Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


Ὁ σθέΠΕΌΤ ΤΠ21Ὲ 


3931109 S,1aVHOIW “LS 30 ALISHAAINN 


ἐν 
Dea: 


THE EPISTLE TO*FHE ROMANS 


REv. W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Litr.D. 


ἍΝ. 


Rev. A. C. HEADLAM, D.D. 


PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY 
*®ORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED 


FOR 
¥. ἃ T. CLARK, EDINBURGH 


NAW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 


The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction ave Reserved 


THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 


A 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON 


IMME EPISTLE, TO THE, ROMANS 


BY YHer REY. 


WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D.. LL.D, Litt.D., F.B.A. 


LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINI τὸ AND 
CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFOR 
CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY το THE NG 


AND THE 


Rev. ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, D.D. 


PRINCIPAL OF KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON 


FIFTH EDITION 


EDINBURGH 
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET 


First ΕΡΙΤΙΟΝ . . September 1895 
Firtu Epition . . December 1902 
oe ” - Latest Reprint 1960 


PREPAC i 


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

Perhaps the nearest approach to anything at all dis- 
tinctive in the present edition would be (1) the distribution 
of the subject-matter of the commentary, (2) the attempt 
to furnish an interpretation of the Epistle which might be 
described as historical. 

Some experience in teaching has shown that if a difficult 


ii PREFACE 


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

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


PREFACE 111 


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

It is in the pursuit of this original meaning that we have 
drawn illustrations somewhat freely from Jewish writings, 
both from the Apocryphal literature which is mainly the 
product of the period between 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 
advance in the exegesis of the New Testament will be 
possible. For the later Jewish literature and the teaching 
of the Rabbis we have found ourselves in a position of 
greater difficulty. A first-hand acquaintance with this 
literature we do not possess, nor would it be easy for most 
students of the New Testament to acquire it. Moreover 
complete agreement among the specialists on the subject 
does not as yet exist, and a perfectly trustworthy standard 
of criticism seems to be wanting. We cannot therefore feel 
altogether confident of our ground. At the same time we 
have used such material as was at our disposal, and cer- 
tainly to ourselves it has been of great assistance, partly as 
suggesting the common origin of systems of thought which 
have developed very differently, partly by the striking 
contrasts which it has afforded to Christian teaching. 

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


ιν PREFACE 


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

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

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


PREFACE ν 


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

It only remains for them to express 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. cx ff., and the explanation there given as to the 
Greek text made use of in the Commentary. Some addi- 
tional references are given in the Index (p. 444 ff). 


W. SANDAY. 


A. C. HEADLAM. 
OxrorD, Whitsuntide, 1895. 


ΡΕΕΕΑΓΕ ΤΟ ΤῊΝ SECOND EDITION 


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


Oxrorp, Lent, 1896. 


PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION 


THE demand for a new Edition has come upon us so 
suddenly in the midst of other work, that we have again 
confined ourselves to small corrections, the knowledge of 
which we owe to the kindness of many friends and critics. 
We have especially to thank Dr. Carl Clemen of Halle, 
not only for a useful and helpful review in the Theo 
logische Literaturzeitung, No. 26, Nov. 7, 1896, p. 590, but 
also for privately communicating to us a list of misprints. 
We have also to thank the Rev. H. T. Purchas of New 
Zealand, Mr. John Humphrey Barbour of the U.S.A., 
and the Rev. C. Plummer for corrections and suggestions. 
We should like also to refer to an article in the Expositor 
(Vol. IV, 1896, p. 124) by the late Rev. J. Barmby, on The 
Meaning of the Righteousness of God’ in the Epistle to the 
Romans, in which he works out more fully the opinions to 
which we referred on p. 24. We are glad again to express 
our obligations to him and our sense of the loss of one who 
was a vigorous and original worker both in Church History 
and in New Testament Exegesis. 

We can only now chronicle the appearance of the first 
volume of the elaborate Eznlectung in das N.T. (Leipzig, 
1897) of Dr. Zahn, which discusses the questions relating 
to the Epistle with the writer’s accustomed thoroughness 
and learning, a new ‘improved’ edition of the Eznleitung of 
Dr. B. Weiss, and an edition of the Greek text of the 
Pauline Epistles with concise commentary by the same 
author. Both these works have appeared during the present 
year. The volume of essays dedicated to Dr. B. Weiss 
on his seventieth birthday, Theol. Studien &c. (Gottingen, 
1897), contains two papers which have a bearing upon the 
Epistle, Zu paulinischen Théodicée by Dr. Ernst Kihl, and 
Beitrage zur paulin. Rhetorik by Dr. Joh. Weiss. We should 
hope to take account of these and other works if at some 
future time we are permitted to undertake a fuller revision 
of our commentary. 


W. 5. 


A. Ci. 
Oxrorp, December, 1894. 


PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION 


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

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

A very excellent and thorough survey of the whole 
subject will be found in the article ‘ Romans’ in Hastings’ 
Dictionary of the Bible by Dr. A. Robertson. The corre- 
sponding article in the Lxcyclopaedia 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 English the most consider- 
able recent commentary is Dr. Denney’s in the Expositor’s 
Greek Testament (1900). There is also a thoughtful and 
useful little commentary in the Century Bible by A. E. 
Garvie. 

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


Viii PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION 


(i) the question as to the meaning of the ‘ righteousness 
of God’ in i. 17, &c. Something was said on this subject 
in the New Testament portion of the article ‘God’ in 
Hastings’ Dictionary, ii. 210-12, where reference is made 
to an interesting tract by Dalman, Dze richterliche Gerech- 
tigkett im A. T. (Berlin, 1897), and to other literature. 
Something also was said in the Fournal of Theological 
Studies, i. 486 ff., ii. 198 ff. And the question is again 
raised by Dr. James Drummond in the first number of the 
Hibbert Fournal, pp. 83-95. This paper is to be con- 
tinued; and the subject is sure to be heard of further. 
(ii) Another leading problem is that as to the relation of 
St. Paul to the Jewish Law, on which perhaps the most 
important recent contributions have been those by Sieffert 
(‘Die Entwicklungslinie d. paulin. Gesetzeslehre nach den 
4 Hauptbriefen d. Apost.’) in the volume of Studies in 
honour of B. Weiss (Gottingen, 1897) and by P. Feine 
(Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium d. Paulus, Leipzig, 1899). 
(iii) A third deeply important question is being much 
agitated at the present time; viz. that as to the exact 
nature and significance of the ‘Mystical Union’ described 
in Rom. vi and viii. This is even more a question of 
Biblical and Dogmatic Theology than of Exegesis, and it 
is from this side that it is being discussed in such books 
as Dr. Moberly’s Atonement and Personality (1901), Mr. 
Wilfrid Richmond’s Essay on Personality as a Philoso- 
phical Principle (1900), and more incidentally in several 
works by Dr. W. R. Inge. (iv) Various questions raised 
in the Introduction are discussed in Dr. Moffatt’s Historical 
New Testament (Edinburgh, 1901). 

Two more general subjects are receiving special atten- 
tion at the present time. One of these is the his- 
torical position and character of New Testament Greek, on 
which much new light is thrown by the study of inscrip- 
tions and of the mass of recently discovered papyri. We 
associate these studies especially with the names of 
G. A. Deissmann, whose 4zb/e Studies have recently been 


PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION ix 


published in English (Edinburgh, 1901), A. Thumb, 
K. Dieterich, and others. It is the less necessary to 
go into details about these, as an excellent account is 
given of all that has been done in a series of papers by 
H. A. A. Kennedy in the Expository Times, vol. xii (1901). 
Dr. Kennedy was himself a pioneer of the newer move- 
ment in England with his Sources of New Testament Greek 
(Edinburgh, 1895). We ought not however to forget the 
still 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 
ancient rhetorical prose 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 
special attention to the later Christian writers, both Greek 
and 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 
survey without a special word of commendation for The 
Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Fewish Thought by 
Mr. H. St. John Thackeray (London, 1900). 

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

W. S. 
A. C. H. 
November, 1902. 


Υ͂ 
ἔων ᾿ 
5 » of 


᾿ 
i 
᾿" ΕΝ Repl , hor be ' 


, 
4 f 4 
rn hey wi ty iy ὧν ἐν Veni g, tk 
; | Pint eT ens 
Ais 
: ' 
j 
j i 


CONTENTS 


—_—->——-= 
RAGE 
INTRODUCTION . . ° ° . ° e —- Xili-cix 
Sy ROME TE ALD ΒΝ ii a) οὐ Soh PORE ν 2) ΧΙ 
2. The Jews in Rome gy ἢ πὸ th Ee! enemas . Xvili 
3. The Roman Church . : - : e : en KV 
4. Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose 4 Ps . XXXVI 
5. Argument. : : ety Le : Bhi - xliv 


6 ΠΡ ΕΘ Ἀπ Style ise le oe sites oy Νὲ 
PonPexty yi : Withee “tet Mareen : lxili 
8. Literary History . . oh NCO TN RT ΣΤ EEL, 
9. Integrity 7 : Sea ae δ . . Ixxxv 
10. Commentaries . as ups ° ° . . - XCVili 


ABBREVIATIONS ὰ c ~ ; e - - - Cx-Cxii 


COMMEN TARY e . Φ ΓῚ Γ e . e 1-436 
DETACHED NOTES: 
The Theological Terminology of Rom.i.1-7 .« Ὁ. ὁ 17 


The word δίκαιος and its cognates : : : ° + 28 
The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in some 

Jewish Writings . . aft ἡ - . : ae | 
The Righteousness of God . ° ° 34 
St. Paul’s Description of the Condition of te ἜΠΕΤΕ 

World . : : . 9 . . 49 
Use of the Book of wisdonih in Crate yes . ε . 51 
The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice . ΘΙ 
The History of Abraham as treated St. Paul and by 

St. James . 3 . 5 102 
Jewish Teaching on Gcaniciions 3 F . 108 
The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of 

St. Paul : : 116 


Is the Society or the ἘΠΕ ΝΣ εἰ proper object of 
Justification ? 5 Β - . - : - . 122 


CONTENTS 


The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement . . . ὁ 
The Effects of Adam’s Fall in Jewish Theology . ° ° 
St. Paul’s Conception of Sin and of the Fall . a 2 . 
History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of 


Otxaiwois . . ᾿ ° 
The Doctrine of Mystical Uaion with Christ ° . A 
The Inward Conflict . : ϊ ὃ : ° . . 
St. Paul’s View of the Law . ‘ - ἣ . . 
The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit . ° . 
The Renovation of Nature . ; Β . . . 
The Privileges of Israel. 5 . ° ‘ ° δ 
The Punctuation of Rom. ix.5 . . . 
The Divine Election . Ε 


The Divine Sovereignty in fife old Meetaiwene 
The Power and Rights of God as Creator 


The Relation of St. Paul’s soe in sak ce ix to the Book 
of Wisdom . P Ε 


A History of the ἜΝ Hoe of a ix. ἃ -29. 

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

St. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament . α : . . 
The Doctrine of the Remnant Po te Ξ 3 “ 
The Merits of the Fathers . : : . ° ° . 
The Argument of Romans ix-xi . “ ᾿ . Ξ Ἢ 
St. Paul’s Philosophy of History 


The Salvation of the Individual: Free- will a Predesi 
nation . 


Spiritual Gifts ἢ F ‘ ° . . ° 
The Church and the Civil power κ᾿ . 
The History of the word ἀγάπη. . : . 


The Christian Teaching on Love . ἡ . ᾿ 
The early Christian belief in the nearness of the παρουσία. 
The relation of Chapters xii-xiv to the Gospels . ὁ“ 
What sect or party is referred toin Rom. xiv? . «Ὁ υἱ 


Aquila and Priscilla . . ΡΥ xt is wisest un 
INDEX: 

I Subjects . ν . Ω 5 . . 2 

II Latin Words . - . ° . . 4 ° 

III Greek Words . . a . . a - 


PAGE 
129 


136 
143 


147 
162 
184 
187 
199 
210 
232 
233 
248 
257 
266 


267 
269 
300 
302 
316 
330 
341 
342 


347 
358 
369 
374 
376 
379 
381 


399 
418 


437 
443 
443 


INTRODUCTION 


δι. ROME IN A.D. 58. 


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

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


1 The main authorities used for this section are Furneaux, 7he Annals of 
Tacitus, vol. ii, and Schiller, Geschichte des Romischen Kaisserreichs unter 
ver Regierung aes Nero. 

3 Rom. i. 8-15. 

8 Acts xix. 213; xxiii. 11. 

* Phil. i. 27; iii. 20; Eph. ii. 19; Acts xxiii. 1. 


xiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 1. 


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

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


12 Thess. ii. 7 ὁ κατέχων, 6 τὸ κατέχον. It is well known that the 
commonest interpretation of these words among the Fathers was the Roman 
Empire (see the Catena of passages in Alford, iii. p. 56 ff.), and this accords 
most suitably with the time when the Epistle was written (¢. 53 A.D.). The 
only argument of any value for a later date and the unauthentic character of 
the whole Epistle or of the eschatological sections (ii, 1-12) is the attempt to 
explain this passage of the return of Nero, but such an interpretation is quite 
unnecessary, and does not particularly suit the words. St. Paul’s experience 
had taught him that there were lying restrained and checked great forces of 
evil which might at any time burst out, and this he calls the ‘mystery of 
iniquity,’ and describes in the language of the O. T. prophets. But everywhere 
the power of the civil government, as embodied in the Roman Empire (7d 
κατέχον) and visibly personified in the Emperor (ὁ κατέχωνῚ, restrained these 
forces. Such an interpretation, either of the eschatological passages of the 
Epistle or of the Apocalypse, does not destroy their deeper spiritual meaning ; 
for the writers of the New Testament, as the prophets of the Old, reveal to us 
and generalize the spiritual forces of good and evil which underlie the surface 
of society. κί Ma ΝΗ λ i 

* Ramsay, Zhe Church bn the’Roman Empire, pp. 147, 148; cf. also pp. 60, 
70, 158n. .See also Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 202-205. 

3 Aur. Victor, Caes. 5, Zpit. 12, Unde quidam prodidere, Traianum solitum 
dicere, procul distare cunctos principes a Neronis guinguennio. The expression 


§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 
Britannicus; tales might have been circulated of hardly pardon- 
able excesses committed by the Emperor and a noisy band of 
companions wandering at night in the streets; the more respect- 
able of the Roman aristocracy would consider an illicit union 
with a freedwoman and a taste for music, literature, and the drama, 
signs of degradation, but neither in Rome nor in the provinces 
would the populace be offended ; more far-seeing observers might 
be able to detect worse signs, but if any ordinary citizen, o1 
if any one acquainted with the provinces had been questioned, he 
would certainly have answered that the government of the Empire 
was good. This was due mainly to the gradual development of 
the ideas on which the Empire had been founded. The structure 
which had been sketched by the genius of Caesar, and built up 
by the art of Augustus, if allowed to develop freely, guaranteed 
naturally certain conditions of progress and good fortune. It was 
due also to the wise administration of Seneca and of Burrus. It 
was due apparently also to flashes of genius and love of popularity 
on the part of the Emperor himself. 

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


paneer iin may have been suggested by the certamen quinguennale which 
ero founded in Rome, as Dio tells us, ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτηρίας THs τε διαμονῆς τοῦ 
κράτους αὐτοῦ, Dio, 2211. lxi. 21; Tac. Ann. xiv. 20; Suet. Mero 12; cf. the 
coins described, Eckhel, vi. 264; Cohen, i. p. 282, 47-65. CER. QUINQ. 
ROM. Οὐ. 


χνὶ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 1 


Suillius in 58 was the misgovernment of Asia. And ποῖ only were 
the favourites of Claudius condemned, better men were appointed 
in their place. It is recorded that freedmen were never made 
procurators of imperial provinces. And the Emperor was able in 
many cases, in that of Lyons, of Cyrene, and probably of Ephesus, 
to assist and pacify the provincials by acts of generosity and 
benevolence’. 

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

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


* For the provincial administration of Nero see Furneaux, of. cit. pp. 56, 57 ; 
W. T. Amold, Zhe Roman System of Provincial Administration, pp. 135, 137 ; 
Tac. Ann. xiii. 30, 31, 33, 5°, 51, 53-57- 

3 Suetonius, Vero 16. Schiller, p. 420. 

5 Schiller, pp. 381, 382: ‘In dem Mechanismus des gerichtlichen Ver- 
fahrens, im Privatrecht, in der Ausbildung und Forderung der Rechtswissen- 
schaft, selbst auf dem Gebiete der Appellation konnen gegriindete Vorwiirfe 
kaum erhoben werden. Die kaiserliche Regierung liess die Verhaltnisse hier 
rahig den Gang gehen, welchen ihnen friihere Kegierungen angewiesen hatten’ 

‘ Tac. Amn. xv. 20, a1. 

* Amold, p. 137. 


§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, 
still more perhaps for that of the principles which prepared the way 
for the spread of Christianity, the fact is of extreme significance. It 
was the first public appearance of Stoicism in Rome, as largely in- 
fluencing politics, and shaping the future of the Empire. It is a strange 
irony that makes Stoicism the creed which inspired the noblest 
representatives of the old régime, for it was Stoicism which provided 
the philosophic basis for the new imperial system, and this was not 
the last time that an aristocracy perished in obedience to their own 
morality. What is important for our purpose is to notice that the 
humanitarian and universalist ideas of Stoicism were already begin- 
ning to permeate society. Seneca taught, for example, the equality 
in some sense of all men, even slaves; but it was the populace who 
a few years later (a. Ὁ. 61) protested when the slaves of the murdered 
Pedanius Secundus were led out to execution®. Seneca and many 
of the Jurists were permeated with the Stoic ideas of humanity and 
benevolence; and however little these principles might influence 
their individual conduct they gradually moulded and changed the 
law and the system of the Empire. 

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


' See Lightfoot, St. Paul and Seneca, Philippians, p. 268. To this period 
of his life belong the ἀποκολοκύντωσις, the De Clementia, the De Vita Beata, 
the De Benefictis, and the De Constantia Sapientis. See Teuffel, Héstory of 
Roman Literature, translated by Warr, ii. 42. 

* Tac. Ann. xiv. 42-45. 

* Chrysostom, Hom. in Act. App. 46, 3. 


ς 


xviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 1 


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

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


§ 2. THE JEWS IN ROME’. 


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


? We have collected the following names from the contents of one colum- 
barium (C. 7. Z. vi. 2, p. 941). It dates from a period rather earlier than this. 
It must be remembered that the proportion of foreigners would really be larger 
than appears, for many of them would take a Roman name, Amaranthus 5180, 
Chrysantus 5183, Serapio (dzs) 5187, Pylaemenianus 5188, Creticus 5197, 
Asclepiades 5201, Melicus 5217, Antigonus 5227, Cypare 5220, Lezbius 5221, 
Amaryllis 5258, Perseus 5279, Apamea 5287 a, Ephesia 5299, Alexandrianus 
5316, Phyllidianus 5331, Mithres 5344, Diadumenus 5355, Philumenus 5401, 
Philogenes 5410, Graniae Nicopolinis 5419, Corinthus 5439, Antiochis 5437, 
Athenais 5478, Eucharistus 5477, Melitene 5490, Samothrace, Mystius 5527, 
Lesbus 5529. The following, contained among the above, seems to have 
a special interest : “Hdvxos Εὐοδοῦ πρεσβευτὴς Φαναγορείτων τῶν κατὰ Βώσπορον, 
and ΓΑσποιργος Βιομάσον υἱὸς ἑρμηνεὺς Σαρμάτων βωσπορανός 5207. 

3 Tac. Ann. xiii. 32; Lightfoot, Clement, i. 30. 

3 Since this section was written the author has had access to Berliner, 
Geschichte d. Juden in Rom (Frankfurt a. M. 1893), which has enabled him to 
correct some current misconceptions. The facts are also excellently put together 
hy Schiirer, A’eutest. Zeitgesch. ii. 505 ff. 


ᾧ 2.] THE JEWS IN ROME xix 


through others whom he met on his travels. And the thought of the 
Christian Church would at once connect itself with that larger 
community of which it must have been in some sense or other an 
offshoot, the Jewish settlement in the imperial city. 

(1) History. The first relations of the Jews with Rome go back 
to the time of the Maccabaean priaces, 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 
propaganda and were in consequence sent home by the praetor 
Hispalus *. 

This was only preliminary contact. The first considerable 
settlement of the Jews in Rome dates from the taking of Jerusalem 
by Pompey in 8.6. 63°. A number of the prisoners were sold as 
slaves; but their obstinate adherence to their national customs 
proved troublesome to their masters and most of them were soon 
manumitted. These released slaves were numerous and impor- 
tant enough to found a synagogue of their own ®, to which they 
might resort when they went on pilgrimage, at Jerusalem. The 
policy of the early emperors favoured the Jews. They passionately 
bewailed the death of Julius, going by night as well as by day to 
his funeral pyre?; and under Augustus they were allowed to form 
a regular colony on the further side of the Tiber*, roughly speak- 
ing opposite the site of the modern ‘Ghetto.’ The Jews’ quarter 
was removed to the left bank of the river in 1556, and has been 
finally done away with since the Italian occupation. 


1 x Mace. vili. 17-32. 2 1 Macc. xii. 1-4, 16. 

3 1 Mace. xiv. 24; xv. 15-24. 

4 This statement is made on the authority of Valerius Maximus I. iii. 2 
(Excerpt. Parid.): Judaeos gui Sabazi Jovis cultu Romanos inficere mores 
conati sunt, repetere domos suas coegit. Doubt is thrown upon it by Berliner 
(p. 4), but without sufficient reason. Val. Max. wrote under Tiberius, and made 
use of good sources. At the same time, what he says about Jupiter Sabazius 
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. 

5. This too is questioned by Berliner (p. 5 ff.), who points out that Philo, Leg 
ad Caium 23, from which the statement is taken, makes no mention of Pompey. 
But it is difficult to see what other occasion could answer to the description, as 
this does very well. Berliner however is more probably right in supposing 
that there must have been other and older settlers in Rome to account for 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 Libertini’ (Acts vi. 10). 

1 Sueton. Caesar 84. 

® This was the quarter usually assigned to prisoners of war (Leschresdung a. 
Stadt Rom, 111. iii. 578). 


ΧΧ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2. 


Here the Jews soon took root and rapidly increased in numbers. 
It was still under the Republic (B.c. 59) that Cicero in his defence 
of Flaccus pretended to drop his voice for fear of them’. And 
when a deputation came from Judaea to complain of the mis- 
rule of Archelaus, no less than 8000 Roman Jews attached them- 
selves to it”. Though the main settlement was beyond the Tiber 
it must soon have overflowed into other parts of Rome. The 
Jews had a synagogue in connexion with the crowded Subura° 
and another probably in the Campus Martius. There were syna- 
gogues of Αὐγουστήσιοι and ᾿Αγριππήσιοι (i.e. either of the house- 
hold or under the patronage of Augustus ‘ and his minister Agrippa), 
the position of which is uncertain but which in any case bespeak 
the importance of the community. Traces of Jewish cemeteries 
have been found in several out-lying regions, one near the Porta 
Portuensis, two near the Via Appia and the catacomb of 8. Callisto, 
and one at Portus, the harbour at the mouth of the Tiber ὅ. 

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

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


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

2 Joseph. Ant. XVII. xi. 1; ZB. /. II. vi. 1. 

3 There is mention of an ἄρχων Σιβουρησίων, C.J. G. 6447 (Schiirer, 
Gemeindeverfassung ad. Juden in Rom, pp. 16, 35; Berliner, p. 94). As 
synagogues were not allowed within the pomoerium (ibid. p. 16) we may 
suppose that the synagogue itself was without the walls, but that its frequenters 
came from the Subura. 

* Berliner conjectures that the complimentary title may have been given as 
a sort of equivalent for emperor-worship (of. cit. p. 21). 

’ Data relating to the synagogues have been obtained from inscriptions, 
which have been carefully collected and commented upon by Schiirer in the 
πο ᾿Ξ above (Leipzig, 1879), also more recently by Berliner (of. cit. 
Ῥ. 40 Hl. ). 


® Tacitus, Annal. ii. 85 si οὗ gravitatem caeli interissent, vile damnum. 


§ 2] THE 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. But a 
mysterious notice of which we would fain know more shows them 
once again subject to measures of repression. At a date which is 
calculated at about a.p. 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 Chrestus’.’ There is at 
least a considerable possibility, not to say probability, that in this 
enigmatic guise we have an allusion to the effect of the early 
preaching of Christianity, in which in one way or another Aquila 
and Prisca would seem to have been involved and on that account 
specially singled out for exile. Suetonius and the Acts speak of 
a general edict of expulsion, but Dio Cassius, who is more precise, 
would lead us to infer that the edict stopped short of this. The 
clubs and meetings (in the synagogue) which Caligula had allowed, 
were forbidden, but there was at least no wholesale expulsion *. 


Any one of three interpretations may be put upon zmpulsore Chreste 
assidue 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 Wieseler. (ii) Or it is very possible that there may be 
a confusion between ‘Chrestus’ and ‘Christus.’ Tertullian accuses the 
Pagans of pronouncing the name ‘ Christians’ wrongly as if it were Chres- 
tianz, and so bearing unconscious witness to the gentle and kindly character 
of those who owned it. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronunciatur 
@ vobis (nam nec nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de suavitate vel benigni- 
tate composttum est ( Apol. 3; cf. Justin, Afol. i. § 4). If we suppose some 
such very natural confusion, then the disturbances may have had their origin 
in the excitement caused by the Messianic expectation which was ready to 
break out at slight provocation wherever Jews congregated. This is the 
view of Lange and others including in part Lightfoot (Phz/ippians, p. 169). 
(iii) 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; 


' Leg. ad Caium 44, 45. 

* Sueton. Claud. 25 Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma 
expulit. 

3 Dio Cassius, lx. 6 τούς τε Ιουδαίους, πλεονάσαντας αὖθις ὥστε χαλεπῶς ἂν 
ἄνευ ταραχῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀχλοῦ σφῶν τῆς πόλεως εἰρχθῆναι, οὐκ ἐξήλασε μέν, τῷ δὲ 
δὴ πατρίῳ νόμῳ βίῳ χρωμένους ἐκέλευσε μὴ συναθροίζεσθαι, τάς τε ἑταιρείαι 
ἐπαναχθείσας ὑπὸ τοῦ Γαΐου διέλυσε. 


xxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2. 


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

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


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


» A suggestion was made in the Church Quarterly Review for Oct. 1894, 
which deserves consideration; viz. that the dislocation of the Jewish com- 
munity caused by the edict of Claudius may explain ‘ why the Church of the 
capital did not grow to the same extent as elsewhere out of the synagogue. 
ἔνε when St. Paul arrived there in bonds the chiefs of the restored Jewish 
organization professed to have heard nothing, officially or unofficially, of the 
Apostle, and to know about the Christian sect just what we may suppose the 
rioters ten years earlier knew, that it was “everywhere spoken against”’ 
(P. 175). κι 

2 Vet. Joseph. 3; Ant. XX. viii. 11. 

3 Dio Cassius xxxvii. 17 ἔστι καὶ παρὰ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις τὸ γένος τοῦτο, κολουσθὲν 
μὲν πολλάκις αὐῤηθὲν δὲ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον, ὥστε καὶ εἰς παρρησίαν τῆς νομίσεωι 
ἐκνικῆσαι. 


§ 2. THE JEWS IN ROME xxiii 


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

There was some natural difference between the East and the 
West corresponding to the difference in number and concentration 
of the Jewish population. In Palestine the central judicial and 
administrative body was the Sanhedrin; after the Jewish War the 
place of the Sanhedrin was taken by the Ethnarch who exercised 
great powers, the Jews of the Dispersion voluntarily submitting to 
him. At Alexandria also there was an Ethnarch, as well as a 
central board or senate, for the management of the affairs of the 
community. At Rome, on the other hand, it would appear that 
each synagogue had its own separate organization. This would 
consist of a ‘senate’ (γερουσία), the members of which were the 
‘elders’ (πρεσβύτεροι)β. The exact relation of these to the ‘rulers’ 
(ἄρχοντες) is not quite clear: the two terms may be practically 
equivalent ; or the ἄρχοντες may be a sort of committee within the 
larger body’. The senate had its ‘ president’ (γερουσιάρχης) ; and 
among the rulers one or more would seem to have been charged 
with the conduct of the services in the synagogue (ἀρχισυνάγωγος, 
ἀρχισυνάγωγοι). Under him would be the ὑπηρέτης (Chazan) 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 sta/us 
in the synagogue. We hear at Rome of wealthy and influential 
people who were called ‘ father’ or ‘mother of the synagogue’ ; 
this would be an honorary title. There is also mention of a mpo- 
στάτης or patronus, 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 
of his sons to be educated there (the ill-fated Alexander an | 
Aristobulus as well as Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip the tetrarch ἦ). 
At a later date other members of the family made it their home 
(Herod the first husband of Herodias, the younger Aristobulus, 
and at one time Herod Agrippal). There were also Jews attached 
in one way or another to the imperial household (we have had 
mention of the synagogues of the Agrippest# and Augustesit). These 
would be found in the more aristocratic quarters. The Jews’ 


1 This is the view of Schiirer (Gemeindeverf. p. 22). The point is not 
discussed by Berliner. Dr. Edersheim appears to regard the ‘elders’ as 
identical with the ‘rulers,’ and the dpy:ovvaywyos as chief of the body. He 
would make the functions of the γερουσιάρχης political rather than religious, 
and he speaks of this office as if it were confined to the Dispersion of the West 
(Life and Times, &c. i. 438). These are points which must be regarded as 
more or less open. 

4 Jos. dnt. XV. x.1; XVII. i. 3. 


xxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2. 


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

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

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

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

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


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

2 The passages on which this description is based are well known, Smadi 
Trades Martial, Zfig. I. xlii. 3-5; XII. lvii. 13, 14. Mendicancy: Juvenal, 
Sat. iii. 14; vi. 542 ff. Proselytism: Horace, Sat. 1. iv. 142 f.; Juvenal, Sav. 
xiv. 96 ff. 

* Horace, Sat. I. ix. 69 f.; Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. (of proselytes) ; Persius, 
Sat. v. 184; Sueton. Aug. 76. The texts of Greek and Latin authors relating 
to Judaism have recently been collected in a complete and convenient form by 
Théodore Reinach ( 7extes relatifs απὸ /udaisme, Paris, 1895). 


§ 3.] THE ROMAN CHURCH XXV 


of a purer creed than their own, knew that the Jew had something 
to give them which they could not get elsewhere. The heathen 
Pantheon was losing its hold, and thoughtful minds were ‘ feeling 
after if haply they might find’ the one God who made heaven and 
earth. Nor was it only the higher minds who were conscious of 
a strange attraction in Judaism. Weaker and more superstitious 
natures were impressed by its lofty claims, and also as we may 
believe by the gorgeous apocalyptic visions which the Jews of this 
date were ready to pour out to them. The seeker wants to be told 
something that he can do to gain the Divine favour; and of such 
demands and precepts there was no lack. The inquiring Pagan 
was met with a good deal of tact on the part of those whom he 
consulted. He was drawn on little by little; there was a place for 
every one who showed a real sympathy for the faith of Israel. It 
was not necessary that he should at once accept circumcision and 
the whole burden of the Mosaic Law; but as he made good one 
step another was proposed to him, and the children became in 
many cases more zealous than their fathers'. So round most of 
the Jewish colonies there was gradually formed a fringe of Gentiles 
more or less in active sympathy with their religion, the ‘devout 
men and women,’ ‘those who worshipped God’ (εὐσεβεῖς, σεβόμενοι, 
σεβόμενοι τὸν Θεόν, φοβούμενοι τὸν Θεόν) Of the Acts of the Apostles. 
For the student of the origin of the Christian Church this class is 
of great importance, because it more than any other was the seed 
plot of Christianity ; in it more than in any other the Gospel took 
root and spread with ease and rapidity 3, 


§ 3. THE ROMAN CHURCH. 


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


1 Juvenal, Sat. xiv. οὐ ff. 

® See the very ample collection of material on this subject in Schiirer, 
Neutest. Zettgesch. it. 558 fi. 

* Constat ttaque temporibus apostolorum Iudaeos, propterea quod sub regno 
Romano agerent, Romae habitasse: ex quibus hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt 
Romanis ut Christum profitentes, Legem servarent... Romanis autem irasct 
won debuit, sed et laudare fidem illorum; quia nulla insignia virtulum 


xxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§3 


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

At a date so early as this it is not in itself likely that the Apostles 
of a faith which grew up under the shadow of Jewish particu- 
larism would have had the enterprise to cast their glance so far 
west as Rome. It was but natural that the first Apostle to do 
this should be the one who both in theory and in practice had 
struck out the boldest line as a missionary; the one who had 
formed the largest conception of the possibilities of Christianity, 
the one who risked the most in the effort to realize them, and who 
as a matter of principle ignored distinctions of language and of 
race. We see St. Paul deliberately conceiving and long cherishing 
the purpose of himself making a journey to Rome (Acts xix. 21 ; 
Rom. i. 13; xv. 22-24). It was not however to found a Church, 
at least in the sense of first foundation, for a Church already 
existed with sufficient unity to have a letter written to it. 

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


videntes, nec aliguem apostolorum, susceperant fidem Christi ritu licet Iudaico 
(S. Ambrosii Off. iii. 373 f., ed. Ballerini). We shall see that Ambrosiaster 
exaggerates the strictly Jewish influence on the Church, but in his general 
conclusion he is more right than we might have expected. 

1 «The conditions of travelling, for ease, safety, and rapidity, over the 
greater part of the Roman empire, were such as in part have only been reached 
again in Europe since the beginning of the present century’ (Friedlander, 
Sittengeschichte Roms, ii. 3). 


§ 3.] THE ROMAN CHURCH 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 
which the huge metropolis naturally exercised on the imagination 
of the clever young Orientals who knew that the best openings for 
a career were to be sought there; a thousand motives of ambition, 
business, pleasure drew a constant stream from the Eastern pro- 
vinces to Rome. Among the crowds there would inevitably be some 
Christians, and those of very varied nationality and antecedents. 
St. Paul himself had for the last three years been stationed at one of 
the greatest of the Levantine emporza. We maysay that the three great 
cities at which he had spent the longest time—Antioch, Corinth, 
Ephesus—were just the three from which (with Alexandria) inter- 
course was most active. We may be sure that not a few of his 
own disciples would ultimately find their way to Rome. And so 
we may assume that all the owners of the names mentioned in 
ch. xvi had some kind of acquaintance with him. In several cases 
he adds some endearing little expression which implies personal 
contact and interest: Epaenetus, Ampliatus, Stachys are all his 
‘beloved’; Urban has been his ‘ helper’; the mother of Rufus had 
been also as a mother to him; Andronicus and Junia (or Junias) 
and Herodion are described as his ‘kinsmen’—i. e. perhaps his 
fellow-tribesmen, possibly like him natives of Tarsus. Andronicus 
and Junias, if we are to take the expression literally, had shared 
one of his imprisonments. But not by any means all were 
St. Paul’s own converts. The same pair, Andronicus and Junias, 
were Christians of older standing than himself. Epaenetus is 
described as the first convert ever made from Asia: that may of 
course be by the preaching of St. Paul, but it is also possible that 
he may have been converted while on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 
If the Aristobulus whose household is mentioned is the Herodian 
prince, we can easily understand that he might have Christians 
about him. That Prisca and Aquila should be at Rome is just 
what we might expect from one with so keen an eye for the 
strategy of a situation as St. Paul. When he was himself esta- 
blished and in full work at Ephesus with the intention of visiting 
Rome, it would at once occur to him what valuable work they might 
be doing there and what an excellent preparation they might make 
for his own visit, while in his immediate surroundings they were 
almost superfluous. So that instead of presenting any difficulty, 
that he should send them back to Rome where they were already 
known, is most natural. 

In this way, the previous histories of the friends to whom St. Paul 
sends greeting in ch. xvi may be taken as typical of the circum- 
stances which would bring together a number of similar groups of 
Christians at Rome. Some from Palestine, some from Corinth, 


xXxvili EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3. 


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

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


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

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

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


§ 3.] THE ROMAN CHURCH xxix 


carry a clear conclusion’. Most decisive of all, if it held good, would be 
the allusion in St. Peter’s own First Epistle if the ‘ Babylon’ from which he 
writes (1 Pet. v. 13) is really a covert name for Rome. This was the view of 
the Early Church, and although perhaps not absolutely certain it is in accord- 
ance with all probability. The Apocalypse confessedly puts ‘ Babylon’ for 
Rome (Rey. xiv. 8; xvi. 19, &c.), and when we remember the common 
practice among the Jewish Rabbis of disguising their allusions to the op- 
pressor, we may believe that Christians also, when they had once become 
suspected and persecuted, might have fallen into the habit of using a secret 
language among themselves, even where there was less occasion for secresy. 
When once we adopt this view, a number of details in the Epistle (such 
as the mention of Silvanus and Mark, and the points of contact between 
1 Peter and Romans) find an easy and natural explanation ὃ. 

The genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome (c. 97 A.D.) couples together 
St. Peter and St. Paul in a context dealing with persecution in such a way 
as to lend some support to the tradition that both Apostles had perished 
there*; and the Epistle of Ignatius addressed to Rome (c¢. 115 A.D.) appeals 
to both Apostles as authorities which the Roman Church would be likely to 
recognize®; but at the utmost this proves nothing as to the origin of the 
Church. When we descend a step later, Dionysius of Corinth (¢. 171 A.D.) 
does indeed couple the two Apostles as having joined in ‘planting’ the 
Church of Rome as they had done previously that of Corinth®. But this 
Epistle alone is proof that if St. Paul could be said to have ‘planted’ the 
Church, it could not be in the sense of first foundation; and a like considera- 
tion must be taken to qualify the statements of Irenaeus’. By the beginning 
of the third century we get in Tertullian*® and Caius of Rome® explicit 
references to Rome as the scene of the double martyrdom. The latter writer 
points to the ‘trophies’ (τὰ tpdmaia™) of the two Apostles as existing in his 
day on the Vatican and by the Ostian Way. This is conclusive evidence as 
to the belief of the Roman Church about the year 200. And it is followed 
by another piece of evidence which is good and precise as far as it goes. 


* The summary which follows contains only the main points and none of the 
indirect evidence. For a fuller presentation the reader may be referred tc 
Lightfoot, S¢. Clement ii. 490 ff., and Lipsius, Afokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 11 ff. 

2 On this practice, see Biesenthal, Zrostschretben an die Hebréer, p. 3 ff. ; 
and for a defence of the view that St. Peter wrote his First Epistle from Rome, 
Lightfoot, St. Clement ii. 491 f.; Von Soden in Handcommentar III. ii. 105 f. 
&c. Dr. Hort, who had paid special attention to this Epistle, seems to have 
held the same opinion (_/udazstic Christianity, p. 155). 

8 There is a natural reluctance in the lay mind to take ἐν Βαβυλῶνι in any 
other sense than literally. Still it is certainly to be so taken in Orac. Szbyll. v. 
159 (Jewish) ; and it should be remembered that the advocates of this view 
include men of the most diverse opinions, not only the English scholars 
mentioned above and Ddllinger, but Renan and the Tiibingen school generally. 


2A Cor. vi 4 ih 5 Ad Rom. iv. 3. 
J 1a, ΤῸ ΤΙ χαν, 8. ™ Adv. Haer, 111. iii. 2, 3. 
® Scorp. 15; De Praescript. 36. J De, Je Ὁ, 11 χχν ὁ. ἢ: 


10 There has been much discussion as to the exact meaning of this word. 
The leading Protestant archaeologists (Lipsius, Erbes, V. Schultze) hold that 
it refers to some conspicuous mark of the place of martyrdom (a famous 
‘terebinth’ near the xaumachium on the Vatican (Mart. Pet. οἱ Paul. 63) and 
a ‘ pine-tree’ near the road to Ostia. The Roman Catholic authorities would 
refer it to the ‘tombs’ or ‘memorial chapels’ (#emorzae). It seems to us 
probable that buildings of some kind were already in existence. For statements 
of the opposing views see Lipsius, Afokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 21; De Waal, Dis 
Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas, p. 14 ff. 


ΧΧΧ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [δ 8 


Two fourth-century documents, both in texts which have undergone some 
corruption, the Alartyrologium Hieronymianum (ed. Duchesne, p. 84) and 
a Lepositio Martyrum in the work of Philocalus, the so-called ‘ chronographer 
of the year 354,’ connect a removal of the bodies of the two Apostles with 
the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus in the year 258. There is some 
ambiguity as to the localities from and to which the bodies were moved ; 
but the most probable view is that in the Valerian persecution when the 
cemeteries were closed to Christians, the treasured relics were transferred to 
the site known as Ad Catacumbas adjoining the present Church of St. 
Sebastian’. Here they remained, according to one version, for a year and 
seven months, according to another for forty years. The later story of an 
attempt by certain Orientals to steal them away seems to have grown out of 
a misunderstanding of an inscription by Pope Damasus (366-384 A.D.) ?. 
Here we have a chain of substantial proof that the Roman Church fully 
believed itself to be in possession of the mortal remains of the two Apostles 
as far back as the year 200, a tradition at that date already firmly established 
and associated with definite well-known local monuments. ‘The tradition as 
to the twenty-five years’ episcopate of St. Peter presents some points of te- 
semblance. That too appears for the first time in the fourth century with 
Eusebius (c. 325 A.D.) and his follower Jerome. By skilful analysis it is 
traced back a full hundred years earlier. It appears to be derived from a list 
drawn up probably by Hippolytus*. Lipsius would carry back this list 
a little further, and would make it composed under Victor in the last decade 
of the second century‘, and Lightfoot seems to think it possible that the 
figures for the duration of the several episcopates may have been present in 
the still older list of Hegesippus, writing under Eleutherus (¢. 175-190 A.D.)°. 
Thus we have the twenty-five years’ episcopate of St. Peter certainly 
believed in towards the end of the first quarter of the third century, if not by 
the beginning of the last quarter of the second. We are coming back to 
a time when a continuous tradition is beginning to be possible. And yet the 
difficulties in the way of bringing St. Peter to Rome at a date so early as the 
year 42 (which seems to be indicated) are so great as to make the acceptance 
of this chronology almost impossible. Not only do we find St. Peter to all 
appearance still settled at Jerusalem at the time of the Council in A.D. 51, 
but we have seen that it is highly improbable that he had visited Rome 
when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church there. And it is hardly less 
improbable that a visit had been made between this and the later Epistles 
(Phil., Col., Eph., Philem.). The relations between the two Apostles and of 
both to the work of missions in general, would almost compel some allusion 
to such a visit if it had taken place. Between the years 58 or 61-63 and 170 
there is quite time for legend to grow up; and Lipsius has pointed out 
a possible way in which it might arise® There is evidence that the tradition 
of our Lord’s command to the Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for twelve 
years after His Ascension, was current towards the end of the second century. 
The travels of the Apostles are usually dated from the end of this period 


‘ The best account of this transfer is that given by Duchesne, Zther Pontifi- 
cals i. cvi f. 

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

® Lightfoot, of. c#t. i. 259 ff.; 333. 

« Ap. Lightfoot, pp. 237, 333- * Joid. p. 233. 

9 Apokr. Apostelgesch. il. 27, 60. 


§ 3.] THE ROMAN CHURCH χχχὶ 


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

So far the ground is fairly clear. But when Lipsius goes further than this 
and denies the Roman visit z% foto, his criticism seems to us too drastic’. 
He arrives at his result thus. He traces a double stream in the tradition. 
On the one hand there is the ‘ Petro-pauline tradition’ which regards the two 
Apostles as establishing the Church in friendly co-operation 2. 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 
Simon Magus made a disguised attack upon St. Paul’. Not only does 
Lipsius think that this is the earliest form of the tradition, but he regards it 
as the original of all other forms which brought St. Peter to Rome‘: the 
only historical ground for it which he would allow is the visit of St. Paul. 
This does not seem to us to be a satisfactory explanation. The traces of the 
Petro-pauline tradition are really earlier than those of the Ebionite legend. 
The way in which they are introduced is free from all suspicion. They are 
supported by collateral evidence (St. Peter’s First Epistle and the traditions 
relating to St. Mark) the weight of which is considerable. There is practic- 
ally no conflicting tradition. The claim of the Roman Church to joint 
foundation by the two Apostles seems to have been nowhere disputed. And 
even the Ebionite fiction is more probable as a distortion of facts that have 
a basis of truth than as pure invention. The visit of St. Peter to Rome, and 
his death there at some uncertain date ὅ, 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 
Church has little more than an antiquarian interest ; it is an isolated 
fact or series of facts which does not greatly affect either the picture 
which we form to ourselves of the Church or the sense in which 
we understand the Epistle addressed to it. It is otherwise with 
the question as to its composition. Throughout the Apostolic age 
the determining factor in most historical problems is the relative 


’ It is significant that on this point Weizsacker parts company from Lipsius 
(Apost. Zettalt. p. 485). 

2 Op. ctt. p. 11 ff. 8 Tbid. p. 28 ff. 

* bid. p. 62 ff. 

5 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 
for the year the evidence is very insufficient. Professor Ramsay (Zhe Church 
in the Loman Empire, p. 279 ff.) would place the First Epistle of St. Peter in 
the middle of the Flavian period, A.D. 75-80; and it must be admitted that the 
authorities are not such as to impose an absolute veto on this view. The fact 
that tradition connects the death of St. Peter with the Vatican would seem to 
point to the great persecution of A.D. 64; but the state of things implied in 
the Epistle does not look as if it were anterior to this. On the other hand, 
Professor Ramsay’s arguments have greatly shaken the objections to the tradi- 
tional date of the death of St. Paul. 


xxxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3 


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

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

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

It was also possible to point to one or two expressions in detail 
which might seem to favour the assumption of Jewish readers. 
Such would be Rom. iv. 1 where Abraham is described (in the 
most probable text) as ‘our forefather according to the flesh’ (τὸν 
προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα). To that however it was obvious to 
teply that in 1 Cor. x. 1 St. Paul spoke of the Israelites in the 


§ 3.] THE ROMAN CHURCH XX xiii 


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

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

We may take it then as established that there were Jews in the 
Church, and that in substantial numbers; just as we also cannot 
doubt that there was a substantial number of Gentiles. The direct 
way in which St. Paul addresses the Gentiles in ch. xi. 13 ff. (ὑμῖν 
δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν κιτ.λ.) would be proof sufficient of this. But it 
is further clear that St. Paul regards the Church as broadly and in 
the main a Gentile Church. It is the Gentile element which gives 
- itits colour. This inference cannot easily be explained away from 
the passages, Rom. i. 5-7, 13-153; xv. 14-16. In the first St. Paul 
numbers the Church at Rome among the Gentile Churches, and 
bases on his own apostleship to the Gentiles his right to address 
them. In the second he also connects the obligations he is under 
to preach to them directly with the general fact that all Gentiles 
without exception are his province. In the third he in like manner 
excuses himself courteously for the earnestness with which he has 
written by an appeal to his commission to act as the priest who 
lays upon the altar the Church of the Gentiles as his offering. 

d 


xxxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 3 


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

If he had stayed to form a more exact estimate we may take the 
greetings in ch. xvi as a rough indication of the lines that it would 
follow. The collection of names there points to a mixture of 
nationalities. Aquila at least, if not also Prisca?, we know to have 
been a Jew (Acts xviii. 2). Andronicus and Junias and Herodion 
are described as ‘kinsmen’ (συγγενεῖς) of the Apostle: precisely 
what this means is not certain—perhaps ‘members of the same 
tribe ’—but in any case they must have been Jews. Mary (Miriam) 
is a Jewish name; and Apelles reminds us at once of /udaeus Apella 
(Horace, Sa¢. I. v. 100). And there is besides ‘the household of 
Aristobulus,’ some of whom—if Aristobulus was really the grandson 
of Herod or at least connected with that dynasty—would probably 
have the same nationality. Four names (Urbanus, Ampliatus, 
Rufus, and Julia) are Latin. The rest (ten in number) are Greek 
with an indeterminate addition in ‘the household of Narcissus.’ 
Some such proportions as these might well be represented in the 
Church at large. 

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


1 See the note on ch. xvi. 3, where reference is made to the view favoured 
by Dr. Hort (Rom. and Eph. p. 12 ff.), that Prisca was a Roman lady belonging 
to the well-known family of that name. 


δ 8.} THE ROMAN CHURCH XXXV 


St. Paul wrote to the Philippians Christianity had penetrated into 
the retinue of the Emperor himself (Phil. iv. 22). A name like 
Philologus seems to point to a certain degree of culture. We 
should therefore probably not be wrong in supposing that not 
only the 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 Christian influence’. We should therefore be 
justified in supposing that even at this early date more than one of 
the Roman Christians possessed a not inconsiderable social stand- 
ing and importance. If there was any Church in which the ‘not 
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,’ 
had an exception, it was at Rome. 

When we look again at the list we see that it has a tendency to 
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 are with them.’ It would only 
be what we should expect if the Church of Rome at this time 
consisted of a number of such little groups, scattered over the 
great city, each with its own rendezvous but without any complete 
and centralized organization. In more than one of the incidental 
notices of the Roman Church it is spoken of as ‘founded’ (Iren. 
Adv. Haer. 111. i. 1; iii. 3) or ‘planted’ (Dionysius of Corinth in 
Eus. 27. £. II. xxv. 8) by St. Peter and St. Paul. It may well be 
that although the Church did not in the strict sense owe to these 
Apostles its origin, it did owe to them its first existence as an 
organized whole. 

We must not however exaggerate the want of organization at 
the time when St. Paul is writing. The repeated allusions to 
‘labouring ’ (κοπιᾶν) 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 κοπιᾶν 1 Thess. 
v.12; 1 Tim.v. 17). It is evident that Prisca and Aquila took 
the lead which we should expect of them; and they were well 
trained in St. Paul’s methods. Even without the help of an 
Apostle, the Church had evidently a life of its own; and where 
there is life there is sure to be a spontaneous tendency to definite 
articulation of function. When St. Paul and St. Peter arrived we 


1 Lightfoot, Clement, i. 30-39, ὅς, 


xxxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ὁ 8. 


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


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


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

St. Paul had long cherished the desire of paying a visit to Rome 
(Rom. i. 13; xv. 23), and that desire he hopes very soon to see 
fulfilled; but at the moment of writing his face is turned not 
westwards but eastwards. A collection has been made in the 
Greek Churches, the proceeds of which he is with an anxious mind 
about to convey to Jerusalem. He feels that his own relation and 
that of the Churches of his founding to the Palestinian Church is 
a delicate matter; the collection is no lightly considered act of 
passing charity, but it has been with him the subject of long and 
earnest deliberation ; it is the olive-branch which he is bent upon 
offering. Great issues turn upon it; and he does not know how it 
will be received’. 

We hear much of this collection in the Epistles written about 
this date (1 Cor. xvi. 1 ff.; 2 Cor. viii. 1 ff.; ix. 1 ff). In the 
Acts it is not mentioned before the fact; but retrospectively in 
the course of St. Paul’s address before Felix allusion is made to 
it: ‘after many years I came to bring alms to my nation and 
offerings’ (Acts xxiv.17). Though the collection is not mentioned 
in the earlier chapters of the Acts, the order of the journey is 
mentioned. When his stay at Ephesus was drawing to an end 
we read that ‘Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed 
through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After 
I have been there, I must also see Rome’ (Acts xix. 21). Part of 
this programme has been accomplished. At the time of writing 
St. Paul seems to be at the capital of Achaia. The allusions 


* On this collection sce an excellent article by Mr. Rendall in 7he E-xfosttor , 
1893, ii. 2321 ff. 


δ.4.} TIME AND PLACE xxxvii 


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 
Epistle appears to be one Phoebe who is an active, perhaps an 
official, member of the Church of Cenchreae, the harbour of 
Corinth (Rom. xvi. 1). 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 (1 Cor. i. 14). He sends a greeting also from Erastus, 
who is described as ‘oeconomus’ or ‘treasurer’ of the city. The 
office is of some importance, and points to a city of some im- 
portance. This 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 unobtrusiveness 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. Lightfoot in Journ. of Class. and 
Sacr. Philol. iii [1857], p. 289 ff.; also Galatians, p. 43 ff., ed. 2). The 
relative position of 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans is fixed and certain. 
If Romans was written in the early spring of A.D. 58, then 1 Corinthians 
would fall in the spring and 2 Corinthians in the autumn of A.D. 57'. In 
regard to Galatians the data are not so decisive, and different views are held. 
The older opinion, and that which would seem to be still dominant in 
Germany (it is maintained by Lipsius writing in 1891), is that Galatians 
belongs to the early part of St. Paul’s long stay at Ephesus, A.D. 54 or 55. 
In England Bp. Lightfoot found a number of followers in bringing it into 
closer juxtaposition with Romans, about the winter of A.D. 57-58. The 
question however has been recently reopened in two opposite directions: on 
the one hand by Dr. C. Clemen (Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe, Halle, 
1893), who would place it after Romans; and on the other hand by 


1 jiilicher, in his recent Zzm/ectung, Ὁ. 62, 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 1 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. 


xxxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 4. 


Mr. F. Rendall in 7he Exfositor for April, 1894 (p. 254 ff.), who would 
place it some years earlier. 

Clemen, who propounds a novel view of the chronology of St. Paul’s life 
generally, would interpose the Council of Jerusalem (which he identifies with 
the visit of Acts xxi and not with that of Acts xv) between Romans, which 
he assigns to the winter of A.D. 53-54, and Galatians, which he places towards 
the end of the latter year’. His chief argument is that Galatians represents 
a more advanced and heated stage of the controversy with the Judaizers, and 
he accounts for this by the events which followed the Council (Gal. ii. 12 ff. ; 
i. 6 ff.). There is, however, much that is arbitrary in the whole of this 
reconstruction ; and the common view seems to us far more probable that 
the Epistle to the Romans marks rather the gradual subsidence of troubled 
waters than their first disturbing. There is more to be said for Mr. Rendall’s 
opinion that Galatians was written during the early part of St. Paul’s first 
visit to Corinth in the year 51 (or 52). The question is closely connected 
with the controversy reopened by Professor Ramsay as to the identity of the 
Galatian Churches. For those who see in them the Churches of South 
Galatia (Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe) the earlier date 
may well seem preferable. If we take them to be the Churches of North 
Galatia (Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium), then the Epistle cannot be earlier 
than St. Paul’s settlement at Ephesus on his third journey in the year 54. 
The argument which Bishop Lightfoot based on resemblances of thought and 
language between Galatians and Romans rests upon facts that are indisput- 
able, but does not carry with it any certain inference as to date. 


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


1 Dr. Clemen places St. Paul’s long stay at Ephesus (2} years on his reckon- 
ing) in 50-52 A.D. In the course of it would fall our 1 Corinthians and two 
out of the three letters which are supposed to be combined in our 2 Corinthians 
(for this division there is really something of a case). He then inserts a third 
missionary journey, extending not over three months (as Acts xx. 3), but 
over some two years in Macedonia and Greece. To this he refers the last 
Corinthian letter (2 Cor. i-viii) and a genuine fragment of Ep. to Titus 
(Tit. iii. 12-14). Ep. to Romans is written from Corinth in the winter οἱ 
A.D. 53-54. Then follow the Council at Jerusalem, the dispute at Antioch, 
Ep. to Galatians, and a fourth journey in Asia Minor, with another genuine 
fragment, 2 Tim. iv. 19-21. This fills the interval which ends with the arrest 
at Jerusalem in the year 58, Epp. to Phil., Col., Philem. and one or two more 
fragments of Past. Epp., the Apostle’s arrival at Rome in A.D. ΟἹ and his 
death in A.D. 64. The whole scheme stands or falls with the place assigned to 
the Council of Jerusalem, and the estimate formed of the historical character 
of the Acts. 


§ 41 OCCASION AND PURPOSE xxxix 


to Rome, but only after two years’ forcible detention, and as 
a prisoner awaiting his trial. 

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

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

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

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

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


xl EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4. 


time; when he wrote he was not far distant; there had been 
frequent communications between the Church and the Apostle; 
and in the case of 1 Corinthians he had actually before him a letter 
containing a number of questions which he was requested to 
answer, while in that of 2 Corinthians he had a personal report 
brought to him by Titus. What could there be like this at Rome? 
The Church there St. Paul had not founded, had not even seen; 
and, if we are to believe Baur and the great majority of his followers, 
he had not even any recognizable correspondents to keep him 
informed about it. For by what may seem a strange inconsistency 
it was especially the school of Baur which denied the genuineness 
of ch. xvi, and so cut away a whole list of persons from one or 
other of whom St. Paul might have really learnt something about 
Roman Christianity. 

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

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

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

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

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


δ 4} OCCASION AND PURPOSE ΧΙ 


person. When first he met them at Corinth they were newly 
arrived from the capital; he would hear from them of the state of 
things they left behind them; and a spark would be enough to 
fire his imagination at the prospect of winning a foothold for Christ 
and the Gospel in the seat of empire itself’ We may well 
believe—if the speculations about Prisca are valid, and even with- 
out drawing upon these—that the two wanderers would keep up 
communication with the Christians of their home. And now, very 
probably at the instance of the Apostle, they had returned to 
prepare the way for his coming. We cannot afford to lose so 
valuable a link between St. Paul and the Church he had set his 
heart on visiting. ‘Two of his most trusted friends are now on the 
spot, and they would not fail to report all that it was essential to 
the Apostle to know. He may have had other correspondents 
besides, but they would be the chief. To this source we may look 
for what there is of local colour in the Epistle. Ifthe argument is 
addressed now to Gentiles by birth and now to Jews; if we catch 
a glimpse of parties in the Church, ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ ; 
if there is a hint of danger threatening the peace and the faith of 
the community (as in ch. xvi. 17-20)—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 παραδόσεις as they are called elsewhere 
(τ Cor. xi. 2; 2 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 
will ‘go on unto perfection.’ Hence it is that just the most funda- 
mental doctrines—the Divine Lordship of Christ, the value of His 
Death, 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 Epistle would be that it consisted 
of Christian commonplaces. It is one of the most original of 
writings. No Christian can have read it for the first time without 
feeling that he was introduced to heights and depths of Christianity 
of which he had never been conscious before. 


xii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ 4 


For, lastly, the most powerful of all the influences which have 
shaped the contents of the Epistle is the experience of the writer. 
The main object which he has in view is really not far to seek. 
When he thought of visiting Rome his desire was to ‘have some 
fruit’ there, as in the rest of the Gentile world (Rom. i. 13). He 
longed to impart to the Roman Christians some ‘ spiritual gift,’ 
such as he knew that he had the power of imparting (i. 113 Xv. 
29). By this he meant the effect of his own personal presence, 
but the gift was one that could be exercised also in absence. He 
has exercised it by this letter, which is itself the outcome of a 
πνευματικὸν χάρισμα, a word of instruction, stimulus, and warning, 
addressed in the first instance to the Church at Rome, and through 
it to Christendom for all time. 

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

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


‘ This is impressively stated in Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 42 ff. 


4.1 OCCASION AND PURPOSE ΧΙ 


in a strange elation of spirit which made suffering and toil seem 
light and insignificant; but most of all the new impulse was moral 
in its working, it blossomed out in a multitude of attractive traits— 
‘love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 
meekness, temperance. These St. Paul called ‘fruits of the 
Spirit.’ The act of faith on the part of man, the influence of the 
Spirit (which was only another way of describing the influence of 
Christ Himself") from the side of God, were the two outstanding 
facts which made the lives of Christians 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. His 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 
a 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 
contending for Gentile liberties would come first, the philosophic 
or theological assignment of the due place of Jew and Gentile in 
the Divine scheme would naturally come afterwards. This more 
advanced stage has now been reached ; the Apostle has made up 
his mind on the whole series of questions at issue; and he takes 
the opportunity of writing to the Romans at the very centre of the 
empire, to lay down calmly and deliberately the conclusions to 
which he has come. 

The Epistle is the ripened fruit of the thought and struggles of 
the eventful years by which it had been preceded. It is no merely 
abstract disquisition but a letter full of direct human interest in the 
persons to whom it is written; it is a letter which contains here 
and there side-glances at 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 


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


xliv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4 


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


§ 5. THE ARGUMENT. 


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

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

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


δ 6.] 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 
chapter assumes faith in Christ as the one source of right- 
eousness for all men. The fourth chapter gives to the notion 
of righteousness through faith the sanction of the Old Testament 
and of the history of Abraham. The fifth insists on the causes for 
thankfulness and exultation in the boon of righteousness through 
faith in Christ; and applies illustratively, with this design, the 
history of Adam. The sixth chapter comes to the all-important 
question: “ What is that faith in Christ which I, Paul, mean ?”— 
and answers it. The seventh illustrates and explains the answer. 
But the eighth down to the end of the twenty-eighth verse, develops 
and completes the answer. The rest of the eighth chapter expresses 
the sense of safety and gratitude which the solution is fitted to 
inspire. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters uphold the second 
chapter’s thesis—so hard to a Jew, so easy to us—that righteous- 
ness is not by the Jewish law; but dwell with hope and joy on a 
final result of things which is to be favourable to Israel’ (zdzd. p. 93). 

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

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


xlvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 5. 


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

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

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


ᾧ 5.] THE ARGUMENT xvii 


And the answer is (1) 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; (2) through 
a certain ardent apprehension of these acts and of their Author 
Christ, on the part of the Christian; and (3) through his con- 
tinued self-surrender to Divine influences poured out freely and 
unremittingly upon him. 

It is superfluous to say that there is nothing whatever that is new 
in this statement. It does but reproduce the belief, in part implicit 
rather than explicit, of the Early Church ; then further defined and 
emphasized more vigorously on some of its sides at the Reformation ; 
and lastly brought to a more even balance (or what many would 
fain make a more even balance) by the Church of our own day. Of 
course it is liable to be impugned, as it is impugned by the 
attractive writer whose words have been quoted above, in the 
interest of what is thought to be a stricter science. But whatever 
the value in itself of the theory which is substituted for it, we may 
be sure that it does not adequately represent the mind of St. Paul. 
In the present commentary our first object is to do justice to this. 
How it is afterwards to be worked up into a complete scheme of 
religious 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. 1-7). 
8. St. Paul and the Roman Church (i. 8-15). 


iIl.—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. 18-v. 21). 
τ. Righteousness not hitherto attained (i. 18-iii. 20). 
[Rather, by contrast, a scene which bespeaks impending Wrath]. 
a. Failure of the Gentile (i. 18-32). 
(i.) Natural Religion (i. 18-20) ; 
(ii.) deserted for idolatry (i. 21-25) ; 
(iii.) hence judicial abandonment to abominable sins (2@, >), to 
every kind of moral depravity (28-31), even to perversion of 
conscience (32). 
@. [Transitional]. Future judgement without respect of persons such as 
Jew or Gentile (ii. 1-16). 


xviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 5. 


(i.) Jewish critic and Gentile sinner in the same position (ii. 1-4). 
(ii.) Standard of judgement : deeds, not privileges (ii. 5-11) 

(iii.) Rule of judgement: Law of Moses for the Jew; Law of Con 

science for the Gentile (ii. 12-16). 
y. Failure of the Jew (ii. 17-29). Profession and reality, as regards 
(i.) Law (ii. 17-24); 
(ii.) Circumcision (ii. 25-29). 
ὃ. {Parenthetic]. Answer to casuistical objections from Jewish stand- 
point (ili. 1-8). 
(i.) er spt advantage as recipient of Divine Promises 
iii. 3, Δ): 
{ii.) which promises are not invalidated by Man’s unfaithfulness 
(iii. 3, 4). 
(iii.) Yet God’s greater glory no excuse for human sin (iii. 5-8). 
ε. Universal failure to attain to righteousness and earn acceptance 
illustrated from Scripture (iii. 9-20). 
2. Consequent Exposition of New System (iii. 21-31): 
a. (i.) in its relation to Law, independent of it, yet attested by it 
(21); 

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

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

(iv.) in its final cause—the twofold manifestation of God's righteous- 
ness, at once asserting itself against sin and conveying pardon 
to the sinner (26). 

8. Preliminary note of two main consequences from this: 
(i.) Boasting excluded (27, 28); 
(ii.) Jew and Gentile alike accepted (29-31). 
8. Relation of this New System to O. T. considered in reference to the 
crucial case of Abraham (iv. I-25). 
(i.) Abraham’s acceptance (like that described by David) turned 
on Faith, not Works (iv. 1-8); 

(ii.) nor Circumcision (iv. 9-12) 

{so that there might be nothing to prevent him from 
being the spiritual father of uncircumcised as well as 
circumcised (11, 12)], 

(iii.) nor Law, the antithesis of Promise (iv. 13-17) 

{so that he might be the spiritual father of a// believers, 
not of those under the Law only]. 

(iv.) Abraham’s Faith, a type of the Christian’s (iv. 17-25): 

[he too believed in a birth from the dead]. 


4. Blissful effects of Righteousness by Faith (v. 1-21). 
a. (i.) It leads by sure degrees to a triumphant hope of final sal- 
vation (v. I-4). 
(ii.) That hope guaranteed ὦ fortiori by the Love displayed in 
Christ's Death for sinners (v. 5-11). 
§. Contrast of these effects with those of Adam’s Fall (v. 12--21) : 
(i.) like, in the transition from one to all (12-14); 
(ii.) unlike, in that where one brought sin, condemnation, death. the 
other brought grace, a declaration of unmerited righteous- 
ness, life (15-17). 
(iii.) Summary. Relations of Fall, Law, Grace (18-21) 
[The Fall brought sin; Law increased it; but Grace more 
than cancels the ill effects of Law]. 


§ 5.] THE ARGUMENT xlix 


Ὁ, Progressive Righteousness in the Christian (Sanctification) (vi-—viii). 

1. Keply 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 union with the risen Christ. The Christian there- 
fore cannot, must not, sin (vi. I-14). 
2. The Christian’s Release: what it is, and what it is not: shown by 
two metaphors. 
a, Servitude and emancipation (vi. 15-23). 
8. The marriage-bond (vii. 1-6). 
[The Christian’s old self dead to the Law with Christ; so that 
he is henceforth free to live with Him]. 

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 ended by the interposition of 
Christ (25). 

4. Perspective of the Christian’s New Career (viii). 

The Indwelling Spirit. 
a. Failure of the previous system made good by Christ’s Incarnation 
and the Spirit’s presence (viii. 1-4). 
B. The new régime contrasted with the old—the régime of the Spirit 
with the weakness of unassisted humanity (viii. 5-9). 
y. The Spirit’s presence a guarantee of bodily as well as moral 
resurrection (vili. 10-13) 5 
δ. also a guarantee that the Christian enjoys with God a son’s relation, 
and will enter upon a son’s inheritance (vili. 14-17). 
ε. That glorious inheritance the object of creation’s yearning (viii. 
18-22); 
and of the Christian’s hope (viii. 23-25). 
n. Human infirmity assisted by the Spirit’s intercession (viii. 26, 27) ; 
@. and sustained by the knowledge of the connected chain by which 
God works out His purpose of salvation (viii. 28-30). 
«. Inviolable security of the Christian in dependence upon God's 
favour and the love of Christ (viii. 31-39). 

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

I. Justice of the Rejection (ix. 6-29). 

a. The Rejection of Israel not inconsistent with the Divine promises 
(ix. 6-13); 
8. nor with the Divine Justice (ix. 14-29). 
(i.) The absoluteness of God’s choice shown from the O.T. (ix. 
14-18). 
(ii.) A necessary deduction from His position as Creator (ix. 
19-23). 
(iii.) The alternate choice of Jews and Gentiles expressly reserved 
and foretold in Scripture (ix. 24-29). 
a. Cause of the Rejection. 
a, Israel sought righteousness by Works instead of Faith, in their own 
way and not in God’s way (ix. 30-x. 4). 
And this although God’s method was— 
(i.) Not difficult and remote but near and easy (x. 5-10); 
(ii.) Within the reach of all, Jew and Gentile alike (x. 11-13). 
8. Nor can Israel plead in defence want of opportunity or warning — 
(i.) The Gospel has been fully and universally preached (x. 14-18). 


Ε 


1 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 5 


(ii.) Israel had been warned beforehand by the Prophet that they 
would reject God’s Message (x. 19-21). 

3. Mitigating considerations. The purpose of God (xi). 

a. The Unbelief of Israel is now as in the past only partial (xi. 1-10). 

8. It is only temporary— 

(i.) Their fall has a special purpose—the introduction of the 
Gentiles (xi. 11-15). 

(ii.) That Israel will be restored is vouched for by the holy stock 
from which it comes (xi. 16-24). 

Ύ. In all this may be seen the purpose of God working upwards 
through seeming severity, to a beneficent result — the final 
restoration of all (xi. 25-31). 

Doxology (xi. 33-36). 
{I1].—Practical and Hortatory. 
(1) The Christian sacrifice (xii. 1, 2). 
(2) The Christian as a member of the Church (xii. 3-8). 
(3) The Christian in his relation to others (xii. g-21). 
The Christian’s vengeance (xii. 19-21). 
(4) Church and State (xiii. 1-7). 
(5) The Christian’s one debt; the law of love (xiii. 8-10), 
The day approaching (xiii. 11-14). 
(6) Toleration; the strong and the weak (xiv. 1-χν. 6), 
The Jew and the Gentile (xv. 7-13). 
iV.—Epilogue. 
a. Personal explanations. Motive of the Epistle. Proposed visit te 
Rome (xv. 14-33). 
8. Greetings to various persons (xvi. I-16). 
A warning (xvi. 17-20). 
Postscript by the Apostle’s companions and amanuensis (xvi. 
21-23). 
Benediction and Doxology (xvi. 24-27). 

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

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


§ 5] THE ARGUMENT li 


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. 
This may perhaps explain the manner in which he varies between 
the expressions ‘ the Gospel,’ or ‘ the Gospel of God,’ or ‘ the Gospel 
of Jesus Christ,’ and ‘my Gospel.’ The former represents the 
Christian religion as recognized and preached by all, the latter 
represents his own personal exposition of its plan and meaning. 
The main purpose of the argument then is an explanation of the 
meaning of the new Gospel of Jesus Christ, as succeeding to and 
taking the place of the old method, but also in a sense as embracing 
and continuing it. 

St. Paul begins then with a theological description of the new 
method. He shows the need for it, he explains what it is—emphasiz- 
ing its distinctive features in contrast to those of the old system, and 
at the same time proving that it is the necessary and expected out- 
come of that old system. He then proceeds to describe the work- 
ing of this system in the Christian life; and lastly he vindicates 
for it its true place in history. ‘The universal character of the new 
Gospel has been already emphasized, he must now trace the plan 
by which it is to attain thig 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. 
Hort’s examination of the Epistle is valuable as reminding us that 
neither are these chapters an appendix accidentally added which 
might be omitted without injuring St. Paul’s argument and plan. 

We can trace incidentally the various difficulties, partly raised by 
opponents, partly suggested by his own thought, which have helped 
to shape different portions of the Epistle. We are able to analyze 
and separate the difterent 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 
Messiah, 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. 


εἰ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6. 


§ 6. LANGUAGE AND STYLE. 


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

The early history of the Church of Rome might be said to fall 
into three periods, of which the landmarks would be (1) the appear- 
ance of the first Latin writers, said by Jerome? to be Apollonius 
who suffered under Commodus in the year 185, and whose 
Apology and Acts have been recently recovered in an Armenian 
Version and edited by Mr. Conybeare’, and Victor, an African by 
birth, who became Bishop of Rome about 189 a.p. (2) Next 
would come in the middle of the third century a more considerable 
body of Latin literature, the writings of Novatian and the corre- 
spondence between the Church of Rome and Cyprian at Carthage. 
(3) Then, lastly, there would be the definite Latinizing of the capital 
of the West which followed upon the transference of the seat of 
empire to Constantinople dating from 330 a.D. 

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


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


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

2 De Vir. Ill. liii. Tertullianus presbyter nunc demum primus post Victorem 
Μ Apollonium Latinorum ponitur. 

Ὁ “Monuments of Early Christianity (London, 1894), p. 29 ff. 


* Juv. Saz. iii. 60 f.; cf. vi. 187 ff. 5 Epig. xiv. 58. 
* Caspari, Quelien zum Taufsymbol, iii. 286 f. 
" Gemeindeverfassung, p. 33 ff. ‘The inscriptions referred to are all from 


Roman sites. There is also one in Greek from Portus 


δ 6.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE liii 


Latin ; and if one of the Greek inscriptions is in Latin characters, conversely 
three of the Latin are in Greek characters. There do not seem to be any in 
Hebrew’. 

Of Christian inscriptions the proportion of Greek to Latin would seem to be 
about1:2. But 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 Septimius Severus 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 Linus to Eleutherns (c. 174-189 A.D.) are twelve in 
number: of these not more than three (Clement, Sixtus I= Xystus, Pius) bear 
Latin names. But although the names of Clement and Pius are Latin the 
extant Epistle of Clement is written in Greek; we know also that Hermas, 
the author of ‘ The Shepherd,’ was the brother of Pius *, and he wrote in Greek. 
Indeed all the literature that we can in any way connect with Christian Rome 
down to the end of the reign of M. Aurelius is Greek. Besides the works of 
Clement and Hermas we have still surviving the letter addressed to the Church 
at Rome by Ignatius; and later in the period, the letter written by Soter 
(c. 166-174 A.D.) to the Corinthian Church was evidently in Greek*. Justin 
and Tatian who were settled in Rome wrote in Greek; so too did Rhodon, 
a pupil ot Tatian’s at Rome who carried on their tradition®, Greek was the 
language of Polycarp and Hegesippus who paid visits to Rome of shorter 
duration. A number of Gnostic writers established themselves there and used 
Greek for the vehicle of their teaching : so Cerdon, Marcion, and 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 Gnostics combated by Justin and Irenaeus. Irenaeus himself spent some 
time at Rome in the Episcopate of Eleutherus, and wrote his great work 
in Greek. 

To this period may also be traced back the oldest form of the Creed of 
the Roman Church now known as the Apostles’ Creed®. This was in Greek. 
And there are stray Greek fragments of Western Liturgies which ultimately 
go back to the same place and time. Such would be the Hymnus angelicus 
(Luke ii. 14) repeated in Greek at Christmas, the 7rishagion, Kyrie eletson 
and Christe eletson. On certain set days (at Christmas, Easter, Ember days, 
and some others) lections were read in Greek as well as Latin; hymns were 
occasionally sung in Greek; and at the formal committal of the Creed to the 
candidates for baptism (the so-called 7rvaditio and Redditio Symbolt) both 
the Apostles’ Creed (in its longer and shorter forms) and the Nicene were 


' Comp. also Berliner, i. 54. 2 Ap. Caspari, p. 303. 

3 Pius is described in the Liber Pontificalis as matione [talus ... de civitate 
Aquileia; but there is reason to think that Hermas was a native of Arcadia. 
The assignments of nationality to the earliest bishops are of very doubtful 
value. 

* It was to be kept in the archives and read on Sundays like the letter of 
Clement (Eus. 4. Z. 1V. xxiii. 11). 

PARSE ΟΝ. χῆτ. 

6 It was in pursuit of the origin of this Creed that Caspari was drawn into 
his elaborate researches, It is generally agreed that it was 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 is a problem 
which we may look to have solved by Dr. Kattenbusch of Giessen, who is 
continuing Caspari’s labours (Das Apostolische Symbol, Bd. I. Leipzig. 
1894). 


liv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 8 


recited and the questions put first in Greek and then in Latin’. These are 
all survivals of Roman usage at the time when the Church was bilingual. 

(2) The dates of Apollonius and of Bp. Victor are fixed, but rather more 
uncertainty hangs over that of the first really classical Christian work in 
Latin, the Octavius of Minucius Felix. This has been much debated, but 
opinion seems to be veering round to the earlier date’, which would bring him 
into near proximity to Apollonius, perhaps at the end of the reign of 
M. Aurelius. The period which then begins and extends from c. 180-250 A.D. 
shows a more even balance of Greek and Latin. The two prominent writers, 
Hippolytus and Caius, still make use of Greek. The grounds perhaps pre- 
ponderate for regarding the Muratorian Fragment as a translation. But at the 
beginning of the period we have Minucius Felix and at the end Novatian, 
and Latin begins to have the upper hand in the names of bishops. The 
glimpse which we get of the literary activity of the Church of Rome through 
the letters and other writings preserved among the works of Cyprian shows us 
at last Latin in possession of the field. 

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


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

It is well known that the Pauline Epistles fall into four groups 
which are connected indeed with each other, but at the same time 
stand out with much distinctness. These groups are: 1, 2 Thess.; 
Gal., 1, 2 Cor., Rom.; Phil., Col., Eph., Philem.; Past. Epp. The 
four Epistles of the second group hang very closely together; 
those of the third group subdivide into two pairs, Phil. Philem. on 
the one hand, and Eph. Col. on the other. It is hard to dissociate 
Col. from Philem.; and the very strong presumption in favour of 
the genuineness of the latter Epistle reacts upon the former. The 
tendency of critical inquiry at the present moment is in favour of 
Colossians and somewhat less decidedly in favour of Ephesians. 
lt is, for instance, significant that Jiilicher in his recent Linlec/ung 


1 More precise and full details will be found in Caspari’s Excursus, Op. cst. 
p. 466 fi. 
8 Kriiger, Altchristl. Lét. p. 88. 


§ 6.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE lv 


(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 
Rom., 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 are, 
it is true, a certain number of new and peculiar expressions in the 
later Epistle ; but these are so balanced by points of coincidence, 
and the novel element has so much of the nature of simple addi- 
tion rather than contrariety, that to draw a conclusion adverse to 
St. Paul’s authorship would certainly not be warranted. The sense 
of dissimilarity reaches its height when we turn from the materials 
(if we may 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. 
We will enlarge a little on this point, as the contrast may help us 
to understand the individuality of the Epistle to the Romans. 

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

We shut the Epistle to the Romans and we open that to the 
Ephesians; how great is the contrast! We cannot speak here of 
vivacity, hardly of energy; if there is energy it is deep down 
below the surface. The rapid argumentative cut and thrust is 
gone. In its place we have a slowly-moving onwards-advancing 
mass, like a glacier working its way inch by inch down the valley. 
The periods are of unwieldy length; the writer seems to stagger 
ander 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 18 
greater (e.g.) than that between Romans and the Pastorals. 


lvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6 


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


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


ROMANS. 
στίχοι. (:) (.) () 
Ch. I. 64 13 14 =a 
Il. 51 14 7 8 
Ill 47 20 12 16 
IV 45 6 14 7 
v 47 6 ΤΕ -- 
VI 42 8 14 8 
Vil 49 16 20 5 
Vill 70 17 26 14 
ΙΧ 55 8 19 10 
x 37 6 16 9 
ΧΙ. 62 16 27 11 
Total fordoctrinal portion 570 130 184 88 
_—_—__—_ Snes 
402 
XII. 36 14 12 - 
XIII. 29 II 15 I 
XIV 41 II 27 3 
Ἂν. 63 8 24 - 
xVE 50 7 28 ch 
Total for the Epistle 789 181 290 92 
563 


Here the proportion of major points to στίχοι is for the doctrinal chap- 
ters 402:570 = (approximately) 1 in 1-4; and for the whole Epistle not 
very different, 563:789 =1 in 1-418. The proportion of interrogative 
sentences is for the whole Epistle, 92: 789, or 1 in 8-6; for the doctrinal 
chapters only, 88:570, or 1 in 6-5; and for the practical portion only, 
42219, orl in 55. ‘This last item is instructive, because it shows how very 


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


§ 6.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE Ivii 


greatly, even in the same Epistle, the amount of interrogation varies with 
the subject-matter. We also observe that in two even of the doctrinal chap- 
ters interrogative sentences are wanting. They lie indeed in patches or 
thick clusters, and are not distributed equally throughout the Epistle. 

Now we turn to Ephesians, for which the data are as follows :— 


EPHESIANS. 

στίχοι (} () ῷ 

Ch. I 45 4 3 — 

Il. 40 9 6 -- 

Ill. 36 2 6 -- 
[121 15 15 --] 

IV. 55 8 13 I 

Vi: 50 I! 17 - 

VI. 44 2 13 -- 

Total 270 36 58 I 

---- - -- 

95 


This gives a very different result. The proportion of major points is for 
Eph. i-iii, roughly speaking, 1 in 4, as against 1 in 1-4 for Rom. i-xii, and 
for the whole Epistle rather more than 1 in 3, as against 1 in 1-418, The 
proportion of interrogations is 1 in 270 compared with 1 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. 

(1) First would be ¢he natural variation of style which comes 
from dealing with different subject-matter. ‘The Epistles of the 
second group are all very largely concerned with the controversy 
as to 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 
intercommunication between those of older standing, brings to the 
front the conception of the Church as a whole, and invests it with 
increased impressiveness. 


These facts are reflected on the vocabulary of the two Epistles. The 
controversy with the Judaizers gives a marked colour to the whole 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 Epistles 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 Judaistic 
controversy. ‘Elsewhere’ means elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles. 


[ν τ] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [8 


' “ABpadpu Rom. 9, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 9; not elsewhere in St. Paul. [σπέρμα 
᾿Αβραάμ Rom, 2, 2 Cor, 1, Gal. 1.] 
ἀκροβυστία Rom. 3, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 3; elsewhere 3. 
ἀποστολή Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; not elsewhere in St. Paul. 
δικαιοῦν Rom. 15, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 3; elsewhere 2. 
δικαίωμα Rom. 5; not elsewhere. 
δικαίωσις Rom. 2; not elsewhere. 
καταργεῖν Rom. 6, 1 Cor. 9, 2 Cor. 4, Gal. 3; elsewhere 4. 
νόμος Rom. 76, 1 Cor. 8, Gal. 32; elsewhere 6. 
περιτομή Rom. 15, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 7; elsewhere 8. 
σπέρμα Rom. 9, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 5; elsewhere 1. 
Connected with this controversy, though not quite so directly, would be :s— 
ἀσθενής Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 10, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; elsewhere 1. 
ἀσθενεῖς Rom. 4, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6; elsewhere 2. 
ἀσθένεια Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6, Gal. 1; elsewhere 1. 
ἀσθένημα Rom. 1; not elsewhere. 
ἐλεύθερος Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 6, Gal. 6; elsewhere 2. 
ἐλευθεροῦν Rom. 4, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. 
ἐλευθερία Rom. 1, I Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. 
καυχᾶσθαι Rom. 5, 1 Cor. 5 (1 v.1.), 2 Cor. 20, Gal. 2; elsewhere 3. 
καυχῆμα Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 3, 2 Cor. 3, Gal. 1; elsewhere 2. 
καυχῆσις Rom. 2,1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 6; elsewhere 1. 
κατακαυχᾶσθαι Rom. 2; not elsewhere. 
ὀφειλέτης Rom. 3, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. 
ὀφείλημα Rom. 1; not elsewhere. 
σκάνδαλον Rom. 4, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. [σκανδαλίζειν 
1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 1, Rom. 1 v. 1.] 
ἀφελεῖν Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 1: ὠφέλεια Rom. 1; neither elsewhere, 
Two other points may be noticed, one in connexion with the large use of 
the O.T. in these Epistles, and the other in connexion with the idea of 
successive periods into which the religious history of mankind is divided :— 
γέγραπται Rom. 16, 1 Cor. 7, 2 Cor. 2, Gal. 4; not elsewhere in 
St. Paul. 
ἄχρις οὗ Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 2 (1 v.L); not elsewhere. 
ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; not elsewhere 
These examples stand out very distinctly; and their disappearance from 
the later Epistle is perfectly intelligible: cessante causa, cessat efectus. 


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


' These examples are selected from the lists in Bishop Lightfoot’s classical 
essay ‘On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galatians,’ in Journ. of 
Class. and Sacr. Philol. iii. (1857) 308 fi. 


§ 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 
Ephesians, written in all probability not to a single Church but to 
a group of Churches, with its personal edge thus taken off, and 
written too under confinement after some three years of enforced 
inaction, it would be natural that there should be a difference. 

(3) This brings us to a third point which may be taken with the 
last, the allowance which ought to be made for ¢he spectal tempera- 
ment of the Apostle. His writings furnish abundant evidence of 
a highly strung nervous organization. It is likely enough that the 
physical infirmity from which he suffered, the ‘thorn in the flesh’ 
which had such a prostrating effect upon him, was of nervous 
origin. But constitutions of this order are liable to great fluctua- 
tions of physical condition. There will be ‘lucid moments,’ and 
more than lucid moments—months together during which the 
brain will work not only with ease and freedom, but with an 
intensity and power not vouchsafed to other men. And times such 
as these will alternate with periods of depression when body and 
mind alike are sluggish and languid, and when an effort of will is 
needed to compel production of any kind. Now the physical 
conditions under which St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans 
would as naturally belong to the first head as those under which he 
wrote the Epistle which we call ‘Ephesians’ would to the second. 
Once more we should expect antecedently that they would leave 
a strong impress upon the style. 


The cifference in style between Rom. and Eph. would seem to be very 
largely a difference in the amount of vital energy thrown into the two 
Epistles. Vivacity is a distinguishing mark of the one as a certain slow and 
laboured movement is of the other. We may trace to this cause the 
phenomena which have been already noted—the shorter sentences of Romans, 
the long involved periods of Ephesians, the frequency of interrogation on the 
one hand, its absence on the other. In Rom. we have the champion of 
Gentile Christendom with his sword drawn, prepared to meet all comers; in 
ΡΒ. 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 :— 
dpa, beginning a sentence, Rom. g, I Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 2, Gal. 5 ; elsewhere 
Epp. Paul. 3, Heb. 2. [ἄρα οὖν Rom. 8 (or 9 v.1.), Gal. 1; elsewhere 
4: τὰν without οὖν Rom. I (or 2 v.1.), 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 3, Heb. ἐν) 
λέγω 
l ἀλλὰ λέγω Rom. 2. 
λέγω δέ Gal. 2. 
λέγω οὖν Rom. 2. 
λέγω δὲ τοῦτο ὅτι τ Cor. Be 
waAw λέγω 2 Cor. Δ. 


ἰχ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 6 


τοῦτο δὲ λέγω Gal. 1. 

ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι Gal. 1. 
mov ; ποῦ οὖν ; Rom. 1,1 Cor. 8, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. 
vi οὖν; τίς οὖν; Rom. 11, 1 Cor. 5, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. [τί οὖν 

ἐροῦμεν ; Rom. 6; τί ἐροῦμεν ; Rom 1.} 

τί λέγω (λέγει, δτς.) Rom. 3, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. 
διατί Rom. 1,1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 1; not elsewhere. 
ὑπέρ, unusual compounds of— 

ὑπερεκτείνειν 2 Cor. 1. 

ὑπερλίαν 2 Cor. 2. 

ὑπερνικᾶν Rom. 1. 

ὑπερπερισσεύειν Rom. 1, 2 Cor. 1, 

ὑπερφρονεῖν Rom. 1. 


(4) A last cause which we suspect may possibly have been at 
work, though this is more a matter of conjecture, is she employment of 
different amanuenses. We know that St. Paul did not as a rule 
write his own letters. But then the question arises, How were 
they written? It seems to us probable that they were in the first 
instance taken down in shorthand—muchas our own merchants or 
public men dictate their correspondence to a shorthand writer— 
and then written out fair. We believe this to have been the case 
from the double fact that dictation was extremely common—so 
that even as early as Horace and Persius dic/are had already 
come to mean ‘to compose ’—and from the wide diffusion of the 
art of shorthand. We know that Origen’s lectures were taken 
down in this way, and that fair copies were made of them at 
leisure (Eus. 2. £. VI. xxiii. 2). But we can well believe that if 
this were the case some scribes would be more expert than others, 
and would reproduce what was dictated to them more exactly. 
Tertius, we should suppose, was one of the best of those whom 
St. Paul employed for this purpose. An inferior scribe would get 
down the main words correctly, but the little connecting links he 
may have filled in for himself. 


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

We will place side by side one or two passages which may help to show 
the fundamental resemblance between the two Epistles. [For a defence of 
the punctuation of the extract from Romans reference may be made to the 
notes ad Joc. | 


LANGUAGE 


§6.] 


Roo. iii. 21-26. 

Nuvi δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη 
Θεοῦ πεφανέρωται, μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ 
τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν᾽ δικαιο- 
σύνη δὲ Θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας" 
οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστολή; πάντες γὰρ 
ἥμαρτον, καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης 
τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ 
αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως 
τῆς ἐν X. Ἰ., ὃν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς 
ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ 
αὐτοῦ αἵματι, εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιο- 
σύνης αὐτοῦ, διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν 
προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ 
ἀνοχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν 
τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν 
καιρῷ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ 
δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ. 


AND STYLE ἹΧΙ 


EPH. iii. 1-7. 

Τούτου χάριν ἐγὼ Παῦλος ὃ δέσμιος 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν 
ἐθνῶν ,---εἴγε ἠκούσατε τὴν οἰκονομίαν 
τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς δοθείσης μοι 
εἰς ὑμᾶς, ὅτι κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν ἔγνω- 
ρίσθη μοι τὸ μυστήριον, καθὼς προ- 
ἔγραψα ἐν ὀλίγῳ, πρὸς ὃ δύνασθε ἀνα- 
γινώσκοντες νοῆσαι τὴν σύνεσίν μου ἐν 
τῷ μυστηρίῳ τοῦ X., ὃ ἑτέραις γενεαῖς 
ovK ἔγνωρίσθη τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 
ὡς νῦν ἀπεκαλύφθη τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστό- 
λοις αὐτοῦ καὶ προφήταις ἐν Πνεύματι" 
εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμα 
καὶ συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Χ. Ἰ. 
διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἔγενήθην διά- 
KOVOS κατὰ τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ 
Θεοῦ τῆς δοθείσης μοι κατὰ τὴν ἐνέρ- 
γειαν τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. 


In the Romans passage we have first the revelation of the righteousness 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 (see the note ad Joc.) by an announce- 
ment of the free character of the redemption wrought by Christ, then a fuller 
comment on the method of this redemption, its object, the cause which rendered 
it necessary, its object again, and its motive. A wonderful series of contents 
to come from a single sentence, like those Chinese boxes in which one box 
is cunningly fitted within another, each smaller than the last. 

The passage from Ephesians in like manner begins with a statement of the 
durance which the Apostle is suffering for the Gentiles, then goes off to 
explain why specially for the Gentiles, so leading on to the μυστήριον on 
which that mission to the Gentiles is based, then refers back to the previous 
mention of this μυστήριον, which the readers are advised to consult, then 
gives a fuller description of its character, and at last states definitely its 
substance. Dr. Gifford has pointed out (on Rom. iii. 26) how the argu- 
ment works round in Eph. to the same word μυστήριον as in Rom. to the 
same word ἔνδειξιν. 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. But the general tendency to the formation of periods on what we 
have called the ‘telescopic’ method—not conforming to a plan of structure 
deliberately adopted from the first, but linking on clause to clause, each sug- 
gested by the last—runs through the whole of the first three chapters of 
Eph. and has abundant analogues in Rom. (i. 1-7, 18-24; ii. 5-165 iii. a1- 
26; iv. II-17; v. 12-14; ix. 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 γάρ; 
whereas those from Eph. are not so much argumentative as expository, and 
consist rather of a succession of clauses connected by relatives. But the 
difference is really superficial, and the underlying resemblance is great. 

Just one other specimen may be given of marked resemblance of a some- 
what different kind—the use of a quotation from the O.T. with running 
comments. In this instance we may strengthen the impression by printing 
for comparison a third passage from Ep. to Galatians 


Lxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8 


Rom. x. 5-8. EPH. iv. 7-11. 

Μωσῆς yap γράφει ὅτι τὴν δικαιο- Ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις: 
σύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ὁ ποιήσας dv- κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
θρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτῇ. ἡ δὲ ἐκ διὸ λέγει, ᾿Αναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ἠχμαλώ- 
πίστεως δικαιοσύνη οὕτω λέγει, Μὴ τευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, καὶ ἔδωκε δύματα 
εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου Τίς ἀναβήῆ- τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. (τὸ δὲ ᾿Ανέβη τί ἐστιν 
σεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν ; (τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα 
Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν") ἤ, Τίς κατα- μέρη τῆς γῆς; ὁ καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστι 
βήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ; (τοῦτ᾽ καὶ ὁ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρα- 
ἔστι, Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναγαγεῖν.) νῶν, ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα.) καὶ αὐτὸς 
ἀλλὰ τί λέγει; ᾿Εγγύς σου τὸ ῥδῆῃμά ἔδωκε τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους K.T.A, 
ἐστιν, ἐν τῷ στόματί σου καὶ ἐν τῇ 
καρδίᾳ σου" τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς 
πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν. 

GAL. iv. 25-31. 

Τὸ δὲ ΓΑΎαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αραβίᾳ, συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἱερουσαλήμ' 
δουλεύει γὰρ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, 
ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ ἡμῶν. γέγραπται γάρ, Ἑὐφράνθητι, στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα... 
ἡμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ᾿Ισαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐσμέν. ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ τότε ὁ 
κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκε τὸν κατὰ Πνεῦμα, οὕτω καὶ νῦν. ἀλλὰ τί λέγει 
ἡ γραφή ; ἼἜκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς, οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσῃ 
ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. διό, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν 
παιδίσκης τέκνα, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. 


It would be interesting to work out the comparison of this passage of 
Eph. with the earlier Epistles phrase by phrase (e.g. cp. Eph. iv. 7 with 
Rom. xii. 3, 6; 1 Cor. xii. 11; 2 Cor. x. 13); but to do this would be really 
endless and would have too remote a bearing on our present subject. Enough 
will have been said both to show the individuality of style in Ep. to Romans! 
and also to show its place in connexion with the range of style in the Pauline 
Epistles generally, as seen in a somewhat extreme example. It is usual, 
especially in Germany, to take Ep. to Romans with its companion Epistles 
as a standard of style for the whole of the Corpus Paulinum. But Bp. Light- 
foot has pointed out that this is an error, this group of Epistles having been 
written under conditions of high tension which in no writer are likely to 
have been permanent. ‘Owing to their greater length in proportion to the 
rest, it is probably from these Epistles that we get our general impression of 
St. Paul’s style; yet their style is in some sense an exceptional one, called 
forth by peculiar circumstances, just as at a late period the style of the 
Pastoral Epistles is also exceptional though in a different way. The normal 
style of the Apostle is rather to be sought for in the Epistles to the Thessa- 
lonians and those of the Roman captivity 2.’ 


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


* Besides the passages commented upon here, reference may be made to the 
maiked coincidences between the doxology, Rom. xv. 25-27, and Ep. to 
Ephesians. These are fully pointed out ad /oc., and the genuineness of the 
doxology is defended in § 9 of this Introduction. 

* Journ. of Class. and Sacr. Philol., ut sup., p. 302. 


§ 7.] THE TEXT Ixifi 


well have been a concurrence of causes. And on the other hand 
the positive reasons for supposing that the two Epistles had really 
the same author, are weighty enough to support the conclusion. 
Between the limits thus set, it seems to us that the phenomena of 
style in the Epistles attributed to St. Paul may be ranged without 
straining. 


Size) LE TEXT. 


(1) Authorities. The authorities quoted for the various readings 
to the text of the Epistle are taken directly from Tischendorf’s 
great collection (ov. Test. Graec. vol. ii. ed. 8, Lipsiae, 1872), 
with some verification of the Patristic testimony. For a fuller 
account of these authorities the student must be referred to the 
Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s edition (mainly the work of Dr. C. R. 
Gregory, 1884, 1890, 1894), and to the latest edition of Scrivener’s 
Introduction (ed. Miller, London, 1894). They may be briefly 
enumerated as follows : 


(1) Greex Manuscripts. 


Primary uncials. 


8 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 
$8" contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second 
MS. of high value ; 
N° attributed by Tischendorf to saec. vi; 
8° attributed to the beginning of saec. vii. Two hands of 
about this date are sometimes distinguished as Sc and 
Neb, 

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, Za Vaticane de Paul τὴ a Paul v, 
Ρ. 86). Complete. 
The corrector B? is nearly of the same date and used 
a good copy, though not quite so good as the original. 
Some six centuries later the faded characters were re- 
traced, and a few new readings introduced by B’. 

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 κα]τὰ δὲ rv . . . ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου 

1 Dr. Gregory would carry back the evidence further, to 1521 (Proleg. 

p- 360), but M. Batiffol could find no trace of the MS. in the earlier lists 


ἱχὶν EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1] 


iii. 21 ; ix. 6 οὐχ οἷον... ἐὰν x. 15: Xi. 31 ἡπεί]θησαν τῷ 
. . « πλήρωμα ΧΙ]. 10. 

D. Cod. Claromontanus, saec. vi. Graeco-Latinus. Once at 
Clermont, near Beauvais (if the statement of Beza is to be 
trusted), now in the National Library at Paris. Contains the 
Pauline Epistles, but Rom. i. 1, Παῦλος . . . ἀγαπητοῖς Θεοῦ 
i. 7, is missing, and i. 27 ἐξεκαύθησαν .. . ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν i. 30 
(in the Latin i. 24-27) is supplied by a later hand. 

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

ΒΕ Cod. Augiensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Bought by Bentley 
in Germany, and probably written at Reichenau (Augia 
Major); now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Rom. i. 1 Παῦλος. . . ἐν τῷ vd[p@] iii. 19 is missing, both 
in the Greek and Latin texts. 

G. Cod. Boernerianus, saec. ix ex. Graeco-Latinus. Written at 
St. Gall, now at Dresden. Rom. i. 1 ἀφωρισμένος . . . πίστεως 
i. 5, and ii. 16 τὰ κρυπτὰ... νόμου ἧς ii. 25 are missing. 
Originally formed part of the same MS. with 4 (Cod. San- 
gallensis) of the Gospels. 


Kt has been suggested by Traube (Wattenbach, Anleitung zur Griech. 
Paliographie, ed. 3, 1895, p. 41) that this MS. was written by the same 
hand as a well-known Psalter in the library of the Arsenal at Paris which 
bears the signature Σηδύλιος Σκόττος ἔγὼ ἔγραψα. The resemblance of the 
handwriting is close, as may be seen by comparing the facsimile of the Paris 
Psalter published by Omont in the A/élanges Graux, p. 313, with that of the 
St. Gall Gospels in the Palaeographical Society’s series (i. pl. 179). This 
fact naturally raises the further question whether the writer of the MS. of 
St. Paul’s Epistles is not also to be identified with the compiler of the com- 
mentary entitled Collectanea in omnes B. Pauli Epistolas \Migne, Patrol. 
Lat. ciii. g-128), which is also ascribed to a ‘ Sedulius Scotus.’ The answer 
must be in the negative. The commentary presents none of the charac- 
teristic readings of the MS., and appears to represent a higher grade of 
scholarship. It is more probable that the scribe belonged to the fratres 
hellenici who formed a sort of guild in the monastery of St. Gall (see the 
authorities quoted in Caspari, Quellen zum Taufsymbol, iii. 4750, and 
compare Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 137). There are several instances 
of the name ‘ Sedulius Scotus’ (Migne, P. LZ. ut sup.). 


It should be noted that of these MSS. SAB C are parts of what 
were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter 
throughout the LXX and Greek Testament; DEF G are all 
Graeco-Latin, and are different MSS. from those which bear the 
same notation on the Gospels and Acts. In Westcott and Hort’s 
Introduction they are distinguished as D, E, F,G,. An important 
MS., Cod. Coislinianus (H or H,), which, however, exists only in 
fragments, is unfortunately wanting for this Epistle: see below. 


ξ 7. THE TEXT Ιχν 


71. 


137. 


152. 


Secondary unctals. 


Cod. Mosquensis, saec. ix. Brought to Moscow from the monastery ot 
St. Dionysius on Mount Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. 
Rom. x. 18 ἀλλὰ λέγω to the end is missing. 

Cod. Angelicus, saec. ix. In the Angelican Library of the Augustinian 
monks at Rome. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Romans com- 
plete. 

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. ii. 15 [ἀπολογου μένων... 
ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν 111. 5; viii. 35 Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν... ἵνα ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν] 
ix. 11; xi. 22 καὶ ἀποτομίαν ... θυσίαν xii. I are missing. 

Cod. Athous Laurae, saec. vili-ix. In the monastery Laura on Mount 
Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Romans complete. This 
MS. has not yet been collated. 

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. Batiffol, Z’Adsaye de Rossano, pp. 6, 
79 and 62, 71-74). Twenty-one palimpsest leaves, containing portions 
of Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. These include Rom. xiii. 4-xv. 9. 
A study of readings from this MS. is published in the Aevue Lzbligue 
for April, 1895. 


Minuscules. 


A few only of the leading minuscules can be given, 

(= Ewy. 5, Act. 5), saec. xiv. At Paris; at one time in Calabria. 

(= Evv. 33, Act. 13), saec. ix (Omont, ix-x Gregory). At Paris. 
Called by Eichhorn ‘the queen of cursives.’ 

(= Act. 25, Apoc. 7). Written 1087 A.D. Belonged to John Covell, 
English chaplain at Constantinople about 1675; now in the British 
Museum. 

(= Act. 26), saec. xii. Has a similar history to the last. 

(= Evy. 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. 

Saec. xi. Now in the Bodleian, but at one time belonged to the monas- 
tery of the Holy Trinity on the island of Chalcis. 

(= Act. 66, Apoc. 34), saec. xi. Now at Vienna: at one time in the 
possession of Arsenius, archbishop of Monemvasia in Epidaurus. The 
marginal corrector (67**) drew from a MS. containing many peculiar 
and ancient readings akin to those of M Paul., which is not extant for 
Ep. to Romans. 

Saec. x-xi. At Vienna. Thought to have been written in Calabria. 

(= Act. 73), saec. xi. In the Vatican. 

(= 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. 
(=Evv. 263, Act. 117), saec. xtii-xiv. At Paris. 
(Gregory, 260 Scrivener = Evv. 489. Greg., 507 Scriv.; Act. 195 Greg., 
224 Scriv.). In the library of Trin. Coll., Cambridge. Written on 
Mount Sinai in the year 1316. 


These MSS. are partly those which have been noticed as giving con- 


spicuous readings in the commentary, partly those on which stress is laid 
by Hort (Jntrod. p. 166), and partly those which Bousset connects witb his 
‘Codex Pamphili’ (see below). 


Ixvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 7. 


(2) VeErstons. 


The versions quoted are the following: 


The Latin (Latt.). 
The Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet.). 
The Vulgate (Vulg.). 
The Egyptian (Aegypt.). 
The Bohairic (Boh.). 
The Sahidic (Sah.). 
The Syriac (Syrr.). 
The Peshitto (Pesh.). 
The Harclean (Harcl.). 
The Armenian (Arm.). 
The Gothic (Goth.). 
The Ethiopic (Aeth.). 


Of these the Vetus Latina is very imperfectly preserved to us. We 
possess only a small number of fragments of MSS. These are : 


gue. Cod. Guelferbytanus, saec. vi, which contains fragments of Rom. xi. 
33-xii. 5; xii. 17—-xiii. 5; xiv. gQ-20; xv. 3-I3. 

τ. Cod. Frisingensis, saec. v or vi, containing Rom. xiv. 10-xv. 13. 

rs. Cod. Gottvicensis, saec. vi or vii, containing Rom. v. 16-vi. 4; 
vi. 6-19. 

The texts of these fragments are, however, neither early (relatively to the 
history of the Version) nor of much interest. To supplement them we have 
the Latin versions of the bilingual MSS. Ὁ E F G mentioned above, usually 
quoted as def 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. ἃ (as necessarily e) follows an Old-Latin text 
not in all cases altered to suit the Greek; g is based on the Old Latin 
but is very much modified; f is the Vulgate translation, altered with the 


history of the Version. They have however more to do with the changes 
in the Latin diction of the Version than with its text. The fullest treat- 
ment of the Ve‘us Latina of St. Paul’s Epistles will be found in Ziegler, 
Die lateinischen Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymus, Miinchen, 1879; 
but the subject has not as yet been aufficiently worked at for a general 
agreement to be reached. 
For the Vulgate the following MSS. are occasionally quoted: 
am. Cod. Amiatinus c. 700 A. D. 
fuld. Cod. Fuldensis c. 546 A. ἢ. 
harl. British Museum Harl. 1775. Saec. vi or vii. 
tol. Cod. Toletanus. Saec. x, or rather perhaps viii (see Berger, Ass- 
toire de la Vulgate, p. 14). 
The Vulgate of St. Paul’s Epistles is a revision of the Old Latin so slight 
aad cursory as to be hardly an independent authority. It was however made 


§ 7.] THE TEXT Ixvii 


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

St. Jerome himself that in Rom. xii. 11 he preferred to follow Greek MSS. 

and to say Domino servientes for tempori servientes of the older Version 

a xxvii. 3 ad Marcellam). And this reading is found in the text of the 
ulgate. 

Of the Egyptian Versions, Bohairic is that usually known as Memphitic 
(= ‘me. WH.) and cited by Tisch. as ‘Coptic’ (‘cop.’). For the reasons 
which make it correct to describe it as Bohairic see Scrivener, /#trod. ii. 106, 
ed. 4. It is usually cited according to Tischendorf (who appears in the 
Epistles to have followed Wilkins; see Tisch. .7. p. ecxxxiv, 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 συ. 6; viii. 28; 
x.5; xvi. 27. This suggests that not only a fresh edition of the text, but 
also a fresh collation with the Greek, is much needed. 

In the Sahidic (Thebaic) Version (=‘sah.’ Tisch., ‘the.’ WH.) some 
few readings have been added from the fragments published by Amélineau 
in the Zettschrift fiir Aegypt. Sprache, 1887. These fragments contain vi. 
20-23; vii. I-21 ; vill. 15-38 ; ΙΧ. 7-23; xi. 31-36; xii. I-9. 

The reader may be reminded that the Peshitto Syriac was certainly current 
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. p[osterior]’ Tisch., ‘hl.’ WH.) is a re- 
cension made by the Monophysite Thomas of Harkhel or Heraclea in 616 
A.D., of the older Philoxenian Version of 508 A.D., which for this part 
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. Jutrod. 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 Ethiopic are still uncertain 
(Scrivener, /zzrod. 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. cx). 


(2) Internal Grouping of Authorities. The most promising and 
successful of all the directions in which textual criticism is being 
pursued at this moment is that of isolating comparatively small 
groups of authorities, and investigating their mutual relations and 
origin. For the Pauline Epistles the groups most affected by 
recent researches are 8B; ScH, Arm., Euthal., and in less degree 
a number of minuscules; D[E]F G. 


WB. 

The proofs seem to be thickening which connect these two great MSS. 
with the library of Eusebius and Pamphilus at Caesarea. That is a view 
which has been held for some time past (e.g. by the late Canon Cook, 
Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 159 ff.; and Dr. Scrivener, 
Collation of Cod. Sinatticus, p. xxxvii f.), but without resting upon any very 
solid arguments. And it must always be remembered that so excellent 
a palaeographer as Dr. Ceriani of Milan (ag. Scrivener, /rtrod. i. 121, ed. 4) 
thought that B was written in Italy (Magna Graecia), and that Dr. Hort 


[xviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ὁ 7. 


also gives some reasons for ascribing an Italian origin to this MS. We are 
however confronted by the fact that there is a distinct probability that both 
MSS. if they were not written in the same place had at least in part the same 
scribes. It was first pointed out by Tischendorf (VV. 7. Vat., Lipsiae, 1867, 
pp. xxi-xxili), on grounds which seem to be sufficient, that the writer whom 
he calls the ‘fourth scribe’ of δὲ wrote also the N.T. portion of B. And, as 
it has been said, additional arguments are becoming available for connecting 
δὲ with the library at Caesarea (see Rendel Harris, Stichometry, p. 71 ff. ; 
and the essay of Bousset referred to below). 

The provenance of ἕξ would only carry with it approximately and not 
exactly that of B. The conditions would be satisfied if it were possible, or 
not difficult, for the same scribe to have a hand in both. For instance, the 
view that δὲ had its origin in Palestine would not be inconsistent with the 
older view, recently revived and defended by Bousset, that B was an Egyp- 
tian MS. There would be so much coming and going between Palestine 
and Egypt, especially among the followers of Origen, that they would belong 
virtually to the same region. But when Herr Bousset goes further and main- 
tains that the text of B represents the recension of Hesychius', that is another 
matter, and as it seems to us, at least prima facte, by no means probable. 
The text of B must needs be older than the end of the third century, which is 
the date assigned to Hesychius. If we admit that the MS. may be Egyptian, 
it is only as one amongst several possibilities. Nothing can as yet be 
regarded as proved. 

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


eH, Arm., Euthal. 
A number of scholars working on δὲ have thrown out suggestions which 
would tend to group together these authorities, and possibly to bring them into 
some further connexion with NB. The MS. H Paul. (unfortunately, as we have 


1 A similar view is held by Corssen. He regards the modern text based on 
NB as nur ein Spiegelbild einer willkiirlich fixterten Recension des vierten 
Jahrhunderts (Der Cyprianische Text αἰ Acta Apostolorum, Berlin, 1892, Ὁ. 24) 


§ 7.] THE TEXT Ixix 


said, not extant for Romans) bears upon its face the traces of its connexion with 
the library of Caesarea, as the subscription to Ep. to Titus states expressly 
that the MS. was corrected ‘ with the copy at Caesarea in the library of the 
holy Pamphilus written with his own hand.’ Now in June, 1893, Dr. Rendel 
Harris pointed out a connexion between this MS. H Paul. and Euthalius 
(Stichometry, p. 88). This had also been noticed by Dr. P. Corssen in the 
second of the two programmes cited below (p. 12). Early in 1894 Herr 
ΝΥ. Bousset brought out in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Zexte 44. Unter. 
suchungen a series of Text-kritische Studien zum N.T., in the course of 
which (without any concert with Dr. Kendel Harris, but perhaps with 
some knowledge of Corssen) he not only adduced further evidence of this 
connexion, but also brought into the group the third corrector of δὲ (N°). 
A note at the end of the Book of Esther said to be by his hand speaks 
in graphic terms of a MS. corrected by the Hexapla of Origen, com- 
pared by Antoninus a confessor, and corrected by Pamphilus ‘in prison’ 
(i. e. just before his death in the persecution of Diocletian). Attention had 
often been drawn to this note, but Herr Bousset was the first to make the 
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 N¢ and those of H and Euthalius which were inde- 
pendently associated with Pamphilus', Lastly, to complete the series of 
novel and striking observations, Mr. F. C. Conybeare comes forward in the 
current number of the Journal 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 degrees 
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 
Christianity 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 Origen, attached to it. It would have been strange if it had 
not been consulted from far and wide and if the influence of it were not felt 
in many parts of Christendom. 


DFG, Goth. 

Not only is E a mere copy of D, but there is a very close relation between 
F and G, especially in the Greek. It is not as yet absolutely determined 
what that relation is. In an essay written in 1871 (reprinted in Lightfoot, 
Biblical Essays, p. 321 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 (/#trod. p. 150) he writes 
that F is ‘as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of Gas E of D: if not 
it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar.’ This second alterna- 
tive is the older view, adopted by Scrivener (/ntrod. p. 181, ed. 3) and 
maintained with detailed arguments in two elaborate programmes by 
Dr. P. Corssen (Epp. Paulin. Codd. Aug. Boern. Clarom., 1887 and 1889). 


1 Since the above was written all speculations on the subject of Euthalius have 
been superseded by Prof. Armitage Robinson’s admirable essay in 7exts and 
Studies, iii. 3. Both the text of Euthalius and that of the Codex Pamphili are 
shown to be as yet very uncertain quantities. Still it is probable that the authorities 
in question are really connected, and that there are elements in their text which 
may be traceable to Euthalius on the one hand and the Caesarean Library on 
the other. 


ΙΧΧ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [δ 7. 


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

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

Thus Dr. Corssen thinks that there arose early in the fifth century 
a ‘Graeco-Latin edition,’ the Latin of which was more in agreement with 
Victorinus Ambrosiaster and the Spanish Specu/um. For the inter-connexion 
of this group he adduces a striking instance from 1 Cor. xiii, 1; and he 
argues that the locality in which it arose was more probably Italy than 
Africa. As to the place of origin we are more inclined to agree with him 
than as to the date, though the Sfecu/um contains an African element. He 
then points out that this Graeco-Latin edition has affinities with the Gothic 
Version. The edition did not contain the Epistle to the Hebrews; and the 
Epistle to the Romans in it ended at Rom. xv. 14 (see § 9 below); it was 
entirely without the doxology (Rom. xvi. 25-27). 

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

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


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


δ 7.} THE TEXT Ixxi 


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 does in the Gospels and Acts; and just for that section of it 
which diverged most we have but little evidence. For the oldest 
forms of this text we are reduced to the quotations in Tertullian 
and Cyprian. We have nothing like the best of the Old-Latin MSS. 
of the Gospels and Acts; nothing like forms of the Syriac Versions 
such as the Curetonian and Sinaitic; nothing like the Dzasessaron. 

And yet when we look broadly at the variants to the Pauline 
Epistles we observe the same main lines of distribution as in the 
rest of the N.T. A glance at the apparatus criticus of the Epistle 
to the Romans will show the tendency of the authorities to fall 
into the groups DEFG; NB; RACLP. These really corre- 
spond to like groups in the other Books: DEFG correspond 
to the group which, in the nomenclature of Westcott and Hort, is 
called ‘ Western’; δὲ Β appear (with other leading MSS. added) to 
mark the line which they would call ‘ Neutral’; SACLP would 
include, but would not be identical with, the group which they call 
‘Alexandrian. The later uncials generally (with accessions every 
now and then from the older ranks) would constitute the family 
which they designate as ‘Syrian,’ and which others have called 
‘ Antiochene,’ ‘ Byzantine,’ ‘Constantinopolitan,’ or ‘ Ecclesiastical.’ 

Exception is taken to some of these titles, especially to the term 
‘Western,’ which is only retained because of its long-established 
use, and no doubt gives but a very imperfect geographical descrip- 
tion of the facts. It might be proposed to substitute names 
suggested in most cases by the leading MS. of the group, but 
generalized so as to cover other authorities as well. For instance, 
we might speak of the 8-text (= ‘ Western’), the B-text (= ‘ Neutral’), 
the a-text (=‘ Alexandrian’), and the e-text or o-text (=‘ Ecclesi- 
astical’ or ‘ Syrian’). Such terms would beg no questions; they 
would simply describe facts. It would be an advantage that the 


Ixxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 7. 


same term ‘§-text’ would be equally suggested by the leading MS. 
in the Gospels and Acts, and in the Pauline Epistles; the term 
‘ B-text,’ while suggested by B, would carry with it no assumption 
of superiority; ‘a-text’ would recall equally ‘Alexandrian’ and 
‘Codex Alexandrinus’; and ‘e-text’ or ‘o-text’ would not imply 
any inherent inferiority, but would only describe the undoubted 
facts, either that the text in question was that generally accepted by 
the Church throughout the Middle Ages, or that in its oldest form 
it can be traced definitely to the region of Antioch and northern 
Syria. It is certain that this text (alike for Gospels, Acts, and 
Epistles) appears in the fourth century in this region, and spread 
from it; while as to the debated point of its previous history nothing 
would be either affirmed or denied. 


If some such nomenclature as this were adopted a further step might be 
taken by distinguishing the earlier and later stages of the same text as δ᾽, 
δ, &c., σ᾽, σ᾿, &c. It would also have to be noted that although in the 
vast majority of cases the group would include the MS. from which it 
took its name, still in some instances it would not include it, and it might 
even be ranged on the opposite side. This would occur most often with 
the a-text and A, but it would occur also occasionally with the B-text and 
B (as censpicuously in Rom. xi. 6). 

Such being the broad outlines of the distribution of authorities on the 
Epistle to the Romans, we ask, What are its distinctive and individual 
features? These are for the most part shared with the rest of the Pauline 
Epistles. One of the advantages which most of the other Epistles possess. 
Romans is without: none of the extant fragments of Cod. H belong to it. 
This deprives us of one important criterion; but conclusions obtained for 
the other Epistles may be applied to this. For instance, the student will 
observe carefully the readings of N° and Arm. Sufficient note has unfor- 
tunately not been taken of them in the commentary, as the clue was not in 
the writer’s hands when it was written. In this respect the reader must be 
asked to supplement it. He should of course apply the new test with 
caution, and judge each case on its merits: only careful use can show to what 
extent it is valid. When we consider the mixed origin of nearly all ancient 
texts, sweeping propositions and absolute rules are seen to be out of 

lace. 

A The specific characteristics of the textual apparatus of Romans may be 
said to be these : (i) the general inferiority in boldness and originality of the 
8- (or Western) text; (ii) the fact that there is a distinct Western element in 
B, which therefore when it is combined with authorities of the 5- or Western 
type is diminished in value; (iii) the consequent rise in importance of the 
group NAC; (iv) the existence of a few scattered readings either of B alone 
or of Bin combination with one or two other authorities which have con- 
siderable intrinsic probability and may be right. 

We proceed to say a few words on each of these heads. 

(i) The first must be taken with the reservations noted above. The 
Western or 8-text has not it is true the bold and interesting variations which 
are found in the Gospels and Acts. It has none of the striking inter- 
polations which in those Books often bring in ancient and valuable matter. 
That may be due mainly to the fact that the interpolations in question are 
for the most part historical, and therefore would naturally be looked for in 
the Historical Books. In Ep. to Romans the more important 5-variants 
are not interpolations but omissions (as e.g. in the Gospel of St. Luke). Still 


7.1 THE TEXT Ixxiii 


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

E. g. iii. 9 τί προκατέχομεν πέρισσον ; D* G, Chrys. Orig.-lat. αἱ. : τί οὖν ; 

mpoexopcba ; rel. 

iv. 19 ov κατενόησεν DEFG, &c. Orig.-lat. Epiph. Ambrstr. αἰ. : 
κατενόησεν & A BC al. 

γ. 14 ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁμαρτήσαντας 62, 63, 67**, Orig.-lat. Coda. Lat. ap. 
Aug., Ambrstr.: ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας rel. 

vii. 6 τοῦ θανάτου DEF G, Codd. ap. Orig.-lat. al.: ἀποθανόντες rel. 

xii, 11 τῷ καιρῷ δουλεύοντες D* F G, Codd. Lat. ap. Hieron. ap. 
Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. : τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες rel. 
13 ταῖς μνείαις τῶν ἁγίων 10 FG, Codd. ap. Theod. Mops. af. 
Orig.-lat. Hil. Ambrstr. a/.: ταῖς χρείαις τῶν ἁγίων rel. | These 
two readings were perhaps due in the first instance to accidental 
errors of transcription. | 

KV. 13 πληροφορήσαι BEG: πληρώσαι rel. 
22 πολλάκις BDEFG: τὰ πολλά rel. 
31 δωροφορία BD* F G, Ambrstr.: διακονία rel. 

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 peculiar element inG. The most prominent of these readings are 
discussed below in § 9, 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 
+mp@rov i. 16; om. γάρ iii. 2; om. TH πίστει v. 2; *ins. μέν vi. 21; διὰ τὸ 
ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ Πνεῦμα viii. 11 (where however there is a great mass of other 
authorities); *om. Ἰησοῦς and *om. ἐκ νεκρῶν viii. 34 ; ἡ διαθήκη ix. 4; ins. 
οὖν ix. 19; ἔὕτι after νόμου and *+avra ins. after ποιήσας x. 5; ἐν [τοῖς] x. 
20; *om. γάρ xiv. 5; om. οὖν, ἀποδώσει, tom. τῷ Θεῷ xiv. 12; *add ἢ cxay- 
δαλίζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ xiv. 21; ἡμᾶς xv. 7; THY [καύχησιν xv. 17. 

It is perhaps significant that in all the instances marked with * the group 
is joined by N*. It may be through a copy related to the ‘Codex Pam- 
phili’ that these readings came into ΒΚ We also note that the latest and 
worst of all the readings found in B, the long addition in xi. 6 εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων 
οὐκέτι (om. ἐστί B) χάρις" ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶ χάρις (ste B; ἔργον al.) 
is shared by Bwith S°L. In the instances marked with +, and in xv. 13 
πληροφορήσαι, B agrees not with D but with G; but on the other hand in 
viii. 34 (om. Ἰησοῦς) 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 B thus goes over to the Western or 5-group the main support 
of the alternative reading is naturally thrown uponNAC. This is a group 
which outside the Gospels and Acts and especially in Past. Epp. Heb. and 
Apoc. (with or without other support) has not seldom preserved the right 
reading. It becomes in fact the main group wherever B is not extant. The 
principal difficulty—and it is one of the chief of the not very numerous 
textual difficulties in Romans—is to determine whether these MSS. really 
retain the original text or whether their reading is one of the finer Alexan- 
drian corrections. This ambiguity besets us (e.g.) in the very complex 
attestation of viii. 11. The combination is strengthened where NA are 
joined by the Westerns as in iii. 28. In this instance, as in a few others, 
they are opposed by BC, a pair which do not carry quite as much weight 
in the Epistles as they would in the Gospels. 

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


Ιχχὶν 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


[§ 1. 


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


iv. I om. εὑρηκέναι. 

v. 6 εἴ γε. 

vii. 25 χάρις τῷ Θεῷ. 

viii. 24 ὃ γὰρ βλέπει, τίς ἐλπίζει ; 


x. 9 τὸ ῥῆμα... ὅτι Κύριος Ἰησοῦς. 


xiv. 13 om. πρόσκομμα... ἤ 


xv. 19 Πνεύματος without addition. 


As all these readings have been discussed more or less fully in the com 


mentary, they need only be referred to here. 


considerable attractions. 
ix. 23 om. καί. 
xvi. 27 om. @. 


Two more readings present 


They are however open to some suspicion of being corrections to ease the 


construction. 


The question is whether or not they are valid exceptions to 


the rule that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. Such exceptions 
there undoubtedly are; and it is at least a tenable view that these are 


among them. 


Other singular, or subsingular, readings of B will be found in xv. 4, 13, 


30, 32. 


But these are less attractive and less important. 


§ 8. LITERARY HISTORY. 


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


We shall begin with the first Epistle of St. Peter. 


In the 


following table the passages in which there is a similarity between 


the two Epistles are compared : 


Rom, ix. 25 καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν 
μου λαόν μου, καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπη- 
μένην ἠγαπημένην. 

Rom. ix. 32,33 προσέκοψαν τῷ 
λίθῳ τοῦ προσκόμματος, καθὼς 
γέγραπται, Ἰδού, τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν 
λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτ- 
ραν σκανδάλου" καὶ ὁ πιστεύων 
ἐπ᾿’ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθή- 
σεται. 


Rom. xii. I παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα 
ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὖ άρεσ- 
τον τῷ Θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν 
ὑμῶν. 

Rom. xii. 2 μὴ συσχηματί- 
ζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ. 


1 Peter ii. 10 οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαός, νῦν 
δὲ λαὸς Θεοῦ, οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν 
δὲ ἐλεηθέντες. 

1 Peter ii. 6-8 ᾿Ιδού, τίθημι ἐν 
Σιὼν λίθον ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἐκλεκτόν, 
ἔντιμον" καὶ ὁ πιστεύων én’ αὐτῷ 
οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ. . οὗτος 
ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας, ὃ καὶ 
λίθος προσκόμματος καὶ πέτρα 
σκανδάλου, οἱ προσκόπτουσι τῷ 
λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες, εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέ- 
θησαν. 

1 Peter ii. 5 ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς 
θυσίας εὐπροσδέκτους Θεῷ διὰ I. 
Χρ. 


I Peter i. 14 μὴ συσχηματιζ(ό- 
μενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν 
ἐπιθυμίαις. 


Ὁ 8. 


LITERARY HISTORY 


Ixxv 


The following passages seem to be modelled on St. Paul's 


thoughts and words: 


Rom. xii. 3 ἀλλὰ φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ 
σωφρονεῖν... 

6 ἔχοντες δὲ χαρίσματα κατὰ 
τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν διά- 
φορα... εἴτε διακονίαν, ἐν τῇ 
διακονίᾳ... 

3 ἑκάστῳ ws ὁ Θεὸς ἐμέρισε 
μέτρον πίστεως. 

Cf. also Rom. xiii. 11-14; 8-10; 
ΧΙ By 153: 


Rom. xii. 9 ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπό- 
KkpiTos...10 τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ 
εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλύστοργοι. 


Rom. xii. 16 τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους 
φρονοῦντες᾽ μὴ τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρο- 
γοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ταπεινοῖς 
συναπαγόμενοι. μὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι 
παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς. 

17 μηδενὶ κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ 
ἀποδιδόντες" προνοούμενοι καλὰ 
ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων" 

18 εἰ δυνατόν, τὸ ἐὲ ὑμῶν, μετὰ 
πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες. 


Cf. also vv. 9, 14. 


Rom. xiii. 1 πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις 
ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω" 
οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, 
αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τεταγμέναι 
εἰσίν... 

3 οἱ γὰρ ἄρχοντες οὐκ εἰσὶ φόβος 
τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ, ἀλλὰ τῷ κακῷ... 

4 Θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν, Ex- 
δικος εἰς ὀργὴν τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσ- 
σοντι ... 

7 ἀπόδοτε πᾶσι τὰς ὀφειλάς" τῷ 
τὸν φόρον τὸν φόρον, τῷ τὸ τέλος 
τὸ τέλος, τῷ τὸν φόβον τὸν φόβον, 
τῷ τὴν τιμὴν τὴν τιμήν. 


1 Peter iv. 7-11 πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλοϑ 
ἤγγικε σωφρονήσατε οὖν καὶ νή- 
pare εἰς προσευχάς" πρὸ πάντων τὴν 
εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες, 
ὅτι ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν" 
φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄνευ γογγυ- 
σμοῦ ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβε χάρισ- 
μα, εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ διακονοῦντες, 
ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος 
Θεοῦ" εἴ τις λαλεῖ, Ws λόγια Θεοῦ" εἴ 
τις διακονεῖ, ws ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεῖ 
ὁ Θεός. 

1 Peter i. 22 τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνι- 
κότες... εἰς φιλαδελφίαν ἀνυπό- 
κριτον ἐκ καρδίας ἀλλήλους ἀγαπή- 
σατε ἐκτενῶς. 


1 Peter iii. 8, 9 τὸ δὲ τέλος, πάντες 
ὁμόφρονες, συμπαθεῖς, φιλάδελφοι, 
εὔσπλαγχνοι, ταπεινόφρονες, μὴ 
ἀποδίδοντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ 
ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας, τοὐναντίον 
δὲ εὐλογοῦντες, ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο ἐκλή- 
θητεΐνα εὐλογίαν κληρονομήσητε... 

11 ἐκκλινάτω δὲ ἀπὸ κακοῦ, καὶ 
ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν" ζητησάτω εἰρήνην 
καὶ διωξάτω αὐτήν. 


1 Peter ii. 13-17 ὑποτάγητε πάσῃ 
ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει διὰ τὸν Κύριον, 
εἴτε βασιλεῖ, ws ὑπερέχοντι, εἴτε 
ἡγέμοσιν, ὡς δι’ αὐτοῦ πεμπομένοις εἰς 
ἐκδίκησιν κακοποιῶν ἔπαινον δὲ 
ἀγαθοποιῶν" ὅτι οὕτως ἐστὶ τὸ θέλημα 
τοῦ Θεοῦ... πάντας τιμήσατε" τὴν 
ἀδελφότητα ἀγαπᾶτε: τὸν Θεὸν 
φοβεῖσθε: τὸν βασιλέα τιμᾶτε. 


Although equal stress cannot be laid on all these passages the 
resemblance is too great and too constant to be merely acci- 


dental. 


In 1 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. 1; 1 Pet. 
ii. 5), and the same rare words, such as συσχηματίζεσθαι, ἀνυπό- 
«pros, but in one passage (Rom. xiii. 1-7; 1 Pet. ii. 13-17) we 


Ixxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8. 


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

This relation between the two Epistles is supported by other 
independent evidence. The same relation which prevails between 
the First Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle to the Romans is also 
found to exist between it and the Epistle to the Ephesians, and 
the same hypothesis harmonizes best with the facts in that case 
also. The three Epistles are all connected with Rome: one of 
them being written to the city, the other two in all probability 
being written from it. We cannot perhaps be quite certain as 
to the date of 1 Peter, but it must be earlier than the Apostolic 
Fathers who quote it; while it in its turn quotes as we see at least 
two Epistles of St. Paul and these the most important. We may 
notice that these conclusions harmonize as far as they go with the 
view taken in § 3, that St. Peter was not the founder of the Roman 
Church and had not visited it when the Epistle to the Romans was 
written. In early church history arguments are rarely conclusive ; 
and the even partial coincidence of different lines of investigation 
adds greatly to the strength of each. 

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


Ὁ 8.} 


LITERARY HISTORY 


Ixxvii 


The passages referred to are the following : 


Rom. iv. 17-21 κατέναντι ov ἐπί- 
στευσε Θεοῦ τοῦ ζωοποιοῦντος τοὺς 
νεκροὺς... καὶ μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ 
πίστει κατενόησε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα 
ἤδη νενεκρωμένον (ἑκατονταέτης 
που ὑπάρχων), καὶ τὴν νέκρωσιν τῆς 
μήτρας Σάρρας" εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπαγ- 
γελίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ 
ἀπιστίᾳ, GAN ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ 
πίστει, δοὺς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ 
πληροφορηθεὶς ὅτι. ὃ ἐπήγγελται 
δυνατός ἐστι καὶ ποιῆσαι. 


Rom. xii. 19 ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ 
ἀνταποδώσω, λέγει Κύριος. 


Heb. xi. 11, 12 πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Σάρρα 
δύναμιν εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος 
ἔλαβεν καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας, ἐπεὶ 
πιστὸν ἡγήσατο τὸν ἐπαγγειλά- 
μενον" διὸ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐγεννήθησαν, 
καὶ ταῦτα νενεκρωμένου... 

19 λογισάμενος ὅτι καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν 
ἐγείρειν δυνατὸς 6 @eds, 


Heb. x. 30 ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἔγὼ 


ἀνταποδώσω ἢ. 


When we pass to the Epistle of St. James we approach a, much 
more difficult problem. The relation between it and the Epistle 
to the Romans has been often and hotly debated; for it is 


a theological as well as a literary question. 


The passages which 


resemble one another in the two Epistles are given at length by 
Prof. Mayor in his edition of the Epistle of St. James, p. xciii, who 


argues strongly in favour of the later date of the Romans. 


The 


following are among the most important of these; we have not 
thought it necessary to repeat all his instances: 


Rom. ii. 1 διὸ ἀναπολόγητος εἶ, ὦ 
ἄνθρωπε πᾶς 6 κρίνων" ἐν ᾧ γὰρ 
κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον, σεαυτὸν κατα- 
wpives’ τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ 
κρίνων. 


Rom. ii. 13 οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ 
νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] Θεῷ ἀλλ᾽ οἱ 
ποιηταὶ νόμον δικαιωθήσονται. 


Rom. iv. 1 τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι 
᾿Αβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν 
κατὰ σάρκα; εἰ γὰρ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐξ 
ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα. 


Rom, iv. 20 εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει. 


Rom. v. 3-5 καυχώμεθα ἐν ταῖς 
θλίψεσιν, εἰδότες ὅτι ἡ θλῖψις ὑπο- 
μονὴν κατεργάζεται, ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ 
δοκιμήν, ἡ δὲ δοκιμὴ ἐλπίδα" ἡ 
δὲ ἐλπὶς οὐ καταισχύνει, ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη 
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται. 


James iv. 11 μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλή- 
λων, ἀδελφοί. ὃ καταλαλῶν ἀδελφοῦ, ἢ 
κρίνων τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, καταλαλεῖ 
νόμου, καὶ κρίνει νόμον" εἰ δὲ νόμον κρί- 
νεις, οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόμου, ἀλλὰ κριτής. 


James i. 22 γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ 
λόγου, καὶ μὴ μόνον ἀκροαταὶ παρα- 
λογιζόμενοι ἑαυτούς. 


James ii. 21 ᾿Αβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ 
ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, 
ἀνενέγκας Ἰσαὰκ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ 
θυσιαστήριον ; 

James i, 6 αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει 
μηδὲν διακρινόμενος᾽ 6 γὰρ διακριν ό- 
μενος ἔοικε κλύδωνι θαλάσσης ἀνεμι- 
ζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένφῳ. 

James i. 2- πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε 
ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, 
γινώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς 
πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν. ἡ δὲ 
ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε 
τέλειοι. 


* The LXX of Deut. xxxii. 35 reads ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀνταποδώσω, ὅταν 


σφαλῇ ὁ ποῦς αὐτῶν. 


xxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 5 


Rom. vii. 23 βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόμον James iv. 1 πόθεν πόλεμοι καὶ πόθεν 
ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί μου, ἀντιστρα- μάχαι ἐν ὑμῖν ; οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν, ἐκ τῶν 
τευόμενον τῷ νύμῳ τοῦ νοός pov, ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν 
καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῆς τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν; 
ἁμαρτίας τῷ ivr ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί μου. 


Rom. xiii. 12 ἀποθώμεθα οὖν James iat ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν 
τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, ἐνδυσώμεθα δὲ ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας ἐν mpav- 
τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός. τητι δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον τὸν 


δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν. 


We may be expressing an excessive scepticism, but these resem- 
blances seem to us hardly close enough to be convincing, and the 
priority of St. James cannot be proved. The problem of literary 
indebtedness is always a delicate one; it is very difficult to find 
a definite objective standpoint; and writers of competence draw 
exactly opposite conclusions from the same facts. In order to 
justify. our sceptical attitude we may point out that resemblances 
in phraseology between two Christian writers do not necessarily 
imply literary connexion. The contrast between ἀκροαταί and ποιηταί 
was not made by either St. Paul or St. James for the first time; 
metaphors like θησαυρίζεις, expressions like ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς compared 
with ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς (both occur in the O.T.), the phrase νόμος 
ἐλευθερίας might all have independent sources. Nor are there 
any passages where we find the same order of thought (as in 
1 Peter) or the same passage of the O.T. quoted with the same 
variations—either of which would form stronger evidence. The 
resemblance is closest in Rom. v. 3-5 = James i. 2-4 and in 
Rom. vii. 23 = James iv. 1, but these are not sufficient ᾿ them- 
selves to establish a case. 

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


§ 8.] LITERARY HISTORY Ixxix 


proof that either Epistle was written with a knowledge of the 
other. 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 
Christian Church. We certainly seem to find doxologies of the 
same type as these two in 1 Clem.-Rom. lxiv, lxv. 2; 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. 25-27 τῷ δὲ δυνα- Jude 24, 25 τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ 
μένῳ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι... μόνῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους, καὶ στῆ σαι 
σοφῷ Θεῷ, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, .-.. ἀμώμους... -μόνῳ Θεῷ σωτῆρι 
[ᾧ] ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἡμῶν, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου 


ἡμῶν, δόξα, μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος καὶ 
ἐξουσία, πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν 
καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν. 


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 πίστις and δικαιοσύνη (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 
different writers of an earlier period. If we turn to Ignatius’ 
letters what will strike us is that the words and ideas of the Apostle 
have become incorporated with the mind of the writer. It is not 
so much that he quotes as that he can never break away from 
the circle of Apostolic ideas. The books of the N.T. have given 
him his vocabulary and form the source of his thoughts. Polycarp 
quotes more freely and more definitely. His Epistle is almost 
a cento of N.T. passages, and among them are undoubted quota- 
tions from the Romans. As the quotations of Polycarp come from 
ποία, τ Gor: a>Gors7 Gal, Eph., Phil, 1 Eim.,2. ‘Tim, it is 
difficult 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- 
sessed collections of letters; and it is really impossible to maintain 


Ixxx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


[Ὁ 8. 
that the Ignatian letters were formed into one collection before 
those of St. Paul had been. Assuming then, as we are entitled to 
do, that the Apostolic Fathers represent the first quarter of the 
second century we find the Epistle to the Romans at that time 
widely read, treated as a standard authority on Apostolic teaching, 
and taking its place in a collection of Pauline letters. 

The following are quotations and reminiscences of the Epistle 


in Clement of Rome: 


Rom. i. 21 ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύ- 
veTos αὐτῶν καρδία. 


Rom. ii. 24 τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ 
Θεοῦ δι᾽ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν 
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, καθὼς γέγραπται. 

Rom. iv. 7 “Μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέ- 
θησαν αἱ ἀνόμιαι καὶ ὧν ἐπε- 
καλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι" 

8 μακάριος ἀνὴρ ᾧ οὐ μὴ 
λογίσηται Κύριος ἁμαρτίαν." 

9 ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος 
ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομήν; ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν 
ἀκροβυστίαν; 

Rom. vi. 1 ti οὖν ἐροῦμεν; 
ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις 
πλεονάσῃ; μὴ γένοιτο. 


Rom. i. 29 πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ 
ἀδικίᾳ, πονηρίᾳ, πλεον εξίᾳ, κακίᾳ, 
μεστοὺς φθόνου, φόνου, ἔριδος, δό- 
λου,κακοηθείας,Ψιθυριστάς, κα- 
ταλάλους-, θεοστυγεῖς, ὑβριστάς, 
ὑπερηφάνους, ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρε- 
τὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀσυνέ- 
τους, ἀσυνθέτους, ἀστόργους, ἀνελεή- 
μονας" οἵτινες, τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἐπιγνόντες, ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα 
πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν, 
οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν. 


ΕἼ 2 
Rom. ix. 4,5 ὧν... ἡ λατρεία 
καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ 
ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. 


Rom. xiii. 1, 2 πᾶσα ψυχὴ éfov- 
σίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω" οὐ 
” 2 ΄ « 4 [4] ε 
γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, αἱ 
δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν. 
ὥστε ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ 


Clem. 36 διὰ τούτου ἡ ἀσύνετος 
καὶ ἐσκοτωμένη διάνοια ἡμῶν ἀνα- 
θάλλει εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς. 

Clem. 51 διὰ τὸ σκληρυνθῆναι 
αὐτῶν τὰς ἀσυνέτους καρδίας. 


Clem. 47 ὥστε καὶ βλασφημίας 
ἐπιφέρεσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι Κυρίου διὰ 
τὴν ὑμετέραν ἀφροσύνην. 

Clem. 50 Μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέ- 
θησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι καὶ ὧν ἐπεκα- 
λύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι: μακάριος 
ἀνὴρ ᾧ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται Κύριος 
ἁμαρτίαν. οὐδέ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ στόματι 
αὐτοῦ δόλος. οὗτος ὁ μαπκαρισμὸς 
ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐκλελεγμένους ὑπὸ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ. 


Clem. 33 τί οὖν ποιήσωμεν, ἀδελ- 
pol; ἀργήσωμεν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγαθοποιΐας 
καὶ ἔγκαταλείπωμεν τὴν ἀγάπην ; μη- 
θαμῶς τοῦτο ἐάσαι 6 δεσπότης ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν 
γε γενηθῆναι. 

Clem. 35 ἀπορρίψαντες ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν 
πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν καὶ ἀνομίαν, πλεο- 
νεξίαν, ἔρεις, κακοηθείας τε καὶ 
δόλους, Ψιθυρισμούς τε καὶ κατα- 
λαλιάς,θεοστυγίαν, ὑπερηφανίαν 
τε καὶ ἀλαζονείαν, κενοδοξίαν τε καὶ 
ἀφιλοξενίαν. ταῦτα γὰρ οἱ πράσ- 
σοντες στυγητοὶ τῷ Θεῷ ὑπάρχουσ!ν" 
οὐ μόνον δὲ οἱ πράσσοντες αὐτά, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ συνευδοκοῦντες αὐτοῖς. 


Clem. 32 ἐξ αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἱερεῖς καὶ 
Λευῖται πάντες οἱ λειτουργοῦντες τῷ 
θυσιαστηρίῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ' ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ 
Κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα" ἐξ 
αὐτοῦ βασιλεῖς καὶ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἡ γού- 
μενοι κατὰ τὸν Ἰούδαν. 


Clem. 61 σύ, δέσποτα, ἔδωκας τὴν 
ἐξουσίαν τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῖς διὰ τοῦ 
μεγαλοπρεποῦς καὶ ἀνεκδιηγήτου κρά- 
Tous σου, εἰς τὸ γινώσκοντας ἡμᾶς τὴν 
ὑπὸ σοῦ αὐτοῖς δεδομένην δόξαν καὶ 


ὁ 8} 


τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκεν᾽" οἱ 
δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς κρῖμα λή- 
ψονται. 


LITERARY HISTORY 


ΙΧΧΧΙ 


τιμὴν ὑποτάσσεσθαι αὐτοῖς, μηδὲν ἐναν- 
τιουμένους τῷ θελήματί σου. 


References in the letters of Ignatius are the following : 


Rom. i. 3 Tod γενομένου éx σπέρ- 
ματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ 
δρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει. 


Rom. ii. 24. 
Rom. iii. 27 ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις; 


Rom. vi. 4 οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν 
καινότητι ζωῆς“ περιπατήσωμεν. 


Rom. vi. 5; Vili. 17, 29. 


Rom. vi. 17 εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε 
τύπον διδαχῆ». 


Rom. vii. 6 ὥστε δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς 
ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος καὶ οὐ παλαιό- 
TNTL γράμματος. 

Rom. viii. 11 6 ἐγείρας Χ. Ἰ. 
ἐκ νεκρῶν. 


Rom. ix. 23 σκεύη ἐλέους ἃ προ- 
ητοίμασεν εἰς δόξαν. 


ς 


Rom. xiv. 17 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ 
βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ 
πόσις. 


Rom, xv. 5 τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν 
ἀλλήλοις κατὰ Χ. I. 


Smyr. I ἀληθῶς ὄντα ἐΐ γένους 
Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, υἱὸν Θεοῦ 
Ν I , 
κατὰ θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν. 


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


Eph. 18 ποῦ καύχησις τῶν λεγο- 
μένων συνετῶν ; 
(Close to a quotation of 1 Cor. i. 20.) 


Eph. 19 Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως pavepov- 
μένου εἰς καινότητα ἀϊδίου (wis. 


Mag. 5 & οὗ ἐὰν μὴ αὐθαιρέτως 
ἔχωμεν τὸ ἀποθανεῖν εἰς τὸ αὐτοῦ 
πάθος, τὸ ζὴν αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. 

Trall. 9 κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίωμα ὃς καὶ ἡ μᾶς 
τοὺς πιστεύοντας αὐτῷ οὕτως ἐγερεῖ ὁ 
πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐν Χ. Ἰ., οὗ χωρὶς τὸ 
ἀληθινὸν ζῆν οὐκ ἔχομεν. 

Mag. 6 εἰς τύπον καὶ διδαχὴν 
ἀφθαρσίας. 


Mag. 9 οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν 
ἀναστραφέντες εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος 
ἦλθον. 


Trall. 9 ὃς καὶ ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ 
νεκρῶν, ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν τοῦ 
πατρὸς αὐτοῦ. 


Eph. 9 προητοιμασμένοι εἰς οἶκο- 
δομὴν Θεοῦ πατρός. 


Trall. 2 οὐ γὰρ βρωμάτων καὶ 
ποτῶν εἶσιν διάκονοι. 


Eph. 1 ὃν εὔχομαι κατὰ "I. Χ. ὑμᾶς 


ἀγαπᾷν, καὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς αὐτῷ ἐν ὁμοιό- 
τητι εἶναι. 


The following resemblances occur in the Epistle οἵ Polycarp: 


Rom. vi. 13 καὶ τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν 
ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης. 

Rom. xiii, 12 ἐνδυσώμεθα δὲ 
τὰ ὅπλα TOU φωτός. 

Rom. xii. 10 τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ 
eis ἀλλήλους φιλόστοργοι, τῇ 
Tis ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι. 


Rom. xiii. 8 6 γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν 
ἴγερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν K.T.A. 


Pol. 4 ὁπλισώμεθα τοῖς ὅπλοις 
τῆς δικαιοσύνης. 


Pol. io fraternitatis amatores 
diligentes invicem, in veritate suciati, 
mansuetudinem Domini alterutri 
praestolantes, nullum despicientes. 

Pol. 3 ἐὰν yap τις τούτων ἐντὸς ἡ 
πεπλήρωκεν ἐντολὴν δικαιοσύνης ὁ 
γὰρ ἔχων ἀγάπην μακράν ἐστιν πάσης 
ἁμαρτίας. 


Ixxxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8 


Rom. xiv. 10 πάντες γὰρ mapa- Pol. 6 καὶ πάντας δεῖ wapa- 
στησόμεθα τῷ βήματιτοῦ Θεοῦ στῆναι τῷ βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
ὌΝ καὶ ἕκαστον ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ λόγον 

12 ἄρα [οὖν] ἕκαστος ἡμῶν περ δοῦναι. 
ἑαυτοῦ λόγον δώσει" [τῷ Θεῷ] . 


It is hardly worth while to give evidence in detail from later 
authors. We find distinct reminiscences of the Romans in Aristides 
and in Justin Martyr*. Very interesting also is the evidence of the 
heretical writers quoted by Hippolytus in the Refufatio omntum 
haerestum ; it would of course be of greater value if we could fix 
with certainty the date of the documents he makes use of. We 
find quotations from the Epistle in writings ascribed to the Naas- 
senes °, the Valentinians of the Italian school ὅδ, and to Basileides’. 
In the last writer the use made of Rom. v. 13, 14 and viii. 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 Epistle 
to the Romans. This is not the place to enter into the various 
critical questions which have been or ought to be raised concern- 
ing that work, but it may be noticed here— 

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

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

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


Rom. i. 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ Test. Levi. 18 καὶ πνεῦμα ἁγιω.- 
ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιω- σύνης ἔσται ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς... 
σύνης... 

Rom. ii. 13 οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ Test. Aser. 4 of γὰρ ἀγαθοὶ ἄνδρες 
νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. .... δίκαιοί εἰσι παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. 


rod Χριστοῦ Western and Syrian. 

3 ἀποδώσει BD FG. 

5. τῷ Θεῷ om. BF G, 

* Rom. ii. 4 = Dial. 47; Rom. iii. 11-17 = Dial. 27; Rom. iv. 3 = Dial. 23; 
Rom. ix. 7 = Dial. 44; Rom. ix. 27-29 = Dial. 32, 55, 64; Rom.x. 18 = 
Apol. i. 40; Rom. xi. 2, 3 = Dial. 39. 

5 Hipp. Ref. v. 7, pp. 138. 64-140. 76 = Rom. i. 20-26 

* Ibid. vi. 36, p. 286. 9-10 = Rom. viii. 11. a 

Τ᾿ Ibid. vii. 25, p. 370. 80 = Rom. v. 13, 14; ibid. p. 368. 75 = Rom. viii 
19, 22. 


881 


Rom. v. 6 ἔτι γὰρ Χριστὸς ὄντων 
ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ 
ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανε. 

Rom. vi. I 
ἁμαρτίᾳ. 

Rom. vi. 7 ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν 
δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 

Rom. vii. 8 ἀφορμὴν δὲ λαβοῦσα 
ἡ ἁμαρτία διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς κα- 
τειργάσατο ἐν ἐμοὶ πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν. 


LITERARY 


ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ 


Rom. viii. 28 οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς 
ἀγαπῶσι τὸν Θεὸν πάντα συν- 
epyet εἰς ἀγαθόν. 

Rom. ix. 21 ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν 
ὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ ad- 
τοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν 
σκεῦος, ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν ; 


Rom. xii. 1 παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα 
ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὐάρεστον 
τῷ Θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν 
ὑμῶν. 

Rom. xii. 21 μὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ, 
ἁλλὰ νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν. 

Rom. xiii. 12 ἀποθώμεθα οὖν τὰ 
La “ 3 / 
ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, ἐνδυσώμεθα δὲ 
τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός. 

Rom. xv. 33 ὁ δὲ Θεὸς THs 
εἰρήνης μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. 

Rom. xvi. 20 6 δὲ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης 
συντρίψει τὸν Σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς 
πόδας ὑμῶν ἐν τάχει. 


HISTORY Ixxxiii 
Test. Benj. 3 ἀναμάρτητος ὑπὲρ 


» ~ 
ἀσεβῶν ἀποθανεῖται. 


Test. Levi. 4 οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀπιστοῦντεϑ 
ἐπιμενοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς ἀδικίαις. 

Test. Sym. 6 ὕπως δικαιωθῶ ἀπὰ 
τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. 

Test. Neph. 8 καὶ δύο ἐντολαί 
εἰσι" καὶ εἰ μὴ γένωνται ἐν τάξει αὐτῶν, 
ἁμαρτίαν παρέχουσιν. 

Test. Benj. 4 ὁ ἀγαθοποιῶν... τῷ 
ἀγαπῶντι τὸν Θεὸν συνεργεῖ. 


Test. Neph. 2 καθὼς γὰρ ἡ κεραμεὺς 
οἷδε τὸ σκεῦος, πόσον χωρεῖ, καὶ πρὸς 
αὐτὸν φέρει πηλόν, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Κύριος 
πρὸς ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ πνεύματος ποιεῖ τὸ 
σῶμα. 

Test. Levi 3 προσφέρουσι δὲ Κυρίψ 
ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας λογικὴν καὶ ἀναί- 
μακτον προσφοράν. 


Test. Benj. 4 οὕτως ὁ ἀγαθοποιῶν 
νικᾷ τὸ κακόν. 

Test. Neph. 2 οὕτως οὐδὲ ἐν σκότει 
δυνήσεσθε ποιῆσαι ἔργα φωτός. 


Test. Dan. 5 ἔχοντες τὸν Θεὸν τῆς 
εἰρήνης. 

Test. Aser. 7 καὶ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ συν- 
τρίβων τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ δράκοντος 
δι᾿ ὕδατος. 


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 
mentions Romans. It is with Marcion (c. 140) that we obtain 
our first direct evidence. Romans was one of the ten Epistles 
he included in his Aposfolicon, ascribing it directly to St. Paul. 
Nor have we any reason to think that he originated the idea of 
making a collection of the Pauline Epistles. The very fact, as 
Zahn points out, that he gives the same short ti‘les to the Epistles 
that we find in our oldest MSS. (πρὸς ῥωμαίους) implies that these 
had formed part of a collection. Such a title would not be 
sufficient unless the books were included in a collection which had 
a distinguishing title of its own. In the Afoséolicon of Marcion the 
Epistles were arranged in the following order: (1) Gal., (2) 1 Cor., 
(3) 2 Cor, (4) Rom., (5) 1 Thess., (6) 2 Thess., (7) Laodic. = 
Ephes., (8) Col., (9) Phil., (10) Philem. The origin of this 


Ixxxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8. 


arrangement we cannot conjecture with any certainty; but it may 
be noted that the Epistle placed first—the Galatians—is the one on 
which Marcion primarily rested his case and in which the anti- 
judaism of St. Paul is most prominent, while the four Epistles of the 
Captivity are grouped together at the conclusion. Another interest- 
ing point is the text of the Epistles used by Marcion. We need 
not stop to discuss the question whether the charge against Marcion 
of excising large portions of the Epistles is correct. That he did 
so is undoubted. In the Romans particularly he omitted chaps. 
i. 19-ii. 1; iii, 31-iv. 25; ix. 1-33; x. 5-xi. 32; xv.—xvi. Nor 
again can we doubt that he omitted and altered short passages in 
order to harmonize the teaching with his own. For instance, in 
x. 2, 3 he seems to have read ἀγνοοῦντες yap τὸν Θεόν. Both these 
statements must be admitted. But two further questions remain Ὁ 
Can we in any case arrive at the text of the Epistles used by 
Marcion, and has Marcion’s text influenced the variations of our 
MSS.? An interesting reading from this point of view is the omis- 
sion of πρῶτον in i. 16 (see the notes, p. 24). Is this a case where 
his reading has influenced our MSS., or does he preserve an early 
variation or even the original text? 

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

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

For the earlier list our principal evidence is the Muratorian 
fragment on the Canon: cum tpse beatus aposiolus Paulus, sequens 
prodecessoris sui Iohannts ordinem, nonnist nominatim sepiem ecclestis 
scribat ordine tali: ad Corinthios (prima). ad Ephesios (secunda), ad 
Philippenses (tertia), ad Colossenses (quarta), ad Galatas (quinta), ad 
Thessalonicenses (sexta), ad Romanos (septima). Nor does this 


- On Hamack's theory that the Pauline Epistles had at the close of the 
second century less canonical authority than the Gospels, see Sanday, Bampton 
Lectures, pp. 20, 66. 


§ 9.] INTEGRITY Ixxxv 


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- 
haps found in his copy of the Epistles Corinthians standing first, 
while the position of Romans at the end may be implied in 
a passage of Origen. 

The later order (Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil, Col., Thess.) is 
that of all writers from the fourth century onwards, and, with the 
exception of changes caused by the insertion of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, and of certain small variations which do not affect the 
point under discussion, of all Greek MSS., and of all MSS. of 
Versions. This widespread testimony implies an early date. But 
the arrangement is clearly not traditional. It is roughly based on 
the length of the Epistles, the Romans coming first as being the 
longer. 

The origin of the early order is by no means clear. Zahn’s 
conjecture, that it arose from the fact that the collection of Pauline 
Epistles was first made at Corinth, is ingenious but not conclusive, 
while Clem. Rom. 47, which he cites in support of his theory, will 
hardly prove as much as he wishes’. 

To sum up briefly. During the first century the Epistle to the 
Romans was known and used in Rome and perhaps elsewhere. 
During the first quarter of the second century we find it forming 
part of a collection of Pauline Epistles used by the principal Church 
writers of that time in Antioch, in Rome, in Smyrna, probably also 
in Corinth. By the middle of that century it had been included in 
an abbreviated form in Marcion’s Afostolicon; 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 part of the 
second century makes use of it; it was contained in Marcion’s canon; and 
when Christian literature becomes extensive, the quotations are almost 
numerous enough to enable us to reconstruct the whole Epistle. So 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 
St.Paul. It was accepted as such by Baur, and in consequence by all members 
of the Tiibingen school; it is accepted at the present day by critics of every 
variety of opinion, by Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Lipsius, Harnack, 
aa definitely as by those who are usually classed as conservative. 


‘ On this subject see Zahn, Geschichte, &c., ii. p. 344. 


ἰχχχνὶ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. 


To this general acceptance there have been few exceptions. The earliest writer 
who denied the genuineness of the Epistle appears to have been the English- 
man Evanson (1792). The arguments on which he relied are mainly historical. 
The Epistle implies the existence of a Church in Rome, but we know from the 
Acts that no such Church existed. Equally impossible is it that St. Paul 
should have known such a number of persons in Rome, or that Aquila 
and Priscilla should have been there at this time. He interprets xvi. 13 
literally, and asks why the aged mother of the Apostle should have wandered 
to Rome. He thinks that xi. 12, 15, 21, 22 must have been written after the 
fall of Jerusalem’. The same thesis was maintained by Bruno Bauer?, and 
has been revived at the present day by certain Dutch and Swiss theologians, 
notably Loman and Steck. 

Loman (1882) denied the historical reality of Christ, and considered that all 
the Pauline Epistles dated from the secoud century. Christianity itself was the 
embodiment of certain Jewish idcas. St. Paul was a real person who lived at 
the time usually ascribed to him, but he did not write the Epistles which bear 
his name. That he should have done so at such an early period in the history 
of Christianity would demand a miracle to account for its history ; a statement 
which we need not trouble ourselves to refute. Loman’s arguments appear to 
be the silence of the Acts, and in the case of the Romans the inconsistency of 
the various sections with one another ; the differences of opinion which had arisen 
with regard to the composition of the Roman Church prove (he argues) that 
there is no clear historical situation implied *. Steck (1888) has devoted himself 
primarily to the Epistle to the Galatians which he condemns as inconsistent 
with the Acts of the Apostles, and as dependent upon the other leading Epistles, 
but he incidentally examines these also All alike he puts in the second 
century, arranging them in the following order:—Romans, 1 Corinthians, 
2 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 Assumptio AMosis 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 Weisse (1867), who in addition to certain more reasonable theories 
with regard to the concluding chapters, professed to be able to distinguish by 
the evidence of style the genuine from the interpolated portions of the Epistle’. 
His example has been followed with greater indiscreetness by Pierson and 
Naber (1886), Michelsen (1886), Voelter (1889, 90), Van Manen (1891). 

Pierson and Naber® basing their theory on some slight allusions in Josephus, 
consider that there existed about the beginning of the Christian era a school 
of elevated Jewish thinkers, who produced a large number of apparently 
fragmentary works distinguished by their lofty religious tone. These were 
made use of by a certain Paulus Episcopus, a Christian who incorporated them 


1 Evanson (Edward), Zhe Dissonance of the four generally received Evan- 
gelists examined, Ed. 1, 1792, pp. 257-261; Ed. 2, 1805, pp. 306-312. 

? Bruno Bauer, Aritik der paul. Briefe, 1852. Christus und die Casaren, 
Ρ. 372. 
5. Loman (A. D.), Quaesttones Paulinae, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1882, 1883, 
1886. 

* Steck (Rudolf), Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht. Berlin, 
1888. 

5 Weisse (C. H.), Bettrage sur Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe an dis 
Galater, Rimer, Philipper und Kolosser. Leipzig, 1867. 

® Verisimilia, 7 aceram conditionem Novi Testaments exhibentia. A. Pierson, 
et S. A. Naber, Amstelodami, 1886. 


ᾧ 9.] INTEGRITY Ixxxvii 


in letters which he wrote in order to make up for his own poverty of religious 
and philosophical ideas. An examination of their treatment of a single chapter 
may be appended. The basis of ch. vi is a Jewish fragment (admodum 
memorabile) which extends from ver. 3 to ver. 11. This fragment Paulus 
Episcopus treated in his usual manner. He begins with the foolish question 
of ver. 2 which shows that he does not understand the argument that follows. 
He added interpolations in ver. 4. Jtidem odoramur manum eius ver. 5. 
If we omit τῷ ὁμοιώματι in ver. 5. the difficulty in it vanishes. Ver. 8 again is 
feeble and therefore was the work of Paulus Episcopus: on enim credimus 
nos esse victuros, sed novimus nos vivere (ver. 11). Vv. {1-23 with the ex- 
ception apparently of ver. 14, 15 which have been misplaced, are the work 
of this interpolator who spoiled the Jewish fragment, and in these verses 
adapts what has preceded to the uses of the Church. It will probably not 
be thought necessary to pursue this subject further. 

Michelsen? 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 ch. i-xiv and xvi. 25-27; 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. V6lter’s* theory is more elaborate. The original 
Epistle according to him contained the following portions of the Epistle. 
Leela (Om O—L7) si vaand wis) (GXCEPt Vail 35,4120) Vey 14. 18}}} χιν ΣΙ: 
XV. 14-32; xvi. 21-23. This bears all the marks of originality; its Christology 
¢s primitive, free from any theory of pre-existeice or of two natures. To the 
first interpolator we owe i. 18; iii. 20 (except ii. 14, 15); vili. 1, 3-39; 
i. 1b-4. Here the Christology is different; Christ is the pre-existent Son of 
God. To the second interpolator we owe iii. 2I—iv. 25; v. 13, 14, 20; Vi. 
14, 15; vii. 1-6; ix. x; xiv. 1—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. 7-25; viii. 2; a fourth for 
xi; ii. 14,15; xv. 7-13; a fifth for xvi, I-20; a sixth for xvi. 24; a seventh 
for xvi. 25-27. 

Van Manen * is distinguished for his vigorous attacks on his predecessors ; and 
for basing his own theory of interpolations on a reconstruction of the Marcionite 
text which he holds to be original. 

It has been somewhat tedious work enumerating these theories, which will 
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 
which 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 
either trust or criticize. If the documents are not trustworthy, neither is our 
criticism. 

But such a feeling of distrust is not necessary, and it may be worth while to 
conclude this subject by pointing out certain reasons which enable us to feel 
copfident in most at any rate of the documents of early Christianity. 


1 Op. ctt., pp. 139-143. 

1 Michelsen (J. H. A.), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1886, pp. 372 ff. 473 ff.; 
1887, p. 163 ff. 

3 Voelter (Daniel), Zheologisch Tijdschrift, 1880, p. 265 ff.; and Lite Com- 
posttion der paul. Hauptbriefe, 7. Der Romer- und Galaterbrief, 1899. 

* Van Manen (W.C.), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1887. AJlarcion’s Brief van 
Paulus van de Galatiés, pp. 382-404, 451-533; and Faulus 1], De brief 
aan ue Aometnen. Leiden, 1801. 


Ixxxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὁ 9. 


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

A second line of argument which is used in favour of interpolation theories 
is the difficulty and obscurity of some passages. No doubt there are passages 
which are difficult; but it is surely very gratuitous to imagine that everything 
which is genuine is easy. The whole tendency of textual criticism is to prove 
that it is the custom of ‘ redactors’ or ‘correctors’ or ‘ interpolators’ to produce 
a text which is always superficially at any rate more easy than the genuine 
text. But on the other side, although the style of St. Paul is certainly not 
always perfectly smooth; although he certainly is liable to be carried away by 
a side issue, to change the order of his thoughts, to leap over intermediate 
steps in his argument, yet no serious commentators of whatever school would 
doubt that there is a strong sustained argument running thrcagh the whole 
Epistle. The possibility of the commentaries which have been written proves 
conclusively the improbability of theories implying a wide element of in- 
terpolation. But in the case of St. Paul we may go further. Even where there 
is a break in the argument, there is almost always a verbal connexion. When 
St. Paul passes for a time to a side issue there is a subtle connexion in thought 
as in words which would certainly escape an interpolator’s observation. This 
has been pointed out in the notes on xi. 10; xv. 20, where the question of 
interpolation has been carefully examined; and if any one will take the 
trouble to go carefully through the end of ch. v and the beginning of ch. vi, 
he will see how each sentence leads on to the next. For instance, the first 
part of v. 20, which is omitted by some of these critics, leads on immediately 
to the second (πλεονάσῃ.. .. ἐπλεόνασεν), that suggests ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν, then 
comes πλεονάσῃ in vi. 1; but the connexion of sin and death clearly suggests 
the words of ver. 2 and the argument that follows. The same process may 
be worked out through the whole Epistle. For the most part there is a clear 
and definite argument, and even where the logical continuity is broken there 
is always a connexion either in thought or words. The Epistles of St. Paul 
present for the most part a definite and compact literary unit. 

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


§ 9.] INTEGRITY Ixxxix 


which the Epistle has come down to us make the theories of this new school 
of critics untenable’. 

We 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- 
flicting, and a careful examination of them and of the theories suggested to 
explain them is necessary ?. 

It will be convenient first of all to enumerate these facts: 

(1) The words ἐν Ῥώμῃ in i. 7 and 15 are omitted by the bilingual MS. G 
both in the Greek and Latin text (F is here defective). Moreover the cursive 
47 adds in the margin of ver. 7 τὸ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, οὔτε ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει οὔτε ἐν τῳ 
ῥητῷ μνημονεύει. Bp. Lightfoot attempted to find corroborative evidence for 
this reading in Origen, in the writer cited as Ambrosiaster, and in the reading 
of Ὁ ἐν ἀγάπῃ for ἀγαπητοῖς. That he is wrong in doing so seems to be shown 
by Dr. Hort; but it may be doubtful if the latter is correct in his attempt to 
explain away the variation. The evidence is slight, but it is hardly likely that 
it arose simply through transcriptional error. If it occurred only in one place 
this might be 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. 

(2) There is considerable variation in existing MSS. concerning the place of 
the final doxology (xvi. 25-27). 

a. In NBCDE minusc. pauc. codd. ap. 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 minusc. plus quam 200, codd. ap. Orig.-lat., Harcl., Chrys. Theodrt. 
Jo.-Damasc. it occurs at the end of chap. xiv and there only. 

c. In AP 5.17 Arm. codd. it is inserted in both places. 

ἃ. In Fer. G codd. ap. Hieron. (72: Eph. iii. 5), g, Marcion (wide infra) it is 
entirely omitted. It may be noted that G leaves a blank space at the end of 
chap. xiv, and that fis taken direct from the Vulgate, a space being left in F 
in the Greek corresponding to these verses. Indirectly D and Sedulius also 
attest the omission by placing the Benediction after ver. 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—is early, probably earlier than the time of Origen, although we 
can never have complete confidence in Rufinus’ translation. (iii) That the 
evidence for complete omission goes back to Marcion, and that very probably 
his excision of the words may have influenced the omission in Western 
authorities. 


! The English reader will find a very full account of this Dutch school of 
critics in Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles, pp. 133-243. A very 
careful compilation of the results arrived at is given by Dr. Carl Clemen, Dze 
Einhettlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe. To both these works we must 
express our obligations, and to them we must refer any who wish for further 
information. 

2 The leading discussion on the last two chapters of the Romans is con- 
tained in three papers, two by Bp. Lightfoot, and one by Dr. Hort first 
published in the /ournal of Philology, vols. ii, iii, and since reprinted in 
Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 287-374. 


xC EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 9. 


(3) There is very considerable evidence that Marcion omitted the whole of 
the last two chapters. 

a. Origen (int. Ruf.) x. 43, vol. vii, p. 453, ed. Lomm. writes: Caput hoc 
Marcion, a quo Scripturae Evangelicae atque Apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de 
hac epistola penitus abstulit ; et non solum hoc, sed et ab co loco, ubi scriptum 
est: omne autem quod non est ex fide, peccatum est: usgue ad finem cuncta 
dissecuit. In aliis vero exemplaribus, id est, in his quae non sunt a Marctone 
temerata, hoc ipsum caput diverse positum invenimus, in nonnullis etenim 
codicibus post eum locum, guem supra diximus hoc est: omne autem quod non 
est ex fide, peccatum est: statim coherens habetur: ci autem, qui potens est 
vos confirmare. Alii vero codices in fine id, ut nunc est positum, continent. 
This extract is quite precise, nor is the attempt made by Hort to emend it at 
all successful. He reads ἐφ for ad, having for this the support of a Paris MS., 
and then emends Hoc into Aic ; reading δύ non solum hic sed et in eo loco, &c., 
and translating ‘and not only here but also,’ at xiv. 23 ‘he cut out everything 
quite to the end.’ He applies the words to the Doxology alone. The changes 
in the text are slight and might be justified, but with this change the words 
that follow become quite meaningless: usgue ad finem cuncta dissecutt can 
only apply to the whole of the two chapters. If Origen meant the doxology 
alone they would be quite pointless. 

b. But we have other evidence for Marcion’s text. Tertullian, dav. Marc. v. 
14, quoting the words ¢ribunal Christi (xiv. 10), states that they occur # 
clausula of the Epistle. The argument is not conclusive but the words 
probably imply that in Marcion’s copy of the Epistle, if not in all those known 
to Tertullian, 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 
never quote from these last two chapters. The argument however is of little 
value, because the same may be said of 1 Cor. xvi. The chapters were not 
quoted because there was little or nothing in them to quote. 

b. An argument of greater weight is found in certain systems of 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: De periculo con- 
tristante fratrem suum esca sua, et quod non sit regnum Det esca et potus sed 
iustitia et pax et gaudium in Spiritu Sancto ; this is followed by the fifty-first 
and last section, which is described as De mysterio Domini ante passionem in 
silentio habito, post passionem vero ipsius revelato. The obvious deduction is 
that this system was drawn up for a copy which omitted the greater part at any 
rate of chaps. xv and xvi. This system appears to have prevailed very widely. 
In the Codex Fuldensis there are given in the table of contents fifty-one 
sections: of these the first twenty-three include the whole Epistle up to the 
end of chap. xiv, the last sentence being headed Quod fideles Dei non debeant 
imvicem iudicare cum unusguisgue secundum regulas mandatorum tpse se 
debeat divino iudicio pracparare ut ante tribunal Dei sine confusione possit 
operum suorum praestare rationem. Then follow the last twenty-eight sections 
of the Amiatine system, beginning with the twenty-fourth at ix. 1. Hence 
chaps. ἰχ- χὶν are described twice. The scribe seems to have had before him 
an otherwise unrecorded system which only embraced fourteen chapters, and 
then added the remainder from where he could get them in order to make 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 have discovered a certain amount of significance in 
two other points. 


§ 9.} INTEGRITY xci 


a. The prayer at the end of chap. xv is supposed to represent, either with 
or without the ἀμήν (which is omitted in some MSS., probably incorrectly), a 
conclusion of the Epistle. As a matter of fact the formula does not represent 
any known form of ending, and may be paralleled from places in the body of 
the Epistle. 

b. The two conclusions xvi. 20 and 24 of the T R are supposed to represent 
endings to two 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 
reading of the T R is a late conflation of the two older forms of the text. The 
benediction stood originally at ver. 20 and only there, the verses that followed 
being a sort of postscript. Certain MSS. which were without the doxology (see 
above) moved it to their end of the Epistle after ver. 23, while certain others 
placed it after ver. 27. The double benediction of the TR arose by the 
ordinary process of conflation. The significance of this in corroborating the 
existence of an early text which omitted the doxology has been pointed out; 
otherwise these verses will not support the deductions made from them by 
Renan, Gifford, and others. 

The above, stated as shortly as possible, are the diplomatic facts which 
demand explanation. Already in the seventeenth century some at any rate had 
attracted notice, and Semler (1769), Griesbach (1777) and others developed 
elaborate theories to account for them. To attempt to enumerate all the 
different views would be beside our purpose: it will be more convenient to 
confine ourselves to certain typical illustrations. 

1. An hypothesis which would account for most (although not all) of the 
facts stated would be to suppose that the last two chapters were not genuine. 
This opinion was held by Baur}, although, as was usual with him, on purely 
a priort grounds, and with an only incidental reference to the MS. evidence 
which might have been the strongest support of his theory. The main motive 
which induced him to excise them was the expression in xv. 8 that Christ was 
made ‘a minister of circumcision,’ which is inconsistent with his view of 
St. Paul’s doctrine; and he supported his contention by a vigorous examina. 
tion of the style and contents of these two chapters. His arguments have been 
noticed (so far as seemed necessary) in the commentary. But the consensus of 
a large number of critics in condemning the result may excuse our pursuing 
them in further detail. Doctrinally his views were only consistent with a one- 
sided theory of the Pauline position and teaching, and if that theory is given 
up then his arguments become untenable. As regards his literary criticism the 
opinion of Renan may be accepted: ‘On est surpris qu’un critique aussi 
habile que Baur se soit contenté d’une solution aussi grossiére. Pourquoi un 
faussaire aurait-il inventé de si insignificants détails? Pourquoi aurait-il ajoute 
a Pouvrage sacré une liste de noms propres??’. 

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. 23 is purely arbi- 
trary, and the passage that follows to the end of ver. 6 is merely a conclusion 
of the previous argument, without which the former chapter is incomplete, and 
which it is inconceivable that an interpolator could have either been able or 
desired to insert; while in vv. 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 


1 Theologische Zeitung, 1836, pp. 97,144. Laulus, 1866, pp. 393 ff. 
* St. Paul, p. lxxi, quoted by Lightfoot, Szblical Essays, p. 290. 


XCil EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. 


i em that xiv and xv. 13 form a single paragraph which must not be 
split up. 

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

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

2. We may dismiss then all such theories as imply the spuriousness of the last 
two chapters and may pass on to a second group which explains the phenc- 
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 merit of 
explaining all the facts, is that of Renan*. He supposes that the so-called 
Epistle to the Romans was a circular letter and that it existed in four different 
forms : 

(i) A letter to the Romans. This contained chap. i-xiand chap. xv. 
(ii) A letter to the Ephesians. Chap. i-xiv and xvi. I-20. 

(iii) A letter to the Thessalonians. Chap. i-xiv and xvi. 21-24. 
(iv) A letter to an unknown church. Chap. i-xiv and xvi. 25-27. 

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

This theory is supported by the following amongst other arguments : 

(i) We know, as in the case of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that St. Paul 
wrote circular letters. (ii) The Epistle as we have it has four endings, xv. 33, 
xvi. 20, 24, 25-27. Each of these really represented the ending of a separate 
Epistle. (iii) There are strong internal grounds for believing that xvi. 1-20 
was addressed to the Ephesian Church, (iv) The Macedonian names occurring 
in xvi. 21-24 suggest that these verses were addressed to a Macedonian 
church. (v) This explains how it came to be that such an elaborate letter 
was sent to a church of which St. Paul had such little knowledge as that 
of Rome. 

This theory has one advantage, that it accounts for all the facts; but there 
are two arguments against it which are absolutely conclusive. One is that 
there are not four endings in the Epistle at all; xv. 33 is not like any of the 


‘ Lucht, Ober die beiden letzten Capitel des Rimerbriefs, 1871. 
* Renan, St. Paul, pp. lxiii ff. This theory is examined at great length by 
Bp. Lightfoot, of. cit. pp. 293 ff. 


