 

Stevenson  (Mrs.)— THE  SYMBOLIC  PARABLES.    Crown  8vo,  :i 
Steward  (Bev.  0.)— MEDIATORIAL  SOVERK  Two  vols.  8vo, 
THE  ARGUMENT  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.  8vo,  l  oa.6d. 

Stier  (Dr.  Rudolph)— ON  THE  WORDS  OF  THE  LORD  JESUS.     Eight 
roU  8ro,  Subscription  price  of  £2,  2«.     Srpamte  volume.,  price  10*.  «d. 

THE  WORDS  OF  THE  RISEN  SAVIOUR,  AND  COMMENTARY  ON 

THE  EPISTLE  or  ST.  JAMKS.    8ro,  10«.  6d. 

THE  WORDS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  EXPOUNDED.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Stirling  (Dr  J.  Hutchison)— PHILOSOPHY  AND  THEOLOGY.  Po«t8vo,  9s. 

DAUU  >,  10s.  6d. 

\Vu  v  rt     8vo, 

Tholuck  (Prof.)— THK  I  <», 8§. 

Thomson  (J.  E.  H,  D.D.)— BO>KS  WHI.-H    1  D  DOT   LORD 

8vo,  10t. 

Thomson  (Eev.  E.  A.)— MKMORI  •  -TKV      CiownSvo,  5s. 

Tophel  (Pastor  0.)— THE  WORK  :T.     Cr.  8vo,  2s. 6d. 

Toy  (Prof.  C.  H..  D.D 

mmtary.)    Pott  8vo 
Tronp   (Rev.   G     1  M.A.)     \Vui:ns    i 

h«*U 

IThlhorn(G  i— (  H  <'r.8vot6s. 

Ullmann  (Dr.  Carl  KS  BEFORE  THE  REFORM 

pally  in  Germany  and  the  Netherlanda.     Two  vola.  8vo,  21 1. 

S 

Urwick   (W.,   M.A  ntaiy 

upon  Isaiah  lii  with  Duncrtationt  upon  I*aiah  xl.   Ixvi.     8ro,  St. 


T.  and  T.  Clark' <  Publications.  13 

Vinet    !.:;••  .in-l  Writings  of).     By  L.  M.  LANE.     Crown  8vo,  7s.  6<L 
Vincent  (Prof.  M.  R.  D.D.)— THE  AGE  or  HUM  ix  of 

PIIIUITIV.  PHILEMON.     (/  lal   Critifal   Com- 

mtntary.)    Seooml  K-liti-.n,  post  8vo,  8».  dd. 

Walker  (Jamea,  of  Carnwath)     I.— \vs,  PAPERS,  AND  SKRM 

Post  8vo,  6s. 

Walker  (J.,  D.D.)— THEOLOGY    AND  THEOLOGIANS   OF   SCOTLAND. 

New  I  own  8vo,  3*.  6«1. 

Walker  (Prof.  W.,  D.D.)    TIIK  PROTESTANT  REFORMATION.     (/ 

MtA  //    '  >ry.)     6s. 

Walker  (Rev.  W.  L.)     TIN:  SI-IKM    VM-   i  UK  INCARNATION.     Second 
<>,  9s. 

Warfield  (B.  B.,  D.D.)— TIIK   RIGHT   OF  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

vn  8vo,  2s. 

Waterman  (L.,  D.D.)      I'm:  I'.-i  Ai    MOLIC  AGE.      (Eras  of  Church 
•ry.)    6s. 

Watt(W.  A.,  M.A.,  D.Ph.)     Tm  THI..I:Y  ACT  IN  ITS  SOCIAL 

i.     8vo,  8a. 

—  A  STUDY  OF  SOCIAL  M..KAIITY.    Post  8vo,  6s. 
Watts  (Professor)— THE  NEWER  CRITICISM  AND  THE  ANALOGY  OF 

FAITH.     Third  Edition,  crown  8ro,  6s. 

Tin    i;i  h;\  OF  CAUSALITY:  A  Vindication  of  the  Scientific 

i'riiu  iplc  of  Telic  Causal  Efficiency.    Crown  8vo,  6s. 

