Skip to main content

Full text of "St. Paul and justification, being an exposition of the teaching in the Epistles to Rome and Galatia"

See other formats















of Trinity College, Cambridge 








little work is put forth 
with very great hesitation and 
serious searching of heart. Circum- 
stances required it shoztld be printed; 
and since it has been printed, it may 
as well venture forth and see if it 
can find here and there an indulgent 
reader. None knows better than the 
writer how infinitely imperfect is 
his equipment for the task. On the 
other hand years of teaching, full of 
interest for himself, have shown him 
that even the young are not withoitt 
a desire to have St Paul expounded, 
however imperfectly. Only the task 
must be approached without any 
prejudice. The Apostle imist speak 
for himself and must not be made a 
mere cliannel for views already fixed 
in the mind of the commentator. 
Absolute honesty of interpretation 
must be reckoned the prime requisite. 

viii Prefatory Note 

Of erudition in these pages very 
little will be found. The reading of 
endless commentaries (not to mention 
tracts innumerable) has for him that 
writes these words exiguous attrac- 
tion. His great debt to three names 
will be all too obvious. Bishop 
Lightfoot among the departed, among 
the living Drs Sanday and Headlam 
have been ever present guides. The 
former is cited by name. The latter 
are denominated 'S.J for convenience 
of brevity. Their commentary is 
indeed a model of two great virtues, 
lucidity and courage. For the rest, 
wherever departure is made from 
either of these two great editions, it 
is made with an adequate sense of 
the temerity involved. 

May the little book be found of 
use by some one! 

R B. W. 


The purpose of this short Essay is to 


p. 196, read Glaubensgerechtigkeit. 

p. 198, f bf- Gen. xv. read Gen. xii. 

p. 212 (last line), for Law read Love. 

p. 231, 1. \6,/0r diKaiofftv-r) read ajuapria. 

p. 234, 1. 6, for not read now. 

P- SiS./^inexenarrabilibus read inerrabilibus. 

in me case 01 ot raui tne grammar 
does not present (I should say) an insur- 
mountable barrier. He had had the great 


viii Prefatory Note 

Of erudition in these pages very 
little will be found. The reading of 
endless commentaries (not to mention 
tracts innumerable) has for him that 
writes these words exiguous attrac- 
tion. His great debt to three names 
will be all too obvious. Bishop 
Lightfoot among the departed, among 
the limn? Drs Sandav and Headlarn 



The purpose of this short Essay is to 
expound certain passages in the writings of 
St Paul, dealing with a religious question, 
which occupied him largely during one 
period of his career. The method I pro- 
pose to myself will bring me face to face 
with the difficulties that beset any person 
who endeavours to set forth in one language 
ideas and thoughts originally stated in 
quite another. Differences of idiom, pro- 
blems of grammar, and perhaps more 
especially the all but impossibility of 
rendering aright the niceties of vocabulary, 
form the chief of these difficulties. 

In the case of St Paul the grammar 
does not present (I should say) an insur- 
mountable barrier. He had had the great 

w. i 

2 Words naturally fluid 

advantage of birth in a Greek-speaking city, 
and probably spoke that language from the 
earliest days of his life. It was not with 
him, for instance, as it was with the Fourth 
Evangelist, in whose writings one comes 
across, every now and then, a sentence 
which will only translate by the employ- 
ment of sheer violence. Vocabulary, on 
the other hand, is always, and must be, a 
trouble to the conscientious translator. For 
words are unfortunately ' fluid/ and not 
only has one to know what a Greek word 
used by St Paul meant first by origin, and 
then as used by him ; but also what the 
English ' equivalent ' (that is, would-be 
equivalent : for absolute * equivalence ' is 
a very rare phenomenon), employed by 
our own translators, conveyed when they 
first used it. 

This opening section then will wholly 
deal with words the words that are 
' master-words ' in connexion with the 
paragraphs to be rendered later on. 

They belong to three several languages ; 
for students of the English New Testament 

'Right' 'Justus' and Succuos 3 

are concerned, of necessity, with English 
and Latin and Greek. Hebrew (fortunately 
for me) is vastly less important, for as 
everybody knows the ' Old Testament ' of 
the 'New Testament' writers is the Greek 
and not the Hebrew. 

The words I mean to discuss are 81*07 
and its derivatives ; 'Justus ' and its 
derivatives ; and the various verbal and 
nominal forms which derive from the 
English 'right' 

The Greek must take precedence. 
In the late Dr Verrall's delightful com- 
mentary on Euripides, Medea (published 
alas ! how many years ago) he observes in 
one of his notes that the original meaning 
of A 1/07 is the custom or order of nature. 
The well-known words of the second line 
of the chorus, that starts at 410, 

Kal St/ca KOL trdvTa Trakiv crr/oe^ercu, 

he renders 'Nature and the universe are 
turned upside down.' 

However I am not convinced that Si/ca, 
in that place, means other than 'right.' 

I 2 

4 'Right' and "right" -ness 

Originally, however, 81/07 obviously 
meant 'way.' The notion of ' right '-ness 
is secondary, an accretion. This appears 
from the adverbial use of the accusative in 
Attic (/cwos 81*77 1> 'dog's way,' or 'dog- 
fashion '). But there are also indications 
of the same sense in the Homeric poems. 
In fact, it is not disputed. The 81x17 of 

kings J means the ' way ' they comport 
themselves (Oct. iv. 691) in this case the 
very opposite of anything that could be 
called 'right,' mere capricious favouring of 
one and disliking of another. 

It is easy to imagine how 'way' or 

* usage ' might develope into ' right/ 
Anyhow it certainly did. So we start 
with the assumption that 81/07 means 
(roughly) ' right.' The adverb Si/caiws, 
in the Odyssey, means simply ' rightly/ 
The adjective SIKCUO? is more often used 
of persons than it is of things. A man is 
called Si/ccuo? when he behaves reasonably, 
as a civilised person should. The Si'/ccuos 
is not a person on a lofty ethical platform ; 
he is merely one who satisfies the dictates 

in Greek 5 

of common usage. The adjective, in those 
days, was manifestly only starting upon its 
upward path. We are a long way yet 
from the Siiccuos (say) of Plato, or again 
from the abstract noun that belongs to 
that Succuos, the same Master's spacious 
&iKaLo<rvvr). Of course, the Greek Old 
Testament inherited both these terms, 
when they were in the full possession of 
the higher, more ethical, meaning that 
came with the centuries. 

More important however than either 
the noun or the adjective (at least, 
originally), for Pauline purposes, is the 
verb that is cognate with them. Ai/ccuovz/ 
in classical Greek is found with varying 
senses. Sometimes it means to 'set right,' 
as in a fragment of Pindar (151), wherein 
No//,o5, sovran No/xo?, is described as 
St/caian> TO fiiaioTOLTov vTreproLTa ytipt. The 
instance given, of this * right ' (which is 
' might '), is the conduct of Herakles in 
'lifting' Geryon's cattle. It is also em- 
ployed (as 'justify' is in Scots) of that 
summary * setting right ' of an evil doer 

6 At/ccuos in LXX 

which is achieved by his abolition. More 
often, however, it means 'to deem right/ 
or else to 'demand/ But the usages of 
the LXX are what concern us chiefly. 

Here are two or three capital instances 
of the verb in the Old Testament, culled 
thanks to the kindly aid of Dr Hatch's 
monumental work. 

In Genesis xliv. 16 Judah says to his 
brother Joseph (after the discovery of the 
governor's cup in the sack), "wherein shall 
we clear ourselves ?" (ri Si/ccuo> #<//,*> ;). 

In Exodus xxiii. 7 the LXX (here 
differing from the Hebrew, but giving an 
excellent sense) reads " Thou shalt not 
put right the impious for gifts " (ov 

In 2 Sam. xv. 4 poor foolish Absalom 
says, in his disloyal way, "O that I were 
made judge in the land ; that every man 
might come unto me... and I would set 
him right !" (/cat St/catwcrw OLVTOV). 

There are also two passages in the 
Psalms which are well worth citing ; the 
familiar "for in Thy sight shall no man 

The verb Si/ccuouz' 

living be justified" (on ov 

IvtoTTLQV (TOV TTCC? C^) >' 

" Surely in vain have I set right my 
heart " (ftaratw? eSt/caiwcra TT)I> KapSiaz/ /xov). 
These instances, I think, will help to 
bear out my contention that St/caiow (in 
O. T.) does not mean to 'make righteous' 
in the sense of 'right doing,' or even (as 
is argued) to ' account as right-doing,' but 
simply to * set right ' which is quite another 
matter. The fact is, Si/ccuos (in St Paul) 
has two different senses, one technical 
and one normal. Employed technically it 
means * in the right,' or simply ' right/ 
corresponding to Sucatovv ( to set right.' 
Otherwise (and the context in all cases 
decides the sense) it means ' righteous/ 
in the ordinary way. The same remark 
applies to the abstract noun. We must 
expect to find that too employed in two per- 
fectly distinct senses. Sometimes it means 
the condition of one who is 'righteous' (in 
the sense ' right doing ') ; sometimes (and 
this is the technical usage) the condition of 
one who is * right/ that is, right with God. 

8 The problem that faced 

The original Latin translators, when 
confronted with these words, were set a 
difficult problem. How should they render 
Succuos, and how, as a consequence, the 
derivatives of that adjective ? They pitched 
upon 'Justus,' and invented (it would seem) 
the compound 'justificare.' Now 'Justus' 
will do very well for the ethical Succuos, 
but is hopelessly inadequate for the theo- 
logical one. The root of the word is a 
root which expresses 'binding'; and 'jus,' 
its immediate parent, means ' natural 
right.' Of persons, 'Justus' means 'up- 
right'; of things either 'righteous,' that is 
' well grounded ' (as in justa causa) ; or 
else ' rightful ' (as in justa uxor\ This 
will show that it is (as I contend) an 
adequate equivalent for Sc/caio? in its more 
normal and regular sense ; that is, 'honest,' 
' right dealing,' ' righteous.' 

But where are we when we come to the 
other sense of SIKCUOS ? 'Justus' obviously 
is no equivalent for ' right ' ; that is ' in the 
right.' This sense (which I hold to be 
undoubted) is really derived from 

translators into Latin 9 

by a kind of 'backward action.' Neither 
will 'Justus' do for the adjective, nor 
'justificare' for the verb. * Justus' can only 
mean ' right dealing'; and 'justificare ' 
accordingly can only mean ' make right 
dealing! And that can never convey the 
meaning of St Paul. Nor can I think of 
a way in which it could have been success- 
fully rendered in Latin. * Rectus ' would 
hardly do (and ' rectificare ') ; and besides 
the Latin translators were far more keen 
to be literal than ever they were to be 
lucid. So one would be inclined to con- 
clude from studying them. In English 
we are better off : for we really have 
equivalents. There is ' right ' (to be sure) 
for 81*77 ; there is the verb 'to right' for 
; there is the adjective ' right ' for 
in the one sense, and * righteous ' 
for it in the other. The root meaning (to 
be sure) of this family of words is different 
altogether from that of the corresponding 
terms in Latin and in Greek. A 1107 is 
the 'way'; 'jus' is 'that which binds'; 
while right is ' what is ruled ' or ' straight.' 

io Our English word 'righteous" 

The * right ' man and the * righteous ' man 
are the men who respectively are 'straight' 
and 'straight dealing.' But is it not a 
calamity that (owing to unhappy Latin 
influence) SIKOLLOVV should be rendered by 
'justify'? At least, it seems so to me. 
And moreover it appears entirely gra- 
tuitous. For the resources of our English 
are not, in this respect, one whit behind 
the resources of Luther's German. Yet 
he made his meaning plain (that is, the 
Apostle's meaning) to very simple people : 
and it can hardly be maintained our English 
does. Later on, when we come to the 
text, I hope to demonstrate it. Perhaps I 
might add just this. According to Professor 
Skeat the ' righteous ' man is the man who 
is * wise in right ' (the ' right-wise ' in fact). 
It is not for the ignorant to question the 
results arrived at by the learned. But if the 
Professor is right, and the '-eous' is not 
merely terminative, then 'righteous ' be- 
comes indeed even less suitable than I 
had thought it, as a rendering for SIKCUOS, 
where that word represents the person, 

The idea of justification n 

who is merely l right-wit h- God" To call 
him * wise in right ' is simply hopelessly 
beside the mark. 



The genesis of the idea, and the con- 
sequent controversy in which the great 
apostle played so decisive a part is, for 
all religious people, only too simple and 

Far back, in the distant past, God made 
a 'covenant' with ancient Israel. He 
revealed Himself to them as their peculiar 
God, and they were to be correspondingly 
His own especial people. 

Thus there was solved for Israel, in the 
days of their primitive life, the first of the 
two great problems Religion presents to 
man. That is, How can I establish right 
relations for myself with God ? For the 
conscience of ancient Israel this riddle was 
easily answered. It was borne in on their 

12 A simple matter enough 

minds, by the channel of revelation, that 
God had 'chosen' them. They had nothing 
at all to do, but just accept the great fact, 
and satisfy the conditions thereto (as they 
were told) attached. 

This, at first, was simple and easy. 
No doubt or hesitation troubled their souls. 
However, as time advanced, the other great 
' first problem ' began to lift its head. That 
other great riddle is, Having once secured 
God's favour, how can I best retain it? 
The fact is, the Law and the Prophets, 
between them, developed strongly the moral 
sense in Israel. It was not enough even 
for a son of Israel to have been born of 
the ' Covenant ' race, and to have been 
himself admitted by the God-appointed 
rite within the Covenant. ' Right rela- 
tions ' with God were his (that is, nominally 
his), but how could he be sure that he had 
not, by his own ill-conduct, contrived to 
forfeit his privilege ? How could he be 
assured that he still stood with his God, 
where he stood in the bygone days of 
happy innocence ? "In Thy sight," he 

till questionings arose 13 

cried despairingly, " no man living shall be 
righted ! " But plainly he could not rest in 
that unfruitful conclusion. Something had 
to be done, and done without delay. The 
question became acute for religious Israel, 
when the days of exile were over. Some 
stalwarts, doubtless, maintained that 'A- 
brahamic descent ' was all-sufficient. But 
many were not content with that ' high and 
dry ' position. They set to work with 
vigour to ' make their calling and election 
sure,' by indefatigable attention to the 
keeping of the Law. We know of one 
eminent man, who, drilled in the Schools 
of the Pharisees, set himself to this 'Danaid' 
task with a devotion fierce and untiring. 
It was Saul of Tarsus himself. Not for 
nothing was he born of a right warrior 
tribe ("after tkee, O Benjamin"}: not for 
nothing was he by birth a whole-hearted 
' Nationalist/ Whatever 'E^ocuos means, 
in connexion with the Apostle, it must at 
the least mean this. And indeed it is hard 
to believe, in view of his ready use of the 
Greek Old Testament Scriptures, that he 

14 The problem not the same 

was not in other respects decisively 'EX- 
Xrjvio-TTJs. Anyhow, we have his own 
testimony, that in his Jewish days he was 
" as touching the righteousness which is in 
the Law" (if that be a right translation) 
"found blameless" I take it, he means 
thereby that, so far as a man was able to 
' right ' himself, by doing whatever the Law 
bade ; he, Paul, had done it. I have said, 
that Religion offers (the existence of God 
being taken as certain; though not to be 
established by any logical process) two 
problems for man's solution ; How shall 
I be set right with God ? and, How shall 
I keep myself right ? Historically it is 
the latter which is the problem of 'justi- 
fication.' That is to say the latter problem 
was the problem of 'justification ' for the 
Jew. It was a question for the Jew, how 
he might 'qualify' fora privileged position, 
ex hypothesi his already. For the Christian 
on the contrary the problem of 'justifica- 
tion' is the problem, how to establish origin- 
ally right relations. The Christian, at any 
rate, this is true of the primitive believer 

for Gentile and for Jew 1 5 

the Christian was not born 'within the 
Covenant,' as the Son of Israel was. 
Therefore the problem of problems was, 
for him, the earlier one ; for the Jew it was 
the later. To St Paul himself, accordingly, 
the question presented itself^ the first (in 
pre-Christian days) in the 'Jewish* form. 
For he was born 'privileged/ even be- 
yond the common run of his countrymen. 
He possessed advantages innumerable. 
'Philippians' tells us how (in his regenerate 
days) he regarded these advantages. By 
a vigorous oxymoron he counted them ' less 
than nothing! Like the character in Hans 
Andersen, who asks contemptuously, ' Do 
you call that a hill ? We should call it a 
hole' St Paul declares he reckoned his 
' KepSrj ' as mere ' r)p.iav.' No more would 
he go about (as he did in these old days) 
to keep himself 'right with God/ by doing 
and doing and doing. He would not even 
assume that he started ' right with God/ 
and only had to keep so, by loyalty to the 
Covenant. His point of view was trans- 
formed. All was merged in one great 

1 6 The solution of St Paul 

question, How shall I become right with 
God right once for all ? And the answer 
came, 'Through Christ.' Here was the 
new way, the God-appointed way. Hence- 
forth he never wavered in heart and soul 
conviction that 'justification' for him was 
an accomplished fact. He had * become 
right' with God, 'in Christ Jesus,' as a 
result of ' faith.' It was the wholly new 
beginning of a wholly new existence. 

But though he had himself escaped from 
the riddle which beset his countrymen, he 
had by no means heard the last of it. 
Other folks were not prepared to accept his 
solution; yes, even nominal believers. The 
thing cropped up again (inside the Christian 
Church) in spite of all his preaching and 
just where he would have least expected it. 
When after a lapse of years (which is one 
of those mysteries of the Book of the 'Acts' 
we should most dearly love to solve) he 
had been brought to Antioch by Barnabas, 
and subsequently despatched, with that 
very notable saint, on the mission of relief 
to Jerusalem ; he started (as every one 

called in question in ' Galatia ' 1 7 

knows) the work to which Christ had called 
him, as the Prince of Mission Preachers. 

The Churches first evangelised con- 
tained (as Zahn declares) ' a few full-born 
Jews, a number of proselytes of different 
grades, and a much larger number of 
Gentiles,' and ' received through Paul the 
stamp of " law-free" Gentile Churches.' 
These early churches, I assume, are the 
' Churches of Galatia/ 

It is possible, of course, that at some 
later date (before ' Galatians ' was written) 
the Apostle may have touched the fringe 
of Bishop Lightfoot's ' Galatia,' with its 
Celtic population. But Professor Ramsay 
would appear to have established his main 
position. The geographical argument ap- 
pears to me wholly conclusive. The 
interpretation of Acts xvi. 6 would (no 
doubt) be open to question, by itself. But, 
that Ramsay is wholly right in his grip of 
St Paul's 'objective/ and in his strong 
contention that * Celtic Galatia ' lay entirely 
off the track of his evangelistic ambitions, 
I cannot for a moment doubt. Perhaps 

w. 2 

1 8 When the trouble arose 

it may be of interest to some among 
Cambridge students, if I say that the 
Bishop's lifelong friend told me, shortly 
before he died, that he was himself a con- 
vert to the ' South Galatian ' theory. 

It was amongst these earliest of the 
numerous Pauline Churches that St Paul 
first found himself confronted with the 
question originally raised by Judaisers at 
Antioch. At Antioch, of course, he must 
have borne his part in opposing the new 
heresy. But Antioch, after all, was not 
primarily his ' business.' The Galatian 
churches were. And though one might 
have thought that the letter from Jerusalem 
would have finally settled the question, it 
obviously did not ; though (presumably) it 
went further, in regard to making con- 
cessions to Jewish prejudices, than St Paul 
himself would have gone. 

It was after St Paul had passed (so 

singularly shepherded by the "Spirit of 

Jesus ") on his adventurous way to Europe, 

that the trouble in Galatia came to a head. 

How the apostle came to know of the 

How the apostle came to hear of it 19 

inroads, that were made into his earliest 
converts' convictions by the ' Judaic ' emis- 
saries, we cannot determine for certain. 
He may have learned at Corinth, in the 
course of his eighteen months' residence 
(as in Acts xviii. 1 1). If he did, this letter 
was written from the capital of Achaia, and 
becomes the earliest of all extant Pauline 
Letters. On the other hand, the trouble 
may not have revealed itself to him in all 
its seriousness, till he found himself once 
more in his 'base' at Antioch (xviii. 22). 
If so, the letter was written from there 
before he started forth on his third great 
Missionary tour. That still leaves the 
Galatian letter the earliest of its group, 
though it then is but third of all in date, 
no longer first. Perhaps the only objection 
to this latter theory (though it is rather a 
serious one) is the fact that one would not 
gather, from the text of the letter itself, 
that the writer had it in mind to follow 
close on the heels of the bearer of his 
Epistle as he obviously did from the 
record of ' Acts.' 

2 2 

2O The Galatian letter 'written 

About actual date I say nothing. The 
computation of Pauline chronology is a 
fascinating problem ; but it belongs to those 
who are experts. All I am concerned about 
is the order of events, and not the actual 
years, in which they severally befell. There 
is fairly substantial agreement with regard 
to the latter : and (even were there not) it 
would not much affect the purpose of this 
Essay, which is to set forth what St Paul 
taught upon a topic, which was at once 
for him, at one stage of his career, of 
singular importance, and touches all religion, 
in all time, very deeply and decisively. 
Let us then get to the text and ponder its 
mysteries ! 



St Paul, in his opening words, affirms 
his Apostolate, in unmistakeable terms, and 
also the Divine authenticity of his message. 
This leads on to an exposition as to how 

The Apostle tells of himself 2 1 

he came by it. It is no ' human ' message: 
it came (he expressly says) by definite 
revelation. He repeats the familiar tale 
of his pre-conversion days ; how he was 
a persecutor ; an out and out * legalist ' ; 
an upholder of 'tradition' altogether beyond 
the common. Others (the suggestion is) 
may be * zealots ' for the Law, but not to 
the extent that he has been. 

Then follows, after the wonderful verse 
and a half (w. 15, 16) in which the mystery 
of his ' call ' is described, the well-known 
summary of his relations with the chief 
Apostles. He did not go up to Jerusalem 
(he tells us) to those who were Apostles 
" before him " ; on the contrary, he was in 
" Arabia " (a geographical term indubitably 
employed in a very broad sense) and re- 
turned from there to Damascus. It was 
/xera rpua err) that he went up to visit 
Cephas and spent a fortnight with him. 
James the brother of the Lord was the 
only other leader of the Mother Church 
he saw on that occasion. 

These statements the Apostle makes in 

22 and of his visits to Jerusalem 

the most solemn form conceivable. Then 
came the Cilician sojourn (of Acts ix. 30 
presumably). The pronouncement the 
Apostle makes (with regard to his relations, 
up till then, with "the Churches of Judaea") 
is beset with puzzling questions, but does 
not concern us now. Next the readers are 
told of the second visit to Jerusalem (Sta 
Se/carecrcrayoa)^ eYa>j>) with Barnabas and 
Titus. By this time St Paul is very plainly 
at work, preaching to Gentiles (o Krjpvcrcra) 
eV TOIS eOveo-Lv, ii. 2). This would seem, 
at first sight, to suggest an identification 
of this visit with that in Acts xv. But 
probably those are right who rather see 
in it the ' Relief Visit ' of Acts xi. 30. If 
that be so, the Apostle had very early 
made up his own mind on the question of 
circumcision for Gentile converts : for, 
surely, it is certain that Titus was not 

However all attempts to harmonise 
' Galatians ' with the ' Acts ' involve us in 
some difficulty. If the visit "after 14 
years " is to be taken as the Relief Visit, 

The problem of the second visit 23 

then what are we to say about the ' elders ' 
of Acts xi. 30 ? That verse seems to imply 
that ' the Twelve ' were already gone from 
Jerusalem. On the other hand Gal. ii. 
6 ii very decidedly suggests that the 
very "pillars of the Church," "James and 
Cephas and John," were actually there, and 
struck a bargain with him, freely acknow- 
ledging his mission (and Barnabas') to the 
Gentiles, but begging him to remember 
the poor at Jerusalem the which, indeed, 
as he says, he had already been forward 
to do. 

All the various problems involved in 
Galatians i. and ii. form a fascinating 
theme for full discussion. Yet, when all is 
said and done, there seems little likelihood 
of any consensus of scholars upon disputed 
points. The ball is tossed to and fro ; now 
one theory is in favour, and now another. 
For doctrinal purposes the upshot matters 
little. All we are concerned to know is, 
that the Apostle roundly declares that his 
mission was independent and not controlled 
from Jerusalem ; that the heads of the 

24 The incident at Antioch 

Mother Church freely recognised it was so 
in short, that the loud-voiced contention 
of Judaising emissaries, as to the inferiority 
.of his status (compared with ot So/couz/res), 
had no existence in fact, nor yet in the 
minds of those who were foremost in the 
Church. It is at this point, quite inci- 
dentally, that we come upon the first of 
the passages of which I propose to speak. 

Gal. ii. ii 14. " But when 
Cephas came to Antioch I withstood 
him to the face, because he was 
without defence. Before there came 
'certain from James,' he had been 
joining in food with Gentiles ; but 
after they came he was disposed to 
withdraw and separate himself, from 
fear of the Circumcision Party. And 
his insincere conduct was joined by 
the other Jewish Christians. Inso- 
much that even Barnabas was carried 
away in the stream of their in- 

" But when I saw they were not 
walking by the standard of Gospel 

an incident otherwise unrecorded 25 

truth, I said to Cephas, in the presence 
of them all : If you, a Jew to start 
with, live as the Gentiles do, and not 
as Jews do ; on what principle are 
you for forcing the Gentiles to live 
as Jews?" 

At this point let me halt for a word or 
two of comment. Of this visit of Cephas 
to Antioch, which must have taken place 
anyhow after the close of what we are told- 
in Acts xii. 25 that is, after the return of 
Saul and Barnabas from the mission of 
relief, we know nothing from other sources. 
But we can easily understand that St Peter 
must have taken to heart the lesson so 
singularly taught him in connexion with 
Cornelius. Up till then he had recognised 
it as an " unlawful thing for a Jew" to have 
intimate relations with, or even to enter 
the house of, an ' alien ' (/coXXacrtfcu 17 
Trpocrep^ecrOaL aXXcx^uXw, Acts x. 28). At 
any time after that (and we note that he is 
invited to "stay on with them certain days" 
at Caesarea, which presumably he did : 
see Acts x. 48) the Apostle may have 

26 'Cephas' must be St Peter 

made it a practice to join at table with 
Gentile believers. It was made a reproach 
against him, on his return to Jerusalem, 
by oi IK TrepiTOfJLrj^ (designated in Acts as 
here), that he had actually done so once, on 
the occasion of that visit. And we should 
gather that his defence was successful for 
a time, and silenced his Judaic critics. 
This had befallen some considerable time 
before Saul was fetched from Tarsus to 
join the work at Antioch ; and he had been 
a full year at that before the 'Relief' 
mission. It is to be hoped, and believed, 
that the custom of St Peter for * Cephas " 
in the text can be no other : the existence 
of the variant ITeryoo? is decisive evidence 
for early church belief set forth in the 
crvvri<r9iv (Gal. ii. 12), was a habit of 
some standing. Nor, indeed, is it even 
certain that he actually gave it up when 
the Judaisers came. The Greek, of course, 
is not decisive for that interpretation. All 
it sets before us is a tendency, a back- 
wardness, an unwillingness to do as he 
had done (at any rate in Antiock) under 

St Paul's outspoken reproof 27 

Judaising pressure. St Paul stigmatises 
this weakness as sheer vTro/c/ncris, and it is 
difficult indeed to blame him for calling it 
so. The defection of Barnabas, the one 
man broad-minded enough and courageous 
enough to hold out the hand of fellowship 
to the ex- Pharisee and persecutor (as we 
are told in Acts ix. 27) may well have 
tried his comrade very severely. There 
could be no stronger proof of the influence 
exercised by the emissaries " from James." 
The language of ii. 14 is interesting. 
'Op0oTToSovcn,v (a most expressive term) 
may have been a word of Antioch, or even 
of Tarsus : it has about it, one can't help 
thinking, a kind of ' sporting ' ring. IIa>s, I 
imagine, represents the TL jjiaOatv of classical 
Greek. In idiomatic English it would be 
4 Why on earth ?' or the like. 

It seems to be fairly certain that St 
Paul, on this eventful occasion, would only 
have flashed forth one sharp, indignant 
question. No one supposes he went on 
with all that is contained in w. 15 21. 
But, if he did not say all of it, seeing 

28 Where does it end? 

how it all hangs together, it is very hard 
to tell where the break should be supposed. 
It is better, I have no doubt, to punctuate 
as is done in ' W. H.' Very possibly St 
Paul felt then exactly what he now sets 
down in ' black and white.' But it would 
have savoured of the absurd to have so 
delivered himself at Antioch. There is 
only one consideration that might give us 
pause : that is the opening ^/xet?. But 
St Paul, and all Jewish Christians who felt 
with him, were called upon to defend them- 
selves, as often as this attack was made by 
the * circumcision people/ It is for him- 
self and them St Paul is speaking here. 
There is nothing surprising in the sudden- 
ness of the turn. It is highly characteristic 
of the writer. 

Otherwise we might regard the passage 
as a sort of soliloquy, in which the Apostle 
mentally apostrophises his great brother. 

Gal. i. 15. "We are Jews born, 
and not ' sinners ' from among the 
Gentiles; yet being sure that a man 
is not ' set right ' (with God] from 

Why St Paul took faiths way 29 

doing things Law bids, (but) only 
through faith in Christ Jesus ; we too 
became believers in Christ Jesus, that 
we might be set right with God on the 
ground of faith in Christ, and not of 
legal doings. For no living creature 
shall be set right with God as a 
consequence of achieving law." 
This somewhat rude translation will 
speak, I think, for itself. * Sinners ' is, of 
course, used as contemptuous Jews would 
use it, of folks not born * in the Covenant/ 
or even insufficiently educated. EiSo'res 
expresses a truth intuitively discerned, 
about which one does not reason, for the 
thing is self-evident. It is not easy to 
represent the distinction between the ef 
and the Sid of v. 1 6 if indeed (for practical 
purposes) there be any distinction at all. 
The latter part of the verse, in which cf is 
used thrice running, would plainly suggest 
there is none. The ets with X/OWTTOI/ in 
v. 1 6 (e7Ticrrvcra//-ez/ cts Xpta-rov) means no 
more than "in." There is no 'pregnant' 
conception of ' incorporation/ or the like. 

3O The citation in Gal. ii. 16 

The aorist is certainly ' ingressive.' The 
citation of the Psalm is an instance of that 
free handling of O.T. Scripture which 
startles the modern reader when studying 
the New Testament. And it comes in 
* Romans ' too in precisely the same form, 
with the addition (from the LXX) of 
eixuTrioi/ o-ov. For the Psalmist the pro- 
nouncement is of universal application. 
Whether we read TTCC? 0)^ or 770,0- a crdpg 
makes no sort of difference. Still the first 
time the modern reader comes across 
the Pauline insertion he cannot but feel 
troubled. He is vexed to have to say to 
himself : ' if the statement is universally 
true, it must be true in the case imagined 
by St Paul ; the most careful " legalist " 
must fail of St/catocru^.' We should feel 
happier if we might expand a little and 
say: "neither by 'legal works,' nor any 
other way, shall any living man be righted 
in God's eyes." 

Apart from the famous citation the 
two verses present no difficulty. Now we 
come to harder matter. 

The real * transgressor ' 3 1 

Gal. ii. 17, 1 8. " But if in our 
eagerness to be set right in Christ, 
we, even we, found ourselves in the 
category of 'sinners,' is Christ an 
agent of sin ? Out, impious thought ! 
If I build up again what once I 
demolished, it is I that am trans- 

The argument in v. 17 is of the nature 
of a * reductio ad absurdum.' To become 
< believers in Christ ' the Apostles and their 
fellows had to sink, in the eyes of their 
countrymen, to the level of Gentile ' out- 
casts.' They too became ' sinners.' But 
it was Christ that set them there. Ergo, 
the sinfulness of that ' sinner ' state was 
none. It was just a necessary consequence 
of seeking life in Him. With regard to 
4v Xpio-Ta>, the question must arise, is 
this the familiar Pauline phrase to express 
the * vital union,' which obtains between 
Christ and believers ; or, should we rather 
regard the iv as being of an 'instrumental' 
character ? 'E^ X/OKTTOJ might be virtually 
equivalent to Sid X/CHOTOU. If we have 

32 No wavering permissible 

here the full 'pregnant' phrase, it would 
be better to adopt the rendering " by 
union with Christ." The one rendering is 
grammatically simpler ; but the other is 
probably right. Verse 15 shows that the 
boot is on the other leg. It is addressed 
to all such Jewish believers as showed 
a disposition to ' weaken ' in the face 
of Judaic bigotry ; in fact manifested a 
tendency to ' run both with hare and 
hounds/ St Paul elsewhere declares that 
whatever is not * of conviction ' is ' sin.' 
To accept the Christian position, to take 
Christ for 'all in all,' and then to hark back 
to the Law, as if that had 'saving' virtue 
that was plainly tantamount to self-con- 
viction. The TrapafloLT'rjv tpavtdv <rvv- 
tcrra^o) recalls the /careyz/cocr/xeVo? of v. 1 1 . 
The Apostle, after his manner, employs 
the first person here, but in the very next 
verse he is at the pains of explaining that 
this is by no means his case the case of 
him, Paul. 

Verse 19 is very hard of rendering: 
one can only guess, at the best. 

How the apostle 'lives' now 33 

c. ii. 19 21. " Law led me to die 
to Law, that I might live to God. 
Christ's crucifixion is mine. There 
lives no longer I ; it is Christ lives in 
me. And so far as I now live the 
life of common man, I live in faith- 
faith in the Son of God, that loved 
me and gave Himself up for me. I 
do not nullify the grace of God. If 
by Law acceptance comes with God, 
then was Christ's death for naught!" 
Here is indeed a passage sufficiently 
perplexing. The thought seems plain in 
regard to its general drift. But there is 
a very baffling conciseness of expression, 
as well as an element of the ' mystical ' in 
the teaching, that does not contribute to 
make it easier of exposition. 

The opening phrase of v. 19 is an excel- 
lent instance of highly perplexing concise- 
ness. The thought appears to be : I was 
once a follower of Law, and followed with 
might and main : but it led to nothing, 
nothing. The more I tried, the more 
hopeless seemed the task. Law finally 
w. ^ 

34 Perplexing cases in ii. 19 

demonstrated its hopeless inefficacy. So 
1 Law ' became for St Paul the death 
of * Law.' Only he does not put it so. 
Instead of saying * Law died for me,' he 
says * I died for Law.' But (I take it) the 
reason for his thus converting the proposi- 
tion is the clause that follows next, tVa ea> 
^cra). Law, indeed, died for him : he had 
no more interest in it or use for it. He 
found a real * life ' elsewhere in the 
spiritual sphere. His ' death to Law' led 
him on to '\\kfor God.' The datives are 
very difficult, and the latter more so than 
the former. The former is a species 
familiar enough in classical Greek. I 
used to call it myself the ' dative of per- 
sonal limitation.' The name implies that 
the predication contained in the verb is 
limited to a certain (and a personal) appli- 
cation. ' Law ' is here personified. The 
No/^o), then, means ' as far as Law was 
concerned I ceased to be ' (which is only a 
way of saying ; Law became nothing for 
me). The ew is a different matter. The 
dative, apparently the same, is (on further 

Variations in one verse 35 

consideration) obviously other. St Paul 
entered a new life, not merely relatively to 
God, but altogether. No/xo> aTredavov and 
@eoj 770-0) are not in perfect balance. But 
that is a common phenomenon in Pauline 
sentences. The reader may recall a closely 
similar variation of datives in one sentence, 
that occurs in Romans vi. 10, "In that He 
died, He died to sin once for all : in that 
He liveth, He liveth for God." The 
relations there expressed by the datives 
are similarly different. St Paul, in fact, 
uses tfiv TIV'I, not infrequently, in the sense 
1 to live in the interest of.' This is not, 
so far as I know, a classical usage. The 
phrase XptcrroJ crvveo-TavpajfjLaL is full of 
interest. Owing to the non-existence in 
English of an adequate equivalent for the 
perfect tense in Greek (for our perfect is 
widely different) it can only be rendered 
by some cumbrous periphrasis. One can 
either say, I am ' crucified with Christ,' or 
else (as above) * Christ's crucifixion is mine 
too/ The perfect represents the fact as 
permanent and ever fruitful. The same 


36 The old 'Paul' and the new 

idea is found in Romans (vi. 6) stated in 
the other possible tense, the aorist. That 
represents the thing as an event in historic 
time, a thing that once befell. Here the 
'death,' implied in crucifixion, is set forth 
as perennially lasting. There must be a 
death before the new life can begin. So, 
spiritually also, ' death ' is the 'gate to life.' 
It follows that, as a consequence, Paul (in 
a way) is no longer alive. The old 'Paul' 
is gone for ever. There is a new 'Paul' 
now : only this new ' Paul ' is not really 
' Paul' at all ; it is Christ alive in Paul. 
Accordingly he continues w -Se ov/cert 
e'yw, which I rendered above, ' There lives 
no longer I.' Greek idiom requires that 
the verb should be in the first person. It 
is like the " 0a/ocren-e, eyw et/u " of the 
Gospel story. This however (the 77 eV 
e/xoi Xpccrros) represents only the mystical 
truth. There is a natural life coincident 
with it: there is a palpable 'Paul,' who 
behaves as other men in outward things, 
who eats and sleeps, and so forth. Yet even 
his life is different from the life of other 

Life's wholly new atmosphere 37 

men, not merely in a mystical sense, but 
in intelligible ways. It is lived in a different 
atmosphere. That atmosphere is * faith ' 
" faith in the Son of God, that loved me 
and gave Himself for me." This personal 
appropriation of the love of Christ by St 
Paul may be said to have its rationale in 
the fact that Christ is Divine. At first 
one is tempted to say Christ could only 
die for the world. And indeed that might 
have been so were He other than He is. 

Believers in every age have sided with 
the Apostle in his strong ' personal ' con- 
viction : and (seemingly) they have been 
right. What self-surrender is this of which 
the Apostle speaks TOu...7ra/>aSoi>T09 eav- 
TOI> ? Surely it must cover the death. 
How far it would be justifiable to see in 
the v7re/3 e/xov the idea of * vicarious 
suffering,' it is not easy to say. Speaking 
in strict grammar, one could not insist on 
its presence. But life (ordinary human life) 
is very full of it : in fact, love would be at 
a loss, if this channel were closed to it. 
The yapw of v. 21 would appear to be 

38 No legal fiction involved 

' concrete.' It is the ' loving favour ' shown 
in an especial way, in the giving of the 

To translate SucaiocrvzT? by ' righteous- 
ness ' (in v. 2 1) appears to me absurd. The 
word is meant to express the condition of 
the technically SIKCUOS of the man ' who 
is right with God.' It is by no means easy 
to 'English.' One can 'right' a man, or 
' set him right ' ; but * Tightness ' would 
mean nothing. The Latin says 'justitia.' 
It would have been somewhat happier, had 
it said 'justificatio.' 

One often hears people make mention 
of ' legal fiction ' in connexion with the 
idea of 'justification.' This appears to me 
to proceed entirely from a failure to re- 
cognise the purely technical sense of St/ccuo? 
and of SiKaioo-vvT). It plainly lies with the 
Deity to dictate the terms and conditions 
on which He will admit a man within His 
Covenant. At least it appears to me so. 

The source of the great gift 39 


(being the whole of chapter iii.) 

The second passage from 'Galatians' 
follows immediately after the first. It 
opens with an appeal to actual experience. 
The Galatian Church enjoyed the gift of 
the Holy Spirit. The question is, how 
did they get it ? To this there could be 
but one answer. They had only to question 
themselves, in sincerity and honesty, and 
they would gratefully acknowledge it had 
not come by 'law.' And the Spirit is, 
of course, the seal of God's acceptance. 
But here is what the Apostle says : 

(iii. i.) " O foolish Galatians, who 

has bewitched you ? Why, before 

your very eyes Jesus Christ was 

plainly writ, as crucified." 

In this verse the opening metaphor is 

drawn from the ' evil eye.' They must 

have been ' overlooked * (as peasants say 

in the West). Nothing else would account 

for it. Lightfoot avers that 

4O Faith and faith only brought it 

contains no idea of ' painting ' : it simply 
means 'posted up,' 'placarded.' The eV 
vplv is rejected by modern editors. Not- 
withstanding it is possible. It may be 
intended to reiterate the vividness with 
which the crucifixion was presented. The 
irpo of Trpoeypd^'Y) means, I think, merely 
' plainly,' as in TrpoXtyeLv. 

(iii. 2 6.) "This only would I 
learn of you. Did the gift of the 
Spirit come from doing what Law 
bade, or from believing what you were 
told ? Are you as foolish as all that ? 
Having started in the Spirit, are you 
now seeking fulfilment in the flesh ? 
Have all your experiences gone for 
nothing if indeed they have gone for 
nothing? He that ministers to you 
the Spirit, I ask again, and makes 
mighty powers to work amongst you, 
(does He it) because you do what 
Law commands, or because you hear 
Gen. xv. 6 and believe ? As Abraham believed 

God and it was reckoned to him 
for righteousness" 

What is meant by ef d/coTJs TriVrews 41 

The paraphrase here given sets forth 
what I think to be the Apostolic meaning. 

The gift of the Holy Spirit (to begin 
with) is, in the Apostle's thought, and in 
the minds of his readers, a fact entirely 
beyond dispute. They actually possessed 
this high endowment, with all its visible 
and palpable accompaniments. The only 
question is the question the Apostle puts : 
how did it come ? 

In the latter part of v. 2 we have two 
balancing clauses, which are not exactly 
parallel. The former of them is plain 
enough as to its meaning, the latter much 
more intangible. That ef tpyw vopov 
means " by doing the various things Law 
bids," I should say, none would dispute. 
'Ef d/corjs TTtcrrews is plainly a harder phrase. 
But, seeing that TTICTTCWS is obviously the 
more important member of what is in effect 
a compound noun (after the Teutonic 
model), we cannot be wrong in rendering, 
either " from believing hearing," or " from 
believing what you were told." The latter 
I myself prefer. It is the repetition of the 

42 Various problems of interpretation 

phrase below (v. 5), in immediate connexion 
with the mention of Abraham's 'belief,' 
that makes this rendering likely. Verse 3 
contains one of those curious passive uses, 
which , are regarded as 'quasi-middle.' 
"Having started in the 'spirit,' are you 
seeking completion (eVireXeicrtfe) in the 
'flesh'?" Here I should say that the 
so-called ' middle ' force is really due to the 
' tentative ' character, which often attaches 
to the ' present stem ' tenses in Greek. 
An old scholar might have rendered it 
" are you for being completed ? " The 
two datives Trvev^an and crapKi are very 
baffling for the translator. For all intents 
and purposes they are equivalent to ad- 
verbs ; but we have no English adverbs 
that could serve as equivalents. Verse 4 
is ambiguous. It may refer to persecution ; 
" have you suffered all you have suffered " 
(which would recall such passages as Acts 
xiv. i, 2, and even more particularly 
Acts xiv. 22 ; where St Paul and Barnabas 
expressly warn the converts of Lystra, 
Iconium and Antioch, that we must " enter 

in Chapter Hi. 2 6 43 

into God's Kingdom Sia 
or it may be of broader reference, recalling 
all that methodists would denominate ' ex- 
perience.' This I conceive to be the 
likelier. The adverb which closes the 
verse plainly means * without effect,' that 
is, * without being the better, the more 
faithful, for it all.' It is odd that the 
Vulgate should say 'si tamen,' instead of 
' si quidem.' Verse 5 merely reproduces 
the old question in a new form. The ovv 
is, of course, 'resumptive.' The CTTI of 
eTrixopyyew is probably not ' intensive,' but 
merely employed because later Greek 
preferred the compound to the simple 
verb yopyytlv. ^Evepyvv Sui'ct/xeis ev v^lv 
is doubly ambiguous. Awa/iei9 may be 
' miraculous powers,' or actual ' miracles ' : 
eV vplv may be 'among you/ or actually 
4 in you.' It is difficult to be sure, in either 
case. For the rest, the question's answer 
is so inevitable, that it is not stated at all. 
We have to supply it. For writer and for 
reader, it * goes without saying.' ' For our 
believing ' is, of course, the answer ; as 

44 The meaning of Gen. xv. 6 

Abraham believed God and it was counted 
to him for righteousness. 

The quotation from Gen. xv. 6 (the 
' LXX ' of that passage) is not developed 
here, as it is in Romans iv. The student 
cannot decide, how far the writer read 
into the words of the ancient Greek the 
technical sense he himself generally attri- 
butes to the term for * righteousness.' The 
Hebrew (I should apprehend) means only 
" God accounted it as a thing well and 
rightly done " ; ' righteousness ' being little 
more than 'a righteous act.' Anyhow, in 
Abraham's case, belief it was pleased God, 
and won acceptance with Him. The par- 
ticular ' belief in question was the belief 
in the promised * seed ' (tell the stars, if 
thou shalt be able to number them : and He 
said unto him, So shall thy seed be). 
The passage continues : 

iii. 7 9. " You can see then, that 
the men of faith they are the sons of 
Abraham. And the Scripture, seeing 
beforehand that it is by faith God 
means to 'justify ' the Gentiles, had 

As with Abraham^ so with us 45 

promised before to Abraham, In thee 
shall all the nations be blessed. Ac- 
cordingly it is the men of faith who 
are blessed with faithful Abraham." 
The opening verb in v. 7 is an appeal 
to the reader's good sense. Unquestioning 
belief constitutes, beyond a doubt, that 
trait in the Patriarch, which commended 
him to God, beyond all other men. It 
is a fair deduction from this, that a like 
attitude in ourselves will produce a like 
result. At least that is how the writer 
appears to put it (y^wcr/cere a/oa). The 
' Scripture ' of v. 8 is an earlier passage in 
Genesis, in fact the primal promise made 
to Abraham at his call (Gen. xii. 3). 

The SIKCUOI either expresses the wont 
of the Almighty the way He habitually 
deals or else must be regarded (with 
Lightfoot) as ' prophetic.' This is how 
I have taken it. About the * pluperfect ' 
rendering of TrpoevrjyyeXio-aTo, I don't feel 
certain. Possibly however it is safer. The 
personification of ' the Scripture' is singular 
and unique. It was God, to be sure, who 

46 The curious interest of 

made the promise to Abraham, and not 
* the Scripture ' at all. That only records 
it for us. If we were expressing it in 
words of our own, we should put it some- 
thing like this. We should say: "And, 
seeing it was God's intent to justify the 
heathen through faith, the Scripture tells 
us how God had made promise before to 
Abraham, saying " 

In the conclusion of v. 8 St Paul (as 
his manner is) takes the ancient Greek 
translation of O.T. in the sense it naturally 
bears (as read in Greek) for one not con- 
versant with the Hebrew text. It is true 
that he does not quote LXX exactly, 
but it is only the change of a word (eBvrj 
for c^iAcu). 

It is hardly necessary (and indeed is 
inadvisable) to postulate the ' fusion ' of 
Gen. xii. 3 with Gen. xviii. 18, to account 
for the change of noun. The context in 
fact demands an earlier citation than one 
in chap. xv. Therefore the Apostle is 
plainly citing Gen. xii. from memory. 
Stress is laid on the sense of the Greek, 

the problem of Paul's Hellenism 47 

because it would appear that the Hebrew 
means something other. The words in 
Gen. xlviii. 20 (In thee shall Israel bless, 
saying, God make thee as Ephraim and 
Manasseti) seem to make it fairly clear 
that "In thee shall the nations bless them- 
selves " must be taken as merely meaning 
' the nations shall pray that they may be 
as happy as you.' However (as I have 
said) the Apostle took the LXX as he 
found it, and expounded it as it stood. 
How it ever came to pass that the LXX 
should be the ' O.T.' of Gamaliel's pupil is 
one of the strangest problems that faces 
the ' N.T.' student. But so it certainly is. 
Can it be that he laid aside the Hebrew 
for the Greek, from the day when he 
knew himself the Apostle of the Gentiles ? 
The importance of the change from the 
one version to the other it is hard to 
overestimate. Indeed have we, Christian 
students, sufficiently realised yet what it 
means for us, that the Christian 'O.T.' is 
the Version of Alexandria, and not the 
Hebrew at all just because it is the 

48 The importance of LXX for ~us 

version of all the N.T. writers, broadly 
speaking ; unmistakeably of St Paul ? In 
any case it is plain that the Greek of Gen. 
xii. 3 (as we have it and St Paul had it) 
must inevitably mean, " Through thee shall 
all the nations be blessed." It is the 
Scripture, interpreted so, that solely meets 
the facts of the Christian revelation. I 
should say that in this place (as in several 
others) the later wisdom of Israel was 
actually * guided ' in the interpretation it 
set on primitive Scripture. In so far the 
LXX becomes, not only the 'Christian' 
version, but actually the 'better' version, 
as containing the latest light vouchsafed 
to Israel. We are here faced with a 
dilemma which I do not intend to state. 
The thoughtful * N.T.' reader will discern 
it for himself. 