§ 9.] INTEGRITY xciii 


endings of St. Paul’s Epistles; while, as is shown above, the origin of the 
duplicate benediction, xvi. 20 and 24, must be explained on purely textual 
grounds. If Renan’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 
first thirteen verses of chap. xv. The arguments on this subject need not be 
repeated, but it may be pointed out that they are as conclusive against Renan’s 
hypothesis as against that of Baur. 

3. Renan’s theory has not received 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 
belongs to a letter addressed to Ephesus and not to one addressed to Rome. This 
view, first put forward by Schulz (1829), has been adopted by Ewald, Mangold, 
Laurent, Hitzig, Reuss, Ritschl, Lucht, Holsten, Lipsius, Krenkel, Kneucker, 
Weiss, Weizsacker, Farrar. It has two forms; some hold ver. 1, 2 to belong 
to the Romans, others consider them also part of the Ephesian letter. Nor is 
it quite certain where the Ephesian fragment ends. Some consider that it 
includes vv. 17-21, others make it stop at ver. 16. 

The arguments in favour of this view are as follows: 1. It is pointed out 
that it is hardly likely that St. Paul should have been acquainted with such 
a large number of persons in a church like that of Rome which he had never 
visited, and that this feeling is corroborated by the number of personal details 
that he adds; references to companions in captivity, to relations, to fellow- 
labourers. All these allusions are easily explicable on the theory that the 
Epistle is addressed to the Ephesian Church, but not if it be addressed to the 
Roman. 2. This opinion is corroborated, it is said, by an examination of the 
list itself. Aquila and Priscilla and the church that is in their house are men- 
tioned shortly before this date as being at Ephesus, and shortly afterwards they 
are again mentioned as being in the same city (1 Cor. xvi.19; 2 Tim. iv. 19). 
The very next name Epaenetus is clearly described as a native of the province 
of Asia. Of the others many are Jewish, many Greek, and it is more likely 
that they should be natives of Ephesus than natives of Rome. 3. That the 
warning against false teachers is quite inconsistent with the whole tenor of 
the letter, which elsewhere never refers to false teachers as being at work in 
Rome. 

In examining this hypothesis we must notice at once that it does not in 
any way help us to solve the textual difficulties, and receives no assistance 
from them. The problems of the concluding doxology and of the omission of 
the last two chapters remain as they were. It is only if we insert a bene- 
diction both at ver. 20 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 
Epistles, is that they have come down to us substantially in the form in 
which they were written unless very strong evidence is brought forward to the 
contrary. 

But this evidence cannot be called very strong. It is admitted by Weiss 
and Mangold, for instance, that the @ fvior¢ arguments against St. Paul’s 
acquaintance with some twenty-four persons in the Roman community are of 
slight weight. Christianity was preached amongst just that portion of the 
population of the Empire which would be most nomadic in character. It is 
admitted again that it would be natural that, in writing to a strange church, 
St. Paul should lay special stress on all those with whom he was acquainted ΟἹ 


xciv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. 


of whom he had heard, in order that he 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 
with the body of the Epistle. If we conceive it to be a warming against false 
teachers whom St. Paul fears may come but who have not yet done so, it 
exactly suits the situation, and helps to explain the motives he had in writing 
the Epistle. He definitely states that he is only warning them that they may 
be wise if occasion arise. 

The arguments against these verses are not strong. What is the value of 
the definite evidence in their favour? This is of two classes. (i) The 
archaeological evidence for connecting the names in the Epistle with Rome. 
(ii) The archaeological and literary evidence for connecting any of the persons 
mentioned here with the Roman Church. 

(i) In his commentary on the Philippians, starting from the text Phil. iv. 22 
ἀσπάζονται tuas... μάλιστα of ἐκ τοῦ Καίσαρος οἰκίας, Bp. Lightfoot proceeds 
to examine the list of names in Rom. xvi in the light of Roman inscriptions. 
We happen to have preserved to us almost completely the funereal inscriptions 
of certain columbaria in which were deposited the ashes of members of the 
imperial household. Some of these date a little earlier than the Epistle to the 
Komans, 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 the sixth 
volume of the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions has enabled us to add to the 
instances quoted. Practically every name may be illustrated in Rome, and 
almost every name in the Inscriptions of the household, although some of them 
are uncommon. 

Now what does this prove? It does not prove of course that these are 
the persons to whom the Epistle was written; nor does it give overwhelming 
evidence that the names are Roman. It shows that such a combination of 
names was possible in Rome: but it shows something more tian this. Man- 
gold asks what is the value of this investigation as the same names are found 
outside Rome? The answer is that for the most part they are very rare. 
Lipsius makes various attempts to illustrate the names from Asiatic inscrip- 
tions, but not very successfully; nor does Mangold help by showing that the 
two common names Narcissus and Hermas may be paralleled elsewhere. We 
have attempted to institute some comparison, but it is not very easy and will 
not be until we have more satisfactory collections of Greek inscriptions. If 
we take the Greek Corfus 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 what this 
comparison suggests is that such a combination of names—Greek, Jewish, and 
Latin—could as a matter of fact only be found in the mixed population which 
formed the lower and middle classes of Rome. This evidence is not con- 
clusive, but it shows that there is no ὦ f77oré improbability in the names being 
Roman, and that it would be difficult anywhere else to illustrate such an 
heterogeneous collection. 

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 
and Aristobulus: evidence again only corroborative but yet of some weight. 

(ii) The more direct archaeological evidence is that for connecting the names 
of Prisca, Amplias, Nereus, and Apelles definitely with the early history of 
Roman Christianity. These points have been discussed sufficiently in the 
notes, and it is only necessary to say here that it would be an excess of 


9: INTEGRITY XCV 


scepticism to look upon such evidence as worthless, although it might not 
weigh much if there were strong evidence on the other side. 

To sum up 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 ὦ 27107γ1. They can therefore have little value. On being 
examined they were found not to be valid; while evidence not conclusive but 
considerable has been brought forward in favour of the Roman destination. 
For these reasons we have used the sixteenth chapter without hesitation in 
writing an account of the Roman Church, and any success we have had in the 
drawing of the picture which we have been able to present must be allowed to 
weigh in the evidence. 

4. Reiche (in 1833) suggested that the doxology was not genuine, and his 
opinion has been largely followed, combined in some cases with theories as to 
the omission of other parts, in some cases not. It is well known that passages 
which did not originally form part of the text are inserted in different places in 
different texts ; for instance, the perzcope adulterae 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 unpauline because it 
harmonizes in style, in phraseology, and in subject-matter with non-pauline 
Epistles—that to the Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. This argument 
must tell in different ways to different critics. It will be very strong, if not 
conclusive, to those who consider that these Epistles are not Pauline. To 
those however who accept them as genuine these arguments will rather con- 
firm their belief in the Pauline authorship. 

5. But there is an alternative hypothesis which may demand more careful 
cons#leration from us, that although it comes from St. Paul it belongs to rather 
a later period in his life. It is this consideration amongst others which forms 
the basis of the theory put forward by Dr. Lightfoot. He considers that the 
original Epistle to the Romans written by St. Paul contained all our present 
Epistle except 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 ἐν Ῥώμῃ in i. 7 and 15; and then added 
the doxology at the end because he felt the need of some more fitting con- 
clusion. Then, at a later date, in order to make the original Epistle complete 
the doxology was added from the later recension to the earlier. 

Dr. Lightfoot points out that this hypothesis solves all the problems. It 
explains the existence of a shorter recension, it explains the presence of the 
doxology in both places, it explains the peculiar style of the doxology. We 
may admit this, but there is one point it does not explain; it does not explain 
how or why St. Paul made the division at the end of chap. xiv. There is 
nothing in the next thirteen verses which unfits them for general circulation. 
They are in fact more suitable for an encyclical letter than is chap. xiv. It is 
to 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. Lightfoot’s theory. 

6. Dr. Hort has subjected the arguments of Dr. Lightfoot to a very close 
examination. He begins by a careful study of the doxology and has shown 
clearly first of all that the parallels between it and passages in the four acknow- 
ledged Epistles are much commoner and nearer than was thought to be the case; 
and secondly that it exactly reproduces and sums up the whole argument of 
the Epistle. On his investigation we have based our commentary, and we 


xcvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. 


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

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

Dr. Hort’s own conclusions are: (1) He suggests that as the last two 
chapters were considered unsuitable for public reading, they might be omitted in 
systems of lectionaries while the doxology—which was felt to be edifying—was 
appended to chap. xiv, that it might be read. (2) Some such theory as this 
might explain the capitulations. ‘The analogy of the common Greek capitu- 
lations shows how easily the personal or local and as it were temporary portions 
of an epistle might be excluded from a schedule of chapters or paragraphs.’ 
(3) The omission of the allusions to Rome is due to a simple transcriptional 
accident. (4) ‘ When all is said, two facts have to be explained, the insertion 
of the Doxology after xiv and its omission.’ This latter is due to Marcion. 
which must be explained to mean an omission agreeing with the reading in 
Marcion’s copy. ‘On the whole it is morally certain that the omission is 
his only as having been transmitted by him, in other words that it is a genuine 
ancient reading.’ Dr. Hort finally concludes that though a genuine reading it 
is incorrect and perhaps arises through some accident such as the tearing oft 
of the end ofa papyrus roll or the last sheet in a book. 

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

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

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

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


§ 9.] INTEGRITY xcvii 


the opinions which are ascribed to him, To begin with, five of these verses 
contain quotations from the O.T.; but further ver. 8 contains an expression 
λέγω γὰρ Χριστὸν διάνονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας Θεοῦ, 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 
than either of the next two verses, and at this place the division was drawn. 
The remainder of these two chapters could be omitted simply because they 
were useless for the definite dogmatic purpose Marcion had in view, and the 
Doxology which he could not quite like would go with them. 

If we once assume this excision by Marcion it may perhaps explain the 
phenomena. Dr. Hort has pointed out against Dr. Lightfoot’s theory of 
a shorter recension with the doxology that all the direct evidence for omitting 
the last two chapters is also in favour of omitting the Doxology. ‘For the 
omission of xv, xvi, the one direct testimony, if such it be, is that of Marcion: 
and yet the one incontrovertible fact about him is that he omitted the Doxology. 
If G is to be added on the strength of the blank space after xiv, yet again it 
leaves out the Doxology.’ We may add also the capitulations of Codex 
Fuldensis which again, as Dr. Hort points out, have no trace of the Doxology. 
Our evidence therefore points to the existence of a recension simply leaving 
out the last two chapters. 

Now it is becoming more generally admitted that Marcion’s AZostolicon had 
some—if not great—influence on variations in the text of the N.T. His 
edition had considerable circulation, especially at Rome, and therefore 
presumably in the West, and it is from the West that our evidence mostly 
comes When in adapting the text for the purposes of church use it was 
thought advisable to omit the last portions as too personal and not sufficiently 
edifying, it was natural to make the division at a place where in a current 
edition the break had already been made. The subsequent steps would then 
be similar to those suggested by Dr. Hort. It was natural to add the 
Doxology in order to give a more suitable conclusion, or to preserve it for 
public reading at this place, and subsequently it dropped out at the later 
place. That is the order suggested by the manuscript evidence. All our best 
authorities place it at the end; AP Arm.—representing a later but still 
respectable text—have it in both places; later authorities for the most part 
place it only at xiv. 23. 

It remains to account for the omission of any reference to Rome in the first 
chapter of G. This may of course be a mere idiosyncracy of that MS., arising 
either from carelessness of transcription (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. 
His edition was made with a strongly dogmatic purpose. Local and personal 
allusions would have little interest to him. The words ἐν Ῥώμῃ could easily be 
omitted without injuring the context. The opinion is perhaps corroborated 
by the character of the MS. in which the omission occurs. Allusion has been 
made (p. xix) 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. 
are derived (Z) ended at xv. 13. Even if his argument were correct, it would 
not take away from the force of the other facts which have been mentioned. 
We should still have to explain how it was that the Doxology was inserted 
at the end of chap. xiv, and the previous discussion would stand as it is: only 
a new fact would have to be accounted for. When, however, we come to 
examine Dr. Corssen’s arguments they hardly seem to support his con- 
tention. It may be admitted indeed, that the capitulations of the Codex 
Amiatinus might have been made for a copy which ended at xv. 13, but they 
present no solid argument for the existence of such a copy. Dr. Corssen 
points out that in the section xv. 14—xvi. 23, there are a considerable number 


xcviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. 


of variations in the text, and suggests that that implies a different source for 
the text of that portion of the epistle. The number of variations in the 
ape adul/erae are, it is well known, considerable; and in the same way 

e would argue that this portion which has all these variations must come from 
a separate source. But the facts do not support his contention. It is true 
that in forty-three verses he is able to enumerate twenty-four variations; but if 
we examine the twenty-three verses of chap. xiv we shall find fourteen 
variations, a still larger proportion. Moreover, in xiv. 13 there are as numerous 
and as important variations as in any of the following verses. Dr. Corssen’s 
arguments do not bear out his conclusion. Asa matter of fact, as Dr. Hort 
pointed out against Dr. Lightfoot, the text of Ὁ F G presents exactly the same 
phenomena throughout the Epistle, and that suggests, although it does not 
perha))s prove, that the archetype contained the last two chapters. The scribe 
however was probably acquainted with a copy which omitted them. This 
archetype is alone or almost alone amongst our sources for the text in 
omitting the Doxology. It also omits as we have seen ἐν Ῥώμῃ in both places. 
We would hazard the suggestion that all these variations were due directly or 
indirectly to the same cause, the text of Marcion. 

In our opinion then the text as we have it represents substantially the Epistle 
that St. Paul wrote to the Romans, and it remains only to explain briefly the 
somewhat complicated ending. At xv. 13 the didactic portion of it is con- 
cluded, and the remainder of the chapter is devoted to the Apostle’s personal 
relations with the Roman Church, and a sketch of his plans. This paragraph 
ends with a short prayer called forth by the mingled hopes and fears which these 
plans for the future suggest. Then comes the commendation of Phoebe, the 
bearer of the letter (xvi. 1, 2); then salutations (3-16). The Apostle might 
now close the Epistle, but his sense of the danger to which the Roman Church 
may be exposed, if it is visited by false teachers, such as he is acquainted with 
in the East, leads him to give a final and direct warning against them. We 
find a not dissimilar phenomenon in the Epistle to the Philippians. There in 
iii. 1 he appears to be concluding, but before he concludes he breaks out into 
a strong, even indignant warning against false teachers (iii. 2-21), and even 
after that dwells long and feelingly over his salutations. The same difficulty 
of ending need not therefore surprise us when we meet it in the Romans. 
Then comes (xvi. 20) the concluding benediction. After this a postscript with 
salutations from the companions of St. Paul. Then finally the Apostle, wish- 
ing perhaps, as Dr. Hort suggests, to raise the Epistle once more to the serene 
tone which has characterized it throughout, adds the concluding Doxology, 
summing up the whole argument of the Epistle. There is surely nothing 
unreasonable in supposing that there would be an absence of complete same- 
ness in the construction of the different letters. It is not likely that all would 
exactly correspond to the same model. The form in each case would be 
altered and changed in accordance with the feelings of the Apostle, and there 
is abundant proof throughout the Epistle that the Apostle felt earnestly the 
need of preserving the Roman Church from the evils of disunion and false 
teaching. 


δ 10. COMMENTARIES. 


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


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES xcix 


of this edition. One or two which have not been used are added 
as links in the historical chain. Some conception may be formed 
of the general characteristics of the older commentators from the 
sketch which is given of their treatment of particular subjects; e.g. 
of the doctrine of δικαίωσις 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 are grouped rather according to 
their real affinities than according to dates of publication which 
would be sometimes misleading. 


1. Greek Writers. 


OricEen (Orig.); ob. 253: Comment. in Epist. S. Pault aa 
Romanos in Origents Opera ed. C. H. E. Lommatzsch, vols. vi, vii : 
Berolini, 1836, 1837. The standard edition, on which that of 
Lommatzsch is based, is that begun by Charles Delarue, Bene- 
dictine of the congregation of St. Maur in 1733, and completed after 
his death by his nephew Charles Vincent Delarue in 1759. The 
Commentary on Romans comes in Tom. iv, which appeared in 
the latter year. A new edition—for which the beginnings have 
been made, in Germany by Dr. P. Koetschau, and in England by 
Prof. Armitage Robinson and others—is however much needed. 

The Commentary on our Epistle belongs to the latter part ot 
Origen’s life when he was settled at Caesarea. A few fragments of 
the original Greek have come down to us in the Philocaha (ed. 
Robinson, Cambridge, 1893), and in Cramer’s Catena, Tom. iv. 
(Oxon. 1844); but for the greater part we are dependent upon the 
condensed translation of Rufinus (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 
‘ Orig.-lat”’ more often represents Rufinus than Origen. An ad- 
mirable account of the Commentary, so far as can be ascertained, 
in both its forms is given in Dr. Westcott’s article OrIGENES in 
Dict. 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 answering 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 
the average reader. 

Curysostom (Chrys.); ob. 407: Homil. in Epist. ad Romanos, 
ed. Field: Oxon. 1849; a complete critical edition. A translation 


ς EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10 


(not of this but of Savile’s text which is superior to Montfaucon’s), 
by the Rev. J. B. Morris, was given in the Library of the Fathers, 
vol. vii: Oxford, 1841. The Homilies were delivered at Antioch 
probably between 387-397 a.p. They show the preacher at his 
best and are full of moral enthusiasm and of sympathetic human 
insight into the personality of the Apostle; they are also the work 
of an accomplished scholar and orator, but do not always sound the 
depths of the great problems with which the Apostle is wrestling. 
They have at once the merits and the limitations of Antiochene 
exegesis. 

Tueoporet (Theodrt., Thdrt.) played a well-known moderating 
part in the controversies of the fifth century. He died in 458 a.p. 
As a commentator he is a pediseguus—but one of the best of the 
many fedisegut—of St. Chrysostom. His Commentary on the Ep. 
to the Romans is contained in his Works, ed. Sirmond: Paris. 
1642, Tom. iii. 1-119; also ed. Schulze and Noesselt, Halle, 
1769-1774. 

Joannes Damascenus (Jo.-Damasc.); died before 754 a.p. His 
commentary is almost entirely an epitome of Chrysostom; it is 
printed among his works (ed. Lequien: Paris, 1712, tom. ii. 
pp. 1-60). The so-called Sacra Parallela published under his 
name are now known to be some two centuries earlier and 
probably in great part the work of Leontius of Byzantium (see the 
brilliant researches of Dr. F. Loofs: Studien tiber die dem Johannes 
von Damascus zugeschriebenen Parallelen, Halle, 1892). 

OrcumEnius (Oecum.); bishop of Tricca in Thessaly in the 
tenth century. The Commentary on Romans occupies pp. 195- 
413 of his Works (ed. Joan. Hentenius: Paris, 1631). It is prac- 
tically a Catena with some contributions by Oecumenius himself; 
it includes copious extracts from Photius (Phot.), the eminent 
patriarch of Constantinople (c. 820-c. 891) ; these are occasionally 
noted. 

TuHeopuyLact (Theoph.) ; archbishop of Bulgaria under Michael 
VII Ducas (1071-1078), and still living in 1118. His Commentary 
is one of the best specimens of its kind (Opp. ed. Venet., 1754- 
1763, tom. ii. 1-118). 

Eutuymius Zicapenus (Euthym.-Zig.) ; living after 1118; monk 
in a monastery near Constantinople and in high favour with the 
emperor Alexius Comnenus. His Commentaries on St. Paul’s 
Epistles were not published until 1887 (ed. Calogeras: Athens) ; 
and as for that reason they have not been utilized in previous 
editions we have drawn upon them rather largely. They deserve 
citation by their terseness, point, and general precision of thought, 
but like all the writers of this date they follow closely in the foot- 
steps of Chrysostom. 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES ci 


2. Latin Writers. 


AmprosrasTer (Ambrstr.). The Epistle to the Romans heads 
a series of Commentaries on thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, which in 
some (though not the oldest) MSS. bear the name of St. Ambrose, 
and from that circumstance came to be included in the printed 
editions of his works. The Benedictines, Du Frische and Le 
Nourry in 1690, argued against their genuineness, which has been 
defended with more courage than success by the latest editor, 
P. A. Ballerini (S. Amérosi Opera, tom. 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.p. 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 
views in an address delivered at Bonn in 1880, but has since given 
the substance of them in his Geschichte d. rim. Kirche, pp. 599- 
610.] A case of some strength seemed to be made out, but it 
was replied to with arguments which appear to preponderate by 
Marold in Hilgenfeld’s Zectschrift for 1883, pp. 415-470. Unfor- 
tunately the result is purely negative, and the commentary is still 
without an owner. It has come out in the course of discussion 
that it presents a considerable resemblance, though not so much 
as to imply identity of authorship, with the Quaestiones ex utrogue 
Testamento, printed among the works of St. Augustine. The com- 
mentator was a man of intelligence who gives the best account we 
have from anticuity of the origin of the Roman Church (see above, 
p. xxv), but it has been used in this edition more for its interesting 
text than for the permanent value of its exegesis. 

Pevactus (Pelag.). In the Appendix to the works of St. Jerome 
(ed. Migne xi. [P. Z. xxx.], col. 659 ff.) there is a series of Com- 
mentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles which is now known to proceed 
really from the author of Pelagianism. The Commentary was 
probably written before 410. It consists of brief but well written 
scholia rather dexterously turned so as not to clash with his 
peculiar views. But it has not come down to us as Pelagius left it. 
Cassiodorus, and perhaps others, made excisions in the interests 
of orthodoxy. 


cii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10. 


Hucn or Sr. Victor (Hugo a S. Victore, Hugh of Paris); 
s. 1097-1141. Amongst the works of the great mystic of the 
twelfth century are published Ad/egoriae in Novum Testamentum, 
Lib. VI. Allegoriae in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Migne, 
P. 2. cixxv, col. 879), and Quaestiones ef Decisiones in Epistolas 
D. Pauli. 1. In Epistolam ad Romanos (Migne, clxxv, col. 431). 
The authenticity of both these is disputed. St. Hugh was a typical 
representative of the mystical as opposed to the rationalizing 
tendency of the Middle Ages. 

ῬΕΤΕΚ ABELARD, 1079-1142. Petri Abaelardt commentariorum 
super S. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos libri quinque (Migne, P. L. 
clxxviii. col. 783). The commentary is described as being ‘ literal, 
theological, and moral. The author follows the text exactly, 
explains each phrase, often each part of a phrase separately, and 
attempts (not always very successfully) to show the connexion of 
thought. Occasionally he discusses theological or moral questions, 
often with great originality, often showing indications of the opinions 
for which he was condemned’ (Migne, of. εἴ, col. 30). So far as 
we have consulted it, we have found it based partly on Origen partly 
on Augustine, and rather weak and indecisive in its character. 

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


3. Reformation and Post-Reformation Pertods. 


Cozrt, John (c. 1467-1519); Dean of St. Paul’s. Colet, the 
friend of Erasmus, delivered a series of lectures on the Epistle to 
the Romans about the year 1497 in the University of Oxford. 
These were published in 1873 with a translation by J. H. Lupton, 
M.A., Sur-Master of St. Paul’s School. They are full of interest 
as an historical memorial of the earlier English Reformation. 

Erasmus, Desiderius, 1466-1536. Erasmus’ Greek Testament 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES ciil 


with a new translation and annotations was published in 1516, 
his Paraphrasis Novi Testament’, a popular work, in 1522. He 
was greater always in what he conceived and planned than in the 
manner in which he accomplished it. He published the first 
edition of the Greek New Testament, and the first commentary on 
it which made use of the learning of the Renaissance, and edited 
for the first time many of the early fathers. But in all that he did 
there are great defects of execution, defects even for his own time. 
He was more successful in raising questions than in solving them ; 
and his commentaries suffer as much from timidity as did those of 
Luther from excessive boldness. His aim was to reform the Church 
by publishing and interpreting the records of early Christianity—an 
aim which harmonized ill with the times in which he lived. His 
work was rather to prepare the way for future developments. 

Lutuer, Martin, 1483-1546. Luther’s contribution to the 
literature of the Romans was confined to a short Preface, published 
in 1523. 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, /n epest. 
P.ad Galatas Mart. Luthert comment. in 1519; in a longer form, 
In epist. P. ad Gal. commentarius ex praelectionibus Mart. Luthert 
collectus, 1535. Exegesis was not Luther’s strong point, and his 
commentaries bristle with faults. They are defective, and prolix ; 
full of bitter controversy and one-sided. The value of his contribu- 
tion to the study of St. Paul’s writings was of a different character. 
By grasping, if in a one-sided way, some of St. Paul’s leading 
ideas, and by insisting upon them with unwearied boldness and 
persistence, he produced conditions of religious life which made 
the comprehension of part of the Apostle’s teaching possible. His 
exegetical notes could seldom be quoted, but he paved the way for 
a correct exegesis. 

MELancHTHON, Philip (1497-1560), was the most scholarly of 
the Reformers. His Adnofationes in ep. P. ad Rom. with a preface 
by Luther was published in 1522, his Commentarii in Ep. ad Rom. 
in 1540. 

Cavin, John (1509-1564). His Commentariat tn 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. 
Fairbairn, 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 ; (ii) of the Apostolic Creed; (iii) of the Lord’s Prayer; 


civ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10 


(iv) of the Sacraments; (v) of the Roman or false doctrine of Sacraments, 
and (vi) of Christian Liberty or Church Polity. There is just a single para- 
graph on Election. In 1539 he published two things, the Commentary on 

Romans and the 2nd edition of the Jmstitutes. And the latter are greatly 

expanded with all his distinctive doctrines fully developed. Two things are, 

I think, certain: this development was due to his study (1) of Augustine, 

especially the Anti-Pelagian writings, and (2) of St. Paul. But it was St. 

Paul read through Augustine. The exegetical stamp is peculiarly distinct 

in the doctrinal parts of the Zvstitutes; and so I should say that his ideas 

were not so much philosophical as theological and exegetical in their basis. 

I ought to add however as indicating his philosophical bent that his earliest 

studies—before he became a divine—were on Seneca, De Clementia.’ 

Brza, Theodore (1519-1605). His edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment with translation and annotations was first published b 
H. Stephanus in 1565, his Adnofatones majores in N.T. at Paris 
in 1594. 

Arminius (Jakob Harmensen), 1560-1609, Professor at Leyden, 
1603. Asa typical example of the opposite school of interpretation 
to that of Calvin may be taken Arminius. His works were com- 
paratively few, and he produced few commentaries. Two tracts of 
his however were devoted to explaining Romans vii and ix. He 
admirably illustrates the statement of Hallam that ‘every one who 
had to defend a cause, found no course so ready as to explain the 
Scriptures consistently with his own tenets.’ 

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

Cornetius A LapipE (van Stein), ob. 1637, a Jesuit, published 
his Commentaria in omnes d. Pauli epistolas at Antwerp in 1614. 

Estius (W. van Est), ob. £613, was Provost and Chancellor of 
Douay. His 75: omnes Pauli οἱ aliorum apostolor. epistolas com- 
meniar. was published after his death at Douay in 1614-1616. 

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

The work of the philologists and scholars of the sixteenth and the 
first half of the seventeenth century on the Old and New Testament 
was summed up in Crete’ Sacrt, first published in 1660. It 
contains extracts from the leading scholars from Valla and Erasmus 
to Grotius, and represents the point which philological study in the 
N. T. had up to that time attained. 

Two English commentators belonging to the seventeenth century 
deserve notice 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES cv 


Hammonp, Henry (1605-1660), Fellow of Magdalen College, 
Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. Hammond was well known 
as aroyalist. He assisted in the production of Walton’s Polyglott. 
His Paraphrase and Annotations of the New Testament appeared in 
1653, a few years before his death, at a time when the disturbances 
of the Civil War compelled him to live in retirement. He has 
been styled the father of English commentators, and certainly no 
considerable exegetical work before his time had appeared in this 
country. But he has a further title to fame. His commentary 
undoubtedly deserves the title of ‘ historical.’ In his interpretation 
he has detached himself from the dogmatic struggles of the seven- 
teenth century, and throughout he attempts to expound the Apostle 
in accordance with his own ideas and those of the times when he 
lived. 

Locxg, 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 Galatians, the first and second Epistles to the Corinthians, and 
the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians. Appended is an Essay 
for the understanding of St. Paul’s Epistles by consulting St. Paul 
himself. A study of this essay is of great interest. It is full of 
acute ideas and thoughts, and would amply vindicate the claim of 
the author to be classed as an ‘historical’ interpreter. The com- 
mentaries were translated into German, and must have had some 
influence on the future development of Biblical Exegesis. 

BrencEL, J. A. (Beng.), 1687-1752; a Lutheran prelate in 
Wiirtemberg. His Gnomon Novt 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. 

Wertstzin (or Wettstein). J. J.. 1693-1754; after being deposed 
from office at Basel on a charge of heterodoxy he became Pro- 
fessor in the Remonstrants’ College at Amsterdam. His Greek 
Testament appeared 1751,1752. Wetstein was one of those inde- 
fatigable students whose first-hand researches form the base of 
other men’s labours In the history of textual criticism he deserves 
to be named by the side of John Mill and Richard Bentley; and 
besides his collation of MSS. he collected a mass of illustrative 
matter on the N. T. from classical, patristic, and rabbinical sources 
which is still of great value. 


4. Modern Period. 


Tuotuck, F. A. G., 1799-1877; Professor at Halle. Tholuck 
was a man of large sympathies and strong religious character, and 


cvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [δ lo 


both personally and through his commentary (which came out first 
in 1824 and has been more than once translated) exercised a wide 
influence outside Germany ; this is specially marked in the American 
exegetes, 

Fritzscuz, C. F. A. (Fri.), 1801-1846, Professor at Giessen. 
Fritzsche on Romans (3 vols. 1836-1843), like Liicke on Si. John 
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. He 
engaged in a controversy with Tholuck the asperity of which he 
regretted before his death. He was however no doubt the better 
scholar and stimulated Tholuck to self-improvement in this respect. 

Meyer, H. A. W. (Mey.), 1800-1873; Consistorialrath in the 
kingdom of Hanover. Meyer’s famous commentaries first began 
to appear in 1832, and were carried on with unresting energy in a 
succession of new and constantly enlarged editions until his death. 
There is-an excellent English translation of the Commentary on 
Romans published by Messrs. T. and T. Clark under the editor- 
ship of Dr. W. P. Dickson in 1873, 1874. Meyer and De Wette 
may be said to have been the founders of the modern style of 
commenting, at once scientific and popular : scientific, through its 
rigorous—at times too rigorous—application of grammatical and 
philological laws, and popular by reason of its terseness and power 
of presenting the sifted results of learning and research. Since 
Meyer’s death the Commentary on Romans has been edited with 
equal conscientiousness and thoroughness by Dr. Bernhard Weiss, 
Professor at Berlin (hence ‘ Mey.-W.’). Dr. Weiss has not all his 
predecessor's vigour of style and is rather difficult to follow, but 
especially in textual criticism marks a real advance. 

Dr Werte, W. M. L. (De W.), 1780-1849; Professor for a short 
time at Berlin, whence he was dismissed, afterwards at Basel. His 
Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch sum Neuen Testament first 
appeared in 1836-1848. De Wette was an ardent lover of freedom 
and rationalistically inclined but his commentaries are models of 
brevity and precision. 

Stuart, Moses, 1780-1852 ; Professor at Andover, Mass. Comm. 
on Romans first published in 1832 (British edition with preface by 
Dr. Pye-Smith in 1833). At a time when Biblical exegesis was 
not being very actively prosecuted in Great Britain two works of 
solid merit were produced in America. One of these was by 
Moses Stuart, who did much to naturalize German methods, He 
expresses large obligations to Tholuck, but is independent as 
a commentator and modified considerably the Calvinism of his 
surroundings. 

Hone, Dr. C., 1797-1878; Professor at Princeton, New Jersey. 


§ 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 Moses Stuart, Dr. Hodge 
also owed much of his philological equipment to Germany where 
he had studied. 

Atrorp, Dr. H. (Alf.), 1810-1871 ; Dean of Canterbury. His 
Greek 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-Smith) had been 
in advance of the Established Church in this respect. Dean Alford’s 
laborious work is characterized by vigour, good sense, and scholar- 
ship, sound as far as it goes; it is probably still the best complete 
Greek Testament by a single hand. 

WorpswortH, 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 but a literary 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. 

Jowert, B., 1817-1893; widely known as Master of Balliol 
College and Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford. 
His edition of S¢. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, Galatians, 
and Romans first appeared in 1855; second edition 1859; recently 
re-edited by Prof. L. Campbell. Professor Jowett’s may be said to 
have been the first attempt in England at an entirely modern view 
of the Epistle. The essays contain much beautiful and suggestive 
writing, but the exegesis is loose and disappointing. 

Vaueuan, 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. 

Ketiy, W.; associated at one time with the textual critic 
Tregelles. His (Votes on the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1873), 
are written from a detached and peculiar standpoint; but they are 
the fruit of sound scholarship and of prolonged and devout 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: 
it starts from a very careiul exposition of the text, but is intended 
throughout as a contribution to systematic theology. The first 


eviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10 


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

Gopet, Dr. F. (Go.), Professor at Neuchatel. Commentaire sur 
V’Epitre aux Romains, Paris, &c., 1879, English translation in 
T. and T. Clark’s series, 1881. Godet and Oltramare are both 
Franco-Swiss theologians with a German training; and their com- 
mentaries are somewhat similar in character. They are extremely 
full, giving and discussing divergent interpretations under the names 
of their supporters. Both are learned and thoughtful works, 
strongest in exegesis proper and weakest in textual criticism. 

OLTRAMARE, Hugues (Oltr.), 1813-1894; Professor at Geneva. 
Commentaire sur [ Epitre aux Romains, published in 1881, 1882 
(a volume on chaps. i-v. 11 had appeared in 1843). Resembling 
Godet in many particulars, Oltramare seems to us to have the 
stronger grip and greater individuality in exegesis, though the 
original views of which he is fond do not always commend them- 
selves as right. 

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

GirrorD, Dr. E. H. (Gif.); sometime Archdeacon of London. 
The Epistle to the Romans in Zhe Speaker’s Commentary (1881) 
was contributed by Dr. Gifford, but is also published separately. 
We believe that this is on the whole the best as it is the most 
judicious of all English commentaries on the Epistle. There are 
few difficulties of exegesis which it does not fully face, and the 
solution which it offers is certain to be at once scholarly and well 
considered: it takes account of previous work both ancient and 
modern, though the pages are not crowded with names and 
references. Our obligations to this commentary are probably 
higher than to any other. 

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


δ 10. COMMENTARIES cix 


Barmsy, Dr. James; formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield’s 
Hall, Durham. Dr. Barmby contributed Romans to the Pulpit 
Commentary (London, 1890); a sound, independent and vigorous 
exposition. 

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

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

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

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


ABBREVIATIONS 


Amb. . . 
Ambrstr. ὁ 
Ath. . . 
Aug. . . 
Bas. . . 
Chrys. ° 
Clem.-Alex. 
Clem.-Rom. 
Cypr. i . 
Cyr.-Alex. . 
Cyr.-Jerus. . 
Epiph. 
Fog... : 
Euthym.-Zig, 
Hippol. . 
Τρ: : 
Jer. (Hieron.) 
joes . 
Method. 
Novat. 
Oecum., 
Orig. . 
Orig.-lat. 
Pelag. - 
Phot. . ° 
Ruf. . R 
Sedul.. . 
Terk) « ° 
Theod.-Mops. 
Theodrt. 
Theoph . 


--.---- 


Ecciestastical Writers (see p. xcviii ff.). 


Ambrose, 
Ambrosiaster. 
Athanasius. 
Augustine. 

Basil. 

Chrysostom. 

Clement of Alexandria 
Clement of Rome. 
Cyprian. 

Cyril of Alexandria. 
Cyril of Jerusalem. 
Epiphanius. 

Eusebius. 

Euthymius Zigabenus. 
Hippolytus. 

Ignatius. 

Jerome. 

Josephus. 

Methodius. 

Novatian. 
Oecumenius. 

Origen. 

Latin Version of Origen. 
Pelagius. 

Photius. 

Rufinus. 

Sedulius. 

Tertullian. 

Theodore of Mopsuessia 
Theodoret. 
Theophylact. 


Versions (see p. ἰχνὶ f.). 


Aegyptt. . 
Boh. . 
ee 

Aeth. , ἐ 

Arm. . . 

Goth. . - 

atte vs . 
Lat. Vet. 
Vulg. . 

ΘΓ... . 
Pesh. . 
Harcl. . 

Cov. - 

Genev Α 

Rhem - 

Tyn. . 

Wic. - 

ΑΥ. - 

RV. 

Edttors (see p. cv ff.). 
ΕΣ Ξ 

Tisch. 4 

Treg . 

WH. 5 

Alf. : 

Beng. . 

Del. . e 

De W. ° 

ἘΠῚ ὦ ° 

Pr. 5 - 

σις: ° 

Gow. e 

ER τας ° 

Lid. e 

Lips. . 

Μεγ. . 

Mey.-W 

Oltr. 

νε..- 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Egyptiaa, 

Bohairic. 

Sahidic. 

Ethiopic. 
Armenian 

Gothic. 

Latin. 

Vetus Latina. 
Vulgate. 

Syriac. 

Peshitto. 

Harclean. 
Coverdale. 

Geneva. 

Rheims (or Douay). 
Tyndale. 

Wiclif. 

Authorized Version. 
Revised Version. 


Textus Receptus. 
Tischendorf. 
Tregelles. 
Westcott and Hort 
Alford. 

Bengel. 

Delitzsch. 

De Wette, 

Ellicott. 

Fritzsche (C. F. A.) 
Gifford. 

Godet. 

Lightfoot. 

Liddon. 

Lipsius. 

Meyer. 
Meyer-Weiss, 
Oltramare. 
Vaughan. 


ex! 


cxii 


C.L.G. ° 
GTZ. e 
Grm.-Thay, 

Trench, Sya. 
Win. 
Exp. ἃ ° 
JBExeg, « 
ZwTh. 4 
add. . Ξ 
Gh ALO", " 
cal. (caten.) , 
todd. . 2 
edd. . a 
edd. pr. e 
Om. a 5 
pauc. Φ Φ 
pler. ; ° 
pier. ben i 
praem. . 
rel. 


2/3, 4/5, &e. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Corpus  -Inscriptionum 
Graecarum. 

Corpus  Inscriptionum 
Latinarum. 

Grimm-Thayer’s Lex?- 
con. 

Trench on Synonyms. 

Winer’s Grammar. 

Expositor. 

Journal of the Society of 
Biblical Literature 
and Exegesis. 

Zeitschrift fiir wissen- 
schaftliche Theologie. 

addit, addunt, &c. 

alii, alibi. 

catena. 

codices. 

editores. 

editores priores (older 
editors). 

omittit, omittunt, &c. 

pauci. 

plerique. 

plures. 

praemittit, praemittunt, 

&e. 

reliqui. 

twice out of three times, 
four out of five times, 

ἄς. 


In text-critical notes adverbs (drs, seme?, &c.), statistics (?/,, “4) and 
cod. codd., ed. edd., &c., always qualify the word which precedes, not 
that which follows: ‘Vulg. codd.’ = some MSS. of the Vulgate, 
Epiph. cod. or Epiph. ed.=a MS. or some printed edition of 


Epiphanius. 


N.B.—Tbe text commented upon is that commonly known as the 
Revisers’ Greek Text (i. e. the Greek Text presupposed in the Revised 
Version of 1881) published by the Clarendon Press. The few instances 
in which the editors dissent from this text are noted as they occur. 


THE 
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION. 


1.1,7. * Paul, a divinely chosen and accredited Apostle, 
gives Christian greeting to the Roman Church, 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; 7Paul, so authorized and commissioned, 
gives greeting to the whole body of Roman Christians (whether 
Jewish or Gentile), who as Christians are special objects of the 
Divine love, called out of the mass of mankind into the inner 
society of the Church, consecrated to God, like Israel of old, as 
His own peculiar people. May the free unmerited favour of 
God and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him be 
yours! May God Himself, the heavenly Father, and the Lord 
Jesus Messiah, grant them to you! 


I. 2-6. J preach, in accordance with our Fewish Scrip- 
tures, Fesus the Son of David and Son of God, whose 
commission I bear. 


The message which I am commissioned to proclaim is no 
startling novelty, launched upon the world without preparation, 
but rather the direct fulfilment of promises which God had 
inspired the prophets of Israel to set down in Holy Writ. ‘It 
relates to none other than His Son, whom it presents in a twofold 
aspect ; on the one hand by physical descent tracing His lineage 

* In this one instance we have ventured to break up the long and heavily- 
weighted sentence in the Greek, and to treat its two main divisions separately. 


But the second of these is not in the strict sense a parenthesis: the construction 
of the whole paragraph is continuous. 


B 


2 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 1-7. 


to David, as the Messiah was to do, ‘and on the other hand, ta 
virtue of the Holiness inherent in His spirit, visibly designated or 
declared to be Son of God by the miracle of the Resurrection. He, 
I say, is the sum and substance of my message, Jesus, the Jew’s 
Messiah, and the Christian’s Lord. *And it was through Him that 
I, like the rest of the Apostles, received both the general tokens of 
God's favour in that I was called to be a Christian and also the 
special gifts of an Apostle. *My duty as an Apostle is among 
all Gentile peoples, and therefore among you too at Rome, to win 
men over to the willing service of loyalty to Him; and the end 
to which all my labours are directed is the honour of His Holy 
Name. 


1-7. In writing to the Church of the imperial city, which he 
had not yet visited, St. Paul delivers his credentials with some 
solemnity, and with a full sense of the magnitude of the issues in 
which they and he alike are concerned. He takes occasion at 
once to define (i) his own position, (ii) the position of his readers, 
(iii) the central truth in that common Christianity which unites 
them. 

The leading points in the section may be summarized thus: 
(i) I, Paul, am an Apostle by no act of my own, but by the 
deliberate call and in pursuance of the long-foreseen plan of God 
(vv. 1, 7). (ii) You, Roman Christians, are also special objects of 
the Divine care. You inherit under the New Dispensation the 
same position which Israel occupied under the Old (wv. 6, 7). 
(iii) The Gospel which I am commissioned to preach, though new 
in the sense that it puts forward a new name, the Name of Jesus 
Christ, is yet indissolubly linked to the older dispensation which 
it fulfils and supersedes (vv. 2, 7; see note on κλητοῖς ἁγίοις). (iv) 
Its subject is Jesus, Who is at once the Jewish Messiah and the 
Son of God (vv. 3, 4). (v) From Him, the Son, and from the Father, 
may the blessedness of Christians descend upon you (ver. 7). 

This opening section of the Epistle affords a good opportunity 
to watch the growth of a Christian Theology, in the sense of 
reflection upon the significance of the Life and Death of Christ 
and the relation of the newly inaugurated order of things to the 
old. We have t. remember (1) that the Epistle was written about 
the year 58 a.p., or within thirty years of the Ascension; (2) that 
in the interval the doctrinal language of Christianity has had to 
be built up from the foundations. We shall do well to note which 
of the terms used are old and which new, and how far old terms 
have had a new face put upon them. We will return to this poi» 
at the end of the paragraph. 


1.1. THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 3 


1. δοῦλος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ : δοῦλος Θεοῦ or Κυρίου is an Old Testa- 
ment phrase, applied to the prophets in a body from Amos onwards 
(Am. iii, 7; Jer. vii. 25 and repeatedly; Dan. ix. 6; Ezra ix. 11); 
also with slight variations to Moses (θεράπων Josh. i. 2), Joshua 
(Josh. xxiv. 29; Jud. ii. 8), David (title of Ps. xxxvi. [xxxv.]; Pss. 
Ixxviii. [Ixxvii.] 70; Ixxxix. ta 4, 213; also παῖς κυρίου, title 
of Ps. xviii. [xvii.]), Isaiah (mais Is. xx. 3); but applied also to 
worshippers generally (Pss. xxxiv. [xxxiii.] 23; cxiii, [cxii.] 1 
παῖδες ; 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 
own Master in a connexion hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah. 


Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. A small question of reading arises here, which is per- 
haps of somewhat more importance than may appear at first sight. In the 
opening verses of most of St. Paul’s Epistles the MSS. vary between Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ and Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. There is also evidently a certain method in the 
variation. The evidence stands thus (where that on one side only is given 
it may be assumed that all remaining authorities are on the other) :— 


1 Thess. i. I Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ unquestioned. 

2 Thess. i. 1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ Edd.; Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ DE F8*G, Amorstz. 
(sec ed. Ballerini). 

Gal. i. 1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ unquestioned. 

1 Cor. i. 1 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ BDEFG 17 al. pauc., Vulg. codd., Chrys. 
Ambrstr. Aug. semel, Tisch., WH. marg. 

2 Cor. i. 1 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ NBMP 17 marg., Harcl., Euthal. cod. Theodrt. 
Tisch. WH. RV. 

Rom. i. 1 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ B, Vulg. codd., Orig. bis (contra Orig.-lat. 623) 
Aug. seme/ Amb. Ambrstr. a/. Lat., Tisch. WH. marg. 

Phil. i. 1 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ NBDE, Boh., Tisch. WH. RV. 

Eph. i. 1 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ BDEP 17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Goth. Harcl., 
Orig. (ex Caten.) Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. 

Col.i. 1 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ NABF GLP 17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., Kuthal. 
cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. Hieron. a/., Tisch. WH. RV. 

Philem. i. 1 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ NAD*&F GKP (def. B), &c., Boh., Hieron. 
(ut vid.) Ambrstr. a/., Tisch. WH. RV. 

1 Tim, i. 1 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ NDF GP (def. B), Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., 
Jo-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. 

aTim. i. τ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ NDEFGKP (def. B) 17 al., Vulg. codd. 
Boh. Sah. Harcl., Euthal. cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. a@/., Tisch. WH. 
RV. 

Tit. i. 1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ND°EFG &c., Vulg. codd. Goth. Pesh. Arm. 
Aeth., Chrys. Euthal. cod. Ambrstr. (ed. Ballerin.) αλ, Tisch, WH. 
(sed Χριστοῦ [᾿Ἰησοθ] marg.) RV.; Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ A menuse, tres, Vulg. 
codd. Boh. Harcl., Cassiod.; Χριστοῦ tantum D8. 

It will be observed that the Epistles being placed in a roughly chrono- 
logical order, those at the head of the list read indubitably Ἰη τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
(or Χριστῷ), while those in the latter part (with the single exception of Tit., 
which is judiciously treated by WH.) as indubitably read Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. 


4 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS fiz 2: 


Just about the group 1 and a Cor. Rom. there is a certain amount of 
doubt. 

Remembering the Western element which enters into B in Epp. Paul. it 
looks as if the evidence for xv @ in Cor. Rom. might be entirely Western ; 
but that is not quite clear, and the reading may possibly be right. In any 
case it would seem that just about this time St. Paul fell into the habit of 
writing Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς. The interest of this would lie in the fact that in 
Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς the first word would seem to be rather more distinctly a 
proper name than in Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. No doubt the latter phrase is rapidly 
passing into a proper name, but Χριστός would seem to have a little of its 
sense as a title still clinging to it: the phrase would be in fact transitional 
between Χριστός or 6 Χριστός of the Gospels and the later Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς or 
Χριστός simply as a proper name (see Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 280 f., 
and an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in Expos. 1888, i. 386 ff.). The 
subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction. 


κλητὸς ἀπόστολος. κλῆσις is another idea which has its roots in 
the Old Testament. Eminent servants of God become so by an 
express Divine summons. The typical examples would be 
Abraham (Gen. xii. 1-3), Moses (Ex. iii. 10), the prophets (Isa. vi. 
8,9; Jer. i. 4, 5, &c.). The verb καλεῖν occurs in a highly typical 
passage, Hos. xi. 1 ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα pov. For the 
particular form κλητός we cannot come nearer than the ‘guests’ 
(κλητοί) of Adonijah (1 Kings i. 41, 49). By his use of the term 
St. Paul places himself on a level at once with the great Old 
Testament saints and with the Twelve who had been ‘called’ 
expressly by Christ (Mark i. 17; ii. 14 1). The same combina- 
tion κλητὸς ἀπόστ. occurs in 1 Cor. i. 1, but is not used elsewhere 
by St. Paul or any of the other Apostles. In these two Epistles 
St. Paul has to vindicate the parity of his own call (on the way 
to Damascus, cf. also Acts xxvi. 17) with that of the elder 
Apostles. 


On the relation of κλητός to ἐκλεκτός see Lft. on Col. iii. 12. There is 
a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. In the Gospels 
κλητοί are all who are invited to enter Christ’s kingdom, whether or not they 
accept the invitation ; the ἐκλεκτοί are a smaller group, selected to special 
honour (Matt. xxii. 14). In St. Paul both words are applied to the 
same persons; Κλητός implies that the call has been not only given but 
obeyed. 


ἀπόστολος. It is well known that this word is used in two 
senses ; a narrower sense in which it was applied by our Lord 
Himself to the Twelve (Luke vi. 13; Mark iii. 14 v.1.), and a wider 
in which it includes certainly Barnabas (Acts xiv. 4, 14) and 
probably James, the Lord’s brother (Gal. i. 19), Andronicus and 
Junias (Rom. xvi. 7), and many others (cf. 1 Cor, xii. 28; Eph. 
iv. 11; Didaché xi, xii, &c.; also esp. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 92 ff.; 
Harnack in Zexte u. Uniersuch. ii. 111 ff.). Strictly speaking 
St. Paul could only claim to be an Apostle in the wider accepta- 
tion of the term ; he lays stress, however, justly on the fact that he is 
«λητὸς ἀπόστολος, i.e. not merely an Apostle by virtue of possessing 


1.1. 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. 

ἀφωρισμένος: 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, δοῦλος, 
κλητός, ἀφωρισμένος, all serve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural 
doctrine that human ministers, even Apostles, are but instruments 
in the hand of God, with no initiative or merit of their own. 


This conception is not confined to the Canonical Books: it is found also 
in Assump. Moys. i. 14 ttaque excogitavit et invenit me, gut ab initio orbis 
terrarum pracparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamente illius. 


eis εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ. 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. 1). Here, where the thought is of the gradual unfolding 
in time of a plan conceived in eternity, ‘ of God’ is the more appro- 
priate. It is probably a mistake in these cases to restrict the force 
of the gen. to one particular aspect (‘the Gospel of which God 
is the author,’ or ‘of which Christ is the subject’): all aspects are 
included in which the Gospel is in any way related to God and 
Christ. 

εὐαγγέλιον. The fundamental passage for the use of this word 
appears to be Mark i. 14, 15 (cf. Matt. iv. 23). We cannot doubt 
that our Lord Himself described by this term (or its Aramaic 
equivalent) His announcement of the arrival of the Messianic 
Time. It does not appear to be borrowed directly from the LXX 
(where the word occurs in all only two [or three] times, and once for 
‘the reward of good tidings’ ; the more common form is evayyeXia). 
It would seem, however, that there was some influence from the 
rather frequent use (twenty times) of εὐαγγελίζειν, εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, 
especially in Second Isaiah and the Psalms in connexion with the 
news of the Great Deliverance or Restoration from the Captivity. 
A conspicuous passage is Isa. lxi. 1, which is quoted or taken as 
a text in Luke iv. 18. The group of words is well established in 
Synoptic usage (εὐαγγέλιον, Matthew four times, Mark eight, Acts 
two; εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, 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 (εὐαγγέλιον sixty 


6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 1-3. 


times in Epp. Paul, besides in Epp. and Apoc. enly twice; εὐαγ- 
γελίζεσθαι twenty times in Epp. Paul., besides once mid. seven times 
pass.). The disparity between St. Paul and the other N. T. writers 
outside Evv. Synopt. Acts is striking. The use of εὐαγγέλιον for 
a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday, Bamp. Lect. p. 317 7.) ; 
the way is prepared for it by places like Mark i. 1; Apoc. xiv. 6. 

2. προεπηγγείλατο. The words ἐπαγγελία, ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι occur 
several times in LXX, but not in the technical sense of the grea 
‘promises’ made by God to His people. The first instance of 
this use is Ps. Sol. xii. 8 καὶ ὅσιοι κυρίου κληρονομήσαιεν ἐπαγγελίας 
κυρίου : Cf. vii. g τοῦ ἐλεῆσαι τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς ἡμέραν ἐν ἡ ἐπηγγείλω 
αὐτοῖς, and Xvii. 6 οἷς οὐκ ἐπηγγείλω, μετὰ βίας ἀφείλοντο : a group of 
passages which is characteristic of the attitude of wistful expecta- 
tion in the Jewish people during the century before the Birth of 
Christ. No wonder that the idea was eagerly seized upon by the 
primitive Church as it began to turn the pages of the O. T. and to 
find one feature after another of the history of its Founder and of 
its own history foretold there. 


We notice that in strict accordance with what we may believe to have been 
the historical sequence, neither ἐπαγγελία nor ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι (in the technica? 
sense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke xxiv. 49, where ἐπαγ- 
γελία is used of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit; but we no sooner cross 
over to the Acts than the use becomes frequent. The words cover (i) the 
promises made by Christ, in particular the promise of the Holy Spirit (which 
is referred to the Father in Acts i. 4); so ἐπαγγελία three times in the Acts, 
Gal. iii. 14, and Eph. i. 13; (ii) the promises of the O. T. fulfilled in Chris- 
tianity; so ἐπαγγελία four times in Acts (note esp. Acts xiii. 32, xxvi. 0), 
some eight times each in Rom. and Gal., both ἐπαγγελία and ἐπαγγέλλεσθα. 
repeatedly in Heb., δες. ; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet 
fulfilled or unfulfilled, e.g. 2 Cor. i. 20 ὅσαι γὰρ ἐπαγγελίαι Θεοῦ (cf. « 1. 1); 
1 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Tim. i. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 4 ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίαν TOD. 


ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις : perhaps the earliest extant instance of the use 
of this phrase (Philo prefers ἱεραὶ γραφαί, ἱεραὶ βίβλοι, ὁ ἱερὸς λύγος : 
cf. Sanday, Bamp. Lect. p. 72); but the use is evidently well estab- 
lished, and the idea of a collection of authoritative books goes 
back to the prologue to Ecclus. In γραφαῖς ἁγίαις the absence of 
the art. throws the stress on ἁγίαιν ; the books are ‘holy’ as con- 
taining the promises of God Himself, written down by inspired 
men (διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ). 

8. γενομένου. This is contrasted with ὁρισθέντος, γενομένου denot- 
ing, as usually, ‘transition from one state or mode of subsistence 
to another’ (Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. i. 30); it is rightly paraphrased 
‘{ Who] was born,’ and is practically equivalent to the Johannean 
ἐλθόντος εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 

ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβίδ. For proof that the belief in the descent of 
the Messiah from David was a living belief see Mark xii, 35 ff. 
τῶς λέγουσιν of γραμματεῖς ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς vids ἐστι Δαβίδ ; (cf. Mark 


i. 8, 4. THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION y] 


xi. ro and x. 47 f.): also Ps. Sol. xvii. 23 ff. ἴδε, κύριε, καὶ ἀνάστησον 
αὐτοῖς τὸν βασιλέα αὐτῶν υἱὸν Δαυὶδ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν ὃν οἶδας σύ, ὁ Θεός, τοῦ 
βασιλεῦσαι ἐπὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ παῖδά σου κιτιλ. ; 4 Ezra xii. 32 (in three of the 
extant versions, Syr. Arab. Armen.); and the Talmud and Targums 
(passages in Weber, Alfsyn. Theol. p. 341). Our Lord Himself 
appears to have made little use of this title: he raises a difficulty 
about it (Mark xii. 35-3711). But this verse of Ep. to Romans 
shows that Christians early pointed to His descent as fulfilling one 
of the conditions of Messiahship ; similarly 2 Tim. ii. 8 (where the 
assertion is made a part of St. Paul’s ‘ Gospel’); Acts ii. 30; Heb. 
vii. 14 ‘it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah’ (see 
also Eus. H. £. 1. vii. 17, Joseph and Mary from the same tribe). 
Neither St. Paul nor the Acts nor Epistle to Hebrews defines more 
nearly how the descent is traced. For this we have to go to 
the First and Third Gospels, the early chapters of which embody 
wholly distinct traditions, but both converging on this point. There 
is good reason to think that St. Luke i, ii had assumed substan- 
tially its present shape before a.p. 70 (cf. Swete, Ajpost. Creed, 
P- 49). 

In Zest. Χ77. Patriarch. we find the theory of a double descent from Levi 
and from Judah (Sym. 7 ἀναστήσει γὰρ Κύριος ἐκ τοῦ Aevel ws ἀρχιερέα καὶ ἐκ 
τοῦ ᾿Ιούδα ὡς βασιλέα, Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον : Gad. 8 ὅπως τιμήσωσιν Ἰούδαν καὶ 
Acvel? ὅτι ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀνατελεῖ Κύριος, σωτὴρ τῷ Ἰσραήλ, &ce. ; cf. Harnack’s 
note, Patr. Apost.i.52). This is no doubt an inference from the relationship 
of the Mother of our Lord to Elizabeth (Luke i. 36). 


κατὰ σάρκα... κατὰ πνεῦμα are Opposed to each other, not as 
‘human’ to ‘divine,’ but as ‘body’ to ‘spirit,’ both of which in 
Christ are human, though the Holiness which is the abiding pro- 
perty of His Spirit is something more than human. See on kara 
πνεῦμ. ἁγιωσ. below. 

4. δρισθέντος : ‘designated.’ It is usual to propose for this 
word an alternative between (i) ‘proved to be,’ ‘marked out as 
being’ (δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος 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) tue 
parallels are quoted, Acts x. 42 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, and xvii. 31 μέλλει κρίνειν. .. ἐν ἀνδρὶ ᾧ 
ὥρισε. 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 decame Son by the Resurrection. 
The undoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; 
viii. 9 ; cf. Col. i. 15-19). At the same time he dd regard the 
Resurrection as making a difference—if not in the transcendental 
relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond our cogni- 


8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 4 


sance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to 
the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil. ii. g διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν 
ὑπερύψωσε, καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα). This is 
sufficiently expressed by our word ‘designated,’ which might 
perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts. 
[t is true that Christ decomes Judge in a sense in which He does 
not become Son; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external 
creation but by an inherent right. The Divine declaration, as it 
were, endorses and proclaims that right. 

The Latin versions are not very helpful. The common rendering was 
praedestinatus (so expressly Rufinus [Orig.-lat.] ad ἦρε. ; cf. Introd. § 7). 
Hilary of Poitiers has des/imatus, which Rufinus also prefers. Tertullian 
reads definitus. 
υἱοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘Son of God,’ like ‘Son of Man,’ was a recognized 

title of the Messiah (cf. Enoch cv. 2; 4 Ezra vii. 28, 29; xiii. 32, 
37, 52; xiv. 9, in all which places the Almighty speaks of the 
Messiah as ‘ My Son,’ though the exact phrase ‘Son of God’ does 
not occur). It is remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely 
find it used by our Lord Himself, though in face of Matt. xxvii. 43, 
John x. 36, cf. Matt. xxi. 37 f. αἱ., it cannot be said that He did 
not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made 
upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mark iii. 11, v. 7 |; the cen- 
turion, Mark xv. 39 ||), and it is implied by the words of the 
Tempter (Matt. iv. 3, 611) and the voice from heaven (Mark 
i. 11], ix. 71). The crowning instance is the confession of 
St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Lagza, 
‘ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ Matt. xvi. 16. It 
is consistent with the whole of our Lord’s method that He should 
have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims, and that 
He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spon- 
taneous working of the minds of His disciples. Nor is it sur- 
prising that the title should have been chosen by the Early Church 
to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of 
Christ: see esp.the common text of the Gospel of St. Mark, i. 1 (where 
the words, if not certainly genuine, in any case are an extremely 
early addition), and this passage, the teaching of which is very 
direct and explicit. The further history of the term, with its 
strengthening addition μονογενής, may be followed in Swete, Ajost. 
Creed, p. 24 ff., where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of 
Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed. 
In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates 
from the Resurrection: but we have also seen that St. Paul re- 
garded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation ; 
and it is as certain that when he speaks of Him as ὁ ἴδιος vids 
(Rom. viii. 32), 6 ἑαυτοῦ vids (viii. 3), he intends to cover the period 
of pre-existence, as that St. John identifies the μονογενής with the 


I. 41 THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION ἰῷ 


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 
words of Ps. ii. 7 ‘Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.’ They 
are (i) the Baptism (Mark i. 11); (ii) the Transfiguration (Mark ix. 7 ||); 
(iii) the Resurrection (Acts xiii. 33). We can see here the origin of the Ebio- 
nite idea of progressive exaltation, which is however held in check by the 
doctrine of the Logos in both its forms, Pauline (2 Cor. iv. 4, &c., ué sap.) 
and Johannean (John i. 1 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 
career as Ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος. 


ἐν δυνάμει : not with υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, as Weiss, Lips. and others, ‘Son 
of God ἐγ power,’ opposed to the present state of humiliation, but 
rather adverbially, qualifying ὁρισθέντος, ‘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 
ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας, ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως Θεοῦ. This parallel de- 
termines the connexion of ἐν δυν. 

κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης : not (i) = Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον, the Third Person 
in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally and some moderns), 
because the antithesis of σάρξ and πνεῦμα 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 σάρξ and the Divine Nature were co- 
extensive with the πνεῦμα, which would be very like the error of 
Apollinaris; but (iii) the human πνεῦμα, like the human σάρξ, 
distinguished 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’). 


ἁγιωσύνη, not found in profane literature, occurs three times in LXX of 
the Psalms, not always in agreement with Heb, (Pss. χον. 6 [xcvi. 6 
‘strength’]; xcvi. 12 [xcvii.12 ‘holy name,’ lit. ‘memorial’]; cxliv. 5 
[cxlv. 5 ‘honour’]). In all three places it is used of the Divine attribute; 
but in 2 Mace. iii. 12 we have ἡ τοῦ τύπου ἁγιωσύνη. In Test. XLII. Patr. 
Levi 18 the identical phrase πνεῦμ. ἁγιωσ. 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 
πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity 
or Divine Personality resided. The clear definition of this point was one of 
the last results of the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth 
centuries (Loofs, Dogmengesch. § 39, 3). For ἁγιωσ. see on ἅγιοι ver. 7. 


ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν : a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ. 
His was not a ‘resurrection of dead persons’ (‘a3enrisynge of dead 


10 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 4, 5 


men’ Wic.) but of a single dead person. We might expect rather 
vexpov OF ἐκ νεκρῶν (as in I Pet. i, 3); and it is probable that this 
form is only avoided because of ἐξ ἀναστάσεως coming just before. 
But νεκρῶν coalesces closely in meaning with dvaor., so as to give it 
very much the force of a compound word, ‘by a dead-rising’ 
(Todtenauferstehung), ‘a resurrection such as that when dead per- 
sons rise. Christ is ‘the first-born from the dead’ (Col. i. 18). 

τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. Although in O. T. regularly applied to God 
as equivaleut of Adonaz, Jahveh, this word does not in itself 
necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah 
(Mark xii. 36, 3711; Ps. Sol. xvii. 36 βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν χριστὸς κύριος) 
without thereby pronouncing Him to be ‘God’; they expressly 
distinguished between the Messiah and the Zemra or ‘ Word’ of 
Jehovah (Weber, Alésyn. Theol. p. 178). On the lips of Christians 
k otos denotes the idea of ‘Sovereignty, primarily over themselves 
as the society of believers (Col. i. 18, &c.), but also over all creation 
(Phil. ii. το, 11; Col. i. τό, 17). The title was given to our Lord 
even in His lifetime (John xiii. 13 ‘Ye call me, Master (ὁ διδά- 
oxados), and, Lord (ὁ Κύριος) : and ye say well; for so I am’), but 
without a full consciousness of its significance: it was only after 
the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their central 
belief (Phil. ii. 9 €., &c.). 

δ. ἐλάβομεν. The best explanation of the plur. seems to be thai 
Sc. Paul associates himself with the other Apostles. 

χάρις is an important word with a distinctively theological use 
and great variety of meaning: (1) objectively, ‘sweetness, ‘at- 
tractiveness,’ a sense going back to Homer (Od. viii. 175); Ps. xlv. 
(xliv.) 3 ἐξεχύθη χάρις ἐν χείλεσί σου: Eccl. x. 12 λόγοι στόματος 
σοφοῦ χάρις: Luke iv. 22 λόγοι χάριτος : (2) subjectively ‘ favour,’ 
‘kindly feeling,’ ‘good will, especially as shown by a superior 
towards an inferior. In Eastern despotisms this personal feeling 
on the part of the king or chieftain is most important: hence 
εὑρεῖν χάριν is the commonest form of phrase in the O. T. (Gen. 
vi. 8; xviii. 3, &c.); in many of these passages (esp. in anthropo- 
morphic scenes where God is represented as holding colloquy 
with man) it is used >f ‘finding favour’ in the sight of God. Thus 
the word comes to be used (3) of the ‘favour’ or ‘good will’ 
of God; and that («) generally, as in Zech. xii. 10 ἐκχεῶ... πνεῦμα 
χάριτος καὶ οἰκτιρμοῦ, but far more commonly in N. T. (Luke ii. 40; 
John i. 14, 16, &c.); (8) by a usage which is specially characteristic 
of St. Paul (though not confined to him), with opposition to 
ὀφείλημα, ‘debt’ (Rom. iv. 4), and to ἔργα, ‘ works’ (implying merit, 
Rom. xi. 6), ‘unearned favour’—with stress upon the fact that 
it is unearned, and therefore as bestowed not upon the righteous 
but on sinners (cf. esp. Rom. v. 6 with v. 2). In this sense the 
word takes a prominent place in the vocabulary of Justification. 


I. 5.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 11 


(4) The cause being put for the effect χάρις denotes (a) ‘the state 
of grace or favour’ which the Christian enjoys (Rom. v. 2), or 
(8), like χάρισμα, any particular gift or gifts of grace (πλήρης χάριτος 
Acts vi. 8). We note however that the later technical use, esp. 
of the Latin gratia, for the Divine prompting and help which 
precedes and accompanies right action does not correspond exactly 
to the usage of N. T. (5) As χάρις or ‘kindly feeling’ in the 
donor evokes a corresponding χάρις or ‘ gratitude’ in the recipient, 
it comes to mean simply ‘thanks’ (1 Cor. x. 30). 

χάριν here = that general favour which the Ap. shares with all 
Christians and by virtue of which he is one; ἀποστολήν = the more 
peculiar gifts of an Apostle. 

We observe that St. Paul regards this spiritual endowment as 
conferred upon him by Christ (δ o6)—we may add, acting through 
His Spirit, as the like gifts are described elsewhere as proceeding 
from the Spirit (1 Cor. xii, &c.). 

εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως : may be rendered with Vulg. ad obediendum 
fide provided that mior. is not hardened too much into the sense 
which it afterwards acquired of a ‘body of doctrine’ (with art. 
τῇ πίστει Jude 3). At this early date a body of formulated doctrine, 
though it is rapidly coming to exist, does not still exist: πίστις 
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’ 
(Re=a. x. 16). Faith is the act of assent by which the Gospel is 
appropriated. See below on ver. 17. 

ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Gif. argues for the rendering ‘among all 
nations’ on the ground that a comprehensive address is best suited 
to the opening of the Epistle, and to the proper meaning of the 
phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (cf. Gen. xviii. 18, &c.). But St. Paul’s com- 
mission as an Apostle was specially to the Gen/iles (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. 211. 

ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. This is rather more than simply ‘for 
His glory.’ The idea goes back to the O. T. (Ps. cvi. [cv.] 8; 
Ezek. xx. 14; Mal. i. 11). The Name of God is intimately 
connected with the revelation of God. Israel is the instrument or 
minister of that revelation; so that by the fidelity of Israel the 
revelation itself is made more impressive and commended in the 
eyes of other nations, But the Christian Church is the new Israel : 
and hence the gaining of fresh converts and their fidelity when 
gained serves in like manner to commend the further revelation 
made of God in Christ (αὐτοῦ, cf. Acts v. 41; Phil. ii. 9). 


12 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 6.7 


6. ἐν ots: not merely in a geographical sense of a Jewish com- 
munity among Gentiles, but clearly numbering the Roman Church 
among Gentile communities. 

κλητοὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ : ‘called ones of Jesus Christ’: gen. of 
possession. 

7. ἐν Ρώμῃ : om. Gg, schol. cod. 47 (τὸ ἐν Ῥώμῃ οὔτε ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει 
οὔτε ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ μνημονεύει, i. e. Some Commentator whom the Scholiast 
had before him). G reads πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ (similarly 
d* Vulg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. seem to imply 
πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ρώμῃ ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ). The same MS. omits τοῖς 
ἐν Ῥώμῃ in ver. 15. These facts, taken together with the fluc- 
tuating position of the final doxology, xvi. 25-27, would seem 
to give some ground for the inference that there were in circulation 
in ancient times a few copies of the Epistle from which all local 
references had been removed. It is however important to notice 
that the authorities which place the doxology at the end of ch. xiv 
are quite different from those which omit ἐν Ῥώμῃ here and in 
ver. 15. For a full discussion of the question see the Introduction, 
§ 9. 

κλητοῖς ἁγίοις. Κλητὴ ἁγία represents consistently in LXX the 
phrase which is translated in AV. and RV. ‘an holy convocation’ 
(so eleven times in Lev. xxiii and Ex. xii. 16). The rendering ap- 
pears to be due to a misunderstanding, the Heb. word used being one 
with which the LXX translators were not familiar. Whereas in 
Heb. the phrase usually runs, ‘ov such a day there shall be a holy 
convocation,’ the LXX treat the word translated convocation as an 
adj. and make ‘day’ the subject of the sentence, ‘such a day 
(or feast) shall be κλητὴ ἁγία, i.e. specially appointed, chosen, 
distinguished, holy (day).’ This is a striking instance of the way 
in which St. Paul takes a phrase which was clearly in the first 
instance a creation of the LXX and current wholly through 
it, appropriating it to Christian use, and recasts its mean- 
ing, substituting a theological sense for a liturgical. Obviously 
κλητοῖς has the same sense as κλητός in ver. 1: as he himself was 
‘called’ to be an Apostle, so all Christians were ‘called’ to be 
Christians; and they personally receive the consecration which 
under the Old Covenant was attached to ‘times and seasons.’ 


For the following detailed statement of the evidence respecting κλητὴ ἁγία 
we are indebted to Dr. Driver :— 

κλητή corresponds to NPI), from 1? ¢o ca//, a technical term almost 
wholly confined to the Priests’ Code, denoting apparently a special religious 
meeting, or ‘convocation,’ held on certain sacred days. 

It is represented by κλητή, Ex. xii. 16b; Lev. xxiii. 7, 8, 27, 35, 36; 
Num. xxviii. 25. Now in all these passages, where the Heb. has ‘ om such 
a day there shall be a holy convocation,’ the LXX have ‘such a day shall 
be κλητὴ ἁγία, i.e. they alter the form of the sentence, make day subject, 
and use κλητή with its proper force as an adj. ‘shall be a called (i.e 


Ι. 7. THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 13 


a specially appointed, chosen, distinguished*), Ao/y (day) *; ef. «A. in 71. ix. 
165 and Rom. i.1. They read analogously with N11) in Lev. xxiii. 2 al 
ἑορταὶ κυρίου, ἃς καλέσετε αὐτὰς κλητὰς ἁγίας (cf. v. 37), 21 καὶ καλέσετε 
ταύτην τὴν ἡμέραν κλητήν" ἁγία ἔσται ὑμῖν. In Lev. xxiii. 3 (cf. v. 24), 
κλητὴ ἁγία seems to be in apposition with ἀνάπαυσις. The usage of κλητή 
in Lev. xxiii is, however, such as to suggest that it was probably felt to 
have the form of a subst. (sc. ἡμέρα) ; cf. ἐπίκλητος. 

This view of «A. is supported by their rendering of S19 elsewhere. In 
Ex. xii. 16a, Lev. xxiii. 4 they also alter the form of the sentence, and 
render it by a verb, κληθήσεται ayia, and ἁγίας καλέσετε respectively. 

In Num. xxviii. 18, 26 (καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν νέων .... ἐπίκλητος ἁγία ἔσται 
ὑμῖν : similarly xxix, 1, 7, 12), they express it by ἐπίκλητος (the same word 
used (ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ πρώτη ἐπίκλητος ayia ἔσται ὑμῖν) 2. i. 16; xxvi. 9, for the 
ordinary partic. called, summoned) , 1 6.1 suppose in the same sense of 
specially appointed (cf. Josh. xx. 9 ai πόλεις αἱ ἐπίκλητοι τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ). 

Is. i. 13 ‘the calling of a convocation’ is represented in LXX by ἡμέραν 
μεγάλην, and iv. 5 ‘all her convocations’ by τὰ περικύκλῳ αὐτῆς. 

From all this, it occurs to me that the LXX were not familiar with the term 
N1pd, and did not know what it meant. I think it probable that they pro- 


nounced it not as a subst. NID, but as a participle NPD (‘ called’). 


ἁγίοις. The history of this word would seem to be very parallel 
to that of kAnrois. It is more probable that its meaning developed 
by a process of deepening from without inwards than by extension 
from within outwards. Its connotation would seem to have been 
at first physical and ceremonial, and to have become gradually 
more and more ethical and spiritual. (1) 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. 1 Kings vii. 
51 [37]) or persons (e. g. Ex. xxii. 31[29]). But (3) inasmuch as 
that which was so ‘set apart’ or ‘ consecrated’ to God was required 
to be free from blemish, the word would come to denote ‘freedom 
from blemish, spot, or stain’—in the first instance physical, but 
by degrees, as moral ideas ripened, also moral. (4) At first the 
idea of ‘holiness,’ whether physical or moral, would be directly 
associated with the service of God, but it would gradually become 
detached from this connexion and denote ‘freedom from blemish, 
spot, or stain,’ in itself and apart from any particular destination. 
In this sense it might be applied even to God Himself, and we 
find it so applied even in the earliest Hebrew literature (e.g. 
1 Sam. vi. 20). And in proportion as the conception of God itself 
became elevated and purified, the word which expressed this 
central attribute of His Being would contract a meaning of more 
severe and awful purity, till at last it becomes the culminating 
and supreme expression for the very essence of the Divine Nature. 
When once this height had been reached the sense so acquired 


* Biel (Lex. in LXX.) cites from Phavorinus the gloss, κλ., ἡ καλεστὴ Kal ἡ 
ἐξοχωτάτη. 


[4 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (a. % 


would be reflected back over all the lower uses, and the tendency 
would be more and more to assimilate the idea of holiness in 
the creature to that of holiness in the Creator. This tendency 
is formulated in the exhortation, ‘Ye shall be holy; for I, the 
Lord your God, am holy’ (Lev. xix. 2, &c.). 

Such would appear to have been the history of the word up to 
the time when St. Paul made use of it. He would find a series of 
meanings ready to his hand, some lower and some higher; and he 
chooses on this occasion not that which is highest but one rather 
midway in the scale. When he describes the Roman Christians as 
ἅγιοι, he does not mean that they reflect in their persons the attri- 
butes of the All-Holy, but only that they are ‘ set apart’ or ‘ conse- 
crated’ to His service. At the same time he is not content to rest 
in this lower sense, but after his manner he takes it as a basis or 
starting-point for the higher. Because Christians are ‘ holy’ in the 
sense of ‘consecrated,’ they are to become daily more fit for the 
service to which they are committed (Rom. vi. 17, 18, 22), they are 
to be ‘transformed by the renewing’ of their mind (Rom. xii. 2). 
He teaches in fact implicitly if not explicitly the same lesson as 
St. Peter, ‘As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves also 
holy in all manner of living (AV. conversation); because it is 
written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy’ (1 Pet. i. 15, 16). 

We note that Ps. Sol. had already described the Messianic 
people as λαὸς ἅγιος (καὶ συνάξει λαὸν ἅγιον, οὗ ἀφηγήσεται ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ 
xvii. 28; cf. Dan. vii. 18--27; viii. 24). Similarly Αἰ ποεῖ ciii. 2; 
cviii. 3, where ‘books of the holy ones = the roll of the members 
of the Kingdom’ (Charles). The same phrase had been a designa- 
tion for Israel in O. T., but only in Deut. (vii. 6; xiv. 2, 21; xxvi. 
19; XXviii. 9, varied from Ex. xix. 6 ἔθνος ἅγιον. We have thus 
another instance in which St. Paul transfers to Christians a title 
hitherto appropriated to the Chosen People. But in this case the 
Jewish Messianic expectation had been beforehand with him. 


There is a certain element of conjecture in the above sketch, which is 
inevitable from the fact that the earlier stages in the history of the word had 
been already gone through when the Hebrew literature begins. The instances 
above given will show this. The main problem is how to account for the 
application of the same word at once to the Creator and to His creatures, 
both things and persons. The common view (accepted also by Delitzsch) is 
that in the latter case it means ‘separated’ or ‘set apart’ for God, and in 
the former case that it means ‘separate from evil’ (sejunctus ab omni vitio, 
labis expers). ut the link between these two meanings is little more than 
verbal ; and it seems more probable that the idea of holiness in God, whether 
in the sense of exaltedness (Baudissin) or of purity (Delitzsch), is derivative 
rather than primary. There are a number of monographs on the subject, of 
which perhaps the best and the most accessible is that by Fr. Delitzsch 
in Herzog’s Keal-Encyhklopadie, ed. 2, 5. v. ‘ Heiligkeit Gottes.’ Instrue- 
tive discussions will be found in Davidson, Zze&zed, p. xxxix. £; Robertson 
Smith, Relizion of the Semttes, pp. 132 ff., 140 (140 ff., 150 ec. 2); Schultz, 
Theology of the Old Testament, ii. 131, 167 ff. A treat’ τὸ Dr. J. Aga 


yy THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION ΠΕ 


Beet is on a good method, but is somewhat affected by critical questions as 
to the sequence of the documents. 


There is an interesting progression in the addresses of St. Paul’s 
Epp.: 1, 2 Thess. Gal. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ (ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις); 1, 2 Cor. τῇ 
exkX. + τοῖς ἁγίοις ; 1 Cor. Rom. κλητοῖς ἁγίοις ; Rom. Phil. πᾶσι τοῖς 
ἱγίοις ; Eph. Col. τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς. 

The idea of the local Church, as a unit in itself, is more promi- 
nent in the earlier Epp.; that of individual Christians forming part of 
the great body of believers (the Church Catholic) is more promiient 
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 ἐκκλησία for the local Church necessarily 
came first in order of time. On the other side may be urged the 
usage of the O. T., and more particularly of the Pentateuch, where 
ἐκκλησία constantly stands for the religious assembly of the whole 
people, as well as the saying of our Lord Himself in Matt. xvi 12 
But the question is too large to be argued as a side issue. 


Rudolf Sohm’s elaborate Kirchenrecht (Leipzig, 1892) starts from the 
assumption that the prior idea is that of the Church as a whole. But just 
this part of his learned work has by no means met with general acceptance. 


χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη. Observe the combination and deepened re- 
ligious significance of the common Greek salutation χαίρειν, and 
the common Heb. salutation Shalom, ‘Peace.’ χάρις and εἰρήνη are 
both used in the full theological sense: χάρις = the favour of God 
εἰρήνη = 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 
χαίρειν in St. James; χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη in Epp. Paul. (except 1, 2 Tim.) 
and in 1,2 St. Peter; χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη in the Epistles to Timothy 
and 2 St. John ; ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη in St. Jude. 

εἰρήνη. We have seen how χάρις had acquired a deeper sense in 
N. T. as compared with O. T.; with εἰρήνη this process had taken 
place earlier. It too begins as a phrase of social intercourse, 
marking that stage in the advance of civilization at which the 
assumption that every stranger encountered was an enemy gave 
place to overtures of friendship (Εἰρήνη σοι Jud. xix. 20, &c.). But 
the word soon began to be used in a religious sense of the cessation 
of the Divine anger and the restoration of harmony between God 
and man (Ps. XXix. [ xxviii. ] 11 Κύριος εὐλογήσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν 
εἰρήνῃ : Ιχχχν. [Ixxxiv.] 8 λαλήσει εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ : 2014. 10 
δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη κατεφίλησαν : ΟΧΙΧ. [cxvili.] 165 εἰρήνη πολλὴ τοῖς 
ἀγαπῶσι τὸν νόμον : Is. lili. 5 παιδεία εἰρήνης ἡμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν: Jer. xiv. 
13 ἀλήθειαν καὶ εἰρήνην δώσω ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς : Ezek. xxxiv. 25 διαθήσομαι 


16 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 7. 


τῷ Δαυὶδ διαθήκην εἰρήνης [cf. xxxvii. 26]. Nor is this use confined 
to the Canonical Scriptures: cf. δἰ ποεῖ v. 4 (other reff. in Charles, 
ad loc.); Jubilees i. 15, 29; XXii. 9; xxxili. 12, 30, &c.; it was one 
of the functions of the Messiah to bring ‘peace’ (Weber, Adésyn. 
Theol. p. 362 f.). 


The nearest parallel for the use of the word in a salutation as here is 
Dan. iii. 98 [31]; iv. 34 (LXX); iii. 98 [31]; vi. 25 (Theodot.) εἰρήνη ὑμῖν 
mAnOvv Gein. 
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Kat Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The juxta- 
position of God as Father and Christ as Lord may be added to the 
proofs already supplied by wv. 1, 4, that St. Paul, if not formally 
enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which 
cannot really be distinguished from it. The assignment of the 
respective titles of ‘Father’ and ‘ Lord’ represents the first begin- 
ning of Christological speculation. It is stated in precise terms 
and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate prepositions 
in 1 Cor. viii. 6 ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ Ta πάντα, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς 
αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτοῦ. 
The opposition in that passage between the gods of the heathen 
and the Christians’ God seems to show that ἡμῶν = at least primarily, 
‘us Christians’ rather than ‘ us men.’ 

Not only does the juxtaposition of ‘ Father’ and ‘ Lord’ mark 
a stage in the doctrine of the Person of Christ ; it also marks an 
important stage in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is 
found already some six years before the composition of Ep. to 
Romans at the time when St. Paul wrote his earliest extant Epistle 
(1 Thess. i. 1; cf. 2 Thess. i. 2). This shows that even at that 
date (a.pD. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. It 
is well also to remember that although in this particular verse of 
Ep. to Romans the form in which it appears is incomplete, the 
triple formula concludes an Epistle written a few months earlier 
(2 Cor. xiii. 14). There is nothing more wonderful in the history 
of human thought than the silent and imperceptible way in which 
this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle and 
without controversy among accepted Christian truths. 

πατρὸς ἡμῶν. The singling out of this title must be an echo of 
its constant and distinctive use by our Lord Himself. The doctrine 
of the Fatherhood of God was taught in the Old Testament (Ps. 
Ixviii. 5; Ixxxix. 26; Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixiii. 16; Ixiv. 8; Jer. 
xxxi. 9; Mal. i. 6; ii. 10); but there is usually some restriction or 
qualification—God is the Father of Israel, of the Messianic King, of 
a particular class such as the weak and friendless. It may also be 
said that the doctrine of Divine Fatherhood is implicitly contained 
in the stress which is laid on the ‘ loving-kindness’ of God (e. g. in 
such fundamental passages as Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7 compared with Ps. 
ciii, 13). But this idea which lies as a partially developed germ ip 


i 1-7.] THE 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 : ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν [ἡμῶν, 
σου, αὐτῶν] (e. g. twenty times in St. Matt.), and ὁ πατήρ μου [ὁ πατήρ] 
(e.g. twenty-three times in St. Matt.). In particular this second 
phrase marks the distinction between the Son and the Father; so 
that when the two are placed in juxtaposition, as in the greeting of 
this and other Epistles, ὁ Πατήρ is the natural term to use. The 
mere fact of juxtaposition sufficiently suggests the πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου 
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (which is expressed in full in 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 
3; Col. i. 3; cf. Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. xi. 31, but not Eph. ii. 14; Col. 
ii. 2); so that the Apostle widens the reference by throwing in 
ἡμῶν, to bring out the connexion between the source of ‘ grace and 
peace ’ and its recipients. 

It is no doubt true that πατήρ is occasionally used in N. T. in the 
more general sense of ‘ Creator’ (James i. 17 ‘Father of lights,’ 
i.e. in the first instance, Creator of the heavenly bodies; Heb. xii. 9 
‘Father of spirits’; cf. Acts xvii. 28, but perhaps not Eph. iv. 6 
πατὴρ πάντων, Where πάντων may be masc.). It is true also that ὁ 
πατὴρ τῶν ὅλων 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. ες. Graec. 4). 
But when Harnack prefers to give this interpretation to Pa/er in 
the earliest creeds (Das Afost. Glaubensbekenniniss, p. 20), the 
immense preponderance of N. T. usage, and the certainty that the 
Creed is based upon that usage (e. g. in 1 Cor. viii. 6) seem to be 
decisive against him. On the early history of the term see esp. 
Swete, 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 
St. Paul, that a mere salutation should contain so much weighty 
teaching of any kind ; but it is still more remarkable when we think 
what that teaching is and the early date at which it was penned. 
There are no less than five distinct groups of ideas all expressed 
with deliberate emphasis and precision: (1) 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 

ο 


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


countrymen, and also in its transcendental reality, as revealed by or 
inferred from the words and acts of Christ Himself; (5) A some- 
what advanced stage in the discrimination of distinct Persons in 
the Godhead. We observe too how St. Paul connects together 
these groups of ideas, and sees in them so many parts of a vast 
Divine plan which covers the whole of human history, and indeed 
stretches back beyond its beginning. The Apostle has to the full 
that sense which is so impressive in the Hebrew prophets that he 
himself is only an instrument, the place and function of which are 
clearly foreseen, for the accomplishment of God’s gracious pur- 
poses (compare 6. g. Jer. i. 5 and Gal. i. 15). These purposes are 
working themselves out, and the Roman Christians come within 
their range. 

When we come to examine particular expressions we find that 
a large proportion of them are drawn from the O.T. In some 
cases an idea which has been hitherto fluid is sharply formulated 
(κλητός, ἀφωρισμένος); in other cases an old phrase has been 
adopted with comparatively little modification (ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος 
αὐτοῦ, and perhaps εἰρήνη); in others the transference involves 
a larger modification (δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις, κλητοὶ ἅγιοι, 
Κύριος, Θεὸς πατήρ) ; in others again we have a term which has ac- 
quired a significance since the close of the O. T. which Christianity 
appropriates (ἐπαγγελία [προεπηγγείλατο], γραφαὶ ἅγιαι, ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν, 
ἅγιοι); in yet others we have ἃ new coinage (ἀπόστολος, εὐαγγέλιον), 
which however in these instances is due, not to St. Paul or the 
other Apostles, but to Christ Himself. 


ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH. 


I. 8-15. God knows how long I have desired to see you 
—a hope which 7 trust may at last be accomplished—and 
to deliver to you, as to the rest of the Gentile world, my 
message of salvation. 


*In writing to you I must first offer my humble thanks to 
God, through Him Who as High Priest presents all our prayers 
and praises, for the world-wide fame which as a united Church you 
bear for your earnest Christianity. "ΠῚ witness were needed to 
show how deep is my interest in you, I might appeal to God Himself 
Who hears that constant ritual of prayer which my spirit addresses 
to Him in my work of preaching the glad tidings of His Son. 
© He knows how unceasingly your Church is upon my lips, and how 
every time I kneel in prayer it is my petition, that at some near day 


I. 8.] ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH 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 above 
receiving or that you have nothing to bestow,—far from it,—but 
that I myself may be cheered by my intercourse with you (ἐν ὑμῖν), 
or that we may be mutually cheered by each other’s faith, I by 
yours and you by mine. ‘I should be sorry for you to suppose 
that this is a new resolve on my part. The fact is that I often 
intended to visit you—an intention until now as often frustrated 
—in the hope of reaping some spiritual harvest from my labours 
among you, as in the rest of the Gentile world. ™ There is no 
limit to this duty of mine to preach the Gospel. To all without 
distinction whether of language or of culture, I must discharge 
the debt which Christ has laid upon me. * Hence, so far as the 
decision rests with me, I am bent on delivering the message of 
salvation to you too at Rome. 


8. διά. Agere autem Deo gratias, hoc est sacrifictum laudts 
offerre: et τάφο addit per Jesum Christum; velut per Pontificen 
magnum Orig. 

ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν. For a further discussion of this word see below 
on ver. 17. Here it is practically equivalent to ‘ your Christianity,’ 
the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian carrying with it 
the direct consequences of that act upon the character, Much 
confusion of thought would be saved if wherever ‘faith’ was 
mentioned the question were always consciously asked, Who or 
what is its object? It is extremely rare for faith to be used in 
the N. T. as a mere abstraction without a determinate object. In 
this Epistle ‘faith’ is nearly always ‘faith 7m Christ.’ The object 
is expressed in ili. 22, 26 but is left to be understood elsewhere. 
In the case of Abraham ‘faith’ is not so much ‘faith in God’ as 
‘faith in the promises of God,’ which promises are precisely those 
which are fulfilled in Christianity. Or it would perhaps be more 
strictly true to say that the zmmedzate object of faith is in most 
cases Christ or the promises which pointed to Christ. At the same 
time there is always in the background the Supreme Author of 
that whole ‘economy’ of which the Incarnation of Christ formed 
a part. Thus it is God Who justifies though the moving cause of 
justification is usually defined as ‘faith in Christ.’ And inasmuch 
as it is He Who both promised that Christ should come and also 


20 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 8:-0. 


Himself brought about the fulfilment of the promise, even justifying 
faith may be described as ‘faith in God.’ The most conspicuous 
example of this is ch, iv. 5 τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ, πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν 
δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. 

9. λατρεύω connected with λάτρις, ‘hired servant,’ and λάτρον, ‘hire’: 
(i) already in classical Gk. applied to the service of a higher power 
(διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ λατρείαν Plato, Afpol. 23 B); (ii) in LXX always of 
the service either of the true God or of heathen divinities. Hence 
Augustine: Aarpeia . . . aut semper aul lam frequenter ut fere 
semper, ea dicitur servitus quae pertinel ad colendum Deum (Trench, 
Syn. p. 120f.). 

Δατρεύειν is at once somewhat wider and somewhat narrower in meaning 
than λειτουργεῖν : (i) it is used only (or almost wholly) of the service of God 
where λειτουργεῖν (λειτουργός) is used also of the service of men (Josh. i. 1 
v.1.; 1 Kings i. 4, xix. 21; 2 Kings iv. 43, vi. 15, &c.); (ii) but on the other 
hand it is used of the service both of priest and people, esp. of the service 
rendered to Jahveh by the whole race of Israel (Acts xxvi. 7 τὸ δωδεκάφυλον 
ἐν éxreveia λατρεῦον, cf. Rom. ix. 4); λειτουργεῖν is appropriated to the 
ministrations of priests and Levites (Heb. x. 11, &c.). Where λειτουργεῖν 
(Aeroupyés) is not strictly in this sense, there is yet more or less conscious 
reference to it (6. g. in Rom, xiii. 6 and esp. xv. 16). 


ἐν τῷ πνεύματί pov. The πνεῦμα is the organ of service; the 
εὐαγγέλιον (= τὸ κήρυγμα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου) the sphere in which the 
service is rendered. 

ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν pou: ‘a/ my prayers,’ at all my times of prayer 
.cf. x Thess. i. 2; Eph. i. 16; Philem. 4). 


10. εἴπως. On the construction see Burton, Moods and Tenses, § 276. 


ἤδη ποτέ: a difficult expression to render in English; ‘now at 
length’ (AV. and RV.) omits ποτέ, just as ‘in ony maner sumtyme’ 
(Wic.) omits ἤδη ; ‘sometime at the length’ (Rhem.) is more accu- 
rate, ‘some near day at last.’ In contrast with viv (which denotes 
present time simply) ἤδη denotes the present or near future in 
relation to the process by which it has been reached, and with 
a certain suggestion of surprise or relief that it has been reached so 
soon as it has. So here ἤδη = ‘now, after all this waiting’: ποτέ 
makes the moment more indefinite. On ἤδη see Baumlein, Griech. 
Partikeln, p. 138 ff. 

εὐοδωθήσομαι. The word has usually dropped the idea of ὁδός 
and means ‘to be prospered’ in any way (e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 2 6 τι 
ἂν εὐοδῶται, where it is used of profits gained in trade; similarly in 
LXX and Tes‘. Χ 77. Pair. Jud. 1, Gad 7); and so here Mey. Gif. 
ΚΝ. ἄς. It does not, however, follow that because a metaphor is 
often dropped, it may not be recalled where it is directly suggested 
by the context. We are thus tempted to render with the earlier 
English Versions and Vulg. prosperum iter halbeam (1 have 
a spedi wey’ Wic.). 


{.10-15.] ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH 2) 


ἐν τῷ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. 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, Rom. and 
Eph. p. 42 ff.). 
ἐλθεῖν : probably for ὥστε ἐλθεῖν (Burton, § 371 ¢). 


11. ἐπιποθῶ : ἐπι- marks the direction of the desire, ‘to you- 
ward’; thus by laying stress on the personal object of the verb it 
rather strengthens its emotional character. 

χάρισμα πνευματικόν. 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 1 Cor. xii-xiv; Rom. 
xii. 6 ff. Some, probably most, of these gifts he possessed in an 
eminent degree himself (1 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 οἶδα δὲ ὅτι ἐρχόμενος 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς ev πληρώματι εὐλογίας Χριστοῦ ἐλεύσομαι). 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. 

eis τὸ στηριχθῆναι: εἰς τό with Infin. expressing purpose ‘is employed 
with special frequency by Paul, but occurs also in Heb. 1 Pet. and Jas.’ 

(Burton, § 409). 


12. συμπαρακληθῆναι : the subject is ἐμέ, which, from the συν- in 
συμπαρακλ. and ἐν ὑμῖν, is treated in the latter part of the sentence as 
equivalent to ἡμεῖς. 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. 


18. οὐ θέλω : οὐκ οἴομαι (D*) G, non arbitror de g Ambrstr.; an instance 
of Western paraphrase. 


σχῶ, ‘I may get.’ 

14. Ἕλλησί te καὶ βαρβάροις : a resolution into its parts of πάντα 
ra ἔθνη, according to (i) divisions of language, (ii) degrees of culture. 

15. τὸ kar ἐμέ. It is perhaps best, with Gif. Va. Mou., to take 
τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ as subject, πρόθυμον as predicate: so g Vulg. guod 7m me 
promtum est. In that case τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ will = ‘I, so far as it rests 
with me,’ i.e, ‘under God’—L’homme propose, Dieu dispose; cf. ἐν 
τῷ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ above. Differently Orig.-lat. (Rufinus) who 


22 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 16, 17. 


makes τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ adverbial, guod im me est promlus sum: so toe 
deAmbrstr. The objection to this is that St. Paul would have 
written πρύθυμός εἰμ. Mey. Lips. and others take τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρόθυ- 
pov together as subject of [ἐστιν] εὐαγγελίσασθαι, ‘hence the eager- 
ness on my part (is) to preach.’ In Eph. vi. 21; Phil. i. 12; Col 
iv. 7 τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ = “ my affairs.’ 


THESIS OF THE EPISTLE: THE RIGHTEOUSNESS 
OF GOD BY FAITH. 


I. 16, 17. That message, humble as it may seem, casts 
a new light on the righteousness of God: for it tells how 
His righteousness flows forth and embraces man, when it ts 
met by Faith, or loyal adhesion to Christ. 


16 Even there, in the imperial city itself, 1 am not ashamed of my 
message, repellent and humiliating as some of its features may 
seem. For it is a mighty agency, set in motion by God Himself, 
and sweeping on with it towards the haven of Messianic security 
every believer—first in order of precedence the Jew, and after him 
the Gentile. ‘7 Do you ask how this agency works and in what it 
consists? It is a revelation of the righteousness of God, manifested 
in a new method by which righteousness is acquired by man,— 
a method, the secret of which is Faith, or ardent loyalty to Jesus 
as Messiah and Lord; which Faith is every day both widening its 
circles and deepening its hold. It was such an attitude as this 
which the prophet Habakkuk meant when, in view of the desolating 
Chaldaean invasion, he wrote: ‘The righteous man shall save his 
life by his faith, or loyalty to Jehovah, while his proud oppressors 
perish.’ 

16. ἐπαισχύνομαι. St. Paul was well aware that his Gospel was 
‘unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles foolishness’ 
(1 Cor. i. 23). How could it be otherwise, as Chrysostom says, he 
was about to preach of One who ‘ passed for the son of a carpenter, 
brought up in Judaea, in the house of a poor woman... and who 
died like a criminal in the company of robbers?’ It hardly needed 
the contrast of imperial Rome to emphasize this. On the attraction 


which Rome had for St. Paul see the Introduction, § 1; also Hicks 
in Studia Biblica, iv. 11. 


We have an instance here of a corruption coming into the Greek text 
through the Latin; ἐπαισχ. ἐπὶ εὐαγγέλιον G, erudbesco super evangelium g, 


I. 16.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 23 


confundor de evangelio 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 Latin. 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. 


δύναμις is the word properly used of the manifestations of Divine 
power. Strictly indeed δύναμις is the inherent attribute or faculty, 
ἐνέργεια is the attribute or faculty in operation. But the two words 
are closely allied to each other and δύναμις is so often used for 
exerted power, especially Divine superhuman power, that it practi- 
cally covers ἐνέργεια. St. Paul might quite well have written 
ἐνέργεια here, but the choice of δύναμις throws the stress rather more 
on the source than on the process. The word δύναμις in a context 
like this is one of those to which modern associations seem to give 
a greater fulness and vividness of meaning. We shall not do wrong 
if we think of the Gospel as a ‘force’ in the same kind of sense as 
that in which science has revealed to us the great ‘ forces’ of nature. 
It is a principle operating on a vast and continually enlarging scale, 
and taking effect in a countless number of individuals. This con- 
ception only differs from the scientific conception of a force like 
‘heat’ or ‘electricity’ in that whereas the man of science is too apt 
to abstract his conception of force trom its origin, St. Paul con- 
ceives of it as essentially a mode of personal activity ; the Gospel 
has all God’s Omnipotence behind it. As such it is before all 
things a real force, not a sham force like so many which the 
Apostle saw around him; its true nature might be misunderstood, 
but that did not make it any less powerful: ὁ λύγος γὰρ ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ 
τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστί, τοῖς δὲ σωζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις Θεοῦ ἐστί 
ΠΟΤῚ 15. ΠΥ Cor. i. 4. 1ν 20; Ὁ Thess: 1. 5. 

εἰς σωτηρίαν. The fundamental idea contained in σωτηρία 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. 
σωτ. is simply deliverance from physical peril (Jud. xv. 18; 1 Sam. 
xl. 9,13, &c.). (ii) But the word has more and more a tendency 
to be appropriated to the great deliverances of the nation (e. g. Ex. 
Xiv. 13, xv. 2, the Passage of the Red Sea; Is. xlv. 17, xlvi. 13, lii. 
10, &c., the Return from Exile). (iii) Thus by a natural transition 
it is associated with the Messianic deliverance ; and that both (:) in 
the lower forms of the Jewish Messianic expectation (Ps. Sol. x. 
9; xii. 7; cf. Zest, XII. Pair. Sym. 7; Jud. 22; Benj. 9, 10 [the form 
used in all these passages is σωτήριον] ; Luke i. 69, 71, 77), and (8) 
in the higher form of the Chnstian hope (Acts iv. 12; xiii. 26, &c.). 


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


In this latter sense σωτηρία covers the whole range of the Messianic 
deliverance, both in its negative aspect as a rescuing from the 
Wrath under which the whole world is lying (ver. 18 ff.) and in its 
positive aspect as the imparting of ‘eternal life’ (Mark x. 30} ; 
John iii. 15, 16, &c.). Both these sides are already combined in 
the earliest extant Epistle (ὅτι οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς ὀργήν, ἀλλ᾽ els 
περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ ἀποθανόντος 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν 
t Thess. v. 9, 10). 

πρῶτον: om. BGg, Tert. adv. Marc. Lachmann Treg. WH. 
bracket, because of the combination of B with Western authorities , 
but they do no more than bracket because in Epp. Paul. B has aslight 
Western element, to which this particular reading may belong. In 
that case it would rest entirely upon Western authority. Marcion 
appears to have omitted πρῶτον as well as the quotation from 
Habakkuk, and it is possible that the omission in this small group 
of Western MSS. may be due to his influence. 

For the precedence assigned to the Jew comp. Rom. iii. 1, ix. 1 ff, 
xi. 16 ff., xv. g; also Matt. xv. 24; Jo. iv. 22; Acts xiii. 46. The 
point is important in view of Baur and his followers who exaggerate 
the opposition of St. Paul to the Jews. He defends himself and 
his converts from their attacks; but he fully concedes the priority of 
their claim and he is most anxious to conciliate them (Rom. xv. 31 ; 
cf. ix. 1 ff., x. 1 ff.; xv. 8, &c.: see also Introduction § 4). 

17. δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ. For some time past it has seemed to 
be almost an accepted exegetical tradition that the ‘ righteous- 
ness of God’ means here ‘a righteousness of which God is the 
author and man the recipient,’ a righteousness not so much ‘of 
God’ as ‘from God,’ i.e. a state or condition of righteousness 
bestowed by God upon man. But quite recently two protests 
have been raised against this view, both English and both, as 
it happens, associated with the University of Durham, one by 
Dr. Barmby in the Pulpit Commentary on Romans, and the other 
by Dr. A. Robertson in Zhe Thinker for Nov. 1893 *; comp. also a 
concise note by Dr. Τὶ K. Abbott ad/oc. There can be little doubt 
that the protest is justified; not so much that the current view is 
wrong as that it is partial and incomplete. 

The ‘ righteousness of God’ is a great and comprehensive idea 
which embraces in its range both God and man; and in this 
fundamental passage of the Epistle neither side must be lost sight 
of. (1) In proof that the righteousness intended here is primarily 
‘the righteousness of God Himself’ it may be urged: (i) that this 
is consistently the sense of the righteousness of God in the Old 
Testament and more particularly in passages closely resembling the 
present, such as Ps. xcviii. [xcvii.] 2, ‘The Lord hath made 


* The point is, however, beginning to attract some attention in Germany. 


1. 17.| RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 25 


known His salvation: His righteousness hath He revealed (ἀπεκά- 
Avyev) in the sight of the nations,’ which contains the three key- 
words of the verse before us; (ii) that elsewhere in the Epistle 
δικ, Θεοῦ = ‘the righteousness of God Himself’ (several of the 
passages, €. g. ili, 21, 22, x. 3, have the same ambiguity as the 
text, but iii. 5, 25, 26 are quite clear); (iii) that the marked 
antithesis ἀποκαλύπτεται yap ὀργὴ Θεοῦ in ver. 18 compared with 
δικαιοσύνη yap Θεοῦ ἀποκαλύπτεται in ver. 17 requires that the gen. 
Θεοῦ 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 δικ. Θεοῦ is 
a gift of righteousness bestowed upon man are hardly less con- 
vincing. (i) The righteousness in question is described as being 
revealed ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν ; and in the parallel passage iii. 22 it is 
qualified as δικ. Θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ eis πάντας τοὺς πιστεύον- 
tas, 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 δίκαιος is applied not to God but to 
man. Observe the logical connexion of the two clauses, δικαιοσύνη 
yap Θεοῦ ἀποκαλύπτεται... καθὼς γέγραπται, ‘O δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως 
(noerat, (iii) Lastly, in the parallel Phil. iii. 9 the thought of the 
Apostle is made quite explicit : μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου, 
ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. The 
insertion of the preposition ἐκ transfers the righteousness from 
God to man, or we may say traces the process of extension by 
which it passes from its source to its object. 

For (3) the very cogency of the arguments on both sides is 
enough to show that the two views which we have set over against 
each other are not mutually exclusive but rather inclusive. The 
righteousness of which the Apostle is speaking not only proceeds 
from God but zs the righteousness of God Himself: it is this, how- 
ever, not as inherent in the Divine Essence but as going forth and 
embracing the personalities of men. It is righteousness active and 
energizing ; the righteousness of the Divine Will as it were pro- 
jected and enclosing and gathering into itself human wills. St. Paul 
fixes this sense upon it in another of the great key-verses of the 
Epistle, ch. iii. 26 εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως 
Ἰησοῦ. The second half of this clause is in no way opposed to the 
first, but follows from it by natural and inevitable sequence: God 
attributes righteousness to the believer because He is Himself 
righteous. The whole scheme of things by which He gathers to 
Himself a righteous people is the direct and spontaneous expression 
of His own inherent righteousness : a necessity of His own Nature 
impels Him to make them like Himself. The story how He has 
done so is the burden of the ‘Gospel.’ For a fuller development 
of the idea contained in ‘ the righteousness of God’ see below. 


26 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS Bi hal 


ἐκ πίστεως. This root-conception with St. Paul means in the 
first instance simply the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah 
and Son of God ; the affirmation of that primitive Christian Creed 
which we have already had sketched in wv. 3, 4. It is the ‘ Yes’ of 
the soul when the central proposition of Christianity is presented to 
it. We hardly need more than this one fact, thus barely stated, to 
explain why it was that St. Paul attached such immense importance 
to it. It is so characteristic of his habits of mind to go to the root 
of things, that we cannot be surprised at his taking for the centre of 
his system a principle which is only less prominent in other writers 
because they are content, if we may say so, to take their section of 
doctrine lower down the line and to rest in secondary causes instead 
of tracing them up to primary. Two influences in particular seem 
to have impelled the eager mind of St. Paul to his more penetrative 
view. One was his own experience. He dated all his own spiri- 
tual triumphs from the single moment of his vision on the road to 
Damascus. Not that they were all actually won there, but they 
were all potentially won. That was the moment at which he was 
as a brand plucked from the burning: anything else that came to 
him later followed in due sequence as the direct and inevitable out- 
come of the change that was then wrought in him. It was then 
that there flashed upon him the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth, 
whom he had persecuted as a pretender and blasphemer, was really 
exalted to the right hand of God, and really charged with infinite 
gifts and blessings for men. The conviction then decisively won 
sank into his soul, and became the master-key which he applied to 
the solution of all problems and all struggles ever afterwards. 

But St. Paul was a Jew, an ardent Jew, a Pharisee, who had 
spent his whole life before his conversion in the study of the Old 
Testament. And it was therefore natural to him, as soon as he 
began to reflect on this experience of his that he should go back to 
his Bible, and seek there for the interpretation of it. When he 
did so two passages seemed to him to stand out above all others. 
The words πίστις, πιστεύω are not very common in the LXX, but 
they occurred in connexion with two events which were as much 
turning-points in the history of Israel as the embracing of Chris- 
tianity had been a turning-point for himself. The Jews were in 
the habit of speculating about Abraham’s faith, which was his 
response to the promise made to him. The leading text which 
dealt with this was Gen. xv. 6: and there it was distinctly laid 
down that this faith of Abraham’s had consequences beyond itself : 
another primary term was connected with it: ‘Abraham believed 
God and it (his belief) was reckoned unto him for righteousness.’ 
Again just before the beginning of the great Chaldaean or Baby- 
lonian invasion, which was to take away their ‘ place and nation’ 
from the Jews but which was at the same time to purify them in 


Ι. 17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 27 


the 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 ; 
and when he also brought into the account the conclusion, to which 
the same conversion had led him, as to the significance of the Life 
and Death of Jesus for the whole Church or body of believers ; what 
could lie nearer at hand than that he should associate faith and 
tighteousness together, and associate them in the way of referring 
all that made the condition of righteousness so much more possible 
under Christianity than it had been under Judaism, objectively to 
the work of the Messiah, and subjectively to the appropriation of 
that work by the believer in the assent which he gave to the one 
proposition which expressed its value ? 

It will be seen that there is more than one element in this con- 
ception which has to be kept distinct. As we advance further in 
the Epistle, and more particularly when we come to the great 
passage ili. 21-26, we shall become aware that St. Paul attached to 
the Death of Christ what we may call a sacrificial efficacy. He 
regarded it as summing up under the New Covenant all the func- 
tions that the Mosaic Sacrifices had discharged under the Old. As 
they had the effect, as far as anything outward could have the 
effect, of placing the worshipper in a position of fitness for ap- 
proach to God ; so once for all the sacrifice of Christ had placed 
the Christian worshipper in this position. That was a fact objec- 
tive and external to himself of which the Christian had the benefit 
simply by being a Christian; in other words by the sole act of 
faith. If besides this he also found by experience that in following 
with his eye in loyal obedience (like the author of Ps. cxxiii) his 
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 
dated from the same moment, the moment of the acceptance of 
Christ. And although in this case more might be said to be done 
by the man himself, yet even there Christ was the true source of 
strength and inspiration; and the more reliance was placed on this 
‘strength and inspiration the more effective it became ; so much so 
that St. Paul glories in his infirmities because they threw him back 
upon Christ, so that when he was weak, then he became strong. 

On this side the influence of Christ upon the Christian life was 
a continuous influence extending as long as life itself. But even 
here the critical moment was the first, because it established the 


28 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 17. 


relation. It was like magnetism which begins to act as soon as 
the connexion is complete. Accordingly we find that stress is 
constantly laid upon this first moment—the moment of being 
‘baptized into Christ’ or ‘ putting on Christ,’ although it is by no 
means implied that the relation ceases where it began, and on the 
contrary it is rather a relation which should go on strengthening. 
Here too the beginning is an act of faith, but the kind of faith 
which proceeds ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. We shall have the process 
described more fully when we come to chapters vi—viii. 

ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. The analogy of Ps, Ixxxiii. 8 (Ixxxiv. 7) 
ἐκ δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν, and of 2 Cor. ii. 16 ἐκ θανάτου eis θάνατον... 
ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς Conv, seems to show that this phrase should be taken as 
widely as possible. It is a mistake to limit it either to the deepen- 
ing of faith in the individual or to its spread in the world at large 
(ex fide predicantium in fidem credentium Sedulius): both are 
included: the phrase means ‘starting from a smaller quantity of 
faith to produce a larger quantity, at once intensively and ex- 
tensively, in the individual and in society. 

ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως. Some take the whole of this phrase 
together. ‘The man whose righteousness is based on faith,’ as if 
the contrast (not expressed but implied) were between the man 
whose righteousness is based on faith and one whose righteousness 
is based on works. It is true that this is quite in harmony with 
St. Paul’s teaching as expressed more fully in Rom. ili. 22, 25; 
Gal. ii. 16: but it was certainly not the meaning of Habakkuk, 
and if St. Paul had intended to emphasize the point here it lay 
very near at hand to write ὁ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δίκαιος, and so. remove all 
ambiguity. It is merely a question of emphasis, because in the 
ordinary way of taking the verse it is implied that the ruling 
motive of the man, the motive which gives value to his righteous- 
ness and gains for him the Divine protection, is his faith. 


A few authorities (C*, Vulg. codd. non opt. Harcl., Orig.-lat. Hieron.) 
insert μου (6 δὲ Six. μου ἐκ πίστεως, or ὁ δὲ dix. ἐκ πίστεως μου ζήσεται) from 
the LXX. Marcion, as we should expect, seems to have omitted not only 
πρῶτον but the quotation from Habakkuk ; this would naturally follow 
from his antipathy to everything Jewish, though he was not quite consistent 
in cutting out all quotations from the O. T. He retains the same quotation 
(not, however, as a quotation) in Gal. iii. 4, the context of which he is able 
to turn against the Jews. For the best examination of Marcion’s text see 
Zahn, Gesch. d. Neutest Kanons, ii. 515 ff. 


The word δίκαιος and 115 cognates. 


δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη. In considering the meaning and application of these 
terms it is important to place ourselves at the right point of view—at the 
point of view, that is, of St. Paul himself, a Jew of the Jews, and not either 
Greek or mediaeval or modern. Two main facts have to be borne in mind 
in regard to the history of the words δίκαιος and δικαιοσύνη. The first is that 
although there was a sense in which the Greek words covered the whole 


Ι. 17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 29 


range of right action (Ath. Nic. V. i. 15 δικαιοσύνη τε τελεία ἀρετή with the 
single qualification that it is πρὸς ἕτερον, the duty to one’s neighbour ἢ), yet 
in practice it was far more commonly used in the narrower sense of Justice 
(distributive or corrective ἐδέα. 2 ff.). The Platonic designation of δικαιοσύνη 
as one of the four cardinal virtues (Wisdom, Temperance, and Courage or 
Fortitude, being the others) had a decisive and lasting influence on the whole 
subsequent history of the word in the usage of Greek philosophy, and of all 
those moral systems which have their roots in that fertile soil. In giving 
a more limited scope to the word Plato was only following the genius of his 
people. The real standard of Greek morals was rather τὸ xaAdv—that which 
was morally noble, impressive, admirable—than τὸ δίκαιον. And if there 
was this tendency to throw the larger sense of δικαιοσύνη into the background 
in Greek morals, that tendency was still more intensified when the scene was 
changed from Greece to Rome. The Latin language had no equivalent at 
all for the wider meaning of δικαιοσύνη. It had to fall back upon juséztza, 
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 
Pagan virtues were still further thrown into the shade by the Christian triad. 

Happily for ourselves we have in English two distinct words for the two 
distinct conceptions, ‘justice’ and ‘righteousness.’ And so especially from 
the time of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, the conception 
‘righteousness’ has gone far to recover its central importance. The same 
may perhaps be said of the Teutonic nations generally, through the strength 
of the Biblical influence, though the German branch has but the single word 
Gerechtigkeit to express the two ideas. With them it is probably true 
that the wider sense takes precedence of the narrower. But at the time 
when St. Paul wrote the Jew stood alone in maintaining the larger sense of 
the word full and undiminished. 

It is a subordinate question what was the origin of the fundamental idea. 
A recent writer (Smend, A/ttest. Religionsgesch. 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 δίκη meant in the first instance ‘ usage,’ 
and then came to mean ‘right’ because usage was the earliest standard of 
right, in like manner the larger idea of ‘righteousness’ may have grown 
up out of the practice of primitive justice. It may have been first applied 
to the litigant who was adjudged to be ‘in the right,’ and to the judge, who 
awarded ‘the right’ carefully and impartially. 

This is matter, more or less, of speculation. In any case the Jew of 
St. Paul’s day, whatever his faults, assigned no inadequate place to 
Righteousness. It was with him really the highest moral ideal, the principle 
of all action, the goal of all effort. 

If the Jew had a fault it was not that righteousness occupied an inadequate 
place in his thoughts; it was rather that he went a wrong way to attain to 
it. Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης eis νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασε, is St. Paul’s 
mournful verdict (Rom. ix. 31). For a Jew the whole sphere of righteousness 
was taken up by the Mosaic Law. His one idea of righteousness was that 
of conformity to this Law. Righteousness was for him essentially obedience 
to the law. No doubt it was this in the first instance out of regard to the 
law as the expressed Will of God. But the danger lay in resting too much 
in the code as a code and losing sight of the personal Will of a holy and 
good God behind it. The Jew made this mistake; and the consequence was 
that 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 ἐν δὲ δικαιοσύνῃ συλλήβδην πᾶσ᾽ ἀρετὴ ἔνι. 


30 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [17 


of the religious leaders of a nation devoting themselves with so much earnest: 
ness and zeal to the study of a law which they believed to come, and which 
in a certain sense and measure really did come, from God, and yet failing so 
disastrously as their best friends allow that they did fail in grasping the 
law’s true spirit. No one felt more keenly than St. Paul himself the full 
pathos of the situation. His heart bleeds for them (Rom. ix. 2); he cannot 
withhold his testimony to their zeal, though unhappily it is not a zeal 
according to knowledge (Rom. x. 2). 

Hence it was that all this mass—we must allow of honest though ill- 
directed effort—needed reforming. The more radical the reformation the 
better. There came One Who laid His finger upon the weak place and 
pointed out the remedy—at first as it would seem only in words in which the 
Scripture-loving Rabbis had been before Him: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind... 
and... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Matt. xxii. 37, 39 Il), 
and then more searchingly and with greater fulness of illustration and 
application, ‘ There is nothing from without the man that going into him 
can defile him: but the things which proceed out of the man are those that 
defile the man’ (Mark vii. 15 ||); and then yet again more searchingly still, 
‘Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden... Take My yoke 
upon you and learn of Me... For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light’ 
(Matt. xi. 28-30). 

So the Master; and then came the disciple. And he too seized the heart 
of the secret. He too saw what the Master had refrained from putting with 
a degree of emphasis which might have been misunderstood (at least the 
majority of His reporters might leave the impression that this had been the 
case, though one, the Fourth Evangelist, makes Him speak more plainly). 
The later disciple saw that, if there was to be a real reformation, the first 
thing to be done was to give it a personal ground, to base it on a personal 
relationship. And therefore he lays down that the righteousness of the 
Christian is to be a ‘righteousness of faith. Enough will have been said in 
the next note and in those on ἐκ πίστεως and δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as to the 
nature of this righteousness. It is sharply contrasted with the. Jewish con- 
ception of righteousness as obedience to law, and of course goes far deeper 
than any Pagan conception as to the motive of righteousness. The specially 
Pauline feature in the conception expressed in this passage is that the 
‘declaration of righteousness’ on the part of God, the Divine verdict of 
acquittal, runs 7 advance of the actual practice of righteousness, and comes 
forth at once on the sincere embracing of Christianity. 

δικαιοῦν, δικαιοῦσθαι, The verb δικαιοῦν means properly ‘to pronounce 
righteous.’ It has relation to a verdict pronounced by a judge. In so far as 
the person ‘ pronounced righteous’ is not really righteous it has the sense of 
‘amnesty’ or ‘forgiveness.’ But it cannot mean to ‘make righteous.’ 
There may be other influences which go to make a person righteous, but 
they are not contained, or even hinted at, in the word δικαιοῦν. That word 
means ‘to declare righteous,’ ‘to treat as righteous’; it may even mean ‘ to 
prove righteous’; but whether the person so declared, treated as, or proved 
to be righteous is really so, the word itself neither affirms nor denies. 

This rather sweeping proposition is made good by the following con- 
siderations :— 

(i) By the nature of verbs in -όω: comp. Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vi. 11 
‘How can δικαιοῦν possibly signify “το make righteous?” Verbs indeed of 
this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use, e.g. 
τυφλοῦν, “to make blind.” But when such words are derived from adjectives 
of moral meaning, as ἀξιοῦν, ὁσιοῦν, δικαιοῦν, they do by usage and must 
from the nature of things signify to deem, to account, to prove, or to ¢#cat 
as worthy, holy, righteous.’ 


I. 27.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 4. 


(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 make righteous.’ The word however is 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 is unmistakable. The nearest 
approach to an exception is Ps. lxxiii [lxxii] 13 dpa ματαίως ἐδικαίωσα τὴν 
καρδίαν μου, where, however, the word seems to = ‘ pronounced righteous,’ in 
other words, ‘I called my conscience clear.’ In Jer. iii. 11 ; Ezek. xvi. 51, 
52 due. = ‘ prove righteous.’ 

(iv) From a like usage in the Pseudepigraphic Books: e. g. Ps. Sol. ii. τό ; 
111. 5; iv. 9; viii. 7, 27, 31; ix. 3 (in these passages the word is used con- 
sistently of ‘vindicating’ the character of God); justifico 4 Ezr. iv. 18; 
x. τό; xii. 7; 5 Ezr. ii. 20 (Z#bb. Apocr. ed. Ο. F. Fritzsche, p. 643)—all 
these passages are forensic; Afoc. Baruch. (in Ceriani’s translation from 
the Syriac) xxi. 9, 11 ; xxiv. 1—where the word is applied to those who are 
‘declared innocent’ as opposed to ‘ sinners.’ 

(v) From the no less predominant and unmistakable usage of the N. T. : 
Matt. xi. 19; xii. 37; Luke vii. 29, 35; x. 29; xvi. 15; xviii. 14; Rom. ii. 
13; ili. 4; 1 Cor. iv. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16—to quote only passages which are 
absolutely unambiguous. 

(vi) The meaning is brought out in full in ch. iv. 5 τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ, 
πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιο- 
σύνην. 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, 
end 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 δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ 
above and below. 

δικαίωμα. For the force of the termination -μα reference should be made 
to a note by the late T. 5. Evans in 5S. Comm. on 1 Cor. v. 6, part of which 
is quoted in this commentary on Rom. iv. 2. δικαίωμα is the definite con- 
crete expression of the act of δικαίωσις : we might define it as ‘a declaration 
that a thing is δίκαιον, or that a person is δίκαιος.᾽ 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. 

dtkatwors. This word occurs only twice in this Epistle (iv. 25, v. 18), 
and not at all besides in the N. T. Its place is taken by the verb δικαιοῦν, 
just as in the Gospel of St. John the verb πιστεύειν occurs no less than 
ninety-eight times, while the substantive πίστις is entirely absent. In 
meaning δικαίωσις preserves the proper force of the termination -ors: it 
denotes the ‘ process or act of pronouncing righteous,’ in the case of sinners, 
‘the act of acquittal.’ 


The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in 
some Fewish Writings. 


The word πίστις has two leading senses, (1) 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 ὁ" 
God ; (iii) belief in Christ ; (iv) belief in some particular utterance, claim, οἱ 
promise of God or Christ. 


39 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 17 


The last of these senses is the one most common in the Synoptic Gospels. 
‘faith’ is there usually ‘belief in the miracle-working power of Christ or of 
God through Christ.’ It is (a) the response of the applicant for relief— 
whether for himself or another—to the offer expressed or implied of that 
relief by means of miracles (Mark v. 34}; x. 52||). The effect of the 
miracle is usually proportioned to the strength of this response (Matt. ix. 29 
κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν γενηθήτω ὑμῖν : for degrees of faith see Matt. viii. 10, 
26; Luke xvii. 5, &c.). In Acts iii. 16 the faith which has just before been 
described as ‘faith in the Name’ (of Christ) is spoken of as ‘faith brought 
into being by Christ’ (ἡ πίστις ἡ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ). Faith is also (8) the confidence 
of the disciple that he can exercise the like miracle-working power when ex- 
pressly conferred upon him (Mark xi. 22--24 ||). This kind of faith our Lord 
in one place calls ‘faith in God’ (Mark xi. 22). There is one instance of 
‘faith’ used in a more general sense. When the Son of Man asks whether 
when He comes He shall find faith on the earth (Luke xviii. 8) He means 
‘faith in Himself.’ 

Faith in the performance of miracles is a sense which naturally passes 
over into the Acts (Actsiii. 16 ; xiv.g). We find in that book also ‘ the faith’ 
(ἡ πίστις Acts vi. 7; xiii. 8; xiv. 22; xvi. 5; xxiv. 24), i.e. ‘the faith distinctive 
of Christians,’ belief that Jesus is the Son of God. ‘A door of faith’ (Acts 
xiv. 27) means ‘an opening for the spread of this belief.’ When πίστις is 
used as an attribute of individuals (πλήρης πίστεως Acts vi. 5 of Stephen; xi. 
24 of Barnabas) it has the Pauline sense of the enthusiasm and force of 
character which come from this belief in Jesus. 

In the Epistle of St. James πίστις is twice applied to prayer (Jas. i. 6; v. 
15), where it means the faith that God will grant what is prayed for. Twice 
it means ‘Christian faith’ (Jas. i. 3; ii. 1). In the controversial passage, 
Jas. ii. 14-26, where Faith is contrasted with Works, the faith intended is 
‘faith in God.’ One example of it is the ‘ belief that God is One’ (Jas. ii. 
1g); another is the trust in God which led Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Jas. ii. 
21), and to believe in the promise of his birth (Jas. ii. 23). Faith with 
St. James is more often the faith which is common to Jew and Christian ; 
even where it is Christian faith, it stops short of the Christian enthusiasm. 

In St. Jude, whose Epistle must on that account be placed late in the 
Apostolic age, faith has got the concrete sense of a ‘body of belief’—not 
necessarily a large or complete body, but, as we should say, ‘the essentials 
of Christianity.’ As the particular point agazmst which the saints are to 
contend is the denial of Christ, so the faith for which they are to contend 
would be the (full) confession of Christ (Jude 3 f., 20). 

In the two Epistles of St. Peter faith is always Christian faith (1 Pet. i. 5, 

πο; li. 6; 2 Pet. i. 1, 5), and usually faith as the foundation of character. 
When St. Peter speaks of Christians as ‘guarded through faith unto salva- 
tion’ (1 Pet. i. 5) his use approaches that of St. Paul; faith is treated as the 
‘one thing needful.’ 

St. John, as we have seen, very rarely uses the word πίστις (1 Jo. v. 4), 
though he makes up by his fondness for πιστεύω. With him too faith is 
a very fundamental thing; it is the ‘victory which overcometh the world.’ 
It is defined to be the belief ‘that Jesus is the Son of God’ (1 Jo. v. 5). 
Compared with St. Paul’s conception we may say that faith with St. John is 
rather contemplative and philosophic, where with St. Paul it is active and 
enthusiastic. In the Apocalypse faith comes nearer to fidelity; it is belief 
steadfastly held (Rev. ii. 13, 19; xiii. 10; xiv. 12; cf. also πιστός i, 5; ii. 
10, &c.). 

The distinctive use of ‘faith’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews is for faith in 
the fulfilment of God’s promises, a firm belief of that which is still future and 
unseen (ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομένων Heb. xi. 1). 
This use not only runs through ch, xi, but is predominant in all the places 
where the word occurs (Heb. iv. 2; vi. 1; x. 22f.; xii. 2; xiii. 7): it is not 


Ἑ. 17.| RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 33 


found in St. Paul of promises the fulfilment of which is still future (for this 
he prefers ἐλπίς : cf. Rom. viii. 25 εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ βλέπομεν ἐλπίζομεν, δι᾽ ὑπομονῆς 
ἀπεκδεχόμεθα). St. Paul does however use ‘ faith’ for the confidence of O.T. 
saints in the fulfilment of particular promises made to them (so of Abraham 
in Rom. iy). 

Going outside the N. T. it is natural that the use of ‘faith’ should be 
neither so high nor so definite. Still the word is found, and frequently 
enough to show that the idea ‘ was in the air’ and waiting only for an object 
worthy of it. ‘Faith’ enters rather largely into the eschatological teaching 
respecting the Messianic time. Here it appears to have the sense of " fidelity 
to the O. T. religion.’ In the Psalms of Solomon it is characteristic of the 
Messiah Himself: Ps. Sol. xvii. 45 ποιμαίνων τὸ ποίμνιον Κυρίου ἐν πίστει καὶ 
δικαιοσύνῃ. In the other Books it is characteristic of His subjects. Thus 
4 Ezr. vi. 28 florebit autem fides et vincetur corruptela; vii. 34 veritas stabit 
et fides convalescet; 44 (114) soluta est tnlemperantia, whscissa est incredulttas 
(=dmoria), In Apoc. Baruch. and ssump. Moys. the word has this sense, 
but not quite in the same connexion: Agoc. Bar. liv. 5 revelas ahscondita im- 
maculatis qui in fide subiecerunt se tibi et legi tuae; 21 glorificabts fideles 
tuxta fiulem corum ; \ix. 2 incredulis tormentum ignis reservatum; Ass. Moys. 
iv. 8 μας autem tribus permanebunt in praeposita fide. In Apoc. Bar \wii. 2 we 
have it in the sense of faith in the prophecy of coming judgement : fides iudicti 
Suturi tunc gignebatur. Several times, in opposition to the use in St. Paul, 
we find ofera ef fid:s combined, still in connexion with the ‘ last things’ but 
retrospectively with reference to the life on earth. So 4 Ezra ix. 7, 8 ef erit, 
omnis qui salvus factus fuerit et qui poterit effugere fer opera sua vel per 
Jidem is: qua credidit, ἐς relinguetur de praeticlis periculis et videbit salutare 
mewm tn terra nica et in Jinibus mets; xii. 23 ipse custodibit gui in periculo 
inciderint, hi sunt qui habent opera et fidem ad lortissimum. We might 
well believe that both these passages were suggested, though perhaps some- 
what remotely, by the verse of Habakkuk which St. Paul quotes. Thesame 
may be said of 5 Ezr. xv. 3, 4 mec turbent te incredulitates dicentium, 
guoniam omnis incredulus in incredulitate sua morietur (Libb. Apocr. p. 645, 
ed. Ὁ: F. Fritzsche). 

Among all these various usages, in Canonical Books as well as Extra- 
canonical, the usage of St. Paul stands out markedly. It furms 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. 26; but it is also (vi) that specially strong and confident 
acceptance, that firm planting of the character upon the service of Christ, 
which enables a man to disregard small scruples, Rom. xiv. 1, 22 f.; cf. i. 
17. The centre and mainspring of this higher form of faith is (vii) defined 
more exactly as ‘faith in Jesus Christ,’ Rom. iii. 22 4. ν., 26. This is the 
crowning and characteristic sense with St. Paul; and it is really this which 
he has in view wherever he ascribes to faith the decisive significance whicn 
he does ascribe to it, even though the object is not expressed (as in i. 17 ; iii. 

Dd 


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


27 ff.; v. 1,2). We have seen that it is not merely assent or adhesion but 
enthusiastic adhesion, personal adhesion; the highest and most effective 
motive- power of which human character is capable. It is well to remember 
that St. Paul has all these meanings before him; and he glances from one to 
anothe: as the hand of a violin-player runs over the strings of his violin. 


The Righteousness of God. 


The idea of the righteousness of God, imposing as it is in the 
development given to it in this Epistle, is by no means essentially 
a new one. It is one of those fundamental Biblical ideas which 
run through both Testaments alike and appear in a great variety of 
application. The Hebrew prophets were as far as possible from 
conceiving of the Godhead as a metaphysical abstraction. The 
I AM THAT I AM of the Book of Exodus is very different from 
the ὄντως ὄν, the Pure Being, without attributes because removed 
from all contact with matter, of the Platonizing philosophers. The 
essential properties of Righteousness and Holiness which charac- 
terized the Lord of all spirits contained within themselves the 
springs of an infinite expansiveness. Having brought into existence 
a Being endowed with the faculty of choice and capable of right 
and wrong action they could not rest until they had imparted to 
that Being something of themselves. The Prophets and Psalmists 
of the Old Testament seized on this idea and gave it grand and 
far-reaching expression. We are apt not to realize until we come 
to look to what an extent the leading terms in this main pro- 
position of the Epistle had been already combined in the Old 
Testament. Reference has been made to the triple combination of 
‘righteousness,’ ‘salvation’ and ‘revelation’ in Ps. xcviii. [xcvii.] 2: 
similarly Is. lvi. 1 ‘ My salvation is near to come, and My righteous- 
ness to be revealed.’ The double combination of ‘righteousness ’ 
and ‘salvation’ is more common. In Ps. xxiv. [xxiii] 5 it is 
slightly obscured in the LXX: ‘He shall receive a blessing from 
the Lord and righteousness (ἐλεημοσύνην) from the God of his 
salvation (rapa Θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ)" In the Second Part of Isaiah 
it occurs frequently: Is. xlv. 21-25 ‘ There is no God beside Με: 
a just God and a Saviour (δίκαιος καὶ σωτήρ). Look unto Me and 
be ye saved... .the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteous- 
ness and shall not return (or righteousness is gone forth from My 
mouth, a word which shall not return R. V. marg.)... Only in 
the Lord shall one say unto Me is righteousness and strength. .. . 
In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified (ἀπὸ Κυρίου 
δικαιωθήσονται), and shall glory’: Is. xlvi. 13 ‘I bring near My 
righteousness ; it shall not be far off, and My salvation shall not 
tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel My glory’: Is. 
li. 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 
‘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. (1) 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 ἡμέρα ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ Θεοῦ (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 (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι) and acts as an ἱλαστήριον 
(iii. 25 4. v.) by virtue of which the Righteousness of God which 
reaches its culminating expression in it becomes capable of wide 
diffusion amongst men. This is the great ‘going forth’ of the 
Divine Righteousness, and it embraces in its scope all believers. 
The essence of it, however, is—at least at first, whatever it may be 
ultimately—that it consists not in making men actually righteous 
but in ‘justifying’ or treating them as if they were righteous. 


36 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 16, 17. 


Here we reach a fundamental conception with St. Paul, and one 
which dominates all this part of the Epistle to the Romans, so that 
it may be well to dwell upon it in some detail. 

We have seen that a process of transference or conversion 
takes place ; that the righteousness of which St. Paul speaks, though 
it issues forth from God, ends in a state or condition of man. How 
could this be? The name which St. Paul gives to the process 
is δικαίωσις (iv. 25, v. 18). More often he uses in respect to 
it the verb δικαιοῦσθαι (iii. 24, 28, v. 1, 9, viii. 30, 33). The full 
phrase is δικαιοῦσθαι ἐκ πίστεως : which means that the believer, by 
virtue of his faith, is ‘accounted or treated as if he were righteous’ 
in the sight of God. More even than this: the person so ‘ac- 
counted righteous’ may be, and indeed is assumed to be, not 
actually righteous, but ἀσεβής (Rom. iv. 5), an offender against 
God. 

There is something sufficiently startling in this. The Christian 
life is made to have its beginning in a fiction. No wonder that 
the fact is questioned, and that another sense is given to the words 
—that δικαιοῦσθαι is taken to imply not the attribution of righteous- 
ness in idea but an imparting of actual righteousness. The facts 
of language, however, are inexorable: we have seen that δικαιοῦν, 
δικαιοῦσθαι have the first sense and not the second; that they are 
rightly said to be ‘forensic’; that they have reference to a judicial 
verdict, and to nothing beyond. To this conclusion we feel bound 
to adhere, even though it should follow that the state described 
is (if we are pressed) a fiction, that God is regarded as dealing 
with men rather by the ideal standard of what they may be than by 
the actual standard of what they are. What this means is that 
when a man makes a great change such as that which the first 
Christians made when they embraced Christianity, he is allowed 
to start on his career with a clean record; his sin-stained past 
is not reckoned against him. The change is the great thing; it 
is that at which God looks. As with the Prodigal Son in the 
parable the breakdown of his pride and rebellion in the one cry, 
‘Father, I have sinned’ is enough. The father does not wait 
to be gracious. He does not put him upon a long term of 
probation, but reinstates him at once in the full privilege of 
sonship. The justifying verdict is nothing more than the ‘best 
robe’ and the ‘ring’ and the ‘fatted calf’ of the parable (Luke 
xv. 22 f.), 

When the process of Justification is thus reduced to its simplest 
elements we see that there is after all nothing so very strange 
about it. It is simply Forgiveness, Free Forgiveness. The Parable 
of the Prodigal Son is a picture of it which is complete on two 
of its sides, as an expression of the attitude of mind required in 
the sinner, and of the reception accorded to him by God. To 


1.16, 17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 37 


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

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

What has been thus far urged may serve to mitigate the apparent 
strangeness of St. Paul’s doctrine of Justification. But there is 
much more to be said when we come to take that doctrine with 
its context and to put it in its proper place in relation to the whole 
system. 

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

But St. Paul does not so isolate it. He takes it up and follows 
every step in that after-career till it ends in the final glory (obs δὲ 
ἐδικαίωσε, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασε 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- 


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


quences which flowed from it (v. 1-21). But with ch. vi another 
factor is introduced, the Mystical Union of the Christian with the 
Risen Christ. This subject is prosecuted through three chapters, 
vi-viii, which really cover (except perhaps the one section vii. 
7-25)—and that with great fulness of detail—the whole career 
of the Christian subsequent to Justification. We shall speak of 
the teaching of those chapters when we come to them. 

It is no doubt an arguable question how far these later chapters 
can rightly be included under the same category as the earlier. 
Dr. Liddon for instance summarizes their contents as ‘ Justification 
considered subjectively and in its effects upon life and conduct. 
Moral consequences of Justification. (A) The Life of Justification 
and sin (vi. 1-14). (B) The Life of Justification and the Mosaic 
Law (vi. 15—vii. 25). (C) The Life of Justification and the work 
of the Holy Spirit (viii.). The question as to the legitimacy of 
this description hangs together with the question as to the meaning 
of the term Justification. If Justification=/ustitia rnfusa as well 
as imputata, then we need not dispute the bringing of chaps. vi—viii 
under that category. But we have given the reasons which compel 
us to dissent from this view. The older Protestant theologians dis- 
tinguished between Justification and Sanctification; and we think 
that they were right both in drawing this distinction and in 
referring chaps. vi-vili to the second head rather than to the first. 
On the whole St. Paul does keep the two subjects separate from 
each other; and it seems to us to conduce to clearness of thought 
to keep them separate. 

At the same time we quite admit that the point at issue is rather 
one of clearness of thought and convenience of thinking than 
anything more material. Although separate the two subjects run 
up into each other and are connected by real links. There is an 
organic unity in the Christian life. Its different parts and functions 
are no more really separable than the different parts and functions 
of the human body. And in this respect there is a true analogy 
between body and soul. When Dr. Liddon concludes his note 
(p. 18) by saying, ‘Justification and sanctification may be dis- 
tinguished by the student, as are the arterial and nervous systems 
in the human body; but in the living soul they are coincident and 
inseparable, we may cordially agree. The distinction between 
Justification and Sanctification or between the subjects of chaps. 
i. 16—v, and chaps. vi—viii is analogous to that between the arterial 
and nervous systems; it holds good as much and no more—no 
more, but as much. 

A further question may be raised which the advocates of the 
view we have just been discussing would certainly answer in the 
affirmative, viz. whether we might not regard the whole working 
out of the influences brought to bear upon the Christian in chaps, 


I. 18-32.] 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 other manifesta- 
tions of that Righteousness. ΑἹ] that can be said to the contrary 
is that St. Paul himself does not explicitly give it this name. 


THE UNIVERSAL NEED: FAILURE OF 
THE GENTILES. 


I.18-82. This revelation of Righteousness, issuing forth 
from Cod and embracing man, has a dark background in 
that other revelation of Divine Wrath at the gross wickea- 
ness of men (ver. 18). 

There are three stages: (1) the knowledge of God which 
all might have from the character imprinted upon Creation 
(vv. 19-20) ; (2) the deliberate ignoring of this knowledge 
and idle speculation ending in idolatry (vv. 21-23); (3) the 
judicial surrender of those who provoke God by idolatry t 
every kind of moral degradation (vv. 24-32). 


* This message of mine is the one ray of hope for a doomed 
world. The only other revelation, which we can see all around 
us, is a revelation not of the Righteousness but of the Wrath 
of God breaking forth—or on the point of breaking forth—from 
heaven, like the lightning from a thundercloud, upon all the 
countless offences at once against morals and religion of which 
mankind are guilty. They stifle and suppress the Truth within 
them, while they go on still in their wrong-doing (ἐν ἀδικ.). It is 
not merely ignorance. All that may be known of God He has 
revealed in their hearts and consciences. * For since the world 
has been created His attributes, though invisible in themselves, 
are traced upon the fabric of the visible creation. I mean, His 
Power to which there is no beginning and those other attributes 
which we sum up under the common name of Divinity. 

So plain is all this as to make it impossible to escape the 
responsibility of ignoring it. * The guilt of men lay not in their 
ignorance; for they had a knowledge of God. But in spite of 
that knowledge, they did not pay the homage due to Him as 


40 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 18-82, 


God: they gave Him no thanks; but they gave the rein to futile 
speculations; they lost all intelligence of truth, and their moral 
sense was obscured. ™ While they boasted of their wisdom, they 
were turned to folly. *In place of the majesty of the Eternal 
God, they worshipped some fictitious representation of weak and 
perishable man, of bird, of quadruped or reptile. 

* Such were the beginnings of idolatry. And as a punishment 
for it God gave them up to moral corruption, leaving them to 
follow their own depraved desires wherever they might lead, even 
to the polluting of their bodies by shameful intercourse. 5 Repro- 
bates, who could abandon the living and true God for a sham 
divinity, and render divine honours and ritual observance to the 
creature, neglecting the Creator (Blessed be His name for ever !). 

36 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. 

38 They refused to make God their study: and as they rejected 
Him, so He rejected them, giving them over to that abandoned 
mind which led them into acts disgraceful to them as men: 
* replete as they were with every species of wrong-doing; with 
active wickedness, with selfish greed, with thorough inward de- 
pravity : their hearts brimming over with envy, murderous thoughts, 
quarrelsomeness, treacherous deceit, rank ill-nature; backbiters, 
°° slanderers; in open defiance of God, insolent in act, arrogant in 
thought, braggarts in word towards man; skilful plotters of evil, 
bad sons, **dull of moral apprehension, untrue to their word, 
void of natural duty and of humanity: ** Reprobates, who, knowing 
full well the righteous sentence by which God denounces death 
upon all who act thus, are not content with doing the things which 
He condemns themselves but abet and applaud those who practise 
them. 

18. There is general agreement as to the structure of this 
part of the Epistle. St. Paul has just stated what the Gospel 
is; he now goes on to show the necessity for such a Gospel. 
The world is lost without it. Following what was for a Jew 


the obvious division, proof is given of a complete break-down in 
regard to righteousness (i) on the part of the Gentiles, (ii) on the 


I. 18.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 41 


part of the Jews. The summary conclusion of the whole section 
i. 18—ili. 20 is given in the two verses iii. 19, 20: it is that the 
whole world, Gentile and Jew alike, stands guilty before God. 
Thus the way is prepared for a further statement of the means of 
removing that state of guilt offered in the Gospel. 


Marcion retained ver. 18, omitting Θεοῦ, perhaps through some accident 
on his own part or in the MS. which he copied (Zahn, wu sug, p. 516; the 
rather important cursive 47 has the same omission). The rest of the chapter 
with ii, 1 he seems to have excised. He may have been jealous of this 
trenchant attack upon the Gentiles. 


᾿Αποκαλύπτεται. How is this revelation made? Is the reference 
to the Final Judgement, or to the actual condition, as St. Paul 
saw it, of the heathen world? Probably not to either exclusively, 
but to both in close combination. The condition of the world 
seems to the Apostle ripe for judgement; he sees around him 
on all hands signs of the approaching end. In the latter half 
of this chapter St. Paul lays stress on these signs: he develops 
the ἀποκαλύπτεται, present. In the first half of the next chapter 
he brings out the final doom to which the signs are pointing. 
Observe the links which connect the two sections: ἀποκαλύπτεται 
1. 18 = ἀποκάλυψις ii, 5; ὀργή i. 18, ii, 5, 8; dvamoddynros i. 20, 
ii. 1. 

ὀργὴ Θεοῦ. (1) In the O. T. the conception of the Wrath of 
God has special reference to the Covenant-relation. It is inflicted 
either (a) upon Israelites for gross breach of the Covenant (Lev. 
x. 1, 2 Nadab and Abihu; Num. xvi. 33, 46 ff. Korah; xxv. 3 
Baal-peor), or (8) upon non-Israelites for oppression of the Chosen 
People (Jer. 1. 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, &c.; 
Jer. xxx. 7,8; Joeliii. 12 ff. ; Obad 8 ff. ; Zeph. iii. 8 ff.). (3) Hence 
the N. T. use seems to be mainly, if not. altogether, eschatological : 
cf, Matt. iii. 7; 1 Thess. i. 10; Rom. ii. 5, ν. 9; Rev. vi. 16, 17. 
Even 1 Thess. ii. 16 does not seem to be an exception: the state 
of the Jews seems to St. Paul to be only a foretaste of the final 
woes. See on this subject esp. Ritschl, Rechifertigung u. Versih- 
nung, il. 124 ff. ed. 2. 


Similarly Euthym.-Zig, ᾿Αποκαλύπτεται κιτιλ. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ δηλονότι κρίσεως. 
We must remember however that St. Paul regarded the Day of Judgement as 
near at hand. 


ἐν ἀδικίᾳ, ‘living in unrighteousness s/he while’ Moule. 
κατεχόντων. κατέχειν = (i) ‘to hold fast’ Lk. viii.15; 1 Cor. xi. 2, ‘ 
xv. 2, &c.; (ii) ‘to hold down,’ ‘hold in check’ 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7, 
where τὸ κατέχον, ὁ xaréxwv=the force of [Roman] Law and Order 
by which Antichrist is restrained: similarly here but in a bad 


42 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 18-20. 


sense; it is the truth which is ‘held down,’ hindered, thwarted, 
checked in its free and expansive operation. 

19. διότι: aways in Gk. Test. =‘ because.’ There are three uses : 
(i) for δι’ 6 τι = propler quod, guamobrem, ‘ wherefore,’ introducing 
a consequence; (ii) for διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι = proplerea quod, or quia, 
‘because,’ giving a reason for what has gone before; (iii) from 
Herod. downwards, but esp. in later Gk. = ὅτι, ‘ that.’ 

τὸ γνωστόν. This is a similar case to that of εὐοδωθήσομαι above : 
γνωστός in Scripture generally (both LXX and N. T.) means as 
a rule ‘known’ (e.g. Acts i. 19, ii. 14, xv. 18, &c.); but it does 
not follow that it may not be used in the stricter sense of 
‘knowable,’ ‘what may be known’ (‘the intelligible nature’ 
T. H. Green, Zhe Witness of God, p. 4) where the context favours 
that sense: so Orig. Theoph. Weiss. Gif., against Chrys. Mey. 
De W. Va. There is the more room for this stricter use here 
as the word does not occur elsewhere in St. Paul and the induction 
does not cover his writings. 

ἐν αὐτοῖς, ‘within them.’ St. Paul repeatedly uses this preposi- 
tion where we might expect a different one (cf. Gal. i. 16; Rom. 
ii. 15): any revelation must pass through the human conscious- 
ness: so Mey. Go. Oltr. Lips., not exactly as Gif. (‘in their very 
nature and constitution as men’) or Moule (‘among them), 


Compare also Luther, 7aé/e Talk, Aph. dxlix: ‘ Melanchthon discoursin 
with Luther touching the prophets, who continually boast thus: ‘‘ Thus sait, 
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 with them -in their 
consciences, which the prophets held as sure and certain revelations.” ἢ 

It is however possible that allowance should be made for the wider 
Hebraistic use of ἐν, as in the phrase λαλεῖν ἔν τινι (Habak. ii. 1 ἀποσκο- 
mevow τοῦ ἰδεῖν τί λαλήσει ἐν ἐμοί : cf. Zech. i. 9, 13, 14, 193 ii. 33 iv. 4. 5 
v. 5, 10; vi. 4; also 4 Ezr. v. 15 angelus guz loguebatur in me. In that 
case too much stress must not be laid on the preposition as describing an 
internal process. At the same time the analogy of λαλεῖν ἐν does not cover 
the very explicit φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς : and we must remember that 
St. Paul is writing as one who had himself an ‘abundance of revelations’ 
(2 Cor. xii. 7), and uses the language which corresponded to his own 
experience. 


20. ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμους Gif. is inclined to translate this ‘from 
the created universe,’ ‘creation’ (in the sense of ‘things created’) 
being regarded as the source of knowledge: he alleges Vulg. 
a crealura mund’. But it is not clear that Vulg. was intended 
to have this sense; and the parallel phrases ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κόσμου 
(Matt. xxiv. 21), ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (Matt. xxv. 34; Luke xi. 50; 
Rev. xiii. 8; xvii. 8), ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως (Mark x. 6; xiii. 19; 2 Pet. 
iii, 4), seem to show that the force of the prep. is rather /emporal, 
‘ since the creation of the universe’ (ἀφ᾽ οὗ χρόνου ὁ ὁρατὸς ἐκτίσθη 
κόσμος Euthym.-Zig.). The idea of knowledge being derived from 


1. 20.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 43 


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

κτίσεως : see Lft. Col. p. 214. κτίσις has three senses: (i) the 
act of creating (as here); (ii) the result of that act, whether (a) the 
aggregate of created things (Wisd. v. 18; xvi. 24; Col. i. 15 and 
probably Rom. viii. 19 ff.) ; or (β) a creature, a single created thing 
(Heb. iv. 13, and perhaps Rom. viii. 39, q. v.). 

καθορᾶται : commonly explained to mean ‘are clearly seen’ 
(κατά with intensive force, as in καταμανθάνειν, κατανοεῖν); so Fri. 
Grm.-Thay. Gif. &c. It may however relate rather to the direction 
of sight, ‘are surveyed,’ ‘contemplated’ (‘are under observation’ 
Moule). Both senses are represented in the two places in which 
the word occurs in LXX: (i) in Job x. 4 ἢ ὥσπερ βροτὸς ὁρᾷ καθορᾷς ; 
(ii) in Num. xxiv. 2 Badadp ... καθορᾷ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ ἐστρατοπεδευκότα 
κατὰ φυλάς. 

ἀΐδιος : ἀϊδιότης is a Divine attribute in Wisd. ii. 23 (ν. ]., see 
below); cf. also Wisd. vii. 26 φωτὸς ἀϊδίου, Jude 6. 

The argument from the nature of the created world to the 
character of its Author is as old as the Psalter, Job and Isaiah: 
Bssy ΧΙΧ τ" πον O 5 ΟΣ] δὲ 15. xiii) δ᾽; σὶν. 18; Job xi) 9% 
ΧΧΝ]. 14; XXxvi. 24 ff.; Wisd. ii. 23; xiii. 1,5, &c. It is common 
to Greek thought as well as Jewish: Arist. De Mundo 6 ἀθεώρητος 
Gn’ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων θεωρεῖται [ὁ Θεός] (Lid.). This argument is very 
fully set forth by Philo, De Praem. et Poen. 7 (Mang. ii. 415). 
After describing the order and beauty of Nature he goes on: 
‘ Admiring and being struck with amazement at these things, they 
arrived at a conception consistent with what they had seen, that 
all these beauties so admirable in their arrangement have not come 
into being spontaneously (οὐκ ἀπαυτοματισθέντα γέγονεν), but are the 
work of some Maker, the Creator of the world, and that there must 
needs be a Providence (πρόνοιαν); because it is a law of nature 
that the Creative Power (τὸ πεποιηκός) must take care of that which 
has come into being. But these admirable men superior as they 
are to all others, as I said, advanced from below upwards as if 
by a kind of celestial ladder guessing at the Creator from His 
works by probable inference (οἷα διά τινος οὐρανίου κλίμακος ἀπὸ τῶν 
ἔργων εἰκότι λογισμῷ στοχασάμενοι τὸν δημιουργόν). 

θειότης : θεότης = Divine Personality, θειότης = Divine nature and 
properties: δύναμις is a single attribute, θειότης is a summary term 
for those other attributes which constitute Divinity: the word 
appears in Biblical Gk. first in Wisd. xviii. 9. τὸν τῆς θειότητος νόμον 
ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ διέθεντο. 

Didymus (772m. ii. 11; Migne, P. G. xxxix. 664) accuses the heretics of 

reading θεότης here, and it is found in one MS., P. 

It is certainly somewhat strange that so general a term as θειότης should 


be combined with a term denoting a particular attribute like δύναμις. To 
meet this difficulty the attempt has been made to narrow down θειότης to 


44 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 20, 21. 


the signification of δόξα, the divine glory or splendour. It is suggested 
that this word was not used because it seemed inadequate to describe the 
uniqueness of the Divine Nature (Rogge. Die Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus 
von a. religios-sittl. Charakt. d. Heidentums, Leipzig, 1888, p. το f.) 


εἰς τὸ εἶναι : eis τό denotes here not direct and primary purpose 
but indirect, secondary or conditional purpose. God did not 
design that man should sin; but He did design that if they sinned 
they should be without excuse: on His part all was done to 
give them a sufficient knowledge of Himself. Burton however 
(Moods and Tenses, ὃ 411) takes εἰς τό here as expressing not 
purpose but result, because of the causal clause which follows. 
‘This clause could be forced to an expression of purpose only by 
supposing an ellipsis of some such expression as καὶ οὕτως εἰσίν, 
and seems therefore to require that εἰς τὸ εἶναι be interpreted as 
expressing result.’ There is force in this reasoning, though the use 
of εἰς τό for mere result is not we believe generally recognized. 

21. ἐδόξασαν. δοξάζω is one of the words which show a deepened 
significance in their religious and Biblical use. In classical Greek 
in accordance with the slighter sense of δόξα it merely = ‘ to form 
an opinion about’ (δοξαζόμενος ἄδικος, ‘held to be unrighteous,’ Plato, 
Rep. 588 B); then later with a gradual rise of signification ‘ to do 
honour to’ or ‘praise’ (ἐπ᾿ ἀρετῇ δεδοξασμένοι ἄνδρες Polyb. VI. liii. 
10). And so in LXX and N. T. with a varying sense according 
to the subject to whom it is applied: (i) Of the honour done by 
man to man (Esth. iii. 1 ἐδόξασεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ᾿Αρταξέρξης ᾿Αμάν); 
(ii) Of that which is done by man to God (Lev. x. 3 ἐν πάσῃ τῇ 
συναγωγῇ δοξασθήσομαι) ; (iii) Of the glory bestowed on man by God 
(Rom. viii. 30 obs δὲ ἐδικαίωσε, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασε) ; (iv) In a sense 
specially characteristic of the Gospel of St. John, of the visible 
manifestation of the glory, whether of the Father by His own act 
(Jo. xii. 28), or of the Son by His own act (Jo. xi. 4), or of the Son 
by the act of the Father (Jo. vii. 39; xii. 16, 23, &c.), or of the 
Father by the Incarnate Son (Jo. xiii. 31; xiv. 13; xvii. 1, 4, &c.). 

ἐματαιώθησαν, ‘were frustrated,’ ‘rendered futile. In LXX ra 
μάταια = ‘idols’ as ‘things of nought. The two words occur 
together in 2 Kings xvii. 15 καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ὀπίσω τῶν ματαίων καὶ 
ἐματαιώθησαν. 

διαλογισμοῖς : as usually in LXX and N. T. in a bad sense of 
‘ perverse, self-willed, reasonings or speculations’ (cf. Hatch, Zss. 
in Bibl. Gk. p. 8). 


Comp. Enoch xcix. 8, 9 ‘ And they will become godless by reason of the 
foolishness of their hearts, and their eyes will be blinded through the fear of 
their hearts and through visions in their dreams. Through these they will 
become godless and fearful, because they work all their works in a lie and 
they worship a stone.’ 


καρδία : the most comprehensive term for the human faculties, 


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


the seat of feeling (Rom. ix. 2; x. 1); will (1 Cor. iv. 5; vii. 37; 
cf. Rom, xvi. 18); thoughts (Rom. x. 6, 8). Physically καρδία 
belongs to the σπλάγχνα (2 Cor. vi. 11, 12); the conception of its 
functions being connected with the Jewish idea that life resided in 
the blood: morally it is neutral in its character, so that it may be 
either the home of lustful desires (Rom. i. 24), or of the Spirit 
(Rom. v. 5). 

23. ἤλλαξαν ἐν: an imitation of a Heb. construction: cf. Ps. 
evi. (cv.) 20 ; also for the expression Jer. ii. 11 (Del. ad loc.) &c. 

δόξαν = ‘manifested perfection.’ See on iii. 23. 


Comp. with this verse Philo, Vt. Mos. iii. 20 (Mang. ii. 161) οἱ τὸν 
ἀληθῆ θεὸν καταλιπόντες τοὺς ψευδωνύμους ἐδημιούργησαν, φθαρταῖς καὶ γενηταῖς 
οὐσίαις τὴν τοῦ ἀγενήτου καὶ ἀφθάρτου πρόσρησιν ἐπιφημίσαντες : also De Lbreet. 
28 (Mang. i. 374) παρ᾽ ὃ καὶ θεοπλαστεῖν ἀρξάμενος ἀγαλμάτων καὶ ξοάνων καὶ 
ἄλλων μυρίων ἀφιδρυμάτων ὑλαῖς διαφόροις τετεχνιτευμένων κατέπλησε τὴν 
οἰκουμένην. .. κατειργάσατο τὸ ἐναντίον οὗ προσεδόκησεν, ἀντὶ ὁσιότητος 
ἀσέβειαν----τὸ yap πολύθεον ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἀφρόνων ψυχαῖς ἀθεότης, καὶ θεοῦ τιμῆς 
ἀλογοῦσιν of τὰ θνητὰ θειώσαντε:----οἷς ovk ἐξήρκεσεν ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης . . . 
εἰκόνας διαπλάσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη καὶ ἀλόγοις ζώοις καὶ φυτοῖς τῆς τῶν ἀφθάρτων 
τιμῆς μετέδοσαν. 


24. παρέδωκεν : three times repeated, here, in ver. 26 and in 
ver. 28. These however do not mark so many distinct stages in 
the punishment of the heathen; it is all one stage. Idolatry leads 
to moral corruption which may take different forms, but in all is 
a proof of God’s displeasure. Gif. has proved that the force of 
παρέδωκεν is not merely permissive (Chrys. Theodrt. Euthym.-Zig.* ), 
through God permitting men to have their way; or privative, 
through His withdrawing His gracious aid; but judzcra/, the appro- 
priate punishment of their defection: it works automatically, one 
evil leading to another by natural sequence. 


This is a Jewish doctrine: Pirgé Aboth, iv. 2 ‘ Every fulfilment of duty is 
rewarded by another, and every transgression is punished by another’; Shad- 
bath 104° ‘ Whosoever strives to keep himself pure receives the power to do 
so, and whosoever will be impure to him is it [the door of vice] thrown 
open’; Jerus. Talmud, ‘ He who erects a fence round himself is fenced, and 
he who gives himself over is given over’ (from Delitzsch, Notes on Heb. 
Version of Ep. to Rom.). The Jews held that the heathen because of their 
rejection of the Law were wholly abandoned by God: the Holy Spirit was 
withdrawn from them (Weber, A/tsyn. Theol. p. 66). 


ἐν αὐτοῖς δ A BCD*%, several cursives; ἐν ἑαυτοῖς DCEFGKLP, 
&c., printed editions of Fathers, Orig. Chrys. Theodrt., Vulg. (a 
contumelits adfician! corpora sua in 1ῤ515). The balance is strongly 


* Similarly Adrian, an Antiochene writer (c. 440 A.D.) in his Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς 
τὰς θείας ypadus, a Classified collection of figures and modes of speech em- 
ployed in Holy Scripture, refers this verse to the head Τὴν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων 
κακῶν συγχώρησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὡς πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ λέγει" ἐπειδὴ κωλῦσαι δυνάμενος, 
τοῦτο οὐ ποιεῖ. 


46 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 24-28. 


in favour of αὐτοῖς. With this reading ἀτιμάζεσθαι is pass., and ἐν 
αὐτοῖς = ‘among them’: with ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, drm, is mid. (as Vulg.). 

On the forms, αὐτοῦ, αὑτοῦ and ἑαυτοῦ see Buttmann, Gr. of WV. 7. G&. (tr. 
Thayer) p. 111; Hort, /mtrod., Notes on Orthography. p. 144. 

In N. T. Greek there is a tendency to the disuse of strong reflexive forms. 
Simple possession is most commonly expressed by αὐτοῦ, αὐτῆς, &c.: only 
where the reflexive character is emphasized (not merely suum, but suum 
ipstus) is ἑαυτοῦ used (hence the importance of such phrases as τὸν ἑαυτοῦ 
υἱὸν πέμψας Rom. viii. 3). Some critics have denied the existence in the 
N. T. of the aspirated αὑτοῦ : and it is true that there is no certain proof of 
aspiration (such as the occurrence before it of οὐχ or an elided preposition ; 
in early MSS. breathings are rare), but in a few strong cases, where the 
omission of the aspirate would be against all Greek usage, it is retained by 
WH. (e.g. in Jo. ii. 24; Lk. xxiii. 12). 


25. οἵτινες : ὅστις, often called ‘rel. of quality,’ (i) denotes 
a single object with reference to its kind, its nature, its capacities, 
its character (‘one who,’ ‘ being of such a kind as that’); and thus 
(ii) it frequently makes the adjectival sentence assign a cause for 
the main sentence: it is used like guz, or guzppe guz, with subj. 

τὴν ἀλήθειαν... τῷ ψεύδει : abstr. for concrete, for τὸν ἀληθινὸν 
Θεόν... τοῖς ψεύδεσι θεοῖς, cf. 1 Thess. i. 9. 

ἐσεβάσθησαν. This use of σεβάζεσθαι is an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον : the 
common form is σέβεσθαι (see Va.). 

παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα = not merely ‘ more than the Creator’ (a force 
which the preposition might bear), but ‘passing dy the Creator 
altogether,’ ‘to the neglect of the Creator.’ 


Cf. Philo, De Mund. Opif. 2 (Mangey, i. 2) τινὲς γὰρ τὸν κόσμον μᾶλλον ἣ 
τὸν κοσμοποιὸν θαυμάσαντες (Loesner). 


ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητός. Doxologies like this are of constant occurrence 
in the Talmud, and are a spontaneous expression of devout feeling 
called forth either by the thought of God’s adorable perfections or 
sometimes (as here) by the forced mention of that which reverence 
would rather hide. 

27. ἀπολαμβάνοντες : ἀπολ. ΞΞΞ (i) ‘to receive back’ (as in Luke vi. . 
34); (ii) ‘to receive one’s due’ (as in Luke xxiii. 41); and so here. 

28. ἐδοκίμασαν : δοκιμάζω = (i) ‘to test’ (1 Cor. iii. 13, &c.); 
(ii) ‘to approve after testing’ (so here; and ii. 18; xiv. 22, &c.); 
similarly ἀδόκιμον = ‘rejected after testing,’ ‘ reprobate.’ 

ἐν ἐπιγνώσει : ἐπίγνωσις = ‘ after knowledge’: hence (i) recogni- 
tion (vb. = ‘to recognize,’ Matt. vii. 16; xvii. 12, &c.); (ii) ‘ad- 
vanced’ or ‘further knowledge,’ ‘full knowledge.’ See esp. Sp. 
Comm. on 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Lft. on Phil. i. 9. 

νοῦν = the reasoning faculty, esp. as concerned with moral 
action, the intellectual part of conscience: νοῦς and συνείδησις are 
combined in Tit. i. 15: νοῦς may be either bad or good; for the 
good sense see Rom. xii. 2; Eph. iv. 23. 


I. 28-.80.]} FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 4? 


τὰ καθήκοντα : a technical term with the Stoics, ‘what is morally 
fitting’; cf. also 2 Macc. vi. 4. 

29. We must beware of attempting to force the catalogue 
which follows into a logical order, though here and there a certain 
amount of grouping is noticeable. The first four are general 
terms for wickedness ; then follows a group headed by the allitera- 
tive φθόνου, φόνου, 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. 

ἀδικίᾳ : a comprehensive term, including all that follows. 

πορνείᾳ : om. SABCK; probably suggested by similarity in 
sound to πονηρίᾳ. 

πονηρίᾳ : contains the idea of ‘ achve mischief’ (Hatch, Bzd/. Gk. 
p. 77f.; Trench, Syz. p. 303). Dr. T. K. Abbott (Zssays, p. 97) 
rather contests the assignment of this specific meaning to πονηρία ; 
and no doubt the use of the word is extremely wide: but where 
definition is needed it is in this direction that it must be sought. 

κακίᾳ : aS compared with πονηρία denotes rather inward vicious- 
ness of disposition (Trench, Syz. p. 36 f.). 

The MSS. vary as to the order of the three words πονηρίᾳ, πλεονεξίᾳ, κακίᾳ, 
WH. ¢fext RV. retain this order with BL, &c., Harcl. Arm., Bas. Greg.- 
Nyss. a/.: Tisch. WH. marg. read πονηρ. και. πλεον. with NA, Pesh. a! : 
WH. marg. also recognizes kak. πονηρ. πλεον. with C, Boh. al. 

πλεονεξίᾳ. On the attempt which is sometimes made to give to this word 
the sense of ‘impurity’ see Lft. on Col. iii. 5. The word itself means only 
‘selfish greed,’ which may however be exhibited under circumstances where 


impurity lies near at hand: e.g. in 1 Thess. iv. 6 πλεονεκτεῖν is used of 
adultery, but rather as a wrong done to another than as a vice. 


κακοηθείας : the tendency to put the worst construction upon 
everything (Arist. Με. ii. 13; cf. Trench, Syz. p. 38). The word 
occurs several times in 3 and 4 Maccabees. 

80. Ψψιθυριστάς, katadddous. The idea of secresy is contained in 
the first of these words, not in the second: 6. susurratores 
Cypr. Lucif. Ambrstr. swsurrones Aug. Vulg.; xarad. detraciores 
Cypr. Aug. Vulg., de¢rectatores (detract-) Lucif. Ambrstr. ad. 

θεοστυγεῖς : may be either (i) passive, Deo odzbiles Vulg.: so 
Mey. Weiss Fri. Oltr. Lips. Lid. ; on the ground that this is the 
constant meaning in class. Gk., where the word is not uncommon ; 
or (ii) active, Dez osores = abhorrentes Deo Cypr.: so Euthym.-Zig. 
(τοὺς τὸν Θεὸν μισοῦντας), 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 θεοστυγία 
clearly with an active signification, though he follows it by στυγητοὶ 
τῷ Geo. AS one among a catalogue of vices this would give the 
more pointed sense, unless we might suppose that Geoorvyeis had 
come to have a meaning like our ‘desperadoes.’ The three terms 


48 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS lI. 30-32. 


which follow remind us of the bullies and braggarts of the Eliza- 
bethan stage. For the distinction between them see Trench, Syn. 
P. 95 ff. 


It is well preserved in the Cyprianic Latin, in‘urtos?, superbi, tactantes sui. 
For the last phrase Lucif. has gloriantes ; either would be better than the 
common rendering e/atos (Cod. Clarom. Cod. Boern. Ambrstr. Aug. Vulg.). 

ὑπερήφανος. Mayor (on Jas. iv. 6) derives this word from the adjectival 
form ὕπερος (rather than ὑπέρ Trench) and φαίνω, comparing ἐλαφηβόλος from 
ἔλαφος and βάλλω: he explains it as meaning ‘ conspicuous beyond others,’ 
‘outshining them,’ and so ‘ proud,’ ‘haughty’: see his note, and the exx. 
there quoted from Ecclus. and Pss. Sol. 

81. ἀσυνέτους : ἀσυνειδήτους (‘ without conscience”) Euthym.-Zig. How 
closely the two words σύνεσις and συνείδησις are related will appear from 
Polyb. XVIII. xxvi. 13 οὐδεὶς οὕτως οὔτε μάρτυς ἐστὶ φοβερὸς οὔτε κατήγορος 
δεινὸς ὡς ἡ σύνεσις ἡ ἔγκατοικοῦσα ταῖς ἑκάστων ψυχαῖς. [But is not this 
a gloss. on the text of Polyb.? It is found in the margin of Cod. Urbin.] 


. εἀευνθέσφηι ‘false to their engagements’ (συνθῆκαι) ; cf. Jer. iii. 7, 

ἀσπόνδους after ἀστόργους (Trench, Syn. p. 95 ff.) is added 
from 2 Tim, iii. 3 [C KL P]. 

82. οἵτινες : see on ver. 25 above. 

τὸ δικαίωμα : prob. in the first instance (i) a declaration that 
a thing is δίκαιον ie δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου = ‘ that which the Law lays 
down as right,’ Rom. viii. 4]; hence, ‘an ordinance’ (Luke i. 6 ; 
Rom. ii. 26; Heb. ix. 1, 10); or (ii) ‘a declaration that a person 
is δίκαιος, ‘a verdict of not guilty,’ ‘an acquittal’: so esp. in 
St. Paul (e.g. Rom. v. 16). But see also note on p. 31. 


ἐπιγνόντες : ἐπιγινώσκοντες (B) 80, WH. παν. 


ποιοῦσιν ... συνευδοκοῦσι. There has been some disturbance cf 
the text here: B, and apparently Clem. Rom., have ποιοῦντες... 
συνευδοκοῦντες ; and so too DE Vulg. (am. fuld.) Orig.-lat. Lucif. 
and other Latin Fathers, but inserting, mon intellexerunt (οὐκ 
ἐνόησαν Ὁ). WH. obelize the common text as prob. corrupt: they 
think that it involves an anticlimax, because to applaud an action 
in others is not so bad as to do it oneself; but from another point 
of view to set up a public opinion in favour of vice is worse than 
to yield for the moment to temptation (see the quotation from 
Apollinaris below). If the participles are wrong they have probably 
been assimilated mechanically to πράσσοντες. Note that ποιεῖν = 
facere, to produce a certain result ; πράσσειν = agere, to act as 
moral agent: there may be also some idea of repeated action. 

συνευδοκοῦσι denotes ‘hearty approval’ (Rendall on Acts xxii. 
20, in Lxpos. 1888, ii. 209); cf. 1 Mace. i. 57 συνευδοκεῖ τῷ νόμῳ : 
the word occurs four times besides in N. T. (Luke, Epp. Paul.). 


ἀμφότεροι δὲ πονηροί, καὶ ὁ κατάρξας, καὶ ὃ συνδραμών. τοῦ δὲ ποιεῖν 
vA συνευδοκεῖν χεῖρον τίθησι κατὰ τὸ λεγόμενον, εἰ ἐθεώρεις κλέπτῃν, 


I. 18-52.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 49 


συνέτρεχες αὐτῷ. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ποιῶν, μεθύων τῷ πάθει, ἡττᾶται τῆς πράξεως" 
ὁ δὲ συνευδοκῶν, ἐκτὸς ὧν τοῦ πάθους, πονηρίᾳ χρώμενος, συντρέχει τῷ κακῷ 
(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, Adisyn. Theol. pp. 58, 68). He looked upon the 
heathen as given over especially to sins of the flesh, such as those 
which St. Paul recounts in this chapter. So far have they gone as 
to lose their humanity altogether and become like brute beasts 
(τά. 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 (267d. p. 69). 

The Christian teacher brought with him no lower standard, and 
his verdict was not less sweeping. ‘The whole world,’ said St. 
John, ‘lieth in wickedness,’ rather perhaps, ‘in [the power of] the 
Wicked One’ (1 Jo. v. 19) And St. Paul on his travels must 
have come across much to justify the denunciations of this chapter. 
He saw that idolatry and licence went together. He knew that 
the heathen myths about their gods ascribed to them all manner 
of immoralities. The lax and easy-going anthropomorphism of 
Hellenic religion and the still more degraded representations, with 


at times still more degraded worship, of the gods of Egypt and the 
E 


50 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 18-32. 


East, were thrown into dark relief by his own severe conception of 
the Divine Holiness. It was natural that he should give the 
account he does of this degeneracy. The lawless fancies of men 
invented their own divinities. Such gods as these left them free to 
follow their own unbridled passions. And the Majesty on High, 
angered at their wilful disloyalty, did not interfere to check their 
downward career. 

It is all literally true. The human imagination, following its 
own devices, projects even into the Pantheon the streak of evil by 
which it is itself disfigured. And so the mischief is made worse, 
because the worshipper is not likely to rise above the objects of 
his worship. It was in the strict sense due to supernatural influ- 
ence that the religion of the Jew and of the Christian was kept 
clear of these corrupt and corrupting features. The state of the 
Pagan world betokened the absence, the suspension or with- 
holding, of such supernatural influence; and there was reason 
enough for the belief that it was judicially inflicted. 

At the same time, though in this passage, where St. Paul is 
measuring the religious forces in the world, he speaks without 
limitation or qualification, it is clear from other contexts that con- 
demnation of the insufficiency of Pagan creeds did not make him 
shut his eyes to the good that there might be in Pagan characters. 
In the next chapter he distinctly contemplates the case of Gentiles 
who being without law are a law unto themselves, and who find in 
their consciences a substitute for external law (ii, 14, 15). He 
frankly allows that the ‘ uncircumcision which is by nature’ put to 
shame the Jew with all his greater advantages (ii, 26-29). We 
therefore cannot say that a prior’ reasoning or prejudice makes 
him untrue to facts. The Pagan world was not wholly bad. It 
had its scattered and broken lights, which the Apostle recognizes 
with the warmth of genuine sympathy. But there can be equally 
little doubt that the moral condition of Pagan civilization was such 
as abundantly to prove his main proposition, that Paganism was 
unequal to the task of reforming and regenerating mankind. 

There is a monograph on the subject, which however does not 
add much beyond what lies fairly upon the surface: Rogge, Die 
Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus von d, religids-sittlichen Charakter d 
Heidentums, Leipzig, 1888. 


I. 18-32.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 51 


Ifthe statements of St. Paul cannot be taken at once as supplying the place 
of scientific inquiry from the side of the Comparative History of Religion, so 
neither can they be held to furnish data which can be utilized just as they 
stand by the 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, 
Sittengeschichte Roms, Leipzig, 1869-1871. 


Use of the Book of Wisdom in Chapter I. 


1, 18-32. In two places in Epist. to Romans, ch. i and ch. ix, there are 
clear indications of the use by the Apostle of the Book of Wisdom. Such 
indications are not wanting elsewhere, but we have thought it best to call 
attention to them especially at the points where they are most continuous and 
most striking. We begin by placing side by side the language of St. Paul 


and that of the earlier work by which it is illustrated. 


