Skip to main content

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

See other formats



Presented to 






Dr. Robert Dobbie 

S~ ■ V>e 

Inttrnational Critical Cammenlarg 

on % ffiolg gcrtptttria of % €Hft anb 
ffiiro gfcatanunts 



Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York ; 


Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford; 


Master of University College, Durham. 

t International Critical (fommentarg 

on t\)t ffiolt) 0cripttirc0 of t\)t CDRr gnlr 
TSim <&t8tammts. 


There are now before the public many Commentaries, 
written by British and American divines, of a popular or 
homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for Schools, 
the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Student 's, The 
Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), 
The Expositor s Bible, and other similar series, have their 
special place and importance. But they do not enter into 
the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such 
series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch zum A. T.; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch zum N. T; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- 
mentar; Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar uber das 
A. T.; Lange's Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack's 
Handkommentar zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar 
zum N. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, 
and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English- 
speaking public ; others are in process of translation. But 
no corresponding series by British or American divines 
has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared 
by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, 
Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others ; and the time has 
come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, 
when it is practicable to combine British and American 
scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive 


Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar- 
ship, and in a measure lead its van. 

Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs. 
T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a 
series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, 
under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., in America, 
and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and 
the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., for the New Testament, 
in Great Britain. 

The Commentaries will be international and inter-con- 
fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical 
bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of 
the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of 
interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and 
clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each 
book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results 
of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions 
still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear 
in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each 
section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, 
or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and 
philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from 
matter of a more general character ; and in the Old Testa- 
ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted 
with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books 
will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, 
with critical notices of the most important literature of 
the subject. Historical and Archaeological questions, as 
well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the 
plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical 
Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series. 



The following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the 
Volumes named below : — 










Ezra and 


Minor Prophets. 



The Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D.D., Oriel Professor of the 
Interpretation of Holy Scripture, Oxford. 

The Rev. A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
University of Edinburgh. 

The Rev. H. A. White, M. 

G. Buchanan Gray, B.A., 
field College, Oxford. 

The Rev. S. R. Driver, 
Hebrew, Oxford. 

The Rev. George Adam 

A., Fellow of New College, 

Lecturer in Hebrew, Mans- 

D.D., Regius Professor of 

[Now Ready. 

Smith, D.D., Professor of 

Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow. 
The Rev. George Moore, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 

Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass. 

[Now Ready. 
The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., late Professor of Hebrew, 

Lane Theologic Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of Hebrew 
and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York City. 

The Rev. Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of He- 
brew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 

The Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 

The Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Free Church College, Edinburgh. 

The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Regius Professor of 
Hebrew, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

W. R. Harper, Ph.D., President of the University of 
Chicago, Illinois. 

The Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., Edward Robinson 
Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 

The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Har- 
vard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

The Rev John P. Peters, Ph.D., late Professor of 
Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rec- 
tor of St. Michael's Church, New York City, 






The Pastoral 




The Rev. E. P. Gould, D.D., Professor of New Testa- 
ment Exegesis, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 

[In the Press. 

The Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., Master of University 
College, Durham. 

The Rev. Frederick H. Chase, D.D., Fellow of 
Christ's College, Cambridge. 

The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., Dean Ireland's Pro- 
fessor of Exegesis, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. Head- 
LAM, M.A., Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford. 


The Rev. Arch. Robertson, D.D., Principal of Bishop 
Hatfield's Hall, Durham. 

The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, A.B., Professor of New 
Testament Literature, University of Chicago. 

The Rev. T. K. Abbott, B.D., D.Lit, formerly Professor 
of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin. 

The Rev. Marvin R. Vincent, D.D., Professor of Bib- 
lical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New 
York City. 

The Rev. T. C. Edwards, D.D., Principal of the Theo- 
logical College, Bala; late Principal of University 
College of Wales, Aberystwyth. 

The Rev. Walter Lock, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen 
College, and Tutor of Keble College, Oxford. 

The Rev. Robert H. Charles, M.A , Trinity College, 
Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford. 

Other engagements will be announced shortly. 


Rev. W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D. 


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

J-^-d ^J~ 

The International Critical Commentary 



















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 

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

Some experience in teaching has shown that if a difficult 


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 


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 

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 ioo B.C. and ioo 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, 


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

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


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 

It only remains for them to express their obligations and 
thanks to those many friends who have helped them 
directly or indirectly in various parts of the work, and 
more especially to Dr. Plummer and the Rev. F. E. 
Brightman of the Pusey House. Dr. Plummer, as editor 
of the series, has read through the whole of the Com- 
mentary more than once, and to his courteous and careful 
criticism they owe much. To Mr. Brightman they are 
indebted for spending upon the proof-sheets of one half of 
the Commentary greater care and attention than many men 
have the patience to bestow on work of their own. 

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



Oxford, Whitsuntide, 1895. 




§ I. Rome in a. D. 58 . xiii 

2. The Jews in Rome xviii 

3. The Roman Church xxv 

4. Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose . . . xxxvi 

5. Argument xliv 

6. Language and Style lii 

7- Text lxiii 

8. Literary History ........ lxxiv 

9. Integrity l xxxv 

10. Commentaries xcviii 

Abbreviations cx-cxii 

COMMENTARY !_ 4 3 6 

Detached Notes: 

The Theological Terminology of Rom. i. 1-7 ... 17 

The word Sixmos and its cognates 28 

The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in some 

Jewish Writings 31 

The Righteousness of God 34 

St. Paul's Description of the Condition of the Heathen 

World 49 

Use of the Book of Wisdom in Chapter i . . . .51 
The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice ... 91 
The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by 

St. James I0 2 

Jewish Teaching on Circumcision 108 

The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of 

St. Paul n6 

Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of 

Justification? I2 2 



The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement . . . .129 
The Effects of Adam's Fall in Jewish Theology . . .136 

St. Paul's Conception of Sin and of the Fall . . . • 143 
History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of 

SlKUlOOO-lS *47 

The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ . . .162 

The Inward Conflict * 8 4 

St. Paul's View of the Law 187 

The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit . . . .199 

The Renovation of Nature 210 

The Privileges of Israel 232 

The Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5 233 

The Divine Election 248 

The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament . . .257 

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

of Wisdom 267 

A History of the Interpretation of Rom. ix. 6-29 . . . 269 

The Argument of ix. 30-x. 21 : Human Responsibility . 3°° 

St. Paul's Use of the Old Testament 3° 2 

The Doctrine of the Remnant 316 

The Merits of the Fathers 33° 

The Argument of Romans ix-xi 34 l 

St. Paul's Philosophy of History 342 

The Salvation of the Individual : Free-Will and Predesti- 
nation 347 

Spiritual Gifts 35 8 

The Church and the Civil Power 3^9 

The History of the word aya-nrj 374 

The Christian Teaching on Love 37^ 

The early Christian belief in the nearness of the napovaia . 379 

The relation of Chapters xii-xiv to the Gospels . . . 3 Sl 

What sect or party is referred to in Rom. xiv ? . . 399 

Aquila and Priscilla 4 l8 


I Subjects 437 

II Latin Words . 443 

III Greek Words 443 


§ i. Rome in a. d. 58. 

It 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 2 . 
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 V The imagery of citizenship has impressed itself 
upon his language 4 . And this was the result both of his experience 
and of his birth. Wherever Christianity had been preached the 
Roman authorities had appeared as the power which restrained 

1 The main authorities used for this section are Furneaux, The Annals of 
Tacitus, vol. ii, and Schiller, Geschichte des Rbmischen Kaisserreichs unter 
der Regierung des Nero. 

2 Rom. i. 8—15. 

3 Acts xix. 21 ; xxiii. n. 

4 PhU. i. 27 ; iii. 20; Eph. ii. 19; Acts xxiii, 1. 



the forces of evil opposed to it K 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. Paul 
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 3 / 

It was during the early years of Nero's reign that St. Paul first 
came into contact with the Roman Church. And the period is 
significant. It was what later times called the Quinquennium of 
Nero, and remembered as the happiest period of the Empire since 
the death of Augustus 3 . Nor was the judgement unfounded. It is 

1 2 Thess. ii. 7 6 Karix^t 6 rb tcarix™- It is we U 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 \e. 54 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 {rb 
ko.tcx ov ) and visibly personified in the Emperor (o Karix<»v), 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. 

a Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 147, 148; cf. also pp. 60, 
70, 158 n. See also Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 202-205. 

3 Aur. Victor, Caes. 5, Epit. 12, Unde quidamprodidere, Traianum solitum 
dicere,procul distare cunctos principes a Neronis quinquennio. 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, or 
if any one acquainted with the provinces had been questioned, he 
would certainly have answered that the government of the Empire 
was good. This was due mainly to the gradual development of 
the ideas on which the Empire had been founded. The structure 
which had been sketched by the genius of Caesar, and built up 
by the art of Augustus, if allowed to develop freely, guaranteed 
naturally certain conditions of progress and good fortune. It was 
due also to the wise administration of Seneca and of Burrus. It 
was due apparently also to flashes of genius and love of popularity 
on the part of the Emperor himself. 

The provinces were well governed. Judaea was at this time 
preparing for insurrection under the rule of Felix, but he was 
a legacy from the reign of Claudius. The difficulties in Armenia 
were met at once and vigorously by the appointment of Corbulo ; 
the rebellion in Britain was wisely dealt with ; even at the end of 
Nero's reign the appointment of Vespasian to Judaea, as soon as 
the serious character of the revolt was known, shows that the 
Emperor still had the wisdom to select and the courage to appoint 
able men. During the early years a long list is given of trials 
for repetundae ; and the number of convictions, while it shows that 
provincial government was not free from corruption, proves that 
it was becoming more and more possible to obtain justice. It 
was the corruption of the last reign that was condemned by 
the justice of the present. In the year 56, Vipsanius Laenas, 
governor of Sardinia, was condemned for extortion; in 57, 
Capito, the 'Cilician pirate,' was struck down by the senate 
'with a righteous thunderbolt.' Amongst the accusations against 

quinquennium may have been suggested by the certamen quinquennale which 
Nero founded in Rome, as Dio tells us, imtp rrjs acoTrjpias 777s re Siafnovrjs tov 
tcparovs avrov, Dio, Epit. lxi. 21 ; Tac. Ann. xiv. 20; Suet. Nero 12; of. the 
coins described, Eckhel, vi. 264 ; Cohen, i. p. 282, 47-65. cer. quinq. 



Suillius in 58 was the misgovernment of Asia. And not only were 
the favourites of Claudius condemned, better men were appointed 
in their place. It is recorded that freedmen were never made 
procurators of imperial provinces. And the Emperor was able in 
many cases, in that of Lyons, of Cyrene, and probably of Ephesus, 
to assist and pacify the provincials by acts of generosity and 
benevolence \ 

We may easily, perhaps, lay too much stress on some of the 
measures attributed to Nero ; but many of them show, if not the 
policy of his reign, at any rate the tendency of the Empire. The 
police regulations of the city were strict and well executed 2 . 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 3 . 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 4 . And wherever trade could flourish there 
wealth accumulated. Laodicea was so rich that the inhabitants 
could rebuild the city without aid from Rome, and Lyons could 
contribute 4,000,000 sesterces at the time of the great fire 5 . 

When, then, St. Paul speaks of the ' powers that be ' as being 
1 ordained by God ' ; when he says that the ruler is a minister of 
God for good ; when he is giving directions to pay ' tribute ' and 
1 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. 

1 For the provincial administration of Nero see Furneaux, op. cit. pp. 56, 57 ; 
W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial Administration, pp. 135, 137 ; 
Tac. Ann. xiii. 30, 31, 33, 50, 51, 53-57. 

a Suetonius, Nero 16. Schiller, p. 420. 

3 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 gegrundete Vorwurfe 
kaum erhoben werden. Die kaiserliche Regierung liess die Verhaltnisse hier 
ruhig den Gang gehen, welchen ihnen fruhere Regierungen angewiesen hatten.' 

* Tac. Ann. xv. 20, 21. 

8 Arnold, p. 137. 

§ 1.] ROME IN A.D. 58 xvii 

But it was not only Nero, it was Seneca 1 also who was ruling in 
Rome when St. Paul wrote to the Church there. The attempt to 
find any connexions literary or otherwise between St. Paul and 
Seneca may be dismissed ; but for the growth of Christian principles, 
still more perhaps for that of the principles which prepared the way 
for the spread of Christianity, the fact is of extreme significance. It 
was the first public appearance of Stoicism in Rome, as largely in- 
fluencing politics, and shaping the future of the Empire. It is a strange 
irony that makes Stoicism the creed which inspired the noblest 
representatives of the old regime, for it was Stoicism which provided 
the philosophic basis for the new imperial system, and this was 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. d. 61) protested when the slaves of the murdered 
Pedanius Secundus were led out to execution 2 . 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 3 , 
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 

1 See Lightfoot, St. Paul and Seneca, Philippians, p. 268. To this period 
of his life belong the ano/eoXoicvvTajms, the De dementia, the De Vita Beata, 
the De Beneficiis, and the De Constantia Sapientis. See Teuffel, History of 
Roman Literature, translated by Warr, ii. 42. 

2 Tac. Ann. xiv. 42-45. 

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



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 K 

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 . 

§ i. The Jews in Rome 3 . 

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

1 We have collected the following names from the contents of one colum- 
barium (C. I. L. 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 5 1 80, 
Chrysantus 5183, Serapio {bis) 5187, Pylaemenianus 5188, Creticus 5197, 
Asclepiades 5201, Melicus 5217, Antigonus 5227, Cypare 5229, 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 S| ecial interest : 'Hdvtcos EvoSov rrpeo0tvTT)s Qavayopeircov rSiv Kara Bwairopov, 
a.nd"Acrrrovpyos Biopnaov vlos (pp.r)vevs 2app6.TO)v Pwanopavos 5207. 

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

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



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. 

(i) History. The first relations of the Jews with Rome go back 
to the time of the Maccabaean princes, when the struggling patriots 
of Judaea had some interests in common with the great Republic 
and could treat with it on independent terms. Embassies were 
sent under Judas ' (who died in 160 b.c.) and Jonathan 2 (who died 
in 143), and at last a formal alliance was concluded by Simon 
Maccabaeus in 140, 139 3 . 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 4 . 

This was only preliminary contact. The first considerable 
settlement of the Jews in Rome dates from the taking of Jerusalem 
by Pompey in b.c. 63 s . 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 6 , 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 7 ; and under Augustus they were allowed to form 
a regular colony on the further side of the Tiber 8 , roughly speak- 
ing opposite the site of the modern ' Ghetto,' which was removed 
to the left bank of the river in 1556, and has been finally done 
away with since the Italian occupation. 

1 1 Mace. viii. 17-32. 9 1 Mace. xii. 1-4, 16. 

8 1 Mace. xiv. 24; xv. 15-24. 

* This statement is made on the authority of Valerius Maximus I. iii. 2 
(Excerpt. Parid.) : Judaeos qui Sabazi Jovis cultu Romanos inficere mores 
conati sunt, repetere domos suas coegit. Doubt is thrown upon it by Bei liner 
(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 
lhat 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. 

6 It was called after them the 'synagogue of the Libertini' (Acts vi. 10). 

7 Sueton. Caesar 84. 

8 This was the quarter usually assigned to prisoners of war {Beschreibung d. 
Stadt Rom, III. iii. 578). 



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 2 . 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 3 
and another probably in the Campus Martius. There were syna- 
gogues of Avyovarfjaioi and ' Ay pnnrrjcnoi (i. e. either of the house- 
hold or under the patronage of Augustus * and his minister Agrippa), 
the position of which is uncertain but which in any case bespeak 
the importance of the community. Traces of Jewish cemeteries 
have been found in several out-lying regions, one near the Porta 
Portuensis, two near the Via Appia and the catacomb of S. Callisto, 
and one at Portus, the harbour at the mouth of the Tiber 5 . 

Till some way on in the reign of Tiberius the Jewish colony 
flourished without interruption. But in a. d. 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 6 . 

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

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

2 Joseph. Ant. XVII. xi. 1 ; B.J. II. vi. I. 

3 There is mention of an apx<uv ^.i&ovprjaiajv, C. I. G. 6447 (Schiirer, 
Ge?neindeverfassimg d. 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. 

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

5 Data relating to the synagogues have been obtained from inscriptions, 
which have been carefully collected and commented upon by Schiirer in the 
work quoted above (Leipzig, 1879), a ^ so more recently by Berliner {pp. cit. 
p. 46 ff.) 

6 Tacitus, Annal. ii. 85 si ob gravitatem caeli interissent, vile damnum. 


answer to their petition 1 . Caligula insisted on the setting up of 
his own bust in the Temple at Jerusalem, and his opportune death 
alone saved the Jews from worse things than had as yet befallen 
them (a.d. 41). 

In the early part of the reign of Claudius the Jews had friends 
at court in the two Herod Agrippas, father and son. But a 
mysterious notice of which we would fain know more shows them 
once again subject to measures of repression. At a date which is 
calculated at about a.d. 52 we find Aquila and Prisca at Corinth 
'because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from 
Rome' (Acts xviii. 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 ChrestusV 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 3 . 

Any one of three interpretations may be put upon impulsore Chresto 
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- 
tiani, and so bearing unconscious witness to the gentle and kindly character 
of those who owned it. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronunciatur 
a vobis (nam nee nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de suavitate vel benigni- 
tate compositum est {Apol. 3 ; cf. Justin, Apol. i. § 4). If we suppose some 
such very natural confusion, then the disturbances may have had their origin 
in the excitement caused by the Messianic expectation which was ready to 
break out at slight provocation wherever Jews congregated. This is the 
view of Lange and others including in part Lightfoot {Philippians , p. 169). 
(iiij 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 or Pisidia or Lystra (Acts xvii. 5 ; xiv. 19; 

1 Leg. ad Caium 44, 45. 

2 Sueton. Claud. 25 Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma 

3 Dio Cassius, lx. 6 tous re 'lovSaiovs, irkeovdaavras avOis &ctt€ x a ^ (n ® s "" 
avtv rapaxfjs iivb rod ox^ov a<p5)v rijs voKtais dpxOi)t/ai, ovk f^-qXaae \ikv, rep Si 
5f) narpicp vo/jlco fi'up xP a) l A ^ V0Vi (Ke\€vae fit) avvadpoifeadai, rds t« kratpuas 
tiravaxOcioas virb rov Yatov 8ii\vo€. 


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 l . 

The edict of Claudius was followed in about three years by his 
death (a.d. 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 2 . 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 3 . 

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

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

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

3 Dio Cassius xxxvii. 17 eari ko.1 irapa tois 'Pwfxaiois rb yivos tovto, Ko\ova9lv 
ptv 7roAA<S«ts avftOtv h\ kvi tt\u(ttoi>, &arf ical tls iraponoiav rns vouiaews 

§ 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. Refut. Haer. ix. 12). 

There was some natural difference between the East and the 
West corresponding to the difference in number and concentration 
of the Jewish population. In Palestine the central judicial and 
administrative body was the Sanhedrin ; after the Jewish War the 
place of the Sanhedrin was taken by the Ethnarch who exercised 
great powers, the Jews of the Dispersion voluntarily submitting to 
him. At Alexandria also there was an Ethnarch, as well as a 
central board or senate, for the management of the affairs of the 
community. At Rome, on the other hand, it would appear that 
each synagogue had its own separate organization. This would 
consist of a * senate ' (ycpovo-ia), the members of which were the 
' elders ' (npeafivTepoi). The exact relation of these to the ' rulers ' 
(apxovrfs) is not quite clear : the two terms may be practically 
equivalent ; or the apxovrcs may be a sort of committee within the 
larger body *. The senate had its ' president ' (ytpovatapxr)*) ; and 
among the rulers one or more would seem to have been charged 
with the conduct of the services in the synagogue (apxHrwayayos, 
dpxurvuayaryot). Under him would be the imrjptTrjs (Chazari) who 
performed the minor duties of giving out and putting back the 
sacred rolls (Luke iv. 20), inflicted scourging (Matt. x. 17), and 
acted as schoolmaster. The priests as such had no special status 
in the synagogue. We hear at Rome of wealthy and influential 
people who were called ' father ' or ' mother of the synagogue ' ; 
this would be an honorary title. There is also mention of a npo- 
a-TaTTjs or pa tr onus, 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 and 
Aristobulus as well as Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip the tetrarch 2 ). 
At a later date other members of the family made it their home 
(Herod the first husband of Herodias, the younger Aristobulus, 
and at one time Herod Agrippa I). There were also Jews attached 
in one way or another to the imperial household (we have had 
mention of the synagogues of the Agrippesii and Augustesii). These 
would be found in the more aristocratic quarters. The Jews' 

1 This is the view of Schurer {Gemeindeverf. p. a 2). The point is not 
discussed by Berliner. Dr. Edersheim appears to regard the ' elders ' as 
identical with the 'rulers,' and the apx^vvaywyos as chief of the body. He 
would make the functions of the yepovainpxqs political rather than religious, 
and he spenks of this office as if it were confined to the Dispersion of the West 
{Life and Times, Sec. i. 438). These are points which must be regarded as 
more or less open. 

3 Jos. Ant. XV. x. 1 ; XVII. i. 3, 


quarter proper was the reverse of aristocratic. The fairly plentiful 
notices which have come down to us in the works of the Satirists 
lead us to think of the Jews of Rome as largely a population of 
beggars, vendors of small wares, sellers of lucifer matches, collectors 
of broken glass, fortune-tellers of both sexes. They haunted the 
Aventine with their baskets and wisps of hay l . 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 2 . 

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 3 . 
But along with these external observances the Jews did succeed in 
bringing home to their Pagan neighbours the contrast of their 
purer faith to the current idolatries, that He whom they served 
did not dwell in temples made with hands, and that He was not to 
be likened to ' gold or silver or stone, graven by art and device 
of man/ 

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

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

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. Small 
Trades : Martial, Epig. I. xlii. 3-5 ; XII. lvji. 13, 14. Mendicancy: Juvenal, 
Sat. 111. 14; vi. 542 ff. Proselytism: Horace, Sat. I. iv. 142 f . ; Juvenal, Sat. 
xiv. 96 ff. 

3 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 
Theodore Reinach {Textes relatifs aujudaisme, Paris, 189^). 


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 ' (evo-efiels, art^6y.tmi i 
a-fj36fX(voi tov Qe6v, <fioj3ov/ievoi t6u Q(6v) 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 2 . 

§ 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, § 10). This fourth- 
century writer, himself probably a member of the Roman Church, 
does not claim for it an apostolic origin. He thinks that it arose 
among the Jews of Rome and that the Gentiles to whom they 
conveyed a knowledge of Christ had not seen any miracles or any 
of the Apostles 3 . Some such conclusion as this fits in well with 

1 Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. 

2 See the very ample collection of material on this subject in Schiirer, 
Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. 558 ff. 

a Constat itaque temporibus apostolorum /udaeos, propterea quod sub regno 
Romano agerent, Komae habitasse : ex quibus hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt 
Romanis ut Christum projitentes, Legem servarent . . . Romanis autem irasci 
non debuit, sed et laudare fidem illorum ; quia nulla insignia virtuium 



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 mans foundation ' (Rom. xv. 20). 
If an Apostle had been before him to Rome the only supposition 
which would save his present letter from clashing with this would 
be that there were two distinct churches in Rome, one Jewish- 
Christian the other Gentile-Christian, and that St. Paul wrote only 
to the latter. But not only is there no hint of such a state of 
things, but the letter itself (as we shall see) implies a mixed 
community, a community not all of one colour, but embracing 
in substantial proportions both Jews and Gentiles. 

At a date so early as this it is not in itself likely that the Apostles 
of a faith which grew up under the shadow of Jewish particu- 
larism would have had the enterprise to cast their glance so far 
west as Rome. It was but natural that the first Apostle to do 
this should be the one who both in theory and in practice had 
struck out the boldest line as a missionary ; the one who had 
formed the largest conception of the possibilities of Christianity, 
the one who risked the most in the effort to realize them, and who 
as a matter of principle ignored distinctions of language and of 
race. We see St. Paul deliberately conceiving and long cherishing 
the purpose of himself making a journey to Rome (Acts xix. 21 ; 
Rom. i. 13 ; xv. 22-24). It was not however \o 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, nee aliquem apostolorum, susceperant fidem Christi ritu licet Indaico 
(S. Ambrosii Opp. iii. 373 f., ed. Ballenni). 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 Rows, 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 emporia. We may say that the three great 
cities at which he had spent the longest time — Antioch, Corinth, 
Ephesus — were just the three from which (with Alexandria) inter- 
course was most active. We may be sure that not a few of his 
own disciples would ultimately find their way to Rome. And so 
we may assume that all the owners of the names mentioned in 
ch. xvi had some kind of acquaintance with him. In several cases 
he adds some endearing little expression which implies personal 
contact and interest : Epaenetus, Ampliatus, Stachys are all his 
' beloved '; Urban has been his ' helper '; the mother of Rufus had 
been also as a mother to him; Andronicus and Junia (or Juniis) 
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, 


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

(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 to 



carry a clear conclusion 1 . 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 (i Pet. v. 13) is really a covert name for Rome. This was the view of 
the Early Church, and although peihaps not absolutely certain it is in accord- 
ance with all probability. The Apocalypse confessedly puts • Babylon ' for 
Rome (Rev. xiv. 8; xvi. 19, &c), and when we remember the common 
practice among the Jewish Rabbis of disguising their allusions to the op- 
pressor 2 , 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 Maik, and the points of contact between 
I Peter and Romans) find an easy and natural explanation 3 . 

The genuine Epistle of Clement of Rone (c. 97 a.d.) couples together 
St. Ptter 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 5 ; 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 Ap*ostles as having joined in 'planting' the 
Church of Rome as they had done previously that of Corinth 6 . 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 7 . By the beginning 
of the third century we get in Tertullian 8 and Caius of Rome 9 explicit 
references to Rome as the scene of the double martyrdom. The latter writer 
points to the * trophies ' {to. rpWaia 10 ) 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. 

1 The summary which follows contains only the main points and none of the 
indirect evidence. For a fuller presentation the reader may be referred to 
Lightfoot, St. Clement ii. 490 ff., and Eipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 11 ff. 

- On this practice, see Bnsenlhal, Trostschreiben an die ffebrder, p. 3 ff. ; 
and for a defence of the view that St. Peter wrote his Mist Epistle from Rome, 
Eightfoot, St. Clement ii. 491 f . ; Von Soden in Handcommcntar IIP ii. 105 f. 
&c. Dr. Hort, who had paid special attention to this Epistle, seems to have 
held the same opinion {Judaistic Christianity, p. 155). 

3 There is a natural reluctance in the lay mind to take Iv BafivXwn in any 
other sense than literally. Still it is certainly to be so taken in Orac. Sibyll v. 
158 ; 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 Dollinger, but Renan and the Tubingen school generally. 

4 Ad Cor. v. 4 ff. s Ad Rom iv 3 

6 Eus. ff. E. II. xxv. 8. 7 Adv. ffaer. III. iii. 2, 3. 

8 Scorp. 15 ; Be Praescript. 36. 9 Eus. //. E. II. xxv. 6, 7. 

10 There has been much discussion as to the exact meaning of this word. 
The leading Protestant archaeologists (Eipsius, Erbes, V. Schultze) hold that 
it refers to some conspicuous mark ot the place of martyrdom (a famous 
' terebinth' near the naumachium on the Vatican {Mart. Pet. et Paul. 63) and 
a ' pine-tree ' near the road to Ostia. The Roman Catholic authorities would 
refer it to the ' tombs ' or • memorial chapels ' {memoriae). It seems to us 
probable that buildings of some kind were already in existence. For statements 
of the opposing views see Eipsius. Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 21 ; De Waal, Die 
Apostelgruft ad. Catacttmbas, p. 14ft. 


Two fourth-century documents, both in texts which have undergone some 
corruption, the Martyrologium liter onymianum (ed. Duchesne, p. 84) and 
a Vepositio Martyrum in the woik of Philocalus, the so-called ' chronographer 
of ihe year 354,' connect a removal of the bodies of the two Apostles with 
the consulship of Tuscr.s 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 l . 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 awav seems to have grown out of 
a misunderstanding of an inscription by Pope Damasus (366-384 a.d.) 2 . 

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 2co, a tradition at that date already firmly established 
and associated with definite well-known local monuments. The tradition as 
to the twenty five years' episcopate of St. Peter presents some points of re- 
semblance. That too appears for the first time in the fourth century with 
Eusebius (c. 325 a.d.) and his follower Jerome. By skilful analysis it is 
traced back a full hundred years earlier.* It appears to be derived from a list 
drawn 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 [c. 175-190 a.d.) 5 . 

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. « 
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 
1 ™PF, obable 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 6 . 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. 
Ihe travels of the Apostles are usually dated from the end of this period 

1 The best account of this transfer is that given by Duchesne, Liber Pontifi- 
cahs 1. evi f. J 

2 So Lipsius, after Erbes, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 335 f., 391 ff. ; also Light- 
foot , Clement 11. 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 R. This work contains a full survey of the controversy with new archaeo- 
logical details. 

3 Lightfoot, op. cit. i. 259 ff. ; 333. 

■ A fi , Li 8 btfoot ' PP- 2 37, 333- » Ibid. p. 333. 

6 Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 27, 69. 6 


The Roman church X xxI 

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

So far the ground is fairly clear. But when Lipsius goes further than this 
and denies the Roman visit in toto, his criticism seems to us too drastic l . 
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. Peler with Simon Magus, which under the figure of 
Simon Magus made a disguised attack upon St. Paul 3 . 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 4 : 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 5 , seem to us, if not removed beyond 
all possibility of doubt jet 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 

1 It is significant that on this point Weizsacker parts company from Lipsius 
{Apost. Zeitalt. p. 485). 

a Op. cit. p. 1 1 ff. 3 Jbi £ 2 g ff 

* Ibid. 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 re;'ers their deaths to the same year (a.d. 6>j 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 {The Church 
in the Roman 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 
authoiities 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. 



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 loo 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 wiih which it deals are Jewish, 
the validityof 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 

It was also possible to point to one or two expressions in detail 
which might seem to favour the assumption of Jewish readers. 
Such would be Rom. iv. i where Abraham is described (in the 
most probable text) as ' our forefather according to the flesh ' (top 
7rpoir6.Tupa Tjfxwu Kara aapKa). To that however it was obvious to 
reply that in i Cor. x. i St. Paul spoke of the Israelites in the 



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 a8f\(poi finv (which would be just as possible if they were con- 
verts from heathenism) but a sustained contrast is drawn between 
an earlier state under the Law (6 vofios vv. r, 4, 5, 6 ; not vv. 2, 3 
where the force of the article is different) and a later state of free- 
dom from the Law. It is true that this could not have been 
written to a Church which consisted wholly of Gentiles, unless the 
Apostle had forgotten himself for the moment more entirely than 
he is likely to have done. Still such expressions should not be 
pressed too far. He associates his readers with himself in a manner 
somewhat analogous to that in which he writes to the Corinthians, 
as if their spiritual ancestry was the same as his own. Nor was 
this without reason. He regards the whole pre-Messianic period 
as a period of Law, of which the Law of Moses was only the most 
conspicuous example. 

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

We may take it then as established that there were Jews in the 
Church, and that in substantial numbers; just as we also cannot 
doubt that there was a substantial number of Gentiles. The direct 
way in which St. Paul addresses the Gentiles in ch. xi. 13 ff. (vfilv 
8e Xe'yo) rols Wvcvlv k.t.\.) would be proof sufficient of this. But it 
is further clear that St. Paul regards the Church as broadly and in 
the main a Gentile Church. It is the Gentile element which gives 
it its colour. This inference cannot easily be explained away from 
the passages, Rom. i. 5-7, 13-15; xv. 14-16. In the first St. Paul 
numbers the Church at Rome among the Gentile Churches, and 
bases on his own apostleship to the Gentiles his right to address 
them. In the second he also connects the obligations he is under 
to preach to them directly with the general fact that all Gentiles 
without exception are his province. In the third he in like manner 
excuses himself courteously for the earnestness with which he has 
written by an appeal to his commission to act as the priest who 
lays upon the altar the Church of the Gentiles as his offering. 



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 ' (avyyevels) 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 Iudaeus Apella 
(Horace, Sat. 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.d., 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 {Bom. and Eph. p. 12 ff.), that Prisca was a Roman lady belonging 
to the well-known family of that name. 

§ 3.] 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 1 . We should therefore be 
justified in supposing that even at this early date more than one of 
the Roman Christians possessed a not inconsiderable social stand- 
ing and importance. If there was any Church in which the ' not 
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble/ 
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. III. i. 1 ; iii. 3) or 'planted' (Dionysius of Corinth in 
Eus. H. E. II. xxv. 8) by St. Peter and St. Paul. It may well be 
that although the Church did not in the strict sense owe to these 
Apostles its origin, it did owe to them its first existence as an 
organized whole. 

We must not however exaggerate the want of organization at 
the time when St. Paul is writing. The repeated allusions to 
1 labouring ' (ki^lclv) 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 Komav 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, &c. 
C 2 


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) Time 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 

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 1 . 

We hear much of this collection in the Epistles written about 
this date (1 Cor. xvi. 1 fF. ; 2 Cor. viii. 1 fT. ; 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' (Actsxxiv. 17). Though the collection is not mentioned 
in the earlier chapters of the Acts, the order of the journey is 
mentioned. When his stay at Ephesus was drawing to an end 
we read that 'Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed 
through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After 
I have been there, I must also see Rome' (Acts xix. 21). Part of 
this programme has been accomplished. At the time of writing 
St. Paul seems to be at the capital of Achaia. The allusions 

1 On this collection see an excellent article by Mr. Kendall in The Expositor, 
1893, ii. 321 ff. 



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. i). The house in which St. Paul is staying, 
which is also the meeting-place of the local Church, belongs to 
Gaius (Rom. xvi. 23); and a Gaius St. Paul had baptized at 
Corinth (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 ft.; 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 l . 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 [Ch> onologie der paulinischen Brief e, Halle, 
1893), who would place it after Romans; and on the other hand by 

1 Jiilicher, in his recent Einleitung, p. 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 slaying 
in Ephesus longer than the next succeeding Pentecost. 



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

Clemen, who propounds a novel view of the chronology of St. Paul's life 
generally, would interpose the Council of Jerusalem (which he identifies with 
the visit of Acts xxi and not with that of Acts xv) between Romans, which 
he assigns to the winter of A.D. 53 54, and Galatians, which he places towards 
the end of the latter year 1 . 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. RendalPs 
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 thiid journey in the year 54. 
The argument which Bishop Eightfoot based on resemblances.of thought and 
language between Galatians and Romans rests upon facts that are indisput- 
able, but does not carry with it any certain inference as to date. 

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

. x 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 of 
A.D. 53-54. Then follow the Council at Jerusalem, the dispute at Antioch, 
Ep. to Galatians, and a fourth journey in Asia Minor, with another genuine 
fragment, 2 Tim. iv. 19-21. This fills the interval which ends with the arrest 
at Jerusalem in the year 58, Epp. to Phil., Col., Philem. and one or two more 
fragments of Past. Epp., the Apostle's arrival at Rome in A.D. 61 and his 
death in A D. 64. The whole scheme stands or falls with the place assigned to 
the Council of Jeiusalem, and the estimate formed of the historical character 
of the Acts. 


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 w^ 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 mnny 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 


time; when he wrote he was not far distant; there had been 
frequent communications between the Church and the Apostle; 
and in the case of i Corinthians he had actually before him a letter 
containing a number of questions which he was requested to 
answer, while in that of 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 


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 Apostie, they had returned to 
prepare the way for his coming. We cannot afford to lose so 
valuable a link between St. Paul and the Church he had set his 
heart on visiting. Two of his most trusted friends are now on the 
spot, and they would not fail to report all that it was essential to 
the Apostle to know. He may have had other correspondents 
besides, but they would be the chief. To this source we may look 
for what there is of local colour in the Epistle. If the argument is 
addressed now to Gentiles by birth and now to Jews; if we catch 
a glimpse of parties in the Church, 'the strong' and 'the weak'; 
if there is a hint of danger threatening the peace and the faith of 
the community (as in ch. xvi. 17-120) — 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 batis 
of Christian teaching, those rrapaduaets as they are called elsewhere 
(1 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. 


For, lastly, the most powerful of all the influences which have 
shaped the contents of the Epistle is the experience of the writer. 
The main object which he has in view is really not far to seek. 
When he thought of visiting Rome his desire was to ' have some 
fruit ' there, as in the rest of the Gentile world (Rom. i. 13). He 
longed to impart to the Roman Christians some ' spiritual gift,' 
such as he knew that he had the power of imparting (i. 11 ; xv. 
29). By this he meant the effect of his own personal presence, 
but the gift was one that could be exercised also in absence. He 
has exercised it by this letter, which is itself the outcome of a 
irvtvuaTiKov ^apnr/uo, 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 tuj-ning-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, in a 
marvellous manner from above. We cannot doubt that from his con- 
version onwards St. Paul found himself endowed with extraordinary 
energies. Some of them were what we should call miraculous; 
but he makes no distinction between those which were miraculous 
and those which were not. He set them all down as miraculous 
in the sense of having a direct Divine cause. And when he looked 
around him over the Christian Church he saw that like endowments, 
energies 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 

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


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 1 ) from the side of God, were the two outstanding 
facts which made the lives of Christians differ from those of other 

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

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


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

§ 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' (St. Paul and Protestantism, p. 92 f.). 

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

§ 5.] THE ARGUMENT xlv 

* The first chapter is to the Gentiles— its purport is : You have 
not righteousness. The second is to the Jews— its purport 
is : No more have you, though you think you have. The third 
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' {ibid. p. 93). 

Some such outline as ttiis 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 01 direct personal verification, From 


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, 
viii. 1-30 (rather than 1-28), which supply its solution. The 
problem is. How is man to become righteous in the sight of God ? 



And the answer is (i) by certain great redemptive acts on the 
part of God which take effect in the sphere above though their 
consequences are felt throughout the sphere below; (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— 1 5 ,. 

a. The Apostolic Salutation .(i. 1-7"). 

£. St. Paul and the Roman Church (i. 8-15). 

II. — Doctrinal. 

The Great Thesis. Problem: How is Righteousness to be attained? 
Answer : Not by man's work, but by God's gift, through Faith, or 
loyal attachment to Christ (i. 16, 17). 

A. Righteousness as a state or condition in the sight of God (Justification) 
(i. 18-v. 21). 
1. 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 (26, 27), to 
every kind of moral depravity (28-31), even to perversion of 
conscience (32) 
/3. [Transitional] . Future judgement without respect of persons such as 
Jew or Gentile <n- 1-16). 


(i ) Jewish critic and Gentile sinner in the same position (ii. 1-4). 
(ii.) Standard of judgement: deeds, not privileges (a. 5"")- 
(Hi.) 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. 1 7-29)- Profession and reality, as regards 
(i.) Law (ii. 17-24^; 

(ii.) Circumcision (ii. 25-29). « . 

8. [Parenthetic!. Answer to casuistical objections from Jewish stand- 
point (iii. 1-8). * . 

(i.) The Jew's advantage as recipient of Divine Promises 

(iii. 1,2); " . 

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

(iii.) Yet God's greater glory no excuse for human sin (iii. 5-8). 
e. 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 

(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). 
£. Preliminary note of two main consequences from this: 
(i.) Boasting excluded (27, 28) ; 
(ii.) Jew and Gentile alike accepted (29-31). 

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

crucial case of Abraham (iv. 1-25). 
(i.) Abraham's acceptance (like that described by David) turned 

on Faith, not Works (iv. 1-8) ; 
(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 all 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. 1-2 1). 

a. (i.) It leads by sure degrees to a triumphant hope of final sal- 
vation (v. 1-4). . 
(ii.) That hope guaranteed a fortiori by the Love displayed in 
Christ's Death for sinners (v. 5-11). 
/8. 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], 



B. Progressive Righteousness in the Christian (Sanctification) (vi-viii). 

1. Reply to further casuistical objection : ' If more sin means more 

grace, why not go on sinning ?' 

The immersion of Baptism carried with it a death to sin. 
and union with the risen Christ. The Christian there- 
fore cannot, must not, sin (vi. 1-14). 

2. The Christian's Release : what it is, and what it is not : shown by 

two metaphors. 
a. Servitude and emancipation (vi. 15-23). 
/3. The marriage-bond (vii. 1-6). 

[The Christian's old self dead to the Law with Christ; so thai 
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). 
|8. The new a 5 gime contrasted with the old — the regime of the Spirit 

with the weakness of unassisted humanity (viii.,5-9). 
7. The Spirit's presence a guarantee of bodily as well as moral 

resurrection (viii. 10-13); 
6. also a guarantee that the Christian enjoys with God a son's relation, 

and will enter upon a son's inheritance (viii. 14-17). 
€. That glorious inheritance the object of creation's yearning (viii. 

18-22) ; 
y> and of the Christian's hope (viii. 23-25). 

%. Human infirmity assisted by the Spirit's intercession (viii. 26, 27) ; 
6. and sustained by the knowledge of the connected chain by which 

God works out His purpose of salvation (viii. 28-30). 
i. 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) ; 
/3. nor with the Divine Justice (ix. 14-29). 

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

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

i9- 2 3)- 
(iii.) The alternate choice of Jews and Gentiles expressly reserved 
and foretold in Scripture (ix. 24-29). 
3. 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. n-13). 
£. Nor can Israel pltad in defence want of opportunity or warning — 
(i.) The Gospel has been fully and universally preached (x. 14-18). 



(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). 
#. It is only temporary — 

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

Gentiles (xi. 1 1-1 5). 
(ii.) That Israel will be restored is vouched for by the holy stock 
from which it comes (xi. 16-24). 
7. In all this may be seen the purpose of God working upwards 
through seeming severity, to a beneficent result — the final 
restoiation of all (xi. 25-31). 
Doxology (xi. 33-36). 
III. — Practical and Hortatory. 

(1) The Christian sacrifice (xii. I, 2). 

(2) The Christian as a member of the Church (xii. 3-8). 

(3) The Christian in his relation to others (xii. 9-21). 
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. i-xv. 6). 
The Jew and the Gentile (xv. 7-13). 

IV. — Epilogue. 

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

Rome (xv. 14-33). 
/3. Greetings to various persons (xvi. 1-16). 
A warning (xvi. 17-20). 
Postscript by the Apostle's companions and amanuensis (xvi. 

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. Pauls 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 this universality. The rejection of the Jews, 
the calling of the Gentiles, are both steps in this process and 
necessary steps. But the method and plan pursued in these cases 
and partially revealed, enable us to learn, if we have faith to do 
so, that 'mystery which has been hidden from the foundation 
of the world/ but which has always guided the course of human 
history— the purpose of God to ' sum up all things in Christ/ 

If this point has been made clear, it will enable us to bring out 
the essential unity and completeness of the argument of the 
Epistle. We do not agree as we have explained above with the 
opinion of Baur, revived by Dr. Hort, that chap, ix-xi represent 
the essential part of the Epistle, to which all the earlier part is but 
an introduction. That is certainly a one-sided view. But Dr. 
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 different stages in the argument more accurately 
and distinctly than in any other of St. Paul's writings. But this 
must not blind us to the lact that the whole is one great argument; 
the purpose "of which is to explain the Gospel of God in Jesus the 
Messiah, and to show its' efiects 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 01 God's purpose for mankind. 


ui epistle to the romans [§ 6- 

§ 6. Language and Style. 

(i) Language*. It will seem at first sight to the uninitiated 
reader a rather strange paradox that a letter addressed to the 
capital of the Western or Latin world should be written in Greek. 
Yet there is no paradox, either to the classical scholar who is 
acquainted with the history of the Early Empire, or to the ecclesias- 
tical 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 tall 
into three periods, of which the landmarks would be (i) the appear- 
ance of the first Latin writers, said by Jerome 2 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 3 , and Victor, an African by 
birth, who became Bishop of Rome about 189 a. d. (2) Next 
would come in the middle of the third century a more considerable 
body of Latin literature, the writings of Novatian and the corre- 
spondence between the Church of Rome and Cyprian at Carthage. 
(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 of 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 V Martial regards ignorance of Greek 
as a mark of rusticity 5 . 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 6 . 

For the Jewish colony we have the evidence of the inscriptions. Out of 
thirty-eight collected by Schurer 7 no less than thirty are Greek and eight only 

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

2 De Vir. III. liii. Tertullianus presbyter nunc demu?n primus post Victorem 
et Apollonium Latinorum ponitur. 

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

4 Juv. Sat. iii. 60 f. ; cf. vi. 187 ff. 5 Epig. xiv. 58. 

6 Caspari, Quellen zum Tau/symbol, iii. 286 f. 

7 Cemeindeverfassung, p. 33 ff. The inscriptions referred to are all from 
Roman sites. There is also one in Greek fiom Portus. 



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 1 . 

Of Christian inscriptions the proportion of Greek to Latin would seem to be 
about 1:2. But the great mass of these would belong to a period later than 
that of which we are speaking. De Rossi 2 estimates the number for the period 
between M. Aurelius and Septimius Severusat 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 Eleutherus (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 3 , and he wrote in Greek. 
Indeed all the literature that we can in anyway 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 4 . Justin 
and Tatinn who were settled in Rome wrote in Greek ; so too did Rhodon, 
a pupil of Tatian's at Rome who carried on their tradition *. Greek was the 
language of Polycarp and Hegesippus who paid visits to Rome of shorter 
duration. A number of Gnostic writers established themselves there and used 
Greek for the vehicle of their teaching : so Cerdon, Marcion, and 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 Trishagion, Kyrie eleison 
and Christe eleison. On certain set days (at Christmas, Easter, Ember days, 
and some others) lections were read in Greek as well as Latin ; hymns were 
occasionally sung in Greek ; and at the formal committal of the Creed to the 
candidates for baptism (the so-called Traditio and Reddiiio Symbol!) both 
the Apostles' Creed (in its longer and shorter forms) and the Nicene were 

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

3 Pius is described in the Liber Pontificalis as natione Italus . . . de civitate 
Aquikia ; but there is reason to think that Hermas was a native of Arcadia. 
Tne assignments of nationality to the earliest bishops are of very doubtful 

4 It was to be kept in the archives and read on Sundays like the letter of 
Clement (Eus. H. E. IV. xxiii. 11). 

5 Eus. //. E. V. xiii. 1. 

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, 


recited and the questions put first in Greek and then in Latin 1 . 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 2 , 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 pax 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 Bosp'horus 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. 
It is, for instance, significant that Julicher in his recent Einleilung 

1 More precise and full details will be found in Caspari's Excursus, Op. cit. 
p. 466 ff. 

8 Kriiger, Altchristl. Lit. p. 88. 


(Freiburg i. B. and Leipzig, 1894) sums up rather on this side of 
the question than the other. We believe that this points to what 
will be the ultimate verdict. But in the matter of style it must be 
confessed that Col. and Eph. — and more especially Eph. — stand at 
the furthest possible remove from Romans. We may take Eph. 
and Rom. as marking the extreme poles of difference within the 
Epistles claimed for St. Paul K 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 
Kphesians ; 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 
under his load. He has weighty truths to express,.and he struggles 
to express them — not without success, but certainly with little 
flexibility or ease of composiuon. The truths unfolded read like 
abstract truths, ideal verities, ' laid up in the heavens ' rather than 
embodying themselves in the active controversies of earth. 

1 The difference between these Epistles on the side we are considering is 
greater {e. g.) than that between Ronians and the Pastorals, 


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 arixoi or printed lines 1 . It 
will be worth while to compare the Epistles chapter by chapter : — 

arixoi. (•) (.) (;) 

Ch. I. 







J 4 
















































trinal portion 






























: Epistle 


1 Si 




Here the proportion of major points to arixoi 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 I in 6.5; and for the practical portion only, 
4 : 219, or 1 in 55. This last item is instructive, because it shows how very 

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


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 : — 








Ch. I. 






































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 the 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. 


' '..Ppadfj. Rom. 9, 2 Cor. I, Gal. 9 ; not elsewhere in St. Paul, [anipp.a 
'APpaap. Rom. 2, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. I.] 

aKpopvorta Rom. 3, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 3 ; elsewhere 3. 

airoaroX-q Rom. I, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1 ; not elsewhere in St. Paul. 

Siicaiovv Rom. 15, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 3; elsewhere 2. 

Sucaicofxa Rom. 5 ; not elsewhere. 

fiiKaiwois Rom. 2 ; not elsewhere. 

KarapyeTv Rom. 6, 1 Cor. 9, 2 Cor. 4, Gal. 3 ; elsewhere 4. 

j/o/xos Rom. 76, 1 Cor. 8, Gal. 32 ; elsewhere 6. 

v(piTOfir) Rom. 15, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 7; elsewhere 8. 

anepfxa Rom. 9, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 5; elsewhere 1. 
Connected with this controversy, though not quite so directly, would be : — 

uoOevrjs Rom. I, I Cor. 10, 2 Cor. I, Gal. I ; elsewhere 1. 

aoBtvtis Rom. 4, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6; elsewhere 2. 

aoOeptia Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6, Gal. 1 ; elsewhere 1. 

daOevrjfia Rom. I ; not elsewhere. 

IXtvdepos Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 6, Gal. 6; elsewhere 2. 

!A.eu0f/>i>{)j' Rom. 4, Gal. 1 ; not elsewhere. 

e\evdepia Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 1 ; not elsewhere. 

Kavxaodai Rom. 5, 1 Cor. 5 (1 v.l.), 2 Cor. 20, Gal. 2 ; elsewhere 3. 

Kavxnp-a Rom I, 1 Cor. 3, 2 Cor. 3, Gal. 1 ; elsewhere 2. 

itavxnais Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 6; elsewhere 1. 

KaraKavx'^'Oai Rom. 2; not elsewhere. 

6<pa\6Tr)s Rom. 3, Gal. I ; not elsewhere. 

d(p(i\r]fxn Rom. 1 ; not elsewhere. 

oKavhakov Rom. 4, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1 ; not elsewhere. \oitav§aXi&iv 
I Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 1, Rom. 1 v. 1.] 

cbepek tv Rom. I, i Cor. 2, Gal. 1 : uxpiXtia Rom. 1 ; neither elsewhere. 
Two other points may be notice!, 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 : — 

yiypanrai Rom. 16, 1 Cor. 7, 2 Cor. 2, Gal. 4; not elsewhere in 
St. Paul. 

&xpts ov Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 2 (1 v.l.) ; not elsewhere. 

i<p' oaov \p6vov Rom. I, 1 Cor. l, Gal. 1 ; not elsewhere 
These examples stand out very distinctly; and their disappearance from 
the later Epistle is perfectly intelligible : cessante causa, cessat effectus. 

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

1 These examples are selected from the lists in Bishop Lightfoot's classical 
essay 'On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galatians,' mjomti. of 
Class, and Sacr. Fhilol. iii. (1857) 308 ff. 



circulate more rapidly in the veins, and gives to the style a liveli- 
ness and directness which might be wanting when the pressure was 
removed. Between Romans, written to a definite Church and 
gathering up the result of a time of great activity, the direct out- 
come of prolonged discussion in street and house and school, and 
Ephesians, written in all probability not to a single Church but to 
a group of Churches, with its personal edge thus taken off, and 
written too under confinement after some three years of enforced 
inaction, it would be natural that there should be a difference. 

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

The difference in style between Rom. and Eph. would seem to be very 
largely a difference in the amount of vital energy 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 
Eph. 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. 9, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 2, Gal. 5 ; elsewhere 
Epp. Paul. 3, Heb. 2. [dpa ovv Rom. 8 (or 9 v. 1.), Gal. 1 ; elsewhere 
3 : dpa without ovv Rom. 1 (or 2 v. 1.), 1 Cor. I, Gal. 3, Heb. 2.] 

d\\a \iyco Rom. 2. 

\iycv Se Gal. 2. 

\iyco ovv Rom. 2. 

\eyw 8e tovto oti i Cor. I. 

irdkiv \iyai 2 Cor. 2. 


tovto Si K(yo} Gal. I. 

eyaJ Uav\os Keyoi vfJ.Tv on Gal. I. 
ttov ; irov ovv ; Rom. i, i Cor. 8, Gal. I ; not elsewhere. f 

ri oiv; ris oZv; Rom. u, I Cor. 5, Gal. 1; not elsewhere, [ri ovv 

epovpev; Rom. 6; ri epov/xtv ; Rom I.] 
ri Ac'70; (A*y€i, &c.) Rom. 3, Gal. 1 ; not elsewhere. 
StaTt Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 1 ; not elsewhere. 
vrrep, unusual compounds of — 

viTfpeKTeiveiv 2 Cor. I. 

VTT(p\.iav 2 Cor. 2. 

vrrepvircav Rom. I. 

vrrepTttpiaatvav Rom. I, 2 Cor. I. 

vnepcppoveiv Rom. I . 

(4) A last cause which we suspect may possibly have been at 
work, though this is more a matter of conjecture, is the employment of 
different amanuenses. We know that St. Paul did not as a rule 
write his own letters. But then the question arises, How were 
they written ? It seems to us probable that they were in the first 
instance taken down in shorthand — much as our own merchants or 
public men dictate their correspondence to a shorthand writer — 
and then written out fair. We believe this to have been the case 
from the double fact that dictation was extremely common — so 
that even as early as Horace and Persius dictare had already 
come to mean ' to compose ' — and from the wide diffusion of the 
art of shorthand. We know that Origen's lectures were taken 
down in this way, and that fair copies were made of them at 
leisure (Eus. H. E. VI. xxiii. 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 toe] 



Rom. iii. 21-26. Eph. iii. 1-7. 

Nvvl Se x^is vdpov Simioavvij Tovrov x&pw kyw II <uAos 6 Marios 

®eov n€<pavipajTai, paprvpoynivrj vnb rov Xpiarov 'Irjaov vrrip vpwv rwv 

tov vopov ml tu!v vpocprjruv SiKaio- kOvwv, — tiye rjKovaare rr)v oUovopiav 

avvrj Sk &eoy Sid moreajs 'Irjaov rrjs x<*P lT0S T °v ®eov rrjs So9eiarjs pot 

Xpiarov els rrdvras tovs martvovTas- us vpas, on Kara dirorcaXviptv kyvco- 

ov yap kan SiaaroXr)- irdvrts yap pioOrj pot rb pvarrjpiov, tca6ws trpo- 

rjpaprov,Kai varepovvrai rrp 8o£i?s kypatya kv bXiycp, vpbs 6 SvvaaOe dva- 

tov ©eop- StKaiovpevoi Swptdv rfj yivwo/covrfs vorjrrai rr)v avvtotv pov kv 

avrov X"P lTL Std rrjs drroXvrpwaews rw pvarrjpicp rod X , b krtpais yeveais 

ttjs kv X. 'I., bv vpotOero 6 &tbs ovk kyvwpioQrj r< is vlois rwv avdpuirajv, 

Ihaarrjpiov Sid rrjs mortals kv ra> ujs vvv dirftcaXiKpOrj rots dyiois cltiootu- 

avrov aipari, tls $vtiei£tv jfjs Sinaio- Xois avrov ko.1 irpofrjrais kv Uvivpan- 

avvrjs avrov, Sid rr)v irdpeoiv rwv e7vatrdk0vrj ovyKXrjpovopafcalavoaajpa 

irpoyiyovQ-rwv dp.aprrjp6.Taiv kv rrj /cat avppiroxa rrjs trrayytXias kv X. 'I. 

dvoxfj rov ®eov *pbs^ rr)v evSu£tv Sid rov cvayyfXiov ov iyivr)Oriv Sid- 

rrjs Sutaioovvrjs avrov kv T<p vvv kovos Kara rr)v Swpeav rrjs \dpiros tov 

mipa>,ds to iivai avrbv Sitcaiov teal ®eov rrjs SoOuorjs pot Kara tt)v kvip- 

SiKaiovvra tov kic mareas 'Irjaov. yeiav rrjs Swdptcus avrov. 

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 loc.) 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, ench smaller than the last. 

The passage from Ephe ians 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 pvarrjpiov on 
which that mission to the Gentiles is based, then refers back to the previous 
mention of this pvarrjpiov, 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 pvarrjpiov as in Rom. to the 
same word tvSu^iv. 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 whLh 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; "• 5 -I 6 ; iii. 21- 
26; iv. 11-17 ; v. 12-14; i*. 22-29; xv. 14-28). The passages from 
Rom. are as we have said somewhat more lively than those from Eph. ; 
they have a more argumentative cast, indicated by the frequent use of yap ; 
whereas those from Eph. are not so much argumentative as expository, and 
consist rather of a succession of clauses connected by relatives. But the 
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. 


Rom. x. 5-8. Era. iv. 7-1 1. 

Maiu^j yap ypd<p(i on rr)v Sikcuo- 'Evl 8k (Kaaroj r)/.iS)v tduOr) r) x^P ls 

avvr/v tt)v (k vopov 6 rroi^aas dv- /carol to pirpov rrjs dcvpeas tov Xpiarov. 
dpa-nos ftcrfTai kv avrfj. r) 8e ck 810 \4yei, 'Avafids (is v\pos rjxpa\w- 
Tri<TT(0JS diKacoavvT] ovtoj Xkyd, M7) revocv alxpa.Xojaiav, zeal (8ojk( hdpara 
uwTji kv rf) KapSia aov lis dvafir)- tois dvOpdjrrois. (to 8( 'Avtffy ri kariv 
atrai (Is rdv ovpavdv ; (tovt tori, el p.f) on teal Karkfir/ (Is ra Karwrfpa 
Xp arov Karayayeiv) r\, lis Kara- pkpr] ttjs yr)s; 6 narafias avros Ian 
l3r)a(rai (is tt)v dfivaaov ; (tovt Kal 6 dvafids vrr(pavoj navrcov tojv ovpa- 
tan, Xpiarov (K vacpojv dvayaytiv.) vwv, iVa irKrjpdjar} ra irdvra.) Kal avros 
d\Xd ri \ey(i ; '£771'? aov to prjpd (8ojk( robs dirooToXovs k.t.K. 
kanv, kv tw aropari aov Kal kv Ty 
/eapoiq aov tovt' ean to prjpa rrjs 
mareojs b KtjpvaaopKV. 

Gal. iv. 25-31. 

To ol ''Ayap 2ivd dpos earlv Iv rfj 'Apafilq, avaroixd 8e rfj vvv 'l(povaaXf)p- 
ouv\(v(t yap perd tojv TkKVojv avrrjs. r) 81 avoj 'Iepovaa\r)p. kKevOkpa kariv, 
fjris fori pr)TT)p r)pojv. yky parrrai yap, Ev(ppdv6rjn, arupa r) ov TiKrovaa . . . 
rjptis 8e, d8(\(poi, Kara 'laadu (wayy(kias rkKva kapkv. d\k' ojair(p Tore o 
Kurd aapKa yevvrjOds t8iajK( rdv Kara T\v(vpa, ovtoj Kal vvv. d\Xa ri \kyei 
7) yna(pf) ; "EK@a\( ri)v rraiSiaKrjv Kal rdv vlov avrtjs, ov yap pi) K\rjpovopf)ar) 
6 vlus rrjs Trai8iaKT)s p(rd tov vlov rrjs k\(v9tpas. 816, d5(\(poi, ovk 
rraiSiaKTjs T(Kva, d\\d ttjs kkevGkpas. 

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. 1 1 ; 2 Cor. x. 13) ; but to do this would be really 
endless and would have too remote a beaiing on our present subject. Enough 
will have been said both to show the individuality of style in Ep. to Romans 1 
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 
st)le of the Apostle is rather to be sought for in the Epistles to the Thessa- 
lonians and those of the Roman captivity V 

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 loc, and the genuineness of the 
doxology is defended in § 9 of this Introduction. 

2 /own. of Class, and Sacr. Philol., ut sup., p. 302. 

§ 7.] THE TEXT lxiii 

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 

§ 7- The Text. 

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

(1) Greek Manuscripts. 
Primary uncials. 
N 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 

N" contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second 

MS. of high value; 
N 6 attributed by Tischendorf to saec. vi ; 
N c attributed to the beginning of saec. vii. Two hands of 
about this date are sometimes distinguished as N ca and 

A. Cod. Alexandrinus, saec. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library 
at Alexandria ; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles I 
in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete. 

B. Cod. Vaticanus, saec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly 

since 1533 * (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul Hi a Pant v, 

p. 86). Complete. 

The corrector B 2 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 J3\ 

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, saec. v. In the National Library 

at Paris. Contains the whole Epistle, with the exception of 

the following passages : ii. 5 [ko\tcl de ttjv . . . vno tov vofiov 

1 Dr. Gregory would carry back the evidence further, to 152 1 {Proleg. 
p. 360), but M. Batiffol could find no trace of the MS. in the earlier rrsts. 


iii. 21 ; ix. 6 ovx olov . . . iav X. 15 : xi. 31 [j]7re'i]dr)(Tav ra 
. . . 7r\rjpcofJ.a xiii. 10. 

D. Cod. Claromontanus, saec. vi. Graeco-Latinus. Once at 

Clermont, near Beauvais (if the statement of Beza is to be 
trusted), now in the National Library at Paris. Contains the 
Pauline Epistles, but Rom. i. 1, naOXo? . . . dycnrrjTois Qeov 
i. 7, is missing, and i. 27 i^Kavdrja-nv . . . efavperas kcikuv i. 30 
(in the Latin i. 24-27) is supplied by a later hand 

E. Cod. Sangermanensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Formerly 

at St. Germain-des-PreX now at St. Petersburg. [This MS. 
might well be allowed to drop out of the list, as it is nothing 
more than a faulty copy of D.] 

F. Cod. Augiensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Bought by Bentley 

in Germany, and probably written at Reichenau (Augia 
Major); now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Rom. i. 1 TlavXos . . . eu To> v6[nq>~\ 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 a<fia pianos . . . Trio-Tew 
i. 5, and ii. 16 ra Kpynra . . . v6p.ov $s ii. 25 are missing. 
Originally formed part of the same MS. with A (Cod. San- 
gallensis^ of the Gospels. 

It has been suggested by Traube (Waltenbach, Anleitung zur Griech. 
Paldographie, 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 S^SuXios 2/cottos kyw Zypaipa. The resemblance of the 
handwriting is close, as may be seen by comparing the facsimile of the Paris 
Psalter published by Omont in the Milanges Graux, p. 313, with that of the 
St. Gall Gospels in the Palaeographical Society's series (i. pi. 179). This 
fact naturally raises the further question whether the writer of the MS. of 
St. Paul's Epistles is not al<o to be identified with the compiler of the com- 
mentary entitled Collectanea in omnes B. Fault Epistolas ( Migne, Patrol. 
Lat. ciii. 9-128), which is also ascribed to a ' Sedulius Scotus.' The answer 
must be in the negative. The commentary presents none of the charac- 
teristic readings of the MS., and appears to represent a higher grade of 
scholarship. It is more probable that the scribe belonged to the fratres 
hellenici who formed a sort of guild in the monastery of St. Gall (see the 
authorities quoted in Caspari, Quellen zum Taiifsymbol, iii. 475 n, and 
compare Berger, Hutoire de la Vulgate, p. 137). There are several instances 
of the name ' Sedulius Scotus ' (^Migne, P. L. ut step.). 

It should be noted that of these MSS. SABCare parts of what 
were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter 
throughout the LXX and Greek Testament ; D E F G are all 
Graeco-Latin, and are different MSS. from those which bear the 
same notation on the Gospels and Acts. In Westcott and Hort's 
Introduction they are distinguished as D 2 E 3 F 2 G 3 . An important 
MS., Cod. Coislinianus (H or H 2 ), which, however, exists only in 
fragments, is unfortunately wanting for this Epistle : see below. 

§7.] THE TEXT lxv 

Secondary uncials. 

K. Cod. Mosquensis, saec ix. Brought to Moscow from the monastery of 
St. Dionysius on Mount Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. 
Rom. x. 1 8 d\Xd \tya> to the end is missing. 

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

P. Cod. Porphyrianus, saec. ix in. A palimpsest brought from the East by 
Tischendorf and called after its present owner Bishop Porphyry. Contains 
Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul., Apoc. Rom. ii. 15 [dno\oyov^ fj.ivwv . . . 
77 ddiKia ■fjifxaiv'] iii. 5 ; viii. 35 fc>eos 6 8iKaiu>v . . . iVa jy /«i[t' kK\oyr]V~\ 
ix. II ; xi. 22 fcal diroTo/xiav . . . Ovaiav xii. 1 are missing. 

