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

GIFT OF

MICHAEL REE&E

ST PAUL AND JUSTIFICATION

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO
DALLAS • SAN FRANCISCO

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.

TORONTO

ST PAUL AND JUSTIFICATION

BEING
AN EXPOSITION OF THE TEACHING

IN
THE EPISTLES TO ROME AND GALATIA

BY

FREDERICK BROOKE WESTCOTT

of Trinity College, Cambridge

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

ST MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON

1913

COPYRIGHT

PATRI

DOCTISSIMO DILECTISSIMO
FILIUS NATU MAXIMUS

PREFATORY NOTE

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.

PART I
THE TEACHING OF GALATIANS

§ i. A WORD ABOUT WORDS
The purpose of this short Essay is to

ERRATA

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

w.

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

PART I
THE TEACHING OF GALATIANS

§ i. A WORD ABOUT WORDS

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.

§ 2. THE IDEA OF 'JUSTIFICATION' (THAT
IS ' BEING SET RIGHT WITH GOD '), HOW

IT AROSE

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
intelligible.

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 !

§ 3. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH FROM

GALATIANS

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
circumcised.

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-
sincerity."

" 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<r9i€v (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 (e7Ticrr€vcra//-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-
gressor."

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

3—2

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
Son.

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

§ 4. THE SECOND PARAGRAPH FROM
GALATIANS

(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,

4—2

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
parenthetical.

* 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(iti€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
'faith?

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
addition."

" 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-
sponds.

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

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
verse.

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
intermediary."

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/ xeLP^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\ticr€v 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>povpovfji€0a 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,

5

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. ..in 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.

5—2

68 The Law implied ' bondage '

§ 5. THE THIRD PARAGRAPH FROM

GALATIANS
f

(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, pjaces where 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 esfa,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-
perienced.

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." eH/*(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
God."

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.

§ 6. THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH FROM
GALATIANS

(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

6—2

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 sons1 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 3Apa@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
fully.

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 7rat£oi>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.

§ 7. THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH FROM

GALATIANS
(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>K€w !
' 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 uan
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. JEi>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

7—2

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.'

§ 8. THE LAST SECTION FROM
GALATIANS

(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
exist."

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
giving.

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 :

" ALL THAT WANT TO MAKE A FAIR
SHOW OUTWARDLY, SEEK TO FORCE YOU

io6 An emphatic pronouncement

TO CIRCUMCISION. ONLY BECAUSE THEY
WANT TO AVOID THE PERSECUTION EN-
TAILED BY THE CROSS OF CHRIST."

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-
mission."

" 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
world."

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
being."

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
identity.

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<*PL<>
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.

§ 9. SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE
TEACHING OF THE EPISTLE

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

8—2

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.

PART II

THE TEACHING OF ROMANS
§ I. A BRIEF FOREWORD TO ' ROMANS '

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
questionings.

§ 2. INTRODUCTORY VERSES, (i. i — 17)

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 knowrn 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
too."

"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
connexion.

A revelation of wrath 131

§ 3. THE WORLD'S SINFULNESS

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."

9—2

132 1A 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.

§ 4. GENTILE AND JEW, HOW THEY
STAND

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

J)>
esus.

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
him.

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 they1"
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

LXX.)

people.

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
comes.

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
just."

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

§ 5. JEW AND GENTILE 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'x€u>, 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 ps. 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-
crav.)
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
eyes.

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
Church.

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
inflict.

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.
below.

§ 6. THE NEW * RIGHTNESS,' OR
' RIGHTEOUSNESS '

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
handling.

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 sinned1 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-T€pel-
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
gerecht."

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
Grace."

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.
TlpoTL0€o-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
atoning...."

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). 5Ei> rrj avoxfl is>
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
Mercy.

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.

§ 7. THE NEW ' RIGHTEOUSNESS ' THE
SAME FOR ALL

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-
ceivable.

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
equivalent.

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
biddings."

" 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
Faith."

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

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 Xoyi£d//,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.

| 8. THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM AND

ITS LESSON FOR US

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
moment.

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.

righteousness.

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
Abraham.

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 Xoyi£ecr#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. Aoyi£erai, 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
does.

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."

13—2

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

OV JJLOVOV €K 7T€plTOp,fj$ OVCTLV GtXXct KOL

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
had.

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-

ness."

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-

j>
ness.

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 7rpocreT€0Tfj ; 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
were.

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)0€LS to Sous Sofcu>, is a /ecu of
identity.

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, isai.iiii.is.
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.

§ 9. THE POSITION OF THE JUSTIFIED

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
thought.

Consider first the five opening verses.
What about the leading verb? Is it
fyofjiev (with A.V. and the American Re-
visers) or €xa)jji€v (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.' vE^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'

14—2

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
Life...."

"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-6fji€0a 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
THE StKcuwia OF CHRIST

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
come."
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. sEXXoyo,(T0(u must be distinguished
from the more general Xoyi£eo-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." ¥^XPL 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
here.

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
many."

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
Christ."