Another point should be mentioned 
before we pass on further. It is this. The 
genius of our language (and this is clearly 
seen from the study of A.V.) dislikes per- 
sistently employing one family of words to 
set forth one family of ideas. For instance, 

Variation of rendering a virtue 49 

and TTUTTIS occur several times, 
each of them, in the course of this section. 
But we, in rendering, are forced to ' ring" 
the changes' between 'belief and 'faith/ 
You may say ' the men of belief ' or ' the 
men of faith ' whichever you will. One 
thing only you may not do. You may not 
render TTUTTI?, wherever it may occur, con- 
sistently by either. Sometimes it must 
be 'faith,' sometimes 'belief.' It must be 
neither all the time. Being very sure of 
this, I have varied the rendering in my own 
paraphrase. Of course one might say "And 
so the men of belief share the blessing of 
believing Abraham." But it would only 
be pedantic, and mistaken pedantry too. 
At this point in the argument a new 
idea is introduced. ' Blessing ' suggests 
its antithesis, and the Apostle passes on to 
argue that so far from being a source of 
' blessing,' the Law is a source of 'curse ' 
and condemnation. 

iii. 10 12. "Why, all that are 
of the school of legal doings are 
under a curse. For it stands written, 

W. A 

50 Commandments must be done 

Accursed is everyone that abideth not 
in all the things that are written in 
the Book of the Law for to do them" 

"And that by Law no man is 
righted in the eyes of God is plain : 
because The just shall live by faith. 
Whereas the Law is not matter of 
faith, but, He that achieveth the com- 
mands shall live by them" 
The opening clause of v. 10 is ren- 
dered by Lightfoot, * those who are of 
works of law.' It is not a perspicuous 
phrase. The meaning clearly is, ' the 
whole tribe, or fellowship, of " doers." 
The ' circumcision party ' are described in 
Acts xi. 2 by a similar periphrasis. The 
quotation in the same verse is a some- 
what free citation, LXX in character, of 
Deut. xxvii. 26, the final sentence of 
' cursing' from Mount Ebal. The ?ras and 
Tracrt of the Greek are not represented in 
Hebrew, though our Authorised Version 
inserts an 'all' before the ''words of this 
law'' The quotation in v. 1 1 is a very 
notable one. It comes (as everyone knows) 

The 'Habakkuk' citation 51 

from Habakkuk ii. 4, where again in our 
English Version the citation by St Paul 
has influenced the rendering. In Hebrew, 
strictly speaking, there is no word for 
'faith' (in any N.T. sense). The TTIOTIS 
of LXX stands for 'loyalty' or ' sted- 
fastness,' rather than ' faith ' : but St Paul 
avails himself here of the double meaning. 
What the prophet is declaring amounts to 
this : in an era of disaster the ' faithful,' or 
'loyal,' among Israel shall not perish. In 
fact it is the doctrine of the ' remnant ' 
stated in another form. The same citation 
is found in Romans i., employed as it is 
here. In Hebrews x. 38, it is found in 
full LXX form, and further is interpreted 
in accordance with the original sense, as 
' loyalty ' or ' stedfastness ' and not as the 
theological virtue. II urns (it should be 
added) occurs often in LXX, but always 
in the sense of ' faithfulness.' Bishop 
Lightfoot observes, in this connexion, that 
the Apostle gives the prophetic words ' a 
spiritual meaning and a general appli- 
cation.' He applies them to ' moral ' ruin, 


52 The two meanings of marts 

not ' material ' ; and avers that ' stedfast 
loyalty ' shall not fail of its reward. How- 
ever, the modern reader can hardly fail to 
be conscious of something of discomfort, in 
view of the sense attached by St Paul to 
Habakkuk's words. ' Faith' (in the Pauline 
sense) and ' faithfulness to God ' (which is 
what the Prophet had in mind), in the long 
run, are the same thing. But the Western 
mind would shrink from identifying them 
for purposes of argument. ' Law ' and 
* Faith ' are far apart ; but ' Law ' and 
' Loyalty ' are not so disconnected. For 
loyalty is revealed in prompt and ready 
obedience. Howbeit in this passage the 
Pauline antithesis is not developed, and 
the Habakkuk citation is not of vital 
moment for the argument. ' Law ' lands 
its votaries finally in ' cursing ' rather than 
' blessing,' because only perfect ' obedience ' 
can satisfy its claims ; and ' perfect obe- 
dience ' is (or, at any rate, then was) 
impossible for man. Accordingly w. 1 1 
and 12 might well be set in a bracket, as 

* The promise of the Spirit' 53 

iii. 13, 14. " CHRIST it was re- 
deemed us from the curse that Law 
involves, by becoming for us a ' curse ' 
(for it is written, Accursed is everyone Deut. xxi. 
that hangeth on a tree] ; that the 23 
blessing of Abraham might in Christ 
Jesus extend to the Gentiles ; to the 
end we might be given the promise of 
the Spirit, through faith." 
It will be seen we have ' worked back ' 
to the question which was asked in v. 2 
above. The ' Promise of the Spirit ' is 
identified with Abraham's ' blessing ' (the 
'blessing' promised in Gen. xii.). Prob- 
ably in the phrase "the promise of the 
Spirit," the ' promise ' is meant to be, not 
the' promise made by Christ on earth, 
but the promise made to Abraham. The 
'Spirit,' in short, is the 'promise'; is its 
splendid realisation delayed till the time 
of Christ. The verb ' redeem ' (l^ayopd- 
>) here employed occurs only once in 
LXX, in the curious phrase of Daniel 
ii. 8, Kaipov...^a.yop(it i iv. 'To become 
a curse ' is, in English, by no means so 

54 ' Becoming for us a curse ' 

intelligible as it is in the language of Israel. 
A person exceptionally ill-starred might 
call himself a ' curse/ as Anna (the mother 
of the Blessed Virgin Mary) does in an 
Apocryphal Gospel cited by Lightfoot. 
For ' sin ' and for * sin offering ' there is 
but one word in Hebrew. In relation to 
the statement here used of Christ, one 
recalls the ' scapegoat ' (and its heathen 
analogies, the (f>app.aKOL at Athens, or the 
victims in ancient Egypt whereof Herodo- 
tus speaks). In 2 Cor. v. 21 it is said 
of Christ, " Him that knew not sin on 
our behalf, He made sin" That is even 
stranger than this " becoming a curse." 
In the citation from Deuteronomy the 
Apostle alters the phrase in the LXX text 
' /cefcaT77paju,eVos VTTO eoO' (which he could 
not have anyhow used, as hardly with 
reverence to be applied to Christ even in 
view of Psalm xxii.) into the simple eVi- 
Kara/xxTos, which brings it into line with 
the quotation of v. 10. For myself, I 
cannot see how we can extrude from the 
passage before us the thought of ' vicarious 

Not 'faith" but 'faith in Christ' 55 

suffering.' Christ ' redeems ' us by ' be- 
coming a curse ' that is by taking on 
Himself the penalty involved in the failure 
to achieve the claims of God's Holiness. 

It is always difficult, when following 
Pauline argument, to be certain as to what 
is essential in the course of the reasoning 
and what unessential. At first sight one is 
tempted to say, in considering this passage, 
that the introduction of the thought of the 
'curse,' which Law entails, interrupts the 
sequence of thought. ' How did you get 
the Spirit ? it came to you by faith, as 
Abraham's blessing came to him. Your 
blessing had to come in the self-same 
manner ; for so is the way of God in 
dealing with men.' This might seem to 
us to be the essential argument. But it 
is not. It leaves out Christ. It is not by 
'faith,' pure and simple, that men are 
4 saved ' at all, according to the Apostle ; 
but 'by faith in Jesus Christ.' For cen- 
turies before He came men had been 
striving to 'right themselves' by scrupulous 
obedience. But this was a hopeless task. 

56 The scapegoat of mankind 

They rested evermore beneath the shadow 
of Ebal and its doom. Over everyone 
there hovered, be he never so careful in 
'doing,' the shadow of dismal failure 
the ' curse ' that is linked with Law. 
Christ it was who dispelled the shadow. 
He did something: He bore something: 
He ' became ' something. The * curse ' (we 
cannot fathom how) He somehow trans- 
ferred to Himself. He was the ' scape- 
goat ' of mankind. I do not see myself (I 
say again) how we can avoid the conclusion 
that His death, in the Apostle's thought, 
made life possible for our race. Till then 
(one is led to infer) ' faith ' itself was 
ineffectual. But, with that life once lived, 
that death once died, faith received her 
proper object, and the blessing the long- 
promised blessing could descend on man. 
On the readers it had descended, the seal 
of their acceptance. And it had come by 

iii. 15 1 8. "My brothers, take 
a human analogy ! A man's will, 
though it be but a man's, when once 

Mans 810.017/07 and God's 57 

ratified, none sets aside or alters by 

" To Abraham were the promises 
spoken and to his seed. It says not 
and to his seeds, as if there had been 
many, but as in the case of one, And 
to thy seed, which is Christ." 

" But what I am saying is this. 
A covenant ratified of old by God, the 
Law, that came four hundred and 
thirty years after, does not cancel, so 
as to do away with the Promise." 

" For if the inheritance comes by 
Law, it does not come by promise. 
But to Abraham God's free giving is 
by promise." 

In this passage the Apostle is haunted 
by the ever present Judaic contention that 
it is the Law that matters. Mark how it 
begins with * man/ and ends with God 
(/cex<x/HcrTcu 6 eos). No doubt there is 
involved in this the force of an 'a fortiori.' 
If man's Sta^/o; stands, what shall we say 
of God's ? The curiously placed O/AWS is 
exactly illustrated by i Cor. xiv. 7. With 

58 'Will* or 'covenant'? 

regard to 810,077/07, two things must be 
observed. The first is that with St Paul 
the 810,077*07 in question is the pre- Mosaic 
'Covenant'; the other, that he avails him- 
self of the double sense of 10,077/07 the 
regular (but not universal) * classical ' sense 
of 'will/ and the regular LXX sense of 
'covenant/ In spite of all contention to 
the contrary, we cannot blink the fact 
that all through O.T. Scripture ' covenant ' 
is 860077/07 in Greek a word very likely 
used of deliberate intent, because God's 
' covenant ' is not a set agreement between 
two contracting parties, but a gracious 
purpose of God, offered to man upon con- 
ditions. That is, it is a ' disposition ' but 
not a 'testament/ In Heb. ix. 15 17 
we have the famous 'amphiboly/ wherein 
it would seem the writer uses 810.077/07 in 
both senses. That same ' amphiboly ' is 
here. 'AvOpvTrov 810.077/07 must be a ' will ' 
so much is shown by the technical term 
cTTtSiaracrcreTat ; for e7n,8ia077/o7 means an 
' amended will ' or * codicil ' : but the Sio- 
077/07 of God is obviously other. The idea 

How God's covenant is ratified 59 

of ' testamentary disposition ' is wholly im- 
possible in such a connexion. 

A human will is ' ratified ' when duly 
sealed : and further (it would seem to be 
implied) when the man who made it is 
dead. The Covenant of God is ratified by 
His own gracious declaration, and 'sealed,' 
on the human side (for there is a human 
side), by the God-appointed symbol. The 
ets X/H<TToV (ofv. 17), which I have omitted 
with the editors, might be interpreted as 
due to what v. 16 says. It would have to 
be translated either as 'pointing to Christ,' 
or ' till Christ should come.' The latter 
sense is supported by v. 19 below (ax/ t? 
ov eX#77 TO o-Tre/o/xa). Awkward as eis 
Xpto-roV is, it is worth while to observe 
that only by keeping it can we account 
for the curious v. 16. That verse contains 
a citation from Genesis xiii. 5 ("all the 
land which thou seest, to thee will I give 
it and to thy seed for ever "). Remark that 
this citation is unmistakeably LXX. 

The Greek oW/ofta has a plural ; the 
Hebrew word has none. The argument 

60 Questions connected with 'the seed' 

of St Paul (which does not appear to us 
precisely convincing) depends on the possi- 
bility of substituting cnrep^ao-iv. Moreover, 
note this further, that, though the actual 
citation is as stated ; the importance of the 
identification is intimately associated with 
the memory of that other word, "and in 
thy seed shall all the families of the earth 
be blessed." That passage must have 
been, at the moment of writing, in the 
back of the Apostle's mind. In v. 18 we 
should note the exceeding advantage Greek 
has in the flexibility, which allows the 
omission of a verb. We, in English, have 
to choose between 'was' and 'is.' It is 
far better to have neither. The latter part 
of OVKCTL is due to Greek idiom : we need 
not, indeed we must not, say ' no longer.' 
The KexdpLo-Tdi of v. 1 8 recalls the famous 
Xa/ncr/xa in Romans. Unhappily English 
possesses no verb that completely corre- 

In vv. 19, 20 we come to close grip 
with the question, ' Then how about the 

The end served by Law 61 

Here is the Apostle's answer. He 
demonstrates that the Law had a reason ; 
that it was only temporary ; and that it was 
palpably inferior, as being ' mediated '- 
and all this in the compass of a single 

iii. 19, 20. " To what end then 
served the Law? It was an addition 
made for transgressions' sake, till such 
time as the seed should come, for 
whom the Promise is ; appointed in 
the presence of angels by the hand of 
an intermediary. Now God is One ; 
and the very idea of one excludes an 

Tt ovv 6 po/x,os ; is not to be regarded as 
parallel to i Cor. iii. 5 (" what then is 
Apollos ? ") The rt is probably accusative 
(" What then did the Law ?") The words 
that follow set forth the 'Law,' as a sort of 
' afterthought ' (Trpoo-ereBrj) no part of the 
original purpose. Ta>v TrapaftdcrecDV yapiv 
is explained by statements in Romans. 
Law's purpose (according to St Paul) is 
not to ' check ' sin, but to ' define ' it in 

62 'Angels' at the Lawgiving 

effect, as he says, to ' create ' it. (See 
Romans iii. 20, iv. 15, v. 20, vii. 7.) 
'ETnfyyeXrcu appears to be ' impersonal 
passive.' The tense points to the record 
of Scripture, which stands as long as 
earth stands. 

The mention of ' angels ' in connexion 
with the giving of the Law is probably 
post-canonical. There is a possible refer- 
ence in Debt, xxxiii. 2, but not in the LXX 
text. In Acts vii. 53 the 'angels' are 
spoken of as enhancing Law's dignity : 
here (as more decisively in Heb. ii. 2) the 
angels depreciate Law, as moving God 
farther off : they are suggestive of ' inter- 
mediaries.' 'Ei/ x eL P^ L pt<r' LTOV is difficult of 
rendering: it means really ''worked by a 
mediator." But that one could hardly say. 
In the LXX, we may add, this special 
formula is actually consecrated to this con- 
nexion (see Numb. iv. 37). 

About v. 20 commentators have been 
amazingly at variance. Lightfoot declares 
its interpretations mount to 250 or 300 in 
number. The conciseness of the Greek 

A verse of numberless interpretations 63 

and the lack of definite outline which 
appertains to the genitive, constitute 
between them the difficulty. 

The free paraphrase given above ex- 
presses what I believe to be its mean- 
ing. There appears to be an antithesis 
between the ' mediate ' character of the 
Mosaic * covenant ' and the wholly ' im- 
mediate ' nature (as coming direct from 
GOD) of the Abrahamic ' Promise.' At 
least, so I should hold. 

The Apostle has now explained how 
the Law came into being. For the sake 
of greater precision, and to avoid all 
misunderstanding, he asks yet another 
question : 

iii. 21. " Does then the Law 
conflict with the promises of God ? 
God forbid it should do so ! If a 
Law had been given, that could bring 
real life, then truly ' acceptance with 
God' would have been by Law. But" 
(so far is this from being so) " the 
Scripture has made all the prisoners 
of Sin, that the promise might be 

64 The effect produced by Law 

given to believers, thanks to faith in 

Jesus Christ." 

The ' promises ' of God, mentioned in 
v. 21, are all summed up in one Promise (as 
we see below). Maybe the plural is here 
used because the one Promise is made more 
times than once. ZwoTroirjo-aL suggests a 
virtual state of death. *H Si/caioo-w^ may 
mean ' the righteousness we have in view,' 
or merely 'righteousness.' The singular 
figure crvv.K\ticrv comes once again in 
Romans, in a somewhat similar phrase 
(xi. 32). To, TTavroL is noticeable. St Paul 
uses the neuter plural to make what he 
wishes to say as comprehensive as possible. 
He is thinking of people, of course, in spite 
of the gender. ' The Scripture,' one in- 
clines to think, must be a Scripture already 
cited. If so, it clearly must be that quoted 
in v. 10. Apart from that necessity, other 
Scriptures would have suited, such as Psalm 
cxiv. 3, or Psalm cxliv. 3 (which latter has 
been quoted in ii. 16). The 'promise' 
is the Spirit, God's gift to believers, 
consequent on faith in Jesus Christ. 

The Law as TrcuSaywyos 65 

iii. 23 27. " Before faith came, 
we were kept safe under Law, fast 
prisoners till the faith should come, 
that was going to be revealed. Ac- 
cordingly the Law was our * tutor,' 
till Christ came, that we might be set 
right with God in consequence of faith. 
Since faith has come, we are no longer 
under a tutor. Aye, you are all Sons 
of God, through faith, in Jesus Christ. 
For all of you that have been baptised 
in Christ have put on Christ." 
The l(j>povpovfji0a of v. 23 suggests 
zealous watch and ward : the perfect crvy- 
/ce/cXeicr/AeVoi is preferable, I should say, 
to the present participle, in spite of MS. 
authority. The ets is plainly ' temporal,' 
as in several other places. The order of 
the words, at the end of 22, is thoroughly 
' classical.' In v. 24 the ytyovtv is one of 
the ' irrational ' perfects we sometimes find 
in the case of that particular verb. We 
must translate it as though it were an 
aorist, not a perfect. The figure of the 
s developes, and further softens, 


66 More questions of prepositions 

the metaphor of l^povpov^Oa. The Law 
may have had a tight grip, and held its 
prisoners fast, but its purpose was a loving 
one. The mention of the TrcuSaywyos 
(seeing what the functions were of such a 
confidential slave) makes etg X/HOTOU rather 
tempting. Yet ets X/OIOTOI> is right. With 
the latter we must assume a temporal 
sense. God's ' Sons ' (a term of privilege) 
are beyond all slavish restraint. 

In vv. 26 and 27 two questions suggest 
themselves with regard to the prepositions. 
Is it ''sons of God. Christ Jesus"? or 
is the genesis of that ' sonship ' described 
in its twofold aspect, as brought about by 
faith, but resting on union with Christ ? I 
incline to the latter belief. Again, in v. 27, 
does it mean "all ye that were baptised in 
Christ," or "baptised into Christ" (which 
indeed is no true English, but a clumsy 
way of representing what is called a 
' pregnant ' sense) ? I believe ' to baptise 
in Christ ' means to ' baptise in the name 
of Christ ' in which case ets is used. 
Anyhow, the ' sonship of God ' is due to 

'All one man in Christ Jesus' 67 

union with Christ, here described by the 
bold figure " have put on Christ." 

iii. 28, 29. " There is there no 
Jew nor Gentile ; no bond nor free ; 
no ' male and female.' Ye all are 
one man in Christ Jesus.. And if ye 
are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
seed, and heirs according to promise." 
Lightfoot's comments on v. 28 are highly 
illuminating. The ei/t, he observes, ' nega- 
tives not the fact but the possibility'; and 
again, * all distinctions are swept away, 
even the primal one of sex ' (male and 
female created He them). For the mascu- 
line singular els, see Ephesians ii. 15. 

In v. 29 we see that it is the 'vital 
union,' obtaining between Christ and 
believers, that constitutes them the ' seed ' 
of the patriarch Abraham. Strictly speak- 
ing, Christ is the seed, as in v. 16 above. 
But they that are Xpiorov (which may 
mean ' members of Christ ') are necessarily 
' seed ' too, and as such inherit the promise. 


68 The Law implied ' bondage ' 



(Chapter iv. i n.) 

In chap. iii. we were told that the 
Law in that case plainly the Law of 
Moses was a TrcuSctywyos, a temporary 
TTcuSaywyog, till ' faith ' should come, that 
is definite Christian faith, and release from 
such discipline. This state of tutelage has 
now been merged in 'sonship.' It is 
past and gone for ever. But we have 
not exhausted the topic. It reappears in 
chap. iv. For the Apostle is anxious 
exceedingly to make it clear to his readers, 
that this bygone state of tutelage was 
tantamount to 'bondage.' The freedom 
of the Christian is ever a prominent feature 
of his teaching. 

In the next section we are puzzled by 
two difficult questions. The first is, to 
what extent the terms the Apostle employs 
are strictly technical a comparatively small 
matter : the other, what class of converts 

A parallel from 'Acts' 69 

he has in view, whether Jews primarily, or 
Gentiles. From the record in Acts we 
should gather that the Churches of Galatia 
were predominantly Gentile. 

In the earlier part of Acts xiii., it is 
true, we have record of a discourse made 
to Jews and Jewish sympathisers, in the 
course of which (by the way), in w. 38 
and 39, we have a doctrinal statement, 
which is closely parallel to the teaching of 
this letter : 

" Be it known unto you therefore, 
Sirs and brethren, that through Him 
remission of sins is proclaimed to 
you, and that in Him everyone that 
believes is cleared " (Si/ccuourcu appar- 
ently means ' is acquitted ') " from all 
those things, wherefrom ye could not 
be cleared by Moses' Law." 
The form of this last statement is worthy 
of remark, * OVK r)8wTj0T]T St/catoj^-rJ^at/ 
It dwells upon the inefficacy of Law in 
regard to setting man right with God, as 
a condition of things now over, a condition 
that has given place to a something new and 

70 Proportions of Jew and Gentile 

better. Possibly the sense of SiKcuoi)o-0cu 
is not so plainly * technical/ as it is in 
Galatians, but the general drift of the 
teaching is obviously identical. 

Passing on to v. 49 we should gather 
that in Antioch Gentile Christians far out- 
numbered the Israelitish converts. In 
Iconium, on the other hand, the proportion 
of the two classes was much more equal 
(Acts xiv. 2). Yet the general effect, pro- 
duced upon the reader by xiii. and xiv. 
together, is of a Church far more largely 
Gentile. Let us assume that it is so. 

In Gal. iv. it is hard to determine, at 
any given point, whether the Apostle is 
speaking to Jews, or speaking to Gentiles. 
He seems to pass almost imperceptibly 
from the one sort to the other. This will 
appear as we deal with the text. 

iv. i. " Now mark! as long as 
the heir is not grown up, he differs no 
whit from a slave, although he be 
absolute owner; but is controlled by 
tutors and guardians, till the time his 
father has appointed." 

The figure in iv. i 7 1 

The language here, I should hold, must 
not be regarded as drawn, with any sort of 
accuracy, from strictly legal sources. It 
is neither Roman law, nor is it Greek. 
N^TTIOS (after the Pauline manner) is broadly 
opposed to dvrjp (as ' minor ' to one of full 
age). npoOeo-pia is a good Greek term 
for a fixed or settled day, a day appointed 
for payment, or the like. But there is no 
reason to suppose that, in a general way, 
whether in Galatia or elsewhere, coming 
of age depended on a father's will. But it 
does (as all will admit) in the case of the 
Heavenly Father. 

The ' appointed day ' accordingly must 
be regarded as a necessary modification 
of detail imported into the image by the 
writer. The two words used for ' guardian ' 
cannot be accurately distinguished : the 
whole phrase is merely equivalent to ' guar- 
dians of one sort or another.' The more 
definite ' guardian ' in this chapter takes 
the place of the ' paedagogue ' (for whom 
we have a female analogue in a ' nursery 
governess ') set before us in chap, iii. 

72 Who are addressed in iv. 3 

iv. 3 5. "So we too, in our 
childish days, were under the ' worldly 
rudiments ' in a state of slavery. But 
when the full time was come, God sent 
forth His own Son, born of a woman, 
born under Law, that He might redeem 
them that were under Law, that we 
might receive the intended adoption." 
Is the wording of these verses inten- 
tionally vague ? Is * we ' Jews, or Gentiles, 
or both ? Is the phrase the 'worldly rudi- 
ments ' so designed as to cover effectually 
both the Jewish discipline of Law (the 
Mosaic Law), as well as such Gentile 
'propaideia' as is set forth in Rom. i. 19, 
20 ? Or, does the thought of the Gentiles 
not enter in, till the person of the verb is 
altered in v. 8 (for the second time) ? These 
are all questions far more easy to ask than 
to get answered. 

There seems to be little doubt that 

CTTOLX^OL (as in Heb. v. 12) means 'ABC,' 

or * rudiments.' And plainly the phrase is 

disparaging, as we gather from the two 

Col. 11. 8, pj aces w here it occurs in the Colossian 

The meaning of ' worldly rudiments ' 73 

Epistle. It marks, as Lightfoot says, an 
intellectual stage, and an intellectual stage 
that is obviously 'unspiritual.' St Paul 
(as a matter of fact) does not definitely 
identify this rudimentary (and * worldly ') 
discipline with the Law. But it is difficult 
not to believe that was uppermost in his 
mind. In Colossians the phrase would 
seem to have decisively wider reference. 
Yet even in that passage 'sabbaths' and 
' new moons ' are mentioned, so that it is 
hard to disentangle an asceticism, which 
might be heathen, from distinctly Jewish 
ordinances. AeSouXw/xeVoi comes in at the 
end of the clause, with independent weight, 
as who should say, ''bondsmen, bound hand 
and foot.' About "the fulness of time" 
(where the 'the' of R.V. I should say 
is nothing but a mistake : you can't say, in 
Greek anyhow, TO TrXTj/xy/ta xpovov) a good 
deal might be said, but it is not necessary. 
In regard to e s fa,7recrTeiXei>, I don't think we 
need be concerned to find a special force 
for each of the prepositions in the double 
compound. " Born of a woman," one would 

74 In iv. 3 5 Jews are meant 

say, must mark the humiliation involved in 
the Incarnation. This particular phase of 
the verb (yei/o/xe^os or eyeWro) is specially 
associated with that prodigious event. The 
anarthrous po/AOP.that follows is puzzling 
enough. Is it anarthrous because ' woman ' 
before it has no article ? This is wholly 
conceivable. Or, because (as Lightfoot 
thinks) ' law ' is meant to cover more than 
merely the Law of Moses ? I should say 
that i Cor. ix. 20 though there again 
Lightfoot detects the same extension tells 
somewhat against this alternative. 

In view of what has gone before, it is 
hard to attach any other force to Iva rows 
VTTO vopov tgayopdo-r) than simply this ; that 
it is meant to set before us the * redemption ' 
of believing Israel from the bondage of 
the Law of Moses in fact, just such a 
redemption as St Paul had himself ex- 

On the whole it seems wisest to say 
that till v. 5 is ended, St Paul has Jews 
in view. In v. 6 the eVre covers Jews and 
Gentiles. TioBeo-ia reminds us that the 

The believers ' sons hip ^ 75 

'sonship,' wherewith we are 'sons,' is not 
as the Sonship of Christ. The word is 
itself late Greek. The preposition in 
a7roXa/3o>/iei> doubtless points to an age-long 
purpose in the mind of the All Father. 
Or, to put it otherwise, the airo regards 
the promise made centuries before. Any- 
how, it is just and right to lay stress on the 
normal sense of this particular compound. 

iv. 6, 7. " And because ye are 
sons, God hath sent the spirit of His 
own Son into our hearts crying, Abba, 
Father. So that thou art no longer 
a slave, but a son, and if a son, also 
an heir through God." 
In these two verses we have an un- 
usually striking example of the tendency 
of St Paul to pass from person to person. 
We start with " Ye are " ; there follows 
one line after " into our hearts," and the 
very next verse begins "and so thou art 
no longer." e H/*(Si> and vp.a>v, of course, 
are frequently confused. Yet the editors 
are of opinion that fjn&v is right. 'Ef- 
must be translated not 'sent,' 

76 ' The spirit of His own Son ' 

but 'has sent.' The aorist is an indefinite 
past tense, not a definite. The verb here 
merely states what has happened, whether 
it be long ago or lately. The ' sending ' of 
this * spirit ' is just an event in the past. 
We note the double compound once again 
(as in v. 4). * Has sent from afar ' may be 
right (compare Acts xxii. 21). " The spirit 
of His own Sen " must not, I think, be 
regarded as a definite reference to the gift 
of Pentecost. It describes rather that 
essential attitude of * son ' to * father,' which 
has its supreme manifestation in the relation 
of the Eternal Son towards the Eternal 
Father. This relation towards the Father 
is precisely what we note in the Gospel 
story as specially inculcated by Our Lord. 
No doubt, the actual mission of the Spirit 
it was, that implanted it in man. But it 
is not the same thing. It is just a vivid 
consciousness that God is Father Our 
Father. And yet one can hardly say ' con- 
sciousness ' ; for that indeed goes too far. 
From Romans viii. 26 we should rather 
gather that there is in the true believer 

'Abba, Father' 77 

a Something which pleads earnestly (and 
intelligibly to God), yet unbeknown to him. 
And if a critic should say, Nay, but that is 
the Holy Spirit, as commonly understood : 
one must answer, In 'Romans' possibly; 
but the words 'His own' would seem to 
exclude identification here. Kpa&v recalls 
to our minds Romans viii. 15, where we 
are told that ' in ' (or, through) ' the spirit 
of adoption ' (that is, ' the spirit of adopted 
sons ') we * cry ' (as here). Moreover 
we cannot forget the Kpavyrj Icr^ypd of 
Hebrews v. 7. The formula 'A/8/3a 6 
Harrjp (attributed in St Mark to Our Lord 
Himself) reminds us that Christ was 'bi- 
lingual ' ; and so was the early Church of 
Jerusalem. In view of the sacred memory 
attaching to the phrase, it is curious that it 
should ever have dropped from use ; for 
once apparently it was in use. In v. 7 the 
change to the singular illustrates a Pauline 
tendency, exhibited elsewhere, to lay stress 
on the ' individual ' aspect of the new life 
in Christ. He is speaking to all conscious 
believers, 'You. ..and you. ..and you.' The 

78 Does God (in iv. 7) mean Christ f 

Church, as a whole, has the life, but only 
because its members are truly ' alive.' The 
reading at the end of the verse is curiously 
wavering. Editors read what I have trans- 
lated. The lection " heir of God, through 
Christ " is too simple to be taken, as against 
the strange " heir through God." 

The Apostle himself claims, at the 
opening of the letter, to have received his 
commission " through Jesus Christ and 
God the Father that raised Him from the 
dead." That however is hardly the same. 
Ata, in Pauline usage, essentially belongs 
to the Incarnate Son. Yet one could 
hardly without misgiving assume it is the 
Son, that is meant in the words " through 

Up till this point St Paul has been 
speaking to Jew-Christians, or all Christians ; 
but now he turns his thoughts to that 
Gentile element, which was probably pre- 
dominant in the Churches of Galatia. 

The dXXa, with which the new section 
starts, is not very luminous. " Howbeit" 
says our English : but it would puzzle one 

Gentiles warned against reversion 79 

to find where any sense of logical opposi- 
tion enters in. Tap or ovv would appear 
to be far more natural particles to introduce 
the new sentence. In translation it were 
better to take no account of the dXXa. 

iv. 8 ii. "In old days, not 
knowing God, you were slaves to 
what are really " (this seems to be the 
meaning of </>uo-ei) "no gods at all. 
Now, having come to the knowledge 
of God, or rather to His knowledge 
of you why do ye turn once more to 
the weak and beggarly rudiments, 
whereto ye want to be slaves all over 
again ? Ye are closely observing days 
and months and seasons and years. 
I am afraid of you, that all my pains 
over you are gone for nothing." 
Plainly Gentiles are here addressed. 
Yet the old phrase, slightly varied, appears 
once more, the phrase about the "rudi- 
ments." It would seem St Paul regarded 
all close attention to minute details as 
having in it something of the 'heathenish/ 
or 'worldly'; what he styles the 'rudi- 
mentary.' Religion is, for him (as in the 

8o All forms, as such, rudimentary 

famous teaching of St John iv. 23), a matter 
of 'spirit' and 'truth.' All that is not 
' spiritual,' all that is not ' true,' partakes of 
the nature of slavery. Into such a slavery 
he feared they were drifting back. But is 
it not, for us, an astonishing thing that he 
should (to all appearance) place in one 
category the nullities of heathenism and 
the unprofitable ' rudimentary ' ordinances 
that formed, for the ordinary Jew, the heart 
of his religion ? Strictly speaking, these 
Gentile Christian Galatians were not re- 
turning to ' heathenism,' in any sense ; they 
were only substituting for vital Christianity 
a system of forms and rules and trivial 
ordinances. Yet he speaks, we must ob- 
serve, as if this conduct of theirs were 
virtually a ' reversion ' (and nothing else) 
even for them. 

For the u really no gods " of v. 8, one 
compares the Xeyo'/xei/oi #eoi of i Cor. viii. 5. 
The amended statement ("but rather known 
of God ") recalls i Cor. viii. 2 and xiii. 12. 
It is characteristic of St Paul to keep 
before men's minds the weighty truth, that 
religion starts with God and not with us. 

' Weak and beggarly elements' 81 

The adjectives ' weak ' and ' beggarly ' 
describe the essential unprofitableness of 
all religion that stands in ' forms,' under 
two vigorous figures. It is 'weak' because 
it has no effect ; it is ' poor' (or 'beggarly') 
because there is 'nothing in it.' No one is 
one penny the better for it. Remember 
how the Apostle loves to speak of ' spiritual' 
things under metaphors derived from wealth 
or riches. ' Beggarly' (in our English) is 
not altogether happy. It sounds as if it 
were mere abuse and vituperation. Of 
course, it is not. In v. 10 we should not 
say ' observe,' but ' narrowly observe.' 
That is the verb's proper meaning. For 
the catalogue of things the * Galatians ' 
were wrongly ' observing ' (that is, ' ob- 
serving' as if they were matters of first- 
rate importance ; for clearly the Apostle 
himself did not wholly disregard forms, as 
witness what he says about the need of 
orderly worship) one must compare that 
other list in Colossians ii. 16. There we 
have, in addition to ' meat ' and ' drink,' 
' feast days,' ' new moons ' and ' sabbaths.' 
w. 6 

82 Curious Judaistic details 

' Months ' in this place (one is tempted to 
think) should rather be ' moons.' The 
' seasons ' is somewhat odd, because one 
would have thought that ' days ' would 
cover it. But the ' years ' is odder still. 
Of course, there were ' Sabbatic ' and 
' Jubilee ' years in the Code ; but one 
would have hardly thought that any would 
have wished to impose such institutions 
upon the Gentile converts in far Galatia. 
The " pains" (/ce/co7ua/ca) of v. 11 
remind us that the Apostle regularly speaks 
of his mission labours as very heavy and 
onerous. Nor is any likely to question the 
justice of his claim, who follows with care 
his story. 


(Chapter iv. 21 31.) 

The next nine verses I propose to omit. 

Verse 12 is indeed obscure, but need not 

detain us now. He begs them to be, as 

he is ; and passing on (though disclaiming 

Suggested alteration in iv. 13 83 

any ground for distinct complaint) men- 
tions with sorrow and regret the change 
that has come over them. In v. 13 the sense 
would be plainer if a small change might be 
admitted, and we were allowed to read SC 
aa-OeveLas (circumstantial, " in ill health ") 
in place of SL aa-B^veiav. The latter can 
be explained, though not without difficulty. 
The former would demand no sort of 
explanation. Further, we gather from 
these verses that he had paid them hitherto 
two visits. It was on the former occasion 
his health was somehow amiss. Then they 
were all sympathy. They welcomed him 
as a messenger of God, nay even (as he 
declares, using a bold figure) as if he had 
been the Master Himself. Then they 
spoke of themselves as the happiest of 
men, to have the Apostle among them. 
Nothing would have been too good for 
him. They would have torn out their 
very eyes and given them him. 

Now all is sadly altered. His influence 
has been undermined. He suggests he 
has been too sincere, while others have 


84 A change in ' Galatian ' attitude 

been employing the arts of the flatterer. 
This seeming friendliness will not end in 
good for them. In the upshot it will only 
lead to their exclusion from Christ (for 
such would seem to be the meaning of 
v. 17). Verse 18, once again, is far from 
transparent. A good deal must be supplied. 
But the gist of it seems to be that friend- 
liness is all very well and honourable 
attention. In fact St Paul himself prized 
their kindly attentions to him. But he 
does not want ' fair weather ' friends 
people who are kindly to his face but not 
behind his back. The section ends with a 
pathetic cry : 

iv. 19, 20. " O my little children ! 

over whom I once more endure the 

pangs of birth, till Christ shall be 

formed in you ! I wish I could be 

with you now, and change my tone : 

for I am sore puzzled about you." 

Why the wish of v. 20 is put as a thing 

impracticable, it is a little hard to see, more 

especially if it was so, that he actually did 

visit them very shortly after he wrote. 

Abrahams 'two sons 1 85 

But now we have reached the point 
where we must return to the text : 

iv. 21 27. " Tell me, ye that 
would be under Law, do ye not 
heed the Law ? It is written, you 
know, that Abraham had two sons, 
one by the serving maid and one by 
the freewoman. The child of the 
serving maid is " (that is, in the page 
of Holy Writ) " a child of nature : 
the child of the freewoman comes by 
promise. There is in it all a hidden 
meaning. The two mothers are the 
two covenants ; the one of them from 
Mount Sinai, engendering to bond- 
age which is Agar" (here the 17719 
might be equal to quippe quae, but 
I should conceive it is not, but is used 
as a definite relative, like arii/a just 
above) : "and Agar represents Mount 
Sinai in Arabia, and ranks with the 
present Jerusalem; for she is in bond- 
age and so are her children : whereas 
the Jerusalem above is free which 
is our Mother. For it is written, 

86 The two Covenants 

Isaiah Hv. Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not ! 

break forth into speech and cry, thou 
that travailest not ! for more are the 
children of the lone woman than of her 
that has a mate!' 

Here the Galatians are regarded as 
filled with a desire to return to the old 
regime, the bondage of ordinances. The 
Pentateuch (had they ' ears to hear ') should 
have taught them better. They should 
have seen the meaning of the tale of 
Ishmael and Isaac. This the Apostle pro- 
ceeds to unfold. The one of them was 
' slave born,' the other ' free born ' ; the one 
born in the ordinary way, the other con- 
trary to nature, to all intent, miraculously. 
How avTai (in v. 24) should be interpreted 
I don't feel certain ; but the demonstrative 
is attracted to the gender of SiaOrJKaL. It 
might be safer to say, " Here we have the 
two Covenants." In any case the one 
Covenant had its birth at Sinai. Its 
children are * slave children/ That Cove- 
nant is Agar. The reading of v. 25 is 
curiously varied. Some copies omit Agar, 

Hagar and Arabia 87 

some omit Sinai, while others again read 
both, with y<ip or Se. On the whole the 
reading of W.H. (and the Revisers) seems 
to have the preference. ' Hagar ' or 
'Chagar' stands for 'rock,' and Chrysostom 
speaks of the mountain as 6ftoW//,oi> TJJ 
8ov\fj. In that case the ecrriV is as the 
rjv of i Cor. x. 4 ("that rock was Christ"). 
This reading has the advantage of re- 
ducing the phrase eV TTJ 3 Apa@La to a mere 
statement of geography. It is difficult to 
see in what sense Arabia could be regarded 
as a land essentially of ' bondage.' The 
idea of bondage, I should say, is associated 
with the Law, not with Arabia at all. The 
meaning of the O-VCTTOLX^ is clearly given 
by Lightfoot. There are two categories, 
the * earthly ' and the * heavenly,' or the 
' temporal ' and the ' eternal ' : to the one 
belong Hagar, Ishmael, the earthly Jeru- 
salem, the Law, the Old Covenant ; to the 
other, Sarah, Isaac, the heavenly Jerusalem, 
the Gospel, the New Covenant. In each 
1 rank ' part is type and part is antitype. 
If we assign a ' Mountain ' to each : Sinai 
is the Mount of the one ; Sion (as in 

88 The two ' ranks ' or 

Hebrews xii.) the Mount of the other. 
The subject of SovXevei (in v. 25) is primarily 
Agar-Sinai, only secondarily the earthly 
Jerusalem. In v. 26 (as so often in St 
Paul) the sentence takes a fresh start and 
all symmetry is sacrificed. We should have 
expected it to go on, " But the other from 
Mount Sion, engendering to freedom, is 
Sarah. She is free and ranks with the 
heavenly Jerusalem " But the mention 
of the earthly city at once suggests the 
heavenly, and the Apostle is in haste to get 
to the thought of freedom. Accordingly 
he does not stay to develope his figure 

The MSS. are divided between " our 
Mother" and " your Mother." The former 
seems the likelier. The quotation from 
Isaiah, which occupies v. 27, is adapted by 
the writer to his purpose. This will at 
once appear from a study of the passage 
quoted. There Israel is the bride, Jehovah 
Himself the husband. 

But we have not yet exhausted the 
lessons to be learned from the story of 
Isaac and Ishmael. 

' Promise-children ' 89 

iv. 28 31. " We, brethren " (says (Cf. Rom. 
the Apostle), " as Isaac was, are IX 
promise-children. But as then the 
naturally born persecuted the spiritual- 
ly born, so is it now. Howbeit what 
says the Scripture ? Cast out the 
bondmaid and her son! For the son 
of the bondmaid shall never inherit 
with the son of the free" 

" Accordingly, my brethren, we are 
not the children of a bondmaid ; we 
are the children of the free." 
Upon these words let me make a 
handful of comments. ' Promise-children ' 
is, in effect, a compound noun. As for the 
' persecution ' mentioned, that can hardly 
be found in Genesis (see Gen. xxi. 9). 
Yet the LXX goes further than our 
Hebrew text : for whereas that says merely 
''mocking' the Greek version reads 7ratoi>ra 
jjieTa 'IcractK TOV vlov CLVTTJS. Moreover in 
after days the enmity of the 'Hagarenes' 
against Israel became a commonplace (see 
Psalm Ixxxiii. 5, 6). And as for the meaning 
St Paul saw underlying the story, had not 

90 The real Israel 

he, the child of promise, the son of faith, 
known what it was to feel the ruthless hatred 
of the ' natural sons ' of the patriarch his 
descendants ' after the flesh ' ? The words 
of ' the Scripture ' that follow, though 
setting forth the unseen Will, are (in the 
story) the words of Sarah. They express 
(St Paul would have us recognise) the 
eternal Purpose of God. The real Israel 
is the Israel of faith ; the real ' circum- 
cision ' the ' circumcision of spirit ' (as we 
learn afterwards from Romans). For the 
present we rest content with this conclu- 
sion: "we" (that is, all believers) "are the 
antitype of Isaac we are the children of 
the 'free woman.'" 

The moral is unfolded in the section 
that follows next. 


(Chapter v. i 12.) 

It is at this point we have revealed to 
us the exact nature of the dreadful change 

Christian freedom 91 

which had come over the Galatians. What 
it was we could have gathered from Acts, 
but here it is in black and white. Jew 
believers and Gentiles alike, they had 
yielded to the suggestion that Christ would 
not serve alone, but that it must be Christ 
and Moses. The contest was between the 
liberty of Christ and the heavy bondage of 
the Lawgiver. 

Accordingly the Apostle continues : 

v.i. " For freedom Christ hath made 

us believers free. Stand firm and be 

not caught again in the yoke of slavery ! " 

The shorter reading here is the reading 

of the Editors. The rendering of the 

dative (now, I believe, usually followed) 

was the rendering preferred by the 

American Revisers of 1881. The definite 

article seems to make it all but inevitable. 

Without it we might have rendered "Christ 

has made us wholly free," on the analogy 

of such a phrase as eTrt^v/ita eTre^u/x^cra. 

As it is, the simple dative here seems to 

carry the same meaning as the ITT' e'Xeu- 

Oepia of v. 13. The curious word 

92 'Entangled' in a 'yoke' 

is all but only Pauline in the pages of 
N.T. : it is found three times in the 
Septuagint. Plainly it is a useful form, 
though rather startling at first. We might 
have had fiyKtiv too, or even yva>Kw ! 
' Yokes ' are so unfamiliar to us that I 
venture to say 'be not caught'; although 
a ' yoke ' is hardly a thing in which one is 
' caught,' and the tense does not really 
imply a momentary experience. In English 
one cannot say ' be not held again.' And 
"entangled" (as in R.V.) is a desperate 
mixing of metaphors. The earlier trans- 
lations in our language (except Wycliffe 
and the Rheims) were even more unhappy, 
' ' wrap not yourselves again. " The weighty 
warning of the verse should be left to 
stand by itself. It can neither be closely 
attached to what goes before nor to that 
which follows after. 

v. 2 5. " Lo ! I Paul say to you, 
that if you are ' circumcisers/ Christ 
will profit you not one whit. Once 
again I solemnly protest to every man 
that is ready to submit to circumcision, 

The meaning of ' /, Paul* 93 

that he is absolutely bound to carry 
out the Law in its entirety. Your 
relation with Christ has come to 
nothing, you that seek to right your- 
selves with God by Law. You have 
fallen from grace. We (true believers) 
look for and hope for acceptance with 
Him, spiritually, by faith." 
" I, Paul," here seems to imply, not ' I, 
Paul, that am accused of preaching circum- 
cision ' (which indeed is possible), but 
rather, ' I, the Paul you know,' * your own 
evangelist.' This is made likely (I think) 
by the Xeycu vplv which follows. 'Ecu/ 
TrepirefjivrjcrOe does not mean so much as 
"if ye be circumcised"; but rather "if ye 
be for circumcising," expressing a tendency 
of the will. For me, I should say the 
verb must be thought of in connexion 
with the Pauline phrase ot Treptre^d/ie- 
voi (' the circumcisers,' or ' circumcision 
people '). That is why I have paraphrased 
it so. If they yield to this weakness, he 
says, so far from being * saved ' through 
Christ, they will gain no good whatever. 

94 /carapyeicrai cur 

,, three times out of five in the 
N.T., is used in this non-classical way. 
The meaning is plain enough. ' I solemnly 
protest to you,' or ' assure you.' The same 
construction is found in LXX, though only 
in one place (Judith vii. 28). 'O^eiXenys 
appears to mark a high degree of obligation : 
it is only Pauline in this figurative use, 
though the verb is common enough in a 
similar sense. " To do " the Law means 
to carry it out, achieve it ; here the phrase 
is very strong, "to carry it out in every 
particular." The very curious formula 
KCLTapyelorOai curd is found in Romans also 
(vii. 2). 'ATTO may imply 'separation' or 
* direction ' (' on the side of). The former 
is more likely ; in that case the usage is 
' pregnant. ' Two ideas are combined in one ; 
" you are frustrated and dissevered from 
Christ." That is, your union with Christ 
is dissolved. The tense (as in St John xv. 
6) appears to be ' instantaneous.' The very 
notion of seeking circumcision, as an aid 
towards justification, has this disastrous 
effect at once. Christ becomes nothing to 

The looked for acceptance 95 

you and you to Him. The relative here 
keeps its common ' generic ' force. 'Grace' 
means the condition of Divine favour 
secured by union with Christ. In v. 5 the 
compact adverbial dative Trvtvpan is very 
difficult of rendering. Law, and all ex- 
ternal ordinances, would be similarly 
characterised by a brief and comprehensive 
(TapKL So much meaning lies in irvevpaTi 
that in English we really need to make it a 
separate clause. Otherwise the stress that 
lies upon the word cannot be adequately 
reproduced. " We Christians look for 
acceptance by faith a spiritual thing." 
'E\7riSa Si/ccuocrvz/Tjs literally means u an 
acceptance that we hope for." At/caiocn^ 
is here used in the very unusual sense of 
' final redemption" The same idea is 
found in Phil. iii. 20, and a similar ex- 
pression (perhaps) in 2 Tim. iv. 8. 

v. 6. " Where Christ Jesus is, you 
know, neither circumcision matters at 
all, nor uncircumcision : no (the only 
thing that counts is) faith operating 
through love." 

96 Circumcision wholly indifferent 

*E^ Xyoicrrc? 'ITJCTOV, one apprehends, is 
equivalent to such a phrase as ' for real 
Christians.' It is altogether possible that 
it is ' Pauline ' for rots eV Xpicrrw *l-qcrov. 
The remainder of the clause is put with 
characteristic vigour. The addition of the 
'OVT cLKpo/Bvo-TLd ' (or rather, the ''neither... 
nor...'*) brings home to our minds the 
absolute l indifference ' of any such rite as 
circumcision. As is well known, in i Cor. 
iii. 7 we have a parallel elliptical con- 
struction ; and in i Cor. vii. 19 the same 
statement is conveyed to the reader in all 
but identical terms. The verbal phrase to 
be supplied in the latter member of our 
sentence would be something like TTOLVTOL 

In three places the nullity of circum- 
cision is insisted on, and each time some- 
thing else is contrasted with that nullity. 
Here it is " faith operating through love," 
as the only thing that does matter ; in 
chap. vi. 15 it is KCLivrj KTUTI? (which is 
only another way of expressing the same 
phenomenon). In i Cor. vii. 19, on the 

A statement with three endings 97 

other hand, we have " circumcision is 
nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, 
aXXa TTJprjcris VTO\O>V #eov." It is difficult 
indeed to bring that into line with either 
of the ' Galatian ' instances. One might, 
to be sure, illustrate it by quoting what 
Christ says to the rich young man in St 
Matthew xix. 17. But, I suspect, St Paul 
is making excuse for the pious Israelite, to 
whom Christ is not known. * Circum- 
cision ' had a merit, till Christ came, and 
a very obvious merit. It was a * fulfilling 
of righteousness ' by obedience to a positive 
enactment. And that, maybe, is what 
aXXa TTjpyjCTLS evToXwv 0eov implies: "only 
the keeping of a Divine ordinance." 
'Eye/>yoL7/,eVr7 may be passive, but I believe 
it is deponent. ' Love ' does not make 
* faith ' work ; but ' faith ' does express 
itself in ' love/ And, as everybody is 
aware, St Paul did not contemplate for one 
moment a ' barren ' faith. The life of 
Christ in a man must ' work ' and * bear 
fruit ' or die. 

v. 7. "Oh! you were running 
w. 7 

98 ' Who is it has hindered you ? ' 

bravely ! Who is it has hindered you 
from heeding the Truth ? It is not a 
Godly influence to which you are 
yielding. Stop in time, oh, stop in 
time ! I am confident of you, with 
a Christian confidence, that you will 
be minded as I say. And he that 
disturbs you, shall answer for it to 
God be he who he may !" 
The imperfect eY/ac^ere is full of 
picturesque vigour. All was going well 
till this intrusive influence came. They 
were making a brave show in the Christian 
race. J Ei>e/coi//e certainly means 'hinder' (as 
in i Thess. ii. 18 ; Rom. xv. 22), but what 
the underlying figure is, it were difficult 
to say it can hardly be ' breaking up a 
road.' 'Ai/a/coTrraz/ (read by some here) is 
used in Thucydides for ' beating back ' an 
assailant. The rt? would seem to imply 
that the Apostle actually did not know 
who was ringleader of ' the disturbers ' (v. 
12); apparently however he suspected 
that it was some one of consequence. *O 
v/xas (as always) is God the Father. 