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

2. Cud. 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, V Abbaye 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 Revue Biblique 
for April, 1895. 


A few only of the leading minuscules can be given, 
5. (- Evv. 5, Act. 5), saec. xiv. At Paris; atone time in Calabria. 
17. (= Evv. 33, Act. I3\ saec. ix (Omont, ix-x Gregory). At Paris. 
Called by Eichhorn ' the queen of cursives.' 

31. (=Act. 25, Apoc. 7). Written 10S7 a.d. Belonged to John Covell, 

English chaplain at Constantinople about 1675 ; now in the British 

32. (= Act. 26\ saec. xii. Has a similar history to the last. 

37. (=Evv. 69, Act. 31, Apoc. 14), saec. xv. The well-known 'Leicester 
MS.'; one of the Ferrar group,' the archetype of which was probably 
written in Calabria. 
47. Saec. xi. Now in the Bodleian, but at one time belonged to the monas- 
tery of the Holy Trinity on the island of Chalcis. 
67. (=Act 66, Apoc. 34), saec. xi. Now at Vienna: at one time in the 
possession of Arsenius, archbishop of Monemvasia in Epidaurus. The 
marginal corrector (67**) drew from a MS. containing many peculiar 
and ancient readings akin to those of M Paul., which is not extant for 
Ep. to Romans. 
71. Saec. x-xi. At Vienna. Thought to have been written in Calabria. 
80. ( = Act. 73), saec. xi. In the Vatican. 

93. ( = Act. 83, Apoc. 99), saec. xii (Gregory). At Naples. Said to have 
been compared with a MS. of Pamphilus, but as yet collated only in 
a few places. 
137. ( = Evv. 263, Act. 117), saec. xiii-xiv. At Paris. 

252. (Gregory, 260 Scrivener = Evv. 48Q. Greg., 507 Scriv. ; Act. 195 Greg., 
224 Scriv.). In the library of Trin. Coll., Cambridge. Wiitten 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 thos? on which stress is laid 
by Hort {Introd. p. 166), and paitly those which Bousset connects with his 
• Codex Pamphili ' (see below). 



(2) Versions. 
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 (Hard.). 
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-xti. 5; xii. 17-xiii. 5 ; xiv. 9-20 ; xv. 3-13. 
r. Cod. Frisingensis saec. v or vi, containing Rom. xiv. 10-xv. 13. 
r 3 . Cod. Gottvicensis, saec. vi or vii, containing Rom. v. 16-vi. a- 
vi. 6-19. 

The texts of these fragments are, however, neither early (relatively to the 
history of the Version) nor of much interest. To supplement them we have 
the Latin versions of the bilingual MSS. D E F G mentioned above, usually 
quoted as d e f g, and quotations in the Latin Fathers. The former do not 
strictly represent the underlying Greek of the Version, as they are too much 
conformed to their own Greek, d (as necessarily e) follows an Old-Latin text 
not in all cases altered to suit the Greek ; g is based on the Old Latin 
but is very much modified ; f is the Vulgate translation, altered with the 
help of g or a MS. closely akin to g. For the Fathers we are mainly 
indebted to the quotations in Tertullian (saec. ii iii), Cyprian (saec. iii), 
the Latin Irenaeus (saec. ii, or more probably iv), Hilary of Poitiers (saec. 
iv), and to the so-called Speculum S. Augustini (cited as m), a Spanish 
text also of the fourth century [see below, p. 124). 

One or two specimens are given in the course of the commentary of the 
evidence furnished by the Old-Latin Version (see on i. 30; v. 3-5 ; viii. 36), 
which may also serve to illustrate the problems raised in connexion with the 
history of the Version. They have however more to do with the changes 
in the Latin diction of the Version than with its text. The fullest treat- 
ment of the Vetus Latina of St. Paul's Epistles will be found in Ziegler, 
Die lateimschen Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymtis, Miinchen, 1879; 
but the subject has not as yet been sufficiently worked at for a general 
agreement to be reached. 

For the Vulgate the following MSS. are occasionally quoted: 
am. Cod. Amiatinus c. 700 A. D. 
fuld. Cod. Fuldensis c. 546 a. d. 
hail. British Museum Harl. 1775. Saec. vi or vii. 

tol. Cod. Toletanus. Saec. x, or rather perhaps viii (see Berber, His- 
toire de la Vulgate,^. \±). 
The Vulgate of St. Paul's Epistles is a revision of the Old Latin so slight 
and cursory as to be hardly an independent authority. It was however made 


THE TEXT lxvii 

with the help of the Greek MSS., and we have the express statement of 
St. Jerome himself that in Rom. xii. n he substituted Domino servientes 
for tempori servientes of the older Version (Ep. xxvii. 3 ad Marcellam). 
We gather from this letter that Jerome's edition had been issued in the year 
385 A. D. 

Of the Egyptian Versions, Bohairic is that usually known as Memphitic 
(- * me.' W H.) and cited by Tisch. as ' Coptic ' (' cop.'). For the reasons 
which make it correct to describe it as Bohairic see Scrivener, Introd. ii. 106, 
ed. 4. It is usually cited according to Tischendorf (who appears in the 
Epistles to have followed Wilkins; see Tisch. N.T. p. ccxxxiv, ed. 7), but 
in some few instances on referring to the original it has become clear that 
his quotations cannot always be trusted: see the notes on v. 6; viii. 28; 
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 thj fragments published by Amelineau 
in the Zeitschrift fur Aegypt. Sprache, 1887. These fragments contain vi. 
20-23 ; vii. 1-21 ; viii. 15-38 ; ix. 7-23 ; xi. 31-36; xii. 1-9. 

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. posterior]' Tisch., 'hi.' 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. Introd. p. 156 f.). 

The Gothic Version is also definitely dated at about the middle of the 
fourth century, and the Armenian at about the middle of the fifth. The dates 
of the two Egyptian Versions and of the Ethiopic are still uncertain 
(Scrivener, Introd. ii. 105 f., 154, ed. 4). It is of more importance to know 
that the types of text which they represent are in any case early, the 
Egyptian somewhat the older. 

The abbreviations in references to the Patristic writings are such as it is 
hoped will cause no difficulty (but see p. ex). 

(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 NB ; N^H, Arm., Eulhal., and in less degree 
a number of minuscules ; D [E] F G. 


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

e 2 


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 (N. T. Vat., Lipsiae, 1867, 
pp. xxi-xxiii), on grounds which seem to be sufficient, that the writer whom 
he calls the 'fourth scribe ' of N wrote also the N.T. portion of B. And, as 
it has been said, additional arguments are becoming available for connecting 
N with the library at Caesarea (see Rendel Harris, Stichometry, p. 71 ff. ; 
and the essay of Bousset referred to below). 

The provenance of N 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 X 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 l , that is another 
matter, and as it seems to us, at least prima facie, by no means probable. 
The text of B must needs be older than the end of the third century, which is 
the date assigned to Hesychius. If we admit that the MS. may be Egyptian, 
it is only as one amongst several possibilities. Nothing can as yet be 
regarded as proved. 

Apart from such external data as coincidences of handwriting which con- 
nect the two MSS. as they have come down to us there can be no doubt that 
they had also a common ancestor far back in the past. The weight which 
their agreement carries does not depend on the independence of their testi- 
mony so much as upon its early date. That the date of their common 
readings is in fact extremely early appears to be proved by the number of 
readings in which they differ, these divergent readings being shared not by 
any means always by the same but by a great variety oi other authorities. 
From this variety it may be inferred that between the point of divergence 
of the ancestors of the two MSS. and the actual MSS. the fortunes of each 
had been quite distinct. Not only on a single occasion, but on a number of 
successive occasions, new strains of text have been introduced on one or 
other of the lines. N especially has received several side streams in the 
course of its history, now of the colour which we call ' Western ' and now 
'Alexandrian'; and B also (as we shall see) in the Pauline Epistles has 
a clear infusion of Western readings. It is possible that all these may have 
come in from a single copy ; but it is less likely that all the ' Western ' or 
all the 'Alexandrian' readings which are found in N had a single origin. 
Indeed the history of N since it was written does but reflect the history of 
its ancestry. We have only to suppose the corrections of N a embodied in 
the text of one MS., then those of N b first inserted in the margin and then 
embodied in the text of a succeeding MS., then those of N ca in a third and 
N cb 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 01 the 
MS. consists, to arrange them in their order and determine their affinities. 
This analysis will doubtless be carried further than it has been. 

N C H, Arm., Euthal. 

A number of scholars working on tf would seem in part independently 
to have succeeded in proving an intimate relation between this group of 

1 A similar view is held by Corssen. He regards the modern text based on 
N B as nur ein Spiegelbild einer willkiirlich fixierten Recension des vierten 
Jahrhunderts {Der Cyprianische Textd. Acta Apostolorum, Berlin, 1892, p. 24). 


THE TEXT lxix 

authorities and in tracking it to its source, which if the speculations men- 
tioned above as to N B should be made good would also bring it into some 
juxtaposition with them. The MS. H Paul, (unfortunately, as we have said, 
not extant for Romans) bears upon its face the traces of its connexion with 
the library of Caesarea, as the subscription to Ep. to Titus states expressly 
that the MS. was corrected 'with the copy at Caesarea in the library of the 
holy Pamphilus written with his own hand.' Now in June, 1 893, 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 
W. Bousset brought out in Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte u. Unter- 
suchnngen a series of Text-kritische Studien zum N. T., in the course of 
which (without any concert with Dr. Rendel 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 N (N c ). 
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 c and those of H and Euthalius which were inde- 
pendently associated with Pamphilus 1 . Lastly, to complete the series of 
novel and striking observations, Mr. F. C. Conybeare comes forward in the 
current number of the Journal of Philology (no. 46, 1895) and maintains 
a further connexion of the group with the Armenian Version. These 
researches are at present in full swing, and will doubtless lead by 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 trom far and wide and if the influence of it were not felt 
in many parts of Christendom. 

D F G, Goth. 

^ Not only is E a mere copy of D, but there is a 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 {Introd. p. 150) he writes 
that F is ' as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of G as E of D : if not 
it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar.' This second alterna- 
tive is the older view, adopted by Scrivener {Introd. p. 181, ed. 3) and 
maintained with detailed arguments in two elaborate programmes by 
Dr. P. Corssen {Epp. Paulin. Codd. Aug. Boern. Clarom., 1887 and 1889). 

1 The writer of this regrets that pressure of other occupations compelled 
him to put aside Herr Bousset's article when it first appeared, or it would have 
led him to pay closer attention to some of the less-known minuscule MSS. of 
Ep. to Rom. 


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 in'o their place if F Gk. is a copy of G 5 and the 
arguments on the other sice 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 DFG he showed that they were ultimately derived 
from a single archetype (Z), and that this archetype was written per cola et 
comma/a, or in clauses corresponding to the sense (sometimes called 
aTi\oi), as may be seen in the Palaeographical Society's facsimile of D 
(ser. i. pi. 63, 64). Here again we have another coincidence of inde- 
pendent workers, for in 1891 Dr. Rendel Harris carrying further a suggestion 
of Rettig's had thrown out the opinion, that not only did the same system of 
colometry lie behind Cod. A Evv. (the other half, as we remember, of 
G Paul.) and D Evv. 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 — an( j 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 Speculum. For the inter-connexion 
of this group he adduces a striking ins.ance 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 Speculum contains an African element. He 
then points out that this Graeco-Latin edition has affinities with the Gothic 
Version. The edition did not contain the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and the 
Epistle to the Romans in it ended at Rom. 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, {m) 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 D G should be 
compared with those of Cod. Bezae and the Old-Latin MSS. of the Gospels 
and Acts. 

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

§ 7.] THE TEXT Ixxf 

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 Diatessaron. 

And yet when we look broadly at the variants to the Pauline 
Epistles we observe the same main lines of distribution as in the 
rest of the N.T. A glance at the apparatus- criticus of the Epistle 
to the Romans will show the tendency of the authorities to fall 
into the groups DEFG; NB; NACLP. 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 ' ; N B appear (with other leading MSS. added) to 
mark the line which they would call ' Neutral ' ; i^ACLP 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 
geneialized so as to cover other authorities as well. For instance, 
we might speak of the 8-text ( = ' Western'), the |3-text (= ' Neutral'), 
the a-text ( = ' Alexandrian '), and the c-text or a-text (=' Ecclesi- 
astical* or 'Syrian'). Such terms would beg no questions; they 
would simply describe facts. It would be an advantage that the 


same term '8-text' would be equally suggested by the leading MS. 
in the Gospels and Acts, and in the Pauline Epistles ; the term 
1 p-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 ' a-text ' would not imply 
any inherent inferiority, but would only describe the undoubted 
facts, either that the text in question was that generally accepted by 
the Church throughout the Middle Ages, or that in its oldest form 
it can be traced definitely to the region of Antioch and northern 
Syria. It is certain that this text (alike for Gospels, Acts, and 
Epistles) appears in the fourth century in this region, and spread 
from it ; while as to the debated point of its previous history nothing 
would be either affirmed or denied. 

If some such nomenclature as this were adopted a further step might be 
taken by distinguishing the earlier and later stages of the same text as 8 1 , 
8 2 , &c, o -1 , or 2 , &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 |3-text and 
B (as conspicuously 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 mo-t 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 c 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 

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- v or Western) text ; (ii) the fact that there is a distinct Western element in 
B, which therefore when it is combined with authorities of the 8- or Western 
type is diminished in value; (iii) the consequent rise in importance of the 
group ^ AC ; (iv) the existence of a few scattered readings either of B alone 
or of B in 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 8-variants 
are not interpolations but omissions (as e.g. in the Gospel of St. Luke). Still 

§ 7.] THE TEXT 


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

E. g. iii. 9 ri TrpoKaTi X oixti> -nipiaaov ; D* G, Chrys. Orig.-lat. al. : ri olv • 

Trpo^x^yiiQa ; rel. ' 

iv. 19 ov tcarevdrjaev D E F G, &c. Orig.-lat. Epiph. Ambrstr. al • 

/caTtuorjw N A B C al. 
v. I4M robs dfxapT^aavras 62, 63, 67**, Orig.-lat. Codd. Lot. afi. 

Aug., Ambrstr. : em tovs ^7) dp,np T r]aavias rcl. 
vii. 6 toO flara™ D E F G, Codd. ap. Orig.-lat. al. : diroOavov™ rel. 
xii. 11 icv Kat pw SovKevorrcs D* F G, Codd. Lat. ap. Hieron. ap. 
Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. : t<2 Kup/a; Soi/AtiWrtj ;-<?/. 
13 rafs prfffais tw dyiwv D* F G, 6Wfl. a/.'Theod. Mops. «/. 
Orig.-lat. Hil. Ambrstr. al. : rats xp«ats tSjv dylcvu rel. [These 
two readings were perhaps due in the first instance to accidental 
errors of transcription.] 
XV. 13 n\T)po<pop7i(Tai B F G : irXrjpwam rel. 
22 iroWatcis BDEFG: rd noWd rel. 
31 8<opo(popia B D* F G, Ambrstr. : S.aicovia 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 in G. 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 
fnpwrop 1. 16; om. yap ni. 2 ; om. rfj ikVtk v. 2 ; *ins. fxiv vi. 21 ; Sid t6 
tvoiKovv avTovJIvtdva viii. 11 (where however there is a great mass of other 
authorities); *om. ^crovs and *om. Ik vwpwv viii. 34 ; 77 dLaOrjKt) ix. 4; ins. 
ovv ix. 19; *uTt after vo/xov and *fauro ins. after notrjaas x. 5 ; Iv [rots] x. 
20 ; om. yap xiv. 5 ; om. ovv, dnoSwaei, fom. tw @ea> xiv. 12 ; *add r) oitav- 
OaX^trat rj uaOfvu xiv. 21 ; rp,ds xv. 7; ttju [mvxTja'iu'] 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- 
phih thai these readings came into B. We also note that the latest and 
worst of all the readings found in B, the long addition in xi. 6 el 51 If Zpywv 
ovtceri (om. tori B) X doir kirel to tpyov ov/cirt earl x dpi<> (sicB; tpyov al.) 
is shared by B with N<=L. In the instances marked with f, and in xv. 13 
Tr\r) P ocpo P r)oai, B agrees not with D but with G ; but on the other hand in 
vm. 34 (om. 'Irjorovs) 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. 

(111) When Bthus i^oes over to the Western or S-group the main support 
of the alternative reading is naturally thrown upon N A C. This is a group 
which outside the Gospels and Acts and especially in Past. Epp. Heb. and 
Apoc. (with or without other support) has not seldom preserved the right 
reading. It becomes in fact the main group wherever B is not extant. The 
principal difficulty— and it is one of the c'lief 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 bq 


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. evprjKtvai. 

v. 6 (l ye. 

vii. 25 x«/" s T V ® ( V- 

viii. 24 b yap (3\enei, ris f\m£(i ; 

X. 9 to p'rjp.a . . . on Kvpios 'Irjoovs. 

xiv. 13 om. ... 7/. 

xv. 19 Tlvtvparos without addition. 

As all these readings have been discussed more or less fully in the com 
mentary, they need only be referred to heie. Two more readings present 
considerable attractions. 

ix. 23 om. /rat. 

xvi. 27 om. (2. 

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 KaXeoa) w ov Xadv I Peter ii. 10 01 irore ov Kaos, vvv 

fiov Xaov /Jiov, fcal rr)v ovk rjyaTrr]- 8k Xads ®eov, 01 ovk r)XeT]piivoi, vvv 

piivrjv fjyaTrrjp:tvT]v. dk kXet]9evT(s. 

Rom.ix. 32, 33 jrpoaeKorpav t£> I Peter ii. 6-8 'iSov, TiOrjpii kv 

Xl0w tov TtpoaKopp-aTOs, Kadcbs ~Siwv XiOov dicpoycuviatov ckXcktSv, 

yiypairrai, 'ISov, Ti6r)p.i iv 'Siwv evrip-ov' ical 6 itiGTtvoiv lir' avrw 

XiOov n pooKopmaros Kai irir- ov pi) Karaioxwdfi . . . ovtos 

pav oKavBdkov' xai 6 JTiorevcuv kyivr)6r] tis K«f>aXr)v ywvias, 8 Kai 

kir' avTtp ov Karat oxvvdr)- XiOos irpooKop:p.aTos Kai rrirpa 

Otrai. OKavoaXov, o\ irpoo kotttovoi ra> 

Xoyco diT(iOovvT€S, ds t Kai Ire- 

Rom. xii. I napaoTrjcrai rd ocupara I Peter ii. 5 avevtyKai vvevp.ariKas 

vpLwv dvoiav ^Sjoav, dyiav, evopea- Ovoias tvirpoodiKTovs ©€<£ did 'I. 

tov t$ &ew, rrjv XoytKTjv Xarptiav Xp. 


Rom. xii. 2 p.r) <rvoxVf JLaTl " I Peter i. 14 p.r) o , vo~xVf iaTl {6- 

fcoOf t£> alaivi tovtw. p.(voi reus npoTtpov \v ttj dyvoia vpMV 





The following passages seem to be modelled on St. Paul's 
thoughts and words : 

Rom. xii. 3 dAAd <ppoveiv els rb 
Gaxppoveiv . . . 

6 exovres 81 x a p' L ° vara kcltcL 
tt)v X<*piv tt)v SoOtiaav rjpuv 8id- 
(popa . , . eire Siaucoviav, ev tt\ 
SiaKoviq. . . 

3 kKaoTa) &s 6*®ebs ejxepioe 
perpov iTLOTioJS. 

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

Rom. xii. 9 r) 0707777 dvviro- 
Kptros . , . IO if <pi\a8e\<piq 
els dWrjKovs <pi\uOTOpyoi. 

Rom. xii. 16 to ccuto els dWrjXovs 
cppovovvres- ur) rd iif/r/Xd <ppo- 
vovvres, dAAd tois Taireivois 
cvi away 6^*1/01. /xt) yiveade <ppovijxoi 
nap tuvTois. 

J 7 prjSevl KaKov dvrl Kanov 
airobibovTes' irporoovpuvoi Ka\d 
evwniov TravTOJV dvOpdnrcvv 

18 el 8vvar6v, rb e£ vp.<uv, fxerd 
■navrwv dvdpwiTwv tlprjv evovres. 

Cf. also vv. 9, 14. 

Rom. xiii. 1 irdaa ipv\r) e£ovoiais 
vnepexovaais viroraa aeoOoj' 
oil yap eaTiv k£ovaia el pif) virb &eov, 
at 8k olaai iirb &eov Terayjxevat 
dcrtv . . . 

3 01 yap dpxovres ovk tlal (p60os 
rw dyaOS) (pya>, dAAd rS> KaKw . .. 

4 &eov yap Sia/covos eanv, eit- 
8ikos tls opyr)i> rS> rb KaKov itpaa- 
govti . . . 

7 dwoSore waai rds ocpeiXds' t<3 
to> <f>6pov tov (popov, TO) to tc'Aos 
to reXos, t£> rby <po(3ov Toy <p6fiov t 

TW TTjV TiprjV T7> TlflTJV. 

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 t™a W «T,f f0 -&u, t\wn6- 
icpiros, but in one passage (Rom. xiii. 1-7; 1 Pet. ii. 13-17) we 

1 Peter iv. 7-1 1 wdvrwv Se to re\os 
rjyyi/te- acotypovrjaaTe ovv Kal j 77- 
xpare els wpoGevxds- irpb ttovtwv tt}i/ 
tls eaiTovs dyaTTTjv eKrevi) exovres, 
ore dydirrj KaXvirrei it\rj0os a/iapTiuiw 
<piko£evoi els dWrjKovs, dvev yoyyv- 
o-fiov'eKao-Tos Ka6ws e\a0e Y<i/>*ff- 
fia, els eavTovs avrb StaKovovvres, 
Cl)S KaXol OIKOVOflOl ttoik'iXtjs x«P'tos 
&eov' et tcs XaXei, Jjs \6yia Qeov' ei 
Tts oiaKovei, us If laxvos rjs xopW" 
6 &eos. 

I Peter i. 22 rds ipvxds vjxwv r)yvi- 
KoTes . . . els (pi\adeX(piav dvviro- 
Kpnov e/c KapSias dA.A77A.ovs dyairr)- 
aare CKTeyais. 

l^ Peter iii. 8, 9 t3 oe re\os, irdvTes 
bp.6<ppoves, o-v/x-rradets, (pt\d5e\<pot, 
evanXayxyoi, Taneivocppoves, fir) 
diro8t8o^Tes itaicbv dvrl Ka/eov 
7) Xoidopiav dvrl \0180pias, Tovvavriov 
8£ evXoyovvTes, on els tovto inKrj- 
6r]Te i'va evXoyiav K\r)povop.T}ar)Te . . . 

II eKKXivaTOj Be dirb Kaitov, Kal 
irotTjcraTa} dyaOov £r]T7]oaTto elpr\vi]V 
Kal 8iou£aTcv avTrjv. 

1 Peter ii. 13-17 bnoTdyrjTe -ndarf 
dvdpcvirtvr) KTiaet did rbv Kvpiov, 
etre ^aaiXeT, d>s vire pexovTi, etre 
riyeiioGiv, d>s 81' avrov -nepLtroixevois els 
eKSiKTjaiy KaKowoiujv e-rraipov 8k 
dyaOo-noiwv on ovrws ear 1 to OeXr]p.a 
tov &eov . . . Ttdvras t 1 fir) nare' ri]V 
d8eX<porr]ra ay air are- tov (debv 
(pofieiade- tov BaoiXea rifxare. 


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 Aves 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 

This relation between the two Epistles is supported by other 
independent evidence. The same relation which pievails 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 fact 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 
beino- written from it. We cannot perhaps be quite certain as 
to the date of 1 Peler,.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. n 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 closelv 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 
ma\ have been derived from an acquaintance with this Epistle. 




The passages referred to are the following : 

Rom. iv. 17-21 Karivavri ov km- 
ffrevo'e &eov tov faonoiovvros tovs 
Vf/epoiis... Kal p.r) dadevqaas rfj 
■niOTei fcaTevoTjffe rb kavrov aupa 
i]8r] veveKpoopievov (eKaToiTaerrjs 
ttov iirapxcoi') , ical ttjv veKpojffiv ttjs 
fxrjTpas poppas' eh 8k ri)v I 77-07- 
yekiav tov Qeov ov SieKpidrj ttj 
amGTiq, dkk' eveSvvapwOr) rfj 
TTiarei, Sovs 8u£av ra> 06a), Kal 
TtKr]po(poprj9ils on b kirrjyyekTai 
Svvarbs eon Kal troirjaai. 

Rom. xii. 19 epol eKSUrjais, kyw 
dvTanoSwaco, \eyet Kvpios. 

Heb. xi. 11, 12 itiarei Kalavij) 
Svvapiiv eh /ca.Ta(io\7)V anepparos 
ekafiev teal -napd Kaipuv rjkiKias, kirel 
moTuv ■qy/jaaro tov kirayyeika- 
pievov Sib Kal a<f> kvbs eyevvqdrjaaVy 
Kal ravra veveKpwpevov . . . 

19 koyiadpevos on Kal ex veKpwv 
kyeipeiv Svvarbs 6 Oeos. 

Heb. x. 30 kpol eKdiKTjffis, eyu 

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 81b dvavokbyqros ft, <S 
avOpwrre ttcLs b Kpivwv kv & yap 
Kpiveis rbv erepov, aeavTuv Kara- 
Kpivets' to, yap avTa -npdaaeis b 


Rom. ii. 13 ov ydp 01 aKpoaral 
vupov 8'acaioi irapa [t£] ®e£> dkk' ol 
irotrjral vupiov SiKaiwOrjOovrai. 

Rom. iv. I novv kpovpiev eupr/Kerat 
Afipadp. rbv irpoiraTOpa 77 pwv 
Kara adpica ; el yap 'Afipadp. k £ 
epywv kbiKaiudr], 4'xei Kavxrjpa. 

Rom. iv. 20 els 8k ttjv kirayyekiav 
rov Qeov ov 8t€Kpi6rj rfj dmaria, 
dkk' kvebwapujuOrj rrj Trio ret. 

Rom. v. 3-5 Kavxdup^Oa kv rats 
Okiipeaiv, elf ores oti 77 dkiif/is viro- 
ftovijv Kar epy d^trai, 77 8k vnop.ovi) 
8oKip.r)v, 77 8k SoKipi) kkniSa' 77 
8k kkirh ov Karaiaxvvei, on 77 dyditrj 
tov Qeov eKKexyrai. 

James iv. II /*?} KarakaketTe dkkrj- 
kwv, dSek^oi. b Karakakcuv d8ek<pov, 77 
Kpivaiv rbv d8e\(f)bv avrov, Karakakei 
vupiov, Kal Kp'ivei vupov el 8k vbpov Kpi- 
veis, ovk el voiTjTi)s vopov, dkkd KptTTjS. 

James i. 22 yiveaOe 8k Troirjral 
Kuyov, Kal prj pbvov aKpoaral irapa- 
koyi^upevoi kavrovs. 

James ii. 21 'APpadp. b irarrip 
■fjpiuiu ovk kp epy<uv kSiKaidoOrj, 
dvtveyKas 'laaaK tov vlbv avrov enl to 
Bvaiaar-qpiov ; 

James i. 6 alTehco 8k kv mo~Tei 
pirjhkv 8iaKpivbp.(Vos' b yap SiaKpivb- 
pievos eoiKf kKvSouvi Oakdaffrjs dvapii- 
{opievcp Kal pim£op:evq>. 

James i. 2-4 ndaav xapdv rjyrjffaaOe 
brav netpiapois TrepnrearjTe iroiKikois, 
yivojaKovres on to 8oKipiov vpwv ttjs 
marews Karepyd^erai vno pLov-qv. tj 8k 
vnopovrj epyov Tekeiov kx^TW, iva qre 

* T*l e ^-^ °/ Deut. xxxii. 35 reads kv -qpiepa eKSiK^aeojs dvTairo8wooj, otov 
a<paky b irovs avruiv. 


Rom.vii. 2^P\(ircoBeeTfpovv6pov James iv. I iroOev nuXeixm /rat iroOev 

ev tois fxtKeai pov, uvTiarpa- fxa\oi ev vpiv ; ovk evievdev, Ik toiv 

t evop.ev ov rw vupw tov voos fiov, rjdovuov vpwv twv o~t par evop.eva>v ev 

/rat alxpo,XwTi^ovTa pe ev t£> vupcv 777? tois pieXeaiv vpwv ; 
dpLaprias rw ovrt ev tois p.e\eoi p,ov. 

Rom. xiii. 12 diroOoJixeOa o\iv James i. 21 atroOt pevoi vaaav 

to. epya tov ckutovs, evSvowpieOa S£ pvncpiav k>u irfpiaadav na/cias kv irpav- 

T(i oirka rov (pcoTos. ttjti bi^aaBe tov epcpvrov Xuyov rov 

Svvdpievov awcrai tcls if/vxas vpuvv. 

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 aKpoarai and 73-0177™/ 
was not made by either St. Paul or St. James for the first time ; 
metaphors like edr)o-avpi(fis, expressions like ev rj^pa dpyrjs compared 
with ev fjpepa acpay^s (both occur in the O.T.), the phrase vopos 
eXevdcpias might all have independent sources. Nor are there 
any passages where we find the same order of thought (as in 
1 Peter) or the same passage of the O.T. quoted with the same 
variations — either of which would form stronger evidence. The 
resemblance is closest in Rom. v. 3-5 = James i. 2-4 and in 
Rom. vii. 23 = James iv. 1, but these are not sufficient by them- 
selves to establish a case. 

Again, if we turn to the polemical passages, we may admit 
that ' Paul betrays a consciousness that Abraham had been cited 
as an example of works and endeavours to show that the word 
\oy[(opai 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 


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

One other book of the N.T. may just be mentioned. If the 
doxology at the end of Jude be compared with that at the end of 
Romans it is difficult to believe that they are quite independent. 
It may be that they follow a common form derived from Jewish 
doxologies, but it is more probable that the concluding verses of 
the Romans formed a model which was widely adopted in the 
Christian Church. We certainly seem to find doxologies of the 
same type as these two in i 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 

Rom, xn. 25-27 ra> 8e 8vva- Jude 24, 25 t<£ 8£ Swa/iivy 

neve? vpas <tt rjpt£ai . . . jxdvcp <pv\o£at v/xds unTaiarovs, ml arfjaai 

&(w, 8ta Iijaov Xptarov, . . . d/xai/xovs . . . pi6vq> ®cw aajTTjpi 
[c3j rj 86£a els roiis aluvas. Tj/xwu, Sid'lrjaov Xpio-rov rov Kvpiov 

rjfAUJv, 86 £ a, /JL€ya\ojnvv7], Kparos Kal 
igovaict) rrpb iravrbs rov oISjvos Kal vvv 
zeal ds iravras tovs aiwvas. d/j.rjf. 

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 irlans and diKaioavvT] (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 
Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 1 Tim., 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 




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 ol 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 kffKOTio0r) r) acv- 
veros avTuv icapSia. 

Rom. ii. 24 to yap ovojxa tov 
@€ov Si' tiftas PXaocprjptiTat kv 
rois eOveaiv, Kadojs ykypairrai. 

Rom. iv. 7 " Maieapioi Stv d<pk- 
Qr)oav al dvopiai teal £>v kire- 
Ka\v(p0T]<Tav at afxapriai' 

8 piaicapios dvr)p 3> ov pr) 
XoyiorjTai Kvpios dpapTiav." 

o 6 paicapio ovv ovrns 
knl tt)v TT(pnop.r)v ; f) ical km tt)v 
aKpofivoTiav ; 

Rom. vi. I rt ovv kpovfiev; 
kmp.kva>p.ev t?i dprnpTiq, ha r) \dpis 
irXeovdarj ; fir) ykvoiro. 

Rom. i. 29 ireirXrjpojpivovs iracrr) 
dSiiciq, trovrjpiq, trXcove^iq, tca/cia, 
pieoTovs <p9ovov, <povov, epiSos, S6- 
Xov, ica nor] d(ias,ipiOvpi eras. ica.- 
TaXaXovs, 6eocTvyeis, iiPpioids, 
vireprjipdvovs, dXa^ovas, keptvpe- 
Tas kokuiv, yovevoiv un(i9(Ts, dawe- 
tovs, dovvdiTovs, doTopyovs, dveXefj- 
fiovas' oitivcs, to SiKaioo^a tov &eov 
kmyvovTes, oti ol rd roiavra 
vpdooovTdS a£ioi Oavdrov tloiv, 
ov povov avrd iroiovoiv, dXXa ical 
ovvtvSoicovaiv tols npaaoovaw. 

Rom. ix. 4, 5 Siv . . . r) Xarpua 
ical al knayyeXiai, Siv ol rrarepis, teal 
i£ Siv 6 Xpioros to Kara odpKa. 

Rom. xiii. I, 2 irdaa tpvxr) k£ov- 
ciais hTtipi\ovoais viroTaaakoOoJ' ov 
yap tiTiv (tovoia d jut) vttu Qtov, al 
ok ovaai biro ®cov T(Taypkvai eloiv. 
wore 6 avrnaoaopifvos ttj k£ovoiq 

Clem. 36 Sid tovtov r) davveros 
Kal koKOTwp.kvrj Sidvoia rjpaiv^ dva- 
OaXXd ds to OavpaGTov avrov (px's. 

Clem. 51 Sid to oK\r]pvv07Jvai 
avTiov rds dovvkTovs napSias. 

Clem. 47 were koX pXao-<pr)p,ias 
kmcpipeoOai to> ovopari Kvp'wv Sid 
ttjv v fieri pav deppoavvrjv. 

Clem. 50 NLandpioi Siv d<j>k- 
Qr\aav al dvopiiai ical Siv kiraca- 
Xv(f>9r)0-av al ap.apTiac p.atcdpios 
dvfjp w ov p.r) XoyiffrjTai Kvpios 
afxapriav. ovSk koTiv kv t£> OTopaTi 
avTov SoXos. ovtos 6 piaicapio p. us 
kyivero kirl toxjs kitXeXeypkvovs vtto tov 
Qeov k.t.X. 

Clem. 33 rt ovv TToiT\aoj\itv, dSeX- 
<poi ; dpyrjocopifv and tt}s dyaOoirodas 
/cat kyicaTaXeiTTa)p.ev tx)v dyairrjv ; prj- 
dapious rovro kdoai 6 SeanuTijs k(p' Tjpiv 
76 yivrjdrjvai. 

Clem. 35 diroppi\pavTes d(p' kavruiv 
■ndaav dSiKiav teal dvoplav, irXeo- 
v(£iav, Zpeis, tcaKorjdeias T€ nai 
SoXovs, ipiQvpiauovs tc ical «ara- 
XaXids,6eoOTvyiav,virt prjcpaviav 
T€ teal dXa^oveiav, icevoSo£iav re ko.1 
d<piXo£€v'iav. TavTa yap ol vpaa- 
oovtcs OTvyrjTol tS> Oea) vnapxovo-iv 
ov p.6vov Sk ol irpdo aovTis avra, 
dX\a fcal ol ovvevSoicovvTes avrois. 

Clem. 32 !£ avrov yap lepeis ical 
AeviTai -ndvTCS ol XtiTovpyoiiPTts tS> 
QvaiaaTr\plcx> tov ®eov k£ avTov 6 
Kvpios 'Irjaovs to Kara aapna- !£ 
avTov PaaiXets ical apxovres koi rjyov- 
fxtvoi Kara tov 'lovSav. 

Clem. 61 (TV, Seo-iroTa, tSatcas ttjv 
k£ovoiav rf}s tHaoiXtias avTois Sid tov 
peyaXoirpeirovs ton avftcSivy-qrov tepd- 
tovs aov, ds to yiPwOKOVTas rjp.ds ttjv 
vtto oov ai/Tois 5e8op.kpT]v Su£av ical 




rrj tov ®tov Siarayrj avOtarrjKev oi rifxfjv vnoraaaeaOai avrois, p.r]8kv kvav- 
hk avOiGTtjKoTes kavrois Kpip.a \f)- Tiovpiivovs tw OtXrjfiaTi aov. 

References in the letters of Ignatius are the following : 

Rom. i. 3 tov yevop.kvov Ik ankp- 
fxaros Aa&lS Kara aapKa, tov 
opioQivros vlov ®€ov kv Swapm. 

Rom. ii. 24. 

Rom. iii. 27 nov ovv 17 KavxV aiS l 

Rom. vi. 4 ovtoj real r)p.eis kv 
KaivorrjT 1 ^ojr)s irfpLnaTrjawpiiV. 

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

Rom. vi. 17 ds bv vapfdodrjre 
vvnov 6 1 8 a XV s - 

Rom. vii. 6 wore oovXeveiv r)p.ds 
kv kcuv6tt)T' irvevpLaTOs teal oi naXaio- 
ttjti ypaptfiaros. 

Rom. viii. 11 6 kyeipas X. 'I. 

Itf VtKpUIV. 

Rom. ix. 23 o-tcevr) kXkovs h npo- 
rjToipiaaev ds do£av. 

Rom. xiv. 17 ov yap kanv 7) 
fiaaiXda tov 0eou fipuicris Kal 

Rom. xv. 5 to axnb (ppovtiv kv 
aWrjXois tcaTcL X. 'I. 

Smyr. 1 aXr]6Jl)s ovra (K yivovs 
Aa&lt) Kara, capita, vlov ®eov 
Kara 6iXrjp.a teal 0vvap.1v. 

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

Eph. 18 rrvv KavxV <Jls T ^ v ^*yo- 
pikvwv avvtTwv ; 
(Close to a quotation of 1 Cor. i. 20.) 

Eph. 19 ©eoG uvOpwnivas cpavtpov- 
ptvov (is icaivorrjra didiov £a)r)s. 

Mag. 5 St' ov kdv fifj avOaiperais 
ex^Mc to urroOavetv ds to avrov 
nd6os, to £r}v avrov ovk (otiv kv fjp.iv. 

Trail. 9 /card to op,oiojp.a 6s Kal qpas 
roiis marcvovras aitrai ovtcos tytpti o 
narfjp avrov kv X. I., ov x w P ls T ° 
dXrjOa'bv {771/ ovk ixop-tv. 

Mng. 6 ds tv nov Kal Sioaxv v 

Mag. 9 ol kv naXaiois Trpa.yp.aaiv 
uvaarpafpkvres ds KaivurrjTa kXnifios 

Trail. 9 8s Kal dXr)6ws -qyepOrj and 
vtKpwv, kyeipavTos avrov tov 
■narpos avrov. 

Eph. 9 nporjroipao'p.kvoi ds oIko- 
Sop.rjv &eov -narpos. 

Trail. 2 ov yap Qpoopidrav Kal 
tiotSjv doiv Oiclkovoi. 

Eph. I ov evxopai KaroL 'I. X. vpRs 
dyanqv, Kal ndvras i/pas avrw kv 6/xoio- 
Tqri thai. 

The following resemblances occur in the Epistle of Polycarp : 

Rom. vi. 13 Kal tcL pikXrj vptSiv 
onXa biKaiocvvrjs. 

Rom. xiii. 12 kvSvawpieOa 5k 
t& onXa tov (poxros. 

Rom. xii. 10 rfj <piXa5eX<plq 
els dXXrjXovs tpiXoOTopyoi, rrj 
Tip.rj dXXrjXovs TrpoijyovfKvoi. 

Rom. xiii. 8 6 yap ayanaiv rbv 
trepov vup.ov vtirXrjpuKtv «.T.A. 

Pol. 4 onXtcrupLfOa tois onKois 
rrjs SiKaioavvrjs. 

Pol. 10 fraternitatis amatores 
diligentes invicem. in veritate sociati, 
mansuetudinem Domini alterutri 
praestolentes, nullum despicientes. 

Pol. 3 kdv yap rts tovtojv kvrbs y 
irenXr) paiKfv kvro.'r,v ItKtuoavvtjS' 6 
yap (x wv dydrrriv paKpav koTiv ndorp 


Rom. xiv. IO TTCLvres yap irapa- Pol. 6 ko.1 iravras ot? irapa- 

OTTJOOfXtOa TO) f$7] (JLCLTITOV 1 06OU OTTjVai T<£ (Hf/paTl TOV ~X.pi.OTOV, 

Kal tKaaTov virtp kavTov \6yov 
12 apt \ovv\ Wkclotos rjpajv irtpl dovvai. 
kavTov \6yov Scuerei 2 [t<£ ©€&] 3 . 

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 4 . Very interesting also is the evidence of the 
heretical writers quoted by Hippolytus in the Refutatio omnium 
haeresium ; it would of course be of greater value if we could fix 
with certainty the date of the documents he makes use of. We 
find quotations from the Epistle in writings ascribed to the Naas- 
senes 5 , the Valentinians of the Italian school 6 , and to Basileides 7 . 
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 

1 passages which might be supposed to belong to older works. 

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

Rom. i. 4 rod opioOevros viov 0eoO Test. Levi. 18 koi irvevpa ayiw- 

fv Qvvnp.*i Kara irvsvpa dyicu- ovvtjs 'iorai W avroh. . . . 
cvvijs. . . 

Rom. ii. 13 oi yap 01 ixpoaral Test. Aser. 4 oi yap ayaOol dvSpes 

vop.ov diicaioi irapa tw 0«a5. .... SiKaioi tioi irapa to> 0€q). 

1 tov Xpiorov Western and Syrian. 

2 dnoSdjoti B D F G. 

3 to; @ew om. B F 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 m Rom. i. 20-26 

6 Ibid. vi. 36, p. 286. 9-10 = Rom. viii. it. 

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




€TTlfieVOJpeV TT) 

Rom. v. 6 en yap Xpiarbs ovtojv 
fin&v daOevwv eri Kara, Kaipbv vnep 
doefiujv dtreOave. 

Rom. vi. 

Rom. vi. 7 b yap dnoOavwv 
SeStKaiajTai dnb ttjs d^aprias. 

Rom. vii. 8 d>popfXT)v Sk \a&ovoa 
t) diiapria Sid ttjs kvToKijs Ka- 
Teipydaaro kv tpol udaav kmOvpiiav. 

Rom. viii. 28 oiSa p.ev St on to is 
dyanwai t6v ®ebv irdvra avv- 
epyet els dyaOov. 

Rom. ix. 21 i) ovk ?x« k£ovalav 
b Kepapevs tov tttjXov, Ik tov av- 
toC (pvpapuiTos noifjaai o piev (Is nptrjv 
OKevos, t Se fis drifxiav; 

Rom. xii. I Trapaarrjaai rd awpara 
vfiwv Ovaiav £wo~av, dyiav, eidpearov 
tw ©fa), rr)v \oyiKr)v Karpeiav 

Rom. xii. 2 1 pf) vikw virb tov tca/cov, 
dWd v'uca kv tw dya0w to" kokok. 

Rom. xiii. 12 dno6wf-ie6a ovv to" 
epya tov okotovs, kvbvawpeOa Sk 
ra oirXa tov <Pcotos. 

Rom. xv. 33 b St Qebs ttjs 
elprjvrjs nerd irdvTwv vpwv. 

Rom. xvi. 20 6 Sk &ebs ttjs elpfjvrjs 
ovvt piif/ei rbv XaTavdv virb tovs 
noSas Vfxwv kv rdx«. 

Test. Benj. 3 dvapdpTrjTos vnkp 
daefiuiv aTToOavtiTai. 

Test. Levi. 4 oi dvOpwrroi dmaTovvTes 
kmpevovo~iv kv reus dSiKtais. 

Test. Sym. 6 onus SutaiojQSi ditb 
tt)s dpaprias tojv \pvx&v vpwv. 

Test. Neph. 8 Kal Svo kvroXai 
tlci' Kal tl pr) ye vwvrai kv Ta£ei avrwv, 
dfxdpTiav irapexovaiv. 

Test. Benj. 4 dyaOoiroiwv . . . tw 
dyanwvTi tov &tbv avvepyei. 

Test. Neph. 2 KaOws yap b Kt papevs 
oiSe to ffKevos, rroaov \OJpeT, Km rrpbs 
avrbv (pepei TtrjXbv, ovtw Kal b Kvpios 
rrpbs bptoiwaiv tov nvevpaTos iroiet to 

Test. Levi 3 vpoa<pepovoi Se Kvpiw 
bo-pr)v eiiwSias XoyiKr)v Kal aval- 
jxaKTOv irfoo~(popdv. 

Test. Benj. 4 ovtws b dyadonotwv 

vikS, TO KaKOV. 

Test. Neph. 2 ovtws oiSk kv o-k6t*i 
SvvrjaeaQe iroifjaai epya <pwr6s. 

Test. Dan. 5 cx 0VT(s rbv &ebv ttjs 


Test. Aser. 7 Kal kv T)avx'iq. avv- 
Tpi@wv tt)v KecpaKty tov SpaKovros 
St' vSaros. 

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 Epislle 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 Aposlolicon, ascribing it directly to St. Paul. 
Nor have we any reason to think that he originated the idea of 
making a collection of the Pauline Epistles. The very fact, as 
Zahn points out, that he gives the same short titles to the Epistles 
that we find in our oldest MSS. (rrpbs pwpmovs) implies that these 
had formed part of a collection. Such a title would not be 
sufficient unless the books were included in a collection which had 
a distinguishing title of its own. In the Apostolicon of Marcion the 
Epistles were arranged in the following order: (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 



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 dyvoovvres yap t6v Qe6v. Both these 
statements must be admitted. But two further questions remain : 
Can we in any case arrive at the text of the Epistles used by 
Marcion, and has Marcion's text influenced the variations of our 
MSS. ? An interesting reading from this point of view is the omis- 
sion of irpa>Tov 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 ipse beatus apostolus Paulus, sequens 
prodecessoris sui Iohannis ordinem, notinisi nominatim septem ecclesiis 
scribat or dine tali: ad Corifithios {prima), ad Ephesios [secunda), ad 
Philippenses (tertia), ad Colossenses (quarta), ad Galatas (quinla), ad 
Thessalofiicenses [sexto), ad Romanos [septima). Nor does this 

' On Harnaek'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 lxxxv 

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 l . 

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 

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 1 . 

To sum up briefly. During the first century the Epistle to the 
Romans was known and used in Rome and perhaps elsewhere. 
During the first quarter of the second century we find it forming 
part of a collection of Pauline Epistles used by the principal Church 
writers of that time in Antioch, in Rome, in Smyrna, probably also 
in Corinth. By the middle of that century it had been included in 
an abbreviated form in Marcion's Apostolicon; by the end it appears 
to be definitely accepted as canonical. 

§ 9. Integrity of the Epistle. 

The 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 Tubingen school; it is accepted at the present day by critics of every 
variety of opinion, by Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Lipsius, Harnack, 
as definitely as by those who are usually classed as conservative. 

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


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 l . The same thesis was maintained by Bruno Bauer 2 , and 
has bten 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 second century. Christianity itself was the 
embodiment of certain Jewish ideas. St. Paul was a real person who lived at 
the time usually ascribed to him, but he did not write the Epistles which bear 
his name. That he should have done so at such an early peiiod 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 3 . 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 Ajosis and 4 Ezra 4 . 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 indiscrec tness by Pierson and 
Naber (1886), Michelsen (1886), Voelter (1889, 90), Van Manen (1891). 

Pierson and Naber 6 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 
fiagmentary 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), The Dissonance of the four generally received Evan- 
gelists examined, Ed. 1, 1792, pp. 257-261; Ed. 2, 1805, pp. 306-312. 

2 Bruno Bauer, Kritik der pauL Brief e, 1852. Chris tus und die Casaren, 
P- 372. 

3 Loman (A. D.), Quaestiones Paulinae, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1882, 1883, 

4 Steck (Rudolf), Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersneht. Berlin, 

5 Weisse (C. H.\ Beitrage zur Kritik der Paulinischen Brief e an die 
Galaler, Romer, Philipper und Kolosser. Leipzig. 1867. 

6 Verisimilia, Laceram condiiionem Novi Testamenli exhibentia. A. Pierson, 
et S. A. Naber, Amstelodami, 1886. 


INTEGRITY lxxxvi; 

in letters which he wrote in order to make up tor 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 {admoJum 
memorabile) which extends from ver. 3 to ver. 11. This fragment Paulus 
Episcopus treated in his usual manner. He begins with the foolish question 
ot ver. 2 which shows that he does not understand the argument that follows. 
He added interpolations in ver. 4. Itidem odoramur manum eius ver. 5. 
If we omit rd. diiocdufxari in ver. 6 the difficulty in it vanishes. Ver 8 again 'is 
feeble and therefore was the work of Paulus Episcopus : non enim credimus 
nos esse vicluros, sed novimus tws vivere K xer. 11). vv. 11-23 w i tn the ex- 
ception apparently of ver. 14 15 which have been misplaced, are the work 
of this interpolator who spoiled the Jewish fragment, and in these verses 
adapts what has preceded to the uses of the Church 1 . It will probably not 
be thought necessary to pursue this subject further. 

Michelsen 2 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. Volter's theory is more elaborate. The original 
Epistle according to him contained the following portions of the Epistle. 
i. la, 7 ; 5,6; 8-17; v. and vi. (except v. 13, 14, 20; vi. 14, 15): xii, xiii ; 
xv. i4-.',2 ; xvi. 21-23. This bears all the marks of originality ; its Christology 
is primitive, free from any theory of pre-existence or of two natures. To the 
first interpolator we owe i. 18; iii. 20 (except ii. 14, 15); viii. 1, 3-39; 
i. ib-4. Here the Christology is different; Christ is trie pre-existent Son of 
God. To the second interpolator we owe iii. 21 — 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. 1-20; a sixth for xvi. 24; a seventh 
for xvi. 25-27. 

Van Manen 4 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 theoiies, then the study of 
Christian history would be iutile. 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 

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

1 Op. cit., pp. 139-143* 

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

3 Voelter (DanieP, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1889, p. 265 ff. ; and Die Com- 
position der paul. Hauptbriefe, I. Der Rimer- mid. Galaterbrief, 1890. 

4 Van Manen (W. C), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1887. Marriotts Brief van 
Paulus aan de Galaties, pp. 82-404, 451-533; and Paulus II, De brief 
aan de Komeinen. Leiden, 1891. 

lxxxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. 

It has been pointed out that interpolation theories are not as absurd as they 
might prima facie be held to be, for we have instances of the process actually 
taking place. The obvious examples are the Ignatian letters. But these are 
not solitary, almost the whole of the Apocryphal literature has undergone the 
same process ; so have the Acts of the Saints ; so has the Didache for example 
when included in the Apostolic Constitutions. Nor are we without evidence 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 
in a text which may have been interpolated. Those who doubted the genuineness 
of the Armenian fragment of Aristides for example, on the grounds 
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 lext, 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 through the whole 
Epistle. The possibility of the commentaries which have been written proves 
conclusively the improbability of theories implying a wide element of in- 
terpolation. But in the case of St. Paul we may go further. Even where there 
is a break in the argument, there is almost always a verbal 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 (nXfovaari . . . kirXeovaotv), that suggests virepeirepiaatvafv, then 
comes irKtovaor) 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 Epibtles 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 



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

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 9 . 

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

(i) The words kv 'Po>/«? in i. 7 and 15 are omitted by the bilingual MS. G 
both in the Greek and Latin text (F is here defective). Moreo er the cursive 
47 adds in the margin of ver. 7 to kv 'Pa//*r;, ovre kv rp kfryq \u ovre kv tw 
otjto) iMrquovevu. tip. Lightfoot attempted to find corroborative evidence for 
this'reading in Origen, in the writer cited as Ambrosiaster, and in the reading 
of D kv dyaiTT) for ayairrjTois. 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. pattc. codd. ap. Orig.-lat, def Vulg. Pesh. Boh. 
Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. Pelagius it occurs at the end of chap. xvi. and there 

b. In L minusc. plus quam 200, codd. ap. Orig.-lat., Hard., 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. 

d. In Fe r . G codd. ap. Hieron. {in E| h. iii. 5), g, Marcion {vide infra) it is 
entirely omitted. It may be noted that G leaves a blank space at the end of 
chap, xiv, and that f is taken direct from the Vulgate, a space being left in F 
in the Greek corresponding to these verses. Indirectly D and Sedulius also 
attest the omission by placing the Benediction alter 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 Marion, and that very probably 
his excision of the words may have influenced the omission in Western 

1 The English reader will find a very full account of this Dutch school of 
critics in Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles, pp. i33- 2 43- A verv 
careful compilation of the results arrived at is given by Dr. Carl Clemen, Die 
Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Brief e. To both these works we must 
express our obligations, and to them we must refer any who wish for further 

12 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 Journal of Philology, vols, ii, iii, and since reprinted in 
Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 287-374. 


(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 atqne Apostolicae interpolate sunt, de 
hac epistola penittis abstulit ; et non solum hoc, scd et ab eo loco, ubi scriptum 
est: orane autem quod nun est ex fide, peocatum est: usque ad finem cuncta 
dissecuit. In aliis vero exemplaribus. id est in his quae non sunt a Marcione 
tether at a, hoc ipsum caput diverse positum invenimus, in nonnullis etcnim 
codicibus post eum locum, quern supra diximus hoc est : omne autem quod non 
est ex ride, peccatum est: statim coherens habetur : ti autem, qui polens est 
vos confiimare. 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 in for ab, having for this the support of a Paris MS., 
and then emends hoc into hie ; reading et non solum hie 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 : usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit ca.i 
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, Adv. Marc. v. 
14, quoting the words tribunal Christi (xiv. 10), states that they occur in 
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 Dei esca et potus sed 
iustitia et pax et gaudium in Spiritu Sancto ; this is followed by the rifty-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 Fuldcnsis 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 
invicem iudicare cum unusquisque secundum regulas mandatorum ipse se 
debeat divitio iudicio praeparare ut ante tribunal Dei sine confusione possit 
operum steorum praestare rationem. Then follow the last twenty-eight sections 
of the Amiatine system, beginning with the twenty-fourth at ix. 1. Hence 
chaps, ix-xiv 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. 



a. The prayer at the end of chap, xv is supposed to represent, either with 
or without the dfxrju (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 rale 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 1 , although, as was usual with him, on purely 
a priori grounds, and with an only incidental reference to the MS. evidence 
which might have been the strongest support of his theory. The main motive 
which induced him to excise them was the expression in xv. 8 that Christ was 
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 contente d'une solution aussi grossiere. Pourquoi ur, 
faussaiie aurait-il invente de si insignificants details? Pourquoi aurait-il ajoutt 
a l'ouvrage sacre une liste de noms propres 2 ? '. 

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 01 
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. Paulus, 1866, pp. 393 ff. 
' St. Paul, p. lxxi, quoted by Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 290. 



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

But further 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 von Schwegler, Holsten, Zeller, and others, 
but have been rejected by Mangold, Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, and 
Lipsius. A modified form is put forward by Lucht l , who considers that parts 
aie genuine and part spurious : in fact he applies the interpolation theory to 
these two chapters (being followed to a slight extent by Lipsius). Against 
any such theory the arguments are conclusive. It has all the disadvantages of 
the broader theory and does not either solve the problem suggested by the manu- 
script evidence or receive support from it. For the rejection of the last two 
chapters as a whole there is some support, as we have seen ; for believing that 
they contain interpolations (except in a form to be considered immediately) there 
is no external evidence. There is no greater need for suspecting 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 pheno- 
mena of the MSS. by supposing that our Epistle has grown up through the 
combination of different letters or parts of letters either all addressed to the 
Roman Church, or addressed partly to the Roman Church, partly elsewhere. 
An elaborate and typical theory of this sort, and one which has the 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-xi and chap. xv. 
(ii) A letter to the Ephesians. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 1-20. 
(iii) A letter to the Thessalonians. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 21-24. 
(iv) A letter to an unknown church. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 25-27. 

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

This theory is supported by the following amongst other arguments : 

(i) We know, as in the case of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that St. Paul 
wrote circular letters, (ii) The Epistle as we have it has four endings, xv. 33, 
xvi. 20, 24, 25-27. Each of these really represented the ending of a separate 
Epistle, (iii) There are strong internal grounds for believing that xvi. 1-20 
was addressed to the Ephesian Church, (iv) The Macedonian names occurring 
in xvi. 21-24 su gg est tnat 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 

1 Lucht, Uber die beiden letzten Capitel des Rbmerbriefs, 1871. 

2 Renan, St. Paul, pp. lxiii ff. This theory is examined at great length by 
Bp. Lightfoot, op. cit. pp. 293 ff. 



endings of St. Paul s Epistles ; while, as is shown above, the origin of the 
duplicate be .edictiom xvi. 20 and 24, must be explained on purely textual 
grounds. If Kenan's theory had been correct then we should not have both 
benedictions in the late MSS. but in the earlier. As it is, it is clear that the 
duplication simply arose from conflation. A second argument, in our opinion 
equally conclusive against this theory, is that it separates chap xiv from the 
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 

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 

But this evidence cannot be called very strong. It is admitted by Weiss 
and Mangold, for instance, that the a priori arguments against St. Paul's 
acquaintance with some twenty-four persons in the Roman community are of 
slight weight. Christianity was preached amongst just that portion of the 
population of the Empire which would be most nomadic in character. It 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 or 


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

The arguments against these verses are not strong. What is the 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 
aa 71 d^ovrai vfias . . . ixa\«TTa ol €K tov Kaiffapos o'lKias, Bp. Lightfoot proceeds 
to examine the list of names in Rom. xvi in the light of Roman inscriptions. 
We happen to have preserved to us almost completely the funereal inscriptions 
of certain columbaria in which were deposited the ashes of members of the 
imperial household. Some of these date a little earlier than the Epistle to the 
Romans, some of them are almost contemporary. Besides these we have 
a large number of inscriptions containing names of freedmen and others belong- 
ing to the imperial household. Now examples of almost every name in Rom. 
xvi. 3-16 may be found amongst these, and the publication of the sixth 
volume of the Corpus of Latin Insciiptions 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 than this. Man- 
gold asks what is the value of this investigation as the same names are found 
outside Rome? The answer is that for the most part they are very rare. 
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 Corptis 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 a priori 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 



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 a priori. 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 pericope 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 
consideration from us, that although it comes from St. Paul it belongs to rather 
a later period in his life. It is this consideration amongst others which forms 
the basis of the theory put forward by Dr. Lightfoot. He considers that the 
original Epistle to the Romans written by St. Paul contained all our present 
Epistle except xvi. 25-27; that at a somewhat later period— the peiiod per- 
haps of his Roman imprisonment, St. Paul turned this into a circular letter; 
he cut off the last two chapters which contained for the most part purely 
persona] matter, he omitted the words kv 'Pw/xy 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 


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: (i) 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 off 
of the end of a papyrus roll or the last sheet in a book. 

While admitting the force of some of Hort's criticisms on Lightfoot, and 
especially his defence of the genuineness of the doxology, we must express 
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 



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 
Kiya) yap Xptarou Siateovov yzytvrjodai irepiTOfxrjs virep a\T)0tias &eov, which he 
most certainly could not have used. Still more is this the case with regard to 
ver. 4, which directly contradicts the whole of his special teaching. The 
words at the end of chap, xiv might seem to make a more suitable ending 
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 Apostolicon had 
some — if not great— influence on variations in the text of the N. T. His 
edition had considerable circulation, especially at Rome, and therefore 
presumably in the West, and it is from the West that our evidence mostly 
comes. When in adapting the text for the purposes of church use it was 
thought advisable to omit the last portions as too personal and not sufficiently 
edifying, it was natural to make the division at a place where in a current 
edition the break had already been made. The subsequent steps would then 
be similar to those suggested by Dr. Hort. It was natural to add the 
Doxology in order to give a more suitable conclusion, or to preserve it for 
public reading at this place, and subsequently it dropped out at the later 
place. That is the order suggested by the manuscript evidence. All our best 
authorities place it at the end; 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 \v "Pww 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. lxix) to two dissertations by Dr. Corssen on the allied MSS. D F G. 
In the second of these, he suggests that the archetype from which these MSS. 
are derived (Z) ended at xv. 13. Even if his argument were correct, it would 
not take away from the force of the other facts which have been mentioned. 
We should still have to explain how it was that the Doxology was inserted 
at the end of chap, xiv, and the previous discussion would stand as it is : only 
a new fact would have to be accounted for. When, however, we come to 
examine Dr. Corssen's arguments they hardly seem to support his con- 
tention. It may be admitted indeed, that the capitulations of the Codex 
Amiatinus mifjht 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 



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 
fericope adulterae are, it is well known, considerable ; and in the same way 
he 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. As a matter of fact, as Dr. Hort 
pointed out against Dr. Lightfoot, the text of D F G presents exactly the same 
phenomena throughout the Epistle, and that suggests, although it does not 
perhaps prove, that the archetype contained the last two chapters. The scribe 
however was probably acquainted with a copy which omitted them. This 
archetype is alone or almost alone amongst our sources for the text in 
omitting the Doxology. It also omits as we have seen kv 'Pdufiri 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 

§ 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 


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 ddcatWu 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. 

Origen (Orig.); ob. 253: Comment, in Epist. S. Panli ad 
Romanos in Origenis Opera ed. C. H. E. Lommatzsch, vols, vi, vii : 
Berolini, 1836, 1837. The standard edition, on which that of 
Lommatzsch is based, is that begun by Charles Delarue, Bene- 
dictine of the congregation of St. Maur in 1733, an ^ 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 of 
Origen's life when he was settled at Caesarea. A few fragments of 
the original Greek have come down to us in the Philocalia (ed. 
Robinson, Cambridge, 1893), an d 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 
Diet. Chr. Biog. iv. 11 5- 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. 

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

g 2 


(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.d. They show the preacher at his 
best and are full of moral enthusiasm and of sympathetic human 
insight into the personality of the Apostle ; they are also the work 
of an accomplished scholar and orator, but do not always sound the 
depths of the great problems with which the Apostle is wrestling. 
They have at once the merits and the limitations of Antiochene 

Theodoret (Theodrt., Thdrt.) played a well-known moderating 
part in the controversies of the fifth century. He died in 458 a. d. 
As a commentator he is a pedisequus — but one of the best of the 
many pedisequi-r-oi 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, 

Joannes Damascenus ( Jo.-Damasc.) ; died before 754 a.d. His 
commentary is almost entirely an epitome of Chrysostom; it is 
printed among his works (ed. Lequien : Paris, 17 12, torn. ii. 
pp. 1-60). The so-called Sacra Parallela published under his 
name are now known to be some two centuries earlier and 
probably in great part the work of Leontius of Byzantium (see the 
brilliant researches of Dr. F. Loofs : Studien iiber die dem Johannes 
von Damascus zugeschriebenen Parallelen, Halle, 1892). 

Oecumenius (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 

Theophylact (Theoph.) ; archbishop of Bulgaria under Michael 
VII Ducas(io7i-io78), and still living in 11 18. His Commentary 
is one of the best specimens of its kind {Opp. ed. Venet., I754 - 
1763, torn. ii. 1-118). 

Euthymius Zigabenus (Euthym.-Zig.) ; living after 11 18; monk 
in a monastery near Constantinople and in high favour with the 
emperor Alexius Comnenus. His Commentaries on St. Paul's 
Epistles were not published until 1887 (ed. Calogeras : Athens); 
and as for that reason they have not been utilized in previous 
editions we have drawn upon them rather largely. They deserve 
citation by their terseness, point, and general precision of thought, 
but like all the writers of this date they follow closely in the foot- 
steps of Chrysostom. 


2. Latin Writers. 

Ambrosiaster (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. Ambrosii Opera, torn, iii, p. 350 ff. ; Mediolani, 
1877). The real authorship of this work is one of the still open 
problems of literary criticism. The date and place of composition 
are fairly fixed. It was probably written at Rome, and (unless 
the text is corrupt) during the Episcopate of Damasus about the 
year 380 a. d. The author was for some time supposed to be 
a certain Hilary the Deacon, as a passage which appears in the 
commentary is referred by St. Augustine to sanctus 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. rbm. Kirche, pp. 599- 
610.] A case of some strength seemed to be made out, but it 
was replied to with arguments which appear to preponderate by 
Marold in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift for 1883, pp. 415-470. Unfor- 
tunately the result is purely negative, and the commentary is stili 
without an owner. It has come out in the course of discussion 
that it presents a considerable resemblance, though not so much 
as to imply identity of authorship, with the Quaestiones ex utroque 
Testamento, printed among the works of St. Augustine. The com- 
mentator was a man of intelligence who gives the best account we 
have from antiquity of the origin of the Roman Church (see above, 
p. xxv), but it has been used in this edition more for its interesting 
text than for the permanent value of its exegesis. 