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
race."
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

15—2

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 'righteous7
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. cA/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
other.

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 A2, B2, C2, is eA//,apri'a to be A1 and
B1, or should they be B1 and C1 ?
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
counts.

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

§ II. AlKCUOO-W»7 IN RELATION TO THE
LIFE OF ACTUAL HOLINESS

"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-
nomianism.

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
Law."

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-
possible.

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
oe/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

resurrection."

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-
sible.

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 knowr 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-

avrov...
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
form.

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
Calvary.

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
crvva7r€0dvoiJi€v. . . 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
live"

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
coherent.

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 " ; wrhile 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-Tav€T€ invites the believer
not to do what is so natural. The tense
in Kvpi€vcr€L 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
phrase.

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 over7 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

17—2

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.

§ 12. THE BELIEVER AND THE LAW

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)op€ii> 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-
position.

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
harm.

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
authenticity.

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

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

"that the Law is a thing of the

Spirit..."

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€/>ya£ecr#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

admirable."
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
all."

" 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
days.

©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.' HapaK€io-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
above.

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
saying.

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
Lord."

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

sin."

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
period.

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-
pression.

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
view.

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 x0^019 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
are.

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
never.

§ 13. THE NEW LIFE OF THE 'JUSTIFIED'
AND THEIR SPLENDID DESTINY

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
say!

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

KTU71S.

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

19—2

292 'Condemned sin1 — 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
element.

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
God."

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>pov€Ls 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
because...."

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
likely.

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
righteous,"

(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
theories.

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
balanced/

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
doing.'

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.
Kpa£eii> 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"x°lji€l' mignt 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
God."

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
unmistakeable.

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; lin 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
once.

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
words."

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 'foreknow1 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

stand.

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

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-0€i>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 7fp.lv ? 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
€5y/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 psaim
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.

§ 14. ISRAEL AND THE MYSTERY OF
ELECTION

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 XVi' 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

337

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

340

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 x°PTO* 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
after.

ix. 10. " Not only so, but Rebecca

342 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. 9Ef

€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

23

(LXX). the younger. As it stands in Holy

Mai. i. 2. writ, Isaac I have loved, Esau I have

hated."

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

mercy"

" 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 olKT€Lpr)<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

LXX)

display my power, and that my name
might be noised abroad in all the
earth."

"Accordingly, whom He will,
He pities ; and whom He will, He
hardens."

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
creatures.

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-
ing.

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-

(freely

cited). people,' my people ; and her that was

HOS. i. 10 not betoved, beloved. And it shall be

(the

'there' in the place, where it was said to them,

inserted).

Ye are not my people, even there they

4 Vessels of wrath ' 349

shall be called the sons of the Living
God."

" Isaiah cries touching Israel; //"isai. x. 22
the number of the children of Is rael

LXX

shall be as the sand of the sea, it is the text : our
remnant that shall be saved. For a tSngng
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-
morrah"

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 'high1 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
original.

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
words.'

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
realised.

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 7rpo€LprjK€v 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

23—2

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
distinct.

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
LXX \L9ov TT/OOCT-
and

and he that believeth

(Isaiah xxviii. 16,

LXX)
(on Him) (a Pauline interpreta-

tive comment)
shall not be ashamed.

(Isaiah xxviii., but

not in the LXX

form.)

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
enough.

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
things.

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
believer."

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
adequate.

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 pet.
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
manner.

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
text.

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-
tions.

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

w.

24

370

and told in vain

Deut.
xxxii. 21
(LXX).

Isaiah
Ixv. i
(LXX, but
clauses
reversed).

Isaiah

Ixv. 7

(LXX,

with

slightly

altered

order).

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.

§ 15. ISRAEL'S FINAL DESTINY

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

24—2

372 Rejection is impossible

Cf. Psalm
xciv. 14
(LXX).

Cf. viii. 29.

i Kings
xix. 10
(rough
quotation
of LXX).

i Kings

xix. 1 8

(wide

variations

from

LXX).

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.

376 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>ucrTa£eu'.
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\€7T€iv 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-
ened'

xi. 9, 10. "And David says, Z,0/Psaimixix.
their table become a snare and a 0-npa (exact

LXX)

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
blindness.

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'
opportunity.

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
full!"

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

them."

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' So£a£ercu, 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 v€Kpa>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
translation.

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
tree?"

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. ePi£a 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
irrevocable."

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

deliverer,
And shall turn away impieties from Jacob,

and this is for them my Covenant ____

25—2

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
scale.

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 VfJL€T€pO) 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 a7T€i0€ia 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

TOU p,VCTT7JpLOV TOV XptCTTOV, €V O)

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
mercy.

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.
pensed?"

(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,

Amen."

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.

§ 1 6. A FEW LAST WORDS

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
trained.

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
convincing.

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.

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
BERKELEY

Return to desk from which borrowed.
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

DEC 16 1947

170ct'98jM'

REC'D U
NOV 1

LD 21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476

Vp ^r^o-j^

I L HU7 fO

285498

UNIVERSITY OF