'Leaven' in Holy Writ 99 

y would seem to have some con- 
nexion with the foregoing 7rei#eo-#cu. But 
what ? As the word (in N.T. Scripture) 
is found only here, the meaning is of 
necessity uncertain. The proverb of v. 9 
is found also in i Cor. v. 6. It is a warning 
to beware of the ' thin end of the wedge.' 
Leaven, in Holy Writ, nearly always 
typifies some evil influence. It was 
thought by the ancients to be a process 
of corruption ; but, I take it, modern 
science would hardly regard it so. Our 
Lord applies the figure in a purely neutral 
sense to the teaching of the Pharisees. 
He called their instruction * leaven,' not so 
much, as I should hold, because it was 
' bad,' but because it was ' generative.' 
Only in His own Parables does 'leaven ' 
appear as a symbol of beneficent working ; 
and even then the point of comparison is 
not the ' goodness ' of the influence, but 
the unseen and rapid effect of it. 

The dark and ominous phrase used with 
regard to '6 Tapdcrcruv' in v. 10 I have 
interpreted in accordance with the Pauline 


ioo The Apostle charged with inconsistency 

use of Kpifjia. I don't think that there can 
be any doubt that the 'judgment' contem- 
plated is the judgment of God. With 
regard to ocrrt? a.v y one would naturally 
suggest that the ringleader might easily 
shelter himself behind the weighty name of 
James, the brother of the Lord. But, be 
he who he may be, plainly those who 
disturb the Church of God will have to 
answer for it to God. 

In the two verses that follow next 
reference is made to a malicious statement 
current in the Churches of Galatia, about 
the Apostle himself. They said that he 
himself had demonstrated in act the im- 
portance he attached to circumcision. It 
would appear that the insinuation was 
based on the fact recorded in Acts xvi. 3. 
There we read of a ' Galatian ' who was 
actually circumcised by St Paul himself, 
and that not on his first visit, but his 
second -to wit, his convert Timothy. Of 
him we read: "(Paul) took and circum- 
cised him, because of the Jews that were 
in those parts." The fact the Apostle does 

The charge refuted by facts 101 

not deny ; he does deny the inference. 
Timothy was circumcised out of a desire 
to conciliate the event showed a mistaken 
desire. As St Paul says in v. IT, the truth 
of the insinuation was disproved by the 
bitter enmity of the Circumcision Party, 
v. ii, 12. " As for me, my 

brothers, if at this time of day I am 

'preaching circumcision/ why am I 

still assailed ?" 

"It would seem the offence of the 

Cross is wholly cancelled." 

" Oh ! I could wish they did not 

stop short at circumcision these folk 

that would upset you !" 
The two en's of v. 1 1 are both idiom- 
atic : the first is as in i. 10, the other as in 
Rom. iii. 7. The apa of v. 1 1 introduces 
a false inference. It is of the nature of 
a reductio ad absurdum. The Apostle's 
steps were dogged with an absolutely 
ruthless rancour. And the objection to 
him was that he preached consistently the 
'crucified Messiah.' This (as he tells us 
in i Cor. i. 23) was an idea of horror 

IO2 A dubious form of Christianity 

to the Jews and matter for ridicule to the 
Gentiles. As long as the Apostle preached 
it, so long was it inconceivable that Jews 
would tolerate him. But, if this disturbing 
influence came from a Jewish Christian 
quarter (which indeed we must suppose), 
it is a little hard to see wherein their 
' Christianity ' consisted. One would have 
thought that if they could not accept a 
1 Messiah ' who was crucified, they would 
either have to deny the Messiahship of 
Jesus or to disbelieve in His crucifixion. 
And it is very difficult to see how they 
could do either. As for St Paul, not only 
did he believe Jesus to be Christ, although 
He was crucified, but he also based on this 
astounding fact the hope of all mankind. 
He preached * Christ crucified ' as the 
source of Sifcatocrv^ the one hope of 
man's acceptance with the All Holy. 

v. 1 2 is the sudden outburst of a pent- 
up indignation. It is like the " God shall 
smite thee, thou whited wall!" of Acts 
xxiii. 3. What it means is only too plain. 
" Utinam et abscindantur," says the steadily 

The Apostle s sudden outburst 103 

literal Vulgate. Whether that is intended 
to convey the meaning of the Greek (as 
set forth in the paraphrase) or whether it 
represents " I would they should be cut 
off," I do not know. Either rendering 
would be possible. The reference plainly 
is to those horrible self-mutilations which 
were practised, especially in honour of 
Cybele, by Asiatic votaries. The people 
of Galatia were familiar with such practices. 
The Greek (of course) means ' I wish they 
would/ not ' I wish they had.' 


(Chapter vi. 1 1 end.) 

The writer now passes for a time 
from questions of doctrine to questions of 
practical life. Freedom is of the essence 
of the Christian life, but Christian ' free- 
dom ' in accordance with the fundamental 
paradox of Christ involves (yes, even is) 

IO4 The 'products' of the flesh 

Slavery,' the slavery of love. This love 
the Galatians were very far from having 
realised. They were fighting among them- 
selves. Such contention, the Apostle ad- 
mits, is highly natural, but it is wholly 
unspiritual. One can't have it both ways. 
The 'flesh ' is one thing, the 'spirit ' another. 
To follow ' natural ' desire is to be un- 
spiritual. And it is only ' spirit life ' which 
is really free. v. 18 would seem to be 
parenthetical. It does not state the essence 
of 'spirit life,' but only a consequence 
of it. 

" And if ye are led by spirit" (says the 
Apostle) "then is there no 'law' for you." 
Where the Spirit is, Love is ; and where 
Love is, law vanishes. The last part of 
chap. v. is taken up with the list of typical 
'products' (e/>ya) of the 'flesh,' and the 
corresponding list of the things which pro- 
ceed without effort from the presence of 
the Spirit in a man. These various virtues 
and graces are denominated Kapiros. The 
latter member of v. 23 presents, in another 
form, the absolute ' freedom ' of the spirit 

and the 'fruits' of the Spirit 105 

life. "In face of these" (/cara TMV TOLOVTCM) 
" Law " (in any of its forms) " does not 

But the operation of the Spirit and its 
influence on men is not wholly automatic. 
In w. 24 and 25 we are brought up against 
the solid fact of the need of human effort. 
" If we owe our life to spirit, let our acts 
too correspond." Something like this, I 
suppose, is the meaning of v. 25. 

The sixth chapter, in its earlier portion, 
deals with mutual help in the Church, the 
need of the life of service, and, more par- 
ticularly, with the claims of generous 

The latter half of the chapter I should 
like to paraphrase. 

vi. 1 1 12. " See, with what huge 
characters I write, with my own hand ! " 

And (apparently) he writes the next 
sentence in capitals writes it himself, 
not employing, as usually, a friend as 
amanuensis : 


io6 An emphatic pronouncement 


That is to say, St Paul affirms, with all 
the emphasis he can command (typified by 
enormous letters), that the ' circumcision 
party ' were solely influenced by lack of 
moral courage. They shrank from the 
reproach of their countrymen. That was 
all. They found that if they submitted to 
circumcision, or rather persuaded others to 
submit to circumcision (for they were, ex 
hypothesi^ already circumcised themselves), 
they could disarm all Israelite enmity. 
They might believe exactly what they 
liked and teach exactly what they liked, 
provided they accepted that rite, which 
placed them under the Old Covenant. 
Their zeal for circumcision was just to 
( save their face.' They did not realise 
they shut their eyes to the fact that it 
was flat treason to the New Covenant. On 
the other hand, they did not trouble them- 
selves, nor would anyone outside trouble 
them, to keep the whole of the Law. It 

Wherein St Paul will glory 107 

was enough, for Jewish zealots, that they 
should accept the one rite that counted. 

vi. 13. " Why, not even the cir- 
cumcisers themselves trouble about 
keeping the Law. No, they want you 
circumcised that they may win glory 
for themselves over your external sub- 

" Not so I ! God forbid that I seek 
glory, save in the Cross of Our Lord 
Jesus Christ ! whereby the world is 
' crucified ' for me, and I for the 

Oi TrepiTefjLvofjievoi is St Paul's con- 
venient term (coined on true Attic 
principles) for the circumcision party. We 
are not to conclude that, so far, these weak- 
kneed brethren had prevailed in Galatia. 
They had not as yet 'Judaised' the bulk 
of the Galatian Church. Only they were 
trying hard, and the danger was imminent. 
' Glory ' was what they wanted the credit 
of standing well with men. ' Glory ' the 
Apostle also wants, but his glory stands in 
his ' shame ' the reproach of the Cross of 

io8 The only thing that matters 

Christ he has embraced with heart and 
soul. All else is dead for him (for * cruci- 
fixion ' connotes death) and he for all else. 
The two terms ' world ' and * flesh ' have, 
of course, a good deal in common. Cir- 
cumcision, in the light of the revelation of 
Christ, was 'fleshly,' was also 'worldly.' 
The Apostle would have none of it. To 
be sure, he had been circumcised : but to 
that he now attached no importance what- 
soever. So he continues : 

vi. 15. " In Christ Jesus circum- 
cision is nothing, and uncircum- 
cision is nothing. A man is a new 

As I have said already, I hold it 
probable that e^ X/HO-TW 'I^crov represents 
rot? ei> Xpicrrw 'Irjcrov. The translation of 
d\\a Kaivj) KTIO-IS is not an easy matter. 
The choice seems to be between " but a 
new creation is everything" (as in i Cor. iii. 
7) and the version I have given. The 
general effect is much the same, whichever 
we believe to be the Apostle's meaning. 
icTio-is (one would gather from 

The only true 'brother' 109 

Lightfoot's statement) is more likely to 
have reference to an individual believer, 
vi. 1 6. "And all that are going 
to walk by this standard, peace be on 
them and mercy aye, on the Israel 
of God!" 

The phrase o-roiytlv KOLVOVI appears to 
be unexampled. What is the Kava>v in 
question ? Probably ' Christ and Christ 
only.' The person St Paul regards as a 
genuine Christian, as one of the ' Israel of 
God/ is the man who has taken Christ for 
' all in all.' That is the man St Paul can 
regard as a genuine brother. 

The last /ecu (in v. 16) is a /ecu of 

The general sense of v. 17 would appear 
to be that on this point the Apostle himself 
is unassailable : it is no use troubling him. 
He is ' Christ's man ' altogether, as anyone 
can detect who sees him face to face. 
What the figure underlying the oriy/xara 
may be, it is hard to tell. I suspect tattooing 
rather than branding. It may be the thought 
of an ordinary slave, or of an hierodule, or 

no The upshot of ( Galatians' 

of a soldier that he has before him. In his 
case the marks of allegiance were somehow 
visibly stamped. Why they are called, by 
a usage far from common in St Paul, "the 
marks of Jesus " is a difficult problem. 

The brief expression of blessing in 
v. 1 8 is notable for three things ; for the 
pathetic appeal in aSeX^oi, with which it 
ends ; for the reminder in the word x<*P L< > 
of the way 8i/ccuocrw>7? comes ; and for the 
significant hint (//,era TOV irvev^aro^ vjjiatv) 
that Christianity is, in essence, an inward, 
not an outward thing. 


So ends the Epistle, which began with 
so tremendous an assertion of Apostolic 
authority (backed up by the added weight 
of " all the brethren, which are with me ") 
and an expression of deep wonderment at 
the rapid falling away of believers in Galatia 

Its Gospel centres on Christ 1 1 1 

from their one time loyalty, both to their 
own original teacher and to the one and 
only Gospel, which he brought. That 
Gospel centred, as the first few verses 
witness, in the Person of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, who "gave Himself for our sins," 
the manner of the * giving ' is undefined 
" that He might deliver ' believers ' from 
the present evil age." Its compass has 
been restated in the course of the brief 
letter. It may be well to sum up here the 
main points of that restatement. 

For Jews it amounts to this. Assuming 
that all men wish to ' right themselves,' or 
' be righted,' in the eyes of God ; they 
cannot possibly achieve this by obedience 
to the Law. The Apostle quotes Scrip- 
ture in support. Yet it may be safely said 
that no further argument is needed than 
ordinary human conscience. Those who 
have tried hardest know best the futility 
of trying. Experiment clearly demonstrates 
that the thing is impracticable. 

In chap. ii. we are merely told that 
St Paul and others, his fellows, pinned 

1 1 2 Whom the Apostle took for ( all in air 

their faith on Jesus Christ, being assured 
that only that way, by faith in Jesus Christ, 
could the condition they desired be actually 
attained. This involved for them, as Jews, 
distressful consequences. They were re- 
garded as ' renegades.' They had become 
' sinners,' like the Gentiles. As the Apostle 
parenthetically remarks, they might truly 
regard themselves as backsliders, or trans- 
gressors, if they returned to the old position 
they had given up so deliberately. As for 
St Paul he has no such intention. His 
life is a wholly new life : it is dominated 
by Christ. Even his natural relations to 
the life about him are coloured by the 
prodigious change. 

We are not very clearly told the manner 
of its coming: but it came through faith in 
Christ Christ, the Son of God, who had 
loved Paul and "given Himself up" for 
Paul. The faith has for its object not 
merely Christ, it is plain, but the Christ 
who died. Somehow we are not told 
how this ' faith ' brings new life to a 
man, begetting in him the assurance of his 

Faith alone leads to blessing 113 

acceptance with God. As for the way of 
4 law/ it is just a delusion. He who follows 
after law frustrates and nullifies the grace 
of God. It is an inconceivable thought 
that Christ should have died for nothing. 

This Gospel of acceptance with God 
through Christ alone had been preached 
before to the Galatians. But they had 
other evidence, to convince them of its 
truth, beside Apostolic affirmation. They 
had the evidence of the Spirit that 
amazing gift of God, that came to them 
through faith. It had been with them, 
as it was with Abraham ; it was faith that 
had led to blessing. The mention of 
Abraham suggests many new ideas. The 
true doctrine about Abraham is stated at 
some length ; for a good deal of Jewish 
error was associated with the Patriarch. 
First of all, it is plain that his real descend- 
ants are his 'spiritual' descendants, who 
will share his ' blessing ' thanks to the 
same means by which he won it, to wit, 
faith. As for law, no 'blessing' comes 
that way, but only a ' curse ' ; and from 

w. 8 

ii4 -AM that the Law achieved 

that curse Christ redeemed us by the sacri- 
fice of Himself. It is so that a 'blessing' 
may come upon the Gentiles (it had come 
on the Galatians), a blessing identified 
with the gift of the Holy Spirit. It cannot 
be seriously contended that the Law had 
superseded this primal Abrahamic ' Cove- 
nant.' How could it? 'Wills' and 

* Covenants ' are not so lightly superseded. 
Once made, they stand. The Abrahamic 

* Covenant ' has precedence of the Law. 
It rests on the primal promise. The Law 
cannot cancel the promise, any more than 
it can bring effective life. Yet it served 
a useful end. It defined sin ; it quickened 
conscience ; it kept Israel in safety, till 
the hour of Redemption should come. 
But its elementary character must not be 
overlooked. It belonged to 'nursery' 
days. When the Son came, ' Sonship ' 
also came ; and with Sonship the great 
appeal of the Spirit in us to the Father. 

As for the Gentiles, they of old have 
served ' gods,' that were none. Now that 
they * know ' God, what folly to return to 

Circumcision a delusion 1 1 5 

primitive discipline ! Let them recall 
with what joy they welcomed the new 
message at the first hearing, and beware 
of treacherous friends. The story of 
Isaac and Ishmael testifies to the ' free- 
dom ' that belongs to the spirit-child the 
freedom that is theirs. To hark back to 
circumcision (even for the uncircumcised 
believer the submission to circumcision is 
a real retrogression) is really to give up 
Christ. To affirm that their Apostle 
himself laid stress on circumcision, is to 
fly in the face of facts. Freedom belongs 
to those alone who follow the Spirit's 
guidance. The talk of the ' circumcision 
party ' is all delusion, and delusion prompted 
by self-seeking. It is Christ, and His 
Cross, that matter ; nothing else. The 
Apostle prays for blessing on those who 
cling to Him alone. Of his own whole- 
hearted loyalty none can doubt. 

As one peruses the Epistle, it is borne 
in on the mind that, whatever it may be, 
it is not a formal treatise. It has all the 
free discursiveness of a thoroughly natural 


1 1 6 The two great realities 

letter. Great ideas pervade it throughout ; 
but they appear to defy analysis. And 
one feels (one cannot help feeling) that 
St Paul would have been mightily sur- 
prised if he could have learned of the 
dogmatic superstructure to be afterwards 
upreared on the great ideas thrown out in 
the course of his eager writing. 

These ideas, on a broad survey, would 
appear to be chiefly two. 

Granted all would stand well with God, 
they can only attain their wish by what is 
called 'faith in Christ.' This is not very 
clearly defined, probably primarily because 
it defies all definition. From this 'faith,' 
further, flows a notable consequence, the 
gift of the Holy Spirit. 

These two fundamental realities ex- 
clude once and for all any question of 
' circumcision,' as an essential to God's 
acceptance. Christianity, so far from being 
an expanded Judaism, is a wholly different 
thing. Rightly regarded, Judaism is no 
more than an episode. As compared with 
Christianity, it is as bondage is to liberty. 

Our religions one great secret 1 1 7 

Religion began long before the Law. And 
it has found its consummation wholly apart 
from Law, or anything which partakes of 
a legal character. The whole-hearted ac- 
ceptance by man of God's gift in Jesus 
Christ is the kernel of the matter. When 
one grasps this great simplicity of teaching, 
one can easily understand the appeal the 
brief but splendid letter made to our Pro- 
testant reformers. Surely never was the 
heart of religion set forth more plainly and 
unmistakeably by any living man. It is 
the realisation of a Love, which works in 
a definite way. 



The Epistle to the Galatians I have 
taken, as it stands, without any close 
enquiry as to its circumstance and origin, 
still less as to its authenticity. So like- 
wise I propose to deal with ' Romans,' 
that longer and fuller letter, which followed 
shortly after the Asiatic one, and deve- 
loped its teaching not a little. ' Romans ' 
(I assume) was written from Corinth, where 
the Apostle was lodging with Gaius, and 
very shortly before he started on that 
journey which so dramatically ended in 
bonds and imprisonment. That is to say 
it came at the end of the period of fruitful 
ministry, mainly centred around Ephesus, 
before the opening of which the shorter 
' Galatians ' was penned. St Paul had 

How the Church at Rome came into being 1 1 9 

never been to Rome ; though he fully 
hoped to get there, before many months 
were past. He had no personal know- 
ledge of the ' Church ' in the great capital. 
His readers to-day, in like manner, are 
strangely in the dark with regard to the 
Church's origin. How the Gospel got to 
Rome, we can only guess. In all prob- 
ability, the seed of * the word * was sown 
by immigrants from Jerusalem, or by 
visitors to that city, belonging to the 
very large community of Jews who had 
settled in the metropolis. The Church was, 
therefore, originally a Church of Jewish 
believers. But we notice, with some as- 
tonishment, that when the great Apostle 
did get to Rome the Jewish leaders there 
(Acts xxviii. 17) apparently knew nothing 
about it. The little knot of Hebrew 
Christians, that is to say, was wholly 
lost in the multitude of their countrymen 
long resident at Rome. 

It is well known how hard it is to be 
sure, at any given moment or in any given 
passage, whether the Apostle is addressing 

I2O Were Jews or Gentiles preponderant? 

himself to Jews or Gentiles. That diffi- 
culty is present in * Romans,' as elsewhere. 
Whether there was a larger proportion of 
Israelites, or non- Israelites, in the little 
Church at Rome, it is very hard to settle ; 
and indeed it is useless to try. 

Zahn inclines to the belief that Jews 
preponderated. He also acutely observes 
that, though the Church was mainly 
'Jewish,' and founded, years before, by 
Palestinian Jews, yet there was to be 
detected in it no element of apostacy, or 
reversion to Judaism. St Paul did not 
write to them, because they were exposed 
to reactionary influences. He wrote rather 
to pave the way for his anticipated visit, by 
introducing to their notice both himself and 
the doctrine he taught. 

Whether Zahn is right in saying that 
Rome was, for St Paul, rather a place with 
which he must establish friendly relations 
(as a base for future Western mission 
activities) than an actual centre of work, 
I cannot tell. ' Acts ' (one would have 
been inclined to say) suggests the great 

An ambition of many years 121 

city was a goal and an end in itself. He 
had set his ambitions on it years before, 
and although his schemes expanded with 
the profuse magnificence of an Alexander 
or a Napoleon in the sphere of mundane 
conquest, yet it seems not wholly unreason- 
able to suppose he still set his heart on 
Rome, as Rome, when he wrote. 

With the question of the genuineness 
of certain sections of the letter, I am 
fortunately not concerned. All the sections 
I have to treat of come before those pass- 
ages about which there are doubts and 


The great Epistle opens with a sentence 
of what one might call ' Ephesian ' com- 
plexity. This I do not propose to render. 
I would merely like to observe that the 
mention of the ' Prophets ' and of ' Holy 
Scriptures 'in v. 2 ; together with the 
reference to Christ's ' Davidic ' descent, in 

122 'Amongst whom are ye' 

the verse that follows ; make the modern 
reader think of a Jewish-Christian com- 
munity, in the main, as the body addressed. 
Further I would like to suggest that the 
antecedent of the ' iv ots,' at the opening 
of v. 6, is to be looked for in the phrase et? 
i)7raLK07)v TTicrrew?, and not in the TTCUTI rots 
e#j>ecrii/. Here was the meeting point of all 
Christians whatsoever, Jews and Gentiles : 
they had all l heard and believed.' And, 
if it should be noticed, that St Paul here 
claims a mission to Jew as well as to 
Gentile as, for my part, I believe he 
does ; for I don't believe the eXa/3o/xei> 
covers more than just himself ; whereas in 
other places, notably in xi. 13 of this 
Epistle, he lays stress on his ' Gentile ' 
apostolate the natural answer is, that 
wherever he went and preached, he always 
addressed himself to his fellow countrymen 
first. The fact is, his Gentile mission did 
not exclude the faithful following of Christ's 
precept ' Israel first ' wherever occasion 
arose, in an unevangelised district. Even 
at Rome itself the Apostle at once 

The Roman Church plainly orthodox 123 

established relations with the Jewish leaders, 
and earnestly spoke to them of Israel's 
hope. For why ? They were out of 
touch with all Christian influences alto- 
gether beyond the reach of the members of 
the small and obscure community, which 
(all unknown to them) had arisen in the 
ranks of their Roman co-religionists. In 
v. 7 iraa-i rots oucrtz/ may be taken to refer 
to a body, which has in it more elements 
than one. If Jews predominate, there are 
Gentile * brethren ' too. 

The next paragraph (w. 8 16) tells us 
a good many things of considerable interest. 
The first verse, with its thanksgiving for 
the world-wide proclamation of their faith, 
would seem to have in it something of 
loving exaggeration. But at least it does 
contain a striking testimony to ' Roman ' 
orthodoxy. Whether the Church were 
large or small, it was certainly sound and 
loyal. The next two verses set forth the 
attitude of the writer to this distant, un- 
visited Church. He prays for them 
'unceasingly,' and especially for this, that 

124 St Paul's yearning to visit them 

"at last" (7787; TTOT^), by the Will of God, 
a way may be found for him to come to 
them. Rome had been for many a year 
the goal of his ambitions. But he does 
not say so here. It is not Rome that he 
is thinking of; it is the Church at Rome. 
It is to them his heart goes out. Doubt- 
less he would have loved to have been 
allowed to have brought the Gospel to the 
capital ; as he had taken it already to 
Ephesus and to Corinth. In this he had 
been forestalled, probably by years and 
years. Yet even so it was not wholly 
beyond his power to help the growing 
Church : for it had never been privileged 
to welcome an ' Apostle.' Still he mentions 
the possibility with characteristic caution. 
"/ long (he cries) to see you " observe, he 
does not claim that this ' longing ' is a 
matter of years : the 77877 TTOTC refers to the 
old long-cherished ambition to visit Rome : 
the desire to visit them is altogether a later 
born longing " to the end I may impart 
to you some spiritual endowment, for your 
confirming." So far the words imply that 

that he might enrich the Church 125 

he will be the giver and they the recipi- 
ents. A natural Christian humility, coupled 
with a reasonable desire to conciliate a 
body, which (maybe) had never heard of 
him and certainly did not know him as he 
was know r n in Galatia and Macedonia, in 
Greece and in 'Asia,' leads him to qualify 
this very decisive statement. The ' giving ' 
is not to be all on one side. He, in the 
plenitude of Apostolic endowment, can 
help them, as none other, not being an 
Apostle. But they can help him too, in 
a very human way, by the sympathy and 
encouragement that spring from a common 
faith. Moreover he cannot conceal (what- 
ever may be the requirements of Christian 
courtesy and even of Christian prudence) 
his very eager desire to help forward the 
Church at Rome, not only in the direction 
of strengthening its members, but also by 
the gathering in of large numbers of new 
converts. For that is his foremost duty 
and therein lies his special capacity. 

i. 13 17. "I want you to know, 
my brothers, that often I have purposed 

126 '/ am not ashamed of the Gospel* 

to come to you (though up till now 
without success) that I might get 
some fruit amongst you too " (that is, 
I presume, in Rome) " as I have 
amongst other nations"- we are not 
called upon to emphasise the definite 
article before 'other nations.' 
At this point the whole eagerness of 
his missionary heart flashes forth : 

" To Greeks and to non-Greeks 
to educated and uneducated, I have 
a duty." 

" So, as far as lies with me, I am 
eager to preach the Gospel to you 
too, that are in Rome." 

" Oh ! I am not ashamed of the 
Gospel. It is a power of God, issuing 
in 'salvation,' for everyone that be- 
lieves ; for Jew first, but for Gentile 

"In it there is revealed a God- 
appointed 'righteousness,' springing 
from faith and leading to faith as it 
(Hab.u.4.) stands written, The righteous shall 
live by faith'' 

A worldwide duty 127 

It is characteristic of the Pauline 
method that in this short passage we 
should have the word ' Greek ' employed in 
two different senses. In v. 16, as in 'Acts ' 
not infrequently, it probably means ' non- 
Jew ' a singular tribute to the range of 
Greek speech and Greek habit, from Rome 
to the Euphrates. The fiapftdpoLs of v. 14 
makes it equally certain that it is the 
' Greek,' in a narrower sense, who is there 
in view, the ' Greek ' of Hellenic culture, if 
not of Hellenic birth. The cro<ots re /ecu 
aVo^'rots (for the two phrases appear iden- 
tical) seems to imply that he is thinking, 
not so much of Hellenic blood, as of 
Hellenic modes of thought and Hellenic 
civilisation. On the other hand, it is 
arguable that the words are used (in v. 14) 
in their strict and classical sense. Then 
the whole double phrase would mean, 
" I have a duty to discharge for men of 
every race, whether learned or unlearned." 
It is the same spirit which in a later age 
possessed the soul of John Wesley. All 
races, all sorts and conditions of men, have 

128 Why he might feel 'ashamed' 

a claim on the Apostle's great heart. He 
has room for the people of Rome as well 
as for all the rest. In his eagerness to say 
it, he wholly disregards the niceties of 
grammar. To /car' e/ie irpoOvpov undeniably 
presents a very awkward brachylogy. It 
would appear to mean, "I, to the best of 
my powers, am ready." 

In v. 1 6 we must note a curious indi- 
cation of the pain which was caused St 
Paul by the incessant and ruthless attacks 
of those who called him * renegade.' " I 
am not ashamed " he cries. Why should 
he speak of ' shame ' ? Plainly, because he 
was ever being held up to Jewish oppro- 
brium. However loyal his heart might be 
to his Lord and Master, he could not 
escape the anguish which came from those 
ceaseless attacks. There was only one 
cure for it, to make up his brave heart 
to 'glory' in his 'shame.' This he does 
in Galatians ; and this he does also here. 
In the latter part of the verse, though the 
construction of the words is not after the 
classical model, Su^a/xt? cow et? 

'A righteousness of God' 129 

should be regarded as one compound ex- 
pression. It means a power heaven sent, 
heaven ordained, issuing in crwr^pta. 
Whether cram^ia should be taken in a 
strictly theological sense, or in the broader 
sense of ' wealth,' * well-being ' (as fre- 
quently in the KOLVTJ), it is difficult to say. 
There is a certain attractiveness in the 
meaning 'eternal weal/ in this particular 
connexion. On the other hand v. 17 
rather points to the stricter sense, and 
possibly even more so v. 18. 

The TTpMTov is eminently puzzling. The 
Jew has a right of priority, but otherwise 
no pre-eminence, in regard to the Gospel 
message. Therefore it would appear that 
the meaning must be temporal. But it 
cannot be maintained that it is phrased in 
a natural way, if it means what I have set 
down above in paraphrase. 

* ' A righteousness of God " must ( I think) 
be technical. Plainly, from the words that 
follow, this ' righteousness ' is a thing God 
appoints and man enjoys. We have nothing 
here to do with the ' righteousness,' which 

\v. 9 

1 30 Faith first and last and everywhere 

is God's. For this ' righteousness ' rests 
on ' faith.' We must then assume that it 
means a way of attaining God's favour, of 
'standing well ' with Him. The preposi- 
tional phrases coupled with it, much as ets 
orajTrjpLav above, are very loosely attached. 
e Such as rests on faith, leads to faith ' 
would seem to be their meaning. The 
former statement one would expect : for 
* faith ' and SLKcuoa-uvr) are normally coupled 
together, as cause and effect. But what 
are we to say about the " ets TTLO-TLV " ? The 
words appear to be linked with the fore- 
going e/c TucrTews, which is essential to the 
argument, by way of heightening and 
emphasis. Faith is first and faith is last, 
and faith is everywhere, as a means to 

The quotation from Habakkuk is found 
also in Galatians iii. n. It is employed 
there as an argument to establish the 
impossibility of attaining to God's favour 
by the aid of ' Law.' What I would wish 
to say about it has been said in that 

A revelation of wrath 131 


In the former of the two Epistles, in 
which 'justification' was regarded from 
a somewhat narrower standpoint, there 
was no development of any doctrine of 
Sin. In the section that follows here we 
find such a doctrine. The Gospel reveals 
to men the method of redemption, the 
means whereby they shall be ' righted ' 
with God. Corresponding to this revela- 
tion there is another. We read of it in 
the next verse. This second " is revealed" 
is not precisely the same (in regard to 
grammatical value) as the other in the 
verse above. The Gospel is a new thing : 
the revelation it embodies is likewise new. 
That other revelation of the " Wrath of 
God " is no new thing. It has been going 
on through the ages, though all have 
not had skill to read its teachings. The 
enlightened Christian can. Even the 
enlightened heathen is not without some 
power to "discern the signs of the times." 


132 1 A wrath of God from heaven' 

i. 1 8. "For there is revealed a 
wrath of God from heaven, on all 
impiety and wickedness of men...." 
The prepositional qualification eVl 
Trao-av dcrtfieiav undoubtedly belongs to 
the o/oy*) o>, and not to the o/Tro/ca- 
XuTTTercu. It follows, in my opinion, that 
cur' ovpavov does too. Heaven is the 
source of the 6/077;, and not of the revela- 
tion. That opyrf is directed against human 
wickedness in fullest comprehensiveness. 
The clause, which completes the sentence, 
is of singular obscurity. It sets forth the 
condemnation of mankind as a whole. 
I would paraphrase 

v. 1 8 (continued). " ...that check 

the truth of God by wicked ways." 

Of the two senses of /care^et^ ('hold 

fast ' and ' hold down '), the latter alone is 

possible. " God's truth " cannot be * held ' 

by men that are wicked at all. They 

have it indeed potentially : but that is not 

/careen/, in the former of its two senses. 

*Ev aSi/aa is probably instrumental : yet 

it might be equivalent to 'being in 

The worlds ignorance inexcusable 133 

wickedness.' In any case the sense is 
the same. " God's truth " -His Revelation 
of Himself in His wonderful works by 
rights should make headway. But it does 
not do so men will not allow it. 

i. 19, 20. "For what can be 
known of God is plain, and they can 
read it. For He has made it plain 
to them. For the things the eye 
cannot see of Him, His everlasting 
Power and Godhead, are plainly seen 
and discerned by the works of His 
hands, since the creation of the world. 
So that they are without excuse." 
Here yvcoo-Tov might be ' known ' : but 
it probably is ' knowable.' "The know- 
able of God " is, so much of God as may 
be known, or apprehended, by men. 'Ev 
aurots (as S. observes) is as the eV e/ioi of 
Gal. i. 1 6. The use appears to be of 
Hebrew origin : eV avrois means little more 
than the simple dative. In v. 20 "GOTO 
/m'crews /cdcr/iov " is plainly a phrase of 
time. Where it belongs it is hard to say. 
It is conceivable the meaning may be, 

134 ' There is a Book who runs may read' 

" what the eye has not been able to see 
since the world began." Yet it is every 
bit as likely that the temporal clause 
attaches to the words that follow. Ever 
since there has been a world, the eye of 
the thoughtful mind has been in a position 
to read the teachings conveyed in that 
Book the which ' who runs may read.' 
However i/oov/^e^a. KaOoparai expresses 
rather a potentiality than an actual fact. 
For the bulk of men it is true, they might 
have known, but they did not. The evi- 
dence was plain ; but they failed to read 
it. The writer goes further here than he 
did when he spoke at Athens (Acts xvii. 
22 31). The passages should be com- 
pared. Verses 30 and 31 there suggest 
that the * revelation ' of ' the Wrath ' may 
not be as I have said, a revelation of the 
centuries ; but a revelation of the ' now ' 
(compare Acts xvii. 30). If so, the two 
aTTo/caXvTrrerat's are precisely parallel. The 
world will be judged anon : the * Wrath ' 
will fall : but whoso has attained to 
' righteousness ' by faith will escape the 

Idolatry the mother of vice 135 

impending doom. For, while a 'wrath' 
is unveiled, there is also further unveiled 
a way of escape from it. 

We cannot pursue, in detail, all St Paul 
has to say about the way of human sin. 
But the gist of the matter is this. Un- 
worthy conceptions of God, whose nature 
should have been known and here, 
though much of modern thought will not 
find itself in sympathy everywhere with 
Pauline exposition, most thinking men 
would agree with him unworthy concep- 
tions of God brought in their train a series 
of dire consequences. The first of these 
is idolatry. And, as ' the reward of a pre- 
cept is a precept/ so is the reward of error 
further error. Wrong thought leads on 
inevitably (so is the Will of God) to 
wrongful action. So idolatry became the 
fruitful mother of vice. And history is 
witness to the truth of what is said by the 
Apostolic writer. The more we know of 
idolatrous worship, the more we realise 
how hopelessly it was entangled with 
myriad immoralities. Prostitution and 

136 The results of the 'reprobate mind' 

sodomy were two of its necessary con- 
sequences. Because men refused to know 
God (v . 28) their whole ideas of life became 
utterly corrupt. They were 'delivered,' 
in the Apostle's language, to a 'reprobate 
mind.' The inevitable sequel is that cata- 
logue of sins which occupies four whole 
verses. And all the time men knew that 
they were utterly wrong. But they were 
obstinate in error. Not only did they do 
wrong, but they also acquiesced, even 
cheerfully acquiesced, in the wrongdoing 
of others. 

In the whole of this dismal indictment, 
there are two phrases which chiefly grip 
the mind of the modern student and set 
him wondering. The first is the yz/oi/re? 
rov eoi> of v. 21 : the other the striking 
statement contained in the earlier part of 
the verse which closes the chapter. What 
shall we say of them ? 

The yi/oi/res TOV Seov appears of the 
nature of a paradox. It seems indeed to 
state what might have been, what should 
have been, as if it actually were. Yet, for 

'Knowing' and yet 'not knowing' 137 

the mind of the ancient world, the existence 
of a god (or gods) was axiomatic. They 
'knew'; yet they did not 'know.' Had 
they read Nature's book aright, St Paul 
implies, they must have known. That 
they failed to read it so, brought inevitable 
punishment. Yet, all the same, we are 
puzzled by the directness of this y^oz/res. 

The other ' hard saying ' I must para- 
phrase : 

" People who, recognising God's 

decree, that they who act in such 

ways are deserving of death, not only 

do the things, but go heart and soul 

also with them that do them." 

The word " Si/cauy/xa " here means 'that 

which one thinks right.' In viii. 4 will be 

found a partially similar usage. Between 

the Troieu' and the Trpdo-creiv I doubt if it be 

desirable to draw any strict distinction (as 

is done by many commentators). It is 

the closing words of the sentence which 

make such distinction unlikely. But, what 

of the eTrLyvovTes ? where, when and how 

did they ' recognise ' it ? Perhaps we ought 

138 Neither does the Jew escape 

to conclude that St Paul is appealing here 
to the universal conscience. This ' con- 
science' is, for him, the revelation of the 
i/ecua>/jia of God. For them maybe it was 
not : but none the less it existed. Wrong- 
doing they knew as wrongdoing. They 
could not pretend they did not. And 
wrongdoing called for punishment ; called 
for the retribution of death. Notwithstand- 
ing, there will never be a full realisation of 
sin, till the Being of God is grasped to an 
adequate degree. 


Up till now the writer has been drawing 
a picture of the sinfulness that prevails in 
the Gentile world. But the Jew is not to 
escape his ruthless analysis. His turn is 
coming. When precisely he appears upon 
the scene it is a little hard to say. The 
matter is handled indeed with very great 
skill and delicacy. Only we feel sure of 
this, that the Jew is present in thought 

'Judging' essentially Jewish 139 

some time before he appears in unmistake- 
able black and white. It is not till v. 17 
of the second chapter that he is directly 
addressed. But from the moment when 
'judgment ' is mentioned (human judgment 
of human conduct), and that is in v. i, we 
feel certain that the writer is thinking of 
his countrymen. For Israel was a very 
stern critic of heathen morality, and 
many heathen practices were positively 
abhorrent to the law-instructed Israelite. 
We may feel fairly certain that, when 
the Apostle apostrophises avOpwTre 770,9 6 
KplvfDv (ii. i), his thought is in transition 
from Gentile to Jewish sinfulness. The 
Gentile's normal attitude towards human 
frailty is complacent toleration (crvvtv- 
So/ceu>); it is the Jew who 'judges.' In i. 20 
it was laid down that the Gentile world, in 
general, is inexcusable. Now we are told 
that all who 'judge' are also inexcusable. 
For 'judge' and 'judged' are alike all 
partakers in the same ill-doing. In v. 2 it 
is laid down that God's judgment is in all 
cases ' in accordance with the facts ' /car* 

140 There may be a righteous remnant 

certainly means " corresponding 
to reality." The same teaching is re- 
peated lower down, in v. 6, where it says 
that " God shall render to each man in 
accordance with his doings." In the verses 
that come between it is assumed that all 
are wrongdoers ; that all presume alike 
upon God's patience and forbearance. Or, 
maybe, we should not say ' all.' For in 
the verses that follow, rather to the reader's 
surprise, it is suggested that there are, who 
will win " eternal life," because they set 
themselves to the splendid quest after 
"glory and honour and immortality" 
(a<0ayocrtaz>), /ca0* VTTOfJLOvrjv epyov dya0ov, 
" by resolute persistence in good doing." 
Now this statement would be less surpris- 
ing, did it apply to Gentiles only. But it is 
plainly stated, it does not : it covers both 
Jew and Gentile (vv. 7 10). In this regard 
all stand upon one footing, " for with God 
there is no respect for outward circum- 
stance" (v. n). 

But it would appear that for the Jew 
7) epyov ayaOov, though conceivable 

The children of Law and of no Law 141 

in thought, is incapable of realisation in 
actual practice. So declare the verses that 
follow, especially v. 13. 

ii. 12 1 6. "For all that have 
sinned without Law, without Law 
shall also perish. And all that have 
sinned within Law, by Law shall have 
their judgment. For not the hearers 
of Law are ' right ' in the eyes of 
God. No ! it is the doers of Law 
that shall be set right with Him." 

" For whenever Gentile folks, that 
have not Law, do naturally what Law 
bids ; these, though they have no Law, 
are a Law for themselves. They 
display the effect of Law engraved 
upon their hearts. Their conscience 
bears them witness. Their thoughts, 
in inner conclave, accuse them or 
(maybe) defend them...(/0r so surely 
it shall be] in the day when God shall 
judge the world, as I state it in my 

preaching, by the agency of Christ 


In perusing this striking passage, the 

142 'Judgment' a necessary dogma 

reader cannot but feel that the hope of 
attaining God's favour, by * resolute well 
doing,' is a very shadowy one. For Jews 
it fades away, all but entirely ; for Gentiles 
it becomes exceedingly faint. ' Self-con- 
demnation ' (v. 15) is plainly the normal 
lot, even of the virtuous Gentile. His own 
'self-knowledge' judges him; for 'con- 
science,' it is well known, in Pauline 
writings is a narrower faculty than in 
ordinary modern speech. It judges a 
man while he lives ; and further, when he 
is passed to his great account, it will judge 
him his * thoughts ' will judge him (for 
the XoyKr/Aoi are elements in the crvv- 
ei'S^cris) when he stands before Christ's 
Tribunal. This teaching of impending 
'judgment' (compare, once again, the 
speech at Athens), St Paul says, is a 
regular feature in the 'good tidings' as 
he tells them. 

In v. 12 avop&s is curiously used. It 
must stand for ' outside Law,' a phrase 
meant to cover all Gentiles. The anti- 
thesis makes this inevitable. 'Ez/ vopto (in 

'A Law to themselves' 143 

spite of the absence of any definite article 
and that need not at all surprise us, for 
it is wholly in keeping with well-attested 
classical usage) equally certainly covers 
Jews. The statement in v. 13 ("but it is 
the doers of the Law that shall be righted") 
is, for all intents and purposes, a citation 
of Holy writ. It is plainly equivalent to 
that saying of Leviticus (xviii. 5), which is 
referred to in x. 5, as also in Galatians. 
What is said in w. 14 and 15 has often 
proved a stumbling block to Christian theo- 
logians. S. says that in the Talmud is ' no 
such liberal teaching.' 'Eaurots etcrt 1/6/109 
is curiously hard to render, so as to convey 
the proper meaning. Perhaps we might 
venture upon, "these, having not a Law, 
are their own Law " ; that is, they do with- 
out one. The figure in v. 15 is, as Pauline 
figures often are, confused and baffling. 
The conception of a Law ' in the heart,' or 
' written on the heart,' is, of course, familiar 
' O. T.' But here it is not the 'Law' which 
is graven upon the heart. It is the cpyoi/ 
of the Law, a very different matter. Now 

144 Two statements in one 

the * tpyov of the Law ' would possibly 
mean, that which the Law bids be done ; 
though it is not beyond the power of 
grammatical pedantry to vow that should 
rather be e/oya. I have ventured to say 
'effect,' taking epyov in the sense of 
' product.' My own idea would be that 
the Apostolic writer is saying two things 
at once. It might be said of these people 
that * they display the Law written on their 
hearts ' ; or, again, it might be said of 
them, that ' they display the effect of Law 
in their daily conduct.' What St Paul does 
actually say is, I believe, a combination of 
these two, or of two similar statements. In 
any case the ' figuration ' (one has to coin 
the word) changes in v. 15 with wonderful 
rapidity. We have barely grasped the 
idea of the Law which is 'on the heart,' 
before we find ourselves transported to 
the Court in permanent session within the 
virtuous man. And even here the figure 
is not very easy to grasp. For it too 
shifts and varies with kaleidoscopic swift- 
ness. First the man sits in judgment 

A kaleidoscopic picture 145 

himself, with ' self-knowledge ' for friendly 
witness. Anon the picture is more defined. 
Conscience becomes the judge ; some 
4 thoughts ' appear as accusers, and some 
as defenders. And then, before we can 
visualise the picture set before us, the 
whole judgment is transferred to the great 
Hereafter. Christ it is who sits supreme ; 
the man is standing before Him ; and his 
own ' conscience ' is pleading for him or 
alas ! more often condemning him. And 
thereby a light is thrown on processes of 
judgment, which is full of instructive signifi- 
cance for any one who reads. This trans- 
ference of the moral audit, from the man's 
own heart to heaven, is so exceedingly 
abrupt that the translator is almost forced 
to fill in the details of the sentence. I have 
done this (with the words in italics) in the 
course of my paraphrase. 

And now the Jew is confronted de- 
cisively and definitely. He is 'shown up' 
to himself. Yet even here * circumcision/ 
which the normal Jewish teacher regarded 
as an absolute sine qua non, is kept well 

w. 10 

146 The Jew definitely confronted 

in the background. And, of course, it was 
on this that the hard-fought controversy, 
which embittered the Apostle's life, pre- 
eminently turned. However the voice of 
this strife had not been heard in Rome. 
Accordingly the writer happily found him- 
self in a position to develope what he had 
to say in the order which best pleased 

ii. 17 20. "And if you, sir, call 
yourself * Jew/ and rest upon the Law, 
and glory in God, and can read the 
(heavenly) will, and pursue the loftiest, 
thanks to Law's most plain instruc- 
tions ; and are confident about your- 
self, that you are a leader of the blind, 
a light of people in darkness, an in- 
structor of the foolish, a teacher of 
the childish, because in the Law you 
have a power of shaping knowledge 
and (attaining to) God's Truth...." 
Here we have the Jewish position as 
the Jew thought of himself, contrasted with 
the unenlightened Gentile very clearly 
set before us. Two facts, above all, stand 

A potentiality of godliness 147 

out. God, the supreme Creator of Heaven 
and Earth, is in a peculiar sense the God 
of Israel. He is 'our God and the God 
of our fathers.' Moreover the Israelite 
has a priceless heritage in the possession 
of the Law of Moses. This gives him an 
unique standing. All other men, by con- 
trast, are ' blind,' are ' in the dark,' are 
' fools ' (a Stoical term, from the School 
of Tarsus), are ' infants/ By the study of 
the Law (and in it he has been very soundly 
drilled) he can attain to real ' knowledge ' ; 
he can realise God's ' Truth.' 

And here, by the way, we should notice 
the exact force of "/xo'/o<a)crii>." It is not 
the p.op<f)TJ of knowledge the Law provides. 
It is not a solid fact, but a potentiality. 
Those very unhappy backsliders, of whom 
we read in 2 Timothy, possessed a /io/3- (2 Tim. 
<wcr<,9 of Godliness, but of Godliness they 1 " 
had none. They failed to actualise it. 
Here the Israelite apostrophised claims 
that he has the 'key of knowledge,' and 
does not let it rust unused. 

But the stern Apostle affirms that his 

10 2 

1 48 * Dost thoii commit sacrilege ? ' 

practice is not as his preaching. He 
teaches other people, but he fails to teach 
himself. It is as it always has been. The 
Name of Israel's God is dishonoured among 
(isai. in. 5 the nations, through the fault of His own 



One phrase in this indictment is per- 
plexing to the reader. It is the latter 
part of v. 22, "You, who abominate idols, 
are you a despoiler of temples ? " In what 
sense, the reader asks himself, could a Jew 
be a 'robber of temples'? Anything that 
had even remotely to do with an idol 
temple was considered ' abomination.' To 
have anything to do with such (and we 
know, from early Christian experience, 
what difficulties were involved, in the 
avoidance of idol-contact) might be classed 
as iepoo-vXelv. At least, so we may suppose. 
One finds it hard to believe that a normal, 
respectable Jew would pilfer from heathen 
shrines. But then, it might be urged, 
neither would he steal. 

And now, for the first time, comes 
mention of circumcision. 

'Circumcision becomes ' uncircumciswn 149 

ii. 25 27. " Circumcision is of 
service, provided you keep the Law. 
But if you transgress the Law your 
circumcision becomes ipso facto un- 
circumcision. If then an uncircumised 
person shall zealously observe the 
requirements of Law, will not his 
uncircumcision be reckoned as circum- 
cision ? and accordingly Uncircum- 
cision, born so, because it achieves 
the Law, judge you, who transgress 
the Law with the letter and circum- 
cision ? " 

In these verses there is no difficulty, 
though there are interesting points of 
grammar. For instance, one asks oneself, 
is ^there any significance in the variation 
of phrasing, as between VO^LOV Trpdcrarrjs 
and Trapa/Sdrr}? vopov 175 ? The combina- 
tion (in v. 26) of r) aKpo/Bvo-Tia with rj 
aKpofivcTTLa cLVTov is also remarkable. One 
would have expected the abstract, so used, 
to have stood for a plural noun, instead of 
for one person. 'E/c <ucrea>9 (in v. 27) appears 
to be temporal, and mean " from birth." 