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


Hugh of St. Victor (Hugo a S. Victore, Hugh of Paris) ; 
c. 1097-1141. Amongst the works of the great mystic of the 
twelfth century are published Allegoriae in Novum Testamentum, 
Lib. VI. Allegoriae in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Migne, 
P. L. clxxv, col. 879), and Quaes Hones et 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. 

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

Thomas Aquinas, c. 12 25-1 274, called Doctor Angelicus. His 
Exposiiio in Epistolas omnes Divi Pauli Apostoli (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 modem reader who turns to it can fail to 
be struck by the immense intellectual power displayed, and by the 
precision and completeness of the logical analysis. Its value is 
chiefly as a complete and methodical exposition from a definite 
point of view. That in attempting to fit every argument of 
St. Paul into the form of a scholastic syllogism, and in making 
every thought harmonize with the Augustinian doctrine of grace, 
there should be a tendency to make St. Paul's words fit a precon- 
ceived system is not unnatural. 

3. Reformation and Post- Reformation Periods. 

Colet, John (c. 1467- 1 519); 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 *ith 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 



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 surfer as much from timidity as did those of 
Luther from excessive boldness. His aim was to reform the Church 
by publishing and interpreting the records of early Christianity — an 
aim which harmonized ill with the times in which he lived. His 
work was rather to prepare the way for future developments. 

Luther, Martin, 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, In epist. 
P. ad Galatas Mart. Luther i comment, in 15 19; in a longer form, 
In epist. P. ad Gal. commentarius ex praelectionibus Mart. Luiheri 
collectus, 1535. Exegesis was not Luther's strong point, and his 
commentaries bristle with faults. They are defective, and prolix ; 
full of bitter controversy and one-sided. The value of his contribu- 
tion to the study of St. Paul's writings was of a different character. 
By grasping, if in a one-sided way, some of St. Paul's leading 
ideas, and by insisting upon them with unwearied boldness and 
persistence, he produced conditions of religious life which made 
the comprehension of part of the Apostle's teaching possible. His 
exegetical notes could seldom be quoted, but he paved the way for 
a correct exegesis. 

Melanchthon, Philip (149 7-1 560), was the most scholarly of 
the Reformers. His Adnotationes in ep. P. ad Rom. with a preface 
by Luther was published in 1522, his Commentarii in Ep. ad Rom. 
in 1540. 

Calvin, John (1 509-1 564). His Commentarii in omnes epistolas 
Pauli Apost. was first published at Strassburgin 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 re ady-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; 


(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 Institutes. And the latter are greatly 
expanded with all his distinctive doctrines fully developed. Two things are, 
I think, certain: this development was due to his study (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 Institutes; and so I should say that his ideas 
were not so much philosophical as theological and exegetical in their basis. 
I ought to add however as indicating his philosophical bent that his earliest 
studies — before he became a divine — were on Seneca, De dementia? 

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

Arminius (Jakob Harmensen), 1 560-1 609, Professor at Leyden, 
1603. As a typical example of the opposite school of interpretation 
to that of Calvin may be taken 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. 

Cornelius a Lapide (van Stein), oh. 1637, a Jesuit, published 
his Commeniaria in omnes d. Pauli epts tolas at Antwerp in 16 14. 

Estius (W. van Est), ob. 1613, was Provost and Chancellor of 
Douay. His In omnes Pauli et aliorum apostolor. epislolas com- 
mentar. was published after his death at Douay in 1614-1616. 

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

The work of the philologists and scholars of the sixteenth and the 
first half of the seventeenth century on the Old and New Testament 
was summed up in Critici Sacri, first published in 1660. 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. 


Hammond, Henry (i 605-1 660), Fellow of Magdalen College, 
Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. Hammond was well known 
as a royalist. He assisted in the production of Walton's Polyglott. 
His Paraphrase and Annotations of the New Testament appeared in 
1653, a few years before his death, at a time when the disturbances 
of the Civil War compelled him to live in retirement. He has 
been styled the father of English commentators, and certainly no 
considerable exegetical work before his time had appeared in this 
country. But he has a further title to fame. His commentary 
undoubtedly deserves the title of ' historical/ In his interpretation 
he has detached himself from the dogmatic struggles of the seven- 
teenth century, and throughout he attempts to expound the Apostle 
in accordance with his own ideas and those of the times when he 

Locke, John (1662-1704), the well-known philosopher, devoted 
his last years to the study of St. Paul's Epistles, and in 1 705-1 707 
were published A Paraphrase and Notes to the Epistle of St. Paul 
to the Gala/ians, the first and second Epistles to the Corinthians, and 
the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians. Appended is an Essay 
for the understanding of St. Paul's Epistles by consulting St. Paul 
himself A study of this essay is of great, interest. It is full of 
acute ideas and thoughts, and would amply vindicate the claim of 
the author to be classed as an ' historical ' interpreter. The com- 
mentaries were translated into German, and must have had some 
influence on the future development of Biblical Exegesis. 

Bengel, J. A. (Beng.), 1687-1752; a Lutheran prelate in 
Wurtemberg. His Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742) stands out 
among the exegetical literature not only of the eighteenth century 
but of all centuries for its masterly terseness and precision and 
for its combination of spiritual insight with the best scholarship of 
his time. 

Wetstein (or Wettstein), J. J., 1693-1754; after being deposed 
from office at Basel on a charge of heterodoxy he became Pro- 
fessor in the Remonstrants' College at Amsterdam. His Greek 
Testament appeared 1751, 1752. Wetstein was one of those inde- 
fatigable students whose first-hand researches form the base of 
other men's labours. In the history of textual criticism he deserves 
to be named by the side of John 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. 

Tholuck, F. A. G., 1 7 99-1 87 7 ; Professor at Halle. Tholuck 
was a man of large sympathies and strong religious character, and 


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 

Fritzsche, C. F. A. (Fri.), 1 801-1846, Professor at Giessen. 
Fritzsche on Romans (3 vols. 1 836-1 843), like Lticke on St. 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, l8 74- 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. 

De Wette, W. M. L. (De W.), 1 780-1 849 ; Professor for a short 
time at Berlin, whence he was dismissed, afterwards at Basel. His 
Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament first 
appeared in 1 836-1848. De Wette was an ardent lover of freedom 
and rationalistically inclined, but his commentaries are models of 
brevity and precision. 

Stuart, Moses, 1780-1852; Professor at Andover, Mass. Comm. 
on Romans first published in 1832 (British edition with preface by 
Dr. Pye-Smith in 1833). At a time when Biblical exegesis was 
not being very actively prosecuted in Great Britain two works 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 

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



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. J 

Alford, 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. 

Wordsworth, Dr Christopher, 1809-1885; Bishop of Lincoln. 
Bishop Wordsworth s Greek Testament (1 856-1 860, and subse- 
quently) is of an older type than Dean Alford's, and chiefly valuable 
for its patristic learning. The author was not only a distinguished 
prelate but a literary scholar of a high order (as may be seen by 
his Athens and Attica, Conjectural Enmidations of Ancient Authors 
and many other publications) but he wrote at a time when the 
reading public was less exigent in matters of higher criticism and 

Jowett, B., 181 7-1893; widely known as Master of Balliol 
College and Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford. 
His edition of St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians, Galalians, 
and Romans first appeared in 1855; second edition 1859; recently 
re-edited by Prof. L. Campbell. Professor Jowett's may be said to 
have been the first attempt in England at an entirely modern view 
of the Epistle. The essays contain much beautiful and suggestive 
writing, but the exegesis is loose and disappointing. 

Vaughan, Dr. C. J. (Va.); Dean of Llandaff. Dr. Vaughan's 
edition first came out in 1859, 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. 

Kelly, W.; associated at one time with the textual critic 
Tregelles. His Notes on the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1873), 
are written from a detached and peculiar standpoint ; but they are 
the fruit of sound scholarship and of prolonged and devout studv, 
and they deserve more attention than they have received. 

Beet, Dr. J. Agar; Tutor in the Wesleyan College, Richmond. 
Dr. Beet's may be described as the leading Wesleyan commentary: 
it starts from a very careful exposition of the text, but is intended 
throughout as a contribution to systematic theology. The first 


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

Godet Dr. F. (Go.), Professor at Neuchatel. Commentaire sur 
VEpitre 'aux Romains, Paris, &c, 1879, English translation m 
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 I ' Epitre aux Romains, published in 1 881, 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. 

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

Gifford, Dr. E. H. (Gif.) ; sometime Archdeacon of London 
The Epistle to the Romans in The Speakers 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. # 

Liddon, Dr. H. P. (Lid.); Explanatory Analysis of St. Pauls 
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 lull 
notes, but not a complete edition. It is perhaps true that the 
analysis is somewhat excessively divided and subdivided; in 
exegesis it is largely based on Meyer, but it shows everywhere the 
hand of a most lucid writer and accomplished theologian. 



Barmby, 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 

Lipsius, 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 Protestantenbibel (English translation, 
published by Messrs. Williams & Norgate in 1883), and he edited 
the same Epistle along with Galatians and Philippians in the 
Handcommentar zum 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. 

Schaefer, Dr. A.; Professor at Munster. Dr. Schaefer's Er- 
klarung d. Brief es an die Romer (Munster 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 Suzdad. 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. 


Ecclesiastical Writers (see p. 



Amb. . 

. Ambrose. 


. Ambrosiaster. 

Ath. . 

. Athanasius. 

Aug. . 

. Augustine. 

Bas. . 

. Basil. 


. Chrysostom. 


. Clement of Alexandria. 


. Clement of Rome. 

Cypr. . . 

. Cyprian. 

Cyr.-Alex. . 

. Cyril of Alexandria. 

Cyr.-Jerus. . 

. Cyril of Jerusalem. 


. Epiphanius. 

Eus. . 

. Eusebius. 


. Euthymius Zigabenus. 


. Hippolytus. 

Ign. . 

. Ignatius. 

Jer. (Hieron.) 

. Jerome. 


. Josephus. 


. Methodius. 


. Novatian. 


. Oecumenius. 

Orig. . 

. Origen. 

Orig.-lat. . 

. Latin Version of Origen. 


. Pelagius. 

Phot. . 

. Photius. 

Ruf. . 

. Rufinus. 

Sedul. . 

. Sedulius. 

Tert. . 

. Tertullian. 


. Theodore of Mopsuessia 

Theodrt. . 

. Theodoret. 

Theoph. f 

. Theophylact. 


Versions (see p. Ixvi f.). 

Aegyptt. . 

. Egyptian. 


. Bohairic. 


J Sahidic. 

Aeth. . 

. Ethiopia 

Arm. . 

. Armenian. 

Goth. . 

. Gothic. 

Latt. . 

. Latin. 

Lat. V( 


. Vetus Latina. 


. Vulgate. 

Syrr. . « 

. Syriac. 


. Peshitto. 


. Harclean. 

Cov. . 

. Coverdale. 


. Geneva. 


. Rheims (or Douay) 

Tyn. . 

. Tyndale. 

Wic. . 

. Wiclif. 

AV. . 

. Authorized Version 

RV. . 

. Revised Version. 

Editors (see p. cv 



. Textus Receptus. 


. Tischendorf. 


. Tregelles. 


. Westcott and Hort. 

Alf. . 

. Alford. 


. Bengel. 

Del. . 

. Delitzsch. 

De W. 

. De Wette. 

Ell. . 

. Ellicott. 

Fri. . 

. Fritzsche (C. F. A.). 

Gif. . 

. Gifford. 

Go. . 

. Godet. 

Lft. . 

. Lightfoot. 

Lid. . 

. Liddon. 

Lips. . 

. Lipsius. 

Mey. . 

. Meyer. 

Mey.-W. . 

. Meyer-Weiss. 

Oltr. . 

. Oltramare. 

Va. . 

. Vaughan. 







Trench, Syn. 
Win. . 
Exp. . 




cat. {eaten}) 

codd. . 

edd. . 

edd. pr. 


pauc. . 
pier. . 
plur. . 


2/3. 4/5, &c. 

Corpus Inscriptionum 

Corpus Inscriptionum 

Grimm -Thayer's Lexi- 

Trench on Synonyms. 

Winer's Grammar. 


Journal of the Society of 
Biblical Literature 
and Exegesis. 

Zeitschrifl fiir wissen- 
schaftliche Theologie. 

addit, addunt, &c. 

alii, alibi. 





priores (older 
omittit, omittunt, &c. 
praemittit, praemittunt, 


twice out of three times, 
four out of five times, 
In text-critical notes adverbs {bis, semel, &c), statistics {%, %) 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. «/.= a MS. or some printed edition of 

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



I. 1, 7. * Paul, a divinely chosen and accredited Apostle \ 
gives Christian greeting to the Roman Church, itself also 
divinely called. 

'Paul, a devoted servant of Jesus Christ, an Apostle called 
by divine summons as much as any member of the original 
Twelve, solemnly set apart for the work of delivering God's 
message of salvation ; 7 Paul, so authorized and commissioned, 
gives greeting to the whole body of Roman Christians (whether 
Jewish or Gentile), who as Christians are special objects of the 
Divine love, called out of the mass of mankind into the inner 
society of the Church, consecrated to God, like Israel of old, as 
His own peculiar people. May the free unmerited favour of 
God and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him be 
yours ! May God Himself, the heavenly Father, and the Lord 
Jesus Messiah, grant them to you ! 

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

2 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. 3 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. 


to David, as the Messiah was to do, 4 and on the other hand, in 
virtue of the Holiness inherent in His spirit, visibly designated or 
declared to be Son of God by the miracle of the Resurrection. He, 
I say, is the sum and substance of my message, Jesus, the Jew's 
Messiah, and the Christian's Lord. 6 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. 6 My duty as an Apostle is among 
all Gentile peoples, and therefore among you too at Rome, to win 
men over to the willing service of loyalty to Him ; and the end 
to which all my labours are directed is the honour of His Holy 

1-7. In writing to the Church of the imperial 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 

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. i, 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 (vv. 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 kk^rpis dyiois). (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 to remember (1) that the Epistle was written about 
the year 58 a.d., 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 point 
at the end of the paragraph. 

I. L] the apostolic salutation 3 

1. SoGXos 'ItjctoG XpioroG : dovKos Qeou or Kvpiov 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 (depd-n-aiu Josh. i. 2), Joshua 
(Josh. xxiv. 29; Jud. ii. 8), David (title of Ps. xxxvi. [xxxv.j; Pss. 
lxxviii. [lxxvii.] 70; lxxxix. [lxxxviii.] 4, 21; also ndis <vpiov, title 
of Ps. xviii. [xvii.]), Isaiah (vols Is. xx. 3); but applied also to 
worshippers generally (Pss. xxxiv. [xxxiii.j 23 ; cxiii. [cxii.] 1 
n-atSes ; 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. 

'It\<tov Xpio-ToO. 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 'Irjaov 
Xpiarov and Xpiarov 'Irjaov. There is also evidently a certain method in the 
variation. The evidence stands thus (where that on one side only is given 
it may be assumed that all remaining authorities are on the other) : — 

1 Thess. i. 1 'Irjaov Xpiarw unquestioned. 

2 Thess. i. I 'Irjaov Xpiarai Edd. ; XpiarS> 'Irjaov D E F gr G, Ambrstr. 
{sic ed. Ballerini). 

Gal. i. 1 'Irjaov Xpiarov unquestioned. 

1 Cor. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov BDEFG 17 al. pauc, Vulg. codd., Chrys. 
Ambrstr. Aug. semel, Tisch., WH. marg. 

2 Cor. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov N BMP 17 marg., Hard., Euthal. cod. Theodrt. 
Tisch. WH. RV. 

Rom. i. 1 Xpiarov "Irjaov B, Vulg. codd., Orig. bis {contra Orig.-lat. bis) 

Aug. semel Kvrib. Ambrstr. al. Lat., Tisch. WH. marg. 
Phil. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov X BDE, Boh., Tisch. WH. RV. 
Eph. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov BDEP17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Goth. Hard., 

Orig. {ex Caten.) Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. 
Col. i. i Xpiarov 'Irjaov KABFGLP17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Hard., Euthal. 

cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. Hieron. al.. Tisch. WH. RV. 
Philem. i. 1 Xparov 'Irjaov NAD C FGKP {def. B), &c, Boh., Hieron. 

{ut vid.) Ambrstr. al., Tisch. WH. RV. 

1 Tim. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov NDFGP {def. B), Vulg. codd. Boh. Hard., 
Jo -Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. 

2 Tim. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov NDEFGKP {def. B) 17 al., Vulg. codd. 

Boh. Sah. Hard., Euthal. cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. al., Tisch. WH. 

Tit. i. 1 'Irjaov Xpiarov SD C EFG &c, Vulg. codd. Goth. Pesh. Arm. 

Aeth., Chrys. Euthal. cod. Ambrstr. (ed. Ballerin.) al., Tisch. WH. 

{sed Xpiarov ['Irjaod~\ marg.) RV. ; Xpiarov 'Irjaov A minusc. tres, Vulg. 

codd. Boh. Hard., Cassiod. ; Xpiarov tantum D^*. 
It will be observed that the Epistles being placed in a roughly chrono- 
logical order, those at the head of the list read indubitably 'IrjioO Xpiarov 
(or Xpiara>\ while those in the latter part (with the single exception of Tit, 
which is judiciously treated by WH.) as indubitably read Xpiarov 'Irjaov. 

B 2 


Just about the group i and 2 Cor. Rom. there is a certain amount of 

doubt. • -c t> 

Remembering the Western element which enters into B in Epp. Paul., it 
looks as if the evidence for xu »> 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 Xpiorbs 'irjaovs. The interest of this would lie in the fact that in 
Xpiorbs 'Irjaovs the first word would seem to be rather more distinctly a 
proper name than in 'hjoovs Xpurros. No doubt the latter phrase is rapidly 
passing into a proper name, but Xpiaros would seem to have a little of its 
sense as a title still clinging to it : the phrase would be in fact transitional 
between Xpiaros or 6 Xpiaros of the Gospels and the later Xpiaros Itjoovs or 
Xpioros simply as a proper name (see Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 289 f., 
and an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in Expos. 1888, 1. 386 ff.). lne 
subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction. 

kXtjtos &tt6cxto\os. K^ats 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 KaXdv occurs in a highly typical 

passage, HoS. xi. I e£ Alyimrov neTenakeo-a tii reKva fiov. For the 

particular form kXtjtos we cannot come nearer than the ' guests ' 
(rXijrof) of Adonijah (1 Kings i. 41, 49). B y his use of the ie ™\ 
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; h\ 14 ll)- The same combina- 
tion kXvtos aTroVr. 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 

On the relation of kAtjtos to i*X«*T<5$ see Lft. on Col. iii. 12. There is 
a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. In the Gospels 
KknTol are all who are invited to enter Christ's kingdom, whether or not they 
accept the invitation ; the UtKueroi are a smaller group, selected to special 
honour (Matt. xxii. 14). In St. Paul both words are applied to the 
same persons; K\rjr6s implies that the call has been not only given but 

dTrocrroXos. It is well known that this word is used in two 
senses ; a narrower sense in which it was applied by our Lord 
Himself to the Twelve (Luke vi. 13 ; Mark iii. 14 v.l.), and a wider 
in which it includes certainly Barnabas (Acts xiv. 4, 14) and 
probably James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 19), Andronicus and 
Junias (Rom. xvi. 7), and many others (cf. 1 Cor. xn. 28 ; Eph. 
iv. 11 ; Didache xi, xii, &c; also esp. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 92 ff. ; 
Harnack in Texte u. Untersuch. ii. 11 iff.). 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 
kX^tos a7rdo-ToAo ? , i.e. not merely an Apostle by virtue of possessing 


such qualifications as are described in Acts i. 2 1, 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. 

&<f>wp«rfjt,€Vos : 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, 8oi\o S , 
kXtjtos, dfjxopio-fievos, 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 itaque excogitavit et invenit me, qui ab initio orbis 
terrarum pracparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illius. 

els euayyekiov 0eou. 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 

evayyi\ioy. 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 efayyeXia). 
It would seem, however, that there was some influence from the 
rather frequent use (twenty times) of elayy*\L(uv, eiayyAifrcrftu, 
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 (clayyiXw, Matthew four times, Mark eight, Acts 
two; dJoyyeXffccrftu, 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 {*bayye\iov sixty 


times in Epp. Paul, besides in Epp. and Apoc. only twice ; cvay- 
yeXiCeaOai 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 evayyiXiov for 
a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday, Bamp. Led. p. 31772.); 
the way is prepared for it by places like Mark i. 1 ; Apoc. xiv. 6. 

2. TrpoeTnjyyciXaTO. The words eTrayyeXLa, i-nayyeXXeaQai OCCUr 

several times in LXX, but not in the technical sense of the great 
' promises ' made by God to His people. The first instance of 

this USe is Ps. Sol. Xii. 8 Kal oaioi Kvpiov KXrjpouoprja-atfv eVcryyeXi'as 
Kvpiov : cf. vii. 9 rov eXerjaai rov oIkov IaKG>/3 els fjpepav iv 7/ enrjyyeiXu) 
avTois, and Xvii. 6 of? ovk eVr/yyei'Xo, peril ftias dcpeiXovro : 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 kirayytXia nor knayyeXKeadai (in the technical 
sense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke xxiv. 49, where kiray- 
ytXia is used of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit ; but we no sooner cross 
over lo 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 ewayyeXia three times in the Acts, 
Gal. iii. 14, and Eph. i. 13 ; (ii) the promises of the O. T. fulfilled in Chris- 
tianity; so enayyeXta four times in Acts (note esp. Acts xiii. 32, xxvi. 6), 
some eight times each in Rom. and Gal., both tnayyeXia and h-nayyeXXtoOai 
repeatedly in Heb., &c. ; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet 
fulfilled or unfulfilled, e.g. 2 Cor. i. 20 oaai yap enayytXiai Qeov (cf. vii. 1) ; 
I Tim. iv. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4 rj kirayyeXia ttjs irapovoias ai/rov. 

iv ypcujxus dytais : perhaps the earliest extant instance of the use 
of this phrase (Philo prefers If pal ypatfiui, lepai ftifiXoi, 6 Up6s \6yos ; 
cf. Sanday, Bamp. Led. p. 72) ; but the use is evidently well estab- 
lished, and the idea of a collection of authoritative books goes 
back to the prologue to Ecclus. In ypafats ayiais the absence of 
the art. throws the stress on ayiais ; the books are ' holy ' as con- 
taining the promises of God Himself, written down by inspired 

men (81a ran 7rpocpr)Ta>v avTov). 

3. yci/ojj.&'ou. This is contrasted with 6purd*prog f ycvopivov 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 

eXdopTos els t6v Koapov. 

in. CTirc'pfjiaTos Aaj3i&. For proof that the belief in the descent of 
the Messiah from David was a living belief see Mark xii. 35 ff. 

ttus Xeyovaiv oi ypapparels on 6 Xpiaros vlos can Aa/3/S ; (cf. Mark 


xi. 10 and x. 47 f.) : also Ps. Sol. xvii. 230°. i'oV, Kvpie, ko\ dvdaTrjo-ov 

avrols tov (BaaiXc'a (ivtwv vibv AaviS els tov Kaipbv bv olftas o~v, 6 Geo?, tov 
ftaaikevaai eVi 'laparjX 7rm8a aov K.r.A. • 4 Ezra xii. 32 (in three of the 
extant versions, Syr. Arab. Armen.); and the Talmud and Targums 
(passages in Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 341). Our Lord Himself 
appears to have made little use of this title : he raises a difficulty 
about it (Mark xii. 35-37 II ). But this verse of Ep. to Romans 
shows that Christians early pointed to His descent as fulfilling one 
of the conditions of Messiahship ; similarly 2 Tim. ii. 8 (where the 
assertion is made a part of St. Paul's ' Gospel ') ; Acts ii. 30 ; Heb. 
vii. 14 'it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah' (see 
also Eus. H. E. I. vii. 1 7 Joseph and Mary from the same tribe). 
Neither St. Paul nor the Acts nor Epistle to Hebrews defines more 
nearly how the descent is traced. For this we have to go to 
the First and Third Gospels, the early chapters of which embody 
wholly distinct traditions, but both converging on this point. There 
is good reason to think that St. Luke i, ii had assumed substan- 
tially its present shape before a.d. 70 (cf. Swete, Apost. Creed, 
p. 49). 

In Test. XII Patriarch, we find the theory of a double descent from Levi 
and from Judah (Sym. 7 avaor-qati yap Kvpios etc rod Aevel us dpxifpea ml Ik 
tov 'lovba &s f$ao~i\ea, &ebv zeal dvOpoonov : Gad. 8 oirous riprjawaiv 'lovdav /cat 
Aevei on t£ avrwv avareKei Kvpios, gojttjp tw 'lapa-qK, &c. ; cf. Harnack's 
note, Pair. Apost i. 52). This is no doubt an inference from the relationship 
of the Mother of our Lord to Elizabeth (Luke i. 36). 

kcit& aapica . . . Kcrra in'cujxa 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 

TTvevp. ayicocr. below. 

4. opio-deV-ros : ' designated.' It is usual to propose for this 
word an alternative between (i) ' proved to be/ ' marked out as 
being' (fieix^ e V ro$ '> dirofyavOevTos Chrys.), and (ii) 'appointed/ ' in- 
stituted/ • installed,' in fact and not merely in idea. For this latter 
sense (which is that adopted by most modern commentators) the 
parallels are quoted, Acts x. 42 ovtos icmv lopio-pevos wo tov Qcov 

Kpirrjs {&VTWV Kal veicpwv, and xvii. 31 /xe'XXfi Kpiveiv . f . iv avdpl a> 

&piae. The word itself does not determine the meaning either 
way : it must be determined by the context. But here the particular 
context is also neutral ; so that we must look to the wider context 
of St. Paul's teaching generally. Now it is certain that St. Paul 
did not hold that the Son of God became Son by the Resurrection. 
The undoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2 Cor. iv. 4 • 
viii. 9 ; cf. Col. i. 15-19). At the same time he did regard the 
Resurrection as making a difference — if not in the transcendental 
relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond our cogni* 


sance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to 
the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil. ii. 9 8t6 icai 6 Qe6s airov 

{mcpvylraxre , kcu e^apttraro clvtco to ovoyni to inrep irav ovo\ia). This is 

sufficiently expressed by our word * designated,' which might 
perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts. 
It is true that Christ becomes Judge in a sense in which He does 
not become Son ; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external 
creation but by an inherent right. The Divine declaration, as it 
were, endorses and proclaims that right. 

The Latin versions are not very helpful. The common rendering was 
praedestinatus (so expressly Rufinus [Orig.-lat] ad loc. ; cf. Introd. § 7). 
Hilary of Poitiers has destinatus, which Rufinus also prefers. Tertullian 
reads definitus. 

utou 0€ou. ' 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. al., it cannot be said that He did 
not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made 
upon others (e. g. the demonized, Mark iii. 11, v. 7 || ; the cen- 
turion, Mark xv. 39 ||), and it is implied by the words of the 
Tempter (Matt. iv. 3, 6 ||) and the voice from heaven (Mark 
i. 11 ||, ix. 711). The crowning instance is the confession of 
St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Logia, 
1 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 fiovoyevrjs, may be followed in Swete, Apost. 
Creed, p. 24 ff., where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of 
Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed. 
In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates 
from the Resurrection : but we have also seen that St. Paul re- 
garded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation ; 
and it is as certain that when he speaks of Him as 6 Xbios vl6s 
(Rom. viii. 32), 6 eavTod vlos (viii. 3), he intends to cover the period 
of pre-existence, as that St. John identifies the fiovoyevtjs with the 


pre-existent Logos. There is no sufficient reason to think that 
the Early Church, so far as it reflected upon these terms, under- 
stood them differently. 

There are three moments to each of which are applied with variations the 
words of Ps. ii. 7 ' Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee.' They 
are (i) the Baptism (Mark i. 1 1 ||) ; (ii) the Transfiguration (Mark ix. 7 ||) ; 
(iii) the Resurrection (Acts xiii. 33). We can see here the origin of the Ebio- 
nite idea of progressive exaltation, which is however held in check by the 
doctrine of the Logos in both its forms, Pauline (2 Cor. iv. 4, &c, ut sup.) 
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 xpiXos dvOpamos. 

iv hwdpei : not with vlov etoi), as Weiss, Lips, and others, ' Son 
of God in power I opposed to the present state of humiliation, but 
rather adverbially, qualifying 6pLa8evros, ' declared with might to be 
Son of God.' The Resurrection is regarded as a 'miracle' or 
1 signal manifestation of Divine Power.' Comp. esp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4 
iaravpadrj e£ do-Qevelas, «XXa (rj i< dwafxecos Qeov. This parallel de- 
termines the connexion of iv 8w. 

Kcn-a urcGfAa dyiwaunris : not (i) = IIvevfia , 'Ayiov, the Third Person 
in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally and some moderns), 
because the antithesis of (rapt- and nvevpa 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 <rdpg and the Divine Nature were co- 
extensive with the irvevpa, which would be very like the error of 
Apollinaris ; but (iii) the human nvevp.a, like the human adpg, 
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'). 

&Yi.coo-\)vti, not found in profane literature, occurs three times in LXX of 
the Psalms, not always in agreement with Heb. (Pss. xcv. 6 [xcyi. 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 Mac*;, iii. 12 we have j) tov tuttov dyiwavvrj. In Test. XII. Patr. 
Levi 18 the identical phrase trvevfi. dyicoff. 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 
irvfvfm ayiaiavvTjs, 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 dyiaia. see on ayioi ver. 7. 

e£ avaaTdaecos yeKpwy : a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ. 
His was not a • resurrection of dead persons' (' a3enrisynge of dead 


men' Wic.) but of a single dead person. We might expect rather 
veicpov or etc veitpmv (as in i Pet. i. 3) ; and it is probable that this 
form is only avoided because of e£ duaardaecos coming just before. 
But veicpcov coalesces closely in meaning with dvao-r., so as to give it 
very much the force of a compound word, 'by a dead-rising' 
(Todlenauferstehung), ' a resurrection such as that when dead per- 
sons rise.' Christ is 'the first-born from the dead' (Col. i. 18). 

tou Kupi'ou iqfjiGJi'. Although in O. T. regularly applied to God 
as equivalent of Adonai, Jahveh, this word does not in itself 
necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah 

(Mark xii. 36, 37 || ; Ps. Sol. xvii. 36 fiaaikevs avrav xp^ros Kvpios) 

without thereby pronouncing Him to be 'God'; they expressly 
distinguished between the Messiah and the Memra or ' Word ' of 
Jehovah (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 178). On the lips of Christians 
Kvpws denotes the idea of ' Sovereignty,' primarily over themselves 
as the society of believers (Col. i. 18, &c), but also over all creation 
(Phil. ii. 10, 11 ; Col. i. 16, 17). The title was given to our Lord 
even in His lifetime (John xiii. 13 'Ye call me, Master (6 8i8d- 
o-Ka\os), and, Lord (6 Kvpios) : and ye say well ; for so I am '), but 
without a full consciousness of its significance : it was only after 
the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their central 
belief (Phil. ii. 9 ff., &c). 

5. eXdpo/xei'. The best explanation of the plur. seems to be that 
St. Paul associates himself with the other Apostles. 

X<lpis 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 i^xydr} \^P ls * v X 61 ^ 60 "*' °~ ov '• Eccl. X. 12 Xdyot o~Top.aTos 

o-ocpov x^P ls: Luke iv. 22 \6yoi xapiros. (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 
cvpelv x^piv is the commonest form of phrase in the O. T. (Gen. 
vi. 8 ; xviii. 3, &c.) ; in many of these passages (esp. in anthropo- 
morphic scenes where God is represented as holding colloquy 
with man) it is used of ' finding favour ' in the sight of God. Thus 
the word comes to be used (3) of the ' favour ' or ' good will ' 
of God; and that (a) generally, as in Zech. xii. 10 f^ew . . iTvevp.a 
xdpiros Ka\ oiKTipp.ov f but far more commonly in N, T. (Luke ii. 40 ; 
John i. 14, 16, &c); (#) by a usage which is specially characteristic 
of St. Paul (though not confined to him), with opposition to 
dcpeiXrjpa, ' debt ' (Rom. iv. 4), and to epya, ' 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. 


(4) The cause being put for the effect x<*P ls denotes (a) 'the state 
of grace or favour' which the Christian enjoys (Rom. v. 2), or 
(j3), like xa/J'<r/xu, any particular gift or gifts of grace (nXrjprjs x^P lTOi 
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 x«P ls or 'kindly feeling' in the 
donor evokes a corresponding x^P ls or ' gratitude ' in the recipient, 
it comes to mean simply 'thanks' (1 Cor. x. 30). 

Xdtpiy here = that general favour which the Ap. shares with all 
Christians and by virtue of which he is one; diro<rro\if]i' = the more 
peculiar gifts of an Apostle. 

We observe that St. Paul regards this spiritual endowment as 
conferred upon him by Christ (81 ov) — we may add, acting through 
His Spirit, as the like gifts are described elsewhere as proceeding 
from the Spirit (1 Cor. xii, &c). 

eis uiraKOT)!' moreus : may be rendered with Vulg. ad obediendum 
fidei provided that wUrr. is not hardened too much into the sense 
which it afterwards acquired of a 'body of doctrine' (with art. 
rfj Triers Jude 3). At this early date a body of formulated doctrine, 
though it is rapidly coming to exist, does not still exist : irlans 
is still, what it is predominantly to St. Paul, the lively act or impulse 
of adhesion to Christ. In confessing Christ the lips ' obey ' this 
impulse of the heart (Rom. x. 10). From another point of view, 
going a step further back, we may speak of ' obeying the Gospel ' 
(Rom. x. 16). Faith is the act of assent by which the Gospel is 
appropriated. See below on ver. 17. 

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

iv ttcuti tois eQveaiv. 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 iravra to. e8ur] (cf. Gen. xviii. 18, &c). But St. Paul's com- 
mission as an Apostle was specially to the Gentiles (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. \ 3. Cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 2 1 f. 


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

kXtjtoI 'Irjaou XpicrroG : « called ones of Jesus Christ : gen. of 
possession. > m ; t 

7. iv 'PcSfAH : om. G g, schol. cod. 47 (to iv *Pa>/i>7 ovre tv ttj et-rjyrjaei 

ofa <p ™ fary ixv nf jiovtvu, i. e. some commentator whom the Scholiast 
had before him). G reads na<n rols ovo-iv iv aya*ji Seod (similarly 
d* Vulg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. seem to imply 
•ndcrt rols oZvtv iv 'Pw/iiy to dydnr} OeoO). The same MS. omits rols 
iv 'p&w in ver. 15. These facts, taken together with the fluc- 
tuating' position of the final doxology, xvi. 25-27, would seem 
to give some ground for the inference that there were in circulation 
in ancient times a few copies of the Epistle from which all local 
references had been removed. It is however important to notice 
that the authorities which place the doxology at the end of ch. xiv 
are quite different from those which omit iv r PAj*g here and in 
ver. 15. For a full discussion of the question see the Introduction, 

§ 6. 

kXtjtoTs dyiois. K\»;t^ &yia represents consistently in LXX the 
phrase which is translated in AV. and RV. 'an holy convocation' 
(so eleven times in Lev. xxiii and Ex. xii. 16). The rendering ap- 
pears to be due to a misunderstanding, the Heb. word used being one 
with which the LXX translators were not familiar. Whereas in 
Heb. the phrase usually runs, ' on such a day there shall be a holy 
convocation,' the LXX treat the word translated convocation as an 
adj. and make 'day' the subject of the sentence, 'such a day 
(or feast) shall be kA^') <¥«> «• 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 
k^toIs has the same sense as k\t)t6s 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 KXrjrfj ayia 
we are indebted to Dr. Driver:— 

kXtjtIj corresponds to K~>l?l? ; from N"£ to call, a technical term almost 
wholly confined to the Priests' Code, denoting apparently a special religious 
meeting, or ' convocation,' held on certain sacred days. 

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


a specially appointed, chosen, distinguished*), holy (day) ' ; cf. k\. in //. ix. 
165 and Rom. i. 1. They read analogously with Nipt? in Lev. xxiii. 2 at 
kopral Kvplov, as Ka\4aeTf avras kKtjtcIs dyias (cf. v. 371, 21 Kal KaKeaere 
TavTT)v rrjv qpipav kXtjttjv' ayia earai v/miv. In Lev. xxiii. 3 (cf. v. 24), 
kXtjt^ ayia. seems to be in apposition with avditavots. The usage of kKtjttj 
in Lev. xxiii is, however, such as to suggest that it was probably felt to 
have the form of a subst. (sc. ■qpepa) ; cf. kmK\r)Tos. 

This view of k\. is supported by their rendering of N"}i?t? elsewhere. In 
Ex. xii. 1 6 a, Lev. xxiii. 4 they also alter the form of the sentence, and 
render it by a verb, KXrjOrjaerai ayia, and dyias KaXtaert respectively. 

In Num. xxviii. 18, 26 (teal 7-77 rjpepq tuiv vtwv .... ImKXrjros ayia earai : similarly xxix. 1, 7, 12), they express it by ImKXrjTos (the same word 
used (37 ijpipa 7} -npum) emKXrjTos ayia. iarai vp.iv) ib. i. 16; xxvi. 9, for the 
ordinary partic. called, summoned), i.e. I suppose in the same sense of 
specially appointed (cf. Josh. xx. 9 al iroXets at kniicXrjToi rots vlois 'lapariX). 

Is. i. 13 ' the calling of a convocation ' is represented in LXX by i/pepav 
HeyaXrjv, and iv. 5 'all her convocations' by rd input k\w avrijs 

From all this, it occurs to me that the LXX were not familiar with the term 
N"lpD, and did not know what it meant. I think it probable that they pro- 
nounced it not as a subst. K^pD, but as a participle fcOJ?D (' called '). 

dyiois. The history of this word would seem to be very parallel 
to that of k\t)t<hs. 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. 
5 r [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, k\., $ KaXearrf Kal r) 


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 
ayioi, 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 Xnos ayios (kou crvvd^ei Aa6r> ayiov, ov d<f)r]yT)a€Tai ev SiKaioavvrj 

xvii. 28; cf. Dan. vii. 18-27; Yl ' 1 ^ 2 4)« Similarly Enoch ciii. 2; 
cviii. 3, where ' books of the holy ones = the roll of the members 
of the Kingdom ' (Charles). The same phrase had been a designa- 
tion for Israel in O. T., but only in Deut. (vii. 6 ; xiv. 2, 21 ; xxvi. 
19; xxviii. 9, varied from Ex. xix. 6 Wvos ayiov). We have thus 
another instance in which St. Paul transfers to Christians a title 
hitherto appropriated to the Chosen People. But in this case the 
Jewish Messianic expectation had been beforehand with him. 

There is a certain element of conjecture in the 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). But the link between these two meanings is little more than 
verbal ; and it seems more probable that the idea of holiness in God, whether 
in the sense of exaltedness (Baudissin) or of purity (Delitzsch\ is derivative 
rather than primary. There are a number of monographs on the subject, of 
which perhaps the best and the most accessible is that by Fr. Delitzsch 
in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, ed. 2, s. v. ' Heiligkeit Gottes.' Instruc- 
tive discussions will be found in Davidson, Ezekiel, p. xxxix. f. ; Robertson 
Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 132 ff., 140 (140 ft, 150 ed. 2) ; Schultz, 
Theology of the Old Testament, ii. 131, 167 ff. A treatise by Dr. J. Agar 


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. : I, 2 TheSS. Gal. rfj eKiOiTjcrlq (rats €V*Xj?o-iaty) ) I, 2 Cor. rrj 
WCJtX. + t 'is ayiois ) I Cor. Rom. kA^ois dyiois ; Rom. Phil, navi tois 
ayiois ; Eph. Col. roty ay lots <a\ ttkttoIs. 

The idea of the local Church, as a unit in itself, is more promi- 
nent in the earlier Epp.; that of individual Christians forming part of 
the great body of believers (the Church Catholic) is more prominent 
in the later. And it would be natural that there should be some 
such progression of thought, as the number of local churches multi- 
plied, and as the Apostle himself came to see them in a larger 
perspective. It would however be a mistake to argue at once 
from this that the use of iKKXrjaia 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 
eKKkrjala constantly stands for the religious assembly of the whole 
people, as well as the saying of our Lord Himself in Matt. xvi. 18. 
But the question is too large to be argued as a side issue. 

Rudolf Sohm's elaborate Kirchenrecht (Leipzig, 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. 

X<*pis •"*«■ eiprjnrj- Observe the combination and deepened re- 
ligious significance of the common Greek salutation x ai P" v i and 
the common Heb. salutation Shalom, ' Peace.' x"P l « and elpyvrj are 
both used in the full theological sense : x«P 4 f = the favour of God, 
elpr)VT) — 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 
xaipeiv in St. James ; x«w *<» "pr) v V in Epp. Paul, (except Pas- 
torals) and in 1, 2 St. Peter; x<*P LS > eXeos, elpljinj in the Pastoral 
Epistles and 2 St. John ; eXeoa Kai elpqvrj koi dydnr) in St. Jude. 

cip^nr). We have seen how x<*pu had acquired a deeper sense in 
N. T. as compared with O. T. ; with elp^pr) 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 (Elp^vrj o-oi 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.J II Kvpios cvXoyrjo-fi tou \aov avrov iv 
elpTjvT) : lxxxv. [lxxxiv.] 8 XaXiyafi dprjVTju em tov \abv avrov I ibid. IO 
hiKaiovvvT) koi (lpr)vr) KaT((piXrjo-ap : cxix. [cxviii.] 1 65 dpr)vq iroXkr) rols 
dyaTTcba-i tou vopov I Is. liii. 5 naidiia (Iprjvrjs tjpcov tn avrov : Jer. xiv. 
13 akf)6eiav Kal clprjurju Sdxra) em rrjs yrjs : Ezek. XXxiv. 25 bia6r}(ropai 


rw Aav\8 8ia0fjKTjv elprjvrjs [cf. xxxvii. 26]. Nor is this use confined 
to the Canonical Scriptures : cf. Enoch v. 4 (other reff. in Charles, 
ad loc); Jubilees i. 15, 29; xxii. 9; xxxiii. 12, 30, &c. ; it was one 
of the functions of the Messiah to bring 'peace' (Weber, Altsyn. 
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.) e\pr\vi\ v/mTv 

&tt6 0€ou Trarpos f\\i.Giv Kal Kupiou 'irjaou Xpiorou. The juxta- 
position of God as Father and Christ as Lord may be added to the 
proofs already supplied by vv. 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 I Cor. viii. 6 aXA' r\\iiv els 0eo? 6 irarr]p, eg ov ra navta, kcu repels els 
avTov, Kal els Kvpios 'lrjaovs Xpiords, SV ov ra iravra, Ka\ r/pels bt avrov. 

The opposition in that passage between the gods of the heathen 
and the Christians' God seems to show that rjpup = 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. d. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. It 
is well also to remember that although in this particular verse of 
Ep. to Romans the form in which it appears is incomplete, the 
triple formula concludes an Epistle written a few months earlier 
(2 Cor. xiii. 14). There is nothing more wonderful in the history 
of human thought than the silent and imperceptible way in which 
this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle and 
without controversy among accepted Christian truths. 

iraTpos Tjjxwi'. 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. 
lxviii. 5; lxxxix. 26; Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixiii. 16; lxiv. 8; Jer. 
xxxi. 9; Mai. i. 6; ii. to); 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 in 


the Old Testament breaks into full bloom in the New. It is 
placed by our Lord Himself in the fore-front of the conception of 
God. It takes however a two-fold ramification : 6 irarrjp vpS>u [fjpa>v, 
aov, airav] (e. g. twenty times in St. Matt.), and 6 irarrjp pov [6 narrjp] 
(e. g. twenty-three times in St. Matt.). In particular this second 
phrase marks the distinction between the Son and the Father ; so 
that when the two are placed in juxtaposition, as in the greeting of 
this and other Epistles, 6 narrjp is the natural term to use. The 
mere fact of juxtaposition sufficiently suggests the narrjp rod Kvplov 
fjfxuv 'irja-ov Xpiarov (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. iii. 14; Col. 
ii. 2); so that the Apostle widens the reference by throwing in 
fipwv, to bring out the connexion between the source of ' grace and 
peace ' and its recipients. 

It is no doubt true that irarrjp is occasionally used in N. T. in the 
more general sense of ' Creator ' (James i. 1 7 ' 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 
narrjp 7rdvra>v, where iruvraiv may be masc). It is true also that 6 
irarrjp rwv oAg>i> in this sense is common in Philo, and that similar 
phrases occur in the early post-apostolic writers (e. g. Clem. Rom. 
ad Cor. xix. 2 ; Justin, Apol. i. 36, 61 ; Tatian, Or. c. Graec. 4). 
But when Harnack prefers to give this interpretation to Pater in 
the earliest creeds {Das Apost. Glaubensbekenntniss, 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 



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 e. g. Jer. i. 5 and Gal. i. 15). These purposes are 
working themselves out, and the Roman Christians come within 
their range. 

When we come to examine particular expressions we find that 
a large proportion of them are drawn from the O. T. In some 
cases an idea which has been hitherto fluid is sharply formulated 
(kXtjtos, dcj>a>pi<Tn£pos) ; in other cases an old phrase has been 
adopted with comparatively little modification (vnep rod ovSparos 
qvtov, and perhaps elpfal); in others the transference involves 
a larger modification (doiXos 'lrjaov Xpta-rov, xa/ns, kXtjtoI dyioi, 
Kvpios, Ge6s narrjp) ; in others again we have a term which has ac- 
quired a significance since the close of the O. T. which Christianity 

appropriates (eVayyeXia [7rpoenr)yyft\aTo], ypcicpat ayiai, dvdaracris veKpcov, 

dyioi) ; in yet others we have a new coinage (dnoaToXn^ evayyeXiov), 
which however in these instances is due, not to St. Paul or the 
other Apostles, but to Christ Himself. 


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

8 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. 9 If witness were needed to 
show how deep is my interest in you, I might appeal to God Himself 
Who hears that constant ritual of prayer which my spirit addresses 
to Him in my work of preaching the glad tidings of His Son. 
10 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 may at last, in the course which God's Will marks out for me, 
really have my way made clear to visit you. H 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. 12 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 (<h vftiv), 
or that we may be mutually cheered by each other's faith, I by 
yours and you by mine. 13 1 should be sorry for you to suppose 
that this is a new resolve on my part. The fact is that I often 
intended to visit you — an intention until now as often frustrated 
—in the hope of reaping some spiritual harvest from my labours 
among you, as in the rest of the Gentile world. "There is no 
limit to this duty of mine to preach the Gospel. To all without 
distinction whether of language or of culture, I must discharge 
the debt which Christ has laid upon me. " Hence, so far as the 
decision rests with me, I am bent on delivering the message of 
salvation to you too at Rome. 

8. 8id. Agere autem Deo gratias, hoc est sacrificium laudis 
offerre: et ideo addit per Jesum Christum; velut per Pontificem 
magnum Orig. 

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

c 2 


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 tg> 8i pf) €pya£opev<p, iriarTevovfi Se e7Tt rbv 
diKciiovvra tov do-eftf}, Xo-yi^erat rj tt'httls clvtov els 8iKaioo~vvr)v. 

9. Xcn-peua) connected with Xarpis, ' hired servant,' and Xdtpov, 'hire'! 
(i) already in classical Gk. applied to the service of a higher power 
(Sta ttjv tov 8eov Xarpeiav Plato, Apol. 23 B) ; (ii) in LXX always of 
the service either of the true God or of heathen divinities. Hence 
Augustine : Aarpeia . . . aut semper aut tarn frequenter ut fere 
semper, ea dicitur servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum (Trench, 
Syn. p. i2of.). 

Aarpcveiv is at once somewhat wider and somewhat narrower in meaning 
than \fiTovpyeiv : (i) it is used only (or almost wholly) of the service of God 
where \eiTovpyeiv (Xeirovpyos) is used also of the service of men (Josh. i. I 
v. 1. ; 1 Kings i. 4, xix. 2152 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 to 8a>8« Ka<pv\ov 
kv ficTcveiq Karpdov, cf. Rom. ix. 4) ; kurovpytiv is appropriated to the 
ministrations of priests and Levites (Heb. x. 11, &c). Where Xenovpyuv 
(Keirovpyos) is not strictly in this sense, there is yet more or less conscious 
reference to it (e. g. in Rom. xiii. 6 and esp. xv. 16). 

eV tw Tn/euptTi p>u. The nvevfm is the organ of service; the 

evayytXiov (= to Krjpvyfia tov evayye'hiov) the Sphere in which the 

service is rendered. 

em tw -npoo-euxvv jxou : ' at my prayers/ at all my times of prayer 
(cf. 1 Thess. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 16 ; Philem. 4). 

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

t]ot] Tro-re* : a difficult expression to render in English ; ' now at 
length' (AV. and RV.) omits irore, just as ' in ony maner sumtyme' 
(Wic.) omits ?;6»? ; ' sometime at the length' (Rhem.) is more accu- 
rate, ' some near day at last.' In contrast with vvv (which denotes 
present time simply) rjhrj 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 rj^ = ' now, after all this waiting ' : 7rore 
makes the moment more indefinite. On $&j see Baumlein, Griech. 
Partikeln, p. 138 ff. 

«X06iv: probably for onrre kXOftv (Burton, § 371 c). 

euo8w0T)o-ojxai. The word has usually dropped the idea of 686s 
and means ' to be prospered ' in any way (e. g. 1 Cor. xvi. 2 o n 
av (vo8a>Tai, where it is used of profits gained in trade ; similarly in 
LXX and Test. XII. Pair. Jud. 1, Gad 7) ; and so here Mey. Gif. 
RV., &c. It does not, however, follow that because a metaphor is 
often dropped, it may not be recalled where it is directly suggested 
by the context. We are thus tempted to render with the earlier 


English Versions and Vulg. prosperum iter habeam (' I have 
a spedi wey ' Wic.). 

iv t<5 6e\V]jxaTi tou 0€oO. 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.). 

11. cmiroOw : An- 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. 

Xapi<rjAa iri'cujuLaTiKoi'. 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 olda 8<? on ipxoptvos 

npbs vpas iv Tr\r)pa>pa.Ti evXoyias Xpiarov iXfvaopai). His was con- 
spicuously a case which came under the description of John vii. 38 
1 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. 

«ls t$ <rrr)pix0TJvai : ds to with Infin. expressing purpose 'is employed 
with special frequency by Paul, but occurs also in Heb. 1 Pet. and Jas.' 
(Burton, § 409). 

12. aufA-irapaKXTjOTjmi : the subject is ipi, which, from the aw in 
<rvp.itapa.Kk. and iv vplv, is treated in the latter part of the sentence as 
equivalent to fjprfs. We note of course the delicacy with which the 
Apostle suddenly checks himself in the expression of his desire to 
impart from his own fulness to the Roman Christians : he will not 
assume any airs of superiority, but meets them frankly upon their 
own level : if he has anything to confer upon them they in turn 
will confer an equivalent upon him. 

13. ov 0«\o> : ovk oiofnai (D*) G, non arbitror d e g Ambrstr. ; an instance 
of Western paraphrase. 

ctxw, ' I may get* 

14. w E\\t](7i t€ Kal PapJ3<£pois : a resolution into its parts of iravra 
Ta (Bvrj, according to (1) divisions of language, (ii) degrees of culture. 

15. t6 kcit c/xe. It is perhaps best, with Gif. Va. Mou., to take 
to KaT ip€ as subject, np66vpou as predicate : so g Vulg. quod in me 
promtum est. In that case to kut tpi will = ' I, so far as it rests 
with me,' i. e. ' under God ' — L'homme propose, Dieu dispose ; cf. iv 
rat 6(\{]p.aTi tov Qeov above. Differently Orig.-lat. (Rufinus) who 



makes to kot' iju adverbial, quod in me est promlus sum : so too 
d e Ambrstr. The objection to this is that St. Paul would have 
written npoBvfios dpi. Mey. Lips, and others take ™ kot e/xc 7rp66v- 
pup together as subject of [etmv\ tvayyikio-ao-6aL, ' hence the eager- 
ness on my part (is) to preach.' In Eph. vi. 21 ; Phil. i. 12 ; Col. 
iv. 7 to. kclt ifti = ■ my affairs.' 


I. 16, 17. That message ■, humble as it may seem, casts 
a new light on the righteousness of God: for it tells how 
His righteousness flows forth and embraces man, when it is 
met by Faith, or loyal adhesion to Christ. 

16 Even there, in the imperial city itself, I am not ashamed of my 
message, repellent and humiliating as some of its features may 
seem. For it is a mighty agency, set in motion by God Himself, 
and sweeping on with it towards the haven of Messianic security 
every believer — first in order of precedence the Jew, and after him 
the Gentile. 17 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 

16. eiraiaxuVofjiai. 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 : iva<ax- M cvayy(\iov G, erubesco super evangelium g. 


confimdor 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 

SuVajxis is the word properly used of the manifestations of Divine 
power. Strictly indeed Svvupis is the inherent attribute or faculty, 
ivepyeia is the attribute or faculty in operation. But the two words 
are closely allied to each other and dvvapis is so often used for 
exerted power, especially Divine superhuman power, that it practi- 
cally covers eWpyaa. St. Paul might quite well have written 
ivtpytia here, but the choice of dvvapu throws the stress rather more 
on the source than on the process. The word bvvayus in a context 
like this is one of those to which modern associations seem to give 
a greater fulness and vividness of meaning. We shall not do wrong 
if we think of the Gospel as a ' force ' in the same kind of sense as 
that in which science has revealed to us the great ' forces ' of nature. 
It is a principle operating on a vast and continually enlarging scale, 
and taking effect in a countless number of individuals. This con- 
ception only differs from the scientific conception of a force like 
' heat' or ' electricity ' in that whereas the man of science is too apt 
to abstract his conception of force from its origin, St. Paul con- 
ceives of it as essentially a mode of personal activity ; the Gospel 
has all God's Omnipotence behind it. As such it is before all 
things a real force, not a sham force like so many which the 
Apostle saw around him; its true nature might be misunderstood, 
but that did not make it any less powerful : 6 \6yos yap 6 tov aravpov 

toIs pev dnoXXvpevois pcopia ecrri, rols 8e (rco^ofieuois rjplv dvvapis Qeov iari 

i Cor. i. 18 ; cf. 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20; 1 Thess. i. 5. 

els awTTjptW. The fundamental idea contained in <ra>TT)pia 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. 
o-ooT. is simply deliverance from physical peril (Jud. xv. 18 ; 1 Sam. 
xi. 9, 13, &c). (ii) But the word has more and more a tendency 
to be appropriated to the great deliverances of the nation (e. g. Ex. 
xiv. 13, xv. 2, the Passage of the Red Sea; Is. xlv. 17, xlvi. 13, Hi. 
10, &c, the Return from Exile), (iii) Thus by a natural transition 
it is associated with the Messianic deliverance ; and that both (a) in 
the lower forms of the Jewish Messianic expectation (Ps. Sol. x. 
9; xii. 7; cf. Test. XII. Pair. Sym. 7; Jud. 22; Benj. 9, 10 [the form 
used in all these passages is ow/jpioi/] ; Luke i. 69, 71, 77), and (£) 
in the higher form of the Christian hope (Acts iv. 22; xiii. 26, &c). 


In this latter sense cra>Tr)p[a 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 flf.) 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 (on ovk cGero fjpas 6 Geo? tl$ opyrjv, d\X eh 
7T€pmoir)criu (rcoTTjplas 81a tov Kvpiov rjpcov *lr)crov Xpiorov, tov dnodavouros 
vtrip rjpwv, Iva e'ire yprjyopapeu f'lre KaCevbu>peu apa (tvv avra tfcrapev 

i Thess. v. 9, 10). 

irpwToi': om. BGg, Tert. adv. Marc. Lachmann Treg. WH. 
bracket, because of the combination of B with Western authorities ; 
but they only bracket because in Epp. Paul. B itself has a slight 
Western element, to which this particular reading may belong. In 
that case it would rest entirely upon Western authority. Marcion 
appears to have omitted rrpwrov 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. 9 ; also Matt. xv. 24; Jo. iv. 22 ; Acts xiii. 46. The 
point is important in view of Baur and his followers who exaggerate 
the opposition of St. Paul to the Jews. He defends himself and 
his converts from their attacks; but he fully concedes the priority of 
their claim and he is most anxious to. conciliate them (Rom. xv. 31 ; 
cf. ix. 1 ff., x. iff.; xv. 8, &c: see also Introduction § 4). 

17. Sikcuoowt) 0€oG. 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 The Thinker for Nov. 1893 *; comp. also a 
concise note by Dr. T. K. Abbott ad he. 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. 


known His salvation : His righteousness hath He revealed (d-rreKd- 
\v\jfeu) in the sight of the nations/ which contains the three key- 
words of the verse before us; (ii) that elsewhere in the Epistle 
8ik. e«o{; = 'the righteousness of God Himself (several of the 
passages, e.g. iii. 21, 22, x. 3, have the same ambiguity as the 
text, but iii. 5, 25, 26 are quite clear); (iii) that the marked 
antithesis arroKaXvirTerai yap opyfj Qeov in ver. 18 compared with 
biKaioo-vvr) yap Qeov airoKakvTrTcTai in ver. 1 7 requires that the gen. 
. QeoZ 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 bi*. Qeov is 
a gift of righteousness bestowed upon man are hardly less con- 
vincing, (i) The righteousness in question is described as being 
revealed eie marten els nivrw ; and in the parallel passage iii. 22 it is 
qualified as bin. Qeov bid. nio'Teois 'lr]o-ov Xpio-rov els iravras roi/s marevou- 

ras, where its relation to the human recipient is quite unmistak- 
able, (ii) This relation is further confirmed by the quotation from 
Habakkuk where the epithet bUaios is applied not to God but to 
man. Observe the logical connexion of the two clauses, ducaioo-vprj 

yap Qeov dTroKaXvirTerai . . . icadcbs yey pa urai, 'O be bUaios €K iria-Teas 

Cwerai. (iii) Lastly, in the parallel Phil. iii. 9 the thought of the 
Apostle is made quite explicit : pfj e'xcov e'^v biKaioo-vvrjv t^v e< vdpov, 

aX\a rrjv bid ma-Teoos Xpio-rot), ttjv etc Qeov biKaiocrvvrjv em 777 jrtar«. The 

insertion of the preposition eVc transfers the righteousness from 
God to man, or we may say traces the process of extension by 
which it passes from its source to its object. 

For (3) the very cogency of the arguments on both sides is 
enough to show that the two views which we have set over against 
each other are not mutually exclusive but rather inclusive. The 
righteousness of which the Apostle is speaking not only proceeds 
from God but is the righteousness of God Himself: it is this, how- 
ever, not as inherent in the Divine Essence but as going forth and 
embracing the personalities of men. It is righteousness active and 
energizing; the righteousness of the Divine Will as it were pro- 
jected and enclosing and gathering into itself human wills. St. Paul 
fixes this sense upon it in another of the great key-verses of the 

Epistle, ch. iii. 2 6 els to elvai avrbv bUaiov na\ biKaiovvra top e< nio~Te<DS 

'irjaov. 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. 


€K mo-Tews. 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 vv. 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 nta-ns, moTtix* 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 


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 
righteousness together, and associate them in the way of referring 
all that made the condition of righteousness so much more possible 
under Christianity than it had been under Judaism, objectively to 
the work of the Messiah, and subjectively to the appropriation of 
that work by the believer in the assent which he gave to the one 
proposition which expressed its value ? 

It will be seen that there is more than one element in this con- 
ception which has to be kept distinct. As we advance further in 
the Epistle, and more particularly when we come to the great 
passage iii. 21-26, we shall become aware that St. Paul attached to 
the Death of Christ what we may call a sacrificial efficacy. He 
regarded it as summing up under the New Covenant all the func- 
tions that the Mosaic Sacrifices had discharged under the Old. As 
they had the effect, as far as anything outward could have the 
effect, of placing the worshipper in a position of fitness for ap- 
proach to God ; so once for all the sacrifice of Christ had placed 
the Christian worshipper in this position. That was a fact objec- 
tive and external to himself of which the 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 


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 U vLmm els nianv. We shall have the process 
described more fully when we come to chapters vi-viii. 

Ik mVrews €is wCdW. The analogy of Ps. Ixxxiii. 8 (lxxxiv. 7) 
i< dvuafiecos els bvvaynv, and of 2 Cor. ii. 16 e< els Odvarov . . . 

ex Ca>?is els t^, 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 credeniium 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. 

6 Sikcuos Ik moreus. Some take the whole of this phrase 
together. ' The man whose righteousness is based on faith,' as if 
the contrast (not expressed but implied) were between the man 
whose righteousness is based on faith and one whose righteousness 
is based on works. It is true that this is quite in harmony with 
St. Paul's teaching as expressed more fully in Rom. iii. 22, 25; 
Gal. ii. 16 : but it was certainly not the meaning of Habakkuk, 
and if St. Paul had intended to emphasize the point here it lay 
very near at hand to write 6 he e< Trio-Teas Sinaios, 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 uov {6 5e 8i*. fiov U iriarews, or 6 bk 8i'«. Iff ir'uTTews fiov fraeTai) irom 
the LXX. Marcion, as we should expect, seems to have omitted not only 
ttowtos 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 Margion s text see 
Zahn, Gesch. d. Neutest Kanons, ii. 515 ff « 

The word bUaios and its cognates. 

SCicaios Sucaioown. 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 m mind 
in regard to the history of the words Xmm and twuoofrrj. The first is that 
although there was a sense in which the Greek WPrds covered the whole 

I. 17.] 


range of right action {Eth. Nic. V. i. 15 StKaioaivrj^reXda dp fT J, with the 
single qualification that it is -rrpbs erepov, the duty to one's neighbour*), yet 
in practice it was far more commonly used in the narrower sense of Justice 
(distributive or corrective ibid. 2 ff.). The Platonic designation of Zimioaivr) 
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 rb K aX6v— that which 
was morally noble, impressive, admirable— than rb dbcaiov. And if there 
was this tendency to throw the larger sense of biKatoaivrj 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 di/caioa^vrj. It had to fall back upon justitia, 
which m 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, Alttest. 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 8ikij 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. 'Iapa^j\ Be Siwkojv v6pov SiKaioovvqs (Is vop.ov ovk e<p9a<T€, 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 kv Se hinaioavvr) avWriPSr/i' iraa dperf) evi. 


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 — reeded reforming. The more radical the reformation the 
better. There came One Who laid His finger upon the weak place and 
pointed out the remedy — at first as it would seem only in words in which the 
Scripture-loving Rabbis had been before Him : • Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind . . . 
and . . . Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Matt. xxii. 37, 39 ||\ 
and then more searchingly and with greater fulness of illustration and 
application, ' There is nothing from without the man that going into him 
can defile him : but the things which proceed out of the man are those that 
defile the man ' (Mark vii. 15 ||) ; and then yet again more searchingly still, 
' Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden . . . Take My yoke 
upon 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 in marews and SiKaioavvrj ®cov as to the 
nature of this righteousness. It is sharply contrasted with the Jewish con- 
ception of righteousness as obedience to law, and of course goes far deeper 
than any Pagan conception as to the motive of righteousness. The specially 
Pauline feature in the conception expressed in this passage is that the 
' declaration of righteousness ' on the part of God, the Divine verdict of 
acquittal, runs in advance of the actual practice of righteousness, and comes 
forth at once on the sincere embracing of Christianity. 