Romans. 
i. 20. τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτί- 
σεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασι νοούμενα 
καθορᾶται, 


ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης" 


els τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογή του" 


21. ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισ- 
μοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος 
αὐτῶν καρδία. 

22. φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράν- 
θησαν" 


23. καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφ- 
θάρτου Θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρ- 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετρα- 
modmy καὶ ἑρπετῶν. 


* The more recent editors as a rule 
read ἰδιότητος with the uncials and 
Gen. i. 26f.; but it is byno means clear 
that they are right: Cod. 248 em- 
bodies very ancient elements and the 
context generally favours ἀϊδιότητος. 
It still would not be certain tnat St 


Wisdom. 

xiii, 1. καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀγαθῶν 
οὐκ ἴσχυσαν εἰδέναι τὸν ὄντα οὔτε τοῖς 
ἔργοις προσέχοντες ἐπέγνωσαν τὸν 
τεχνίτην. 

xiii. 5. ἐκ γὰρ μεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς 
κτισμάτων ἀναλόγως ὃ γενεσιουργὸς 
αὐτῶν θεωρεῖται. 

ii, 23. [6 Θεὸς ἔκτισε. . . τὸν ἄνθρω- 
πον... εἰκόνα τῆς ἰδίας ἀϊδιότητος * 
(Cod. 248 a/., Method. Athan. Epiph. ; 
ἰδιότητος NAB, Clem.-Alex. ἄς.) 
ἐποίησεν. 

XViii. 9. τὸν τῆς θειότητος νόμον. 

xiii. 8. πάλιν δὲ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοὶ συνγνω- 
στοί. 

xiii. 1. μάταιοι γὰρ πάντες ἄνθρωποι 
φύσει, οἷς παρῆν θεοῦ ἀγνωσία ἴ. 


xii. 24. καὶ γὰρ τῶν πλάνης ὁδῶν 
μακρότερον ἐπλανήθησαν θεοὺς ὑπολαμ- 
βάνοντες τὰ καὶ ἐν ζῴοις τῶν ἐχθρῶν 
ἄτιμα, νηπίων δίκην ἀφρόνων ψευσθέν- 
τες. 

xii. I. τὸ ἄφθαρτόν σον πνεῦμα. 

xiv. 8. τὸ δὲ φθαρτὸν Θεὸς ὠνομά- 
σθη. 

ΧΙ. 10. ταλαίπωροι δὲ καὶ ἐν νεκροῖς 
αἱ ἐλπίδες αὐτῶν, οἵτινες ἐκάλεσαν 
θεοὺς ἔργα χειρῶν ἀνθρώπων. 


Paul had this passage in his mind. 

+ The parallel here is not quite 
exact. St. Paul says, ‘ They did know 
but relinquished their knowledge,’ 
Wisd. ‘They ought to have known 
but did not.’ 


52 


25. οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει, καὶ ἐσεβάσθη- 
σαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν 
κτίσαντα, 


24. διὸ παρέδωκεν κ. τ. A, 
20. διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν κ. τ. A. 


29. πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ, πο- 
νηρίᾳ, πλευνεξίᾳ, κακίᾳ, μεστοὺς φθόνου, 
φόνου, ἔριδος, δόλου, κακοηθείας, ψιθυ- 
ριστάς, καταλάλους, θεοστυγεῖς, ὑβρι- 
στάς, ὑπερηφάνους, ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς 
κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀσυνέτους, 
ἀσυνθέτους, ἀστέργους, ἀνελεήμονας. 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


[I. 18-32. 


xiii. 13, 14. ἀπείκασεν αὐτὸ εἰκόνι 
ἀνθρώπου, ἣ (aw τινὶ εὐτελεῖ ὡμοίωσεν 
αὐτό. 

xiii. 17 5644. οὐκ αἰσχύνεται τῷ 
ἀψύχῳ προσλαλῶν' καὶ περὶ μὲν ὑγιείας 
τὸ ἀσθενὲς ἐπικαλεῖται, περὶ δὲ ζωῆς τὸ 
νεκρὺν ἀξιοῖ kK. τ. A. 

xiv. 11. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν εἰδώλοις 
ἐθνῶν ἐπισκοπὴ ἔσται, ὅτι ἐν κτίσματι 
Θεοῦ εἰς βδέλυγμα ἔγενήθησαν. 

xiv. 21. τὸ ἀκοινώνητον ὄνομα λίθοις 
καὶ ξύλοις περιέθεσαν. 

xiv. 12. ἀρχὴ γὰρ πορνείας ἢ ἐπίνοια 
εἰδώλων, εὑρέσεις δὲ αὐτῶν φθορὰ ζωῆς. 

xiv. 16. εἶτα ἐν χρόνῳ κρατυνθὲν τὸ 
ἀσεβὲς ἔθος ὡς νόμος ἐφυλάχθη. 

xiv. 22. εἶτ᾽ οὐκ ἤρκεσε τὸ πλανᾶ- 
σθαι περὶ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
ἐν μεγάλῳ ζῶντες ἀγνοίας πολέμῳ τὰ 
τοσαῦτα κακὰ εἰρήνην προσαγορεύουσιν, 
23.7) yap τεκνοφόνους τελετὰς ἢ κρύφια 
μυστήρια ἢ ἐμμανεῖς ἐξάλλων θεσμῶν 
κώμους ἄγοντες, 24. οὔτε βίους οὔτε 
γάμους καθαροὺς ἔτι φυλάσσουσιν, ἕτε- 
ρος δ᾽ ἕτερον ἣ λοχῶν ἀναιρεῖ ἢ νοθεὔύων 
ὀδυνᾷ. 

25. πάντα δὲ ἐπιμὶξ ἔχει αἷμα καὶ 
φόνος κλοπὴ καὶ δόλος, φθορά, ἀπιστία, 
τάραχος, ἐπιορκία, θόρυβος ἀγαθῶν, 
26. χάριτος ἀμνησία, ψυχῶν μιασμύς, 
γενέσεως (sex) ἐναλλαγή, γάμων ἀταξία, 
μοιχεία καὶ ἀσέλγεια. 


27. ἡ γὰρ τῶν ἀνωνύμων εἰδώλων 
θρησκεία παντὸς ἀρχὴ κακοῦ καὶ αἰτία 
καὶ πέρας ἐστίν. 


It will be seen that while on the one hand there can be no question of 


direct quotation, on the other hand the resemblance is so strong both as to 
the main lines of the argument (i. Natural religion discarded, ii. idolatry, 
iii. catalogue of immorality) and in the details of thought and to some 
extent of expression as to make it clear that at some time in his life St. Paul 
must have bestowed upon the Book of Wisdom a considerable amount of 
study. 

(Compare the note on ix. 19-29 below, also an essay by E. Grafe in 
Theol. Abhandlungen C. von Weizsacker gewidmet, Freiburg, i. B. 1892, 
p- 251 ff. In this essay will be found a summary of previous discussions of 
the question and an estimate of the extent of St. Paul’s indebtedness which 
agrees substantially with that expressed above. It did not extend to any of 
the leading ideas of Christianity, and affected the form rather than the 
matter of the arguments to which it did extend. Rom. i. 18-32, ix. 19-23 
are the most conspicuous examples. | 


ΤΆ A.V. expands this as ‘ [spiritual] 
fornication’; and so most moderns. 
But even so the phrase might have 


had something to do in suggesting the 
thought of St. Paul. 


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


TRANSITION FROM GENTILE TO JEW. BOTH 
ALIKE GUILTY. 


II. 1-16. This state of things puts out of court the | Fewish] 
critic who ts himself no better than the Gentile. He can 
claim no exemption, but only aggravates his sin by im- 
penitence (vv.1—5). Strict justice will be meted out to all— 
the Few coming first then the Gentile (vv.6-11). The Few, 
will be judged by the Law of Moses, the Gentile by the Law 
of Conscience, at the Great Assize which Christ will hold 
(vv. 12-16). 


The Gentile sinner is without excuse; and his critic—who- 
ever he may be—is equally without excuse, even though [like 
the Jew] he imagines himself to be on a platform of lofty superiority. 
No such platform really exists. In fact the critic only passes 
sentence upon himself, for by the fact of his criticism he shows that 
he can distinguish accurately between right and wrong, and his 
own conduct is identical with that which he condemns. ? And we 
are aware that it is at his conduct that God will look. The 
standard of His judgement is reality, and not a man’s birth or 
status as either Jew or Gentile. *Do you suppose—you Jewish 
critic, who are so ready to sit in judgement on those who copy your 
own example—do you suppose that a special exemption will be 
made in your favour, and that you personally (σύ emphatic) will 
escape? *QOrare you presuming upon all that abundant goodness, 
forbearance, and patience with which God delays His punishment 
ofsin? If so, you make a great mistake. The object of that long- 
suffering is not that you may evade punishment but only to induce 
you to repent. ὅ While you with that callous impenitent heart of 
yours are heaping up arrears of Wrath, which will burst upon you 
in the Day of Wrath, when God will stand revealed in His character 
as the Righteous Judge. * The principle of His judgement is clear 
and simple. He will render to every man his due, by no fictitious 
standard (such as birth or status) but strictly according to what 
he has done. 1’ To those who by steady persistence in a life-work 
of good strive for the deathless glories of the Messianic Kingdom, 


54 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [11. 1. 


He will give that for which they strive, viz. eternal life. *But to 
those mutinous spirits who are disloyal to the right and loyal only 
to unrighteousness, for such there is in store anger and fury, 
* galling, nay crushing, pain: for every human being they are in 
store, who carries out to the end his course of evil, whether he 
be Jew or whether he be Gentile—the Jew again having prece- 
dence. ‘Qn the other hand the communicated glory of the Divine 
Presence, the approval of God and the bliss of reconciliation with 
Him await the man who labours on at that which is good—be he 
Jew or Gentile ; here too the Jew having precedence, but only 
precedence : ™ for God regards no distinctions of race. 

“ Do not object that the Jew has a position of privilege which 
will exempt him from this judgement, while the Gentile has no law 
by which he can be judged. The Gentiles, it is true, have no law; 
but as they have sinned, so also will they be punished without one 
[see vv. 14,15]. The Jews live under a law, and by that law they 
will be judged. “For it is not enough to hear it read in the 
synagogues. That does not make a man righteous before God. 
His verdict will pronounce righteous only those who have done 
what the Law commands. 51 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. 15 Be- 
cause their actions give visible proof of commandments written not 
on stone but on the tables of the heart. These actions themselves 
bear witness to them; and an approving conscience also bears 
them witness ; while in their dealings with one another their inward 
thoughts take sometimes the side of the prosecution and some- 
times (but more rarely) of the defence. ™ These hidden workings 
of the conscience God can see; and therefore He will judge 
Gentile as well as Jew, at that Great Assize which I teach that He 
will hold through His Deputy, Jesus Messiah. 

1. The transition from Gentile to Jew is conducted with much 
rhetorical skill, somewhat after the manner of Nathan’s parable 
to David. Under cover of a general statement St. Paul sets be- 
fore himself a typical Jew. Such an one would assent cordially 
to all that had been said hitherto (p. 49, sup.). It is now turned 


against himself, though for the moment the Apostle holds in 
suspense the direct affirmation, ‘Thou art the man.’ 


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


There is evidence that Marcion kept vv. 2, 12-14, 16, 20 (from ἔχοντα)--20; 
for the rest evidence fails. We might suppose that Marcion would omit vv. 
17-20, which record (however ironically) the privileges of the Jew; but the 
retention of the last clause of ver. 20 is against this. 


διό links this section closely to the last; it is well led up to by 

i. 32, but ἀναπολ. pointing back to i. 20 shows that the Apostle had 
more than this in his mind. 

2. οἴδαμεν δέ ABD &c., Harcl., Orig.-lat. Tert. Ambrstr. Theodrt. αἱ. WH. 

text KV. text: οἴδαμεν yap NC 17 αἰ. pauc. Latt. (exc. g) Boh. Arm., Chrys., 

Tisch. WH. marg. RV. marg. An even balance of authorities, both sides 


drawing their evidence from varied quarters. A more positive decision than 
that of WH. RV. would hardly be justified. 


οἴδαμεν : οἶδα =to know for a fact, by external testimony ; 
γιγνώσκω = to know by inner personal experience and appro- 
priation: see Sp. Comm. iii. 299; Additional note on 1 Cor. viii. 1. 

8. σύ emphatic; ‘thou, of all men.’ There is abundant illus- 
tration of the view current among the Jews that the Israelite was 
secure simply as such by virtue of his descent from Abraham and 
of his possession of the Law: cf. Matt. iii. 8,9 ‘Think not to say 
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father’; Jo. viii. 33 ; 
Gal. ii. 15; the passages quoted by Gif.; Weber, A//:yn. Theol. 
p. 69 f. 

There may be an element of popular misunderstanding, there is 
certainly an element of inconsistency, in some of these passages. 
The story of Abraham sitting at the gate of Paradise and refusing 
to turn away even the wicked Israelite can hardly be a fair 
specimen of the teaching o! 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. χρηστότητος : donziatis Vulg., in Tit. iii. 4 dentgnitas: see 
Lft. on Gal. v. 22. χρηστότης = ‘kindly disposition’; μακροθυμία 
= ‘patience,’ opp. to ὀξυθυμία a ‘short’ or ‘ quick temper,’ ‘ irasci- 
bility’ (cf. βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν Jas. i. 19); ἀνοχή = ‘ forbearance,’ 
‘delay of punishment,’ cf. ἀνέχομαι to hold one’s hand. 

Comp. Philo, Zeg. Allegor. i. 13 (Mang. i. 50) Ὅταν γὰρ ὕῃ μὲν κατὰ 
θαλάττης, πηγὰς δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐρημοτάτοις ἐπομβρῇ . . . τί ἕτερον παρίστησιν ἣ 
τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ τε πλούτου καὶ τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὑτοῦ; 

With μακροθυμίας comp. ἃ graphic image in Afoc. Baruch. xii. 4 Evigi- 
labit contra te furor qui nunc tn longanimitate tanquam in frenis reti- 
netur. 

The following is also an impressive statement of this side of the Divine 
attributes: 4 Ezr. vii. 62-68 (132-138) Sczo, Domine, quoniam ( -- ὅτι ‘ that’) 
nunc vocatus est Altissimus misericors, in eo quod misereatur his gui nondum 
in saeculo advenerunt ; et miserator in eo quod miseretur tllis gui cenversionem 


faciunt in lege eius ; et longanimis, quoniam longanimitatem praestat his 
gut peccaverunt guast suis operibus ; et muntficus, quoniam quidem donare 


56 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 4-6. 


vult pro exigere; et multae misericordiae, quoniam multiplicat magis misert- 
covdias his quit praesentes sunt et qui praeterierunt et qui futuri sunt: si 
enim non mulliplicaverit, non vivificabitur saeculum cum hts gui inhabitant 
in eo ; et donator, guoniam si non donaverit de bonitate sua ut alleventur hi 
gui iniguitatem fecerunt de suis iniguttatibus, non poterit decies millesima 
pars vivificart hominum. 

καταφρονεῖς ; cf. Apoc. Baruch. xxi. 20 /nnotescat potentia tua illis qui 
putant longanimitatem tuam esse infirmitatem. 


εἰς μετάνοιαν σε ἄγει : its purpose or tendency is to induce you 
to repent. 


‘ The Conative Present is merely a species of the Progressive Present. A 
verb which of itself suggests effort when used in a tense which implies action 
in progress, and hence incomplete, naturally suggests the idea of attempt’ 
(Burton, § 11). 

‘According to R. Levi the words [Joel ii. 13] mean: God removes to 
a distance His Wrath. Like a king who had two fierce legions. If these, 
thought he, encamp near me in the country they will rise against my subjects 
when they provoke me to anger. Therefore I will send them far away. 
Then if my subjects provoke me to anger before I send for them (the legions) 
they may appease me and I shall be willing to be appeased. So also said 
God: Anger and Wrath are the messengers of destruction. I will send them 
far away to a distance, so that when the Israelites provoke Me to anger, they 
may come, before I send for them, and repent, and I may accept their 
repentance (cf. Is. xiii. 5). And not only that, said R. Jizchak, but he 
locks them up (Anger and Wrath) out of their way; see Jer. 1. 25, which 
means: Until He opens His treasure-chamber and shuts it again, man 
returns to God and He accepts him’ (7 γαεί. 7haanéth ii. τ ap. Winter u. 
Wiinsche, /#d. Litt. i. 207). 


δ. κατά : ‘in accordance with,’ secundum duritiam tuam Vulg. 

ὀργήν : see on i. 18 above. 

ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς : to be taken closely together, ‘ wrath (to 
be inflicted) in a day of wrath.’ 


The doctrine of a ‘day of the Lord’ as a day of judgement is taught by 
the Prophets from Amos onwards (Amos v. 18 ; Is. ii. 12 ff.; xiii. 6 ff.; xxiv. 
a1; Jer.xlvi. 10; Joelii. 1 ff.; Zeph.i. 7 ff.; Ezek. vii. 7 ff.; xxx. 3 ff.; Zech. 
xiv. 1; Mal. ili. 2; iv. 1. It also enters largely into the pseudepigraphic 
literature: ποεῖ xlv. 2 ff. (and the passages collected in Charles’ Note) ; 
Ps. Sol. xv. 13 ff.; 4 Ezr. vi. 18 ff., 77 ff. [vii. 102 ff. ed. Bensly]; xii. 34; 
Apoc. Baruch. li. 1; lv. 6, ὅτε. 


δικαιοκρισίας : not quite the same as δικαίας κρίσεως 2 Thess. i. 5 
(cf. justd judictz Vulg.), denoting not so much the character of the 
judgement as the character of the Judge (δικαιοκριτής 2 Macc. xii. 
41; Cf. ὁ δίκαιος κριτής 2 Tim. iv. 8). 

The word occurs in the Quinta (the fifth version included in Origen’s 

Hexapla) of Hos. vi. 5; it is also found twice in Zest. X// Patriarch. Levi 3 

ὁ δεύτερος ἔχει πῦρ, χιόνα, κρύσταλλον ἕτοιμα εἰς ἡμέραν προστάγματος Κυρίου 

ἐν τῇ δικαιοκρισίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. bid. 15 λήψεσθε ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον 

παρὰ τῆς δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


6. ὃς ἀποδώσει: Prov. xxiv. 12 (LXX). The principle here laid 
down, though in full accord with the teaching of the N, T. 


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


generally (Matt. xvi. 27; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 7; Eph. vi. 8; 
Col. iii. 24, 25 ; Rev. ii. 23; xx. 12; xxii. 12), may seem at first 
sight to conflict with St. Paul’s doctrine of Justification by Faith. 
But Justification is a past act, resulting in a present state: it 
belongs properly to the beginning, not to the end, of the Christian’s 
career (see on δικαιωθήσονται in ver. 13). Observe too that there is 
no real antithesis between Faith and Works in themselves. Works 
are the evidence of Faith, and Faith has its necessary outcome in 
Works. The true antithesis is between earning salvation and 
receiving it as a gift of God’s bounty. St. Paul himself would 
have allowed that there might have been a question of earning 
salvation if the Law were really kept (Rom. x. 5; Gal. iii. 12). 
But as a matter of fact the Law was not kept, the works were not 
done. 

7. καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ: collective use of ἔργον, as in 
ver. 15, ‘a lifework,’ the sum of a man’s actions. 

8. τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας : ‘those whose motive is factiousness,’ opp. 
to the spirit of single-minded unquestioning obedience, those who 
use all the arts of unscrupulous faction to contest or evade com- 
mands which they ought to obey. From ἔριθος ‘a hired labourer’ 
we get ἐριθεύω ‘to act as a hireling,’ ἐριθεύομαι a political term 
for ‘hiring paid canvassers and promoting party spirit:’ hence 
ἐριθεία = the spirit of faction, the spirit which substitutes factious 
opposition for the willing obedience of loyal subjects of the king- 
dom of heaven. See Lft. and Ell. on Gal. v. 20, but esp. Fri. 
ad loc. 


The ancients were strangely at sea about this word. Hesychius (cent. 5) 
derived ἔριθος from épa ‘earth’; the Ltymologicum Magnum (a compilation 
perhaps of the eleventh century) goes a step further, and derives it from épa 
Ons agricola mercede conductus; Greg. Nyssen. connects it with ἔριον ‘ wool’ 
(ἔριθος was used specially of woolworkers) ; but most common of all is the 
connexion with ἔρις (so Theodrt. on Phil. ii. 3; cf. Vulg. his gut ex con- 
tentione [ per contentionem Phil. ii. 3; réxae Gal. v. 20]). There can be 
little doubt that the use of ἐριθεία was affected by association with ἔρις, 
thongh there is no real connexion between the two words (see notes on 
ἐπωρώθησαν xi. 7, κατανύξεως xi. 8). 


ὀργὴ . .. θυμός : see Lft. and Ell. on Gal. v. 20; Trench, Syn. 
Pp. 125: ὀργή is the settled feeling, θυμός the outward manifestation, 
‘outbursts’ or ‘ ebullitions of wrath.’ 


ὀργὴ δέ ἐστιν ὁ ἑπόμενος τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ πόνος. θυμὸν δὲ 
ὁρίζονται ὀργὴν ἀναθυμιωμένην καὶ διοιδαίνουσαν Orig. (in Cramer’s Catena). 


9. θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία : frzbulatio ( pressura in the African form 
of the Old Latin) οὐ angustia Vulg., whence our word ‘ anguish’ : 
arevoxepiais the stronger word=‘ torturing confinement ’ (cf. 2 Cor. 
iv. 8). But the etymological sense is probably lost in usage: 
calamitas et angustiae h.e. summa calamitas Fri. p. 106. 


58 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 9-12. 


For similar combinations (‘day of tribulation and pain,’ ‘of tribulation 
and great shame,’ ‘of suffering and tribulation,’ ‘of anguish and affliction,’ &c.) 
see Charles’ note on Enoch xlv. 2. 


κατεργαζομένου = ‘carry to the end’; κατά either strengthening 
the force of the simple vb., as per in perficere, or giving it a bad 
sense, as in perpelrare Fri. p. 107. 

11. προσωποληψία : peculiar to Biblical and Ecclesiastical Greek 
(Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 25; Jas. ii. 1; cf. προσωπολήπτης Acts x. 343 
προσωποληπτεῖν Jas. ii. 93 ἀπροσωπολήπτως 1 Pet. i. 17): πρόσωπον 
λαμβάνειν = (i) to give a gracious reception to a suppliant or suitor 
(Lev. xix. 15); and hence (ii) to show partiality, give corrupt judge- 
ment. In N. T. always with a bad sense. 


The idea goes back to Deut. x. 17 ὁ Θεὸς... οὐ θαυμάζει πρόσωπον οὐδ' 
ob μὴ λάβῃ δῶρον, which is adopted in Ps. Sol. ii. 19 ὁ Θεὸς κριτὴς δίκαιος καὶ 
ov θαυμάσει πρόσωπον, and explained in /udilees v. 15 ‘And He is not one 
who will regard the person (of any) nor receive gifts; when He says that He 
will execute judgement on each: if one gave him everything that is on the 
earth, He will not regard the gifts or the person (of any), nor accept any- 
thing at his hands, for he is a Righteous Judge’; cf. Apoc. Baruch. xiii. 7, 
Pirgé Aboth iv. 31 ‘He is about to judge with whom there is no iniquity, 
nor forgetfulness, nor respect of persons, nor taking of a bribe.’ 


12,18. νόμος and ὃ νόμος. The distinction between these two forms did 
not escape the scholarship of Origen, whose comment on Rom. iii. 21 reads 
thus in Rufinus’ translation (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 201): Mortis est apud 
Graecos nominibus ἄρθρα praepont, quae apud nos possunt articuli mominari. 
St quando igitur Mosis legem nominat, solitum nomint praenittit articulum: 
st guando vero naturalem vult intelligi, sine articulo nominat legem. This 
distinction however, though it holds good generally, does not cover all the 
cases. There are really three main uses: (1) ὁ νόμος = the Law of Moses; 
the art. denotes something with which the readers are familiar, ‘their own 
law,’ which Christians in some sense inherited from the Jews through the O. Ὁ. 
(2) νόμος =law in general (e.g. ii. 12,14; iii. 20f.; iv.15; v.13, &c.). (3) But 
there is yet a third usage where νόμος without art. really means the Law of 
Moses, but the absence of the art. calls attention to it not as proceeding from 
Moses, but in its quality as Jaw; non quia Mosis sed quia lex as Gif. expresses 
it in his comment on Gal. ii. 19 (p. 46). St. Paul regards the Pre-Messianic 
period as essentially a period of Law, both for Jew and for Gentile. Hence 
when he wishes to bring out this he uses νόμος without art. even where he is 
referring to the Jews; because his main point is that they were under 
‘a legal system ’—who gave it and what name it bore was a secondary con- 
sideration. The Law of the Jews was only a typical example of a state of 
things that was universal. This will explain passages like Kom. v. 20, x. 4. 

There will remain a few places, which do not come under any of these 
heads, where the absence of the art. is accounted for by the influence of the 
context, usually acting through the law of grammatical sympathy by which 
when one word in a phrase drops the article another also drops it; some of 
these passages involve rather nice points of scholarship (see the notes on 
ii. 25; iii. 31; xiii. 8). On the whole subject compare esp. Gif. p. 47 ff. ; 
also a monograph by Grafe, Die paulinische Lehre von Gesetz, Freiburg i. Β. 
1884, ed. 2, 1893. Dr. Grafe goes rather too far in denying the distinction 
between γόμος and ὁ νόμος, but his paper contains many just remarks and 
criticisms. 


12, ἀνόμως. ‘he heathen are represented as deliberately rejecting 


II. 152-14. 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 are doomed 
to destruction (Weber, Ad/syn. Theol. p. 65). 


ἥμαρτον. Burton (§ 54) calls this a ‘collective Aorist,’ represented in 
English by the Perfect. ‘From the point of view from which the Apostle 
is speaking, the sin of each offender is simply a past fact, and the sin of all 
a series or aggregate of facts together, constituting a past fact. But 
inasmuch as this series is not separated from the time of speaking we must 
as in iil, 23 employ an English Perfect in translation.’ Prof. Burton 
suggests an alternative possibility that the aor. may be froleptic, as if it 
were spoken looking backwards from the Last Judgement of the sins which 
will then be past; but the parallels of iii. 23, v. 12 are against this, 


13. οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου : cf. κατηχούμενος éx τοῦ νόμου ver. 18; also Pereg 
R. Metr 6 (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, ed. Taylor, p. 115) ‘Thorah is 
acquired ... by learning, by a listening ear,’ &c. It is interesting to note 
that among the sayings ascribed to Simeon, very possibly St. Paul’s own 
class-mate and son of Gamaliel his teacher, is this: ‘not learning but doing 
is the groundwork; and whoso multiplies words occasions sin’ (Pirgé Adboth 
i. 18, ed. Taylor; reff. from Delitzsch). 

νόμου sine artic. bis SNABDG. The absence of the art. again (as in the 
last verse) generalizes the form of statement, ‘the hearers and the doers of 
law’ (whatever that law may be); cf. vii. 1. 


δικαιωθήσονται. The word is used here in its universal sense of 
‘a judicial verdict,’ but the fut. tense throws forward that verdict 
to the Final Judgement. This use must be distinguished from 
that which has been explained above (p. 30 f.), the special or, so to 
speak, technical use of the term Justification which is characteristic 
of St. Paul. It is not that the word has any different sense but 
that it is referred to the past rather than to the future (δικαιωθέντες 
aor. cf. v. τ, 9); the acquittal there dates from the moment at 
which the man becomes a Christian; it marks the initial step in 
his career, his right to approach the presence of God as if he were 
righteous. See on ver. 6 above. 

14. ἔθνη : τὰ ἔθνη would mean all or most Gentiles, ἔθνη means 
only some Gentiles ; the number is quite indefinite, the prominent 
point being their character as Gentiles. 


Cf. 4 Ezr. iii. 36 homines quidem per nomina invenies servasse mandata 
tua, gentes autem non invenies. 


τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα, the force of μή is ‘who ex Aypothest have not 
a law,’ whom we conceive of as not having a law; cf. τὰ μὴ ὄντα 
1 Cor. i. 28 (guae pro nthilo habentur Grimm). 

ἑαυτοῖς εἰσι νόμος : “7 legis impletio, 1b lex P. Ewald. 


The doctrine of this verse 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 privileges of Judaism. Even if 
a heathen were to keep the whole law it would avail him nothing without 
circumcision (Debarim Rabba 1). If he prays to Jehovah his prayer is not 


δο EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 14, 15. 


heard (ἐδέα.). If he commits sin and repents, that too does not help him 
(Pesikta 1565). Even for his alms he gets no credit (Pestkta 12”), ‘In 
their books’ (i.e. in those in which God sets down the actions of the 
heathen) ‘there is no desert’ (Skzr Rabba 86°). See Weber, Altsyn. Theo/. 
p. 66f. Christian theologians have expressed themselves much to the same 
effect. Their opinions are summed up concisely by Mark Pattison, Essays, 
ii. 61. ‘In accordance with this view they interpreted the passages in 
St. Paul which speak of the religion of the heathep; e.g. Rom. ii. 14. 
Since the time of Augustine (De Spir. εἰ Lit. § 27) the orthodox interpreta- 
tion had applied this verse, either to the Gentile converts, er to the favoured 
few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine assistance. The 
Protestant expositors, to whom the words “‘ do by nature the things containeo 
in the law” could never bear their literal force, sedulously preserved the 
Augustinian explanation. Even the Pelagian Jeremy Taylor is obliged to 
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 ints the hearts of men” (Duct. Dudit. Book II. ch. 1, § 3). The 
rationalists, however, find the expression “by nature,” in its literal sense, 
exactly conformable to their own views (John Wilkins [1614-1672], Of Nat. 
Rel. 11. c. 9). and have no difficulty in supposing the acceptableness of those 
works, and the salvation of those who do them. Burnet, on Art. XVIIL, 
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, οἵτινες : see on i. 25. 

ἐνδείκνυνται : ἔνδειξις implies an appeal to facts; demonsira‘o 
rebus gestts facta (P. Ewald, De Vocis Συνειδήσεως, &c., p. 16 N.). 

τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου : ‘the work, course of conduct belonging to’ 
(i.e. in this context ‘required by’ or ‘in accordance with ’) ‘the 
Law’: collective use of ἔργον as in ver. 7 above. 


{Probably not as Ewald of. cit. p. 17 after Grotius, opus legis est td, quod 
lex in Judaeis efficit, nempe cognitio lictti et tllicitz. | 


συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως. This phrase is almost 
exactly repeated in ch. ix. £ συμμαρτ. μοι τῆς συνειδ. μου. In both 
cases the conscience is separated from the self and personified as 
a further witness standing over against it. Here the quality of the 
acts themselves is one witness, and the approving judgement passed 
upon them by the conscience is another concurrent witness. 


συνειδήσεως. Some such distinction as this is suggested by the original 
meaning and use of the word συνείδησις, which = ‘ co-knowledge,’ the know- 
ledge or reflective judgement which a man has by the side of or im conjunction 
with the original consciousness of the act. This second consciousness is easily 
projected and personified as confronting the first. 

The word is quoted twice from Menander (342-291 B.C.), Monost. 597 
(cf. 654) ἁπᾶσιν ἡμῖν ἡ συνείδησις θεός (ed. Didot, pp. 101,103). It is sig- 
nificant that both the word and the idea are completely absent from Aristotle. 
They rise into philosophical importance in the more introspective moral 
teaching of the Stoics. The two forms, τὸ συνειδός and ἡ συνείδησις appear 
to be practically convertible. Epictetus (Avagm. 7) compares the con- 
science to a παιδαγωγός in a passage which is closely parallel to the comment 
of Origen on this verse of Ep. Rom. (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 107) spiriiss . .. 


II. 15. TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 61 


velut paedagogus et [sc. animae| quidam sociatus et rector ut eam de melioribus 
moneat vel de culpis castiget et arguat. 

In Biblical Greek the word occurs first with its full sense in Wisd. xvii. 10. 
[11] det δὲ προσείληφε τὰ χαλεπὰ [πονηρία] συνεχομένη TH συνειδήσει. In 
Philo τὸ συνειδός is the form used. In N. T. the word is mainly Pauline 
(occurring in the speeches of Acts xxiii. 1, xxiv. 16; Rom. 1 and 2 Cor., 
Past. Epp., also in Heb.) ; elsewhere only in 1 Pet. and the eric. adult. 
John viii. 9. It is one of the few technical terms in St. Paul which seem to 
have Greek rather than Jewish affinities. 

The ‘Conscience’ of St. Paul is a natural faculty which belongs to all 
men alike (Rom. ii. 15), and pronounces upon the character of actions, both 
their own (2 Cor. i. 12) and those of others (2 Cor. iv. 2, v.11). It can be 
over-scrupulous (1 Cor. x. 25), but is blunted or ‘seared’ by neglect of its 
warnings (1 Tim. iv. 2). 

The usage of St. Paul corresponds accurately to that of his Stoic con- 
temporaries, but is somewhat more restricted than that which obtains in 
modern times. Conscience, with the ancients, was the faculty which passed 
judgment upon actions after ‘hey were done (in technical language the con- 
Scientia conseguens moralis), not so much the general source of moral 
obligation. In the passage before us St. Paul speaks of such a source 
(ἑαυτοῖς εἰσι νόμος); but the law in question is rather generalized from the 
dictates of conscience than antecedent to them. See on the whole subject 
a treatise by Dr. P. Ewald, De Vocts Συνειδήσεως apud script. N. T. vi ac 
potestate (Lipsiae, 1883). 


μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων. This clause is taken in two ways: (i) of the 
‘thoughts,’ as it were, personified, Conscience being in debate 
with itself, and arguments arising now on the one side, and now on 
the other (cf. Shakspeare’s ‘When to the sessions of sweet silent 
thought, I summon up remembrance of things past’); in this case 
μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων almost = ‘alternately,’ ‘in mutual debate’; (ii) 
taking the previous part of the verse as referring to the decisions 
of Conscience when in private it passes in review a man’s own 
acts, and this latter clause as dealing rather with its judgements on 
the acts of the others; then μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων will = ‘between one 
another, ‘between man and man,’ ‘in the intercourse of man 
with man’; and λογισμῶν will be the ‘arguments’ which now 
take one side and now the other. The principal argument in 
favour of this view (which is that of Mey. Gif. Lips.) is the em- 
phatic position of μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων, which suggests a contrast between 
the two clauses, as if they described two different processes and 
not merely different parts or aspects of the same process. 


There is a curious parallel to this description in Assump. Moys. i. 13 
Creavit enim orbem terrarum propter plebem suam, et non cocpit eam 
sxceptionem creaturae... palam facere, ut in ea gentes arguantur et humils- 
ter inter se disputationibus arguant se. 


τῶν λογισμῶν : the λογισμοί are properly ‘thoughts’ conceived in 
the mind, not ‘ arguments’ used in external debate. This appears 
from the usage of the word, which is frequently combined with 
καρδίᾳ (πολλοὶ λογισμοὶ ἐν καρδίᾳ ἀνδρός Prov. xix. 21; cf. Ps. xxxii. 11 ; 
Prov. vi. 18): it is used of secret ‘plots’ (Jer. xviii. 18 δεῦτε 


62 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 15-16 


λογισώμεθα ἐπὶ Ἱερεμίαν λογισμόν, ‘ devise devices’), and of the Divine 
intentions (Jer. xxix [xxxvi] 11 λογιοῦμαι ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς λογισμὸν εἰρήνης). 
in the present passage St. Paul is describing an internal process, 
though one which is destined to find external expression ; it is the 
process by which are formed the moral judgements of men upon 
their fellows. 


‘ The conscience’ and ‘the thoughts’ both belong to the same persons. 
This is rightly seen by Klépper, who has written at length on the passage 
before us (Paulinische Studien, Konigsberg, 1887, p. 10); but it does not 
follow that both the conscience and the thoughts are exercised upon the same 
objects, or that μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων must be referred to the thoughts in the 
sense that influences from without are excluded. The parallel quoted in 
support of this (Matt. xviii. 15 μεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ μόνου) derives that part 
of its meaning from μόνου, not from μεταξύ. 


ἢ kat: ‘or even,’ ‘or it may be,’ implying that dod. is the ex- 
ception, xarny. the rule. 

16. The best way to punctuate is probably to put (in English) 
a colon after ver. 13, and a semi-colon at the end of ver. 15: ver 
16 goes back to δικαιωθήσονται in ver. 13, or rather forms a conclu. 
sion to the whole paragraph, taking up again the ἐν ἡμέρᾳ of ver. δ 
The object of vv. 13-15 is to explain how it comes about that 
Gentiles who have no law may. yet be judged as if they had one: 
they have a second inferior kind of law, if not any written precepts 
yet the law of conscience; by this law they will be judged when 
quick and dead are put upon their trial. 


Orig., with his usual acuteness, sees the difficulty of connecting ver. 16 with 
ver. 15, and gives an answer which is substantially right.. The ‘thoughts 
accusing and condemning’ are not conceived as rising up at the last day but 
now. ‘They leave however marks behind, velut in ceris. ita im corde nostro 
These marks God can see (ed. Lomm. p. 109). 

ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε (ef WH. marz.): rat Wee B, WH. ‘text: ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἢ A 
Pesh. Boh. a/., WH. marg. 

διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (¢¢ WH. marg.): διὰ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ NB, Orig., Tisch. 
WH, text. 


κρινεῖ : might be κρίνει, as RV. marg., fut. regarded as certain. 

κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν pou. The point to which St. Paul’s Gospel. 
or habitual teaching, bears witness is, not that God will judge the 
world (which was an old doctrine), but that He will judge it shrough 
Jesus Christ as His Deputy (which was at least new in its applica- 
tion, though the Jews expected the Messiah to act as Judge, Enoch 
xlv, xlvi, with Charles’ notes), 


The phrase κατὰ τὸ εὐαγΎΎ. μον occurs Rom. xvi. 25, of the specially 
Pauline doctrine of ‘free grace’; 2 Tim. ii. 8, (i) of the resurrection of 
Christ from the dead, (ii) of His descent from the seed of David. 

We note in passing the not very intelligent tradition (introduced by φασὶ 
δέ, Eus. H. δ. 111. iv. 8), that wherever St. Paul spoke of ‘ his Gospel” he 
meant the Gospel of St. Luke. 


II. 17-29. ] FAILURE OF THE JEWS 63 


FAILURE OF THE JEWS. 


II. 17-29. The Few may boast of his possession of a special 
Revelation and a written Law, but all the time his practice 
shows that he is really no better than the Gentile (vv. 17-24). 
And if he takes his stand on Circumcision, that too ts of 
value only so far as it is moral and spiritual. In this moral 
and spiritual circumcision the Gentile also may share (vv. 


25-29). 


"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? 
*Do you give yourself out with so much assurance as a guide to 
the poor blind Gentile, a luminary to enlighten his darkness? *° Do 
you call your pupils dullards and yourself their schoolmaster? Are 
they mere infants and you their teacher? You, who have all 
knowledge and all truth visibly embodied for you in the Law? 
* Boastful Jew! How does your practice comport with your 
theory? So ready to teach others, do you need no teaching your- 
self? The eighth *and seventh commandments which you hold 
up to others—do you yourself keep them? You profess to loathe 
and abhor idols; but do you keep your hands from robbing. their 
temples? * You vaunt the possession of a law; and by the 
violation of that law you affront and dishonour God Who gave it. 
* As Isaiah wrote that the Gentiles held the Name of God in 
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. 

* 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? 
* And uncircumcised as he is, owing to his Gentile birth, yet if he 


64 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1ΠῚ 17. 


fulfils the Law, his example will (by contrast) condemn you who 
with the formal advantages of a written law and circumcision, only 
break the law of which you boast. ™ For it is not he who has the 
outward and visible marks of a Jew who is the true Jew; neither 
is an outward and bodily circumcision the true circumcision. 
*® But he who is inwardly and secretly a Jew is the true Jew; and 
the moral and spiritual circumcision is that which really deserves 
the name. The very word ‘ Jew’—descendant of Judah—means 
‘praise’ (Gen. xxix. 35). And such a Jew has his ‘praise,’ not 
from man but from God. 


17. Εἰ δέ NAB Ὁ" ai., Latt. Pesh. Boh. Arm. Aeth., &c.: Ἴδε 
D¢L al, Harcl., Chrys. αἱ. The authorities for εἰ δέ include all the 
oldest MSS., all the leading versions, and the oldest Fathers: ie is 
an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the construction 
slightly easier. Reading εἰ δέ the apodosis of the sentence begins 
at ‘ver. 27. 

᾿Ιουδαῖος : here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew 
it would have a tendency to do) to Ἰσραηλίτης, a member of the 
Chosen People, opposed to the heathen. 


Strictly speaking, Ἑβραῖος, opp. Ἑλληνιστής, calls attention to language ; 
Ἰουδαῖος, opp. Ἕλλην, calls attention to nationality ; ᾿Ισραηλίτης = a member 
of the theocracy, in possession of full theocratic privileges (Trench, Syn. 
§ xxxix, p. 132 ff.). The word "Iovdatos does not occur in LXX (though 
Ἰουδαϊσμός is found four times in 2 Macc.), but at this date it is the common 
word; ‘Efpatos and Ἰσραηλίτης are terms reserved by the Jews themselves, 
the one to distinguish between the two main divisions of their race (the 
Palestinian and Greek-speaking), the other to describe their esoteric status. 

For the Jew’s pride in his privileges comp. 4 Ezra vi. 55 f. haec autem 
omnia dixt coram te, Domine, quoniam dixisti eas (sc. gentes) nil esse, et 
guoniam salivae assimilatae sunt, et quasi stillictdium de vase similasti 
habundantiam eorum. 


ἐπονομάΐζῃ : ‘ bearest the name’: ἐπονομάζειν =‘ to zmpose a name,’ 
pass. ‘to have a name imposed.’ 

ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ : ‘have a law to lean upon’: so (without art.) 
NABD*; but it is not surprising that the later MSS. should 
make the statement more definite, ‘lean upon ‘Ae Law.’ For ἐπαν. 
(reqguiescts Vulg.) cf. Mic. iii. 11; Ezek. xxix. 7: the word implies 
at once the sense of support and the saving of ill-directed labour 
which resulted to the Jew from the possession of a law. 

καυχᾶσαι ἐν Ges: suggested by Jer. ix. 24 ‘let him that glorieth 
glory in this, that he understandeth and kuoweth Me, that I am 
the Lord.’ 


καυχᾶσαι : for καυχᾷ, stopping at the first step in the process of con- 
traction (καυχάεσαι, καυχᾶσαι, καυχᾷ). This is one of the forms which used 


II. 17-20.] FAILURE OF THE JEWS 65 


to be called ‘ Alexandrine,’ but which simply belong to the popular Greek 

current at the time (Hort, /#tvod. p. 304). savxaca: occurs also in 1 Cor. 

iv. 7, κατακαυχᾶσαι Rom. xi. 18; comp. ὀδυνᾶσαι Luke xvi. 25, and from un- 

contracted verbs, φάγεσαι. . . πίεσαι Luke xvii. 8, δύνασαι Matt. v. 36 (but 

δύνῃ Mark ix. 22); see Win. G7. xiii. 2 ὁ (p. 90). 

18. τὸ θέλημα. 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 1 Cor. xvi. 12 (On Revision, 
p. 106 ed. 1, p. 118 ed. 2). 

δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέροντα : probas utiliora Cod. Clarom. Rufin. 
Vulg.; non modo prae malis bona sed in bonis optima Beng. on 
Phil. i. to, where the phrase recurs exactly. Both words are 
ambiguous: δοκιμάζειν = (i) ‘to test, assay, discern’; (ii) ‘to 
approve after testing’ (see on i. 28); and ra διαφέροντα 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. (διακρίνεις τὰ 
διαφέροντα ἀλλήλων" οἷον καλὸν καὶ κακόν, ἀρετὴν καὶ κακίαν), Fri. De W. 
Oltr. Go. Lips. Mou. The rendering οἵ RV. (‘approvest the 
things that are excellent’) is adopted by Latt. Orig. (τα ut non 
solum quae sint bona sctas, verum etiam quae sint meliora et utilora 
discernas), most English Versions, Mey. Lft. Gif. Lid. (Chrys. does 
not distinguish; Va is undecided). The second rendering is the 
more pointed. 

κατηχούμενος ἐκ τοῦ νόμου : cf. Acts xv. 21. 


19. πέποιθας «.7.A. The common construction after πέποιθας is ὅτι : acc. 
and infin. is very rare. It seems better, with Vaughan, to take σεαυτόν 
closely with πέποιθας, ‘and art persuaded as to thyself that thou art,’ &c. 

ὁδηγὸν... τυφλῶν. It is natural to compare Matt. xv. 14 τυφλοί εἰσιν 
ὁδηγοὶ τυφλῶν «.7.A.; also xxiii.16,24. Lips. thinks that the first saying was 
present to the mind of the Apostle. It would not of course follow that it 
was current in writing, though that too is possible. On the other hand the 
expression may have been more or less proverbial: comp, Wiinsche, Z7/azt. 
ad. Evang. on Matt. xxiii. 16. The same epithet was given by a Galilaean 
to R. Chasda, Baba Kama fol. 52 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 rulers.’ 


20. παιδευτήν : ‘a schoolmaster,’ with the idea of discipline, 
correction, as well as teaching; cf. Heb. xii. 9. 

νηπίων : ‘infants,’ opp. to τέλειοι, ‘adults,’ as in Heb. v. 13, 14. 

μόρφωσιν : ‘outline,’ ‘delineation,’ ‘embodiment.’ As a rule 
σχῆμα = Outward form as opp. to inward substance, while μορφή 
= outward form as determined by inward substance; so that 
σχῆμα is the variable, μορφή the permanent, element in things: see 
Lft. Phil. p. 125 ff.; Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vii. 31. Nor does the 
present passage conflict with this distinction. The Law was a real 


F 


66 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS |II. 20-23. 


expression of Divine truth, so far as it went. It is more difficult to 
account for 2 Tim. iii. αὶ ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν 
αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι. 

See however Lft. in Journ. of Class. and Sacr. Philol. (1857) iii. 115 
‘They will observe that in two passages where St. Paul does speak of that 
which is unreal or at least external, and does not employ σχῆμα, he still 
avoids using μορφή as inappropriate, and adopts μόρφωσις instead (Rom. ii. 
20; 2 Tim. iii. 5), where the termination -ωσις denotes ‘‘the aiming after or 
affecting the poppy.”’’ Can this quite be made good ? 


21. οὖν : resumptive, introducing the apodosis to the long pro- 
tasis in vv. 17-20. After the string of points, suspended as it were 
in the air, by which the Apostle describes the Jew’s complacency, 
he now at last comes down with his emphatic accusation. Here 
is the ‘Thou art the man’ which we have been expecting since 
ver. I. 


κλέπτειν : infin. because κηρύσσων contains the idea of command. 


22. βδελυσσόμενος : used of the expression of physical disgust, 
esp. of the Jew’s horror at idolatry. 


Note the piling up of phrases in Deut. vii. 26 wat οὐκ εἰσοίσεις βδέλυγμα 
{here of the gold and silver plates with which idols were overlaid] εἰς 
τὸν οἶκόν σου, καὶ ἔσῃ ἀνάθημα ὥσπερ τοῦτο, προσοχθίσματι προσοχθιεῖς καὶ 
βδελύγματι βδελύξῃ, ὅτι ἀνάθημά ἐστιν. Comp. also Dan. xii. 11; Matt. xxiv. 
15, &c. One of the ignominies of captivity was to be compelled to carry 
the idols of the heathen: Assump. Moys. viii. 4 cogentur pclam baiulare idola 
corum inguinata, 


ἱεροσυλεῖς. The passage just quoted (Deut. vii. 26 with 25), 
Joseph. An. IV. viii. 10, and Acts xix. 37 (where the town-clerk 
asserts that St. Paul and his companions were ‘ ποῦ ἱερόσυλοι) show 
that the robbery of temples was a charge to which the Jews were 
open in spite of their professed horror of idol-worship. 


There were provisions in the Talmud which expressly guarded against 
this: everything which had to do with an idol was a βδέλυγμα to him unless 
it had been previously desecrated by Gentiles. but for this the Jew might 
have thought that in depriving the heathen of their idol he was doing a good 
work. See the passages in Delitzsch ad Joc.; also on ἱεροσυλία, which must 
not be interpreted too narrowly, Lft., 2:55. om Supern. Rel. p. 299 Ε; 
Ramsay, Zhe Church in the Roman Empire, p. 144n., where it is noted 
that ἱεροσυλία was just one of the crimes which a provincial governor could 
proceed against by his own émpertum. 

The Eng. Versions of ἱεροσυλεῖς group themselves thus: ‘robbest God of 
his honour’ Tyn. Cran. Genev.; ‘doest sacrilege’ (or equivalent) Wic. 
Rhem. AV. RV. marg.; ‘dost rob temples’ RV. 


23. It is probably best not to treat this verse as a question. 
The questions which go before are collected by a summary accu- 
sation. Gif, with a delicate sense of Greek composition, sees 
a hint of this in the change from participles to the relative and 
indic. (ὁ διδάσκων... ds καυχᾶσαι). 


II. 24-27. ] FAILURE OF THE JEWS 67 


24. A free adaptation of 15. lii. 5 (LXX). Heb. ‘ And con- 
tinually all the day long My Name is blasphemed’: LXX adds to 
this δι ὑμᾶς and ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. St. Paul omits διαπαντός and changes 
μου tO τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

The original meant that the Name of God was reviled by the 
tyrants and oppressors of Israel: St. Paul, following up a suggesi:cn 
in the LXX (δι ὑμᾶς), traces this reviling to the scandal caused 
by Israel’s inconsistency. The fact that the formula of quotation 
is thrown to the end shows that he is conscious of applying the 
passage freely: it is almost as if it were an after-thought that the 
language he has just used is a quotation at all. See the longer 
note on ch. x, below. 


25. νόμον mpdoons. On the absence of the art. see especially the scholarly 
note in Va.: ‘It is almost as if νυμὸν πράσσειν and νόμου παραβάτης were 
severally like νομοθετεῖν, νομοφυλακεῖν, &c., νομοθέτης, νομοδιδάσκαλος, AC, 
one compound word: if thou be a law-doer .. . if thou be a law-transgressor, 
&c., indicating the character of the person, rather than calling attention to 
the particular form or designation of the law, which claims obedience.’ 

γέγονεν: ‘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. eis περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται : λογίζεσθαι εἴς τι = λογίζεσθαι εἰς τὸ 
εἶναί τι, εἰς denoting result, ‘so as to be in place of, ‘ reckoned as 
a substitute or equivalent for’ (Fri., Grm.-Thay. 5. v. λογίζομαι τ a). 


Of the synonyms τηρεῖν, φυλάσσειν, τελεῖν ; τηρεῖν = ‘to keep an eye upon,’ 
‘to observe carefully’ (and then do); φυλάσσειν = ‘to guard as a deposit.’ 
‘to preserve intact’ against violence from without or within; τελεῖν = ‘to 
bring (a law) to its proper fulfilment’ in action; τηρεῖν and φυλάσσειν are 
both from the point of view of the agent, τελεῖν from that of the law which 
is obeyed. See Westcott on Jo. xvii. 12; 1 Jo. ii. 3. 


27. κρινεῖ : most probably categorical and not a question as 
AV. and RV.; = ‘condemn’ by comparison and contrast, as in 
Matt. 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. 

ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία : 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’ (ἐκ φύσ.ΞΞ φύσει v. 14). 

διά of ‘attendant circumstances’ as in iv. 11, Vili, 25, Xiv. 20; 
Anglicé ‘with,’ with all your advantages of circumcision and the 
possession of a written law. 

The distinction between the literal Israel which is after the flesh 
and the true spiritual Israel is a leading idea with St. Paul and 
is worked out at length in ix. 6 ff.; see also pp. 2, 14 sup. We may 


68 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 27-29. 


compare Phil. iii. 3, where St. Paul claims that Christians represent 
the true circumcision, 


28. ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ. The Greek of this and the next verse is elliptical, 
and there is some ambiguity as to how much belonys to the subject and how 
much to the predicate. Even accomplished scholars like Dr. Gifford and 
Dr. Vaughan differ. The latter has some advantage in symmetry, making 
the missing words in both clauses belong to the subject (‘Not he who is 
[a Jew] outwardly isa Jew... but he who is [a Jew] in secret is a Jew’) ; 
but it is a drawback to this view of the construction that it separates περιτομή 
and καρδίας : Gif., as it seems to us rightly, combines these (‘he which is 
inwardly a Jew [is truly a Jew], and circumcision of heart... [is true 
circumcision’]). Similarly Lips. Weiss (but not Mey.). 


29. περιτομὴ καρδίας. The idea of a spiritual (heart-) circum- 
cision goes back to the age of Deuteronomy; Deut. x. 16 mepure- 
μεῖσθε τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν : Jer. iv. 4 περιτμήθητε τῷ Θεῷ ὑμῶν, καὶ 
περιτέμεσθε τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν : cf. Jer. ix. 26; Ezek. xliv. 7; 
Acts vii. 51. Justin works out elaborately the idea of the Christian 
circumcision, Dial. ες. Tryph 114. 

ὁ ἔπαινος. We believe that Dr. Gifford was the first to point 
out that there is here an evident play on the name ‘ Jew’: Judah 
=‘ Praise’ (cf. Gen. xxix. 35; xlix. 8). 


CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


III. 1-8. This argument may suggest three objections: 
(i) 17 the moral Gentile is better off than the immoral Few, 
what becomes of the Few’s advantages ’—ANSWER. He still 
has many. Tis (e.g.) are the promises (vv. 1-2). (ii) But 
has not the Fews unbelief cancelled those promises ?— 
ANSWER. No unbelief on the part of man can affect the 
pledged word of God: it only serves to enhance His faithfut- 
ness (vv. 3, 4). (iii) Zf that ts the result of his action, why 
should man be judged ?’—ANSWER. He certainly will be 
judged: we niay not say (as I am falsely accused of saying), 
Do evil that good may come (vv. 5-8). 


'If the qualifications which God requires are thus inward and 
spiritual, an objector may urge, What becomes of the privileged 
position of the Jew, his descent from Abraham, and the like? 
What does he gain by his circumcision? * He does gain much 
on all sides. The first gain is that to the Jews were committed 


ITI. 1-8.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 49 


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. “ΤῸ 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. 

*A new objection arises. If our unrighteousness is only 
a foil to set off the righteousness of God would not God be unjust 
who punishes men for sin? (Speaking of God as if He were man 
can hardly be avoided.) That too were blasphemy to think! If 
any such objection were sound, God could not judge the world. 
But we know that He will judge it. Therefore the reasoning must 
be fallacious. 

"If, you say, as in the case before us, the truthfulness of 
God in performing His promises is only thrown into relief by my 
infidelity, which thus redounds to His glory, why am 1 still like 
other offenders (καί) 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 ff. [τ is characteristic of this Epistle that St. Paul seems 
to imagine himself face to face with an opponent, and that he 
discusses and answers arguments which an opponent might bring 
against him (so iii, 1 ff, iv. 1 ff, vi. aff, 15 ff., vii. 7ff.). 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 


7° EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1II.1,2 


that the charge of saying ‘Let us do evil that good may come’ 
was brought as a matter of fact against the Apostle (ver. 8). And 
vi. 1, 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 ἢ). It is probable however that St. Paul 
had himself wrestled with this question long before it was pointed 
against him as a weapon in controversy; and he propounds it in 
the order in which it would naturally arise in that stress of reason- 
ing, pro and con., which went to the shaping of his own system. 
The modified form in which the question comes up the second 
\ime (ver. 9) shows—if our interpretation is correct—that St. Paul is 
‘here rather following out his own thought than contending with 
an adversary. 

1. τὸ περισσόν. That which encircles a thing necessarily 
lies outside it. Hence περί would seem to have a latent meaning 
‘beyond,’ which is appropriated rather by πέρα, πέραν, but comes out 
in περισσός, ‘ that which is in excess,’ ‘ over and above.’ 

2. πρῶτον μέν: intended to be followed by ἔπειτα δέ, but the line 
of argument is broken off and not resumed. A list of privileges 
such as might have followed here is given in ch. ix. 4. 


πρῶτον μὲν γάρ: om. γάρ B D* E G meinusc. pauc., verss. plur., Chrys. 
Orig.-lat. al., [γάρ] WH. 

ἐπιστεύθησαν. πιστεύω, in the sense of ‘entrust,’ ‘confide,’ takes acc. of 
the thing entrusted, dat. of the person; e.g. Jo. ii. 24 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπί- 
orevey ἑαυτὸν [rather αὑτὸν or αὐτόν) αὐτοῖς. In the passive the dat. 
becomes nom., and the acc. remains unchanged ( Buttmann, pp. 175, 189, 190; 
Winer, xxxii. 5 [p. 287]; cf. 1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7). 


ra λόγια. St. Paul might mean by this the whole of the O. T. 
regarded as the Word of God, but he seems to have in view rather 
those utterances in it which stand out as most unmistakably Divine; 
the Law as given from Sinai and the promises relating to the 
Messiah. 


The old account of λόγιον as a dimin. of λόγος is probably correct, though 
Mey.-W. make it neut. of λόγιος on the ground that λογίδιον is the proper 
dimin. The form λογίδιον is rather a strengthened dimin., which by a process 
common in language took the place of λόγιον when it acquired the special 
sense of ‘oracle.’ From Herod. downwards λόγιον = ‘oracle’ as a brief 
condensed saying; and so it came to = any ‘inspired, divine utterance’: 
e.g. in Philo of the ‘ prophecies’ and of the ‘ten commandments’ (περὶ τῶν 
δέκα λογίων is the title of Philo’s treatise). So in LXX the expression is 
used of the ‘word of the Lord’ five times in Isaiah and frequently in the 
Psalms (no less than seventeen times in Ps. cxix [cxviii]). From this usage 
.t was natural that it should be transferred to the ‘sayings’ of the Lord 
Jesus (Polyc. ad Phil. vii. 1 ὃς ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια τοῦ Κυρίου : cf. Iren. 


III. 2-4.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 71 


Adv. Haer.\ praef.; also Weiss, Zzm/. § 5. 4). But from the time of Philo 
onwards the word was used of any sacred writing, whether discourse or 
narrative; so that it is a disputed point whether the λόγια τοῦ Κυρίου which 
Papias ascribes to St. Matthew, as well as his own λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις 
(Eus. #, Z. 111. xxxix. 16 and 1) were or were not limited to discourse (see 
especially Lightfoot, 255. on Supern. Rel. p. 172 ff.). 


8. ἠπίστησαν... ἀπιστίας. Do these words refer to ‘ unbelief’ 
(Mey. Gif. Lid. Oltr. Go.) or to ‘unfaithfulness’ (De W. Weiss 
Lips. Va.)? Probably, on the whole, the former: because (i) the 
main point in the context is the disbelief in the promises of the 
O. T. and the refusal to accept them as fulfilled in Christ ; (ii) 
chaps. ix—xi show that the problem of Israel’s unbelief weighed 
heavily on the Apostle’s mind ; (iii) ‘ unbelief’ is the constant sense 
of the word (ἀπιστέω occurs seven times, in which the only apparent 
exception to this sense is 2 Tim. ii. 13, and ἀπιστία eleven times, 
with no clear exception); (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. xi. 20 
τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἐξεκλάσθησαν, σὺ δὲ τῇ πίστει ἕστηκας. At the same time 
the one sense rather suggests than excludes the other; so that the 
ἀπιστία Of man is naturally contrasted with the πίστις of God 
(cf. Va.). 

πίστιν : ‘faithfulness’ to His promises; cf. Lam. iii. 23 πολλὴ ἡ 
πίστις σου: Ps, Sol. viii. 35 ἡ πίστις σου μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν. 

καταργήσει. καταργεῖν (from κατά causative and ἀργός = depyds) 
=‘ to render inert or inactive’: a characteristic word with St. Paul, 
occurring twenty-five times in his writings (including 2 Thess. 
Eph. 2 Tim.), and only twice elsewhere (Lk. Heb.) : = (i) in 
a material sense, ‘to make sterile or barren,’ of soil Lk. xiii. 7, 
cf. Rom. vi. 6 ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ‘ that the body as 
an instrument of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless’ ; 
(ii) in a figurative sense, ‘to render invalid,’ ‘ abrogate,’ ‘ abolish’ 
(τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν Gal. iii. 17 ; νόμον Rom. iii. 31). 

4. μὴ γένοιτο: a formula of negation, repelling with horror 
something previously suggested. ‘Fourteen of the fifteen N. Τὶ 
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, JZ. and T. ὃ 177; cf. 
also Lft. on Gal. ii. 17). 


It is characteristic of the vehement impulsive style of this group of Epp. 
that the phrase is confined to them (ten times in Rom., once in 1 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. xliv. 7, 17; Josh. xxii. 29, 
xxiv. 16; 1 Kings xx [xxi]. 3). 


γινέσθω: 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.’ 

ἀληθής : as keeping His plighted word. 


72 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [111. 4, δ. 


ψεύστης : in asserting that God’s promises have not been fulfilled. 

καθὼς γέγραπται : ‘ Lven as it stands written.’ The quotation is 
exact from LXX of Ps. li [1]. 6. Note the mistranslations in LXX 
(which St. Paul adopts), νικήσης (or νικήσεις) for imsons sts, ἐν τῷ 
κρίνεσθαι (pass.) for 2” iwdicando or dum iudicas. The sense of the 
original is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God's 
judgement upon him. The result of his sin is that God is pro- 
nounced righteous in His sentence, free from blame in His judging. 
St. Paul applies it as if the Most High Himself were put upon trial 
and declared guiltless in respect to the promises which He has 
fulfilled, though man will not believe in their fulfilment. 


ὅπως dv: dy points to an unexpressed condition, ‘in case a decision is 
- ᾽ 
given. 


δικαιωθῇς : ‘that thou mightest be pronounced righteous’ by 
ihe judgement of mankind; see p. 30 f. above, and compare Matt. xi. 
19 καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων (Vv. ]. τέκνων : cf. Lk. vii. 35) 
αὐτῆς. Zest, XII Patr. Sym. 6 ὅπως δικαιωθῶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῶν 
ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. Ps. Sol. ii. 16 ἐγὼ δικαιώσω σε ὁ Θεός. The usage 
occurs repeatedly in this book ; see Ryle and James ad Joc. 

ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου; not ‘ pleadings’ (Va.) but ‘ sayings,’ i.e. the 
λόγια just mentioned. Heb. probably = ‘ judicial sentence.’ 

νικήσῃς : like vzncere, of ‘ gaining a suit, opp. to ἡττᾶσθιιε : the 
full phrase is νικᾶν τὴν δίκην (Eur. £7. 955, &c.). 


νικήσᾳ5, BG KL &c.; νικήσεις SA DE, minuse alig. Probably νικήσει 
is right, because of the agreement of NA with the older types of Western 
Text, thus representing two great families. The reading νικήσῃς in B appa- 
rently belongs to the small Western element in that MS., which would seem 
to be allied to that in G rather than to that in D. There is a similar 
fluctuation in MSS. of the LXX: νικήσῃς is the reading of NB (def. A), 
νικήσεις of some fourteen cursives. The text of LXX used by St. Paul differs 
not seldom from that of the great uncials. 


κρίνεσθαι : probably not mid. (‘to enter upon trial,’ ‘ go to law,’ 
lit. ‘get judgment for oneself’) as Mey. Go. Va. Lid., but pass. 
as in ver. 7 (so Vulg. Weiss Kautzsch, &c.; see the arguments 
from the usage of LXX and Heb. in Kautzsch, De Ver. Zest. Locis 
a Paulo allegatis, p. 24 N.). 

5. ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν: a general statement, including ἀπιστία. In 
like manner Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην is general, though the particular 
instance which St. Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God 
to His promises. 

συνίστησι: συνίστημι (συνιστάνω) has in N. T. two conspicuous 
meanings: (i) ‘to bring together’ as two persons, ‘to introduce’ 
or ‘commend’ to one another (e.g. Rom. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. iii. 1; iv. 2; 
v. 12, &c.; cf. συστατικαὶ ἐπιστολαί 2 Cor. iii. 1); (ii) ‘to put 
together’ or ‘make good’ by argument, ‘to prove,’ ‘establish’ 


111. 5-7.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 73 


(compositis collectisque quae rem contineant argumentts aliquid doceo 
Fritzsche), as in Rom. v. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 11; Gal. ii. 18 (where see 
Lft. and EIl.). 


Both meanings are recognized by Hesych. (συνιστάνειν" ἐπαινεῖν, φανεροῦν, 
βεβαιοῦν, παρατιθέναι) ; but it is strange that neither comes out clearly in the 
uses of the word in LXX; the second is found in Susann. 61 ἀνέστησαν ἐπὶ 
τοὺς δύο πρεσβύτας, ὅτι συνέστησεν αὐτοὺς Δανιήλ ψευδομαρτυρήσαντας (Theod.). 


τί ἐροῦμεν: another phrase, like μὴ γένοιτο, which is charac- 
teristic of this Epistle, where it occurs seven times; not elsewhere 
in N.T. 

μὴ ἄδικος : the form of question shows that a negative answer is 
expected (μή originally meant ‘ Don’t say that,’ &c.). 

6 ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν : most exactly, ‘the inflicter of the anger’ 
(Va.). The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on i. 18, 
Xil. 19. 

Burton however makes ὁ ἐπιφέρων strictly equivalent to a relative clause, 


and like a relative clause suggest a reason (‘Who visiteth’=‘ because He 
visiteth’) AZ. and T. ὃ 428. 


κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω: a form of phrase which is also charac- 
teristic of this group of Epistles, where the eager argumentation of 
the Apostle leads him to press the analogy between human and 
divine things in a way that he feels calls for apology. The exact 
phrase recurs only in Gal. iii. 15 ; but comp. also 1 Cor. ix. 8 
μὴ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ταῦτα λαλῶ; 2 Cor. Xi. 17 ὃ λαλῶ, οὐ κατὰ Κύριον 
λαλῶ. 

6. ἐπεὶ πῶς κρινεῖ: St. Paul and his readers alike held as axio- 
matic the belief that God would judge the world. But the objection 
just urged was inconsistent with that belief, and therefore must 
fall to the ground. 


ἐπεί: ‘since, if that were so, if the inflicting of punishment necessarily 
implied injustice.’ Ἔπεί gets the meaning ‘if so,’ ‘if not’ (‘or else’), from 
the context, the clause to which it points being supposed to be repeated: 
here ἐπεί sc. εἰ ἄδικος ἔσται ὃ ἐπιφέρων THY ὀργήν (cf. Buttmann, Gr. of WV. 7. 


Gk. p. 359)- 
τὸν κόσμον : 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. 
εἰ δέ δὲ A minusc. pauc., Vulg. cod. Boh., Jo.-Damasc., Tisch. WH. ‘ext. 


RV. text.; εἰ γάρ BD EG K LP &c., Vulg. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. a/., WH. 
marg. RV. marg. The second reading may be in its origin Western. 


ἀλήθεια: the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises; 
ψεῦσμα, the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as 


in ver. 4). 
κἀγώ: ‘I too, as well as others, though my falsehood thus 


74 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 7, 8. 


redounds to God’s glory. St. Paul uses the first person from 
motives of delicacy, just as in r Cor. iv. 6 he ‘ transfers by a fiction’ 
(Dr. Field’s elegant rendering of μετεσχημάτισα) to himself and his 
friend Apollos what really applied to his opponents. 

8. There are two trains of thought in the Apostle’s mind: (i) 
the excuse which he supposes to be put forward by the unbeliever 
that evil may be done for the sake of good; (ii) the accusation 
brought as a matter of fact against himself of saying that evil 
might be done for the sake of good. The single clause ποιήσωμεν 
τὰ κακὰ ἵνα ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀγαθά is made to do duty for both these trains of 
thought, in the one case connected in idea and construction with 
ri... μή, in the other with λέγουσιν ὅτι. This could be brought 
out more clearly by modern devices of punctuation: ri ἔτι κἀγὼ ὡς 
ἁμαρτωλός, κρίνομαι ; καὶ [τί] μὴ----καθὼς βλασφημούμεθα, καὶ καθώς φασί 
τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν ὅτι----ποιήσωμεν κιτλ. There is a very similar con- 
struction in wv. 25, 26, where the argument works up twice over to 
the same words, εἰς [πρὸς] τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, and the 
words which follow the second time are meant to complete both 
clauses, the first as well as the second. It is somewhat similar 
when in ch. ii. ver. 16 at once carries on and completes wv. 15 
and 13. 

St. Paul was accused (no doubt by actual opponents) of Anti- 
nomianism. What he said was, ‘ The state of righteousness is not 
to be attained through legal works; it is the gift of God.’ He 
was represented as saying ‘therefore it does not matter what a man 
does ’—an inference which he repudiates indignantly, not only 
here but in vi. 1 ff., 15 ff. 

ὧν τὸ κρῖμα «7.4. This points back to ri ἔτι κἀγὼ κρίνομαι ; the 
plea which such persons put in will avail them nothing ; the judge- 
ment (of God) which will fall upon them is just. St. Paul does 
not argue the point, or say anything further about the calumny 
directed against himself; he contents himself with brushing away 
an excuse which is obviously unreal. 


UNIVERSAL FAILURE TO ATTAIN TO 
RIGHTEOUSNESS. 


Ill. 9-20. /f the case of us Fews is so bad, are the 
Gentiles any better? No. The same accusation covers both. 
The Scriptures speak of the universality of human guilt, 
which ts laid down in Ps. xiv and graphically described in 
Pss. v, cxl, x, 1” Is. lix, and again im Ps. xxxvi. And tf 


III. 9-20.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 75 


the Few ἐς equally guilty with the Gentile, still less can he 
escape punishment, for the Law which threatens him with 
punishment is his own. So then the whole system of Law 
and works done in fulfilment of Law, has proved a failure. 
Law can reveal sin, but not remove tt. 


ΤΟ return from this digression. What inference are we to 
draw? Are the tables completely turned? Are we Jews not only 
equalled but surpassed (προεχόμεθα 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. 18- 
32, li. 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 
yawning to receive the corpse that will soon fill it with corruption, 
so the throat of the wicked is only opened to vent forth depraved 
and lying speech. Their tongue is practised in fraud. Or in 
Ps. cxl. 3 [also exactly quoted]: the poison-bag of the asp lies 
under their smooth and flattering lips. %So, as it is described in 
Ps. x. 7, throat, tongue, and lips are full of nothing but cursing 
and venom. ™ Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX 
of 15. lix. 7, 8]: They run with eager speed to commit murder. 
‘6 Their course is marked by ruin and misery. "™ With smiling 
paths of peace they have made no acquaintance. 7 To sum up the 
character of the ungodly in a word [from Ps. xxxvi (xxxv). 1 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 


γό EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 9. 


that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse, 
and that all mankind might be held accountable to God. 

30 This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By works of 
Law (i. 6. by an attempted fulfilment of Law) no mortal may hope 
to be declared righteous in God’s sight. For the only effect of 
Law is to open men’s eyes to their own sinfulness, not to enable 
them to do better. That method, the method of works, has 
failed. A new method must be found. 


9. τί οὖν ; ‘ What then [follows|?’ Not with προεχόμεθα, because 
that would require in reply οὐδὲν πάντως, not οὐ πάντως. 

προεχόμεθα is explained in three ways: as intrans. in the same 
sense as the active προέχω, as trans. with its proper middle force, 
and as passive. (i) προεχόμεθα mid. = προέχομεν ( praecellimus eos 
Vulg. ; and so the majority of commentators, ancient and modern, 
"Apa περισσὸν ἔχομεν mapa τοὺς Ἕλληνας ; Euthym.-Zig. ἔχομέν τι πλέον 
καὶ εὐδοκιμοῦμεν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ; Theoph. ‘ Do we think ourselves better ?’ 
Gif.). But no examples of this use are to be found, and there 
seems to be no reason why St. Paul should not have written 
mpoéxouev, the common form in such contexts. (ii) προεχόμεθα trans. 
in its more ordinary middle sense, ‘put forward as an excuse or 
pretext’ (‘Do we excuse ourselves?’ RV. marg., ‘Have we any 
defence?’ Mey. Go.). But then the object must be expressed, 
and as we have just seen ri οὖν cannot be combined with προεχόμεθα 
because of οὐ πάντως. (iii) προεχόμεθα passive, ‘ Are we excelled?’ 
‘ Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles)?’ a rare use, but still 
one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, Of. Norv. 111 ad 
loc.). Some of the best scholars (e.g. Lightfoot, Field) incline to 
this view, which has been adopted in the text of RV. The prin- 
cipal objection to it is from the context. St. Paul has just asserted 
(ver. 2) that the Jew has an advantage over the Gentile : how then 
does he come to ask if the Gentile has an advantage over the Jew? 
The answer would seem to be that a different kind of ‘advantage’ 
is meant. The superiority of the Jew to the Gentile is Aés/oric, it 
lies in the possession of superior privileges; the practical equality 
of Jew and Gentile is in regard to their present moral condition 
(ch. ii. 17-29 balanced against ch. i. 18-32). In this latter respect 
St. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places 
(ii, 25-29). A few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take προεχόμεθα as pass., 
but give it the same sense as προέχομεν, ‘Are we (Jews) preferred 
(to the Gentiles) in the sight of God?’ 


τροεχόμεθα : v. 1. προκατέχομεν περισσόν D* G, 31; Antiochene Fathers 
(Chrys. (ed. Field] Theodt. Severianus), also Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. (some MSs. 
but not the best, fexemus amplius\): a gloss explaining mpoey. in the same 


III. 9,10. UNIVERSAL FAILURE 4 


way as Vulg. and the later Greek commentators quoted above. AL read 
προεχώμεθα, 


οὐ πάντως. Strictly speaking οὐ should qualify πάντως, ‘not 
altogether,’ ‘not entirely,” as in 1 Cor. v. 10 οὐ πάντως τοῖς πόρνοις 
τοῦ κόσμου τούτου: but in some cases, as here, πάντως qualifies ov, 
‘altogether not,’ ‘entirely not,’ i.e. ‘not at all’ (meguaguam Vulg., 
οὐδαμῶς Theoph.). Compare the similar idiom in οὐ maw; and see 
Win. Gr. Ixi. 5. 

προῃτιασάμεθα : in the section i. 18—il. 29. 


ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν. In Biblical Greek ὑπό with dat. has given place entirely to 
ὑπό with acc. Matt. viii. 9 ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν is a strong case. The 
change has already taken place in LXX; e.g Deut. xxxiii. 3 πάντες of 
ἡγιασμένοι ὑπὸ τὰς χεῖράς σου, καὶ οὗτοι ὑπὸ σέ εἰσι. 


10. The long quotation which follows, made up of a number of 
passages taken from different parts of the O.T., and with no 
apparent break between them, is strictly in accordance with the 
Rabbinical practice. ‘A favourite method was that which derived 
its name from the stringing together of beads (Charaz), when a 
preacher having quoted a passage or section from the Pentateuch, 
strung on to it another and like-sounding, or really similar, 
from the Prophets and the Hagiographa’ (Edersheim, Life and 
Times, &c. i. 449). We may judge from this instance that the 
first quotation did not always necessarily come from the Pentateuch 
—though no doubt there is a marked tendency in Christian as 
compared with Jewish writers to equalize the three divisions of the 
O. T. Other examples of such compounded quotations are Rom. 
ix. 25f.; 27 f.; xi. 26f.; 34 [ xii. τοί; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Here the 
passages are from Pss. xiv [xiii]. 1-3 (=Ps. liii. 1-3 [lii. 2-4]), 
ver. 1 free, ver. 2 abridged, ver. 3 exact; v. 9 [10] exact; cxl. 3 
[cxxxix. 4] exact: x. 7 [ix. 28] free; Is. lix. 7, 8 abridged ; Ps. 
xxxvi [xxxv]. 1. 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 LXX) as an 
appendage to ver. 4 in the ‘common’ text of the LXX (ἡ κοινή, i.e. the 
unrevised text current in the time of Origen). They are still found in Codd, 
&* BRU and many cursive MSS. of LXX (om. Ne*A), though the Greek 
commentators on the Psalms do not recognize them. From interpolated 
MSS. such as these they found their way into Lat.-Vet., and so into 
Jerome’s first edition of the Psalter (the ‘Roman’), also into his second 
edition (the ‘Gallican,’ based upon Origen’s Hexap/a), though marked with 
an obelus after the example of Origen. ‘The obelus dropped out, and they 
are commonly printed in the Vulgate text of the Psalms, which is practically 
the Gallican, From the Vulgate they travelled into Coverdale’s Bible 
(A.D. 1535); from thence into Matthew's (Rogers’) Bible, which in the 


78 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 9-12. 


Psalter reproduces Coverdale (A.D. 1537), and also into the ‘Great Bible’ 
(first issued by Cromwell in 1539, and afterwards with a preface by Cranmer, 
whence it also bears the name of Cranmer’s Bible, in 1540). The Psalter of 
the Great Bible was incorporated in the Book of Common Prayer, in which 
it was retained as being familiar and smoother to sing, even in the later 
revision which substituted elsewhere the Authorized Version of 1611. The 
editing of the Great Bible was due to Coverdale, who put an * to the 
passages found in the Vulgate but wanting in the Hebrew. 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 
interpolated verses in Ps. xiv with nothing to distinguish them from the rest 
of the text. Jerome himself was well aware that these verses were no part 
of the Psalm. In his commentary on Isaiah, lib. xvi, he notes that St. Paul 
quoted Is. lix. 7, 8 in Ep. to Rom., and he adds, guod multi ignorantes, de 
tertio decimo psalmo sumptum putant, qui versus στίχοι" in editione Vulgata 
[i.e. the κοινή of the LX ΧῚ additi sunt et in Hebraico non habentur (Hieron. 
Opp. ed. Migne, iv.601 ; comp. the preface to the same book, zérd. col. 568 f. ; 
also the newly discovered Commentarioli in Psalmos, ed. Morin, 1895, p. 24 f.). 


10. Some have thought that this verse was not part of the 
quotation, but a summary by St. Paul of what follows. It does 
indeed present some variants from the original, δίκαιος for ποιῶν 
χρηστότητα and οὐδὲ εἷς for οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός. In the LXX this clause 
is a kind of refrain which is repeated exactly in ver. 3. St. Paul 
there keeps to his text; but we cannot be surprised that in the 
opening words he should choose a simpler form of phrase which 
more directly suggests the connexion with his main argument. 
The δίκαιος ‘shall live by faith’; but till the coming of Christianity 
there was no true δίκαιος and no true faith. The verse runs too 
much upon the same lines as the Psalm to be other than a 
quotation, though it is handled in the free and bold manner which 
is characteristic of St. Paul. 


11. οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ cundv: non est gui intelligat (rather than gut 
intelligit); Anglicé, ‘there is none to understand.’ [But ABG, 
and perhaps Latt. Orig.-lat. Ambrstr., WH. /ex/ read συνιῶν, as also 
(B)C WH. κι} ἐκζητῶν, without the art. after LXX. This would = 
non est intelligens, non est requirens Deum (Vulg.) ‘There is 
no one of understanding, there is no inquirer after God.’ | 

6 συνιῶν : on the form see Win. Gr. ὃ xiv, 16 (ed. 8; xiv, 3 E. T.); Hort, 

Intr. Notes on Orthog. p. 167; also for the accentuation, Fri. p. 174 f. 

Both forms, συνιέω and συνίω, are found, and either accentuation, συνιῶν or 


συνίων, may be adopted: probably the latter is to be preferred ; cf. ἤφιε from 
ἀφίω Mk. i. 34, xi. 16. 


12. ἅμα : ‘one and all.’ 
ἠχρειώθησαν: Heb. = ‘to go bad,’ ‘become sour,’ like milk; 
comp. the ἀχρεῖος δοῦλος of Matt. xxv. 30. 
ποιῶν (sine artic.) ABG &c. WH. text. 


χρηστότητα = ‘goodness’ in the widest sense, with the idea of 
‘utility ’ rather than specially of ‘ kindness,’ as in ii. 4. 


III. 12-19.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 79° 


ἕως évos: cp. the Latin idiom ad unum omnes (Vulg. literally usgue ad 
wrum). BO67**, WH. marg. omit the second ob ἔστιν [οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν 
Χρηστύτητα ἕως ἑνός]. The readings of B and its allies in these verses are 
open to some suspicion of assimilating to a text of LXX. In ver. 14 B17 
add αὐτῶν (ὧν τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν) corresponding to αὐτοῦ in B’s text of Ps. x. 7 
[ix. 28]. 


18. τάφος... ἐδολιοῦσαν. The LXX of Ps. v. 9 [10] corre- 
sponds pretty nearly to Heb. The last clause = rather Anguam 
suam blandam reddunt ( poliunt), or perhaps lingua sua blandiuntur 
(Kautzsch, p. 34): ‘their tongue do they make smooth’ Cheyne; 
‘smooth speech glideth from their tongue’ De Witt. 


ἐδολιοῦσαν : Win. Gr. § xiii, 14 (ed. 8; xiii, 2 E. T.). The termina- 
tion -σαν, extended from imperf. and 2nd aor. of verbs in -yx to verbs in -ω, is 
widely found; it is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek, but by no 
means confined to it; it is frequent in Boeotian inscriptions, and is called by 
one grammarian a ‘ Boeotian’ form, as by others ‘ Alexandrian.’ 


ἰὸς ἀσπίδων : Ps. cxl. 3 [cxxxix. 4]. The position of the poison- 
bag of the serpent is rightly described. The venom is more 
correctly referred to the bite (as in Num. xxi. 9; Prov. xxiii. 32), 
than to the forked tongue (Job xx. 16): see art. ‘Serpent’ in 
DB. 

14. Ps. x. 7 somewhat freely from LXX [ix. 28]: οὗ ἀρᾶς τὸ 
στόμα αὐτοῦ γέμει καὶ πικρίας καὶ δόλου. St. Paul retains the rel. but 
changes it into the plural: στόμα αὐτῶν Β 17, Cypr., WH. marg. 

πικρία : Heb. more lit. = fraudes. 

15-17. This quotation of Is. lix. 7, 8 is freely abridged from the 
LXX; and as it is also of some interest from its bearing upon 
the text of the LXX used by St. Paul, it may be well to give the 
original and the quotation side by side. 


Rom. iii. 15-17. Is. lix. 7, 8. 
ὀξεῖς of πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα" οἱ δὲ πόδες αὐτῶν [ἐπὶ πονηρίαν 
ε e 
σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς τρέχουσι] ταχινοὶ ἐκχέαι αἷμα [καὶ οἱ 
ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ διαλογισμοὶ αὐτῶν διαλογισμοὶ ἀπὸ 
ἔγνωσαν. φόνων]. σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία 
> - ec τ > ΄“ 4 id A > , 
ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης 
> Ls ‘ > »"» , > 
οὐκ οἴδασι [καὶ οὐκ ἔστι κρίσις ἐν 
ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν]. 
αἷμα ἀναίτιον Theodotion, and probably also Aquila and Symmachus. 
[From the Hexaf/a this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX.] 


ἀφρόνων (for ἀπὸ φόνων) AN: οἴδασι NB ΟἿ, &c.: ἔγνωσαν AQ! marg. 
(Q = Cod. Marchalianus, XII Holmes) mznusc. alzg. 


19. What is the meaning of this verse? Does it mean that the 
passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (6 νόμος = O. T.; 


fo EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [III. 19. 20. 


νύμον τὴν παλαιὰν γραφὴν ὀνομάζει, ἧς μέρος τὰ προφητικά Euthym.- 
Zig.), and therefore they are as much guilty before God as the 
Gentiles? So most commentators. Or does it mean that the 
guilt of the Jews being now proved, as they sinned they must also 
expect punishment, the Law (ὁ νόμος = the Pentateuch) affirming 
the connexion between sin and punishment. SoGif. Both interpre- 
tations give a good sense. [For though (i) does not strictly prove 
that a/7 men are guilty but only that the Jews are guilty, this was 
really the main point which needed proving, because the Jews were 
apt to explain away the passages which condemned them. and held 
that—whatever happened to the Gentiles—they would escape.] 
The question really turns upon the meaning of 6 νόμος. It is 
urged, (i) that there is only a single passage in St. Paul where 
ὁ νόμος Clearly=O. T. (1 Cor. xiv. 21, a quotation of Is. xxvili. 11): 
compare however Jo. x. 34 (= Ps. Ixxxii. 6), xv. 25 (= Ps. 
xxxv. 19); (ii) that in the corresponding clause, τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ 
must = the Law, in the narrower sense ; (iii) that in ver. 21 the 
Law is expressly distinguished from the Prophets. 

Yet these arguments are hardly decisive : for (i) the evidence is 
sufficient to show that St. Paul might have used ὁ νόμος in the wider 
sense ; for this one instance is as good as many ; and (ii) we must 
not suppose that St. Paul always rigidly distinguished which sense 
he was using; the use of the word in one sense would call up the 
other (cf. Note on 6 θάνατος in ch. v. 12). 


Oltr. also goes a way of his own, but makes ὅ νόμος = Law in the 
abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience, and fur the 
jew the law of Moses), which is contrary to the use of ὁ νόμος. 


λέγει... λαλεῖ : λέγειν calls attention to the substance of what 
is spoken, λαλεῖν to the outward utterance; cf. esp. M¢Clellan, 
Gospels, p. 383 ff. 

dpayy : cf. ἀναπολόγητος i. 20, ii. 1; the idea comes up at each 
step in the argument. 

ὑπύδικος : not exactly ‘guilty before God,’ but ‘answerable to 
God.’ ὑπόδικος takes gen. of the penalty; dat. of the person injured 
to whom satisfaction is due (τῶν διπλασίων ὑπόδικος ἔστω τῷ βλαφθέντι 
Plato, Legg. 846 B). So here: all mankind has offended againsi 
God, and owes Him satisfaction, Note the use of a forensic 
term. 

20. διότι : ‘because,’ not ‘therefore,’ as AV. (see on i. 19). 
Mankind is liable for penalties as against God, because there is 
nothing else to afford them protection. Law can open men’s 
eyes to sin, but cannot remove it. Why this is so is shown in 
vii. 7 ff. 

δικαιωθήσεται: ‘shall be pronounced righteous,’ certainly not 
‘shall be made righteous’ (Lid.); the whole context (ἵνα πᾶν στομα 


III. 21-.26.] THE NEW SYSTEM 81 


φραγῇ, ὑπόδικος, ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ) has reference to a judicial trial and 
verdict. 
πᾶσα σάρξ : man in his weakness and frailty (1 Cor. i. 29; 1 Pet. 


i. 24). 
4) ; 
ἐπίγνωσις : ‘clear knowledge’; see on i. 28, 32. 


THE NEW SYSTEM. 


III. 21-26. Here then the new order of things comes in. 
In it ts offered a Righteousness which comes from God but 
embraces man, by no deserts of his but as a free gift on the 
part of God. This righteousness, (i) though attested by the 
Sacred Books, is independent of any legal system (ver. 21); 
(ii) 22 ἐς apprehended by faith in Christ, and ts as wide as 
man's need (vv. 22, 23); (iii) 22 ἐς made possible by the 
propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ (vv. 24, 25); which Sacrifice 
at once explains the lenient treatment by God of past sin 
and gives the most decisive expression to His righteousness 
(vv. 25, 26). 


ΤΕ 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. ™Yet estranged as they 
are God accepts them as righteous for no merit or service of theirs, 
by an act of His own free favour, the change in their relation to 
Him being due to the Great Deliverance wrought at the price of the 
Death of Christ Jesus. *When the Messiah suffered upon the 

a 


82 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [111. 21. 


Cross it was God Who set Him there as a public spectacle, to 
be viewed as a Mosaic sacrifice might be viewed by the crowds as- 
sembled in the courts of the Temple. The shedding of His Blood 
was in fact a sacrifice which had the effect of making propitiation 
or atonement for sin, an effect which man must appropriate through 
faith. The object of the whole being by this public and decisive 
act to vindicate the righteousness of God. In previous ages the 
sins of mankind had been passed over without adequate punishment 
or atonement : “ὃ but this long forbearance on the part of God had in 
view throughout that signal exhibition of His Righteousness which 
He purposed to enact when the hour should come as now it has 
come, so as to reveal Himself in His double character as at once 
righteous Himself and pronouncing righteous, or accepting as 
righteous, the loyal follower of Jesus. 


21. νυνὶ δέ : ‘now,’ under the Christian dispensation. Mey. De 
W. Oltr. Go. and others contend for the rendering ‘as it is,’ on the 
ground that the opposition is between two sfa/es, the state under 
Law and the state without Law. But here the two states or 
relations correspond to two periods succeeding each other in order 
of time; so that νυνί may well have its first and most obvious 
meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Rom. xvi. 
25, 26 μυστηρίου... φωυνερωθέντος . . . viv, Eph. il. 12, 13 νυνὶ 
dé... ἐγενήθητε ἐγγύς, Col. i. 26, 27 μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον... 
νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη, 2 Tim. i. 9, 10 χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν... πρὸ χρόνων 
αἰωνίων φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν, Heb. ix. 26 νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ 
τῶν αἰώνων... πεφανέρωται. It may be observed (i) that the N. T. 
writers constantly oppose the pre-Christian and the Christian 
dispensations to each other as periods (comp. in addition to the 
passages already enumerated Acts xvii. 30; Gal. ili, 23, 25, 
iv. 3, 4; Heb. i. 1); and (ii) that φανεροῦσθαι is constantly used 
with expressions denoting time (add to passages above Tit. i. 3 
καιροῖς ἰδίοις, τ Pet. i. 20 ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων). The leading 
English commentators take this view. 


An allusion of Tertullian’s makes it probable that Marcion retained this 
verse; evidence fails as to the rest of the chapter, and it is probable that he 
cut out the whole of ch. iv, along with most other references to the history 
of Abraham (Tert. on Gal. iv. 21-26, Adv. Marc. v. 4). 


χωρὶς νόμου: ‘apart from law,’ ‘independently of it,’ not as 
a subordinate system growing out of Law, but as an alternative for 
Law and destined ultimately to supersede it (Rom. x. 4). 

δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ: see on ch. i. 17. St. Paul goes on to define 
his meaning. The righteousness which he has in view is essentially 


III. 21, 22.] THE NEW SYSTEM 33 


the righteousness of God; though the aspect in which it is 
regarded is as a condition bestowed upon man, that condition is 
the direct outcome of the Divine attribute of righteousness, working 
its way to larger realization amongst men. One step in this 
realization, the first great objective step, is the Sacrificial Death of 
Christ for sin (ver. 25); the next step is the subjective apprehension 
of what is thus done for him by faith on the part of the believer 
(ver. 22). Under the old system the only way laid down for man to 
attain to righteousness was by the strict performance of the Mosaic 
Law; now that heavy obligation is removed and a shorter but at 
the same time more effective method is substituted, the method of 
attachment to a Divine Person. 


πεφανέρωται. Contrast the completed φανέρωσις in Christ and 
the continued ἀποκάλυψις in the Gospel (ch. i. 16): the verb 
φανεροῦσθαι is regularly used for the Incarnation with its accompani- 
ments and sequents as outstanding facts of history prepared in the 
secret counsels of God and at the fitting moment ‘manifested’ to 
the sight of men; so, of the whole process of the Incarnation, 
flint Π|: τὸ; 2 lim. 1, tO, 1 Pet.1. 20; 1 ‘Jo. in. 5, 8: Οὗ the 
Atonement, Heb. ix. 26: of the risen Christ, Mark xvi. 12, 14; 
John xxi. 14: of the future coming to Judgement, 1 Pet. v. 4; 
1 Jo. ii. 28. The nearest parallels to this verse which speaks οἱ 
the manifestation of Divine ‘righteousness’ are 2 Tim. i. 10, which 
speaks of a like manifestation of Divine ‘grace,’ and 1 Jo.i. 2, 
which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the 
principle of ‘ life.’ 

paptupoupévy x. τ. Δ. : 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-10, 26-29; xv. 8-12; xvi. 26 &c. 

22. δέ turns to the particular aspect of the Divine righteousness 
which the Apostle here wishes to bring out; it is righteousness 
apprehended by faith in Christ and embracing the body of believers. 
The particle thus introduces a nearer definition, but in itself only 
marks the transition in thought which here (as in ch. ix. 30; 1 Cor. 
ii. 6; Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 8) happens to be from the general to the 
particular. 

πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ : gen. of object, ‘faitl. in Jesus Christ.’ 
This is the hitherto almost universally accepted view, which has 
however been recently challenged in a very carefully worked out 
argument by Prof. Haussleiter of Greifswald (Der Glaude Jesu 
Christi u. der christliche Glaube, Leipzig, 1891). 

Dr. Haussleiter contends that the gen. is subjective not objective, that like 


the ‘faith of Abraham’ in ch. iv. 16, it denotes the faith (in God) which 
Christ Himself maintained even through the ordeal of the Crucifixion, that 


84 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _[III. 22, 23 


this faith is here put forward as the central feature of the Atonement, and 
that it is to be grasped or appropriated by the Christian in a similar manner 
to that in which he reproduces the faith of Abraham. If this view held 
good, a number of other passages (notably i. 17) would be affected, by it. 
But, although ably carried out, the interpretation of some of these passages 
seems to us forced; the theory brings together things, like the πίστις Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ here with the πίστις Θεοῦ in iii. 3, which are really disparate; and 
it has so far, we believe, met with no acceptance. 

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. B, and apparently Marcion as quoted by Tertullian, 
drop Ἰησοῦ (so too WH. marg.); A reads ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 

καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας om. N* ABC, 47. 67**, Boh. Aeth. Arm., Clem.-Alex. 
Orig. Did. Cyr.-Alex. Aug.: ins DEFGKL &c. ἐπὶ πάντας alone is 
found in Jo. Damasc. Vulg. codd., so that els πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας would 
seem to be a conflation, or combination of two readings originally alterna- 
tives. If it were the true reading els would express ‘destination for’ al! 
believers, ἐπί ‘ extension to’ them. 


23. οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστολή. The Apostle is reminded of one of 
his main positions. The Jew has (in this respect) no real advantage 
over the Gentile; both alike need a righteousness which is not their 
own; and to both it is offered on the same terms. 

ἥμαρτον. In English we may translate this ‘have sinned’ in 
accordance with the idiom of the language, which prefers to use 
the perfect where a past fact or series of facts is not separated by 
a clear interval from the present: see note on ii. 12. 

ὑστεροῦνται : see Monro, Homeric Grammar, § 8 (3); mid. voice = 
‘feel want.’ Gif. well compares Matt. xix. 20 τί ἔτι ὑστερῶ; 
(objective, ‘What, as a matter of fact, is wanting to me?’) with 
Luke xv. 14 καὶ αὐτὸς ἤρξατο ὑστερεῖσθαι (subjective, the Prodigal 
begins to /ee/ his destitution). 

τῆς δόξης. There are two wholly distinct uses of this word: 
(1) = ‘opinion’ (a use not found in N. T.) and thence in 
particular ‘favourable opinion,’ ‘reputation’ (Rom. ii. 7, 10; 
John xii. 43 &c.); (2) by a use which came in with the 
LXX as translation of Heb. 43 = (i) ‘visible brightness or 
splendour’ (Acts xxii. 11; 4 Cor. xv. 40 ff.); and hence 
(ii) the brightness which radiates from the presence of God, 
the visible glory conceived as resting on Mount Sinai (Ex. 
xxiv. 16), in the pillar of cloud (Ex. xvi. 10), in the tabernacle 
(Ex. xl. 34) or temple (1 Kings viii. 11; 2 Chron. v. 14), and 
specially between the cherubim on the lid of the ark (Ps. Ixxx. 1; 
Ex. xxv. 22; Rom. ix. 4 &c.); (iii) this visible splendour 
symbolized the Divine perfections, ‘the majesty or goodness of 
God as manifested to men’ (Lightfoot on Col. i. 11; comp. Eph. 
i. 6, 12, 17; iii, 16); (iv) these perfections are in a measure 
communicated to man through Christ (esp. 2 Cor. iv. 6, 
iii, 18). Both morally and physically a certain transfiguration 
takes place in the Christian, partially here, completely hereafter 
(comp. e.g. Rom. viii. 30 ἐδόξασεν with Rom. v. 2 én’ ἐλπίδι τῆς 


[11. 23, 24.] THE NEW SYSTEM 85 


δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, viii. 18 τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, 2 Tim. 
ii. 10 δόξης αἰωνίου). 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, Adtsyn. 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 δόξα in this connexion is well illustrated by 4 Ezr. vii. 42 
[ed. Bensly = vi. 14 O. F. Fritzsche, p. 607}, where the state of the blessed 
is described as neque meriditem, neque noctem, neque ante lucem {perh. for 
anteluctum; vid. Bensly ad loc.|, neque nitorem, neque claritatem, neque 
lucem, nist solummodo splendorem claritatis Altisstmi [perh. = ἀπαύγασμα 
δόξης Ὑψίστου]. In quoting this passage Ambrose has sola Det fulgebit 
claritas ; Dominus enim erit lux omnium (cf. Rev. xxi. 24). The blessed 
themselves shine with a brightness which is reflected from the face of God: 
ibid. vv. 97, 98 [Bensly = 71, 72 O. F. Fritzsche] guomodo imcipiet (μέλλει) 
vultus eorum fulgere sicut sol, et quomodo incipient stellarum adsimilari 

lumini...festinant enim videre vultum [eius| cut serviunt viventes et 
ὦ quo incipient gloriost mercedem recipere (cf. Matt. xiii. 43). 


24. δικαιούμενοι. 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. 
6b) make δικαιούμενοι mark a detail in, or assign a proof of, the 
condition described by ὑστεροῦνται. In this case there would be 
a slight stress on δωρεάν: men are far from God’s glory, decause the 
state of righteousness has to be given them; they do nothing for 
it. But this is rather far-fetched. No such proof or further 
description of torepodvra 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) ὑστεροῦνται δικαιούμενοι is taken as = vore- 
ροῦνται καὶ δικαιοῦνται (Fri.) or = ὑστερούμενοι δικαιοῦνται (Tholuck). 
But this is dubious Greek. (iii) δικαιούμενοι 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 πῶς 
καυχώμεθα ; (Oltr.). But that would be harsh, and a connecting 
particle seems wanted. (iv) Easier and more natural than any of 
these expedients seems to be, with Va. and Ewald, to make ov ydp 
. . . ὑστεροῦνται practically a parenthesis, and to take the nom. 
δικαιούμενοι ‘as suggested by πάντες in ver. 23, but in sense referring 
rather to τοὺς πιστεύοντας in ver. 22. No doubt such a construction 
would be irregular, but it may be questioned whether it is too 


36 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [111. 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 2 Cor. viii. 18, 19 συνεπέμψαμεν δὲ τὸν ἀδελφὸν. . . οὗ 
ὁ ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ... οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ χειροτονηθείς (as if 
ὃς ἐπαινεῖται had preceded). 

δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι. Each of these phrases strengthens the 
other in a very emphatic way, the position of αὐτοῦ further laying 
stress on the fact that this manifestation of free favour on the part 
of God is unprompted by any other external cause than the one 
which is mentioned (διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως). 

ἀπολυτρώσεως. It is contended, esp. by Oltramare, (i) that 
λυτρόω and ἀπολυτρόω in classical Greek = not ‘to pay a ransom,’ 
but ‘to take a ransom,’ ‘ to put to ransom,’ or ‘release on ransom,’ 
as a conqueror releases his prisoners (the only example given of 
ἀπολύτρωσις is Plut. Pomp. 24 πολέων αἰχμαλώτων ἀπολυτρώσεις, where 
the word has this sense of ‘ putting to ransom’); (ii) that in LXX 
λυτροῦσθαι is frequently used of the Deliverance from Egypt, the 
Exodus, in which there is no question of ransom (so Ex. vi. 6, 
xv. 13; Deut. vii. 8; ix. 26; xiii. 5, &c.: cf. also ἀπολυτρώσει 
Ex. xxi. 8, of the ‘release’ of a slave by her master). The subst. 
ἀπολύτρωσις occurs only in one place, Dan. iv. 30 [29 or 32], LXX 
ὁ χρόνος μου τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ἦλθε Of Nebuchadnezzar’s recovery 
from his madness. Hence it is inferred (cf. also Westcott, Hed. 
p. 296, and Ritschl, Rechifert. u. Versdhn. ii. 220 ff.) that here and 
in similar passages ἀπολύτρωσις denotes ‘ deliverance’ simply without 
any idea of ‘ransom.’ There is no doubt that this part of the 
metaphor might be dropped. But in view of the clear resolution of 
the expression in Mark x. 45 (Matt. xx. 28) δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ 
λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, and in τ Tim. ii. 6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ 
πάντων, and in view also of the many passages in which Christians 
are said to be ‘bought,’ or ‘bought with a price’ (1 Cor. vi. 20, 
vii, 23; Gal. iii. 13; 2 Pet. ii: 1; Rev. νότος cf. Acts xx. 28; 
1 Pet. i. 18, 19), we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea 
of the λύτρον retains its full force, that it is identical with the τιμή, 
and that both are ways of describing the Death of Christ. The 
emphasis is on the cos¢ of man’s redemption. We need not press 
the metaphor yet a step further by asking (as the ancients did) to 
whom the ransom or price was paid. It was required by that 
ultimate necessity which has made the whole course of things what 
it has been; but this necessity is far beyond our powers to grasp 
or gauge. 


Tis ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. We owe to Haussleiter (Der Glaube Jess Christi, 
p. 116) the interesting observation that wherever the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ or ἐν 
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ occurs there is no single instance of the variants ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ or 
ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. This is significant, because in other combinations the 


ΠῚ. 24, 25. THE NEW SYSTEM 87 


variants are frequent. It is also what we should expect, because ἐν Χριστῷ 
and ἐν Χριστῷ ‘Ino. always relate to the glorified Christ, not to the historic 
Jesus. 


25. προέθετο may = either (i) ‘whom God proposed to Himself,’ 
‘purposed,’ ‘designed’ (Orig. Pesh.); or (ii) ‘whom God set forth 
publicly’ (proposuzt 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 πρόθεσις 
in) eh: ix: bx) (vil. 28) 5 Eph: tii. τα (1. τα} 2) Timi) tig; also 
1 Pet. i. 20. For (ii) compare esp. Gal. iii. 1 οἷς kar’ ὀφθαλμοὺς 
Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος. But when we turn to the 
immediate context we find it so full of terms denoting publicity 
(πεφανέρωται, eis ἔνδειξιν, πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν) that the latter sense seems 
preferable. The Death of Christ is not only a manifestation of the 
righteousness of God, but a vzszb/e manifestation and one to which 
appeal can be made. 

ἱλαστήριον : usually subst. meaning strictly ‘place or vehicle of 
propitiation, but originally neut. of adj. ἱλαστήριος (ἱλαστήριον 
ἐπίθεμα 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, Rechtfert. u. Versohn. 
ii. 169 ff. ed. 2) take the word here in this sense, arguing (i) that 
it suits the emphatic αὐτοῦ in ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι ; (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 zmvenzes igdfur . . . esse 
ipsum et propitiatorium et poniificem et hostiam quae offertur pro 
populo (in Rom. iii. 8, p. 213 Lomm.). But although there is 
a partial analogy for this in Heb. ix. 11-14, 23-x. 22, where 
Christ is both priest and victim, it is straining the image yet further 
to identify Him with the ἱλαστήριον. The Christian ἱλαστήριον, 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 προέθετο) 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 ἱλαστήριον is to supply with it θῦμα on the 
analogy of σωτήριον, τελεστήριον, χαριστήριον. This too is strongly 


88 EPISTLE ΤῸ THE ROMANS [111. 25. 


supported (esp. by the leading German commentators, De W. Fri. 
Mey. Lips.). But there seems to be no clear instance of ἱλαστήριον 
used in this sense. Neither is there satisfactory proof that ‘aor. 
(subst.) = in a general sense ‘instrument or means of propitiation.’ 
It appears therefore simplest to take it as adj. accus. masc. added 
as predicate to ὅν. There is evidence that the word was current as 
an adj. at this date (ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα Joseph. An/t. XVI. vii. 1; 
ἱλαστηρίου θανάτου 4 Macc. xvii. 22*, and other exx.). The 
objection that the adj. is not applied properly to persons counts 
for very little, because of the extreme rarity of the sacrifice οἱ 
a person. Here however it is just this personal element which is 
most important. It agrees with the context that the term chosen 
should be rather one which generalizes the character of propitiatory 
sacrifice than one which exactly reproduces a particular feature of 
such sacrifice. 


The Latin versions do not help us: they give all three renderings, pro- 
pilialortum, propitiatorem, and propitiationem. Syr. is also ambiguous. 
The Coptic clearly favours the masc. rendering adopted above. 

It may be of some interest to compare the Jewish teaching on the subject 
of Atonement. ‘When a man thinks, I will just go on sinning and repent 
later, no help is given him from above to make him repent. Ile who 
thinks, I will but just sin and the Day of Atonement will bring me forgive- 
ness, such an one gets no forgiveness through the Day of Atonement 
Offences of man against God the Day of Atonement can atone; offences of 
man against his fellow-man the Day of Atonement cannot atone until he has 
given satisfaction to his fellow-man’ ; and more to the same effect (Mishnah, 
Tract. Joma, viil. 9, ap. Winter u. Wiinsche, Jd. Lit. p. 98). We get 
a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta, Zvact. Joma, v: ‘R. Ismael 
said, Atonement is of tour kinds. He who transgresses a positive command 
and repents is at once forgiven according to the Scripture, “ Return, ye back- 
sliding children, I will heal your backslidings” (Jer. iii. 23 [22]). He who 
transgresses a negative command or prohibition and repents has the atone- 
ment held in suspense by his repentance, and the Day of Atonement makes 
it effectual, according to the Scripture, “ For on this day shall atonement be 
made for you” (Lev. xvi. 30). If a man commits a sin for which is decreed 
extermination or capital punishment and repents, his repentance and the 
Day of Atonement together keep the atonement in suspense, and suffering 
brings it home, according to the Scripture, ‘I will visit their transgression 
with the rod and their iniquity with stripes” (Ps. Ixxxix. 33 [32]). But 
when a man profanes the Name of God and repents, his repentance has not 
the power to keep atonement in suspense, and the Day of Atonement has 
not the power to atone, but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone 
one third, sufferings on the remaining days of the year atone one third, and 
the day of death completes the atonement according to the Scripture, 
“¢ Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till you die” (Is. xxii. 14). 
This teaches that the day of death completes the atonement. Sin-offering 
and trespass-offering and death and the Day of Atonement all being no 
atonement without repentance, because it is written in Lev. xxiii. 21 (?) 
* Only,” i.e. when he turns from his evil way does he obtain atonement, 
otherwise he obtains no atonement’ (of. c#t. p. 154). 


* Some MSS. ead here διὰ... τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου τοῦ θανάτου αὐτῶν (O. F. 
Fritzsche ad /oc.). 


III. 25.] THE NEW SYSTEM 89 


διὰ τῆς πίστεως: διὰ πίστεως NC*D*F G 67** al, Tisch. WH. ¢ext. 
The art. seems here rather more correct, pointing back as it would do to &a 
πίστεως “I. X. in ver. 22; it is found in B and the mass of later authorities, 
but theze is a strong phalanx on the other side; Bis not infallible in such 
company (cf. xi. 6). 


ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι : not with πίστεως (though this would be 
a quite legitimate combination ; see Gif. ad doc.), but with προέθετο 
ἱλαστήριον : the shedding and sprinkling of the blood is a principal 
idea, not secondary. 

The significance of the Sacrificial Bloodshedding was twofold. 
The blood was regarded by the Hebrew as essentially the seat of 
life (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11; Deut. xii. 23). Hence the death 
of the victim was not only a death but a setting free of life; the 
application of the blood was an application of life; and the 
offering of the blood to God was an offering of life. In this lay 
more especially the virtue of the sacrifice (Westcott, Ep. Jo. p. 34 ff. ; 
Heb. p. 293 f.). 

For the prominence which is given to the Bloodshedding in 
connexion with the Death of Christ see the passages collected 
below. 

εἰς ἔνδειξιν : eis denotes the final and remote object, πρός the 
nearer object. The whole plan of redemption from its first 
conception in the Divine Mind aimed at the exhibition of God’s 
Righteousness. And the same exhibition of righteousness was 
kept in view in a subordinate part of that plan, viz. the forbearance 
which God displayed through long ages towards sinners. For the 
punctuation and structure of the sentence see below. For ἔνδειξιν 
see on ch. ii. 15: here too the sense is that of ‘ proof by an appeal 
to fact.’ 

εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ. In what sense can the Death 
of Christ be said to demonstrate the righteousness of God? It 
demonstrates it by showing the impossibility of simply passing over 
sin. It does so by a great and we may say cosmical act, the 
nature of which we are not able wholly to understand, but which 
at least presents analogies to the rite of sacrifice, and to that 
particular form of the rite which had for its object propitiation. 
The whole Sacrificial system was symbolical; and its wide diffusion 
showed that it was a mode of religious expression specially 
appropriate to that particular stage in the world’s development. 
Was it to lapse entirely with Christianity? The writers of the 
New Testament practically answer, No. The necessity for it still 
existed; the great fact of sin and guilt remained; there was still the 
same bar to the offering of acceptable worship. To meet this fact 
and to remove this bar, there had been enacted an Event which 
possessed the significance of sacrifice. And to that event the N. T. 
writers appealed as satisfying the conditions which the righteousness 


go EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _[III. 25, 26. 


of God required. See the longer Note on ‘The Death of Christ 
considered as a Sacrifice’ below. 

διὰ τὴν mdpeow: not ‘for the remission,’ as AV., which gives 
a somewhat unusual (though, as we shall see on iv. 25, not 
impossible) sense to διά, and also a wrong sense to πάρεσιν, but 
‘because of the pretermission, or passing over, of foregone sins.’ 
For the difference between πάρεσις and ἄφεσις see Trench, Syn. 
p. 110 ff.: πάρεσις = ‘putting aséde,’ temporary suspension of 
punishment which may at some later date be inflicted; ἄφεσις = 
‘putting away,’ complete and unreserved forgiveness. 


It is possible that the thought of this passage may have been suggested by 
Wisd. xi. 23 [24] καὶ παρορᾷς ἁμαρτήματα ἀνθρώπων els μετάνοιαν. There 
will be found in Trench, of. cz¢. p. 111, an account of a controversy which 
arose out of this verse in Holland at the end of the sixteenth and beginning 
of the seventeenth centuries. 


ἁμαρτημάτων ; as contrasted with ἁμαρτία, ἁμάρτημα = the single 
act of sin, ἁμαρτία = the permanent principle of which such an act 
is the expression. 

ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ: ev either (i) denotes motive, as Mey., &c. (Grimm, 
Lex. 5. v. ἐν, 5 6); or (ii) it is temporal, ‘during the forbearance of 
God.’ Of these (i) is preferable, because the whole context deals 
with the scheme as it lay in the Divine Mind, and the relation of 
its several parts to each other. 

ἀνοχῇ : see on ii. 4, and note that ἀνοχή is related to πάρεσις 88 
χάρις is related to ἄφεσις. 

26. πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν : to be connected closely with the preceding 
clause: the stop which separates this verse from the last should be 
wholly removed, and the pause before διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν somewhat 
lengthened ; we should represent it in English by a dash or semi- 
colon. We may represent the various pauses in the passage in some 
such way as this: ‘Whom God set forth as propitiatory—through 
faith—in His own blood—for a display of His righteousness ; 
because of the passing-over of foregone sins in the forbearance of 
God with a view to the display of His righteousness at the present 
moment, so that He might be at once righteous (Himself) and 
declaring righteous him who has for his motive faith in Jesus.’ Gif. 
seems to be successful in proving that this is the true construction : 
(i) otherwise it is difficult to account for the change of the preposi- 
tion from εἰς to πρός ; (ii) the art. is on this view perfectly accounted 
for, ‘the same display’ as that just mentioned ; (iii) τῶν mpoyeyo- 
νότων ἁμαρτημάτων seems to be contrasted with ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ ; (iv) the 
construction thus most thoroughly agrees with St. Paul’s style 
elsewhere: see Gifford’s note and compare the passage quoted 
Eph. iii. 3-5, also Rom. iii. 7, 8, 11. 14-16. 

δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα. This is the key-phrase which establishes 
the connexion between the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, and the δικαιοσύνη ἐκ 


III. 21-.26.] THE NEW SYSTEM 9! 


πίστεως. It is not that ‘God is righteous and yet declares righteous 
the believer in Jesus,’ but that ‘ He is righteous amd also, we might 
almost say and f¢herefore, 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 
(sod 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. 

τὸν ἐκ πίστεως : ‘him whose ruling motive is faith’; contrast 
οἱ ἐξ ἐριθείας ch. 11. 8 ; ὅσοι ἐξ ἐργων νόμου (‘as many as depend on 
works of law’) Gal. iii. ro. 


The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice. 


It is impossible to get rid from this passage of the double idea 
(1) of a sacrifice ; (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory. In any 
case the phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι carries with it the idea of sacrificial 
bloodshedding. And whatever sense we assign to ἱλαστήριον--- 
whether we directly supply θῦμα, or whether we supply ἐπίθεμα and 
regard it as equivalent to the mercy-seat, or whether we take it as 
an adj.in agreement with 6»—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. 

(1) As in the passage before us, so elsewhere, the stress which is 
laid on αἷμα 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 (διὰ τοῦ 
αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ). We have it for St. Peter in 1 Pet. i. 2 (ῥαντισμὸν 
αἵματος) and 19 (τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου). For 
St. John we have it in 1 Jo. i. 7, and in ν. 6, 8. It also comes 
out distinctly in several places in the Apocalypse (i. 5, v. 9, vii. 14, 
xii. 11, xiii. 8). It is a leading idea very strongly represented in 
Ep. to Hebrews (especially in capp. ix, x, xiii). There is also the 
strongest reason to think that this Apostolic teaching was suggested 
by words of our Lord Himself, who spoke of His approaching 
death in terms proper to a sacrifice such as that by which the First 
Covenant had been inaugurated (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 25 with Matt. 
xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24 [perhaps not Luke xxii. 20]). 


92 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ IIl. 21-26. 


Many of these passages besides the mention of bloodshedding 
and the death of the victim (Apoc. v. 6, 12, xili. 8 dpviov ἐσφαγμένου : 
cf. v. 9) call attention to other details in the act of sacrifice (e. g. 
the sprinkling of the blood, ῥαντισμός τ Pet. i, 2; Heb. xii. 24; 
cf. Heb. ix. 13, 19, 21). 

We observe also that the Death of Christ is compared not only 
to one but to several of the leading forms of Levitical sacrifice: to 
the Passover (John i. 29, xix. 36; 1 Cor. v. 8, and the passages 
which speak of the ‘lamb’ in 1 Pet. and Apoc.); to the sacrifices 
of the Day of Atonement (so apparently in the passage from which 
we start, Rom. iii, 25, also in Heb. ii. 17; ix. 12, 14, 15, and 
perhaps 1 Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 24); to the ratification of the 
Covenant (Matt. xxvi. 28, &c.; Heb. ix. 15-22); to the sin-offering 
(Rom. viii. 3; Heb. xiii. rr; 1 Pet. iii, 18, and possibly if not 
under the earlier head, 1 Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10). 

(2) In a number of these passages as well as in others, both 
from the Epistles of St. Paul and from other Apostolic writings, 
the Death of Christ is directly connected with the forgiveness of 
sins (e.g. Matt. xxvi. 28; Acts v. 30 f., apparently; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 
2 Cor. v. 21; Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14 and 20; Tit. ii. rq; Heb. i. 3, 
ix. 28, x, 12 al.; 1 Pet. ii..24, iii. 18; 1 Jo. it. 2, iv. ro; Apoci 6). 
The author of Ep. to Hebrews generalizes from the ritual system 
of the Old Covenant that sacrificial bloodshedding is necessary in 
every case, or nearly in every case, to place the worshipper in a 
condition of fitness to approach the Divine Presence (Heb. ix. 22 
καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματι πάντα καθαρίζεται κατὰ τὸν νόμον, και χωμὶς 
αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσιε). The use of the different words 
denoting ‘propitiation’ is all to the same effect (ἱλαστήριυν Rom. 
iii. 25; ἱλασμός τ Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10; ἱλάσκεσθαι Heb. ii. 17). 

This strong convergence of Apostolic writings of different and 
varied character seems to show that the idea of Sacrifice as applied 
to the Death of Christ cannot be put aside as a merely passing 
metaphor, but is interwoven with the very weft and warp of 
primitive Christian thinking, taking its start (if we may trust our 
traditions) from words of Christ Himself. What it all amounts to 
is that the religion of the New Testament, like the religion of the 
Old, has the idea of sacrifice as one of its central conceptions, not 
however scattered over an elaborate ceremonial system but concen- 
trated in a single many-sided and far-reaching act. 

It will be seen that this throws back a light over the Old 
Testament sacrifices—and indeed not only over them but over the 
sacrifices of ethnic religion—and shows that they were something 
more than a system of meaningless butchery, that they had a real 
spiritual significance, and that they embodied deep principles of 
religion in forms suited to the apprehension of the age to which they 
were given and capable of gradual refinement and purification. 


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 ( Zhe 
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—not to speak of any that is to come, must 
be bought still, as it always has been, with our toil, and with our 
tears.’ 

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

The idea of Vicarious Suffering is not the whole and not 
perhaps the culminating point in the conception of Sacrifice, for 
Dr. Westcott seems to have sufficiently shown that the centre of 
the symbolism of Sacrifice 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 liiii No one who 
reads that chapter with attention can fail to see the profound truth 
which lies behind it—a truth which seems to gather up in one all 
that is most pathetic in the world’s history, but which when it has 
done so turns upon it the light of truly prophetic and divine inspira- 
tion, gently lifts the veil from the accumulated mass of pain and 
sorrow, and shows beneath its unspeakable value in the working out 
of human redemption and regeneration and the sublime consolations 
by which for those who can enter into them it is accompanied. 

I said that this chapter gathers up in one all that is most pathetic 
in the world’s history. It gathers it up as it were in a single 
typical Figure. We look at the lineaments of that Figure, and 
then we transfer our gaze and we recognize them all translated 


94 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [III. 27-31. 


from idea into reality, and embodied in marvellous perfection upon 
Calvary. 

Following the example of St. Paul and St. John and the Epistle 
to the Hebrews we speak of something in this great Sacrifice, which 
we call ‘Propitiation. We believe that the Holy Spirit spoke 
through these writers, and that it was His Will that we should use 
this word. But it is a word which we must leave it to Him to 
interpret. We drop our plummet into the depth, but the line 
attached to it is too short, and it does not touch the bottom. The 
awful processes of the Divine Mind we cannot fathom. Sufficient 
for us to know that through the virtue of the One Sacrifice our 
sacrifices are accepted, that the barrier which Sin places between us 
and God is removed, and that there is a ‘ sprinkling’ which makes 
us free to approach the throne of grace. 

This, it may still be objected, is but a ‘fiction of mercy.’ All 
mercy, all forgiveness, is of the nature of fiction. It consists in 
treating men better than they deserve. And if we ‘being evil’ 
exercise the property of mercy towards each other, and exercise it 
not rarely out of consideration for the merit of someone else than 
the offender, shall not our Heavenly Father do the same? 


CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW SYSTEM. 


III. 27-81. Hence it follows (1) that no claim can be 
made on the ground of human merit, for there is no merit 
in Faith (vv. 27, 28); (2) that Few and Gentile are on the 
same footing, for there 1s but one God, and Faith is the only 
means of acceptance with Him (vv. 29, 30). 

An objector may say that Law ts thus abrogated. On the 
contrary 115 deeper principles are fulfilled, as the history of 
Abraham will show (ver. 31). 


77 There are two consequences which I draw, and one that an 
objector may draw, from this. The first is that such a method of 
obtaining righteousness leaves no room for human claims or merit. 
Any such thing is once for all shut out. For the Christian system 
is not one of works—in which there might have been room for 
inerit—but one of Faith. ** Thus (οὖν, but see Ογ Voste) we believe 
that Faith is the condition on which a man is pronounced righteous, 
and not a round of acts done in obedience to law. 

* The second consequence [already hinted at in ver. 22] is that 


11’. 87, 28.1 CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW SYSTEM 95 


Jew and Gentile are on the same footing. If they are not, then 
God must be God of the Jews in some exclusive sense in which 
He is not God of the Gentiles. ‘Is that so? Not if I am right 
in affirming that there is but one God, Who requires but one 
condition—Faith, on which He is ready to treat as ‘righteous’ 
alike the circumcised and the uncircumcised—the circumcised with 
whom Faith is the moving cause, and the uncircumcised with whom 
the same Faith is both moving cause and sole condition of their 
acceptance. 

“1 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. ἐξεκλείσθη : an instance of the ‘summarizing’ force of the 
aorist ; ‘it is shut out once for all,’ ‘ by one decisive act.’ 
St. Paul has his eye rather upon the decisiveness of the act than upon its 


continued result. In English it is more natural to us to express decisiveness 
by laying stress upon the result—‘ ἐς shut out.’ 


διὰ ποίου νόμου : νόμου here may be paraphrased ‘ system,’ ‘ Law’ 
being the typical expression to the ancient mind of a ‘ constituted 
order of things.’—Under what kind of system is this result obtained ? 
Under a system the essence of which is Faith. 

Similar metaphorical uses of νόμος would be ch. vii. 21, 23 ; viii. 2; x. 31, 
on which see the Notes. 

28. οὖν 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, 
λογιζόμεθα γάρ, helps that coherence. [The Jew’s] boasting is 
excluded, decause 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 
that they have the same God. 

οὖν BC D¢K LP &c.; Syrr. (Pesh.-Harcl.); Chrys. Theodrt. a/.; Weiss 

RV. WH. marg.: γάρ NAD*EFG al. plur.; Latt. (Vet.-Vulg.) Boh. 

Arm. ; Orig.-lat. Ambrst. Aug.; Tisch. WH. text RV. marg. The evidence 

for yap is largely Western, but it is combined with an element (δὲ A, Boh.) 

which in this instance is probably not Western; so that the reading would 
be carried back beyond the point of divergence of two most ancient lines of 
text. On the other hand B admits in this Epistle some comparatively late 
readings (cf. xi. 6) and the authorities associated with it are inferior (BC in 


Epp. is not so strong a combination as BC in Gosfp.). We prefer the 
reading γάρ. 


96 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __[III. 28-83 


δικαιοῦσθαι: we must hold fast to the rendering ‘is declared 
righteous,’ not ‘is made righteous’ ; cf. on i. 17. 

ἄνθρωπον : any human being. 

29. ἤ presents, but only to dismiss, an alternative hypothesis on 
the assumption of which the Jew might still have had something to 
boast of. In rejecting this, St. Paul once more emphatically 
asserts his main position. There is but one law (Faith), and there 
is but one Judge to administer it, Though faith is spoken of in 
this abstract way it is of course Christian faith, faith in Christ. 

μόνον: μόνων B al. plur., WH. marg.; perhaps assimilated to ᾿Ιουδαίων 

-.. καὶ ἐθνῶν. 

80. εἴπερ : decisively attested in place of ἐπείπερ. The old distinction 
drawn between εἴ περ and εἴ ye was that εἴ περ is used of a condition which 
is assumed without implying whether it is rightly or wrongly assumed, εἴ γε 
of a condition which carries with it the assertion of its own reality (Hermann 
on Viger, p. 831; Baumlein, Griech. Partikeln, p. 64). It is doubtful 
whether this distinction holds in Classical Greek; it can hardly hold for 
N.T. But in any case both εἴ περ and εἴ ye lay some stress on the condition, 
as a condition: cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, §§ 353, 354 ‘The Particle 
πέρ is evidently a shorter form of the Preposition πέρι, which in its adverbial 
use has the meaning beyond, exceedingly. Accordingly πέρ is intensive, 
denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree, in 
its fullest sense, &c. ... ye is used like πέρ to emphasize a particular word 
or phrase. It does not however intensify the meaning, or insist on the fact 
as true, but only calls attention to the word or fact... . In a Conditioral 
Protasis (with ὅς, ὅτε, εἰ, &c.), ye emphasizes the condition as such: hence 
εἴ γε if only, always supposing that. On the other hand εἴ περ means 
supposing ever so much, hence if really (Lat. st guidem).’ 


ἐκ πίστεως... διὰ τῆς πίστεως : ἐκ denotes ‘ source,’ διά ‘ attend- 
ant circumstances. The Jew is justified ἐκ πίστεως διὰ περιτομῆς : 
the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is 
circumcision. The Gentile is justified ἐκ πίστεως καὶ διὰ τῆς πίστεως : 
no special channel, no special conditions are marked out; faith is 
the one thing needful, it is itself ‘both law and impulse.’ 

διὰ τῆς πίστεως = ‘the same faith,’ ‘the faith just men- 
tioned.’ 

81. καταργοῦμεν : see on ver. 3 above. 

νόμον ἱστῶμεν. If, as we must needs think, ch. iv contains the 
proof of the proposition laid down in this verse, νόμον must = ulti- 
mately and virtually the Pentateuch. But it = the Pentateuch not 
as an isolated Book but as the most conspicuous and representative 
expression of that great system of Law which prevailed everywhere 
until the coming of Christ. 

The Jew looked at the O. T., and he saw there Law, Obedience 
to Law or Works, Circumcision, Descent from Abraham. St. Paul 
said, Look again and look deeper, and you will see—not Law but 
Promise, not works but Faith—of which Circumcision is only the 
seal, not literal descent from Abraham but spiritual descent. All 
these things are realized in Christianity. 


IV. 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 99 


And then further, whereas Law (all Law and any kind of 
Law) was only an elaborate machinery for producing right action, 
there too Christianity stepped in and accomplished, as if with the 
stroke of a wand, all that the Law strove to do without success 
(Rom, xiii. 10 πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη compared with Gal. v. 6 
πίστις δι᾿ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη). 


THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM. 


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


1Opyector. You speak of the history of Abraham. Surely 
he, the ancestor by natural descent of our Jewish race, might plead 
privilege and merit. 21 we Jews are right in supposing that God 
accepted him as righteous for his works—those illustrious acts of 
his—he has something to boast of. 

St. Paut. Perhaps he has before men, but not before God. 
* For look at the Word of God, that well-known passage of Scrip- 
ture, Gen. xv. 6. What do we find there? Nothing about works, 
but ‘Abraham put faith in God, and it (i. e. his faith) was credited 
to him as if it were righteousness. 

‘This proves that there was no question of works. For a work- 
man claims his pay as a debt due to him; it is not an act of 
favour. ® But to one who is not concerned with works but puts 
faith in God Who pronounces righteous not the actually righteous 
(in which there would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly—to 
such an one his faith is credited for righteousness. 

‘Just as again David in Ps. xxxii describes how God ‘pro- 
nounces happy’ (in the highest sense) those to whom he attributes 
righteousness without any reference to works: 7‘ Happy they,’ he 
says,—not ‘who have been guilty of no breaches of law,’ but 
‘whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are 
veiled from sight. *A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will 
not enter in His book.’ 

" 


98 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Iv. 1. 


1ff. The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but 
the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure, due 
as it would seem to the crossing of other lines of thought with 
the main lines. The proposition which the Apostle sets him- 
self to prove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch, 
is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches. 
But the way of putting this is affected by two thoughts, which still 
exert some influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to 
the advantage of the Jew, (ii) the pride or boasting which was 
a characteristic feature in the character of the Jew but which 
St. Paul held to be ‘excluded.’ Hitherto these two points have 
been considered in the broadest and most general manner, but 
St. Paul now narrows them down to the particular and crucial case 
of Abraham. ‘The case of Abraham was the centre and strong- 
hold of the whole Jewish position. If therefore it could be shown 
that this case made for the Christian conclusion and not for the 
Jewish, the latter broke down altogether. This is what St. Paul 
now undertakes to prove; but at the outset he glances at the two 
side issues—main issues in ch. iii which become side issues in 
ch. iv—the claim of ‘advantage,’ or special privilege, and the pride 
which the Jewish system generated. For the sake of clearness we 
put these thoughts into the mouth of the objector. He is of course 
still a supposed objector; St. Paul is really arguing with himself; 
but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met 
with in actual controversy (see on iii. 1 ff.). 

1. The first question is one of reading. There is an important 
variant turning upon the position or presence of εὑρηκέναι. (1) 
K LP, &c., Theodrt. and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which 
are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after τὸν 
rpordropa ἡμῶν. It is then taken with κατὰ σάρκα: ‘What shall we 
say that A. has gained by his natural powers unaided by the grace 
of God?’ So Bp. Bull after Theodoret. [Euthym.-Zig. however, 
even with this reading, takes κατὰ σάρκα with πατέρα : ὑπερβατὸν yap 
τὸ κατὰ σάρκα]. But this is inconsistent with the context. The 
question is not, what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or 
without it, but whether the new system professed by St. Paul left 
him any gain or advantage at all. (2) SAC DEFG, some cur- 
sives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place 
after ἐροῦμεν. In that case κατὰ σάρκα goes not with εὑρηκέναι but 
with τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν which it simply defines, ‘our natural pro- 
genitor.’ (3) But a small group, B, 47*, and apparently Chrysostom 
from the tenor of his comment, though the printed editions give it 
in his text, omit εὑρηκέναι altogether. Then the idea of ‘gain’ 
drops out and we translate simply ‘What shall we say as to 
Abraham our forefather?’ &c. The opponents of B will say that 
the sense thus given is suspiciously easy: it is certainly more 


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


satisfactory than that of either of the other readings. The point is 
not what Abraham got by his righteousness, but how he got his 
righteousness—by the method of works or by that of faith. Does 
the nature of A.’s righteousness agree better with the Jewish 
system, or with St. Paul’s? The idea of ‘gain’ was naturally 
imported from ch. iii. 1, 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 εὑρηκέναι as probable with WH. 
text Tr. RV. marg. For the construction comp. John i. 15, οὗτος 
ἦν ὃν εἶπον. 


1-5. One or two small questions of form may be noticed. In ver. 1 
προπάτορα (δ etc A BC* al.) is decisively attested for πατέρα, which is 
found in the later MSS. and commentators. In ver. 3 the acute and sleepless 
critic Origen thinks that St. Paul wrote ᾿Αβράμ (with Heb. of Gen. xv; cf. 
Gen. xvii. 5), but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the 
text of Scripture substituted "ABpady. It is more probable that St. Paul had 
before his mind the established and significant name throughout: he quotes 
Gen. xvii. 5 in ver. 17. In ver. 5 a small group (δὲ θὲ F G) have ἀσεβήν, on 
which form see WH. Jntrod. App. p. 157 f.; Win. Gr. ed. 8, § ix. 8; Tisch. 
on Heb. vi. 19. In this instance the attestation may be wholly Western, but 
not in others. 


τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν. 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 (1 Cor. x. 1). 
There is the less reason why he should discriminate here as he is 
just about to maintain that Abraham is the father of αὐ believers, 
Jew and Gentile alike,—though it is true that he would have added 
‘not after the flesh but after the spirit.’ Gif. notes the further point, 
that the question is put as proceeding from a Jew: along with 
Orig. Chrys. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. Lips. he connects τὸν προπάτ. nu. 
with xara σάρκα. It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort 
(Rom. and Eph. p. 23 f.) though relegating εὑρηκέναι to the margin, 
still does not take κατὰ σάρκα with τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν. 

2. καύχημα: ‘Not maseries gloriandi as Meyer, but rather 
gloriatio, as Bengel, who however might have added facta’ (T. 8. 
Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. v. 6). The termination -μα denotes 
not so much the /Aimg done as the completed, determinate, act ; 
for other examples see esp. Evans uf sup. It would not be wrong 
to translate here ‘has a ground of boasting,’ but the idea of 
‘ground’ is contained in ἔχει, or rather in the context. 

ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. It seems best to explain the introduction 
of this clause by some such ellipse as that which is supplied in the 


100 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IvV. 2, 3. 


paraphrase. There should be a colon after καύχημα. St. Paul 
does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a καύχημα 
absolutely—before man he might have it and the Jews were not 
wrong in the veneration with which they regarded his memory,— 
but it was another thing to have a καύχημα before God. There is 
a stress upon τὸν Θεόν which is taken up by τῷ Θεῷ in the quota- 
tion. ‘A. could not boast before God. He might have done so 
if he could have taken his stand on works; but works did not 
enter into the question at all. In God he put faith.’ On the 
history and application of the text Gen. xv. 6, see below. 

8. ἐλογίσθη : metaphor from accounts, ‘ was set down,’ here ‘on 
the credit side.’ Frequently in LXX with legal sense of imputation 
or non-imputation of guilt, e.g. Lev. vii. 8 ἐὰν δὲ φαγὼν φάγῃ ... οὐ 
λογισθήσεται αὐτῷ, XVil. 4 λογισθήσεται τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ αἷμα, &c. 
The notion arises from that of the ‘book of remembrance’ (Mal. 
iii. 16) in which men’s good or evil deeds, the wrongs and 
sufferings of the saints, are entered (Ps. lvi. 8 ; Is. Ixv. 6). Oriental 
monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the 
merit or demerit of their subjects (Esth. vi. 1 ἢ), and in like 
manner on the judgement day Jehovah would have the ‘books’ 
brought out before Him (Dan. vii. 10; Rev. xx. 12; comp. also 
‘the books of the living,’ ‘ the heavenly tablets,’ a common expres- 
sion in the Books of ποεῖ, Jubilees, and Test. XII Pair., on which 
see Charles on Loch xlvii. 3; and in more modern times, 
Cowper’s sonnet ‘ There is a book . . . wherein the eyes of God 
not rarely look’). 

The idea of imputation in this sense was familiar to the Jews 
(Weber, Alssyn. Theol. p. 233). They had also the idea of the 
transference of merit and demerit from one person to another 
(bcd. p. 280 ff.; Ezek. xviii. 2; John ix. 2). That however is not 
in question here; the point is that one quality faith is set down, or 
credited, to the individual (here to Abraham) in place of another 
quality—righteousness. 

ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην : was reckoned as equivalent to, as 
standing in the place of, ‘righteousness.’ The construction is 
common in LXX: cf. 1 Reg. (Sam.) i. 13; Job xli. 23 (24); Is. 
Xxix. 17 (=xxxii. 15); Lam. iv. 2; Hos. viii. 12. The exact 
phrase ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσ. recurs in Ps. ev [cvi]. 31 of the 
zeal of Phinehas. On the grammar cf. Win. ὃ xxix. 3 a. (p. 229, 
ed. Moulton). 

On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. Weber, Alésyn. Palast, 
Theologte, p. 255 ff. Abraham was the only righteous man of his 
generation; therefore he was chosen to be ancestor of the holy 
People. He kept all the precepts of the Law which he knew 
beforehand by a kind of intuition. He was the first of seven 
righteous men whose merit brought back the Shekinah which had 


IV. 3-6.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 101 


retired into the seventh heaven, so that in the days of Moses it 
could take up its abode in the Tabernacle (27d. p. 183). According 
to the Jews the original righteousness of Abraham, who began to 
serve God at the age of three (27d. p. 118) was perfected (1) by his 
circumcision, (2) by his anticipatory fulfilment of the Law. But 
the Jews also (on the strength of Gen. xv. 6) attached a special 
importance to Abraham’s /ar¢h, as constituting merit (see Mechilta 
on Ex. xiv. 31, quoted by Delitzsch ad Joc. 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. ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα: ‘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 oni. 8, 17, above. 

We must not be misled by the comment of Euthym.-Zig. τουτέστι πιστεύοντι 
ὅτι δύναται ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἐν ἀσεβείᾳ βεβιωκότα, τοῦτον ἐξαίφνης ob μόνον ἐλευ- 
θερῶσαι κολάσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ δίκαιον ποιῆσαι (comp. the same writer on ver. 25 
iva δικαίους ἡμᾶς ποιήσῃ). The evidence is too decisive (p. 30 f. sup.) that 
δικαιοῦν = not ‘to make righteous’ but ‘to declare righteous as a judge.’ 
It might however be inferred from ἐξαίφνης that δίκαιον ποιῆσαι 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. 


τὸν ἀσεβῆ: 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 ἀσεβῆ is probably suggested by 
the quotation which is just coming from Ps. xxxii. 1. 

6. Δαβίδ (Δαυείδ). Both Heb. and LXX ascribe Ps. xxxii to 
David. In two places in the N. T., Acts iv. 25, 26 (= Ps. ii. 1, 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, /utroduction, p. 357. 

τὸν μακαρισμόν : not ‘blessedness,’ which would be μακαριότης 
but a ‘pronouncing blessed’; μακαρίζειν τινα = ‘to call a person 
blessed or happy’ (τούς te yap θεοὺς μακαρίζομεν . . . καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν 
τοὺς θειοτάτους μακαρίζομεν Arist. Eth. Vic. 1. xii. 4; comp. Euthym.- 
Zig. ἐπίτασις δὲ καὶ κορυφὴ τιμῆς καὶ δόξης ὁ μακαρισμός, “ Felicitation is 
the strongest and highest form of honour and praise’). St. Paul 
uses the word again Gal. iv. 15. Who is it who thus pronounces a 
man blessed? God. The Psalm describes how He does so. 


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


7, 8. Μακάριοι, «7.4. This quotation of Ps, xxxii. 1, 2 is the same 
in Heb. and LXX. It is introduced by St. Paul as confirming his 
interpretation of Gen. xv. 6. 

μακάριοι is, as we have seen, the highest term which a Greek 
could use to describe a state of felicity. In the quotation just given 
from Aristotle it is applied to the state of the gods and those nearest 
to the gods among men. 


gov ph. So NCAC D°F KL &c.: οὗ οὐ μή NBD Ε (ἢ G, 67**. οὗ is 
also the reading of LXX (@ Ne R*). The authorities for οὗ are superior as 
they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission 
(δὲ B + D) and it is on the whole more probable that ᾧ has been assimilated 
to the construction of λογίζεσθαι in vv. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that οὗ has been 
assimilated to the preceding ὧν or to the O.T. or that it has been affected 
by the following od: ᾧ naturally established itself as the more euphonious 
reading. 


οὐ μὴ λογίσηται. There is a natural tendency in a declining 
language to the use of more emphatic forms; but here a real 
emphasis appears to be intended, ‘ Whose sin the Lord will in no 
wise reckon’: see Ell. on 1 Thess. iv. 15 [p. 154], and Win. § lvi. 
3) Ρ. 634 f. 


The History of Abraham as treated by St. Pau 
and by St. Fames. 


It is at first sight a remarkable thing that two New Testament 
writers should use the same leading example and should quote the 
same leading text as it would seem to directly opposite effect. 
Both St. Paul and St. James treat at some length of the history of 
Abraham; they both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, as the 
salient characterization of that history; and they draw from it the 
conclusion—St. Paul that a man is accounted righteous πίστει χωρὶς 
ἔργων (Rom, iii. 28; cf. iv. 1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is 
accounted righteous ἐξ ἔργων καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον (Jas, ii. 24). 

We notice at once that St. Paul keeps more strictly to his text. 
Gen. xv. 6 speaks only of faith. St. James supports his contention 
of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident in Abraham’s 
life, the offering of Isaac (Jas. ii. 21). St. Paul also appeals to 
particular incidents, Abraham’s belief in the promise that he should 
have a numerous progeny (Rom. iv. 18), and in the more express 
prediction of the birth of Isaac (Rom. iv. 19-21). The difference 
is that St. Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own 
spiritual experience confirms the unqualified affirmation of the 
Book of Genesis; and he is therefore able to take it as one of the 
foundations of his system, St. James, occupying aless exceptional 


IV. 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 103 


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 
‘ faith,’ 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. Ofcourse he too believesin the 
‘Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory’ (Jas. ii, 1). He takes that 
belief for granted ; it is the swbstrafum or basement of life on which 
are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality 
(προσωποληψία). Ifhe 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 
crisis came at the moment when he confessed his faith in Christ ; 
there was no other crisis worth the name after that. Ask such 
an one whether his faith is not to be proved by action, and the 
question will seem to him trivial and superfluous. He will almost 
suspect the questioner of attempting to 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 
and 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. 1, 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. 


104 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 1-8. 


If we thus understand the real relation of the two Apostles, it will 
be easier to discuss their literary relation. Are we to suppose that 
either was writing with direct reference to the other? Did St. Paul 
mean to controvert St. James, or did St. James mean to controvert 
St. Paul? Neither hypothesis seems probable. If St. Paul had 
had before him the Epistle of St. James, when once he looked 
beneath the language to the ideas signified by the language, he 
would have found nothing to which he could seriously object. He 
would have been aware that it was not his own way of putting 
things; and he might have thought that such teaching was not 
intended for men at the highest level of spiritual attainment; but 
that would have been all. On the other hand, if St. James had 
seen the Epistle to the Romans and wished to answer it, what he 
has written would have been totally inadequate. Whatever value 
his criticism might have had for those who spoke of ‘faith’ as 
a mere matter of formal assent, it had no relevance to a faith such 
as that conceived by St. Paul. Besides, St. Paul had too effectually 
guarded himself against the moral hypocrisy which he was con- 
demning. 

It would thus appear that when it is examined the real meeting- 
ground between the two Apostles shrinks into a comparatively 
narrow compass. It does not amount to more than the fact that 
both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, and both treat it with 
reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith. 

Now Bp. Lightfoot has shown (Galatians, p. 157 ff., ed. 2) that 
Gen. xv. 6 wasa standing thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools. 
It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: ‘Was not 
Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him 
for righteousness’ (x Mace. ii. 52)? It is repeatedly quoted and 
commented upon by Philo (no less than ten times, Lft.). The 
whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate 
allegory. The Talmudic treatise echi/fa expounds the verse at 
length: ‘Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake 
and the world was. For as a reward for Israel’s having believed in 
the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in them . . . In like manner thou 
findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world 
to come solely by the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the 
Lord ; for it is said, “and he believed in the Lord, and He counted 
it to him for righteousness ”’ (quoted by Lft. κί sup. p. 160). Taking 
these examples with the lengthened discussions in St. Paul and 
St. James, it is clear that attention was being very widely drawn to 
this particular text: and it was indeed inevitable that it should be 
so when we consider the place which Abraham held in the Jewish 
system and the minute study which was being given to every part of 
the Pentateuch. 

It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason 


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


that the two New Testament writers are discussing independently 
of each other a current problem, and that there is no ground for 
supposing a controversial relation between them. We are not sure 
that we are prepared to go quite so far as this. It is true that the 
bearing of Gen. xv. 6 was a subject of standing debate among the 
Jews; but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of 
Faith and Works. The controversy connected with this was 
essentially a Christian controversy ; it had its origin in the special 
and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. It seems to us therefore 
that the passages in the two Epistles have a real relation to that 
controversy, and so at least indirectly to each other. 

It does not follow that the relation was a literary relation. We 
have seen that there are strong reasons against this*. We do not 
think that either St. Paul had seen the Epistle of St. James, or 
St. James the Epistle of St. Paul. The view which appears to us 
the most probable is that the argument of St. James is directed not 
against the writings of St. Paul, or against him in person, but 
against hearsay reports of his teaching, and against the perverted 
construction which might be (and perhaps to some slight extent 
actually was) put upon it. As St. James sate in his place in the 
Church at Jerusalem, as yet the true centre and metropolis of 
the Christian world; as Christian pilgrims of Jewish birth were 
constantly coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts, 
especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and 
Greece, the scene of St. Paul’s labours; and as there was always 
at his elbow the little co/erte of St. Paul’s fanatical enemies, it would 
be impossible but that versions, scarcely ever adequate (for how 
few of St. Paul’s hearers had really understood him!) and often more 
or less seriously distorted, of his brother Aposile’s teaching, should 
reach him. He did what a wise and considerate leader would 
do. He names no names, and attacks no man’s person. He does 
not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true 
reports. At the same time he states in plain terms his own view 
of the matter. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him 
to be needed, and which the very language of St. Paul, in places 
like Rom. vi. 1 ff., 15 ff., shows to have been really needed. And 
thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths, 
suited to different types of mind and different circumstances, are 
stated side by side. We have at once the deeper principle of 
action, which is also more powerful in proportion as it is deeper, 
though not such as all can grasp and appropriate, and the plainei 


4 Besides what is said above, see Introduction ὃ 8. It is a satisfaction to 
find that the view here taken is substantially that of Dr. Hort, /edazstzc 
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 
St. James’s carefully guarded language.’ 


106 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Iv. 9-12. 


practical teaching pitched on a more every-day level and appealing 
to larger numbers, which is the check and safeguard against possible 
misconstruction. 


FAITH AND CIRCUMCISION. 


IV. 9-12. The declaration made to Abraham did not 
depend upon Circumcision. For it was made before he was 
circumcised ; and Circumcision only came in after the fact, 
to ratify a verdict already given. The reason being that 
Abraham might have for his spiritual descendants the un- 
circumcised as well as the circumcised. 


*Here we have certain persons pronounced ‘happy.’ Is 
this then to be confined to the circumcised Jew, or may it also 
apply to the uncircumcised Gentile? Certainly it may. For there 
is no mention of circumcision. It is his faz‘h that we say was 
credited to Abraham as righteousness. 7° And the historical 
circumstances of the case prove that Circumcision had nothing 
to do with it. Was Abraham circumcised when the declaration 
was made to him? No: he was at the time uncircumcised. 
Ἢ And circumcision was given to him afterwards, like a seal 
affixed to a document, to authenticate a state of things already 
existing, viz. the righteousness based on faith which was his before 
he was circumcised, The reason being that he might be the 
spiritual father alike of two divergent classes: at once of believing 
Gentiles, who though uncircumcised have a faith like his, that they 
too might be credited with righteousness; and at the same time 
of believing Jews who do not depend on their circumcision only, 
but whose files march duly in the steps of Abraham’s faith—that 
faith which was his before his circumcision. 


10. St. Paul appeals to the historic fact that the Divine 
recognition of Abraham’s faith came in order of time before his 
circumcision: the one recorded in Gen. xv. 6, the other in 
Gen. xvii. 10 ff. Therefore although it might be (and was) 
confirmed by circumcision, it could not be due to it or conditioned 
by it. 

a σημεῖον περιτομῆς. Circumcision at its institution is said to 
be ἐν σημείῳ διαθήκης (Gen. xvii. 11), between God and the 


IV. 11.} THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 107 


circumcised. The gen. περιτομῆς is a genitive of apposition or identity, 
a sign ‘ consisting in circumcision,’ ‘which was circumcision.’ Some 
authorities (A C* al.) read περιτομήν. 

σφραγῖδα. The prayer pronounced at the circumcising of 
a child runs thus: ‘Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved 
from the womb, and put His ordinance upon His flesh, and sealed 
His offspring with the sign of a holy covenant.’ Comp. Targum 
Cant, iii. 8 ‘The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was 
sealed in the flesh of Abraham’; Shemoth &. 19 ‘ Ye shall not eat 
of the passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh.’ 
Many other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad doc. (cf. also 
Delitzsch). 

At a very early date the same term σφραγίς was transferred from 
the rite of circumcision to Christian baptism. See the passages 
collected by Lightfoot on 2 Clem. vii. 6 (Clem. Rom. ii. 226), also 
Gebhardt and Harnack ad Joc., and Hatch, Hrbdert Lectures, 
p. 295. Dr. Hatch connects the use of the term with ‘the 
mysteries and some forms of foreign cult’; and it may have 
coalesced with language borrowed from these; but in its origin it 
appears to be Jewish. A similar view is taken by Anrich, Das 
antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum 
(Gottingen, 1894), p. 120 ff., where the Christian use of the word 
σφραγίς is fully discussed. 


Barnabas (ix. 6) seems to refer to, and refute, the Jewish doctrine which 
he puts in the mouth of an objector: ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖΣ' Καὶ μὴν περιτέτμηται ὁ 
λαὸς εἰς σφραγῖδα. ἀλλὰ πᾶς Σύρος nal” Apa καὶ πάντες οἱ ἱερεῖς τῶν εἰδώλων. 
dpa οὖν κἀκεῖνοι ἐκ τῆς διαθήκης αὐτῶν εἰσίν ; ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι ἐν περι- 
τομῇ εἰσίν. The fact that so many heathen nations were circumcised proved 
that circumcision could not be the seal of a special covenant. 


εἰς τὸ εἶναι, «.t.A. 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). εἰς τό denotes 
that all this was contemplated in the Divine purpose. 

πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων. 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 Biccurzm, i. 1, in which it is proved that even 
the proselyte may claim the patriarchs as his ἸΦ ΠΣ because 


108 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 11, 12. 


Abram became Abraham, ‘father of many nations,’ lit. ‘a great 
multitude’; ‘he was so,’ the Glossator adds, ‘because he taught 
them to believe.’ 

δι᾿ ἀκροβυστίας : ‘though in a state of uncircumcision.’ διά of 
attendant circumstances as in διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς ii, 27, TO 
διὰ προσκόμματος ἐσθίοντι XiV. 20. 

12. τοῖς στοιχοῦσι. As it stands the art. is ἃ solecism: it would 
make those who are circumcised one set of persons, and those who 
follow the example of Abraham’s faith another distinct set, which 
is certainly not St. Paul’s meaning. He is speaking of Jews who 
are doth circumcised and believe. This requires in Greek the 
omission of the art. before στοιχοῦσιν. But τοῖς στ. 1s found in all 
existing MSS. We must suppose therefore either (1) that there 
has been some corruption. WH. think that τοῖς may be the 
remains of an original αὐτοῖς : but that would not seem to be a very 
natural form of sentence. Or (2) we may think that Tertius made 
a slip of the pen in following St. Paul’s dictation, and that this 
remained uncorrected. If the slip was not made by Tertius 
himself, it must have been made in some very early copy, the 
parent of all our present copies. 

στοιχοῦσι. στοιχεῖν is a well-known military term, meaning 
strictly to ‘march in file ᾿ς Pollux viii. 9 τὸ δὲ βάθος στοῖχος καλεῖται, 
καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐφεξῆς εἶναι κατὰ μῆκος ζυγεῖν" τὸ δὲ ἐφεξῆς κατὰ βάθος στοιχεῖν, 
‘the technical term for marching abreast is ζυγεῖν, for marching in 
depth or in file, στοιχεῖν (Wets.). 


On οὐ μόνον rather than μὴ μόνον in this verse and in ver. 16 see Burton, 
M. and T.§ 481. 


Sewish Teaching on Circumcision. 


The fierce fanaticism with which the Jews insisted upon the rite 
of Circumcision is vividly brought out in the Book of Jubiiees 
(xv. 25 ff.): ‘This law is for all generations for ever, and there is 
no circumcision of the time, and no passing over one day out of 
the eight days; for it is an eternal ordinance, ordained and written 
on the heavenly tables. And every one that is born, the flesh of 
whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs not to 
the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham, 
for he belongs to the children of destruction ; nor is there moreover 
any sign on him that he is the Lord’s, but (he is destined) to be 
destroyed and slain from the earth, and to be rooted out of the 
earth, for he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God... . 
And now I will announce unto thee that the children of Israel will 
not keep true to this ordinance, and they will not circumcise their 
sons according to all this law; for in the flesh of their circumcision 


IV. 13-17.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 109 


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

So absolute is Circumcision as a mark of God’s favour that if an 
Israelite has practised idolatry his circumcision must first be 
removed before he can go down to Gehenna (Weber, Adfsyn. Theol. 
p. 51 f.). When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took 
a part in the act (77d. p. 253). It was his circumcision and antici- 
patory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the 
‘father of many nations’ (114. 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. 138-17. Again the declaration that was made to 
Abraham had nothing to do with Law. For it turned on 
Faith and Promise which are the very antithesis of Law. 
The reason being that Abraham might be the spiritual 
father of all believers, Gentiles as well as Fews, and that 
Gentiles might have an equal claim to the Promise. 


18 Another proof that Gentiles were contemplated as well as Jews. 
The promise made to Abraham and his descendants of world-wide 
Messianic rule, as it was not dependent upon Circumcision, so also 
was not dependent upon Law, but on a righteousness which was 
the product of Faith. “If this world-wide inheritance really 
depended upon any legal system, and if it was limited to those who 
were under such a system, there would be no place left for Faith 
or Promise: Faith were an empty name and Promise a dead letter. 
1’For Law is in its effects the very opposite of Promise. It only 


110 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 13, 


serves to bring down God’s wrath by enhancing the guilt of sin. 
Where there is no law, there is no transgression, which implies 
a law to be transgressed. Law and Promise therefore are mutually 
exclusive ; the one brings death, the other life. Hence it is that 
the Divine plan was made to turn, not on Law and obedience to 
Law, but on Faith. For faith on man’s side implies Grace, or free 
favour, on the side of God. So that the Promise depending as it 
did not on Law but on these broad conditions, Faith and Grace, 
might hold good equally for all Abraham’s descendants—not only 
for those who came under the Mosaic Law, but for all who could 
lay claim to a faith like his. ™Thus Abraham is the true ancestor 
of all Christians (ἡμῶν), as it is expressly stated in Gen. xvii. 5 
‘A father’ (i.e. in spiritual fatherhood) ‘of many nations have 
I made thee *.’ 


13-17. In this section St. Paul brings up the key-words of his 
own system Faith, Promise, Grace, and marshals them in array 
over against the leading points in the current theology of the 
Jews—Law, Works or performance of Law, Merit. Because the 
working of this latter system had been so disastrous, ending only 
in condemnation, it was a relief to find that it was not what God 
had really intended, but that the true principles of things held out 
a prospect so much brighter and more hopeful, and one which 
furnished such abundant justification for all that seemed new in 
Christianity. 

13. οὐ γάρ, «7.4. The immediate point which this paragraph 
is introduced to prove is that Abraham might be, in a true though 
spiritual sense, the father of Gentiles as well as Jews. The ulterior 
object of the whole argument is to show that Abraham himself 
is rightly claimed not as the Jews contended by themselves but 
by Christians. 

διὰ νόμου: without art., any system of law. 

ἡ émayyehia: see on ch. i. 2 (προεπηγγείλατο), where the uses of 
the word and its place in Christian teaching are discussed. At the 
time of the Coming of Christ the attention of the whole Jewish race 
was turned to the promises contained in the O. T.; and in 
Christianity these promises were (so to speak) brought to a head 
and definitely identified with their fulfilment. 


The following examples may be added to those quoted on ch. i. 2 to 
illustrate the diffusion of this idea of ‘Promise’ among the Jews in the first 
century A.D.: 4 Ezra iv. 27 non capiet portare quae in temporibus iustis 


* There is a slight awkwardness in making our break in the middle of 
a verse and of a sentence. St. Paul glides after his manner into a new subject, 
suggested to him by the verse which he quotes in proof of what has gone before. 


IV. 18--15.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 111 


repromissa sunt; vii. 14 st ergo non ingredientes ingresst fuerint qué vivunt 
angusta et vana haec, non poterunt rectpere quae sunt reposita (-- τὰ ἀπο- 
κείμενα Gen. xlix. 10); ΖόΖα. 49 (119) ff. guzd enim nobis prodest st promissum 
est nobis immortale tempus, nos vero mortalia opera egimus? &c. Afoc. 
Baruch. xiv. 13 propter hoc etiam ipst sine timore relinqguunt mundum 
tstum, et fidentes in laetitia sperant se recepturos mundum quem promisisti 
eis. 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. 


τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου. What Promise is this? There 
is none in these words. Hence (1) some think that it means the 
possession of the Land of Canaan (Gen. xii. 7; xiii. 14 ἢ; 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 

lessed ; (iv) that through Him A.’s seed should enjoy world-wide 
dominion. 

διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως : this ‘faith-righteousness’ which St. 
Paul has been describing as characteristic of the Christian, and 
before him of Abraham. 

14. ot ἐκ νόμου: ‘the dependants of law,’ ‘vassals of a legal system,’ 
such as were the Jews. 

κληρονόμοι. 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. 


ov δέ for οὗ γάρ is decisively attested (N A BC &c.). 


παράβασις is the appropriate word for the direct violation οἱ 


112 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ἔν. 16. 


a code, It means to overstep a line clearly defined: feccare est 
transilire lineas Cicero, Parad. 3 (ap. Trench, Syn. p. 236). 

16. ἐκ πίστεως. In his rapid and vigorous reasoning St. Paul 
contents himself with a few bold strokes, which he leaves it to the 
reader to fill in. It is usual to supply with ἐκ πίστεως either 
ἡ κληρονομία ἐστίν from v. 14 (Lips. Mey.) or 9 ἐπαγγελία ἐστιν from 
v. 13 (Fri.), but as τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν is defined just below it seems 
better to have recourse to some wider thought which shall include 
both these. ‘It was’=‘ The Divine plan was, took its start, from 
faith. The bold lines of God’s plan, the Providential ordering 
of things, form the background, understood if not directly expressed, 
to the whole chapter. 

eis τὸ εἶναι. Working round again to the same conclusion as 
before; the object of all these pre-arranged conditions was to do 
away with old restrictions, and to throw open the Messianic 
blessings to all who in any true sense could call Abraham ‘father,’ 
i.e. to believing Gentile as well as to believing Jew. 


ABRAHAW’S FAITH A TYPE OF THE CHRISTIAN’S. 


IV. 17-22. Abraham's Faith was remarkable both for its 
strength and for its object: the birth of Isaac in which 
Abraham believed might be described as a ‘birth from the 
dead.’ 

23-25. In this it ts a type of the Christian's Faith, to 
which is annexed a like acceptance and which also has for 
its object a ‘birth from the dead’—the Death and Resur- 
rection of Christ. 


"In this light Abraham is regarded by God before whom he is 
represented as standing—that God who infuses life into the dead 
(as He was about to infuse it into Abraham’s dead body), and 
who issues His summons (as He issued it then) to generations 
yet unborn. 

18 In such a God Abraham believed. Against all ordinary hope 
of becoming a father he yet had faith, grounded in hope, and 
enabling him to become the father not of Jews only but of wide- 
spread nations, to whom the Promise alluded when it said (Gen. 
xv. 5) ‘ Like the stars of the heaven shall thy descendants be.’ 

Without showing weakness in his faith, he took full note 
of the fact that at his advanced years (for he was now about 
8. hundred years old) his own vital powers were decayed; he took 


[V. 17.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 114 


full note of the barrenness of Sarah his wife; 9 δηά 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, 
Ἢ having a firm conviction that what God had promised He was 
able also to perform. ™And for this reason that faith of his was 
credited to him as righteousness. 

"8 Now when all this was recorded in Scripture, it was not 
Abraham alone who was in view “but we too—the future 
generations of Christians, who will find a like acceptance, as we 
have a like faith, Abraham believed on Him who caused the birth 
of Isaac from elements that seemed as good as dead: and we too 
believe on the same God who raised up from the dead Jesus our 
Lord, * who was delivered into the hands of His murderers to atone 
for our sins, and rose again to effect our justification (i.e. to put 
the crown and seal to the Atonement wrought by His Death, and 
at the same time to evoke the faith which makes the Atonement 
effectual). 


17. πατέρα, κιτιλ. Exactly from LXX of Gen. xvii. 5. The LXX 
tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the 
Heb., patrem frementis turbae, i.e. ingentts multitudinis populorum 
(Kautzsch, p. 25). 

κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσε Θεοῦ : attraction for κατέναντι Θεοῦ ᾧ ἐπί- 
στευσε: κατέναντι describing the posture in which Abraham is 
represented as holding colloquy with God (Gen. xvii. 1 ff.). 

ζωοποιοῦντος : ‘maketh alive.’ St. Paul has in his mind the two 
acts which he compares and which are both embraced under this 
word, (1) the Birth of Isaac, (2) the Resurrection of Christ. On 
the Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch, “ss. 2» Bzbl. Greek, p. 5. 

καλοῦντος [τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα]. There are four views: (i) ca\.= 
‘to name, speak of, or describe, things non-existent as if they 
existed’ (Va.); (ii) = ‘to call into being, issue His creative fiat’ (most 
commentators); (iii) = ‘to call, or summon,’ ‘issue His commands 
to’ (Mey. Gif.); (iv) in the dogmatic sense = ‘to call, or invite to 
life and salvation’ (Fri.). Of these (iv) may be put on one side as 
too remote from the context; and (ii) as Mey. rightly points out, 
seems to be negatived by ὡς ὄντα. The choice remains between 
(i) and (iii). If the former seems the simplest, the latter is the 
more forcible rendering, and as such more in keeping with the 
imaginative grasp of the situation displayed by St. Paul. In favour 
of this view may also be quoted Ajoc. Bar. xxi. 4 O gut fecisti 
terram audi me. . . gui vocastt ab initio mundt quod nondum erat, et 


I 


114 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 17-20. 


obediunt tibi. For the use of καλεῖν see also the note on ix. * 
below. 

18. εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι = ὥστε γενέσθαι : ‘his faith enabled him to 
become the father,’ but with the underlying idea that his faith in 
this was but carrying out the great Divine purpose which ordered 
all these events. 

οὕτως ἔσται: = Gen. xv. 5 (LXX). 


19. μὴ ἀσθενήσας. Comp. Lft. in Journ. of Class. and Sac. Philol. 
iii. τού n.: ‘The New Testament use of μή with a participle... has a much 
wider range than in the earlier language. Yet this is no violation of 
principle, but rather an extension of a particular mode of looking at the 
subordinate event contained in the participial clause. It is viewed as an 
accident or condition of the principal event described by the finite verb, and 
is therefore negatived by the dependent negative μή and not by the absolute οὐ. 
Rom. iv. 19... is a case in point whether we retain οὐ or omit it with 
Lachm. In the latter case the sense will be, ‘‘he so considered his own 
body now dead, as not to be weak in the (?) faith.”’ This is well expressed 
in RV. ‘without being weakened,’ except that ‘ being weakened’ should be 
rather ‘ showing weakness’ or ‘ becoming weak.’ See also Burton, J. and 7. 


§ 145. 

κατενόησε δὲ ABC some good cursives, some MSS. of Vulg. 
{including am.), Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat. (which probably here preserves 
Origen’s Greek), Chrys, and others; οὐ κατενόησε DEF GK LP 
&c., some MSS. of Vulg. (including fad, though it is more pro- 
bable that the negative has come in from the Old Latin and that 
it was not recognized by Jerome), Syr.-Harcl., Orig.-lat. 42s, Epiph. 
Ambrstr, αἰ. 

Both readings give a good sense: κατενόησε, ‘he did consider, and 
yet did not doubt’; οὐ κατενόησε, ‘he did mot consider, and therefore 
did not doubt.’ Both readings are also early: but the negative 
ov κατενόησε is clearly of Western origin, and must probably be set 
down to Western laxity: the authorities which omit the negative 
are as a rule the most trustworthy. 


ὑπάρχων: ‘being a/ready about a hundred years old.’ May we not say 
that εἶναι denotes a present state simply as present, but that ὑπάρχειν denotes 
a present state as a product of past states, or at least a state in present time 
as related to past time (‘vorhandensein, dasein, Lat. existere, adesse, praesto 
esse’ Schmidt)? See esp. T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vii. 26: ‘the 
last word (ὑπάρχειν) is difficult; it seems to mean sometimes “ to be origin- 
ally,” ““ἴο be substantially or fundamentally,” or, as in Demosthenes, “to be 
stored in readiness.” An idea of propriety sometimes attaches to it: comp. 
ὕπαρξις, “ property” or “substance.” The word however asks for further 
investigation.” Comp. Schmidt, Lat. τέ. gr. Synonymtk, § 74. 4. 

20. οὐ διεκρίθη: ‘did not hesitate’ (τουτέστιν οὐδὲ ἐνεδοίασεν οὐδὲ ἀμφέ- 
βαλε Chrys.). διακρίνειν act. =dtiudicare, (i) to ‘ discriminate,’ or ‘distinguish’ 
between two things (Matt. xvi. 3; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 29, 31) or persons (Acts xv. 9; 
1 Cor. iv. 7); (ii) to ‘arbitrate’ between two parties (1 Cor. vi. 5). δια- 
κρίνεσθαι mid. (and pass.) = (i) ‘to get a decision,’ ‘litigate,’ ‘ dispute,’ or 
‘contend’ (Acts xi. 2; Jas. ii. 4; Jude 9); (ii) to ‘be divided against one- 
self,’ ‘waver,’ ‘doubt.’ The other senses are all found in LXX (where the 
word occurs some thirty times), but this is wanting. It is however well 


IV. 20.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 115 


established for N.T., where it appears as the proper opposite of πίστις 
πιστεύω. So Matt. xxi. 21 ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν, καὶ μὴ διακριθῆτε: Mark xi. 23 ds 
ἂν εἴπῃ... καὶ μὴ διακριθῇ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ πιστεύῃ : Rom. xiv. 23 ὁ δὲ 
διακρινόμενος, ἐὰν φαγῇ, κατακέκριται, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως : Jas. 1. 6 αἰτείτω δὲ 
ἐν πίστει μηδὲν διακρινόμενος : also probably Jude 22. A like use is found in 
Christian writings of the second century and later: e.g. Protev. Jac. 11 
ἀκούσασα δὲ Μαριὰμ διεκρίθη ἐν ἑαυτῇ λέγουσα, x.7.A. (quoted by Mayor on 
Jas. i. 6): Clem. Homil. i. 20 περὶ τῆς παραδοθείσης σοι ἀληθείας διακριθήσῃ : 
li. 40 περὶ τοῦ μόνου καὶ ἀγαθοῦ Θεοῦ διακριθῆναι. It is remarkable that a use 
which (except as an antithesis to πιστεύειν) 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 have had its beginning in near 
proximity to Christianity. A parallel case is that of the word δίψυχος (St. 
James, Clem. Rom., Herm., Didaché, &c.). The two words seem to belong 
to the same cycle of ideas, 


ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει. τῇ πίστει 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 μὴ ἀσθενήσας 
τῇ πίστει above ; and the surrounding terms (διεκρίθη, πληροφορηθείς) 
might seem to point to a mental process. But it is tempting to 
make τῇ πίστει instrumental or causal, like τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ to which it 
stands in immediate antithesis: ved. τῇ πίστ. would then = ‘he was 
endowed with power by means of his faith’ (sc. τὸ νενεκρωμένον 
αὐτοῦ σῶμα ἐνεδυναμώθη). According to the Talmud, Adraham wurde 
in seiner Natur erneuert, eine neue Creatur (Bammidbar Rabba xi), 
um die Zeugung zu 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. 11, 12 πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Σάρρα δύναμιν eis καταβολὴν σπέρματος ἔλαβε 
καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας... διὸ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐγεννήθησαν, καὶ ταῦτα 
νενεκρωμένου, καθὼς τὰ ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῷ πλήθει (Observe esp. δύναμιν 
ἔλαβε, vevexpwpevov), This sense is also distinctly recognized by 
Euthym.-Zig. (ἐνεδυναμώ θη εἰς παιδογονίαν τῇ πίστει" ἢ ἐνεδυναμώθη 
πρὸς τὴν πίστιν). The other (common) interpretation is preferred by 
Chrys., from whom Euthym.-Zig. seems to get his ὁ πίστιν 
ἐπιδεικνύμενος δυνάμεως δεῖται πλείονος, 

The Talmud lays great stress on the Birth of Isaac. In the 
name of Isaac was found an indication that with him the history 
of Revelation began. With him the people of revealed Religion 
came into existence: with him ‘the Holy One began to work 
wonders’ (Beresh. Radéba liii, ap. Weber, Al/syn. 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. 

δοὺς δόξαν: a Hebraism: cf. Josh. vii. 19; 1 Sam. vi. 5; 4 
Chron. xvi. 28, &c. 


116 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 21-25 


21. πληροφορηθείς: πληροφορία = ‘full assurance,’ ‘firm conviction,’ 
1 Thess. i. 5; Col. ii. 2; a word especially common amongst the 
Stoics. Hence πληροφορεῖσθαι, as used of persons, = ‘to be fully 
assured or convinced,’ as here, ch. xiv. 5; Col. iv. 12. As used of 
things the meaning is more doubtful: cf. 2 Tim. iv. 5, 17 and 
Luke i. 1, where some take it as = ‘fully or satisfactorily proved,’ 
others as = ‘ accomplished’ (so Lat.-Vet. Vulg. RV. ¢ext Lft. On 
Revision, p. 142): see note ad loc. 

23. 80 αὐτὸν μόνον. Beresh. R. xl. 8 ‘Thou findest that all 
that is recorded of Abraham is repeated in the history of his 
children’ (Wetstein, who is followed by Meyer, and Delitzsch ad /oc.). 
Wetstein also quotes Zaanith ii. 1 Fratres nostri, de Ninevitis 
non dictum est: et respexit Deus saccum eorum. 

24. τοῖς πιστεύουσιν : ‘to us who believe.’ St. Paul asserts that 
his readers are among the class of believers. Not ‘if we believe,’ 
which would be πιστεύουσιν (szne artic.). 

25. διά with acc. is primarily retrospective,=‘ because of’: but 
inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution, διά may be 
retrospective with reference to the idea, but prospective with 
reference to the execution. Which it is in any particular case must 
be determined by the context. _ 

Here διὰ τὰ παραπτ. may be retrospective, = ‘because of our 
trespasses’ (which made the death of Christ necessary); or it may 
be prospective, as Gif. ‘ because of our trespasses,’ i.e. ‘in order to 
atone for them.’ 

In any case διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν is prospective, ‘with a view to our 
justification,’ ‘because of our justification’ conceived as a motive, 
i.e. to bring it about. See Dr. Gifford’s two excellent notes 
pp. 108, 109. 

The manifold ways in which the Resurrection of Christ is 
connected with justification will appear from the exposition below. 
It is at once the great source of the Christian’s faith, the assurance 
of the special character of the object of that faith, the proof that the 
Sacrifice which is the ground of justification is an accepted sacrifice, 
and the stimulus to that moral relation of the Christian to Christ in 
which the victory which Christ has won becomes his own victory. 
See also the notes on ch. vi. 5-8. 


The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the 
teaching of St. Paul. 
The Resurrection of Christ fills an immense place in the teaching 


of St. Paul, and the fact that it does so accounts for the emphasis 
and care with which he states the evidence for it (1 Cor. xv. 1-11). 


IV. 17-6.7 THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 117 


(i) The Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the Divinity 
of Christ (Acts xvii. 31; Rom. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 14, 15). 

(ii) As proving the Divinity of Christ the Resurrection is also 
the most decisive proof of the atoning value of His Death. But 
for the Resurrection, there would have been nothing to show—at 
least no clear and convincing sign to show—that He who died upon 
the Cross was more than man. But if the Victim of the Cross had 
been man and nothing more, there would have been no sufficient 
reason for attaching to His Death any peculiar efficacy ; the faith 
of Christians would be ‘vain,’ they would be ‘yet in their sins’ 
(1 Cor. xv. 17). 

(iii) In yet another way the Resurrection proved the efficacy of 
the Death of Christ. Without the Resurrection the Sacrifice of 
Calvary would have been incomplete. The Resurrection placed 
upon that Sacrifice the stamp of God’s approval; it showed that 
the Sacrifice was accepted, and that the cloud of Divine Wrath— 
the ὀργή so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom. iii. 25, 
26)—had passed away. Thisis the thought which lies at the bottom 
of Rom. vi. 7-10. 

(iv) The Resurrection of Christ is the strongest guarantee for 
the resurrection of the Christian (1 Cor. xv. 20-23; 2 Cor. iv 14; 
Rom. viii. 11; Col. i. 18). 

(v) But that resurrection has two sides or aspects: it is not only 
physical, a future rising again to physical life, but it is also moral 
and spiritual, a present rising from the death of sin to the life of 
righteousness. In virtue of his union with Christ, the close and 
intimate relation of his spirit with Christ's, the Christian is called 
upon to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ. And this 
moral and spiritual sense is the only sense in which he can repeat 
them. We shall have this doctrine fully expounded in ch. vi. 1-11. 


A recent monograph on the subject of this note (E. Schader, Die Bedeutung 
des lebendigen Christus fiir die Rechtfertigung nach Paulus, Giitersloh, 18 3) 
has worked out in much careful detail the third of the above heads. Herr 
Schader (who since writing his treatise has become Professor at Konigsberg) 
insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrought by 
Christ ; that which redeerns is not merely the act of Christ’s Death but His 
Person (ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν Eph.i. 7; Col.i.14). It is as a Person 
that He takes the place of the sinner and endures the Wrath of God in his 
stead (Gal. iii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 21). The Resurrection is proof that this 
‘Wrath’ 15 αἱ an end. And therefore in certain salient passages (Rom. iv. 25 ; 
vi. 9, 10; viii. 34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ as 
the cause of justification. The treatise is well deserving of study. 