150 The ' outward' Jew 

The Sia, in the closing words, is of the 
' circumstantial' variety. In translation it 
needs some expansion, for it represents 
all this ; ' though you possess the command- 
ments in black and white, and have been 
circumcised.' In v. 26 I have omitted to 
say that the second definite article in rot 
Stfcaiw/xara rou z/o/xou need not reappear in 
English. It may be either "of the Law," 
or simply "of Law." In Greek the article 
could not have been omitted. 

In the last two verses of the chapter 
we have an idea brought forward, which re- 
appears in chap. ix. The sentence is highly 
elliptical, and it is by no means certain 
how it ought to be expanded in English 
reproduction. I should deal with it as 
follows : 

ii. 28, 29. " For it is not the out- 
ward Jew" 'ostensible' and 'pal- 
pable' seem, both of them, impossible 
"that is a Jew; nor the outward, 
material circumcision, that is circum- 
cision. No! it is the inward Jew, 
that is a Jew ; and the heart has a 

and the ' inward ' Jew 151 

circumcisipn a circumcision spiritual, 
not literal. His praise comes not of 
men ; it comes of God." 
In Jeremiah (ix. 26) and in Deuteronomy 
(x. 1 6) this conception of the 'inward' 
circumcision may be found. It is worth 
noting how St Paul almost invariably 
avoids a perfectly balanced antithesis. As 
far as the second 'lovScuos; the sentence, 
though elliptical, maintains a proper 
balance. Then the order is disturbed. 
Why Trveu/xart has an ei/, and yyoa/A/ma/n, 
not, it would be difficult to say. Possibly 
the writer shrank from an unsupported 
TrvevfjLaTL, but did not feel the need of 
repeating the preposition. What is the 
antecedent of oS ? One would have ex- 
pected the feminine gender. It is just 
conceivable that the masculine (for it pro- 
bably is masculine] was called for by the 
fact that the very name 'Jew' ('lovSatos) 
has a connexion with the word for " praise." 
However, that may be a mere coincidence. 
At this point comes a digression. The 
Jew is so convinced of his privileged 

152 The Circumcisions advantage 

position, so utterly sure of himself as the 
favoured son of God, that St Paul feels 
called upon to meet an inevitable (though 
unformulated) objection. 

iii. i, 2. " Where then is the Jew's 
superiority ? or, where is the advantage 
which belongs to the Circumcision ? 
There is much, in every way. To 
begin with, they were entrusted with 
the oracles of God...." 
To Tre/HcrcroV is equivalent, I think, to 
an abstract noun, literally " the 'over and 
above '-ness." The 'Circumcision,' in the 
second question, means the whole of the 
Jewish people. It might be taken, of 
course, as signifying, ' Where is the use of 
being circumcised ? ' But the other seems 
to me preferable. For, although the ques- 
tion is put twice, it is really only one 
question. The supposed objector cries, 
What is the good of being a Jew, if what 
you say is correct ? The answer comes, 
There is much good ! The superiority is 
palpable ; it is also manifold. The writer 
makes as though he would enumerate 

A sudden digression 153 

various points in which Israel is highly 
favoured. But he only mentions one. 
Others he might have mentioned will be 
found in chap. ix. Then, he suddenly 
breaks off, in a very perplexing manner. 
His tendency to fly off, as it were, at a 
tangent is well known to all commentators. 
But generally it is more easy to see what 
diverted his thoughts than it is in the 
passage before us. Anyhow w. 3 9 are 
a digression in a digression and a digres- 
sion so far-fetched, that one is almost 
tempted to wonder whether the section 
can be misplaced. Yet that is made 
unlikely by the undoubted fact of the 
break. The expected enumeration never 

For the rest, what can we say, unless 
that the thought of 'trust/ contained in 
eVioTeu#7?o-cu/, instantaneously calls up the 
thought of the people's untrustworthiness ? 
To have been * entrusted ' with the Law, 
and with the Prophets, was indeed a sub- 
stantial privilege, though it was only one of 
several. And how did Israel respond? 

154 Israel's untrustworthiness 

Was he loyal ? was he trustworthy ? Did 
his ' faithfulness ' in any sense answer 
to the ' faithfulness ' of his God ? Alas ! 
the record of history is all to the contrary. 
The story of Israel is a story of trust 
unjustified, of love Divine betrayed. But 
it is not merely this the Apostle says. If 
it were we should follow the thought with 
less of hesitation. He passes, with light- 
ning rapidity, from one consideration to 
another. He answers thoughts of his own 
and unexpressed objections of an imagined 
opponent in controversy. The effect is 
bewildering to the modern reader. How- 
ever, let us take it as it stands. 

iii. 3, 4. "Why! Suppose that 
some were faithless ; will their un- 
faithfulness annul the faith of God ? " 
(The "faith of God," obviously, can only 
mean one thing, His being true to Himself 
and true to His promises.) 

" Of course, of course, it cannot ! 
Nay, let God be proved true, though 
every man be a liar : as it stands in 
Holy Writ, That Thou may st be proved 

and the faithfulness of God 155 

right in Thy pleadings, and prevail 

when on Thy trial!' 
In this citation from the Psalm (in 
which the writer follows the LXX varia- 
tions from the Hebrew for Professor 
Cheyne renders that thou mightest be justi- 
fied when thou speakest, be clear when thou 
judges?) St Paul regards the Most High as 
Himself before a tribunal, and amply vindi- 
cated. The Hebrew presents us with a 
very different picture. There mans sin is 
so palpable, so undisguised, so freely ad- 
mitted ; that the sentence passed by God, 
the Great Judge of all, however heavy it 
be, can only be accepted as altogether 
justified. The Septuagint translators may 
have meant to employ a deponent. But if 
they so intended, St Paul disregards their 
intention ; thus attaching to their words a 
wider range of meaning, and, for the 
moment, dissevering them from the context, 
in which we find them. As here quoted 
they have the sense : what God says is 
always right ; whenever His acts are ques- 
tioned they are found beyond all question. 

156 Evil not to be a means to good 

Next it would seem, we must suppose, 
this unchallenged eternal ' Rightness ' is 
disputed on the subtle ground that if our 
( wrongness ' establishes God's ' Tightness ' 
it cannot be just and equitable that He 
should punish us. But this contention 
receives short shrift and sharp. It is 
Cf. Gen. simply inconceivable that the Judge of all 
the Earth should not do right. Yet it 
crops up once again, in prompt restatement 
(v. 7) in a form amazingly involved ; only 
to be repudiated in the grim and stern 
pronouncement " Whose condemnation is 

Before the passage is left, let me give a 
paraphrase of it. 

iii. 5 8. " But if our wickedness 
establishes God's righteousness, what 
are we to say ? Can it be I speak 
as a man that God, who inflicts on 
us His wrath, is dealing unjustly ? 
Never! If that were so, how is He 
to judge the world ? If the truthful- 
ness of God redounded through my 
lie, why, that being so, am I judged 

Blasphemers sharply condemned 157 

as a sinner ? Moreover, why should 
we not cry ; as they malign us, aye, 
some aver we say; Let us do evil that 
good may come of it ? The condem- 
nation of such talk is just." 
The last sentence here in the text is 
formed very irregularly. A ri must be 
supplied, but also a Xeyoj/xei/. The latter 
has been absorbed in the Aeyei*' dependent 
on <acri. Furthermore the very thing, 
which we ask if we are to say, stands as a 
dependent clause in construction with the 
<t>aa-L Such irregularities are found in 
classical writers, but hardly in a form so 
intricate and complex as this we have 
before us. 

There is nothing more I can say about 
the section. I have done the best I can to 
give a definite meaning to a sentence such 
as fills the most courageous interpreter with 
a sinking of the heart. 

158 All alike guilty 


The digression into which we plunged 
at the end of v. 2, and the train of specula- 
tion that it brought, are now a thing of the 
past. We return to the main argument, 
leading on to the conclusion that all the 
world alike is hopelessly involved in sin. 
In the case of the Gentiles, the fact is 
beyond dispute. Israel too, in spite of his 
privileged position, is really in no better 
case. So we now proceed to show. Verse 
9 (as it happens) contains a curious problem 
of vocabulary. \Vhat is the meaning of 
77y>oexo//.e0a ? Looking at the sentence in 
general one notes that excellent sense 
would be made if Trpoe^o^Oa should mean 
either 'are we better off than they,' or 'are 
they better off than we'; either 'have they 
the advantage of us/ or, ' have we the 
advantage of them.' Whichever the ques- 
tion may be, the answer is ' not at all.' 
I think that stands out clearly. But how 
shall we decide ? All classical students 

' Better off' or ' worse off' which? 159 

know that certain compounds of e^o) are 
used in the active voice with a neuter 
sense. This is the case with /care^e^, 
aveytw and irpoextiv. Our own ' hold ' 
supplies in English an obvious illustration. 
Upoe^eLv in the active means to 'jut out' 
(of headlands), and then generally to ' be in 
advance,' to ' be superior.' Can the middle 
have a similar meaning? There is no 
evidence whatever to show it. Ilpoe^ecr^at 
(passive) exists in Plutarch (only I cannot 
trace the reference) with the meaning ' be 
exalted.' The Greek O.T. affords us no 
aid. The word, in any case, occurs only 
once and then it would appear that TT/DOO-- 
e'xu>, rather than Trpotyeiv, is the reading to 
be followed (Job xxvii. 6). The fact is, 
we must wait till some fortunate exhumed 
sherd, or strip of papyrus, from the ran- 
sacked dustheaps of Egypt comes to throw 
new light upon it. Harking back to w. i 
and 2, I feel certain that the sense required 
is, "are we in better case?" That is, to 
be sure, precisely what the ordinary Jew be- 
lieved with fervency of devotion ; precisely 

1 60 No advantage herein for the Jew 

what St Paul was minded to contest. 
Therefore (even in the absence of all 
evidence for such a meaning) I make bold 
to believe it is right. It is, no doubt, a 
term of common speech, involving some 
metaphor not easy to discern. There are 
plenty of such usages to be found in every 
language. It is on the racecourse, or the 
drillground, or the rialto, one has to look 
for their primal origin. 

iii. 9. " How then ? Are we in 
better case than they ? Not one whit ! 
We have already charged both Jews 
and Gentiles, all of them, with being 
under sin ; as Holy Scripture says... " 
In i. 21, we were told that the heathen 
are * without excuse ' ; and that was fol- 
lowed up by the long and familiar catalogue 
of definite iniquities. At the opening of 
chap. ii. the same epithet (ai/aTroXoy^ros) 
was apparently applied to the Israelite in 
his proud consciousness of moral superior- 
ity. To this, as I conceive, is reference 
in 7r/oo7?Tia<Taju,e0a. It is 'charge' rather 
than * demonstration ' ; though the Gentile, 

A conflate quotation 161 

in all probability, would have let judgment 
go 'by default.' His attitude towards sin, 
as we have already seen, is an attitude 
of cheerful acquiescence. ' They all do it ' 
would be his plea. Why should he wish 
to be either better than his neighbours, or 
better than his gods ? The Jew would be 
less prepared to 'give himself away/ by 
admitting his sinfulness. The * conflate ' 
quotation that follows, I assume, is 
addressed to him. Indeed, in v. 19, the 
writer distinctly says so. The string of 
' texts ' (in the vulgar sense of the word) 
runs something as follows : 

iii. 10 12. " There is not a single 
one righteous ; there is not who has 
understanding; there is not who searches 
after God. All have swerved from the p s . x 
way ; all alike have become corrupted; I ~ 3 ' 
there is not who follows goodness, no, 
not even one." 

So far the writer has drawn upon the 
opening of Psalm xiv., the complaint of a 
servant of God in an age of infidelity. The 
words quoted give us a picture of ' the 

W. II 

1 62 Ancient Scriptures adapted 

fool ' and of his fellows ; that is, of the 
reckless unbeliever. The next four ' texts ' 
are taken from various places, Psalm v., 
Psalm cxl., Psalm x., Isaiah lix. Save 
the passage from Isaiah, which is a national 
indictment, the rest all come from pictures 
of the professedly unrighteous, of the 
enemies of God and of His servants. 
Says the first (Psalm v. 10 (LXX)), 

iii. 13. A grave wide open is their 
gullet; with their tongues they have 
wrought deceitfully. 
(Here eSoXiovcrcu> is 'imperfect' in form 
a very awkward tense ; we need e'SoXuw- 
The second says (Psalm cxl. 3 (LXX)), 

The poison of asps is under their 
lips : 

the third (a very free citation of Psalm x. 7), 
whose mouth is full of cursing and 
bitterness : 

the fourth is from Isaiah lix. 7, 8 (in a form 
both abridged and free), 

Swift are their feet to pour out 
blood... destruction and misery is in 

and universally applied 163 

their ways, and the Way of Peace have 
they not known : 

last of all come part of the opening words 
of Psalm xxxvi. 

. . .there is no fear of God before his 

These last five sayings have made 
their way from ' Romans ' into the common 
Christian version of Psalm xiv. they are 
found in our ' LXX ' manuscripts and 
so into the Prayer Book version of our 

Roughly speaking, the whole citation, 

which is after Rabbinic models, describes 

the * wickedness ' of the ' wicked.' St Paul 

however makes bold to apply it universally. 

iii. 19. " Now we know that all 

the Law says, it says to those in the 

Law ; so that every mouth may be 

stopped and (thus) all the world be 

proved liable to God's vengeance." 

The ' Law ' means, of course, all the 

Scriptures : in this case, the Psalms and 

Isaiah. Their message is to God's people, 

to those who own His allegiance and 

II 2 

164 'Every mouth stopped* 

accept His holy commandments. Accord- 
ingly their indictment brings condemnation 
on Israel. The result is for the tVa can- 
not be taken as strictly ' telic ' ; save in so 
far as all that is, corresponds with a hidden 
'purpose' the result is, that all opposition 
is silenced, and none can dispute God's 
justice. " Every mouth," both of Jew and 
Gentile, is " stopped"; "all the world," 
whether heathen or other, is liable to such 
penalty as the Almighty shall choose to 

This conclusion is finally clinched by 
the citation we have already met in Gala- 
tians ii. 16. The form of it and the use of 
it are just the same as there. Only here 
we have an addition, a very pithy state- 
ment of the purpose served by Law in the 
Divine economy. 

iii. 20. " Because by works of 
Law ' no living creature shall be 
righted in" His 'Presence' By Law, 
you know, there comes the recognition 
of sin." 
The actual quotation (from Psalm cxliii. 

The new 'Righteousness' 165 

2) is enclosed in single commas. The idea 
of the function of Law as stimulating con- 
science by definition of wrongdoing is 
repeated, in another form, in chap. vii. 


And now, having set before the reader, 
in black and white, the deplorable con- 
dition of all the world in respect to 
sinfulness, St Paul proceeds to unfold the 
doctrine of the new ' Righteousness.' The 
message first touches the Israelite, as is 
plainly indicated in the very opening 
phrases. It is a section of fundamental 
importance and calls for very careful 

iii. 21, 22. " But now, quite apart 
from Law, a * righteousness of God ' 
has been (and is) displayed ; a ' right- 
eousness' whereto the Law and the 
Prophets testify a * righteousness of 
God' (operating) through faith in Jesus 

1 66 Once again 'a righteousness of God' 

Christ, (and) extending to all believers; 

for there is no distinction." 
The very last verse declared that " no 
living creature shall be set right." So it 
was till the New Age came. It was in 
such a sense, I should hold, the Apostle 
interpreted the words of Psalm xiv. There 
he did not take St/caios to mean ' right- 
doing ' ; but ' right ' in a narrower sense, 
that is ' right with God.' That no one 
was, nor could be rore in the days before 
the great <cwe)oa>o-t9. Xayns *>o//,ov briefly 
hints at the stage of futile effort, which 
Saul the Pharisee had known so well. 
Many still were engaged upon it : there were 
Jews in Rome so engaged. The two words 
simply insist that ' all that ' is a delusion 
and must be set aside. " A righteousness 
of God " I take to mean a way whereby a 
man may attain to ' right '-ness with God, 
by God's own plan and appointment. It 
has nothing to do with conduct : it deals 
with status only : but status, where God is 
concerned, is for man the very first of all 
considerations. God's own 'righteousness/ 

The witness of the Old Testament 167 

in the ethical sense, has nothing to do 
with the matter. The Oeou does not mark 
Him as the possessor of the 'righteous- 
ness.' It only marks it as being associated 
with Him we apprehend, of course, as 
its fountainhead and source. "God's right- 
eousness" is contrasted with a "righteous- 
ness " of man, that is, any system whereby 
a man may hope to attain to the definitely 
unattainable. But, though this way to 
acceptance is new in point of time, it is not 
unprepared for. The ' Law ' has testified 
of it, no doubt, both in its words of promise 
and also (perhaps more plainly) in the 
symbolism of appointed Ritual. As for the 
' Prophets,' one thinks at once of the great 
utterances of Isaiah. In v. 22 we meet 
prepositions somewhat heavily weighted, 
even overweighted, with meaning. The 
Sia has to bear a good deal ; but so 
also has the ets. There seems to have 
been a time when copyists were uncertain 
whether eVi or ets should be read. If one 
might have a choice in the matter, one 
would be disposed to vote for em, as 

1 68 l For there is no distinction' 

definitely better adapted to express the 
idea of extension. In English we cannot 
well, without sacrifice of clearness, refrain 
from some expanding. The meaning of 
the phrase morels 'I^crov X/HOTOU has been 
disputed like everything else. That the 
' faith ' is not our Lord's faith (notwith- 
standing Heb. xii. 2), is made certain by 
Gal. ii. 1 6, where we read how "we"... 
" being sure that man is not 'justified' by 
works of Law, only by faith in Christ Jesus, 
even we became believers in Christ Jesus " 
which is surely proof positive as to what 
the writer means here. The closing words 
of v. 22 (ov yap ecrri SiaoToXif), belong to 
what goes before. Atao-roX^ itself, as it 
happens, is found once again in the Epistle 
(it occurs three times altogether, the re- 
maining place being i Cor. xiv. 7) in such 
a connexion as shows that the absence of 
difference spoken of is in relation to ' be- 
lievers ' and not to 'sinners.' The sense 
is "on all believers, without distinction." 
At least that is the conclusion suggested 
by x, n, 12. However, in the end, it 

' All have sinned 1 169 

comes to the same thing. Jew and Gentile 
all are 'justified' only by the way of 
* faith.' For why ? The sequel shows. 

iii. 23, 24. "For all have sinned 
and (consciously) fall short of the 
Divine Glory ; and are freely justified 
by His own 'grace,' through the 
' redemption ' that was wrought in 
Jesus Christ...," 

The Traces rjpapTov here is an excellent 
instance of the danger of identifying the 
Greek aorist with our preterite. All the 
phrase means is just this, that every man 
on earth, and woman too, at one time or 
another, has done amiss. Presumably it 
was this kind of usage that induced old 
world grammarians to designate the tense 
'the undefined tense.' Now, our English 
preterite is, in a general way, precisely 
the opposite. ' I struck' means that I so 
did upon some given occasion. When we 
wish to be ' indefinite ' we naturally say ' I 
have struck,' not ' I struck.' ' Again and 
again I have seen' is what our idiom requires. 
Therefore " all have sinned" is right. Only 

1 70 * and fall short ' 

we must be careful to remember, it does 
not refer to any ' corporate ' sin, any sin in 
which we all had part and lot as the 
older theology says men all share in the 
sin of Adam. It merely states a truth we 
are none of us prepared to deny, that, at 
one time or another, we have done what 
we blush to recall ; what we feel to be 
incompatible with any ' acceptance ' by 
God. This ' sin ' is always past, even if 
perpetrated just this moment : the ' con- 
sciousness ' it entails is inevitably present. 
Because we did wrong to-day, last week, 
last year, whenever it may be, we feel in 
our hearts uncomfortable at the contempla- 
tion of God and His Supreme Holiness. 
And there is more in it than that. Not 
only do we ' feel ' unfit ; we actually are 
unfit. As for the voice of VOTC/OOWTCU, it 
is worth while to observe that ' sense ' 
verbs in early Greek are very apt to be 
' middle/ There is in them an element of 
' reflexive ' force. A careful consideration 
of the places where VOTC/DCW/ and vo-Tpel- 
are found in the New Testament, 

'of the glory of God' 171 

seems to give good reason for thinking 
that the former means ' to be behind,' and 
the latter ' to feel want,' or to ' feel oneself 
behind.' Yet it is not wholly certain. St 
Luke xv. 14 and i Cor. xii. 24 might be 
taken as examples of the meaning of ' con- 
scious' want or 'conscious' failing. It 
seems reasonable to suppose that the Divine 
* Glory ' is an expression for God's realised 
Holiness. He has said " Ye shall be holy, 
for I am holy" but unhappy man in his 
heart is only too well aware he is nothing 
of the sort. Before the amazing splendour 
of that transcendent Holiness he stands 
completely abashed. The "glory of God" 
however might mean that moral dignity 
which the great Creator meant His creature 
man to have. But the other interpretation 
appears to be the likelier. Verse 24 is full 
of important technical terms. Xa/oi? means 
(in strict accordance with regular Pauline 
usage) the ' undeserved favour ' of God. 
I will speak of anon. Ai- 
is used in the formal ' theo- 
logical ' sense, not " made righteous," that 

172 A question of grammar 

is, but " righted." Luther's German gives 
it exactly : " und werden ohne Verdienst 

There is, we must freely admit, a 
singular grammatical difficulty to be faced 
in this same verse. It is this; that the 
main predication is conveyed in a participle, 
SiKcuov//,ei>oi. Yet plainly there are before 
us only two alternatives. Either all words 
after Trio-revoi/ras till TTJS 80^779 rou Oeov 
must be taken as a parenthesis, and StAcaiou- 
pevoi be regarded as one of those * irra- 
tional ' participial appositions we sometimes 
find in St Paul : or else we must boldly 
say that Sifouou/ieixu is virtually equivalent 
to KCU SifcaunWai. Our familiar ''being 
justified freely " is only possible because it is 
apprehended not as a present participle, but 
as a past one. As translation it will not 
do. At any rate so I should hold. 

However, let us be honest. I have 
said that I incline to regard the word 
Si/ccuov/xez'CH as equivalent to Kal St/ccu- 
OVITCU. Then, unless we are prepared 
to admit some laxity of expression, it 

'Redemption' means 'deliverance' 173 

undoubtedly means too much. " All " have 
sinned, but " all " are not " justified." It is 
the Tricrreuoz'Tes only, be they Jew, or be 
they Gentile, that reach that happy condi- 
tion. If accordingly we incline to take it 
as I have taken it, we must supply a 
qualifying phrase (at least, in thought) 
4 'and are justified if they are justified 
by no merit of their own but by His free 

The question is ; is this, or is it not, 
beyond the bonds of that licence in manipu- 
lation of grammar St Paul so freely assumes ? 
And now for aTroXurpwcrtg. The usage of 
the Septuagint undoubtedly eliminates from 
this term the idea of ' ransom.' The 
word means ' redemption,' that is, in the 
sense of mere 'deliverance.' All idea of 
' price ' has vanished. Has it also vanished 
in St Paul ? Elsewhere the thought of 
' price ' is emphasised by our writer, though 
not in connexion with ' ransom,' or any 
such metaphor. In the famous saying of 
Christ we have our definite XvTpov. It 
might be argued therefore that here too 

1 74 The idea of a ransom recedes 

the second element in the famous com- 
pound noun is not asleep or dead. Take 
it altogether, however, I think that it is 
safer to regard the noun as used in its 
common ' O. T.' sense. After all, the 
\vrpov of Christ was all His own. It does 
not seem to have had any sort of root in the 
past. The \vrpa of O. T. are literal \vrpa. 
Let us then dissociate aTroXur/ocuo-i? from 
all KvTpov in this context. 

Lastly, before we pass on, we must 
observe that this aTroXvr/oeocris is char- 
acterised as being eV Xyoicmp 'I^o-ou. The 
tv awakes some questioning. Is it like this 
one in ' Galatians ' (ii. 4) TTJV IXevOepiav rjv 
e^ofjiev lv Xpwrnw 'Ivjcrov ? or this other, in 
the same Epistle (ii. 17), ^roiWes St/ccuw- 
#771/0,1 lv XpLCTToi ? And, even if it be, 
what is the force of it ? The truth is, of 
all prepositions none is more elusive than 
eV. Here, I take it, we have to choose 
between two conceptions. The * redemp- 
tion ' either comes "through Christ Jesus" 
(for I conceive that there are places where 
eV is not far in sense from Sta with the 

Not all ivs are local 175 

genitive) : or else, it must be viewed as 
centred in His Person. This latter is easier 
to say than to grasp or to explain. Maybe 
the Johannic "In Him was Light" would 
help us. The eV in vi. 1 1 is, I should say, 
more decisively quasi-instrumental unless, 
by a considerable stretch of the ' pregnant ' 
principle, we make bold to see in that the 
doctrine of the * vital union.' I remember, 
when I first read * Romans ' as a schoolboy 
years ago, all eVs had somehow to be forced 
into relation with the idea of locality. But 
such desperate expedients need not trouble 
us to-day. The effect of this qualification, 
attached to our Redemption, is plain for all 
practical purposes : it comes ' through ' the 
Lord Christ primarily through His In- 
carnation and Death. 

Let us venture forward two more 
verses : 

iii. 25, 26. " Whom God to 

be atoning, by means of faith, through 
His own blood ; with a view to demon- 
stration of God's own ' righteousness ' 
because former sins had been passed 

1 76 ' Whom God hath set forth ' 

over, in the time when He was patient 
I say, for the demonstration of His 
* righteousness ' at this present, to the 
end He may be 'righteous' yet also 
' righting ' him, that is of those that 
believe in Jesus." 

The verb I have left a blank, because it 
is so hard to make up one's mind about it. 
TlpoTL0o-0ai comes but three times in all 
the N.T. Twice it certainly means 'pro- 
pose' (that is, set before oneself, as an 
object to pursue). In the ' LXX ' the 
middle is found three times in this tense ; 
and in each of the three it has a reflexive 
force. It belongs to the phrase of the 
Psalms ' to set God before one's eyes.' 
Can it mean here "Whom God purposed 
to Himself to be " ? Or, are we to find in 
it a usage somewhat removed from all 
Biblical usage whatever, and take it as 
merely meaning "set forward," "displayed"? 
That could be supported by classical in- 
stances even if we dissociate it from that 
more special usage, whereby it often means 
* lay out for burial.' 

* To be a propitiation' 177 

On the whole, I should prefer to render 
"Whom God purposed to be 

With regard to tXacrrrypto^, I feel certain 
S. is right. So far as form is concerned, 
the word could easily be an adjectival 
form. And ' adjectival,' in fact, it is, in 
Josephus and elsewhere (testibus L.S., who 
give two references). In LXX, to be 
sure, it always means " mercy seat " as it 
does also in Hebrews ix. the only other 
place, where it is found in the N.T. Yet 
it cannot possibly mean " mercy seat " here. 
And should you say, such a usage of an 
adjective is not Greek, then I answer, you 
will find an instance in Aeschylus, who 
employs in Theb. 562 KCLKWV TwvSe ftov- 
XevTTjpLov for ' the man that counselled 
these naughty deeds.' 

The two prepositional phrases, that 
follow on iXao-TijpLov, are wholly indepen- 
dent of each other. They add two fresh 
details. Christ makes men's peace with 
God, provided they have faith : moreover, 
His 'atonement' is achieved eV TO> avrov 

w. 12 

178 A central conception 

at/Ian. How this is so, we cannot tell. 
But the Apostolic teaching reproduces 
Christ's own statement in the Gospel (see 
St Matt. xxvi. 28). There the " putting 
away of sins " plainly the heart of what 
is expressed in the term IXacrr^piov is 
definitely connected with the " outpouring " 
of His Blood. What mysteries lie behind 
that " outpouring " it is not for us to 
fathom. But we must not close our eyes 
to the solemn fact that Christ Himself pro- 
claimed a 'virtue' in His death, and that 
all His followers, as many as ever taught 
in early days, likewise proclaimed this 
thing. Though ' blood ' in the ancient 
world (I think, universally) was taken as 
the seat of life ; yet blood that is shed 
stands for death stands for life laid down 
for others. As S. very justly observes, the 
f idea of sacrifice is a ' central conception ' 
of N. T. religion. Though we may not 
see its meaning, we ' must not explain it 
away'; nor regard it as 'mere metaphor.' 
To this I say 'Amen/ with all my heart 
and soul! 

One purpose of Christ's death 179 

Continuing the consideration of what is 
said in v. 25, we come to the Apostolic 
statement of a purpose that was involved 
in Christ's work of propitiation. This is 
stated once and again ; but the conception 
is introduced by different prepositions. 
The first time it is ets evSti&v, the second 
77/309 Tyv eWSeifiz/. Plainly the latter phrase 
is more definite than the former ; but its 
larger degree of definiteness, I think, must 
be taken to lie rather in the addition of 
the article than in the change of the 
preposition. Subtle minds have drawn a 
distinction between eis and 77/305 in such 
connexions : but the plain man is rather 
tempted to doubt whether they will hold. 

What St Paul desires to say is obvious- 
ly this. God's ' Righteousness ' (meaning 
thereby in anthropomorphic terms His 
absolute sense of right) is somehow touched 
and affected by the act of ' passing over ' 
sin. The Trdpecris of sins demands, in the 
Apostolic thought, some sort of justifica- 
tion. It might have been supposed that 
God was not St/ccuos (that is, absolutely 

12 2 

1 80 to reconcile justice and mercy 

'just' that He could tolerate sin, the 
which, from His very nature, is palpably 
impossible. This desiderated /justifica- 
tion ' of the Perfect Justice of God is 
supplied by the Death of Christ. That 
demonstrates indisputably that sin is not 
' indifferent ' ; not a thing which does not 
matter. The idea has, possibly, been over- 
emphasised by Puritan Divines. It is not 
in the Pauline scheme of primary import- 
ance. Still here it plainly is, and has to be 
grappled with. 

For that purpose we must be clear as 
to how 7ra/>e<Tis differs from a^ecrt?. ' For- 
giveness,' as we call it, that is to say, the 
wiping out the memory of a wrongdoing, 
as one wipes out the ' score ' on a slate, in 
such sort that the wrongful act is wholly 
dead and buried and the wrongdoer is 
restored to the position he occupied, before 
he did the wrong ' forgiveness,' I say, is 
a<eo-ts, which word we sometimes render 
by the Latin term 'remission' (which is 
not very adequate) and sometimes by our 
own word. Ilapeo-is (which is only found 

and Trapecri? 181 

here in Biblical Greek) is a wholly different 
matter. It means a 'passing over without 
notice/ a temporary disregarding. In sense 
it is akin to that vTrepiScov, of Acts xvii., 
which our English (A.V.) renders so whim- 
sically. That Trapecris belonged to another 
age : it cannot continue for ever ; for it is 
palpably derogatory to God's supreme 
Righteousness. Therefore it must give 
place, and an cu^ecri? be achieved, at a cost 
which will prove for ever that God does 
not disregard sin, or view it as indifferent. 
As for TrpoyeyovoTw (where one would 
have rather looked for an aorist participle) 
it should be noticed, as a fact, that the 
perfect yeyoz/a is not infrequently em- 
ployed 'irrationally.' A concordance will 
demonstrate this. Those, who are zealous 
for a ' perfect ' sense in the word, can find 
a loophole here, in the thought that 'sins,' 
once sinned, remain ' sins ' permanently (in 
the absence of cu^ecris). 5 Ei> rrj avoxfl i s > 
of course, a temporal expression. 'E*/ ro> 
vvv Kaipo) recalls to the mind the dis- 
tinction (in Acts xvii.) between "the time 

1 82 An adversative 

of ignorance " and the " now," in which God 
bids men "everywhere repent/' in view of 
coming judgment. 

At the end of v. 26, I have ventured on 
a novel rendering. The KCLL I take to be 
'adversative/ not ' copulative.' The pro- 
blem is, how shall God be ' Righteous ' in 
Himself, and yet accept sinners as ' i' the 
right.' This is what theologians commonly 
speak of as the reconciliation of Justice and 

S. says " righteous and also declaring 
righteous." That is precisely what ' Sta TT?Z> 
Tra/oecriz/ ' (a thing which palpably demands 
excuse) will not at all permit. It should 
be " righteous yet also ' righting '." Such 
an adversative force in * and ' is found, 
one would suspect, in every language. 

Toi> e/c mcrrccys 'Irjcrov is sufficiently 
compact, regarded as a phrase. It means 
" anyone, who belongs to faith in Jesus." 
The expression is of the same pattern, not 
improbably, as the descriptive phrase in 
Galatians "ol e/c Tre/siro/^s." But I cannot 
feel certain, whether it actually signifies 

'Boasting shut out' 183 

"him, who rests on faith in Jesus," or, 
" him, who belongs to ' faith ' in Jesus," 
that is, to the company of the faithful. 
Yet truly it matters little. 


In v. 9 just above we met the puzzling 
question ri ovv ; irpo^o^Oa (which, by the 
way, our English revisers rendered "What 
then ? Are we in worse case," whereto the 
American Company appended this pithy 
comment, "For ' in worse case' read 
' better ' and omit the margin " !). We 
can now say, that any claim the Jew might 
have to priority, is effectually wiped out. 
To ' glory ' in the privilege of Abrahamic 
descent, or the possession of the ' Law, 1 
was peculiarly Jewish. Such glorying is 
now rendered impossible, nay even incon- 

iii. 27. "What becomes, then, of 

our boasting ? It has been entirely 

shut out." 

1 84 A term freely used 

Here we have a past fact simply. The 
tense concentrates attention entirely on 
the consideration that it is past. Hence- 
forth all ' boasting ' (and the article, though 
it may conceivably be only the article 
attached to ' abstract nouns,' as such, seems 
here to define the 'boasting' as that of 
St Paul's compatriots) " has been excluded," 
" is excluded." So far, all is ' plain sailing.' 
Now there are ' rocks ahead.' The use 
of vopov, in the very next question, is 
eminently perplexing. However, we recall 
that in other instances, the Apostle uses 
this particular term with prodigious free- 
dom, viii. 2 will illustrate. 

All English versions say Maw.' What 
the ordinary reader may gather therefrom 
one hardly likes to think. S. inclines to 
the rendering 'system.' To my mind, in 
modern English 'principle' is the nearest 

Let us, then, adventure so. 

iii. 2 7 3 1 . " Thanks to what prin- 
ciple ? The principle of doing things ? 
No ! the principle of believing. Our 

'Do we annul Law?' 185 

view is, that a man is set right before 
God by faith, apart from doing Law's 

" Or, can it be that God is the God 
of the Jews alone ? Is He not the 
Gentiles' too ? Aye, surely, the Gen- 
tiles' also ; if in very truth there is 
One God, who will accept the Circum- 
cision, thanks to faith, and the Uncir- 
cumcision, because they have the 

" Do we then by our faith annul 
the Law ? Nay, nay ! We establish 

Viewing the passage as a whole, one 
notices at once the full force of the ^0/409 
difficulty. It is a class of difficulty which 
dogs our steps everywhere. To the orderly 
English mind, it is barely conceivable that 
a word should be employed in one para- 
graph in two senses. That is, presumably, 
why our Company of Revisers retained the 
term 4 law ' all through. Yet the more one 
peruses the sentence, the more certain one 
becomes, that the I/O/AOS of v. 31 has nothing 

1 86 Some expansion required 

whatever to do with the i>o/io9 of v. 27. 
Verse 3 1 contains a purely subsidiary ques- 
tion. It does not appear to affect the section 
generally, or to have any intimate relation 
with it. 

But, mark the baffling conciseness of 
the question that follows efefcXet crOrj. 
" Where is our boasting? It is shut out. 
By what sort of principle ? " So runs the 
text. Would it be going too far to affirm 
that, when St Paul declares that "boasting" 
is " shut out " by such and such a principle, 
he means that none can boast, because the 
'principle,' whereby a man finds favour 
or mercy with God, is not ' works ' but 
' faith'? 

4 'What 'principle' excludes it?" he 
asks. This must plainly be a brachylogy ; 
for the expanded sense should be, By 
the operation of what principle is it ex- 
cluded ? The answer is, Faith not works. 
That is the principle which renders all 
boasting impossible. The Xoyid//,e#a yap 
yap appears preferable to ovv repre- 
sents the Pauline position. Possibly, by 

' Faith ' and ' the faith ' 187 

the use of the plural, he means to convey 
the idea that his readers are carried with 
him. On the other hand, quite as possibly, 
he is speaking for himself alone. The rj 
(in v. 29) introduces, as normally, an im- 
possible alternative. If Law were the 
royal road to Si/ccuocruiTj, Israel would 
occupy a position of unfair privilege. The 
Gentile would be situated, by comparison, 
most unfavourably. My impression is, 
that in saying ei7re/> el? 6 0eds, the writer 
means us to gather that God is the same 
for all, as I have put it in the paraphrase. 
The distinction (in v. 30), between e/c 
Trio-jew? and Sia TTJS 7rurrea>9, is not very 
easy to grasp. And yet we can hardly sup- 
pose the variation unintentional. Maybe, 
the anarthrous form distinguishes 'faith' 
as a whole from * works ' as a whole ; 
whereas the Sia rrjs Trurrews refers to belief 
in a specific form, that is to say, belief in 
Christ. The distinction, such as it is, rests 
less on the variation of preposition than on 
the presence or absence of the article. In 
v. 31 the writer, having dealt with the 

1 88 Law more real than ever 

question of * glorying,' raises yet a further 
question, and answers it very briefly. If 
the Law (an objector might urge) does not 
help a man with God, what is the use of 
it ? You are emptying it of all meaning. 
Not so ! responds the Apostle, Law be- 
comes more real than ever. For the 
explanation of this 'dark saying,' we must 
turn to a later passage. From xiii. 10 we 
learn that Love is 77X17/30)^0, z/o/utou. 

St Paul's great Master Himself had ex- 
pressly repudiated the charge of abolishing 
' Law.' He spoke definitely of ' the Law.' 
I should say it is likely enough that * Law ' 
means ' the Law ' here too. Nofjiov ovv 
KaTapyovfjLev would really contain no 
meaning, setting Jewish Law apart. 



In the last section of chap. iii. it was 
laid down that * boasting ' is impossible. 
At this point we seem to hear a voice that 

Lessons drawn from Abraham 189 

asks, What ? had even Abraham no ground 
for glorying ? This opens up the theme 
of the Patriarch's position, and the whole of 
chap. iv. is taken up with its consideration. 
In v. i a little group of manuscripts omits 
the verb eu/7/ceVeu. This is plainly ad- 
vantageous. For the question that naturally 
arises is not, What did Abraham get ? but, 
How about Abraham ? The personal pro- 
noun rjfjiaiv has been thought an argument 
for a preponderance of Jews in the Church 
at Rome. But clearly that conclusion is 
by no means inevitable. It may be the 
writer is using the phrase of an imagined 
objector, or he may be for the moment 
unusually conscious of his own Abrahamic 
descent. In a general way we must re- 
member that with St Paul ' we ' is used for 
four separate things. Sometimes it means 
4 my brother Jews and I ' ; sometimes * my 
brother Christians and I ' ; sometimes ' my 
fellow workers and I ' ; and sometimes 
simply 'I.' We have to be prepared for 
its use in any of these ways at any 

190 Gen. xv. 6 again 

iv. i. "What then shall we say 
of Abraham, our natural progenitor ? 
[Cannot he glory ?~\ Why, if Abra- 
ham * found favour ' by things done, 
he is in a position to boast. But he 
is not as towards God. For what does 
the Scripture say ? Abraham believed 

Gen. xv. 6 God and it was accounted to him for 

( LXX >- . t . 


Here we have the familiar citation 
already employed in ' Galatians ' (iii. 6). 
There it came in somewhat suddenly, and 
was not discussed with the fulness we 
shall find in the course of this chapter. 
At the end of v. i I insert the words that 
seem to be needed by the context. For it 
is very plainly a question whether he e^ei 
Kavxnp'O't or no. The ascription of an 
actual * Si/ccu<wcris ' to the Patriarch is not 
in the earlier letter. There the Si/ccuocrwr? 
(of which the quotation speaks) is not so 
directly identified with the theological 
status as it is here. 

The Patriarchal 'belief in question is, 
as this chapter tells us, the belief in the 

Abraham and 'merit' 191 

promise of a son. The same eXoytcr^ ets 
SiKaiocrvvTjv is used, in Psalm cvi., of 
Phinehas, who "stood up and executed 
judgment" From that passage we should 
deduce, that the phrase, taken by itself, 
need by no means necessarily carry all the 
meaning assumed by St Paul. But, even 
should it be argued that too much is built 
upon the * text ' in Genesis ; yet the un- 
doubted fact remains, that implicit trust in 
God is the keynote of the Patriarch's story, 
as told in the primitive record. 

We next pass on to consider what we 
may call the topic of ' merit ' in relation to 

iv. 4. " For one that works, his 
wage is not reckoned of favour, but 
of obligation. But for one who does 
not 'work'; only believes on Him 
whose way it is to set right the un- 
godly it is his faith [and nothing 
else] that is 'counted for righteous- 
ness' ; even as the Psalmist pronounces 
the felicitation of the man whom God 
accounteth 'right,' apart from merit, 

XXX11. 1-2. 

192 Not 'wage' but 'favour' 

Psalm Blessed are they, whose iniquities have 

been forgiven and whose sins have 
been covered with a veil. Blessed is 
the man whose sin the Lord shall not 
count (against him)." 
In this section there is compression, 
which tends to some obscurity, in a 
language as diffuse as our own. The 
whole train of thought is as follows : 

When a man works, he is given his 
wage, as a debt and not as a 
favour ; 
When there is no work, there is no 

wage ; 

And this was Abraham's case : 
He did not 'work' (in a theological 
sense that is, he did not aim at 
achieving God's favour by 'doing') ; 
he only 'believed': 

It was this belief that won for him 
his ' righteousness ' his status, as 
a man who is 'right with God.' 
We are never told, in so many words, 
that Abraham had no ' merit,' and there- 
fore no ground for * boasting ' as towards 

Righteousness 'reckoned' 193 

God. That we are left to infer. Instead, 
we are asked to note that he attained to a 
1 blissful ' standing (and, of course, we must 
remember that the word /xa/ca/no? connotes 
an altogether exceptional happiness ; ' it 
is gods we count /xa/capioi and the most 
godlike among men/ says Aristotle) in 
fact that blissful state whereof the Psalm 
makes mention. Moreover, as in the 
quotation of iii. 20 e'f tpyuv VOJJLOV was 
introduced ; so here the ' blessed one,' of 
whom the Psalmist tells, is identified 
with the person " in whose favour the 
Lord reckons ' Tightness ' 3 in itself a re- 
markable phrase, no doubt framed on 
the analogy of the Psalmist's Xoyiecr#cu 
apapriav, though SiKcuocrvi^ describes a 
condition or state, while apapriav probably 
does not. 

There are one or two points of language 
to be noted in the five verses. 

XCI/HS, to begin with, is not technical. 
God is called 6 Si/ccuoii' TOV dcrefirj. This 
(I apprehend) must be taken as a descrip- 
tion of the Divine Nature ; hence the 

w. 13 

194 And so 'reckoned' to Abraham 

present participle. ' The godless ' one 
would have expected to be plural rather 
than singular. Aoyierai, as a passive, 
strikes the reader of the classics as startling. 
However it is good ' Biblical.' In v. 6 we 
gather that * Si/caiocrwT? ' is negative rather 
than positive : it represents the removal of 
' sin/ not the presence of active goodness. 
As I have urged already, it is the condition 
of the man accepted by God. 

* David ' has spoken of a man who is 
/u,a/ca/Hos for just this reason. Such a man 
(St Paul argues) was Abraham. He was 
St/ccuos, he had Si/ccuo orvvrj, in that parti- 
cular sense. 

We pass on to a further question. 
Granted he was so * blessed,' in what con- 
dition did he attain to it ? The question 
is put because it effectually disposes of the 
Judaistic contention that circumcision is 
indispensable. That is to say, the answer 

iv. 9. " This felicitation then does 
it fall on the circumcised, or on the 
uncircumcised ? We say (you know) 

before his 'circumcision' days 195 

his faith * was reckoned' to Abraham 

' for righteousness. ' " 

In this verse the word /x,a/ca/3icrftds may 
conceivably have shifted its sense. It is 
only found three times in St Paul, and the 
data are insufficient. Better therefore keep 
to the sense we are sure of. 

iv. 10 12. " Under what condi- 
tions, then, was it reckoned ? When 
Abraham was circumcised, or when he 
was uncircumcised ? Not when he 
was circumcised, but while he was 
uncircumcised. Indeed he took cir- 
cumcision as an outward symbol ; as 
a seal of the ' faith-righteousness ' 
which was in his uncircumcision ; to 
the end that he might be a Father 
of all that believe in uncircumcision, 
so that they too might be counted 
' righteous ' ; as well as a Father of 
the * circumcised ' in the case of such 
as should be, not merely circumcised, 
but also walking in the steps of that 
uncircumcised ' faith ' our Father 
Abraham had." 


196 A confused reading 

In his rendering of v. n Martin Luther 
is disappointing. One would have hoped 
he would be bold and speak of ' Glaubens- 
gerechtigheit ' in one colossal term, which 
would adequately reproduce TJJS Si/ccuo- 
crvvrjs TTJS Trtcrrews. Unhappily he fails us. 
At* d/cpo/3vcrTias, in the same verse, is a 
formula of circumstance. The readings of 
v. 12 are sadly muddled in the MSS. But 
plainly we cannot read (to oblige any MS. 
or group of MSS.) such a jumble of words 
as this ; rot? ov/c CAC Tre/nro/ATys povov dXXa 
/ecu rots (TToiyovari. The second rois must 
be eliminated, though the editors are apt 
to retain it. For my part, I assume that 
what the writer meant to say was rots 


O-TOLXOVO-IV AC.T.X. That is, Abraham was 
to be a Father of converted Jews (cir- 
cumcised, converted Jews) but only on 
condition of their having * faith,' as he 

The general sequence of the thought in 
the two verses is uncertain. But presum- 
ably it runs like this ; 

Abraham father of all the faithful 197 

When Abraham was ' accepted,' was 
he circumcised, or uncircumcised ? 
Why, surely, uncircumcised. 
Circumcision was only a 'seal/ a 

' token ' assumed long after. 
Because then he was uncircumcised, 
when he attained to 'righteousness/ 
He is fit to be the 'father' of all 

uncircumcised ' believers ' ; 
(For, why should they not attain to 

' righteousness ' just as he did ?) 
And, as for those others the Jews, 

the actually ' circumcised '- 
He can be their ' father ' too, provided 
always provided they have 
something more than circumcision 
to go upon (for that is only 
o-77/ietoi>) ; to wit, the ' faith ' he had 
in his days of uncircumcision. 
For the rest, the term a-r)p.iov, as 
applied to 'circumcision/ is found in the 
Old Testament. There it is lv cr^etw Gen. xvii. 
Sta^/cT??. 2(payi5 (afterwards adopted 
by Christians for Holy Baptism) was a 
later descriptive term. 

198 Law affects not him or his 

Next we take a wider sweep. The 
happy position of Abraham must be wholly 
separated from all conditions of Law, or of 
outward ordinances. So we move forward 
with this statement ; 

iv. 13. " For * Law ' did not bring 
the Promise to Abraham, or to his 
seed, that he should be ' heir of the 
world ' ; it came by faith-righteous- 


This rendering is not convincing. For 
in a general way, and especially in Abra- 
ham's story, promises precede faith, instead 
of following after. However, we cannot 
be sure to which promise the Apostle 
refers ; the ' palmary ' promise was, clearly, 
the promise of the "Blessing." In Gen. xv. 
there are three ; the Land, the Nation, the 
Blessing. But that was before the day of 
the promise which evoked the particular 
form of faith that was counted for 
righteousness. That comes in chap, xv., 
where the Lord tells Abraham his seed 
shall be as the stars of heaven. There 
are further promises in Gen. xviii. 18 and 

A doubtful Sta 199 

Gen. xxii. 17. But it seems to be a 
departure from Pauline principles to de- 
scribe any ' promise ' at all as won by faith. 
It is therefore I am half tempted to regard 
both the Sid's here as being 'circumstantial.' 
That would alter the rendering wholly. 
Then, one would have to express it like 
this ; 

" For Law was not the accompani- 
ment of the promise to Abraham... its 

accompaniment was faith-righteous- 


But, on the other hand, the Sta with 
vopov may be the ordinary Sta, ex- 
pressing instrumentality. In that case the 
second might be due to assimilation, or 
attraction. It is one of those many pas- 
sages which the ordinary reader ' skims 
over,' wholly failing to observe what 
puzzles they contain. 

The next three verses state what is 
intelligible enough ; 

iv. 14 15. " If the sons of 'Law' 
are heirs, faith is emptied of all 
meaning" (or, "rendered valueless," 

2OO Law begets wrath 

cf. i Cor. i. 17) "and the promise 
has ceased to exist." 

" For ' Wrath ' is the product of 
Law. And where there is no Law, 
there is no transgression either." 

The original meaning of ot e/c vop,ov is 
not perspicuous. It is like the phrase in 
' Galatians,' ot IK Trtcrrews. 'Efc might imply 
' descent,' metaphorical descent (though 
that is not the reason why I use ' sons ' in 
my paraphrase). But it might only express 
dependence. Ot e/c vopov are the folks 
who look to Law for everything. 

In v. 15 we have before us a third 
statement about Law. The three obviously 
help to interpret one another. 