Sucaiovv, SikcuovjOcu. The verb biitaiovv means properly c 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 dueaiovv. 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 -Sen: comp. Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vi. n 
'How can hwaiovv possibly signify "to make righteous!" Verbs indeed of 
this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use, e. g. 
rv<p\ovv, "to make blind." But when such words are derived from adjectives 
of moral meaning, as a£iovv, oaiovv, Sucaiovv, they do by usage and must 
from the nature of things signify to deem, to account, to prove, or to treat 
as worthy, holy, righteous,' 


(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 
WO £rJ° ***** "g ht eous.' The word however is not of frequent occurrence. 

(111) 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 [Ixxii] 13 &pa fxaraiws Mueaiuoa rhv 
KafMaMfwv, where, however, the word seems to « 'pronounced righteous,' in 
other words, 'I called my conscience clear.' In Jer. iii. 11 • Ezek. xvi si 
52 due. m 'prove righteous.' " 

(iv) From a like usage in the Pseudepigraphic Books : e. g. Ps. Sol. ii 16 • 
111. 5 ; iv. 9; vin. 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 16 ; xn. 7 ; 5 Ezr. ii. 20 {Libb. Apocr. ed. O. F. Fritzsche, p. 643)— all 
these passages are forensic ; Apoc. Baruch. (in Ceriani's translation from 
the Syriac) xxi. 911; 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; xn. 37; Luke vii. 29, 35 ; x. 29 ; xvi. 15 ; xviii. 14; Rom. ii. 
13 ; 111. 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 rS> U rf IpyaCofiiva, 
mCTtvovTtde km ri>v SiKatodvra rhv uae0r), \ 01 1((tcu f, niaris aired els dacato- 
avvrjv. Here it is expressly stated that the person justified has nothing 
to show in the way of meritorious acts ; his one asset (so to speak) is faith, 
and this faith is taken as an ' equivalent for righteousness.' 

We content ourselves for the present with stating this result as a philo- 
logical fact. What further consequences it has, and how it fits into the 
teaching of St. Paul, will appear later: see the notes on oiKaiooivn ®eov 
above and below. 

Siicaicona. For the force of the termination -pa reference should be made 
to a note by the late T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. v. 6, part of which 
is quoted in this commentary on Rom. iv. 2. Simlaj/xa is the definite con- 
crete expression of the act of SiKaiwais : we might define it as ' a declaration 
that a thing is h'maiov, or that a person is o'ikclios: 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 m Rom. v. 16, 18. For the special shades of meaning in these 
passages see the notes upon them. 

Biicciuoois. 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 Sticatovv, 
just as in the Gospel of St. John the verb mareveiv occurs no less than 
ninety-eight times, while the substantive maris is entirely absent. In 
meaning St/en'mais preserves the proper force of the termination -ais : it 
denotes the ' process or act of pronouncing righteous,' in the case of sinners, 
' the act of acquittal.' 

The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in 
some Jewish Writings. 

The word mans 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 of 
God; (in) belief in Christ; (iv) belief in some particular utterance, claim, or 
promise of God or Christ. 


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 
Kara, ttjv mariv vfiwv ytvr]dT)TOJ v^iv: 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' (j) maris f) hi avrov). 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 ID- This kind of faith our Lord 
in one place calls 'faith in God' (Mark xi. 22). There is one instance of 
1 faith ' used in a more general sense. When the Son of Man asks whether 
when He comes He shall find faith on the earth (Luke xviii. 8) He means 
' faith in Himself.' 

Faith in the performance of miracles is a sense which naturally passes 
over into the Acts (Acts iii. 16 ; xiv. 9). We find in that book also ' the faith ' 
(17 mans 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 mans is 
used as an attribute of individuals {irXrjprjs marcws 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 mans is twice applied to prayer (Jas. i. 6 ; v. 
15), where it means the faith that God will grant what is prayed for. Twice 
it means 'Christian faith' (Jas. i. 3; ii. 1). In the controversial passage, 
Jas. ii. 14-26, where Faith is contrasted with Works, the faith intended is 
' faith in God.' One example of it is the ' belief that God is One ' (Jas. ii. 
19) ; another is the trust in God which led Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Jas. ii. 
21), and to believe in the promise of his birth (Jas. ii. 23). Faith with 
St. James is more often the faith which is common to Jew and Christian ; 
even where it is Christian faith, it stops short of the Christian enthusiasm. 

In St. Jude, whose Epistle must on that account be placed late in the 
Apostolic age, faith has got the concrete sense of a 'body of belief — not 
necessarily a large or complete body, but, as we should say, ' the essentials 
of Christianity.' As the particular point against which the saints are to 
contend is the denial of Christ, so the faith for which they are to contend 
would be the (full) confession of Christ (Jude 3 f., 20). 

In the two Epistles of St. Peter faith is always Christian faith (1 Pet. i. 5, 
7-9 ; ii. 6; 2 Pet. i. 1, 5), and usually faith as the foundation of character. 
When St. Peter speaks of Christians as 'guarded through faith unto salva- 
tion ' (I Pet. i. 5) his use approaches that of St. Paul ; faith is treated as the 
' one thing needful.' 

St. John, as we have seen, very rarely uses the word mans (1 Jo. v. 4), 
though he makes up by his fondness for martvoj. 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 maros 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 (k\iri £o/xt vow viroaiaais, irpay^arcuv eKiyx os °& PtewofUpw* 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. 22 f. ; xii. 2 ; xiii. 7) : it is not 

I. 17.] 


found in St. Paul of promises the fulfilment of which is still future (for this 
he prefers €\ms : cf. Rom. viii. 25 cl 5£ t ov QXeirofxev (\iri^ofi(v, 81' inrofiovf,s 
dneKSexofifea). 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. iv). 

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 irotfxaivwv rb iroi/xviov Kvpiov kv mffra teal 
SiKaioavvp. In the other Books it is characteristic of His subjects. Thus 

4 Ezr. vi. 28 florebit auteni fides et vincetur corruptela\ vii. 34 Veritas stabit 
et fides convalesced ; 44 soluta est intemperantia, abscissa est incredulitas 
( = dmaTia). In Apoc. Baruch. and Assump. Moys. the word has this sense, 
but not quite in the same connexion : Apoc. Bar. liv. 5 revelas abscondita im- 
maculatis qui in fide subiecerunt se tibi et legi luae ; 2 1 glorificabis fideles 
iuxta fidem eorum ; lix. 2 incredulis tormentum ignis reservatum ; Ass. Moys. 
iv. 8 duae autem tribus permanebunt inpraepositafide. In Apoc. Bar lvii. 2 we 
have it in the sense of faith in the prophecy of coming judgement : fides iudicii 

futuri tunc gignebatur. Several times, in opposition to the use in St. Paul, 
we find opera et fides combined, still in connexion with the ' last things ' but 
retrospectively with reference to the life on earth. So 4 Ezra ix. 7, 8 et erit, 
omnis qui salvus /actus fuerit et qui poterit effugere per opera sua vel per 
fidem in qua credidit, is relinquetur de praedictis periculis et videbit salutare 
meant in terra mea et infinibus meis ; x'ii. 23 ipse custodibit qui in periculo 
inciderint, hi sunt qui habent opera et fidem ad Fortissimum. We might 
well believe that both these passages were suggested, though perhaps some- 
what remotely, by the verse of Habakkuk which St. Paul quotes. The same 
may be said of 5 Ezr. xv. 3, 4 nee turbent te incredulitates dicentium, 
quoniam omnis incredulus in incredulitate sua morietur (Libb. Apocr. p. 645, 
ed. O. F. Fritzsche). 

Among all these various usages, in Canonical Books as well as Extra- 
canonical, the usage of St. Paul stands out markedly. It forms a climax to 
them all with the single exception of St. John. There is hardly one of the 
ordinary uses which is not represented in the Pauline Epistles. To confine 
ourselves to Ep. to Romans; we have the word (i) clearly used in the sense 
of 'fidelity' or 'faithfulness' (the faithfulness of God in performing His 
promises), Rom. iii. 3 ; also (ii) in the sense of a faith which is practically 
that of the miracle- worker, faith as the foundation for the exercise of spiritual 
gifts, Rom xii. 3, 6. We have it (iii) for a faith like that of Abraham in 
the fulfilment of the promises of which he was the chosen recipient, Rom. iv. 
passim. The faith of Abraham however becomes something more than 
a particular attitude in regard to particular promises ; it is (iv) a standing 
attitude, deliberate faith in God, the key-note of his character; in ch. iv. the 
last sense is constantly gliding into this. A faith like Abraham's is typical of 
the Christian's faith, which has however both a lower sense and a higher : 
sometimes (v) it is in a general sense the acceptance of Christianity, Rom. i. 

5 ; x. 8, 1 7 ; 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 q. v., 26. This is the 
crowning and characteristic sense with St. Paul ; and it is really this which 
he has in view wherever he ascribes to faith the decisive significance which 
he does ascribe to it, even though the object is not expressed (as in i. 17 ; iii. 




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 
another as the hand of a violin-player runs over the strings of his violin. 

The Righteousness of God. 

The idea of the righteousness of God. imposing as it is in the 
development given to it in this Epistle, is by no means essentially 
a new one. It is one of those fundamental Biblical ideas which 
run through both Testaments alike and appear in a great variety of 
application. The Hebrew prophets were as far as possible from 
conceiving of the Godhead as a metaphysical abstraction. The 
I AM THAT I AM of the Book of Exodus is very different from 
the oi/rws ov, 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 (eXfrjfioavvrjv) from the God of his 
salvation (napa Qeov <Ta>TTjpos avrov).' In the Second Part of Isaiah 
it occurs frequently: Is. xlv. 21-25 ' There is no God beside Me ; 
a just God and a Saviour (SUaios <a\ a-arftp). 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 (a™ Kvplov 
diKaiaetitrovrai), 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 . . . 


My salvation shall be for ever, and My righteousness shall not be 

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 fjnepa opyrjs <a\ dnoKaXv^tois SiKaiOKpurias rod Qeov (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 (iv ra avrov alfiari) and acts as an IXaarripiop 
(iii. 25 q. v.) by virtue of which the Righteousness of God which 
reaches its culminating expression in it becomes capable of wide 
diffusion amongst men. This is the great ' going forth ' of the 
Divine Righteousness, and it embraces in its scope all believers. 
The essence of it, however, is — at least at first, whatever it may be 
ultimately — that it consists not in making men actually righteous 
but in ' justifying ' or treating them as if they were righteous. 

D 2 


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 diKatWcv (iv. 25, v. 18). More often he uses in respect to 
it the verb 8iKaiov<r6ai (iii. 24, 28, v. 1, 9, viii. 30, 33). The full 
phrase is diKaiovadai i< irlvTcats : 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 dcrefirjs (Rom. iv. 5), an offender against 

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 SiKaiovaOai 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 ducaiovv, 
SiKaiovo-Oai 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 


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 more that we may be 
inclined to call ' scholastic' And we may also by a little inspection 
discover that in following out lines of thought which might come 
under this description St. Paul is really taking up the threads of 
grand and far-reaching ideas which had fallen from the Prophets 
of Israel and had never yet been carried forwards to their legitimate 
issues. The Son of Man goes straight, as none other, to the 
heart of our common humanity; but that does not exclude the 
right of philosophizing or theologizing on the facts of religion, and 
that is surely not a valueless theology which has such facts as its 

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

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

But St. Paul does not so isolate it. He takes it up and follows 
every step in that after-career till it ends in the final glory (oup 8e 
e?>iKaia>(T€, tovtovs kuI e86ga<Tc 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- 


quences which flowed from it (v. 1-2 1). 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. 
17-25) — 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 Holv Spirit (viii.).' The question as to the legitimacy of 
this description hangs together with the question as to the meaning 
of the term Justification. If Justification =Justitia infusa as well 
as imputata, then we need not drspute the bringing of chaps, vi-viii 
under that category. But we have given the reasons which compel 
us to dissent from this view. The older Protestant theologians dis- 
tinguished between Justification and Sanctification ; and we think 
that they were right both in drawing this distinction and in 
referring chaps, vi-viii to the second head rather than to the first. 
On the whole St. Paul does keep the two subjects separate from 
each other ; and it seems to us to conduce to clearness of thought 
to keep them separate. 

At the same time we quite admit that the point at issue is rather 
one of clearness of thought and convenience of thinking than 
anything more material. Although separate the two subjects run 
up into each other and are connected by real links. There is an 
organic unity in the Christian life. Its different parts and functions 
are no more really separable than the different parts and functions 
of the human body. And in this respect there is a true analogy 
between body and soul. When Dr. Liddon concludes his note 
(p. 18) by saying, 'Justification and sanctification may be dis- 
tinguished by the student, as are the arterial and nervous systems 
in the human body ; but in the living soul they are coincident and 
inseparable/ we may cordially agree. The distinction between 
Justification and Sanctification or between the subjects of chaps. 
i. 16 — v, and chaps, vi-viii is analogous to that between the arterial 
and nervous systems ; it holds good as much and no more — no 
more, but as much. 

A further question may be raised which the advocates of the 
view we have just been discussing would certainly answer in the 
affirmative, viz. whether we might not regard the whole working 
out of the influences brought to bear upon the Christian in chaps. 


vi-viii, as yet a fifth great expression of the Righteousness of God 
as energizing amongst men. We too think that he might certainly 
so have regarded it. It stands quite on a like footing with other 
manifestations of that Righteousness. All that can be said to the 
contrary is that St. Paul himself does not explicitly give it this 


I. 18-32. This revelation of Righteousness •, issuing forth 
from God and embracing man, has a dark background in 
that other revelation of Divine Wrath at the gross wicked- 
ness of men (ver. 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 specidation ending in idolatry (vv. 21-23); (.3) ^ ie 
judicial surrender of those who provoke God by idolatry to 
every kind of moral degradation (vv. 24-32). 

18 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 (eV dSt/c.). 19 It is 
not merely ignorance. All that may be known of God He has 
revealed in their hearts and consciences. 20 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. 21 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. 18-32. 

God : they gave Him no thanks ; but they gave the rein to futile 
speculations; they lost all intelligence of truth, and their moral 
sense was obscured. " While they boasted of their wisdom, they 
were turned to folly. 23 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. 

24 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. 25 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 !). 

26 Because of this idolatry, I repeat, God gave them up to the 
vilest passions. Women behaved like monsters who had forgotten 
their sex. 27 And men, forsaking the natural use, wrought shame 
with their own kind, and received in their physical degradation 
a punishment such as they deserved. 

28 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: 
29 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, 
30 slanderers ; in open defiance of God, insolent in act, arrogant in 
thought, braggarts in word towards man; skilful plotters of evil, 
bad sons, 31 dull of moral apprehension, untrue to their word, 
void of natural duty and of humanity : 3 ' 2 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 

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 


part of the Jews. The summary conclusion of the whole section 
i. 18 — iii. 20 is given in the two verses iii. 19, 20: it is that the 
whole world, Gentile and Jew alike, stands guilty before God. 
Thus the way is prepared for a further statement of the means of 
removing that state of* guilt offered in the Gospel. 

Marcion retained ver. 18, perhaps through some accident on his own part 
or in the MS. which he copied, omitting ®€ov (Zahn, ut sup. 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. 

'AiroKaXuirreTai. 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 d7roKa\vTTT€Tai, 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 : diroKaXvirreTai 

i. 18 = airoKakv^is ii. 5; opyr) i. 18, ii. 5,8; dvanoAoyrjTOS i. 20, 

ii. 1. 

dpyrj OeoG. (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 (0) upon non-Israelites for oppression of the Chosen 
People (Jer. 1. 11-17; Ezek. xxxvi. 5). (2) In the prophetic 
writings this infliction of ' wrath' is gradually concentrated upon 
a great Day of Judgement, the Day of the Lord (Is. ii. 10-22, &c. ; 
Jer. xxx. 7, 8 ; Joel iii. 12 ff. ; Obad. 8 ff. ; Zeph. iii. 8 ff.). (3) Hence 
the N. T. use seems to be mainly, if not altogether, eschatological : 
cf. Matt. iii. 7; 1 Thess. i. 10; Rom. ii. 5, v. 9; Rev. vi. 16, 17. 
Even 1 Thess. ii. 1 6 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, Rechtfertigung u. Versoh- 
nung, ii. 124 ff. ed. 2. 

Similarly Euthym.-Zig. 'ArroKaX^irTcrat k.t.X. \v ^fiipq, SrjKovorf /cpicrews. 
We must remember however that St. Paul regarded the Day of Judgement as 
near at hand. 

iv dSiKta, 'living in unrighteousness the while'' Moule. 

kcitcxoVtwi'. Kare\fii/ = (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 to Karix ov , o Kar€x<ov= the force of [Roman] Law and Order 
by which Antichrist is restrained; similarly frere 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. Sioti : always in Gk. Test. = ' because.' There are three uses : 
(i) for 6V o ti = propter quod, qua?nobrem, * wherefore,' introducing 
a consequence ; (ii) for 8ia tovto 6ti = propterea quod, or quia, 
' because,' giving a reason for what has gone before ; (iii) from 
Herod, downwards, but esp. in later Gk. = on, 'that.' 

to y^wotoV. This is a similar case to that of etodcoBrjaropai above : 
yvcoaros 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, The 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. 

lv auTOis, ' within them.' St. Paul repeatedly uses this preposi- 
tion where we might expect a different one (cf. Gal. i. 16; Rom. 
ii. 15): any revelation must pass through the human conscious- 
ness : so Mey. Go. Oltr. Lips., not exactly as Gif. (' in their very 
nature and constitution as men ') or Moule ('among them).' 

Compare also Luther, Table Talk, Aph. dxlix : ' Melanchthon discoursing 
with Luther touching the prophets, who continually boast thus : " Thus saith 
the Lord," asked whether God in person spoke with them or no. Luther 
replied : " They were very holy, spiritual people, who seriously contemplated 
upon holy and divine things: therefore God spake with them in their 
consciences, which the prophets held as sure and certain revelations." ' 

It is however possible that allowance should be made for the wider 
Hebraistic use of kv, as in the phrase \a\uv tv rivi (Habak. ii. 1 anoffKo- 
iTivaoj rod IStiv rt \a\rjcrei ev k/xoi: cf. Zech.i. 9, 13, 14, 19 ; ii. 3 ; iv. 4. 5 ; 
v. 5, 10; vi. 4; also 4 Ezr. v. 15 angelus qui loquebatur in me. In that 
case too much stress must not be laid on the preposition as describing an 
internal process. At the same time the analogy of \a\uv ev does not cover 
the very explicit (pavepov kartv kv avrois : 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 

20. dird KTio-ews itoVfjiou. Gif. is inclined to translate this ' from 
the created universe,' ' creation ' (in the sense of ' things created ') 
being regarded as the source of knowledge : he alleges Vulg. 
a creatura mundi. But it is not clear that Vulg. was intended 
to have this sense; and the parallel phrases aw dpxrjs Koapov 
(Matt. xxiv. 21), dnb KarapoXris Koa-fiov (Matt. xxv. 34 ; Luke xi. 50; 
Rev. xiii. 8 ; xvii. 8), aif dpxr\s nrla-eas (Mark x. 6 ; xiii. 19 ; 2 Pet. 
iii. 4), seem to show that the force of the prep, is rather temporal, 
' since the creation of the universe ' (d(j> ov x^ vov ° oparbs irVcrw-Aj 
Koorfios Euthym.-Zig,). The idea of knowledge being derived from 


the fabric of the created world is in any case contained in the 

KTio-ews: see Lft. Col. p. 214. ktio-is has three senses: (i) the 
act of creating (as here) ; (ii) the result of that act, whether (a) the 
aggregate of created things (Wisd. v. 18 ; xvi. 24; Col. i. 15 and 
probably Rom. viii. 19 ff.); or (/3) a creature, a single created thing 
(Heb. iv. 13, and perhaps Rom. viii. 39, q. v.). 

KaGop&Tai : commonly explained to mean ' are clearly seen ' 
(Kara with intensive force, as in KarapavOdveiv, Karavoeiv) ; 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 ^ wo-rrep pporbs Spa icaOopas ; 

(ii) in Num. XXiv. 2 BaXadp, . . . nadopa top 'iapajjX io t par oirebev koto. 
Kara qbvXds. 

diSios : ai8ioTT]s is a Divine attribute in Wisd. ii. 23 (v. 1., see 
below); cf. also Wisd. vii. 26 cpcoros dV>iov, Jude 6. 

The argument from the nature of the created world to the 
character of its Author is as old as the Psalter, Job and Isaiah : 
Pss. xix. 1 ; xciv. 9; cxliii. 5; Is. xlii. 5; xlv. 18; Job xii. 9; 
xxvi. 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 dd«apT)Tos 
air avrwv tcov Zpyvv dewpuTai [6 Geo's] (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 (owe diravTopaTiadtpra yeyovev), but are the 
work of some Maker, the Creator of the world, and that there must 
needs be a Providence (npovoiav) ; because it is a law of nature 
that the Creative Power (to TremHrjKos) must take care of that which 
has come into being. But these admirable men superior as they 
are to all others, as I said, advanced from below upwards as if 
by a kind of celestial ladder guessing at the Creator from His 
works by probable inference (ola did twos olpaviov icXlpaKos diro tS>p 

epycou tbcori XoyifT/xoi crro^«crd/Xf voi top brjpiovpyouj. 

6eioTT)s : OeoTTjs = Divine Personality, deiorrjs = Divine nature and 
properties : dvvapis is a single attribute, detorrji is a summary term 
for those other attributes which constitute Divinity : the word 
appears in Biblical Gk. first in Wisd. xviii. 9 t6v ttjs detoTrjTos vopov 

iv opovoia bUdfvro. 

Didymus {Trin. ii. 11 ; Migne, P. G. xxixx. 664) accuses the heretics of 
reading deorijs here, and it is found in one MS., P. 

It is certainly somewhat strange that so general a term as OtiSrrjs should 
be combined with a term denoting a particular attribute like dvvapts. To 
meet this difficulty the attempt has been made to narrow down Ouottjs to 


the signification of 86£a, 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 Anschaimngen d. Ap. Paulus 
von d. religios-sittl. Charakt. d. Heidentums, Leipzig, 188S, p. io f.) 

els t6 cTkcu : els t6 denotes here not direct and primary purpose 
but indirect, secondary or conditional purpose. God did not 
design that man should sin ; but He did design that if they sinned 
they should be without excuse : on His part all was done to 
give them a sufficient knowledge of Himself. Burton however 
{Moods and Tenses, §4") takes els ™ here as ex P ressin g 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 kcu ovtcos ela-lv, 
and seems therefore to require that els to eluat be interpreted as 
' expressing result.' There is force in this reasoning, though the use 
of tig to for mere result is not we believe generally recognized. 

21. eo6|ao-ai>. bo&Cv 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 od£a it merely = ' to form 
an opinion about ' (bo^Cofim 8&ucos, ' I am held to be unrighteous,' 
Plato, Rep. 2) ; then later with a gradual rise of signification ' to do 
honour to ' or ' praise ' (eV aperrj feftofur/uVoi dvdpes Polyb. VI. liii. 
io). 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. i ®6&m 6 pao-iXevs 'Apra^'p^s- % hpav) ; 
(ii) Of that which is done by man to God (Lev. x. 3 iv naag tj) 
owayvyh 8o£«rAj<roftai) J (iii) Of the glory bestowed on man by God 
(Rom. viii. 30 ovs Se e'Si/ccuWe, tovtovs koI e'8o£ao-e) ; (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 
(To. 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 ; xvu. 1,4, &c). 

€ >aTaiw0Tjaa^, ' were frustrated,' ' rendered futile.' In LXX ™ 
ti6rata= 'idols' as 'things of nought.' The two words occur 

together in 2 Kings xvii. 15 mt eiropevdrjo-av ottiVw ™v fiaTalav Koi 

SiaXov^ois: as usually in LXX and N. T. in a bad sense of 
' perverse, self-willed, reasonings or speculations ' (cf. Hatch, Ess. 
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.' 

Kapoia ..: the most comprehensive term for the human faculties, 


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 tapdia 
belongs to the o7rXdy X va (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. y. 5). 

23. TJMa^ai/ iv : an imitation of a Heb. construction : cf. Ps. 
cvi. (cv.) 20 ; also for the expression Jer. ii. 11 (Del. ad loc.) &c. 

Uiav = 'manifested perfection.' See on iii. 23. 

Comp. with this verse Philo, Vit. Mos. iii. 20 (Mang. ii. 161) ot rbv 
aXr]9r) 6(01/ KaraXtTroi'Tes rots iptvda)vvp.ovs ihrjpioiipyqoav, <p6aprais Kal yfvrjTais 
ovoiais ttjv rov dyfvrjrov Kal dipedprov npoaprjaiv km<pr)fiiaavT(s : also De Ebriet. 
28 (Mang. i. 374) nap' o Kal OfOTrXao-Teiv dp£dp.evus dyaXfidrwv Kal £odvcov Kal 
aXXwv /xvpiojy dfiEpv p.drcx)v vXais 8ia<p6pois TeTexviTevptvcvv KarkirXTjcf rriv 
o\Kovp.kvr\v . . . KaTfipydo-aro to kvavriov ov irpoatSoKrjo-fV, dvrl 6o~iott)tos 
doffieiav — to yap TroXvOeov kv rats tcuv dcppovwv ipvxats d6e6rr]s, Kal Oeov rifxrjs 
dKoyovaiv ol ra 6vrjTa eetouaavTes — ols ovk k^pKtaev -qXiov Kal otXrjvqs 
tiKovas 8iairXdoaodai, dX\' 77877 koI dXdyois £wois Kal (pvrois rrjs twv dtpedprwv 
Tip.ijs p.eT(8o<jav. 

24. irapeSwKei/ : 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 
rrapkdcoKev 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 judicial, the appro- 
priate punishment of their defection : it works automatically, one 
evil leading to another by natural sequence. 

This is a Jewish doctrine : Pirqt Aboth, iv. 2 « Every fulfilment of duty is 
rewarded by another, and every transgression is punished by another ' ; Shab- 
bath I04 a ' Whosoever strives to keep himself pure receives the power to do 
so, arid whosoever will be impure to him is it [the door of vice] thrown 
open ' ; Jerus. Talmud, 'He who erects a fence round himself is fenced, and 
he who gives himself over is given over ' (from Delitzsch, Notes on Heb. 
Version of Ep. to Rom.). The Jews held that the heathen because of their 
rejection of the Law were wholly abandoned by God : the Holy Spirit was 
withdrawn from them (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 66). 

iv au-roTs NABCD*, several cursives; tv eavroU DcEFGKLP, 

&c, printed editions of Fathers, Orig. Chrys. Theodrt., Vulg. («/ 
contumeliis adficiant corpora sua in ipsis). The balance is strongly 

* Similarly Adrian, an Antiochene writer (c. 440 A.D.) in his Elo-aycayrj (Is 
rds dtias ypatyds, a classified collection of figures and modes of speech em- 
ployed in Holy Scripture, refers this verse to the head Ttjv enl twv dv8pa:mva>v 
KaKwv crvyxojpvaiv tow 0eoO <bs vpa£iv avrov Xtyer twecdf) KuXvaai Swd/xevos, 



in favour of avrols. With this reading dTijjid£eo-0ai is pass., and iv 
avrois =. ' among them ' : with iv iavrols, drip, is mid. (as Vulg.). 

On the forms, avrov, avrov and kavrov see Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk. (tr. 
Thayer) p. in ; Hort, Introd., 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 avrov, avrrjs, &c. : only 
where the reflexive character is emphasized (not merely suum, but suum 
ipsius) is kavrov used (hence the importance of such phrases as rbv kavrov 
vlbu Tre/A.ipas Rom. viii. 3). Some critics have denied the existence in the 
N. T. of the aspirated avrov : and it is true that there is no certain proof of 
aspiration ( such as the occurrence before it of ovx or an elided preposition ; 
in early MSS. breathings are rare), but in a few strong cases, where the 
omission of the aspirate would be against all Greek usage, it is retained by 
WH. (e.g. in Jo. ii. 24; Lk. xxiii. 12). 

25. oitii'cs : So-™, 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 qui, or quippe qui, with subj. 

-ri]v dX^Oeiai' . . . tw *J/eu8ei : abstr. for concrete, for rbv dXrjOivbv 
Qtov . . . rois r/z-euoWt 6eois, cf. I ThesS. i. 9. 

€ffe|3da0r)<rai'. This use of o-e$a£to-6cu is an airai- \cy6fxevov ; the 
common form is <ri$eo-6ai (see Va.). 

impel rbv KTiaai'Ta = not merely ' more than the Creator ' (a force 
which the preposition might bear), but 'passing by the Creator 
altogether,' ' to the neglect of the Creator.' 

Cf. Philo, De Mund. Opif. 1 (Mangey, i. 2) rivh yap rbv Koa/xov /xaWov f] 
rbv tcoa /JLoiroibv Qavjxaaavres (Loesner). 

os eaTiK cuXoyTjTos. 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. diroXappdj/oi/Tes : a7roX.= (i) ' to receive lack 1 (as in Luke vi. 
34) ; (ii) ' to receive one's due' (as in Luke xxiii. 41) ; and so here. 

28. cooKi/ido-ay : 8oKifj.d(a> = (i) 'to test' (1 Cor. hi. 13, &c.) ; 
(ii) 'to approve after testing' (so here; and ii. 18; xiv. 22, &c.j; 
similarly c186kihov = ' rejected after testing,' ' reprobates.' 

iv iinyv(o(Tei : imyvcao-is = * after knowledge ' : hence (i) recogni- 
tion (vb. ='to recognize,' Matt. vii. 16; xvii. 12, &c.) ; (^'ad- 
vanced ' or ' further knowledge,' ' full knowledge.' See esp. Sp. 
Comm. on 1 Cor. xiii. 12 ; Lft. on Phil. i. 9. 

voxsv = the reasoning faculty, esp. as concerned with moral 
action, the intellectual part of conscience : vovs and o-weidijo-is are 
combined in Tit. i. 15 : vovs may be either bad or good ; for the 
good sense see Rom. xii. 2 ; Eph. iv. 23. 


t& KaO.iKoi'Ta : a technical term with the Stoics, * what is morally 
fitting • ; cf. also 2 Mace. vi. 4. 

29. We must beware of attempting to force the catalogue 
which follows into a logical order, though here and there a certain 
amount of grouping is noticeable. The first four are general 
terms for wickedness ; then follows a group headed by the allitera- 
tive 4>06Vou, <f>6^oo, 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. 

dSiicuj : a comprehensive term, including all that follows. 

irop^ta : om. N A B C K ; probably suggested by similarity in 

SOUnd to Trovrjplq. 

iro^pta : contains the idea of ' active mischief (Hatch, Bill. Gk. 
p. 77 f. ; Trench, Syn. p. 303). Dr. T. K. Abbott (Essays, p. 97) 
rather contests the assignment of this specific meaning to novrjpia ; 
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. 

Kcxiaa : as compared with trov^pia denotes rather inward vicious- 
ness of disposition (Trench, Syn. p. 36 f.). 

The MSS. vary as to the order of the three words irovrjpla, irXtov^ia, leana, 
WH. text RV. retain this order with BL, &c., Hard. Arm., Bas. Greg'.- 
Nyss. at.: Tisch. VVH. marg. read irovrjp. «a«. ir\(ov. with NA, Pesh. at : 
WH. marg. also recognizes icaie. vovtjp. irXtov. with C, Boh. at. 

irXeovcgia. 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 
J selfish greed,' which may however be exhibited under circumstances where 
impurity lies near at hand: e.g. in 1 Thess. iv. 6 TtKeovtKTtlv is used of 
adultery, but rather as a wrong done to another than as a vice. 

KaKOY)0eias : the tendency to put the worst construction upon 
everything (Arist. Rhet. ii. 13 ; cf. Trench, Syn. p. 38). The word 
occurs several times in 3 and 4 Maccabees. 

30. \|u0upio-T<is, KaTaXdXous. The idea of secresy is contained in 
the first of these words, not in the second: yfi0. susurratores 
Cypr. Lucif. Ambrstr. susurrones Aug. Vulg. ; kutoX. deir adores 
Cypr. Aug. Vulg., dttrectatores {detract-) Lucif. Ambrstr. at. 

eeoffTuyets : may be either (i) passive, Deo odibiles Vulg. : so 
Mey. Weiss Fri. Oltr. Lips. Lid. ; on the ground that this is the 
constant meaning in class. Gk., where the word is not uncommon ; 
or (ii) active, Dei osores = abhorrentes Deo Cypr. : so Euthym.-Zig. 
(tovs tov Q(bv ptaovvrai), 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 tfeoorirym 
clearly with an active signification, though he follows it by vTvyrjToi 
™ GfoJ. As one among a catalogue of vices this would give the 
more pointed sense, unless we might suppose that dfoo-rvyels had 
come to have a meaning like our ' desperadoes.' The three terms 


which follow remind us of the bullies and braggarts ®f the Eliza- 
bethan stage. For the distinction between them see Trench, Syn. 
p. 95 ff. 

It is well preserved in the Cyprianic Latin, iniuriosi, superbi, iactantes sui. 
For the last phrase Lucif. has gloriantes ; either would be better than the 
common rendering elatos (Cod. Clarom. Cod. Boern. Ambrstr. Aug. Vulg.). 

vir6pTi<j>avos. Mayor (onjas. iv. 6) derives this word from the adjectival 
form vntpos (rather than vnep Trench) and <f>aipa>, comparing k\a<pr)P6\os from 
eXacpos and fidWcv : 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. 

31. d<ruv«TOvs : aovvti Stjtovs (' without conscience ') Euthym.-Zig. How 
closely the two words avvtais and awtidrjais are related will appear from 
Polyb. XVIII. xxvi. 13 ovbds ovtcos ovre fiaprvs karl <popfpos ovre tcarrfyopos 
fiavbs ihs ff avveais 57 kyfcaTomovoa rats knaaruv ipv-^ms. [But is not this 
a gloss, on the text of Polyb. ? It is found in the margin of Cod. Urbin.] 

dcrui/0€Tous, ' false to their engagements ' (ovvOtjkcu) ; cf. Jer. iii. 7, 

dcnroVSous after do-rdpyovs (Trench, Syn. p. 95 ff.) is added 
from 2 Tim. iii. 3 [C K L P]. 

32. ofni'es : see on ver. 25 above. 

t6 8iicaiwfi.a : prob. in the first instance (i) a declaration that 
a thing is dixaiov [ro diKaitofxa tov v6/j.ov = ' 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 dUaioi,' ' a verdict of not guilty/ ' an acquittal ' : so esp. in 
St. Paul (e.g. Rom. v. 16). But see also note on p. 31. 

«iti"Yv6vt€s : imyivwoKovres (B) 80, WH. marg. 

Troiouaii' . . . owcuooKouo-i. There has been some disturbance of 
the text here : B, and apparently Clem. Rom., have iroiovvres . . . 
avvevboKovvres ; and so too D E Vulg. (am. fuld.) Orig.-lat. Lucif. 
and other Latin Fathers, but inserting, non intellexerunt (ovk 
evorjo-av D). WH. obelize the common text as prob. corrupt : they 
think that it involves an anticlimax, because to applaud an action 
in others is not so bad as to do it oneself ; but from another point 
of view to set up a public opinion in favour of vice is worse than 
to yield for the moment to temptation (see the quotation from 
Apollinaris below). If the participles are wrong they have probably 
been assimilated mechanically to irpdaaovres. Note that iroidv = 
facere, to produce a certain result ; npdaaeiv = agere, to act as 
moral agent : there may be also some idea of repeated action. 

owcu&okoGo-i denotes ' hearty approval ' (Rendall on Acts xxii. 
20, in Expos. 1888, ii. 209) ; cf. 1 Mace. i. 57 awevBoKel tw v6p<p : 
the word occurs four times besides in N. T. (Luke, Epp. Paul.). 

apuporepoi 8^ irovrjpoi, teal 6 Kardp^as, Kal 6 ovv^pap.6jv. tov Se ttoulv 
rb ovvivhoKtiv x € ^P 0V Ti0J7<n Kara, to Keyopevov, et i6 ecu pas KKiirTTjv, 



0VviT(>*X<* avr$. 6 fxiv yap iroiwv, fieOvcav tS> iraOei, ^Trdrai rfjs wpa^&us' 
o St ffwtvSoKwv, (kt6s &v rov vd9ovs, irovTjpiq xpwptvos, awTpeyti rS> naitS> 
(Apollinaris in Cramer's Catena). 

St. Paul's Description of the Condition of the 
Heathen World. 

It would be wrong to expect from St. Paul an investigation of 
the origin of different forms of idolatry or a comparison of the 
morality of heathen religions, such as is now being instituted in the 
Comparative Science of Religion. For this it was necessary to 
wait for a large and comprehensive collection of data which has 
only become possible within the present century and is still far from 
complete. St. Paul looks at things with the insight of a religious 
teacher ; he describes facts which he sees around him ; and he con- 
nects these facts with permanent tendencies of human nature and 
with principles which are apparent in the Providential government 
of the world. 

The Jew of the Dispersion, with the Law of Moses in his hand, 
could not but revolt at the vices which he found prevailing among 
the heathen. He turned with disgust from the circus and the 
theatre (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. pp. 58, 68). He looked upon the 
heathen as given over especially to sins of the flesh, such as those 
which St. Paul recounts in this chapter. So far have they gone as 
to lose their humanity altogether and become like brute beasts 
{ibid. p. 67 f.). The Jews were like a patient who was sick but 
with hope of recovery. Therefore they had a law given to them to 
be a check upon their actions. The Heathen were like a patient 
who was sick unto death and beyond all hope, on whom therefore 
the physician put no restrictions {ibid. p. 69). 

The Christian teacher brought with him no lower standard, and 
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 

5° 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 priori reasoning or prejudice makes 
him untrue to facts. The Pagan world was not wholly bad. It 
had its scattered and broken lights, which the Apostle recognizes 
with the warmth of genuine sympathy. But there can be equally 
little doubt that the moral condition of Pagan civilization was such 
as abundantly to prove his main proposition, that Paganism was 
unequal to the task of reforming and regenerating mankind. 

There is a monograph on the subject, which however does not 
add much beyond what lies fairly upon the surface : Rogge, Die 
Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus von d. religios-sittlichen Charakter d. 
Heidentums, Leipzig, 1888. 



If the statements of St. Paul cannot be taken at once as supplying the place 
of scientific inquiry from the side of the Comparative History of Religion, so 
neither can they be held to furnish data which can be utilized just as they 
stand by the 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, 1 869-1 871. 

Use of the Book of Wisdom in Chapter T. 

i. 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. 

i. 20. ra yap aopara avrov and kti- 
trecus Koapiov rots voirjfxaai voovp.tva 

77 T€ diSios avrov Svvapus Kal 6(i6tt]s' 

(Is t6 etvai avrovs dva-noXoyq T ovs' 

21. t/j.aTai<ij9r)(Tav kv rots 81a: oyto- 
fiois avrSiv. /cat koKOTiadtj 7) dovveros 
avraiv Kapdia. 

22. (pda/eovT€s eivai o*o</>ot kpuwpdv- 

23. Kal tf\\a£av 7-7)1/ 86£av rod d<p- 
Odprov &eov kv 6p.016jp.aTi tiKovos tpOap- 
tov dvOpcuirov Kal irerewwv Kal rerpa- 

TToScUV Kal kpTT(TUV. 

xiii. I. Kal Ik twv opcopivcov ayaQGiv 
ovk Xa\vaav tlSivai tov ovra ovre rots 
epyois irpoo~ex ovTes iviyvctffav rbv 


xiii. 5. (K yap ficylOovs Kal KaWovfjs 
Kriapdrwv dvaKoycos 6 ytveaiovpyos 
avrwv Oecvpurai. 

ii. 23. [6 0eos tKTiae . . . tov dvOpca- 
ttov . . . e'lKova tt)s idias ouSiottjtos * 
(Cod. 248 al., Method. Athan. Epiph. ; 
18i6tt}tos NAB, Clem.-Alex. &c.) 


xiii. 8. ndXiv Si ovo' avTol ovvyvw- 

xiii. I. pdraioi yap irdvTes avOpwnot 
(pvaei, oh naprjv Otov dyvwaia *|\ 

xii. 24. Kal ydp tSjv irXavqs 6Swv 
uaKpoTfpov €TT\avr)9T)0~av dtovs vnoKap.- 
(HdvovTcs T(i Kal kv fcJo<? tuiv kxOpuv 
aTipa, vrjmwv Siktjv dcppovcuv ipevadiv- 

xii. I. to acpOaprov aov wvevpa. 

xiv. 8. to 8k (pOaprov ®eos divopa- 

xiii. 10. TaKaiirojpot di Kal kv veKpois 
al k\ni8es avTwv, oItivcs kKaKeaav 
Oeovs tpya x* l P& v dvOpuvuv. 

* The more recent editors as a rule 
read 18i6tt]tos with the uncials and 
Gen. i. 26 f. ; but it is by no means clear 
that they are right : Cod. 248 em- 
bodies very ancient elements and the 
context generally favours diStoTrjTos. 
It still would not be certain that St. 

Paul had this passage in his mind. 

t The parallel here is not quite 
exact. St. Paul says, ' They did know 
but relinquished their knowledge,'" 
Wisd. ' They ought to have known 
but did not.' 

£ 2 



[I. 18-32. 

25. oiTives ix€TT}k\a£av ttjv dXr)&eiav 
rod &eov kv tS> if/ev8ei, Kal kae@do9r]- 
aav Kal kXdrptvaav 777 KTiati irapd toj/ 


24. h\b iraptSwKev k. t. X. 

26. Sia rovro vapkhuKiv k. t. X. 

29. irfirXrjpajptvovs -nady atiiKiq, iro- 
vrjpia, TrXfovegiq, /caiciq, pfffrovs (pdovov, 
(povov, epiSos, SoXov, KaicoTjOcias, ipiOv- 
picrrcis, tcaraXaXovs, Oeoarvytts, vfipi- 
(jTas, virtpr](pdvovs f dXa£6vas, k(f>€vp(Tas 
KctKuiv, yovtvaiv direiOeis, dcvvkrovs, 
davvdtTovs, dcTTOpyovs, dveXefjpiovas. 

xiii. 13, 14. direifcacrev avrb (Ikuvi 
dvOpwnov, fj £wa> rivl evreXe? ijpoiwow 

xiii. 17 sqq. ovk alax^ veTai T( ? 
a\pv\cp TTpoaXaXojw /cat irepl pkv vyielas 
to daOevls kiriKaXeirai, nepl 8k fafjs to" 
viKpuv d£ioT k. T. X. 

xiv. 11. 81a tovto kcu kv &8wXols 
kOvwv hmoKoirri karai, on kv KTiffpan 
&eov ets (iSkXvypa kyevrjOrjcrav. 

Xiv 21. TO aKOlVCJVTJTOV ovopia XiOois 
Kal £vXois TTtpiidiaav. 

xiv. 12. dpxf) ydp iropveias% kirivoia 
dScuXcov, tvpeaeis 8k avTwv <p6opd £cu77?. 

xiv. 16. gIto. kv XP^ V V xpaTvvOiv rb 
affects edos ws vupos kfpvXdxOrj. 

xiv. 22. €?t' ovk rjpKeae t6 wXava- 
a0ai irepl t?)v tou ®eov yvcvaiv, dXXd Kal 
kv fxcyaXcv ^aivTts dyvoias TroXkfio) r<i 
Toaaxna «a«d elpfjvrjv irpocrayopevovaiv, 
2 3-V 7"P TtKvocpovovs TfXtrds ^ Kpixpia 
fxvaTrjpia fj kppaveis kgaXXwv Oeapcuv 
Kwp.ovs dyovrfs, 24. ovre ffiovs ovTt 
ydpovs KaOapovs Zti (puXdaaovaiv, tre- 
pos 8' iTfpov rj Xox&v dvaipei ij voOevwv 

25. -ndvTa 8k kmpl£ k"x €l a fy«* Kal 
(povos kXott^ Kal 80X05, (pOopd, dmo~Tia 7 
rdpaxos, eiriopKia, Oopvfios dyaOwv, 
26. x"/" T0S dpvrjaia, if/vx&v fj.iaap.6s, 
yevfoews (sex) kvaXXayrj, ydptxuv dragta, 
poixeia Kal dakXyeia. 

27. ij ydp twv dvojvvpwv (ISojXojv 
6pr)OKeia iravrbs dp\rj KaKov Kal a'nia 
Kal ntpas kariv. 

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 

[Compare the note on ix. 19-29 below, also an essay by E. Grafe in 
Theol. Abhandlungen C. von Weizsacker gewidmet, Freiburg, 1. B. 1192, 
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.] 

% A.V. expands this as ' [spiritual] had something to do in suggesting the 
fornication ' ; and so most moderns. thought of St. Paul. 
But even so the phrase might have 



II. 1-16. This state of things puts out of court the [Jewish] 
critic who is himself no better than the Gentile. He can 
claim no exemption, but only aggravates his sin by im- 
penitence (vv.1-5). Strict justice will be meted out to all — 
the Jew coming first then the Gentile (vv. 6-1 1). The Jew, 
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). 

1 The Gentile sinner is without excuse ; and his critic — who- 
ever he may be — is equally without excuse, even though [like 
the Jew] he imagines himself to be on a platform of lofty superiority. 
No such platform really exists. In fact the critic only 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. 2 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. s 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 (a-6 emphatic) will 
escape ? 4 Or are you presuming upon all that abundant goodness, 
forbearance, and patience with which God delays His punishment 
of sin? If so, you make a great mistake. The object of that long- 
suffering is not that you may evade punishment but only to induce 
you to repent. 6 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. 6 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. 7 To those who by steady persistence in a life-work 
of good strive for the deathless glories of the Messianic Kingdom, 


He will give that for which they strive, viz. eternal life. 8 But to 
those mutinous spirits who are disloyal to the right and loyal only 
to unrighteousness, for such there is in store anger settled and 
exploding, 9 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. 10 On 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 : n for God regards no distinctions of race. 

12 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. ls 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. 14 I say -that Gentiles too, although 
they have no written law, will be judged. For whenever any of 
them instinctively put in practice the precepts of the Law, their 
own moral sense supplies them with the law they need. 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. 16 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.' 


There is evidence that Marcion keptvv. 2, 12-14, J 6, 20 (from €\ovTa)-2g\ 
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. 

816 links this section closely to the last ; it is well led up to by 
i. 32, but ava-nok. pointing back to i. 20 shows that the Apostle had 
more than this in his mind. 

2. oiSavev Se A B D &c, Hard., Orig.-lat. Tert. Ambrstr. Theodrt. al. 
WH. text RV. text: N C 17 al. 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. 

oiSafx.ei' : olba = to know for a fact, by external testimony ; 
yiyvaxrKw = to know by inner personal experience and appro- 
priation : see Sp. Comm. hi. 299; Additional note on 1 Cor. viii. 1. 

3. ad 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, Altsyn. Theol. 
p. 69 f. 

There may be an element of popular misunderstanding, there is 
certainly an element of inconsistency, in some of these passages. 
The story of Abraham sitting at the gate of Paradise and refusing 
to turn away even the wicked Israelite can hardly be a fair 
specimen of the teaching of the Rabbis, for we know that they in- 
sisted strenuously on the performance of the precepts of the Law, 
moral as well as ceremonial. But in any case there must have 
been a strong tendency to rest on supposed religious privileges 
apart from the attempt to make practice conform to them. 

4. xP T l°" r( >TT] TO s : bonitatis Vulg., in Tit. iii. 4 benignitas: see 
Lft. on Gal. v. 22. xP r )< rT ° TT ] s — 'kindly disposition'; p:aicpo8vp.ia 
= 'patience/ opp. to dgvOvfxla a 'short' or 'quick temper,' 'irasci- 
bility' (cf. fipadvs els 6pyi)v Jas. i. 1 9) ; tW^ = ' forbearance/ 
' delay of punishment/ cf. dvex°H-"t to hold one's hand. 

Comp. Philo, Leg. Allegor. i. 13 (Mang. i. 50) "Orav ycip vy p.iv Karat. 
6a\a.TTT]s, ir-qyas 5k kv ruls eprjiuoraTOis enopfiprj . . . ri trepov irapioTrjcriv 1j 
rrfv vTTfp&oXfjV tov T( itKovtov koi tt}s dyaOoTrjTos avTov ; 

With p.anpoOvp.ias comp. a graphic image in Apoc. Baruch. xii. 4 Evigi- 
labit contra te furor qui nunc in longanimitate tanquam in frenis reti- 

The following is also an impressive statement of this side of the Divine 
attributes: 4 Ezr. vii. 62-68 Scio, Domine, quoniam (>=oti 'that') nunc 
vocatus est Altissimus misericors , in eo qtiod miscrcatur his qui nondum in 
saeculo advenerunt ; et miserator in eo quod miseretur illis qtd conversionem 
faciunt in lege eius ; et longanimis, quoniam longanimitatem praestat his 
qui peccaverunt quasi suis operibus ; et munificus, quoniam quidem donare 


vult pro exigere; et multae tnisericordiae, quoniam muliiplicat magis miseri- 
cordias his qui praesentes sunt et qui praeterierunt et qui futuri sunt : si 
enim non tmcltiplicaverit, non vivificabitur saeculum cum his qui inhabitant 
in eo ; et douator, quoniam si non donaverit de bonitate sua ut alleventur hi 
qui iniquitate?n fecerunt de suis iniquitatibus, non potent decies millesima 
pars vivificari hominum. 

KaTa<j>pov€is : cf. Apoc. Baruch. xxi. 20 Innotescat potentia tua Mis qui 
putant longanimitatem tuam esse infirmitatem. 

€is |A€Tcu'oiai' ae ayei : its purpose or tendency is to induce you 
to repent. 

1 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' {Iract. Thaanith ii. 1 ap. Winter u. 
Wiinsche, Jiid. Litt. i. 207). 

5. Kard : ' in accordance with,' secundum duritiam tuam Vulg. 
dpy^ : see on i. 18 above. 

6pyr)v iv fip-tpa opyrjs : 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. 
21 ; Jer. xlvi. 10; Joel ii. 1 ff. ; Zeph. i. 7 ff. ; Ezek. vii. 7 ff. ; xxx. 3 ff. ; Zech. 
xiv. 1 ; Mai. iii. 2 ; iv. 1. It also enters largely into the pseudepigraphic 
literature : Enoch 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. Ii. 1 ; lv. 6, &c. 

SiKcuoKpicrias : not quite the same as 8c<aias Kplaeas 2 Thess. i. 5 
{oX. justi judicii Vulg.), denoting not so much the character of the 
judgement as the character of the Judge (diKaioKpirrjs 2 Mace. xii. 
41 ; cf. 6 dUaios Kpirrjs 2 Tim. iv. 8). 

The word occurs in the Quinta (the fifth version included in Origen's 
Hexapld) of Hos. vi. 5 ; it is also found twice in Test. XII Patriarch. Levi 3 
6 devrepos irvp, X l ° va i upvaraXXov eroi/xa els fi\x.ipav ■npooTa.'yixaTos Kvpiov 
kv ttj dtKaiofcpiffiq tov Qeov. Ibid. 15 Xfyeade oveidtcrfAov ical aiaxvvrjv alwviov 
Ttapk ttjs SiKaioKpicrias tov Qeov. 

6. os diroSwaei : Prov. xxiv. 1 2 (LXX). The principle here laid 
down, though in full accord with the teaching of the N. T. 


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 ^iKmcodijo-ovTai 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 

7. kcx6' uirofAoi'Tjj' epyou dyc^ou : collective use of epyov, as in 
ver. 15, 'a lifework,' the sum of a man's actions. 

8. tois 8e e£ epi0€tas : ' 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 ZpiBos ' a hired labourer' 
we get epidevco 'to act as a hireling,' fpidcvopai a political term 
for 'hiring paid canvassers and promoting party spirit:' hence 
epiOela = the spirit of faction, the spirit which substitutes factious 
opposition for the willing obedience of loval 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 tpiOos from epa ' earth ' ; the Etymologicum Magnum (a compilation 
perhaps of the eleventh century) goes a step further, and derives it from e>a 
077? agricola mercede conductus ; Greg. Nyssen. connects it with epiou ' wool ' 
(ZpiOos was used specially of woolworkers) ; but most common of all is the 
connexion with e>s (so Theodrt. on Phil. ii. 3; cf. Vulg. his qui ex con 
tentione [per contentionem Phil. ii. 3 ; rixae Gal. v. 20] ). There can be 
little doubt that the use of kptfc'ia was affected by association with (pis, 
though there is no real connexion between the two words (see notes on 
kirapwdrjoav xi. 7, Karavv^tcvs xi. 8). 

6pyr) . . . 0uja6s : see Lft. and Ell. on Gal. v. 20; Trench, Syn. 
p. 125 : 6pp is the settled feeling, 6vp:6s the outward manifestation, 
' outbursts ' or ' ebullitions of wrath.' 

dpyf) 8e eariv 6 enopievos tois apuapTavovaiv cnl Tipiajpia v6vos. ©vpiov 8k 
opifrvrai dpyrjv dvaOvfiioj/xivrjv /cat SioiSaivovaav Orig. (in Cramer's Catena). 

9. 0\i\J/is Kal oreyoxwpia : tribulatio (pressura in the African form 
of the Old Latin) et angustia Vulg., whence our word ' anguish ' : 
(TTevoxapia is the stronger word = l torturing confinement ' (cf. 2 Cor. 
iv. 8). But the etymological sense is probably lost in usage: 
calajnitas et angustiae h.e. summa calamitas Fri. p. 106. 


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. 

KaTepYa^ofxeVou = ' carry to the end ' ; Kara 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. Trpoaumo\T]i|/ia : peculiar to Biblical and Ecclesiastical Greek 
(Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 25; Jas. ii. 1 ; cf. Trpoo-wn-oX^TrrTys Acts x. 34 ; 

7rpoau)7ro\rj7tT€lv Jas. ii. 9; (mpoar<o7ro\r}TrT(os I Pet. i. 17): irpovunov 

Xa/i/3aj/et«/ = (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 6 &ebs . . . ov 6avpa£ei irpoaw-nov owS' 
ov pi) Xa/3?7 8a>pov, which is adopted in Ps. Sol. ii. 19 6 ®ebs tcpi^s 8inaios nal 
ov davpao'ei irpoawirov , and explained in Jubilees 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, 
Pirqt Aboth iv. 31 ' He is about to judge with whom there is no iniquity, 
nor forgetfulness, nor respect of persons, nor taking of a bribe.' 

12, 13. vop,os and 6 vop.os. The distinction between these two forms did 
not escape the scholarship of Origen, whose comment on Rom. iii. 21 reads 
thus in Rnfinus' translation (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 201) : Moris est apud 
Graecos nominibus apdpa praeponi, quae apud nos possunt articuli nominari. 
Si quando igitur Mosis legem nominat, solitum nomini praemittit articulum : 
si quando 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: ti) 6 vopos = the Law of Moses; 
the art. denotes something with which the readers are familiar, 'their own 
law] which Christians in some sense inherited from the Jews through the O. T. 
(2) v6pos = \avt in general (e.g. ii. 12,14; iii. 20 f.; iv. 15; v. 13, &c). (3) But 
there is yet a third usage where vopos without art. really means the Law of 
Moses, but the absence of the art. calls attention to it not as proceeding from 
Moses, but in its quality as law, non quia Mosis sed quia lex as Gif. expresses 
it in his comment on Gal. ii. 19 (p. 46). St. Paul regards the Pie-Messianic 
period as essentially a period of Law, both for Jew and for Gentile. Hence 
when he wishes to bring out this he uses vopos 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 Rom. 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 1 . B. 
1884, ed. 2, 1893. Dr. Grafe goes rather too far in denying the distinction 
between v6pos and 6 vopos, but his paper contains many just remarks and 

12. TJjjtapTov. 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 iii. 23 employ an English Perfect in translation.' Prof. Burton 
suggests an alternative possibility that the aor. may be proleptic, as if it 
were spoken looking backwards from the Last Judgement of the sins which 
will then be past; but the parallels of iii. 23, v. 12 are against this. 

d^ojAws. The heathen are represented as deliberately rejecting 
not only the Law of Moses but even the Noachic ordinances. 
Thus they have become enemies of God and as such are doomed 
to destruction (Weber, Altsyn. Theol p. 65). 

13. ol dKpocn-a! vo^ov : cf. KaTrjxov/jifvos Ik tov vo/jiov ver. 18 ; also Pereq 
R. Meird {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' (Pirqi Aboth. 
i. 18, ed. Taylor; reff. from Delitzsch). 

vonov sine artic. bis KABDG. 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. 

8iK<u&>8i]o-on-ai. The word is used here in its universal sense of 
' a judicial verdict,' but the fut. tense throws forward that verdict 
to the Final Judgement. This use must be distinguished from 
that which has been explained above (p. 30 f.), the special or, so to 
speak, technical use of the term Justification which is characteristic 
of St. Paul. It is not that the word has any different sense but 
that it is referred to the past rather than to the future (8iKaia>6epTes 
aor. cf. v. 1, 9; the acquittal there dates from the moment at 
which the man becomes a Christian; it marks the initial step in 
his career, his right to approach the presence of God as if he were 
righteous. See on ver. 6 above. 

14. 60nr) : ra %6vr) would mean all or most Gentiles, Wvrj means 
only some Gentiles ; the number is quite indefinite, the prominent 
point being their character as Gentiles. 

Cf. 4 Ezr. iv. 36 homines quidem per nomina invenies servasse mandata 
tua, gentes autem non invenies. 

to, /xtj i/6jAoi/ exorra , the force of m is ' who ex hypoihesi have not 
a law/ whom we conceive of as not having a law ; cf. to. fifj 6vra 
I Cor. i. 28 (quae pro nihilo habentur Grimm). 

eauTots eio-i cojaos : ubi legis impletio, ibi 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 {Dtbarim Rabba 1). If he prays to Jehovah his praver is not 


heard (ibid.). If he commits sin and repents, that too does not help him 
(Pesikta 156°). Even for his alms he gets no credit {Pesikta I2 b ). 'In 
their books' (i.e. in those in which God sets down the actions of the 
heathen) ' there is no desert' (Shir Rabba 86 c ). See Weber, Altsyn. Theol. 
p. 66 f. 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 heathen; e.g. Rom. ii. 14. 
Since the time of Augustine \De Spir. et Lit. § 27) the orthodox interpreta- 
tion had applied this verse, either to the Gentile converts, or to the favoured 
few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine assistance. The 
Protestant expositors, to whom the words " do by nature the things contained 
in the law" could never bear their literal force, sedulously prt served 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 into the hearts of men " (Duct. Dubit. 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. II. c. 9), and have no difficulty in supposing the acceptableness of those 
works, and the salvation of those who do them. Burnet, on Art. XVI II., 
in his usual confused style of eclecticism, suggests both opinions without 
seeming to see that they are incompatible relics of divergent schools of 

15. oiTii'es: see on i. 25. 

eVSeumirrai : c*ftn£u implies an appeal to facts; demonstratio 
rebtis gestis facta (P. Ewald, Be Vocis Sweio^o-ecos, &c., p. 16 n.). 

to epYoi/ tou yo'fAou : ' the work, course of conduct belonging to ' 
(i.e. in this context 'required by' or 'in accordance with') 'the 
Law ' : collective use of cpyov as in ver. 7 above. 

[Probably not as Ewald op. cit. p. 17 after Grotius, opus legis est id, quod 
lex injudaeis efficit, nempe cognitio liciti et il/iciti.] 

aumjtapTupou<rr|s auTWJ' rfjs oweiSiqo-ews. This phrase is almost 
exactly repeated in ch. ix. 1 crv^apT. poi rrjs o-weid. fiov. 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. 

avveidrjffeojs. Some such distinction as this is suggested by the original 
meaning and use of the word avvubrjais, which = ' co-knowledge,' the know- 
ledge or reflective judgement which a man has by the side of ox in 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) airaoiv ^/xTv 57 aweiSrjffis 9e6s , 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, to aweidos and 1) avvei^ms appear 
to be practically convertible. Epictetus (Fragm. 97) compares the con- 
science to a Traidayaiyos in a passage which is closely parallel to the comment 
of Origen on this verse of Ep. Rom. (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 107) spintus . . . 


velut paedagogus ei [sc. animae] quidam sociatus et rector ut earn de melioribus 
moneat vel de culpis casliget et arguat. 

In Biblical Greek the word occurs first with its full sense in Wisd. xvii. 10. 
[il] del 5e TTpoaiiXrjcpt t<* x a * €7rti [vovijpia] avvexofxivrj rfj (rvveiSrjati. In 
Philo t6 avveidos is the form used. In N. T. the word is mainly Pauline 
(occurring in the speeches of Acts xxiii. i, xxiv. 16; Rom. 1 and 2 Cor., 
Past. Epp., also in Heb.) ; elsewhere only in 1 Pet. and the perk, 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 they were done (jn technical language the con- 
scientia consequent moralis), not so much the general source of moral 
obligation. In the passage before us St. Paul speaks of such a source 
(eavTois elai vo/xos) ; but the law in question is rather generalized from the 
dictates of conscience than antecedent to them. See on the whole subject 
a treatise by Dr. P. Ewald, Dt Vocis Xvvali\otus apud script. N. T. vi ac 
potestate (Lipsiae, 18S3). 

p,€Ta£u dXX^Xwy. This clause is taken in two ways : (i) of the 
1 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 
fiera^v aXX^Xcoi/ 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 peragv dWfoeov will = ' between one 
another,' « between man and man,' ' in the intercourse of man 
with man ' ; and XoyurpStv 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 pera$v d\\r]\a)v, 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 coepit earn 
inceptionem creaturae . . . palamfacere, tit in ea gentes arguantur et humili- 
ter inter se disputationibus arguant se. 

Twf Xoyio-jAwi' : the \oyiafiol 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 

Kapbia (n-oXXoi Xo-ytcr fxoi iv Kapdia dvdpos Prov. xix. 2 1 ; cf. Ps. XXxii. 1 1 ; 

Prov. vi. 18): it is used of secret 'plots' (Jer. xviii. j8 fovrc 


\oyivconeQa eVi 'icpepiav \oyurfx6v, ' devise devices '), and of the Divine 
intentions (Jer. xxix [xxxvi] 1 1 \oyioi>pai e(f> vpas \oyia-p6v eip^s). 
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 Klopper, 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 peragv ak\r]\wv 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 ptra^v aov ko.1 clvtov povov) derives that part 
of its meaning from povov, not from pcTa£v. 

r\ kcu : ' or even/ ' or it may be,' implying that d7ro\. is the ex- 
ception, KaTTjy. the rule. 

16. The best way to punctuate is probably to put (in English) 
a colon after ver. 13, and a semi-colon at the end of ver. 15 : ver. 
16 goes back to SiKai(o6t}<Tovrai in ver. 13, or rather forms a conclu- 
sion to the whole paragraph, taking up again the b f^uipa of ver. 5. 
The object of vv. 13-15 is to explain how it comes about that 
Gentiles who have no law may yet be judged as if they had one : 
they have a second inferior kind of law, if not any written precepts 
yet the law of conscience ; by this law they will be judged when 
quick and dead are put upon their trial. 

Orig., with his usual acuteness, sees the difficulty of connecting 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, velnt in certs, ita in corde nostro. 
These marks God can see (ed. Lomm. p. 109). 

4v f|jji€p(j ore (et WH. marg.) : hv jf fjpipa B, WH. text: \v ijpepq. rj A, 
Pesh. Boh. al, WH. marg. ' 

8ia 'I-qaov XpuaToO (fit WH. marg.) : Sta Xpiarod 'Irjaov NB, Orig., Tisch. 
WH. text. 

Kpiyei : might be Kplvei, as RV. marg., fut. regarded as certain. 
KaTd t6 euayYeXioi/ fxou. The point to which St. Paul's Gospel, 
or habitual teaching, bears witness is, not that God will judge the 
world (which was an old doctrine), but that He will judge it through 
Jesus Christ as His Deputy (which was at least new in its applica- 
tion, though the Jews expected the Messiah to act as Judge, Enoch 
xlv, xlvi, with Charles' notes). 

The phrase Kara rb evayy. fiov 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 faat 
Si, Eus. H. E. III. iv. 8^, that wherever St. Paul spoke of ' his Gospel* he 
meant the Gospel of St, Luke, 



II. 17-29. The Jew may boast of his possession of a special 
Revelation and a written Law, but all the time his practice 
shows that he is really no better than the Gentile (vv. 1 7-24). 
And if he takes his stand on Circumcision, that too is of 
value only so far as it is moral and spiritual. In this moral 
and spiritual circumcision the Gentile also may share (vv. 