It may be right also to mention, without wholly endorsing, Dr. Hort’s 
significant aphorism: ‘ Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemp- 
tion, and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and resurrection one aspect 
of life’ (Hulsean Lectures, p. 210). This can more readily be accepted if 
‘one aspect’ in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other aspects. 
At the same time such a saying is useful as a warning, which is especially 
needed where the attempt is being made towards more exact definitions, that 


118 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ν. 1-11. 


all definitions of great doctrines have a relative rather than an absolute value. 
They are partial symbols of ideas which the human mind cannot grasp in 
their entirety. If we could see as God sees we should doubtless find them 
running up into large and broad laws of His working. We desire to make 
this reserve in regard to our own attempts to define. Without it exact 
exegesis may well seem to lead to a revived Scholasticism. 


BLISSFUL CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION. 


V. 1-11. The state which thus lies before the Christian 
should have consequences both near and remote. The nearer 
consequences, peace with God and hope which gives courage 
under persecution (vv. 1-4): the remoter consequence, an 
assurance, derived from the proof of Goa’s love, of our final 
salvation and glory. The first step (our present acceptance 
with God) is difficult, the second step (our ultimate salva- 
tion) follows naturally from the first (vv. 5-11). 


*We Christians then ought to enter upon our privileges. By 
that strong and eager impulse with which we enroll ourselves as 
Christ’s we may be accepted as righteous in the sight of God, and 
it becomes our duty to enjoy to the full the new state of peace 
with Him which we owe to our Lord Jesus Messiah. *He it is 
whose Death and Resurrection, the object of our faith (iv. 25), 
have brought us within the range of the Divine favour. Within 
the sheltered circle of that favour we stand as Christians, in no 
merely passive attitude, but we exult in the hope of one day 
participating as in the favour of God so also in His glory. * Yes, 
and this exultation of ours, so far from being shaken by per- 
secutions is actually founded upon them. For persecution only 
generates fortitude, or resolute endurance under trials: ‘and 
then fortitude leads on to the approved courage of the veteran; 
and that in turn strengthens the hope out of which it originally 
sprang. 

® More: our hope is one that cannot prove illusory; because 
(and here a new factor is introduced, for the first time in this 
connexion) the Holy Spirit, through whom God is brought into 
personal contact with man—that Holy Spirit which we received 
when we became Christians, floods our hearts with the conscious- 


Vv. 1-11.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 110 


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! 7 What a proof of love was 
there! For an upright or righteous man it would be hard to find 
one willing to die; though perhaps for a good man (with the loveable 
qualities of goodness) one here and there may be brave enough to 
face death. * But God presses home the proof of His unmerited 
Love towards us, in that, sinners as we still were, Christ died for us. 

®Here then is an @ fortiord 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. ‘° 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. ™ 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 (διά v. 1, 2, 11 
bis) but more particularly to the Death of Christ (παρεδόθη iv. 25 ; 
ἀπέθανε ν. 6, 8; ἐν τῷ αἵματι V. 9 ; διὰ τοῦ θανάτου ν. 10). He con- 
ceives of that Death as operating by a sacrificial blood-shedding 
(ἐν τῷ αἵματι: 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 
exultingly over the physical dangers which threaten him; they may 
strengthen his firmness of purpose, but cannot shake it. 


1. The word δικαίωσιν at the end of the last chapter recalls St. 
Paul to his main topic. After expounding the nature of his new 


[20 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS jv. 1. 


method of obtaining righteousness in iii. 21-26, he had begun to 
draw some of the consequences from this (the deathblow to Jewish 
pride, and the equality of Jew and Gentile) in iii. 27-31. This 
suggested the digression in ch. iv, to prove that notwithstanding 
there was no breach of God's purposes as declared in the O.T. 
(strictly the Legal System which had its charter in the O. T.), but 
rather the contrary. Now he goes back to ‘consequences’ and 
traces them out for the individual Christian. He explains why it 
is that the Christian faces persecution and death so joyfully: he 
has a deep spring of tranquillity at his heart, and a confident hope 
of future glory. 

ἔχωμεν. The evidence for this reading stands thus: ἔχωμεν nt 
AB*CDEKL, cursives, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. 
repeatedly Chrys. Ambrstr. and others : ἔχομεν correctors of δὲ B, 
F G (duplicate MSS. it will be remembered) in the Greek though 
not in the Latin, P and many cursives, Did. Epiph. Cyr.-Alex. in 
three places out of four. Clearly overwhelming authority for 
ἔχωμεν. It is argued however (i) that exhortation is here out of 
place: ‘inference not exhortation is the Apostle’s purpose’ 
(Scrivener, Znérod. ii. 380 ed. 4); (ii) that o and ὦ are frequently 
interchanged in the MSS., as in this very word Gal. vi. 10 (cf. 
1 Cor. xv. 49); (iii) it is possible that a mistake might have been 
made by Tertius in copying or in some very early MS. from which 
the mass of the uncials and versions now extant may have de- 
scended. But these reasons seem insufficient to overthrow the 
weight of direct testimony. (i) St. Paul is apt to pass from argu- 
ment to exhortation; so in the near context vi. (1), 12, (15); 
viii. 12; (ii) in ἔχωμεν inference and exhortation are really com- 
bined: it is a sort of light exhortation, ‘we should have’ (T. S. 
Evans). 

As to the meaning of ἔχωμεν it should be observed that it does 
not = ‘make peace,’ ‘get’ or ‘obtain peace’ (which would be 
σχῶμεν), but rather ‘keep’ or ‘enjoy peace’ (οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἴσον μὴ οὖσαν 
εἰρήνην λαβεῖν καὶ δοθεῖσαν κατασχεῖν Chrys. ; cf. Acts ix. 31 ἡ μὲν 
οὖν ἐκκλησία... εἶχεν εἰρήνην, “ continued in a state of peace’). The 
aor. part. δικαιωθέντες marks the initial moment of the state εἰρήνην 
ἔχωμεν. The declaration of ‘not guilty,’ which the sinner comes 
under by a heartfelt embracing of Christianity, at once does away 
with the state of hostility in which he had stood to God, and 
substitutes for it a state of peace which he has only to realize. 
This declaration of ‘ not guilty’ and the peace which follows upon 
it are not due to himself, but are διὰ rod Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ : 
how is explained more fully in iii. 25 ; also in wv. 9, 10 below. 


Dr. J. Agar Beet (Comm. ad Joc.) discusses the exact shade of meaning 
conveyed by the aor. part. δικαιωθέντες in relation to εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν. He 
contends that it denotes not so much the reason for entering upon the state 


ν ἢ: 2.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 121 


in question as the meams of entering upon it. No doubt this is perfectly 
tenable on the score of grammar; and it is also true that ‘justification 
necessarily involves peace with God.’ But the argument goes too much 
upon the assumption that εἰρ. ἔχ. = ‘obtain peace,’ which we have seen to 
be erroneous. ‘The sense is exactly that of εἶχεν εἰρήνην in the passage 
quoted from the Acts, and δικαιωθ., as we have said, marks the initial 
moment in the state. 


2. τὴν προσαγωγήν. Two stages only are described in wv. 1, 2 
though different language is used about them: δικαιωθέντες = ἡ 
προσαγωγή, εἰρήνη = χάρις: the καύχησις is a characteristic of the 
state of χάρις, at the same time that it points forward to a future 
state of δόξα. The phrase ἡ mpocay., ‘our introduction,’ is a con- 
necting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. Eph. ii. 18; 
lii. 12): the idea is that of introduction to the presence-chamber of 
a monarch. The rendering ‘access’ is inadequate, as it leaves 
out of sight the fact that we do not come in our own strength but 
need an ‘ introducer ’—Christ. 

ἐσχήκαμεν: not ‘we have had’ (Va.), but ‘we have got or 
obtained,’ aor. and perf. in one. 


‘Both grammar and logic will 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 
Exp. 1882, i. 169). 

τῇ πίστει om. BD EFG, Lat. Vet., Orig.-lat. δὲς. The weight of this 
evidence depends on the value which we assign to B. ΑἹ] the other evidence 
is Western; and B also (as we have seen) has a Western element; so that 
the question is whether the omission here in B is an independent corrobora- 
tion of the Western group or whether it simply belongs to it (does the 
evidence = B +8, or ὃ only?). There is the further point that omissions in 
the Western text deserve more attention than additions. Either reading can 
be easily enough accounted for, as an obvious gloss on the one hand or the 
omission of a superfluous phrase on the other. The balance is sufficiently 
represented by placing τῇ πίστει in brackets as Treg. WH. RV. marg. (Weiss 
omits). 


eis τὴν χάριν ταύτην: the ‘state of grace’ or condition of those 
who are objects of the Divine favour, conceived of as a space 
fenced in (Mey. Va. &c.) into which the Christian enters: cf. Gal. 
v.43; 1 Pet. v. 12 (Va. and Grm.-Thay. 5. v. χάρις 3. a). 

ἑστήκαμεν : ‘stand fast or firm’ (see Va, and Grm.-Thay. s.v. 
ἵστημι ii. 2. A). 

ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι : as in iv. 18. 

τῆς δόξης. See on iii. 23. It is the Glory of the Divine 
Presence (Shekinah) communicated to man (partially here, but) in 
full measure when he enters into that Presence ; man’s whole being 
will be transfigured by it. 


122 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ν. 1,2. 


Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of 
Fustification ? 


It is well known to be a characteristic feature of the theology 
of Ritsch] that he regards the proper object of Justification as the 
Christian Society as a collective whole, and not the individual as 
such. This view is based upon two main groups of arguments. 
(1) The first is derived from the analogy of the O.T. The great 
sacrifices of the O. T. were undoubtedly meant in the first instance 
for ‘the congregation.’ So in regard to the Passover it is laid 
down expressly that no alien is to eat of it, but all the congregation 
of Israel are to keep it (Ex. xii. 43 ff., 47). And still more 
distinctly as to the ritual of the Day of Atonement: the high priest 
is to ‘make atonement for the holy place, because of the un- 
cleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their trans- 
gressions, even all their sins’; he is to lay both his hands on the 
head of the goat, and ‘confess over him all the iniquities of the 
children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins’ 
(Lev. xvi. 16, 21, also 33 f.). This argument gains in force from 
the concentration of the Christian Sacrifice upon a single event, 
accomplished once for all. It is natural to think of it as having 
also a single and permanent object. (2) The second argument is 
derived from the exegesis of the N.T. generally (most clearly 
perhaps in Acts xx. 28 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ [v. 1. Κυρίου], ἣν 
περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ idiov: but also in 1 Jo. ii. 2; iv. 10; 
1 Pet. iii. 18; Apoc. i. 5 ἦι; v. 9f.), and more particularly in the 
Epistles of St. Paul. The society is, it is true, most clearly 
indicated in the later Epp.; e.g. Tit. ii. 14 σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰ. X., ὃς 
ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς... καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν 
περιούσιον : Eph. ν. 25 f. ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησε τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ ἑαυτὸν 
παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς" ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας κιτιλ. (cf. also Eph. ii. 
18; iii, 12; Col. i. 14). But Ritschl also claims the support of 
the earlier Epp.: e.g. Rom. viii. 32 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν 
αὐτόν : 11]. 22 δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ... εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας : and 
the repeated ἡμεῖς in the contexts of three passages (Comp. Rechi- 
fert. u. Versihn. ii. 216 f., 160). 

In reply the critics of Ritschl appeal to the distinctly in- 
dividualistic cast of such expressions as Rom. iii. 26 δικαιοῦντα τὸν 
ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ : iV. 5 ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, with the context: 
X. 4 εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι (Schider, op. εἴ. p. 29 n.; ef. 
also Gloél, Der Heilige Geist, p. 102 n.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. ὃ 82 Ὁ, 
referred to by Schader). 

It is undoubtedly true that St. Paul does use language which 
points to the direct justification of the individual believer. This 


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? 
That which brings benefit to the Church collectively of necessity 
brings benefit to the individuals of which it is composed. We 
may if we like, as St. Paul very often does, leave out of sight the 
intervening steps; and it is perhaps the more natural that he 
should do so, as the Church is in this connexion an ideal entity. 
But this entity is prior in thought to the members who compose 
it; and when we think of the Great Sacrifice as consummated 
once for all and in its effects reaching down through the ages, it is 
no less natural to let the mind dwell on the conception which 
alone embraces past, present, and future, and alone binds all the 
scattered particulars into unity. 

We must remember also that in the age and to the thought of 
St. Paul the act of faith in the individual which brings him within 
the range of justification is inseparably connected with its ratifica- 
tion in baptism. But the significance of baptism lies in the fact 
that whoever undergoes it is made thereby member of a society, 
and becomes at once a recipient of the privileges and immunities 
of that society. St. Paul is about (in the next chapter) to lay 
stress on this point. He there, as well as elsewhere, describes the 
relation of spiritual union into which the Christian enters with 
Christ as established by the same act which makes him also 
member of the society. And therefore when at the beginning of 
the present chapter he speaks of the entrance of the Christian into 
the state of grace in metaphors which present that state under the 
figure of a fenced-off enclosure, it is natural to identify the area 
within which grace and justification operate with the area of the 
society, in other words with the Church. The Church however in 
this connexion can have no narrower definition than ‘all baptized 
persons.’ And even the condition of baptism is introduced as an 
inseparable adjunct to faith; so that if through any exceptional 
circumstances the two were separated, the greater might be taken 
to include the less. The Christian theologian has to do with what 
is normal; the abnormal he leaves to the Searcher of hearts. 

It is thus neither in a spirit of exclusiveness nor yet in that of 
any hard and fast Scholasticism, but only in accordance with the 
free and 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 
insight dwells more and more upon the Church as an organic 
whole he also conceives of it as doing for the individual believer 
what the ‘congregation’ did for the individual Israelites under the 


124 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 2-5. 
older dispensation. The Christian Sacrifice with its effects, like 
the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement by which it is typified, 


reach the individual through the community. 


8-5. The two leading types of the Old-Latin Version of the Epistle stand 
out distinctly in these verses. We are fortunately able to compare the 
Cyprianic text with that of Tertullian (#0 solum...confundit) and the 
European text of Cod. Clarom. with that of Hilary (tr¢bu/atio . . . confundit). 
The passage is also quoted in the so-called Sfecz/um (m), which represents 


the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian (Classical Review, iv. 416 f.). 


CyYPRIAN. 

Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur 
in pressuris, scientes quoniam pres- 
sura tolerantiam operatur, tolerantia 
autem probationem, probatio autem 
spem ; spes autem non confundit, guia 
dilectio Dei infusa est cordibus nostris 
per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est 
nobis. 

verum etiam exultantes Tert.; certi 
guod Tert.; perfictat Tert. (ed. Vin- 


Cop. CLAROM. 

Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur 
in tribulationibus, scientes quod tribu- 
latio patientiam operatur, patientia 
autem probationem, probatio autem 
spem ; spes autem non confundit, quia 
caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus 
nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui 
datus est nobis. 

perficit Hil.; prob. vero τὰ Hil.; 
spes vero Hil. (Cod. Clarom. = m). 


dob.) ; tol. vero Tert.; sfes vero Tert. 


Here, as elsewhere in Epp. Paul., there is a considerable amount of matter 
common to all forms of the Version, enough to give colour to the supposition 
that a single translation lies at their root. But the salient expressions are 
changed; and in this instance Tertullian goes with Cyprian, as Hilary with 
the European texts. The renderings tolerantia and pressura are verified for 
Tertullian elsewhere (¢olerantia Luke xxi. 19; 1 Thess. i. 4: pressura 
Rom. vill, 35:5, xii. ΤΑ͂Σ 1 Cor, vil. 25.) 2 Cor, 1. 8. ἵν. τὴς Vie 45 wale 
Col. i. 24; 2 Thess. i. 4; Apoc. ii. 22; vii. 14), as also dzlectio (to which 
the quotation does not extend in this passage, but which is found in 
Luke xi. 42; John xiii. 35 ; Rom. viii. 35, 39; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ff., &c.). We 
note however that Hilary and Tertullian agree in ericet ( perficiat), though 
in another place Hilary has allusively ¢ribu/atio patientiam operatur. 
Perhaps this coincidence may point to an older rendering. 


8. οὐ μόνον δέ (ἑστήκαμεν ἀλλὰ Kal καυχώμεθα, OF ἑστηκότες ἀλλὰ καὶ 
καυχώμενοι) : in this elliptical form characteristic of St. Paul and 
esp. of this group of Epistles (cf. v. 11; viii. 23; ix. 10; 2 Cor. 
viii. 19). 

καυχώμενοι BC, Orig. δὲς and others: a good group, but open to suspicion 
of conforming to ver. 11 (4. v.); we have also found a similar group, on the 
whole inferior, in iii. 28. If καυχώμενοι were right it would be another 


example of that broken and somewhat inconsecutive structure which is 
doubtless due, as Va. suggests, to the habit of dictating to an amanuensis. 


Note the contrast between the Jewish καύχησις which ‘is excluded’ 
(iii. 27) and this Christian καύχησις. The one rests on supposed 
human privileges and merit; the other draws all its force from the 
assurance of Divine love. 

The Jewish writers know of another καύχησις (besides the empty boasting 
which St. Paul reprehends), but it is reserved for the blest in Paradise: 4 Ezr. 


vii. 98 [Bensly=vi. 72 O. F. Fritzsche] exultabunt cum fiducia et ... con- 
Jidebunt non confust, et gaudebunt non reverentes. 


V. 3-5.] | CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 125 


ἐν tats θλίψεσι. The θλίψεις are the physical hardships and 
sufferings that St. Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the 
Christian ; cf. Rom. viii. 35 ff.; 1 Cor. iv. 11-133; vii. 26-32; xv. 
30-32; 2 Cor. i. 3-10; xi. 23-27. Such passages give us 
glimpses of the stormy background which lies behind St. Paul’s 
Epistles. He is so absorbed in his ‘ Gospel’ that this makes very 
litle impression upon him. Indeed, as this chapter shows, the 
overwhelming sense of God’s mercy and love fills him with such 
exultation of spirit that bodily suffering not only weighs like dust in 
the balance but positively serves to strengthen his constancy. The 
same feeling comes out in the ὑπερνικῶμεν of vili. 37: the whole 
passage is parallel. 

ὑπομονήν : not merely a passive quality but a ‘masculine con- 
stancy in holding out under trials’ (Waite on 2 Cor. vi. 4), ‘ forti- 
tude.’ See on ii. 7 above. 

4. δοκιμή : the character which results from the process of trial, 
the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit; cf. 
James i. 12, &c. The exact order of ὑπομονή and δοκιμή must not 
be pressed too far: in St. Jamesi. 3 τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως produces 
ὑπομονή. If St. James had seen this Epistle (which is doubtful) we 
might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. The con- 
ception is that of 2 Tim. ii. 3 (in the reviséd as well as the received 
text). 

τες δοκιμὴ ἐλπίδα. It is quite intelligible as a fact of experience 
that the hope which is in its origin doctrinal should be strengthened 
by the hardening and bracing of character which come from 
actual conflict. Still the ultimate basis of it is the overwhelming 
sense of God’s love, brought home through the Death of Christ; 
and to this the Apostle returns. 

5. οὐ καταισχύνει : ‘ does not disappoint, ‘ does not prove illusory.’ 
The text Is. xxviii. 16 (LXX) caught the attention of the early 
Christians from the Messianic reference contained in it (‘ Behold, 
I lay in Zion,’ &c.), and the assurance by which this was followed 
(‘he that believeth shall not be put to shame’) was confirmed to 
them by their own experience: the verse is directly quoted Rom. 
ΙΧ 5 Πν; Pee et. 11 Os 

ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ : certainly ‘the love of God for us,’ not ‘ our 
love for God’ (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns): ἀγάπη thus 
comes to mean, ‘our sezse of God’s love,’ just as εἰρήνη = ‘ our 
sense of peace with God.’ 

éxxéxutat. The idea of spiritual refreshment and encourage- 
ment is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of 
watering. St. Paul seems to have had in his mind Is. xliv. 3 
‘I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the 
dry ground: I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed,’ &c. 

διὰ Πνεύματος “Ayiou: without the art., for the Spirit as «mparied. 


126 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 5, 6. 


St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges of 
Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the 
time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, i. 6. from 
his baptism. 

6. ἔτι γάρ. There is here a difficult, but not really very im- 
portant, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus 
summarized :— 

ἔτι γάρ at the beginning of the verse with ér: also after ἀσθενῶν, 
the mass of MSS. 

ἔτι at the beginning of the verse only, some inferior MSS. 
(later stage of the Ecclesiastical text). 

eis τί γάρ (possibly representing ἵνα ri γάρ, ut guid enim), the 
Western text (Latin authorities). 

ei γάρ few authorities, partly Latin. 

εἴ γε Β. 

It is not easy to select from these a reading which shall account 
for all the variants. That indeed which has the best authority, the 
double ἔτι, does not seem to be tenable, unless we suppose an 
accidental repetition of the word either by St. Paul or his amanuensis. 
It would not be difficult to get ἔτι γάρ from ἵνα τί γάρ, or vice versa, 
through the doubling or dropping of in from the preceding word 
HMIN ; nor would it be difficult to explain ἔτι γάρ from εἰ γάρ, or 
vice versa. We might then work our way back to an alternative εἰ 
γάρ or εἴ ye, which might be confused with each other through the 
use of an abbreviation. Fuller details are given below. We think 
on the whole that it is not improbable that here, as in iv. 1, B has 
preserved the original reading εἴ ye. For the meaning of εἴ ye (‘ so 
surely as’ Va.) see T. 5. Evans in Lx. 1882, i. 176 f.; and the note 
on ili. 30 above. 


In more detail the evidence stands thus: ἔτε γάρ here with ἔτι also after 
ἀσθενῶν NAC D* al.: ἔτι here only DODEKLP &c.: εἰς τί yap D°FG: 
ut quid enim Lat.-Vet. Vulg., Iren.-lat. Faustin: εἰ γάρ 104 Greg. (=h 
Scriv.), fuld., Isid.-Pelus. Aug. dés: εἰ yap... ἔτι Boh. (‘For if, we being still 
weak,’ &c.): εἰ δέ Pesh.: εἴ ye B. [The readings are wrongly given by Lips., 
and not quite correctly even by Gif., through overlooking the commas in Tisch. 
The statement which is at once fullest and most exact will be found in WH.] 
It thus appears: (1) that the reading most strongly supported is ἔτι γάρ, 
with double ἔτι, which is impossible unless we suppose a /apsus calamé 
between St. Paul and his amanuensis. (2) The Western reading is εἰς τί 
γάρ, which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original iva 
τί yap (Gif., from ut guid enim of Iren.-lat. &c.): this is no doubt a very 
early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is ei yap. (4) B alone gives 
ei ye. So far as sense goes this is the best, and there are not a few cases in 
N. T. where the reading of B alone strongly commends itself (cf. iv. 1 above). 
But the problem is, how to account for the other readings? It would not be 
difficult palaeographically from εἰ γάρ to get ἔτι yap by dittography of 
1 (eirap, elirap, etirap), or from this again to get els τί γάρ through ditto- 
graphy of ε and confusion with ¢ (ectirap) ; or we might take the alternative 
ingeniously suggested by Gif., of supposing that the original reading was ἵνα 


ν. 6,7. | CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 127 


τί γάρ, of which the first two letters had been absorbed by the previous ἡμῖν 
(Hmin[tnJatirap). There would thus be no great difficulty in accounting for 
the origin either of ἔτι γάρ or of the group of Western readings; and the 
primitive variants would be reduced to the two, εἰ rap and er γε. Dr. Hort 
proposed to account for these by a conjectural εἰ περ, 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 re and the abbrevia- 
tion mb. [For this form see T. W. Allen, Motes on Abbreviations in Greek 
MSS. (Oxford, 1889), p. 9 and pl. iii; Lehmann, Die tachygraphischen Ab- 
kiirzungen d. griech. Handschriften (Leipzig, 1880), p. 91 f. taf. 9. We 
believe that the oldest extant example is in the Fragmentum Mathematicum 
Sobiense of the seventh century (Wattenbach, Script. Graec. Specim. tab. 8), 
where the abbreviation appears in a corrupt form. But we know that short- 
hand was very largely practised in the early centuries (cf. Eus. H. &. 
VI. xxiii. 2), 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 εἴ γε, as it makes the best sense, may also 
be the original reading. 


εἴ γε (εἰ Ὁ) 
| 


εἴ re ei rap 


eT! rap ei rap 


[inJa τί γάρ εἰς τί γάρ 
ut quid enim 


ἀσθενῶν : ‘incapable’ of working out any righteousness for our- 
selves. 

κατὰ καιρόν. 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; 2 Cor. vi. 2; Rom. iii. 26; and on 
the other hand Eph. i. 10; 1 Tim. ii. 6; vi. 15; Tit. i. 3. 

7. μόλις γάρ. The γάρ 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 μόλις the first hand of δὲ and Orig. read μόγις, which has more 

attestation in Luke ix. 39. The two words were easily confused both in 

sense and in writing. 

ὑπὲρ δικαίου. There is clearly in this passage a contrast between 
ὑπὲρ δικαίου and ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ. They are not expressions which 
may be taken as roughly synonymous (Mey.-W. Lips. é&c.), burt it 


128 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 7-9. 


is implied that it is an easier thing to die for the ἀγαθός than for the 
δίκαιος, Similarly the Gnostics drew a distinction between the 
God of the O. T. and the God of the N. T., calling the one δίκαιος 
and the other ἀγαθός (Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xxvii. 1; comp. other 
passages and authorities quoted by Gif. p. 123). The δίκαιος keeps 
to the ‘letter of his bond’; about the ἀγαθός there is something 
warmer and more genial such as may well move to self-sacrifice 
and devotion. 

In face of the clear and obvious parallel supplied by Irenaeus, 
not to speak of others, it should not be argued as it is by Weiss 
and Lips. (who make τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ neut.) and even by Mey. and Dr. 
T. K. Abbott (Zssays, p. 75) that there is no substantial difference 
between δίκαιος and ἀγαθός. We ourselves often use ‘righteous’ 
and ‘good’ as equivalent without effacing the distinction between 
them when there is any reason to emphasize it. The stumbling- 
block of the art. before ἀγαθοῦ and not before δικαίου need not stand 
in the way. This is sufficiently explained by Gif, who points out 
that the clause beginning with μόλις is virtually negative, so that 
δικαίου is indefinite and does not need the art., while the affirmative 
clause implies a definite instance which the art. indicates. 

We go therefore with most English and American scholars 
(Stuart, Hodge, Gif. Va. Lid.) against some leading Continental 
names in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural 
sense of the passage. 

8. συνίστησι : see on ili. 5. 

τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην : ‘His own love,’ emphatic, prompted from 
within not from without. Observe that the death of Christ is here 
referred to the will of the Father, which lies behind the whole of 
what is commonly (and not wrongly) called the ‘scheme of re- 
demption.’ Gif. exceflently remarks that the ‘proof of God’s love 
towards us drawn from the death of Christ is strong in proportion 
to the closeness of the union between God and Christ.’ It is the 
death of One who is nothing less than ‘ the Son.’ 


τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην eis ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεός NACKP &c.: 6 Θεὸς εἰς ἡμᾶς 
DEFGL: om. ὁ Θεός Β. There is no substantial difference of meaning, 
as els ἡμᾶς in any case goes with συνίστησι, not with ἀγάπην. 


ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανε. St. Paul uses emphatic language, 1 Cor. 
xv. I-3, to show that this doctrine was not confined to himself but 
was a common property of Christians. 

9. St. Paul here separates between ‘justification,’ the pronouncing 
‘not guilty’ of sinners in the past and their final salvation from the 
wrath to come. He also clearly connects the act of justification 
with the bloodshedding of Christ: he would have said with the 
author of Heb. ix. 22 χωοὶς αἱματεκχυσίας ob γίνεται ἄφεσις, see Pp. 92. 
apove. 


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. 

δι᾿ αὐτοῦ : explained by the next verse ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ. That 
which saves the Christian from final judgement is his union with 
the living Christ. 

10. κατηλλάγημεν. The natural prima facte view is that the 
reconciliation is mutual ; and this view appears to verify itself on 
examination: see below. 

ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ. For the full meaning of this see the notes on 
ch. vi. 8-11; viii. 10, 11. 

11. καυχώμενοι (δὲ Β Ο D, ἄς.) is decisively attested for καυχώμεθα, 
which was doubtless due to an attempt to improve the construction. 
The part. is loosely attached to what precedes, and must be taken 
as in sense equivalent to καυχώμεθα. In any case it is present and 
not future (as if constructed with σωθησόμεθα). We may compare 
a similar loose attachment of δικαιούμενοι in ch. iii. 24. 


The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement. 


The καταλλαγή described in these verses is the same as the εἰρήνη 
of ver. 1; and the question necessarily meets us, What does this 
εἰρήνη OF καταλλαγή Mean? [5 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. 21: ‘ ἐχθρούς, ““ hostile to God,” as the 
consequence of ἀπηλλοτριωμένους not “hateful to God,” as it is taken 
by some. The active rather than the passive sense of ἐχθρούς is 
required by the context, which (as commonly in the N. T.) speaks 
of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of God as reconciled to the 
sinner... It is the mind of man, not the mind of God, which must 
undergo a change, that a reunion may be effected.’ 

Similarly Westcott on 1 Jo. ii. 2 (p. 85): ‘Such phrases as “ pro- 
pitiating God” and “God being reconciled” are foreign to the 
language of the N. T. Man is reconciled (2 Cor. v. 18 ff.; Rom. 
v. 1of.), There is “propitiation” in the matter of sin or of the 
sinner. The love of God is the same throughout; but He 
“cannot” in virtue of His very nature welcome the impenitent 
and sinful: and more than this, He “cannot” treat sin as if it 
were not sin. This being so, the ἱλασμός, when it is applied to the 
sinner, so to speak, neutralizes the sin’ [A difficult and it may be 
thought hardly tenable distinction. The relation of God to sin is 
not merely passive but active; and the term ἱλασμός is properly 


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


used in reference to a personal agent. Some one is ‘ propitiated’ : 
and who can this be, but God?] 

The same idea is a characteristic feature in the theology of 
Ritschl (Recht. u. Vers. ii. 230 ff.). 

No doubt there are passages where ἐχθρός denotes the hostility 
and καταλλαγή the reconciliation of man to God; but taking the 
language of Scripture as a whole, it does not seem that it can be 
explained in this way. 

(1) In the immediate context we have τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν, 
implying that the reconciliation comes to man from the side of 
God, and is not directly due to any act of his own. We may 
compare the familiar χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, to which is usually added ἀπὸ 
Θεοῦ in the greetings of the Epistles. 

(2) In Rom. xi. 28 ἐχθροί is opposed to ἀγαπητοί, where ἀγαπητοί 
must be passive (‘beloved by God’), so that it is hardly possible 
that ἐχθροί can be entirely active, though it may be partly so: it 
seems to correspond to our word ‘ hostile.’ 

(3) It is difficult to dissociate such words as ἱλαστήριον (Rom. iii. 
25), ἱλασμός (τ Jo. ii. 2) from the idea of propitiating a person. 

(4) There is frequent mention of the Anger of God as directed 
against sinners, not merely at the end of all things, but also at this 
present time (Rom. i. 18, &c.). When that Anger ceases to be 
so directed there is surely a change (or what we should be com- 
pelled to call a change) on the part of God as well as of man. 

We infer that the natural explanation of the passages which 
speak of enmity and reconciliation between God and man is that 
they are not on one side only, but are mutual. 

At the same time we must be well aware that this is only our 
imperfect way of speaking: κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω must be written 
large over all such language. We are obliged to use anthropo- 
morphic expressions which imply a change of attitude or relation 
on the part of God as well as of man; and yet in some way which 
we cannot wholly fathom we may believe that with Him there is 
‘no variableness, neither shadow of turning.’ 


THE FALL OF ADAM AND THE WORK OF CHRIST. 


V. 12-14. What a contrast does this last description 
suggest between the Fall of Adam and the justifying Work 
of Christ! There is indeed parallelism as well as contrast. 
For it ts true that as Christ brought righteousness and life, 
so Adam’s Fall brought sin and death. If death prevailed 
throughout the pre-Mosaic period, that could not be due solely 


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 Adam's; 
whose fall thus had consequences extending beyond itself, like 
the redeeming act of Christ. 


12 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. “Yet they suffered the full penalty of sin. All 
through the long period which intervened between Adam and the 
Mosaic legislation, the tyrant Death held sway; even though 
those who died had not sinned, as Adam had, in violation of 
an express command. This proved that something deeper was 
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. διὰ τοῦτο: points to the logical connexion with what pre- 
cedes. It has been argued, at somewhat disproportionate length, 
whether this refers to ver. 11 only (Fricke, De Mente dogmatica loct 
Paulint ad Rom. v. 12 sq., Lipsiae, 1880, Mey., Philippi, Beet), or 
to vv. 9-11 (Fri.), or to vv. 1-11 (Rothe, Hofmann), or to the 
whole discussion from i. 17 onwards (Beng., Schott, Reiche, 
Riickert). We cannot lay down so precisely how much was 
consciously present to the mind of the Apostle. But as the lead- 
ing idea of the whole section is the comparison of the train of 
consequences flowing from the Fall of Adam with the train of 
consequences flowing from the Justifying Act of Christ, it seems 
natural to include at least as much as contains a brief outline of 
that work, i.e. as far as vv. I-11. 


132 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [v.12 


That being so, we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. 11 that 
St. Paul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one 
case with that of “7 in the other. Fricke, however, is right in 
saying that his object is not to inquire into the origin of death 
or sin. The origin of both is assumed, not propounded as 
anything new. This is important for the understanding of the 
bearings of the passage. ΑἹ] turns on this, that the effects of 
Adam’s Fall were transmitted to his descendants; but St. Paul 
nowhere says how they were transmitted; nor does he even define 
in precise terms what is transmitted. He seems, however, to mean 
(1) the liability to sin, (2) the liability to die as the punishment 
of sin. 

ὥσπερ. The structure of the paragraph introduced by this 
word (to the end of ver. 14) is broken in a manner very character- 
istic of St. Paul. He begins the sentence as if he intended it to 
run: ὥσπερ δὲ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε, καὶ διὰ 
τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος . ~~ οὕτω καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ δικαιοσύνη 
εἰσῆλθε, καὶ διὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἡ Con. But the words διὰ τῆς ἅμαρ- 
τίας ὁ θάνατος bring up the subject which St. Paul is intending to 
raise, viz. the connexion of sin and death with the Fall of Adam: 
he goes off upon this, and when he has discussed it sufficiently 
for his purpose, he does not return to the form of sentence 
which he had originally planned, but he attaches the clause 
comparing Christ to Adam by a relative (ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος) 
to the end of his digression: and so what should have been the 
main apodosis of the whole paragraph becomes merely sub- 
ordinate. It is a want of finish in style due to eagerness and 
intensity of thought; but the meaning is quite clear. Compare 
the construction of ii. 16; iii. 8, 26. 

ἡ ἁμαρτία: Sin, as so often, is personified: it is a malignant 
force let loose among mankind: see the fuller note at the end of 
the chapter. 

εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε: a phrase which, though it reminds us 
specially of St. John (John i. 9, 10; lil. 17, 19; Vi: 145 1576, 
39; xX. 36, &c.), is not peculiar to him (cf. 1 Tim. i. 15; Heb. 
x. 5). St. John and the author of Heb. apply it to the personal 
incarnation of the Logos; here it is applied to the impersonal 
self-diffusion of evil. 

ὁ θάνατος. Some have taken this to mean ‘eternal death,’ 
chiefly on the ground of νν. 17, 21, where it seems to be opposed 
to ‘eternal life.’ Oltr. is the most strenuous supporter of this 
view. But it is far simpler and better to take it of ‘physical 
death’: because (1) this is clearly the sense of ver. 14; (2) it is 
the sense of Gen. ii. 17; iii. 19; to which St. Paul is evidently 
alluding. It seems probable that even in wv. 17, 21, the idea 
is in the first instance physical. But St. Paul does not draw the 


V. 12.] ADAM AND CHRIST 133 


marked distinction that we do between this life and the life to 
come. The mention of death in any sense is enough to suggest 
the contrast of life in all its senses. The Apostle’s argument 
is that the gift of life and the benefits wrought by Christ are 
altogether wider in their range than the penalty of Adam’s sin; 
ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἣ χάρις is the keynote of the passage. It is not 
necessary that the two sides of the antithesis should exactly cor- 
respond. In each particular the scale weighs heavily in favour 
of the Christian. 


The Western text (DEFG, &c.) omits this word altogether. Aug. 
makes the subject of the vb. not death but sin : he makes it a charge against 
the Pelagians that they understood in the second place ὁ θάνατος. 


διῆλθεν: contains the force of distribution; ‘made its way to 
each individual member of the race’: καθάπερ τις κλῆρος πατρὸς 
διαβὰς ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐγγόνους (‘like a father’s inheritance divided among 
his children’), Euthym.-Zig. 

ἐφ᾽ o. Though this expression has been much fought over, 
there can now be little doubt that the true rendering is ‘ because.’ 
(1) Orig. followed by the Latin commentators Aug. and Ambrstr. 
took the rel. as masc. with antecedent ’Addz: ‘in whom,’ i.e. ‘in 
Adam.’ But in that case (i) ἐπί would not be the right preposi- 
tion; (ii) ᾧ would be too far removed from its antecedent. 
(2) Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc. 
with antecedent θάνατος : ‘in which,’ i.e. ‘in death, which is 
even more impossible. (3) Some moderns, taking ᾧ as neut. and 
the whole phrase as equivalent to a conjunction, have tried to 
get out of it other meanings than ‘because.’ So (i) ‘in like 
manner as’ (‘all died, just as all sinned’), Rothe, De Wette; 
(ii) (= ἐφ᾽ ὅσον) ‘in proportion as,’ ‘in so far as’ (‘all died, zm so 
far as all sinned’), Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But 
the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) 6 is rightly 
taken as neut., and the phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ as conj.=‘because’ (‘for 
that” AV. and RV.) by Theodrt. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass 
of modern commentators. This is in agreement with Greek 
usage and is alone satisfactory. 


ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in classical writers more often means ‘on condition that’: cf. 
Thuc. i. 113 σπονδὰς ποιησάμενοι ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τοὺς ἄνδρας κομιοῦνται, ‘on con- 
dition of getting back their prisoners,’ &c. The plural ἐφ᾽ οἷς is more 
common, as in ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, ἐξ ὧν, δι᾿ ὧν. In N.T. the phrase occurs three 
times, always as it would seem=frofterea quod, ‘because’: cf. 2 Cor. v. 4 
στενάζομεν Bapovpevor’ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι #.7.A.; Phil. iii. 12 
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελήφθην ὑπὸ X. Ἰ. (where ‘seeing that’ or ‘because’ appears 
to be the more probable rendering). So Phavorinus (d. 1537; 8 lexico- 
grapher of the Renaissance period, who incorporated the contents of older 
works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἀντὶ τοῦ διότι 
λέγουσιν ᾿Αττικοί, οἷον ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὴν κλοπὴν εἰργάσω (‘because you com: 
mitted the theft’) «.7.A. 


134 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12, 18. 


ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. Here lies the crux of this difficult pas- 
sage. In what sense did ‘all sin’? (1) Many, including even 
Meyer, though explaining ἐφ᾽ ᾧ as neut. rather than masc., yet 
give to the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equivalent 
to that which it has if the antecedent of ᾧ is Addy. Bengel has 
given this classical expression: omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante, 
‘all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam,’ his sin involved theirs. 
The objection is that the words supplied are far too important 
to be left to be understood. If St. Paul had meant this, why did 
he not say so? The insertion of ἐν ᾿Αδάμ would have removed 
all ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part 
supply nothing, but take ἥμαρτον in its usual sense: ‘all sinned 
in their own persons, and on their own initiative.’ So Euthym.- 
Zig.: διότι πάντες ἥμαρτον ἀκολουθήσαντες τῷ προπάτορι κατά γε τὸ 
ἁμαρτῆσαι. The objection to this is that it destroys the parallelism 
between Adam and Christ: besides, St. Paul goes on to show 
in the same breath that they could not sin in the same way that 
Adam did. Sin implies law; but Adam’s descendants had no law. 
(3) It is possible however to take ἥμαρτον in its ordinary sense 
without severing the connexion between Adam and his posterity. 
If they sinned, their sin was due in part to tendencies inherited 
from Adam. _ So practically Stuart, Fricke, Weiss, &c. There 
still remains the difficulty as to the connexion of this clause with 
what follows: see the next note. 


It is a further argument in favour of the view taken above that a very 
similar sequence of thought is found in 4 Ezra. Immediately after laying 
down that the sin of Adam’s descendants is due to that malignitas radicts 
which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in full 
below), the writer goes on to describe this sin as a repetition of Adam’s due 
to the fact that they too had within them the cor malignum as he had: Et 
deliguerunt gui habitabant civitatem, in omnibus facientes sicut fecit Adam 
et omnes generationes eius, utebantur enim et tpst corde maligno (4 Ezra iii. 
25 f.). Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from AZoc. 
Baruch, which lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin and on the 
freedom of choice in those who give way to it : see the fuller note below. 


13. ἄχρι γὰρ νόμου κιτιλ. At first sight this seems to give a 
reason for just the opposite of what is wanted: it seems to prove 
not that πάντες ἥμαρτον, but that however much men might sin 
they had not at least the full guilt of sin. This is really what 
St. Paul aims at proving. There is an under-current all through 
the passage, showing how there was something else at work 
besides the guilt of individuals. That ‘something’ is the effect 
of Adam’s Fall. The Fall gave the predisposition to sin; and 
the Fall linked together sin and death. 

St. Paul would not say that the absence of written law did 
away with all responsibility. He has already laid down most 
distinctly that Gentiles, though without such written law, have 


V. 18, 14.} ADAM AND CHRIST 135 


law 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 
death. What St. Paul wishes to bring out is that prior to the 
giving of the Law, the fate of mankind, to an extent and in a way 
which he does not define, was directly traceable to Adam’s Fall. 

ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται κιτλ. The thought is one which 
had evidently taken strong hold on St. Paul: see on iv. 15, and 
the parallels there quoted. 

ἐλλογεῖται : ‘brought into account’ (Gif.), as of an entry made 
in a ledger. The word also occurs in Philem, 18, where see 
Lightfoot’s note. 


ἐλλογεῖται (or ἐνλογεῖται) NC BCDEFGKLP, &c., ἐλλογᾶται δὲ: 
ἐνελογεῖτο N*, ἐλλογᾶτο A 52 108; tmputabatur Vulg. codd. Ambrstr. al. 
The imperf. appears to be a (mistaken) correction due to the context. 
As to the form of the verb: ἐλλόγα is decisively attested in Philem. 18 ; 
but 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 éAAoyara: see Westcott 
and Hort, Motes on Orthography in Appendix to Jntrod. p. 166 ff. 


14. ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος. 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, Wat. Quaest. ii. 59 Eodem citius tardiusve veniendum est... Ln 
omnes constitutum est capitale supplicium et quidem constitutione tustissima. 
nam quod magnum solet esse solatium extrema passuris, quorum eadem 
causa et sors cadem est. Similarly Philo speaks of τὸν συμφυᾶ νεκρὸν ἡμῶν, 
τὸ σῶμα (De Gigant. 3; ed. Mang. i. 264). Elsewhere he goes a step further 
and asserts ὅτι παντὶ γεννητῷ ... συμφυὲς τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν. For parallels in 
4 Ezra and Agoc. Baruch. see below. 

ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας. 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. (Rufinus) repeatedly and expressly, Latin 
MSS. known to Aug., the ‘older Latin MSS,’ according to Ambrstr. and 
Sedulius. The comment of Ambrstr. is interesting as showing a certain grasp 
of critical principles, though it was difficult for any one in those days to have 
sufficient command of MSS. to know the real state of the evidence. Ambrstr. 
prefers in this case the evidence of the Latin MSS., because those with which 
he is acquainted are older than the Greek, and represent, as he thinks, an 
older form of text. He claims that this form has the support of Tertullian, 


136 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 14. 


Cyprian and Victorinus—a statement which we are not at present able to 
verify. He accounts for the Greek reading by the usual theory of heretical 
corruption. There is a similar question of the insertion or omission of a 
negative in Rom. iv. 19 (q.v.\, Gal. ii. 5. In two out of the three cases the 
Western text omits the negative, but in ch. iv. Ig it inserts it. 

τύπος (τύπτω): (1) the ‘impression’ left by a sharp blow (τὸν τύπον 
τῶν ἥλων John xx. 25), in particular the ‘stamp’ struck by a die; (2) 
inasmuch as such a stamp bears the figure on the face of the die, ‘ copy,’ 
‘figure,’ or ‘ representation ’; (3) by a common transition from effect to cause, 
‘ mould,’ ‘ pattern,’ ‘exemplar’; (4) hence in the special sense of the word 
type, which we have adopted from the Greek of the N.T., ‘an event 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 (ἀντίτυπος 1 Pet. iii. 21). 
These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation: see 
esp. Cheyne, /sazah, ii. 170 ff. (Essay III, ‘On the Christian Element in the 
Book of Isaiah’). 


τοῦ μέλλοντος. (1) The entirely personal nature of the whole 
comparison prevents us from taking rod μέλλ. as neut. = ‘that 
which was to come’ (Beng., Oltramare). If St. Paul had 
intended this, he would have written rod μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. (2) 
Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the 
Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as ὁ δεύτερος or 6 ἔσχατος 
"Addy (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47). If St. Paul had intended this, he 
would have written rod μέλλοντος ᾿Αδάμ. (3) The context makes 
it clear enough who is intended The first representative of 
the human race as such prefigured its second Great Repre- 
sentative, whose coming lay in the future: this is sufficiently 
brought out by the expression ‘of Him who was to be.’ 6 
μέλλων thus approximates in meaning to 6 ἐρχόμενος (Matt. xi. 
3; Luke vii. 19; Heb. x. 37), which however appears not to 
have been, as it is sometimes regarded, a standing designation 
for the Messiah *. In any case τοῦ μέλλοντος --Ξ ‘ Him who was to 
come’ when Adam fell, not ‘ who zs (still) to come’ (Fri. De W.). 


The Effects of Adam’s Fall in Fewish Theology. 


Three points come out clearly in these verses: (1) the Fall of 
Adam brought death not only to Adam himself but to his 
descendants; (2) the Fall of Adam also brought sin and the 
tendency to sin; (3) and yet in spite of this the individual does 
not lose his responsibility. All three propositions receive some 
partial illustration from Jewish sources, though the Talmud does 


* ‘The designation “The Coming One” (//adéa), though a most truthful 
expression of Jewish expectancy, was not one ordinarily used of the Messiah.’ 
Edersheim, Z. & 7. i. p. 668. 


V. 12-14.] ADAM AND CHRIST 137 


not seem to have had any consistent doctrine on the subject. 
Dr. Edersheim says expressly: ‘So far as their opinions can be 
gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original Sin and 
of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient 
Rabbis’ (Zz/e 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. 


(1) The evidence is strongest as to the connexion between Adam’s sin and 
the introduction of death. ‘There were,’ says Dr. Edersheim, ‘two divergent 
opinions—the one ascribing death to personal, the other to Adam’s guilt’ 
(op. cit. i. 166). It is however allowed that the latter view greatly pre- 
ponderated. ‘Traces of it are found as far back as the Sapiential Books: 
e.g. Wisd. ii. 23 f. ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπ᾽ ἀφθαρσίᾳ... . φθόνῳ δὲ 
διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, where we note the occurrence of 
St. Paul’s phrase; Ecclus, xxv. 24 [33] δι αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν γυναῖκα) ἀποθνή- 
σκομεν πάντες. The doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Ezra and 
Apoc. Baruch.: 4 Ezr. iii. 7 et huzte (sc. Adamo) mandasti diligere viam 
tuam, et praeterivit eam; et statim instituisti in eum mortem et in 
nationibus (= generationibus) etus: Apoc. Baruch, xvii. 3 (Adam) mortem 
attulit et abscidit annos eorum gui ab eo geniti fuerunt: ibid. xxill. 4 
Quando peccavit Adam et decreta futt mors contra eos qui gignerentur. 

(2) We are warned (by Dr. Edersheim in Sf. Comm. Apocr. ad loc.) not 
to identify the statement of Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἀρχὴ ἁμαρτίας 
with the N. T. doctrine of Original Sin: still it points in that direction; we 
have just seen that the writer deduces from Eve the death of all mankind, 
and in like manner he also seems to deduce from her (ἀπὸ yuv.) the zittum 
peccandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra iii. 21 f. Cor enim malignum baiulans 
primus Adam transgressus et victus est, sed et omnes qut de eo nati sunt: 
et facta est permanens infirmitas, et lex cum corde populi, cum malignitate 
radicis; et discessit quod bonum est, et mansit malignum: tbid. iv. 30 
Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio, et 
quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc, et generat usque dum veniat area: 
ibid. vii. 48 (118) O tu guid fecistt Adam? St enim tu peccasti, non est factus 
Solius tuus casus, sed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus. 

(3) And yet along with all this we have the explicit assertion of responsi- 
bility on the part of all who sin. This appears in the passage quoted above 
on ver. 12 (ad fin.). To the same effect are 4 Ezr. viii. 59 1. Won enim 
Altissimus voluit hominem disperdi, sed ipst quit creati sunt coinquinaverunt 
nomen eius gui fecit eos: tbid. ix. 11 gud fastidierunt legem meam cum adhuc 
evant habentes libertatem. But the classical passage is Apoc. Baruch. 
liv. 15, 19 St enim Adam prior peccavit, et atiulit mortem super omnes 
tmmaturam ; sed etiam illi qui ex eo nati sunt, unusquisque ex eis pracpa- 
ravit animae suae tormentum futurum: et tterum unusquisque ex ets 
elegit stbt gloriam futuram ... lVon est ergo Adam causa, nist animae suae 
tantum ; nos vero unusquisque fut animae suae Adam. 

The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the 
Talmud. The latter is thus summarized by Weber (A/tsyw. Theol. p. 216): 
‘By the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right 
relation to God is rendered difficult. More than this cannot be said. Sin, 
to which the bent and leaning had already been planted in man by creation, 
had become a fact ; the *‘ evil impulse” (= cor malignum) gained the mastery 
over mankind, who can only resist it by the greatest efforts; before the Fall 
it had had power over him, but no such ascendancy (Uebermacht). Hence 
when the same writer says a little further on that according to the Rabbis 
‘there is such a thing as transmission of guilt, but not such a thing as trans- 


138 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 15-21. 


mission of sin (Zs gibt eine Erbschuld, aber keine Erbsiinde),’ the negative 
proposition is due chiefly to the clearness with which the Rabbis (like Afoc. 
Baruch.) insist upon free-will and direct individual responsibility. 


It seems to us a mistake to place the teaching of St. Paul in too 
marked opposition to this. There is no fundamental inconsistency 
between his views and those of his contemporaries. He does not 
indeed either affirm or deny the existence of the cor malignum 
before the Fall, nor does he use such explicit language as nos 
vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam: on the other hand he 
does define more exactly than the Rabbis the nature of human 
responsibility both under the Law (ch. vii. 7 ff.) and without it 
(ii. 12-15). But here, as elsewhere in dealing with this mysterious 
subject (see p. 267 below), he practically contents himself with 
leaving the two complementary truths side by side. Man inherits 
his nature; and yet he must not be allowed to shift responsibility 
from himself: there is that within him by virtue of which he is free 
to choose ; and on that freedom of choice he must stand or fall. 


ADAM AND CHRIST. 


V. 15-21. So far the parallelism: but note also the 
contrast. How superior the Work of Christ! (1) How 
different in quality: the one act all sin, the other act all 
bounty or grace! (ver. 15). (2) How different in quantity, 
or mode of working: one act tainting the whole race with 
sin, and a multitude of sins collected together in one only to 
be forgiven! (ver. 16). (3) How different and surpassing in 
its whole character and consequences: a reign of Death and 
a reign of Life! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adam’s Fall 
brought sin: Law increased it: but the Work of Grace has 
cancelled, and more than cancelled, the effect of Law (vv. 
18-21). 

In both cases there is a transmission of effects: but there 
the resemblance ends. In all else the false step (or Fall, as we 
call it) of Adam and the free gift of God’s bounty are most unlike. 
The fall of that one representative man entailed death upon the 
many members of the race to which he belonged. Can we then 
be surprised if an act of such different quality—the free unearned 
favour of God, and the gift of righteousness bestowed through 


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. "ΤΥ εἰ 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. 

ὁ ΤῸ 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. 
21 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. παράπτωμα : lit. ‘a slip or fall sideways,’ ‘a false step,’ 
‘a lapse’: hence metaph. in a sense not very dissimilar to ἁμάρτημα 


140 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 15, 16. 


(which is prop. ‘missing a mark’). It is however appropriate 
that mapdrr. should be used for a ‘fall’ or first deflection from 
uprightness, just as ἁμάρτ. is used of the failure of efforts towards 
recovery. On the word see Trench, Syn. p. 237 f. 

τοῦ ἑνός : ‘the one man,’ t,e. Adam. 

οἱ πολλοί: ‘the many,’ practically = πάντας ver. 12 ; πάντας avOpw- 
mous in ver. 18, ‘all mankind.’ It is very misleading to translate 
as AV., ignoring the article, if ‘through the offence of one, many 
be dead, by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.’ 
Redemption like the Fall proceeds not from any chance member ot 
the human race, and its effects extend not only to ‘many’ but to 
‘all’—to ‘all,’ that is potentially, if they embrace the redemption 
which is offered them. 


See Bentley, quoted by Lft. On Revision, p. 97, ‘By this accurate version 
some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute reprobation 
had been happily prevented. Our English readers had then seen, what 
several of the Fathers saw and testified, that of πολλοί, the many, in an anti- 
thesis to ¢he one, are equivalent to πάντες, αἴ, in ver. 12, and comprehend the 
whole multitude, the entire species ef mankind, exclusive only of she one.’ 


πολλῷ μᾶλλον. What we know of the character of God as dis- 
played in Christ makes us more certain of the good result than of 
the evil. 

ἡ δωρεά is more fully defined below (ver. 17) as ἡ δωρεὰ tis 
δικαιοσύνης : the gift is the condition of righteousness into which 
the sinner enters. δωρεά, ‘boon,’ like δῶρον contrasted with δόμα, 
is reserved for the highest and best gifts; so Philo, Leg. Adleg. iii. 
70 ἔμφασιν μεγέθους τελείων ἀγαθῶν δηλοῦσιν (Lft. Rev. p. 77); comp. 
also the ascending scale of expression in Jas. i. 17. 

ἐν χάριτι goes closely with ἡ δωρεά. In classical Greek we should 
have had the art. ἡ ἐν χάριτι, but in Hellenistic Greek a qualifying 
phrase is attached to a subst. without repetition of the art. Mey. 
however and some others (including Lid.) separate ἐν χάριτι from ἡ 
δωρεά and connect it with ἐπερίσσευσε. 


χάρις is more often applied to God the Father, and is exhibited in the 
whole scheme of salvation. As applied to Christ it is (1) that active favour 
towards mankind which moved Him to intervene for their salvation (cf. esp. 
a Cor. viii. 9); (2) the same active favour shown to the individual by the 
Father and the Son conjointly (Rom. i. 7 4. v.). 


16. The absence of verbs is another mark of compressed anti- 
thetic style. With the first clause we may supply ἐστί, with the 
second ἐγένετο : ‘And not as through one man’s sinning, so is the 
boon. For the judgement sprang from one to condemnation, but 
the free gift sprang from many trespasses (and ended in) a declara- 
tion of righteousness.’ In the one case there is expansion out- 
wards, from one to many: in the other case there is contraction 


V. 16-18.] ADAM AND CHRIST [41] 


inwards ; the movement originates with many sins which are all 
embraced in a single sentence of absolution. 

δικαίωμα : usually the decision, decree, or ordinance by which 
a thing is declared δίκαιον (that which gives a thing the force of 
‘right’); here the decision or sentence by which persons are 
declared δίκαιοι. The sense is determined by the antithesis to κατά- 
κριμα. δικαίωμα bears to δικαίωσις the relation of an act completed 
to an act in process (see p. 31 sup.). 

17. πολλῷ μᾶλλον. 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. 

Thy περισσείαν.... τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες. Every 
term here points to that gift of righteousness here described as 
something objective and external to the man himself, not wrought 
within him but coming to him, imputed not infused. It has its 
source in the overflow of God’s free favour; it is a gift which man 
receives: see pp. 25, 30f., 36 above. 

βασιλεύσουσι. The metaphor is present to St. Paul’s mind; 
and having used it just before of the prevalence of Death, he 
naturally recurs to it in the sense more familiar to a Christian of 
his share in the Messianic blessings, of which the foremost was 
a heightened and glorified vitality, that ‘eternal life’ which is his 
already in germ. 

διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The διά 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 ἄρα οὖν, sum up the results of the whole 
comparison between Adam and Christ: the resemblance is set 
forth in vv. 18, 19; the difference and vast preponderance of the 
scale of blessing in wv. 20, 21. 

Again we have a condensed antithesis—the great salient strokes 
confronting each other without formal construction: origin, extent, 
issue, alike parallel and alike opposed. ‘ As then, through one lapse, 
to all men, unto condemnation—-so also, through one justifying act, 
to all men, unto justification of life.’ There are two difficulties, 
the interpretation of δι᾿ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος and of δικαίωσιν ζωῆς. 

δι᾿ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος. Does δικαίωμα here mean the same thing 
as in ver. 16? If so, it is the sentence by which God declares 
men righteous on account of Christ’s Death. Or is it the merit 
of that Death itself, the ‘righteous act,’ or ὑπακοή, of Christ? A 
number of scholars (Holsten, Va. Lips. Lid.) argue that it must 
be the latter in order to correspond with δι’ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος. So 
too Euthym,-Zig. δέ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος τοῦ X. τὴν ἄκραν δικαιοσύνην 


142 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 18, 19. 


πεπληρωκότος. But it seems better, with Mey. Gif. and others, to 
give the same sense to δικαίωμα as in ver. 16. We saw that there 
the sense was fixed by κατάκριμα, Which is repeated in the present 
verse. On the other hand it is doubtful whether 8xalona 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. 

It is best also to follow the natural construction of the Greek 
and make ἑνός neut. in agreement with δικαιώμ. (Mey.-W. Va. 
Gif.) rather than masc. (Lips. ) 

δικαίωσιν ζωῆς. ‘Life’ is both the immediate and ultimate result 
of that state of things into which the Christian enters when he is 
declared ‘ righteous’ or receives his sentence of absolution. 

19. διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς... διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς. It is natural that 
this aspect of the Fall as παρακοή should be made prominent in 
a context which lays stress on the effect of law or express command 
in enhancing the heinousness of sin. It is natural also that in 
antithesis to this there should be singled out in the Death of 
Christ its special aspect as ὑπακοή: cf. Heb. v. 8,9; Matt. xxvi. 
39; Phil. ii. 8. On the word παρακοή (‘a failing to hear,’ smcuria, 
and thence tnodedientia) see Trench, Syn. p. 234. 

κατεστάθησαν... κατασταθήσονται: ‘ were constituted’... ‘ shall 
be constituted.’ But in what sense ‘constituted’? The Greek 
word has the same ambiguity as the English. If we define further, 
the definition must come from the context. Here the context is 
sufficiently clear: it covers on the one hand the whole result of 
Adam’s Fall for his descendants prior to and independently of their 
own deliberate act of sin; and it covers on the other hand the 
whole result of the redeeming act of Christ so far as that too is 
accomplished objectively and apart from active concurrence on the 
part of the Christian. The fut. κατασταθήσονται has reference not to 
the Last Judgement but to future generations of Christians ; to all 
in fact who reap the benefit of the Cross. 


When St. Paul wrote in Gal. ii. 15 ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν 
ἁμαρτωλοί, he implied (speaking for the moment from the stand- -point of his 
countrymen) that Gentiles would be regarded as φύσει ἁμαρτωλοί: they 
belonged ‘to the class’ of sinners; just as we might speak of a child as 
belonging to the ‘criminal class’ before it had done anything by its own act 
to justify its place in that class. The meaning of the text is very similar: 
so far as it relates to the effects of the Fall of Adam it must be interpreted 
by vv. 12-14; and so far as it relates to the effects of the Death of Christ 
it is parallel to vv. 1, 2 δικαιωθέντες οὖν [ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν (con- 
tained in ἔχωμεν) πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν διὰ τοῦ Kupiou ἡμῶν “I, X., δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τὴν 
προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν εἰς τὴν χάριν ἐν il ἑστήκαμεν. For the use of καθί- 
στασθαι there is a good parallel in Xen. Mem. ii. τ. 9 Ἐγὼ οὖν τοὺς μὲν 
βουλομένους πολλὰ πράγματα ἔχειν ... εἰς τοὺς ἀρχικοὺς καταστήσαιμι, where 
καταστ. = els τοὺς ἀρχικοὺς τάττομεν (sup.) and ἐμαυτὸν τάττω εἰς τοὺς 
βουλομένους (ἐγ7.). 


V. 20, 21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 143 


20. παρεισῆλθεν : ‘come in to the side of a state of things already 
existing.’ St. Paul regarded Law as a ‘ parenthesis’ in the Divine 
plan: it did not begin until Moses, and it ended with Christ 
(cp. iv. 13-16; x. 4). Here however he has in view only its late 
beginning: it is a sort of ‘ after-thought’ (see the Paraphrase). 


‘Why did he not say the Law was given, but the Law entered by the way? 
It was to show that the need of it was temporary and not absolute or 
claiming precedence’ (πρόσκαιρον αὐτοῦ δεικνὺς τὴν χρείαν οὖσαν, καὶ ov 
κυρίαν οὐδὲ προηγουμένην) Chrys. 


ἵνα πλεονάσῃ. For the force of ἵνα comp. εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπο- 
λογήτους i. 20: the multiplication of transgression is not the first 
and direct object of law, but its second and contingent object: law 
only multiplies trangression because it is broken and so converts 
into deliberate sin acts which would not have had that character if 
they had not been so expressly forbidden. 


Τὸ δὲ ἵνα ἐνταῦθα οὐκ αἰτιολογίας πάλιν ἀλλ᾽ exBaoeds ἐστιν. Od γὰρ διὰ 
τοῦτο ἐδόθη ἵνα πλεονάσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐδόθη μὲν ὥστε μειῶσαι καὶ ἀνελεῖν τὸ παρά- 
mropa: ἐξέβη δὲ τοὐναντίον, οὐ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ νόμου φύσιν, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν τῶν 
δεξαμένων ῥαθυμίαν (Chrys.): a note which shows that the ancients were quite 
aware of the ecbatic sense of ἵνα (see on xi. 11). 


πλεονάσῃ, as Va. remarks, might be transitive, but is more 
probably intransitive, because of ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἅμαρτ. which follows. 

τὸ παράπτωμα: seems expressly chosen in order to remind us 
that all sins done in defiance of a definite command are as such 
repetitions of the sin of Adam. 

21. ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ. Sin reigns, as it were, over a charnel-house ; 
the subjects of its empire are men as good as dead, dead in every 
sense of the word, dead morally and spiritually, and therefore 
doomed to die physically (see on vi. 8 below). 

διὰ δικαιοσύνης. The reign of grace or Divine favour is made 
possible by the gift of righteousness which the Christian owes to 
the mediation of Christ, and which opens up for him the prospect 
of eternal life. 


St. Paul’s Conception of Sin and of the Fall. 


St. Paul uses Greek words, and some of those which he uses 
cannot be said to have essentially a different meaning from that 
which attached to them on their native soil; and yet the different 
relations in which they are placed and the different associations 
which gather round them, convey what is substantially a different 
idea to the mind. 

The word dyapria with its cognates is a case in point. The 
corresponding term in Hebrew has much the same original sense 


144 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS Iv. 12-21 


of ‘missing a mark.’ Both words are used with a higher and a 
lower meaning; and in both the higher meaning belongs to the 
sphere of religion. So that the difference between them is not in 
the words themselves but in the spirit of the religions with which 
they are connected. 

This appears upon the face of it from the mere bulk of literary 
usage. In classical Greek ἁμαρτία, ἁμαρτάνειν are common enough 
in the lighter senses of ‘ missing an aim,’ of ‘error in judgement or 
opinion’; in the graver sense of serious wrong-doing they are 
rare. When we turn to the Bible, the LXX and the N.T, 
alike, this proportion is utterly reversed. The words denote nearly 
always religious wrong-doing, and from being in the background 
they come strongly to the front; so much so that in the Concord- 
ance to the LXX this group of words fills some thirteen columns, 
averaging not much less than eighty instances to the column. 

This fact alone tells its own story. And along with it we must 
take the deepening of meaning which the words have undergone 
through the theological context in which they are placed. ‘How can 
I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?’ (Gen. xxxix. 9). 
‘Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is 
evil in Thy sight’ (Ps. li. 4). ‘Behold, all souls are Mine; as the 
soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: the soul 
that sinneth, it shall die’ (Ezek. xviii. 4). We have travelled a long 
way from Hellenic religion in such utterances as these. 

It is impossible to have an adequate conception of sin without 
an adequate conception of God. The Hebrew in general, and 
St. Paul in particular, had this; and that is why Sin is such an 
intense reality to them. It is not a mere defect, the coming short 
of an ideal, the mark of an imperfect development. It is some- 
thing more than a negation; it is a positive quality, calling forth 
a positive reaction. It is a personal offence against a personal 
God. It is an injury or wound—if the reaction which it involves 
may be described in such human terms as ‘injury’ or ‘wound ’— 
directed against the Holy One whose love is incessantly going forth 
towards man. It causes an estrangement, a deep gulf of separation, 
between God and man. 

The guilt of sin is proportioned to the extent to which it is 
conscious and deliberate. Wrong actions done without the know- 
ledge that they are wrong are not imputed to the doer (ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ 
ἐλλογεῖται μὴ ὄντος νόμου Rom. v. 13: cf. iv. 15). But as a matter 
of fact few or none can take advantage of this because everywhere— 
even among the heathen—there is some knowledge of God and of 
right and wrong (Rom. i. r9f.; ii. 12, 14 f.), and the extent of that 
knowledge determines the degree of guilt. Where there is a written 
law like that of the Jews stamped with Divine authority, the guilt is 
at its height. But this is but the climax of an ascending scale in 


V. 12-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 145 


which the heinousness of the offence is proportioned to advantages 
and opportunities. 

Why did men break the Law? In other words, Why did they 
sin? When the act of sin came to be analyzed it was found to 
contain three elements. Proximately it was due to the wicked 
impulses of human nature. The Law condemned illicit desires, but 
men had such desires and they succumbed to them (Rom. vil. 
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. ν, vi, vii, constantly personifies Sin as a pernicious and deadly 
force at work in the world, not dissimilar in kind to the other great 
counteracting forces, the Incarnation of Christ and the Gospel. 
Now personifications are not like dogmatic definitions, and the 
personification in this instance does not always bear exactly the 
same meaning. In ch. v, when it is said that ‘Sin entered into the 
world,’ the general term ‘ Sin’ includes, and is made up of, the sins 
of individuals. But in chaps. vi and vii the personified Sin is set 
over against the individual, and expressly distinguished from him. 
Sin is not to be permitted to reign within the body (vi. 12); the 
members are not to be placed at the disposal of Sin (vi. 13); to 
Sin the man is enslaved (vi. 6, 17, 20; vii. 14), and from Sin he is 
emancipated (vi. 18, 22), or in other words, it is to Sin that he dies 
(vi. 9, 11); Sin takes up its abode within his heart (vii. 17, 20): 
it works upon him, using the commandment as its instrument, and 
so is fatal to him (vii. 8, 11). 

In all this the usage is consistent: a clear distinction is drawn 
at once between the will and the bodily impulses which act upon 
the will and a sort of external Power which makes both the will and 
the impulses subservient to it. What is the nature of this Power? 
Is it personal or impersonal? We could not tell from this particular 
context. No doubt personal attributes and functions are assigned 
to it, but perhaps only figuratively as part of the personification. 
To answer our questions we shall have to consider the teaching of 
the Apostle elsewhere. It is clear enough that, like the rest of his 
countrymen (see Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 52f.), St. Paul did 
believe in a personal agency of Evil. He repeatedly uses the per- 
sonal name Satan ; he ascribes to him not only mischief-making in 
the Church (1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 11), but the direct tempta- 
tion of individual Christians (1 Cor. vii. 5); he has his followers on 
whom he is sometimes invited to wreak his will (1 Cor. v. 53 


L 


146 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Vv. 12-21 


1 Tim. i. 20); supernatural powers of deceiving or perverting men 
are attributed to him (2 Thess. ii. 9. κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐν πάσῃ 
δυνάμει καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασι Ψεύδους : cf. 2 Cor. xi. 14). The 
Power of Evil does not stand alone but has at its disposal a whole 
army of subordinate agents (ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ σκότους 
τούτου Eph. vi. 12; cf. Col. ii. 15). There is indeed a whole 
hierarchy of evil spirits as there is a hierarchy of good (Eph. i. 21), 
and Satan has a court and a kingdom just as God has. He is ‘ the 
god of the existing age’ (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου 2 Cor. iv. 4), and 
exercises his rule till the final triumph of the Messiah (2 Thess. ii. 
Si. ΟΣ παν ἡ ἢ: 

We see therefore that just as in the other books οἵ the N.T. 
the Gospels, the Apocalypse, and the other Apostolic Epistles, evil 
is referred to a personal cause. And although it is doubtless true 
that in chaps. vi, vii, where St. Paul speaks most directly of the 
baleful activity of Sin, he does not intend to lay special stress on 
this; his language is of the nature of personification and does not 
necessarily imply a person; yet, when we take it in connexion with 
other language elsewhere, we see that in the last resort he would 
have said that there was a personal agency at work. It is at least 
clear that he is speaking of an influence external to man, and 
acting upon him in the way in which spiritual forces act. 


St. Paul regards the beginnings of sin as traceable to the Fall of Adam. 
In this he is simply following the account in Gen. iii; aad the question 
naturally arises, What becomes of that account and of the inferences which 
St. Paul draws from it, if we accept the view which is pressed upon us by 
the comparative study of religions and largely adopted by modern criticism, 
that it is not to be taken as a literal record of historical fact, but as the 
Hebrew form of a story common to a number of Oriental peoples and going 
back to a common root? When we speak of a ‘ Hebrew form’ of this story 
we mean a form shaped and moulded by those principles of revelation of 
which the Hebrew race was chosen to be the special recipient. From this 
point of view it becomes the typical and summary representation of a series 
of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half-calcined bones can 
ever reproduce for us. In some way or other as far back as history goes, 
and we may believe much further, there has been implanted in the human 
race this mysterious seed of sin, which like other characteristics of the race 
is capable of transmission. The tendency to sin is present in every man who 
is born into the world. But the tendency does not become actual sin until 
it takes effect in defiance of an express command, in deliberate disregard of 
a known distinction between right and wrong. How men came to be 
possessed of such a command, by what process they arrived at the conscious 
distinction of right and wrong, we can but vaguely speculate. Whatever it 
was we may be sure that it could not have been presented to the imagination 
of primitive peoples otherwise than in such simple forms as the narrative 
assumes in the Book of Genesis. The really essential truths all come out in 
that narrative—the recognition of the Divine Will, the act of disobedience 
to the Will so recognized, the perpetuation of the tendency to such 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 principles, which may have 
been due in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods, are 
naturally and inevitably summed up asa 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 gropings of the primaeval savage were assisted and guided and 
so led up to definite issues, to which he himself perhaps at the time could 
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 doctrine 
of δικαίωσις. 


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 Romanus 
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. James. ‘ Was it not because 
he wrought righteousness and truth through faith ?” (§ 31 οὐχὶ δικαιοσύνην καὶ 
ἀλήθειαν διὰ πίστεως ποιήσας 3). And throughout there is the same co- 
ordination of different types of doctrine. ‘ We are justified by works and not 
by words’ (§ 30 ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι καὶ μὴ λόγοις). But again (δ 32): ‘And 
so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, 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 


Origen 


Chrysos- 
tom. 


148 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-21 


dangerous theories as to conduct, which arise from holding such beliefs in 
too crude a manner, are at once guarded against (§ 33): ‘ What then mus! 
we do, brethren? Must we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love! 
May the Master never allow this to befall us at least .. . We have seen that 
all the righteous were adorned in good works .. . Seeing then that we have 
this 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 who inherits the teaching and phraseo- 
logy of the Apostolic period. ‘ Faith,’ ‘Works,’ ‘Righteousness,’ are ideas 
which have become part of the Christian life; the need of definition has not 
arisen. The system of conduct which should be exhibited as the result of 
the different elements of this life is clearly realized. What St. Paul and 
St. James each in his different way arrived at is accomplished. For the 
exact meaning of St. Paul, however, and the understanding of his teaching, 
we get no aid. Bishop Lightfoot, while showing how Clement ‘has caught 
the spirit of the Pauline teaching,’ yet dwells, and dwells rightly, on ‘the 
defect in the dogmatic statement.’ (See Lightfoot, Clement, i. 96, 397.) 

The question of Justification never became a subject of controversy in the 
early church, and consequently the Fathers contented themselves as Clement 
had done with a clear practical solution. We cannot find in them either an 
answer to the more subtle questions which later theologians have asked or 
much assistance as to the exact exegesis of St. Paul’s language. 

How little Origen had grasped some points in St. Paul’s thought may be 
seen by his comment on Rom. iii. 20 Ex operibus igitur legis quod non tustt- 
ficabitur omnis caro in conspectu eius, hoc modo intelligendum puto: quia 
omnis qui caro est et secundum carnem vivit, non potest iustificart ex 
lege Dei, sicut et alibi dicit idem Afostolus, guia qui in carne sunt Deo 
placere non possunt (i Rom. iii. 6; Opp. tom. vi. 194, ed. Lommatzsch). 
But in many points his teaching is clear and strong. All Justification is by 
faith alone (iii. 9, p. 217 et dictt sufficere solius fidet iustificationem, tta ut 
credens quis tantummodo iustificetur, etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit 
expletum). It is the beginning of the Christian life, and is represented as 
the bringing to an end of a state of enmity. We who were followers of the 
devil, our tyrant and enemy, can if we will by laying down his arms and 
taking up the banner of Christ have peace with God, a peace which has 
been purchased for us by the blood of Christ (iv. 8, p. 285, on Rom. v. 1). 
The process of justification is clearly one of ‘imputation’ (/ides ad tustitiam 
reputetur iv. 1, p. 240, on Rom. iv. 1-8), and is identified with the Gospel 
teaching of the forgiveness of sins ; the two instances of it which are quotec 
being the penitent thief and the woman with the alabaster box of oi.tment 
(Luke vii. 37-42). But the need for good works is not excluded: sed 
fortassis haec aliguis audiens resolvatur et bene agendi negligentiam capiat, 
si quidem ad iustificandum fides sola sufficiat. ad quem dicemus, quia post 
éustificationem si iniuste quis agat, sine dubio tustificationis gratiam sprevit 

ον indulgentia namque non futurorum sed praeteritorum criminum datur 
(iii. 9, p. 219, on Rom. iii. 27, 28). Faith without works is impossible 
(iv. I, p. 234): rather faith is the root from which they spring: om ergo 
ex operibus radix iustitiae, sed ex radice tustitiae fructus operum crescit, 
tila scilicet radice iustitiae, qua Deus accepto fert iustitiam sine operibus 
(iv. 1, p. 241 ; see also the comment on Rom. ii. 5, 6 in ii. 4, p. 81). We 
may further note that in the comment on Rom. i. 17 and iii. 24 the custetia 
Dei is clearly interpreted as the Divine attribute. 

The same criticism which was passed on Origen applies in an equal 
or even greater degree to Chrysostom. Theologically and practically the 
teaching is vigorous and well balanced, but so far as exegesis is con- 
cerned St. Paul’s conception and point of view are not understood. The 
circumstances which had created these conceptions no longer existed 


V. 12-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 149 


For example, commenting on Rom, ii. 10 he writes: ‘it is upon works 
that punishment and reward depend, not upon circumcision or uncircum- 
cision’; making a distinction which the Apostle does not between the 
moral and ceremonial law. The historical situation is clearly grasped and 
is brought out very well at the beginning of /Y/om. vii: ‘He has accused 
the Gentiles, he has accused the Jews; what follows to mention next is the 
righteousness which is by faith. For if the law of nature availed not, and 
the written Law was of no advantage, but both weighed down those that 
used them not aright, and made it plain that they were worthy of greater 
punishment, then the salvation which is by grace was henceforth necessary.” 
The meaning of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is well brought out. ‘The declaring of 
His righteousness is not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He 
doth also make them that are filled with the putrefying scars of sin suddenly 
righteous’ (Hom. vii. on 111, 24, 25). It may be interesting to quote the 
exposition of the passage which follows. He explains διὰ τὴν mapeow τῶν 
προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων thus: διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν, τουτέστι τὴν νέκρωσιν. 
οὐκέτι γὰρ ὑγείας ἐλπὶς ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ σῶμα παραλυθὲν τῆς ἄνωθεν ἐδεῖτο 
χειρός, οὕτω καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ νεκρωθεῖσα, giving πάρεσις the meaning of ‘ para- 
lysis,’ the paralysis of spiritual life which has resulted from sin. Generally 
δικαιόω seems clearly to be taken as ‘make righteous,’ even in passages 
where it will least bear such an interpretation; for instance on iv. 5 (Hom. 
viii.) δύναται ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἐν ἀσεβείᾳ βεβιωκότα τοῦτον ἐξαίφνης οὐχὶ κολάσεως 
ἐλευθερῶσαι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ δίκαιον ποιῆσαι, ... εἰ γὰρ μακάριος οὕτως 
ὁ λαβὼν ἄφεσιν ἀπὸ χάριτος πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὃ δικαιωθείς, and on iv. 25 (Hom. 
ix) ἐπὶ τούτῳ γὰρ καὶ ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστη ἵνα δικαίους ἐργάσηται. Yet his 
usage is not consistent, for on Rom. viii. 33 he writes: ‘He does not say, 
it is God that forgave our sins, but what is much greater :—“ It is God that 
justifieth.” For when the Judge’s sentence declares us just (δικαίους ἀπο- 
φαίνει), and such a judge too, what signifieth the accuser ?’ 

No purpose would be served by entering further into the views of the Theodoret 
Greek commentators; but one passage of Theodoret may be quoted as 
an instance of the way in which all the fathers connect Justification and 
Baptism. On Rom. v. 1, 2 (vid. p. 53) he writes: ἡ πίστις μὲν ὑμῖν ἐδωρή- 
σατο τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων τὴν ἄφεσιν καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ δικαίους διὰ τῆς τοῦ λουτροῦ 
παλλιγγενεσίας ἀπέφηνε: προσήκει δὲ ὑμᾶς τὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν γεγενημένην 
φυλάττειν εἰρήνην. 

To sum up the teaching of the Greek Fathers. They put in the very front of 
everything, the Atonement through the death of Christ, without as a rule 
elaborating any theory concerning it: this characteristic we find from 
the very beginning: it is as strong in Ignatius as in any later 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 
‘Law’ and ‘ Gospel,’ “ Faith’ and ‘ Works,’ ‘ Merit’ and ‘ Grace.’ 

The opinions of St. Augustine are of much greater importance. Although St. Augus 
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 Litera and In Psalmum 
XXXI Enarratio IT: this Psalm he describes as Psalmus gratiae Det 
et tustificationis nostrae nullis praecedentibus meritis nostris, sed prae- 
veniente nos misericordia Domini Dei nostri... His purpose is to prove 


Aquinas. 


150 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ['V. 12-21. 


as against any form of Pelagianism that our salvation comes from no merits 
of our own but only from the Divine grace which is given us. This leads to 
three main characteristics in his exposition of the Romans, (1) For, 
first, good works done by those who are not in a state of grace are 
valueless: memo computet bona opera sua ante fidem: ubi fides non erat 
bonum opus non erat (Enarratio § 4). Hence he explains Rom. ii. 5, 
13 ff. of works done not in a state of nature but of grace. In ii. 13 the 
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 N.T.: 
he naturally compares 2 Cor. iii. 3 and Rom. ii. 26 (De Sp. et Lit. §§ 44- 
49). (2) Then, secondly, St. Augustine’s exposition goes on somewhat 
different lines from those of the Apostle’s argument. He makes the whole 
aim of the early portion of the Romans to be the proof of the necessity of 


grace. Men have failed without grace, and it is only by means of it that 


they can do any works which are acceptable to God. This from one point 
of view really represents St. Paul’s argument, from another it is very much 
removed from it. It had the tendency indeed to transfer the central point 
in connexion with human salvation from the atoning death of Christ accepted 
by 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 
Greek 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 
δικαιοῦσθαι of ‘making just,’ and that Augustine in one place admits the 
possibility of interpreting it either as ‘making just’ or ‘reckoning just’ 
(De Sp. οἱ Lit. § 45). But although he admits the two interpretations so 
far as concerns the words, practically his whole theory is that of an infusion 
of the grace of faith by which men are made just. So in his comment on 
i. 17 he writes: haec est tustitia Det, quae in Testamento Veteri velata, in 
Novo revelatur: quae ideo iustitia Dei dicitur, guod impertiendo eam iustos 
facit (De Sp. εἰ Lit. § 18): and again: credenti inguit in eum qui iustificat 
impium deputatur fides eius ad iustitiam. st tustificatur impius ex impio 
fit iustus (Znarratio § 6): so non tibi Deus reddit debitam poenam, sed 
donat indebitam gratiam: so De Sp. et Lit. § 56: haec est iustitia Det, 
guam non solum docet per legis praeceptum, verum etiam dat per Spiritus 
donum. 

St. Augustine’s theory is in fact this; faith is a gift of grace which in- 
fused 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. 

This theory as we find it elaborated in the Summa Theologiae, has so far 
as it concerns us three main characteristics. (1) In the first place it elaborates 
the Augustinian theory of Grace instead of the Pauline theory of Justification. 
It is quite clear that in St. Paul χάρις is the favour of God to man, and not 
a gift given by God to man; but grata in St. Thomas has evidently this 
latter signification: cam gratia omnem naturae creatae facultatem excedat, ἐσ 
quod nihil aliud sit quam participatio quaedam divinae naturae quae omnem 
aliam naturam excedit (Summa Theologiae, Prima Secundae Qu. exii. 1). So 
also: donum gratiae ... gratiae infusio.. . infundit donum gratiae iustifi- 
cantis (cxiii. 3). (2) Secondly, it interprets zustificare to ‘make just,’ and in 
consequence looks upon justification as not only remisstio peccatorum, but also 
an infusion of grace. This question is discussed fully in Qu. cxiii. Art. 2. 
The conclusion arrived at is: guum tustitiae Det repugnet poenam dimittere 
wigente culpa, nullius autem homints qualis modo nascitur, reatus poenae 
absque gratia tolli queat ; ad culpae quogue hominis qualis modo nascitur, 
remissionem, gratiae infustonem requirt manifestum est. The primary text 
on which this conclusion is based is Rom, iii. 24 sustificati gratis per gratiam 


ν.12-21.} ADAM AND CHRIST 151 


ipsius, which is therefore clearly interpreted to mean ‘ made just by an infusion 
of grace’; and it is argued that the effect of the Divine love on us is grace by 
which a man is made worthy of eternal life, and that therefore remission of 

uilt 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 aeterna) introduce us to a third point in the mediaeval theory 
of justification: indirectly by its theory of merit de congruo and de condigno 
it introduced just that doctrine of merit against which St. Paul had directed 
his whole system. This subject is worked out in Qu. cxiv, where it is argued 
‘Art, 1) that in a sense we can deserve something from God. Although 
(Art. 2) a man cannot deserve life eternal in a state of nature, yet (Art. 3) 
after justification he can: Homo meretur uitam aeternam ex condigno. This 
is supported by Rom. viii. 17 sz fi/zz et haeredes, it being argued that we are 
sons to whom is owed the inheritance ex ipso ture 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 de congruo and 
de condigno, was very much developed, substantially it represents a revolt 
against the whole mediaeval theory. 

Luther’s main doctrines were the following. Through the law man learns Luthes 
his sinfulness: he learns to say with the prophet, ‘there is none that doeth 
good, no not one.’ He learns his own weakness. And then arises the cry: 
‘Who can give me any help?’ Then in its due season comes the saving 
word of the Gospel, ‘Be of good cheer, my son, thy sins are forgiven. 
Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for thy sins.’ This is the beginning 
of salvation ; in this way we are freed from sin, we are justified and there is 
given unto us life eternal, not on account of our own merits and works, but 
on account of faith by which we approached Christ. (Luther on Galatians 
ii. 16; Opp. ed. 1554, p- 308.) 

As against the mediaeval teaching the following points are noticeable, 
(1) In the first place Justification is quite clearly a doctrine of ‘tustitéia 
tmputata’: Deus acceptat seu reputat nos iustos solum propter filem 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 
us. (2) Secondly, Luther inherits from the Schoolmen the distinction of 
fides informis and fides formata cum charitate; but whereas they had con- 
sidered that it was fides formata which justifies, with him it is fides tnformis. 
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 de congruo and de condigno. He describes them thus: sala 
monstra portenta et horribiles blasphemiae debebant proponi Turcts et Iudaeis, 
son ecclestae Christz. 

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 


Comelius 
a Lapide. 


152 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ V. 12-21. 


Law, he entirely brushes away (on iii. 20); again, he interprets zustificare aa 
‘to reckon just,’ in accordance with the meaning of the Greek word and the 
context of iv. 5. The scheme of Justification as laid down by Luther is 
applied to the interpretation of the Epistle, but his extravagant language is 
avoided. The distinction of fides informis and formata is condemned as 
unreal; and it is seen that what St. Paul means by works being unable to 
justify is not that they cannot do so in themselves, but that no one can fulfil 
them so completely as to be ‘just.’ We may notice that on ii. 6 he points 
out that the words can be taken in quite a natural sense, for reward does not 
imply merit, and on ii. 13 that he applies the passage to Gentiles not in 
a state of grace, but says that the words mean that although Gentiles had 
knowledge and opportunity they had sinned, and therefore would be neces- 
sarily condemned. 

The Reformation theology made St. Paul’s point of view comprehensible, 
but introduced errors of exegesis of its own. It added to St. Paul’s teaching 
of ‘imputation’ a theory of the imputation of Christ’s merits, which became 
the basis of much unreal systematization, and was an incorrect interpreta- 
tion of St. Paul’s meaning. The unreal distinction of fides informis and 
JSormata, 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 vague sense of σώζειν, 
that at one time applies to our final salvation, at another to our present 
life within the fold of the Church; and the whole Christian scheme of 
sanctification, rightly separated in idea from justification, became divorced 
in fact from the Christian life. 

The Reformation teaching created definitely the distinction between zastztia 
imputata and iustitia infusa, and the Council of Trent defined Justification 
thus: zustificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed etiam sanctificatio 
et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et 
donorum (Sess. VI. cap. vii). 

A typical commentary on the Romans from this point of view is that of 
Cornelius a Lapide. On i. 17 he makes a very just distinction between our 
justification which comes by faith and our salvation which comes through 
the Gospel, namely, all that is preached in the Gospel, the death and merits 
of Christ, the sacraments, the precepts, the promises. He argues from ii. 13 
that works have a place in justification; and that our justification consists in 
the gift to us of the Divine justice, that is, of grace and charity and other 
virtues. 

This summary has been made sufficiently comprehensive to bring out the 
main points on which interpretation has varied. It is clear from St. Paul’s 
language that he makes a definite distinction in thought between three 
several stages which may be named Justification, Sanctification, Salvation. 
Our Christian life begins with the act of faith by which we turn to Christ ; 
that is sealed in baptism through which we receive remission of sins and 
are incorporated into the Christian community, being made partakers of 
all the spiritual blessings which that implies: then if our life is consistent 
with these conditions we may hope for life eternal not for our own merits 
but for Christ’s sake. The first step, that of Remission of sins, is Justi- 
fication: the life that follows in the Christian’ community is the life of 
Sanctification. These two ideas are connected in time in so far as the 
moment in which our sins are forgiven begins the new life; but they are 
separated in thought, and it is necessary for us that this should be so, in 
order that we may realize that unless we come to Christ in the self-surrender 


VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST 153 


of faith nothing can profit us. There is a close connexion again between 
Justification and Salvation ; the one represents the beginning of the process 
of which the other is the conclusion, and in so far as the first step is the 
essential one the life of the justified on earth can be and is spoken of as 
the life of the saved; but the two are separated both in thought and in 
time, and this is so that we may realize that our life, as we are accepted by 
faith, endowed with the gift of God’s Holy Spirit, and incorporated into the 
Christian community, must be holy. By our life we shall be judged (see the 
notes on ii. 6, 13): we must strive to make our character such as befits us 
for the life in which we hope to share: but we are saved by Christ’s death; 
and the initial act of faith has been the hand which we 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 OF THE CHRISTIAN 
WITH CHRIST. 


VI. 1-14. 77 more sin only means more grace, shall we 
go on sinning? Impossible. The baptized Christian cannot 
sin. Sin is a direct contradiction of the state of things 
which baptism assumes. Baptism has a double function. 
(1) Lt brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, 
so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him. 
(2) Lt 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 tdeal, whatever 
may be the reality.| (vv. 1-11.) Act then as men who have 
thrown off the dominion of Sin. Dedicate all your powers 
to God. Be not afraid; Law, Sin's ally, is superseded in 
tts hold over you by Grace (vv. 12-14). 


1Opyector. Is not this dangerous doctrine? If more sin 
means more grace, are we not encouraged to go on sinning? 


154 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [vI. 1-14. 


2Sr. Paut. A horrible thought! When we took the decisive 
step and became Christians we may be said to have died to sin, in 
such a way as would make it flat contradiction to live any longer 
in it. 

*Surely you do not need reminding that all of us who were 
immersed or baptized, as our Christian phrase runs,‘ z#/o Christ,’ 
i.e. into the closest allegiance and adhesion to Him, were so 
immersed or baptized into a special relation to His Death. I mean 
that the Christian, at his baptism, not only professes obedience 
to Christ but enters into a relation to Him so intimate that it may 
be described as actual union. Now this union, taken in connexion 
with the peculiar symbolism of Baptism, implies a great deal more. 
That symbolism recalls to us with great vividness the redeeming 
acts of Christ—His Death, Burial, and Resurrection. And our 
union with Christ involves that we shall repeat those acts, in 
such sense as we may, i.e. in a moral and spiritual sense, in our 
own persons. 

When we descended into the baptismal water, that meant that 
we died with Christ—to sin. When the water closed over our 
heads, that meant that we lay buried with Him, in proof that our 
death to sin, like His death, was real. But this carries with it the 
third step in the process. As Christ was raised from among the 
dead by a majestic exercise of Divine power, so we also must from 
henceforth conduct ourselves as men in whom has been implanted 
a new principle of life. 

5For it is not to be supposed that we can join with Christ in 
one thing and not join with Him in another. If, in undergoing 
a death like His, we are become one with Christ as the graft 
becomes one with the tree into which it grows, we must also be 
one with Him by undergoing a resurrection like His, i.e. at once 
a moral, spiritual, and physical resurrection. ¢ For it is matter of 
experience that our Old Self—what we were before we became 
Christians—was nailed to the Cross with Christ in our baptism : 
it was killed by a process so like the Death of Christ and so 
wrought in conjunction with Him that it too may share in the 
name and associations of His Crucifixion. And the object of 
this crucifixion of our Old Self was that the bodily sensual part of 
us, prolific home and haunt of sin, might be so paralyzed and 


VI. 1-14. UNION WITH CHRIST 155 


disabled as henceforth to set us free from the service of Sin. 7 For 
just as no legal claim can be made upon the dead, so one who is 
(ethically) dead is certified ‘Not Guilty’ and exempt from all the 
claims that Sin could make upon him. 

®But is this all? Are we to stop at the death to sin? No; 
there is another side to the process. If, when we became Chris- 
tians, we died with Christ (morally and spiritually), we believe that 
we shall also live with Him (physically, as well as ethically and 
spiritually): ® because we know for a fact that Christ Himself, now 
that He has been once raised from the dead, will not have the 
process of death to undergo again. Death has lost its hold over 
Him for ever. *°For He has done with Death, now that He has 
done once for all with Sin, by bringing to an end that earthly 
state which alone brought Him in contact with it. Henceforth 
He lives in uninterrupted communion with God. 

"Tn 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. 

121 exhort you therefore not to let Sin exercise its tyranny over 
this frail body of yours by giving way to its evil passions. ‘Do 
not, aS you are wont, place hand, eye, and tongue, as weapons 
stained with unrighteousness, at the service of Sin; but dedicate 
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. “You 
may rest assured that in so doing Sin will have no claims or 
power over you, for you have left the régime 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 


ll 


156 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 1-3. 


it however not by proving a non seguitur, but by showing how this 
train of thought is crossed by another, even more fundamental. 
He is thus led to bring up the second of his great pivot-doctrines, 
the Mystical Union of the Christian with Christ dating from his 
Baptism. Here we have another of those great elemental forces in 
the Christian Life which effectually prevents any antinomian con- 
clusion such as might seem to be drawn from different premises. 
St. Paul now proceeds to explain the nature of this force and the 
way in which the Christian is related to it. 


The various readings in this chapter are unimportant. There can be no 
question that we should read ἐπιμένωμεν for émpevodpev in ver. 1; ζήσομεν 
and not ζήσωμεν in ver. 2; and that τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν should be omitted at the 
end of ver. 11. In that verse the true position of εἶναι is after ἑαυτούς 
(N* BC, Cyr.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc.): some inferior authorities place it after 
νεκροὺς μέν : the Western text (A D EF G, Tert. ; cf. also Pesh. Boh. Arm. 
Aeth.) omits it altogether. 


2. οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν. Naturally the relative of quality: ‘we, 
being what we are, men who died (in our baptism) to sin,’ &c. 

8. ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε: ‘Can you deny this, or is it possible that you are 
not aware of all that your baptism involves?’ St. Paul does not 
like to assume that his readers are ignorant of that which is to him 
so fundamental. The deep significance of Baptism was universally 
recognized ; though it is hardly likely that any other teacher would 
have expressed that significance in the profound and original 
argument which follows. 

ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν: ‘were baptized unto union 
with’ (not merely ‘ obedience to’) ‘Christ.’ The act of baptism 
was an act of zxcorporation into Christ. Comp. esp. Gal. iii. 27 
ὅσοι yap eis Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. 

This conception lies at the root of the whole passage. ΑἹ] the 
consequences which St. Paul draws follow from this union, incor- 
poration, identification of the Christian with Christ. On the origin 
of the conception, see below. 

εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν. This points back to ἀπεθάνομεν 
above. The central point in the passage is death. The Christian 
dies because Christ died, and he is enabled to realize His death 
through his union with Christ. 

But why is baptism said to be specially ‘into Christ’s death’? 
The reason is because it is owing primarily to the Death of Christ 
that the condition into which the Christian enters at his baptism 
is such a changed condition. We have seen that St. Paul does 
ascribe to that Death a true objective efficacy in removing the 
barrier which sin has placed between God and man. Hence, as 
it is Baptism which makes a man a Christian, so is it the Death 
of Christ which wins for the Christian his special immunities 
and privileges, The sprinkling of the Blood of Christ seals that 


VI. 3-5.] UNION WITH CHRIST 157 


covenant with His 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. συνετάφημεν.... θάνατον. A strong majority of the best 
scholars (Mey.-W. Gif. Lips. Oltr. Go.) would connect εἰς τὸν 
θάνατον With διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος and not with συνετάφημεν, because of 
(i) ἐβαπτ. eis τ. θαν. air. just before; (ii) a certain incongruity in 
the connexion of συνετάφ. with εἰς τὸν θάνατον : 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 iil. 25 ὃν προέθετο... διὰ τῆς πίστεως 
ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, where ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι goes with προέθετο and 
not with διὰ τῆς πίστεως. (ii) The ideas of ‘ burial’ and ‘death’ are 
so closely associated that they may be treated as correlative to each 
other—burial is only death sealed and made certain. ‘ Our baptism 
was a sort of funeral ; a solemn act of consigning us to that death 
of Christ in which we are made one with Him,’ Va. (iii) There is 
a special reason for saying here not ‘ we were buried into burial,’ 
but ‘ we were buried into death,’ because ‘ death’ is the keynote of 
the whole passage, and the word would come in appropriately to 
mark the transition from Christ to the Christian. Still these argu- 
ments do not amount to proof that the second connexion is right, 
and it is perhaps best to yield to the weight of authority. For the 
idea compare esp. Col. ii. 12 συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι ἐν ᾧ 
καὶ συνηγέρθητε. 

εἰς τὸν θάνατον 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. 

διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός : δόξης here practically = ‘power’; but 
it is power viewed externally rather than internally; the stress is 
laid not so much on the inward energy as on the signal and 
glorious manifestation, Va. compares Jo. xi. 40, 23, where ‘thou 
shalt see the glory of God’ = ‘thy brother shall rise again.’ See 
note on iii. 23. 

5. σύμφυτοι : ‘united by growth’; the word exactly expresses 
the process by which a graft becomes united with the life of a tree. 
So the Christian becomes ‘ grafted into’ Christ. For the metaphor 
we may compare ΧΙ. 17 σὺ δὲ ἀγριέλαιος ὧν ἐνεκεντρίσθης ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ 
συγκοινωνὸς τῆς ῥίζης καὶ τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας ἐγένου, and Tennyson’s 
‘grow incorporate into thee.’ 

It is a question whether we are to take σύμφ. yeydv. directly with 
τῷ ὁμοιώμ. κιτιλ. Or whether we are to supply τῷ Χριστῷ and make 


158 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. δ, 6. 


τῷ ὁμοιώμ. dat. of respect. Probably the former, as being simpler 
and more natural, so far at least as construction is concerned, 
though no doubt there is an ellipse in meaning which would be 
more exactly represented by the fuller phrase. Such condensed 
and strictly speaking inaccurate expressions are common in 
language of a quasi-colloquial kind. St. Paul uses these freer 
modes of speech and is not tied down by the rules of formal 
literary composition. 

6. γινώσκοντες : see Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. viii. 1 (p. 299), where 
γινώσκω as contrasted with οἶδα is explained as signifying ‘ apprecia- 
tive or experimental acquaintance.’ A slightly different explanation 
is given by Gif. ad doc., ‘ noting this,’ as of the idea involved in the 
fact, a knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding 
(vous). 


ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος : ‘our old self’; cp. esp. Suicer, Zhes. 
i. 352, where the patristic interpretations are collected (ἡ προτέρα 
πολιτεία Theodrt.; ὁ κατεγνωσμένος Bios Euthym.-Zig., &c.). 


This phrase, with its correlative 6 καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, is a marked link of 
connexion between the acknowledged and disputed Epp. (cf. Eph. ii. 15; 
iv. 22, 24; Col. iii. 9). The coincidence is the more remarkable as the 
phrase would hardly come into use until great stress began to be laid upon 
the necessity for a change of life, and may be a coinage of St. Paul’s. It 
should be noted however that ὁ ἐντὸς ἄνθρωπος goes back to Plato (Grm.- 
Thay. s. v. ἄνθρωπος, 1. 6.). 


συνεσταυρώθη : cf. Gal. ii. 20 Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι. There is a differ- 
ence between the thought here and in Jt. X72. II. xii. 3 ‘Behold! in the 
cross all doth consist, and all lieth in our dying thereon; for there is no 
other way unto life, and unto true inward peace, but the way of the holy 
cross, and of daily mortification.’ This is rather the ‘taking up the cross’ 
of the Gospels, which is a daily process. St. Paul no doubt leaves room for 
such a process (Col. iii. 5, &c.); but here he is going back to that which is 
its root, the one decisive ideal act which he regards as taking place in 
baptism : in this the more gradual lifelong process is anticipated. 


καταργηθῇ. For καταργεῖν see on iii. 3. The word is appro- 
priately used in this connexion: ‘that the body of sin may be 
paralyzed,’ reduced to a condition of absolute impotence and 
inaction, as if it were dead. 

τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας : the body of which sin has taken posses- 
sion. Parallel phrases are vil. 24 τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου : 
Phil. iii. 21 τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν : Col, ii. τι [ἐν τῇ ἀπεκ- 
δύσει] τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός. The gen. has the general sense of 
‘belonging to,’ but acquires a special shade of meaning in each 
case from the context; ‘the body which is given over to death,’ 
‘the body in its present state of degradation,’ ‘the body which is 
so apt to be the instrument of its own carnal impulses.’ 

Here τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας must be taken closely together, because 
it is not the body, szmply as 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. 

τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν. On τοῦ with inf. as expressing purpose see 
esp. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 342. 

τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ : ἁμαρτία, as throughout this passage, is personified as 
a hard taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter. 

7. 6 yap ἀποθανὼν... . ἁμαρτίας. The argument is thrown into 
the form of a general proposition, so that ὁ ἀποθανών must be taken 
in the widest sense, ‘he who has undergone death in any sense of 
the term ’—physical or ethical. The primary sense is however 
clearly physical: ‘a dead man has his quittance from any claim 
that Sin can make against him’: what is obviously true of the 
physically dead is inferentially true of the ethically dead. Comp. 
1 Pet. iv. 1 ὅτι 6 παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας : also the Rabbinical 
parallel quoted by Delitzsch ad Joc. ‘ when a man is dead he is free 
from the law and the commandments.’ 


Delitzsch goes so far as to describe the idea as an ‘acknowledged Jocus 
communis, which would considerably weaken the force of the literary 
coincidence between the two Apostles. 


δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. The sense of δεδικαίωται is still 
forensic : ‘is declared righteous, acquitted from guilt.’ The idea is 
that of a master claiming legal possession of a slave: proof being 
put in that the slave is dead, the verdict must needs be that the 
claims of law are satisfied and that he is no longer answerable ; 
Sin loses its suit. 

8. συζήσομεν. The different senses of ‘life’ and ‘death’ always 
lie near together with St. Paul, and his thought glides backwards 
and forwards from one to another almost imperceptibly ; now he 
lays a little more stress on the physical sense, now on the ethical ; 
at one moment on the present state and at another on the future. 
Here and in ver. 9 the future eternal life is most prominent; but 
ver. 10 is transitional, and in ver. 11 we are back again at the 
stand-point of the present. 

9. If the Resurrection opened up eternity to Christ it will do 
so also to the Christian. 

κυριεύει. Still the idea of master and slave or vassal. Death 
loses its domintum over Christ altogether. That which gave Death 
its hold upon Him was sin, the human sin with which He was 
brought in contact by His Incarnation. The connexion was 
severed once for all by Death, which set Him free for ever. 

10. ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανε. The whole clause forms a kind of cognate 
accus. after the second ἀπέθανεν (Win. ὃ xxiv. 4, p. 209 E. T.); 
Euthym.-Zig. paraphrases τὸν θάνατον ὃν ἀπέθανε διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
ἀπέθανε τὴν ἡμετέραν, where however τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ is not rightly repre- 
sented by διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. 


160 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VI. 10, 12. 


τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν. In what sense did Christ die to sin? 
The phrase seems to point back to ver. 7 above: Sin ceased to 
have any claim upon Him. But how could Sin have a claim upon 
Him ‘who had no acquaintance with sin’ (2 Cor. v. 21)? The 
same verse which tells us this supplies the answer: τὸν μὴ γνόντα 
ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ‘the Sinless One for our sake 
was treated as if He were sinful.’ The sin which hung about Him 
and wreaked its effects upon Him was not His but ours (cp. 1 Pet. 
ii. 22, 24). It was in His Death that this pressure of human sin 
culminated; but it was also in His Death that it came to an end, 
decisively and for ever. 

ἐφάπαξ. The decisiveness of the Death of Christ is specially 
insisted upon in Ep. to Hebrews. This is the great point of con- 
trast with the Levitical sacrifices: they did and it did not need to 
be repeated (cf. Heb. vii. 27; ix. 12, 26, 28; x. 10; also 4 Pet. 
ili. 18). 

ζῇ τῷ Θεῷ. Christ died for (in relation to) Sin, and lives hence- 
forth for God. The old chain which by binding Him to sin made 
Him also liable to death, is broken. No other power κυριεύει αὐτοῦ 
but God. 

This phrase (ζῇ τῷ Θεῷ naturally suggests ‘the moral’ application 
to the believer. 

11. λογίζεσθε ἑαυτούς. The manand his ‘self’ are distinguished. 
The ‘self’ is not the ‘whole self,’ but only that part of the man 
which lay under the dominion of sin. [It will help us to bear this 
in mind in the interpretation of the next chapter.] This part of 
the man is dead, so that sin has lost its slave and is balked of its 
prey; but his true self is alive, and alive for God, through its 
union with the risen Christ, who also lives only for God. 

λογίζεσθε : not indic. (as Beng. Lips.) but imper., preparing the 
way, after St. Paul’s manner, for the direct exhortation of the next 
paragraph. 

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. This phrase is the summary expression of 
the doctrine which underlies the whole of this section and forms, as 
we have seen, one of the main pillars of St. Paul’s theology. The 
chief points seem to be these. (1) The relation is conceived as 
a local relation. The Christian has his being ‘in’ Christ, as 
living creatures ‘in’ the air, as fish ‘in’ the water, as plants ‘in’ 
the earth (Deissmann, p. 84; see below). (2) The order of the 
words is invariably ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, not ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ (Deissmann, 
Ρ. 88; cp. also Haussleiter, as referred to on p. 86 sup.). We find 
however ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ in Eph. iv. 21, but not in the same strict 
application. (3) In agreement with the regular usage of the words 
in this order ἐν Xp. "I. always relates to the glorified Christ regarded 
as πνεῦμα, not to the historical Christ. (4) The corresponding 
expression Χριστὸς ἔν τινι is best explained by the same analogy of 


VI. 11-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST 163 


‘the air.’ Man lives and breathes ‘in the air,’ and the air is also 
‘in the man’ (Deissmann, p. 92). 


Deissmann’s monograph is entitled Die seutestamentliche Formel in 
Christo Jesu, Marburg, 1892. 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 Deissmann 
regards it as a creation—and naturally as one of the most original creations— 
of St. Paul. And it is true that it is not found in the Synoptic Gospels. 
Approximations however are found more or less sporadically, in 1 St. Peter 
(ili. 16; v. 10, 14; always in the correct text ἐν Χριστῷ), in the Acts (iv. 2 
ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ: 9, το ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 12; xiii. 39 ἐν τούτῳ πᾶς 
ὁ πιστεύων δικαιοῦται), and in full volume in the Fourth Gospel (ἐν ἐμοί, 
μένειν ἐν ἐμοί Jo. vi. 56; xiv. 20, 30; xv. 2-7; xvi. 33; xvii. 21), in the 
First Epistle of St. John (ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν τῷ vid εἶναι, μένειν ii. 5, 6, 8, 24, 27, 
28; iii. 6, 245 Vv. 11, 20; ἔχειν τὸν υἱόν vy. 12), and also in the Apocalypse 
(ἐν Ἰησοῦ i. 9g; ἐν Κυρίῳ 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 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 
occurs in 1 Clem. xxxii. 4; xxxviii. 1; Ign. Eph.i. 1; Tradl. ix.2; Rom. 
i. 1; ii. 2. The commoner phrases are ἐν Χριστῷ in Clem. Rom. and ἐν 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ which is frequent in Ignat. The distinction between ἐν Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστῷ and ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 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 Evy. 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. βασιλευέτω: cf. v. 21 of Sin; v. 14, 17 of Death. 


With this verse comp. Philo, De Gigant. 7 (Mang. i. 266) Αἴτιον δὲ τῆς 
ἀνεπιστημοσύνης μέγιστον ἡ σὰρξ Kal ἡ πρὸς σάρκα οἰκείωσις. 


13. Observe the change of tense: παριστάνετε, ‘go on yielding,’ 
by the weakness which succumbs to temptation whenever it presses; 
παραστήσατε, ‘dedicate by one decisive act, one resolute effort.’ 

ὅπλα: ‘weapons’ (cf. esp. Rom. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. vi. 7; x. 4). 
ἀδικίας and δικαιοσύνης are gen. gualifatis. For a like military 
metaphor more fully worked out comp. Eph. vi. 11-17. 

14. ἁμαρτία γάρ. 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 Harnack. There is more to the point in 
the excellent monograph on Ignatius by Von der Goltz in Zexte «. Unters. 
xii. 3, but the particular group of phrases is not directly treated. 


M 


— 


162 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 1-14. 


him too to go off at the word νόμον into a digression, returning to 
the subject with which the chapter opened, and looking at it from 
another side. 


The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ. 


How did St. Paul arrive at this doctrine of the Mystical Union? 
Doubtless by the guiding of the Holy Spirit. But that guiding, as 
it usually does, operated through natural and human channels. 
The channel in this instance would seem to be psychological. The 
basis of the doctrine is the Apostle’s own experience. His conver- 
sion was an intellectual change, but it was also something much 
more. It was an intense personal apprehension of Christ, as 
Master, Redeemer and Lord. But that apprehension was so 
persistent and so absorbing; it was such a dominant element in 
the life of the Apostle that by degrees it came to mean little less 
than an actual zdentification of will. In the case of ordinary friend- 
ship and affection it is no very exceptional thing for unity of purpose 
and aim so to spread itself over the character, and so to permeate 
thought and feeling, that those who are joined together by this 
invisible and spiritual bond seem to act and think almost as if they 
were a single person and not two. But we can understand that in 
St. Paul’s case with an object for his affections so exalted as Christ, 
and with influences from above meeting so powerfully the upward 
motions of his own spirit, the process of identification had a more 
than common strength and completeness. It was accomplished in 
that sphere of spiritual emotion for which the Apostle possessed 
such remarkable gifts—gifts which caused him to be singled out as 
the recipient of special Divine communications. Hence it was that 
there grew up within him a state of feeling which he struggles to 
express and succeeds in expressing through language which is 
practically the language of unzon. Nothing short of this seemed to 
do justice to the degree of that identification of will which the 
Apostle attained to. He spoke of himself as ογ with Christ. And 
then his thoughts were so concentrated upon the culminating acts 
in the Life of Christ—the acts which were in a special sense asso- 
ciated with man’s redemption—His Death, Burial and Resurrection 
—that when he came to analyze his own feelings, and to dissect 
this idea of oneness, it was natural to him to see in it certain stages, 
corresponding to those great acts of Christ, to see in it something 
corresponding to death, something corresponding to burial (which 
was only the emphasizing of death), and something corresponding 
to resurrection. 

Here there came in to help the peculiar symbolism of Baptism. An 
imagination as lively as St. Paul’s soon found in it analogies to the 
same process. That plunge beneath the running waters was like 


VI. 1-14.] 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 o/d sed/, to all that he 
had been, whether as Jew or Gentile, before he became a Christian. 
To what did he rise again? Clearly to that mez {72 to which the 
Christian was bound over. And in this spiritual death and resurrec- 
tion the great moving factor was that one fundamental principle of 
union with Christ, identification of will with His. It 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 
converges to the same end; and there is his practical assumption 
of the duties and obligations to which baptism and the embracing 
of Christianity commit him—the breaking with his tainted past, the 
entering upon a new and regenerate career for the future. 

The vocabulary and working out of the thought in St. Paul are 
his own, but the fundamental conception has close parallels in the 
writings of St. John and St. Peter, the New Birth through water 
and Spirit (John iii. 5), the being begotten again of incorruptible 
seed (1 Pet. i. 23), the comparison of baptism to the ark of Noah 
(1 Pet. iii, 20, 21) in St. Peter; and there is a certain partial 
coincidence even in the ἀπεκύησεν of St. James (Jas. i. 18). 


It is the great merit of Matthew Arnold’s St. Paul and Protestantism, 
whatever its defects and whatever its one-sidedness, that it did seize with 
remarkable force and freshness on this part of St. Paul’s teaching. And the 
merit is all the greater when we consider how really high and difficult that 
teaching is, and how apt it is to shoot over the head of reader or hearer. 
Matthew Arnold saw, and expressed with all his own 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. iii. 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 


164 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 1-14. 


ness were all-powerful, might employ itself and work its wonders, it was 
here. Paul felt this power penetrate him; and he felt, also, how by 
perfectly identifying himself through it with Christ, and in no other way, 
could he ever get the confidence and force to do as Christ did. He thus 
found a point in which the mighty world outside man, and the weak world 
inside him, seemed to combine for his salvation. The struggling stream of 
duty, which had not volume enough to bear him to his goal, was suddenly 
reinforced by the immense tidal wave of sympathy and emotion. To this 
new and potent influence Paul gave the name of faith’ (St. Paul and 
Protestantism, p. 69 f.). 

‘It is impossible to be in presence of this Pauline conception of faith 
without remarking on the incomparable power of edification which it con- 
tains. It is indeed a crowning evidence of that piercing practical religious 
sense which we have attributed to Paul.... The elemental power of sym- 
pathy and emotion in us, a power which extends beyond the limits of our 
own will and conscious activity, which we cannot measure and control, and 
which in each of us differs immensely in force, volume, and mode of mani- 
festation, he calls into full play, and sets it to work with all its strength and 
in all its variety. But one unalterable object is assigned by him to this 
power: ¢o die with Christ to the law of the flesh, to live with Christ to the 
law of the mind, This is the doctrine of the ecrosts (2 Cor. iv. 10), Paul’s 
central doctrine, and the doctrine which makes his profoundness and origin- 
ality.... Those multitudinous motions of appetite and self-will which 
reason and conscience disapproved, reason and conscience could yet not 
govern, and had to yield to them. This, as we have seen, is what drove 
Paul almost to despair. Well, then, how did Paul’s faith, working through 
love, help him here? It enabled him to reinforce duty by affection. In the 
central need of his nature, the desire to govern these motions of unrighteous- 
ness, it enabled him to say: Die to them! Christ did. If any man be in 
Christ, said Paul,—that is, if any man identifies himself with Christ by 
attachment so that he enters into his feelings and lives with his life, —he is 
a new creature; he can do, and does, what Christ did. First, he suffers 
with him. Christ, throughout His life and in His death, presented His body 
a living sacrifice to God; every self-willed impulse, blindly trying to assert 
itself without respect of the universal order, he died to. You, says Paul to 
his disciple, are to do the same....If you cannot, your attachment, your 
faith, must be one that goes but a very little way. In an ordinary human 
attachment, out of love to a woman, out of love to a friend, out of love to 
a child, you can suppress quite easily, because by sympathy you become one 
with them and their feelings, this or that impulse of selfishness which 
happens to conflict with them, and which hitherto you have obeyed. Add 
impulses of selfishness conflict with Christ’s feelings, He showed it by dying 
to them all; if you are one with Him by faith and sympathy, you can die to 
them also. Then, secondly, if you thus die with Him, you become trans- 
formed by the renewing of your mind, and rise with Him... . You rise with 
Him to that harmonious conformity with the real and eternal order, that 
sense of pleasing God who trieth the hearts, which is life and peace, and 
which grows more and more till it becomes glory’ (zdz¢. pp. 75-78). 

Another striking presentation of the thought of this passage will be found 
in a lay sermon, Zhe Witness of God, by the philosopher, Τὶ H. Green 
(London, 1883; also in Works). Mr. Green was as far removed as Matthew 
Arnold from conventional theology, and there are traces of Hegelianism in 
what follows for which allowance should be made, but his mind had a natural 
affinity for this side of St. Paul’s teaching, and he has expressed it with great 
force and moral intensity. To this the brief extracts given will do but 
imperfect justice, and the sermon is well worth reading in its entirety. 

‘The death and rising again of the Christ, as [St. Paul] conceived them, 


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 unto life, a life out of death, must then be in some way 
the essence of the divine nature—must be an act which, though exhibited 
once for all in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, was yet eternal— 
the act of God Himself. For that very reason, however, it was one perpetu- 
ally re-enacted, and to be re-enacted, by man. If Christ died for all, all died 
in Him: all were 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-secking. 
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- 
plation of it we are taken out of ourselves, we slip the natural man and 
appropriate that mind which we behold. Constrained by God’s manifested 
love, we cease to be our own that Christ may become ours’ (Zhe Witness of 
God, pp. 7-10). 

We may quote lastly an estimate of the Pauline conception in the history 
of Religion. ‘It is in Christendom that, according to the providence of God, 
this power has been exhibited; not indeed either adequately or exclusively, 
but most fully. In the religions of the East, the idea of a death to the 
fleshly self as the end of the merely human, and the beginning of a divine 
life, 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’ (zbzd. p. 21). 

One of the services which Mr. Green’s lay sermon may do us is in helping 
us to understand—not the whole but part of the remarkable conception of 
‘The Way’ in Dr. Hort’s posthumous 7he Way, the Truth, and the Life 
(Cambridge 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 zs that 
Way’ (The Way, δες. 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. 
‘Death unto life,’ ‘life growing out of death,’ is the inner principle or secret, 
applied in an indefinite variety of ways, but running through the history of 
most, perhaps all, religious aspiration and attainment. Everywhere there 
must be the death of an old self and the birth of a new. It must be 


166 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὉἹ. 15-23. 


admitted that the group of conceptions united by St. Paul, and, as it would 
seem, yet more widely extended by St. John, is difficult to grasp intellectually, 
and has doubtless been acted upon in many a simple unspeculative life in 
which there was never any attempt to formulate it exactly in words. But the 
conception belongs to the length and depth and height of the Gospel: here, 
as we see it in St. Paul, it bears all the impress of his intense and prophet- 
like penetration : and there can be little doubt that it is capable of exercising 
a stronger and more dominating influence on the Christian consciousness 
than it has done. This must be our excuse for expanding the doctrine at 
rather considerable length, and for invoking the assistance of those who, just 
by their detachment from ordinary and traditional Christianity, have brought 
to bear a freshness of insight in certain directions which has led them, if not 
exactly to discoveries, yet to new and vivid realization of truths which to 
indolent minds are obscured by their very familiarity. 


THE TRANSITION FROM LAW TO GRACE, 
ANALOGY OF SLAVERY. 


VI. 15-23. Take an illustration from common life—the 
condition of slavery. The Christian was a slave of sin; 
his business was uncleanness; his wages, death. But he 
has been emancipated from this service, only to enter upon 
another—that of Righteousness. 


1®Am I told that we should take advantage of our liberty as 
subjects of Grace and not of Law, to sin? Impossible! ™ Are 
you not aware that to render service and obedience to any one is 
to be the slave of that person or power to which obedience is 
rendered? And so it is here. You are either slaves of Sin, and 
the end before you death; or you are true to your rightful Master, 
and the end before you righteousness. ™ But, thank God, the 
time is past when you were slaves of Sin; and at your baptism you 
gave cordial assent to that standard of life and conduct in which 
you were first instructed and to the guidance of which you were 
then handed over by your teachers. Thus you were emancipated 
from the service of Sin, and were transferred to the service of 
Righteousness. 

191 am using a figure of speech taken from every-day human 
relations. If ‘servitude’ seems a poor and harsh metaphor, it is 
one which the remains of the natural man that still cling about you 
will at least permit you to understand. Yours must be an wn- 
divided service. Devote the members of your body as unreservedly 


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. 
*1 What good tnen did you get from conduct which you now blush 
to think of? Much indeed! For the goal to which it leads is 
death. 2% 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 ! 
8 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. 
Each state implied certain ties, like those by which the convert to 
Christianity was bound before his conversion. But the cessation of 
these ties does not carry with it the cessation of all ties; it only 
means the substitution of new ties for the old. So is it with the 
slave, who is emancipated from one service only to enter upon 
another. So is it with the wife who, when released by the death of 
one husband, is free to marry again. In the remaining verses of 
this chapter St. Paul deals with the case of Slavery. Emancipation 
from Sin is but the prelude to a new service of Righteousness. 

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 Law. St. Paul’s reply in effect is that Christian 
freedom consists not in freedom to sin but in freedom from sin. 

ἁμαρτήσωμεν : from a late aor. ἡμάρτησα, found in LXX (Veitch, /rreg. 

Verbs, Ρ- 49). Chrys. ρα. Theodrt. and others, with minuscules, read 

ἁμαρτήσομεν. 


16. A general proposition to which our Lord Himself had 


168 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 16-19. 


appealed in ‘No man can serve two masters’ (Matt. vi. 24). There 
are still nearer parallels in John viii. 34; 2 Pet. ii. 19: passages 
however which do not so much prove direct dependence on St. Paul 
as that the thought was ‘in the air’ and might occur to more 
writers than one. 


ἤτοι... ἤἥ: these disjunctives state a dilemma in a lively and emphatic 
way, implying that one limb or the other must be chosen (Baumlein, Par- 
tikellehre, p. 244; Kiihner, Gram. § 540. 5). 


17. εἰς ὃν. . . διδαχῆς : stands for [ὑπηκούσατε] τύπῳ διδαχῆς εἰς 
ὃν παρεδόθητε. We expect rather ὃς ὑμῖν παρεδόθη : it seems more 
natural to say that the teaching is handed over to the persons 
taught than that the persons taught are handed over to the teach- 
ing. The form of phrase which St. Paul uses however expresses 
well the experience of Christian converts. Before baptism they 
underwent a course of simple instruction, like that in the ‘Two 
Ways’ or first part of the Didaché (see the reff. in Hatch, Hibbert 
Lectures, p. 314). With baptism this course of instruction ceased, 
and they were left with its results impressed upon their minds. 
This was to be henceforth their standard of living. 

τύπον διδαχῆς. For τύπος see the note on ch.v. 24. The third 
of the senses there given (‘ pattern,’ ‘exemplar,’ ‘standard ’) is by 
far the most usual with St. Paul, and there can be little doubt that 
that is the meaning here. So among the ancients Chrys. (ris δὲ ὁ 
τύπος τῆς διδαχῆς ; ὀρθῶς ζῆν καὶ μετὰ πολιτείας ἀρίστης) Euthym.-Zig. 
(εἰς τύπον, ἤγουν τὸν κανόνα καὶ ὅρον τῆς εὐσεβοῦς πολιτείας), and 
among moderns all the English commentators with Oltr. and Lips. 
To suppose, as some leading Continental scholars (De W. Mey.-W. 
Go.) have done, that some special ‘type of doctrine,’ whether 
Jewish-Christian or Pauline, is meant, is to look with the eyes of 
the nineteenth century and not with those of the first (cf. Hort, 
Rom. and Eph. p. 32 ‘Nothing like this notion of a plurality of 
Christian τύποι διδαχῆς occurs anywhere else in the N. T., and it is 
quite out of harmony with all the context’). 

19. ἀνθρώπινον λέγω. St. Paul uses this form of phrase (cf. 
Gal. iii. 15 κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω) where he wishes to apologize for 
having recourse to some common (or as he would have called it 
‘carnal’) illustration to express spiritual truths. So Chrys. (first 
explanation) ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγεν, ἀπὸ ἀνθρωπίνων λογισμῶν, ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν 
συνηθείᾳ γινομένων. 

διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός. Two explanations are possible: 
(1) ‘ because of the moral hindrances which prevent the practice of 
Christianity’ (Chrys. Theodrt. Weiss and others); (2) ‘because 
of the difficulties of apprehension, from defective spiritual experi- 
ence, which prevent the understanding of its deeper truths’ (most 
moderns). Clearly this is more in keeping with the context. In 


VI. 19-21.] LAW AND GRACE 169 


any case the clause refers to what has gone before, not (as Orig. 
Chrys., &c.) to what follows. 
σάρξ = human nature in its weakness, primarily physical and moral, but 
secondarily intellectual. It is intellectual weakness in so far as this is deter- 
mined by moral, by the limitations of character: cf. φρονεῖν τὰ τῆς σαρκός, 
φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός Rom. viii. 5 f.; σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα 1 Cor. i, 26. The 
idea of this passage is similar to that of 1 Cor. iii. 2 γάλα ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ 
βρῶμα: οὔπω γὰρ ἠδύνασθε. 


τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ. ἀκαθαρσία and ἀνομία fitly describe the characteristic 
features of Pagan life (cf. i. 24 ff.). As throughout the context these 
forms of sin are personified; they obtain a mastery over the man; 
and εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν describes the effect of that mastery—‘to the 
practice of iniquity.’ With these verses (19-21) compare especially 
r Pet. iv. 1-5. 

eis ἁγιασμόν. Mey. (but not Weiss) Lips. Oltr. Go. would make 
ἁγιασμός here-practically = ἁγιωσύνη, i.e. not so much the process of 
consecration as the result of the process. There is certainly this 
tendency in language; and in some of the places in which the word 
is used it seems to have the sense of the resulting state (e. g. 1 Thess. 
iv. 4, where it is joined with τιμή; 1 Tim. ii. 15, where it is joined 
with πίστις and ἀγάπη). 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 ἅγιος 
ch. i. 7, and Dr. A. B. Davidson, Hedrews, p. 206: ἁγιασμός = ‘the 
process of fitting for acceptable worship,’ a sense which comes 
out clearly in Heb. xii. 14 διώκετε... τὸν ἁγιασμὸν οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς 
ὄψεται τὸν Κύριον. The word occurs some ten times (two wv. Il.) 
in LXX and in Ps. Sol. xvii. 33, but is not classical. 

21. τίνα οὖν... ἐπαισχύνεσθε ; Where does the question end and 
the answer begin? (1) Most English commentators and critics 
(Treg. WH. RV. as well as Gif. Va.) carry on the question to 
ἐπαισχύνεσθε. In that case ἐκείνων must be supplied before ἐφ᾽ vis, 
and its omission might be due to the reflex effect of ἐκείνων in the 
sentence following (comp. ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα Vii. 6 below). 
There would then be a common enough ellipse before τὸ yap τέλος, 
‘What fruit had ye...? [None:] for the end,’ ἄς. (2) On the 
other hand several leading Germans (Tisch. Weiss Lips., though 
not Mey.) put the question at τότε, and make ἐφ᾽ ols ἐπαισχύνεσθε 
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: κατ᾽ 
ἐρώτησιν ἀναγνωστέον τὸ τίνα οὖν κάρπον εἴχετε τότε, εἶτα κατὰ 
ἀπόκρισιν ἐφ᾽ οἷς νῦν ἐπαισχύνεσθε. Both interpretations are 
possible, but the former, as it would seem, is more simple and natura] 


170 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VII. 1-6. 


(Gif.). When two phrases link together so easily as ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐπαισχ. 
with what precedes, it is a mistake to separate them except for 
strong reasons; nor does there appear to be sufficient ground for 
distinguishing between near consequences and remote. 


τὸ γάρ: τὸ μὲν yap N°BD*EFG, There is the usual ambiguity of 
᾿ readings in which B alone joins the Western authorities. The probability is 
that the reading belongs to the Western element in B, and that μέν was 
introduced through erroneous antithesis to νυνὶ δέ, 
23. ὀψώνια. From a root men- we get ἕψω, ὄψον, cooked” meat, fish, &c. 
as contrasted with bread. Hence the compound ὀψώνιον (ὠνέομαι, ‘to buy’) = 
53 provision-money, ration-money, or the rations in kind given to troops; 
(2) in a more general sense, ‘wages.’ The word is said to have come in 
with Menander: it is proscribed by the Atticists, but found freely in Polybius, 
I Macc. &c. (Sturz, Dial. Maced. p. 187). 
χάρισμα. Tertullian, with his usual picturesque boldness, translates this by 
donativum (De Res. Carn.c. 47 Stipendia enim delinguentiae mors, donativum 
autem det vita acterna). It is not probable that St. Paul had this particular 
antithesis in his mind, though no doubt he intends to contrast ὀψώνια and 


χάρισμα. 


THE TRANSITION FROM LAW TO GRACE. 
ANALOGY OF MARRIAGE. 


VII. 1-6. Take another illustration from the Law of 
Marriage. The Marriage Law only binds a woman while 
her husband lives. So with the Christian. He was wedded, 
as it were, to his old sinful state; and all that time he was 
subject to the law applicable to that state. But this old life 
of his was killed through his identification with the death of 
Christ; so as to set him free to contract a new marriage— 
with Christ, no longer dead but risen: and the fruit of that 
marriage should be a new life quickened by the Spirit. 


*T say that you are free from the Law of Moses and from Sin. 
You will see how: unless you need to be reminded of a fact which 
your acquaintance with the nature of Law will readily suggest to 
you, that Law, for the man who comes under it, is only in force 
during his lifetime. * Thus for instance a woman in wedlock is 
forbidden by law to desert her living husband. But if her husband 
should die, she is absolved from the provisions of the statute ‘ Of 
the Husband.’ *Hence while her husband is alive, she will be 
styled ‘an adulteress’ if she marry another man: but if her 


VII. 1-6.] LAW AND GRACE 171 


husband die, she is free from that statute, so that no one can call 
her an adulteress, though she be married to another man. 

*We may apply this in an allegory, in which the wife is the 
Christian’s ‘self’ or ‘ego’; the first husband, his old unregenerate 
state, burdened with all the penalties attaching to it. 

You then, my brethren in Christ, had this old state killed in you 
—brought to an abrupt and violent end—by your identification 
with the crucified Christ, whose death you reproduce spiritually. 
And this death of your old self left you free to enter upon a new 
marriage with the same Christ, who triumphed over death— 
a triumph in which you too share—that in union with Him you, 
and indeed all of us Christians, may be fruitful in good works, to 
the glory and praise of God. Our new marriage must be fruitful, 
as our old marriage was. When we had nothing better to guide 
us than this frail humanity of ours, so liable to temptation, at that 
time too a process of generation was going on. The impressions 
of sense, suggestive of sin, stimulated into perverse activity by their 
legal prohibition, kept plying this bodily organism of ours in such 
a way as to engender acts that only went to swell the garners of 
Death. “Βαϊ now all that has been brought to an end. Law and 
the state of sin are so inextricably linked together, that in dying, at 
our baptism, a moral death, to that old state of sin we were absolved 
or discharged from the Law, which used to hold us prisoners under 
the penalties to which sin laid us open. And through this discharge 
we are enabled to serve God in a new state, the ruling principle of 
which is Spirit, in place of that old state, presided over by Written 
Law. 


1-6. The text of this section—and indeed of the whole chapter 
—is still, ‘Ye are not under Law, but under Grace’; and the 
Apostle brings forward another illustration to show how the transi- 
tion from Law to Grace has been effected, and what should be its 
consequences. 

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


172 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ν11 1, ἃ. 


Gif. however may be right in explaining the transition rather 
differently, viz. by means of the παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος of ch. vi. 6. The 
‘self’ of the man is double; there is an ‘old self’ and a ‘new self’; 
or rather the ‘self’ remains the same throughout, but it passes 
through different states, or phases. Bearing this in mind we shall 
find the metaphor work out consistently. 


The Wife = the true self, or ego, which is permanent through 
all change. 

The (first) Husband =the old state before conversion to 
Christianity. 

The ‘law of the husband’ = the law which condemned that old 
state. 

The new Marriage = the union upon which the convert enters 
with Christ. 


The crucial phrase is ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε in ver, 4. According to 
the way in which we explain this will be our explanation of the 
whole passage. See the note ad doc. 

There is yet another train of thought which comes in with 
vw. 4-6. The idea of marriage naturally suggests the offspring of 
marriage. In the case of the Christian the fruit of his union with 
Christ is a holy life. 

1. Ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε: [‘surely you know this—that the régime of Law 
has come to an end, and that Grace has superseded it.] Or do ycu 
require to be told that death closes all accounts, and therefore that 
the state of things to which Law belongs ceased through the death 
of the Christian with Christ—that mystical death spoken of in the 
last chapter?’ 

γινώσκουσι γὰρ νόμον λαλῶ: ‘I speak’ (lit. ‘am talking’) ‘to men 
acquainted with Law.’ At once the absence of the article and the 
nature of the case go to show that what is meant here is not 
Roman Law (Weiss), of which there is no reason to suppose that 
St. Paul would possess any detailed knowledge, nor yet the Law of 
Moses more particularly considered (Lips.), but a general principle 
of all Law; an obvious axiom of political justice—that death clears 
all scores, and that a dead man can no longer be prosecuted or 
punished (cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 24). 

2. ἡ γὰρ ὕπανδρος γυνή: [‘the truth of this may be proved by 
a case in point.] For a woman in the state of wedlock is bound 
by law to her living husband.’ ὕπανδρος : a classical word, found 
in LXX. 

κατήργηται ; ‘is completely (perf.) absolved or discharged’ (lit. 
‘nullified’ or ‘annulled,’ her status as a wife is abolished). The 
two correlative phrases are treated by St. Paul as_ practically 
convertible: ‘the woman is annulled from the law,’ and ‘the law 
is annulled to the woman.’ For καταργεῖν see on iii. 3. 


VII. 2-4.] LAW AND GRACE 173 


ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός : from that section of the statute-book 
which is headed ‘The Husband,’ the section which lays down his 
rights and duties. Gif. compares ‘the law of the leper’ Lev. xiv. 2; 
‘the law of the Nazirite’ Num. vi. 13. 


3. xpnpatice. The meanings of χρηματίζειν ramify in two directions. 
The fundamental idea is that of ‘transacting business’ or ‘managing affairs.’ 
Hence we get on the one hand, from the notion of doing business under 
a certain name, from Polybius onwards (1) ‘to bear a name or title’ (χρημα- 
τίζει βασιλεύς Polyb. V. lvii. 2); and so simply, as here, ‘to be called or 
styled’ (Acts xi. 26 ἐγένετο... . χρηματίσαι πρῶτον ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ τοὺς μαθητὰς 
Χριστιανούς) ; and on the other hand (2) from the notion of ‘ having dealings 
with,’ ‘giving audience to’ a person, in a special sense, of the ‘answers, 
communications, revelations,’ given by an oracle or by God. So six times 
in LXX of Jerem., Joseph. Améig., Plutarch, &c. From this sense we get 
pass. ‘to be warned or admonished’ by God (Matt. il, 12, 22; Acts x. 22; 
Heb. viii. 5; xi. 7). Hence also subst. χρηματισμός, ‘a Divine or oracular 
response,’ 2 Mace. ii. 4; Rom. xi. 4. Burton (AZ and T. § 69) calls the 
fut. here a ‘gnomic future’ as stating ‘what will customarily happen when 


occasion offers.’ 

τοῦ μὴ εἶναι -- ὥστε μὴ εἶναι : the stress is thrown back upon ἐλευθέρα, ‘80 
as not to be,’ ‘causing her not to be,’—not ‘so that she is.” According to 
Burton τοῦ μή here denotes ‘conceived result’; but see the note on ὥστε 
δουλεύειν in ver. 6 below. 

4, ὥστε with indic. introduces a consequence which follows as a matter 


of fact. 


καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε. We have said that the exact interpreta- 
tion of the whole passage turns upon this phrase. It is commonly 
explained as another way of saying ‘You had the Law killed to 
you.’ So Chrys. ἀκόλουθον ἦν εἰπεῖν, rod νόμου τελευτήσαντος ov κρίνεσθε 
μοιχείας, ἀνδρὶ γενόμενοι ἑτέρῳ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐκ εἶπεν οὕτως, ἀλλὰ THs; ᾽Ε θανα- 
τώθητε τῷ νόμῳ (cf. Euthym.-Zig.). In favour of this is the parallel 
κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός in ver. 2, and κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ 
νόμου in νεῖ. 6. But on the other hand it is strange to speak of the 
same persons at one moment as ‘killed’ and the next as ‘married 
again.’ There is therefore a strong attraction in the explanation of 
Gif., who makes ὑμεῖς = not the whole self but the old self, z.¢. the 
old state of the self which was really ‘crucified with Christ’ 
(ch. vi. 6), and the death of which really leaves the man (= the wife 
in the allegory) free to contract a new union. This moral death 
of the Christian to his past also does away with the Law. The 
Law had its hold upon him only through sin; but in discarding 
his sins he discards also the pains and penalties which attached to 
them. Nothing can touch him further. His old heathen or Jewish 
antecedents have passed away ; he is under obligation only to Christ. 


καὶ ὑμεῖς. The force of καί here is, ‘You, my readers, as well as the wife 
in the allegory.’ 


διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The way in which the death of 
the ‘old man’ is brought about is through the identification of the 


174 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VII. 4, 5. 


Christian with the Death of Christ. The Christian takes his place, 
as it were, with Christ upon the Cross, and there has his old self 
crucified. The ‘body’ of Christ here meant is the ‘crucified 
body’: the Christian shares in that crucifixion, and so gets rid 
of his sinful past. We are thus taken back to the symbolism of the 
last chapter (vi. 6), to which St. Paul also throws in an allusion 
in τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι. The two lines of symbolism really run 
parallel to each other and it is easy to connect them. 


ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος = The Husband: 

Crucifixion of the wad. ἄνθ. = Death of the Husband: 
Resurrection = Re-Marriage : 

Civ, δουλεύειν τῷ Θεῷ = καρποφορεῖν τῷ Θεῷ. 


eis τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ. Lips. takes this not of ‘being married te 
another husband,’ but of ‘joining another master,’ on the ground that there 
is no marriage to the Zaw. This however (1) is unnecessary, because 
marriage to the ‘old man’ carries with it subjection to the Law, so that the 
dissolution of the marriage involves release from the Law by a step which is 
close and inevitable; (2) it is wrong, because of καρποφορῆσαι, which it is 
clearly forced and against the context to refer, as Lips. does, to anything but 
the offspring of marriage. 


καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ Θεῷ. The natural sequel to the metaphor of 
‘Marriage.’ The ‘fruit’ which the Christian, wedded to Christ, is 
to bear is of course that of a reformed life. 

5. ὅτε γὰρ ἦμεν ἐν τῇ σαρκί. This verse develops the idea con- 
tained in καρποφορήσωμεν: the new marriage oughi to be fruitful, 
because the old one was. εἶναι ἐν τῇ σαρκί is the opposite of εἶναι 
ἐν τῷ πνεύματι: the one is a life which has no higher object than 
the gratification of the senses, the other is a life permeated by the 
Spirit. Although σάρξ is human nature especially on the side of 
its frailty, it does not follow that there is any dualism in St. Paul’s 
conception or that he regards the body as inherently sinful. 
Indeed this very passage proves the contrary. It implies that it 
is possible to be ‘in the body’ without being ‘in the flesh.” The 
body, as such, is plastic to influences of either kind: it miay be 
worked upon by Sin through the senses, or it may be worked upon 
by the Spirit. In either case the motive-force comes from without. 
The body itself is neutral. See esp. the excellent discussion in 
Gifford, pp. 48-52. 

τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν: πάθημα has the same sort of ambiguity 
as our word ‘passion.’ It means (1) an ‘impression,’ esp. a ‘ pain- 
ful impression’ or suffering ; (2) the reaction which follows upon 
some strong impression of sense (cf. Gal. v. 24). The gen. τῶν 
ἁμαρτιῶν = ‘connected with sins,’ ‘leading to sins.’ 

τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου. Here St. Paul, as his manner is, ‘throws 
up a finger-post’ which points to the coming section of his argu- 
ment. The phrase διὰ τοῦ νόμου is explained at length in the next 


VIL. 5, 6.] LAW AND GRACE 175 


paragraph: it refers to the effect of Law in calling forth and 
aggravating sin. 

evnpyetto. The pricks and stings of passion were active in our 
members (cf. x Thess. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 7; 2 Cor. i. 6, iv. 12; 
Gal. v. 6, &c.). 

τῷ θανάτῳ : dat. commodt, contrasted with καρποῴ. τῷ Θεῷ above. 

G. νυνὶ δὲ κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου. ‘ But as it is we’ (in our 
peccant part, the old man) ‘were discharged or annulled from the 
Law’ (z.e. we had an end put to our relations with the Law; by 
the death of our old man there was nothing left on which the Law 
could wreak its vengeance; we were ‘struck with atrophy’ in 
respect to it: see on ver. 2). πῶς ἡμεῖς κατηργήθημεν ; τοῦ κατεχομένου 
mapa τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀνθρώπου παλαιοῦ ἀποθανόντος καὶ ταφέντος Chrys. 
We observe how Chrys. here practically comes round to the same 
side as Gif. 


The renderings of κατηργήθημεν are rather interesting, and show the diffi- 
culty of finding an exact equivalent in other languages: evacuati sumus 
Tert.; solute sumus Codd. Clarom. Sangerm. Vulg. (= ‘we were un- 
bounden’ Wic.; ‘we are loosed’ Rhem.); ‘we are delivered’ Tyn. Cran. 
Genev. AV.; ‘we are discharged’ RV.; mous avons été dégagés Oltr. (Le 
Nouveau Test., Geneva, 1874); mun aber sind wir fiir das Gesetz nicht 
mehr da Weizsacker (Das Neue Test., Freiburg i. B. 1882, ed. 2). 

ἀποθανόντες. AV. apparently read ἀποθανόντος, for which there is no 
MS. authority, but which seems to be derived by a mistake of Beza following 
Erasmus from a comment of Chrysostom’s (see Tisch. ad /oc.). The 
Western text (DEF G, codd. ap. Orig.-lat. and most Latins) boldly corrects 
to τοῦ θανατοῦ, which would go with τοῦ νόμου, and which gives an easier 
construction, though not a better sense. After ἀποθανόντες we must supply 
ἐκείνῳ, just as in vi. 21 we had to supply ἐκείνων. 


ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα. The antecedent of ἐν ᾧ is taken by nearly all 
commentators as equivalent to τῷ νόμῳ (whether ἐκείνῳ or τούτῳ 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 ἀποθανόντες 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. 

ὥστε δουλεύειν: not ‘so that we serve’ (RV. and most com- 
mentators), but ‘so as fo serve,’ i.e. ‘enabling us to serve.’ The 
stress is thrown back upon xarypy7Onuer,—we were so completely 
‘discharged as to set us free to serve. 


The true distinction between ὥστε with infin. and ὥστε with indic., which is 
not always observed in RV., is well stated by Goodwin, A/oods and Tenses, ed, 
1889, § 584 (with the quotation from Shilleto, De Fads. Leg. App. in the note), 
and for N.T. by the late Canon T. 5. Evans in the ZxZos. for 1882, i. 3 ff.: 
ὥστε with indic. states the definite result which as a matter of fact does 
follow ; ὥστε with infin, states the contemplated result which in the natural 


176 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VII. 7-25. 


course ought ¢o follow. ὥστε with indic. lays stress on the effect; ὥστε with 
infin. on the cause. Thus in 1 Cor. i. 7 ὥστε ὑστερεῖσθαι = ‘causing or 
inspiring you to feel behindhand’ (see Sp. Comm. ad /oc.); in Matt. xiii. 32 
γίνεται δένδρον, ὥστε ἐλθεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ καὶ κατασκηνοῦν = ‘becomes a tree 
big enough for the birds to come,’ &c. It will be seen that the distinction 
corresponds to the difference in the general character of the twe moods. 


ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος... παλαιότητι γράμματος. In each case 
the gen. is what is called of ‘apposition’: it denotes that in which 
the newness, or oldness, consists. The essential feature of the new 
state is that it is one of ‘Spirit’; of the old state, that it is regulated 
by ‘written Law.’ The period of the Paraclete has succeeded to 
the period which took its character from the Sinaitic legislation. 
The Christian life turns on an inspiration from above, not on an 
elaborate code of commands and prohibitions. A fuller explanation 
of the καινότης πνεύματος is given in ch. viii. 


It is perhaps well to remind the reader who is not careful to check the 
study of the English versions by the Greek that the opposition between 
γράμμα and πνεῦμα is not exactly identical with that which we are in the 
habit of drawing between ‘the letter’ and ‘the spirit’ as the ‘literal’ and 
‘spiritual sense’ of a writing. In this antithesis γράμμα is with St. Paul 
always the Law of Moses, as a written code, while πνεῦμα is the operation 
of the Holy Spirit characteristic of Christianity (cf. Rom. ii. 29; 2 Cor. iii. 6). 


LAW AND SIN. 


VII. 7-25. 77) release from Sin means release from Law, 
must we then tdentify Law with Sin? No. Law reveals 
the sinfulness of Sin, and by this very revelation stirs up the 
dormant Sin to action. But this ἐς not because the Law 
itself is evil—on the contrary it 1s good—but that Sin may 
be exposed and its guilt aggravated (vv. 7-13). 

This is what takes place. I have a double self. But my 
better self is impotent to prevent me from doing wrong 
(vv. 14-17). Jt ἐς equally impotent to make me do right 
(vv. 18-21). There is thus a constant conflict going on, 
rom which, unaided, I can hope for no deliverance. But, 
God be thanked, through Christ deliverance comes! (vv. 
21-25). 

ΤΊ spoke a moment ago of sinful passions working through Law, 


and of the death to Sin as carrying with it a release from the Law. 
Does it follow that the Law itself is actually a form of Sin? An 


Vai. 7-.25.] LAW AND SIN 177 


intolerable thought ! On the contrary it was the Law and nothing 
else through which I learnt the true nature of Sin. For instance, 
I knew the sinfulness of covetous or illicit desire only by the Law 
saying ‘Thou shalt not covet.’ *® But the lurking Sin within me 
started into activity, and by the help of that express command, 
provoking to that which it prohibited, led me into all kinds of 
conscious and sinful covetousness. For without Law to bring it 
out Sin 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. 1’ 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- 
mandmient was the weapon with which it slew me. 1 The result is 
that the Law, as a whole, is holy, inasmuch as it proceeds from God: 
and each single commandment has the like character of holiness, 
justice, and beneficence. ‘Am I then to say that a thing so 
excellent in itself to me proved fatal? Not fora 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. 

“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. 7° 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 

N 


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


way, I act another. I hate a thing, but do it. “And by this very 
fact that I hate the thing that I do, my conscience bears testimony 
to the Law, and recognizes its excellence. ἢ So that the state of the 
case is this. It is not I, my true self, who put into act what is 
repugnant to me, but Sin which has possession of me. * For lam 
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 1 can command it; but the performance I cannot 
command. * For the actual thing that I do is not the good that 
I wish to do; but my moral agency appears in the evil that I wish 
to avoid. * But if I thus do what I do not wish to do, then the 
active force in me, the agent that carries out the act, is not my true 
self (which is rather seen in the wish to do right), but the tyrant 
Sin which holds possession of me. *™I find therefore this law— 
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. * Unhappy man that I am— 
torn with a conflict from which there seems to be no issue! This 
body from which proceed so many sinful impulses; this body which 
makes itself the instrument of so many acts of sin; this body 
which is thus dragging me down to death.—How shall I ever get 
free from it? What Deliverer will come and rescue me from its 
oppression ? 

#5 A Deliverer has come. And I can only thank God, approach- 
ing His Presence in humble gratitude, through Him to whom the 
deliverance is due—Jesus Messiah, our Lord. 

Without His intervention—so long as I am left to my own 
unaided self—the state that I have been describing may be briefly 
summarized. In this twofold capacity of mine I serve two masters: 
with my conscience I serve the Law of God; with my bodily 
organism the Law of Sin. 


VII. 7,51} LAW AND SIN 199 


7. So far Sin and Law have been seen in such close connexion 
wnat it becomes necessary to define more exactly the relation 
between them. In discussing this the Apostle is led to consider 
the action of both upon the character and the struggle to which 
they give rise in the soul. 


It is evident that Marcion had this section, as Tertullian turns against him 
St. Paul’s refusal to listen to any attack upon the Law, which Marcion 
ascribed to the Demiurge: Abominatur apostolus criminationem legis... 
Quid deo imputas legis quod legi eius apostolus imputare non audet? Atquin 
et accumulat: Lex sancta, et praeceptum eius iustum et bonum. S¢# fadliter 
veneratur legem creatoris, quomodo ipsum destruat nescio. 


ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία. It had just been shown (ver. 5) that Sin makes 
use of the Law to effect the destruction of the sinner. Does it 
follow that Sin is to be zdentified with the Law? Do the two so 
overlap each other that the Law itself comes under the description 
of Sin? St. Paul, like every pious Jew, repels this conclusion with 
horror. 

ἀλλά contradicts emphatically the notion that the Law is Sin. 
On the contrary the Law first told me what Sin was. 

οὐκ ἔγνων, It is not quite certain whether this is to be taken 
hypothetically (for οὐκ ἂν ἔγνων, ἄν omitted to give a greater sense 
of actuality, Kiihner, Gr. Gramm. ii. 176 f.) or whether it is simply 
temporal, Lips. Oltr. and others adopt the hypothetical sense 
both here and with οὐκ ἤδειν below. Gif. Va. make both οὐκ 
ἔγνων and οὐκ ἤδειν plain statement of fact. Mey.-W. Go. take 
οὐκ ἔγνων temporally, οὐκ dev hypothetically. As the context is 
a sort of historical retrospect the simple statement seems most in 
place. 


τὴν τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν. τε γάρ is best explained as = ‘for also,’ ‘ for indeed’ 
(Gif. Win. § liii. p. 561 E.T.; otherwise Va.). The general proposition is 
proved by a concrete example. 

ἔγνων... dew retain their proper meanings: ἔγνων, ‘I learnt,’ implies 
more intimate experimental acquaintance; 7δειν is simple knowledge that 
there was such a thing as lust. 


ἐπιθυμήσεις. The Greek word has a wider sense than our 
‘covet’; it includes every kind of illicit desire. 

8. ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα : ‘ getting a start,’ finding a pout dapput, or, 
as we should say, ‘something to take hold of. In a military 
sense ἀφορμή = ‘a base of operations’ (Thuc. i. go. 2, &c.). In 
a literary sense ἀφορμὴν λαβεῖν = ‘to take a hint,’ ‘adopt a sug- 
gestion’; cf. Eus. Ep. ad Carpianum ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ προειρη- 
μένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς. And so here in a moral sense: Sin 
exists, but apart from Law it has nothing to work upon, no means 
of producing guilt. Law gives it just the opportunity it wants. 

ἡ ἁμαρτία: see p. 145, sup. 

Sia τῆς ἐντολῆς. The prep. διά and the position of the word 


180 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS | VII. 8-18. 


show that it is better taken with κατειργάσατο than with ddopp. 
AaB. ἐντολή is the single commandment; νόμος the code as a 
whole. 

χωρὶς yap... νεκρά. A standing thought which we have had 
before, iv. 15; v.13: cf. iii. 20. 

9. ἔζων (ἔζην B; ἔζουν 17). St. Paul uses a vivid figurative 
expression, not of course with the full richness of meaning which 
he sometimes gives to it (i. 17; viii. 13, &c.). He is describing 
the state prior to Law primarily in himself as a child before the 
consciousness of law has taken hold upon him; but he uses this 
experience as typical of that both of individuals and nations before 
they are restrained by express command. The ‘natural man’ 
flourishes; he does freely and without hesitation all that he has 
a mind to do; he puts forth all his vitality, unembarrassed by 
the checks and thwartings of conscience. It is the kind of life 
which is seen at its best in some of the productions of Greek art. 
Greek life had no doubt its deeper and more serious side; but 
this comes out more in its poetry and philosophy: the frieze of 
the Parthenon is the consummate expression of a life that does 
not look beyond the morrow and has no inward perplexities to 
trouble its enjoyment of to-day. See the general discussion below. 

ἀνέζησεν : ‘sprang into life’ (T. K. Abbott). Sin at first is 
there, but dormant ; not until it has the help of the Law does it 
become an active power of mischief. 

11. ἐξηπάτησέ pe. The language is suggested by the descrip- 
tion of the Fall (Gen. iii. 13 LXX; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. 1. 
14). Sin here takes the place of the Tempter there. In both 
cases the ‘commandment’—acknowledged only to be broken— 
is the instrument which is made use of to bring about the disas- 
trous and fatal end. 

12. ὁ μὲν νόμος. The μέν expects a following δέ. St. Paul had 
probably intended to write ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία κατηργάσατο ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν 
θάνατον, or something of the kind; but he digresses to explain how 
a good Law can have evil consequences, and so he fails to com- 
plete the sentence on the same plan on which he had begun it. On 
St. Paul’s view of the nature and functions of the Law see below. 


It is hardly safe to argue with Zahn (Gesch. d. X. ii. 517) from the lan- 
guage of Tertullian (given above on ver. 7) that that writer had before him 
a corrupt Marcionitic text—not, Zahn thinks, actually due to Marcion, but 
corrupted since his time— ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ δικαία for ἡ ἐντ. ἁγία καὶ δικαία. 
It is more probable that Tert. is reproducing his text rather freely: in De 
Pudic. 6 he leaves out καὶ δικαία, lex guidem sancta est et praeceptum 
sanctum et optimum (the use of superlative for positive is fairly common ip 
Latin versions and writers). 


13. Why was this strange perversion of so excellent a thing as 
the Law permitted? This very perversion served to aggravate the 


VII. 13-15. ] LAW AND SIN 181 


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 (φανῇ) of what extremities (καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν) Sin 
was capable. 

14. The section which follows explains more fully by a psycho- 
logical analysis Zow 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. 

πνευματικός. The Law is ‘spiritual,’ as the Manna and the 
Water from the Rock were ‘spiritual’ (1 Cor. x. 3, 4) in the sense 
of being ‘Spirit-caused’ or ‘ Spirit-given,’ but with the further 
connotation that the character of the Law is such as corresponds 
to its origin. 

σάρκινος (σαρκικός SL P al.) denotes simply the mazerial of 
which human nature is composed, ‘made of flesh and blood’ 
(1 Cor. iii. 1; 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 
in St. Paul between the odpf and πνεῦμα. It has been maintained that this 
antithesis amounts to dualism, that St. Paul regards the σάρξ 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 (1855, 1868), Rich. Schmidt (1870), Liidemann (1872), 
and to some extent Pfleiderer (1873). [In the second edition of his Pausin- 
ismus (1890), Pfleiderer refers so much of St. Paul’s teaching on this head 
as seems to go beyond the O. T. not to Hellenism, but to the later Jewish 
doctrine of the Fall, much as it has been expounded above, p. 136 ff. In this 
we need not greatly differ from him.] The most elaborate reply was that of 
H. H. Wendt, Dze Begriffe Fleisch und Geist (Gotha, 1878), which was 
made the basis of an excellent treatise in English by Dr. W. P. Dickson, 
St. Paul’s Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, Glasgow, 1883. Reference 
may also be made to the well-considered statement of Dr. Gifford (Romans, 
pp. 48-52). The controversy may now be regarded as practically closed. 
Its result is summed up by Lipsius in these decisive words: ‘The Pauline 
anthropology rests entirely on an Old Testament base; the elements in it 
which are supposed to be derived from Hellenistic dualism must simply be 
denied (stad einfach zu bestreiten).’ The points peculiar to St. Paul, 
according to Lipsius, are the sharper contrast between the Divine πνεῦμα and 
the human ψυχή, and the reading of a more ethical sense into σάρξ, which 
was originally physical, so that in Gal. v. 19 ff., Rom. viii. 4 ff. the cap 
becomes a principle directly at war with the πνεῦμα. In the present passage 
(Rom, vii. 14-25) the opposing principle is ἁμαρτία, and the σάρξ is only the 
material medium (Suéstrat) of sensual impulses and desires. We may add 
that this is St. Paul’s essential view, of which all else is but the variant 
expression. 

15. κατεργάζομαι = Zerficto, per petro, ‘to carry into effect,’ ‘ put into execu- 
tion’: πράσσω = ago, to act as a moral and responsible being: ποιῶ = facio, 


182 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 15-21. 


to produce a certain result without reference to its moral character, and 
simply as it might be produced by inanimate mechanism (see also the notes 
on ch. i. 32: ii. 9). Of course the specific sense may not be always marked 
by the context, but here it is well borne out throughout. For a fuller 
account of the distinction see Schmidt, Lat. τ. Gr. Synonymik, p. 294 ff. 

ov γινώσκω appears to describe the harmonious and conscious working of 
will and motive, the former deliberately accepting and carrying out the 
promptings of the latter. The man acts, so to speak, blindly: he is not 
a fully conscious agent: a force which he cannot resist takes the decision out 
of his hands. 

ὃ θέλω. The exact distinction between θέλω and βούλομαι has been much 
disputed, and is difficult to mark. On the whole it seems that, especially in 
N. T. usage, βούλομαι lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose, delibera- 
tion, θέλω on the more emotional aspect of will: in this context it is 
evidently something short of the final act of volition, and practically = ‘ wish,’ 
‘desire. See especially the full and excellent note in Grm.-Thay. 


17. νυνὶ δέ: ‘as it is,’ ‘as the case really lies’; the contrast is 
logical, not temporal. 

ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτίας [Read ἐνοικοῦσα with 8B, Method. 
(ap. Phot. cod., non autem ap. Epiph.)| This indwelling Sin cor- 
responds to the indwelling Spirit of the next chapter: a further 
proof that the Power which exerts so baneful an influence is 
not merely an attribute of the man himself but has an objective 
existence. 

18. ἐν ἐμοί, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, κτλ. The part of the man in which 
Sin thus establishes itself is not his higher self, his conscience, but 
his lower self, the ‘ flesh,’ which, if not itself evil, is too easily made 
the instrument of evil. 

παράκειταί pot: ‘lies to my hand,’ ‘within my reach,’ 


ob NABC 47 67** al., Edd.: οὐχ εὑρίσκω DEFGKLP &c. 
20. ὃ οὐ θέλω BC DEFG al., WH. RV.: ὃ οὐ θέλω ἔγω RAKLP 
&c., Tisch. WH. marg. 


21. εὑρίσκω dpa τὸν νόμον: ‘I find then this rule,’ ‘this con- 
straining principle,’ hardly ‘this constantly recurring experience,’ 
which would be too modern. The νόμος here mentioned is akin 
to the ἕτερον νόμον of ver. 23. It is not merely the observed fact 
that the will to do good is forestalled by evil, but the coercion of 
the will that is thus exercised. Lips. seems to be nearest to the 
mark, das Gesetz d. h. die objectiv mir auferlegte Nothwendigkett. 

Many commentators, from Chrysostom onwards, have tried to 
make τὸν νόμον = the Mosaic Law: but either (i) they read into the 
passage more than the context will allow; or (ii) they give to the 
sentence a construction which is linguistically intolerable. The 
best attempt in this direction is prob. that of Va. who translates, 
"1 find then with regard to the Law, that to me who would fain 
do that which is good, to me (I say) that which is evil is present.’ 
He supposes a double break in the construction: (1) τὸν νόμον 
put as if the sentence had been intended to run ‘I find then the 


VII. 21-24.] LAW AND SIN 183 


Law—when I wish to do good—powerless to help me’; and (2) 
ἐμοί repeated for the sake of clearness. It is apparently in 
a similar sense that Dr. T. K. Abbott proposes as an alternative 
rendering (the first being as above), ‘ With respect to the law, 
I find,’ &c. But the anacoluthon after τὸν νόμον 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. συνήδομαι τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ: what it approves, I gladly and 
cordially approve. 

κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον. St. Paul, as we have seen (on vi. 6), 
makes great use of this phrase ἄνθρωπος, 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 se//’) ; now he contrasts 
the ‘outer man,’ or the body (ὁ ἔξω ἄνθρωπος 2 Cor. iv. 16), with the 
‘inner man,’ the conscience or reason (2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16). 

23. ἕτερον νόμον: ‘a different law’ (for the distinction between 
ἕτερος, ‘ different,’ and ἄλλος, ‘ another,’ ‘a second,’ see the commen- 
tators on Gal. i. 6, 7). 

There are two Imperatives (νόμοι) 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. 

τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός pou. For νοῦς see oni. 28: it is the rational 
part 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 πνεῦμα 
(Eph. iv. 23 ἀνανεοῦσθαι τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ vods: cf. Rom. xii. a); just as 
on the other hand it may be corrupted by the flesh (Rom. i. 28). 

24. ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος. 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 sat for his own likeness; but there are ideal traits in the 
picture as well 


184 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VII. 24, 26. 


ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου. In construction τούτου might 
go with σώματος (‘from this body of death’): but it is far better to 
take it in the more natural connexion with θανάτου ; ‘the body of 
this death’ which already has me in its clutches. Sin and death 
are inseparable : as the body involves me in sin it also involves me 
in mortality; physical death to be followed by eternal, the death of 
the body by the death of the soul. 

25. ἄρα οὖν κιτιλ. A terse compressed summary of the previous 
paragraph, vv. 7--24, describing in two strokes the state of things 
prior to the intervention of Christ. The expression is that which 
comes from deep feeling. The particular phrases hardly seem to 
need further explanation. 


εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ. The true reading is probably χάρις τῷ Θεῷ. The 
evidence stands thus. 


χάρις τῷ Θεῷ B, Sah., Orig. seme] Hieron. semel. 
χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ N* C? (de C* non liguet) minuse. alig., Boh. Arm., Cyr.- 
Alex, Jo.-Damasc. 
ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ DE 38, de Vulg., Orig.-lat. δὲς Hieron. seme? Ambrstr. 
ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου F G, f g, cf. Iren.-lat. 
εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ N*AKLP &c., Syrr. Goth., Orig. δὲς Chrys. 
Theodrt. αἰ. [εὐχαριστῶ Θεῷ Method. af. Epiph. cod., sed χάρις τῷ 
Θεῷ vel χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ Epiph. edd. pr.; vid. Bonwetsch, Methodius 
von Olympus, i. 204.] 
It is easy to see how the reading of B would explain all the rest. The 
reading of the mass of MSS. would be derived from it (not at once but by 
successive steps) by the doubling of two pairs of letters, 


TOYTOY| εὐ]χὰριο[ τω͵τωθεω. 
The descent of the other readings may be best represented by a table. 


χάρις Ἷ Θεῷ 
| 


εὐχὰριοτῶ τῷ Θεῷ 
χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ (OF) 
ἡ χάρις toy Kypioy (KY) 


The other possibility would be that εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ had got reduced to 
χάρις τῷ Θεῷ by successive dropping of letters. But this must have taken 
place very early. It is also conceivable that χάρις δέ preceded χάρις only. 


The Inward Confiict. 


Two subjects for discussion are raised, or are commonly treated 
as if they were raised, by this section. (1) Is the experience 
described that of the regenerate or unregenerate man? (2) Is it, 
or is it not, the experience of St. Paul himself ? 

1 (a), Origen and the mass of Greek Fathers held that the 
passage refers to the unregenerate man. (i) Appeal is made to 
such expressions as πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ver. 14, κατεργάζομαι 


VII. 7-25.] LAW AND SIN 185 


[τὸ κακόν] vv. 19, 20, ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος ver. 24. It is argued 
that language like this is nowhere found of the regenerate state. 
(ii) When other expressions are adduced which seem to make for 
the opposite conclusion, it is urged that parallels to them may be 
quoted from Pagan literature, e.g. the vzdeo meliora of Ovid and 
many other like sayings in Euripides, Xenophon, Seneca, Epictetus 
(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. 

(8) Another group of writers, Methodius (ob. 310 a.p.), 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, μισῶ [τὸ κακόν] ver. 15, θέλω 
ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν VE. 21, συνήδομαι τῷ νόμῳ ver. 22. It is said that these 
are inconsistent with the ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι καὶ ἐχθροί 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 1 Cor. ix. 27 ὑπωπιάζω pov 
τὸ σῶμα καὶ Sovkaywy. 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 the sharp 
collision between law and the sinful appetites waking to activity ; 
(iii) the end which is at last put to the stress and strain of this 
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 znzer 
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 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 7-25. 


a change in man. But here, whether the moment described is 
before or after the embracing of Christianity, in any case abstraction 
is made of all that is Christian. Law and the soul are brought face 
to face with each other, and there is nothing between them. Not 
until we come to ver. 25 is there a single expression used which 
belongs to Christianity. And the use of it marks that the conflict 
is ended. 

(2) As to the further question whether St. Paul is speaking of 
himself or of ‘some other man’ we observe that the crisis which is 
described here is not at least the same as that which is commonly 
known as his ‘ Conversion.’ Here the crisis is moral; there it was 
in the first instance intellectual, turning upon the acceptance of 
the proposition that Jesus was truly the Messiah. The decisive 
point in the conflict may be indeed the appropriation of Christ 
through His Spirit, but it is at least not an intellectual conviction, 
such as might exist along with a severe moral struggle. On the 
other hand, the whole description is so vivid and so sincere, so 
evidently wrung from the anguish of direct personal experience, 
that it is difficult to think of it as purely imaginary. It is really 
not so much imaginary as imaginative. It is not a literal photo- 
graph of any one stage in the Apostle’s career, but it is a con- 
structive picture drawn by him in bold lines from elements sup- 
plied to him by self-introspection. We may well believe that the 
regretful reminiscence of bright unconscious innocence goes back 
to the days of his own childhood before he had begun to feel the 
conviction of Sin, The incubus of the Law he had felt most 
keenly when he was a ‘Pharisee of the Pharisees.’ Without 
putting an exact date to the struggle which follows we shall prob- 
ably not be wrong in referring the main features of it especially to 
the period before his Conversion. It was then that the powerless- 
ness of the Law to do anything but aggravate sin was brought 
home to him. And all his experience, at whatever date, of the 
struggle of the natural man with temptation is here gathered 
together and concentrated in a single portraiture. It would 
obviously be a mistake to apply a generalized experience like 
this too rigidly. The process described comes to different men 
at different times and in different degrees; to one early, to an- 
other later; in one man it would lead up to Christianity, in 
another it might follow it; in one it would be quick and sudden, 
in another the slow growth of years. We cannot lay down any 
rule. In any case it is the mark of a genuine faith to be able to 
say with the Apostle, ‘Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 
our Lord.’ It is just in his manner to sum up thus in a sen- 
tence what he is about to expand into a chapter. The break 
occurs at a very suitable place: ch. viii is the true conclusion te 
ch. vil 


VII. 7-25. | LAW AND SIN 187 


δέ Paul's View of the Law. 


It was in his view of the Mosaic Law that St. Paul must 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 
his early education as a Pharisee (Gal. i. 14; Phil. iii. 5 f.). This 
old feeling of his comes out in emotional passages like Rom. ix. 4 
(cf. iii. 2; ii. 25, &c.). And even where, as in the section before 
us, he is bringing out most forcibly the ineffectiveness of the Law 
to restrain human passion the Apostle still lays down expressly 
that the Law itself is ‘ holy and righteous and good’; and a little 
lower down (ver. 14) he gives it the epithet ‘spiritual,’ which is 
equivalent to ascribing to it a direct Divine origin. 

It was only because of his intense sincerity and honesty in 
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 clearly. 

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 


188 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VII. 7-26. 


ended; it gave no help towards the performance of that which it 
required. Nay, by a certain strange perversity in human nature, 
it seemed actually to provoke to disobedience. The very fact 
that a thing was forbidden seemed to make its attractions all the 
greater (Rom. vii. 8). And so the last state was worse than the 
first. The one sentence in which St. Paul sums up his experience 
of Law is διὰ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας (Rom. iii. 20). Its effect 
therefore was only to increase the condemnation : it multiplied sin 
(Rom. v. 20); it worked wrath (Rom. iv. 15); it brought man- 
kind under a curse (Gal. iii. 10). 

And this was equally true of the individual and of the race ; the 
better and fuller the law the more glaring was the contrast to the 
practice of those who lived under it. The Jews were at the head 
of all mankind in their privileges, but morally they were not much 
better than the Gentiles. In the course of his travels St. Paul was 
led to visit a number of the scattered colonies of Jews, and when 
he compares them with the Gentiles he can only turn upon them 
a biting irony (Rom. ii. 17-29). 

The truth must be acknowledged ; as a system, Law of what- 
ever kind had failed. The breakdown of the Jewish Law was 
most complete just because that law was the best. It stood out 
in history as a monument, revealing the right and condemning 
the wrong, heaping up the pile of human guilt, and nothing 
more. On a large scale for the race, as on a small scale for the 
individual, the same verdict held, διὰ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας. 

Clearly the fault of all this was not with the Law. The fault 
lay in the miserable weakness of human nature (Rom. viii. 3). 
The Law, as a code of commandments, did all that it was intended 
to do. But it needed to be supplemented. And it was just this 
supplementing which Christianity brought, and by bringing it set 
the Law in its true light and in its right place in the evolution of 
the Divine plan. St. Paul sees spread before him the whole ex- 
panse of history. The dividing line across it is the Coming of 
the Messiah. All previous to that is a period of Law—first of 
imperfect law, such law as was supplied by natural religion and 
conscience ; and then of relatively perfect law, the law given by 
God from Sinai. It was not to be supposed that this gift of law 
increased the sum of human happiness. Rather the contrary. 
In the infancy of the world, as in the infancy of the individual, 
there was a blithe unconsciousness of right and wrong ; impulse 
was followed wherever it led; the primrose path of enjoyment 
had no dark shadow cast over it. Law was this dark shadow. 
In proportion as it became stricter, it deepened the gloom. If 
law had been kept, or where law was kept, it brought with it 
a new kind of happiness; but to a serious spirit like St. Paul’s 
it seemed as if the law was never kept—never satisfactorily 


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


kept—at all. There was a Rabbinical commonplace, a stern 
rule of self-judgement, which was fatal to peace of mind: ‘ Who- 
soever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, 
he is become guilty of all’ (Jas. ii. 10; cf. Gal. iii, 16; Rom. 
x. 5). Any true happiness therefore, any true relief, must be 
sought elsewhere. And it was this happiness and relief which 
St. Paul sought and found in Christ. The last verse of ch. vii 
marks the point at which the great burden which lay upon the 
conscience rolls away; and the next chapter begins with an 
uplifting of the heart in recovered peace and serenity; ‘ There is 
therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.’ 

Taken thus in connexion with that new order of things into 
which it was to pass and empty itself, the old order of Law had at 
last its difficulties cleared away. It remained as a stage of 
salutary and necessary discipline. All God’s ways are not bright 
upon the surface. But the very clouds which He draws over the 
heavens will break in blessings; and break just at that moment 
when their darkness is felt to be most oppressive. St. Paul him- 
self saw the gloomy period of law through to its end (τέλος yap 
νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι Rom. xX. 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. 


1This being so, no verdict of ‘Guilty’ goes forth any longer 
against the Christian. He lives in closest union with Christ. 
2 The Spirit of Christ, the medium of that union, with all its life- 
giving energies, enters and issues its laws from his heart, dis- 
possessing the old usurper Sin, putting an end to its authority and 
to the fatal results which it brought with it. *For where the old 
system failed, the new system has succeeded. The Law of Moses 
could not get rid of Sin. The weak place in its action was that 
our poor human nature was constantly tempted and fell. But now 
God Himself has interposed by sending the Son of His love to 


190 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS | 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: and this 
Death of His carried with it a verdict of condemnation against Sin 
and of acquittal for its victims; ‘so that from henceforth what the 
Law lays down as right might be fulfilled by us who regulate our 
lives not according to the appetites and passions of sense, but at 
the dictates of the Spirit. 


1 ff. This chapter is, as we have seen, an expansion of χάρις τῷ 
Θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν in the last verse of ch. vii. It 
describes the innermost circle of the Christian Life from its begin- 
ning to its end—that life of which the Apostle speaks elsewhere 
(Col. iii. 3) as ‘hid with Christ in God.’ It works gradually up 
through the calm exposition and pastoral entreaty of vv. 1-17 to 
the more impassioned outlook and deeper introspection of vv. 18-30, 
and thence to the magnificent climax of vv. 31-39. 


There is evidence that Marcion retained vv. 1-11 of this chapter, probably 
with no very noticeable variation from the text which has come down to us 
(we do not know which of the two competing readings he had in ver. 10). 
Tertullian leaps from viii. 11 to x. 2, implying that much was cut out, but 
we cannot determine how much. 


1. κατάκριμα. One of the formulae of Justification: κατάκρισις 
and κατάκριμα are correlative to δικαίωσις, δικαίωμα; both sets of 
phrases being properly forensic. Here, however, the phrase τοῖς 
ἐν X. I. which follows shows that the initial stage in the Christian 
career, which is in the strictest sense the stage of Justification, has 
been left behind and the further stage of union with Christ has 
succeeded to it. In this stage too there is the same freedom from 
condemnation, secured by a process which is explained more fully 
in ver. 3 (cf, vi. 7-10). The κατάκρισις which used to fall upon the 
sinner now falls upon his oppressor Sin. 

μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα. An interpolation 
introduced (from ver. 4) at two steps: the first clause μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπα- 
τοῦσιν in Α Ὠῦ 137, fm Vulg. Pesh. Goth. Arm., Bas. Chrys.; the second 

clause ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα in the mass of later authorities NC DDE KLP &c.; 

the older uncials with the Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions, the Latin Version 


of Origen and perhaps Origen himself with a fourth-century dialogue attri- 
buted to him, Athanasius and others omit both. 


2. ὃ νόμος τοῦ Πνεύματος = the authority exercised by the Spirit 
We have had the same somewhat free use of νόμος in the last 
chapter, esp. in ver. 23 ὁ νόμος τοῦ νοός, ὁ νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας : it is no 
longer a ‘ code’ but an authority producing regulated action such 
as would be produced by a code. 

τοῦ Πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς. The gen. expresses the ‘ effect wrought’ 
(Gif.), but it also expresses more: the Spirit brings life because it 
essentially zs life. 