Gal. iii. 19 declared of Law, TO>V napa- 
fidcretov yapiv 7rpocreT0Tfj ; Rom. iii. 20, Sta 
yoip vdfJiov liriyvtocris djLtaprta?. Here we 
read, Law brings no blessing, but only fear- 
ful consequences the * wrath ' of Eternal 
God. The same ideas recur in chaps, v. 
and vii. So Law is plainly dismissed, as 
a possible source of high good, and the 
text continues ; 

// is faith leads to blessing 201 

iv. 1 6, 17. "This is why the 
thing comes of faith, that it may be 
a matter of ' favour ' ; so that the 
promise may stand fast for all the 
' seed ' not only for the children of 
law, but also for the children of the 
faith of Abraham (for he is Father of 
all of us, as Holy Scripture says ; For 
a father of many nations have /Gen.xvii.5 

(LXX). * 

appointed thee] before the God he 

believed, that maketh the dead alive, 

and speaketh of things non-existent, 

as though they were." 

We are not told what is IK mo-revs ; 

but there is little difficulty in filling up the 

gap. It is not so much the 'promise,' as 

all that great destiny, which lies before 

God's People. We may call it, if we will, 

the KXrjpovofJLLa. v \va /caret yapiv excludes 

the possibility of something earned, the 

possibility of ' obligation ' (6<^tXr//xa), in 

the matter. That is why I say 4t favour," 

not ''grace." In the next clause there 

would seem to be reference to some definite 

passage in Genesis, in which mention is 

2O2 ' Who calleth things that are 

made of the seed. But it is not easy to 
fix upon any. There are many repetitions 
of the promise to thee and to thy seed. 
We have it in xii. 7, xiii. 15, xv. 18, xvii. 8, 
xvii. 19, xxiv. 7 not to mention xxvi. 3, 
and xxxv. 12, where the promise made to 
Abraham is renewed to Isaac and Jacob. 
In all of these places but one, the 'promise' 
is of ' the land,' for an everlasting pos- 
session. For the writer, this is a figure, 
pointing to a spiritual inheritance. The 
'seed' here is not as in Gal. iii. 16 (where 
it is identified with Christ), but as in 
Gal. iii. 29, where all the faithful are 
regarded as in very truth Abraham's sons. 

In v. 17 the on belongs to the quota- 
tion, and should be translated accordingly. 
KaXowros TO, /XT) 6Wa a>s oWa is a rather 
perplexing phrase. The /caXeu/ is possibly 
like the familiar use in Plato, * KaXels TL 
Stfcaioo-wrp.' Ta /X,T) 6Wa glances at the 
unborn 'promise-child' Isaac, of whom 
the Almighty speaks, as if he already 

And now St Paul unfolds the full 

Abraham s faith imfolded 203 

splendour of that 'faith,' which was 

' * accounted for righteousness." 

iv. 1 8 22. "Who, when hope 
was hopeless, hopefully believed, so 
that he became a Father of many Gen. xvii. 
nations, as the- saying stands, 50 shall* 

f Gen. xv. 5. 

thy seed be\ and without weakening 
in faith, contemplated his own man- 
hood in its deadness (for he was already 
some hundred years old), and the 
deadness of Sarah's womb. Con- 
fronted with God's promise he did 
not doubt nor disbelieve, but was 
mighty in faith, giving glory to God 
by being convinced, that, what He 
has promised, He is able to perform. 
Wherefore, It was accounted to him Gen. xv. 6. 
for righteousness." 

The eV e'Xm'Si (in v. 1 8) I do not profess 
to understand ; but the whole phrase is 
' literary,' and the effect is as in the 
paraphrase. Ets with the infinitive is 
4 consecutive/ rather than 'final.' But this 
is an unusually vigorous instance. It vir- 
tually equals (Sore eyeVero. MT) d 

2O4 No ( not ' required 

in classical Greek would be OVK d 
The use of the former negative is normal 
in later Greek. Indeed it must be re- 
membered that it is ov, which is the 
intruder, and not /IT? (I mean in classical 
usage). The signification of KaTevoyo-ev 
(which is not ' notice ' but ' contemplate '), 
as well as the story of Genesis, requires 
the extrusion of the ov before /care^o^o-e^. 
The whole point of the story is, that he 
did realise his 'deadness.' Whether 1787; 
is read or no makes no sort of difference. 
The two Trto-ret's (in w. 19 and 20) are both 
'datives of respect.' On the other hand, 
rrj ctTrtcrrta is ' comitative ' (lit. " with un- 
belief"..." he did not doubt with unbelief"). 
'EveSvvapuOr) is deponent. We need not 
go about to conceive of an outside 
influence (as in Phil. iv. 13). 

' Glory ' is * given to God,' when the 
truth is told, as in the story of Achan, or 
in St John ix. 24 ; here however it is 
somewhat different. Abraham ' gives God 
glory' by not doubting of His power. 
I assume that the /cat, which couples 

'Giving glory to God' 205 

7r\rjpo<l)opr)0LS to Sous Sofcu>, is a /ecu of 

Thus, having dwelt upon the details of 
Abraham's faith, in its most conspicuous 
manifestation, we turn to our own case, 
and see that, in effect, we also are called 
upon to believe in God's quickening 
power. Where we must 'give glory to 
God ' and in fact where we do give it is 
in accepting unhesitatingly the crowning 
miracle (cf. x. 8). We too must not 
' weaken ' in faith ; we must be ' mighty,' 
as our father was. 

iv. 23 25. " Not for him only 
was it written, that it was reckoned 
to him for righteousness ; but for our 
sakes too (it was written) to whom 
righteousness will be reckoned be- 
cause we are they who believe on 
Him, who raised our Lord Jesus 
from the dead ; who was delivered up, 
because of our sins, and was raised...." 
The object of the scriptural record is 
plainly to strengthen faith. The con- 
templation of what it achieved for Abraham 

2o6 ' Who was delivered up' 

long since, will plainly minister to us 
that " encouragement of the scriptures/' of 
which we are told in xv. 4. Perhaps I 
am mistaken, but I do not like omitting 
'righteousness ' in w. 23 and 24. Greek is 
a more elliptical language by a good deal 
than English is. Therefore I have inserted 
the word in either verse. The irapeSoOrj 
of v. 25 is an indubitable reference to the 
closing words of Isaiah's majestic chapter, 
/cat Sta TO,? avofJLLas avratv napeSoBrj. If one 
asks, whereto was He given up the Inno- 
cent Sufferer, the Servant of the Highest 
the answer is simply to death. The pro- 
phet expressly says so. Who it was gave 
Him up, is another matter. But we see 
behind the event the Will of the Eternal. 
The Sia TO, TrapaTTTctj/xara tells us why He 
was given up. It was in a word, because 
we we men had sinned, with sins in- 
numerable. What are we to say about 
rjyepOrj Sia TTJV 8t/cata)crti/ ? Ah ! what ? 
We know the Apostle's teaching about sin 
and Christ's resurrection. From i Cor. xv. 
we learn that, " if Christ be not raised, we 

' and was raised' 207 

are yet in our sins." Ergo, if He is raised, 
we are not in our sins. We are at peace 
with God, we are ' i' the right ' with God- 
in one word, "we are justified." Now our 
cautious English says, " Who was delivered 
up for our trespasses, and raised for our 
justification." And the wary English reader 
can easily discern the meaning of the earlier 
clause. But what does he make of the 
other ? If it means anything at all, it 
must mean Christ was raised up to achieve 
our justification. The writer of the ' He- 
brews,' no doubt, pursuing the figure of 
the ritual of the great Day of Atonement, 
does make the ' sprinkling of the blood ' 
(technically the Trpoo-fopd) the crucial 
point in our High Priest's great act, 
thereby shifting the centre of gravity, from 
the place of the Victim's death on Earth, 
to the Eternal Tabernacle. But that 
particular figure is not the one pursued 
by our Apostle. And indeed we must 
remember that Christ fulfils many types ; 
and it will not do to build any 'one and only' 
theory of the manner of His propitiation 

2o8 to what end? 

All we know is what He Himself tells 
us; to wit, that His blood was shed "for 
the remission of sins " ; and what St Paul 
says here, "He was delivered up because of 
our sins." To resume what I was saying 
a line or two above ; with St Paul our 
'justification,' our ' setting at one' with 
God, was achieved by the Death of Christ. 
That is the way he contemplates it. In 
consequence, discarding our familiar am- 
biguity (" was raised for our justification "), 
I will make bold to suggest an alternative : 
"and was raised because of our justification " 
the which I assume to mean that the 
Resurrection of Christ is the seal of our 
justification, already achieved by His death. 
He said, He died for our sins. Now we 
know it ; because He is Risen. 

For choice I would wish to render ; 

"Who was delivered up because 
we had sinned, was raised because we 
are justified." 

S. observes that the action of Sia is 
primarily 'retrospective.' Then why not 
make it so ? ' Our sins,' which went before, 

'because we are justified' (f) 209 

were the origin of His death. All this 
degree of causation we cannot apply to 
our justification : for anyhow God's Holy 
One could not be holden of death. Yet 
some degree of causation we may leave. 
However that is not the most decisive 
reason for considering the preposition even 
here to be retrospective. The whole trend 
of Pauline teaching demands we should. 


All chap. v. (it must be admitted) is 
highly difficult. Any reader can pick out 
of it sublime ideas and inspiring * texts,' 
but the connexion of the whole is excep- 
tionally baffling. The first two verses 
indeed are transparent enough : but im- 
mediately after them perplexing questions 
arise and before we have reached v. 1 1 
(beyond which, in this paragraph, I do not 
propose to go) one wishes with all one's 
heart that, either one could be certain the 
text is unimpaired, or else there were 

w. 14 

2 io ' We have peace ' 

opportunity for asking one who knew from 
outside evidence, how thought follows after 

Consider first the five opening verses. 
What about the leading verb? Is it 
fyofjiev (with A.V. and the American Re- 
visers) or xa)jjiv (with R.V. and the huge 
preponderance of MS. authority) ? Take 
we comfort in the thought that copyists 
were highly prone to confuse the long ' o ' 
and the short : so that after all MSS. in 
such a case need not count for everything. 
And further let us ask ourselves whether 
" Let us have peace " is more likely than 
" We have peace " in this context. For 
me, I should opine, that if one has not 
peace, it is a futile thing to cry ' Go to! let 
us have it.' v E^o/xez/ be it then. 

v. i 6. ''Being then set right 
with God thanks to faith, we are at 
peace with Him, through our Lord 
Jesus Christ ; through whom we have 
also gotten our access to that favoured 
position in which we stand. And we 
exult in the hope of God's glory. 

No imperatives required 2 1 1 

Yes, and we also exult in our tribula- 
tions, being sure that affliction en- 
genders fortitude, and fortitude proved 
valour, and proved valour hope, and 
hope brings not to shame" 

" All because the Love of God is 
shed forth in our hearts by reason of 
the Holy Spirit, that has been given 
us ; for while we were still weak, 
Christ, when the day arrived, died for 
ungodly men." 

In w. i, 2, 3 the American revisers 
eliminate all imperatives. If any is to 
stand, it would be the second /cai^w/xe^a. 
Yet the atmosphere of the passage seems 
to call for the present there, as well as in 
the other two verbs. The thought of the 
77Y>o<raya>y77 is a link between this Epistle 
and 'Ephesians.' There it is mentioned 
twice, here only once. The X^HS, to which 
we have access, is necessarily a ' state ' : 
from ' Galatians ' we remember wrong 
faith can extrude us from it (Gal. v. 4). 
The eV eXm'Si (of v. 2) gives the ground of 
the 'exultation.' We cannot say 'glory' 


212 'Hope brings not to shame ' 

here because of the following 80^179. The 
nature of the ' hope ' is not very clearly 
defined. God's * glory ' suggests the She- 
kinah. On the other hand, it may be not 
the ' glory ' which is God's, but the ' glory ' 
He means for us shall we say, the lost 
image ? 

The great passage about * glory,' in 
2 Cor. iii. (see especially v. 18), was penned 
before our Epistle : but I doubt if that can 
help us. The truth is, we cannot possibly 
know what our ' Hope' does comprehend. 
And there we must leave it. 

The paradoxical ' exultation ' in ' tribu- 
lations ' is of a parenthetic character. Ad- 
versity has its uses. Courage, in its lower, 
and its more developed form (Soteifuf), is 
the natural fruit of it. And perfect courage 
strengthens eXms. The ov /carator^weL 
here is thought to be derived from Psalm 
xxii. (T^TTIGCLV /ecu ov KaTrjo'^vvBrjcrav). 
How the on, which follows next, and the 
clause which it introduces connect with 
the preceding matter, it were hard to say. 
But we can see that the Divine Law must 

A 'cloud' of variants 213 

minister to that joyful attitude of mind, of 
which the Apostle is speaking. Nor again, 
are we quite at our ease in estimating the 
relation of v. 6 to the rest of the context. 
One would be rather tempted to treat as 
one parenthesis all the words from ou p,6vov 
8e as far as KaraLcr^vveL ; and place them in 
a bracket as wholly subsidiary. Then the 
death of Christ would be brought into 
intelligible relation with the hope of the 
Glory of God. 

And not only is there much difficulty 
in unravelling the thought. The reading 
in v. 6 presents a further obstacle. Et ye, 
ei yap, ert yap, ets re yap, Iva. TL yap, are 
all offered ; and of these it is shrewdly 
supposed that ei ye presents most likeli- 
hood of being original. But what are we 
to make of it ? is the ' love of God in our 
hearts ' (that is, the sense of God's great 
Love) emphasised by this clause with etye ? 
And do we not rather need etTrep ? 

I confess I cannot manage to marshal 
the sequence of thought in a satisfactory 
chain. All I can say is this. Clearly there 

214 ^ plea for emendation 

is an 'a fortiori' contained in the virep 
d<r/3a>v. That we should naturally link 
with the thought of the ' hope.' Our hope 
of some great good thing is obviously 
much strengthened by the thought of what 
* Love Divine ' has achieved for us already. 
Let me add, that I should insert a full 
stop after TOV So^eVros r^Liv, read en, yap 
for ei ye, and cut out the second ert 
altogether. This implies a certain lack of 
confidence in the MSS. But I think the 
phenomena will justify such an emendatory 
diffidence. The truth is, manuscripts have 
yielded up their store : now the critic's art 
begins or should begin. 

From all this perplexity we turn, with 
something of relief, to what the Apostle 
says of the grandeur of Christ's Love. 

v. 7 ii. "Why! scarcely for a 
righteous man is any prepared to die. 
I say, for your good man (maybe) a 
man might nerve himself to die." 

" But God establishes His own love 
in this that, while we were yet sin- 
ners, Christ died on our behalf. Much 

Three grounds for exultation 215 

more then, having been accepted now 
through His blood, shall we be rescued 
by His means from the wrath of God." 
"If, when we were enemies, we 
were reconciled to God by the death 
of His Son, much more, having been 
reconciled, shall we be saved by His 

"And not only so, but we exult 
also at (the thought of) God, through 
our Lord Jesus Christ ; by whom we 
have now gotten our reconciliation." 
In chap. v. so far we have had three 
grounds of joyfulness or ' exultation ' men- 
tioned. The 'hope of glory,' tribulations, 
and lastly the thought of God. The rela- 
tion of ev ea> to Sia TOV Kvpiov rjp,a)v (inv. 1 1) 
I apprehend to be this. Man could not 
speak of ' glorying ' in God at all, were it 
not for the new relation established in 
Jesus Christ. In other words, the relative 
clause (Si* o5 eXa/2ofiei/) at the verse's end 
explains what the writer means by " re- 
joicing in God through Jesus Christ." In 
w. 7 and 8 one is tempted to suspect a 

216 The third of them 

dittographia. I do not think any distinc- 
tion between SLKCLIOV and ayaOov will help 
us. The same thing is said twice over; and 
one wonders if two separate readings can 
possibly have been combined. There is, 
to be sure, another element of repetition 
in the passage ; for the statement of v. 6 
is restated in v. 8. But that restatement 
is fuller. 

In v. 9 the cra>07?cro/LLe#a(as being coupled 
with 0,77-0 XT}? opyyj?) bears the narrower sense 
of * rescue ' : the other lower down must be 
taken in a larger meaning. At least, so I 
should say. That cra)6rja-6fji0a appears to 
me to look forward to the final redemption. 
The ' dying ' Christ brought the first one ; 
the eternally ' living' Christ will bring 
about the other. The * saving' from the 
wrath, in a sense, is yet to be ; so is this 
other. They have neither to do with the 
' now.' 

The third ground of * glorying' intro- 
duced by a participle, not an unusual phe- 
nomenon in the Pauline style is, as it 
were, an afterthought. 

Adam 2 1 7 

10. THE TrapdirTupa OF ADAM AND 

And now comes a wonderful passage, 
very full indeed of difficulty, linguistic and 
other, but also richly full of suggestive 
thought. It is true that, for the writer, 
Adam was a veritable person ; whereas, 
for many moderns, he is not. We all know, 
know only too well, our dismal liability to 
fall into acts that shame us. Some modern 
thinkers tell us, that these tendencies do 
not matter ; that they are mere survivals ; 
that by slow yet sure degrees they will be 
eliminated, and so the race will attain to a 
state of moral perfection. But Christians, 
for 'reasons and reasons,' are unprepared 
to accept this latterday message of comfort. 
Instead they are very sure that things are 
somehow wrong, and that it is not to racial 
evolution we must direct our gaze to save 
us, but to moral regeneration, acting upon 
the individual. Therefore, even if we 
do not accept an historic VAdam,' yet we 

218 What 'Adam' means for us 

know what the name 'Adam' means for 
us. His story typifies the mystery of sin 
of wedded sin and death. It will be 
said, if we give up * Adam/ as an historical 
personage, we make the section meaning- 
less. But that we cannot help. Anyhow 
we can study it as it came from the Apostle. 
The attempt to master his meaning is 
prodigiously worth the effort. 

Let us paraphrase some verses and pass 
to their interpretation. 

v. 12 14. " And so, as through 
one Man Sin entered into the world, 
and Death through Sin and so death 
made its way to all mankind, because 
that all have sinned... sin, mark you, 
was in the world before Law came, 
though sin is not laid to men's charge 
where Law exists not ; notwithstand- 
ing Death did reign from Adam until 
Moses even over those that had not 
sinned precisely as Adam did Adam, 
who is the type of Him that was to 
The connexion of the Sux rouro is of 

Sin and Death personified 219 

the very vaguest. I have therefore em- 
ployed the formula which seemed to me 
to reproduce such vagueness most naturally. 
*A.v6pd)Trov, I should say, might be spelt 
with a capital : to one versed in Hebrew 
speech it recalled the idea of Adam, as 
' man ' cannot do for us. Sin and Death 
(as S. observes) are both personified. We 
are moving in the realms of ' myth ' the 
acknowledged vehicle of religious truth, as 
the Greek sage taught long since. 'Death' 
is to be taken as physical death. For that 
is linked with sin, in some mysterious way, 
in the teachings of O.T. ; and so St Paul 
conceives of it. The Stct (in SnJXtfei') means 
'all about/ ' in every direction.' The ' sin ' 
spoken of in ^/xaproi/ may be mystical, or 
literal. It may be part and lot in Adam's 
transgression or it may be individual erring ; 
in the latter case, not uninfluenced by 
hereditary taint ; for Adam's sin is plainly 
regarded as worldwide in its effect. This 
latter explanation is the likelier. There is 
an undeveloped antithesis latent in the first 
two lines. We can follow its general trend 

22O A bookkeeping metaphor 

without any difficulty : ' as one man's sin 
brought death, so one mans holiness brought 
life for all' It disappears because the 
writer suddenly realises the importance for 
his argument of the worldwide pheno- 
menon of death. Death and sin go together : 
the fact that all men die, is a proof that all 
men sin though truly responsibility is 
not perfectly developed until the coming of 
Law. s EXXoyo,(T0(u must be distinguished 
from the more general Xoyieo-0cu. It is a 
definite bookkeeping metaphor. There- 
fore 'imputed' is perfectly fair (if one knows 
what * imputed ' means). St Paul in ' Phi- 
lemon' says TOVTO e/xot eXXoya "please put 
that down to me." ^XP L vopov is an odd 
expression; but it can only have the meaning 
I have assigned to it. 

The sin of Adam, ex hypothesi, was not 
a sin of innocence; it was a sin of knowledge, 
an act of flat disobedience. That is what is 
meant by speaking of folks " who had not 
sinned exactly as he did." The last clause 
of v. 14 is, as we should say, 'dragged 
in.' It is owing to the Pauline habit 

Can one sin work such ruin '? 221 

of constantly letting the thought outrun 
the pen. For the idea is not wanted 

v. 15. " But not comparable to 
the transgression is the gracious gift 
of God. For if by the sin of the one 
the many died, much more has the 
grace of God and the free gift, that 
came by grace the grace of the one 
man Jesus Christ abounded unto the 

We shall see directly what is meant by 
the opening statement in this great verse. 
The Apostolic writer is grappling with a 
question which many a man must have 
asked (at least one would so suppose) in 
Rabbinical schools. That is, how does it 
comport with the infinite justice of God, 
that one man's error should have effects so 
wide in extent, as to involve the whole 
race in death ? It is indeed a natural 
question. St Paul answers it by bidding 
us note that the righteousness of Christ (I 
am not speaking in accurate terms) was 
infinitely more far reaching for good than 

222 Light on a puzzling problem 

Adam's transgression was for evil. That 
every man's death is due to the influence 
of the latter, in ways we cannot apprehend, 
was plainly part of his creed. In this he 
was a man of his age. The belief, no 
doubt, troubled him (or, at least, had 
troubled him, in his pre-Christian days) as it 
troubled others, his countrymen. But now 
he sees light on the difficulty and hastens 
to set it before us. " The many" (that is, 
the world at large) do die, because they 
have sinned. One sin will involve them 
in death, any sin at all ; for death is the 
inevitable concomitant of sin. But, con- 
template on the other hand Christ and what 
He has achieved. God's 'grace' His 
free undeserved love is pitted against 
'Adam's' sinfulness. This goodness, this 
royal bounty (Select is more than mere 
* gift '), operating in the sacred person of 
the one man Jesus Christ (for the 'grace' 
in a sense is His, as well as the Father's), 
has likewise affected ' the many,' but in a 
vastly higher degree as we shall proceed 
to understand. 

A circumstantial phrase 223 

The next phrase needs much of expan- 
sion ; I will venture to supply it. The 
lines on which expansion must proceed are 
laid down in the latter half of the verse. 

v. 1 6. "Moreover the transgres- 
sion was with one man sinning once. 
Not so was the glorious gift. For 
judgment proceeded from one sin, and 
ended in condemnation ; but the free 
gift came after many sins, and ended 
in full acquittal." 

Here, as Si/cato>//,a balances /co/ra/cpi/Lia, 
it should bear a * forensic ' sense. The full 
text I postulate, would run as follows, 

/ecu ov^ o>5 Si' ei'os apapTrjcravTos 

ffv TO rrapoLTTTCDfjia, OVTCO Si' ei>6s ap.ap- 

TT/crairos r}v TO Saj/37/fta. 

Also, I assume that Si' ei>os a^aprrfcrav- 

ros is a ' circumstantial ' expression. Aia 

must not be rendered * by ' or ' through,' 

but merely 'with.' One sin once sinned 

brought judgment upon all and judgment 

of the most serious ; nothing short of KOLTOL- 

AC/H/IGI. When the reign of Grace arrived, 

sins were infinitely multiplied, yet Grace 

224 'Death reigned' 

notwithstanding availed for worldwide * ac- 
quittal.' With ef evos we must of course 
supply TrapaTTTWjLiaTog, from the following 
TrapaTTTcofjiaTcov. With regard to the term 
itself, Thayer very justly remarks, that it 
differs from a^apr-q^a. ' not in force, but 
only in metaphor.' 

v. 17. " For, if through the sin of 
the one Death reigned, by means of 
the one, much more they who receive 
the abundance of the grace that is, 
the gift of ' righteousness ' shall reign 
in life through the one, through Jesus 

This, I think, will speak for itself. It 
is surely amply plain. The /ecu before rrjs 
Scd/oea? is a /ecu of identity. The ' royal 
gift of righteousness] in the technical, theo- 
logical sense, constitutes the x<*/ois. There 
is but one thing more to remark before 
passing from the verse. It is this. Death 
has reigned in ' the many ' ; we should 
anticipate that St Paul would declare, by 
way of antithesis, that Life will reign in 
those who are described as 01 

'One' not 'one man' 225 

a term, be it remarked, susceptible of 
two meanings : it may be either, " those 
who take," or, " those who are given " : for 
everyone is aware that ^appavtiv and St- 
SOVOLL are regular correlatives. But he does 
not. It is his way to vary his antitheses, 
and here there is special reason. The 
idea of the believer ' reigning ' with Christ 
was a favourite one with St Paul. To 
reign iv 0)77, again, might signify more 
things than one. I incline to the belief it 
means in this place, ' reign and live.' The 
Sia rov Ivos appears in either clause. There 
is no ' man ' in either member ; in the 
second in this verse it would not have 
been desirable, in connexion with the 
Glorified Jesus. 

We may now push on to the end of 
this deeply interesting chapter. 

v. 1 8. " So then, as with a single 
act of sin all mankind were affected, 
to the extent of condemnation ; so 
also with one righteous deed a life- 
giving acquittal extended to all the 
w. 15 

226 A portentous literalness 

Here, once again, I would take the Sta 
as ' circumstantial,' though I conceive it 
is less necessary so to do than in v. 16 
above. 'Ei>ds is probably neuter. One 
cannot imagine Sid e^o<? TrapaTrrw^aros 
meaning ''thanks to a sin of one." The 
elliptical form of the sentence is highly 
singular. But the gaps are easily filled. 
Only I doubt if it be wise to fill them with 
terms as definite as 'judgment' and 'free 
gift' (with our English versions). How- 
ever Luther does the same. The imper- 
turbable Vulgate passes grandly on its way 
with a literalness that makes the Pauline 
sentence more bald than ever. What is 
anyone to make of such a verse as this ; 

Igitur sicut per unius delictum in 
omnes homines in condemnationem\ sic 
et per unius justitiam in omnes homines 
in justijicationem vitae ? 

Could one wish for a more convincing 
proof of the sacredness that attached to the 
letter of the New Testament from very 
early days ? 

The sense in which SUCCUOJ/AO, is used in 

in v. 1 8 227 

the verse is unexampled, Yet our Revisers 
adopted it, and I think with justification. 
The truth is, we must have a concrete 
term to balance Tra/aaTrroj/xaros. What 
the St/caio>//,a may be is another question. 
The next verse leads us to see in it that 
' obedience ' of the Only-begotten, which 
stands out in absolute contrast to the dis- 
obedience of ' the man.' One thinks of 
the famous quotation in ' Hebrews ' from 
Psalm xl., 

"Then said /, Lo I am come ...for 
to achieve ', O God, Thy will." 
But that is not a Pauline quotation. 
Some justification perhaps for this bold 
use of St/catw/xa may be found in the well- 
known term employed by the Stoical School 
to describe a perfect act. That term is 
KaTop6o)fjia. We need not ' righteousness,' 
but a ' piece of righteousness ' ; seeing that 
in the former member we have not ' sinful- 
ness ' but a single 'sin.' Besides, in 'Re- 
velation,' which I had for the moment 
wholly forgotten, the word is found in the 
plural for the " righteous acts " of the 


228 Free use of terms in St Paul 

saints (Rev. xix. 8). Aristotle apparently 
draws a distinction between SI/CCU'CO/AO, and 
the word St/catoTrpay^fta. But I doubt if 
that throws any light on the passage before 
us. Ai/ccu'<y/ia, he says, is eTravopOaifJia aSt/o?- 
jLtaros. This definition, one suspects, is 
due to the sage's belief as to the meaning 
of St/catov^. He takes it as meaning a 
4 setting right.' 

The astonishing freedom wherewith 
the Apostolic writer handles vocabulary 
is shown by his employing SiKmoxris here, 
whereas in v. 16 above he said St/caiw/Aa. 
Moreover the employment, in the course 
of a single verse, of Si/ccu'w/xa and Si/cauocris 
in wholly different senses is a^S/jeias ov 

Perhaps one ought to say that the 
Vulgate version is evidence for an early 
belief amongst Christians that the ei^os in 
either case in this verse is masculine. 
Here is precisely one of those points which 
latterday translators will have to consider. 
The tradition of early versions is a thing 
which has to be weighed. Per unum 

' Disobedience ' 229 

delictum (plainly) is what we should have 
anticipated, seeing the general tendency 
exhibited in the Latin. 

v. 19. " For as through the dis- 
obedience of the one man the many 
were constituted sinners ; so also by 
the obedience of the one the many 
shall be constituted ' righteous V 
In classical Greek Tra/oa/cor; means * mis- 
hearing.' Here and in Heb. ii. 2 (where it 
is coupled with Trapct/Sacm) and 2 Cor. x. 
6 it is used for 'disobedience.' The verb 
in the Greek O.T. means to 'disregard,' 
as in Is. Ixv. 12. It belongs to the 
later books only. Heb. v. 8 gives us an 
instance of vTraKoij applied to Christ. In 
4 Philippians ' St Paul himself subsequently 
spoke of Him as "obedient unto death." 
The use of /ca#icrTacr0ai in the section is 
well illustrated from St James' Epistle. 
Jas. iv. 4 is an excellent instance. AtVatos, 
it will be noticed, means here the opposite 
of ' sinner ' a person who is not a sinner, 
nothing more.. It is not 'righteous 7 
positively, but only negatively, i.e. destitute 

230 ' Where sin multiplied' 

of guilt. That is why I place the word m 
inverted commas. 

v. 20, 21. ''Law entered in by 

the way, that the transgression might 

multiply. But where sin multiplied, 

Grace altogether surpassed (it). That, 

as sin had reigned and men died, so 

Grace might reign by ' righteousness,' 

and the end be life eternal, through 

Jesus Christ Our Lord." 

St Paul's position with regard to Law 

we partly know already. Law is in no 

sense 0-0)777/0105. It came in at a late date 

in the economy of God. Its purpose and 

aim we trace as the definition of sin. Here 

the TrapeLa-rjXOev emphasises its ' episodic ' 

character. The verb is not so invidious as 

it is in Gal. ii. 4. To irapdirTwpa must, I 

think that is, if any regard is to be paid 

to its form at all be taken in a concrete 

sense, as pointing to the primal sin, the 

sin of Adam. We are not grammatically 

permitted to view it otherwise. In the 

very next clause we pass from the concrete 

to the abstract. c A/ia/DTi'a is ' Sin/ with a 

The reigns of Sin and Grace 231 

capital ' S.' 'TTrepeTrepicrcrevo-ei/ here must 
mean "abounded more." 

In v. 14 above, it was * Death' that 
reigned. In this verse it is 'Sin'; but the 
two are so close a pair, that the one's reign 
is the other's. " In death" should not be 
taken by any means as 'local.' It might, 
perhaps, express union; but it probably is 
just 'instrumental.' Ai/catocru^ (in v. 21) is 
the antithesis of a^apria. That means ' sin- 
fulness,' SiKaiocrvirr) means simply the oppo- 
site state the state of folks not ' sinners.' 

"So Grace might reign through right- 
eousness, and the issue be life eternal " is 
not an easy clause. The status expressed 
by SiKCLioo-vvr) corresponds in the spiritual 
sphere to death in the physical. Yet not 
altogether. For, in the Pauline thought, 
there are, so to speak, two 'lives,' corre- 
sponding to two ' redemptions.' The first 
redemption brings ' life,' as opposed to the 
'deadness' of sin. So a man becomes Kaivq 
KTIO-LS. But it is the second ' redemption ' 
(the aTToXvTpcocris yet to be) which leads on 
to "life eternal." 

232 A problem of arrangement 

In the comparison here there are two 
terms in the one member and three in the 

There is 'Sin' and its issue 'death'; 
set against these there is ' Grace/ which 
operates through * righteousness' (the aboli- 
tion of sin) and so finally leads on to WT) 
curios. But how are we to marshal this 
two, and this three? If Xa/ois, Aiicaioo-w^, 

j are A 2 , B 2 , C 2 , is e A//,apri'a to be A 1 and 
B 1 , or should they be B 1 and C 1 ? 
That is to say, is ddvaros opposed to on) 
cucwto? ? or is it to be taken as expressive 
of that condition of moral death, in which 
all ' sinners ' lie ? Take it as you will, it is 
certain that 0dvaTos is not here so decisively 
physical, as it was in v. 14. From that 
we cannot get away. 

There are yet two more things to say. 
The one is that he must be indeed a 
stickler for grammar on the lines of classi- 
cal Greek, who sees in these two was a 
* final ' force. St Paul cannot have meant 
that Law came with the purpose of multi- 
plying transgression. He is stating not an 

"ivas that are not 'final' 233 

intention, but a result. A result inevitable, 
if you will as inevitable indeed as the 
result of the Incarnation in dividing the 
sons of men but still only a bye product. 
Law came to make clear to men what was 
right and what was wrong. By the way 
only by the way it tended to heighten 
guilt, and so intensify ' sin ' (not but that 
the sense of TrXeoi/acr^ is actually literal). 

The second of the u/a's is even further 
removed from the region of the purely telic. 
It introduces a remoter consequence. We 
are not required, I think, to imagine the 
Deity as having this double purpose in 
His thought when the Law was given to 
man. We are only to regard it as an 
edifying exposition of the results directly 
flowing from the function Law discharged. 
Guilt was multiplied on the one hand; and 
on the other hand the rich harvest of God's 
Grace was enhanced beyond all measure. 
Man's necessity (as the old proverb has it) 
is God's opportunity. Homely though the 
proverb is, there lies in it real truth. 

And again we must note in passing 

234 Inevitable doxology 

the doxological force of the mention of 
Jesus Christ in the closing words of the 
chapter. St Paul himself was not one to 
forget, or let others forget, the personal 
obligation. I remember an old saint said 
(a Bishop of our Church, not long since 
gone to his rest) that he could not away 
with a sermon, in which there was no 
mention of the holy Name of Jesus. 

So was it with the great Apostle. The 
Lord Christ was first in his thoughts, and 
also first on his lips. Symmetry or no 
symmetry and the pupil of Gamaliel 
never troubled himself to excess about 
literary artifice he could not end this 
section without one grateful word to His 
honour, who has done it all. Aia yes, 
Sia 'lya-ov Xpio-Tov it comes. That is the 
Pauline ' Gospel,' the only Gospel that 

Already we have had at the end of 
v. 1 1 a similar recognition welling up 
spontaneously from an ever-grateful heart. 

A ntinom ianism 235 


"Life-giving acquittal " (v. 18), we have 
seen, is the prime fruit of our Redemption. 
The believer is Suouos ; he is 'right with 
God/ He has attained through the grace 
of God and the work of Jesus Christ to an 
entirely new relation. At this point there 
must needs crop up the problem of anti- 

That problem is faced forthwith. Let 
us hear the Apostle explain why 'believers 
in Jesus Christ,' who technically are not 
{ sinners,' may not be ' sinners ' in fact. 

Ti ovv epovpev (with which we start) is 
a mere formula of transition. 

vi. i 4. " And what shall we 
say (about this) ? Are we to stay on 
in sin, that Grace may have more 
scope ?" 

u Out upon the horrid thought ! 
People who have died to sin... how 
shall we any longer live in it ? Can 
it be you do not know, that all of us 

236 ' That Grace may multiply' 

who have been baptised into Jesus 
Christ, were baptised into His death ? 
By baptism into His death we shared 
His burial. That, just as Christ was 
raised from the dead by the Glory of 
the Father, so we too should make 
our walk in a life completely new." 
The transition is abrupt but (as I 
suggested above) the question inevitable. 
If " righteous" meant ' righteous in fact,' 
it could hardly arise at all. It is just 
because it does not, that we have to put 
the question. Before we were 'justified,' 
we were in 'sin'; now that we are 'justi- 
fied,' are we to "stay on" (Phil. i. 24 will 
illustrate this meaning) in sin " that Grace 
may multiply " ? Up till now we have 
never heard of 'grace ' as ' multiplying.' 

That was what Sin did, not Grace, in 
chap. v. Yet we can easily understand 
why TrXeo^a^et^ is used here. Grace 
Trepicrcrevei per se ; it vTrepTrepicrcrevei, con- 
trasted with multiplied transgression. It 
is not that it becomes more rich 
for it is supremely rich anyhow ; it only 

The believer 'dead to sin' 237 

gains more scope (or, at least, might be so 
regarded, on this very impious hypothesis). 

Something has been said already on 
this topic in chap. iii. 8. 

The first answer the Apostle makes is 
that the thing is inconceivable. In his 
phrase we have "died to sin"; just as in 
Gal. ii. 19 he spoke of having " died to 

This is a figurative way of saying that, 
so far as sin is concerned, we are no longer 
existent. It has nothing to do with us, 
nor we with it. That being so, that we 
should ' continue ' in sin is flatly im- 

This conception of ' death to sin ' is 
worked out upon new lines. 

Our ' death to sin ' is associated with 
our mystical union with Christ. 

The pathway to this union is the rite 
of Baptism. The eis X/otcrro^ (to be dis- 
tinguished very carefully from the ets in ets 
TO ovofjia) must be taken as implying the 
idea of incorporation. 

The expression l/BaTTTicrOrj^v ts TOV 

238 'Baptised into His death' 

is difficult, all will allow. The 
whole point of Baptism is to denote that 
we have a share in the death of Christ ; 
that is to say, in the merit of it. But this 
is hardly what the Apostle is saying here. 
The conception of 'burial,' and of 'resur- 
rection to new life,' is of course familiar 
enough, in connexion with the sacrament ; 
and while in warmer climes the practice 
of immersion obtained, the symbolism was 
speaking. The difficulty of attaining to 
any clear conception of the meaning of our 
passage lies in the fact that Christ's own 
death and Christ's own resurrection were 
actual, historical : while the ' death ' and 
'resurrection,' wherein we partake by 
baptism, are ideal, mystical. If it had 
been "were baptised into death," we should 
have felt no perplexity. For if Baptism 
implies new ' life,' it must imply ' death ' as 
well. It is the avrov which contains the 
whole of the difficulty. And we cannot 
comfort ourselves with the thought that it 
only means "were baptised into a share in 
what His death achieved"; for that would 

Tivo 'deaths' and two 'resurrections' 239 

not be ' on all fours ' with the purely 
mystical burial and mystical resurrection 
whereof we go on to speak. 

We must leave it, then, uncomprehended; 
or only dimly grasped. As for z/. 4, the 
t? TOV OdvoiTov must be taken as depending 
on the Sta TOV ^aTrriV/iaros. The idea of 
the Christian's death and the Christian's 
resurrection, mystically shared with Christ 
in Holy Baptism, recurs in Colossians ii. 

It is only in this passage that the 
resurrection of Christ is said to be the 
work of the ' Glory of the Father.' We 
should notice, as I hold, the tense of 

In the section that follows next, we are 
conscious of the interweaving of two 
mystical deaths, for us, and also of two 
resurrections. It makes the thought hard 
to trace ; but that cannot be helped. Let 
us do what we may with it. 

Verse 5 is so very puzzling that before 
I attempt a rendering I should like to 
discuss it a little. To start with, CTV^VTO^ 
is only here in N.T. ; and that makes it 

240 4 Complantati facti sumus' 

difficult to be certain as to its meaning. It 
ought to mean 'born with,' or else 'akin 
to' (to judge by classical usage) ; but there 
is large probability that the notion of 
* birth ' has receded, as ideas often do in 
compounds, and that the notion of ' union ' 
or ' oneness ' is really prominent. The 
Vulgate renders the term by ' complantati' 
Si enim complantati facti sumus similitu- 
dini mortis ejus is the very curious version 
it presents. This 'complantati' has made 
its way into our English. " For if we 
have been planted together in the likeness 
of his death..." is what 1611 says. Tyn- 
dale however used 'graft,' instead of 'plant.' 
But all our renderings are almost as obscure 
as the venerable Latin. Contemplate the 
Vulgate's dative ' similitudini ' ! Whatever 
can it mean ? and what can be its construc- 
tion ? 

If o-vp,<f)VTos means ' one with,' as seems 
not improbable, it must be wholly out 
of the question to couple it directly with 
TW o/xotw/xart TOV Oavarov OLVTOV. One 
cannot be ' one with a likeness of death/ 

' The likeness of his death" 241 

even if one paraphrases the 'death likeness,' 
so as to make it in itself convey some 
significance. It remains, apparently, that 
6fjiOLa>fjiaTi should be either a dative of 
manner or a dative of respect. That is, 
we must render it either ' by the likeness ' 
or ' in the likeness.' 

Suppose we put it thus : 

vi. 5 7. " For if we have be- 
come 'one with Him,' by a death that 
is like His death, then so shall we 
also be, by a resurrection like His 
resurrection. For this we can ap- 
prehend, that our 'old self shared 
His crucifixion, to the end that the 
sinful body might wholly be made 
away with ; that so we might no 
longer be thralls of Sin. For a man 
that has once died has paid his penalty 
Sin has no more claim on him." 
This paraphrase conveys what I think 
to be St Paul's meaning. I dare not even 
say 'what I believe.' For truly a man 
must be exceptionally self-confident to be 
sure about the matter. 

w. 16 

242 A likeness that is real 

With regard to 6/xoia>/ia, it might be 
worth while observing that in N.T. Greek 
it seemingly represents what we may call 
a substantial likeness. \ mean it is no 
faint shadow, but a something which is 
really 'like.' What 'death' it is that is 
meant, one can only guess. Is the o/^oiw/xa 
a reference to the ' symbolical ' death of 
Baptism the act, that is, of immersion ? 
Or is it to the mystery of our union with 
Christ on the cross (St Paul's familiar 
conception, as in o-vveo-ravpajOr) below) ? 
Moreover, must we carry on the idea of 
o e /xoi'&>/Aa to the Resurrection too ? Or is it, 
as it were, a sort of ' zeugma ' ? and are 
we to suppose that the genitive amcrrao-ea>s 
depends upon some idea of 'partnership,' 
conceivably latent in O-V^VTOL ? For this 
last there is much to be said. It would 
give a good sense : 

" For if we have been one with 

Him in a death that is like His death, 

so shall we also be 'partners' in His 


Yet again (to return once more to the 

A questionable expansion 243 

thought of the 6/>tot(y/>ca) could such a term 
as ofjLoiwfjLa, by any chance, apply to the 
mystical association of the believer in 
Christ's crucifixion ? It hardly seems pos- 

We cannot (do what we will) avoid 
some sense of perplexity ; for, as I said 
just now, there are two 'deaths,' the death 
of the Font, and the mystical 'con-cruci- 
fixion ' (if I may coin a word) ; and also 
two ' resurrections,' the rising to new life 
now, and the rising to new life hereafter; 
all four of them present together before 
the Apostle's thought. And it is very hard 
indeed to disentangle them. 

Verse 5, accordingly, I must leave un- 
settled : I do not know r whether the words 
should be expanded thus : 

el yct/3 crvfJL^vTOL yeydj>a/iez> rw 
X^Hcrrcfj, TOJ o/xot&j/xart TOV Oavarov 
avrov aXXa /cat CTV/K^UTOI aura> ecro- 

or whether it should be thus : 

ei yap CTV^VTOI yeyova^v r&> 

16 2 

244 Scripture must make sense 

X/otcrro), TW 6/iotwftart TOV Oavdrov 
CLVTOV' dXXa /cat (fcoii/awol avrw) eVo- 

where the words in brackets are to be 
regarded as derived from CTV^VTOL. Only, 
one thing I cannot believe I cannot believe 
that St Paul could talk of us as being 
" united to the likeness of His death'' 
For, frankly, it would not be sense. 
And Holy Scripture cannot gain by being 
presented to readers in an unintelligible 

The next verse we might render as 
follows ; 

vi. 6. " For this we can see, that 

our old self shared His crucifixion, that 

the sinful body might be done away ; 

so that we should no longer be slaves 

of Sin. For he that has died the 

death has paid the penalty ; Sin 

touches him no more." 

In TOVTO ywtocrKovTes (which is equi- 

valent to TOVTO yap yLVMCTKOfjiev) we have 

a Pauline participle of a kind that is not 

uncommon. The peculiar force of the 

Justification by execution 245 

present stem, which does not mean 'know' 
of course, must be carefully preserved. 
The 'old man' is the * unregenerate self; 
that 'self ' that is, or was, before the KOLIVV) 
/rnVis came. 2vveo-Tavpa>0r) calls to mind 
the great saying in 'Galatians,' X/ourro) 
crwecTTavpw/xai (Gal. ii. 20). " The body 
of sin " is a striking phrase. We have 
another very much like it in the very 
next chapter (vii. 24). Philippians iii. 21 
and Colossians ii. 1 1 afford other like 
locutions. Sin, after the words TOV /u/tyjceri 
SovXevtiv (how well the old schoolmaster 
recalls the Thucydidean instance in the 
Grammars of that infinitive with TOV in- 
troducing a purpose !) must be spelt with 
a capital. Verse 7 is of exceptional in- 
terest. Death cancels all obligations. S. 
quotes a Rabbinical saying, * When a man 
is dead, he is free from the Law and the 
Commandments.' And this, no more, may 
be the meaning here. But I am half 
inclined to suspect that aTro0ava>v is really 
passive, and that it ought to be rendered 
"he that has died the death." Plainly, 

246 A parallel from St Peter 

when the penalty of sin is paid, Sin can 
have no more claim. In that case, in 
6 aTroOavatv we should see a reference to 
6 (TvvecrTOLVptoiJLevos (to any convinced be- 
liever). Then would the * forensic ' sense, 
which must be detected in ScStitatarat, be 
strikingly brought out. What a curious 
thing it is to think that in good Scots the 
familiar term for execution is 'justification'! 
' He was justified yesterday' meant 'He was 
hanged yesterday.' The OLTTO rrjs djmaprias, 
which closes the verse, must be taken in 
a 'pregnant' sense, "He is quit, and 
safe from Sin." 

What St Paul says in this verse, and 
indeed in somewhat more than this verse 
only, is very aptly illustrated by i St Peter 
iv. i. "Forasmuch then as Christ has 
suffered in the flesh, arm ye yourselves also 
with the same mind : for he that hath 
suffered in the flesh TreVaurcu ap,apTia$ " 
(some MSS. read ct/iapruu?, which I 
should fancy must be wrong). 

There is just the same appeal to the 
death that is shared with Christ ; to the 

Three several 'deaths' 247 

mystical participation in the great event of 

vi. 8 ii. " But if we died with 
Christ, we believe we shall also 
share His life ; being sure that Christ, 
raised from the dead, is subject to 
death no more. Death is no more 
His lord." 

" Because the death He died, He 
died for Sin once for all ; whereas the 
life He lives, He lives for God." 

" So do you also reckon yourselves 
as dead to sin, but alive for God in 
Christ Jesus." 

These verses open with a characteristic 
variation. It might very well have been 
crvva7r0dvoiJiv. . . crw^cro/zez/. Observe how 
in this sentence the mystical joint-death of 
the Cross is coupled with the ' real ' joint- 
life we anticipate through union with the 
Ever-living. S. says, and truly enough, 
that 'different senses of life and death lie 
near together with St Paul ' ; mentioning 
'physical' and 'ethical.' But it is even 
more than that. There is * mystical ' death 

248 Sin Christ's 'master' 

and moral 'death,' and the 'death' which 
corresponds to ' life eternal.' And the ideas 
are interwoven, as if the three different 
* deaths ' (and also different ' lives ') were 
all upon one plane. EiSores means rather 
more than "knowing." I believe "being 
sure" is about right for it. Intuitive 
knowledge is the root idea of the word. 
" Being raised " is incorrect, but virtually 
inevitable. " Dieth no more " will not do 
for oujcert diro0vif<rKei.. It means "is no 
more one who dies." Compare the use, in 
Heb. vii. 8, "for here tithes are taken by 
men liable to die " (avSpes diroOvrja-KovTes). 
" Death is no longer His master!' The 
idea of bondage underlies. While the 
Lord Christ was on earth, as 'Son of Man,' 
'Sin' was, in a sense, His master. Not 
that He sinned Himself; but that in Him 
was fulfilled the mysterious prophecy of 
Isaiah liii. 

It was because 'Sin' was His master 
that the Lord Jesus had to die. For Sin 
and Death share one throne. The curious 
o yap dneOavev (in which it would appear 

'He liveth unto God' 249 

that the o is a sort of 'cognate,' or 'internal,' 
accusative) can be illustrated from ' Gala- 
tians,' 6 Se vw c5 *v crapKi (Gal. ii. 20). 

There ''the life I now live in the flesh" 
is a perfectly sound rendering. R.V. 
reproduces it here, a manifest improvement 
on the old and familiar version. The 
e'^ctTraf (as in Heb.) carries the idea of 
* never again.' And now what about the 
dative (777 o/ia/m'a) ? How is that to be 
understood ? Christ might have 'died to 
sin,' in the same sense that we should * die 
to it ' that is, have done with it for ever. 