17 Do you tell me that you bear the proud name of Jew, that 
you repose on a written law as the charter of your salvation ? Do 
you boast that Jehovah is your God, 18 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 ? 
19 Do you give yourself out with so much assurance as a guide to 
the poor blind Gentile, a luminary to enlighten his darkness ? 20 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? 
21 Boastful Jew ! How does your practice comport with your 
theory ? So ready to teach others, do you need no teaching your- 
self? The eighth 22 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? 2s You vaunt the possession of a law; and by the 
violation of that law you affront and dishonour God Who gave it. 
24 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. 

25 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. 2e 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 ? 
27 And uncircumcised as he is, owing to his Gentile birth, yet if he 


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. 28 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. 
29 But he who is inwardly and secretly a Jew is the true Jew ; and 
the moral and spiritual circumcision is that which really deserves 
the name. The very word ' Jew ' — descendant of Judah — means 
'praise' (Gen. xxix. 35). And such a Jew has his 'praise/ not 
from man but from God. 

17. El S^ABD* at., Latt. Pesh. Boh. Arm. Aeth., &c. : *1& 
D C L al, Hard., Chrys. al. The authorities for tl 8e include all the 
oldest MSS., all the leading versions, and the oldest Fathers : i8e is 
an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the construction 
slightly easier. Reading ei fie the apodosis of the sentence begins 
at ver. 21. 

'lou&aios : here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew 
it would have a tendency to do) to 'io-pa^XiV^?, a member of the 
Chosen People, opposed to the heathen. 

Strictly speaking, 'E/3/xxfos, opp. 'EWrjviar^, calls attention to language ; 
'lovSatos, opp. v E\\r]v, calls attention to nationality ; 'laparjXirijs — a member 
of the theocracy, in possession of full theocratic privileges (Trench, Syn. 
§ xxxix, p. 132 ff.). The word 'lovSatos does not occur in LXX (though 
'lo.vhaiap.6s is found four times in 2 Mace), but at this date it is the common 
word ; 'EPpatos and 'loparjX'iTrjs 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 dixi coram te, Domine, quoniam dixisti eas (sc. gentes) nil esse, et 
quoniam salivae assimilatae sunt, et quasi stillicidiu?n de vase similasti 
habundantiam eorum. 

iirovoy,dlri : ' bearest the name ' : iwovofiatwxz' to impose a name/ 
pass. ' to have a name imposed.' 

ciramirauY) i'ojjiw : ' have a law to lean upon ' : so (without art.) 
«ABD*; 'but it is not surprising that the later MSS. should 
make the statement more definite, ' lean upon the Law.' For few. 
(requiescis Vulg.) cf. Mic. iii. 1 1 ; Ezek. xxix. 7 : the word implies 
at once the sense of support and the saving of ill-directed labour 
which resulted to the Jew from the possession of a law. 

icauxaarai iv Ocw: suggested by Jer. ix. 24 'let him that glorieth 
glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am 
the Lord.' 

Kauxaom : for «aux?> stopping at the first step in the process of con- 
traction {Kavx^fCfai, Kavxaaat, Kavx^). This is one of the forms which used 


to be called ' Alexandrine,' but which simply belong to the popular Greek 
current at the time (Hort, Introd. p. 304). ttavxacrai occurs also in 1 Cor. 
iv. 7, KaranavxaffaL Rom. xi. 18 ; comp. odvvaaai Luke xvi. 2;, and from un- 
contracted verbs, (pdytaai . . . trUaai Luke xvii. 8, dvvaaai Matt. v. 36 (but 
dvvri Mark ix. 22) ; see Win. Gr. xiii. 2 b (p. 90). 

18. t6 0Arjji,a. 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). 

8oici|md£€is tA 8ia<|>epoi'Ta : probas utiliora Cod. Clarom. Rufin. 
Vulg. ; non modo prae malis bona sed in bonis optima Beng. on 
Phil. i. 10, where the phrase recurs exactly. Both words are 
ambiguous : 8oKipd((iv = (i) ' to test, assay, discern ' ; (ii) ' to 
approve after testing' (see on i. 28); and ra duKpepovra 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. (SiaKpiveu ra 

8ia<p€povTa aWrfKayW olov ko\6v k<u kcikov, dperfjv Kal Kaiciav), Fri. De W. 

Oltr. Go. Lips. Mou. The rendering of RV. ('approvest the 
things that are excellent') is adopted by Latt. Orig. (ita ut non 
solum quae sint bona scias, verum etiam quae sint meliora et utiliora 
discernas), most English Versions, Mey. Lft. Gif. Lid. (Chrys. does 
not distinguish ; Va is undecided). The second rendering is the 
more pointed. 

KaTrjXoufAeeos eic tou vo\iov : cf. Acts. XV. 21. 

19 > iremnOas k.t.K. The common construction after iriiroi$as is oti : ace. 
and infin. is very rare. It seems better, with Vaughan, to take oeavrov 
closely with niiroiOas, ' and art persuaded as to thyself that thou art,' &c. 

oStjyov . . . tu<|>\wv. It is natural to compare Matt. xv. 14 rv<p\oi elffiv 
6877701 TV(pXu>v k.t.X. ; 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, Erldut. 
d. Evang. on Matt, xxiii. 16. The same epithet was given by a Galilaean 
to R. Chasda, Baba Kama fol. 52a.' 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. TraiSeuTTji' : 'a schoolmaster,' with the idea of discipline, 
correction, as well as teaching ; cf. Heb. xii. 9. 

it)tiw : 'infants,' opp. to reXnoi, 'adults,' as in Heb. v. 13, 14. 

fxop<J>uo-ti' : ' outline,' ' delineation,' ' embodiment/ As a rule 
<r\rip,a = outward form as opp. to inward substance, while popepfj 
= outward form as determined by inward substance ; so that 
(TxvH- a i s tne variable, pbpcpf) 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 



expression of Divine truth, so far as it went. It is more difficult to 

account for 2 Tim. iii. 5 fX 0VTes pop(pco(riv (iae^das ttjv 8e bvvap.iv 
avrrjs rjpvrjfiepoi. 

See however Lft. in Journ. of Class, and Sacr. Philol. (1857) iii. 115 
1 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 oyjipa, he still 
avoids using popcp-q as inappropriate, and adopts pdpQwais instead (Rom. ii. 
20; 2 Tim. iii. 5), where the termination -wais denotes "the aiming after or 
affecting the ^0^77." ' Can this quite be made good ? 

21. ouV : 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. 1. 

KXtTpmv : infin. because K-qpvaaojv contains the idea of command. 

22. pSeXuo-aofjici'os : used of the expression of physical disgust, 
esp. of the Jew's horror at idolatry. 

Note the piling up of phrases in Deut. vii. 16 ieal ovk claoiaeis PoeXvypa 
[here of the gold and silver- plates with which idols were overlaid] its 
rbv oTkov gov, kcli tar) avaOrjfia wGircp tovto, irpoaoxOicfiari irpoaoxOiiis Kal 
Pfi(\vypaTi @5c\v£ri, on avadrjpa kanv. Comp. also Dan. xii. 1 1 ; 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 palam baiulare idola 
eorum inquinata. 

Upoo-uXeis. "The passage just quoted (Deut. vii. 26 with 25), 
Joseph. Ant. IV. viii. 10, and Acts xix. 37 (where the town-clerk 
asserts that St. Paul and his companions were ' not lepoa-vXoC) 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 Btekvyim to him unless 
it had been previously desecrated by Gentiles. But for this the Jew might 
have thought that in depriving the heathen of their idol he was doing a good 
work. See the passages in Delitzsch ad loc. ; also on Upoavkia, which must 
not be interpreted too narrowly, Lft., Ess. on Supern. Ret. p. 299 f. ; 
Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 144 n., where it is noted 
that UpoavXia was just one of the crimes which a provincial governor could 
proceed against by his own imperium. 

The Eng. Versions of Upoavkeis 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 

indie. (6 diddo-Kcw . . . os /cav^ao-at). 


24. A free adaptation of Is. Hi. 5 (LXX). Heb. ■ And con- 
tinually all the day long My Name is blasphemed ' : LXX adds to 
this 81 vpas and cV rois eduea-tv. St. Paul omits Stanavros and changes 

(XOV to tov Qeov. 

The original meant that the Name of God was reviled by the 
tyrants and oppressors of Israel : St. Paul, following up a suggestion 
in the LXX (81 vfxas), 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. v6|aov irpao-<TT|s. On the absence of the art. see especially the scholarly 
note in Va. : ' It is almost as if vofiov Trpaaaeiv and vofiov Ttapa^arnjs were 
severally like vofxodcruv, vofiocpvKaKtiv, &c., vop.o9(Tr]s, vofio5i8daKa\os, &c, 
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.' 

■y«-yov€v: 'is by that very fact become.' Del. quotes the realistic ex- 
pression given to this idea in the Jewish fancy that God would send his 
angel to remove the marks of circumcision on the wicked. 

26. els ircpiTopji' \oyKrQ-f\aerai : \oyi£taBai eiy ti = \oyi(tadai els to 
clvai ti, ds denoting result, ' so as to be in place of/ ' reckoned as 
a substitute or equivalent for' (Fri., Grm.-Thay. s. v. \oyi£o(iai 1 a). 

Of the synonyms Tijpeiv, (pvXaooeiv, re\uv ; rrjpfiv = ' to keep an eye upon,' 
' to observe carefully ' (and then do) ; <pv\aaativ = ' to guard as a deposit/ 
' to preserve intact ' against violence from without or within ; reXeiv = ' to 
bring (a law) to its proper fulfilment ' in action ; r-qpuv and <pv\aooziv are 
both from the point of view of the agent, reXuv from that of the law which 
is obeyed. See Westcott on Jo. xvii. 12; 1 Jo. ii. 3. 

27. Kpiyei: 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 

t} ck <j>uaews dicpopucrrta : 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' (i< <£ua-. = </)uo-ei v. 14). 

8id of 'attendant circumstances' as in iv. 11, viii. 25, xiv. 20; 
Anglice ' 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, \\sup. We may 

F 2 


compare Phil. iii. 3, where St. Paul claims that Christians represent 
the true circumcision. 

28. 6 4v Ttp 4>av€pai. The Greek of this and the next verse is elliptical, 
and there is some ambiguity as to how much belongs to the subject and how 
much to the predicate. Even accomplished scholars like Dr. Gifford and 
Dr. 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 is a Jew . . . but he who is [a Jew] in secret is a Jew ') ; 
but it is a drawback to this view of the construction that it separates nepiTOfxr] 
and icapSias :. 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. irepiTojxT) KapSias. The idea of a spiritual (heart-) circum- 
cision goes back to the age of Deuteronomy; Deut. x. 16 irepirc- 

fi.e'ia-Be ttjv (TK\r)poKap&iau vp.a>v : Jer. iv. 4 TrepLTfxrjflrjTe tg> QeS vfiaiv, kcu 
7reptTep,€(rd€ ttju <TK\r)poKapftlav vp,S>v I cf. Jer. IX. 26 ', Ezek. xliv. ^> 

Acts vii. 51. Justin works out elaborately the idea of the Christian 
circumcision, Dial. c. Tryph 114. 

6 cirau'os. 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). 


III. 1-8. This argument may suggest three objections: 
(i) If the moral Gentile is better off than the immoral Jew, 
what becomes of the Jew's advantages ? — ANSWER. He still 
has many. His {e.g.) are the promises (vv. 1-2). (ii) But 
has not the Jews unbelief cancelled those promises? — 
ANSW 7 ER. No unbelief on the part of man can affect the 
pledged word of God: it only serves to enhance His faithful- 
ness (vv. 3, 4). (iii) If that is the result of his action, why 
should man be judged? — Answer. He certainly will be 
judged: we may not say (as I am falsely accused of saying), 
Do evil that good may come (vv. 5-8). 

1 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 ? 2 He does gain much 
on all sides. The first gain is that to the Jews were committed 


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

3 You say, But the Jews by their unbelief have forfeited their 
share in those prophecies. And I admit that some Jews have 
rejected Christianity, in which they are fulfilled. What then ? 
The promises of God do not depend on man. He will keep His 
word, whatever man may do. 4 To suggest otherwise were 
blasphemy. Nay, God must be seen to be true, though all man- 
kind are convicted of falsehood. Just as in Ps. li, the Psalmist 
confesses that the only effect of his own sin will be that (in 
forensic metaphor) God will be * declared righteous ' in His sayings 
[the promises just mentioned], and gain His case when it is brought 
to trial. 

6 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.) 6 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. 

7 If, you say, as in the case before us, the truthfulness of 
God in performing His promises is only thrown into relief by my 
infidelity, which thus redounds to His glory, why am I still like 
other offenders (*<«') brought up for judgement as a sinner ? 

8 So the objector. And I know that this charge of saying 
' Let us do evil that good may come ' is brought with slanderous 
exaggeration against me — as if the stress which I lay on faith 
compared with works meant, Never mind what your actions are, 
provided only that the end you have in view is right. 

All I will say is that the judgement which these sophistical 
reasoners will receive is richly deserved. 

Iff. It is characteristic of this Epistle that St. Paul seems 
to imagine himself face to face with an opponent, and that he 
discusses and answers arguments which an opponent might bring 
against him (so iii. iff., iv. iff., vi. iff., 15 ff., vii. 7 ff.). No 
doubt this is a way of presenting the dialectical process in his own 
mind. But at the same time it is a way which would seem to 
have been suggested by actual experience of controversy with 
Jews and the narrower Jewish Christians. We are told expressly 

7© EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 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. i, 15 restate this charge in Pauline language. The Apostle 
as it were takes it up and gives it out again as if it came in the 
logic of his own thought. And the other charge of levelling down 
all the Jew's privileges, of ignoring the Old Testament and dis- 
paraging its saints, was one which must as inevitably have been 
brought against St. Paul as the like charges were brought against 
St. Stephen (Acts vi. 13 f.). It is probable however that St. Paul 
had himself wrestled with this question long before it was pointed 
against him as a weapon in controversy ; and he propounds it in 
the order in which it would naturally arise in that stress of reason- 
ing, pro and con, which went to the shaping of his own system. 
The modified form in which the question comes up the second 
time (ver. 9) shows — if our interpretation is correct — that St. Paul is 
there rather following out his own thought than contending with 
an adversary. 

1. to Tvepiao-oV. That which encircles a thing necessarily 
lies outside it. Hence irepi would seem to have a latent meaning 
' beyond,' which is appropriated rather by nepa, ntpav, but comes out 
in 7rep«rcrds, ' that which is in excess/ ' over and above.' 

2. irpwTOf piv : intended to be followed by t-nara 8e, 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. 

irpuTov (iev yap : om. yap B D* E G minusc. pauc, verss. plur., Chrys. 
Orig.-lat. al, [yap'] WH. 

«irio-T€u0T]orav. mania), in the sense of ' entrust,' ' confide,' takes ace. of 
the thing entrusted, dat. of the person ; e. g. Jo. ii. 24 6 Se 'Irjaovs ovk km- 
arevev eavr6v [rather avrbv or avrov] avrois. In the passive the dat. 
becomes nom., and the ace. remains unchanged (Buttmann, pp. 175, 189, 190 ; 
"Winer, xxxii. 5 [p. 287] ; cf. I Cor. ix. 17 ; Gal. ii. 7). 

-ret Xoyia. 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 

The old account of \6yiov as a dimin. of \6yos is probably correct, though 
Mey.-W. make it neut. of Xoyios on the ground that Koyidiov is the proper 
dimin. The form \0yi810v is rather a strengthened dimin., which by a process 
common in language took the place of \6yiov when it acquired the special 
sense of ' oracle.' From Herod, downwards Xoyiov = * 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 ' {ntpi tSjv 
oiica Xoyiwv is the title of Philo's treatise). So in LXX the expression is 
used of the ' word of the Lord ' five times in Isaiah and frequently in the 
Psalms (no less than seventeen times in Ps. cxix [cxviii]). From this usage 
it was natural that it should be transferred to the 'sayings' of the Lord 
Jesus (Polyc. ad Phil. vii. 1 bs av i mMfit j t& \6yia tov Kvpiov : cf. Iren. 


Adv. Haer. I praef. ; also Weiss, Einl. § 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 Koyia rov Kvpiov which 
Papias ascribes to St. Matthew, as well as his own \oyicuv /cvpiaKuiv igrjyqaeis 
(Eus. H. E. III. xxxix. 16 and 1) were or were not limited to discourse (see 
especially Lightfoot, Ess, on Supern. Kel. p. 172 ff.). 

3. T\TTiaTf]<Tav . . . dmoria. 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 (dir«TTea> occurs seven times, in which the only apparent 
exception to this sense is 2 Tim. ii. 13, and dma-Tia eleven times, 
with no clear exception) ; (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. xi. 20 

777 anMTTiq i^eKKda6t]crav, av de 177 7ri'oTfi eaTrjKas. At the Same time 

the one sense rather suggests than excludes the other ; so that the 
imiaTia of man is naturally contrasted with the mans of God 
(cf. Va.). 

mani' : ' faithfulness ' to His promises ; cf. Lam. iii. 23 noWf] 17 

TriaTis arov : JPs. Sol. viii. 35 17 7ri(TTis aov peff fjpaiv. 

KaTapY^aei. Karapyelv (from Kara, causative and dpyos = dtpyos) 

— ' 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 Xva Karapy^dp to acopa tt}? apaprlas, ' that the body as 

an instrument of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless ' ; 
(ii) in a figurative sense, ' to render invalid,' ' abrogate,' ' abolish ' 

(rr)v enayyeXiav Gal. iii. 1 7 ; vop.ov Rom. iii. 31). 

4. fir) Y^ otTO : ^ formula of negation, repelling with horror 
something previously suggested. ' Fourteen of the fifteen N. T. 
instances are in Paul's writings, and in twelve of them it expresses 
the Apostle's abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be 
falsely drawn from his argument' (Burton, M. and 7. § 177 ; cf. 
also Lft. on Gal. ii. 17). 

It is characteristic of the vehement impulsive style of this group of Epp. 
that the phrase is confined to them (ten times in Rom., once in 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). 

ywio-Qw : 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.' 

ci\t]9tjs : as keeping His plighted word. 

y % EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 4, 5. 

\|i€uoty)s : in asserting that God's promises have not been fulfilled. 

Ka0ws YcypairTai : ' Even as it stands written.' The quotation is 
exact from LXX of Ps. li [1]. 6. Note the mistranslations in LXX 
(which St. Paul adopts), mkwbc (or vi^o-et?) for insons sis, lv ™ 
Kplveo-Oai (pass.) for in iudicando 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. 

owtos dv: av points to an unexpressed condition, 'in case a decision is 

SiKaiwGrjs: 'that thou mightest be pronounced righteous* by 
the judgement of mankind ; see p. 30 f. above, and compare Matt. xi. 

19 Ka\ idiKaiaGr) i] aoCpla anb tqhv Zpyoov (v. 1. reicvav : cf. Lk. vii. 35) 
avrrjs. Test XII Patr. Sym. 6 on-toy 8iKaia>da> dno ttjs apaprias rwv 
■fyvx&v vpS>v. Ps. Sol. li. 16 cyo) diKaiaxrco are 6 Qeos. The usage 

occurs repeatedly in this book ; see Ryle and James ad loc. 

lv tois Xoyois o-oo : not ' pleadings ' (Va.) but ' sayings,' i. e. the 
Aoyia just mentioned. Heb. probably = ' judicial sentence.' 

i/iktjo-tis : like vincere, of ' gaining a suit,' opp. to TjTraaBat : the 
full phrase is vmdv ti\v diiajv (Eur. EL 955, &c). 

viktio-TISj B G K L &c. ; vnajaas N A D E, minusc aliq. Probably vucqaeis 
is right, because of the agreement of NA with the older types of Western 
Text, thus representing two great families. The reading viicqaris 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 : viK-qaris is the reading of N B (def. A), 
viKrjoeis of some fourteen cursives. The text of LXX used by St. Paul differs 
not seldom from that of the great uncials. 

KpiycaOcu : probably not mid. (' to enter upon trial,' ' go to law,' 
lit. 'get judgment for oneself) as Mey. Go. Va. Lid., but pass, 
as in ver. 7 (so Vulg. Weiss Kautzsch, &c. ; see the arguments 
from the usage of LXX and Heb. in Kautzsch, De Vet. Test. Locis 
a Paulo allegatis, p. 24 n.). 

5. rj ctSiKta tjjawi': a general statement, including dmaTia. In 
like manner Qeov 8ncaioo-vi>r)v is general, though the particular 
instance which St. Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God 
to His promises. 

auntmjo-i: avvlanjfu (avpia-rdvoi) 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. avo-TciTiKdi eVtoroXai 2 Cor. iii. 1) ; (ii) 'to put 
together' or 'make good' by argument, 'to prove,' 'establish' 


(compositis collectisque quae rem contineant argumentis aliquid doceo 
Fritzsche), as in Rom. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. vii. 11 • Gal. ii. 18 (where see 
Lft. and Ell.). 

Both meanings are recognized by Hesych. (o-vviaraveiv' kiraivdv, <pai/epovv, 
fifficuovv, irapandevai) ; but it is rather strange that neither comes out clearly 
in the varied uses of the word in LXX ; the second is found in Susann. 
61 aveffTtjaav kirl tovs 8vo irpeopvTas, on avviaTijatv avroiis Aavir}\ (Theod.). 

ti ipoup-ev : another phrase, like pfj -yeVon-o, which is charac- 
teristic of this Epistle, where it occurs seven times ; not elsewhere 
in N. T. 

(IT) aSiKos : the form of question shows that a negative answer is 
expected (jiff originally meant ' Don't say that,' &c). 

6 iiTL^ipiav rt]v 6pyY\v : most exactly, ' the inflicter of the anger ' 
(Va.). The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on i. 18, 
xii. 19. 

Burton however makes 6 em<p€p<»v strictly equivalent to a relative clause, 
and like a relative clause suggest a reason ('Who visiteth ' = * because He 
visiteth') M. and T. § 428. 

icaT& ayOpwirov Xiyw: 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 

fif) Kara avOpatirou ravra AaAco : 2 Cor. xi. 1 7 6 XaXa>, ov Kara Kvpiov 

6. etrcl irws Kpivct : 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. 

€i«C: 'since, if that were so, if the inflicting of punishment necessarily 
implied injustice.' 'End gets the meaning 'if so,' 'if not' ('or else'), from 
the context, the clause to which it points being supposed to be repeated : 
here tirei sc. d dSitcos tarai 6 kirupipcuv tj)v dpyfjv (cf. Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk. p. 359). 

ihv ko'ojaoi' : all mankind. 

el 8< KA minusc. pauc, Vulg. cod. Boh., Jo.-Damasc, Tisch. WH. text. 
RV. text. ; d yap B D E G K L P &c, Vulg. Syrr. , Orig.-lat. Chrys. at., W H. 
tnarg. RV. marg. The second reading may be in its origin Western. 

7. The position laid down in ver. 5 is now discussed from the side 
of man, as it had just been discussed from the side of God. 

d\ii0eia: the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises; 
yjfevapa, the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as 
in ver. 4). 

Kayw : ' I too,' as well as others, though my falsehood thus 

74 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 7, 8. 

redounds to God's glory. St. Paul uses the first person from 
motives of delicacy, just as in i Cor. iv. 6 he ' transfers by a fiction ' 
(Dr. Field's elegant rendering of /ueT-efT^/ncmo-a) 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 7roir)cra>pev 
tci Kcuta tta e\6r) to. dyadd is made to do duty for both these trains of 
thought, in the one case connected in idea and construction with 
tL . . . fir], in the other with Xeyovcnv on. This could be brought 
out more clearly by modern devices of punctuation : rt en icdyco &>$• 

afiaprcokos, icplvofiai J ko.1 iri J /xt) — Kadoos j3\acr(pr}povfj.e6a, kcu Kadcos (pacri 

rives rjfjias Xe'yeiv on — noir)fT<ofX€v k.t.X. There is a very similar con- 
struction in vv. 25, 26, where the argument works up twice over to 
the same words, tls [77/369] tt)v evda^w rrjs ducaioo-vvtis airov, 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 vv. 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. 

wk to Kplfxa k.t.X. This points back to W fr« icdyoo Kplvo/xai. ; 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. 


III. 9-20. If the case of us Jews is so bad, are the 
Gentiles any better ? No. The same accusation covers both. 
The Scriptures speak of the universality of human guilt, 
which is laid down in Ps. xiv and graphically described in 
Pss. v, cxl, x, in Is. lix, and again in Ps. xxxvi. And if 


the Jew is equally guilty zvitk 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 L,azv, has proved a failure. 
Lazu can reveal sin, but not remove it. 

9 To return from this digression. What inference are we to 
draw ? Are the tables completely turned ? Are we Jews not only 
equalled but surpassed (npoexofifQa 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, ii. 17-29) proves that they are equally under the dominion 
of sin. 10 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. 12 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. 13 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. u So, as it is described in 
Ps. x. 7, throat, tongue, and lips are full of nothing but cursing 
and venom. 15 Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX 
of Is. lix. 7, 8] : They run with eager speed to commit murder. 
16 Their course is marked by ruin and misery. 17 With smiling 
paths of peace they have made no acquaintance. 18 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. 

19 Thus all the world has sinned. And not even the Jew can 
claim exemption from the consequences of his sin. For when the 
Law of Moses denounces those consequences it speaks especially 
to the people to whom it was given. By which it was designed 


that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse, 
and that all mankind might be held accountable to God. 

20 This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By works of 
Law (i. e. by an attempted fulfilment of Law) no mortal may hope 
to be declared righteous in God's sight. For the only effect of 
Law is to open men's eyes to their own sinfulness, not to enable 
them to do better. That method, the method of works, has 
failed. A new method must be found. 

9. ti ouv ; ' What then [follows] ? ' Not with npoexofifda, because 
that would require in reply oibev irdvrcos, not ov Tram-as. 

irpoexofJteda is explained in three ways : as intrans. in the same 
sense as the active Trpoexco, as trans, with its proper middle force, 
and as passive, (i) npoexo^Ba mid. = 7rpoex"H-^ (praecel/imus eos 
Vulg. ; and so the majority of commentators, ancient and modern, 

*A/)« 7T€picra6v ex°l xfV7ta P a tovs "EWrjvas ', Euthym.-Zig. ex°J ue ' 1 ' ti Ttktov 

Ka\ cvdoKinovpev oi 'iouSmot ; 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 
npoexopfv, the common form in such contexts, (ii) 7rpoex6fX(8a 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 ovv cannot be combined with npoexop-^n 
because of oh navTcos. (in) Trpo€x6p.(Ba passive, ' Are we excelled ? ' 
1 Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles) ? ' a rare use, but still 
one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, Ot. Now. Ill 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 historic, it 
lies in the possession of superior privileges ; the practical equality 
of Jew and Gentile is in regard to their present moral condition 
(ch. ii. 17-29 balanced against ch. i. 18-32). In this latter respect 
St. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places 
(ii. 25-29). A few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take npoexop-fdn as pass., 
but give it the same sense as npoe'xopfv, ' Are we (Jews) preferred 
(to the Gentiles) in the sight of God ? ' 

irpotxoiJ*Oa. : v. 1. 7rpo«aT€X°A t€l/ mpiaaov D* G, 31 ; Antiochene Fathers 
(Chrys. [ed. Field] Theodt. Severianus', alsoOrig.-lat. Ambrstr. (some MSS. 
but not the best, tenemus amfliut) : a gloss explaining vpo^x- in the same 

III. 9, 10.] 



way as Vulg. and the later Greek commentators quoted above. A L read 

ou irdn-ws. Strictly speaking ov should qualify irdvrcn, * not 
altogether,' ' not entirely/ as in i Cor. v. io oC naurm to'is nopvms 
tov Koafiov tovtuv : but in some cases, as here, Trduras qualifies ov, 
1 altogether not/ ' entirely not,' i. e. ' not at all ' (nequaquam Vulg., 
nida/xws Theoph.). Compare the similar idiom in ov trdw ; and see 
Win. Gr. lxi. 5. 

irpoT)TiaadfA€0a : in the section i. 1 8 — ii. 29. 

v<j)' ap-ap-nav. In Biblical Greek xmo with dat. has given place entirely to 
vtro with ace. Matt. viii. 9 dvOpanrus elfu vno i£ovoiav is a strong case. The 
change has already taken place in LXX ; e. g Deut. xxxiii. 3 navrfs ol 
■qyiaaixivoi vitb rds x € ?pds oov, ical ovtoi vtto ak et<n. 

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. 25 f. ; 27 f. ; xi. 26 f. ; 34 f. ; xii. 19 f. ; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Here the 
passages are from Pss. xiv [xiii]. 1-3 (=Ps. liii. 1-3 [lii. 2-4]), 
ver. 1 free, ver. 2 abridged, ver. 3 exact; v. 9 [10] exact; cxl. 3 
[exxxix. 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 LXXj as an 
appendage to ver. 4 in the 'common' text of the LXX \ 17 koivtj, i.e. the 
unrevised text current in the time of Origen). They are still found in Codd. 
N* B R U and many cursive MSS. of LXX (om. N Cft 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 Hexapla), though marked with 
an obelus after the example of Origen. The obelus dropped out, and they 
are commonly printed in the Vulgate text of the Psalms, which is practically 
the Gallican. From the Vulgate they travelled into Coverdale's Bible 
(a.d. 1535) ; from thence into Matthew's (Rogers') Bible, which in the 

78 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 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 161 1. 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, quod multi ignorantes, de 
tertio decimo psalmo sumptum putant, qui versus \pTi\oi\ in editione Vulgata 
[i. e. the Koivrj of the LXX] additi sunt et in Hebraico non habentur (Hieron. 
Opp. ed. Migne, iv. 601 ; comp. the preface to the same book, ibid. 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, SUmos for ttoivv 
XprjaTOTrjTa and ovSe ds for ovk eartp e<os evos. 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 diKaios ' shall live by faith ' ; but till the coming of Christianity 
there was no true Stjaurc 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. ouk e<rriv 6 truviav: non est qui intelligat (rather than qui 
intelligit) ; Anglice, ' there is none to understand/ [But A B G, 
and perhaps Latt. Orig.-lat. Ambrstr., WH. text read crvwdr, as also 
(B)C WH. text (KCnriyy, without the art. after LXX. This would = 
non est intelligens, non est requirens Deum (Vulg.) ' There is 
no one of understanding, there is no inquirer after God.' J 

6 o-vviwv : on the form see Win. Gr. § xiv, 16 (ed. 8 ; xiv, 3 E. T.) ; Hort, 
Intr. Notes on Orthog. p. 1 67 ; also for the accentuation, Fri. p. 1 74 f. 
Both forms, Gvutco and awiu, are found, and either accentuation, ovviwv or 
avvlwv, may be adopted : probably the latter is to be preferred ; cf. tfcpie from 
a<pia) Mk. i. 34, xi. 16. 

12. fi/m : ' one and all.' 

fjxpeiej0T]CTay : Heb. = ' to go bad,' ' become sour,' like milk ; 
comp. the dxpeios 8ovXos of Matt. xxv. 30. 
iroiwv (sine artic.) ABG&c. WH. text. 

XpTjaTOTT]Ta = ' goodness ' in the widest sense, with the idea of 
' utility ' rather than specially of ' kindness,' as in ii. 4. 


?o)s f'vos : cp. the Latin idiom ad unum omnes (Vulg. literally usque ad 
UHtini). B 67**, WH. marg. omit the second ovk Iotiv [ovk tonv roiv* 
XPV^TOTTjTa Zcos Ms]. The readings of B and its allies in these verses are 
open to some suspicion of assimilating to a text of LXX. In vef. 14 B 17 
add uvtuiv ($)v to aro/xa avrcov) corresponding to avrov in B's text of Ps x 7 
[ix. 28]. ' * 

13. t<*<J>o S . . . iZokioOaav. The LXX of Ps. v. 9 [10] corre- 
sponds pretty nearly to Heb; The last clause = rather linguam 
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. 

ISoXioOo-av : Win. Gr. § xiii, 14 (ed. 8 ; xiii, 2/. E. T.). The termina- 
tion -Tav, extended from imperf. and 2nd aor. of verbs in -fu to verbs in -co, 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.' 

ids <Woa>i>: Ps. cxl. 3 [cxxxix. 4]. The position of the poison- 
bag of the serpent is rightly described. The venom is more 
correctly referred to the bite (as in Num. xxi. 9; Prov. xxiii. 32), 
than to the forked tongue (Job xx. 16): see art. 'Serpent' in 
D.B. 1 v 

14. Ps. x. 7 somewhat freely from LXX [ix. 28]: ol dpZs to 
(TTofia avToi yefxei ku\ TTocplas koI 86\ov. St. Paul retains the rel. but 
changes it into the plural : aroaa avrcov B 17, Cypr., WH. marg. 

iriKpia : Heb. more lit. =/raudes. 

15-17. This quotation of Is. lix. 7, 8 is freely abridged from the 
LXX ; and as it is also of some interest from its bearing upon 
the text of the LXX used by St. Paul, it may be well to give the 
original and the quotation side by side. 

Rom. iii. 15-17. Is. lix. 7, 8. 

o£fis ul Tropes avrcov eVf^fcu alfia' ol 8e nobes avrcov [eVt novr/piav 

(Tvurpififxa kcu rakamcopia iv rdls rpc'xoutn] ra^tvot eVc^e'cu alpa [/<ai ol 

0801s avrcov, icdi 686v elprjvrjs ovk 8ia\oyio~pol avrcov 8ia\oyio-p.ol citto 

eyvcocrav. (povcov]. crvvrpiufia /cat raXaiircopia 

iv TOLS 68o'lS aVTCOU KCU 6$6v (IprjVTJS 

ovk otdaai [ical ovk eon Kpicrts iv 
rdls 68dis avrcov\. 

atfia dvairtov Theodotion, and probably also Aquila and Symmachus. 
[From the Hexapla this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX.] 

a<ppovcov (for and cpovcov) A tf : oihaai N 1 B Q*, &c. : lyvcoaav A Q 1 marg. 
(Q = Cod. Marchalianus, XII Holmes) minusc. aliq. 

19. What is the meaning of this verse ? Does it mean that the 
passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (6 vop,os =0. T. ; 

80 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 19, 20. 

Popov rffP rraXaiav ypa(f>fjv ovofidfci, rjs fiepos ra npoCprjTiKd 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 (6 vopos = the Pentateuch) affirming 
the connexion between sin and punishment. So Gif. Both interpre- 
tations give a good sense. [For though (i) does not strictly prove 
that all men are guilty but only that the Jews are guilty, this was 
really the main point which needed proving, because the Jews were 
apt to explain away the passages which condemned them, and held 
that — whatever happened to the Gentiles — they would escape.] 
The question really turns upon the meaning of 6 vofxos. It is 
urged, (i) that there is only a single passage in St. Paul where 
6 vop-os clearly =0. T. (i Cor. xiv. 21, a quotation of Is. xxviii. 11) : 
compare however Jo. x. 34 (= Ps. lxxxii. 6), xv. 25 (= Ps. 
xxxv. 19) ; (ii) that in the corresponding clause, rots iv r<» vo/xa 
must = the Law, in the narrower sense ; (iii) that in ver. 2 1 the 
Law is expressly distinguished from the Prophets. 

Yet these arguments are hardly decisive : for (i) the evidence is 
sufficient to show that St. Paul might have used 6 vopos 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 o ddvaros in ch. v. 1 2). 

Oltr. also goes a way of his own, but makes vop.os = Law in the 
abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience, and for the 
Jew the law of Moses), which is contrary to the use of 6 vopos. 

Xfyci . . . XaXei : \eyciv calls attention to the substance of what 
is spoken, XaKclv to the outward utterance ; cf. esp. M c Clellan, 
Gospels, p. 383 ff. 

$>po-yr\ : cf. dvairo\6yr)Tos i. 20, ii. I ; the idea comes up at each 
step in the argument. 

uttoSikos: not exactly 'guilty before God/ but 'answerable to 
God/ vttoSikos takes gen. of the crime ; dat. of the person injured 

to whom satisfaction is due {ra>v JWXao-iW vit68ikos eara) to> fikacpdcvri 

Plato, Legg. 846 B). So here : all mankind has offended against 
God, and owes Him satisfaction. Note the use of a forensic 

20. Sioti: '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. 

8iKcuw0^aeTai : ' shall be pronounced righteous/ certainly not 
' shall be made righteous ' (Lid.) ; the whole context (iva ndv oro>a 

III. 21-26.] THE NEW SYSTEM 8 1 

4>payfj, vnoducos, cvamov avrov) has reference to a judicial trial and 

irao-a a<£pi : man in his weakness and frailty (i Cor. i. 29 ; 1 Pet. 
i. 24). 

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

III. 21-26. Here then the new order of things comes in. 
In it is offered a Righteousness which comes from God but 
embraces man, by no deserts of his but as a free gift on the 
part of God. This righteousness, (i) though attested by the 
Sacred Books, is independent of any legal system (ver. 21); 
(ii) it is apprehended by faith in Christ, and is as wide as 
mans need (vv. 22, 23) ; (iii) it is 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). 

21 It is precisely such a method which is offered in Christianity. 
We have seen what is the state of the world without it. But now, 
since the coming of Christ the righteousness of God has asserted 
itself in visible concrete form, but so as to furnish at the same 
time a means of acquiring righteousness to man — and that in 
complete independence of law, though the Sacred Books which 
contain the Law and the writings of the Prophets bear witness to 
it. 22 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. 23 The universal gift corresponds to the universal need. 
All men alike have sinned j and all alike feel themselves far from 
the bright effulgence of God's presence. 24 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. 25 When the Messiah suffered upon the 



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 : 26 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. vw\ 8e : ' now,' under the Christian dispensation. Mey. De 
W. Oltr. Go. and others contend for the rendering ' as it is,' on the 
ground that the opposition is between two states, the state under 
Law and the state without Law. But here the two states or 
relations correspond to two periods succeeding each other in order 
of time ; so that wvi may well have its first and most obvious 
meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Rom. xvi. 

25, 26 \iv(TTr\p'iov . . . (fxivepcodevros . . . vvv, Eph. ii. 12, 13 vvvl 
8e . . . fytvr)6r)T€ cyyvs, Col. i. 26, 27 pvarrjpiov to dnoKCKpvppevov . . . 
vvv 8e f(pav€p(i)6rj, 2 Tim. i. 9, IO X ll l >lv T h v 8o6(7crav . . . npb xpovcov 
alcoviLov (pavepcoBflcrav 8e vvv, Heb. ix. 26 vvv\ Se ana£ eVi o~WT(\fia 

Tu>v ala>va>v . . . <rr((pavepc0Tat. It may be observed (i) that the N. T. 
writers constantly oppose the pre-Christian and the Christian 
dispensations to each other as periods (comp. in addition to the 
passages already enumerated Acts xvii. 30 ; Gal. iii. 23, 25, 
iv. 3, 4; Heb. i. 1) ; and (ii) that cpavepovo-dai is constantly used 
with expressions denoting time (add to passages above Tit. i. 3 
Kaipois 18101s, 1 Pet. i. 20 eV eo-xarov tcov \p6va>v). The leading 
English commentators take tl is view. 

X&>pls w>f*ou : ' 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). 

Sikcuoowt] 0€oG : see on ch. i. 17. St. Paul goes on to define 
his meaning. The righteousness which he has in view is essentially 
the righteousness of God ; though the aspect from 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 

III. 21, 22.] THE NEW SYSTEM 83 

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 waylaid 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. 

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). 

Trc^ayepurrcu. Contrast the completed (f»ivepa><ns in Christ and 
the continued imoKahvtyis in the Gospel (ch. i. 16 ) : the verb 
fyavepovaOai is regularly used for the Incarnation with its accompani- 
ments and sequents as outstanding facts of history prepared in the 
secret counsels of God and at the fitting moment * manifested ' to 
the sight of men; so, of the whole process of the Incarnation, 
1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Pet. i. 20; 1 Jo. iii. 5, 8 : of the 
Atonement, Heb. ix. 26: of the risen Christ, Mark xvi. 12, 14; 
John xxi. 14 : of the future coming to Judgement, 1 Pet. v. 4 ; 
1 Jo. ii. 28. The nearest parallels to this verse which speaks of 
the manifestation of Divine 'righteousness' are 2 Tim. i. 10, which 
speaks of a like manifestation of Divine ' grace,' and 1 Jo. i. 2, 
which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the 
principle of ' life.' 

jxapTupoujxeVY] k. t. X. : another instance of the care with which 
St. Paul insists that the new order of things is in no way contrary 
to the old, but rather a development which was duly foreseen and 
provided for: cf. Rom. i. 2, iii. 31, the whole of ch. iv, ix. 25-33; 
x. 16-21; xi. 1-10, 26-29; xv. 8-12; xvi. 26 &c. 

22. oe 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 

irurreus 'It]<toG XpioroG : gen. of object, ' faith in Jesus Christ.' 
This is the hitherto almost universally accepted view, which has 
however been recently challenged in a very carefully worked out 
argument by Prof. Haussleiter of Greifswald {Der Glaube Jesu 
Christiu. 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 

G 2 


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 maris 'Iijaov 
Xpiarov here with the marts &(ov in iii. 3, which are really disparate ; and 
it has so far, we believe, met with no acceptance. 

Tt)cto€ XpicTTOti. B, and apparently Marcion as quoted by Tertullian, 
drop 'Irjaov (so too WH. niarg. ) ; A reads kv XpiarZ 'l-qaov. 

Kal krrl irivTas om. N* A B C, 47. 67**, Boh. Aeth. Arm., Clem. -Alex. 
Orig. Did. Cyr.-Alex. Aug.: ins. DEFGKL &c. km irdvras alone is 
found in Jo. Damasc. Vulg. codd., so that els irdvras Kal km irdvras would 
seem to be a conflation, or combination of two readings originally alterna- 
tives. If it were the true reading els would express 'destination for' all 
believers, km 'extension to' them. 

23. ou ydp con 8ia<rro\f}. 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. 

Tjjxap-roi'. 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. 

uorepoGVTai : see Monro, Homeric Grammar, § 8 (3); mid. voice = 
'feel want/ Gif. well compares Matt. xix. 20 rl en la-repw ; 
(objective, ' What, as a matter of fact, is wanting to me ? ') with 
Luke xv. 14 Ka\ avros fjpgaro va-repeladai (subjective, the Prodigal 
begins to/eel his destitution). 

ttjs 8o|tjs. 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. "rto3 = (i) ' visible brightness or 
splendour' (Acts xxii. 11 ; 1 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. lxxx. 1 ; 
Ex. xxv. 2 2 ; 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 eboi-aaev with Rom. V. 2 err e\mdi ttjs 

III. 23, 24.] THE NEW SYSTEM 85 

86£t]s tov Qfov, viii. 18 tt)v neWovaav ho^av airoKa\v<p6rjvai, 2 Tim. 

ii. 10 fidtqy alu>viuv). The Rabbis held that Adam by the Fall lost 
six things, 'the glory, life (immortality), his stature (which was 
above that of his descendants), the fruit of the field, the fruits of 
trees, and the light (by which the world was created, and which 
was withdrawn from it and reserved for the righteous in the world 
to come).' It is explained that ' the glory ' was a reflection from 
the Divine glory which before the Fall brightened Adam's face 
(Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 214). Clearly St. Paul conceives of this 
glory as in process of being recovered : the physical sense is also 
enriched by its extension to attributes that are moral and 

The meaning of Sofa 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 meridiem, neque noctem, neque ante lucem [perh. for 
antelucium ; vid. Bensly ad loc.\ neque nitorem, neque claritatem, neque 
lucem, nisi solummodo splendorem claritatis Altissimi [perh. = drravyacrua 
So^tjs 'Tif/i<TTov]. In quoting this passage Ambrose has sola Dei fulgehit 
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] quomodo incipiet (peWei) 
vultus eorum fulgere sicut sol, et quomodo incipient stellarum adsimilari 
lumini . . .festinant enim videre vultum [eius\ cui serviunt viventes et 
a quo incipient gloriosi mercedem rtcipere (cf. Matt. xiii. 43). 

24. SiKaioufjici'oi. 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. 6>. § xlv. 
6 b) make 8iKaiovp.ivoi mark a detail in, or assign a proof of, the 
condition described by vo-rfpovvrai. In this case there would be 
a slight stress on do>p«xv: men are far from God's glory, because the 
state of righteousness has to be given them ; they do nothing for 
it. But this is rather far-fetched. No such proof or further 
description of vo-repovvrai is needed. It had already been proved 
by the actual condition of Jews as well as Gentiles ; and to prove 
it by the gratuitousness of the justification would be an inversion 
of the logical order, (ii) vo-rfpowrai bwaiovpevoi is taken as = vo-re- 

povvrai teal SiKaiovvrai (Fri.) or = vo-repovpevoi 8iKmovvrai (Tholuck). 

But this is dubious Greek. (Hi) Sucaiovpevoi 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 ira>s 
KcivxvptOa; (Oltr.). But that would be harsh, and a connecting 
particle seems wanted, (iv) Easier and more natural than any of 
these expedients seems to be, with Va, and Ewald, to make ov yap 
. . . vvTcpovvTai practically a parenthesis, and to take the nom. 
biKaiovpevoi • as suggested by irdvres in ver. 23, but in sense referring 
rather to tovs Trio-revoi/ras in ver. 22.' No doubt such a construction 
would be irregular, but it may be questioned whether it is too 


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. 1 8, 19 o-vvtircptyapev 8e tov aSfX^o^ . . . ov 
6 enaivos iv to> evayyeXico . . . ov povov fie, d\\a ku\ \ ei P0T0pr)6eis (as if 

os ZiraiveiTai had preceded). 

Supe&p tt] auTou yj&pm. Each of these phrases strengthens the 
other in a very emphatic way, the position of avrov 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 (8m rr)s aTroXvrpoiaeais). 

diroXuTpwo-ews. It is contended, esp. by Oltramare, (i) that 
Xvrpoco and d-no\vTp6a> 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 

cmo\vTpaiais is Plut. Pomp. 24 woXicov al)(paXcoTa>v dnoXvrpdjaeis, where 

the word has this sense of ' putting to ransom ') ; (ii) that in LXX 
Aurpovcr&u 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 uTroXvrpvo-ei. 
Ex. xxi. 8, of the 'release' of a slave by her master). The subst. 
dnoXiirpuiois occurs only in one place, Dan. iv. 30 [29 or 32], LXX 
6 xpovos pov rr}s d7ro\vTpu>o-€cos rjXde of Nebuchadnezzar's recovery 
from his madness. Hence it is inferred (cf. also Westcott, Heb. 
p. 296, and Ritschl, Rechtfert. u. Versbhn. ii. 220 fF.) that here and 
in similar passages diruXiirpaHris 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) dovvai rr)v yjfvxrjv avrov 

\vrpov dvr\ ttoWgov, and in I Tim. ii. 6 6 bovs eavrbv dvTikvTpov V7rep 

irdvrw, and in view also of the many passages in which Christians 
are said to be 'bought/ or 'bought with a price' (1 Cor. vi. 20, 
vii. 23; Gal. iii. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 1 ; Rev. v. 9: cf. Acts xx. 28; 
1 Pet. i. 18, 19), we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea 
of the Xvrpov retains its full force, that it is identical with the npr), 
and that both are ways of describing the Death of Christ. The 
emphasis is on the cost of man's redemption. We need not press 
the metaphor yet a step further by asking (as the ancients did) to 
whom the ransom or price was paid. It was required by that 
ultimate necessity which has made the whole course of things what 
it has been ; but this necessity is far beyond our powers to grasp 
or gauge. 

ttjs «v Xpio-T$ 'lT)orov. We owe to Haussleiter {Der Glaube Jesu Christi, 
p. 116) the interesting observation that wherever the phrase (v XpiarS) or iv 
XpiaT$ 'Irjaov occurs there is no single instance of the variants Iv 'Irjcrov or 
kv 'Irjaov Xpiarw. This is significant, because in other combinations the 

III. 24, 25.] THE NEW SYSTEM 87 

variants are frequent. It is also what we should expect, because \v X p «ttS> 
and iv Xpiory 'Irja. always relate to the glorified Christ, not to the historic 

25. 7rpo«#€To may = either (i) « whom God proposed to Himself,' 
• purposed/ ' designed ' (Orig. Pesh.) ; or (ii) < whom God set forth 
publicly ' (proposuit Vulg.). Both meanings would be in full ac- 
cordance with the teaching of St. Paul both elsewhere and in this 
Epistle. For (i) we may compare the idea of the Divine «p66t<n 9 
in ch. ix. 11 (viii. 28); Eph. iii. 11 (i. n)j 2 Tim. i. 9; also 
1 Pet. i. 20.^ For (ii) compare esp. Gal. iii. 1 ofr kut 6(pda\pov S 

'Itjo-ovs Xpto-Tos irpneypacpr) iaravpcop^vos. But when We turn to the 

immediate context we find it so full of terms denoting publicity 
(n-KpaveptoTai, ds (vdugiv, npos tt)v evfeigip) that the latter sense seems 
preferable. The Death of Christ is not only a manifestation of the 
righteousness of God, but a visible manifestation and one to which 
appeal can be made. 

iXaorrjpioj' : usually subst. meaning strictly 'place or vehicle of 
propitiation/ but originally neut. of adj. IXacrTrjpios {iKa^piov 
C7ri6epa Ex. xxv. 1 6 [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, Rechifert. u. Versohn. 
ii. 169 ff. ed. 2) take the word here in this sjnse, arguing (i) that 
it suits the emphatic avrov in iv tw alrov atpari; (ii) that through 
LXX it would be by far the most familiar usage; (iii) that the 
Greek commentators (as Gif. has shown in detail) unanimously give 
it this sense ; (iv) that the idea is specially appropriate inasmuch as 
on Christ rests the fulness of the Divine glory, ' the true Shekinah/ 
and it is natural to connect with His Death the culminating rite in 
the culminating service of Atonement. But, on the other hand, 
there is great harshness, not to say confusion, in making Christ at 
once priest and victim and place of sprinkling. Origen it is true 
does not shrink from this ; he says expressly invenies igitur . . . esse 
ipsum et propitiatorium et ponlificem et hosiiam quae offertur pro 
populo (in Rom. iii. 8, p. 213 Lomm.). But although there is 
a partial analogy for this in Heb. ix. n-14, 23-x. 22, where 
Christ is both priest and victim, it is straining the image yet further 
to identify Him with the IXaar^piov. The Christian IXavrfyiov, or 
1 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 npoideTo) 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 ikao-rqpiov is to supply with it 6i>pa on the 
analogy of acjTrjpcov, reXear^piou, xapuTTijpiov. This too is strongly 


supported (esp. by the leading German commentators, De W. Fri. 
Mey. Lips.). But there seems to be no clear instance of fkavrriptw 
used in this sense. Neither is there satisfactory proof that tXaor. 
(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 ov. There is evidence that the word was current as 
an adj. at this date (iXacrnj/noi/ lu^pa Joseph. Antt. XVI. vii. i ; 
IXa'JTTipiov Cavarov 4 Mace. xvii. 22 *, and other exx.). The 
objection that the adj. is not applied properly to persons counts 
for very little, because of the extreme rarity of the sacrifice of 
a person. Here however it is just this personal element which is 
most important. It agrees with the context that the term chosen 
should be rather one which generalizes the character of propitiatory 
sacrifice than one which exactly reproduces a particular feature of 
such sacrifice. 

The Latin versions do not help us : they give all three renderings, pro- 
pitiatorhim, 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. He who 
thinks, I will but just sin and the Day of Atonement will bring me forgive- 
ness, such an one gets no forgiveness through the Day of Atonement. 
Offences of man against God the Day of Atonement can atone ; offences of 
man against his fellow- man the Day of Atonement cannot atone until he has 
given satisfaction to his fellow- man' ; and more to the same effect (Mishnah, 
Tract. Joma, viii. 9, ap. Winter u. Wiinsche, Jiid. Lit. p. 98). We get 
a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta, Tract. Joma, v : * R. Ismael 
said, Atonement is of four kinds. He who transgresses a positive command 
and repents is at once forgiven according to the Scripture, " Return, ye back- 
sliding children, I 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. lxxxix. 33 [32 J). 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' (op. cit. p. 154). 

* Some MSS. read here 5id . . . tov IXaarrjplov tov davarov avraiv (O. F. 
Fritzsche ad loc). 


8td tt)s irCo-rews: Sici marecas NC*D*FG 67** al., Tisch. WH. text. 
The art. seems here rather more correct, pointing back as it would do to 5«i 
mareus % X. in ver. 22 ; it is found in B and the mass of later authorities, 
but there is a strong phalanx on the other side ; B is not infallible in such 
company (cf. xi. 6). 

iv tw auTou ai/xan : not with TnVreto? (though this would be 
a quite legitimate combination ; see Gif. ad loc), but with vpokBtTo 
IXoa-rrjpiov : 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. n ; 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 

€is ccSetftv : els denotes the final and remote object, npos 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 '4vb(i&v 
see on ch. ii. 15 : here too the sense is that of ' proof by an appeal 
to fact.' 

els evbeifru tt)s 8ik<uoo-uVt]s au-rou. 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 ihe conditions which the righteousness 


of God required. See the longer Note on ' The Death of Christ 
considered as a Sacrifice ' below. 

oid -n\v ir&pcaiv: not 'for the remission/ as AV., which gives 
a somewhat unusual (though, as we shall see' on iv. 25, not 
impossible) sense to did, and also a wrong sense to napcaiv, but 
'because of the pretermission, or passing over, of foregone sins.' 
For the difference between irdpea-it and afao-is see Trench, Syn. 
p. noff. : mipeo-is = ' putting aside y temporary suspension of 
punishment which may at some later date be inflicted ; a<peats = 
' putting away,' complete and unreserved forgiveness. 

It is possible that the thought of this passage may have been suggested by 
Wisd. xi. 23 [24] kclI irapopqs ap.apTqp.aT a avOpwnuv tis p-travoiav. There 
will be found in Trench, op. at. p. in, 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. 

dp.apTTjfjidTwi' : as contrasted with apapria, apapT^fxa = the single 
act of sin, ap.apria = the permanent principle of which such an act 
is the expression : see below on 

iv TT] d>oxfj : (v either (i) denotes motive, as Mey., &c. (Grimm, 
Lex. s. v. Iv, 5 e) ; 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. 

dVoxf} : see on ii. 4, and note that 01/0*17 is related to irdpeo-is as 
xapts is related to afaais. 

26. irpos tV €k&ei£u': 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 Sid ttjv ndpecnv 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 etV to np6i ; (ii) the art. is on this view perfectly accounted 
for, ' the same display ' as that just mentioned ; (iii) tS>v irpoyeyo- 
voruiv apapTrjpdrcov seems to be contrasted with iv tg> vw KaipS ; (iv) the 
construction thus most thoroughly agrees with St. Paul's style 
elsewhere : see Gifford's note and compare the passage quoted 
Eph. iii. 3-5, also Rom. iii. 7, 8, ii. 14-16. 

Sikcuoi/ Kal SiKcuourra. This is the key-phrase which establishes 
the connexion between the diKaioaCvr) ©eoO, and the biKawavvq £k 



Trlvreas. It is not that ' God is righteous and yet declares righteous 
the believer in Jesus,' but that ' He is righteous and also, we might 
almost say and therefore, declares righteous the believer.' The 
words indicate no opposition between justice and mercy. Rather 
that which seems to us and which really is an act of mercy is the 
direct outcome of the ' righteousness ' which is a wider and more 
adequate name than justice. It is the essential righteousness of 
God which impels Him to set in motion that sequence of events in 
the sphere above and in the sphere below which leads to the free 
forgiveness of the believer and starts him on his way with a clean 
page to his record. 

rbv in mo-Tew? : 'him whose ruling motive is faith'; contrast 
ol «£ epideias ch. ii. 8 ; ovoi e£ i^yav vopov (' as many as depend on 
works of law') Gal. iii. 10. 

The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice. 

It is impossible to get rid from this passage of the double idea 
(i) of a sacrifice ; (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory. In any 
case the phrase iv r<5 avrov alpan carries with it the idea of sacrificial 
bloodshedding. And whatever sense we assign to IXao-Trjpiov — 
whether we directly supply <%a, or whether we supply eVn&jua and 
regard it as equivalent to the mercy-seat, or whether we take it as 
an adj. in agreement with ov — the fundamental idea which underlies 
the word must be that of propitiation. And further, when we ask, 
Who is propitiated ? the answer can only be ' God.' Nor is it 
possible to separate this propitiation from the Death of the Son. 

Quite apart from this passa^e-iUsnot difficult to prove that these 
two ideas^ofsa£jdfic_e_ajidJ)r^^ at the root of the teaching 

not only of St. Paul but of the NewTestament 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 alpa 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 (81a rod 

alparos rov araupov. We have it for St. Peter in I Pet. i. 2 (paunapiiv 
aiparos) and 1 9 (ripioa atp.aTi oas dpvov ap.oap.ov Ktu aanikov). For 

St. John we have it in i Jo. i. 7, and in v. 6, 8. It also comes 
out distinctly in several places in the Apocalypse (i. 5, v. 9, vii. 14, 
xii. 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 Malt, 
xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24 [perhaps not Luke xxii. 20]). 


Many of these passages besides the mention of bloodshedding 
and the death of the victim (Apoc. v. 6, I2,xiii. 8 fyvbv {afayphw: 
cf. v. 9) call attention to other details in the act of sacrifice (e. g. 
the sprinkling of the blood, fiavrurrfs i Pet. i. 2 ; Heb. xn. 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 To. 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. 11; I 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. 11. 14; Heb. 1. 3, 
ix. 28, x. 12 al.; iPet. ii. 24, iii. 18; 1 Jo. ii. 2,iv. 10; Apoc.i. 5). 
The author of Ep. to Hebrews generalizes from the ritual system 
of the Old Covenant that sacrificial bloodshedding is necessary m 
every case, or nearly in every case, to place the worshipper in a 
condition of fitness to approach the Divine Presence (Heb. ix. 22 

kcu o-ycSoj/ iv ai/xaTi iravra icaBaplfarm kcltIi tov vdfiov, kgi gttptf 
aiVai-flcxt/o-iM ol yiWrtu &<pe<ns). The use of the different words 
denoting < propitiation ' is all to the same effect (IXao-rrjpiov Rom. 
iii. 25 ; IXaanos 1 Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10 ; ika<rK«r6ai 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 ( The 
Art of England, 1884, p. 14 f.), Mr. Ruskin wrote as follows: ) 
1 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 v 
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 " 

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

The idea of Vicarious Suffering is not the whole and not 
perhaps the culminating point in the conception of Sacrifice, for 
Dr. Westcott seems to have sufficiently shown that the centre of 
the symbolism of Sacrifice lies not in the death of the victim but 
in the offering of its life. This idea of Vicarious Suffering, which is 
nevertheless in all probability the great difficulty and stumbling- 
block in the way of the acceptance of Bible teaching on this head, 
was revealed once and for all time in Isaiah liii. No one who 
reads that chapter with attention can fail to see the profound truth 
which lies behind it — a truth which seems to gather up in one all 
that is most pathetic in the world's history, but which when it has 
done so turns upon it the light of truly prophetic and divine inspira- 
tion, gently lifts the veil from the accumulated mass of pain and 
sorrow, and shows beneath its unspeakable value in the working out 
of human redemption and regeneration and the sublime consolations 
by which for those who can enter into them it is accompanied. 

I 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 [ill. 27-31. 

from idea into reality, and embodied in marvellous perfection upon 

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 ? 


III. 27-31. Hence it follows (i) that no claim can be 
made on the ground of human merit, for there is no merit 
in Faith (vv. 27, 28) ; (2) that Jew and Gentile are on the 
same footing, for there is but one God, and Faith is the only 
means of acceptance zvith Him (vv. 29, 30). 

An objector may say that Law is thus abrogated. On the 
contrary its deeper principles are fulfilled, as the history of 
Abraham will show (ver. 31). 

27 There are two consequences which I draw, and one that an 
objector may draw, from this. The first is that such a method of 
obtaining righteousness leaves no room for human claims or merit. 
Any such thing is once for all shut out. For the Christian system 
is not one of works — in which there might have been room for 
merit — but one of Faith. 28 Thus (ovv, but see Cril. Note) we believe 
that Faith is the condition on which a man is pronounced righteous, 
and not a round of acts done in obedience to law. 

29 The second consequence [already hinted at in ver. 22] is that 


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. 30 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 

31 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. €£ei<\£tCT0T) : 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—' is shut out.' 

8td iroiou yofxou : vdfiov 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 vdfios would be ch. vii. 21, 23 ; viii. 2 ; x. 31, 
on which see the Notes. 

28. ouv 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, 
'KoytCofj.fda yap, helps that coherence. [The Jew's] boasting is 
excluded, because 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. 

olv BCD'KLP &c. ; Syrr. (Pesh.-Harcl.) ; Chrys. Theodrt. al. ; Weiss 
RV. WH. marg.\ yap N A D* E F G al. plur.\ Latt. (Vet.-Vulg.) Boh. 
Arm. ; Orig.-lat. Ambr^t. Aug. ; Tisch. WH. text RV. marg. The evidence 
for yap is largely Western, but it is combined with an element vN A, Boh.) 
which in this instance is probably not Western ; so that the reading would 
be carried back beyond the point of divergence of two most ancient lines of 
text. On the other hand B admits in this Epistle some comparatively late 
readings (cf. xi. 6) and the authorities associated with it are inferior (B C in 
Epp. is not so strong a combination as BC in Gospp.). We prefer the 
reading yap. 


WcuoGo-eai : we must hold fast to the rendering 'is declared 
righteous,' not ' is made righteous ' ; cf. on i. i 7. 
avGpwiroi' : any human being. 

29. ii 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. 

jjiovov: fxovojv B al. plur., WH. tnarg. ; perhaps assimilated to 'lovSaicov 
. . . Kal I6vu)v. # . 

30. eiTT€p : decisively attested in place of eireiirep. The old distinction 
drawn between et -nep and et ye was that et -nep is used of a condition which 
is assumed without implying whether it is rightly or wrongly assumed, et ye 
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 et -nep and ei ye lay some stress on the condition, 
as a condition: cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, %% 353, 354 ' Tne Particle 
■nep is evidently a shorter form of the Preposition -nepi, which in its adverbial 
use has the meaning beyond, exceedingly. Accordingly nep is intensive, 
denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree, in 
its fullest sense, &c. . . . 7* is used like trip to emphasize a particular word 
or phrase. It does not however intensify the meaning, or insist on the fact 
as true, but only calls attention to the word or fact. ... In a Conditional 
Protasis (with os. ore, el, &c), ye emphasizes the condition as such: hence 
et ye if only, always supposing that. On the other ^ hand et nep means 
supposing ever so much, hence if really (Lat. si quidem)! 

ck TTurrews ... 8101 ty]s morews : e\ denotes ' source,' 8id * attend- 
ant circumstances.' The Jew is justified e* vUrtt*s 8ta jrr/wrojw/r : 
the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is 
circumcision. The Gentile is justified e\ mo-Teas nal 81a rfs mo-reus : 
no special channel, no special conditions are marked out ; faith is 
the one thing needful, it is itself ' both law and impulse.' 

8ta Tfjs mcrrews = ' the same faith, 1 ' the faith just men- 

31. KaTapYounee : see on ver. 3 above. 

v6pov i(TTWfji€i>. If, as we must needs think, ch. iv contains the 
proof of the proposition laid down in this verse, vopov 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. 


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 n-Xr/po/xa ovv vofiov fj dyairt] compared with Gal. v. 6 

tiIcftis bi ayan-qs evcpyovfievi]}. 


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. 

1 Objector. You speak of the history of Abraham. Surely 
he, the ancestor by natural descent of our Jewish race, might plead 
privilege and merit. 2 If we Jews are right in supposing that God 
accepted him as righteous for his works — those illustrious acts of 
his — he has something to boast of. 

St. Paul. Perhaps he has before men, but not before God. 
3 For look at the Word of God, that well-known passage of Scrip- 
ture, Gen. xv. 6. What do we find there ? Nothing about works, 
but « Abraham put faith in God,' and it (i. e. his faith) was credited 
to him as if it were righteousness. 