VIII. 2, 8. LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 1g] 


ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ goes with ἠλευθέρωσε : the authority of the Spirit 
operating through the union with Christ, freed me, &c. For the 
phrase itself see on ch. vi. 11 


ἠλευθέρωσέ pe. A small group of important authorities (NBFG, 
τὰ Pesh., Tert. 1/2 vel potius 2/2 Chrys. codd.) has ἠλευθέρωσέν oe. The 
combination of δὲ B with Latin and Syriac authorities shows that this reading 
must be extremely early, going back to the time before the Western text 
diverged from the main body. Still it can hardly be right, as the second 
person is nowhere suggested in the context, and it is more probable that σε 
is only a mechanical repetition of the last syllable of ἠλευθέρωσε (ce). 
Dr. Hort suggests the omission of both pronouns (ἡμᾶς 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 Rufinus, but this is not certain), it was a very general tendency 
among scribes to supply an object to verbs originally without one. We do 
not expect a return to first pers. sing. after rots ἐν Χ. Ἰ., and the scanty 
evidence for omission may be to some extent paralleled, e.g. by that for the 
omission of εὑρηκέναι in iv. 1, for εἴ ye in v. 6, or for χάρις τῷ Θεῷ in vii. 25. 
But we should hardly be justified in doing more than placing ye in brackets, 


ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ tod θανάτου = the authority 
exercised by Sin and ending in Death: see on vii. 23, and on 
ὁ νόμ. τ. πνεύμ. above. 

8. τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου. Two questions arise as to these 
words. (1) What is their construction? The common view, 
adopted also by Gif. (who compares Eur. Zroad. 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,’ 
ἄς. 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 Platonic Idioms’ (Zhe Apology of Plato, Oxford, 1877, p. 122), lays down 
two propositions about constructions like this: ‘ (i) These Noun-Phrases and 
Neuter-Pronouns are Accusatives. The prevalence of the Neuter Gender 
makes this difficult to prove; but such instances as are decisive afford an 
analogy for the rest: Theaet. 153 C ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν κολοφῶνα, ἀναγκάζω 
προσβιβάζων κιτιλ. Cf. Soph. O. 7. 603 καὶ τῶνδ᾽ ἔλεγχον. .. πεύθου, and 
the Adverbs ἀρχήν, ἀκμήν, τὴν πρώτην, &e. (ii) They represent, by Appo- 
sition or Substitution, the sentence itself. To say, that they are Cognate 
Accusatives, or in Apposition with the (unexpressed) Cognate Accus., would 
be inadequate to the facts. For (1) 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; (2) 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 Z7heaet. given above is as clear 
as any.| This seems to criticize by anticipation the view of Va., who regards 
τὸ ἀδύν. as accus. but practically explains it as in apposition to a cognate 
accus. which is not expressed: ‘The impossible thing of the Law... God 
[effected; that is He] condemned sin in the flesh.’ It is true that an apt 
parallel is quoted from 2 Cor. vi. 13 τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν πλατύνθητε 
καὶ ὑμεῖς : but this would seem to come under the same rule. The argument 
that if τὸ ddvv. had been accus. it would probably have stood at the end of 


192 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 3 


the sentence, like τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν in Rom. xii. 1, appears to be 
refuted by τὸν κολοφῶνα in Theaet. above. Win. Gr. § xxxii. 7, p. 290 E. T. 
while recognizing the accus. use (§ lix. 9, p. 669 E. T.), seems to prefer to 


take τὸ ἀδύν. asnom. So too Mey. Lips. &c. 

(2) Is τὸ ἀδύν. active or passive? Gif., after Fri. (cf. also Win. 
ut sup.) contends for the former, on the ground that if ἀδύν. were 
passive it should be followed by τῷ νόμῳ not τοῦ νόμους Tertullian 
(De Res. Carn. 46) gives the phrase an active sense and retains the 
gen., guod invalidum erat legis. Buton the other hand if not Origen 
himself, at least Rufinus the translator of Origen has a passive 
rendering, and treats τοῦ νόμου as practically equivalent to τῷ νόμῳ: 
quod impossibile 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 Casena, p. 125, appears to make τὸ 
ἀδύν. active: ὥσπερ yap ἡ ἀρετὴ ἰδίᾳ φύσει ἰσχυρά, οὕτω καὶ ἡ κακία καὶ 
τὰ an’ αὐτῆς ἀσθενῆ καὶ ἀδύνατα ... τοῦ τοιούτου νόμου ἡ φύσις ἀδύνατός 
ἐστι. Similarly Cyr.-Alex. (who finds fault with the structure of the 
sentence) : τὸ ἀδύνατον, τουτέστι τὸ ἀσθενοῦν. Wulg.and Cod. Clarom. 
are slightly more literal: guod zmpossibile erat legis. The gen. might 
mean that there was a spot within the range or domain of Law 
marked ‘impossible,’ a portion of the field which it could not 
control. On the whole the passive sense appears to us to be more 
in accordance with the Biblical use of ἀδύν. and also to give a some- 
what easier construction: if τὸ advv. is active it is not quite a simple 
case of apposition to the sentence, but must be explained as a sort 
of nom. absolute (‘The impotence of the Law being this that,’ &c., 
Gif.), which seems rather strained. But it must be confessed that 
the balance of ancient authority is strongly in favour of this way of 
taking the words, and that on a point—the natural interpretation of 
language— where ancient authority is especially valuable. 


An induction from the use of LXX and N.T. would seem to show that 
ἀδύνατος masc. and fem. was always active (so twice in N. T., twenty-two 
times [3 vv. ll.] in LXX, Wisd. xvii. 14 τὴν ἀδύνατον ὄντως νύκτα καὶ ἐξ 
ἀδυνάτου ἅδου μυχῶν ἐπελθοῦσαν, being alone somewhat ambiguous and 
peculiar), while ἀδύν. neut. was always passive (so five times in LXX, seven 
in N.T.). It is true that the exact phrase τὸ ἀδύνατον does not occur, but 
in Luke xviii. 27 we have τὰ ἀδύνατα παρὰ ἀνθρώποις δυνατά ἐστι παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. 


ἐν ᾧ: not ‘because’ (Fri. Win. Mey. Alf.), but ‘in which’ or 
‘wherein,’ defining the point in which the impossibility (inability) 
of the Law consisted. For ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός comp, Vii. 22, 23. 
The Law points the way to what is right, but frail humanity is 
tempted and falls, and so the Law’s good counsels come to nothing. 

τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱόν. The emphatic ἑαυτοῦ brings out the community 
of nature between the Father and the Son: cf. rod ἰδίου υἱοῦ ver. 32; 
τοὺ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ Col. i, 13. 


* The text is not free from suspicion 


VIII. 3.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 193 


ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας : the flesh of Christ is ‘like’ ours 
inasmuch as it is flesh; ‘like,’ and only ‘like,’ because it is not 
sinful: ostendit nos quidem habere carnem peccati, Filium vero De 
stmaulitudinem habuisse carnis peccati, non carnem peccatt (Orig.-lat.). 

Pfleiderer and Holsten contend that even the flesh of Christ was 
‘sinful flesh,’ i.e. capable of sinning ; but they are decisively refuted 
by Gif. p. 165. Neither the Greek nor the argument requires that 
the flesh of Christ shall be regarded as s¢nful flesh, though it is 
His Flesh—His Incarnation—which brought Him into contact 
with Sin, 

kat περὶ ἁμαρτίας. 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 est Christus, et oblatus sit pro 
purgatione peccatorum, omnes Scripturae testaniur ... Per hanc ergo 
hostiam carnts suae, quae dicitur pro peccato. damnavit peccatum in 
carne, &c. ‘The ritual of the sin-offering is fully set forth in Lev. iv. 
The most characteristic feature in it is the sprinkling with blood of 
the horns of the altar of incense. Its object was to make atonement 
especially for sins of ignorance. It was no doubt typical of the 
Sacrifice of Christ. Still we need not suppose the phrase περὶ 
ἅμαρτ. 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, 

κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί. The key to this difficult 
clause is supplied by ch. vi. 7-10. By the Death of Christ upon the 
Cross, a death endured in His human nature, He once and for ever 
broke off all contact with Sin, which could only touch Him through 
that nature. Henceforth Sin can lay no claim against Him. 
Neither can it Jay 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. 6-11, shows that this summary 
condemnation of Sin takes place in the Death of Christ, and not 
in His Life; so that κατέκρινε 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,’ &c.) κατακρίνειν 
has this sense of ‘condemn by contrast,’ but there is a greater fulness 
of meaning here. 

The ancients rather miss the mark in their comments on this passage, 


Thus Orig.-lat. damnavit peccatum, hoc est, fugavit peccatum et abstulit 
o 


[94 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 3-5. 


(comp. T. K. Abbott, ‘ effectually condemned so as to expel’): but it does 
not appear how this was done. The commoner view is based on Chrys., 
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 
injustice in handing over to death His own sinless body as if it were sinful. 
Similarly Euthym.-Zig. and others in part. Cyr.-Alex. explains the victory 
of Christ over Sin as passing over to the Christian through the indwelling 
of the Holy Ghost and the Eucharist (διὰ τῆς μυστικῆς εὐλογίας). This is 
at least right in so far as it lays stress on the identification of the Christian 
with Christ. But the victory over sin does not rest on the mere fact of 
sinlessness, but on the absolute severance from sin involved in the Death 
upon the Cross and the Resurrection. 


ἐν τῇ σαρκί goes with xaréxpwe. The Death of Christ has the 
efficacy which it has because it is the death of His Flesh: by means 
of death He broke for ever the power of Sin upon Him (vi. 10; 
Heb. vii. 16; x. 10; 1 Pet. iii, 18); but through the mystical 
union with Him the death of His Flesh means the death of ours 


(Lips.). 

4. τὸ δικαίωμα : ‘the justifying,’ Wic., ‘the justification, Rhem. 
after Vulg. tustficatio; Tyn. is better, ‘the rightewesnes requyred 
of (i.e. by) the lawe.’ We have already seen that the proper sense 
of δικαίωμα is ‘ that which is laid down as right,’ ‘ that which has the 
force of right’: hence it = here the statutes of the Law, as righteous 
statutes. Comp. oni. 32; ii. 26. 


It is not clear how Chrys. (= Euthym.-Zig.) gets for δικαίωμα the sense 
τὸ τέλος, 6 σκοπός, TO κατόρθωμα. 


τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν : ‘those who walk by the rule 
of the flesh,’ whose guiding principle is the flesh (and its grati- 
fication). The antithesis of Flesh and Spirit is the subject of 
the next section. 


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


VIII. 5-11. Compare the two states. The life of self- 
indulgence involves the breach of God’s law, hostility to 
Him, and death. Submission to the Spirit brings with tt 
true life and the sense of reconciliation. You therefore, 
if you are sincere Christians, have in the presence of the 
Spirit a sure pledge of immortality. 

’ These two modes of life are directly opposed to one another. 
If any man gives way to the gratifications of sense, then these and 
nothing else occupy his thoughts and determine the bent of his 
character. And on the other hand, those who let the Holy Spirit 


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


guide them fix their thoughts and affections on things spiritual. 
*They are opposed in their nature; they are opposed also in their 
consequences. ΒῸΓ 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. 

7The gratifying of the flesh can lead only to death, because it 
implies hostility to God. It is impossible for one who indulges the 
flesh at the same time to obey the law of God. *And those who 
are under the influence of the flesh cannot please God. *° But you, 
as Christians, are no longer under the influence of the flesh. You 
are rather under that of the Spirit, if the Spirit of God (which, be it 
remembered, is the medium of personal contact with God and 
Christ) is really in abiding communion with you. "But if Christ, 
through His Spirit, thus keeps touch with 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. 


δ. φρονοῦσιν : ‘set their minds, or their hearts upon.’ φρονεῖν 
denotes the whole action of the φρήν, i.e. of the affections and will 
as well as of the reason; cf. Matt. xvi. 23 οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων : Rom. xii. 16; Phil. ili. 19 ; Col. iii. 2, &c. 

6. φρόνημα : the content of φρονεῖν, the general bent of thought 
and motive. Here, as elsewhere in these chapters, σάρξ is that side 
of human nature on which it is morally weak, the side on which 
man’s physical organism leads him into sin. 

θάνατος. Not merely is the φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός death in effect, 
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. 

ζωή. In contrast with the state of things just described, where 
the whole bent of the mind is towards the things of the Spirit, not 


196 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 6-9. 


cniy is there ‘life’ in the sense that a career so ordered will issue iv 
life; it has already in itself the germs of life. As the Spirit itself is 
in Its essence living, so does It impart that which must live. 


For a striking presentation of the Biblical doctrine of Life see Hort, 
Hulsean Lectures, pp. 98 ff., 189 ff. The following may be quoted: ‘The 
sense of life which Israel enjoyed was, however, best expressed in the choice 
of the name “life” as a designation of that higher communion with God 
which grew forth in due time as the fruit of obedience and faith. The 
psalmist or wise man or prophet, whose heart had sought the face of the 
Lord, was conscious of a second or divine life, of which the first or natural 
life was at once the image and the foundation; a life not imprisoned in 
some secret recess of his soul, but filling his whole self, and overflowing 
upon the earth around him’ (p. 98). Add St. Paul’s doctrine of the in- 
dwelling Spirit, and the intensity of his language becomes intelligible. 


εἰρήνη = as we have seen not only (i) the state of reconciliation 
with God, but (ii) the sense of that reconciliation which diffuses 
a feeling of harmony and tranquillity over the whole man. 

7. This verse assigns the reason why the ‘mind of the flesh is 
death,’ at the same time bringing out the further contrast between 
the mind of the flesh and that of the Spirit suggested by the 
description of the latter as not only ‘life’ but ‘peace.’ The mind 
of the flesh is the opposite of peace; it involves hostility to God, 
declared by disobedience to His Law. This disobedience is the 
natural and inevitable consequence of giving way to the flesh. 

8. ot δέ: not as AV. ‘so then,’ as if it marked a consequence or 
conclusion from ver. 7, but ‘And’: ver. 8 merely repeats the 
substance of ver. 7 in a slightly different form, no longer abstract 
but personal. The way is thus paved for a more direct application 
to the readers. 

9. ἐν capki,... ἐν πνεύματι. Observe how the thought mounts 
gradually upwards. εἶναι ἐν σαρκί = ‘to be under the domination of 
[the] flesh’; corresponding to this εἶναι ἐν πνεύματι = ‘to be under 
the domination of [the] spirit,’ i.e, in the first instance, the human 
spirit. Just as in the one case the man takes his whole bent and 
bias from the lower part of his nature, so in the other case he takes 
it from the highest part of his nature. But that highest part, the 
πνεῦμα, is what it is by virtue of its affinity to God. It is essentially 
that part of the man which holds communion with God: so that 
the Apostle is naturally led to think of the Divine influences which 
act upon the πνεῦμα. He rises almost imperceptibly through the 
πνεῦμα οἵ man to the Πνεῦμα of God. From thinking of the way in 
which the πνεῦμα in its best moods acts upon the character he 
passes on to that influence from without which keeps it in its best 
moods. This is what he means when he says εἴπερ Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ 
οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. οἰκεῖν ev denotes a settled permanent penetrative 
influence. Such an influence, from the Spirit of God, St. Paul 
assumes 10 be inseparable from the higher life of the Christian. 


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


The way in which ἐν σαρκί is opposed to ἐν πνεύματι, and further 
the way in which ἐν πνεύματι passes from the spirit of man to the 
Spirit of God, shows that we must not press the local significance of 
the preposition too closely. We must not interpret any of the 
varied expressions which the Apostle uses in such a sense as to 
infringe upon the distinctness of the human and Divine personalities. 
The one thing which is characteristic of personality is distinctness 
from all other personalities; and this must hold good even of the 
relation of man to God. The very ease with which St. Paul changes 
and inverts his metaphors shows that the Divine immanence with 
him nowhere means Buddhistic or Pantheistic absorption. We 
must be careful to keep clear of this, but short of it we may use the 
language of closest intimacy. All that friend can possibly receive 
from friend we may believe that man is capable of receiving from 
God. See the note on ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in vi. 11; and for the anti- 
thesis of σάρξ and πνεῦμα the small print note on vii. 14. 

εἰ δέ τις. A characteristic delicacy of expression: when he is 
speaking on the positive side St. Paul assumes that his readers have 
the Spirit, but when he is speaking on the negative side he will not 
say bluntly ‘if you have not the Spirit,’ but he at once throws 
his sentence into a vague and general force, ‘if any one has 
not,’ &c. 


There are some good remarks on the grammar of the conditional clauses 
in this verse and in vv. 10, 25, in Burton, AZ. awd T. §§ 469, 242, 261. 


οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ : he is no true Christian. This amounts to 
saying that all Christians ‘have the Spirit’ in greater or less 
degree. 

10. εἰ δὲ Χριστός. It will be observed that St. Paul uses the 
phrases Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, and Χριστός in these two verses 
as practically interchangeable. On the significance of this in its 
bearing upon the relation of the Divine Persons see below. 

τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν Sv ἁμαρτίαν. 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 zmputative, in baptism (vi. 2 ff.), 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 
death. (ii) ‘The body is dead mys/ice, as no longer the instrument 
of sin ( sans energie productrice des acies charnels), because of sin— 
to which it led’ (Oltr.). This is open to the same objection as the 
last, with the addition that it does not give a satisfactory explanation 
of δι᾿ ἁμαρτίαν. (iii) It remains to take νεκρόν in the plain sense of 


198 EPISTLE TO THE ΕΟΜΑΝΒ [VIII.10,11. 


‘physical death,’ and to go back for δ ἁμαρτίαν not to vi. 2 ff. but 
to v, 12 ff., so that it would be the sin of Adam and his descendants 
(Aug. Gif. Go.) perpetuated to the end of time. ltr. objects that 
νεκρόν in this case ought to be θνητόν, but the use of νεκρόν gives 
a more vivid and pointed contrast to ¢#7—‘a dead thing.’ 

τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην. Clearly the πνεῦμα here meant 
is the human πνεῦμα which has the properties of life infused into it 
by the presence of the Divine πνεῦμα. ζωή is to be taken in a wide 
sense, but with especial stress on the future eternal life. διὰ δικαιο- 
σύνην is also to be taken in a wide sense: it includes all the senses 
in which righteousness is brought home to man, first imputed, then 
imparted, then practised. 

11. St. Paul is fond of arguing from the Resurrection of Christ 
to the resurrection of the Christian (see p. 117 sup.). Christ is the 
ἀπαρχή (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23: the same power which raised Him will 
raise us (1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14); Phil. iii, 21; 1 Thess. 
iv.14). But nowhere is the argument given in so full and complete 
a formas here. The link which connects the believer with Christ, 
and makes him participate in Christ’s resurrection, is the possession 
of His Spirit (cp. 1 Thess. iv. 14 τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἄξει 
σὺν αὐτῷ). 

διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ Πνεύματος. The authorities for the two 
readings, the gen. as above and the acc, διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ Πνεῦμα, 
seem at first sight very evenly divided. For gen. we have a long 
line of authorities headed by NAC, Clem.-Alex. For acc. we bave 
a still longer line headed by Β Ὁ, Orig. Iren.-lat. 


In fuller detail the evidence is as follows: 


διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος κιτ.λ. NAC P? al, codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. ¢. Macedon., 
Boh. Sah. Harcl. Arm. Aeth., Clem.-Alex. Method. (codd. Graec. 
locorum ab Epiphanio citatorum) Cyr.-Hieros codd. plur. et ed. Did. 4/5 
Bas 4/4 Chrys. ad 1 Cor. xv. 45, Cyr.-Alex. ter, al. plur. 

διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν κιτιλ. BDEFGKLP &c., codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. ¢. 
Macedon.; Vulg. Pesh. (Sah. codd.); Iren.-lat. Orig. p/uries; Method. 
vers. slav. et codd, Epiphanii 1/3 et ex parte 2/3, Cyr.-Hieros. cod. 
Did.-lat. semel (interp. Hieron.) Chrys. ad loc. Tert. Hil. αἱ. plur. 


When these lists are examined, it will be seen at once that the authorities 
for the gen. are predominantly Alexandrian, and those for the acc. predomi- 
nantly Western. The question is how far in each case this main body is 
reinforced by more independent evidence. From this point of view a some- 
what increased importance attaches to Harel. Arm. Hippol. Cyr.-Hieros. 
Bas. on the side of the gen. and to B, Orig. on the side of the acc. The 
testimony of Method. is not quite clear. The first place in which the 
passage occurs is a quotation from Origen: here the true reading is probably 
διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν, as elsewhere in that writer. The other two places belong to 
Methodius himself. Here too the Slavonic version has in both cases acc. ; 
the Greek preserved in Epiphanius has in one instance acc., in the other gen. 
It is perhaps on the whole probable that Method. himself read acc. and that 
gen. is due to Epiphanius, who undoubtedly was in the habit of using gen. 
In balancing the opposed evidence we remember that there is a distinct 
Western infusion in both B and Orig. in St. Paul’s Epistles, so that the acc 


VIII. δ--11.} LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 199 


may rest not on the authority of two families of text, but only of one. On 
the other hand, to Alexandria we must add Palestine, which would count 
for something, though not very much, as being within the sphere of Alexan- 
drian influence, and Cappadocia, which would count for rather more; but 
what is of most importance is the attesting of the Alexandrian reading so far 
West as Hippolytus. Too much importance must not be attached to the 
assertion of the orthodox controversialist in the Dza/. ¢. Macedonios, that 
gen. is found in ‘all the ancient copies’; the author of the dialogue allows 
that the reading is questionable. 


On the whole the preponderance seems to be slightly on the side 
of the gen., but neither reading can be ignored. Intrinsically the 
one reading is not clearly preferable to the other. St. Paul might 
have used equally well either form of expression. It is however 
hardly adequate to say with Dr. Vaughan that if we read the acc. 
the reference is ‘to the ennobling and consecrating effect of the 
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the human body.’ The prominent 
idea is rather that the Holy Spirit is Itself essentially a Spirit of Lz, 
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. 2), in relation to Prophecy (1 Sam. x. 10; xi. 6; 
xix. 20, 23, &c.), and in relation to the religious life of the individual 
(Ps. li. 11) and of the nation (15. lxiii. 10 f.). It was understood 
that the Messiah had a plenary endowment of this Spirit (Is. xi. 2). 
And accordingly in the N.T. the Gospels unanimously record the 
visible, if symbolical, manifestation of this endowment (Mark i. 10; 
Jo. 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 passages 
in which he uses precisely the same language of the Spirit of God 
and of God Himself, so also there are many others in which he 
uses the same language of the Spirit of Christ and of Christ 
Himself. Thus the ‘demonstration of the Spirit’ is a demonstra- 
tion also of the ‘power of God’ (1 Cor. ii. 4, 5); the working of 
the Spirit is a working of God Himself (1 Cor. xii. 11 compared 
with ver. 6) and of Christ (Eph. iv. rr compared with 1 Cor. xii. 
28, 4). To be ‘Christ’s’ is the same thing as to ‘live in the Spirit’ 
(Gal. v. 22 ff). Nay, in one place Christ is expressly identified 
with ‘ the Spirit’: ‘the Lord is the Spirit’ (2 Cor. iii. 17): a passage 
which has a seemingly remarkable parallel in Ignat. Ad Magn. xv 
ἔρρωσθε ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ Θεοῦ, κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὅς ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς 


200 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 5-11. 


Χριστός (where however Bp. Lightfoot makes the antecedent to és 
not πνεῦμα but the whole sentence ; his note should be read). ‘The 
key to these expressions is really supplied by the passage before us, 
from which it appears that the communication of Christ to the soul 
is really the communication of His Spirit. And, strange to say, we 
find this language, which seems so individual, echoed not only possibly 
by Ignatius but certainly by St. John. As Mr. Gore puts it (Bamp/on 
Lectures, p. 132), ‘In the coming of the Spirit the Son too was to 
come ; in the coming of the Son, also the Father. “ He will come 
unto you,” “I will come unto you,” “ We will come unto you” are 
interchangeable phrases’ (cf. St. John xiv. 16-23). 

This is the first point which must be borne clearly in mind: in 
their relation to the human soul the Father and the Son act through 
and are represented by the Holy Spirit. And yet the Spirit is not 
merged either in the Father or in the Son. This is the comple- 
mentary truth. Along with the language of identity there is other 
language which implies distinction. 

It is not only that the Spirit of God is related to God in the 
same sort of way in which the spirit of man is related to the man. 
In this very chapter the Holy Spirit is represented as standing over 
against the Father and pleading with Him (Rom. viii. 26f), and 
a number of other actions which we should call ‘ personal’ are 
ascribed to Him—‘dwelling’ (vv. 9, 11), ‘leading’ (ver. 14), 
‘witnessing ’ (ver. 16), ‘assisting’ (ver. 26). In the last verse of 
2 Corinthians St. Paul distinctly co-ordinates the Holy Spirit with 
the Father and the Son. And even where St. John speaks of the 
Son as coming again in the Spirit, it is not as the same but as 
‘other’; ‘another Paraclete will He give you’ (St. John xiv. 16). 
The language of identity is only partial, and is confined within 
strict limits. Nowhere does St. Paul give the name of ‘ Spirit’ to 
Him who died upon the Cross, and rose again, and will return 
once more to judgement, There is a method running through the 
language of both Apostles, 

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is really an extension, 
a natural if not necessary consequence, of the doctrine of the 
Incarnation. As soon as it came to be clearly realized that the 
Son of God had walked the earth as an individual man among 
men it was inevitable that there should be recognized a dis- 
tinction, and such a distinction as in human language could only 
be described as ‘personal’ in the Godhead. But if there was 
a twofold distinction, then it was wholly in accordance with the 
body of ideas derived from the O. T. to say also ἃ threefold 
distinction. 

It is interesting to observe that in the presentation of this last 
step in the doctrine there is a difference between St. Paul and 
St. John corresponding to a difference in the experience of the 


VIII. 12-16.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 201 


two Apostles. In both cases it is this actual experience which 
gives the standpoint from which they write. St. John, who had 
heard and seen and handled the Word of Life, who had stood 
beneath the cross and looked into the empty tomb, when he 
thinks of the coming of the Paraclete naturally thinks of Him 
as ‘another Paraclete.’ St. Paul, who had not had the same 
privileges, but who was conscious that from the moment of his 
vision upon the road to Damascus a new force had entered into 
his soul, as naturally connects the force and the vision, and sees in 
what he feels to be the work of the Spirit the work also of the 
exalted Son. To St. John the first visible Paraclete and the 
second invisible could not but be different; to St. Paul the in- 
visible influence which wrought so powerfully in him seemed to 
stream directly from the presence of Him whom he had heard 
from heaven call him by his name. 


SONSHIP AND 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 the glory to 
which Christ, your Elder Brother, has gone. 


12Such a destiny has its obligations, To the flesh you owe 
nothing. “If you live as it would have you, you must inevitably 
die. But if by the help of the Spirit you sternly put an end to 
the licence of the flesh, then in the fullest sense you will live. 

% Why so? Why that necessary consequence? The link is 
here. All who follow the leading of God’s Spirit are certainly by 
that very fact special objects of His favour. They do indeed enjoy 
the highest title and the highest privileges. They are His sons. 

16 When you were first baptized, and the communication of the 
Holy Spirit sealed your admission into the Christian fold, the 
energies which He imparted were surely not those of a slave. 
You had not once more to tremble under the lash of the Law. 
No: He gave you rather the proud inspiring consciousness of 
men admitted into His family, adopted as His sons. And the 
consciousness of that relation unlocks our lips in tender filial 
appeal to God as our Father. *“ Two voices are distinctly heard: 


202 EPISTLE TO THE ΒΟΜΑΝΒ [VIII.12-15. 


one we know to be that of the Holy Spirit ; the other is the voice 
of our own consciousness. And both bear witness to the same 
fact that we are children of God. Βαϊ to be a child implies 
something more. The child will one day inherit his father’s 
possessions. So the Christian will one day enter upon that 
glorious inheritance which his Heavenly Father has in store for 
him and on which Christ as his Elder Brother has already entered. 
Only, be it remembered, that in order to share in the glory, it is 
necessary first to share in the sufferings which lead to it. 


12. Lipsius would unite vv. 12, 13 closely with the foregoing ; 
and no doubt it is true that these verses only contain the 
conclusion of the previous paragraph thrown into a_hortatory 
form. Still it is usual to mark this transition to exhortation by 
a new paragraph (as at vi. 12); and although a new idea (that 
of heirship) is introduced at ver. 14, that idea is only subor- 
dinate to the main argument, the assurance which the Spirit gives 
of future life. See also the note on οὖν in x. 14. 

18. πνεύματι. The antithesis to σάρξ seems to show that this 
is still, as in vv. 4, 5, 9, the human πνεῦμα, but it is the human 
πνεῦμα in direct contact with the Divine. 

τὰς πράξεις : of wicked doings, as in Luke xxiii. 51. 

14. The phrases which occur in this section, Πνεύματι Θεοῦ 
ἄγονται, τὸ Πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν, are Clear proof that 
the other group of phrases ἐν πνεύματι εἶναι, OF τὸ Πνεῦμα οἰκεῖ (ἐνοικεῖ) 
ἐν ἡμῖν are not intended in any way to impair the essential distinct- 
ness and independence of the human personality, There is no 
such Divine ‘immanence’ as would obliterate this. The analogy 
to be kept in view is the personal influence of one human being 
upon another. We know to what heights this may rise. The 
Divine influence may be still more subtle and penetrative, but it is 
not different in kind. 

υἱοὶ Θεοῦ. The difference between vids and τέκνον appears to be 
that whereas τέκνον denotes the natural relationship of child to 
parent, vids implies, in addition to this, the recognized s/afus and 
legal privileges reserved for sons. Cf. Westcott on St. John i. 12 
and the parallels there noted. 

15. πνεῦμα δουλείας. This is another subtle variation in the 
use of πνεῦμα. From meaning the human spirit under the in- 
fluence of the Divine Spirit πνεῦμα comes to mean a particular 
state, habit, or temper of the human spirit, sometimes in itself 
(πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως Num. v. 14, 303 mv. ἀκηδίας Is. lxi. 3; mv. πορνείας 
Hos. iv. 12), but more often as due to supernatural influence, good 
or evil (mv. σοφίας «.r.A. Is. xi. 2; mv. πλανήσεως Is, xix. 14; πν. 
κρίσεως Is. XXxviii. 6; mv. κατανύξεως Is. xxix. 10 (= Rom. xi. 8); 


VIII. 15-17.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 203 


mv. χάριτος καὶ οἰκτιρμοῦ Zech. xii. 103 wv, ἀσθενείας Luke xiii. τὰ: 
nv, δειλίας 2 Tim. i. 7; τὸ mv. τῆς πλάνης 1 Jo. iv. 6). So here 
we, δουλείας = such a spirit as accompanies a state of slavery, such 
a servile habit as the human πνεῦμα assumes among slaves. This 
was not the temper which you had imparted to you at your bap- 
tism (ἐλάβετε). The slavery is that of the Law: cf. Gal. iv. 6, 7, 
24, Vv. 1. 

πάλιν εἰς φόβον: ‘so as to relapse into a state of fear.’ The 
candidate for baptism did not emerge from the terrors of the 
Law only to be thrown back into them again. 

υἱοθεσίας : a word coined, but rightly coined, from the classical 
phrase vids τίθεσθαι (eros vids). 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. 

᾿Αββᾶ, ὁ πατήρ. The repetition of this word, first in Aramaic 
and then in Greek, is remarkable and brings home to us the fact 
that Christianity had its birth in a bilingual people. The same 
repetition occurs in Mark xiv. 36 (‘ Abba, Father, all things are 
possible to Thee’) and in Gal. iv. 6: it gives a greater intensity of 
expression, but would only be natural where the speaker was 
using in both cases his familiar tongue. Lightfoot (Hor. Hed. on 
Mark xiv. 36) thinks that in the Gospel the word ’A8fa only was 
used by our Lord and ὁ Πατήρ added as an interpretation by 
St. Mark, and that in like manner St. Paul is interpreting for the 
benefit of his readers. The three passages are however all too 
emotional for this explanation: interpretation is out of place in 
a prayer. It seems better to suppose that our Lord Himself, 
using familiarly both languages, and concentrating into this word 
of 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. αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα : see on ver. 14 above. 

συμμαρτυρεῖ: 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 1s 
analyzed, and its da/a are referred partly to the man himself, partly 
to the Spirit of God moving and prompting him. 

17. κληρονόμοι. The idea of a κληρονομία is taken up and 
developed in N.T. from O.T. and Apocr. (Ecclus, Ps. Sol., 
4 Ezr.). It is also prominent in Philo, who devotes a whole 


204 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VIII.18,19. 


treatise to the question Quis rerum divinarum heres sit P (Mang. i. 
473 ff). Meaning originally (i) the simple possession of the Holy 
Land, it came to mean (ii) its permanent and assured possession 
(Ps. xxv [xxiv]. 13; xxxvi [xxxvii]. 9, 11 &c.); hence (iii) 
specially the secure possession won by the Messiah (Is. lx. 21; 
Ixi. 7; and so it became (iv) a symbol of all Messianic blessings 
(Matt. v. 5; xix. 29; xxv. 34, &c.). Philo, after his manner, 
makes the word denote the bliss of the soul when freed from the 
body. 
It is an instance of the unaccountable inequalities of usage that whereas 
κληρονομεῖν, κληρονομία occur almost innumerable times in LXX, κληρονόμος 


occurs only five times (once in Symmachus); in N.T. there is much greater 
equality (κληρονομεῖν eighteen, κληρονομία fourteen, κληρονόμος fifteen). 


συγκληρονόμοι. Our Lord had described Himself as ‘the Heir’ 
in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 38). This 
would show that the idea of κληρονομία received its full Christian 
adaptation directly from Him (cf. also Matt. xxv. 34). 

εἴπερ συμπάσχομεν. St. Paul seems here to be reminding his 


hearers of a current Christian saying: cf. 2 Tim. ii, 11 πιστὸς ὁ 
λόγος, Ei yap συναπεθάνομεν καὶ συζήσομεν' εἰ ὑπομένομεν καὶ συμβασι- 
λεύσομεν. This is another instance of the Biblical conception of 
Christ as the Way (His Life not merely an example for ours, but 
in its main lines presenting a fixed type or law to which the lives 
of Christians must conform); cf. p. 196 above, and Dr. Hort’s 
The Way, the Truth, and the Life there referred to. For εἴπερ see 
On iii. 30. 


SUFFERING THE PATH TO GLORY. 


VIII. 18-25. What though the path to that glory lies 
through suffering? The suffering and the glory alike are 
parts of a great cosmical movement, in which the irrational 
creation joins with man. As it shared the results of hts 
fall, so also will it share in his redemption. Its pangs are 
pangs of a new birth (vv. 18-22). 

Like the mute creation, we Christians too wait painfully 
for our deliverance. Our attitude is one of hope and not of 
possession (VV. 23-25). 

% What of that? For the sufferings which we have to undergo 
in this phase of our career I count not worth a thought in view 
of that dazzling splendour which will one day break through 
the clouds and dawn upon us. * For the sons of God will stand 
forth revealed in the glories of their bright inheritance. And for 


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. 

2° 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. 2210 is like the pangs of a woman in child- 
birth. This universal frame feels up to this moment the throes of 
travail—feels them in every part and cries out in its pain. But 
where there is travail, there must needs also be a birth. 

*8OQur own experience points to the same conclusion. ‘True 
that in those workings of the Spirit, the charzsmata 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 saved 
indeed, the groundwork of our salvation was laid, when we became 
Christians. But was that salvation in possession or in prospect? 
Certainly in prospect. Otherwise there would be no room for 
hope. For what a man sees already in his hand he does not hope 
for as if it were future. %* But in our case we do not see, and we 
do hope; therefore we also wait for our object with steadfast 
fortitude. 


18. λογίζομαι γάρ. At the end of the last paragraph St. Paul 
has been led to speak of the exalted privileges of Christians in- 
volved in the fact that they are sons of God. The thought of these 
privileges suddenly recalls to him the contrast of the 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 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 18, 19. 


scale. In fact it is nothing short of an universal law that suffering 
marks the road to glory. All the suffering, all the imperfection, 
all the unsatisfied aspiration and longing of which the traces are so 
abundant in external nature as well as in man, do but point forward 
to a time when the suffering shall cease, the imperfection be re- 
moved and the frustrated aspirations at last crowned and satisfied ; 
and this time coincides with the glorious consummation which 
awaits the Christian. 

True it is that there goes up as it were an universal groan, from 
creation, from ourselves, from the Holy Spirit who sympathizes 
with us; but this groaning is but the travail-pangs of the new 
birth, the entrance upon their glorified condition of the risen sons 
of God. 

λογίζομαι : here in its strict sense, ‘I calculate,’ ‘weigh mentally,’ 
‘count up on the one side and on the other.’ 

ἄξια... πρός. In Plato, Gorg. p. 471 E, we have οὐδενὸς ἄξιός ἐστι 
πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν : so that with a slight ellipse οὐκ ἄξια... πρὸς τὴν 
δόξαν will = “ποῖ worth (considering) in comparison with the glory.’ 
Or we may regard this as a mixture of two constructions, (1) οὐκ 
ἄξια τῆς δόξης, i.e. ‘not an equivalent for the glory’; comp. Prov. 
Vili. ΣΙ πᾶν δὲ τίμιον οὐκ ἄξιον αὐτῆς (Sc. τῆς σοφίας) ἐστίν, and (2) 
οὐδενὸς λόγου ἄξια πρὸς τὴν δόξαν : comp. Jer. xxili, 28 τί τὸ ἄχυρον 
πρὸς τὸν σῖτον ; 

The thought has a near parallel in 4 Ezra vii. 3 ff. Compare (e¢.g.) the 
following (vv. 12-17): Zt facti sunt introttus huius saeculi angusti et 
dolentes et laboriost, pauct autem et malt et periculorum pleni et labore 
magno opere fulti; nam matioris saeculi introitus spatiost et securi et 
facientes immortalitatis fructum. Si ergo non ingredientes ingressi fuerint- 
que vivunt angusta et vana haec, non poterunt recipere quae sunt reposita... 
tusti autem ferent angusta sperantes spatiosa. Compare also the quotations 


from the Talmud in Delitzsch ad loc. The question is asked, What is the 
way to the world to come? And the answer is, Through suffering. 


μέλλουσαν : emphatic, ‘is destined to,’ ‘is certain to.’ The 
position of the word is the same as in Gal. iii. 23, and serves to 
point the contrast to rod viv καιροῦ. 

δόξαν; the heavenly brightness of Christ’s appearing: see on 
iii. 23. 

εἰς ἡμᾶς : to reach and include us in its radiance. 

19. ἀποκαραδοκία : cf. Phil. i. 20 κατὰ τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα 
pov: the verb ἀποκαραδοκεῖν occurs in Aquila’s version of Ps. xxxvii 
{xxxvi|. 7, and the subst. frequently in Polyb. and Plutarch (see 
Grm.-Thay. s.v., and Ell. Lft. on Phil. i. 20). A highly expressive 
word ‘ to strain forward,’ lit. ‘await with outstretched head.’ This 
sense is still further strengthened by the compound, ἀπο- denoting 
diversion from other things and concentration on a single object. 


This passage (especially vv. 17, 22) played a considerable part in the 
system of Basilides, as described in Hippol. Ref. Omn. Haer. vii. 25-27. 


VIII. 19.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT aay) 


τῆς κτίσεως: see on i. 20. Here the sense is given by the 
context ; ἡ κτίσις is set in contrast with the ‘sons of God,’ and 
from the allusion to the Fall which follows evidently refers to Gen. 
ill. 17, 18 ‘Cursed is the ground for thy sake... thorns also and 
thistles shall it bring forth to thee.’ The commentators however 
are not wrong in making the word include here the whole irrational 
creation. The poetic and penetrating imagination of St. Paul 
sees in the marks of imperfection on the face of nature, in the 
signs at once of high capacities and poor achievement, the visible 
and audible expression of a sense of something wanting which will 
one day be supplied. 

Oltr. and some others argue strenuously, but in vain, for giving 
to κτίσις, 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 κτίσις 
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 (ἡ κτίσις ἡ ἄλογος 
expressly Euthym.-Zig). Orig.-lat., as expressly, has creaturam wutpote 
rationabilem; but he is quite at fault, making τῇ ματαιότητι = ‘the body.’ 
Chrys. and Euthym.-Zig. call attention to the personification of Nature, 
which they compare to that in the Psalms and Prophets, while Diodorus of 
Tarsus refers the expressions implying life rather to the Powers (δυνάμεις) 
which preside over inanimate nature and from which it takes its forms. The 
sense commonly given to ματαιότητι is = φθορά. 


τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, The same word ἀποκάλυψις is 
applied to the Second Coming of the Messiah (which is also an 
ἐπιφανεία 2 Thess. ii. 8) and to that of the redeemed who accompany 
Him: their new existence will not be like the present, but will be 
in ‘glory’ (δόξα) 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. Tothem also the appearing of 
the Messiah is an ἀποκάλυψις: 4 Ezra xili. 32 et erit cum fient haec, et con- 
tingent signa quae ante ostendi tibi et tunc revelabitur filius meus quem 
widistt ut virume ascendentem ; Apoc. Bar. xxxix.7 et erit, cum appropinqua- 
verit tempus fints eius ut cadat, tunc revelabitur principatus Messiae met qui 
similis est fontd et vitt, et cum revelatus fuertt eradicabtt multitudinem con- 
gregationis eius (the Latin of this book, it will be remembered, is Ceriani’s 
version from the Syriac, and not ancient like that of 4 Ezra). The object of 
the Messiah’s appearing is the same as with St. Paul, to deliver creation 
from its ills: 4 Ezra xiii. 26, 29 zpse est guem conservat Altissimus multis 


208 EPISTLE TO THE ΒΟΜΑΝΒ [VIII. 18-22. 


temporibus qui per semetipsum liberabit creaturam suam et ipse disponet 
gui derelictt sunt... ecce dies veniunt, quando tncipiet Altissimus liberare 
cos gui super terram sunt: Apoc. Bar. xxxii. 6 guando futurum est ut Fortis 
tnnovet creaturam suam (= 4 Ezra vii. 75 [Bensly] domec veniant tempora 
δα, in quibus incipies creaturam renovare). ‘The Messiah does not come 
alone: 4 Ezra xill. 51 nom poterit qguisque super lerram videre filium meum 
vel cos qui cum co sunt nisi in tempore diet. He collects round Him 
a double multitude, consisting partly of the ten tribes who had been carried 
away into captivity, and partly of those who were left in the Holy Land 
(δία. vv. 12, 39 ff., 48 f.). 


ἀπεκδέχεται : another strong compound, where ἀπο- contains the 
same idea of ‘ concentrated waiting’ as in ἀποκαραδοκία above. 

20. TH... ματαιότητι : ματαιότης ματαιοτήτων is the refrain of the 
Book of Ecclesiastes (Eccl. i. 2, &c.; cf. Ps, xxxix. 5, 11 [xxxviii. 6, 
12 | cxliv [cxliii]. 4): that is μάταιον which is ‘ without result’ (μάτην), 
‘ineffective,’ ‘which does not reach its end’—the opposite of 
τέλειος : the word is therefore appropriately used of the dsappointing 
character of present existence, which nowhere reaches the perfection 
of which it is capable. 

ὑπετάγη : by the Divine sentence which followed the Fall (Gen. 
ili, 17-19). 

οὐχ ἑκοῦσα : not through its own fault, but through the fault of 
man, i.e. the Fall. 

διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα : ‘by reason of Him who subjected it,’ i.e. not 
man in general (Lips.); nor Adam (Chrys. 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 διά with acc. in such a con- 
nexion is rather unusual (so Lips.). 

ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι qualifies ὑπετάγη. Creation was made subject to 
vanity—not simply and absolutely and there an end, but ‘in hope 
that,’ ἄς. Whatever the defects and degradation of nature, it was 
at least left with the hope of rising to the ideal intended for it. 

21. ὅτι. The majority of recent commentators make ὅτι (= ‘that’) 
define the substance of the hope just mentioned, and not (= ‘ be- 
cause’) give a reason for it. The meaning in any case is much 
the same, but this is the simpler way to arrive at it. 

καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις : not only Christians but even the mute creation 
with them. 

ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς. δουλείας corresponds to ὑπετάγη, the 
state of subjection or thraldom to dissolution and decay. The 
opposite to this is the full and free development of all the powers 
which attends the state of δόξα. ‘Glorious liberty’ is a poor 
translation and does not express the idea: δόξα, ‘ the glorified state,’ 
is the leading fact, not a subordinate fact, and ἐλευθερία is its 
characteristic, ‘ the liberty of the glory of the children of God.’ 

22. οἴδαμεν γάρ introduces a fact of common knowledge (though 


VIII. 22-24] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 209 


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

συστενάζει Kat συνωδίνει. It seems on the whole best to take the 
συν- in both instances as =‘ together,’ i.e. in all the parts of which 
creation is made up (so. Theod.-Mops. expressly: βούλεται δὲ 
εἰπεῖν ὃτι συμφώνως ἐπιδείκνυται τοῦτο πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις" ἵνα τὺ παρὰ πάσης 
τὸ αὐτὸ γένεσθαι ὁμοίως, παιδεύσῃ τούτους τὴν πρὸς ἅπαντας κοινωνίαν 
αἱρεῖσθαι Ty τῶν λυπηρῶν καρτερία). Oltr. gets out of it the sense of 
‘inwardly ’ {-Ξ ἐν éavrois), which it will not bear: Fri. Lips. and 
others, after Euthym.-Zig. make it = ‘wzth men’ or ‘ with the 
children of God’; but if these had been pointed to, there would 
not be so clear an opposition as there is at the beginning of the 
next verse (οὐ μόνον dé, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοί). The two verses must be 
kept apart. 

23. οὐ μόνον 8€. Not only does nature groan, but we Christians 
also groan: our very privileges make us long for something more. 

THY ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ Πνεύματος : ‘the first-fruits, or first instalment 
of the gift of the Spirit’ St. Paul evidently means all the 
phenomena of that great outpouring which was specially charac- 
teristic of the Apostolic Age from the Day of Pentecost onwards, 
the varied charzsmata bestowed upon the first Christians (1 Cor. 
xii. &c.), but including also the moral and spiritual gifts which were 
more permanent (Gal. v. 22f.). The possession of these gifts 
served to quicken the sense of the yet greater gifts that were to 
come. Foremost among them was to be the transforming of the 
earthly or ‘ psychical’ body into a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44 ff.). 
St. Paul calls this a ‘deliverance,’ i.e. a deliverance from the ‘ills 
that flesh is heir to’: for ἀπολύτρωσις see on iii. 24. 


ἔχοντες ἡμεῖς : ἡμεῖς is placed here by NAC 5. 47. 80, also by Tisch. 
RV. and (in brackets) by WH. 


υἱοθεσίαν : see on ver. 15 above. Here vioé. = the manifested, 
realized, act of adoption—its public promulgation. 

24. τῇ γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν. The older commentators for the 
most part (not however Luther Beng. Fri.) took the dat. here as 
dative of the instrument, ‘ by hope were we saved.’ Most moderns 
(including Gif. Go. Oltr. Mou. Lid.) take it as dat. modz, ‘in hope 
were we saved ;’ the main ground being that it is more in accord- 
ance with the teaching of St. Paul to say that we were saved dy 
faith, or from another point of view—looking at salvation from the 
side of God—éy grace (both terms are found in Eph. ii. 8) than dy 
hope. ‘This seems preferable. Some have held that Hope is here 
only an aspect of Faith: and it is quite true that the definition of 
Faith in Heb. xi. 1 (ἔστι δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων 
ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων), makes it practically equivalent to Hope. But 
that is just one of the points of distinction between Ep. to Heb. 

Ῥ 


210 EPISTLE TO THE ΕΟΜΑΝΒ [VIII. 24, 25. 


and St. Paul. In Heb. Faith is used somewhat vaguely of belief 
in God and in the fulfilment of His promises. In St. Paul it is far 
more often Faith 2 Christ, the first act of accepting Christianity 
(see p. 33 above). This belongs essentially to the past, and to the 
present as growing directly out of the past; but when St. Paul 
comes to speak of the future he uses another term, ἐλπίς, No 
doubt when we come to trace this to its origin it has its root in the 
strong conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus and its consequences ; 
but the two terms are not therefore identical, and it is best to 
keep them distinct. 

Some recent Germans (Holsten, Weiss, Lips.) take the dat. as 
dativus commodi, ‘for hope were we saved.’ But this is less 
natural. To obtain this sense we should have to personify Hope 
more strongly than the context will bear. Besides Hope is an 
attribute or characteristic of the Christian life, but not its end, 

ἐλπὶς δὲ βλεπομένη : ἐλπίς here = ‘the thing hoped for,’ just as 
κτίσις = ‘the thing created’; a very common usage. 


ὃ γὰρ βλέπει, τίς ἐλπίζει ; This terse reading is found only in B 47 marg., 
which adds τὸ παλαιὸν οὕτως Exe: it is adopted by RV. ¢ext, WH. text. 
Text. Recept. has [ὃ γὰρ βλέπει tis] τί καὶ [ἐλπίζει), of which τί alone is 
found in Western authorities (DFG, Vulg. Pesh. a/.), and καί alone in 
S*47*. Both RV. and WH. give a place in the margin to ri καὶ ἐλπίζει 
and ris καὶ ὑπομένει [ὑπομένει with N* A 47 marg.). 


45. The point of these two verses is that the attitude of hope, 
so distinctive of the Christian, implies that there is more in store 
for him than anything that is his already. 

Sv ὑπομονῆς: constancy and fortitude under persecution, &c., 
pointing back to the ‘ sufferings’ of ver. 18 (cf. on ii. 7; v. 4; and 
for the use of διά 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 Jewish 
literature. To all of it this idea of a renovation of Nature, the 
creation of new heavens and a new earth is common, as part of the 
Messianic expectation which was fulfilled unawares to many of 
those by whom it was entertained. The days of the Messiah were 
to be the ‘seasons of refreshing,’ the ‘times of restoration of all 
things,’ which were to come from the face of the Lord (Acts iii. 19, 
21). The expectation had its roots in the O.T., especially in 
those chapters of the Second Part of Isaiah in which the approach- 
ing Return from Captivity opens up to the prophet such splendid 
visions for the future. The one section Is. ἰχν. 17-25 might well 


VIII. 18--25. LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 11 


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. lxv. 17, and is found clearly stated in the Book of Exoch, 
xlv. 4f. ‘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 ἀποκάλυψις τῶν 
υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ: ‘In those days will the mountains leap like rams 
and the hills will skip like lambs satisfied with milk, and they will 
all become angels in heaven. Their faces will be lighted up 
with joy, because in those days the Elect One has appeared, and the 
earth will rejoice and the righteous will dwell upon it, and the elect 
will go to and fro upon it’ (Zvoch li. 4f.). We have given 
parallels enough from 4 Ezra and the Afocalypse of Baruch, and 
there is much in the Talmud to the same effect (cf. Weber, Adésyn. 
Theol. p. 380 ff.; Schiirer, Meutest. Zetigesch. ii. 453 ff, 458 £; 
Edersheim, Lzfe 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 Afoc. 
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. Τὶ our Lord’s words 
may have been defined in a sense which was not exactly that 
originally intended owing to the current expectation which the dis- 
ciples largely shared. 

And yet on the whole, even if this expectation was by the Jews 
to some extent literalized and materialized, some of its essential 
features were preserved. Corresponding to the new abode pre- 


212 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 26, 27. 


pared for it there was to be a renewed humanity: and that not 
only in a physical sense based on Is. xxxv. 5 f. (‘ Then the eyes of 
the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be un- 
stopped,’ &c.), but also in a moral sense; the root of evil was to be 
plucked out of the hearts of men and a new heart was to be im- 
planted in them: the Spirit of God was to rest upon them (Weber, 
Altsyn. Theol. p. 382). There was to be no unrighteousness in 
their midst, for they were all to be holy (Ps. So/. xvii. 28 f., 36, 
&c.). The Messiah was to rule over the nations, but not merely by 
force ; Israel was to be atrue light to the Gentiles (Schiirer, of. 
cit. p. 456). 

2f we compare these Jewish beliefs with what we find here in the 
Epistle to the Romans there are two ways in which the superiority 
of the Apostle is most striking. (1) There runs through his words 
an intense sympathy with nature in and for itself. He is one of 
those (like St. Francis of Assisi) to whom it is given to read as it 
were the thoughts of plants and animals. He seems to lay his ear 
to the earth and the confused murmur which he hears has a meaning 
for him: it is creation’s yearning for that happier state intended for 
it and of which it has been defrauded. (2) The main idea is not, 
as it is so apt to be with the Rabbinical writers, the mere glorifica- 
tion of Israel. By them the Gentiles are differently treated. 
Sometimes it is their boast that the Holy Land will be reserved 
exclusively for Israel: ‘the sojourner and the stranger shall dwell 
with them no more’ (Ps. Sol. xvii. 31). The only place for the 
Gentiles is ‘to serve him beneath the yoke’ (zdzd. ver. 32). The 
vision of the Gentiles streaming to Jerusalem as a centre of religion 
is exceptional, as it must be confessed that it is also in O.T. 
Prophecy. On the other hand, with St. Paul the movement is 
truly cosmic. The ‘sons of God’ are not selected for their own 
sakes alone, but their redemption means the redemption of a world 
of being besides themselves. 


THE ASSISTANCE OF THE SPIRIT. 


VIII. 26, 27. Meanwhile the Holy Spirit itself assists tn 
Our prayers. 


2 Nor are we alone in our struggles. The Holy Spirit sup- 
perts our helplessness. Left to ourselves we do not know what 
prayers to offer or how to offer them. But in those inarticulate 
groans which rise from the depths of our being, we recognize the 
voice of none other than the Holy Spirit. He makes intercession ; 


VIII. 26.] 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. ὡσαύτως. As we groan, so also does the Holy Spirit groan 
with us, putting a meaning into our aspirations which they would 
not have of themselves. All alike converges upon that ‘ Divine 
event, to which the whole creation moves.’ This view of the 
connexion (Go., Weiss, Lips.), which weaves in this verse with 
the broad course of the Apostle’s argument, seems on the whole 
better than that which attaches it more closely to the words im- 
mediately preceding, ‘as hope sustains us so also does the Spirit 
sustain us’ (Mey. Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou.). 

συναντιλαμβάνεται : ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι =‘to take hold of at the 
side (ἀντί), so as to support’; and this sense is further strength- 
ened by the idea of association contained in συν--. The same 
compound occurs in LXX of Ps. Ixxxviii [Ixxxix]. 22, and in 
Luke x. 40. 

τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ : decisively attested for ταῖς ἀσθενείαις. 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 δι᾿ ὑπομονῆς. But as ὑπομονή 
suggests rather a certain amount of victorious resistance, this appli- 
cation of ἀσθένεια seems less appropriate. 

τὸ yap τί προσευξώμεθα. The art. makes the whole clause object 
of οἴδαμεν. 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; 1 Thess. iv. 1). τί προσευξ. 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. 

καθὸ Set. 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 καθό (cf. Baruch i. 6 v.1.) at the cost of putting 
a sense upon δεῖ which is not found elsewhere in the Ν. Τὶ, where 
it always denotes obligation or objective necessity. Those of the 
Fathers who show how they took it make καθὸ δεῖ = τίνα τρόπον 
δεῖ mpooev&., which also answers well to κατὰ Θεόν in the next 
verse. 

ὑπερεντυγχάνει : ἐντυγχάνω 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 ΕΟΜΑΝΒ [VIII. 26-29. 


speech may well lay to heart, that all prayer need not be formu- 
lated, but that the most inarticulate desires (springing from a right 
motive) may have a shape and a value given to them beyond 
anything that is present and definable to the consciousness. This 
verse and the next go to show that St. Paul regarded the action of 
the Holy Spirit as personal, and as distinct from the action of the 
Father. The language of the Creeds aims at taking account of 
these expressions, which agree fully with the triple formula of 
2 Cor. xili. 14; Matt. xxviii. 19. Oltr. however makes τὸ πνεῦμα in 
both verses = ‘the human spirit, against the natural sense of 
ὑπερεντυγχάνει and ὑπὲρ ἁγίων, which place the object of intercession 
outside the Spirit itself, and against κατὰ Θεόν, which would be by 
no means always true of the human spirit. 


ὑπερεντυγχάνει is decisively attested (NFABDFG &c.). Text. Recept. 
has the easier ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. 


27. ὅτι. Are we to translate this ‘ because’ (Weiss Go. Gif. Va.) 
or ‘that’ (Mey. Oltr. Lips. Mou.)? Probably the latter; for if we 
take ὅτε as assigning a reason for vide τί τὸ φρόνημα, the reason would 
not be adequate: God would still ‘know’ the mind, or intention, 
of the Spirit even if we could conceive it as not xara Gedy and 
not ὑπὲρ ἁγίων. It seems best therefore to make ὅτε describe the 
nature of the Spirit’s intercession. 

κατὰ Θεόν = κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ: cf. 2 Cor. vii. gQ—11. 


The Jews had a strong belief in the value of the intercessory prayer of 
their great saints, such as Moses (Ass. Moys. xi. 11, 17; xii. 6), Jeremiah 
(Apoc. Bar. ii. 2): cf. Weber, p. 287 ff. But they "have nothing like the 
teaching of these verses. 


THE ASCENDING PROCESS OF SALVATION. 


VIII. 28-30. With what a chain of Providential care 
does God accompany the course of His chosen! In eternity, 
the plan laid and their part in it foreseen; in time, first 
their call, then their acquittal, and finally their reception 
into glory. 

** Yet another ground of confidence. The Christian knows that 
all things (including his sufferings) can have but one result, and 
that a good one, for those who love God and respond to the call 
which in the pursuance of His purpose He addresses to them. 
9 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 thar 
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. οἴδαμεν δέ passes on to another ground for looking con- 
fidently to the future. The Christian’s career mus/ have a good 
ending, because at every step in it he is in the hands of God and is 
carrying out the Divine purpose. 

πάντα συνεργεῖ : a small but important group of authorities, A B, 
Orig. 2/6 or 2/7 (cf. Boh. Sah. Aeth.), adds ὁ Θεός ; 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 συνεργεῖ must be taken transitively, ‘causes all things 
to work.’ 


The Bohairic Version, translated literally and preserving the idioms, is ‘ But 
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 Sahidic 
Version (as edited by Amélineau in Zettschrift fiir Aegypt. Sprache, 1887) 
is in part defective but certainly repeats @eés: ‘ But we know that those who 
love God, God... them in every good thing,’ &c. From this we gather 
that the Version of Upper Egypt inserted ὁ Θεός, and that the Version of 
Lower Egypt omitted it but interpreted συνεργεῖ transitively as if it were 
present. It would almost seem as if there was an exegetical tradition which 
took the word in this way. It is true that the extract from Origen’s Com- 
mentary in the //z/ocalia (ed. Robinson, p. 226 ff.) not only distinctly and 
repeatedly presents the common reading but also in one place (p. 229) clearly 
has the common interpretation. But Chrysostom (ad doc.) argues at some 
length as if he were taking συνεργεῖ transitively with ὁ @eds for subject. 
Similarly Gennadius (in Cramer’s Catena), also Theodoret and Theodorus 
Monachus (preserved in the Catena). It would perhaps be too much to 
claim all these writers as witnesses to the reading συνεργεῖ ὁ Θεός, but they 
may point to a tradition which had its origin in that reading and survived it. 
On the other hand it is possible that the reading may have grown out of the 
interpretation. 

For the use of συνεργεῖ there are two rather close parallels in Zest. Χ 72 
Patr.: Issach. 3 ὁ Θεὸς συνεργεῖ τῇ ἁπλύτητί pov, and Gad 4 τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα 
τοῦ μίσους... συνεργεῖ τῷ Σατανᾷ ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς θάνατον τῶν ἀνθρῴπων᾽ τὸ δὲ 
πνεῦμα τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν μακροθυμίᾳ συνεργεῖ τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς σωτηρίαν 
ἀνθρώπων. 


τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν. With this clause St. Paul in- 
troduces a string of what may be called the technical terms of his 


216 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 28. 


theology, marking the succession of stages into which he divides 
the normal course of a Christian life—all being considered not 
from the side of human choice and volition, but from the side of 
Divine care and ordering. This is summed up at the outset in the 
phrase κατὰ πρόθεσιν, the comprehensive plan or design in accord- 
ance with which God directs the destinies of men. There can be 
no question that St. Paul fully recognizes the freedom of the human 
will. The large part which exhortation plays in his letters is con- 
clusive proof of this. But whatever the extent of human freedom 
there must be behind it the Divine Sovereignty. It is the practice 
of St. Paul to state alternately the one and the other without 
attempting an exact delimitation between them. And what he has 
not done we are not likely to succeed in doing. In the passage 
before us the Divine Sovereignty is in view, not on its terrible but 
on its gracious side. It is the proof how ‘ God worketh all things 
for good to those who love Him.’ We cannot insist too strongly 
upon this; but when we leave the plain declarations of the Apostle 
and begin to draw speculative inferences on the right hand or on 
the left we may easily fall into cross currents which will render any 
such inferences invalid. See further the note on Free-Will and 
Predestination at the end of ch. xi. 

In further characterizing ‘those who love God’ St. Paul na- 
turally strikes the point at which their love became manifest by the 
acceptance of the Divine Call. This call is one link in the chain 
of Providential care which attends them: and it suggests the other 
links which stretch far back into the past and far forward into the 
future. By enumerating these the Apostle completes his proof 
that the love of God never quits His chosen ones. 

The enumeration follows the order of succession in time. 

For πρόθεσις see on ch. ix. 11 ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
which would prove, if proof were needed, that the purpose is that 
of God and not of man (κατ᾽ οἰκείαν προαίρεσιν Theoph. and the 
Greek Fathers generally): comp. also Eph. i. 11; iii. 11; 2 Tim. 
i. Q. 

It was one of the misfortunes of Greek theology that it received a bias in 

the Free-Will controversy from opposition to the Gnostics (cf. p. 269 27.) 

which it never afterwards lost, and which seriously prejudiced its exegesis 

wherever this question was concerned. Thus in the present instance, the great 
mass of the Greek commentators take κατὰ πρόθεσιν to mean ‘in accordance 
with the man’s own προαίρεσις or free act of choice’ (see the extracts in 

Cramer’s Catena ‘e cod. Monac.’; and add Theoph. Oecum. Euthym.-Zig.). 

The two partial exceptions are, as we might expect, Origen and Cyril of 

Alexandria, who however both show traces of the influences current in the 

Eastern Church. Origen also seems inclined to take it of the propositum 

bonum et bonam voluntatem quam circa Dei cultum gerunt; but he admits 

the alternative that it may refer to the purpose of God. If so, it refers to 
this purpose as determined by His foreknowledge of the characters and 


conduct of men. Cyril of Alexandria asks the question, Whose purpose is 
intended? and decides that it would not be wrong to answer τήν τε τοῦ 


VIII. 28, 29.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 217 


κεκληκότος καὶ τὴν ἑαυτῶν. He comes to this decision however rather on 
dogmatic than on exegetical grounds. 

It is equally a straining of the text when Augustine distinguishes two kinds 
of call, one secundum propositum, the call of the elect, and the other of those 
who are not elect. Von enim omnes vocati secundum propositum sunt 
vocati: quoniam multi vocati, pauct electi. Tpsi ergo secundum propositum 
vocati qui electi ante constitutionem mund? (Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. ii. το. 
§ 22, cf. Cont. Julian. v. 6, § 14). In the idea of a double call, Augustine 
seems to have been anticipated by Origen, who however, as we have seen, 
gives a different sense to κατὰ πρόθεσιν : omnes quidem vocati sunt, non tamen 
omnes secundum propositum vocaté sunt (ed. Lomm. vii. 128). 


κλητοῖς : ‘called,’ implying that the call has been obeyed. The 
κλῆσις is not au salut (Oltr.), at least in the sense of final salva- 
tion, but simply to become Christians: see on i. I. 

29. St: certainly here ‘because,’ assigning a reason for πάντα 
συνεργεῖ ὁ Θεὸς εἰς ἀγαθόν, not ‘that’ (= c’est gue Oltr.). 

ols προέγνω. 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 (γιγνώσκει) the way of the 
righteous’; cxliv [cxliii]. 3 ‘Lord, what is man that Thou takest 
knowledge of him (ὅτι ἐγνώσθης αὐτῷ LXX)? Or the son of man 
that Thou makest account of him?’ Hos. xiii. 5 ‘I did know 
(ἐποίμαινον) thee in the wilderness.’ Am. iii. 2 ‘You only have 
I known (ἔγνων) of all the families of the earth.’ Matt. vii. 23 
‘Then will I profess unto them I never knew (ἔγνων) you,’ &c. 
In all these places the word means ‘to take note of,’ ‘to fix the 
regard upon,’ as a preliminary to selection for some especial pur- 
pose. The compound προέγνω 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 very similar to that of Godet and which 
approaches, though it is not exactly identical with, that of a number of older 
commentators, who make προέγνω = praediligere, approbare) has the double 
advantage of being strictly conformed to Biblical usage and of reading 
nothing into the word which we are not sure is there. This latter objection 
applies to most other ways of taking the passage: e.g. to Origen’s, when he 
makes the foreknowledge a foreknowledge of character and fitness, mpoava- 
τενίσας οὖν ὁ Θεὸς τῷ εἱρμῷ τῶν ἐσομένων, καὶ κατανοήσας ῥοπὴν τοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν 
τῶνδέ τινων ἐπὶ εὐσέβειαν καὶ ὁρμὴν ἐπὶ ταύτην μετὰ τὴν ῥοπήν κ.τ.λ. 
(Philocal. xxv. 2. p. 227, ed. Robinson; the comment ad /oc. is rather nearer 
the mark, cognovisse suos dicttur, hoc est in dilectione habutsse sibique 
Sociasse, but there too is added sczems quales essent). Cyril of Alexandria 
(and after him Meyer) supplies from what follows προεγνώσθησαν ws ἔσονται 
σύμμορφοι τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, but this belongs properly only to 
προώρισε. Widest from the mark are those who, like Calvin, look beyond 
the immediate choice to final salvation: Dez autem praecognitio, cuius hic 
Paulus memintt, non nuda est praesctentia...sed adoptio qua filios suos 
ὦ reprobis semper discrevit. On the other hand, Gif. keeps closely to the 
context in explaining, ‘‘‘ Foreknew”’ as the individual objects of His purpose 
(πρόθεσις) 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 of γιγνώσκω. 


218 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [ὙΠ]. 29, 30. 


καὶ mpodpice. The Apostle overleaps for the moment inter- 
mediate steps and carries the believer onward to the final con- 
summation of God’s purpose in respect to him. This is exactly 
defined as ‘ conformity to the image of His Son.’ 

συμμόρφους denotes inward and thorough and not merely super- 
ficial likeness. 

τῆς εἰκόνος. As the Son is the image of the Father (2 Cor. iv. 
4; Col. i. 15), so the Christian is to reflect the image of His 
Lord, passing through a gradual assimilation of mind and character 
to an ultimate assimilation of His δόξα, the absorption of the 
splendour of His presence. 

εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. As the final 
cause of all things is the glory of God, so the final cause of the 
Incarnation and of the effect of the Incarnation upon man is that 
the Son may be surrounded by a multitude of the redeemed. 
These He vouchsafes to call His ‘brethren.’ They are a ‘family,’ 
the entrance into which is through the Resurrection. As Christ 
was the first to rise, He is the ‘ Eldest-born’ (πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν 
νεκρῶν, iva γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων Col. i. 18). This is 
different from the ‘first-born of all creation’ (Col. i. 15). mpwro- 
τοκος is a metaphorical expression ; the sense of which is determined 
by the context; in Col. i. 15 it is relative to creation, here it is 
relative to the state to which entrance is through the Resurrection 
(see Lightfoot’s note on the passage in Col.). 

80. ods δὲ προώρισε κιτλ. Having taken his readers to the end 
of the scale, the δόξα in which the career of the Christian cul- 
minates, the Apostle now goes back and resolves the latter part of 
the process into its subdivisions, of which the landmarks are 
ἐκάλεσεν, ἐδικαίωσεν, ἐδύξασε. These are not quite exhaustive: 
ἡγίασεν might have been inserted after ἐδικαίωσεν ; but it is suffi- 
ciently implied as a consequence of ἐδικαίωσεν and a necessary 
condition of ἐδόξασε: in pursuance of the Divine purpose that 
Christians should be conformed to Christ, the first step is the call; 
this brings with it, when it is obeyed, the wiping out of past sins, 
or justification; and from that there is a straight course to the 
crowning with Divine glory. ἐκάλεσεν and ἐδικαίωσεν are both 
naturally in the aorist tense as pointing to something finished 
and therefore past: ἐδόξασεν is not strictly either finished or past, 
but it is attracted into the same tense as the preceding verbs; an 
attraction which is further justified by the fact that, though not 
complete in its historical working out, the step implied in ἐδόξασεν 
is both complete and certain in the Divine counsels. To God 
there is neither ‘ before nor atter.’ 


VIII. 31-39. | LIFE 1N THE SPIRIT 219 


THE PROOFS AND ASSURANCE OF DIVINE LOVE. 


VIII. 31-39. With the proofs of God's love before him, 
the Christian has nothing to fear. God, the Fudge, 1s on 
his side, and the ascended Christ intercedes for him 
(vv. 31-34). 

The love of God in Christ is so strong that earthly 
sufferings and persecutions—nay, all forms and phases of 
being—are powerless to intercept it, or to bar the Christian's 


triumph (vv. 35-39)> 


81 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? ὅ3 Where shall accusers be found 
against those whom God has chosen? When God pronounces 
righteous, * who shall condemn? For us Christ has died; I should 
say rather rose again; and not only rose but sits enthroned at 
His Father’s side, and there pleads continually for us. *° His love 
is our security. And that love is so strong that nothing on earth 
can come between us and it. The sea of troubles that a Christian 
has to face, hardship and persecution of every kind, are powerless 
against it; ν᾽ though the words of the Psalmist might well be 
applied to us, in which, speaking of the faithful few in his own 
generation, he described them as ‘for God’s sake butchered all 
day long, treated like sheep in the shambles.’ *’ We too are no 
better than they. And yet, crushed and routed as we may seem, 
the love of Christ crowns us with surpassing victory. **For I am 
convinced that no form or phase of being, whether abstract or 
personal ; not life or its negation; not any hierarchy of spirits; no 
dimension of time; no supernatural powers; “no dimension of 
space ; no world of being invisible to us now,—will ever come 
between us and the love which God has brought so near to us in 
Jesus Messiah our Lord. 


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


82. ὅς ye τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο. A number of emphatic 
expressions are crowded together in this sentence: ὅς γε, ‘the same 
God who’; τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ, ‘His own Son,’ partaker of His own 
nature; οὐκ ἐφείσατο, the word which is used of the offering of 
Isaac in Gen. xxii. 16, and so directly recalls that offering—the 
greatest sacrifice on record. For the argument comp. v. 6-10. 

83-35. The best punctuation of these verses is that which is 
adopted in RV. fexf (so also Orig. Chrys. Theodrt. Mey. ΕἸ]. 
Gif. Va. Lid.). There should not be more than a colon between 
the clauses Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν ; God is conceived of as 
Judge: where He acquits, who can condemn? Ver. 34 is then 
immediately taken up by ver. 35: Christ proved His love by dying 
for us; who then shall part us from that love? The Apostle 
clearly has in his mind Is. l. 8, 9 ‘ He is near that justifieth men ; 
who will contend with me?... Behold, the Lord God will help 
me; who is he that shall condemn me?’ This distinctly favours 
the view that each affirmation is followed by a question relating to 
that affirmation. The phrases 6 κατακρινῶν and ὁ δικαιῶν form 
a natural antithesis, which it is wrong to break up by putting a full 
stop between them and taking one with what precedes, the other 
with what follows. 


On the view taken above, Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν and Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἀποθανών 
are both answers to τίς ἐγκαλέσει; and τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν ; τίς ἡμᾶς xwpice; 
are subordinate questions, suggested in the one case by δικαιῶν, in the other 
by ἐντ. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. We observe also that on this view ver. 35 is closely 
linked to ver. 34. The rapid succession of thought which is thus obtained, 
each step leading on to the next, is in full accordance with the spirit of the 
passage. 

Another way of taking it is to put a full stop at δικαιῶν, and to make τίς 
ἔγκαλέσει; Tis 6 κατακρινῶν ; two distinct questions with wholly distinct 
answers. So Fri. Lips. Weiss Oltr. Go. Others again (RV. marg. Beng. 
De W. Mou.) make all the clauses questions (Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν ; ἐντυγχ. ὑπὲρ 
jjuav;) But these repeated challenges do not give such a nervous concatena- 
tion of reasoning. 


33. τίς ἐγκαλέσει ; another of the forensic terms which are so 
common in this Epistle ; ‘Who shall impeach such as are elect of 
God?’ 

ἐκλεκτῶν. We have already seen (note on i. r) that with 
St. Paul κλητοί and ἐκλεκτοί are not opposed to each other (as they 
are in Matt. xxii. 14) but are rather to be identified. By reading 
into «Anroi the implication that the call is accepted, St. Paul shows 
that the persons of whom this is true are also objects of God’s 
choice. By both terms St. Paul designates not those who are de- 
stined for final salvation, but those who are ‘summoned’ or ‘ se- 
lected’ for the privilege of serving God and carrying out His will. 
If their career runs its normal course it must issue in salvation, 
the ‘glory’ reserved for them; this lies as it were at the end of 


ΨΙΙ11. 83-36. | LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 221 


the avenue; but ἐκλεκτῶν 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. 

κατακρίνων : κατακρινῶν RV. text Mou. This is quite possible, but δικαιῶν 
suggests the present. 

84. Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς NACFGL, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Did. 
Aug.: Χριστός (om. Ἰησοῦ) BDEK &c., Syrr., Cyr.-Jerus, Chrys. a. 
Another instance of B in alliance with authorities otherwise Western and 
Syrian. WH. bracket Ἰησ. 

ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν N* AC al. plur., RV. WH!: om. ἐς νεκρῶν N° BDE 
FGKL &c., Ti. WH?. The group which inserts ἐκ νεκρῶν is practically 
the same as that which inserts Ἰησοῦς above. 
ὃς καί. Stroke follows stroke, each driving home the last. ‘It 

is Christ who died—nay rather (zmmo vero) rose from the dead— 
who (καί should be omitted here) is at the right hand of God—who 
also intercedes for us.’ It is not a dead Christ on whom we depend, 
but a living. It is not only a living Christ, but a Christ enthroned, 
a Christ in power. It is not only a Christ in power, but a Christ 
of ever-active sympathy, constantly (if we may so speak) at the 
Father’s ear, and constantly pouring in intercessions for His 
struggling people on earth. A great text for the value and 
significance of the Ascension (cf. Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 67 f.). 

35. ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Χριστοῦ. There is an alternative reading 
τοῦ Θεοῦ for which the authorities are δὴ B, Orig. (1/3 doubtfully in 
the Greek, but 6/7 in Rufinus’ Latin translation); Eus. 4/6; Bas. 
2/6; Hil. 1/2 and some others. RV. WH. note this reading in 
marg. But of the authorities B Orig.-lat. 2/7 read in full ἀπὸ τῆς 
ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, which is obviously taken from 
ver. 39. Even in its simpler form the reading is open to suspicion 
of being conformed to that verse: to which however it may be 
replied that Χριστοῦ may also be a correction from the same source. 
On the whole Χριστοῦ seems more probable, and falls in better with 
the view maintained above of the close connexion of vv. 34, 35. 

‘The love of Christ’ is unquestionably ‘the love of Christ for 
us,’ not our love for Christ: cf. v. 5. 

θλῖψις κιτλ. We have here a splendid example of καύχησις ἐν 
ταῖς θλίψεσιν οἵ 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 θλίψις ἢ στενοχωρία see ii. 9; for 
διωγμός cf. 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff., 32 f.; xii. το, &c.; for λιμὸς ἢ γυμνότης, 
1 Cor. iv. 11; 2 Cor. xi. 27; for κίνδυνος 2 Cor. xi. 26; 1 Cor 
XV. 30. 

36. ὅτι ἕνεκά σου. The quotation is exact from LXX of Ps. 
xliv [xliii]. 23: ὅτε belongs to it. 

ἕνεκεν is decisively attested here: in the Psalm B has ἕνεκα, NAT ἕνεκεν, 
where there is a presumption against the reading of B. 


222 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS | VIII. 36-38. 


θανατούμεθα ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν: cf. x Cor. xv. 31 καθ᾽ ἡμέραν 
ἱποθνήσκω: ‘tota die, hoc est, omni vtlae meae tempore’ Orig. 

πρόβατα σφαγῆς : sheep destined for slaughter; cf. Zech. xi. 4 
ra πρόβατα τῆς σφαγῆς (cf. Jer. xii. 3 πρόβατα eis σφαγήν Cod. Marchal. 
marg.). 


The Latin texts of this verse are marked and characteristic. Tertullian, 
Scorp.13 Tua causa mortificamur tota die, deputati sumus ut pecora iugu- 
lationts. Cyprian, Jes? iii. 18 (the true text; cf. Hpzst. xxxi. 4) Causa tui 
occtdimur tota die, deputati sumus ut oves victimae. Hilary of Poitiers, 
Tract. in Ps. exviii. (ed. Zingerle, p. 429) Propter te mortificamur tota die, 
deputati sumus sicut oves occisionis. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 11. xxii. 2 
Latine; cf. lV. xvi. 2) Propter te morte afficimur tota die, aestimatt sumus 
ut oves occtstonis. (Similarly Cod. Clarom. Speculum Augustini, codd. ML) 
Vulgate (Cod. Amiat.) Propter te mortificamur tota die, aestimati sumus 
ut oves occisionts. Here two types of text stand out clearly: that of Cyprian 
at one end of the scale, and that of the Vulgate (with which we may group 
Tren.-lat. Cod. Clarom. and the Sfeculum) at the other. Hilary stands 
between, having defutati 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 Zua causa and deputati, and the 
Vulgate group in mortificamur: in pecora iugulationts he stands alone. 
This passage might seem to favour the view that in Tertullian we had the 
primitive text from which all the rest were derived. That hypothesis how- 
ever would be difficult to maintain systematically; and in any case there 
must be a large element in Tertullian’s text which is simply individual. 
The text before us may be said to give a glimpse of the average position of 
a problem which is still some way from solution. 


87. ὑπερνικῶμεν. Tertullian and Cyprian represent this by the 
coinage supervincimus (Vulg. Cod. Clarom. Hil. superamus) ; ‘ over- 
come strongly’ Tyn.; ‘are more than conquerors’ Genev., happily 
adopted in AV. 

διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος ἡμᾶς points back to τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Χριστοὺ 
in ver. 35. 

38. οὔτε ἄγγελοι οὔτε ἀρχαί. ‘And He will call on all the host 
of the heavens and all the holy ones above, and the host of God, 
the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim, and all the angels of 
power, and all the angels of principalities, and the Elect One, and 
the other powers on the earth, over the water, on that day’ Enoch 
Ixi. ro. St. Paul from time to time makes use of similar Jewish 
designations for the hierarchy of angels: so in 1 Cor. xv. 24; 
Eph. i. 21 ἀρχή, ἐξουσία, δύναμις, κυριότης, πᾶν ὄνομα ὀνομαζόμενον : 
iii, 10; vi. 12; Col. i. 16 (θρόνοι, κυριότητες, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι) ; il. 10, 
15. The whole world of spirits is summed up in Phil. ii. ro as 
ἐπουράνιοι, ἐπιγεῖοι, καταχθόνιοι. It is somewhat noticeable that whereas 
the terms used are generally abstract, in several places they are 
made still more abstract by the use of the sing. instead of plur., 
ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν 8 Cor. XV. 
24; ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας «tA. Eph. i. 21; ἡ κεφαλὴ 
πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας Col. ii. το. 


VIII. 88, 39.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 222 


It is also true (as pointed out by Weiss, 2212]. Theol. ὃ 104; 
Anm. 1. 2) that the leading passages in which St. Paul speaks of 
angels are those in which his language aims at embracing the 
whole κόσμος. He is very far from a θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων such as he 
protests against in the Church at Colossae (Col. ii. 18). At the 
same time the parallels which have been given (see also below 
under δυνάμεις) are enough to show that the Apostle must not be 
separated from the common beliefs of his countrymen. He held 
that there was a world of spirits brought into being like the rest of 
creation by Christ (Col. i. 16). These spirits are ranged in 
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 ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ 
πάντα εἰς αὐτόν... εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ THs γῆς εἴτε Ta ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). There 
is a sense in which the Death on the Cross is a triumph over them 
(Col. ii. 15). They too must acknowledge the universal sovereignty 
of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 24; cf. Eph. i. ro); and they form part of 
that kingdom which He hands over to the Father, that ‘God may 
be all in all’ (x Cor. xv. 28). On the whole subject see Everling, 
Die paulinische Angelologie u. Démonologie, Gottingen, 1888. 

For ἄγγελοι the Western text (Ὁ EF ἃ, Ambrstr. Aug. Amb.) has 
ἄγγελος. There is also a tendency in the Western and later authorities to 


insert οὔτε ἐξουσίαι before or after ἀρχαί, obviously from the parallel passages 
in which the words occur together. 


οὔτε δυνάμεις. There is overwhelming authority (δὲ A BCD ἄς.) 
for placing these words after οὔτε μέλλοντα. We naturally expect 
them to be associated with ἀρχαί, as in 1 Cor. xv. 243; Eph. i. 21. 
It is possible that in one of the earliest copies the word may have 
been accidentally omitted, and then added in the margin and re- 
inserted at the wrong place. We seem to have a like primitive 
corruption in ch. iv. 12 (τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν). But it is perhaps more 
probable that in the rush of impassioned thought St. Paul inserts 
the words as they come, and that thus οὔτε δυνάμεις may be slightly 
belated. It has been suggested that St. Paul takes alternately 
animate existences and inanimate. When not critically controlled, 
the order of association is a very subtle thing. 

For the word compare ‘the angels of power’ and ‘the other powers on 
the earth’ in the passage from the Book of Enoch quoted above; also Zest. 
XII Patr. Levi 3 ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ (sc. οὐρανῷ) εἰσὶν αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν παρεμβολῶν, 
οἱ ταχθέντες εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως, ποιῆσαι ἐκδίκησιν ἐν τοῖς πνεύμασι τῆς πλάνης 
καὶ τοῦ Βελίαρ. 

39. οὔτε ὕψωμα οὔτε βάθος. Lips. would give to the whole 
context a somewhat more limited application than is usually 
assigned to it. He makes οὔτε ἐνεστ. . . βάθος all refer to angelic 
powers: ‘neither now nor at the end of life (when such spirits 
were thought to be most active) shall the spirits either of the 


114 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 38. 


height or from the depth bar our entrance into the next world, 
where the love of Christ will be still nearer to us.’ This is also 
the view of Origen (see below). But it is quite in the manner of 
St. Paul to personify abstractions, and the sense attached to them 
cannot well be too large: cf. esp. Eph. iii. 18 τί τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος 
καὶ ὕψος καὶ βάθος, and 2 Cor. x. 5 πᾶν ὕψωμα ἐπαιρόμενον κατὰ τῆς 
γνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


The common patristic explanation of ὕψωμα is ‘things above the heavens,’ 
and of βάθος, ‘things beneath the earth.’ Theod. Monach. ὕψωμα μὲν τὰ 
ἄγαν éridofa, βάθος δὲ τὰ ἄγαν ἄδοξα. Theodoret βάθος δὲ τὴν γέενναν, 
ὕψωμα τὴν βασιλείαν. Origen (in Cramer’s Catena) explains ὕψωμα of the 
‘spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly, places’ (Eph. vi. 12), and 
βάθος of τὰ καταχθόνια. The expanded version of Rufinus approaches still 
more nearly to the theory of Lipsius: S¢mz/iter et altitudo et profundum 
impugnant nos, sicut et David dicit multi qui debellant me de alto: sine 
dubio cum a spiritibus nequitiae de caelestibus urgeretur: et sicut tterum 
dicit: de profundis clamavi ad te, Domine: cum ab his qué in inferno 
deputati sunt et gehennae spiritibus impugnaretur. 


οὔτε τις κτίσις ἑτέρα. The use of ἑτέρα and not ἄλλη seems to 
favour the view that this means not exactly ‘any other created 
thing ’ but ‘ any other kind of creation,’ ‘any other mode of being,’ 
besides those just enumerated and differing from the familiar world 
as we see it. 


Origen (in Cramer) would like to take the passage in this way. He asks 
if there may not be another creation besides this visible one, ‘in its nature 
visible though not as yet seen’—a description which might seem to anticipate 
the discoveries of the microscope and telescope. Comp. Balfour, Foundations 
of Belief, p. 71 f. ‘It is impossible therefore to resist the conviction that 
there must be an indefinite number of aspects of Nature respecting which 
science never can give us any information, even in our dreams. We must 
conceive ourselves as feeling our way about this dim corner of the illimit- 
able world, like children in a darkened room, encompassed by we know 
not what; a little better endowed with the machinery of sensation than the 
protozoon, yet poorly provided indeed as compared with a being, if such 
a one could be conceived, whose senses were adequate to the infinite variety 
of material Nature.’ 


ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. This is the full 
Christian idea. The love of Christ is no doubt capable of being 
isolated and described separately (2 Cor. v. 14; Eph. ili. 19), but 
the love of Christ is really a manifestation of the love of God. 
A striking instance of the way in which the whole Godhead 
co-operates in this manifestation is ch. v. 5-8: the love of God 
is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, because Christ 
died for us; and God commends His love because Christ died. 
The same essential significance runs through this section (note 


esp. W. 31-35, 39). 


ΙΧ. 1-5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL’ 245 


THE APOSTLE’S SORROW OVER ISRAEL’S UNBELIEF. 


IX. 1-5. The thought of this magnificent prospect fills 
me with sorrow for those who seem to be excluded from 1t— 
my own countrymen for whom I would willingly sacrifice 
my dearest hopes—excluded too in spite of all their special 
privileges and their high destiny. 


" How glorious the prospect of the life in Christ ! How mournful 
the thought of those who are cut off from it! There is no 
shadow of falsehood in the statement I am about to make. As 
one who has his life in Christ I affirm a solemn truth; and my 
conscience, speaking under the direct influence of God’s Holy 
Spirit, bears witness to my sincerity. *There is one grief that 
I cannot shake off, one distressing weight that lies for ever at my 
heart. * Like Moses when he came down from the mount, the prayer 
has been in my mind: Could I by the personal sacrifice of my 
own salvation for them, even by being cut off from all communion 
with Christ, in any way save my own countrymen? Are they not 
my own brethren, my kinsmen as far as earthly relationship is 
concerned? ‘Are they not God’s own privileged people? They 
bear the sacred name of Israel with all that it implies; it is they 
whom He declared to be His ‘son,’ His ‘ firstborn’ (Exod. iv. 22); 
their temple has been illuminated by the glory of the Divine 
presence; they are bound to Him by a series of covenants re- 
peatedly renewed; to them He gave a system of law on Mount 
Sinai; year after year they have offered up the solemn worship of 
the temple ; they have been the depositories of the Divine promises ; 
‘their ancestors are the patriarchs, who were accounted righteous 
before God ;.from them in these last days has come the Messiah 
as regards his natural descent—that Messiah who although sprung 
from a human parent is supreme over all things, none other than 
God, the eternal object of human praise! 


IX-XTI. St. Paul has now finished his main argument. He 
has expounded his conception of the Gospel. But there still 
remains a difficulty which could not help suggesting itself to 
every thoughtful reader, and which was continually being raised 
by one class of Christians at the time when he wrote. How is 
this new scheme of righteousness and salvation apart from law 


Q 


226 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (1x. 1. 


consistent with the privileged position of the Jews? They had 
been the chosen race (we find St. Paul enumerating their privileges), 
through them the Messiah had come, and yet it appeared they 
would be rejected if they would not accept this new righteousness 
by faith. How is this consistent with the justice of God? 

The question has been continually in the Apostle’s mind. It 
has led him to emphasize more than once the fact that the new 
εὐαγγέλιον if for both Jew and Greek, is yet for the Jew first (i. 16; 
ii. 9). It has led him to lay great stress on the fact that the Jews 
especially had sinned (ii. 17). Once indeed he has begun to 
discuss it directly (iii. 1); ‘What advantage then is there in being 
a Jew?’ but he postponed it for a time, feeling that it was necessary 
first to complete his main argument. He has dwelt on the fact 
that the new way of salvation can be proved from the Old Testa- 
ment (chap. iv). Now he is at liberty to discuss in full the question: 
How is this conception of Christ’s work consistent with the fact of 
the rejection of the Jews which it seems to imply? 

The answer to this question occupies the remainder of the 
dogmatic portion of the Epistle, chaps. ix—xi, generally considered 
to be the third of its principal divisions. The whole section may 
be subdivided as follows: in ix. 6-29 the faithfulness and justice of 
God are vindicated; in ix. 30-x. 21 the guilt of Israel is proved; 
in chap. xi St. Paul shows the divine purpose which is being fulfilled 
and looks forward prophetically to a future time when Israel will 
be restored, concluding the section with a description of the Wisdom 
of God as far exceeding all human speculation. 


Marcion seems to have omitted the whole of this chapter with the possible 
exception of vv. 1-3. Tert. who passes from viii. 11 to x. 2 says salio et 
Aic amplissimum abruptum interctsae scripturae (Adv. Marc. v.14). See 
Zahn, Gesch. des N. 7. Kanons Ὁ. 518. 


1. We notice that there is no grammatical connexion with the 
preceding chapter. A new point is introduced and the sequence 
of thought is gradually made apparent as the argument proceeds. 
Perhaps there has been a pause in writing the Epistle, the amanu- 
ensis has for a time suspended his labours. We notice also that 
St. Paul does not here follow his general habit of stating the 
subject he is going to discuss (as he does for example at the 
beginning of chap. iii), but allows it gradually to become evident. 
He naturally shrinks from mentioning too definitely a fact which is 
to him so full of sadness. It will be only too apparent to what he 
refers; and tact and delicacy both forbid him to define it more 
exactly. 

ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ: ‘1 speak the truth in Christ, as one 
united with Christ’; cf. 2 Cor. ii. 17 ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 
ἐκ Θεοῦ, κατέναντι Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν: xii. 19. St. Paul has jus! 


TX 1, 2.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 227 


descnbed that union with Christ which will make any form of sin 
impossible ; cf. viii. 1, 10; and the reference to this union gives 
solemnity to an assertion for which it will be difficult to obtain full 
credence. 

οὐ ψεύδομαι. A Pauline expression. 1 Tim. ii. 7 ἀλήθειαν λέγω, 
οὐ ψεύδομαι: 2 Cor. xi. 31; Gal. i. 20. 

συμμαρτυρούσης: cf. ii. 15; vili. 16. The conscience is personified 
so as to give the idea of a second and a separate witness. Cf. 
Oecumenius ad loc. μέγα θέλει εἰπεῖν, διὸ προοδοποιεῖ τῷ πιστευθῆναι, 
τρεῖς ἐπιφερόμενος μάρτυρας, τὸν Χριστόν, τὸ ἽΔγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ 
συνείδησιν. 

ἐν Πνεύματι ᾿Αγίῳ with συμμαρτυρούσης. St. Paul adds further 
solemnity to his assertion by referring to that union of his spirit 
with the Divine Spirit of which he had spoken in the previous 
chapter. Cf. viii. 16 αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν. 

St. Paul begins with a strong assertion of the truth of his 
statement as a man does who is about to say something of the 
truth of which he is firmly convinced himself, although facts and 
the public opinion of his countrymen might seem to be against 
him. Cf. Chrys. ad loc. πρότερον δὲ διαβεβαιοῦται περὶ ὧν μέλλει 
λέγειν' ὅπερ πολλοῖς ἔθος ποιεῖν ὅταν μέλλωσί τι λέγειν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς 
ἀπιστούμενον καὶ ὑπὲρ οὗ σφόδρα ἑαυτούς εἶσι πεπεικότες. 


2. ὅτι: ‘that,’ introducing the subordinate sentence dependent on 
the idea of assertion in the previous sentence. St. Paul does not 
mention directly the cause of his grief, but leaves it to be inferred 
from the next verse. 

λύπη (which is opposed to χαρά Jn. xvi. 20) appears to mean 
grief as a state of mind; it is rational or emotional: ὀδύνη on the 
other hand never quite loses its physical associations ; it implies 
the anguish or smart of the heart (hence it is closely connected with 
τῇ καρδίᾳ) which is the result of λύπη. 


With the grief of St. Paul for his countrymen, we may compare the 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 vili. 15-18 e¢ nunc dicens dicam, de omni homine tu magis σεῖς, de 
populo autem tuo, οὐ quem doleo, et de haereditate tua, propter quam lugeo, et 
propter Lsraél, propter quem tristis sum, et de semine Lacob, propter quod 
conturbor. Ibid. x. 6-8 non vides luctum nostrum et quae nobis contigerunt ? 
quoniam Sion mater nostra omnium in tristitia contristatur, ec humilitate 
humiliata est, et luget validissime ... 21-22 vides enim quoniam sanctifi- 
catio nostra deserta effecta est, et altare nostrum demolitum est, et templum 
nostrum destructum est, et psalterium nostrum humiliatum est, et hymnus 
noster conticutt, et exsultatio nostra dissoluta est, et lumen candelabri nostri 
extinctum est, et arca testamentt nostri direpta est. Apoc. Baruch. xxxv. 3 
guomodo enim ingemiscam super Stone, et quomodo lugebo super Lerusalem ἢ 
guia in loco isto ubi prostratus sum nunc, olim stmmus sacerdos offerebat 
ablationes sanctas. 


228 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 3. 


3. This verse which is introduced by γάρ does nex give the 
reason of his grief but the proof of his sincerity. 

ηὐχόμην: ‘the wish was in my mind’ or perhaps ‘the prayer 
was in my heart.’ St. Paul merely states the fact of the wish 
without regard to the conditions which made it impossible. Cf. Lft. 
on Gal. iv, 20 ‘The thing is spoken of in itself, prior to and 
independently of any conditions which might affect its possibility.’ 
See also Acts xxv. 22, and Burton, JZ. and T. ὃ 33. 

ἀνάθεμα : ‘accursed,’ ‘devoted to destruction.” The word was 
originally used with the same meaning as ἀνάθημα (of which it was 
a dialectic variation, see below), ‘that which is offered or consecrated 
to God.’ But the translators of the Old Testament required an 
expression to denote that which is devoted to God for destruction, and 
adopted ἀνάθεμα as a translation of the Hebrew 079: see Levit. xxvii. 
28, 29 πᾶν δὲ ἀνάθεμα ὃ ἐὰν ἀναθῇ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Κυρίῳ... οὐκ ἀποδώσεται 
οὐδὲ λυτρώσεται... καὶ πᾶν ὃ ἐὰν ἀνατεθῇ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐ λυτρωθή- 
σεται, ἀλλὰ θανάτῳ θανατωθήσεται : Deut. vil. 26; Josh. vi. 17 καὶ ἔσται 
ἡ πόλις ἀνάθεμα, αὐτὴ καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτῇ, Κυρίῳ σαβαώθ. And 
with this meaning it is always used in the New Testament: Gal. i. 
8,9; 1 Cor. xvi. 22. The attempt to explain the word to mean 
‘excommunication’ from the society—a later use of the Hebrew in 
Rabbinical writers and the Greek in ecclesiastical—arose from 
a desire to take away the apparent profanity of the wish. 


There is some doubt and has been a good deal of discussion as to the 
distinction in meaning between ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα. It was originally 
dialectic, ἀνάθημα being the Attic form (ἀνάθημα ἀττικῶς, ἀνάθεμα ἑλληνικῶς 
Moeris, p. 28) and ἀνάθεμα being found as a substitute in non-Attic works 
(Anth. P. 6. 162, C./.G. 2693d and other instances are quoted by the 
Dictionaries), The Hellenistic form was the one naturally used by the 
writers of the LXX, and it gradually became confined to the new meaning 
attached to the word, but the distinction seems never to have become 
certain and MSS. and later writers often confuse the two words. In the 
LXX (although Hatch and Redpath make no distinction) our present texts 
seem to preserve the difference of the two words. The only doubtful passage 
is 2 Mace. ii. 13; here A reads ἀνάθεμα where we should expect ἀνάθημα, 
but V (the only other MS. quoted by Swete) and the authorities in Holmes 
and Parsons have ἀνάθημα. In the N.T. ἀνάθημα occurs once, Luke xxi. 5, 
and then correctly (but the MSS. vary, ἀνάθημα BL, ἀνάθεμα NAD). The 
Fathers often miss the distinction and explain the two words as identical : 
so Ps.-Just. Quaest. εἰ Resp. 121; Theod. on Rom. ix. 3, and Suidas; they 
are distinguished in Chrys. on Rom. ix. 3 as quoted by Suidas, but not in 
Field’s ed. No certain instance is quoted of ἀνάθημα for ἀνάθεμα, but ἀνάθεμα 
could be and was used dialectically for ἀνάθημα. On the word generally 
see esp. Trench Sym. i. § 5; Lft. Gal. i. 8; Fri. on Rom. ix. 3. 


αὐτὸς ἐγώ. The emphasis and position of these words emphasizes 
the willingness for personal sacrifice ; and they have still more force 
when we remember that St. Paul has just declared that nothing in 
heaven or earth can separate him from the love of Christ. Chrys. 
ad loc. τί λέγεις, ὦ Παῦλε; ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ποθουμένου, ob μήτε 


IX. 8, 4.} THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 229 


βασιλεία o(, μήτε yéevva ἐχώριζε, μήτε τὰ νοούμενα, μήτε ἄλλα τοσαῦτα, ἀπὸ 
τούτου νῦν εὔχῃ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ; 

ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ : ‘separated from the Christ,’ a pregnant use of 
the preposition. The translation of the words as if they were ὑπὸ 
τ. X. arises from a desire to soften the expression. 

κατὰ σάρκα : cf. iv. 1 ‘as far as earthly relations are concerned’; 
spiritually St. Paul was a member of the spiritual Israel, and his 
kinsmen were the ἀδελφοί of the Christian society. 

The prayer of St. Paul is similar to that of Moses: Exod. xxxii. 
32 ‘Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, 
I.pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.’ On this 
Clem. Rom. liii. 5 comments as follows: ὦ μεγάλης ἀγάπης, ὦ τελειό- 
τητος ἀνυπερβλήτου, παρρησιάζεται θεράπων πρὸς Κύριον, αἰτεῖται ἄφεσιν τῷ 
πλήθει ἢ καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἐξαλειφθῆναι μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀξιοῖ. 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.’ 


There are one or two slight variations of reading in ver. 3, αὐτὸς éyw was 
placed before ἀνάθ. εἶν. by CK L, Vulg., and later authorities with T R, and 
ὑπό (Ὁ EG) substituted for ἀπό (NA BC &c.). Both variations arise from 
a desire to modify the passage. 


4. οἵτινές εἶσιν: ‘inasmuch as theyare.’ St. Paul’s grief for Israel 
arises not only from his personal relationship and affection, but 
also from his remembrance of their privileged position in the Divine 
economy. 

᾿Ισραηλῖται : used of the chosen people in special reference ta 
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. 12 ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ ξένοι τῶν 
διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας : and as such it could be used metaphorically 
of the Christians (ὁ ᾿Ισραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ Gal. vi. 16; cf. ver. 6 inf.); a use 
which would of course be impossible for the merely national designa- 
tion ᾿Ιουδαῖοι. 

‘Israel’ is the title used in contemporary literature to express the 
special relations of the chosen people to God. Ps. Sol. xiv. 3 ὅτι 
ἡ μερὶς καὶ ἡ κληρονομία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν 6 Ἰσραήλ : Ecclus, xvii. 15 μερὶς 
Κυρίου Ἰσραὴλ ἐστίν : Jubilees xxxiii. 18 ‘ For Israel is a nation holy 
unto God, and a nation of inheritance for its God, and a nation of 
priesthood and royalty and a possession.’ Thus the word seems to 
have been especially connected with the Messianic hope. The 
Messianic times are ‘the day of gladness of Israel’ (Ps. Sol. x. 7), 
the blessing of Israel, the day of God’s mercy towards Israel 
(ib. Xvii. 50, 51 μακάριοι of γινόμενοι ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἰδεῖν τὰ 


230 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IxX. 4. 


ἀγαθὰ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν συναγωγῇ φυλῶν, ἃ ποιήσει ὁ Θεός. ταχύναι ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ 
᾿Ισραὴλ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ). When therefore St. Paul uses this name he 
reminds his readers that it is just those for whose salvation above 
all, according to every current idea, the Messiah was to come, who 
when he has come are apparently cut off from all share in the 
privileges of his kingdom. 

υἱοθεσία : ‘the adoption,’ ‘status of an adopted son’: on the 
origin of the word and its use in relation to Christian privileges see 
above, Rom. viii. 15. Here it implies that relationship of Israel to 
God described in Exod. iv. 22 rade λέγει Κύριος Υἱὸς πρωτότοκός μου 
Ἰσραήλ : Deut. xiv. 1; xxxii.6; Jer. xxxi.g ; Hos. xi.1. So Judilees 
i. 21 ‘I will be a Father unto them, and they shall be My children, 
and they shall all be called children of the living God. And every 
angel and every spirit will know, yea they will know that these are 
My children, and that 1 am their Father in uprightness and 
in righteousness and that I love them.’ 

ἡ δόξα : ‘the visible presence of God among His people’ (see 
wie lil. 23). δόξα is in the LXX the translation of the Hebrew 
mm 23, called by the Rabbis the Shekinah (Π)᾽ 2), the 
bright cloud by which God made His presence known on earth; 

cf. Exod. xvi. 10, &c. Hence τὸ κάλλος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ Ps. Sol. ii. δ, 
ἀπὸ θρόνου δύξης 16. ver. 20, Wisd. ix. 10, imply more than the mere 
beauty of the temple, and when St. Stephen, Acts vii. 2, speaks of 
ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης his words would remind his hearers of the visible 
presence of God which they claimed had sanctified Jerusalem and the 
temple. On late Rabbinical speculations concerning the Shekinah 
see Weber Alssyn. Theol. p. 179. 

ai διαθῆκαι : ‘the covenants,’ see Hatch Essays on Biblical 
Greek, p. 47. The plural is used not with reference to the two 
covenants the Jewish and the Christian, but because the original 
covenant of God with Israel was again and again renewed 
(Gen. vi. 18; ix.g; xv. 18; xvii. 2, 7,9; Ex. ii. 24). Comp. Ecclus. 
xliv. 11 μετὰ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν διαμενεῖ ἀγαθὴ κληρονομία, ἔκγονα αὐτῶι 
ἐν ταῖς διαθήκαις ; Wisdom xviii. 22 λόγῳ τὸν κολάζοντα ὑπέταξεν, ὅρκους 
πατέρων καὶ διαθήκας ὑπομνήσας. According to Irenaeus, III. xi. 11 
(ed. Harvey) there were four covenants: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τέσσαρες ἐδό- 
θησαν καθολικαὶ διαθῆκαι τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι" μία μὲν τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τοῦ 
Νῶε, ἐπὶ τοῦ τόξου" δευτέρα δὲ τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ, ἐπὶ τοῦ σημείου τῆς περιτομῆς" 
τρίτη δὲ ἡ νομοθεσία ἐπὶ τοῦ Μωύσέως" τετάρτη δὲ ἡ τοῦ Ἐὐαγγελίου, διὰ 
τοῦ Kupiov ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ * 

The Jews believed that they were bound to God and that God 
was bound to them by a covenant which would guarantee to them 
His protection in the future. According to St. Paul it was just 
those who were not bound to Him by a covenant who would 
receive the Divine protection. On the idea of the Covenant and 


* In the Latin version the four covenants are Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ. 


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


its practical bearing on Jewish life see Schiirer Geschichie, ii. 
Ρ. 388. 

ἡ νομοθεσία: 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 (ὁ νόμος ὁ ὑπάρχων 
εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα Baruch iv. 1) 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. Sol. xiv. 1 πιστὸς Κύριος 
τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ... τοῖς πορευομένοις ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ προσταγ- 
μάτων αὐτοῦ, ἐν νόμῳ ὡς ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν εἰς ζωὴν ἡμῶν. 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. 

ἡ λατρεία : ‘the temple service.’ Heb. ix. 1,6; 1 Macc. ii. 19, 22. 
As an illustration of Jewish opinion on the temple service may be 
quoted Pirge Aboth, i. 2 (Taylor, p. 26) ‘Shimeon ha-Caddiq 
was of the remnants of the great synagogue. He used to say, On 
three things the world is stayed; on the Thorah, and on the 
Worship, and on the bestowal of kindnesses.’ According to the 
Rabbis one of the characteristics of the Messianic age will be 
a revival of the temple services. (Weber Alssyn. Theol. p. 359.) 

ait ἐπαγγελίαι : ‘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 
gentiles and saints the chosen people. Again therefore the 
choice of terms emphasizes the character of the problem to be 
discussed. See note on i. 2, and the note of Ryle and James on 
Ps. Sol. loc. ctt.; cf. also Heb.vi.12; xi.13; Gal. ili.rg; 1 Clem. x. 2. 

ai διαθῆκαι NCL, Vulg. codd. Boh. &c. has been corrected into ἡ διαθήκη 

BDFG, Vulg. codd. pauc.; also ἐπαγγελίαι into ἐπαγγελία DEF G, Boh. 

Both variations are probably due to fancied difficulties. 

5. ot πατέρες : ‘the patriarchs.’ Acts iii. 13, vii. 32. On the 
‘merits’ of the patriarchs and their importance in Jewish theology 
see the note on p. 330. 

ἐξ ὧν ὃ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. Cf. 1 Clem. xxxii. 2 ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ 
Κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. 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. 


232 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 5. 


ὁ ὧν ee? πάντων Θεός, κιτιλ.: with Χριστός (see below), ‘who is 
over alt, God blessed for ever.’ πάντων is probably neuter, cf. xi. 36. 
This description of the supreme dignity of Him who was on His 
human side of Jewish stock serves to intensify the conception of 
the privileged character of the Jewish race. 


The Privileges of Israel. 


By this enumeration of the privileges of Israel St. Paul fulfils two 
purposes in his argument. He gives firstly the facts which 
intensify his sorrow. Like the writer of 4 Ezra his grief is 
heightened by the remembrance of the position which his country- 
men have held in the Divine economy. Every word in the long 
list calls to mind some link which had united them, the Chosen 
People, with God; every word reminds us of the glory of their past 
history; and it is because of the great contrast suggested between 
the destiny of Israel and their actual condition that his grief is so 
profound. 

But the Apostle has another and more important thought to 
emphasize. He has to show the reality and the magnitude of the 
problem before him, and this list of the privileges of Israel just empha- 
sizes it. It was so great as almost to be paradoxical. It was this. 
Israel was a chosen people, and was chosen for a certain purpose. 
According to the teaching of the Apostle it had attained this end: 
the Messiah, whose coming represented in a sense the consum- 
mation of its history, had appeared, and yet from any share in the 
glories of this epoch the Chosen People themselves were cut off. 
All the families of the earth were to be blessed in Israel: Israel 
itself was not to be blessed. They were in an especial sense the 
sons of God: but they were cut off from the inheritance. They 
were bound by special covenants to God: the covenant had been 
broken, and those outside shared in the advantages. The glories of 
the Messianic period might be looked upon as a recompense for 
the long years of suffering which a faithful adhesion to the Law and 
a loyal preservation of the temple service had entailed: the bless- 
ings were to come for those who had never kept the Law. The 
promises were given to and for Israel: Israel alone would not 
inherit them. 

Such was the problem. The pious Jew, remembering the 
sufferings of his nation, pictured the Messianic time as one when 
these should all pass away ; when all Israel—pure and without stain 
—should be once more united; when the ten tribes should be 
collected from among the nations; when Israel which had suffered 
much from the Gentiles should be at last triumphant over them. 
All this he expected. The Messiah had come: and Israel, the 


IX. 5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 233 


Messiah’s own people, seemed to be cut off and rejected from the 
blessings which it had itself prepared for the world. How was this 
problem to be solved? (Cf. 4 Ezra xiii; Schiirer, Geschichée, 
ii. 452 sq.) 


The Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5. 


x eS , 


καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὃ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς 
αἰῶνας" ἀμήν. 

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 fiir deutsche Theologie, 1808, vol. xiii. pp. 462-506 ; 
Grimm, Zwth., 1869, pp. 311-322; Harmsen, ib. 1872, pp. 510, 521: but 
England and America haye provided the fullest discussions—by Prof. 
Kennedy and Dr. Gifford, namely, Zhe Divinity of Christ, a sermon 
preached on Christmas Day, 1882, before the University of Cambridge, with 
an appendix om Rom. ix. 5 and Titus ii. 13, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, 
D.D., Cambridge, 1883; Caesarem Apfpello, a letter to Dr. Kennedy, by 
Edwin Hamilton Gifford, D.D., Cambridge, 1883; and Pauline Christology, 
I. Examination of Rom. ix. 5, being a rejoinder to the Rev. Dr. Gifford’s 
reply, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge, 1883 : by Prof. Dwight 
and Dr. Ezra Abbot, in αὶ 8. ἔχε. June and December, 1881, pp. 22-55, 
87-154; and 1883, pp. 90-112. Of these the paper of Dr. Abbot is much 
the most exhaustive, while that of Dr. Gifford seems to us on the whole to 
show the most exegetical power. 

Dismissing minor variations, there are four main interpretations (all of Alternatiy.: 
them referred to in the RV.) which have been suggested : interpreta. 

(@) Placing a comma after σάρκα and referring the whole passage to tions. 
Christ. So RV. 

(6) Placing a full stop after σάρκα and translating ‘ He who is God over 
all be blessed for ever,’ or ‘is blessed for ever.’ So RV. marg. 

(€) With the same punctuation translating ‘He who is over all is God 
blessed for ever.’ RV. marg. 

(4) Placing a comma after σάρκα and a full stop at πάντων, ‘ who is over 
all. God be (or is) blessed for ever.’ RV. marg. 

It may be convenient to point out at once that the question is one of The oni- 
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 punctua- 
are used, but only to divide words, never to indicate pauses in the sense; in tion. 
the MS. of the Πολιτεία of Aristotle, which dates from the end of the first 
or beginning of the second century, there is no punctuation whatever except 
that a slight space is left before a quotation: this latter probably is as close 
a representation as we can obtain in the present day of the original form of 
the 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. 


History of 
the inter- 
pretation, 
(1) The 
Versions. 
(2) The 
Fathers. 


(3) The 


older MSS. 


(4) Modern 
criticism. 


234 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. δ 


The history of the interpretation must be passed over somewhat cursorily. 
For our earliest evidence we should naturally turn to the older versions, but 
these seem to labour under the same obscurity as the original. It is however 
probably true that the traditional interpretation of all of them is to apply the 
doxology to Christ. 

About most of the Fathers however there is no doubt. An immense pre- 
ponderance of the Christian writers of the first eight centuries refer the word 
to Christ. This is certainly the case with Irenaeus, Haer. III. xvii. a, ed. 
Harvey; Tertullian, 4dv. Prax. 13, 15; Hippolytus, Cont. Noct. 6 (cf. 
Gifford, op. czt. p. 60); Novatian, 77z#. 13; Cyprian, Zest. ii. 6, ed. Hartel ; 
Syn. Ant. adv. Paul. Sam. in Routh, Rel. Sacrae, iii. 291, 292; Athanasius, 
Cont. Arian. I. iii. το; Epiphanius, Haer. lvii. 2, 9, ed. Oehler; Basil, 
Adv. Eunom. iv. p. 282; Gregory of Nyssa, ddv. Eunom. 11 ; Chrysostom, 
Hom. ad Rom. xvi. 3, &c.; Theodoret, dd Rom. iv. p. 100; Augustine, De 
Trinitate, ii. 13; Hilarius, De 7rinitate, viii. 37, 38; Ambrosius, De Spiritu 
Sancto, i. 3. 46; Hieronymus, £~. CXXJ. ad ἄρας. Qu. ix; Cyril Al., Cont. 
Zul. x. pp. 327, 328. It is true also of Origen (7% Rom. vii. 13) if we may 
trust Rufinus’ Latin translation (the subject has been discussed at length 
by Gifford, of. cit. p. 31; Abbot, 7. 8. Axeg. 1883, p. 103; WH. ad /oc.). 
Moreover there is no evidence that this conclusion was arrived at on dogmatic 
grounds. The passage is rarely cited in controversy, and the word Θεός was 
given to our Lord by many sects who refused to ascribe to him full divine 
honours, as the Gnostics of the second century and the Arians of the fourth. 
On the other hand this was a useful text to one set of heretics, the Sabellians; 
and it is significant that Hippolytus, who has to explain that the words do 
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 δὲ has no punctuation, A undoubtedly puts a point 
after σάρκα, and also leaves a slight space. The punctuation of this chapter 
is careful, and certainly by the original hand; but as there is a similar point 
and space between Χριστοῦ and ὑπέρ in ver. 3, a point between σάρκα and 
οἵτινες, and another between Ἰσραηλῖται and ὧν, there is no reason as far as 
punctuation is concerned why 6 ὧν should not refer to Χριστός as much as 
οἵτινες does to ἀδελφῶν." B has a colon after σάρκα, but leaves no space, 
while there is a space left at the end of the verse. The present colon is 
however certainly not by the first hand, and whether it covers an earlier 
stop or not cannot be ascertained. C has a stop after σάρκα. The difference 
between the MSS. and the Fathers has not been accounted for and is certainly 
curious. 

Against ascribing these words to Christ some patristic evidence has 
been found. Origen (Rufinus) ad Joc. tells us there were certain persons 
who thought the ascription of the word Θεός to Christ difficult, for St. Paul 
had already called him vids Θεοῦ. The long series of extracts made by 
Wetstein ad Joc. stating that the words ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός cannot be used of 
the Son are not to the point, for the Son here is called not ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων cds, 
but ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, and some of the writers he quotes expressly interpret the 
passage of the Christ elsewhere. Again, Cyril of Alexandria (Cont. Jul. x. 
P- 327) quotes the Emperor Julian to the effect that St. Paul never calls 
Christ Θεός, but although this is certainly an interesting statement, this 
passage, which Cyril quotes against him, might easily have been overlooked. 

wo writers, and two only, Photius (Cont. Man. iii. 14) and Diodorus 
(Cramer’s Catena, p. 162), definitely ascribe the words to the Father. 
The modern criticism of the passage began with Erasmus, who pointed 


* For information on this point and also on the punctuation of the older 


papyri, we are much indebted to Mr. F. G. Kenyon, of the British Museum. 


[X. 5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 235 


out that there were certainly three alternative interpretations possible, and 
that as there was so much doubt about the verse it should never be used 
agesnst heretics. He himself wavers in his opinion. In the Commentary 
he scems to refer the words to the Father, in the Paraphrase (a later but 
popular work) he certainly refers them to the Son. Socinus, it is interesting 
to note, was convinced by the position of εὐλογητός (see below) that the 
sentence must refer to Christ. From Erasmus’ time onwards opinions have 
varied, and have been influenced, as was natural, largely by the dogmatic 
opinions of the writer; and it seems hardly worth while to quote long lists of 
names on either side, when the question is one which must be decided not by 
authority or theological opinion but by considerations of language. 

The discussion which follows will be divided into three heads :— 

(1) Grammar ; (2) Sequence of thought ; (3) Pauline usage. 

The first words that attract our attention are τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, 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 κατὰ σάρκα, and then passage. 
in contrast describes his Divine descent κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ; so here the (1) τὸ κατιὶ 
course of the argument having led him to lay stress on the human birth of σάρκα. 
Christ as a Jew, he would naturally correct a one-sided statement by 
limiting that descent to the earthly relationship and then describe the true 
nature of Him who was the Messiah of the Jews. He would thus enhance 
the privileges of his fellow-countrymen, and put a culminating point to his 
argument. τὸ κατὰ σάρκα leads us to expect an antithesis, and we find just 
what we should have expected in 6 dy ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός. 

Is this legitimate? It has been argued first of all that the proper anti- 
thesis to σάρξ is πνεῦμα. But this objection is invalid. Θεός is in a con- 
siderable number of cases used in contrast to odpé (Luke iii. 6; 1 Cor. i. 29; 

Col iii. 22; Philemon 16; 2 Chron. xxxii, 8; Ps. lv [lvi]. 5; Jer. xvii. 5; 
Dan. ii. 11; cf. Gifford, p. 40, to whom we owe these instances). 

Again it is argued that the expression τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as opposed to κατὰ 
σάρκα precludes the possibility of such a contrast in words. While κατὰ 
σάρκα allows the expression of a contrast, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα 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 
Gifford, p. 39; he quotes Isocrates, p. 326 ; Demosth. cont. Eubul. p. 1299, 

1. 14). 

But although neither of these objections is valid, it is perfectly true that 
neither κατὰ σάρκα nor τὸ κατὰ σάρκα demands an expressed antithesis 
(Rom. iv. 1; Clem. Rom. i. 32). The expression τὸ κατὰ σάρκα cannot 
therefcre 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 6 dy. (2) ὃ ὧν 
It is argued on the one hand that 6 dy is naturally relatival in character and 
equivalent to ὅς ἐστι, and in support of this statement 2 Cor. xi. 31 is quoted : 

ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οἶδεν, ὁ ὧν εὐλογητὸς els τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὅτι 
οὐ WevSouar—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 ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν" ὁ ὧν be 
τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστι, καὶ ex τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ : and οἱ ὄντες in Rom. viii. 5, 8. 
The question is a nice one. It is perfectly true that 6 dy 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 ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός refer to what precedes unless 


.3) The 
position of 
εὐλογητός. 


The con- 
nexion of 
thought. 


236 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Σ. δ. 


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

But further than this: no instance seems to occur, at any rate in the 
N.T., of the participle ὥν being used with a prepositional phrase and the 
noun which the prepositional phrase qualifies. Ifthe noun is mentioned the 
substantive verb becomes unnecessary. Here ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός would be 
the correct expression, if Θεός is the subject of the sentence; if ὧν is added 
Θεός must become predicate. This excludes the translation (d.) ‘He who is 
God over all be (or is) blessed for ever.’ It still leaves it possible to translate 
as (c.) ‘He who is over all is God blessed for ever,’ but the reference to 
Χριστός remains the most natural interpretation, unless, as stated above, the 
word Θεός suggests in itself too great a contrast. 

It has thirdly been pointed out that if this passage be an ascription of 
blessing to the Father, the word εὐλογητός would naturally come first, just 
as the word ‘ Blessed’ would in English. An examination of LXX usage 
shows that except in cases in which the verb is expressed and thrown forward 
(as Ps. cxii [cxiii]. 2 εἴη τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου εὐλογημένον) this is almost in- 
variably its position. But the rule is clearly only an empirical one, and in 
cases in which stress has to be laid on some special word, it may be and is 
broken (cf. Ps. Sod. viii. 40,41). As ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός if it does not refer 
to ὁ Χριστός must be in very marked contrast with it, there would be a special 
emphasis on the words, and the perversion of the natural order becomes 
possible. These considerations prevent the argument from the position of 
εὐλογητός being as decisive as some have thought it, but do not prevent the 
balance of evidence being against the interpretation as a doxology referring 
to the Father. 

The result of an examination of the grammar of the passage makes it clear 
that if St. Paul had intended to insert an ascription of praise to the Father 
we should have expected him to write εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας 6 ἐπὶ πάντων 
Θεός. If the translation (d.) suggested above, which leaves the stop at 
πάντων, be accepted, two difficulties which have been urged are avoided, 
but the awkwardness and abruptness of the sudden Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς 
αἰῶνας make this interpretation impossible. We have seen that the position 
of εὐλογητός makes a doxology (6.) improbable, and the insertion of the 
participle makes it very unnatural. The grammatical evidence is in favour 
of (a.), i.e. the reference of the words to ὁ Χριστός, unless the words 6 ὧν ἐπὶ 
πάντων Θεός contain in themselves so marked a contrast that they could not 
possibly be so referred. 

We pass next to the connexion of thought. Probably not many will 
doubt that the interpretation which refers the passage to Christ (a.) admirably 
suits the context. St. Paul is enumerating the privileges of Israel, and as the 
highest and last privilege he reminds his readers that it was from this Jewish 
stock after all that Christ in His human nature had come, and then in order 
to emphasize this he dwells on the exalted character of Him who came 
according to the flesh as the Jewish Messiah. This gives a perfectly clear 
and intelligible interpretation of the passage. Can we say the same of any 
interpretation which applies the words to the Father? 

Those who adopt this latter interpretation have generally taken the words 
as a doxology, ‘ He that is over all God be blessed for ever,’ or ‘ He that is 
God over all be blessed for ever.’ A natural criticism that at once arises is, 
how awkward the sudden introduction of a doxology! how inconsistent with 
the tone of sadness which pervades the passage! Nor do the reasons alleged 
iu support of this interpretation really avoid the difficulty. It is quite true 
of course that St. Paul was full of gratitude for the privileges of his race and 
especially for the coming of the Messiah, but that is not the thought in his 
mind. His feeling is one of sadness and of failure: it is necessary for him 
to argue that the promise of God has not failed. Nor again does a reference 
to Rom. i. 25 support the interpretation. It is quite true that there we have 


IX. 5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 237 


a doxology in the midst of a passage of great sadness; but like 2 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 
of God. 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 exegetical and Prof. 
grammatical of taking these words as a blessing addressed to the Father, Kennedy’s 
that being unable to adopt the reference to Christ, he considers that they interpreta: 
occur here as a strong assertion of the Divine unity introduced at this tion. 
place in order to conciliate the Jews: ‘ He who is over all is God blessed 
for ever.’ It is difficult to find anything in the context to support this 
opinion, St. Paul’s object is hardly to conciliate unbelieving Jews, but to 
solve the difficulties of believers, nor does anything occur in either the 
previous or the following verses which might be supposed to make an 
assertion of the unity of God either necessary or apposite. The inter- 
pretation fails by ascribing too great subtlety to the Apostle. 

Unless then Pauline usage makes it absolutely impossible to refer the Pauline 
expressions Θεός and ἐπὶ πάντων to Christ, or to address to Him such usage. 

a doxology and make use in this connexion of the decidedly strong word (1) Θεός. 
εὐλογητός, the balance of probability is in favour of referring the passage 
to Him. What then is the usage of St. Paul? The question has been 
somewhat obscured on both sides by the attempt to prove that St. Paul 
could or could not have used these terms of Christ, i.e. by making the 
difficulty theological and not linguistic. St. Paul always looks upon Christ 
as being although subordinate to the Father at the head of all creation 
(1 Cor. xi. 3; xv. 28; Phil. ii. 5-11; Col. i, 13-20), and this would quite 
justify the use of the expression ἐπὶ πάντων of Him. So also if St. Paul can 
speak of Christ as εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ (2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15), as ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ 
ὑπάρχων, and ἶσα Θεῷ (Phil. ii. 6), he ascribes to Him no lesser dignity 
than would be implied by @eés as predicate. The question rather is this: 
was Θεός so definitely used of the ‘Father’ as a proper name that it could 
not be used of the Son, and that its use in this passage as definitely points to 
the Father as would the word πατήρ if it were substituted? The most 
significant passage referred to is 1 Cor. xii. 4-6, where it is asserted that Θεός 
is as much a proper name as κύριος or πνεῦμα and is used in marked distinc- 
tion to κύριος. But this passage surely suggests the answer. Κύριος is 
clearly used as a proper name of the Son, but that does not prevent St. Paul 
elsewhere speaking of the Father as Κύριος, certainly in quotations from the 
O.T. and probably elsewhere (1 Cor. iii. 5), nor of Χριστός as πνεῦμα 
(2 Cor. iii. 16). The history of the word appears to be this. To one 
brought up as a Jew it would be natural to use it of the Father alone, and 
hence complete divine prerogatives would be ascribed to the Son somewhat 
earlier than the word itself was used. But where the honour was given the 
word used predicatively 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 Titusii.14. It must be admitted that we should not 
expect it in so early an Epistle as the Romans; but there is no impossibility 
either in the word or the ideas expressed by the word occurring so early. 

So again with regard to doxologies and the use of the term εὐλογητός. (2) Doxa 
The distinction between εὐλογητός and εὐλογημένος which it is attempted to logies ad- 
make cannot be sustained: and to ascribe a doxology to the Son would be dressed ta 
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 2 Tim. iv. 18, certainly in 


(οποῖα- 
sion. 


238 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 6-13. 


Rev. v. 13 and 2 Pet. iii. 18. Again we can assert that we should not expect 
it in so early an Epistle as the Romans, but, as Dr. Liddon points out, 
2 Thess. i. 12 implies it as does also Phil. ii. 5-8; and there is no reason 
why language should not at this time be beginning to adapt itself to theo- 
logical ideas already formed. 

Throughout there has been no argument which we have felt to be quite 
conclusive, but the result of our investigations into the grammar of the 
sentence and the drift of the argument is to incline us to the belief that the 
words would naturally refer to Christ, unless @eds is so definitely a proper 
name that it would imply a contrast in itself. We have seen that that is not 
so. Even if St. Paul did not elsewhere use the word of the Christ, yet it 
certainly was so used at a not much later period. St. Paul’s phraseology is 
never fixed; he had no dogmatic reason against so using it. In these circum- 
stances with some slight, but only slight, hesitation we adopt the first alterna- 
tive and translate ‘Of whom is the Christ as concerning the flesh, who is 
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’ 


THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT INCONSISTENT 
WITH THE DIVINE PROMISES. 


IX. 6-18. For it ts indeed true. With all these privileges 
Israel is yet excluded from the Messianic promises. 

Now in the first place does this imply, as has been urged, 
that the promises of God have been broken? By no means. 
The Scriptures show clearly that physical descent ts not 
enough. The children of Ishmael and the children of Esau, 
both alike descendants of Abraham to whom the promise was 
given, have been rejected. There is then no breach of the 
Divine promise, if God rejects some Israelites as He has 
rejected them. 


®Yet in spite of these privileges Israel is rejected. Now it 
has been argued: ‘If this be so, then the Divine word has failed. 
God made a definite promise to Israel. If Israel is rejected, 
that promise is broken.’ An examination of the conditions of 
the promise show that this is not so. It was never intended 
that all the descendants of Jacob should be included in the Israel 
of privilege, “no more in fact than that all were to share the 
full rights of sons of Abraham because they were his offspring. 
Two instances will prove that this was not the Divine intention. 
Take first the words used to Abraham in Gen. xxi. 12 when he 
cast forth Hagar and her child: ‘In Isaac shall thy seed be called.’ 
These words show that although there were then two sons of 
Abraham, one only, Isaac, was selected to be the heir, through 


IX. 6.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 230 


whom the promise was to be inherited. *® And the general concls: 
sion follows: the right of being ‘sons of God,’ i.e. 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. ὅ 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. 

” 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. 
And the prophecy has been fulfilled. Subsequent history may 
be summed up in the words of Malachi (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 δέ 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 ROMANS (IX. 6, 7. 


οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι: ‘the case is not as though.’ ‘This grief of 
mine for my fellow countrymen is not to be understood as mean- 
ing. Lipsius. The phrase is unique: it must clearly not be 
interpreted as if it were οὐχ οἷόν re, ‘it is not possible that’: for the 
re is very rarely omitted, and the construction in this case is 
always with the infinitive, nor does St. Paul want to state what 
it is impossible should have happened, but what has not happened. 
The common ellipse οὐχ ὅτι affords the best analogy, and the 
phrase may be supposed to represent οὐ τοιοῦτον δέ ἐστι οἷον ὅτι. 
(Win. ὃ Ixiv. 1.6; E. T. p. 746.) 

ἐκπέπτωκεν : ‘ fallen from its place,’ i.e. perished and become of no 
effect. Sox Cor, xiii. 8 ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε ἐκπίπτει (TR); James i. 11. 

ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ: ‘the Word of God,’ in the sense of ‘the 
declared purpose of God,’ whether a promise or a threat or a de- 
cree looked at from the point of view of the Divine consistency. 
This is the only place in the N. T. where the phrase occurs 
in this sense; elsewhere it is used by St. Paul (2 Cor. ii. 17; 
iv. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 9; Tit. ii. 5),in Heb. xiii. 7, in Apoc. i. 9; vi. 9; 
xx. 4, and especially by St. Luke in the Acts (twelve times) to 
mean ‘ the Gospel’ as preached ; once (in Mark vii. 13), it seems 
to mean the O. T. Scriptures ; here it represents the O. T. phrase 
ὁ λόγος τοῦ Kupiov: cf. Is, xxxi. 2 καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ (i. 6. τοῦ Κυρίου) οὐ 
μὴ ἀθετηθῇ. ; 

οἱ ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ : the offspring of Israel according to the flesh, the 
υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ of ver. 27. 

οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ. Israel in the spiritual sense (cf. ver. 4 on Ἰσραηλῖτω 
which is read here also by DEF G, Vulg., being a gloss to bring 
out the meaning), the ᾿Ισραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ of Gal. vi. 16, intended for 
the reception of the Divine promise. But St. Paul does not mean 
here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) 
from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel 
might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out 
from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants 
of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied 
in the sacred name Israel. This statement, which is the ground 
on which he contests the idea that God’s word has failed, he has 
now to prove. 

7. οὐδ᾽ ὅτι. The grammatical connexion of this passage with 
the preceding is that of an additional argument; the logical con- 
nexion is that of a proof of the statement just made. St. Paul 
could give scriptural proof, in the case of descent from Abraham, 
of what he had asserted in the case of descent from Jacob, and thus 
establish his fundamental principle—that inheritance of the pro- 
mises is not the necessary result of Israelitish descent. 

σπέρμα “ABpadp. The word σπέρμα is used in this verse, first of 
natural seed or descent, then of seed according to the promise. 


IX. 7.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 241 


Both senses occur together in Gen. xxi. 12, 13; and both are 
found elsewhere in the N. T., Gal. iii. 29 εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ 
᾿Αβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ: Rom. Xi. I ἐγὼ... ἐκ σπέρματος ᾿Αβραάμ. The 
nominative to the whole sentence is πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ. ‘The 
descendants of Israel have not all of them the legal rights of in- 
heritance from Abraham because they are his offspring by natural 
descent.’ 

ἀλλ᾽, Instead of the sentence being continued in the same form 
as it began in the first clause, a quotation is introduced which com- 
pletes it in sense but not in grammar: cf. Gal. iii. 11, 12; 1 Cor. 
Χν. 27. 

ἐν ᾿Ισαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα: ‘in (i.e. through) Isaac will 
those who are to be your true descendants and representatives 
be reckoned.’ ἐν (as in Col. i. 16 ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα) im- 
plies that Isaac is the starting-point, place of origin of the 
descendants, and therefore the agent through whom the descent 
takes place ; so Matt. ix. 34 ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων : 1 Cor. vi. 2. 
σπέρμα (cf. Gen. xii. τῷ σπέρματί σου δώσω τὴν γὴν : Gen. XV. 5 οὕτως 
ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου) is used collectively to express the whole number 
of descendants, not merely the single son Isaac. The passage 
means that the sons of Israel did not inherit the promise made to 
Abraham because they were his offspring—there were some who 
were his offspring who had not inherited them ; but they did so be- 
cause they were descendants of that one among his sons through 
whom it had been specially said that his true descendants should 
be counted. 

The quotation is taken from the LXX of Gen. xxi. 12, which 
it reproduces exactly. It also correctly reproduces both the lan- 
guage and meaning of the original Hebrew. The same passage 
is quoted in Heb. xi. 18. 

The opinion expressed in this verse is of course exactly opposite 
to the current opinion—that their descent bound Israel to God 
by an indissoluble bond. See the discussion at the end of this 
section. 

κληθήσεται: ‘reckoned,’ ‘considered,’ ‘counted as the true 
omépua’; not as in ver. 11, and as it is sometimes taken here, 
‘called,’ ‘summoned’ (see below). 


The uses of the word καλέω are derived from two main significations, 
(1) to ‘call,’ ‘summon,’ (2) to ‘summon by name,’ hence ‘to name.’ It 
may mean (1) to ‘call aloud’ Heb. iii. 13, to ‘summon,’ to ‘summon to 
a banquet’ (in these senses also in the LXX), so 1 Cor. x. 27; Matt. xxii. 3; 
from these is derived the technical sense of ‘calling to the kingdom.’ 
This exact usage is hardly found in the LXX, but Is. xlii. 6 (ἔγὼ Κύριος 
ὁ Θεὸς ἐκάλεσά σε ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ), Is. li. 2 (ὅτι εἷς ἣν καὶ ἐκάλεσα αὐτόν, 
καὶ εὐλόγησα αὐτὸν καὶ ἠγάπησα αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπλήθυνα αὐτόν) approach it. In 
this sense it is confined to the epistles of St. Paul with Hebrews and St. Peter, 
the word hardly occurring at all in St. John and not in this sense elsewhere 


242 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 7-9. 


(although κλητός is so used Matt. xxii. 14). The full construction is καλεῖν 
τινα εἴς τι, 1 Thess. ii. 12 τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ 
δόξαν : but the word was early used absolutely, and so ὅ καλῶν of God (so 
Rom. iv. 17; viii. 30; ix. 11, 24). The technical use of the term comes out 
most strongly in 1 Cor. vii and in the derived words (see on κλητός 
Rom. i. 1, 7). (2) In the second group of meanings the ordinary con- 
struction is with a double accusative, Acts xiv. 12 ἐκάλουν re τὸν Βαρνάβαν 
Δία (so Rom. ix. 25, and constantly in LXX), or with ὀνόματι, ἐπὶ τῷ 
ὀνόματι as Luke i. 59, 61, although the Hebraism καλέσουσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 
Ἐμμανουήλ (Matt. i. 23) occurs. But to ‘call by name’ has associations 
derived on the one side from the idea of calling over, reckoning, accounting ; 
hence such phrases as Rom. ix. 7 (from Gen. xxi. 12 LXX), and on the other 
from the idea of affection suggested by the idea of calling by name, so 
Rom. ix. 26 (from LXX Hos. ii. 1[i. 10]). These derivative uses of the word 
occur independently both in Greek, where κέκλημαι may be used to mean 
little more than ‘to be,’ and in Hebrew. The two main meanings can always 
be distinguished, but probably in the use of the word each has influenced 
the other; when God is said to be ‘He that calls us’ the primary idea is 
clearly that of invitation, but the secondary idea of ‘calling by name,’ i.e. 
of expressing affection, gives a warmer colouring to the idea suggested. 


8. τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν. From this instance we may deduce a general 
principle. 

τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκός : Liber? guos corporis vis genuertt, Fri. 

τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ : bound to God by all those ties which have been 
the privilege and characteristic of the chosen race. 

τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας: liberi guos Det promissum procreavit. Fri. 
Cf. Gal. iv. 23 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ 
τῆς ἐλευθέρας δὲ ἐπαγγελίας : 28 ἡμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ᾿Ισαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας 
τέκνα ἐσμέν. 

All these expressions (τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας) are 
used elsewhere of Christians, but that is not their meaning in this 
passage. St. Paul is concerned in this place to prove not that 
any besides those of Jewish descent might inherit the promises, but 
merely that not all of Jewish descent necessarily and for that very 
reason must enjoy all the privileges of that descent. Physical con- 
nexion with the Jewish stock was not in itself a ground for inherit- 
ing the promise. That was the privilege of those intended when 
the promise was first spoken, and who might be considered to be born 
of the promise. This principle is capable of a far more universal 
application, an application which is made in the Epistle to the 
Galatians (iii. 29; iv. 28, &c.), but is not made here. 

9. ἐπαγγελίας must be the predicate of the sentence thrown 
forward in order to give emphasis and to show where the point 
of the argument lies. ‘This word is one of promise,’ i.e. if 
you refer to the passage of Scripture you will see that Isaac was 
the child of promise, and not born κατὰ σάρκα ; his birth therefore 
depends upon the promise which was in fact the efficient cause of 
it, and not the promise upon his birth. And hence is deduced 
a general law: a mere connexion with the Jewish race κατὰ σάρκα 


IX. 9-11.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 243 


does not necessarily imply a share in the ἐπαγγελία, for it did not 
according to the original conditions. 

κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι, καὶ ἔσται TY Σάρρᾳ vids. St. Paul 
combines Gen. xviii. 10 (LXX) ἐπαναστρέφων ἥξω πρὸς σὲ κατὰ τὸν 
καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἕξει υἱὸν Σάρρα ἡ γυνή σου: and 14 (LXX) 
εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἀναστρέψω πρὸς σὲ εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός, 
The Greek text is a somewhat free translation of the Hebrew, but 
St. Paul’s deductions from the passage are quite in harmony with 
both its words and its spirit. 

κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον is Shown clearly by the passage in Genesis 
to mean ‘at this time in the following year,’ i.e. when a year is 
accomplished; but the words have little significance for St. Paul: 
they are merely a reminiscence of the passage he is quoting, 
and in the shortened form in which he gives them, the meaning, 
without reference to the original passage, is hardly clear. 

10. οὐ μόνον δέ: see on v. 3, introducing an additional or even 
stronger proof or example. ‘You may find some flaw in the 
previous argument; after all Ishmael was not a fully legitimate 
child like Isaac, and it was for this reason (you may say) that the 
sons of Ishmael were not received within the covenant; the in- 
stance that I am now going to quote has no defect of this sort, 
and it will prove the principle that has been laid down still more 
clearly.’ 

ἀλλὰ καὶ Ῥεβέκκα, k.7.X.: the sentence beginning with these words 
is never finished grammatically; it is interrupted by the parenthesis 
in ver. 11 μήπω yap γεννηθέντων... καλοῦντος, and then continued 
with the construction changed; cf. v.12, 18; 1 Tim. i. 3. 

ἐξ ἑνός are added to emphasize the exactly similar birth of the 
two sons. The mother’s name proves that they have one mother, 
these words show that the father too was the same. There are 
none of the defective conditions which might be found in the case of 
Isaac and Ishmael. Cf. Chrys. ad loc. (Hom. in Rom. xvi. p. 610) 
ἡ yap Ῥεβέκκα καὶ μόνη τῷ ᾿Ισαὰκ γέγονε γυνή, καὶ δύο τεκοῦσα παῖδας, ἐκ 
τοῦ ᾿Ισαὰκ ἔτεκεν ἀμφοτέρους" ἀλλ᾽’ ὅμως οἱ τεχθέντες τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρὸς 
ὄντες, τῆς αὐτῆς μητρός, τὰς αὐτὰς λύσαντες ὠδῖνας, καὶ ὁμοπάτριοι ὄντες καὶ 
ὁμομήτριοι, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις καὶ δίδυμοι, οὐ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀπήλαυσαν. 

κοίτην ἔχουσα : ‘having conceived’; cf. Fri. ad doc. 

τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν : ‘the ancestor of the Jewish race.’ St. Paul is 
here identifying himself with the Jews, ‘his kinsmen according to 
the flesh.’ The passage has no reference to the composition of the 
Roman community. 

11. μήπω γάρ, κιτιλ. In this verse a new thought is introduced, 
connected with but not absolutely necessary for the subject under 
discussion. The argument would be quite complete without it. 
St. Paul has only to prove that to be of Jewish descent did not in 
itself imply a right to inherit the promise. That Esau was re 


244 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Σ. 11. 


jected and Jacob chosen is quite sufficient to establish this. But 
the instance suggests another point which was in the Apostle’s 
mind, and the change in construction shows that a new difficulty, 
or rather another side of the question—the relation of these events 
to the Divine purpose—has come forward. It is because he desires 
to bring in this point that he breaks off the previous sentence. The 
γάρ 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 ἵνα... μένῃ, ‘and this incident shows also the 
absolute freedom of the Divine election and purpose, for it was 
before the children were born that the choice was made and de- 
clared.’ 

μήπω... μηδέ: ‘although they were not yet born nor had done 
anything good or evil.’ The subjective negative shows that the 
note of time is introduced not merely as an historical fact but as 
one of the conditions which must be presumed in estimating the 
significance of the event. The story is so well known that the 
Apostle is able to put first without explanation the facts which 
show the point as he conceives it. 

iva... μένῃ. What is really the underlying principle of the 
action is expressed as if it were its logical purpose; for St. Paul 
represents the events as taking place in the way they did in order 
to illustrate the perfect freedom of the Divine purpose. 

ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ Oeod: ‘the Divine purpose which 
has worked on the principle of selection.’ These words are the 
key to chaps. ix—xi and suggest the solution of the problem before 
St. Paul. πρόθεσις is a technical Pauline term occurring although 
not frequently in the three later groups of Epistles: Rom. viii. 28 ; 
ix. 11; Eph. i. 10, 11 ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν @ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν, προορισθέντες κατὰ 
πρόθεσιν τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ: 
iii, 11 κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ Χ. ‘I. τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν: 
2 Tim, i. 9 τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ, οὐ κατὰ τὰ 
ἔργα ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν : the verb also is found 
once in the same sense, Eph. i. 9 κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ, ἣν mpo- 
ἔθετο ἐν αὐτῷς From Aristotle onwards πρόθεσις had been used to 
express purpose; with St. Paul it is the ‘ Divine purpose of God for 
the salvation of mankind,’ the ‘ purpose of the ages’ determined in 
the Divine mind before the creation of the world. The idea is 
apparently expressed elsewhere in the N. T. by βουλή (Luke vii. 30; 
Acts ii. 23; iv. 28; xx. 27) which occurs once in St. Paul (Eph. i. 
11), but no previous instance of the word πρόθεσις in this sense 
seems to be quoted. The conception is worked out by the Apostle 
with greater force and originality than by any previous writer, and 
hence he needs a new word to express it. See further the longer 
note on St. Paul’s Philosophy of History, p. 342. ἐκλογή ex- 
presses an essentially O.T idea (see below) but was itself a new 


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 (1) 
‘the process of choice,’ ‘election.’ Ps. Sol. xviii. 6 καθαρίσαι ὁ Θεὸς 
Ἰσραὴλ eis ἡμέραν ἐλέου ἐν εὐλογίᾳ, εἰς ἡμέραν ἐκλογῆς ἐν ἀνάξει Χριστοῦ 
αὐτοῦ ΙΧ. 7; 195. 5.7. 1: viii. 14); Acts ix: τ; ποῖ: χὶ 5; 28); 
1 Thess. i. 4; 2 Ρεΐ. 1. το. In this sense it may be used of man’s 
election of his own lot (as in Josephus and perhaps in Ps. Sol. 
ix. 7), but in the N. T. it is always used of God’s election. (2) As 
abstract for concrete it means ἐκλεκτοί, 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. 

μένῃ : the opposite to ἐκπέπτωκεν (ver. 6): the subjunctive shows 
that the principles which acted then are still in force. 

οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἀλλ᾽ Ex τοῦ καλοῦντος. These words qualify the 
whole sentence and are added to make more clear the absolute 
character of God’s free choice. 

We must notice (1) 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 ἔργα. We have no right either with Chrysostom 
(ἵνα φανῇ φησὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ἐκλογὴ ἡ κατὰ πρύθεσιν καὶ πρόγνωσιν γενομένη) 
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 
(2) nothing is said in this passage about anything except ‘election’ 
or ‘calling’ to the kingdom. The gloss of Calvin dum alios ad 
salutem praedestinat, alios ad aeternam damnationem is nowhere 
implied in the text. 

So Gore (Studia Biblica, iii. p. 44) ‘The absolute election of 
Jacob,—the “loving” of Jacob and the “hating” of Esau,—has 
reference simply to the election of one to higher privileges as head 
of the chosen race, than the other. It has nothing to do with their 
eternal salvation. In the original to which St. Paul is referring 
Esau is simply a synonym for Edom.’ 


φαῦλον is the reading of the RV. and modem editors with NAB, a few 
minuscules, and Orig. κακόν which occurs in TR. with DFGKL etc. and 
Fathers after Chrysostom was early substituted for the less usual word. 
A similar change has been made in 2 Cor. v. Io. 

For the πρόθεσις τοῦ Θεοῦ of the RV. the TR. reads τοῦ Θεοῦ πρόθεσις with 
the support of only a few minuscules. 


12. ὁ μείζων «7.4. The quotation is made accurately from the 
LXX of Gen. xxv. 23 καὶ εἶπε Κύριος αὐτῇ Δύο ἔθνη ἐν τῇ γαστρί σού 
εἰσιν, καὶ δύο λαοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας σου διασταλήσονται" καὶ λαὸς λαοῦ ὑπερέξει, 
καὶ ὁ μείζων δουλεύσει τῷ ἐλάσσονι (cf. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 
p- 163). God's election or rejection of the founder of the race is 


246 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 12, 13. 


part of the process by which He elects or rejects the race. In 
either case the choice has been made independently of merits either 
of work or of ancestry. Both were of exactly the same descent, and 
the choice was made before either was born. 

ὁ μείζων... τῷ ἐλάσσονι : ‘the elder,’ ‘the younger.’ This 
use of the words seems to be a Hebraism; see Gen. x. 21 καὶ τῷ 
Σὴμ ἐγενήθη . . . ἀδελφῷ ᾿Ιάφεθ τοῦ μείζονος : ib. xxix. 16 ὄνομα τῇ μείζονι 
Λεία, καὶ ὄνομα τῇ νεωτέρᾳ Ῥαχήλ, But the dictionaries quote in 
support of the use Σκιπίων ὁ μέγας Pol. XVIII. xviii. 9. The 
instances quoted of μικρός (Mk. xv. 40; Mt. xviii. 6, 10, 14, &c.) 
are all equally capable of being explained of stature. 

13. τὸν ᾿Ιακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἡσαῦ ἐμίσησα. St. Paul con- 
cludes his argument by a second quotation taken freely from the 
LXX of Mal. i. 2, 3 οὐκ ἀδελφὸς ἦν "Hoad rod ᾿Ιακώβ ; λέγει Κύριος" καὶ 
ἠγάπησα τὸν ᾿Ιακώβ, τὸν δὲ ᾿Ησαῦ ἐμίσησα. 

What is the exact object with which these words are introduced? 
(x) The greater number of commentators (so Fri. Weiss Lipsius), 
consider that they simply give the explanation of God’s conduct. 
‘God chose the younger brother and rejected the elder not from 
any merit on the part of the one or the other, but simply because 
He loved the one and hated the other.’ The aorists then refer to 
the time before the birth of the two sons; there is no reference to 
the peoples descended from either of them, and St. Paul is repre- 
sented as vindicating the independence of the Divine choice in 
relation to the two sons of Isaac. 

(2) This explanation has the merit of simplicity, but it is prob- 
ably too simple. (i) In the first place, it is quite clear that St. 
Paul throughout has in his mind in each case the descendants as 
well as the ancestors, the people who are chosen and rejected as 
well as the fathers through whom the choice is made (cf. ver. 7). 
In fact this is necessary for his argument. He has to justify God's 
dealing, not with individuals, but with the great mass of Jews who 
have been rejected. (ii) Again, if we turn to the original contexts 
of the two quotations in wv. 12, 13 there can be no doubt that in 
both cases there is reference not merely to the children but to their 
descendants. Gen. xxv. 23 ‘Two nations are in thy womb, and two 
peoples shall be separated even from thy bowels;’ Mal. i. 3 ‘ But 
Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his 
heritage to the jackals of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith,’ 
ἄς. There is nothing in St. Paul’s method of quotation which could 
prevent him from using the words in a sense somewhat different 
from the original; but when the original passage in both cases is 
really more in accordance with his method and argument, it is 
more reasonable to believe that he is not narrowing the sense. 
(iti) As will become more apparent later, St. Paul’s argument is to 
show that throughout God’s action there is running a ‘ purpose 


{X. 18. 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 Him. 

Hence it is better to refer the words, either directly or in- 
directly, to the choice of the nation as well as the choice of the 
founder (so Go. Gif. Liddon). But a further question still remains 
as to the use of the aorist. We may with most commentators 
still refer it to the original time when the choice was made: 
when the founders of the nations were in the womb, God chose 
one nation and rejected another because of his love and hatred. 
But it is really better to take the whole passage as corroborating the 
previous verse by an appeal to history. ‘God said the elder shall 
serve the younger, and, as the Prophet has shown, the whole of sub- 
sequent history has been an illustration of this. Jacob God has 
selected for His love; Esau He has hated: He has given his moun- 
tains for a desolation and his heritage to the jackals.’ 

ἠγάπησα... ἐμίσησα. There is no need to soften these words 
as some have attempted, translating ‘loved more’ and ‘loved less.’ 
They simply express what had been as a matter of fact and was 
always looked upon by the Jews as God’s attitude towards the two 
nations. So Zhanchuma, p. 32. 2 (quoted by Wetstein, ii. 438) Zz 
inventes omnes transgressiones, σφας odit Deus S. B. fuisse in Esavo, 


How very telling would be the reference to Esau and Edom an acquaint- 
ance with Jewish contemporary literature will show. Although in Deut. xxiii. 7 
it was said ‘Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother,’ later 
events had obliterated this feeling of kinship ; or perhaps rather the feeling of 
relationship had exasperated the bitterness which the hostility of the two 
nations had aroused. At any rate the history is one of continuous hatred on 
both sides. So in Ps, cxxxvii. 7 and in the Greek Esdras the burning of the 
temple is ascribed to the Edomites (see also Obadiah and Jer. xlix. 7-22). 
Two extracts from Apocryphal works will exhibit this hatred most clearly. 
In noch Ἰχχχῖχ. 11-12 (p. 233, ed. Charles) the patriarchal history is 
symbolized by different animals: ‘ But that white bull (Abraham) which was 
born amongst them begat a wild ass (Ishmael) and a white bull with it 
(Isaac), and the wild ass multiplied. But that bull which was born from 
him begat a black wild boar (Esau) and a white sheep (Jacob); and that 
wild boar begat many boars, but that sheep begat twelve sheep.’ Here 
Esau is represented by the most detested of animals, the pig. So in 
Jubilees xxxvii. 22 sq. (trans. Charles) the following speech is characteristi- 
cally put into the mouth of Esau: ‘ And thou too (Jacob) dost hate me and 
my children for ever, and there is no observing the tie of brotherhood with 
thee. Hear these words which I declare unto thee: if the boar can change 
its skin and make its bristles as soft as wool: or if it can cause horns to 
sprout forth on its head like the 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 thee. And if the lion becomes the friend of 
the ox, and if he is bound under one yoke with him and ploughs with him 
and makes peace with him, then I will make peace with thee. And when 
the raven becomes white as the raza (a large white bird), then I know that 


248 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 6-18. 


I shall love thee and make peace with thee. Thou shalt be rooted out and 
thy son shall be rooted out and there shall be no peace for thee.’ (See also 
Jos. Bell. Jud. 1V.iv.1,2; Hausrath, New 7estament Times, vol. i. pp. 67, 68, 
Eng. Trans.) 


The Divine Election. 


St. Paul has set himself to prove that there was nothing in the 
promise made to Abraham, by which God had ‘ pledged Himself to 
Israel’ (Gore, Studia Biblica, iii. 40), and bound Himself to allow all 
those who were Abraham’s descendants to inherit these promises. He 
proves this by showing that in two cases, as was recognized by the 
Jews themselves, actual descendants from Abraham had been ex- 
cluded. Hence he deduces the general principle, ‘ There was from 
the first an element of inscrutable selectiveness in God’s dealings 
within the race of Abraham’ (Gore, 2.). The inheritance of the 
promise is for those whom God chooses, and is not a necessary 
privilege of natural descent. The second point which he raises, 
that this choice is independent of human merit, he works out 
further in the following verses. 

On the main argument it is sufficient at present to notice that it 
was primarily an argumentum ad hominem and as such was abso- 
lutely conclusive against those to whom it was addressed. The 
Jews prided themselves on being a chosen race; they prided them- 
selves especially on having been chosen while the Ishmaelites and 
the Edomites (whom they hated) had been rejected. St. Paul 
analyzes the principle on which the one race was chosen and the 
other rejected, and shows that the very same principles would 
perfectly justify God’s action in further dealing with it. God might 
choose some of them and reject others, just as he had originally 
chosen them and not the other descendants of Abraham. 

That this idea of the Divine Z/ection was one of the most funda- 
mental in the O.T. needs no illustration. We find it in the 
Pentateuch, as Deut. vii. 6 ‘For thou art an holy people unto the 
Lord, thy God: the Lord, thy God, hath chosen thee to be a 
peculiar people unto himself above all peoples that are on the face 
of the earth:’ in the Psalms, as Ps. cxxxv. 4 ‘For the Lord hath 
chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure’: in 
the Prophets, as Is. xli. 8, 9. ‘But thou Israel, my servant, Jacob 
whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend; thou whom 
I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth and called thee 
from the corners thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant, 
I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.’ And this idea of 
Israel being the elect people of God is one of those which were 
seized and grasped most tenaciously by contemporary Jewish 
thought. But between the conception as held by St. Paul’s con- 


ΙΧ. 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. 
21,22); although the Covenant is specified it is one which involves 
obligations on Israel (Deut. vii. 9, &c.): and the thought again and 
again recurs that Israel has thus been chosen not merely for their 
own sake but as an instrument in the hand of God, and not merely 
to exhibit the Divine power, but also for the benefit of other nations 
(Gen. xii. 3; Is. Ixvi. 18, &c.). But among the Rabbis the idea of 
Election has lost all its higher side. It is looked on as a covenant 
by which God is bound and over which He seems to have no control. 
Israel and God are bound in an indissoluble marriage (Shemoth 
rabba \. 51): the holiness of Israel can never be done away with, 
even although Israel sin, it still remains Israel (Sanhedrin 55): the 
worst Israelite is not profane like the heathen (Bammidbar γαδόα τη): 
no Israelite can go into Gehenna (Peszk/a 38 a): all Israelites have 
their portion in the world to come (Sanhedrin 1), and much more 
to the same effect. (See Weber Alésyn. Theol. p. 51, &c., to whom 
are due most of the above references.) 

And this belief was shared by St. Paul’s contemporaries. ‘The 
planting of them is rooted for ever: they shall not be plucked out 
all the days of the heaven: for the portion of the Lord and the 
inheritance of God is Israel’ (Ps. Sol. xiv. 3); ‘Blessed art thou of 
the Lord, O Israel, for evermore’ (22. 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’ (2d. ix. 
17,18). While Israel is always to enjoy the Divine mercy, sinners, 
i.e. Gentiles, are to be destroyed before the face of the Lord 
(12. 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 ( /udzlees xix. 16; xxii. 9; Apoc. Baruch 
xlviil. 20, 23; Ixxvii. 3), but the above are enough to illustrate the 
position St. Paul is combating. The Jew believed that his race 
was joined to God by a covenant which nothing could dissolve, 
and that he and his people alone were the centre of all God’s 
action in the creation and government of the world. 

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


250 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Χ.]14-29. 


kingdoms of the earth. He still holds the doctrine, but the 
Christian revelation has given a meaning to what had been a nar- 
row privilege, and might seem an arbitrary choice. His view is 
now widened. The world, not Israel, is the final end of God’s 
action. This is the key to the explanation of the great difficulty 
the rejection of Israel. Already in the words that he has used 
above ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις he has shown the principle which he 
is working out. The mystery which had been hidden from the 
foundation of the world has been revealed (Rom. xvi. 26). There 
is still a Divine ἐκλογή, but it is now realized that this is the result 
of a πρόθεσις, a universal Divine purpose which had worked through 
the ages on the principle of election, which was now beginning to 
be revealed and understood, and which St. Paul will explain and 
vindicate in the chapters that follow (cf. Eph. i. 4, 11; iii. rr). 

We shall follow St. Paul in his argument as he gradually works 
it out. Meanwhile it is convenient to remember the exact point he 
has reached. He has shown that God has not been untrue to any 
promise in making a selection from among the Israel of his own 
day; He is only acting on the principle He followed in selecting 
the Israelites and rejecting the Edomites and Ishmaelites. By the 
introduction of the phrase ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις St. Paul has also 
suggested the lines on which his argument will proceed. 


THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT INCONSISTENT 
WITH THE DIVINE JUSTICE. 


IX. 14-29. But secondly it may be urged: ‘ Surely then 
God ts 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 withhold them (as He did 
Jrom Pharaoh) (vv. 14-18). 

[f it ts further urged, Why blame me if I like Pharaoh 
reject God's offer, and thus fulfil His will? TI reply, It is 
your part not to cavil but to submit. The creature may not 
complain against the Creator, any more than the vessel 
against the potter (vv.19-21). Sdtill less when God’s purpose 
has been so beneficent, and that to a body so mixed as thts 
Christian Church of ours, chosen not only from the Fews but 
also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24) ;—as indeed was foretold 


(vv. 25-29). 


ΙΧ. 14-20] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 251 


“But there is a second objection which may be raised. ‘If 
what you say is true that God rejects one and accepts another 
apart from either privilege of birth or human merit, is not His 
conduct arbitrary and unjust?’ What answer shall we make to 
this? Surely there is no injustice with God. Heaven forbid that 
Ishould say so. Iam only laying down clearly the absolute character 
of the Divine sovereignty. 7° The Scripture has shown us clearly 
the principles of Divine action in two typical and opposed incidents: 
that of Moses exhibiting the Divine grace, that of Pharaoh ex- 
hibiting the Divine severity. Take the case of Moses. When he 
demanded a sign of the Divine favour, the Lord said (Ex. xxxiil. 
17-19) ‘ Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by 
name ...1 will make all my goodness pass before thee ; I will be 
gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on 
whom I will show mercy.’ * These words imply that grace comes 
to man not because he is determined to attain it, not because he 
exerts himself for it as an athlete in the races, but because he has 
found favour in God’s sight, and God shows mercy towards him: 
they prove in fact the perfect spontaneousness of God’s action. 
Sc in the case of Pharaoh. The Scripture (in Ex. ix. 16) tells us 
that at the time of the plagues of Egypt these words were ad- 
dressed to him: ‘I have given thee thy position and place, that 
I may show forth in thee my power, and that my name might be 
declared in all the earth.’ ™ Those very Scriptures then to which 
you Jews so often and so confidently appeal, show the absolute 
character of God’s dealings with men. Both the bestowal of mercy 
or favour and the hardening of the human heart depend alike upon 
the Divine will. 

% 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 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [IX. 20-29. 


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

δ᾽ And remember finally that this Divine plan of which you 
complain is just what the prophets foretold. They prophesied the 
calling of the Gentiles. Hosea (i. 10, and ii. 23) described how 
those who were not within the covenant should be brought into it 
and called by the very name of the Jews under the old Covenant, 
‘the people of God,’ ‘the beloved of the Lord,’ ‘the sons of the 
living God.’ * And this wherever throughout the whole world 
they had been placed in the contemptuous position of being, as he 
expressed it, ‘no people.’ * Equally do we find the rejection of 
Israei—all but a remnant of it—foretold. Isaiah (x. 22) stated, 
‘Even though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand 
of the seashore, yet it is only a remnant that shall be saved, * for 
a sharp and decisive sentence will the Lord execute upon the earth. 
® And similarly in an earlier chapter (i. g) he had foretold the oom- 


ΙΧ. 14, 15.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 253 


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


14-29. St. Paul now states for the purpose of refutation a 
possible objection. He has just shown that God chooses men 
independently of their works according to His own free determina- 
tion, and the deduction is implied that He is free to choose or 
reject members of the chosen race. The objection which may be 
raised is, ‘if what you say is true, God is unjust,’ and the argument 
would probably be continued, ‘we know God is not unjust, there- 
fore the principles laid down are not true.’ In answer, St. Paul 
shows that they cannot be unjust or inconsistent with God’s action, 
for they are exactly those which God has declared to be His in those 
very Scriptures on which the Jews with whom St. Paul is arguing 
would especially rely. 

14. τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; see on iii. 5, a very similar passage: εἰ δὲ ἡ 
ἀδικία ἡμῶν Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησι, Ti ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἄδικος ὁ Θεὸς 
ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν ; ... μὴ yevorro, The expression is used as 
always to introduce an objection which is stated only to be 
refuted. 

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

παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. Cf. 11. 11 οὐ γάρ ἐστι προσωποληψία παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ: 
Eph. vi. 9; Prov. viii. 30, of Wisdom dwelling with God, ἤμην 
map αὐτῷ ἁρμόζουσα. 

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

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

15. τῷ yap Μωσῇ λέγει. The γάρ explains and justifies the 
strong denial contained in μὴ yévorro. Too much stress must not 
be laid on the empnasis given to the name by its position; yet it is 
obvious that the instance chosen adds considerably to the strength 


254 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Σ. 15,16 


of the argument. Moses, if any one, might be considered to have 
deserved God’s mercy, and the name of Moses would be that most 
respected by St. Paul’s opponents. λέγει without a nominative for 
Θεοὺς λέγει iS a common idiom in quotations (cf. Rom. xv. 10; 
Gal. iii. 16; Eph. iv. 8; v. 14). 

ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ, κιτιλ : ‘I will have mercy on whomsoever 
I have mercy.’ The emphasis is on the ὃν ἄν, and the words are 
quoted to mean that as it is God who has made the offer of salva- 
tion to men, it is for Him to choose who are to be the recipients of 
His grace, and not for man to dictate to Him. The quotation is 
from the LXX of Ex. xxxiii. 19 which is accurately reproduced. 
It is a fairly accurate translation of the original, there being only 
a slight change in the tenses. The Hebrew is “1 am gracious to 
whom I will be gracious,’ the LXX ‘I will be gracious to whom- 
soever I am gracious.’ But St. Paul uses the words with a some- 
what different emphasis. Moses had said, ‘ Show me, I pray thee, 
thy glory.’ And He said, ‘I will make all my goodness pass before 
thee, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee: and 
I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy 
on whom I will show mercy.’ The point of the words in the 
original context is rather the certainty of the Divine grace for those 
whom God has selected ; the point which St. Paul wishes to prove 
is the independence and freedom of the Divine choice. 

ἐλεήσω... οἰκτειρήσω. The difference between these words 
seems to be something the same as that between λύπη and ὀδύνη in 
ver, 2. The first meaning ‘compassion,’ the second ‘distress’ or 
‘pain,’ such as expresses itself in outward manifestation. (Cf 
Godet, ad oc.) 

16. dpa οὖν introduces as an inference from the special instance 
given the general principle of God’s method of action. Cf. ver. 8 
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, Ver. 11 ἵνα, where the logical method in each case is the 
same although the form of expression is different. 

τοῦ θέλοντος, k.t.A. ‘God’s mercy is in the power not of human 
desire or human effort, but of the Divine compassion itself.’ The geni- 
tives are dependent on the idea of mercy deduced from the previous 
verse. With θέλοντος may be compared Jo. i. 12, 13 ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς 
ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι... ot οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος 
σαρκός, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. The meta- 
phor of τοῦ τρέχοντος is a favourite one with St. Paul (1 Cor. ix. 
24, 26; Phil. ii. 16; Gal. ii. 2; v. 7). 

In vv. 7-13 St. Paul might seem to be dealing with families or 
groups of people; here however he is distinctly dealing with in- 
dividuals and lays down the principle that God’s grace does not 
necessarily depend upon anything but God’s will. ‘Not that 
I have not reasons to do it, but that I need not, in distributing of 
mercies which have no foundation in the merits of men, render 


IX. 16,17.] |THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 255 


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 éAeéw, ἐλεάω. In ver. 16 
SABDEFG support ἐλεάω (ἐλεῶντος), BSK ὅτε. ἐλεέω (ἐλεοῦντος) ; in 
ver. 18 the position is reversed, ἐλεάω (ἐλεᾷ) having only DFG in its 
favour; in Jude 22 ἐλεάω (ἐλεᾶτε) is supported by NB alone. See WH. 
Lntrod. ii. App. p. 166. 


17. λέγει yap ἡ γραφή: ‘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. 

τῷ Φαραώ. 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. 

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

ἐξήγειρα : ‘I have raised thee up, placed thee in the field of 
history. There are two main interpretations of this word pos- 
sible. (1) 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 διετηρήθης. 
It is supported also by a reading in the Hexapla διετήρησά ae, by the 
Targum of Onkelos Swstznut te ut ostenderem tibt,and the Arabic 
Le reservavi ut ostenderem tibi. Although ἐξεγείρειν does not seem 
to occur in this sense, it is used 1 Cor. vi. 14 of resurrection from 


256 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 17. 


the dead, and the simple verb ἐγείρειν in James v. 15 means “ rais- 
ing from sickness.’ The words may possibly therefore have this 
sense, but the passage as quoted by St. Paul could not be so inter- 
preted. Setting aside the fact that he probably altered the reading 
of the LXX purposely, as the words occur here without any allusion 
to the previous sickness, the passage would be meaningless unless 
reference were made to the original, and would not justify the 
deduction drawn from it ὃν δὲ θέλει σκληρύνει. 

(2) The correct interpretation (so Calv. Beng. Beyschlag Go. 
Mey. Weiss. Lips. Gore) is therefore one which makes St. Paul 
generalize the idea of the previous passage, and this is in accord- 
ance with the almost technical meaning of the verb efeyeipew in the 
LXX. It is used of God calling up the actors on the stage of 
history. So of the Chaldaeans Hab. i. 6 διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξεγείρω τοὺς 
Χαλδαίους : of a shepherd for the people Zech. xi. 16 διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ 
ἐξεγείρω ποιμένα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν : of a great nation and kings Jer. xxvii. 
41 ἰδοὺ λαὸς ἔρχεται ἀπὸ βορρᾶ, καὶ ἔθνος μέγα καὶ βασιλεῖς πολλοὶ 
ἐξεγερθήσονται dn’ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς. This interpretation seems to be 
supported by the Samaritan Version, subsistere 16 fect, and cer- 
tainly by the Syriac, 0b zd 4 constitul ut ostenderem; and it ex 
presses just the idea which the context demands, that God had 
declared that Pharaoh’s position was owing to His sovereign will 
and pleasure—in order to carry out His Divine purpose and plan. 

The interpretation which makes ἐξεγείρειν mean ‘ call into being,’ 
‘create,’ has no support in the usage of the word, although not 
inconsistent with the context; and ‘to rouse to anger’ (Aug. de 
W. Fri. &c.) would require some object such as θυμόν, as in 
2 Macc. xiii. 4. 


The readings of the Latin Versions are as follows: Quia in hoc ipsum 
excitavi te, def, Vulg.; guia ad hoc ipsum te suscitavi, Orig.-lat.; guia in 
hoc ipsum excitavi te suscitavi te, g; quiain hoc ipsum te servavi, Ambrstr., 
who adds alii codices sic habent, ad hoc te suscitavi, Sive servavi sive 
suscitavi unus est sensus. 

The reading of the LXX is καὶ ἕνεκεν τούτου διετηρήθης iva ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν 
σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν μου, καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ. St. Paul’s 
variations are interesting. 

(1) εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο is certainly a better and more emphatic representation 
of the Hebrew than the somewhat weak τούτου ἕνεκεν. The expression is 
characteristically Pauline (Rom. xiii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 5; Eph. vi. 18, 22; 
Col. iv. 8). 

(2) ἐξήγειρά σε represents better than the LXX the grammar of the Hebrew, 
‘I made thee to stand,’ but not the sense. The variants of the Hexapla 
(διετήρησαν and other versions suggest that a more literal translation was in 
existence, but the word was very probably St. Paul’s own choice, selected to 
bring out more emphatically the meaning of the passage as he understood it. 

(3) ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοί. St. Paul here follows the incorrect translation of 
he LXX. The Hebrew gives as the purpose of God’s action that Pharaoh 
may know God’s power, and as a further consequence that God’s name may 
be known in the world. The LXX assimilates the first clause to the second 
aod gives it a similar meaning. 


IX. 17, 18. ] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 257 


(4) ὅπως ... ὅπως. Here St. Paul obliterates the distinction which the 
LXX (following the Hebrew) had made of iva... ὅπως. But this alteration 
was only a natural result of the change in the LXX itself, by which the two 
clauses had become coordinate in thought. 

(5) For δύναμιν the LXX reads ἰσχύν. The reading of St. Paul appears 
as a variant in the Hexapla. 


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

σκληρύνει : ‘hardens’; the word is suggested by the narrative of 
Exodus from which the former quotation is taken (Ex. iv. 21; vii. 
3; ix. 12; X. 20, 27; xi.10; xiv. 4, 8, 17) and it must be translated in 
accordance with the O. T. usage, without any attempt at softening 
or evading its natural meaning. 


The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament. 


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

This is St. Paul’s argument. Hence there is no necessity for 
softening (as some have attempted to do) the apparently harsh 
expression of ver. 18, ‘whom He will He hardeneth. St. Paul 
says no more than he had said in i. 20-28, where he described the 
final wickedness of the world as in a sense the result 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. 


258 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS {IX. 18, 19 


We must not soften the passage. On the other hand, we must 
not read into it more than it contains: as, for example, Calvin 
does. He imports various extraneous ideas, that St. Paul speaks 
of election to salvation and of reprobation to death, that men 
were created that they might perish, that God’s action not only 
might be but was arbitrary: Hoc enim vult efficere apud nos, ul 
in ea quae afparet inter electos et reprobos diversitate, mens nostra 
conienta sit quod τα visum fuertt Deo, alios tlluminare in salutem, 
alios in mortem excaecare ... Corruit ergo frivolum tllud effugium quod 
de praescientia Scholastict habent, Neque enim praevideri ruinam im- 
piorum a Domino Paulus tradtt, sed eius constlio et voluniale ordinari, 
quemadmodum et Solomo docet, non modo praecognilum Suisse tmpiorum 
interttum, sed imptios tpsos futsse destinato creatos ul pertrent. 

The Apostle says nothing about eternal life or death. He says 
nothing about the principles upon which God does act; he never 
savs that His action is arbitrary (he will prove eventually that it 
is not so), but only that if it be no Jew who accepts the Scripture 
has any right to complain. He never says or implies that God 
has created man for the purpose of his damnation. What he does 
say is that in His government of the world God reserves to Him- 
self perfect freedom of dealing with man on His own conditions 
and not on man’s. So Gore, of. εἴΐ. p. 40, sums up the argument: 
‘God always revealed Himself as retaining His liberty of choice, 
as refusing to tie Himself, as selecting the historic examples of 
His hardening judgement and His compassionate good will, so as 
to baffle all attempts on our part to create His vocations by our 
own efforts, or anticipate the persons whom He will use for His 
purposes of mercy or of judgement.’ 


19. ἐρεῖς μοι οὖν. Hardly are the last words ὃν δὲ θέλει σκλη- 
ρύνει Out of St. Paul’s mouth than he imagines his opponent in 
controversy catching at an objection, and he at once takes it up and 
forestalls him. By substituting this phrase for the more usual 
τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, St. Paul seems to identify himself less with his 
opponent’s objection. 

μοι οὖν is the reading of N° ABP, Orig. 1/3 Jo.-Damasc.; οὖν μοι of the 


TR. is supported by DEF GK L &c., Vulg. Boh., Orig. 2/3 and Orig.-lat. 
Chrys. Thdrt. It is the substitution of the more usual order. 


τί ἔτι μέμφεται : ‘why considering that it is God who hardens 
me does He still find fault?’ Why does he first produce a 
position of disobedience to His will, and then blame me for falling 
into it?) The és implies that a changed condition has been pro- 
duced which makes the continuation of the previous results sur- 
prising. So Rom. iii. 7 εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ψεύσματι 
ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, τί ἔτι κἀγὼ ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸς κρίνομαι ; 
Rom. vi. 2 οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ ; 


TX. 19-21.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 259 


τί ἔτι μέμφεται is read by TR. and RV. with N AKLP &c., Vulg. Syrz. 
Boh., and many Fathers. BD EF G, Orig.-lat. Hieron. insert οὖν after τί. 
βουλήματι, which occurs in only two other passages in the N. T. 

(Acts xxvii. 43; 1 Pet. iv. 3) seems to be substituted for the 
ordinary word θέλημα as implying more definitely the deliberate 
purpose of God. 

ἀνθέστηκε. Perfect with present sense; cf. Rom. xili. 2 ὥστε 
ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκεν, 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. ὦ ἄνθρωπε. 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 ὦ ἄνθρωπε) 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. 

pevoovye : ‘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. 

ὦ ἄνθρωπε pevovvye is read by NAB (but B om. γε as in Phil. iii. 8), 
Orig. 1/4 Jo.-Damasc.; μενοῦνγε is omitted by DFG, defg Vulg., 
Orig.-lat., and inserted before ὦ ἄνθρωπε by N°D°K LP and later MSS., 
Orig. 3/4, Chrys. Theod.-mops Thdrt. &c. The same MSS. (F Gdfg) and 
Orig.-lat. omit the word again in x. 18, and in Phil. iii. 8 BDEFGKL 
and other authorities read μὲν οὖν alone. The expression was omitted as 


unusual by many copyists, and when restored in the margin crept into 
a differcnt position in the verse. 


μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα, κιτιλ. The conception of the absolute power 
of the Creator over His creatures as represented by the power of 
the potter over his clay was a well-known O. T. idea which 
St. Paul shared with his opponent and to which therefore he could 
appeal with confidence. Both the idea and the language are bor- 
rowed from Is. xlv. 8-10 ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος ὁ κτίσας σε" ποῖον βέλτιον 
κατεσκεύασα ὡς πηλὸν κεραμέως... μὴ ἐρεῖ ὁ πηλὸς τῷ κεραμεῖ Τί 
ποιεῖς, ὅτι οὐκ ἐργάζῃ οὐδὲ ἔχεις χεῖρας ; μὴ ἀποκριθήσεται τὸ πλάσμα 
πρὸς τὸν πλάσαντα αὐτό" and Is, xxix. 16 οὐχ ὡς ὁ πηλὸς τοῦ κερα- 
μέως λογισθήσεσθε; μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι αὐτὸ Οὐ σύ με 
ἔπλασας ; ἣ τὸ ποίημα τῷ ποιήσαντι Οὐ συνετῶς με ἐποίησας ; Cf. also 
Is. Ixiv. 8; Jer. xviii. 6; Eccles. xxxvi. [xxxiii.] 13. 

21. ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν : ‘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 rod πηλοῦ, which 


260 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 21, 22. 


should of course be taken with ἐξουσίαν, is intended to emphasize 
the contrast between κεραμεύς and πηλός, as suggesting the true 
relations of man and God. 

φυράματος : ‘the lump of clay.’ Cf. Rom. xi. 16; 1 Cor. v. 6,7, 
Gal. v.9. The exact point to which this metaphor isto be pressed 
may be doubtful, and it must always be balanced by language used 
elsewhere in St. Paul’s Epistles; but it is impossible to argue that 
there is no idea of creation implied: the potter is represented not 
merely as adapting for this or that purpose a vessel already made, 
but as making out of a mass of shapeless material one to which he 
gives a character and form adapted for different uses, some 
honourable, some dishonourable. 

ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος, κιτιλι: cf. Wisd. xv. 7 (see below): 
2 Tim. ii, 20 ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔστι μόνον σκεύη χρυσᾶ καὶ 
ἀργυρᾶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ξύλινα καὶ ὀστράκινα, καὶ ἃ μὲν εἰς τιμήν, ἃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν. 
But there the side of human responsibility is emphasized, ἐὰν οὖν τις 
ἐκκαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, ἔσται σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, K.TA. 

The point of the argument is clear. Is there any injustice if 
God has first hardened Pharaoh’s heart and then condemned him, 
if Israel is rejected and then blamed for being rejected? ZThe answer 
is twofold. In vv. 19-21 God’s conduct is shown to be right under 
all circumstances. In vv. 22 sq. it is explained or perhaps rather 
hinted that He has a beneficent purpose in view. In wv. 19-21 
St. Paul shows that for God to be unjust is impossible. As He has 
made man, man is absolutely in His power. Just as we do not 
consider the potter blameable if he makes a vessel for a dishonour- 
able purpose, so we must not consider God unjust if He chooses to 
make a man like Pharaoh for a dishonourable part in history. Posé- 
guam demonstratum est, Deum tta egisse, demonstratum etiam est omnt- 
bus, gui Most credunt, eum convenienter suae tustitiae egisse. Wetstein. 

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

22. εἰ δὲ θέλων ὁ Θεός, κιτιλ.: ‘but if God, &c., what will you say 
then?’ like our English idiom ‘ What and if’ There is no apo- 
dosis to the sentence, but the construction, although grammatically 
incomplete, is by no means unusual: cf. Jo. vi. 61, 62 τοῦτο ὑμᾶς 
σκανδαλίζει ; ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου 
ἦν τὸ πρότερον; Acts xxiii. g οὐδὲν κακὸν εὑρίσκομεν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ 
τούτῳ" εἰ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος ; Luke xix. 41, 42 καὶ ὡς 
ἤγγυσεν, ἰδὼν τὴν πόλιν ἔκλαυσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ λέγων ὅτι Εἰ ἔγνως ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ 
ταύτῃ καὶ σὺ τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην. There is no difficulty (as Oltramare 
seems to think) in the length of the sentence. All other con- 
structions, such as an attempt to find an apodosis in καὶ ἕνα 


IX. 22.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 261 


γνωρίσῃ, in obs καὶ ἐκάλεσεν, OF even in ver. 31 τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, are 
needlessly harsh and unreal. 

The δέ (which differs from οὖν : cf. Jo. vi. 62; 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 ?’ 

θέλων. There has been much discussion as to whether this 
should be translated ‘because God wishes,’ or ‘although God 
wishes.’ (1) In the former case (so de W. and most commenta- 
tors) the words mean, ‘God because He wishes to show the 
terrible character of His wrath restrains His hands, until, as in the 
case of Pharaoh, He exhibits His power by a terrible overthrow. 
He hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order that the judgement might 
be more terrible.’ (2) In the latter case (Mey.-W. Go. Lips. 
Gif.), ‘God, although His righteous anger might naturally lead to 
His making His power known, has through His kindness delayed 
and borne with those who had become objects that deserved His 
wrath. That this is correct is shown by the words ἐν πολλῇ μακρο- 
θυμίᾳ, which are quite inconsistent with the former interpretation, 
and by the similar passage Rom. ii. 4, where it is distinctly stated 
τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ eis μετάνοιάν oe ἄγει. Even if St. Paul occa- 
sionally contradicts himself, that is no reason for making him do so 
unnecessarily. As Liddon says the three points added in this 
sentence, the natural wrath of God against sin and the violation of 
His law, the fact that the objects of His compassion were σκεύη 
ὀργῆς, and that they were fitted for destruction, all intensify the 
difficulty of the Divine restraint. 

ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν ὀργὴν καὶ γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ are reminis- 
cences of the language used in the case of Pharaoh, ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν 
σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν pov. 

σκεύη ὀργῆς : ‘ vessels which deserve God’s anger’; the image of 
the previous verse is continued. The translation ‘destined for 
God’s anger’ would require σκεύη eis ὀργήν : and the change of con- 
struction from the previous verse must be intentional. 

κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν : ‘prepared for destruction.’ The 
construction is purposely different from that of the corresponding 
words ἃ προητοίμασεν. St. Paul does not say ‘whom God pre- 
pared for destruction’ (Mey.), although in a sense at any rate he 
could have done so (ver. 18 and i. 24, &c.), for that would conflict 
with the argument of the sentence; nor does he say that they 


262 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [IX. 22, 28 


had fitted themselves for destruction (Chrys. Theoph. Oecum. 
Grotius Beng.), although, as the argument in chap. x shows, he 
could have done so, for this would have been to impair the con- 
ception of God’s freedom of action which at present he wishes to 
emphasize; but he says just what is necessary for his immediate 
purpose—they were fitted for eternal destruction (ἀπώλεια opp. to 
σωτηρία). That is the point to which he wishes to attract our 
attention. 

23. καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃς These words further develop and explain 
God’s action so as to silence any objection. St. Paul states that 
God has not only shown great long-suffering in bearing with those 
fitted for destruction, but has done so in order to be able to show 
mercy to those whom He has called: the καί therefore couples ἵνα 
γνωρίσῃ in thought with ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ. St. Paul is no longer 
(see ver. 24) confining himself to the special case of Pharaoh, 
although he still remembers it, as his language shows, but he is 
considering the whole of God’s dealings with the unbelieving Jews, 
and is laying down the principles which will afterwards be worked 
out in full—that the Jews had deserved God’s wrath, but that He 
had borne with them with great long-suffering both for their own 
sakes and for the ultimate good of His Church. In these verses, as 
in the expression ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις, St. Paul is in fact hinting 
at the course of the future argument, and in that connexion they 
must be understood. 


On the exact construction of these words there has been great variety of 
opinion, and it may be convenient to mention some divergent views. 
(1) WH. on the authority of B, several minuscules, Vulg. Boh. Sah., Orig.-lat. 
3/3 omit καί. This makes the construction simpler, but probably for that very 
reason should be rejected. A reviser or person quoting would naturally omit 
wai: it is difficult to understand why it should be inserted: moreover on such 
a point as this the authority of versions is slighter, since to omit a pleonastic καί 
would come within the ordinary latitude of interpretation necessary for their 
purpose. There is some resemblance to xvi. 27. In both cases we find the 
same MS. supporting a reading which we should like to accept, but which 
has much the appearance of being an obvious correction. (2) Calv. Grot. 
de W. Alf. and others make «ai couple θέλων and iva γνωρίσῃ. But 
this obliges us to take θέλων ... ἐνδείξασθαι as expressing the purpose 
of the sentence which is both impossible Greek and gives a meaning 
inconsistent with μακροθυμίᾳ. (3) Fri. Beyschlag and others couple iva 
ἡνωρίσῃ and εἰς ἀπώλειαν ; but this is to read an idea of purpose into 
κατηρτισμένα which it does not here possess. (4) To make καὶ ἕνα 
give the apodosis of the sentence εἰ δὲ ἤνεγκεν (Ols. Ewald, &c.), or to 
create a second sentence repeating εἰ, καὶ εἰ va... (supposing a second 
ellipse), or to find a verb hidden in ἐκάλεσεν, supposing that St. Paul meant 
to write καὶ εἰ iva γνωρίσῃ . . . ἐκάλεσεν but changed the construction and put 
the verb into a relative sentence (Go. Oltramare); all these are quite im- 
possible and quite unnecessary constructions, 


τὸν πλοῦτον, κιτιλ.: cf. ii, 4: Eph, iii. 16 κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης 
Rik 
αὐτοῦ. 


IX. 23-25.]| THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 263 


ἃ προητοίμασεν eis δόξαν : the best commentary on these words 
is Rom. viii. 28-30. 
We my note the very striking use made of this metaphor of the potter’s 


wheel and the cup by Browning, Rabbi ben Ezra, xxvi-xxxii. We may 
especially illustrate the words ἃ προητοίμασεν εἰς δόξαν. 


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 warpings past the aim! 
My times be in Thy hand! 
Perfect the cup as planned! 
Let age approve of youth, and death complete the same! 


24. ols καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς : ‘even us whom He has called.’ 
The οὖς is attracted into the gender of ἡμᾶς. The relative clause 
gives an additional fact in a manner not unusual with St. Paul. 
Rom. 1. 6 ἐν ois ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς: 2 Tim. i. 10 φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ 
ἀφθαρσίαν διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ knpvé 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. (1) 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: La sz dominus ad aliquod tempus patienter 
sustinet...ad demonstranda suae severitatis tudicia ... ad virlulem 
suam tllustrandam,.. .praeterea quo inde notior fiat et clarius elucescat 
suae tn electos misericordiae amplitudo: quid in hac dispensatione 
misericordiae dignum ὃ 

25. ὡς kal: ‘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 

kahéow . . . ἠγαπημένην---αὐοίεα 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 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 25, 26. 


ammi, ‘not a people’ and Lo-ruhamah, ‘without mercy,’ to signify 
the fallen condition of the ten tribes; and Hosea prophesies their 
restoration (cf. Hosea i. 6, 8, 9). St. Paul applies the principle 
which underlies these words, that God can take into His covenant 
those who were previously cut off from it, to the calling of the 
Gentiles. A similar interpretation of the verse was held by the 
Rabbis. Pesachim viii. f. Dixit R. Eliezer: Non alia de causa in 
exilium et captivitatem misit Deus S. B. Israelem inter nationes, nisi 
ul facerent multos proselytos S. D. Oseae ii. 25 (23) ef seram eam 
mthi in terram. Numquid homo seminat satum nisi ut colligat 
multos coros tritici? Wetstein. 

The LXX reads ἐλεήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠλεημένην, καὶ ἐρὼ τῷ οὐ λαῷ pov Λαός pov 
εἶ σύ, but for the first clause which agrees with the Hebrew the Vatican 
substitutes ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην. St. Paul inverts the order of the 
clauses, so that the reference to τὸν οὐ λαόν μου, which seems particularly to 
suit the Gentiles, comes first, and for ἐρῶ substitutes καλέσω which naturally 
crept in from the ἐκάλεσεν of the previous verse, and changes the construc- 
tion of the clause to suit the new word. In the second clause St. Paul seems 
to have used a text containing the reading of the Vatican MS., for the latter 
can hardly have been altered to harmonize with him. St. Peter makes use of 
the passage with the reading of the majority of MSS.: of ποτὲ ob Aads, νῦν δὲ 
λαὸς Θεοῦ, of οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες (1 Pet. ii. 10). 


καλέσω with a double accusative can only mean ‘I will name,’ 
although the word has been suggested by its previous occurrence 
in another sense. 

26. καὶ ἔσται, ἐν τῷ τόπῳ .... ἐκεῖ «.7.A. St. Paul adds a passage 
with a similar purport from another part of Hosea (i. 10). The 
meaning is the same and the application to the present purpose 
based on exactly the same principles. The habit had probably 
arisen of quoting passages to prove the calling of the Gentiles ; and 
these would become commonplaces, which at a not much later date 
might be collected together in writing, see Hatch, Z’ssays in Biblical 
Greek, p. 103, and cf. Rom. iii.to. The only difference between 
St. Paul’s quotation and the LXX is that he inserts ἐκεῖ : this insertion 
seems to emphasize the idea of the place, and it is somewhat difficult 
to understand what place is intended. (1) In the original the place 
referred to is clearly Palestine: and if that be St. Paul’s meaning 
he must be supposed to refer to the gathering of the nations at 
Jerusalem and the foundation of a Messianic kingdom there 
(cf. xi. 26). St. Paul is often strongly influenced by the language and 
even the ideas of Jewish eschatology, although in his more spiritual 
passages he seems to be quite freed from it. (2) If we neglect 
the meaning of the original, we may interpret ἐκεῖ of the whole 
world. ‘Wheresoever on earth there may be Gentiles, who have 
had to endure there the reproach of being not God’s people, in 
that place they shall be called God’s people, for they will become 
members of His Church and it will be universal.’ 


IX. 27-29.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 265 


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

27. ἐὰν ἢ ὁ ἀριθμός... ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς : quoted from the LXX of 
Is. x. 22, but considerably shortened. The LXX differs considerably 
from the Hebrew, which the translators clearly did not understand. 
But the variations in the form do not affect the meaning in any 
case. St. Paul reproduces accurately the idea of the original 
passage. The context shows that the words must be translated 
‘only a remnant shall be saved,’ and that it is the cutting off of 
Israel by the righteous judgement of God that is foretold. Prof. 
Cheyne in 1884 translated the Hebrew: ‘For though thy people, 
O Israel, were as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall 
return: a final work and a decisive, overflowing with righteousness | 
For a final work and a decisive doth the Lord, Jehovah Sabaoth, 
execute within all the land,’ 

28. λόγον yap συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ποιήσει Κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς : 
συντελῶν, ‘accomplishing, συντέμνων, ‘abridging.’ Cf. Is. xxviii. 22 
διότι συντετελεσμένα καὶ συντετμημένα πράγματα ἤκουσα παρὰ Κυρίου 
Σαβαώθ, ἃ ποιήσει ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. ‘For a word, accomplishing 
and abridging it, that is, ἃ sentence conclusive and concise, will 
the Lord do upon the earth.’ 


Three critical points are of some interest: 

(1) The variations in the MSS. of the Gr. Test. For ὑπόλειμμα (ὑπόλιμμα 
WH.) of the older MSS. (NAB, Eus.), later authorities read κατάλειμμα 
to agree with the LXX. In ver. 28 λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων 
ποιήσει Κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is the reading of δὲ AB a few minusc., Pesh. Boh. 
Aeth., Eus. 2/3; Western and Syrian authorities add after συντέμνων, ἐν 
δικαιοσύνῃ" ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον to suit the LXX. Alford defends the 
TR. on the plea of homoeoteleuton (συντέμνων and συντετμημένονῚ), but the 
insertion of γάρ after λόγον which is preserved in the TR. (where it is 
ungrammatical) and does not occur in the text of the LXX, shows that the 
shortened form was what St. Paul wrote. 

(2) The variations from the LXX. The LXX reads καὶ ἐὰν γένηται 
ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ ws ἡ ἄμμος THs θαλάσσης, TO κατάλειμμα αὐτῶν σωθήσεται. 
λόγον συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον Κύριος 
ποιήσει ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ὅλῃ. St. Paul substitutes ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, 
a reminiscence from Hosea i. 10, the words immediately preceding those 
quoted by him above. The later part of the quotation he considerably 
shortens. 

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


29. προείρηκεν : ‘has foretold.’ A second passage is quoted in 
corroboration of the preceding. 
εἰ μὴ Κύριος κιτιλ,, quoted from the LXX of Is. i. 9, which 


266 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [IX. 19-29. 


again seems adequately to represent the Hebrew. ‘Even in the 
O. T., that book from which you draw your hopes, it is stated that 
Israel would be completely annihilated and forgotten but for 
a small remnant which would preserve their seed and name.’ 


The Power and Rights of God as Creator. 


St. Paul in this section (vv. 1g-29) expands and strengthens 
the previous argument. He had proved in wv. 14-18 the absolute 
character of the Divine sovereignty from the O. T.; he now 
proves the same from the fundamental relations of God to man 
implied in that fact which all his antagonists must admit—that 
God had created man. This he applies in an image which was 
common in the O. T. and the Apocryphal writings, that of the 
potter and the clay. God has created man, and, as far as the 
question of ‘right’ and ‘justice’ goes, man cannot complain of 
his lot. He would not exist but for the will of God, and whether 
his lot be honourable or dishonourable, whether he be destined for 
eternal glory or eternal destruction, he has no ground for speak- 
ing of injustice. The application to the case in point is very 
clear. Ifthe Jews are to be deprived of the Messianic salvation, 
they have, looking at the question on purely abstract grounds, 
no right or ground of complaint. Whether or no God be 
arbitrary in His dealings with them does not matter: they must 
submit, and that without murmuring. 

This is clearly the argument. We cannot on the one hand 
minimize the force of the words by limiting them to a purely 
earthly destination: as Beyschlag, ‘out of the material of the 
human race which is at His disposal as it continues to come into 
existence to stamp individuals with this or that historical destina- 
tion,’ implying that St. Paul is making no reference either to the 
original creation of man or to his final destination, in both points 
erroneously. St. Paul’s argument cannot be thus limited. It is 
entirely based on the assumption that God has created man, and 
the use of the words εἰς δόξαν, εἰς ἀπώλειαν prove conclusively that 
he is looking as much as he ever does to the final end and 
destination of man. To limit them thus entirely deprives the 
passage of any adequate meaning. 

But on the other side it is equally necessary to see exactly how 
much St. Paul does say, and how much he does not. He never 
says, he carefully avoids saying, that God has created men for 
reprobation. What his argument would bear is that, supposing 
we isolate this point, the ‘rights’ of man against God or of God 
against man, then, even if God had created man for reprobation, 
man could have no grounds for complaint. 


IX. 19-29.] ΤΗΕ 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. cit. p. 37): ‘ His 
method may be called abstract or ideal: that is to say, he makes 
abstraction of the particular aspect of a subject with which he is 
immediately dealing, and—apparently indifferent to being misun- 
derstood—treats it in isolation; giving, perhaps, another aspect of 
the same subject in equal abstraction in a different place.’ He 
isolates one side of his argument in one place, one in another, 
and just for that very reason we must never use isolated texts. 
We must not make deductions from one passage in his writings 
separated from its contexts and without modifying it by other 
passages presenting other aspects of the same questions. The 
doctrinal deductions must be made at the end of chap. xi and not 
of chap. ix. 

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

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

(The argument of Rom. ix—xi is put for English readers in the 
most accessible and clearest form by Mr. Gore in the paper often 
quoted above in Studia Biblica, 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 very marked 
resemblance that exists between St. Paul’s language there and certain 


268 EPISTLE TO THE ΕΟΜΑΝΒ [IX. 19-29. 


passages in the Book of Wisdom has been pointed out. Again in the ninth 
chapter the same resemblance meets us, and demands some slight treatment 
in this place. The passages referred to occur mostly in Wisdom xi, xii. 

There is first of all similarity of subject. Wisdom x-xix form like 
Rom. ix-xi a sort of Philosophy of History. The writer devotes himself to 
exhibiting Wisdom as a power in the world, and throughout (influenced 
perhaps by associations connected with the place of his residence) contrasts 
the fortunes of the Israelites and Egyptians, just as St. Paul makes Moses 
and Pharaoh his two typical instances. 


And this resemblance is continued in details. 
The impossibility of resisting the Divine power is more than once dwelt 
on, and in language which has a very close resemblance with passages in the 


Romans. 

Rom. ix. 19, 20 ἐρεῖς μοι οὖν, Τί ἔτι 
μέμφεται; τῷ γὰρ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ 
τίς ἀνθέστηκε; ... μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ 
πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι, Τί με ἐποί- 
σας οὕτως; 


Wisd. xi. 21 καὶ κράτει βραχίονός 
σου τίς ἀντιστήσεται; 

xii. 12 τίς γὰρ ἐρεῖ, Τί ἐποίησας; ἣ 
τίς ἀντιστήσεται τῷ κρίματί σου; 
τίς δὲ ἔγκαλέσει σοι κατὰ ἐθνῶν ἀπολω- 
λότων, ἃ σὺ ἐποίησας ; ἢ τίς εἰς κατά- 
στασίν σοι ἐλεύσεται ἔκδικος κατὰ ἀδί- 
κων ἀνθρώπων ; 


Both writers again lay great stress on the forbearance of God. 


Rom. ix. 22, 23 εἰ δὲ θέλων 6 
Θεὸς ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν ὀργὴν καὶ 
γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ ἤνεγκεν 
ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ σκεύη ὀργῆς 
κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν, 
καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς δόξης 
αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ σκεύη ἐλέους κ.τ.λ. 


Wisd. xii. 10 κρίνων δὲ κατὰ βραχὺ 
ἐδίδους τόπον μετανοίας. 

xii. 20 εἰ γὰρ ἐχθροὺς παίδων σου καὶ 
ὀφειλομένους θανάτῳ μετὰ τοσαύ- 
της ἐτιμώρησας προσοχῆς καὶ δεήσεως, 
δοὺς χρόνους καὶ τόπον δ᾽ ὧν ἀπαλ- 
λαγῶσι τῆς κακίας, μετὰ πόσης ἀκρι- 
βείας ἔκρινας τοὺς υἱούς σου ; 


So again we have the image of the potter used by both, although neither 
the context nor the purpose is quite similar. 


Rom. ix. 21 ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν 
ὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ 
αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς 
τιμὴν σκεῦος, ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν ; 


Wisd. xv. 7 καὶ γὰρ κεραμεὺς ἅπα- 
λὴν γῆν θλίβων ἐπίμοχθον πλάσσει πρὸς 
ὑπηρεσίαν ἡμῶν ἕκαστον" ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ 
αὐτοῦ πηλοῦ ἀνεπλάσατο τά τε τῶν 


καθαρῶν ἔργων δοῦλα σκεύη, τά τε 
ἐναντία, πάνθ᾽ ὁμοίως" τούτων δὲ ἑτέρου 
τίς ἑκάστου ἐστὶν ἡ χρῆσις, κριτὴς ὃ 
πηλουργός. 

The particular resemblance of special passages and of the general drift of 
the argument combined with similar evidence from other parts of the Epistle 
seems to suggest some definite literary obligation. But here the indebted- 
ness ceases. The contrast is equally instructive. The writer of the Book of 
Wisdom uses broad principles without understanding their meaning, is often 
self-contradictory, and combines with ideas drawn from his Hellenic culture 
crude and inconsistent views. The problem is the distinction between the 
positions of Jews and Gentiles in the Divine economy. Occasionally we 
find wide universalist sentiments, but he always comes back to a strong 
nationalism. At one time he says (xi. 23-26): ‘ But Thou hast mercy upon 
all... Thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which 
Thou hast made... Thou sparest all: for they are Thine, O Lord, Thou 
Lover of souls.’ But shortly after we read (xii. 10): ‘Thou gavest them 
place for repentance, not being ignorant that their cogitation would never 
be changed.’ We soon find in fact that the philosophy of the Book of 
Wisdom is strictly limited by the nationalist sympathies of the writer. The 


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


Gentiles are to be punished by God for being enemies of His people and for 
their idolatry. Any forbearance has been only for a time and that largely 
for the moral instruction thus indirectly to be given to the Jews. The Jews 
have been punished,—but only slightly, and with the purpose of teaching 
them : the Gentiles for their idolatry deserve ‘ extreme damnation.’ 

If St. Paul learnt from the Book of Wisdom some expressions illustrating 
the Divine power, and a general aspect of the question: he obtained nothing 
further. His broad views and deep insight are hisown. 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 in 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 theologians who attempted to construct a system out of Gnostic¢s 
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. 25) and generally 
misinterpreted, very congenial. And, as might naturally be expected, the 
doctrine of election rigidly interpreted harmonized with their own exclusive 
religious pretensions, and with the key-word of theirsystem φύσις. We are not 
surprised therefore to learn that Rom. ix, especially ver. 14 sq., was one of their 
strongholds, nor do we require to be told how they interpreted it (see Origen 
De Princ. 111. ii. 8, vol. xxi. p. 267, ed. Lomm. = Phtloc, xxi. vol. xxv. p. 170; 
Comm. in Rom. Praef. vol. vi. p. 1; and Tert. Adv. Marcion. 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 244 (vii. 15-18, vol. vii. pp. 160-180), but also in 
the third book of the De Princzpits, written before 231 (De Prin. III. ii. 7-22, 
vol. xxi. pp. 265-303 = Philoc. xxi. vol. xxv. pp. 164-190), besides some few 
other passages. His exegesis is throughout a strenuous defence of freewill. 
Exegetically the most marked feature is that he puts vv. 14-19 into the 
mouth of an opponent of St. Paul, an interpretation which influenced sub 
sequent patristic commentators. Throughout he states that God calls men 
because they are worthy, not that they are worthy because they are called; 
and that they are worthy because they have made themselves so. Cf. ad 
Rom. vii. 17 (Lomm. vii. 175) Ut enim Iacob esset vas ad honorem sanctt- 
ficatum, et utile Domino, ad omne opus bonum paratum, ANIMA EIUS 
EMENDAVERAT SEMET IPSAM: ef videns Deus puritatem etus, et potestatem 
habens ex eadem massa facere aliud vas ad honorem, aliud ad contumeliam, 
Tacob quidem, qui ut diximus emundaverat semet ipsum, fecit vas aa 
honorem, Esau VERO, CUIUS ANIMAM NON ITA PURAM NEC ITA SIM- 
PLICEM VIDIT, ex cadem massa fecit vas ad contumeliam. To the question 
that may be asked, how or when did they make themselves such, the answer 
is, ‘In a state of pre-existence.’ De Princ. II. ix. 7, Lomm. xxi. 225 ig¢/ur secut 
de Esau et Iacob diligentius perscrutatis scripturis invenitur, quia non est 
iniustitia apud Deum... 51 EX PRAECEDENTIS VIDELICET VITAE MERITIS 
digne eum electum esse sentiamus a Deo, ita ut fratri praepont mereretur. 


Influence 


of Origen. 


Chrysos- 
tom. 


270 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 6-29. 


See also III. i. 21. Lomm. xxi. 300. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart he 
explains by the simile of rain. The rain is the same for all, but under its 
influence well-cultivated fields send forth good crops, ill-cultivated fields 
thistles, &c. (cf. Heb. vi. 7, 8). So it is a man’s own soul which hardens 
itself by refusing to yield to the Divine grace. The simile of the potter he 
explains by comparing 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21. ‘A soul which has not cleansed 
itself nor purged itself of its sins by penitence, becomes thereby a vessel for 
dishonour.’ And God knowing the character of the souls He has to deal 
with, although He does not foreknow their future, makes use of them—as 
for example Pharaoh—to fulfil that part in history which is necessary for 
His purpose. 

Origen’s interpretation of this passage, with the exception of his doctrine 
of pre-existence, had a very wide influence both in the East and West. In 
the West his interpretation is followed in the main by Jerome (Z/zst. 120 
ad Hedibiam de quaestionidus 12, cap. 10, Migne xxii. 997), by Pelagius 
(Migne xxx. 687-691), and Sedulius Scotus (Migne ciii. 83-93). In the East, 
aiter its influence had prevailed for a century and a half, it became the 
starting-point of the Antiochene exegesis. Of this school Diodore is un- 
fortunately represented to us only in isolated fragments; Theodore is strongly 
influenced by Origen; Chrysostom therefore may be taken as its best and most 
distinguished representative. His comment is contained in the X VIth homily 
on the Romans, written probably before his departure from Antioch, that is 
before the year 308. 

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. And if you 
tell me of the womb, I have in return to tell you of the water.’ On ver. 16 
he explains that Jacob was called because he was worthy, and was known to 
be such by the Divine foreknowledge: ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ Θεοῦ is 
explained as ἡ ἐκλογὴ ἡ κατὰ πρόθεσιν καὶ πρόγνωσιν γενομένη. On wv. 14-20 
Chrysostom does not follow Origen, nor yet does he interpret the verses as ex- 
pressing St. Paul’s own mind ; but he represents him in answer to the objection 
that in this case God would be unjust, as putting a number of hard cases and 
texts which his antagonist cannot answer and thus proving that man has no right 
to object to God’s action, or accuse Him of injustice, since he cannot understand 
or follow Him. ‘ What the blessed Paul aimed at was to show by all that 
he said that only God knoweth who are worthy.’ Verses 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 inconsistent with 
himself. What he does teach is that ‘man should not contravene God, but 
yield to His incomprehensible wisdom.’ On vv. 22-24 he says that Pharaoh 
has been fitted for destruction by his own act; that God has left undone 
nothing which should save him, while he himself had left undone nothing 
which would lead to his own destruction. Yet God had borne with him with 
great long-suffering, wishing to lead him to repentance. ‘Whence comes 
it then that some are vessels of wrath, and some of mercy? Of their own 
free choice. God however being very good shows the same kindness to both.’ 

The commentaries of Chrysostom became supreme in the East, and very 
largely influenced all later Greek commentators, Theodoret (sec. v), Photius 
(sec. ix), Oecumenius (sec. x), Theophylact (sec. xi), Euthymius Zigabenus 
(sec. xii), &c. 


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: 
derived directly from Chrysostom and John of Damascus, and has hardly aries. 
been illuminated or obscured by the strong, although often one-sided, influ- 
ence of Augustine and Western Scholasticism. In the Commentary of Bishop 
Theophanes * on the Romans (he died in 1894) published at Moscow in 
1890, we find these characteristics very clearly. Just as in Chrysostom we 
find the passage interpreted in accordance not with ἃ grioré theories as to 
Grace and Predestination, but with what was clearly St. Paul’s purpose, the 
problem of the ‘ Unbelief of the Jews in the presence of Christianity.? And 
also as in Chrysostom we find vv. 11, 12 explained on the grounds of Fore- 
knowledge, and Pharaoh’s destruction ascribed to his own act. On ver. 18: 
‘ The word “he hardeneth ” must not be understood to mean that God by His 
power effected a hardening in the heart of the disobedient like Pharaoh, but 
that the disobedient in character, under the working of God’s mercies, them- 
selves, according to their evil character do not soften themselves, but more and 
more harden themselves in their obstinacy and disobedience.’ So again 
on vv. 22, 23: ‘God prepared the one to be vessels of mercy, the others 
fashioned themselves into vessels of wrath.’ And the commentary on these 
verses concludes thus: ‘Do not be troubled and do not admit of the thought 
that there is any injustice, or that the promise has failed; but on the contrary 
believe, that God in all his works is good and right, and rest yourselves iw 
devotion to His wise and for us unsearchable destinations and divisions.’ 
There is, in fact, a clear conception of the drift and purpose of St. Paul’s 
argument, bat a fear of one-sided predestination teaching makes a complete 
grasp of the whole of the Apostle’s meaning impossible. 

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

The most complete exposition of the ninth chapter of Romans is found in 
the treatise 4d Semplicianum, i. qu. 2, written about the year 397, and all the 
leading points in this exposition are repeated in his last work, the Opus 
imperfectum contra Iulianum, i. 141. The main characteristics of the 
commentary are that (1) he ascribes vy. 14-19 to St. Paul himself, and considers 
that they represent his own opinions, thus correcting the false exegesis of Origen 
and Chrysostom, and (2) that he takes a view of the passage exactly opposite 
to that of the latter. The purpose of St. Paul is to prove that works do 
not precede grace but follow it, and that Election is not based on foreknowledge, 
for if it were based on foreknowledge then it would imply merit. Ad Stmpilic. 
i, qu. 2,§ 2 Ut scilicet non se quisque arbitretur ideo percepisse gratiam, quia 
bene operatus est; sed bene operari non posse, nist per fidem perceperit 
gratiam...§ 3 Prima est igitur gratia, secunda opera bona. ‘The instance 
of Jacob and Esau proves that the gift of the Divine grace is quite gratuitous 
and independent of human merit—that grace in fact precedes faith. § 7 emo 
enim credit gui non vocatur ... Ergo ante omne meritum est gratia. Even 
the will to be saved must come from God. Visi etus vocatione non volumus. 
Andagain: § 10 Molutt ergo Esau et non cucurrit : sed et si voluisset et cucur= 
risset, Det adiutorio pervenisset, gui ei etiam velle et currere vocando prae- 
staret, nist vocationis contemptu reprobus fieret. It is then shown that God 
can call whom He will, if He only wills to make His grace congruous. Why 
then does He not do so? The answer lies in the incomprehensibility of the 
Divine justice. The question whom He will pity and whom He will not 


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


Abelard. 


Aquinas. 


272 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 6-29 


depends upon the hidden justice of God which no human standard can measure. 
§ 16 Sit igitur hoc fixum atgue immobile in mente sobria pietate atque stabil 
in fide, quod nulla est iniguitas apud Deum: atque ita tenacissime Sirmisst- 
meque credatur, id tpsum quod Deus cuius vult miseretur et quem vult obdurat, 
hoc est, cuius vult miseretur, et cuius non vult non miseretur, esse alicuius 
occultae atgue ab humano modulo investigabilis aeqguitatis: and so again, aequt- 
tate occultissima et ab humanis sensibus remotissima iudicat. God is always 
just. His mercy cannot be understood. Those whom He calls, He calls out of 
pity ; those whom He does not, He refuses to call out of justice. It is not merit 
or necessity or fortune, but the depths of the wisdom and knowledge of God 
which distinguishes vessels of wrath from vessels of mercy. And so it is for 
the sake of the vessels of mercy that He postpones the punishment of the 
vessels of anger. They are the instruments of the safety of others whom 
God pities. 

Enough has been said to show the lines of St. Augustine’s interpretation. 
Although from time to time there might be controversies about his views on 
Grace, and there might be a tendency to modify some of the harder sides of 
his system, yet his exegesis of this passage, as compared with that of Origen 
or Chrysostom, became supreme in the West. It influenced first the 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 (1079-1142) and 
Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274). Both were largely influenced by Augustine; 
but whereas in the case of Abelard the influence was only indirect, ip 
Aquinas we have the clearest and most perfect example of the Augustinian 
exposition. 

Abelard (Migne clxxviii. 911) makes a somewhat strange division of the 
Epistle, attaching the exposition of ix. 1-5 to the end of chap. viii. He 
begins his fourth book with ix. 6. In vv. 6-13 he sees a vindication of the 
freedom of the Divine will in conferring grace, but only in relation to Jacob. 
‘That the election of Jacob,’ he says, ‘ that is the predestination, may remain 
unmoved.’ The choice depends solely on the Divine grace. Verses 14-19 he 
explains as the objection of an opponent, to which St. Paul gives an answer, 
ver. 20,‘ Who art thou?’ The answer is a rebuke to the man who would 
accuse God of iniquity. God may do what He will with those whom He has 
created: imo multo potius Deo licere quocunque modo voluerit creaturam suam 
tractare atgue disponere, qui obnoxius nullo tenetur debito, antequam quid- 
guam illa promereatur. Men have no more right to complain than the 
animals of their position. There is no injustice with God. He does more 
for mankind by the impiety of Judas than by the piety of Peter. Quts enim 


fidelium nesciat, quam optime usus sit summa tila impietate Tudae, cuius 


exsecrabili perditione totius humant generis redemptionem est operatus. 
Then he argues at some length the question why man should not complain, 
if he is not called as others are called to glory; and somewhat inconsistently 
he finds the solution in perseverance. God calls all, He gives grace to all, 
but some have the energy to follow the calling, while others are slothful 
and negligent. Sic e¢ Deo nobis quotidie regnum coelorum offerente, alius 
regni ipsius desiderio accensus in bonis perseverat operibus, alius im sua 
torpescit ignavia. On vv. 22, 23 he says God bore with the wickedness of 
Pharaoh both to give him an opportunity to repent, and that He might use 
his crimes for the common good of mankind. 

In contrast with the somewhat hesitating and inconsistent character of 
Abelard’s exposition, Aquinas stands out as one of the best and clearest com- 
mentaries written from the Augustinian standpoint. The modern reader musi 
learn to accustom himself to the thoroughness with which each point is 
discussed, and the minuteness of the sub-divisions, but from few exponents will 
he gain so much insight into the philosophical questions discussed, or the 
logical difficulties the solution of which is attempted, 


ΙΧ. 6-29. | THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 273 


The purpose of the section is, he 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. Afostolus supra necessitatem et vir- 
tutem gratiae demonstravit : hic tncipit agere de origine gratiae, utrum ex sola 
Dei electione detur, aut detur ex meritis praecedentium operum, occasione 
accepta ex eo, quod Iudaei quit videbantur divinis obsequits mancipatt, exct- 
derant a gratia. In wv. 6-13 the errors of the Jews, of the Manichaeans 
(who believed that human actions were controlled by the stars which appeared 
at the time of their birth), of the Pelagians, of Origen (the pre-existence of 
souls) are condemned, and it is shown that God chose men, not because they 
were holy, but that they might be holy: «num alteri praceligit, non quia 
sanctus erat, sed ut sanctus esset. In vv.14-18 St. Paul shows from Scripture 
that there is no injustice either in Predestination or in Reprobation. God 
has predestined the just to life for merits which He has Himself conferred on 
them, the wicked to destruction for sins which come from themselves. Dezs 
proposuit se puniturum malos propter peccata, quae a se ipsis habent non 
a Deo. Lustos autem proposuit se praemiaturum propler merita quae a 56 
ipsis non habent. All lies in the will of God; we notice indeed that among 
other erroneous opinions one, that of merita consequentia gratiam,—the view 
apparently of Abelard—is refuted. There isno 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, servav? and excttavi. 
If the first be taken it shows that, as the wicked are worthy of immediate de- 
struction, if they are saved it is owing to the clemency of God; if the second, 
God does not cause wickedness, except by permitting it; He allows the 
wicked by His good judgement to fall into sin on account of the iniquity they 
have committed. Quod quidem non est intelligendum hoc modo quod Deus 
in homine causat malitiam, sed est intelligendum permissive, quia scilicet in 
iusto suo tudicio permittit aliguos ruere in peccatum propter praccedentes 
iniquitates. Deus malitiam ordinat non causat. In vv. 19-24 he says 
there are two questions. (1) Why, speaking generally, should He choose some 
men and not choose others? (2) Why should He choose this or that man and 
not someone else? The second of these is treated in vv. 19-21; to it there is 
no answer but the righteous will of God. No man can complain of being 
unjustly treated, for all are deserving of punishment. The answer to the first 
is contained in vv. 22-24. In order to exhibit both His justice and His 
mercy, there must be some towards whom He shows His justice, some 
towards whom He can show His mercy. The former are those who are naturally 
fitted for eternal damnation: God has done nothing but allow them to do 
what they wish. Vasa afta in interitum he defines as in se habentia aptitu- 
dinem ad aeternam damnationem; and adds Hoc autem solus Deus circa eos 
agit, quod eos permittit agere quae concupiscunt. He has in fact borne with 
them both for their own sakes, and for the sake of those whom He uses to 
exhibit the abundance of His goodness—a goodness which could not be 
apparent unless it could be contrasted with the fate of the condemned. 
Signanter autem dicit (ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae| guia ipsa con- 
demnatio et reprobatio malorum quae est secundum Dei iustitiam, mantfestat 
εἰ commendat sanctorum gloriam qui ab tpsa 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 St. Paul, according to Calvin, is to maintain the freedom of 


T 


Calvin, 


Arminius. 


274 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ix. 6-29 


the Divine election. This is absolutely gratuitous on God’s part, and quite 
independent of man. In the salvation of the just there is nothing above 
God’s goodness, in the punishment of the wicked there is nothing above His 
severity: the one He predestinates to salvation, the other to eternal damna- 
tion, This determination is quite independent of foreknowledge, for there 
can be nothing in man’s fallen nature which can make God show kindness to 
him. The predestination of Pharaoh to destruction is dependent on a just 
but secret counsel of God: the word ‘to harden’ must be taken not only Zer- 
missive, but as signifying the action of the Divine wrath. The ruin of the 
wicked is described not as foreseen, but as ordained by His will and counsel. 
It was not merely foreknown, but, as Solomon says, the wicked were created 
that they might perish. There is no means of telling the principle by which 
one is taken and another rejected; it lies in the secret counsels of God. 
None deserve to be accepted. The wrath of God against Pharaoh was post- 
poned that others might be terrified by the horrible judgement, that God’s 
power might be displayed, and His mercy towards the elect made more clear. 
As God is especially said to prepare the vessels of glory for glory, it follows 
that the preparation of the vessels of wrath equally comes from Him; other- 
wise the Apostle would have said that they had prepared themselves for 
destruction. Before they were created their fate was assigned to them. They 
were created for destruction. 

Arminius represents absolute antagonism on every point to these views. 
The purpose of the chapter is, he says, the same as that of the Epistle, 
looked at from a special point of view. While the aim of the Epistle is to 
prove ‘ Justification by Faith,’ in this chapter St. Paul defends his argument 
against Jews who had urged; ‘It overthrows the promises of God, therefore 
it is not true.’ By the words addressed to Rebecca He signified that He had 
from eternity resolved not to admit to His privileges all the children of 
Abraham, but those only whom He should select in accordance with the 
plan He had laid down. This plan was to extend His mercy 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. 14 ff.) 
shows that God has decided to give His mercy in His own way and on [lis 
own plan, that is to give it not to him who runs, to him that is who strives 
after it by works, but to him who seeks it in the way that He has appointed. 
And this is perfectly just, because He has Himself announced this as His 
method. Then the image of the potter and the clay is introduced to prove, 
not the absolute sovereignty of God, but His right to do what He will, that 
is to name His own conditions. He has created man to become something 
better than he was made. God has made man a vessel: man it is who 
makes himself a bad vessel. God decrees on certain conditions to make 
men vessels of glory or vessels of wrath according as they do or do not fulfil 
these conditions. The condition is Justification by Faith. 

The systems of Arminius and Calvin were for the most part supreme 
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the exegesis of this chapter, 
although there were from time to time signs of historical methods of inter- 
pretation. Hammond for example, the English divine of the seventeenth 
century, in his paraphrase adopts methods very much beyond those of his 
time. But gradually at the beginning of the present century the defects or 
inadequacy of both views became apparent. It was quite clear that as 
against Arminius Calvin’s interpretation of chap. ix was correct, that St. 
Paul’s object in it was not to prove or defend justification by faith, but to 
discuss the question behind it, why it was that some had obtained justification 
by faith and others had not. But equally clear was it that Calvin’s inter- 
pretation, or rather much of what he had read into his interpretation, was 
inconsistent with chap. x, and the language which St. Paul habitually uses 
elsewhere. This apparent inconsistency then must be recognized. How 


[X.30—X.13.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 275 


must it be treated? Various answers have been given. Fritzsche asserts 
that St. Paul is carried away by his argument and unconsciously contradicts 
himself. ‘It is evident that what St. Paul writes is not only inconsistent with 
itself but absolutely contradictory.’ If the Jews, it is asserted in chap. ix, 
were first chosen and then rejected, it was the malignity of God and not their 
own perversity which caused their fall. If God had decreed their fall for 
a time (chap. xi), they could not be blamed if they had fallen; and yet in 
chap. x they are blamed. “77εἰ saepe accidit ut amicum fortunae fulmine 
percussum erecturt studio consolandi argumentis cupide uterentur neque ab 
omni parte firmis et quorum unum cum altero parum consisteret. Et 
melius stbt Paulus consensisset, st Aristotelis non Gamalielis alumnus 
fudsset. 

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

It would be impossible to enumerate all the different varieties of opinion 
in the views of modern scholars. One more specimen will be sufficient. 
The solution offered by Beyschlag. He maintains that all interpretations are 
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? 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 
(Dr. Valentin), Avitesche Geschichte der Exegese des 9. Kapitels resp. der 
Verse 14-23 des Roimerbriefes, bis auf Chrysostomus und Augustinus ein- 
schiesslich, and to Beyschlag (Dr. Willibald), Die paulinische Theodicee, 
Romer 1X-XT, who have materially lightened the labour incurred. 


ISRAEL ITSELF TO BLAME FOR ITS REJECTION. 


IX. 80-X. 18. The reason that God has rejected Israel 
is that, though they sought righteousness, they sought it in 
their own way by means of works, not in God's way through 
faith. Hence when the Messiah came they stumbled as had 
been foretold (vv. 30-33). They refused to give up their 
own method, that of Law, although Law had come to an end 
in Christ (x. 1-4), and this in spite of the fact that the old 


Fritzsche 


Meyer. 


Beyschlag 


276 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 80-X. 8 


system was difficult if not impossible (ver. 5), while the new 
system was easy and within the reach of all (vv. 6-10), indeed 
universal in tts scope (vv. 11-13). 


IX. *° What then is the position of the argument so far? One 
fact is clear. A number of Gentiles who did not profess to be 
in pursuit of righteousness have unexpectedly come upon it; 
a righteousness however of which the characteristic is that it is not 
earned by their own efforts but is the product of faith in a power 
outside them. “Israel on the other hand, the chosen people of 
God, although making strenuous efforts after a rule of moral and 
religious life that would win for them righteousness, have not 
succeeded in attaining to the accomplishment of such a rule. 
33 How has this come about? Because they sought it in their own 
way, not in God’s way. They did not seek it by faith, but their aim 
was to pursue it by a rigid performance of works. ** And hence 
that happened to them which the Prophet Isaiah foretold. He 
spoke (xxviii. 16) of a rock which the Lord would lay in Zion 
and foretold that if a man put his trust in it, he would never 
have cause to be ashamed. But elsewhere (viii. 14) he calls it 
‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence,’ implying that those 
who have not this faith will consider it a stumbling-block in their 
way. This rock is, as you have always been told, the Messiah. The 
Messiah has come; and the Jews through want of faith have 
regarded as a cause of offence that which is the corner stone of 
the whole building. 

xX. ‘Let me pause for a moment, brethren. It is a serious 
accusation that I am bringing against my fellow-countrymen. But 
I repeat that I do it from no feeling of resentment. How great is 
my heart’s good will for them! How earnest my prayer to God 
for their salvation! *For indeed as ἃ fellow-countryman, as one 
who was once as they are, I can testify that they are full of zeal 
for God. That is not the point in which they have failed; it is 
that they have not guided their zeal by that true knowledge which 
is the result of genuine spiritual insight. * Righteousness they 
strove after, but there were two ways of attaining to it. The one 
was God’s method: of that they remained ignorant. The other 
was their own method: to this they clung blindly and wiliully. 
They refused to submit to God's plan of salvation. 


x. 4-12.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 377 


‘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 ; it is 
based on the principle of faith, and it is universal and for all men 
alike. °(1) It is based on the principle of faith. Hence it is that 
while the old method was difficult, if not impossible, the new is 
easy and open to all. The old method righteousness by law, that 
is by the exact performance of legal rules, is aptly described by 
Moses when he says (Lev. xviii. 5), ‘the man who does these 
things shall live,’ i.e. Life in all its fulness here and hereafter was 
to be gained by undeviating strictness of conduct; and that con- 
dition we have seen (i. 18-iii. 20) was impossible of fulfilment. 
‘But listen to the proclamation which righteousness by faith 
makes to mankind. It speaks in well-known words which have 
become through it more real. ‘There is no need for you to say, 
Who will go up into heaven? Heaven has come to you; Christ 
has come down and lived among men. 7 There is no need to 
search the hidden places of the deep. Christ has risen. There 
is no need therefore to seek the living among the dead. You are 
offered something which does not require hard striving or painful 
labour. * The word of God is very nigh thee, in thy heart and in 
thy mouth.’ And that word of God is the message of faith, the 
Gospel which proclaims ‘believe and thou shalt be saved’; and 
this Gospel we preach throughout the world. ὃ All it says to you 
is: ‘With thy mouth thou must confess Jesus as sovereign Lord, 
with thy heart thou must believe that God raised Him from the 
dead.’ For that change of heart which we call faith, brings 
righteousness, and the path of salvation is entered by the con- 
fession of belief in Christ which a man makes at his baptism. 

4 (2) This is corroborated by what the Prophet Isaiah said (xxviii. 
16) in words quoted above (ix. 33), the full meaning of which we 
now ulderstand: ‘Everyone that believeth in Him (i.e. the 
Messiah) shall not be ashamed. Moreover this word of his, 
‘everyone,’ introduces the second characteristic of the new method. 
It is universal. ™ And that means that it applies equally to Jew 
and to Greek. We have shown that the new covenant is open for 
Greeks as well as Jews; it is also true to say that the conditions 
demanded are the same for Jew as for Greek. The Jew cannot 


278 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ,IX. 30. 


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


IX. 30-X. 21. St. Paul now passes to another aspect of the 
subject he is discussing. He has considered the rejection of 
Israel from the point of view of the Divine justice and power, he 
is now to approach it from the side of human responsibility. The 
concluding verses of the ninth chapter and the whole of the tenth 
are devoted to proving the guilt of Israel. It is first sketched out 
in ix. 30-33. Israel have sought righteousness in the wrong way, 
in that they have rejected the Messiah. Then St. Paul, over- 
whelmed with the sadness of the subject, pauses for a moment 
(x. 1, 2) to emphasize his grief. He returns to the discussion by 
pointing out that they have adhered to their own method instead 
of accepting God’s method (vv. 2, 3). And this in spite of 
several circumstances ; (1) that the old method has been done 
away with in Christ (ver. 4); (2) that while the old method 
was hard and difficult the new is easy and within the reach of 
all (vv. 5-10); (3) that the new method is clearly universal and 
intended for all alike (vv. rr-13). At ver. 14 he passes to another 
aspect of the question: it might still be asked: Had they full 
opportunities of knowing? In wy. 14-21 it is shown that both 
through the full and universal preaching of the Gospel, and 
through their own Prophets, they have had every opportunity given 
them. 

80. ti οὖν ἐροῦμεν; The οὖν, as is almost always the case in 
St. Paul, sums up the results of the previous paragraph. What 
then is the conclusion of this discussion? ‘It is not that God’s 
promise has failed, but that while Gentiles have obtained “righteous- 
ness,” the Jews, though they strove for it, have failed.’ This summary 
of the result so far arrived at leads to the question being asked ; 
Why is it so? And that introduces the second point in St. Paul’s 
discussion—the guilt of the Jews. 

ὅτι ἔθνη κιτλ. There are two constructions possible for these 
words. 1. The sentence ὅτι... τὴν ἐκ πίστεως may contain the 
answer to the question asked in ri οὖν ἐροῦμεν; This interpretation 


IX. 80, 817 THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 279 


is probably right. The difficulty, however, is that nowhere else in 
this Epistle, where St. Paul uses the expression τέ οὖν ἐροῦμεν, 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 which a second question rather than a definite state- 
ment seems to harmonize. 2. The alternative rendering would be 
to take the words ὅτι... ἔφθασεν, 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 διατί; ‘ Yes, 
but why?’—The difficulty in this construction, which must tell 
against it, is the awkwardness of the appended sentence δικαιοσύνην 
δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως. Lipsius’ suggestion that ὅτι = ‘ because’ is quite 
impossible. 

ἔθνη: ‘heathen,’ not ‘the heathen’; some, not all: nam 
nonnulli pagant fidem tum Christo adiunxerant, τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν 
ἐθνῶν ad Christi sacra nondum accesserat. Fri. 

διώκοντα. . . κατέλαβε: ‘correlative terms for pursuing and 
overtaking’ (Field, Otum Norvicense, iii. p. 96). The metaphor 
as in τρέχοντος (ver. 16) is taken from the racecourse, and probably 
the words were used without the original meaning being lost sight 
of: cf. 1 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. διώκειν is a characteristic Pauline word occur- 
ring in letters of all periods: 1 Thess. (1), 1 Cor. (1), Rom. (4), 
Phil. (2), 1 Tim. (1), 2 Tim. (1). 

δικαιοσύνην δέ limits and explains the previous use of the word. 
‘But remember, (and this will explain any difficulty that you may 
have), that it was ἐκ miorews’: cf. ili. 22 δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ: 1 Cor. 
ii. 6 σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς Tedelos* σοφίαν δὲ ov τοῦ αἰῶνος 
τούτου. 

Some small variations of reading may be just noticed. In ver. 31 the 
second δικαιοσύνης after els νόμον of the TR. is omitted by decisive authority, 
as also is νόμου (after ἔργων) in ver. 32, and γάρ after προσέκοψαν. In ver. 33 


πᾶς read by the TR. has crept in from x. 11, and Western MSS. read οὐ μὴ 
καταισχυνθῇ to harmonize with the LXX. 


81. ἸΙσραὴλ δὲ «.7.A. 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.’ 

vopov δικαιοσύνης : ‘a rule of life which would produce righteous- 
ness’: cf. ili, 27 νόμος πίστεως : vii. 21. 

οὐκ ἔφθασε: ‘did not attain it’; they are represented as con- 
tinually pursuing after something, the accomplishment of which 


280 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [1Χ. 31-33 


as continually escapes them. All idea of anticipation has been 
lost in φθάνω in later Greek, cf. Phil. iii. 16; Dan. iv. 19 (Theod.) 
ἔφθασεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. 

82. ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ... προσέκοψαν. Two constructions are 
possible for these words. (1) We may put a comma at ἔργων and 
supply διώκοντες. Then the passage will run: ‘Why did they not 
attain it? because pursuing after it not by faith but by works they 
stumbled,’ &c. ; or (2) we may put a full stop at ἔργων and supply 
ἐδίωξαν. ‘ Why did they not attain it? because they pursued after 
it not by faith but by works, they stumbled,’ &c. The sentence has 
more emphasis if taken in this way, and the grammatical construc- 
tion is on the whole easier. 

ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ ἔργων. The ὡς introduces a subjectiveidea. St. Paul 
wishes to guard himself from asserting definitely that ἐξ ἔργων was 
a method by which νόμον δικαιοσύνης might be pursued. He there- 
fore represents it as an idea of the Jews, as a way by which they 
thought they could gain it. So in 2 Cor. ii. 17 ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας 
represents the purpose and aim of the Apostle; 2 Cor. xi. 17 
ὃ λαλῶ, ov κατὰ Κύριον λαλῶ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ represents an aspect 
from which his words may be regarded; Philem. 14 ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατὰ 
ἀνάγκην τὸ ἀγαθόν gov ἦ ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον: ‘even the appearance 
of constraint must be avoided’ (cf. Lightfoot, ad loc.). The ὡς 
gives a subjective idea to the phrase with which it is placed, but the 
exact force must be determined by the context. 

προσέκοψαν : προσκόπτειν τινί Means not ‘to stumble over by 
inadvertence,’ but ‘to be annoyed with,’ ‘ show irritation at.’ The 
Jews, in that the cross was to them a σκάνδαλον, had stumbled 
over Christ, shown themselves irritated and annoyed, and expressed 
their indignation, see Grm. Thayer, sub voce. 

τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ προσκόμματος : ‘a stone which causes men to 
stumble’ Taken from the LXX of Is. viii. 14. The stone at 
which the Jewish nation has stumbled, which has been to them 
a cause of offence, is the Christ, who has come in a way, which, 
owing to their want of faith, has prevented them from recognizing 
or accepting Him, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 8. 

33. ἰδού, τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν κιτιλ. The quotation is taken from the 
LXX of Is. xxviii. 16, fused with words from Is. viii. 14. The 
latter part of the verse is quoted again x. 11, and the whole in 
x Pet. is. 6. 


A comparison of the different variations is interesting. (1) The LXX 
reads ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβάλλω εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιών. In both the passages in the 
N.T. the words are ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιών, (2) For the LXX λίθον πολυτελῇ 
ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον, St. Peter reads ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντιμον : 
while St. Paul substitutes λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου taken 
from Is. viii. 14 καὶ οὐχ ws λίθον προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε οὐδὲ ὡς πέτρας 
πτώματι. Here St. Peter ii. 8 agrees with St. Paul in writing πέτρα σκανδάλου 
for πέτρας πτώματι. (3) The LXX proceeds εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς, which both 


IX. 33.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 281 


St. Peter and St. Paul omit. (4) The LXX proceeds καὶ 6 πιστεύων od μὴ 
καταισχυνθῇ. Both St. Peter and St. Paul bring out the personal reference 
by inserting ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, while St. Paul reads καταισχυνθήσεται and in x. 11 
adds πᾶς. 


ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷς Personal, of the Messiah, ‘ He that believeth on Him 
shall not be ashamed.’ St. Paul inserts the words, both here and in 
x. 11, to emphasize the personal reference. If the reference were 
impersonal, the feminine would be required to agree with the 
nearest word πέτρα. 

καταισχυνθήσεται. Either an incorrect translation of the Hebrew, 
or based on a different reading. ‘The RV. of Isaiah reads ‘ shall 
not make haste.’ 

In the O. T. neither of these passages has any direct Messianic 
reference. In both Jehovah is the rock founded on Zion. In 
Is. viiii 14 He is represented as a ‘stumbling-block’ to the 
unbeliever ; in Is. xxviii. 16 He is the strength of those that believe 
in Him. But from the very beginning the word λίθος was applied 
to Christ, primarily with reference to Ps. cxviii. 22 ‘the Stone 
which the builders rejected’ (Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10; Luke 
xx. 17; Acts iv. 11 by St. Peter). The other passages in which 
the word λίθος was used in the LXX came to be applied as here, 
and in Eph. ii. 20 ἀκρογωνιαίου is used almost as a proper name. 
By the time of Justin Martyr λίθος 1s used almost as a name of the 
Christ: ἔστω καὶ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχοντα ὡς λέγεις, Kai ὅτι παθητὸς Χριστὸς 
προεφητεύθη μέλλειν εἶναι καὶ λίθος κέκληται (Dial. 36. p. 122 C. ed. 
Otto): 6 γὰρ Χριστὸς βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεὺς καὶ θεὸς καὶ κύριος καὶ ἄγγελος 
καὶ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀρχιστράτηγος καὶ λίθος (ib. 34. p. 112 D.) These 
quotations seem to imply that λίθος was a name for the Messiah 
among the Jews, and that Justin wishes to prove that Christ fulfils 
that title, and this seems to be corroborated by quotations from 
Jewish writings, not only in later books but even earlier. In Is. 
viii. 14, Sanhedrin 38. 1 Filius Davidis non venit donec duae 
domus patrum ex Israele deficiant, quae sunt Aechmalotarcha Baby- 
lonicus et princeps terrae Israeliticae g.d. Et ertt in Sanctuartum 
et in lapidem percussionis et petram offensionis duabus domibus 
Israel. Is. xxviii. 16 is paraphrased by the Targum Jonathan, 
Ecce ego constituam in Sion regem, regem fortem, potentem et 
terribilem ; corroborabo eum et confortabo eum dicit Propheta. 
Lusti autem qui crediderint haec cum venertt tribulatio non com- 
movebuntur, and some apparently read regem Messias regem 
potentem. Ps. cxviii. 22 is paraphrased by the same Targum, 
Puerum despexerunt aedificatores, qui fuit inter filios Israel et 
merutt constitut rex et dominator. For these and other reff. see 
Schoettgen, ii. 160, 606. 

A comparison of Romans and 1 Peter shows that both Apostles 
agree in quoting the same passages together, and both have 


282 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 33-X. 1. 


a number of common variants from the normal text of the LXX. 
This may have arisen from St. Peter’s acquaintance with the 
Romans; but another hypothesis may be suggested, which will 
perhaps account for the facts more naturally. We know that to 
prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, was the constant 
practice of the early Christians. Is it not possible that even as early 
as this there may have been collections of O. T. texts used for con- 
troversial purposes arranged according to their subjects, as were 
the later Zes/#monza of Cyprian, where one of the chapters is headed: 
Quod tdem et lapis dictus sit (Test. ii. 16)? See onix. 25, 26 supra. 

ΣΧ. 1. There is no break in the argument between this chapter 
and vwv. 30-33 of chap. ix; but before expanding this part of the 
subject, the Apostle pauses for a moment, impelled by his own 
strong feelings and the deep tragedy of his countryman’s rejection, 
to express his sorrow and affection. 


Marcion admitted into his text ver. 2-4, which he was able to use as 
a proof text of his fundamental doctrine that the Jews had been ignorant of 
the ‘higher God.” The whole or almost the whole passage which follows 
x. 5-xi. 32, he appears to have omitted, Zahn, p. 518. Tert. Adv. Mare. v. 13. 


ἀδελφοί. The position increases the emphasis of a word always 
used by the Apostle when he wishes to be specially emphatic 
The thought of the Christian brotherhood intensifies the contrast 
with the Israelites who are excluded. 

pév: without a corresponding dé. The logical antithesis is given 
in ver. 3. 

εὐδοκία : ‘good will,’ ‘ good pleasure,’ not ‘desire,’ which the word 
never means. 


The word εὐδοκία means ‘ good pleasure’ either (1) in relation to oneself 
when it comes to mean ‘contentment,’ Ecclus. xxix. 23 ἐπὶ μικρῷ καὶ μεγάλῳ 
εὐδοκίαν ἔχε : ib, xxxv (xxxii). 14 of ὀρθρίζοντες εὑρήσουσι εὐδοκίαν : 2 Thess. 
i. 11 καὶ πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης καὶ ἔργον πίστεως ἐν δυνάμει: Ps. 
Sod. xvi. 12: or (2) in relation to others, ‘good will,’ ‘ benevolence,’ Ecclus. 
ix. 12 μὴ εὐδοκήσῃς ἐν εὐδοκίᾳ ἀσεβῶν : Phil. i. 15 τινὲς μὲν διὰ φθόνον καὶ 
ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν : (3) in this sense it 
came to be used almost technically of the good will of God to man, Eph. 
i.5 κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ: i. g κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ: 
Ps. Sol. viii. 39. 

The above interpretation of the word is different from that taken by Fritzsche 
(ad /oc.), Lft. (ad Phil. i. 15), Grm. Thayer, Zex. (s. v.), Philippi and Tholuck 
(ad loc.). The word seems never to be used unqualified to mean ‘ desire’ ; the 
instance quoted by Lft. does not support it. 


ἡ δέησις: non orasset Paulus st absolute reprobati essent. Beng. 

εἰς σωτηρίαν = ἵνα σωθῶσι; cf. ver. 4 εἰς δικαιοσύνην and i. § εἰς 
ὑπακοὴν πίστεως. 

The additions ἡ before πρὸς τὸν Θεόν and ἐστιν before εἰς σωτηρίαν in 

the TR. are grammatical explanations. The reading τοῦ Ἰσραήλ for αὐτῶν 


may have been merely an explanatory gloss, or may have arisen through the 
verse being the beginning of a lesson in church services. 


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


2. μαρτυρῶ γάρ. This gives the reason for St. Paul’s grief. 
He had been a Jew περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων (Gal. i. 14; οἵ. 
Acts xxii. 3) and hence he knew only too well the extent both of 
their zeal and of their ignorance. 

ζῆλον Θεοῦ. Obj. genitive: ‘zeal for God’ (not as in 2 Cor. 
xi. 2). An Ο. T. expression: Judith. ix. 4 ἐζήλωσαν τὸν ζῆλόν σου: 
Ps. Ixviii [Ixix]; cxviii [cxix]. 139 ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου cov: 1 Mace. 
ii. 58 ὥλος νόμου. Jowett quotes Philo, Leg. ad Cazum, ὃ 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 he would have 
prided himself. 

kat ἐπίγνωσιν. The Jews were destitute, not of γνῶσις, but of 
the higher disciplined knowledge, of the true moral discernment 
by which they might learn the right way. ἐπίγνωσις (see Lft. on 
Col. i. 9, to whose note there is nothing to add) means a higher 
and more perfect knowledge, and hence it is used especially and 
almost technically for knowledge of God, as being the highest 
and most perfect form: see on i. 28 and cf. iii. 20. 

8. ἀγνοοῦντες γάρ. This verse gives the reason for οὐ κατ᾽ 
ἐπίγνωσιν, and the antithesis to ἡ μὲν εὐδοκία. ἀγνοοῦντες means ‘ not 
knowing,’ ‘ being ignorant of,’ not ‘misunderstanding. St. Paul 
here states simply the fact of the ignorance of his fellow-country- 
men ; he does not yet consider how far this ignorance is culpable: 
that point he makes evident later (vv. 14 sq.). 

τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην... τὴν ἰδίαν. St. Paul contrasts two 
methods of righteousness. On the one side there was the righteous- 
ness which came from God, and was to be sought in the manner 
He had prescribed, on the other was a righteousness which they 
hoped to win by their own methods, and by their own merit. 
Their zeal had been blind and misdirected. In their eagerness to 
pursue after the latter, they had remained ignorant of and had not 
submitted to the method (as will be shown, a much easier one) 
which God Himself had revealed. 

ὑπετάγησαν. Middle, ‘submit themselves,’ cf. Jas. iv. 7; 1 Pet. 
ie ov. ; Winer, §)xxxix, 2. p: 327 E.T. 

The second δικαιοσύνην after ἰδίαν of the TR. is supported by δὲ only 
among good authorities, and by Tisch. only among recent editors; it is 
omitted by ABD EP, Vulg. Boh. Arm., and many Fathers. 

4. τέλος γὰρ νόμου κιτιλ. St. Paul has in the preceding verse 
been contrasting two methods of obtaining δικαιοσύνη; one, that 
ordained by God, as ix. 32 shows, a method ἐκ πίστεως ; the other 
that pursued by the Jews, a method διὰ νόμου. The latter has ceased 
to be possible, as St. Paul now proves by showing that, by the coming 
of Christ Law as a means of obtaining righteousness had been 


284 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [x. 4 


brought to an end. The ydp therefore introduces the reason, not 
for the actual statement of ver. 3, that the Jews had not submitted 
to the Divine method, but for what was implied—that they were 
wrong in so doing. 

τέλος : ‘end,’ ‘termination.’ Law as a method or principle of 
righteousness had been done away with in Christ. ‘Christ is the 
end of law as death is the end of life.’ Gif. Cf. Dem. C. Euduliden, 
1306, 25 καίτοι πᾶσίν ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις τέλος τοῦ βίου θάνατος (quoted 
by Fri. and by many writers after him). 

The theological idea of this verse is much expanded in later 
Epistles, and is connected definitely with the death of Christ: Eph. 
ii. 15 ‘He abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of 
commandments contained in ordinances’; Col. ii. 14 ‘ Having 
blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, 
which was contrary to us: and He hath taken it out of the way, 
nailing it to the cross.’ This last passage is paraphrased by Lft. : 
‘Then and there [Christ] cancelled the bond which stood valid 
against us (for it bore our own signature), the bond which engaged 
us to fulfil all the law of ordinances, which was our stern pitiless 
tyrant. Ay, this very bond hath Christ put out of sight for ever, 
nailing it to His cross, and rending it with His body, and killing 
it in His death.’ And as he points out, a wider reference must 
be given to the expression; it cannot be confined to the Jews. 
The ordinances, although primarily referring to the Mosaic law, 
‘will include all forms of positive decrees in which moral or social 
principles are embodied or religious duties defined ; and the “ bond” 
is the moral assent of the conscience which (as it were) signs and 
seals the obligation.’ 

‘ Although the moral law is eternal, yet under the Gospel it loses 
its form of external law, and becomes an internal principle of life.’ 
Lid. 

νόμου : ‘Law’ as a principle (so Weiss, Oltramare, Gif), not 
the Law, the Mosaic Law (so the mass of commentators), It is 
not possible indeed to lay stress on the absence of the article here, 
because the article being dropped before redos it is naturally also 
dropped before νόμου (see on ii. 13), and although St. Paul might 
have written τὸ yap τέλος τοῦ νόμου, yet this would not exactly have 
suited his purpose, for τέλος is the predicate of the sentence thrown 
forward for emphasis. But that the application of the term must 
be general is shown by the whole drift of the argument (see below), 
by the words παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι proving that the passage cannot be 
confined to the Jews, and consequently not to the Mosaic law, and 
by the correct reading in ver. 5 τὴν ἐκ νόμου (see critical note). 

The interpretation of this verse has been much confused owing 
to incorrect translations of τέλος (fulfilment, aim), the confusion of 
νόμος and ὁ νόμος, 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 (1) by the mean- 
ing of τέλος. It is quite true that Christ is the τελείωσις of the 
Law, that in Him what was typical has its fulfilment; but τέλος 
never means τελείωσις (as it is taken here by Orig. Erasmus, &c.). 
Again, it is equally true that the Law is the παιδαγωγός 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 τέλος is only used 
once in this sense in St. Paul’s Epistles (1 Tim. i. 5), Χριστός would 
become the predicate, τέλος would then require the article, and νόμος 
would have to be interpreted of the Jewish Law. The normal 
meaning of the word, and the correct one here, is that of ‘ termina- 
tion’ (so Aug. De W. Mey. Fri. Weiss, Oltramare); (2) by the 
meaning of νόμος (see above). This is interpreted incorrectly of the 
Jewish Law only by almost all commentators (Orig. Chrys. and 
all the Fathers, Erasmus, Calv. De W. Mey. Va.); (3) by the 
context. This verse is introduced to explain ver. 3, which asserts 
that of two methods of obtaining righteousness one is 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 is his object 
to mark the contrast between the two methods of righteousness 
and not their resemblance. 

But the misinterpretation is not confined to this verse, it colours 
the interpretation of the whole passage. It is not St. Paul’s aim to 
show that the Jews ought to have realized their mistake because 
the O. T. dispensation pointed to Christ, but to contrast the two 
methods. It is only later (vv. 14 f.) that he shows that the Jews 
had had full opportunities and warnings. 

eis δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι : “50 that δικαιοσύνη May come 
to everyone that believes, ‘so that everyone by believing may 
obtain δικαιοσύνη.᾽ 


Omni credenti, tractatur τὸ credenti v. 5 54.) τὸ omni Ὑ. 11 sq. mavnt, 
omni ex tudaets et gentibus. Beng. 


5-10. St. Paul proceeds to describe the two modes of obtaining 
δικαιοσύνη in language drawn from the O. T., which had become 
proverbial. 

δ. Μωσῆς yap γράφει κιτλ. Taken from Lev. xviii. 5, which is 
quoted also in Gal, iii. 12. The original (ἃ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται 
ἐν αὐτοῖς) is slightly modified to suit the grammar of this passage, 
τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου being made the object of ποιήσας. St. Paul 
quotes the words to mean that the condition of obtaining life by 
law is that of fulfilment, a condition which in contrast to the other 
method described immediately afterwards is hard, if not im- 
possible. On this difficulty of obeying the law he has laid stress 
again and again in the first part of the Epistle, and it is this 


286 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 5-8. 


that he means by τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν in Eph. ii. 15 (quoted 
above). 

ζήσεται : shall obtain life in its deepest sense both here and 
hereafier (see pp. 180, 196). 


There are a number of small variations in the text of this verse. (1) ὅτι 
is placed before τὴν δικαιοσύνην by N* A D*, Vulg. Boh., Orig.-lat., after νόμου 
by S°BD°EFGKLP &c., Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c. (2) ἐκ νόμου is read 
by NB, ἐκ τοῦ νόμου by the mass of later authorities. (3) 6 ποιήσας is 
read without any addition by N*A Ὁ E, Vuilg., Orig.-lat., αὐτά is added by 
BFGKLP &c., Syrt., Chrys. Thdrt. &c., eam by d**e+. (4) ἄνθρωπος is 
om. by F G, Chrys. (5) ἐν αὐτῇ is read by NAB minusc. pauc., Vulg. Boh. 
Orig.-lat., ἐν αὐτοῖς DE F GK LP ἄς. Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c. 

The original text was ὅτι τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ὁ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος 
ζήσεται ἐν αὐτῇ. The alteration οὗ αὐτά... αὐτοῖς came from a desire to 
make the passage correspond with the LXX, or Gal. iii. 12 (hence the 
omission of ἄνθρωπος), and this necessitated a change in the position of ὅτι. 
τοῦ νόμου arose from an early misinterpretation. The mixed text of Β γράφει 
τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν éx νόμου ὅτι ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτῇ and 
of Ὁ γράφει ὅτι τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν &« τοῦ νομοῦ ὁ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται 
ἐν αὐτοῖς are curious, but help to support δὲ A Vulg. Boh. 


6-8. The language of St. Paul in these verses is based upon the 
LXX of Deut. xxx. 11-14. Moses is enumerating the blessings of 
Israel if they keep his law: ‘if thou shalt obey the voice of the 
Lord thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which 
are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the Lord thy 
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul’; he then goes on 
(the RV. translation is here modified to suit the LXX): ‘” [For this 
commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard 
for thee, nor is it far from thee. ™ Not in heaven above] saying, 
Who shall go up for us into heaven [and receive it for us, and having 
heard of it we shall doit? ‘Nor is it beyond the sea], sayzng, 
Who will go over to the further side of the sea for us, [and receive it 
for us, and make it heard by us, and we shall do it?] ™“ But the 
word is very nigh thee, in thy mouth, and tn thy heart, (and in thy 
hands, that thou mayest do 11]. The Apostle selects certain words 
out of this passage and uses them to describe the characteristics of 
the new righteousness by faith as he conceives it. 


It is important to notice the very numerous variations between the 
quotation and the LXX. In the first place only a few phrases are 
selected: the portions not quoted are enclosed in brackets in the translation 
given above. Then in those sentences that are quoted there are very con- 
siderable changes: (1) for the λέγων of the LXX, which is an ungrammatical 
translation of the Hebrew, and is without construction, is substituted μὴ 
εἰπῇς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου from Deut. viii. 17, ix. 4: (2) for ris διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς 
τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης is substituted τίς καταβήσεται els τὴν ἄβυσσον in order 
to make the passage better suit the purpose for which it is quoted: (3) in 


+ The Bohairic Version is quoted incorrectly in support of this reading. 
The eam read there does not imply a variant, but was demanded by the idiom 
of the language. 


Σ. 6.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 287 


ver. 8 the words ofd5pa... ἐν ταῖς χερσί cov are omitted (this agrees with 
the Hebrew), as also ποιεῖν αὐτό. 


6. ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη οὕτω λέγει. It is noticeable that 
St. Paul does not introduce these words on the authority of Scripture 
(as ver. 11), nor on the authority of Moses (as ver. 5), but merely 
as a declaration of righteousness in its own nature. On the 
personification compare that of Wisdom in Prov. i. 20; Lk. xi. 49; 
of παράκλησις Heb. xii. 5. 

tis ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν ; In the original passage these 
words mean: The law which I command you is not far off, it is 
not in heaven, so that you will have to ask, Who will go up to bring 
it down for us? it is very near and not hard to attain. St. Paul 
uses the same words to express exactly the same idea, but with 
a completely different application. ‘The Gospel as opposed to 
the Law is not difficult or hard to attain to.’ 

τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν : ‘that is to say, to bring Christ 
down.’ Just as Moses had said that there was no need for anyone 
to go up into heaven to bring down the law, so it is true—far more 
true indeed—to say that there is no need to go into heaven to 
bring down the object of faith and source of righteousness—Christ. 
Christ has become man and dwelt among us. Faith is not a 
difficult matter since Christ has come. 

The interpretations suggested of this and the following verses 
have been very numerous. τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν occurs three times in this 
passage, and we must give it the same force in each place. 
In the third instance (ver. 8) it is used to give a meaning or 
explanation to the word τὸ ῥῆμα, which occurs in the quotation ; it 
introduces in fact what would be technically known as a ‘ Midrash’ 
on the text quoted (so Mey. Lid. Lips. and apparently Va. Gif.). 
That is the meaning with which the phrase has been used in 
ix. 8, and is also the meaning which it must have here. The 
infinitive cannot be dependent on τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι (for in all the passages 
where the phrase is used the words that follow it are in the same 
construction as the words that precede), but is dependent on 
ἀναβήσεται which it explains: so Xen. Mem. I. v. 2 (Goodwin, Greek 
Moods and Tenses, § 91) εἰ βουλοίμεθα τῷ ἐπιτρέψαι ἢ παῖδας παιδεῦσαι, 
ἢ χρήματα διασῶσαι. In this and similar cases it is not necessary to 
emphasize strongly the idea of purpose as do Fri. (mempe ut Christum 
in orbem terrarum deducat) and Lips. (ndémlich um Christum herabzu- 
holen), the infinitive is rather epexegetical (so apparently Va. Gif.). 
The LXX here reads ris ἀναβήσεται... καὶ λήψεται ; the construction 
is changed because τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν καὶ κατάξει would hardly have been 
clear. 

Of other interpretations, some do not suit the grammar. ‘That 
would be the same thing as to say Who will bring Christ down?’ 
would require τίς κατάξει τὸν Χριστόν. Weiss translates ‘that would 


#88 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 6-8. 


be the same thing as to bring Christ down,’ apparently making 
the infinitive dependent on τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν. Other translations or para- 
phrases do not suit the context: ‘Do not attempt great things, 
only believe’: or, ‘Do not waver and ask, Is Christ really come? 
only believe.’ The object of the passage is not to exhort to faith 
or to show the necessity of faith—that has been done in the early 
part of the Epistle; but to prove that the method of faith was one 
which, for several reasons, should not have been ignored and left 
on one side by the Jews. 

ἡ. 7, Τίς καταβήσεται. .. ἀναγαγεῖν : ‘nor is it necessary to 
search the depth, since Christ is risen from the dead.’ St. Paul 
substitutes tis καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον for the more ordinary ris 
διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης, both because it makes a 
more suitable contrast to the first part of the sentence, and because 
it harmonizes better with the figurative meaning he wishes to draw 
from it. ἄβυσσος in the Ο. T. meant originally the ‘ deep sea,’ ‘ the 
great deep * or ‘the depths of the sea,’ Ps. cvi (cvii). 26 ἀναβαί- 
νουσιν ἕως τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ καταβαΐνουσιν ἕως τῶν ἀβύσσων, and the deep 
places of the earth, Ps. Ixx (Ixxi). 20 καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀβύσσων τῆς γῆς 
πάλιν ἀνήγαγές με, and so had come to mean Tartarus or the Lower 
World; τὸν δὲ τάρταρον τῆς ἀβύσσου Job. xli. 23, where the reference 
to τάρταρος is due to the LXX; cf. Eur. Phoen. 1632 (1605) ταρτάρου 
ἄβυσσα χάσματα. Elsewhere in the N. T. it is so used of the abode 
of demons (Luke viii. 31) and the place of torment (Rev. ix. 1), 
This double association of the word made it suitable for St. Paul’s 
purpose; it kept up the antithesis of the original, and it also 
enabled him to apply the passage figuratively to the Resurrection of 
Christ after His human soul had gone down into Hades. 

On the descensus ad inferos, which is here referred to in indefinite 
and untechnical language, cf. Acts ii. 27; 1 Peteriii.1g; iv. 6; and 
Lft. on Ign. Magn. ix ; see also Swete, Apost.-creed, Ὁ. 57 ff. 

8. τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως. ‘The message, the subject of which is 
faith’; πίστις does not mean ‘ the faith,’ i.e. ‘the Gospel message ’ 
(Oltramare), but, as elsewhere in this chapter, faith as the principle 
of righteousness. Nor does the phrase mean the Gospel message 
which appeals to faith in man (Lid.), but the Gospel which preaches 
faith, cf. x. 17. On ῥῆμα cf. τ Peter i. 25 τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα Κυρίου μένει 
εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα TO εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς. 

ὃ κηρύσσομεν. This gives the reason why the new way of 
righteousness is easy to attain, being as it is brought home to every 
one, and suggests a thought which is worked out more fully in 
ver. 14 f. 

In what sense does St. Paul use the O. T. in vv. 6-8? The 
difficulty is this. In the O. T. the words are used by Moses of 
the Law: how can St. Paul use them of the Gospel as against the 
Law? 


x. 8.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 289 


The following considerations will suggest the answer to be given: 

(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 δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως, 
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 cttat, quia sensum Mosis non sequitur, 
sed tantum ab illo verba mutuatur, 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 ring, but could not count it as a quotation. 

(4) The words had certainly become proverbial, and many 
instances of them so used have been quoted. Philo, Quod omn. 
prob. ib. ὃ 10 (quoted by Gifford), ‘And yet what need is there 
either of long journeys over the land, or of long voyages for the 
sake of investigating and seeking out virtue, the roots of which the 
Creator has laid not at any great distance, but so near, as the wise 
law-giver of the Jews says, “ They are in thy mouth, and in thy 
heart, and in thy hands,” intimating by these figurative expressions 
the words and actions and designs of men?’ Bava Mezza, f. 94.1 
(quoted by Wetstein) S? guts dixerit mulieri, Si adscenderis in 
jirmamentum, aut descenderis tn abyssum, erts mihi desponsata, haec 
conditio frustranea est; 4 Ezra iv. 8 dicebas mihi fortassis : In abys- 
sum non descendi, neque in infernum adhuc, neque tn coelis unquam 
ascendt; Baruch iii. 29, 30 tis ἀνέβη eis τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἔλαβεν αὐτήν, 
καὶ κατεβίβασεν αὐτὴν ἐκ τῶν νεφελῶν ; τίς διέβη πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ 
εὗρεν αὐτήν (of Wisdom); Judzlees 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. 1. 

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 : 
‘he uses the words which are found in the O. T., being always at 


U 


200 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 8-12. 


pains to keep quite clear of the charges of love of novelties and of 
opposition to it’; but also there is to St. Paul a correspondence 
between the O. T. and N. T.: the true creed is simple whether 
Law on its spiritual side or Gospel (cf. Aug. De Watura et Grata, 
§ 83). 

9. ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς κιτιλ. This verse corresponds to and 
applies the preceding verse. The subject of the ῥῆμα which is 
preached by the Apostles is the person of Christ and the truth 
of His Resurrection. Κύριος refers to ver. 6, the Resurrection 
(ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν) to ver. 7. The power of Christ 
lies in these two facts, namely His Incarnation and His Resur- 
rection, His Divine nature and His triumph over death. What 
is demanded of a Christian is the outward confession and the 
inward belief in Him, and these sum up the conditions necessary 
for salvation. 


The ordinary reading in this verse is ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου 
Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, for which WH. substitute τὸ ῥῆμα ἐν τῷ στόματί σου ὅτι 
Κύριος Ἰησοῦς. τὸ ῥῆμα has the authority of B 71, Clem.-Alex. and perhaps 
Cyril, ὅτι K.’I, of B, Boh., Clem.-Alex. and Cyril 2/3. The agreement in 
the one case of B and Boh., in the other of B and Clem.-Alex. against nearly 
all the other authorities is noticeable. 


10. καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται κιτιλ. St. Paul explains and brings 
out more fully the application of the words he has last quoted. The 
beginning of the Christian life has two sides: internally it is the 
change of heart which faith implies; this leads to righteousness, 
the position of acceptance before God: externally it implies the 
‘confession of Christ crucified’ which is made in baptism, and this 
puts a man into the path by which in the end he attains salvation ; 
he becomes σωζόμενος. 

11. λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή «7A. Quoted from Is. xxviii. 16 (see 
above, ix. 33) with the addition of was to bring out the point on 
which emphasis is to be laid. St. Paul introduces a proof from 
Scripture of the statement made in the previous verse that faith is 
the condition of salvation, and at the same time makes it the 
occasion of introducing the second point in the argument, namely, 
the universal character of this new method of obtaining righteous- 
ness. 

In ver. 4 he has explained that the old system of δικαιοσύνη ἐκ 
νόμου has been done away with in Christ to make way for a new 
one which has two characteristics: (1) that it is ἐκ πίστεως: this has 
been treated in wy. 5-10; (2) that it is universal: this he now 
proceeds to develope. 

12. οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστολὴ ᾿Ιουδαίου te Kat “EAAnvos. St. Paul 
first explains the meaning of this statement, namely, the universal 
character of the Gospel, by making it clear that it is the sole 
method for Jews as well as for Gentiles. This was both a warning 


X. 12, 18. 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. i. 16; ii. 9, 10; ili. 9; 
1 Cor. i. 24; xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii, 11); they must obtain 
δικαιοσύνη by the same methods and on the same conditions as the 
Gentiles. This St. Paul has already proved on the ground that 
they equally with the Gentiles have sinned (iii. 23). He now 
deduces it from the nature and the work of the Lord. 

ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς Κύριος πάντων, cf. τ Cor. xii. 5. This gives the 
reason for the similarity of method for all alike: ‘it is the same 
Lord who redeemed all mankind alike, and conferred upon all alike 
such wealth of spiritual blessings.’ It is better to take Κύριος πάντων 
as predicate for it contains the point of the sentence, ‘The same 
Lord is Lord of all’ (so the RV.). 

Κύριος must clearly refer to Christ, cf. vv. 9, 11. He is called. 
Κύριος πάντων Acts x. 36, and cf. ix. 5, and Phil. ii. 10, 11. 

πλουτῶν : ‘abounding in spiritual wealth,’ cf. esp. Eph. iii. 8 
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαι τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν. ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸν Κύριον, OF More cor- 
rectly ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου, is the habitual LXX transla- 
tion of a common Hebrew formula. From the habit of beginning 
addresses to a deity by mentioning his name, it became a tech- 
nical expression for the suppliant to a god, and a designation 
of his worshippers. Hence the Israelites were οἱ ἐπικαλούμενοι τὸν 
Κύριον OF τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου. They were in fact specially distinguished 
as the worshippers of Jehovah. It becomes therefore very signifi- 
cant when we find just this expression used of the Christians as 
the worshippers of Christ, ὁ Κύριος, in order to designate them as 
apart from all others, cf. 1 Cor. i. 2 σὺν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις TO 
ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. There is a treatise on the 
subject by A. Seeberg, Die Anbetung des Herrn bet Paulus, Riga, 
1891, see especially pp. 38, 43-46. 

13. πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται. St. Paul sums up and clenches 
his argument by the quotation of a well-known passage of Scripture, 
Joel ii. 32 (the quotation agrees with both the LXX and the Hebrew 
texts). The original passage refers to the prophetic conception of 
the ‘day of the Lord” ‘The sun shall be turned into darkness, 
and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the 
Lord come.’ At that time ‘ whosoever shall call on the name of the 
Lord’ shall be saved. This salvation (σωθήσεται, cf. ver. 9 σωθήσῃ, 
10 σωτηρίαν), the Jewish expectation of safety in the Messianic 
kingdom when the end comes, is used of that Christian salvation 
which is the spiritual fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. 

Κυρίου. The term Κύριος is applied to Christ by St. Paul in 


292 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ X. 14-21. 


quotations from the O. T. in 2 Thess. i. 9; 1 Cor. ii. 16; x. 21, 
26; 2 Cor. iii. 16, and probably in other passages. 

This quotation, besides concluding the argument of vv. 1-13, 
suggests the thought which is the transition to the next point dis- 
cussed—the opportunities offered to all of hearing this message. 


ISRAEL'S UNBELIEF NOT EXCUSED BY WANT OF 
OPPORTUNITY. 


ΣΧ. 14-21. This unbelief on the part of Israel was not 
owing to want of knowledge. Fully accredited messengers— 
such a body as is necessary for preaching and for faith— 
have announced the Gospel. There is no land but has heard 
the voices of the Evangelical preachers (vv. 14-18). Nor 
was it owing to want of understanding. Their own Prophets 
warned them that it was through disobedience that they 
would reject God’s message (vv. 19-21). 


4 All then that is required for salvation is sincerely and genuinely 
to call on the Lord. But there are conditions preliminary to this 
which are necessary ; perhaps it may be uxged, that these have not 
been fulfilled. Let us consider what these conditions are. Ifaman 
is to call on Jesus he must have faith in Him; to obtain faith it is 
necessary that he must hear the call; that again implies that 
heralds must have been sent forth to proclaim this call. ™ And 
heralds imply a commission. Have these conditions been fulfilled? 
Yes. Duly authorized messengers have preached the Gospel. The 
fact may be stated in the words of the Prophet Isaiah (111. 7) de- 
scribing the welcome approach of the messengers who bring news 
of the return from captivity—that great type of the other, Messianic, 
Deliverance: ‘ How beautiful are the feet of them that preach good 
tidings.’ 

But it may be urged, in spite of this, all did not give it a 
patient and submissive hearing. This does not imply that the 
message has not been given. In fact Isaiah in the same passage 
in which he foretold the Apostolic message, spoke also of the in- 
credulity with which the message is received (liii. 1) ‘ Lord, who 
hath believed our message?’ ™ Which incidentally confirms what 
we 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 Christ. 

** But it may be alleged: We grant it was preached, but that 
does not prove that Israel heard it. Is that possible, when in the 
words of Psalm xix ‘the voices of God’s messengers went forth 
into all lands, and their words to the limits of the known world?’ 

'?Or another excuse: ‘Israel heard but did not understand.’ 
Can you say that of Israel? From the very beginning of its history 
a long succession of its Prophets foretold the Divine scheme. 
Moses, to begin with, wrote (Deut. xxxii. 21) ‘I will excite you 
to jealousy at a nation outside the pale, that does not count as a 
nation at all. I will rouse your anger at seeing yourselves out- 
stripped by a nation whom you regard as possessing no intelligence 
for the things of religion.’ * Isaiah too was full of boldness. In 
the face of his fellow-countrymen he asserted (Ixv. 1) that God’s 
mercies should be gained by those who had not striven after them 
(the Gentiles). * And then he turns round to Israel and says that 
although God had never ceased stretching out His arms to them 
with all the tenderness of a mother, they had received His call with 
disobedience, and His message with criticism and contradiction. 
The Jews have fallen, not because of God’s unfaithfulness or in- 
justice, not because of want of opportunity, but because they are a 
rebellious people—a people who refuse to be taught, who choose 
their own way, who cleave to that way in spite of every warning 
and of every message. 


14-21. This section seems to be arranged on the plan of sug- 
gesting a series of difficulties, and giving short decisive answers to 
each: (1) ‘ But how can men believe the Gospel unless it has been 
fully preached?’ (v. 14). Amswer. ‘It has been preached as Isaiah 
foretold’ (ver. 15). (2) ‘ Yet, all have not accepted it’ (ver. 16). 
Answer. ‘That does not prove that it was not preached. Isaiah 
foretold also this neglect of the message’ (vv. 16, 17). (3) ‘ But 
perhaps the Jews did not hear’ (v. 18). Amswer. ‘ Impossible. 
The Gospel has been preached everywhere.’ (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. 


204 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 14, 15. 


‘The passage which follows (14-21) is in style one of the most obscure 
portions of the Epistle.’ This statement of Jowett’s is hardly exaggerated. 
‘The obscurity arises,’ as he proceeds to point out, ‘from the argument 
being founded on passages of the Old Testament.’ These are quoted without 
explanation, and without their relation to the argument being clearly 
brought out. The first difficulty is to know where to make a division in 
the chapter. Some put it after ver. 11 (so Go.) making vv. 11-21 a proof 
of the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles; some after ver. 13 (Chrys. 
Weiss, Oltr. Gif.) ; some after ver. 15 (Lid. WH. Lips.). The decision of 
the question will always depend on the opinion formed of the drift of the 
passage, but we are not without structural assistance. It may be noticed 
throughout these chapters that each succeeding paragraph is introduced by 
a question with the particle οὖν ; so ix. 14 Ti οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; 30; xi. I, II. 
And this seems to arise from the meaning of the particle: it sums up the 
conclusion of the preceding paragraph as an introduction to a further step in 
the argument. This meaning will exactly suit the passage under consideration. 
‘The condition of salvation is to call on the Lord ’—that is the conclusion 
of the last section: then the Apostle goes on, ‘if this be so, what then (οὖν) 
are the conditions necessary for attaining it, and have they been fulfilled?’ 
the words forming a suitable introduction to the next stage in the argument. 
This use of οὖν to introduce a new paragraph is very common in St. Paul 
See especially Rom. v. 1, vi. 1, xii. 1; Eph. iv. 1; 1 Tim. ii. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 1, 
besides other less striking instances. It may be noticed that it is not easy 
to understand the principle on which WH. have divided the text of these 
chapters, making no break at all at ix. 29, beginning a new paragraph at 
chap. x, making a break here at ver. 15, making only a slight break at 
chap. xi, and starting a new paragraph at ver. 13 of that chapter at what 
is really only a parenthetical remark. 


X. 14,15. The main difficulty of these verses cenires round two 
points: With what object are they introduced? And what is the 
quotation from Isaiah intended to prove ? 

1. One main line of interpretation, following Calvin, considers 
that the words are introduced to justify the preaching of.the Gospel 
to the Gentiles; in fact to support the πᾶς of the previous verse. 
God must have intended His Gospel to go to the heathen, for a duly 
commissioned ministry (and St. Paul is thinking of himself) has 
been sent out to preach it. The quotation then follows as a justi- 
fication from prophecy of the ministry to the Gentiles. The possi- 
bility of adopting such an interpretation must depend partly on the 
view taken of the argument of the whole chapter (see the General 
Discussion at the end), but in any case the logical connexion is 
wrong. Ifthat were what St. Paul had intended to say, he must have 
written, ‘ Salvation is intended for Gentile as well as Jew, for God 
has commissioned His ministers to preach to them: a commission 
implies preaching, preaching implies faith, faith implies worship, 
and worship salvation. The conversion of the Gentiles is the 
necessary result of the existence of an apostolate of the Gentiles.’ 
It will be seen that St. Paul puts the argument exactly in the 
opposite way, in a manner in fact in which he could never prove 
this conclusion. 

2. Roman Catholic commentators, followed by Liddon 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 
(ἀγνοοῦντες 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. (1) It may 
be introduced merely as corroborative of the last chain in the 
argument (so most commentators). This need of a commissioned 
ministry corresponds to the joy and delight experienced when they 
arrive. Or better, (2) it may be looked upon as stating the fulfil- 
ment of the 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. πῶς οὖν ἐπικαλέσωνται. The word οὖν, as often in St. Paul, 
marks a stage in the argument. ‘We have discovered the new 
system of salvation: what conditions are necessary for its acceptance?’ 
The question is not the objection of an adversary, nor merely 
rhetorical, but rather deliberative (see Burton, JZ. and T. § 169): 
hence the subjunctive (see below) is more suitable than the future 
which we find in ix. 30. The subject of ἐπικαλέσωνται is implied in 
vv. 12, 13, ‘those who would seek this new method of salvation by 
calling on the name of the Lord.’ 


In this series of questions in vv. 14, 15 the MSS. vary between the sub- 
junctive and the future. Generally the authority for the subjunctive strongly 
preponderates: ἐπικαλέσωνται NABD EF G, πιστεύσωσιν SBDEF GP, 
κηρύξωσιν NABDEKLP. In the case of ἀκούσωσιν there is a double 
variation. N° A?(A /afet) B and some minuscules read ἀκούσωσιν ; NDEF 
GKP and some minuscules read ἀκούσονται ; L etc., Clem.-Alex. Ath. 
Chrys. edd. Theodrt. and the TR. read ἀκούσουσι. Here however the double 
variant makes the subjunctive almost certain. Although the form ἀκούσουσι 
is possible in N.T. Greek, it is most improbable that it should have arisen as 


296 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 14, 15. 


a corruption from ἀκούσονται, and it is too weakly supported to be the 
correct reading. ἀκούσωσιν, which will explain both variants and harmonizes 
with the other subjunctives, is therefore correct. B here alone among the 
leading MSS. is correct throughout. 


οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν: ‘how can they believe on Him whom they 
have not heard preaching?’ οὗ is for εἰς τοῦτον of : and as ἀκούειν 
τινος Means not ‘to hear of some one,’ but ‘to hear some one 
preaching or speaking,’ it must be so translated, and what follows 
must be interpreted by assuming that the preaching of Christ’s 
messengers is identical with the preaching of Christ Himself. This 
interpretation (that of Mey. and Gif.), although not without diffi- 
culties, is probably better than either of the other solutions proposed. 
It is suggested that οὗ may be for ὅν, and the passage is translated 
‘of whom they have not heard’; but only a few instances of this 
usage are quoted, and they seem to be all early and poetical. 
The interpretation of Weiss, οὗ = where, completely breaks the 
continuity of the sentences. 

15. κηρύξωσιν. The nominative is οἱ κηρύσσοντες, which is implied 
in κηρύσσοντος. 

By means of this series of questions St. Paul works out the 
conditions necessary for salvation back to their starting-point. 
Salvation is gained by calling.on the Lord; this implies faith. 
Faith is only possible with knowledge. Knowledge implies an 
instructor or preacher. A preacher implies a commission. If 
therefore salvation is to be made possible for everyone, there must 
have been men sent out with a commission to preach it. 

καθὼς γέγραπται, Qs ὡραῖοι ot πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων ἀγαθά. 
By introducing this quotation St. Paul implies that the commis- 
sioned messengers have been sent, and the conditions therefore 
necessary for salvation have been fulfilled. ‘Yes, and they have 
been sent: the prophet’s words are true describing the glorious 
character of the Evangelical preachers.’ 

The quotation is taken from Isaiah lii. 7, and resembles the 
Hebrew more closely than our present LXX text. In the original 
it describes the messengers who carry abroad the glad tidings 
of the restoration from captivity. But the whole of this section of 
Isaiah was felt by the Christians to be full of Messianic import, and 
this verse was used by the Rabbis of the coming of the Messiah 
(see the references given by Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. ii. 179). St. 
Paul quotes it because he wishes to describe in O. T. language the 
fact which will be recognized as true when stated, and to show 
that these facts are in accordance with the Divine method. ‘St. 
Paul applies the exclamation to the appearance of the Apostles of 
Christ upon the scene of history. Their feet are ὡραῖοι in his eyes, 
as they announce the end of the captivity of sin, and publish εἰρήνη 
(Eph. vi. 15 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς εἰρήνης) made by Christ, through the 


Χ. 15, 16. THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 297 


blood of His Cross, between God and man, between earth and 
heaven (2 Cor. v. 18-20; Eph. ii. 17; Col. i. 20); and all the 
blessings of goodness (τὰ ἀγαθά) which God in Christ bestows on 
the Redeemed, especially δικαιοσύνη Liddon. 


There are two critical questions in connexion with this quotation: the 
reading of the Greek text and its relation to the Hebrew and to the LXX. 

(1) The RV. reads ὡς ὡραῖοι of πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων ἀγαθά : the 
TR. inserts τῶν εὐαγΎ. εἰρήνην after οἱ πόδες. The balance of authority is 
strongly in favour of the RV. The clause is omitted by NABC mznusc. 
pauc. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Aeth., Clem.-Alex. Orig. and Orig.-lat.: it is in- 
serted by DEFGKLP &c.,, Vulg. Syrr. (Pesh. Harcl.) Arm. Goth., Chrys. 
Tren.-lat. Hil. σ΄. The natural explanation is that the insertion has been 
made that the citation may correspond more accurately to the LXX. 
This end is not indeed altogether attained, for the LXX reads ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης, 
and the omission might have arisen from Homoeoteleuton; but these con- 
siderations can hardly outweigh the clear preponderance of authority. 

There is a somewhat similar difficulty about a second minor variation. 
The RV. reads ἀγαθά with ABCDEFGP, Orig. Eus. Jo.-Damasc., the 
TR. has τὰ ἀγαθά with & etc. Clem.-Alex. Chrys. and most later authorities. 
Here the LXX omits the article, and it is difficult quite to see why it should 
have been inserted by a corrector; whereas if it had formed part of the 
original text he could quite naturally have omitted it. 

(2) The LXX translation is here very inexact. πάρειμε ὡς ὥρα ἐπὶ τῶν 
ὀρέων, ws πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης, ws εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά 
St. Paul’s words approach much more nearly to the Hebrew (RV.) ‘ How 
beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, 
that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth 
salvation.’ He shortens the quotation, makes it plural instead of singular 
to suit his purpose, and omits the words ‘upon the mountains,’ which have 
only a local significance. 


16. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες. An objection suggested. ‘Yet, in spite of 
the fact that this message was sent, all did not obey the Gospel.’ 
ov πάντες is a mezosis; Cf. ri yap εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες ; (iii. 3). 

ὑπήκουσαν, like ὑπετάγησαν (ver. 3), seems to imply the idea of 
voluntary submission: cf. vi. 16, 17 δοῦλοί ἐστε ᾧ ὑπακούετε... 
ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας εἰς ὃν mapeddOnre. 

τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. The word is of course suggested by the quotation 
of the previous verse. 

Ἡσαΐας yap λέγει κιτιλ. ‘But this fact does not prove that no 
message had been sent; it is indeed equally in accordance with 
prophecy, for Isaiah, in a passage immediately following that in 
which he describes the messengers, describes also the failure of 
the people to receive the message.’ With γάρ cf. Matt. i. 20 ff. 
The quotation is from the LXX of Is. lili. 1. Κύριε, as Origen 
pointed out, does not occur in the Hebrew. 

ἀκοῇ : means (1) ‘hearing,’ ‘the faculty by which a thing is 
heard’; (2) ‘the substance of what is heard,’ ‘a report, message.’ 
In this verse it is used in the second meaning, ‘who hath believed 
our report?’ In ver. 17, it shades off into the first, ‘ faith comes 
by hearing.’ It is quite possible of course to translate ‘report’ or 


298 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 16-18 


‘message’ there also, but then the connexion of idea with ver. 18 
μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν is obscured. 

It has been questioned to whom St. Paul is referring in this and 
the preceding verses—the Gentiles or the Jews. The language is 
quite general and equally applicable to either, but the whole drift 
of the argument shows that it is of the Jews the Apostle is thinking. 
Grotius makes νν. 14 and 15 the objection of an opponent to which 
St. Paul replies in ver. 16 ff. 

17. ἄρα ἡ πίστις. ‘Hence may be inferred (in corroboration of 
what was said above) that the preliminary condition necessary for 
faith is to have heard, and to have heard implies a message.’ This 
sentence is to a certain extent parenthetical, merely emphasizing 
a fact already stated; yet the language leads us on to the excuse 
for unbelief suggested in the next verse. 

διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ: ‘a message about Christ.’ Cf. ver. 8 τὸ 
ῥῆμα THs πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν. St. Paul comes back to the phrase he 
has used before, and the use of it will remind his readers that this 
message has been actually sent. 


Χριστοῦ is the reading of NBC DE minusc. pauc., Vulg. Sah. Boh. Arm. 
Aeth. Orig.-lat. 2/2, Ambrst. Aug.—@eod of NC AD*°K LP al. pler., Syrtr., 
Clem.-Alex. Chrys. Theodrt. 


St. Paul has laid down the conditions which make faith possible, 
a Gospel and messengers of the Gospel; the language he has used 
reminds his readers that both these have come. Yet, in spite of 
this, the Jews have not obeyed. He now suggests two possible 
excuses. 

18. ἀλλὰ λέγω: ‘but it may be said in excuse: It is possible 
that those whom you accuse of not obeying the Gospel message 
have never heard of it?’ On μὴ οὐ see Burton, .77. and T. ὃ 468. 

μενοῦνγε : an emphatic corrective, ‘with a slight touch of irony’ 
(Lid.) ; cf. ix. 20. 

εἰς πᾶσαν Thy γῆν κιτιλ. St. Paul expresses his meaning in words 
borrowed from Psalm xix. (xviii) 5, which he cites word for word 
according to the LXX, but without any mark of quotation. What 
stress does he intend to lay on the words? Does he use them 
for purely literary purposes to express a well-known fact? or does 
he also mean to prove the fact by the authority of the O. T. 
which foretold it? 

1. Primarily at any rate St. Paul wishes to express a well-known 
fact in suitable language. ‘What do you say? They have not 
heard! Why the whole world and the ends of the earth have 
heard. And have you, amongst whom the heralds abode such 
a long time, and of whose land they were, not heard?’ Chrys. 

2. But the language of Scripture is not used without a point. 
In the original Psalm these words describe how universally the 


X. 18, 19.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 29S 


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. ἀλλὰ λέγω, μὴ ᾿Ισραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω ; 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 Ἰσραήλὺ 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 Ἰσραήλ would have had to be put in a much more pro- 
minent place, περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ λέγω, μὴ οὐκ ἔγνω ; The real reason 
for the introduction of the word is that it gives an answer to 
the question, and shows the untenable character of the excuse. 
Has Israel, Israel with its long line of Prophets, and its religious 
privileges and its Divine teaching, acted in ignorance? When 
once ‘Israel’ has been used there can be no doubt of the answer. 

(2) But, again, what is it suggested that Israel has not known? 
As the clause is parallel with μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν, and as no hint is given 
of any change, the object must be the same, namely ῥῆμα Χριστοῦ, 
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 ἀγνοοῦντες 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 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Σ-. 19-21 


even a foolish people (it was foretold) would accept it, and thus 
stir up Israel to jealousy. Nor again can they plead that it was 
difficult to find; for Isaiah with great boldness has stated that men 
who never sought or asked for it would find it. The real reason 
was that the Israelites are a disobedient and a stubborn people, 
and, although God has all day long stretched forth His hands to 
them, they will not hear Him. 

πρῶτος Μωσῆς. εὐθὺς Μωσῆς. ‘Even as early in Israel’s history as 
Moses.’ 

ἐγὼ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς κιτιλ.: taken from Deut. xxxii. 21 sub- 
stantially according to the LXX (ὑμᾶς is substituted for αὐτούς). In 
the original the words mean that as Israel has roused God’s jealousy 
by going after no-gods, so He will rouse Israel’s jealousy by 
showing His mercy to those who are no-people. 

20. Ἡσαΐας δὲ ἀποτολμᾷ. St. Paul’s position in opposing the 
prejudices of his countrymen made him feel the boldness of Isaiah 
in standing up against the men of his own time. The citation is 
from Isaiah Ixv. 1 according to the LXX, the clauses of the 
original being inverted. The words in the original refer to the 
apostate Jews. St. Paul applies them to the Gentiles; see on 
iX. 25, 26. 


B D* FG with perhaps Sah. and Goth. add ἐν twice before τοῖς, a Western 
reading which has found its way into B (cf. xi. 6). It does not occur in 
NAC D*°ELP etc., and many Fathers. 


21. πρὸς δὲ τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ λέγει κιτλ. This citation (Is. Ixv. 2) 
follows almost immediately that quoted in ver. 20, and like it 
is taken from the LXX, with only a slight change in the order. 
In the original both this verse and the preceding are addressed 
to apostate Israel; St. Paul applies the first part to the Gentiles, 
the latter part definitely to Israel. 


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


We have reached a new stage in our argument. The first step 
was the vindication of God’s faithfulness and justice: the second 
step has been definitely to fix guilt on man. It is clearly laid 
down that the Jews have been rejected through their own fault. 
They chose the wrong method. When the Messiah came, instead 
of accepting Him, they were offended. They did not allow their 
zeal for God to be controlled by a true spiritual knowledge. And 
the responsibility for this is brought home to them. ll possible 
excuses, such as want of opportunity, insufficient knowledge, 
inadequate warning, are suggested, but rejected. The Jews are 
a disobedient people and they have been rejected for their dis- 
obedience. 


IX. 80- . 21.| THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAKL 301 


Now it has been argued that such an interpretation is in- 
consistent with Chap. ix. That proves clearly, it is asserted, that 
grace comes to man, not in answer to man’s efforts, but in accord- 
ance with God’s will. How then can St. Paul go on to prove that 
the Jews are to blame? In order to avoid this assumed incon- 
sistency, the whole section, or at any rate the final portion, has 
been interpreted differently: vv. 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 vv. 
18-21 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 διὰ τί; 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. 1) and the 
palliation for their conduct which he suggests (x. 2); 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 
ἀλλ᾽ od πάντες ὑπήκουσαν (ν. 16), ἀλλὰ λέγω, μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν ; (ν. 18), 
μὴ Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω; (v.19). As there is nowhere any reference 
to Gentiles rejecting the message, the reference must be to the 
Jews; and the object of the section must be to show the reason why 
(although Gentiles have been accepted) the Jews have been rejected. 
The answer is given in the concluding quotation, which sums up 
the whole argument. It is because the Jews have been a dis- 
obedient and gainsaying people. Chrysostom, who brings out the 
whole point of this section admirably, sums up its conclusion as 
follows: ‘Then to prevent them saying, But why was He not 
made manifest to us also? he sets down what is more than this, 
that I not only was made manifest, but I even continued with 
My hands stretched out, inviting them, and displaying all the 
concern of an affectionate father, and a fond mother that is set on 


302 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [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.’ 

We must accept the interpretation then which sees in this 
chapter a proof of the guilt of the Jews. St. Paul is in fact 
looking at the question from a point of view different from that 
which he adopted in Chap. ix. There he assumes Divine Sovereignty, 
and assuming it shows that God’s dealings with the Jews are 
justified. Now he assumes human responsibility, and shows that 
assuming it the Jews are guilty. Two great steps are passed in 
the Divine Theodicy. We need not anticipate the argument, but 
must allow it to work itself out. The conclusion may suggest 
a point of view from which these two apparently inconsistent 
attitudes can be reconciled. 


St. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. 


In Chaps. ix—xi St. Paul, as carrying on a long and sustained 
argument, which, if not directed against Jewish opponents, discusses 
a question full of interest to Jews from a Jewish point of view, 
makes continued use of the O.T., and gives an opportunity for 
investigating his methods of quotation and interpretation. 

The text of his quotations is primarily that of tne LXX. Ac- 
cording to Kautzsch (De Veleris Testamenti locis a Paulo Apostclo 
allegatis), out of eighty-four passages in which St. Paul cites the 
Ο. 1. about seventy are taken directly from the LXX or do not 
vary from it appreciably, twelve vary considerably, but still show 
signs of affinity, and two only, both from the book of Job (Rom. 
xi. 35 = Job xli. 3 (11); 1 Cor. iii. 19 = Jobv. 13) are definitely in- 
dependent and derived either from the Hebrew text or some quite 
distinct version. Of those derived from the LXX a certain number, 
such for example as Rom. x. 15, show in some points a resemblance 
to the Hebrew text as against the LXX. We have probably not 
sufficient evidence to say whether this arises from a reminiscence 
of the Hebrew text (conscious or unconscious), or from an Ara- 
maic Targum, or from the use of an earlier form of a LXX text. 
It may be noticed that St. Paul’s quotations sometimes agree with 
late MSS. of the LXX as against the great uncials (cf. iii. 4, 15 ff.). 
As to the further question whether he cites from memory or by 
reference, it may be safely said that the majority of the quotations 
are from memory; for many of them are somewhat inexact, and 
those which are correct are for the most part short and from well- 
known books. ‘There is a very marked distinction between these 
and the long literary quotations of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 


ΙΧ- ΧΙ] THE UNBELIEF OF 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. 2). Another point of 
resemblance may be found in the series of passages which he 
strings together from different books (cf. iii. 10) after the manner 
of a Rabbinical discourse. St. Paul was in fact educated as a Rabbi 
in Rabbinical schools and consequently his method of using the 
O.T. is such as might have been learnt in these schools. 

But how far is his interpretation Rabbinical? It is not quite 
easy to answer this question directly. It is perhaps better to point 
out first of all some characteristics which it possesses. 

In the first place it is quite clearly not ‘historical’ in the modern 
sense of the word. The passages are quoted without regard to 
their context or to the circumstances under which they were written. 
The most striking instances of this are those cases in which the 
words of the O.T. are used in an exactly opposite sense to that 
which they originally possessed. For instance in ix. 25, 26 words 
used in the O. T. of the ten tribes are used of the Gentiles, in x. 6-8 
words used of the Law are applied to the Gospel as against the 
Law. On the other hand Rabbinical interpretations in the sense 
in which they have become proverbial are very rare. St. Paul 
almost invariably takes the literal and direct meaning of the words 
(although without regard to their context), he does not allegorize 
or play upon their meaning, or find hidden and mysterious prin- 
ciples. There are some obvious exceptions, such as Gal. iv. 22 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, 21 is correctly deduced from O. T. prin- 
ciples; the quotation in ix. 17 is not quite so exactly correct, but 
the principle evolved is thoroughly in accordance with O. T. ideas. 
So again the method of Divine Election is deduced correctly from 
the instances quoted in ix. 6-13. Controversially these arguments 
were quite 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. 
A typical 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 ROMANS [IX-X1I 


the original, and without any definite formula of citation. So in 
x. 6-8 (see the note) the O. T. language is used rather than a text 
from it cited. The same is true in a number of other passages 
where, as the text of Westcott and Hort exhibits clearly, ideas 
borrowed from the O.T. are expressed in language which is 
borrowed, but without any definite sign of quotation. That this is 
the natural and normal use of a religious book must clearly be 
recognized, ‘For [the writers of the N.T. the Scripture], was 
the one thesaurus of truth. They had almost no other books. 
The words of the O.T. had become a part of their mental furni- 
ture, and they used them to a certain extent with the freedom with 
which they used their own ideas’ (Toy, Quotations, &c. p. xx). It 
is a use which is constantly being made of the Bible at the present 
day, and when we attempt to analyze the exact force it is intended 
to convey, it is neither easy nor desirable to be precise. Between 
the purely rhetorical use on the one side and the logical proof on 
the other there are infinite gradations of ideas, and it is never quite 
possible to say how far in any definite passage the use is purely 
rhetorical and how far it is intended to suggest a definite argument. 

But there is a third class of instances in which the words are 
used in a sense which the original context will not bear, and yet the 
object is to give a logical proof. This happens mainly in a certain 
class of passages; in those in which the Law is used to condemn 
the Law, in those in which passages not Messianic are used with 
a Messianic bearing, and in those (a class connected with the last) 
in which passages are applied to the calling of the Gentiles which 
do not refer to that event in the original. Here controversially the 
method is justified. Some of the passages used Messianically by the 
Christians had probably been so used by the Rabbis before them. 
In all cases the methods they adopted were those of their contempo- 
raries, however incorrect they may have been. But what of the 
method in relation to ourown times? Are we justified in using it? 
The answer to that must be sought in a comparison of their teaching 
with that of the Rabbis. We have said that controversially it was 
justified. ‘The method was the same as, and as good as, that of 
their own time; but it was no better. As far as method goes the 
Rabbis were equally justified in their conclusions, There is in 
fact no standard of right and wrong, when once it is permitted to 
take words in a sense which their original context will not bear. 
Anything can be proved from anything. 

Where then does the superiority of the N.T. writers lie? In 
their correct interpretation of the spirit of the O.T. ‘As ex- 
pounders of religion, they belong to the whole world and to all 
time; as logicians, they belong to the first century. The essence 
of their writing is the Divine spirit of love and righteousness that 
filled their souls, the outer shell is the intellectual form in which 


IX-XI.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 305 


the spirit found expression in words. Their comprehension of the 
deeper spirit of the O. T. thought is one thing: the logical method 
by which they sought formally to extend it is quite another’ (Toy, 
Quotations, Se. 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 15 almost as easy to deduce Arianism from 
it. Athanasius did not triumph because of those exegetical methods, 
but because he rightly interpreted (and men felt that he had rightly 
interpreted) the spirit of the N.T. His creed, his religious insight, 
to a certain extent his philosophy, we accept: but not his exegetical 
methods. 

So with the O. T. St. Paul triumphed, and the Christian Church 
triumphed, over Judaism, because they both rightly interpreted the 
spirit of the O.T. We must accept that interpretation, although we 
shall find that we arrive at it on other grounds. This may be 
illustrated in two main points. 

It is the paradox of ch. x that it condemns the Law out of the 
Law ; that it convicts the Jews by applying to them passages, which 
in the original accuse them of breaking the Law, in order to 
condemn them for keeping it. But the paradox is only apparent, 
Running through the O. T., in the books of the Law as well as ir 
those of the Prophets, is the prophetic spirit, always bringing out 
the spiritual truths and lessons concealed in or guarded by the Law 
in opposition to the formal adherence to its precepts. This spirit 
the Gospel inherits. ‘The Gospel itself is a reawakening of the 
spirit of prophecy. There are many points in which the teaching 
of St. Paul bears a striking resemblance to that of the old Prophets. 
It is not by chance that so many quotations from them occur in 
his writings. Separated from Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and 
Isaiah by an interval of about 800 years, he felt a kind of sympathy 
with them; they expressed his inmost feelings; like them he was 
at war with the evil of the world around. When they spoke of 
forgiveness of sins, of non-imputation of sins, of a sudden turning 
to God, what did this mean but righteousness by faith? When 
they said, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice,’ here also was 
imaged the great truth, that salvation was not of the Law... Like 
the elder Prophets, he came not “to build up a temple made with 

x 


306 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX-X1. 


hands,” but to teach a moral truth: like them he went forth alone, 
and not in connexion with the church at Jerusalem: like them he 
was looking for and hastening to the day of the Lord’ (Jowett). 
This represents the truth, as the historical study of the O. T. will 
prove ; or rather one side of the truth. The Gospel is not merely 
the reawakening of the spirit of prophecy; it is also the fulfilment 
of the spiritual teaching of Law. It was necessary for a later 
writer—the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews—when contro- 
versy was less bitter to bring this out more fully. Christ not only 
revived all the teaching of the Prophets, righteousness, mercy, 
peace; He also exhibited by His death the teaching of the Law, 
the heinousness of sin, the duty of sacrifice, the spiritual union of 
God and man. 

The same lines of argument will justify the Messianic use of the 
O.T. If we study it historically the reality of the Messianic 
interpretation remains just as clear as it was to St. Paul. Alle- 
gorical and incorrect exegesis could never create an idea. They 
only illustrate one which has been suggested in other ways. The 
Messianic interpretation, and with it the further idea of the uni- 
versality of the Messianic kingdom, arose because they are contained 
in the O.T. Any incorrectness of exegesis that there may be lies 
not in the ideas themselves but in finding them in passages which 
have probably a different meaning. We are not bound, and it 
would be wrong to bind ourselves, by the incorrect exegesis of 
particular passages; but the reality and truth of the Messianic idea 
and the universal character of the Messianic kingdom, as prophesied 
in the O.T. and fulfilled in the N.T., remain one of the most 
real and impressive facts in religious history. Historical criticism 
does not disprove this; it only places it on a stronger foundation 
and enables us to trace the origin and growth of the idea more 
accurately (cf. Sanday, Bampton Lectures, pp. 404, 405). 

The value of St. Paul’s exegesis therefore lies not in his true 
interpretation of individual passages, but in his insight into the 
spiritual meaning of the O.T.; we need not use his methods, but 
the books of the Bible will have little value for us if we are not able 
to see in them the spiritual teaching which he saw. In the cause 
of truth, as a guide to right religious ideas, as a fatal enemy to 
many a false and erroneous and harmful doctrine, historical criticism 
and interpretation are of immense value; but if they be divorced 
from a spiritual insight, such as can be learnt only by the spiritual 
teaching of the N.T., which interprets the ΟἹ. Τὶ from the stand- 
point of its highest and truest fulfilment, they will become as barren 
and unproductive as the strangest conceits of the Rabbis or the 
most unreal fancies of the Schoolmen. 

(See, besides other works: Jowett, Contrasts of Prophecy, in his 
edition of the Romans; Toy, Quotations in the New Testament. 


XI. 1-5.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 307 


New York, 1884; Kautzsch, De Veleris Testamentt locts a Paule 
Apostolo allegatis, Lipsiae, 1869 ; Clemen (Dr. August), Ueber den 
Gebrauch des Alien Testaments im Neuen Testamente, und spectell in 
den Reden Jesu (Einladungsschrift, &c., Leipzig, 1891); Turpie 
(David MeCalman), Zhe Old Testament in the New, London, 
1868. } 


THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT COMPLETE. 


XI.1-10. Jsvael then has vefused to accept the salvation 
offered it; is it therefore rejected? No. At any rate the 
rejection is not complete. Now as always in the history of 
Israel, although the mass of the people may be condemned to 
disbelief, there is a remnant that shall be saved. 


1The conclusion of the preceding argument is this. It is through 
their own fault that Israel has rejected a salvation which was fully 
and freely offered. Now what does this imply? Does it mean 
that God has rejected His chosen people? Heaven forbid that 
I should say this! I who like them am an Israelite, an Israelite 
by birth and not a proselyte, a lineal descendant of Abraham, 
a member of the tribe that with Judah formed the restored Israel 
after the exile. *No, God has not rejected His people. He 
chose them for His own before all time and nothing can make 
Him change His purpose. If you say He has rejected them, 
it only shows that you have not clearly grasped the teaching of 
Scripture concerning the Remnant. Elijah on Mt. Horeb brought 
just such an accusation against his countrymen. * He complained 
that they had forsaken the covenant, that they had overthrown 
God’s altars, that they had slain His Prophets; just as the Jews 
at the present day have slain the Messiah and persecuted His 
messengers. Elijah only was left, and his life they sought. The 
whole people, God’s chosen people, had been rejected. *So he 
thought; but the Divine response came to him, that there were seven 
thousand men left in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal. 
There was a kernel of the nation that remained loyal. ° Exactly 
the same circumstances exist now as then. Now as then the mass 
of the people are unfaithful, but there is a remnant of loyal ad- 


308 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 5-1o. 


herents to the Divine message:—a remnant, be it remembered, 
chosen by God by an act of free favour: *that is to say those 
whom God has in His good pleasure selected for that position, who 
have in no way earned it by any works they have done, or any 
merit of their own. If that were possible Grace would lose all its 
meaning: there would be no occasion for God to show free favour 
to mankind. 

TIt is necessary then at any rate to modify the broad statement 
that has been made. Israel, it is true, has failed to obtain the 
righteousness which it sought; but, although this is true of the 
nation as a whole, there is a Remnant of which it is not true. 
Those whom God selected have attained it. But what of the rest? 
Their hearts have been hardened. Here again we find the same 
conditions prevailing throughout Israel’s history. "ἡ Isaiah declared 
(xxix. 10; vi. 9, 10) how God had thrown the people into a state 
of spiritual torpor. He had given them eyes which could not see, 
and ears which could not hear. All through their history the mass 
of the people has been destitute of spiritual insight. " And again 
in the book of Psalms, David (lxix. 23, 24) declares the Divine 
wrath against the unfaithful of the nation: ‘ May their table be their 
snare.’ It is just their position as God’s chosen people, it is the Law 
and the Scriptures, which are their boast, that are to be the cause of 
their ruin. They are to be punished by being allowed to cleave 
fast to that to which they have perversely adhered. *° ‘ Let their eyes 
be blinded, so that they cannot see light when it shines upon them: 
let their back be ever bent under the burden to which they have 
so obstinately clung.’ This was God’s judgement then on Israel 
for their faithlessness, and it is God’s judgement on them now. 

1-36. St. Paul has now shown (1) (ix. 6-29) that God was 
perfectly free, whether as regards promise or His right as Creator, to 
reject Israel; (2) (ix. 30-x. 21) that Israel on their side by neglecting 
the Divine method of salvation offered them have deserved this 
rejection. He now comes to the original question from which he 
started, but which he never expressed, and asks, Has God, as might 
be thought from the drift of the argument so far, really cast away 
His people? To this he gives a negative answer, which he proceeds 
to justify by showing (1) that this rejection is only partial (xi. 1-10), 
(2) only temporary (xi. 11-25), and (3) that in all this Divine action 
there has been a purpose deeper and wiser than man can altogether 
understand (xi. 26-36). 


XI. 1, 2.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 309 


1. λέγω οὖν. This somewhat emphatic phrase occurring here 
and in ver. rr seems to mark a stage in the argument, the οὖν as 
so often summing up the result so far arrived at. The change of 
particle shows that we have not here a third question parallel to 
the ἀλλὰ λέγω of x. 18, 19. 

μὴ ἀπώσατο ὃ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ; ‘Is it possible that God has 
cast away His people?’ The form of the question implies neces- 
sarily a negative answer and suggests an argument against it. (1) 
By the juxtaposition of 6 Θεός and τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ. Israel is God’s 
people and so He cannot reject them. ἤρα populi eius appellatio 
rationem negandi coniinet. Beng. (2) By the use made of the 
language of the O.T. Three times in the O. T. (1 Sam. xii. 22; 
Ps. xciii [xciv]. 14; xciv [xcv]. 4) the promise οὐκ ἀπώσεται Κύριος 
τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ 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. 

μὴ γένοιτο. St. Paul repudiates the thought with horror. All 
his feelings as an Israelite make it disloyal in him to hold it. 

kat γὰρ x.7.4. These words have been taken in two ways. (r) 
As a proof of the incorrectness of the suggestion. St. Paul was an 
Israelite, and he had been saved; therefore the people as a whole 
could not have been rejected. So the majority of commentators 
(Go. Va. Oltr. Weiss). But the answer to the question does not 
occur until St. Paul gives it in a solemn form at the beginning of 
the next verse; he would not therefore have previously given 
a reason for its incorrectness. Moreover it would be inconsistent 
with St. Paul’s tact and character to put himself forward so promi- 
nently. 

(2) 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 
kinship with Israel (ix. 1-3; x. 1). 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. 

᾿Ισραηλίτης κιτιλ. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5. 

ὃν προέγνω, which is added by Lachmann after τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, has the 
support of A D Chrys. and other authorities, but clearly came in from ver. 2. 


2. οὐκ ἀπώσατο. St. Paul gives expressly and formally a negative 


810 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [xI. 2. 


answer to the question he has just asked, adding emphasis by 
repeating the very words he has used. 

ὃν προέγνω. The addition of these words gives a reason for the 
emphatic denial of which they form a part. Israel was the race 
which God in His Divine foreknowledge had elected and chosen, 
and therefore He could not cast it off. The reference in this 
chapter is throughout to the election of the nation as a whole, and 
therefore the words cannot have a limiting sense (Orig. Chrys. 
Aug.), ‘that people whom He foreknew,’ i.e. those of His people 
whom He foreknew; nor again can they possibly refer to the 
spiritual Israel, as that would oblige a meaning to be given to 
λαός different from that in ver.1. The word προέγνω may be taken, 
(1) as used in the Hebrew sense, to mean ‘whom He has known or 
chosen beforehand.’ So γινώσκειν in the LXX. Amos iii. 2 ὑμᾶς 
ἔγνων ἐκ πασῶν τῶν φυλῶν τῆς γῆς. And in St. Paul x Cor. viii. 3 εἰ 
δέ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Θεόν, οὗτος ἔγνωσται tn’ αὐτοῦ. Gal. iv. g νῦν δὲ 
γνόντες Θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. 2 Tim. ii. 19 ἔγνω Κύριος 
τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ. Although there is no evidence for this use of 
προγινώσκειν it represents probably the idea which St. Paul had in 
his mind (see on viii. 29). (2) But an alternative interpretation 
taking the word in its natural meaning of foreknowledge, must not 
be lost sight of, ‘that people of whose history and future destiny 
God had full foreknowledge.’ This seems to be the meaning 
with which the word is generally used (Wisd. vi. 13; viii. 8; xviii. 6; 
Just. Mart. Apol. i. 28; Dzal. 42. p. 261 B.); so too πρόγνωσις is used 
definitely and almost technically of the Divine foreknowledge (Acts 
ii. 23), and in this chapter St. Paul ends with vindicating the 
Divine wisdom which had prepared for Israel and the world 
a destiny which exceeds human comprehension. 

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε : cf. ii. 4; vi. 3; vii. 1; ix. 21. ‘You must admit 
this or be ignorant of what the Scripture says.’ The point of the 
quotation lies not in the words which immediately follow, but in the 
contrast between the two passages; a contrast which represented 
the distinction between the apparent and the real situation at the 
time when the Apostle wrote. 

ἐν ᾿Ηλίᾳ : ‘in the section of Scripture which narrates the story 
of Elijah.” The O. T. Scriptures were divided into paragraphs to 
which were given titles derived from their subject-matter ; and these 
came to be very commonly used in quotations as references. Many 
instances are quoted from the Talmud and from Hebrew commen- 
tators: Berachoth, fol. 2. col. 1, fol. 4. col. 2 12 guod scriptum est apud 
Michéel, referring to Is. vi.6. So Zaanzt och, ii.1; Aboth de-Rabbi 
Nathan, c.9; Shir hashirim rabba i. 6, where a phrase similar 
to that used here, ‘In Elijah,’ occurs, and the same passage is 
quoted, ‘I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of Hosts.’ 
So also Philo, De Agricultura, p. 203 (i. 317 Mang.) λέγει yap ἐν rais 


XI. 2-4.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 311 


ἀραῖς, referring to Gen. iii. 15. The phrase ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου Mark 
xii. 26; Luke xx. 37; Clem. Hom. xvi. 14; Apost. Const. v. 20, is 
often explained in a similar manner, but very probably incorrectly, 
the ἐπί being perhaps purely local. The usage exactly corresponds 
to the method used in quoting the Homeric poems. As the Rabbis 
divided the O. T. into sections so the Rhapsodists divided Homer, 
and these sections were quoted by their subjects, ἐν Ἕκτορος ἀναιρέσει, 
ἐν vexvia. (See Fri. Delitzsch ad doc., Surenhusius, Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς, 
P- 31.) 
ἐντυγχάνει : ‘he accuses Israel before God.’ The verb ἐν- 
τυγχάνειν means, (1) ‘to meet with,’ (2) ‘to meet with for the 
purposes of conversation,’ ‘have an interview with,’ Acts xxv. 24; 
hence (3) ‘to converse with,’ ‘plead with,’ Wisdom viii. 21, either 
on behalf of some one (ὑπέρ τινος) Rom. viii. 27, 34; Heb. vii. 25; 
or against some one (kara τινος), and so (4) definitely ‘to accuse’ as 
here and 1 Macc. xi. 25 καὶ ἐνετύγχανον κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ τινες ἄνομοι τῶν ἐκ 
τοῦ ἔθνους : Vill. 323; X. 61, 63. 
The TR. adds λέγων at the end of this verse with N*L al. pler., it is 


omitted by NCABCDEFGP min. pauc., Vulg. Sah. Boh., and most 
Fathers. 


8. Κύριε, τοὺς προφήτας «.t.A. The two quotations come from 
1 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 put in a prominent position the words τοὺς 
Legion σου ἀπέκτειναν to which there was most analogy during St. Paul’s 
time (cf. Acts vii. 52; 1 Thess. ii. 14). The καί between the clauses of the 
TR. is read by D EL and later MSS. Justin Martyr, Déa/. 39. p. 257 Ds 
quotes the words as in St. Paul and not as in the LXX: Καὶ γὰρ Ἡλίας 
περὶ ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐντυγχάνων οὕτως λέγει" Κύριε, τοὺς προφήτας σου 
ἀπέκτειναν καὶ τὰ θυσιαστήριά σον κατέσκαψαν κἀγὼ ὑπελείφθην μόνος καὶ 
ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχήν μου. καὶ ἀποκρίνεται αὐτῷ, Ἔτι εἰσί μοι ἑπτακισχίλιοι 
ἄνδρες, of οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ. 

4. ὃ χρηματισμός : ‘the oracle. An unusual sense for the 
word, which occurs here only in the N. T., but is found in 2 Macc. 
ii. 4; Clem. Rom. xvii. 5; and occasionally elsewhere. The verb 
χρηματίζειν meant (1) originally ‘to transact business’; then (2) ‘to 
consult,’ ‘deliberate’; hence (3) ‘to give audience,’ ‘answer after 


312 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 4, δ. 


deliberation’; and so finally (4) of an oracle ‘to give a response, 
taking the place of the older xpaw; and so it is used in the N. T. 
of the Divine warning Mat. ii. 12, 22 χρηματισθέντες κατ᾽ ὄναρ: Luke 
ii. 26; Acts x. 22; Heb. viii. s; xi.7: cf. Jos. Amt. V.i.14; X. i. 
3; ΧΙ. iii. 4. From this usage of the verb χρηματίζω was derived 
χρηματισμός, aS the more usual χρησμός from χράω. See also p. 173. 

τῇ Βάαλ: substituted by St. Paul (as also by Justin Martyr, doc. 
cit.) for the LXX τῷ Βάαλ, according to a usage common in other 
passages in the Greek Version. 


The word Baal, which means ‘Lord,’ appears to have been originally 
used as one of the names of the God of Israel, and as such became a part of 
many Jewish names, as for example Jerubbaal (Jud. vi. 32; vii. 1), Eshbaal 
(1 Chron. ix. 39), Meribbaal (1 Chron. ix. 40), &c. But gradually the 
special association of the name with the idolatrous worship of the Phoenician 
god caused the use of it to be forbidden. Hosea ii. 16, 17 ‘and it shall be 
at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me 
no more Baali. For I will take away the names of the Baalim out of her 
mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by their name.’ Owing to this 
motive a tendency arose to obliterate the name of Baal from the Scriptures: 
just as owing to a feeling of reverence ‘ Elohim’ was substituted for ‘ Jehovah’ 
in the second and third books of the Psalms. This usage took the form of 
substituting Bosheth, ‘abomination,’ for Baal. So Eshbaal (1 Chr. viii. 33, 
ix. 39) became Ishbosheth (2 Sam. ii. 8; iii. 8); Meribbaal (1 Chr. ix. 40) 
Mephibosheth (2 Sam. ix. 6 ff.); Jerubbaal Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. xi. 21). 
See also Hosea ix. 10; Jer. iii. 24; xi. 13. Similarly in the LXX αἰσχύνη 
represents in one passage Baal of the Hebrew text, 3 Kings xviii. 19, 25. 
But it seems to have been more usual to substitute αἰσχύνη in reading for the 
written Βάαλ, and as a sign of this Qerd the feminine article was written; 
just as the name Jehovah was written with the pointing of Adonai. This 
usage is most common in Jeremiah, but occurs also in the books of Kings, 
Chronicles, and other Prophets. It appears not to occur in the Pentateuch. 
The plural ταῖς occurs 2 Chr. xxiv. 7; xxxiii. 3. This, the only satisfactory 
explanation of the feminine article with the masculine name, is given by 
Dillmann, Monatsberichte der Akademie der Wessenschaft eu Berlin, 1881, 
p. ὅοι ff. and has superseded all others. 

The LXX version is again shortened in the quotation, and for καταλείψω 
is substituted κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ, which is an alternative and perhaps more 
exact translation of the Hebrew. 


δ. οὕτως οὖν. The application of the preceding instance to the 
circumstances of the Apostle’s own time. The facts were the 
same. St. Paul would assume that his readers, some of whom 
were Jewish Christians, and all of whom were aware of the exist- 
ence of such a class, would recognize this. And if this were so 
the same deduction might be made. As then the Jewish people 
were not rejected, because the remnant was saved; so now there 
is a remnant, and this implies that God has not cast away His 
people as such. 

λεῖμμα (on the orthography ef. WH. ii. App. p. 154, who read 
Aiupa), ‘a remnant.’ The word does not occur elsewhere in the 
N.T., and in the O. T. only twice, and then not in the technical 
sense of the ‘remnant.’ The usual word for that is τὸ καταλειφθέν. 


ΧΙ. 5-7.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 313 


Kat ἐκλογὴν χάριτος. Predicate with γέγονεν. ‘There has come 
to be through the principle of selection which is dependent on the 
Divine grace or favour.’ This addition to the thought, which is 
further explained in ver. 6, reminds the reader of the result of the 
previous discussion: that ‘election’ on which the Jews had always 
laid so much stress had operated, but it was a selection on the 
part of God of those to whom He willed to give His grace, and 
not an election of those who had earned it by their works. 

6. εἰ δὲ χάριτι κιτιλ, A further explanation of the principles of 
election. If the election had been on the basis of works, then the 
Jews might have demanded that God’s promise could only be ful- 
filled if all who had earned it had received it: St. Paul, by reminding 
them of the principles of election already laid down, implies that 
the promise is fulfilled if the remnant is saved. God’s people 
are those whom He has chosen; it is not that the Jews are chosen 
because they are His people. 

ἐπεὶ ἧ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις : ‘this follows from the very 
meaning of the idea of grace.’ Gratia nist gratis stt gratia non est. 
St. Augustine. 

The TR. after γίνεται χάρις adds el δὲ ἐξ ἔργων, οὐκέτι ἐστὶ χάρις" ἐπεὶ τὸ 
ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον with N°(B) L and later MSS., Syrr., Chrys. and Thdrt. 
(in the text, but they do not refer to the words in their commentary). 
B reads εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων, οὐκέτι χάρις" ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶ χάρις, The 
clause is omitted by Nt AC DEFGP, Vulg. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Arm., 
Qrig.-lat. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrst. Pazr.-latt. There need be no doubt that it is 
a gloss, nor is the authority of B of any weight in support of a Western 
addition such as this against such preponderating authority. This is con- 
sidered by WH. to be the solitary or almost the solitary case in which B 
possibly has a Syrian reading (Introd. ii. 150). 


7. τί οὖν; | This verse sums up the result of the discussion in 
vv. 2-6. ‘What then is the result? In what way can we modify 
the harsh statement made in ver. 1? It is indeed still true that 
Israel as a nation has failed to obtain what is its aim, namely 
righteousness: but at the same time there is one portion of it, the 
elect, who have attained it.’ 

ἡ δὲ ἐκλογή : i.e. of ἐκλεκτοί, The abstract for the concrete 
suggests the reason for their success by laying stress on the idea 
rather than on the individuals. 

ot δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν : ‘while the elect have attained what 
they sought, those who have failed to attain it have been hardened.’ 
They have not failed because they have been hardened, but they 
have been hardened because they have failed; cf. i. 24 ff., where 
sin is represented as God’s punishment inflicted on man for their 
rebellion. Here St. Paul does not definitely say by whom, for 
that is not the point it interests him to discuss at present: he has 
represented the condition of Israel both as the result of God’s 
action (ch. ix) and of their own (ch. x). Here as in κατηρτισμένα 


314 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 7, 8. 


ix. 22, he uses the colourless passive without laying stress on the 
cause: the quotation in ver. 8 represents God as the author, 
ἔπταισαν in ver, 11 suggests that they are free agents. 


The verb πωρόω (derived from m@pos a callus or stone formed in the 
bladder) is a medical term used in Hippocrates and elsewhere of a bone or 
hard substance growing when bones are fractured, or of a stone forming in 
the bladder. Hence metaphorically it is used in the N. T., and apparently 
there only of the heart becoming hardened or callous: so Mark vi. 52; 
Jo. xii. 40; Rom. xi. 7; 2 Cor. ili. 14: while the noun πώρωσις occurs in 
the same sense, Mark iii. §; Rom. xi. 25; Eph. iv. 18. The idea is in all 
these places the same, that a covering has grown over the heart, making 
men incapable of receiving any new teaching however good, and making 
them oblivious of the wrong they are doing. In Job xvii. 7 (πεπώρωνται 
γὰρ ἀπὸ ὀργῆς οἱ ὀφθαλμοί pov) 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, πωρός, ὁ τυφλός: πεπώρωται, τετύφλωται : 
Hesychius, πεπωρωμένοι, τετυφλωμένοι) and the Latin Versions (excaecati, 
obcaecati). It is possible that this translation arose from a confusion with 
mnpos (see on κατανύξεως below) which was perhaps occasionally used of 
blindness (see Prof. Armitage Robinson in Academy, 1892, p. 305), although 
probably then as a specialized usage for the more general ‘maimed.’ Al- 
though the form πηρόω occurs in some MSS. of the N. T., yet the evidence 
against it is in every case absolutely conclusive, as it is also in the O. T. in 
the one passage where the word occurs. 


8. καθὼς γέγραπται. St. Paul supports and explains his last 
statement of δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν by quotations from the O. T. 
The first which in form resembles Deut. xxix. 4, modified by 
Is. xxix. 10; vi. 9, 10, describes the spiritual dulness or torpor of 
which the prophet accuses the Israelites. This he says had been 
given them by God as a punishment for their faithlessness. These 
words will equally well apply to the spiritual condition of the 
Apostle’s own time, showing that it is not inconsistent with the 
position of Israel as God’s people, and suggesting a general law of 
God’s dealing with them. 

The following extracts, in which the words that St. Paul has made 
use of are printed in spaced type, will give the source of the quotation. 
Deut. xxix. 4 καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν καρδίαν εἰδέναι καὶ 
ὀφθαλμοὺς βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα ἀκούειν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης. 15. 
xxix. 10 ὅτι πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς Κύριος πνεύματι κατανύξεως : cf. Is. vi. 9, 10 
ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε. 
νων καὶ εἶπα Ἕως πότε, Κύριε; While the form resembles the words in 
Deut., the historical situation and meaning of the quotation are represented 
by the passages in Isaiah to which St. Paul is clearly referring. 
πνεῦμα κατανύξεως : ‘a spirit of torpor,’ a state of dull insensi- 

bility to everything spiritual, such as would be produced by drunken- 
ness, or stupor. Is. xxix. ro (RV.) ‘For the Lord hath poured 
out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, 
the prophets; and your heads, the seers, hath He covered.’ 


The word κατάνυξις is derived from κατανύσσομαι. The simple verb 
νύσσω is used to mean to ‘prick’ or ‘strike’ or ‘dint.’ —The compound 


ΧΙ. 8-10.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 315 


verb would mean, (1) to ‘strike’ or ‘prick violently,’ and hence (2) to 
‘stun’; no instance is quoted of it in its primary sense, but it is common 
(3) especially in the LXX of strong emotions, of the prickings of lust Susan. 
10 (Theod.); of strong grief Gen. xxxiv. 7; Ecclus. xiv. 1; and so Acts ii. 37 
κατενύγησαν τῇ καρδίᾳ of being strongly moved by speaking. Then (4) it is 
used of the stunning effect of such emotion which results in speechlessness : 
Is. vi. 5 ὦ τάλας ἔγὼ ὅτι κατανένυγμαι : Dan. x. 15 ἔδωκα τὸ πρόσωπόν μου 
ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ κατενύγην, and so the general idea of torpor would be 
derived. The noun κατάνυξις appears to occur only twice, Is. xxix. I0 
πνεῦμα κατανύξεως, Ps. lix [Ix]. 4 οἶνον κατανύξεως. 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 νυστάζω, which means ‘to nod in sleep,’ ‘ be 
drowsy,’ just as the meaning of ἐριθεία was influenced by its resemblance 
to ἔρις (cf. ii. 8). On the word generally see Fri. ii. p. 558 ff. 


ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας : cf. Acts vii. 51 ‘Ye stiffmecked and 
uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy 
Ghost: as your fathers did so do ye.’ St. Stephen’s speech 
illustrates more in detail the logical assumptions which underlie 
St. Paul’s quotations. The chosen people have from the beginning 
shown the same obstinate adherence to their own views and 
a power of resisting the Holy Ghost; and God has throughout 
punished them for their obstinacy by giving them over to spiritual 
blindness. 

9. καὶ Δαβὶδ λέγει «.7.A.: quoted from the LXX of Ps. Ixvili 
(Ixix ]. 23, 24 γενηθήτω ἡ τράπεζα αὐτῶν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν cis παγίδα, καὶ εἰς 
ἀνταπόδοσιν καὶ σκάνδαλον" σκοτισθήτωσαν κιτιλ. (which is ascribed in 
the title to David) with reminiscences of Ps. xxxiv [χχχν]. 8, and 
xxvii [xxviii]. 4. The Psalmist is represented as declaring the 
Divine wrath against those who have made themselves enemies of 
the Divine will. Those who in his days were the enemies of the 
spiritual life of the people are represented in the Apostle’s days by 
the Jews who have shut their ears to the Gospel message. 

ἡ τράπεζα αὐτῶν: ‘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. 

σκάνδαλον: ‘that over which they fall,’ ‘a cause of their destruc- 
tion. 

ἀνταπόδομα: Ps, xxvii [xxviii]. 4. ‘A requital,’ ‘recompense.’ 
The Jews are to be punished for their want of spiritual insight by 
being given over to blind trust in their own law; in fact being 
given up entirely to their own wishes. 

10. σκοτισθήτωσαν κιτιλ. ‘May their eyes become blind, so that 
they have no insight, and their backs bent like men who are continu- 


316 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ XI. 1-10. 


ally groping about in the dark!’ They are to be like those described 
by Plato as fast bound in the cave: even if they are brought to the 
light they will only be blinded by it, and will be unable to see. 
The judgement upon them is that they are to be ever bent down 
with the weight of the burden which they have wilfully taken on 
their backs. 


It may be worth noticing that Lipsius, who does not elsewhere accept the 
theory of interpolations in the text, suggests that vv. 9, 10 area gloss added 
by some reader in the margin after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. Holsten, Ζ. Καὶ 
τυ. 7. 1872, p. 455; Michelsen, 7%. 7. 1887, p. 163; Protestanten-bibel, 
1872, p. 589; &. 7. ii. 154). It is suggested that διαπαντὸς is inconsistent 
with ver. 11 ff. But it has not been noticed that in ver. 11 we have a change 
of metaphor, ἔπταισαν, which would be singularly out of place if it came 
immediately after ver. 8. As it is, this word is suggested and accounted 
for by the metaphors employed in the quotation introduced in ver.g If 
we omit vv. 9, 10 we must also omit ver. 11. There is throughout the 
whole Epistle a continuous succession of thought running from verse to 
verse which makes any theory of interpolation impossible. (See Intro- 
duction, § 9.) 


The Doctrine of the Remnant. 


The idea of the ‘Remnant’ is one of the most typical and 
significant in the prophetic portions of the O. T. We meet it 
first apparently in the prophetic narrative which forms the basis of 
the account of Elijah in the book of Kings, the passage which 
St. Paul is quoting. Here a new idea is introduced into Israel’s 
history, and it is introduced in one of the most solemn and im- 
pressive narratives of that history. The Prophet is taken into the 
desert to commune with God; he is taken to Sinai, the mountain of 
God, which played such a large part in the traditions of His people, 
and he receives the Divine message in that form which has ever 
marked off this as unique amongst theophanies, the ‘still small 
voice,’ contrasted with the thunder, and the storm, and the 
earthquake. And the idea that was thus introduced marks a 
stage in the religious history of the world, for it was the first 
revelation of the idea of personal as opposed to national consecra- 
tion. Up to that time it was the nation as a whole that was 
bound to God, the nation as a whole for which sacrifices were 
offered, the nation as a whole for which kings had fought and 
judges legislated. But the nation as a whole had deserted Jehovah, 
and the Prophet records that it is the loyalty of the individual 
Israelites who had remained true to Him that must henceforth be 
reckoned. The nation will be chastised, but the remnant shall be 
saved, 

The idea is a new one, but it is one which we find continuously 
from this time onwards ; spiritualized with the more spiritual ideas 
of the later prophets. We find it in Amos (ix. 8-10), in Micah (ii. 


XI. 1-10.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 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 ven- 
geance (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) and the salvation of the Remnant 
(Shear-Jashub) and, through the Holy and Righteous Remnant, of 
the theocratic nation itself (vii. 3; viii. 2, 18; ix. 12; x. 21, 24); 
and both these ideas are prominent in the narrative of the call 
(vi. 9-13) ‘ Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed, 
but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their 
ears heavy, and shut their eyes ... Then said I, Lord, how long? 
And He answered, Until cities be waste without inhabitant and 
homes without men, and the land become utterly waste.’ But this 
is only one side. There is a true stock left. ‘Like the terebinth 
and the oak, whose stock remains when they are cut down and sends 
forth new saplings, so the holy seed remains as a living stock and 
a new and better Israel shall spring from the ruin of the ancient 
state’ (Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel, 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 
undefiled, to be offered to God (Is. ἰχν. 8, 9). 

The idea appealed with great force to the early Christians. It 
appealed to St. Stephen, in whose speech one of the main currents 
of thought seems to be the marvellous analogy which runs through 
all the history of Israel. The mass of the people has ever been 
unfaithful ; it is the individual or the small body that has remained 
true to God in all the changes of Israel’s history, and these the 
people have always persecuted as they crucified the Messiah. 
And so St. Paul, musing over the sad problem of Israel’s unbelief, 
finds its explanation and justification in this consistent trait of the 
nation’s history. As in Elijah’s time, as in Isaiah’s time, so now the 
mass of the people have rejected the Divine call; but there always 
has been and still is the true Remnant, the Remnant whom God 
has selected, who have preserved the true life and ideal of the 
people and thus contain the elements of new and prolonged life. 

And this doctrine of the ‘Remnant’ is as true to human nature 
as it is to Israel’s history. No church or nation is saved en masse, 
it is those members of it who are righteous. It is not the mass 
of the nation or church that has done its work, but the select 
few who have preserved the consciousness of its high calling. 
It is by the selection of individuals, even in the nation that has 
been chosen, that God has worked equally in religion and in all 


418 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 11-14 


the different lines along which the path of human development has 
progressed. 

{On the Remnant see especially Jowett, Contrasts of Prophecy, 
in Romans ii. p. 290; and Robertson Smith, Zhe Prophets of 
Israel, pp. 106, 209, 234, 258. The references are collected in 
Ochler, Zheologie des alien Testaments, p. 809.] 


THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT FINAL. 


XI. 11-24. The Rejection of Israel is not complete, nor 
will it be final. Its result has been the extension of the 
Church to the Gentiles. The salvation of these will stir the 
Fews to jealousy; they will return to the Kingdom, and this 
will mean the final consummation (vv. 10-15). 

Of all this the guarantee is the holiness of the stock from 
which Israel comes. God has grafted you Gentiles into that 
stock against the natural order; far more easily can He 
restore them to a position which by nature and descent ἐς 
theirs (vv. 16-24). } 


“The Rejection of Israel then is only partial. Yet still there 
is the great mass of the nation on whom God’s judgement has 
come: what of these? Is there no further hope for them? Is 
this stumbling of theirs such as will lead to a final and complete 
fall? By no means. It is only temporary, a working out of the 
Divine purpose. This purpose is partly fulfilled. It has resulted 
in the extension of the Messianic salvation to the Gentiles. It is 
partly in the future; that the inclusion of these in the Kingdom 
may rouse the Jews to emulation and bring them back to the place 
which should be theirs and from which so far they have been 
excluded. ™And consider what this means. Even the transgres- 
sion of Israel has brought to the world a great wealth of spiritual 
blessings ; their repulse has enriched the nations, how much greater 
then will be the result when the chosen people with their numbers 
completed have accepted the Messiah? "In these speculations 
about my countrymen, I am not disregarding my proper mission 
to you Gentiles, It is with you in my mind that I am speaking. 
I will put it more strongly. I do all 1 can to glorify my ministry 
as Apostle to the Gentiles, ‘and this in hopes that I may succeed 


ΧΙ. 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. 
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’ 31 grant 
what you say; but consider the reason. It was owing to their 
want of faith that they were broken off: you on the other hand 
owe your firm position to your faith, not to any natural superiority. 
ἯΙ is an incentive therefore not to pride, as you seem to think, but 
to fear. For if God did not spare the holders of the birthright, 


320 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS {XI. 11 


no grafted branches but the natural growth of the tree, He certainly 
will be no more ready to spare you, who have no such privileges 
to plead. ™ Learn the Divine goodness, but learn and understand 
the Divine severity as well. Those who have fallen have ex- 
perienced the severity, you the goodness; a goodness which will 
be continued if you cease to be self-confident and simply trust: 
otherwise you too may be cut off as they were. * Nor again 
is the rejection of the Jews irrevocable. They can be grafted 
again into the stock on which they grew, if only they will give up 
their unbelief. For they are in God’s hands; and God’s power is 
not limited. He is able to restore them to the position from which 
they have fallen. For consider. You are the slip cut from the 
olive that grew wild, and yet, by a process which you must admit 
to be entirely unnatural, you were grafted into the cultivated stock. 
If God could do this, much more can He graft the natural branches 
of the cultivated olive on to their own stock from which they were 
cut. You Gentiles have no grounds for boasting, nor have the 
Jews for despair. Your position is less secure than was theirs, and 
if they only trust in God, their salvation will be easier than was 
yours. 


11. St. Paul has modified the question of ver. 1 so far: the 
rejection of Israel is only partial. But yet it is true that the rest, 
that is the majority, of the nation are spiritually blind. They have 
stumbled and sinned. Does this imply their final exclusion from 
the Messianic salvation? St. Paul shows that it is not so. It is 
only temporary and it has a Divine purpose. 

λέγω οὖν. A new stage in the argument. ‘I ask then as to this 
majority whose state the prophets have thus described.’ The 
question arises immediately out of the preceding verses, but is 
a stage in the argument running through the whole chapter, and 
raised by the discussion of Israel’s guilt in ix. 30-x. 21. 

μὴ ἔπταισαν, ἵνα πέσωσι ; ‘have they (i.e. those who have been 
hardened, ver. 8) stumbled so as to fall?’ Mumguid sic offenderunt, 
ut caderentP Is their failure of such a character that they will be 
finally lost, and cut off from the Messianic salvation? ἵνα expresses 
the contemplated result. The metaphor in ἔπταισαν (which is often 
used elsewhere in a moral sense, Deut. vii. 25; James ii. 10; ili. 2; 
2 Pet. i. 10) seems to be suggested by σκάνδαλον of ver. 9. The 
meaning of the passage is given by the contrast between πταίειν 
and πεσεῖν ; a man who stumbles may recover himself, or he may 
fall completely. Hence πέσωσιν is here used of a complete and 


ΧΙ. 11.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 321 


irrevocable fall. Cf. Is. xxiv. 20 κατίσχυσε yap ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἡ ἀνομία, καὶ 
πεσεῖται καὶ ov μὴ δύνηται ἀναστῆναι: Ps. Sol. iii. 13 ἔπεσεν ὅτι πονηρὸν 
τὸ πτῶμα αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἀναστήσεται: Heb. iv. 11. It is no argument 
against this that the same word is used in wv. 22, 23 of a fall 
which is not irrevocable: the ethical meaning must be in each 
case determined by the context, and here the contrast with ἔπταισαν 
suggests a fall that is irrevocable. 


There is a good deal of controversy among grammarians as to the admission 
of a laxer use of iva, a controversy which has a tendency to divide scholars 
by nations; the German grammarians with Winer at their head (§ liii. 10. 6, 
p. 573 E. T.) maintain that it always preserves, even in N. T. Greek, its 
classical meaning of purpose; on the other hand, English commentators such 
as Lightfoot (on Gal. v. 17), Ellicott (on 1 Thess. v. 4), and Evans (on 1 Cor. 
vii. 29) admit the laxer use. Evans says ‘that ἵνα, like our “ that,” has three 
uses: (1) final (in order that he may go), (2) definitive (I advise that he go), 
(3) subjectively ecbatzt (have they stumbled that they should fall)’; and it 
is quite clear that it is only by reading into passages a great deal which is 
not expressed that commentators can make iva in all cases mean ‘in order 
that.’ In 1 Thess. v. 4 ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, ob ἐστὲ ἐν σκότει, ἵνα ἡ ἡμέρα 
ὑμᾶς ὡς κλέπτης καταλάβῃ, where Winer states that there is ‘a Divine 
purpose of God,’ this is not expressed either in the words or the context. 
In 1 Cor. vii. 29 6 καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστί, τὸ λοιπὸν iva καὶ of ἔχοντες 
γυναῖκας ὡς μὴ ἔχοντες ὦσι, ‘is it probable that a state of sitting loose to 
worldly interests should be described as the aim or purpose of God in 
curtailing the season of the great tribulation?’ Evans.) Yet Winer asserts 
that the words iva καὶ of ἔχοντες «.7.A. express the (Divine) purpose for 
which ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστί. So again in the present passage it is 
only a confusion of ideas that can see any purpose. If St. Paul had used 
a passive verb such as ἐπωρώθησαν then we might translate, ‘have they been 
hardened in order that they may fall?’ and there would be no objection in 
logic or grammar, but as St. Paul has written ἔπταισαν, if there is a purpose 
in the passage it ascribes stumbling as a deliberate act undertaken with the 
purpose of falling. We cannot here any more than elsewhere read in 
a Divine purpose where it is neither implied nor expressed, merely for the 
sake of defending an arbitrary grammatical rule. 


μὴ γένοιτο. St. Paul indignantly denies that the final fall of 
Israel was the contemplated result of their transgression. The 
result of it has already been the calling of the Gentiles, and the 
final purpose is the restoration of the Jews also. 

τῷ αὐτῶν παραπτώματι: ‘by their false step,’ continuing the 
metaphor of ἔπταισαν. 

ἡ σωτηρία τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. St. Paul is here stating an historical 
fact. His own preaching to the Gentiles had been caused definitely 
by the rejection of his message on the part of the Jews. Acts 
ΧΙ. 45-48; cf. viii. 4; xi. 19; xxviii. 28. 

εἰς τὸ παραζηλῶσαι αὐτούς: ‘to provoke them (the Jews) to 
jealousy.’ This idea had already been suggested (x. 19) by the 
quotation from Deuteronomy ᾿Εγὼ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς én’ οὐκ ἔθνει. 

St. Paul in these two statements sketches the lines on which the 
Divine action is explained and justified. God’s purpose has been 
to use the disobedience of the Jews in order to promote the calling 

Y 


322 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 11, 12. 


of the Gentiles, and He will eventually arouse the Jews to give up 
their unbelief by emulation of the Gentiles. Εἶτα κατασκευάζει, ὅτι 
τὸ πταῖσμα αὐτῶν διπλὴν οἰκονομίαν ἐργάζεται: τά τε yap ἔθνη ἀντεισάγει 
καὶ αὐτοὺς δὲ παρακνίζον καὶ ἐρεθίζον ἐπιστρέφει, μὴ φέροντας τὴν τοσαύτην 
τῶν ἐθνῶν τιμὴν. Euthym.-Zig. 

12. St. Paul strengthens his statement by an argument drawn 
from the spiritual character of the Jewish people. If an event 
which has been so disastrous to the nation has had such a bene. 
ficial result, how much more beneficial will be the result of the 
entrance of the full complement of the nation into the Messianic 
kingdom? 

πλοῦτος κόσμου : the enriching of the world by the throwing open 
to it of the kingdom of the Messiah: cf. x. 12 ὁ yap αὐτὸς Κύριος 
πάντων, πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν. 

τὸ ἥττημα αὐτῶν: ‘their defeat.’ From one point of view the 
unbelief of the Jews was a transgression (παράπτωμα), from another 
it was a defeat, for they were repulsed from the Messianic kingdom, 
since they had failed to obtain what they sought. 


ἥττημα occurs only twice elsewhere: in Is. xxxi. 8 οἱ δὲ νεανίσκοι 
ἔσονται εἰς ἥττημα, πέτρᾳ γὰρ περιληφθήσονται ws χάρακι Kal ἡττηθήσονται : 
and in 1 Cor. vi. 7 ἤδη μὲν οὖν ὅλως ἥττημα ὑμῖν ἐστιν, ὅτι κρίματα ἔχετε 
μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν. The correct interpretation of the word as derived from the 
verb would be a ‘defeat,’ and this is clearly the meaning in Isaiah. It can 
equally well apply in 1 Cor., whether it be translated a ‘defeat’ in that it 
lowers the Church in the opinion of the world, or a ‘moral defeat,’ hence 
a ‘defect. The same meaning suits this passage. The majority of com- 
mentators however translate it here ‘diminution’ (see especially Gif. Sp. 
Comm. pp. 194, 203), in order to make the antithesis to πλήρωμα exact. 
But as Field points out (Otium Norv. iii. 97) there is no reason why the 
sentence should not be rhetorically faulty, and it is not much improved by 


giving ἥττημα the meaning of ‘impoverishment’ as opposed to ‘ replenish- 
ment.’ 


τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῶν : ‘their complement,’ ‘their full and completed 
number.’ See on xi. 25. 


The exact meaning of πλήρωμα has still to be ascertained. 1. There is 
a long and elaborate note on the word in Lft. (οἱ, p. 323 ff. He starts with 
asserting that ‘substantives in -μα formed from the perfect passive, appear 
always to have a passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or 
a concrete thing; they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, 
or the product of the action: but in any case they give the result of the 
agency involved in the corresponding verb.’ He then takes the verb πληροῦν 
and shows that it has two senses, (i) ‘to fill, (ii) ‘to fulfil’ or ‘ complete’; 
and deriving the fundamental meaning of the word πλήρωμα from the latter 
usage makes it mean in the N.T. always ‘that which is completed.’ 
2. A somewhat different view of the termination -ya is given by the late 
T. 5. Evans in a note on 1 Cor. v. 6 in the Sp. Comm. (part of which is 
quoted above on Rom. iv. 2.) This would favour the active sense zd guod 
implet or adimplet, which appears to be the proper sense of the English word 
‘complement’ (see the Philological Society’s Zug. Dict. s.v.). Perhaps the 
term ‘concrete’ would most adequately express the normal meaning of the 
termination. 


ΧΙ. 18,14] | 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 ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω «.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. 11 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. (11) These verses in their appeal to 
the Gentiles are therefore incidental, almost parenthetic, and are 
introduced to show that this argument has an application to Gentiles 
as well as Jews. 

2. But what is the meaning of μὲν οὖν (that this is the correct 
reading see below)? It is usual to take οὖν in its ordinary sense of 
therefore, and then to explain μέν by supposing an anacoluthon. 
or by finding the contrast in some words that follow. So Gif. 
‘St. Paul, with his usual delicate courtesy and perfect mastery of 
Greek, implies that this is but one part (μέν) of his ministry, chosen 
as he was to bear Christ’s name “before Gentiles and kings and 
the children of Israel.” Winer and others find the antithesis in 
εἴ πως παραζηλώσω. But against these views may be urged two 
reasons, (i) the meaning of μὲν οὖν. The usage at any rate in the 
N.T. is clearly laid down by Evans on 1 Cor. vi. 3 (Speaker's 
Comm. p. 285), ‘the οὖν may signify then or therefore only when 
the μέν falls back upon the preceding word, because it is expectant 
of a coming δέ or ἀτάρ, otherwise, as is pointed out, the μέν must 
coalesce with the οὖν, 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 μὲν οὖν possible, 
unless the δέ is clearly expressed the mind naturally would suggest 
it, especially in St. Paul’s writings where μὲν οὖν is generally so 
used: and as a matter of fact no instance is quoted in the N. T. 
where οὖν in μὲν οὖν has its natural force in a case where it is not 
followed by δέ (Heb. ix. 1 quoted by Winer does not apply, see 
Westcott ad /oc.). But (ii) further οὖν 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 


324 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [x1 13. 


his countrymen, and his zeal in carrying out his mission to the 
Gentiles, combine towards producing the same end. ‘Do not think 
that what I am saying has nothing to do with you Gentiles. It 
makes me even more zealous in my work for you. That ministry 
of mine to the Gentiles I do honour to and exalt, seeking in this 
way if perchance I may be able to move my countrymen to 
jealousy. Then in ver. 15 he shows how this again reacts upon 
the general scheme of his ministry. ‘And this I do, because their 
return to the Church will bring on that final consummation for 
which we all look forward.’ 

13. ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω κιτλ. The δέ expresses a slight contrast in 
thought, and the ὑμῖν is emphatic: ‘ But it is to you Gentiles I am 
speaking. Nay more, so far as I am an Apostle of Gentiles, 
I glorify my ministry: if thus by any means,’ &c. 

ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος : comp. Acts xxii. 21; Gal. ii. 7,9; 1 Tim. ii. 7. 

τὴν διακονίαν pou δοξάζω. He may glorify his ministry, either 
(i) by his words and speech; if he teaches everywhere the duty of 
preaching to the Gentiles he exalts that ministry: or (ii), perhaps 
better, by doing all in his power to make it successful: comp. 
1 Cor. xii. 26 εἴτε δοξάζεται μέλος. 

This verse and the references to the Gentiles that follow seem to 
show conclusively that St. Paul expected the majority of his readers 
to be Gentiles. Comp. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 22 ‘Though the 
Greek is ambiguous the context appears to me decisive for taking 
ὑμῖν as the Church itself, and not as a part of it. In all the long 
previous discussion bearing on the Jews, occupying nearly two and 
a half chapters, the Jews are invariably spoken of in the third 
person. In the half chapter that follows the Gentiles are constantly 
spoken of in the second person. Exposition has here passed into 
exhortation and warning, and the warning is exclusively addressed 
to Gentiles: to Christians who had once been Jews not a word is 
addressed.’ 

The variations in reading in the particles which occur in this verse suggest 
that considerable difficulties were felt in its interpretation. For ὑμῖν δέ 
NABP minusc. pauc., Syrr. Boh. Arm., Theodrt. cod. Jo.-Damasc.; we find 
in C ὑμῖν οὖν ; while the TR with DEFGL &c. Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. has 
ὑμῖν γάρ. Again μὲν οὖν is read by NABCP, Boh., Cyr.-Al. Jo.-Damasc. ; 
μέν only by TR with 1, &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. (so Meyer); while the 
Western group Ὁ EF G and some minuscules omit both. 


It may be noticed in the Epp. of St. Paul that wherever μὲν ody or μενοῦν 
γε occur there is considerable variation in the reading. 


Rom. ix. 20: μενοῦνγε NAKLP &c., Syrr. Boh.; μὲν οὖν B; omit al- 
together D FG. 

x. 18: μενοῦνγε om. F Gd, Orig.-lat. 

1 Cor. vi. 4: μὲν οὖν most authorities ; F G γοῦν. 
vi. 7: μὲν οὖν ABC &c.; μέν ND Boh. 

Phil. iii. 8: μὲν οὖν BDEFGKL &c.; μενοῦνγε SAP Boh. 
The Western MSS. as a rule avoid the expression, while B is consistent in 
preferring it. 


ΧΙ. 14, 15. THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 325 


14. εἴ πως παραζηλώσω. εἴ πως is used here interrogatively with 
the aorist subjunctive (cp. Phil. iii, ro, 11). The grammarians 
explain the expression by saying that we are to understand with it 
σκοπῶν. εἴ πὼς 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. 12, repeating in a stronger form what he has there said, but in 
such a way as to explain the statement made in wv. 13, 14, that by 
thus caring for his fellow-countrymen he is fulfilling his mission 
to the Gentile world. The casting away of the Jews has meant 
the reconciliation of the world to Christ. Henceforth there is no 
more a great wall of partition separating 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. 

ἀποβολή : the rejection of the Jews for their faithlessness. The 
meaning of the word is defined by the contrasted πρόσληψις. 

καταλλαγὴ κόσμου: cf. vv. 10, 11. The reconciliation was the 
immediate result of St. Paul’s ministry, which he describes elsewhere 
(2 Cor. v. 18, 19) as a ministry of reconciliation ; its final result, 
the hope to which it looks forward, is salvation (καταλλαγέντες 
σωθησόμεθα) : 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. 

πρόσληψις : 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). 

ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν. The meaning of this phrase must be determined 
by that of καταλλαγὴ κόσμου. The argument demands something 
much stronger than that, which may be a climax to the section. 
It may either be (1) used in a figurative sense, cf. Ezek. xxxvii. 3 ff. ; 
Luke xv. 24, 32 ὁ ἀδελφός σου οὗτος νεκρὸς ἦν, καὶ ἔζησε" καὶ ἀπολωλώς, 
καὶ εὑρέθη. In this sense it would mean the universal diffusion of 
the Gospel message and a great awakening of spiritual life as the 
result of it. Or (2), it may mean the ‘ general Resurrection’ as 
a sign of the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom. In this 
sense it would make a suitable antithesis to καταλλαγή. 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 
σωτηρία. 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) 


326 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 15-24. 


is a sign of the inauguration of the new era. Schiirer, Geschichte, &c. 
ii, p. 460; Judzlees xxiii. 29 ‘And at that time the Lord will heal 
his servants, and they will arise and will see great peace and will 
cast out their enemies; and the just shall see it and be thankful 
and rejoice in joy to all eternity. och li. 1 (p. 139 ed. Charles) 
‘And in those days will the earth also give back those who are 
treasured up within it, and Sheél also will give back that which it 
has received, and hell will give back that which it owes. And he 
will choose the righteous and holy from among them: for the day 
of their redemption has drawn nigh.’ As in the latter part of this 
chapter St Paul seems to be largely influenced by the language 
and forms of the current eschatology, it is very probable that the 
second interpretation is the more correct; cf. Origen viii. 9, p. 257 
Tunc enim erit assumtio Israel, quando tam et mortut vitam recipient 
εἰ mundus ex corruptibili incorruptibilis fiel, et mortales immortalitate 
donabuntur; and see below ver. 26. 

16. St. Paul gives in this verse the grounds of his confidence in 
the future of Israel. This is based upon the holiness of the Patriarchs 
from whom they are descended and the consecration to God which 
has been the result of this holiness. His argument is expressed in 
two different metaphors, both of which however have the same 
purpose. 

ἀπαρχὴ . .. φύραμα. The metaphor in the first part of the 
verse is taken from Num. xv. 19, 20 ‘It shall be, that when ye 
eat of the bread of the land, ye shall offer up an heave offering 
unto the Lord. Of the first of your dough (ἀπαρχὴν φυράματος LXX) 
ye shall offer up a cake for an heave offering: as ye do the heave 
offering of the threshing floor, so shall ye heave it.’ By the offering 
of the first-fruits, the whole mass was considered to be consecrated ; 
and so the holiness of the Patriarchs consecrated the whole people 
from whom they came. That the meaning of the ἀπαρχή is the 
Patriarchs (and not Christ or the select remnant) is shown by the 
parallelism with the second half of the verse, and by the explanation 
of St. Paul’s argument given in ver. 28 ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας. 

ἁγία : ‘consecrated to God as the holy nation’ in the technical 
sense of ἅγιος, cf. i. 7. 

ῥίζα... κλάδοι. The same idea expressed under a different 
image. Israel the Divine nation is looked upon as a tree; its 
roots are the Patriarchs; individual Israelites are the branches. 
As then the Patriarchs are holy, so are the Israelites who belong 
to the stock of the tree, and are nourished by the sap which 
flows up to them from those roots. 

17-24. The metaphor used in the second part of ver. 16 suggests 
an image which the Apostle developes somewhat elaborately. The 
image of an olive tree to describe Israel is taken from the Prophets ; 
Jeremiah xi. 16 ‘The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, 


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’; Hosea 
xiv. 6 ‘His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the 
olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon.’ Similar is the image of the 
vine in Is. v. 7; Ps. Ixxx. 8; and (of the Christian Church) in John 
xv. 1 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 (ῥίζα) = 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. vv. 28, 29). 

The branches (οἱ κλάδοι) 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. (1) 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. 11 f. Israel had been rejected for their sake. 

17. τινές : ameiosis. Cf. iii. 3 τί yap εἰ ηἠπίστησάν τινες; Τινὲς δὲ 
εἶπε, παραμυθούμενος αὐτούς, ὡς πολλάκις εἰρήκαμεν, ἐπεὶ πολλῷ πλείους οἱ 
ἀπιστήσαντες. Euthym.-Zig. 


328 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 17, 18 


ἐξεκλάσθησαν. The same simile is used, with a different applica- 
tion, Enoch xxvi. 1 καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ἐφώδευσα eis τὸ μέσον τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἴδον 
τόπον ηὐλογημένον, ἐν ᾧ δένδρα ἔχοντα παραφυάδας μενούσας καὶ βλαστούσας 
τοῦ δένδρου ἐκκοπέντος. 

ἀγριέλαιος : ‘the wild olive.” The olive, like the apple and most 
other fruit trees, requires to have a graft from a cultivated tree, 
otherwise the fruit of the seedling or sucker will be small and 
valueless. The ungrafted tree is the natural or wild olive. It is 
often confused with the oleaster (/eagnus angustifolius), but quite 
incorrectly, this being a plant of a different natural order, which 
however like the olive yields oil, although of an inferior character. 
See Tristram, Vatural Hist. of the Bible, pp. 371-377. 

ἐνεκεντρίσθης ἐν αὐτοῖς : ‘wert grafted in amongst the branches of 
the cultivated olive.’ St. Paul is here describing a wholly unnatural 
process. Grafts must necessarily be of branches from a cultivated 
olive inserted into a wild stock, the reverse process being one 
which would be valueless and is never performed. But the whole 
strength of St. Paul’s argument depends upon the process being 
an unnatural one (cf. ver. 24 καὶ mapa φύσιν ἐνεκεντρίσθης); it is 
beside the point therefore to quote passages from classical writers, 
which, even if they seem to support St. Paul’s language, describe 
a process which can never be actually used. They could only show 
the ignorance of others,they would not justify him. Cf. Origen viii. 10, 
Ρ- 265 Sed ne hoc quidem lateat nos in hoc loco, quod non eo ordine 
Apostolus olivae et oleastri similitudinem posuit, quo apud agricolas 
habetur. Illi enim magts olivam oleastro inserere, ef non olivae 
oleastrum solent: Paulus vero Apostolica auctoritate ordine com- 
mutato res magis causis, quam causas rebus aplavit. 

συγκοινωνός :Σ Cor. ix. 23; Phil. i. 7; and cf. Eph. iii. 6 εἶναι τὰ 
ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμα καὶ συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Χριστῷ 
᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. 

τῆς ῥίζης τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας : comp. Jud. ix. g καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς 
ἡ ἐλαία, Μὴ ἀπολείψασα τὴν πιότητά μου... πορεύσομαι; Test. Χ 1]. 
Pat. Levi, 8 ὁ πέμπτος κλάδον μοι ἔλαίας ἔδωκε πιότητος. The 
genitive τῆς πιότητος is taken by Weiss as a genitive of quality, as 
in the quotation above, and so the phrase comes to mean ‘the fat 
root of the olive.’ Lips. explains ‘the root from which the fatness 
of the olive springs.’ 

The genitive τῆς πιότητος seemed clumsy and unnatural to later revisers, 
and so was modified either by the insertion of καί after ῥίζης, as in Se A and 


later MSS. with Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Chrys., or by the omission 
of τῆς ῥίζης in Western authorities Ὁ F G Iren.-lat. 


18. μὴ κατακαυχῶ τῶν κλάδων. St. Paul seems to be thinking of 
Gentile Christians who despised the Jews, both such as had 
become believers and such as had mot. The Church of Corinth 
could furnish many instances of new converts who were carried 


ΧΙ. 18-22. } THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 32G 


away by a feeling of excessive confidence, and who, partly on 
grounds of race, partly because they had understood or thought 
they had understood the Pauline teaching of ἐλευθερία, were full of 
contempt for the Jewish Christians and the Jewish race. Inci- 
dentally St. Paul takes the opportunity of rebuking such as them. 

οὐ σὺ τὴν ῥίζαν κιτιλ. ‘All your spiritual strength comes from 
the stock on which you have been grafted.’ In the ordinary process 
it may be when a graft of the cultivated olive is set on a wild stock 
the goodness of the fruit comes from the graft, but in this case it is 
the reverse ; any merit, any virtue, any hope of salvation that the 
Gentiles may have arises entirely from the fact that they are grafted 
on a stock whose roots are the Patriarchs and to which the Jews, 
by virtue of their birth, belong. 

19. ἐρεῖς οὖν. The Gentile Christian justifies his feeling of 
confidence by reminding St. Paul that branches (κλάδοι, not οἱ 
κλάδοι) had been cut off to let him in: therefore, he might argue, 
I am of more value than they, and have grounds for my self- 
confidence and contempt. 

20. καλῶς. St. Paul admits the statement, but suggests that the 
Gentile Christian should remember what were the conditions on 
which he was admitted. The Jews were cast off for want of faith, he 
was admitted for faith, ‘There was no merit of his own, therefore 
he has no grounds for over-confidence: ‘Be not high-minded; 
rather fear, for if you trust in your merit instead of showing faith 
in Christ, you will suffer as the Jews did for their self-confidence 
and want of faith.’ 

21. εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς κιτιλ. This explains the reason which made 
it right that they should fear. ‘The Jews—the natural branches— 
disbelieved and were not spared; is it in any way likely that you, 
if you disbelieve, will be spared when they were not—you who have 
not any natural right or claim to the position you now occupy?’ 


οὐδέ σου φείσεται is the correct reading (with N ABC P min. pauc., Boh., 
Orig.-lat., &c.); either because the direct future seemed too strong or under 
the influence of the Latin (me forte nec tibi parcat Vulg. and Iren.-lat.) μήπως 
οὐδέ σου was read by DF GL &c., Syrr. Chrys. &c., then φείσεται was changed 
into φείσηται (min. pauc. and Chrys.) for the sake of the grammar, and found 
its way into the TR. 


22. The Apostle sums up this part of his argument by deducing 
from this instance the two sides of the Divine character. God is full 
of goodness (χρηστότης, cf. ii. 4) and loving-kindness towards man- 
kind, and that has been shown by His conduct towards those 
Gentiles who have been received into the Christian society. That 
goodness will always be shown towards them if they repose their 
confidence on it, and do not trust in their own merits or the 
privileged position they enjoy. On the other hand the treatment 
of the Jews shows the severity which also belongs to the character 


430 EPISTLE TO THE ΕΟΜΑΝΒ [Χ1. 22-24. 


of God; a severity exercised against them just because they trusted 
in themselves. God can show the same severity against the Gentiles 
and cut them off as well as the Jew. 


ἀποτομία and χρηστότης should be read in the second part of the verse, 
with δὲ ABC Orig. Jo.-Damasc. against the accusative of the Western and 
Syrian text. D has a mixed reading, ἀποτομίαν and χρηστότης: the as- 
similation was easier in the first word than in the second. The Θεοῦ after 
χρηστύτης is omitted by later MSS. with Clem.-Alex., Orig. from a desire 
for uniformity. 


ἐὰν émpeivys. The condition of their enjoying this goodness is 
that they trust in it, and not in their position. 

kat oJ: emphatic like the ἐγώ of ver. 19 ‘ You too as well as the 

ews.’ 
: 23. St. Paul now turns from the warning to the Gentile Christians, 
which was to a certain extent incidental, to the main subject of the 
paragraph, the possibility of the return of the Jews to the Divine 
Kingdom; their grafting into the Divine stock. 

καὶ ἐκεῖνοι δέ : ‘yes, and they too.’ 

24. This verse sums up the main argument. If God is so 
powerful that by a purely unnatural process (παρὰ φύσιν) He can 
graft a branch of wild olive into a stock of the cultivated plant, so 
that it should receive nourishment from it ; can He not equally well, 
nay far more easily, reingraft branches which have been cut off 
the cultivated olive into their own stock? The restoration of 
Israel is an easier process than the call of the Gentiles, 


The Merits of the Fathers. 


In what sense does St. Paul say that Israelites are holy because 
the stock from which they come is holy (ver. 16), that they are 
ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας (ver. 28)? He might almost seem to be 
taking up himself the argument he has so often condemned, that 
the descent of the Jews from Abraham is sufficient ground for 
their salvation. 

The greatness of the Patriarchs had become one of the common- 
places of Jewish Theology. For them the world was created (Apoc. 
Baruch, xxi. 24). ‘They had been surrounded by a halo of myth 
and romance in popular tradition and fancy (see the note on iv. 3), 
and very early the idea seems to have prevailed that their virtues 
had a power for others as well as for themselves. Certainly Ezekiel 
in the interests of personal religion has to protest against some 
such view: ‘ Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were 
in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, 
saith the Lord God’ (Ezek. xiv. 14). We know how this had 
developed by the time of our Lord, and the cry had arisen: ‘We 


ΧΙ. 11-.24] | THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 331 


have Abraham for our father’ (see note on ii, 3). At a later date 
the doctrine of the merits of the Fathers had been developed 
into a system. As Israel was an organic body, the several 
members of which were closely bound together, the superfluous 
merits of the one part might be transferred to another. Οἱ 
Solomon before he sinned it was said that he earned all by his 
own merit, after he sinned by the merit of the Fathers (Kohel/ 
rabba 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 
‘The congregation of Israel speaks: I am black through mine 
own works, but lovely through the works of my fathers’ (Shemoth 
rabba, c. 23). So again: ‘Israel lives and endures, because it 
supports itself on the fathers’ (2d. 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; 
Beresch rabba, c.'70). So Pestkta 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/tsyn. 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 ἐὰν μὴ ἐπιμείνωσι τῇ 
ἀπιστίᾳ. 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 by 
human effort or character, so far that Faith of Abraham, for which 


332 EPISTLE TO THE ΒΟΜΑΝΒ [Χ1. 25-36. 


he was accounted righteous before God, is a guarantee that the 
same Faith can be developed in his descendants. After all it is 
because they are a religiots race, clinging too blindly to their own 
views, that they are rejected, and not because they are irreligious. 
They have a zeal for God, if not according to knowledge. When 
the day comes that that zeal is enlisted in the chuse of the Messiah, 
the world will be won for Christ; and that it will be so enlisted the 
sanctity and the deep religious instinct of the Jewish stock as 
exhibited by the Patriarchs is, if not certain proof, at any rate evi- 
dence which appeals with strong moral force. 


MERCY TO ALL THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF GOD. 


XI. 25-36. All this is the unfolding of a mystery. The 
whole world, both Few and Gentile, shall enter the Kingdom; 
but a passing phase of disobedience has been allowed to the 
Fews now, as to the Gentiles in the past, that both alike, few 
as well as Gentile, may need and receive the Divine mercy 
(vv. 25-32). What a stupendous exhibition of the Divine 
mercy and wisdom (vv. 33-36)! 


** But I must declare to you, my brethren, the purpose hitherte 
concealed, but now revealed in these dealings of God with His 
people. I must not leave you ignorant. I must guard you 
against self-conceit on this momentous subject. That hardening 
of heart which has come upon Israel is only partial and temporary. 
It is to last only until the full complement of the Gentiles has 
entered into Christ’s kingdom. ™ When this has come about then the 
whole people of Israel shall be saved. So Isaiah (lix. 20) described 
the expected Redeemer as one who should come forth from the 
Holy city and should remove impieties from the descendants of 
Jacob, and purify Israel: 7? he would in fact fulfil God’s covenant 
with His people, and that would imply, as Isaiah elsewhere explains 
(xxvii. 9), a time when God would forgive Israel’s sins. This is 
our ground for believing that the Messiah who has come will bring 
salvation to Israel, and that He will do it by exercising the Divine pre- 
rogative of forgiveness; if Israel now needs forgiveness this only 
makes us more confident of the truth of the prophecy. *In the 
Divine plan, according to which the message of salvation has been 
preached, the Jews are treated as enemies of God, that room may 


Xi. 25-36.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 333 


be found for you Gentiles in the kingdom; tut 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. ® 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. ὅ In like manner their present disobedience 
will have this result: that they too will be recipients of the same 
mercy that you have received. *And the reason for the dis- 
obedience may be understood in both cases, if we look to the final 
purpose. God has, as it were, locked up all mankind, first Gentiles 
and then Jews, in the prison-house of unbelief, that He may be able 
at last to show His mercy on all alike. 

85 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! 
The decisions which issue from that mind and the methods by which 
it works are alike inscrutable to man. “Into the secrets of the 
Almighty none can penetrate. No counsellor stands at His ear to 
whisper words of suggestion. * Nothing in Him is derived from 
without so as to be claimed back again by its owner. * He is the 
source of all things. Through Him all things flow. He is the 
final cause to which all things tend. Praised for ever be His 
name! Amen. 


25-36. St. Paul’s argument is now drawing to a close. He has 
treated all the points that are necessary. He has proved that 
the rejection of Israel is not contrary to Divine justice or Divine 
promises. He has convicted Israel of its own responsibility. He 
has shown how historically the rejection of Israel had been the 
cause of preaching the Gospel to the heathen, and this has led to 
far-reaching speculation on the future of Israel and its ultimate 
restoration ; a future which may be hoped for in view of the spiritual 
character of the Jewish race and the mercy and power of God. 
And now he seems to see all the mystery of the Divine purpose 
unfolded before him, and he breaks away from the restrained and 
formal method of argument he has hitherto imposed upon himself. 
Just as when treating of the Resurrection, his argument passes into 
revelation, ‘ Behold, I tell you a mystery’ (1 Cor. xv. 51): so here 


334 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 25 


he declares not merely as the result of his argument, but as an 
authoritative revelation, the mystery of the Divine purpose. 

25. οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν: cf. i.13; 1 Cor. x.1; xii. 1; 2 Cor. 
i. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 13: a phrase used by St. Paul to emphasize 
something of especial importance which he wishes to bring home 
to his readers. It always has the impressive addition of ‘ brethren.’ 
The ydp connects the verse immediately with what precedes, but 
also with the general argument. St. Paul’s argument is like 
a ladder; each step follows from what precedes; but from time to 
time there are, as it were, resting-places which mark a definite 
point gained towards the end he has in view. 

τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο. On the meaning of ‘mystery’ in St. Paul 
see Lightfoot, Colossians, i. 26; Hatch, Zss. in Bibl. Gk. p. 51 fi. 
Just at the time when Christianity was spreading, the mysteries as 
professing to reveal something more than was generally known, 
especially about the future state, represented the most popular form 
of religion, and from them St. Paul borrows much of his phraseology. 
So in Col. i. 28, 1 Cor. ii. 6 we have τέλειον, in Phil. iv. 12 
μεμύημαι, in Eph. i. 13 σφραγίζεσθαι; so in Ign. Ephes. 12 Παύλου 
σύμμυσται. But whereas among the heathen μυστήριον was always 
used of a mystery concealed, with St. Paul it is a mystery revealed. 
It is his mission to make known the Word of God, the mystery 
which has been kept silent from eternal ages, but has now been 
revealed to mankind (1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii. 3, 4; Rom. xvi. 25). 
This mystery, which has been declared in Christianity, is the eternal 
purpose of God to redeem mankind in Christ, and all that is im- 
plied in that. Hence it is used of the Incarnation (1 Tim. iii. 16), 
of the crucifixion of Christ (1 Cor. ii. 1, 7), of the Divine purpose 
to sum up all things in Him (Eph. i. 9), and especially of the 
inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom (Eph. iii. 3, 4; Col. i, 26, 
27; Rom. xvi. 25). Here it is used in a wide sense of the whole 
plan or scheme of redemption as revealed to St. Paul, by which 
Jews and Gentiles alike are to be included in the Divine Kingdom, 
and all things are working up, although in ways unseen and 
unknown, to that end. 

iva μὴ ἦτε παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι : ‘that you may not be wise in 
your own conceits,’ i.e. by imagining that it is in any way through 
your own merit that you have accepted what others have refused: 
it has been part of the eternal purpose of God. 

ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ought probably to be read with A B, Jo.-Damasc. instead of map’ 

ἑαυτοῖς SC Ὁ L &c., Chrys. &c., as the latter would probably be introduced 

from xii. 16. Both expressions occur in the LXX. 15. v. 21 of συνετοὶ ἐν 

ἑαυτοῖς, Prov. iii. 7 μὴ ἴσθι φρόνιμος παρὰ σεαυτῷ. 

πώρωσις κιτιλ.: ‘a hardening in part’ (cf. ἐκ μέρους 1 Cor. xii. 27). 
St. Paul asserts once more what he has constantly insisted on 
throughout this chapter, that this fall of the Jews is only partial 


ΧΙ. 25, 26.7 MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 335 


(cf. vv. 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.’ 

τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν : the full completed number, the comple- 
ment of the Gentiles, i.e. the Gentile world as a whole, just as in 
ver. 12 τὸ πλήρωμα is the Jewish nation as a whole. 


There was a Jewish basis to these speculations on the completed number. 
Afpoc. Baruch xxiii. 4 guia quando peccavit Adam et decreta fuit mors contra 
405 gui gignerentur, tunc numerata est multitudo eorum gz gignerentur, 
et numero ili praeparatus est locus ubi habitarent viventes et τὲ custo- 
airentur mortuz, nisi ergo compleatur numerus praedictus mom vivet creatura 

4 (5) Ezra ii. 40, 41 (where Jewish ideas underlie a Christian work) 
recipe, Ston, numerum tuum ef conclude candidatos tuos, gut legem Domini 
compleverunt : filiorum tuorum, quos optabas, plenus est numerus: roga 
imperium Domini ut sanctificetur populus tuus qué vocatus est ab initio. 


εἰσέλθῃ was used almost technically of entering into the Kingdom 
or the Divine glory or life (cf. Matt. vii. 21; xviii. 8; Mark ix. 
43-47-), and so came to be used absolutely in the same sense 
(Matt. vii. 13; xxiii. 13; Luke xiii. 24). 

26. καὶ οὕτω: ‘and so,’ i.e. by the whole Gentile world coming 
into the kingdom and thus rousing the Jews to jealousy, cf. ver. 11 f. 
These words ought to form a new sentence and not be joined 
with the preceding, for the following reasons: (1) the reference of 
οὕτω is to the sentence ἄχρις οὗ «.7.A. We must not therefore 
make οὕτω... σωθήσεται coordinate with mapwois ... γέγονεν and 
subordinate to ὅτι, for if we did so οὕτω would be explained by 
the sentence with which it is coordinated, and this is clearly not 
St. Paul’s meaning. He does not mean that Israel will be saved 
because it is hardened. (2) The sentence, by being made in- 
dependent, acquires much greater emphasis and force. 

πᾶς Ἰσραήλ. In what sense are these words used? (1) The 
whole context shows clearly that it is the actual Israel of history 
that is referred to. This is quite clear from the contrast with τὸ 
πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν in ver. 25, the use of the term Israel in the same 
verse, and the drift of the argument in vv. 17-24. It cannot be 
interpreted either of the spiritual Israel, as by Calvin, or the 
remnant according to the election of grace, or such Jews as believe, 
or all who to the end of the world shall turn unto the Lord. 

(2) πᾶς must be taken in the proper meaning of the word: 
‘Israel as a whole, Israel as a nation, and not as necessarily in- 
cluding every individual Israelite. Cf. 1 Kings xii. 1 καὶ εἶπε 
Σαμουὴλ πρὸς πάντα "IopanA: 2 Chron. xii. 1 ἐγκατέλιπε τὰς ἐντολὰς 
Κυρίου καὶ πᾶς ᾿Ισραὴλ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ : Dan.ix. 11 καὶ πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ παρέβησαν 
τὸν νόμον wou καὶ ἐξέκλιναν τοῦ μὴ ἀκοῦσαι τῆς φωνῆς σου. 


336 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΧΣΙ. 26, 27. 


σωθήσεται: ‘shall attain the σωτηρία of the Messianic age by 
being received into the Christian Church’: the Jewish conception 
of the Messianic σωτηρία being fulfilled by the spiritual σωτηρία of 
Christianity. Cf. x. 13. 

So the words of St. Paul mean simply this. The people of 
Israel as a nation, and no longer ἀπὸ μέρους, shall be united with 
the Christian Church. They do not mean that every Israelite shall 
finally be saved. Of final salvation St. Paul is not now thinking, 
nor of God’s dealings with individuals, nor does he ask about those 
who are already dead, or who will die before this salvation of 
Israel is attained. He is simply considering God’s dealings with 
the nation asa whole. As elsewhere throughout these chapters, 
St. Paul is dealing with peoples and classes of men. He looks 
forward in prophetic vision to a time when the whole earth, 
including the kingdoms of the Gentiles (τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν) and 
a people of Israel (πᾶς Ἰσραήλ), shall be united in the Church of 

od. 

26, 27. καθὼς γέγραπται. The quotation is taken from the 
LXX of Is. lix. 20, the concluding words being added from Is, 
xxvii. 9. The quotation is free: the only important change, how- 
ever, is the substitution of ἐκ Σιών for the ἕνεκεν Σιών of the LXX. 
The Hebrew reads ‘and a Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto 
them that turn from transgression in Jacob.’ The variation 
apparently comes from Ps. xiii. 7, lil. 7 (LXX) ris δώσει ἐκ Σιὼν τὸ 
σωτήριον τοῦ Ἰσραήλ 5 

The passage occurs in the later portion of Isaiah, just where the 
Prophet dwells most fully on the high spiritual destinies of Israel ; 
and its application to the Messianic kingdom is in accordance with 
the spirit of the original and with Rabbinic interpretation. St. Paul 
uses the words to imply that the Redeemer, who is represented by 
the Prophets as coming from Zion, and is therefore conceived by 
him as realized in Christ, will in the end redeem the whole of Israel. 
The passage, as quoted, implies the complete purification of Israel 
from their iniquity by the Redeemer and the forgiveness of their 
sins by God. 

In these speculations St. Paul was probably strongly influenced, 
at any rate as to their form, by Jewish thought. The Rabbis con- 
nected these passages with the Messiah: cf. Zract. Sanhedrin, f. 
98. 1 ‘R. Jochanan said: When thou shalt see the time in which 
many troubles shall come like a river upon Israel, then expect the 
Messiah himself as says Is. lix. 19.’ Moreover a universal restora- 
tion of Israel was part of the current Jewish expectation. All 
Israel should be collected together. There was to be a kingdom 
in Palestine, and in order that Israel as a whole might share in 
this there was to be a general resurrection. Nor was the belief in 
the coming in of the fulness of the Gentiles without parallel 


ΧΙ. 26-29.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 337 


Although later Judaism entirely denied all hope to the Gentiles, 
much of the Judaism of St. Paul’s day still maintained the O. T. 
belief (Is. xiv. 2; Ixvi. 12, 19-21; Dan. ii. 44; vii. 14, 27). So 
Enoch xc. 33 ‘And all that had been destroyed and dispersed and 
all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the heaven assembled 
in that house, and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced with great joy 
because they were all good and had returned to his house.’ Orae. 
Srbyll. iii. 710 f. καὶ τότε δὴ νῆσοι πᾶσαι πόλιες τ᾽ epéovow .. . δεῦτε, 
πεσόντες ἅπαντες ἐπὶ χθονὶ λισσώμεσθα ἀθάνατον βασιλῆα, θεὸν μέγαν 
ἀέναόν τε. Ps. Sol, xvii. 33-35 ‘And he shall purge Jerusalem and 
make it holy, even as it was in the days of old, so that the nations 
may come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, bringing as 
gifts her sons that had fainted, and may see the glory of the Lord, 
wherewith God hath glorified her.’ The centre of this kingdom 
will be Jerusalem (compare the extract given above), and it is 
perhaps influenced by these conceptions that St. Paul in ix. 26 
inserts the word ‘there’ and here reads ἐκ Σιών. If this be so, it 
shows how, although using so much of the forms and language of 
current conceptions, he has spiritualized just as he has broadened 
them. Gal. iv. 26 shows that he is thinking of a Jerusalem which 
is above, very different from the purified earthly Jerusalem of the 
Rabbis; and this enables us to see how here also a spiritual 
conception underlies much of his language. 

ὁ ῥυόμενος : Jesus as the Messiah. Cf. 1 Thess. i. ro. 

27. καὶ αὕτη «.t.A.: ‘and whensoever I forgive their sins then 
shall my side of the covenant I have made with them be fulfilled.’ 

28. κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον : ‘as regards the Gospel order, the 
principles by which God sends the Gospel into the world.’ This 
verse sums up the argument of wv. 11-24. 

ἐχθροί : treated by God as enemies and therefore shut off from 
Him. 

δι᾿ ὑμᾶς : ‘for your sake, in order that you by their exclusion 
may be brought into the Messianic Kingdom.’ 

κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογήν: ‘as regards the principle of election :’ 
‘because they are the chosen race.’ That this is the meaning is 
shown by the fact that the word is parallel to εὐαγγέλιον. It cannot 
mean here, as in wv. 5, 6, ‘as regards the elect,’ i.e. the select 
remnant. It gives the grounds upon which the chosen people were 
beloved. With ἀγαπητοί, cf. ix. 25; the quotation there probably 
suggested the word. 

διὰ τοὺς πατέρας : cf. ix. 4; xi. 16 f.: ‘for the sake of the Patri- 
archs’ from whom the Israelites have sprung and who were weli- 
pleasing to God. 

29. St. Paul gives the reason for believing that God will not 
desert the people whom He has called, and chosen, and on whom 
He has showered His Divine blessings. It lies in the unchangeable 

Ζ 


338 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [XI. 29-32. 


nature of God: He does not repent Him of the choice that He has 
made. 

ἀμεταμέλητα: 2 Cor. vii. το. The Divine gifts, such as have 
been enumerated in ix. 4, 5, and such as God has showered upon 
the Jews, bear the impress of the Giver. As He is not one who 
will ever do that for which He will afterwards feel compunction, 
His feelings of mercy towards the Jews will never change. 

ἡ κλῆσις : the calling to the Kingdom. 

80. The grounds for believing that God does not repent for the 
gifts that He has given may be gathered from the parallelism 
between the two cases of the Jews and the Gentiles, in one of which 
His purpose has been completed, in the other not so. The Gentile 
converts were disobedient once, as St. Paul has described at length 
in the first chapter, but yet God has now shown pity on them, and 
to accomplish this He has taken occasion from the disobedience of 
the Jews: the same purpose and the same plan of providence may 
be seen also in the case of the Jews. God’s plan is to make dis- 
obedience an opportunity of showing mercy. The disobedience 
of the Jews, like that of the Gentiles, had for its result the manifesta- 
tion of the mercy of God. 

The ὑμεῖς shows that this verse is written, as is all this chapter, 
with the thought of Gentile readers prominently before the writer’s 
mind. 

81. τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει : ‘by that same mercy which was shown to 
you.’ Ifthe Jews had remained true to their covenant God would 
have been able on His side merely to exhibit fidelity to the 
covenant. As they have however been disobedient, they equally 
with the Gentiles are recipients of the Divine mercy. These words 
τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει GO With ἐλεηθῶσι, cf. Gal. ii. 10; 2 Cor. xii. 7, as is 
shown by the parallelism of the two clauses 


νῦν δὲ ἠλεήθητε τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ 
ag eee 
τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ νῦν ἐλεηθῶσι. 


This parallelism of the clauses may account for the presence of 
the second viv with ἐλεηθῶσι, which should be read with 8 B Ὁ, Boh., 
Jo. Damasc. It was omitted by Syrian and some Western authorities 
(AEFG, &c. Vulg. Syrr. Arm, Aeth., Orig.-lat. rell.) because it 
seemed hardly to harmonize with facts. The authorities for it 
are too varied for it to be an accidental insertion arising from a 
repetition of the previous νῦν. 

32. St. Paul now generalizes from these instances the character 
of God’s plan, and concludes his argument with a maxim which 
solves the riddle of the Divine action. There is a Divine purpose 
in the sin of mankind described in i. 18-iii, 20; there is a Divine 


ΧΙ. 82, 33.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 339 


purpose in the faithlessness of the Jews. The object of both alike 
is to give occasion for the exhibition of the Divine mercy. If God 
has shut men up in sin it is only that He may have an oppor- 
tunity of showing His compassion. So in Gal. ili. 22 ἀλλὰ συν- 
ἔκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, iva ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ δοθῇ τοῖς πιστεύουσι, 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. 

συνέκλεισε yap ὁ Θεός: cf. 1. 24 f., and see below, p. 347. 

συνέκλεισε: Ps, Ixxviii [Ixxvii]. 62 ‘He gave his people over 
unto the sword (συνέκλεισεν cis ῥομφαίαν) Used with the pregnant 
sense of giving over so that there can be no escape. 

τοὺς πάντας. Not necessarily every single individual, but all looked 
at collectively, as the πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν and πᾶς Ἰσραήλ. 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. 

83. 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 resumes. Tert. quotes vv. 32, 33 as follows: 9 profundum 
divitiarum et sapientiae Dei, et ininvestigabiles viae eius, omitting καὶ 
γνώσεως and ὡς avetepedvnta τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ. Then follow vv. 34, 35 
without any variation, On ver. 36 we know nothing. See Zahn, p. 518. 


βάθος : ‘inexhaustible wealth.’ Cf. Prov. xviii. 3 βάθος κακῶν, 
troubles to which there is no bottom. The three genitives that 
follow are probably coordinate ; πλούτου means the wealth of the 
Divine grace, cf. x. 12; σοφίας and γνώσεως are to be distinguished 
as meaning the former, a broad and comprehensive survey of things 


340 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [XI. 83-86. 


in their special relations, what we call Philosophy ; the latter an 
intuitive penetrating perception of particular truths (see Lft. on 
ΘΙ 9). 

ἀνεξερεύνητα : Prov. xxv. 3, Sym.; and perhaps Jer. xvii. 9, Sym. 
(Field, Hexapla, ii. 617), ‘unsearchable’ ; κρίματα, not judicial de- 
cisions, but judgements on the ways and plans of life. Cf. Ecclus. 
XVii. 12 διαθήκην αἰῶνος ἔστησεν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ ὑπέδειξεν 
αὐτοῖς. 

ἀνεξιχνίαστοι : ‘ that cannot be traced out,’ Eph. iii. 8; Job v. 9; 
ix. 10; xxxiv.24. This passage seems to have influenced 1 Clem. 
Rom. xx. 5 ἀβύσσων τε ἀνεξιχνίαστα . . . . συνέχεται προστάγμασιν. 

84. tis yap ἔγνω κιτιλ. This is taken from Is. xl. 13, varying 
only very slightly from the LXX. It is quoted also 1 Cor. ii. 16. 

85. ἢ τίς προέδωκεν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἀνταποδοθήσεται αὐτῷ; taken from 
Jobxli. 11, but not the LXX, which reads (ver. 2) τίς ἀντιστήσεταί μοι καὶ 
ὑπομενεῖ; The Hebrew (RV.) reads, ‘ Who hath first given unto me 
that I should repay him?’ It is interesting to notice that the only 
other quotation in St. Paul which varies very considerably from the 
LXX is also taken from the book of Job (1 Cor. iii. 19, ef. Job v. 13), 
see p. 302. This verse corresponds to ὦ βάθος πλούτου. ‘So rich 
are the spiritual gifts of God, that none can make any return, and 
He needs no recompense for what He gives.’ 

86. God needs no recompense, for all things that are exist in 
Him, all things come to man through Him, and to Him all return. 
He is the source, the agent, and the final goal of all created things 
and all spiritual life. 

Many commentators have attempted to find in these words 
a reference to the work of the different persons of the Trinity (see 
esp. Liddon, who restates the argument in the most successful 
form). But (1) the prepositions do not suit this interpretation: 
δι᾿ αὐτοῦ indeed expresses the attributes of the Son, but eis αὐτόν 
can not naturally or even possibly be used of the Spirit. (2) The 
whole argument refers to a different line of thought. It is the 
relation of the Godhead as a whole to the universe and to created 
things. God (not necessarily the Father) is the source and inspirer 
and goal of all things. 


This fundamental assumption of the infinite character of the Divine 
wisdom was one which St. Paul would necessarily inherit from Judaism. 
It is expressed most clearly and definitely in writings produced immediately 
after the fall of Jerusalem, when the pious Jew who still preserved a belief 
in the Divine favour towards Israel could find no hope or solution of the 
problem but in a tenacious adherence to what he could hold only by faith. 
God’s ways are deeper and more wonderful than man could ever understand 
or fathom: only this was certain—that there was a Divine purpose of love 
towards Jsrael which would be shown in God’s own time. There are many 
resemblances to St. Paul, not only in thought but in expression. Afoc. 
Baruch xiv. 8, 9 Sed quis, Dominator Domine, assequetur tudicium tuum? 
aut quis investigabit profundum viae tuae? aut quis supputabit gravitatem 


ΙΧ- ΧΙ] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 341 


semitae tuae? aut quis poterit cogitare consillum tuum incomprehensibtile# 
aut quis unquam ex natis inveniet principium aut finem sapientiae tuae?... 
xx. 4 et func ostendam tibi tudicium virtutis meae, et vias (in |investigabtiles 
... xxi, 10 ¢u enim solus es vivens immortalis et [in\investigabilis et 
numerum hominum nosti.. . liv. 12, 13 ecqguis enim assimilabitur in mira- 
bilibus tuis, Deus, aut quis comprehendet cogitationem tuam profundam 
vitae? Quia tu consilio tuo gubernas omnes creaturas quas creavit dextera 
tua, et tu omnem fontem lucis apud te constituisti, et thesaurum sapientiae 
subtus thronum tuum praeparasti ...\xxv quis assimilabitur, Domine, boni- 
tatt tuae? est enim incomprehensibilis. Aut quis scrutabitur mtserationes 
tuas, quae sunt infinitae? aut quis comprehendet intelligentiam tuam? aut 
quis poterit consonare cogitationes mentis tuae? 4 Ezra v. 34 torquent me 
renes met per omnem horam quaerentem apprehendere semitam Altissimi et 
investigare partem iudicti eius. et dixit ad me Non potes... 40 et dixit ad 
me Quomodo non potes facere unum de his quae dicta sunt, sic non poterés 
invenire tudicium meum aut finem caritatis quam populo promisi. 


The Argument of Romans IX-X]. 


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 dealing 
with nations, not individuals, and with admission to the Christian 
Church as representing the Messianic σωτηρία 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 tc 
explain or explain away passages to which it will not apply; but it 
undoubtedly represents the main lines of the Apostle’s argument 
and his purpose throughout these chapters. In order to estimate 


342 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IxX-X1. 


his point of view our starting-point must be the conclusion he 
arrives at. This, as expressed at the end of ch. xi, is that God 
wishes to show His mercy upon all alike ; that the world as a whole, 
the fulness of the Gentiles and all Israel, will come into the Messianic 
Kingdom and be saved; that the realization of this end is a mystery 
which has now been revealed, and that all this shows the greatness 
of the Divine wisdom ; a wisdom which is guiding all things to their 
final consummation by methods and in ways which we can only 
partially follow. 

The question at issue which leads St. Paul to assert the Divine 
purpose is the fact which at this time had become apparent ; Israel 
as a nation was rejected from the Christian Church. If faith in 
the Messiah was to be the condition of salvation, then the mass of 
the Jews were clearly excluded. The earlier stages of the argu- 
ment have been sufficiently explained. St. Paul first proves (ix. 
6-29) that in this rejection God had been neither untrue to His 
promise nor unjust. He then proves (ix. 30-x. 13) that the Israelites 
were themselves guilty, for they had rejected the Messiah, although 
they had had full and complete knowledge of His message, and 
full warning. But yet there is a third aspect from which the 
rejection of Israel may be regarded—that of the Divine purpose. 
What has been the result of this rejection of Israel? It has led to 
the calling of the Gentiles,—this is an historical fact, and guided 
by it we can see somewhat further into the future. Here is 
a case where St. Paul can remember how different had been the 
result of his own failure from what he had expected. He can appeal 
to his own experience. There was a day, still vividly before his 
mind, when in the Pisidian Antioch, full of bitterness and a sense 
of defeat, he had uttered those memorable words ‘ from henceforth 
we will goto the Gentiles.’ This had seemed at the moment a con- 
fession that his work was not being accomplished. Now he can see 
the Divine purpose fulfilled in the creation of the great Gentile 
churches, and arguing from his own experience in this one case, 
where God's purpose has been signally vindicated, he looks 
forward into the future and believes that, by ways other than we 
can follow, God is working out that eternal purpose which is part 
of the revelation he has to announce, the reconciliation of the world 
to Himself in Christ. He concludes therefore with this ascription 
of praise to God for His wisdom and mercy, emphasizing the 
belief which is at once the conclusion and the logical basis of his 
argument. 


St. Paul’s Philosophy of History. 


The argument then of this section of the Epistle is not a dis- 
cussion of the principles on which grace is given to mankind, but 
a philosophy of History. In the short concluding doxology to 


IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 343 


the Epistlk—a conclusion which sums up the thought which 
underlies so much of the previous argument—St. Paul speaks of 
the mystery which has been kept silent in eternal times, but is 
now revealed, ‘the Counsel,’ as Dr. Hort (in Lft. Biblical Essays, 
Pp. 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. i. 4-11 he speaks of the foreknowledge and plan 
which God had before the foundation of the world; a plan which 
has now been revealed: the manifestation of His goodness to 
all the nations of the world. St. Paul therefore sees a plan or 
purpose in history; in fact he has a philosophy of History. The 
characteristics of this theory we propose shortly to sum up. 

(1) 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 
‘Until the Law, i. e. from Adam to Moses, sin was in the world; 
but sin is not imputed when there is no law.’ It is a period which 
might be represented to us by the most degraded savage tribes. 
If sin represents failure to attain an ideal, they are sinful; but if 
sin represents guilt, they cannot be condemned, or at any rate only 
to a very slight degree and extent. Now if God deals with 
men in such a condition, how does He do so? The answer is, by 
the Revelation of Law; in the case of the Jewish people, by 
the Revelation of the Mosaic Law. Now this revelation of Law, 
with the accompanying and implied idea of judgement, has 
fulfilled certain functions. It has in the first place convicted man 
of sin; it has shown him the inadequacy of his life and conduct. 
‘For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt 
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; a struggle to attain it begins, and 
that struggle convinces us of our own weakness and of the power of 
sin over us. We not only learn a need for higher ideals; we learn 
also the need we have for a more powerful helper. This is the 
discipline of Law, and it prepares the way for the higher and 
fuller revelation of the Gospel. 

These three stages are represented for us typically, and most 
clearly in the history of the Jewish dispensation. Even here of 
course there is an element of inexactness in them. There was 


344 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1x-XI 


a knowledge of right and wrong before Moses, there was an 
increase in knowledge after him; but yet the stages do definitely 
exist. And they may be found also running through the whole of 
history; they are not confined to the Jewish people. The stage of 
primitive ignorance is one through which presumably every race 
of men has passed; some in fact have not yet passed beyond it: 
but there has been progress upwards, and the great principle 
which has accompanied and made possible that progress is Law. 
The idea of Law in St. Paul is clearly not exhausted in the Jewish 
law, although that of course is the highest example of it. All 
peoples have been under law in some form. It is a great holy 
beneficent principle, but yet it is one which may become a burden. 
It is represented by the law of the conscience; it is witnessed by 
the moral judgements which men have in all ages passed on one 
another ; itis embodied in codes and ordinances and bodies of law ; 
it is that in fact which distinguishes for men the difference between 
right and wrong. The principle has worked, or is working, 
among mankind everywhere, and is meant to be the preparation of, 
as it creates the need for, the highest revelation, that of the Gospel. 

(2) These three stages represent the first point in St. Paul’s 
scheme of history. A second point is the idea of Election or 
Selection, or rather that of the ‘ Purpose of God which worketh 
by Selection’ God did not will to redeem mankind ‘by a nod 
as He might have done, for that, as Athanasius puts it, would be to 
undo the work of creation; but He accepts the human conditions 
which He has created and uses them that the world may work out 
its own salvation. So, as St. Paul feels, He has selected Israel to 
be His chosen people; they have become the depositary of Divine 
truth and revelation, that through them, when the fulness of time 
has come, the world may receive Divine knowledge. This is clearly 
the conception underlying St. Paul’s teaching, and looking back from 
the vantage ground of History we can see how true it is. To use 
modern phraseology, an ‘ethical monotheism ’ has been taught the 
world through the Jewish race and through it alone. And St. Paul’s 
principle may be extended further. He himself speaks of the ‘ fulness 
of time,’ and it is no unreal philosophy to believe that the purpose 
of God has shown itself in selecting other nations also for excel- 
lence in other directions, in art, in commerce, in science, in states- 
manship; that the Roman Empire was built up in order to 
create a sphere in which the message of the Incarnation might 
work; that the same purpose has guided the Church in the 
centuries which have followed. An historian like Renan would 
tell us that the freer development of the Christian Church was only 
made possible by the fall of Jerusalem and the divorce from 
Judaism. History tells us how the Arian persecutions occasioned 
the conversion of the Goths, and how the division of the Church 


IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 345 


at the schism of East and West, or at the time of the Reformation, 
occasioned new victories for Christianity. Again and again an event 
which to contemporaries must have seemed disastrous has worked 
out beneficially ; and so, guided by St. Paul’s example, we learn to 
trust in that Divine wisdom and mercy which in some cases where 
we can follow its track has been so deeply and unexpectedly 
vindicated, and which is by hypothesis infinite in power and 
wisdom and knowledge. 

(3) These then are two main points in St. Paul’s teaching ; first, 
the idea of gradual progress upwards implied in the stages of Adam, 
Moses, Christ; secondly, the idea of a purpose running through 
history, a purpose working by means of Selection. But to what 
end? The end is looked at under a twofold aspect; it is the 
completion of the Messianic Kingdom, and the exhibition of the 
Divine mercy. In describing the completion of the Messianic 
Kingdom, St. Paul uses, as in all his eschatological passages, the 
forms and phrases of the Apocalyptic literature of his time, but 
reasons have been given for thinking that he interpreted them, at 
any rate to a certain extent, in a spiritual manner. There is per- 
haps a further difficulty, or at any rate it may be argued that St. Paul 
is mistaken as regards the Jews, in that he clearly expected that at 
some time not very remote they would return to the Messianic King- 
dom; yet nothing has yet happened which makes this expectation 
any more probable. We may argue in reply that so far as 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 
existence of that strange race, living as sojourners among men, 
the ever-present witnesses to a remote past which is connected by 
our beliefs intimately with the present. By their traditions to 
which they 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 
‘I speak as a man.’ But yet granting this, the thought does 


446 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ix-XI. 


supply a solution of many problems. Why does God allow sin? 
Why does He shut up men under sin? It is that ultimately He 
may exhibit the depths of His Divine mercy. We may feel that 
some such scheme of the course of history as was sketched out 
above explains for us much that is difficult, but yet we always 
come back to an initial question, Why does God allow such a state 
of affairs to exist? We may grant that it comes from the free-will 
of man; but if God be almighty He must have created man with 
that free-will. We may speak of His limitation of His own powers, 
and of His Redemption of man without violating the conditions of 
human life and nature; but if He be almighty, it is quite clear 
that He could have prevented all sin and misery by a single act. 
What answer can we make? We can only say, as St. Paul does, 
that it is that He may reveal the Divine mercy ; if man had not been 
created so as to need this mercy, we should never have known the 
Love of God as revealed in His Son. That is the farthest that 
our speculations may legitimately go. 

(4) But one final question. What evidence does St. Paul give 
for a belief in the Divine purpose in history? It is twofold. On 
the one hand, within the limited circle of our own knowledge or 
experience, we can see that things have unexpectedly and wonder- 
fully worked out so as to indicate a purpose. That was St. Paul’s 
experience in the preaching to the Gentiles. Where we have more 
perfect knowledge and can see the end, there we see God’s purpose 
working. And on the other hand our hypothesis is a God of 
infinite power and wisdom. If we have faith in this intellectual 
conception, we believe that, where we cannot understand, our failure 
arises from the limitations not of God’s power and will, but of our 
own intelligence. 

An illustration may serve to bring this home. We can read 
in such Jewish books as 4 Ezra or the Apocalypse of Baruch the 
bewilderment and confusion of mind of a pious Jew at the fall 
of Jerusalem. Every hope and aspiration that he had seems 
shattered. But looked at from the point of view of Christianity, 
and the wider development of Christianity, that was an inevitable 
and a necessary step in the progress of the Church. If we believe 
in a Divine purpose in history, we can see it working here quite 
clearly. Yet to many a contemporary the event must have been 
inexplicable. We can apply the argument to our time. In the 
past, where we can trace the course of events, we have evidence of 
the working of a Divine purpose, and so in the present, where so 
much is obscure and dark, we can believe that there is still a Divine 
purpose working, and that all the failures and misfortunes and 
rebuffs of the time are yet steps towards a higher end. LZ dixit 
ad me: Initio terrent orbis ef antequam starent exitus saecult..., e 
antequam investigareniur praesentes anni, et antegquam abalienarentur 


IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 447 


corum qui nunc peccant adinventiones et consignatt essent gui fide 
thesaurizaverunt: tunc cogitavt et facta sunt per me solum et non 
per alium, ut et finis per me et non per alium (4 Ezra vi. 1-6). 


The Salvation of the Individual. Free-will and 
Predestination. 


While the ‘ Nationalist’ interpretation of these chapters has been 
adopted, it has at the same time been pointed out that, although it 
correctly represents St. Paul’s line of argument, it cannot be legiti- 
mately used as it has been to evade certain difficulties which have 
been always felt as to his language. St. Paul’s main line of argu- 
ment applies to nations and peoples, but it is quite clear that the 
language of ix. 19-23 applies and is intended to apply equally to 
individuals. Further it is impossible to say, as Beyschlag does, that 
there is no idea in the Apostle’s mind of a purpose before time. It 
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? 

We have deliberately used the expression ‘what theory is 
implied?’; for St. Paul never formally discusses either of these 
questions ; he never gives a definite answer to either, and on both 
he makes statements which appear inconsistent. Future salvation 
is definitely connected with privilege, and the two are often 
looked at as effect and cause. ‘If while we were enemies we 
were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much 
more being reconciled shall we be saved by His life’ (v. ro). 
‘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 standest by thy faith. Be 
not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural 
branches, neither will He spare thee’ (xi. 20, 21). Nor again is 
future salvation to be confined to those who possess external 
privileges. The statement is laid down, in quite an unqualified 
way, that ‘glory and honour and peace’ come ‘to everyone that 
worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek’ (ii. 10), 
Again, there is no definite and unqualified statement either in 


348 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX-XI. 


support of or against universalism; on the one side we have 
statements such as those in a later Epistle (x Tim. ii. 4) ‘God our 
Saviour, who willeth that all men should be saved and come to the 
knowledge of the truth’; or again, ‘He has shut allup to disobedience, 
but that He might have mercy upon all’ (Rom. xi. 32). On the 
other side there is a strong assertion of ‘ wrath in the day of wrath 
and revelation of the righteous judgement of God, who will render 
to every man according to his works;... unto them that are fac- 
tious and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and 
indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that 
worketh evil’ (ii. 5-9). St. Paul asserts both the goodness and the 
severity of God. He does not attempt to reconcile them, nor need 
we. He lays down very clearly and definitely the fact of the Divine 
judgement, and he brings out prominently three characteristics of it: 
that it is in accordance with works, or perhaps more correctly on 
the basis of works, that is of a man’s whole life and career; that it 
will be exercised by a Judge of absolute impartiality,—there is no 
respect of persons; and that it is in accordance with the oppor- 
tunities which a man has enjoyed. For the rest we must leave the 
solution, as he would have done, to that wisdom and knowledge 
and mercy of God of which he speaks at the close of the eleventh 
chapter. ; 

There is an equal inconsistency in St. Paul’s language regarding 
Divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Ch. ix implies argu- 
ments which take away Free-will; ch. x is meaningless without the 
presupposition of Free-will. And such apparent inconsistency of 
language and ideas pervades all St. Paul’s Epistles. ‘ Work out your 
own salvation, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do 
of His good pleasure’ (Phil. ii. 12,13). Contrast again ‘God gave 
them up unto a reprobate mind,’ and ‘wherefore thou art without 
excuse’ (Rom. i. 18; ii. 1). Now two explanations of this language 
are possible. It may be held (as does Fritzsche, see p. 275) that 
St. Paul is unconscious of the inconsistency, and that it arises 
from his inferiority in logic and philosophy, or (as Meyer) that he 
is in the habit of isolating one point of view, and looking at the 
question from that point of view alone. This latter view is correct ; 
or rather, for reasons which will be given below, it can be held and 
stated more strongly. The antinomy, if we may call it so, of 
chaps. ix and x is one which is and must be the characteristic 
of all religious thought and experience. 

(1) That St. Paul recognized the contradiction, and held it 
consciously, may be taken as proved by the fact that his view 
was shared by that sect of the Jews among whom he had been 
brought up, and was taught in those schools in which he had 
been instructed. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees attributed 
everything to Fate and God, but that yet the choice of right and 


\*—XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 349 


wrong lay with men (Φαρισαῖοι... εἱμαρμένῃ τε καὶ θεῷ προσάπτουσι 
πάντα καὶ τὸ μὲν πράττειν τὰ δίκαια, καὶ μή, κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐπὶ τοῖς 
ἀνθρώποις κεῖσθαι, βοηθεῖν δὲ εἰς ἕκαστον καὶ τὴν εἱμαρμένην B. ΧΙ: 
viii. 14; comp. Anz¢. XIII. ν. 9: XVIII. i. 3): and so in Pirgé A doth, 
ili, 24 (p. 73 ed. Taylor) ‘ Everything is foreseen; and free- will 
is given: and the world is judged by grace; and everything is 
according to work.’ (See also Ps. Sol. ix. 7 and the note on 
Free-will in Ryle and James’ edition, p. 96, to which all the above 
references are due.) St. Paul then was only expanding and giving 
greater meaning to the doctrine in which he had been brought up 
He had inherited it but he deepened it. He was more deeply con- 
scious of the mercy of God in calling him; he felt more deeply the 
certainty of the Divine protection and guidance. And yet the 
sense of personal responsibility was in an equal degree intensified. 
‘But I press forward, if so be I may apprehend, seeing that also 
I was apprehended by Christ’ (Phil. iii. 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 
what we are can hardly rest with ourselves. If, on the other hand, 
our Will is free, there is a department where God (if we judge the 
Divine mind on the analogy of human minds) cannot have created 
us with full knowledge. Weare reduced therefore to an apparently 
irreconcilable contradiction, and that remains the language of all 
deeply religious minds. We are free, we are responsible for what we 
do, but yet it is God that worketh all things. This antithesis is 
brought out very plainly by Thomas Aquinas. God he asserts is 
the cause of everything (Deus causa est omnibus operantibus ut 
operentur, Cont. Gent. 111. xvii), but the Divine providence does 
not exclude Free-will. The argument is interesting: Adhuc pro- 
videntia est multiplicativa bonorum in rebus gubernatis. LIllud ergo 
per quod multa bona subtraherentur a rebus, non pertinet ad pro- 
videntiam. St autem libertas voluntatts tolleretur, multa bona sub- 
traherentur. Tolleretur enim laus virtutis humanae, quae nulla est 
st homo libere non agit, tolleretur enim tustitia praemianits et puntentis, 
sz non libere homo ageret bonum et malum, cessaret etiam circum- 
spectto in constlits, quae de his quae in necessitate aguniur, frustra 
tractarentur, esset igitur contra providentiae rationem st subtraheretur 
voluniatis lrbertas (16. \xxiii). And he sums up the whole relation 
of God to natural causes, elsewhere showing how this same 
principle applies to the human will: patet etiam quod non sic idem 


350 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ix-XI. 


effectus causae naturali et divinae virtutt attributtur, quast partim 
a Deo, partim a naturali agenti fiat, sed totus ab utroque secundum 
alium modum, stcut tdem effectus totus attributtur instrumento, et 
principalt agentt etiam totus (τό. xx). See also Summa Theologtae, 
Pars Prima, cv. art. 5; Prima Secundae, cxiii). 


This is substantially also the view taken by Mozley, Om the Augustinian 
Doctrine of Predestination. The result of his argument is summed up as 
follows, pp. 326, 327: ‘Upon this abstract idea, then, of the Divine Power, as 
an unlimited power, rose up the Augustinian doctrine of Predestination and 
good; while upon the abstract idea of Free-will, as an unlimited faculty, 
rose up the Pelagian theory. Had men perceived, indeed, more clearly and 
really than they have done, their ignorance as human creatures, and the 
relation in which the human reason stands to the great truths involved in 
this question, they might have saved themselves the trouble of this whole 
controversy. They would have seen that this question cannot be determined 
absolutely, one way or another; that it lies between two great contradictory 
truths, neither of which can be set aside, or made to give way to the other; 
two opposing tendencies of thought, inherent in the human mind, which go 
on side by side, and are able to be held and maintained together, although 
thus opposite to each other, because they are only incipient, and not final 
and complete truths ;—the great truths, I mean, of the Divine Power on the 
one side, and man’s Free-will, or his originality as an agent, on the other. 
And this is in fact, the mode in which this question is settled by the practical 
common-sense of mankind... . The plain natural reason of mankind is thus 
always large and comprehensive ; not afraid of inconsistency, but admitting 
all truth which presents itself to its notice. It is only when minds begin to 
philosophize that they grow narrow,—that there begins to be felt the appeal 
to consistency, and with it the temptation to exclude truths,’ 


(3) We can but state the two sides ; we cannot solve the problem. 
But yet there is one conception in which the solution lies. It is in 
a complete realization of what we mean by asserting that God is 
Almighty. The two ideas of Free-will and the Divine sovereignty 
cannot be reconciled in our own mind, but that does not prevent 
them from being reconcilable in God’s mind. We are really 
measuring Him by our own intellectual standard if we think 
otherwise. And so our solution of the problem of Free-will, and 
of the problems of history and of individual salvation, must finally 
lie in the full acceptance and realization of what is implied by the 
infinity and the omniscience of God. 


THE NEW LIFE. 


XII. 1, 2. With this wonderful programme of salvation 
before you offer to God a sacrifice, not of slaughtered beasts, 
but of your living selves, your own bodies, pure and free 
rom blemish, your spiritual service. Do not take pattern 


XII. 1.] THE NEW LIFE 351 


by the age in which you live, but undergo complete mora. 
reformation with the will of God for your standard. 


XII-XV. 12. We now reach the concluding portion of the 
Epistle, that devoted to the practical application of the previous 
discussion. An equally marked division between the theoretical 
and the practical portion is found in the Epistle to the Ephesians 
(chap. iv); and one similar, although not so strongly marked, in 
Galatians (v. 1 or 2); Colossians (iii. 1); 1 Thessalonians (iv. 1) ; 
2 Thessalonians (iii. 6). A comparison with the Epistles of St. 
Peter and St. John will show how special a characteristic of St. 
Paul is this method of construction. The main idea running 
through the whole section seems to be that of peace and unity for 
the Church in all relations both internal and external. As St. Paul 
in the earlier portion of the Epistle, looking back on the controversies 
through which he has passed, solves the problems which had been 
presented in the interests no longer of victory, but of peace, so in 
his practical exhortation he lays the foundation of unity and 
harmony on deep and broad principles. A definite division may 
be made between chaps. xii, xiii, in which the exhortations are 
general in character, and xiv—xv. 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 does not appear to follow any definite logical order, but 
touches on each subject as it suggests itself or is suggested by the 
previous ideas ; it may be roughly divided as follows: (1) a general 
introduction on the character of the Christian life (xii. 1, 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 ἀγάπη (9-21); (iv) duties towards rulers and those in 
authority (xiii. 1-7); (v) a special exhortation to ἀγάπη, as including 
all other commandments (8-10) ; (vi) an exhortation to a spiritual 
life on the ground of the near approach of the παρουσία (11-14). 


Tertullian quotes the following verses of this chapter from Marcion: 9, roa, 
12, 140, 16b, 17a, 18, 19. There is no evidence that any portion was 
omitted, but ver. 18 may have stood after ver. 19, and in the latter γέγραπται 
is naturally cut off and a γάρ inserted. The other variations noted by Zahn 
seem less certain (Zahn, Geschichte des N. 7. Kanons, p. 518; Tert. ado. 
Marc. v. 14). 


1. παρακαλῶ οὖν. A regular formula in St. Paul: Eph. iv. 1; 
1 Tim. ii. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 16. As in the passage in the Ephesians, 
the οὖν refers not so much to what immediately precedes as to the 
result of the whole previous argument. ‘As you are justified by 
Christ, and put in a new relation to God, I exhort you to live in 
accordance with that relation.’ But although St. Paul is giving the 


352 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ XII. 2 


practical results of his whole previous argument, yet (as often with 
him, cf. xi. 11) the words are directly led up to by the conclusion 
of the previous chapter and the narration of the wisdom and 
mercy of God. 

διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Cf. 2 Cor. i, 3 ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν. 
Οἰκτιρμός in the singular only occurs once (Col. iii. 12); the plural 
is a Hebraism directly derived from the LXX (Ps. cxviii. 156 οἱ 
οἰκτιρμοί σου πολλοί, κύριε, opddpa). There is a reference to the 
preceding chapter, ‘As God has been so abundantly merciful to 
both Jews and Greeks, offer a sacrifice to Him, and let that sacrifice 
be one that befits His holiness.’ 

παραστῆσαι: a tech. term (although not in the O.T.) for presenting 
a sacrifice: cf. Jos. Ant. IV. vi. 4 βωμούς τε ἐκέλευσεν ἑπτὰ δείμασθαι 
τὸν βασιλέα, καὶ τοσούτους ταύρους καὶ κριοὺς παραστῆναι. The word 
means to ‘ place beside,’ ‘ present’ for any purpose, and so is used 
of the presentation of Christ in the temple (Luke ii. 22), of St. Paul 
presenting his converts (Col. i. 28), or Christ presenting His 
Church (Eph. v. 27), or of the Christian himself (cf. Rom. vi. 13 ff.). 
In all these instances the idea of ‘ offering’ (which is one part of 
sacrifice) is present. 

τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν. To be taken literally, like τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν in vi. 13, 
as is shown by the contrast with rod vods in ver. 2. ‘ Just as the 
sacrifice in all ancient religions must be clean and without blemish, 
so we must offer bodies to God which are holy and free from the 
stains of passion.’ Christianity does not condemn the body, but 
demands that the body shall be purified and be united with Christ. 
Our members are to be ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ Θεῷ (vi. 13); Our bodies 
(τὰ σώματα) are to be μέλη Χριστοῦ (1 Cor. vi. 15); they are the 
temple of the Holy Spirit (zd. ver. 19); we are to be pure both in 
body and in spirit (2d. vii. 34). 

There is some doubt as to the order of the words εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ. 
They occur in this order in NC BD EF GL and later MSS., Syrr. Boh. Sah., 
and Fathers; τῷ Θεῷ ed. in NAP, Vulg. The former is the more usua/ 
expression, but St. Paul may have written τῷ Θεῷ εὐ. to prevent ambiguity, 


for if τῷ Θεῷ comes at the end of the sentence there is some doubt as to 
whether it should not be taken with παραστῆσαι. 


θυσίαν ζῶσαν : cf. vi. 13 παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ Θεῷ, ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν 
ζῶντας. The bodies presented will be those of men to whom new- 
ness of life has been given by union with the risen Christ. The 
relation to the Jewish rite is partly one of distinction, partly of 
analogy. The Jewish sacrifice implies slaughter, the Christian 
continued activity and life; but as in the Jewish rite all ritual 
requirements must be fulfilled to make the sacrifice acceptable to 
God, so in the Christian sacrifice our bodies must be holy, without 
spot or blemish. 

ἁγίαν, ‘ pure,’ ‘holy,’ ‘ free from stain,’ 1 Pet. i. 16; Lev. xix. 2. 


ΧΊΙ.1, 2.] THE NEW LIFE 353 


So the offering of the Gentiles (Rom. xv. 16) is ἡγιασμένη ἐν Ty, “Ay 
(See on i. 7.) 

εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ: cf. Phil. iv. 18 δεξάμενος mapa ᾿Επαφροδίτου τὰ 
παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν δεκτήν, εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ : Rom. xiv. 18 ; 
‘ Well-pleasing to God.’ The formal sacrifices of the old covenant 
might not be acceptable to God: cf. Ps. li. 16, 17. 

τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν. Acc. in apposition to the idea of the 
sentence. Winer, § lix. 9, p. 669, E. T.: cf. 1 Tim. ii. 6 and the 
note on viii. 3 above. A service to God such as befits the reason 
(λόγος), i.e. a spiritual sacrifice and not the offering of an irrational 
animal): cf. 1 Pet. iis. ' The ‘writer of Zest. X27. Pat) Levi-3 
seems to combine a reminiscence of this passage with Phil. iv. 18: 
speaking of the angels, he says προσφέρουσι δὲ Κυρίῳ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας 
λογικὴν καὶ ἀναίμακτον προσφοράν. 

We may notice the metaphorical use St. Paul makes of sacrificial 
language: ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν Phil. ii. 17 ; 
ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας (Lev. i. 9) Phil. iv. 18; ὀσμή 2 Cor. ii. 14, 165 λει- 
τουργός, ἱερουργοῦντα, προσφορά Rom, xv. 16. This language passed 
gradually and almost imperceptibly into liturgical use, and hence 
acquired new shades of meaning (see esp. Lightfoot, Clement, i. 
p- 386 sq.). 

2. συσχηματίζεσθε.... μεταμορφοῦσθε, ‘ Do not adopt the external 
and fleeting fashion of this world, but be ye transformed in your 
inmost nature.’ On the distinction of σχῆμα and μορφή preserved in 
these compounds see Lightfoot, Journal of Classical and Sacred 
Philology, vol. iii. 1857, p. 114, PAzlipprans, p. 125. Comp. Chrys. 
ad loc., ‘He says not change the fashion, but de ¢ransformed, to 
show that the world’s ways are a fashion, but virtue’s not a fashion, 
but a kind of real form, with a natural beauty of its own, not needing 
the trickeries and fashions of outward things, which no sooner 
appear than they go to naught. For all these things, even before 
they come to light, are dissolving. If then thou throwest the 
fashion aside, thou wilt speedily come to the form.’ 

There is a preponderance of evidence in favour of the imperatives (συσχη- 
ματίζεσθε, μεταμορφοῦσθε) in this verse, B L P all the versions (Latt. Boh. 
Syrr.), and most Fathers, against A Ὁ F G (δὲ varies). The evidence of the 
Versions and of the Fathers, some of whom paraphrase, is particularly 
important, as it removes the suspicion of itacism. 
τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ‘this world,’ ‘this life,’ used in a moral sense. 

When the idea of a future Messianic age became a part of the 
Jewish Theology, Time, xpévos, was looked upon as divided into 
a succession of ages, αἰῶνες, periods or cycles of great but limited 
duration; and the present age was contrasted with the age to 
come, or the age of the Messiah (cf. Schiirer, § 29. 9), a contrast 
very common among early Christians: Matt. xii. 32 οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ 
τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι: Luc. XX. 34, 35 οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτον 


Aa 


354 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. 2. 


«ας οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν: Eph. i, 21 οὐ μόνον ἐν 
τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι. So Lnoch xvi. 1 μέχρις ἡμέρας 
τελειώσεως τῆς κρίσεως τῆς μεγάλης, ἐν ἣ 6 αἰὼν ὁ μέγας τελεσθήσεται. 
As the distinction between the present period and the future was 
one between that which is transitory and that which is eternal, 
between the imperfect and the perfect, between that in which oi 
ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (1 Cor. ii. 6) have power and that in which 
ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων (Enoch xii. 3) will rule, αἰών like κόσμος in 
St. John’s writings, came to have a moral significance: Gal. i. 4 ἐκ 
τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ: Eph. ii. 2 περιεπατήσατε κατὰ τὸν 
αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου : and so in this passage. 

From the idea of a succession of ages (cf. Eph. ii. 7 ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσι 
τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις) Came the expression εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (xi. 36), or 
αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων to express eternity, as an alternative for the older 
form εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. The latter, which is the ordinary and original 
O. T. form, arises (like αἰώνιος) from the older and original meaning 
of the Hebrew ‘é/am, ‘the hidden time,’ ‘futurity,’ and contains 
rather the idea of an unending period. 

τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ vods: our bodies are to be pure and free from 
all the stains of passion; our ‘mind’ and ‘intellect’ are to be no 
longer enslaved by our fleshly nature, but renewed and purified by 
the gift of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Tit. iii. 5 διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας 
καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου : 2 Cor. iv. 16: Col. iii. ro. On 
the relation of ἀνακαίνωσις, ‘ renewal,’ to παλιγγενεσία see Trench, Syn. 
δ 18. By this renewal the intellectual or rational principle will no 
longer be a νοῦς σαρκός (Col. ii. 18), but will be filled with the 
Spirit and coincident with the highest part of human nature 
(1 Cor. ii. 15, 16). 

Soxipdfew: cf. ii. 18; Phil. 1, το. The result of this purification 
is to make the intellect, which is the seat cf moral judgement, true 
and exact in judging on spiritual and moral questions. 

τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, κιτιλ., ‘That which is in accordance with 
God’s will.’ This is further defined by the three adjectives which 
follow. It includes all that is implied in moral principle, in the 
religious aim, and the ideal perfection which is the goal of life. 


THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, 


XII. 3-8. Let every Christian be content with his proper 
place and functions. The society to which we belong is 
a single body with many members all related one to another. 
Hence the prophet should not strain after effects for which 
his faith is insufficient; the minister, the teacher, the 
exhorter, should each be intent on his special duty. The 


- XII. 3-5.] THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 355 


almsgiver, the person in authority, the doer of kindness, 
should each cultivate a spirit appropriate to what he does. 


8. St. Paul begins by an instance in which the need of an 
enlightened mind is most necessary; namely, the proper bearing 
of a Christian in the community, and the right use of spiritual gifts. 

διὰ τῆς χάριτος κιτιλ. gives emphasis by an appeal to Apostolic 
authority (cf. i. 5). It is not merely a question of the spiritual 
progress of the individual, for when St. Paul is speaking of that he 
uses exhortation (ver. 1), but of the discipline and order of the 
community; this is a subject which demands the exercise of 
authority as well as of admonition. 

παντὶ τῷ ὄντι. An emphatic appeal to every member of the 
Christian community, for every one (ἑκάστῳ) has some spiritual 
gift. 

μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν, ‘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 imepppoveiv. . . φρονεῖν... φρονεῖν... σωφρονεῖν. The 
φρονεῖν eis τὸ σωφρονεῖν would be the fruit of the enlightened intellect 
as opposed to the φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός (viii. 6). 

ἑκάστῳ is after ἐμέρισε, not in apposition to παντὶ τῷ ὄντι, and its 
prominent position gives the idea of diversity; for the order, cp. 
1 Cor. vii. 17. ‘According to the measure of faith which God has 
given each man.’ The wise and prudent man will remember that 
his position in the community is dependent not on any merit of his 
own, but on the measure of his faith, and that faith is the gift of 
God. Faith ‘being the sign and measure of the Christian life’ is 
used here for all those gifts which are given to man with or as the 
result of his faith. Two points are emphasized, the diversity ἑκάστῳ 
. +. μέτρον, and the fact that this diversity depends upon God: cf. 
I Cor. vii. 7 ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα ἐκ Θεοῦ, ὁ μὲν οὕτως, ὁ δὲ 
οὕτως. 

4, δ. Modesty and sobriety and good judgement are necessary 
because of the character of the community: it is an organism or 
corporate body in which each person has his own duty to perform 
for the well-being of the whole and therefore of himself. 

This comparison of a social organism to a body was very 
common among ancient writers, and is used again and again by 
St. Paul to illustrate the character of the Christian community: see 
1 Cor. xii. 12; Eph. iv. 15; Col. i. 18. The use here is based 
upon that in 1 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. τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς An idiomatic expression found in later Greck. 
Cf. Mark xiv. 19 εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς : John viii. 9: 3 Macc. v. 34 6 καθ᾽ εἷς 
δὲ τῶν gitwy: Lucian Soloecisfa 9; Eus. 44. E. X. iv, ἄς. εἷς καθ' 


356 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ XII. 5, 6. 


εἷς was probably formed on the model of ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν, and then καθ᾽ 
εἷς came to be treated adverbially and written as one word: hence 
it could be used, as here, with a neuter article. 

6-18. ἔχοντες δὲ χαρίσματα, κιτλ. These words may be taken 
grammatically either (1) as agreeing with the subject of ἐσμέν, 
a comma being put at μέλη, or (2) as the beginning of a new 
sentence and forming the subject of a series of verbs supplied with 
the various sentences that follow; this is decidedly preferable, for in 
the previous sentence the comparison is grammatically finished, and 
ἔχοντες δέ Suggests the beginning of a new sentence. 

Two methods of construction are also possible for the words 
κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως... ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ, &c, Either they must 
be taken as dependent on ἔχοντες, or a verb must be supplied with 
each and the sentences become exhortations. (1) If the first con- 
struction be taken the passage will run, ‘So are we all one body in 
Christ, but individually members one of another, having gifts which 
are different according to the grace which is given us, whether we 
have prophecy according to the proportion of faith, or a function 
of ministry in matters of ministration, or whether a man is a teacher 
in the exercise of functions of teaching, or one who exhorteth in 
exhortation, one who giveth with singleness of purpose, one who 
zealously provides, one who showeth mercy cheerfully.’ (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,’ &c. 

That the latter (which is that of Mey. Go. Va. Gif.) is preferable 
is shown by the difficulty of keeping up the former interpretation 
to the end; few commentators have the hardihood to carry it 
on as far as ver. 8; nor is it really easier in ver. 7, where the 
additions ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ are very otiose if they merely qualify ἔχοντες 
understood. In spite therefore of the somewhat harsh ellipse, the 
second construction must be adopted throughout. 

6. κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως (sc. προφητεύωμεν). The 
meaning of πίστεως here is suggested by that in ver. 3. A man’s 
gifis depend upon the measure of faith allotted to him by God, 
and so he must use and exercise these gifts in proportion to the 
faith that is in him, If he be σώφρων and his mind is enlightened 
by the Holy Spirit, he will judge rightly his capacity and power ; if, 
on the other hand, his mind be carnal, he will try to distinguish 
himself vain-gloriously and disturb the peace of the community. 

Liddon, with most of the Latin Fathers and many later com- 
mentators, takes πίστεως objectively: ‘The majestic proportion of 
the (objective) Faith is before him, and, keeping his eye on it, he 
avoids private crotchets and wild fanaticisms, which exaggerate 
the relative importance of particular truths to the neglect of others.’ 


XII. 6-8. | THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 357 


But this interpretation is inconsistent with the meaning he has 
himself given to πίστις in ver. 3, and gives a sense to ἀναλογίαν 
which it will not bear; the difficulty being concealed by the ambi- 
guity of the word ‘proportion’ in English. 

7. διακονίαν, ‘if we have the gift of ministry, let us use it in 
ministering to the community, and not attempt ambitiously to 
prophesy or exhort.’ διακονία was used either generally of all 
Christian ministrations (so Rom. xi. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 5; Eph. iv. 
12, &c.) or specially of the administration of alms and attendance 
to bodily wants (1 Cor. xvi. 15; 2 Cor. viii. 4, &c.). Here the 
opposition to προφητεία, διδασκαλία, παράκλησις seems to demand the 
more confined sense. 

ὁ διδάσκων. St. Paul here substitutes a personal phrase because 
ἔχειν διδασκαλίαν would mean, not to impart, but to receive instruction, 

8. 6 petad Sods: 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 ὁ μεταδιδούς, the 
man who gives of his own, while ὁ διαδιδούς is the man who dis- 
tributes other persons’ gifts, comp. Zest. Χ 71. Pair. Iss. 7 παντὶ 
ἀνθρώπῳ ὀδυνομένῳ συνεστέναξα, καὶ πτωχῷ μετέδωκα τὸν ἄρτον μου. 

ἁπλότης. The meaning of this word is illustrated best by 722. 
XII. Pair. Issachar, or περὶ ἁπλότητος. 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 (ἁπλότης). 
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 (ἐν ἁπλότητι ὀφθαλμῶν). 
. . « ΤῸ every poor and every afflicted man I provided the good 
things of the earth, in simplicity (ἁπλότης) of heart. . . . The simple 
man (6 ἁπλοῦς) doth not desire gold, doth not ravish his neighbour, 
doth not care for all kinds of dainty meats, doth not wish for 
diversity of clothing, doth not promise himself (οὐχ ὑπογράφει) length 
of days, he receiveth only the will of God . . . he walketh in up- 
rightness of life, and beholdeth all things in simplicity (ἁπλότητι). 
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, 2 Cor. ix. 11, 13; just as 
‘liberality’ in English has come to have a secondary meaning, and 
δικαιοσύνη in Hellenistic Greek (Hatch, Zssays in Brblical Greek, 
Ρ. 49). Such specialization is particularly natural in the East, 
where large-hearted generosity is a popular virtue, and where such 
words as ‘ good’ may be used simply to mean munificent. 


358 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. 8. 


& προϊστάμενος, the man that presides, or governs in any position, 
whether ecclesiastical or other. The word is used of ecclesiastical 
officials, 1 Thess. v.12; 1 Tim. v.17; Just. Mart. Apol.i. 67; and 
of a man ruling his family (1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12), and need not be 
any further defined. Zeal and energy are the natural gifts required 
of any ruler. 

6 ἐλεῶν. ‘Let any man or woman who performs deeds of mercy 
in the church, do so brightly and cheerfully.’ The value of bright- 
ness in performing acts of kindness has become proverbial, Ecclus. 
XXXii. (XXXV.) II ἐν πάσῃ δύσει ἱλάρωσον τὸ ποόσωπόν σου: Prov. xxii. 8 
ἄνδρα ἱλαρὸν καὶ δότην εὐλογεῖ 6 Θεός (quoted 2 Cor. ix. 7); but just as 
singleminded sincerity became an eminently Christian virtue, so 
cheerfulness in all the paths of life, a cheerfulness which springs 
from a warm heart, and a pure conscience and a serene mind set 
on something above this world, was a special characteristic of the 
early Christian (Acts ii. 46; v. 41; Phil. i. 4, 18; ii. 18, &c.; 
1 Thess. v. 16). 


Spiritual Gifts. 


The word χάρισμα (which is almost purely Pauline) is used of 
those special endowments which come to every Christian as the 
result of God’s free favour (χάρις) to men and of the consequent 
gift of faith, In Rom. v. 15, vi. 13, indeed, it has a wider signifi- 
cation, meaning the free gift on the part of God to man of forgive- 
ness of sins and eternal life, but elsewhere it appears always to be 
used for those personal endowments which are the gifts of the 
Spirit. In this connexion it is not confined to special or con- 
spicuous endowments or to special offices. There are, indeed, 
ra χαρίσματα τὰ μείζονα (1 Cor. xii. 31), which are those apparently 
most beneficial to the community; but in the same Epistle the word 
is also used of the individual fitness for the married or the un- 
married state (1 Cor. vii. 7); and in Rom. i. 13 it is used of the 
spiritual advantage which an Apostle might confer on the com- 
munity. So again, χαρίσματα include miraculous powers, but no 
distinction is made between them and non-miraculous gifts. In 
the passage before us there is the same combination of very 
widely differing gifts; the Apostle gives specimens (if we may 
express it so) of various Christian endowments; it is probable 
that some of them were generally if not always the function of 
persons specially set apart for the purpose (although not perhaps 
necessarily holding ecclesiastical office), others would not be con- 
fined to any one office, and many might be possessed by the same 
person. St.Paul’s meaning is: By natural endowments, strengthened 
with the gifts of the Spirit, you have various powers and capacities: 
in the use of these it is above all necessary for the good of the 


XII. 8-8.] THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 359 


community 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 spirit. 

This being the meaning of χαρίσματα 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 χαρίσματα, 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 προφῆται, διδάσκαλοι &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 χαρίσματα 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 χαρίσματα which would fit him for the fulfilment of 
such an office; but most, if not all, Christians would also have χαρίσ- 
para, 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, 1 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 he is evidently writing 
with the former Epistle in his mind: he uses the same simile: he 
concludes equally with a list of forms of yapiopara—shorter, indeed, 
but representative; but there is no sign of that directness which 
would arise from dealing with special circumstances. The letter is 
written with the experience of Corinth fresh in the writer’s mind, 
but without any immediate purpose. He is laying down directions 
based on his experience; but instead of a number of different 
details, he sums up all that he has to say in one general moral 
principle: Prudence and self-restraint in proportion to the gift of 
faith. Just as the doctrinal portions of the Epistle are written with 
the memory of past controversies still fresh, discussing and laying 
down in a broad spirit positions which had been gained in the 
course of those controversies, so we shall find that in the practical 


360 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. 9. 


portion St. Paul is laying down broad and statesmanlike positions 
which are the result of past experience and deal with circumstances 
which may arise in any community. 


MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 


XII. 9-21. The general principles of your life should be 
a love which is perfectly sincere, depth of moral feeling, 
consideration for others, zeal, fervour, devoutness, hopefulness, 
fortitude under persecutions, prayerfulness, eagerness to help 
your fellow-Christians by sharing what you possess with 
them and by the ready exercise of hospitality. 

Bless, do not curse, your persecutors. Sympathize with 
others. Be united in feeling, not ambitious but modest in 
your aims. Be not self-opinionated or revengeful. Do 
nothing to offend the world. Leave vengeance to God. 
Good for evil is the best requital. 


9. ἡ ἀγάπη, cf. xiii. 8. The Apostle comes back from direc- 
tions which only apply to individuals to the general direction to 
Christian Charity, which will solve all previous difficulties. Euthym.- 
Zig. διδάσκων yap πῶς ἂν τὰ εἰρημένα κατορθωθείη, ἐπήγαγε τὴν μητέρα 
πάντων τούτων, λέγω δὴ τὴν εἰς ἀλλήλους ἀγάπην. The sequence of 
ideas is exactly similar to that in 1 Cor. xii, xiii, and obviously 
suggested by it. In the section that follows (9-21), ἀγάπη is the 
ruling thought, but the Apostle does not allow himself to be con- 
fined and pours forth directions as to the moral and spiritual life 
which crowd into his mind. 

ἀνυπόκριτος. Wisd. v. 18; xviii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 6 (ἀγάπη); 
1 Tim. i. 5 and 2 Tim. i. 5 (πίστις) ; Jas. iii. 17 (ἡ ἄνωθεν σοφία); 
1 Pet. i. 22 (φιλαδελφία). It is significant that the word is not 
used in profane writers except once in the adverbial form, and 
that by Marcus Aurelius (viii. 5). 

ἀποστυγοῦντες : SC. ἔστε aS ἔστω above, and cf. τ Pet. ii. 18; iii, 1. 
An alternative construction is to suppose an anacoluthon, as if 
ἀγαπᾶτε ἀνυποκρίτως had been read above; cf. 2 Cor. i. 7. The 
word expresses a strong feeling of horror; the ἀπο- by farther 
emphasizing the idea of separation gives an intensive force, which 
is heightened by contrast with κολλώμενοι. 

τὸ πονηρὸν... τῷ ἀγαθῷ: ἁ The characteristic of true genuine 
love is to attach oneself to the good in a man, while detesting the 
evil in him. There cannot be love for what is evil, but whoever 
has love in him can see the good that there is in all. 


ΧΤΙ.10,11.] MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 361 


10. τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ, ‘love of the brethren’; as contrasted with 
ἀγάπη, which is universal, φιλαδελφία represents affection for the 
brethren; that is, for all members of the Christian community, 
ef, 2. Pet; 1 ἡ. Euthym.-Zig. ἀδελφοί ἐστε κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν διὰ τοῦ 
βαπτίσματος ἀναγέννησιν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀνάγκην ἔχετε φιλαδελφίας. 

φιλόστοργοι: the proper term for strong family affection. Euthym.- 
Zig. τουτέστι θερμῶς καὶ διαπύρως φιλοῦντες. ἐπίτασις γὰρ φιλίας ἡ 
στοργή, καὶ τῆς στοργῆς πάντως τ ήταν τ ἡ φιλοστοργία. 

τῇ τιμῇ K.7.A.: cf. Phil. ii. 3 ‘in lowliness of mind each accounting 
other better than himself.’ The condition and the result of true 
affection are that no one seeks his own honour or position, and 
every one is willing to give honour to others. The word mponyou- 
μενοι is somewhat difficult ; naturally it would mean ‘ going before,’ 
‘preceding,’ and so it has been translated, (1) ‘in matters of honour 
preventing one another,’ being the first to show honour: so Vulg. 
invicem praevenientes; or (2) ‘leading the way in honourable 
actions’: ‘Love makes a man lead others by the example of 
showing respect to worth or saintliness,’ Liddon; or (3) ‘surpass- 
ing one another’: ‘There is nothing which makes friends so 
much, as the earnest endeavour to overcome one’s neighbour in 
honouring him,’ Chrys. 

But all these translations are somewhat forced, and are difficult, 
because προηγεῖσθαι in this sense never takes the accusative. It is, 
in fact, as admissible to give the word a meaning which it has not 
elsewhere, as a construction which is unparalleled. A comparison 
therefore of 1 Thess. v. 13; Phil. ii. 3 suggests that St. Paul is 
using the word in the quite possible, although otherwise unknown, 
sense Of ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας. So apparently RV. (=AV.) ‘ 
honour preferring one another,’ and Vaughan. 

11. τῇ σπουδῇ μὴ ὀκνηροί, ‘in zeal not flagging’; the words 
being used in a spiritual sense, as is shown by the following clauses. 
Zeal in all our Christian duties will be the natural result of our 
Christian love, and will in time foster it. On ὀκνηρός cf. Matt. xxv. 
26: it is a word common in the LXX of Proverbs (vi. 6, &c.). 

τῷ πνεύματι Léovtes: cf. Acts xviii. 25, ‘fervent in spirit’; that is 
the human spirit instinct with and inspired by the Divine Spirit. 
The spiritual life is the source of the Christian’s love: ‘And all 
things will be easy from the Spirit and the love, while thou art 
made to glow from both sides,’ Chrys. 

τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες. The source of Christian zeal is spiritual 
life, the regulating principle our service to Christ. It is not 
necessary to find any very subtle connexion of thought between 
these clauses, they came forth eagerly and irregularly from St. 
Paul’s mind. Κυρίῳ may have been suggested by πνεύματι, just as 
below διώκειν in one sense suggests the same word in another 
sense, 


462 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Χ11. 11-18. 


There is a very considerable balance of authority in favour of xupiy 
(SABELP &c., Vulg. Syrr. Boh., Gr. Fathers) as against καιρῷ (DFG, 
Latin Fathers). Cf. Jer. Ap. 27 ad Marcellam: ἐμὲ /egant spe gaudentes, 
tempori servientes, nos legamus domino servientes. Orig.-lat. ad loc. scto 
autem in nonnullis Latinorum exemplis haleri tempori servientes: quod 
non mihi videtur convenienter insertum. The corruption may have arisen 
from Κῶ Kp@ being confused together, a confusion which would be easier 
from reminiscences of such expressions as Eph. v. 16 ἐξαγοραζόμενοι τὸν 
καιρόν. 


12. τῇ ἐλπίδι χαίροντες. See above on ver. 8. The Christian 
hope is the cause of that Christian joy and cheerfulness of dis- 
position which is the grace of Christian love: cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 7 
‘Love . . . hopeth all things.’ 

τῇ θλίψει ὑπομένοντες. Endurance in persecution is naturally 
connected with the Christian’s hope: cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 7 ‘Love... 
endureth all things.’ 

It is interesting to notice how strongly, even thus early, persecu- 
tion as a characteristic of the Christian’s life in the world had 
impressed itself on St. Paul’s phraseology: see 1 Thess. i. 6; iii. 
3,1.) 2 Lhess. 1, 4, '65°2 Cori. ἃ, &c.; Rom. Ὗ. 4: eae ae 

τῇ προσευχῇ προσκαρτεροῦντες: Acts. i. 14; ii, 42; Col. iv. 2. 
Persecution again naturally suggests prayer, for the strength of 
prayer is specially needed in times of persecution. 

13. tats χρείαις τῶν ἁγίων κοινωνοῦντες. This verse contains twe 
special applications of the principle of love—sharing one’s goods 
with fellow-Christians in need, and exercising that hospitality 
which was part of the bond which knit together the Christian com- 
munity. With κοινωνεῖν in this sense cf. Phil. iv. 15;. Rom. xv. 26; 
2 Cor. ix. 13; Heb. xiii. 16. 


The variation ταῖς μνείαις (Ὁ F G, MSS. known to Theod. Mops., Vulg. 
cod. (am), Eus. Hist. Mart. Pal., ed. Cureton, p. 1, Hil. Ambrstr. Aug.) is 
interesting. In the translation of Origen we read: Usibus sanctorum com- 
municantes, Memini in latinis exempliaribus magis haberi: memoriis 
sanctorum communicantes: verum mos nec consuetudinem turbamus, nec 
veritatt praeiudicamus, maxime cum utrumque conveniat aedificationt. 
Nam usibus sanctorum honeste et decenter, non quast stipem indigentibus 
pracbere, sed censum nostrorum cum ipsts quodammodo habere communem, et 
memintisse sanctorum sive in collectis solemnibus, sive pro ¢o, ut ex recorda- 
tione corum proficiamus, aptum et conveniens videtur. The variation must 
have arisen at a time when the ‘holy’ were no longer the members of the 
community and fellow-Christians. whose bodily wants required relieving, 
but the ‘saints’ of the past, whose lives were commemorated. But this 
custom arose as early as the middle of the second century: cf. Mart. 
Polyc. xviii ἔνθα ὡς δυνατὸν ἡμῖν συναγομένοις ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ χαρᾷ παρέξει 
ὁ Κύριος ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου αὐτοῦ ἡμέραν γενέθλιον, εἴς τε τὴν τῶν 
προηθληκότων μνήμην καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἄσκησίν τε καὶ ἑτοιμασίαν : and the 
variations may, like other peculiarities of the western text, easily have arisen 
80 soon. We cannot however lay any stress on the passage of Origen, as it 
is probably due to Rufinus. See Bingham, Asm?. xili.9.5. WH. suggest 
that it was a clerical error arising from the confusion of yp and μν in 
a badly written papyrus MS. 


XII. 18-16.] MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 363 


φιλοξενίαν. From the very beginning hospitality was recognized 
as one of the most important of Christian duties (Heb. xiii. 2; 
1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. 1. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 9; compare also Clem. Rom. §1 
τὸ μεγαλοπρεπὲς τῆς φιλοξενίας ὑμῖν ἦθος : ὃ το of Abraham διὰ πίστιν 
καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐδόθη αὐτῷ υἱὸς ἐν γήρᾳ : ὃ 11 διὰ φιλοξενίαν καὶ εὐσέβειαν 
Adr ἐσώθη: ὃ 12 διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐσώθη “Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη § 35). 
On its significance in the early Church see Ramsay, Zhe Church 
in the Roman Empire, pp. 288, 368. The Christians looked upon 
themselves as a body of men scattered throughout the world, living 
as aliens amongst strange people, and therefore bound together 
as the members of a body, as the brethren of one family. The 
practical realization of this idea would demand that whenever a 
Christian went from one place to another he should find a home 
among the Christians in each town he visited. We have a picture 
of this intercommunion in the letters of Ignatius; we can learn it 
at an earlier period from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 
(2 Cor. iii. 1; viii. 18, 23, 24). One necessary part of such inter- 
communion would be the constant carrying out of the duties 
of hospitality. It was the unity and strength which this inter- 
course gave that formed one of the great forces which supported 
Christianity. 

14. εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας. The use of the word διώκειν in one 
sense seems to have suggested its use in another. The resem- 
blance to Matt. v. 44 is very close: ‘But I say unto you, Love 
your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you.’ Emphasis 
is added by the repetition of the maxim in a negative form, Cf. 
James iii. 9. 

15. χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων «.7.A. On the infinitive cf. Winer, 
ὃ ΣΙ. 5 ἃ, p. 397, E. T. But it seems more forcible and less 
awkward to take it, as in Phil. iii. 16, as the infinitive used for 
the emphatic imperative than to suppose a change of construc- 
tion. ‘But that requires more of a high Christian temper, to 
rejoice with them that do rejoice, than to weep with them that 
weep. For this nature itself fulfils perfectly: and there is none 
so hardhearted as not to weep over him that is in calamity: but 
the other requires a very noble soul, so as not only to keep from 
envying, but even to feel pleasure with the person who is in 
esteem. And this is why we placed it first. For there is nothing 
that ties love so firmly as sharing both joy and pain one with 
another, Chrys. ad loc. Cf. Ecclus. vii. 34. 

16. τὸ αὐτὸ... φρονοῦντες, ‘being harmonious in your relations 
towards one another’: cf. xv. 5; 2 Cor. xiii. 113; Phil. ii. 2; iv. 2. 
The great hindrance to this would be having too high an estima- 
tion of oneself: hence the Apostle goes on to condemn such 
pride. ͵ 

μὴ τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες : cf. xi. 20; 1 Cor. xiii. 5 ‘Love vaunteth 


364 EPISTLE TO THE ΒΟΜΑΝΒ [Χ11.16-10. 


not itself, is not puffed up,’ shows how St. Paul is still carrying out 
the leading idea of the passage. 

τοῖς ταπεινοῖς : prob. neuter; ‘allow yourself to be carried along 
with, give yourself over to, humble tasks:’ ‘consentinge to meke 
thingis,’ Wic. The verb cuvamdyew means in the active ‘to lead 
along with one,’ hence in the passive, ‘to be carried away with,’ as 
by a flood which sweeps everything along with it (Lightfoot on 
Gal. ii. 13; cf. 2 Pet. iii. 17), and hence ‘to give oneself up to.’ 

The neuter seems best to suit the contrast with ra ὑψηλά and 
the meaning of the verb; but elsewhere in the N. T. ταπεινός is 
always masculine, and so many take it here: ‘make yourselves 
equall to them of the lower sorte,’ Tyn. Cov. Genev. ‘Con- 
sentinge to the humble,’ Rhen. So Chrys.: ‘That is, bring thyself 
down to their humble condition, ride or walk with them; do not be 
humbled in mind only, but help them also, and stretch forth thy 
hand to them.’ 

μὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς : taken apparently from Prov. iii. 
7 μὴ ἴσθι φρόνιμος παρὰ σεαυτῷ: Cf. Origen non potest veram sapten- 
tiam Dei scire, gut suam stultitiam quast sapientiam coltt. 

17. μηδενὶ κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἀποδιδόντες. Another result of the 
principle of love. Mat. v. 43, 44; 1 Thess. v. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 9; 
1 Cor. xiii. 5, 6 ‘Love... taketh not account of evil; rejoiceth 
not in unrighteousness, tut rejoiceth with the truth,’ 

προνοούμενοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων : cf. Prov. iii. 4, 
2 Cor. iv. 2; viii, 21. ‘As nothing causes offence so much as 
offending men’s prejudices, see that your conduct will commend 
itself as honourable to men.’ Euthym.-Zig. οὐ πρὸς ἐπίδειξιν ἀλλὰ 
πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, καὶ ὥστε μηδενὶ δοῦναι πρόφασιν σκανδάλουι This 
seems better than to lay all the emphasis on the πάντων, as some 
would do. 

18. εἰ δυνατόν, ‘if it be possible, live peaceably with all men, at 
any rate as far as concerns your part (τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν). Over what others 
will do you can have no control, and if they break the peace it is 
not your fault. ‘Love seeketh not its own’ (1 Cor. xiii. 5). 

19. ἀγαπητοί. Added because of the difficulty of the precept not 
to avenge oneself. 

δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ, ‘give room or place to the wrath of God.’ 
Let God’s wrath punish. Euthym.-Zig. ἀλλὰ παραχωρεῖτε τῆς ἐκδική- 
σεως τῇ ὀργῇ Tov Θεοῦ, τῇ κρίσει τοῦ Κυρίου The meaning of δότε 
τόπον is shown by Eph. iv. 27 μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ, do not 
give scope or place to the devil; ἡ ὀργή means the wrath of God: 
cf. Rom. v. 9. That this is the right interpretation of the word is 
shown by the quotation which follows. 

But other interpretations have been often held: δότε τόπον is 
translated by some, ‘ allow space, interpose delay,’ i.e. check and 
restrain your wrath; by others, ‘yield to the anger of your 


XII. 19-21.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 365 


opponent’: neither of these interpretations suits the context or 
the Greek. 

γέγραπται γάρ. The quotation which follows comes from Deut. 
XXxii. 35, and resembles the Hebrew ‘ Vengeance is mine and 
recompense, rather than the LXX ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀνταποδώσω : 
and the Targum of Onkelos more than either. The words are 
quoted in the same form in Heb. x. 30. 

20. ἀλλὰ ᾿Εὰν πεινᾷ 6 ἐχθρός σου κιτιλ. Taken from the LXX; cf. 
Prov. xxv. 21, 22, agreeing exactly with the text of B, but varying 
somewhat from that of AN. The term ἄνθρακες πυρός clearly means 
‘terrible pangs or pains,’ cf. Ps. cxxxix (cxl). 11 (LXX); 4 (5) Ezra 
xvi. 54 Von dicat peccator se non peccasse, quoniam carbones ignis 
comburet super caput etus gut dictt: Non peccavt coram domino et 
gloria tpstus. But with what purpose are we to ‘heap coals of fire 
on his head’? [5 it (1) that we may be consoled for our kind act 
by knowing that he will be punished for his misdeeds? This is 
impossible, for it attributes a malicious motive, which is quite 
inconsistent with the context both here and in the O. T. In the 
latter the passage proceeds, ‘ And the Lord shall reward thee,’ im- 
plying that the deed is a good one; here we are immediately told 
that we are not to be ‘overcome of evil, but overcome evil with 
good,’ which clearly implies that we are to do what is for our 
enemies’ benefit. (2) Coals of fire must, therefore, mean, as most 
commentators since Augustine have said, ‘the burning pangs of 
shame, which a man will feel when good is returned for evil, and 
which may produce remorse and penitence and contrition. 
Potest enim fiert ut animus ferus ac barbarus tnimict, st sentiat 
beneficium nostrum, st humanttatem, st affectum, st pietatem videat, 
compunciionem cordis capiat, commisst poenttudinem gerat, et ex hoc 
qgnis in eo quidem succendatur, qui eum pro commusst conscientia 
torqueat et adurat: et tsi erunt carbones ignis, gui super caput etus 
ex: nostro misertcordiae et pietatis opere congregantur, Origen. 

21. μὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ «.7.A., ‘do not allow yourself to be 
overcome by the evil done to you and be led on to revenge and 
injury, but conquer your enemies’ evil spirit by your own good 
disposition.” A remark which 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 promote 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 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIITI. 1. 


So too you pay tribute because the machinery of govern- 
ment ts God’s ordinance. In this as in all things give to all 
their due. . 


XIII. The Apostle now passes from the duties of the individual 
Christian towards mankind in general to his duties in one definite 
sphere, namely towards the civil rulers. While we adhere to what 
has been said about the absence of a clearly-defined system or 
purpose in these chapters, we may notice that one main thread of 
thought which runs through them is the promotion of peace in all 
the relations of life. The idea of the civil power may have been 
suggested by ver. 19 of the preceding chapter, as being one of the 
ministers of the Divine wrath and retribution (ver. 4): at any rate 
the juxtaposition of the two passages would serve to remind St. 
Paul’s readers that the condemnation of individual vengeance and 
retaliation does not apply to the action of the state in enforcing 
law; for the state is God’s minister, and it is the just wrath of God 
which is acting through it. 


We have evidence of the use of vv. 8-10 by Marcion (Tert. adv. Marc. 
v. 14) Merito ttaqgue totam creatoris disciplinam principali praecepto eius 
conclusit, Diliges proximum tanquam te. Loc legis supplementum st ex tpsa 
lege est, quis sit deus legis iam ignoro. On the rest of the chapter we have 
no information. ὶ 


1. πᾶσα ψυχή: cf. ii. 9. The Hebraism suggests prominently 
the idea of individuality. These rules apply to all however 
privileged, and the question is treated from the point of view of 
individual duty. 

ἐξουσίαις : abstract for concrete, ‘those in authority’; cf. Luke 
xii. 11; Tit. iii, 1. ὑπερεχούσαις ‘who are in an eminent position,’ 
defining more precisely the idea of ἐξουσίαις : cf. x Pet. ii, 13; 
Wisdom vi. 5. 

ὑποτασσέσθω. Notice the repetition of words of similar sound, 
ὑποτασσέσθω . . . τεταγμέναι. . . ἀντιτασσόμενος . . - διαταγῇ, and cf, 
Zi, 

οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία κιλ. The Apostle gives the reason for 
this obedience, stating it first generally and positively, then nega- 
tively and distributively. No human authority can exist except as the 
gift of God and springing from Him, and therefore all constituted 
powers are ordained by Him. The maxim is common in all 
Hebrew literature, but is almost always introduced to show how 
the Divine power is greater than that of all earthly sovereigns, or 
to declare the obligation of rulers as responsible for all they do to 
One above them. Wisdom vi. 1, 3 ἀκούσατε οὖν, βασιλεῖς, καὶ σύνετε, 
μάθετε δικασταὶ περάτων γῆς. . . ὅτι ἐδόθη παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡ κράτησις 
ὑμῖν καὶ ἡ δυναστεία παρὰ ὑψίστου : Enoch x\lvi. 5 ‘And he will put 
down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms, because they do 


XIII. 1-4.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 359 


not extol and praise him, nor thankfully acknowledge whence the 
kingdom was bestowed upon them’: Jos. Bell. Jud. II. viii. 7 τὸ πιστὸν 
παρέξειν πᾶσι, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς κρατοῦσιν" ov yap δίχα Θεοῦ περιγίνεσθαί 
τινι τὸ ἄρχειν. 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 (W ABLP and many !ater MSS., Bas. 
Chrys.) is decisive for εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. The Western reading ἀπὸ Θεοῦ was 
a correction for the less usual expression (DEF G and many later MSS., 
Orig. Jo.-Damasc.). The reading of the end of the verse should be αἱ δὲ 
οὖσαι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν NABDFG. 

2. ὥστε ὃ ἀντιτασσόμενος κιτλ. 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 wil] 
receive kpiua—a judgement or condemnation which is human, for it 
comes through human instruments, but Divine as having its origin 
and source in God. There is no reference here to eternal punish- 
ment. 

8. ot γὰρ ἄρχοντες. 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. 

τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ : cf. ii. τοῖς μὲν καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ. In 
both passages ἔργον is used collectively; there it means the sum 
of a man’s actions, here the collective work of the state. For the 
subject cf. 1 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 τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ ἀλλὰ τῷ κακῷ is read by NA BDF GP, Boh. 
Vulg. (dont operis sed maiz), Clem.-Alex. Iren.-lat. Tert. Orig.-lat. Jo.- 
Damasc. Later MSS. with EL, Syrr. Arm., Chrys. Thdrt. read τῶν ἀγαθῶν 
ἔργων. . . κακῶν. Hort suggests an emendation of Patrick Young, τῷ 


ἀγαθοεργῷ; which has some support apparently from the Aeth. δὲ gut facst 
bonum : but the antithesis with κακῷ makes this correction improbable. 


θέλεις δὲ... ἐξουσίαν ; The construction is more pointed if these 
words are made a question. 

As the state exists for a good end, if you lead a peaceable life 
you will have nothing to fear from the civil power. 

4. Θεοῦ γὰρ Sidkovds ἐστι. Fem. to agree with ἐξουσία, which 
throughout is almost personified. σοι, ‘for thee,’ ethical, for thy 
advantage. εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν, ‘ for the good,’ to promote good, existing 
for a good end. 

τὴν μάχαιραν. The sword is the symbol of the executive and 
criminal jurisdiction of a magistrate, and is therefore used of the 


368 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Χ1Π|. 4-7. 


power of punishing inherent in the government. So Ulpian, 
Digest, i. 18. 6. ὃ 8; Tac. Hist. iii. 68 ; Dio Cassius, xlii. 27. 

ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργήν, ‘inflicting punishment or vengeance so as to 
exhibit wrath,’ namely the Divine wrath as administered by the 
ruler who is God’s agent (cf. ver. 2 and xii. 19). The repetition of 
the phrase Θεοῦ διάκονος with both sides of the sentence emphasizes 
the double purpose of the state. It exists positively for the well- 
being of the community, negatively to check evil by the infliction 
of punishment, and both these functions are derived from God. 

5. διό: rulers, because as God’s ministers they have a Divine 
order and purpose, are to be obeyed, not only because they have 
power over men, but also because it is right, διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν (cf. 
AR es ae 6 

6. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καί, sc. διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν : ‘and it is for this 
reason also.’ St. Paul is appealing to a principle which his readers 
will recognize. It is apparently an admitted rule of the Christian 
communities that taxes are to be paid, and he points out that the 
principle is thus recognized of the moral duty of obeying rulers. 
That he could thus appeal to a recognized practice seems to imply 
that the words of our Lord (Luke xx. 20-25) had moulded the 
habits of the early Church, and this suggestion is corroborated by 
ver. 7 (see the longer note below). 

λειτουργοί, ‘God’s ministers.’ Although the word is used in 
a purely secular sense of a servant, whether of an individual or of 
a community (1 Kings x. 5; Ecclus. x. 2), yet the very definite 
meaning which λειτουργὸς Θεοῦ had acquired (Ecclus vii. 30; Heb. 
Viii. 2; see especially the note on Rom. xv. 16) adds emphasis to 
St. Paul’s expression. 

προσκαρτεροῦντες must apparently be taken absolutely (as in 
Xen. Heil. VII. v. 14), ‘ persevering faithfully in their office,’ and 
εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο gives the purpose of the office, the same as that 
ascribed above to the state. These words cannot be taken im- 
mediately with προσκαρτεροῦντες, for that verb, as in xii. 13, seems 
always to govern the dative. 

7. St. Paul concludes this subject and leads on to the next by 
a general maxim which covers all the different points touched 
upon : ‘ Pay each one his due.’ 

τῷ τὸν φόρον, SC. ἀπαιτοῦντι. φόρος is the tribute paid by a subject 
nation (Luke xx. 22; 1 Macc. x. 33), while τέλος represents the 
customs and dues which would in any case be paid for the support 
of the civil government (Matt. xvii. 25; 1 Macc. x. 31). 

φόβος is the respectful awe which is felt for one who has power 
in his hands ; τιμήν honour and reverence paid to a ruler: cf. 1 Pet. 
ii, 17 τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε" τὸν βασιλέα τιμᾶτε. 

A strange interpretation of this verse may be seen in the 
Gnostic book entitled Πίστις Σοφία, p. 294, ed. Schwartze. 


Χ1Π1.1-7.} ΟΝ OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 369 


The Church and the Civil Power. 


The motive which impelled St. Paul to write this section of the 
Epistle has (like so many other questions) been discussed at great 
length with the object of throwing light on the composition of the 
Roman Church. If the opinion which has been propounded already 
in reference to these chapters be correct, it will be obvious that 
here as elsewhere St. Paul is writing, primarily at any rate, with 
a view to the state of the Church as a whole, not to the particular 
circumstances of the Roman community: it being recognized at 
the same time that questions which agitated the whole Christian 
world would be likely to be reflected in what was already an 
important centre of Christianity. Whether this opinion be correct 
or not must depend partly, of course, on our estimate of the 
Epistle as a whole; but if it be assumed to be so, the character of 
this passage will amply support it. There is a complete absence of 
any reference to particular circumstances: the language is through- 
out general: there is a studied avoidance of any special terms; 
direct commands such as might arise from particular circumstances 
are not given: but general principles applicable to any period or 
place are laid down. As elsewhere in this Epistle, St. Paul, 
influenced by his past experiences, or by the questions which were 
being agitated around him, or by the fear of difficulties which he 
foresaw as likely to arise, lays down broad general principles, 
applying to the affairs of life the spirit of Christianity as he has 
elucidated it. 

But what were the questions that were in the air when he wrote? 
There can be no doubt that primarily they would be those 
current in the Jewish nation concerning the lawfulness of paying 
taxes and otherwise recognizing the authority of a foreign ruler. 
When our Lord was asked, ‘Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar 
or no?’ (Matt. xxii. 18 f.; Luke xx. 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. 15), and from the idea of a Divine theocracy, a large 
section of the Jews had refused to recognize or pay taxes to the 
Roman government. Judas the Gaulonite, who said that ‘the 
census was nothing else but downright slavery’ (Jos. Am/. XVIII. 
i. 1), or Theudas (ibid. XX. v. 1), or Eleazar, who is represented 
as saying that ‘we have long since made up our minds not to 
serve the Romans or any other man, but God alone’ (Bell. Jud. 
VII. viii. 6), may all serve as instances of a tendency which was 
very wide spread. Nor was this spirit confined to the Jews of 
Palestine ; elsewhere, both in Rome and in Alexandria, riots had 
occurred. Nor again was it unlikely that Christianity would be 

ab 


479 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ XIII. 1-7. 


affected by it. A good deal of the phraseology of the early 
Christians was derived from the Messianic prophecies of the 
O. T., and these were always liable to be taken in that 
purely materia] sense which our Lord had condemned. The fact 
that St. Luke records the question of the disciples, ‘Lord, dost 
thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts i. 6) seems 
to imply that such ideas were current, and the incident at Thessalo- 
nica, where St. Paul himself, because he preached the ‘ kingdom,’ 
was accused of preaching ‘another king, one Jesus,’ shows how 
liable even he was to misinterpretation. ‘These instances are quite 
sufficient to explain how the question was a real one when St. 
Paul wrote, and why it had occupied his thoughts. It is not 
necessary to refer it either to Ebionite dualistic views (so Baur), 
which would involve an anachronism, or to exaggerated Gentile 
ideas of Christian liberty; we have no record that these were ever 
perverted in this direction. 

Two considerations may have specially influenced St. Paul to 
discuss the subject in his Epistle to the Romans. The first was 
the known fact of the turbulence of the Roman Jews; a fact which 
would be brought before him by his intercourse with Priscilla and 
Aquila. This may illustrate just the degree of local reference in 
the Epistle to the Romans. We have emphasized more than once 
the fact that we cannot argue anything from such passages as this 
as to the state of the Roman community; but St. Paul would not 
write in the air, and the knowledge of the character of the Jewish 
population in Rome gained from political refugees would be just 
sufficient to suggest this topic. A second cause which would lead 
him to introduce it would be the fascination which he felt for the 
power and position of Rome, a fascination which has been already 
illustrated (Introduction, § 1). 

It must be remembered that when this Epistle was written the 
Roman Empire had never appeared in the character of a persecutor. 
Persecution had up to this time always come from the Jews or from 
popular riots. To St. Paul the magistrates who represented 
the Roman power had always been associated with order and 
restraint. The persecution of Stephen had probably taken place 
in the absence of the Roman governor: it was at the hands of the 
Jewish king Herod that James the brother of John had perished: 
at Paphos, at Thessalonica, at Corinth, at Ephesus, St. Paul had 
found the Roman officials a restraining power and all his experience 
would support the statements that he makes: ‘ The rulers are not 
a terror to the good work, but to the evil:’ ‘He is a minister of 
God to thee for good:’ ‘ He is a minister of God, an avenger for 
wrath to him that doeth evil.’ Nor can any rhetorical point be 
made as has been attempted from the fact that Nero was at this 
time the ruler of the Empire. It may be doubted how far the vices 


XIII. 1- 7} ΟΝ OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 471 


of a ruler like Nero seriously affected the well-being of the 
provincials, but at any rate when these words were written the 
world was enjoying the good government and bright hopes of 
Nero’s 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 rate, starting 
from this idea he works out the principles which must lie at the 
basis of Christian politics, that the State is divinely appointed, or 
permitted by God; that its end is beneficent; and that the spheres 
of Church and State are not identical. 

It has been remarked that, when St. Paul wrote, his experience 
might have induced him to estimate too highly the merits of the 
Roman government. But although later the relation of the Church 
to the State changed, the principles of the Church did not. In 
1 Tim. ii. 1, 2 the Apostle gives a very clear command to pray for 
those in authority : ‘I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, 
prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men: for 
kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil 
and quiet life in all godliness and gravity’; so also in Titus iii. 1 
‘Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities.’ 
When these words were written, the writer had to some extent at 
any rate experienced the Roman power in a very different aspect. 
Still more important is the evidence of 1 Peter. It was certainly 
written at a time when persecution, and that of an official character, 
had begun, yet the commands of St. Paul are repeated and with 
even greater emphasis (1 Pet. ii. 13-17). 


The sub-Apostolic literature will illustrate this. Clement is writing to the 
Corinthians just after successive periods of persecution, yet he includes 
a prayer of the character which he would himself deliver, in the as yet 
unsystematized services of the day, on behalf of secular rulers. ‘Give 
concord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth... while we 
render obedience to Thine Almighty and most excellent Name, and to our 
rulers and governors upon the earth. Thou, Lord and Master, hast given 
them the power of sovereignty through Thine excellent and unspeakable 
might, that we, knowing the glory and honour which Thou hast given them, 
may submit ourselves unto them, in nothing resisting Thy will. Grant unto 
them therefore, O Lord, health, peace, concord, stability, that they may 
administer the government which Thou hast given them without 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 command to pray 


472 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ XIII. 1-7. 


for rulers with that to love our enemies. ‘Pray also for kings and powers 
and princes and for them that persecute and hate you and for the enemies of 
the cross, that your fruit may be manifest among all men that ye may be 
perfect in Him.’ (Clem. Rom. Ix, lxi; Polyc. ad Phil. xii.) 

It is not necessary to give further instances of a custom which prevailed 
extensively or universally in the early Church. It became a commonplace 
of apologists (Just. Mart. 4fol.i.17; Athenagoras, Zeg, xxxvii; Theophilus, 
i. 11; Tertullian, 4Zo/. 30, 39, ad Scap.2; Dion. Alex. af Eus. H. &. VII. xi; — 
Arnob. iv. 36) and is found in all liturgies (cf. Comst. Ap. viii. 12). 

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 
support the doctrine of Passive Obedience. This doctrine has taken a variety 
of forms. Some held that a Monarchy as opposed to a Republic is the only 
scriptural form of government, others that a legitimate line alone has this 
divine right. A more modified type of this teaching may be represented by 
a sermon of Bishop Berkeley (Passive Obedience or the Christian Doctrine 
of not resisting the supreme power, proved and vindicated upon the principles 
of the law of nature in a dtscourse delivered at the College Chapel, 1712. 
Works, iii. p. 101). He takes as his text Rom. xiii. 2 ‘ Whosoever resisteth 
the Power, resisteth the ordinance of God.’ He begins ‘It is not my design 
to inquire into the particular nature of the government and constitution of 
these kingdoms.’ He then proceeds by assuming that ‘there is in every civil 
community, somewhere or other, placed a supreme power of making laws, 
and enforcing the observation of them.’ His main purpose is to prove that 
‘Loyalty is a moral virtue, and thou shalt not resist the supreme power, 
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 difficulty. 
St. Paul gives no directions as to what ought to be done when there is 
a conflict of authority. In his day there could be no doubt that the rule of 
Caesar was supreme and had become legitimate: all that he had to con- 
demn was an incorrect view of the ‘kingdom of heaven’ as a theocracy 
established on earth, whether it were held by Jewish zealots or by Christians. 
He does not discuss the question, ‘if there were two claimants for the 
Empire which should be supported?’ for it was not a practical difficulty 
when he wrote. So ‘ishop Berkeley, by his use of the expression ‘some- 
where or other,’ equ |.» evades the difficulty. Almost always when there is 
a rebellion or a οἱ war the question at issue is, Who is the rightful 
governor? which isi ~ power ordained by God? 

But there is a side of the doctrine of Passive Obedience which requires 
emphasis, and which was illustrated by the Christianity of the first three 
centuries. The early Christians were subject to a power which required 
them to do that which was forbidden by their religion. To that extent 
and within those limits they could not and did not obey it; but they never 
encouraged in any way resistance or rebellion. In all things indifferent the 
Christian conformed to existing law; he obeyed the law ‘not only because of 
the wrath, but also for conscience sake.’ He only disobeyed when it was 
necessary to do so for conscience sake. The point of importance is the 
detachment of the two spheres of activity. The Church and the State are 
looked upon as different bodies, each with a different work to perform. To 
designate this or that form of government as ‘ Christian,’ and support it on 
these grounds, would have been quite alien to the whole spirit of those days. 
The Church must influence the world by its hold on the hearts and consciences 
of individuals, and in that way, and not by political power, will the 
Kingdom of God come. 


XIII. 8, 97 LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW 373 


LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW. 


XIII. 8-10. There is one debt which the Christian must 
always be paying but never can discharge, that of love. All 
particular precepts are summed up in that of love, which 
makes injury to any man impossible. 


8. St. Paul passes from our duties towards superiors to that one 
principle which must control our relations towards all men, love. In 
xii. 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. 

μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε must be imperative as the negatives show. 
It sums up negatively the results of the previous verse and suggests 
the transition, ‘ Pay every one their due and owe no man anything,’ 

εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀγαπᾷν ἀλλήλους : ‘Let your only debt that is unpaid 
be that of love—a debt which you should always be attempting to 
discharge in full, but will never succeed in discharging. Permanere 
tamen et nunquam cessare a nobis debttum caritatis: hoc enim et quo- 
tidte solvere et semper debere expedit nobis. Orig. By this pregnant 
expression St. Paul suggests both the obligation of love and the 
impossibility of fulfilling it. This is more forcible than to suppose 
a change in the meaning of ὀφείλετε : ‘Owe no man anything, only 
ye ought to love one another.’ 

ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν κιτιλ. gives the reason why ‘love’ is so important : 
if a man truly loves another he has fulfilled towards him the whole 
law. νόμον is not merely the Jewish law, although it is from it that 
the illustrations that follow are taken, but law as a principle. Just 
as in the relations of man and God πίστις has been substituted for 
νόμος, So between man and man ἀγάπη takes the place of definite 
legal relations. The perfect πεπλήρωκεν implies that the fulfilment 
is already accomplished simply in the act of love. 

9. St. Paul gives instances of the 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 ob κλέψεις in this verse οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις from the 
O.T. with 8 P &c., Boh. &c., as against ABDEFGL &c., Vulg. codd. and 
most Fathers. ἐν τῷ before ἀγαπήσεις is omitted by BF G. For σεαυτόν of 
the older MSS. (8 ABD E), later MSS. read ἑαυτόν, both here and elsewhere. 
In late Greek ἑαυτόν became habitually used for all persons in the reflexive, 


and scribes substituted the form most usual to them. 
The order of the commandments is different from that in the Hebrew text. 


474 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS’ [XIII. 9, 10. 


both in Exodus xx. 13 and Deut. v. 17, namely, (6) Thou shalt do no murder, 
(7) Thou shalt not commit adultery, (8) Thou shalt not steal. The MSS. 
of the LXX vary; in Exodus B reads 7, 8, 6, AF 6, 7, 8; in Dent. B reads 
7, 6,8 (the order here), AF 6, 7,8. The order of Romans is that also of 
Luke xviii. 20; James ii. 11; Philo De Decalogo; Clem.-Alex. Strom. vi. 16. 


καὶ εἴ tus ἑτέρα shows that St. Paul in this selection has only 
taken instances and that he does not mean merely to give a sum- 
ming up of the Jewish law. 

ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται : a rhetorical term used of the summing up of 
a speech or argument, and hence of including a large number of 
separate details under one head. As used in Eph. i. 10 of God 
summing up all things in Christ it became a definite theological 
term, represented in Latin by recapzfulatio (Iren. III. xxii. 2). 

᾿Αγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν. Taken from Leviticus 
xix, 18 where it sums up a far longer list of commandments. It 
is quoted Matt. xxii. 39; Mark xii. 31; Luke x. 27; Gal. v. 14; 
James ii. 8 where it is called βασιλικὸς νόμος. 

10. ἡ ἀγάπη... οὐκ ἐργάζεται. Love fulfils all law, because no 
one who loves another will do him any ill by word or deed. These 
words sum up what has been said at greater length in 1 Cor. xiii, 
4-6. 

πλήρωμα, ‘complete fulfilment.’ The meaning of 7A. here is 
given by ver. 9 ‘ He that loveth his neighbour has fulfilled (mewAy- 
pwxev) law, therefore love is the fulfilment (πλήρωμα) of law. 


The History of the word ἀγάπη. 


There are three words in Greek all of which may be translated by the 
English ‘love,’ ἐράω, φιλέω, ἀγαπάω. Of these épdw with its cognate form 
ἔραμαι was originally associated with the sexual passion and was thence 
transferred to any strong passionate affection; φιλέω was used rather of 
warm domestic affection, and so of the love of master and servant, of parents 
and children, of husband and wife; in Homer, of the love of the gods for 
men. ἐρᾶν is combined with ἐπιθυμεῖν and contrasted with φιλεῖν as in 
Xen. Azer. xi. 11 ὥστε ob μόνον φιλοῖο ἂν ἀλλὰ καὶ épGo. One special use 
of ἔρως and épdw must be referred to, namely, the Platonic. The intensity 
and strength of human passion seemed to Plato to represent most adequately 
the love of the soul for higher things, and so the philosophic épws was used 
for the highest human desire, that for true knowledge, true virtue, true 
immortality. 

The distinction of φιλέω and ἀγαπάω much resembled that between amo 
and ailigo. The one expressed greater affection, the other greater esteem. 
So Dio Cassius xliv. 48 ἐφιλήσατε αὐτὸν ὡς πατέρα καὶ ἠγαπήσατε ws εὐερ- 
γέτην; and John xxi. 15-17 λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν δεύτερον, Σίμων ᾿Ιωάνου, 
ἀγαπᾷς με; λέγει αὐτῷ, Nai, Κύριε" σὺ οἷδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε x.7.A. (see Trench, 
Syn. § xii). It is significant that no distinction is absolute; but φιλέω 
occasionally, still more rarely ἀγαπάω, are both used incorrectly of the 
sexual passion. There is too close a connexion between the different forms 
of human affection to allow any rigid distinction to be made in the use of 
words. 

When these words were adopted into Hellenistic Greek, a gradual change 


XIII. 8-10.] LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW 475 


was made in their use. ἐράω and its cocnates are very rarely used, and 
almost invariably in a bad sense. In the N.T. they do not occur at all, the 
word ἐπιθυμέω being employed instead. Yet occasionally, even in biblical 
and ecclesiastical Greek, the higher sense of the Platonic ἔρως finds a place 
(Prov. iv. 6; Wisdom viii. 2; Justin, Dia/. 8, p. 225 B; Clem.-Alex. Coh. 
II, p. 90; see Lightfoot, Jenatius ad Rom. vii. 2). Between ἀγαπάω and 
φιλέω a decided preference was shown for the former. It occurs about 
268 times (Hatch and Redpath) in a very large proportion of cases as a 
translation of the Hebrew AN; φιλέω about twelve times (Trommius), ex- 


cluding its use as equivalent to osculor. 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. 1); it was felt that the greater 
amount of intellectual desire and the greater severity implied in ἀγαπάω fitted 
it better than φιλέω 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 (Jud. xvi. 4) 
and of Hosea’s love for his adulterous wife (Hos. iii. 1). 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. lxii. 5). ἀγαπάω in the LXX corresponds in all its characteristics 
to the English ‘ love.’ 

But not only did the LXX use modify the meaning of ἀγαπάω, it created 
a new word ἀγάπη. Some method was required of expressing the conception 
which was gradually growing up. “Epws had too sordid associations. Φιλία 
was tried (Wisdom vii. 14; vill. 18), but was felt to be inadequate. The 
language of the Song of Solomon created the demand for ἀγάπη. (2 Kings 
lor 2 times; Ecclesiastes 2; Canticles 11 ; Wisdom 3; Ecclus. 1; Jeremiah 1; 
Bs. Sol. 1.) 

The N.T. reproduces the usage of the LXX, but somewhat modified. 
While ἀγαπάω is used 138 times, φιλέω is used in this sense 22 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 
ἀγάπη. It is never used in the Classical writers, only occasionally in the 
LXX; in early Christian writers its use becomes habitual and general. 
Nothing could show more clearly that a new principle has been created than 
this creation of a new word. 

In the Vulgate ἀγάπη is sometimes rendered by di/ectzo, sometimes by 
caritas; to this inconsistency are due the variations in the English 
Authorized Version. The word carttas passed into English in the Middle 
Ages (for details see Eng. Dict. sb voc.) in the form ‘charity,’ and was for 
some time used to correspond to most of the meanings of ἀγάπη; but as the 
English Version was inconsistent and no corresponding verb existed the 
usage did not remain wide. In spite of its retention in 1 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 
ἀγαπάω 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 φιλέω, ἀγαπάω and 
épaw, but between ἀγάπη and ἐπιθυμία. The English language makes this 
distinction between the affection or passion in any form, and a purely animal 
desire, quite plain; although it may be obliterated at times by a natural 
euphemism. But setting aside this distinction which must be occasionally 
present to the mind, but which need not be often spoken of, Christianity does 
not shrink from declaring that in all forms of human passion and affection 


376 EPISTLE TO THE ΕΟΜΑΝΒ [XIII. 8-10. 


which are not purely animal there is present that same love which in its 
highest and most pure development forms the essence and sum of the 
Christian religion. This affection, however perverted it may be, Christianity 
does not condemn, but so far as may be elevates and purifies. 


The Christian Teaching on Love. 


The somewhat lengthy history just given of the word ἀγάπη is 
a suitable introduction to the history of an idea which forms a fun- 
damental principle of all Christian thought. 

The duty of love in some form or other had been a common- 
place of moral teaching in times long before Christianity and in 
many different places. Isolated maxims have been collected in its 
favour from very varied authors, and the highest pagan teaching 
approaches the highest Christian doctrine. But in all previous 
philosophy such teaching was partial or isolated, it was never 
elevated to a great principle. Maxims almost or quite on a level 
with those of Christianity we find both in the O.T. and in Jewish 
writers. The command ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- 
self’ is of course taken directly from the O. T., and is there used 
to sum up in one general principle a long series of rules. Sayings 
of great beauty are quoted from the Jewish fathers. ‘ Hillel said, 
Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, 
loving mankind and bringing them nigh to the Torah’ (Pirge 
Aboth i, 13); or again, ‘What is hateful to thyself do not to thy 
fellow; this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary; go 
study,’ also ascribed to Hillel. It is however true in all cases that 
these maxims, and all such as these, are only isolated instances, that 
they do not represent the spirit of earlier institutions, and that they 
form a very insignificant proportion compared with much of 
a different character. 

In Christianity this principle, which had been only partially 
understood and imperfectly taught, which was known only in 
isolated examples, yet testified to a universal instinct, was finally 
put forward as the paramount principle of moral conduct, uniting 
our moral instincts with our highest religious principles. A new 
virtue, or rather one hitherto imperfectly understood, had become 
recognized as the root of all virtues, and a new name was demanded 
for what was practically a new idea. 

In the first place, the new Christian doctrine of love is universal. 
‘Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and 
hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and 
pray for them that persecute you;’ and a very definite reason is 
given, the universal Fatherhood of God. This universalism which 
underlies all the teaching of Jesus is put in a definite practical 
form by St. Paul, ‘In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile, 


XIII. 11. THE DAY IS AT HAND 377 


bond nor free, male nor female.’ As it is summed up in a well- 
known work. ‘ The first law, then, of the kingdom of God is that 
all men, however divided from each other by blood or language, 
have certain mutual duties arising out of their common relation to 
God’ (Ecce Homo, chap. xii). 

But secondly, the Christian doctrine of love was the substitution 
of a universal principle for law. All moral precepts are summed 
up in the one command of love. What is my duty towards others ? 
Just that feeling which you have towards the persons to whom you 
are most attached in the world, just that you must feel for every one. 
If you have that feeling there will be no need for any further 
command. Love is a principle and a passion, and as such is the 
fulfilment of the Law. Christ ‘declared an ardent, passionate, or 
devoted state of mind to be the root of virtue’; and this purifying 
passion, capable of existing in all men alike, will be able to re- 
deem our nature and make laws superfluous. 

And thirdly, how is this new Christian spirit possible? It is 
possible because it is intimately bound up with that love which is 
a characteristic of the Godhead. ‘God is love.’ ‘A new com- 
mandment I give to you, that ye should love one another as I have 
loved you.’ It is possible also because men have learnt to love 
mankind in Christ. ‘Where the precept of love has been given, 
an image must be set before the eyes of those who are called on to 
obey it, an ideal or type of man which may be noble and amiable 
enough to raise the whole race, and make the meanest member of 
it sacred with reflected glory.’ This is what Christ did for us. 

These three points will help to elucidate what St. Paul means by 
ἀγάπη. It is in fact the correlative in the moral world to what faith 
is in the religious life. Like faith it is universal; like faith it is 
a principle not a code; like faith it is centred in the Godhead. 
Hence St. Paul, as St. John (1 John iii. 23), sums up Christianity 
in Faith and Love, which are finally, united in that Love of God, 
which is the end and root of both. 


THE DAY IS AT HAND. 


XIII. 11-14. The night of this corrupt age ts flying. 
The Parousia ἐς nearing. Cast off your evil ways. Gird 
yourselves with the armour of light. Take Christ into your 
hearts. Shun sin and self-indulgence. 

11. The Apostle adds a motive for the Christian standard of 


life, the nearness of our final salvation. 
καὶ τοῦτο, ‘and that too’: cp. 1 Cor. vi. 6,8; Eph, ii. 8, &c.: it 


478 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS  [XIII. 11-18. 


resumes the series of exhortations implied in the previous sections ; 
there is no need to supply any special words with it. 

τὸν καιρόν : used of a definite, measured, or determined time, and 
so almost technically of the period before the second coming of 
Christ : cf. 1 Cor. vii. 29 ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ; Mark i. 15; and 
SO ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστώς (Heb. ix. 9). 

ὅτι ὥρα ἤδη κιτλ. ἤδη with ἐγερθῆναι. The time of trial on earth 
is looked upon as a night of gloom, to be followed by a bright 
morning. We must arouse ourselves from slumber and prepare 
ourselves for the light. 

νῦν yap ἐγγύτερον κιτιλ. ‘ 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.’ 
ὅτε ἐπιστεύσαμεν refers to the actual moment of the acceptance of 
Christianity. The language is that befitting those who expect the 
actual coming of Christ almost immediately, but it will fit the 
circumstances of any Christian for whom death brings the day. 


In ver. 11 the original ὑμᾶς (δὲ A BCP, Clem.-Alex.) has been corrected 
for the sake of uniformity into ἡμᾶς (N° Ὁ EF GL, &c., Boh. Sah.). Inver. 13 
ἐν ἔρισι καὶ ζήλοις is a variant of B, Sah., Clem.-Alex. Amb. In ver. 14 B, 
and Clem.-Alex. read τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, which may very likely be the 
correct reading. 


12. προέκοψεν, ‘has advanced towards dawn.’ Cf. Luke ii. 52; 
Gal. i. 14; Jos. Bell. Jud. IV. iv.6; Just. Dral. p. 277d. 

The contrast of ὕπνος, νύξ, and σκότος with ἡμέρα and φῶς finds 
many illustrations in Christian and in all religious literature. 

ἀποθώμεθα. The works of darkness, i.e. works such as befit the 
kingdom of darkness, are represented as being cast off like the 
uncomely garments of the night, for the bright armour which 
befits the Christian soldier as a member of the kingdom of light. 
This metaphor of the Christian armour is a favourite one with 
St. Paul (1 Thess. v. 8; 2 Cor. vi. 7; Rom. vi. 13; and especially 
Eph. vi. 13 f.); it may have been originally suggested by the 
Jewish conception of the last great fight against the armies of 
Antichrist (Dan. xi; Orac. Sid. iii. 663 f.; 4 Ezra xiii. 33; Enoch 
xc. 16), but in St. Paul the conception has become completely 
spiritualized, 

13. εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν. The metaphor περιπατεῖν of 
conduct is very common in St. Paul’s Epistles, where it occurs 
thirty-three times (never in the Past. Epp.); elsewhere in the 
N.T. sixteen times. 

κώμοις, ‘rioting,’ ‘revelry’ (Gal. v. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 3). μέθη the 
drunkenness which would be the natural result and accompaniment 
of such revelry. 

κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις, ‘unlawful intercourse and wanton acts.’ 
"Opa δὲ τὴν τάξιν" κωμάζων μὲν yap τις peOver, μεθύων δὲ κοιτάζεται, 


XIII. 13, 14.] THE DAY IS AT HAND 379 


κοιταζόμενος δὲ ἀσελγαίνει, τοῦ οἴνου τοῦτον τῇ πλησμονῇ πυρπολοῦντος Kai 
διερεθίζοντος. Euthym.-Zig. 

14. ἐνδύσασθε τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Christ is put on first in 
baptism (vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27), but we must continually renew that 
life with which we have been clothed (Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 12). 

τῆς σαρκός with πρόνοιαν : the word is thrown forward in order to 
emphasize the contrast between the old nature, the flesh of sin, and 
the new, the life in Christ. 

On this passage most commentators compare St. Aug. Confess. 
viii. 12, 23 Arripud, aperut et legt in silentio capttulum, quo pri- 
mum coniectt sunt oculi met: Non in conversationibus et ebrie- 
tatibus, non in cubilibus et impudicitiis, non in contentione et 
aemulatione: sed induite Dominum Iesum Christum, et carnis 
providentiam ne feceritis in concupiscentiis. Mec ultra volut 
legere, nec opus erat. Statim quippe cum fine huiusce sententiae quast 
luce securitatis infusa cordi meo, omnes dubttationis tenebrae diffu- 
gerunt. 


The early Christian belief in the nearness of the 


παρουσία. 


There can hardly be any doubt that in the Apostolic age the 
prevailing belief was that the Second Coming of the Lord was an 
event to be expected in any case shortly and probably in the life- 
time of many of those then living; it is also probable that this 
belief was shared by the Apostles themselves. For example, so 
strongly did such views prevail among the Thessalonian converts 
that the death of some members of the community had filled them 
with perplexity, and even when correcting these opinions St. Paul 
speaks of ‘ we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of our 
Lord’; and in the second Epistle, although he corrects the 
erroneous impression which still prevailed that the coming was 
immediate and shows that other events must precede it, he still 
contemplates it as at hand. Similar passages may be quoted from 
all or most of the Epistles, although there are others that suggest 
that it is by his own death, not by the coming of Christ, that 
St. Paul expects to attain the full life in Christ to which he looked 
forward (1 Cor. vii. 29-31; Rom. xiii. r1, 12; Phil. iv. 5; and 
on the other side 2 Cor. v. 1-10; Phii. i. 23; ili. 11, 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 


880 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIII. 11-14. 


which was often hardly intended to be taken literally even by 
Jewish writers; moreover it is certainly mingled with teaching 
which was intended to refer to what was a real manifestation of the 
Divine power, and very definitely a ‘coming of the Lord’ in the 
O.T. sense of the term, the destruction of Jerusalem. All this 
language again is reported to us by those who took it in a literal 
sense. The expressions of our Lord quoted as prophetic of His 
speedy return are all to a certain extent ambiguous; for example, 
‘This generation shall not pass away until all these things be ful- 
filled,’ or again ‘ There be some of them here who shall not taste of 
death until they see the Son of 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. Acts i. 7 
‘It is not for you to know times and seasons, which the Father 
hath set within His own authority.’ John xxi. 23 ‘ This saying 
therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should 
not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, 
If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ Moreover 
he affirmed that He Himself was ignorant of the date Mark xiii. 32 ; 
Matt. xxiv. 36 ‘ But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not 
even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.’ 

In the face of these passages it is reasonable to believe that 
this ignorance of the Early Church was permitted and that with 
a purpose. If so, we may be allowed to speculate as to the service 
it was intended to fulfil. 

In the first place, this belief in the nearness of the second coming 
quickened the religious and moral earnestness of the early Christian. 
Believing as intently as he did ‘that the fashion of this world passeth 
away,’ he ‘set his affection on things above’; he lived in the world 
and yet not of the world. The constant looking forward to the 
coming of the Lord produced a state of intense spiritual zeal which 
braced the Church for its earliest and hardest task. 

And secondly, it has been pointed out very ably how much the 
elasticity and mobility of Christianity were preserved by the fact that 
the Apostles never realized that they were building up a Church 
which was to last through the ages. It became the fashion of 
a later age to ascribe to the Apostles a series of ordinances and 
constitutions. Any such theory is quite inconsistent with the real 
spirit of their time. They never wrote or legislated except so far 
as existing needs demanded. They founded such institutions as 
were clearly required by some immediate want, or were part of our 
Lord’s teaching. But they never administered or planned with 
a view to the remote future. Their writings were occasional, 
suggested by some pressing difficulty; but they thus incidentally 
laid down great broad principles which became the guiding principles 


XIII. 11-14.] THE DAY IS AT HAND 381 


of the Church. The Church therefore is governed by case law, not 
by code law: by broad principles, not by minute regulations. It 
may seem a paradox, but yet it is profoundly true, that the Church 
is adapted to the needs of every age, just because the original 
preachers of Christianity never attempted to adapt it to the needs 
of any period but their own. 


The relation of Chaps. XII-XIV to the Gospels. 


There is a very marked resemblance between the moral teaching 
of St. Paul contained in the concluding section of the Epistle to the 
Romans, and our Lord’s own words; a resemblance which, in some 
cases, extends even to language. 


Rom. xii, 14. Matt v. 44. 

εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας ὑμᾶς" ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, καὶ προσ- 

εὐλογεῖτε, καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθε. εὐχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς. 

Rom. xiii, 7. Matt. xxii. 21. 

ἀπόδοτε πᾶσι Tas ὀφειλάς «.7.A. ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι, 

καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ. 

Rom. xiii. 9. Matt. xxii. 39, 40. 

καὶ el τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν τούτῳ δευτέρα δὲ ὁμοία αὕτη, ’Ayannoes 


τῷ λόγῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, ἐν τῷ τὸν πλησίον σου ws σεαυτόν. ἐν ταύται9 
᾿Αγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον gov ὡς ταῖς δυσὶν ἐντολαῖς ὅλος ὁ νόμος κρέ- 
ἑαυτόν. μαται καὶ οἱ προφῆται. 


To these verbal resemblances must be added remarkable identity 
of teaching in these successive chapters. Everything that is said 
about revenge, or about injuring others, is exactly identical with the 
spirit of the Sermon on the Mount; our duty towards rulers exactly 
reproduces the lesson given in St. Matthew’s Gospel; the words 
concerning the relation of ‘love’ to ‘law’ might be an extract from 
the Gospel: the two main lines of argument in ch. xiv, the absolute 
indifference of all external practices, and the supreme importance 
of not giving a cause of offence to any one are both directly derived 
from the teaching of Jesus (Matt. xviii. 6, 7, xv. 11-20). This 
resemblance is brought out very well by a recent writer (Knowling, 
Witness of the Epistles, p. 312): ‘Indeed it is not too much to add 
that the Apostle’s description of the kingdom of God (Rom. xiv. 17) 
reads like a brief summary of its description in the same Sermon 
on the Mount; the righteousness, peace, and joy, which formed the 
contents of the kingdom in the Apostle’s conception are found side 
by side in the Saviour’s Beatitudes; nor can we fail to notice how 
both St. Matthew and St. Luke contrast the anxious care for meat 
and drink with seeking in the first place for the kingdom of God 
and His righteousness. Nor must it be forgotten that Paul’s 
fundamental idea of righteousness may be said to be rooted in the 
teaching of Jesus.’ 


482 EPISTLE TO THE ΒΟΜΑΝΒ [XII-XIV. 


It is well known that there are definite references by St. Paul to 
the words of our Lord: so 1 Thes. iv. 15 = Matt. xxiv. 31; 1 Cor. 
vii. ro = Mark x. 9; 1 Cor. ix. 14 = Luke x. 7; as also in the case 
of the institution of the Last Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 24. Reminiscences 
also of the Sermon on the Mount may be found in other Epistles, 
δ. δ. James iv. 9 = Matt. v. 4; James v. 12 = Matt. v. 33; 1 Pet. 
iii. 9 = Matt. v. 39; 1 Pet. iv. 14 = Matt. v. 11, 12, and elsewhere. 
The resemblances are not in any case sufficient either to prove 
the use of any document which we possess in its present form, or 
to prove the use of a different document (see below); but they do 
show that the teaching of the Apostles was based on some common 
source, which was identical both in substance and spirit with those 
words of our Lord contained in the Gospels. 

They suggest further that even in cases where we have no direct 
evidence that Apostolic teaching is based on the Gospel narrative 
it does not follow that our Lord Himself did not originate it. 
For Christianity is older than any of its records. The books 
of the N.T. reflect, they did not originate, the teaching of early 
Christianity. Moreover, our Lord originated principles. It was 
these principles which inspired His followers; some of the words 
which are the product of and which taught those principles are 
preserved, some are not; but the result of them is contained in the 
words of the Apostles, which worked out in practical life the 
principles they had learnt directly or indirectly from the Christ. 


A much more exact and definite conclusion is supported with very great 
industry by Alfred Resch in a series of investigations, the first of which is 
Agrapha, Aussercanonische Evangelien-fragmente in Texte und Unter- 
suchungen, v. 4. He argues (pp. 28, 29) that the acquaintance shown by 
St. Paul with the words and teaching of Jesus implies the use of an Urcanon- 
ische Quellenschrift, which was also used by St. Mark, as well as the other 
N.T. writers. It would be of course beside our purpose to examine this theory, 
but so far as it concerns the passages we are considering it may be noticed: 
(1) That so far as they go there would be no reason why all St. Paul’s teach- 
ing should not have been derived from our present Gospels. He does not 
profess to be quoting, and the verbal reminiscences might quite well represent 
the documents we possess. (2) That it is equally impossible to argue against 
the use of different Gospels. The only legitimate conclusion is that there 
must have been a common teaching of Jesus behind the Apostle’s words 
which was identical in spirit and substantially in words with that contained 
in our Synoptic Gospels. Some stress is laid by Resch (pp. 245, 302 ff.) 
on passages which are identical in Romans and 1 Peter. So Rom. xii. 17= 
1 Pet. iii. g; Rom. xiii. 1, 3 = 1 Pet. ii. 13,14. The resemblance is un- 
doubted, but a far more probable explanation is that 1 Peter is directly 
indebted to the Romans (see Introduction § 8). There is no reason to cite 
these as ‘ Words of the Lord’; yet it is very probable that much more of the 
common teaching and even phraseology of the early Church than we are 
accustomed to imagine goes back to the teaching of Jesus. 


XIV. 1. Χν. 7] ΟΝ SCRUPULOUSNESS 383 


ON FORBEARANCE TOWARDS THOSE WHO ARE 
SCRUPULOUS. 


XIV.1—XV.18. Receive a scrupulous Christian cordially. 
Do not be continually condemning him. Some of you have 
grasped the full meaning of Christian faith, others whose 
conscience 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 ts more robust despise such scruples ; 
nor should they be censorious (vv. 1-5). 

Every one should make up his own mind. These things 
are indifferent in themselves. Only whatever a man does he 
must look to Christ. In life and death we are all His, whose 
death and resurrection have made him Lord of all. To 
Him as to no one else shall we be called upon to give account 
(vv. 6-12). 

We must avoid censoriousness. But equally must we 
avoid placing obstacles before a fellow-Christian. I believe 
firmly that nothing ts harmful in itself, but it becomes so to 
the person who considers it harmful. The obligation of love 
and charity is paramount. Meats are secondary things. 
Let us have an eye to peace and mutual help. It is not 
worth while for the sake of a little meat to undo God's 
work in a brother's soul. Far better abstain from flesh and 
wine altogether (vv. 13-21). 

Keep the robuster faith with which you are blest to 
yourself and God. To hesitate and then eat ts to incur 
guilt ; for it is not prompted by strong faith (vv. 22, 23). 

This rule of forbearance applies to all classes of the com- 
munity. The strong should bear the scruples of the weak. 
We should not seek our own good, but that of others ; following 
the example of Christ as expounded to us in the Scriptures ; 
those Scriptures which were written for our encouragement 
and consolation. May God, from whom this encouragement 
comes, grant you all—weak and strong, Few and Gentile—to 
be of one mind, uniting in the praise of God (xv. 1-7). 


384 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 1. 


For Christ has received you all alike. To both Few and 
Gentiie He has a special mission. To the Fews to exhibit 
God’s veracity, to the Gentiles to reveal His mercy; that 
Gentile might unite with Few, as Psalmist and Prophet 
foretold, in hymns of praise to the glory of God. May God 
the giver of hope send it richly upon you (vv. 8-13). 


XIV. 1—XV. 18. The Apostle now passes on'to a further point ; 
the proper attitude to adopt towards matters in themselves indifferent, 
but concerning which some members of the community might have 
scruples. The subject is one which naturally connects itself with 
what we have seen to be the leading thought which underlies these 
concluding chapters, and in fact the whole Epistle, namely, the 
peace and unity of the Church, and may have been immediately 
suggested by the words just preceding: St. Paul has been con- 
demning excessive indulgence; he now passes to the opposite 
extreme, excessive scrupulousness, which he deals with in a very 
different way. As Augustine points out, he condemns and instructs 
more openly the ‘strong’ who can bear it, while indirectly showing 
the error of the ‘weak.’ The arguments throughout are, as we shall 
see, perfectly general, and the principles applied those characteristic 
of the moral teaching of the Epistle—the freedom of Christian faith, 
the comprehensiveness of Christian charity and that duty of peace 
and unity on which St. Paul never wearies of insisting. 

Tertullian (Adv. Mare. v. 15) refers to ver. 10, and Origen (Comm. in 
Rom. x. 43, Lomm. vii. p. 453) to ver. 22. Of Marcion’s use of the rest of the 
chapter we know nothing. On chaps. xv, xvi, see Introduction, § 9. 

1. τὸν δὲ ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει: cf. Rom. iv. 19; 1 Cor. viii. 7, 9, 
10, 11; ix. 22. ‘ Weakness in faith,’ means an inadequate grasp 
of the great principle of salvation by faith in Christ; the conse- 
quence of which will be an anxious desire to make this salvation 
more certain by the scrupulous fulfilment of formal rules. 

προσλαμβάνεσθε, ‘receive into full Christian intercourse and 
fellowship. The word is used (1) of God receiving or helping 
man: Ps. xxvi (xxvii) 10 ὁ πατήρ μου καὶ ἡ μήτηρ pov ἐγκατέλιπόν με, 
ὁ δὲ κύριος προσελάβετό με: so in ver. 3 below and in Clem. 
Rom. xlix. 6 ἐν ἀγάπῃ προσελάβετο ἡμᾶς ὁ δεσπότης. But (2) it is 
also used of men receiving others into fellowship or companion- 
ship: 2 Macc. viii. 1 τοὺς μεμενηκότας ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιουδαισμῷ προσλαβόμενοι 
συνήγαγον εἰς ἑξακισχιλίους. These two uses are combined in xv. 7 
‘ All whom Christ has willed to receive into the Christian community, 
whether they be Jews or Greeks, circumcised or uncircumcised, 
every Christian ought to be willing to receive as brothers.’ 

μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν, ‘but not to pass judgements 
on their thoughts.’ Receive them as members of the Christian 


XIV. 1-4.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 385 


community, but do not let them find that they have been merely 
received into a society in which their somewhat too scrupulous 
thoughts are perpetually being condemned. διακρίσεις, from διακρίνω 
to ‘judge,’ ‘ decide,’ ‘ distinguish,’ means the expression of judge- 
ments or opinions, as Heb. v. 14 ‘judgement of good or evil,’ 
1 Cor. xii. τὸ ‘judgement or discernment of spirits,’ διαλογισμῶν 
means ‘ thoughts,’ often, but not necessarily, with the idea of doubt, 
hesitation (Luke xxiv. 38), disputes (Phil. ii. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 8), or 
generally of perverse self-willed speculations. The above interpre- 
tation of διακρίσεις is that of most commentators (Mey.-W. Oltr. Va.) 
and is most in accordance with usage. An equally good sense 
could be gained by translating (with Lips.) ‘not so as to raise 
doubts in his mind,’ or (with Gif.) ‘not unto discussions of doubts’ ; 
but neither interpretation can be so well supported. 

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. 

ὃς μὲν... ὁ δὲ ἀσθενῶν. With the variation in construction cf. 1 Cor. 

xii. 8-10; Mark iv. 4; Luke viii. 5. The second 6 is not for ὅς, but is to be 

taken with ἀσθενῶν. 

πιστεύει, ‘ hath faith to eat all things’; his faith, i.e. his grasp and 
hold of the Christian spirit, is so strong that he recognizes how 
indifferent all such matters in themselves really are. 

λάχανα ἐσθίει, ‘abstains from all flesh meat and eats only 
vegetables.’ Most commentators have assumed that St. Paul is 
describing the practice of some definite party in the Roman 
community and have discussed, with great divergence of opinion, 
the motive of such a practice. But St. Paul is writing quite 
generally, and is merely selecting a typical instance to balance the 
first. He takes, on the one side, the man of thoroughly strong 
faith, who has grasped the full meaning of his Christianity ; and on 
the other side, one who is, as would generally be admitted, over- 
scrupulous, and therefore is suitable as the type of any variety of 
scrupulousness in food which might occur. To both these classes 
he gives the command of forbearance, and what he says to them 
will apply to other less extreme cases (see the Discussion on p. 399). 

8. ὁ ἐσθίων... ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐσθίων. St. Paul uses these expressions 
to express briefly the two classes with which he is dealing (see ver. 6). 
Pride and contempt would be the natural failing of the one; a spirit 
of censoriousness of the other. 

ὃ Θεὸς γὰρ αὐτὸν προσελάβετο. See ver. 1. God through Christ 
has admitted men into His Church without imposing on them 
minute and formal observances; they are not therefore to be 
criticized or condemned for neglecting practices which God has 
not required. 

4. σὺ tis et; St. Paul is still rebuking the ‘weak.’ The man 

ce 


386 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 4, δ. 


whom he is condemning is not a household slave, but the servant of 
God; to God therefore he is responsible. 

τῷ ἰδίῳ κυρίῳ. Dat. of reference: cf. vv. 5-8. ‘It is to his 
own master that he is responsible.’ He it is to whom he must show 
whether he has used or misused his freedom, whether he has had 
the strength to fulfil his work or whether he has failed. πίπτει 
(xi. 11, 22) of moral failure; στήκει (1 Cor. xvi. 13; Phil. i, 27) of 
moral stability. In 1 Cor. x. 12 the two are contrasted, ὥστε ὁ 
δοκῶν ἑστάναι βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ. 

σταθήσεται δέ: cf. Matt. xii. 25. In spite of your censoriousness 
he will be held straight, for the same Lord who called him on 
conditions of freedom to His kingdom is mighty to hold him 
upright. The Lord will give grace and strength to those whom He 
has called. 


For δυνατεῖ (δ ABCD FG), which is an unusual word, later MSS. 
substituted δυνατός (P, Bas. Chrys.), or δυνατὸς... ἐστιν (TR with L 
and later MSS.). For ὁ Κύριος (δὲ ABCP, Sah. Boh., &c.) ὁ Θεός was in- 
troduced from ver. 3 (DEFGL, &c., Vulg., Orig,-lat. Bas. Chrys., &c.), 
perhaps because of the confusion with τῷ Κυρίῳ above. 


5. The Apostle turns to another instance of similar scrupulous- 
ness,—the superstitious observance of days. In Galatia he has 
already had to rebuke this strongly; later he condemns the Colos- 
sians for the same reason. Gal. iv. 10, 11 ‘ Ye observe days, and 
months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any 
means I have bestowed labour upon you in vain.’ Col. ii. τό, 17 
‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect 
of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are 
a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s.’ St. Paul 
does not in the Romans condemn any one for adherence to this 
practice, but simply considers the principles which underlie the 
question, as illustrating (hence ydp) the general discussion of the 
chapter. The fundamental principle is that such things are in 
themselves indifferent, but that each person must be tully assured 
in his own conscience that he is doing right. 

Various commentators have discussed the relation of these direc- 
tions to Ecclesiastical ordinances, and have attempted to make 
a distinction between the Jewish rites which are condemned and 
Christian rites which are enjoined. (So Jerome, Contra Jovinian. 
ii. 16, quoted by Liddon ad loc.: non inter tetunia et saturiiaiem 
aequalia mente dispensat; sed contra eos loguilur, qui in Chrisium 
credenies, adhuc tudaizabant.) No such distinction is possible. The 
Apostle is dealing with principles, not with special rites, and he 
lays down the principle that these things in themselves are indif- 
ferent; while the whole tenor of his argument is against scrupu- 
lousness in any form. So these same principles would apply 
equally to the scrupulous observance of Ecclesiastical rules, whether 


XIV. 5, 6.| ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 387 


as in some places of Sunday, or as in others of Saints’ days Οἱ 
Fast days. Such observances if undertaken in a scrupulous 
spirit are opposed to the very essence of Christian freedom. 
When once this principle has been grasped a loyal free adhesion 
to the rules of the Church becomes possible. The Jew and 
the scrupulous Christian kept their rules of days and seasons, 
because they believed that their salvation depended on an exact 
adherence to formal ordinances. The Christian who has grasped 
the freedom of the Gospel recognizes the indifference in themselves 
of all such ordinances; but he voluntarily submits to the rules of 
his Church out of respect for its authority, and he recognizes the 
value of an external discipline. The Apostolical Constitutions, 
which representing an early system of Christian discipline, seem to 
recognize these principles, for they strongly condemn abstinence 
from food if influenced by any feeling of abhorrence from it, 
although not if undertaken for the purpose of discipline. 


Tisch. (ed. 8) reads here ὃς μὲν γάρ with δὲ ACP, Vulg. Boh. (which he 
quotes incorrectly on the other side), Bas. Ambrstr. Jo-Damasc. The γάρ is 
omitted by Ne BD EF G, Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. Thdrt. TR. RV. and inserted 
between brackets by WH. Lachmann. The insertion is probably right; 
the balance of external evidence being in its favour, for B here is clearly 
Weséern in character. 


κρίνει, ‘estimates,’ ‘approves of’: Plat. PAdl. p. 57 E is quoted. 
παρά, ‘passing by’ and so ‘in preference to.’ 

πληροφορείσθω. The difference between the Christian and the 
Jew or the heathen, between the man whose rule is one of faith and 
the man subject to law, is, that while for the latter there are definite 
and often minute regulations he must follow, for the former the 
only laws are great and broad principles. He has the guidance of 
the Spirit; he must do what his νοῦς, his highest intellectual faculty, 
tells him to be right. On the word πληροφορείσθω see on iv. 21 
and cf. Clem. Rom. xlii πληροφορηθέντες διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. 

6. The reason for indifference in these matters is that both 
alike, both the man who has grasped the Christian principle and 
the man who is scrupulous, are aiming at the one essential thing, 
to render service to God, to live as men who are to give account 
to Him. 

ὁ φρονῶν : ‘esteem,’ ‘ estimate,’ ‘observe.’ Κυρίῳ, emphatic, is Dat. 
of reference as above, ver. 4. 

ὁ ἐσθίων... ὃ ph ἐσθίων: see ver. 3. Both alike make their 
meal an occasion of solemn thanksgiving to God, and it is that 
which consecrates the feast. Is there any reference in εὐχαριστεῖ to 
the Christian εὐχαριστία ὃ 


After Κυρίῳ φρονεῖ the TR. with later authorities (LP &c., Syrr., Bas. 
Chrys. Thdrt.) add καὶ ὁ μὴ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν Κυρίῳ ob φρονεῖ, a gloss 
which seemed necessary for completing the sentence on the analogy of the 


388 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 6-9. 


last half of the verse. The addition of this clause caused the omission of 
wai before ὁ ἐσθίων (TR. with some minuscules). That the words καὶ ὁ μὴ 
φρονῶν were not parts of the original text omitted by homoeoteleuton is 
shown by the fact that many authorities which insert them still preserve the 
superfluous καί (Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt. and many minuscules), Various 
instances of homoeoteleuton occur, as might be expected, in these verses, but 
they are in all cases confined to a single or very slight authority. L omits καὶ 
ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων... εὐχ. τῷ θεῷ : 66 omits ἡμέραν to ἡμέραν ; minusc. 3 omit 
ἐσθίει to ἐσθίει. 


7-12. St. Paul proceeds to develop more fully, and as a general 
tule of life, the thought suggested in ver. 6. To God we are 
responsible whether we live or die; before His judgement-seat we 
shall appear; therefore we must live as men who are to give 
account of our lives to Him and not to one another. 

7. οὐδεὶς γὰρ... ἀποθνήσκει. In life and in death we are not 
isolated, or solitary, or responsible only to ourselves. It is not by 
our Own act we were created, nor is our death a matter that con- 
cerns us alone. 

8. τῷ Κυρίῳ : “ but it is to Christ, as men living in Christ’s sight 
and answerable to Him, that we must live; in Christ’s sight we 
shall die. Death does not free us from our obligations, whether we 
live or die we are the Lord’s.’ Wetstein compares Pirgé A doth, iv. 
32 ‘Let not thine imagination assure thee that the grave is an 
asylum; for perforce thou wast framed, and perforce thou wast 
born, and perforce thou livest, and perforce thou diest, and perforce 
thou art about to give account and reckoning before the King of 
the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed is He.’ 


It may be noticed that in these verses St. Paul describes the Christian life 
from a point of view other than that which he had adopted in chap. viii. 
There it was the higher aspects of that life as lived in union with Christ, 
here it is the life lived as in His sight and responsible to Him. 


9. The reason for this relation of all men to Christ as servants 
to their master is that by His death and resurrection Christ has 
established His Divine Lordship over all alike, both dead and 
living. Responsibility to Him therefore no one can ever escape. 

εἰς τοῦτο is explained by ἵνα κυριεύσῃ. 

ἀπέθανε καὶ ἔζησεν must refer to Christ’s death and resurrection. 
ἔζησεν cannot refer to the life of Christ on earth, (1) because of the 
order of words which St. Paul has purposely and deliberately 
varied from the order ζῶμεν καὶ ἀποθνήσκωμεν of the previous verses ; 
(2) because the Lordship of Christ is in the theology of St. Paul 
always connected with His resurrection, not His life, which was 
a period of humiliation (Rom. viii. 34; 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11); (3) 
because of the tense; the aorist ἔζησεν could be used of a single 
definite act which was the beginning of a new life, it could not be 
used of the continuous life on earth. 

νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων. The inversion of the usual order is owing to 


XIV. 9-12.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 389 


the order of words in the previous part of the sentence, ἀπέθ. καὶ 
fino. For the κυριότης of Christ (iva κυριεύσῃ) see Phil. ii. 9, 11. 


For Χριστός the TR. with later MSS., Syrr., Iren.-lat. reads καὶ Χριστός. 
ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἔζησεν, the older and most difficult reading (§ ABC, Boh., Arm. 
Aeth, Orig.-lat. Chrys. 1/2) has been explained in various ways; by ἀπέθ. καὶ 
ἀνέστη F G, Vulg. Orig. and other Fathers ; by ἀπέθ. καὶ ἀνέστ. καὶ ἀνέζησεν 
TR. with minusc. (perhaps conflate); by ἀπέθ. καὶ dvéor. καὶ ἔζησεν, LP. 
&c., Harkl. and some Fathers: by ἔζησ. καὶ ἀπέθ. καὶ ἀνέστ. DE. Iren. 


10. St. Paul applies the argument pointedly to the questions he 
is discussing. We are responsible to Christ; we shall appear 
before Him: there is no place for uncharitable judgements or 
censorious exclusiveness between man and man. 

σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις refers to ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων, ἢ καὶ σύ to ὁ ἐσθίων. 

παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. Cf. Acts xxvii. 24 Καίσαρί 
σε δεῖ παραστῆναι. For βῆμα, in the sense of ἃ 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. ro the expression is τοὺς yap πάντας ἡμᾶς φανερωθῆναι δεῖ 
ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. It is quite impossible to follow 
Liddon in taking Θεοῦ of Christ in his Divine nature; that would 
be contrary to all Pauline usage: but it is important to notice how 
easily St. Paul passes from Χριστός to Θεός. The Father and the 
Son were in his mind so united in function that They may often 
be interchanged. God, or Christ, or God through Christ, will 
judge the world. Our life is in God, or in Christ, or with Christ 
in God. The union of man with God depends upon the intimate 
union of the Father and the Son. 


Θεοῦ must be accepted as against Χριστοῦ on decisive authority. The 
latter reading arose from a desire to assimilate the expression to 2 Cor. v. 10. 


11. St. Paul supports his statement of the universal character of 
God’s judgement by quoting Is. xlv. 23 (freely acc. to the LXX). 
In the O. T. the words describe the expectation of the universal 
character of Messianic rule, and the Apostle sees their complete 
fulfilment at the final judgement. 

ἐξομολογήσεται τῷ Θεῷ, ‘shall give praise to God,’ according to 
the usual LXX meaning ; cf. xv. 9, which is quoted from Ps. xvii 
(xviii). 50. 

ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγω Κύριος is substituted for κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω, cf. Num. xiv. 28 

&c.; for πᾶσα γλῶσσα «.7.A. the LXX reads ὀμεῖται π. y. τὸν Θεόν. 


12. The conclusion is: it is to God and not to man that each of 
us has to give account. If Θεῷ be read (see below), it may again 
be noted how easily St. Paul passes from Κύριος to Θεός (see on 
ver. 10 and cf. xiv. 3 with xv. 7). 


There are several minor variations of text. οὖν is omitted by BDFGP 
and perhaps the Latin authorities, which read t#ague. For δώσει of the TR. 


390 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 12-14. 


WH. read ἀποδώσει with BD FG Chrys., the Latin authorities reading reddit 
(but Cyprian dadit). τῷ Θεῷ at the end of the sentence is omitted by BF G 
Cypr. Aug. In all these cases B is noticeable as appearing with a group 
which is almost entirely Western in character. 


13. The Apostle now passes to another aspect of the question. 
He has laid down very clearly the rule that all such points are in 
themselves indifferent; he has rebuked censoriousness and shown 
that a man is responsible to God alone. Now he turns completely 
round and treats the question from the other side. All this is 
true, but higher than all is the rule of Christian charity, and this 
demands, above all, consideration for the feelings and consciences 
of others. 

Μηκέτι ody... κρίνωμεν marks the transition to the second ques- 
tion by summing up the first. 

κρίνατε: for the play on words cf. xii. 3, 14, xiii. 1. ‘Do not 
therefore judge one another, but judge this for yourself, i.e. deter- 
mine this as your course of conduct’: cf. 2 Cor. ii. 1. 

τὸ ph τιθέναι... τῷ ἀδελφῷ... σκάνδαλον. τιθέναι is suggested 
by the literal meaning of σκάνδαλον, a snare or stumbling-block 
which is laid in the path. St. Paul has probably derived the word 
σκάνδαλον and the whole thought of the passage from our Lord’s 
words reported in Matt. xviii. 6 f. See also his treatment of the 
same question in 1 Cor. viii. 9 ἔς 

πρόσκομμα... ἤ should perhaps be omitted with B, Arm. Pesh. As 

Weiss points out, the fact that ἤ is omitted in all authorities which omit mp. 

proves that the words cannot have been left out accidentally. πρόσκομμα 

would come in from 1 Cor. viii. 9 and ver. 20 below, 

14. In order to emphasize the real motive which should influ- 
ence Christians, namely, respect for the feelings of others, the 
indifference of all such things in themselves is emphatically stated. 

ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ. The natural meaning of these words is the 
same as that of ἐν Xp. (ix. 1); to St. Paul the indifference of all 
meats in themselves is a natural deduction from his faith and life 
in Christ. It may be doubted whether he is here referring expressly 
to the words of Christ (Mark vii. 15; Matt. xv. 11); when doing 
so his formula is παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου. 

κοινόν. The technical term to express those customs and habits, 
which, although ‘common’ to the world, were forbidden to the 
pious Jew. Jos. Ant. XIII. i. 1 τὸν κοινὸν βίον προῃρημένους : 
1 Macc. i. 47, 62; Acts x. 14 ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ 
ἀκάθαρτον. Ν 

δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, ‘in itself,’ ‘in its own nature.’ 

That δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ is the right reading is shown by (1) the authority of δὲ BC 
also of 1 (Cod. Patiriensis, see Introduction, § 7) supported by many later 

MSS., the Vulgate, and the two earliest commentators Orig.-lat. Jn Domino 


ergo Tesu nihil commune per semetipsum, hoc est natura sui dicitur, and 
Chrys. τῇ Φύσει φησὶν οὐδὲν ἀκάθαρτον and (a) by the contrast with τῷ 


XIV. 14-17.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 391 


λογιζομένῳ. δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, ‘through Christ” (so Theodrt. and later comm.) is 
a correction. 


εἰ μὴ TO λογιζομένῳ κιτιλ. Only if a man supposes that the 
breach of a ceremonial law is wrong, and is compelled by public 
opinion or the custom of the Church to do violence to his belief, he 
is led to commit sin; for example, if at the common Eucharistic 
meal a man were compelled to eat food against his conscience it 
would clearly be wrong. 

15. εἰ γάρ. The γάρ (which has conclusive manuscript authority) 
implies a suppressed link in the argument. ‘You must have 
respect therefore for his scruples, although you may not share 
them, for if, &c. 

λυπεῖται. 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 (ἀπύλλυε). 

ὑπὲρ οὗ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανε. Cf. « Cor. viii. ro, rx. Christ died 
to save this man from his sins, and will you for his sake not give 
up some favourite food? 

16. μὴ βλασφημείσθω κιτιλ. Let not that good of yours, i. 6. your 
consciousness of Christian freedom (cf. 1 Cor. x. 29 ἡ ἐλευθερία pov), 
become a cause of reproach. St. Paul is addressing the strong, as 
elsewhere in this paragraph, and the context seems clearly to point, 
at least primarily, to opinions within the community, not to the 
reputation of the community with the outside world. The above 
interpretation, therefore (which is that of Gifford and Vaughan), 
is better than that which would refer the passage to the reputation 
of the Christian community amongst those not belonging to it 
(Mey-W. Lips. Liddon). 

17. Do not lay such stress on this freedom of yours as to cause 
a breach in the harmony of the Church; for eating and drinking are 
not the principle of that kingdom which you hope to inherit. 

ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. 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 1 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. 1 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. 

βρῶσις καὶ πόσις. 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 tomake a point of indulging in what you will at all costs, you are 


392 EPISTLE TO THE ΕΟΜΑΝΒ [XIV. 17-20. 


in danger of falling into the Judaizing course of interpreting the 
Messianic prophecies literally, and imagining the Messianic kingdom 
to be one of material plenty ’ (Iren. V. xxxiii. 3). 

These words are often quoted as condemning any form of 
scrupulousness concerning eating and drinking; but that is not 
St. Paul’s idea. He means that ‘eating and drinking’ are in 
themselves so unimportant that every scruple should be respected, 
and every form of food willingly given up. They are absolutely 
insignificant in comparison with ‘ righteousness’ and ‘peace’ and 
‘joy.’ 

δικαιοσύνη «.7.. This passage describes man’s life in the 
kingdom, and these words denote not the relation of the Christian 
to God, but his life in relation to others. δικαιοσύνη therefore is not 
used in its technical sense of the relation between God and man, 
but means righteousness or just dealing ; εἰρήνη is the state of peace 
with one another which should characterize Christians ; χαρά is the 
joy which comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the 
community; cf. Acts ii, 46 μετελάμβανον τροφῆς ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ 
ἀφελότητι καρδίας. 

18. The same statement is generalized. The man who, on the 
principle implied by these virtues (ἐν τούτῳ, not ἐν τούτοις), is Christ’s 
servant, i.e. who serves Christ by being righteous and conciliatory 
and charitable towards others, not by harshly emphasizing his 
Christian freedom, is not only well-pleasing to God, but will gain 
the approval of men. 

δόκιμος tots ἀνθρώποις. The contrast to βλασφημείσθω of ver. τό. 
Consideration for others is a mark of the Christian character which 
will recommend a man to his fellow-men. δόκιμος, able to stand 
the test of inspection and criticism (cf. 2 Tim. ii. 15). 

19. οἰκοδομῆς : cf. τ Cor. xiv. 26 πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν γινέσθω, 
1 Thess. v. 11 οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα. 

διώκομεν (ΑΒΕ GLP 2) is really more expressive than the somewhat 
obvious correction διώκωμεν (Ὁ Ὁ E, Latt.). Ὁ EF G add puAafwpey after 
ἀλλήλους. 

20. κατάλυε. .. ἔργον keeps up the metaphor suggested by 
οἰκοδομῆς. ‘Build up, do not destroy, that Christian community 
which God has founded in Christ.’ Cf. 1 Cor. ili. 9 Θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν 
συνεργοί. Θεοῦ γεώργιον, Θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε. The words εἰρήνη and 
οἰκοδομή both point to the community rather than the individual 
Christian. 

πάντα μὲν καθαρά: cf. 1 Cor. x. 23 πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντα 
συμφέρει. πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα οἰκοδομεῖ. 

ἀλλὰ κακόν : the subject to this must be supplied from πάντα. It 
is a nice question to decide to whom these words refer. (1) Are 
they addressed to the strong, those who by eating are likely to give 
offence to others (so Va. Oltr., and the majority of commentaries)? 


XIV. 320-28. ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 393 


or (2) are they addressed to the weak, those who by eating what they 
think it wrong to eat injure their own consciences (so Gif. Mey.-W. 
and others)? In the former case διὰ προσκόμματος (on the διά cf. 1]. 
27, iv. 11) means ‘so as to cause offence,’ in the latter ‘so as to 
take offence’ (Tyndale, ‘who eateth with hurt of his conscience’). 
Perhaps the transition to ver. 21 is slightly better if we take (1). 

21. A thing in itself indifferent may be wrong if it injures the 
consciences of others; on the other hand, to give up what will injure 
. others is a noble act. 

καλόν : cf. 1 Cor. vii. 1 and for the thought 1 Cor. vill. 13 διόπερ, 
εἰ βρῶμα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, od μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα 
μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω. We know the situation implied 
in the Corinthian Epistle, and that it did not arise from the existence 
of a party who habitually abstained from flesh: St. Paul was 
merely taking the strongest instance he could think of. It is 
equally incorrect therefore to argue from this verse that there was 
a sect of vegetarians and total abstainers in Rome. St. Paul 
merely takes extreme forms of self-deprivation, which he uses as 
instances. ‘I would live like an Essene rather than do anything to 
offend my brother.’ 


The TR. adds after προσκόπτει the gloss ἢ σκανδαλίζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ with B 
Western and Syrian authorities (NCB DEFGLP, &c., Vulg. Sah. Bas, 
Chrys.). They are omitted by 8 A C3, Pesh. Boh., Orig. and Orig.-lat, This 
is a very clear instance of a Western reading in Β ; cf. xi. 6. 


22. σὺ πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις. Your faith is sufficient to see that all 
these things are a matter of indifference. Be content with that 
knowledge, it is a matter for your own conscience and God. Do 
not boast of it, or wound those not so strong as yourself. 


The preponderance of authorities (δὲ ABC, Vulg. codd. Boh., Orig.-lat.) 
compels us to read ἣν ἔχεις. The omission of ἥν (DEFGLP3, Vulg 
coda. Syrr. Boh., Chrys. &c.) is a Western correction and an improvement. 


μακάριος κιτιλ. Blessed (see on iv. 6, 7) because of his strong 
faith is the man who can courageously do what his reason tells him 
that he may do without any doubt or misgiving κρίνων, to ‘judge 
censoriously so as to condemn,’ cf. ii. 1, 3, 27. δοκιμάζει (i. 28, 
ii. 18) to ‘ approve of after testing and examining.’ 

23. 6 δὲ διακρινόμενος: see on iv. 20. If a man doubts or 
hesitates and then eats, he is, by the very fact that he doubts, 
condemned for his weakness of faith. If his faith were strong he 
would have no doubt or hesitation. 

πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως, ἁμαρτία ἐστίν. πίστις is subjective, the 
strong conviction of what is right and of the principles of salvation. 
‘Weakly to comply with other persons’ customs without being 
convinced of their indifference is itself sin.” This maxim (1) is not 
concerned with the usual conduct of unbelievers, (2) must not be 


394 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 23-XV.1. 


extended to cases different in character from those St. Paul is 
considering. It is not a general maxim concerning faith. 


This verse has had a very important part to play in controversy. How 
important may be seen from the use made of it in Augustine Contra /ulianum 
iv, one passage of which (§ 32) may be quoted: Ex quo colligitur, etiam 
ipsa bona opera quae faciunt infideles, non ipsorum esse, sed illius gus bene 
utitur malts. Ipsorum autem esse peccata quibus et bona male faciunt ; 
guia ea non fideli, sed infideli, hoc est stulta et noxia faciunt voluntate: 
gualis voluntas, nullo Christiano dubitante, arbor est mala, quae facere non 
potest nisi fructus malos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, velis nolis, quod 
non est ex fide, peccatum est. Since this timeithas been used to support the 
two propositions that works done before justification are sin and consequently 
that the heathen are unable to do good works. Into the merits of these 
controversies it will be apart from our purpose to enter. It is sufficient to 
notice that this verse is in such a context completely misquoted. As Chry- 
sostom says, ‘ When a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing is 
clean, how can he do else than sin? Now all these things have been 
spoken by Paul of the object in hand, not of everything.” The words do 
not apply to those who are not Christians, nor to the works of those who 
are Christians done before they became such, but to the conduct of believing 
Christians ; and faith is used somewhat in the way we should speak of 
a ‘good conscience’; ‘everything which is not done with a clear conscience 
is sin” So Aquinas, Summa i. 2, qu. xix, art. v. omme quod non est ex fide 
peccatum est, td est, omne quod est contra conscientiam. 

On the doxology (xvi. 25-27), which in some MSS. finds a place here, see 
the Introduction, § 8. 


XV. 1. The beginning of chap. xv is connected immediately 
with what precedes, and there is no break in the argument until 
ver. 13 is reached; but towards the close, especially in vv. 7-13, 
the language of the Apostle is more general. He passes from the 
special points at issue to the broad underlying principle of Christian 
unity, and especially to the relation of the two great sections of the 
Church—the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. 

ὀφείλομεν δέ. Such weakness is, it is true, a sign of absence of 
faith, but we who are strong in faith ought to bear with scruples 
weak though they may be. ot δύνατοι not, as in 1 Cor. i. 26, the 
rich or the powerful, but as in 2 Cor. xii. το, xiii. 9, of the morally 
strong. 

βαστάζειν: cf. Gal. vi. 2 ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη βαστάζετε. In classical 
Greek the ordinary word would be φέρειν, but βαστάζειν seems to 
have gradually come into use in the figurative sense. It is used of 
bearing the cross both literally (John xix. 17), and figuratively 
(Luke xiv. 27). We find it in later versions of the O. T. In Aq,, 
Symm. and Theod. in Is. xl. 11, Ixvi. 12; in the two latter in 
15. Ixiii. g; in Matt. viii. 17 quoting Is. liii. 3: in none of these 
passages is the word used in the LXX. It became a favourite word 
in Christian literature, Ign. Ad Polyc. 1, Epist. ad Diog. ὃ το (quoted 
by Lft.). 

μὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκειν: cf. x Cor. x. 33 καθὼς κἀγὼ πάντα πᾶσιν 
ἀρέσκω, μὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ συμφέρον, where St. Paul is describing his 


XV. 2-4.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 395 


own conduct in very similar circumstances. He strikes at the root 
of Christian disunion, which is selfishness. 

2. εἰς τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς οἰκοδομήν : cf. xiv. 16 ὑμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν, 1g τὰ 
τῆς οἰκοδομῆς τῆς εἰς ἀλλήλους. The end or purpose of pleasing them 
must be the promotion of what is absolutely to their good, further 
defined by οἰκοδομή, their edification. These words limit and 
explain what St. Paul means by ‘pleasing men.’ In Gal. i. 10 
(cf. Eph. vi. 6; 1 Thess. ii. 4) he had condemned it. In 1 Cor. ix. 
20-23 he had made it a leading principle of his conduct. The rule 
is that we are to please men for their own good and not our own. 


The γάρ after ἕκαστος of the TR. should be omitted. For ἡμῶν some 
authorities (F GP 3, Vulg., many Fathers) read ὑμῶν. 


8. καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς κιτιλ. The precept just laid down is 
enforced by the example of Christ (cf. xiv. 15). As Christ bore 
our reproaches, so must we bear those of others. 

καθὼς γέγραπται. St. Paul, instead of continuing the sentence, 
changes the construction and inserts a verse of the O. T. [Ps. 
Ixviii (Ixix). 10, quoted exactly according to the LXX], which he 
puts into the mouth of Christ. For the construction cf. ix. 7. 

The Psalm quoted describes the sufferings at the hands of the 
ungodly of the typically righteous man, and passages taken from it 
are often in the N. T. referred to our Lord, to whom they would 
apply as being emphatically ‘the just one.’ Ver. 4 is quoted 
John xv. 25, ver. ga in John ii. 17, ver. 9b in Rom. xv. 3, ver. 12 
in Matt. xxvii. 27-30, ver. 21 in Matt. xxvii. 34, and John xix. 29, 
ver. 22 f. in Rom. xi. 9, ver. 25a in Acts i. 20. (See Liddon, 
ad loc.) 

ot ὀνειδισμοί «7.4. In the original the righteous man is repre- 
sented as addressing God and saying that the reproaches against 
God he has to bear. St. Paul transfers the words to Christ, who is 
represented as addressing a man. Christ declares that in suffering 
it was the reproaches or sufferings of others that He bore. 

4. The quotation is justified by the enduring value of the O. T. 

προεγράφη, ‘were written before,’ in contrast with ἡμετέραν: 
cf. Eph. iii. 3; Jude 4, but with a reminiscence of the technical 
meaning of γράφειν for what is written as Scripture. 

διδασκαλίαν, ‘instruction’: cf. 2 Tim. 11]. 16 πᾶσα γραφὴ θεό- 
πνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν. 

τὴν ἐλπίδα : the specifically Christian feeling of hope. It is the 
supreme confidence which arises from trust in Christ that in no cir- 
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 
1 Thess. i. 3. 


396 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 4-6. 


This passage, and that quoted above from 2 Tim. iii. 16, lay 
down very clearly the belief in the abiding value of the O.T. 
which underlies St. Paul’s use of it. But while emphasizing its 
value they also limit it. The Scriptures are to be read for our 
moral instruction, ‘for reproof, for correction, for instruction which 
is in righteousness’; for the perfection of the Christian character, 
‘that the man of God may be complete, furnished unto every good 
work’; and because they establish the Christian hope which is in 
Christ. ‘Two points then St. Paul teaches, the permanent value of 
the great moral and spiritual truths of the O.T., and the witness 
of the O. T. to Christ. His words cannot be quoted to prove more 
than this. 


There are in this verse a few idiosyncrasies of B which may be noted but 
need not be accepted; ἐγράφη (with Vulg. Orig.-lat.) for προεγράφη ; 
πάντα before εἰς τὴν Hu. (with P); τῆς παρακλήσεως repeated after ἔχωμεν 
(with Clem.-Al.), The TR. with N° AL PQ, &c. substitutes προεγράψη for 
ἔγράφη in the second place, and with Cor D EF GP, &c., Vulg. Boh. Harel. 
omits the second διά, 


δ. After the digression of ver. 4 the Apostle returns to the sub- 
ject of vv. 1-3, and sums up his teaching by a prayer for the unity 
of the community. 

ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως : Cf. ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης 
(ver. 33; Phil. iv. 9; 1 Thess. ν. 23; Heb. xiii. 20), τῆς ἐλπίδος 
(ver. 13), πάσης παρακλήσεως (2 Cor. i. 3), πάσης χάριτος (x Pet, 
v. 10). 

τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν : cf. Phil. ii. 2-5 πληρώσατέ pou τὴν χαράν, ἵνα τὸ 
αὐτὸ φρονῆτε.. .. τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Xp. “I. 

κατὰ Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν: cf 2 Cor. xi. 17 ὃ λαλῶ, οὐ κατὰ Κύριον 
λαλῶ: Col. ii, 8 οὐ κατὰ Xp.: Eph. iv. 24 τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν 
κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα (Rom. viii. 27, which is generally quoted, is not 
in point), These examples seem to show that the expression must 
mean ‘in accordance with the character or example of Christ.’ 


δῴη for δοίῃ, a later form, cf. a Thess. iii. 16; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18; ii. 25; 
Eph. i. 17 (but with variant δώῃ in the last two cases). Xp. Ἰησ. (BDEGL, 
&e., Boh. Chrys.), not ‘Ing. Xp. NAC F P23 Vulg., Orig.-lat. Theodrt. 


6. Unity and harmony of worship will be the result of unity 
of life. 

ὁμοθυμαδόν, ‘with unity of mind.’ A common word in the Acts 
(1. 14, ἄς... 

τὸν Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This expres- 
sion occurs also in 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; Eph. 1. 3; 1 Pet.i. 3. In 
Col. i. 3, which is also quoted, the correct reading is τῷ Θεῷ πατρὶ 
τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν "I. X. Two translations are possible: (1) ‘God even 
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Mey.-W. Gif. Lid., Lips.). 
In favour of this it is pointed out that while πατήρ expects some 
correlative word, Θεός is naturally absolute; and that ὁ Θεὸς καὶ 


XV. 6-8.] ON SLRUPULOUSNESS 397 


πατήρ occurs absolutely (as in 1 Cor. xv. 24 ὅταν παραδιδοῖ τὴν βασι- 
λείαν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί), an argument the point of which does not 
seem clear, and which suggests that the first argument has not 
much weight. (2) It is better and simpler to take the words in 
their natural meaning, ‘The God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ’; (Va. Oltr. Go. and others), with which cf. Eph. i. 1 6 Θεὸς 
τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν "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. 

διὸ προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους k.7.A.: 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 ὑμᾶς, not ἡμᾶς. The latter he uses in ver. 1, 
where he is identifying himself with the ‘ strong,’ the former he uses 
here, where he is addressing the whole community. On διό cf. Eph. 
ii, 11; 1 Thess. v. 11: On προσλαμβάνεσθε see Xiv. I, 3. 

ὑμᾶς is read by NAC EFGL, Vulg. Poh. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. ; ἡμᾶς 
by BDP3. B is again Westem, and its authority on the distinction between 

ἡμᾶς and ὑμᾶς is less trustworthy than on most other points (see WH. ii. 


pp- 218, 310). 


εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ with προσελάβετο: ‘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. 11 the object of 
Christ’s glory is to promote the glory of God the Father. 

8. St. Paul has a double object. He writes to remind the Gen- 
tiles that it is through the Jews that they are called, the Jews that 
the aim and purpose of their existence is the calling of the Gentiles. 
The Gentiles must remember that Christ became a Jew to save 
them; the Jew that Christ came among them in order that all the 
families of the earth might be blessed: both must realize that the 
aim of the whole is to proclaim God’s glory. 

This passage is connected by undoubted links (διό ver. 7; λέγω 
γάρ 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, om. and Eph. p. 29.) 

διάκονον... περιτομῆς : 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 Gifford, who has an excellent note), i.e. to 


398 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 8-10 


carry out the promises implied in that covenant the seal of which 
was circumcision; so 2 Cor. iii. 6 διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης. In the 
Ep. to the Galatians (iv. 4, 5) St. Paul had said that Christ was 
‘born of a woman, born under the law, that He might redeem them 
which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of 
sons.” On the Promise and Circumcision see Gen. xii. 1-3, xvii. 
1-14. 

The privileges of the Jews which St. Paul dwells on are as fol- 
lows: (1) Christ has Himself fulfilled the condition of being circum- 
cised: the circumcised therefore must not be condemned. (2) The 
primary object of this was to fulfil the promises made to the Jews 
(cf. Rom. ii. 9, 10). (3) It was only as a secondary result of this 
Messiahship that the Gentiles glorified God. (4) While the bless- 
ing came to the Jews ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας to preserve God's consistency, it 
came to the Gentiles ὑπὲρ ἐλέους for God's loving-kindness. 

γεγενῆσθαι, which should be read with NAELP 2 (γεγεννῆσθε) ; it was 


altered into the more usual aorist γενέσθαι (BC DFG), perhaps because it 
was supposed to be co-ordinated with δοξάσαι. 


τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων : cf. ix. 4, 5. 

9. τὰ δὲ ἔθνη... δοξάσαι. Two constructions are possible for 
these words: (1) they may be taken as directly subordinate to λέγω 
γάρ (Weiss, Oltr. Go.). The only object in this construction would 
be to contrast ὑπὲρ ἐλέους with ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας. But the real antithesis 
of the passage is between βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας and τὰ ἔθνη δοξά- 
oa: and hence (2) ra δὲ ... vn... δοξάσαι should be taken as 
subordinate to εἰς τό and co-ordinate with βεβαιῶσαι (Gif. Mey. 
Lid., Va.). With this construction the point of the passage 
becomes much greater, the call of the Gentiles is shown to be (as 
it certainly was), equally with the fulfilment of the promise to the 
Jews, dependent on the covenant made with Abraham (iv. 11, 72, 
16; 17} 

Kee γέγραπται. The Apostle proceeds, as so often in the 
Epistle, to support his thesis by a series of passages quoted from 
the O. T. 

διὰ τοῦτο «.7.A.: taken almost exactly from the LXX of Ps. xvii 
(xviii). 50. In the original David, as the author of the Psalm, is 
celebrating a victory over the surrounding nations: in the Messianic 
application Christ is represented as declaring that among the 
Gentiles, i.e. in the midst of, and therefore together with them, He 
will praise God. ἐξομολογήσομαι, “1 will praise thee’: cf. xiv. 11. 

10. Εὐφράνθητε κ.τιλ. : from the LXX of Deut. xxxii. 43. The 
Hebrew, translated literally, appears to mean, ‘ Rejoice, O ye nations, 
His people.’ Moses is represented as calling on the nations to 
rejoice over the salvation of Israel. St. Paul takes the words as 
interpreted by the LXX to imply that the Gentiles and chosen 
people shall unite in the praise of God. 


XV. 11-13.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 399 


11. Αἰνεῖτε κιτὰλ,: Ps. cxvi (cxvii). 1. LXX. An appeal to all 
nations to praise the Lord. 


There are slight variations in the Greek text and in the LXX. For πάντα 
τὰ ἔθνη τὸν Κύριον CF GL have τὸν K. π. τ. ἔ. agreeing with the order of 
the LXX. ἐπαινεσάτωσαν is read by NABCDE Chrys. (so LXX AN 
αἰνεσάτωσαν) ἐπαινέσατε by late MSS. with later LXX MSS. 


12. Ἔσται ἡ fila «.7.A.: from Is. xi. 10, a description of the 
Messianic kingdom, which is to take the place of that Jewish king- 
dom which is soon to be destroyed. The quotation follows the 
LXX, which is only a paraphrase of the Hebrew; the latter runs 
(RV.) ‘And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, 
which standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the 
Gentiles seek.’ 

13. 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. 

ὁ Θεὸς τῆς ἐλπίδος : cf. ver. 5. The special attribute, as in fact 
the whole of the benediction, is suggested by the concluding words 
of the previous quotation. 

πάσης χαρᾶς καὶ εἰρήνης. The joy and peace with God which is 
the result of true faith in the Christian’s heart. On εἰρήνη see i. 7. 


For πληρῶσαι (most MSS.) BF G have the ¢urious variant πληροφορῆσαι. 
B reads ἐν πάσῃ χάρᾳ καὶ εἰρήνῃ and omits εἰς τὸ περισσεύειν : the pecu- 
liarities of this MS. in the last few verses are noticeable. DEFG omit 
ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν. 

The general question of the genuineness of these last two chapters is 
discussed in the Introduction (§ 9). It will be convenient to mention in 
the course of the Commentary some few of the detailed objections that have 
been made to special passages. In xv. I-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 (ch. iv, &c.), and 
the importance of the promises which were fulfilled (i. 2; ix. 4). Baur’s 
difficulty arose from an erroneous conception of the teaching and position of 
St. Paul. For other arguments see Mangold, Der Rémerbrief, 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 


400 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV-XV. 18. 


dealing with certain special circumstances which have arisen in the 
Church of Rome, and that the weak and the strong represent two 
parties in that Church. 

1. The oldest explanation appears to be that which sees in these 
disputes a repetition of those which prevailed in the Corinthian 
Church, as to the same or some similar form of Judaizing practices 
(Orig. Chrys. Aug. Neander, &c.). In favour of this may be 
quoted the earlier portion of the fifteenth chapter, where there is 
clearly a reference to the distinction between Jewish and Gentile 
Christians. But against this opinion it is pointed out that such 
Jewish objections to ‘things offered to idols,’ or to meats killed in 
any incorrect manner, or to swine’s flesh, have nothing to do with 
the typical instances quoted, the abstinence altogether from flesh 
meat and from wine (vv. 2, 21). 

2. A second suggestion (Eichhorn) is that which sees in these 
Roman ascetics the influence of the Pythagorean and other heathen 
sects which practised and taught abstinence from meat and wine 
and other forms of self-discipline. But these again will not satisfy 
all the circumstances. These Roman Christians were, it is said, in 
the habit of observing scrupulously certain days: and this custom 
did not, as far as we know, prevail among any heathen sect. 

3. Baur sees here Ebionite Christians of the character repre- 
sented by the Clementine literature, and in accordance with his 
general theory he regards them as representing the majority of 
the Roman Church. That this last addition to the theory is tenable 
seems impossible. So far as there is any definiteness in St. Paul’s 
language he clearly represents the ‘strong’ as directing the policy 
of the community. They are told to receive ‘him that is weak in 
faith’; they seem to have the power to admit him or reject him. 
All that he on his side can do is to indulge in excessive criticism. 
Nor is the first part of the theory really more satisfactory. Of 
the later Ebionites we have very considerable knowledge derived 
from the Clementine literature and from Epiphanius (4/aer. xxx), 
but it is an anachronism to discover these developments in a period 
nearly two centuries earlier. Nor again is it conceivable that 
St. Paul would have treated a developed Judaism in the lenient 
manner in which he writes in this chapter. 

4. Less objection perhaps applies to the modification of this 
theory, which sees in these sectaries some of the Essene influence 
which probably prevailed everywhere throughout the Jewish world 
(Ritschl, Mey.-W. Lid. Lft. Gif. Oltr.). This view fulfils the 
three conditions of the case. The Essenes were Jewish, they were 
ascetic, and they observed certain days. If the theory is put in the 
form not that Essenism existed as a sect in Rome, which is highly 
improbable, but that there was Essene influence in the Jewish com- 
munity there, it is possible. Yet if any one compares St. Paul’s 


XIV.-XV.13.] ΟΝ SCRUPULOUSNESS 401 


laneuage in other Epistles with that which he uses here, he will 
find it difficult to believe that the Apostle would recommend 
compliance with customs which arose, not from weak-minded 
scrupulousness, but from a completely inadequate theory of religion 
and life. Hort (Rom. and Eph., p. 27 f.) writes: ‘The true origin 
of these abstinences must remain somewhat uncertain: but much 
the most probable suggestion is that they come from an Essene 
element in the Roman Church, such as afterwards affected the 
Colossian Church.’ But later he modified his opinion (/udazstic 
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 
in Galatia or Corinth. 

Hort (Judaistic Christianity, p. 126) recognizes this feature in 
the doctrinal portion of the Epistle: ‘It is a remarkable fact,’ he 
writes, ‘respecting this Epistle to the Romans. . . that while it 
discusses the question of the Law with great emphasis and fulness, 
it does so without the slightest sign that there is a reference to 
a controversy then actually existing in the Roman Church.’ Unfor- 
tunately he has not applied the same theory to this practical 
portion of the Epistle: if he had done so it would have presented 
just the solution required by all that he notices. ‘There is no 
reference,’ he writes, ‘to a burning controversy.’ ‘The matter is 
dealt with simply as one of individual conscience.’ He contrasts 
the tone with that of the Epistle to the Colossians. All these 
features find their best explanation in a theory which supposes 
that St. Paul’s object in this portion of the Epistle, is the same 
as that which has been suggested in the doctrinal portion. 

If this theory be correct, then our interpretation of the passage 
is somewhat different from that which has usually been accepted, 
and is, we venture to think, more natural. When St. Paul says in 
ver. 2 ‘the weak man eateth vegetables,’ he does not mean that 
there is a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes 

pd 


402 EPISTLE ΤῸ THE ROMANS [XIV.-XV . 18, 


a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness. When again he 
says ‘one man considers one day better than another,’ he does not 
mean that this sect of vegetarians were also strict sabbatarians, but 
that the same scrupulousness may prevail in other matters. When 
he speaks of 6 φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν, ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων he is not thinking 
of any special body of people but rather of special types. When 
again in ver. 21 he says: ‘It is good not to eat flesh, or drink 
wine, or do anything in which thy brother is offended,’ he does 
not mean that these vegetarians and sabbatarians are also total 
abstainers; he merely means ‘even the most extreme act of self- 
denial is better than injuring the conscience of a brother.’ He had 
spoken very similarly in writing to the Corinthians: ‘ Wherefore, if 
meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for ever- 
more, that I make not my brother to stumble’ (1 Cor. viii. 13). It 
is not considered necessary to argue from these words that absti- 
nence from flesh was one of the characteristics of the Corinthian 
sectaries ; nor is it necessary to argue in a similar manner here. 

St. Paul is arguing then, as always in the Epistle, from past 
experience. Again and again difficulties had arisen owing to 
different forms of scrupulousness. There had been the difficulties 
which had produced the Apostolic decree ; there were the difficulties 
in Galatia, ‘Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years’ ; 
there were the difficulties at Corinth. Probably he had already in 
his experience come across instances of the various ascetic tenden- 
cies which are referred to in the Colossian and Pastoral Epistles. 
We have evidence both in Jewish and in heathen writers of the 
wide extent to which such practices prevailed. In an age when 
there is much religious feeling there will always be such ideas. 
The ferment which the spread of Christianity aroused would create 
them. Hence just as the difficulties which he had experienced 
with regard to Judaism and the law made St. Paul work out and 
systematize his theory of the relation of Christianity to personal 
righteousness, so here he is working out the proper attitude of the 
Christian towards over-scrupulousness and over-conscientiousness. 
He is not dealing with the question controversially, but examining 
it from all sides. 

And he lays down certain great principles. There is, first of all, 
the fundamental fact, that all these scruples are in matters quite 
indifferent in themselves. Man is justified by ‘faith’; that is 
sufficient. But then all have not strong, clear-sighted faith: they 
do not really think such actions indifferent, and if they act 
against their conscience their conscience is injured. Each man 
must act as he would do with the full consciousness that he is to 
appear before God’s judgement-seat. But there is another side 
to the question. By indifference to external observances we may 
injure another man’s conscience. To ourselves it is perfectly 


XV. 14. APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 403 


indifferent whether we conform to such an observance or not. Then 
we must conform for the sake of our weak brother. We are the 
strong. We are conscious of our strength. Therefore we must 
yield to others: not perhaps always, not in all circumstances, but 
certainly in many cases. Above all, the salvation of the individual 
soul and the peace and unity of the community must be preserved. 
Both alike, weak and strong, must lay aside differences on such 
unimportant matters for the sake of that church for which Christ 
died. 


APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS. 


XV. 14-21. These admonitions of mine do not imply that 
7 am unacquainted with your goodness and deep spiritual 
knowledge. In writing to you thus boldly I am only 
fulfilling my duty as Apostle to the Gentiles; the priest 
who stands before the altar and presents to God the Gentile 
Churches (vv. 14-17). 

And this 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 (vv. 18-21), 


14, The substance of the Epistle is now finished, and there only 
remain the concluding sections of greeting and encouragement. 
St. Paul begins as in i. 8 with a reference to the good report of the 
church. This he does as a courteous apology for the warmth of 
feeling he has exhibited, especially in the last section; but a com- 
parison with the Galatian letter, where there is an absence of any 
such compliment, shows that St. Paul’s words must be taken to 
have a very real and definite meaning. 

πέπεισμαι δέ: cf. viii. 38, ‘Though I have spoken so strongly it 
does not mean that 1 am not aware of the spiritual earnestness of 
your church.’ 

καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ περὶ ὑμῶν, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοί : notice the emphasis gained 
by the position of the words. ‘ And not I inquire of others to know, 
but J myse//, that is, I that rebuke, that accuse you.’ Chrys. 

μεστοί: cf. Rom. i. 29, where also it is combined with memAnpo- 
μένοι. 

πάσης γνώσεως : ‘our Christian knowledge in its entirety.’ Cf. 
1 Cor. xiii. 2 καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω προφητείαν καὶ εἰδῶ τὰ μυστήρια πάντα καὶ 
πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν, καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν κιτιλ. γνῶσις is used for 
the true knowledge which consists in a deep and comprehensive 
grasp of the real principles of Christianity. 


404 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 14, 16. 


τῆς is read by NBP, Clem.-Alex. Jo-Damasc. It is omitted by 
ACDEFGL, &c., Chrys. Theodrt. 


ἀγαθωσύνης : cf. 2 Thess. i. 11; Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9; used 
only in the LXX, the N. T. and writings derived from them. 
Generally it means ‘goodness’ or ‘uprightness’ in contrast with 
κακία, as in Ps. li. (lii.) 5 ἠγάπησας κακίαν ὑπὲρ ἀγαθωσύνην : defined 
more accurately the idea seems to be that derived from ἀγαθός of 
active beneficence and goodness of heart. Here it is combined 
with γνῶσις, because the two words represent exactly the qualities 
which are demanded by the discussion in chap. xiv. St. Paul 
demands on the one side a complete grasp of the Christian faith 
as a whole, and on the other ‘goodness of heart,’ which may 
prevent a man from injuring the spiritual life of his brother Christians 
by disregarding their consciences. Both these were, St. Paul is 
fully assured, realized in the Roman community. 


Forms in «σύνη are almost all late and mostly confined to Hellenistic 
writers. Inthe N.T. we have ἐλεημοσύνη, ἀσχημοσύνη, ἁγιωσύνη, ἱερωσύνη, 
μεγαλωσύνη : see Winer, ὃ xvi. 2 β (p. 118, ed. Moulton). 


δυνάμενοι καὶ ἀλλήλους νουθετεῖν. Is it laying too much stress on 
the language of compliment to suggest that these words give a hint 
of St. Paul’s aim in this Epistle? He has grasped clearly the 
importance of the central position of the Roman Church and its 
moral qualities, and he realizes the power that it will be for the 
instruction of others in the faith. Hence it is to them above all 
that he writes, not because of their defects but of their merits. 


It is difficult to believe that any reader will find an inconsistency between 
this verse and i. 11 or the exhortations of chap. xiv, whatever view he may 
hold concerning St. Paul’s general attitude towards the Roman Church. It 
would be perfectly natural in any case that, after rebuking them on certain 
points on which he felt they needed correction, he should proceed to com- 
pliment them for the true knowledge and goodness which their spiritual 
condition exhibited. He could do so because it would imply a true estimate 
of the state of the Church, and it would prevent any offence being taken at 
his freedom of speech. But if the view suggested on chap. xiv. and throughout 
the Epistle be correct, and these special admonitions arise rather from the 
condition of the Gentile churches as a whole, the words gain even more 
point. ‘I am not finding fault with you, I am warning you of dangers 
you may incur, and I warn you especially owing to your prominent and 
important position.’ 


15. τολμηρότερον. The boldness of which St. Paul accuses 
himself is not in sentiment, but in manner. It was ἀπὸ μέρους, ‘in 
part of the Epistle’; vi. 12 ff., 19; vili. 9; xi. 17 ΠῚ xii. 3; 
xiii. 3 ff., 13 ff., xiv.; xv. 1, have been suggested as instances. 

ἐπαναμιμνήσκων. Wetstein quotes ἕκαστον ὑμῶν, καίπερ ἀκριβῶς 
Sora, ὅμως ἐπαναμνῆσαι βυύλομαι Demosthenes, PAzl. 74, 7. The 
ἐπί seems to soften the expression ‘suggesting to your memory.’ 
St. Paul is not teaching any new thing, or saying anything which 


Χν. 15-17.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 405 


a properly instructed Christian would not know, but putting more 
clearly and definitely the recognized principles and commands of 
the Gospel. 

διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι. On St. Paul’s Apostolic grace 
οἷ, i. 5 δ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν : Xil. 3 λέγω γὰρ διὰ τῆς 
χάριτος τῆς δοθείσης μοι. 

It is probably preferable to read τολμηροτέρως (A Β, WH.) for τολμηρό- 
τερον. The TR. adds ἀδελφοί after ἔγραψα ὑμῖν against the best authorities 
(S A BC, Boh., Orig. Aug. Chrys.) ; the position of the word varies even in 
MSS. in which it does occur. ὑπό is a correction of the TR. for ἀπό (NBF 
Jo.-Damasc.). 

16. λειτουργόν seems to be used definitely and technically as in 
the LXX of a priest. See esp. 2 Esdras xx. 36 (Neh. x. 37) τοῖς 
ἱερεῦσι τοῖς λειτουργοῦσιν ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. So in Heb. viii. 2 of our 
Lord, who is ἀρχιερεύς and τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργός : see the note on i. 9. 
Generally in the LXX the word seems used of the Levites as 
opposed to the priests as in 2 Esdras xx. 39 (Neh. x. 40) καὶ οἱ 
ἱερεῖς καὶ of λειτουργοί, but there is no such idea here. 

ἱερουργοῦντα, ‘ being the sacrificing priest of the Gospel of God.’ 
St. Paul is standing at the altar as priest of the Gospel, and the 
offering which he makes is the Gentile Church. 

ἱερουργεῖν means (1) to ‘ perform a sacred function,’ hence (a) especially 
to ‘sacrifice’; and so τὰ ἱερουργήθεντα means ‘the slain victims '; and then 
(3) to be a priest, to be one who performs sacred functions, Its con- 
struction is two-fold: (1) it may take the accusative of the thing sacrificed ; 
so Bas. t# Ps. cxv καὶ ἱερουργήσω σοι τὴν τῆς αἰνέσεως θυσίαν ; or (2) 
ἱερουργεῖν τι may be put for ἱερουργόν τινος εἶναι (Galen, de Theriaca μυστη- 
ρίων ἱερουργόν), so 4 Macc. vii. 8 (v. 1.) τοὺς ἱερουργοῦντας τὸν νόμον : Greg. 
Naz. ἱερουργεῖν σωτηρίαν τινός (see Fri. ad Joc. from whom this note is taken). 
ἡ mpoopopd. With this use of sacrificial language, cf. xii. 1, 2. 

The sacrifices offered by the priest of the New Covenant were not 
the dumb animals as the old law commanded, but human beings, 
the great body of the Gentile Churches. Unlike the old sacrifices 
which were no longer pleasing to the Lord, these were acceptable 
(εὐπρόσδεκτος, 1 Pet. ii. 5). ‘Those were animals without spot or 
blemish; these are made a pure and acceptable offering by the 
Holy Spirit which dwells in them (cf. viii. 9, 11). 

For the construction of προσφορά cf. Heb. x. 10 π. τοῦ σώματος Ἰ. Xp. 

17. ἔχω οὖν τὴν καύχησιν. The τήν should be omitted (see below). 
‘I have therefore my proper pride, and a feeling of confidence in 
my position, which arises from the fact that I am a servant of 
Christ, and a priest of the Gospel of God.’ St. Paul is defending 
his assumption of authority, and he does so on two grounds: 
(1) His Apostolic mission, διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν po, as proved 
by his successful labours (vv. 18-20); (2) the sphere of his 
labours, the Gentile world, more especially that portion of it in 
which the Gospel had not been officially preached. The emphasis 


406 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ~~ [XV. 17-19. 


therefore is on ἐν Xp. "I, and τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. With καύχησιν cf. 
iii. 27, 1 Cor. xv. 31; with the whole verse, 2 Cor. x. 13 ἡμεῖς δὲ 
οὐχὶ εἰς Ta ἄμετρα καυχησύμεθα..... 17 ὁ δὲ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. 


The RV. has not improved the text by adding τήν before καύχησιν. The 
combination 8 A LP, Boh., Arm., Chrys., Cyr., Theodrt. is stronger than that 
of BDEFG in this Epistle. (Ὁ seems uncertain. 


18. οὐ γὰρ τολμήσω «.7.A. ‘For I will not presume to mention 
any works but those in which I was myself Christ’s agent for the 
conversion of Gentiles.’ St. Paul is giving his case for the assump- 
tion of authority (καύχησις). It is only his own labour or rather 
works done through himself that he cares to mention. But the 
value of such work is that it is not his own but Christ’s working in 
him, and that it is among Gentiles, and so gives him a right to 
exercise authority over a Gentile Church like the Roman. 

With τολμήσω (NAC DEFGLP, Boh. Harcl., etc.) cf. 2 Cor. 
x. 12; there seems to be a touch of irony in its use here; with 
κατειργάσατο 2 Cor. xii. 12, Rom. vii. 13, &c.; with λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ, 
‘in speech or action,’ 2 Cor. x. 11. 

19. ἐν δυνάμει σημείων κιτιλ.: οἷ, 2 Cor. xii. 12 τὰ μὲν σημεῖα τοῦ 
ἀποστόλου κατειργάσθη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν πάσῃ ὑπομονῇ, σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασι καὶ 
δυνάμεσι: Heb. ii. 4 συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ Θεοῦ σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασι 
καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσι καὶ Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου μερισμοῖς κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ 
θέλησιν : τ Cor. xii. 28. 


The combination σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα is that habitually used throughout the 
N. T. to express what are popularly called miracles. Both words have the 
same denotation, but different connotations. τέρας implies anything mar- 
vellous or extraordinary in itself, σημεῖον represents the same event, but 
viewed not as an objectless phenomenon but as a sign or token of the agency 
by which it is accomplished or the purpose it is intended to fulfil. Often 
a third word δυνάμεις is added which implies that these ‘works’ are the 
exhibition of more than natural power. Here St. Paul varies the expres- 
sion by saying that his work was accomplished in the power of signs and 
wonders; they are looked upon as a sign and external exhibition of the 
Apostolic χάρις. See Trench, Miracles xci; Fri. ad loc. 

There can be no doubt that St. Paul in this passage assumes that he 
possesses the Apostolic power of working what are ordinarily called miracles. 
The evidence for the existence of miracles in the Apostolic Church is two- 
fold: on the one hand the apparently natural and unobtrusive claim made 
by the Apostles on behalf of themselves or others to the power of working 
miracles, on the other the definite historical narrative of the Acts of the 
Apostles. The two witnesses corroborate one another. Against them it 
might be argued that the standard of evidence was lax, and that the 
miraculous and non-miraculous were not sufficiently distinguished. But will 
the first argument hold against a personal assertion? and does not the 
narrative of the Acts make it clear that miracles in a perfectly correct sense 
of the word were definitely intended? 


ἐν δυνάμει Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου : cf. ver. 13, and on the reading here 
see below. St. Paul’s Apostolic labours are a sign of commission 
because they have been accompanied by a manifestation of more 


xv. 19.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 407 


than natural gifts, and the source of his power is the Holy Spirit 
with which he is filled. 


This seems one of those passages in which the value of the text of 5 
where it is not vitiated by Western influence is conspicuous (cf. iv. 1). It 
reads (alone or with the support of the Latin Fathers) πνεύματος without 
any addition. NLP &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c., add θεοῦ, AC DF G Boh. 
Vulg. Arm., Ath. &c. read ἁγίους Both were corrections of what seemed an 
unfinished expression. 


ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ κύκλῳ μέχρι τοῦ ᾿Ιλλυρικοῦ, These words 
have caused a considerable amount of discussion. 

1. The first question is as to the meaning of κύκλῳ. 

(1) The majority of modern commentators (Fri. Gif. Mey-W.) 
interpret it to mean the country round Jerusalem, as if it were καὶ 
τοῦ κύκλῳ, 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 κύκλῳ 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 κύκλῳ 
ἵνα μὴ τὴν κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν ἐνθυμηθῇς, ANA κατὰ τὰ πέριξ and to the 
same effect Chrys. Theodrt. Theophylact. This meaning is exacily 
supported by Xen. Azad, VII. i. 14 καὶ πότερα διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ὄρους δέοι 
πορεύεσθαι, ἣ κύκλῳ διὰ μέσης τῆς Θράκης, and substantially by Mark 
vi. 6. 

2. 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. μέχρι θαλάσσης can be used 
clearly as excluding the sea. As far as regards the facts the narra- 
tive of the Acts (ra μέρη ἐκεῖνα Acts xx. 2; cf. Tit. ili, 12) suggests 
that St. Paul may have preached in Illyria, but leave it uncertain. 
A perfectly tenable explanation of the words would be that if 
Jerusalem were taken as one limit and the Eastern boundaries 
of Illyria as the other, St. Paul had travelled over the whole of 
the intervening district, and not merely confined himself to the 
direct route between the two places. Jerusalem and Illyria in fact 
represent the limits. 

If this be the interpretation of the passage it is less important to 
fix the exact meaning of the word Illyria as used here; but a passage 
in Strabo seems to suggest the idea which was in St. Paul’s mind 
when he wrote. Strabo, describing the Egnatian way from the 
Adriatic sea-coast, states that it passes through a portion of 
Illyria before it reaches Macedonia, and that the traveller along it 
has the Illyrian mountains on his left hand. St. Paul would have 
followed this road as far as Thessalonica, and if pointing Westward 
he had asked the names of the mountain region and of the peoples 


408 EPISTLE TO THE ΕΟΜΑΝΒ [ΧΥ͂. 19-21. 


inhabiting it, he would have been told that it was ‘ Illyria.” The 
term therefore is the one which would naturally occur to him as 
fitted to express the limits of his journeys to the West (Strabo vii. 


1. 4): 


The word Illyria might apparently be used at this period in two senses. 
(1) As the designation of a Roman province it might be used for what was 
otherwise called Dalmatia, the province on the Adriatic sea-coast north 
of Macedonia and west of Thrace. (2) 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 is used in Appian, //yrice 1, 7; 
Jos. Bell. Jud. 11. xvi.4; and the passage of Strabo quoted above. 


πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ : cf. Col. i. 25 ἧς ἐγενόμην 
ἐγὼ διάκονος κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, πλη- 
ρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. In both passages the meaning is to ‘fulfil,’ 
‘carry out completely,’ and so in the AV. ‘to fully preach,’ In 
what sense St. Paul could say that he had done this, see below. 

20. οὕτω δὲ φιλοτιμούμενον x«.t.A. introduces a limitation of the 
statement of the previous verses. Within that area there had been 
places where he had not been eager to preach, since he cared only 
to spread the Gospel, not to compete with others. οὕτω is ex- 
plained by what follows. φιλοτιμούμενον (x Thess. iv, 11; 2 Cor. 
v. 9) means to ‘strive eagerly,’ having lost apparently in late Greek 
its primary idea of emulation. See Field, O/um LVorv. iii. p. 100, 
who quotes Polyb. i. 83; Diod. Sic. xii. 46; xvi. 49; Plut. Vii. 
Caes. liv. 

ὠνομάσθη : ‘so named as to be worshipped.’ Cf. 2 Tim. i. 19; 
Isa. xxvi. 13; Amos Vi. 10. 

ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον. For ἀλλότριον cf. 2 Cor. x. 15, 16. St. Paul 
describes his work (1 Cor. iii. 10) as laying a ‘foundation stone’: 
ὡς σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων θεμέλιον enka’ ἀλλὸς δὲ ἐποικοδομεῖ: and so 
generally the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and 
prophets (Eph. ii. 20). 

21. ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται. St. Paul describes the aim of his 
mission (the limitations of which he has just mentioned) in words 
chosen from the O.T. The quotation which follows is taken 
verbally from the LXX of Isa. lii. 15, which differs but not es- 
sentially from the Hebrew. The Prophet describes the astonish- 
ment of the nations and kings at the suffering of the servant of 
Jehovah. ‘That which hath not been told them they shall see.’ 
The LXX translates this ‘ those to whom it was not told shall see,’ 
and St. Paul taking these words applies them (quite in accordance 
with the spirit of the original) to the extension of the knowledge 
of the true Servant of Jehovah to places where his name has not 
been mentioned. 


Verses 19-21, or rather a portion of them (ὥστε pe . . . ἀλλά), are still 
objected to by commentators (as by Lipsius) who recognize the futility of 


XV. 190-21. APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 409 


the objections to the chapter as a whole. In a former case (xi. 8-10) the 
clumsiness of an excision suggested by Lipsius was noticed and here he has 
not been any happier. He omits ver. 20, but keeps the quotation in ver. 21, 
yet this quotation is clearly suggested by the preceding words οὐχ ὅπου 
ὠνομάσθη Χριστός. 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— 

(1) It is argued that St. Paul had never preached in Jerusalem, nor would 
have been likely to mention that place as the starting-point of his mission ; 
that these words therefore are a ‘concession made to the Jewish Chris- 
tians,’ and hence that the chapter is a result of the same conciliation ten- 
dency which produced the Acts. Most readers would probably be satisfied 
with being reminded that according to the Acts St. Paul had preached in 
Jerusalem (Acts ix. 28, 29). But it may be also pointed out that St. Paul 
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. 

(2) It is asserted that St. Paul had never preached in Illyricum. There 
is some inconsistency in first objecting to the language of this passage 
because it agrees with that of the Acts, and then criticizing it because it 
contains some statement not supported by the same book. But the re- 
ference to Illyricum has been explained above. The passages of the Acts 
quoted clearly leave room for St. Paul having preached in districts inhabited 
by Illyrians. He would have done so if he had gone along the Egnatian 
way. But the words do not necessarily mean that he had been in Illyria, 
and it is quite possible to explain them in the sense that he had preached 
as far as that province and no further. In no case do they contain any 
statement inconsistent with the genuineness of the passage. 

(3) It is objected that St. Paul could in no sense use such a phrase as 
πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. But by this expression he does not mean that 
he had preached in every town or village, but only that everywhere there were 
centres from which Christianity could spread. His conception of the duties 
of an Apostle was that he should found churches and leave to others to 
build on the foundation thus laid (1 Cor. iii. 7, 10). As a matter of fact 
within the limits laid down Christianity had been very widely preached. 
There were churches throughout all Cilicia (Acts xv. 41), Galatia, and 
Phrygia (Gal. i. 1; Acts xvili. 23). The three years’ residence in Ephesus 
implied that that city was the centre of missionary activity extending through- 
out all the province of Asia (Acts xix. 10) even to places not visited by 
St. Paul himself (Col. ii, 1). Thessalonica was early a centre of Christian 
propaganda (1 Thess. i. 7, 8; iv. 10), and later St. Paul again spent some 
time there (Acts xx. 2). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians contains in 
the greeting the words σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ TH ᾿Αχαίᾳ, 
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, 
ad the great Egnatian road he had followed would lead him straight to 

ome. 

(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. 15), but that here he states that he does not wish to build on another man’s 
foundation ; how then it is asked could he wish to go to Rome where there 
was already a church? But there is no evidence that Christianity had been 
officially or systematically preached there (Acts xxviii. 22), and only a small 
community was in existence, which had grown up chiefly as composed of 
settlers from other places. Moreover, St. Paul specially says that it is for 
the sake of mutual grace and encouragement that he wishes to go there; he 


410 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 22, 23. 


implies that he does not wish to stay long, but desires to press on further 
westward (ver. 24). 


THE APOSTLE’S PLANS. 


XV. 22-33. J have been these many times hindered from 
coming to you, although I have long eagerly desired it. Now 
7 hope I may accomplish my wish in the course of a journey 
to Spain. But not immediately. I must first take to Feru- 
salem the contributions sent thither by Macedonia and 
Achaia—a generous gift, and yet but a gust recompense for 
the spiritual blessings the Gentile Churches have received 
from the Fews. When this mission ts accomplished I hope 
I may come to you on my way to Spain (vv. 22-29). 

Meantime I carnestly ask your prayers for my own 
personal safety and that the gifts I bear may be received by 
the Church. I shall then, if God will, come to you with 
a light heart, and be refreshed by your company. May the 
God of peace make His peace to light upon you (vv. 30-33). 


22. διὸ καί. The reason why St. Paul had been so far prevented 
from coming to Rome was not the fear that he might build on 
another man’s foundation, but the necessity of preaching Christ in 
the districts through which he had been travelling ; now there was 
no region untouched by his apostolic labours, no further place for 
action in those districts. ἐνεκοπτόμην: Gal. v. 7; 1 Th. il. 18; 
x Pet... ἡ. 

τὰ πολλά, ‘these many times,’ i.e. all the times when I thought 
of doing so, or had an opportunity, as in the RV.; not, as most 
commentators, ‘for the most part’ (Vulg. plerumgue). πολλάκις, 
which is read by Lips. with BDEFG, is another instance of 
Western influence in B. 

23. νυνὶ δὲ μηκέτι τόπον ἔχων, ‘seeing that I have no longer 
opportunity for work in these regions.’ τόπον, as in Xil, 19, q.V.; 
Eph. iv. 27 ; Heb. xii. 17, ‘opportunity,’ ‘scope for action.’ κλίμασι, 
‘tracts’ or ‘regions’ (2 Cor. xi.10; Gal.i. 21; often in Polybius). 

ἐπιποθίαν does not occur elsewhere; but ἐπιποθεῖν (Rom. 1. 11; 
3 Cor. v. 3; ix. 143 Phil) 1.8; i 26% 1 Th. 11: 6. 9) Tims a, 
James iv. §; 1 Pet. ii. 2) and ἐπιπόθησις (2 Cor. vii. 7, 11) are not 
uncommon, On its signification, ‘a longing desire,’ see on i. 11. 

ἱκανῶν : a very favourite word in the Acts of the Apostles (ix. 23; 
xviii. 18, &c.). ‘It is likely enough that St. Paul’s special interest 
in the Christian community at Rome, though hardly perhaps his 


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 ἀπὸ ἱκανῶν ἐτῶν (a rather vague phrase, but not so strong as 
the ἀπὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν, which was easily substituted for it)’ Hort, 
Rom. and Eph. p. τι. 


For ἐπιποθίαν δὲ ἔχων Western authorities (Ὁ F G) read ἔχω, an attempt 
to correct the grammar of the sentence. ἱκανῶν, read by BC 37. 59. 71, 
Jo.-Damase., is probably right for πολλῶν, which is supported by all other 
authorities and is read by R.V. 


24. In this verse the words ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, which are inserted 
by the TR. after Σπανίαν, must be omitted on conclusive manuscript 
evidence, while γάρ must as certainly be inserted after ἐλπίζω. 
These changes make the sentence an anacolouthon, almost exactly 
resembling that in v. 12 ff., and arising from very much the same 
causes. St. Paul does not finish the sentence because he feels that 
he must explain what is the connexion between his visit to Spain 
and his desire to visit Rome, so he begins the parenthesis ἐλπίζω 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). 

ὡς ἂν πορεύωμαι. The ὡς ἄν is temporal: cf. Phil. ii. 23; 1 Cor. 
xi. 34: on this latter passage Evans, in Speaker's Comm. p. 328, 
writes: ‘WhenI come: rather according as [ come: the presence of 
the ay points to uncertainty of the time and of the event: for this 
use comp. Aesch. Lum. 33 μαντεύομαι yap ὡς ἂν ἡγῆται θεύς.᾽ 

προπεμφθῆναι: 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 14; 2 Cor. i. 16; need not mean 
more than to be sent forward on a journey with prayers and good 
wishes. The best commentary on this verse is ch. 1. 18 ff. 

Lipsius again strikes out vv. 23, 24 and below in ver, 28 δι᾽ ὑμῶν 
eis τὴν Σπανίαν---ἃ most arbitrary and unnecessary proceeding. 
The construction of the passage has been explained above and is 
quite in accordance with St. Paul’s style, and the desire to pass 
further west and visit Spain is not in any way inconsistent with 
the desire to visit Rome. The existence of a community there 
did not at all preclude him from visiting the city, or from 
preaching in it; but it would make it less necessary for him to 
remain long. On the other hand, the principal argument against 
the genuineness of the passage, that St. Paul never did visit Spain 
(on which see below ver. 28), is most inconclusive ; a forger would 
never have interpolated a passage in order to suggest a visit to 
Spain which had never taken place. But all such criticism fails 


412 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS’ [ΧΥ͂. 24-27. 


absolutely to realize the width and boldness of St. Paul’s schemes. 
He must carry the message of the Gospel ever further. Nothing 
will stop him but the end of his own life or the barrier of the 
ocean. 

25. St. Paul now mentions a further reason which will cause 
some delay in his visit to Rome, and his missionary journey to 
Spain. 

διακονῶν τοῖς ἁγίοις : cf. 2 Cor. vili. 4 τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς διακονίας 
τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίου. The expression ‘ministering to the saints’ has 
become almost a technical expression in St. Paul for the contribu- 
tions made by the Gentile Christians to the Church at Jerusalem, 

26. εὐδόκησαν implies that the contribution was voluntary, and 
made with heartiness and good-will: see on Rom. x. 1 (εὐδοκία) ; 
t Cor. i. a1 ¢° Galil 15: 

κοινωνίαν ; of a collection or contribution 2 Cor. viii. 4; ix. 13 
ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ εἰς πάντας and κοινωνεῖν Rom. 
xli, 13 ταῖς χρείαις τῶν ἁγίων κοινωνοῦντες. 

πτωχούς : οἵ. Gal. ii. 10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν. On 
the poor Christians at Jerusalem see James ii. 2 ff.; Renan, Z7s/. 
des Origines, &c. vol. iv. ch. 3. In Jerusalem the Sadducees, who 
were the wealthy aristocracy, were the determined opponents of 
Christianity, and there must have been in the city a very large 
class of poor who were dependent on the casual employment and 
spasmodic alms which are a characteristic of a great religious 
centre. The existence of this class is clearly implied in the 
narrative at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles. There 
was from the very first a considerable body of poor dependent on 
the Church, and hence the organization of the Christian community 
with its lists (1 Tim. v. 19) and common Church fund (ἀπὸ τοῦ 
κοινοῦ Ign. Ad Polyc. iv. 3) and officers for distributing alms (Acts 
vi. 1-4) must have sprung up very early. 

27. εὐδόκησαν κιτιλ. St. Paul emphasizes the good-will with 
which this contribution was made by repeating the word εὐδόκησαν ; 
he then points out that in another sense it was only the repayment 
of a debt. The Churches of the Gentiles owed all the spiritual 
blessings they enjoyed to that of Jerusalem, ‘from whom is Christ 
according to the flesh,’ and they could only repay the debt by 
ministering in temporal things. 

πνευματικοῖς... σαρκικοῖς. Both are characteristically Pauline 
words. 1 Cor, ix. 11 εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν τὰ πνευματικὰ ἐσπείραμεν, μέγα el 
ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν τὰ σαρκικὰ θερίσομεν ; σαρκικοῖς is used without any bad 
association. 


ἐκοινώνησαν. The word κοινωνέω, of which the meaning 1s of course ‘ to 
be a sharer or participator in,’ may be used either of the giver or of the 
receiver. The giver shares with the receiver by giving contributions, so Rom, 
xii. 13 (quoted on ver. 26); the receiver with the giver by receiving contri- 
butions, so here. The normal construction in the Ν, T. is as here with the 


XV. 27, 28. THE APOSTLE’S PLANS 413 


dative : once (Heb. ii. 14) it is used with the genitive, and this construction is 
common in the O. T. (Lft. on Gal. vi. 6). 


The contributions for the poor in Jerusalem are mentioned in 
Rom. xv. 26, 27; 1 Cor. xvi. 1-3; 2 Cor.ix. 1 ff; Acts xxiv. 17, and 
form the subject of the ablest and most convincing section in 
Paley’s Horae Paulinae. Without being in any way indebted to 
one another, and each contributing some new element, all the 
different accounts fit and dovetail into one another, and thus imply 
that they are all historical. ‘For the singular evidence which this 
passage affords of the genuineness of the Epistle, and what is more 
important, as it has been impugned, of this chapter in particular, 
see Paley’s Horae Paulinae, chap. ii. No. 1.’ Jowett, ad /oc., and 
for some further reff. see Introd. § 4. 

28. ἐπιτελέσας ... σφραγισάμενος. St. Paul resumes his argu- 
ment and states his plans after the digression he has just made 
on what lies in the immediate future. With ἐπιτελέσας (a Pauline 
word), cf. Phil. i. 6; it was used especially of the fulfilment of 
religious rites (Heb. ix, 6 and in classical authors), and coupled 
with λειτουργῆσαι above, suggests that St. Paul looks upon these 
contributions of the Gentile communities as a solemn religious 
offering and part of their εὐχαριστία for the benefits received. 

σφραγισάμενος, ‘having set the seal of authentication on.’ The 
seal was used as an official mark of ownership: hence especially 
the expression ‘the seal of baptism’ (2 Cor, i. 22; Eph. i. 13; 
see on iv. 11). Here the Apostle implies that by taking the con- 
tributions to Jerusalem, and presenting them to the Church, he puts 
the mark on them (as a steward would do), showing that they are 
the fruit to the Church of Jerusalem of those spiritual blessings 
(πνευματικά) which through him had gone forth to the Gentile 
world. 

eis τὴν Σπανίαν. It has been shown above that it is highly prob- 
able that St. Paul should have desired to visit Spain, and that therefore 
nothing in these verses throws any doubt on the authenticity of the 
chapter as a whole or of any portions of it. A further question 
arises, Was the journey ever carried out? Some fresh light is 
perhaps thrown on the question by Professor Ramsay’s book Zhe 
Church and the Empire. If his arguments are sound, there is 
no reason to suppose that if St. Paul was martyred at Rome 
(as tradition seems to suggest) he must necessarily have suffered 
in what is ordinarily called the Neronian persecution. He might 
have been beheaded either in the later years of Nero’s reign or 
even under Vespasian. So that, if we are at liberty to believe 
that he survived his first imprisonment, there is no need to compress, 
as has been customary, the later years of his missionary activity. 

It is on these assumptions easier to find room for the Spanish 
journey. Have we evidence for it? Dismissing later writers whe 


414 EPISTLE TO THE ΕΟΜΑΝΒ [ΧΥ. 28-30 


seem to have had no independent evidence, our authorities are 
reduced to two, the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, and 
Clement of Rome. We cannot lay much stress on the former ; it 
is possible perhaps that the writer had independent knowledge, but 
it 18 certainly more probable that he is merely drawing a conclu- 
sion, and not quite a correct one, from this Epistle: the words are 
sed ef profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam profictscentis. The 
passage in Clement (δ 5) runs as follows: Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον 
ὑπέδειξεν, ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, φυγαδευθείς, λιθασθείς, κῆρυξ γενόμενος 
ἕν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος 
ἔλαβεν, δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως 
ἐλθών, καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου καὶ 
εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη. This passage is much stronger, and 
Lightfoot’s note in favour of interpreting the words τὸ τέρμα τῆς 
δύσεως as Meaning Spain is very weighty; but is it quite certain 
that a Jew, as Clement probably was (according to Lightfoot him- 
self), speaking of St. Paul another Jew would not look upon Rome 
relatively to Jerusalem as the τέρμα τῆς δύσεως, ‘the western limit’? 
We in England might for example speak of Athens as being in the 
Eastern Mediterranean. There is also some force in Hilgenfeld’s 
argument that ἐλθών and μαρτυρήσας should be taken together. For 
these reasons the question whether St. Paul ever visited Spain 
must remain very doubtful. 

29. πληρώματι : see on xi. 12. St. Paul feels confident that his 
visit to Rome will result in a special gift of Christ’s blessing. He 
will confer on the Church a χάρισμα πνευματικόν, and will in his turn 
be comforted by the mutual faith which will be exhibited. Cf. i. 
11, 12: 

It has been pointed out how strongly these words make for the 
authenticity and early date of this chapter. No one could possibly 
write in this manner at a later date, knowing the circumstances 
under which St. Paul actually did visit Rome. See also ver. 32 ἵνα 
ἐν χαρᾷ ἐλθὼν πρὸς ὑμᾶς διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ συναναπαύσωμαι ὑμιν. 


The TR. reads with δξο L &c., Vulg.-clem. Syrr. Arm., Chrys. Theodrt. 
εὐλογίας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Xp. The words τοῦ εὖ. τοῦ should be omitted op 
decisive authority. 


80. The reference to his visit to Jerusalem reminds St. Paul of 
the dangers and anxieties which that implies, and leads him to 
conclude this section with an earnest entreaty to the Roman Chris- 
tians to join in prayers on his behalf. Hort (Rom. and Eph. 
pp. 42-46) points out how this tone harmonizes with the dangers 
that the Apostle apprehended (cf. Acts xx. 17-38, xxi. 13, ᾿ς ΔΝ]: 
‘We cannot here mistake the twofold thoughts of the Apostle’s 
mind, He is full of eager anticipation of visiting Rome with the 
full blessing of the accomplishment of that peculiar ministration. 


XV. 80-82.]} THE APOSTLE’S PLANS 415 


But he is no less full of misgivings as to the probability of escaping 
with his life’ (p. 43). 

διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Πνεύματος. That brotherly love which is one 
of the fruits of the Spirit working in us (cf. Gal. v. 22). That 
πνεῦμα is personal is shown by the parallelism with the first clause. 

συναγωνίσασθαι. ‘He breaks off afresh in an earnest entreaty to 
them to join him in an intense energy of prayer, wrestling as it were’ 
(Hort, op. εἰ. p. 43). They will as it were take part in the contest 
that he must fight by praying on his behalf to God, for all prayer 
is a spiritual wrestling against opposing powers. So of our Lord’s 
agony in the garden: Luke xxii. 44; Matt. xxvi. 42. Cp. Origen 
ad loc.: Vix enim invenies, ut orantt cuiguam non aliquid inants et 
alienae cogitationts occurrat, et tntentionem, gua in Deum mens dirt- 
gitur, declinet ac frangat, atque eam per ea quae non compettt, raptat. 
Et ideo agon magnus est orationts, ut obststentibus tnimicts, et ora- 
honis sensum tn diversa rapientibus, fixa ad Deum semper mens stabilt 
intentione coniendat, ut merito posstt etiam ipse dicere: cerlamen 
bonum cerlavi, cursum consummavt. 

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, 
22: 2x1; 11). 

In ver. 30 ἀδελφοί is omitted by B76, Aeth., Chrys. alone, but perhaps 


correctly. In ver. 31 ἡ δωροφορία for διακονία, and ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ for eis ‘I. 
are instances of Western paraphrase shared by B (BD FG). 


82. But the prayer that the Roman Christians offer for St. Paul 
will also be a prayer for themselves. If his visit to Jerusalem be 
successful, and his peace-offering be accepted, he will come to 
Rome with stronger and deeper Christian joy. ‘After the personal 
danger and the ecclesiastical crisis of which the personal danger 
formed a part’ (Hort) he hopes to find rest in a community as yet 
untroubled by such strife and distraction. 

συναναπαύσωμαι, ‘I may rest and refresh my spirit with you.’ 
Only used here in this sense (but later in Hegesippus af. Eus. 
Hf. 45. IV. xxii. 2). Elsewhere it is used of sleeping together 
(Is. xi. 6). The unusual character of the word may have been the 
cause of its omission in B and the alteration in some Western MSS. 
(see below). 


There are several variations of reading in this verse : 

(1) SAC, Boh. Arm., Orig.-lat. read ἐλθὼν... συναναπαύσωμαι with 
some variation in the position of ἐλθών (afier ἵνα δὲ, Boh., Orig.-lat. ; after 
χαρᾷ AC agreeing in this with other authorities). All later MSS. with the 


416 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 82-XVI. i. 


Western group read ἔλθω and insert καί before συναναπαύσωμαι. B is alone in 
having ἔλθω and omitting συναναπαύσωμαι ὑμῖν, but receives support in the 
reading of some Western authorities; DE read ἀναψύξω μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, F G ἀνα- 
ψύχω μ. &., agreeing with most Latin authorities, refrigerer vobiscum. 

(2) For διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ (ACLP, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm., Orig.-lat. 
Chrys. Thdrt.), δὲ Ambrst. have δ. θ. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, DEF G (with defg), 
fuld. Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, Β Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ. Lightfoot (Om a fresh Revision, &c., 
pp. 106 ff.) suggests that the original reading was θελήματος used absolutely 
of the Divine will: cf. Rom. ii. 18; 1 Cor. xvi. 12. See also his note on 
Ign. Eph. § 20, Rom. § 1 (where some authorities add τοῦ Θεοῦ, others 
domini), Smyrn. §§ 1, 11. Elsewhere in St. Paul the expression always is 
θέλημα Θεοῦ, except once, Eph. v. 17 τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Κυρίου. 


83. ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης : cf. ver. 5. St. Paul concludes his 
request for a prayer with a prayer of his own for them. ‘Peace,’ 
a keynote of the Epistle, is one of his last thoughts. 


AFG and some minuscules omit ἀμήν, On the importance ascribed to 
this word by some commentators see the Introduction, § 9. 


PERSONAL GREETINGS. 


XVI. 1-16. 7] commend to you Phoebe our sister. Receive 
her as becometh members of a Christian Church. For she 
has stood by many others, and myself as well (vv. 1, 2). 

Greet Prisca and Aquila. Greet all those whose names 
or persons I know, who are members of your community 
(vv. 3-16). 


1. συνίστημι. The ordinary word for to ‘commend,’ ‘introduce’; 
see on iii. 5, a derivative of which appears in the phrase συστατικαὶ 
ἐπιστολαί (2 Cor. iii. ; for its use in the later ecclesiastical writings 
see Suicer, Zhesaurus). These letters played a very large part in 
the organization of the Church, for the tie of hospitality (cf. xii. 13), 
implying also the reception to communion, was the great bond 
which united the separate local Churches together, and some pro- 
tection became necessary against imposture. 

φοίβην. Nothing is otherwise known of Phoebe, nor can we 
learn anything from the name. She was presumably the bearer of 
this letter. 

διάκονον, ‘a deaconess.’ The only place in which this office is re- 
ferred to by name in the N. T. (for 1 Tim. iii. 11, v. 3 ff. cannot be 
quoted). The younger Pliny (Zp. X. xcvi. 8) speaks of mzmistrae: 
guo magis necessarium credidt ex duabus ancillis, quae ministrae 
dicebantur, quid esset vert et per tormenta quaerere. They do not 
appear elsewhere to be referred to in any certain second-century 
writing ; but constant reference to them occurs in the Afosfolic 


XVI. 1, 2.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 417 


Constitutions, in the earlier books under the name of διάκονος (ii. 26 ; 
iii. 15), in the later of διακόνισσα (viii. 19, 20, 28). Of the exact 
relation of the ‘deaconess’ to the ‘ widows’ (1 Tim. v. 3) it is not 
necessary to speak, as we have no sufficient evidence for so early 
a date; it is quite clear that later they were distinct as bodies, and 
that the widows were considered inferior to the deaconesses (A fost. 
Const. iii. 7); it is probable however that the deaconesses were for 
the most part chosen from the widows. That the reference to 
a ‘deaconess’ is in no sense an anachronism may be inferred both 
from the importance of διακονία in the early Church, which had quite 
clearly made it necessary for special male officials to be appointed, 
and from the separate and secluded life of women. From the very 
beginning of Christianity—more particularly in fact at the beginning 
—there must have been a want felt for women to perform for 
women the functions which the deacons performed for men. 
Illustrations of this need in baptism, in visiting the women’s 
part of a house, in introducing women to the deacon or bishop, 
may be found in the Afoséolical Constitutions (iii. 15, &c.). So 
much is clear. An office in the Church of this character, we 
may argue on @ prior? grounds, there must have been; but an 
order in the more ecclesiastical sense of the term need not have 
existed. διάκονος is technical, but need hardly be more so than is 
προστώτις in ver. 2. (The arguments of Lucht against the au- 
thenticity of portions of these two verses are examined very fully 
by Mangold, Der Romerbrief und seine geschichilichen Voraussetzung, 
pp. 136 ff.) 

τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Keyxpeats. Cenchreae was the port of Corinth 
on the Saronic Gulf. During St. Paul’s stay at Corinth that city 
had become the centre of missionary activity throughout all Achaia 
(cf. 2 Cor. i. 1), and the port towards Ephesus, a place where there 
must have been many Jews living, could easily be a centre of the 
Christian Church. Its position would afford particularly an oppor- 
tunity for the exercise by Phoebe of the special duties of hospitality. 

2. ἀξίως τῶν ἁγίων, ‘in a manner worthy of the saints,’ i.e. ‘ of 
the Church.’ Not only to provide for her wants, but to admit her 
to every spiritual privilege as ‘in the Lord.’ 

προστάτις, a ‘succourer’ or ‘helper’; this almost technical 
word is suggested by παραστῆτε. It is the feminine form of mpo- 
στάτης, used like the Latin patronus for the legal representative of 
the foreigner. In Jewish communities it meant the legal repre- 
sentative or wealthy patron: see Schiirer, Die Gemeinde-Verfas- 
sung, &c., Ins. 31: enOade κειτε | raic mpoctatue | ocioc ezHceN | ETH OB 
ἐν εἰρη | Kommucic coy, Cf. also C./. G. 5361. We also find the word 
used of an office-bearer in a heathen religious association, see 
Foucart, Associations Religieuses, p. 202, Ins. 20, line 34 (= C.1.G. 
126) δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ὁ προστάτης καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερανιστὴς Kai ὁ γραμματεὺς καὶ 

ze 


418 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 2-4. 


οἱ ταμίαι καὶ σύνδικοι. Here the expression suggests that Phoebe 
was a person of some wealth and position who was thus able 
to act as patroness of a small and struggling community. 

8. Πρίσκαν καὶ ᾿Ακύλαν. So the MSS. here by preponderating 
authority for Πρίσκιλλα κι ᾿Α. Priscilla is a diminutive for Prisca, and 
both are Roman names. 


In Acts xviii. 2 the reading is ᾿Ακύλαν.... καὶ Πρίσκιλλαν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, 
in ver. 18 Πρίσκιλλα καὶ ᾿Ακύλας ; in 1 Cor. xvi. 19 ᾿Ακύλας καὶ Πρίσκα (so 
SBM P, Boh., butA C DEFG, &c., Vulg. Syrr. Πρίσκιλλαλ) ; in 2 Tim. iv. 19 
Πρίσκαν καὶ ᾿Ακύλαν (by preponderating authority). The fact that Prisca is 
so often mentioned first suggests that she was the more important of the two. 


4. οἵτινες... Tov ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον κιτιᾺ. probably refers to some 
great danger which they had run on his behalf. It may have been 
the great tumult at Ephesus, although this was somewhat recent. 
If so the danger then incurred may have been the reason that they 
had left that city and returned for a time to Rome. The special 
reference to the Churches of the Gentiles perhaps arises from the 
fact that, owing to their somewhat nomadic life, they were well 
known to many Christian Churches. 


Aquila and Priscilla. 


The movements of Aquila and Priscilla have been considered to be so 
complicated as to throw doubts on the authenticity of this section of the 
Epistle, or to suggest that it was addressed not to the Ckurch at Rome, but 
to the Church of Ephesus. 

From Acts xviii. 1, 2 we learn that Aquila was a Jew of Pontus. He and 
his wife Prisca had been compelled to leave Kome in 52 A.D. by the decree 
of Claudius. They retired to Corinth, where they first became acquainted 
with St. Paul. With him they went to Ephesus, where they remained some 
time ; they were there when the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written, 
and had a church in their house (ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἐν Κυρίῳ πολλὰ ᾿Ακύλας 
καὶ Πρίσκα σὺν τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ τ Cor. xvi. 19). This Epistle 
was written probably about twelve months before the Epistle to the 
Romans. In 2 Tim. iv. 19, written in all probability at least eight years 
later, they appear again at Ephesus, 

Now, is not the life ascribed to them too nomadic? And is not the 
coincidence of the church in their house remarkable? The answer is that 
a nomadic life was the characteristic of Jews at that day, and was certainly 
a characteristic of Aquila and Priscilla (Lightfoot, Aidlical Essays, p. 299, and 
Renan, Les Apétres, pp.96, 97, Zahn, Skzzzen, p.169). We know that although 
Aquila was a Jew of Pontus, yet he and his wife lived, within the space of 
a few years, at Rome, at Corinth, and at Ephesus, Is it then extremely 
improbable that they should travel in after years, probably for the sake of 
their business? And if it were so, would they not be likely to make their 
house, wherever they were, a place in which Christians could meet together? 

On ἃ priori grounds we cannot argue against the possibility of these 
changes. Are there any positive arguments for connecting them with the 
Roman Church? De Rossi, in the course of his archaeological investigations, 
has suggested two traces of their influence, both of which deserve investi- 
gation. 


XVI. 4.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 419 


(i) Amongst the older churches of Rome is one on the Aventine bearing 
the name of St. Prisca, which gives a title to one of the Roman Cardinals. 
Now there is considerable evidence for connecting this with the names of 
Aquila and Priscilla. In the Zzder Pontificalis, in the life of Leo III 
(795-816), it is described as the ‘titulus Aquilae et Priscae’ (Duchesne, 
L2b. Pont. 11. p. 20); in the legendary Acts of St. Prisca (which apparently 
date from the tenth century) it is stated that the body of St. Prisca was 
translated from the place on the Ostian road where she had been buried, and 
transferred to the church of St. Aquila and Prisca on the Aventine (“εἴα 
Sanctorum, Jan. Tom. ii. p. 187 et deduxerunt ipsam ad urbem Komam 
sum hymnis et canticis spiritualibus, tuxta Arcum Romanum in ecclesia 
sanctorum Martyrum Aquilae et Priscae), and the tradition is put very 
clearly in an inscription apparently of the tenth century which formerly 
stood over the door of the church (C. Zs. Christ. li. p. 443): 


Haec domus est Aquilae seu Priscae Virginis Almae 
Quos lupe Paule tuo ore vehis domino 

Hic Petre divint Tribuebas fercula verbt 
Sepius hocce loco sacrificans domino. 


Many later testimonies are referred to by De Rossi, but they need not here 
be cited. 

For the theory that this church is on the site of the house of Prisca and 
Aquila, De Rossi finds additional support in a bronze diploma found in 1776 
in the garden of the church bearing the name of G. Marius Pudens Cor- 
nelianus: for in the legendary Acts of Pudens, Pudenziana, and Praxedis, 
Priscilla is stated to have been the mother of Pudens (Acta Sanct. Mai. 
Tom. iv. p. 297), 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 ¢tulus S. Priscae (see Liber Pontificalis, 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 Pudens. The object of the Acta 
is in fact to invent a history for martyrs whose names were known, and who 
were for some reason grouped together. But why were they thus grouped? 
The reason probably is given in the statement at the end, that they were 
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 ¢2tz/us 
St. Priscae with the Aquila and Priscilla of the N.T. (see de Rossi, Bu//. 
Arch. Christ. Ser. i. No. 5 (1867), p. 45 ff.) 

(ii) A second line of argument seems more fruitful. The explorations of 
De Rossi in the Coemetertum Priscillae, outside the Porta Salaria, have 
resulted in the discovery that as the Coemeterium Domitillae starts from 
a burying-place of Domitilla and her family, so that of Priscilla originates in 
the burying-place of Acilius Glabrio and other members of the Acilian gens. 
This seems to corroborate the statement of Dio Cassius (Ixvii. 14) that the 


420 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 4, 5. 


Acilius Glabrio who was consul with Trajan in A.D. ΟἹ was a Christian and 
died as such, and implies that Christianity had penetrated into this as into 
other leading Roman families. Now the connexion with the subject immediately 
before us is as follows. ‘The same researches have shown that a name of 
the females of the Acilian gens is Priscilla or Prisca. For instance, in one 
inscription we read : 
mM’ ACILIUS V..... 
σι ν. 
PRISCILLA ..C 


Aquila was a Jew of Pontus: how then does it happen that his wife, if not 
he himself, bore a Koman name? The answer seems to be suggested by 
these discoveries. They were freedmen of a member of the Acilian gens, 
as Clemens the Roman bishop was very probably the freedman of Flavius 
Clemens. The name Prisca or Priscilla would naturally come to an ad- 
herent of the family. The origin of the name Aquila is more doubtful, but 
it too might be borne by a Roman freedman. If this suggestion be correct, 
then both the names of these two Roman Christians and the existence of 
Christianity in a leading Roman family are explained. 

Two other inscriptions may be quoted, as perhaps of interest. The first 
is clearly Christian : 

AQUILIAE PRISCAE IN PACE 


The second C. /. 2. vi. 12273 may be so. The term Resafa might suggest 
that it is but also might be Mithraic: 


D. M. 

AQUILIA - RENATA 
QVAE-V-A-N... 
SE - VIVA + POSVIT - 5181 
CVRANTE - AQVILIO I1VSTO 
ALVMNO + ET - AQVILIO 
PRISCO - FRATRE 


The argument is not demonstrative, but seems to make the return of 
Aquila and Priscilla to Rome, and their permanent connexion with the 
Roman Church, probable. See De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser. iv. 
No. 6 (1888-9), p. 129 Aquilae Prisca et gli Acilit Glabriont. 

Dr. Hort (Rom. and Eph. pp. 12-14), following a suggestion made by 
Dr. Plumptre (Bidlical Studies, p. 417), points out that it is a curious fact 
that in four out of the six places in which the names occur that of the wife is 
the first mentioned. He connects the name with the cemetery of St. Prisca, 
and suggests that Prisca was herself a member of some distinguished Roman 
family. He points out that only Aquila is called a Jew from Pontus, not 
his wife. There is nothing inconsistent in this theory with that of the 
previous argument; and if it be true much is explained. It may however be 
suggested that for a noble Roman lady to travel about with a Jewish husband 
engaged in mercantile or even artisan work is hardly probable ; and that the 
theory which sees in them freed members of a great household is perhaps 
the most probable. 


δ. καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν. There is no decisive 
evidence until the third century of the existence of special buildings 
used for churches. The references seem all to be to places in 
private houses, sometimes very probably houses of a large size. In 
the N.T. we have first of all (Acts xii. 12) the house of Mary, the 
mother of John, where many were collected together and praying. 
Col. iv. 15 ἀσπάσασθε rods ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἀδελφούς, καὶ Νυμφᾶν, καὶ τὴν 


XVI. 5.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 421 


κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν : Philemon 2 καὶ τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκόν σον ἐκκλησίᾳ : 
besides x Cor. xvi. 19. Ata later date we have Clem. Recog. x. 71 
Theophilus, domus suae ingentem basilicam ecclestae nomine consecraret: 
De Rossi, Roma Sott. i. p. 209 Collegium quod est in domo 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 Acta Justint Martyris § 2 
(Ruinart) where however the speaker is of course intentionally 
vague: Quaesivit Praefectus, quem in locum Christiant conventrent. 
Cut respondtt Iustinus, co unumquemque convenire quo vellet ac posset. 
An, ingutt, existimas omnes nos in eumdem locum convenire solitos δ 
Minime res tta se habet... Tunc pracfectus: Age, inquit, dicas, 
guem in locum conventatis, et discipulos tuos congreges. Respondil 
Tustinus: Ego prope domum Martini cutusdam, ad balneum cogno- 
mento Timiotinum, hactenus manst. 

*Emaiveros. Of him nothing is known: the name is not an un- 
common one and occurs in inscriptions from Asia Minor, C. JZ. G, 
2953 (from Ephesus), 3903 (from Phrygia). The following in- 
scription from Rome is interesting, C./.Z. vi. 17171 DIS- MAN | 
EPAENETI (517) | EPAENETI.F | EPHESIO | T-MVNIVS | PRIS- 
CIANVS | AMICO SVO. 

ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ᾿Ασίας : i.e. one of the first converts made in the 
Roman province of Asia: cp. 1 Cor. xvi. 15 οἴδατε τὴν οἰκίαν Στεφανᾶ, 
ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ᾿Αχαίας, καὶ εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς. 
On the importance of first converts see Clem. Rom. § xlii κατὰ χώρας 
οὖν καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες καθίστανον Tas ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες TO 
πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν. 

This name caused great difficulty to Renan, ‘What! had all the 
Church of Ephesus assembled at Rome?’ ‘All’ when analyzed is 
found to mean three persons of whom two had been residents at 
Rome, and the third may have been a native of Ephesus but is 
only said to have belonged to the province of Asia (cf. Lightfoot, 
Biblical Essays, p. 301). How probable it was that there should 
be foreigners in Rome attached to Christianity may be illustrated 
from the Acts of Justin which were quoted in the note on an 
earlier portion of the verse. These give an account of the 
martyrdom of seven persons, Justin himself, Charito, Charitana, 
Euelpistus, Hierax, Liberianus, and Paeon. Of these Justin we 
know was a native of Samaria, and had probably come to Rome 
from Ephesus, Euelpistus who was a slave of the Emperor was 
a native of Cappadocia, and Hierax was of Iconium in Phrygia. 
This was about roo years later. 


422 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 5-7 


᾿Ασίας 1s supported by preponderating authority (NA BCDFG, Vulg. 
Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrst.) against ’Ayatas (LP &c., 
Syrr., Chrys. Theodrt.). 

For the idea of illustrating this chapter from inscriptions we are of course 
indebted to Bishop Lightfoot’s able article on Caesar’s household (Philippians, 
p.169). Since that paper was written, the appearance of a portion of vol. vi. 
of the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions, that, namely, containing the inscriptions 
of the city of Rome, has both provided us with more extensive material and 
also placed it in a more convenient form for reference. We have therefore 
gone over the ground again, and either added new illustrations or given 
references to the Latin Corpus for inscriptions quoted by Lightfoot from 
older collections. Where we have not been able to identify these we have 
not, except in a few cases, thought it necessary to repeat his references. 
A large number of these names are found in Columbaria containing the 
monuments and ashes of members of the imperial household during the first 
century: these special collections are kept together in the Corpus (vi. 3926- 
8397). There is also a very large section devoted to other names belong- 
ing to the domus Augusti (vi. 8398-9101). A complete use of these 
materials will not be possible until the publication of the Zndices to vol. vi. 
For a discussion of the general bearing of these references, see Introduction, 


§ 9. 

6. Μαρίαν (which is the correct reading) may like Μαριάμ be 
Jewish, but it may also be Roman. In favour of the latter alter- 
native in this place it may be noticed that apparently in other cases 
where St. Paul is referring to Jews he distinguishes them by calling 
them his kinsmen (see on ver. 7). The following inscription from 
Rome unites two names in this list, C. ZZ. vi. 22223 p-M-| 
MARIAE | AMPLIATAE ce/. ; the next inscription is from the house- 
hold, ib. 4394 MARIAE-M-+L+ XANTHE | NYMPHE: FEC: DE- SVO. 

ἥτις πολλὰ ἐκοπίασεν εἰς ὑμᾶς. This note is added, not for the 
sake of the Roman Church, but as words of praise for Maria 
herself. 


Μαρίαν is read by A BC P, Boh. Arm. ; Μαριάμ by ND EFGL, &c., Chrys. 
The evidence for eis ὑμᾶς, which is a difficult reading, is preponderating 
(SABCP, Syrr. Boh.), and it is practically supported by the Western 
group (Ὁ EFG, Vulg.), which have ἐν ὑμῖν. The correction εἰς ἡμᾶς is read 
by L, Chrys. and later authorities. 


7. ᾿Ανδρόνικον ;: a Greek name found among members of the 
imperial household. The following inscription contains the names 
of two persons mentioned in this Epistle, both members of the 
household, C.J, LZ. vi. 5326 DIS - MANIBVS | C. IVLIVS - HERMES 
VIX - ANN: XXXIII-M-+V | DIEB- XIII | C+ IVLIVS- ANDRONICVS 
CONLIBERTVS-: FEC | BENE- MERENTI- DE: SE: see also 5325 and 
11626 where it is the name of a slave. 

᾿Ιουνίαν : there is some doubt as to whether this name is mas- 
culine, Ἰουνίας or Ἰουνιᾶς, a contraction of Junianus, or feminine 
Junia. Junia is of course ἃ common Roman name, and in that 
case the two would probably be husband and wife; Junias on the 
othe: hand is less usual as a man’s name, but seems to re- 
present a form of contraction common in this list, as Patrobas, 


XVI. 7.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 423 


Hermas, Olympas. If, as is probable, Andronicus and Junias are 
included among the Apostles (see below) then it is more probable 
that the name is masculine, although Chrysostom does not appear 
to consider the idea of a female apostle impossible: ‘And indeed 
to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst 
these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But 
they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. 
Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be 
even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!’ 

τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου. 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, 11) and also in Macedonia (ver. 21); 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. 

καὶ συναιχμαλώτους 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 Philippi, 
2 Cor. xi. 23 ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. v 
ἑπτάκις Seopa φορέσας. 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. 

οἵτινές εἶσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις may mean either (1) 
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. ἐπίσημος, 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 ἀπόστολος. Bp. Lightfoot pointed out 
(Galatians, p. 93) that this word was clearly used both in a narrow 
sense of ‘the twelve’ and also in a wider sense which would include 
many others. His views have been corroborated and strengthened 
by the publication of the Didache. The existence of these ‘Apostles,’ 
itinerant Christian Evangelists, in Rome will suggest perhaps one 
of the methods by which the city had been evangelized. 

οἵ Kai πρὸ ἐμοῦ γεγόνασιν ἐν Χριστῷ: Andronicus and Junias had 
been converted before St. Paul: they therefore belonged to the 
earliest days of the Christian community; perhaps even they were 


424 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 7, 8. 


of those who during the dispersion after the death of Stephen 
began almost immediately to spread the word in Cyprus and Syria 
(Acts xi. 19). As Dr. Weymouth points out (Ox the Rendering into 
English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect, p. 26) the perfect should 
here be translated ‘ were.’ 


‘It is utterly amazing,’ he writes, ‘that in Rom. xvi. 7 of καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ 
γεγόνασιν ἐν Xp. is rendered in the RV. ‘‘ who also have been in Christ before 
me.” The English idiom is here simply outraged. What officer in our 
Navy or Army would not stare at the βάρβαρος who should say of a senior 
officer, “‘ He has been in the Service before me”? ‘ He was in the Navy 
before me” is the only correct English form.... The English mind fastens 
on the idea of time defined by “ before me,” and therefore uses the simple 
Past. ... The Greek Perfect is correctly employed, because it is intended to 
convey, and does convey, the idea that they are still in Christ, while the 
English “ have been” suggests precisely the contrary.’ 


8. ᾿Αμπλιᾶτος is the more correct reading for the abbreviated 
form ᾿Αμπλιᾶς which occurs in the TR. This is a common 
Roman slave name, and as such occurs in inscriptions of the imperial 
household. C./.Z. vi. 4899 AMPLIATVS | RESTITVTO - FRATRI| 
SVO + FECIT - MERENTI: 5154 C. VIBIVS + FIRMVS~:C | VIBIO - 
AMPLIATO | PATRONO - SVO, &c., besides inscriptions quoted by Lft. 
But there is considerable evidence for connecting this name more 
closely with the Christian community in Rome. In the cemetery 
of Domitilla, now undoubtedly recognized as one of the earliest of 
Christian catacombs, is a chamber now known by the name of 
‘Ampliatus’ owing to an inscription which it contains. This 
chamber is very early: pre-Christian in character ii not in origin. 
The cell over which the name of Ampliatus is inscribed is a later 
insertion, which, from the style of its ornament, is ascribed to the 
end of the first or beginning of the second century. The inscription 
is in bold, well-formed letters of the same date. Not far off is another 
inscription, not earlier than the end of the second century, to 
members of apparently the same family. The two inscriptions are 
AMPLIAT[I] and AVRELIAE + BONIFATIAE | CONIVGI - INCOM- 
PARABILI | VERAE CASTITATIS FEMINAE | QVAE: VIXIT - ANN- 
XXV-M-II | DIEB: III + HOR~+ VI | AVREL+ AMPLIATVS CVM | 
GORDIANO - FILIO. ‘The boldness of the lettering in the first 
inscription is striking. The personal name without any other 
distinction suggests a slave. Why then should any one in these 
circumstances receive the honour of an elaborately painted tomb? 
The most plausible explanation is that he was for some reason 
very prominent in the earliest Roman Church. The later inscription 
clearly suggests that there was a Christian family bearing this 
name; and the connexion with Domitilla seems to show that here 
we have the name of a slave or freedman through whom Christianity 
had penetrated into a second great Roman household. See de 
Rossi, Bull. Arch.Christ. Ser. iii. vol. 6 (1881), pp.57-74; Athenaeum 


XVI. 8-11.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 425 


March 4, 1884, p. 289; the inscription is just referred to by Light- 
foot, Clement. i. p. 39. 

9. Οὐρβανός : a common Roman slave name found among 
members of the household, C. /. Z. vi. 4237 (quoted by Lft. from 
Murat. 920. 1) VRBANVS - LYDES - AVG « L : DISPENS | INMVNIS « 
DAT - HERMAE - FRATRI - ET | CILICAE+ PATRI: Cf. 5604, 5605, 
and others, quoted by Lft. (Grut. p. 589. 10, p. 1070. 1). 

τὸν συνεργὸν ἡμῶν. Where St. Paul is speaking of personal 
friends he uses the singular τὸν ἀγαπητόν pov: here he uses the 
plural because Urbanus was a fellow-worker with all those who 
worked for Christ. 

Στάχυν : a rare Greek name, but found among members of the 
imperial household: C. 7. LZ. vi. 8607 D. M. | M. VLPIO - αν L | 
EROTI | AB - EPISTVLIS + GRAECIS | EPAPHRODITVS | ET - 
STACHYS | CAESAR-N-SER | FRATRI- KARISSIMO- ET | CLAVDIA 
- FORMIANA | FECERVNT: cf. also inscriptions quoted by Lft. 

10. ᾿Απελλῆν. Again a name borne by members of the house- 
hold and by Jews: amongst others by the famous tragic actor. 
See the instance quoted by Lft. and cf. Hor. Saz. I. v. 100 Credat 
Ludaeus Apella, non ego. 

τὸν δόκιμον : cf. x Cor. xi. 19; 2 Cor. x. 183 xiii. 7. One who 
has shown himself an approved Christian. 

τοὺς ἐκ τῶν “AptotoBovhou. The explanation of this name given 
by Lft. bears all the marks of probability. The younger Aristo- 
bulus was a grandson of Herod the Great, who apparently lived 
and died in Rome in a private station (Jos. Bell. Jud. 11. xi. 6; 
Anitg. XX. i. 2); he was a friend and adherent of the Emperor 
Claudius. His household would naturally be of ᾿Αριστοβούλου, and 
would presumably contain a considerable number of Jews and 
other orientals, and consequently of Christians. If, as is probable, 
Aristobulus was himself dead by this time, his household would 
probably have become united with the imperial household. It 
would, however, have continued to bear his name, just as we find 
servants of Livia’s household who had come from that of Maecenas 
called Maecenatiani (C. Z. Z. vi. 4016, 4032), those from the house- 
hold of Amyntas, Amyntiani (4035, cf. 8738): so also Agrippiani, 
Germaniciani. We might in the same way have Arestobuliani (cf. 
Lft. Phd. pp. 172, 3). 

11, Ἡρῳδίωνα τὸν συγγενῆ pov, A mention of the household of 
Aristobulus is followed by a name which at once suggests the 
Herod family, and is specially stated to have been that of a Jew. 
This seems to corroborate the argument of the preceding note. 

τοὺς ἐκ τῶν Ναρκίσσου, ‘the household of Narcissus,’ ‘ Narcis- 
siani.. The Narcissus in question was very possibly the well- 
known ireedman of that name, who had been put to death by 
Agrippina shortly after the accession of Nero some three or four 


426 EPISTLE TO THE ΒΟΜΑΝΒ [XVI. 11-18. 


years before (Tac. Amn. xiii. 1; Dio Cass. lx. 34). His slaves 
would then in all probability become the property of the Emperor, 
and would help to swell the imperial household. The name is 
common, especially among slaves and freedmen, cf, C. 1... vi. 4123 
(in the household of Livia), 4346, 5206 HELICONIS NARCISSI | 
AVGVSTIANI | : 22875 NARCISSVS + AVG: LIB. [{|. quotes also 
the two names Ti. Claudius Narcissus (see below), Ti. lulius Nar- 
cissus from Muratori, and also the form Narcissianus, TI - CLAVDIO - 
SP - F - NARCISSIANO (Murat. p.1150. 4). The following inscrip- 
tion belongs to a somewhat later date: C.J. Z. vi. 9035 D.M. | 
T - FLAVIVS: AVG: LIB | NARCISSVS: FECIT - SIBI | ET - COELIAE : 
SP - FILIAE | IERIAE - CONIVGI- SVAE.... , and lower down T 
FLAVIVS - AVG : LIB: FIRMVS : NARCISSIANVS | RELATOR - AVC- 
TIONVM - MONVMENTVM « REFECIT. See also 9035 a. (Lightfoot, 
Phil. p. 173.) 

Dr. Plumptre (Biblical Studies, p. 428) refers to the following interesting 
inscription. It may be found in C. /. 2. v. 154* being reputed to have come 
from Ferrara. Ὁ. Μ. | CLAVDIAE | DICAEOSYNAE | TI * CLAVDIVS | NAR- 
CISSVS | LIB. AEID. COIV | PIENTISSIMAE | ET FRVGALISSI | B. M. ‘Tiberius 
Clandius suggests the first century, but the genuineness of the Ins. is not 
sufficiently attested. The editor of the fifth volume of the Corpus writes : 
Testimonia auctorum aut incertorum...aut fraudulentorum de loco cum 
parum defendant titulum eum exclust, quamquam fiert potest ut sit 
genuinus nec multum corruptus. The name JDicaeosyne is curious but is 
found elsewhere C. 7. Z. iii. 2391; vi. 25866: x. 649. There is nothing dis- 
tinctively Christian about it. 


12. Τρύφαιναν καὶ Τρυφῶσαν are generally supposed to have been 
two sisters. Amongst inscriptions of the household we have 
4866 D. M. | VARIA - TRYPHOSA | PATRONA « ET | M. EPPIVS = 
CLEMENS | : 5035 Ὁ. M. | TRYPHAENA | VALERIA - TRYPHAENA 
| MATRI- B- M- F-ET | VALERIUS + FVTIANVS (quoted by Lft. 
from Acc. dt Archeol. xi. p. 375): 5343 TELESPHORVS - ET - TRY- 
PHAENA, 5774, 6054 and other inscriptions quoted by Lft. Atten- 
tion is drawn to the contrast between the names which imply 
‘delicate,’ ‘dainty,’ and their labours in the Lord. 

The name Tryphaena has some interest in the early history of the Church 


as being that of the queen who plays such a prominent part in the story of 
Paul and Thecla, and who is known to have been a real character. 


Περσίδα. The name appears as that of a treedwoman, C. Z. LZ. vi. 
23959 DIS: MANIB | PER-SIDI-L+ VED | VS: MITHRES | VXORI. 
It does not appear among the inscriptions of the household. 

13. ἹΡοῦφον : one of the commonest of slave names. This Rufus 
is commonly identified with the one mentioned in Mark xv. 21, 
where Simon of Cyrene is called the father of Alexander and Rufus. 
St. Mark probably wrote at Rome, and he seems to speak of 
Rufus as some one well known. 

τὸν ἐκλεκτὸν ἐν Κυρίῳ. ‘Elect’ is probably not here used in the 


XVI. 13-15.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 429 


technical sense ‘chosen of God, —this would not be a feature to 
distinguish Rufus from any other Christian,—but it probably means 
‘eminent,’ ‘ distinguished for his special excellence,’ and the addition 
of ἐν Κυρίῳ means ‘eminent as a Christian’ (2 Jo. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 6). 
So in English phraseology the words ‘a chosen vessel’ are used 
of all Christians generally, or to distinguish some one of marked 
excellence from his fellows. 

καὶ Thy μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ. 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. ᾿Ασύγκριτον : the following inscription is of a freedman of 
Augustus who bore this name, C. /. Z. vi. 12565 D.M. | ASYNCRETO| 
AVG - LIB - FECIT - FL | AVIA - SVCCESSA | PATRONO BENE | ME- 
RENTI. The name Flavia suggests that it is somewhat later than 
St. Paul’s time. 

φλέγοντα. 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. 

Ἑρμῆν: one of the commonest of slave names, occurring con- 
stantly among members of the imperial household. 

Πατρόβαν. An abbreviated form of Patrobius. This name was 
borne by a well-known freedman of Nero, who was put to death by 
Galba (Tac. Hist. i. 49 ; ii. 95). Lft. quotes instances of other freed- 
men bearing it: TI: CL- AVG + 1, - PATROBIVS (Grut. p. 610. 3), 
and TI - CLAVDIO - PATROBIO (Murat. p. 1329). 

Ἑρμᾶς 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 Hermas with the author of the ‘ Shepherd,’ 
an identification which is almost certainly wrong. 

καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀδελφούς. This and the similar expression in 
the next verse seem to imply that these persons formed a small 
Christian community by themselves. 

15. φιλόλογος. A common slave name. Numerous instances 
are quoted from inscriptions of the imperial household: C. 7. Z. vi. 
4116 DAMA: LIVIAE: L: CAS... | PHOEBVS - PHILOLOGI | quoted by 
Lft. from Gorius, Zon. Liv. p. 168 ; he also quotes Murat. p. 1586. 
3, p. 2043. 2; Grut. p. 630.1. 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. 

᾿Ιουλίαν. Probably the commonest of all Roman female names, 
certainly the commonest among slaves in the imperial household. 
The following inscription is interesting: C. 1. LZ. vi. 20416 D. M. | 
IVLIAE NEREI: F: | CLAVDIAE. The name Julia Tryphosa occurs 
20715-- in one case apparently in a Christian inscription. 


428 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 165, 16 


Νηρέα. This name is found in inscriptions of the imperial house- 
hold, C. J. ZL. vi. 4344 NEREVS - NAT + GERMAN | PEVCENNVS - 
GERMANICI | ANVS - NERONIS: CAESARIS. It is best known in 
the Roman Church in connexion with the Acts of Nereus and 
Achilleus, the eunuch chamberlains of Domitilla (see Ac/a Sancto- 
rum May. iii. p. 2; Texte und Untersuchungen, Band xi. Heft 2). 
These names were, however, older than that legend, as seems to 
be shown by the inscription of Damasus (Bull. Arch. Christ. 1874, 
p. 20 sq.; C. Jns. Christ. ii. p. 31) which represents them as 
soldiers. The origin of the legend was probably that in the cata- 
comb of Domitilla and near to her tomb, appeared these two 
names very prominently; this became the groundwork for the 
later romance. An inscription of Achilleus has been found in the 
cemetery of Domitilla on a stone column with a corresponding 
column which may have borne the name of Nereus: both date from 
the fourth or fifth century (Bull. Arch. Christ. 1875, p.8 sq.). These 
of course are later commemorations of earlier martyrs, and it may 
well be that the name of Nereus was in an early inscription (like 
that of Ampliatus above). In any case the name is one connected 
with the early history of the Roman Church; and the fact that 
Nereus is combined with Achilleus, a name which does not appear 
in the Romans, suggests that the origin of the legend was archaeo- 
logical, and that it was not derived from this Epistle (Lightfoot, 
Clement. i. p. 51; Lipsius Apokr. Apgesch. ii. τοῦ ff.). 

᾿Ὀλυμπᾶς : an abbreviated form like several in this list, apparently 
for ᾿Ολυμπιόδωρος. 

16. ἐν φιλήματι ἁγίῳ: so 1 Thess. v. 26; τ Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. 
xiii, 12; 1 Pet. v. 14 ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης. The 
earliest reference to the ‘kiss of peace’ as a regular part of the 
Christian service is in Just. Mart. Apol. i. 65 ἀλλήλους φιλήματι 
ἀσπαζόμεθα παυσάμενοι τῶν εὐχῶν. It is mentioned in Tert. de Orat. 
14 (osculum pacts); Const. Apost. ii. 57. 12; viii. 5.5; and it became 
a regular part of the Liturgy. Cf. Origen ad loc.: Ex hoc sermone, 
altisque nonnullis similibus, mos ecclesits traditus est, ut post orationes 
osculo se invicem suscipiant fratres. Hoc autem osculum sanctum 
appellat Apostolus. 

αἱ ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ Χριστοῦ : this phrase is unique in the 
N.T. Phrases used by St. Paul are ai ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἁγίων, ἡ ἐκκλησία 
τοῦ θεοῦ, ai ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ 
(Gal. i. 22), τῶν ἐκκλησίων του θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ 
Ἰησοῦ, and in Acts xx. 28 we have the uncertain passage τὴν ἐκ- 
κλησίαν τοῦ Κυρίου or τοῦ Θεοῦ, where Θεός must, if the correct 
reading, be used of Χριστός. It is a habit of St. Paul to speak on 
behalf of the churches as a whole: cf. xvi. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 17; Σὶν. 
33; 2 Cor. viii. 18; xi. 28; and Hort suggests that this unique 
phrase is used to express ‘the way in which the Church of Rome 


Χν.. 16. 17.] WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 429 


was an object of love and respect to Jewish and Gentile Churches 
alike’ (Rom. and Eph. i. 52). 


WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS, 


XVI. 17-20. Beware of those breeders of division and 
mischie{-makers who pervert the Gospel whith you were 
taught. Men such as these are devoted not to Christ but to 
theiy own unworthy aims. By their plausible and flattering 
speech they deceive the unwary. I give you this warning, 
because your loyalty is well known, and I would have you 
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 Hort 
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 
which will break out from him, and may make his letters some- 
what formless. To a thoughtful reader the suppressed emotion 
implied and the absence of regular method will really be proofs of 
authenticity. It may be noted that we find in the Epistle to the 
Philippians just the same characteristics: there also in iii. 1, just 
apparently as he is going to finish the Epistle, the Apostle makes 
a digression against false teachers. 

17. σκοπεῖν, ‘to mark and avoid.’ The same word is used in 
Phil. i. 17 συμμιμηταί pov γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ σκοπεῖτε τοὺς οὕτω 
περιπατοῦντας in exactly the opposite sense, ‘to mark so as to 
follow.’ 


430 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ XVI. 17-18. 


διχοστασίαι : cf. Gal. v. 20. Those divisions which are the 
result of the spirit of strife and rivalry (ἔρις and ζῆλος) and which 
eventually if persisted in lead to αἱρέσει. The σκάνδαλα are the 
hindrances to Christian progress caused by these embittered 
relations. 

τὴν διδαχήν, not ‘Paulinism,’ but that common basis of Christian 
doctrine which St. Paul shared with all other teachers (1 Cor. 
xv. 1), and with which the teaching of the Judaizers was in his 
opinion inconsistent. 

ἐκκλίνατε: cf. Rom. iii. 11. The ordinary construction is with 
ἀπό and the genitive (a) of the cause avoided ἀπὸ κακοῦ (1 Pet. 
iii. rr), or (δ) of the person. 

18. These false teachers are described as being self-interested 
in their motives, specious and deceptive in their manners. Cf. 
Phil. iii. 19. ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, Sv ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία, καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ 
αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες. 

τῇ ἑαυτῶν κοιλίᾳ. These words do not in this case appear to 
mean that their habits are lax and epicurean, but that their motives 
are interested, and their conceptions and objects are inadequate. 
So Origen: Sed et guid causae stt, qua turgia tnecclestis suscitantur, 
εἰ lites, divin’ Spiritus instinctu aperit. Ventris, inquit, gratia: hoc 
est, guaestus ef cupiditatis. The meaning is the same probably in 
the somewhat parallel passages Phil. iii. 17-21; Col. ii. 20-i1i. 4. 
So Hort ( Judatstic Christianity, p. 124) explains ταπεινοφροσύνη to 
mean ‘a grovelling habit of mind, choosing lower things as the 
primary sphere of religion, and not τὰ ἄνω, the region in which 
Christ is seated at God’s right hand.’ 

χρηστολογίας καὶ εὐλογίας, ‘fair and flattering speech.’ In 
illustration of the first word all commentators quote Jul. Capitolinus, 
Pertinax 13 (in Hist. August): χρηστολόγον eum appellantes qu bene 
loqueretur et male faceret. The use of εὐλογία which generally means 
‘praise,’ ‘laudation,’ or ‘blessing’ (cp. xv. 29), in a bad sense as 
here of ‘flattering’ or ‘specious’ language is rare. An instance is 
quoted in the dictionaries from Aesop. /ad. 229, p. 159, ed. Av. 
ἐὰν σὺ εὐλογίας εὐπορῇς ἔγωγέ σου οὐ κήδομαι. 

19. ἡ γὰρ ὑμῶν ὑπακοή. ‘I exhort and warn you because your 
excellence and fidelity although they give me great cause for 
rejoicing increase my anxiety. These words seem definitely 
to imply that there were not as yet any dissensions or erroneous 
teaching in the Church. They are (as has been noticed) quite 
inconsistent with the supposed Ebionite character of the Church. 
When that theory was given up, all ground for holding these 
words spurious was taken away. 

θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς. St. Paul wishes to give this warning without 
at the same time saying anything to injure their feelings. He 
gives it because he wishes them to be discreet and wary, and 


XVI. 19-23.] WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 431 


therefore blameless. In Matt. x. 16 the disciples are to be 
φρόνιμοι and ἀκέραιοι : see also Phil. ii. 15. 

20. ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης. See on xv. 13. It is the ‘God of 
peace’ who will thus overthrow Satan, because the effect of these 
divisions is to break up the peace of the Church. 

συντρίψει : ‘will throw him under your feet, that you may trample 
upon him.’ 

τὸν Σατανᾶν. In 2 Cor. xi. 14 St. Paul writes ‘for even Satan 
fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing 
therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of 
righteousness.’ The ministers of Satan are looked upon as im- 
personating Satan himself, and therefore if the Church keeps at 
peace it will trample Satan and his wiles under foot. 

ἡ χάρις κιτιλ. St. Paul closes this warning with a salutation 
as at the end of an Epistle. 


There is very considerable divergence in different authorities as to the 
benedictions which they insert in these concluding verses. 

(1) The TR. reads in ver. 20 9 χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ [Χριστοῦ] 
μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. 

This is supported by SA BCLP, &c., Vulg. &c., Orig.-lat. 
It is omitted by Ὁ E Ε G Sedul. 

(2) In ver. 24 it reads ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ. μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. 
ἁμήν. 

This is omitted by δὲ Α ΒΟ, Valg. codd. (am. fuld. harl.) Boh. Aeth. 
Orig.-lat. 

It is inserted by DEFGL, &c., Vulg. Harcl. Chrys. &c. Of these 
F GL 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. a7: 
P. 17. 80, Pesh. Arm. Ambrstr. 

Analyzing these readings we find: 

δὲ A BC, Orig.-lat. have a benediction at ver. 21 only. 

DEFG have one at ver. 24 only. 

L, Vulg. clem., Chrys., and the mass of later authorities have it in both 
places. 

P has it at ver. 21, and after ver. 27. 

The correct text clearly has a benediction at ver. 21 and there only; it 
was afterwards moved to a place after ver. 24, which was very probably 
in some MSS. the end of the Epistle, and in later MSS., by a natural 
conflation, appears in both. See the Introduction, § 9. 


GREETINGS OF ST. PAUL'S COMPANIONS. 


XVI. 21-23. All my companions—Timothy, Lucius, fason, 
and Sosipaier—greet you. I Tertius, the amanuensis, also 
give you Christian greeting. So too do Gaius, and Erastus, 
treasurer of Corinih, and Quartus. 


21-23. These three verses form a sort of postscript, added aftes 


432 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 21-27 


the conclusion of the letter and containing the names of St. Paul’s 
companions, 

21. Τιμόθεος had been with St. Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. i. 1): 
of his movements since then we have no knowledge. The μου 
with συνεργός is omitted by B. 

Λούκιος might be the Lucius of Cyrene mentioned Acts xiii. 1. 
Ἰάσων is probably the one mentioned in Acts xvii. 5-7, 9 as 
St. Paul’s host, and Σωσίπατρος may be the same as the Σώπατρος 
of Acts xx. 4, who was a native of Berea. If these identifications 
are correct, two of these three names are connected with Mace- 
donia, and this connexion is by no means improbable. They had 
attached themselves to St. Paul as his regular companions, or 
come to visit him from Thessalonica. In any case they were 
Jews (οἱ συγγενεῖς μου cf. ver. 7). It was natural that St. Paul 
should lodge with a fellow-countryman. 

22. ὁ γράψας. St. Paul seems generally to have employed an 
amanuensis, see 1 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 17, and 
cf. Gal. vi. 11 ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί. 

23. Γάϊος who is described as the host of St. Paul and of 
the whole Church is possibly the Gaius of 1 Cor. i. 14. In all 
probability the Christian assembly met in his house. Erastus 
(cf. 2 Tim. iv. 20) who held the important office of οἰκόνομος τῆς 
πόλεως, ‘the city treasurer,’ is presumably mentioned as the most 
influential member of the community. 


THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY. 


XVI. 25-27. And now let me give praise to God, who can 
make you firm believers, duly trained and established accord- 
ing to the Gospel that I proclaim, the preaching which 
announces Fesus the Messiah; that preaching in which 
God’s eternal purpose, the mystery of his working, kept 
silent since the world began, has been revealed, a purpose 
which the Prophets of old foretold, which has been preached 
now by God's express command, which announces to all the 
Gentiles the message of obedience in faith: to God, I say, to 
Him who is alone wise, be the glory for ever through Fesus 
Messiah. Amen. 

25-27. The Epistle concludes in a manner unusual in St. Paul 


with a doxology or ascription of praise, in which incidentally all 
the great thoughts of the Epistle are summed up. Although 


XVI. 25.] THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY 433 


doxologies are not uncommon in these Epistles (Gal. i. 5; Rom. 
xi. 36), they are not usually so long or so heavily weighted ; but 
Eph. iii. 21; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17 offer quite sufficient parallels; 
the two former at a not much later date. Ascriptions of praise at 
the conclusion of other Epp. are common, Heb. xiii. 20, 21; Jude 
24, 25; Clem. Rom. ὃ 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 based 
on the paper by Hort published in Lightfoot, Brddical Essays, 
p- 321 ff. 

25. τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι : cf. Rom. xiv. 4 στήκει ἢ miner’ 
σταθήσεται δέ δυνατεῖ γὰρ ὁ Κύριος στῆσαι αὐτόν. A more exact 
parallel is furnished by Eph. iii. 20 τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ... ποιῆσαι... .. 
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα. στηρίζω is confined in St. Paul to the earlier Epistles 
(Rom. 1. 11; and Thess.). δύναμαι, δυνατός, δυνατέω of God, with 
an infinitive, are common in this group. We are at once reminded 
that in i. rz St. Paul had stated that one of the purposes of his 
contemplated visit was to confer on them some spiritual gift that 
they might be established. 

κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου: Rom. ii. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 8; cf. also 
Rom. xi. 28 κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, One salient feature of the Epistle 
is at once alluded to, that special Gospel of St. Paul which he 
desired to explain, and which is the main motive of this Epistle. 
St. Paul did not look upon this as antagonistic to the common 
faith of the Church, but as complementary to and explanatory of 
it. To expound this would especially lead to the ‘ establishment’ 
of a Christian Church, for if rightly understood, it would promote 
the harmony of Jew and Gentile within it. 

καὶ TO κήρυγμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The words κήρυγμα, κηρύσσειν 
occur throughout St. Paul’s Epp., but more especially in this 
second group. (Rom. x. 8; 1 Cor.i. 21, 23; ii. 4; 2 Cori. 19; 
iv. 5; xi. 43 Gal. ii. 2, &c.) The genitive is clearly objective, 
the preaching ‘about Christ’; and the thought of St. Paul is 
most clearly indicated in Rom. x. 8-12, which seems to be here 
summed up. St. Paul’s life was one of preaching. The object 
of his preaching was faith in Jesus the Messiah, and that name 
implies the two great aspects of the message, on the one hand 
salvation through faith in Him, on the other as a necessary 
consequence the universality of that salvation. The reference 
is clearly to just the thoughts which run through this Epistle, and 
which marked the period of the Judaistic controversies, 

κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου κιτλ. Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7, 10 σοφίαν 
δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις... Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ, τὴν ἀποκεκρυμ- 


εἴ 


434 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 25, 26 


μένην, ἣν προώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς mpd τῶν αἰώνων... ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ Θεὸς 
dia τοῦ Πνεύματος. Eph. iii. 3, 5,6; Tit. i. 2, 3; 2 Tim.i.g, ro. 
and for separate phrases, Rom. i. 16; iii. 21; xi. 25. This is the 
thought which underlies much of the argument of chaps. ix—xi, 
and is indirectly implied in the first eight chapters. It represents 
in fact, the conclusion which the Apostle has arrived at in musing 
over the difficulties which the problems of human history as he 
knew them had suggested. God who rules over all the aeons or 
periods in time, which have passed and which are to come, is 
working out an eternal purpose in the world. For ages it was 
a mystery, now in these last days it has been revealed: and this 
revelation explains the meaning of God’s working in the past. 
The thought then forms a transition from the point of view of 
the Romans to that of the Ephesians. It is not unknown in the 
Epp. of the second group, as the quotation from Corinthians shows; 
but there it represents rather the conclusion which is being arrived 
at by the Apostle, while in the Epp. of the Captivity it is assumed 
as already proved, and as the basis on which the idea of the Church 
is developed. The end of the Epistle to the Romans is the first 
place where we should expect this thought in a doxology, and 
coming there, it exactly brings out the force and purpose of the 
previous discussion. | 

The passage κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν down to γνωρισθέντος goes not with 
στηρίξαι but with κήρυγμα. The preaching of Christ was the 
revelation of the ‘mystery which had been hidden,’ and explained 
God's purpose in the world. 

26. In this verse we should certainly read διά re γραφῶν προ- 
φητικῶν. The only Greek MSS. that omit re are DE, and the 
authority of versions can hardly be quoted against it. Moreover, 
the sentence is much simpler if it be inserted. It couples together 
φανερωθέντος and γνωρισθέντος, and all the words from διά re γραφῶν 
to the latter word should be taken together. εἰς πάντα ra ἔθνη 
probably goes with eis ὑπακοὴν πίστεως and not with γνωρισθέντος, 

διά τε γραφῶν mpopytikdv... γνωρισθέντος. All the ideas in 
this sentence are exactly in accordance with the thoughts which 
run through this Epistle. The unity of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, the fact that Christ had come in accordance with the 
Scriptures (Rom. i. 1, 2), that the new method of salvation although 
apart from law, was witnessed to by the Law and the Prophets 
(μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν Rom. iii, 21), the 
constant allusion esp. in chaps. ix-xi to the Old Testament 
Scriptures; all these are summed up in the phrase διὰ γραφῶν 
προφητικῶν. 

The same is true of the idea expressed by κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ 
αἰωνίου Θεοῦ. The mission given to the preachers of the Gospel 
is brought out generally in Rom. x. 15 ff., the special command 


XVI. 26, 27.] THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY 4354 


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, αἰωνίου is of course suggested by χρόνοις αἰωνίοις : 
cp. Baruch iv. 8, Susanna (Theod.) 42 (LXX) 35. The formula 
kar’ ἐπιταγήν occurs 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8, but with quite 
a different meaning ; in the sense of this passage it comes again in 
εἰ τ 1 τ Titik 5. 

We find the phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως in Rom. i. 5. As Hort 
points out, the enlarged sense of ὑπακοή and ὑπακούω is confined to 
the earlier Epistles. 

The last phrase εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος hardly requires 
illustrating ; it is a commonplace of the Epistle. In this passage 
still carrying on the explanation of κήρυγμα, four main ideas of 
the Apostolic preaching are touched upon—the continuity of the 
Gospel, the Apostolic commission, salvation through faith, the 
preaching to the Gentiles. 

μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ: a somewhat similar expression may be found 
in x Tim. i. 17, which at a later date was assimilated to this, σοφῷ 
being inserted. But the idea again sums up another line of 
thought in the Epistle—God is one, therefore He is God of both 
Jews and Greeks ; the Gospel is one (iii. 29, 30). God is infinitely 
wise (ὦ βάθος πλούτου καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως Θεοῦ Xi. 33); even 
when we cannot follow His tracks, He is leading and guiding 
us, and the end will prove the depths of His wisdom. 

27. ᾧ ἡ δόξα «.7.A. The reading here is very difficult. 

1. It would be easy and simple if following the authority of 
B. 33. 72, Pesh., Orig.-lat. we could omit ¢, or if we could read 
αὐτῷ with P. 31. 54 (Boh. cannot be quoted in favour of this 
reading; Wilkins’ translation which Tisch. follows is wrong). 
But both these look very much like corrections, and it is difficult 
to see how o 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 ᾧ ἡ δόξα κιτιλ. (Gal. i. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 18, 
Heb. xiii. 21). 

4. If the involved construction were the only difficulty caused 
by reading ᾧ, it would probably be right to retain it. But there 
are others more serious. How are the words δια 1. X. to be taken? 
and what does ᾧ refer to? 

(1) Grammatically the simplest solution is to suppose, with 
Lid., that 6 refers to Christ, and that St. Paul has changed the 
construction owing to the words διὰ Ἰ.Χ. He had intended to 
finish ‘to the only wise God through Christ Jesus be Glory,’ 
as in Jude 25 μόνῳ Θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν, διὰ “1. X. rod Κυρίου ἡμῶν, δόξα, 


436 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 27. 


μεγαλωσύνη, κιτιλ., but the words Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ remind him that 
it is through the work of Christ that all this scheme has been 
developed; he therefore ascribes to Him the glory. This is the 
only possible construction if 6 be read, but it can hardly be 
correct; and that not because we can assert that on a@ prior 
grounds a doxology cannot be addressed to the Son, but because 
such a doxology would not be in place here. The whole purpose 
of these concluding verses is an ascription of praise to Him who 
is the only wise God. 

(2) For this reason most commentators attempt to refer the 
ᾧ to Θεῷ. This in itself is not difficult: it resembles what is 
the probable construction in 1 Pet. iv. 11, and perhaps in Heb. 
xiii. 21. But then διὰ Ἰ. X. becomes very difficult. To take it 
with σοφῷ would be impossible, and to transfer it into the 
relative clause would be insufferably harsh. 

There is no doubt therefore that it is by far the easiest course 
to omit @ We have however the alternative of supposing that 
it is a blunder made by St. Paul’s secretary in the original letter. 
We have seen that some such hypothesis may explain the im- 
possible reading in iv. 12. 


els τοὺς αἰῶνας should be read with BCL, Harcl., Chrys. Cyr. Theodrt. 
τῶν αἰώνων was added in NADEP, Vulg. Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat. &c., 
owing to the influence of 1 Tim. i. 17. 


The doxology sums up all the great ideas of the Epistle. 
The power of the Gospel which St. Paul was commissioned to 
preach; the revelation in it of the eternal purpose of God; its 
contents, faith; its sphere, all the nations of the earth; its author, 
the one wise God, whose wisdom is thus vindicated—all these 
thoughts had been continually dwelt on. And so at the end 
feeling how unfit a conclusion would be the jarring note of 
vv. 17-20, and wishing to ‘restore to the Epistle at its close its 
former serene loftiness,’ the Apostle adds these verses, writing 
them perhaps with his own hand in those large bold letters which 
seem to have formed a sort of authentication of his Epistles 
(Gal. vi. 11), and thus gives an eloquent conclusion to his great 
argument. 


INDEX TO THE 


NOTES 


ee 


J. SUBJECTS. 


Abbot, Dr. Ezra, p. 233. 

Abbott, Dr. T. K., pp. 128; 185, &c. 

Abelard, pp. cii; 272. 

Abraham, Descent from, p. 55. 

Faith of, p. 97 ff. 

History of, in St. Paul and St. 
James, p. 102 ff. 

Promise to, pp. 109 ff.; 248. 

Righteousness of, p. 100 ff. 

Accusative case, vi. 10; viii. 3. 

Acilius Glabrio, p. 420. 

Acte, p. xvii. 

Adam, pp. 130 ff.; 343 ff. 

Fall of, p. 136 ff. 

Adrian, p. 45. 

Agrippesit, pp. XX ; Xxiii. 

Alexandrian text, p. lxxi. 

Alexandrinus, Codex, p. \xiii. 

Alford, Dean, p. cviii. 

Aliturus, p. xxii. 

Amanuensis, xvi. 22; pp. lx; 127. 

Ambrosiaster, pp. xxv}; ci. 

Amiatinus, Codex, pp. \xvi; xc. 

Ampliatus, xvi. 8; pp. xxvii; xxxiv. 

Andronicus, xvi. 7; pp. xxvii; χχχῖν. 

Angelicus, Codex, p. |xv. 

Angels, pp. 146; 222 f. 

Aorist tense, ii. 13; ili. 27. 

Apelles, xvi. 18; p. xxxiv. 

Apollonius, p. lii. 

Apostle, pp. 4 f.; 423. 

Aquila and Priscilla (Prisca), pp. 
XVlii; xxvii; xxxiv; xl; 370; 411; 
414 ff. 

titulus of, p. 419. 
the church in their house, p. xxxv. 
Aquilia Prisca, p. 420. 


Aquinas, Thomas, pp. cii; 150 £.; 
272 f.; 3495 394. 

Aristides, p. 1xxxii. 

Aristobulus, xvi. 10; pp. xxiii; xxvii; 
XXXIV; XXXV. 

Armenian Version, pp. Ixvii; lxviii fi 

Arminius, pp. civ; 274. 

Arnold, Matthew, pp. xliv; 163 f. 

Article, Use of, ii. 12, 13; iil. 113 iv. 
12: 24; Ville) 20; Xa 

Asia, Province of, xvi. 5. 

Astarte, p. xviii. 

Asyncritus, xvi. 14; Pp. XXxv. 

Athanasius, St., p. 305. 

Atonement, pp. 88; 91 ff.; 117; 129; 
149. 

Day of, pp. 85; 92; 122 ff. 

Attraction, Grammatical, iv. 17; vi. 
075 1χ. 264) XA 

Augiensis, Codex, pp. \xiv; |xix. 

Augustesit, pp. xx; xxiii. 

Augustine, St., pp. 149 ἔν; 185; 217; 
271 1; 3793 394, &c. 


Babylon, as a name of Rome, p. xxix. 

Balfour, Mr. A. J., p. 224. 

Baptism, pp. 107; 153 ff. 

Barmby, Dr. J., p. cix. 

Baruch, Apocalypse of, pp. 33; 1373 
207, &c. 

Basileides, p. lxxxii. 

Batiffol, The Abbé P., p. Ixv. 

Baumlein, W., pp. 20, &c. 

Baur, F. C., pp. xxxii; xxxix; xci; 
400, 

Beet, Dr. J. Agar, p. cvii. 

Benediction, The concluding, p. xei. 


438 


Bengel, J. A., p. cv. 

Berliner, p. xviii. 

Beyschlag, Dr. Willibald, p. 275. 

Beza, Theodore, p. civ. 

Blood-shedding, Sacrificial, pp. 89; 
gi f.; 119. 

Boernerianus, Codex, pp. \xiv; \xix. 

Bohairic Version, viii. 28; p. xvii. 

Bousset, W., p. lxviii f. 

Browning, Robert, p. 263. 

Burton, Prof. E. De Witt, p. 20 and 


passim. 


Caius, p. xxin. 

Caligula, p. xx. 

Call, Conception of, pp. 4; 217. 
Callistus, the Roman Bishop, p. xxiii. 
Calvin, pp. ciii; 151 f.; 273. 

Capito, p. xv. 

Caspari, Dr. C. P., p. lii. 
Catacumbas, ad, p. xxx. 

Cenchreae, xvi. I; p. xxxvii. 

Ceriani, Dr., p. Ixvii. 

Charles, R. H., pp. 145; 326, &c. 
Chrestus, p. xx. 

Chrysostom, St., pp. xcix ; 148; 270; 


295, &c. 

Churches, the earliest (buildings for 
worship), xvi. 5. 

Cieero, p. xx. 

Circumcision, p. 106 ff. 

Civil Power, pp. 365 ff.; 369 ff. 

Claromontanus, Codex, pp. lxiv; lxix. 

Clemen, Dr. A., p. 307. 

Clemen, Dr. C., pp. xxxvii; xxxviii ; 
Ixxxix. 

Clemens Romanus, pp. xxix ; Ixxix; 
147; 371. 

Clemens, Flavius, p. xxxv. 

Coislinianus, Codex, pp. \xiv ; Ixviii; 
lxxii 

Colet, John, p. cii. 

Collection for the saints in Jerusalem, 
pp. xxxvi; xcil. 

Columbaria, p. xvii. 

Commandments, The Ten, p. 373 f. 

Communication in Roman Empire, 
p. xxvi f. 

Conflict, The Inward, p. 184 f. 

Conversion, p. 186. 

Conybeare, F. C., p. Lxix. 

Cook, Canon, p. lxvii. 

Corbulo, p. xv. 

Corinth, p. xxxvi. 

Corinthians, First Epistle to, pp. xxxvii; 
418. 

Corssen, Dr. P., pp. Ixviii; lxix ; xcviii. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Covenant, pp. 230; 249. 
Criticit Sacri, p. civ. 
Cyprian, p. lii. 

Cyrene, p. xvi. 

Cyril of Alexandria, p. 216 f, 


Damascenus, Johannes, p. c. 
Damasus, the Roman Bishop, p. xxx. 
Date of the Epistle, pp. xxxvi ff. ; 2. 
Dative case, lv. 20; vi. 5; Vil. 4, 53 
viii. 24. 
David, Descent of Messiah from, i. 3; 
as author of Psalms, iv. 6; xi. 9. 
Days, Observance of, p. 386 f. 
Death, Idea of (see ‘Jesus Christ, 
Death of’; @dvaros), vi. 8. 
Deissmann, Herr G. A., pp. 160 f. ; 


444 ff. 
Delitzsch, Dr. F., p. 45 and passim. 
Depositio Martyrum, p. xxx. 
De Rossi, Cav. G. B., p. 418 ff. 
De Wette, p. cvi. 
Dickson, Dr. W. P., p. cvi. 
Dionysius of Corinth, p. xxix. 
Domitilla, p. xxxv. 
Doxologies, pp. 46; 237 f. 
Doxology, The (Rom. xvi. 25-27), 
pp. lxxix ; lxxxix ; xcv; 432 fff. 
Dwight, Dr. T., p. 233. 


Ebionite, p. 400. 

Edersheim, Dr. A., pp. xxiii; 136 ff. 

Egyptian Versions, p. lxvii. 

Election, pp. 244 f.; 248 ff.; 344. 

Epaenetus, xvi. 5; p. xxvii. 

Ephesians, Epistle to the, p. lv. 

Ephesus, pp. xvi; xciii. 

Ephraemi, Codex, p. xiii. 

Epistles of St. Paul, Addresses of, 
pith 

Erasmus, p. cii. 

Erastus, p. XXxvii. 

Esau, ix. 13. 

Essenes, p. 400 £ 

Estius, p. civ. 

Ethiopic Version, p. Ixvii. 

Euthalius, p. lxix. 

Euthymius Zigabenus, p. c. 

Evans, Dr. T. S., pp. 99; 126; 321; 
322. 

Evanson, E., p. lxxxvi. 

Everling, Dr. O., p. 223. 

Evil, Power of, p. 145 ἢ. 

Ewald, Dr. P., p. 61. 

Ezra, Fourth Book of, p. 33 and 
passim. 


I. SUBJECTS 


Fairbairn, Dr. A. M., p. ciii. 
Faith, pp. 19; 31 ff.; 83 f.; 94 ff.; 
ff. 


ee Works, pp. 57; 105. 
Fall, The, pp. 85; 130 ff.; 136 ff. ; 
143 ff.; 205. 
Felix, p. xv. 
Forensic terms, pp. 30 f.; 190; 220. 
Free-Will, pp. 216; 347 f. 
Fricke, Dr. G. A., p. 131. 
Friedlander, Dr. L., p. 51. 
Fritzsche, C. F. A., pp. cvi; 275, &c. 
Fuldensis, Codex, pp. \xvi; xc. 


Gaius, xvi. 23; p. XXxxvil. 

Galatia, Churches of, p. xxxviii. 

Galatians, Epistle to the, p. xxxvii. 

Genitive case, 111. 22; iv. 11; v. 53 
vii. 53 viii. 36; xv. 5, 13, 333 XVI. 
20, 25. 

Gentiles (see ἔθνη), i. 5, 13, 18-325 
ii. 14f., 26; 111. 9, 23, 29 f.; ix. 30; 
x. 12; xv. 9 ff., τό f.; xvi. 26. 

Call of the, ix. 24 ff. 

Gentile-Christians, i. 6; iv. 17; xi. 

15 ἢ; χν. Ὁ ἢ, 217 


in Church of Rome, pp. xxxii; 16. 


Gifford, Dr. E. H., p. eviii. 
Gnostics, pp. 269; 368. 
Gop, as Creator, pp. 259; 266 f. 
as Father, pp. 16 f.; 201 ff.; 
396 f. 
Love of, pp. 118 f.; 125; 210 ff.; 
224. 
Mercy of, p. 332 ff. 
Sovereignty of, pp. 216; 250 ff. ; 
257 f. 
Godet, Dr. F., p. cviii, &c. 
Gore, Canon, pp. 200; 267, &c. 
Gospel, The, pp. xliii; 1. 
Universality of the (see ‘Gen- 
tiles’), p. 298 f. 
Gospels, The, pp. 8; 17; 30; 33; 
30 f.; 91; 381 f.; 431. 
Gothic Version, The, pp. Ixvii; Ixix. 
Grace (see χάρις), The state of, p. 218 ff. 
Grafe, Dr. E., p. 52. 
Greek Commentators, pp. xcix; 207; 
216. 
Greeks in Rome, p. xvii. 
Green, T. H., pp. 42; 164 f. 
Grimm, Dr. Willibald, p. 233. 
Grotius, Hugo, p. civ. 
Grouping of MSS., p. lxvii. 


Hammond, Henry, p. cv. 
Heathen (see ‘ Gentiles,’ ἔθνη), p. 49 f. 


439 


Hebrews, Epistle to the, pp. ἰχχνὶ, 
52. 923) 115: 

Heirship, p. 201 fff. 

Hermas, xvi. 14. 

Hermes, xvi. 14. 

Herodion, xvi. 11; pp. xxvii; xxxiv. 

Herods, The, p. xxi f. 

Hesychius, p. Ixviii. 

Hilary, p. ci. 

Hispalus, p. xix. 

History, St. Paul’s Philosophy of, 
Ρ. 342 ff. 

Hodge, Dr. C., p. cvi. 

Hort, Dr. F. J. A., pp. lxvi; lxix; 
Ixxxix; xcv; 165; 401; 414 f.; 
420; 429; 433- 

Hugh of St. Victor, p. cii. 


Ignatius, pp. xxix; lxxix; 161 ; 200. 

Illyria, Illyricum, p. 407 ff. 

Immanence, The Divine, p. 197. 

Imperfect tense, ix. 3. 

Infinitive (cf. εἰς τό), i. το; ii. 21; 
xii. 15. 

Integrity of the Epistle, pp. Ixxxi ; 


399. 
Interpolations in ancient writers, p. 
lxxvi f. 
Interpretation, History of, pp. 147 ff. ; 
269 ff. 
Irenaeus, p. xxix. 
Isaac, pp. 112 ff.; 238 ff. 
Isis, Worship of, pp. xvili; xx. 
Israel (see Jews, &c.), Privileges of, 
PP. 24; 53 ff.; 68 ff.; 2325 398. 
Rejection of, pp. 238 ff. ; 307 ff. ; 
318 ff.; 341 f. 
Restoration of, p. 318 ff. 
Unbelief of, p. 225 ff. 


Jacob, ix. 13. 
James, St., pp. 32; 102 ff.; 125. 
Epistle of, p. 1xxvii. 
Jason, p. xxxvii. 
Jerusalem, Fall of, pp. 227; 346; 
380. 
Collection for poor saints in, 
PP- XXxvi; xcll. 
St. Paul’s visit to, p. 414 f. 
Jesus CHRIST (see Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, 
Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, ἐν Χριστῷ). 
Death of, pp. 91 ff. ; 160. 
Descent of, p. 6 f. 
Teaching of (see Gospels), p. 37, 
&c. 
Jewish Teaching (see ‘Messianic In- 
terpretation ’). 


+40 


Jewish Teaching on Adam’s Fall, 
p. 136 ff. 
on Atonement, p. 88, 
on Circumcision, p. 108 f. 
on Election, p. 248 f. 
on Relation to Civil Power, p. 369. 
on Renovation of Nature, p. 
aio ff. 
on Restoration of Israel, p. 336 f. 
Jews (see ‘ Israel’). 
as critics, p. 53 ff. 
Failure of the, p. 63 ff. 
in Rome, p. xviii f. 
banished from Rome, p. xx. 
their organization, p. xxii f. 
their social status, p. xxv. 
influenceonRoman Society,p.xxv. 
their migratory character, p. xxvi. 
their turbulence, p. xxxiii. 

John, St., pp. 91 f.; 163. 

Jowett, Dr. B., p. cvii. 

Judaistic Controversy, p. lvii. 

Judaizers, p. 400. 

Jude, St., p. 32. 

Epistle of, p. Ixxix. 

Judgement, The Final, p. 53 ff. 

Julia, xvi. 15; p. xxxiv. 

Jiilicher, on Ephesians, p. lv. 

Julius Caesar, relation to the Jews, 
Ρ. xix. 

Junia (or Junias), xvi. 17; pp. xxvii; 
Xxxiv, 

Justification (see δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, δι- 
καιοῦν, δικαίωσις, δικαίωμα), pp. 20f.; 
36ff. ;57;118 ff. :122;128:152; 100. 

and Sanctification, p. 38. 

Justin Martyr, p. lxxxiii. 

Juvenal, p. 111. 


Kautzsch, Dr. E., pp. 72; 307. 
Kelly, W., p. cvii. 

Kennedy, Dr. B. H. » P- 232. 
Kenyon, Dr. F. G., Ρ. 234. 
Klopper, Dr. A., p. 62. 
Knowling, R. J., p. lxxxix. 


Laodicea, p. xvi. 

Lapide, Cornelius a, pp. civ; 152. 

Latin Version, The Old (Lat. Vet.), 
i. 305 lii. 25; v. 3-5, 14; viii. 36; 
ix. 17; pp. Ixvi; 273. 


Law, Conception of, pp. 58; 109 ff.; 
16175 943)f. 
and Grace, pp. 166 ff.; 176 ff.; 
187 ff. 
Libertini, pp. xix ; XXViii. 
Liddon, Dr. H. b., p. cviii and passim. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Life, Idea of, vi. 8; vii. 9; viii. 6; 
K./6 9: MAS 
— ΒΡ.» pp. Ixxxix; xcv and 


passim 
Lipsius, Dr. R. A., p. cix and passim. 
Literary History of Epistle to the 
Romans, p. lxxiv. 
Locke, John, p. cv. 


Loman, A. D., Ρ. lxxxvi. 
Love, pp. 373 fl; ; 376 f. 
Lucius, Xvi. 21. 


Luther, Martin, pp. ciii; 42; 151. 
Lyons, p. xvi. 


Maccabees, The, p. xix. 

Mangold, Dr. W., pp. xxxii; xcili ; 
399; 417. 

Manuscripts, p. lxiii f. 

Marcion, pp. Ixxxili; xc; xcvi; 28; 
55; 83; 179; 180; Ig0; 226; 
3393 306; 384. 

Mark, St., p. xxix. 

Marriage, Law of, p. 170 ff 

Martial, p. lii. 

Martyrologium Hieronymianum, p. 
XXX. 

Mary (Miriam), pp. xxxiv; xxxv 

Mayor, Dr. J. B., p. Ixxvii. 

Melanchthon, Philip, p. ciii. 

Merit, pp. 81; 86; 94 ff.: 97 ff. ; 245; 
330 ff. 

Messiah, Coming of the, pp. 62; 188; 
207; 287 f.; 296; 336£; 379 Ὁ 
Messianic Interpretation of O. T., 

pp. 281 f.; 287 f.; 296; 306; 336. 

Meyer, Dr. H. A. W., p. cvi and 
passim. 

Michelsen, J. H. A., p. Ixxxviii. 

Minucius Felix, p. liv. 

Mithras, p. xviii. 

Mosquensts, Codex, p. \xv. 

Moule, H. Ὁ. G., p. cviii. 


Naasseni, p. 1xxxii. 

Naber, S. A., p. Lxxxvi. 

Narcissus, xvi. 11; p. xxxivf. 

Natural Religion, pp. 39 ff.; 54 

Nereus, xvi. 5. 

Nero, The Quinguennium of, p. χιν. 
Character of his reign, p. xv. 
Law and Police under him, p avi, 

Neutral Text, p. Lxxi. 

Novatian, p. lit. 


Objections, Treatment of, pp. 69 
743 98; 2535 2935 295. 
Oecumenius, p. c. 


I. SUBJECTS 


Oehler, Dr. G. F., p. 318. 
Old Testament, Use of the, pp. 77; 
264; 288f.; 302 ff.; 396. 
Collections of extracts 
pp: 264; 282. 
Oltramare, Hugues, p. cviii. 
Olympas, xvi. 15. 
Origen, p. xcix and passem. 
Original Sin, p. 137. 
Ostian way, The, p. xxix. 


from, 


Paganism, p. 49 ff. 
Paley, W., p. 413. 
Parousia, The, p. 377 ff. 
Participle, Force of, iv. 18; v. 1; 
ix, 22. 
Passive Obedience, p. 372. 
Pattriensts, Codex, p. \xv. 
Patriarchs, Testaments of the Twelve, 
p. 1xxxii. 
Patrobas, xvi. 14. 
Patron, p. 417 f. 
Pattison, Mark, p. 60. 
Paul, St. (see ‘St. James,’ ‘St. John,’ 
*St. Jude,’ ‘St. Peter’). 
Collection of his Epistles, p. lxxix. 
Conversion of, p. 186. 
Courtesy of, pp. 21; 403. 
Death of, p. xxxi. 
Grief of, over Israel, pp. 225; 
227. 

Jerusalem visits, p. xlii. 

Journeys of, pp. xxxvi ff. ; 407 ff. ; 
413 ff. 

Penetrating insight of, pp. 26 f. ; 
103; 186. 

Philosophy οἱ History of, p. 
342 ff. 

Plans of, pp. xxxvi ff. ; 
410 ff. 

Roman citizenship, p. xiv. 

Rome and its influence on, pp. xiii; 
xviii. 

Style of, p. liv. 

Temperament and character, p.lix. 
Paulus Episcopus, p. 1xxxwiii. 
Pedanius Secundus, p. xvii. 

Pelagius, p. ci. 
Perfect tense, v. 2; ix. 19; xvi. 7. 
Persis, xvi. 12; p. xxxv. 
Peshitto Version, The, p. xvii. 
Peter, St. 
Death of, p. xxxii. 
Roman Church and, pp. xxviii ff. ; 
Ixxvi. 
His twenty-five years’ episcopate, 


p. xxx. 
* 


19 ff. ; 


441 


Peter, First Epistle of, p. xxiv ff. 

Pharaoh, ix. 17. 

Philo, Embassy to Rome, p. xx. 

Philologus, xvi. 15; p. xxxiv f. 

Phlegon, xvi. 14. 

Phoebe, xvi. 1; p. Xxxvi. 

Pierson, A., p. 1xxxvi. 

Plumptre, Dean, pp. 420; 426. 

Polycarp, Epistle of, pp. xxix; 371. 

Pompeius Maguus, p. xix. 

Pomponia Graecina, pp. xviii; xxii; 
XXXV. 

Poor, Contributions for the, pp. Xxxvi ; 
ΧΟΙ ἢ 412f. 

Poppaea Sabina, p. xvill. 

Porphyrianus, Codex, p. \xv. 

Porta Portuensts, Jewish cemetery at, 

xxe 

Portus, Jewish cemetery at, p. xx. 

Predestination (see ‘ Election, ‘ Re- 
sponsibility ’), p. 347 ff. 

Prisca (Priscilla : see‘ Aquila’), xvi. 3. 

Prisctllae coemeterium, 0. 419. 

Promise, Conception of, pp. 6; 18; 
1009 ff. 

Propitiation, pp. 92; 94; 129f 

Proselytes, p. xxv. 

Provinces under Nero, p. xv. 

Pythagoreans, p. 400. 


Quinguennium of Nero, p. xiv. 


Ramsay, W. M., pp. xiv; xxviii; 
ΧΧΧΙ. 

Reconciliation, Idea of, p. 120 f. 

Reformation Theology, The, pp. cii; 
82: 75. 

Regeneration, p. 185 f. 

Reiche, p. xev. 

Remnant, Doctrine of the, pp. 308 ; 
316 fi. 

Renan, E., pp. xcti: 421. 

Rendall, F., p. xxxviil. 

Resch, Dr. A., p. 382. 

Resurrection, p. 325 f. 

of Christ, pp. 112 ff. ; 116 1. ; 159. 
Revelation (cf. ἀποκάλυψις), pp. 39 fil.; 


42. 
Riddell, Mr. James, p. 191. 
Righteousness, p. 28 ff. 
of God, pp 24 ff.; 134 ff. 
Roman Church, pp. xxv; 18 ff. ; 370; 
4goif.; 404. 
Composition of, p. xxxi. 
Creed of, p. lili. 
Government, pp. xxxv; 370 f. 
Greek character of, p. lii. 


442 


Roman Church (continued )— 

Mixed character of, p. xxxiv. 

Origin of, pp. xxv; Ixxvi. 

Status and condition of, p. xxxiv. 
Roman citizenship, St. Paul’s, p. xiv. 
Roman Empire, p. xiv. 

Romans, Epistle to the. 

Analysis of, p. xlvii. 

Argument of, p. xliv. 

Ephesians compared with, p. lv. 

Integrity of, p. lxxxv. 

Language and Style of, lii. 

Literary History of, p. lxxiv. 

Occasion of, p. xxxviii. 

Place of, in Pauline Epistles, 

p- Ixxxiv. 

Purpose of, p. xxxix. 

Text of, p. Ixii. 

Time and place of, p. xxxvi. 
Rome in A.D. 58, p. xiii ff. 

Influence of, on St. Paul, pp. xiii; 

xxvi. 
Rufus, xvi. 13 ; pp. xxvii; xxxiv. 
Ruskin, Mr., p. 93. 


Sacrifice of Christ, pp. οἱ ff.; 119; 


122. 


Sacrifices, the Levitical, pp. ga; 122. 


Sahidic Version, p. Ixvii. 

Salvation, pp. 23 f.; 152 f. 

Sanctification, pp. 38; 152. 

Sangermanensis, Codex, Ὁ. \xix. 

Satan, p. 145. 

Schader, Dr. E., p. 117. 

Schaefer, Dr. A., p. cix. 

Scholasticism, pp. 37; 118; 123. 

Schultz, Dr. H., p. 14. 

Schirer, Dr. E., p. xviii and passim 

Scrivener, Dr. F. H. A., p. xvii. 

Sedulius Scotus, p. lxiv. 

Seneca, p. xvii. 

Septuagint, passim. 

Silvanus, p. xxix. 

Sin, pp. 130 ff. ; 136 ff ; 143 ff.; 176 ff. 

Sinatticus, Codex, pp. xii; Ixvii. 

Slavery in Rome, p. xviii. 

Smend, Dr. R., p. 29. 

Smith, Dr. W. Robertson, pp. 14; 
21. te 

Society, the Christian, pp. 122 f.; 355. 

Sohm, Dr. R., p. 15. ἰὴ "Ἢ 

Sonship, p. 201 ff. 

Sosipater, p. xxxvii. 

Spain, xv. 24, 28. 

Speculum, The, p. 124. 

Spirit, The Holy, pp. 189 ff.; τοῦ f.; 
199 ἢ. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Spiritual gifts, pp. a1; 358 @ 
Stachys, xvi. 9; p. xxvii. 

Steck, Rudolph, p. lxxxvi. 
Stichi (στίχοι), p. lvi f. 

Stoicism, p. xvi. 

Stuart, Moses, p. cvi. 

Suetonius, p. xxi. 

Suillius, p. xvi. 

Swete, Dr. H. B., p. 73 175 23%. 
Syriac Versions, p. lxxi ff. 


Terminology, Theological, p. 17. 

Tertius, xvi. 22. 

Tertullian, p. xxix. 

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 

Ρ. lxxxii and passim. 

Text of the Epistle, p. lxiii. 

New nomenclature 
p. Ixxi. 

Theodoret, pp. c; 149 and passim. 

Theophanes, p. cix. 

Theophylact, p. c. 

Thessalonians, Epp. to, p. Ixii. 

Tholuck, F. A. G., p. cv. 

Timotheus, xvi. 21; p. xxxvii. 

Toy, Prof. C. H., p. 306 f. 

Trent, Council of, p. 152. 

Trinity, Doctrine of the, pp. 16; 

200; 340. 

Tryphaena, xvi. 12; p. Xxxv. 

Tryphosa, xvi. 12; p. xxxv. 

Turpie, Mr. D M°Calman, p. 307. 


Tyndale, pp. 65; 175; 194; 393. 


suggested, 


Union with Christ, pp. 117; 153 ἢ; 
162 ff. 
Urbanus, xvi. 9; pp. xxvii; xxxiv. 


Valentinians, p. lxxxii. 

Van Manen, W.C., p. 1xxxvii. 

Vatican Hill, The, p. xxix. 

Vaticanus, Codex, pp. Ixiii; I xviii; 
Ixxiii. 

Vaughan, Dr. Ὁ. J., p. evii. 

Vegetarians, pp. 385; 401 f. 

Versions, p. Ixvi. 

Vicarious suffering, p. 93. 

Victor, Bishop, p. lii. 

Vipsanius Terenas, p. xv. 

Voelter, Dr. D., p. Ixxxvii. 


Weak, The, pp. 383 ff.; 309 ff. 
Weber, Dr. F., p. 7 and passim. 
Weber, Dr. V., p. 275. 

Weiss, Dr. Bernhard, pp. x1; cvi. 
Weisse, C. H., p. 1xxxvi. 
Westcott, Bishop, pp. 93; 129. 


II. LATIN WORDS 44: 


Western Text, The, p. Ιχχὶ ff. Works, pp. 57; 103; 2758 ff. 
Wetstein, J. J., p. cv. Wrath of God, pp. 47; 117. 
Weymotth, Dr. R. F., p. 424. 

Wiclif, pp. 9; 175; 194. Zahn, Dr. Theodor, p. lxxxv 


Wordsworth, Dr. Christopher, p. cvii. 1 Ziegler, L., p. Ixvi. 


II. LATIN WORDS. 


angustia, Ὁ. 57. tugulatio, p. 212. 
caritas, pp. 124; 375- mortificart, p. 222. 
definitus, Ῥ. 8. perficio, pp. 583 124. 
deputatus, p. 222. perpetro, p. 58. 
destinatus, p. 8. pressura, pp. 57: 
dilectto, pp.124; 375- viclima, p. 222. 


III. GREEK WORDS. 


| This is an Index to the Notes and not a Concordance; sometimes however, 
where it is desirable to illustrate a particular 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, /Votes on Epistles of St. Paul 
from unpublished Commentaries (including the first seven chapters of the 
Romans) by Bp. Lightfoot, and Lzbelstudien by G. Adolf Deissmann (Mar- 
burg, 1895). Some especially of the notes on words in the tormer work 
attain to classical value (ἀγαθύς and δίκαιος, ἀνακεφαλαιοῦσθαι, ὀψώνιον), and 
the latter brings to bear much new illustrative matter from the Flinders Petrie 
and other papyri and from inscriptions. In some instances the new material 
adduced has led to a confirmation, while in others it might have led to a 
modification of the views expressed in the Commentary. We cannot however 
include under this latter head the somewhat important differences in regard to 
δικαιοῦν and καταλλάσσειν. Bp. Lightfoot’s view of δικαιοῦν in particular 
seems to us less fully worked out than was usual with him. | 


᾿Αββᾶ, viii. 15. | ἁγιωσύνη, 1. 4: 
ἄβυσσος, x. 7. ἀγνοεῖν, X. 3; xi, 25. 
ἀγαθός, v. 7 (=Lft.); τὸ ἀγαθόν, xiii. | ἀγριέλαιος, xi. 17. 
ANE XIV 16.: χν. 2: ἀδελφύς, x. 1: οἱ. Detsyimann, p. 82 ἔ, 
ἀγαθωσύνη, XV. 14. | ἀδικία, i. 18, 29; ili. 5. 
ἀγαπᾶν, xiii. 8, 9. | ἀδόκιμος, 1. 28. 


ἀγάπη, v. 5, 8; xil. g; ΧΙ. το; ἀδύνατος, vill. 3. 
xv. 30; pp. 374 ff.: cf. Deissmann, | ἀΐδιος, i. 20. 


p- 80 f. αἷμα, iii. 25; pp. gi {., 129. 
ἄγγελος, viii. 38. αἰών, xii. 2. 
ἁγιασμός, vi. 10. ἀκαθαρσία, vi. 19. 


ἅγιος, i. 7; xi. 16; xii. 1, 12: Evi. 2, | ἀκοή, x. 16. 
14. ἀκροατή», il, 13. 


444 


ἀκροβυστία, ii. 27. 
ἀλήθεια, i, 25; ili. 6. 
ἀληθής, ili. 4. 
ἀλλὰ λέγω, x. 18, 1g. 
ἀλλάσσειν ἐν, i, 23. 
ἀλλότριος, xv. 20. 
ἅμα, ili. 12. 
ἁμαρτάνειν, v. 12, 133 
ἁμάρτημα, iii. 25. 
ἁμαρτία, iii. 25; v.13; p. 143 f. 
ἡ, v.12; vi. 6, 7, 10; vi. 8. 
ἀμεταμέλητος, xi. 29. 
ἀναβαίνειν, x. 6, 
ἀνάγειν, x. 6. 
ἀναζῆν, vii. 9. 
ἀνάθεμα, ix. 3. 
dvakaivwots, xii. 2. 
ἀνακεφαλαιοῦσθαι, xiii. 9: 
Notes, p. 3arf. 
ἀναλογία, xii. 6. 
ἀναπολογητός, i. 203 ii. 1 
ἀνάστασις, i. 4; p. 18. 
ἀνεξερεύνητος, xi. 33. 
ἄνθραξ, xii. 20. 
ἀνθρώπινον λέγω, Vi. 19. 
ἄνθρωπος. ix. 20. 
ὁ ἔσω, vii, 22. 
6 παλαιός, vi. 6; 
ἀνομία, vi. 19. 
avoxn, li. 4. 
ἀνταπόδομα, Xi. 9. 
ἀντιτάσσεσθαι, xiii. 2. 
ἀνυπόκριτος, xii. 9. 
ἄξιος... πρός, vili. 18. 
ἀξίως, xvi. 2. 
ἀπαρχή, viii. 23; xi. 16; xvi. 5 
ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, Vili. 10. 
ἀπιστία, ἀπιστεῖν, iii. 3. 
ἁπλότης, xii. 8. 
ἀπό, i. 20; ἀπὸ μέρους, xv. 15. 
ἀποβολή. xi. 14. 
ἀποθνήσκειν, vi. 7, 10. 
ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι, i. 18. 
ἀποκάλυψις, viii. 19. 
drokapadoxia, viii. 19. 
ἀπολαμβάνειν, i. 27. 
ἀπολύτρωσις, 11]. 
and p. 316. 
ἀπόστολος, i. 1; xvi. 7; p. 18. 
ἀποτίθεσθαι, xiii. 12. 
ἀποτολμᾶν. X. 20. 
ἀπώλεια, ix. 22. 
dpa οὖν, v. 18; vii. 25; ix. 16, 18. 
ἀρέσκειν, xv. 1. 
ἀρχή, viii. 38. 
ἀσέβεια, i. 18, 
ἀσεβής, iv. 8. 


pp. 172, 174. 


vi. 155 p. 144. 


cf. Lift. 


24: cf. Lit. ad loc. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


ἀσέλγεια, xiii 13. 
ἀσθένεια, vi. 19; viii. 26, 
ἀσθενεῖν, xiv. 1. 

ἀσθενής, v. 6. 

“Agia, xvi. 5. 

ἄσπονδος, i. 31 (v. 1.) 
ἀσύνετος, i. 31. 
ἀτιμάζεσθαι, ΡῈ 

αὐτός, i. 145 1σ. 5} κ᾿ ἀφ 
αὐτοῦ (emphatic), iii. 24. 
αὑτοῦ, i. 24.) 
ἀφορίζει, i [ba 
ἀφορμή, vii. 8. 
᾿Αχαΐα. xvi. 5 (v. 1.). 
ἀχρειοῦσθαι, iii, 12. 


Ρ. 18. 


Baad, %, xi. 4. 

βάθος, viii. 39; xi. 33. 
βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς. vi. 3. 
βάρβαρος, i. 14. 

βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, xiv. 17. 
βασιλεύειν, ν. 14, 173 Vi. 1% 
βαστάζειν, xv. 1. 
βδελύσσεσθαι, ii. 22. 
βῆμα, xiv. το. 
βλασφημεῖσθαι, xiv. 16. 
βούλημα, ix. 19. 

ἰ βούλομαι, Ρ. 182.] 
βρῶσις, xiv. 17. 


γεγενῆσθαι, xv. 8. 

γέγονα, ii. 79.3 3 xvi. 1: 

γένοιτο, μή, iii. 43 xi. 1, II. 

γίνεσθαι, i. 3; iil. 4. 

γινώσκειν, ii, 2; vi. 6, vii 7, 18; 
[ viii. 29]. 

γνῶσις, Xv. 14. 

γνωστόν, τό, i. 19. 

γράμμα, vii. 6. 

γραφή, i. 2; p. 18: 
p- 109. 


δέ, iii, 22; 

δεῖ, viii. 26. 

OAS τ. is ΓΝ sollle Pee ὍΘ» 
aby xlVe Δ᾽; pe 110. 

δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, xiv. 14. 

διαθήκη, ix. 4. 

διακονεῖν, xv. 25. 

διακονία, xii. 7. 

διάκονος, xv. 8; xvi. 3. 

διακρίνεσθαι, iv. 20; xiv. 23. 

διάκρισις, xiv. 1. 

διαλογισμός, i, 21 ; xiv. 1. 

διαστολή, x. 12. 

διαφέροντα, τά, ii. 18 { = Lit.) 

διδασκαλία, xv. 4. 


cf. Deissmann, 


1X30 s.R1. 1. 


iv. 31, 


III. GREEK WORDS 


διδαχή, vi. 17; xvi. 17. 

διέρχεσθαι, ν. 12. 

δικαιοκρισία, ii. 5. 

δίκαιος, i. 17; iii. 26; v.7; p 281 

δικαιοσύνη, pp. 28 ff., 392. 

δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (ἡ dix. τοῦ Ocod), 1. 
17} 11 ΤῈ, 21,.25} Σ' 3; Ρ..34 1 

δικαιοῦν, δικαιοῦσθαι, ii. 13; iii. 4, 20, 
At, Pig ἵν δ᾽ ὙἹ 7.3 11.320. 
pp. 30f. (otherwise Lft. ; see how- 
ever his remarks on ἀξιοῦν, LVores, 
p. 105). , 

δικαίωμα, i. 32; v. 16, 18; viii. 4; 
p- 31 (cf. Lft. p. 292). 

δικαίωσις, iv. 25; Vv. 18; pp. 31, 
147 ff. 

διό, xiii. 5 ; xv. 22. 

διότι, i. 19; iii. 20. 

διχοστασίαι, xvi. 17. 

διώκειν, ix. 30; xii. 14. 

δοκιμάζειν, 1. 28; ii. 18; xii. 2. 

δοκιμή, ν. 4. 

δόξα, ἱ. 232; il, 23; γ. 2; Υἱ. 4; Vill. 
18, 21 ; 1x. 4: xv. 7; Xvi. 27. 

δοξάζω, i, 21; viii. 30; xi. 13; XV. 9. 

δουλεία, viii. 15, 21. 

δοῦλος, i, 1; p. 18. 

δύναμις, i. 4, 16; viii. 38. 

δύνασθαι, xvi. 25. 

δυνατεῖν, xiv. 4. 

δυνατός, xii. 18. 

δῴη, XV. 5. 

δωρεά, V. 15. 


ἐγκαλεῖν, viii. 33. 

ἐγκεντρεῖν, Xi. 17. 

ἔγκόπτειν, XV. 22. 

ἐδολιοῦσαν, iii. 13. 

ἔθνη, i. 53 ii. 14; ix. 30. 

εἴγε, v. 6 (v. 1.) [11]. 30]. 

εἰκών, Vili. 29. 

εἴπερ, iii. 30. 

εἴπως, i. το; xi. 14. 

εἰρήνη, i. 73 V. 1; viii. 63; xiv. 17; 
XV. 03, 32; Xvi. 20; p. 18. 

als, il. 26; iv, 33 Vill, 18; xi. 50; 
xv. 26 (cf. Deissmann, p. 113 ff.). 

eis τό with inf., i. 11, 20 (otherwise 
Eft.)s iv. 11, 16, 18. 

els, 6, V. 15, 17; ix. 10, 

εἰσέρχεσθαι, xi. 25. 

ἐκ 11 5. (cf, Lit) sin, 26, 20 \(ck. 
Lft.) ; iv. 14, 16; xi. 36; xii. 18. 

ἔκδικος, xiii, 4. 

ἐκει, ix. 26. 

ἐκκλᾶν, xi. 17. 


445 
ἐκκλησία, xvi. 5, 16; p. 18. 
ἐκκλίνειν, xvi. 17. 
ἐκλεκτός, viii. 33; xvi. 13 ; Pp. 4- 
ἐκλογή, xi. 7, 28. 
κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, ix. 1ἰ; xi. 5} 


Pp: 250. 
ἐκπίπτειν, ix. 6. 
ἐκχύνειν, V. 5. 
ἐλάσσων, ix. 12. 
ἐλεᾶν, ix. 15; xii. 8. 
ἐλευθερία, Vili, 21. 
Ἕλλην, i. 14. 
ἐλλογεῖσθαι (ἐλλογᾶσθαιὶ, ν. 13. 
ἐλπίς, Vv. 43 Vili. 24; xii. 12; XV. 4. 
13. 
ἐν, i, 18 (otherwise Lft.), 19, 23 ; xi. 
2, 25; xv. 6: cf. Deissmann, p. 
115 ff. 
ἐν Κυρίῳ, xvi. 13. 
ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, xiv. 14. 
ἐν Χριστῷ, ix. 1; xvi. 7. 
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, iii. 24; vi. 11. 
ἐν σαρκί, viii. 9. 
ἐν πνεύματι, Vili. 9. 
ἐν ᾧ, Viii. 3. 
ἐνδείκνυσθαι, ii. 15; ix. 17, 22. 
ἔνδειξις, 111. 25, 26. 
ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι, iv. 20. 
ἐνοικεῖν, vii. 17 ; viii. τα. 
ἐντολή, vii. 8. 
ἐντυγχάνειν, xi. a: cf. Deissmann, 
De Lua 
ἐξαπατᾶν, vii. 11. 
ἐξεγείρειν, ix. 17. 
ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, xiv. 11. 
ἐξουσία, ix. 21; xiii. I. 
ἐπαγγελία, iv. 13; ix. 4, 8; p. 18 
(cf. Lft. on iv. 21). 
ἔπαινος, ii. 29. 
ἐπαισχύνεσθαι, i. τό. 
ἐπαναμιμνήσκειν, XV. 15. 
ἐπαναπαύεσθαι, li. 17. 
ἐπεί, iii. 6. 
ἐπί, ig, 11; iv. 18; v. 2; viii. 20. 
ἐφ᾽ @, Vv. 12. 
ἐπίγνωσις, i. 28; 111. 20; xX. 2. 
ἐπιθυμεῖν, ἐπιθυμία, vil. 7; Ῥ. 375- 
ἐπικαλεῖσθαι, X. 12, 13, 14. 
ἐπιμένειν, Xi. 22. 
ἐπιποθεῖν, i, 11. 
ἐπιποθία, χν. 23. 
ἐπίσημος, xvi. 7. 
ἐπιτελεῖν, xv. 28. 
ἐπιφέρειν, iii. 5. 
ἐπονομάζεσθαι, li. 17. 
ἔργον, τὸ ἔργον, ii. 15; xiii. 3; xiv 
20 ; p. 102. 


446 


ἐρεῖν.--- 
ἐρεῖς οὖν, ix. 19; xi. 19. 
τί ἐ ἐροῦμεν, iii. 5. 
vi οὖν ἐροῦμεν, iv. 1; vi. 1; Vii. 
ΝΣ 31 5 1X.) 14: 
ἐριθεία, ii. 8. 
ἐσθίειν, xiv. 2, 3, 6. 
ἕτερος, vii. 23. 
γεν iii. 7; v. 6; ix. τὸ. 
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, x. 15; p. 5f. 
εὐαγγέλιον, 1.1; x. 16; xi. 28; p. 18. 
εὐαγγέλιόν μου, ii. 16; xvi. 25. 
εὐάρεστος, xii. I. 
εὐδοκεῖν, xv. 26 f. 
εὐδοκία, x. I. 
εὐλογεῖν, xii. 14. 
εὐλογητός, i. 25; ix. 53 p. 236: οἵ. 
Lft., p. 310. 
εὐλογία, xv. 29; xvi. 18. 
evodovc0a, i. τὸ (=Lft.). 
εὑρίσκειν, iv. I (v. l.; on the reading 
see also Lft.). 
εὔχεσθαι, ix. 3. 
ἐφάπαξ, vi. Io. 
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, v. 12. 
ἔχειν, i. 28; iv. a; v. 1, 3 (=Lft.). 
ἐχθρός, Ρ. 129 f. 


(έειν, xii. 11. 

(ζῆλος, x. 2. 

ζῆν, vi. Ὁ (ch Li): x) 5s ail. τ: 
xiv. 9. 

ζωή, viii. 6; xi. 15. 

ζωοποιεῖν, iv. 17. 


Ὧν 11:20} ΧΙ 2. 
ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε, vi. 3; vii. 1. 
ἢ καί, ii. 15. 
ATO... 7, vi. 16. 

ἤδη, i. το; xiii. 11. 

Ἠλείας, xi. 2. 

ἡμέρα, li. 5. 

ἥττημα, χὶ. 12. 


θάνατος, ὁ; vi τα ἀν ὙΠ ἃ 
(=Lft.) ; vii. 24. 
θανατοῦσθαι, vii. 4. 
θειότης, Ϊ, 20. 
θέλειν, vii. 15 ; ix. 16. 
θέλημα, 74,1. 10; ii. 18; xii. 2. 
θεμέλιον, xv. 20. 
Θεός, p. 237. 
Θεὸς πατήρ, 17 spe 18: 
θεοστυγής, i. 30 (cf. Lf). 
θήρι, xi. 9- , 
θλῖψις, li. 9; V. 2; Vili. 35; xii. Ia. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


θυμός, ii. 8. 

θυσία, xii, I. 

ἴδιος, viii. 32; x. 3: see however 
Deissmann, p. 120 f. 

ἱεροσυλεῖν, ii. 22. 

ἱερουργεῖν, xv. 16. 

Ἱερουσαλήμ, Xv. 10. 

Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, i. 
160 f. 

ἱκανός, xv. 23 (v. 1.). 

ἱλαστήριον, iii. 253 pp. 92, 130° 
comp. Lft. and Deissmann, p.1a1 ff. 

Ἰλλυρικόν, xv. 10. 

ἵνα, v. 20; xi. II. 

ids, ili. I 3. 

Ιουδαῖος, ii. 17, 29; Ῥ. 249. 

Ἰσραήλ, ix. 6. 

Ἰσραηλίτης, ix. 43 p. 64. 

ἱστάναι, ili. 31 ; a, 4. 


Ie pp. Sit 51 


καθήκοντα, τά, i. 28. 
καθιστάναι, ¥. 19. 
«a0, viii. 26, 
καθορᾶν, i. 20. 
καιρός, iii. 26; xii. 11 (v. 1.)3 xiii. 11, 
κατὰ καιρόν, κατὰ τὸν καιρόν, ν. 
δ᾽; 1x10: 
κακία, i. 29. 
κακοήθεια, i. 29. 
καλεῖν, iv. 17 ; viii. 30; ix. 7. 
καλῶς, Xi. 20. 
καρδία, i, 21. 
καρποφορεῖν, vil. 4 (otherwise Lft.). 
κατά, ii, 5; viii. 27; xi. 28; xv. §. 
καθ᾽ εἷς, xii. 5. 
κατ᾽ οἶκον, xvi. 5. 
κατάγειν, χ. 6. 
καταισχύνειν, V. 5; ix. 33. 
κατακαυχᾶσθαι, xi. 18. 
κατάκριμα, vill. 1. 
κατακρίνειν, Vill. 3. 
καταλάλος, i. 30. 
καταλαμβάνειν, ix. 30. 
καταλλαγή, V. 11; Xi. 15. 
καταλλάσσειν, VY. 10. 
καταλύειν, xiv. 20. 
κατανοεῖν, iv. 19. 
κατάνυξις, xi. 8. 
καταργεῖν, iii. 3, 31; vi. 6; vii. 2, 6. 
καταρτίζειν, ix. 22. 
καταφρονεῖν, ii. 4. 
κατέναντι, iv. 17. 
κατεργάζεσθαι, li. g; vil. 15. 
κατέχειν, κατέχεσθαι, i, 18 (otherwise 
Lft.) ; vii. 6. 
κατηγορεῖν, il. τ. 


ΠῚ. 


κατηχεῖν, ii. 18. 
καυχᾶσθαι, v. 3, 11. 
καυχᾶσαι, 1 τ 
καύχημα, iv. 2. 
καύχησις, V. 3; XV. 17. 
Κεγχρεαί, xvi. τ. 
κήρυγμα, ΧΥΪ. 25. 
κηρύσσειν, X. 14, 15. 
κίνδυνος, viii. 35. 
κλάδος, xi. 16. 
κληρονόμος, iv. 13, 145 viii. 17. 
κλῆσις, Xi. 29. 
κλητός, i. 1, 6, 7; viii. 28; p. 18. 
κλητὴ dela, p- 12f. 
κλίμα, XV. 23. 
κοιλία, xvi. 18. 
κοινός, Xiv. 14. 
κοινωνεῖν, xii. 13; XV. 27. 
κοινωνία, xv. 26. 
κοίτη, xiii. 13. 
κοίτην ἔχειν, ix. 10. 
κοπιᾶν, xvi. 6 
κόσμος, ὃ, iii. 6; v. 12. 
κρίνειν, κρίνεσθαι, iii. 4; xiv. 5, 13. 
κτίσις, i, 20; viil. 19, 21, 39. 
κύκλῳ, XV. 10. 
κυριεύειν, Vi. 9. 
Κύριος, i. 4, 73 X. 12, 13; xii, τι; 
xiv. 8; xv. 6; p. 18. 
κῶμος, Xiv. 14. 


λαλεῖν, iii. 19. 

λαός, xi. I. 

λατρεία, ix. 4; xii. 1. 

λατρεύειν, i. 9. 

λάχανα, xix. 2. 

λέγειν, iii. 10. 
ἀλλὰ λέγω, χ. 18, 19. 
λέγω οὖν, xi. I, II. 

λεῖμμα, xi. 5. 

λειτουργεῖν, Pp. 20: 
137 f. 

en xiii. 6; xv. 16. 

λόγια τά, iii. 2. 

λογίζεσθαι, viii. 18 ; xiv. 14. 
λογίζεσθαι εἰς, ii. 26 ; iv. 3. 

λογικός, xii. I. 

λογισμός, ii. 15. 

λόγος, iii. 4; ix. 6. 

λυπεῖσθαι, xiv. 15. 

λύπη, ix. 2. 


cf. Deissmann, 


μακάριος, iv. 7, 8; xiv. 22. 
μακαρισμός, iv. 6. 
μακροθυμία, ii, 4. 

Μαρία (Mapidy), xvi. 6 (v. 1.). 
μαρτυρεῖν, ili. 21; x. 2. 


GREEK WORDS 


447 


ματαιότης, viii. 20, 
ματαιοῦσθαι, i. 21. 
μάχαιρα, vill. 35. 
μείζων, ix. 12. 
μέλλειν, Vili. 18. 
μέλλων, ὃ, ν. 14. 
LEV, Xa τὲ 
μὲν οὖν, xi. 133 p. 324. 
pevoov ye, ix, 20; x, 18. 
μένειν, ix. 11. 
μεστός, i, 29; XV. 14. 
μεταδιδόναι, xii. 8. 
μεταμορφοῦσθαι, xii. 2. 
μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων, ii. 15. 
μή, ii. 14; iii, 5; iv. 19; ix. 14; 
x. 19. 
μὴ γένοιτο, iii. 4; ix. 14; xi. 1, 
11. 
μήπω, ix. 11. 
μνεία, xii. 13 (v. 1). 
μόνος, xvi. 26. 
μόρφωσις, ii. 20. 
μυστήριον, xi. 25; Xvi. 25. 


νεκρός, i. 4 (cf. Lft.) ; viii. 10; xi. 15. 
ἐκ νεκρῶν, vi. 13 (cf. Lft.). 
νήπιος, ii, 20. 
νικᾶν, ili, 4; xii. 21. 
νομοθεσία, ix. 4. 
νόμος, metaphorical use of, iii. 27; vii. 
21. 15. 111: 2; Χ 21. 
νόμος (sine artic.), ii. 12,13,14, 25 ; 
πἰ τ (Chae datts) suivant St ν Τῶι 
Veh 1 ee Cpe Se 4: 
νόμος, 6, ii. 13,143 iii. 19; vii. 2, 
12. 
vous, i. 28; vii. 23; xii. 2. 
νυνί, iii, 21. 


ὁδηγός, ii. 19. 

οἴδαμεν, ii. 2; viii. 22, 28. 

οἰκοδομή, xiv. 19. 

οἰκτείρειν, ix. 15. 

οἰκτιρμός, xii. I. 

οἷος, ix. 6. 

ὀκνηρός, xii. 11. 

ὅλος, viii. 26. 

ὁμοθυμαδόν, xv. 6. 

ὁμοίωμα, vi. 5; viii. 3. 

ὁμολογεῖν, 1X. 9. 

ὀνειδισμός, χν. 3. 

ὄνομα, i. 5; p. 18. 

ὀνομάζειν, xv. 20. 

ὅπλον, vi. 13. 

ὅπως ay, iii. 4: 

ὀργή, ἡ ὀργή, i. 18; if. 5, 8; iii, 5; 
xii, 19; xiii. 4. 


448 INDEX TO 


δρίζειν, i. 4. 
ὅς γε, Vili. 32. 
Sors, i. 25, 323 ti. 153 vi. 23 ix. 4. 
ὅτι viii. 21, 27, 29; ix. 2. 
ov μή, iv. 8. 
ov μόνον δέ, viii. 23; ix. Io. 
οὐ πάντως, iii. 9. 
se ii. 21Υ; 111: 28 (vo 1) sxe τὰ xii. 
> P- 294. 
ἀράν, ΧΗ, δ᾽ XV.) 0c 
ὀψώνιον, vi. 23: cf. Lft. and Deiss- 
mann, p. 145 f. 


πάθημα, vii. 5. 
παιδευτής, ii. 20. 
παλαιὸς avOpwros, vi. 6. 
πάντως, iii. 9. 
παρά, i. 25. 
παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς, xii. 16. 
παράβασις, iv. 15. 
παραδιδόναι, i. 245 ἵν. 25; vi. EF. 
παραζηλοῦν, x. 19; xi. IT. 
παρακεῖσθαι, vii. 18, 21. 
παρακοή, Vv. 10. 
παράπτωμα, Vv. 153 xi. 
ν. 20). 
παράκλησις, XV 5. 
παρεισέρχεσθαι, ν. 20. 
πάρεσις, ili. 25. 
παριστάναι, παριστάνειν, vi, 13; xii. 1. 
παρουσία, ΡΡ. 379 f. 
πᾶς, ix. 53 x. NO 5) χι: 26;.22. 
πατήρ, 6, 1.73 Vi. 43 Vill. 15; οὗ. xv. 6. 
πατήρ (=patriarch), ix. 5,10; xi. 28; 
xv. 8. 
πέποιθα, ii. 19. 
περὶ ἁμαρτίας, vili. 3. 
περιπατεῖν, xili., 13. 
περισσεία, ν. 17. 
περισσός, ili. I. 
περιτομή, ii. 29; xv. 8. 
πηλός, ἵν. 21. 
πικρία, tii. 14. 
πιότης, Xi. 17. 
πίπτειν, xi. 11, 22 ; xiv. 4. 
πιστεύειν, πιστεύεσθαι, lil. 2; Σ. IO; 
Xiv. 2. 
πίστις, iii. 22; pp. 31 ff. 
πίστις, ἣν i. 8, 173 iii. 3. 253 iv. 
Ἄρα Aes 5, iyo dtl, fe 
xy. 2. 
πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, iii. 22. 
εἰς πίστιν, i. 17. 
ἐκ πίστεως, i. 17; iii. 26, 30 (cf. 
Tite) > 12530, 32; (x. 16s xivsa3. 
σλάσμα, ix. 20. 
πλεονάζειν, ν. 20. 


11 (cf. Lft. on 


THE NOTES 


πλεονεξία, i. 20. 
πληροῦν, xv. Ig. 
πληροφορεῖν, πληροφορεῖσθαι, iv. 21: 
χῖν. Β΄; Kv. 13 (ν.}.); 
πλήρωμα, xi. 12, 25; XV. 29. 
πλουτεῖν, χ. 12. 
πλοῦτος, ix. 23; xi. t2. 
πνεῦμα, Vili. 9, 10, 11; xii, 11 ; xv. 30. 
Πνεῦμα “Ayov, v. 53 ix. 13 xiv. 
07} Xv. 15, 10; 10; 
πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, villi. 9, 14. 
πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, viii. 9. 
πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, i. 4. 
πνεῦμα δουλείας, viii. 15. 
πνεῦμα κατανύξεως, χὶ. 8. 
πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, νἱϊὶ. 15. 
ἐν πνεύματι, ἐν τῷ πνεύματι, i. Q ; 
ii. 20.) 11}. 9 5) 1χ, τ. 
κατὰ πνεῦμα, i. 4; Vili. 4, 5. 
πνευματικός, i, 11; V. 143 Vil. 14: 
XV. 27. 
ποιεῖν, i. 32. 
πολλοί, οἱ, v. 15. 
πολλά, τά, XV. 22. 
πονηρία, i i. 29. 
πορνεία, i. 29 (v.1.). 
προγινώσκειν, Vili. 295 Xd. 2. 


'προγράφειν, XV. 4. 


προδιδόναι, xi. 35. 

προειρηκέναι, ix. 29. 

προεπαγγέλλεσθαι, i. 2. 

προετοιμάζειν, ix. 23. 

προέχεσθαι, iii. 9. 

προηγεῖσθαι, xii. το. 

πρόθεσις, Vili. 28; ix. II; p. 250. 

πρόθυμος, i. 15. 

προΐστασθαι, xii. 8, 

προκόπτειν, ΧΙ]. 12. 

προνοεῖσθαι, xil. 17. 

προορίζειν, viii. 29. 

προπάτωρ, iv. I. 

προπέμπειν, XV. 24. 

πρός, iii. 26; viii. 18. 

προσαγωγή, V. 2. 

προσκαρτερεῖν, xii. 12. 

πρόσκομμα, ix. 32; xiv. 13 (v.L). 

προσλαμβάνεσθαι, xiv. 1, 

πρόσληψις, xi. 15. 

προστάτις, χνὶ. 2. 

προσφορά, xv. τό. 

προσωποληψία, ii, IT. 

προτίθεσθαι, iii. 25 (otherwise Lit. aa 
loc., cf. p. 318). 

προφητεία, xii. 6. 

προφητικός, xvi. 26. 

πρῶτον, i. 16 (v. h). 

πρῶτος, X. IQ. 


Ill. GREEK WORDS 


πρωτότοκος, viii. 
πταίειν, Xi, 11. 
πτωχός, xv. 26. 
πωροῦν, xi. 7. 
πώρωσις, Xi, 25. 


29. 


ῥῆμα, x. 8, 17. 

ῥίζα, xi. τό Ε΄. ; xv. 12, 
ῥυόμενος, ὁ, χὶ. 26. 
Ῥώμη, i. 7. 


σαρκικός, XV. 27. 
σάρκινος, Vii. 14. 
σάρξ, iii. 20; vi. 19; ix. 8; xili. 14; 
p. 181. 
ἐν σαρκί, ἐν τῇ σαρκί, vii. 5; viii. 
3» 9. 
κατὰ σάρκα, i. 3; iv. 1; viii. 4, 
53 ix. 3,55 p. 233 ff. 
Σατανᾶς, xvi. 20; p. 145. 
σεβάζεσθαι, i. 25. 
σημεῖον, iv. 11 ; Xv. 19. 
σκάνδαλον, xi. 9; xiv. 13. 
σκεῦος, 1X. 21, 22. 
σκληρύνειν, ix. 18, 
σκοπεῖν, Xvi. 17. 
Σπανία, xv. 24, 28. 
σπέρμα, ix. 7. 
σπουδή, xii. 8, 11. 
στενοχωρία, il. 9. 
στήκειν, χὶν. 4. 
στηρίζειν, i. τι; xvi. 25. 
στοιχεῖν, iv. 12 (On τοῖς στοιχ. see 
Lft.). 

συγγενής, ix. 3; xvi. 7, 10, 21. 
συγκλείειν, xi. 32. 
συγκληρονόμος, viii. 17. 
συγκοινωνός, xi. 17. 
συμμαρτυρεῖν, ii, 15; viii. 16; ix. 1. 
σύμμορφος, Vill. 29. 
συμπαρακαλεῖσθαι, 1. 12. 
συμπάσχειν, Vili. 17. 
σύμφυτος, Vi. 5. 
συναγωνίζεσθαι, XV. 30. 
συναιχμάλωτος, Xvi. 7. 
συναναπαύεσθαι, XV. 32. 
συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι, viii. 
συναπάγεσθαι, xii. τό. 
συνείδησις, ii. 15; ix. 1, 
συνεργεῖν, vill. 28. 
συνευδοκεῖν, i. 32. 
συνθάπτεσθαι, Vi. 4. 
συνιστάναι, ili. 5; xvi. 1. 
συνιῶν, iii. II. 
συντελεῖν, ix. 28. 
συντέμνειν, ix. 28. 
συντρίβειν, Xvi. 20, 


26. 


68 


449 


σύντριμμα, iii. τό. 

συνωδίνειν, Vili. 22. 

συσταυροῦσθαι, νὶ. 6. 

συσχηματίζεσθαι, xil. 2. 

σφαγή, viii. 36. 

σφραγίζειν. xv. 28. 

σφραγίς, iv 11. 

σάζειν, σώζεσθαι, ν. ο; Vili, 24; xi 
26: cf. Lft p. 288. 

σῶμα. vi. 6: vil. 4, 243 Xii. 1. 

Σωσίπατρος, Xvi. 21. 

σωτηρία, i, 16; x. 1; Xi. 1. 


ταπεινός, xii. τό. 
τε γάρ, Vii. 7: 
τέκνον, Vili. 14, 173 ix. 8 (cf. Deiss: 
mann, p. 164). 
τέλος (=end), x. 43 (=toll), xiii. 7. 
τί ἐροῦμεν, 111. 5. 
τί οὖν ; 111. 0; vi. 15; xi. 7. 
τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; ἣν. Τὰς Vi. Το ΝΠ 
ἮΣ ὙΠ ΙΧ 11,20. 
ἀλλὰ τί λέγει; x. 8: xi «¢. 
τιμή, xii. 10. 
τινές, iii. 35 xi. 17. 
τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, 1. 15. 
τολμᾶν, ν. 7. 
τολμηρότερον, XV. 1 5. 
τόπος, X11. 19; XV. 23 
τοῦ with infin., vi. 6; vil. 3 
τράπεζα, xi. 9. 
τράχηλος, XVI. 4. 
τύπος, V. 143 Vi. 17. 


ὑβριστής, i. 30. 

υἱοθεσία, viii. 15. 

vids (of Christ ; cf Deissmann, p.166 t.), 
i. 4; viii. 29; (of man), viil. 14. 

ὑμέτερος, xi oie 

ὑπακοή, i. 5; Υ. 19; xvi. 19. 

ὑπακούειν, X. 1 

ὕπανδρος, vii. Δ. 

ὑπάρχειν, iv. 19. 

ὑπερεντυγχάνειν, viii. 26. 

ὑπερέχειν, xiii. 1. 

ὑπερήφανος, i. 30. 

ὑπερνικᾶν, vill. 37. 

ὑπερπερισσεύειν, τ. 

ὑπερφρονεῖν, xii. 3. 

ὑπό, ili. 9. 

ὑπόδικος, iii. 19. 

ὑπόλειμμα, ix. 27. 

ὑπομένειν, xii. 12. 

ὑπομονή, Vv. 3. 

ὑποτάσσειν, ὑποτάσσεσθαι, viii. 
4.) sath Gi 

ὑστερεῖσθαι, iii. 23. 


20. 


450 


ὑψηλός, xii. τό. 
ὕψωμα, viii. 39. 


φαίνεσθαι, vii. 13. 
φανεροῦσθαι, iii. 21; xvi. 26. 
φαῦλος, ix. 11. 
φείδεσθαι, viii. 32. 
φθάνειν, ix. 31. 
φιλαδελφία, xii. το. 
φιλεῖν, p. 374 f 
φίλημα, xvi. 16. 
φιλοξενία, xii. 13. 
φιλόστοργος, xii. 10. 
φιλοτιμεῖσθαι, Xv. 20. 
φόρος, xiii. 6. 
pparrey, iii. 19. 


oveiv, villi. 53 xii. 16; xiv. 6; xv. 5. 
Pp ᾽ aon ᾽ ᾿ 


φρόνημα, viii. 6. 
φρόνιμος, xi. 25 ; xii. τό. 
φυλάσσειν, ii. 26. 
φύραμα, ix. 21 ; xi. 16. 
φύσις, ii. 14. 


χαρά, xiv. 17; KV. 13. 
χάρις, i. 53 V. 2, 15; xi. 5, 6; xii. 3; 
xv. 15; xvi. 20; p. 18. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, i. 7. 
χάρισμα, i. τι; Vi. 
358 ff. 
χρεία, xii. 13. 
χρηματίζειν, vii. 3. 
χρηματισμός, Xi. 4. 
χρηστολογία, xvi. 18. 
χρηστότης, ii, 4; iii, 12; xi. 22. 
Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, viii. 34 (v. 1.), 39 ; PP 
3f., \oof. 
ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, iii. 24; vi. 11. 
ἐν Χριστῷ, ix. 1 ; Xvi. 7. 


23; xii 6; p 


ψεύδομαι, ix. 1. 

ψεῦδος, i. 25. 

ψεῦσμα, iii. 7. 

ψεύστης, iii. 4. . 
ψυχή, li. g ; xiii. 1. 


ὦν, ὃ, ix. 5; Ρ. 235. 
ws, ix. 32. 

ὡς ἄν, xv. 24. 
ὡσαύτως, viii. 26. 


ὥστε (with indic.), vii. 4 ; (with infin.) 
vii. 6. 


Sanday, Ν11118π. BS | 
Epistle to the Romans. 4Q1 


............--.-....-......--- 


ἘΣ 
oF 


Ν 


τς