But it seems more reasonable (though 
it cannot be considered certain, with an 
author like St Paul) to take rfj d/xa/ma as 
being the same sort of dative as the TO) 
@e( just after. I have rendered "He lives 
for God." The plain person might be 
puzzled to explain what that might mean. 
I think it does mean this : that He lives 
eternally, as it were,/0r the Divine pleasure. 
He died accordingly to gratify Sin ; He 
lives because God so wills it. For the 
moment we lose sight of the thought of 

250 SV Luke xx. 38 

His own Godhead ; of Himself as being 
' the Life/ But then, we have to bear in 
mind that regularly in N.T. the resurrec- 
tion is described both by a passive verb 
e'yei'peo-ftu (where the Power of the Father 
lies behind), and a neuter verb dvaa-TTJvai. 
So we need not be surprised at the Life of 
the Everliving being here attributed to 
a 'something not Himself/ St Luke xx. 
38 may illustrate the dative. There, in 
Christ's ever memorable dictum, we are told, 
" God is not the God of the dead, but of 
the living; Trai^re? yctp avrw a>crii>." That 
dative does not mean, at least I think not, 
"All live by Him" For that would be 
a transgression of grammatical decorum. 
The Deity may not be spoken of in the 
special form of speech which belongs to 
instruments just instruments. It must 
mean "live, beca^l,se He will have them 

So in the passage before us the idea 
presented is this. Said Sin (to the Sinless 
One) " You shall die ; I will have you die ; 
it is my right you should." Thereon the 

Datives and datives 251 

Innocent Sufferer bowed His head, and 
died only l^ana^. Then came the voice 
of God ; " You shall live, live eternally; so 
is My will." And He lives for evermore. 
That is how I take the passage. Right it 
may be, or may not be. But, at least, it is 

In v. u, inevitably, the meaning of our 
dative shifts. Do what you will you cannot 
keep one ' dative sense ' all through. As 
in words there often is a double entendre ; 
so is there in cases also. It may be re- 
produced here, by the retaining of ' for ' 
throughout. We are to reckon ourselves 
as "dead for sin," in the sense "dead, so 
far as sin goes" (that is, non-existent for 
it, or him). And as for the words "for 
God " ; w r hile it is conceivable that we 
'live,' as Christ 'lives,' because it is God's 
will ; I think it is more likely we live in a 
different sense. We live to do His will : 
we live for His service. And this 'life' 
(the whole-hearted Apostle will never let 
us forget), this life is iv Xpiore? 'Irjcrov. 
There the eV is not instrumental. It is the 

252 'Lusts' too strong a term 

iv of the * Vine and the Branches,' the eV 
which signifies the vital union. 
We pass on naturally : 

vi. 12 14. "Let not then Sin 
be king in your mortal body so that 
you should obey his desires ; neither 
hand over, I crave you, your members 
to sin, as tools of unrighteousness. 
But present yourselves to God, as 
men risen to new life ; and your limbs 
(hand over) to God as tools of righte- 
ousness. For Sin must not be your 
lord. You are not under laiv, but 
under Grace." 

The moral here enforced applies to the 
life of the world that is. It is for the 
BVTITOV cra>/ia. There, if anywhere, Sin 
might easily * be king ' : * reign ' is not 
decisive enough. ' Lusts,' to our modern 
ear, goes something too far. 

The eiriOv^iai of Sin are like the 
67ri0v/ucu of anyone else (even the Lord 
Jesus Christ says irt,0vp,ia eVe #1^77 era). 
But they are such desires as are proper to 
one's nature. Sin's ' desires ' are, from his 

' You are not under Law' 253 

nature, desires that are wholly evil. The 
verb Trapio-TdveLv is used with some range 
of meaning. 'Set beside,' 'show,' 'lead 
up to ' (in i Cor. viii. 8 even ' commend ') 
are some of its significations. The irapa 
suggests a 'presence'; the to-raz/cu means 
'set.' I have Englished it differently in 
the two members of the sentence. The 
truth is, the change of the tense makes it 
all but inevitable. Here, as in Rom. 
xii. i, we have the peremptory tense linked 
with the Name of God. It is just con- 
ceivable that a semi-ritual flavour attaches 
to the word in that connexion. The word 
might mean ' admovere! However, I can- 
not find any trace of such a sense in LXX. 
The p,rj 7rapLo-TavT invites the believer 
not to do what is so natural. The tense 
in KvpivcrL has an imperatival force. Yet 
grammarians, we must admit, only allow 
that with the second person. To us, the 
last words of the section sound somewhat 
oddly. But they are not any stranger than 
the well-known saying that strikes so 
curiously on our ears, in the familiar Funeral 

254 Slaves to God and not to sin 

Lesson. " The sting of death is sin ; and 
the power of sin is the Law." In a 
way, barely intelligible to us (who have 
no acquaintance with Law, in the sense 
in which St Paul knew it), the notions 
of Law and Sin were coupled in the 
Apostle's mind. Where Law is, Sin must 
be. In the benignant realm of Grace 
there is no Law : it simply does not exist. 
That is the teaching of * Galatians ' ; /carol 

TtoV TOLOVTUV OVK (TTIV 1>O/AO9 (Gal. V. 23), 

" In face of things like this Law does not 

exist." But let us make no mistake about it. 

The deliverance from 'Law' does not mean 

' lawlessness ' in the sense of iniquity (cu/o/u'a). 

vi. 15 23. "What then? Are 

we to sin, because we are not under 

Law but under Grace? No, no, no! 

Do you not know, that when you yield 

yourselves as ' slaves ' to anyone, to 

obey his orders, you are his slaves 

whom you obey whether it be the 

slaves of Sin, to end in death, or the 

slaves of (God's) obedience, to end in 

his acceptance ? " 

'Righteousness' in two senses 255 

''Now God be thanked, that slaves 
you were once of Sin, and had obeyed, 
with all your heart, that kind of 
teaching to which you were given 
over ; but having been freed from Sin 
you became slaves to Righteousness. 
I use a human analogy, because you 
are weak and carnal. As, I say, 
you yielded your members slaves to 
uncleanness and iniquity to become 
ever more and more wicked ; so now 
yield up your limbs as slaves to 
Righteousness to grow in holiness. 
For when you were Sin's slaves, you 
were free in regard of Righteousness." 

"For what profit had you then from 
those things, over which you now 
blush to think of them ? Why, they 
all end in death. But now, being 
freed from sin, and become the slaves 
of God, you have your profit in growing 
holier, and it will end in life eternal. 
Sin's slaves get nothing but death : 
whereas God's gracious gift is life 
eternal in Jesus Christ our Lord." 

256 ' Whereunto ye were delivered' 

In all this we can find nothing of any 
especial difficulty. In 16, we must observe 
how Si/ccuocrwi7 is the antithesis of Odvaros. 
It follows, that the former carries its tech- 
nical significance. 'Death,' in the spiritual 
sense, connotes exclusion from God. Those 
who have SLKOLLOCTVVT) are they who are not 
so excluded. They are * right with God.' 
In v. 17 is presented (what I had for 
the moment forgotten) a highly puzzling 

It is "you obeyed, from the heart, 
the TUTTOS StSa^s to which you were given 
over'' Much as I should like to render it, 
as if it were vTr^/covcrare ov TVTTOV StSa^rJ? 
TTapeS60rjT, i.e. " you became obedient to 
the type of teaching which was delivered 
you"- on the oiKovo^Lav TreTricrreu/Aai prin- 
ciple ; it does not seem to be possible. It 
is the ' ets ' that bars the way. With the 
rjre we should like a yAv (which we perforce 
must do without). Yet even so we are 
left with a choice of the particular point at 
which the apodosis shall begin. No doubt 
the obvious thing is to make it begin at 

1 Obedient cts that form of teaching* 257 

vTrrjKovcraTe Se. In that case the e* /capSias 
would exhibit that same confidence in the 
sincerity of converts, which St Paul for 
the more part shows. My difficulty is, 
that I can very well imagine a man being 
4 handed over 7 to 'sin,' or to false ideas; 
but I cannot imagine him being * handed 
over* to a Gospel. The Gospel is given 
to him ; not he to it. Against that you 
have to put the fact, that TVTTOV SiSa^s 
would naturally be referred to some defi- 
nite kind of teaching though we need 
not disturb our minds with that curious 
Teutonic fancy, that St Paul is in saying 
so ' giving away ' the early faith by ad- 
mitting there were, so to speak, different 
4 brands ' of Christian doctrine, Petrine, 
Pauline and what not. 

It is Scylla and Chary bdis. Translate 
it either way, and you find that you are 
open to destructive criticism. 

If only you could vTraKoveiv ets TWO, ! 
Or, if only you could regard the ets as 
introducing the thing which you obey ; not 
that to which your obedience, taking shape, 

w. 17 

258 Can it be a solecism? 

would lead you on ! There presents itself, 
to be sure, a method by which we may cut 
the Gordian knot. We might eliminate 
the 19, and declare that inconvenient pre- 
position due to a copyist's misunderstanding 
of the QV TrapeSoOrjTt TVTTOV SiSa^s, a phrase 
which in itself is perfectly simple. 

Then * eV /capStas ' we could render : 

" You were the slaves of Sin, but 
with heart and soul you believed the 
teaching that was delivered you." 

Thus all would be plain and straight- 
forward; and indeed I am not sure that, in 
the end, it would not be wiser and better, 
either to strike out the ets, or to treat it as 
non-existent, simply as a solecism which, 
to be sure, is far from impossible. 

The Vulgate bravely reads ; " Gratias 
autem Deo, quod fuistis servi peccati, 
obedistis autem ex corde in earn formam 
doctrinae, in quam traditi estis." It does 
not even trouble to say, "ei formae doc- 
trinae, in quam...." But that is the 
Vulgate's way. 'TTra/couet^, in N.T., is 
always followed by the dative ; so we dare 

'Ch//<yi>ia hardly 'wages' 259 

not here assume that ets with the accusative 
could represent the dative. 

In avOpvTTivov Xeyo>, on the strength of 
Gal. iii. 15 (where a similar apology is 
attached to the employment of the ' will ' 
analogy), we must see an excuse for the 
figure of ' slaves.' Yet it seems a little odd 
that the excuse should come in now ; in 
view of the fact that we have had a good 
deal of figure before. Yet a distinction, 
no doubt, might be found. In /xeXry and 
GLKaOapo-ia we must detect a definite refer- 
ence to characteristic heathen vices. 

I have translated ets rrjv dvopiav " to 
become ever more and more wicked," 
because it is balanced by the words cts 
dytacr/AO^; and ayiacr/Aos certainly is a word 
that describes a process. It is not dytcy- 
ALKaioo-vvrj, when contrasted with 
La, very naturally means ' righteous- 
ness,' in our ordinary sense ; when set in 
contrast with death, the sense it bears is 
technical. The nap-nos of sinfulness, though 
it is not expressly stated, is moral deterio- 
ration, leading inevitably to death. The 


260 Must we sacrifice the antithesis f 

Kapiros of righteousness is just the opposite, 
amelioration of character, till ' holiness ' is 
attained. " Wages " is, if it be not pe- 
dantic to say it, incorrect for 6i//oWa. The 
Vulgate says ' stipendia ' ; our versions 
' wages,' or ' reward ' (Tyndale). What 
slaves have from their master is ' rations.' 
They may be well fed or ill fed. It makes 
a good deal of difference to a slave, what 
kind of a master he has. It was not at all 
a happy thing to be Cato's slave, or Lucul- 
lus'. ' Sin ' in this figure does not earn 
death. It inevitably brings death. The 
touching and time-honoured antithesis in 
our English is not to be found in the 
Greek unless indeed we make ^apia-pa 
(a word employed deliberately of God's 
good * giving') extend a backward influence 
upon what has gone before it. 

With the mention of 'soldiers,' of course, 
oi/wi/ia could mean 'wages'; not in the case 
of ' slaves.' 

Mark, how the "In Christ Jesus" 
.comes again! It is a refrain never long 
-time absent. There is held to be a 

The image of wedlock 261 

significance in the order of the names. 
"Christ Jesus" represents the 'Glorified 
Christ/ Notwithstanding our Revisers 
would have been wiser to abstain from any 
alteration. The rhythm is totally ruined 
by so doing. And rhythm is of worth in 
holy writ. 


We now approach a question, which 
was very much to the front in the Apostle's 
mind at this period; the question of Israel's 
Law and the believer's relation to it. 
Let the great Evangelist speak: 

vii. i 3. "Can it be, you do not 
know, my brothers, for I speak to those 
that can understand Law, that Law is 
master of a human being, as long as 
ever he is alive ? The wedded wife, Cf. i Cor. 
you see, is absolutely bound by Law 
to her living husband. But if her 
husband shall die, she is altogether 
released from the law of the husband." 
" Accordingly, while her husband 

262 ' The law of the husband' 

lives, she shall pass for an adulteress, 
if she become mated to another. But, 
if her husband shall die, the law has no 
hold on her ; so that she is no adulteress, 
though she be mated to another." 
Tivdxj-Kovo-L vo^ov (v. i) must be taken 
in a general sense. We are not to deduce 
therefrom a preponderance of Jews in the 
ranks of the Roman Church. " The law 
of the husband " may be like * the law of 
the Nazirite,' or 'the law of the leper,' in 
the Pentateuch. On the other hand, seeing 
that adultery is an offence recognised by 
all human codes, the phrase may only be 
equivalent to 'husband-rule.' If the former 
is the case, we need only suppose that the 
Apostle is using a form of speech familiar 
to himself from early associations. The 
curious locution Karapyelo-OaL OLTTO is found 
also in Gal. v. 4. X/^/iarurei is used as in 
Acts xi. 26. In v. 3 " she is free from the 
Law " means, " she is free ; the Law can- 
not touch her." All this is simple enough. 
When we come to apply the figure, we find 
ourselves in rather deep waters. 

'In the body of Christ' 263 

vii. 4. "And so, my brothers, you 
too have been made dead to ' the 
Law,' in the body of Christ ; so that 
you pass to another mate, to Him that 
was raised from the dead, that we 
(all) may bear fruit to God." 
In the figure just above, we had a 
wife and a husband: the latter dies, and the 
former may legitimately mate again. The 
phrase yevecrOai avSpi erepa) (v. 3) is inten- 
tionally vague; it covers all sorts of 'mating,' 
legitimate or other. avaTov<T0ai does not 
mean ' die,' it means ' be put to death.' 
This consideration directs our thoughts to 
the death by which Christ died. In that 
the believer mystically had part and lot : 
or, if preferred, we may say ' has.' As 
for 8ia TOV crw/xaros, one cannot feel sure 
exactly what it does mean. The CTCO/AO, 
of Christ (one knows) in Col. i. 22, and in 
i Pet. ii. 24, is the medium of reconcili- 
ation. " And you once alienated... now 
hath He reconciled iv rw crw/iart TT}? 
crap/cos avrov Sia TOV Oavdrov" ; so says 
' Colossians.' It follows, that the 'body' 

264 A 'first person ' of courtesy 

here may be intended to be taken as re- 
calling the ' broken ' Body of the Crucified. 
If so, we should be half tempted to render 
it " in the person of Christ." Yet 'person' 
is a dangerous term and more wisely left 
alone. Another very possible way of 
understanding the ' body,' is as the mysti- 
cal body, in which we are ' incorporate.' 
Then we might paraphrase, " because you 
are one with Christ." Between these two 
ideas " because you died with Christ " and 
" because you are one with Christ," the 
true interpretation probably lies. The 
change of person exhibited in Kapno^oprj- 
o-ufjiev is difficult to account for. Had the 
first person been emphasised, by the ad- 
dition of a personal pronoun, our thoughts 
would have flown back to i. 13. But it is 
not, as it happens. It remains that we 
should account for it, by that tendency of 
the Apostle to associate himself with others 
whenever he is saying a thing which might 
be possibly construed as conveying a re- 
proach. He will not speak of KapTrofopelv 
unless he unites himself with those who are 

'Fruit' means good works 265 

required Kap7ro<f>opeiv by the necessities 
of the faith. All Christians, whether 
Roman or other, must (whether they will 
or no) be fruitful in their lives. The 
association with * marriage ' makes one 
wonder, for one moment, whether the 
* fruit ' in question be children that is, 
spiritual children. But that use of nap-nos 
is rare ; it is not in LXX at all. Besides 
the whole context declares for the ' fruit of 
holy living.' It will be noted, that the 
figure and the application of the figure 
do not exactly square. The ' Law ' (in 
the application) should be the ' husband ' ; 
it was to the Law, that in old days 
the believers were united. But it is not 
the Law that dies ; they die themselves 
mystically, and are wedded to another 
Bridegroom. It is the whole Church that 
is the ' Bride,' not individual believers. 
However, it might be said that the image 
is but half pursued : it is not worked out 
at all in full detail. 

vii. 5, 6. "In our unregenerate 
days the demoralising sins that come 

266 ' The sinful passions ' 

by Law were set working in our 
members. They would have borne 
fruit by death. But now the Law has 
become nothing at all to us ; for we 
have died to that, wherein we were 
(once) held fast ; so that now we can 
be slaves, not to an antique letter, but 
with a spirit wholly new." 

Cf. viii. 6. El*>ai iv TTJ (rapid is the exact antithesis 
of ' being in the spirit.' In the 'body' all 
must be ; none need be in the ' flesh.' 
The antithesis here presented is found as 
early as the famous saying of Our Lord 
(St Mark xiv. 38). 

To, 7ra077/z,ara ra>i> a^apTLcov is easier to 
paraphrase, by a good deal, than to trans- 
i. 26. late. The TrdOyj ari/xta? (perhaps) may help 
us to the idea. But the whole expression 
seems to point to definite sins, under the 
image of disease. Ta Sia TOV vo^ov is the 
strongest statement we have had, as to 
Law's relation to sin. Here it positively 
makes sin. 

'Ez/T/^yeiTo I think to be passive. A 
something evil is behind, some demoniacal 

Nominative or genitive f 267 

power, which sets them working. Eis TO 
Kap7ro(f)oprjo-aL denotes what grammarians 
often call the 'conceptual' result. In 
this case, the result never came, for the 
process was stopped in good time. TGJ 
Oavara) is ambiguous. It might mean ' for 
Death ' ; but I believe it is ' by death.' 
An accusative in such a case would have 
been conceivable, but I do not think 
St Paul would use it. Therefore he em- 
ploys a ' modal ' phrase. We have elsewhere 
KapTrofopeiv eV vTrofjiovfi (' by resolute forti- 
tude '), and KapTTO(f)opii> eV epyois dya#ot9. 
But this is different from either. 

In v. 6 it makes no difference whether 
we read aTroOavovT^ or aLTroOavovros. In 
any case, the Law is that in which we once 
were held. Above we died 'to it ' : and 
the best editors, here also, read the 
nominative. I have ventured to reverse 
the phrases at the end of the sentence; and 
that, because one feels that it would be 
very helpful indeed to have a dative after 
8ou\veu> of the thing which is actually 
served. We used to serve the Law the 

268 The Apostle hastens to meet a charge 

Law written in black and white 
worn out although it was. Now we 
serve the 'spirit,' which is altogether 
new. Maybe, however, the writer shrank 
from talking of SoiAeuetz/ KOLIVOTJJTL irvev- 
/laros. Hence the insertion of the pre- 

In what he has been saying of Law 
(especially in v. 5) the Apostle lays him- 
self open to a charge of speaking of Law 
with disrespect and even irreverence. 
This charge he now hastens to meet : 

vii. 7 10. " What am I saying ? 
Is the Law sin? No! No! of course it 
is not. But I should not have known 
sin, except by the aid of the Law. 
I knew nothing of wrong desire ; only 
the Law said, Thou shalt not covet. 
And Sin, seizing an advantage, thanks 
to the commandment, produced in me 
every kind of wrong desire. For, 
apart from Law, Sin is dead." 

" Time was, when I was alive, be- 
fore Law came. But when the com- 
mandment came, Sin sprang into new 

'/ had not known sin ' 269 

life, and I I died! So the command- 
ment that was meant to be life-giving, 
for me was found to be death-bringing. 
For Sin, seizing an advantage, by 
means of the command beguiled me, 
and thereby slew me." 
The formula of transition (see vi. i) 
almost suggests an opponent's objection. 
' What ? do you mean to say that Law is 
Sin ? ' The formula of rejection, ^ 
yeVotro, is Pauline altogether ; and very 
largely confined to ' Romans.' The OVK 
tyvw presents that well-known figure of 
language by which what is really 'potential' 
(as here, ' I should not have known ') is ex- 
pressed as an absolute fact, qualified by 
what comes after. OVK rjSeiv, of course, is 
the same. The word eVroX^ describes a 
distinct commandment, such as one of the 
Ten Words. Aia TTJS eVroA/yj? (in v. 8) may 
be attached to /caretpyacraro or to a^op^v 
Xa/Sovcra. Lying as it does between the 
two, it will go very well with either ; or 
even with both. NtKpa describes what 
we in modern speech should call a 

270 A reference to early Genesis 

state of suspended animation. ' Sin ' was 
not actually dead. She existed merely 
potentially, till an ei/ToXi? came. Then, 
forthwith, she sprang into life and baneful 
energy. In v. 9 n the writer palpably 
has before his mind the earliest instance 
there is in Holy Writ of the coming of 
eVroXrj, and sin's disastrous re-animation 
(' animation,' if you will). 

The story of Eden provides the setting 
of the figure. Man is happily alive in 
perfect innocence. But alas ! there is an 
IvroXr) a something which may not be 
done. Here is Sin's 'opportunity.' Sin 
may be compared to the ' Serpent.' It is 
the serpent who ' beguiles,' in the story of 
Genesis. On the other hand, it is the 
woman who gives the fatal fruit. But, 
be it by serpent or woman, poor man is 
beguiled, and dies. 

Thus Law (and its component ele- 
ments, the eWoXcu) are fully vindicated. 

vii. 12. " And so, the Law for its 

part is holy. The commandment too 

is holy and just and good." 

A typical Pauline verse 271 

The antithesis of the fteV is only latent. 
It is a case of ' honi soil' 

'Holy' stands in complete and absolute 
antithesis to ' sinful/ as its very antipodes. 
1 Just' is in contrast with 'unfair,' 'inequit- 
able.' ' Good ' means ' kind,' designed 
to help and not to hurt. As with the 
'help-meet/ in the old-world story, so was 
it here. What God designed for good (the 
warning eVroXr;) somehow engendered 

Where did the fault lie ? 

It is thus the Apostle makes answer : 

vii. 13. "Did then the thing, 

that was good, prove to be my death ? 

Nay, nay ! But it was sin, that its 

sinfulness might be displayed ; because 

that it used what was meant for my 

good to bring about my death to the 

end that through the commandment 

sin might be proved superlatively sinful 

...(It was Sin that was my death}...." 

This verse, in all its intricacy, is highly 

typical of Pauline style. There is no 

predicate at all. ' Sin ' is marshalled in 

272 The ' commandment ' enhances sin 

.the foreground, and we anticipate such a 
pronouncement as, ' No, it was Sin that 
was my death.' But not at all ! The 
sentence is diverted into quite another 
channel, and (instead of telling us that it 
was sin that was to blame) the Apostle 
passes on to explain, what purpose lay 
behind this malevolent activity ; or rather, 
how sin's malevolence only resulted in 
making clearer sin's horrid sinfulness. The 
Iva we must not press. I mean, we must 
not attribute such a purpose to the Deity. 
Evil defeats itself. We do not, and cannot, 
conceive of the All- Holy as engaged in 
outwitting wickedness. Therefore Iva. is 
for us, and probably for the writer, at least 
as much ' consecutive,' as it is 'final.' The 
turning of good into evil is obviously a note 
of highly developed depravity. 

The reading in v. 13 varies between 
ytyovt and eyeVero. As I have said (I 
think) before, the perfect of this special 
verb is often used aoristically. Therefore 
either reading would do ; though eyeVero is 
more in accord with normal Greek. If one 

'That it might be shewn to be sin' 273 

was permitted to suggest emendations in 
the text and nowadays amongst scholars, 
I should say, there is a feeling that the 
critical instinct must be allowed, at least 
occasionally, a little scope in that direction 
I think I should be tempted to say, that 
the text would be more straightforward, 
if we might make an alteration and read 
dXX' 7] dfjiapTia ("no, it was sin that proved 
my death ") ; Iva <j>avfj TI d/xaprta /c.r.X. 
(" that sin might be seen using, what was 
for my good, to bring about my death "). 
It is true that in St Matthew vi. 5 it is 
said, of the hypocrites, that they stand 
praying in prominent places, OTTOJS <f)ava>crL 
TO!? av9 PMTTOLS. But that is not quite the 
same, for one naturally supplies the neces- 
sary participle, " that they may be seen of 
men praying": and that we cannot do 
here. The adverbial phrase /ca# J vnep- 
ftoXrjv comes five times in this group, and 
nowhere else in St Paul. Every writer has 
favourite phrases, which vary at different 
times of his life. This is sometimes for- 
gotten by persons who lay much stress 
w. 1 8 

274 The Law essentially spiritual 

on vocabulary, as a never failing test of 

And now St Paul says a thing, which 
occasions us some surprise, as a something 

vii. 14. "We know" (he says) 

"that the Law is a thing of the 


Then, what (enquires the reader) about 
that TraXcuoTTjs ypa/A/iaTos, of which we 
heard just now ? Ah ! but that is precisely 
it. We are not concerned with yyoa//,/ia. 
We want and the Apostle intends to 
point out that in essence the Law is a thing 
of TT^eu/xa. It is so for one great reason ; 
that it has enshrined in it the holy Mind 
of God. It is His 'Law'; and He is 
Tn/ev/ia. This we must not forget. No 
spoken word of man is an adequate vehicle 
of this transcendent thing. But every 
word that has in it an element of ' spirit/ 
or is recognised as coming of the Spirit, 
must be treated with all reverence. The 
spirit in things spiritual needs spirit for 
its discernment. 

' Sold under sin ' 275 

The Law, a thing (in itself) corre- 
sponding to its high origin, was simply too 
good for man. Man could not rise to it. 
So is the view of this passage ; 

vii. 14 (continued). ../'whereas 

I am wholly 'fleshly,' in utter bondage 

to Sin." 

There is another place in St Paul, where 
our better MSS. read o-dpiavos (instead of 
crapKLKos) as the antithesis of 7n>ev/xaTi/cos. 
The ordinary distinction is familiar to all 
students. If we are to keep cra^/az/os, in 
i Cor. iii. i and here, we must suppose that 
it denotes a high degree of * fleshliness '- 
a complete predominance of the lower 
nature in a man. IleTr/oa/bteVo? VITO rrjv 
a/xaprtai/ (" the thrall of sin, bought and 
sold") is an unexampled expression. St 
Paul goes on to explain the nature of this 
awful bondage. 

vii. 15. "For the thing I am 

bringing about, I cannot see. For, 

not what I want, do I do ; but what 

I loathe, that I do." 
In this verse we have three words, all 

1 8 2 

276 'Doing' and 'wanting' 

of which might simply mean ' do.' Two 
of them, I imagine, are very nearly syn- 
onymous. Between irpdrr^iv and Troieiv 
it seems a futile thing to discriminate. 
Kar/>yaecr#ai, however, stands upon a 
different footing. That contemplates re- 
sult. A man, an immoral person, can see 
(yivdxTKei) only too well what he is doing ; 
but he cannot see, with sufficient clearness, 
whereto it tends. OuSeis e/c<uj> d/x,ayora^et, 
said the sage of old ; and there is a good 
deal of truth in it. Inadequate faculty of 
ywaxTKeiv accounts for very much of human 
weakness. Maybe (but I think it unlikely) 
the first clause should be interpreted on 
other lines : " for what I am bringing 
about, I do not intend." The idea of 
' determination ' belongs to the verb some- 
times, but not in the present-stem forms. 
Therefore we cannot entertain this inter- 
pretation seriously. 

vii. 1 6. "And, if I do what I do 

not want ; I agree, that the Law is 

Literally it runs; " I agree with the 

'It is no more /' 277 

Law, that it is (an) excellent (Law)." The 
Law is pictured as commending itself. It 
proclaims itself as God's Law, and such ' I ' 
feel it to be. 

vii. 17 20. "That being so, it 
is not I, that perpetrate the thing, but 
the sinfulness, that dwells within me. 
For I know that there dwells in me, 
that is, in the lower me, no good at 

" As for the wanting (to do good) 

that is ready to my hand ; but the 

achieving the good is not. For I do 

not do the good I want to do; but the 

evil I do not want to do, that I do. 

And if I do what I do not want ; 

then it is not I that achieve it, but 

the sinfulness that lives in me." 

The oven's in the passage are of an 

idiomatic character. " So now it is no 

more I " (our Version) is not adequate. 

' Sinfulness ' is more correct in the idea 

it conveys than ' sin.' We are working 

onward to the doctrine of the two ' men ' 

in the ' man.' There is a lower self and 

278 No bondage in regard to words 

a higher self; the eyw in this passage is 
the higher, better self. But the crapf, 
or lower nature, prevails in unregenerate 

e'Xeu' (as is well known) has attached 
to itself by now a far stronger signification 
than it had in earlier days. It means de- 
finitely ' want.' HapaKio-0aL is used of 
a thing to which you can * help yourself ; 
you have only to reach out your hand, and 
there it is ! It is rather an odd thing to 
say, ' I can want, as much as I like ' ; but 
that is what he does say. In v. 19 (as 
compared with v. 1 5) we can certainly detect 
the indiscriminate use of Troieiv and Trpdcr- 
creiv. In a general way St Paul has a well- 
marked tendency to deliberate variation. 
We have the same thing in English. Our 
earlier translators were well aware of this, 
and literary instinct made them shun, 
amongst other things, the Revisers' prin- 
ciple of ' one word for one.' 

In v. 15 we read aXX' o /xicrcu, TOVTO 
: in v. 19, aXX' o ov #e'Xa> /ca/coV, TOVTO 
The conclusion is inevitable, 

'Law' and 'law' and 'law' 279 

that the writer used which verb he chose, 
and whenever he chose. 

vii. 21 23. "Accordingly I find 
the rule; when I want to do the good, 
it is the evil which is ready to my 
hand. You see, in my inner self, Cf. 2 Cor. 
I cordially assent to the Law of God. 
But I am conscious of another principle, 
(established) in my members, waging 
war on the Law I approve, and trying 
to make me captive to the principle of 
Sin, that is in my members." 
Could one wish for a better instance of 
the difficulty involved, for the man who 
wants to understand, by the habit the 
writer has of using a single word in several 
senses ? Contemplate I^O/AO? here ! Of 
course it is perfectly true that I/O/LLO? can 
be affirmed to be not one word, but two ; 
for we can effect a discrimination by at- 
taching the definite article. But the aid 
of the definite article (its aid to the inter- 
preter) is more apparent than real. Our 
revisers (no doubt, believing that 6 i>o//,os 
must mean "the Law") inserted in their 

280 Rule, law or principle 

margin, "with regard to the Law." But 
it is not possible. The sentence before us 
is not of a form in which the accusative 
could be so interpreted. Their text (" I 
find then the law that, to me, who would 
do good, evil is present") is not unduly 
lucid. St Paul is here using ' law ' in a 
sense familiar to us in connexion with 
' laws of nature.' A ' Law of Nature ' is a 
statement of what is observed to happen. 
Such is this Maw' St Paul finds. It is 
the way things always go. In the very 
line below, we have " the Law," to all 
intent, identified with the familiar Law of 
Holy Writ. About that we can make no 
mistake ; for the * Law ' is qualified as 
" the Law of God." Still it is the second 
sense, in which we have 1/0/40? used. The 
third sense is in the next line ; three 
meanings in three lines. Another VOJJLOS 
is perceived, residing in the ' members ' 
(an expression used for choice apparently, 
instead of aw/xa, when the thought of sin 
is present) and engaged in constant war 
with "the law of my mind" (that is, of 

1 The law of my mind' 281 

course, the law the thinking part of me 
approves for practical purposes the ' Law 
of God ' ; but not entirely the same : for 
I can only approve such part of the * Law 
of God,' as is fully made known to me). 
The eager reader will say, Why ! of course 
this credos yo'/xos is the law opposed to 
God's, the law of Sin. But it is not ; it 
is a ' vofjios ' an indeterminate ' tendency ' 
residing in the lower ' me ' always em- 
ployed in the hapless task of bending my 
better will and better judgment to the 
' law of Sin ' (likewise " seated in my 
members"). It is not too much to say, 
that here we have one Greek word, that 
must be supplied and equipt with three 
equivalents in English. First it is only a 
' rule ' ; then it becomes a definite ' law ' ; 
anon it is a principle or, if you will, a 
' tendency ' : last of all, it returns to the 
sense of a law, which is definite law ; 
yet not so definite, as the Law of God 

Moreover, in between, we have the 
Maw of my z>ovs/ which cannot (strictly 

282 A ground of wonderment 

speaking) be identified with any one of the 
other four, though it is a real * law ' what 
we should call a 'law' in English. Maybe 
this confusion is due to mere paucity of 
vocabulary. Yet it is very hard to believe 
that the resources of a Plato, or the re- 
sources of an Aristotle, would not have 
coped with the emergency. There is a 
flexibility in the language, that makes it 
possible to express the most complex ideas 
with perfect facility, in spite of the com- 
parative insufficiency of vocabulary. But 
this glorious flexibility we do not find in 
our Epistles. 

The pureness of Pauline Greek was 
possibly not unaffected by 'Hebrew' in- 
fluences. Perhaps we should not complain. 
But the man, who has spent his days in 
teaching classical Greek, cannot but feel, 
what a mystery it is in the Providence of 
God, that a teacher like St Paul, so 
splendid and so fruitful on the * Spirit ' 
side of him, should have been by com- 
parison (especially in the argumentative 
parts of his writings) so deficient on the 

'/ of myself 283 

side of the letter. * If only he could have 
written like Plato ! ' one finds oneself 

Anyhow a wooden literalness is the 
very last thing desirable, if the meaning is 
to emerge for modern readers. 

Only what is the translator to do in a 
paragraph like this ? In a paraphrase one 
may say * tendency,' ' principle/ what you 
will ! In a definite rendering such devices 
are altogether impossible. 

vii. 24, 25. " O ! hapless man 
that I am! Who shall rescue me from 
this death-bringing body ? " 

" Thanks be to God (there is de- 
liverance] through Jesus Christ, our 

"So then, the unaided ' I ' serves 
God's Law with the reason ; but with 
the lower nature I serve the law of 


These two be glorious verses. All can 
draw hope from them and splendid in- 
spiration. Yet, even so, a prodigious 
conflict of tongue and wit alike has 

284 ' The body of this death' 

raged, and will rage, around them in every 

Xdpis TV 0eo) (S. finely says) is just a 
'sigh of relief.' The agonising question 
has found an answer. One need only say 
' Deo gratias ! ' 

But what precisely was the question ? 
" Who shall deliver me from.. ." what ? Is 
it "this deadly body " ? or is it " the body 
that is linked with this death " ? The 
'body,' in itself, is not 'death-bringing.' It 
has a glorious destiny. But, in its present 
' fleshly ' state, it falls a ready victim to 
sin ; and sin leads on to death. My own 
feeling is for taking TOVTOV, not with 
Oavarov merely, but with the whole ex- 

The cry appears to me to be, ' Who 
will deliver me from this body, which is 
always dragging me down'? For in the 
verses above, the ' principle ' of evil, and 
the very ' law' of sin, have their strong- 
hold in 'the members.' But we cannot say 
with certainty which is the more likely 

Where does the cry belong? 285 

And then again, what about Sta ' 

V ? The Holy Name might be the 
medium through which the Apostle offers 
thanks. " I thank God, through Jesus 
Christ." That is very plainly conceivable. 
On the whole, however, one inclines to 
side with the view, which attaches the words 
to the unexpressed ' redemption/ ' Thank 
God ! / am delivered, through Jesus Christ 
our Lord ' (that is to say, through what 
He brought). 

But there are several questions more 
(and questions hotly disputed) connected 
with the verses. AUTO? ly& does not 
mean 'I myself,' but 'I of myself (as the 
American Revisers have it) or ' I by my- 
self.' Let that be granted. When we 
view the whole of the last sentence, we ask 
ourselves in perplexity, assuming that 
' I by myself is the proper meaning, to 
what stage in a man's experience, to what 
stage in the Apostle's experience, does it 
refer? Is it the despairing cry of the 
unregenerate ? or is it the cry that goes 
up from each and every Christian in the 

286 Redemption actual and potential 

time that is ? Both opinions have been 
held by large sections of the Church. The 
latter would seem the likelier. Then what 
about the x ^ 019 T( ? < ? * May we put it 
in this way ? May we say, ' you must 
observe that St Paul does not plainly tell 
us what it is he thanks God' for ' ? There 
is a deliverance ; there is a redemption. 
To be accurate, there are two. There is 
the redemption of SI/CCUOCTWT; (or, if you 
will, of Si/catwo-ts) which puts us in the right 
with God, and further, and most important, 
unlocks for us on earth the treasure house 
of the Spirit. But, when all is said and 
done, it is the ' soul ' alone which enjoys 
that * redemption,' not the ' body.' The 
dTroXvTpoJcrLs Tov (rw/xaTos (which I would 
identify with the aTroXur^axri? XT}? TrepnroLrj- 
crea>s, " the redemption of realisation," in 
Ephes. i. 14) is yet in the far future. 

Redeemed in part, anon to be redeemed 
in full that is the position of man. Yet 
God may be thanked for this, "through 
Jesus Christ our Lord," that the full 
and absolute redemption is potentially 

' No condemnation ' 287 

achieved by Christ for all already. It only 
remains to live ' in the spirit ' now. Still, 
one believer will view it one way, and one 
another ; and none will be wholly right. 
For truth is many sided, and further our 
intelligence, however illuminated, can never 
be capable here of grasping things as they 

For the rest, in the understanding of 
this verse, the more a man is inclined to 
the sterner western view, the more he will 
believe that the conflict is here and now, 
though the victory is sure. St Paul was 
assured of the victory ; but there were 
times and times when he doubted of 
himself though of Christ he doubted 


The redemption of which we spoke 
just now, the redemption which evokes 
the outburst of thankfulness, though in 

288 ' The law of the Spirit of Life' 

one aspect ' potential,' in another is 
' actual ' exceedingly. Right relation is 
restored between God and the believer. 
Thereby the believer passes from the peril 
of condemnation. 

This freedom from condemnation ap- 
pears in the very opening of the memorable 
viiith chapter. The last clause of chap. vii. 
might have suggested that the peril still 
exists. But it ought not so to be. After 
all, it is only if the ' flesh ' is allowed to 
prevail that any danger arises. And it 
need not be allowed ; it must not be al- 
lowed. For hear what St Paul has to 

viii. i, 2. "There is then no 
condemnation for them that are ' in 
Christ Jesus ' ; for the rule of the 
Spirit of Life hath freed thee, in 
Christ Jesus, from the rule of Sin and 
of Death." 

The ' then ' does not refer to what has 
gone just before. It looks further back- 
maybe to the end of chap. v. The form 
of the word /cara^t/xa may possibly be 

Law here means 'rule' 289 

taken as individualising the result. It is 
not ovSepia K^rafc/Hcn,?, which would be a 
general phrase stating an universal result, 
but it is ouSeV /cara/c^t/xa, none for ' you ' 
and none for ' me.' The ere (which I be- 
lieve to be right, as in the older MSS.) 
tends likewise to the same conclusion. Toi? 
iv Xyotcrrw 'IT^CTOV covers the thought of 
mystical incorporation. In v. 2, I/O/AOS is 
used with the same wide-ranging freedom 
as in the last chapter. " The ' Law ' of 
Sin and Death " does not mean the * law ' 
they impose, but the rule, the authority 
they exercise. We live under a new regime. 
Not Sin, not Death is master. There is 
another prevailing power. It is " the rule 
of the Spirit of Life." In this last phrase 
it is possible that the two nouns are in 
apposition. For the Spirit is the Life. 
But a more probable explanation would 
be that " the Spirit of Life " is a phrase 
akin to "the Body of Death." He is 
called " the Spirit of Life " because He 
gives new life, and makes a man 


w. 19 

290 A well-known ' crux' 

Next follows a well-known crux. I 
would render it freely like this : 

viii. 3. "For what the Law could 
not do where the Law was weak 
through the ' flesh ' God, sending 
His own Son in the likeness of sin- 
ful flesh, and indeed for sin, achieved. . . 
He condemned sin in the flesh." 
Here be difficulties truly ! not indeed 
in the two opening clauses ; for they are 
plain enough. They are appositional 
phrases, the second explaining the first, to 
be taken in relation to the main pronounce- 
ment of the sentence. The Law would 
have 'condemned sin' (how, we will discuss 
directly), only human frailty stood in the 
way. It was the crdpg that baffled the 
' Law/ from this point of view. 

"What the Law could not do..." sug- 
gests, as a contrast, " God did" I venture 
to supply it. For, without some slight 
expansion, the sentence, to English ears, 
would tend to become meaningless. But 
the trouble does not end there. The 
sudden turn of the sentence, to be found in 

'The likeness of sinful flesh' 291 

the word /care'/c/nz/e, has this of awkward- 
ness in it ; to wit, that the act described 
by the word /care'/c/nz/e was really the 
work of the Son, and not of the Father, 
unless we have recourse to the dogma of 
* coinherence ' which, I take it, we shall 
not do. 

But we have not yet arrived at /care- 
Kpive. There is a phrase which comes 
before that. God is said to have " sent 
His own Son in the likeness of sinful 
flesh." The word 6/xouo^a is used in 
Phil. ii. 7 in speaking of the Incarnation. 
There it runs ez/ 6/AOtw/iari dpOpco-rrov yei/o- 
//,ez>o9. As I have remarked before, in 
6fjLOLO)p.a there seems to lie an added idea 
of ' reality.' So here, Christ came " in the 
likeness of frail humanity." The 'likeness' 
was real, complete ; but it did not extend 
to the frailty, for frailty is not of the 
essence of humanity. 2a'/of does not here 
connote, in itself, any such conception : it 
is as in Col. i. 22. 

About Kal 7re/H d/ia/oria? there is large 
controversy. Our revisers say " and as 


292 'Condemned sin 1 in what sense? 

an offering for sin " : the American Com- 
mittee, who frequently are right when they 
differ from our own body, very cautiously 
prefer "and for sin." But what does it 
mean ? If one refuses to believe in the 

* LXX ' usage here (nepl dfta/m'as for ' sin 
offering' : cf. Heb. x. 3), the least that one 
can do is to say something which has a 
meaning. It might be "and with sin in 
view." That would give the degree of 
vagueness, that is obviously desiderate, if 
ez> 717 crapKi is explained as I for one think 
it should be. 

And now comes the greatest difficulty 
of them all ; the interpretation of KaTeKpwe 
Tr)v apapTiav lv rfj crapKi. 

Here S. says "condemned Sin by His 
flesh." In the first place, that emphasises 
the point I remarked before as touching 
/care'/cpu/e, that it was the Son who Kare- 
Kpive, strictly speaking. Or rather, it 
aggravates the difficulty of Persons : for 

* his ' must needs refer to the subject of 
the sentence ; and that is the Father. 
Next, "in (or by) His flesh" would 

Surely ' sin in the flesh ' 293 

naturally mean "in His Life," "by His 
Life," on Earth. There would be no plain 
reference to death upon the cross. And 
that, I think, would destroy the explanation 
of S., that Christ ' non-suited ' sin, for 
evermore, by His death. His idea is that 
Sin has no claim against a believing man, 
inasmuch as he shares Christ's death. 
Because I cannot believe in this ex- 
planation of eV TJJ o-apKi the explanation 
of /care/cpii/e, by itself, would undoubtedly 
do admirably I incline to another view. 

It was not 'sin' Christ condemned, it 
was 'sin in the flesh. 1 That is, He de- 
monstrated, for all eternity, the needlessness 
of sin. Up till then everyone had urged 
1 kvmanum est errareJ There are scores 
and scores of proverbs which condone all 
sorts of wrongdoing. 'Us le font tous,' 
I have had said to me. But they do not ! 
Christ did not ! He lived in utter sinless- 
ness. In a word, "He condemned sin-in- 
the-fleshy It is not a question of 'sin' 
(that needs no condemnation) it is a ques- 
tion of sin in man. Is that excusable or 

294 ' The claim of law' 

is it not ? Christ showed that it is not ! 
What was the importance of this ? It is 
very plain to see. As long as ever man 
held sin to be only natural : so long there 
was small chance of humankind attaining 
to aught of holiness. But ' what man has 
done, man can do.' And, at least, we 
cannot say, * It is hopeless for a man to 
try to live in holiness.' Christ rises up 
before us in all His perfect innocence. 
He "condemned" sin. He condemns us 
too if we give way to it. 

The upshot (if you will, the upshot 
that was intended by the * Divine Love ' 
which sent the Son) is set forth in the very 
next verse : 

viii. 4. " To the end that the 
claim of the Law might be fulfilled in 
the case of us that walk not after the 
flesh but after the Spirit." 
The SifcauJtifui of the Law is what the 
Law demands as right. One would have 
looked for a plural here. It may be there 
is reference to some comprehensive pre- 
cept, such as Levit. xi. 45. If it were not 

Walking 'after the spirit' 295 

for the manner in which the sentence ends, 
a wholly different sense might attach to the 
word. The St/ccuw/xa of the Law might be 
the death of the sinner ; and that would 
have been 'fulfilled' (eV r^lv) by the death 
of the Crucified. But plainly the 8t/cato>/ia 
has to do with righteous living, and not 
with sin's punishment. Ai/ccuw^a we have 
already had with manifold significations. 
In i. 32 it stood for 'just decree'; in ii. 26 
(plur.) for 'ordinances'; in v. 16 for 
1 verdict of acquittal ' ; in v. 1 8 for ' act 
of righteousness'; and here for 'just de- 
mand' a sense nearer i. 32 than any 
other. So the word is used five times, and 
always with a different meaning. Yet 
all are intelligible and readily derived 
from the root meaning and the formative 

H\r)pa>0rj reminds us again of xiii. 10. 
To "walk after the flesh" is a phrase that 
is fragrant of its origin. In our everyday 
speech it would be 'live the lower life.' 
In Trepnrartiv /card Tn/ev/xa, the question 
suggests itself, what Trvevpa ? Having 

296 ' The mind of the flesh ' 

regard to /caret o-ap/ca (which must mean 
our lower nature) one would say, the 
1 spirit ' is ours ; it stands for the higher 
part of us, that part, thanks to which we 
enjoy our contact with the Divine ; that 
part in us, which alone can be influenced 
by the Divine. 

viii. 5 8. " For they that are 
' after the flesh ' are fleshly minded ; 
and they that are * after the spirit ' 
are spiritually minded. The mind of 
the flesh means death ; contrariwise, 
the mind of the spirit means life and 
peace. The mind of the flesh, you 
see, means enmity towards God. For 
it does not submit itself to the Law 
of God; indeed it cannot: and they 
that are * in the flesh ' cannot please 

In this there is little to trouble us. 
" After the flesh" and " in the flesh" are 
phrases both expressing surrender to the 
lower nature. The second is probably the 
stronger. In the one case the figure would 
seem to be that of following a guidance ; 

'is enmity against God' 297 

in the other it is utter absorption. When 
you are " in the flesh " the lower nature 
masters you altogether. <J>poi>u> is a 
difficult term, and (^poi^/xa even harder 
I mean, to render in English. As S. ob- 
serves, the terms connote very much more 
than ' reason.' * Affections ' too and ' will ' 
are covered by them. For the phrase 
(frpovelv TCL rfjs crapKos, compare St Matt, 
xvi. 23 (ov <f>povLs TCC TOV eov), and 
Phil. iii. 19 (01 ret cTrtyeta fypovovvres). 
The <f>povr)fjia of the flesh is that general 
attitude towards life, and all that is in 
it, which stamps the lower nature. It is 
identified with ' death ' (in very much the 
same manner as * the rock ' in i Cor. is 
identified with Christ), because it leads to 
death unfailingly. It is also said to be 
ex#/oa eis 6eov. That and death are, in the 
end, the same. God is Life ; and that 
which is ungodly is ip so facto 'death.' Ov^ 
vTroTacro-ercu (v. 7) describes the normal 
state of the ' fleshly mind.' As a habit, it 
does not bend or bow to the will of God. 
The verb one would call * deponent.' 

298 Why is 'the Spirit life'? 

does not mean 'please once/ but 
simply 'please.' 

The Apostle now gladly leaves the 
saddening contemplation of the ill case 
of the ungodly and turns to a brighter 
picture : 

viii. 9, 10. "But you, you are not 
' in the flesh/ but ' in the spirit ' ; so 
surely as God's Spirit dwells in you. 
But if anyone hath not the Spirit 
of Christ, he is none of His. On 
the other hand, if Christ be in you, 
although the body be dead, because 
it is sinful, the spirit is life indeed 

It will be noted that though Trepnrareiv 
Kara Trvevpa is to "live after one's own 
higher nature," in the expression elvai eV 
Trvev^aLTi (seeing that eV Trvtvpari undeni- 
ably signifies a dominating influence) the 
TrvevfjLa is not our nvevfjia, but the * Spirit ' 
which comes from God and in a sense is 
God. Etp<u eV Trvtvpari means to have 
God's Spirit in one ; or, in another form of 
speech, to have Christ in one. 