4 This proves that there was no question of works. For a work- 
man claims his pay as a debt due to him; it is not an act of 
favour. 6 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. 

6 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 
savs> — no t ' w ho have been guilty of no breaches of law/ but 
'whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are 
veiled from sight. 8 A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will 
not enter in His book.' 



Iff. The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but 
the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure, due 
as it would seem to the crossing of other lines Of thought with 
the main lines. The proposition which the Apostle sets him- 
self to prove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch, 
is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches. 
But the way of putting this is affected by two thoughts, which still 
exert some influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to 
the advantage of the Jew, (ii) the pride or boasting which 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 eupTjiceVai. (1) 
K L P, &c, Theodrt. and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which 
are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after tov 
Trpondropa rjficop. It is then taken with koto, adpica : ' 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 koto, u-dpua with narepa : vnfp&aTou yap 

to Kara <rdpica]. 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) NACDEFG, some cur- 
sives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place 

after ipovpev. In that Case Kara adpKa goes not with evprjKevai but 

with top ■npoitdTopa rjp.a>v 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 evpyicevai 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 



satisfactory than that of either of the other readings. The point is 
not what Abraham got by his righteousness, but how he got his 
righteousness— by the method of works or by that of faith. Does 
the nature of A.'s righteousness agree better with the Jewish 
system, or with St. Paul's? The idea of 'gain' was naturally 
imported from ch. iii. i, 9. There is no reason why a right reading 
should not be preserved in a small group, and the fluctuating 
position of a word often points to doubtful genuineness. We 
therefore regard the omission of cvprjice'vai as probable with WH. 
text Tr. RV. marg. For the construction comp. John i. 15 ovtos 

rjv ov enrov. 

1-5. One or two small questions of form may be noticed. In ver. 1 
irpoTTCLTopa (K* 6tc ABC* al.) is decisively attested for -naripa, which is 
found in the later MSS. and commentators. In ver. .1 the acute and sleepless 
critic Origen thinks that St. Paul wrote 'A0p6p (with Heb. of Gen. xv ; cf. 
Gen. xvii. 5), but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the 
text of Scripture substituted 'APpaap. It is more probable that St. Paul had 
before his mind the established and significant name throughout : he quotes 
Gen. xvii. 5 in ver. 17. In ver. 5 a small group (N D* F G) have aat^v, on 
which form see WH. Introd. 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. 

top irpoirdTopa tjjxwp. 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 all believers, 
Jew and Gentile alike, — though it is true that he would have added 
1 not after the flesh but after the spirit.' Gif. notes the further point, 
that the question is put as proceeding from a Jew: along with 
Orig. Chrys. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. Lips, he connects t6v irponar. fpx. 
with Kara (rap™. It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort 
{Rom. and Eph. p. 23 f.) though relegating evprjKfvui to the margin, 

Still does not take Kara adpKa with tou irpoTTuropa r)pa>v. 

2. Kau'xTjjia : ' Not materies gloriandi as Meyer, but rather 
gloriatio, as Bengel, who however might have added facta ' (T. S. 
Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. v. 6). The termination -pa denotes 
not so much the thing done as the completed, determinate, act ; 
for other examples see esp. Evans ut sup. It would not be wrong 
to translate here 'has a ground of boasting,' but the idea of 
1 ground ' is contained in ex«, or rather in the context. 

&W ou irpos top Qeov. It seems best to explain the introduction 
of this clause by some such ellipse as that which is supplied in the 


paraphrase. There should be a colon after Kavxw a - St. Paul 
does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a Kavxw a 
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 Kavxwa before God. There is 
a stress upon rbv eeov which is taken up by r<3 Gew 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. 

3. eKoyiaQt] : 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 iav de (fiaykv <t>dyu . . . ov 

Xoyi(r6r](T€Tai avT<o f Xvii. \ XoytaBrjcreTai. t<5 avdpa>7T(o (fcciwy alpa, &C. 

The notion arises from that of the ' book of remembrance ' (Mai. 
iii. 16) in which men's good or evil deeds, the wrongs, and 
sufferings of the saints, are entered (Ps.lvi. 8 ; Is. lxv. 6). Oriental 
monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the 
merit or demerit of their subjects (Esth. vi. i if.), and in like 
manner on the judgement day Jehovah would have the ■ books ' 
brought out before Him (Dan. vii. io; Rev. xx. 12; comp. also 
1 the books of the living/ ' the heavenly tablets/ a common expres- 
sion in the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, and Test. XII Patr., on which 
see Charles on Enoch 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, Altsyn. Theol. p. 233). They had also the idea of the 
transference of merit and demerit from one person to another 
{ibid. 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. 

e\oYia0T) ciutw els 8iKaiooruVT)i' : 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 eXoyiaOrj ovtm ch StKaioo". recurs in Ps. cv [cvi]. 31 o f the 
zeal of Phinehas. On the grammar cf. Win. § xxix. 3 a. (p. 229, 
ed. Moulton). 

On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. Weber, Alisyn. Paldst. 
Theologie, 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 


retired into the seventh heaven, so that in the days of Moses it 
could take up its abode in the Tabernacle {ibid. p. 183). According 
to the Jews the original righteousness of Abraham, who began to 
serve God at the age of three (ibid. p. 118) was perfected (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 faith, as constituting merit (see Mechilia 
on Ex. xiv. 31, quoted by Delitzsch ad loc. 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. em rbv SiicaioGrra : ' on Him who pronounces righteous ' or 
1 acquits/ i. e. God. It is rather a departure from St. Paul's more 
usual practice to make the object of faith God the Father rather 
than God the Son. But even here the Christian scheme is in view, 
and faith in God is faith in Him as the alternative Author of that 
scheme. See on i. 8, 17, above. 

We must not be misled by the comment of Euthym.-Zig. rovriffri marfvovrt 
oti Svvarat 6 ©efo tov kv aaffieiq fiefiiwKOTa, rovrov i^a^vqs ov puvov ekev- 
Otpuicrai Kokaaews, akka Hal Sinaiov iroiTJaai (comp. the same writer on ver. 25 
'iva SiKoiovs rjpas ■noirjay) . The evidence is too decisive (p. 30 f. sup.) that 
SiKaiovv »= not ' to make righteous ' but ' to declare righteous as a judge.' 
It might however be inferred from l£ai<pvqs that dUaiov Troifjaai 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. 

rbv do-epTJ : 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 darepij is probably suggested by 
the quotation which is just coming from Ps. xxxii. i. 

6. Aa{3i8 (Aau€i'8). 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 ot 
David in the LXX), showing that by this date the whole Psalter 
was known by his name. Ps. xxxii was one of those which Ewald 
thought might really be David's : see Driver, Introduction, p. 357. 

TOk jutaKapiajAoV : not ' blessedness,' which would be paicapioTrjs 
but a ' pronouncing blessed ' ; paKaplfciv nva = ' to call a person 

blessed Or happy (tovs t€ yap deovs paKapi^opev . . . <a\ twv dv8pa>v 

tovs OeioTarovs ptaKapiCop-ev Arist. Eth. Nic. I. xii. 4 ; comp. Euthym.- 
Zig. eirirao-is 8e ko.1 KopvCpr) Ttpijs Kal 86£tjs 6 pnKapiupos, ' 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. 


7, 8. Maicdpioi, k.t.X. This quotation of Ps. xxxii. i, 2 is the same 
in Heb. and LXX. It is introduced by St. Paul as confirming his 
interpretation of Gen. xv. 6. 

pxicapioi 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. 

<S ot. pfj. So N c A C D c F K L &c. : oZ ov rf KBDE (?) G, 67**. oS is 
also the reading of LXX (<£ N™ R<*). The authorities for oS are superior as 
they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission 
( N B + D) and it is on the whole more probable that w has been assimilated 
to the construction of \oyifaeai in vv. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that ov has been 
assimilated to the preceding Sn> or to the O.T. or that it has been affected 
by the following ov : y naturally established itself as the more euphonious 

06 ^t) XoytoTfjTai. 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» P- 634 f- 

The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul 
and by St. James. 

It is at first sight a remarkable thing that two New Testament 
writers should use the same leading example and should quote the 
same leading text as it would seem to directly opposite effect. 
Both St. Paul and St. James treat at some length of the history of 
Abraham; they both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, as the 
salient characterization of that history ; and they draw from it the 
conclusion — St. Paul that a man is accounted righteous wim-tt x ^s 
epyw (Rom. iii. 28 ; cf. iv. 1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is 
accounted righteous eg epycov ml ovk ck nio-Teajs fiouov (Jas. ii. 24). 

We notice at once that St. Paul keeps more strictly to his text. 
Gen. xv. 6 speaks only of faith. St. James supports his contention 
of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident in Abraham's 
life, the offering of Isaac (Jas. ii. 21). St. Paul also appeals to 
particular incidents, Abraham's belief in the promise that he should 
have a numerous progeny (Rom. iv. 18), and in the more express 
prediction of the birth of Isaac (Rom. iv. 19-21). The difference 
is that St. Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own 
spiritual experience confirms the unqualified affirmation of the 
Book of Genesis ; and he is therefore able to take it as one of the 
foundations of his system. St. James, occupying a less exceptional 



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 .rst of their conclusions to 
them. When St. James heard speak of ' faith,' he understood by 
it what the letter of the Book of Genesis allowed him to understand 
by it, a certain belief. It is what a Jew would consider the funda- 
mental belief, belief in God, belief that God was One (Jas. ii. 19). 
Christianity is with him so much a supplement to the Jews' ordinary 
creed that it does not seem to be specially present to his mind 
when he is speaking of Abraham. Of course he too believes in the 
1 Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory ' (Jas. ii. 1). He takes that 
belief for granted ; it is the substratum or basement of life on which 
are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality 
(rrpoaaTro'Xrj^ia.). If he were questioned about it, he would put it on 
the same footing as his belief in God. But St. James was a 
thoroughly honest, and, as we should say, a ' good ' man ; and this 
did not satisfy his moral sense. What is belief unless proof is given 
of its sincerity ? Belief must be followed up by action, by a line 
of conduct conformable to it. St. James would have echoed 
Matthew Arnold's proposition that ' Conduct is three-fourths of 
life.' He therefore demands — and from his point of view rightly 
demands — that his readers shall authenticate their beliefs by putting 
them in practice. 

St. Paul's is a very different temperament, and he speaks from a 
very different experience. With him too Christianity is something 
added to an earlier belief in God ; but the process by which it was 
added was nothing less than a convulsion of his whole nature. It 
is like the stream of molten lava pouring down the volcano's side. 
Christianity is with him a tremendous over-mastering force. The 
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. 


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- 

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 was a standing .thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools. 
It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: 'Was not 
Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him 
for righteousness' (1 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 Mechilta expounds the verse at 
length : ' Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake 
and the world was. For as a reward for Israel's having believed in 
the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in them ... In like manner thou 
findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world 
to come solely by the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the 
Lord ; for it is said, " and he believed in the Lord, and He counted 
it to him for righteousness " ' (quoted by Lft. ut sup. p. 1 60). Taking 
these examples with the lengthened discussions in St. Paul and 
St. James, it is clear that attention was being very widely drawn to 
this particular text : and it was indeed inevitable that it should be 
so when we consider the place which Abraham held in the Jewish 
system and the minute study which was being given to every part of 
the Pentateuch. 

It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason 


that the two New Testament writers are discussing independently 
of each other a current problem, and that there is no ground for 
supposing a controversial relation between them. We are not sure 
that we are prepared to go quite so far as this. It is true that the 
bearing of Gen. xv. 6 was a subject of standing debate among the 
Jews ; but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of 
Faith and Works. The controversy connected with this was 
essentially a Christian controversy ; it had its origin in the special 
and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. It seems to us therefore 
that the passages in the two Epistles have a real relation to that 
controversy, and so at least indirectly to each other. 

It does not follow that the relation was a literary relation. We 
have seen that there are strong reasons against this *. We do not 
think that either St. Paul had seen the Epistle of St. James, or 
St. James the Epistle of St. Paul. The view which appears to us 
the most probable is that the argument of St. James is directed not 
against the writings of St. Paul, or against him in person, but 
against hearsay reports of his teaching, and against the perverted 
construction which might be (and perhaps to some slight extent 
actually was) put upon it. As St. James sate in his place in the 
Church at Jerusalem, as yet the true centre and metropolis of 
the Christian world; as Christian pilgrims of Jewish birth were 
constantly coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts, 
especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and 
Greece, the scene of St. Paul's labours ; and as there was always 
at his elbow the little coterie of St. Paul's fanatical enemies, it would 
be impossible but that versions, scarcely ever adequate (for how 
few of St. Paul's hearers had really understood him 1) and often more 
or less seriously distorted, of his brother Apostle's teaching, should 
reach him. He did what a wise and considerate leader would 
do. He names no names, and attacks no man's person. He does 
not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true 
reports. At the same time he states in plain terms his own view 
of the matter. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him 
to be needed, and which the very language of St. Paul, in places 
like Rom. vi. 1 ff., 15 ff., shows to have been really needed. And 
thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths, 
suited to different types of mind and different circumstances, are 
stated side by side. We have at once the deeper principle of 
action, which is also more powerful in proportion as it is deeper, 
though not such as all can grasp and appropriate, and the plainer 

* Besides what is said above, see Introduction § 8. It is a satisfaction to 
find that the view here taken is substantially that of Dr. Hort, Judaistic 
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.' 


practical teaching pitched on a more every-day level and appealing 
to larger numbers, which is the check and safeguard against possible 


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. 

9 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 faith that we say was 
credited to Abraham as righteousness. 10 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. 
11 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 ; 12 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. xviii. io ff. Therefore although it might be (and was) 
confirmed by circumcision, it could not be due to it or conditioned 
by it. 

11. cnjfieToi' irepiTOfiTJs. Circumcision at its institution is said to 
be ev arifieia diadrjKrjs (Gen. xvii. n), between God and the 


circumcised. The gen. 7r(piToprjs is a genitive of apposition or identity, 
a sign ' consisting in circumcision/ 'which was circumcision.' Some 
authorities (A C* al.) read nepiTopfy. 

o-<f>payi8a. 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 B. 19 'Ye shall not eat 
of the passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh.' 
Many other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad loc. (cf. also 

At a very early date the same term acppayU was transferred from 
the rite of circumcision to Christian baptism. See the passages 
collected by Lightfoot on 2 Clem. vii. 6 {Clem. Rom. ii. 226), also 
Gebhardt and Harnack ad loc, and Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 
p. 295. Dr. Hatch connects the use of the term with ' the 
mysteries and some forms of foreign cult ' ; and it may have 
coalesced with language borrowed from these ; but in its origin it 
appears to be Jewish. A similar view is taken by Anrich, Das 
antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum 
(Gottingen, 1894), p. 120 ff., where the Christian use of the word 
a(ppayis is fully discussed. 

Barnabas (ix. 6) seems to refer to, and refute, the Jewish doctrine which 
he puts in the mouth of an objector : dAA' eptts' Kal fx-qv TrfpiTtT/xrjTat 6 
\ads (Is acppayida. aWa iras ~2,vpos Kal "Apaxp Kal ttclvtcs 01 Upeis twv tldwXajv. 
apa ovv kclkuvoi Ik ttjs SiaOrjKrjs avrwv tlcriv ; aWa Kal 01 Alyvirrtoi kv nepi- 
Topr) daiv. The fact that so many heathen nations were circumcised proved 
that circumcision could not be the seal of a special covenant. 

els t6 efrai, k.t.X. Even circumcision, the strongest mark of 
Jewish separation, in St. Paul's view looked beyond its immediate 
exclusiveness to an ultimate inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews. 
It was nothing more than a ratification of Abraham's faith. Faith 
was the real motive power ; and as applied to the present condition 
of things, Abraham's faith in the promise had its counterpart in the 
Christian's faith in the fulfilment of the promise (i.e. in Christ). 
Thus a new division was made. The true descendants of Abra- 
ham were not so much those who imitated his circumcision (i. e. 
all Jews whether believing or not), but those who imitated his 
faith (i. e. believing Jews and believing Gentiles), els to denotes 
that all this was contemplated in the Divine purpose. 

iraTcpa -ndvTOiv rStv moreuoi'Twi'. Delitzsch (ad loc.) quotes one 
of the prayers for the Day of Atonement in which Abraham is 
called • the first of my faithful ones.' He also adduces a passage, 
Jerus. Gemara on Biccurim, i. 1, in which it is proved that even 
the proselyte may claim the patriarchs as his ^O^K because 


Abram became Abraham, ' father of many nations,' lit. ' a great 
multitude ' ; ' he was so/ the Glossator adds, ' because he taught 
them to believe.' 

Si' dKpoPuorias : ' though in a state of uncircumcision.' 6m of 
attendant circumstances as in 8ia ypapparos ko.1 irepiToprjs ii. 27, ™ 

8ta irpooKoixfiaros iaQiovri xiv. 20. 

12. tois CTToixoGo-t. As it stands the art. is a solecism : it would 
make those who are circumcised one set of persons, and those who 
follow the example of Abraham's faith another distinct set, which 
is certainly not St. Paul's meaning. He is speaking of Jews who 
are both circumcised and believe. This requires in Greek the 
omission of the art. before o-roixovariv. But toIs ot. is found in all 
existing MSS. We must suppose therefore either (1) that there 
has been some corruption. WH. think that toT? may be the 
remains of an original avrols : 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. 

(rroixoGai. o-Toixew is a well-known military term, meaning 
strictly to ' march in file ' : Pollux viii. 9 t6 8e fiiiOos o-toIxos koKcItcu, 

kcu to fiev efagrjs clviu Kara prjicos (vytuf to 8e ((pegrjs Kara fiddos eTOCgejl', 

' the technical term for marching abreast is £uyeii>, for marching in 
depth or in file, otoixw' (Wets.). 

On ov jaovov rather than pr) \jlqvov in this verse and in ver. 16 see Burton, 
M.and T. § 481. 

Jeivish Teaching on Circumcision. 

The fierce fanaticism with which the Jews insisted upon the rite 
of Circumcision is vividly brought out in the Book of Jubilees 
(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 riot 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 


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, Altsyn. Theol. 
p. 51 f.). When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took 
a part in the act {ibid. p. 253). It was his circumcision and antici- 
patory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the 
' father of many nations ' (ibid. p. 256). Indeed it was just through 
his circumcision that Isaac was born of a ' holy seed.' This was 
the current doctrine. And it was at the root of it that St. Paul 
strikes by showing that Faith was prior to Circumcision, that the 
latter was wholly subordinate to the former, and that just those 
privileges and promises which the Jew connected with Circumcision 
were really due to Faith. 


IV. 13-17. Again the declaration that was made to 
Abraham had nothing to do tvith Law. For it turned on 
Faith and Promise which are the very antithesis of Law. 
The reason being that Abraham might be the spiritual 
father of all believers, Gentiles as well as Jews, and that 
Gentiles might have an equal claim to the Promise. 

13 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. l4 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. 
15 For Law is in its effects the very opposite of Promise. It only 


serves to bring down God's wrath by enhancing the guilt of sin. 
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. 16 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. 17 Thus Abraham is the true ancestor 
of all Christians (fj/xav), 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 

13. ou ydp, k.t.X. The immediate point which this paragraph 
is introduced to prove is that Abraham might be, in a true though 
spiritual sense, the father of Gentiles as well as Jews. The ulterior 
object of the whole argument is to show that Abraham himself 
is rightly claimed not as the Jews contended by themselves but 
by Christians. 

81a yojxou : without art., any system of law. 

t| eirayYeXta: see on ch. i. 2 (irpoerrrjyyeiXaTo), 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. 



ZtZi*™/™'' t l ^ sier Sonon ingredientes ingressi fuerint qui vivunt 

angustaet vana haec non poterunt recipere quae sunt repostta ( = rd dZ- 

? raGen - * h , x - IO ) j '** 49 ff. quid enim nobis prodest si promissum est 

nobis tmmortale tempus, nos vera mortalia opera egimus? 8cc Afioc 

IrfSl^ggZ^l?*'* ^ *» ti ™> e relinquuntlundZt 
II \tJ T ?!? Sp Z an ,' Se ™<P»™ mundum quem promisisti 

Wical tLw^ tha /p n these .P assa ^ are apocalyptic and eschato 
2, Th 5 JCW1Sh S» ° f *">»«* is vague and future ; the Christian idea 
is defimte and associated with a state of things already inaugurated. 

rb K\r ]P oy6 l iov airbv €hai K6a l iou. What Promise is this? There 
is none in these words. Hence (i) some think that it means the 
possession of the Land of Canaan (Gen. xii. 7 ; xiii. 14 f • xv 18 • 
xvn. 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; (11) that this son should have numerous descendants; 
(111) that in One of those descendants the whole world should be 
blessed ; (iv) that through Him A.'s seed should enjoy world-wide 

8iA oiKaio<ruVT,s mWcus: this 'faith-righteousness' which St. 
Paul has been describing as characteristic of the Christian, and 
before him of Abraham. 

14. oi iK y6>ou: 'the dependants of law/ 'vassals of a legal system,' 
such as were the Jews. 

k\t, P o.>6>oi. 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. 

irapripcKus is the appropriate word for the direct violation of 
a code. It means to overstep a line clearly defined : peccare est 
transilire lineas Cicero, Par ad. 3 (ap. Trench, Syn. p. 236). 

1 13 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 15, 16. 

15. ov 84 for ov yap is decisively attested (X A B C &c). 

16. Jk morews. 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 e< Trio-rem either 

T) Kkr)povop.ia eariv from V. 14 (Lips. Mey.) or fj eirayyiKia iariv from 

v. 13 (Fri.), but as rr\v inayytXiau 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. 

els t6 etwu. 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. 


IV. 17-22. Abrahams 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 

23-25. In this it is 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 
lepresented as standing — that God who infuses life into the dead 
(as He was about to infuse it into Abraham's dead body), and 
who issues His summons (as He issued it then) to generations 
yet unborn. 

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.' 

19 Without showing weakness in his faith, he took full note 
of the fact that at his advanced years (for he was now about 
a hundred years old) his own vital powers were decayed ; he took 


full note of the barrenness of Sarah his wife; 20 and yet with the 
promise in view no impulse of unbelief made him hesitate ; his 
faith endowed him with the power which he seemed to lack; he 
gave praise to God for the miracle that was to be wrought in him, 
21 having a firm conviction that what God had promised He was 
able also to perform. 22 And for this reason that faith of his was 
credited to him as righteousness. 

23 Now when all this was recorded in Scripture, it was not 
Abraham alone who was in view 24 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, 25 who was delivered into the hands of His murderers to atone 
for our sins, and rose again to effect our justification (i. e. to put 
the crown and seal to the Atonement wrought by His Death, and 
at the same time to evoke the faith which makes the Atonement 

17. irare'pa, k.t.X. Exactly from LXX of Gen. xvii. 5. The LXX 
tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the 
Heb., patrem frementis iurbae, i. e. ingentis multitudinis populorum 
(Kautzsch, p. 25). 

Kcu-fVam ou cmoreucrc ©cou : attraction for Karlvavri Qfov « «rt- 
a-revae ; Karevavn describing the posture in which Abraham is 
represented as holding colloquy with God (Gen. xvii. 1 ff.). 

SwottoioGi'tos : ' maketh alive/ St. Paul has in his mind the two 
acts which he compares and which are both embraced under this 
word, (1) the Birth of Isaac, (2) the Resurrection of Christ. On 
the Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch, £ss. in Bibl. Greek, p. 5. 

KaXourros [to. /jlt) '6vra as Svraj, There are four views : (i) ko\.= 
'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 as ovra. The choice remains between 
(i) and (iii). If the former seems the simplest, the latter is the 
more forcible rendering, and as such more in keeping with the 
imaginative grasp of the situation displayed by St. Paul. In favour 
of this view may also be quoted Apoc. Bar. xxi. 4 qui fecisti 
terram audi me . . . qui vocasti ab initio mundi quod nondum erat, et 


obediunt tibi. For the use of koXcIp see also the note on ix. 7 

18. €is to yeviaQai = &crre yeveadai : ' 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. 

ouTws e<rrcu : = Gen. xv. 5 (LXX). 

19. p,^ do-0€VT|o-as. Comp. Lft. in Journ. of Class, and Sac. Philol. 
iii. 106 n. : ' The New Testament use of nrj 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 (ifi and not by the absolute ov. 
Rom. iv. 19 ... is a case in point whether we retain ov or omit it with 
Lachm. In the latter case the sense will be, "he so considered his own 
body now dead, 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, M. and T. 
§ J 45- 

KaT€v<5T)a€ N A B C some good cursives, some MSS. of Vulg. 
(including am), Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat. (which probably here preserves 
Origen's Greek), Chrys. and others ; ov Kartvorjo-e DEFGKLP 
&c, some MSS. of Vulg. (including _/*/</, though it is more pro- 
bable that the negative has come in from the Old Latin and that 
it was not recognized by Jerome), Syr.-Harcl., Orig.-lat. bis, Epiph. 
Ambrstr. al. 

Both readings give a good sense : Karevorjae, * he did consider, and 
yet did not doubt' ; ov unrevoke, ' he did not consider, and therefore 
did not doubt.' Both readings are also early: but the negative 
ov mtcv6t)<t( 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. 

vnrApxwv: 'being already about a hundred years old.' May we not say 
that (Tfat denotes a present state simply as present, but that vnapxtiv denotes 
a present state as a product of past states, or at least a state in present time 
as related to past time (' vor/iandensein, dasein, Lat. existere, adesse, praesto 
esse' Schmidt) ? See esp. T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vii. 26 : 'the 
last word (virdpxtiv) is difficult ; it seems to mean sometimes " to be origin- 
ally," '*. to be substantially or fundamentally," or, as in Demosthenes, " to be 
stored in readiness." An idea of propriety sometimes attaches to it: comp. 
ijnap£is, "property" or "substance." The word however asks for further 
investigation.' Comp. Schmidt, Lat. u. gr. Synonymik, § 74. 4. 

20. ov 8i6Kpt0T] : * did not hesitate ' (tovt{<ttiv ovSl htSoiaaev ovSl dpupe- 
Pa\( Chrys.). dtaKpivav act. =diiudicare, (i) to ' discriminate,' or 'distinguish ' 
between two things (Matt. xvi. 3 ; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 29, 31) or persons (Acts xv. 9 ; 
1 Cor. iv. 7); (ii) to 'arbitrate' between two parties (1 Cor. vi. 5). 8to- 
KpivtaBai mid. (and pass.) = [\) '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 


established for N.T., where it appears as the proper opposite of mans 
mareua}. So Matt. xxi. 21 kav tx r T r( iri-OTtv, Kal /xi) 5iaicpi6f)Te : Mark xi. 23 6s 
&v (tiry . . . Kal p.^1 oiafcpidy \v rfj napbiq. avrov d\\a maTtvy : Rom. xiv. 23 6 bi 
SiaKpivofXiVos, (olv <payfi, KO-TaKttcpiTat, on ovk Ik iriarews : Jas. 1. 6 alrdnv Si 
iv mora, prjoiv 8iaKpiv6/xevo$ : also probably Jude 22. A like use is found in 
Christian writings of the second century and later: e.g. Protev. Jac. 11 
aicovaaaa de Mapidp SieKpiOrj kv (avrfj \iyovaa, k.t.\. (quoted by Mayor on 
Jas. i. 6) : Clem. Homil. i. 20 irepl rfjs irapaooOriarjs aoi d\i]0(ias oiaKpiOrjoji : 
ii. 40 irepl tov p6vov Kal dyaOcw ®tov StaKpiOrjvai. It is remarkable that a use 
which (except as an antithesis to marcveiv) 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 Uif/vxos (St. 
James, Clem. Rom., Herm., Didachi, &c). The two words seem to belong 
to the same cycle of ideas. 

li/eSuyajAwGir] rfj morci. rfj nlaret 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 ^ dadevfjo-as 
rfi 7n'o-T« above ; and the surrounding terms (p^KplOt), 7r\-qpo(f>opT)d(is) 
might seem to point to a mental process. But it is tempting to 
make tjJ iriam instrumental or causal, like rfj dma-nq. to which it 
stands in immediate antithesis : eWS. rfj mar. would then = ' he was 
endowed with power by means of his faith ' (sc. to vevcKpafievov 
avrov o-wp-a €V€dvuap.a>dri). According to the Talmud, Abraham wurde 
in seiner Natur erneuert, eine neue Creatur {Bammidbar Rabba xi), 
urn 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. II, 12 nia-Tei Kal avrr) "lappa bvvap.iv els KarafioXrjv aTTfpparos tkafie 
Kal irapa Kaipbv rjKiKtas . . . 816 Kal d(f) hos iycvvr)6r)(rav, Kal ravra 
VfveKpcopevov, Ka6a>s to. aarpa tov ovpavov rw TrXrjBet (observe CSp. 8vvap.1v 

€Xa/3r, v€V€Kpcopevov). This sense is also distinctly recognized by 

Euthym.-Zig. (^eveSwapcadr) (Is irai8oyoviav Tjj wia-Tti' rj (V(8vvapaidq 

irpbs tt)v via™). The other (common) interpretation is preferred by 
Chrys., from whom Euthym.-Zig. seems to get his 6 itlanv 

€7n8(iKvvp(vos 8vvdp.(uis 8(lrai nXdovos. 

The Talmud lays great stress on the Birth of Isaac. In the 
name of Isaac was found an indication that with him the history 
of Revelation began. With him the people of revealed Religion 
came into existence : with him ' the Holy One began to work 
wonders' {Beresh. Rabba liii, ap. Weber, Allsyn. Theol. p. 256). 
But it is of course a wholly new point when St. Paul compares the 
miraculous birth of Isaac with the raising of Christ from the dead. 
The parallel consists not only in the nature of the two events — 
both a bringing to life from conditions which betokened only 
death — but also in the faith of which they were the object. 

Sous o<5 5 ai': a Hebraism: cf. Josh. vii. 19; 1 Sam. vi. 5; I 

Chron. xvi 28, &c. 

1 2 


21. Tr\T]po<})opT]0eis: 7r\r}po<jx>(Ha = 'full assurance/ 'firm conviction,' 
i Thess. i. 5 ; Col. ii. 2 ; a word especially common amongst the 
Stoics. Hence Trkr)po<f>opii<r6ai, 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. text Lft. On 
Revision, p. 142): see note ad loc. 

23. 81' ainbv \16vov. Beresh. R. xl. 8 'Thou findest that all 
that is recorded of Abraham is repeated in the history of his 
children' (Wetstein, who is followed by Meyer, and Delitzsch ad loc). 
Wetstein also quotes Taanith ii. 1 Fratres nostri, de Ninevitis 
non dictum est: et respexit Deus saccum eorum. 

24. tois iTKneuouaiv : 'to us who believe.' St. Paul asserts that 
his readers are among the class of believers. Not ' if we believe,' 
which would be invTevovaiv (sine artic). 

25. 81a with ace. is primarily retrospective, = ' because of: but 
inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution, Sid 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 8m to irapanr. 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 8m ttjv bucnimmv 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). 


(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 dpyrj so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom. iii. 25, 
26) — had passed away. This is the thought which lies at the bottom 
of Rom. vi. 7-10. 

(iv) The Resurrection of Christ is the strongest guarantee for 
the resurrection of the Christian (1 Cor. xv. 20-23; 2 Cor. iv. 14; 
Rom. viii. n ; Col. i. 18). 

(v) But that resurrection has two sides or aspects : it is not only 
physical, a future rising again to physical life, but it is also moral 
and spiritual, a present rising from the death of sin to the life of 
righteousness. In virtue of his union with Christ, the close and 
intimate relation of his spirit with Christ's, the Christian is called 
upon to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ. And this 
moral and spiritual sense is the only sense in which he can repeat 
them. We shall have this doctrine fully expounded in ch. vi. i-n. 

A recent monograph on the subject of this note (E. Schader, Die Bedeutung 
des lebendigen Christusfilr die Rechtfertigung nach Paulus, Gutersloh, 1893) 
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 redeems is not merely the act of Christ's Death but His 
Person (kv w 6x°A t£J/ T V V\vTpa}(Tiv 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 ' is at an end. And therefore in certain salient passages (Rom. iv. 25 ; 
vi. 9, 10 ; viii. 34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ as 
the cause of justification. The treatise is well deserving of study. 

It may be right also to mention, without wholly endorsing, Dr. Hort's 
significant aphorism : ' Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemp- 
tion, and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and 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 


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. 


V. 1-11. The state which thus lies before the Christian 
sJionld have consequences both near and remote. The nearer 
consequences, peace with God and hope which gives cotirage 
under persecution (vv. 1-4) : the remoter consequence, an 
assurance, derived from the proof of God's love, of our final 
salvation and glory. The first step (our present acceptance 
with God) is difficult ; the second step (our ultimate salva- 
tion) follows naturally from the first (vv. 5-11). 

1 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. 2 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. 3 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 : 4 and 
then fortitude leads on to the approved courage of the veteran; 
and that in turn strengthens the hope out of which it originally 

5 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- 


ness of the Love of God for us. 6 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. 8 But God presses home the proof of His unmerited 
Love towards us, in that, sinners as we still were, Christ died for us. 
9 Here then is an a fortiori argument. The fact that we have 
been actually declared < righteous ' by coming within the influence 
of Christ's sacrificial Blood— this fact which implies a stupendous 
change in the whole of our relations to God is a sure pledge of 
what is far easier — our escape from His final judgement. 10 For 
there is a double contrast. If God intervened for us while we were 
His enemies, much more now that we are reconciled to Him. If 
the first intervention cost the Death of His Son, the second costs 
nothing, but follows naturally from the share which we have in 
His Life. n And not only do we look for this final salvation, but 
we are buoyed up by an exultant sense of that nearness to God 
• into which we have been brought by Christ to whom we owe that 
one great step of our reconciliation. 

1-11. Every line of this passage breathes St. Paul's personal 
experience, and his intense hold upon the objective facts which are 
the grounds of a Christian's confidence. He believes that the 
ardour with which he himself sought Christian baptism was met by 
an answering change in the whole relation in which he stood to 
God. That change he attributes ultimately, it is clear throughout 
this context, not merely in general terms to Christ (did v. 1, 2, 11 
bis) but more particularly to the Death of Christ (irapedoOr) iv. 25 ; 

ankQavi V. 6, 8; iv ra> aijtiart V. 9 ; 8ta tov davdrov V. io). He con- 
ceives of that Death as operating by a sacrificial blood-shedding 
(eV ™ aXfian: 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 diKaiaartv at the end of the last chapter recalls St. 
Paul to his main topic. After expounding the nature of his new 


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. 

exwp-ey. The evidence for this reading stands thus : ix M ^ v K * 
AB*CDEKL, cursives, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. 
repeatedly Chrys. Ambrstr. and others : ex°l l€V correctors of N 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 
%x<»pev. It is argued however (i) that exhortation is here out of 
place: 'inference not exhortation is the Apostle's purpose' 
(Scrivener, Introd. ii. 380 ed. 4); (ii) that o and <o 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 e'xapev inference and exhortation are really com- 
bined : it is a sort of light exhortation, ' we should have ' (T. S. 

As to the meaning of %x , »V xv & should be observed that it does 
not = ' make peace,' ' get ' or ' obtain peace ' (which would be 
ffX&ptp), but rather ' keep ' or ' enjoy peace ' (ov ydp ia-nv laov pfj ovaav 

elprjvrjv Aa/3eii> Kal boQelaav Karaax^v Chrys. ; cf. Acts ix. 31 rj fxev 

ovv eKKkrja-ia . . . e'x e " »W*Vi ' continued in a state of peace '). The 
aor. part. SiKatco&Wes marks the initial moment of the state elprjvrjv 
ex<opev. 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 8m rot) Kvpiov f]p£>v 'I^o-ov Xpio-rot) : 
how is explained more fully in iii. 25 ; also in vv. 9, 10 below. 

Dr. J. Agar Beet (Comm. ad loc.) discusses the exact shade of meaning 
conveyed by the aor. part. diKaicuQiVTes in relation to dpr\vr)v ex ct, A l€I '' He 
contends that it denotes not so much the reason for entering upon the state 



in question as the means 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 dp. | X . = « obtain peace,' which we have seen to 
be erroneous. The sense is exactly that of d x * v tlpfap in the passage 
quoted from the Acts, and SiKcuwd., as we have said, marks the initial 
moment in the state. 

2. tV Trpo(7a Y wY^. Two stages only are described in vv. i, 2 
though different language is used about them : diK<u<»&W = ^ 
npoorayoyi, elprjurj = x dpc S ; the Kav X r,(ns is a characteristic of the 
state of X "pis, at the same time that it points forward to a future 
state of oo£a. The phrase r, npoo-ay., 'our introduction/ is a con- 
necting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. Eph. ii. 18; 
111. 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. 

iax^Kofiev: 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). 

r% ir£o-T€i om. B D E F G, Lat. Vet., Orig.-lat. bis. The weight of this 
evidence depends on the value which we assign to B. All the other evidence 
is Western; and B also (as we have seen) has a Western element; so that 
the question is whether the omission here in B is an independent corrobora- 
tion of the Western group or whether it simply belongs to it (does the 
evidence - p 4 8, or 8 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 tj) marei in brackets as Treg. WH. RV. mare (Weiss 
omits). * v 

€is -ri\v xapii' Taimyr the ' state of grace' or condition of those 
who are objects of the Divine favour, conceived of as a space 
fenced in (Mey. Va. &c.) into which the Christian enters : cf. Gal. 
v. 4 ; 1 Pet. v. 12 (Va. and Grm.-Thay. s. v. x dpts 3. a). 

co-TYiKajxcj/ : 'stand fast or firm' (see Va. and Grm.-Thay. s.v. 
taTTjpi ii. 2. d). 

iir 3 eXmSi : as in iv. 18. 

Tfjs 8o'£t]s. See on iii. 23. It is the Glory of the Divine 
Presence (Shekinah) communicated to man (partially here, but) in 
full measure when he enters into that Presence ; man's whole being 
will be transfigured by it. 


Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of 
Justification ? 

It is well known to be a characteristic feature of the theology 
of Ritschl that he regards the proper object of Justification as the 
Christian Society as a collective whole, and not the individual as 
such. This view is based upon two main groups of arguments. 
(i) The first is derived from the analogy of the O. T. The great 
sacrifices of the O. T. were undoubtedly meant in the first instance 
for ' the congregation.' So in regard to the Passover it is laid 
down expressly that no alien is to eat of it, but all the congregation 
of Israel are to keep it (Ex. xii. 43 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 t))v eKKkqviav rov Oeov [v. 1. Kvpiov], rfv 
iT€pterrotr](TaTO bia roii alficiTos tov Ibiov : but also in I Jo. ii. 2 ; iv. IO ; 

1 Pet. iii. 18; Apoc. i. 5 f . ; v. 9 f.), 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 o-arripos ripvv '1. x., 6? 

ebanev eavrbv vwep rj/xcov, Iva XvrpaxrrjTiU fffias . . . Kai Kadapiar) eavra Xabu 
irepiovaiov I Eph. V. 25 f. 6 Xpiarbs rj-yaTrrjo-e rrjv eKitkrjaiav, ml eavrbv 
7rape8ancev vnep avrjjs' tva avrrjv dyiacrj] Kadaplaas k.t.X. (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 vnep f]p,H>v iravrcov napedooKev 

avTOv : iii. 2 2 diKaioavvT) 8e Oeov . . . els navras tovs TriarevouTas : and 

the repeated ypels in the contexts of three passages (Comp. Recht- 
fert. u. Versohn. ii. 216 f., 160). 

In reply the critics of Ritschl appeal to the distinctly in- 
dividualistic cast of such expressions as Rom. iii. 26 biKdiovvra t6v 

eK ni<TTf(os 'irjtrov : iv. 5 e7ri rbv diKaiovvra rbv acre fir/, with the context : 

X. 4 els 8lKClLO(TVVT)V TTaVTl TW TTKTTeVOVTl (Schader, Op. Clt. \>. 2<) U, ) cf. 

also Gloel, Der Heilige Geist, p. 102 n.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 82 b, 
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 


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 
bt. 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 


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. 

3-5 The two leading types of the Old-Latin Version of the Epistle stand 

out distinctly in these verses. We are fortunately able to compare the 

Cyprianic text with that of Tertullian (non solum . . . confundit) and the 

European text of Cod. Clarom. with that of Hilary (tribulatio . . . confundit). 

The passage is also quoted in the so-called Speculum (m), which represents 

the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian {Classical Review, iv. 416 f.). 

Cyprian. Cod. Clarom. 

Non solum aictem, sed et gloriamur Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur 

in pressuris, scicntes quoniam pres- in tribulatiombus , saentes quod tribu- 

sura tolerantiam operatur, tolerantia latio patientiam operatur, patientia 

autem probationem, probatio autem autem probationem, probatio autem 

stem ; spes aictem non confundit, quia spem ; spes autem non confundit, quia 

dilectio Dei infusa est cordibus nostris caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus^ 

per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nostris per Spintum Sanctum qui 

noo i s datus est nobis. 

verum etiam exultantes Tert. ; certi perficit Hil. ; prob vero m Hil. ; 
quod Tert.; perficiat Tert. (ed. Vin- spes vero Hil. (Cod. Clarom. - m). 
dob.) ; tol. vero Tert. ; spes vero Tert. 

Here as elsewhere in Epp. Paul., there is a considerable amount of matter 
common to all forms of the Version, enough to give colour to the supposition 
that a single translation lies at their root. But the salient expressions are 
changed ; and in this instance Tertullian goes with Cyprian, as Hilary with 
the European texts. The renderings tolerantia and pressura are venhed tor 
Tertullian elsewhere {tolerantia Luke xxi. 19 ; 1 Thess. 1 4 : pressura 

Rom. viii. 35; xii. I2 5 1 Cor - vii - 28 ; 2 Cor - l 8; , iv> \V £' 4} ^Aj 
Col. i. 24; 2 Thess. i. 4; Apoc. ii. 22; vii. 14), as also dilectio (to which 
the quotation does not extend in this passage, but which is found in 
Luke xi. 42 ; John xiii. 35 5 Rom - viii - 35. 39 ! * Cor nil. 1 ff , &c .) We 
note however that Hilary and Tertullian agree in perficit iperfiaat), though 
in another place Hilary has allusively tribulatio patientiam operatur. 
Perhaps this coincidence may point to an older rendering. 
3. ov jmSiw oe ({<TTT)Kaiiev d\\a <al Kav X a>^da, Or iarrjKOTfS ak\a k<u 

Kav^fxevot) : in this elliptical form characteristic of St. Paul and 
esp. of this group of Epistles (cf. v. n ; viii. 23 ; ix. 10 ; 2 Cor. 
viii. 19). 

KavYiiaevoi B C, Orig. bis and others : a good group, but open to suspicion 

of conforming to ver. 11 (q. v.) ; we have also found a similar group, on the 

whole inferior, in iii. 28. If «av X c^o t 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 fca^cm which ' is excluded ' 

(iii. 27) and this Christian Karats. The one rests on supposed 

human privileges and merit; the other draws all its force from the 

assurance of Divine love. 

The Tewish writers know of another mix*)™ (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 cumfiducia et . , , con- 
fidebunt non confusi, et gaudebunt non reverentes. 


iv tcus e\u|/€<ri. The ffKtycu are the physical hardships and 
sufferings that St. Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the 
Christian; cf. Rom. viii. 35 ff.; 1 Cor. iv. 11-13; vii. 26-32; xv. 
30-32; 2 Cor. i. 3-10; xi. 23-27. Such passages give us 
glimpses of the stormy background which lies behind St. Paul's 
Epistles. He is so absorbed in his « Gospel' that this makes very 
little impression upon him. Indeed, as this chapter shows, the 
overwhelming sense of God's mercy and love fills him with such 
exultation of spirit that bodily suffering not only weighs like dust in 
the balance but positively serves to strengthen his constancy. The 
same feeling comes out in the inepviK^v of viii. 37 : the whole 
passage is parallel. 

uTTopon^ : 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. Soicip) : 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 iiropoul} and must not 
be pressed too far : in St. James i. 3 to 8oKipiov t^ ttiWgjs produces 
vTrofiovfj. If St. James had seen this Epistle (which is doubtful) we 
might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. The con- 
ception is that of 2 Tim. ii. 3 (in the revised as well as the received 

t) 8e Sokijxt) c'XiriSa. 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. ou Kcn-cno-x^i : ' does not disappoint,' ' does not prove illusory.' 
The text Is. xxviii. 16 (LXX) caught the attention of the early 
Christians from the Messianic reference contained in it (' Behold, 
I lay in Zion,' &c), and the assurance by which this was followed 
(' he that believeth shall not be put to shame ') was confirmed to 
them by their own experience : the verse is directly quoted Rom. 
ix. 33 q. v. ; 1 Pet. ii. 6. 

t) dyd-rrT) tou Oeou : certainly ' the love of God for us,' not * our 
love for God ' (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns) : dydnrj thus 
comes to mean, ' our sense of God's love,' just as flp^wj = ' our 
sense of peace with God.' 

eKKe'xuTai. 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. 

8ict necufAdTos 'Ayiou : without the art., for the Spirit as imparted. 


St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges of 
Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the 
time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, i. e. from 
his baptism. 

6. en yap. There is here a difficult, but not really very im- 
portant, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus 
summarized : — 

m ydp at the beginning of the verse with en also after d<r6cvS>v, 

the mass of MSS. 
eVi at the beginning of the verse only, some inferior MSS. 

(later stage of the Ecclesiastical text). 
els ri ydp (possibly representing Iva ri ydp, ut quid enim), the 

Western text (Latin authorities), 
ft yap few authorities, partly Latin. 

et ye B. 

It is not easy to select from these a reading which shall account 
for all the variants. That indeed which has the best authority, the 
double en, 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 ?n ydp from Ua H ydp, or vice versa, 
through the doubling or dropping of IN from the preceding word 
hmin ; nor would it be difficult to explain en ydp from el ydp, or 
vice versa. We might then work our way back to an alternative el 
ydp or et 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. i, B has 
preserved the original reading e 1 ye. For the meaning of el ye (' so 
surely as ' Va.) see T. S. Evans in Exp. 1882, i. 176 f.; and the note 
on iii. 30 above. 

In more detail the evidence stands thus : en ydp here with en also after 
aoOevwv N A C D* al. : en here only D c E K L P &c. : els ri ydp D b F G : 
ut quid enim Lat.-Vet. Vulg., Iren.-lat. Faustin : ei ydp (104 Greg. = h 
Scriv.\ mid., Isid.-Pelus. Aug. bis : eiydp... en Boh. (' For if, we being still 
weak,' Sec) : ei oe Pesh. : el 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 en ydp,^ 
with double en, which is impossible unless we suppose a lapsus _ calami 
between St. Paul and his amanuensis. (2) The Western reading is els ri 
ydp, which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original iva 
ri ydp (Gif., from ut quid enim of Iren.-lat. &c): this is no doubt a very 
early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is ei ydp. (4) B alone gives 
et 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 (I ydp to get en ydp by dittography of 
1 (eirAP, eiifAp, eTirAp), or from this again to get els ri ydp through ditto- 
graphy of e and confusion with c (ecnrAp) ; or we might take the alternative 
ingeniously suggested by Gif., of supposing that the original reading was iva 


ri yap, of which the first two letters had been absorbed by the previous fip.iv 
(hmin in] ati rap). There would thus be no great difficulty in accounting for 
the origin either of Irt yap or of the group of Western readings ; and the 
primitive variants would be reduced to the two, ei j-Ap and ei re. Dr. Hort 
proposed to account for these by a conjectural ei nep, which would be a con- 
ceivable root for all the variations— partly through paraphrase and partlv 
through errors of transcription. We might however escape the necessity of 
resorting to conjecture by supposing confusion between rt and the abbrevia- 

^o*/^ t Fo 5 th o S (° rm See T - W - Allen ' Notes on Abbreviations in Greek 
MSS. (Oxford, 1889), p. 9 and pi. iii ; Lehmann, Die tachygraphischen Ab- 
kurzungen d. griech. Handschriften (Leipzig, 1880), p. 91 f. taf. 9. We 
believe that the oldest extant example is in the Fragmentum Mathematicum 
Bobiense of the seventh century (Wattenbach, Script. Graec. Specim. tab 8), 
where the abbreviation appears in a corrupt form. But we know that short- 
hand was very largely practised in the early centuries (cf. Eus. H. E. 
VI. xxm. 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 d 7 f, as it makes the best sense, may also 
be the original reading. 

eT pe (ei rib) 

.1 1 

ei re ei y^p 

€TI fAp 


€1 ^p 

€Ti rap 

[Fn]a t'i r<*p eic t'i rAp 

ut quid enim 

AoQcpum : * incapable ' of working out any righteousness for our- 

k<xt& KcupoV. 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. jao'Xis y^P- The yap explains how this dying for sinners is 
a conspicuous proof of love. A few may face death for a good 
man, still fewer for a righteous man, but in the case of Christ 
there is more even than this ; He died for declared enemies of God. 

For p.6\i$ the first hand of N and Orig. read fioyts, which has more 
attestation in Luke ix. 39. The two words were easily confused both in 
sense and in writing. 

uircp SiKtuou. There is clearly in this passage a contrast between 
vnep diKalov and vnep tov dyadov. They are not expressions which 
may be taken as roughly synonymous (Mey.-W. Lips. &c), but it 


is implied that it is an easier thing to die for the dyaOik than for the 
&Vcaio9. Similarly the Gnostics drew a distinction between the 
God of the O. T. and the God of the N. T., calling the one SUaios 
and the other dyaQos (Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xxvii. i ; comp. other 
passages and authorities quoted by Gif. p. 123). The Siicaios keeps 
to the ' letter of his bond ' ; about the dya36 s 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 tov dyaOov neut.) and even by Mey. and Dr. 
T. K. Abbott (JEssays, p. 75) that there is no substantial difference 
between dUatos and dya66s. 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 dyaOov and not before bucalov need not stand 
in the way. This is sufficiently explained by Gif., who points out 
that the clause beginning with /xdXis is virtually negative, so that 
faicaLov 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. owiorrjox : see on iii. 5- 

ti\v 4auToO &y&Tn)v : ' His own love/ emphatic, prompted from 
within not from without. Observe that the death of Christ is here 
referred to the will of the Father, which lies behind the whole of 
what is commonly (and not wrongly) called the ' scheme of re- 
demption.' Gif. excellently remarks that the ' proof of God's love 
towards us drawn from the death of Christ is strong in proportion 
to the closeness of the union between God and Chiist.' It is the 
death of One who is nothing less than ' the Son.' 

tt\v lavTOv d-ydirqv €is T| 6 0e6s N A C K P &c. : 6 0«d? eh ^fxds 
D E F GL : om. 6 ®eos B. There is no substantial difference of meaning, 
as tls rifias in any case goes with avviorrjai, not with dydirrjv. 

uirep r\\i.u>v 6nr4Qav€. St. Paul uses emphatic language, 1 Cor. 
xv. 1-3, to show that this doctrine was not confined to himself but 
was a common property of Christians. 

9. St. Paul here separates between ' justification,' the pronouncing 
1 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 jptfric alfjuiTcuxvaLas ov yuvrot afaais, see p. 92, 


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

81" auToG : explained by the next verse iu rfj far} avrov. That 
which saves the Christian from final judgement in his union with 
the living Christ. 

10. KaTTjMdyrjfi.ei'. The natural prima facie view is that the 
reconciliation is mutual ; and this view appears to verify itself on 
examination : see below. 

kv rfj £wfj auToG. For the full meaning of this see the notes on 
ch. vi. 8-1 1 ; viii. 10, n. 

11. icauxwfiei'oi (N B C D, &c.) is decisively attested for Kavx&pfOa, 
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 KavxvptOa. In any case it is present and 
not future (as if constructed with <ra>dr)<r6neda). We may compare 
a similar loose attachment of ducaiovpevoi in ch. iii. 24. 

The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement 

The KaraWayrj described in these verses is the same as the flpfjpi) 
of ver. 1; and the question necessarily meets us, What does this 
elprjvjj or KaraXXayr] mean ? Is it a change in the attitude of man to 
God or in that of God to man ? Many high authorities contend 
that it is only a change in the attitude of man to God. 

Thus Lightfoot on Col. i. 21 : ' exOpovs, " hostile to God," as the 
opposite of drrr)\\oTpL(op.fuov9, not " hateful to God," as it is taken 
by some. The active rather than the passive sense of c'xdpovs 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. 10 f.). 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 / <\£ v 
were not sin. This being so, the IXaapos, when it is applied to the l 
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 iXaafios is properly 



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 i\0p6s denotes the hostility 
and tcaraWayrj 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 rrjv KaTaWayrjv {kd&ofup, 
implying that the reconciliation comes to man from the side of 
God, and is not directly due to any act of his own. We may 
compare the familiar x^P' s Kai "ph vr ), to which is usually added 0776 
eeou in the greetings of the Epistles. 

(2) In Rom. xi. 28 irfpot is Opposed tO dyanrjToi, where aymrrjTol 

must be passive (' beloved by God '), so that it is hardly possible 
that e'xfyoi 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 lka(TTT)piov (Rom. iii. 
25), IXaa-fios (1 Jo. ii. 2) from the idea of propitiating a person. 

(4) There is frequent mention of the Anger of God as directed 
against sinners, not merely at the end of all things, but also at this 
present time (Rom. i. 18, &c). When that Anger ceases to be 
so directed there is surely a change (or what we should be com- 
pelled to call a change) on the part of God as well as of man. 

We infer that the natural explanation of the passages which 
speak of enmity and reconciliation between God and man is that 
they are not on one side only, but are mutual. 

At the same time we must be well aware that this is only our 
imperfect way of speaking : Kara avOpoa-rrov Xe'yo) 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/ 


V. 12-14. What a contrast does this last description 
suggest between the Fall of Adam and the justifying Work 
of Christ ! There is indeed parallelism as well as contrast. 
For it is true that as Christ brought righteousness and life, 
so Adams Fall brought sin and death. If death prevailed 
throughout the pre-Mosaic period, that could not be due solely 

V. 12-14.] ADAM AND CHRIST Io T 

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. 13 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. u 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. 8ia touto : points to the logical connexion with what pre- 
cedes. It has been argued, at somewhat disproportionate length, 
whether this refers to ver. 1 1 only (Fricke, De Mente dogmatica loci 
Paulini ad Rom. v. 12 sq., Lipsiae, 1880, Mey., Philippi, Beet), or 
to vv. 9-1 1 (Fri.), or to vv. 1-11 (Rothe, Hofmann), or to the 
whole discussion from i. 17 onwards (Beng.,. Schott, Reiche, 
Rfickert). 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. 1-11. 

K 2 


That being so, we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. 1 1 that 
St. Paul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one 
case with that of life 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. AH 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. 

<3<nr€p. 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 : &o"ntp 81 ivos dvOpatnov f) Apapria els tou Koapou eiofJAtfe, Koi 81a 
t?js Apaprlas 6 Qavaros . . . ovtoh ko\ 8l evos dvOpwnov r) ftiKaioavvr] 
clar)\dc, Ka\ 81a tP/s ftiKaioavvrjs fj far). But the words 81a rrjs Apap- 
rlas 6 edvaros 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 (os ten rimos rav peWovros) 
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. 
~#ju H**~ ^ djxapTia: 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. 
' Hl, t W**t*' «is * ov k^o" «iarjX9e : a phrase which, though it reminds us 
°$u^Jr specially of St. John (John i. 9, 10; iii. 17, 19; vi. 14; «. 5> 
39; x. 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 
1 - self-diffusion of evil. > 

cf. di™ 1 6 edm-ros. Some have taken this to mean 'eternal death, 

chiefly on the ground of vv. 17, 21, where it seems to be opposed 
to ' eternal life.' Oltr. is the most strenuous supporter of this 
view. But it is far simpler and better to take it of 'physical 
death' : because (1) this is clearly the sense of ver. 14; (2) it is 
the sense of Gen. ii. 17; iii. 19; to which St. Paul is evidently 
alluding. It seems probable that even in vv. 17, 21, the idea 
is in the first instance physical. But St. Paul does not draw the 

V. 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 ; 
vTTfpeTTfpLo-o-fvo-fv r) x (l P ls i s tne 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 (D E F G, &c.) omits this word altogether. Ang. 
makes the subject of the vb. not death but sin : he accuses the Pelagians of 
inserting 6 davaros. *, , 

SiTjXGei': contains the force of distribution; 'made its way to ' 
each individual member of the race ' : KaOcmtp ns tempos irarpbs 
Staphs fVl tovs iyyovovs ('like a father's inheritance divided among 
his children'), Euthym.-Zig. j q t 

if (J. 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 'ASa/x : ' in whom,' i. e. ' in 
Adam.' But in that case (i) «rt would not be the right preposi- 
tion ; (ii) <» would be too far removed from its antecedent. 

(2) Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc. 
with antecedent Odvaros : ' in which,' i. e. ' in death,' which is 
even more impossible. (3) Some moderns, taking w as neut. and 
the whole phrase as equivalent to a conjunction, have tried to 
get out of it other meanings than ' because.' So (i) ' in like 
manner as' ('all died, just as all sinned'), Rothe, De Wette; 
(ii) (= c<p' oa-ov) * in proportion as,' ' in so far as ' (' all died, in so 

far as all sinned'), Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But 
the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) «S is rightly 
taken as neut., and the phrase «$' a> 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. 

i<f>' $ in classical writers more often means 'on condition that': cf. 
Thuc. i. 113 anopSas iroiTja&pevoi «</>' <£ tovs dvbpas Kopiovvrai, 'on con- 
dition of getting back their prisoners,' &c. The plural «</>' ofs is more 
common, as in dvO' wv, }£ Sjv, 5t* Siv. In N. T. the phrase occurs three 
times, always as it would seem =propte rea quod, 'because' : cf. 2 Cor. v. 4 
OT(va£o(Atv (2apovp.(voc «</>' $ ov 8(\optv kKo~voaoQai k.t.K. ; Phil. iii. 1 2 
i<p' y Kal Kart\rn}>6T)v bird X. 'I. (where ' seeing that ' or * because ' appears 
to be the more probable rendering). So Phavorinus (d. 1537; a lexico- 
grapher of the Renaissance period, who incorporated the contents of older 
works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) !</>' $ u.*ti tov Bioti 
kiyovotv 'Attiko'i, olov <(/>' $ r^v K\oitijv eipydau ('because you com- 
mitted the theft ') k.t.K. 


134 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12, 13. 

c<|>' u> irdvTes ■qjxapToi'. Here lies the crux of this difficult pas- 
jy i A^ J ' sage. In what sense did 'all sin'? (1) Many, including even 
Meyer, though explaining e<p' <a 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 <a is 'Addp. 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 iv 'Addp, would have removed 
all ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part 
supply nothing, but take rjp.apTov in its usual sense : ' all sinned 
in their own persons, and on their own initiative.' So Euthym.- 

Zig. : 8i6tc rravres fjpaprov duoXovdrjcravTes tg> rrporraTopi Kara, ye to 

&p,aprrj(rai. 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 fjpaprov 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 radicis 
which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in full 
below), the writer goes on to describe this sin as a repetition of Adam's due 
to the fact that they too had within them the cor malignum as he had : Et 
deliquerunt qui habitabant civitatem, in omnibus facientes sicut fecit Adam 
et omnes generationes eius, utebantur enim et ipsi corde maligno (4 Ezra iii. 
25 f.). Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from Apoc. 
Baruch. which lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin and on the 
freedom of choice in those who give way to it : see the fuller note below. 

13. axpi y^P ^H- ou K.T.X. At first sight this seems to give a 
reason for just the opposite of what is wanted : it seems to prove 
('£ i vVV not t ^ iat 7r "" res w a P TOV > 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. 13, 14.] ADAM AND CHRIST 


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. ' / t^ m* 

djiapTia 8e ouk eXXoyeiTai k.t.X. The thought is one which C A \hjJJ^ 
had evidently taken strong hold on St. Paul: see on iv. 15, and 
the parallels there quoted. 

eXXoYeiTcu : ' brought into account ' (Gif.), as of an entry made 
in a ledger. The word also occurs in Philem. 18, where see 
Lightfoot's note. 

iWoyeiTCLL (or kv\oyeiTai N C BCDEFGKLP, &c, kWoydrai N d : 
ev€\oy(tTo N*, eWoyaro A 52 108; imputabatur Vulg. codd. Ambrstr. al. 
The imperf. appears to be a (mistaken) correction due to the context. 
As to the form of the verb: iXXoya 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 ol eWoyarai : see Westcott 
and Hort, Notes on Orthography in Appendix to Introd. p. 166 ff. 

14. ePao-t'Xeuo-ei/ 6 Bdvaros. St. Paul appeals to the universal ^ 
prevalence of death, which is personified, as sin had been just 
before, under the figure of a grim tyrant, in proof of the mis- 
chief wrought by Adam's Fall. Nothing but the Fall could 
account for that universal prevalence. Sin and death had their 
beginnings together, and they were propagated side by side. 

On the certainty and universality of Death, regarded as a penalty, comp. 
Seneca, Nat. Quaest. ii. 59 Eodem citius tardiusve veniendum est . . . In 
omnes constitutum est capitate supplicium et quidevi constitulione iustissima. 
nam quod magnum solet esse solatium extrema passuris, quorufti eadem 
causa et sors eadem est. Similarly Philo speaks of rbv av/Mpva vt/cpdv rjixwv, 
rb auifxa (De Gigant. 3 ; ed. Mang. i. 264). Elsewhere he goes a step further 
and asserts on iravrl ytvvT]Tu> . . . avfupves to dixaprdveiv. For parallels in 
4 Ezra and Apoc. Baruch. see below. 

€irl tovs p.T| &(jiapTT|cravTas. 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 Tertulljan, 


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. 19 it inserts it. 

tv-itos (tvtttcd) : (1) the 'impression' left by a sharp blow (tov rvirov 
tSjv tfKcov 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 {olvtItvitos i Pet. iii. 21). 
These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation : see 
esp. Cheyne, Isaiah, ii. 170 ff. (Essay III, ' On the Christian Element in the 
Book of Isaiah '). 

v^, ' toC jxe'Mon-os. (1) The entirely personal nature of the whole 
comparison prevents us from taking tov fie'XX. as neut. as ' that 
which was to come' (Beng., Oltramare). If St. Paul had 
intended this, he would have written tov pAWros ala>vos. (2) 
Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the 
Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as 6 devrepos or 6 eo-Yaros 
'Aoa/x (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47). If St. Paul had intended this, he 
would have written tov peWovros 'Abdp. (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 
fieXXcov thus approximates in meaning to 6 ipxfyxvos (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 tov peWovros = ' Him who was to 
come ' when Adam fell, not ' who is (still) to come ' (Fri. De W.). 

The Effects of Adams Fall in Jewish 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 " (Habba), though a most truthful 
expression of Jewish expectancy, was not one ordinarily used of the Messiah.' 
Edersheim, Z. <Sr» T. i. p. 668. 



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' (Life 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. 6 Qeos enTioev rbv dvOpamov kit' u<pOap<riq . . . <p66vcj) 8^ 
dia(36\ov Qavaros tlorjKQev tt's rbv k6<t/xov, where we note the occurrence of 
St. Paul's phrase ; Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] 8t avrfjv (sc. rfjv yvvai/ta) dnoevr]- 
OKOfiev rravres. The doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Ezra and 
Apoc. Baruch. : 4 Ezr. iii. 7 et huic (sc. Adamd) mandasti diligere viam 
tuam, et praeterivit earn; et statim instituisti in eum mortem et in 
nationibus ( = generationibus) eius : Apoc. Baruch. xvii. 3 {Adam) mortem 
attulit et abscidit annos eorutn qui ab eo geniti fuerunt : ibid, xxiii. 4 
Quando peccavit Adam et decretafuit mors contra eos qui gignerentur. 