THE  NEW  APOLOGETIC.    Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Weir  ( J.  F.,  M.A.) — THE  WAY  :  THE  NATURE  AND  MEANS  OF  SALVATION. 

:  own  8vo,  6s.  6d. 

Weiss(Prof.) — BiBLiCALTHEOLOGYOFNEwTESTAMENT.  2 vols.  8 vo,  2 1  s. 

LIFE  oi  ; .    Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  dl. 

Welch  (Rev.  A.  C.,  B.D.)     AN^I  I.M    \M>  HIS  \\',>IIK.     3s. 

Wells  (Prof.  C.  L.)   -Tun   A<;K   01   (  H  vui.»  M  V<,M  .       (AV«  of  the 

Christian  Church.)     6s. 

Wendt  (H.  H.,  D.D.)— THE  TKA« -HIM;  OF  JESUS.    2  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Si.  .I.-HN'-  GOSPEL,      I-    •  nnl   llM..ri..il  Y.iliif.     8vo, 

Wenley  (R.  M.)— (  MMIMPORARY  THEOLOGY  AND   TIIKISM.     Crown 

STO,  4s.  6d. 

White  (Rev.  M.) — SYMBOLICAL  NUMBERS  OF  SCRIPTURE.    Cr.  8vo,  4s. 
Williams  (B.  F.,  D.D.)— CHRISTIAN  LIKE  i  WT,  Crown  8v. 

Wilson  (S.   Law.  D.D.)     THK  THEOLOGY  "i    M..I.KKX  LITERATI  1:1 

Post  8?o,  7s.  6d. 

Winer  (Dr.  G.  B.)— A  TREATISE  ON  THE  GRAMMAR  OF  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT GREEK,  regarded  as  the  Basis  of  New  Testament  Exegesis.    Third 
ion,  edited  by  W.  F.  MOULTOX,  D.D.    Ninth  English  Edition,  8ro,  16s. 

Witherow(Prof.T.,D.D.)  -TiiKFoRMOFTiim  H  KIM  IAN  TEMPLE.  8ro 
Woods  (F.  H.,  B.D.)— THE  HOPE  OF  ISRAEL.    Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 
Workman  (Prof.  G.  C  >     THE  TEXT  OF  JEREMIAH  ;  or,  A  Critical  Investi- 
gation of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew,  etc.     Post  Svo,  9s. 
Wright  (C.  H.,  D.D.)— BIBLICAL  ESSAYS.    Crown  Svo,  5s. 


•'id    T.    ( 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  THEOLOGICAL  LIBRARY. 


THE    following    eminent    Scholars    have    contributed,    or    are 
engaged  upon,  the  Volumes  named: — 


An   Introduction   to   the   Literature   of 
the  Old  Testament 


Chrutun  Ethic i 


Oxford. 
By  NK 

KirM 


•JJlMJ  of  ChrlsU4n  Doctrine 


, 

.    .-.:./   •  .-,.•«      t, 
Factor  of  th« 

l  Ml  <   <•  •'    '      N'  ••    '<     •- 

i*.  fid. 

By  the  Ute  A.  !  I  •     Prof«*or  of 

New  Tettameat   E*cfe»i- 
College.  Gla»«ow.  [. 

'I         <•  •  ..>*:•,   .»!  H  ;   :    •  \     S  .,  ' 
I  »«w,  0>on. 


A  History  of  Christianity  In  the  Apostollo      • 
A{«. 

Institutions 


Th«  Chrlitun  Pautor 


of  the  New  Testament 
rirat  OAtboUo  Church 
the  Old  TwUBMt. 

The  Literature  of  the  New  Testament 

Old  Testament  History. 