Why 'life Sta Succuocrvi/rji/ ' 299 

eov, TTvevfjia Xpio-Tov, Xpto-Tos, all three 
express the same thing. It is what we 
commonly call the ' Indwelling Christ.' 
The latter half of v. 10 is highly obscure. 
The 'body' is, we can understand (because 
it was and remains the o-upa TOV Oavdrov, 
owing to the crdpg of it), ' dead,' in a 
mystical sense. There is nothing obscure 
in that. It sins; it has sinned; it is always 
liable to sin. We are here not very far 
from the * <rc3/ia crrj/m ' conception ; though 
that is, to be sure, in no wise Pauline 
teaching. The 'body,' ex hypothesi, is our 
body ; is the * spirit ' also our spirit ? 
And if the body be z/e/c/ods, because it has 
sin in it, is our spirit more than living, 
positively a source of life (erny), because 
the taint of sin in it has disappeared (Sia 
Succuocrvi'T}!') ? It is conceivable, but not 

If this idea is dismissed we have to 
face the plain alternative, which involves an 
awkward phenomenon. The ' body ' re- 
mains your body, but the ' spirit ' is no 
longer your spirit even vitalised by God's 

300 Because we are ' at peace with God' 

Spirit. It is now the Spirit of God which 
is ' life ' essentially (even as Christ said of 
Himself, "I am the Life"); and the change 
from the thought of ' you ' to the thought 
of God is somewhat startling in its very 
abruptness. Nor are we finished with 
questionings even now. The Spirit of 
God is Life; none questions that; but why 
" Life Sia Si/caioo-w^ " ? Is it because, in 
Himself, the Spirit is altogether Holy ? or, 
is it because His gracious influence makes 
you ' holy ' or even in a lower sense 
'righteous' (that is, keeps you right with 
God) ? It is plain to see one could argue 
long about it. Anyhow, consideration 
calls for some revision of our paraphrase. 
Shall we alter it, and say this ? 

viii. 10 (bis). "And if Christ be 
in you ; for all the body is dead, be- 
cause it is sinful; yet the Spirit" (which 
is Christ) -" is a source of Life...." 
Up to this point all goes smoothly. 
Then we have to make our choice, I should 
hold, between three renderings : 

(i) "because He is wholly 

A still more splendid promise 301 

righteous " ; though I believe that 
' righteousness ' is only a quality of 
God in a somewhat narrow range, 

(2) " because He will make you 

(3) " because you are at peace 
with God'' 

The third I hold to be right. The 
thought of the sanctifying power, which 
we associate with the Holy Spirit, is con- 
tained here in the word 0)77 and not in 
SiKCLLocrvvr). The believer can be sanctified 
because he is quit of guilt ; because he is 
Si/ccuos. That is a necessary foundation 
for the Spirit's further work. 

" The body is dead, because of sin ; 
the spirit is life, because of righteousness"; 
so says our English. And I think it will 
have to stand. Yet, beyond all manner of 
doubt, it lies in very great need of ex- 
planation. Plain people clamour for more. 
They say, What does it mean? Or, worse 
still, they make haste to decide all unaided 
what it means ; and are very likely wrong. 
But it may be said in reply, Well, so are 

302 Significant names of Christ 

so-called scholars. And that is also true : 
but at least they try to weigh conflicting 

And the Spirit which is Christ's, or 
Christ, is more than life-giving now. It 
brings with it the splendid promise of life 
surpassing life. 

And so we proceed : 

viii. ii. "And if the Spirit of 

Him, who raised Jesus from the dead, 

do dwell in you ; He that raised the 

Christ from the dead shall also 

quicken your mortal bodies, through 

His indwelling Spirit in you." 

Here we notice how the Risen One is 

named by two several names. The first 

time He is Jesus (a name full of hope for 

us, for it is His human name) ; the second 

time He is God's Christ (and, as such, 

our Redeemer). It is curious that our 

MSS. have, some Sta with the accusative, 

others Sia with the genitive, at the end of 

this statement of hope. The latter is clearly 

preferable. It is not owing to the Spirit's 

mere Presence, but because of His potent 

'Debtors, not to the flesh' 303 

Presence, that we can look for resurrection. 
The authority of MSS. is said to be 'evenly 

If then the Trvevpa in us is so vitally 
important ; if our very resurrection wholly 
depends on it; the moral is obvious. We 
must live ' by ' and ' in ' the TTvevpa. All 
our actions must ever be subjected to His 
guidance, directed to one great end. Long 
ago in i Thess. the Apostle had given 
warning TO irvevpa /AT? cr/3eWure. That was 
in a narrow sense. Expand it to the fullest 
and you are in possession of life's secret. 
There is no other. This is set before us 
now in language most plain and direct. 

viii. 12, 13. "Accordingly, my 
brothers, we are debtors, not to the 
flesh, to live after the flesh for, if you 
live after the flesh, you are on the 
road to death ; but if by the spirit you 
slay the evil deeds of the body, you 
shall live." 

Once more we have a sentence broken 
off at the very start. " Not to the flesh," 
it says. Then to what ? We are never 

304 ' Slave-spirit ' and the 'spirit of sons/tip ' 

told. Engrossing ideas crowd in, and we 
have to tell ourselves in this case an 
easy matter. MeXXere airoOvria-Keiv is no 
easy phrase to render. I have given what 
I think its force. Ilz/cu/ian, brief as it is, 
really covers no less than this, " by living 
the spirit-life." A somewhat similar in- 
stance occurs in Gal. v. 5. npafis bears 
in other places the sense of 'nefarious 

Looked at from another point of view, 
the ' spirit-life ' not only carries with it the 
promise of deathlessness, but is also the 
title to sonship. 

viii. 14 17. "For, all that are 
led by the Spirit of God, they are the 
sons of God...." 

(And sons you are.) 
"...For you have not received the 
slave-spirit, to relapse into craven 
fear; but you have received the spirit 
of sonship, whereby we cry, Abba, 
Father. The very Spirit of God joins 
in witness with our spirit, that we are 
the children of God. And if children, 

' The spirit of sonship ' 305 

also heirs God's heirs and Christ's 
coheirs ; if so be we share His 
sufferings, that we may also have a 
share in His glory." 
The ' slave-spirit ' in this place is con- 
trasted with the 'spirit of sonship.' The 
former is the mind with which the bondsman 
is forced to regard his master. The ' son- 
spirit' is something more. With regard 
to vioOeo-'ia, it may be said : it comes five 
times in St Paul and never appears to carry 
any special sense of ' adoption! Of course, 
we are not 'sons,' as Christ is Son. Yet 
vloOeo-ia means no more than 'sonship.' 
There is no other word, so far as I am 
aware, to express the idea. Plato would 
have coined wor^s ; and that would have 
been useless here; for it would have meant 
a different thing. What we want is the 
' status of son ' : the irvev^a vioOeo-ias is 
the ' spirit ' (it is almost the J>p6vr)pa) of 
folks who have that status. The. Jews 
knew nothing of adoption ; and, I think, 
in our translations ' adoption ' might well 
vanish. * Fear ' was our old condition, the 

W. 20 

306 *Abba, Father' 

fear of the 'wrath' of God. It does not 
comport with * sonship ' ; but only with the 
'slave status' HdXw ets fyoftov is highly 
irregular ; but S. is plainly right in taking 
it as equivalent to wcrre 7raA.ii/ </>o/3eto-0cu. 
Kpaeii> connotes passion. Such an appeal 
was made by Christ in the Garden to His 
Father. I mean the writer of ' Hebrews ' 
denominates it Kpawyrj. 

The cry, that is our cry, is the very cry 
of Jesus, 'A/3/3a, 6 TLaT-jp. In St Mark 
we have the same form. Christ was, all 
but certainly, bilingual Himself. It is 
difficult to account for the disappearance 
from our Liturgies of this traditional appeal. 
It plainly should be there. In v. 16 the 
sense would seem to be, our own spirit 
tells us we are God's ' children ' ; God's 
Spirit, present in us, bears out our spirit. 
We have, in common English, no word 
that quite expresses the tender beauty of 
TZKVOV. ' Bairn ' does ; but ' bairn ' alas ! 
has never won its way into ' classical ' 
acceptance. But it is just the right word, 
precisely parallel. 

' If children, also heirs ' 307 

The members of the family the 
or the vloi (which indeed is the usual term, 
when legal rights are in view) are ipso 
facto 'heirs.' ' Heirship,' associated first 
with the 'land,' is a common O.T. idea, 
endorsed by the usage of Christ. The 
' joint-heirship' seems to draw no distinc- 
tion in ' kind ' of heirship as between the 
* Son ' and the * sons.' 

2vv7rdo"xl jil ' m ig nt refer to the mystical 
union in Christ's Passion. However pro- 
bably it does not. It speaks of that 
vTTo^ovri by which ' souls ' must be won. 
The ' glory ' of Christ is regarded as one 
supreme event in which we may have a 
share. By contrast, the tense of <ruv- 
TrdcrxcjfjLev describes a way long and hard 
the path of the bitter Cross. 

Yet why need a Christian man take 
any thought of suffering ? With this in- 
spiring thought we pass into that great 
passage which, in its majestic working up 
to a climax truly magnifical, may very 
well be regarded as the most splendid in 
all the Epistles. 

20 2 

308 A glorious climax 

viii. 18 21. "For I reckon that 
(all) the sufferings of the time that is 
now are nothing worth, compared with 
the glory that shall be revealed aye, 
reach to us." 

" For the earnest expectation of 
all creation is eagerly looking for the 
revelation of God's sons. Creation 
was made subject, you know, to dis- 
appointment ; not of its own free will, 
but because of Him who subjected it, 
with a hope that creation itself shall 
be freed from the thraldom of constant 
failure, and enter on the glorious free- 
dom that belongs to the children of 

One hardly likes to comment at all on 
a passage like this. To, TraOijfjLara TOV vvv 
v indicates that the suffering of vvv- 
, just above, is literal hardship, 
such as falls to the lot of sincere believers 
in most ages. The order of the words that 
come at the end of the sentence is strictly 
'classical,' save for ets 17/10,9. That is an 
appendix. Its addition and its form are 

' Subject to vanity ' 309 

both characteristically Pauline. 
(a curious formation) means to ' watch 
intently.' The compound noun is said to 
be common in later Greek. How far the 
force of the term has worn away with years, 
we cannot tell. Both times it occurs in St 
Paul it seems to carry an intense meaning. 
The KTUTIS is the creation (by which St 
Paul probably meant our world), in the 
Vulgate crtatura. This creation has had 
a ' fall ' : it has been condemned to in- 
effectiveness. The teaching is derived from 
the story of Genesis. MarcuoTTjs, in English, 
would be represented by 'futility.' 'Vani- 
tati' is again Vulgate. The conception is 
that the world is ashamed of its ineffective- 
ness ; it would like to be vastly better. 
But it cannot ; it may not be so. The 
Will of the great Creator has said ' no ' to 
its ambition. And it did do better once, 
before it was 'cursed.' Time was when 
its Maker pronounced it 'very good.' But 
this doom imposed upon it is neither 
imposed capriciously, nor bars the door to 
hope. 'E<' eXTTtSt the spelling is familiar 

3io 'The bondage of corruption' 

in the Catacombs goes, of course, with 
VTreTciyr), which it happily modifies. Man 
is the firstborn of nature. He has anon his 
redemption (reserved to the ' sons of God,' 
who are airapyri TIS TGJV OLVTOV KTicrfJidrcov, 
Jas. i. 1 8); and when that redemption 
comes, the poor world's will come as well. 
For man's sake the earth was cursed ; but 
when man is redeemed and enters once for 
all upon his glorious freedom, then all 
reason for earth's curse will have disap- 
peared and she will have her Sofa. The 
coming of the glory of God's redeemed is 
called a 'revelation,' an 'unveiling.' It is 
then the * image of God ' will stand out 

Meanwhile there is eager waiting for 
man and all creation, waiting and even 
groaning. The SouXeta of (j>0opd is not 
very happily rendered by the ' bondage of 
corruption.' ' Corruption ' suggests pu- 
trescence. This <t>0opd is merely ' spoiling,' 
the deterioration which disappoints a happy 
promise for the earth does promise well, 
viii. 22 25. "For. we are sure 

* The firstfruit of the Spirit" 3-1 1 

the whole Creation groans together, 
aye travails together, and always has. 
Yes, and also we ourselves, though 
we enjoy the Spirit as a firstfruit, I 
say we ourselves groan within our- 
selves, looking forward to the sonship, 
the redemption of the body." 

" For hope it was we were saved. 

Now a hope that is realised is not a 

hope. For none hopes for what he sees. 

But if we hope for that we do not see, 

we have courage in the waiting." 

When the whole Creation is said to 

"groan together," it means that there goes 

up from it an universal groan. SwwSiz'ei may 

describe any agonising pain : here however 

the 'birth' metaphor (as in Jesus Christ's 

own saying) is not improbably present. 

In v. 23 'the Spirit,' that is, the gift of the 

Spirit to man, which came after Christ's 

Ascension, is said to be an anapxn of our 

future inheritance. In 2 Cor. i. and v. it 

is called an appafiatv. The phrase there 

is just as here. In the one case we have 

'a firstfruit in the Spirit'; in the other 

312 'By hope; l in hope; ( K>M hope ' f 

'an earnest in the Spirit.' In either case 
the Tn/ev/xaros is an appositional genitive. 
In Ephes. i. 14 the Holy Spirit is called 
the " earnest of our inheritance." It is a 
pledge and proof that one day we shall 
have it all. 

Creation groans ; we groan. It is the 
full ' sonship ' that we want ; for that ' son- 
ship' brings with it the 'bodily redemption.' 
It is then, as we conceive, that the body, 
in Pauline phrase, will become TrvtvpaTiKov. 

In v. 24 we find theological doctors 
differing not a little with regard to 717 
eXmSi. The old view was solid for "by 
hope." But that is hardly defensible. 
1 Faith ' or ' grace,' as you chance to regard 
it from man's side or from God's, is the 
medium of 'saving.' And moreover this 
act of faith, or this giving of God's grace, 
is a something now behind us. The ' hope ' 
must lie in front, if it is to correspond to 
St Paul's statement just below. There- 
fore "by hope" it cannot be. "In hope" 
enjoys the preference of the American 
company. " With hope " might, perhaps, 

The Christian form of courage 3 1 3 

be better a ' comitative ' dative. " For 
hope" has a good deal to be said for it. 
In Gal. v. i we have a similar dative : and 
there, as well as here, the rendering ' for ' 
suits best. It appears to be employed, as 
if it were CTT' eXiriSt, like eV e'Xevtfepia. The 
latter is actually found in Gal. v. 13. The 
ecrtoOrjfjLev refers to the earlier ' redemption,' 
the redemption of SiicaMtKns. 

'E\7Tis ft\7rop,evr) I have made bold to 
paraphrase by "a hope that is realised." 
In English we cannot 'see' a 'hope' : we 
can ' see ' the thing we hope for. The va- 
riants in this verse do not affect the sense 
in the least. I have followed the R.V. 
reading. It matters not whether one says 
" none hopes for," or " there is no need to 
hope for." And that represents the amount 
of divergence in the readings. 

In v. 25, I should say, the stress must 
lie not on ciTre/cSe^o/xe^a, but on Si' UTTO/AOI/TJ?. 
I have rendered it accordingly. One can 
afford to wait ; one can afford to show 
courage in waiting, if one has a real 
'hope' a hope like the Christian one. 

314 ' With groanings that cannot be uttered' 

, by the way, is the Christian 
form of di>S/oeia. The latter word does 
not occur in the whole of N.T. Maybe it 
was rejected from the faith's vocabulary 
because of its arrogant sound. St Paul 
does use di/S/H'eo-0cu in one place, but only 

We now pass into a section of a highly 
esoteric character, in the course of which 
we first touch on one especial way in 
which the Spirit helps us ; and shortly 
after deal for a time with the puzzling 
problem of predestination. Let us take 
these two topics separately. 

viii. 26. " And, acting as we 
act, the Spirit also lends His aid to 
our infirmities. For how we should 
pray aright, we are not sure : but 
the Spirit Himself intercedes on 
our behalf, with groanings not in 

It may well be thought that here there 
is some sort of reference to the strange 
gift of ' glossolaly.' When that was dis- 
played ' in Church,' mysterious sounds were 

' Inexenarrabilibus ' 315 

poured forth, sometimes intelligible, and also 
sometimes not. These may have been 
sometimes of the nature of arevay^oL 'AXa- 
ATJTOS is a hard word. It is only here in 
N.T. (Liddell and Scott in their Lexicon 
give one reference from the Anthology.) 
It ought to mean 'past telling/ and the 
Vulgate in this place says inexenarrabilibus. 
The natural rendering, therefore, is " with 
groanings terrible." And indeed it is easy 
to see that there would be a something 
terrifying in a paroxysm of 'glossolaly,' 
in which the unwitting speaker should 
outwardly seem to be in a very agony of 
fervent supplication. 

In a general way, however, the reference 
is thought to be to 'unuttered,' or * mute,' 
pleadings, of which man has, and can have, 
no cognisance whatever. Or again, there 
are who think that these groanings of the 
Spirit are called ' unutterable ' because they 
may not be uttered. This seems to me 
most unlikely : for, plainly, from v. 27, if 
anybody heard them, he did not understand 
them. Only "He that searches the hearts " 

3 1 6 * He that searcheth the hearts ' 

could fathom that potent pleading. On 
the whole then I suspect that there is a 
reference to something of which they knew 
the secret, but we do not. Yet, truly, the 
view which supposes a pleading of the 
Spirit, all unbeknown to us, is far more 
attractive really, and withal far more 
encouraging. Perhaps there may be on 
earth ' pneumatic ' persons still, who could 
throw real light upon it. For commentators 
cannot. Mere language we can understand : 
and therefore I will say that crwai/riXa/A- 
fidveo-Oai is equivalent to our English 
Mend a helping hand.' It belongs to 
everyday speech. In the Gospel of St 
Luke it is what the busy Martha desires 
Mary to do. "Our weaknesses" represents 
" us, weak in our different ways." The 
singular notwithstanding would have been 
more intelligible. For the ' weakness ' in 
this case would seem to be well defined 
a weakness in laying needs before Our 
Father in prayer. 

viii. 27. "And He that searcheth 
men's hearts knows what the mind of 

Kara &eov 317 

the Spirit is. For in a way divine 

He intercedes for Saints." 
'O ipavvtov rds /ca/oSta? may be a re- 
miniscence of a curious phrase in Proverbs, 
xx. 27, os epavva rc^ueia /cotXia?. But in 
Rev. ii. 23 the Son of God declares to the 
angel of the Church in Thyatira, "I am He 
which searcheth reins and hearts"; and con- 
ceivably Christ Himself, when on earth, said 
some such thing. The Fourth Gospel un- 
doubtedly claims for Him some such power 
in earthly days. Yet in this case, one would 
suppose, 6 Ipawtov must be the Father. 

It does not appear to me wise to make 
the clause ort /caret eoi> /c.r.X. depend too 
immediately on that which goes just before. 
A colon would seem desirable directly after 
TrvevfjiaTos. The great God, to whom prayer 
is addressed, knows what we cannot know, 
the ' intent,' or ' mind,' of the Spirit. The 
term is anthropomorphic, but that cannot be 
helped. The reason St Paul seems to give 
for this intuitive knowledge is that the 
Spirit's supplication is of itself /card eoV. 
He that prays and He that hears are more 

3 1 8 ' A II things work together for good ' 

than en rapport ; they are actually One. 
The passage in i Cor. ii. (about the spiritual 
' wisdom ') has certain statements in it, 
which offer analogy. 

The following verse is important be- 
cause it forms a bridge to the * predestina- 
tion ' teaching. In itself it but carries 
forward the idea of the Spirit's aid. That 
aid is in our prayers. But it really extends 
to all life. Moreover not only the Spirit 
is a helper of God's people. Everything 
helps them ; everything must. 

viii. 28. " We are sure, that for 
those who love God, He makes all 
things work together for good for 
those that are the 'called,' in accord- 
ance with His purpose." 
The reading in ' W. H.' commends itself, 
as providing the sense we desiderate. It 
is God and the purpose of God behind all 
things that are, that make the believing 
man's position impregnable. Zwepyelv, to 
be sure, elsewhere is a neuter verb. But 
it is not unreasonable to suppose that, on 
occasion, it might be used in a manner 

The word 'foreknow 1 319 

corresponding to its sister verb 

And, if it be active here, there is no reason 

I can see for ' refining ' in our rendering. 

Why imagine a brachylogy ? Surely there 

is meaning enough in the words as they 


The Kara 7rp60eo-iv starts a whole 
new train of thought. It is the spark 
which fires a whole train, as we shall see 

Before I venture on any sort of rendering 
of the next two verses, let me say some- 
thing about words. Hp60(ris is an ordinary 
late Greek term for 'purpose.' Hpoyiyva>- 
<TKtiv is a ' classical ' word ; it means to 
* know beforehand ' (to know as a bird, for 
instance, knows that spring is coming) ; or, 
to 'determine' or 'judge' beforehand. In 
N.T. it occurs four times. First, in Acts 
xxvi. 5, where St Paul affirms that his 
fellow-countrymen could bear out what he 
was saying, if they chose, Trpoyty^wcr/co^Tes 
fie avojOev (" because from of old they have 
knowledge of me ") : there the 77730- in 
is practically obliterated 

3 2O A word about 'foreordain ' 

by the avcoOev. In 'Romans' we have it 
twice ; here and in xi. 2, " God hath not 
cast from Him His people, bv wpoeyva)" 
That instance, I think, stands apart. It is 
found also in i Pet. i. 20, where Christ is 
spoken of as Trpoeyz'&xr/AeVov npo KaTaftoXrjs 
Kocrp.ov (which can hardly mean " fore- 
known," but must mean " foredetermined " 
for that particular service, the redemption 
of men with His blood). 2 Peter also 
contains it, in the primitive, simpler sense 
" having foreknowledge, beware" (iii. 17). 

Tlpoopi^tw is non-classical. Further, it 
is not in LXX. It is ' N.T.' and later 
only. It is read in the notable prayer 
(Acts iv. 28): "all the things that Thy 
hand and Thy counsel foreordained to 
come to pass." It occurs here in this 
section twice. Again, in i Cor. ii. 7, 
where the Apostle speaks of the heavenly 
o-o<f)ia, he says that God had ''foreordained 
it (TrpoatpiO'ev) before the * world ' (TT/OO 
TO>V ai&vcw) for our glory." In ' Ephe- 
sians ' we have two instances ; i. 5 (TT/OO- 
o/ouras 17/40,5 ets vloOecriav Sia 

Various 'predestination ' terms 3 2 1 

Xpio-Tov) and i. 1 1 . The latter is a passage 
very analogous to this in ' Romans.' It 
is part of that weighty sentence with which 
the Epistle opens. The words are; "ac- 
cording to His good pleasure (evSoKuw), 
which He purposed (Tr/^oetfero) in Him, 
t? OLKOVopiav TOV TrXrjpcofjiaTO^ TMV Kaipatv " 

a very difficult clause, which I conceive 
to mean, "to be worked out, when the 
right time came," the ets being 'temporal' 

"to sum up all things in Christ, the 
things in the heavens and the things on 
the earth ; in Him, I say, in whom also 
we were made God's own (eV a> KOL eKXrjpco- 
0r)p,v), 7rpoopio-0i>Tes Kara irpoOe&iv TOV 
TO, TrdvTa eVepyovz/ros /caret, TTJV fiovXrjv 
TOV OeXrjjjiaTos CLVTOV (foreordained thereto 
according to the purpose of Him who 
maketh all things work to suit the counsel 
of His will)." 

Here we have four nouns in all to set 
forth the conception of the Heavenly Pur- 
pose ; i)So/aa, 7r/oo#ecn,s, ftovXij, 0\.7jp,a ; 
together with two verbs, irpoTiOto-Oai and 
v. It is neither possible nor of 
w. 21 

322 The meaning of 'image' 

any profit, I think, to endeavour to dis- 
criminate between the ' nominal ' terms*. 
And further, I should say that, in regard 
to the verbs, TrpoTi0ea-0ai bears the simple 
meaning 'propose,' or 'purpose'; while 
Trpoop'i&iv means ' to appoint beforehand ' 
no more. The statement in * Ephe- 
sians,' and the statement in * Romans ' 
here, we shall not do amiss to regard as 
containing part of that cro^ta, of which 
mention is made in ' Corinthians.' Of 
that wisdom the Apostle says, rjfjLiv dire- 
KOL\v\\tev 6 0eo5 Sia TOV Tr^ev/xaro?. And 
the question is, what does this mean ? and 
further, who are ? Does it cover 
all Christians together, or does it mean 
St Paul himself? 

There remains yet one more word to 
be briefly discussed. That is eiKatv. In 
the incident of the tribute money, eiKuv 
means merely 'likeness.' In 'Revelation' 
it occurs pretty frequently, to describe the 
"image" of the "beast." In St Paul it 
is clearly a term covering more than ex- 
ternality (as also in Heb. x. i, where 

Foreknowledge belongs to God 323 

v TT)v eiKoVa TOJV TTpaypdrtov apparently 
means "the things, as they actually are"). 
For instance, while in i Cor. xi. 7 the 
male is said to be the eli<a>v /ecu Sofa eov 
(from Genesis, of course) ; in 2 Cor. iv. 4 
the Son Himself is said to be eiKcov TOV 
eou. The same descriptive phrase is 
applied to Him in Col. i. 15. In Col. iii. 
10 we read of the "new man," who is 
" renewed... /car* et/coVa TOV /crurai/ros av- 
TOV " (Genesis, once again). It would 
seem that the Pauline doctrine is, that 
our ' manhood ' is to be substantially as 
Christ's 'manhood,' when the day of its 
perfection comes, at the second Redemp- 
tion. It will be more than mere 'resem- 
blance ' ; very much more. 

And now let us face the two verses : 

viii. 29, 30. " For those whom 
He 'foreknew,' He also appointed of 
old to attain to the intimate likeness 
of His own Son; that so He might 
be the firstborn in a family of many cf. Heb. 
brethren. And whom He appointed 
of old, them He also 'called'; and 

21 2 

324 Logical extremes to be avoided 

whom He 'called,' them He also 
'justified'; and whom He 'justified,' 
them He also 'glorified.'" 
From the very nature of God from 
our bare conception of Him it follows, 
of necessity, that His 'knowledge' is ab- 
solute. It transcends all bounds of time 
and bounds of space. This 'foreknow- 
ledge ' we must assume ; we cannot help 
it. At times St Paul loves to dwell on 
the amazing comfort that lies, for every 
humble believer, in the idea that his 
own ' call ' is part of an eternal purpose. 
But how did he come by the thought ? 
Did he deduce it, as we should do, from 
the definition of Godhead ? Or does he 
claim in his statements about it a ' plenary 
inspiration ' ? On them, as everyone knows, 
stupendous superstructures have been up- 
reared. Ruthless logic has divided man- 
kind not only into crw{o/x,e^oi and ct 
jLtei/ot, but even virtually into 
and aTToXwXore?. And, no doubt, some 
have gone so far as to see the futility of 
any preaching at all in a world where 

Does 'know' mean 'accept', 'recognise'? 325 

some are doomed everlastingly to death 
and others, equally certainly, to everlast- 
ing bliss. 

In our age we have come to under- 
stand that such conclusions will not hold. 
We cannot let the concept of God's ' fore- 
knowledge ' inevitable as that is conflict 
with that other concept of His unending 
Love. In consequence, we refrain from 
pushing to their logical issues any apo- 
stolic pronouncements, however they may 
help to strengthen faith. We may be 
sure he did not mean or desire that any 
rigid system should be raised upon what 
he has said. Our own ' Church of Eng- 
land ' Article on this topic is a marvel of 
cautious statement ; especially considering 
the age in which it was penned. Then 
religious 'determinism' (as fatal to morality 
as any other ' determinism ') was fairly 
rampant. Now it is well-nigh dead. The 
swing of the pendulum is all the other 
way. Maybe it has swung too far. 

For the rest we must remember that 
the very term ' foreknowledge ' or indeed 

326 ' Praedestinavit ' 

1 fore- ' anything else is bound to lead us 
astray. For the existence of God is time- 
less. Moreover, the Apostle whatever 
views we may hold of the nature of in- 
spiration in speaking as he does, was 
plainly a man of his age. 

But let us return to his words. In 
Trpotyva) there may be, as S. maintains, 
a flavour of O.T. usage. In Amos iii. 2 
we read, " You only have I known (eyva>v) 
of all the nations of the earth." There 
'known' means 'accepted,' 'recognised,' 
even 'chosen for mine.' There may be a 
similar Zyvuv in St Matthew vii. 23. But 
I rather doubt it. Nor am I clear about 
this ' peculiar ' usage in Romans viii. ; 
though in xi., I must admit, it seems de- 
cidedly likely. For there the ov Trpoeyva) 
(" whom He ' knew ' of old ") may very well 
re-echo the Zyvw of the Prophet. Here 
I should be content with a very general 
sense, " had in His mind of old " (keep- 
ing, of course, the translation " foreknew "). 
The ' TT/OO ' travels back in thought to the 
time before all time. In the other 

Purpose, call, acceptance 327 

it is a matter of earthly history. 
(Vulg. praedestinavif) is adequately ren- 
dered by 'foreordained' or 'appointed of 
old.' \Praedestinavit* itself was once a 
harmless word. Now, as 'Ian Maclaren ' 
might say, it is dark with the accumulated 
darkness of ages of theology. The phrase, 
which sets before us what we are 'ap- 
pointed ' to be, needs very careful hand- 
ling. We are to share the nop^ij of the 
tiKatv of God's Own Son. It is plain 
' man ' cannot share the fto/cx^?/ of God 
(especially if pop^rf is as Lightfoot vows 
it is a term that is consecrate to express 
4 essential being '). What we can share 
is Christ's ' Sonship.' The reality of son- 
ship, as perfected and consummated in 
the very * Son of sons ' that we may well 
attain. We are beyond dispute to be 
like Him, very like Him, for the idea is cf. ijohn 
emphasised by the intentional reiteration. 
And there we must stop. Only, as St Paul 
declares, this likeness one day to be must 
be recognised and cherished, as in accord- 
ance with a 'purpose,' that was before 

328 A stupendous destiny 

time was. Still, here we do not find any 
phrase like irpo TMV aluvwv. However, in 
the end, that matters not. The general 
issue is this ; we are to look forward to a 
day when Christ will be indeed the 'Eldest 
Brother ' in a mighty family. 

Verse 30 marks the stages in the 
evolution of the believer. First, in the 
far-off past, in the abysm of eternity, the 
everlasting ' purpose ' ; then, on the stage 
of earth, the * call ' ; the ' call ' once wel- 
comed by 'faith/ succeeds the SiKcu'wcrt?, 
the 'acceptance' as God's own. Here we 
look for another term, which is not pre- 
sent. After Sucauuo-i?, normally, would 
follow dyiao7xo9. But that we overleap, 
and pass to the final stage of all, the stage 
represented by eSofao-e. Here again we 
should have looked for Sofcurei. But 
not so ; the thing is conceived as poten- 
tially accomplished. In the mind of God 
it is. 

The thought that underlies the pair of 
verses is predominantly of that stupendous 
destiny (reaching forward and reaching 

A problem of punctuation 329 

backward beyond all flight of thought) 
which belongs to the people of God. It is 
just because they are His, they may assure 
their hearts all is absolutely true. 

In view of truths so stupendous, what 
confidence should be ours ! 

viii. 31, 32. ''This being so, what 
shall we say ? If God be for us, who Cf. Psaim 

^ T T 1 T T CXV "i- 6- 

is against us r He spared not Hiscf. Gen. 
own Son, but delivered Him (to death) 
on behalf of us all ! How shall He 
not then with Him freely give us 
everything ? " 

The 'gift of all gifts,' obviously, is 
pledge of all other ' givings ' ; that they 
cannot and will not fail. 

There follows a well-known problem, 
and a very hotly argued one, in textual 
punctuation. This is the method I would 
follow : 

First comes a general question, rts 
5 y/caXecrei ; This question is not answered. 
Instead it is contemplated in the light of 
two great facts. Not only God, but Christ 
as well, are the champions of the elect. 

330 An impregnable position indeed 

No accusation then; no assault in any form ; 
can conceivably prevail. 

viii. 33 35. " Who shall impeach 
God's elect ? " 

" God is He that acquitteth : who 
is it that condemns ? Christ it is, who 
died nay rather, who was raised, and 
is at God's right hand; who also inter- 
cedes for us. Who is it, that shall 
part us from Christ's love ? " 
The first question merely repeats, in a 
more special form, and under a particular 
figure, the question of v. 31, rts /ca#' r)p,a)v ; 
The ' elect ' (who are the same people, in 
St Paul, as the /cX^rot, though viewed from 
a different standpoint) do not lend them- 
selves to accusation. For why ? God 
''acquits" (the forensic sense is demanded 
by the context) ; then who is like to " con- 
demn " ? Aye, speaking even more broad- 
ly (for now we seem to bid farewell to the 
question, TIS ey/caXecret ;), have we not a 
4 rock of defence ' in the Person of Jesus 
Christ? He "died " for us there is proof 
of love supreme. He was " raised," He is 

'More than conquerors' 331 

"at God's right hand"- there is proof of 
infinite power. He " makes intercession 
for us "-there is proof of effectual aid. 

Is it conceivable any person can sever 
us from that love ? or even any thing ? 

viii. 35 39. " Shall pressure, or 
straitness of circumstance, or persecu- 
tion, or famine, or peril, or the sword ? 
As it stands in Holy writ, For for p sa im 
Thy sake we are slaughtered all the *LXX). 
day long ; we are counted as sheep for 
the knife." 

"Nay, in these things, all of them, 
we are more than victorious, through 
Him that loved us. For I am con- 
vinced, that neither death nor life; nor 
angels, nor principalities, nor powers ; 
nor things present, nor things to come ; 
nor height nor depth, nor any other 
created thing, shall be able to sever us 
from the Love of God in Jesus Christ 
our Lord." 

The Apostle himself had had (as 2 Cor. 
xi. testifies) no small experience of the 
thousand and one hardships that may beset 

33 2 Jewish angelology 

a Christian man, especially a missionary. 
In all the long catalogue there is only one 
thing he knew not ; and that he was to 
know before the end. The on in v. 36 is not 
' recitative ' ; it belongs to the quotation. 
Our splendid "are more than conquerors," 
which I do not like to degrade by insertion 
in my paraphrase, is a legacy from the 
Genevan Version. The Genevans may 
have darkened counsel with their predes- 
tinarian tendencies, but we owe them 
much for this. In v. 38 the word Swa/xeis 
seems somehow to have got misplaced. 
It appears to belong to the group with 
ayyeXoi and dpyaL Hdcnj^ dp^rj^ Kal 
efovcrux? KOL Su^a/xew? come together in 
Ephes. i. 21, all being appellations of the 
angelic hierarchy. In Col. i. 16 we have 
a somewhat different nomenclature, dpovoi 
...KvpLOT7)T<;...dp'^aL...^ov(7Lai. This an- 
gelology (covering apparently malignant 
powers as well as beneficent) belongs to 
Jewish thought. It is no necessary part 
of a Christian man's belief. A vifjoj^a 
is really 'a high thing,' a thing that is 

Israel and 'election' 333 

uplifted ; fidOos correspondingly ' a low thing' 
(only by analogy). Maybe, the two terms 
cover eTTOVpdvLa and KOLTaySovia. In 2 Cor. Phii.ii. 
x. 5 we have "and every vifjcopa that up- 
lifts itself against the y^wo-t? of God." 
There the "high thing" is different; it 
seems to stand for "arrogant thought." 
In v. 39 ovre TLS KTICTIS ere pa covers any 
conceivable thing that may exist, though 
it be beyond our ken. In erepa there lies 
the meaning ' different in kind.' Just now 
the question was "Who shall sever us 
from the love of Christ " (v. 36, where our 
oldest MSS. read ' God,' as they do here) : 
now it is "from the Love of God," but 
this love for man all centres in the Person 
of the Crucified. 


With the end of chap, viii., as S. re- 
marks, we have reached the end of the 
main argument. But there still is much 

334 'I could wish I were accursed* 

to discuss. The writer still had in mind 
things he desired to .say. For instance 
Israel what about Israel ? To the stu- 
dent of the Old Testament, it is a highly 
absorbing question ; above all, to a Jew. 
Taking accordingly a new start (there is 
no connexion whatever, such as Greek 
usage insists upon, between this chapter 
and the last), St Paul says what he has in 
his heart about the matter. Incidentally 
we have given us that list of Israel's "ad- 
vantages " we looked for in chap. iii. ; but 
then were disappointed. 

ix. i 3. " I speak truth, as a 
Christian man, I do not lie ; my con- 
science bears me out, in the Holy 
Spirit. I have great pain and un- 
ceasing anguish in my heart. For I 
Cf. Exod. could have wished to be myself ' cut 

off' from Christ, for my brothers' sake, 
my kinsmen 'after the flesh'...." 
The eV X/H(7T( and / Tr^ev/iart ayta> of 
this solemn opening are very hard to de- 
fine and also to reproduce in straightfor- 
ward English. The o-vi/ci'S^o-is, it will be 

Israel's privileges enumerated 335 

seen, is detached from the man, as is only 
natural ; seeing it is the faculty which 
passes judgment on his actions. The 
form rjvxo^rjv implies that the wish is 
impossible. But the spirit of the Apostle 
is as the spirit of Moses. He is fain to 
sacrifice himself for the good of his coun- 
trymen. 'AvdOtfjia in LXX (especially 
Joshua vi., vii.) is the accepted rendering 
for the 'accursed (or, 'devoted') thing" 
This term has already appeared in Pauline 
Scriptures (Gal. i. 8 ; i Cor. xvi. 22) in 
the same sense it bears here, " Let him be 
devoted to destruction." In later days it 
became only too freely used in the Church. 
'Ai>a#e/Aa... curd... means, literally, "accursed 
and cut off from." Now follows the full 
list of Israel's exceptional privileges, set- 
ting off in heightened colour the amazing 
paradox of the Nation's apparent rejection : 
ix. 4, 5. "... people, who are Israel- 
ites ; to whom belongs the Sonship, 
and the Presence, and the Covenants, cr. Exod. 

1 1 T ' 1 1 T~> ' 1 XV i' IO ' 

and the Law-giving, and the Ritual, 
and the Promises ; whose are the 

336 'Israel is My firstborn son' 

Patriarchs and of whom in earthly 
descent is God's Anointed One- 
He that is God supreme, blessed to 
all eternity. Amen." 
In their own speech Jews were called 
the 'Sons of Israel' (represented by 'Icr- 
pa^Xircu). Now ' Israel ' was a name of 
solemn significance, closely associated with 
one of the Nation's most cherished tradi- 
tions. Thy name shall be called no more 
Jacob, but Israel (Gen. xxxii. 28) ; so had 
said the mysterious stranger that wrestled 
at Peniel. And ' Israelite ' is surely a name 
of unique significance. The * Sonship ' of 
Israel is stated, in very decisive language, 
in the prophecy of Hosea, Out of Egypt 
have I called my Son, ef AiyvTrrov e/caXecra 
TOV viov Mov ; though that is not the form 
preserved in LXX : for there it is not 
My Son, but his children ; ^ere/caXecra ra 
Tewa avTov. From which we may per- 
haps conclude that the words so familiar 
to us from the quotation in our first Gospel 
were not in the writer's mind. However, 
more striking still is the statement in 

A word about them 


Exodus iv. (to which a reference is all 
but certain). In that passage it runs ; 
And thou shalt say to Pharaoh, Israel is 
my firstborn son ; and I have said to thee, 
Send forth my people, that they may wor- 
ship Me. If then thou wilt not send them 
forth, lo, I will slay thy firstborn son 
(LXX). The Aofa is, of course, the 
Shekinah. The plural 'Covenants' covers 
the various covenants with Abraham, with 
Isaac, with Jacob, as well as the national 
covenant of which Moses was 'mediator.' 
In regard to j] Xar^eia S. quotes a 
Rabbinic saying of much interest. The 
' Promises ' reach their climax in the Mes- 
sianic hope. For us, the foremost of all 
is that one which affirms, And in thy seed 
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed 
interpreted, be it understood, on LXX 
lines ; for of the meaning of that version, 
as distinguished from the Hebrew, there 
can be very little doubt ; /ecu Iv 
crovTai iv TM cnrepfJiaTL crov TrdVra ra 

7779, Gen. xxii. 18. 

The question that arises with regard to 

W. 22 

338 The question of the doxology 

the application of the closing words of v. 5 
is discussed by S. with a lucidity altogether 
admirable. His conclusion is that they do 
refer to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. 
At this, he says, he arrives 'with slight 
hesitation.' St Paul's teaching about 
Christ's Person is unmistakeable. He was 
always iv popffrfj deov (Phil.) ; He is 
TOT) deov rov aopdrov ; He is 
Trao-Tjs /crurews. But is He ever called 
distinctly 'God'? The Vatican MS. has 
a colon here. That would make the clause 
a doxology. On the other hand, in Rab- 
binic use, a doxology of the kind is properly 
employed only after the mention of God; 
so that this would be abnormal, if it were 
indeed a doxology. Moreover this very 
verse was quoted by Cyril Alex, in answer 
to Julian's avowal that St Paul never called 
Christ 'God.' Again, an ascription of 
glory to Christ, not unlike this in general 
character, is found in 2 Tim. iv. 18. 

Moreover grammar lends her aid, and 
suggests that, had the words been a doxo- 
logy addressed to the Father, their form is 

Probably to be referred to Christ 339 

unusual. The eJi/ should be omitted. As 
it stands, it would naturally be taken as 
equivalent to a relative clause, os IOTTLV eVt 
TTOLVTCOV Oeos. The probabilities are very 
nicely balanced. On the whole, however, 
the evidence bears out the rendering of 
our own English versions, which take the 
words as belonging to Christ, and not to 
the Father. Compare the Johannine state- 
ments ; #eo9 r^v 6 Xdyos and 6 Xdyos crdpf 
eyeVero. The /caret crdpKa here seems to 
call for a like antithesis. All this (the 
student will know) is just abbreviated 'S.' 

For the rest, Israel's grandest privilege 
is unmistakeably this. From Israel was to 
come the Hope of the world. 

Was there, then, no hope for Israel ? 
To that topic we shall return in the course 
of argument. Meanwhile there are other 
ideas that must engage attention. For 
instance, this one. There is ' Israel ' and 
1 Israel.' 

The formula introducing v. 6 is wholly 
unexampled. To say so is to put it mildly. 
There is no other use of 0109 even remotely 

22 2 


analogous. The neuter singular olov is 

found in no other place. Accordingly we 

must guess what it may mean. At first 

one wonders whether a classical olov re 

may be lurking in hiding. But such a use 

is wholly unknown to the New Testament. 

The Vulgate says, non autem quod exciderit 

verbum Dei, which at least possesses the 

merit of being even more unintelligible, if 

possible, than the Greek. Our English is 

probably right; " But it is not as though...." 

ix. 6 9. " Of course, I do not 

pretend that the Word of God has 

failed. Not all that are from Israel, 

you know, are Israel. Nor, because 

they are Abraham's ' seed,' are they 

Gen. xxi. all 'children.' No! In Isaac shall a 

seed be named thee. That is to say, 

not the children ' of the flesh ' are the 

Cf. Gal. children of God ; but the children of 

the Promise are reckoned as the 'seed.' 

For this saying is matter of promise, 

Gen. xviii. About this season will I come, and 

(exact Sarah shall have a son." 

T W \ 

' (in LXX) is a word that is 

'Sarah shall have a son' 341 

employed especially of flowers. As in 
Isaiah xl. 7, 8 tgrjpdvBrj 6 xP TO * Ka " 
feVecre, TO 8e PTJJJLO. TOV Oeov y]^v 
t? TOV aluva (the quotation of i Peter). 
This is the only use of the kind in N.T. 
In I Cor. xiii. it should be 17 dyctTny ouSeVore 
mTrrei. The Isaianic passage probably 
suggested the word. KX^^crerat (in v. 7) 
means little more than eoTcu. In classical 
Greek /ceVX^/zcu sometimes means only 
* I am.' The point of the citation from 
Gen. xviii. we must take to be, If you come 
to think of it, even Isaac was not born 
naturally. He was not a T{KVQV a-apKos. 
From the beginning of the race mere 
' natural ' descent was thus depreciated. 

However another idea is contained in 
the section also, though it is not emphasised. 
Abraham had another son; he had Ishmael. 
But Ishmael was set aside; he was not 
recognised as being the crTrep/Lta. Here 
we see ' election ' working. It is even 
more prominent in the instance that follows 

ix. 10. " Not only so, but Rebecca 

34 2 The thought of election appears 

also, brought to bed at one time of 

Isaac our father...." 

At this point the sentence breaks off, 

and when Rebecca next reappears, she is 

in the dative (avrfj). The word KOLTTJ in 

N.T. is always suggestive of marriage. 

But KOLTVJV <lyjE.iv is apparently unique. 9 Ef 

i/os, one would imagine, must be corrupt. 

The idea that underlies must be not one 

husband, but two children at one birth. 

ix. ii 13. " For the children 
being not yet born, and having done 
nothing good or evil, that the purpose 
of God might abide, which works by 
election not depending on things 
done, but on (the will of) the Caller 

Gen. xxv. it was said to her, The elder shall serve 


(LXX). the younger. As it stands in Holy 

Mai. i. 2. writ, Isaac I have loved, Esau I have 


The word e/cXoyq is not in LXX. But 
the idea of ' choosing out ' is everywhere. 
In N.T. only in ' Romans ' has e/cXoy?/ this 
meaning. * Conduct ' (e/oya), the Apostle 
avers, has nothing to do with 'election.' 

No ' merit ' before God 343 

There is no 'merit' in it (in modern phrase); 
it rests wholly on God's will. This con- 
ception appears to us a somewhat perilous 
doctrine : but, as S. points out, St Paul was 
controverting the contemporary Rabbinic 
notion that somehow Israel was chosen for 
exceptional worth in him. For us the 
' Jacob' type, if we stop to think, commends 
itself conclusively, as compared with the 
4 Esau ' type ; and we feel that, though the 
creature must not argue with the Creator, 
it is only on the assumption that He is 
holier and wiser and more just in every 
way. If you push the Pauline conception, 
set forward in this passage, you will find 
yourself with a God on a level with 
Mahomet's a God for whom right and 
wrong simply do not exist, a Being of 
unlimited power and measureless caprice. 
Yet, plainly, when man claims 'merit,' he 
must be put in mind that before God he 
can have none. 

The passage, cited from Malachi, con- 
tains a late conception in its attitude to 
Esau ' or ' Edom.' In Deut. xxiii. it is 

344 ' Unfairness y not ' unrighteousness ' 

expressly said, Thou shalt not abhor an 
Edomite, for he is thy brother. But the 
famous Psalm bears witness to a growing 
enmity of Israel towards this 'brother,' 
based upon unbrotherly conduct (Ps. 
cxxxvii. 7). 

St Paul has now stated the dogma of 
'election,' in its naked simplicity. He 
forthwith proceeds to reply to the objection 
that arises unbidden. 

ix. 14 1 6. "What then are we 
to say ? Is there injustice with God ? 
Nay, nay, impossible ! " 

" To Moses, He says, you know, 
EX. xxxiii. / will pity, whomsoever I pity; and 

(LXX). will have mercy on whomsoever I have 


" So then, it is not a matter of 

human wish, nor human exertion, but 

of the pity of God." 

For aStjaa the Vulgate very rightly 

says iniquitas. Why our version has 

"unrighteousness," I cannot tell. The 

quotation from Exodus is curiously used. 

The emphasis is laid on the 'whomsoever' ; 

OvSe TOV TpeyovTos ' 345 

in the original it lies on the futures l\erj<ra) 
and olKTLpr)<T(D. Whom God pities, He 
will pity ; to whom He shows mercy, He 
wz//show mercy. It is really a proclama- 
tion of the essential ' graciousness ' that is 
Jehovah's attribute. In v. 16, so far as 
I know, no adequate explanation of TOV 
TpcyovTos has been discovered. ' Running 
a race,' or 'a desperate race,' is an idea 
familiar enough. But to ' run ' for to ' exert 
oneself is a wholly different matter. 
Maybe, if the word is correct, it is merely 
due to assonance. 

ix. 17, 1 8. "Why? The Scripture 

says to Pharaoh, Just for this I have Exod. 

raised thee up, that in thee I might 


display my power, and that my name 
might be noised abroad in all the 

"Accordingly, whom He will, 
He pities ; and whom He will, He 

Reference to the text of Exodus will 
show that the message of the Almighty to 
the proud king of Egypt (of the North 

346 * Raise up ' in ix. 1 7 

land and of the South) is that, whereas he 
might have been slain outright with the 
sword of pestilence, he has been, for God's 
own purpose, allowed to recover from the 
evils, with which his people have been 
plagued. This is, in the original text, the 
nature of the * raising up.' Our R. V. says, 
have I made thee to stand. The A.V. 
rendering is apparently affected by the 
citation of St Paul. Such another use of 
'raise' we have in St James v. 15. The 
compound verb is used in Habakkuk and 
Zachariah in the sense which the writer 
postulates. In any case, Pharaoh is a 
mere instrument in God's hand. 

The (TKkrjpvvei of v. 18 is the LXX 
term for 'harden.' S. is plainly very right 
in declaring too much must not be built 
up on the handling by the Apostle of his 
citation. Here the school of Calvin errs. 
At this point the figure of Pharaoh recedes 
into the background. We have instead 
the petulant objection of some unknown, 
arraigning in general terms the Providence 
of God. To this the Apostle makes reply 

The metaphor of the potter 347 

that God is God, and men are but His 

ix. 19 21. "You will say then 
to me, What fault does He find now ? 
No one withstands His will ! Nay, 
but who art thou, O man, to bandy 
words with God ? Shall the thing Cf. isai. 
moulded say to the moulder, Why 
hast thou fashioned me so ? Can it 
be the potter has not full power over 
his clay, to make out of the selfsame 
lump one vessel for honour, another 
for dishonour ? " 

The thought in v. 19 is that man must 
be irresponsible. He is as he is made. 
The good are good, because He made 
them good ; the evil likewise evil. The 
suggestion is that the maker must bear the 
blame and not the made. The answer is, 
in effect, that all such talk is blasphemous. 
The idea of ' vessels for honour ' and 
'vessels for dishonour' reappears in 2 Tim. 
ii. 20. But there it is implied that it rests 
with a man's own self, which sort he is. 
Here the Potter's power is unlimited. All 

348 God and human freewill 

depends upon His will. It is futile and 
irrational for mere man to dispute His 
power, His knowledge, or His wisdom. 