(2) We are warned (by Dr. Edersheim in Sp. Comm. Apocr. ad toe.) not 
to identify the statement of Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] dirb yvvaiKus dpxfj afxaprias 
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 (and -yvv.) the initium 
peccandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra iii. 21 f. Cor enim malignum baiulans 
primus Adam transgressus et victus est, sed et omnes qui de eo nati sunt : 
et facta est permanens infirmitas, et lex cum corde popiili, cum malignitaie 
radicis ; et discessit quod bonum est, et mansit malignum : ibid. iv. 30 
Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio, et 
quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc, et generat usque dum veniat area : 
tbid. vii. 48 O tu quid fecisti Adam? Si enim tu peccasti, non est fact us 
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. 5<) f. Non enim 
Altissimus voluit hominem disperdi, sed ipsi qui creati sunt coinquinaverunt 
nomen eius qui fecit eos : ibid. ix. 1 1 qui fastidierunt legem meam cum adhuc 
erant habentes libertatem. But the classical passage is Apoc. Baruch. 
liv. 15, 19 Si enim Adam prior peccavit, et attulit mortem super omnes 
immaturam ; sed etiam illi qui ex eo nati sunt, unusquisque ex eis praepa- 
ravit animae suae tormentum futurum: et iterum unusquisque ex eis 
elegit sibi gloriam futuram . . . Aon est ergo Adam causa, nisi animae suae 
tantum ; nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam. 

The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the 
Talmud. The latter is thus summarized by Weber (Altsyn. 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- 


mission of sin (Es gibt eine Erbschuld, aber keine Erbsunde),' the negative 
proposition is due chiefly to the clearness with which the Rabbis (like Apoc. 
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 fuil 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. 


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 I (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 I (ver. 16). (3) How different and surpassing in 
its whole cliaracter and consequences : a reign of Death and 
a reign of Life ! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adams Fall 
brought sin : Law increased it: but the Work of Grace has 
cancelled, and more than cancelled, the effect of Law (vv. 

15 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. 17 Yet once more. Through the single fault of the one 
man Adam the tyrant Death began its reign through that one 
sole agency. Much more then shall the Christian recipients of 
that overflowing kindness and of the inestimable gift of righteous- 
ness — much more shall they also reign, not in death but in life, 
through the sole agency of Jesus Messiah. 

18 To sum up. On one side we have the cause, a single Fall ; 
and the effect, extending to all men, condemnation. On the other 
side we have as cause, a single absolving act ; and as effect, also 
extending to all, a like process of absolution, carrying with it life. 
19 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/ 20 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 

15. Trapa-iTTWfxa : lit. ' a slip or fall sideways/ ' a false step/ 
' a lapse ' : hence metaph. in a sense not very dissimilar to dfiaprrma 

I 4 o EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 15, 16. 

(which is prop, 'missing a mark'). It is however appropriate 
that Trapanr. should be used for a 'fall' or first deflection from 
uprightness, just as dpdpr. is used of the failure of efforts towards 
recovery. On the word see Trench, Syn. p. 237 f. 
toG kv6% : ' the one man,' i. e. Adam. 

01 ttoXXoi : ' the many,' practically = irdvras ver. 1 2 ; navras dvOpa- 
novs 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 of 
the human race, and its effects extend not only to ' many ' but to 
' all '—to ' all/ that is potentially, if they embrace the redemption 
which is offered them. 

See Bentley, quoted by 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 01 ttoWo'i, the many, in an anti- 
thesis to the one, are equivalent to iravres, all, in ver. 12, and comprehend the 
whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusive only of the one' 

-rroXXw |uiaXXo»\ 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. 

rj Swped is more fully defined below (ver. 17) as 17 dcopea tT/s 
btKaioavvrjs : the gift is the condition of righteousness into which 
the sinner enters, duped, ' boon,' like 8S>pov contrasted with 86p.a, 
is reserved for the highest and best gifts; so Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. 

70 epcpaaiv peyiBovs reXeicov dya6a>v drjXoviriv (Lft. Ret), p. 77/ 5 COmp. 

also the ascending scale of expression in Jas. i. 17. 

iv xdpin goes closely with f) doped. In classical Greek we should 
have had the art. fj ev xoptrt, 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 ev x<*P lTL fr° m V 

doped and connect it with eTreplaaevo-e. 

x dpis 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. 

2 Cor. viii. 9) ; (2) the same active favour shown to the individual by the 
Father and the Son conjointly (Rom. i. 7 q. v.). 

16. The absence of verbs is another mark of compressed anti- 
thetic style. With the first clause we may supply eW, with the 
second ryivero : ' 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 


inwards; the movement originates with many sins which are all 
embraced in a single sentence of absolution 

W^a: usually the decision, decree, or ordinance by which 

•A £?£ r- (that vvhich gives a thin ^ the fc«5 

right ) here the decision- or sentence by which persons are 
declared ^ t0 , The sense is determined by^he antithels ™ *J£ 

tnTn' Jr*"" f t0 hKaia>(Tls the reIation of an act completed 
to an act m process (see p. 31 sup.). F 

17. ttoXX£ paXXo,. Here the a fortiori argument lies in the 
nature of the two contrasted forces 1 God's grace must be more 
powerful in its working than man's sin. 

*V «pwr«iy . . . xrjs Swpeas rrjs SiKtuoauVrjs Xap|3<£„o,Te S . Every 

rTih^ P K 0mtS t0 th f l gift ° f ri g hte ousness here described as 
something objective and external to the man himself, not wrought 
within him but coming to him, imputed not infused. It has its 
source in the overflow of God's free favour; it is a gift which man 
receives : see pp. 25, 30 f., 36 above. 8 

PooiXcdoouai. 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. 

8ta too bfo VoG XpiaToG. The S«i 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. 1 his and the three following verses, introduced by the 

strongly illative particles apa otv, sum up the results of the whole 

comparison between Adam and Christ : the resemblance is set 

m vv. 18, 19; the difference and vast preponderance of the 

scale ol blessing in vv. 20, 21. 

Again we have a condensed antithesis— the -reat 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 &' eVAs dtKariparos and of du«uWi» f«,^. 

81' ivbs SiKcu^dTos. Does &«u'«/xa here mean the same thing 
as m 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 i™^, of Christ ? A 
number of scholars (Holsten, Va. Lips. Lid.) argue that it must 
be the latter in order to correspond with di' hbs irapmrr&paTos. So 
too Euthym.-Zig. dt hhs d^aicofiaros tov X. Tt]i> & Kp av hiKawfrvv^v 

142, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 18, 19. 

ireTT^rjpcoKoTos. But it seems better, with Mey. Gif. and others, to 
give the same sense to SiKa'iwpLa as in ver. 16. We saw that there 
the sense was fixed by KaraKptpa, which is repeated in the present 
verse. On the other hand it is doubtful whether biKaiupa 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 ivos neut. in agreement with Sikcu'oo/a. (Mey.-W. Va. 
Gif.) rather than masc. (Lips.). 

SiKaiwffik £wt]s. ' 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. 8ict ttjs irapctKOTJs • • . Sid ttjs u-iraKOTJs. It is natural that 
this aspect of the Fall as irapaKorj 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 vnaKar] : cf. Heb. v. 8, 9 ; Matt. xxvi. 
39 ; Phil. ii. 8. On the word irapaKor] (' a failing to hear/ incuria, 
and thence inobedientid) see Trench, Syn. p. 234. 

KaTeaTci0if)aaj' . . . KaracrraOrio-orrai: ' 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. KaTao-TaB^novrai 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 ^/xcfs <pv<rei 'IovSafoi, Kal ovk l£ tOvwv 
a/xapTcuKoi, he implied (speaking for the moment from the stand-point of his 
countrymen) that Gentiles would be regarded as <pva*i apaprwXoi: 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; an d so f ar as it relates to the effects of the Death of Christ 
it is parallel to w. I, 2 SiKaiajOivres ovv [kit marews] tlp-qvqv €x°^ v (con- 
tained in Zxwpev) *pbs rbv &€ov 8id tov Kvpiov jjpcuv 'I. X., 6V ov Kal rty 
TTpoaayojyrjv eaxv fca / X€V c '* T W X"*P IV * v V karrjKapev. For the use of Kadi- 
OTaoQai there is a good parallel in Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 9 '£70; ovv toxjs pev 
fiovXopivovs TroX\.a trpdypara ex €iu - • • eLS T " vs ap\iKobs KaTaoT-qoaipi, where 
KaraffT. — eh tows dpxiKoiis raTTopw (suj>.) and ip.avruv rdrTw els tovs 
(5ov\op.evovs {inf.). 

V. 20, 21.] ADAM AND CHRIST , 43 

20. irapeiaijXeeK : « come in to the side of a state of thugs already 
rTn g ; if" Paul K re ^ rded Law as a 'parenthesis' in the DMne 

& iv ! , ; d 6 .■? ^v nti i Moses ' and jt ended *** Ss 

(cp. iv. 13-16 x. 4). Here however he has in view only its- late 
beginning: it ,s a sort of ■ after-thought • (see the Paraphrase) 

J ? r a TrXeo^ar, For the force of Iva comp. * r6 Am airoi> s <Wo~ 
Xoynroysi. 2 o : 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. 

■WO &&, 8* rovvavnov ov napd rijv rod vopov tpiotv, dXXd W riv 4, 

I SZZt Tr- (ChryS °;^ n ? te Whkh sh0WS that the ancients were quhe 
aware of the ecbatic sense of iva (see on xi. 11). H 

TrWdar,, as Va. remarks, might be transitive, but is more 
probably intransitive, because of enXeomaeu h dpapr. which follows 

to TOpdimijia : seems expressly chosen in order to remind us 
that all sins done in defiance of a definite command are as such 
repetitions of the sin of Adam. 

21. iv ™ Oa^Tw. 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). 

8i& SucaioauVrjs. 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. ' F 

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 dpapria with its cognates is a case in point. The 
corresponding term in Hebrew has much the same original sense 


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 hpaprla, dpaprdvav 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 (dpapria 8e ovk 
AXoyelmt pfj outos vdfiov Rom. v. 1 3 : cf. iv. 1 5). But as a matter 
of fact few or none can take advantage of this because everywhere- 
even among the heathen — there is some knowledge of God and of 
right and wrong (Rom. i. 19 f.; 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. vii. 
V ff.). The reason of this was partly a certain corruption of 
human nature inherited from Adam. The corruption alone would 
not have been enough apart from the consentient will ; neither 
would the will have been so acted upon if it had not been for 
the inherited corruption (Rom. v. 12-14). But there was yet a third 
element, independent of both these. They operated through the 
man himself; but there was another influence which operated with- 
out him. It is remarkable how St. Paul throughout these chapters, 
Rom. v, vi, vii, constantly personifies Sin as a pernicious and deadly 
force at work in the world, not dissimilar in kind to the other great 
counteracting forces, the Incarnation of Christ and the Gospel. 
Now personifications are not like dogmatic definitions, and the 
personification in this instance does not always bear exactly the 
same meaning. In ch. v, when it is said that ' Sin entered into the 
world,' the general term ' Sin' includes, and is made up of, the sins 
of individuals. But in chaps, vi and vii the personified Sin is set 
over against the individual, and expressly distinguished from him. 
Sin is not to be permitted to reign within the body (vi. 12); the 
members are not to be placed at the disposal of Sin (vi. 13); to 
Sin the man is enslaved (vi. 6, 17, 20; vii. 14), and from Sin he is 
emancipated (vi. 18, 22), or in other words, it is to Sin that he dies 
(vi. 9, 11); Sin takes up its abode within his heart (vii. 17, 20): 
it works upon him, using the commandment as its instrument, and 
so is fatal to him (vii. 8, n). 

In all this the usage is consistent : a clear distinction is drawn 
at once between the will and the bodily impulses which act upon 
the will and a sort of external Power which makes both the will and 
the impulses subservient to it. What is the nature of this Power ? 
Is it personal or impersonal ? We could not tell from this particular 
context. No doubt personal attributes and functions are assigned 
to it, but perhaps only figuratively as part of the personification. 
To answer our questions we shall have to consider the teaching of 
the Apostle elsewhere. It is clear enough that, like the rest of his 
countrymen (see Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 52 f.), 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. n), 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. 5 ; 


1 Tim. i. 20); supernatural powers of deceiving or perverting men 
are attributed to him (2 Thess. ii. 9 kut ivtpytiav tov laram eV 77-0077 

fivvdpei Ka\ o-qfxziois Kai Tepaai yj/evbovs : cf. 2 Cor. XI. 1 4). The 

Power of Evil does not stand alone but has at its disposal a whole 

army of Subordinate agents (apxal, f£ovaiai, Koo-poKpdropes tov (tkotovs 

tovtov 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' (6 0e6s tov al£>vos tovtov 2 Cor. iv. 4), and 
exercises his rule till the final triumph of the Messiah (2 Thess. ii. 
8 f . ; 1 Cor. xv. 24 f.). 

We see therefore that just as in the other books of the N.T. 
the Gospels, the Apocalypse, and the other Apostolic Epistles, evil 
is referred to a personal cause. And although it is doubtless true 
that in chaps, vi, vii, where St. Paul speaks most directly of the 
baleful activity of Sin, he does not intend to lay special stress on 
this ; his language is of the nature of personification and does not 
necessarily imply a person ; yet, when we take it in connexion with 
other language elsewhere, we see that in the last resort he would 
have said that there was a personal agency at work. It is at 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 ; and the question 
naturally arises, What becomes of that account and of the inferences which 
St. Paul draws from it, if we accept the view which is pressed upon us by 
the comparative study of religions and largely adopted by modern criticism, 
that it is not to be taken as a literal record of historical fact, but as the 
Hebrew form of a story common to a number of Oriental peoples and going 
back to a common root ? When we speak of a ' Hebrew form ' of this story 
we mean a form shaped and moulded by those principles of revelation of 
which the Hebrew race was chosen to be the special recipient. From this 
point of view it becomes the typical and summary representation of a series 
of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half-calcined bones can 
ever reproduce for us. In some way or other as far back as history goes, 
and we may believe much 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 I4? 

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 as a group of single incidents. Their 
essential character is not altered, and in the interpretation of primitive 
beliefs we may safely remember that ' a thousand years in the sight of God 
are but as one day.' We who believe in Providence and who believe in the 
active influence of the Spirit of God upon man, may well also believe that 
the tentative 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 8lKCtU00-l?. 

In order to complete our commentary on the earlier portion ol the Epistle, 
it will be convenient to sum up, as shortly as is possible, the history of the 
doctrine of Justification, so far as it is definitely connected with exegesis. 
To pursue the subject 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 ovxl Simioavvrjv ko.1 
ahr)6tiav SicL marecos iroiTjoas ;). And throughout there is the same co- 
ordination of different types of doctrine. ' We are justified by works and not 
by words' (§ 30 epyois 8iko.iovij.cvoi nal ^7) Xoyois). But again (§ 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 

L 2 


dangerous theories as to conduct, which arise from holding such beliefs in 
too crude a manner, are at once guarded against (§ 33) : ' What then must 
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,' ' W'orks,' ' 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. 
Origen. How little Origen had grasped some points in St. Paul's thought may be 

seen by his comment on Rom. iii. 20 Ex operilms igitur legis quod non iusti- 
ficabitur omnis caro in conspectu eius, hoc modo intelligendum puto : quia 
omnis qui caro est et secundum carnem vivit, non potest iustificari ex 
lege Dei, sicut et alibi dicit idem Apostolus, quia qui in came sunt Deo 
placere non possunt {in Rom. iii. 6; Opp. torn. 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 dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem, ita 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 ' {fides ad iustitiam 
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 quoted 
being the penitent thief and the woman with the alabaster box of ointment 
(Luke vii. 37-42). But the need for good works is not excluded: sed 
fortassis haec aliquis audiens resolvatur et bene agendi negligentiam capiat, 
si quidem ad iustificandum fides sola sufficiat. ad quern dicemus, quia post 
iustificationem si iniuste quis agat, sine dubio iustificationis gratiam sprevit 
. . . indulgentia namque non futurorum sed praeteritorum criminum datur 
(iii. 9, p. 219, on Rom. iii. 27, 28). Faith without works is impossible 
(iv. 1, p. 234) : rather faith is the root from which they spring : non ergo 
ex operibus radix iustitiae, sed ex radice iustitiae fructus operum crescit, 
ilia 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 iustitia 
Dei is clearly interpreted as the Divine attribute. 
Chrysos- The same criticism which was passed on Origen applies in an equal 

torn. 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. 



For example, commenting on Rom. ii. to 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 Horn, vii : < He has accused 
the Gentiles, he has accused the Jews ; what follows to mention next is the 
righteousness which is by faith. For if the law of nature availed not, and 
the written Law was of no advantage, but both weighed down those' that 
used them not aright, and made it plain that they were worthy of greater 
punishment, then the salvation which is by grace was henceforth necessary.' 
The meaning of biKaioovvq Qeov 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' {Horn. vii. on iii. 24, 25). It may be interesting to quote the 
exposition of the passage which follows. He explains did tt}p ndpeatv rwv 
irpoycyovoTOJv dfxapTijfxdTajv thus : did ttjv ndpeaiv, rovrkari tt\v vkupuoiv. 
ovKiji yap iryeias kkms fy, d\\' wairep aw/xa irapa\v$kv rrjs dvco0ev kSeiTo 
X*tp6s, ovtqj teal ij ^u X ^ viKpajBeiaa, giving ndpeais the meaning of ' para- 
lysis/ the paralysis of spiritual life which has resulted from sin. Generally 
SmaiSco seems clearly to be taken as 'make righteous,' even in passages 
where it will least bear such an interpretation ; for instance on iv. 5 (Horn. 
yiii.) duvarai 6 0eds rbv iv doepeiq faPiaKora tovtov k£ai(pvqs oi>xl Kokdatws 
iKev6epuj(Tcu fiovov, d\\d Kal ditcaiov -noirjoai, . . . ei yap patcdpios ovtojs 
o \a&wv d<p€<Tiv dirb xap l ™s rro\\q> pidWov 6 dataioodeis, and on iv. 25 (Horn. 
ix) knl tovtco yap nal dirkOave Kal dvkarr) Xva diicaiovs kpydarjrai. Yet his 
usage^ is not consistent, for on Rom. viii. 33 he writes : ' He does not say, 
it is God that forgave our sins, but what is much greater : — " It is God that 
justifieth." For when the Judge's sentence declares us just (Bwaiovs d-no- 
<paivu), 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 i^vid. p. 53) he writes: 17 mans vpuv 180^77- 
aaro rSiv dfxapTTjfxaTOJV rrjv dcptatv Kal d/xwfxovs Kal ScKaiovs did rrjs rod Xovrpov 
traWtyyeveaias dire<pijve' irpoarjKH 5k vfxds tt\v irpos rbv Qebv ytyevrjuivrjv 

<pV\aTT(lV dpTJVTJV. 

To sum up the teaching of the 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 Psahnum 
XXXI Enarratio II: this Psalm he describes as Psalmus gratiae Dei 
et iustificationis nostrae nullis fraecedentibus meritis nostris, sed prae- 
veniente nos misericordia Domini Dei nostri . . . His purpose is to prove 


as against any form of Pelagianism that our salvation comes from no merits 
of our own but only from the Divine grace which is given us. This leads to 
three main characteristics in his exposition of the Romans, (i) For, 
firstly, good works done by those who are not in a state of grace are 
valueless : nemo computet bona opera sua ante jidem : ubi fides non erat 
bonttm 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 
ducaiovoOai of ' making just,' and that Augustine in one place admits the 
possibility of interpreting it either as 'making just' or 'reckoning just' 
{De Sp. et Lit. § 45). But although he admits the two interpretations so 
far as concerns the words, practically his whole theory is that of an infusion 
of the grace of faith by which men are made just. So in his comment on 
i. 1 7 he writes : haec est iustitia Dei, quae in Testamento Veteri velata, in 
Novo revelatur: quae ideo iustitia Dei dicitur, ^Wimpertiendo earn iustos 
facit {De Sp. et Lit. « 18) : and again : credenti inquit in eum qui iustificat 
imphtm deputatur fides eius ad iustitiam. si iustificatur impius ex impio 
fit iustus {Enarratio § 6) : so non tibi Deus reddit debitam poenam, sed 
donat indebitam gratiam : so De Sp. et Lit. § f 6 : haec est itcstitia Dei, 
quam non solum docet per legis praeceptum, verum etiam dat per Spiritus 

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. 
Aquinas. 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 x<*P ls is tne favour of God to man, and not 
a gift given by God to man ; but gratia in St. Thomas has evidently this 
latter signification : cum gratia omnem naturae crealae facultate7n excedat, eo 
quod nihil aliud sit quam participatio quaedam divinae naturae quae omnem 
aliam naturam excedit {Summa Theologiae, Prima Secundae Qu. cxii. 1 ). So 
also : donum gratiae . . . gratiae infusio . . . infundit donum gratiae iustifi- 
cantis (cxiii. 3). {2) Secondly, it interprets iustificare to ' make just,' and in 
consequence looks upon justification as not only remissio peccatorum, but also 
an infusion of grace. This question is discussed fully in Qu. cxiii. Art. 2. 
The conclusion arrived at is : quum iustitiae Dei repugnet poenam dimittere 
vigente culpa, nullius autem hominis qualis modo nascitur, reatus poenae 
absque gratia tolli queat ; ail culpae quoque hominis qualis modo nascitur, 
remissionem, gratiae infusionem requiri manifestutn est. The primary text 
on which this conclusion is based is Rom. iii. 24 iustificati gratis per gratiam 



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 
guilt cannot be understood unless it be accompanied by the infusion of grace. 
(3) The words quoted above, • by which a man is made worthy of eternal 
life ' (dignus vita 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 aetemam ex condigno. This 
is supported by Rom. viii. 1 7 sifilii et haeredes, it being argued that we are 
sons to whom is owed the inheritance ex ipso iure adoptionis. 

However defensible as a complete whole the system of the Summa maybe, 
there is no doubt that nothing so complicated can be grasped by the 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 Luther, 
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 : 
1 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 ' tustilia 
imputata': Deus acceptat seu reputat nos iustos solum propter fidem in 
Christum. It is especially stated that we are not free from sin. As long as 
we live we are subject to the stain of sin : only our sins are not imputed to 
ns. (a) Secondly, Luther inherits from the Schoolmen the distinction of 
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 informis. 
He argued that if it were necessary that iaith should be united with charity 
to enable it to justify, then it is no longer faith alone that justifies, but 
charity : faith becomes useless and good works are brought in. (3) Thirdly, 
it is needless to point out that he attacks, and that with great vigour, all 
theories of merit de congruo and de condigno. He describes them thus : talia 
monstra portenta et horribiles blasphemiae debebant propotii Turcis et Iudaeis, 
non ecclesiae Christi. 

The teaching of the Reformation worked a complete change in the exegesis Calvin, 
of St. Paul. A condition of practical error had arisen, clearly in many 
ways resembling that which St. Paul combated, and hence St. Paul's con- 
ceptions are understood better. The ablest of the Reformation commentaries 
is certainly that of Calvin ; and the change produced may be seen most 
clearly in one point. The attempt that had been made to evade the meaning 
of St. Paul's words as to Law, by applying them only to the ceremonial 


Law, he entirely brushes away (on iii. 20) ; again, he interprets iustificare as 
'to reckon just,' in accordance with the meaning of the Greek word and the 
context of iv. 5. The scheme of Justification as laid down by Luther is 
applied to the interpretation of the Epistle, but his extravagant language is 
avoided. The distinction of fides informis and formata is condemned as 
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. 5 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 
formata, 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 idc ntified 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 aw&iv, 
that at one time applies to our final salvation, at another to our present 
life within the fold of the Church ; and the whole Christian scheme of 
sanctification, rightly separated in idea from justification, became divorced 
in fact from the Christian life. 

The Reformation teaching created definitely the distinction between iustitia 
imputata and iustitia infusa, and the Council of Trent defined Justification 
thus : iustificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed etiam sanctificatio 
et renovaiio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et 
donorum (Sess. VI. cap. vii). 
Cornelius A typical commentary on the Romans from this point of view is that of 

a Lapide. 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 

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 1 53 

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. 


VI. 1-14. If 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) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, 
so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him. 

(2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to 
the redeeming acts of Christ. 

Immersion = Death. 

Submersion — Burial [the ratification of Death). 

Emergence =; Resurrection 
All these the Christian has to undergo in a moral and 
spiritual sense, and by means of his union with Christ. As 
Christ by His death on the Cross ceased from all contact with 
sin, so the Christian, united with Christ in his baptism, has 
done once for all with sin, and lives henceforth a reformed 
life dedicated to God. [ This at least is the ideal, zvhatever 
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 
its hold over you by Grace (vv. 12-14). 

1 Objector. Is not this dangerous doctrine ? If more sin 
means more grace, are we not encouraged to go on sinning ? 


2 St. Paul. A horrible thought ! When we took the decisive 
step and became Christians we may be said to have died to sin, in 
such a way as would make it fiat contradiction to live any longer 
in it. 

8 Surely you do not need reminding that all of us who were 
immersed or baptized, as our Christian phrase runs ' into Christ,' 
i. e. into the closest allegiance and adhesion to Him, were so 
immersed or baptized into a special relation to His Death. I mean 
that the Christian, at his baptism, not only professes obedience 
to Christ but enters into a relation to Him so intimate that it may 
be described as actual union. Now this union, taken in connexion 
with the peculiar symbolism of Baptism, implies a great deal more. 
That symbolism recalls to us with great vividness the redeeming 
acts of Christ — His Death, Burial, and Resurrection. And our 
union with Christ involves that we shall repeat those acts, in 
such sense as we may, i. e. in a moral and spiritual sense, in our 
own persons. 

4 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. 

6 For it is not to be supposed that we can join with Christ in 
one thing and not join with Him in another. If, in undergoing 
a death like His, we are become one with Christ as the graft 
becomes one with the tree into which it grows, we must also be 
one with Him by undergoing a resurrection like His, i. e. at once 
a moral, spiritual, and physical resurrection. 6 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 



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. 

8 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) : 9 because we know for a fact that Christ Himself, now 
that He has been once raised from the dead, will not have the 
process of death to undergo again. Death has lost its hold over 
Him for ever. 10 For He has done with Death, now that He has 
done once for all with Sin, by bringing to an end that incarnate 
state which alone brought Him in contact with it. Henceforth 
He lives in uninterrupted communion with God. 

11 In like manner do you Christians regard yourselves as dead, 
inert and motionless as a corpse, in all that relates to sin, but 
instinct with life and responding in every nerve to those Divine 
claims and Divine influences under which you have been brought 
by your union with Jesus Messiah. 

12 1 exhort you therefore not to let Sin exercise its tyranny over 
this frail body of yours by giving way to its evil passions. 13 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. 14 You 
may rest assured that in so doing Sin will have no claims or 
power over you, for you have left the regime of Law (which, as we 
shall shortly see, is a stronghold of Sin) for that of Grace. 

1. The fact that he has just been insisting on the function of sin 
to act as a provocative of Divine grace recalls to the mind of the 
Apostle the accusation brought against himself of saying ' Let us 
do evil, that good may come ' (iii. 8). He is conscious that his 
own teaching, if pressed to its logical conclusion, is open to this 
charge ; and he states it in terms which are not exactly those which 
would be used by his adversaries but such as might seem to 
express the one-sided development of his own thought. Of course 
he does not allow the consequence for a moment ; he repudiates 


it however not by proving a non sequitur, but by showing how this 
train of thought is crossed by another, even more fundamental. 
He is thus led to bring up the second of his great pivot-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 impivwptv for km/xivovfifv in ver. 1 ; (vaofxcv 
and not £qo<»ptv in ver. 2 ; and that t<2 Kvpiw f/fxwv should be omittedat the 
end of ver. II. In that verse the true position of thai is after kavrovs 
(N* B C, Cyr.- Alex. Jo.-Damasc.) : some inferior authorities place it after 
vtKpobs txiv : the Western text (A D E F G, Tert. ; cf. also Pesh. Boh. Arm. 
Aeth.) omits it altogether. 

2. omi'es dircOdi'OfAei'. Naturally the relative of quality : ' we, 
being what we are, men who died (in our baptism) to sin,' &c. 

3. t) byvoeire : ' 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. 

€0a-nria0T)fi.€y els Xpiordk 3 It\<tovv : 'were baptized unto union 
with' (not merely 'obedience to') 'Christ.' The act of baptism 
was an act of incorporation into Christ. Comp. esp. Gal. iii. 27 

00-01 yap (Is Xpio-Tov £3aiTTLo~6r)T€, Xpiarou eveduaaade. 

This conception lies at the root of the whole passage. All the 
consequences which St. Paul draws follow from this union, incor- 
poration, identification of the Christian with Christ. On the origin 
of the conception, see below. 

els T6f Qdvarov auTou ej3cnrTia6T]|Aei'. This points back to aire 6a.vop.fv 
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 
carrier 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 


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 

4. <tvv€t&$i)ii.€v . . . OtfyaToi'. A strong majority of the best 
scholars (Mey.-W. Gif. Lips. Oltr. Go.) would connect <h rbv 

Bavaxov with 81a tov ^airrlapaTos and not with avveTdcJirjfiev, because of 

(i) ificmT. tls t. 6av. air. just before; (ii) a certain incongruity in 
the connexion of awcTacp. with tU top Bdvarov : death precedes burial 
and is not a result or object of it. We are not sure that this 
reasoning is decisive, (i) St. Paul does not avoid these ambiguous 
constructions, as may be seen by iii. 25 61* npoidtTo . . . bth rfjs niaTcws 

iv ra avrov ai/ifirt, where iv rta avrov aipan goes with irpoidero and 

not with ha rfjs mo-rfcis. (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 o-vvra<pivres avTto iv tg> f3airTiap.ari iv u> 
Kai o~vvqyipdr)TC. 

els tov QdvaTov is best taken as = • into that death (of His),' the 
death just mentioned : so Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou., but not Mey.-W. 
Go., who prefer the sense ' into death ' (in the abstract). In any 
case there is a stress on the idea of death ; but the clause and the 
verse which follow will show that St. Paul does not yet detach the 
death of the Christian from the death of Christ. 
- 8id ttjs 86|tjs tou irarpos : So^r 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. crufi<j>uToi : 'united by growth'; the word exactly expresses 
the process by which a graft becomes united with the life of a tree. 
So the Christian becomes ' grafted into ' Christ. For the metaphor 

We may compare xi. I7trv 8i dyptfKaios a>v iveKfvrpio-drjs iv avrois, Kai 
avyKoivoivos ttjs pi't'/* Kai ttjs TrioTrjTos Trjs iXaias iyivov, and Tennyson's 

' grow incorporate into thee.' 

It is a question whether we are to take avfM<f>. ytydv. directly with 
ra opotup. k.t.X. or whether we are to supply t£ Xotory and make 


rw 6/xotco/i. 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. yiywcrKoi/Tes : see Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. viii. 1 (p. 299), where 
yivwaKco as contrasted with 018a is explained as signifying ' apprecia- 
tive or experimental acquaintance.' A slightly different explanation 
is given by Gif. ad loc, ' noting this/ as of the idea involved in the 
fact, a knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding 

6 iraXaios rjp.wi' a^Gptoiros : 'our old self; cp. esp. Suicer, Thes. 
i. 352, where the patristic interpretations are collected (r) npoTepa 
noXiTeiu Theodrt. ; 6 Kareyvoiapevos (ilos Euthym.-Zig., &c). 

This phrase, with its correlative o icaivbs &v9pa}iros, 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 wonld hardly come into use until great stress began to be laid upon 
the necessity for a change of life, and may be a. coinage of St. Paul's. It 
should be noted however that 6 kvrds avdpwnos goes back to Plato (Grm. 
Thay. s. v. avBpojiros, i.e.). 

<rw€a-Tavpu>Br\ : cf. Gal. ii. 20 XptcrrS) awtoTavpanai. There is a differ- 
ence between the thought here and in Imit. Xti. 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. 

KaTapynQf. For Karapyciv 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. 

to o-wfjia ttjs djiapTias : the body of which sin has taken posses- 
sion. Parallel phrases are vii. 24 tov o-vnaTos tov Oavarov tovtov : 
Phil. iii. 21 to aa>pui ttjs Tarreiuaxrecos r)p<av : Col. ii. II \<fa rfj ancic- 

Svo-ei] tov o-wparos tt)s crapKos. 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 t6 o-wfia rrjs ap,aprias must be taken closely together, because 
it is not the body, simply as such, which is to be killed, but the 


[ 59 

body as the seat of sin. This is to be killed, so that Sin may lose 
its slave. 

too u.t)K6ti SouXeuW. On tov with inf. as expressing purpose see 
esp. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 342. 

r|] afiapTia : anapria, as throughout this passage, is personified as 
a hard^ taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter. 

7. 6 y&p 6.noQav(i)v . . . du.apTias. The argument is thrown into 
the form of a general proposition, so that 6 aitoBavvv must be taken 
in the widest sense, ' he who has undergone death in any sense of 
the term' — physical or ethical. The primary sense is however 
clearly physical : ' a dead man has his quittance from any claim 
that Sin can make against him ' : what is obviously true of the 
physically dead is inferentially true of the ethically dead. Comp. 

I Pet. iv. I on 6 naOiov aapKi treiravrai dpaprias : also the Rabbinical 

parallel quoted by Delitzsch ad toe. ' 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 locus 
communis? which would considerably weaken the force of the literary 
coincidence between the two Apostles. 

ScSiKaiWTai dir6 ttjs dfiapTias. The sense of fofiiKaiWai 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. ctu£t)o-ou.€i'. 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. 

icupieuei. Still the idea of master and slave or vassal. Death 
loses its dominium over Christ altogether. That which gave Death 
its hold upon Him was sin, the human sin with which He was 
brought in contact by His Incarnation. The connexion was 
severed once for all by Death, which set Him free for ever. 

10. o y&P dVn-c'Oavc. The whole clause forms a kind of cognate 
accus. after the second unedaveu (Win. § xxiv. 4, p. 209 E. T.); 

Euthym.-Zig. paraphrases top Qavarop op dniOave bia tt)v apapriav 

aivtdavc rfjv Tjp.eTepav, where however 17/ apaprla is not rightly repre- 
sented by 8td ttju apapriav. 


tt) dfiapTia &TtiOav€v. 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 : rbv p.t] yvovra 
ufxapTuiv xmep f]p.a>v afxaprlav fnoirja-fv, * the Sinless One for our sake 
was treated as if He were sinful/ The sin which hung about Him 
and wreaked its effects upon Him was not His but ours (cp. 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. 

&t>rfira£. 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 1 Pet. 
iii. 18). 

£rj tu 0€w. 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 Kvpuvei avrov 
but God. 

This phrase Cfj to Gfo> naturally suggests * the moral ' application 
to the believer. 

11. Xoyt£€a0€ eauTou's. The man and his 'self are distinguished. 
The 'self is not the 'whole self,' but only that part of the man 
which lay under the dominion of sin. [It will help us to bear this 
in mind in the interpretation of the next chapter.] This part of 
the man is dead, so that sin has lost its slave and is balked of its 
prey; but his true self is alive, and alive for God, through its 
union with the risen Christ, who also lives only for God. 

Xoyi^caOe : not indie, (as Beng. Lips.) but imper., preparing the 
way, after St. Paul's manner, for the direct exhortation of the next 

lv XpiaTw 'It)<tou. 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 £v Xpiarw 'lyo-ov, not ei> 'irjaov Xpio-n5 (Deissmann, 
p. 88 ; cp. also Haussleiter, as referred to on p. 86 sup.). We find 
however eV roi 'irjaov in Eph. iv. 21, but not in the same strict 
application. (3) In agreement with the regular usage of the words 
in this order h Xp. X always relates to the glorified Christ regarded 
as wvei'pa, not to the historical Christ. (4) The corresponding 
expi ession Xptarbs Zv nvt is best explained by the same analogy of 

VI. 11-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST l6l 

1 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 neutestamentliche 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 I St. Peter 
(Hi. 16; v. 10, 14; always in the correct text kv Xpiorw), in the Acts (iv. 2 
kv ra> 'Irjoov: 9, 10 iv tw ovufiaTi 'Irjaov Xpiorov : 12 ; xiii. 39 kv tovtoi uas 
o m<TTevwv StKaiovrai), anct in full volume in the Fourth Gospel (kv iyioi, 
fitveiv kv ifxoi. Jo. vi. 56; xiv. 20, 30; xv. 2-7; xvi. 33; xvii. 21), in the 
First Epistle of St. John (kv avrw, kv t£> via/ elvat, piveiv ii. 5, 6, 8, 24, 27, 
28; Hi. 6, 24; v. ii, 20; tx eiv T ° v V10V v - I2 )> an d also in the Apocalypse 
(iv 'Irjaov i. 9 ; kv Kvpia) 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 kv Xpiorw 'Ir/oov 
occurs in I Clem, xxxii. 4 ; xxxviii. 1 ; Ign. Eph. i. 1 ; Trail, ix. 2 ; Rom. 
i. 1 ; ii. 2. The commoner phrases are kv Xpiorw in Clem. Rom. and kv 
'Itjoov Xpiorw which is frequent in Ignat. The distinction between kv 'Irjoov 
Xp.orw and iv Xpiorw 'Itjoov is by this time obliterated. In view of these 
phenomena and the usage of N. T. it is natural to ask whether all can be 
accounted for on the assumption that the phrase originates entirely with 
St. Paul. In spite of the silence of Evv. Synopt. it seems more probable 
that the suggestion came in some way ultimately from our Lord Himself. 
This would not be the only instance of an idea which caught the attention of 
but few of the first disciples but was destined afterwards to wider acceptance 
and expansion. 

12. paaiXcueTCD : cf. v. 21 of Sin ; v. 14, 17 of Death. 

With this verse comp. Philo, De Gigant. 7 (Mang. i. 266) Ainov o\ rr}s 
av€moTrjp.oovvr]s pitytorov r) oap£ koX t) irpdi aapna olice'twais. 

13. Observe the change of tense : irapiordi'CTe, ' go on yielding,' 
by the weakness which succumbs to temptation whenever it presses; 
irapaa-niaaTe, ' dedicate by one decisive act, one resolute effort/ 

oirXa : ' weapons ' (cf. esp. Rom. xiii. 1252 Cor. vi. 7 ; x. 4). 
aSut'as and 8acaioo-vvT)s are gen. qualitatis. For a like military 
metaphor more fully worked out comp. Eph. vi. 11-17. 

14. djxapTia yap- Yo u 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 Texte u Unters. 
xii. 3, but the particular group of phrases is not directly treated. 



him too to go off at the word vo\iov 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 identification of will. In the case of ordinary friend- 
ship and affection it is no very exceptional thing for unity of purpose 
and aim so to spread itself over the character, and so to permeate 
thought and feeling, that those who are joined together by this 
invisible and spiritual bond seem to act and think almost as if they 
were a single person and not two. But we can understand that in 
St. Paul's case with an object for his affections so exalted as Christ, 
and with influences from above meeting so powerfully the upward 
motions of his own spirit, the process of identification had a more 
than common strength and completeness. It was accomplished in 
that sphere of spiritual emotion for which the Apostle possessed 
such remarkable gifts — gifts which caused him to be singled out as 
the recipient of special Divine communications. Hence it was that 
there grew up within him a state of feeling which he struggles to 
express and succeeds in expressing through language which is 
practically the language of union. Nothing short of this seemed to 
do justice to the degree of that identification of will which the 
Apostle attained to. He spoke of himself as one with Christ. And 
then his thoughts were so concentrated upon the culminating acts 
in the Life of Christ — the acts which were in a special sense asso- 
ciated with man's redemption — His Death, Burial and Resurrection 
• — that when he came to analyze his own feelings, and to dissect 
this idea of oneness, it was natural to him to see in it certain stages, 
corresponding to those great acts of Christ, to see in it something 
corresponding to death, something corresponding to burial (which 
was only the emphasizing of death), and something corresponding 
to resurrection. 

Here there came in to help the peculiar symbolism of Baptism. An 
imagination as lively as St. Paul's soon found in it analogies to the 
same process. That plunge beneath the running waters was like 

VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIS? 163 

a death ; the moment's pause while they swept on overhead was 
like a burial ; the standing erect once more in air and sunlight 
was a species of resurrection. Nor did the likeness reside only in 
the outward rite, it extended to its inner significance. To what was 
it that the Christian died ? He died to his old self, to all that he 
had been, whether as Jew or Gentile, before he became a Christian. 
To what did he rise again ? Clearly to that new life to which the 
Christian was bound over. And in this spiritual dea.h 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 Hi. 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 dn-fK^aev 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. I"- was 
really faith, the living apprehension of Christ, which lies at the bottom of all 
the language of identification and union. 

1 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- 

M 2 


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, secned 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: to 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 necrosis (2 Cor. iv. 10), Paul's 
central doctrine, and the doctrine which makes his profoundness and origin- 
ality. . . . Those multitudinous motions of appetite and self-will which 
reason and conscience 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 ham to reinforce duty by affection. In the 
central need of his nature, the desire to govern these motions of unrighteous- 
ness, it enabled him to say : Die to them I Christ did. If any man be in 
Christ, said Paul, — that is, if any man identifies himself with Christ by 
attachment so that he enters into his feelings and lives with his life, - he is 
a new creature ; he can do, and does, what Christ did. First, he suffers 
with him. Christ, throughout His life and in His death, presented His body 
a living sacrifice to God ; every self-willed impulse, blindly trying to assert 
itself without respect of the universal order, he died to. You, says Paul to 
his disciple, are to do the same. ... If you cannot, your attachment, your 
faith, must be one that goes but a very little way. In an ordinary human 
attachment, out of love to a woman, out of love to a friend, out of love to 
a child, you can suppress 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. All 
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' {ibid. pp. 75—78). 

Another striking presentation of the thought of this passage will be found 
in a lay sermon, The Witness of God, by the philosopher, T. H. Green 
(London, 1883 ; also in Works). Mr. Green was as far removed as Matthew 
Arnold from conventional theology, and there are traces of Hegelianism in 
what follows for which allowance should be made, but his mind had a natural 
affinity for this side of St. Paul's teaching, and he has expressed it with great 
force and moral intensity. To this the brief extracts given will do but 
imperfect justice, and the sermon is well worth reading in its entirety. 

' The death and rising again of the Christ, as [St. Paul] conceived them, 


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-seeking. 
On the other hand, presented as the continuous act of God Himself, as the 
eternal self-surrender of the Divine Son to the Father, it is for us and may 
be in us, but is not of us. Nay, it is just because not of us, that it may be 
in us. Because it is the mind of Christ, and Christ is God's, in the contem- 
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' {The 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' {ibid. 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 
1 The Way ' in Dr. Hort's posthumous The 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 is that 
Way' {The Way, &c. 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 

1 66 EPISTLE TO THE kOMANS [VI. 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 intellectual ly, 
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. 


VI. 15-23. Take an illustration from common life— the 
condition of slavery. The Christian zvas a slave of sin ; 
his business was unc leanness ; his wages, death. But he 
has been emancipated from this service, only to enter upon 
another — that of Righteousness. 

16 Am I told that we should take advantage of our liberty as 
subjects of Grace and not of Law, to sin ? Impossible ! 16 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. 18 Thus you were emancipated 
from the service of Sin, and were transferred to the service of 

19 1 am using a figure of speech taken from every-day human 
relations. If ■ servitude ' seems a poor and harsh metaphor, it is 
one which the remains of the natural man that still cling about you 
will at least permit you to understand. Yours must be an un- 
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. 20 1 exhort you to this. Why ? Because while you 
were slaves to Sin, you were freemen in regard to Righteousness. 
21 What good then did you get from conduct which you now blush 
to think of? Much indeed ! For the goal to which it leads is 
death. 22 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 ! 
23 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 ti s, 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. 

S|jiapTT|croo(Ji€v : from a late aor. ^(xaprTjaa, found in LXX (Veitch, Irreg. 
Verbs,^ p. 49). Chrys. codd. Theodrt. and others, with minuscules, read 

16. A general proposition to which our Lord Himself had 


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. 

tjTot . . . fj : these disjunctives state a dilemma in a lively and emphatic 
way, implying that one limb or the other must be chosen (Baumlein, Par- 
tikeliehre, p. 244 ; Kiihner, Gram. § 540. 5). 

17. €is o> . . . 8i8axt]S * Stands for [yirrjicovcraTe] ti'tto) StSn^s ds 
ov 7rapeS66t]Te. We expect rather os vyuv Trapedodrj : 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 Didachi (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. 

Tu-nw 8i8axT]S. For rwros see the note on ch. v. 14. The third 
of the senses there given (' pattern/ ' exemplar,' ' standard ') is by 
far the most usual with St. Paul, and there can be little doubt that 
that is the meaning here. So among the ancients Chrys. (tis 8e 6 

rvnos rrjs didaxrjs'f opBSas £tjv ml fiera noXireias ap'«rrqs) Euthym.-Zig. 
(els tvttov, rjyovv tuv kcivovo. kcu opov rrjs evatftovs 7roXireicry), 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 rinroi tk&axv* occurs anywhere else in the N. T., and it is 
quite out of harmony with the context'). 

19. avQputnvoy \4y<a. St. Paul uses this form of phrase (cf. 
Gal. iii. 15 Kara avdpooTTov Xeyco) 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) laa-avii eAryei', anb av6pamlva>v \oyicrp,aiv ) and twv iv 
(TVPTjQeia yivop,eva)v. 

8id tt)^ daOeVciai/ tt)s aapicos. 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 


any case the clause refers to what has gone before, not (as Orig. 
Chrys., &c.) to what follows. 

<rap£ = 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. <ppovuv rd rfjf aapitos, 
<ppovi}jxa rfjs aapKos Rom. viii. 5 f. ; oo<pol Kara adpxa I Cor. i. 26. The 
idea of this passage is similar to that of 1 Cor. iii. 2 yd\a vftas (ironaa, ov 
Ppu>p.a- ovirai yap TjdvvaaOe. 

tt] dKa0ap<ria. aKaOapala and avofiia 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 (Is ttjv dvofxiav describes the effect of that mastery — 'to the 
practice of iniquity.' With these verses (19-21) compare especially 
1 Pet. iv. 1-5. 

€is dyiaajioy. Mey. (but not Weiss) Lips. Oltr. Go. would make 
dyiao-fios here practically = dytcoavvrj, 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 Tirf ; 1 Tim. ii. 15, where it is joined 
with mans and dydnrj). 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 ayios 
ch. i. 7, and Dr. A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, p. 206 : dyiao-pos = ' the 
process of fitting for acceptable worship,' a sense which comes 

OUt clearly in Heb. xii. 14 diaxere . . . t6v dyiaapov ov xwpis ovbds 

octroi top Kvpiov. The word occurs some ten times (two vv. 11.) 
in LXX and in Ps. Sol. xvii. 33, but is not classical. 

21. tIvo. ouc . . . i-naHTxvveoQe ; 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 
inaia\vvea6f. In that case (Ktiucop must be supplied before €#' of?, 
and its omission might be due to the reflex effect of eW^ in the 
sentence following (comp. dnodavovres iv <p KareLxofifBa vii. 6 below). 
There would then be a common enough ellipse before to ydp reXos, 
' What fruit had ye . . .? [None :] for the end,' &c. (2) On the 
other hand several leading Germans (Tisch. Weiss Lips., though 
not Mey.) put the question at rdn, and make <<p' ots irraiaxyveodc 
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 : kot 

epajTrjaiv dvayvcoo-Tcov to riva ovv ndpnov fi^ere Tore, ftra Kara 

dnoKpiatv c(f>' ols vvv ciraiax vvfo ~fi f * Both interpretations are 
possible, but the former, as it would seem, is more simple and natural 


(Gif.). When two phrases link together so easily as e$' oh iivaiax. 
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. 

to Yap : to fiiv yap X C 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 \iiv was 
introduced through erroneous antithesis to vw\ hk. 

23. 6\J/wvia. From a root veir- we get 'irpw, oipov, 'cooked' meat, fish, &c. 
as contrasted with bread. Hence the compound bxpuviov (ouvtofjiai, ' to buy ') = 
(1) provision-money, ration-money, or the rations in kind given to troops; 
(2; in a more general sense, ' wages.' The word is said to have come in 
with Menander : it is proscribed by the Atticists, but found freely in Polybius, 
1 Mace. «&c. (Sturz, Dial. Maced. p. 187). 

xdpio-p-a. Teitullian, with his usual picturesque boldness, translates this by 
donativum (De A'es. Carn.c. 47 Stipendia enim delinquentiae mors, donativum 
autem dei vita aeterna). It is not probable that St. Paul had this particular 
antithesis in his mind, though no doubt he intends to contrast dipwua and 


VII. 1-6. Take another illustration from the Law of 
Marriage. The Marriage Lazv only binds a woman while 
her husband lives. So with the Christian. He was zvedded, 
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 zvith 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. 

1 1 say that you are free from the Law of Moses and from Sin. 
You will see how : unless you need to be reminded of a fact 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. 2 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/ 3 Hence while her husband is alive, she will be 
siyled ' an adulteress ' if she marry another man : but if her 

VII. 1-6.] LAW AND GRACE * 1 71 

husband die, she is free from that statute, so that no one can call 
her an adulteress, though she be married to another man. 

4 We may apply this in an allegory, in which the wife is the 
Christian's 'self 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. 6 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. 6 But now all that has been brought to an end. Law and 
the state of sin are so inextricably linked together, that in dying, at 
our baptism, a moral death, to that old state of sin we were absolved 
or discharged from the Law, which used to hold us prisoners under 
the penalties to which sin laid us open. And through this discharge 
we are enabled to serve God in a new state, the ruling principle of 
which is Spirit, in place of that old state, presided over by Written 

1-6. The text of this section — and indeed of the whole chapter 
— is still, ' 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 

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


Gif. however may be right in explaining the transition rather 
differently, viz. by means of the iniKaibs fo$p<avos of ch. vi. 6. 1 he 
' 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 

The 'law of the husband' = the law which condemned that old 

The new Marriage = the union upon which the convert enters 
with Christ. 

The crucial phrase is t>juU MamrMrrre in ver. 4. According to 
the way in which we explain this will be our explanation of the 
whole passage. See the note ad loc. # 

There is yet another train of thought which comes in with 
vv 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 *H dyroeiTe : [' surely you know this— that the regime of Law 
has come to an end, and that Grace has superseded it.] Or do you 
require to be told that death closes all accounts, and therefore that 
the state of things to which Law belongs ceased through the death 
of the Christian with Christ- that mystical death spoken of in the 
last chapter V ,., ., . n ti 

viirio-Rouai yAp npov \a\S>: ' 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. A yap uWSpos yvWj: ['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/ (mavbpos : a classical word, found 

m *«Wai: Ms completely (perf.) absolved or discharged' (lit. 
'nullified' or 'annulled,' her status as a wife is abolished). Ihe 
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 Karapyiiv see on 111. 3. 

VII. 2-4.] LAW AND GRACE 1 73 

diro tou mojaou toC d^Spos : 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. xpT)\iaTi<rei. The meanings of xmf**rifap 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 nnme, from Polybius onwards (1) • to bear a name or title' (xPVf**- 
Tifa BaaiKevi Polyb. V. lvii. 2); and so simply, as here, 'to be called or 
styled' (Acts xi. 26 kyivero . . . xPl^^Tioai irpwrov tv 'hvTioxtiq tovs fiaOrjTas 
Xp anavois) ; 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. Antiq., Plutarch, &c. From this sense we get 
pass, 'to be warned or admonished' by God (Matt. ii. 12, 22 ; Acts x. 22 ; 
Heb. viii. 5; xi. 7). Hence also subst. xPW a ™fi6s, 'a Divine or oracular 
response,' 2 Mace. ii. 4 ; Rom. xi. 4. Burton (M. and T. § 69) calls the 
fut. here a ' gnomic future ' as stating ' what will customarily happen when 
occasion offers.' 

tov y.x\ dvat = ware thai : the stress is thrown back upon lXsv9ipa, 'so 
as not to be,' * causing her not to be,'— not ' so that she is.' According to 
Burton tov n-q here denotes ' conceived result ' ; but see the note on ware 
SovXevfiv in ver. 6 below. 

4. tocrre with indie, introduces a consequence which follows as a matter 
of fact. 

Kai u/xets c'6avaTw0T]T6. 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. aitoKovdov rju €iir€lv,4rov vopov TtAevT.rjo-avTos ov Kplveade 
fioixdas, dv8p\ yevopifvot ere'pa). 'A\V ovk flircv ovtojs, aXXa 7700s; *E8ava- 

Ta>6r)Te tw vofiw (cf. Euthym.-Zig.). In favour of this is the parallel 

KarrjpyrjTai dno rov vo/xov tov dv8pos in ver. 2, and KaTrjpyrjdrjpeu ano tov 

v6p.ov in ver. 6. But on the other hand it is strange to speak of the 
same persons at one moment as 'killed' and the next as 'married 
again.' There is therefore a strong attraction in the explanation of 
Gif., who makes vp.ds = not the whole self but the old self, i.e. the 
old state of the self which was really 'crucified with Christ' 
(ch. vi. 6), and the death of which really leaves the man (= the wife 
in the allegory) free to contract a new union. This moral death 
of the Christian to his past also does away with the Law. The 
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. 

Kal vjjicts. The force of Kai here is, ' You, my readers, as well as the wife 
in the allegory.' 

Sid tou awjmaTos tou XpicrroG. The way in which the death of 
the ' old man' is brought about is through the identification of the 


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 ro> Ik>v cyepdevn. The two lines of symbolism really run 
parallel to each other and it is easy to connect them. 

6 iraXaios avBpconos = The Husband : 

Crucifixion of the ira\. av6. = Death of the Husband: 

Resurrection = Re-Marriage : 

£j}v } 8ov\cvfiv rep 06W = Kapno(popelv tw 0eo>. 

€ts to Y«v«o-0at vp,as iTtpw. Lips, takes this not of • being married to 
another husband,' but of 'joining another master, 1 on the ground that there 
is no marriage to the Law. This however (i) is unnecessary, because 
marriage to the ' old man ' carries with it 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 KapnoQoprjacu, which it is 
clearly forced and against the context to refer, as Lips, does, to anything but 
the offspring of marriage. 

Kapiro<|>opr)(rwfxei' to> 06w. 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. ot6 Y&p Tjfiti/ Iv ttj aapKi. This verse develops the idea con- 
tained in Kapirocpoprjacopev : the new marriage ought to be fruitful, 
because the old one was. clvai h rfj aapn is the opposite of tZrai 
iv rw irvevnari. : 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 o-dpg is human nature especially on the side of 
its frailty, it does not follow that there is any dualism in St. Paul's 
conception or that he regards the body as inherently sinful. 
Indeed this very passage proves the contrary. It implies that it 
is possible to be ' in the body ' without being ' in the flesh/ The 
body, as such, is plastic to influences of either kind : it may be 
worked upon by Sin through the senses, or it may be worked upon 
by the Spirit. In either case the motive-force comes from without. 
The body itself is neutral. See esp. the excellent discussion in 
Gifford, pp. 48-52. 

to, iraGTJfxaTa riav dp.apnwi': 7rd6rjpa 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. t&v 
afiapTiwv = ' connected with sins/ ' leading to sins/ 

Td Sid tou i>o'fJiou. Here St. Paul, as his manner is, * throws 
up a finger-post ' which points to the coming section of his argu- 
ment. The phrase Sia rod vofiov is explained at length in the next 

VII. 5, 6.] LAW AND GRACE 175 

paragraph i it refers to the effect of Law in calling forth and 
aggravating sin. 

enrjpyeiTo. The pricks and stings of passion were active in our 
members (cf. 1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 7 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, iv. 12 j 
Gal. v. 6, &c). 

t<3 0afdT&) : dat. commodi, contrasted with Kapnocp, tw Ofw above. 

6. uwl oe KaTr\pyr\Or]y.ev diro tou yo'fAou. ' But as it is we ' (in our 
peccant part, the old man) ' were discharged or annulled from the 
Law' (i.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). ncos ffpfls Karqpyr]8r)p.ev ; tov Karex°^ vov 
napa rr/s afiaprias dvdpanrov naKaiov airoOavovTos nai ra(peuTos ChryS. 

We observe how Chrys. here practically comes round to the same 
side as Gif. 

The renderings of Kar-qp^-qd-q^v are rather interesting, and show the diffi- 
culty of finding an exact equivalent in other languages: evacuati sumus 
Tert. ; soluti 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. ; nous avons ite degagis Oltr. (Le 
Nouveau Test., Geneva, 1874); nun aber sind wir fur das Gesetz nicht 
mehr da Weizsacker {Das Neue Test., Freiburg i. B. 1882, ed. 2). 

airo0avovT€S. AV. apparently read diroOavuvTos, 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 loc). The 
Western text (D E F G, codd. ap. Orig.-lat. and most Latins) boldly corrects 
to tou 6a arov, which would go with rod vo/xov, and which gives an easier 
construction, though not a better sense. After anodav6pTts we must supply 
4«eiVy, just as in vi. 2 1 we had to supply Ikuvuv. 

Iv <5 KaTeix<5p.e0a. The antecedent of eV <» is taken by nearly all 
commentators as equivalent to tq> rd/zw (whether tiaivy or tovto> 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 dnodavovrts 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. 

wore oouXeuciy: not 'so that we serve' (RV. and most com- 
mentators), but ' so as to serve/ i. e. ' enabling us to serve.' The 
stress is thrown back upon KaTrjpyrjBrjfiev, — we were so completely 
discharged as to set us free to serve. 

The true distinction between &ffre with infin. and Siare with indie, which is 
not always observed in RV., is well stated by Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, ed. 
1889, § 584 (with the quotation from Shilleto, De Fals. Leg. App. in the note), 
and for N. T. by the late Canon T. S. Evans in the Expos, for 1882, i. 3 ff. : 
wore with indie, states the definite result which as a matter of fact does 
follow ; &ore with infin. states the contemplated result which in the natural 


course ought to follow, wore with indie, lays stress on the effect ; won with 
infin. on the cause. Thus in I Cor. i. 7 wore voTepeiodai = 'causing or 
inspiring you to feel behindhand' (see Sp. Comm. ad loc.) ; in Matt. xiii. 32 
yivtrai StvSpov, wore k\6(iv ra TreTtiva nal KaTaaKrjvovv = ' 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 two moods. 

iv KaiMOTrjTi -nrcofiaTos . . . iraXaioTTjTi ypdfjijxaTos. 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 kcuvottjs nvevfiaTos 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 
ypdnjxa and irvdfia 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 is with St. Paul 
always the Law of Moses, as a written code, while irvevp.a is the operation 
of the Holy Spirit characteristic of Christianity (cf. Rom. ii. 29 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6). 


VII. 7-25. If release from Sin means release from Law, 
must we then identify Law with Sin ? No. Law reveals 
the sinfulness of Sin, and by this very revelation stirs tip the 
dormant Sin to action. But this is not because the Law 
itself is evil — on the contrary it is good — but that Sin may 
be exposed and its guilt aggravated (vv. 7-13). 

This is what takes place. I have a dotible self. But my 
better self is impotent to prevent me from doing wrong 
(vv. 14-17). // is equally impotent to make me do right 
(w. 18-21). There is thus a constant conflict going on, 
from which, unaided, I can hope for no deliverance. But, 
God be thanked, through Christ deliverance comes I (vv. 

7 1 spoke a moment ago of sinful passions working through Law, 
and of the death to Sin as carrying with it a release from the Law. 
Does it follow that the Law itself is actually a form of Sin ? An 

VII. 7-25.] LAW AND SIN 177 

intolerable thought ! 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.' 8 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. 9 And while sin was dead, 
I - my inner self— was alive, in happy unconsciousness, following 
my bent with no pangs of conscience excited by Law. But then 
came this Tenth Commandment ; and with its coming Sin awoke 
to life, while I— sad and tragic contrast— died the living death of 
sin, precursor of eternal death. 10 And the commandment which 
was given to point men the way to life, this very commandment 
was found in my case to lead to death. n For Sin took advantage 
of it, and by the help of the commandment — at once confronting 
me with the knowledge of right and provoking me to do that 
which was wrong— it betrayed me, so that I fell ; and the com- 
mandment was the weapon with which it slew me. 12 The result i> 
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. 13 Am I then to say that a thing so 
excellent in itself to me proved fatal ? Not for a moment. It was 
rather the demon Sin which wrought the mischief. And the reason 
why it was permitted to do so was that it might be shown in 
its true colours, convicted of being the pernicious thing that it is, 
by the fact that it made use of a good instrument, Law, to 
work out upon me the doom of death. For this reason Sin was 
permitted to have its way, in order that through its perverted 
use of the Divine commandment it might be seen in all its utter 

14 The blame cannot attach to the Law. For we all know that 
the Law has its origin from the Spirit of God and derives its 
character from that Spirit, while I, poor mortal, am made of frail 
human flesh and blood, sold like any slave in the market into the 
servitude of Sin. 15 It is not the Law, and not my own deliberate 
self, which is the cause of the evil ; because my actions are exe- 
cuted blindly with no proper concurrence of the will. I purpose one 



way, I act another. I hate a thing, but do it. 16 And by this very 
fact that I hate the thing that I do, my conscience bears testimony 
to the Law, and recognizes its excellence. 17 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. 18 For I am 
aware that in me as I appear to the outer world — in this ' body 
that does me grievous wrong,' there dwells (in any permanent and 
predominating shape) nothing that is good. The will indeed to do 
good is mine, and I can command it ; but the performance I cannot 
command. 19 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. 20 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. 21 1 find therefore this law — 
if so it may be called — this stem necessity laid upon me from 
without, that much as I wish to do what is good, the evil lies at my 
door. 22 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. 2S 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. 24 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 ? 

26 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. 



7. So far Sin and Law have been seen in such close connexion 
that it becomes necessary to define more exactly the relation 
between them. In discussing this the Apostle is led to consider 
the action of both upon the character and the struggle to which 
they give rise in the soul. 

It is evident that Marcion had this section, as Tertullian turns against him 
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 pi aeceptum eius iustum et bonum. Si taliter 
veneratur legem creatoris, quomodo ipsum deslruat nescio. 

6 i/ofxos dfAap-ria. It had just been shown (ver. 5) that Sin makes 
use <?/"the Law to effect the destruction of the sinner. Does it 
follow that Sin is to be identified with the Law ? Do the two so 
overlap each other that the Law itself comes under the description 
of Sin ? St. Paul, like every pious Jew, repels this conclusion with 

a\\& contradicts emphatically the notion that the Law is Sin. 
On the contrary the Law first told me what Sin was. 

ouk eyvuv. It is not quite certain whether this is to be taken 
hypothetically (for ovk av eyiw, av omitted to give a greater sense 
of actuality, Kiihner, Gr. Gra?nm. ii. 176 f.) or whether it is simply 
temporal. Lips. Oltr. and others adopt the hypothetical sense 
both here and with ovk jj&uv below. Gif. Va. make both ovk 
eyvav and ovk rjSeiv plain statement of fact. Mey.-W. Go. take 
ovk eyvw temporally, ovk jjduv hypothetically. As the context is 
a sort of historical retrospect the simple statement seems most in 

tt|v tc yap emOupiav. re yap 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. 

e-yvwv . . . TjSeiv retain their proper meanings : eyvcw, ' I learnt,' implies 
more intimate experimental acquaintance; rfdtiv is simple knowledge that 
there was such a thing as lust. 

€m6up,TJ<r€is. The Greek word has a wider sense than our 
' covet ' ; it includes every kind of illicit desire. 

8. d^opp-V Xapouo-a : ' getting a start,' finding a point dappui, or, 
as we should say, ' something to take hold of.' In a military 
sense d<popp,r) = ' a base of operations ' (Thuc. i. 90. 2, &c). In 
a literary sense dfopwv hape'iv = ' to take a hint,' ' adopt a sug- 
gestion ' ; cf. Eus. Ep. ad Carpianum eVe tov novrjfMTos tov Trpoeiprj- 
fievov dvdpos (l\i](pa)s d<poppds. 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. 

rj dp.apTia: see p. 145, sup. 

Sid ttjs erroXrjs. The prep, did and the position of the word 

N 2 


show that it is better taken with KaTftpydaaro than with dtyopp. 
Aa/3. €pt ,\rj is the single commandment ; v6pos the code as a 

Xwpls y^P • • • " € Kpd. A standing thought which we have had 
before, iv. 15; v. 13: cf. iii. 20. 