Oanon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  Latin  Church 


Hlitory  of  the  Old  Teita 


Ooatenporary  History  of  the  Mew  Testa- 
Ffellocophy  of  Rellflon 
The  Stttdy  of  the  Old 

Rabbinical  Literature 
The  Life  of  Christ 


By  A.  V.  G  :>..  ProfeMor  of 

I  •  !    ,     .  '        1  I        '  ]  H  1   t  •  r    i 

logical  School.  CamUidge".  IfcZ          [ •  »» 


•;';::;:•„" 


IN  '  .1    .  n  i: 

,f 


!•(•  n  ,  i«  !•    rr  . 

,  .     \  — 
By  ROM  !>inci|»lorTh« 

Nr*     I  ^        I          ,  ,f-. 

By  the 
Profcaor  of  Hebrew,  IV 


•  I       Interpretation, 


By  S.   D.    F. 

..      Pn*  nrd  -.-:-,...,   riee   n  3 

.ie  ProreMor  of 

By  CASPAR   K'     * 

fcMormr-  -f  Lctprif . 

By  ARCHIBALD  ROBK«T«OM,  D.D.,  Principal 
ByCA  •.  Pi  ofieeor  of  Biblical 

i:>-    FRANCI*    BROWN,    D.D.,   Profexor   of 

Hebcr 

Tbeolog kal  Seminar 
I'.y    KM  A  .  ale   Uni 

By  the  Riiiht  V 

I  *lmudk 
Ity  Wu 

M^f^a-'t    I'r     f'—!      <\    ...       '.     ..-;  !  I.  *.-»  in 

of  Chml  Church,  «  ' 

•  .     MAC- 


/.  and   T.   Clark 's  Publications.  15 

" 

THE  INTERNATIONAL  CRITICAL  COMMENTARY. 

N*  VOLUMES  NOW  READY,  vu.:— 

Deuteronomy,  Judges,   I.  and   II.   Samuel,   Proverb*,  1.   Hark,   8,    Luke,   Romans, 
Ephetians  and  Colosalans,  Phlllpplant  and  Philemon.  8.  Peter  and  §.  Jude. 

The  following  other  Volumes  are  in  course  of  preparation  :— 

T1IK   OLD  TKSTAMI 
mesls.  Ti«|  Profowor  of  UM  Interpretation  of  Holy 


E.odui.  A.  K.  «.  KIXXKKV,  I».1>..  Profottor  of  Hebrew,  University  of  Idlnburjh. 

Leviticus.  low  of  Wadbam  College,  Oxford  ;  and  the  1st* 

Number*.  .ofcssor  of  Hebrew,  MansfeM  College, 

i  '  ,  f  •  :    1 

Joshua.  GBOK-  H,  D.D..  Pnrfeaaor  of  Hebrew,  Unit«l  Free  Church 

Colkge,  Glaegow. 

Kln<s.  PMANI-IH  Baowx,  P.D..  Profcaeor  of  Hebrew  >n<l  Ornate   LaofuacM 

Union  Theologleal  Heinloary,  Xr« 

The   .:<  »viDeo»,   D.D.,  LL.D.,  Profeuor  of   H.brr 


Jeremiah.  \     1     KIKK,  -OK,,  K    I»  l>.,  RrRitw  Profc«eor  of  Hebrew,  and  Fellow  of 

Trinity  College,  Qunbrldfv. 

Minor  Prophet..  W.  R.  HAarM.  Pb.D.,  PrwMent  of  Chicago  Unlwrmity. 

Psalms.  C.  A.  Bm.MW.  D.D..   K-lw.rd  Robduon  Proferar  of  Biblical  Theology, 

.•icml  Meiuliuir 

Job.  8.  R.  Dai  vn,  D.  I).  ,  Refine  Prufeevor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Daniel.  Rev.  JOHM  P.  PmtaM,  Ph.D.,  lata  ProftMeor  of  Hebrew,  P.  B. 

Rector  of  8U 


,          . 
Sehool,    PhiUdelphU,  now  Rector  of  8U  Xkhael-;  Church,  New 

Exra  and  Hehemlah.     Kev.  L.  W.  BAIT«N,  Ph.D.,  Profeeeor  of  Hebrew.  P.  E.  Divinity  School, 


Chronicles.  K..w»»n  L.  CIRTIH,  D.D.,  Protestor  of  Hebrew,  Tale  University,  New 

Haven.  Conn. 