This hard doctrine is modified, in part, 
by what comes next. There may be a 
gracious purpose concealed from us, in 
what to us might seem to be unfair deal- 

ix. 22 29. " Suppose God, wish- 
ful to display His wrath (at sin) and to 
make known His power, has borne 
with much long-suffering abominable 
things, right fitted for destruction ; as 
well as to make known the riches of 
His glory, in the case of things He 
pities, which He prepared long ago 
for glory.... " 

" Even us, whom He hath called, 

not only from among the Jews, but 

also from the Gentiles ; as indeed it 

HOS. ii. 23 says in Hosea, / will call my ' not- 


cited). people,' my people ; and her that was 

HOS. i. 10 not betoved, beloved. And it shall be 


'there' in the place, where it was said to them, 


Ye are not my people, even there they 

4 Vessels of wrath ' 349 

shall be called the sons of the Living 

" Isaiah cries touching Israel; //"isai. x . 22 
the number of the children of Is rael 


shall be as the sand of the sea, it is the text : our 
remnant that shall be saved. For a tS n g ng 
word complete and concise shall the cc 
Lord bring about on the earth" 

" Indeed, as Isaiah has said before, 
Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us isai. i. 9 
behind a seed, we should have become 
as Sodom and been likened to Go- 

In all this there is very much to puzzle 
and divide interpreters. Plainly, the ab- 
solute will of God destroys man's will 
altogether. On the other hand, if it belongs 
to the very nature of God to be ' wrathful ' 
against sin, it is conceivable we must 
postulate the existence of sinful persons. 
But that does not condemn any given 
person ' A,' to be one of these a-Kevrj 
opyrjs. It is not said (as S. remarks) God 
made them to be so. It only says, He 
bore them. 

350 An uncompromising image 

The truth is, v. 21 introduces the un- 
compromising image of the potter and his 
clay. The potter makes out of his clay 
precisely what he likes. We have, most 
of us, seen him doing it ; and in the East 
it is a sight of every day. There could be 
no more apt illustration of power entirely 
unlimited. If it were not for the o-Ktvrj 
6/07775 and a-Kevrj e'Xe'ovs, we might have 
thought that in v. 22 we had left the potter 
behind. However in actual experience 
some are ' bad ' men, some are ' good ' ; and 
it is God that made them all. That is ex 
hypothesi. In v. 22 a reason, a theory, is 
put forward. It is not stated as fact, but 
as throwing light on things. The sentence 
containing this ' theory ' (if a theory it be, 
as the et would seem to indicate) unhap- 
pily is highly intricate, not to say entirely 
entangled, and we cannot unravel it. The 
first verse of the section perhaps is intelli- 
gible as it stands; Suppose God put up 
with a-Kevrj 6/07779, for a twofold purpose, to 
display His wrath at sin, which is one 
aspect of His Holiness, and to make known 

The rationale of 'high 1 Calvinism 351 

His Power. This is thrown out as a 
suggestion. The view of Aquinas (see S.) 
appears to state plainly and well the gist of 
it. The next verse (v. 25) has no con- 
struction, and we cannot be sure at all 
what St Paul intended. We can only 
assume it is this ; As bad people exist, for 
the twofold purpose stated ; so there are 
people who exist, that on them God may 
display the wonders of His Mercy. Only, 
the writer has not said so. His thoughts 
are carried off to identify the cr/ceuTj eXe'ovg 
with the people of the Lord Jesus Christ 
(i7/u,as), some of whom are actually Jews 
and some are Gentiles. 

High Calvinism depends on a rigorous 
interpretation of a-Kevrj opyrjs and crKevrj 
eXe'ovs, as human beings made by God, in 
His role as the Mighty Potter, expressly, 
in each case, for ' wrath ' and for ' mercy.' 
The Apostle, I repeat, does not say so. 
They are all cr/ceuT?, to be sure, for they 
are all of the Potter's making. But we 
need not assume they are made to be 
respectively cncei/*/ opyrjs and crKevrj eXe 

3 5 2 A matter of long dispute 

That goes too far. Free will wholly 
disappears, and all created Mankind is 
reduced to a mere collection of hopeless 
automata. How Greek and Latin Fathers 
how Origen and Chrysostom, or Augus- 
tine and his followers have taken up the 
cudgels on the one side or the other of 
the endless controversy, can be seen ex- 
cellently set forth in the pages of S. 

All that we are concerned with here is 
the plain statement of what the writer does 
actually say. For that, what is needed is 
a more or less adequate rendering, together 
with some indication of the gaps in the 

A reverent modern mind would be 
inclined to urge that the image of the potter 
and the clay cannot cover the facts of 
creation ; where the Creator is a Being of 
perfect Love and Holiness, the ' Father ' 
that Christ revealed : and the creature is 
' rational,' with power of free choice between 
good and evil. It only exhibits the truth 
of things as they are in part. 

If one should say, ' But I cannot accept 

Israel's partial rejection 353 

your illustration as adequate,' what is the 
answer? Is it, 'Accept it, or burn'? 
I do not think so ; nor do I believe that 
St Paul has either said it, or would have 
said it. 

Towards the close of the chapter his 
thought is entirely diverted to prophecies 
foreshadowing a partial rejection of Israel. 
The first, in v. 25, is from Hosea ii. 23. 
The ov Xaos fj.ov, in the original, does not 
mean ' heathen ' people, but the ten tribes 
who will be restored. As S. says, ' the 
writer applies the principle underlying the 

The next is from the same prophetic 
writer (Hos. i. 10). The original reference 
and the Pauline applicatipn are the same 
as in the other. 

These two citations are employed to 
indicate the readiness of the All Father to 
accept as His children those who are not 
so by birth and begetting. 

The other quotations are brought for- 
ward to support the idea that all ' Israel ' 
is not 4 Israel ' ; that it is only in some 

w. 23 

354 A palpable dittographia 

of the Nation that the promise will be 

In the ' LXX ' text, the first quotation 
runs ; 

Kal lav yevrjrai 6 Xaos 'icrpa/rjX a>9 rj 
ajjLjjiOS rfjs 0aXacro~779, TO AcaraXi/x/xa 
O'a)0T]O'eTaL' \6yov <rvvT\(i)v /cat 
iv 8iKaiocrvvr), OTL Xoyov 

7TOLTJO'L KvptO? V TTj OLKOVfJievrj 6\.7J (Isai. 
X. 22, 23). 

The reading of the quotation in our 
text of Romans is compact and much more 
intelligible than the LXX text we have. 

>-.-, \ < ?e>/)\ ^ e/-N T \\e e 

.haz> y o ayoicfyios TCDZ/ VLOJV icrpai]k w? 77 
d/x/xos TT^? ^aXacrcrT;?, TO uTroXiju-jna crw^creTat 

so far it is plainly a citation from 
memory \6yov .yap o-wTeXwz/ Kal crvv- 
repvtov TTOiTJcrei Kvptos 67TL T^5 y^9. An 
( only ' is wanting, to be sure ; even badly 
wanting. But otherwise the sense is plain 
enough. In the latter part of the LXX 
is a palpable dittographia. In St Paul 
this disappears. How it ever got there, 
it is for LXX critics to say. Obviously 
\6yov <j\)vri\LVtov Troi^cret Kvpios and Xoyoi> 

Seed' or ' remnant ' f 355 

TTOITJCTCI Ku/nos are the same 
Hebrew text, rendered in two ways. 

The second quotation is from Isaiah i. 9. 
The 7rpoLprjKv would seem to refer to its 
earlier position in the writings of the 
prophet. Isaiah i. portrays a lamentable 
picture of desolation, which has overtaken 
the land. It is almost as completely de- 
stroyed as Sodom was, or Gomorrah. 
Here is not the quotation we should have 
chosen, to illustrate the * remnant ' doctrine. 
Indeed, the ' LXX ' text departs from the 
Hebrew in reading cnrep^a instead of 
" remnant." And no intelligible explanation 
of the citation appears unless * remnant ' 
was originally part of it as it left the 
writer s hand. Therefore one would suspect 
that our o-Trep^a is the correction of a 
Pauline vTroXt/i/uta. 

ix. 30 33. "What then are we 
to say ? Why, this. Gentiles that 
followed not after ' righteousness,' cr. Phil. 
have attained to ' righteousness ' the "' 
righteousness that comes by faith. 
Whereas Israel pursuing a Law to 


lead to 'righteousness,' has not suc- 
ceeded in getting to its goal. Where- 
fore ? Because they did not follow 
the way of faith, but the way of legal 
doings. They stumbled at the ' stone 
of stumbling ' ; as it says in Holy 
isaiah Writ, Behold, I lay in Sion a stone 

quotation). of stumbling and a rock of offence ; 

and everyone that * believeth ' on Him 
shall not be put to shame" 
Verse 30 contains a statement, not a 
question. ' Righteousness ' is technical 
throughout. It stands for 'acceptance 
with God.' The vopov Si/ccuocrvz^s (in 
v. 31) is very odd. We should have ex- 
pected the two cases to be exactly reversed, 
vopov SiKCLLocrvvrji'. That it is not so makes 
the latter clause exceptionally obscure. 
What can it signify to say in English 
"they did not reach the Law that leads 
to righteousness " ? No paraphrase can 
be suggested for vopov SCKCUOO-WTJS which 
would make the matter really clear. Yet, 
" the law of righteousness " is the uniform 
rendering of our English versions. R.V. 

The 'stones' of prophetic writ 357 

says "a law of righteousness" which 
does not mend things much. 

There are two Isaianic passages, worked 
in together, at the end of v. 32 and in v. 33. 
Isaiah, viii. '14, speaking of the God of 
Israel, says, Let him be your dread.. ..And 
he shall be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone 
of stumbling and for a rock of offence to 
both the houses of Israel. . . . 

In the second chapter of i Peter we 
have all the three "stones" of prophetic 
writ combined together : the precious 
corner stone of Isaiah xxviii. 16 is iden- 
tified with the stone which the builders 
rejected of Psalm cxviii., and also with 
the Xi#o9 Trpocr/cojLifiaTo? of Isaiah viii. 
Our Lord Himself claimed to be the 
rejected " Stone" of the Psalm. It was 
inevitable the recognition should be ex- 
tended by His followers to those two 
other " stones," Isaiah's "costly stone" 
and the same prophet's Xi'0os Tr/oocr/cd/i- 
/xaros. In i Peter the Isaianic citations, 
though close together, are carefully kept 

358 A highly 'conflate' quotation 

Here they are worked up together into 
one ' conflate ' quotation. 
Behold ! I lay in Sion 

(Isaiah xxviii. 16, but 
not clear LXX) 

a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence 

(Isaiah viii. 14: in 

and he that believeth 

(Isaiah xxviii. 16, 

(on Him) (a Pauline interpreta- 

tive comment) 
shall not be ashamed. 

(Isaiah xxviii., but 

not in the LXX 


It is well known our English says, "He 
that believeth shall not make haste" At 
first sight it seems a far cry from " not 
being ashamed "to " not making haste." 
Cheyne rejects " shall not make haste" in 
favour of " shall not give way." I think I 

'Shall not make haste' 359 

have heard it suggested that it is not im- 
possible to bring into line the Hebrew and 
the Greek. But the method of it I only 
half recall. The explanation presented the 
LXX as being an interpretative para- 
phrase of the metaphor ('slipping away,' 
or the like) contained in the original. All 
we have now to note is that the two 
* stones ' are identified with one another, 
and with Christ : that the ITT avrco is in- 
serted by St Paul to bring this teaching 
out the teaching that Christ is the " pre- 
cious stone " laid by the Lord in Sion : 
and, lastly, that 6 TTIOTCVCUI/, which need 
mean no more than "he that trusteth," is 
definitely associated with the theologic 
virtue * faith ' ; faith having been men- 
tioned just above, in vv. 31 and 32. S. 
remarks there may have been an early 
Christian catena on which both writers 
were drawing. That seems probable 

For the rest, Christ clearly was a very 
real 'stone of stumbling' for the Jews. 

The great mistake made by Israel is 

360 'Not according to knowledge" 

developed in the next verses. But first 
the Apostle sets on record once again his 
bitter sorrow at it all. 

x. i, 2. " Brothers, the desire of 
my heart at any rate, and my suppli- 
cation towards God (are) for them, that 
they may be saved. I bear them 
witness they have a zeal for God ; 
but an unintelligent zeal." 
When a /*eV has no answering 8e the 
omission of the antithesis is often expressed 
in English as above. The et? o-coTrjptav, 
which must mean what our version says, 
is without any parallel. 'Em'yz>cucris is 
not now thought to bear the ' intensive ' 
sense that Lightfoot attached to it. Here 
such a sense is not required. What they 
lacked was spiritual discernment, nothing 
more. They simply did not understand 

x. 3. " Not knowing about God's 
'righteousness,' and going about to 
compass a ' righteousness ' of their 
own, they failed to yield themselves 
to the 'righteousness' of God...." 

Christ the ' end" of Law 361 

" God's righteousness " is the method, 
of winning acceptance with God, Himself 
has appointed. In effect it was simply 
Christ. As Christ said, He is the " Way." 
And so St Paul says here, but in other 
words ; 

x. 4. " For Christ is the goal of 
Law ; He is ' righteousness ' for every 

My interpretation is that the ' end ' of 
' Law ' is that, at which Law aimed. It 
aimed at securing God's favour by the 
merit of perfect obedience. For men this 
was impossible : it could not be achieved. 
Only the Lord Jesus, of all mankind, ever 
compassed it. But the thought of His 
perfect obedience is not here. " Christ 
is Law's end " means, I think I cannot 
see how any other meaning carries quite 
enough " Christ is ' Righteousness" ' Et? 
SLKaiocrvvrjv may only imply "so far as 
acceptance with God goes." But, con- 
sidering that, in Greek, things end 'into' 
and not 'in,' I suspect it is something 
more. Other interpretations of re'Xos are ; 

362 Or, Christ ends Law 

"end" (historical termination) of Law, as 
a system; or even " consummation," "per- 
fection." Both are true, but neither is 

If the sense of re'Xos I would maintain 
is viewed as impossible, my alternative 
would be to paraphrase as follows : 

" For Christ ends' Law for ever, 
in regard to winning God's favour, 
for everyone that believes." 
That is to say, the way of Law, so painful 
and so ineffectual, is for all time super- 
seded by the new way, which is Christ. 
Further, this 'way' is a very near way 
(//,aXa 8' eyyv#i *>aiei). 

x. 5. " For Moses writes of the 

Cf. Gal. * righteousness,' that comes by law ; 

It is the man, that has achieved them, 

that shall live by them...." 

'Life' and 'righteousness,' of course, 

are here identified. The man who achieves 

the commands in every particular is Succuos ; 

he is in God's ' favour ' ; his name is written 

in God's Book. The citation is from Levit, 

xviii. 5. 

A passage from Deuteronomy applied 363 

x. 6 10. " But the ' Righteous- 
ness/ that comes by faith, speaks in 
another tone ; Say not in thy heart, 
who shall ascend into Heaven (that is, 
to bring Christ down) ; or who shall 
go down into the depth (that is, to 
bring Christ from the dead). But 
what does it say ? Nigh thee is the 
word, on thy lips and in thy heart 
(that is, the message of faith which cr. i p e t. 
we proclaim). For if thou shalt con- *" 
fess with thy lips Jesus as Lord, and 
if thou shalt believe in thy heart, that 
God raised Him from the dead, thou 
shalt be saved. For with the heart one 
believes, and is 'justified' ; and with 
the lips one confesses, and is 'saved." 
This passage is palpably based on a 
passage in Deuteronomy (xxx. 11 14). 
Literally rendered that passage runs : 
for this command, that I command thee, 
is not exceeding burdensome, 
nor is it far from thee. 
It is not in the heaven above, 

crying (Xeyoji/), Who will ascend 

364 A strange masculine participle 

for us into heaven, and get it for us ? 
and having heard it, 

we will do it. 

No, nor is it beyond the sea, crying, 
Who shall cross over for us 

to the far side of the sea, 
and who is to get it (Xa/Sfl) for us, 
and make it audible for us ? 

and we will do it. 
The Word (prj^a) is very near thee, 
on thy lips and in thy heart 
and in thy hands to do it. 
Our own ' R.V.' is very near this, save 
for the omission of 'and in thy hands" 
Otherwise the variation is exceedingly 
small. The writer applies the language 
to set forth the simplicity, the exceeding 
nearness, of his * righteousness ' the new 
and only way of finding peace with God. 
He represents the new 'righteousness' 
as speaking for itself. The very curious 
\4yuv in LXX (which has no particular 
grammar; for it ought to refer to IvToXrj) 
perhaps suggests this personification. The 
explanatory notes are unexpected. The 

Can they be 'glosses'? 365 

simple questions, "Who shall ascend into 
heaven?" and "Who shall descend into the 
deep ? " would have been enough by them- 
selves. For the ' Way ' is not hidden 
high overhead ; nor is it deep underfoot. 
At first sight, one almost wonders if they 
can be 'glosses.' Yet such allegorical in- 
terpretations are not alien from the Pauline 

The question " But what does it say ? " 
(St Paul's words, not Deuteronomy's) in- 
troduces a close citation of the latter part 
of the same Pentateuchal section. But 
the pypa of LXX, the message of Moses 
to Israel, becomes the new /orj/ia, the 
Gospel message of Jesus Christ. The 
mention of ' lips ' and ' heart ' the aposto- 
lic writer developes. Each member has 
its special part to play, its function to 
discharge. The 'lips' are for 'confession'; 
the 'heart' is the seat of 'belief.' In 
v. 9 the single blessing, achieved by 
the double work of 'heart' and 'lips,' is 
given as crajOrja-rj. In v. 10 this one idea 
is presented in two forms. ' Belief leads 

366 God ' rich ' towards all 

to ' righteousness ' ; ' confession ' is the 
pathway to 'salvation.' Are they then 
one thing or two ? One, I should say, 
distinctly. But there is room for differ- 
ence of opinion. The verbs Tricrreverat 
and 6/xoXoyetTtu are, of course, ' impersonal 
passives.' The importance of 'faith' in 
the matter is enforced and emphasised by 
a second reference to Isaiah xxviii. 16. 
Only now we have a Tras added, as well 
as an ITT avT<u. 

x. ii 13. " For the Scripture 

says, Everyone that believeth on Him 

shall not be put to shame. You see, 

there is no distinction between Jew 

and Gentile ; for the same Lord is 

cf. Ephes. Lord of (them) all, * rich ' towards all 

that call upon Him. For Everyone 

joei ill. 5 that shall call upon the Name of the 

Lord shall be saved" 
The first TTOL? is St Paul's insertion ; so 
that it might almost seem he himself had 
brought about unsupported that abolition 
of all distinction of which he speaks. But 
as we pass on we find that the ' open door 

Have the Jews been fairly used? 367 

for all ' rests on Christ's universal Lord- 
ship for one thing, and on the Prophetic 
promise for another. And the Pentecostal 
promise has its was. There is no mistake 
about that. 

We have seen there is one 'way,' one 

only way to owrrj/xa, for Jew and Gentile 

alike. The question next arises, Have 

the Jews then had a fair chance ? Has 

the message been made plain to them ? 

The Gentiles' turn will come ; but the 

Jews' comes first of right. Not till they 

have rejected God's plan can the Gentiles 

be given their turn. They have had it, is 

the answer, couched in prophetic language. 

They have heard ; the testimony of Holy 

Writ has been amply borne out in fact : 

they have 'heard,' but, with characteristic 

' hardness of heart,' they have not ' obeyed.' 

x. 14, 15. " How then shall people 

call on One, on whom they have not 

believed ? And how shall they believe 

in Him, of whom they have not heard? 

And how shall they hear, apart from 

a preacher ? And how shall folks 

368 The prophets say, Yes 

preach, except they be sent as it 
isai. Hi. 7 stands in Holy Writ, How beautiful 

(not close 

to LXX). are the jeet oj them, that preach good 

news of Peace, that preach good tidings 
of good things" 

Verse 14 enumerates the conditions of 
effective ' hearing ' which obtain in all cases. 
What we want to know is this, have all 
these conditions been fulfilled in Israel's 
case ? Whether we read eVi/caXecroi/rcu or 
eVt/caXeVw^rai makes very little difference. 
Ou OVK riKovcrav ought to mean Him, whose 
voice they have not heard. But, I suspect, 
it does not here. Therefore, I should keep 
" of whom" 'Eaz/ prj aTrocrraXwcrti/ in the 
Vulgate merely becomes nisi mittantur. 
But the sense of legitimate 'mission,' of 
apostolic commission, is discovered in the 

The citation of Isaiah Hi. is brought 
forward as a general answer to the question 
'Have they heard?' It agrees closely 
with the Hebrew text, and is associated 
originally with the deliverance from Cap- 
tivity. But the Rabbis (S.) applied it to 

Israel kas been told 369 

Messiah ; and Christian folk with reason 
apply it to the Redemption of all redemp- 

Yes, there can be no doubt they have 
all been told. "This thing was not done 
in a corner." Indubitably the message 
of Christ was fully made known to His 
Nation. Many did not * heed ' ; and their 
failure is set forth in sundry prophetic say- 
ings. There are five of these in all. We 
will take them in due order. The first, 
from Isaiah, follows closely on the assump- 
tion, based on the last citation, that there 
has been no defect in the ' telling.' 

x. 1 6 21. "But they have not 

all heeded the Gospel..." 

[// is to-day as it was of old.~\ 

"...Isaiah says, you know (Lord], isaiahiui. 

who has believed what he has heard* 

from us ? Belief, then, comes by 

hearing, and hearing comes through 

the message of Christ." 

" But, again, can it be they have 

not heard ? Nay, indeed, Into all the Psalm xix. 

land the sound of them has gone forth, s 




and told in vain 

xxxii. 21 

Ixv. i 
(LXX, but 


Ixv. 7 






and the words of them unto the utmost 
ends of the world. Once more, can it 
be that Israel never knew? First of 
all then, Moses says, / will kindle you 
to jealousy over a nation that is none ; 
over a nation void of understanding 
will I anger you. And Isaiah is very 
daring and says, I was found of them 
that never sought Me ; I became mani- 
fest to them that asked not after Me. 
And, with regard to Israel, he says, 
All day long have I spread out my 
hands towards a disobedient and gain- 
saying people" 

The OLKOT], in Isaiah liii. i, means 'hear- 
ing,' i.e. message; the Apostle takes it up 
in its other sense, the exercise of the gift 
of the ear. The prjfjia XPLCTTOV is the 
message, of which Christ is the subject. 
The avT&v of the Psalm, in v. 1 8, refers to 
God's great 77-0177/10,70,. Such an universal 
proclamation as they give forth is the 
telling of the Gospel. The Scripture from 
Deuteronomy, in v. 19, tells how the God 
of Israel, provoked by His faithless people, 

Yet Israel has a destiny 371 

will surely deal with them as they have 
dealt by Him. They have forsaken Him 
for a ' not-god" ; He will forsake them for 
a ' not-people? It is ample testimony to 
Israel's disloyalty and consequent rejec- 
tion. The last two citations are from 
Isaiah. The two verses come close to- 
gether. They speak plainly for themselves 
and present no difficulty. 


There remains but one more section in 
the doctrinal portion of ' Romans/ With 
this too let us deal and we shall be ended. 
It is true its teaching has no direct bearing 
on 'justification.' On the other hand, it 
has very much indeed to do with the 
general Pauline conception of the will or 
purpose of God. 

We saw in the last section that Israel 
has been evangelised, but, true to its his- 
tory, has not heeded nor believed. They 
are, as Isaiah declared, Xaos a7rei0a>i> /cat 


372 Rejection is impossible 

Cf. Psalm 
xciv. 14 

Cf. viii. 29. 

i Kings 
xix. 10 
of LXX). 

i Kings 

xix. 1 8 





az/TiXeyft>i>. ' Stiffnecked ' is now, as ever, 
the epithet to describe them. Does then 
this disregard of God's great message carry 
with it the Nation's rejection ? That is 
the first question we have to ask ourselves, 
xi. i 6. " I ask then, Can it be 
God has rejected His people ? No, 
no ! Why, I am a son of Israel my- 
self, of Abrahamic descent, of the 
tribe of Benjamin. God has not re- 
jected His people, whom He knew 
of old. Or, is it that you do not 
know what the Scripture says, in the 
story of Elijah, when he pleads with 
God against Israel ; Lord, they have 
slain Thy prophets and digged down 
Thine altars, and I only have been 
left, and they seek my life ? But what 
does the solemn answer say to him ? 
/ have left for myself seven thousand 
men, folks that have not bowed the knee 
to the shameful god." 

" So, in the present time too, there 
is a 'leaving,' by gracious election. 
And if it be by grace, then is it not 

of that the Apostle is certain 373 

by works ; otherwise grace ceases to 

be itself." 

In a definite ' rejection,' then, the 
Apostle will not believe. Holy Writ de- 
clares it impossible. Twice over it is said, 
in Psalm xciv. and i Samuel xii., that God 
will not reject His People. In both of 
these places LXX employs the same verb 
as here. Moreover, St Paul himself is a 
son of Israel ; and, seeing he is so, the 
idea of such a 'rejection' is to him in- 
tensely abhorrent. Does he not belong 
indeed to the loyal and royal tribe of war- 
like Benjamin ? Here, as in Philippians iii., 
he plainly lays much stress on this gene- 
alogical fact : and surely the tribe of his 
lineage is a highly appropriate one for the 
dauntless missionary. The Trpoeyva), in v. 
2, may carry that special sense of * know ' 
'recognise,' to wit, almost 'choose' 
that is seen in the Prophet Amos, though 
there the verb is not compound. 'Ev 
'HXeca means, in the whole section which 
tells the prophet's story. There is a Ho- 
meric ring about the title. *}Lvruy\av.w is 

374 ^ wide variation 

neutral ; the sense of it, hostile or friendly, 
depends on the preposition, whether vvrep 
or Kara (in ' Acts ' once TTC/H), that follows 
after. Of the two quotations from i Kings, 
the first varies a good deal in the language ; 
the second is widely different from LXX 
text. That reads, And thou shalt leave 
behind in Israel seven thousand men, all 
the knees that have not bent the knee to 
Baal (ro> BctaX, not rfj BaaX as here), and 
every mouth that hath not worshipped him. 
The suggestion in LXX is that these 
seven thousand only are intended to es- 
cape the slaughter to be achieved by the 
chosen avengers. The Hebrew declares 
Yet I will leave me. I should gather that 
the e/xavT< in our text is distinctly a Pauline 
addition : yet it has, or seems to have, an 
important place in the argument, as rein- 
forcing the notion of the e'/cXoyr) ^ayotros. 
However on this we clearly must not lay 
any undue stress. The rfj BctaX of our 
text is said to be due to the fact that in 
the Greek ala-xuvy was substituted for 
4 Baal.' But our LXX text has rw. 

We discern election at work 375 

is only here I cannot away with 
and the spelling of ' B,' at least, 
is not a thing to trouble about. 

The conclusion we have so far reached 
is that here is no rejection : the discerning 
eye only notes the working of that ' elec- 
tion,' of which we have spoken before. 
Verse 6 is one of those ' appendix-like ' 
statements of which St Paul is so fond. 
The OVKZTI ef e/>yo>i>, one would say, ap- 
plies far more definitely to the e/cXoyry that 
is now than to that which we may find in 
i Kings xix. For there the * seven thou- 
sand ' were left behind precisely for this, 
that they had not been false to their God 
or forsaken Him for Baal. However, the 
KCLT K\oy7)v ^a/Dtro? may only belong to 
the ' now ' and not to the ' then ' at all. 
The resemblance may lie merely in the 
smallness of the number of the * faithful ' 
who are * left.' 

We proceed to apply the analogy 
afforded by the O.T. 'remnant' to the 
conditions now obtaining with regard to 
Israel and the new revelation. 

37 6 Only the elect have attained 

Cf - x - 2 - xi. 7, 8. "How then? What 

Israel seeks after, that they did not 
attain. It was the elect attained it; 
the rest were hardened (in heart), as 
it says in Holy Writ, God has given 
them a spirit of confusion; eyes that 
cannot see, and ears that cannot hear, 
until this very day"' 
The K\oyt} means the body of people 
'elected/ The scripture referred to in 
v. 8 appears to be a blend of several 
passages. In Deut. xxix. 4 there is some- 
thing like it. 

And the Lord our God hath not 

given you 
an heart to understand and eyes to see 

and ears to hear 
until this day. 

Here however is no mention of the 
irvevpa /carcu/vfews. That is derived from 
Isaiah xxix. 10, For the Lord hath made 
you drunk (?) with the spirit of Kardvv^ (in 
our English, the spirit of deep slumber) ; 
and Psalm Ix. 3, < thou hast made us drink 
the wine of Karavvfa' (in the English, 

The rest have been blinded 377 

wine of staggering or astonishment). There 
seems to be a possibility that fcarai/vfis 
was confused with the verb /carai>ucrTaeu'. 
Its own peculiar verb is only found in the 
passive in LXX. It seems to mean 'be 
paralysed.' In Acts ii. 37 "were pricked 
to the heart " is clearly wrong. It obviously 
means "were astounded." 'O^^aX/xov? TOT) 
/LIT) /B\7Tiv means, I think, "eyes of not 
seeing." It may, of course, be the common 
infinitive of purpose with rou. Our Lord 
Himself quoted Isaiah (vi. 9, 10) to the 
same general effect as the ' conflate ' quo- 
tation here. The citation from ' David ' 
which follows appears to centre round 
one special phrase, ' Let their eyes be dark- 

xi. 9, 10. "And David says, Z,0/Psaimixix. 
their table become a snare and a 0-npa (exact 


and a trap and a recompense for them. 
Let their eyes be darkened, that they 
may not see ; and their back bow thou 
down continually" 

Originally it is spoken of the enemies 
of God's servant. Spiritual blindness is 

378 Yet their fall is not final 

the penalty which invariably waits upon 
the unfaithful heart. 

At the opening of the chapter the 
question was " Has God rejected His 
people ? " The answer to that was No, 
only the unfaithful. All the time there 
has been a 'remnant,' and a 'remnant* 
there still is. This ' remnant ' is the ' elec- 
tion.' The rest have been punished with 

Now another question is asked which 
is closely akin. If they have fallen, as 
they have, is it with a fall irreparable? 
To this again the answer * yes ' is as im- 
possible as to the other. After all, they 
are God's people. Moreover, behind their 
' fall ' can be seen a gracious Purpose. 
Their calamity has been the Gentiles' 

xi. ii. "Again, can it be they 
have stumbled to their fall? Oh, 
surely not! Rather by their stum- 
bling has come salvation for the Gen- 
Cf. x. 19. tiles with the result of arousing them 

to jealousy." 

and TrXypcopa 379 

If the tra, in iva. irecrucri, expresses a 
purpose, it ought to be the purpose of the 
subject of en-rato-ai/. We shall do well, 
then, to regard it as ' result ' call it ' ec- 
batic ' if you like and not confuse our 
minds with the thought that a ' purpose ' 
lurks behind everything that is. Uapd- 
TTTw/ia plainly is correlative to eTrraiarav, 
whereas Trroi/xa would answer to Trecrelv. 
That is, TrapaTTTCDfjia signifies something 
less than a fatal 'fall,' Though the syn- 
tax of the verse is obscure, the meaning is 
plain enough. The subject of Trapa&jXatcraL 
one would apprehend to be the crwr^/oia of 
the Gentiles. The next verse is rendered 
difficult by questions of vocabulary. "Hr- 
rrjpa is not easy, but nXrjpcofjia is bewilder- 
ing. The perplexity culminates in this ; 
are ^rr^/xa and TrXijpajfjia balancing terms ? 
Is rJTrrjfjia, that is to say, ''shortage," and 
7r\7jpa)fjia the antithesis of "shortage" 
whatever that may be ? Or, does ^rr^/ia 
simply mean " failure " (cf. i Cor. vi. 7, 
which is not exactly parallel), and is 77X77- 
itself entirely independent of it ? 

380 TI\.ripa)p,a a frequent difficulty 

may be in line with Tra/ootTrrcu^a or 
with 7T\TJp<t)p,a. But who shall decide with 
which ? For myself, I am inclined to the 
latter alternative. 

xi. 12. "If the stumbling of Israel 
be the great gain of the world, and if 
the Gentiles are enriched because Is- 
rael fell short ; how much grander 
shall it be when their numbers are 

UKripoi^a means 'completion/ the 'com- 
pletion ' of a definite number. In this sense 
we could have it in the plural ; it belongs 
to the form of the word to be susceptible 
of that. In the Gospels each basket has 
its separate TrX^/ow/uia. But we have no 
English word that I know of to represent 
it adequately. Nor have we for this 77X77- 
pwfjLa. Our rendering will be at best but 
a bungled matter. 

xi. 13, 14. "It is to you, Gentiles, 
I am speaking. So far as I am, I say, 
Apostle of the Gentiles, I make the 
most of my ministry, in the hope I 
may rouse to jealousy my own flesh 

'/ magnify my office' 381 

and blood, and may save some of 


If any passage in the Epistle be de- 
cisive for a Gentile preponderance in the 
Church at Rome, it would be this; v^lv... 
rot? tOvecTiv. I do not think the ptv ovv is 
'corrective.' St Paul is not only a mis- 
sionary to the Gentiles but to Israel as 
well. The ^v regards that. The ovv 
is, I think, of the resumptive type. A 
'ministry' Soaercu, not when one exalts 
its dignity and importance, but when one 
makes the most of it. It is not before the 
world the office is made much of, but in 
the speaker's mind. He sets store by it ; 
he works at it ; he gives himself to it : 
but all the while he knows in so doing 
he is not untrue to his nation. It will 
all tend to hasten on the glorious con- 
summation for which he yearns. Israel 
was set aside for a time ; and the Gentiles 
gained greatly by it : some day he will be 
taken back clasped to God's heart and 
what will that imply ? Here once more 
the vocabulary is fruitful in questionings. 

382 The glory of Israel's restoration 

Obviously anoftoXrj is not ctTrcocrt? for that 
idea we have definitely set aside. In Acts 
xxvii. 22 it merely means 'loss.' The 
verb means to ' throw aside ' (of a cloak), 
and to * lay aside ' (of a quality, nappy crta). 
The Vulgate says amissio, which possibly 
signifies ' loss.' Both 0,770)80X77 and wpocr- 

S are from the point of view of God. 

IK vKpa>v, again, is a highly doubtful 
phrase. I should say it must be figurative. 
After all, the Gentiles' salvation in no 
way depends upon Israel : but it will be 
inconceivably enhanced and glorified by 
Israel's restoration. 

Therefore I would paraphrase : 

xi. 15. " For if the loss of them 

meant the world's reconciliation ; what 

shall their taking home be, but a very 

resurrection ? " 

At this point, mentally, we must make 
a little insertion. It would run somehow 
like this, ' When all is said and done, it is 
they that are the aTrap-^yj, which conse- 
crates all the (frvpaiJia ; it is they who are 
the " root " from which the branches spring.' 

The ' first- -fruit' the 'branches' 383 

Otherwise, we can only appreciate the new 
thought of the writer by a very forced 

xi. 1 6. "It is, if the ' first fruit* 
(of the dough) be holy, that the whole 
baking is holy too ; it is, if the root be 
holy, the branches are holy too." 
And, even then, we should have to add ; 
1 And, mind, you are but of the <j>vpap,a ; 
you are but among the branches.' 

There follows the well-known image of 
the ' wild olive ' graft upon the fruitful tree, 
a proceeding, as S. observes, in itself en- 
tirely non-natural. So strongly is the 
Apostle convinced of Israel's priority in 
the matter of God's favour. 

'AypieXcuos and /caXXteXaios are Aristo- 
telian terms. 'E/c/cXaeu> simply means to 
'break,' or 'tear,' off. 

xi. 17 24. "If some of the 
branches were broken off, and you 
being but wild olive were engrafted 
among the branches, and became with 
them a sharer in the stock, the source 
of the olive's richness, then glory not 

384 The 'grafting* metaphor 

over the (rejected) branches. If you 
do, remember this ; it is not you who 
bear the stock, but the stock that 
bears you. You will say, The branches 
were broken off that I might be grafted 
in. True. They were broken off be- 
cause they disbelieved ; while you 
you stand by faith. My friend, be 
not highminded, but fear. If God 
did not spare the natural branches, 
He will not spare you either. Mark, 
then, in God both kindliness and se- 
verity. On them that fell is severity ; 
on you is kindliness provided you 
cling to that kindliness. Otherwise, 
you too will be sacrificed. And they, 
too, if they do not stay on in unbelief, 
will be engrafted ; for God is able to 
engraft them once again. For if you 
were cut off from the naturally wild 
olive, and were set as a graft in the 
fruitful, how much more shall these, 
which are naturally part and parcel 
of the olive, be engrafted in their own 

applied in detail 385 

Apart from the curiousness of the 
whole image, the verses explain them- 
selves. Olives grow to a fabulous age, 
and grafting, it would seem, is essential 
to their fertility ; though nobody grafts, 
of course, a good tree from a wild one. 
'EK/cXaeu> is not technical. The ez> avrot? 
is curious : it means the branches left, not 
the branches that are broken off. e Pia is 
more than ' root.' KaXws recognises the 
truth of what the Gentiles urge. TiJ 
aTTLCTTLa and rfj Trurrei are slightly varying 
datives. The first is plainly of 'cause/ 
the latter is nearer 'manner.' The ireo-ov- 
ras in v. 22 is odd, because it is the very 
word deliberately discarded just above. 
'ETTifieu/fls 777 ^pyjo-TorrfTL is, as we see from 
the phrase below, for all intents equivalent 
to mp.ivr)s rfj Trurrei. One ' stays on ' in 
God's kindness by persistent exercise of 
faith. The efcjcoTTTeu/s, of v. 22 and v. 24, 
are different. For the former we should 
have expected e/c/cA.aeu' to be used. In 
the one case it is a process of ' unkind- 
ness '; and in the other of 'kindness.' In 

w. 25 

386 Israel's partial ' hardening' 

the Trapa $V<TIV of v. 24 is the kernel of 
the whole figure. 

xi. 25 29. "For I would have 
you know, my brothers, this solemn 
truth, that you may not think your- 
selves wise. A partial hardening has 
befallen Israel, till the full number of 
cf . the Gentiles shall have entered (into 

the Kingdom). And, when that has 
befallen, all Israel shall be saved. As 
Holy Scripture says ; There shall 
come from Sion the deliverer, and 
shall turn away from Jacob impieties. 
For this shall be with them my Cove- 
nant, in the day when I shall take 
away their sins" 

"So far as the Gospel goes, they 
are (God's) enemies for your sake : 
but in regard to the election, they are 
beloved for the fathers' sakes. For 
the gifts and the calling of God are 

There can be no question that, for 
Gentile believers, there is a prodigious 
temptation to look on themselves as 

The TrXijpufJia of the Gentiles 387 

(cf. St Matt. xxv. 2) in contrast 
to Israel's foolishness. Only, consideration 
forbids it. There is a pva-Trjpiov involved; 
and fjLvo-TTJpLov, in this place, comes very 
near the sense with which we use 'mys- 
tery.' It is a truth a man could never 
possibly know save by revelation. The 
' TT\r)pa)jjLa of the Gentiles ' would seem to 
imply that, in the writer's thought, there 
is a definite number of Gentiles awaiting 
salvation a number only known to the 
mind of the Most High. When that 
number is achieved (OVTOJ), there will be 
' saving ' for Tret? 'Ioy>a7?\. The latter phrase 
is rightly interpreted, " Israel, as a whole." 
In the quotation, which is a free one, there 
is an amazing variety of reading. St Paul 
says e'/c; the LXX eWfcei/ ; the Hebrew 
'to.' All, obviously, make good sense, 
but the divergence is very startling. The 
LXX text of Isaiah (lix. 20) says, 
And there shall come for Sioris sake -the 

And shall turn away impieties from Jacob, 

and this is for them my Covenant ____ 


388 A magnificent hope 

The clause "When I shall take away..." 
is borrowed from Isaiah xxvii. There it 
reads "his sin." The fidelity of God to 
His promises is a commonplace in O.T. 
In w. 30 and 31, though aTreiOelv must be 
rendered 'disobey,' yet the sense of 'dis- 
belief/ ' unfaith ' is not far in the back- 
ground. The datives in v. 31 are a well- 
known difficulty. 

xi. 30 32. " For as you once dis- 
obeyed God, and now have received 
mercy, thanks to their disobedience ; 
so they too have now disobeyed, that, 
when you have received mercy, they 
also may meet with mercy. For God 
has made all disobedient alike, that 
on all He may have mercy." 
Here indeed is a spacious hope. Good 
out of evil is portended on the very largest 

Coming to lesser matters, let me say 
that the second vvv, in v. 31, is greatly 
better away. One gathers that the 'dis- 
obedience ' of the Gentiles first befell 
in point of time ; then came Israel's 

TftJ VfJLTpO) l\L 389 

' disobedience/ distinguished as later by 
vvv. It belongs to the same period as the 
' mercy ' of the Gentiles. Both are vvv. 
But we do not want a third, for the final 

* mercy ' of all which is not yet. After 
rjireiOrjo-av should be a comma (v. 31). 
The 777 TOVT&V a7Ti0ia is a semi-causal 
dative. Tw v/xerepw e'Xe'ei has nothing of 
' cause-meaning ' in it. I have rendered it 
in the way which, I think, best expresses 
the sense. It represents indeed a * dative 
of attendant circumstance ' (equivalent to 

* with you visited in mercy '). The <rwe- 
/cXeicrei> metaphor is better disregarded in 
English. In Galatians iii. 22 we have 
had it before. The whole statement must 
be taken not too literally. God does not 
1 make ' men sinners. Somehow, in un- 
known ways, 'sin' does subserve His pur- 
poses. In so far, God crvveKkticrev. 

The whole doctrinal section closes with 
a very exultant paean, in which the Apostle 
celebrates the glories of the knowledge of 
the Christian revelation. In the course 
of it he employs the same Scripture he 

390 ' Who hath known the mind of the Lord?' 

had used in the first letter to Corinth. 
In i Cor. ii. 16 we read "For who hath 
known the mind of the Lord, that he should 
instruct Him ? " Combining the citation 
here and that there in one saying, we have 
the whole of the text of Isaiah xl. 13. 
Tts eypo> vovv Kvpiov /cat Tts CLVTOV crvfji- 
/fovXos eyeVero, os crv//,/3t/3a OLVTOV ; In 
i Corinthians there is appended the highly 
significant statement, " But we have the 
mind of Christ." That must be taken to 
throw some light on the passage here. 
For the question naturally rises, Is this 
wisdom and this knowledge the wisdom 
and the knowledge that are in the All-wise ; 
or are they the wisdom and knowledge that 
form the Christian cro<t'a, communicated to 
men by the Holy Spirit of God ? The 
latter seems to me to be infinitely more 
likely. A passage in ' Colossians ' (ii. 2, 
3) lends further confirmation. That says, 
" that their hearts may be comforted 

ez> aydVr/ /cat et? irav TrXouros 
rrjs crweoreco?, ets 


A ''wisdom' beyond telling 391 

01 Bjjcravpol TTJS croc^ta? /cat yi>aJcr<os 
In these words it seems to 
be suggested that he who has knowledge of 
Christ is admitted to the stores of wisdom 
which are hidden away in Christ. Further- 
more, the passage shows that our ' riches ' 
refers to 'wisdom/ and not to grace or 

xi. 33 36. "O unfathomable 
wealth of the wisdom and knowledge 
of God! How unsearchable are His 
judgments and His ways beyond 
tracing out ! Aye, who hath known Isaiah 
the mind of the Lord, or who hath 
been His counsellor? Or who hath 
given Him first and shall be recom-]obx\i.u. 

(Here the text of Job, in our English, 
runs, Who hath first given to Me, that I 
should repay him ?} 

" For from Him, and through Him, 

and unto Him are all things. To 

Him be Glory for ever and ever, 


In the very last verse of all there have 

39 2 No reference to the Trinity 

been who have sought to trace some refer- 
ence to the Trinity. And IK, truly, does 
suggest ' Fatherhood ' ; while Sta is the 
preposition appropriate to the Redeemer ; 
but the eis is absolutely decisive against 
any such underlying meaning. To put it 
in more modern forms, what we should say 
would be this : 

' He is the universal Origin, 

and He the moving Power, and He 

the End.' 

The ets avrov would seem to point to 
that teaching which we find in i Corinthians 
xv. 28. There the goal of the whole process 
of creation and regeneration is declared 
to be nothing but this, u>a 77 6 eos Travra 
> iraa-iv. There is a ' wealth ' indeed in 
a wisdom and a knowledge which can see 
as far as that. 


When I was a schoolmaster (and they 
were very happy days, as all schoolmasters 
find them) there was no department of my 

// is the text we must know 393 

work which pleased me more than the 
teaching of the New Testament. The 'fly 
in the ointment' was the necessity of ex- 
amination ; for I was very well aware it 
was almost certain that that test would not 
be conducted on lines such as I myself 
approved. The difficulty was this ; that it 
would have been wholly possible, in many 
cases, for a boy to make half marks with- 
out knowing his text at all; for a good half 
of the questions always dealt with ' intro- 
duction.' One had to know that is, the 
boys had not what the Apostle said him- 
self, but what some one else said about 
him. This I could not believe to be right. 
For me, the one object was, so far as I 
could compass it, to make my pupils under- 
stand as of infinitely larger importance 
the Apostle's own pronouncements. The 
longer one reads St Paul, the harder one 
seems to find it to be absolutely sure of 
his meaning in any section. Still a student 
must be unfortunate beyond the common, 
who cannot carry away many definite 
ideas from careful perusal. 

394 Where St Paul's fascination lies 

As one reads the familiar words of an 
Epistle like * Romans ' again and again and 
again, it comes ever more home to one, 
that though he writes in Greek and cites 
the Greek Old Testament, he is really at 
bottom a ' Hebrew.' A great gulf separates 
his whole method from that with which we 
became familiarised in the days when our 
minds were given to the lucid writers of 
Hellas. It is when he is definitely arguing 
that he carries his readers least with him. 
Of their kind, no doubt, his arguments are 
very excellent : but it happens not to be 
the kind in which we ourselves have been 

Therefore we love him best when he 
leaves all logical processes far behind, and 
discarding ' reason,' as such, surrenders 
himself entirely to a species of intuition. 
It is in his dithyrambic vein when the tide 
of inspiration is flowing strong and free 
that he is for modern minds far most 

When I first gave my mind to the 
task of investigating what he says about 

His mental environment Jewish 395 

justification, I was led in that direction 
by a conviction that English readers are 
greatly led astray by terminology. My 
desire was to show any readers I might 
get that nothing could be done in the way 
of understanding the dogmatic ideas in St 
Paul till the reader had grasped two things, 
the Pauline outlook for one, the Pauline 
vocabulary for another. 

It was for me of very deep interest to 
discover that somehow or other, starting 
merely from the Apostle's own statements, 
I had worked back to what appears to have 
been his natural mentality. ' Natural ' I 
mean in the sense of what would have 
come to him from training and from en- 
vironment. This was brought home to 
me by reading a little essay of Professor 
Kennett, entitled ' Hebrew Conceptions of 
Righteousness and Sin.' There I found 
that the interpretation, which had forced 
itself on my mind from the study of the 
Pauline text of 'Galatians' and of 'Romans' 
say as to the meaning of 'righteous- 
ness ' corresponds almost completely with 

Paufinism not easy to define 

Israelitish conceptions. It is decidedly 
comforting to a mere ' Hellenist' like myself 
to discover that his views on the meaning of 
SiKcuocrvirj, as expressing a desirable status \ 
are substantially in line with established 
Hebrew teaching. A perusal of the essay 
mentioned will demonstrate that it is so. 

For the rest, quite apart from definite 
mistakes in interpretation, of this passage 
or of that, I feel sure my readers will say, 
Why did you not throw your ideas about 
the Pauline dogmatic on this head into 
Essay form ? My answer is very simple, 
Because I could not. ' Paulinism ' is not 
a system : it is rather an attitude. You 
cannot ' formulate ' it at least I hold so 
strongly but you can * feel ' it. Only if 
you are to 'feel' it, you have first to master 
the structure of the shrine that houses the 
spirit ; and that shrine is the text itself. 
If anyone should say. What in your opinion 
is the teaching of St Paul ? I should answer 
' Read and see.' This little and trivial 
book is an attempt to make such reading 
more easy and more profitable. One more 

But one cannot stop reading 397 

question maybe will suggest itself, Why 
have you roamed so far ? Why deal with 
all the chapters from i. to xi. ? Ah ! that is 
just the difficulty. With St Paul, when you 
once begin, you simply cannot stop. His 
vivid personality, his own overpowering 
interest in that of which he discourses, 
carry you on from point to point. And 
so it comes about that you only cease to 
follow when he ceases to go before. It is 
for that reason I could not pause till the 
whole of the doctrinal section of ' Romans ' 
was, more or less, covered. Those on 
whom the spell has fallen, will not blame 
me for that. They will recognise the fact 
that the apostolic writings cannot be 
chopped up into lengths ; they must neces- 
sarily be taken, each letter, as a whole. 
With the end of the doctrinal section 
reached we may fairly say claudite jam 
rivos pueri and alas ! the meadows may 
have drunk too much already. 



Return to desk from which borrowed. 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 

DEC 16 1947 


NOV 1 

LD 21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 

Vp ^r^o-j^ 

I L HU7 fO