9. e£wi> (e (rjv B ; e(ow 1 7). St. Paul uses a vivid figurative 
expression, not of course with the full richness of meaning which 
he sometimes gives to it (i. 17; viii. 13, &c). He is describing 
the state prior to Law primarily in himself as a child before the 
consciousness of law has taken hold upon him ; but he uses this 
experience as typical of that both of individuals and nations before 
they are restrained by express command. The ' natural man ' 
flourishes ; he does freely and without hesitation all that he has 
a mind to do; he puts forth all his vitality, unembarrassed by 
the checks and thwartings of conscience. It is the kind of life 
which is seen at its best in some of the productions of Greek art. 
Greek life had no doubt its deeper and more serious side ; but 
this comes out more in its poetry and philosophy : the frieze of 
the Parthenon is the consummate expression of a life that does 
not look beyond the morrow and has no inward perplexities to 
trouble its enjoyment of to-day. See the general discussion below. 

avilr)aev : ' 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. e^irdTrjae jxe. The language is suggested by the descrip- 
tion of the Fall (Gen. iii. 13 LXX; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 
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. 6 \ikv yojxos. The pcv expects a following Se. St. Paul had 
probably intended to write h 8e apapria KaTrjpydo-aTo h ipo\ tov 
Qdvarov, 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 {Gesck. d. K. 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 — 77 \vto\t\ avrov Sacaia for -q evr. ayla /cal Simla. 
It is more probable that Tert. is reproducing his text rather freely : in De 
Pudic. 6 he leaves out teal Sutaia, lex quidem sancta est et praeceptum 
sanctum et optimum (the use of superlative for positive is fairly common in 
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 l8i 

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 ($019) of what extremities (taff vncppoXrjv) Sin 
was capable. 

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

wcujAaTiicos. 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. 

adpKit'os (<ra P KiK<>s ^ C LP al.) denotes simply the material 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 o6.p£ and Trvfvjm. It has been maintained that this 
antithesis amounts to dualism, that St. Paul regards the oap£ 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), Ludemann (1872), 
and to some extent Pfleiderer (1873). [In the second edition of his Paulin- 
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, Die Begriffe Fleisch unci 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 (Aomans, 
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 (sind einfach zu bestreiten).'' The points peculiar to St. Paul, 
according to Lipsius, are the sharper contrast between the Divine m/tvixa and 
the human ipvxn, and the reading of a more ethical sense into oap£, which 
was originally physical, so that in Gal. v. 19 ff., Rom. viii. 4 ff. the oap£ 
becomes a principle directly at war with the irvevpa. In the present passage 
(Rom. vii. 14-25) the opposing principle is dfxapria, and the odp£ is only the 
material medium (Substrat) of sensual impulses and desires. We may add 
that this is St. Paul's essential view, of which all else is but the variant 

15. Ka,T«pYa£oji.<u = perficio ,peipetro ; * to carry into effect,' ' put into execu- 
tion ' : itpaoaoi = ago, to act as a moral and responsible being : voiu =/acio, 


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. u. Gr. Synonymik, p. 294 ff. 

ov -yivu>o-Ka> appears to describe the harmonious and conscious working of 
will and motive, the former deliberately accepting and carrying out the 
promptings of the latter. The man acts, so to speak, blindly : he is not 
a fully conscious agent : a force which he cannot resist takes the decision out 
of his hands. 

8 0cAo>. The exact distinction between 0(\<u and ^ovXofxni has been much 
disputed, and is difficult to mark. On the whole it seems that, especially in 
N. T. usage, &ov\o/Aai lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose, delibera- 
tion, 9(\q} 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. wA Z4: 'as it is,' ' as the case really lies ' ; the contrast is 
logical, not temporal. 

t| oLKoCcm iv efxol dfxapTta. [Read ivoixovaa. with fc$ B, 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 

18. lv iu\ol, tout eo-nv, k.t.X. The part of the man in which 
Sin thus establishes itself is not his higher self, his conscience, but 
his lower self, the ' flesh,' which, if not itself evil, is too easily made 
the instrument of evil. 

-irapdicciTai u.01 : ' lies to my hand,' ' within my reach/ 

ov NABC 47 67** al., Edd. : ov\ tvpioico, D E F G K L P &c. 
20. h oi d€\w BCDEFG al. y WH. RV. : t ov 6t\a) ey<» NAKLP 
&c, Tisch. WH. marg. 

21. eupioxw Spa t6m v6pov : ' I find then this rule,' ■ this con- 
straining principle,' hardly ' this constantly recurring experience,' 
which would be too modern. The vopos here mentioned is akin 
to the erepov vSfiov 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 NoihwendigkeiL 

Many commentators, from Chrysostom onwards, have tried to 
make top vo/jlov = 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, 
' I 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) tov vo\iov 
put as if the sentence had been intended to run ' I find then the 

VII. 21-24.] LAW AND SIN ^3 

Law— when I wish to do good— powerless to help me \- and (2) 
ifxoi repeated for the sake of clearness. It is apparently in 
a similar sense that Dr. T. K. Abbott proposes as an alternative 
rendering (the first being as above), ■ With respect to the law, 
I find, &c. But the anacoluthon after t6v v6hov 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. o-u^oojuu t<5 vojxw tou ©eou : what it approves, I gladly and 
cordially approve. 

Kcn-d toi/ law S.vQpbntov. St. Paul, as we have seen (on vi. 6), 
makes great use of this phrase &v6 P vtros, which goes back as far as 
Plato. Now he contrasts the ' old ' with the ' new man ' (or, as 
we should say, the 'old' with the 'new self) ; now he contrasts 
the 'outer man,' or the body (6 e£w avdpunos 2 Cor. iv. 16), with the 
'inner man,' the conscience or reason (2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16). 

23. irepov vo\iov : ' a different law ' (for the di* tinction between 
eWpor, ■ different,' and aXXos, ' another,' ' a second,' see the commen- 
tators on Gal. i. 6, 7). 

There are two Imperatives (»>o>ot) within the man : one, that of 
conscience; the other, that proceeding from the action of Sin 
upon the body. One of these Imperatives is the moral law, 'Thou 
shalt ' and ' Thou shalt not ' ; the other is the violent impulse of 

tw vopta tou ^oos fiou. For vovs see on i. 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 irvcvpa 

(Eph. iv. 23 avaveoxxrOai ra> irvivixan tov voos I cf. Rom. xii. 2), JUSt as 

on the other hand it may be corrupted by the flesh (Rom. i. 28). 

24. TaXaitrwpos eyu> afOpwiros. 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 


ck tou acjfxaTOS tou Qavdrov toutou. In construction tovtov might 
go with (rafxuTos (' from this body of death ') : but it is far better to 
take it in the more natural connexion with tiavdrov ; ' 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. apa ouV k.t.X. 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. 

€i>xapi<rrw t<£ 0€(S. The true reading is probably x°P ls T< ? ® e $- The 
evidence stands thus. 

Xapts- tw @(w B, Sah., Orig. semel Hieron. semel. 

X a pu S« rw ®ea> K* C 2 [de C* non liquet) minusc. aliq., Boh. Arm , Cyr.- 

Alex. Jo.-Damasc. 
■f) x«P s tov &(ov D E 38, de Vulg., Orig.-lat. bis Hieron. semel Ambrstr. 
^ X&pi-s T °v Kvplov F G, f g, cf. Iren.-lat. 

cvxapioru) tS) ©6(2 N* A K L P &c., Syrr. Goth., Orig. bis Chrys. 

Theodrt. al. \_evx a P^ T ^> ® f £ Method, ap. Epiph. cod., sed x"P ty T V 

®eS> vel x«/> £ * 5 « T £ ® f # 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[eY]x A P lc [ TC °] TO:) e00 - 
The descent of the other readings may be best represented by a table. 

X^pic no 0ea> 

eY'xApiCToo tco Gecp 
X*pic he tw Oecp h x<*P'C toy Oeo9 (6?) 

h x^P lc to y Kyp'ioy (Ky) 

The other possibility would be that (vxapicrru) tS> ®(£> had got reduced to 
Xapis to) (.-)*£ by successive dropping of letters. But this must have taken 
place very early. It is also conceivable that x^P 15 *>* preceded x^P 15 only. 

The Inward Conflict. 

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 hhmself ? 

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 n€7rpafi€VOs vno ttjp ctpapriav ver. 14, KaTfpy d^n/xai 

VII. 7-25.] LAW AND SIN ^5 

[t6 kok6u] vv. 19 20, rakaincapos f ' y i> & v 0pco7ro S ver. 24. It is argued 
hat anguage like this is nowhere found of the regenerate state. 
Oi) When other expressions are adduced which seem to make for 
the opposite conclusion, it is urged that parallels to them may be 
quoted from Pagan literature, e.g. the video meliora of Ovid and 

Z7r? v i \ S ul iUgS inEuri P ides > 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. 

(H) Another group of writers, Methodius (ob. 3 10 a.d.V Augustine 
and the Latin Fathers generally, the Reformers especially on the 
Calvimstic-side, refer the passage rather to the regenerate, (i) An 
opposite set of expressions is quoted, ^r& [ r & ««&,] ver. 1* *A. 
woutu to Ka\6u ver. 21, awSjio^ ™ ,o>o) ver. 22. It is said that these 
are inconsistent with the AnjXXorp^W ml i x 8 P oL 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 J™^ %ov 
to acopa Kai 8ov\aycoyS>. That even the regenerate may have this 
mixed experience is thought to be proved, e.g. by Gal vi 17 

Clearly there is a double strain of language. The state of things 
described is certainly a conflict in which opposite forces are struggling 
for the mastery. 55 6 

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 caji 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 ; 
(111) the end which is at last put to the stress and strain of this 
collision by the intervention of Christ and of the Spirit of Christ, of 
which more will be said in the next chapter. The state there 
described is that of the truly and fully regenerate; the prolonged 
struggle which precedes seems to be more rightly defined as inter 
regenerandum (Gif. after Dean Jackson). 

Or perhaps we should do better still to refuse to introduce so 
technical a term as ' regeneration ' into a context from which it is 
wholly absent. St. Paul, it is true, regarded Christianity as operating 


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 to 
ch. vii. 

VII. 7-25.J LAW AND SIN jSy 

St. Paul's Vieiv 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 b V 
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. 111. 2 ; 11. 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 


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 &ia vofxov ar/yyeMW afxaprias (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 j 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, 81a vopov imyvmru apaprias. 

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 


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 (rAo? yhp 

vofiov Xpicrros (Is 8iicaio(TvvT)v iravrl t<5 ntcrrfvovTi Rom. X. 4) ; and 

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


VIII. 1-4. The result of Christ's interposition is to 
dethrone Sin from its tyranny in the human heart, and to 
instal in its stead the Spirit of Christ. Thus what the 
Law of Moses tried to do but failed \ the Incarnation has 

1 This being so, no verdict of ' Guilty ' goes forth any longer 
against the Christian. He lives in closest union with Christ. 
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. 8 For where the old 
system failed, the new system has succeeded. The Law of Moses 
could not get rid of Sin. The weak place in its action was that 
our poor human nature was constantly tempted and fell. But now 
God Himself has interposed by sending the Son of His love to 


take upon Him that same human nature with all its attributes 
except sin : in that nature He died to free us from sin : and this 
Death of His carried with it a verdict of condemnation against Sin 
and of acquittal for its victims ; 4 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 x<*P l * T< ? 
Qea> bia 'iqo-oC Xpiarov rov Kvp'uw r)na>v 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. 1-1 7 to 
the rmore 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 readii gs 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. Kcn-dicpiaa. One of the formulae of justification : KaraKpio-is 

and KaraKpipa are correlative to oucauoo-is, ouoMt/ca; both sets of 
phrases being properly forensic. Here, however, the phrase toIs 
iv 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 KaraKpia-is which used to fall upon the 
sinner now falls upon his oppressor Sin. 

/ OASSlfaflZ Fl KaTa o-dpKa ircpnraTotiaiv, dXXd icard irvevu-a. An interpolation 

d / / JT'dfi*' introduced (from ver. 4) at two steps : the first clause pi) Kara. capita irepiira- 
jLsfJUM^ V rovaiv in A D b 137, f m Vulg. Pesh. Goth. Arm., Bas. Chrys. ; the second 

clause a\\a Kara, irvtvpa in the mass of later authorities N c D c E K L P &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. 6 yofAos tou nycuficiTos = the authority exercised by the Spirit. 

We have had the same somewhat free use of vofios in the last 

chapter, esp. in ver. 236 v6p.os rov voos, 6 v6p,os rrjs a/iapTias : it is no 

longer a ' code ' but an authority producing regulated action such 

ijj- as would be produced by a code. 

tou nfeupxTos rr|s £an]s. The gen. expresses the ' effect wrought ' 
(Gif.), but it also expresses more : the Spirit brings life because it 
essentially is life. 




iv Xpurno'iTjaou goes with tjUvdepaxre : the authority of the Spirit 
operating through the union with Christ, freed me, &c. For the 
phrase itself see on ch. vi. 1 1 


rjkevQipuvi n€. A small group of important authorities ^N B F G, frfltf4L>HA^»Mi 
lesh, Tert. 1/2 vel potius 2/2 Chrys. codd.) has Jj\(v0tpa>aiv oe. The " 

combination of N 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 <re 
is only a mechanical repetition of the last syllable of rjXtvetpcwe (ce). 
Dr. Hort suggests the omission of both pre nouns (j)/xas 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 rofy kv X. 'I., and the scanty 
evidence for omission may be to some extent paralleled, e.g. by that for the 
omission of tvprjKtvai in iv. 1, for d ye in v. 6, or for x^ r V ®«£ in vii. 25. 
But we should hardly be justified in doing more than placing ixt in brackets.' 

diro tou vo\i.o\) tt)s &u.apTias koi tou Qclv&tou = the authority 
exercised by Sin and ending in Death: see on vii. 23, and on 
6 v6fjL. t. irvtvu. above. 

3. t6 yap dStfrarov tou yojxou. Two questions arise as to these 
words. (1) What is their construction? The common view, 
adopted also by Gif. (who compares Eur. Troad. 489), is that they 
form a sort of nom. absolute in apposition to the sentence. Gif. 
translates, ' the impotence (see below) of the Law being this that,' 
&c. It seems, however, somewhat better to regard the words in 
apposition not as nom. but as accus. 

A most accomplished scholar, the late Mr. James Riddell, in his ' Digest 
of Platonic Idioms' {The 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 i-nl tovtois tov Ko\o<pu>va, avay/edfa 
Trpoafripafav k.t.K. Cf. Soph. O. T. 603 ieal tu>i>8' (kty X ov . . . tt(v9ov, and 
the Adverbs apxrjv, farf", t)v nptvrrjv, &c. (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; (a) in many of them, not the internal 
force but merely the rhetorical or logical form of the sentence is in view. It 
might be said that they are Predicates, while the sentence itself is the 
Subject.' [Examples follow, but that from Theaet. given above is as clear 
as any.] This seems to criticize by anticipation the view of Va., who regards 
rd aUv. 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 r^v 5e avrriv dvrifuaeiav -nXarvvB-qr* 
Kai vfxtis : but this would seem to come under the same rule. The argument 
that if rd dSvv. had been accus. it would probably have stood at the end of 


the sentence, like tt/v XoyiK^v Xarptiav tfj.wv in Rom. xii. 1, appears to be 
refuted by tov KoXwpwva in Theaet. above. Win. Gr. % xxxii. 7, p. 290 E. T. 
while recognizing the accns. use (§ lix. 9, p. 669 E. T.), seems to prefer to 
take to abvv. as nom. So too Mey. Lips. &c. 

(2) Is to d8vv. active or passive ? Gif., after Fri. (cf. also Win. 
ut sup.) contends for the former, on the ground that if abvv. were 
passive it should be followed by ru v6p<p not tov vopov. Tertullian 
(Be Res. Carn. 46) gives the phrase an active sense and retains the 
gen., quod invalidum erat legis. But on the other hand if not Origen 
himself, at least Rufinus the translator of Origen has a passive 
rendering, and treats tov vopov as practically equivalent to tg> v6pa> : 
quod impossibile erat Ugi*. Yet Rufinus himself clearly uses 
impossibilis in an active sense in his comment ; and the Greek of 
Origen, as given in Cramer's Catena, p. 125, appears to make t6 

dhvv. active : Saa-mp yap t) aptTi) I8ia (pvcrei lo-\vpd, ovrco leal r) KaKia kcu 
to, an our?}* aa6(vq kcu abvvara . . . tov toiovtov vopov f) (pvais dSvvaTos 

ion. Similarly Cyr.-Alex. (who finds fault with the structure of the 
sentence) : to dftvvarov, tovtco-ti t6 do6tvovv. Vulg. and Cod. Clarom. 
are slightly more literal: quod impossibile erat legis. The gen. might 
mean that there was a spot within the range or domain of Law 
marked 'impossible/ a portion of the field which it could not 
control. On the whole the passive sense appears to us to be more 
in accordance with the Biblical use of dhvv. and also to give a some- 
what easier construction : if to dbvv. is active it is not quite a simple 
case of apposition to the sentence, but must be explained as a sort 
of nom. absolute (' The impotence of the Law being this that,' &c, 
Gif.), which seems rather strained. But it must be confessed that 
the balance of ancient authority is strongly in favour of this way of 
taking the words, and that on a point — the natural interpretation of 
language— where ancient authority is especially valuable. 

An induction from the use of LXX and N. T. would seem to show that 
d&vvaTos masc. and fem. was always active (so twice in N. T., twenty-two 
times [3 w. 11.] in LXX, Wisd. xvii. 14 tt\v dlvvaTov ovtois vvkto. k<u !£ 
uSwdrov qSov pvxa/v lir(\6ovoav, being alone somewhat ambiguous and 
peculiar) , while dhvv. neut. was always passive (so five times in LXX, seven 
in N. T.). It is true that the exact phrase to abvvaTov does not occur, but 
in Luke xviii. 27 we have tci abivara irapd dvdpumois Sward kan vapd t£> 0(a). 

h <S : not ' because ' (Fri. Win. Mey. Alf.), but ' in which ' or 
• wherein,' defining the point in which the impossibility (inability) 
of the Law consisted. For tjo-8c»€i did tt)s o-apKos 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. 

rbv lauTou utoi'. The emphatic eavrov brings out the community 
of nature between the Father and the Son : cf. toO Idiov vloi ver. 32; 

tou viov ttjs dydmjs avrov Col. L 13* 

* The text is not free from suspicion. 


If 6p.oiojp.a-n, aapKos djiapTias : 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 Dei 
simililudinem habuisse carnis peccati, non carnem peccati (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 sinful fleshy though it is 
His Flesh — His Incarnation — which brought Him into contact 
with Sin. 

Kal ircpl d/xapTias. This phrase is constantly used in the O.T. 
for the ' sin-offering ' ; so ' more than fifty times in the Book of 
Leviticus alone ' (Va.) ; and it is taken in this sense here by Orig.- 
lat. Quod hostia pro peccato /actus est C/iristus, et oblatus sit pro 
purgatione peccatorum, omnes Scripturae testantur . . . Per hanc ergo 
hostiam carnis suae, quae dicitur pro peccato, damnavit peccatum in 
came, &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 irep\ 
tyapT. 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. 

KaTeKpive ttjj' dp.apTiae iv ttj aapiu. The key to this difficult 
clause is supplied by ch. vi. 7-10. By the Death of Christ upon the 
Cross, a death endured in His human nature, He once and for ever 
broke off all contact with Sin, which could only touch Him through 
His Incarnation. Henceforth Sin can lay no claim against Him. 
Neither can it lay any claim against the believer ; for the believer 
also has died with Christ. Henceforth when Sin comes to prosecute 
its claim, it is cast in its suit and its former victim is acquitted. 
The one culminating and decisive act by which this state of things 
was brought about is the Death of Christ, to which all the subse- 
quent immunity of Christians is to be referred. 

The parallel passage, vi. 6-1 1, shows that this summary 
condemnation of Sin takes place in the Death of Christ, and not 
in His Life ; so that KarUpive 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.) Karaicptpeiv 
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 



(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 (5<d -nys /jlvctik^s tvkoyias). 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. 

iv tt) o-apici goes with Karticpive. 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; i Pet. iii. 18); but through the mystical 
union with Him the death of His Flesh means the death of ours 

4. to oucaiwfia: 'the justifying,' Wic, 'the justification/ Rhem. 
after Vulg. iustificatio ; Tyn. is better, ' the rightewesnes requyred 
of (i. e. by) the lawe/ We have already seen that the proper sense 
of 8iKala>na is ' that which is laid down as right/ ' that which has the 
force of right ' : hence it = here the statutes of the Law, as righteous 
statutes. Comp. on i. 32; ii. 26. 

It is not clear how Chrys. (= Euthym.-Zig.) gets for Zimiwua the sense 

TO tt\os, 6 CKOTTOS, TO KCLTopdco/m. 

toTs fj.T) KciT& oapKa irepuraTouo-n' : ' those who walk by the rule 
of the flesh/ whose guiding principle is the flesh (and its grati- 
fication). The antithesis of Flesh and Spirit is the subject of 
the next section. 


VIII. 5-11. Compare the two states. The life of self- 
indulgence involves the breach of God's law, hostility to 
Him, and death. Submission to the Spirit brings with it 
true life and the sense of reconciliation. You therefore, 
if you are sincere Christians, have in the presence of the 
Spirit a sure pledge of immortality. 

6 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 



guide them fix their thoughts and affections on things spiritual. 
6 They are opposed in their nature ; they are opposed also in their 
consequences. For the consequence of having one's bent towards 
the things of the flesh is death— both of soul and body, both here 
and hereafter. Just as to surrender one's thoughts and motives to 
the Spirit brings with it a quickened vitality through the whole man, 
and a tranquillizing sense of reconciliation with God. 

7 The gratifying of the flesh can lead only to death, because it 
implies hostility to God. It is impossible for one who indulges the 
flesh at the same time to obey the law of God. 8 And those who 
are under the influence of the flesh cannot please God. 9 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. 10 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. u In possessing the 
Spirit you have a guarantee of future resurrection. It links you to 
Him whom God raised from the dead. And so even these perish- 
able human bodies of yours, though they die first, God will restore 
to life, through the operation of (or, having regard to) that Holy 
Spirit by whom they are animated. 

5. <j>poi/ouc-ii/ : 'set their minds, or their hearts upon.' cppovelv 
denotes the whole action of the <ppr)v, i. e. of the affections and will 
as well as of the reason; cf. Matt. xvi. 23 oi (ppovrfs rd tov Qeod, 
aXAa ra rav dvdpd>7rcov : Rom. xii. 1 6 ; Phil. iii. 19 ; Cot iii. 2, &c. 

6. 4>p6vr]^a : the content of (ppouelv, the general bent of thought 
and motive. Here, as elsewhere in these chapters, adp£ is that side 
of human nature on which it is morally weak, the side on which 
man's physical organism leads him into sin. 

0d^aTos. Not merely is the (ppourjpa t^s crapno? 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. 

l(or\. In contrast with the state of things just described, where 
the whole bent of the mind is towards the things of the Spirit, not 

o 2 


only is there ' life ' in the sense that a career so ordered will issue in 
life ; it has already in itself the germs of life. As the Spirit itself is 
in Its essence living, so does It impart that which must live. 

For a 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. 

cip^T) = 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. ol 8e : not as AV. ' so these/ as if it marked a consequence or 
conclusion from ver. 7, but ' And ' : ver. 8 merely repeats the 
substance of ver. 7 in a slightly different form, no longer abstract 
but personal. The way is thus paved for a more direct application 
to the readers. 

9. iv aapKi, . . . iv iri'eujjiaTt. Observe how the thought mounts 
gradually upwards, elvat iv aapd = ' to be under the domination of 
[the] flesh ' ; corresponding to this dvat iv 7rvei>fiaTi = ' to be under 
the domination of [the] spirit/ *'. 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 
irvevfia, is what it is by virtue of its affinity to God. It is essentially 
that part of the marl which holds communion with God : so that 
the Apostle is naturally led to think of the Divine influences which 
act upon the Trveifxa. He rises almost imperceptibly through the 
Ti-vfvfia of man to the Ilvcvpa of God. From thinking of the way in 
which the irvevfia 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 it-rrep Uvevfia Oeov 
oiKct iv vplv. olKtlv iv denotes a settled permanent penetrative 
influence. Such an influence, from the Spirit of God, St. Paul 
assumes to be inseparable from the higher life of the Christian. 

VIII. 9, 10.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 1 97 

The way in which iv vapid is opposed to iv Trvevpan, and further 
the way in which iv irvevpan passes from the spirit of man to the 
Spirit of God, shows that we must not press the local significance of 
the preposition too closely. We must not interpret any of the 
varied expressions which the Apostle uses in such a sense as to 
infringe upon the distinctness of the human and Divine personalities. 
The one thing which is characteristic of personality is distinctness 
from all other personalities ; and this must hold good even of the 
relation of man to God. The very ease with which St. Paul changes 
and inverts his metaphors shows that the Divine immanence with 
him nowhere means Buddhistic or Pantheistic absorption. We 
must be careful to keep clear of this, but short of it we may use the 
language of closest intimacy. All that friend can possibly receive 
from friend we may believe that man is capable of receiving from 
God. See the note on iv Xpio-Tco 'tyo-ov in vi. 11; and for the anti- 
thesis of <rap£ and irvevpa the small print note on vii. 14. 

tt §4 tis. A characteristic delicacy of expression : when he is 
speaking on the positive side St. Paul assumes that his readers have 
the Spirit, but when he is speaking on the negative side he will not 
say bluntly ' if you have not the Spirit/ but he at once throws 
his sentence into a vague and general force, 'if any one has 
not,' &c. 

There are some good remarks on the grammar of the conditional clauses 
in this verse and in vv. 10, 25, in Burton, M. and T.%% 469, 242, 261. 

ouk Ivnv auTou : he is no true Christian. This amounts to 
saying that all Christians 'have the Spirit' in greater or less 

10. el 8c Xpioros. It will be observed that St. Paul uses the 
phrases YLvevpa GeoO, nveZpa Xpicrrov, and Xpioros in these two verses 
as practically interchangeable. On the significance of this in its 
bearing upon the relation of the Divine Persons see below. 

to pev awjjia vtupov hi dfwipTw. 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 imputative, 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 mystice, as no longer the instrument 
of sin ( sans energie productrice des actes 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 oY apaprlav, (iii) It remains to take v&cpov in the plain sense of 


1 physical death/ and to go back for St' d/znpriav 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. Oltr. objects that 
vtKpav in this case ought to be Ovrjrov, but the use of va<p6v gives 
a more vivid and pointed contrast to far) — ' a dead thing/ 

to oe -nveGjAa £wt] 8id SiKtuoaunrji'. Clearly the rrvevpa here meant 
is the human 7n/eu/za which has the properties of life infused into it 
by the presence of the Divine nvevpa. far) is to be taken in a wide 
sense, but with especial stress on the future eternal life, bia dacaio- 
avvrjv 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 
anapxh (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23 : the same power which raised Him will 
raise us (1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14); Phil. hi. 21; 1 Thess. 
iv. 14). But nowhere is the argument given in so full and complete 
a form as here. The link which connects the believer with Christ, 
and makes him participate in Christ's resurrection, is the possession 

of His Spirit (cp. I TheSS. iv. 14 tovs KoifxrjOcvras Sid tov 'lrjaov d'£fi 
o~vv avTqn. 

8id toC cyoiKoun-os aurou rifeufxaTos. The authorities for the two 
readings, the gen. as above and the ace. Sid to ivoucovv avrov nvev/xa, 
seem at first sight very evenly divided. For gen. we have a long 
line of authorities headed by X A C, Clem.- Alex. For ace. we have 
a still longer line headed by B D, Orig. Iren.-lat. 

In fuller detail the evidence is as follows : 

Sid tov ivoLKovvros k.t.X. KACP 2 fl/., codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. c. Macedon., 

Boh. Sah. Hard. 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. 
Sioi to (votKovv k.t.X. BDEFGKLP &c., codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. c. 

Macedon.; Vulg. Pesh. (Sah. codd.); Iren.-lat. Orig. pluries; Method. 

vers. slav. et codd. Epiphanii 1/3 et ex parte 2/j, Cyr.-Hieros. cod. 

Did.-lat. semel {interp. Hieron.) Chrys. ad loc. Tert Hil.' al 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 ace. predomi- 
nantly Western. The question is how far in each case this main body is 
reinforced by more independent evidence. From this point of view a some- 
what increased importance attaches to Harcl. Arm. Hippol. Cyr.-Hieros. 
Bas. on the side of the gen. and to B, Orig. on the side of the ace. The 
testimony of Method, is not quite clear. The first place m which the 
passage occurs is a quotation from Origen : here the true reading is probably 
81a to Ivoikovv, as elsewhere in that writer. The other two places belong to 
Methodius himself. Here too the Slavonic version has in both cases ace. ; 
the Greek preserved in Epiphanius has in one instance ace, in the other gen. 
It is perhaps on the whole probable that Method, himself read ace. and that 
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 ace. 


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 Dial. c. Macedonios, that 
gen. is found in ' all the ancient copies ' ; the author of the dialogue allows 
that the reading is questionable. 

On the whole the preponderance seems to be slightly on the side 
of the gen., but neither reading can be ignored. Intrinsically the 
one reading is not clearly preferable to the other. St. Paul might 
have used equally well either form of expression. It is however 
hardly adequate to say with Dr. Vaughan that if we read the ace. 
the reference is ' to the ennobling and consecrating effect of the 
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the human body/ The prominent 
idea is rather that the Holy Spirit is Itself essentially a Spirit of Life, 
and therefore it is natural that where It is life should be. The gen. 
brings out rather more the direct and personal agency of the Holy 
Spirit, which of course commended the reading to the supporters of 
orthodox doctrine in the Macedonian controversy. 

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 (Is. 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. 11 compared with 1 Cor. xii. 
28, 4). To be ' Christ's' is the same thing as to ' live in the Spirit ' 
(Gal. v. 22 ff.). Nay, in one place Christ is expressly identified 
with ' the Spirit* : ' the Lord is the Spirit ' (2 Cor. iii. 17) : a passage 
which has a seemingly remarkable parallel in Ignat. Ad Magn. xy 
tppaaOe 4v Sfiovola 8eo0 ? K€KTr]fxevoi ddidicpiTou jrvevfia, of eortv 'lrjaoiis 


XpiaTos (where however Bp. Lightfoot makes the antecedent to os 
not 7TVfvfxu 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 {Bampton 
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. 26 f.), 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 a threefold 

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 


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. 


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. 

12 Such a destiny has its obligations. To the flesh you owe 
nothing. 13 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. 

14 Why so ? Why that necessary consequence ? The link is 
here. All who follow the leading of God's Spirit are certainly by 
that very fact special objects of His favour. They do indeed enjoy 
the highest title and the highest privileges. They are His sons. 

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. l6 Two voices are distinctly heard : 


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. ]7 But to be a child implies 
something more. The child will one day inherit his father's 
possessions. So the Christian will one day enter upon that 
glorious inheritance which his Heavenly Father has in store for 
him and on which Christ as his Elder Brother has already entered. 
Only, be it remembered, that in order to share in the glory, it is 
necessary first to share in the sufferings which lead to it. 

12. Lipsius would unite 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 ovv in x. 14. 

13. wcufAaTi. The antithesis to aapg seems to show that this 
is still, as in vv. 4, 5, 9, the human irvevpa, but it is the human 
iipfvua in direct contact with the Divine. 

t&s irpd^eis : of wicked doings, as in Luke xxiii. 51. 

14. The phrases which occur in this section, Uvevpan Geov 

ayovrai, to Tlvevpa crvppapTvpei t<£ Trvtvpari f)pu>v } are clear proof that 

the other group of phrases iv avevfum emu, or t6 TlveZpa oUcKjvoucti) 
iv 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. 

uloi OeoC. The difference between vlos and tckvov appears to be 
that whereas rUvov denotes the natural relationship of child to 
parent, vlos implies, in addition to this, the recognized status and 
legal privileges reserved for sons. Cf. Westcott on St. John i. 12 
and the parallels there noted. 

15. weujia SouXeias. This is another subtle variation in the 
use of irpevpa. From meaning the human spirit under the in- 
fluence of the Divine Spirit nvevpa comes to mean a particular 
state, habit, or temper of the human spirit, sometimes in itself 

(-Trvevpa (rjXaxTfcos Num. V. 1 4, 30 ; irv. durjdias Is. lxi. 3 ; 7rv. nopveias 

Hos. iv. 12), but more often as due to supernatural influence, good 

Or evil {ttv. ao<pias k.t.X. Is. xi. 2; irv. Tr\aprjo-eoii Is. xix. 1 4 ; irv. 
Kpipeoas Is. XXviii. (j j irv, Karavvgcas Is. xxix. IO (= Rom. xi. 8); 



nu. xapiTos Kai olKTipfxov Zech. xii, 10; irv. dvOevelas Luke xiii. II- 
irv. SeiXlas 2 Tim. i. 7 ; to ttv. ttjs TrXdvrjs i Jo. iv. 6). So here 
irv. 8ov\eias = such a spirit as accompanies a state of slavery, such 
a servile habit as the human irw^ assumes among slaves. ' This 
was not the temper which you had imparted to you at your bap- 
tism (ikafitr*). The slavery is that of the Law : cf. Gal. iv. 6 7 
24, v. 1. 

-n&Xiv cis <f>o0of : * 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. 

vloOeaias : a word coined, but rightly coined, from the classical 
phrase vlos Ti$«rdai (Serbs vlos). 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. 

'A0pa, 6 Trcmip. 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 occursin Mark xiv. 36 ('Abba, Father, all things are 
possible to Thee ') and in Gal. iv. 6 : it gives a greater intensity of 
expression, but would only be natural where the speaker was 
using in both cases his familiar tongue. Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. on 
Mark xiv. 36) thinks that in the Gospel the word 'a/3£S only was 
used by our Lord and 6 Uur^p added as an interpretation by 
St. Mark, and that in like manner St. Paul is interpreting for the 
benefit of his readers. The three passages are however all too 
emotional for this explanation : interpretation is out of place in 
a prayer. It seems better to suppose that our Lord Himself, 
using familiarly both languages, and concentrating into this word 
of 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. auTo to rii'cGjxa : see on ver. 14 above, 

<ru|AfAapTupet : cf. ii. 15; ix. 2. There the 'joint-witness' was 
the ^ subjective testimony of conscience, confirming the objective 
testimony of a man's works or actions ; here consciousness is 
analyzed, and its data are referred partly to the man himself, partly 
to the Spirit of God moving and prompting him. 

17. ic\r)pof6*Lioi. The idea of a Kh-qpovopia is taken up and 
developed in N. T. from O. T. and Apocr. (Ecclus, Ps. Sol., 
4 Ezr.). Jt is also prominent in Philo, whp devotes a whole 


treatise to the question Quis rerum divinarum heres sit? (Mang. i. 
473 if.). 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 ; 
lxi. 7 ; and so it became (iv) a symbol of all Messianic blessings 
(Matt v. 5; xix. 29; xxv. 34, &c). Philo, after his manner, 
makes the word denote the bliss of the soul when freed from the 

It is an instance of the unaccountable inequalities of usage that whereas 
KXripovo^Tv, KKTjpovo/xia occur almost innumerable times in LXX, KX.Tjpovofj.os 
occurs only five times (once in Symmachus) ; in N. T. there is much greater 
equality (KKrjpovofxeiv eighteen, KXrjpovofxia fourteen, Kkrjpovofxos fifteen). 

auyKXripoj'OfiLoi. 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 K^povopla received its full Christian 
adaptation directly from Him (cf. also Matt. xxv. 34). 

eiiTcp aufATrdaxoF^. St. Paul seems here to be reminding his 
hearers of a current Christian saying: cf. 2 Tim. ii. 11 mo-rbs 6 
Ao'yos, Et yap o-vvcnreddvoixev km avCfaoptV {mopevopev km crv^ao-i- 

Xevaopev. 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 elVep see 
on iii. 30. 

VIII. 18-25. What though the path to that glory lies 
through stiffering? 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 his 
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). 

18 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. lj For the sons of God will stand 
forth revealed in the glories of their bright inheritance. And for 


that consummation not they alone but the whole irrational creation, 
both animate and inanimate, waits with eager longing; like 
spectators straining forward over the ropes to catch the first 
glimpse of some triumphal pageant. 

20 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 21 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. 22 It is like the pangs of a woman in child- 
birth. This universal frame feels up to this moment the throes of 
travail— feels them in every part and cries out in its pain. But 
where there is travail, there must needs also be a birth. 

23 Our own experience points to the same conclusion. True 
that in those workings of the Spirit, the charismata with which we 
are endowed, we Christians already possess a foretaste of good 
things to come. But that very foretaste makes us long— anxiously 
and painfully long— for the final recognition of our Sonship. We 
desire to see these bodies of ours delivered from the evils that 
beset them and transfigured into glory. 

24 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. 25 But in our case we do not see, and we 
do hope; therefore we also wait for our object with steadfast 

18. XoYi£ofmi ya'p. 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 


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. , 

Xoyttofjuu : here in its strict sense, 'I calculate/ 'weigh mentally, 
1 count up on the one side and on the other.' 

a£ia .. .irpos. In Plato, Gorg. p. 471 E, we have ovbcvos Z&6s eV™ 

irpos rfjv aki)6eiav : SO that with a slight ellipse ovk a£m . . . irpos ttjv 

bn£av will = ' not worth (considering) in comparison with the glory/ 
Or we may regard this as a mixture of two constructions, (t) ovk 
<1£ia t?,s fio^y, i. e. ' not an equivalent for the glory ' ; comp. Prov. 
viii. II irav 8e rifxiov ovk a£iov uvt^s (sc. ttjs <ro<pla$) ior'iv, and (2) 
ovbtvbs Aoyov a£m npos rfv ho£av\ COmp. Jer. xxiii. 28 ti to fyvpov 


The thought has a near parallel in 4 Ezra vii. 3ff. Compare (e.g.) the 
following (vv. 12-17): Et facti sunt introitus huius saeculi angusti et 
dolentes et Moriosi, pauci autem et mali et periculorum pleni et More 
magno opere fulti ; nam maioris saeculi introitus spatiosi et securi et 
facientes immortalitatis fructum. Si ergo turn ingredientes ingressi fuennt- 
que vivunt angusta et vana haec, non pot e runt recipere quae sunt reposita . . . 
iusti au'em 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. 

fie'Mouaai' : 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 tov vvv Kaipov. 

%6frv : the heavenly brightness of Christ's appearing : see on 
iii. 23. 

els r|| : to reach and include us in its radiance. 

19. diroKapaooKia : cf. Phil. i. 20 Kara rrjv anoKapadoKiav ko\ A*rfta 
pov : the verb arrow padoKtlv occurs in Aquila's version of Ps. xxxvii 
fxxxvi]. 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, dno- 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. 


20 ' 

ttjs KTto-cws: see on i. 20. Here the sense is given by the 
context ; f] ktIvis is set in contrast with the ' sons of God/ and 
from the allusion to the Fall which follows evidently refers to Gen. 
iii. 17, 18 'Cursed is the ground for thy sake . . . thorns also and 
thistles shall it bring forth to thee.' The commentators however 
are not wrong in making the word include here the whole irrational 
creation. The poetic and penetrating imagination of St. Paul 
sees in the marks of imperfection on the face of nature, in the 
signs at once of high capacities and poor achievement, the visible 
and audible expression of a sense of something wanting which will 
one day be supplied. 

Oltr. and some others argue strenuously, but in vain, for giving 
to Kriais, 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 ktiW 
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 (f) kt'utis f) a\oyos 
expressly Euthym.-Zig ). Orig.-lat, as expressly, has creaturam ulpote 
rationabilem ; but he is quite at fault, making rp ixaimoTrjTi = ' 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 (dvvdfieii) 
which preside over inanimate nature and from which it takes its forms. The 
sense commonly given to /AaTaioTTjTi is = <p9opd. 

TTji/ dTTOKciXuvj/iK T&v uKav tou 0eou. The same word diroicd\v\f/is is 
applied to the Second Coming of the Messiah (which is also an 
fm(f)aveia 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 ' (8o'£a) both reflected and imparted. This revealing of 
the sons of God will be the signal for the great transformation. 

The Jewish writings use similar language. To them also the appearing of 
the Messiah is an airondkv\pi.s : 4 Ezra xiii. 32 et erit cumjient haec, et con- 
tingent signa quae ante ostendi tibi et tunc revelabitur filius metis quern 
vidisti ut virum ascendentem ; Apoc. Bar. xxxix. 7 et erit, cum appropinqua- 
verit tempus finis eius ut cadat, tunc revelabitur principatus A/essiae met qui 
similis est font i et viti, et cum revelatus fuerit eradicabit 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 ipse est que/n conservat Altissimus multis 


temporibus qui per semetipsum liberabit creaturam suam et ipse disfonet 
qui derelicti sunt . . . ecce dies veniunt, quando incipiet Altissimus liberare 
eos qui super terram sunt : Apoc. Bar. xxxii. 6 quando futurum est ut Fortis 
innovet creaturam suam ( - 4 Ezra vii. 75 [Bensly] donee veniant tempora 
ilia, in quibus incipies creaturam renovare). The Messiah does not come 
alone : 4 Ezra xiii. J* I non poterit quisque super terram videre filium meum 
vel eos qui cum eo sunt nisi in tempore diei. He collects round Him 
a double multitude, consisting partly ot the ten tribes who had been carried 
away into captivity, and partly of those who were left in the Holy Land 
{ibid. vv. 12, 39 ff., 48 f.). 

Att€k8^x ct(U : another strong compound, where diro- contains the 
same idea of ' concentrated waiting ' as in dnoicapaSoKia above. 

20. tt) . . . jiaTaioTTjTi : fxaTaioTrjs naTautTt'iToov is the refrain of the 
Book of'Ecclesiastes (Eccl. i. 2, &c; cf. Ps. xxxix. 5, n [xxxviii. 6, 
12] cxliv [cxliii]. 4) : that is fxaraiou which is ' without result' (/xar^v), 
'ineffective/ 'which does not reach its end' — the opposite of 
reXfios : the word is therefore appropriately used of the disappointing 
character of present existence, which nowhere reaches the perfection 
of which it is capable. 

uircTdyTj : by the Divine sentence which followed the Fall (Gen. 
iii. 17-19). 

oux iKouaa : not through its own fault, but through the fault of 
man, i. e. the Fall. 

8id rbv uiroTd^afTa : ' by reason of Him who subjected it,' i. e. not 
man in general (Lips.) ; nor Adam (Chrys. al) ; 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 6m with ace. in such a con- 
nexion is rather unusual (so Lips.). 

ctt' eXm'Si qualifies xmerdyr}. Creation was made subject to 
vanity — not simply and absolutely and there an end, but ' in hope 
that,' &c. Whatever the defects and degradation of nature, it was 
at least left with the hope of rising to the ideal intended for it. 

21. on. The majority of recent commentators make ort(= '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. 

Kal auTTj Tj KTio-is : not only Christians but even the mute creation 
with them. 

dir6 tx\s SooXcias "rijs 4>0opas. SouXfiar corresponds to v7TfTay»7, 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 86£a. 'Glorious liberty' is a poor 
translation and does not express the idea : 86£a, ' the glorified state,' 
is the leading fact, not a subordinate fact, and eXevOepla is its 
characteristic, ' the liberty of the glory of the children of God.' 

22. oioajiei' ydp introduces a fact of common knowledge (though 


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

auo-Tc^d^ei ica! owwSiVei. It seems on the whole best to take the 
a-vv- in both instances as = ' together,' i.e. in all the parts of which 
creation is made up (so. Theod.-Mops. expressly: povXcrai 8e 

fiwflu on o~vp(p6>vuis eTrifteiKvvTai tovto iracra. ff KTiats' Iva to irapa 7rdar)s 
to avrb yeveadai 6/Wok, naidevcrij tovtovs tjji> 7rpos anavras kolvoov'mv 
alpela-Bai rrj t£>v \vnr}pa>v Kaprepiq). Oltr. gets OUt of it the Sense of 

'inwardly' (= h iavrois), which it will not bear: Fri. Lips, and 
others, after Euthym.-Zig. make it = ' with men ' or ' with the 
children of God ' ; but if these had been pointed to, there would 
not be so clear an opposition as there is at the beginning of the 
next verse {oh povov 8e, d\\d ml clvtoC). The two verses must be 
kept apart. 

23. ou p.6vov hi. Not only does nature groan, but we Christians 
also groan : our very privileges make us long for something more. 

rty dirapxT]»' Tou riccufjiaTos : 'the first-fruits, or first instalment 
of the gift of the Spirit/ St. Paul evidently means all the 
phenomena of that great outpouring which was specially charac- 
teristic of the Apostolic Age from the Day of Pentecost onwards, 
the varied charismata bestowed upon the first Christians (1 Cor. 
xii. &c), but including also the moral and spiritual gifts which were 
more permanent (Gal. v. 22 f.). The possession of these gifts 
served to quicken the sense of the yet greater gifts that were to 
come. Foremost among them was to be the transforming of the 
earthly or ' psychical ' body into a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44 ff.). 
St. Paul calls this a * deliverance/ i. e. a deliverance from the ' ills 
that flesh is heir to' : for diroXvTpaio-is see on iii. 24. 

«?xovt€s T|p.€is: ijpeTs is placed here by NAC 5. 47. 80, also by Tisch. 
RV. and (in brackets) by WH. 

uioOeo-ia^: see on ver. 15 above. Here vlo&. = the manifested, 
realized, act of adoption — its public promulgation. 

24. Tfj ycip eXmSi eaw0T)fiei/. The older commentators for the 
most part (not however Luther Beng. Fri.) took the dat. here as 
dative of the instrument, ' by hope were we saved.' Most moderns 
(including Gif. Go. Oltr. Mou. Lid.) take it as dat. modi, ' in hope 
were we saved ; ' the main ground being that it is more in accord- 
ance with the teaching of St. Paul to say that we were saved by 
faith, or from another point of view — looking at salvation from the 
side of God — by grace (both terms are found in Eph. ii. 8) than by 
hope. This seems preferable. Some have held that Hope is here 
only an aspect of Faith : and it is quite true that the definition of 

Faith in Heb. xi. I (ean de nia-ris i\m{opev(0V vnoo-raaris, irpaypdrav 

eXeyxos ov fiXaroptvcov), makes it practically equivalent to Hope. But 
that is just one of the points of distinction between Ep. to Heb. 



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 in 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, iknts. 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. 

e\ms 8e pXeirofjieVT) : cXttic here = ' the thing hoped for,' just as 
/mo-is = ' the thing created ' ; a very common usage. 

8 vap j3X«7T6i, tis c\irC£ei ; This terse reading is found only in B 47 marg., 
which adds to iraXaibv cvtojs c'x" : it is adopted by RV. text, W H. text. 
Text. Recept. has [b yap 0\ena tis] t'i ical [4Airi'C«], of which rl alone is 
found in Western authorities (D F G, Vulg. Pesh. al.), and km alone in 
N*47*. Both RV. and WH. give a place in the margin to ri nal l\m£ct 
and ri nal virofxevei [tnrofUvei with N* A 47 marg.']. 

25. 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. 

%C uirofWTis : 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 bid 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. lxv. 17-25 might well 


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

The idea of the ■ new heavens and new earth ' is based directly 
upon Is. lxv. 17, and is found clearly stated in the Book of Enoch, 
xlv. 4 f. ' I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal 
blessing and light. And I will transform the earth and make it 
a blessing and cause Mine elect ones to dwell upon it ' (where see 
Charles' note). There is also an application of Ps. cxiv. 4, with 
an added feature which illustrates exactly St. Paul's dnoKaXvyjfis tS>v 
vlwv tuv Qeov : ' In those days will the mountains leap like rams 
and the hills will skip like lambs satisfied with milk, and they will 
all become angels in heaven. Their faces will be lighted up 
with joy, because in those days the Elect One has appeared, and the 
earth will rejoice and the righteous will dwell upon it, and the elect 
will go to and fro upon it ' {Enoch li. 4 f.). We have given 
parallels enough from 4 Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 
there is much in the Talmud to the same effect (cf. Weber, Altsyn. 
Theol. p. 380 ff. ; Schiirer, Neutesi. Zeitgesch. ii. 453 ff., 458 f. ; 
Edersheim, Life and Times, &c. ii. 438). 

It is not surprising to find the poetry of the prophetic, writings 
hardened into fact by Jewish literalism ; but it is strange when the 
products of this mode of interpretation are attributed to our Lord 
Himself on authority no less ancient than that of Papias of Hiera- 
polis, professedly drawing from the tradition of St. John. Yet 
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V. xxxiii. 3) quotes in such terms the follow- 
ing : ' The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having 
ten thousand shoots and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and 
on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten 
thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand grapes, and 
each grape when pressed shall yield five and twenty measures of 
wine . . . Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand 
heads, and every head shall have ten thousand grains, and every 
grain ten pounds of fine flour, bright and clean ; and the other 
fruits, seeds and the grass shall produce in similar proportions, and 
all the animals using these fruits which are products of the soil, 
shall become in their turn peaceable and harmonious.' It happens 
that this saying, or at least part of it, is actually extant in Apoc. 
Bar. xxix. 5 (cf. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 620-623, 744 fF.), so that it 
clearly comes from some Jewish source. In view of an instance 
like this it seems possible that even in the N. T. our Lord's words 
may have been defined in a sense which was not exactly that 
originally intended owing to the current expectation which the dis- 
ciples largely shared. 

And yet on the whole, even if this expectation was by the Jews 
to some extent literalized and materialized, some of its essential 
features were preserved. Corresponding to the new abode pre- 

p 2 


pared for it there was to be a renewed humanity: and that not 
only in a physical sense based on Is. xxxv. 5 f. (' Then the eyes of 
the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be un- 
stopped,' &c.), but also in a moral sense ; the root of evil was to be 
plucked out of the hearts of men and a new heart was to be im- 
planted in them : the Spirit of God was to rest upon them (Weber, 
Altsyn. Theol. p. 382). There was to be no unrighteousness in 
their midst, for they were all to be holy (Ps. Sol. xvii. 28 f., 36, 
&c). The Messiah was to rule over the nations, but not merely by 
force ; Israel was to be a true light to the Gentiles (Schiirer, op. cit. 
p. 456). 

If we compare these Jewish beliefs with what we find here in the 
Epistle to the Romans there are two ways in which the superiority 
of the Apostle is most striking. (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' {ibid. ver. 32. The 
vision of the Gentiles streaming to Jerusalem as a centre of religion 
is exceptional, as it must be confessed that it is also in O. T. 
Prophecy. On the other hand, with St. Paul the movement is 
truly cosmic. The ' sons of God ' are not selected for their own 
sakes alone, but their redemption means the redemption of a world 
of being besides themselves. 


VIII. 26, 27. Meanwhile the Holy Spirit itself assists in 
our prayers. 

26 Nor are we alone in our struggles. The Holy Spirit sup- 
ports our helplessness. Left to ourselves we do not know what 
prayers to offer or how to offer them. But in those inarticulate 
groans which rise from the depths of our being, we recognize the 
voice of none other than the Holy Spirit. He makes intercession ; 


and His intercession is sure to be answered. 27 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. waauTws. 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, towards 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.). 

owarri\afx|3di/€Tcu : dvTi\ap,(3dve<r0ai = ' to take hold of at the 
side (ai/Ti), so as to support ' ; and this sense is further strength- 
ened by the idea of association contained in a-w-. The same 
compound occurs in LXX of Ps. lxxxviii [lxxxix]. 22, and in 
Luke x. 40. 

Tjfj daOcpeux : decisively attested for rals dadevelais. 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 SV vTropovr/s. But as vnonovf) 
suggests rather a certain amount of victorious resistance, this appli- 
cation of do-diveia seems less appropriate. 

to -ydp ti Trpoo-€u£w/i.€0a. The art. makes the whole clause object 
of mdafiev. 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). ti irpoaev^. 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 

kcx06 oei. 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 ko.66 (cf. Baruch i. 6 v. 1.) at the cost of putting 
a sense upon del which is not found elsewhere in the N. T., where 
it always denotes obligation or objective necessity. Those of the 
Fathers who show how they took it make <a66 del = riva rponov 
8el Trpoo-evg., which also answers well to /caret Qe6v in the next 

ulrepcvTuyxdvel : e w-vy xdva> means originally ' to fall in with,' and 
hence ' to accost with entreaty,' and so simply ' to entreat ' ; in this 
sense it is not uncommon and occurs twice in this Epistle (viii. 34 ; 
xi. 2). The verse contains a statement which the unready of 


speech may well lay to heart, that all prayer need not be formu- 
lated, but that the most inarticulate desires (springing from a right 
motive) may have a shape and a value given to them beyond 
anything that is present and definable to the consciousness. This 
verse and the next go to show that St. Paul regarded the action of 
the Holy Spirit as personal, and as distinct from the action of the 
Father. The language of the Creeds aims at taking account of 
these expressions, which agree fully with the triple formula of 
2 Cor. xiii. 14; Matt, xxviii. 19. Oltr. however makes t6 nvtvpa in 
both verses = ' the human spirit,' against the natural sense of 
irrrtpcprvyxdvei and vnip &yia>v, which place the object of intercession 
outside the Spirit itself, and against Kara Qe6v, which would be by 
no means always true of the human spirit. 

virepcvTvyx™" *« decisively attested (N*ABDFG &c.). Text. Recept. 
has the easier ivrvyxavti vvlp ■fjpwv. 

27. on. Are we to translate this ' because ' (Weiss Go. Gif. Va.) 
or ' that ' (Mey. Oltr. Lips. Mou.) ? Probably the latter ; for if we 
take on as assigning a reason for <uSe ti to (ppovrjpa, the reason would 
not be adequate: God would still 'know' the mind, or intention, 
of the Spirit even if we could conceive it as not Kara Qe6u and 
not vnfp &yia>v. It seems best therefore to make on describe the 
nature of the Spirit's intercession. 

koto. OeoV = Kara to deTuipa tov Qeov : cf. 2 Cor. vii. 9— II. 

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 


VIII. 28-80. With what a chain of Providential care 
does God accompany the course of His chosen / In eternity \ 
the plan laid and their part in it foreseen ; in time, first 
their call, then their acquittal, and finally their reception 
into glory. 

28 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. 
29 Think what a long perspective of Divine care and protection lies 
before them ! First, in eternity, God marked them for His own, 
as special objects of His care and instruments of His purpose. 


Then, in the same eternity, He planned that they should share in 
the glorified celestial being of the Incarnate Son — in order that 
He, as Eldest Born, might gather round Him a whole family of 
the redeemed. so 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. oiSajjiei' 8e passes on to another ground for looking con- 
fidently to the future. The Christian's career must have a good 
ending, because at every step in it he is in the hands of God and is 
carrying out the Divine purpose. 

iravTa owepyct : a small but important group of authorities, A B, 
Orig. 2/6 or 2/7 (cf. Boh. Sah. Aeth.), adds 6 eed? ; 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 o-wfpyd 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 
Veision (as edited by Amelineau in Zeitschrift fur Aegypt. Sprache, 1887) 
is in part defective but certainly repeats &(6s : ' 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 6 ©cos, and that the Version of 
Lower Egypt omitted it but interpreted awtpyti transitively as if it were 
present. It would almost seem as if there was an exegetical tradition which 
took the word in this way. It is true that the extract from Origen's Com- 
mentary in the Philocalia (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 loc.) argues at some 
length as if he were taking av epyfi transitively with 6 0eos 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 avvipyfio 0«ds, 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 

For the use of owtpyei there are two rather close parallels in Test. XII 
Patr. : Issach. 3 6 ©tos ovvtpyii tt} d7rA.oT7jTi fiov, and Gad 4 t6 ydp itvtvfia 
tov fiiaovs . . . ovvepyei rw ZLaravq kv iraaiv th Oavarov tS/v avOpdjirwv' to Si 
irvevpM. ttjs dydtrrji kv naitpo6vpia owtpyti t£ vo/xq) tov Qeov «ts conrjpiav 

tois k<it& irpoOeau' kXtjtois ovaiv. With this clause St. Paul in- 
troduces a string of what may be called the technical terms of Jus. 


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 Kara TrpoPeatv, 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 Trp66c<ns See On ch. ix. II kclt eKXoyfjv npodea-is tov Qeov, 

which would prove, if proof were needed, that the purpose is that 
of God and not of man (kot' oliceiav trpoalpccnv Theoph. and the 
Greek Fathers generally): comp. also Eph. i. n; hi. n; 2 Tim. 
i. 9. 

It. was one of the misfortunes of Greek theology that it received a bias in 
the Free- Will controversy from opposition to the Gnostics (cf. p. 269 inf.) 
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 Kara -npoQtoiv to mean ' in accordance 
with the man's own irpoaipeats 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 tvv Tf tpv 

VIII. 28, 29.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 317 

k(k\t)k6tos Kal ttjv iavraiv. 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. Non enim o??ines vocati secundum propositum sunt 
vocati: quoniam multi vocati, pduci electi. Ipsi ergo secundum propositum 
vocati qui electi ante cotistitutionem mundi (Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. ii. 10. 
§ 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 Kara -npoQtoiv : omnes quidem vocati sunt, non tamen 
omnes secundum propositum vocati sunt (ed. Lomm. vii. 128;. 

kXtjtoIs : ' called/ implying that the call has been obeyed. The 
KX^ais is not au salut (Oltr.), at least in the sense of final salva- 
tion, but simply to become Christians: see on i. 1. 

29. on : certainly here ' because,' assigning a reason for iravra 
avvepyfl 6 Qtos els dyadov, not 'that' (= c' est que Oltr.). 

08s irpoeyi'w. The meaning of this phrase must be determined 
by the Biblical use of the word ' know,' which is very marked and 
clear : e. g. Ps. i. 6 ' The Lord knoweth (yiyvaxrKt 1) the way of the 
righteous'; cxliv [cxliii]. 3 'Lord, what is man that Thou takest 
knowledge of him (on eyvdxrBrjs avT<p LXX) ? Or the son of man 
that Thou makest account of him?' Hos. xiii. 5 'I did know 
(iiroiiiaivov) thee in the wilderness.' Am. iii. 2 ' You only have 
I known (cyvwv) of all the families of the earth.' Matt. vii. 23 
1 Then will I profess unto them I never knew (Zyvmv) 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 irpo£yvu> 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 irpoeyvo} — 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, npoava- 
Ttviffas ovv 6 ©eds t$ «t^/x<2 rwv kaofxhwv, Kal Karavo-qaas poirrjv rov h<p' qpuv 
Twvoi Tivwv (-nl evaefleiav Kal bpp.r)v km ravrr\v ftera rfjv potrqv k.t.X. 
{Philocal. xxv. 2. p. 227, ed. Robinson ; the comment ad loc. is rather nearer 
the mark, cognovisse suos dicitur, hoc est in dilectione habuisse sibique 
sociasse, but there too is added sciens quales essent). Cyril of Alexandria 
(and after him Meyer) supplies from what follows npoeyvwaOrjaav us eaovrai 
o~vfip.op<poi TTJs tiKovos tov Tlov ovtov, but this belongs properly only to 
irpowpiae. Widest from the mark are those who, like Calvin, look beyond 
the immediate choice to final salvation : Dei autem praecognitio, cuius hie 
Paulus meminit, non nuda est praescientia . . . sed adoptio qua filios suos 
a reprobis semper discrevit. On the other hand, Gif. keeps closely to the 
context in explaining, '" Foreknew " as the individual objects of His purpose 
(TrpoOeois) 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 yiyijuaKu, 


•cat Trpocopiac. 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/ 

<7ufi,p.6p<|>ous denotes inward and thorough and not merely super- 
ficial likeness. 

ttjs cUoVos. 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 86ga, the absorption of the 
splendour of His presence. 

eis to etycu auToy TrpwTOTOKoi' iv ttoXXois d8e\<J>ois. As the final 
cause of all things is the glory of God, so the final cause of the 
Incarnation and of the effect of the Incarnation upon man is that 
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 ' (npayTOToicos «e tS>v 

V€Kpa>v, tva yevqrai ev ira(Tiv avros 7rpa>T£vcov Col. i. 1 8). This IS 

different from the 'first-born of all creation' (Col. i. 15). npaTu- 
tokos 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.). 

30. 08s 8c irpotopiore k.t.X. Having taken his readers to the end 
of the scale, the 86£a in which the career of the Christian cul- 
minates, the Apostle now goes back and resolves the latter part of 
the process into its subdivisions, of which the landmarks are 
endXeaev, cdiKaiaaep, edogaae. These are not quite exhaustive: 
fjyiaa-ev might have been inserted after e'6uccuWei> ; but it is suffi- 
ciently implied as a consequence of idiKuiaxrtv and a necessary 
condition of eZotjave: 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. (KoXeaev and ibiKalaxrev are both 
naturally in the aorist tense as pointing to something finished 
and therefore past : ed6£ao-fv 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 e86gao-(v 
is both complete and certain in the Divine counsels. To God 
there is neither ' before nor after,' 



VIII. 31-39. With the proofs of God's love before him, 
the Christian has nothing to fear. God, the Judge, is on 
his side, and the ascended Christ ititei cedes 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 Christians 
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 ? 32 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 ? 83 Where shall accusers be found 
against those whom God has chosen ? When God pronounces 
righteous, 34 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. 35 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 ; 86 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.' 37 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. 38 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; 39 no dimension of 
space ; no world of being invisible to us now, — will ever come 
between us and the love which God has brought so near to us in 
Jesus Messiah our Lord. 


32. os Y € T0 " ft>iou utoo ouk e4>eiWro. A number of emphatic 
expressions are crowded together in this sentence : os ye, * the same 
God who ' ; tov Idlov vlov, ' His own Son/ partaker of His own 
nature ; ovk tytitraro, 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-io. 

33-35. The best punctuation of these verses is that which is 
adopted in RV. text (so also Orig. Chrys. Theodrt. Mey. Ell. 
Gif. Va. Lid.). There should not be more than a colon between 
the clauses Qebs 6 fiuftuAv rit 6 mraKpipeov; 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. 1. 8, 9 ' He is near that justifieth men ; 
who will contend with me ? . . . Behold, the Lord God will help 
me ; who is he that shall condemn me ? ' This distinctly favours 
the view that each affirmation is followed by a question relating to 
that affirmation. The phrases 6 KaraKpiv&v and 6 biicaiav 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, ®eos 6 8imtu>v and Xptarbs 'I-qaovs 6 airoOavwu 
are both answers to tis iyKa\iaei ; and tis 6 KaraKpivuti/ ; tls fipas X'^p' 10 ^ 1 > 
are subordinate questions, suggested in the one case by di/catcuv, in the other 
by (vt. vnep rjpcjv. 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 

Another way of taking it is to put a full stop at Sikcmov, and to make tis 
lyitaKtoei; tls 6 KaraKptvuiv ; 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 (&ebs 6 diKaiwv; kvTvyx- vnip 
jjpxvv ;) But these repeated challenges do not give such a nervous concatena- 
tion of reasoning. 

33. tis eyicaX&ret; another of the forensic terms which are so 
common in this Epistle ; ' Who shall impeach such as are elect of 

ckXcktw. We have already seen (note on i. 1) that with 
St. Paul kXtjtol and eKXe/croi are not opposed to each other (as they 
are in Matt. xxii. 14) but are rather to be identified. By reading 
into KXrjToi 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 ot 


the avenue; but tonero* 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. 

KOTaicpCvwv : mrafepivuv R V. text Mon This is quite possible, but dataiuiv 
suggests the present. 

34. XptoTos Tt]o-o€s NACFGL, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Did. 
Aug. : X P ktt6s (om. 'Jrjaovs) B D E K &c., Syrr., Cyr.-Jerus. Chrys. al. 
Another instance of B in alliance with authorities otherwise Western and 
Syrian. WH. bracket 'I^cr. 

c-yepOcis 4k vtKpwv N*AC al. plur., RV. WH 1 : om. I* veicpwv K C BDE 
FGKL &c, Ti. WH 2 . The group which inserts 4* vetcpSiv is practically 
the same as that which inserts 'Irjcrovs above. 

os teat. Stroke follows stroke, each driving home the last. 'It 
is Christ who died — nay rather (immo vero) rose from the dead — 
who (kul 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