Till-    M.\V   TESTAMENT. 

Synopsis  of  the  i  1..1)..  Ijwiy  Manearat  Pro»«Mor  «»xfbrd; 

Four  Gospels.          sj  Aujt*.  M.A..  lutarOollefa,  OxfcnL 

Matthew.  I  ^      •  M    \      •  hapUm,  Krllow,  sod  Lecturer  !• 

Theology  and  Hebrew,  Exeter  CoUflf*,  Oxford. 

Act..  Fwa>wirK  H .  CH  A«,  D.  D. ,  Christ's  College,  Cambridge. 

Corinthians.  A*cn.  BoaEKTMHt,  D.D.,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 


Oalatlans.  Rev.  Baftnrr  D.  B.  KT..S.  A.B.,  Professor  of  New  Te*Umeat 

venttyof  Chi. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles.  WALTS*  Lore,  D.D.,  Dean  Ireland  •  Profeeeui  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 
Hebrews.  rofessor  of  Hebrew  In  King's  College,  London. 

James.  Rev.  JAMBS  H.  Rone*.  A.B.,  Instructor  in  New  Testament  Criticism  In 

Harvard  University. 

l>  l> 
"I  Free  Chore 

Revelation.  Ronurr^  CHAnua,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek  in  the  University 

Other  r*0aeemt*tt  will  6*  •aaoaiMwl  tkortlg. 


i6 


CDc  World's  CpoclMftakcrs 


hy  01  IPHANT  SMEATON. 


MESSR>.  T.  *  T.  CLARK  have  much  pleasure  in  announcing  that  they  hard 
fan  important  new  Sen.-. 

The  following  Volumes  have  now  been  ittued :  - 
Buddha  and  Buddhism. 

Luther  and  the  German  Reformation. 
By  !  :    M.  LDTMAY,  I'.H. 

Wesley    and    Methodism.     By  F.  J. 

!,  M.A. 

Cranmer  and  the  English  Reforma- 
tion ft,  M.A. 

William    Herschel    and    his    Work. 
M.A. 

Francis  and   Dominic.    By  Professor 

i.  HEBKLEM.  D  1* 


Savonarola,     i  •  I> 

Anselm  and  his  Work. 

The  Medici  and  the  Italia*  Renais- 
sance. 
M.A.,  Idtebwi 

Origen  and  Greek  Patristic  Theology. 

\  I  HKII,    M.A. 

Muhammad  and  his  Power. 

•n.). 

Plato.     I'.y    Professor 

M.A  irews. 


The  following  have  alto  been  arranged  / 


Euclid. 

D.D,  (/*  thePnu. 

Socrates.     By   Her.    J.    T.    FOEBRH, 

Marcus  Aurelius  and  the  Later  Stoics. 
i'.rnttELL,    D.D.,    Vice- 
i pal  of  Braaenow  College,  Oxfonl. 
Augustine  and  Latin  Patristic  Theo- 
logy 

Scotus  Erigena  and  his  Epoch. 

•  v  of  Abenl- 
Wyclif  and   the   Lollards. 

The  Two  Bacons  and  Experim 

Science. 
Calvin  and  the  Reformed  Theology. 

Pascal  and  the  Port  Royalist 

Lesslng    and    the    New    Humanism. 

M.A. 


Descartes,    Spinoza,    and    the    New 
Philosophy. 

I>  !' 

Hume  and   his  Influence   on    Philo- 
sophy and  Thcologv 
J.  ORR,  D.D.,  G!*>K 

Rousseau    and    Naturalism    in    Life 
and  Thought. 

MIA. 

Kant  and  his  Philosophical  Revolu- 
tion. 

1 1   . 

Schlcicrmacher    and    the    Rejuven- 
escence of  Theology. 

Hcgcl     and    Hcgelianisni. 

Indei*ii  •  gt,     Man- 

Newman     and     his     Influence 


Published  Price.   THREE  SHILLINGS  per  Volume. 


5170 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY