Epistlecommentar00sanduoft BW

mm
STUDIA
IN
Presented to
THE LIBRARY
of
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
Toronto
by
Dr. Robert Dobbie
S~
V>e
Inttrnational Critical Cammenlarg

on
ffiolg
gcrtptttria of
ffiiro
Hft anb
gfcatanunts
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF
The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.

Edward Robinson
Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York
The
Rev.
SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER,

ALFRED PLUMMER,
College,
D.D.
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford;
The
Rev.
Master of University
M.A., D.D. Durham.
International
on
t\)t
ffiolt)
Critical
t\)t
(fommentarg
CDRr gnlr
0cripttirc0 of
TSim <&t8tammts.
EDITORS'
PREFACE.
There
are
now
before
the
public
many Commentaries,
of a popular or
Schools,
written by British
homiletical
and American
The
divines,
character.
Cambridge Bible for
the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Student's,

Speaker's
The
their
Commentary,
s
The Popular
Commentary
series,
(Schaff),
The Expositor
special place
Bible,
and other similar
have
and importance.
But they do not enter into

exegetisches
the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such

series
of
Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes
Handbuch zum A. T.; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes
exegetisches
Handbuch zum N. T; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar; Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar uber das A. T.; Lange's Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack's
Handkommentar zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar zum N. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the EnglishBut others are in process of translation. speaking public no corresponding series by British or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, and the time has Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, when it is practicable to combine British and American
;
;
scholars
in
the
production
of
critical,
comprehensive
EDITORS
Commentary
ship,
PREFACE
modern
biblical scholar-
that will be abreast of

its
and
T.
in
a measure lead
van.
Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of
New
York, and Messrs.
Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments,
T.
&
and of
in
under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., in America, Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and
the Rev.
Alfred Plummer, D.D.,
for the
New
Testament,
Great Britain.
The Commentaries
fessional,
bias.
and
will
They
will
will be international and inter-conbe free from polemical and ecclesiastical be based upon a thorough critical study of
the original texts of the Bible, and

interpretation.
upon
critical
methods
of
They
are designed chiefly for students and
clergymen, and
book
will
will be written in a compact style. Each be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results
of criticism
still
upon
it,
and discussing impartially the questions
remaining open.
The
will
details of criticism will
appear
in their
proper place in the body of the Commentary.
Each
section of the
Text
or
summary
of contents.
be introduced with a paraphrase, Technical details of textual and
philological criticism will, as a rule,
be kept distinct from
matter of a more general character
and
in the
Old Testaas
far
ment the
exegetical
notes
will
be
arranged,
as
possible, so as to
with Hebrew.
will
be serviceable to students not acquainted The History of Interpretation of the Books

in
be dealt with, when necessary,

critical
the
Introductions,
literature
with
the
notices
of
the
most important
Archaeological
of as
subject.
Historical
and
questions,
well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series.
THE
INTERNATIONAL
CRITICAL
COMMENTARY.
X
The
eminent Volumes named below
following
:
Scholars
are
engaged upon
the
THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Genesis.
The Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D.D.,

Interpretation of
Oriel Professor of the
Holy Scripture, Oxford.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
The Rev.
A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh.
The Rev. H.
Oxford.
A.
White, M. A., Fellow
of
New
College,
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua.
Judges.
G.
Buchanan Gray,
field College,
B.A., Lecturer in Hebrew, MansOxford.
The Rev.
S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready.
The Rev. George Adam Smith, D.D.,

Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow.
Professor of
The Rev. George Moore, D.D.,
Professor of Hebrew, Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.
[Now Ready.
Samuel.
Kings.
The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Lane Theologic Seminary,
late Professor of
Hebrew,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew
and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

Chronicles.
The Rev. Edward

The Rev.
L.
L.
brew, Yale University,
Curtis, D.D., Professor of HeNew Haven, Conn.
Ezra and Nehemiah.

Isaiah.
W. Batten,
P. E. Divinity
Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, School, Philadelphia.

of
The Rev. The Rev.
A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor Hebrew, Free Church College, Edinburgh.
Jeremiah.
A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Minor Prophets.
Psalms.
W.
R. Harper, Ph.D., President of the University of Chicago, Illinois.

Rev.
The
Charles
A. Briggs, D.D.,
Professor of
Biblical
Theology,
Edward Robinson Union Theological
Seminary,
New
York.
Proverbs.
The Rev.
The Rev
C. H.
Toy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Har-
vard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Daniel
P. Peters, Ph.D., late Professor of E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York City,
John
P.
Hebrew,
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY continued.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Mark.
The Rev. E.
P.
Gould, D.D.,
Professor of
New
Testa-
ment Exegesis,
P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.
[In the Press.
Luke.
Acts.
The Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., Master of

College,
University
Durham.
of
The Rev. Frederick H. Chase, D.D., Fellow

Christ's College,
Cambridge.
Ireland's Pro-
Romans.
The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., Dean

fessor of Exegesis, Oxford,
and the Rev. A. C. Head{Ready.
LAM, M.A., Fellow of

Corinthians.
Galatians.
All Souls' College, Oxford.
The Rev. Arch. Robertson, D.D., Hatfield's Hall, Durham.
Principal of Bishop
The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, The Rev. T. K. Abbott, The

Rev.
A.B., Professor of
New
Testament Literature, University of Chicago.
Ephesians.
Philippians.
B.D., D.Lit, formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin.
Marvin
R.
Vincent, D.D., Professor of Bib-
lical
Literature,
City.
Union Theological Seminary,
New
York
Hebrews.
The Rev. T.
logical
C. Edwards, D.D., Principal of the TheoCollege, Bala; late Principal of University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.
The
Pastoral
Epistles.
The Rev. Walter Lock, M.A., Fellow The Rev. Robert H. Charles, M.A
Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford.
of Magdalen College, and Tutor of Keble College, Oxford.

,
Revelation.
Trinity College,
Other engagements will be announced shortly.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Rev. W.
SANDAY,
AND
D.D., LL.D.
Rev. A. C.
HEADLAM,
B. D.
J-^-d
^J~
The International Critical Commentary
CRITICAL
AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY

ON
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

BY THE
Rev.
WILLIAM SANDAY,
AND THE
D.D., LL.D.
LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD
Rev.
ARTHUR
C.
HEADLAM,
B.D.
FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE, OXFORD
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1895
BS
S37 1835
Human un
PREFACE
The commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans which already exist in English, unlike those on some other Books of the New Testament, are so good and so varied
that to
add
to their
number may
well
seem superfluous.
Fortunately for the present editors the responsibility for attempting this does not rest with them. In a series of
commentaries on the
New
Testament
it
was impossible
that the Epistle to the
Romans
should not be included
and should not hold a prominent place. There are few books which it is more difficult to exhaust and few in regard to which there is more to be gained from renewed interpretation by different minds working under different
conditions.
revivals of
If
it
is
a historical fact that the spiritual
Christendom have been usually associated with closer study of the Bible, this would be true in an eminent
degree of the Epistle to the Romans.
under no
tribution,
its
illusion as to the value of their
The own
it
editors
are
special con-
and they
will
be well content that

left
should find
it
proper level and be assimilated or
behind as
deserves.
Perhaps the nearest approach to anything at all diswould be (i) the distribution of the subject-matter of the commentary, (2) the attempt to furnish an interpretation of the Epistle which might be
tinctive in the present edition
described as historical.
Some
experience in teaching has shown that
if
difficult
VI
PREFACE
be understood and argument should be presented in several different ways and on several different scales at the same time. And it is an advantage when the matter of a commentary can be so broken up that by means of headlines, headings to sections, summaries, paraphrases, and large and small print notes, the reader
Epistle like the
is
Romans
really to
grasped at once as a whole and
in its parts, the
may
not either lose the main thread of the argument in the

details, or slur
crowd of
over details in seeking to obtain

this subject,
a general idea.
While we are upon
we may
explain that the principle which has guided the choice of
and longer discussions not exactly that of greater or less importance, but rather that of greater or less directness of bearing upon the
is
large and small print for the notes
may not be carried was an experiment the effect of which could not always be judged until the commentary was in print but when once the type was set the possibility of improvement was hardly worth the trouble and expense of resetting. The other main object at which we have aimed is that
exegesis of the text.
This principle
:
out with perfect uniformity
it
of making our exposition of the Epistle historical, that

of assigning to
it
is
its
true position in place and time
on
the one hand in relation to contemporary Jewish thought, and on the other hand in relation to the growing body of
Christian teaching.
in
We
have endeavoured always to bear
mind not only the Jewish education and training of the writer, which must clearly have given him the framework of thought and language in which his ideas are cast, but
also the position of the Epistle in Christian literature.
It
was written when a large part of the phraseology of the newly created body was still fluid, when a number of words had not yet come to have a fixed meaning, when their origin and associations to us obscure were still fresh and vivid. The problem which a commentator ought to
propose to himself in the
first
instance
is
not what answer
PREFACE
Vli
does the Epistle give to questions which are occupying men's minds now, or which have occupied them in any
past period of Church history, but
what were the questions
of the time at which the Epistle was written and what
meaning did
himself.
his
words and thoughts convey to the writer
of this original meaning that we have somewhat freely from Jewish writings, both from the Apocryphal literature which is mainly the product of the period between ioo B.C. and ioo A.D., and
It is in the pursuit
drawn
illustrations
(although less fully) from later Jewish literature.
In the
former direction
attention which
we have been much

has been
assisted
by
the
bestowed
in
recent years on
these writings, particularly
by the
excellent editions of the
Psalms of Solomon and of the Book of Enoch. It is by a continuous and careful study of such works that any advance in the exegesis of the New Testament will be For the later Jewish literature and the teaching possible.
of the Rabbis
we have found
ourselves in a position of
greater difficulty.
literature
first-hand
acquaintance with this
it be easy for most Testament to acquire it. Moreover complete agreement among the specialists on the subject does not as yet exist, and a perfectly trustworthy standard of criticism seems to be wanting. We cannot therefore feel At the same time we altogether confident of our ground. disposal, and cerour was at material as such have used
we do not
possess, nor
would
students of the
New
has been of great assistance, partly as origin of systems of thought which have developed very differently, partly by the striking contrasts which it has afforded to Christian teaching. Our object is historical and not dogmatic. Dogmatics
tainly to ourselves
it
suggesting the
common
are indeed excluded

taries,
but they are
by the plan of this series of commenexcluded also by the conception which

duty as commentators.
all
we have formed
for ourselves of our
We
have sought before
things to understand St. Paul,
Vlll
PREFACE
and to understand him not only in relation to his surroundings but also to those permanent facts of human nature on which his system is based. It is possible that in so far as we may succeed in doing this, data may be supplied which at other times and in other hands may be utilized for purposes of dogmatics but the final adjustments of Christian doctrine have not been in our thoughts. To this general aim all other features of the commentary are subordinate. It is no part of our design to be in the least degree exhaustive. If we touch upon the history of
;
exegesis
it is
less for
the sake of that history in
itself
than
as helping to throw into clearer relief that interpretation
which we believe to be the right one. And in like manner we have not made use of the Epistle as a means for
illustrating
diction,
New Testament grammar

we
deal with questions of
or
New
Testament
diction
but
grammar and
just so far as they contribute to the exegesis of the text
before us.
No
doubt there
is
will
be omissions which are not

Epistle
to have
to be excused in this way.

to the
really
Romans
so vast
The literature on the that we cannot pretend
mastered it. We have tried to take account of monographs and commentaries of the most recent date, but here again when we have reached what seemed to us a satisfactory explanation we have held our hand. In regard to one book in particular, Dr. Bruce's St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, which came out as our own work was far advanced, we thought it best to be quite independent. On the other hand we have been glad to
have access to the sheets relating to Romans in Dr. Hort's forthcoming Introductions to Romans and Epkesians, which, through the kindness of the editors, have been in our
possession since
December last. The Commentary and the Introduction have been about
;
equally divided between the two editors
but they have each been carefully over the work of the other, and they desire to accept a joint responsibility for the whole. The
PREFACE
editors themselves are conscious of having gained
IX
much
by
this co-operation,
set off
and they hope that this gain may be against a certain amount of unevenness which was
inevitable.
It
only remains for them to express their obligations and
thanks to those
many
Dr.
friends
who have helped them

and
E.
the
directly or indirectly in various parts of the work,
more
especially to
Plummer and
Rev.
F.
Brightman of the Pusey House. Dr. Plummer, as editor of the series, has read through the whole of the Commentary more than once, and to his courteous and careful criticism they owe much. To Mr. Brightman they are indebted for spending upon the proof-sheets of one half of the Commentary greater care and attention than many men have the patience to bestow on work of their own.
The
reader
is
requested to note the table of abbreviations
on p. ex ff., and the explanation there given as to the Greek text made use of in the Commentary. Some additional references are given in the Index (p. 444 ff).
W.
Oxford, Whitsuntide,
SANDAY.
A. C.
1895.
HEADLAM.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
I.
xiii-cix
Rome
in a. D.
58
xiii
2. 3. 4.
5.
The Jews in Rome The Roman Church Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose Argument
Language and Style
Text
Literary History
Integrity
xviii
xxv
.
.
xxxvi
xliv
lii
6.
7-
8.
9.
........
l
lxiii
lxxiv
xxxv
10.
Commentaries
xcviii
Abbreviations
cx-cxii
COMMENTARY
Detached Notes:
The Theological Terminology of Rom. i. 1-7 The word Sixmos and its cognates The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and
Jewish Writings
!_ 4 3 6
...
in
17
28
some
31
The Righteousness
St.
of
God
34
Paul's
Description of the Condition of the Heathen
World Book of Wisdom in Chapter The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice

Use
of the
i
.
49
.
...
.
.51
91
The History
St.
of
Abraham
as treated by St. Paul and by I0 2
James
of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of
Jewish Teaching on Circumcision
108
The Place
St.
Paul
Individual
the
n6
proper object of
I2 2
Is
the
Society or the
Justification?
x ii
The The
Adam's
CONTENTS
PAGE
Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement

Effects of
Fall in Jewish Theology

.
.129 .136
St. Paul's Conception of Sin and of the Fall History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of
. .
143
SlKUlOOO-lS
*47
Christ
. .
The Doctrine of Mystical Union with The Inward Conflict

St. Paul's View of the Law The Person and Work of the Holy
.162
*
84
187
Spirit
.
. .
.199
210
232 233
248
The Renovation of Nature The Privileges of Israel The Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5 The Divine Election The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament The Power and Rights of God as Creator The Relation of St. Paul's Argument in chap, ix to of Wisdom A History of the Interpretation of Rom. ix. 6-29
.
.
....
.
.257
266
267
the
Book
. .
269
The Argument of ix. 30-x. 21 Human St. Paul's Use of the Old Testament The Doctrine of the Remnant The Merits of the Fathers The Argument of Romans ix-xi
:
Responsibility
3
3 2
316
33
34 l
St.
Paul's Philosophy of History
342
:
The
Salvation of the Individual
Free-Will and Predesti-
nation
Spiritual Gifts
347
35 8
The Church and the Civil Power The History of the word aya-nrj The Christian Teaching on Love The early Christian belief in the nearness of the The relation of Chapters xii-xiv to the Gospels What sect or party is referred to in Rom. xiv ?
Aquila and Priscilla
3^9 374 37^

napovaia
.
379
3 Sl
399 4 l8
INDEX
Subjects
437
.
II Latin
III
Words Greek Words
443 443
INTRODUCTION
i.
Rome
in a. d. 58.
It was during the winter 57-58, or early in the spring of the year 58, according to almost all calculations, that St. Paul wrote
his Epistle to the Romans, and that we thus obtain the first trustworthy information about the Roman Church. Even if there be some slight error in the calculations, it is in any case impossible that this date can be far wrong, and the Epistle must certainly have been written during the early years of Nero's reign. It would be unwise to attempt a full account either of the city or the empire
of the Epistle and for the a brief reference to a few leading features in the history of each is necessary \ For certainly St. Paul was influenced by the name of Rome. In Rome, great as it is, and to Romans, he wishes to preach the Gospel he prays for a prosperous journey that by the will of God he may come unto them he longs to see them the universality of the Gospel makes him desire to preach it in the universal city 2 And the impression which we gain from the Epistle to the Romans is supported by our other sources of information. The desire to visit Rome dominates the close of the Acts of the Apostles After I have been there, I must also see Rome/ As thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness
illustration
at
this
date, but for the

St.
comprehension of
Paul's
own mind,
'
'
also at
Rome V
The imagery
.
of citizenship has impressed
itself
upon his language 4 And this was the result both of his experience and of his birth. Wherever Christianity had been preached the Roman authorities had appeared as the power which restrained
1
The main
Tacitus, vol.
ii,
der Regierung 2 Rom. i. 815. 3 Acts xix. 21 ;

4
authorities used for this section are Furneaux, The Annals of and Schiller, Geschichte des Rbmischen Kaisserreichs unter des Nero.
xxiii.
n.
ii.
PhU.
i.
27
iii.
20; Eph.
19; Acts xxiii,
1.
XIV
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
The
was under the rule of a native Everywhere the Jews had stirred up persecutions, and prince. the imperial officials had interfered and protected the Apostle. And so both in this Epistle and throughout his life St. Paul emphasizes the duty of obedience to the civil government, and the But also St. Paul was necessity of fulfilling our obligations to it.
himself a
it
the forces of evil opposed to it K Christians had been while Judaea
worst persecution of the
Roman
later,
became
This privilege, not then so common as citizen. would naturally broaden the view and impress the
imagination of a provincial ; and it is significant that the first clear conception of the universal character inherent in Christianity, the first bold step to carry it out, and the capacity to realize the importance of the Roman Church should come from an Apostle who was We not a Galilaean peasant but a citizen of a universal empire. cannot fail to be struck with the strong hold that Roman ideas had on the mind of St. Paul/ writes Mr. Ramsay, we feel compelled to suppose that St. Paul had conceived the great idea of Christianity as the religion of the Roman world; and that he thought of the various districts and countries in which he had preached as parts of He had the mind of an organizer ; and to him the grand unity. the Christians of his earliest travels were not men of Iconium and
'
'
they were a part of the Roman world, and were of Antioch addressed by him as such 3 / It was during the early years of Nero's reign that St. Paul first came into contact with the Roman Church. And the period is It was what later times called the Quinquennium of significant. Nero, and remembered as the happiest period of the Empire since
the death of Augustus
1
3
.
Nor was
the judgement unfounded.
It is
It is we U known that the 2 Thess. ii. 7 6 Karix^t 6 rb tcarixcommonest interpretation of these words among the Fathers was the Roman Empire (see the Catena of passages in Alford, iii. p. 56 ff.), and this accords most suitably with the time when the Epistle was written \e. 54 A.D.). The only argument of any value for a later date and the unauthentic character of the whole Epistle or of the eschatological sections (ii. 1-12) is the attempt to
explain this passage of the return of Nero, but such an interpretation is quite St. Paul's experience unnecessary, and does not particularly suit the words. had taught him that there were lying restrained and checked great forces of evil which might at any time burst out, and this he calls the 'mystery of But everywhere iniquity,' and describes in the language of the O. T. prophets. the power of the civil government, as embodied in the Roman Empire {rb ko.tcx ov ) and visibly personified in the Emperor (o Karix<v), restrained these forces. Such an interpretation, either of the eschatological passages of the Epistle or of the Apocalypse, does not destroy their deeper spiritual meaning for the writers of the New Testament, as the prophets of the Old, reveal to us and generalize the spiritual forces of good and evil which underlie the surface of society. a Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 147, 148; cf. also pp. 60, See also Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 202-205. 70, 158 n. 3 Aur. Victor, Caes. 5, Epit. 12, Unde quidamprodidere, Traianum solitum dicere,procul distare cunctos principes a Neronis quinquennio. The expression
;;
1.]
ROME
IN A.D. 58
XV
probable that even the worst excesses of Nero, like the worst cruelty of Tiberius, did little harm to the mass of the people even in Rome and many even of the faults of the Emperors assisted in working out the new ideas which the Empire was creating. But at present we have not to do with faults. Members of court circles might have unpleasant and exaggerated stories to tell about the death of Britannicus; tales might have been circulated of hardly pardonable excesses committed by the Emperor and a noisy band of
companions wandering at night in the streets ; the more respectable of the Roman aristocracy would consider an illicit union with a freedwoman and a taste for music, literature, and the drama,
signs of degradation, but neither in Rome nor in the provinces would the populace be offended ; more far-seeing observers might
be able to detect worse signs, but if any ordinary citizen, or any one acquainted with the provinces had been questioned, he would certainly have answered that the government of the Empire was good. This was due mainly to the gradual development of the ideas on which the Empire had been founded. The structure which had been sketched by the genius of Caesar, and built up by the art of Augustus, if allowed to develop freely, guaranteed naturally certain conditions of progress and good fortune. It was due also to the wise administration of Seneca and of Burrus. It was due apparently also to flashes of genius and love of popularity
if
on
the part of the
Emperor
himself.
provinces were well governed. Judaea was at this time preparing for insurrection under the rule of Felix, but he was a legacy from the reign of Claudius. The difficulties in Armenia were met at once and vigorously by the appointment of Corbulo the rebellion in Britain was wisely dealt with ; even at the end of Nero's reign the appointment of Vespasian to Judaea, as soon as the serious character of the revolt was known, shows that the Emperor still had the wisdom to select and the courage to appoint able men. During the early years a long list is given of trials for repetundae ; and the number of convictions, while it shows that provincial government was not free from corruption, proves that it was becoming more and more possible to obtain justice. It was the corruption of the last reign that was condemned by the justice of the present. In the year 56, Vipsanius Laenas, governor of Sardinia, was condemned for extortion; in 57, Capito, the 'Cilician pirate,' was struck down by the senate 'with a righteous thunderbolt.' Amongst the accusations against
The
quinquennium may have been suggested by the certamen quinquennale which Nero founded in Rome, as Dio tells us, imtp rrjs acoTrjpias 777s re Siafnovrjs tov tcparovs avrov, Dio, Epit. lxi. 21 Tac. Ann. xiv. 20; Suet. Nero 12; of. the
;
coins described, Eckhel, ROM. CO.
vi.
264
Cohen,
i.
p.
282,
47-65. cer. quinq.

XVI
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
1.
And not only were Suillius in 58 was the misgovernment of Asia. the favourites of Claudius condemned, better men were appointed It is recorded that freedmen were never made in their place. And the Emperor was able in procurators of imperial provinces.
many
to
cases, in that of
Lyons, of Cyrene, and probably of Ephesus,

the provincials
assist
and pacify
easily,
by
acts of
stress
generosity and
benevolence \
We may
perhaps, lay too

;
much
on some of the
measures attributed to Nero but many of them show, if not the The policy of his reign, at any rate the tendency of the Empire. 2 An police regulations of the city were strict and well executed attack was made on the exactions of publicans, and on the excessive power of freedmen. Law was growing in exactness owing to the influence of Jurists, and was justly administered except where the Emperor's personal wishes intervened 3 Once the Emperor was it a mere freak or was it an act of far-seeing political insight? proposed a measure of free trade for the whole Empire. Governors of provinces were forbidden to obtain condonation for exactions by The proclamation of freedom to Greece the exhibition of games. may have been an act of dramatic folly, but the extension of Latin rights meant that the provincials were being gradually put more
.
and more on a
flourished for the
the future
level with
Roman
citizens.
It
And
the provinces
seemed almost as if career of a Roman noble might depend upon the goodwill
most part under
.
this rule.
And wherever trade could flourish there of his provincial subjects 4 wealth accumulated. Laodicea was so rich that the inhabitants could rebuild the city without aid from Rome, and Lyons could
5 contribute 4,000,000 sesterces at the time of the great fire When, then, St. Paul speaks of the powers that be as being ordained by God ' ; when he says that the ruler is a minister of
.
'
'
God
1
for
good
'
when he
is
custom
he
tribute and is giving directions to pay thinking of a great and beneficent power which
'
'
travel for him possible, which had often interfered to him against an angry mob of his own countrymen, under which he had seen the towns through which he passed enjoying peace, prosperity and civilization.
has
made
protect
W. T. Arnold,
Tac. Ann.
a
3
For the provincial administration of Nero see Furneaux, op. cit. pp. 56, 57 The Roman System of Provincial Administration, pp. 135, 137
xiii.
Suetonius,
Schiller,
30, 31, 33, 50, 51, 53-57. Nero 16. Schiller, p. 420.
pp. 381, 382: 'In dem Mechanismus des gerichtlichen VerPrivatrecht, in der Ausbildung und Forderung der Rechtswissenschaft, selbst auf dem Gebiete der Appellation konnen gegrundete Vorwurfe
fahrens,
im
kaum erhoben werden. Die kaiserliche Regierung liess die Verhaltnisse hier ruhig den Gang gehen, welchen ihnen fruhere Regierungen angewiesen hatten.' * Tac. Ann. xv. 20, 21. 8 Arnold, p. 137.
1.]
ROME
it
IN A.D. 58
was Seneca
1
xvii
also
But
was not only Nero,

St.
it
who was
ruling in
The attempt to Paul wrote to the Church there. find any connexions literary or otherwise between St. Paul and Seneca may be dismissed ; but for the growth of Christian principles, still more perhaps for that of the principles which prepared the way for the spread of Christianity, the fact is of extreme significance. It was the first public appearance of Stoicism in Rome, as largely influencing politics, and shaping the future of the Empire. It is a strange irony that makes Stoicism the creed which inspired the noblest representatives of the old regime, for it was Stoicism which provided the philosophic basis for the new imperial system, and this was not the last time that an aristocracy perished in obedience to their own morality. What is important for our purpose is to notice that the humanitarian and universalist ideas of Stoicism were already beginning to permeate society. Seneca taught, for example, the equality but it was the populace who in some sense of all men, even slaves a few years later (a. d. 61) protested when the slaves of the murdered Seneca and many Pedanius Secundus were led out to execution 2 of the Jurists were permeated with the Stoic ideas of humanity and benevolence and however little these principles might influence their individual conduct they gradually moulded and changed the law and the system of the Empire.
Rome when
If we turn from the Empire to Rome, we shall find that just those vices which the moralist deplores in the aristocracy and the Emperor helped to prepare the Roman capital for the advent of If there had not been large foreign colonies, there Christianity.
could never have been any ground in the world where Christianity could have taken root strongly enough to influence the surrounding population, and it was the passion for luxury, and the taste for philosophy and literature, even the vices of the court, which demanded Greek and Oriental assistance. The Emperor must have
playing,
teachers in philosophy, and in acting, in recitation and in fluteand few of these would be Romans. The statement of Chrysostom that St. Paul persuaded a concubine of Nero to accept
Christianity
the conjecture that this concubine illustrate how it was through the
and forsake the Emperor has probably little foundation was Acte is worthless but it may
,
non-Roman element
of
Roman
It is not possible to estimate the society that Christianity spread. exact proportion of foreign elements in a Roman household, but a study of the names in any of the Columbaria of the imperial period
1 See Lightfoot, St. Paul and Seneca, Philippians, p. 268. To this period of his life belong the ano/eoXoicvvTajms, the De dementia, the De Vita Beata, the De Beneficiis, and the De Constantia Sapientis. See Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, translated by Warr, ii. 42. 2 Tac. Ann. xiv. 42-45. 3 Chrysostom Horn, in Act. App. 46, 3.
XVlii
1.
will illustrate how large that element was. Men and women of every race lived together in the great Roman slave world, or when they had received the gift of freedom remained attached as clients and friends to the great houses, often united by ties of the closest intimacy with their masters and proving the means by which every form of strange superstition could penetrate into the highest
circles
of society K
foreign superstition
And
was beginning
to spread.
The
earliest
monuments of the worship of Mithras date from the time of Tiberius. Lucan in his Pharsalia celebrates the worship of Isis in Rome Nero himself reverenced the Syrian Goddess, who was called by many names, but is known to us best as Astarte ; Judaism came near to the throne with Poppaea Sabina, whose influence over Nero is first traced in this year 58. While the story of Pomponia Graecina who, in the year 57, was entrusted to her husband for trial on the charge of
;
'foreign superstition' and whose long old age was clouded with continuous sadness, has been taken as an instance of Christianity. There are not inconsiderable grounds for this view; but in any case the accusation against her is an illustration that there was a path by which a new and foreign religion like Christianity could make its way into the heart of the Roman aristocracy 2.
i.
The Jews
it
in
Rome 3
There are indications enough
that
when he looked towards
and centre of the Empire. But he had at the same time a smaller and a narrower object. His chief interest lay in those little scattered groups of Christians of whom he had heard through Aquila and Prisca, and probably
St.
Rome
Paul thought of
as the seat
1 We have collected the following names from the contents of one columbarium (C. I. L. vi. 2, p. 941). It dates from a period rather earlier than this. It must be remembered that the proportion of foreigners would really be larger than appears, for many of them would take a Roman name. Amaranthus 5 1 80, Chrysantus 5183, Serapio {bis) 5187, Pylaemenianus 5188, Creticus 5197, Asclepiades 5201, Melicus 5217, Antigonus 5227, Cypare 5229, Lezbius 5221, Amaryllis 5258, Perseus 5279, Apamea 5287 a, Ephesia 5299, Alexandrianus 5316, Phyllidianus 5331, Mithres 5344, Diadumenus 5355, Philumenus 5401, Philogenes 5410, Graniae Nicopolinis 5419, Corinthus 5439, Antiochis 5437, Athenais 5478, Eucharistus 5477, Melitene 5490, Samothrace, Mystius 5527, Lesbus 5529. The following, contained among the above, seems to have a S| ecial interest 'Hdvtcos EvoSov rrpeo0tvTT)s Qavayopeircov rSiv Kara Bwairopov, a.nd"Acrrrovpyos Biopnaov vlos (pp.r)vevs 2app6.TO)v Pwanopavos 5207.
:
Tac. Ann. xiii. 32 Lightfoot, Clement, i. 30. s Since this section was written the author has had access to Berliner, Geschichte d.Juden in Rom (Frankfurt a. M. 1893), which has enabled him to correct some current misconceptions. The facts are also excellently put together
;
by Schurer, Neutest. Zeitgesch.
ii.
505
ff.
2.]
THE JEWS
IN
ROME
XIX
through others
Christian
whom he met on his travels. And the thought of the Church would at once connect itself with that larger community of which it must have been in some sense or other an
offshoot, the Jewish settlement in the imperial city. (i) History. The first relations of the Jews with
to the time of the
Rome go back Maccabaean princes, when the struggling patriots of Judaea had some interests in common with the great Republic and could treat with it on independent terms. Embassies were sent under Judas (who died in 160 b.c.) and Jonathan 2 (who died in 143), and at last a formal alliance was concluded by Simon Maccabaeus in 140, 139 3 It was characteristic that on this last occasion the members of the embassy attempted a religious propaganda and were in consequence sent home by the praetor
'
Hispalus
4
.
This was only preliminary contact. The first considerable settlement of the Jews in Rome dates from the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey in b.c. 63 s A number of the prisoners were sold as slaves; but their obstinate adherence to their national customs proved troublesome to their masters and most of them were soon manumitted. These released slaves were numerous and important enough to found a synagogue of their own 6 to which they might resort when they went on pilgrimage, at Jerusalem. The policy of the early emperors favoured the Jews. They passionately bewailed the death of Julius, going by night as well as by day to his funeral pyre 7 ; and under Augustus they were allowed to form a regular colony on the further side of the Tiber 8 roughly speaking opposite the site of the modern Ghetto,' which was removed to the left bank of the river in 1556, and has been finally done
.
'
away with
1
since the Italian occupation.
9 Mace. viii. 17-32. 1 Mace. xii. 1-4, 16. Mace. xiv. 24; xv. 15-24. * This statement is made on the authority of Valerius Maximus I. iii. 2 (Excerpt. Parid.) Judaeos qui Sabazi Jovis cultu Romanos inficere mores conati sunt, repetere domos suas coegit. Doubt is thrown upon it by Bei liner (p. 4), but without sufficient reason. Val. Max. wrote under Tiberius, and made use of good sources. At the same time, what he says about Jupiter Sabazius is very probably based on a misunderstanding nor need we suppose that the action of some members of the embassy affected the relations of the two peoples. 5 This too is questioned by Berliner (p. 5 ff.\ who points out that Philo, Leg. ad Caium 23, from which the statement is taken, makes no mention of Pompey. But it is difficult to see what other occasion could answer to the description, as this does very well. Berliner however is more probably right in supposing lhat there must have been other and older settlers in Rome to account for the language of Cicero so early as B. c. 59 (see below). These settlers may have
come
6
for purposes of trade.
was called after them the 'synagogue of the Libertini' (Acts vi. 10). Sueton. Caesar 84. This was the quarter usually assigned to prisoners of war {Beschreibung d. Stadt Rom, III. iii. 578).
It
7
8
ba
XX
[ 2.
Here the Jews soon took root and rapidly increased in numbers, was still under the Republic (b.c. 59) that Cicero in his defence And of Flaccus pretended to drop his voice for fear of them \ when a deputation came from Judaea to complain of the misrule of Archelaus, no less than 8000 Roman Jews attached them2 Though the main settlement was beyond the Tiber selves to it The it must soon have overflowed into other parts of Rome. 3 Jews had a synagogue in connexion with the crowded Subura and another probably in the Campus Martius. There were synagogues of Avyovarfjaioi and Ay pnnrrjcnoi (i. e. either of the household or under the patronage of Augustus * and his minister Agrippa), the position of which is uncertain but which in any case bespeak Traces of Jewish cemeteries the importance of the community. have been found in several out-lying regions, one near the Porta Portuensis, two near the Via Appia and the catacomb of S. Callisto, 5 and one at Portus, the harbour at the mouth of the Tiber Till some way on in the reign of Tiberius the Jewish colony But in a. d. 19 two scandalous flourished without interruption. cases occurring about the same time, one connected with the priests of Isis, and the other with a Roman lady who having become a proselyte to Judaism was swindled of money under pretence
It
.
'
of sending it to Jerusalem, led to the adoption of repressive measures at once against the Jews and the Egyptians. Four thousand were banished to Sardinia, nominally to be employed in
putting
fell
down
banditti, but the historian scornfully hints that if they

6
anxious and Philo has given us a graphic picture of time for the Jews. the reception of a deputation which came with himself at its head The to beg for protection from the riotous mob of Alexandria. half-crazy emperor dragged the deputation after him from one point to another of his gardens only to jeer at them and refuse any further
critical
victims to the climate no one would have cared . The end of the reign of Caligula was another
The Jews were money collected for

1
the
interested in this trial as Flaccus had laid hands on the Temple at Jerusalem. Cicero's speech makes it clear
Jews of Rome were a formidable body to offend. Joseph. Ant. XVII. xi. 1 ; B.J. II. vi. I. There is mention of an apx<uv ^.i&ovprjaiajv, C. I. G. 6447 (Schiirer, Ge?neindeverfassimg d. Juden in Rom, pp. 16, 35 ; Berliner, p. 94). As synagogues were not allowed within the pomoerium {ibid. p. 16) we may suppose that the synagogue itself was without the walls, but that its frequenters came from the Subura. 4 Berliner conjectures that the complimentary title may have been given as a sort of equivalent for emperor- worship {op. cit. p. 21). 5 Data relating to the synagogues have been obtained from inscriptions, which have been carefully collected and commented upon by Schiirer in the work quoted above (Leipzig, 1879), a ^ so more recently by Berliner {pp. cit.
that the
2
3
p.
46
6
ff.)
ii.
Tacitus, Annal.
85 si ob gravitatem caeli interissent, vile
damnum.
2.]
THE JEWS
1
.
IN
ROME
XXI
their petition Caligula insisted on the setting up of bust in the Temple at Jerusalem, and his opportune death alone saved the Jews from worse things than had as yet befallen
answer to
his
own
them
(a.d. 41).
In the early part of the reign of Claudius the Jews had friends But a at court in the two Herod Agrippas, father and son. mysterious notice of which we would fain know more shows them once again subject to measures of repression. At a date which is calculated at about a.d. 52 we find Aquila and Prisca at Corinth 'because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome' (Acts xviii. 2). And Suetonius in describing what is probably the same event sets it down to persistent tumults in the There is at Jewish quarter 'at the instigation of ChrestusV least a considerable possibility, not to say probability, that in this enigmatic guise we have an allusion to the effect of the early preaching of Christianity, in which in one way or another Aquila and Prisca would seem to have been involved and on that account Suetonius and the Acts speak of specially singled out for exile.
a general edict of expulsion, but Dio Cassius, who is more precise, would lead us to infer that the edict stopped short of this. The clubs and meetings (in the synagogue) which Caligula had allowed, were forbidden, but there was at least no wholesale expulsion 3
.
Any one of three interpretations may be put upon impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes. (i) The words may be taken literally as they stand. Chrestus was a common name among slaves, and there may have been an individual of that name who was the author of the disturbances. This is the view of Meyer and Wieseler. (ii) Or it is very possible that there may be a confusion between ' Chrestus and ' Christus.' Tertullian accuses the Pagans of pronouncing the name ' Christians wrongly as if it were Chrestiani, and so bearing unconscious witness to the gentle and kindly character of those who owned it. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronunciatur a vobis (nam nee nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de suavitate vel benigni'
'
'
'
compositum est {Apol. 3 cf. Justin, Apol. i. 4). If we suppose some such very natural confusion, then the disturbances may have had their origin in the excitement caused by the Messianic expectation which was ready to break out at slight provocation wherever Jews congregated. This is the view of Lange and others including in part Lightfoot {Philippians p. 169). (iiij There remains the third possibility, for which some preference has been expressed above, that the disturbing cause was not the Messianic expectation It is in general but the particular form of it identified with Christianity. certain that Christianity must have been preached at Rome as early as this and the preaching of it was quite as likely to lead to actual violence and riot as at Thessalonica or Antioch or Pisidia or Lystra (Acts xvii. 5 xiv. 19;
tate
; ,
Leg. ad Caium 44, 45. Sueton. Claud. 25 Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes
Roma
expulit.
Cassius, lx. 6 tous re 'lovSaiovs, irkeovdaavras avOis &ctt xa ^ (n s "" avtv rapaxfjs iivb rod oxôv a<p5)v rijs voKtais dpxOi)t/ai, ovk f^-qXaae \ikv, rep Si 5f) narpicp vo/jlco fi'up xP a)lA ^ V0Vi (Ke\vae fit) avvadpoifeadai, rds t kratpuas tiravaxOcioas virb rov Yatov 8ii\vo.
3
Dio
XXli
[ 2.
xiii. 50). That it did so, and that this is the fact alluded to by Suetonius is the opinion of the majority of German scholars from Baur onwards. It is impossible to verify any one of the three hypotheses ; but the last would fit in well with all that we know and would add an interesting touch if it were true
l .
edict of Claudius was followed in about three years by his Under Nero the Jews certainly did not lose but death (a.d. 54). probably rather gained ground. We have seen that just as St. Paul wrote his Epistle Poppaea was beginning to exert her influence. Like many of her class she dallied with Judaism and befriended Jews. The mime Aliturus was a Jew by birth and stood in high favour 2 Herod Agrippa II was also, like his father, a persona grata at the Roman court. Dio Cassius sums up the history of the Jews under the Empire in a sentence which describes well their fortunes at Rome.
.
The
Though their privileges were often curtailed, they increased to such an extent as to force their way to the recognition and toleration of their peculiar customs 3
.
The policy of the emperors towards the (2) Organization. Jewish nationality was on the whole liberal and judicious. They saw that they had to deal with a people which it was at once difficult to repress and useful to encourage; and they freely conceded the rights which the Jews demanded. Not only were they allowed the free exercise of their religion, but exceptional privileges were granted them in connexion with it. Josephus [Ant. XIV. x.) quotes a number of edicts of the time of Julius Caesar and after his death, some of them Roman and some local, securing to
the Jews exemption from service in the army (on religious grounds), freedom of worship, of building synagogues, of forming clubs and collecting contributions (especially the didrachma) for the Temple
Besides this in the East the Jews were largely permitted to have their own courts of justice. And the wonder is that in spite of all their fierce insurrections against Rome these rights were never permanently withdrawn. As late as the end of the second century (in the pontificate of Victor 189-199 a.d.)
at Jerusalem.
A suggestion was made in the Church Quarterly Review for Oct. 1894, which deserves consideration; viz. that the dislocation of the Jewish community caused by the edict of Claudius may explain why the Church of the capital did not grow to the same extent as elsewhere out of the synagogue. Even when St. Paul arrived there in bonds the chiefs of the restored Jewish organization professed to have heard nothing, officially or unofficially, of the Apostle, and to know about the Christian sect just what we may suppose the rioters ten years earlier knew, that it was "everywhere spoken against "'
1
(P-I75).
2
Vit. Joseph. 3;
Dio Cassius
7roAA<Sts
ptv
Ant. XX. viii. 11. xxxvii. 17 eari ko.1 irapa tois 'Pwfxaiois rb yivos tovto, Ko\ova9lv avftOtv h\ kvi tt\u(ttoi>, &arf ical tls iraponoiav rns vouiaews
tnviKTjoai.
' ;
2.]
Callistus,
THE JEWS
IN
ROME
xxiii
who afterwards himself became Bishop of Rome, was banished to the Sardinian mines for forcibly breaking up a Jewish meeting for worship (Hippol. Refut. Haer. ix. 12). There was some natural difference between the East and the West corresponding to the difference in number and concentration In Palestine the central judicial and of the Jewish population. administrative body was the Sanhedrin ; after the Jewish War the place of the Sanhedrin was taken by the Ethnarch who exercised great powers, the Jews of the Dispersion voluntarily submitting to At Alexandria also there was an Ethnarch, as well as a him. central board or senate, for the management of the affairs of the community. At Rome, on the other hand, it would appear that each synagogue had its own separate organization. This would consist of a * senate ' (ycpovo-ia), the members of which were the The exact relation of these to the ' rulers elders ' (npeafivTepoi). (apxovrfs) is not quite clear : the two terms may be practically or the apxovrcs may be a sort of committee within the equivalent
'
larger
body *.
The
senate had
its
'
president
'
(ytpovatapxr)*)
among
the rulers one or
more would seem
to have
and ; been charged
with the conduct of the services in the synagogue (apxHrwayayos, Under him would be the imrjptTrjs (Chazari) who dpxurvuayaryot). performed the minor duties of giving out and putting back the sacred rolls (Luke iv. 20), inflicted scourging (Matt. x. 17), and The priests as such had no special status acted as schoolmaster. hear at Rome of wealthy and influential in the synagogue. people who were called father or mother of the synagogue ' There is also mention of a npothis would be an honorary title. a-TaTTjs or pa tr onus, who would on occasion act for the synagogue in its relation to the outer world. (3) Social status and condition. There were certainly Jews of rank and position at Rome. Herod the Great had sent a number of his sons to be educated there (the ill-fated Alexander and 2 Aristobulus as well as Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip the tetrarch ). At a later date other members of the family made it their home (Herod the first husband of Herodias, the younger Aristobulus, and at one time Herod Agrippa I). There were also Jews attached in one way or another to the imperial household (we have had mention of the synagogues of the Agrippesii and Augustesii). These
We
'
'
'
would be found
1
in
the
more
aristocratic quarters.
The
'
Jews'
The point is not the view of Schurer {Gemeindeverf. p. a 2). discussed by Berliner. Dr. Edersheim appears to regard the elders ' as He of the body. identical with the 'rulers,' and the apx^vvaywyos as chief would make the functions of the yepovainpxqs political rather than religious, and he spenks of this office as if it were confined to the Dispersion of the West {Life and Times, Sec. i. 438). These are points which must be regarded as more or less open.
This
is
3
Jos.
Ant. XV.
x. 1
XVII.
i.
3,
XXIV
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[ 2.
quarter proper was the reverse of aristocratic. The fairly plentiful notices which have come down to us in the works of the Satirists lead us to think of the Jews of Rome as largely a population of beggars, vendors of small wares, sellers of lucifer matches, collectors
of broken glass, fortune-tellers of both sexes. They haunted the Aventine with their baskets and wisps of hay l Thence they would
.
sally forth
and
try
to catch
the ear especially of the wealthier
Roman women, on whose superstitious hopes and fears they might play and earn a few small coins by their pains 2 Between these extremes we may infer the existence of a more substantial trading class, both from the success which at this period
.
had begun to attend the Jews in trade and from the existence of the numerous synagogues (nine are definitely attested) which it must have required a considerable amount and some diffusion of wealth to keep up. But of this class we have less direct evidence. In Rome, as everywhere, the Jews impressed the observer by their strict performance of the Law. The Jewish sabbath was proverbial. The distinction of meats was also carefully maintained 3 But along with these external observances the Jews did succeed in bringing home to their Pagan neighbours the contrast of their
.
purer faith to the current idolatries, that He whom they served did not dwell in temples made with hands, and that He was not to be likened to gold or silver or stone, graven by art and device of man/ It is difficult to say which is more conspicuous, the repulsion or
'
the attraction which the
The
and
Jews exercised upon the heathen world. obstinate tenacity with which they held to their own customs, the rigid exclusiveness with which they kept aloof from all
others, offended a society which had come to embrace all the varied national religions with the same easy tolerance and which passed
to the other as curiosity or caprice dictated. They looked upon the Jew as a gloomy fanatic, whose habitual expression was a scowl. It was true that he condemned, as he had reason to condemn, the heathen laxity around him. And his neighbours, educated and populace alike, retaliated with bitter
from one
hatred and scorn. At the same time

1
all
and
there were
:
many
it
who were
in search
The purpose of this
is
somewhat uncertain
may have
been used to pack
their wares.
2
The passages on which

:
Trades
Sat.
xiv.
111.
Martial, Epig.
I. xlii.
14;
vi.
542
ff.
this description is based are well known. Small 3-5 XII. lvji. 13, 14. Mendicancy: Juvenal, Proselytism: Horace, Sat. I. iv. 142 f Juvenal, Sat.
;
.
96 ff. 3 Horace, Sat. I. ix. 69 f. Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. (of proselytes) Persius, Sat. v. 184 Sueton. Aug. 76. The texts of Greek and Latin authors relating to Judaism have recently been collected in a complete and convenient form by Theodore Reinach {Textes relatifs aujudaisme, Paris, 189^).
;
3.]
THE ROMAN CHURCH
XXV
of a purer creed than their own, knew that the Jew had something The heathen to give them which they could not get elsewhere.
Pantheon was losing its hold, and thoughtful minds were feeling haply they might find the one God who made heaven and Nor was it only the higher minds who were conscious of earth. a strange attraction in Judaism. Weaker and more superstitious natures were impressed by its lofty claims, and also as we may believe by the gorgeous apocalyptic visions which the Jews of this date were ready to pour out to them. The seeker wants to be told something that he can do to gain the Divine favour; and of such demands and precepts there was no lack. The inquiring Pagan was met with a good deal of tact on the part of those whom he He was drawn on little by little ; there was a place for consulted. every one who showed a real sympathy for the faith of Israel. It was not necessary that he should at once accept circumcision and the whole burden of the Mosaic Law but as he made good one step another was proposed to him, and the children became in many cases more zealous than their fathers \ So round most of the Jewish colonies there was gradually formed a fringe of Gentiles more or less in active sympathy with their religion, the devout men and women,' those who worshipped God (evo-efiels, art^6y.tmi
'
after if
'
'
'
'
a-fj36fX(voi
tov Qe6v,
<fioj3ov/ievoi
t6u Q(6v) of the
Acts of the Apostles.
the student of the origin of the Christian Church this class is of great importance, because it more than any other was the seed plot of Christianity; in it more than in any other the Gospel took root and spread with ease and rapidity 2.
For
3.
(1)
The Roman Church.

of the origin
of the
Origin.
The most probable view

in
Christian
tator
Church
Rome
is
substantially that of the
commen-
known as Ambrosiaster (see below, 10). This fourthcentury writer, himself probably a member of the Roman Church, He thinks that it arose does not claim for it an apostolic origin. among the Jews of Rome and that the Gentiles to whom they conveyed a knowledge of Christ had not seen any miracles or any of the Apostles 3 Some such conclusion as this fits in well with
.
Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. See the very ample collection of material on this subject in Schiirer, Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. 558 ff. a Constat itaque temporibus apostolorum /udaeos, propterea quod sub regno Romano agerent, Komae habitasse : ex quibus hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt Romanis ut Christum projitentes, Legem servarent . Romanis autem irasci non debuit, sed et laudare fidem illorum ; quia nulla insignia virtuium
2
. .
XXVI
the
[ 3.
St. Paul would hardly have written the Epistle. Church had really been founded by an Apostle. He clearly regards it as coming within his own province as Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. i. 6, 14 f.) and in this very Epistle he lays
phenomena of
if
as he does
the
all his missionary labours that he not build upon another mans foundation (Rom. xv. 20). If an Apostle had been before him to Rome the only supposition which would save his present letter from clashing with this would be that there were two distinct churches in Rome, one JewishChristian the other Gentile-Christian, and that St. Paul wrote only to the latter. But not only is there no hint of such a state of
it
down
as a principle governing
'
will
'
things,
but the
letter
itself
(as
we
community, a community not

in substantial proportions both
all
shall see) implies a mixed of one colour, but embracing
Jews and Gentiles. At a date so early as this it is not in itself likely that the Apostles of a faith which grew up under the shadow of Jewish particularism would have had the enterprise to cast their glance so far west as Rome. It was but natural that the first Apostle to do this should be the one who both in theory and in practice had struck out the boldest line as a missionary the one who had formed the largest conception of the possibilities of Christianity, the one who risked the most in the effort to realize them, and who as a matter of principle ignored distinctions of language and of race. We see St. Paul deliberately conceiving and long cherishing the purpose of himself making a journey to Rome (Acts xix. 21 ; Rom. i. 13 xv. 22-24). It was not however \o found a Church, at least in the sense of first foundation, for a Church already
;
existed with sufficient unity to have a letter written to it. If we may make use of the data in ch. xvi and reasons will be given for using them with some confidence the origin of the
Roman Church will be fairly clear, and it will agree exactly with the probabilities of the case. Never in the course of previous history had there been anything like the freedom of circulation and movement which now existed in the Roman Empire \ And this movement followed certain definite lines and set in certain
It was at its greatest all along the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and its general trend was to and from Rome. The constant coming and going of Roman officials, as
definite directions.
one provincial governor succeeded another
the
moving of troops
general conclusion he is more right than we might have expected. 1 'The conditions of travelling, for ease, safety, and rapidity, over the greater part of the Roman empire, were such as in part have only been reached again in Europe since the beginning of the present century' (Friedlander,
Sittengeschichte
videntes, nee aliquem apostolorum, susceperant fidem Christi ritu licet Indaico (S. Ambrosii Opp. iii. 373 f., ed. Ballenni). shall see that Ambrosiaster exaggerates the strictly Jewish influence on the Church, but in his
We
Rows,
ii.
3).
THE ROMAN CHURCH
xxvii
from place to place with the sending of fresh batches of recruits and the retirement of veterans the incessant demands of an everincreasing trade both in necessaries and luxuries; the attraction which the huge metropolis naturally exercised on the imagination of the clever young Orientals who knew that the best openings for
;
a career were to be sought there ; a thousand motives of ambition, business pleasure drew a constant stream from the Eastern provinces to
St.
Christians,
Among the crowds there would inevitably be some and those of very varied nationality and antecedents. Paul himself had for the last three years been stationed at one of
Rome.
the greatest of the Levantine emporia.

cities at
We may say that the three great
which he had spent the longest time Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus were just the three from which (with Alexandria) intercourse was most active. We may be sure that not a few of his own disciples would ultimately find their way to Rome. And so we may assume that all the owners of the names mentioned in ch. xvi had some kind of acquaintance with him. In several cases he adds some endearing little expression which implies personal contact and interest Epaenetus, Ampliatus, Stachys are all his beloved '; Urban has been his helper '; the mother of Rufus had been also as a mother to him; Andronicus and Junia (or Juniis) and Herodion are described as his kinsmen perhaps his i. e. fellow-tribesmen, possibly like him natives of Tarsus. Andronicus and Junias, if we are to take the expression literally, had shared one of his imprisonments. But not by any means all were St. Paul's own converts. The same pair, Andronicus and Junias, were Christians of older standing than himself. Epaenetus is described as the first convert ever made from Asia that may of course be by the preaching of St. Paul, but it is also possible that he may have been converted while on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. If the Aristobulus whose household is mentioned is the Herodian prince, we can easily understand that he might have Christians about him. That Prisca and Aquila should be at Rome is just what we might expect from one with so keen an eye for the strategy of a situation as St. Paul. When he was himself established and in full work at Ephesus with the intention of visiting Rome, it would at once occur to him what valuable work they might be doing there and what an excellent preparation they might make for his own visit, while in his immediate surroundings they were almost superfluous. So that instead of presenting any difficulty, that he should send them back to Rome where they were already known, is most natural. In this way, the previous histories of the friends to whom St. Paul sends greeting in ch. xvi may be taken as typical of the circumstances which would bring together a number of similar groups of Christians at Rome. Some from Palestine, some from Corinth,
'
'
'
'
xxviii
[ 3.
some from Ephesus and other parts of proconsular Asia, possibly some from Tarsus and more from the Syrian Antioch, there was in the first instance, as we may believe, nothing concerted in their going ; but when once they arrived in the metropolis, the freemasonry common amongst Christians would soon make them
known to each other, and they would form, not exactly an organized Church, but such a fortuitous assemblage of Christians as was only waiting for the advent of an Apostle to constitute one. For other influences than those of St. Paul we are left to general probabilities. But from the fact that there was a synagogue specially assigned to the Roman 'Libertini' at Jerusalem and that this synagogue was at an early date the scene of public debates between
Jews and Christians (Acts vi. 9), with the further fact that regular communication would be kept up by Roman Jews frequenting the
feasts,
fail
equally clear that Palestinian Christianity could hardly We may well believe that the have its representatives. vigorous preaching of St. Stephen would set a wave in motion which would be felt even at Rome. If coming from such a source we should expect the Jewish Christianity of Rome to be rather of the freer Hellenistic type than marked by the narrowness of
it is
to
Pharisaism.
But
it is
best to abstain from anticipating,

better
our idea of the
Roman Church on
and to form grounds than conjecture.
If the view thus given of the origin of the Roman Church is correct, it involves the rejection of two other views, one of which at least has imposing authority viz. (i) that the Church was founded by Jewish pilgrims from the First Pentecost, and (ii) that its true founder was St. Peter. (i) are told expressly that among those who listened to St. Peter's address on the Day of Pentecost were some who came from Rome, both bom Jews of the Dispersion and proselytes. When these returned they would naturally take with them news of the strange things which were happening in Palestine. But unless they remained for some time in Jerusalem, and unless they attended very diligently to the teaching of the Apostles, which would as yet be informal and not accompanied by any regular system of Catechesis, they would not know enough to make them in the full sense 'Christians'; still less would they be in a position to evangelize others. Among this first group there would doubtless be some who would go back predisposed and prepared to receive fuller instruction in Christianity; they might be at a similar stage to that of the disciples of St. John the Baptist, at Ephesus (Acts xix. 2 ff.) and under the successive impact of later visits (their own or their neighbours') to Jerusalem, we could imagine that their faith would be gradually consolidated. But it would take more than they brought away from the Day of Pentecost to lay the foundations of a
;
We
Church.
(ii) The traditional founder of the Roman Church is St. Peter. But it is only in a very qualified sense that this tradition can be made good. may say at once that we are not prepared to go the length of those who would deny the connexion of St. Peter with the Roman Church altogether. It is true that there is hardly an item in the evidence which is not subject to some deduction The evidence which is definite is somewhat late, and the evidence which is early is either too uncertain or too slight and vague to
We
3.]
THE ROMAN CHURCH

.
'
xxix
carry a clear conclusion 1 Most decisive of all, if it held good, would be the allusion in St. Peter's own First Epistle if the ' Babylon from which he writes (i Pet. v. 13) is really a covert name for Rome. This was the view of the Early Church, and although peihaps not absolutely certain it is in accordance with all probability. The Apocalypse confessedly puts Babylon ' for Rome (Rev. xiv. 8; xvi. 19, &c), and when we remember the common practice among the Jewish Rabbis of disguising their allusions to the oppressor 2, we may believe that Christians also, when they had once become suspected and persecuted, might have fallen into the habit of using a secret language among themselves, even where there was less occasion for secresy. When once we adopt this view, a number of details in the Epistle (such as the mention of Silvanus and Maik, and the points of contact between I Peter and Romans) find an easy and natural explanation 3 . The genuine Epistle of Clement of Rone (c. 97 a.d.) couples together St. Ptter and St. Paul in a context dealing with persecution in such a way as to lend some support to the tradition that both Apostles had perished there*; and the Epistle of Ignatius addressed to Rome {c. 115 a.d.) appeals to both Apostles as authorities which the Roman Church would be likely to recognize 5 but at the utmost this proves nothing as to the origin of the Church. When we descend a step later, Dionysius of Corinth (*. 171 A.D.) does indeed couple the two Ap*ostles as having joined in 'planting' the Church of Rome as they had done previously that of Corinth 6 . But this Epistle alone is proof that if St. Paul could be said to have 'planted' the Church, it could not be in the sense of first foundation; and a like consideration must be taken to qualify the statements of Irenaeus 7 . By the beginning of the third century we get in Tertullian 8 and Caius of Rome 9 explicit references to Rome as the scene of the double martyrdom. The latter writer points to the * trophies ' {to. rpWaia 10 ) of the two Apostles as existing in his day on the Vatican and by the Ostian Way. This is conclusive evidence as to the belief of the Roman Church about the year 200. And it is followed by another piece of evidence which is good and precise as far as it goes.
;
The summary which
indirect evidence.
Lightfoot, St.
follows contains only the main points and none of the For a fuller presentation the reader may be referred to Clement ii. 490 ff., and Eipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 11 ff.
- On this practice, see Bnsenlhal, Trostschreiben an die ffebrder, p. 3 ff. ; and for a defence of the view that St. Peter wrote his Mist Epistle from Rome, Eightfoot, St. Clement ii. 491 f Von Soden in Handcommcntar IIP ii. 105 f. &c. Dr. Hort, who had paid special attention to this Epistle, seems to have
.
held the same opinion {Judaistic Christianity, p. 155). 3 There is a natural reluctance in the lay mind to take Iv BafivXwn in any other sense than literally. Still it is certainly to be so taken in Orac. Sibyll v. 158 and it should be remembered that the advocates of this view include men of the most diverse opinions, not only the English scholars mentioned above and Dollinger, but Renan and the Tubingen school generally. 4 s Ad Cor. v. 4 ff. Rom iv 3 6 7 Eus. ff. E. II. xxv. 8. Adv. ffaer. III. iii. 2, 3. 8 9 Scorp. 15 Be Praescript. 36. Eus. //. E. II. xxv. 6, 7. 10 There has been much discussion as to the exact meaning of this word. The leading Protestant archaeologists (Eipsius, Erbes, V. Schultze) hold that it refers to some conspicuous mark ot the place of martyrdom (a famous ' terebinth' near the naumachium on the Vatican {Mart. Pet. et Paul. 63) and a ' pine-tree ' near the road to Ostia. The Roman Catholic authorities would refer it to the ' tombs ' or memorial chapels ' {memoriae). It seems to us probable that buildings of some kind were already in existence. For statements of the opposing views see Eipsius. Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 21 ; De Waal, Die Apostelgruft ad. Catacttmbas, p. 14ft.
;
Ad
XXX
[ 3.
a Vepositio Martyrum
Two fourth-century documents, both in texts which have undergone some corruption, the Martyrologium liter onymianum (ed. Duchesne, p. 84) and
in the woik of Philocalus, the so-called ' chronographer of ihe year 354,' connect a removal of the bodies of the two Apostles with the consulship of Tuscr.s and Bassus in the year 258. There is some
the site known as Ad Catacumbas adjoining the present Church of St. Sebastian l. Here they remained, according to one version, for a year and seven months, according to another for forty years. The later story of an attempt by certain Orientals to steal them awav seems to have grown out of a misunderstanding of an inscription by Pope Damasus (366-384 a.d.) 2 Here we have a chain of substantial proof that the Roman Church fully believed itself to be in possession of the mortal remains of the two Apostles as far back as the year 2co, a tradition at that date already firmly established and associated with definite well-known local monuments. The tradition as to the twenty five years' episcopate of St. Peter presents some points of resemblance. That too appears for the first time in the fourth century with Eusebius (c. 325 a.d.) and his follower Jerome. By skilful analysis it is traced back a full hundred years earlier.* It appears to be derived from a list drawn up probably by Hippolytus*. Lipsius would carry back this list a little further, and would make it composed under Victor in the last decade of the second century*, and Lightfoot seems to think it possible that the figures for the duration of the several episcopates may have been present in the still older list of Hegesippus, writing under Eleutherus 5 [c. 175-190 a.d.) . Thus we have the twenty-five years' episcopate of St. Peter certainly believed in towards the end of the first quarter of the third century, if not by the beginning of the last quarter of the second. are coming back to a time when a continuous tradition is beginning to be possible. And yet the difficulties in the way of bringing St. Peter to Rome at a date so early as the year 42 (which seems to be indicated) are so great as to make the acceptance of this chronology almost impossible. Not only do we find St. Peter to all appearance still settled at Jerusalem at the time of the Council in a d. but we have seen that it is highly improbable that he had visited Rome when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church there. And it is hardly less 1 PF,obable that a visit had been made between this and the later Epistles (Phil., Col., Eph., Philem.). The relations between the two Apostles and of both to the work of missions in general, would almost compel some allusion to such a visit if it had taken place. Between the years 58 or 61-63 and 170 there is quite time for legend to grow up and Lipsius has pointed out a possible way .in which it might arise 6 There is evidence that the tradition of our Lord s command to the Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for twelve years after His Ascension, was current towards the end of the second century. Ihe travels of the Apostles are usually dated from the end of this period
.
ambiguity as to the localities from and to which the bodies were moved but the most probable view is that in the Valerian persecution when the cemeteries were closed to Christians, the treasured relics were transferred to
;
We
The
1.
best account of this transfer is that given

f.
cahs
2
evi
by Duchesne, Liber PontifiJ

;
So Lipsius, after Erbes, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 335 f., 391 ff. also Lightfoot Clement 11. 500. The Roman Catholic writers, Kraus and De Waal would connect the story with the jealousies of Jewish and
,
the
first
century
see the latter's

full
49
3
R.
This work contains a
logical details.
Gentile Christians in Die Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas, pp. 33 f., survey of the controversy with new archaeo-
Lightfoot, op. cit. i. 259 ff. 333. Li btfoot PP- 2 37, 333fi , 8Apostelgesch. Apokr. ii. 27, 69.
'
Ibid. p. 333. 6
3.]
(i.e.
The Roman church

;
X xxI
is
It
the ground is fairly clear. But when Lipsius goes further than this and denies the Roman visit in toto, his criticism seems to us too drastic l . He arrives at his result thus. He traces a double stream in the tradition. On the one hand there is the Petro-pauline tradition which regards the two Apostles as establishing the Church in friendly co-operation 2 The outlines of this have been sketched above. On the other hand there is the tradition of the conflict of St. Peler with Simon Magus, which under the figure of Simon Magus made a disguised attack upon St. Paul 3 Not only does Lipsius think that this is the earliest form of the tradition, but he regards it as the original of all other forms which brought St. Peter to Rome 4 the only historical ground for it which he would allow is the visit of St. Paul. This does not seem to us to be a satisfactory explanation. The traces of the
'
.
.
Rome. So far
about 41-42 A.D.). Then the traditional date of the death of St. Fete* 67 or 68 and subtracting 42 from 67 we get just the 25 years required was assumed that St. Peter's episcopate dated from his first arrival in
Petro-pauline tradition are really earlier than those of the Ebionite legend. The way in which they are introduced is free from all suspicion They are supported by collateral evidence (St. Peter's First Epistle and the traditions relating to St. Mark) the weight of which is considerable. There is practically no conflicting tradition. The claim of the Roman Church to joint foundation by the two Apostles seems to have been nowhere disputed. And even the Ebionite fiction is more probable as a distortion of facts that have a basis of truth than as pure invention. The visit' of St. Peter to Rome, and his death there at some uncertain date 5 seem to us, if not removed beyond all possibility of doubt jet as well established as many of the leading facts of history.
,
(2) Composition.
The
question as to the origin of the

interest
;
Roman
Church has
little
more than an antiquarian
it is
an isolated
which does not greatly affect either the picture which we form to ourselves of the Church or the sense in which we understand the Epistle addressed to it. It is otherwise with
fact or series of facts
the question as to
its
composition.
Throughout the Apostolic age

problems
is
the determining factor in

1
most
historical
the relative
It is significant that on this point Weizsacker parts company from Lipsius {Apost. Zeitalt. p. 485). a 3 Op. cit. p. 1 1 ff. Jbi 2 g ff
*
5
Ibid. p. 62
ff.
substantial reason for supposing the death of St. Peter to have taken place at the same time as that of St. Paul. It is true that the two Apostles are commemorated upon the same day (June 29), and that the Chronicle of Eusebius re;'ers their deaths to the same year (a.d. 6>j Vers. Armen. 68 Hieron.). But the day is probably that of the deposition or removal of the bodies to or from the Church of St. Sebastian (see above) and for the year the evidence is very insufficient. Professor Ramsay {The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 279 ff.) would place the First Epistle of St. Peter in
is
; ;
There
no
the middle of the Flavian period, a.d. 75-80; and it must be admitted that the authoiities are not such as to impose an absolute veto on this view. The fact that tradition connects the death of St. Peter with the Vatican would seem to point to the great persecution of A.D. 64 ; but the state of things implied in the Epistle does not look as if it were anterior to this. On the other hand, Professor Ramsay's arguments have greatly shaken the objections to the traditional date of the death of St. Paul.
XXX11
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[ 3.
preponderance of the Jewish element or the Gentile. Which of these two elements are we to think of as giving its character to Directly contrary answers have been given the Church at Rome ? to the question and whole volumes of controversy have grown up around it but in this instance some real advance has been made, and the margin of difference among the leading critics is not now
;
very considerable. Here as in so many other cases elsewhere the sharper statement of the problem dates from Baur, whose powerful influence drew a long and here as so often elsewhere the train of followers after him manner in which Baur himself approaches the question is determined not by the minute exegesis of particular passages but by a broad and comprehensive view of what seems to him to be the
;
argument of the Epistle as a whole. To him the Epistle seems to be essentially directed against Jewish Christians. The true centre St. Paul there of gravity of the Epistle he found in chaps, ix-xi.
grapples at close quarters with the objection that if his doctrine held good, the special choice of Israel its privileges and the promises made to it all fell to the ground. At first there is no doubt that the stress laid by Baur on these three chapters in comHis own parison with the rest was exaggerated and one-sided.
which he took up on this point, and he himself gradually drew back from it, chiefly by showing that a like tendency ran through the earlier portion of the Epistle. There loo St. Paul's object was to argue with the Jewish Christians and to expose the weakness of their reliance on formal obedience
disciples criticized the position
to the
Mosaic Law.
writer
The
rately
who has worked

It is
out this view of Baur's most elabodifficult to

is
a large element in it which is essentially Jewish. The questions wiih which it deals are Jewish, the validityof the Law, the nature of Redemption, the principle on which man is to become righteous in the sight of God, the choice It is also true that the arguments with which St. Paul of Israel. meets these questions are very largely such as would appeal specially to Jews. His own views are linked on directly to the
that
Mangold. closely examined,

is
not
there
show, when the Epistle
is
teaching of the Old Testament, and it is to the Old Testament It is fair to ask, what sort of that he goes in support of them. relevance arguments of this character would have as addressed to
Gentiles.
It was also possible to point to one or two expressions in detail which might seem to favour the assumption of Jewish readers. Such would be Rom. iv. i where Abraham is described (in the most probable text) as our forefather according to the flesh (top 7rpoir6.Tupa Tjfxwu Kara aapKa). To that however it was obvious to reply that in i Cor. x. i St. Paul spoke of the Israelites in the
'
'
3.]
THE ROMAN CHURCH
XXXlll
wilderness as 'our fathers,' though no one would maintain that the There is more weight Corinthian Christians were by birth Jews. indeed there is real weight in the argument drawn from the section, Rom. vii. 1-6, where not only are the readers addressed as a8f\(poi finv (which would be just as possible if they were converts from heathenism) but a sustained contrast is drawn between an earlier state under the Law (6 vofios vv. r, 4, 5, 6 not vv. 2, 3 where the force of the article is different) and a later state of freedom from the Law. It is true that this could not have been written to a Church which consisted wholly of Gentiles, unless the
Apostle had forgotten himself for the moment more entirely than Still such expressions should not be he is likely to have done. pressed too far. He associates his readers with himself in a manner somewhat analogous to that in which he writes to the Corinthians, Nor was as if their spiritual ancestry was the same as his own. He regards the whole pre-Messianic period this without reason. as a period of Law, of which the Law of Moses was only the most
conspicuous example. It is a minor point, but also to some extent a real one, that the exhortations in chs. xiii, xiv are probably in part at least addressed That turbulent race, which had called down the interto Jews. ference of the civil power some six or seven years before, needed And the party which had scruples a warning to keep the peace. about the keeping of days is more likely to have been Jewish than
that some members of the Jews, not that they formed a majority. Indeed in this instance the contrary would seem to be the case, because their opponents seem to have the upper hand and all that St. Paul
Gentile.
Still
that
would only show
Roman Church were
asks for on their behalf is toleration. may take it then as established that there were Jews in the
We
Church, and that in substantial numbers; just as we also cannot doubt that there was a substantial number of Gentiles. The direct way in which St. Paul addresses the Gentiles in ch. xi. 13 ff. (vfilv But it 8e Xe'yo) rols Wvcvlv k.t.\.) would be proof sufficient of this. is further clear that St. Paul regards the Church as broadly and in It is the Gentile element which gives the main a Gentile Church. This inference cannot easily be explained away from it its colour. the passages, Rom. i. 5-7, 13-15; xv. 14-16. In the first St. Paul numbers the Church at Rome among the Gentile Churches, and
bases on his own apostleship to the Gentiles his right to address them. In the second he also connects the obligations he is under to preach to them directly with the general fact that all Gentiles without exception are his province. In the third he in like manner excuses himself courteously for the earnestness with which he has written by an appeal to his commission to act as the priest who lays upon the altar the Church of the Gentiles as his offering.
c
XXXIV
3.
This then is the natural construction to put upon the Apostle's The Church to which he is writing is Gentile in its language. general complexion but at the same time it contains so many born Jews that he passes easily and freely from the one body to the other. He does not feel" bound to measure and weigh his words, because if he writes in the manner which comes most naturally to himself he knows that there will be in the Church many who will understand him. The fact to which we have already referred, that a large proportion even of the Gentile Chris;
tians would have approached Christianity through the portals of a previous connexion with Judaism, would tend to set him still more at his ease in this respect. We shall see in the next section that the force which impels the Apostle is behind rather than in front. It is not to be supposed that he had any exact statistics before him as to the composition of the Church to which he was
writing. It was enough that he was aware that a letter such as he has written was not likely to be thrown away. If he had stayed to form a more exact estimate we may take the
greetings in ch. xvi as a rough indication of the lines that it would follow. The collection of names there points to a mixture of
nationalities. Aquila at least, if not also Prisca \ we know to have been a Jew (Acts xviii. 2). Andronicus and Junias and Herodion are described as kinsmen (avyyevels) of the Apostle precisely what this means is not certain perhaps 'members of the same tribe but in any case they must have been Jews. Mary (Miriam) is a Jewish name and Apelles reminds us at once of Iudaeus Apella (Horace, Sat. I. v. 100). And there is besides 'the household of Aristobulus,' some of whom if Aristobulus was really the grandson of Herod or at least connected with that dynasty would probably have the same nationality. Four names (Urbanus, Ampliatus, Rufus, and Julia) are Latin. The rest (ten in number) are Greek with an indeterminate addition in 'the household of Narcissus.' Some such proportions as these might well be represented in the Church at large.
' ' :
'
(3)
Status
and
Condition.
The same
list
of names
may
give us
group of Roman Christians. The names are largely those of slaves and freedmen. In any case the households of Narcissus and Aristobulus would belong to this category. It is not inconceivable, though of course not proveable, that Narcissus may be the well-known freedman of Claudius, put to death in the year 54 a.d., and Aristobulus the
the social status of a representative
some idea of
scion of the house of Herod.
We know
that at the time
when
1 See the note on ch. xvi. 3, where reference is made to the view favoured by Dr. Hort {Bom. and Eph. p. 12 ff.), that Prisca was a Roman lady belonging to the well-known family of that name.
3.]
St.
THE ROMAN CHURCH
xxxv
Paul wrote to the Philippians Christianity had penetrated into
Emperor himself (Phil. iv. 22). name like Philologus seems to point to a certain degree of culture. We should therefore probably not be wrong in supposing that not only the poorer class of slaves and freedmen is represented. And
the retinue of the
must be remembered that the better sort of Greek and some Oriental slaves would often be more highly educated and more refined in manners than their masters. There is good reason to
it
of Aulus Plautius the next generation Flavius Clemens and Domitilla, the near relations and victims of Domitian, had come under Christian influence 1 We should therefore be justified in supposing that even at this early date more than one of the Roman Christians possessed a not inconsiderable social standing and importance. If there was any Church in which the not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble/
the wife
in
think that
Pomponia Graecina,
conqueror of Britain, and that
the
'
had an exception,
it
was
at
Rome.
'
look again at the list we see that it has a tendency to fall into groups. We hear of Prisca and Aquila, and the Church that is in their house/ of the household of Aristobulus and the Christian members of the household of Narcissus, of Asyncritus, &c. 'and the brethren that are with them/ of Philologus and certain companions and all the saints that are with them.' It would only be what we should expect if the Church of Rome at this time consisted of a number of such little groups, scattered over the great city, each with its own rendezvous but without any complete and centralized organization. In more than one of the incidental notices of the Roman Church it is spoken of as founded (Iren.
'
'
When we
'
xxv. 8) by St. Peter and St. Paul. It may well be Church did not in the strict sense owe to these Apostles its origin, it did owe to them its first existence as an organized whole. must not however exaggerate the want of organization at the time when St. Paul is writing. The repeated allusions to labouring (ki^lclv) in the case of Mary, Tryphaena and Tryphosa, and Persis all, as we observe, women points to some kind of regular ministry (cf. for the quasi-technical sense of Komav 1 Thess.
II.
Adv. Haer. Eus. H. E.
III.
i.
iii.
3) or 'planted' (Dionysius of Corinth in
that although the
We
'
v.
12;
Tim.
v.
17).
It
is
evident that Prisca and Aquila took
the lead which
trained
Apostle,
there
is
we should expect of them; and they were well in St. Paul's methods. Even without the help of an the Church had evidently a life of its own; and where
there
is
life
sure to be a spontaneous tendency to definite
articulation of function.
1
When
St.
Paul and
i.
St.
Peter arrived
we
Lightfoot, Clement,
30-39, &c.
C 2
XXXVI
[ 3.
believe that they would find the work half done ; still it would wait the seal of their presence, as the Church of Samaria waited for the coming of Peter and John (Acts viii. 14).
may
4.
The Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose,

of the Epistle.
The time and place at which the Epistle (1) Time and Place. was written are easy to determine. And the simple and natural way in which the notes of both in the Epistle itself dovetail into the
narrative of the Acts, together with the perfect consistency of the
whole group of data subtle, slight, and incidental as they are in the two documents, at once strongly confirms the truth of the history and would almost alone be enough to dispose of the
doctrinaire
Epistle.
objections
which
have
been
brought
against
the
Paul had long cherished the desire of paying a visit to Rome i. 13; xv. 23), and that desire he hopes very soon to see fulfilled; but at the moment of writing his face is turned not westwards but eastwards. A collection has been made in the Greek Churches, the proceeds of which he is with an anxious mind about to convey to Jerusalem. He feels that his own relation and that of the Churches of his founding to the Palestinian Church is a delicate matter; the collection is no lightly considered act of passing charity, but it has been with him the subject of long and earnest deliberation it is the olive-branch which he is bent upon offering. Great issues turn upon it ; and he does not know how it will be received We hear much of this collection in the Epistles written about this date (1 Cor. xvi. 1 fF. ; 2 Cor. viii. 1 fT. ; ix. 1 ff.). In the Acts it is not mentioned before the fact; but retrospectively in the course of St. Paul's address before Felix allusion is made to it: 'after many years I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings' (Actsxxiv. 17). Though the collection is not mentioned in the earlier chapters of the Acts, the order of the journey is mentioned. When his stay at Ephesus was drawing to an end we read that 'Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome' (Acts xix. 21). Part of this programme has been accomplished. At the time of writing St. Paul seems to be at the capital of Achaia. The allusions
St.
(Rom.
On
this collection see
an excellent
article
by Mr. Kendall
in
The Expositor,
1893,
ii.
321
ff.
4.]
TIME AND PLACE
xxxvn
this would none of them taken separately be but in combination they amount to a degree of probability which is little short of certainty. The bearer of the Epistle appears to be one Phoebe who is an active, perhaps an official, member of the Church of Cenchreae, the harbour of Corinth (Rom. xvi. i). The house in which St. Paul is staying, which is also the meeting-place of the local Church, belongs to
which point to
certain,
Gaius (Rom. xvi. 23); and a Gaius St. Paul had baptized at Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14). He sends a greeting also from Erastus, who is described as 'oeconomus' or 'treasurer' of the city. The office is of some importance, and points to a city of some importance. This would agree with Corinth; and just at Corinth we learn from 2 Tim. iv. 20 that an Erastus was left behind on St. Paul's latest journey naturally enough if it was his home. The visit to Achaia then upon which these indications converge is that which is described in Acts xx. 2, 3. It occupied three months, which on the most probable reckoning would fall at the beginning of the year 58. St. Paul has in his company at
this
time
greeting of the Epistle

in
Timothy and Sosipater (or Sopater) who join in the (Rom. xvi. 21) and are also mentioned
4.
Acts xx.
Of
the remaining four
we recognize
at least
who send their greetings Jason of Thessalonica (Rom. xvi. 21; cf.
Acts xvii. 6). Just the lightness and unobtrusiveness of all these mutual coincidences affixes to the works in which they occur the stamp of reality.
The date thus clearly indicated brings the Epistle to the Romans into close connexion with the two Epistles to Corinthians, and less certainly with the Epistle to Galatians. have seen how the collection for the Churches
We
of Judaea is one of the links which bind together the first three. Many other subtler traces of synchronism in thought and style have been pointed out between all four (especially by Bp. Lightfoot in Journ. of Class, and Sacr. Philol. iii [1857], p. 289 ft.; also Galatians, p. 43 ff., ed. 2). The relative position of 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans is fixed and certain. If Romans was written in the early spring of A.D. 58, then 1 Corinthians would fall in the spring and 2 Corinthians in the autumn of A.D. 57 l . In regard to Galatians the data are not so decisive, and different views are held. The older opinion, and that which would seem to be still dominant in Germany (it is maintained by Lipsius writing in 1891), is that Galatians belongs to the early part of St. Paul's long stay at Ephesus, A.D. 54 or 55. In England Bp. Lightfoot found a number of followers in bringing it into closer juxtaposition with Romans, about the winter of A.D. 57-58. The question however has been recently reopened in two opposite directions: on the one hand by Dr. C. Clemen [Ch> onologie der paulinischen Brief e, Halle, 1893), who would place it after Romans; and on the other hand by
1 Jiilicher, in his recent Einleitung, p. 62, separates the two Epistles to the Corinthians by an interval of eighteen months ; nor can this opinion be at once ruled out of court, though it seems opposed to 1 Cor. xvi. 8, from which we gather that when he wrote the first Epistle St. Paul did not contemplate slaying in Ephesus longer than the next succeeding Pentecost.
XXXV111
Mr. F. Rendall
place
it

in
[ 4.
The Expositor
for April,
1894
(p.
254
ff.),
who would
some
years earlier.
Clemen, who propounds a novel view of the chronology of St. Paul's life generally, would interpose the Council of Jerusalem (which he identifies with the visit of Acts xxi and not with that of Acts xv) between Romans, which he assigns to the winter of A.D. 53 54, and Galatians, which he places towards 1 His chief argument is that Galatians represents the end of the latter year a more advanced and heated stage of the controversy with the Judaizers, and he accounts for this by the events which followed the Council (Gal. ii. 12 ff. There is, however, much that is arbitrary in the whole of this i. 6 ff.). and the common view seems to us far more probable that reconstruction
.
Romans marks rather the gradual subsidence of troubled waters than their first disturbing. There is more to be said for Mr. RendalPs was written during the early part of St. Paul's first Galatians opinion that The question is closely connected visit to Corinth in the year 51 (or 52). with the controversy reopened by Professor Ramsay as to the identity of the Galatian Churches. For those who see in them the Churches of South Galatia (Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe) the earlier date may well seem preferable. If we take them to be the Churches of North Galatia (Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium), then the Epistle cannot be earlier than St. Paul's settlement at Ephesus on his thiid journey in the year 54. The argument which Bishop Eightfoot based on resemblances.of thought and language between Galatians and Romans rests upon facts that are indisputable, but does not carry with it any certain inference as to date.
the Epistle to the
If the time and place of the Epistle are clear, Occasion. occasion of it is still clearer; St. Paul himself explains it At the beginning of the in unmistakable language twice over. Epistle (Rom. i. 10-15) he tells the Romans how much he has longed to pay them a visit and now that the prospect has been brought near he evidently writes to prepare them for it. And at the end of the Epistle (ch. xv. 22-33) he repeats his explanation detailing all his plans both for the near and for the more distant future, and telling them how he hopes to make his stay with them the most important stage of his journey to Spain. We know that his intention was fulfilled in substance but not in the manner of its accomplishment. He went up to Jerusalem and then
(2)
the
Dr. Clemen places St. Paul's long stay at Ephesus (2| years on his reckoning) in 50-52 A.D. In the course of it would fall our 1 Corinthians and two out of the three letters which are supposed to be combined in our 2 Corinthians (for this division there is really something of a case). He then inserts a third
.
missionary journey, extending not over three months ;as Acts xx. 3), but over some two years in Macedonia and Greece. To this he refers the last Corinthian letter (2 Cor. i-viii) and a genuine fragment of Ep. to Titus (Tit. iii. 12-14). Ep. to Romans is written from Corinth in the winter of A.D. 53-54. Then follow the Council at Jerusalem, the dispute at Antioch, Ep. to Galatians, and a fourth journey in Asia Minor, with another genuine fragment, 2 Tim. iv. 19-21. This fills the interval which ends with the arrest at Jerusalem in the year 58, Epp. to Phil., Col., Philem. and one or two more fragments of Past. Epp., the Apostle's arrival at Rome in A.D. 61 and his death in A D. 64. The whole scheme stands or falls with the place assigned to the Council of Jeiusalem, and the estimate formed of the historical character
of the Acts.
4.]
to
OCCASION AND PURPOSE

forcible
xxxix
detention,
Rome, but only after two years' a prisoner awaiting his trial.
and as
A more complicated question meets us when (3) Purpose. from the occasion or proximate cause of the Epistle to the Romans we pass to its purpose or ulterior cause. The Apostle's reasons
for writing to
Rome
lie
upon
the
particular letter he
the surface ; his reasons for writing did write will need more consideration.
No doubt there is a providence in it. It was willed that such a letter should be written for the admonition of after-ages. But through what psychological channels did that providence work ? Here we pass on to much debated ground; and it will perhaps help us if w^ begin by presenting the opposing theories in as antithetical a form as possible. When the different views which have been held come to be examined, they will be found to be reducible to two main types, which differ not on a single point but on a number of co-ordinated points. One might be described as primarily historical, the other primarily dogmatic; one directs attention mainly to the Church addressed, the other mainly to the writer; one adopts the view of a predominance of Jewish-Christian readers, the other presupposes readers who are predominantly Gentile Christians. Here again the epoch-making impulse came from Baur. It was
Baur who first worked out a coherent theory, the essence of which was that it claimed to be historical. He argued from the analogy of the other Epistles which he allowed to be genuine. The circumstances of the Corinthian Church are reflected as in a glass in
the Epistles to the Corinthians
;
the circumstances of the Galatian
Churches come out clearly from that to the Galatians. Did it not follow that the circumstances of the Roman Church might be directly inferred from the Epistle to the Romans, and that the Epistle itself was written with deliberate reference to them? Why all this Jewish-sounding argument if the readers were not Jews ? Why these constant answers to objections if there was no one to object? The issues discussed were similar in mnny respects to
those in the Epistle to the Galatians. In Galatia a fierce conwas going on. Must it not therefore be assumed that there was a like controversy, only milder and more tempered, at
troversy
Rome, and that the Apostle wished to deal with it in a manner correspondingly milder and more tempered ? There was truth in all this; but it was truth to some extent one-sided and exaggerated. A little reflexion will show that the cases of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were not exactly parallel to that of Rome. In Galatia St. Paul was dealing with a perfectly definite state of things in a Church which he himself had founded, and the circumstances of which he knew from within and not merely by hearsay. At Corinth he had spent a still longer
xl
[ 4.
time; when he wrote he was not far distant; there had been frequent communications between the Church and the Apostle; and in the case of i Corinthians he had actually before him a letter containing a number of questions which he was requested to answer, while in that of 2 Corinthians he had a personal report brought to him by Titus. What could there be like this at Rome? The Church there St. Paul had not founded, had not even seen
and, if we are to believe Baur and the great majority of his followers, he had not even any recognizable correspondents to keep him For by what may seem a strange inconsistency informed about it. it was especially the school of Baur which denied the genuineness of ch. xvi, and so cut away a whole list of persons from one or other of whom St. Paul might have really learnt something about
Roman
Christianity.
These contradictions were avoided in the older theory which prevailed before the time of Baur and which has not been without adherents, of whom the most prominent perhaps is Dr. Bernhard According to this theory the main object of Weiss, since his day.
the Epistle
is
doctrinal;
is
it
is
letter
its
purpose
to instruct the
rather a theological treatise than Roman Church in central

little
principles of the faith,
and has but

call this
reference to the circum-
stances of the
forms presented itself, but looks at another side of it from that which caught the eye of Baur. The leading idea is no longer the position of the readers, but the position of the writer every thing is made to turn on the truths which the Apostle wished to place on record, and for which he found a fit recipient in a Church which seemed to have so commanding a future before it. Let us try to do justice to the different aspects of the problem. The theories which have so far been mentioned, and others of which we have not yet spoken, are only at fault in so far as they are exclusive and emphasize some one point to the neglect of the Nature is usually more subtle than art. A man of St. Paul's rest. ability sitting down to write a letter on matters of weight would be likely to have several influences present to his mind at once, and his language would be moulded now by one and now by another. Three factors may be said to have gone to the shaping of this letter of St. Paul's. The first of these will be that which Baur took almost for the only one. The Apostle had some real knowledge of the state of the Church to which he was writing. Here we see the importance of his connexion with Aquila and Prisca. His intercourse with them would probably give the first impulse to that wish which he tells us that he had entertained for many years to visit Rome in
It
moment. would be wrong to

It
view
at least in its recent

it
unhistorical.
takes account of the situation as
4.]
person.
xli
he met them at Corinth they were newly he would hear from them of the state of ; things they left behind them; and a spark would be enough to fire his imagination at the prospect of winning a foothold for Christ and the Gospel in the seat of empire itself. We may well believe if the speculations about Prisca are valid, and even without drawing upon these that the two wanderers would keep up communication with the Christians of their home. And now, very probably at the instance of the Apostie, they had returned to prepare the way for his coming. We cannot afford to lose so valuable a link between St. Paul and the Church he had set his
first
When
arrived from the capital
on visiting. Two of his most trusted friends are now on the and they would not fail to report all that it was essential to the Apostle to know. He may have had other correspondents besides, but they would be the chief. To this source we may look for what there is of local colour in the Epistle. If the argument is addressed now to Gentiles by birth and now to Jews; if we catch a glimpse of parties in the Church, 'the strong' and 'the weak'; if there is a hint of danger threatening the peace and the faith of the community (as in ch. xvi. 17-120) it is from his friends in Rome that the Apostle draws his knowledge of the conditions with
heart
spot,
which he is dealing. The second factor which helps in determining the character of the Epistle has more to do with what it is not than with what it is it prevents it from being as it was at one time described, a compendium of the whole of Christian doctrine/ The Epistle is not this, because like all St. Paul's Epistles it implies a common batis
'
of Christian teaching, those rrapaduaets as they are called elsewhere (1 Cor. xi. 2 ; 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6), which the Apostle is able to take for granted as already known to his readers, and which he therefore thinks it unnecessary to repeat without special reason.
not 'lay again' a foundation which is already laid. He not speak of the 'first principles' of a Christian's belief, but will go on unto perfection.' Hence it is that just the most fundamental doctrines the Divine Lordship of Christ, the value of His Death, the nature of the Sacraments are assumed rather than stated or proved. Such allusions as we get to these are concerned not with the rudimentary but with the more developed forms of the doctrines in question. They nearly always add something to the common stock of teaching, give to it a profounder significance, or apply it in new and unforeseen directions. The last charge that could be brought against the Epistle would be that it consisted of Christian commonplaces. It is one of the most original of writings. No Christian can have read it for the first time without feeling that he was introduced to heights and depths of Christianity of which he had never been conscious before.
will
He
will
'
xlii
[ 4.
For, lastly, the most powerful of all the influences which have shaped the contents of the Epistle is the experience of the writer. The main object which he has in view is really not far to seek. When he thought of visiting Rome his desire was to have some fruit there, as in the rest of the Gentile world (Rom. i. 13). He longed to impart to the Roman Christians some spiritual gift,' such as he knew that he had the power of imparting (i. 11 xv.
' ' '
he meant the effect of his own personal presence, but the gift was one that could be exercised also in absence. He has exercised it by this letter, which is itself the outcome of a irvtvuaTiKov âpnr/uo, a word of instruction, stimulus, and warning, addressed in the first instance to the Church at Rome, and through
29).
this
it
By
to
Christendom
is
for all time.
The Apostle has reached another
tuj-ning-point in his career.
going up to Jerusalem, not knowing what will befall him there, but prepared for the worst. He is aware that the step which he is taking is highly critical and he has no confidence that he will escape with his life *. This gives an added solemnity to his utterance and it is natural that he should cast back his glance over the years which had passed since he became a Christian and sum up the result as he felt it for himself. It is not exactly a conscious summing up, but it is the momentum of this past experience which guides his pen.
;
He
Deep in the background of all his thought lies that one great event which brought him within the fold of Christ. For him it had been nothing less than a revolution and it fixed permanently his conception of the new forces which came with Christianity into the world. To believe in Christ/ to be baptized into Christ,' these were the watchwords and the Apostle felt that they were pregnant with intense meaning. That new personal relation of the believer to his Lord was henceforth the motive-power which
; '
' ;
dominated the whole of his life. It was also met, as it seemed, in a marvellous manner from above. We cannot doubt that from his conversion onwards St. Paul found himself endowed with extraordinary energies. Some of them were what we should call miraculous; but he makes no distinction between those which were miraculous and those which were not. He set them all down as miraculous in the sense of having a direct Divine cause. And when he looked around him over the Christian Church he saw that like endowments, energies similar in kind if inferior to his own in degree, were widely diffused. They were the characteristic mark of Christians. Partly they took a form which would be commonly described as supernatural, unusual powers of healing, unusual gifts of utterance, an unusual magnetic influence upon others partly they consisted ;
1
This
is
impressively stated in Hort,
Rom. and Eph.
p.
42
ff.
4.]
in

spirit
xliii
a strange elation of
which made suffering and
toil
seem
but most of all the new impulse was moral in its working, it blossomed out in a multitude of attractive traits 'love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
insignificant
;
light
and
meekness,
Spirit.'
temperance/
act of faith
1
The
These St. Paul called 'fruits of the on the part of man, the influence of the
Spirit
Christ Himself
facts
(which was only another way of describing the influence of ) from the side of God, were the two outstanding which made the lives of Christians differ from those of other
Christianity, the forces to
men. These are the postulates of
which the
Apostle has to appeal for the solution of practical problems as they present themselves. His time had been very largely taken up with such problems. There had been the great question as to the terms on which Gentiles were to be admitted to the new
Paul could have no doubt. His own ruling principles, faith' and 'the Spirit/ made no distinction between Jew and Gentile he had no choice but to contend for the equal rights of both a certain precedence might be yielded to the Jews as the chosen people of the Old Covenant, but that was all. This battle had been fought and won. But it left behind a question which was intellectually more troublesome a question brought home by the actual effect of the preaching of Christianity
this
St.
<
On
society.
head
very largely welcomed and eagerly embraced by Gentiles, but as a rule spurned and rejected by the Jews how it could be that Israel, the chosen recipient of the promises of the Old Testament, should be excluded from the benefit now that those promises came to be fulfilled. Clearly this question belongs to the later reflective stage of the controversy relating to Jew and Gentile. The active contending for Gentile liberties would come first, the philosophic or theological assignment of the due place of Jew and Gentile in the Divine scheme would naturally come afterwards. This
more
his
advanced stage has now been reached the Apostle has made up mind on the whole series of questions at issue and he takes
; ;
the opportunity of writing to the Romans at the very centre of the empire, to lay down calmly and deliberately the conclusions
to
which he has come.

is the ripened fruit of the thought and struggles of the eventful years by which it had been preceded. It is no merely abstract disquisition but a letter full of direct human interest in the persons to whom it is written ; it is a letter which contains here and there side-glances at particular local circumstances, and at
The
Epistle
least one emphatic warning (ch. xvi. 17-20) against a danger which had not reached the Church as yet, but any day might reach
1
See the notes on ch.
viii.
9-17
compare also
ch. vi. 1-14.

[ 4.
xliv
it,
and the full urgency of which the Apostle knew only too well j of the harvest, but the main theme of the letter is the gathering in departure of its Master, at once of the Church's history since the which and of the individual history of a single soul, that one soul of under God had had the most active share in making the course St. Paul set himself to give the external events what it was. Roman Church of his best he has given it what was perhaps in some ways too good for it more we may be sure than it would be very digest and assimilate at the moment, but just for that
;
able to
reason a body of teaching which eighteen centuries of Christian Its richness in this respect is interpreters have failed to exhaust. due to the incomparable hold which it shows on the essential the principles of Christ's religion, and the way in which, like Bible in general, it pierces through the conditions of a particular
time and place to the roots of things which are permanent and
universal.
5.
The Argument.
he
the
the
for
In the interesting essay in which, discarding all tradition, seeks to re-interpret the teaching of St. Paul directly from standpoint of the nineteenth century, Matthew Arnold maps out contents of the Epistle as follows < If a somewhat pedantic form of expression may be forgiven
:
the sake of clearness,
say that of the eleven first chapters of the Epistle to the Romans the chapters which convey Paul's with any scholastic purpose or in any theology, though not . .
we may
.
formal scientific mode of exposition of these eleven chapters, the first, second, and third are, in a scale of importance, fixed by a scientific criticism of Paul's line of thought, sub-primary the fourth and fifth are secondary; the sixth and eighth are primary; the seventh chapter is sub-primary; the ninth, tenth, and eleventh Furthermore, to the contents of the chapters are secondary.
;
separate chapters themselves this scale

to
must be carried on, so far as two great primary chapters, the sixth and eighth, the eighth is primary down only to the end of the twentyeighth verse from thence to the end it is, however, eloquent, yet
mark
that of the
for the
purpose of a scientific criticism of Paul's essential theology only secondary' (St. Paul and Protestantism, p. 92 f.). This extract may serve as a convenient starting-point for our examination of the argument and it may conduce to clearness of apprehension if we complete the summary analysis of the Epistle given by the same writer, with the additional advantage of presenting
:
it
in his fresh
and blight manner
5.]
*
THE ARGUMENT
first
xlv
is You have Jews its purport you have. The third
:
The
chapter
is
to the
Gentiles its purport

is
not
is
righteousness.
The second
to
the
No more have you, though you think : chapter assumes faith in Christ as the one source of righteousness for all men. The fourth chapter gives to the notion of righteousness through faith the sanction of the Old Testament and of the history of Abraham. The fifth insists on the causes for thankfulness and exultation in the boon of righteousness through
faith
in
Christ;
and applies
illustratively,
with
history of
:
question is that faith in Christ which I, Paul, mean ? " and answers it. The seventh illustrates and explains the answer. But the eighth down to the end of the twenty-eighth verse, develops and completes the answer. The rest of the eighth chapter expresses the sense of safety and gratitude which the solution is fitted to inspire. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters uphold the second
^
Adam. " What
The
sixth chapter
comes
this design, the to the all-important
chapter's thesis so hard to a Jew, so easy to us that righteousness is not by the Jewish law ; but dwell with hope and joy on a final result of things which is to be favourable to Israel' {ibid. p.
Some such
vestigation
outline as
ttiis
would be
93). at the present stage of in-
generally accepted. It is true that Baur threw the centre of gravity upon chapters ix-xi, and held that the rest of the Epistle was written up to these but this view would now on
:
hands be regarded as untenable. The problem discussed in these chapters doubtless weighed heavily on the Apostle's mind in the circumstances under which he was writing it was doubtless a problem of very considerable urgency but for all that it is a problem which belongs rather to the circumference of St. Paul's
all
;
almost
thought than to the centre ; it is not so much a part of his fundamental teaching as a consequence arising from its collision with an
unbelieving world.
On
this
head the scholarship of the present day would be on the

It
side of
Matthew Arnold.
points, however, to the necessity, in
any attempt to determine what is primary and what is not primary in the argument of the Epistle, of starting with a clear understanding of the point of view from which the degrees of relative importance are to be assigned. Baur's object was historical- to set the
Epistle in relation to the circumstances of its composition. On that assumption his view was partially though still not more than
partially justified.
Matthew Arnold's
'
object on the other hand

'
was what he
by which he seems to mean (though perhaps he was not wholly clear in his own mind) an attempt to discriminate in it those elements which are of the highest permanent value. It was natural that he
calls
scientific
criticism of Paul's thought
should attach the greatest importance to those elements in particular which seemed to be capable 01 direct personal verification, From
xlvi
this
EPISTLE TO THE
point of view
ROMANS
[ 5.
we need
not question his assignment of a primary
significance to chapters vi and viii. His reproduction of the thought of these chapters is the best thing in his book, and we have drawn
upon it ourselves in the commentary upon them (p. 163 f.). There is more in the same connexion that well deserves attentive study.
But there are other portions of the Epistle which are not capable of same manner, and yet were of primary importance to St. Paul himself and may be equally of primary
verification precisely in the
importance to those of us
in
who
lie
are willing to accept his testimony
beyond the reach of our personal Matthew Arnold is limited by the method which he experience. and which others would no doubt join with him in applies applying to the subjective side of Christianity, the emotions and But there is a further efforts which it generates in Christians. And in the question how and why they came to be generated. answer which St. Paul would give, and which the main body of Christians very largely on his authority would also give to that question, he and they alike are led up into regions where direct
spiritual
things which
human
verification ceases to
'
be possible.
'
It is quite true that
faith in Christ
a strong emotion of love and gratitude.

confined, as
means attachment to Christ, But that emotion is not

'
we
say, to
'
the historical Christ,'

'
not only
Him who
walked the earth as
it has for its ôbject Jesus of Nazareth ' it is

;
directed towards the
same Jesus
crucified, risen
and ascended
to
St. Paul believed, and we also believe, the right hand of God.' that His transit across the stage of our earth was accompanied by consequences in the celestial sphere which transcend our faculties.
We cannot pretend to be able to verify them as we can verify that which passes in our own minds. And yet a certain kind of indirect The thousands and tens of thousands of verification there is. Christians who have lived and died in the firm conviction of the
and who upon the strength of them have reduced their lives to a harmonious unity superseding the war of passion, do really afford no slight presumption that the beliefs which have enabled them to do this are such as the Ruler of the universe approves, and such as aptly fit into the eternal order. Whatever the force of this presumption to the outer world, it is one
truth of these supersensual realities,
which the Christian at least will cherish. We therefore do not feel at liberty to treat as anything less than primary that which was certainly primary to St. Paul. We entirely accept the view that chapters vi and viii are primary, but we also feel bound to place by their side the culminating verses of chapter The really fundamental passages in the Epistle we should say iii. were, ch.i. 16, 17, which states the problem, and iii. 21-26, vi. 1-14, The 1-30 (rather than 1-28), which supply its solution. viii. problem is. How is man to become righteous in the sight of God ?
5.]
THE ARGUMENT
the
XiVll
(i) by certain great redemptive acts on the take effect in the sphere above though their consequences are felt throughout the sphere below; (2) through a certain ardent apprehension of these acts and of their Author Christ, on the part of the Christian ; and (3) through his continued self-surrender to Divine influences poured out freely and unremittingly upon him. It is superfluous to say that there is nothing whatever that is new in this statement. It does but reproduce the belief, in part implicit rather than explicit, of the Early Church ; then further defined and
is
And
answer
part of
God which
emphasized more vigorously on some of its sides at the Reformation lastly brought to a more even balance (or what many would fain make a more even balance) by the Church of our own day. Of course it is liable to be impugned, as it is impugned by the attractive writer whose words have been quoted above, in the interest of what is thought to be a stricter science. But whatever the value in itself of the theory which is substituted for it, we may be sure that it does not adequately represent the mind of St. Paul. In the present commentary our first object is to do justice to this. How it is afterwards to be worked up into a complete scheme of religious belief, it lies beyond our scope to consider.
;
and
For the sake of the student it may be well to draw out the contents of the Epistle in a tabular analytical form. St. Paul, as
Matthew Arnold rightly reminds us, is no Schoolman, and his method is the very reverse of all that is formal and artificial. But it is undoubtedly helpful to set before ourselves the framework of his thought, just as a knowledge of anatomy conduces to the better
understanding of the living
I.
human
frame.
Introduction Doctrinal.
The Great
Answer
:
1 1 5 a. The Apostolic Salutation .(i. 1-7"). . St. Paul and the Roman Church (i. 8-15).
(i.
,.
II.
Thesis. Problem: How is Righteousness to be attained? Not by man's work, but by God's gift, through Faith, or
(i.
loyal attachment to Christ
16, 17).
A. Righteousness as a
(i.
state or condition in the sight of
God
(Justification)
18-v. 21).
1.
Righteousness not hitherto attained (i. 18-iii. 20). [Rather, by contrast, a scene which bespeaks impending Wrath], Failure of the Gentile (i. 18-32). (i.) Natural Religion (i. 18-20) (ii. deserted for idolatry (i. 21-25) (iii.) hence judicial abandonment to abominable sins (26, 27), to every kind of moral depravity (28-31), even to perversion of conscience (32) [Transitional] Future judgement without respect of persons such as /3.
a.
)
'>
Jew
or Gentile <n- 1-16).
Xlviii
(i )

position
(ii.
[ 5.
1-4).
(ii.)
(Hi.)
y. Failure of the
(i.)
(ii.)
Jewish critic and Gentile sinner in the same Standard of judgement: deeds, not privileges (a. 5"")Law of Moses for the Jew Law of ConRule of judgement science for the Gentile (ii. 12-16). 7-29)- Profession and reality, as regards (ii.
:
Jew
Law
point
(ii. 17-24^; Circumcision (ii. 25-29).
8.
[Parenthetic!.
(iii.
Answer
1-8).
to casuistical objections
from Jewish stand*

.
(i.)
(ii )
Divine Promises Jew's advantage as recipient of (iii. 1,2); which promises are not invalidated by Man s unfaithfulness
The
"
(iii.)
e.
Yet God's greater glory no excuse for human sin (iii. 5-8). earn acceptance Universal failure to attain to righteousness and illustrated from Scripture (iii. 9-20).
2.
Consequent Exposition of
(i )
New
System
(iii.
21-31)
of
it,
in its relation to
Law, independent
yet attested by
it
(ii.)
(iii )
in its universality, as the free gift of God (22-24) ; propitiatory in the method of its realization through the
(21);
Death
(iv.)
Dispensation the of Christ, which occupies under the New same place which Sacrifice, especially the ceremonies of the Old (25) Day of Atonement, occupied under the of God's righteousin its final cause the twofold manifestation pardon conveying and sin against itself asserting ness, at once
;
to the sinner (26). from this: . Preliminary note of two main consequences (i.) Boasting excluded (27, 28) (ii.) Jew and Gentile alike accepted (29-31).
3.
Relation of this
(i.)
New
System to O. T. considered in reference to the
crucial case of
Abraham
(iv.
1-25).
Abraham's acceptance (like that described by David) turned on Faith, not Works (iv. 1-8)
;
(ii.)
nor Circumcision
(iv.
9-12)
him from [so that there might be nothing to prevent being the spiritual father of uncircumcised as well as
circumcised (11, 12)], nor Law, the antithesis of Promise (iv. 13-17) believers, [so that he might be the spiritual father of all not of those under the Law only]. (iv. 17-25) (iv.) Abraham's Faith, a type of the Christian's [he too believed in a birth from the dead]. Righteousness by Faith (v. 1-2 1). 4. Blissful effects of hope of final sala. (i.) It leads by sure degrees to a triumphant
(iii.)
:
vation
(ii.)
(v.
1-4).
/8.
That hope guaranteed a fortiori by the Love displayed Christ's Death for sinners (v. 5-11). Contrast of these effects with those of Adam's Fall (v. 12-21) :
(i.)
(ii.)
in
like, in the transition from one to all (12-14); the unlike, in that where one brought sin, condemnation, death, other brought grace, a declaration of unmerited righteous-
ness, life (15,-17).

(iii.)
Summary. Relations of Fall, Law, Grace (18-21) [The Fall brought sin; Law increased it; but Grace more than cancels the ill effects of Law],
5-]
THE ARGUMENT
:
xlix
B. Progressive Righteousness in the Christian (Sanctification) (vi-viii). 1. Reply to further casuistical objection ' If more sin means more grace, why not go on sinning ?' The immersion of Baptism carried with it a death to sin. and union with the risen Christ. The Christian therefore cannot, must not, sin (vi. 1-14).
2.
The
a.
/3.
what it is, and what two metaphors. Servitude and emancipation (vi. 15-23).
Christian's Release
:
it is
not
shown by
The marriage-bond
[The
he
is
(vii. 1-6). Christian's old self dead to the Law with Christ; henceforth free to live with Him].
so thai
3. Judaistic objection from seeming disparagement of analysis of the moral conflict in the soul. and gives an impulse or handle to sin, but
(vii. 7-24). Christ (25).
Law Law
is
met by an
impotent,
itself sinful
is
not
The
conflict
ended by the interposition of

(viii).
4. Perspective of the Christian's The Indwelling Spirit.

a.
New
Career
Failure of the previous system made good by Christ's Incarnation and the Spirit's presence (viii. 1-4). 5 |8. The new a gime contrasted with the old the regime of the Spirit with the weakness of unassisted humanity (viii.,5-9). 7. The Spirit's presence a guarantee of bodily as well as moral resurrection (viii. 10-13); 6. also a guarantee that the Christian enjoys with God a son's relation, and will enter upon a son's inheritance (viii. 14-17). . That glorious inheritance the object of creation's yearning (viii.
18-22)
and of the Christian's hope (viii. 23-25). %. Human infirmity assisted by the Spirit's intercession (viii. 26, 27) 6. and sustained by the knowledge of the connected chain by which God works out His purpose of salvation (viii. 28-30). i. Inviolable security of the Christian in dependence upon God's favour and the love of Christ (viii. 31-39).
y>
C. Problem of
Israel's Unbelief.
rejection of the
The Gospel in history (ix, x, xi). The Chosen People a sad contrast to its high destiny and
privileges (ix. 1-5).

I.
a.
Justice of the Rejection (ix. 6-29). The Rejection of Israel not inconsistent with the Divine promises
(ix. 6-13) nor with the Divine Justice (ix. 14-29). (i.) The absoluteness of God's choice shown from the O. T.
/3.
(ix.
(ii.)
14-18). necessary deduction from
His position as Creator
(ix.
i9- 2 3)(iii.)
The
and
3. a.
alternate choice of Jews and Gentiles expressly reserved foretold in Scripture (ix. 24-29).
Cause of the Rejection.

Israel sought righteousness
by Works instead of Faith,
in their
own
not in God's way (ix. 30-x. 4). although God's method was (i.) Not difficult and remote but near and easy (x. 5-10) (ii.) Within the reach of all, Jew and Gentile alike (x. n-13). . Nor can Israel pltad in defence want of opportunity or warning (i.) The Gospel has been fully and universally preached (x. 14-18).
way and
this
And
EPISTLE TO THE
(ii.)
ROMANS
Israel
had been warned beforehand by the Prophet that they would reject God's Message [x. 19-21).
3.
The purpose of God (xi). Mitigating considerations. The Unbelief of Israel is now as in the past only partial (xi. 1-10). is only temporary the introduction of the (i.) Their fall has a special purpose Gentiles (xi. 1 1-1 5). (ii.) That Israel will be restored is vouched for by the holy stock from which it comes (xi. 16-24). 7. In all this may be seen the purpose of God working upwards the final through seeming severity, to a beneficent result restoiation of all (xi. 25-31). Doxology (xi. 33-36).
a.
#. It
III.
Practical and Hortatory.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) (5)
(6)
The The The The
Christian sacrifice (xii. I, 2). Christian as a member of the Church (xii. 3-8). Christian in his relation to others (xii. 9-21). Christian's vengeance (xii. 19-21). Church and State (xiii. 1-7). The Christian's one debt ; the law of love (xiii. 8-10). The day approaching (xiii 11-14). Toleration the strong and the weak (xiv. i-xv. 6). The Jew and the Gentile (xv. 7-13).
;
IV.
Epilogue.
a.
/3.
Personal explanations. Motive of the Epistle. Rome (xv. 14-33). Greetings to various persons (xvi. 1-16).
Proposed
visit to
A warning
Postscript 21-23).
(xvi.
17-20).
(xvi.
by the Apostle's companions and amanuensis
Benediction and Doxology (xvi. 24-27).
and strength of an argument by starting from its conclusion, and we possess in the doxology at the end of the Epistle a short summary made by
It
is
often easiest to bring out the force
The question of its genuineness St. Paul himself of its contents. has been discussed elsewhere, and it has been shown in the commentary how clearly it refers to all the leading thoughts of the Epistle ; it remains only to make use of it to help us to understand the argument which St. Paul is working out and the conclusion to which he is leading us. The first idea which comes prominently before us is that of * the Gospel' ; it meets us in the Apostolic salutation at the beginning, in the statement of the thesis of the Epistle, in the doxology at the end where it is expanded in the somewhat unusual form according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ/ So again in xi. 28 it is incidentally shown that what St. Paul is describing is the method or plan of the Gospel. This idea of the Gospel then is a fundamental thought of the Epistle ; and it seems to mean this. There are two competing systems or plans of life or salvation before St. Pauls mind. The one is the old Jewish system, a knowledge of which is presupposed ; the other is the Christian system,
'
5.]
THE ARGUMENT
li
St. Paul is not a knowledge of which again is presupposed. expounding the Christian religion, he is writing to Christians what he aims at expounding is the meaning of the new system. This may perhaps explain the manner in which he varies between the expressions the Gospel,' or the Gospel of God/ or the Gospel my Gospel/ The former represents the of Jesus Christ/ and Christian religion as recognized and preached by all, the latter represents his own personal exposition of its plan and meaning. The main purpose of the argument then is an explanation of the meaning of the new Gospel of Jesus Christ,! as succeeding to and taking the place of the old method, but also in a sense as embracing
: ' ' '
'
and continuing
St.
it.
Paul begins then with a theological description of the new method. He shows the need for it, he explains what it is emphasizing its distinctive features in contrast to those of the old system, and at the same time proving that it is the necessary and expected outcome of that old system. He then proceeds to describe the working of this system in the Christian life ; and lastly he vindicates
for
it its
true place in history.
The
universal character of the
new
Gospel has been already emphasized, he must now trace the plan by which it is to attain this universality. The rejection of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, are both steps in this process and But the method and plan pursued in these cases necessary steps. and partially revealed, enable us to learn, if we have faith to do so, that 'mystery which has been hidden from the foundation of the world/ but which has always guided the course of human history the purpose of God to sum up all things in Christ/ If this point has been made clear, it will enable us to bring out the essential unity and completeness of the argument of the We do not agree as we have explained above with the Epistle.
'
opinion of Baur, revived by Dr. Hort, that chap, ix-xi represent the essential part of the Epistle, to which all the earlier part is but an introduction. That is certainly a one-sided view. But Dr. Hort's examination of the Epistle is valuable as reminding us that
neither are these chapters an appendix accidentally added which might be omitted without injuring St. Paul's argument and plan. can trace incidentally the various difficulties, partly raised by
We
opponents, partly suggested by his own thought, which have helped We are able to analyze to shape different portions of the Epistle.
and separate the different stages in the argument more accurately and distinctly than in any other of St. Paul's writings. But this must not blind us to the lact that the whole is one great argument; the purpose "of which is to explain the Gospel of God in Jesus the Messiah, and to show its' efiects on human life, and in the history of the race, and thus to vindicate for it the right to be considered the ultimate and final revelation 01 God's purpose for mankind.
d2
ui
epistle to the romans

6.
[ 6-
Language and Style.
the uninitiated It will seem at first sight to (i) Language*. letter addressed to the reader a rather strange paradox that a be written in Greek. capital of the Western or Latin world should scholar who is Yet there is no paradox, either to the classical to the ecclesiasacquainted with the history of the Early Empire, or Both of the Early Church. tical historian who follows the fortunes the was Greek half and a centuries two fully are aware that for whole yet of if not of the city of Rome as a
predominant language
large sections of
its
inhabitants,
and
in particular of those sections
readers of among- which was to be sought the main body of the

the Epistle.
The
early history of the
into three periods, of
ance of the
first
Church of Rome might be said to tall which the landmarks would be (i) the appear2 to be Apollonius Latin writers, said by Jerome
who
under Commodus in the year 185, and whose Apology and Acts have been recently recovered in an Armenian 3 and Victor, an African by Version and edited by Mr. Conybeare about 189 a. d. Rome (2) Next of birth, who became Bishop would come in the middle of the third century a more considerable body of Latin literature, the writings of Novatian and the correspondence between the Church of Rome and Cyprian at Carthage. the definite Latinizing of the capital (3) Then, lastly, there would be of of the West which followed upon the transference of the seat empire to Constantinople dating from 330 a.d.
suffered
,
the evidence of Juvenal and Martial refers to the latter half of Juvenal speaks with indignation of the extent to which Rome Greek of ignorance Martial regards was being converted into a Greek city 5 Indeed, there was a double tendency which emas a mark of rusticity . On the one hand the social scale. of ends braced at once classes at both among slaves and in the trading classes there were swarms of Greeks and Greek-speaking Orientals. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was and in the fashion to speak Greek ; children were taught it by Greek nurses ;
(1)
The
first
century.
after life the use of
it was carried to the pitch of affectation For the Jewish colony we have the evidence of the inscriptions. Out of 7 eight only thirty-eight collected by Schurer no less than thirty are Greek and
.
and the evidence
of the use of Greek at Rome has been often discussed the subject is by it set forth, but the classical treatment of the late Dr. C. P. Caspari, Professor at Christiania, in an Excursus of 200 symbols (Chrispages to vol. iii. of his work Quellen zur Geschichte des Tatif
1
The
question
for
tiania, 1875).
2
et
De Vir. III. liii. Tertullianus presbyter nunc demu?n primus post Victorem Apollonium Latinorum ponitur. 3 Monuments of Early Christianity (London, 1894), p. 29 ff. 5 4 Epig. xiv. 58. cf. vi. 187 ff. Juv. Sat. iii. 60 f.
;
6
7
Caspari, Quellen
sites.
zum
is
Cemeindeverfassung,
Roman
There
Tau/symbol, iii. 286 f. 33 ff. The inscriptions referred to are also one in Greek fiom Portus.
p.
all
from
6.]
LANGUAGE AND STYLE

is
Iiii
Latin ; and if one of the Greek inscriptions three of the Latin are in Greek characters.
in Latin characters, conversely

in
There do not seem to be any
about 1:2.
that of
inscriptions the proportion of Greek to Latin would seem to be But the great mass of these would belong to a period later than which we are speaking. De Rossi 2 estimates the number for the period between M. Aurelius and Septimius Severusat about 160, of which something Beyond this we can hardly go. like half would be Greek. But as to the Christian Church there is a quantity of other evidence. The bishops of Rome from Linus to Eleutherus (c. 174-189 A.D.) are twelve in number of these not more than three (Clement, Sixtus I = Xystus, Pius) bear But although the names of Clement and Pius are Latin the Latin names. we know also that Hermas, extant Epistle of Clement is written in Greek 3 the author of The Shepherd,' was the brother of Pius and he wrote in Greek.
: ;
Hebrew Of Christian
1
'
the literature that we can in anyway connect with Christian Rome down to the end of the reign of M. Aurelius is Greek. Besides the works of Clement and Hermas we have still surviving the letter addressed to the Church at Rome by Ignatius ; and later in the period, the letter written by Soter 4 Justin (c. 166-174 A.D.) to the Corinthian Church was evidently in Greek and Tatinn who were settled in Rome wrote in Greek so too did Rhodon, *. Greek was the a pupil of Tatian's at Rome who carried on their tradition language of Polycarp and Hegesippus who paid visits to Rome of shorter number of Gnostic writers established themselves there and used duration. Greek for the vehicle of their teaching so Cerdon, Marcion, and Valentinus, who were all in Rome about 140 A.D. Valentinus left behind a considerable school, and the leading representatives of the ' Italic ' branch, Ptolemaeus may assume the same thing of the and Heracleon, both wrote in Greek. other Gnostics combated by Justin and Irenaeus. Irenaeus himself spent some time at Rome in the Episcopate of Eleutherus, and wrote his great work
Indeed
all
We
in Greek.
To this period may also be traced back the oldest form of the Creed of Roman Church now known as the Apostles' Creed". This was in Greek. And there are stray Greek fragments of Western Liturgies which ultimately go back to the same place and time. Such would be the Hymnus angelicus
the
(Luke ii. 14) repeated in Greek at Christmas, the Trishagion, Kyrie eleison and Christe eleison. On certain set days (at Christmas, Easter, Ember days, and some others) lections were read in Greek as well as Latin hymns were occasionally sung in Greek and at the formal committal of the Creed to the candidates for baptism (the so-called Traditio and Reddiiio Symbol!) both the Apostles' Creed (in its longer and shorter forms) and the Nicene were
; ;
Ap. Caspari, p. 303. also Berliner, i. 54. described in the Liber Pontificalis as natione Italus . . de civitate Aquikia but there is reason to think that Hermas was a native of Arcadia. Tne assignments of nationality to the earliest bishops are of very doubtful
1
Comp.
Pius
;
is
value.
4 It was to be kept in the archives and read on Sundays like the letter of Clement (Eus. H. E. IV. xxiii. 11). 5 Eus. //. E. V. xiii. 1. 6 It was in pursuit of the origin of this Creed that Caspari was drawn into It is generally agreed that it was in use at Rome by his elaborate researches. The main question at the present moment the middle of the second century. Caspari is whether it was also composed there, and if not whence it came. and the circle of St. John. This is a problem Asia Minor would derive it from which we may look to have solved by Dr. Kattenbusch of Giessen, who is continuing Caspari's labours {Das Apostolische Symbol, Bd. I. Leipzig,
1894).
liv
[ 6.
recited and the questions put first in Greek and then in Latin 1 . These are all survivals of Roman usage at the time when the Church was bilingual. (2) The dates of Apollonius and of Bp. Victor are fixed, but rather more uncertainty hangs over that of the first really classical Christian work in
This has been much debated, but Latin, the Octavius of Minucius Felix. opinion seems to be veering round to the earlier date 2 , which would bring him into near proximity to Apollonius, perhaps at the end of the reign of M. Aurelius. The period which then begins and extends from c. 180-250 a.d. shows a more even balance of Greek and Latin. The two prominent writers, Hippolytus and Caius, still make use of Greek. The grounds perhaps preponderate for regarding the Muratorian Fragment as a translation. But at the
beginning of the period we have Minucius Felix and at the end Novatian, and Latin begins to have the upper hand in the names of bishops. The glimpse which we get of the literary activity of the Church of Rome through the letters and other writings preserved among the works of Cyprian shows us
at last Latin in possession of the field. (3) The Hellenizing character of Roman Christianity was due in the first instance to the constant intercourse between Rome and the East. In the troubled times which followed the middle of the third century, with the decay of wealth and trade, and Gothic piracies breaking up the pax Romana on the Aegean, this intercourse was greatly interrupted. Thus Greek influences lost their strength. The Latin Church, Rome reinforced by Africa, had now a substantial literature of its own. Under leaders like Tertullian, Cyprian,
and Novatian it had begun to develop its proper individuality. It could stand and walk alone without assistance from the East. And a decisive impulse, was given to its independent career by the founding of Constantinople. The stream set from that time onwards towards the Bosp'horus and no longer towards the Tiber. Rome ceases to be the centre of the Empire to become in a still more exclusive sense the capital of the West.
The Epistles which bear the name of St. Paul present (2) Style. a considerable diversity of style. To such an extent is this the case that the question is seriously raised whether they can have had
the arguments urged on the negative most substantial and whatever decision we come to on the subject there remains a problem of much complexity and difficulty.
all
the
same
author.
Of
side this
from
style is the
It is well known that the Pauline Epistles fall into four groups which are connected indeed with each other, but at the same time stand out with much distinctness. These groups are 1, 2 Thess.; Gal., 1, 2 Cor., Rom. Phil., Col., Eph., Philem. Past. Epp. The four Epistles of the second group hang very closely together; those of the third group subdivide into two pairs, Phil. Philem. on the one hand, and Eph. Col. on the other. It is hard to dissociate Col. from Philem. and the very strong presumption in favour of the genuineness of the latter Epistle reacts upon the former. The tendency of critical inquiry at the present moment is in favour of Colossians and somewhat less decidedly in favour of Ephesians.
:
It is, for instance, significant that

1
Julicher in his recent Einleilung

be found in Caspari's Excursus, Op.
cit.
More
ff.
precise
and
full details will
p.
466
8 Kriiger, Altchristl. Lit. p. 88.
6.]
LANGUAGE AND STYLE
Iv
(Freiburg i. B. and Leipzig, 1894) sums up rather on this side of We believe that this points to what the question than the other. But in the matter of style it must be will be the ultimate verdict. and more especially Eph. stand at confessed that Col. and Eph. We may take Eph. the furthest possible remove from Romans.
and Rom. as marking the extreme poles of difference within the Any other member of the second Epistles claimed for St. Paul K group would do as well ; but as we are concerned specially with Rom., we may institute a comparison with it. The difference is not so much a difference of ideas and of
vocabulary as a difference of structure and composition. There are, expressions in the it is true, a certain number of new and peculiar later Epistle ; but these are so balanced by points of coincidence, and the novel element has so much of the nature of simple addition rather than contrariety, that to draw a conclusion adverse to The sense St. Paul's authorship would certainly not be warranted. of dissimilarity reaches its height when we turn from the materials (if we may so speak) of the style to the way in which they are The discrepancy lies not in the anatomy but in the put together.
the
We
surface distribution of light and shade, in the play of feature, in temperament to which the two Epistles seem to give expression. will enlarge a little on this point, as the contrast may help us
to understand the individuality of the Epistle to the This Epistle, like all the others of the group,
Romans.
is
characterized
by a remarkable energy and vivacity. It is calm in the sense that it is not aggressive and that the rush of words is always well under control. Still there is a rush of words, rising repeatedly to
passages of splendid eloquence
the
of laboured oratory.
;
outcome of strongly moved

is
but the eloquence is spontaneous, feeling ; there is nothing about it

;
argument
The language is rapid, terse, incisive the conducted by a quick cut and thrust of dialectic ; it reminds us of a fencer with his eye always on his antagonist. We shut the Epistle to the Romans and we open that to the We cannot speak here of Kphesians how great is the contrast if there is energy it is deep down vivacity, hardly of energy
;
!
below the In gone.

mass,
surface.
its
The
rapid argumentative cut and thrust
is
place
like a glacier
we have a slowly-moving onwards-advancing working its way inch by inch down the valley.
periods are of unwieldy length; the writer seems to stagger under his load. He has weighty truths to express,.and he struggles not without success, but certainly with little to express them The truths unfolded read like flexibility or ease of composiuon. abstract truths, ideal verities, laid up in the heavens rather than
The
'
'
embodying themselves
1
in the active controversies of earth.

side
The
difference
between these Epistles on the
we
are considering
is
greater
{e. g.)
than that between Ronians and the Pastorals,
lvi
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[ 6.
There is, as we shall see, another side. We have perhaps exaggerated the opposition for the sake of making the difference When we come to look more closely at the Epistle to the clear. Romans we shall find in it not a few passages which tend in the direction of the characteristics of Ephesians ; and when we examine the Epistle to the Ephesians we shall find in it much to remind us
will however leave the comof characteristics of Romans. parison as it has been made for the moment, and ask ourselves what means we have of explaining it. Supposing the two Epistles to be really the work of the same man, can the difference between
We
them be adequately accounted

There
is
for
always an advantage in presenting proportions to the eye and reducing them to some sort of numerical estimate. This can be done in the present case without much difficulty by reckoning up the number of This is done below for the two Epistles, Romans and Ephelonger pauses.
sians.
The standard used is that of the Revisers' Greek Text, and the estimate of length is based on the number of arixoi or printed lines 1. It will be worth while to compare the Epistles chapter by chapter :
Romans.
arixoi.
()
(.)
(;)
Ch.
I.
64
5i
13
J
H
7
II.
III.
IV. V.
VI. VII. VIII. IX.
47 45 47 42 49 70
55 37
_6_3
4 20 6 6
8
12
16
14
15
16
'7 8
14 20
26 19 16
27
8
5
14 10
9 11
88"
X.
XL
trinal
6 16
portion
57
130
184
402
XII.
36
29 41
XHI.
XIV.
H n
11
12
15 27
XV.
XVI.
:
63 50
789
_7
1
24 28 290 563
92
Epistle
Si
Here the proportion of major points to arixoi is for the doctrinal chap402:570 = '(approximately) 1 in 1.4; and for the whole Epistle not very different, 563:789 = 1 in 1-418. The proportion of interrogative sentences is for the whole Epistle, 92 789, or 1 in 8-6 for the doctrinal chapters only, 88:570, or I in 6.5; and for the practical portion only, 4 : 219, or 1 in 55. This last item is instructive, because it shows how very
ters
:
1 The counting of these is approximate, anything over half a line being reckoned as a whole line, and anything less than half a line not reckoned.
6.]
greatly, even in the
LANGUAGE AND STYLE

same
lvii
the subject-matter.
ters
Epistle, the amount of interrogation varies with also observe that in two even of the doctrinal chapinterrogative sentences are wanting. They lie indeed in patches or thick clusters, and are not distributed equally throughout the Epistle. we turn to Ephesians, for which the data are as follows
We
Now
Eph ESIANS.
(TTIXOI
(0
()
(;)
Ch.
I.
45
4
9
2
II.
40
36
[121
III.
IV. V. VI.
Total
55
15 8
11
2
3 6 6 15 13
17 13

-]
50
_44
270
36"
58
95
This gives a very different result. The proportion of major points is for Eph. i-iii, roughly speaking, 1 in 4, as against 1 in 1-4 for Rom. i-xii, and for the whole Epistle rather more than 1 in 3, as against 1 in 1.418. The proportion of interrogations is 1 in 270 compared with 1 in 86 or 6.5.
In
illustrating
the nature of the difference in
style
between
Romans and Ephesians we
have
left
in suspense for a time the
question as to its cause. To this we will now return, and set down some of the influences which may have been at work which we
may be
sure were at
it.
work
and
which would go a long way
to
account for
(1) First would be the natural variation of style which comes from dealing with different subject-matter. The Epistles of the second group are all very largely concerned with the controversy as to Circumcision and the relations of Jewish and Gentile
Christians.
In the later Epistle
this
the background,
and other
topics have taken
controversy has retired into its place. Ideas are
abroad as to the mediating agencies between God and man which impair the central significance of the Person of Christ; and the multiplication of new Churches with the growing organization of intercommunication between those of older standing, brings to the front the conception of the Church as a whole, and invests it with
increased impressiveness.
These facts are reflected on the vocabulary of the two Epistles. The controversy with the Judaizers gives a marked colour to the whole group which includes the Epistle to the Romans. This will appear on the face of the statistics of usage as to the frequency with which the leading terms occur in these Epistles and in the rest of the Pauline Corpus. Of course some of the instances will be accidental, but by far the greater number are significant. Those which follow have a direct bearing on the Judaistic controversy. Elsewhere means elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles.
'
'
lviii

'
[ 6.
[anipp.a
Rom. 9, 2 Cor. I, Gal. 9 not elsewhere in St. Paul, Rom. 2, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. I.] aKpopvorta Rom. 3, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 3 elsewhere 3. not elsewhere in St. Paul. airoaroX-q Rom. I, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1 Siicaiovv Rom. 15, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 3; elsewhere 2. not elsewhere. Sucaicofxa Rom. 5 not elsewhere. fiiKaiwois Rom. 2 KarapyeTv Rom. 6, 1 Cor. 9, 2 Cor. 4, Gal. 3 elsewhere 4. elsewhere 6. j/o/xos Rom. 76, 1 Cor. 8, Gal. 32 v(piTOfir) Rom. 15, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 7; elsewhere 8. Cor. 1, Gal. 5; elsewhere 1. anepfxa Rom. 9, 1 Cor. 1, 2
'..Ppadfj.
;
'APpaap.
Connected with
uoOevrjs
this controversy,
though not quite so

;
directly,
would be
Rom. I, I Cor. 10, 2 Cor. I, Gal. I elsewhere 1. aoBtvtis Rom. 4, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6; elsewhere 2. elsewhere 1. Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6, Gal. 1 aoOeptia Rom. 2, not elsewhere. daOevrjfia Rom. I 2. elsewhere Gal. Cor. 6; IXtvdepos Rom. 2, 1 6, not elsewhere. !A.eu0f/>i>{)j' Rom. 4, Gal. 1 e\evdepia Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 1 not elsewhere. Kavxaodai Rom. 5, 1 Cor. 5 (1 v.l.), 2 Cor. 20, Gal. 2 elsewhere
1
; ; ;
3.
Kavxnp-a
Cor. 3, Gal. 1 elsewhere 2. itavxnais Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 6; elsewhere 1. elsewhere. Rom. not 2; KaraKavx'^'Oai 6<pa\6Tr)s Rom. 3, Gal. I ; not elsewhere. not elsewhere. d(p(i\r]fxn Rom. 1 not elsewhere. oKavhakov Rom. 4, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1
I,
1
Rom
Cor.
3, 2
\oitavaXi&iv
Cor.
2, 2
Cor.
1,
Rom.
v. 1.]
:
Rom. I, i Cor. 2, Gal. 1 uxpiXtia Rom. 1 ; neither elsewhere. other points may be notice!, one in connexion with the large use of the O.T. in these Epistles, and the other in connexion with the idea of successive periods into which the religious history of mankind is divided yiypanrai Rom. 16, 1 Cor. 7, 2 Cor. 2, Gal. 4; not elsewhere in St. Paul. &xpts ov Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 2 (1 v.l.) ; not elsewhere. not elsewhere i<p' oaov \p6vov Rom. I, 1 Cor. l, Gal. 1 These examples stand out very distinctly; and their disappearance from the later Epistle is perfectly intelligible cessante causa, cessat effectus.
cbepek tv
Two
(2) But it is not only that the subject-matter of Ephesians differs from that of Romans, the circumstances under which it is presented
Romans belongs to a period of controversy, and although at the time when the Epistle is written the worst is over, and the Apostle is able to survey the field calmly, and to state his case uncontroversially, still the crisis through which he has passed The echoes of war are still in his ears. has left its marks behind. The treatment of his subject is concrete and not abstract. He sees in imagination his adversary before him, and he argues much as he might have argued in the synagogue, or in the presence of The atmosphere of the Epistle is that of refractory converts. This acts as a stimulus, it makes the blood pergonal debate.
also differ.
essay
These examples are selected from the lists in Bishop Lightfoot's classical 'On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galatians,' mjomti. of Class, and Sacr. Fhilol. iii. (1857) 308 ff.
'
6-]
circulate
LANGUAGE AND STYLE

more
rapidly in the veins,
lix
to the style a liveli-
and gives
the pressure was Between Romans, written to a definite Church and gathering up the result of a time of great activity, the direct outcome of prolonged discussion in street and house and school, and Ephesians, written in all probability not to a single Church but to a group of Churches, with its personal edge thus taken off, and written too under confinement after some three years of enforced inaction, it would be natural that there should be a difference. (3) This brings us to a third point which may be taken with the last, the allowance which ought to be made for the special temperament of the Apostle. His writings furnish abundant evidence of a highly strung nervous organization. It is likely enough that the physical infirmity from which he suffered, the thorn in the flesh which had such a prostrating effect upon him, was of nervous origin. But constitutions of this order are liable to great fluctuations of physical condition. There will be lucid moments/ and more than lucid moments months together during which the brain will work not only with ease and freedom, but with an intensity and power not vouchsafed to other men. And times such as these will alternate with periods of depression when body and mind alike are sluggish and languid, and when an effort of will is needed to compel production of any kind. Now the physical conditions under which St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans would as naturally belong to the first head as those under which he wrote the Epistle which we call Ephesians ' would to the second. Once more we should expect antecedently that they would leave a strong impress upon the style.
ness and directness which might be wanting
when
removed.
'
'
'
The difference in style between Rom. and Eph. would seem to be very largely a difference in the amount of vital energy thrown into the two Epistles. Vivacity is a distinguishing mark of the one as a certain slow and laboured movement is of the other. may trace to this cause the phenomena which have been already noted the shorter sentences of Romans, the long involved periods of Ephesians, the frequency of interrogation on the one hand, its absence on the other. In Rom. we have the champion of Gentile Christendom with his sword drawn, prepared to meet all comers; in Eph. we have ' such an one as Paul the aged, and now a prisoner also of
We
Jesus Christ.'
Among
Romans would
dpa, beginning a sentence,
the expressions specially characteristic of this aspect of Ep. to be the following Rom. 9, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 2, Gal. 5 ; elsewhere Epp. Paul. 3, Heb. 2. [dpa ovv Rom. 8 (or 9 v. 1.), Gal. 1 ; elsewhere dpa without ovv Rom. 1 (or 2 v. 1.), 1 Cor. I, Gal. 3, Heb. 2.] 3
: :
[Xiyai]
d\\a
\iyco Rom. 2. \iycv Se Gal. 2. \iyco ovv Rom. 2.
\eyw
8e
irdkiv \iyai 2
tovto oti Cor.
Cor. I.
2.
THE ROMANS
I.
lx
EPISTLE TO
tovto Si K(yo} Gal.
eyaJ
ttov
;
[ 6.
I.
Uav\os Keyoi
;
vfJ.Tv
on
Gal.
Rom. i, i Cor. 8, Gal. I ; not elsewhere. ovv elsewhere, ri oiv; ris oZv; Rom. u, I Cor. 5, Gal. 1; not I.] epovpev; Rom. 6; ri epov/xtv not elsewhere. ri Ac'70; (A*yi, &c.) Rom. 3, Gal. 1 StaTt Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 1 ; not elsewhere. vrrep, unusual compounds of
irov
;
[ri ovv
Rom
;
viTfpeKTeiveiv 2 Cor. I.
VTT(p\.iav 2
Cor.
2. I.
vrrepvircav
Rom.
vrrepTttpiaatvav Rom. vnepcppoveiv Rom. I
I, 2
Cor.
I.
may possibly have been at (4) A last cause which we suspect work, though this is more a matter of conjecture, is the employment of We know that St. Paul did not as a rule different amanuenses. But then the question arises, How were write his own letters. It seems to us probable that they were in the first they written ? much as our own merchants or instance taken down in shorthand public men dictate their correspondence to a shorthand writer and then written out fair. We believe this to have been the case from the double fact that dictation was extremely common so that even as early as Horace and Persius dictare had already and from the wide diffusion of the come to mean to compose We know that Origen's lectures were taken art of shorthand. down in this way, and that fair copies were made of them at
'
'
H. E. VI. xxiii. 2). But we can well believe that if were the case some scribes would be more expert than others, and would reproduce what was dictated to them more exactly. Tertius, we should suppose, was one of the best of those whom An inferior scribe would get St. Paul employed for this purpose. down the main words correctly, but the little connecting links he
leisure (Eus.
this
may have
filled in for himself.
This is rather speculation, and we should not wish to lay stress upon it in any particular instance. It is however interesting to note that if we look below the superficial qualities of style at the inner tendencies of mind to which it gives expression the resemblance between Ephesians and Romans becomes more marked, so that we may well ask whether we have not before us in both the same hand. One of the most striking characteristics of St. Paul is the sort of telescopic manner, in which one clause is as it were drawn out of another, each new idea as it arises leading on to some further new idea, until the main thought of the paragraph is reached again often by a circuitous route and not seldom with a somewhat violent twist or turn at the end. This is specially noticeable in abstract doctrinal passages, just as a briefer, more broken, and more direct form of address is adopted in the exhortations relating to matters of practice. A certain laxity of grammatical
structure is common to both. will place side by side one or two passages which may help to show [For a defence of the fundamental resemblance between the two Epistles. the punctuation of the extract from Romans reference may be made to the notes ad toe]
We
6.]
LANGUAGE AND STYLE

Rom.
iii.
lxi
21-26.
Eph.
iii.
1-7.
II
Nvvl Se xîs vdpov Simioavvij eov n<pavipajTai, paprvpoynivrj vnb tov vopov ml tu!v vpocprjruv SiKaioavvrj Sk &eoy Sid moreajs 'Irjaov Xpiarov els rrdvras tovs martvovTasov yap kan SiaaroXr)- irdvrts yap rjpaprov,Kai varepovvrai rrp 8oi?s tov eop- StKaiovpevoi Swptdv rfj
Tovrov x&pw kyw rov Xpiarov 'Irjaov

kOvwv,
<uAos 6 Marios
vrrip
vpwv rwv
oUovopiav
pot
kyvco-
tiye rjKovaare rr)v
rrjs x<*P lT0S
T v eov
rrjs So9eiarjs
us vpas, on Kara
pioOrj
dirorcaXviptv
pot rb pvarrjpiov, tca6ws trpokypatya kv bXiycp, vpbs 6 SvvaaOe dvayivwo/covrfs vorjrrai rr)v avvtotv pov kv
pvarrjpicp rod X b krtpais yeveais ovk kyvwpioQrj r< is vlois rwv avdpuirajv, ujs vvv dirftcaXiKpOrj rots dyiois cltiootuXois avrov ko.1 irpofrjrais kv Uvivpane7vatrdk0vrj ovyKXrjpovopafcalavoaajpa
avrov X"P lTL Std

ttjs
kv
X.
'I.,
Ihaarrjpiov
avvrjs
rrjs drroXvrpwaews bv vpotOero 6 &tbs Sid rrjs mortals kv ra>
rw
avrov aipari,
tls $vtieitv jfjs Sinaio-
avrov, Sid rr)v irdpeoiv irpoyiyovQ-rwv dp.aprrjp6.Taiv kv

dvoxfj rov eov
rrjs
rwv
rrj
/cat
avppiroxa
rrjs
trrayytXias kv X.
'I.
Sutaioovvrjs
*pbs^ rr)v evSutv avrov kv T,ds to
iivai
kic
avrbv
Sitcaiov teal
'Irjaov.
SiKaiovvra tov
mareas
rov cvayyfXiov ov iyivr)Oriv Sidkovos Kara rr)v Swpeav rrjs \dpiros tov eov rrjs SoOuorjs pot Kara tt)v kvipyeiav rrjs Swdptcus avrov.
Sid
In the
Romans passage we have
first
the revelation of the righteousness of
God, then a specification of the particular aspect of that righteousness with stress upon its universality, then the more direct assertion of this universality, followed in loose construction (see the note ad loc.) by an announcement of the free character of the redemption wrought by Christ, then a fuller comment on the method of this redemption, its object, the cause which rendered
a
its object again, and its motive. A wonderful series of contents come from a single sentence, like those Chinese boxes in which one box cunningly fitted within another, ench smaller than the last. The passage from Ephe ians in like manner begins with a statement of the durance which the Apostle is suffering for the Gentiles, then goes off to explain why specially for the Gentiles,' so leading on to the pvarrjpiov on which that mission to the Gentiles is based, then refers back to the previous mention of this pvarrjpiov, which the readers are advised to consult, then gives a fuller description of its character, and at last states definitely its substance. Dr. Gifford has pointed out (on Rom. iii. 26) how the arguit
necessary,
to
is
ment works round in Eph. to the same word pvarrjpiov as in Rom. to the same word tvSuîv. And we have similar examples in Rom. ii. 16 and iii. 8, where two distinct trains of thought and of construction converge upon a clause whLh is made to do duty at the same time for both. The particular passage of Ephesians was chosen as illustrating this peculiarity. But the general tendency to the formation of periods on what we
_
have called the 'telescopic' method not conforming to a plan of structure deliberately adopted from the first, but linking on clause to clause, each suggested by the last runs through the whole of the first three chapters of Eph. and has abundant analogues in Rom. (i. 1-7, 18-24; " -I 6 ; iii. 215 26; iv. 11-17 v. 12-14; i*. 22-29; xv. 14-28). The passages from Rom. are as we have said somewhat more lively than those from Eph. they have a more argumentative cast, indicated by the frequent use of yap whereas those from Eph. are not so much argumentative as expository, and consist rather of a succession of clauses connected by relatives. But the difference is really superficial, and the underlying resemblance is great. Just one other specimen may be given of marked resemblance of a somewhat different kind the use of a quotation from the O.T. with running comments. In this instance we may strengthen the impression by printing for comparison a third passage from Ep. to Galatians.
;
;
lxii

Rom.
x.
[ 6.
iv.
5-8.
Era.
'Evl 8k (Kaaroj
/carol
7-1
1.
Maiu^j yap ypd<p(i on rr)v Sikcuoavvr/v tt)v (k vopov 6 rroiâas dvdpa-nos ftcrfTai kv avrfj. Tri<TT(0JS diKacoavvT] ovtoj
r)
r)/.iS)v
tduOr)
r)
x^P ls
8e
ck
Xkyd, M7)
tov Xpiarov. \4yei, 'Avafids (is v\pos rjxpa\wrevocv alxpa.Xojaiav, zeal (8ojk( hdpara
rrjs dcvpeas
to pirpov
810
uwTji kv rf) KapSia aov lis dvafir)atrai (Is rdv ovpavdv ; (tovt tori,
tois dvOpdjrrois.
el p.f)
(to 8( 'Avtffy ri kariv
on
ttjs
teal
Karkfir/ (Is
ra Karwrfpa
Xp arov Karayayeiv)
l3r)a(rai
r\,
lis Kara;
pkpr]
yr)s;
6 narafias avros
Ian
(is tt)v dfivaaov (tovt tan, Xpiarov (K vacpojv dvayaytiv.) d\Xd ri \ey(i '771'? aov to prjpd kanv, kv tw aropari aov Kal kv Ty /eapoiq aov tovt' ean to prjpa rrjs mareojs b KtjpvaaopKV.
;
Kal 6 dvafids vrr(pavoj navrcov tojv ovpavwv, iVa irKrjpdjar} ra irdvra.) Kal avros (8ojk( robs p.lv dirooToXovs k.t.K.
Gal.
To
iv.
25-31.
ol ''Ayap 2ivd dpos earlv Iv rfj 'Apafilq, avaroixd 8e rfj vvv 'l(povaaXf)pouv\(v(t yap perd tojv TkKVojv avrrjs. r) 81 avoj 'Iepovaa\r)p. kKevOkpa kariv,
ykyparrrai yap, Ev(ppdv6rjn, arupa r) ov TiKrovaa . Kara 'laadu (wayy(kias rkKva kapkv. d\k' ojair(p Tore o Kurd aapKa yevvrjOds t8iajK( rdv Kara T\v(vpa, ovtoj Kal vvv. d\Xa ri \kyei "EK@a\( ri)v rraiSiaKrjv Kal rdv vlov avrtjs, ov yap pi) K\rjpovopf)ar) 7) yna(pf) 6 vlus rrjs Trai8iaKT)s p(rd tov vlov rrjs k\(v9tpas. 816, d5(\(poi, ovk kap.lv rraiSiaKTjs T(Kva, d\\d ttjs kkevGkpas.
fjris
fori pr)TT)p r)pojv.
rjptis 8e, d8(\(poi,
this passage of by phrase (e. g. cp. Eph. iv. 7 with Cor. x. 13) but to do this would be really endless and would have too remote a beaiing on our present subject. Enough will have been said both to show the individuality of style in Ep. to Romans 1 and also to show its place in connexion with the range of style in the Pauline Epistles generally, as seen in a somewhat extreme example. It is usual, especially in Germany, to take Ep. to Romans with its companion Epistles as a standard of style for the whole of the Corpus Paulinum. But Bp. Lightfoot has pointed out that this is an error, this group of Epistles having been written under conditions of high tension which in no writer are likely to have been permanent. 'Owing to their greater length in proportion to the rest, it is probably from these Epistles that we get our general impression of St. Paul's style yet their style is in some sense an exceptional one, called forth by peculiar circumstances, just as at a late period the style of the Pastoral Epistles is also exceptional though in a different way. The normal st)le of the Apostle is rather to be sought for in the Epistles to the Thessalonians and those of the Roman captivity
It would be Eph. with the

xii. 3,
interesting- to
work out the comparison of

2
;
earlier Epistles phrase

1
Rom.
Cor.
xii.
1 1
look back over the whole of the data the impression which they leave is that although the difference, taken at its extremes, is no doubt considerable, it is yet sufficiently bridged over. It does not seem to be anywhere so great as to necessitate the assumption of different authorship. Even though any single cause would hardly be enough to account for it, there may quite
Besides the passages commented upon here, reference may be made to the maiked coincidences between the doxology, Rom. xv. 25-27, and Ep. to Ephesians. These are fully pointed out ad loc, and the genuineness of the
When we
doxology
2
is
defended in
/own. of Class, and Sacr.
9 of this Introduction. Philol., ut sup., p. 302.
7.]
THE TEXT
lxiii
well have been a concurrence of causes. And on the other hand the positive reasons for supposing that the two Epistles had really the same author, are weighty enough to support the conclusion, Between the limits thus set, it seems to Us that the phenomena of
style in the Epistles attributed to St.
Paul
may
be ranged without
straining.
7(i) Authorities.
The Text.
authorities quoted for the various readings to the text of the Epistle are taken directly from Tischendorf's great collection (Nov. Test. Graec. vol. ii. ed. 8, Lipsiae,
The
1872),
with some verification of the Patristic testimony. For a fuller account of these authorities the student must be referred to the Prolegomena to Tischendorf's edition (mainly the work of Dr. C. R.
Gregon
1884, 1890, 1894), and to the

Miller,
latest edition
of Scrivener's
briefly
Introduction (ed.
London, 1894).
They may be
enumerated as follows
(1)
Greek Manuscripts.
Primary
uncials.
Cod. Sinaiticus, saec. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St, Catherine on Mt. Sinai now at St. Petersburg. Contains the whole Epistle complete.
;
Its
correctors are
N" contemporary, or MS. of high value;
nearly so, and representing a second
N6 N
c
attributed by Tischendorf to saec. vi ; attributed to the beginning of saec.

this
vii.
Two
about
A.
date are sometimes distinguished as
hands of N ca and
B.
C.
Cod. Alexandrinus, saec. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles I in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete. Cod. Vaticanus, saec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly since 1533 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul Hi a Pant v, Complete. p. 86). The corrector B 2 is nearly of the same date and used a good copy, though not quite so good as the original. Some six centuries later the faded characters were retraced, and a few new readings introduced by J3\ Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, saec. v. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Epistle, with the exception of
; *
the following passages

1
ii.
5 [ko\tcl de
ttjv
vno tov
vofiov
p.
Dr. Gregory would carry back the evidence further, to 152 1 {Proleg. 360), but M. Batiffol could find no trace of the MS. in the earlier rrsts.
lxiv
iii.
. .
EPISTLE TO THE
21
.
ROMANS
15
:
[ 7.
ix.
6 ovx olov
10.
iav X.
xi.
31
[j]7re'i]dr)(Tav
ra
7r\rjpcofJ.a xiii.
D.
Once at Graeco-Latinus. Cod. Claromontanus, saec. vi. Clermont, near Beauvais (if the statement of Beza is to be Contains the trusted), now in the National Library at Paris. dycnrrjTois Qeov Pauline Epistles, but Rom. i. 1, naOXo?
.
. .
i.
7, is
missing,
(in the
Latin
i.
and i. 27 i^Kavdrja-nv 24-27) is supplied by a

. .
efavperas kcikuv
i.
30
later
hand
E.
F.
Cod. Sangermanensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Formerly [This MS. at St. Germain-des-PreX now at St. Petersburg. might well be allowed to drop out of the list, as it is nothing more than a faulty copy of D.] Cod. Augiensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Bought by Bentley in Germany, and probably written at Reichenau (Augia Major); now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. eu To> v6[nq>~\ iii. 19 is missing, both Rom. i. 1 TlavXos
.
.
in the
Greek and Latin
texts.
G.
Written at Graeco-Latinus. Cod. Boernerianus, saec. ix ex. Trio-Tew Rom. i. 1 a<fia pianos St. Gall, now at Dresden. v6p.ov $s ii. 25 are missing. i. 5, and ii. 16 ra Kpynra Originally formed part of the same MS. with A (Cod. San.
gallensis^ of the Gospels.

It has been suggested by Traube (Waltenbach, Anleitung zur Griech. Paldographie, ed. 3, 1895, p. 41) that this MS. was written by the same hand as a well-known Psalter in the library of the Arsenal at Paris which bears the signature S^SuXios 2/cottos kyw Zypaipa. The resemblance of the handwriting is close, as may be seen by comparing the facsimile of the Paris Psalter published by Omont in the Milanges Graux, p. 313, with that of the This St. Gall Gospels in the Palaeographical Society's series (i. pi. 179). fact naturally raises the further question whether the writer of the MS. of of the comSt. Paul's Epistles is not al<o to be identified with the compiler mentary entitled Collectanea in omnes B. Fault Epistolas Migne, Patrol. The answer Lat. ciii. 9-128), which is also ascribed to a Sedulius Scotus.' must be in the negative. The commentary presents none of the characteristic readings of the MS., and appears to represent a higher grade of scholarship. It is more probable that the scribe belonged to the fratres hellenici who formed a sort of guild in the monastery of St. Gall (see the authorities quoted in Caspari, Quellen zum Taiifsymbol, iii. 475 n, and compare Berger, Hutoire de la Vulgate, p. 137). There are several instances of the name Sedulius Scotus (^Migne, P. L. ut step.).
( '
'
'
It should be noted that of these MSS. SABCare parts of what were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter D E F G are all throughout the LXX and Greek Testament Graeco-Latin, and are different MSS. from those which bear the same notation on the Gospels and Acts. In Westcott and Hort's
;
Introduction they are distinguished as
D E F G
2 3
MS., Cod. Coislinianus (H or H 2 ), which, however, exists only in see below. fragments, is unfortunately wanting for this Epistle
:
An
important
7.]
THE TEXT
Secondary uncials.
lxv
K.
L.
Cod. Mosquensis, saec ix. Brought to Moscow from the monastery of St. Dionysius on Mount Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Rom. x. 1 8 d\Xd \tya> to the end is missing. Cod. Angelicus, saec. ix. In the Angelican Library of the Augustinian monks at Rome. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Romans complete.
P.
Cod. Porphyrianus, saec. ix in. A palimpsest brought from the East by Tischendorf and called after its present owner Bishop Porphyry. Contains Rom. ii. 15 [dno\oyov^ fj.ivwv . Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul., Apoc.
.
S.
2.
iVa jy /i[t' kK\oyr]V~\ iii. 5 viii. 35 fc>eos 6 8iKaiu>v Ovaiav xii. 1 are missing. ix. II ; xi. 22 fcal diroTo/xiav Cod. Athous Laurae, saec. viii-ix. In the monasteiy Laura on Mount Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Romans complete. This MS. has not yet been collated. Formerly belonging to the Basilian monks Cud. Patiriensis, saec. v. of the abbey of Sta. Maria de lo Patire near Rossano, now in the There is some reason to think that the MS. may have come Vatican. Abbaye de Rossano, pp. 6, originally from Constantinople (cf. Batiffol, Twenty-one palimpsest leaves, containing portions 79 and 62, 71-74). These include Rom. xiii. 4-xv. 9. of Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. study of readings from this MS. is published in the Revue Biblique
77
ddiKia
fjifxaiv']
for April, 1895.
Minuscules.
A
5.
17.
31.
few only of the leading minuscules can be given, (- Evv. 5, Act. 5), saec. xiv. At Paris; atone time in Calabria. At Paris. (= Evv. 33, Act. I3\ saec. ix (Omont, ix-x Gregory). Called by Eichhorn the queen of cursives.' (=Act. 25, Apoc. 7). Written 10S7 a.d. Belonged to John Covell, now in the British English chaplain at Constantinople about 1675
'
Museum.
32.
37.
47.
67.
The well-known 'Leicester Act. 31, Apoc. 14), saec. xv. Ferrar group,' the archetype of which was probably written in Calabria. Now in the Bodleian, but at one time belonged to the monasSaec. xi. tery of the Holy Trinity on the island of Chalcis. (=Act 66, Apoc. 34), saec. xi. Now at Vienna: at one time in the
MS.'; one of the
(= Act. 26\ (=Evv. 69,
saec. xii.
Has a
similar history to the last.
71. 80.
The possession of Arsenius, archbishop of Monemvasia in Epidaurus. marginal corrector (67**) drew from a MS. containing many peculiar for extant Paul., which is not and ancient readings akin to those of Ep. to Romans. At Vienna. Thought to have been written in Calabria. Saec. x-xi.
(
(
93.
In the Vatican. Act. 73), saec. xi. At Naples. Said to have Act. 83, Apoc. 99), saec. xii (Gregory). been compared with a MS. of Pamphilus, but as yet collated only in
= =
137. 252.
a few places. At Paris. ( = Evv. 263, Act. 117), saec. xiii-xiv. (Gregory, 260 Scrivener = Evv. 48Q. Greg., 507 Scriv. Act. 195 Greg., 224 Scriv.). In the library of Trin. Coll., Cambridge. Wiitten on Mount Sinai in the year 1316. These MSS. are partly those which have been noticed as giving conspicuous readings in the commentary, partly thos? on which stress is laid by Hort {Introd. p. 166), and paitly those which Bousset connects with his Codex Pamphili (see below).
;
'
lxvi

(2)
[ 7
Versions.
The
versions quoted are the following
The
Latin (Latt.). The Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet.). The Vulgate (Vulg.).
The Egyptian (Aegypt.). The Bohairic (Boh.). The Sahidic (Sah.). The Syriac (Syrr.). The Peshitto (Pesh.). The Harclean (Hard.). The Armenian (Arm.). The Gothic (Goth.). The Ethiopic (Aeth.).
Of these the Vetus Latina is very imperfectly preserved to us. possess only a small number of fragments of MSS. These are
: ;
We
gue. Cod. Guelferbytanus, saec. vi, which contains fragments of Rom. xi. 33-xti. 5; xii. 17-xiii. 5 ; xiv. 9-20 xv. 3-13. r. Cod. Frisingensis saec. v or vi, containing Rom. xiv. 10-xv. 13. r3 Cod. Gottvicensis, saec. vi or vii, containing Rom. v. 16-vi. avi. 6-19.
.
iv), and to the so-called Speculum S. Augustini (cited as text also of the fourth century [see below, p. 124).
but is very much modified f is the Vulgate translation, altered with the help of g or a MS. closely akin to g. For the Fathers we are mainly indebted to the quotations in Tertullian (saec. ii iii), Cyprian (saec. iii), the Latin Irenaeus (saec. ii, or more probably iv), Hilary of Poitiers (saec.
;
The texts of these fragments are, however, neither early (relatively to the history of the Version) nor of much interest. To supplement them we have the Latin versions of the bilingual MSS. F mentioned above, usually quoted as d e f g, and quotations in the Latin Fathers. The former do not strictly represent the underlying Greek of the Version, as they are too much conformed to their own Greek, d (as necessarily e) follows an Old-Latin text not in all cases altered to suit the Greek g is based on the Old Latin
DE G
m), a Spanish
two specimens are given in the course of the commentary of the evidence furnished by the Old-Latin Version (see on i. 30; v. 3-5 viii. 36), which may also serve to illustrate the problems raised in connexion with the history of the Version. They have however more to do with the changes
or
;
One
in the Latin diction of the
Version than with
its text.
agreement to be reached. For the Vulgate the following MSS. are occasionally quoted: am. Cod. Amiatinus c. 700 A. D. fuld. Cod. Fuldensis c. 546 a. d.
hail. British
tol.
1879; but the subject has not as yet been sufficiently worked at for a general
ment of the Vetus Latina of St. Paul's Epistles will be found in Ziegler, Die lateimschen Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymtis, Miinchen,
The
fullest treat-
Museum
Cod. Toletanus.
Harl. 1775. Saec. vi or vii. Saec. x, or rather perhaps viii (see Berber, His-
toire de la Vulgate,^. \).
The Vulgate
and cursory as
of St. Paul's Epistles is a revision of the to be hardly an independent authority. It
Old Latin so slight was however made
7.]
THE TEXT
lxvii
with the help of the Greek MSS., and we have the express statement of St. Jerome himself that in Rom. xii. he substituted Domino servientes for tempori servientes of the older Version (Ep. xxvii. 3 ad Marcellam). gather from this letter that Jerome's edition had been issued in the year 385 A. D. Of the Egyptian Versions, Bohairic is that usually known as Memphitic H.) and cited by Tisch. as Coptic (' cop.'). For the reasons (- * me.' which make it correct to describe it as Bohairic see Scrivener, Introd. ii. 106, ed. 4. It is usually cited according to Tischendorf (who appears in the Epistles to have followed Wilkins; see Tisch. N.T. p. ccxxxiv, ed. 7), but in some few instances on referring to the original it has become clear that his quotations cannot always be trusted: see the notes on v. 6; viii. 28; x. 5 xvi. 27. This suggests that not only a fresh edition of the text, but also a fresh collation with the Greek, is much needed. In the Sahidic (Thebaic) Version ( = -sah.' Tisch., 'the.' WH.) some few readings have been added from thj fragments published by Amelineau in the Zeitschrift fur Aegypt. Sprache, 1887. These fragments contain vi. 20-23 vii. 1-21 viii. 15-38 ix. 7-23 xi. 31-36; xii. 1-9. The reader may be reminded that the Peshitto Syriac was certainly current
We
'
'
form early in the fourth century. How much earlier than this it was in use, and what amount of change it had previously undergone, are questions still being debated. In any case, there is no other form
in its present
much
of the Version extant for the Pauline Epistles. The Harclean Syriac (= syr. posterior]' Tisch., 'hi.' WH.) is a recension made by the Monophysite Thomas of Harkhel or Heraclea in 616 A. D., of the older Philoxenian Version of 508 A. D., which for this part of the N.T. is now lost. special importance attaches to the readings, sometimes in the text but more often in the margin, which appear to be derived from < three (v. 1. two) approved and accurate Greek copies in the monastery of the Enaton near Alexandria (WH. Introd. p. 156 f.). The Gothic Version is also definitely dated at about the middle of the fourth century, and the Armenian at about the middle of the fifth. The dates of the two Egyptian Versions and of the Ethiopic are still uncertain (Scrivener, Introd. ii. 105 f., 154, ed. 4). It is of more importance to know that the types of text which they represent are in any case early, the Egyptian somewhat the older. The abbreviations in references to the Patristic writings are such as it is hoped will cause no difficulty (but see p. ex).
'
'
(2) Internal
successful of
all
Grouping of Authorities. The most promising and the directions in which textual criticism is being
pursued at this moment is that of isolating comparatively small groups of authorities, and investigating their mutual relations and origin. For the Pauline Epistles the groups most affected by recent researches are NB ; N^H, Arm., Eulhal., and in less degree a number of minuscules ; D [E] F G.
NB.
The proofs seem to be thickening which connect these two great MSS. with the library of Eusebius and Pamphilus at Caesarea. That is a view which has been held for some time past (e.g. by the late Canon Cook, Eevised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 159 ff. and Dr. Scrivener, Collation of Cod. Sinaiticus, p. xxxvii f.), but without resting upon any very solid arguments. And it must always be remembered that so excellent a palaeographer as Dr. Ceriani of Milan {ap. Scrivener, Introd. i. 121, ed. 4) thought that B was written in Italy (Magna Gratcia), and that Dr. Hort
;
e 2
lxviil
also gives
[ 7.
some reasons for ascribing an Italian origin to this MS. We are however confronted by the fact that there is a distinct probability that both MSS. if they were not written in the same place had at least in part the same scribes. It was first pointed out by Tischendorf (N. T. Vat., Lipsiae, 1867, pp. xxi-xxiii), on grounds which seem to be sufficient, that the writer whom he calls the 'fourth scribe of N wrote also the N.T. portion of B. And, as it has been said, additional arguments are becoming available for connecting N with the library at Caesarea (see Rendel Harris, Stichometry, p. 71 ff. and the essay of Bousset referred to below). The provenance of N would only carry with it approximately and not exactly that of B. The conditions would be satisfied if it were possible, or not difficult, for the same scribe to have a hand in both. For instance, the view that X had its Origin in Palestine would not be inconsistent with the older view, recently revived and defended by Bousset, that B was an Egyptian MS. There would be so much coming and going between Palestine and Egypt, especially among the followers of Origen, that they would belong virtually to the same region. But when Herr Bousset goes further and maintains that the text of B represents the recension of Hesychius l , that is another matter, and as it seems to us, at least prima facie, by no means probable. The text of B must needs be older than the end of the third century, which is the date assigned to Hesychius. If we admit that the MS. may be Egyptian, it is only as one amongst several possibilities. Nothing can as yet be
'
regarded as proved. Apart from such external data as coincidences of handwriting which connect the two MSS. as they have come down to us there can be no doubt that they had also a common ancestor far back in the past. The weight which their agreement carries does not depend on the independence of their testimony so much as upon its early date. That the date of their common readings is in fact extremely early appears to be proved by the number of readings in which they differ, these divergent readings being shared not by any means always by the same but by a great variety oi other authorities. From this variety it may be inferred that between the point of divergence of the ancestors of the two MSS. and the actual MSS. the fortunes of each had been quite distinct. Not only on a single occasion, but on a number of successive occasions, new strains of text have been introduced on one or other of the lines. N especially has received several side streams in the course of its history, now of the colour which we call ' Western and now 'Alexandrian'; and B also (as we shall see) in the Pauline Epistles has a clear infusion of Western readings. It is possible that all these may have come in from a single copy but it is less likely that all the Western or all the 'Alexandrian' readings which are found in N had a single origin. Indeed the history of N since it was written does but reflect the history of its ancestry. We have only to suppose the corrections of N a embodied in the text of one MS., then those of N b first inserted in the margin and then embodied in the text of a succeeding MS., then those of N ca in a third and N cb in a fourth, to form a mental picture of the process by which our present MS. became what it is. It remains for critical analysis to reconstruct this process, to pick to pieces the different elements of which the text 01 the MS. consists, to arrange them in their order and determine their affinities. This analysis will doubtless be carried further than it has been.
' ; ' '
N C H, Arm.,
Euthal.
tf would seem in part independently to have succeeded in proving an intimate relation between this group of
1
number of scholars working on
N B
similar view is held by Corssen. He regards the modern text based on as nur ein Spiegelbild einer willkiirlich fixierten Recension des vierten
Berlin, 1892, p. 24).
Jahrhunderts {Der Cyprianische Textd. Acta Apostolorum,
'
7.]
authorities
THE TEXT
lxix
and in tracking it to its source, which if the speculations mentioned above as to N B should be made good would also bring it into some juxtaposition with them. The MS. Paul, (unfortunately, as we have said, not extant for Romans) bears upon its face the traces of its connexion with the library of Caesarea, as the subscription to Ep. to Titus states expressly that the MS. was corrected 'with the copy at Caesarea in the library of the holy Pamphilus written with his own hand.' Now in June, 893, Dr. Rendel Harris pointed out a connexion between this MS. Paul, and Euthalius (Stichometry, p. 88). This had also been noticed by Dr. P. Corssen in the second of the two programmes cited below (p. 12). Early in 1894 Herr W. Bousset brought out in Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte u. Untersuchnngen a series of Text-kritische Studien zum N. T., in the course of which (without any concert with Dr. Rendel Harris, but perhaps with some knowledge of Corssen) he not only adduced further evidence of this connexion, but also brought into the group the third corrector of N (N c ). A note at the end of the Book of Esther said to be by his hand speaks in graphic terms of a MS. corrected by the Hexapla of Origen, compared by Antoninus a confessor, and corrected by Pamphilus in prison (i. e. just before his death in the persecution of Diocletian). Attention had often been drawn to this note, but Herr Bousset was the first to make the full use of it which it deserved. He found on examination that the presumption raised by it was verified and that there was a real and close connexion between the readings of N c and those of and Euthalius which were independently associated with Pamphilus 1 Lastly, to complete the series of novel and striking observations, Mr. F. C. Conybeare comes forward in the current number of the Journal of Philology (no. 46, 1895) and maintains a further connexion of the group with the Armenian Version. These researches are at present in full swing, and will doubtless lead by degrees to more or less definite results. The essays which have been mentioned all contain some more speculative matter in addition to what has been mentioned, but it is also probable that they have a certain amount of solid nucleus. It is only just what we should have expected. The library founded by Pamphilus at Caesarea was the greatest and most famous of all the book-collections in the early Christian centuries; it was also the greatest centre of literary and copying activity just at the moment when
'
its greatest expansion the prestige not only of Eusebius and Pamphilus, but of the still more potent name (for some time yet to come) of Origen, attached to it. It would have been strange if it had not been consulted trom far and wide and if the influence of it were not felt in many parts of Christendom.
;
Christianity received
D F G,
^
Goth.
only is E a mere copy of D, but there is a very close relation between G, especially in the Greek. It is not as yet absolutely determined what that relation is. In an essay written in 1871 (reprinted in Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 321 ff.) Dr. Hort states his opinion that F Greek is a direct copy of G, F Latin a Vulgate text partly assimilated to the Greek and with intrusive readings from the Latin of G. Later {Introd. p. 150) he writes that F is as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of G as E of D if not it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar.' This second alternative is the older view, adopted by Scrivener {Introd. p. 181, ed. 3) and maintained with detailed arguments in two elaborate programmes by Dr. P. Corssen {Epp. Paulin. Codd. Aug. Boern. Clarom., 1887 and 1889).
Not
F and
'
him
led
writer of this regrets that pressure of other occupations compelled to put aside Herr Bousset's article when it first appeared, or it would have to pay closer attention to some of the less-known minuscule MSS. of Ep. to Rom.
The
him
Ixtf
[ 7.
are not sure that the question can still be regarded as settled in this and that Dr. Hort's original view is not to be preferred. Dr. Corssen admits that there are some phenomena which he cannot explain 1887, p. 13). and the These would fall naturally in'o their place if F Gk. is a copy of arguments on the other sice do not seem to be decisive. In any case it Gk. are practically one witness and should be remembered that F Gk. and
sense,
(
We
not two. Dr. Corssen reached a number of other interesting conclusions. Examining he showed that they were ultimately derived the common element in from a single archetype (Z), and that this archetype was written per cola et comma/a, or in clauses corresponding to the sense (sometimes called aTi\oi), as may be seen in the Palaeographical Society's facsimile of Here again we have another coincidence of inde(ser. i. pi. 63, 64). pendent workers, for in 1891 Dr. Rendel Harris carrying further a suggestion of Rettig's had thrown out the opinion, that not only did the same system of colometry lie behind Cod. A Evv. (the other half, as we remember, of Evv. Act. (Cod. Bezae, which holds a like place in the G Paul.) and Paul.), but that it also extended to the other imporGospel and Acts to tant Old-Latin MS. k (Cod. Bobiensis), and even to the Curetonian Syriac to which we suppose may now be added the Sinai palimpsest. If that were so an(j indeed without this additional evidence Dr. Corssen probably puts the limit too late when he says that such a MS. is not likely to have been written before the time of St. Chrysostom, or 407 a. D. Thus Dr. Corssen thinks that there arose early in the fifth century a Graeco-Latin edition,' the Latin of which was more in agreement with Victorinus Ambrosiaster and the Spanish Speculum. For the inter-connexion and he of this group he adduces a striking ins.ance from 1 Cor. xiii. 1 argues that the locality in which it arose was more probably Italy than Africa. As to the place of origin we are more inclined to agree with him than as to the date, though the Speculum contains an African element. He then points out that this Graeco-Latin edition has affinities with the Gothic Version. The edition did not contain the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle to the Romans in it ended at Rom. xv. 14 (see 9 below) it was entirely without the doxology (Rom. xvi. 25-27). Dr. Corssen thinks that this Graeco-Latin edition has undergone some by comparison with Greek MSS. and therefore that it is in correction in part more correctly preserved in G, which however in its turn can only be
#
DFG
'
used for reconstructing it with caution. Like all that Dr. Corssen writes this sketch is suggestive and likely to be only fruitful, though we cannot express our entire agreement with it. regret that we cannot undertake here the systematic inquiry which certainly ought to be made into the history of this group. The lines which it should [i) It should reconstruct as far as follow would be something of this kind, and G. (ii) It should isolate the possible the common archetype of between earlier and later distinguish and peculiar element in both MSS. readings. The instances in which the Greek has been conformed to the Latin {m) The will probably be found to be late and of little real importance, should be carefully collected and peculiar and ancient readings in An opportunity might be found of testing more closely the hypostudied. (iv) The relations of the thesis propounded in 9 of this Introduction, Gothic Version to the group should be determined as accurately as possible, should be and of the archetype of (v) The characteristics both of compared with those of Cod. Bezae and the Old-Latin MSS. of the Gospels
We
Gg
DG
and Acts.
The textual (3) The Textual Criticism of Epistle to Romans. criticism of the Pauline Epistles generally is inferior in interest to
7.]
that of the Historical said
it
THE TEXT
is
Ixxf
Books of the New Testament. When this is not meant that investigations such as those outlined above Anyare not full of attraction, and in their way full of promise. thing which throws new light on the history of the text will be found But in the end to throw new light on the history of Christianity.
what is meant is that the textual phenomena are less marked, and have a less distinctive and individual character. This may be due to two causes, both of which have really been On the one hand, the latitude of variation was probably at work. never from the first so great and on the other hand the evidence which has come down to us is inferior both in quantity and quality,
;
and those just the most reconstruct simply for want of material. conspicuous instance of both conditions is supplied by the state of what is called the Western Text/ It is probable that this text never diverged from the other branches so widely as
so
that there are parts of the history
interesting parts
which we cannot
'
does in the Gospels and Acts; and just for that section of it which diverged most we have but little evidence. For the oldest forms of this text we are reduced to the quotations in Tertullian and Cyprian. We have nothing like the best of the Old-Latin MSS. of the Gospels and Acts nothing like forms of the Syriac Versions such as the Curetonian and Sinaitic nothing like the Diatessaron. And yet when we look broadly at the variants to the Pauline
it
;
;
Epistles
to
we observe
N.T.
rest of the
the
Romans
to
same main lines of distribution as in the glance at the apparatus- criticus of the Epistle will show the tendency of the authorities to fall
the
groups NB; These really correlike groups in the other Books correspond to the group which, in the nomenclature of Westcott and Hort, is called Western N B appear (with other leading MSS. added) to mark the line which they would call Neutral iÂCLP would include, but would not be identical with, the group which they call
into the
DEFG;
;
NACLP.
:
spond
DEFG
' ;
'
'
'
Alexandrian.' The later uncials generally (with accessions every now and then from the older ranks) would constitute the family
'
Syrian,' and which others have called Antiochene,' 'Byzantine,' Constantinopolitan,' or 'Ecclesiastical.' Exception is taken to some of these titles, especially to the term Western,' which is only retained because of its long-established use, and no doubt gives but a very imperfect geographical description of the facts. It might be proposed to substitute names suggested in most cases by the leading MS. of the group, but geneialized so as to cover other authorities as well. For instance, we might speak of the 8-text ( Western'), the |3-text (= Neutral'), the a-text ( Alexandrian '), and the c-text or a-text (=' Ecclesiastical* or 'Syrian'). Such terms would beg no questions; they would simply describe facts. It would be an advantage that the
'
' ' '
which they designate as
'
'
'
lxxii
EPISTLE TO THE
'8-text'
ROMANS
[ 7.
would be equally suggested by the leading MS. and Acts, and in the Pauline Epistles the term p-text,' while suggested by B, would carry with it no assumption would recall equally Alexandrian and a-text of superiority and e-text or a-text would not imply Codex Alexandrinus any inherent inferiority, but would only describe the undoubted facts, either that the text in question was that generally accepted by the Church throughout the Middle Ages, or that in its oldest form it can be traced definitely to the region of Antioch and northern Syria. It is certain that this text (alike for Gospels, Acts, and Epistles) appears in the fourth century in this region, and spread from it while as to the debated point of its previous history nothing would be either affirmed or denied.
same term
in
1
the Gospels
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
If some such nomenclature as this were adopted a further step might be taken by distinguishing the earlier and later stages of the same text as 8 1 8 2 &c, o-1 or2 &c. It would also have to be noted that although in the vast majority of cases the group would include the MS. from which it took its name, still in some instances it would not include it, and it might even be ranged on the opposite side. This would occur most often with the a-text and A, but it would occur also occasionally with the |3-text and B (as conspicuously in Rom. xi. 6). Such being the broad outlines of the distribution of authorities on the
,
,
Epistle to the Romans, we ask, What are its distinctive and individual These are for the mo-t part shared with the rest of the Pauline features? Epistles. One of the advantages which most of the other Epistles possess. Romans is without none of the extant fragments of Cod. belong to it. This deprives us of one important criterion ; but conclusions obtained for the other Epistles may be applied to this. For instance, the student will observe carefully the readings of N c and Arm. Sufficient note has unfortunately not been taken of them in the commentary, as the clue was not in the writer's hands when it was written. In this respect the reader must be asked to supplement it. He should of course apply the new test with caution, and judge each case on its merits only careful use can show to what When we consider the mixed origin of nearly all ancient extent it is valid. texts, sweeping propositions and absolute rules are seen to be out of
:
place.
The specific characteristics of the textual apparatus of Romans may be said to be these : (i) the general inferiority in boldness and originality of the 8- or Western) text (ii) the fact that there is a distinct Western element in
v ;
8- or Western the consequent rise in importance of the group ^ (iv) the existence of a few scattered readings either of B alone or of B in combination with one or two other authorities which have considerable intrinsic probability and may be right. proceed to say a few words on each of these heads. (i) The first must be taken with the reservations noted above. The Western or 8-text has not it is true the bold and interesting variations which are found in the Gospels and Acts. It has none of the striking interpolations which in those Books often bring in ancient and valuable matter. That may be due mainly to the fact that the interpolations in question are for the most part historical, and therefore would naturally be looked for in the Historical Books. In Ep. to Romans the more important 8-variants are not interpolations but omissions (as e.g. in the Gospel of St. Luke). Still
it is
B,
which therefore when

is
combined with authorities of the

(iii)
type
diminished in value;
AC
We
7.]
THE TEXT
lxxiii
these variants preserve some of the freedom of correction and paraphrase to which we are accustomed elsewhere.
E.
g.
iii.
9 ri TrpoKaTi X oixti> -nipiaaov

Trpo^x^yiiQa
;
D*
G, Chrys. Orig.-lat.
al.
ri olv
'
rel.
19 ov tcarevdrjaev E F G, &c. Orig.-lat. Epiph. Ambrstr. al /caTtuorjw N A B C al. v. robs dfxapTâavras 62, 63, 67**, Orig.-lat. Codd. Lot. afi. Aug., Ambrstr. em tovs ^7) dp,np T r]aavias rcl. vii. 6 toO flara E F G, Codd. ap. Orig.-lat. al. diroOavov rel. xii. 11 icv Kat pw SovKevorrcs D* F G, Codd. Lat. ap. Hieron. ap. Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. t<2 Kup/a; Soi/AtiWrtj ;-<?/. 13 rafs prfffais dyiwv D* F G, 6Wfl. a/.'Theod. Mops. /. Orig.-lat. Hil. Ambrstr. al. rats xpats tSjv dylcvu rel. [These two readings were perhaps due in the first instance to accidental errors of transcription.]
iv.
I4M
tw
XV. 13 n\T)po<pop7i(Tai 22 iroWatcis
BDEFG:
BFG
irXrjpwam
rel.
rel.
rd
noWd
:
31 8<opo(popia B D* F G, Ambrstr. S.aicovia rel. The most interesting aspect of this branch of the text is the history of its antecedents as represented by the common archetype of G, and even more by the peculiar element in G. The most prominent of these readings are discussed below in 9, but a still further investigation of them in connexion with allied phenomena in other Epistles is desirable. (ii) It will have been seen that in the last three readings just given B joins with the unmistakably Western authorities. And this phenomenon is in point of fact frequently repeated. have it also in the omission of fnpwrop 1. 16; om. yap ni. 2 om. rfj ikVtk v. 2 *ins. fxiv vi. 21 Sid t6 ; tvoiKovv avTovJIvtdva viii. 11 (where however there is a great mass of other authorities); *om. ^crovs and *om. Ik vwpwv viii. dLaOrjKt) ix. 77 34 4; ins. ovv ix. 19; *uTt after vo/xov and *fauro ins. after notrjaas x. Iv
We
om. yap xiv. 5 om. ovv, dnoSwaei, fom. tw @ea> xiv. 12 *add r) 20 oitavOaX^trat rj uaOfvu xiv. 21 rp,ds xv. 7; ttju [mvxTja'iu'] xv. 17. It is perhaps significant that in all the instances marked with * the group is joined by N<=. It may be through a copy related to the Codex Pamphih thai these readings came into B. We also note that the latest and worst of all the readings found in B, the long addition in xi. 6 el 51 If Zpywv ovtceri (om. tori B) X doir kirel to tpyov ov/cirt earl x dpi<> (sicB; tpyov al.) is shared by B with N<=L. In the instances marked with f, and in xv. 13 Tr\r) ocpo r)oai, B agrees not with P P D but with G but on the other hand in vm. 34 (om. 'Irjorovs) and in xv. 7 it agrees with D against G so that the resemblance to the peculiar element in the latter MS. does not stand out quite clearly. In the other instances both and G are represented. (111) When Bthus iôes over to the Western or S-group the main support of the alternative reading is naturally thrown upon N A C. This is a group which outside the Gospels and Acts and especially in Past. Epp. Heb. and Apoc. (with or without other support) has not seldom preserved the right reading. It becomes in fact the main group wherever B is not extant. The principal difficulty and it is one of the c'lief of the not very numerous textual difficulties in Romans is to determine whether these MSS. really retain the original text or whether their reading is one of the finer Alexandrian corrections. This ambiguity besets us (e.g.) in the very complex attestation of viii. 11. The combination is strengthened where are joined by the Westerns as in iii. 28. In this instance, as in a few others, they are opposed by BC, a pair which do not carry quite as much weight in the Epistles as they would in the Gospels. (iv) It may appear paradoxical, but the value of B seems to rise when
; ;
;
;
[rots] x.
<
NA
it
is
deserted by all
or nearly all other uncials.
Appearances
may
bq
lxxiv
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[ 7.
deceptive, but there is not a little reason for thinking that the following readings belong to the soundest innermost kernel of the MS.
iv. I
om.
evprjKtvai.
v.
(l ye.
vii.
viii.
25 x/" s T V
. .
( V;
24 b yap (3\enei, ris f\m(i . on Kvpios 'Irjoovs. 9 to p'rjp.a xiv. 13 om. Trp6oKop.ua ... 7/. xv. 19 Tlvtvparos without addition. As all these readings have been discussed more or less fully in the com mentary, they need only be referred to heie. Two more readings present considerable attractions. ix. 23 om. /rat. xvi. 27 om. (2. They are however open to some suspicion of being corrections to ease the The question is whether or not they are valid exceptions to construction. Such exceptions the rule that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. there undoubtedly are and it is at least a tenable view that these are among them. Other singular, or subsingular, readings of B will be found in xv. 4, 13, But these are less attractive and less important. 30, 32.
X.
;
8.
Literary History.
The literary history of the Epistle to the Romans begins earlier Not only is it clearly than that of any other book of the N.T. and distinctly quoted in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, but even within the N.T. canon there are very close resemblances both in thought and language between it and at least three other books these resemblances we must first consider. We shall begin with the first Epistle of St. Peter. In the following table the passages in which there is a similarity between
the two Epistles are
compared
Rom. ix. 25 KaXeoa) fiov Xaov /Jiov, fcal rr)v

piivrjv fjyaTrrjp:tvT]v.
ov Xadv
rjyaTrr]-
Peter
ii.
10
01 irore
ov Kaos, vvv
vvv
ovk
8k
Xads
eov, 01 ovk
r)XeT]piivoi,
dk kXet]9evT(s.
Rom.ix.
32, 33
jrpoaeKorpav t>
Kadcbs
Xl0w tov TtpoaKopp-aTOs,
yiypairrai, 'ISov, Ti6r)p.i iv 'Siwv
I Peter ii. 6-8 'iSov, TiOrjpii kv ~Siwv XiOov dicpoycuviatov ckXcktSv, evrip-ov' ical 6 itiGTtvoiv lir' avrw
XiOov n pooKopmaros Kai irirpav oKavBdkov' xai 6 JTiorevcuv kir' avTtp ov Karat oxvvdr)Otrai.
ov
pi)
Karaioxwdfi
tis
ovtos
8
kyivr)6r]
Kf>aXr)v
ywvias,
Kai
XiOos irpooKop:p.aTos Kai rrirpa OKavoaXov, o\ irpoo kotttovoi ra> Xoyco diT(iOovvTS, ds t Kai IreOrjoai'.
I
Rom. xii.
vpLwv
napaoTrjcrai
rrjv
rd ocupara
Peter
ii.
5 avevtyKai vvevp.ariKas
dvoiav tov t$ &ew,

VpMlV.
^Sjoav, dyiav,
evopeaXoytKTjv Xarptiav
Ovoias tvirpoodiKTovs <

Xp.
I
did
'I.
Rom.
fcoOf t>
xii.
p.r)
<rvoxVfJLaTl"
Peter
i.
14
p.r)
alaivi
tovtw.
p.(voi reus
npoTtpov \v
o vo~xVfiaTl {6ttj dyvoia vpMV

,
kmOvpiais.
8.]
LITERARY HISTORY
be
Ixxv
St.
The following passages seem to thoughts and words

:
modelled on
Paul's
Rom.
xii.
.
3
.
dAAd
.
<ppoveiv els rb
Peter
iv.
Gaxppoveiv
7-1 1 wdvrwv Se to re\os

j
6 exovres 81 x a p' L vara kcltcL tt)v X<*piv tt)v SoOtiaav rjpuv 8id(popa . , . eire Siaucoviav, ev tt\
SiaKoviq.
.
.
xpare
tls
rjyyi/te- acotypovrjaaTe ovv Kal els wpoGevxds- irpb ttovtwv
77-
tt}i/
eKrevi) exovres, ore dydirrj KaXvirrei it\rj0os a/iapTiuiw

els dWrjKovs, dvev yoyyvo-fiov'eKao-Tos Ka6ws e\a0e Y*fffia, els eavTovs avrb StaKovovvres, Cl)S KaXol OIKOVOflOl ttoik'iXtjs xP'tos &eov' et tcs XaXei, Jjs \6yia Qeov' ei
eaiTovs
dyaTTTjv
<pikoevoi
kKaoTa) &s 6*ebs

iTLOTioJS.
ejxepioe
perpov
Cf. also
xii. 9, 13.
Rom.
xiii.
11-14; 8-10;
Tts
oiaKovei, us &eos.
If laxvos
rjs
xopW"
Rom.
Kptros
els
.
xii.
,
.
r)
0707777
dvviro-
IO if
<pi\a8e\<piq
dWrjKovs
I Peter i. 22 rds ipvxds vjxwv r)yviKoTes . els (pi\adeX(piav dvviro.
<pi\uOTOpyoi.
Kpnov
e/c
KapSias dA.A77A.ovs dyairr)-
aare CKTeyais.
Rom. xii. 16 to ccuto els dWrjXovs cppovovvres- ur) rd iif/r/Xd <ppovovvres, dAAd tois Taireivois cvi away 6^*1/01. /xt) yiveade <ppovijxoi nap tuvTois.
J
prjSevl
KaKov dvrl Kanov

irporoovpuvoi
airobibovTes'
Taneivocppoves, fir) dvrl Ka/eov 7) Xoidopiav dvrl \0180pias, Tovvavriov 8 evXoyovvTes, on els tovto inKrj-
l^ Peter iii. bp.6<ppoves, evanXayxyoi,
8,
9 t3 oe re\os, irdvTes
(pt\d5e\<pot,
o-v/x-rradets,
diro8t8o^Tes itaicbv
Ka\d
6r]Te i'va
evXoyiav
Be
evwniov TravTOJV dvOpdnrcvv 18 el 8vvar6v, rb e vp.<uv, fxerd navrwv dvdpwiTwv tlprjv evovres. Cf. also vv. 9, 14.
K\r)povop.T}ar)Te
II
eKKXivaTOj
irotTjcraTa}
dyaOov
Kaitov, Kal r]T7]oaTto elpr\vi]V

dirb
Kal 8iouaTcv avTrjv.
Rom. xiii. 1 irdaa ipv\r) eovoiais vnepexovaais viroraa aeoOoj'

oil
Peter
ii.
dvdpcvirtvr)
yap eaTiv kovaia

8k
.
el pif) virb
&eov,
etre
KTiaet âaiXeT, d>s
13-17 bnoTdyrjTe -ndarf did rbv Kvpiov,

vire pexovTi,
etre
at
olaai iirb
.
&eov
Terayjxevat
dcrtv
01
rw dyaOS)
8ikos
govti
.
4 &eov yap
.
.
yap dpxovres ovk tlal (p60os (pya>, dAAd rS> KaKw .. Sia/covos eanv, eit.
tls opyr)i> rS>
rb
KaKov
itpaa-
avrov -nepLtroixevois els eKSiKTjaiy KaKowoiujv e-rraipov 8k dyaOo-noiwv on ovrws ear 1 to OeXr]p.a tov &eov Ttdvras t 1 fir) nare' ri]V d8eX<porr]ra ay air are- tov (debv (pofieiade- tov BaoiXea rifxare.
riyeiioGiv, d>s 81'
.
7 dwoSore waai rds ocpeiXds' t<3 to> <f>6pov tov (popov, TO) to tc'Aos to reXos, t> rby <po(3ov Toy <p6fiov t TW TTjV TiprjV T7> TlflTJV.
Although equal stress cannot be laid on all these passages the resemblance is too great and too constant to be merely accidental. In 1 Pet. ii. 6 we have a quotation from the O.T. with the same variations from the LXX that we find in Rom. ix. 32 (see the note). Not only do we find the same thoughts, such as the metaphorical use of the idea of sacrifice (Rom. xii. 1 1 Pet. ii. 5), and the same rare words, such as ta T,ff0-&u, t\wn6icpiros, but in one passage (Rom. xiii. 1-7; 1 Pet. ii. 13-17) we
lxxvi
[ 8-
evidence, the same ideas have what must be accepted as conclusive Nor can there be any doubt that of occurring in the same order. St. Paul works the earlier. the two the Epistle to the Romans is
St. Peter gives a series of out a thesis clearly and logically; For example, maxims for which he is largely indebted to St. Paul. general principle laid down, in Rom. xiii. 7 we have a broad the phraseology of that passage, St Peter clearly influenced by In St. .Paul the language conduct. of rules three merely Aves in St. Peter out of the sequence of thought
and ideas come
been used for the they are adopted because they had already
same
supported by other This relation between the two Epistles is The same relation which pievails between independent evidence.
the First Epistle of St. Peter
and
the Epistle to the
Romans
is
also
Ephesians, and found to exist between it and the Epistle to the with the fact in that case the same hypothesis harmonizes best of The three Epistles are all connected with Rome one also in all probability two other the city, the to written them being We cannot perhaps be quite certain as beino- written from it. must be earlier than the Apostolic to the date of 1 Peler,.but it at least it in its turn quotes as we see while it quote who Fathers
: ;
two Epistles of
We may Paul and these the most important. as far as they go with the notice that these conclusions harmonize founder of the Roman view taken in 3, that St. Peter was not the to the Romans was Epistle the when it visited not had Church and conclusive In early church history arguments are rarely written of investigation and the even partial coincidence of different lines
St.
;
adds greatly to the strength of each.
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews again was probably Rom. iv. 17 indebted to the Romans, the resemblance between brought out in the is very close and has been and Heb xi. we have the same notes, while in Rom. xii. 19, Heb. x. 30, marked diverpassage of Deuteronomy quoted with the same itself conclusive gences from the text of the LXX. This is not in the version there may have been an earlier form of evidence thinking so ; but the current in fact there are strong grounds for Romans is hypothesis that the author of the Hebrews used the again notice that the Hebrews is certainly the simplest.
We
Roman Church, as is proved by is possible, written early use in that Church, and if it were, as would be from Rome or Italy its indebtedness to this Epistle The two passages referred to are quoted below; for.
book
closelv connected with the
its
accounted
another sufficiently and, although no other passages resemble one that many other of the to be quoted, yet it is quite conceivable character words and phrases in the Hebrews which are Pauline in this Epistle. with acquaintance an from derived ma\ have been
8.]
LITERARY HISTORY
passages referred to are the following
Karivavri ov kmfaonoiovvros tovs
p.r)
lxxvii
The
Rom. iv. 17-21 ffrevo'e &eov tov

Vf/epoiis... Kal
niOTei
i]8r]
Heb.
ekafiev
xi. 11,
12 itiarei Kalavij)
/ca.Ta(io\7)V
~S.ci.ppa
Svvapiiv
teal
eh
anepparos
kirel
fcaTevoTjffe
dadevqaas rfj rb kavrov aupa
-napd Kaipuv rjkiKias,
moTuv
qy/jaaro
tov
kirayyeika.
veveKpoopievov (eKaToiTaerrjs
veKpojffiv ttjs poppas' eh 8k ri)v I 77-07yekiav tov Qeov ov SieKpidrj ttj amGTiq, dkk' eveSvvapwOr) rfj TTiarei, Sovs 8uav ra> 06a), Kal
fxrjTpas
TtKr]po(poprj9ils
ttov iirapxcoi') , ical ttjv
pievov Sib Kal a<f> kvbs eyevvqdrjaaVy Kal ravra veveKpwpevov . .
19 koyiadpevos
kyeipeiv
on
6
Kal ex
veKpwv
Svvarbs
Oeos.
Svvarbs eon
on b kirrjyyekTai Kal troirjaai.

Heb.
x.
Rom. xii. 19 epol eKSUrjais, kyw dvTanoSwaco, \eyet Kvpios.
30
kpol
eKdiKTjffis,
eyu
avTanoSucroo*.
St. James we approach a much problem. The relation between it and the Epistle to the Romans has been often and hotly debated; for it is a theological as well as a literary question. The passages which resemble one another in the two Epistles are given at length by Prof. Mayor in his edition of the Epistle of St. James, p. xciii, who argues strongly in favour of the later date of the Romans. The
When we
pass to the Epistle of
more
difficult
following are
among
the
most important of these; we have not

all his
thought
it
necessary to repeat
1
instances
Rom.
avOpwrre
Kpivets'
Kp'lVOJV.
ii.
81b
dvavokbyqros
ft, <S
ttcLs
Kpivwv
avTa
kv
& yap
b
Kpiveis rbv
to,
erepov,
aeavTuv Kara-npdaaeis
yap
James iv. II /*?} KarakaketTe dkkrjkwv, dSekôi. b Karakakcuv d8ek<pov, 77 Kpivaiv rbv d8e\(f)bv avrov, Karakakei vupiov, Kal Kp'ivei vupov el 8k vbpov Kpiveis, ovk el voiTjTi)s vopov, dkkd KptTTjS. James i. 22 yiveaOe 8k Troirjral Kuyov, Kal prj pbvov aKpoaral irapakoyiûpevoi kavrovs.
fjpiuiu
Rom.
vupov
ii.
13 ov ydp
01
aKpoaral
8'acaioi irapa [t] e> dkk' ol irotrjral vupiov SiKaiwOrjOovrai.
Rom.
iv.
novv kpovpiev
eupr/Kerat
Afipadp. rbv irpoiraTOpa 77 pwv Kara adpica ; el yap 'Afipadp. k
James ii. 21 'APpadp. b irarrip ovk kp epy<uv kSiKaidoOrj,

;
dvtveyKas 'laaaK tov vlbv avrov enl to

Bvaiaar-qpiov
epywv
kbiKaiudr],
iv.
4'xei
Kavxrjpa.
20 els 8k ttjv kirayyekiav rov Qeov ov 8tKpi6rj rfj dmaria, dkk' kvebwapujuOrj rrj Trio ret.
Rom.
James
i.
alTehco
b
8k
kv
mo~Tei
dvapii-
pirjhkv 8iaKpivbp.(Vos'
yap SiaKpivb-
pievos eoiKf kKvSouvi Oakdaffrjs

{opievcp Kal pimop:evq>.
Rom.
v.
3-5 KavxdupÔa kv rats

77
James
i.
2-4 ndaav xapdv
rjyrjffaaOe
Okiipeaiv, elf ores oti
dkiif/is
viro-
ftovijv Kar epy d^trai, 77 8k vnop.ovi) 8oKip.r)v, 77 8k SoKipi) kkniSa' 77 8k kkirh ov Karaiaxvvei, on 77 dyditrj
brav netpiapois TrepnrearjTe iroiKikois, yivojaKovres on to 8oKipiov vpwv ttjs
marews Karepydêrai vno pLov-qv. tj 8k vnopovrj epyov Tekeiov kx^TW, iva qre
Tekeioi.
tov Qeov eKKexyrai.
* e / Deut. xxxii. 35 reads kv T*l a<paky b irovs avruiv.
^-^
-qpiepa eKSiKâeojs dvTairo8wooj,
otov
Ixxviii

James
fxa\oi
rjdovuov
iv. I iroOev
;
[ 8.
nuXeixm /rat iroOev ovk evievdev, Ik toiv
ev
Rom.vii. 2^P\(ircoBeeTfpovv6pov tois fxtKeai pov, uvTiarpa-
ev vpiv
t evop.ev ov rw vupw tov voos fiov, /rat alxpo,XwTiôvTa pe ev t> vupcv 777?
dpLaprias
vpwv twv o~t par evop.eva>v ev tois pieXeaiv vpwv
rw
ovrt ev tois p.e\eoi p,ov.
Rom.
to.
T(i
12 diroOoJixeOa o\iv epya tov ckutovs, evSvowpieOa S oirka rov (pcoTos.

xiii.
James i. 21 atroOt pevoi vaaav pvncpiav k>u irfpiaadav na/cias kv irpavttjti biâaBe tov epcpvrov Xuyov rov
Svvdpievov awcrai tcls if/vxas vpuvv.
expressing an excessive scepticism, but these resemblances seem to us hardly close enough to be convincing, and the The problem of literary priority of St. James cannot be proved. it is very difficult to find indebtedness is always a delicate one and writers of competence draw a definite objective standpoint In order to exactly opposite conclusions from the same facts. justify our sceptical attitude we may point out that resemblances in phraseology between two Christian writers do not necessarily imply literary connexion. The contrast between aKpoarai and 73-0177/ was not made by either St. Paul or St. James for the first time metaphors like edr)o-avpi(fis, expressions like ev rj^pa dpyrjs compared with ev fjpepa acpay^s (both occur in the O.T.), the phrase vopos Nor are there eXevdcpias might all have independent sources. any passages where we find the same order of thought (as in 1 Peter) or the same passage of the O.T. quoted with the same The variations either of which would form stronger evidence.
;
;
We
may be
resemblance Rom. vii. 23
is
closest in
iv.
Rom.
1,
v.
3-5
James
i.
2-4 and
in
= James
but these are not sufficient by them-
selves to establish a case.
Again, if we turn to the polemical passages, we may admit Paul betrays a consciousness that Abraham had been cited as an example of works and endeavours to show that the word \oy[(opai is inconsistent with this.' But the controversy must have been carried on elsewhere than in these writings, and it is equally probable that both alike may be dealing with the problem as it came before them for discussion or as it was inherited from the schools of the Rabbis (see further the note on p. 102). There is, we may add, no marked resemblance in style in the controversial passage further than would be the necessary result of dealing with the same subject-matter. There is nothing decisive to prove obligation on the part of either Epistle to the other or to prove
that
'
the priority of either. The two Epistles were written in the same small and growing community which had inherited or created
a phraseology of its own, and in which certain questions early acquired prominence. It is quite possible that the Epistle of
St.
James deals with the same controversy as does

it
that to the
possibly be directed against St. Paul's teaching or the teaching of St. Paul's followers; but there is no
Romans;
may even
8.]
LITERARY HISTORY
Ixxix
proof that either Epistle was written with a knowledge of the There are no resemblances in style sufficient to prove literary connexion. One other book of the N.T. may just be mentioned. If the doxology at the end of Jude be compared with that at the end of
other.
It
Romans it is difficult to believe that they are quite independent. may be that they follow a common form derived from Jewish
it
doxologies, but
the
is
Romans formed
more probable that the concluding verses of a model which was widely adopted in the
certainly
i
seem to find doxologies of the Clem.-Rom. lxiv, lxv. 2 Mart. Polyc. in Eph. iii. 20. The resemblance in form of the doxologies may be seen by comparing them with one
Christian Church.
We
same type as these two xx ; it is followed also
in
r.nother.
Rom, xn. 25-27

neve?
[c3j
rj
ra>
.
8e
.
8vva.
vpas
<tt rjptai
jxdvcp
Jude 24, 25 t< 8 <pv\oat v/xds unTaiarovs,

.
.
.
&(w, 8ta Iijaov Xptarov, 86a els roiis aluvas.
d/xai/xovs
pi6vq>
Swa/iivy ml arfjaai cw aajTTjpi
Tj/xwu,
rjfAUJv,
Sid'lrjaov Xpio-rov rov Kvpiov 86 a, /JLya\ojnvv7], Kparos Kal igovaict) rrpb iravrbs rov oISjvos Kal vvv
zeal
ds iravras tovs aiwvas.
d/j.rjf.
enter the sub-apostolic age the testimony to the use of the Epistle is full and ample. The references to it in Clement of Rome are numerous. can go further than this, the discussions on irlans and diKaioavvT] (see p. 147) show clearly that Clement
When we
We
this Epistle at any rate as a theological authority. Bishop Lightfoot has well pointed out how he appears as reconciling and combining four different types of Apostolic teaching. The Apostles belong to an older generation, their writings have become subjects of discussion. Clement is already beginning to build up, however inadequately, a Christian theology combining the teaching of the different writers of an earlier period. If we turn to Ignatius' letters what will strike us is that the words and ideas of the Apostle have become incorporated with the mind of the writer. It is not so much that he quotes as that he can never break away from the circle of Apostolic ideas. The books of the N.T. have given him his vocabulary and form the source of his thoughts. Polycarp quotes more freely and more definitely. His Epistle is almost a cento of N.T. passages, and among them are undoubted quota-
used
tions from the
Romans.
2
As
the quotations of Polycarp
come from
Eph., Phil., 1 Tim., 2 Tim., it is difficult not to believe that he possessed and made use of a collection of the Pauline Epistles. Corroborative evidence of this might be found in the desire he shows to make a collection of the letters of Ignatius. He would-be more likely to do this if he already possessed collections of letters ; and it is really impossible to maintain
1
Rom.,
Cor.,
Cor.,
Gal.,
lxxx
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
L8.
that the Ignatian letters
were formed into one collection before
Assuming then, as we are entitled to those of St. Paul had been. first quarter ol the do that the Apostolic Fathers represent the the Romans at that time to Epistle the find we century second on Apostolic teaching, widely read, treated as a standard authority and taking its place in a collection of Pauline letters. Epistle The following are quotations and reminiscences of the
in
Clement of
Rom.
i.
Rome
21
kffKOTio0r)
r)
acv-
veros avTuv icapSia.
Kal
Rom.
@ov
Si'
ii.
24 to yap ovojxa tov
Clem. 36 Sid tovtov r) davveros koKOTwp.kvrj Sidvoia rjpaiv^ dvaOaXXd ds to OavpaGTov avrov (px's. to oK\r]pvv07Jvai Sid Clem. 51 avTiov rds dovvkTovs napSias. Clem. 47 were koX pXao-<pr)p,ias
ttjv
tiftas
PXaocprjptiTat kv
rois eOveaiv, Kadojs ykypairrai.
kmcpipeoOai to> ovopari Kvp'wv Sid v fieri pav deppoavvrjv.
Rom. iv. 7 " Maieapioi Stv d<pkQr)oav al dvopiai teal >v kireKa\v(p0T]<Tav at afxapriai' ov pr) 3> 8 piaicapios dvr)p XoyiorjTai Kvpios dpapTiav." o 6 paicapio p.bs ovv ovrns
knl
tt)v
Clem. 50 NLandpioi Siv d<j>kQr\aav al dvopiiai ical Siv kiracaXv(f>9r)0-av al ap.apTiac p.atcdpios dvfjp w ov p.r) XoyiffrjTai Kvpios afxapriav. ovSk koTiv kv t> OTopaTi ovtos 6 piaicapio p. us avTov SoXos.
kyivero
kirl toxjs
TT(pnop.r)v
f)
ical
km
tt)v
kitXeXeypkvovs vtto tov
aKpofivoTiav ;
Qeov
I
k.t.X.
Rom.
irXeovdarj
vi.
rt
ovv
kpovfiev;
kmp.kva>p.ev t?i dprnpTiq,

;
fir)
ha
r)
\dpis
<poi
/cat
Clem. 33 rt ovv TToiT\aoj\itv, dSeXdpyrjocopifv and tt}s dyaOoirodas

;
ykvoiro.
kyicaTaXeiTTa)p.ev tx)v dyairrjv
prj-
dapious
rovro kdoai 6 SeanuTijs
k(p'
Tjpiv
76
yivrjdrjvai.
Rom.
i.
29 ireirXrjpojpivovs
iracrr)
dSiiciq, trovrjpiq, trXcoveîq, tca/cia, pieoTovs <p9ovov, <povov, epiSos, S6Xov, ica nor] d(ias,ipiOvpi eras. ica.-
Clem. 35 diroppi\pavTes d(p' ndaav dSiKiav teal dvoplav, v(iav, Zpeis, tcaKorjdeias SoXovs, ipiQvpiauovs tc ical
kavruiv
irXeoT nai
TaXaXovs, 6eocTvyeis, iiPpioids, vireprjipdvovs, dXaôvas, keptvpeTas kokuiv, yovevoiv un(i9(Ts, dawetovs, dovvdiTovs, doTopyovs, dveXefjfiovas' oitivcs, to SiKaiooâ tov &eov
kmyvovTes,
rd roiavra ol oti vpdooovTdS aioi Oavdrov tloiv, ov povov avrd iroiovoiv, dXXa ical
araXaXids,6eoOTvyiav,virt prjcpaviav T teal dXaôveiav, icevoSoiav re ko.1 TavTa yap ol vpaad<piXov'iav. oovtcs OTvyrjTol tS> Oea) vnapxovo-iv ov p.6vov Sk ol irpdo aovTis avra, dX\a fcal ol ovvevSoicovvTes avrois.
ovvtvSoicovaiv
tols
Siv
.
npaaoovaw.
.
.
Rom.
ical al
ix. 4,
r)
Xarpua
knayyeXiai,
Siv ol rrarepis, teal
Siv 6
Xpioros to
Kara odpKa.
Clem. 32 ! avrov yap lepeis ical AeviTai -ndvTCS ol XtiTovpyoiiPTts tS> eov k avTov 6 QvaiaaTr\plcx> tov
Kvpios 'Irjaovs to Kara aapna- ! avTov PaaiXets ical apxovres koi rjyovfxtvoi Kara tov 'lovSav.
Rom.
ciais
yap
xiii. I, 2 irdaa tpvxr) kovhTtipi\ovoais viroTaaakoOoJ' ov tiTiv (tovoia d jut) vttu Qtov, al
ok ovaai biro cov T(Taypkvai eloiv. wore 6 avrnaoaopifvos ttj kovoiq
Clem. 61 (TV, Seo-iroTa, tSatcas ttjv kovoiav rf}s tHaoiXtias avTois Sid tov peyaXoirpeirovs ton avftcSivy-qrov tepdtovs aov, ds to yiPwOKOVTas rjp.ds ttjv vtto oov ai/Tois 5e8op.kpT]v Suav ical
8-]
rrj
LITERARY HISTORY
oi
rifxfjv
lxxxi
p.r]8kv
tov tov Siarayrj avOtarrjKev

Kpip.a
vnoraaaeaOai avrois,
kvav-
hk avOiGTtjKoTes kavrois
xf/ovrai.
\f)-
Tiovpiivovs
tw
OtXrjfiaTi aov.
References in the
letters
of Ignatius are the following

tov
Rom.
fxaros
i.
3 tov yevop.kvov Ik ankpkv
Aa&lS Kara aapKa,

ii.
opioQivros vlov ov
Swapm.
KavxV aiS
l
Smyr. 1 aXr]6Jl)s ovra (K yivovs Aa&lt) Kara, capita, vlov eov Kara 6iXrjp.a teal 0vvap.1v.
Cf. Trail. 8 ^both quote O. T.).
Rom.
24.
Rom. iii.
27 nov ovv
17
Eph. 18
rrvv
;
KavxV <Jls
1
T^ v ^*yoi.
pikvwv avvtTwv
(Close to a quotation of
Cor.
20.)
Rom.
Rom.
vi.
4 ovtoj
viii.
real
r)p.eis
kv
KaivorrjT 1
vi.
ôjr)s irfpLnaTrjawpiiV.
Eph. 19 eoG uvOpwnivas cpavtpovptvov (is icaivorrjra didiov a)r)s.
17, 29.
Mag.
St'
ov
kdv
fifj
avOaiperais
ex^Mc
to
urroOavetv
ds
to
avrov
nd6os, to r}v avrov ovk (otiv kv fjp.iv. Trail. 9 /card to op,oiojp.a 6s Kal qpas roiis marcvovras aitrai ovtcos tytpti o
narfjp avrov kv X. I., ov dXrjOa'bv {771/ ovk ixop-tv.
x wP ls T
Sioaxv v
Rom. vi. 17 ds vvnov 6 8 a XV s

1
-
bv
vapfdodrjre
Mng. 6 ds tv nov
acpOapoias.
Kal
Rom.
vii.
kv kcuv6tt)T' irvevpLaTOs
ttjti ypaptfiaros.
6 wore oovXeveiv r)p.ds teal oi naXaio-
Mag. 9
rjXOov.
ol
uvaarpafpkvres
kv naXaiois Trpa.yp.aaiv ds KaivurrjTa kXnifios
Rom.
Itf
viii.
11 6
kyeipas X.
'I.
Trail. 9 8s Kal dXr)6ws -qyepOrj
and
tov
VtKpUIV.
vtKpwv,
Eph.
Sop.rjv
kyeipavTos
avrov
narpos avrov.
Rom.
ix.
rjToipiaaev
23 o-tcevr) kXkovs h npods doav.
9 nporjroipao'p.kvoi ds oIko&eov -narpos.
Rom.
fiaaiXda
ttoois.
xiv.
17
ov
tov
0eou
fipuicris
yap kanv 7) Kal
Trail. 2 ov yap Qpoopidrav Kal tiotSjv doiv Oiclkovoi.
Rom.
aWrjXois
xv. 5 to axnb (ppovtiv kv

tcaTcL
X.
'I.
Eph. I ov evxopai KaroL 'I. X. vpRs dyanqv, Kal ndvras i/pas avrw kv 6/xoioTqri thai.
The
Rom.
following resemblances occur in the Epistle of Polycarp

vi.
13 Kal
tcL
pikXrj
vptSiv
Pol. 4 onXtcrupLfOa tois

rrjs
onKois
onXa biKaiocvvrjs. Rom. xiii. 12 kvSvawpieOa 5k t& onXa tov (poxros. Rom. xii. 10 rfj <piXa5eX<plq
dXXrjXovs tpiXoOTopyoi, rrj Tip.rj dXXrjXovs TrpoijyovfKvoi.
els
SiKaioavvrjs.
amatores 10 fraternitatis Pol. diligentes invicem. in veritate sociati, alterutri Domini mansuetudinem
praestolentes,
nullum despicientes.
Rom.
xiii.
8 6 yap ayanaiv rbv
trepov vup.ov vtirXrjpuKtv .T.A.
Pol. 3 kdv yap rts tovtojv kvrbs y irenXr) paiKfv kvro.'r,v ItKtuoavvtjS' 6 yap (x wv dydrrriv paKpav koTiv ndorp
apaprius.
lxxxii
Rom.
xiv.
EPISTLE TO
IO
TO)
TTCLvres
f$7]
THE ROMANS
Pol.
[ 8.
iravras
ot?
OTTJOOfXtOa
(JLCLTITOV
yap irapa1 06OU

irtpl
3
.
ko.1
irapa-
OTTjVai
Kal
T<
(Hf/paTl
virtp
TOV
~X.pi.OTOV,
tKaaTov
kavTov \6yov
12 apt \ovv\ Wkclotos rjpajv
dovvai.
kavTov \6yov
It
is
Scuerei
[t<
&]
hardly worth while to give evidence in detail from later find distinct reminiscences of the Romans in Aristides and in Justin Martyr 4 Very interesting also is the evidence of the heretical writers quoted by Hippolytus in the Refutatio omnium haeresium it would of course be of greater value if we could fix with certainty the date of the documents he makes use of. find quotations from the Epistle in writings ascribed to the Naassenes 5 the Valentinians of the Italian school 6 and to Basileides 7 In the last writer the use made of Rom. v. 13, 14 and viii. 19, 22 is exceedingly curious and interesting. If we turn to another direction we find interesting evidence of a kind which has not as yet been fully considered or estimated. The series of quotations appended from the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs can hardly be explained on any other hypothesis than that the writer was closely acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans. This is not the place to enter into the various critical questions which have been or ought to be raised concerning that work, but it may be noticed here (1) That the writer makes use of a considerable number of books of the N. T. The resemblances are not confined to the
authors.
We
We
.
writings of St. Paul.

(2) That the quotations occur over a very considerable portion of the book, both in passages omitted in some MSS. and in passages which might be supposed to belong to older works.
(3) The book is probably older than the time of Teriullian, while the crude character of the Christology would suggest a considerably earlier date.
Rom.
fv
i.
Qvvnp.*i
.
.
4 rod opioOevros viov 0eoO Kara irvsvpa dyicu13 oi yap 01 ixpoaral irapa tw 0a5.
Test. Levi. 18 koi
ovvtjs
'iorai
W avroh.
irvevpa ayiw.
cvvijs.
Rom.
ii.
vop.ov diicaioi
Test. Aser. 4 oi yap ayaOol dvSpes .... SiKaioi tioi irapa to> 0q).
tov Xpiorov Western and Syrian.

dnoSdjoti
to;
2
3 *
B
4
D F G.
BF
G.
;
@ew om.
ii.
Rom. Rom. ix.

Apol.
5
i.
6
7
Rom. ix. 27-29 = Dial. 32, 55, 64; Rom. x. 18 = 7 40 Rom. xi. 2, 3 = Dial. 39. Hipp. Ref. v. 7, pp. 138. 64-140. 76 m Rom. i. 20-26 Ibid. vi. 36, p. 286. 9-10 = Rom. viii. it. Ibid. vii. 25, p. 370. 80 = Rom. v. 13, 14; ibid. p. 368. 75 = Rom. viii.
Dial. 47 Dial. 44 ;
Rom.
iii.
11- 17
Dial. 27
Rom.
iv.
Dial. 23
19, 22.
8.]
Rom.
v.
LITERARY HISTORY
6
lxxxiii
3 dvapdpTrjTos
en yap Xpiarbs
ovtojv
Test.
Benj.
vnkp
fin&v daOevwv eri Kara, Kaipbv
vnep
TT)
daefiuiv aTToOavtiTai.
Test. Levi. 4 oi dvOpwrroi dmaTovvTes reus dSiKtais.
doefiujv dtreOave.
Rom.
d/xapTca.
vi.
TTlfieVOJpeV
b
kmpevovo~iv kv
vi.
Rom. Rom.
t)
yap
ttjs
dnoOavwv
Test.
tt)s
Sym. 6 onus SutaiojQSi ditb

tojv \pvx&v vpwv.
SeStKaiajTai dnb
vii.
8 d>popfXT)v
Sid ttjs
dâprias. Sk \a&ovoa
dpaprias
tl pr)
diiapria
Teipydaaro kv tpol
kvToKijs Kaudaav kmOvpiiav.
Test. tlci' Kal
Neph. 8
Kal
Svo kvroXai
ye vwvrai kv Taei avrwv,
dfxdpTiav
irapexovaiv.
Rom.
viii.
28 oiSa p.ev St
on to is
Test. Benj. 4
dyaOoiroiwv
tw
dyanwai t6v ebv irdvra avvepyet els dyaOov.

b
dyanwvTi tov &tbv avvepyei.

Neph. 2 KaOws yap b Kt papevs to ffKevos, rroaov \OJpeT, Km rrpbs avrbv (pepei TtrjXbv, ovtw Kal b Kvpios
Test.
oiSe
rrpbs bptoiwaiv
Rom. ix. 21 i) ovk ?x kovalav Kepapevs tov tttjXov, Ik tov avnoifjaai o piev (Is nptrjv
toC (pvpapuiTos
OKevos,
t Se fis drifxiav;
tov nvevpaTos
iroiet
to
awpa.
Rom. xii.
tw
fa),
Trapaarrjaai
rd awpara
Karpeiav
vfiwv Ovaiav wo~av, dyiav, eidpearov

rr)v
bo-pr)v
Test. Levi 3 vpoa<pepovoi Se Kvpiw eiiwSias XoyiKr)v Kal aval-
\oyiKr)v
pf)
jxaKTOv irfoo~(popdv.
v/xaiv.
Rom. xii.
vikw
virb
tov
tca/cov,
dWd
v'uca kv
tw dya0w
to"
kokok.
to"
Test. Benj. 4 ovtws b vikS, TO KaKOV.
dyadonotwv
Rom. xiii. 12 dno6wf-ie6a ovv epya tov okotovs, kvbvawpeOa

ra oirXa tov <Pcotos.
Sk
Test. Neph. 2 ovtws oiSk kv o-k6t*i SvvrjaeaQe iroifjaai epya <pwr6s.
Rom.
elprjvrjs
xv.
33
St
Qebs
ttjs
Test. Dan. 5 cx 0VT(s

elpTJVTjS.
rbv &ebv
ttjs
nerd irdvTwv vpwv.
Rom. xvi. 20 6 Sk &ebs ttjs elpfjvrjs ovvt piif/ei rbv XaTavdv virb tovs
noSas Vfxwv kv rdx.
Tpi@wv
Test. Aser. 7 Kal kv T)avx'iq. avvtt)v KecpaKty tov SpaKovros St' vSaros.
So far we have had no direct citation from the Epistle by name. Although Clement refers expressly to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and Ignatius may refer to an Epislle to the Ephesians, neither they nor Polycarp, nor in fact any other writer, expressly mentions Romans. It is with Marcion (c. 140) that we obtain Romans was one of the ten Epistles our first direct evidence. he included in his Aposlolicon, ascribing it directly to St. Paul. Nor have we any reason to think that he originated the idea of making a collection of the Pauline Epistles. Zahn points out, that he gives the same short
that
The
titles
very fact, as
to the Epistles
we
find in our oldest
MSS.
(rrpbs
pwpmovs) implies that these
Such a title would not be had formed part of a collection. sufficient unless the books were included in a collection which had In the Apostolicon of Marcion the a distinguishing title of its own. Epistles were arranged in the following order: (1) Gal., (2)1 Cor., Thess., (7) Laodic. = (3) 2 Cor., (4) Rom., (5) 1 Thess., (6) 2
Ephes., (8)
Col.,
(9)
Phil.,
(10)
Philem.
The
origin
of this
i%
lxxxiv
[ 8.
arrangement we cannot conjecture with any certainty

be noted that the Epistle placed
first
the Galatians
but
the
it
may
is
one on
judaism of
which Marcion primarily rested his case and in which the antiSt. Paul is most prominent, while the four Epistles of the Captivity are grouped together at the conclusion. Another interestWe need ing point is the text of the Epistles used by Marcion. not stop to discuss the question whether the charge against Marcion
That he did of excising large portions of the Epistles is correct. In the Romans particularly he omitted chaps. so is undoubted. Nor i. 19-ii. 1; iii. 31-iv. 25; ix. 1-33; x. 5-xi. 32: xv.-xvi. again can we doubt that he omitted and altered short passages in For instance, in order to harmonize the teaching with his own. Both these x. 2, 3 he seems to have read dyvoovvres yap t6v Qe6v.
But two further questions remain statements must be admitted. Can we in any case arrive at the text of the Epistles used by Marcion, and has Marcion's text influenced the variations of our MSS. ? An interesting reading from this point of view is the omisIs this a case where sion of irpa>Tov in i. 16 (see the notes, p. 24). his reading has influenced our MSS., or does he preserve an early
:
variation or even the original text
need not pursue the history of the Epistle further. From the time of Irenaeus onwards we have full and complete citations in The Epistle is recognized as being by all the Church writers. St. Paul, is looked upon as canonical *, and is a groundwork of
Christian theology.
We
One more
question remains to be discussed

Paul's Epistles.
its
place in the
collection of St.
Muratorian fragment on the Canon the Epistles of St. Paul were early divided and into two groups, those to churches and those to individuals this division permanently influenced the arrangement in the Canon, accounting of course incidentally for the varying place occupied by the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is with the former group only that we are concerned, and here we find that there is a very marked Speaking roughly the earlier lists all place variation in the order.
According
to
the
the Epistle to the

lists,
Romans
at the
end of the
collection, whilst later

it
as for example the
Canon
of the received text place
at
the beginning.
For the earlier list our principal evidence is the Muratorian fragment on the Canon cum ipse beatus apostolus Paulus, sequens prodecessoris sui Iohannis ordinem, notinisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat or dine tali: ad Corifithios {prima), ad Ephesios [secunda), ad Philippenses (tertia), ad Colossenses (quarta), ad Galatas (quinla), ad Nor does this Thessalofiicenses [sexto), ad Romanos [septima).
:
On Harnaek's theory that the Pauline Epistles had at the close of the second century less canonical authority than the Gospels, see Sanday, Bampton
'
Lectures, pp. 20, 66.
9.]
INTEGRITY
lxxxv
stand alone. The same place apparently was occupied by Romans in the collection used by Tertullian, probably in that of Cyprian. It is suggested that it influenced the order of Marcion, who perin his copy of the Epistles Corinthians standing first, while the position of Romans at the end may be implied in l a passage of Origen Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.) is (Rom., order later The that of all writers from the fourth century onwards, and, with the exception of changes caused by the insertion of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of certain small variations which do not affect the point under discussion, of all Greek MSS., and of all MSS. of
haps found
This widespread testimony implies an early date. But the arrangement is clearly not traditional. It is roughly based on the length of the Epistles, the Romans coming first as being the
Versions.
longer.
Zahn's origin of the early order is by no means clear. it arose from the fact that the collection of Pauline Epistles was first made at Corinth, is ingenious but not conclusive,
The
conjecture, that
while Clem. Rom. 47, which he cites in support of his theory, will 1 hardly prove as much as he wishes To sum up briefly. During the first century the Epistle to the Romans was known and used in Rome and perhaps elsewhere.
.
During the first quarter of the second century we find it forming part of a collection of Pauline Epistles used by the principal Church writers of that time in Antioch, in Rome, in Smyrna, probably also By the middle of that century it had been included in in Corinth. an abbreviated form in Marcion's Apostolicon; by the end it appears
to be definitely accepted as canonical.
9.
Integrity of the Epistle.
The survey which has been given of the literary history of the Epistle to in favour of its the Romans makes it perfectly clear that the external evidence Setting aside early date is not only relatively but absolutely very strong. part of the doubtful quotations, almost every Christian writer of the early and second century makes use of it; it was contained in Marcion's canon; are almost quotations when Christian literature becomes extensive, the strong So Epistle. whole the numerous enough to enable us to reconstruct marks of authenticity that the is this evidence and so clear are the internal shall speak Epistle (with the exception of the last two chapters of which we almost universally admitted to be a genuine work of presently)
has been was accepted as such by Baur, and in consequence by all members critics of every of the Tubingen school; it is accepted at the present day by Harnack, variety of opinion, by Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Lipsius, as definitely as by those who are usually classed as conservative.
St. Paul.
It
On
this subject see
Zahn, Geschichte, &c,
ii.
p. 344.
lxxxvi
[ 9.
To this general acceptance there have been few exceptions. The earliest writer who denied the genuineness of the Epistle appears to have been the Englishman Evanson (1792). The arguments on which he relied are mainly historical. The Epistle implies the existence of a Church in Rome, but we know from the
Acts that no such Church existed. Equally impossible is it that St. Paul should have known such a number of persons in Rome, or that Aquila and Priscilla should have been there at this time. He interprets xvi. 13 literally, and asks why the aged mother of the Apostle should have wandered to Rome. He thinks that xi. 12, 15, 21, 22 must have been written after the l The same thesis was maintained by Bruno Bauer 2 and fall of Jerusalem has bten revived at the present day by certain Dutch and Swiss theologians, notably Loman and Steck. Loman ^1882) denied the historical reality of Christ, and considered that all the Pauline Epistles dated from the second century. Christianity itself was the embodiment of certain Jewish ideas. St. Paul was a real person who lived at the time usually ascribed to him, but he did not write the Epistles which bear That he should have done so at such an early peiiod in the history his name. of Christianity would demand a miracle to account for its history a statement which we need not trouble ourselves to refute. Loman's arguments appear to be the silence of the Acts, and in the case of the Romans the inconsistency of the various sections with one another the differences of opinion which had arisen with regard to the composition of the Roman Church prove (he argues) that there is no clear historical situation implied 3 Steck (1888) has devoted himself primarily to the Epistle to the Galatians which he condemns as inconsistent with the Acts of the Apostles, and as dependent upon the other leading Epistles, but he incidentally examines these also. All alike he puts in the second century, arranging them in the following order: Romans, 1 Corinthians, All alike are he says built up under the influence of 2 Corinthians, Galatians. Jewish and Heathen writers, and he finds passages in the Romans borrowed from Philo, Seneca, and Jewish Apocryphal works to which he assigns a late date such as the Assumptio Ajosis and 4 Ezra 4 Akin to these theories which deny completely the genuineness of the Epistle, are similar ones also having their origin for the most part in Holland, which find large interpolations in our present text and profess to distinguish different recensions. Earliest of these was Weisse (1867), who in addition to certain more reasonable theories with regard to the concluding chapters, professed to be able to distinguish by the evidence of style the genuine from the interpolated portions of the Epistle . His example has been followed with greater indiscrec tness by Pierson and Naber (1886), Michelsen (1886), Voelter (1889, 90), Van Manen (1891). Pierson and Naber 6 basing their theory on some slight allusions in Josephus, consider that there existed about the beginning of the Christian era a school of elevated Jewish thinkers, who produced a large number of apparently fiagmentary works distinguished by their lofty religious tone. These were made use of by a certain Paulus Episcopus, a Christian who incorporated them
. ,
;
gelists
2
Evanson (Edward), The Dissonance of the four generally received Evanexamined, Ed. 1, 1792, pp. 257-261; Ed. 2, 1805, pp. 306-312. Bruno Bauer, Kritik der pauL Brief Chris tus und die Casaren, e, 1852.
(A. D.), Quaestiones Paulinae, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1882, 1883,
P- 372.
3
Loman
1886.
4
Steck (Rudolf),
Der
Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersneht.
Berlin,
1888.
Weisse (C. H.\ Beitrage zur Kritik der Paulinischen Brief e an die Galaler, Romer, Philipper und Kolosser. Leipzig. 1867. 6 Verisimilia, Laceram condiiionem Novi Testamenli exhibentia. A. Pierson, et S. A. Naber, Amstelodami, 1886.
.]
in letters
INTEGRITY
lxxxvi;
which he wrote in order to make up tor his own poverty of religious and philosophical ideas. An examination of their treatment of a single chapter may be appended. The basis of ch. vi is a Jewish fragment {admoJum memorabile) which extends from ver. 3 to ver. 11. This fragment Paulus Episcopus treated in his usual manner. He begins with the foolish question ot ver. 2 which shows that he does not understand the argument that follows. He added interpolations in ver. 4. Itidem odoramur manum eius ver. 5. If we omit rd. diiocdufxari in ver. 6 the difficulty in it vanishes. Ver 8 again 'is feeble and therefore was the work of Paulus Episcopus non enim credimus nos esse vicluros, sed novimus tws vivere K xer. 11). vv. 11-23 w tn the exception apparently of ver. 14 15 which have been misplaced, are the work of this interpolator who spoiled the Jewish fragment, and in these verses adapts what has preceded to the uses of the Church It will probably not be thought necessary to pursue this subject further. 2 Michelsen basing his theory to a certain extent on the phenomena of the last two chapters considered that towards the end of the second century three recensions of the Epistle were in existence. The Eastern containing ch. i-xvi. 24; the Western ch. i-xiv and xvi. 25-27; the Marcionite ch. i-xiv. The redactor who put together these recensions was however also responsible for a considerable number of interpolations which Michelsen
:
undertakes to distinguish. Epistle according to him

i.
Volter's theory is more elaborate. The original contained the following portions of the Epistle.
;
and vi. (except v. 13, 14, 20; vi. 14, 15): xii, xiii xvi. 21-23. This bears all the marks of originality xv. i4-.',2 its Christology is primitive, free from any theory of pre-existence or of two natures. To the first interpolator we owe i. 18; iii. 20 (except ii. 14, 15); viii. 1, 3-39;
la, 7
;
5,6; 8-17;
;
v.
i.
ib-4.
Here the Christology
is
different;
Christ
iii.
God.
14, 15
;
To
1-6 ix. x xiv. xv. 70 was a determined Antinomian,

vii.
;
;
Law.
xi
;
ii.
iv. 25; v. 13, 14, 20; vi. This writer who worked about the year who could not see anything but evil in the A third interpolator is responsible for vii. 7-25 viii. 2 a fourth for xv. 7-13; a fifth for xvi. 1-20; a sixth for xvi. 24; a seventh 14, 15
1
the second interpolator
we owe
6.
21
is trie
pre-existent
Son of
for xvi. 25-27.

for basing his
Van Manen 4 is distinguished for his vigorous attacks on his predecessors and own theory of interpolations on a reconstruction of the Marcionite
;
text
It
which he holds to be
original.
has been somewhat tedious work enumerating these theories, which will seem probably to most readers hardly worth while repeating; so subjective and arbitrary is the whole criticism. The only conclusion that we can arrive at is that if early Christian documents have been systematically tampered with in a manner which would justify any one of these theoiies, then the study of There is no criterion of style or of language Christian history would be iutile. which enables us to distinguish a document from the interpolations, and we should be compelled to make use of a number of writings which we could not If the documents are not trustworthy, neither is our either trust or criticize.
criticism.
But such a feeling of distrust is not necessary, and it may be worth while to conclude this subject by pointing out certain reasons which enable us to feel confident in most at any rate of tne documents of early Christianity.
Op. cit., pp. 139-143* A -)> Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1886, pp. 372 ff., 473 ff.; Michelsen (J1887, p. 163 ff. 3 Voelter (DanieP, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1889, p. 265 ff. and Die ComDer Rimer- mid. Galaterbrief, 1890. position der paul. Hauptbriefe, I. 4 Van Manen (W. C), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1887. Marriotts Brief van Paulus aan de Galaties, pp. 82-404, 451-533; and Paulus II, De brief aan de Komeinen. Leiden, 1891.
2
1
lxxxviii
[ 9.
It has been pointed out that interpolation theories are not as absurd as they might prima facie be held to be, for we have instances of the process actually But these are taking place. The obvious examples are the Ignatian letters. not solitary, almost the whole of the Apocryphal literature has undergone the same process so have the Acts of the Saints so has the Didache for example when included in the Apostolic Constitutions. Nor are we without evidence of the phenomenon of the Western text presents interpolations in the N. T. May we not then expect the same to have exactly the same characteristics. happened in other cases where we have little or no information? Now in dealing with a document which has come down to us in a single MS. or version, or on any slight traditional evidence this possibility must always be considered, and it is necessary to be cautious in arguing from a single passage in a text which may have been interpolated. Those who doubted the genuineness of the Armenian fragment of Aristides for example, on the grounds that.it contained the word Theotokos, have been proved to be wrong, for that word as was suspected by many has now been shown to have been interpolated. But in the case of the N. T. we have so many authorities going back independently to such an early period, that it is most improbable that any important variation in the text could escape our knowledge. The different lines of text in St. Paul's Epistles must have separated as early as the beginning of the second century ; and we shall see shortly that one displacement in the lext, which must have been early, and may have been very early, has The number, the variety, and influenced almost all subsequent documents the early character of the texts preserved to us in MSS., Versions, and Fathers, is a guarantee that a text formed on critical methods represents within very narrow limits the work as it left its author's hands. second line of argument which is used in favour of interpolation theories No doubt there are passages is the difficulty and obscurity of some passages. which are difficult ; but it is surely very gratuitous to imagine that everything which is genuine is easy. The whole tendency of textual criticism is to prove that it is the custom of redactors' or 'correctors' or interpolators' to produce a text which is always superficially at any rate more easy than the genuine But on the other side, although the style of St. Paul is certainly not text. always perfectly smooth although he certainly is liable to be carried away by a side issue, to change the order of his thoughts, to leap over intermediate steps in his argument, yet no serious commentators of whatever school would doubt that there is a strong sustained argument running through the whole Epistle. The possibility of the commentaries which have been written proves conclusively the improbability of theories implying a wide element of interpolation. But in the case of St. Paul we may go further. Even where there is a break in the argument, there is almost always a verbal connexion. When St. Paul passes for a time to a side issue there is a subtle connexion in thought as in words which would certainly escape an interpolator's observation. This has been pointed out in the notes on xi. 10; xv. 20, where the question of interpolation has been carefully examined; and if any one will take the trouble to go carefully through the end of ch. v and the beginning of ch, vi, he will see how each sentence leads on to the next. For instance, the first part of v. 20, which is omitted by some of these critics, leads on immediately to the second (nXfovaari . . kirXeovaotv), that suggests virepeirepiaatvafv, then comes irKtovaor) in vi. 1 ; but the connexion of sin and death clearly suggests the words of ver. 2 and the argument that follows. The same process may be worked out through the whole Epistle. For the most part there is a clear and definite argument, and even where the logical continuity is broken there is always a connexion either in thought or words. The Epibtles of St. Paul present for the most part a definite and compact literary unit. If to these arguments we add the external evidence which is given in detail above, we may feel reasonably confident that the historical conditions under
; ; ;
'
'
INTEGRITY
lxxxix
which the Epistle has come clown to us make the theories of this new school l of critics untenable . have laid great stress on the complete absence of any textual justificaThis absence tions for any of the theories which have been so far noticed. is made all the more striking by the existence of certain variations in the text chapters of two and certain facts reported on tradition with regard to the last These facts are somewhat complex and to a certain extent conthe Epistle. flicting, and a careful examination of them and of the theories suggested to
We
explain
(i)
them
is
necessary
9
.
of all to enumerate these facts: i. 7 and 15 are omitted by the bilingual MS. both in the Greek and Latin text (F is here defective). Moreo er the cursive ver. of margin in the adds 7 to kv 'Pa//*r;, ovre kv rp kfryq \u ovre kv tw 47 tip. Lightfoot attempted to find corroborative evidence for otjto) iMrquovevu. this'reading in Origen, in the writer cited as Ambrosiaster, and in the reading That he is wrong in doing so seems to be shown of D kv dyaiTT) for ayairrjTois. by Dr. Hort; but it may be doubtful if the latter is correct in his attempt to evidence is slight, but it is hardly likely that The variation. explain away the If it occurred only in one place it arose simply through transcriptional error. if it occurred only in one MS. we might ascribe it to this might be sufficient the delinquencies of a single scribe; as it is, we must accept it as an existing variation supported by slight evidence, but evidence sufficiently good to
It will
be convenient
first
The words
kv 'Po>/? in
demand an
explanation. of (2) There is considerable variation in existing MSS. concerning the place the final doxology (xvi. 25-27). minusc. pattc. codd. ap. Orig.-lat, def Vulg. Pesh. Boh. a. In Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. Pelagius it occurs at the end of chap. xvi. and there
NBCDE
only.
Theodrt. b. In L minusc. plus quam 200, codd. ap. Orig.-lat., Hard., Chrys. Jo.-Damasc. it occurs at the end of chap, xiv and there only. c. In 5. 17 Arm. codd. it is inserted in both places. d. In Fe r G codd. ap. Hieron. {in E| h. iii. 5), g, Marcion {vide infra) it is It may be noted that G leaves a blank space at the end of entirely omitted. chap, xiv, and that f is taken direct from the Vulgate, a space being left in F Indirectly D and Sedulius also in the Greek corresponding to these verses. attest the omission by placing the Benediction alter ver. 24, a transposition which would be made (see below) owing to that verse being in these copies at the end of the Epistle. In reviewing this evidence it becomes clear (i) that the weight of good authority is in favour of placing this doxology at the end of the Epistle, and which must be (ii) That the variation in position a variation there only, although we is early, probably earlier than the time of Origen, explained
AP
can never have complete confidence in Rufinus' translation, (iii) That the evidence for complete omission goes back to Marion, and that very probably his excision of the words may have influenced the omission in Western
authoiilies.
critics in
reader will find a very full account of this Dutch school of verv Witness of the Epistles, pp. i33- 2 43Die careful compilation of the results arrived at is given by Dr. Carl Clemen, To both these works we must e. Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Brief
1
The English
Knowling, The
express our obligations, and to them we must refer any who wish for further information. The leading discussion on the last two chapters of the Romans is confirst tained in three papers, two by Bp. Lightfoot, and one by Dr. Hort in published in the Journal of Philology, vols, ii, iii, and since reprinted Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 287-374.
12
XC
(3)
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[ 9.
There is very considerable evidence that Marcion omitted the whole of two chapters. int. Ruf.) x. 43, vol. vii, p. 453, ed. Lomm. writes a. Origen Caput hoc Marcion, a quo Scripturae Evangelicae atqne Apostolicae interpolate sunt, de hac epistola penittis abstulit ; et non solum hoc, scd et ab eo loco, ubi scriptum est: orane autem quod nun est ex fide, peocatum est: usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit. In aliis vero exemplaribus. id est in his quae non sunt a Marcione tether at a, hoc ipsum caput diverse positum invenimus, in nonnullis etcnim codicibus post eum locum, quern supra diximus hoc est : omne autem quod non est ex ride, peccatum est: statim coherens habetur : ti autem, qui polens est
the last
:
vos confiimare. Alii vero codices in fine id, ut nunc est positum, continent. This extract is quite precise, nor is the attempt made by Hort to emend it at all successful. He reads in for ab, having for this the support of a Paris MS., and then emends hoc into hie reading et non solum hie sed et in eo loco, &c, and translating and not only here but also,' at xiv. 23 'he cut out everything
;
'
quite to the end.' He applies the words to the Doxology alone. The changes in the text are slight and might be justified, but with this change the words that follow become quite meaningless usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit ca.i
:
only apply to the whole of the two chapters. If Origen meant the doxology alone they would be quite pointless. b. But we have other evidence for Marcion's text Tertullian, Adv. Marc. v. 14, quoting the words tribunal Christi (xiv. 10), states that they occur in clausula of the Epistle. The argument is not conclusive but the words probably imply that in Marcion's copy of the Epistle, if not in all those known to Tertullian, the last two chapters were omitted. These two witnesses make it almost certain that Marcion omitted not only the doxology but the whole of the last two chapters. 4. Some further evidence has been brought forward suggesting that an edition of the Epistle was in circulation which omitted the last two chapters. a. It is pointed out that Tertullian, Marcion, Irenaeus, and probably Cyprian never quote from these last two chapters. The argument however is of little value, because the same may be said of 1 Cor. xvi. The chapters were not quoted because there was little or nothing in them to quote. b. An argument of greater weight is found in certain systems of capitulations in MSS. of the Vulgate. In Codex Amiatinus the table of contents gives fifty-one sections, and the fiftieth section is described thus De periculo contristante fratrem suum esca sua, et quod non sit regnum Dei esca et potus sed iustitia et pax et gaudium in Spiritu Sancto ; this is followed by the rifty-first and last section, which is described as De mysterio Domini ante passionem in silentio habito, post passionem vero ipsius revelato. The obvious deduction is that this system was drawn up for a copy which omitted the greater part at any rate of chaps, xv and xvi. This system appears to have prevailed very widely. In the Codex Fuldcnsis there are given in the table of contents fifty-one sections of these the first twenty-three include the whole Epistle up to the end of chap, xiv, the last sentence being headed Quod fideles Dei non debeant invicem iudicare cum unusquisque secundum regulas mandatorum ipse se debeat divitio iudicio praeparare ut ante tribunal Dei sine confusione possit operum steorum praestare rationem. Then follow the last twenty-eight sections of the Amiatine system, beginning with the twenty-fourth at ix. 1. Hence chaps, ix-xiv are described twice. The scribe seems to have had before him an otherwise unrecorded system which only embraced fourteen chapters, and then added the remainder from where he could get them in order to make up what he felt to be the right number of fifty- one. Both these systems seem to exclude the last two chapters, whatever reason we may give for the phenomenon. 5. Lastly, some critics have discovered a certain amount of significance in two other points.
:
9.]
INTEGRITY
xci
a. The prayer at the end of chap, xv is supposed to represent, either with or without the dfxrju (which is omitted in some MSS., probably incorrectly), a conclusion of the Epistle. As a matter of fact the formula does not represent any known form of ending, and may be paralleled from places in the body of the Epistle. b. The two conclusions xvi. 20 and 24 of the T are supposed to represent endings to two different recensions of the Epistle. But as will be seen by referring to the note on the passage, this is based upon a misreading. The reading of the T is a late conflation of the two older forms of the text. The originally at ver. benediction stood 20 and only there, the verses that followed being a sort of postscript. Certain MSS. which were without the doxology (see above) moved it to their end of the Epistle after ver. 23, while certain others placed it after ver. 27. The double benediction of the arose by the ordinary process of conflation. The significance of this in corroborating the existence of an early text which omitted the doxology has been pointed out otherwise these verses will not support the deductions made from them by
TR
Renan, Gifford, and others.
The above, stated as shortly as possible, are the diplomatic facts which demand explanation. Already in the seventeenth century some at any rale had
attracted notice, and Semler (1769), Griesbach (1777) and others developed elaborate theories to account for them. To attempt to enumerate all the different views would be beside our purpose : it will be more convenient to confine ourselves to certain typical illustrations.
hypothesis which would account for most (although not all) of the would be to suppose that the last two chapters were not genuine. This opinion was held by Baur 1 , although, as was usual with him, on purely a priori grounds, and with an only incidental reference to the MS. evidence which might have been the strongest support of his theory. The main motive which induced him to excise them was the expression in xv. 8 that Christ was made a minister of circumcision,' which is inconsistent with his view of St. Paul's doctrine and he supported his contention by a vigorous examination of the style and contents of these two chapters. His arguments have been noticed (so far as seemed necessary) in the commentary. But the consensus of a large number of critics in condemning the result may excuse our pursuing them in further detail. Doctrinally his views were only consistent with a onesided theory of the Pauline position and teaching, and if that theory is given up then his arguments become untenable. As regards his literary criticism the ' On opinion of Renan may be accepted est surpris qu'un critique aussi habile que Baur se soit contente d'une solution aussi grossiere. Pourquoi ur, faussaiie aurait-il invente de si insignificants details? Pourquoi aurait-il ajoutt a l'ouvrage sacre une liste de noms propres 2 ? '. But we are not without strong positive arguments in favour of the genuine ness of at any rate the fifteenth chapter. In the first place a careful examination of the first thirteen verses shows conclusively that they are closely connected with the previous chapter. The break after xiv. 23 is purely arbitrary, and the passage that follows to the end of ver. 6 is merely a conclusion of the previous argument, without which the former chapter is incomplete, and which it is inconceivable that an interpolator could have either been able 01 desired to insert; while in vv. 7-13 the Apostle connects the special subject of which he has been treating with the general condition of the Church, and supports his main contention by a series of texts drawn from the O. T. Both in the appeal to Scripture and in the introduction of broad and general principles this conclusion may be exactly paralleled by the custom of St. Paul elsewhere in the Epistle. No theory therefore can be accepted which does not
1.
An
facts stated
'
'
St.
Paulus, 1866, pp. 393 Theologische Zeitung, 1836, pp. 97, 144. Paul, p. lxxi, quoted by Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 290.
ff.
XC11
[ 9.
recognize that xiv and xv. 13 form a single paragraph which must not be split up. But further than this the remainder of chap, xv shows every sign of being a genuine work of the Apostle. The argument of Paley based upon the collection for the poor Christians at Jerusalem is in this case almost demonstrative The reference to the Apostle's intention of visiting Spain, to the (see p. xxxvi circumstances in which he is placed, the dangers he is expecting, his hope of visiting Rome fulfilled in such a very different manner, are all inconsistent with while most readers will feel in the personal touches, in the spuriousness combination of boldness in asserting his mission with consideration for the feelings of his readers, in the strong and deep emotions which are occasionally allowed to come to the surface, all the most characteristic marks of the
. ;
Apostle's writing. Baur's views were followed by von Schwegler, Holsten, Zeller, and others, but have been rejected by Mangold, Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, and modified form is put forward by Lucht l, who considers that parts Lipsius. in fact he applies the interpolation theory to aie genuine and part spurious Against these two chapters (being followed to a slight extent by Lipsius). any such theory the arguments are conclusive. It has all the disadvantages of the broader theory and does not either solve the problem suggested by the manuFor the rejection of the last two script evidence or receive support from it. chapters as a whole there is some support, as we have seen ; for believing that they contain interpolations (except in a form to be considered immediately) there There is no greater need for suspecting interpolations is no external evidence. in chap, xv than in chap. xiv. 2. may dismiss then all such theories as imply the spuriousness of the last two chapters and may pass on to a second group which explains the phenomena of the MSS. by supposing that our Epistle has grown up through the combination of different letters or parts of letters either all addressed to the Roman Church, or addressed partly to the Roman Church, partly elsewhere. An elaborate and typical theory of this sort, and one which has the merit of He supposes that the so-called explaining all the facts, is that of Renan *. Epistle to the Romans was a circular letter and that it existed in four different
We
forms
(i)
A letter to the Romans. This contained chap, i-xi and chap. xv. A letter to the Ephesians. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 1-20. A letter to the Thessalonians. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 21-24. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 25-27. (iv) A letter to an unknown church.
(ii)
(iii)
:
In the last three letters there would of course be some modifications in chap, i, of which we have a reminiscence in the variations of the MS. G. This theory is supported by the following amongst other arguments (i) We know, as in the case of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that St. Paul wrote circular letters, (ii) The Epistle as we have it has four endings, xv. 33, Each of these really represented the ending of a separate xvi. 20, 24, 25-27. (iii) There are strong internal grounds for believing that xvi. 1-20 Epistle, was addressed to the Ephesian Church, (iv) The Macedonian names occurring in xvi. 21-24 su gg est tnat these verses were addressed to a Macedonian church, (v) This explains how it came to be that such an elaborate letter was sent to a church of which St. Paul had such little knowledge as that of
Rome.
;
This theory has one advantage, that it accounts for all the facts but there One is that are two arguments against it which are absolutely conclusive. there are not four endings in the Epistle at all ; xv. 33 is not like any of the
Lucht, Uber die beiden letzten Capitel des Rbmerbriefs, 1871. 2 Renan, St. Paul, pp. lxiii ff. This theory is examined at great length by Bp. Lightfoot, op. cit. pp. 293 ff.
1
9-]
;
INTEGRITY
xciii
endings of St. Paul s Epistles while, as is shown above, the origin of the duplicate be .edictiom xvi. 20 and 24, must be explained on purely textual grounds. If Kenan's theory had been correct then we should not have both benedictions in the late MSS. but in the earlier. As it is, it is clear that the duplication simply arose from conflation. second argument, in our opinion equally conclusive against this theory, is that it separates chap xiv from the first thirteen verses of chap. xv. The arguments on this subject need not be repeated, but it may be pointed out that they are as conclusive against Renan's hypothesis as against that of Baur. 3. Renan's theory has not received acceptance, but there is one portion of it which has been more generally held than any other with regard to these final chapters; that namely which considers that the list of names in chap, xvi belongs to a letter addressed to Ephesus and not to one addressed to Rome. This view, first put forward by Schulz (1829), has been adopted by Ewald, Mangold, Laurent, Hitzig, Reuss, Ritschl, Lucht, Holsten, Lipsius, Krenkel, Kneucker, Weiss, Weizsacker, Farrar. It has two forms; some hold ver. 1, 2 to belong to the Romans, others consider them also part of the Ephesian letter. Nor is it quite certain where the Ephesian fragment ends. Some consider that it includes vv. 17-21, others make it stop at ver. 16. The arguments in favour of this view are as follows: 1. It is pointed out that it is hardly likely that St. Paul should have been acquainted with such a large number of persons in a church like that of Rome which he had never visited, and that this feeling is corroborated by the number of personal details that he adds: references to companions in captivity, to relations, to fellowlabourers. All these allusions are easily explicable on the theory that the Epistle is addressed to the Ephesian Church, but not if it be addressed to the Roman. 2. This opinion is corroborated, it is said, by an examination of the list itself. Aquila and Priscilla and the church that is in their house are mentioned shortly before this date as being at Ephesus, and shortly afterwards they are again mentioned as being in the same city (1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Tim. iv. 19). The very next name Epaenetus is clearly described as a native of the province of Asia. Of the others many are Jewish, many Greek, and it is more likely that they should be natives of Ephesus than natives of Rome. 3. That the warning against false teachers is quite inconsistent with the whole tenor of the letter, which elsewhere never refers to false teachers as being at work in
Rome.
In examining this hypothesis we must notice at once that it does not in any way help us to solve the textual difficulties, and receives no assistance from them. The problems of the concluding doxology and of the omission of the last two chapters remain as they were. It is only if we insert a benediction both at ver. 20 and at ver. 24 that we get any assistance. In that case we might explain the duplicate benediction by supposing that the first was
the conclusion of the Ephesian letter, the second the conclusion of the Roman. As we have seen, the textual phenomena do not support this view. The theory therefore must be examined on its own merits, and the burden of proof is thrown on the opponents of the Roman destination of the Epistle, for as has been shown the only critical basis we can start from, in discussing St. Paul's Epistles, is that they have come down to us substantially in the form in which they were written unless very strong evidence is brought forward to the contrary.
But this evidence cannot be called very strong. It is admitted by Weiss and Mangold, for instance, that the a priori arguments against St. Paul's
acquaintance with some twenty-four persons in the Roman community are of slight weight. Christianity was preached amongst just that portion of the population of the Empire which would be most nomadic in character. It is admitted again that it would be natural that, in writing to a strange church, St. Paul should lay special stress on all those with whom he was acquainted or
XC1V
[ 9.
of whom he had heard, in order that he might thus commend himself to them. Again, when we come to examine the names, we find that those actually connected with Ephesus are only three, and of these persons two are known to have originally come from Rome, while the third alone can hardly be considered sufficient support for this theory. When again we come to examine the warning against heretics, we find that after all it is perfectly consistent with the body of the Epistle. If we conceive it to be a warning against false teachers whom St. Paul fears may come but who have not yet done so, it exactly suits the situation, and helps to explain the motives he had in writing the Epistle. He definitely states that he is only warning them that they may be wise if occasion arise. The arguments against these verses are not strong. What is the value of the definite evidence in their favour? This is of two classes. (i) The archaeological evidence for connecting the names in the Epistle with Rome, (ii) The archaeological and literary evidence for connecting any of the persons mentioned here with the Roman Church. (i) In his commentary on the Philippians, starting from the text Phil. iv. 22 aa dôvrai vfias ixa\TTa ol K tov Kaiffapos o'lKias, Bp. Lightfoot proceeds to examine the list of names in Rom. xvi in the light of Roman inscriptions. We happen to have preserved to us almost completely the funereal inscriptions of certain columbaria in which were deposited the ashes of members of the imperial household. Some of these date a little earlier than the Epistle to the Romans, some of them are almost contemporary. Besides these we have a large number of inscriptions containing names of freedmen and others belonging to the imperial household. Now examples of almost every name in Rom. xvi. 3-16 may be found amongst these, and the publication of the sixth volume of the Corpus of Latin Insciiptions has enabled us to add to the instances quoted. Practically every name may be illustrated in Rome, and almost every name in the Inscriptions of the household, although some of them
71
are
uncommon.
;
Now what does this prove? It does not prove of course that these are the persons to whom the Epistle was written nor does it give overwhelming evidence that the names are Roman. It shows that such a combination of names was possible in Rome but it shows something more than this. Mangold asks what is the value of this investigation as the same names are found outside Rome? The answer is that for the most part they are very rare. Lipsius makes various attempts to illustrate the names from Asiatic inscriptions, but not very successfully nor does Mangold help by showing that the two common names Narcissus and Hermas may be paralleled elsewhere. have attempted to institute some comparison, but it is not very easy and will not be until we have more satisfactory collections of Greek inscriptions. If we take the Greek Corptis we shall find that in the inscriptions of Ephesus only three names out of the twenty-four in this list occur if we extend our survey to the province of Asia we shall find only twelve. what this comparison suggests is that such a combination of names Greek, Jewish, and Latin could as a matter of fact only be found in the mixed population which formed the lower and middle classes of Rome. This evidence is not conclusive, but it shows that there is no a priori improbability in the names being Roman, and that it would be difficult anywhere else to illustrate such an
: ;
We
Now
heterogeneous collection.
To this we may add the further evidence afforded by the explanation given by Bishop Lightfoot and repeated in the notes, of the households of Narcissus and Aristobulus evidence again only corroborative but yet of some weight. (ii) The more direct archaeological evidence is that for connecting the names
:
of Prisca, Amplias, Nereus, and Apelles definitely with the early history of Christianity. These points have been discussed sufficiently in the notes, and it is only necessary to say here that it would be an excess of
Roman
9-]
INTEGRITY
X CV
scepticism to look upon such evidence as worthless, although it might not weigh much if there were strong evidence on the other side. To sum up then. There is no external evidence against this section, nor does the exclusion of it from the Roman letter help in any way to solve the problems presented by the text. The arguments against the Roman destination are purely a priori. They can therefore have little value. On being examined they were found not to be valid while evidence not conclusive but considerable has been brought forward in favour of the Roman destination. For these reasons we have used the sixteenth chapter without hesitation in writing an account of the Roman Church, and any success we have had in the drawing of the picture which we have been able to present must be allowed to weigh in the evidence. 4. Reiche (in 1833) suggested that the doxology was not genuine, and his opinion has been largely followed, combined in some cases with theories as to the omission of other parts, in some cases not. It is well known that passages which did not originally form part of the text are inserted in different places in different texts; for instance, the pericope adulterae is found in more than one place. It would still be difficult to find a reason for the insertion of the doxology in the particular place at the end of chap, xiv, but at the same time the theory that it is not genuine will account for its omission altogether in some MSS. and its insertion in different places in others. ask then what further evidence there is for this omission, and are confronted with a large number of arguments which inform us that it is clearly unpauline because it harmonizes in style, in phraseology, and in subject-matter with non-pauline Epistles that to the Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. This argument must tell in different ways to different critics. It will be very strong, if not conclusive, to those who consider that these Epistles are not Pauline. To those however who accept them as genuine these arguments will rather confirm their belief in the Pauline authorship. 5. But there is an alternative hypothesis which may demand more careful consideration from us, that although it comes from St. Paul it belongs to rather a later period in his life. It is this consideration amongst others which forms the basis of the theory put forward by Dr. Lightfoot. He considers that the original Epistle to the Romans written by St. Paul contained all our present Epistle except xvi. 25-27; that at a somewhat later period the peiiod perhaps of his Roman imprisonment, St. Paul turned this into a circular letter; he cut off the last two chapters which contained for the most part purely persona] matter, he omitted the words kv 'Pw/xy in i. 7 and 15 and then added the doxology at the end because he felt the need of some'more fitting conclusion. Then, at a later date, in order to make the original Epistle complete the doxology was added from the later recension to the earlier. Dr. Lightfoot points out that this hypothesis solves all the problems. It explains the existence of a shorter recension, it explains the presence of the doxology in both places, it explains the peculiar style of the doxology. may admit this, but there is one point it does not explain ; it does not explain how or why St. Paul made the division at the end of chap. xiv. There is nothing in the next thirteen verses which unfits them for general circulation. They are in fact more suitable for an encyclical letter than is chap. xiv. It is to us inconceivable that St. Paul should have himself mutilated his own argument by cutting off the conclusion of it. This consideration therefore seems to us decisive against Dr. Lightfoot's theory. 6. Dr. Hort has subjected the arguments of Dr. Lightfoot to a very close examination. He begins by a careful study of the doxology and has shown clearly first of all that the parallels between it and passages in the four acknowledged Epistles are much commoner and nearer than was thought to be the case; and secondly that it exactly reproduces and sums up the whole argument of the Epistle. On his investigation we have based our commentary, and we
;
We
We
XCV1
must
[ 9.
refer to that and to Dr. Hort's own essay for the reasons which make us accept the doxology as not only a genuine work of St. Paul, but also as an That at the end he should feel compelled integral portion of the Epistle. once more to sum up the great ideas of which the Epistle is full and put them clearly and strongly before his readers is quite in accordance with the whole mind of the Apostle. He does so in fact at the conclusion of the Galatian letter, although not in the form of a doxology. Dr. Hort then proceeds to criticize and explain away the textual phenomena. have quoted his emendation of the passage in Origen and pointed out that No single argument in favour of the existence it is to us most unconvincing. of the shorter recension may be strong, but the combination of reasons is in our opinion too weighty to be explained away. Dr. Hort's own conclusions are: (i) He suggests that as the last two chapters were considered unsuitable for public reading, they might be omitted in systems of lectionaries while the doxology which was felt to be edifying was appended to chap, xiv, that it might be read. (2) Some such theory as this might explain the capitulations. ' The analogy of the common Greek capitulations shows how easily the personal or local and as it were temporary portions of an epistle might be excluded from a schedule of chapters or paragraphs.' (3) The omission of the allusions to Rome is due to a simple transcriptional accident. (4) ' When all is said, two facts have to be explained, the insertion of the Doxology after xiv and its omission.' This latter is due to Marcion, which must be explained to mean an omission agreeing with the reading in Marcion's copy. On the whole it is morally certain that the omission is his only as having been transmitted by him, in other words that it is a genuine Dr. Hort finally concludes that though a genuine reading it ancient reading/ is incorrect and perhaps arises through some accident such as the tearing off of the end of a papyrus roll or the last sheet in a book. While admitting the force of some of Hort's criticisms on Lightfoot, and especially his defence of the genuineness of the doxology, we must express our belief that his manner of dealing with the evidence is somewhat arbitrary, and that his theory does not satisfactorily explain all the facts. ourselves incline to an opinion suggested first we believe by 7. Dr. Gifford. As will have already become apparent, no solution among those offered has attempted to explain what is really the most difficult part of the problem, know that the doxology the place at which the division was made. was in many copies inserted at the end of chap, xiv; we have strong grounds why is it for believing that in some editions chaps, xv and xvi were omitted As we have at this place, certainly not a suitable one, that the break occurs ? seen, a careful examination of the text shows that the first thirteen verses of chap, xv are linked closely with chap, xiv so closely that it is impossible to believe that they are not genuine, or that the Apostle himself could have cut them off from the context in publishing a shorter edition of his Epistle intended for a wide circulation. Nor again is it probable that any one arranging the Epistle for church services would have made the division at this place. The difficulty of the question is of course obscured for us by the division into chapters. To us if we wished to cut off the more personal part of the Epistle, a rough and ready method might suggest itself in the excision of the last two chapters, but we are dealing with a time before the present or probably any division into chapters existed. Now if there were no solution possible, we might possibly ascribe this division to accident but as a matter of fact internal evidence and external have seen that there is contestimony alike point to the same cause. siderable testimony for the fact that Marcion excised the last two chapters, and if we examine the beginning of chap, xv we shall find that as far as regards the first thirteen verses hardly any other course was possible for him, if he held
We
'
We
We
We
INTEGRITY
XCV11
the opinions which are ascribed to him. To begin with, five of these verses but further ver. 8 contains an expression contain quotations from the O. T. Kiya) yap Xptarou Siateovov yzytvrjodai irepiTOfxrjs virep a\T)0tias &eov, which he most certainly could not have used. Still more is this the case with regard to The ver. 4, which directly contradicts the whole of his special teaching. words at the end of chap, xiv might seem to make a more suitable ending than either of the next two verses, and at this place the division was drawn. The remainder of these two chapters could be omitted simply because they were useless for the definite dogmatic purpose Marcion had in view, and the Doxology which he could not quite like would go with them. If we once assume this excision by Marcion it may perhaps explain the phenomena. Dr. Hort has pointed out against Dr. Lightfoot's theory of a shorter recension with the doxology that all the direct evidence for omitting ' For the the last two chapters is also in favour of omitting the Doxology. omission of xv, xvi, the one direct testimony, if such it be, is that of Marcion and yet the one incontrovertible fact about him is that he omitted the Doxology. If is to be added on the strength of the blank space after xiv, yet again it may add also the capitulations of Codex leaves out the Doxology.' Fuldensis which again, as Dr. Hort points out, have no trace of the Doxology. Our evidence therefore points to the existence of a recension simply leaving
;
:
We
out the last two chapters.
Now
some
edition
it is
if
becoming more generally admitted that Marcion's Apostolicon had not great influence on variations in the text of the N. T. His
circulation,
had considerable
in the
especially
at
Rome, and
therefore
West, and it is from the West that our evidence mostly comes. When in adapting the text for the purposes of church use it was thought advisable to omit the last portions as too personal and not sufficiently edifying, it was natural to make the division at a place where in a current The subsequent steps would then edition the break had already been made. be similar to those suggested by Dr. Hort. It was natural to add the
presumably
Doxology in order to give a more suitable conclusion, or to preserve it for public reading at this place, and subsequently it dropped out at the later That is the order suggested by the manuscript evidence. All our best place. Arm. representing a later but still authorities place it at the end; respectable text have it in both places later authorities for the most part place it only at xiv. 23. It remains to account for the omission of any reference to Rome in the first chapter of G. This may of course be a mere idiosyncracy of that MS., arising either from carelessness of transcription (a cause which we can hardly accept) or from a desire to make the Epistle more general in its character. But it does not seem to us at all improbable that this omission may also be due to Marcion. His edition was made with a strongly dogmatic purpose. Local and personal allusions would have little interest to him. The words \v "Pww could easily be omitted without injuring the context. The opinion is perhaps corroborated by the character of the MS. in which the omission occurs. Allusion has been F G. made (p. lxix) to two dissertations by Dr. Corssen on the allied MSS. In the second of these, he suggests that the archetype from which these MSS.
AP
Even if his argument were correct, it would are derived (Z) ended at xv. 13. not take away from the force of the other facts which have been mentioned. We should still have to explain how it was that the Doxology was inserted only at the end of chap, xiv, and the previous discussion would stand as it is a new fact would have to be accounted for. When, however, we come to examine Dr. Corssen's arguments they hardly seem to support his contention. It may be admitted indeed, that the capitulations of the Codex Amiatinus mifjht have been made for a copy which ended at xv. 13, but they present no solid argument for the existence of such a copy. Dr. Corssen points out that in the section xv. 14 xvi. 23, there are a considerable number
:
XCviii
[ 9.
of variations in the text, and suggests that that implies a different source for the text of that portion of the epistle. The number of variations in the fericope adulterae are, it is well known, considerable ; and in the same way he would argue that this portion which has all these variations must come from a separate source. But the facts do not support his contention. It is true that in forty-three verses he is able to enumerate twenty-four variations ; but if we examine the twenty-three verses of chap, xiv we shall find fourteen variations, a still larger proportion. Moreover, in xiv. 13 there are as numerous and as important variations as in any of the following verses. Dr. Corssen's arguments do not bear out his conclusion. As a matter of fact, as Dr. Hort pointed out against Dr. Lightfoot, the text of F presents exactly the same phenomena throughout the Epistle, and that suggests, although it does not perhaps prove, that the archetype contained the last two chapters. The scribe however was probably acquainted with a copy which omitted them. This archetype is alone or almost alone amongst our sources for the text in omitting the Doxology. It also omits as we have seen kv 'Pdufiri in both places. would hazard the suggestion that all these variations were due directly or indirectly to the same cause, the text of Marcion. In our opinion then the text as we have it represents substantially the Epistle that St. Paul wrote to the Romans, and it remains only to explain briefly the somewhat complicated ending. At xv. 13 the didactic portion of it is concluded, and the remainder of the chapter is devoted to the Apostle's personal relations with the Roman Church, and a sketch of his plans. This paragraph ends with a short prayer called forth by the mingled hopes and fears which these plans for the future suggest. Then comes the commendation of Phoebe, the bearer of the letter (xvi. 1,2); then salutations (3-16). The Apostle might now close the Epistle, but his sense of the danger to which the Roman Church may be exposed, if it is visited by false teachers, such as he is acquainted with in the East, leads him to give a final and direct warning against them. find a not dissimilar phenomenon in the Epistle to the Philippians. There in iii. 1 he appears to be concluding, but before he concludes he breaks out into a strong, even indignant warning against false teachers (iii. 2-21), and even after that dwells long and feelingly over his salutations. The same difficulty of ending need not therefore surprise us when we meet it in the Romans. Then comes (xvi. 20) the concluding benediction. After this a postscript with salutations from the companions of St. Paul. Then finally the Apostle, wishing perhaps, as Dr. Hort suggests, to raise the Epistle once more to the serene tone which has characterized it throughout, adds the concluding Doxology, summing up the whole argument of the Epistle. There is surely nothing unreasonable in supposing that there would be an absence of complete sameness in the construction of the different letters. It is not likely that all would exactly correspond to the same model. The form in each case would be altered and changed in accordance with the feelings of the Apostle, and there is abundant proof throughout the Epistle that the Apostle felt earnestly the need of preserving the Roman Church from the evils of disunion and false teaching.
D G
We
We
10. Commentaries,
very complete and careful bibliography of the Epistle to the Romans was added by the editor, Dr. W. P. Dickson, to the English translation of Meyer's Commentary. This need not be repeated here. But a few leading works may be mentioned, especially such as have been most largely used in the preparation
: ;
10.]
COMMENTARIES
One
XC1X
of this edition.
or two which have not been used are added
as links in the historical chain.
Some
conception
may
be formed
of the general characteristics of the older commentators from the sketch which is given of their treatment of particular subjects; e.g. of the doctrine of ddcatWu at p. 147 ff., and of the interpretation of
ch. ix.
6-29 on
p.
269
ff.
The arrangement
writers are
is,
roughly speaking,
chronological, but
modern
their real affinities
grouped rather according to than according to dates of publication which
would be sometimes misleading.

Greek Writers.
1.
Origen (Orig.); ob. 253: Comment, in Epist. S. Panli ad Romanos in Origenis Opera ed. C. H. E. Lommatzsch, vols, vi, vii Berolini, 1836, 1837. The standard edition, on which that of Lommatzsch is based, is that begun by Charles Delarue, Bene-
Maur in 1733, an ^ completed after death by his nephew Charles Vincent Delarue in 1759. The Commentary on Romans comes in Tom. iv, which appeared in the latter year. A new edition for which the beginnings have been made, in Germany by Dr. P. Koetschau, and in England by Prof. Armitage Robinson and others is however much needed. The Commentary on our Epistle belongs to the latter part of Origen's life when he was settled at Caesarea. A few fragments of the original Greek have come down to us in the Philocalia (ed. Robinson, Cambridge, 1893), and in Cramer's Catena, Tom. iv. (Oxon. 1844) ; but for the greater part we are dependent upon the condensed translation of Rufinus (hence Orig.-lat/). There is no doubt that Rufinus treated the work before him with great freedom. Its text in particular is frequently adapted to that of the Old-Latin copy of the Epistles which he was in the habit of using so that Orig.-lat.' more often represents Rufinus than Origen. An admirable account of the Commentary, so far as can be ascertained, in both its forms is given in Dr. Westcott's article Origenes in Diet. Chr. Biog. iv. 11 5- 118. This work of Origen's is unique among commentaries. The reader is astonished not only at the command of Scripture but at the range and subtlety of thought which it displays. The questions raised are often remarkably modern. If he had been as successful in answering as he is in propounding them Origen would have left little for those who followed him. As it is he is hampered by defects of method and especially by the fatal facility of allegory the discursiveness and prolixity of treatment are also deterrent to the average reader. Chrysostom (Chrys.) ; ob. 407 Homil. in Epist. ad Romanos, ed. Field Oxon. 1849; a complete critical edition. A translation
dictine of the congregation of St.
his
'
'
g 2
[ 10.
(not of this but of Savile's text which is superior to Montfaucon's), B. Morris, was given in the Library of the Fathers, J. The Homilies were delivered at Antioch vol. vii: Oxford, 1841.
by the Rev.
They show the preacher at his probably between 387-397 a.d. best and are full of moral enthusiasm and of sympathetic human they are also the work insight into the personality of the Apostle of an accomplished scholar and orator, but do not always sound the depths of the great problems with which the Apostle is wrestling. They have at once the merits and the limitations of Antiochene
;
exegesis.
Theodoret (Theodrt., Thdrt.) played a well-known moderating He died in 458 a. d. part in the controversies of the fifth century. As a commentator he is a pedisequus but one of the best of the many pedisequi-r-oi St. Chrysostom. His Commentary on the Ep.
to the
1642,
Romans is contained in his Works, ed. Sirmond Tom. iii. 1-119; also ed. Schulze and Noesselt,
;
Paris,
Halle,
1769-1774. Joannes Damascenus ( Jo.-Damasc.) died before 754 a.d. His commentary is almost entirely an epitome of Chrysostom; it is Paris, 17 12, torn. ii. printed among his works (ed. Lequien The so-called Sacra Parallela published under his pp. 1-60). name are now known to be some two centuries earlier and probably in great part the work of Leontius of Byzantium (see the Studien iiber die dem Johannes brilliant researches of Dr. F. Loofs
: :
von Damascus zugeschriebenen Parallelen, Halle, 1892). Oecumenius (Oecum.) ; bishop of Tricca in Thessaly in the The Commentary on Romans occupies pp. 195tenth century. 413 of his Works (ed. Joan. Hentenius Paris, 1631). It is prac:
a Catena with some contributions by Oecumenius himself; from Photius (Phot.), the eminent it includes copious extracts patriarch of Constantinople (c. 820-c. 891) ; these are occasionally noted. Theophylact (Theoph.) ; archbishop of Bulgaria under Michael
tically
VII Ducas(io7i-io78), and

is
still
living in 11 18.
its
His Commentary
one of the best specimens of

ii.
kind {Opp. ed. Venet., I754 ;
1763, torn.
1-118).
Euthymius Zigabenus (Euthym.-Zig.) living after 11 18; monk in a monastery near Constantinople and in high favour with the His Commentaries on St. Paul's emperor Alexius Comnenus.
Athens); reason they have not been utilized in previous They deserve editions we have drawn upon them rather largely. citation by their terseness, point, and general precision of thought,
Epistles were not published until 1887 (ed. Calogeras
:
and as
for that
but like
all
the writers of this date they follow closely in the foot-
steps of Chrysostom.
10.]
COMMENTARIES
2.
ci
Latin Writers.
Ambrosiaster (Ambrstr.). The Epistle to the Romans heads a series of Commentaries on thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, which in some (though not the oldest) MSS. bear the name of St. Ambrose, and from that circumstance came to be included in the printed The Benedictines, Du Frische and Le editions of his works. Nourry in 1690, argued against their genuineness, which has been defended with more courage than success by the latest editor, P. A. Ballerini (S. Ambrosii Opera, torn, iii, p. 350 ff. Mediolani, The real authorship of this work is one of the still open 1877).
;
problems of
the text
literary criticism.
It
are fairly fixed.
The date and place of composition was probably written at Rome, and (unless
is corrupt) during the Episcopate of Damasus about the The author was for some time supposed to be year 380 a. d. a certain Hilary the Deacon, as a passage which appears in the commentary is referred by St. Augustine to sanctus Hilarius The commentary cannot really {Contra duas Epp. Pelag. iv. 7). proceed from the great Hilary (of Poitiers), but however the fact is More recently an to be explained it is probably he who is meant. elaborate attempt has been made by the Old-Catholic scholar, Dr. Langen, to vindicate the work for Faustinus, a Roman pres[Dr. Langen first propounded his byter of the required date. views in an address delivered at Bonn in 1880, but has since given the substance of them in his Geschichte d. rbm. Kirche, pp. 599A case of some strength seemed to be made out, but it 610.] was replied to with arguments which appear to preponderate by Marold in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift for 1883, pp. 415-470. Unfortunately the result is purely negative, and the commentary is stili without an owner. It has come out in the course of discussion that it presents a considerable resemblance, though not so much as to imply identity of authorship, with the Quaestiones ex utroque The comTestamento, printed among the works of St. Augustine. mentator was a man of intelligence who gives the best account we have from antiquity of the origin of the Roman Church (see above,
p. xxv),
but
it
has been used in
this edition
more
for
its
interesting
permanent value of its exegesis. Pelagius (Pelag.). In the Appendix to the works of St. Jerome (ed. Migne xi. [P. L. xxx.], col. 659 rT.) there is a series of Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles which is now known to proceed The Commentary was really from the author of Pelagianism.
text than for the
probably written before 410. It consists of brief but well written scholia rather dexterously turned so as not to clash with his But it has not come down to us as Pelagius left it. peculiar views. Cassiodorius, and perhaps others, made excisions in the interests of orthodoxy.
Cii
[ 10.
Hugh
c.
of St. Victor (Hugo a S. Victore, Hugh of Paris) 1097-1141. Amongst the works of the great mystic of the
;
Novum Testamentum, Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Migne, P. L. clxxv, col. 879), and Quaes Hones et Decisiones in Epistolas D. Pauli. 1. In Epistolam ad Romanos (Migne, clxxv, col. 431). The authenticity of both these is disputed. St. Hugh was a typical representative of the mystical as opposed to the rationalizing tendency of the Middle Ages. Peter Abelard, 1079-1142. Petri Abaelardi commenlariorum super S. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos libri quinque (Migne, P. L. clxxviii. col. 783). The commentary is described as being 'literal, theological, and moral. The author follows the text exactly, explains each phrase, often each part of a phrase separately, and attempts (not always very successfully) to show the connexion of thought. Occasionally he discusses theological or moral questions, often with great originality, often showing indications of the opinions for which he was condemned (Migne, op. cit. col. 30). So far as we have consulted it, we have found it based partly on Origen partly on Augustine, and rather weak and indecisive in its character. Thomas Aquinas, c. 12 25-1 274, called Doctor Angelicus. His Exposiiio in Epistolas omnes Divi Pauli Apostoli (Opp. Tom. xvi.
twelfth century are published Allegoriae in
Lib. VI.
Allegoriae
in
'
his great
Venetiis, 1593) formed part of the preparation which he made for work the Summa Theologiae a preparation which consisted
Lombard, the Scriptures with the comments of the Fathers, and the works of Aristotle. His commentary works out in great detail the method of exegesis started by St. Augustine. No modem reader who turns to it can fail to be struck by the immense intellectual power displayed, and by the precision and completeness of the logical analysis. Its value is chiefly as a complete and methodical exposition from a definite point of view. That in attempting to fit every argument of St. Paul into the form of a scholastic syllogism, and in making every thought harmonize with the Augustinian doctrine of grace, there should be a tendency to make St. Paul's words fit a preconceived system is not unnatural.
in the careful study of the sentences of Peter
3.
Reformation and Post- Reformation Periods.
Colet, John (c. 1467- 1 519); Dean of St. Paul's. Colet, the friend of Erasmus, delivered a series of lectures on the Epistle to the Romans about the year 1497 in the University of Oxford. These were published in 1873 *ith a translation by J. H. Lupton, M.A., Sur-Master of St. Paul's School. They are full of interest as an historical memorial of the earlier English Reformation. Erasmus, Desiderius, 1466-1536. Erasmus' Greek Testament
10.]
COMMENTARIES
cm
new translation and annotations was published in 1516; Paraphrasis Novi Testament! a popular work, in 1522. He was greater always in what he conceived and planned than in the manner in which he accomplished it. He published the first edition of the Greek New Testament, and the first commentary on it which made use of the learning of the Renaissance, and edited for the first time many of the early fathers. But in all that he did there are great defects of execution, defects even for his own time.
with a
his
,
He was more
and
his
successful in raising questions than in solving
them
commentaries surfer as much from timidity as did those of Luther from excessive boldness. His aim was to reform the Church by publishing and interpreting the records of early Christianity an aim which harmonized ill with the times in which he lived. His work was rather to prepare the way for future developments.
Luther's contribution to the confined to a short Preface, published in 1523. But as marking an epoch in the study of St. Paul's writings, the most important place is occupied by his Commentary on the Galatians. This was published in a shorter form, In epist. P. ad Galatas Mart. Luther i comment, in 15 19; in a longer form, In epist. P. ad Gal. commentarius ex praelectionibus Mart. Luiheri collectus, 1535. Exegesis was not Luther's strong point, and his commentaries bristle with faults. They are defective, and prolix full of bitter controversy and one-sided. The value of his contribution to the study of St. Paul's writings was of a different character. By grasping, if in a one-sided way, some of St. Paul's leading ideas, and by insisting upon them with unwearied boldness and persistence, he produced conditions of religious life which made the comprehension of part of the Apostle's teaching possible. His exegetical notes could seldom be quoted, but he paved the way for a correct exegesis. Melanchthon, Philip (149 7-1 560), was the most scholarly of the Reformers. His Adnotationes in ep. P. ad Rom. with a preface by Luther was published in 1522, his Commentarii in Ep. ad Rom.
literature
Luther, Martin,
of the
1483- 1546.
Romans was
in 1540.
Calvin, John (1 509-1 564). His Commentarii in omnes epistolas Pauli Apost. was first published at Strassburgin 1539. Calvin was by far the greatest of the commentators of the Reformation. He is clear, lucid, honest, and straightforward.
As
views
the question
re
is
an interesting one,
how
far
Calvin brought his peculiar
ady-made to the study of the Epistle and how far he derived them from it by an uncompromising exegesis, we are glad to place before the reader a statement by one who is familiar with Calvin's writings (Dr. A. M.
' The Fairbairn, Principal of Mansfield College). first edition of the Institutes was published in 1536. It has hardly any detailed exposition of Expositions the higher Calvinistic doctrine, but is made up of six parts (i) of the Decalogue ; (ii) of the Apostolic Creed ; (iii) of the Lord's Prayer;
:
Civ

;
[ 10.
(v) of the Roman or false doctrine of Sacraments (iv) of the Sacraments and (vi) of Christian Liberty or Church Polity. There is just a single paragraph on Election. In 1539 he published two things, the Commentary on Romans and the 2nd edition of the Institutes. And the latter are greatly expanded with all his distinctive doctrines fully developed. Two things are, I think, certain: this development was due to his study (1) of Augustine, But it was St. especially the Anti-Pelagian writings, and (2) of St. Paul. Paul read through Augustine. The exegetical stamp is peculiarly distinct that his ideas should say in the doctrinal parts of the Institutes; and so I were not so much philosophical as theological and exegetical in their basis. I ought to add however as indicating his philosophical bent that his earliest were on Seneca, De dementia? before he became a divine studies
His edition of the Greek Testament with translation and annotations was first published by H. Stephanus in 1565, his Adnotaliones majores in N. T. at Paris
Beza, Theodore (1519-1605).
in
1594.
Arminius (Jakob Harmensen), 1 560-1 609, Professor at Leyden, As a typical example of the opposite school of interpretation 1603. His works were comto that of Calvin may be taken Arminius. Two tracts of paratively few, and he produced few commentaries. He his however were devoted to explaining Romans vii and ix. admirably illustrates the statement of Hallam that 'every one who had to defend a cause, found no course so ready as to explain the
Scriptures consistently with his own tenets/ The two principal Roman Catholic commentators of the seven-
teenth century were Estius and Cornelius a Lapide. Cornelius a Lapide (van Stein), oh. 1637, a Jesuit, published
his
Commeniaria in omnes d. Pauli epts tolas at Antwerp in 16 14. Estius (W. van Est), ob. 1613, was Provost and Chancellor of His In omnes Pauli et aliorum apostolor. epislolas comDouay. mentar. was published after his death at Douay in 1614-1616. His Annotationes Grotius (Huig van Groot), 1583-1645. This distinguished in N. T. were published at Paris in 1644. publicist and statesman had been in his younger days a pupil of Scaliger at Leyden, and his Commentary on the Bible was J. J. the first attempt to apply to its elucidation the more exact philoHe had logical methods which he had learnt from his master. hardly the philological ability for the task he had undertaken, and although of great personal piety was too much destitute of dogmatic
interest.
The work of
first
half of the seventeenth century
the philologists and scholars of the sixteenth and the on the Old and New Testament
was summed up
It in Critici Sacri, first published in 1660. contains extracts from the leading scholars from Valla and Erasmus to Grotius, and represents the point which philological study in the N. T. had up to that time attained. Two English commentators belonging to the seventeenth century
deserve notice.
10.]
COMMENTARIES
CV
Hammond, Henry (i 605-1 660), Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. Hammond was well known as a royalist. He assisted in the production of Walton's Polyglott. His Paraphrase and Annotations of the New Testament appeared in 1653, a few years before his death, at a time when the disturbances of the Civil War compelled him to live in retirement. He has been styled the father of English commentators, and certainly no considerable exegetical work before his time had appeared in this country. But he has a further title to fame. His commentary undoubtedly deserves the title of historical/ In his interpretation he has detached himself from the dogmatic struggles of the seventeenth century, and throughout he attempts to expound the Apostle in accordance with his own ideas and those of the times when he
'
lived.
Locke, John (1662-1704), the well-known philosopher, devoted and in 1 705-1 707 were published A Paraphrase and Notes to the Epistle of St. Paul
his last years to the study of St. Paul's Epistles,
to the
Gala/ians, the first
and second
Epistles to the Corinthians,
and
the Epistles to the
Romans and
Ephesians.
Appended
is
an Essay
for
the understanding of St. Paul's Epistles by consulting St. Paul study of this essay is of great, interest. himself It is full of acute ideas and thoughts, and would amply vindicate the claim of the author to be classed as an historical interpreter. The commentaries were translated into German, and must have had some
'
'
influence
the exegetical literature not only of the eighteenth century all centuries for its masterly terseness and precision and for its combination of spiritual insight with the best scholarship of his time.
among
but of
on the future development of Biblical Exegesis. Bengel, J. A. (Beng.), 1687-1752; a Lutheran prelate in Wurtemberg. His Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742) stands out
J., 1693-1754; after being deposed Basel on a charge of heterodoxy he became Professor in the Remonstrants' College at Amsterdam. His Greek Testament appeared 1751, 1752. Wetstein was one of those indefatigable students whose first-hand researches form the base of other men's labours. In the history of textual criticism he deserves to be named by the side of John Mill and Richard Bentley and besides his collation of MSS. he collected a mass of illustrative matter on the N. T. from classical, patristic, and rabbinical sources
Wetstein
(or Wettstein), J.
from
office at
which
is still
of great value.
4.
Modern
;
Period.
Tholuck, F. A. G., 1 7 99-1 87 7 Professor at Halle. Tholuck was a man of large sympathies and strong religious character, and
CV1
[ 10.
both personally and through his commentary (which came out first in 1824 and has been more than once translated) exercised a wide
influence outside exegetes.
Germany
this is specially
marked
in the
American
Professor at Giessen. 1 801-1846, 836-1 843), like Lticke on St. John is a vast quarry of materials to which all Fritzsche was one subsequent editors have been greatly indebted. of those philologists whose researches did most to fix the laws of N. T. Greek, but his exegesis is hard and rationalizing. He engaged in a controversy with Tholuck the asperity of which he regretted before his death. He was however no doubt the better scholar and stimulated Tholuck to self-improvement in this respect. Meyer, H. A. W. (Mey.), 1800-1873; Consistorialrath in the kingdom of Hanover. Meyer's famous commentaries first began to appear in 1832, and were carried on with unresting energy in a succession of new and constantly enlarged editions until his death. There is an excellent English translation of the Commentary on Romans published by Messrs. T. and T. Clark under the editorMeyer and De Wette ship of Dr. W. P. Dickson in 1873, l8 74may be said to have been the. founders of the modern style of commenting, at once scientific and popular scientific, through its rigorous at times too rigorous application of grammatical and philological laws, and popular by reason of its terseness and power Since of presenting the sifted results of learning and research. Meyer's death the Commentary on Romans has been edited with equal conscientiousness and thoroughness by Dr. Bernhard Weiss, Dr. Weiss has not all his Professor at Berlin (hence Mey.- W.'). predecessor's vigour of style and is rather difficult to follow, but especially in textual criticism marks a real advance. De Wette, W. M. L. (De W.), 1 780-1 849 Professor for a short His time at Berlin, whence he was dismissed, afterwards at Basel. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament first appeared in 1 836-1848. De Wette was an ardent lover of freedom and rationalistically inclined, but his commentaries are models of brevity and precision. Stuart, Moses, 1780-1852; Professor at Andover, Mass. Comm. on Romans first published in 1832 (British edition with preface by Dr. Pye-Smith in 1833). At a time when Biblical exegesis was not being very actively prosecuted in Great Britain two works of solid merit were produced in America. One of these was by Moses Stuart, who did much to naturalize German methods. He expresses large obligations to Tholuck, but is independent as a commentator and modified considerably the Calvinism of his
Fritzsche, C. F. A.
(Fri.),
on Romans (3 and Bleek on Hebrews,

Fritzsche
vols. 1
'
surroundings. Hodge, Dr.
C, 1797-1878;
Professor at Princeton,
New
Jersey.
1 0]
COMMENTARIES
CV11
His Comm. on Romans first published in 1835, rewritten in 1864 is a weighty and learned doctrinal exposition based on the principles of the Westminster Confession. Like Moses Stuart, Dr
also
owed much of
his philological
equipment
to
he had studied.
Hodge Germany J where
Greek Testament by a single hand. Wordsworth, Dr Christopher, 1809-1885; Bishop of Lincoln. Bishop Wordsworth s Greek Testament (1 856-1 860, and subsequently) is of an older type than Dean Alford's, and chiefly valuable for its patristic learning. The author was not only a distinguished
prelate but a literary scholar of a high order (as may be seen by his Athens and Attica, Conjectural Enmidations of Ancient Authors and many other publications) but he wrote at a time when the reading public was less exigent in matters of higher criticism and interpretation.
Dean Alford's laborious work is characterized by vigour, good sense, and scholarship sound as far as it goes ; it is probably still the best complete
Dr. H. (Alf.), 1810-1871; Dean of Canterbury. His Greek Testament (1849-1861, and subsequently) was the first to import the results of German exegesis into many circles in England Nonconformists (headed by the learned Dr. J. Pye-Smith) had been in advance of the Established Church in this respect.
Alford,
Jowett, B., 181 7-1893; widely known as Master of Balliol College and Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford. His edition of St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians,
appeared in 1855; second edition 1859; recently re-edited by Prof. L. Campbell. Professor Jowett's may be said to have been the first attempt in England at an entirely modern
first
and Romans
Galalians,
view of the Epistle. The essays contain much beautiful and suggestive writing, but the exegesis is loose and disappointing. Vaughan, Dr. C. J. (Va.); Dean of Llandaff. Dr. Vaughan's edition first came out in 1859, and was afterwards enlarged; the edition used for this commentary has been the 4th (1874). It is a close study of the Epistle by a finished scholar with little further help than the Concordance to the Septuagint and Greek
Testament
greatest value lies in the careful selection of illustrative passages from these sources.
its
Kelly, W.; associated at one time with the textual critic His Notes on the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1873), are written from a detached and peculiar standpoint ; but they are the fruit of sound scholarship and of prolonged and devout studv, and they deserve more attention than they have received. Beet, Dr. J. Agar; Tutor in the Wesleyan College, Richmond. Dr. Beet's may be described as the leading Wesleyan commentary: it starts from a very careful exposition of the text, but is intended
Tregelles.
throughout as a contribution to systematic theology.
The
first
CViii
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[ 10.
edition appeared in 1877, the second in 1881, several others since.
and there have been
Godet Dr. F. (Go.), Professor at Neuchatel. Commentaire sur translation VEpitre 'aux Romains, Paris, &c, 1879, English Oltramare are both T. and T. Clark's series, 1881. Godet and their comFranco-Swiss theologians with a German training and extremely are They character. in similar somewhat mentaries are interpretations under the names full giving and discussing divergent Both are learned and thoughtful works, supporters.
of 'their criticism. strongest in exegesis proper and weakest in textual Geneva. Oltramare, Hugues (Oltr.), 1813-1894; Professor at 1882 Commentaire sur I Epitre aux Romains, published in 1 881,
'
(a
volume on chaps, i-v. 11 had appeared in 1843)- Resembling have the Godet in many particulars, Oltramare seems to us to though the stronger grip and greater individuality in exegesis, commend themoriginal views of which he is fond do not always
selves as right.
Hall, Moule, Rev. H. C. G. (Mou.); Principal of Ridley Bible for Cambridge. Mr. Moule's edition (in the Cambridge in It reminds us of Dr. Vaughan s Schools) appeared in 1879. comother of independence seeming and its elegant scholarship The point of view approaches mentaries, but it is fuller in exegesis. approach to Calas nearly as an English Churchman is likely to Epistle in Ihe the on commented also has Moule Mr. vinism.
Expositor's Bible. Gifford, Dr. E. H. (Gif.)
The
Epistle to the
Romans
is
in
sometime Archdeacon of London The Speakers Commentary (1881)

is
was contributed by Dr.
Gifford, but
also published separately.

is
We
judicious of
the most There are face, and the few difficulties of exegesis which it does not fully scholarly and well solution which it offers is certain to be at once work both ancient and it takes account of previous considered with names and crowded not are pages the modern, though Our obligations to this commentary are probably references.
believe that this
all
the whole the best as it English commentaries on the Epistle.
on
higher than to any other. # St. Pauls Liddon, Dr. H. P. (Lid.); Explanatory Analysis of after being in posthumously 1893, Epistle to the Romans, published Dr. Liddon s pupils in an earlier form circulated privately among The Analysis during his tenure of the Ireland Chair (1870-1882). It is enlarged. much date that after but was first printed in 1876, with very lull what its name implies, an analysis of the argument It is perhaps true that the notes, but not a complete edition. and subdivided; in divided excessively somewhat analysis is everywhere the exegesis it is largely based on Meyer, but it shows hand of a most lucid writer and accomplished theologian.
10.]
COMMENTARIES
ClX
Barmby, Dr. James;

Hall,
formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield's
Durham. Dr. Barmby contributed Romans to the Pulpit Commentary (London, 1890); a sound, independent and vigorous
exposition.
Lipsius, Dr. R. A. (Lips.), 1830-1892 ; Professor at Jena. This most unwearied worker won and maintained his fame in other fields than exegesis. He had however written a popular commentary on Romans for the Protestantenbibel (English translation, published by Messrs. Williams & Norgate in 1883), and he edited the same Epistle along with Galatians and Philippians in the Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg i. B., 1891). This is a great improvement on the earlier work, and is perhaps
in
many
taries;
especially
it
respects the best, as it is the latest, of German commenon the side of historical criticism and Biblical
is
theology
unsurpassed.
No
other commentary
is
so different
from those of our own countrymen, or would serve so well to supplement their deficiencies. Schaefer, Dr. A.; Professor at Munster. Dr. Schaefer's Erklarung d. Brief es an die Romer (Munster i. W., 1891) may be taken as a specimen of Roman Catholic commentaries. It is
and clearly written, with fair knowledge of exegetical but seems to us often just to miss the point of the Apostle's thought. Dr. Schanz, the ablest of Roman Catholic commentators, has not treated St. Paul's Epistles. We are glad to have been able to refer, through the kindness of a friend, to a Russian commentary.
pleasantly
literature,
ob. 1893; was Professor and Inspector in the Petersburgh Ecclesiastical Academy and afterwards Bishop of Vladimir and Suzdad. He early gave up his see and retired to a life of learning and devotion. His commentary on the Romans was published in 1890. He is described as belonging to an
St.
Theophanes,
old and to a certain extent antiquated school of exegesis. His commentary is based mainly on that of Chrysostom. Theophanes has both the strength and weakness of his master. Like him he is often historical in his treatment, like him he sometimes fails to
grasp the more profound points in the Apostle's teaching.
ABBREVIATIONS
Ecclesiastical Writers (see p. xcviii
at.).
Amb.
Ath.
Ambrose.
Ambrosiaster.
Athanasius.
Ambrstr.
.
Aug.
Bas.
.
.
Augustine.
Basil.
Chrys.
Chrysostom.
Clem.-Alex.
Clem.-Rom.
Cypr.
.
Clement of Alexandria. Clement of Rome.

Cyprian.
Cyril of Alexandria.
Cyr.-Alex.
Cyr.-Jerus.
Cyril of Jerusalem.
Epiph.
Epiphanius.
Eusebius.
Eus.
Euthym.-Zig.
Hippol.
Ign.
.
Euthymius Zigabenus.
Hippolytus.
Ignatius.
Jer. (Hieron.)
Jerome.
Josephus.
Jos.
Method.
Novat.
Methodius.
Novatian.
Oecum.
Orig.
.
Oecumenius.
Origen.
Orig.-lat.
Latin Version of Origen.

Pelagius.
Pelag.
Phot.
Photius.
Ruf.
Sedul.
Rufinus.
Sedulius.
Tertullian.
Tert.
Theod.-Mops.
Theodrt.
.
Theodore of Mopsuessia
Theodoret. Theophylact.
Theoph.
ABBREVIATIONS
Versions (see p. Ixvi
f.).
CX!
Aegyptt.
.
.
Egyptian.
Bohairic.
Sahidic.
Boh.
.
Sah.
Aeth.
. .
Ethiopia
Arm.
Goth.
Latt.
.
.
Armenian.
Gothic.
Latin.
Lat. V( it.
Vetus Latina.
Vulgate.
Syriac.
Peshitto.
Vulg.
Syrr.
.
Pesh.
Harcl.
Harclean.
Coverdale.
Cov.
.
.
Genev.
Geneva.
Rhem.
Tyn. Wic.
.
.
Rheims
Wiclif.
(or
Douay)
Tyndale.
AV. RV.
. .
Authorized Version Revised Version.
Editors (see p.
cv
AT.).
T.R.
Tisch.
Textus Receptus.
Tischendorf.
Tregelles.
Treg.
WH.
Alf.
.
Westcott and Hort.

Alford.
Beng.
Del.
.
Bengel.
Delitzsch.
De W.
Ell.
.
De
Wette.
Ellicott.
Fri.
Fritzsche (C. F. A.).

Gifford.
Gif.
Go.
Lft.
Godet.
Lightfoot.
Lid.
Lips.
Liddon.
Lipsius.
Mey.
Oltr.
. .
Meyer. Meyer-Weiss.
Oltramare.
Mey.-W.
.
Va.
Vaughan.
cxn
C.I.G.
ABBREVIATIONS
Inscriptionum Corpus Graecarum.
Inscriptionum Corpus Lalinarum. Grimm -Thayer's Lexicon.
C.I.L.
Grm.-Thay.
Trench, Syn.
Trench on Synonyms.
Winer's Grammar.
Expositor.
Win.
Exp.
JBExeg.
Journal of
Biblical
the Society
of
Literature
and Exegesis.
ZwTh.
add.
al.
Zeitschrifl
fiir
wissen-
schaftliche Theologie.
addit, addunt, &c.
alii, alibi.
cat. {eaten})
catena.
codices.
editores.
codd.
edd.
edd. pr.
editores
priores
(older
editors),
om.
pauc.
pier.
.
omittit, omittunt, &c.
pauci.
plerique.
plures.
plur.
praem.
praemittit,
praemittunt,
&c.
rel.
reliqui.
2/3. 4/5, &c.
twice out of three times,
four out of five times,
&c.
{bis, semel, &c), statistics {%, %) and the word which precedes, not qualify always &c, some MSS. of the Vulgate, Vulg. codd: that which follows Epiph. cod. or Epiph. /.= a MS. or some printed edition of
In text-critical notes adverbs
cod. codd., ed. edd.,
'
Epiphanius.
N.B. The text commented upon is that commonly known as the Bevisers' Greek Text (i. e. the Greek Text presupposed in the Kevised Version of 1881) published by the Clarendon Press. The few instances in which the editors dissent from this text are noted as they occur.
THE
THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION".

I. 1, 7.
* Paul, a divinely chosen and accredited Apostle

to
gives Christian greeting

divinely called.
'Paul, a
the
Roman
Church, itself also
devoted servant of Jesus Christ, an Apostle
called
by divine summons as much as any member of the original Twelve, solemnly set apart for the work of delivering God's
message of salvation
Jewish or Gentile),
7
;
Paul,
so
authorized
and commissioned,
Christians (whether
gives greeting to the whole
body of
Roman
who
as Christians are special objects of the
Divine love, called out of the
society of the Church, consecrated to
mass of mankind into the inner God, like Israel of old, as
His own peculiar people. May the free unmerited favour of God and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him be May God Himself, the heavenly Father, and the Lord yours
!
Jesus Messiah, grant them to you
I preach, in accordance with our Jetvish ScripJesus the Son of David and Son of God, whose commission I bear.
I.
2-6.
tures,
The message which

the
direct
am
commissioned
to
proclaim
is
no
startling novelty,
launched upon the world without preparation,

fulfilment
but rather
of promises which
God had
3
inspired the prophets of Israel to set

relates to
down
it
in
Holy Writ.
It
none other than His Son,

the
whom
presents in a twofold
aspect
on
one hand by physical descent tracing His lineage
* In this one instance we have ventured to break up the long and heavilyweighted sentence in the Greek, and to treat its two main divisions separately. But the second of these is not in the strict sense a parenthesis the construction of the whole paragraph is continuous.
:
1
to David, as the
EPISTLE TO
Messiah was
THE ROMANS
to do,
4
[I.
1-7.
in
and on the other hand,

spirit, visibly
virtue of the Holiness inherent in
His
designated or
declared to be
I say, is the
Son of God by
the miracle of the Resurrection.
He,
that
sum and substance
of
my
6
message, Jesus, the Jew's

it
Messiah, and the Christian's Lord.

I, like
And
was through
Him
the rest of the Apostles, received both the general tokens of

in that I
God's favour
was
called to be a Christian
6
and also the

is
special gifts of
all
an Apostle.
My
duty as an Apostle
at
;
among
to win
Gentile peoples,
and therefore among you too

is
Rome,
men
to
over to the willing service of loyalty to

all
Him
and the end
which
my
labours are directed
the
honour of His Holy
Name.
1-7. In writing to the Church of the imperial city, which he had not yet visited, St. Paul delivers his credentials with some solemnity, and with a full sense of the magnitude of the issues in which they and he alike are concerned. He takes occasion at once to define (i) his own position, (ii) the position of his readers, (iii) the central truth in that common Christianity which unites
them.
The
(i)
I,
leading points in the section may be summarized thus Paul, am an Apostle by no act of my own, but by the
(ii)
and in pursuance of the long-foreseen plan of God You, Roman Christians, are also special objects of the Divine care. You inherit under the ,New Dispensation the same position which Israel occupied under the Old (vv. 6, 7). (iii) The Gospel which I am commissioned to preach, though new in the sense that it puts forward a new name, the Name of Jesus Christ, is yet indissolubly linked to the older dispensation which it fulfils and supersedes (vv. 2, (iv) see note on kk^rpis dyiois). 7 Its subject is Jesus, Who is at once the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God (vv. 3, 4). (v) From Him, the Son, and from the Father, may the blessedness of Christians descend upon you (ver. 7). This opening section of the Epistle affords a good opportunity to watch the growth of a Christian Theology, in the sense of reflection upon the significance of the Life and Death of Christ and the relation of the newly inaugurated order of things to the old. We have to remember (1) that the Epistle was written about the year 58 a.d., or within thirty years of the Ascension; (2) that in the interval the doctrinal language of Christianity has had to be built up from the foundations. We shall do well to note which of the terms used are old and which new, and how far old terms have had a new face put upon them. We will return to this point at the end of the paragraph.
deliberate call
(vv. i, 7).
;
I.
L]
1.
the apostolic salutation

SoGXos
'ItjctoG
3 an Old Testa-
XpioroG
dovKos Qeou or Kvpiov
is
ment phrase, applied to the prophets in a body from Amos onwards (Am. iii. 7; Jer. vii. 25 and repeatedly; Dan. ix. 6; Ezra ix. 11); also with slight variations to Moses (depd-n-aiu Josh. i. 2), Joshua
(Josh. xxiv. 29; Jud. ii. 8), David (title of Ps. xxxvi. [xxxv.j; Pss. 70; lxxxix. [lxxxviii.] 4, 21; also ndis <vpiov, title of Ps. xviii. [xvii.]), Isaiah (vols Is. xx. 3); but applied also to
lxxviii. [lxxvii.]
worshippers
n-atSes
;
generally (Pss. xxxiv. [xxxiii.j
23
cxiii.
[cxii.]
cxxxvi. [cxxxv.] 22 of Israel, &c.). This is the first instance of a similar use in the New Testament it is found also in the greetings of Phil., Tit., Jas., Jude, 2 Pet., showing that as the Apostolic age progressed the assumption of the title
became
the
established
on a broad
basis.
But
it
is
noticeable
how
quietly St. Paul steps into the place of the prophets
own Master
Old Covenant, and how quietly he substitutes in a connexion hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah.
and leaders of the name of His
'It\<tov Xpio-ToO. A small question of reading arises here, which is perhaps of somewhat more importance than may appear at first sight. In the opening verses of most of St. Paul's Epistles the MSS. vary between 'Irjaov Xpiarov and Xpiarov 'Irjaov. There is also evidently a certain method in the variation. The evidence stands thus (where that on one side only is given it may be assumed that all remaining authorities are on the other)
:
Thess. i. 1 2 Thess. i.
1
'Irjaov
I
Xpiarw unquestioned. XpiarS> 'Irjaov Xpiarai Edd.

;
'Irjaov
D E F gr G,
Ambrstr.
{sic ed. Ballerini).
Gal. i. 1 Cor.
1 'Irjaov
i.
Xpiarov unquestioned. Xpiarov 'Irjaov
BDEFG
WH.
17
al.
pauc, Vulg.
codd., Chrys.
Ambrstr. Aug. semel, Tisch., 2 Cor. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov N

Tisch.
marg.
Theodrt.
BMP 17 marg., Hard., Euthal. cod.
WH.
RV.
Rom. i. 1 Xpiarov "Irjaov B, Vulg. codd., Orig. bis {contra Orig.-lat. bis) Aug. semel Kvrib. Ambrstr. al. Lat., Tisch. WH. marg. Phil. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov X BDE, Boh., Tisch. WH. RV. Eph. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov BDEP17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Goth. Hard., Orig. {ex Caten.) Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. Vulg. codd. Boh. Hard., Euthal. Col. i. i Xpiarov 'Irjaov cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. Hieron. al.. Tisch. WH. RV. C {def. B), &c, Boh., Hieron. Philem. i. 1 Xparov 'Irjaov
KABFGLP17,
Tisch.
{ut vid.) Ambrstr.

1
Vulg. codd. Boh. Hard., Tim. i. 1 Xpiarov Jo -Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. {def. B) 17 al., Vulg. codd. Tim. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov Boh. Sah. Hard., Euthal. cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. al., Tisch. WH.
NAD FGKP WH. RV. 'Irjaov NDFGP {def. B),

al.,
NDEFGKP
RV.
Tit.
C &c, Vulg. codd. Goth. Pesh. Arm. 1 'Irjaov Xpiarov i. Aeth., Chrys. Euthal. cod. Ambrstr. (ed. Ballerin.) al., Tisch. minusc. tres, Vulg. {sed Xpiarov ['Irjaod~\ marg.) RV. Xpiarov 'Irjaov codd. Boh. Hard., Cassiod. Xpiarov tantum D^*. It will be observed that the Epistles being placed in a roughly chronological order, those at the head of the list read indubitably 'IrjioO Xpiarov (or Xpiara>\ while those in the latter part (with the single exception of Tit,
SD EFG
; ;
WH.
which
is
judiciously treated by
WH.)
B 2
as indubitably read Xpiarov
'Irjaov.
;' ;
[I.
there is a certain amount of Just about the group i and 2 Cor. Rom. doubt. -c t> Remembering the Western element which enters into B in Epp. Paul., it entirely Western looks as if the evidence for xu > in Cor. Rom. might be In any right. but that is not quite clear, and the reading may possibly be fell into the habit of case it would seem that just about this time St. Paul The interest of this would lie in the fact that in writing Xpiorbs 'irjaovs. distinctly a Xpiorbs 'Irjaovs the first word would seem to be rather more phrase is rapidly proper name than in 'hjoovs Xpurros. No doubt the latter have a little of its passing into a proper name, but Xpiaros would seem to the phrase would be in fact transitional sense as a title still clinging to it Xpiaros Itjoovs or between Xpiaros or 6 Xpiaros of the Gospels and the later Lectures, p. 289 f., Xpioros simply as a proper name (see Sanday, Bampton lne and an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in Expos. 1888, 1. 386 ff.). subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction.
the
Kâts is another idea which has its roots in Old Testament. Eminent servants of God become so by an The typical examples would be express Divine summons. Abraham (Gen. xii. 1-3), Moses (Ex. iii. 10), the prophets (Isa. vi
kXtjtos &tt6cxto\os.
Jer. i. 4, 8, 9 passage, HoS.
;
5,
xi.
&c).
I
The
verb KaXdv occurs in a highly typical

tii
e Alyimrov neTenakeo-a
reKva
fiov.
For the
'
the guests particular form B y his use of the ie \ (rXijrof) of Adonijah (1 Kings i. 41, 49). with the great Old St. Paul places himself on a level at once 'called' saints and with the Twelve who had been
kXtjtos
we cannot come nearer than
Testament
The same combinaexpressly by Christ (Mark i. 17; h\ 14 ll)used elsewhere tion kXvtos aTroVr. occurs in 1 Cor. i. 1, but is not Epistles by St. Paul or any of the other Apostles. In these two call (on the way St. Paul has to vindicate the parity of his own the elder to Damascus, cf. also Acts xxvi. 17) with that of
Apostles.
On the relation of kAtjtos to i*X*T<5$ see Lft. on Col. iii. 12. There is In the Gospels a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. whether or not they KknTol are all who are invited to enter Christ's kingdom, to special selected accept the invitation the UtKueroi are a smaller group, In St. Paul both words are applied to the honour (Matt. xxii. 14). given but K\rjr6s implies that the call has been not only
;
same persons;
obeyed.
senses
our Lord a narrower sense in which it was applied by iii. 14 v.l.), and a wider Mark vi. (Luke 13 Himself to the Twelve (Acts xiv. 4, 14) and in which it includes certainly Barnabas Andronicus and probably James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 19), Eph. xn. 28 Cor. (cf. 1 others many and xvi. 7), Junias (Rom. ff. Didache xi, xii, &c; also esp. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 92 11
;
dTrocrroXos.
It is
well
known
that this
word
is
used in two
iv.
Harnack
Strictly speaking in Texte u. Untersuch. ii. 11 iff.). in the wider acceptaApostle an be to claim only could Paul St. he lays stress, however, justly on the fact that he is tion of the term virtue of possessing kX^tos a7rdo-ToAo ? i.e. not merely an Apostle by
;
I. 1.]
THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION
such qualifications as are described in Acts i. 2 1, 22, but through a direct intervention of Christ. At the same time it should be remembered that St. Paul lays stress on this fact not with a view to personal aggrandizement, but only with a view to commend his Gospel with the weight which he knows that it deserves. in a double sense, by God (as in Gal. i. 15) and &<f>wprfjt,Vos by man (Acts xiii. 2). The first sense is most prominent here ; or rather it includes the second, which marks the historic fulfilment of
:
The free acceptance of the human commisenable us to understand how there is room for free will even in the working out of that which has been pre-ordained by
the Divine purpose.
sion
may
God
(see
below on
kXtjtos, dfjxopio-fievos, all
doctrine that
in the
human
And yet the three terms, 8oi\o S xi). serve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural ministers, even Apostles, are but instruments
ch.
,
hand of God, with no
initiative or
merit of their own.

:
This conception is not confined to the Canonical Books it is found also qui ab initio orbis in Assump. Moys. i. 14 itaque excogitavit et invenit me, terrarum pracparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illius.
which St. Paul Gospel of God. The Gospel is sometimes described as of God and sometimes of Christ (e. g. Mark i. 1). Here, where the thought is of the gradual unfolding
els
'
euayyekiov 0eou.
'
The
'
particular function for
is
set apart
is
to preach the
'
'
'
God' is the more approin time of a plan conceived in eternity, of restrict the force It is probably a mistake in these cases to priate.
'
which God of the gen. to one particular aspect (' the Gospel of of which Christ is the subject ') all aspects are is the author,' or
'
:
included in which the Gospel

Christ.
is
in
any way related
to
God and
The fundamental passage for the use of this word evayyi\ioy. We cannot doubt appears to be Mark i. 14, 15 (cf. Matt. iv. 23). (or its Aramaic that our Lord Himself described by this term the Messianic equivalent) His announcement of the arrival of the LXX Time. It does not appear to be borrowed directly from times, and once for three] [or two only all in occurs word (where the
'
the reward of
It
the more common form is efayyeXia). good tidings from the would seem, however, that there was some influence
;
'
elayy*\L(uv, eiayyAifrcrftu, rather frequent use (twenty times) of in connexion with the Psalms the and Isaiah Second especially in Captivity. news of the Great Deliverance or Restoration from the taken as is Isa. lxi. 1, which is quoted or
conspicuous passage
The group of words is well established in 18. Matthew four times, Mark eight, Acts (clayyiXw, Synoptic usage It Acts fifteen). two; dJoyyeXffccrftu, Matthew one, Luke ten, imagination of St. Paul in evidently took a strong hold on the {*bayye\iov sixty connexion with his own call to missionary labours
a text in
Luke
iv.
[I. 1-3.
times in Epp. Paul, besides in Epp. and Apoc. only twice ; cvayEpp. Paul., besides once mid. seven times pass.). The disparity between St. Paul and the other N. T. writers The use of evayyiXiov for outside Evv. Synopt. Acts is striking. a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday, Bamp. Led. p. 31772.); the way is prepared for it by places like Mark i. 1 ; Apoc. xiv. 6.
yeXiCeaOai twenty times in
2.
TrpoeTnjyyciXaTO.
The words
several times in
'
promises
:
'
LXX, but made by God
eTrayyeXLa, i-nayyeXXeaQai OCCUr not in the technical sense of the great The first instance of to His people.
Xii. 8 Kal oaioi Kvpiov KXrjpouoprja-atfv eVcryyeXi'as 9 rov eXerjaai rov oIkov IaKG>/3 els fjpepav iv 7/ enrjyyeiXu) avTois, and Xvii. 6 of? ovk eVr/yyei'Xo, peril ftias dcpeiXovro : a group of passages which is characteristic of the attitude of wistful expecta-
this USe is
Ps. Sol.
Kvpiov
cf. vii.
tion in the Jewish people during the century before the Birth of
Christ.
No wonder
Church as
after
that the idea

it
primitive
find
its
one feature
was eagerly seized upon by the pages of the O. T. and to another of the history of its Founder and of
began
to turn the
own
history foretold there.
notice that in strict accordance with what we may believe to have been the historical sequence, neither kirayytXia nor knayyeXKeadai (in the technical sense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke xxiv. 49, where kirayytXia is used of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit but we no sooner cross over lo the Acts than the use becomes frequent. The words cover (i) the promises made by Christ, in particular the promise of the Holy Spirit (which is referred to the Father in Acts i. 4) ; so ewayyeXia three times in the Acts, Gal. iii. 14, and Eph. i. 13 (ii) the promises of the O. T. fulfilled in Christianity; so enayyeXta four times in Acts (note esp. Acts xiii. 32, xxvi. 6), some eight times each in Rom. and Gal., both tnayyeXia and h-nayyeXXtoOai repeatedly in Heb., &c. ; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet fulfilled or unfulfilled, e.g. 2 Cor. i. 20 oaai yap enayytXiai Qeov (cf. vii. 1) ; I Tim. iv. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4 rj kirayyeXia ttjs irapovoias ai/rov.
; ;
We
iv ypcujxus dytais
perhaps the
p.
earliest extant instance of the use

;
lepai ftifiXoi, 6 Up6s \6yos but the use is evidently well established, and the idea of a collection of authoritative books goes back to the prologue to Ecclus. In ypafats ayiais the absence of the art. throws the stress on ayiais ; the books are holy ' as containing the promises of God Himself, written down by inspired men (81a ran 7rpocpr)Ta>v avTov). 3. yci/ojj.&'ou. This is contrasted with 6purd*progf ycvopivov denoting, as usually, ' transition from one state or mode of subsistence to another' (Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. i. 30) it is rightly paraphrased
If pal ypatfiui,
;
of this phrase (Philo prefers

cf.
Sanday, Bamp. Led.
72)
'
'
[Who] was
els
born,'
and
is
practically equivalent to the
Johannean
eXdopTos
t6v Koapov.
Aaj3i&.
in. CTirc'pfjiaTos
the Messiah from David ttus Xeyovaiv oi ypapparels
For proof that the belief in the descent of was a living belief see Mark xii. 35 ff. on 6 Xpiaros vlos can Aa/3/S (cf. Mark
;
I. 3, 4.]

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

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

I. vii.
also Eus.
H. E.
p. 49).
In Test. XII Patriarch, we find the theory of a double descent from Levi and from Judah (Sym. 7 avaor-qati yap Kvpios etc rod Aevel us dpxifpea ml Ik tov 'lovba &s f$ao~i\ea, &ebv zeal dvOpoonov Gad. 8 oirous riprjawaiv 'lovdav /cat Aevei on t avrwv avareKei Kvpios, gojttjp tw 'lapa-qK, &c. ; cf. Harnack's This is no doubt an inference from the relationship note, Pair. Apost i. 52). of the Mother of our Lord to Elizabeth (Luke i. 36).
:
kcit& aapica
'
Kcrra in'cujxa are

'
opposed
'
to each other, not as
both of which in human, though the Holiness which is the abiding property of His Spirit is something more than human. See on Kara
'
human
to
'
divine/ but as
body
to
'
spirit/
Christ are
TTvevp. ayicocr.
below.
: '
4. opio-deV-ros
designated.'
It
'
is
word an
being'
stituted/
alternative
between
(i)
proved to be/
usual to propose for this ' marked out as

'
(fieix^ e ro$'>
dirofyavOevTos Chrys.),
installed,' in fact
is
sense (which
Kpirrjs
that
and (ii) 'appointed/ inand not merely in idea. For this latter adopted by most modern commentators) the
and
xvii.
.
parallels are quoted, Acts x. 42 ovtos
icmv lopio-pevos wo tov Qcov iv avdpl a> 31 /xe'XXfi Kpiveiv &piae. The word itself does not determine the meaning either way it must be determined by the context. But here the particular context is also neutral so that we must look to the wider context Now it is certain that St. Paul of St. Paul's teaching generally. did not hold that the Son of God became Son by the Resurrection. The undoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2 Cor. iv. 4 viii. 9 cf. Col. i. 15-19). At the same time he did regard the if not in the transcendental Resurrection as making a difference relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond our cogni*
{&VTWV Kal
veicpwv,
f
. : ;
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[i. 4.
sance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil. ii. 9 8t6 icai 6 Qe6s airov
{mcpvylraxre
,
kcu eâpttraro clvtco to ovoyni to inrep irav ovo\ia).

*
This
is
designated,' which might expressed by our word perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts. It is true that Christ becomes Judge in a sense in which He does not become Son ; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external The Divine declaration, as it creation but by an inherent right. were, endorses and proclaims that right.
sufficiently
The Latin versions are not very helpful. The common rendering was cf. Introd. 7). praedestinatus (so expressly Rufinus [Orig.-lat] ad loc. Hilary of Poitiers has destinatus, which Rufinus also prefers. Tertullian reads definitus.
;
Son of God,' like Son of Man,' was a recognized (cf. Enoch cv. 2 4 Ezra vii. 28, 29; xiii. 32, xiv. 9, in all which places the Almighty speaks of the 37, 52 Messiah as My Son,' though the exact phrase Son of God 'does It is remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely not occur). find it used by our Lord Himself, though in face of Matt, xxvii. 43, John x. 36, cf. Matt. xxi. 37 f. al., it cannot be said that He did It is more often used to describe the impression made not use it. the cenupon others (e. g. the demonized, Mark iii. 11, v. 7 turion, Mark xv. 39 ||), and it is implied by the words of the Tempter (Matt. iv. 3, 6 ||) and the voice from heaven (Mark
utou 0ou.
'
'
title
of the Messiah
;
'
'
||
ix. 711). The crowning instance is the confession of ||, Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Logia, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' Matt. xvi. 16. It is consistent with the whole of our Lord's method that He should have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims, and that He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spontaneous working of the minds of His disciples. Nor is it surprising that the title should have been chosen by the Early Church to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of Christ see esp. the common text of the Gospel of St. Mark, i. 1 (where the words if not certainly genuine, in any case are an extremely early addition), and this passage, the teaching of which is very direct and explicit. The further history of the term, with its strengthening addition fiovoyevrjs, may be followed in Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 24 ff., where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed. In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates from the Resurrection but we have also seen that St. Paul regarded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation
i.
11
St.
1
and it (Rom.
is
viii.
as
certain that
when he speaks
(viii.
of
Him
as 6
Xbios vl6s
32), 6 eavTod vlos
of pre-existence, as that St.
he intends to cover the period John identifies the fiovoyevtjs with the
3),
I. 4.]

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

There are three moments to each of which are applied with variations the words of Ps. ii. 7 Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee.' They (ii) the Transfiguration (Mark ix. 7 ||) are (i) the Baptism (Mark i. 1 ||)
' ; 1
(iii) the Resurrection (Acts xiii. 33). nite idea of progressive exaltation,
We
can see here the origin of the Ebio-
which is however held in check by the doctrine of the Logos in both its forms, Pauline (2 Cor. iv. 4, &c, ut sup.) and Johannean (John i. 1 ff.). The moments in question are so many steps in the passage through an earthly life of One who came forth from God and returned to God, not stages in the gradual deification of one who began his
career as xpiXos dvOpamos.
of
hwdpei not with vlov etoi), as Weiss, Lips, and others, Son in power I opposed to the present state of humiliation, but rather adverbially, qualifying 6pLa8evros, declared with might to be Son of God.' The Resurrection is regarded as a 'miracle' or
iv
'
:
God
'
signal manifestation of Divine Power.'

(rj
Comp.
esp. 2 Cor.
xiii.
iaravpadrj e do-Qevelas, XXa
i< dwafxecos Qeov.

,
This
parallel de-
termines the connexion of

Kcn-a urcGfAa dyiwaunris
:
iv
8w. not (i)
= IIvevfia 'Ayiov, the Third Person
in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally
and some moderns), because the antithesis of (rapt- and nvevpa requires that they shall be in the same person nor (ii), with Beng. and other moderns the Divine Nature in Christ as if the Human Nature (even Lid.) were coextensive with the <rdpg and the Divine Nature were coextensive with the irvevpa, which would be very like the error of Apollinaris ; but (iii) the human nvevp.a, like the human adpg, distinguished however from that of ordinary humanity by an exceptional and transcendent Holiness (cf. Heb. ii. 17; iv. 15 'it behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren . .
;
yet without sin').

of &Yi.coo-\)vti, not found in profane literature, occurs three times in the Psalms, not always in agreement with Heb. (Pss. xcv. 6 [xcyi. 6 'strength']; xcvi. 12 [xcvii. 12 'holy name,' lit. 'memorial']; cxliv. 5 In all three places it is used of the Divine attribute; [cxlv. 5 'honour']). but in 2 Mac*;, iii. 12 we have j) tov tuttov dyiwavvrj. In Test. XII. Patr. Levi 18 the identical phrase trvevfi. dyicoff. occurs of the saints in Paradise. The passage is Christian in its character, but may belong to the original work and is in any case probably early. If so, the use of the phrase is so different from that in the text, that the presumption would be that it was not coined for the first time by St. Paul. The same instance would show that
the phrase does not of itself and alone necessarily imply divinity. The irvfvfm ayiaiavvTjs, though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity The clear definition of this point was one of or Divine Personality resided. the last results of the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth
centuries (Loofs, Dogmengesch. 39, 3).
:
LXX
For
dyiaia. see
on ayioi
ver. 7.
a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ. e avaaTdaecos yeKpwy His was not a resurrection of dead persons' (' a3enrisynge of dead
; '
lO
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[I. 4, 5.
single dead person. We might expect rather or etc veitpmv (as in i Pet. i. 3) ; and it is probable that this form is only avoided because of e duaardaecos coming just before. But veicpcov coalesces closely in meaning with dvao-r., so as to give it very much the force of a compound word, 'by a dead-rising' (Todlenauferstehung), a resurrection such as that when dead perChrist is 'the first-born from the dead' (Col. i. 18). sons rise.' Although in O. T. regularly applied to God tou Kupi'ou iqfjiGJi'. as equivalent of Adonai, Jahveh, this word does not in itself necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah (Mark xii. 36, 37 ; Ps. Sol. xvii. 36 fiaaikevs avrav xp^ros Kvpios) without thereby pronouncing Him to be 'God'; they expressly distinguished between the Messiah and the Memra or Word ' of Jehovah (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 178). On the lips of Christians Kvpws denotes the idea of Sovereignty,' primarily over themselves
men' Wic.) but of a

veicpov
'
||
'
'
as the society of believers (Col.

(Phil.
ii.
i.
18,
&c), but also over

title
all
creation
10, 11
Col.
i.
16, 17).
xiii.
:
The
was given
to our
Lord
13 'Ye call me, Master (6 8i8do-Ka\os), and, Lord (6 Kvpios) and ye say well ; for so I am '), but without a full consciousness of its significance it was only after the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their central
even in His lifetime (John
belief (Phil.
ii.
ff.,
&c).
St.
best explanation of the plur. seems to be that Paul associates himself with the other Apostles. X<lpis is an important word with a distinctively theological use
5. eXdpo/xei'.
The
and great
(xliv.)
variety of
meaning:
*v
(1) objectively,
'sweetness/ 'atviii.
tractiveness,'
a sense going back to
Homer
'
(Od.
175); Ps.
xlv.
12 Xdyot o~Top.aTos o-ocpov x^P ls: Luke iv. 22 \6yoi xapiros. (2) Subjectively 'favour,' ' kindly feeling,' ' good will,' especially as shown by a superior
3 i^xydr} \^P ls
"*'
X 61^ 60
~ ov
Eccl. X.
towards an
inferior.
In Eastern despotisms
chieftain
is
this
personal feeling
:
hence O. T. (Gen. vi. 8 ; xviii. 3, &c.) in many of these passages (esp. in anthropomorphic scenes where God is represented as holding colloquy with man) it is used of finding favour in the sight of God. Thus the word comes to be used (3) of the favour ' or good will of God; and that (a) generally, as in Zech. xii. 10 fêw iTvevp.a xdpiros Ka\ oiKTipp.ov but far more commonly in N, T. (Luke ii. 40 John i. 14, 16, &c); (#) by a usage which is specially characteristic of St. Paul (though not confined to him), with opposition to dcpeiXrjpa, debt (Rom. iv. 4), and to epya, works (implying merit, Rom. xi. 6), 'unearned favour' with stress upon the fact that it is unearned, and therefore as bestowed nOt upon the righteous but on sinners (cf. esp. Rom. v. 6 with v. 2). In this sense the word takes a prominent place in the vocabulary of Justification.
cvpelv x^piv is
on the part of the king or

the
;
most important
in the
commonest form of phrase
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
; ' :
I.
5.]
II
(4) The cause being put for the effect x<*P ls denotes (a) 'the state of grace or favour' which the Christian enjoys (Rom. v. 2), or (j3), like xa/J'<r/xu, any particular gift or gifts of grace (nXrjprjs x^P lTOi
note however that the later technical use, esp. vi. 8). of the Latin gratia, for the Divine prompting and help which precedes and accompanies right action does not correspond exactly to the usage of N. T. (5) As xP ls or 'kindly feeling' in the donor evokes a corresponding x^P ls or gratitude in the recipient, it comes to mean simply 'thanks' (1 Cor. x. 30). that general favour which the Ap. shares with all Xdtpiy here
Acts
We
'
'
Christians and by virtue of which he

peculiar gifts of an Apostle.
is
one;
diro<rro\if]i'
= the more
observe that St. Paul regards this spiritual endowment as conferred upon him by Christ (81 ov) we may add, acting through His Spirit, as the like gifts are described elsewhere as proceeding from the Spirit (1 Cor. xii, &c). may be rendered with Vulg. ad obediendum eis uiraKOT)!' moreus fidei provided that wUrr. is not hardened too much into the sense which it afterwards acquired of a 'body of doctrine' (with art. rfj Triers Jude 3). At this early date a body of formulated doctrine, though it is rapidly coming to exist, does not still exist irlans is still, what it is predominantly to St. Paul, the lively act or impulse In confessing Christ the lips obey this of adhesion to Christ. impulse of the heart (Rom. x. 10). From another point of view, going a step further back, we may speak of obeying the Gospel (Rom. x. 16). Faith is the act of assent by which the Gospel is
We
'
'
'
See below on ver. 17. This is rather more than simply for His glory.' The idea goes back to the O. T. (Ps. cvi. [cv.] 8 The Name of God is intimately Ezek. xx. 14; Mai. i. 11). Israel is the instrument or connected with the revelation of God.
appropriated.
uirep tou dyojmciTos auTou.
'
minister of that revelation;

revelation itself
is
made more
so that by the fidelity of Israel the impressive and commended in the
eyes of other nations. But the Christian Church is the new Israel and hence the gaining of fresh converts and their fidelity when
gained serves in
like
manner
to
cf.
commend
;
the further revelation

'
made
Phil. ii. 9). Acts v. 41 among all Gif. argues for the rendering iv ttcuti tois eQveaiv. nations on the ground that a comprehensive address is best suited to the opening of the Epistle, and to the proper meaning of the phrase iravra to. e8ur] (cf. Gen. xviii. 18, &c). But St. Paul's commission as an Apostle was specially to the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 8), and it is more pointed to tell the Roman Christians that they thus belong to his special province (ver. 6), than to regard them merely as one among the mass of nations. This is also clearly the sense in which
of
'
God
in Christ (avrov,
the
word
is
used in
ver. \ 3.
Cf. Hort,
Rom. and Eph.
p. 2 1
f.
2
:
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[l. 6, 7.
comnot merely in a geographical sense of a Jewish 6. iv ols Church munity among Gentiles, but clearly numbering the Roman
among
Gentile communities.
:
kXtjtoI 'Irjaou XpicrroG
called ones of Jesus Christ

(to iv *Pa>/i>7 ovre tv
>
gen. of
m
; t et-rjyrjaei
possession.
7.
commentator whom the Scholiast ofa <p fary ixv nfjiovtvu, i. e. some (similarly had before him). G reads na<n rols ovo-iv iv aya*ji Seod seem to imply d* Vulg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. The same MS. omits rols OeoO). ndcrt rols oZvtv iv 'Pw/iiy to dydnr} together with the fluctaken facts, These ver. 15. iv 'p&w in would seem tuating' position of the final doxology, xvi. 25-27,
to give
iv 'PcSfAH
om.
G g, schol. cod. 47
ttj
some ground for the inference that there were in circulation times a few copies of the Epistle from which all local ancient in It is however important to notice references had been removed. the end of ch. xiv that the authorities which place the doxology at r here and in are quite different from those which omit iv PAj*g Introduction, the see question the of discussion full For a ver. 15.
the holy convocation' The rendering ap(so eleven times in Lev. xxiii and Ex. xii. 16). being one pears to be due to a misunderstanding, the Heb. word used Whereas in translators were not familiar. with which the holy the phrase usually runs, ' on such a day there shall be a
K\;t^ &yia represents consistently in
6. kXtjtoTs dyiois.
LXX
phrase which
is
translated in
AV. and RV. 'an
LXX
Heb.
adj.
convocation,' the
(or feast)
LXX treat the word translated convocation as an and make 'day' the subject of the sentence, 'such a day
-
specially appointed, chosen, shall be kA^') <> e This is a striking instance of the way distinguished, holy (day).' clearly in the first in which St. Paul takes a phrase which was wholly through current and the of creation a instance appropriating it to Christian use, and recasts its meanit,
LXX
Obviously substituting a theological sense for a liturgical. as he himself was k^toIs has the same sense as k\t)t6s in ver. 1 called to be to be an Apostle, so all Christians were called which Christians; and they personally receive the consecration under the Old Covenant was attached to times and seasons.'
ing,
:
<
'
'
'
'
we
For the following detailed statement of the evidence respecting are indebted to Dr. Driver:
kXtjtIj
KXrjrfj
ayia
corresponds to
K~>l?l?
wholly confined to the
Priests'
from N" to call, a technical term almost ; Code, denoting apparently a special religious
meeting, or ' convocation,' held on certain sacred days. It is represented by kKtjttj, Ex. xii. 16 b; Lev. xxiii.
7, 8, 27, 35, 36; ' in all these passages, where the Heb. has on such have ' such a day shall a day there shall be a holy convocation,' the subject, be kAtjtt) ayia,' i.e. they alter the form of the sentence, make day (i.e. and use kXtjttj with its proper force as an adj. 'shall be a called
Num.
xxviii. 25.
Now
LXX
I. 7.]

'
;
13
a specially appointed, chosen, distinguished*), holy (day) cf. k\. in //. ix. 165 and Rom. i. 1. They read analogously with Nipt? in Lev. xxiii. 2 at kopral Kvplov, as Ka\4aeTf avras kKtjtcIs dyias (cf. v. 371, 21 Kal KaKeaere
TavTT)v rrjv qpipav kXtjttjv' ayia earai v/miv. In Lev. kXtjt^ ayia. seems to be in apposition with avditavots.
in Lev. xxiii
is,
xxiii.
(cf.
v.
24),
however, such as to suggest that it have the form of a subst. (sc. qpepa) cf. kmK\r)Tos. This view of k\. is supported by their rendering of N"}i?t? elsewhere. In Ex. xii. 1 6 a, Lev. xxiii. 4 they also alter the form of the sentence, and render it by a verb, KXrjOrjaerai ayia, and dyias KaXtaert respectively. In Num. xxviii. 18, 26 (teal 7-77 rjpepq tuiv vtwv .... ImKXrjros ayia earai vp.lv similarly xxix. 1, 7, 12), they express it by ImKXrjTos (the same word used (37 ijpipa 7} -npum) emKXrjTos ayia. iarai vp.iv) ib. i. 16; xxvi. 9, for the ordinary partic. called, summoned), i.e. I suppose in the same sense of specially appointed (cf. Josh. xx. 9 al iroXets at kniicXrjToi rots vlois 'lapariX). Is. i. 13 the calling of a convocation is represented in LXX by i/pepav HeyaXrjv, and iv. 5 'all her convocations' by rd input k\w avrijs From all this, it occurs to me that the LXX were not familiar with the term N"lpD, and did not know what it meant. I think it probable that they pro;
:
The usage of kKtjttj was probably felt to
'
'
nounced
dyiois.
it
not as a subst. K^pD, but as a participle fcOJ?D
('
called
').
word would seem to be very parallel to that of k\t)t<hs. It is more probable that its meaning developed by a process of deepening from without inwards than by extension from within outwards. Its connotation would seem to have been at first physical and ceremonial, and to have become gradually more and more ethical and spiritual. (1) The fundamental idea appears to be that of separation/ So the word holy came to be applied in all the Semitic languages, (2) to that which was 'set apart' for the service of God, whether things (e.g. 1 Kings vii. But (3) inasmuch as 5 r [37] ) or persons (e. g. Ex. xxii. 31 [29] ). that which was so set apart or consecrated to God was required to be free from blemish, the word would come to denote freedom
history of this
'
The
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
from blemish, spot, or stain' in the first instance physical, but by degrees, as moral ideas ripened, also moral. (4) At first the idea of holiness,' whether physical or moral, would be directly associated with the service of God, but it would gradually become detached from this connexion and denote 'freedom from blemish, spot, or stain,' in itself and apart from any particular destination. In this sense it might be applied even to God Himself, and we find it so applied even in the earliest Hebrew literature (e. g. 1 Sam. vi. 20). And in proportion as the conception of God itself became elevated and purified, the word which expressed this central attribute of His Being would contract a meaning of more severe and awful purity, till at last it becomes the culminating and supreme expression for the very essence of the Divine Nature. When once this height had been reached the sense so acquired
'
* Biel (Lex. in
iox<TaTT).
LXX.)
cites
from Phavorinus the gloss,
k\.,
$ KaXearrf
Kal
r)
14
[i. 7.
would be reflected back over all the lower uses, and the tendencywould be more and more to assimilate the idea of holiness in the creature to that of holiness in the Creator. This tendency
is
formulated in the exhortation,

'
'
Ye
shall
be holy
for
I,
the
Lord your God, am holy (Lev. xix. 2, &c). Such would appear to have been the history of the word up to the time when St. Paul made use of it. He would find a series of meanings ready to his hand, some lower and some higher and he chooses on this occasion not that which is highest but one rather midway in the scale. When he describes the Roman Christians as
;
ayioi,
he does not mean that they reflect in their persons the attributes of the All-Holy, but only that they are set apart or consecrated to His service. At the same time he is not content to rest in this lower sense, but after his manner he takes it as a basis or
' ' ' '
Because Christians are holy in the consecrated/ they are to become daily more fit for the service to which they are committed (Rom. vi. 17, 18, 22), they are to be 'transformed by the renewing' of their mind (Rom. xii. 2). He teaches in fact implicitly if not explicitly the same lesson as St. Peter, As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living (AV. conversation); because it is written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy (1 Pet. i. 15, 16). We note that Ps. Sol. had already described the Messianic people as Xnos ayios (kou crvvdêi Aa6r> ayiov, ov d<f)r]yT)aTai ev SiKaioavvrj
starting-point for the higher.
' '
sense of
'
'
'
Similarly Enoch ciii. 2; 28; cf. Dan. vii. 18-27; Yl ^ 2 4) where books of the holy ones the roll of the members of the Kingdom (Charles). The same phrase had been a designation for Israel in O. T., but only in Deut. (vii. 6 xiv. 2, 21 xxvi. 19; xxviii. 9, varied from Ex. xix. 6 Wvos ayiov). We have thus another instance in which St. Paul transfers to Christians a title hitherto appropriated to the Chosen People. But in this case the Jewish Messianic expectation had been beforehand with him.
xvii.
1
'
cviii. 3,
'
'
There is a certain element of conjecture in the above sketch, which is inevitable from the fact that the earlier stages in the history of the word had been already gone through when the Hebrew literature begins. The instances above given will show this. The main problem is how to account for the
application of the same word at once to the Creator and to His creatures, both things and persons. The common view (accepted also by Delitzsch) is that in the latter case it means ' separated ' or ' set apart for God, and in the former case that it means ' separate from evil (sejunctus ab omni vitio, labis expers). But the link between these two meanings is little more than verbal and it seems more probable that the idea of holiness in God, whether in the sense of exaltedness (Baudissin) or of purity (Delitzsch\ is derivative rather than primary. There are a number of monographs on the subject, of which perhaps the best and the most accessible is that by Fr. Delitzsch in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, ed. 2, s. v. InstrucHeiligkeit Gottes.' tive discussions will be found in Davidson, Ezekiel, p. xxxix. f. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 132 ff., 140 (140 ft, 150 ed. 2) Schultz, Theology of the Old Testament, ii. 131, 167 ff. treatise by Dr. J. Agar
' ' ; ' ; ;
I. 7.]

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

Beet
critical questions as
There is an interesting progression in the addresses of Epp. I, 2 TheSS. Gal. rfj eKiOiTjcrlq (rats V*Xj?o-iaty) I,
:
St.
Paul's
WCJtX.
+t
;
'is
ayiois
ayiois
Eph. Col.
roty
Cor. Rom. kAôis ay lots <a\ ttkttoIs.
dyiois
Rom.
Cor. rrj Phil, navi tois

2
The idea of the local Church, as a unit in itself, is more prominent in the earlier Epp.; that of individual Christians forming part of the great body of believers (the Church Catholic) is more prominent
And it would be natural that there should be some such progression of thought, as the number of local churches multiplied, and as the Apostle himself came to see them in a larger perspective. It would however be a mistake to argue at once from this that the use of iKKXrjaia for the local Church necessarily came first in order of time. On the other side may be urged the usage of the O. T., and more particularly of the Pentateuch, where
in the later.
constantly stands for the religious assembly of the whole people, as well as the saying of our Lord Himself in Matt. xvi. 18. But the question is too large to be argued as a side issue.
eKKkrjala
Rudolf Sohm's elaborate Kirchenrecht (Leipzig, 1892) starts from the assumption that the prior idea is that of the Church as a whole. But just this part of his learned work has by no means met with general acceptance.
X<*pis "* eiprjnrj-
Observe the combination and deepened
re-
ligious significance of the
common Greek
' :
the
common Heb.
salutation Shalom,
salutation x aiP" vi and Peace.' x"P l and elpyvrj are
both used
elpr)VT)
the cessation of hostility to which follows upon it.
in the full theological sense
xP 4 f
the favour of
God,
him and the peace of mind

:
There are four formulae of greeting in N. T. the simple in St. James xw *< "pr) v V in Epp. Paul, (except Pastorals) and in 1, 2 St. Peter; x<*P LS eXeos, elpljinj in the Pastoral Epistles and 2 St. John eXeoa Kai elpqvrj koi dydnr) in St. Jude. cip^nr). We have seen how x<*pu had acquired a deeper sense in N. T. as compared with O. T. with elp^pr) this process had taken
xaipeiv
; >
;
place earlier.
too begins as a phrase of social intercourse, marking that stage in the advance of civilization at which the assumption that every stranger encountered was an enemy gave place to overtures of friendship (Elp^vrj o-oi Jud. xix. 20, &c). But
It
the word soon began to be used in a religious sense of the cessation of the Divine anger and the restoration of harmony between God and man (Ps. xxix. [xxviii.J II Kvpios cvXoyrjo-fi tou \aov avrov iv elpTjvT) lxxxv. [lxxxiv.] 8 XaXiyafi dprjVTju em tov \abv avrov ibid. IO
:
hiKaiovvvT) koi
dyaTTcba-i
(lpr)vr)
I
KaT((piXrjo-ap
Is.
liii.
cxix. [cxviii.]
65
dpr)vq iroXkr) rols

:
tou vopov
5 naidiia
(Iprjvrjs tjpcov
tn avrov
Jer. xiv.
bia6r}(ropai
13
akf)6eiav Kal clprjurju Sdxra)
em
rrjs
yrjs
Ezek. XXxiv. 25
16
[I. 7.
rw Aav\8 8ia0fjKTjv elprjvrjs [cf. xxxvii. 26]. Nor is this use confined cf. Enoch v. 4 (other reff. in Charles, to the Canonical Scriptures ad loc); Jubilees i. 15, 29; xxii. 9; xxxiii. 12, 30, &c. it was one of the functions of the Messiah to bring 'peace' (Weber, Altsyn. Theol p. 362 f.).
:
The
Dan.
&tt6
nearest parallel for the use of the
word
vi.
in
a salutation as here
e\pr\vi\
is
iii.
98 [31];
iv.
34 (LXX)
f\\i.Giv
iii.
98 [31];
25 (Theodot.)
v/mTv
v\rj6vv6ei-q.
0ou Trarpos
Kal Kupiou 'irjaou Xpiorou.
The
juxta-
position of
as Father and Christ as Lord may be added to the proofs already supplied by vv. 1, 4, that St. Paul, if not formally enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which
God
cannot really be distinguished from it. The assignment of the respective titles of Father and Lord represents the first beginning of Christological speculation. It is stated in precise terms and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate prepositions in I Cor. viii. 6 aXA' r\\iiv els 0eo? 6 irarr]p, eg ov ra navta, kcu repels els
'
'
'
'
avTov, Kal els Kvpios 'lrjaovs Xpiords, SV ov ra iravra, Ka\ r/pels bt avrov.
The
'
opposition in that passage between the gods of the heathen

Christians'
'
and the
God seems
'
to
show
that rjpup
= at least primarily,
'
us Christians rather than us men.' Not only does the juxtaposition of ' Father' and Lord ' mark a stage in the doctrine of the Person of Christ ; it also marks an important stage in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is found already some six years before the composition of Ep. to Romans at the time when St. Paul wrote his earliest extant Epistle This shows that even at that (1 Thess. i. 1 ; cf. 2 Thess. i. 2). It date (a. d. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. is well also to remember that although in this particular verse of Ep. to Romans the form in which it appears is incomplete, the triple formula concludes an Epistle written a few months earlier There is nothing more wonderful in the history (2 Cor. xiii. 14). of human thought than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle and without controversy among accepted Christian truths. iraTpos Tjjxwi'. The singling out of this title must be an echo of The doctrine its constant and distinctive use by our Lord Himself. of the Fatherhood of God was taught in the Old Testament (Ps. lxviii. 5; lxxxix. 26; Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixiii. 16; lxiv. 8; Jer. xxxi. 9; Mai. i. 6; ii. to); but there is usually some restriction or qualification God is the Father of Israel, of the Messianic King, of It may also be a particular class such as the weak and friendless. said that the doctrine of Divine Fatherhood is implicitly contained in the stress which is laid on the loving-kindness of God (e. g. in such fundamental passages as Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7 compared with Ps. But this idea which lies as a partially developed germ in ciii. 13).
'
'
1.1-7.]
the
Old Testament breaks into full bloom in the New. It is placed by our Lord Himself in the fore-front of the conception of God. It takes however a two-fold ramification 6 irarrjp vpS>u [fjpa>v, aov, airav] (e. g. twenty times in St. Matt.), and 6 irarrjp pov [6 narrjp] In particular this second (e. g. twenty-three times in St. Matt.). phrase marks the distinction between the Son and the Father ; so that when the two are placed in juxtaposition, as in the greeting of The this and other Epistles, 6 narrjp is the natural term to use. mere fact of juxtaposition sufficiently suggests the narrjp rod Kvplov Eph. i. fjfxuv 'irja-ov Xpiarov (which is expressed in full in 2 Cor. i. 3 3; Col. i. 3 ; cf. Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. xi. 31, but not Eph. iii. 14; Col. ii. 2); so that the Apostle widens the reference by throwing in fipwv, to bring out the connexion between the source of grace and
: ; '
peace
'
irarrjp is occasionally used in N. T. in the Father of lights/ Creator ' (James i. 1 7 Heb. xii. 9 i. e. in the first instance, Creator of the heavenly bodies ; Father of spirits'; cf. Acts xvii. 28, but perhaps not Eph. iv. 6 It is true also that 6 narrjp 7rdvra>v, where iruvraiv may be masc). irarrjp rwv oAg>i> in this sense is common in Philo, and that similar phrases occur in the early post-apostolic writers (e. g. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. xix. 2 Justin, Apol. i. 36, 61 Tatian, Or. c. Graec. 4).
It is
and its recipients. no doubt true that

'
more general sense of

'
'
But when Harnack

the earliest creeds
prefers to give this interpretation to Pater in
{Das Apost. Glaubensbekenntniss, p. 20), the immense preponderance of N. T. usage, and the certainty that the Creed is based upon that usage (e. g. in 1 Cor. viii. 6) seem to be
decisive against him.
On
20
the early history of the term see esp.
Swete, Apost. Creed,
p.
ff.
The Theological Terminology of Rom.
i.
1-7.
In looking back over these opening verses it is impossible not to be struck by the definiteness and maturity of the theological teachIt is remarkable enough, and characteristic ing contained in them.
of this primitive Christian literature, especially of the Epistles of St. Paul, that a mere salutation should contain so much weighty teaching of any kind ; but it is still more remarkable when we think
what that teaching is and the early date at which it was penned. There are no less than five distinct groups of ideas all expressed with deliberate emphasis and precision: (1) A complete set of ideas as to the commission and authority of an Apostle (2) A
;
of a Christhe tian community (3) A clear apprehension of the relation of clear assertion of what we new order of things to the old ; (4) should call summarily the Divinity of Christ, which St. Paul regarded both in the light of its relation to the expectations of his
complete
set of ideas as to the status in the sight

;
of
God
[I.
8-15.
countrymen, and also in its transcendental reality, as revealed by or words and acts of Christ Himself; (5) A somewhat advanced stage in the discrimination of distinct Persons in the Godhead. We observe too how St. Paul connects together these groups of ideas, and sees in them so many parts of a vast Divine plan which covers the whole of human history, and indeed stretches back beyond its beginning. The Apostle has to the full that sense which is so impressive in the Hebrew prophets that he himself is only an instrument, the place and function of which are clearly foreseen, for the accomplishment of God's gracious purposes (compare e. g. Jer. i. 5 and Gal. i. 15). These purposes are working themselves out, and the Roman Christians come within
inferred from the
their range.
When we come to examine particular expressions we find that a large proportion of them are drawn from the O. T. In some cases an idea which has been hitherto fluid is sharply formulated (kXtjtos, dcj>a>pi<Tnpos) ; in other cases an old phrase has been adopted with comparatively little modification (vnep rod ovSparos qvtov, and perhaps elpfal); in others the transference involves a larger modification (doiXos 'lrjaov Xpta-rov, xa/ns, kXtjtoI dyioi, Kvpios, Ge6s narrjp) ; in others again we have a term which has acquired a significance since the close of the O. T. which Christianity
dyioi)
appropriates (eVayyeXia [7rpoenr)yyft\aTo], ypcicpat ayiai, dvdaracris veKpcov, in yet others we have a new coinage (dnoaToXn^ evayyeXiov),
;
which however in these instances
is
due, not to St. Paul or the
other Apostles, but to Christ Himself.
ST.
PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH.

God knows how long I have desired to see you I trust may at last be accomplishedand
to
a
8
I.
8-15.
hope which
to deliver to you, as message of salvation.
the rest of the Gentile world,
my
In writing to you I must
first
offer
my humble
thanks to
God, through and
Him Who
as
High
Priest presents all our prayers
praises, for the
world-wide fame which as a united Church you

9
bear for your earnest Christianity.
If witness
were needed
to
show how deep
is
my interest in you, I
might appeal to
God
Himself
hears that constant ritual of prayer which my spirit addresses Him in my work of preaching the glad tidings of His Son. 10 He knows how unceasingly your Church is upon my lips, and how every time I kneel in prayer is my petition, that at some near day
to
it
Who
I. 8.]
ST.
PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH

H For
may
at last, in the
course which God's Will marks out for me,

clear to visit you.
I
really
have
my way made
you and
have a great
you some of those many gifts (of instruction, comfort, edification and the like) which the Holy Spirit has been pleased to bestow upon me, and so to strengthen 12 I do not mean that I am above your Christian character.
desire to see
to impart to
receiving or that
that I myself
you have nothing
to bestow,
far
from
it,
but
vftiv),
or that
may be cheered by my intercourse with you (<h we may be mutually cheered by each other's faith,
13
by
yours and you by mine.

that this
is
should be sorry for you to suppose
new
resolve
on
my
part.
intended to
visit
you
an
mine
intention until
The now
fact is that I often
as often frustrated
in
the
hope of reaping some
spiritual harvest
from
my
all
labours
is
among
you, as in the rest of the Gentile world.

to preach the Gospel.
"There
no
limit to this duty of
To
without
whether of language or of culture, I must discharge " Hence, so far as the the debt which Christ has laid upon me. decision rests with me, I am bent on delivering the message of
distinction
salvation to
8. 8id.
you too
at
Rome.
offerre:
et
Agere autem Deo gratias, hoc est sacrificium laudis ideo addit per Jesum Christum; velut per Pontificem
ujjlu**'.
magnum
rj
Orig.
moris
For a further discussion of

it is
this
word
see below
on
ver. 17.
Here
practically equivalent to 'your Christianity,'
the distinctive act which
mentioned the question were always consciously asked, Who or what is its object? It is extremely rare for faith to be^ used in In the N. T. as a mere abstraction without a determinate object. The object faith in Christ! this Epistle faith is nearly always elsewhere. is expressed in iii. 22, 26 but is left to be understood
' ' '
makes a man a Christian carrying with it upon the character. Much confusion of thought would be saved if wherever 'faith' was
the direct consequences of that act
In the case of Abraham faith is not so much faith in God as those faith, in the promises of God,' which promises are precisely which are fulfilled in Christianity. Or it would perhaps be more
'
'
'
'
to say that the immediate object of faith is in most At the same cases Christ or the promises which pointed to Christ. time there is always in the background the Supreme Author of that whole economy of which the Incarnation of Christ formed justifies though the moving cause of Thus it is God a part.
strictly true
' '
Who
justification is usually defined as
'
faith in Christ.'
And inasmuch
as
it is
He Who
both promised that Christ should come and also c 2
HO
[i.
8-10.
Himself brought about the fulfilment of the promise, even justifying The most conspicuous faith in God/ faith may be described as example of this is ch. iv. 5 tg> 8i pf) pyaopev<p, iriarTevovfi Se e7Tt rbv
'
diKciiovvra tov do-eftf}, Xo-yiêrat
rj
tt'httls clvtov els 8iKaioo~vvr)v.

'
connected with Xarpis, hired servant,' and Xdtpov, 'hire'! (i) already in classical Gk. applied to the service of a higher power (ii) in LXX always of (Sta ttjv tov 8eov Xarpeiav Plato, Apol. 23 B) Hence the service either of the true God or of heathen divinities. aut semper aut tarn frequenter ut fere Aarpeia Augustine semper, ea dicitur servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum (Trench,
9. Xcn-peua)
;
:
Syn.
p. i2of.).
Aarpcveiv is at once somewhat wider and somewhat narrower in meaning than \fiTovpyeiv (i) it is used only (or almost wholly) of the service of God where \eiTovpyeiv (Xeirovpyos) is used also of the service of men (Josh. i. I (ii) but on the other v. 1. 1 Kings i. 4, xix. 2152 Kings iv. 43, vi. 15. &c.) hand it is used of the service both of priest and people, esp. of the service rendered to Jahveh by the whole race of Israel (Acts xxvi. 7 to 8a>8 Ka<pv\ov kurovpytiv is appropriated to the kv ficTcveiq Karpdov, cf. Rom. ix. 4) Where Xenovpyuv ministrations of priests and Levites (Heb. x. 11, &c). (Keirovpyos) is not strictly in this sense, there is yet more or less conscious
: ; ; ;
reference to
it (e.
g. in
Rom.
xiii.
6 and esp. xv. 16).
eV
tw Tn/euptTi p>u.
The
nvevfm
is
evayytXiov
(=
to Krjpvyfia tov
evayye'hiov)
the organ of service; the the Sphere in which the

at all
service
is
rendered.
jxou
:
em tw -npoo-euxvv
(cf. 1
'
at
my prayers/
;
my
times of prayer
Thess.
cittcds.
i.
Eph.
i.
16
Philem.
4).
10.
On
the construction see Burton,
Moods and
Tenses, 276.
'
a difficult expression to render in English ; now at t]ot] Tro-re* length' (AV. and RV.) omits irore, just as in ony maner sumtyme' sometime at the length' (Rhem.) is more accu(Wic.) omits ?;6? In contrast with vvv (which denotes rate, some near day at last.' present time simply) rjhrj denotes the present or near future in relation to the process by which it has been reached, and with
: '
'
'
a certain suggestion of surprise or relief that now, after soon as it has. So here rj^
'
makes
the
moment more
ff.
indefinite.
On
has been reached so 7rore waiting $&j see Baumlein, Griech.

it
all this
'
Partikeln, p. 138
X06iv: probably for onrre kXOftv (Burton, 371 c).
The word has usually dropped the idea of 686s be prospered in any way (e. g. 1 Cor. xvi. 2 o n av (vo8a>Tai, where it is used of profits gained in trade ; similarly in LXX and Test. XII. Pair. Jud. 1, Gad 7) and so here Mey. Gif. RV., &c. It does not, however, follow that because a metaphor is often dropped, it may not be recalled where it is directly suggested by the context. We are thus tempted to render with the earlier
euo8w0T)o-ojxai.
'
and means
to
'
I.
10-15.]
ST.
PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH

Vulg. prosperum
iter
21
('
English Versions and a spedi wey Wic.).

'
habeam
have
iv t<5 6e\V]jxaTi tou 0oO. St. Paul has a special reason for laying stress on the fact that all his movements are in the hands of God. He has a strong sense of the risks which he incurs in going up to Jerusalem (Rom. xv. 30 f.), and he is very doubtful whether anything that he intends will be accomplished (Hort, Rom. and
Eph.
11.
p.
An- marks the direction of the desire, ' to youthus by laying stress on the personal object of the verb it rather strengthens its emotional character.
:
42 ff.). cmiroOw
;
ward
'
what we should call natural and partly transcending the ordinary workings of nature described in 1 Cor. xii-xiv; Rom. xii. 6 ff. Some, probably most, of these gifts he possessed in an eminent degree himself (1 Cor. xiv. 18), and he was assured that when he came to Rome he would be able to give the Christians there the fullest benefit of them (Rom. xv. 29 olda 8<? on ipxoptvos npbs vpas iv Tr\r)pa>pa.Ti evXoyias Xpiarov iXfvaopai). His was conspicuously a case which came under the description of John vii. 38
partly
1
Xapi<rjAa
iri'cujuLaTiKoi'.
St.
Paul has in his mind the kind of
gifts
He
that believeth
on
Me
as the scripture hath said, out of his

i.
belly shall flow rivers of living water,'
e.
the believer in Christ
should himself become a centre and abounding source of spiritual

influence
ls
and blessing
<rrr)pix0TJvai
:
to others.
ds to with Infin. expressing purpose 'is employed with special frequency by Paul, but occurs also in Heb. 1 Pet. and Jas.'
(Burton, 409).
t$
12. aufA-irapaKXTjOTjmi
<rvp.itapa.Kk.
the subject
is
ipi,
which, from the
aw in
and
iv vplv, is
treated in the latter part of the sentence as
equivalent to fjprfs. We note of course the delicacy with which the Apostle suddenly checks himself in the expression of his desire to impart from his own fulness to the Roman Christians he will not assume any airs of superiority, but meets them frankly upon their own level if he has anything to confer upon them they in turn will confer an equivalent upon him.
:
13. ov 0\o> ovk oiofnai (D*) G, non arbitror d e g Ambrstr. of Western paraphrase.
:
an instance
ctxw,
w
'
may get*
:
a resolution into its parts of iravra (ii) degrees of culture. 15. t6 kcit c/xe. It is perhaps best, with Gif. Va. Mou., to take to KaT ip as subject, np66vpou as predicate so g Vulg. quod in me promtum est. In that case to kut tpi will I, so far as it rests
14.
E\\t](7i t Kal PapJ3<pois
Ta
(Bvrj,
according to
(1)
divisions of language,
'
with me,'
rat
i.
e.
'
under
God
'
L'homme
propose,
Dieu
dispose
cf. iv
6(\{]p.aTi
tov Qeov above.
Differently Orig.-lat. (Rufinus)
who

to kot' iju adverbial,
fl. 16, 17.
'
1%
makes
quod
in
me
est
promlus sum
so too
objection to this is that St. Paul would have kot e/xc 7rp66vMey. Lips, and others take written npoBvfios dpi. pup together as subject of [etmv\ tvayyikio-ao-6aL, hence the eagerIn Eph. vi. 21 ; Phil. i. 12 ; Col. ness on my part (is) to preach.'
d e Ambrstr.
The
'
iv.
to. kclt
ifti
my
affairs.'
THESIS OF THE EPISTLE: THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH.

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

itself,
Even
there, in the imperial city
am
not ashamed of
its
my
message, repellent and humiliating as some of
features
may
For it is a mighty agency, set in motion by God Himself, seem. and sweeping on with it towards the haven of Messianic security first in order of precedence the Jew, and after him every believer 17 Do you ask how this agency works and in what it the Gentile.
consists
in a
It is
a revelation of the righteousness of God, manifested

is
new method by which righteousness

is
acquired by man,
a method, the secret of which

as Messiah
circles
Faith, or ardent loyalty to Jesus

is
and Lord
which Faith
its
every day both widening
its
and deepening
hold.
It
was such an
righteous
attitude as this
which the prophet Habakkuk meant when, in view of the desolating
Chaldaean invasion, he wrote

life
'
The
man
shall save his
by
his faith,
or loyalty to Jehovah, while his proud oppressors
perish.'
St. Paul was well aware that his Gospel was 16. eiraiaxuVofjiai. unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles foolishness How could it be otherwise, as Chrysostom says, he (1 Cor. i. 23). was about to preach of One who 'passed for the son of a carpenter, and who brought up in Judaea, in the house of a poor woman It hardly needed died like a criminal in the company of robbers ? On the attraction the contrast of imperial Rome to emphasize this. which Rome had for St. Paul see the Introduction, 1 ; also Hicks
'
. .
.
'
in
Studia Biblica,
iv.
11.
have an instance here of a corruption coming into the Greek text cvayy(\iov G, erubesco super evangelium g. through the Latin iva<ax:
We
I. 16.]
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH
23
The Latin renderings need not imply any confimdor de evangelio Aug. various reading. The barbarism in G, which it will be remembered has an interlinear version, arose from the attempt to find a Greek equivalent for every word in the Latin. This is only mentioned as a clear case of a kind of corruption which doubtless operated elsewhere, as notably in Cod. Bezae. It is to be observed, however, that readings of this kind are necessarily quite
late.
SuVajxis is the
word properly used of the manifestations of Divine

indeed Svvupis
is
power.
Strictly
the inherent attribute or faculty,
But the two words and dvvapis is so often used for exerted power, especially Divine superhuman power, that it practiSt. Paul might quite well have written cally covers eWpyaa. ivtpytia here, but the choice of dvvapu throws the stress rather more on the source than on the process. The word bvvayus in a context like this is one of those to which modern associations seem to give We shall not do wrong a greater fulness and vividness of meaning. if we think of the Gospel as a force in the same kind of sense as that in which science has revealed to us the great forces of nature. It is a principle operating on a vast and continually enlarging scale, and taking effect in a countless number of individuals. This conception only differs from the scientific conception of a force like heat' or electricity in that whereas the man of science is too apt to abstract his conception of force from its origin, St. Paul conthe Gospel ceives of it as essentially a mode of personal activity As such it is before all has all God's Omnipotence behind it. things a real force, not a sham force like so many which the Apostle saw around him; its true nature might be misunderstood, but that did not make it any less powerful 6 \6yos yap 6 tov aravpov
ivepyeia is the attribute or faculty in operation.
are closely allied to each other
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
Qeov iari Cor. i. 18 ; cf. 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20; 1 Thess. i. 5. The fundamental idea contained in <ra>TT)pia is the els awTTjptW. removal of dangers menacing to life and the consequent placing of life in conditions favourable to free and healthy expansion. Hence, as we might expect, there is a natural progression corresponding to the growth in the conception of life and of the dangers by which it is threatened, (i) In the earlier books of the O. T. 1 Sam. o-ooT. is simply deliverance from physical peril (Jud. xv. 18 (ii) But the word has more and more a tendency xi. 9, 13, &c). to be appropriated to the great deliverances of the nation (e. g. Ex. xiv. 13, xv. 2, the Passage of the Red Sea; Is. xlv. 17, xlvi. 13, Hi. (iii) Thus by a natural transition 10, &c, the Return from Exile), it is associated with the Messianic deliverance ; and that both (a) in the lower forms of the Jewish Messianic expectation (Ps. Sol. x. 9; xii. 7; cf. Test. XII. Pair. Sym. 7; Jud. 22; Benj. 9, 10 [the form used in all these passages is ow/jpioi/] ; Luke i. 69, 71, 77), and () in the higher form of the Christian hope (Acts iv. 22; xiii. 26, &c).
toIs pev
i
dnoXXvpevois pcopia
ecrri, rols
8e (rcoôfieuois rjplv dvvapis
24
In
[I.
16, 17.
this latter sense cra>Tr)p[a covers the whole range of the Messianic deliverance, both in its negative aspect as a rescuing from the Wrath under which the whole world is lying (ver. 18 flf.) and in its positive aspect as the imparting of eternal life ' (Mark x. 30
||
John
iii.
15, 16,
&c).
Both these
sides are already
7Tpmoir)criu (rcoTTjplas 81a
the earliest extant Epistle (on ovk cGero fjpas 6 Geo? tl$ tov Kvpiov rjpcov *lr)crov Xpiorov, tov dnodavouros
vtrip
i
combined in opyrjv, d\X eh
rjpwv, Iva
e'ire
yprjyopapeu
f'lre
KaCevbu>peu
apa
(tvv
avra tfcrapev
Thess.
v. 9, 10).
irpwToi':
om.
BGg,
Tert. adv.
Marc.
Lachmann Treg.
WH.
;
bracket, because of the combination of
with Western authorities
but they only bracket because in Epp. Paul. B itself has a slight Western element, to which this particular reading may belong. In Marcion that case it would rest entirely upon Western authority. appears to have omitted rrpwrov as well as the quotation from Habakkuk, and it is possible that the omission in this small group
of Western MSS. may be due to his influence. For the precedence assigned to the Jew comp. Rom. iii. 1, ix. 1 ff., Acts xiii. 46. The also Matt. xv. 24; Jo. iv. 22 xi. 16 ff., xv. 9 point is important in view of Baur and his followers who exaggerate He defends himself and the opposition of St. Paul to the Jews.
;
his converts
their claim
from their attacks; but he fully concedes the priority of and he is most anxious to. conciliate them (Rom. xv. 31 ;
xv. 8,
cf. ix. 1 ff., x. iff.;
&c:
see also Introduction 4).

'
it has seemed to accepted exegetical tradition that the righteousness of God means here a righteousness of which God is the author and man the recipient,' a righteousness not so much 'of God' as 'from God/ i.e. a state or condition of righteousness
17. Sikcuoowt)
0oG.
For some time past
be almost an
'
But quite recently two protests bestowed by God upon man. have been raised against this view, both English and both, as it happens, associated with the University of Durham, one by Dr. Barmby in the Pulpit Commentary on Romans, and the other by Dr. A. Robertson in The Thinker for Nov. 1893 *; comp. also a There can be little doubt concise note by Dr. T. K. Abbott ad he. that the protest is justified ; not so much that the current view is
wrong
and comprehensive idea which embraces in its range both God and man and in this fundamental passage of the Epistle neither side must be lost sight of. (1) In proof that the righteousness intended here is primarily 'the righteousness of God Himself it may be urged: (i) that this
The
as that it is partial and incomplete. righteousness of God is a great

' '
is
sense of the righteousness of God in the Old particularly in passages closely resembling the The Lord hath made present, such as Ps. xcviii. [xcvii.] 2,
consistently the
Testament and more

*
'
The
point
is,
however, beginning to attract some attention
in
Germany.
I.
17.]
25
known His
\v\jfeu) in
words
salvation : His righteousness hath He revealed (d-rreKdthe sight of the nations/ which contains the three keyof the verse before us; (ii) that elsewhere in the Epistle
8ik. eo{; 'the righteousness of God Himself (several of the passages, e.g. iii. 21, 22, x. 3, have the same ambiguity as the text, but iii. 5, 25, 26 are quite clear); (iii) that the marked antithesis arroKaXvirTerai yap opyfj Qeov in ver. 18 compared with biKaioo-vvr) yap Qeov airoKakvTrTcTai in ver. 1 7 requires that the gen. QeoZ shall be taken in the same sense in both places. These are arguments too strong to be resisted. (2) But at the same time those which go to prove that bi*. Qeov is a gift of righteousness bestowed upon man are hardly less convincing, (i) The righteousness in question is described as being revealed eie marten els nivrw ; and in the parallel passage iii. 22 it is
qualified as
ras,
bin.
Qeov
bid. nio'Teois 'lr]o-ov
Xpio-rov els iravras roi/s marevou-
recipient is quite unmistakThis relation is further confirmed by the quotation from Habakkuk where the epithet bUaios is applied not to God but to man. Observe the logical connexion of the two clauses, ducaioo-vprj yap Qeov dTroKaXvirTerai icadcbs yey pa urai, 'O be bUaios K iria-Teas (iii) Lastly, in the parallel Phil. iii. Cwerai. 9 the thought of the Apostle is made quite explicit pfj e'xcov e'^v biKaioo-vvrjv t^v e< vdpov,
its
where
(ii)
relation to the
human
able,
aX\a
rrjv
insertion
God
which
etc Qeov biKaiocrvvrjv em 777 jrtar. The of the preposition eVc transfers the righteousness from to man, or we may say traces the process of extension by
bid ma-Teoos Xpio-rot), ttjv
it passes from its source to its object. For (3) the very cogency of the arguments on both sides is enough to show that the two views which we have set over against
each other are not mutually exclusive but rather inclusive. The righteousness of which the Apostle is speaking not only proceeds from God but is the righteousness of God Himself: it is this, however, not as inherent in the Divine Essence but as going forth and embracing the personalities of men. It is righteousness active and
jected
energizing; the righteousness of the Divine Will as it were proand enclosing and gathering into itself human wills. St. Paul fixes this sense upon it in another of the great key-verses of the
iii.
Epistle, ch.
'irjaov.
first,
2 6 els to elvai avrbv bUaiov na\ biKaiovvra top e< nio~Te<DS
half of this clause is in no way opposed to the but follows from it by natural and inevitable sequence God attributes righteousness/ to the believer because He is Himself
:
The second
The whole scheme of things by which He gathers to Himself a righteous people is the direct and spontaneous expression of His own inherent righteousness a necessity of His own Nature impels Him to make them like Himself. The story how He has done so is the burden of the Gospel.' For a fuller development
righteous.
:
'
of the idea contained in
'
the righteousness of
God'
see below.
' :
26
K mo-Tews.
[I. 17.
This root-conception with St. Paul means in the instance simply the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah and Son of God ; the affirmation of that primitive Christian Creed which we have already had sketched in vv. 3, 4. It is the ' Yes' of
first
the central proposition of Christianity is presented to hardly need more than this one fact, thus barely stated, to explain why it was that St. Paul attached such immense importance It is so characteristic of his habits of mind to go to the root to it. of things, that we cannot be surprised at his taking for the centre of the soul
it.
when
We
system a principle which is only less prominent in other writers because they are content, if we may say so, to take their section of doctrine lower down the line and to rest in secondary causes instead Two influences in particular seem of tracing them up to primary. to have impelled the eager mind of St. Paul to his more penetrative view. One was his own experience. He dated all his own spiritual triumphs from the single moment of his vision on the road to Damascus. Not that they were all actually won there, but they were all potentially won. That was the moment at which he was anything else that came to as a brand plucked from the burning him later followed in due sequence as the direct and inevitable outcome of the change that was then wrought in him. It was then that there flashed upon him the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had persecuted as a pretender and blasphemer, was really exalted to the right hand of God, and really charged with infinite gifts and blessings for men. The conviction then decisively won sank into his soul, and became the master-key which he applied to the solution of all problems and all struggles ever afterwards. But St. Paul was a Jew, an ardent Jew, a Pharisee, who had spent his whole life before his conversion in the study of the Old Testament. And it was therefore natural to him, as soon as he began to reflect on this experience of his that he should go back to When he his Bible, and seek there for the interpretation of it. did so two passages seemed to him to stand out above all others. The words nta-ns, moTtix* are not very common in the LXX, but they occurred in connexion with two events which were as much
his
:
turning-points in the history of Israel as the embracing of ChrisThe Jews were in tianity had been a turning-point for himself.
the habit of speculating about
Abraham's
:
faith,
which was
his
The leading text which response to the promise made to him. dealt with this was Gen. xv. 6 and there it was distinctly laid down that this faith of Abraham's had consequences beyond itself another primary term was connected with it Abraham believed God and it (his belief) was reckoned unto him for righteousness.' Again just before the beginning of the great Chaldaean or Babylonian invasion, which was to take away their place and nation from the Jews but which was at the same time to purify them in
:
' '
I. 17.]

Habakkuk had announced
27
that
the furnace of affliction, the Prophet
be exempted on the ground of this faith/ The just or righteous man shall live by very quality, faith/ Here once more faith was brought into direct connexion When therefore St. Paul began to interrogate with righteousness. his own experience and to ask why it was that since his conversion, i. e. since his acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Lord, it had become so much easier for him to do right than it had been before and when he also brought into the account the conclusion, to which the same conversion had led him, as to the significance of the Life and Death of Jesus for the whole Church or body of believers what could lie nearer at hand than that he should associate faith and
class of persons should
' '
one
righteousness together, and associate them in the way of referring all that made the condition of righteousness so much more possible under Christianity than it had been under Judaism, objectively to
the
that
work of the Messiah, and subjectively to the appropriation of work by the believer in the assent which he gave to the one
proposition which expressed its value ? It will be seen that there is more than one element in this conception which has to be kept distinct. As we advance further in the Epistle, and more particularly when we come to the great
the
iii. 21-26, we shall become aware that St. Paul attached to Death of Christ what we may call a sacrificial efficacy. He regarded it as summing up under the New Covenant all the functions that the Mosaic Sacrifices had discharged under the Old. As they had the effect, as far as anything outward could have the
passage
of placing the worshipper in a position of fitness for approach to God so once for all the sacrifice of Christ had placed the Christian worshipper in this position. That was a fact objective and external to himself of which the Christian had the benefit simply by being a Christian in other words by the sole act of faith. If besides this he also found by experience that in following with his eye in loyal obedience (like the author of Ps. cxxiii) his Master Christ the restraint of selfishness and passion became far easier for him than it had been, that was indeed a different matter but that too was ultimately referable to the same cause; it too dated from the same moment, the moment of the acceptance of Christ. And although in this case more might be said to be done by the man himself, yet even there Christ was the true source of
effect,
;
;
strength and inspiration ; and the more reliance was placed on this strength and inspiration the more effective it became so much so
;
that St. Paul glories in his infirmities because they threw him back upon Christ, so that when he was weak, then he became strong.
On this side the influence of Christ upon the Christian life was a continuous influence extending as long as life itself. But even here the critical moment was the first, because it established the
28
relation.
It

was
like
[I. 17.
the connexion
to act as soon as Accordingly we find that stress is of being constantly laid upon this first momentthe moment is by no 'baptized into Christ' or putting on Christ/ although it means implied that the relation ceases where it began, and on the strengthening. contrary it is rather a relation which should go on Here too the beginning is an act of faith, but the kind of faith process which proceeds U vLmm els nianv. We shall have the
magnetism which begins
is
complete.
<
described more fully when we come to chapters vi-viii. The analogy of Ps. Ixxxiii. 8 (lxxxiv. 7) Ik mVrews is wCdW. 6a.va.T0v els Odvarov i< dvuafiecos els bvvaynv, and of 2 Cor. ii. 16 e< seems to show that this phrase should be taken as els
.
ex
Ca>?is
It is a mistake to limit it either to the deepenwidely as possible. large ing of faith in the individual or to its spread in the world at both are (ex fide predicantium in fidem credeniium Sedulius) of included the phrase means starting from a smaller quantity intensively and exfaith to produce a larger quantity,' at once
:
t^,
'
tensively, in the individual
and in
society.
take the whole of this phrase righteousness is based on faith,' as if between the man the contrast (not expressed but implied) were whose righteousness is based on faith and one whose righteousness with It is true that this is quite in harmony works.
6
Sikcuos
'
Ik
moreus.
Some
together.
The man whose
is
based on
:
St.
Gal.
and
iii. 22, 25; Paul's teaching as expressed more fully in Rom. but it was certainly not the meaning of Habakkuk, ii. 16 the point here it lay if St. Paul had intended to emphasize
remove all very near at hand to write 6 he e< Trio-Teas Sinaios, and so because in the It is merely a question of emphasis, ambiguity. the ruling ordinary way of taking the verse it is implied that righteousmotive of the man, the motive which gives value to his faith. ness and gains for him the Divine protection is his
insert
opt. Harcl., Orig.-lat. Hieron.) or 6 bk 8i'. Iff ir'uTTews fiov fraeTai) irom have omitted not only the LXX. Marcion, as we should expect, seems to would naturally follow ttowtos but the quotation from Habakkuk; this quite consistent from his antipathy to everything Jewish, though he was not T. He retains the same quotation in cutting out all quotations from the O. he is able which of the context (not, however, as a quotation) in Gal. iii. 4, For the best examination of Margion s text see to turn against the Jews.
few authorities (C*, Vulg. codd. non

uov
{6 5e 8i*. fiov
U iriarews,
Zahn, Gesch.
d.
Neutest Kanons,
ii.
515
ff
The word bUaios and

SCicaios
its cognates.
of these Sucaioown. In considering the meaning and application right point of view-at the terms it is important to place ourselves at the either not and the Jews of point of view, that is, of St. Paul himself, a Jew to be borne m mind Greek or mediaeval or modern. Two main facts have and twuoofrrj. The first is that in regard to the history of the words WPrds covered the whole although there was a sense in which the Greek
Xmm
I. 17.]
%g
Pagan virtues were still further thrown into the shade by the Christian triad. Happily for ourselves we have in English two distinct words for the two distinct conceptions, 'justice ' and ' righteousness.' And so especially from the time of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, the conception
has gone far to recover its central importance. The same perhaps be said of the Teutonic nations generally, through the strength of the Biblical influence, though the German branch has but the single word Gerechtigkeit to express the two ideas. With them it is probably true that the wider sense takes precedence of the narrower. But at the time when St. Paul wrote the Jew stood alone in maintaining the larger sense of the word full and undiminished. It is a subordinate question what was the origin of the fundamental idea.
'
'
and of all those moral systems which have their roots in that fertile soil. In giving a more limited scope to the word Plato was only following the genius of his people. The real standard of Greek morals was rather rb KaX6v that which was morally noble, impressive, admirable than rb dbcaiov. And if there was this tendency to throw the larger sense of biKatoaivrj into the background in Greek morals, that tendency was still more intensified when the scene was changed from Greece to Rome. The Latin language had no equivalent at all for the wider meaning of di/caioa^vrj. It had to fall back upon justitia, which Christian circles indeed could not help being affected "by the dominant use in the Bible, but which could never wholly throw off the limiting conditions of its origin. This is the second fact of great and outstanding significance. We have to remember that the Middle Ages derived one half of its list of virtues through Cicero, from the Stoics and Plato, and that the four
i. 15 StKaioaivrj^reXda dp fT J, with the single qualification that it is -rrpbs erepov, the duty to one's neighbour*), yet in practice it was far more commonly used in the narrower sense of Justice (distributive or corrective ibid. 2 ff.). The Platonic designation of Zimioaivr) as one of the four cardinal virtues (Wisdom, Temperance, and Courage or fortitude, being the others) had a decisive and lasting influence on the whole subsequent history of the word in the usage of Greek philosophy,
range of right action {Eth. Nic. V.
righteousness
may
A recent writer (Smend, Alttest. Religionsgesch. p. 410 ff.) puts forward the view that this was the being in the right,' as a party to a suit in a court of law. It may well be true that as 8ikij meant in the first instance usage,' and then came to mean right because usage was the earliest standard
'
'
'
of
larger idea of ' righteousness may have grown up out of the practice of primitive justice. It may have been first applied to the litigant who was adjudged to be 'in the right,' and to the judge, who awarded 'the right' carefully and impartially. This is matter, more or less, of speculation. In any case the Jew of St. Paul's day, whatever his faults, assigned no inadequate place to Righteousness. It was with him really the highest moral ideal, the principle of all action, the goal of all effort. If the Jew had a fault it was not that righteousness occupied an inadequate place in his thoughts ; it was rather that he went a wrong way to attain to
'
right, in like
manner the
it. 'Iapa^j\ Be Siwkojv v6pov SiKaioovvqs (Is vop.ov ovk e<p9a<T, is St. Paul's mournful verdict (Rom. ix. 31). For a Jew the whole sphere of righteousness was taken up by the Mosaic Law. His one idea of righteousness was that of conformity to this Law. Righteousness was for him essentially obedience to the law. No doubt it was this in the first instance out of regard to the law as the expressed Will of God. But the danger lay in resting too much in the code as a code and losing sight of the personal Will of a holy and good God behind it. The Jew made this mistake; and the consequence was that his view of obedience to the law became formal and mechanical. It is impossible for an impartial mind not to be deeply touched by the spectacle
* Aristotle quotes the proverb kv Se hinaioavvr) avWriPSr/i' iraa dperf)
evi.
30
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[I. 17.
of the religious leaders of a nation devoting themselves with so much earnestness and zeal to the study of a law which they believed to come, and which in a certain sense and measure really did come, from God, and yet failing so disastrously as their best friends allow that they did fail in grasping the law's true spirit. No one felt more keenly than St. Paul himself the full pathos of the situation. His heart bleeds for them (Rom. ix. 2) he cannot withhold his testimony to their zeal, though unhappily it is not a zeal according to knowledge (Rom. x. 2). Hence it was that all this mass we must allow of honest though illdirected effort reeded reforming. The more radical the reformation the better. There came One Who laid His finger upon the weak place and pointed out the remedy at first as it would seem only in words in which the Thou shalt love the Lord Scripture-loving Rabbis had been before Him thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind . . and shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Matt. xxii. 37, 39 ||\ . Thou and then more searchingly and with greater fulness of illustration and application, ' There is nothing from without the man that going into him can defile him but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man ' (Mark vii. 15 ||) ; and then yet again more searchingly still, yoke Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden . Take burden is light' upon you and learn of Me . . For yoke is easy, and (Matt. xi. 28-30). So the Master ; and then came the disciple. And he too seized the heart of the secret. He too saw, what the Master had refrained from putting with a degree of emphasis which might have been misunderstood (at least the majority of His reporters might leave the impression that this had been the case, though one, the Fourth Evangelist, makes Him speak more plainly). The later disciple saw that if there was to be a real reformation, the first thing to be done was to give it a personal ground, to base it on a personal relationship. And therefore he lays down that the righteousness of the Enough will have been said in Christian is to be a ' righteousness offaith? the next note and in those on in marews and SiKaioavvrj cov as to the nature of this righteousness. It is sharply contrasted with the Jewish conception of righteousness as obedience to law, and of course goes far deeper than any Pagan conception as to the motive of righteousness. The specially Pauline feature in the conception expressed in this passage is that the ' declaration of righteousness on the part of God, the Divine verdict of
;
'
My
My
My
'
advance of the actual practice of righteousness, and comes forth at once on the sincere embracing of Christianity. Sucaiovv, SikcuovjOcu. The verb biitaiovv means properly to pronounce In so far as It has relation to a verdict pronounced by a judge. righteous.' the person * pronounced righteous is not really righteous it has the sense of ' amnesty or * forgiveness.' But it cannot mean to make righteous.' There may be other influences which go to make a person righteous, but That word they are not contained, or even hinted at, in the word dueaiovv.
acquittal, runs in
c
'
'
to it may even mean righteous,' ' to treat as righteous' prove righteous ' ; but whether the person so declared, treated as, or proved to be righteous is really so, the word itself neither affirms nor denies. This rather sweeping proposition is made good by the following con-
means 'to declare
'
siderations
(i)
the nature of verbs in -Sen: comp. Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vi. 'How can hwaiovv possibly signify "to make righteous!" Verbs indeed of this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use, e. g. rv<p\ovv, "to make blind." But when such words are derived from adjectives of moral meaning, as aiovv, oaiovv, Sucaiovv, they do by usage and must from the nature of things signify to deem, to account, to prove, or to treat
By
as worthy, holy, righteous,'
I. 17.]

By
31
the regular use of the word. Godet (p. 199) makes a bold assertion, which he is hardly likely to have verified, but yet which is probably right that there is no example in the whole of classical literature where the WO ***** "g ht eous.' The word however is not of frequent occurrence. (111) From the constant usage of the (O. T. and Apocr.), where the word occurs some forty-five times, always or almost always with the forensic or judicial sense. In the great majority of cases this sense is unmistakable. The nearest approach to an exception is Ps. lxxiii [Ixxii] 13 &pa fxaraiws Mueaiuoa rhv KafMaMfwv, where, however, the word seems to 'pronounced righteous,' in other words, 'I called my conscience clear.' In Jer. iii. 11 Ezek. " xvi si 52 due. m 'prove righteous.' (iv) From a like usage in the Pseudepigraphic Books e. g. Ps. Sol. ii 16
(ii)
rJ
LXX
iv. 9; vin. 5 7, 27, 31 ; ix. 3 (in these passages the word is used consistently of 'vindicating' the character of God); justifico 4 Ezr. iv 18 x 16 xn. 7 5 Ezr. ii. 20 {Libb. Apocr. ed. O. F. Fritzsche, p. 643) all these passages are forensic Apoc. Baruch. (in Ceriani's translation from the Syriac) xxi. xxiv. 1 -where the word is applied to those who are declared innocent as opposed to ' sinners/ (v) From the no less predominant and
111.
;
911;
Matt.
;
xi.
13 111. absolutely unambiguous.

;
unmistakable usage of the T 19; xn. 37; Luke vii. 29, 35 x. 29 xvi. 15 xviii. 14; Rom. ii. 1 Cor. iv. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16 to quote only 4 passages which are
f, niaris aired els dacatoexpressly stated that the person justified has nothing to show in the way of meritorious acts his one asset (so to speak) is faith, and this faith is taken as an equivalent for righteousness.' content ourselves for the present with stating this result as a philological fact. What further consequences it has, and how it fits into the teaching of St. Paul, will appear later: see the notes on oiKaiooivn eov above and below. Siicaicona. For the force of the termination -pa reference should be made to a note by the late T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. v. 6, part of which is quoted in this commentary on Rom. iv. 2. Simlaj/xa is the definite concrete expression of the act of SiKaiwais we might define it as ' a declaration that a thing is h'maiov, or that a person is o'ikclios: From the first use we get the common sense of ' ordinance,' 'statute,' as in Luke i. 6 Rom. i. 32, ii. 26, and practically viii. 4 from the second we get the more characteristically Pauline use Rom. v. 16, 18. For the special shades of meaning in these passages see the notes upon them.
The meaning is brought out in full in ch. iv. mCTtvovTtde km ri>v SiKatodvra rhv uae0r), \ 01 1((tcu
(vi)
avvrjv.
5 rS>
U rf
IpyaCofiiva,
Here
it
is
'
We
Biicciuoois.
This word occurs only twice
just as in the
N. T. Its place is taken by the verb Sticatovv, Gospel of St. John the verb mareveiv occurs no less than ninety-eight times, while the substantive maris is entirely absent. In meaning St/en'mais preserves the proper force of the termination -ais it denotes the ' process or act of pronouncing righteous,' in the case of sinners,
all besides in the
:
and not at
in this Epistle (iv. 25, v. 18),
'
the act of acquittal.'
The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and some Jewish Writings.
second sense, as
in
The word mans has two leading senses, (1) fidelity and (2) belief. The we have said, has its more exact significance determined by its object: it may mean, (i) belief in God; (ii) belief in the promises of God; (in) belief in Christ; (iv) belief in some particular utterance, claim, or
promise of
God
or Christ.
' ;
33
*
[I. 17.
The last of these senses is the one most common in the Synoptic Gospels. Faith is there usually belief in the miracle-working power of Christ or of through Christ.' It is (a) the response of the applicant for relief whether for himself or another to the offer expressed or implied of that The effect of the relief by means of miracles (Mark v. 34 x. 52 ||). miracle is usually proportioned to the strength of this response (Matt. ix. 29 Kara, ttjv mariv vfiwv ytvr]dT)TOJ vîv: for degrees of faith see Matt. viii. 10, 26 Luke xvii. 5, &c). In Acts iii. 16 the faith which has just before been described as ' faith in the Name ' (of Christ) is spoken of as ' faith brought Faith is also (/8) the confidence into being by Christ' (j) maris f) hi avrov). of the disciple that he can exercise the like miracle-working power when exThis kind of faith our Lord pressly conferred upon him (Mark xi. 22-24 IDThere is one instance of in one place calls 'faith in God' (Mark xi. 22). faith used in a more general sense. When the Son of Man asks whether when He comes He shall find faith on the earth (Luke xviii. 8) He means
' '
God
||
'
'
faith in Himself.'
Faith in the performance of miracles is a sense which naturally passes xiv. 9). find in that book also the faith over into the Acts (Acts iii. 16 (17 mans Acts vi. 7; xiii. 8; xiv. 22; xvi. 5; xxiv. 24), i.e. 'the faith distinctive ' A door of faith (Acts of Christians,' belief that Jesus is the Son of God. When mans is xiv. 27) means 'an opening for the spread of this belief.' used as an attribute of individuals {irXrjprjs marcws Acts vi. 5 of Stephen xi. 24 of Barnabas) it has the Pauline sense of the enthusiasm and force of character which come from this belief in Jesus. In the Epistle of St. James mans is twice applied to prayer (Jas. i. 6 v. 15), where it means the faith that God will grant what is prayed for. Twice In the controversial passage, it means 'Christian faith' (Jas. i. 3; ii. 1). Jas. ii. 14-26, where Faith is contrasted with Works, the faith intended is One example of it is the belief that God is One (Jas. ii. faith in God.' 19) another is the trust in God which led Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Jas. ii. Faith with 21), and to believe in the promise of his birth (Jas. ii. 23). St. James is more often the faith which is common to Jew and Christian enthusiasm. even where it is Christian faith, it stops short of the Christian In St. Jude, whose Epistle must on that account be placed late in the Apostolic age, faith has got the concrete sense of a 'body of belief not necessarily a large or complete body, but, as we should say, the essentials of Christianity.' As the particular point against which the saints are to contend is the denial of Christ, so the faith for which they are to contend would be the (full) confession of Christ (Jude 3 f., 20). In the two Epistles of St. Peter faith is always Christian faith (1 Pet. i. 5, 7-9 ii. 6; 2 Pet. i. 1, 5), and usually faith as the foundation of character. When St. Peter speaks of Christians as 'guarded through faith unto salvafaith is treated as the tion (I Pet. i. 5) his use approaches that of St. Paul ' one thing needful.' St. John, as we have seen, very rarely uses the word mans (1 Jo. v. 4), though he makes up by his fondness for martvoj. With him too faith is a very fundamental thing; it is the victory which overcometh the world.' It is defined to be the belief 'that Jesus is the Son of God' (1 Jo. v. 5). Compared with St. Paul's conception we may say that faith with St. John is rather contemplative and philosophic, where with St. Paul it is active and enthusiastic. In the Apocalypse faith comes nearer to fidelity it is belief xiv. 12 cf. also maros i. 5 ; ii. steadfastly held (Rev. ii. 13, 19; xiii. 10
;
We
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
10,
&c).
The distinctive use of ' faith ' in the Epistle to the Hebrews is for faith in the fulfilment of God's promises, a firm belief of that which is still future and
unseen (k\iri o/xt vow viroaiaais, irpayârcuv eKiyx os & PtewofUpw* Heb. xi. 1). This use not only runs through ch. xi, but is predominant in all the places where the word occurs (Heb. iv. 2 vi. 1 x. 22 f. ; xii. 2 ; xiii. 7) it is not
; ;
:
I. 17.]

:
33
found in St. Paul of promises the fulfilment of which is still future (for this he prefers \ms cf. Rom. viii. 25 cl 5 t ov QXeirofxev (\iriôfi(v, 81' inrofiovf,s dneKSexofifea). St. Paul does however use faith for the confidence of O.T. saints in the fulfilment of particular promises made to them (so of Abraham
<
'
in
Rom.
iv).
'
Going outside the N. T. it is natural that the use of faith should be neither so high nor so definite. Still the word is found, and frequently enough to show that the idea was in the air' and waiting only for an object worthy of it. ' Faith enters rather largely into the eschatological teaching respecting the Messianic time. Here it appears to have the sense of ' fidelity to the O. T. religion.* In the Psalms of Solomon it is characteristic of the
' '
Messiah Himself: Ps.
Sol. xvii.
45
irotfxaivwv
rb
iroi/xviov
Kvpiov kv mffra
subjects.
teal
SiKaioavvp. In the other Books it is characteristic of 4 Ezr. vi. 28 florebit auteni fides et vincetur corruptela\
et fides convalesced
(
His
vii.
Thus
34 Veritas stabit
; 44 soluta est intemperantia, abscissa est incredulitas In Apoc. Baruch. and Assump. Moys. the word has this sense, but not quite in the same connexion Apoc. Bar. liv. 5 revelas abscondita immaculatis qui in fide subiecerunt se tibi et legi luae 2 1 glorificabis fideles iuxta fidem eorum lix. 2 incredulis tormentum ignis reservatum Ass. Moys. iv. 8 duae autem tribus permanebunt inpraepositafide. In Apoc. Bar lvii. 2 we have it in the sense of faith in the prophecy of coming judgement fides iudicii futuri tunc gignebatur. Several times, in opposition to the use in St. Paul, we find opera et fides combined, still in connexion with the ' last things ' but retrospectively with reference to the life on earth. So 4 Ezra ix. 7, 8 et erit, omnis qui salvus /actus fuerit et qui poterit effugere per opera sua vel per fidem in qua credidit, is relinquetur de praedictis periculis et videbit salutare meant in terra mea et infinibus meis x'ii. 23 ipse custodibit qui in periculo inciderint, hi sunt qui habent opera et fidem ad Fortissimum. might well believe that both these passages were suggested, though perhaps somewhat remotely, by the verse of Habakkuk which St. Paul quotes. The same may be said of 5 Ezr. xv. 3, 4 nee turbent te incredulitates dicentium, quoniam omnis incredulus in incredulitate sua morietur (Libb. Apocr. p. 645, ed. O. F. Fritzsche). Among all these various usages, in Canonical Books as well as Extracanonical, the usage of St. Paul stands out markedly. It forms a climax to them all with the single exception of St. John. There is hardly one of the ordinary uses which is not represented in the Pauline Epistles. To confine ourselves to Ep. to Romans; we have the word (i) clearly used in the sense of 'fidelity' or 'faithfulness' (the faithfulness of God in performing His promises), Rom. iii. 3 also (ii) in the sense of a faith which is practically that of the miracle- worker, faith as the foundation for the exercise of spiritual gifts, Rom xii. 3, 6. have it (iii) for a faith like that of Abraham in the fulfilment of the promises of which he was the chosen recipient, Rom. iv. passim. The faith of Abraham however becomes something more than a particular attitude in regard to particular promises it is (iv) a standing attitude, deliberate faith in God, the key-note of his character; in ch. iv. the last sense is constantly gliding into this. faith like Abraham's is typical of the Christian's faith, which has however both a lower sense and a higher sometimes (v) it is in a general sense the acceptance of Christianity, Rom. i. x. 8, 1 7 xvi. 26 ; but it is also (vi) that specially strong and confident 5 acceptance, that firm planting of the character upon the service of Christ, which enables a man to disregard small scruples, Rom. xiv. 1, 22 f. ; cf. i. The centre and mainspring of this higher form of faith is (vii) defined 17. more exactly as 'faith in Jesus Christ,' Rom. iii. 22 q. v., 26. This is the crowning and characteristic sense with St. Paul and it is really this which he has in view wherever he ascribes to faith the decisive significance which he does ascribe to it, even though the object is not expressed (as in i. 17 ; iii.
= dmaTia).
We
We
34
;
[i. 16, 17.
have seen that it is not merely assent or adhesion but 27 ff. v. 1, 2). enthusiastic adhesion, personal adhesion; the highest and most effective motive-power of which human character is capable. It is well to remember that St. Paul has all these meanings before him ; and he glances from one to another as the hand of a violin-player runs over the strings of his violin.
We
The Righteousness of God.

The idea of the righteousness of God. imposing as it is in the development given to it in this Epistle, is by no means essentially It is one of those fundamental Biblical ideas which a new one. run through both Testaments alike and appear in a great variety of The Hebrew prophets were as far as possible from application.
conceiving of the
I
The as a metaphysical abstraction. of the Book of Exodus is very different from the oi/rws ov, the Pure Being, without attributes because removed from all contact with matter, of the Platonizing philosophers. The essential properties of Righteousness and Holiness which characterized the Lord of all spirits contained within themselves the
Godhead
AM THAT
AM
springs of an infinite expansiveness. Having brought into existence a Being endowed with the faculty of choice and capable of right and wrong action they could not rest until they had imparted to The Prophets and Psalmists that Being something of themselves.
of the Old Testament seized on this idea and gave it grand and are apt not to realize until we come far-reaching expression. to look to what an extent the leading terms in this main proposition of the Epistle had been already combined in the Old Testament. Reference has been made to the triple combination of
We
similarly Is.
'righteousness/ 'salvation' and 'revelation' in Ps. xcviii. [xcvii.] 2:^ righteoussalvation is near to come, and lvi. 1 The double combination of righteousness' ness to be revealed.'
'
My
My
'
and
the
salvation
'
is
more common.
In Ps. xxiv.
shall receive a
[xxiii.]
it
is
slightly
obscured in the
LXX
'
He
blessing from
Lord and righteousness
(eXfrjfioavvrjv)
from the
God
of his
salvation (napa Qeov

it
<Ta>TTjpos avrov).'
In the Second Part of Isaiah
occurs frequently: Is. xlv. 21-25 ' There is no God beside Me ; a just God and a Saviour (SUaios <a\ a-arftp). Look unto Me and be ye saved ... the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and shall not return (or righteousness is gone forth from My Only in mouth, a word which shall not return R. V. marg.) . the Lord shall one say unto Me is righteousness and strength. . . In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified (a Kvplov Is. xlvi. 13 'I bring near My diKaiaetitrovrai), and shall glory ' righteousness; it shall not be far off, and My salvation shall not
. . .
:
tarry
li.
and
'
I will place salvation in
Zion
for Israel
is
My
glory
'
Is.
.
.
5,
My
righteousness
is
near,
My
salvation
gone
forth
1. 16, 17.]

and
35
My
salvation shall be for ever,
My
righteousness shall not be
abolished.'
In all these passages the righteousness of God is conceived as 'going forth,' as projected from the Divine essence and realizing itself among men. In Is. liv. 17 it is expressly said, 'Their righteousness [which] is of Me' and in Is. xlv. 25 the process is
;
described as one of justification ('in the Lord shall all the seed of In close attendance on the Israel be justified see above). righteousness of God is His salvation ; where the one is the other immediately follows. These passages seem to have made a deep impression upon St. Paul. To him too it seems a necessity that the righteousness of God should be not only inherent but energizing, that it should impress and diffuse itself as an active force in the world. According to St. Paul the manifestation of the Divine righteousFour of these may be ness takes a number of different forms. specified. (1) It is seen in the fidelity with which God fulfils His It is seen in the punishment promises (Rom. iii. 3, 4). (2) which God metes out upon sin, especially the great final punishment, the fjnepa opyrjs <a\ dnoKaXv^tois SiKaiOKpurias rod Qeov (Rom. Wrath is only the reaction of the Divine righteousness ii. 5).
' :
when
is difficult for us We are going further wholly to grasp, in the Death of Christ. than we have warrant for if we set the Love of God in opposition to His Justice; but we have the express warrant of Rom. iii. 25, 26 for regarding the Death on Calvary as a culminating exhibition of the Divine righteousness, an exhibition which in some mysterious way explains and justifies the apparent slumbering of Divine reThe inadequate punishment hitherto insentment against sin. flicted upon sin, the long reprieve which had been allowed mankind to induce them to repent, all looked forward as it were to that Without it they could not have been ; but the culminating event. shadow of it was cast before, and the prospect of it made them
it comes into collision with sin. (3) There is festation of righteousness, the nature of which it
one signal mani-
possible.
(4)
said as to the
There is a further link of connexion between what is Death of Christ on Calvary and the leading pro-
down in these verses (i. 16, 17) as to a righteousness The Death of Christ is of the of God apprehended by faith. nature of a sacrifice (iv ra avrov alfiari) and acts as an IXaarripiop (iii. 25 q. v.) by virtue of which the Righteousness of God which reaches its culminating expression in it becomes capable of wide This is the great going forth ' of the diffusion amongst men.
position laid
'
Divine Righteousness, and The essence of it, however,

ultimately
it
is
embraces
in
its
at least at
first,
scope all believers. whatever it may be
that
it
'
but in
'
justifying
consists not in making men actually righteous or treating them as if they were righteous.
36
EPISTLE TO THE ROMAJNS
[1.16,17.
Here we reach a fundamental conception with St. Paul, and one which dominates all this part of the Epistle to the Romans, so that it may be well to dwell upon it in some detail. We have seen that a process of transference or conversion that the righteousness of which St. Paul speaks, though takes place it issues forth from God, ends in a state or condition of man. How could this be? The name which St. Paul gives to the process More often he uses in respect to is diKatWcv (iv. 25, v. 18).
;
it
the verb 8iKaiov<r6ai

is
(iii.
24, 28, v. 1, 9,
:
viii.
30, 33).
The
full
phrase
which means that the believer, by virtue of his faith, is 'accounted or treated as if he were righteous' More even than this: the person so 'acin the sight of God. counted righteous' may be, and indeed is assumed to be, not
diKaiovadai i< irlvTcats
actually righteous, but
dcrefirjs
(Rom.
iv.
5),
an offender against
God. There
life
something sufficiently startling in this. The Christian No wonder that to have its beginning in a fiction. the fact is questioned, and that another sense is given to the words that SiKaiovaOai is taken to imply not the attribution of righteousThe facts ness in idea but an imparting of actual righteousness. we have seen that ducaiovv, of language, however, are inexorable that they are SiKaiovo-Oai have the first sense and not the second rightly said to be forensic' ; that they have reference to a judicial To this conclusion we feel bound verdict, and to nothing beyond. to adhere, even though it should follow that the state described is (if we are pressed) a fiction, that God is regarded as dealing with men rather by the ideal standard of what they may be than by What this means is that the actual standard of what they are. when a man makes a great change such as that which the first Christians made when they embraced Christianity, he is allowed to start on his career with a clean record; his sin-stained past The change is the great thing it is not reckoned against him. As with the Prodigal Son in the is that at which God looks. parable the breakdown of his pride and rebellion in the one cry, The father does not wait Father, I have sinned' is enough. He does not put him upon a long term of to be gracious. probation, but reinstates him at once in the full privilege of The justifying verdict is nothing more than the 'best sonship. robe' and the 'ring' and the 'fatted calf of the parable (Luke xv. 22 f.). When the process of Justification is thus reduced to its simplest elements we see that there is after all nothing so very strange about it. It is simply Forgiveness, Free Forgiveness. The Parable of the Prodigal Son is a picture of it which is complete on two of its sides, as an expression of the attitude of mind required in To the sinner, and of the reception accorded to him by God.
is
is
made
'
1.16,17.]
insist that
37
it must also be complete in a negative sense, and that excludes any further conditions of acceptance, because no such conditions are mentioned, is to forget the nature of a parable. It would be as reasonable to argue that the father would be indifferent to the future conduct of the son whom he has recovered because the curtain falls upon the scene of his recovery and is not again lifted. By pressing the argument from silence in this way we should only make the Gospels inconsistent with themselves, because elsewhere they too (as we shall see) speak of further conditions besides the attitude and temper of the sinner. We see then that at bottom and when we come to the essence of things the teaching of the Gospels is not really different from the teaching of St. Paul. It may be said that the one is tenderly and pathetically human where the other is a system of Jewish Scholasticism. But even if we allow the name it is an encouragement to us to seek for the simpler meaning of more that we may be
it
scholastic' And we may also by a little inspection discover that in following out lines of thought which might come under this description St. Paul is really taking up the threads of grand and far-reaching ideas which had fallen from the Prophets
inclined to call
'
of Israel and had never yet been carried forwards to their legitimate The Son of Man goes straight, as none other, to the heart of our common humanity; but that does not exclude the right of philosophizing or theologizing on the facts of religion, and that is surely not a valueless theology which has such facts as its foundation. What has been thus far urged may serve to mitigate the apparent But there is strangeness of St. Paul's doctrine of Justification. much more to be said when we come to take that doctrine with its context and to put it in its proper place in relation to the whole system. In the first place it must be remembered that the doctrine belongs strictly speaking only to the beginning of the Christian's career. It marks the initial stage, the entrance upon the way of life. It was pointed out a moment ago that in the Parable of the Prodigal Son the curtain drops at the readmission of the prodigal to his have no further glimpse of his home life. To isolate home. the doctrine of Justification is to drop the curtain at the same
issues.
We
place, as
if
the justified believer
had no after-career
to be re-
corded.
But St. Paul does not so isolate it. He takes it up and follows every step in that after-career till it ends in the final glory (oup 8e e?>iKaia>(T, tovtovs kuI e86ga<Tc viii. 30). We may say roughly that the first five chapters of the Epistle are concerned with the doctrine in its relation to leading of Justification, in itself (i. 16 iii. 30), features of the Old Covenant (iii. 31 iv. 25) and in the conse-
38
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[I. 16, 17.
it (v. 1-2 1). But with ch. vi another introduced, the Mystical Union of the Christian with the Risen Christ. This subject is prosecuted through three chapters, vi-viii, which really cover (except perhaps the one section vii. and that with great fulness of detail the whole career 17-25) We shall speak of of the Christian subsequent to Justification.
quences which flowed from

factor
is
when we come to them. no doubt an arguable question how far these later chapters can rightly be included under the same category as the earlier. Dr. Liddon for instance summarizes their contents as Justification considered subjectively and in its effects upon life and conduct. Moral consequences of Justification. (A) The Life of Justification and sin (vi. 1-14). (B) The Life of Justification and the Mosaic Law (vi. 15 vii. 25). (C) The Life of Justification and the work The question as to the legitimacy of of the Holv Spirit (viii.).' this description hangs together with the question as to the meaning
the teaching of those chapters
It is
'
of the term Justification. If Justification =Justitia infusa as well as imputata, then we need not drspute the bringing of chaps, vi-viii under that category. But we have given the reasons which compel us to dissent from this view. The older Protestant theologians distinguished between Justification and Sanctification ; and we think
were right both in drawing this distinction and in second head rather than to the first. On the whole St. Paul does keep the two subjects separate from each other and it seems to us to conduce to clearness of thought to keep them separate. At the same time we quite admit that the point at issue is rather one of clearness of thought and convenience of thinking than anything more material. Although separate the two subjects run up into each other and are connected by real links. There is an organic unity in the Christian life. Its different parts and functions are no more really separable than the different parts and functions And in this respect there is a true analogy of the human body. between body and soul. When Dr. Liddon concludes his note dis(p. 18) by saying, 'Justification and sanctification may be tinguished by the student, as are the arterial and nervous systems in the human body ; but in the living soul they are coincident and The distinction between inseparable/ we may cordially agree. Justification and Sanctification or between the subjects of chaps. i. 16 v, and chaps, vi-viii is analogous to that between the arterial and nervous systems ; it holds good as much and no more no more, but as much. A further question may be raised which the advocates of the view we have just been discussing would certainly answer in the affirmative, viz. whether we might not regard the whole working out of the influences brought to bear upon the Christian in chaps.
that
they
referring chaps, vi-viii to the
I.
18-32.]
as yet a
FAILURE OF THE GENTILES

fifth
39
vi-viii,
as energizing
amongst men.
great expression of the Righteousness of God too think that he might certainly
We
It stands quite on a like footing with other so have regarded it. All that can be said to the manifestations of that Righteousness. contrary is that St. Paul himself does not explicitly give it this
THE UNIVERSAL NEED: FAILURE OP THE GENTILES.

I.
18-32.
This revelation of Righteousness issuing forth

,
from God and embracing man, has a dark background in that other revelation of Divine Wrath at the gross wickedness of men (ver. 18). There are three stages: (1) the knowledge of God which all might have from the character imprinted upon Creation
(vv.
19-20)
(2) the deliberate
ignoring of this knowledge
(vv. 21-23); (.3) îe God by idolatry to those who provoke surrender judicial of every kind of moral degradation (vv. 24-32).
and
idle specidation
ending in idolatry
18
This message of mine
is
the one ray of
hope
for a
all
doomed
around
world.
us,
is
The
only other revelation, which we can see
a revelation not of the Righteousness but of the Wrath
of
God
breaking forth or on the point of breaking forth

the
lightning
from
19
heaven, like
countless offences at
mankind
are guilty.
from a thundercloud, upon all the once against morals and religion of which They stifle and suppress the Truth within
still
them, while they go on

not merely ignorance.
in their
wrong-doing
20
(eV dSt/c.).
It is
All that
may be known
of
God He
has
revealed in their hearts and consciences.
For since the world
has been created His attributes, though invisible in themselves,

are traced
upon
the fabric of the visible creation.

is
Power
to
which there
I mean, His no beginning and those other attributes
which we sum up under the
common name
make 21 The
it
of Divinity.
So plain
ignorance;
is
all
this
as to
it.
impossible to escape the
responsibility of ignoring
for they
guilt of
men
lay not in their
had a knowledge of God.
But
in spite of to
that knowledge, they did not
pay the homage due
Him
as
40
EPISTLE TO
:
THE ROMANS
;
[i.
18-32.
futile
God
they gave
Him no
thanks
but they gave the rein to
speculations;
they lost
all
intelligence of truth,
and
their
moral
sense was obscured.
" While they boasted of

23
their
wisdom, they
were turned to
perishable
24
folly.
In place of the majesty of the Eternal
God, they worshipped some fictitious representation of weak and man, of bird, of quadruped or reptile.
Such were the beginnings of idolatry. And as a punishment God gave them up to moral corruption, leaving them to
for
it
follow their
own depraved
desires wherever they
might
lead,
25
even
to the polluting of their bodies

bates,
by shameful intercourse.
Repro-
who
divinity,
could abandon the living and true God for a sham and render divine honours and ritual observance to the
creature, neglecting the Creator (Blessed

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

28
They
refused to
Him, so He mind which

29
rejected them, giving
and them over to

:
as they rejected
that
led
them
acts
disgraceful
to
abandoned them as men:
replete as they
were with every species of wrong-doing; with

with thorough inward de-
active wickedness, with selfish greed,
pravity
their hearts
brimming over with envy, murderous thoughts,

backbiters,
in act, arrogant in
quarrelsomeness, treacherous deceit, rank ill-nature;

30
slanderers
in
open defiance of God, insolent
thought, braggarts in
word towards man;

32
:
'
skilful plotters
of
evil,
bad sons,
31
dull
of moral apprehension,
untrue to their word,
void of natural duty and of humanity

full
Reprobates, who, knowing
well the righteous sentence
upon all who act thus, He condemns themselves but abet and applaud those who
them.
by which God denounces death are not content with doing the things which
practise
general agreement as to the structure of this St. Paul has just stated what the Gospel is; he now goes on to show the necessity for such a Gospel. The world is lost without it. Following what was for a Jew the obvious division, proof is given of a complete break-down in regard to righteousness (i) on the part of the Gentiles, (ii) on the
18.
is
There
part of the Epistle.
; :
I. 18.]

20
41
The summary conclusion of the whole section given in the two verses iii. 19, 20: it is that the whole world, Gentile and Jew alike, stands guilty before God. Thus the way is prepared for a further statement of the means of removing that state of* guilt offered in the Gospel.
part of the Jews.
i.
18
iii.
is
Marcion retained ver. 18, perhaps through some accident on his own part or in the MS. which he copied, omitting ov (Zahn, ut sup. p. 516; the rather important cursive 47 has the same omission). The rest of the chapter with ii. 1 he seems to have excised. He may have been jealous of this trenchant attack upon the Gentiles.
'AiroKaXuirreTai.
How
is this
revelation
made ?
Is the reference
Judgement, or to the actual condition, as St. Paul saw it, of the heathen world ? Probably not to either exclusively, but to both in close combination. The condition of the world seems to the Apostle ripe for judgement; he sees around him on all hands signs of the approaching end. In the latter half of this chapter St. Paul lays stress on these signs : he develops the d7roKa\vTTTTai, present. In the first half of the next chapter he brings out the final doom to which the signs are pointing. Observe the links which connect the two sections diroKaXvirreTai airoKakvîs ii. 5; opyr) i. 18, ii. 5,8; dvanoAoyrjTOS i. 20, i. 18
to the Final
:
ii.
1.
OeoG. (1) In the O. T. the conception of the Wrath of has special reference to the Covenant-relation. It is inflicted either (a) upon Israelites for gross breach of the Covenant (Lev.
dpyrj
God
x.
xvi. 33, 46 ff. Korah; xxv. 3 upon non-Israelites for oppression of the Chosen People (Jer. 1. 11-17; Ezek. xxxvi. 5). (2) In the prophetic writings this infliction of wrath' is gradually concentrated upon a great Day of Judgement, the Day of the Lord (Is. ii. 10-22, &c. Obad. 8 ff. Zeph. iii. 8 ff.). (3) Hence Jer. xxx. 7, 8 ; Joel iii. 12 ff.
1,
Nadab and Abihu; Num.
Baal-peor), or (0)
'
N. T. use seems to be mainly, if not altogether, eschatological cf. Matt. iii. 7; 1 Thess. i. 10; Rom. ii. 5, v. 9; Rev. vi. 16, 17. Even 1 Thess. ii. 1 6 does not seem to be an exception the state of the Jews seems to St. Paul to be only a foretaste of the final woes. See on this subject esp. Ritschl, Rechtfertigung u. Versohnung, ii. 124 ff. ed. 2.
the
:
Similarly Euthym.-Zig. 'ArroKaXîrTcrat k.t.X. \v ^fiipq, SrjKovorf /cpicrews. St. Paul regarded the Day of Judgement as near at hand.
We must remember however that
iv dSiKta, 'living in unrighteousness the while''

kcitcxoVtwi'.
Kare\fii/
Moule.
15
;
=
is
(i)
'
to hold fast' Lk.
viii.
Cor.
xi. 2,
xv. 2, &c. ; (ii) 'to hold down/ 'hold in check' 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7, where to Karix ov o Karx<ov= the force of [Roman] Law and Order
,
by which Antichrist
restrained;
similarly
frere
but;
in a
bad
'
' :'
42
sense;
it

is
[i.
18-20-
the truth which
is
'held down,' hindered, thwarted,
checked
(i)
in its free
:
19. Sioti for 6V o
and expansive operation. always in Gk. Test. because.' There are three uses
'
ti
= propter
a consequence ; (ii) because,' giving a reason for what has gone before ; (iii) from on, 'that.' Herod, downwards, but esp. in later Gk. This is a similar case to that of etodcoBrjaropai above to y^wotoV. yvcoaros in Scripture generally (both and N. T.) means as but it does a rule 'known' (e.g. Acts i. 19, ii. 14, xv. 18, &c.) not follow that it may not be used in the stricter sense of knowable,' ' what may be known ' (' the intelligible nature T. H. Green, The Witness of God, p. 4) where the context favours so Orig. Theoph. Weiss. Gif., against Chrys. Mey. that sense De W. Va. There is the more room for this stricter use here as the word does not occur elsewhere in St. Paul and the induction does not cover his writings. within them.' St. Paul repeatedly uses this preposilv auTOis,
'
quod, qua?nobrem, * wherefore,' introducing for 8ia tovto 6ti propterea quod, or quia,
LXX
'
'
tion
where we might expect a different one (cf. Gal. i. 16; Rom. ii. 15): any revelation must pass through the human consciousness so Mey. Go. Oltr. Lips., not exactly as Gif. (' in their very nature and constitution as men ') or Moule ('among them).'
:
Melanchthon discoursing Compare also Luther, Table Talk, Aph. dxlix with Luther touching the prophets, who continually boast thus " Thus saith the Lord," asked whether God in person spoke with them or no. Luther " They were very holy, spiritual people, who seriously contemplated replied upon holy and divine things: therefore God spake with them in their consciences, which the prophets held as sure and certain revelations." It is however possible that allowance should be made for the wider Hebraistic use of kv, as in the phrase \a\uv tv rivi (Habak. ii. 1 anoffKoii. 3 iv. 4. 5 iTivaoj rod IStiv rt \a\rjcrei ev k/xoi: cf. Zech.i. 9, 13, 14, 19 In that v. 5, 10; vi. 4; also 4 Ezr. v. 15 angelus qui loquebatur in me. case too much stress must not be laid on the preposition as describing an internal process. At the same time the analogy of \a\uv ev does not cover and we must remember that the very explicit (pavepov kartv kv avrois St. Paul is writing as one who had himself an ' abundance of revelations (2 Cor. xii. 7), and uses the language which corresponded to his own
: ' : : ; ;
experience.
20.
dird KTio-ews itoVfjiou.

'
Gif. is inclined to translate this

'
'
from
')
the created universe,'
creation
(in the sense of

:
'
things created
being regarded as the source of knowledge he alleges Vulg. a creatura mundi. But it is not clear that Vulg. was intended to have this sense; and the parallel phrases aw dpxrjs Koapov Luke xi. 50; (Matt. xxiv. 21), dnb KarapoXris Koa-fiov (Matt. xxv. 34 Rev. xiii. 8 xvii. 8), aif dpxr\s nrla-eas (Mark x. 6 xiii. 19 2 Pet.
; ; ;
;
iii.
'
4),
seem
to
show
that the force of the prep,

'
since the creation of the universe
(d(j>
rather temporal, ov x^ vov oparbs irVcrw-Aj

is
Koorfios
Euthym.-Zig,).
The
idea of knowledge being derived from
' ' :
I.
20.]

is
43
in the
the fabric of the created world
in
any case contained
context.
act of creating (as here)
ktio-is has three senses: see Lft. Col. p. 214. (i) the (ii) the result of that act, whether (a) the ; aggregate of created things (Wisd. v. 18 ; xvi. 24; Col. i. 15 and
KTio-ews:
probably Rom. viii. 19 ff.); or (/3) a creature, a single created thing (Heb. iv. 13, and perhaps Rom. viii. 39, q. v.). commonly explained to mean ' are clearly seen KaGop&Tai (Kara with intensive force, as in KarapavOdveiv, Karavoeiv) so Fri. Grm.-Thay. Gif. &c. It may however relate rather to the direction of sight, 'are surveyed,' 'contemplated' (' are under observation Moule). Both senses are represented in the two places in which (i) in Job x. 4 ^ wo-rrep pporbs Spa icaOopas ; the word occurs in
:
;
LXX
is
(ii)
in
Num.
:
XXiv. 2 BaXadp,
nadopa top 'iapajjX io tpar oirebev koto.
Kara qbvXds.
diSios
ai8ioTT]s
a Divine attribute in Wisd.

vii.
ii.
23
(v.
1.,
see
below);
cf.
also Wisd.
26
cpcoros dV>iov,
Jude
6.
The argument from

character of
its
;
the nature of the created world
to the
Author is as old as the Psalter, Job and Isaiah Pss. xix. 1 xciv. 9; cxliii. 5; Is. xlii. 5; xlv. 18; Job xii. 9; xxvi. 14; xxxvi. 24 ff. Wisd. ii. 23; xiii. 1,5, &c. It is common Arist. De Mundo 6 ddapT)Tos to Greek thought as well as Jewish air avrwv tcov Zpyvv dewpuTai [6 Geo's] (Lid.). This argument is very fully set forth by Philo, De Praem. et Poen. 7 (Mang. ii. 415). After describing the order and beauty of Nature he goes on: Admiring and being struck with amazement at these things, they arrived at a conception consistent with what they had seen, that all these beauties so admirable in their arrangement have not come
;
:
into being spontaneously (owe diravTopaTiadtpra yeyovev), but are the
work of some Maker, the Creator of the world, and that there must needs be a Providence (npovoiav) ; because it is a law of nature that the Creative Power (to TremHrjKos) must take care of that which has come into being. But these admirable men superior as they are to all others, as I said, advanced from below upwards as if by a kind of celestial ladder guessing at the Creator from His works by probable inference (ola did twos olpaviov icXlpaKos diro tS>p
epycou tbcori XoyifT/xoi crro^crd/Xf voi top brjpiovpyouj.
6eioTT)s
OeoTTjs
:
= Divine
attributes
Personality,
deiorrjs
= Divine
is
nature and
properties
for
dvvapis is a single attribute, detorrji
summary term
:
those
other
appears in Biblical Gk.

iv opovoia bUdfvro.
first
the word which constitute Divinity in Wisd. xviii. 9 t6v ttjs detoTrjTos vopov
Migne, P. G. xxixx. 664) accuses the heretics of found in one MS., P. It is certainly somewhat strange that so general a term as OtiSrrjs should be combined with a term denoting a particular attribute like dvvapts. To meet this difficulty the attempt has been made to narrow down Ouottjs to
;
Didymus {Trin. ii. 11 reading deorijs here, and
it is
44
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[I.
20, 21.
It is suggested the signification of 86a, the divine glory or splendour. inadequate to describe the that this word was not used because it seemed d. Ap. Paulus uniqueness of the Divine Nature (Rogge, Die Anschaimngen 188S, p. io f.) religios-sittl. Charakt. d. Heidentums, Leipzig,
von
d.
els t6 denotes here not direct and primary purpose els t6 cTkcu God did not but indirect, secondary or conditional purpose. but He did design that if they sinned design that man should sin on His part all was done to they should be without excuse Burton however give them a sufficient knowledge of Himself. here as ex P ressin g not takes els {Moods and Tenses, purpose but result, because of the causal clause which follows. This clause could be forced to an expression of purpose only by
:
4")
'
supposing an ellipsis of some such expression as kcu ovtcos ela-lv, and seems therefore to require that els to eluat be interpreted as expressing result.' There is force in this reasoning, though the use
'
of
recognized. tig to for mere result is not we believe generally bo&Cv is one of the words which show a deepened 21. eo6|ao-ai>. In classical Greek significance in their religious and Biblical use. ' to form merely in accordance with the slighter sense of oda it
an opinion about
Plato, Rep. 2) ; honour to ' or
io).
'
And
to
so
to the subject
man
(ii)
man
(bo^Cofim 8&ucos, I am held to be unrighteous,' then later with a gradual rise of signification to do praise ' (eV aperrj feftofur/uVoi dvdpes Polyb. VI. liii. and N. T. with a varying sense according in (i) Of the honour done by to whom it is applied 6 pao-iXevs 'Apra^'p^s- hpav) (Esth. iii. i
'
'
'
LXX
6&m
tj) Of that which is owayvyh 8orAj<roftai) (iii) Of the glory bestowed on man by God (Rom. viii. 30 ovs Se e'Si/ccuWe, tovtovs koI e'8oao-e) (iv) In a sense of the visible specially characteristic of the Gospel of St. John, own act manifestation of the glory, whether of the Father by His xi. 4), or of the Son (To. xii. 28), or of the Son by His own act (Jo. the by the act of the Father (Jo. vii. 39; xii. 16, 23, &c), or of xvu. 1,4, &c). xiv. 13 Father by the Incarnate Son (Jo. xiii. 31 were frustrated,' rendered futile.' In LXX >aTaiw0Tjaa^, The two words occur 'things of nought.' as 'idols'
done by man
J
to
God
(Lev. x. 3 iv naag
'
'
ti6rata= together in 2 Kings xvii. 15

eu.a.Taib>6r)0~av.
mt
eiropevdrjo-av
ottiVw
fiaTalav Koi
'
and N. T. in a bad sense of SiaXovôis: as usually in (cf. Hatch, Ess. perverse, self-willed, reasonings or speculations '
Gk.
p. 8).
LXX
in Bibl.
reason of the Comp. Enoch xcix. 8, 9 And they will become godless by blinded through the fear of foolishness of their hearts, and their eyes will be dreams. Through these they will their hearts and through visions in their works in a lie and godless and fearful, because they work all their
become
they worship a stone.'
Kapoia
..:
the
most comprehensive term
for the
human
faculties,
I.
21-24.]

(Rom.
;
45
ix. 2 ; x. 1) will (1 Cor. iv. 5 ; vii. 37 ; 18); thoughts (Rom. x. 6, 8). Physically tapdia belongs to the o7rXdyX va (2 Cor. vi. 11, 12); the conception of its functions being connected with the Jewish idea that life resided in the blood morally it is neutral in its character, so that it may be either the home of lustful desires (Rom. i. 24), or of the Spirit
cf.
the seat of feeling
Rom.
xvi.
(Rom.
y. 5).
:
23. TJMaâi/ iv
cvi. (cv.)
an imitation of a Heb. construction
cf.
Ps.
20
Uiav
also for the expression Jer. ii. 11 (Del. 'manifested perfection.' See on iii. 23.
;
ad loc.) &c.
161) ot rbv
Comp. with
this
verse Philo,
Vit.
Mos.
iii.
20 (Mang.
:
ii.
dfiEpv p.drcx)v vXais 8ia<p6pois TeTexviTevptvcvv KarkirXTjcf rriv to kvavriov ov irpoatSoKrjo-fV, dvrl 6o~iott)tos TroXvOeov kv rats tcuv dcppovwv ipvxats d6e6rr]s, Kal Oeov rifxrjs dKoyovaiv ol ra 6vrjTa eetouaavTes ols ovk k^pKtaev -qXiov Kal otXrjvqs tiKovas 8iairXdoaodai, dX\' 77877 koI dXdyois wois Kal (pvrois rrjs twv dtpedprwv
o\Kovp.kvr\v
aXXwv
rots iptvda)vvp.ovs ihrjpioiipyqoav, <p6aprais Kal yfvrjTais ovoiais ttjv rov dyfvrjrov Kal dipedprov npoaprjaiv km<pr)fiiaavT(s also De Ebriet. 28 (Mang. i. 374) nap' o Kal OfOTrXao-Teiv dpdp.evus dyaXfidrwv Kal odvcov Kal
/xvpiojy
.
aXr]9r) 6(01/ KaraXtTroi'Tes
doffieiav
to yapKaTfipydo-aro
.
.
Tip.ijs
p.eT(8o<jav.
three times repeated, here, in ver. 26 and in These however do not mark so many distinct stages in the punishment of the heathen it is all one stage. Idolatry leads to moral corruption which may take different forms, but in all is a proof of God's displeasure. Gif. has proved that the force of
:
24. irapeSwKei/
ver. 28.
not merely permissive (Chrys. Theodrt. Euthym.-Zig.*), through God permitting men to have their way or privative, through His withdrawing His gracious aid but judicial, the approrrapkdcoKev is
;
priate
evil
punishment of their defection it works automatically, one leading to another by natural sequence.
:
:
This is a Jewish doctrine Pirqt Aboth, iv. 2 Every fulfilment of duty is rewarded by another, and every transgression is punished by another Shabbath I04a Whosoever strives to keep himself pure receives the power to do so, arid whosoever will be impure to him is it [the door of vice] thrown open Jerus. Talmud, 'He who erects a fence round himself is fenced, and he who gives himself over is given over (from Delitzsch, Notes on Heb. Version of Ep. to Rom.). The Jews held that the heathen because of their rejection of the Law were wholly abandoned by God the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from them (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 66).
'
'
'
'
several cursives; tv eavroU editions of Fathers, Orig. Chrys. Theodrt., Vulg. (/ contumeliis adficiant corpora sua in ipsis). The balance is strongly
iv au-roTs
NABCD*,
DcEFGKLP,
&c, printed
* Similarly Adrian, an Antiochene writer (c. 440 A.D.) in his Elo-aycayrj (Is rds dtias ypatyds, a classified collection of figures and modes of speech employed in Holy Scripture, refers this verse to the head Ttjv enl twv dv8pa:mva>v KaKwv crvyxojpvaiv tow 0eoO <bs vpaiv avrov Xtyer twecdf) KuXvaai Swd/xevos, TUVTO OV VOifl.
; ;
46
EPISTLE TO THE
With
' :
ROMANS
[I.
24-28.
and
iv
in favour of avrols.
avrois =.
'
this
reading
dTijjideo-0ai is pass.,
among them
;
with
iv iavrols, drip, is
mid. (as Vulg.).
On the forms, avrov, avrov and kavrov see Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk. (tr. Thayer) p. in Hort, Introd., Notes on Orthography, p. 144. In N. T. Greek there is a tendency to the disuse of strong reflexive forms. Simple possession is most commonly expressed by avrov, avrrjs, &c. only where the reflexive character is emphasized (not merely suum, but suum ipsius) is kavrov used (hence the importance of such phrases as rbv kavrov vlbu Tre/A.ipas Rom. viii. 3). Some critics have denied the existence in the N. T. of the aspirated avrov and it is true that there is no certain proof of aspiration such as the occurrence before it of ovx or an elided preposition in early MSS. breathings are rare), but in a few strong cases, where the omission of the aspirate would be against all Greek usage, it is retained by WH. (e.g. in Jo. ii. 24; Lk. xxiii. 12).
:
So-, often called rel. 25. oitii'cs of quality,' (i) denotes a single object with reference to its kind, its nature, its capacities, being of such 'a kind as that ') ; and thus its character (' one who,' (ii) it frequently makes the adjectival sentence assign a cause for it is used like qui, or quippe qui, with subj. the main sentence
:
'
'
-ri]v
dXÔeiai'
. .
tw
*J/eu8ei
abstr. for concrete,
for rbv dXrjOivbv
Qtov
rois r/z-euoWt 6eois, cf. I
ThesS.
i.
9.
ffe|3da0r)<rai'.
This use of
o-e$ato-6cu is
an
airai-
\cy6fxevov
the
common
form
is <ri$eo-6ai
(see Va.).
' '
not merely more than the Creator (a force impel rbv KTiaai'Ta which the preposition might bear), but 'passing by the Creator
altogether,'
'
to the neglect of the Creator.'
Cf. Philo,
De Mund.
rbv
tcoa /JLoiroibv
Opif. 1 (Mangey, Qavjxaaavres (Loesner).
i.
2)
rivh yap rbv Koa/xov /xaWov
f]
in the
os eaTiK cuXoyTjTos. Doxologies like this are of constant occurrence Talmud, and are a spontaneous expression of devout feeling
by the thought of God's adorable perfections or sometimes (as here) by the forced mention of that which reverence would rather hide.
called forth either
27. diroXappdj/oi/Tes
;
a7roX.=
(i)
'
to receive lack
(as in
Luke
vi.
34) (i) 'to test' 8oKifj.d(a> 28. cooKi/ido-ay (ii) 'to approve after testing' (so here; and
:
(ii)
'
to receive one's due' (as in
Luke
xxiii.
=
*
41) ; and so here. (1 Cor. hi. 13, &c.)

ii.
18;
xiv. 22, &c.j;
similarly c186kihov
iv iinyv(o(Tei
:
'
rejected after testing,'
'
reprobates.'
'
:
imyvcao-is
=
;
after
'
tion (vb.
='to
or
1
'
recognize,' Matt.
vii.
knowledge 16; xvii.

full
i.
hence
12,
(i)
;
recogni-
&c.)
(^'ad-
vanced
voxsv
'
further knowledge,'
knowledge.'
9.
See esp. Sp.
Comm. on
Cor.
xiii.
12
Lft.
on
Phil.
the reasoning
faculty,
esp.
as
:
concerned with
vovs
moral
action, the intellectual part of conscience
combined in Tit. i. 15 vovs may be good sense see Rom. xii. 2 Eph. iv.
:
either
23.
and o-weidijo-is are bad or good ; for the
I.
28-30.]
t&
KaO.iKoi'Ta

:
47
*
what is morally Mace. vi. 4. must beware of attempting to force the catalogue 29. which follows into a logical order, though here and there a certain amount of grouping is noticeable. The first four are general
fitting
;
a technical term with the Stoics,
cf.
also 2
We
terms
for
wickedness
tive 4>06Vou, <f>6ôo,
then follows a group headed by the allitera; with other kindred vices then two forms of
;
backbiting; then a group in descending climax of sins of arrogance ; then a somewhat miscellaneous assortment, in which again
alliteration plays a part.
dSiicuj
:
irop^ta
a comprehensive term, including all that follows. om. N A B C probably suggested by similarity in ;
SOUnd
p.
to
Trovrjplq.
:
iro^pta contains the idea of active mischief (Hatch, Bill. Gk. 77 f. ; Trench, Syn. p. 303). Dr. T. K. Abbott (Essays, p. 97) rather contests the assignment of this specific meaning to novrjpia ; and no doubt the use of the word is extremely wide but where
'
:
definition
:
is
needed
it is
in this direction that
it
must be sought.
Kcxiaa as compared with trov^pia denotes rather inward viciousness of disposition (Trench, Syn. p. 36 f.).
the order of the three words irovrjpla, irXtovîa, leana, with BL, &c., Hard. Arm., Bas. Greg'.Nyss. at.: Tisch. VVH. marg. read irovrjp. a. ir\(ov. with NA, Pesh. at : marg. also recognizes icaie. vovtjp. irXtov. with C, Boh. at. irXeovcgia. On the attempt which is sometimes made to give to this word the sense of < impurity see Lft. on Col. iii. 5. The word itself means only
WH.
The MSS. vary as to text RV. retain
this order
WH.
'
which may however be exhibited under circumstances where impurity lies near at hand: e.g. in 1 Thess. iv. 6 TtKeovtKTtlv is used of adultery, but rather as a wrong done to another than as a vice.
selfish greed,'
J
KaKOY)0eias the tendency to put the worst construction upon everything (Arist. Rhet. ii. 13 ; cf. Trench, Syn. p. The word 38). occurs several times in 3 and 4 Maccabees. 30. \|u0upio-T<is, KaTaXdXous. The idea of secresy is contained in the first of these words, not in the second: yfi0. susurratores Cypr. Lucif. Ambrstr. susurrones Aug. Vulg. kutoX. deiradores Cypr. Aug. Vulg., dttrectatores {detract-) Lucif. Ambrstr. at.
:
eeoffTuyets may be either (i) passive, Deo odibiles Vulg. so Mey. Weiss Fri. Oltr. Lips. Lid. ; on the ground that this is the constant meaning in class. Gk., where the word is not uncommon or (ii) active, Dei osores = abhorrentes Deo Cypr. so Euthym.-Zig. (tovs tov Q(bv ptaovvrai), Tyn. and other English versions not derived from Vulg., also Gif. Go. Va., with some support from Clem. Rom. ad Cor. xxxv. 5, who in paraphrasing this passage uses tfeoorirym clearly with an active signification, though he follows it by vTvyrjToi GfoJ. As one among a catalogue of vices this would give the more pointed sense, unless we might suppose that dfoo-rvyels had come to have a meaning like our desperadoes.' The three terms
:
'
48
[I.
30-32.
which follow remind us of the bullies and braggarts f the Elizabethan stage. For the distinction between them see Trench, Syn. p. 95 ff.
well preserved in the Cyprianic Latin, iniuriosi, superbi, iactantes sui. last phrase Lucif. has gloriantes either would be better than the common rendering elatos (Cod. Clarom. Cod. Boern. Ambrstr. Aug. Vulg.). vir6pTi<j>avos. Mayor (onjas. iv. 6) derives this word from the adjectival form vntpos (rather than vnep Trench) and <f>aipa>, comparing k\a<pr)P6\os from eXacpos and fidWcv he explains it as meaning ' conspicuous beyond others,' ' outshining them,' and so ' proud,' ' haughty ' : see his note, and the exx. there quoted from Ecclus. and Pss. Sol. 31. d<ruvTOvs : aovvti Stjtovs (' without conscience ') Euthym.-Zig. closely the two words avvtais and awtidrjais are related will appear from Polyb. XVIII. xxvi. 13 ovbds ovtcos ovre fiaprvs karl <popfpos ovre tcarrfyopos fiavbs ihs ff avveais 57 kyfcaTomovoa rats knaaruv ipv-^ms. [But is not this a gloss, on the text of Polyb. ? It is found in the margin of Cod. Urbin.]
It is
For the
How
dcrui/0Tous,
'
false to their
engagements
(Trench,
'
(ovvOtjkcu)
cf.
Jer.
iii.
7,
LXX.
dcnroVSous
after
iii.
:
do-rdpyovs
Syn.
p.
from
Tim.
32. ofni'es
t6 8iicaiwfi.a a thing is dixaiov [ro

:
L P]. 3 [C see on ver. 25 above. prob. in the first instance

diKaitofxa
95
ff.)
is
added
(i)
a declaration that
which the Law lays down as right,' Rom. viii. 4] ; hence, an ordinance (Luke i. 6 ; Rom. ii. 26 Heb. ix. 1, 10) or (ii) a declaration that a person a verdict of not guilty/ an acquittal is dUaioi,' so esp. in But see also note on p. 31. St. Paul (e.g. Rom. v. 16).
tov
v6/j.ov
'
=
'
that
'
'
'
'
'
iti"Yv6vts
imyivwoKovres (B) 80,

.
WH.
marg.
There has been some disturbance of B, and apparently Clem. Rom., have iroiovvres avvevboKovvres ; and so too E Vulg. (am. fuld.) Orig.-lat. Lucif. and other Latin Fathers, but inserting, non intellexerunt (ovk evorjo-av D). WH. obelize the common text as prob. corrupt they think that it involves an anticlimax, because to applaud an action in others is not so bad as to do it oneself ; but from another point of view to set up a public opinion in favour of vice is worse than to yield for the moment to temptation (see the quotation from Apollinaris below). If the participles are wrong they have probably been assimilated mechanically to irpdaaovres. Note that iroidv agere, to act as facere, to produce a certain result ; npdaaeiv moral agent there may be also some idea of repeated action. owcu&okoGo-i denotes hearty approval (Rendall on Acts xxii. cf. 1 Mace. i. 57 awevBoKel tw v6p<p 20, in Expos. 1888, ii. 209)
Troiouaii'
. .
owcuooKouo-i.
the text here
'
'
the
word occurs four times besides

apuporepoi
8^
irovrjpoi,
teal
in
N. T. (Luke, Epp.
Paul.).
rb ovvivhoKtiv
x ^P 0V
Ti0J7<n Kara,
Kardpâs, Kal 6 ovv^pap.6jv. tov Se ttoulv to Keyopevov, et i6 ecu pas KKiirTTjv,
1.
1S-32.]

6 fxiv
49
0VviT(>*X<* avr$.
yap
iroiwv, fieOvcav tS> iraOei,

irovTjpiq
o St ffwtvSoKwv, (kt6s
&v rov vd9ovs, (Apollinaris in Cramer's Catena).
^Trdrai rfjs wpa^&us' xpwptvos, awTpeyti rS> naitS>
St.
Paul's Description of the Condition of the Heathen World.
It would be wrong to expect from St. Paul an investigation of the origin of different forms of idolatry or a comparison of the morality of heathen religions, such as is now being instituted in the
was necessary to which has only become possible within the present century and is still far from
this
it
Comparative Science of Religion.
For
wait for a large
and comprehensive
collection of data
complete.
teacher
;
St.
Paul looks at things with the insight of a religious

;
he describes facts which he sees around him
and he con-
nects these facts with permanent tendencies of human nature and with principles which are apparent in the Providential government
of the world.
The Jew of the Dispersion, with the Law of Moses in his hand, could not but revolt at the vices which he found prevailing among the heathen. He turned with disgust from the circus and the
theatre (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. pp. 58, 68). He looked upon the heathen as given over especially to sins of the flesh, such as those which St. Paul recounts in this chapter. So far have they gone as to lose their
{ibid. p.
humanity altogether and become
like brute
beasts
67 f.). The Jews were like a patient who was sick but with hope of recovery. Therefore they had a law given to them to be a check upon their actions. The Heathen were like a patient
who was
sick unto death
and beyond
all
hope, on
whom
therefore
the physician put
no
restrictions {ibid. p. 69).
The
John,
<
Christian teacher brought with
him no lower standard, and
his verdict
was not
less
sweeping.
'The whole world/

'
said St.
of] the
lieth in
wickedness/ rather perhaps,

(1 Jo. v.
in [the
power
Wicked One'
have
19).
And
St.
Paul on his travels must
come
across
much
to justify the denunciations of this chapter.
and licence went together. He knew that the heathen myths about their gods ascribed to them all manner
that idolatry
He saw
of immoralities.
The
lax
Hellenic religion and the

at
still
and easy-going anthropomorphism of more degraded representations, with

the
times
still
more degraded worship, of
gods of Egypt and the
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
own
that
[i.
18-32.
East, were thrown into dark relief by his the
severe conception of
Divine
Holiness.
this
It
was natural
he should give
the
account he does of
invented their
follow their
degeneracy.
The
lawless fancies of
men
own divinities. Such gods as these left them free to own unbridled passions. And the Majesty on High,
not interfere to check their
angered
at their wilful disloyalty, did
downward
career.
It is all literally true.
The human
imagination, following
evil
its
own
devices, projects even into the

it is
Pantheon the streak of

so the mischief
rise
is
by
which
itself disfigured.
is
And
strict
made
worse,
because the worshipper

his worship.
It
not likely to
above the objects of
was
in the
sense due to supernatural influ-
ence that the religion of the Jew and of the Christian was kept
clear of these corrupt
and corrupting features. The state of the Pagan world betokened the absence, the suspension or withholding, of such supernatural influence
;
and there was reason

where
St.
enough
for the belief that
it
was
judicially inflicted.
At the same time, though

limitation or qualification,
in this passage,
in
Paul
is
measuring the religious forces

it is
the world, he speaks without
clear
from other contexts that conmight be in Pagan characters.
demnation of the insufficiency of Pagan creeds did not make him

shut his eyes to the
good
that there
In the next chapter he distinctly contemplates the case of Gentiles
who being
without law are a law unto themselves, and

for external
who
'
find in
their consciences a substitute
law
is
(ii.
14,
15).
He
to
frankly allows that the
'
uncircumcision which
his greater
by nature put
(ii.
shame
the
Jew with
to facts.
all
advantages
26-29).
We
It
therefore cannot say that a priori reasoning or prejudice
makes
him untrue
had
little its
The Pagan world was

lights,
not wholly bad.
scattered
and broken
which the Apostle recognizes
with the warmth of genuine sympathy.
But there can be equally

that
doubt that the moral condition of Pagan civilization was such
as abundantly to prove his
main proposition,
Paganism was
unequal to the task of reforming and regenerating mankind.
There
is
monograph on
lies
the subject, which however does not

fairly
add much beyond what
upon
the surface
Rogge, Die
Charakter
d.
Anschauungen
d.
Ap. Paulus von
d. religios-sittlichen
Heidentums, Leipzig, 1888.
I.
18-32.]
5l
If the statements of St. Paul cannot be taken at once as supplying the place of scientific inquiry from the side of the Comparative History of Religion, so neither can they be held to furnish data which can be utilized just as they stand by the historian. The standard which St. Paul applies is not that of the historian but of the preacher. He does not judge by the average level of moral attainment at different epochs but by the ideal standard of that which ought to be attained. calm and dispassionate weighing of the facts, with due allowance for the nature of the authorities, will be found in Friedlander,
Sittengeschichte
Roms, Leipzig,
869-1 871.
Use of the Book of Wisdom in Chapter

i.
T.
18-32. In two places in Epist. to Romans, ch. i and ch. ix, there are clear indications of the use by the Apostle of the Book of Wisdom. Such indications are not wanting elsewhere, but we have thought it best to call attention to them especially at the points where they are most continuous and begin by placing side by side the language of St. Paul most striking. and that of the earlier work by which it is illustrated.
We
Romans.
i.
Wisdom,
voovp.tva
20.
ra yap aopara avrov and kti-
trecus Koapiov rots voirjfxaai KaQoparai,
Kal Ik twv opcopivcov ayaQGiv ovk Xa\vaav tlSivai tov ovra ovre rots epyois iviyvctffav rbv irpoo~ex ovTes
xiii. I.
TXVITT}V.
xiii. 5. (K yap ficylOovs Kal KaWovfjs Kriapdrwv dvaKoycos 6 ytveaiovpyos avrwv Oecvpurai.
77
T diSios avrov Svvapus Kal
6(i6tt]s'
ii.
23. [6 0eos tKTiae

.
ttov
e'lKova tt)s idias ouSiottjtos

al.,
tov dvOpca*
&c.)
(Cod. 248
18i6tt}tos
iTroir)<jtv.~\
Method. Athan. Epiph.

Clem.-Alex.
NAB,
(Is
t6 etvai avrovs dva-noXoyq T ovs'

21.
t/j.aTai<ij9r)(Tav
Xviii. 9. TOV TT/S OeiOTTJTOS VOfXOV. xiii. 8. ndXiv Si ovo' avTol ovvyvw-
aroi.
kv rots 81a: oyto7)
xiii. I.
pdraioi yap irdvTes avOpwnot

naprjv Otov
fiois
avrSiv. /cat koKOTiadtj
dovveros
kpuwpdv-
(pvaei,
oh
dyvwaia
*|\
avraiv Kapdia.
22. (pda/eovTs
eivai
o*o</>ot
xii.
24. Kal ydp
tSjv
irXavqs
6Swv
Orjaav
uaKpoTfpov
TT\avr)9T)0~av dtovs vnoKap.-
(HdvovTcs T(i Kal kv fcJo<? tuiv kxOpuv aTipa, vrjmwv Siktjv dcppovcuv ipevadivtcs.
23. Kal tf\\aav 7-7)1/ 86av rod d<pOdprov &eov kv 6p.016jp.aTi tiKovos tpOaptov dvOpcuirov Kal irerewwv Kal rerpaTToScUV
xii. I.
xiv. 8.
o~6r).
to acpOaprov aov wvevpa. to 8k (pOaprov eos divopa-
Kal kpTT(TUV.
xiii. 10. TaKaiirojpot di Kal kv veKpois al k\ni8es avTwv, oItivcs kKaKeaav Oeovs tpya x* l P& v dvOpuvuv.
* The more recent editors as a rule read 18i6tt]tos with the uncials and Gen. i. 26 f. but it is by no means clear Cod. 248 emthat they are right bodies very ancient elements and the context generally favours diStoTrjTos. It still would not be certain that St.
;
:
Paul had
this
t The
Wisd.
parallel here is
'
exact. St. but relinquished

'
passage in his mind. not quite Paul says, They did know
their
They ought
knowledge,'" to have known
but did not.'
5*

xiii. 13,
[I.
18-32.
14.
fj
direifcacrev
dvOpwnov,
avro.
25. oiTives ixTT}k\aav ttjv dXr)&eiav
xiii.
wa> rivl evreXe?
avrb (Ikuvi ijpoiwow
17
sqq.
ovk
rod &eov kv tS> if/ev8ei, Kal kae@do9r]aav Kal kXdrptvaav 777 KTiati irapd toj/
KTlOaVTOL.
a\pv\cp TTpoaXaXojw
/cat irepl
alax^veTai T(? pkv vyielas
to daOevls kiriKaXeirai, nepl 8k fafjs to" viKpuv dioT k. T. X. xiv. 11. 81a tovto kcu kv &8wXols kOvwv hmoKoirri karai, on kv KTiffpan &eov ets (iSkXvypa kyevrjOrjcrav. Xiv 21. TO aKOlVCJVTJTOV ovopia XiOois
Kal vXois TTtpiidiaav. xiv. 12. dpxf) ydp iropveias% kirivoia dScuXcov, tvpeaeis 8k avTwv <p6opd cu77?.
xiv. 16. gIto. kv
24. h\b iraptSwKev k. t. X.
26. Sia rovro vapkhuKiv k. t. X.
XP^ V V xpaTvvOiv rb
wXava-
affects edos ws vupos kfpvXdxOrj.

xiv. 22. ?t' ovk rjpKeae t6
a0ai irepl t?)v tou eov yvcvaiv, dXXd Kal kv fxcyaXcv âivTts dyvoias TroXkfio) r<i
Toaaxna ad elpfjvrjv irpocrayopevovaiv, 2 3-V 7"P TtKvocpovovs TfXtrds ^ Kpixpia fxvaTrjpia fj kppaveis kgaXXwv Oeapcuv
Kwp.ovs dyovrfs,
24. ovre ffiovs ovTt
Zti (puXdaaovaiv, tre-
ydpovs KaOapovs
pos 8' iTfpov bhvvq.
vrjpia, TrXfovegiq, /caiciq,
rj
Xox&v
dvaipei
k"x l
ij
voOevwv
29. irfirXrjpajptvovs -nady atiiKiq, iropfffrovs (pdovov,

epiSos,
25. -ndvTa 8k
kmpl
a fy* Kal
(povos kXott^ Kal 80X05, (pOopd, dmo~Tia 7
(povov,
picrrcis,
SoXov, KaicoTjOcias, ipiOvtcaraXaXovs, Oeoarvytts, vfipi-
rdpaxos,
dXa6vas, k(f>vp(Tas yovtvaiv direiOeis, dcvvkrovs, davvdtTovs, dcTTOpyovs, dveXefjpiovas.

(jTas, virtpr](pdvovs f
KctKuiv,
Oopvfios dyaOwv, 26. x"/" T0S dpvrjaia, if/vx&v fj.iaap.6s, yevfoews (sex) kvaXXayrj, ydptxuv dragta,
eiriopKia,
poixeia Kal dakXyeia.

27. ij ydp twv dvojvvpwv (ISojXojv 6pr)OKeia iravrbs dp\rj KaKov Kal a'nia
Kal ntpas kariv.

It will be seen that while on the one hand there can be no question of direct quotation, on the other hand the resemblance is so strong both as to the main lines of the argument (i. Natural religion discarded, ii. idolatry, iii. catalogue of immorality) and in the details of thought and to some extent of expression as to make it clear that at some time in his life St. Paul must have bestowed upon the Book of Wisdom a considerable amount of
study.
Theol.
p. 251
[Compare the note on ix. 19-29 below, also an essay by E. Grafe in Abhandlungen C. von Weizsacker gewidmet, Freiburg, 1. B. 1192,
ff. In this essay will be found a summary of previous discussions of the question and an estimate of the extent of St. Paul's indebtedness which agrees substantially with that expressed above. It did not extend to any of the leading ideas of Christianity, and affected the form rather than the matter of the arguments to which it did extend. Rom. i. 18-32, ix. 19-23 are the most conspicuous examples.]
% A.V. expands this as ' [spiritual] fornication ' and so most moderns.
;
had something
thought of
to
do
in suggesting the
St. Paul.
But even so the phrase might have
II. 1-16.]
TRANSITION TO THE JEWS
53
TRANSITION FROM GENTILE TO JEW. ALIKE GUILTY.

II. 1-16.
critic
BOTH
This state of things puts out of court the [Jewish] himself no better than the Gentile. He can claim no exemption, but only aggravates his sin by im-
who
is
penitence (vv.1-5).
the
Strict justice will be meted out to all
Jew coming first
then the Gentile (vv. 6-1
1).
The Jew,
will be judged by the Law of Moses, the Gentile by the Law of Conscience, at the Great Assize which Christ will hold
(vv. 12-16).
1
The
he
Gentile sinner
is
without excuse
ever
may
be
and
his
critic
who-
is
equally without excuse, even though [like
the Jew] he imagines himself to be
on a platform of
In fact the
lofty superiority.
No
such platform really
exists.
critic
only passes
sentence upon himself, for by the fact of his criticism he shows that
he can distinguish accurately between right and wrong, and his own conduct is identical with that which he condemns. 2 And we are aware that it is at his conduct that God will look. The
standard of His judgement
status as either
critic,
is
reality,
s
and not a man's

suppose
birth or
Jew or
Gentile.
sit
Do you
you
Jewish
judgement on those who copy your own example do you suppose that a special exemption will be made in your favour, and that you personally (a-6 emphatic) will
are so ready to
in
who
escape
forbearance,
of sin?
If
is
are you presuming upon all that abundant goodness, and patience with which God delays His punishment so, you make a great mistake. The object of that long-
Or
may evade punishment but only to induce While you with that callous impenitent heart of yours are heaping up arrears of Wrath, which will burst upon you in the Day of Wrath, when God will stand revealed in His character
suffering
not that you

6
you
to repent.
as the Righteous Judge.
The
principle of His
judgement
by no
is
clear
and simple.
he has done.
of
He
7
will
render to every
man
his due,
fictitious
standard (such as birth or status) but
strictly
according to what
To
those
who by
steady persistence in a life-work
good
strive for the deathless glories of the
Messianic Kingdom,
54

will give that for
[II. 1.
8
He
which they
strive, viz. eternal life.
But
to
those mutinous spirits
who
are disloyal to the right

is
:
and
loyal only
settled
to unrighteousness, for such there
in store for every
anger
and
they
exploding, 9 galling, nay crushing, pain

are in store,
human being
who
carries out to the
end
his course of evil,
whether
he be Jew or whether he be Gentile

dence.
10
the Jew
again having prece-
On
the other
hand the communicated glory of the Divine
Presence, the approval of
God and
the bliss of reconciliation with
be he is good Jew or Gentile ; here too the Jew having precedence, but only n for God regards no distinctions of race. precedence
await the
labours on at that which
:
Him
man who
12
Do
not object that the

this
Jew has
a position of privilege which
will
exempt him from
judgement, while the Gentile has no law
by which he can be judged.
The
live
Gentiles,
it is
true,
have no law
but as they have sinned, so also will they be punished without one
[see vv. 14, 15].
will
The Jews
ls
under a law, and by that law they

it
be judged.
For
it
is
not enough to hear
read in the
synagogues.
His verdict
That does not make a man righteous before God. will pronounce righteous only those who have done
14
what the
they have
Law commands.
no
say -that
Gentiles too, although
written law, will be judged.
For whenever any of
them
instinctively put in practice the precepts of the
Law,
their
15
own moral
sense supplies
them with
the law they need.
Be-
cause their actions give visible proof of
commandments
written not
on stone but on the them witness

times (but
tables of the heart.

;
These actions themselves
bear witness to them

;
and an approving conscience also bears
while in their dealings with one another their inward
thoughts take sometimes the side of the prosecution and some-
more
rarely) of the defence.
16
These hidden workings
of the conscience
God can
see
and therefore
He
will
judge
Gentile as well as Jew, at that Great Assize which I teach that

will
1.
He
hold through His Deputy, Jesus Messiah.
from Gentile to Jew is conducted with much somewhat after the manner of Nathan's parable to David. Under cover of a general statement St. Paul sets before himself a typical Jew. Such an one would assent cordially to all that had been said hitherto (p. 49, sup.). It is now turned
transition
rhetorical skill,
The
against himself, though
for
the
'
suspense the direct affirmation,
moment the Apostle Thou art the man.'
holds
in
II. 1-4.]

is
5$
evidence that Marcion keptvv. 2, 12-14, J 6, 20 (from \ovTa)-2g\ We might suppose that Marcion would omit vv. for the rest evidence fails. 17-20, which record (however ironically) the privileges of the Jew; but the retention of the last clause of ver. 20 is against this.
There
816 links this section closely to the last
it
is
well led
up
to
by
32, but ava-nok. pointing back to more than this in his mind.
i.
i.
20 shows that the Apostle had
Orig.-lat. Tert. Ambrstr. Theodrt. al. pauc. Latt. (exc. g) Boh. Arm., Chrys., An even balance of authorities, both sides Tisch. WH. marg. RV. marg. drawing their evidence from varied quarters. more positive decision than that of WH. RV. would hardly be justified.
2. oiSavev
Se
ABD
&c, Hard.,
17
al.
WH.
text
RV.
text:
NC
oiSafx.ei'
olba
yiyvaxrKw
= to
:
priation
3.
see
= to know for a fact, by external testimony know by inner personal experience and approSp. Comm. hi. 299; Additional note on 1 Cor. viii. 1.
;
'
ad emphatic ; thou, of all men.' There is abundant illustration of the view current among the Jews that the Israelite was secure simply as such by virtue of his descent from Abraham and cf. Matt. iii. 8, 9 Think not to say of his possession of the Law within yourselves, have Abraham to our father'; Jo. viii. 33 Gal. ii. 15; the passages quoted by Gif.; Weber, Altsyn. Theol.
:
We
69 There may be an element of popular misunderstanding, there is certainly an element of inconsistency, in some of these passages. The story of Abraham sitting at the gate of Paradise and refusing to turn away even the wicked Israelite can hardly be a fair specimen of the teaching of the Rabbis, for we know that they insisted strenuously on the performance of the precepts of the Law, moral as well as ceremonial. But in any case there must have been a strong tendency to rest on supposed religious privileges apart from the attempt to make practice conform to them.
p.
f.
Lft.
=
'
bonitatis Vulg., in Tit. iii. 4 benignitas: see 4. xP Tl"r(>TT] TO s 'kindly disposition'; p:aicpo8vp.ia on Gal. v. 22. xP r)<rT TT] s
:
'patience/ opp. to dgvOvfxla a 'short' or 'quick temper,' 'irasci(cf.
bility'
fipadvs
els
6pyi)v
Jas.
delay of punishment/
cf. dvexH-"t
i.
forbearance/ i. 1 9) to hold one's hand.

; '
tW^ =
50) "Orav ycip vy p.iv Karat. ri trepov irapioTrjcriv 1j . . rrfv vTTfp&oXfjV tov T( itKovtov koi tt}s dyaOoTrjTos avTov With p.anpoOvp.ias comp. a graphic image in Apoc. Baruch. xii. 4 Evigilabit contra te furor qui nunc in longanimitate tanquam in frenis retinetur. The following is also an impressive statement of this side of the Divine attributes: 4 Ezr. vii. 62-68 Scio, Domine, quoniam (>=oti 'that') nunc vocatus est Altissimus misericors , in eo qtiod miscrcatur his qui nondum in saeculo advenerunt ; et miserator in eo quod miseretur illis qtd conversionem faciunt in lege eius ; et longanimis, quoniam longanimitatem praestat his Philo, Leg. Allegor.
Comp.
13 (Mang.
i.
6a\a.TTT]s, ir-qyas 5k
kv ruls eprjiuoraTOis enopfiprj
qui peccaverunt quasi suis operibus ;
et
munificus, quoniam quidem donare
'
56
[II.
4-6.
vult pro exigere; et multae tnisericordiae, quoniam muliiplicat magis misericordias his qui praesentes sunt et qui praeterierunt et qui futuri sunt : si enim non tmcltiplicaverit, non vivificabitur saeculum cum his qui inhabitant in eo ; et douator, quoniam si non donaverit de bonitate sua ut alleventur hi qui iniquitate?n fecerunt de suis iniquitatibus, non potent decies millesima
pars vivificari hominum.

cf. Apoc. Baruch. xxi. 20 Innotescat potentia tua Mis qui KaTa<j>povis putant longanimitatem tuam esse infirmitatem.
:
is |ATcu'oiai'
ae ayei
its
purpose or tendency
is
to induce
you
to repent.
1 The Conative Present is merely a species of the Progressive Present. verb which of itself suggests effort when used in a tense which implies action in progress, and hence incomplete, naturally suggests the idea of attempt
(Burton,
11).
'According to R. Levi the words [Joel ii. 13] mean: God removes to a distance His Wrath. Like a king who had two fierce legions. If these, thought he, encamp near me in the country they will rise against my subjects when they provoke me to anger. Therefore I will send them far away. Then if my subjects provoke me to anger before I send for them (the legions) they may appease me and I shall be willing to be appeased. So also said God Anger and Wrath are the messengers of destruction. I will send them far away to a distance, so that when the Israelites provoke Me to anger, they may come, before I send for them, and repent, and I may accept their repentance (cf. Is. xiii. 5). And not only that, said R. Jizchak, but he locks them up (Anger and Wrath) out of their way see Jer. 1. 25, which Until He opens His treasure-chamber and shuts it again, man means returns to God and He accepts him' {Iract. Thaanith ii. 1 ap. Winter u.
:
Wiinsche, Jiid. Litt.

5.
i.
207).
Kard
:
'
in
accordance
i.
:
with,'
secundum duritiam tuam Vulg.

'
dpy^
be
see
on
18 above.
6pyr)v iv fip-tpa opyrjs

inflicted) in a
to be taken closely together, day of wrath.'
wrath (to
The doctrine of a ' day of the Lord ' as a day of judgement is taught by the Prophets from Amos onwards (Amos v. 18 ; Is. ii. 12 ff. ; xiii. 6 ff. xxiv. 21 ; Jer. xlvi. 10; Joel ii. 1 ff. Zeph. i. 7 ff. Ezek. vii. 7 ff. xxx. 3 ff. ; Zech. Mai. iii. 2 iv. 1. It also enters largely into the pseudepigraphic xiv. 1 literature Enoch xlv. 2 ff. (and the passages collected in Charles' Note) ; Ps. Sol. xv. 13 ff. 4 Ezr. vi. 18 ff., 77 ff. [vii. 102 ff. ed. Bensly] ; xii. 34;
; ; ; ; ; ; : ;
Apoc. Baruch.
Ii. 1
lv. 6,
&c.
not quite the same as 8c<aias Kplaeas 2 Thess. i. 5 {oX. justijudicii Vulg.), denoting not so much the character of the judgement as the character of the Judge (diKaioKpirrjs 2 Mace. xii.
SiKcuoKpicrias
:
41
cf. 6
dUaios
Kpirrjs
Tim.
iv. 8).
occurs in the Quinta (the fifth version included in Origen's Hexapld) of Hos. vi. 5 it is also found twice in Test. XII Patriarch. Levi 3 devrepos 6 ex.fi irvp, X l va i upvaraXXov eroi/xa els fi\x.ipav npooTa.'yixaTos Kvpiov kv ttj dtKaiofcpiffiq tov Qeov. Ibid. 15 Xfyeade oveidtcrfAov ical aiaxvvrjv alwviov Ttapk ttjs SiKaioKpicrias tov Qeov.
;
The word
6. os diroSwaei
Prov. xxiv.
full
1 2
(LXX).
down,
though
in
accord with the
The principle here laid teaching of the N. T.
'
II. 6-9.]
57
generally (Matt. xvi. 27 ; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 7; Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 24, 25; Rev. ii. 23; xx. 12; xxii. 12), may seem at first sight to conflict with St. Paul's doctrine of Justification by Faith. But Justification is a past act, resulting in a present state: it belongs properly to the beginning, not to the end, of the Christian's career (see on îKmcodijo-ovTai in ver. 13). Observe too that there is
between Faith and Works in themselves. Works and Faith has its necessary outcome in Works. The true antithesis is between earning salvation and receiving it as a gift of God's bounty. St. Paul himself would have allowed that there might have been a question of earning salvation if the Law were really kept (Rom. x. 5; Gal. iii. 12). But as a matter of fact the Law was not kept, the works were not
real antithesis
no
are the evidence of Faith,
done.
7. kcx6'
uirofAoi'Tjj'
epyou dycôu
ver. 15, 'a lifework,' the
sum
'
8. tois 8e e epi0tas
collective use of epyov, as in of a man's actions. those whose motive is factiousness,' opp.
:
to the spirit of single-minded
unquestioning obedience, those
who
use
all
for
epidevco 'to act as a hireling,' fpidcvopai a political term 'hiring paid canvassers and promoting party spirit:' hence epiOela the spirit of faction, the spirit which substitutes factious opposition for the willing obedience of loval subjects of the kingdom of heaven. See Lft. and Ell. on Gal. v. 20, but esp. Fri.
mands we get
the arts of unscrupulous faction to contest or evade comwhich they ought to obey. From ZpiBos ' a hired labourer'
ad
loc.
The ancients were strangely at sea about this word. Hesychius (cent. 5) derived tpiOos from epa ' earth the Etymologicum Magnum (a compilation perhaps of the eleventh century) goes a step further, and derives it from e>a 077? agricola mercede conductus Greg. Nyssen. connects it with epiou ' wool (ZpiOos was used specially of woolworkers) but most common of all is the connexion with e>s (so Theodrt. on Phil. ii. 3; cf. Vulg. his qui ex con tentione [per contentionem Phil. ii. 3 ; rixae Gal. v. 20] ). There can be little doubt that the use of kptfc'ia was affected by association with (pis, though there is no real connexion between the two words (see notes on
' ; ;
;
kirapwdrjoav xi.
7,
Karavv^tcvs xi. 8).
6pyr)
p.
'
0uja6s
is
'
125
6pp
'
outbursts
or
see Lft. and Ell. on Gal. v. 20; Trench, Syn. : the settled feeling, 6vp:6s the outward manifestation, ebullitions of wrath.'
dpyf) 8e eariv 6 enopievos tois apuapTavovaiv cnl Tipiajpia v6vos. vpiov 8k opifrvrai dpyrjv dvaOvfiioj/xivrjv /cat SioiSaivovaav Orig. (in Cramer's Catena).
9. 0\i\J/is Kal oreyoxwpia tribulatio (pressura in the African form of the Old Latin) et angustia Vulg., whence our word anguish ' (TTevoxapia is the stronger word torturing confinement ' (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 8). But the etymological sense is probably lost in usage:
:
'
calajnitas et angustiae h.e.
summa
calamitas Fri. p. 106.
;:
58
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
'
[II. 9-12.
of tribulation &c.)
For similar combinations (' day of tribulation and pain,' and great shame,' of suffering and tribulation,' ' of anguish and see Charles' note on Enoch xlv. 2.
'
affliction,'
Kara either strengthening carry to the end ' KaTepYaôfxeVou the force of the simple vb., as per in perficere, or giving it a bad sense, as in perpelrare Fri. p. 107. peculiar to Biblical and Ecclesiastical Greek 11. Trpoaumo\T]i|/ia
' ;
:
7rpoau)7ro\rj7tTlv
cf. Trpoo-wn-oX^TrrTys Acts x. 34 25; Jas. ii. 1 9; (mpoar<o7ro\r}TrT(os I Pet. i. 17): irpovunov (i) to give a gracious reception to a suppliant or suitor Xa/i/3aj/et/ and hence (ii) to show partiality, give corrupt judge(Lev. xix. 15) In N. T. always with a bad sense. ment.
(Eph.
vi.
9; Col.
iii.
Jas.
ii.
The
ov
idea goes back to Deut. x. 17 6 &ebs
ov 6avpaei irpoaw-nov owS'
pi) Xa/3?7 8a>pov,
when He says that He will execute judgement on each if one gave him everything that is on the earth, He will not regard the gifts or the person (of any), nor accept anycf. Apoc. Baruch. xiii. 7, thing at his hands, for he is a Righteous Judge Pirqt Aboth iv. 31 ' He is about to judge with whom there is no iniquity, nor forgetfulness, nor respect of persons, nor taking of a bribe.'
;
:
, ov davpao'ei who will regard the person (of any) nor receive gifts
which is adopted in Ps. Sol. ii. 19 6 ebs tcpi^s 8inaios nal irpoawirov and explained in Jubilees v. 15 'And He is not one
'
12, 13. vop,os and 6 vop.os.
The
distinction
between these two forms did

:
not escape the scholarship of Origen, whose comment on Rom. iii. 21 reads Moris est apud thus in Rnfinus' translation (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 201) Graecos nominibus apdpa praeponi, quae apud nos possunt articuli nominari. Si quando igitur Mosis legem nominat, solitum nomini praemittit articulum This si quando vero naturalem vult intelligi, sine articulo nominat legem. distinction however, though it holds good generally, does not cover all the There are really three main uses: ti) 6 vopos = the Law of Moses; cases. the art. denotes something with which the readers are familiar, 'their own law] which Christians in some sense inherited from the Jews through the O. T. (3) But (2) v6pos = \avt in general (e.g. ii. 12,14; iii. 20 f.; iv. 15; v. 13, &c). there is yet a third usage where vopos without art. really means the Law of Moses, but the absence of the art. calls attention to it not as proceeding from Moses, but in its quality as law, non quia Mosis sed quia lex as Gif. expresses St. Paul regards the Pie-Messianic it in his comment on Gal. ii. 19 (p. 46). Hence period as essentially a period of Law, both for Jew and for Gentile. without art. even where he is vopos this he uses bring out when he wishes to referring to the Jews; because his main point is that they were under who gave it and what name it bore was a secondary cona legal system The Law of the Jews was only a typical example of a state of sideration. This will explain passages like Rom. v. 20, x. 4. things that was universal. There will remain a few places, which do not come under any of these the art. is accounted for by the influence of the of heads, where the absence context, usually acting through the law of grammatical sympathy by which when one word in a phrase drops the article another also drops it some of these passages involve rather nice points of scholarship (see the notes on
'
'
25 also a
ii.
On the whole subject compare esp. Gif. p. 47 ff. Die paulinische Lehre von Gesetz, Freiburg 1 B. Grafe goes rather too far in denying the distinction Dr. 1884, ed. 2, 1893. between v6pos and 6 vopos, but his paper contains many just remarks and
;
iii.
31
xiii.
8).
monograph by
Grafe,
criticisms.
12. TJjjtapTov.
Burton ( 54)
calls this
'
collective Aorist,' represented
II. 12-14.]
in English

Perfect.
59
the point of view from which the Apostle is speaking, the sin of each offender is simply a past fact, and the sin of all a series or aggregate of facts together, constituting a past fact. But inasmuch as this series is not separated from the time of speaking we must as in iii. 23 employ an English Perfect in translation.' Prof. Burton suggests an alternative possibility that the aor. may be proleptic, as if it were spoken looking backwards from the Last Judgement of the sins which will then be past; but the parallels of iii. 23, v. 12 are against this.
by the
From
dôjAws. The heathen are represented as deliberately rejecting not only the Law of Moses but even the Noachic ordinances. Thus they have become enemies of God and as such are doomed
to destruction
(Weber, Altsyn. Theol

:
p. 65).
tov vo/jiov ver. 18 ; also Pereq R. Meird {Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, ed. Taylor, p. 115) 'Thorah is acquired ... by learning, by a listening ear,' &c. It is interesting to note that among the sayings ascribed to Simeon, very possibly St. Paul's own class-mate and son of Gamaliel his teacher, is this 'not learning but doing is the groundwork; and whoso multiplies words occasions sin' (Pirqi Aboth.
cf.
13. ol dKpocn-a! voôv
KaTrjxov/jifvos Ik
i.
18, ed.
Taylor;
reff.
from Delitzsch).
vonov sine
artic. bis
KABDG. The
absence of the
'
the form of statement, law' (whatever that law may be); cf. vii. 1.
last verse) generalizes
art. again (as in the the hearers and the doers of
8iK<u&>8i]o-on-ai. The word is used here in its universal sense of a judicial verdict,' but the fut. tense throws forward that verdict to the Final Judgement. This use must be distinguished from that which has been explained above (p. 30 f.), the special or, so to speak, technical use of the term Justification which is characteristic of St. Paul. It is not that the word has any different sense but
'
referred to the past rather than to the future (8iKaia>6epTes 1, 9; the acquittal there dates from the moment at which the man becomes a Christian; it marks the initial step in his career, his right to approach the presence of God as if he were righteous. See on ver. 6 above.
it
that
is
aor.
cf. v.
ra %6vr) would mean all or most Gentiles, Wvrj means 14. 60nr) only some Gentiles ; the number is quite indefinite, the prominent point being their character as Gentiles.
:
Cf. 4 Ezr. iv. 36 homines quidem tua, gentes autem non invenies.
to,
/xtj i/6jAoi/
per nomina invenies
servasse
mandata
a law/
I
whom we
i.
Cor.
exorra the force of is ' who ex hypoihesi have not conceive of as not having a law ; cf. to. fifj 6vra 28 (quae pro nihilo habentur Grimm).
,
eauTots
eio-i
cojaos
ubi legis impletio, ibi lex P. Ewald.
doctrine of this verse was liberal doctrine for a Jew. The Talmud recognizes no merit in the good deeds of heathen unless they are accompanied by a definite wish for admission to the privileges of Judaism. Even if a heathen were to keep the whole law it would avail him nothing without circumcision {Dtbarim Rabba 1). If he prays to Jehovah his praver is not
The
'
60
heard
(ibid.).

If
[II. 14, 15.
he commits sin and repents, that too does not help him b Even for his alms he gets no credit {Pesikta I2 ). 'In the actions of the their books' (i.e. in those in which God sets down c heathen) there is no desert' (Shir Rabba 86 ). See Weber, Altsyn. Theol. Christian theologians have expressed themselves much to the same p. 66 f. Their opinions are summed up concisely by Mark Pattison, Essays, effect.
(Pesikta 156).
'
ii.
St.
'In accordance with this view they interpreted the passages in which speak of the religion of the heathen; e.g. Rom. ii. 14. interpretaSince the time of Augustine \De Spir. et Lit. 27) the orthodox the favoured tion had applied this verse, either to the Gentile converts, or to The few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine assistance. contained Protestant expositors, to whom the words " do by nature the things the served prt in the law" could never bear their literal force, sedulously Augustinian explanation. Even the Pelagian Jeremy Taylor is obliged to " By fears and secret opinions which the gloss the phrase " by nature," thus was pleased Spirit of God, who is never wanting to men in things necessary, The " (Duct. Dubit. Book II. ch. 1, 3). to put into the hearts of men " by nature," in its literal sense, rationalists, however, find the expression Nat. exactly conformable to their own views (John Wilkins [1614-1672], Of of those Rel. II. c. 9), and have no difficulty in supposing the acceptableness Burnet, on Art. XVI II., works, and the salvation of those who do them. opinions without in his usual confused style of eclecticism, suggests both seeming to see that they are incompatible relics of divergent schools of
61.
Paul
doctrine.'
15. oiTii'es: see on i. 25. eVSeumirrai : c*ftnu implies an appeal to facts;

rebtis gestis facta (P.
demonstratio
Ewald,
' :
Be
Vocis Sweioô-ecos, &c., p. 16 n.).
to epYoi/ tou
(i.e.
Law
the work, course of conduct belonging to yo'fAou in this context 'required by' or 'in accordance with') 'the ' collective use of cpyov as in ver. 7 above. :
cit. p.
[Probably not as Ewald op.

lex injudaeis
efficit,
17 after Grotius, opus legis
est id,
quod
nempe
cognitio liciti et il/iciti.]
aumjtapTupou<rr|s auTWJ' rfjs oweiSiqo-ews.
This phrase
is
almost
In both exactly repeated in ch. ix. 1 crvâpT. poi rrjs o-weid. fiov. cases the conscience is separated from the self and personified as Here the quality of the a further witness standing over against it. acts themselves is one witness, and the approving judgement passed upon them by the conscience is another concurrent witness.
Some such distinction as this is suggested by the original avveidrjffeojs. meaning and use of the word avvubrjais, which = ' co-knowledge,' the knowconjunction ledge or reflective judgement which a man has by the side of ox in with the original consciousness of the act. This second consciousness is easily projected and personified as confronting the first. The word is quoted twice from Menander (342-291 B. C), Monost. 597
It is sig101, 103). (cf. 654) airaoiv ^/xTv 57 aweiSrjffis 9e6s , ed. Didot, pp. Aristotle. nificant that both the word and the idea are completely absent from They rise into philosophical importance in the more introspective moral
teaching of the Stoics. The two forms, to aweidos and 1) avvei^ms Epictetus (Fragm. 97) compares the conto be practically convertible. the comment science to a Traidayaiyos in a passage which is closely parallel to . of Origen on this verse of Ep. Rom. (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 107) spintus .
.
appear
II. 15.]
6l
velut paedagogus ei [sc. animae] quidam sociatus et rector ut earn de melioribus moneat vel de culpis casliget et arguat. In Biblical Greek the word occurs first with its full sense in Wisd. xvii. 10. [il] del 5e TTpoaiiXrjcpt t<* xa * 7rti [vovijpia] avvexofxivrj rfj (rvveiSrjati. In Philo t6 avveidos is the form used. In N. T. the word is mainly Pauline (occurring in the speeches of Acts xxiii. i, xxiv. 16; Rom. 1 and 2 Cor., Past. Epp., also in Heb.) ; elsewhere only in 1 Pet. and the perk, adult. John viii. 9. It is one of the few technical terms in St. Paul which seem to have Greek rather than Jewish affinities. The 'Conscience' of St. Paul is a natural faculty which belongs to all men alike (Rom. ii. 15), and pronounces upon the character of actions, both their own (2 Cor. i. 12) and those of others (2 Cor. iv. 2, v. 11). It can be over-scrupulous (1 Cor. x. 25), but is blunted or ' seared ' by neglect of its
warnings (1 Tim. iv. 2). The usage of St. Paul corresponds accurately to that of his Stoic contemporaries, but is somewhat more restricted than that which obtains in modern times. Conscience, with the ancients, was the faculty which passed judgment upon actions after they were done (jn technical language the conscientia consequent moralis), not so much the general source of moral obligation. In the passage before us St. Paul speaks of such a source (eavTois elai vo/xos) but the law in question is rather generalized from the dictates of conscience than antecedent to them. See on the whole subject a treatise by Dr. P. Ewald, Dt Vocis Xvvali\otus apud script. N. T. vi ac
;
potestate (Lipsiae, 18S3).
p,Tau dXX^Xwy. This clause is taken in two ways (i) of the thoughts/ as it were, personified, Conscience being in debate with itself, and arguments arising now on the one side, and now on the other (cf. Shakspeare's When to the sessions of sweet silent
:
'
of things past ') ; in this case almost 'alternately,' 'in mutual debate'; (ii) taking the previous part of the verse as referring to the decisions of Conscience when in private it passes in review a man's own
fiera^v
aXX^Xcoi/
thought, I
summon up remembrance
acts, and this latter clause as dealing rather with its judgements on the acts of the others ; then peragv dWfoeov will ' between one another,' between man and man,' ' in the intercourse of man
with man and XoyurpStv will be the arguments which now take one side and now the other. The principal argument in favour of this view (which is that of Mey. Gif. Lips.) is the emphatic position of pera$v d\\r]\a)v, which suggests a contrast between the two clauses, as if they described two different processes and not merely different parts or aspects of the same process.
'
'
'
There is a curious parallel to this description in Assump. Moys. i. 13 Creavit enim orbem terrarum propter plebem suam, et non coepit earn inceptionem creaturae palamfacere, tit in ea gentes arguantur et humiliter inter se disputationibus arguant se.
.
Twf Xoyio-jAwi' the \oyiafiol are properly ' thoughts ' conceived in the mind, not ' arguments ' used in external debate. This appears from the usage of the word, which is frequently combined with
:
Kapbia (n-oXXoi
Xo-ytcr fxoi iv
it
Kapdia dvdpos Prov. xix. 2
cf.
Ps. XXxii.
1 1
Prov.
vi.
18):
is
used of secret 'plots' (Jer.
xviii.
j8 fovrc
6%
[II. 15-16.
\oyivconeQa eVi 'icpepiav \oyurfx6v,
' devise devices '), and of the Divine intentions (Jer. xxix [xxxvi] 1 1 \oyioi>pai e(f> vpas \oyia-p6v eip^s). In the present passage St. Paul is describing an internal process, though one which is destined to find external expression ; it is the
process by which are formed the moral judgements of

their fellows.
men upon
The
is
conscience
rightly seen
'
This
and ' the thoughts both belong to the same persons. by Klopper, who has written at length on the passage
'
before us (Paulinische Studien, Konigsberg, 1887, follow that both the conscience and the thoughts are objects, or that peragv ak\r]\wv must be referred sense that influences from without are excluded. support of this (Matt, xviii. 15 ptra^v aov ko.1 clvtov of its meaning from povov, not from pcTav.
r\
p.
but it does not 10) exercised upon the same to the thoughts in the The parallel quoted in povov) derives that part
;
kcu
'
or even/
'
or
it
may
be,'
implying that
d7ro\. is
the ex-
ception, KaTTjy. the rule. 16. The best way to punctuate
is probably to put (in English) a colon after ver. 13, and a semi-colon at the end of ver. 15 ver. 16 goes back to SiKai(o6t}<Tovrai in ver. 13, or rather forms a conclusion to the whole paragraph, taking up again the b fûipa of ver. 5. The object of vv. 13-15 is to explain how it comes about that Gentiles who have no law may yet be judged as if they had one they have a second inferior kind of law, if not any written precepts
:
yet the law of conscience ; by this law they will be judged quick and dead are put upon their trial.
when
ver. 15,
with Orig., with his usual acuteness, sees the difficulty of connecting ver. 16 and gives an answer which is substantially right. The 'thoughts but day the last up at rising accusing and condemning' are not conceived as They leave however marks behind, velnt in certs, ita in corde nostro.
now. These marks God can see

4v
f|jjip(j
(ed. Lomm. p. 109). text: \v ijpepq. rj A, marg.) : hv jf fjpipa B, ore (et marg. Pesh. Boh. al, 'Irjaov NB, Orig., Tisch. marg.) : Sta Xpiarod 8ia 'I-qaov XpuaToO (fit
WH. WH.
WH.
'
WH.
WH. text.
marg., fut. regarded as certain. point to which St. Paul's Gospel, or habitual teaching, bears witness is, not that God will judge the world (which was an old doctrine), but that He will judge it through applicaJesus Christ as His Deputy (which was at least new in its Enoch tion, though the Jews expected the Messiah to act as Judge, xlv, xlvi, with Charles' notes).
Kpiyei
might be Kplvei, as KaTd t6 euayYeXioi/ fxou.

:
RV. The
The phrase Kara rb evayy. fiov occurs Rom. xvi. 25, of the specially resurrection of Pauline doctrine of 'free grace'; 2 Tim. ii. 8, (i) of the Christ from the dead, (ii) of His descent from the seed of David. by faat note in passing the not very intelligent tradition (introduced of his Gospel* he Si, Eus. H. E. III. iv. 8^, that wherever St. Paul spoke meant the Gospel of St, Luke,
We
'
II. 17-29.]
FAILURE OF THE JEWS
6$
II. 17-29.
FAILURE OF THE JEWS. The Jew may boast of his possession of a special
is really
all the time his practice no better than the Gentile (vv. 1 7-24). And if he takes his stand on Circumcision, that too is of value only so far as it is moral and spiritual. In this moral
Revelation
and a written Law, but
shows that he
and
spiritual circumcision the Gentile also
may
share (vv.
35-29).
17 Do you tell me that you bear the proud name of Jew, that you repose on a written law as the charter of your salvation ? Do you boast that Jehovah is your God, 18 that you are fully acquainted with His revealed Will, that you adopt for yourself a high standard and listen to the reading of the Law every Sabbath-day ?
19
Do you
call
give yourself out with so
much
assurance as a guide to
?
the poor blind Gentile, a luminary to enlighten his darkness
20
Do
all
you
they
your pupils dullards and yourself their schoolmaster?

infants
all
!
Are
mere
and you
truth
their
teacher?
You, who have

for
knowledge and
21
visibly
embodied
you
in the
Law?
Boastful
?
theory
self?
Jew So ready
eighth
How
22
does your practice comport with your
to teach others,
The
do you need no teaching yourand seventh commandments which you hold
up to others do you yourself keep them ? You profess to loathe and abhor idols but do you keep your hands from robbing their temples? 2s You vaunt the possession of a law; and by the violation of that law you affront and dishonour God Who gave it.
;
24
As
Isaiah wrote that the Gentiles held the
Name
of
God
in
contempt because they saw His people oppressed and enslaved, so do they now for a different reason because of the gross incon-
sistency in practice of those

25
who
claim to be His people.
True
it
is
that behind the
Law you
have also the privilege of
Circumcision, which marks the people of Promise.

cision has
its
And Circum-
you are a law-performer. But if- you are 2e a law-breaker you might as well be uncircumcised. Does it not
value
if
follow that
if
the uncircumcised Gentile keeps the weightier statutes

if
of the Moral Law, he will be treated as

27
he were circumcised
if
And
uncircumcised as he
is,
owing to
his Gentile birth, yet
he
64
fulfils

the
[II. 17.
Law,
his
example
will
(by contrast)
condemn you who

not he
with the formal advantages of a written law and circumcision, only
break the law of which you boast.
outward and
is
29
visible
28 For marks of a Jew who
it is
who has
Jew
;
the
is
the true
true
neither
an outward and bodily circumcision the
circumcision.
But he who and
is
inwardly and secretly a Jew

very word
is
the true
Jew
and
the moral the
spiritual circumcision is that

'
which
really deserves
name.
The
Jew
'
descendant
of Judah
means
*1&
the
'praise' (Gen. xxix. 35).
And
such a Jew has his 'praise/ not
from
man
but from God.
17. El
SÂBD*
all
at.,
Latt. Pesh.
Boh. Arm. Aeth., &c.

tl
DC L
al, Hard., Chrys. al.
The
authorities for
8e
include
all
:
i8e is the leading versions, and the oldest Fathers an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the construction
oldest
MSS.,
slightly easier.
at ver. 21.
Reading
ei fie
the apodosis of the sentence begins
it
here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew 'lou&aios would have a tendency to do) to 'io-pa^XiV^?, a member of the Chosen People, opposed to the heathen.
:
'EWrjviar^, calls attention to language v opp. E\\r]v, calls attention to nationality 'laparjXirijs a member of the theocracy, in possession of full theocratic privileges (Trench, Syn. (though The word 'lovSatos does not occur in xxxix, p. 132 ff.). 'lo.vhaiap.6s is found four times in 2 Mace), but at this date it is the common themselves, word ; 'EPpatos and 'loparjX'iTrjs are terms reserved by the Jews the one to distinguish between the two main divisions of their race (the Palestinian and Greek-speaking), the other to describe their esoteric status. For the Jew's pride in his privileges comp. 4 Ezra vi. 55 f. haec autem omnia dixi coram te, Domine, quoniam dixisti eas (sc. gentes) nil esse, et quoniam salivae assimilatae sunt, et quasi stillicidiu?n de vase similasti habundantiam eorum.
Strictly speaking, 'E/3/xxfos, opp.
'lovSatos,
;
LXX
name ' : iwovofiatwxz' to impose a name/ imposed.' ciramirauY) i'ojjiw have a law to lean upon ' so (without art.) 'but it is not surprising that the later MSS. should make the statement more definite, ' lean upon the Law.' For few. the word implies (requiescis Vulg.) cf. Mic. iii. 1 1 ; Ezek. xxix. 7 at once the sense of support and the saving of ill-directed labour
iirovoy,dlri
' : '
bearest the
pass.
to have a
name
: '
ABD*;
which resulted
icauxaarai iv
glory in this, the Lord.'
to the Jew from the possession of a law. Ocw: suggested by Jer. ix. 24 'let him that glorieth that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am
Kauxaom
for aux?> stopping at the first step in the process of con-
traction {Kavx^fCfai, Kavxaaat, Kavx^).
This
is
one of the forms which used
II.
17-20.]
'
FAILURE OF THE JEWS
65
to be called Alexandrine,' but which simply belong to the popular Greek current at the time (Hort, Introd. p. 304). ttavxacrai occurs also in 1 Cor. iv. 7, KaranavxaffaL Rom. xi. 18 comp. odvvaaai Luke xvi. 2;, and from uncontracted verbs, (pdytaai . . trUaai Luke xvii. 8, dvvaaai Matt. v. 36 (but dvvri Mark ix. 22) ; see Win. Gr. xiii. 2 b (p. 90).
;
Bp. Lightfoot has shown that this phrase was 18. t6 0Arjji,a. so constantly used for the Divine Will that even without the art. it might have that signification, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 12 {On Revision,
'
'
p.
106
;
ed.
1, p.
118 ed.
2).
:
8oici|mdis
Vulg.
Phil.
i.
probas utiliora Cod. Clarom. Rufin. non modo prae malis bona sed in bonis optima Beng. on Both words are 10, where the phrase recurs exactly.
8ia<|>epoi'Ta
:
tA
ambiguous
approve
'
8oKipd((iv
(i)
'
to
i.
'
test,
assay,
discern
' ;
(ii)
'
to
28); and ra duKpepovra may be either things which differ/ or things which stand out, or excel.' Thus arise the two interpretations represented in RV. and RV. marg., with a like division of commentators. The rendering of RV. marg. ('provest the things that differ,' 'hast experience of good and bad Tyn.) has the support of Euthym.-Zig. (SiaKpiveu ra
after testing'
(see
on
'
8ia<ppovTa aWrfKayW olov ko\6v k<u kcikov, dperfjv Kal Kaiciav), Fri.
De W.
('approvest the things that are excellent') is adopted by Latt. Orig. (ita ut non solum quae sint bona scias, verum etiam quae sint meliora et utiliora discernas), most English Versions, Mey. Lft. Gif. Lid. (Chrys. does not distinguish ; Va is undecided). The second rendering is the
Oltr.
Go. Lips. Mou.
The
rendering of
RV.
more
pointed.
eic
KaTrjXoufAeeos
tou vo\iov
cf.
Acts. XV. 21.

:
19 > iremnOas k.t.K. The common construction after iriiroi$as is oti ace. and infin. is very rare. It seems better, with Vaughan, to take oeavrov closely with niiroiOas, and art persuaded as to thyself that thou art,' &c. oStjyov tu<|>\wv. It is natural to compare Matt. xv. 14 rv<p\oi elffiv
'
.
. .
also xxiii. 16, 24. Lips, thinks that the first saying was ; present to the mind of the Apostle. It would not of course follow that it was current in writing, though that too is possible. On the other hand the expression may have been more or less proverbial : comp. Wiinsche, Erldut. d. Evang. on Matt, xxiii. 16. The same epithet was given by a Galilaean to R. Chasda, Baba Kama fol. 52a.' When the Shepherd is angry with the sheep he blinds their leader; i.e. when God determines to punish the
6877701 TV(pXu>v k.t.X.
Israelites,
He
gives
:
them unworthy
rulers.'
'a schoolmaster,' with the idea of discipline, correction, as well as teaching ; cf. Heb. xii. 9. it)tiw 'infants,' opp. to reXnoi, 'adults,' as in Heb. v. 13, 14. As a rule embodiment/ outline,' delineation,' fxop<J>uo-ti' <r\rip,a outward form as opp. to inward substance, while popepfj outward form as determined by inward substance ; so that see (TxvH- a i s tne variable, pbpcpf) the permanent, element in things Nor does the Lft. Phil. p. 125 ff. Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vii. 31. present passage conflict with this distinction. The Law was a real
20.
TraiSeuTTji'
'
'
'
66
[II.
20-23.
expression of Divine truth, so far as it went. It is more account for 2 Tim. iii. 5 fX 0VTes pop(pco(riv (iae^das ttjv
avrrjs rjpvrjfiepoi.
difficult to
8e
bvvap.iv
See however Lft. in Journ. of Class, and Sacr. Philol. (1857) iii. 115 will observe that in two passages where St. Paul does speak of that is unreal or at least external, and does not employ oyjipa, he still avoids using popcp-q as inappropriate, and adopts pdpQwais instead (Rom. ii. 20; 2 Tim. iii. 5), where the termination -wais denotes "the aiming after or affecting the ^0^77." Can this quite be made good ?
1
They
which
'
resumptive, introducing the apodosis to the long protasis in vv. 17-20. After the string of points, suspended as it were in the air, by which the Apostle describes the Jew's complacency,
21. ouV
:
he now
is
at last
comes down with

art the
the
'
Thou
:
man
'
his emphatic accusation. Here which we have been expecting since
ver. 1.
KXtTpmv
infin.
because K-qpvaaojv contains the idea of command.

:
22. pSeXuo-aofjici'os used of the expression of physical disgust, esp. of the Jew's horror at idolatry.
Note the piling up of phrases in Deut. vii. 16 ieal ovk claoiaeis PoeXvypa [here of the gold and silver- plates with which idols were overlaid] its rbv oTkov gov, kcli tar) avaOrjfia wGircp tovto, irpoaoxOicfiari irpoaoxOiiis Kal Pfi(\vypaTi @5c\vri, on avadrjpa kanv. Comp. also Dan. xii. 1 1 Matt. xxiv. One of the ignominies of captivity was to be compelled to carry 15, &c. the idols of the heathen Assump. Moys. viii. 4 cogentur palam baiulare idola eorum inquinata.
;
:
Upoo-uXeis. "The passage just quoted (Deut. vii. 26 with 25), Joseph. Ant. IV. viii. 10, and Acts xix. 37 (where the town-clerk asserts that St. Paul and his companions were not lepoa-vXoC) show that the robbery of temples was a charge to which the Jews were open in spite of their professed horror of idol-worship.
'
There were provisions in the Talmud which expressly guarded against everything which had to do with an idol was a Btekvyim to him unless it had been previously desecrated by Gentiles. But for this the Jew might have thought that in depriving the heathen of their idol he was doing a good work. See the passages in Delitzsch ad loc. also on Upoavkia, which must not be interpreted too narrowly, Lft., Ess. on Supern. Ret. p. 299 f. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 144 n., where it is noted that UpoavXia was just one of the crimes which a provincial governor could proceed against by his own imperium. The Eng. Versions of Upoavkeis group themselves thus robbest God of his honour' Tyn. Cran. Genev. 'doest sacrilege' (or equivalent) Wic. Rhem. AV. RV. marg. dost rob temples RV.
this
:
'
'
'
probably best not to treat this verse as a question. The questions which go before are collected by a summary accusation. Gif., with a delicate sense of Greek composition, sees a hint of this in the change from participles to the relative and
23.
It
is
indie. (6 diddo-Kcw
os /cavâo-at).
II. 24-27.]
FAILURE OF THE JEWS

5
67
24.
free adaptation of Is. Hi.
tinually all the

this 81 vpas
(XOV
day long
My Name
St.
and
cV rois eduea-tv.
(LXX). Heb. And conblasphemed LXX adds to Paul omits Stanavros and changes
is
'
to tov Qeov. original meant that the and oppressors of Israel
God was reviled by the following up a suggestion in the (81 vfxas), traces this reviling to the scandal caused by Israel's inconsistency. The fact that the formula of quotation is thrown to the end shows that he is conscious of applying the passage freely it is almost as if it were an after-thought that the language he has just used is a quotation at all. See the longer note on ch. x, below.
The
of
tyrants
:
Name
St. Paul,
LXX
vofiov Ttapaârnjs were severally like vofxodcruv, vofiocpvKaKtiv, &c., vop.o9(Tr]s, vofio5i8daKa\os, &c, one compound word: if thou be a law-doer if thou be a law-transgressor, &c, indicating the character of the person, rather than calling attention to designation of particular or the the law, which claims obedience.' form y-yovv: 'is by that very fact become.' Del. quotes the realistic expression given to this idea in the Jewish fancy that God would send his
:
'
25. v6|aov note in Va.
irpao-<TT|s.
On
the absence of the
art. see
especially the scholarly
It is
almost as
if vofiov Trpaaaeiv
and
angel to remove the marks of circumcision on the wicked.
26.
clvai ti,
els ircpiTopji' \oyKrQ-f\aerai

'
\oyitaBai
eiy ti
= \oyi(tadai
'
els
to
ds denoting result, so as to be in place of/ a substitute or equivalent for' (Fri., Grm.-Thay. s. v.
reckoned as
\oyio(iai 1 a).
Of the synonyms
'
'
Tijpeiv, (pvXaooeiv,
'
re\uv
rrjpfiv
to observe carefully (and then do) ; <pv\aaativ = ' reXeiv = ' to to preserve intact against violence from without or within bring (a law) to its proper fulfilment ' in action ; r-qpuv and <pv\aooziv are both from the point of view of the agent, reXuv from that of the law which
' ;
keep an eye upon,' to guard as a deposit/

'
to
is
obeyed.
See Westcott on Jo.
xvii.
12;
Jo.
ii.
3.
27. Kpiyei: most probably categorical and not a
question as
by comparison and contrast, as in Matt. xii. 41, 42 'the men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgement with this generation and shall condemn it/ &c. Again we are pointed back to vv. 1-3 the judge of others shall be himself
;
' '
AV. and RV.
condemn
judged. t} ck <j>uaews dicpopucrrta uncircumcision which physically remains as it was born. The order of the words seems opposed to Prof. Burton's rendering, 'the uncircumcision which by nature fulfils the law' (i< <ua-. </)uo-ei v. 14). 8id of 'attendant circumstances' as in iv. 11, viii. 25, xiv. 20; Anglice with/ with all your advantages of circumcision and the possession of a written law. The distinction between the literal Israel which is after the flesh and the true spiritual Israel is a leading idea with St. Paul and may is worked out at length in ix. 6 ff. ; see also pp. 2, \\sup.
:
'
We
68
compare
Phil.
iii.

3,
[XL 27-29.
where
St.
Paul claims that Christians represent
the true circumcision.

28. 6 4v
Ttp 4>avpai.
The Greek of
this
and the next verse
is elliptical,
some ambiguity as to how much belongs to the subject and how Even accomplished scholars like Dr. Gifford and much Dr. Vaughan differ. The latter has some advantage in symmetry, making the missing words in both clauses belong to the subject (' Not he who is but he who is [a Jew] in secret is a Jew ') [a Jew] outwardly is a Jew but it is a drawback to this view of the construction that it separates nepiTOfxr] and icapSias Gif., as it seems to us rightly, combines these (' he which is inwardly a Jew [is truly a Jew], and circumcision of heart ... [is true
and there
is
to the predicate.
:.
circumcision
']).
Similarly Lips. Weiss (but not Mey.).
29.
fi.e'ia-Be
irepiTojxT)
KapSias.
The
:
idea of a spiritual (heart-) circumx.
cision goes
ttjv
back to the age of Deuteronomy; Deut.

Jer. iv. 4
I
16
irepirc-
(TK\r)poKap&iau vp.a>v
ttju
TrepLTfxrjflrjTe
tg>
',
QeS
vfiaiv, kcu
7reptTep,(rd
Acts
vii.
51.
Ezek. xliv. ^> <TK\r)poKapftlav vp,S>v cf. Jer. IX. 26 Justin works out elaborately the idea of the Christian
circumcision, Dial.
6 cirau'os.
We
c. Tryph 114. believe that Dr. Gifford
was the
first
'
to point
'
out that there is here an evident play on the Praise (cf. Gen. xxix. 35 ; xlix. 8).
name
Jew
Judah
'
'
CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

This argument may suggest three objections: Gentile is better off than the immoral Jew, moral If what becomes of the Jew's advantages ? ANSWER. He still has many. His {e.g.) are the promises (vv. 1-2). (ii) But has not the Jews unbelief cancelled those promises? ANSW ER. No unbelief on the part of man can affect the pledged word of God: it only serves to enhance His faithfulIII. 1-8.
(i)
the
(iii) If that is the result of his action, why 3, 4). man be judged? Answer. He certainly will be judged: we may not say (as I am falsely accused of saying), Do evil that good may come (vv. 5-8).
ness (vv.
should
If the qualifications
which God requires are thus inward and

urge,
spiritual,
an objector
may
his
What becomes
2 ?
of the privileged
?
position of the Jew,
descent from Abraham, and the like
What does he
on
all sides.
gain by his circumcision
He
does gain
much
The
first
gain
is
that to the
Jews were committed
III. 1-8.]
CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

of the Messiah.
is
69
off;
the prophecies
[Here the subject breaks

ix. 4, 5.]
fuller
3
enumeration
say,
given in ch.
You
But the Jews by
their unbelief
I
have forfeited their
share in those prophecies.

rejected
Christianity,
And
admit that some Jews have
What then ? in which they are fulfilled. God do not depend on man. He will keep His 4 To suggest otherwise were word, whatever man may do. blasphemy. Nay, God must be seen to be true, though all man-
The
promises of
kind are convicted of falsehood.

confesses that the
forensic metaphor)
Just as in Ps.
li,
the Psalmist
only effect of his
own
sin
will
'
be that
(in
God
will
be
declared righteous
in
His sayings
it is
[the promises just mentioned],
and gain His case when

If
brought
to
6
trial.
new
objection
arises.
our
unrighteousness
is
only
foil
to set off the righteousness of

for sin
?
6
who punishes men
God would (Speaking of God
not
as
God be unjust if He were man

to think
!
can hardly be avoided.)
That too were blasphemy
If
any such objection were sound, God could not judge the world. But we know that He will judge it. Therefore the reasoning must
be fallacious.
7 If,
you
say,
as
in
the
case before
is
us,
the
truthfulness
relief
of
God
in
performing His promises
only thrown into
by
my
like
infidelity,
other offenders
8
which thus redounds to His glory, why am I (*<') brought up for judgement as a sinner
objector.
evil that
still
?
So
the
And
me
know
'
that this charge

is
of saying
'
Let us do
good may come
brought with slanderous
exaggeration against
as
if
the stress
which
lay
on
faith
compared
All
with works meant,
Never mind what your actions

is right.
are,
provided only that the end you have in view

I will
say
is
that
is
the judgement which these

richly deserved.
sophistical
reasoners will receive

Iff.
to
It is characteristic of this Epistle that St. Paul seems imagine himself face to face with an opponent, and that he discusses and answers arguments which an opponent might bring
against
him
(so
iii.
iff.,
iv.
iff.,
vi.
iff.,
15
ff.,
vii.
ff.).
No
doubt this is a way of presenting the dialectical process in his own mind. But at the same time it is a way which would seem to have been suggested by actual experience of controversy with Jews and the narrower Jewish Christians. We are told expressly
: ; '

'
[ill.
1, 2.
that the charge of saying
Let us do
evil
that
good may come
Apostle (ver. 8). And vi. i, 15 restate this charge in Pauline language. The Apostle as it were takes it up and gives it out again as if it came in the logic of his own thought. And the other charge of levelling down all the Jew's privileges, of ignoring the Old Testament and disparaging its saints, was one which must as inevitably have been brought against St. Paul as the like charges were brought against St. Stephen (Acts vi. 13 f.). It is probable however that St. Paul had himself wrestled with this question long before it was pointed against him as a weapon in controversy ; and he propounds it in the order in which it would naturally arise in that stress of reasoning, pro and con, which went to the shaping of his own system. The modified form in which the question comes up the second if our interpretation is correct time (ver. 9) shows that St. Paul is there rather following out his own thought than contending with
fact against the
was brought as a matter of
an adversary.
which encircles a thing necessarily would seem to have a latent meaning beyond,' which is appropriated rather by nepa, ntpav, but comes out that which is in excess/ over and above.' in 7reprcrds, intended to be followed by t-nara 8e, but the line 2. irpwTOf piv of argument is broken off and not resumed. A list of privileges such as might have followed here is given in ch. ix. 4.
1.
to
Tvepiao-oV.
it.
That
lies
'
outside
Hence
irepi
'
'
irpuTov (iev yap
om. yap B
D* E G
minusc. pauc, verss. plur., Chrys.
Orig.-lat. al, [yap']
WH.
mania), in the sense of ' entrust,' ' confide,' takes ace. of irio-Tu0T]orav. the thing entrusted, dat. of the person ; e. g. Jo. ii. 24 6 Se 'Irjaovs ovk kmarevev eavr6v [rather avrbv or avrov] avrois. In the passive the dat. becomes nom., and the ace. remains unchanged (Buttmann, pp. 175, 189, 190 "Winer, xxxii. 5 [p. 287] ; cf. I Cor. ix. 17 ; Gal. ii. 7).
St. Paul might mean by this the whole of the O. T. -ret Xoyia. regarded as the Word of God, but he seems to have in view rather those utterances in it which stand out as most unmistakably Divine ; the Law as given from Sinai and the promises relating to the Messiah.
The old account

Mey.-W. make
dimin.
it
The
of \6yiov as a dimin. of \6yos is probably correct, though neut. of Xoyios on the ground that Koyidiov is the proper form \0yi810v is rather a strengthened dimin., which by a process
in language took the place of \6yiov when it acquired the special sense of ' oracle.' From Herod, downwards Xoyiov = * oracle ' as a brief condensed saying and so it came to = any inspired, divine utterance e. g. in Philo of the prophecies' and of the ten commandments {ntpi tSjv oiica Xoyiwv is the title of Philo's treatise). So in LXX the expression is used of the word of the Lord five times in Isaiah and frequently in the Psalms (no less than seventeen times in Ps. cxix [cxviii]). From this usage it was natural that it should be transferred to the 'sayings' of the Lord Jesus (Polyc. ad Phil. vii. 1 bs av imMfitj t& \6yia tov Kvpiov cf. Iren.
;
common
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
III. 2-4.]

;
71
Adv. Haer. I praef. also Weiss, Einl. 5. 4). But from the time of Philo onwards the word was used of any sacred writing, whether discourse or narrative so that it is a disputed point whether the Koyia rov Kvpiov which Papias ascribes to St. Matthew, as well as his own \oyicuv /cvpiaKuiv igrjyqaeis (Eus. H. E. III. xxxix. 16 and 1) were or were not limited to discourse (see especially Lightfoot, Ess, on Supern. Kel. p. 172 ff.).
;
3. T\TTiaTf]<Tav
dmoria.
Do
these
words
refer to
'
unbelief
Lid. Oltr. Go.) or to 'unfaithfulness' (De W. Weiss Probably, on the whole, the former because (i) the Lips. Va.) ? main point in the context is the disbelief in the promises of the
(Mey.
Gif.
O. T. and the refusal to accept them as fulfilled in Christ (ii) chaps, ix-xi show that the problem of Israel's unbelief weighed heavily on the Apostle's mind ; (iii) unbelief is the constant sense of the word (dirTTea> occurs seven times, in which the only apparent exception to this sense is 2 Tim. ii. 13, and dma-Tia eleven times, with no clear exception) ; (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. xi. 20 At the Same time 777 anMTTiq iêKKda6t]crav, av de 177 7ri'oTfi eaTrjKas. so that the the one sense rather suggests than excludes the other imiaTia of man is naturally contrasted with the mans of God
;
'
(cf.
Va.).
:
mani'
'
faithfulness
TriaTis arov
JPs. Sol. viii.
KaTapYâei. a characteristic word with St. Paul, to render inert or inactive occurring twenty-five times in his writings (including 2 Thess. (i) in Eph. 2 Tim.), and only twice elsewhere (Lk. Heb.) to make sterile or barren/ of soil Lk. xiii. 7, a material sense, that the body as cf. Rom. vi. 6 Xva Karapy^dp to acopa tt}? apaprlas, an instrument of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless ; abrogate,' abolish to render invalid,' (ii) in a figurative sense,
cf. Lam. iii. 23 noWf] to His promises 7ri(TTis aov peff fjpaiv. 35 dtpyos) Karapyelv (from Kara, causative and dpyos
'
17
17
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
(rr)v
enayyeXiav Gal.
fir)
iii.
vop.ov
Rom.
'
iii.
31).
^ formula of negation, repelling with horror Fourteen of the fifteen N. T. something previously suggested. instances are in Paul's writings, and in twelve of them it expresses the Apostle's abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be falsely drawn from his argument' (Burton, M. and 7. 177 ; cf. also Lft. on Gal. ii. 17).
4.
Y^ otTO
It is characteristic of the vehement impulsive style of this group of Epp. that the phrase is confined to them (ten times in Rom., once in 1 Cor., twice It occurs five times in LXX, not however standing alone as here, in Gal.). but worked into the body of the sentence (cf. Gen. xliv. 7, 17 ; Josh. xxii. 29,
xxiv. 16
Kings xx
[xxi], 3).
ywio-Qw see on i. 3 above ; the transition which the verb denotes is often from a latent condition to an apparent condition, and so here, prove to be,' be seen to be.' ci\t]9tjs as keeping His plighted word.
:
'
'
'
y
\|iuoty)s
:
[ill. 4, 5.
in asserting that God's promises have not been fulfilled. Even as it stands written.' The quotation is Ka0ws YcypairTai Note the mistranslations in exact from LXX of Ps. li [1]. 6. (which St. Paul adopts), mkwbc (or viô-et?) for insons sis, lv
:
'
LXX
The sense of the iudicando or dum iudicas. original is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God's judgement upon him. The result of his sin is that God is pronounced righteous in His sentence, free from blame in His judging. St. Paul applies it as if the Most High Himself were put upon trial
Kplveo-Oai (pass.) for in
and declared guiltless in respect to the promises which fulfilled, though man will not believe in their fulfilment.
He
has
owtos dv: av points to an unexpressed condition, 'in case a decision is

given.'
SiKaiwGrjs: 'that thou mightest
the
judgement of mankind
Ka\ idiKaiaGr)
i]
see p.
be pronounced righteous* by 30 f. above, and compare Matt. xi.

:
avrrjs.
cf. Lk. vii. 35) aoCpla anb tqhv Zpyoov (v. 1. reicvav Patr. Sym. 6 on-toy 8iKaia>da> dno ttjs apaprias rwv Ps. Sol. li. 16 cyo) diKaiaxrco are 6 Qeos. The usage fyvx&v vpS>v. occurs repeatedly in this book see Ryle and James ad loc. not ' pleadings (Va.) but sayings,' i. e. the lv tois Xoyois o-oo judicial sentence.' Heb. probably Aoyia just mentioned. the like vincere, of gaining a suit,' opp. to TjTraaBat i/iktjo-tis full phrase is vmdv ti\v diiajv (Eur. EL 955, &c).
19
Test
XII
'
'
'
'
is right,
L &c. vnajaas N A E, minusc aliq. Probably vucqaeis B with the older types of Western because of the agreement of The reading viicqaris in B appaText, thus representing two great families. rently belongs to the small Western element in that MS., which would seem There is a similar that than to in D. rather that in allied to to be viK-qaris is the reading of N B (def. A), fluctuation in MSS. of the used by St. Paul differs The text of viKrjoeis of some fourteen cursives. not seldom from that of the great uncials.
viktio-TISj
;
GK
NA
LXX
LXX
probably not mid. (' to enter upon trial,' ' go to law,' 'get judgment for oneself) as Mey. Go. Va. Lid., but pass, see the arguments as in ver. 7 (so Vulg. Weiss Kautzsch, &c. and Heb. in Kautzsch, De Vet. Test. Locis from the usage of
KpiycaOcu
:
lit.
LXX
24
a Paulo
5.
like
rj
allegatis, p.
n.).
ctSiKta tjjawi':
a general statement, including dmaTia.

is
In
manner Qeov
8ncaioo-vi>r)v
general,
though the
particular
instance which St. Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God to His promises. auntmjo-i: avvlanjfu (avpia-rdvoi) has in N. T. two conspicuous meanings (i) to bring together ' as two persons, to introduce or ' commend to one another (e.g. Rom. xvi. 1 2 Cor. iii. 1; iv. 2; (ii) 'to put v. 12, &c. ; cf. avo-TciTiKdi eVtoroXai 2 Cor. iii. 1) ; together' or 'make good' by argument, 'to prove,' 'establish'
:
'
'
'
' :
III. 5-7.]
73
(compositis collectisque quae
rem contineant argumentis aliquid doceo

;
Fritzsche), as in
Lft.
Rom.
v.
2 Cor.
vii.
11
Gal.
ii.
18 (where see
and
Ell.).
(o-vviaraveiv' kiraivdv, <pai/epovv,
Both meanings are recognized by Hesych.

fifficuovv,
irapandevai) ; but it is rather strange that neither comes out clearly in the varied uses of the word in the second is found in Susann. 61 aveffTtjaav kirl tovs 8vo irpeopvTas, on avviaTijatv avroiis Aavir}\ (Theod.).
LXX
ti
ipoup-ev
teristic
another phrase, like pfj -yeVon-o, which is characof this Epistle, where it occurs seven times ; not elsewhere
:
in
N. T.
(IT)
aSiKos
the form of question shows that a negative answer

originally
'
'
is
expected
meant Don't say that,' &c). most exactly, the inflicter of the anger 6 iiTLîpiav rt]v 6pyY\v (Va.). The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on i. 18,
(jiff
:
xii.
19.
Burton however makes 6 em<pp<v strictly equivalent to a relative clause, and like a relative clause suggest a reason ('Who visiteth ' = * because He
visiteth')
M. and
T. 428.
Xiyw: a form of phrase which is also characof this group of Epistles, where the eager argumentation of the Apostle leads him to press the analogy between human and The exact divine things in a way that he feels calls for apology. but comp. also 1 Cor. ix. 8 phrase recurs only in Gal. iii. 15 Kara avOpatirou ravra AaAco 2 Cor. xi. 1 7 6 XaXa>, ov Kara Kvpiov fif)
icaT& ayOpwirov
teristic
;
:
XaXa>.
6. etrcl irws Kpivct
St.
matic the belief that

just
fall
God would
Paul and his readers alike held as axiojudge the world. But the objection
belief,
urged was inconsistent with that

to the ground.
and therefore must
iC: 'since, if that were so, if the inflicting of punishment necessarily implied injustice.' 'End gets the meaning 'if so,' 'if not' ('or else'), from the context, the clause to which it points being supposed to be repeated here tirei sc. d dSitcos tarai 6 kirupipcuv tj)v dpyfjv (cf. Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk. p. 359).
ihv
el
ko'ojaoi'
all
mankind.
text.
8<
KA
;
RV.
7.
text.
tnarg.
RV.
minusc. pauc, Vulg. cod. Boh., Jo.-Damasc, Tisch. WH. yap B E L P &c, Vulg. Syrr. Orig.-lat. Chrys. at., marg. The second reading may be in its origin Western.
D GK
W H.
of man, as
down in ver. 5 is now discussed from the side been discussed from the side of God. d\ii0eia: the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises; yjfevapa, the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as
The
position laid
it
had
just
in ver. 4).
Kayw
'
too,'
as well as others, though
my
falsehood thus

'
74
[ill. 7, 8.
St. Paul uses the first person from redounds to God's glory. motives of delicacy, just as in i Cor. iv. 6 he transfers by a fiction (Dr. Field's elegant rendering of /ueT-efT^/ncmo-a) to himself and his friend Apollos what really applied to his opponents. (i) 8. There are two trains of thought in the Apostle's mind the excuse which he supposes to be put forward by the unbeliever that evil may be done for the sake of good ; (ii) the accusation brought as a matter of fact against himself of saying that evil might be done for the sake of good. The single clause 7roir)cra>pev tci Kcuta tta e\6r) to. dyadd is made to do duty for both these trains of thought, in the one case connected in idea and construction with in the other with Xeyovcnv on. tL This could be brought fir], out more clearly by modern devices of punctuation rt en icdyco &>$
' : . .
.
afiaprcokos, icplvofiai
rives
rjfjias
ko.1
iri
/xt)
Kadoos j3\acr(pr}povfj.e6a, kcu Kadcos (pacri
Xe'yeiv
on
noir)fT<ofXv
k.t.X.
There
is
a very similar con-
struction in vv. 25, 26, where the argument works up twice over to the same words, tls [77/369] tt)v evda^w rrjs ducaioo-vvtis airov, and the
words which follow the second time are meant to complete both
clauses, the first as well as the second.
It
is
somewhat
similar
when
and
St.
in ch.
ii.
ver.
16 at once carries on and completes vv. 15
13.
Paul was accused (no doubt by actual opponents) of Antinomianism. What he said was, The state of righteousness is not to be attained through legal works ; it is the gift of God.' He was represented as saying therefore it does not matter what a man an inference which he repudiates indignantly, not only does
'
'
'
here but in vi. wk to Kplfxa
1 ff.,
15
ff.
This points back to W fr icdyoo Kplvo/xai. ; the plea which such persons put in will avail them nothing ; the judgement (of God) which will fall upon them is just. St. Paul does not argue the point, or say anything further about the calumny directed against himself; he contents himself with brushing away an excuse which is obviously unreal.
k.t.X.
UNIVERSAL FAILURE TO ATTAIN TO

RIGHTEOUSNESS.
III. 9-20.
If
the case
of us Jews
is
so bad, are
the
Gentiles any better ?
No.
The same accusation covers
both.
The Scriptures speak of the universality of human guilt, which is laid down in Ps. xiv and graphically described in
Pss. v, cxl, x, in Is. lix,
and again
in Ps. xxxvi.
And
if
III.
9-20
UNIVERSAL FAILURE
75
the
Jew
is
equally guilty zvitk the Gentile, still less can he
punishment ; for the Law which threatens him with punishment is his own. So then the whole system of Law and works done in fulfilment of L,azv, has proved a failure. Lazu can reveal sin, but not remove it.
escape
inference are we to Are we Jews not only equalled but surpassed (npoexofifQa passive) by the Gentiles ? Not at all. There is really nothing to choose between Jews and Gentiles. The indictment which we have just brought against both (in i. 189
To
?
return from
this
digression.
What
?
draw
Are the
tables completely turned
32,
ii.
of sin.
17-29) proves that they are equally under the dominion 10 The testimony of Scripture is to the same effect. Thus
some abridgment and variation], the Psalmist complains that he cannot find a single righteous man, " that there is
in Ps. xiv [here with
none
to show any intelligence of moral and religious truth, none to show any desire for the knowledge of God. 12 They have all (he
says) turned
aside from
the straight path.
that has turned sour
and bad.
13
There
is
not so
They are like milk much as a single
right-doer
among them.
This picture of universal wickedness
may
be completed from such details as those which are applied
to the
wicked
in Ps. v. 9 [exactly quoted].
Just as a grave stands

fill it
yawning
to receive the corpse that will

is
soon
with corruption,
so the throat of the wicked
only opened to vent forth depraved

is
and lying speech.

under
their
Their tongue
:
practised in fraud.
Or
in
Ps. cxl. 3 [also exactly quoted]
the poison-bag of the asp lies
smooth and
15
flattering lips.
u So,
as
it
is
described in
Ps. x. 7, throat, tongue,
and
lips are full
of nothing but cursing
and venom.
of
16
Is. lix. 7,
8]
Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX They run with eager speed to commit murder.
:
Their course
is
marked by
ruin
and misery.
18
17
With smiling
paths of peace they have
made no
acquaintance.
character of the ungodly in a word [from Ps. xxxvi
To sum up the (xxxv). 1 LXX]

:
The
19
fear of
God
supplies
no standard
for their actions.
Thus
all
the world has sinned.
And
not even the Jew can

sin.
it
claim exemption from the consequences of his
For when
the
Law
of Moses denounces those consequences
speaks especially
it
to the people to
whom
it
was given.
By which
was designed
'
' '
y6
that the
[ill. 9.
and that
20
Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse, all mankind might be held accountable to God.
is
This
(i.
the conclusion of the whole argument.

fulfilment of
Law
Law
them
e.
by an attempted
By works of Law) no mortal may hope

For the only
effect of
to be declared righteous in God's sight.

is
to
open men's eyes

do
better.
to their
own
the
sinfulness, not to enable
to
That method,
found.
? '
method of works, has
failed.
new method must be

;
'
9. ti ouv that
What
then [follows]
Not with
:
npoexofifda,
because
would require
in reply oibev irdvrcos, not ov Tram-as.
as intrans. in the same irpoexofJteda is explained in three ways sense as the active Trpoexco, as trans, with its proper middle force, and as passive, (i) npoexo^Ba mid. 7rpoex"H-^ (praecel/imus eos Vulg. and so the majority of commentators, ancient and modern, ' *A/) 7Tpicra6v exlxfV7ta P a tovs "EWrjvas Euthym.-Zig. exJue ti Ttktov Ka\ cvdoKinovpev oi 'iouSmot ; Theoph. Do we think ourselves better ?' Gif.). But no examples of this use are to be found, and there
1'
',
'
seems to be no reason why St. Paul should not have written common form in such contexts, (ii) 7rpoex6fX(8a trans. in its more ordinary middle sense, put forward as an excuse or (' Do we excuse ourselves ? RV. marg., Have we any pretext defence?' Mey. Go.). But then the object must be expressed, and as we have just seen ri ovv cannot be combined with npoexop-^n because of oh navTcos. (in) Trpox6p.(Ba passive, Are we excelled ? Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles) ? a rare use, but still one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, Ot. Now. Ill ad
npoexopfv, the
'
'
'
'
'
'
loc).
Some
of the best scholars
(e. g.
Lightfoot, Field) incline to
which has been adopted in the text of RV. The principal objection to it is from the context. St. Paul has just asserted how then (ver. 2) that the Jew has an advantage over the Gentile does he come to ask if the Gentile has an advantage over the Jew ? The answer would seem to be that a different kind of advantage is meant. The superiority of the Jew to the Gentile is historic, it
this view,
:
'
the possession of superior privileges ; the practical equality of Jew and Gentile is in regard to their present moral condition In this latter respect (ch. ii. 17-29 balanced against ch. i. 18-32). St. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places (ii. 25-29). few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take npoexop-fdn as pass., but give it the same sense as npoe'xopfv, Are we (Jews) preferred
lies in
'
(to the Gentiles) in the sight of
God ?
irpotxoiJ*Oa. : v. 1. 7rpoaTXAtl/ mpiaaov D* G, 31 ; Antiochene Fathers (Chrys. [ed. Field] Theodt. Severianus', alsoOrig.-lat. Ambrstr. (some MSS. but not the best, tenemus amfliut) : a gloss explaining vpo^x- in the same
III. 9, 10.]
UNIVERSAL FAILURE
77
way
as Vulg. and the later Greek commentators quoted above.
AL
read
Strictly speaking ov should qualify irdvrcn, * not not entirely/ as in i Cor. v. io oC naurm to'is nopvms tov Koafiov tovtuv but in some cases, as here, Trduras qualifies ov, altogether not/ entirely not,' i. e. not at all (nequaquam Vulg., nida/xws Theoph.). Compare the similar idiom in ov trdw ; and see Win. Gr. lxi. 5.
ou irdn-ws.
'
altogether,'
1
'
'
'
irpoT)TiaadfA0a
v<j)'
in the section
i.
8 ii. 29.
ap-ap-nav.
vtro
with ace.
change has already taken place

qyiaaixivoi vitb
In Biblical Greek xmo with dat. has given place entirely to Matt. viii. 9 dvOpanrus elfu vno iovoiav is a strong case. The in e. g Deut. xxxiii. 3 navrfs ol rds x ?pds oov, ical ovtoi vtto ak et<n.
LXX
10. The long quotation which follows, made up of a number of passages taken from different parts of the O. T., and with no apparent break between them, is strictly in accordance with the Rabbinical practice. A favourite method was that which derived
'
when a preacher having quoted a passage or section from the Pentateuch, strung on to it another and like-sounding, or really similar, from the Prophets and the Hagiographa (Edersheim, Life and Times, &c. i. 449). We may judge from this instance that the first quotation did not always necessarily come from the Pentateuch though no doubt there is a marked tendency in Christian as compared with Jewish writers to equalize the three divisions of the O. T. Other examples of such compounded quotations are Rom. ix. 25 f. 27 f. ; xi. 26 f. 34 f. ; xii. 19 f. 2 Cor. vi. 16. Here the passages are from Pss. xiv [xiii]. 1-3 (=Ps. liii. 1-3 [lii. 2-4]), ver. 1 free, ver. 2 abridged, ver. 3 exact; v. 9 [10] exact; cxl. 3 [exxxix. 4] exact x. 7 [ix. 28] free Is. lix. 7, 8 abridged ; Ps. xxxvi [xxxv]. 1. The degree of relevance of each of these passages to the argument is indicated by the paraphrase see also the additional note at the end of ch. x.
its
name from
the stringing together of beads (Charaz),
'
of quotations has had a curious history. upon the text of O.T., and they have done so here: vv. 13-18 got imported bodily into Ps. xiv [xiii LXXj as an appendage to ver. 4 in the 'common' text of the the 17 koivtj, i.e. unrevised text current in the time of Origen). They are still found in Codd. N* B R and many cursive MSS. of (om. N Cft A), though the Greek commentators on the Psalms do not recognize them. From interpolated MSS. such as these they found their way into Lat.-Vet., and so into Jerome's first edition of the Psalter (the 'Roman'), also into his second edition (the ' Gallican,' based upon Origen's Hexapla), though marked with an obelus after the example of Origen. The obelus dropped out, and they are commonly printed in the Vulgate text of the Psalms, which is practically the Gallican. From the Vulgate they travelled into Coverdale's Bible (a.d. 1535) from thence into Matthew's (Rogers') Bible, which in the
react
As a whole this conglomerate The quotations in N.T. frequently
LXX
LXX
;;
78
[ill.
9-12
Psalter reproduces Coverdale (a.d. 1537), and also into the 'Great Bible' (first issued by Cromwell in 1539, and afterwards with a preface by Cranmer, whence it also bears the name of Cranmer's Bible, in 1540^. The Psalter of the Great Bible was incorporated in the Book of Common Prayer, in which it was retained as being familiar and smoother to sing, even in the later revision which substituted elsewhere the Authorized Version of 161 1. The editing of the Great Bible was due to Coverdale, who put an * to the passages found in the Vulgate but wanting in the Hebrew. These marks however had the same fate which befell the obeli of Jerome. They were not repeated in the Prayer-Book so that English Churchmen still read the interpolated verses in Ps. xiv with nothing to distinguish them from the rest of the text. Jerome himself was well aware that these verses were no part of the Psalm In his commentary on Isaiah, lib. xvi, he notes that St. Paul quoted Is. lix. 7, 8 in Ep. to Rom., and he adds, quod multi ignorantes, de tertio decimo psalmo sumptum putant, qui versus \pTi\oi\ in editione Vulgata [i. e. the Koivrj of the LXX] additi sunt et in Hebraico non habentur (Hieron. Opp. ed. Migne, iv. 601 comp. the preface to the same book, ibid. col. 568 f. also the newly discovered Commentarioli in Psalmos, ed. Morin, 1895, p. 24 f.).
; ;
10. Some have thought that this verse was not part of the quotation, but a summary by St. Paul of what follows. It does indeed present some variants from the original, SUmos for ttoivv
XprjaTOTrjTa
is
and ovSe ds for ovk eartp e<os evos. In the this clause a kind of refrain which is repeated exactly in ver. 3. St. Paul there keeps to his text ; but we cannot be surprised that in the opening words he should choose a simpler form of phrase which more directly suggests the connexion with his main argument. The diKaios shall live by faith ; but till the coming of Christianity there was no true Stjaurc and no true faith. The verse runs too much upon the same lines as the Psalm to be other than a quotation, though it is handled in the free and bold manner which is characteristic of St. Paul.
'
'
LXX
intelligit)
qui intelligat (rather than qui [But A B G, and perhaps Latt. Orig.-lat. Ambrstr., WH. text read crvwdr, as also (B)C WH. text (KCnriyy, without the art. after LXX. This would non est intelligens, non est requirens Deum (Vulg.) There is no one of understanding, there is no inquirer after God.'
e<rriv
11. ouk
truviav:
'
non
is
est
Anglice,
there
none to understand/
'
6 o-vviwv on the form see Win. Intr. Notes on Orthog. p. 67 Both forms, Gvutco and awiu, are avvlwv, may be adopted probably
:
1
Gr. xiv, 16 (ed. 8 ; xiv, 3 E. T.) ; Hort, also for the accentuation, Fri. p. 1 74 f. found, and either accentuation, ovviwv or the latter is to be preferred ; cf. tfcpie from
a<pia)
Mk.
i.
34,
'
xi. 16.
12. fi/m
one and
:
all.'
fjxpeiej0T]CTay
Heb.
'
to
go
bad,'
'
become
sour,' like
milk
comp. the
dxpeios 8ovXos of Matt. xxv. 30.
iroiwv (sine artic.)
ABG&c. WH. text.

'
'
XpTjaTOTT]Ta
'
utility
'
goodness in the widest sense, with the idea of rather than specially of kindness,' as in ii. 4.
'
III. 12-19.]
?o)s f'vos
UNIVERSAL FAILURE
79
idiom ad unum omnes (Vulg. literally usque ad UHtini). B 67**, WH. marg. omit the second ovk Iotiv [ovk tonv roiv* XPV^TOTTjTa Zcos Ms]. The readings of B and its allies in these verses are open to some suspicion of assimilating to a text of LXX. In vef. 14 B 17 add uvtuiv ($)v to aro/xa avrcov) corresponding to avrov in B's text of Ps x 7
:
cp. the Latin
[ix. 28].
'
13.
t<*<J>o S
iZokioOaav.
The
LXX
of Ps.
v.
sponds pretty nearly to Heb; The last clause rather linguam suam blandam reddunt (poliunt), or perhaps lingua sua blandiuntur (Kautzsch, p. 34): 'their tongue do they make smooth' Cheyne ; smooth speech glideth from their tongue De Witt.
' '
9 [10] corre-
14 (ed. 8 xiii, 2/. E. T.). The terminafrom imperf. and 2nd aor. of verbs in -fu to verbs in -co, is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek, but by 'no means confined to it it is frequent in Boeotian inscriptions, and is called by one grammarian a Boeotian form, as by others ' Alexandrian.'
:
ISoXioOo-av
Win. Gr.
is
xiii,
tion -Tav, extended
widely found
it
'
'
ids
<Woa>i>: Ps.
cxl. 3 [cxxxix. 4].

is
The
position of the poison-
bag of the serpent
rightly described.
The venom
is
more
correctly referred to the bite (as in Num. xxi. 9; Prov. xxiii. 32), than to the forked tongue (Job xx. 16): see art. 'Serpent' in
D.B.
(TTofia
14. Ps. x. 7 avToi yefxei

it
:
somewhat
:
freely
from
LXX
St.
ku\ TTocplas koI 86\ov.
changes
iriKpia
into the plural
aroaa avrcov
Is. lix. 7,
B
8
[ix. 28]: ol dpZs to Paul retains the rel. but 17, Cypr., WH. marg.
Heb. more
it
lit.
=/raudes.
is
15-17. This quotation of
LXX
freely abridged
from the
and as
is
also of
some
interest
it
from
its
the text of the used by St. Paul, original and the quotation side by side.
LXX
bearing upon
may
be well to give the
Rom.
iii.
15-17.
ol 8e
Is. lix. 7, 8.
ofis ul Tropes avrcov eVf^fcu alfia'

(Tvurpififxa
nobes avrcov [eVt novr/piav

eVcê'cu
kcu
rakamcopia iv rdls
686v
elprjvrjs
rpc'xoutn] ra^tvot
alpa
[/<ai ol
citto
0801s
avrcov,
icdi
ovk
8ia\oyio~pol avrcov
(povcov].
8ia\oyio-p.ol
/cat
eyvcocrav.
crvvrpiufia
raXaiircopia
(IprjVTJS
iv TOLS 68o'lS aVTCOU KCU 6$6v
ovk otdaai
[ical
ovk
eon
Kpicrts
iv
rdls 68dis avrcov\.

atfia
[From
a<ppovcov (for
dvairtov Theodotion, and probably also Aquila and Symmachus. the Hexapla this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX.] 1 and cpovcov) oihaai N B Q*, &c. lyvcoaav marg. tf
(Q = Cod. Marchalianus, XII Holmes) minusc.
AQ
aliq.
it
19. What is the meaning of this verse ? Does passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (6
mean
that the
vop,os
=0.
T.
80
Popov
rffP
[ill. 19, 20.
rraXaiav ypa(f>fjv ovofidfci, rjs fiepos ra npoCprjTiKd Euthym.and therefore they are as much guilty before God as the Or does it mean that the Gentiles ? So most commentators. guilt of the Jews being now proved, as they sinned they must also
Zig.),
expect punishment, the

the connexion
Law
(6 vopos
= the
Pentateuch) affirming
between sin and punishment. So Gif. Both interpre[For though (i) does not strictly prove tations give a good sense. that all men are guilty but only that the Jews are guilty, this was really the main point which needed proving, because the Jews were apt to explain away the passages which condemned them, and held whatever happened to the Gentiles they would escape.] that
It is question really turns upon the meaning of 6 vofxos. urged, (i) that there is only a single passage in St. Paul where 6 vop-os clearly =0. T. (i Cor. xiv. 21, a quotation of Is. xxviii. 11)
The
compare however
xxxv. 19)
must
narrower sense (iii) that in ver. 2 1 the Law is expressly distinguished from the Prophets. Yet these arguments are hardly decisive for (i) the evidence is sufficient to show that St. Paul might have used 6 vopos in the wider and (ii) we must sense for this one instance is as good as many not suppose that St. Paul always rigidly distinguished which sense he was using the use of the word in one sense would call up the
= the
(ii)
Jo. x. 34 (= Ps. lxxxii. 6), xv. 25 that in the corresponding clause, rots iv
in the
;
(=
r<
Ps.
vo/xa
Law,
other
(cf.
Note on
o ddvaros in ch. v. 1 2).
vop.os = Law in the Oltr. also goes a way of his own, but makes abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience, and for the Jew the law of Moses), which is contrary to the use of 6 vopos.
Xfyci
is
XaXei \eyciv calls attention to the substance of what . c Clellan, cf. esp. spoken, XaKclv to the outward utterance
.
. : ;
Gospels, p.
$>po-yr\
:
383
ff.
i.
cf. dvairo\6yr)Tos
20,
ii.
the idea
comes up
at
each
step in the argument.

uttoSikos: not exactly 'guilty before
God/
;
God/
to
vttoSikos
takes gen. of the crime
dat. of the
but 'answerable to person injured
whom
satisfaction is
due
{ra>v
:
JWXao-iW
all
vit68ikos eara) to> fikacpdcvri
Plato,
Legg. 846 B).
So here
God, and owes

term.
Him
satisfaction.
mankind has offended against Note the use of a forensic
20. Sioti:
'because/ not 'therefore,' as

for penalties as against
AV.
(see
on
i.
19).
Mankind
is liable
nothing else to afford them protection. Why this eyes to sin, but cannot remove it.
vii.
God, because there is Law can open men's

is
so
is
shown
in
ff.
:
8iKcuw0âeTai
'
'
shall
be pronounced
'
shall
be made righteous
(Lid.)
the whole context
righteous/ certainly not (iva ndv oro>a
III. 21-26.]
4>payfj, vnoducos,
THE NEW SYSTEM

cvamov avrov) has reference to a judicial
trial
and
Pet.
verdict.
irao-a a<pi
i.
:
man
'clear
in his
weakness and
frailty (i
Cor.
i.
29
24).
ciriyrwais
:
knowledge'; see on
i.
28, 32.
THE NEW SYSTEM.

things comes in. which comes from God but embraces man, by no deserts of his but as a free gift on the part of God. This righteousness, (i) though attested by the Sacred Books, is independent of any legal system (ver. 21); (ii) it is apprehended by faith in Christ, and is as wide as
III. 21-26.
it is
Here then
the
new order of
In
offered a Righteousness
mans need (vv. 22, 23) (iii) it is made possible by the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ (vv. 24, 25) ; which Sacrifice at once explains the lenient treatment by God of past sin
;
and gives
21
the
most decisive expression
to
His
righteousness
(vv. 25, 26).

It is precisely
such a method which

is
is
offered in Christianity.
it.
We
have seen what
the state of the world without the righteousness of
But now,
since the
coming of Christ
God
has asserted
itself in visible
concrete form, but so as to furnish at the same
and that in a means of acquiring righteousness to man complete independence of law, though the Sacred Books which contain the Law and the writings of the Prophets bear witness to
time
This new method of acquiring righteousness does not turn upon works but on faith, i.e. on ardent attachment and devotion to And it is therefore no longer confined to any Jesus Messiah.
it.
22
particular people like the Jews, but
is
tion to
all,
on the
23
sole condition of believing,
thrown open without distincwhether they be Jews
or Gentiles.
All
The
universal gift corresponds to the universal need.

j
men
alike
have sinned
and
all
alike feel themselves far

24
from
the bright effulgence of God's presence.

are
Yet estranged as they

service of theirs,
in their relation to
God
accepts them as righteous for
no merit or
change
by an
act of
His own
free favour, the
being due to the Great Deliverance wrought at the price of the 25 When the Messiah suffered upon the Death of Christ Jesus.
Him
8a
Cross
it

was
fill. 21.
God Who
set
Him
there as a public spectacle, to

as-
be viewed as a Mosaic
sacrifice
might be viewed by the crowds
sembled
in the courts of the
Temple.
which
The shedding
effect
of His Blood
was
in fact a sacrifice
sin,
which had the

effect
of making propitiation
appropriate through
or atonement for
faith.
an
man must
by
The
object of the whole being
this public
and
decisive
act to vindicate the righteousness of

sins of
God.
In previous ages the
or atonement
mankind had been passed over without adequate punishment 26 but this long forbearance on the part of God had in
:
view throughout that signal exhibition of His Righteousness which
He
purposed to enact when the hour should come as

in
now
it
has
come, so as to reveal Himself
His double character as at once

righteous,
righteous Himself and pronouncing

righteous, the loyal follower of Jesus.
or
accepting
as
vw\ 8e Mey. De now,' under the Christian dispensation. Go. and others contend for the rendering as it is,' on the ground that the opposition is between two states, the state under Law and the state without Law. But here the two states or relations correspond to two periods succeeding each other in order of time so that wvi may well have its first and most obvious meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Rom. xvi. vvv, Eph. ii. 12, 13 vvvl (fxivepcodevros 25, 26 \iv(TTr\p'iov
21.
'
:
W.
Oltr.
'
8e
fytvr)6r)T cyyvs,
Col.
i.
i.
26, 27 pvarrjpiov to dnoKCKpvppevov
vvv 8e
alcoviLov
f(pavp(i)6rj,
Tim.
8e
9,
IO X
It
ll
>lv
T h v 8o6(7crav
vvv\
Se
npb xpovcov
(pavepcoBflcrav
.
. .
vvv,
Heb.
ix.
26
ana
(i)
eVi o~WT(\fia
Tu>v ala>va>v
N. T. oppose the pre-Christian and the Christian dispensations to each other as periods (comp. in addition to the Gal. iii. 23, 25, passages already enumerated Acts xvii. 30 iv. 3, 4; Heb. i. 1) and (ii) that cpavepovo-dai is constantly used with expressions denoting time (add to passages above Tit. i. 3 Kaipois 18101s, 1 Pet. i. 20 eV eo-xarov tcov \p6va>v). The leading English commentators take tl is view. apart from law,' independently of it/ not as X&>pls w>f*ou a subordinate system growing out of Law, but as an alternative for Law and destined ultimately to supersede it (Rom. x. 4). Sikcuoowt] 0oG St. Paul goes on to define see on ch. i. 17. his meaning. The righteousness which he has in view is essentially though the aspect from which it is the righteousness of God regarded is as a condition bestowed upon man, that condition is the direct outcome of the Divine attribute of righteousness, working One step in this realization amongst men. its way to larger
<rr((pavepc0Tat.
may be
observed
that the
writers
constantly
'
'
III. 21, 22.]
THE NEW SYSTEM
83
Death of
realization, the first great objective step, is the Sacrificial
Christ for sin (ver. 25); the next step is the subjective apprehension of what is thus done for him by faith on the part of the believer (ver. 22). Under the old system the only waylaid down for man to
attain to righteousness
Law
the
now
that
was by the strict performance of the Mosaic heavy obligation is removed and a shorter but at
is
same time more effective method attachment to a Divine Person.
substituted, the
method of
An allusion of Tertullian's makes it probable that Marcion retained this verse; evidence fails as to the rest of the chapter, and it is probable that he cut out the whole of ch. iv, along with most other references to the history of Abraham (Tert. on Gal. iv. 21-26, Adv. Marc. v. 4).
Trcâyepurrcu.
Contrast the completed

in
(fivepa><ns
in Christ
and
verb
the continued imoKahvtyis

fyavepovaOai is regularly
the
Gospel
(ch.
i.
16 )
its
the
used
for the
Incarnation with
*
accompani'
ments and sequents

secret counsels of
as outstanding facts of history prepared in the
at the fitting moment manifested to of the whole process of the Incarnation, of the 1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Pet. i. 20; 1 Jo. iii. 5, 8 Atonement, Heb. ix. 26: of the risen Christ, Mark xvi. 12, 14; of the future coming to Judgement, 1 Pet. v. 4 John xxi. 14 1 Jo. ii. 28. The nearest parallels to this verse which speaks of
God and
so,
the sight of
men;
Tim. i. 10, which speaks of a like manifestation of Divine grace,' and 1 Jo. i. 2, which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the principle of life.' another instance of the care with which jxapTupoujxeVY] k. t. X. St. Paul insists that the new order of things is in no way contrary to the old, but rather a development which was duly foreseen and provided for: cf. Rom. i. 2, iii. 31, the whole of ch. iv, ix. 25-33; x. 16-21; xi. 1-10, 26-29; xv. 8-12; xvi. 26 &c. 22. oe turns" to the particular aspect of the Divine righteousness which the Apostle here wishes to bring out ; it is righteousness
the manifestation of Divine 'righteousness' are 2
' '
apprehended by faith
The
ii.
in Christ and embracing the body of believers. particle thus introduces a nearer definition, but in itself only
marks the
6
;
transition in thought
ii.
Gal.
Phil.
ii.
8)
which here (as in ch. ix. 30; happens to be from the general
'
Cor.
to the
particular.
irurreus
'It]<toG
XpioroG
gen. of object,
faith in
Jesus Christ.'
This is the hitherto almost universally accepted view, which has however been recently challenged in a very carefully worked out argument by Prof. Haussleiter of Greifswald {Der Glaube Jesu
Christiu. der christliche Glaube, Leipzig, 1891).
Dr. Haussleiter contends that the gen. is subjective not objective, that like the 'faith of Abraham' in ch. iv. 16, it denotes the faith (in God) which Christ Himself maintained even through the ordeal of the Crucifixion, that
84
[III. 22, 23.

Atonement, and
this faith is here put forward as the central feature of the
that it is to be grasped or appropriated by the Christian in a similar manner to that in which he reproduces the faith of Abraham. If this view held good, a number of other passages (notably i. 17) would be affected by it. But, although ably carried out, the interpretation of some of these passages seems to us forced ; the theory brings together things, like the maris 'Iijaov Xpiarov here with the marts &(ov in iii. 3, which are really disparate ; and it has so far, we believe, met with no acceptance. Tt)cto XpicTTOti. B, and apparently Marcion as quoted by Tertullian,
'Irjaov (so too niarg. ; reads kv XpiarZ 'l-qaov. Kal krrl irivTas om. N* B C, 47. 67**, Boh. Aeth. Arm., Clem. -Alex. Orig. Did. Cyr.-Alex. Aug.: ins. &c. km irdvras alone is found in Jo. Damasc. Vulg. codd., so that els irdvras Kal km irdvras would seem to be a conflation, or combination of two readings originally alternatives. If it were the true reading els would express 'destination for' all believers, km 'extension to' them.
)
drop
WH.
DEFGKL
23. ou ydp
his
con
8ia<rro\f}.
main
positions.
The Apostle is reminded of one of The Jew has (in this respect) no real advantage
over the Gentile ; both alike need a righteousness which is not their own ; and to both it is offered on the same terms. Tjjxap-roi'. In English we may translate this 'have sinned' in accordance with the idiom of the language, which prefers to use the perfect where a past fact or series of facts is not separated by a clear interval from the present see note on ii. 12. uorepoGVTai see Monro, Homeric Grammar, 8 (3); mid. voice Gif. well compares Matt. xix. 20 rl en la-repw 'feel want/ (objective, What, as a matter of fact, is wanting to me ? ') with Luke xv. 14 Ka\ avros fjpgaro va-repeladai (subjective, the Prodigal begins to/eel his destitution). There are two wholly distinct uses of this word ttjs 8o|tjs. 'opinion' (a use not found in N. T.) and thence in (1) particular 'favourable opinion,' 'reputation' (Rom. ii. 7, 10; John xii. 43 &c); (2) by a use which came in with the (i) ' visible brightness or as translation of Heb. "rto3
: :
'
LXX
(Acts xxii. 11 ; Cor. xv. 40 ff.); and hence 1 (ii) the brightness which radiates from the presence of God, the visible glory conceived as resting on Mount Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 16), in the pillar of cloud (Ex. xvi. 10), in the tabernacle (Ex. xl. 34) or temple (1 Kings viii. 11; 2 Chron. v. 14), and specially between the cherubim on the lid of the ark (Ps. lxxx. 1 Ex. xxv. 2 2 ; Rom. ix. 4 &c.) ; (iii) this visible splendour symbolized the Divine perfections, 'the majesty or goodness of
splendour'
God
i.
as manifested to
12,
men'
(iv)
(Lightfoot
6,
17;
iii.
16);
on Col. i. 11 comp. Eph. these perfections are in a measure

;
iii.
communicated to man through Christ Both morally and physically a 18).
(esp.
Cor.
iv.
6,
certain
transfiguration
takes place in the Christian, partially here, completely hereafter (comp. e. g. Rom. viii. 30 eboi-aaev with Rom. V. 2 err e\mdi ttjs
III. 23, 24.]

86t]s tov
ii.
THE NEW SYSTEM

viii.
85
airoKa\v<p6rjvai,
Qfov,
18
tt)v
neWovaav hoâv
held that
Tim.
10
fidtqy alu>viuv).
The Rabbis
life
six things, 'the
glory,
by the Fall lost (immortality), his stature (which was
Adam
above that of his descendants), the fruit of the field, the fruits of trees, and the light (by which the world was created, and which was withdrawn from it and reserved for the righteous in the world It is explained that the glory was a reflection from to come).' the Divine glory which before the Fall brightened Adam's face (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 214). Clearly St. Paul conceives of this glory as in process of being recovered the physical sense is also enriched by its extension to attributes that are moral and
'
'
spiritual.
of Sofa in this connexion is well illustrated by 4 Ezr. vii. 42 = vi. 14 O. F. Fritzsche, p. 607], where the state of the blessed described as neque meridiem, neque noctem, neque ante lucem [perh. for antelucium vid. Bensly ad loc.\ neque nitorem, neque claritatem, neque lucem, nisi solummodo splendorem claritatis Altissimi [perh. = drravyacrua So^tjs 'Tif/i<TTov]. In quoting this passage Ambrose has sola Dei fulgehit
[ed. Bensly
is
;
The meaning
Dominus enim erit lux omnium (cf. Rev. xxi. 24). The blessed themselves shine with a brightness which is reflected from the face of God ibid. vv. 97, 98 [Bensly = 71, 72 O. F. Fritzsche] quomodo incipiet (peWei) vultus eorum fulgere sicut sol, et quomodo incipient stellarum adsimilari lumini .festinant enim videre vultum [eius\ cui serviunt viventes et a quo incipient gloriosi mercedem rtcipere (cf. Matt. xiii. 43).
claritas ;
.
.
24.
are
(i)
The construction and connexion of this word and perhaps not to be determined with certainty, Many leading scholars (De W. Mey. Lips. Lid. Win. 6>. xlv.
SiKaioufjici'oi.
difficult,
6 b) make 8iKaiovp.ivoi mark a detail in, or assign a proof of, the In this case there would be condition described by vo-rfpovvrai. a slight stress on do>pxv: men are far from God's glory, because the they do nothing for state of righteousness has to be given them No such proof or further But this is rather far-fetched. it. It had already been proved description of vo-repovvrai is needed. by the actual condition of Jews as well as Gentiles ; and to prove it by the gratuitousness of the justification would be an inversion vo-reof the logical order, (ii) vo-rfpowrai bwaiovpevoi is taken as vo-repovpevoi 8iKmovvrai (Tholuck). povvrai teal SiKaiovvrai (Fri.) or But this is dubious Greek. (Hi) Sucaiovpevoi is not taken with what In that case there is precedes, but is made to begin a new clause. an anacoluthon, and we must supply some such phrase as ira>s But that would be harsh, and a connecting KcivxvptOa; (Oltr.). particle seems wanted, (iv) Easier and more natural than any of these expedients seems to be, with Va, and Ewald, to make ov yap
;
vvTcpovvTai practically a parenthesis,
and
to take the
nom.
as suggested by irdvres in ver. 23, but in sense referring rather to tovs Trio-revoi/ras in ver. 22.' No doubt such a construction would be irregular, but it may be questioned whether it is too
biKaiovpevoi
86

The Apostle
[III. 24.
irregular for St. Paul.
a sentence under the influence of
frequently gives a new turn to some expression which is really

parallel as
subordinate to the main idea. would be 2 Cor. viii. 1 8, 19

6 enaivos iv to> evayyeXico os ZiraiveiTai
.
. .
Perhaps as near a
o-vvtircptyapev 8e tov
any
.
aSfXô^
ov
if
ov povov
fie,
d\\a
ku\
\ ei P0T0pr)6eis (as
had preceded).
Supe&p tt] auTou yj&pm. Each of these phrases strengthens the other in a very emphatic way, the position of avrov further laying stress on the fact that this manifestation of free favour on the part of God is unprompted by any other external cause than the one
which
Xvrpoco
'
is
mentioned (8m
It
is
rr)s
aTroXvrpoiaeais).
by Oltramare, (i) that to pay a ransom,' but to take a ransom,' to put to ransom,' or release on ransom,' as a conqueror releases his prisoners (the only example given of cmo\vTpaiais is Plut. Pomp. 24 woXicov al)(paXcoTa>v dnoXvrpdjaeis, where (ii) that in LXX the word has this sense of putting to ransom ') Aurpovcr&u is frequently used of the Deliverance from Egypt, the Exodus, in which there is no question of ransom (so Ex. vi. 6, cf. also uTroXvrpvo-ei. xv. 13; Deut. vii. 8; ix. 26; xiii. 5, &c. Ex. xxi. 8, of the 'release' of a slave by her master). The subst. dnoXiirpuiois occurs only in one place, Dan. iv. 30 [29 or 32], LXX
diroXuTpwo-ews.
contended,
esp.
and
d-no\vTp6a> in classical
'
Greek
= not
'
'
'
6 xpovos pov
rr}s
d7ro\vTpu>o-cos
rjXde
is
of Nebuchadnezzar's recovery
(cf.
ii.
from
his
madness.
Hence
it
inferred
also Westcott, Heb.

fF.)
'
that here and simply without any idea of 'ransom.' There is no doubt that this part of the metaphor might be dropped. But in view of the clear resolution of the expression in Mark x. 45 (Matt. xx. 28) dovvai rr)v yjfvxrjv avrov \vrpov dvr\ ttoWgov, and in I Tim. ii. 6 6 bovs eavrbv dvTikvTpov V7rep irdvrw, and in view also of the many passages in which Christians are said to be 'bought/ or 'bought with a price' (1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; Gal. iii. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 1 ; Rev. v. 9: cf. Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19), we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea
p. 296,
and
Ritschl, Rechtfert. u. Versbhn.

'
220
in similar passages diruXiirpaHris denotes
deliverance
of the Xvrpov retains its full force, that it is identical with the npr), and that both are ways of describing the Death of Christ. The need not press emphasis is on the cost of man's redemption. the metaphor yet a step further by asking (as the ancients did) to whom the ransom or price was paid. It was required by that
We
ultimate necessity which has
made
the whole course of things what
has been or gauge.

it
but
this necessity is far
beyond our powers
to grasp
p. 116) the interesting observation that
XpiaT$
Haussleiter {Der Glaube Jesu Christi, wherever the phrase (v XpiarS) or iv 'Irjcrov or occurs there is no This is significant, because in other combinations the kv 'Irjaov Xpiarw.
ttjs v
Xpio-T$
'lT)orov.
We owe to
'Irjaov
single instance of the variants Iv
III. 24, 25.]

variants are frequent.
THE NEW SYSTEM

It is also
'Irja.
87
and
iv
Xpiory
always relate to the glorified Christ, not to the historic
what we should expect, because \v X ttS> p
Jesus.
purposed/
'
25. 7rpo#To may designed

'
= either
'
(i)
whom God
;
proposed to Himself,'
<
publicly
Epistle.
in ch.
1
(Orig. Pesh.) or (ii) (proposuit Vulg.). Both meanings

St.
whom God
set forth
cordance with the teaching of
would be in full acPaul both elsewhere and in this
Pet.
'Itjo-ovs
we may compare the idea of the Divine p66t<n9 ix. 11 (viii. 28); Eph. iii. 11 (i. n)j 2 Tim. i. 9; also i. 20.^ For (ii) compare esp. Gal. iii. 1 ofr kut 6(pda\pov S Xpto-Tos irpneypacpr) iaravpcop^vos. But when We turn to the
For
(i)
immediate context we find it so full of terms denoting publicity (n-KpaveptoTai, ds (vdugiv, npos tt)v evfeigip) that the latter sense seems preferable. The Death of Christ is not only a manifestation of the righteousness of God, but a visible manifestation and one to which appeal can be made.
usually subst. meaning strictly 'place or vehicle of but originally neut. of adj. IXacrTrjpios {iKa^piov C7ri6epa Ex. xxv. 1 6 [17], where however Gif. takes the two words as substantives in apposition). In of the Pentateuch, as in
iXaorrjpioj'
:
propitiation/
LXX
for the ' lid of the ark/ or mercy-seat/ so called from the fact of its being sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement. number of the best authorities (esp. Gif. Va. Lid. Ritschl, Rechifert. u. Versohn. ii. 169 ff. ed. 2) take the word here in this sjnse, arguing (i) that it suits the emphatic avrov in iv tw alrov atpari; (ii) that through it would be by far the most familiar usage; (iii) that the Greek commentators (as Gif. has shown in detail) unanimously give it this sense (iv) that the idea is specially appropriate inasmuch as ; on Christ rests the fulness of the Divine glory, ' the true Shekinah/ and it is natural to connect with His Death the culminating rite in the culminating service of Atonement. But, on the other hand, there is great harshness, not to say confusion, in making Christ at
'
Heb.
ix. 5,
the
word constantly stands
LXX
priest and victim and place of sprinkling. Origen it is true does not shrink from this he says expressly invenies igitur esse ipsum et propitiatorium et ponlificem et hosiiam quae offertur pro populo (in Rom. iii. 8, p. 213 Lomm.). But although there is a partial analogy for this in Heb. ix. n-14, 23-x. 22, where Christ is both priest and victim, it is straining the image yet further
;
.
once
Him with the IXaar^piov. The Christian IXavrfyiov, or place of sprinkling/ in the literal sense, is rather the Cross. It is also something of a point (if we are right in giving the sense of publicity to npoideTo) that the sprinkling of the mercy-seat was just the one rite which was withdrawn from the sight of the people.
to identify
1
Another way of taking ikao-rqpiov is to supply with it 6i>pa on the analogy of acjTrjpcov, reXear^piou, xapuTTijpiov. This too is strongly
88
[III. 2f.
supported (esp. by the leading
Mey.
Lips.).
German commentators, De W. Fri. But there seems to be no clear instance of fkavrriptw

Neither
is
'
there satisfactory proof that tXaor. instrument or means of propitiation.' It appears therefore simplest to take it as adj. accus. masc. added as predicate to ov. There is evidence that the word was current as an adj. at this date (iXacrnj/noi/ lu^pa Joseph. Antt. XVI. vii. i The Mace. xvii. 22 *, and other exx.). IXa'JTTipiov Cavarov 4 objection that the adj. is not applied properly to persons counts for very little, because of the extreme rarity of the sacrifice of Here however it is just this personal element which is a person. most important. It agrees with the context that the term chosen should be rather one which generalizes the character of propitiatory sacrifice than one which exactly reproduces a particular feature of
used in
(subst.)
this sense.
in a general sense
such
sacrifice.
:
versions do not help us they give all three renderings, proSyr. is also ambiguous. pitiatorhim, propitiatorem, and propitiationem. The Coptic clearly favours the masc. rendering adopted above. It may be of some interest to compare the Jewish teaching on the subject of Atonement. 'When a man thinks, I will just go on sinning and repent He who later, no help is given him from above to make him repent. thinks, I will but just sin and the Day of Atonement will bring me forgiveness, such an one gets no forgiveness through the Day of Atonement. Offences of man against God the Day of Atonement can atone offences of man against his fellow- man the Day of Atonement cannot atone until he has and more to the same effect (Mishnah, given satisfaction to his fellow- man' get Tract. Joma, viii. 9, ap. Winter u. Wiinsche, Jiid. Lit. p. 98). a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta, Tract. Joma, v * R. Ismael He who transgresses a positive command said, Atonement is of four kinds. and repents is at once forgiven according to the Scripture, " Return, ye backHe who sliding children, I will heal your backslidings " (Jer. iii. 23 [22]). transgresses a negative command or prohibition and repents has the atonement held in suspense by his repentance, and the Day of Atonement makes it effectual, according to the Scripture, " For on this day shall atonement be made for you " (Lev. xvi. 30). If a man commits a sin for which is decreed extermination or capital punishment and repents, his repentance and the Day of Atonement together keep the atonement in suspense, and suffering brings it home, according to the Scripture, "I will visit their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes" (Ps. lxxxix. 33 [32 J). But when a man profanes the Name of God and repents, his repentance has not the power to keep atonement in suspense, and the Day of Atonement has not the power to atone, but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone one third, sufferings on the remaining days of the year atone one third, and the day of death completes the atonement according to the Scripture, " Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till you die " (Is. xxii. 14).
;
The Latin
We
This teaches that the day of death completes the atonement. Sin-offering and trespass-offering and death and the Day of Atonement all being no atonement without repentance, because it is written in Lev. xxiii. 21 (?) "Only," i.e. when he turns from his evil way does he obtain atonement, otherwise he obtains no atonement' (op. cit. p. 154).
*
Fritzsche
Some MSS. ad loc).
read here 5id
tov IXaarrjplov tov davarov avraiv (O. F.
III. 25.]
THE NEW SYSTEM

NC*D*FG
WH.
89
company
8td tt)s irCo-rews: Sici marecas 67** al., Tisch. text. The art. seems here rather more correct, pointing back as it would do to 5i mareus X. in ver. 22 it is found in B and the mass of later authorities, but there is a strong phalanx on the other side ; B is not infallible in such
(cf. xi. 6).
iv tw auTou ai/xan not with TnVreto? (though this would be a quite legitimate combination see Gif. ad loc), but with vpokBtTo
: ;
IXoa-rrjpiov
the shedding
and sprinkling of the blood
is
a principal
idea, not secondary.
The significance of the Sacrificial Bloodshedding was twofold. The blood was regarded by the Hebrew as essentially the seat of
life (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. Deut. xii. 23). Hence the death of the victim was not only a death but a setting free of life ; the application of the blood was an application of life; and the offering of the blood to God was an offering of life. In this lay more especially the virtue of the sacrifice (Westcott, Ep.Jo. p. 34 ff.
;
Heb. p. 293 f.). For the prominence which is given to the Bloodshedding in connexion with the Death of Christ see the passages collected
below.
is ccSetftv els denotes the final and remote object, npos the nearer object. The whole plan of redemption from its first conception in the Divine Mind aimed at the exhibition of God's Righteousness. And the same exhibition of righteousness was kept in view in a subordinate part of that plan, viz. the forbearance which God displayed through long ages towards sinners. For the punctuation and structure of the sentence see below. For '4vb(i&v
:
see
on
ch.
ii.
15
here too the sense
is
that of
'
proof by an appeal
to fact.'
els evbeifru tt)s 8ik<uoo-uVt]s au-rou. In what sense can the Death of Christ be said to demonstrate the righteousness of God? It demonstrates it by showing the impossibility of simply passing over sin. It does so by a great and we may say cosmical act, the nature of which we are not able wholly to understand, but which
particular
analogies to the rite of sacrifice, and to that form of the rite which had for its object propitiation. The whole Sacrificial system was symbolical ; and its wide diffusion showed that it was a mode of religious expression specially
at least presents
appropriate to that particular stage in the world's development. Was it to lapse entirely with Christianity? The writers of the
New Testament practically answer, No. The necessity for it still existed; the great fact of sin and guilt remained ; there was still the same bar to the offering of acceptable worship. To meet this fact and to remove this bar, there had been enacted an Event which possessed the significance of sacrifice. And to that event the N. T. writers appealed as satisfying ihe conditions which the righteousness
90

'
[III. 25, 26.
See the longer Note on The Death of Christ of God required. considered as a Sacrifice below. oid -n\v ir&pcaiv: not 'for the remission/ as AV., which gives a somewhat unusual (though, as we shall see' on iv. 25, not
'
impossible) sense to did, and also a wrong sense to napcaiv, but 'because of the pretermission, or passing over, of foregone sins.' For the difference between irdpea-it and afao-is see Trench, Syn. temporary suspension of putting aside mipeo-is p. noff.
:
'
punishment which may at some later date be inflicted putting away,' complete and unreserved forgiveness.
'
a<peats
It is possible that the thought of this passage may have been suggested by Wisd. xi. 23 [24] kclI irapopqs ap.apTqp.aT a avOpwnuv tis p-travoiav. There will be found in Trench, op. at. p. in, an account of a controversy which arose out of this verse in Holland at the end of the sixteenth and beginning
of the seventeenth centuries.

dp.apTTjfjidTwi'
:
act of sin, ap.apria

is
the single as contrasted with apapria, apapT^fxa the permanent principle of which such an act
the expression
iv
TT]
see below
on
'
denotes motive, as Mey., &c. (Grimm, Lex. s. v. Iv, 5 e) or (ii) it is temporal, during the forbearance of God.' Of these (i) is preferable, because the whole context deals with the scheme as it lay in the Divine Mind, and the relation of its several parts to each other. see on ii. 4, and note that 01/0*17 is related to irdpeo-is as dVoxf}
d>oxfj
:
(v either (i)
;
xapts
is
related to afaais.
irpos
clause
k&eiu': to be connected closely with the preceding the stop which separates this verse from the last should be wholly removed, and the pause before Sid ttjv ndpecnv somewhat
26.
tV
lengthened
colon.
we should
: '
represent
it
in
English by a dash or semi-
such
faith
for a display of His righteousness because of the passing-over of foregone sins in the forbearance of God with a view to the display of His righteousness at the present moment, so that He might be at once righteous (Himself) and declaring righteous him who has for his motive faith in Jesus.' Gif. seems to be successful in proving that this is the true construction (i) otherwise it is difficult to account for the change of the preposi(ii) the art. is on this view perfectly accounted tion from etV to np6i
in
:
We may represent the various pauses in the passage in some Whom God set forth as propitiatory through way as this
His own blood
for,
voruiv apapTrjpdrcov
as that just mentioned ; (iii) tS>v irpoyeyoseems to be contrasted with iv tg> vw KaipS ; (iv) the construction thus most thoroughly agrees with St. Paul's style elsewhere see Gifford's note and compare the passage quoted Eph. iii. 3-5, also Rom. iii. 7, 8, ii. 14-16. Sikcuoi/ Kal SiKcuourra. This is the key-phrase which establishes the connexion between the diKaioaCvr) eoO, and the biKawavvq k
'
the
same
display
'
III. 21-26.]
Trlvreas.
THE NEW SYSTEM

' '
9*
It is not that God is righteous andyet declares righteous the believer in Jesus,' but that He is righteous and also, we might
almost say and therefore, declares righteous the believer.' The words indicate no opposition between justice and mercy. Rather that which seems to us and which really is an act of mercy is the direct outcome of the righteousness which is a wider and more adequate name than justice. It is the essential righteousness of God which impels Him to set in motion that sequence of events in the sphere above and in the sphere below which leads to the free forgiveness of the believer and starts him on his way with a clean
'
'
page
ol
to his record. rbv in mo-Tew?

:
'him whose ruling motive

8
;
is
faith'; contrast
epideias ch.
ii.
ovoi e i^yav vopov
('
as
many
as
depend on
works of law') Gal.
iii.
10.
The Death of Christ considered as a

It is
Sacrifice.
impossible to get rid from this passage of the double idea (i) of a sacrifice In any (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory. case the phrase iv r<5 avrov alpan carries with it the idea of sacrificial bloodshedding. And whatever sense we assign to IXao-Trjpiov
;
whether we directly supply <%a, or whether we supply eVn&jua and regard it as equivalent to the mercy-seat, or whether we take it as an adj. in agreement with ov the fundamental idea which underlies the word must be that of propitiation. And further, when we ask, Who is propitiated ? the answer can only be God.' Nor is it possible to separate this propitiation from the Death of the Son. Quite apart from this passaê-iUsnot difficult to prove that these
'
two ideasôfsajdfic_e_ajidJ)r^^
not only of St. Paul but of the considering their significance it evidence briefly.
(1)
laid
at the root
of the teaching
NewTestament generally. Before may be well first to summarize this
As in the passage before us, so elsewhere, the stress which is on alpa is directly connected with the idea of sacrifice. We have it in St. Paul, in Rom. v. 9 Eph. i. 7, ii. 13 Col. i. 20 (81a rod
;
;
alparos rov araupov.

aiparos)
St.
We
in
have
atp.aTi
i
it
for St. Peter in
Pet.
Ktu
i.
2 (paunapiiv
and
(ripioa
it
oas
i.
dpvov
7,
ap.oap.ov
aanikov).
It
John we have
Jo.
out distinctly in several places in 5, v. 9, vii. 14, It is a leading idea very strongly represented in 11, xiii. 8). Ep. to Hebrews (especially in capp. ix, x, xiii). There is also the strongest reason to think that this Apostolic teaching was suggested by words of our Lord Himself, who spoke of His approaching death in terms proper to a sacrifice such as that by which the First Covenant had been inaugurated (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 25 with Malt, xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24 [perhaps not Luke xxii. 20]).
xii.
and in v. 6, 8. the Apocalypse (i.
also
For comes
;;
g2
[III. 21-26.
Many
cf. v.
and the death of the victim (Apoc.
9) the sprinkling of the blood, fiavrurrfs

cf.
bloodshedding of these passages besides the mention of v. 6, I2,xiii. 8 fyvbv {afayphw: act of sacrifice (e. g. call attention to other details in the
i
Pet.
i.
Heb. xn. 24
Death of Christ is compared not only forms of Levitical sacrifice to leading the of to one but to several v. 8, and the passages the Passover (John i. 29, xix. 36; 1 Cor. the sacrifices which speak of the 'lamb' in 1 Pet. and Apoc); to from which passage the in apparently (so Atonement of of the Day
Heb.
We
13, 19, 21). observe also that the

ix.
we
perhaps
and 25, also in Heb. ii. 17; ix. 12, 14, 15, 10; 1 Pet. ii. 24); to the ratification of the sin-offering Covenant (Matt. xxvi. 28, &c; Heb.ix. 15-22); to the if not (Rom. viii. 3; Heb. xiii. 11; I Pet. iii. 18), and possibly
start,
Rom.
To.
iii.
ii.
2,iv.
under the earlier head, 1 Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10. passages as well as in others, both (2) In a number of these and from other Apostolic writings, Paul St. of from the Epistles the forgiveness of the Death of Christ is directly connected with apparently; 1 Cor. xv. 3 sins (e.g. Matt. xxvi. 28; Acts v. 30 f., Eph. i. 7 Col. i. 14 and 20 Tit. 11. 14; Heb. 1. 3, 2 Cor. v. 21 1 Jo. ii. 2,iv. 10; Apoc.i. 5). ix. 28, x. 12 al.; iPet. ii. 24, iii. 18; The author of Ep. to Hebrews generalizes from the ritual system is necessary of the Old Covenant that sacrificial bloodshedding worshipper in a every case, or nearly in every case, to place the (Heb. ix. 22 condition of fitness to approach the Divine Presence
; ;
;
kcu
o-ycSoj/
iv
ai/xaTi
iravra
icaBaplfarm
kcltIi
tov
vdfiov,
kgi
gttptf
The use aiVai-flcxt/o-iM ol yiWrtu &<pe<ns). denoting < propitiation ' is all to the same
iii.
;
of the different words

effect (IXao-rrjpiov
Rom.
ika<rKr6ai Heb. ii. 17). 25 IXaanos 1 Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10 and This strong convergence of Apostolic writings of different Sacrifice as applied varied character seems to show that the idea of as a merely passing to the Death of Christ cannot be put aside warp of metaphor, but is interwoven with the very weft and trust our may we (if start its taking thinking, primitive Christian What it all amounts to traditions) from words of Christ Himself. like the religion of the is that the religion of the New Testament, conceptions, not central of its one as sacrifice idea of the Old, has concenhowever scattered over an elaborate ceremonial system but trated in a single many-sided and far-reaching act. light over the Old It will be seen that this throws back a them but over the over only not indeed and Testament sacrifices something ethnic religion and shows that they were
;
sacrifices of
real more than a system of meaningless butchery, that they had a principles of deep embodied they that and significance, spiritual
age to which they religion in forms suited to the apprehension of the and capable of gradual refinement and purification.
were given
III. 21-26.]
THE NEW SYSTEM
93
In this connexion it may be worth while to quote a striking passage from a writer of great, if intermittent, insight, who approaches the subject from a thoroughly detached and independent standpoint. In his last series of Slade lectures delivered in Oxford The ( Art of England, 1884, p. 14 f.), Mr. Ruskin wrote as follows: 1 None of you, who have the least acquaintance with the general tenor of my own teaching, will suspect me of any bias towards the doctrine of vicarious Sacrifice, as it is taught by the modern Evangelical Preacher. But the great mystery of the idea of Sacrifice itself, which has been manifested as one united and
solemn
instinct
by
all
thoughtful and affectionate races, since the
world became peopled, is founded on the secret truth of benevolent energy which all men who have tried to gain it have learned that you cannot save men from death but by facing it for them, nor from sin but by resisting it for them . Some day or other probably now very soon -too probably by heavy afflictions of the State, we shall be taught that all the true good and glory even of this world not to speak of any that is to come, must be bought still, as it always has been, with our toil, and with our
"
tears/
After all the writer of this and the Evangelical Preacher whom he repudiates are not so very far apart. It may be hoped that the Preacher too may be willing to purify his own conception and to strip it of some quite unbiblical accretions, and he will then find that the central verity for which he contends is not inadequately stated in the impressive words just quoted. The idea of Vicarious Suffering is not the whole and not perhaps the culminating point in the conception of Sacrifice, for Dr. Westcott seems to have sufficiently shown that the centre of the symbolism of Sacrifice lies not in the death of the victim but in the offering of its life. This idea of Vicarious Suffering, which is
probability the great difficulty and stumblingof the acceptance of Bible teaching on this head, was revealed once and for all time in Isaiah liii. No one who reads that chapter with attention can fail to see the profound truth which lies behind it a truth which seems to gather up in one all
nevertheless in
all
block in the
way
most pathetic in the world's history, but which when it has done so turns upon it the light of truly prophetic and divine inspiration, gently lifts the veil from the accumulated mass of pain and sorrow, and shows beneath its unspeakable value in the working out of human redemption and regeneration and the sublime consolations by which for those who can enter into them it is accompanied. I said that this chapter gathers up in one all that is most pathetic in the world's history. It gathers it up as it were in a single typical Figure. We look at the lineaments of that Figure, and then we transfer our gaze and we recognize them all translated
that
is
94
from idea into
Calvary.
to the

reality,
[ill. 27-31.
and embodied
in marvellous perfection
upon
Following the example of St. Paul and St. John and the Epistle Hebrews we speak of something in this great Sacrifice, which we call 'Propitiation.' We believe that the Holy Spirit spoke through these writers, and that it was His Will that we should use But it is a word which we must leave it to Him to this word. We drop our plummet into the depth, but the line interpret. The attached to it is too short, and it does not -touch the bottom. Sufficient awful processes of the Divine Mind we cannot fathom. for us to know that through the virtue of the One Sacrifice our sacrifices are accepted, that the barrier which Sin places between us and God is removed, and that there is a sprinkling which makes us free to approach the throne of grace. All This, it may still be objected, is but a fiction of mercy.' mercy, all forgiveness, is of the nature of fiction. It consists in And if we 'being evil' treating men better than they deserve. exercise the property of mercy towards each other, and exercise it not rarely out of consideration for the merit of someone else than the offender, shall not our Heavenly Father do the same ?
'
'
'
CONSEQUENCES OF THE
III. 27-31.
NEW
SYSTEM.
Hence it follows (i) that no claim can be ground of human merit, for there is no merit in Faith (vv. 27, 28) (2) that Jew and Gentile are on the same footing, for there is but one God, and Faith is the only
made on
the
means of acceptance
zvith
An
objector
its
may
say that
Him (vv. 29, 30). Law is thus abrogated.
On
the
contrary
deeper principles are fulfilled, as the history of
Abraham
27
will
show
(ver. 31).
I
is
There are two consequences which
draw, and one that an

that such a
objector
may
draw, from
this.
The
first
method of
obtaining righteousness leaves no
room
for
human
claims or merit.
Any such
is
thing
is
once for
all
shut out.
For the Christian system

for
not one of works
in
which there might have been room

28
merit
but one of
is
that Faith
the
Thus (ovv, but see Cril. Note) we believe condition on which a man is pronounced righteous,
Faith.
ver. 22] is that
and not a round of acts done in obedience to law. 29 The second consequence [already hinted at in
III. 27, 28.]
CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW SYSTEM

same
in
30
95
Jew and
Gentile are on the

the
footing.
If
they are not, then
God must be God of He is not God of the
Jews
some
exclusive sense in which

?
Gentiles.
is
Is that so
Not
if I
am
right
in affirming that there
but one God,
Who
requires but one
condition Faith, on which

alike the circumcised
He
is
ready to treat as 'righteous'
whom
the
Faith
is
and the uncircumcised the circumcised with the moving cause, and the uncircumcised with whom
is
same Faith
both moving cause and sole condition of their
acceptance.
31
The
objector asks
?
Does not such a system throw over Law

it.
altogether
Far from
teuch) lays
down
principles (Faith
Law' itself (speaking through the Pentaand Promise) which find their
true fulfilment in Christianity.
27.
aorist
;
ei<\tCT0T)
'
it is
an instance of the * summarizing ' force of the shut out once for all/ by one decisive act.'
: '
Paul has his eye rather upon the decisiveness of the act than upon its continued result In English it is more natural to us to express decisiveness by laying stress upon the result' is shut out.'
St.
8td iroiou yofxou vdfiov here may be paraphrased system/ Law being the typical expression to the ancient mind of a constituted order of things.' Under what kind of system is this result obtained ? Under a system the essence of which is Faith.
:
'
'
'
'
Similar metaphorical uses of vdfios would be ch.
vii.
21, 23
viii. 2
on which see the Notes.
x. 31,
28. ouv recapitulates and summarizes what has gone before. result of the whole matter stated briefly is that God declares righteous, &c. But it must be confessed that yap gives the better sense. We do not want a summary statement in the middle of an argument which is otherwise coherent. The alternative reading, 'KoytCofj.fda yap, helps that coherence. [The Jew's] boasting is excluded, because justification turns on nothing which is the peculiar possession of the Jew but on Faith. And so Gentile and Jew are on the same footing, as we might expect they would be, seeing that they have the same God.
The
olv
BCD'KLP
;
&c.
Syrr. (Pesh.-Harcl.)
RV. WH. marg.\ yap N A D* E F G al. plur.\ Latt. (Vet.-Vulg.) Boh. Arm. Orig.-lat. Ambr^t. Aug. Tisch. WH. text RV. marg. The evidence
;
Chrys. Theodrt.
al.
Weiss
for yap is largely Western, but it is combined with an element vN A, Boh.) which in this instance is probably not Western so that the reading would be carried back beyond the point of divergence of two most ancient lines of text. On the other hand B admits in this Epistle some comparatively late readings (cf. xi. 6) and the authorities associated with it are inferior (B C in Epp. is not so strong a combination as BC in Gospp.). We prefer the
;
reading yap.
96
WcuoGo-eai
avGpwiroi'
: :

we must hold
'
[III. 28-31.
fast to
' ;
the rendering 'is declared
righteous,' not
is
made righteous
cf.
on
i.
i 7.
any human being.
29. ii presents, but only to dismiss, an alternative hypothesis on the assumption of which the Jew might still have had something to In rejecting this, St. Paul once more emphatically boast of. There is but one law (Faith), and there asserts his main position.
is
this abstract
Though faith is spoken of in but one Judge to administer it. way it is of course Christian faith, faith in Christ.
jjiovov: fxovojv
al. plur.,
WH.
tnarg.
perhaps assimilated to
#
'lovSaicov
.
. . .
Kal I6vu)v.
30. eiTTp : decisively attested in place of eireiirep. The old distinction drawn between et -nep and et ye was that et -nep is used of a condition which assumed without implying whether it is rightly or wrongly assumed, et ye
is
of a condition which carries with it the assertion of its own reality (Hermann It is doubtful on Viger, p. 831 ; Baumlein, Griech. Partikeln, p. 64). whether this distinction holds in Classical Greek; it can hardly hold for the condition, on N.T. But in any case both et -nep and ei ye lay some stress
'
Particle as a condition: cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, %% 353, 354 Tne nep is evidently a shorter form of the Preposition -nepi, which in its adverbial use has the meaning beyond, exceedingly. Accordingly nep is intensive, denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree, in word is used like trip to emphasize a particular . 7* its fullest sense, &c. fact or phrase. It does not however intensify the meaning, or insist on the Conditional In a ... fact. or as true, but only calls attention to the word hence Protasis (with os. ore, el, &c), ye emphasizes the condition as such: On the other ^ hand et nep means et ye if only, always supposing that. supposing ever so much, hence if really (Lat. si quidem)!
.
ck TTurrews ...
8101 ty]s
morews
e\
denotes
e*
'
source,' 8id
attend-
ant circumstances.'
The Jew
is justified
vUrtt*s 8ta
jrr/wrojw/r
the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is The Gentile is justified e\ mo-Teas nal 81a rfs mo-reus circumcision. no special channel, no special conditions are marked out ; faith is the one thing needful, it is itself both law and impulse.' 1 men' the faith just the same faith, 8ta Tfjs mcrrews
:
'
'
tioned.'
31. KaTapYounee
see
as
v6pov
i(TTWfjii>.
If,
on ver. 3 above. we must needs
think, ch. iv contains the
ultiproof of the proposition laid down in this verse, vopov must the Pentateuch not mately and virtually the Pentateuch. But it as an isolated Book but as the most conspicuous and representative expression of that great system of Law which prevailed everywhere
until the
coming of
Christ.
at the
The Jew looked

to
O. T., and he saw there Law, Obedience
St. Paul or Works, Circumcision, Descent from Abraham. not Law but said, Look again and look deeper, and you will see Promise, not works but Faith of which Circumcision is only the descent All seal, not literal descent from Abraham but spiritual
Law
these things are realized in Christianity.
IV. 1-8.]
THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM

Law
(all
97
kind of
And
then further, whereas
Law and any
Law) was only an
elaborate machinery for producing right action, there too Christianity stepped in and accomplished, as if with the stroke of a wand, all that the Law strove to do without success (Rom. xiii. 10 n-Xr/po/xa ovv vofiov fj dyairt] compared with Gal. v. 6
tiIcftis bi
ayan-qs evcpyovfievi]}.
THE FAITH OP ABRAHAM.

IV. 1-8.
the Christian,
Take the crucial case of Abraham.
He,
like
works
as something earned, but by the free gift of God in

And David
The happiness of which he speaks
is due,
was
declared righteous, not on account of his

describes a similar state
response to his faith.
of things.
not
to
sinlessness but to
1
God 's free forgiveness of sins.

of the
history of
Objector.
You speak
2
Abraham.
race,
Surely
he, the ancestor
by natural descent of our Jewish

If
might plead
privilege
and
merit.
we Jews
are right in supposing that
God
of
accepted him as righteous for his works

his
he has something
at the
those
illustrious acts
to boast of.
St. Paul.
3
Perhaps he has before men, but not before God.
For look
Gen.
as
ture,
xv. 6.
Word of God, that well-known passage of ScripWhat do we find there ? Nothing about works,
it (i. e.
but
to
Abraham
if it
put faith in God,' and
his faith)
was credited
him
4
were righteousness.
This proves that there was no question of works.

claims his pay as a debt due to him;
6
it
For a worknot an act of
man
is
favour.
faith in
But to one who
is
not concerned with works but puts
(in
pronounces righteous not the actually righteous would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly to which there
God Who
such an one his

6
faith is credited for righteousness.
Just as again David in Ps. xxxii describes

'
how God
*
'pro-
nounces happy
(in the highest sense) those to

:
whom
7
he attributes
they,'
righteousness without any reference to works

savs>
Happy
he
have been guilty of no breaches of law/ but 'whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are 8 A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will veiled from sight.
'
no
w ho
not enter in His book.'
98
[IV.
1.
The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but Iff. the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure, due as it would seem to the crossing of other lines Of thought with The proposition which the Apostle sets himthe main lines. self to prove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch, is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches.
exert
this is affected by two thoughts, which still influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to the advantage of the Jew, (ii) the pride or boasting which was a characteristic feature in the character of the Jew but which excluded/ Hitherto these two points have St. Paul held to be
But the way of putting
some
'
been considered in the broadest and most general manner, but St. Paul now narrows them down to the particular and crucial case The case of Abraham was the centre and strongof Abraham. If therefore it could be shown hold of the whole Jewish position.
that this case
made
for the Christian conclusion
and not
for the
Jewish, the latter broke
This is what St. Paul now undertakes to prove but at the outset he glances at the two main issues in ch. iii which become side issues in side issues
altogether.
down
;
which the Jewish system generated.
advantage,' or special privilege, and the pride For the sake of clearness we He is of course put these thoughts into the mouth of the objector. still a supposed objector; St. Paul is really arguing with himself;
ch. iv
'
the claim of
but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met with in actual controversy (see on iii. 1 ff.). There is an important 1. The first question is one of reading. variant turning upon the position or presence of eupTjiceVai. (1) L P, &c, Theodrt. and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after tov What shall we It is then taken with koto, adpica Trpondropa rjficop. say that A. has gained by his natural powers unaided by the grace So Bp. Bull after Theodoret. [Euthym.-Zig. however, of God ? even with this reading, takes koto, u-dpua with narepa vnfp&aTou yap
,
'
'
to
Kara
<rdpica].
question is without it, some curhim any gain or advantage at all. (2) sives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place In that Case Kara adpKa goes not with evprjKevai but after ipovpev. with top npoitdTopa rjp.a>v which it simply defines, ' our natural progenitor.' (3) But a small group, B, 47*, and apparently Chrysostom from the tenor of his comment, though the printed editions give it Then the idea of 'gain' in his text, omit evpyicevai altogether. drops out and we translate simply What shall we say as to Abraham our forefather? ' &c. The opponents of B will say that
But this is inconsistent with the context. The not, what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or but whether the new system professed by St. Paul left
NACDEFG,
'
the sense thus given
is
suspiciously easy
it
is
certainly
more
'
IV.
1,
2]
99
The point is Abraham got by his righteousness, but how he got his righteousness by the method of works or by that of faith. Does
not what
the nature of A.'s righteousness agree better with the Jewish system, or with St. Paul's? The idea of 'gain' was naturally
satisfactory than that of either of the other readings.
imported from ch. iii. i, 9. There is no reason why a right reading should not be preserved in a small group, and the fluctuating position of a word often points to doubtful genuineness. We therefore regard the omission of cvprjice'vai as probable with WH. text Tr. RV. marg. For the construction comp. John i. 15 ovtos
rjv
ov enrov. 1-5.
One
irpoTTCLTopa
(K*
or two small questions of form may be noticed. In ver. 6tc al.) is decisively attested for -naripa, which
ABC*
is
found in the later MSS. and commentators. In ver. .1 the acute and sleepless critic Origen thinks that St. Paul wrote 'A0p6p (with Heb. of Gen. xv cf. Gen. xvii. 5), but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the text of Scripture substituted 'APpaap. It is more probable that St. Paul had before his mind the established and significant name throughout he quotes Gen. xvii. 5 in ver. 17. In ver. 5 a small group (N D* F G) have aat^v, on which form see WH. Introd. App. p. 157 f. Win Gr. ed. 8, ix. 8 Tisch. on Heb. vi. 19. In this instance the attestation may be wholly Western, but not in others.
;
:
tjjxwp. This description of Abraham as our foreone of the arguments used by those who would make the majority of the Roman Church consist of Jews. St. Paul is not very careful to distinguish between himself and his readers in such a matter. For instance in writing to the Corinthians, who were undoubtedly for the most part Gentiles, he speaks of our fathers as being under the cloud and passing through the sea (1 Cor. x. 1). There is the less reason why he should discriminate here as he is just about to maintain that Abraham is the father of all believers, Jew and Gentile alike, though it is true that he would have added
top irpoirdTopa
'
'
father
is
'
not after the flesh but after the spirit.' Gif. notes the further point, that the question is put as proceeding from a Jew: along with Orig. Chrys. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. Lips, he connects t6v irponar. fpx. with Kara (rap. It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort {Rom. and Eph. p. 23 f.) though relegating evprjKfvui to the margin, Still does not take Kara adpKa with tou irpoTTuropa r)pa>v. 2. Kau'xTjjia Not materies gloriandi as Meyer, but rather gloriatio, as Bengel, who however might have added facta (T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. v. 6). The termination -pa denotes not so much the thing done as the completed, determinate, act ; for other examples see esp. Evans ut sup. It would not be wrong to translate here 'has a ground of boasting,' but the idea of ground is contained in ex, or rather in the context. ou irpos top Qeov. It seems best to explain the introduction of this clause by some such ellipse as that which is supplied in the
: ' ' 1
'
&W

IOO
'

-
[IV.
2, 3.
St. Paul There should be a colon after Kavxw a paraphrase. does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a Kavxw a before man he might have it and the Jews were not absolutely wrong in the veneration with which they regarded his memory, There is but it was another thing to have a Kavxwa before God. a stress upon rbv eeov which is taken up by r<3 Gew in the quotation. A. could not boast before God. He might have done so if he could have taken his stand on works ; but works did not
'
On the In God he put faith/ enter into the question at all. history and application of the text Gen. xv. 6, see below. was set down,' here ' on 3. eKoyiaQt] : metaphor from accounts, with legal sense of imputation Frequently in the credit side.'
'
LXX
Lev.
or non-imputation of
Xoyi(r6r](TTai
guilt, e.g.
vii.
8 iav de
(fiaykv <t>dyu
(fcciwy
ov
avT<o f
Xvii.
XoytaBrjcreTai. t<5
'
avdpa>7T(o
alpa,
'
iii.
notion arises from that of the book of remembrance 16) in which men's good or evil deeds, the wrongs, and sufferings of the saints, are entered (Ps.lvi. 8 ; Is. lxv. 6). Oriental monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the merit or demerit of their subjects (Esth. vi. i if.), and in like
The
&C. (Mai.
manner on
1
books the judgement day Jehovah would have the brought out before Him (Dan. vii. io; Rev. xx. 12; comp. also the books of the living/ the heavenly tablets/ a common expression in the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, and Test. XII Patr., on which and in more modern times, see Charles on Enoch xlvii. 3 wherein the eyes of God Cowper's sonnet There is a book . .
'
; '
not rarely look'). The idea of imputation in this sense was familiar to the Jews They had also the idea of the (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 233). transference of merit and demerit from one person to another John ix. 2). That however is not {ibid. p. 280 ff. ; Ezek. xviii. 2 in question here ; the point is that one quality faith is set down, or credited, to the individual (here to Abraham) in place of another
;
quality
righteousness.
:
was reckoned as equivalent to, as e\oYia0T) ciutw els 8iKaiooruVT)i' The construction is standing in the place of, ' righteousness.'
common
Reg. (Sam.) i. 13; Job xli. 23 (24); Is. 15; Lam. iv. 2; Hos. viii. 12. The exact phrase eXoyiaOrj ovtm ch StKaioo". recurs in Ps. cv [cvi]. 31 o f the On the grammar cf. Win. xxix. 3 a. (p. 229, zeal of Phinehas. ed. Moulton). On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. Weber, Alisyn. Paldst. Abraham was the only righteous man of his Theologie, p. 255 ff. generation; therefore he was chosen to be ancestor of the holy He kept all the precepts of the Law which he knew People. beforehand by a kind of intuition. He was the first of seven righteous men whose merit brought back the Shekinah which had
in
cf. 1
LXX:
xxxii.
xxix. 17
(=
IV. 3-6.]
IOI
retired into the seventh heaven, so that in the days of Moses it could take up its abode in the Tabernacle {ibid. p. 183). According
Abraham, who began to age of three (ibid. p. 118) was perfected (1) by his circumcision, (2) by his anticipatory fulfilment of the Law. But the Jews also (on the strength of Gen. xv. 6) attached a special importance to Abraham's faith, as constituting merit (see Mechilia on Ex. xiv. 31, quoted by Delitzsch ad loc. and by Lightfoot in the
to the
Jews the
original righteousness of
serve
God
at the
extract given below).

life. The workman earns Therefore when God bestows the gift of righteousness, of His own bounty and not as a right, that is proof that the gift must be called forth by something other than works, viz. by faith.
4. 5. his pay,
An
illustration
from
common
and can claim
it
as a right.
pronounces righteous ' or a departure from St. Paul's more usual practice to make the object of faith God the Father rather than God the Son. But even here the Christian scheme is in view, and faith in God is faith in Him as the alternative Author of that
5.
:
em
rbv SiicaioGrra
i.
'
on
Him who
acquits/
e.
God.
It is rather
scheme.
See on
i.
8, 17,
above.
We must not be misled by the comment of Euthym.-Zig. rovriffri marfvovrt

iâ^vqs ov puvov ekevKokaaews, akka Hal Sinaiov iroiTJaai (comp. the same writer on ver. 25 The evidence is too decisive (p. 30 f. sup.) that SiKaiovv = not ' to make righteous ' but ' to declare righteous as a judge.' It might however be inferred from lai<pvqs that dUaiov Troifjaai was to be taken somewhat loosely in the sense of ' treat as righteous.' The Greek theologians had not a clear conception of the doctrine of Justification.
Otpuicrai
'iva
oti Svvarat 6 efo tov kv aaffieiq fiefiiwKOTa, rovrov
SiKoiovs rjpas noirjay)
not meant as a description of Abraham, from whose now generalizing and applying the conclusion to his own time. The strong word darepij is probably suggested by the quotation which is just coming from Ps. xxxii. i.
rbv do-epTJ
St.
:
case
Paul
is
6. Aa{3i8 (Aaui'8).
Both Heb. and
LXX
ascribe Ps. xxxii to
In two places in the N. T., Acts iv. 25, 26 (= Ps. ii. 1, 2), Heb. iv. 7 (= Ps. xcv. 7) Psalms are quoted as David's which have no title in the Hebrew (though Ps. xcv [xciv] bears the name ot David in the LXX), showing that by this date the whole Psalter was known by his name. Ps. xxxii was one of those which Ewald thought might really be David's see Driver, Introduction, p. 357. TOk jutaKapiajAoV not blessedness,' which would be paicapioTrjs but a pronouncing blessed to call a person paKaplfciv nva
David.
:
'
'
'
'
blessed Or
Zig.
happy
(tovs t yap deovs paKapiôpev
<a\
twv dv8pa>v
tovs OeioTarovs ptaKapiCop-ev Arist.
Eth. Nic.
I. xii.
comp. Euthym.'
eirirao-is 8e ko.1 KopvCpr) Ttpijs Kal 86tjs 6
pnKapiupos,
felicitation is
').
the strongest
and highest form of honour and
praise
St.
Paul
uses the word again Gal. iv. 15. Who is it man blessed ? God. The Psalm describes
who thus pronounces a how He does so.
IOS
7, 8.
EPISTLE TO
Maicdpioi, k.t.X.
THE ROMANS
[IV.
7, 8.
in
Heb. and
LXX.
It is
This quotation of Ps. xxxii. i, 2 is the same introduced by St. Paul as confirming his
interpretation of Gen. xv. 6.

pxicapioi is, as we have seen, the highest term which a Greek could use to describe a state of felicity. In the quotation just given
to the
from Aristotle it is applied to the gods among men.

c
state
of the gods and those nearest
<S ot. pfj. So N C F L &c. : oZ ov rf oS is (?) G, 67**. also the reading of R<*). (< The authorities for oS are superior as they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission N B + D) and it is on the whole more probable that w has been assimilated to the construction of \oyifaeai in vv. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that ov has been assimilated to the preceding Sn> or to the O.T. or that it has been affected by the following ov : y naturally established itself as the more euphonious reading.
A Dc LXX
KBDE
06 ^t) XoytoTfjTai. There is a natural tendency in a declining language to the use of more emphatic forms ; but here a real emphasis appears to be intended, Whose sin the Lord will in no wise reckon': see Ell. on 1 Thess. iv. 15 [p. 154], and Win. lvi.
3 P-
634
f-
The History of Abraham as treated by and by St. James.

It is at first sight a remarkable thing that writers should use the same leading example
St.
Paul
two New Testament and should quote the
same leading text as it would seem to directly opposite effect. Both St. Paul and St. James treat at some length of the history of Abraham; they both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, as the salient characterization of that history ; and they draw from it the conclusion St. Paul that a man is accounted righteous wim-tt x ^s epyw (Rom. iii. 28 ; cf. iv. 1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is accounted righteous eg epycov ml ovk ck nio-Teajs fiouov (Jas. ii. 24). We notice at once that St. Paul keeps more strictly to his text. Gen. xv. 6 speaks only of faith. St. James supports his contention of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident in Abraham's
life,
the offering of Isaac (Jas.
ii.
21).
St.
Paul also appeals to
Abraham's belief in the promise that he should have a numerous progeny (Rom. iv. 18), and in the more express prediction of the birth of Isaac (Rom. iv. 19-21). The difference is that St. Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own
particular incidents,
experience confirms the unqualified affirmation of the and he is therefore able to take it as one of the ; foundations of his system. St. James, occupying a less exceptional
spiritual
Book
of Genesis
IV. 1-8.]
103
standpoint, and taking words in the average sense put upon them, has recourse to the context of Abraham's life, and so harmonizes the text with the requirements of his own moral sense.
James and St. Paul mean different things by was natural they impose these different meanings on the Book of Genesis, and adapt the .rst of their conclusions to them. When St. James heard speak of faith,' he understood by it what the letter of the Book of Genesis allowed him to understand by it, a certain belief. It is what a Jew would consider the fundamental belief, belief in God, belief that God was One (Jas. ii. 19). Christianity is with him so much a supplement to the Jews' ordinary creed that it does not seem to be specially present to his mind when he is speaking of Abraham. Of course he too believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory (Jas. ii. 1). He takes that belief for granted it is the substratum or basement of life on which are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality (rrpoaaTro'Xrjîa.). If he were questioned about it, he would put it on the same footing as his belief in God. But St. James was a thoroughly honest, and, as we should say, a good man and this
fact is that St.
'
The
faith/
and
as
'
'
'
'
is given of its sincerity ? Belief must be followed up by action, by a line of conduct conformable to it. St. James would have echoed Matthew Arnold's proposition that Conduct is three-fourths of
did not satisfy his moral sense.
What
is
belief unless
proof
'
life.'
He
demands that his readers them in practice.
therefore
demands
and
from
his point of view rightly
shall authenticate their beliefs
by putting
St. Paul's is a very different temperament, and he speaks from a very different experience. With him too Christianity is something
God but the process by which it was than a convulsion of his whole nature. It is like the stream of molten lava pouring down the volcano's side. Christianity is with him a tremendous over-mastering force. The crisis came at the moment when he confessed his faith in Christ there was no other crisis worth the name after that. Ask such an one whether his faith is not to be proved by action, and the question will seem to him trivial and superfluous. He will almost suspect the questioner of attempting to bring back under a new name the old Jewish notion of religion as a round of legal observance. Of course action will correspond with faith. The believer in Christ, who has put on Christ, who has died with Christ and risen again with him, must needs to the very utmost of his power endeavour to live as Christ would have him live. St. Paul is going on presently to say this (Rom. vi. 1, 12, 15), as his opponents compel him to say it. But to himself it appears a truism, which is hardly worth definitely enunciating. To say that a man is a Christian should be enough.
added to an earlier added was nothing
belief in
;
less
104
[IV. 1-8.
If we thus understand the real relation of the two Apostles, it will be easier to discuss their literary relation. Are we to suppose that Did St. Paul either was writing with direct reference to the other ? mean to controvert St. James, or did St. James mean to controvert Neither hypothesis seems probable. If St. Paul had St. Paul? had before him the Epistle of St. James, when once he looked beneath the language to the ideas signified by the language, he would have found nothing to which he could seriously object. He would have been aware that it was not his own way of putting things; and he might have thought that such teaching was not
intended for men at the highest level of spiritual attainment ; but On the other hand, if St. James had that would have been all. seen the Epistle to the Romans and wished to answer it, what he Whatever value has written would have been totally inadequate. his criticism might have had for those who spoke of ' faith ' as a mere matter of formal assent, it had no relevance to a faith such as that conceived by St. Paul. Besides, St. Paul had too effectually guarded himself against the moral hypocrisy which he was con-
demning. It would thus appear that when it is examined the real meetingground between the two Apostles shrinks into a comparatively narrow compass. It does not amount to more than the fact that both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, and both treat it with reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith. Now Bp. Lightfoot has shown {Galatians, p. 157 ff., ed. 2) that Gen. xv. 6 was a standing .thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools. 'Was not It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness' (1 Mace. ii. 52)? It is repeatedly quoted and commented upon by Philo (no less than ten times, Lft.). The whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate
The Talmudic treatise Mechilta expounds the verse at ' length Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake and the world was. For as a reward for Israel's having believed in the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in them ... In like manner thou
allegory.
:
findest that
to
Abraham our father inherited this world and the world come solely by the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the Lord for it is said, " and he believed in the Lord, and He counted
;
it
to
him
for righteousness
"
'
(quoted by Lft. ut sup. p.
60).
Taking
these examples with the lengthened discussions in

St.
St.
Paul and
James,
it is
clear that attention

:
this particular text
and
it
was being very widely drawn to was indeed inevitable that it should be
when we consider the place which Abraham held in the Jewish system and the minute study which was being given to every part of the Pentateuch. It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason
so
IV. 1-8.]
that the
105
two New Testament writers are discussing independently of each other a current problem, and that there is no ground for supposing a controversial relation between them. We are not sure It is true that the that we are prepared to go quite so far as this. bearing of Gen. xv. 6 was a subject of standing debate among the Jews ; but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of The controversy connected with this was Faith and Works. it had its origin in the special essentially a Christian controversy and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. It seems to us therefore that the passages in the two Epistles have a real relation to that controversy, and so at least indirectly to each other. We It does not follow that the relation was a literary relation. have seen that there are strong reasons against this *. We do not think that either St. Paul had seen the Epistle of St. James, or The view which appears to us St. James the Epistle of St. Paul. the most probable is that the argument of St. James is directed not against the writings of St. Paul, or against him in person, but against hearsay reports of his teaching, and against the perverted construction which might be (and perhaps to some slight extent As St. James sate in his place in the actually was) put upon it. Church at Jerusalem, as yet the true centre and metropolis of the Christian world; as Christian pilgrims of Jewish birth were constantly coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts, especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and Greece, the scene of St. Paul's labours and as there was always at his elbow the little coterie of St. Paul's fanatical enemies, it would be impossible but that versions, scarcely ever adequate (for how few of St. Paul's hearers had really understood him 1) and often more or less seriously distorted, of his brother Apostle's teaching, should
;
reach him.
do.
He did what a wise and considerate leader would He names no names, and attacks no man's person. He does
not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true At the same time he states in plain terms his own view reports. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him of the matter. to be needed, and which the very language of St. Paul, in places And like Rom. vi. 1 ff., 15 ff., shows to have been really needed. thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths, suited to different types of mind and different circumstances, are We have at once the deeper principle of stated side by side.
action, which is also
though not such as
all
more powerful in proportion as it is deeper, can grasp and appropriate, and the plainer
* Besides what is said above, see Introduction 8. It is a satisfaction to view here taken is substantially that of Dr. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 148, 'it seems more natural to suppose that a misuse or misunderstanding of St. Paul's teaching on the part of others gave rise to St- James's carefully guarded language.'
find that the
106
[IV. 9-12.
practical teaching pitched

to larger
numbers, which
is
on a more every-day level and appealing the check and safeguard against possible
misconstruction.
FAITH ANT> CIRCUMCISION".

The declaration made to Abraham did not For it was made before he was circumcised ; and Circumcision only came in after the fact, to ratify a verdict already given. The reason being that Abraham might have for his spiritual descendants the unIV.
9-12.
depend upon Circumcision.
circumcised as well as the circumcised.

9
Here
we
have
certain
persons
pronounced
Certainly
his
'
happy.'
Is
this
then to be confined to the circumcised Jew, or

?
may
we
it
also
apply to the uncircumcised Gentile

is
it
may.
the
For there
say was
historical
no mention of circumcision.
to
It is
faith that
10
credited
Abraham
it.
as
righteousness.
And
circumstances of the case prove that Circumcision had nothing

to
do with
was made
11
to
him
Was Abraham circumcised when No he was at the time ?

:
the declaration
uncircumcised.
like
And
circumcision was given
to
him
afterwards,
seal
affixed to
a document, to authenticate a state of things already
existing, viz. the righteousness
based on
faith
which was
his before
he was circumcised.
spiritual father alike
The
reason being that he might be the

:
of two divergent classes

12
;
at
once of believing
his, that
Gentiles,
who though uncircumcised have
a faith like
they
too might be credited with righteousness
and
at the
same time
only,
that
of believing Jews
but whose
faith
files
who do not depend on their circumcision march duly in the steps of Abraham's faith
his before his circumcision.
which was
10. St. Paul appeals to the historic fact that the Divine recognition of Abraham's faith came in order of time before his the one recorded in Gen. xv. 6, the other in circumcision
:
Therefore although it might be (and was) Gen. xviii. io ff. confirmed by circumcision, it could not be due to it or conditioned
by
be
it.
11.
cnjfieToi' irepiTOfiTJs.
ev
arifieia
diadrjKrjs
Circumcision at its institution (Gen. xvii. n), between God
is
said to
and the
IV.
11.]
107
circumcised. The gen. 7r(piToprjs is a genitive of apposition or identity, a sign consisting in circumcision/ 'which was circumcision.' Some authorities (A C* al.) read nepiTopfy. The prayer pronounced at the circumcising of o-<f>payi8a. Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved a child runs thus from the womb, and put His ordinance upon His flesh, and sealed His offspring with the sign of a holy covenant.' Comp. Targum Cant. iii. 8 The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was sealed in the flesh of Abraham'; Shemoth B. 19 'Ye shall not eat of the passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh.' Many other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad loc. (cf. also
'
'
'
Delitzsch).
At a very early date the same term acppayU was transferred from
the
rite
of circumcision to Christian baptism.
See the passages
by Lightfoot on 2 Clem. vii. 6 {Clem. Rom. ii. 226), also Gebhardt and Harnack ad loc, and Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, Dr. Hatch connects the use of the term with the p. 295. mysteries and some forms of foreign cult and it may have coalesced with language borrowed from these but in its origin it appears to be Jewish. A similar view is taken by Anrich, Das
collected
'
'
antike
Mysterienwesen
in
seinem
ff.,
Einfluss
auf das Christentum
(Gottingen, 1894), p. 120 a(ppayis is fully discussed.
where the Christian use of the word
Barnabas (ix. 6) seems to refer to, and refute, the Jewish doctrine which he puts in the mouth of an objector dAA' eptts' Kal fx-qv TrfpiTtT/xrjTat 6 \ads (Is acppayida. aWa iras ~2,vpos Kal "Apaxp Kal ttclvtcs 01 Upeis twv tldwXajv.
:
avrwv tlcriv aWa Kal 01 Alyvirrtoi kv nepiTopr) daiv. The fact that so many heathen nations were circumcised proved that circumcision could not be the seal of a special covenant.
apa ovv kclkuvoi Ik
ttjs SiaOrjKrjs
;
els t6
efrai,
k.t.X.
Even
St.
circumcision, the strongest
mark of
Jewish separation, in
Paul's view looked
beyond
its
immediate
exclusiveness to an ultimate inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews. It was nothing more than a ratification of Abraham's faith. Faith was the real motive power ; and as applied to the present condition of things, Abraham's faith in the promise had its counterpart in the
Christian's faith in the fulfilment of the promise (i.e. in Christ).
a new division was made. The true descendants of Abrawere not so much those who imitated his circumcision (i. e. all Jews whether believing or not), but those who imitated his els to denotes faith (i. e. believing Jews and believing Gentiles), that all this was contemplated in the Divine purpose. Delitzsch (ad loc.) quotes one iraTcpa -ndvTOiv rStv moreuoi'Twi'. of the prayers for the Day of Atonement in which Abraham is called the first of my faithful ones.' He also adduces a passage, Jerus. Gemara on Biccurim, i. 1, in which it is proved that even the proselyte may claim the patriarchs as his Ô^K because
Thus
ham
108

'
[IV.
'
11, 12.
Abram became Abraham,

multitude
;
' '
a great father of many nations,' lit. he was so/ the Glossator adds, because he taught
' : '
them
to believe.'
though in a state of uncircumcision.' 6m of Si' dKpoPuorias attendant circumstances as in 8ia ypapparos ko.1 irepiToprjs ii. 27,
8ta irpooKoixfiaros iaQiovri xiv. 20.
make
is
As it stands the art. is a solecism it would 12. tois CTToixoGo-t. those who are circumcised one set of persons, and those who
:
example of Abraham's faith another distinct set, which meaning. He is speaking of Jews who This requires in Greek the are both circumcised and believe. omission of the art. before o-roixovariv. But toIs ot. is found in all We must suppose therefore either (1) that there existing MSS. has been some corruption. WH. think that toT? may be the remains of an original avrols but that would not seem to be a very Or (2) we may think that Tertius made natural form of sentence. a slip of the pen in following St. Paul's dictation, and that this If the slip was not made by Tertius remained uncorrected. himself, it must have been made in some very early copy, the
follow the
certainly not St. Paul's
:
parent of
strictly to
all
(rroixoGai.
'
our present copies. o-Toixew is a well-known military term, meaning Pollux viii. 9 t6 8e fiiiOos o-toIxos koKcItcu, march in file
' :
kcu to fiev efagrjs clviu Kara prjicos (vytuf to 8e ((pegrjs Kara fiddos eTOCgejl',
'
the technical term for

file,
depth or in
marching abreast otoixw' (Wets.).

than
pr) \jlqvov in this
is
uyeii>,
for
marching
in
On ov jaovov rather M.and T. 481.
verse and in ver. 16 see Burton,
Jeivish Teaching on Circumcision.

with which the Jews insisted upon the rite brought out in the Book of Jubilees This law is for all generations for ever, and there is (xv. 25 ff.) no circumcision of the time, and no passing over one day out of for it is an eternal ordinance, ordained and written the eight days on the heavenly tables. And every one that is born, the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs riot to the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham,
The
fierce fanaticism
is
of Circumcision
: '
vividly
for he belongs to the children of destruction
; nor is there moreover any sign on him that he is the Lord's, but (he is destined) to be destroyed and slain from the earth, and to be rooted out of the earth, for he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God. And now I will announce unto thee that the children of Israel will not keep true to this ordinance, and they will not circumcise their
.
sons according to
all this
law; for in the flesh of their circumcision
IV. 13-17.]
109
they will omit this circumcision of their sons, and all of them, sons of Belial, will have their sons uncircumcised as they were born. And there shall be great wrath from the Lord against the children of Israel, because they have forsaken His covenant and turned away from His word, and provoked and blasphemed, according as they have not observed the ordinance of this law; for they treat their members like the Gentiles, so that they may be removed and rooted And there will be no pardon or forgiveness for out of the land. them, so that there should be pardon and release from all the sin of this error for ever.' So absolute is Circumcision as a mark of God's favour that if an Israelite has practised idolatry his circumcision must first be removed before he can go down to Gehenna (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took p. 51 f.). It was his circumcision and anticia part in the act {ibid. p. 253). patory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the father of many nations (ibid. p. 256). Indeed it was just through holy seed.' This was his circumcision that Isaac was born of a And it was at the root of it that St. Paul the current doctrine. strikes by showing that Faith was prior to Circumcision, that the latter was wholly subordinate to the former, and that just those privileges and promises which the Jew connected with Circumcision
'
'
'
were
really
due to Faith.
PROMISE AND LAW.

IV. 13-17.
Again
the
to
declaration
Abraham had nothing
do tvith
Law.
Faith and Promise which are the
was made to For it turned on very antithesis of Law.

that
The reason being that Abraham might be the spiritual father of all believers, Gentiles as well as Jews, and that Gentiles might have an equal claim to the Promise.
13
The promise made

Messianic
Another proof that Gentiles were contemplated as well as Jews. to Abraham and his descendants of world-wide
rule, as it was not dependent upon Circumcision, so also upon Law, but on a righteousness which was dependent was not l4 If this world-wide inheritance really the product of Faith.
depended upon any legal system, and if it was limited to those who were under such a system, there would be no place left for Faith or Promise Faith were an empty name and Promise a dead letter.
:
15
For Law
is
in its effects the
very opposite of Promise.
It
only
110
serves to bring

down God's wrath by enhancing
no
law, there
is
[IV. 13.
the guilt of sin.
no transgression, which implies a law to be transgressed. Law and Promise therefore are mutually 16 exclusive; the one brings death, the other life. Hence it is that the Divine plan was made to turn, not on Law and obedience to Law, but on Faith. For faith on man's side implies Grace, or free So that the Promise depending as it favour, on the side of God. did not on Law but on these broad conditions, Faith and Grace, might hold good equally for all Abraham's descendants not only for those who came under the Mosaic Law, but for all who could 17 Thus Abraham is the true ancestor lay claim to a faith like his.
there
is
Where
of
all
Christians
(i.e.
*.'
(fj/xav),
as
it
is
expressly stated in Gen.
'A
I
father'
in
spiritual
fatherhood)
'of
many
xvii. 5 nations have
made
thee
Paul brings up the key-words of his and marshals them in array over against the leading points in the current theology of the Jews Law, Works or performance of Law, Merit. Because the working of this latter system had been so disastrous, ending only in condemnation, it was a relief to find that it was not what God
13-17. In
this section St.
own system
Faith, Promise, Grace,
had
really intended, but that the true principles of things held out
a prospect so much brighter and more hopeful, and one which furnished such abundant justification for all that seemed new in
Christianity.
The immediate point which this paragraph is that Abraham might be, in a true though The ulterior spiritual sense, the father of Gentiles as well as Jews. object of the whole argument is to show that Abraham himself
13. ou ydp, k.t.X.
is
introduced to prove
is
rightly claimed not as the
Jews contended by themselves but
by
Christians.
81a yojxou
t|
without
art.,
any system of law.
eirayYeXta: see on ch. i. 2 (irpoerrrjyyeiXaTo), where the uses of At the the word and its place in Christian teaching are discussed. time of the Coming of Christ the attention of the whole Jewish race
and in was turned to the promises contained in the O. T. Christianity these promises were (so to speak) brought to a head and definitely identified with their fulfilment.
;
The
following examples
:
may be added
'
to those quoted
'
on
ch.
i.
to
illustrate the diffusion of this idea of
Promise
among
the Jews in the
first
century A.D. * There

is
4 Ezra
iv.
27 non capiet portare quae in temporibus iustis
a slight awkwardness in making our break in the middle of a verse and of a sentence. St. Paul glides after his manner into a new subject, suggested to him by the verse which he quotes in proof of what has gone before.
IV. 13-15.]

l
Ill
II \tJ Wical Th JCW1Sh

is
* > relinquuntlundZt ^ IrfSl^ggZ^l?*'* Sp an <P mundum quem promisisti ?!? T tha Z n these assa are
ti
sierSonon ingredientes ingressi fuerint qui vivunt ZtZi*/'' t non poterunt angustaet vana haec recipere quae sunt repostta = rd dZraGen * h x IO ) '** ff. quid enim nobis 49 prodest si promissum est , nobis tmmortale tempus, nos vera mortalia opera egimus? 8cc Afioc
^
j
2, tLw^ S
,'
Se
apocalyptic and eschato .P /p f *">* is vague and future the Christian idea 5 defimte and associated with a state of things already inaugurated.
;
promise faith in which called down the Divine blessing that A. should have a son and descendants like the stars of heaven. Probably this is meant in the first instance, but the whole series of promises goes together and it is implied (i) that A. should have a son; (11) that this son should have numerous descendants; (111) that in One of those descendants the whole world should be blessed (iv) that through Him A.'s seed should enjoy world-wide dominion.
;
rb K\r]P oy6 liov airbv hai K6a iou. What Promise is this? There l none in these words. Hence (i) some think that it means the possession of the Land of Canaan (Gen. xii. xv 18 7 ; xiii. 14 f xvn. 8; cf. xxvi. 3; Ex. vi. 4) taken as a type of the world-wide Messianic reign; (2) others think that it must refer to the particular
is
mWcus: this 'faith-righteousness' which St. Paul has been describing as characteristic of the Christian, and
oiKaio<ruVT,s
8iA
before
him of Abraham.
14. oi iK y6>ou: 'the dependants of law/ 'vassals of a legal system,' such as were the Jews.
If the right to that universal dominion P o.>6>oi. which will belong to the Messiah and His people is confined to those who are subject to a law, like that of Moses, what can it have to do either with the Promise originally given to Abraham, or with Faith to which that Promise was annexed ? In that case Faith and Promise would be pushed aside and cancelled altogether. But they cannot be cancelled ; and therefore the inheritance must depend
k\t,
upon them and not upon Law. 15. This verse is parenthetic, proving that Law and Promise cannot exist and be in force side by side. They are too much opposed in their effects and operation. Law presents itself to
St.
the guilt of sin.

act
is
Paul chiefly in this light as entailing punishment. It increases So long as there is no commandment, the wrong
called
done as it were accidentally and unconsciously ; it cannot be by the name of transgression. The direct breach of a known
a
far
law
see
is
iii.
more heinous
v.
matter.
ff.
On
this disastrous effect
of
Law
20,
13, 20,
is
vii.
word for the direct violation of to overstep a line clearly defined peccare est transilire lineas Cicero, Parad. 3 (ap. Trench, Syn. p. 236).
a code.
It
irapripcKus
the appropriate
means
13

15. ov 84 for ov yap
is
[IV. 15, 16.
decisively attested
(X
ABC
&c).
16. Jk morews. In his rapid and vigorous reasoning St. Paul contents himself with a few bold strokes, which he leaves it to the reader to fill in. It is usual to supply with e< Trio-rem either T) Kkr)povop.ia eariv from V. 14 (Lips. Mey.) or fj eirayyiKia iariv from v. 13 (Fri.), but as rr\v inayytXiau is defined just below it seems better to have recourse to some wider thought which shall include The Divine plan was, took its start, from both these. 'It was' faith.' The bold lines of God's plan, the Providential ordering of things, form the background, understood if not directly expressed,
'
to the
els
whole chapter.
t6 etwu.
;
Working round again

all
before
the object of
all
these pre-arranged conditions

call
away with old

blessings to
i.e.
restrictions,
who
in
and to any true sense could
same conclusion as was to do throw open the Messianic

to the
Abraham
'
father,'
to believing Gentile as well as to believing Jew.
ABRAHAM'S FAITH A TYPE OF THE CHRISTIAN'S.

IV. 17-22.
strength
Abrahams Faith was remarkable

its
both for
its
and for
believed
object
the birth of Isaac in

'
which
the
Abraham
dead!
might be described as a
it is
birth
from
23-25. In this
which
rection
is
annexed a a
'
like acceptance
a type of the Christian s Faith^ to and which also has for

the
its object
birth
from
dead
'
the
Death and Resur-
of Christ.
this light
"In
(as
Abraham
is
regarded by
God
before
life
whom
he
is
lepresented as standing
that
God who
it
infuses
into the
dead
He
was about
to infuse
into
Abraham's dead body), and

it
who
18
issues
His summons (as
He
issued
then) to generations
yet unborn.
In such a
God Abraham
believed.
Against
all
ordinary hope
becoming a father he yet had faith, grounded in hope, and enabling him to become the father not of Jews only but of wideof
spread nations, to
xv. 5)
'
whom
the Promise alluded
when
it
said (Gen.
be.'
full
Like the stars of the heaven shall thy descendants 19 Without showing weakness in his faith, he took
note
of the fact that at his advanced years (for he was
now about
;
a hundred years old) his own
vital
powers were decayed
he took
IV.
full
17.]

20
113
note of the barrenness of Sarah his wife; and yet with the promise in view no impulse of unbelief made him hesitate his
;
power which he seemed to lack; he gave praise to God for the miracle that was to be wrought in him, 21 having a firm conviction that what God had promised He was
the
faith
endowed him with
able also to perform. credited to
22
And
for this reason that faith of his
was
him
as righteousness.
23 Now when all this was recorded in Scripture, it was not Abraham alone who was in view 24 but we too the future generations of Christians, who will find a like acceptance, as we have a like faith. Abraham believed on Him who caused the birth
and we too on the same God who raised up from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered into the hands of His murderers to atone for our sins, and rose again to effect our justification (i. e. to put the crown and seal to the Atonement wrought by His Death, and
believe
at the
of Isaac from elements that seemed as good as dead
same time
to evoke the faith
which makes the Atonement
effectual).
17. irare'pa, k.t.X. Exactly from of Gen. xvii. 5. The tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the Heb., patrem frementis iurbae, i. e. ingentis multitudinis populorum (Kautzsch, p. 25).
attraction for Karlvavri Qfov rtdescribing the posture in which Abraham is represented as holding colloquy with God (Gen. xvii. 1 ff.). SwottoioGi'tos maketh alive/ St. Paul has in his mind the two acts which he compares and which are both embraced under this word, (1) the Birth of Isaac, (2) the Resurrection of Christ. On the Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch, ss. in Bibl. Greek, p. 5. KaXourros [to. '6vra as Svraj, There are four views (i) ko\.= 'to name, speak of, or describe, things non-existent as if they
:
LXX
LXX
Kcu-fVam ou cmoreucrc cou

;
a-revae
Karevavn
'
/jlt)
His creative fiat' (most or summon,' issue His commands (iv) in the dogmatic sense 'to call, or invite to life and salvation (Fri.). Of these (iv) may be put on one side as too remote from the context; and (ii) as Mey. rightly points out, seems to be negatived by as ovra. The choice remains between (i) and (iii). If the former seems the simplest, the latter is the more forcible rendering, and as such more in keeping with the imaginative grasp of the situation displayed by St. Paul. In favour of this view may also be quoted Apoc. Bar. xxi. 4 qui fecisti terram audi me . qui vocasti ab initio mundi quod nondum erat, et
(ii)
existed' (Va.);
'to call into being, issue

call,
commentators); to' (Mey. Gif.);
(iii)
= 'to
'
'
; '
114
obediunt
tibi.
EPISTLE TO
For the use of
THE ROMANS
koXcIp
[IV. 17-20.
see also the note

'
on
ix.
below.
18. is to yeviaQai &crre yeveadai his faith enabled him to father,' but with the underlying idea that his faith in this was but carrying out the great Divine purpose which ordered all these events. ouTws e<rrcu Gen. xv. 5 (LXX).
:
become the
Comp. Lft. in Journ. of Class, and Sac. Philol. 106 n. ' The New Testament use of nrj with a participle ... has a much wider range than in the earlier language. Yet this is no violation of principle, but rather an extension of a particular mode of looking at the subordinate event contained in the participial clause. It is viewed as an accident or condition of the principal event described by the finite verb, and is therefore negatived by the dependent negative (ifi and not by the absolute ov. Rom. iv. 19 ... is a case in point whether we retain ov or omit it with Lachm. In the latter case the sense will be, "he so considered his own body now dead, as not to be weak in the (?) faith." ' This is well expressed in RV. 'without being weakened,' except that being weakened should be rather ' showing weakness or becoming weak.' See also Burton, M. and T.
19. p,^
do-0VT|o-as.
iii.
: ' ' '
'
J 45-
KaTv<5T)a B C some good cursives, some MSS. of Vulg. (including am), Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat. (which probably here preserves Origen's Greek), Chrys. and others ; ov Kartvorjo-e
NA
DEFGKLP
&c, some MSS. of Vulg. (including _/*/</, though it is more probable that the negative has come in from the Old Latin and that it was not recognized by Jerome), Syr.-Harcl., Orig.-lat. bis, Epiph.
Ambrstr. al. Both readings give a good sense Karevorjae, he did consider, and yet did not doubt' ov unrevoke, he did not consider, and therefore did not doubt.' Both readings are also early: but the negative ov mtcv6t)<t( is clearly of Western origin, and must probably be set down to Western laxity the authorities which omit the negative are as a rule the most trustworthy.
:
'
vnrApxwv: 'being already about a hundred years old.' May we not say that (Tfat denotes a present state simply as present, but that vnapxtiv denotes a present state as a product of past states, or at least a state in present time as related to past time (' vor/iandensein, dasein, Lat. existere, adesse, praesto
esse'
last
Schmidt)
'*.
See esp. T.
S.
;
Evans
in Sp.
Comm. on
Cor.
vii.
26
'the
ally,"
(virdpxtiv) is difficult it seems to mean sometimes " to be originto be substantially or fundamentally," or, as in Demosthenes, " to be stored in readiness." An idea of propriety sometimes attaches to it: comp.
word
"property" or "substance." The word however asks for further Comp. Schmidt, Lat. u. gr. Synonymik, 74. 4. 20. ov 8i6Kpt0T] did not hesitate (tovt{<ttiv ovSl htSoiaaev ovSl dpupePa$ Chrys.). dtaKpivav act. =diiudicare, (i) to ' discriminate,' or 'distinguish between two things (Matt. xvi. 3 cf. 1 Cor. xi. 29, 31) or persons (Acts xv. 9 1 Cor. iv. 7); (ii) to 'arbitrate' between two parties (1 Cor. vi. 5). 8toKpivtaBai mid. (and pass.) = [$ 'to get a decision,' 'litigate,' ' dispute,' or 'contend' (Acts xi. 2 Jas. ii. 4; Jude 9); (ii) to 'be divided against oneself.' 'waver,' 'doubt.' The other senses are all found in LXX (where the word occurs some thirty times), but this is wanting. It is however well
ijnapis,
investigation.'
'
IV. 20.]

:
11^
established for N.T., where it appears as the proper opposite of mans mareua}. So Matt. xxi. 21 kav tx rTr( iri-OTtv, Kal /xi) 5iaicpi6f)Te Mark xi. 23 6s
&v
(tiry
Kal
p.^1
oiafcpidy \v rfj napbiq.
avrov d\\a maTtvy

:
Rom.
xiv.
23 6 bi
SiaKpivofXiVos, (olv <payfi, KO-TaKttcpiTat, on ovk Ik iriarews iv mora, prjoiv 8iaKpiv6/xevo$ : also probably Jude 22.
Jas. 1. 6 alrdnv Si like use is found in
Christian writings of the second century and later: e.g. Protev. Jac. 11 aicovaaaa de Mapidp SieKpiOrj kv (avrfj \iyovaa, k.t.\. (quoted by Mayor on
i. 6) Clem. Homil. i. 20 irepl rfjs irapaooOriarjs aoi d\i]0(ias oiaKpiOrjoji 40 irepl tov p6vov Kal dyaOcw tov StaKpiOrjvai. It is remarkable that a use which (except as an antithesis to marcveiv) there is no reason to connect specially with Christianity should thus seem to be traceable to Christian circles and the Christian line of tradition. It is not likely to be in the strict sense a Christian coinage, but appears to have had its beginning in near
Jas.
ii.
parallel case is that of the word Uif/vxos (St. proximity to Christianity. James, Clem. Rom., Herm., Didachi, &c). The two words seem to belong to the same cycle of ideas.
morci. rfj nlaret is here usually taken as dat. of 'he was strengthened in his faith,' i.e. 'his faith was dadevfjo-as strengthened, or confirmed.' In favour of this would be and the surrounding terms (p^KplOt), 7r\-qpo(f>opT)d(is) rfi 7n'o-T above might seem to point to a mental process. But it is tempting to make tjJ iriam instrumental or causal, like rfj dma-nq. to which it ' he was stands in immediate antithesis eWS. rfj mar. would then endowed with power by means of his faith (sc. to vevcKpafievov
li/eSuyajAwGir] rfj
respect,
'
According to the Talmud, Abraham wurde Natur erneuert, eine neue Creatur {Bammidbar Rabba xi), And we can urn die Zeugung zu vollbringen (Weber, p. 256). hardly doubt that the passage was taken in this way by the author of Heb., who appears to have had it directly in mind comp. Heb.
avrov
o-wp-a Vdvuap.a>dri).
in seiner
xi. II,
12
nia-Tei Kal
avrr) "lappa bvvap.iv els

.
KarafioXrjv aTTfpparos tkafie
Kal
irapa
Kaipbv
rjKiKtas
to.
816
Kal
d(f)
hos
iycvvr)6r)(rav,
Kal
ravra
aarpa tov ovpavov rw TrXrjBet (observe CSp. 8vvap.1v Xa/3r, vVKpcopevov). This sense is also distinctly recognized by Euthym.-Zig. (êveSwapcadr) (Is irai8oyoviav Tjj wia-Tti' rj (V(8vvapaidq The other (common) interpretation is preferred by irpbs tt)v via). Chrys., from whom Euthym.-Zig. seems to get his 6 itlanv
VfveKpcopevov, Ka6a>s
7n8(iKvvp(vos 8vvdp.(uis 8(lrai nXdovos.
The Talmud lays great stress on the Birth of Isaac. In the name of Isaac was found an indication that with him the history
the Holy One began to work wonders' {Beresh. Rabba liii, ap. Weber, Allsyn. Theol. p. 256). But it is of course a wholly new point when St. Paul compares the miraculous birth of Isaac with the raising of Christ from the dead. The parallel consists not only in the nature of the two events both a bringing to life from conditions which betokened only death but also in the faith of which they were the object. Sous o<5 5 ai': a Hebraism: cf. Josh. vii. 19; 1 Sam. vi. 5; I Chron. xvi 28, &c.
:
of Revelation began. came into existence
With him
with him
'
the people of revealed Religion
Il6
EPtSTLE TO THE ROMANS

7r\r}po<jx>(Ha
[XV. 21-25.
21. Tr\T]po<})opT]0eis:
i
= 'full assurance/ 'firm conviction,'

especially
Thess.
i.
Col.
ii.
word
common amongst
the
Stoics.
Hence
Trkr)po<f>opii<r6ai,
as used of persons,
;
'
assured or convinced/ as here, ch. xiv. 5 Col. iv. 12. things the meaning is more doubtful: cf. 2 Tim. iv. 5, 17 and fully or satisfactorily proved,' Luke i. 1, where some take it as accomplished ' (so Lat.-Vet. Vulg. RV. text Lft. On others as Revision, p. 142): see note ad loc. Beresh. R. xl. 8 'Thou findest that all 23. 81' ainbv \16vov. that is recorded of Abraham is repeated in the history of his children' (Wetstein, who is followed by Meyer, and Delitzsch ad loc). Wetstein also quotes Taanith ii. 1 Fratres nostri, de Ninevitis non dictum est: et respexit Deus saccum eorum. St. Paul asserts that 'to us who believe.' 24. tois iTKneuouaiv Not ' if we believe,' his readers are among the class of believers.
be fully As used of
to
'
'
which would be invTevovaiv

25. 81a with ace.
is
(sine artic).
because of: but primarily retrospective, inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution, Sid may be retrospective with reference to the idea, but prospective with reference to the execution. Which it is in any particular case must
'
be determined by the context.
' because of our to irapanr. may be retrospective, (which made the death of Christ necessary) or it may be prospective, as Gif. 'because of our trespasses/ i.e. 'in order to atone for them/ In any case 8m ttjv bucnimmv is prospective, with a view to our conceived as a motive, justification/ because of our justification See Dr. Gifford's two excellent notes i.e. to bring it about.
Here 8m
'
trespasses
"
'
'
pp. 108, 109.
The manifold ways in which the Resurrection of Christ is connected with justification will appear from the exposition below. It is at once the great source of the Christian's faith, the assurance of the special character of the object of that faith, the proof that the Sacrifice which is the ground of justification is an accepted sacrifice, and the stimulus to that moral relation of the Christian to Christ in which the victory which Christ has won becomes his own victory. See also the notes on ch. vi. 5-8.
The Place of
the Resurrection of Christ in the
teaching of St. Paul.

fills an immense place in the teaching and the fact that it does so accounts for the emphasis and care with which he states the evidence for it (1 Cor. xv. 1-11).
The
Resurrection of Christ
of
St. Paul,
IV. 17-25.]
(i)
117
Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the Divinity of Christ (Acts xvii. 31; Rom. i. 4 ; 1 Cor. xv. 14, 15). (ii) As proving the Divinity of Christ the Resurrection is also
The
His Death. But would have been nothing to show at least no clear and convincing sign to show that He who died upon the Cross was more than man. But if the Victim of the Cross had been man and nothing more, there would have been no sufficient reason for attaching to His Death any peculiar efficacy the faith of Christians would be 'vain,' they would be 'yet in their sins'
for the Resurrection, there
the
most
decisive proof of the atoning value of
Cor. xv. 17). In yet another way the Resurrection proved the efficacy of the Death of Christ. Without the Resurrection the Sacrifice of Calvary would have been incomplete. The Resurrection placed
(1
(iii)
upon
stamp of God's approval it showed that was accepted, and that the cloud of Divine Wrath the dpyrj so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom. iii. 25, 26) had passed away. This is the thought which lies at the bottom
that Sacrifice the
;
the Sacrifice
of
of Christ is the strongest guarantee for the resurrection of the Christian (1 Cor. xv. 20-23; 2 Cor. iv. 14; Rom. viii. Col. i. 18). ;
Rom. vi. 7-10. (iv) The Resurrection
(v)
But that resurrection has two sides or aspects

life,
it is
not only
physical, a future rising again to physical
and
moral a present rising from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. In virtue of his union with Christ, the close and
but
it
is
also
spiritual,
intimate relation of his spirit with Christ's, the Christian upon to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ.
is
called
this
And
moral and
them.
We
only sense in which he can repeat shall have this doctrine fully expounded in ch. vi. i-n.
spiritual sense is the
recent monograph on the subject of this note (E. Schader, Die Bedeutung des lebendigen Christusfilr die Rechtfertigung nach Paulus, Gutersloh, 1893) has worked out in much careful detail the third of the above heads. Herr Schader (who since writing his treatise has become Professor at Konigsberg) insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrought by Christ that which redeems is not merely the act of Christ's Death but His Person (kv w 6xAtJ/ T V V o.no\vTpa}(Tiv Eph i. 7 Col. i. 14). It is as a Person that He takes the place of the sinner and endures the Wrath of God in his stead (Gal. iii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 21). The Resurrection is proof that this * Wrath is at an end. And therefore in certain salient passages (Rom. iv. 25 ; vi. 9, 10 ; viii. 34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ as the cause of justification. The treatise is well deserving of study. It may be right also to mention, without wholly endorsing, Dr. Hort's ' significant aphorism Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemption, and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and resurrection one aspect of life' \Hulsean Lectures, p. 210). This can more readily be accepted if ' one aspect in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other aspects. At the same time such a saying is useful as a warning, which is especially needed where the attempt is being made towards more exact definitions, that
; ; ' : '
II
all definitions
[V. 1-11.
of great doctrines have a relative rather than an absolute value. are partial symbols of ideas which the human mind cannot grasp in If we could see as God sees we should doubtless find them their entirety. desire to make running up into large and broad laws of His working. Without it exact in regard to our own attempts to define. this reserve exegesis may well seem to lead to a revived Scholasticism.
They
We
BLISSFUL CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION.

V. 1-11.
sJionld
The
state
which thus
lies before the
Christian
have consequences both near and remote. The nearer consequences, peace with God and hope which gives cotirage under persecution (vv. 1-4) the remoter consequence, an
:
assurance, derived from the proof of God's love, of our final

salvation
and glory.
The
first step (our present acceptance
with God)
tion)
1
is difficult ;
the second step (our ultimate salva-
follows naturally from the first (vv. 5-11).

Christians then ought to enter
We
upon our
privileges.
By
that strong Christ's

it
and eager impulse with which we
enroll ourselves as
we may be accepted as righteous in the sight of God, and becomes our duty to enjoy to the full the new state of peace 2 He it is with Him which we owe to our Lord Jesus Messiah.
whose Death and Resurrection, the object of our
the sheltered circle of that favour
faith (iv.
25),
have brought us within the range of the Divine favour.
Within
we
stand as Christians, in no
in the
merely
passive
attitude,
but
we
exult
hope of one day

3
participating as in the favour of
God
so also in His glory.
Yes,
and
this exultation
is
of ours, so far from
being shaken by per-
secutions
actually
founded upon them.

or
resolute
For persecution only

under
trials
4
:
generates
fortitude,
endurance
and
then fortitude leads on to the approved courage of the veteran;
and
5
that in turn strengthens the
hope out of which
it
originally
sprang.
More
our hope
is
one that cannot prove

is
illusory
first
is
because
(and here a new factor
introduced, for the
time in this
connexion) the Holy

personal contact with
Spirit,
through
whom God
Spirit
brought into
man that Holy
which we received
when we became
Christians, floods our hearts with the conscious-
V. 1-11.]
CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION
119
God for us. 6 Think what are the facts to which we can appeal. When we were utterly weak and prostrate, at the moment of our deepest despair, Christ died for usnot as
ness of the Love of
What a proof of love was For an upright or righteous man it would be hard to find one willing to die; though perhaps for a good man (with the loveable
!
righteous men, but as godless sinners

!
there
qualities of
goodness) one here and there

8
face death.
may be brave enough to But God presses home the proof of His unmerited
Love towards us, in that, sinners as we still were, Christ died for us. 9 Here then is an a fortiori argument. The fact that we have been actually declared righteous by coming within the influence
< '
of Christ's sacrificial
Blood this
fact
which implies a stupendous
change
in the
whole of our
what
there
is
is
far easier
our escape
If
relations to
God
final
is
a sure pledge of
10
from His
judgement.
For
a double contrast.
God
that
intervened for us while
His enemies,
the
first
much more now
we
are reconciled to
we were Him. If
Death of His Son, the second costs nothing, but follows naturally from the share which we have in His Life. n And not only do we look for this final salvation, but we are buoyed up by an exultant sense of that nearness to God into which we have been brought by Christ to whom we owe that
one great step of our reconciliation.
1-11. Every line of this passage breathes St. Paul's personal experience, and his intense hold upon the objective facts which are the grounds of a Christian's confidence. He believes that the ardour with which he himself sought Christian baptism was met by
intervention cost the
an answering change in the whole relation in which he stood to God. That change he attributes ultimately, it is clear throughout this context, not merely in general terms to Christ (did v. 1, 2, 11 bis) but more particularly to the Death of Christ (irapedoOr) iv. 25 ankQavi V. 6, 8; iv ra> aijtiart V. 8ta tov davdrov V. io). He con9 ceives of that Death as operating by a sacrificial blood-shedding (eV aXfian: cf. iii. 25 and the passages referred to in the Note on the Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice). The Blood of that Sacrifice is as it were sprinkled round the Christian, and forms a sort of hallowed enclosure, a place of sanctuary, into which he enters. Within this he is safe, and from its shelter he looks out exultingly over the physical dangers which threaten him they may ; strengthen his firmness of purpose, but cannot shake it.
;
1.
The word
diKaiaartv at
Paul to his main topic.
the end of the last chapter recalls St. After expounding the nature of his new
120

(iii.
[V.
1.
method of obtaining righteousness in draw some of the consequences from pride, and the equality of Jew and
21-26), he had begun to deathblow to Jewish This Gentile) in iii. 27-31. suggested the digression in ch. iv, to prove that notwithstanding there was no breach of God's purposes as declared in the O. T. (strictly the Legal System which had its charter in the O. T.), but Now he goes back to 'consequences' and rather the contrary. He explains why it traces them out for the individual Christian. he is that the Christian faces persecution and death so joyfully has a deep spring of tranquillity at his heart, and a confident hope
this (the
:
of future glory.
AB*CDEKL,
F
evidence for this reading stands thus ix M v K cursives, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. exllV correctors of N B, repeatedly Chrys. Ambrstr. and others
exwp-ey.
The
be remembered) in the Greek though not in the Latin, P and many cursives, Did. Epiph. Cyr.-Alex. in Clearly overwhelming authority for three places out of four. It is argued however (i) that exhortation is here out of %x<pev. place: 'inference not exhortation is the Apostle's purpose'
(duplicate
MSS.
it
will
(Scrivener, Introd.
ii.
380
ed. 4);
(ii)
that o
and
<o
are frequently
interchanged in the MSS., as in this very word Gal. vi. 10 (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 49) ; (iii) it is possible that a mistake might have been made by Tertius in copying or in some very early MS. from which the mass of the uncials and versions now extant may have deBut these reasons seem insufficient to overthrow the scended. (i) St. Paul is apt to pass from arguweight of direct testimony, ment to exhortation; so in the near context vi. (1), 12, (15); viii. 12 ; (ii) in e'xapev inference and exhortation are really combined it is a sort of light exhortation, we should have ' (T. S.
' :
Evans).
%x ,Vxv & should be observed that it does obtain peace ' (which would be or get ffX&ptp), but rather keep ' or enjoy peace (ov ydp ia-nv laov pfj ovaav cf. Acts ix. 31 rj fxev elprjvrjv Aa/3eii> Kal boQelaav Karaax^v Chrys. ;
As
to the
'
meaning of
peace,'
'
not
make
'
'
'
'
'
ovv eKKkrja-ia
e'x e "
W*Vi continued
'
in a state of peace
').
The
of the state elprjvrjv The declaration of not guilty/ which the sinner comes ex<opev. under by a heartfelt embracing of Christianity, at once does away with the state of hostility in which he had stood to God, and substitutes for it a state of peace which he has only to realize.
aor. part. SiKatco&Wes
initial
'
marks the
moment
This declaration of not guilty and the peace which follows upon it are not due to himself, but are 8m rot) Kvpiov f]p>v 'Iô-ov Xpio-rot) how is explained more fully in iii. 25 also in vv. 9, 10 below.
'
'
Dr. J. Agar Beet (Comm. ad loc.) discusses the exact shade of meaning conveyed by the aor. part. diKaicuQiVTes in relation to dpr\vr)v ex AlI'' He contends that it denotes not so much the reason for entering upon the state
ct,
V.
1,
2.]
;
121
moment
it. No doubt this is perfectly is also true that 'justification necessarily involves peace with God.' But the argument goes too much upon the assumption that dp. |X. = obtain peace,' which we have seen to be erroneous. The sense is exactly that of x * v tlpfap in the passage quoted from the Acts, and SiKcuwd., as we have said, marks the initial
means of entering upon tenable on the score of grammar and it

in question as the
in the state.
2. tV Trpo(7aY wY^. Two stages only are described in vv. though different language is used about them diK<u<&W
i,
npoorayoyi,
elprjurj
= xdpc
=^
the KavX r,(ns
r, npoo-ay., 'our introduction/ is a connecting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. Eph. ii. 18; 111. 12) the idea is that of introduction to the presence-chamber of a monarch. The rendering 'access' is inadequate, as it leaves out of sight the fact that we do not come in our own strength but need an introducer Christ. iax^Kofiev: not 'we have had' (Va.), but 'we have got or
: '
state of X "pis, at the same state of ooa. The phrase
time that
it
is a characteristic of the points forward to a future
obtained,' aor.
'
and
perf. in one.
Both grammar and logic will run in perfect harmony together if we render, "through whom we have by faith got or obtained our access into this grace wherein we stand." This rendering will bring to view two causes
of getting the access or obtaining the introduction into the state of grace one cause objective, Christ: the other subjective, faith; Christ
faith the
hand which moves the door to open and to admit' (T. S Evans in 'Exp. 1882, i. 169). r% iro-Ti om. B D E F G, Lat. Vet., Orig.-lat. bis. The weight of this evidence depends on the value which we assign to B. All the other evidence is Western; and B also (as we have seen) has a Western element; so that the question is whether the omission here in B is an independent corroboration of the Western group or whether it simply belongs to it (does the evidence - p 4 8, or 8 only?). There is the further point that omissions in the Western text deserve more attention than additions. Either reading can be easily enough accounted for, as an obvious gloss on the one hand or the omission of a superfluous phrase on the other. The balance is sufficiently represented by placing tj) marei in brackets as Treg. WH. RV. mare (Weiss * v
omits).
-ri\v xapii' Taimyr the ' state of grace' or condition of those are objects of the Divine favour, conceived of as a space fenced in (Mey. Va. &c.) into which the Christian enters cf. Gal.
the door'
is
who
4
v.
1 Pet. v.
:
co-TYiKajxcj/
12 (Va. and Grm.-Thay. s. v. x dpts 3. a). 'stand fast or firm' (see Va. and Grm.-Thay. s.v.
iv.
taTTjpi
3
ii.
2. d).
:
iir
eXmSi
as in
18.
See on iii. 23. It is the Glory of the Divine Presence (Shekinah) communicated to man (partially here, but) in full measure when he enters into that Presence ; man's whole being will be transfigured by it.
Tfjs
8o't]s.
21
[V.
1, 2.
Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of

Justification ?
It is well known to be a characteristic feature of the theology of Ritschl that he regards the proper object of Justification as the Christian Society as a collective whole, and not the individual as This view is based upon two main groups of arguments. such. The great (i) The first is derived from the analogy of the O. T. sacrifices of the O. T. were undoubtedly meant in the first instance So in regard to the Passover it is laid the congregation.' for down expressly that no alien is to eat of it, but all the congregation
'
of Israel are
to
keep
it
(Ex.
xii.
43
of
ff.,
47).
And
:
still
more
the high priest is to 'make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins ; he is to lay both his hands on the head of the goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the
distinctly as to the ritual of the
' '
Day
Atonement
all their transgressions, even all their sins' This argument gains in force from (Lev. xvi. 16, 21, also 33 f.) the concentration of the Christian Sacrifice upon a single event, accomplished once for all. It is natural to think of it as having
children of Israel, and
also a single
and permanent
object.
(2)
The second argument
is
derived from the exegesis of the NT. generally (most clearly perhaps in Acts XX. 28 t))v eKKkqviav rov Oeov [v. 1. Kvpiov], rfv but also in I Jo. ii. 2 iv. IO iTpterrotr](TaTO bia roii alficiTos tov Ibiov 1 Pet. iii. 18; Apoc. i. 5 f ; v. 9 f.), and more particularly in the
:
Epistles
of
St.
Paul.
The
society
is,
it
is
true,
most
clearly
indicated in the later Epp. ; e.g. Tit. ii. 14 o-arripos ripvv '1. x., 6? eavra Xabu . Kai Kadapiar) ebanev eavrbv vwep rj/xcov, Iva XvrpaxrrjTiU fffias
. .
irepiovaiov
7rape8ancev
Eph.
V.
25
f.
6 Xpiarbs
rj-yaTrrjo-e
rrjv
eKitkrjaiav,
vnep
avrjjs' tva avrrjv dyiacrj]

i.
Kadaplaas k.t.X. (cf. also
ml eavrbv Eph. ii.
18;
avTOv
iii.
12; Col.
iii.
14).
But Ritschl also claims the support of
the earlier Epp.:

:
e.g.
Rom.
viii.
. .
32 vnep
els
f]p,H>v
iravrcov napedooKev
2 2 diKaioavvT) 8e Oeov
navras tovs TriarevouTas
the repeated ypels in the contexts of three passages

fert. u.
and (Comp. Recht:
of Ritschl appeal to the distinctly individualistic cast of such expressions as Rom. iii. 26 biKdiovvra t6v eK ni<TTf(os 'irjtrov iv. 5 e7ri rbv diKaiovvra rbv acre fir/, with the context
In
critics
:
Versohn. reply the
ii.
216
f.,
160).
(Schader, Op. Clt. \>. 2<) U, ) cf. also Gloel, Der Heilige Geist, p. 102 n.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. 82 b, referred to by Schader). It is undoubtedly true that St. Paul does use language which This points to the direct justification of the individual believer.
X. 4 els 8lKClLO(TVVT)V TTaVTl
TTKTTeVOVTl
TW
V.
1,
2.]
123
no
an ideal entity. thought to the members who compose it and when we think of the Great Sacrifice as ; consummated once for all and in its effects reaching down through the ages it is
in Rom. iv, where the personal and personal justification of Abraham are taken as typical of the Christian s. But need we on that account throw over the other passages above quoted, which seem to be quite as unambiguous? That which brings benefit to the Church collectively of necessity brings benefit to the individuals of which it is composed. may if we like, as St. Paul very often does, leave out of sight the intervening steps; and it is perhaps the more natural that he should do so, as the Church is in this connexion
faith
perhaps comes out most clearly
We
But
this entity is prior in
less natural to let the mind dwell on the conception which alone embraces past, present, and future, and alone binds all the
scattered particulars into unity.
must remember also that in the age and to the thought of Paul the act of faith in the individual which brings him within the range of justification is inseparably connected
bt.
We
with
its ratifica-
But the significance of baptism lies in the fact that whoever undergoes it is made thereby member of a society and becomes at once a recipient of the privileges and immunities
of that society.
stress
tion in baptism.
on
relation
is about (in the next chapter) to lay there, as well as elsewhere, describes the of spiritual union into which the Christian enters with
St.
Paul
this point.
He
Christ
as
established
the society.
And therefore when at the beginning of chapter he speaks of the entrance of the Christian into grace in metaphors which present that state under the fenced-off enclosure, it is natural to identify the area within which grace and justification operate with the area of the society, in other words with the Church. The Church however
of the present the state of figure of a
in
member
by the same act which makes him also
connexion can have no narrower definition than all baptized persons.' And even the condition of baptism is introduced as an inseparable adjunct to faith; so that if through any exceptional circumstances the two were separated, the greater might be taken to include the less. The Christian theologian has to do with what is normal the abnormal he leaves to the Searcher of hearts. It is thus neither in a spirit of exclusiveness nor yet in that of any hard and fast Scholasticism, but only in accordance with the free and natural tendencies of the Apostle's thought, that we speak of Justification as normally mediated through the Church. St. Paul himself, as we have seen, often drops the intervening link, especially in the earlier Epistles. But in proportion as his maturer insight dwells more and more upon the Church as an organic whole he also conceives of it as doing for the individual believer what the congregation did for the individual Israelites under the
this
'
'
'
; '
124
[V. 2-5.
its
it
older dispensation. the sacrifices of the
reach the individual
Atonement by which through the community.

of
The Day
Christian Sacrifice with
effects, like
is
typified,
3-5 The two leading types of the Old-Latin Version of the Epistle stand able to compare the out distinctly in these verses. We are fortunately confundit) and the Cyprianic text with that of Tertullian (non solum confundit). European text of Cod. Clarom. with that of Hilary (tribulatio represents The passage is also quoted in the so-called Speculum (m), which iv. 416 f.). the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian {Classical Review,
.
.
.
Cyprian.
Cod. Clarom.
et
Non
solum aictem, sed
gloriamur
in pressuris, scicntes quoniam pressura tolerantiam operatur, tolerantia autem probationem, probatio autem stem ; spes aictem non confundit, quia dilectio Dei infusa est cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est
autem, sed et gloriamur in tribulatiombus saentes quod tribuoperatur, patientia patientiam latio autem probationem, probatio autem spem ; spes autem non confundit, quia caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus^
Non solum
nostris
per Spintum Sanctum qui
noo is
datus
;
est nobis.
verum etiam exultantes Tert. certi quod Tert.; perficiat Tert. (ed. Vindob.)
;
perficit Hil. ; prob vero spes vero Hil. (Cod. Clarom.
m Hil.
m).
matter
tol.
vero Tert.
spes vero Tert.
common
in Epp. Paul., there is a considerable amount of to the supposition to all forms of the Version, enough to give colour But the salient expressions are that a single translation lies at their root. Hilary with changed and in this instance Tertullian goes with Cyprian, as pressura are venhed tor the European texts. The renderings tolerantia and
Here as elsewhere
Thess. 1 4 pressura Tertullian elsewhere {tolerantia Luke xxi. 19 ; 1 Rom. viii. 35; xii. I2 1 Cor vii 28 2 Cor l 8; iv> \V ' 4} dilectio (to which also Col. i. 24; 2 Thess. i. 4; Apoc. ii. 22; vii. 14), as but which is found in the quotation does not extend in this passage, &c .) Luke xi. 42 John xiii. 35 Rom - viii 35. 39 * Cor nil. 1 ff , though note however that Hilary and Tertullian agree in perficit iperfiaat), patientiam operatur. another place Hilary has allusively tribulatio
:
Âj
We
in
Perhaps
this coincidence
may
point to an older rendering.
a>^da, Or iarrjKOTfS ak\a k<u 3. ov jmSiw oe ({<TTT)Kaiiev d\\a <al Kav X

Kav^fxevot)
:
in this elliptical
esp. of this
viii.
group of Epistles
form characteristic of St. Paul and ix. 10 viii. 23 2 Cor. (cf. v.
19).
:
but open to suspicion KavYiiaevoi B C, Orig. bis and others a good group, also found a similar group, on the of conforming to ver. 11 (q. v.) we have were right it would be another t whole inferior, in iii. 28. If av X structure which is example of that broken and somewhat inconsecutive to an amanuensis. doubtless due, as Va. suggests, to the habit of dictating
;
cô
is excluded Note the contrast between the Jewish fca^cm which The one rests on supposed 27) and this Christian Karats. the human privileges and merit; the other draws all its force from
'
(iii.
assurance of Divine love.
The Tewish
vii.
writers
98 [Bensly = vi. fidebunt non confusi,
which St. Paul reprehends), but

et
of another mix*) (besides the empty boasting Paradise 4 Ezr. it is reserved for the blest in conet , , 72 O. F. Fritzsche] exultabunt cumfiducia
know
gaudebunt non
reverentes.
V. 3-5.]
125
iv tcus e\u|/<ri. The ffKtycu are the physical hardships and sufferings that St. Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the
viii. 35 ff.; 1 Cor. iv. 11-13; vii. 26-32; xv. 3-10; xi. 23-27. Such passages give us glimpses of the stormy background which lies behind St. Paul's Epistles. He is so absorbed in his Gospel' that this makes very little impression upon him. Indeed, as this chapter shows, the overwhelming sense of God's mercy and love fills him with such
Christian;
cf.
Rom.
i.
30-32;
Cor.
exultation of spirit that bodily suffering not only weighs like dust in the balance but positively serves to strengthen his constancy. The
same feeling comes out in the inepviK^v of viii. 37 the whole passage is parallel. uTTopon^ not merely a passive quality but a masculine constancy in holding out under trials (Waite on 2 Cor. vi. < forti4), tude.' See on ii. 7 above.
:
'
'
the character which results from the process of trial, 4. Soicip) the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit ; cf. James i. 12, &c. The exact order of iiropoul} and 80Kip.fi must not be pressed too far in St. James i. 3 to 8oKipiov t^ ttiWgjs produces
: :
James had seen this Epistle (which is doubtful) we might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. The conception is that of 2 Tim. ii. 3 (in the revised as well as the received
vTrofiovfj.
If St.
text).
t)
8e Sokijxt)
c'XiriSa.
is
that the
hope which
It is quite intelligible as a fact of experience in its origin doctrinal should be strengthened
by the hardening and bracing of character which come from Still the ultimate basis of it is the overwhelming sense of God's love, brought home through the Death of Christ
actual conflict.
and
to this the Apostle returns.
does not disappoint,' does not prove illusory.' 16 (LXX) caught the attention of the early Christians from the Messianic reference contained in it (' Behold,
' :
5. ou
Kcn-cno-xî
'
The
text Is. xxviii.
&c), and the assurance by which this was followed he that believeth shall not be put to shame ') was confirmed to them by their own experience the verse is directly quoted Rom.
I lay in Zion,'
('
:
ix.
33
t)
q. v.
Pet.
ii.
:
6.
certainly ' the love of God for us,' not * our (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns) dydnrj thus comes to mean, our sense of God's love,' just as flp^wj our sense of peace with God.' eKKe'xuTai. The idea of spiritual refreshment and encouragement is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of watering. St. Paul seems to have had in his mind Is. xliv. 3 I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the dry ground I will pour Spirit upon thy seed,' &c. 8ict necufAdTos 'Ayiou without the art., for the Spirit as imparted.
dyd-rrT)
tou Oeou
' '
love for
God
'
'
My

126
[V.
5, 6.
St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges of Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, i. e. from
his baptism.
There is here a difficult, but not really very im6. en yap. portant, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus
summarized
:
m ydp
at the
beginning of the verse with en also
after d<r6cvS>v,
the mass of MSS. eVi at the beginning of the verse only, some inferior MSS. (later stage of the Ecclesiastical text). els ri ydp (possibly representing Iva ri ydp, ut quid enim), the
Western
ft
text (Latin authorities),
yap few authorities, partly Latin. et ye B. It is not easy to select from these a reading which shall account That indeed which has the best authority, the for all the variants. double en, does not seem to be tenable, unless we suppose an accidental repetition of the word either by St. Paul or his amanuensis. It would not be difficult to get ?n ydp from Ua H ydp, or vice versa,
through the doubling or dropping of IN from the preceding word hmin nor would it be difficult to explain en ydp from el ydp, or We might then work our way back to an alternative el vice versa. ydp or et ye, which might be confused with each other through the We think Fuller details are given below. use of an abbreviation. on the whole that it is not improbable that here, as in iv. i, B has For the meaning of el ye (' so preserved the original reading e 1 ye. surely as Va.) see T. S. Evans in Exp. 1882, i. 176 f.; and the note
; '
on
iii.
30 above.
:
In more detail the evidence stands thus en ydp here with en also after c L P &c. els ri ydp b F G aoOevwv N A C D* al. en here only D E ei ydp (104 Greg. = h ut quid enim Lat.-Vet. Vulg., Iren.-lat. Faustin still Scriv.\ mid., Isid.-Pelus. Aug. bis eiydp... en Boh. (' For if, we being weak,' Sec) ei oe Pesh. : el ye B. [The readings are wrongly given by Lips., and not quite correctly even by Gif., through overlooking the commas in Tisch. The statement which is at once fullest and most exact will be found in WH,] supported is en ydp,^ It thus appears: (1) that the reading most strongly with double en, which is impossible unless we suppose a lapsus calami between St. Paul and his amanuensis. (2) The Western reading is els ri iva ydp, which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original doubt a very ri ydp (Gif., from ut quid enim of Iren.-lat. &c): this is no gives ei ydp. (4) B alone early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is So far as sense goes this is the best, and there are not a few cases in et ye.
:
N. T. where the reading of B alone strongly commends itself (cf. iv. 1 above). But the problem is, how to account for the other readings? It would not be dittography of difficult palaeographically from (I ydp to get en ydp by ydp through ditto(eirAP, eiifAp, eTirAp), or from this again to get els ri graphy of e and confusion with c (ecnrAp) or we might take the alternative was iva ingeniously suggested by Gif., of supposing that the original reading
1
V.
6, 7.]
127
which the first two letters had been absorbed by the previous fip.iv (hmin in] ati rap). There would thus be no great difficulty in accounting for the origin either of Irt yap or of the group of Western readings and the primitive variants would be reduced to the two, ei j-Ap and ei re. Dr. Hort proposed to account for these by a conjectural ei nep, which would be a con;
ri yap, of
ceivable root for all the variations partly through paraphrase and partlv through errors of transcription. We might however escape the necessity of resorting to conjecture by supposing confusion between rt and the abbreviaFo th S ( rm See T Allen Notes on Abbreviations in Greek t 5 o MSS. (Oxford, 1889), p. 9 and pi. iii Lehmann, Die tachygraphischen Abkurzungen d. griech. Handschriften (Leipzig, 1880), p. 91 f. taf. 9. We
ô*/^
'
believe that the oldest extant
example
is in
the
Bobiense of the seventh century (Wattenbach, Script. Graec. Specim. tab 8), where the abbreviation appears in a corrupt form. But we know that shorthand was very largely practised in the early centuries (cf. Eus. H. E. VI. xxm. 2), and it may have been used by Tertius himself.] Where we have such a tangled skein to unravel as this it is impossible "to speak very confidently but we suspect that d f, as it makes the best sense, may also 7 be the original reading.
;
Fragmentum Mathematicum
eT pe (ei
rib)
ei
.1 re
ei
y^p
TI
fAp
,1.
1
^p
Ti
rap
[Fn]a
t'i
r<*p
eic
t'i
rAp
ut quid enim
AoQcpum
selves.
incapable
St.
'
of working out any righteousness for ouris
k<xt& KcupoV.
Paul
strongly impressed with the fitness of
the
moment
in
the world's history which Christ chose for
His
intervention in it. This idea is a striking link of connexion between the (practically) acknowledged and the disputed Epistles ; compare on the one hand Gal. iv. 4 ; 2 Cor. vi. 2 ; Rom. iii. 26; and on
Tit. i. 3. ; 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; vi. 15 yap explains how this dying for sinners is a conspicuous proof of love. A few may face death for a good man, still fewer for a righteous man, but in the case of Christ there is more even than this ; He died for declared enemies of God.
i.
the other
7.
hand Eph.
y^P-
10
jao'Xis
The
For
p.6\i$
the
first
attestation in
Luke
ix.
hand of N and Orig. read The two words were 39.
fioyts,
which has more
easily confused both in
sense and in writing.
There is clearly in this passage a contrast between and vnep tov dyadov. They are not expressions which may be taken as roughly synonymous (Mey.-W. Lips. &c), but it
uircp SiKtuou.
vnep diKalov
'
138
is

it is
[V. 7-9.
&Vcaio9.
an easier thing to die for the dyaOik than for the Gnostics drew a distinction between the God of the O. T. and the God of the N. T., calling the one SUaios and the other dyaQos (Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xxvii. i ; comp. other passages and authorities quoted by Gif. p. 123). The Siicaios keeps about the dya36 s there is something to the letter of his bond warmer and more genial such as may well move to self-sacrifice and devotion. In face of the clear and obvious parallel supplied by Irenaeus, not to speak of others, it should not be argued as it is by Weiss and Lips, (who make tov dyaOov neut.) and even by Mey. and Dr. T. K. Abbott (JEssays, p. 75) that there is no substantial difference between dUatos and dya66s. We ourselves often use righteous and good as equivalent without effacing the distinction between them when there is any reason to emphasize it. The stumblingblock of the art. before dyaOov and not before bucalov need not stand This is sufficiently explained by Gif., who points out in the way. that the clause beginning with /xdXis is virtually negative, so that faicaLov is indefinite and does not need the art., while the affirmative clause implies a definite instance which the art. indicates. We go therefore with most English and American scholars (Stuart, Hodge, Gif. Va. Lid.) against some leading Continental names in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural
implied that
Similarly the
'
'
'
'
'
sense of the passage. see on iii. 58. owiorrjox ' His ti\v 4auToO &y&Tn)v own love/ emphatic, prompted from Observe that the death of Christ is here within not from without. referred to the will of the Father, which lies behind the whole of what is commonly (and not wrongly) called the scheme of reGif. excellently remarks that the proof of God's love demption.' towards us drawn from the death of Christ is strong in proportion
:
'
'
to the closeness of the
death of
tt\v
One who
:
is
union between nothing less than
God and
'
Chiist.'
It is the
the Son.'
D E F GL
as
tls
P &c. 6 0d? eh ^fxds lavTOv d-ydirqv is T|p.as 6 0e6s N A C om. 6 eos B. There is no substantial difference of meaning, rifias in any case goes with avviorrjai, not with dydirrjv.
:
uirep
r\\i.u>v
6nr4Qav.
St.
xv. 1-3, to
show
that this doctrine
Paul uses emphatic language, 1 Cor. was not confined to himself but
'
was a common property of

1
Christians.
between justification,' the pronouncing not guilty' of sinners in the past and their final salvation from the wrath to come. He also clearly connects the act of justification with the bloodshedding of Christ: he would have said with the author of Heb. ix. 22 jptfric alfjuiTcuxvaLas ov yuvrot afaais, see p. 92,
9. St. Paul here separates
above.
V. 9
11.]
129
No clearer passage can be quoted for distinguishing the spheres of justification and sanctification than this verse and the next the one an objective fact accomplished without us, the other a change operated within us. Both, though in different ways, proceed from
Christ.
81" auToG explained by the next verse iu rfj which saves the Christian from final judgement
:
far}
avrov.
That
in his
union with
the living Christ.

10. KaTTjMdyrjfi.ei'.
reconciliation
is
The
;
natural
this
mutual
and
prima facie view is that the view appears to verify itself on

this see the
examination
kv
rfj
see below.
wfj auToG.
1
;
For the
10,
full
meaning of
is
notes on
ch.
vi.
8-1
viii.
n.
&c.)
decisively attested for Kavx&pfOa,
to
11. icauxwfiei'oi
(N B C D,
an attempt to improve the construction. The part, is loosely attached to what precedes, and must be taken as in sense equivalent to KavxvptOa. In any case it is present and not future (as if constructed with <ra>dr)<r6neda). We may compare
a similar loose attachment of
ducaiovpevoi in ch.
iii.
which was doubtless due
24.
The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement

The
of ver.
elprjvjj
is the same as the flpfjpi) and the question necessarily meets us, What does this or KaraXXayr] mean ? Is it a change in the attitude of man to
KaraWayrj described in these verses
1;
Many high authorities contend or in that of God to man ? is only a change in the attitude of man to God. Thus Lightfoot on Col. i. 21 exOpovs, " hostile to God," as the opposite of drrr)\\oTpL(op.fuov9, not " hateful to God," as it is taken by some. The active rather than the passive sense of c'xdpovs is required by the context, which (as commonly in the N. T.) speaks of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of God as reconciled to the
God
that
it
: '
sinner ... It is the mind of man, not the mind of God, which must undergo a change, that a reunion may be effected.' Such phrases as " proSimilarly Westcott on 1 Jo. ii. 2 (p. 85) pitiating God" and "God being reconciled" are foreign to the Man is reconciled (2 Cor. v. 18 ff.; Rom. language of the N. T. There is "propitiation" in the matter of sin or of the v. 10 f.). sinner. The love of God is the same throughout; but He " cannot " in virtue of His very nature welcome the impenitent and sinful: and more than this, He "cannot" treat sin as if it were not sin. This being so, the IXaapos, when it is applied to the [A difficult and it may be sinner, so to speak, neutralizes the sin.'
: '
/
l
<\v
thought hardly tenable distinction. The relation of God to sin is not merely passive but active; and the term iXaafios is properly
130

Some one
is
'
[V. 12-14.
propitiated
'
used in reference to a personal agent. and who can this be, but God ?]
The same
idea
is
a characteristic feature in the theology of

ii.
Ritschl (Recht. u. Vers.
230
ff.).
doubt there are passages where i\0p6s denotes the hostility and tcaraWayrj the reconciliation of man to God but taking the language of Scripture as a whole, it does not seem that it can be explained in this way. (1) In the immediate context we have rrjv KaTaWayrjv {kd&ofup, implying that the reconciliation comes to man from the side of God, and is not directly due to any act of his own. We may compare the familiar x^P' s Kai "ph vr), to which is usually added 0776
;
No
eeou in the greetings of the Epistles.

(2) In Rom. xi. 28 irfpot is Opposed tO dyanrjToi, where aymrrjTol must be passive (' beloved by God '), so that it is hardly possible it that e'xfyoi can be entirely active, though it may be partly so seems to correspond to our word hostile.' (3) It is difficult to dissociate such words as lka(TTT)piov (Rom. iii. 25), IXaa-fios (1 Jo. ii. 2) from the idea of propitiating a person. (4) There is frequent mention of the Anger of God as directed against sinners, not merely at the end of all things, but also at this When that Anger ceases to be present time (Rom. i. 18, &c). so directed there is surely a change (or what we should be compelled to call a change) on the part of God as well as of man. We infer that the natural explanation of the passages which speak of enmity and reconciliation between God and man is that they are not on one side only, but are mutual. At the same time we must be well aware that this is only our Kara avOpoa-rrov Xe'yo) must be written imperfect way of speaking We are obliged to use anthropolarge over all such language. morphic expressions which imply a change of attitude or relation on the part of God as well as of man and yet in some way which we cannot wholly fathom we may believe that with Him there is
: ' :
;
'
no
variableness, neither
shadow of turning/
THE FALL OP ADAM AND THE WORK OF CHRIST.

V. 12-14.
What a
There
is
contrast does
this
last
description
suggest between the Fall of Adam
and
the justifying
Work
life,
of Christ
indeed parallelism as well as contrast.
For
so
it is true
that as Christ brought righteousness
and
If death prevailed throughout the pre-Mosaic period, that could not be due solely
Adams
Fall brought sin and death.
V. 12-14.]
to the
ADAM AND CHRIST
Io T
sin;
act of those who died. Death is the punishment of but they had not sinned against law as Adam had. The true cause then was not their own sin, but Adam's
itself, like
whose fall thus had consequences extending beyond the redeeming act of Christ.
12
The
description just given of the

sinner,
Work
of Christ,
to
first
justifying
and reconciling the

of
final salvation,
and then holding out
him
the
hope
the
brings out forcibly the
contrast between
two great Representatives of Humanity Adam and Christ. The act by which Adam fell, like the act of Christ, had a far-reaching
effect
first
upon mankind.
Through
his Fall, Sin, as
an active
;
principle,
gained an entrance
among
the
human
race
and Sin brought
with
Fall,
it the doom of (physical) Death. So that, through Adam's death pervaded the whole body of his descendants, because
they one and

I
all fell
'
into sin,
say
'
they sinned sense
must
insert a
and died as he had died. word of qualification.

could not sin:
yet
13
When
In the
strict
of
full
responsibility, they
for that
attaches only to sin against law,

sin
and they had as

the
full
no law
sin.
to
against.
u Yet they
suffered
penalty
of
All
through the long period which intervened between Adam and the Mosaic legislation, the tyrant Death held sway; even though those who died had not sinned, as Adam had, in violation of
an express command.
at
This proved that something deeper was
work
and
that could only be the transmitted effect of
Adam's
sin.
It is this transmitted effect
of a single act which
made Adam
a type of the coming Messiah.

points to the logical connexion with what prehas been argued, at somewhat disproportionate length, whether this refers to ver. 1 1 only (Fricke, De Mente dogmatica loci Paulini ad Rom. v. 12 sq., Lipsiae, 1880, Mey., Philippi, Beet), or to vv. 9-1 1 (Fri.), or to vv. 1-11 (Rothe, Hofmann), or to the whole discussion from i. 17 onwards (Beng.,. Schott, Reiche, Rfickert). We cannot lay down so precisely how much was consciously present to the mind of the Apostle. But as the leading idea of the whole section is the comparison of the train of consequences flowing from the Fall of Adam with the train of consequences flowing from the Justifying Act of Christ, it seems natural to include at least as much as contains a brief outline of that work, i.e. as far as vv. 1-11.
:
12. 8ia touto

It
cedes.
K 2
13a
That being
[V. 12.
so, we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. 1 1 that Paul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one Fricke, however, is right in case with that of life in the other. saying that his object is not to inquire into the origin of death The origin of both is assumed, not propounded as or sin. This is important for the understanding of the anything new. AH turns on this, that the effects of bearings of the passage. Adam's Fall were transmitted to his descendants; but St. Paul nowhere says how they were transmitted nor does he even define He seems, however, to mean in precise terms what is transmitted.
St.
;
(1) the liability to sin, (2) the liability to die as the
punishment
of
sin.
<3<nrp.
The
structure of the
ver. 14) is
word
istic
(to the
end of
paragraph introduced by this broken in a manner very characterif
of St. Paul.
:
He
begins the sentence as

f)
he intended
r)
it
to
run
t?js
&o"ntp 81 ivos dvOpatnov

.
Apapria
ko\
els
tou Koapou
evos
eiofJAtfe, Koi 81a
Apaprlas 6 Qavaros
ovtoh
fj
8l
dvOpwnov
ftiKaioavvr]
clar)\dc, Ka\
81a tP/s ftiKaioavvrjs
far).
But the words
81a rrjs
Apap-
rlas 6 edvaros
bring up the subject which St. Paul is intending to raise, viz. the connexion of sin and death with the Fall of Adam he goes off upon this, and when he has discussed it sufficiently for his purpose, he does not return to the form of sentence which he had originally planned, but he attaches the clause comparing Christ to Adam by a relative (os ten rimos rav peWovros) and so what should have been the to the end of his digression main apodosis of the whole paragraph becomes merely subIt is a want of finish in style due to eagerness and ordinate.
:
intensity of thought
~#ju H**~
but the meaning is quite clear. Compare 16; iii. 8, 26. ^ djxapTia: Sin, as so often, is personified: it is a malignant force let loose among mankind see the fuller note at the end of
;
the construction of
ii.
'
$u^Jr
Hl, tW**t*'
the chapter. is * ov
kô"
iarjX9e
a phrase which, though

i.
specially of St.
John (John
9,
10;
iii.
17, 19;
is not peculiar to him (cf. 1 John and the author of Heb. apply it to the personal incarnation of the Logos; here it is applied to the impersonal
39;
x.
36, &c),
reminds us 14; . 5> Tim. i. 15; Heb.

it
vi.
x. 5).
St.
self-diffusion of evil.
cf.
di 1
to
6 edm-ros.
chiefly
'
Some have taken

ground
is
this
to
mean
it
>
'eternal
to be
death,
on
the
of vv. 17, 21,
where
seems
opposed
view.
strenuous supporter of this is the most simpler and better to take it of 'physical because (1) this is clearly the sense of ver. 14; (2) it is death' the sense of Gen. ii. 17; iii. 19; to which St. Paul is evidently idea It seems probable that even in vv. 17, 21, the alluding.
eternal
life.'
it
Oltr.
But
far
is
in the
first
instance physical.
But
St.
Paul does not draw the
V. 12.]
ADAM AND CHRIST

distinction
133
and the life to enough to suggest The Apostle's argument the contrast of life in all its senses. the benefits wrought by Christ are is that the gift of life and altogether wider in their range than the penalty of Adam's sin
marked
come.
that
we do between
this life
is
The mention
of death in any sense
r) x (l P ls i s tne keynote of the passage. It is not necessary that the two sides of the antithesis should exactly corIn each particular the scale weighs heavily in favour respond. of the Christian.
vTTfpeTTfpLo-o-fvo-fv
makes the
F G, &c.) omits this word altogether. Ang. text (D he accuses the Pelagians of subject of the vb. not death but sin inserting 6 davaros.
The Western
:
*,
contains the force of distribution; 'made its way to KaOcmtp ns tempos irarpbs Staphs fVl tovs iyyovovs ('like a father's inheritance divided among
SiTjXGei':
'
each individual member of the race

Euthym.-Zig.
'
his children'),
if
there
Though this expression has been much fought over, can now be little doubt that the true rendering is because.'
(J.
'
jq
(1) Orig. followed by the Latin commentators took the rel. as masc. with antecedent 'ASa/x
:
Adam.'
tion
(2)
;
But
<
in that case
(i)
rt
(ii)
would be too
Odvaros
:
'
far
Aug. and Ambrstr. in whom,' i. e. in would not be the right preposiremoved from its antecedent.
'
'
as masc. which is even more impossible. (3) Some moderns, taking w as neut. and the whole phrase as equivalent to a conjunction, have tried to So (i) in like because.' get out of it other meanings than
Some Greeks quoted by

antecedent
Photius also took the

which,'
i.
rel.
with
in
e.
'
in
death,'
'
'
manner
(ii)
as'
c<p'
('all
*
died, just as
all
'
sinned'), Rothe,
in so far as
'
De
Wette;
(=
oa-ov)
in proportion as,'
('
all
died, in so
far as all sinned'), Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) S is rightly taken as neut., and the phrase $' a> as conj. = because' ('for that' AV. and RV.) by Theodrt. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass This is in agreement with Greek of modern commentators. usage and is alone satisfactory.
'
means 'on condition that': cf. tovs dvbpas Kopiovvrai, 'on conThe plural </>' ofs is more dition of getting back their prisoners,' &c. common, as in dvO' wv, } Sjv, 5t* Siv. In N. T. the phrase occurs three cf. 2 Cor. v. 4 times, always as it would seem =propte rea quod, 'because'
i<f>'
in
classical writers
more
often
<
Thuc.
i.
113 anopSas iroiTja&pevoi
</>'
OT(vao(Atv (2apovp.(voc </>' $ ov 8(\optv kKo~voaoQai k.t.K. ; Phil. iii. 1 2 * because appears ' i<p' y Kal Kart\rn}>6T)v bird X. 'I. (where ' seeing that ' or So Phavorinus (d. 1537; a lexicoto be the more probable rendering). older of contents the grapher of the Renaissance period, who incorporated works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) !</>' $ u.*ti tov Bioti
kiyovotv 'Attiko'i, olov mitted the theft ') k.t.K.
<(/>'
$ r^v
K\oitijv
eipydau
('because you com-
134
c<|>'
EPISTLE TO THE
u>
ROMANS
[V. 12, 13.
^>c jyA^J
i
'
Here lies the crux of this difficult pasirdvTes qjxapToi'. In what sense did 'all sin'? (1) Many, including even Meyer, though explaining e<p' <a as neut. rather than masc., yet give to the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equivalent Bengel has to that which it has if the antecedent of <a is 'Addp. given this classical expression: omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante, all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam,' his sin involved theirs. The objection is that the words supplied are far too important If St. Paul had meant this, why did to be left to be understood. he not say so? The insertion of iv 'Addp, would have removed
sage.
'
ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part all sinned supply nothing, but take rjp.apTov in its usual sense
all
:
'
in their Zig.
:
own
persons, and
fjpaprov
on
their
own
initiative.'
tg>
So Euthym.Kara,
8i6tc
rravres
duoXovdrjcravTes
rrporraTopi
ye to
&p,aprrj(rai.
The
between
in the
Adam
objection to this is that it destroys the parallelism and Christ besides, St. Paul goes on to show
:
same breath
did.
that they could not sin in the

;
same way
that
Adam
but Adam's descendants had no law. (3) It is possible however to take fjpaprov in its ordinary sense without severing the connexion between Adam and his posterity. If they sinned, their sin was due in part to tendencies inherited from Adam. So practically Stuart, Fricke, Weiss, &c. There still remains the difficulty as to the connexion of this clause with what follows see the next note. Sin implies law
:
a further argument in favour of the view taken above that a very similar sequence of thought is found in 4 Ezra. Immediately after laying down that the sin of Adam's descendants is due to that malignitas radicis which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in full below), the writer goes on to describe this sin as a repetition of Adam's due to the fact that they too had within them the cor malignum as he had Et deliquerunt qui habitabant civitatem, in omnibus facientes sicut fecit Adam et omnes generationes eius, utebantur enim et ipsi corde maligno (4 Ezra iii. 25 f.). Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from Apoc. Baruch. which lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin and on the freedom of choice in those who give way to it see the fuller note below.
It is
:
('
At first sight this seems to give a axpi y^P ^H- ou K.T.X. reason for just the opposite of what is wanted it seems to prove aPTOV but that however much men might sin i vVV not t îat 7r""res This is really what they had not at least the full guilt of sin. There is an under-current all through St. Paul aims at proving. the passage, showing how there was something else at work That something is the effect besides the guilt of individuals. The Fall gave the predisposition to sin; and of Adam's Fall. the Fall linked together sin and death. St. Paul would not say that the absence of written law did away with all responsibility. He has already laid down most distinctly that Gentiles, though without such written law, have
13.
:
>
'
'
V.
13, 14.]
ADAM AND CHRIST
*35
law enough to be judged by (ii. 12-16); and Jews before the time of Moses were only in the position of Gentiles. But the degree of their guilt could not be the same either as that of Adam, or as that of the Jews after the Mosaic legislation. Perhaps it might be regarded as an open question whether, apart
sins would have been punishable with Paul wishes to bring out is that prior to the giving of the Law, the fate of mankind, to an extent and in a way which he does not define, was directly traceable to Adam's Fall.
from Adam, pre-Mosaic

death.
What
St.
'
/
A
t^ m*
C \hjJJ^
djiapTia 8e ouk eXXoyeiTai k.t.X. The thought had evidently taken strong hold on St. Paul: see the parallels there quoted.
in a
one which on iv. 15, and

is
eXXoYeiTcu : ledger.
'
brought into account
The word
' (Gif.), as of an entry made also occurs in Philem. 18, where see
Lightfoot's note.
iWoyeiTCLL (or kv\oyeiTai N C &c, kWoydrai N d : ev\oy(tTo N*, eWoyaro 52 108; imputabatur Vulg. codd. Ambrstr. al. The imperf. appears to be a (mistaken) correction due to the context. As to the form of the verb: iXXoya is decisively attested in Philem. 18 ; but it would not follow that the same form was used here where St. Paul is employing a different amanuensis however, as the tendency of the MSS. is rather to obliterate vernacular forms than to introduce them, there is perhaps a slight balance of probability in favour ol eWoyarai see Westcott and Hort, Notes on Orthography in Appendix to Introd. p. 166 ff.
BCDEFGKLP,
14. ePao-t'Xeuo-ei/ 6 Bdvaros. St. Paul appeals to the universal prevalence of death, which is personified, as sin had been just before, under the figure of a grim tyrant, in proof of the mischief wrought by Adam's Fall. Nothing but the Fall could account for that universal prevalence. Sin and death had their beginnings together, and they were propagated side by side.
On the certainty and universality of Death, regarded as a penalty, comp. Seneca, Nat. Quaest. ii. 59 Eodem citius tardiusve veniendum est In omnes constitutum est capitate supplicium et quidevi constitulione iustissima. nam quod magnum solet esse solatium extrema passuris, quorufti eadem causa et sors eadem est. Similarly Philo speaks of rbv av/Mpva vt/cpdv rjixwv, rb auifxa (De Gigant. 3 ed. Mang. i. 264). Elsewhere he goes a step further and asserts on iravrl ytvvT]Tu> avfupves to dixaprdveiv. For parallels in 4 Ezra and Apoc. Baruch. see below. irl tovs p.T| &(jiapTT|cravTas. number of authorities, mostly Latin Fathers, but including also the important margin of Cod. 67 with three other cursives, the first hand of d, and the Greek of Orig. at least once, omit the negative, making the reign of death extend only over those who had sinned after the likeness of Adam. So Orig.-lat. (Rufinus) repeatedly and expressly, Latin MSS. known to Aug., the 'older Latin MSS.' according to Ambrstr. and Sedulius. The comment of Ambrstr. is interesting as showing a certain grasp of critical principles, though it was difficult for any one in those days to have sufficient command of MSS. to know the real state of the evidence. Ambrstr. prefers in this case the evidence of the Latin MSS., because those with which he is acquainted are older than the Greek, and represent, as he thinks, an older form of text. He claims that this form has the support of Tertulljan,
.
.
136
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[V. 14.
verify.
a statement which we are not at present able to accounts for the Greek reading by the usual theory of heretical There is a similar question of the insertion or omission of a Rom. iv. 19 (q.v.\ Gal. ii. 5. In two out of the three cases the Western text omits the negative, but in ch. iv. 19 it inserts it. tv-itos (tvtttcd) (1) the 'impression' left by a sharp blow (tov rvirov tSjv tfKcov John xx. 25), in particular the 'stamp' struck by a die; (2) inasmuch as such a stamp bears the figure on the face of the die, copy,' 'figure,' or representation '; (3) by a common transition from effect to cause, 'mould,' 'pattern,' 'exemplar'; (4) hence in the special sense of the word an event or type, which we have adopted from the Greek of the N. T., person in history corresponding in certain characteristic features to another That which comes first in order of time is properly the event or person.' type, that which comes afterwards the antitype {olvtItvitos i Pet. iii. 21). These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation see esp. Cheyne, Isaiah, ii. 170 ff. (Essay III, On the Christian Element in the Book of Isaiah ').
Cyprian and Victorinus
He
corruption. negative in
'
'
'
'
v^,
'
toC jxe'Mon-os. (1) The entirely personal nature of the whole comparison prevents us from taking tov fie'XX. as neut. as that which was to come' (Beng., Oltramare). If St. Paul had intended this, he would have written tov pAWros ala>vos. (2) Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as 6 devrepos or 6 eo-Yaros 'Aoa/x (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47). If St. Paul had intended this, he would have written tov peWovros 'Abdp. (3) The context makes
'
it
clear
enough who
race
as
the
human
is intended The first representative of such prefigured its second Great Repre-
sentative,
whose coming lay
in
the
future
this
is
sufficiently
brought out by the expression 'of Him who was to be.' 6 fieXXcov thus approximates in meaning to 6 ipxfyxvos (Matt. xi. 3; Luke vii. 19; Heb. x. 37), which however appears not to have been, as it is sometimes regarded, a standing designation In any case tov peWovros Him who was to for the Messiah *. come when Adam fell, not who is (still) to come (Fri. De W.).
'
'
'
'
The Effects of
Adams
Fall in Jewish Theology.
Three points come out
clearly in these verses: (1) the Fall of
brought death not only to Adam himself but to his descendants (2) the Fall of Adam also brought sin and the tendency to sin (3) and yet in spite of this the individual does All three propositions receive some not lose his responsibility. partial illustration from Jewish sources, though the Talmud does
Adam
* ' The designation " The Coming One " (Habba), though a most truthful expression of Jewish expectancy, was not one ordinarily used of the Messiah.' Edersheim, Z. <Sr T. i. p. 668.
V. 12-14.]
not*
ADAM AND CHRIST

:
*37
seem to have had any consistent doctrine on the subject. Dr. Edersheim says expressly So far as their opinions can be gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original Sin and of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient Rabbis' (Life and Times, &c. i. 165). Still there are approximations, especially in the writings on which we have drawn so freely already, the Fourth Book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch.
*
(1) The evidence is strongest as to the connexion between Adam's sin and the introduction of death. ' There were/ says Dr. Edersheim, two divergent opinionsthe one ascribing death to personal, the other to Adam's guilt' (op. cit. i. 166). It is however allowed that the latter view greatly preponderated. Traces of it are found as far back as the Sapiential Books: e.g. Wisd. ii. 23 f. 6 Qeos enTioev rbv dvOpamov kit' u<pOap<riq . <p66vcj) 8^ dia(36\ov Qavaros tlorjKQev tt's rbv k6<t/xov, where we note the occurrence of St. Paul's phrase ; Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] 8t avrfjv (sc. rfjv yvvai/ta) dnoevr]' . .
doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Ezra and 4 Ezr. iii. 7 et huic (sc. Adamd) mandasti diligere viam earn; et statim instituisti in eum mortem et in nationibus ( = generationibus) eius Apoc. Baruch. xvii. 3 {Adam) mortem attulit et abscidit annos eorutn qui ab eo geniti fuerunt ibid, xxiii. 4 Quando peccavit Adam et decretafuit mors contra eos qui gignerentur. (2) We are warned (by Dr. Edersheim in Sp. Comm. Apocr. ad toe.) not to identify the statement of Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] dirb yvvaiKus dpxfj afxaprias with the N. T. doctrine of Original Sin still it points in that direction we have just seen that the writer deduces from Eve the death of all mankind, and in like manner he also seems to deduce from her (and -yvv.) the initium peccandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra iii. 21 f. Cor enim malignum baiulans primus Adam transgressus et victus est, sed et omnes qui de eo nati sunt et facta est permanens infirmitas, et lex cum corde popiili, cum malignitaie
OKOfiev rravres.
The
Apoc. Baruch.
tuam,
et praeterivit
et discessit quod bonum est, et mansit malignum ; ibid. iv. 30 Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio, et quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc, et generat usque dum veniat area
radicis
tbid. vii. 48 O tu quid fecisti Si enim tu peccasti, non est fact us solius tuus casus, sed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus. And yet along with all this we have the explicit assertion of responsi(3)
Adam?
on the part of all who sin. This appears in the passage quoted above 12 (ad fin.). To the same effect are 4 Ezr. viii. 5<) f. Non enim Altissimus voluit hominem disperdi, sed ipsi qui creati sunt coinquinaverunt nomen eius quifecit eos ibid. ix. 1 1 qui fastidierunt legem meam cum adhuc erant habentes libertatem. But the classical passage is Apoc. Baruch. liv. 15, 19 Si enim Adam prior peccavit, et attulit mortem super omnes immaturam ; sed etiam illi qui ex eo nati sunt, unusquisque ex eis praeparavit animae suae tormentum futurum: et iterum unusquisque ex eis elegit sibi gloriam futuram Aon est ergo Adam causa, nisi animae suae tantum ; nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam.
bility
on
ver.
The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the Talmud. The latter is thus summarized by Weber (Altsyn. Theol. p. 216) By the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right relation to God is rendered difficult. More than this cannot be said. Sin, to which the bent and leaning had already been planted in man by creation,
:
'
had become a fact the " evil impulse " ( cor malignum) gained the mastery over mankind, who can only resist it by the greatest efforts before the Fall it had had power over him, but no such ascendancy Hence ( Uebermacht)? when the same writer says a little further on that according to the Rabbis
; ;
there
is
such a thing as transmission of guilt, but not such a thing as trans-
138
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[V. 15-21.
mission of sin (Es gibt eine Erbschuld, aber keine Erbsunde),' the negative proposition is due chiefly to the clearness with which the Rabbis (like Apoc.
Baruch.)
It
insist
upon
free-will
and
direct individual responsibility.
seems
to us a mistake to place the teaching of St. Paul in too
marked opposition
between
his views
indeed either
There is no fundamental inconsistency to this. and those of his contemporaries. He does not affirm or deny the existence of the cor malignum
before the Fall, nor does he use such explicit language as nos vero unusquisque fuil animae suae Adam: on the other hand he does define more exactly than the Rabbis the nature of human responsibility both under the Law (ch. vii. 7 ff.) and without it But here, as elsewhere in dealing with this mysterious (ii. 12-15). subject (see p. 267 below), he practically contents himself with
Man inherits leaving the two complementary truths side by side. his nature ; and yet he must not be allowed to shift responsibility from himself: there is that within him by virtue of which he is free to choose ; and on that freedom of choice he must stand or fall.
ADAM AND
V. 15-21.
contrast.
CHRIST.
but note also the
So far
the parallelism:
How
I
superior the
Work of
Christ!
(1)
How
different in quality: the one act all sin, the other act all
bounty or grace
or
(ver. 15).
(2)
How
different in quantity,
mode of working : one act tainting the whole race with sin, and a multitude of sins collected together in one only to be forgiven I (ver. 16). (3) How different and surpassing in its whole cliaracter and consequences : a reign of Death and a reign of Life ! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adams Fall
brought sin
cancelled,
:
Law
increased it: but the
Work of Grace has

of
and more than
cancelled, the effect
Law
(vv.
18-21).
15
In both cases there
is
a transmission of effects:
all
but there
the resemblance ends.

call
it)
In
else the false step (or Fall, as
we
of
Adam and
the free
gift
of God's bounty are most unlike.

entailed death
The fall of that one representative man many members of the race to which he
be surprised
if
upon the
then
belonged.
Can we
an act of such
gift
different quality
the free unearned
favour of God, and the
of righteousness bestowed through
;;
V. 15-21.]
the kindness
ADAM AND CHRIST
139
of that other Representative Man, Jesus Messiah should have not only cancelled the effect of the Fall, but also brought further blessings to the whole race? "There is
and the had

gift
a second difference between this boon bestowed through Christ ill effects of one man's sinning. The sentence pro-
nounced upon
for
its
Adam
result a
took its rise in the act of a single man, and sweeping verdict of condemnation. But the
inverts this procedure. for
its
bestowed by
faults,
17
God
it
It
took
its
rise
in
many
and
the
had
result a verdict declaring sinners
righteous.
Yet once more.

tyrant
man Adam
sole agency.
Through the single fault of the one Death began its reign through that one Much more then shall the Christian recipients of
and of the inestimable
gift
that overflowing kindness
ness
much more
To sum
we have
up.
effect,
of righteouslife,
shall they also reign, not in death but in
through the sole agency of Jesus Messiah.

18
On
one
side
all
we have
the cause, a single Fall
and the
side
extending to
men, condemnation.
;
On
the other
as cause, a single absolving act

all,
and as
effect, also
it life.
extending to
19
a like process of absolution, carrying with
For as through the disobedience of the one man Adam all mankind were placed in the class and condition of 'sinners,' so through the obedience (shown in His Death upon the Cross) of the one man, Christ, the whole multitude of believers shall be placed 20 in the class and condition of righteous/ Then Law came in,
'
as a sort of
in
'
afterthought/ a
secondary and subordinate stage,
the Divine
plan, causing the indefinite multiplication of sins

fall
which, like the lapse or
of
Adam, were breaches
of express
command.
21
Multiplied indeed they were, but only with the result
of calling forth a
Hitherto Sin
subjects
its
more abundant stream of pardoning grace. enthroned in a kingdom of the dead have been sunk in moral and spiritual death. But this
still
has
sat
has been permitted only in order that the Grace or Goodwill of
God might
by the
Lord.
gift
also set
up
its
throne over a people
fitted for its
sway
of righteousness, and therefore destined not for death

life
but for eternal
through
the mediation of Jesus Messiah, our
15. Trapa-iTTWfxa
'
a lapse
'
' a lit. slip or fall sideways/ a false step/ hence metaph. in a sense not very dissimilar to dfiaprrma
:
'
I 4o

is
[V. 15, 16.
(which
that Trapanr. should
It is however appropriate prop, 'missing a mark'). be used for a 'fall' or first deflection from uprightness, just as dpdpr. is used of the failure of efforts towards On the word see Trench, Syn. p. 237 f. recovery.
toG kv6%
'
the
'
one man,'
'all
i. e.
Adam.
01 ttoXXoi
the many,' practically
= irdvras ver.
1 2
navras dvOpa-
very misleading to translate ' as AV., ignoring the article, if through the offence of one, many be dead, by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous/ Redemption like the Fall proceeds not from any chance member of the human race, and its effects extend not only to many but to
novs in ver. 18,
mankind/
It is
'
'
'
all
'to
is
'
all/ that is potentially, if
they embrace the redemption
which
offered them.
' See Bentley, quoted by Lft. On Revision, p. 97, By this accurate version some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute reprobation had been happily prevented. Our English readers had then seen, what several of the Fathers saw and testified, that 01 ttoWo'i, the many, in an antithesis to the one, are equivalent to iravres, all, in ver. 12, and comprehend the whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusive only of the one'
What we know of the character of God as dis-rroXXw |uiaXXo\ played in Christ makes us more certain of the good result than of
the evil.
defined below (ver. 17) as 17 dcopea tT/s the condition of righteousness into which duped, boon,' like 8S>pov contrasted with 86p.a, the sinner enters, Alleg. iii. is reserved for the highest and best gifts; so Philo, Leg.
rj
Swped
is
more
fully
is
btKaioavvrjs
the gift
'
70
epcpaaiv peyiBovs reXeicov dya6a>v drjXoviriv (Lft. Ret), p. 77/
COmp.
also the ascending scale of expression in Jas. i. 17. In classical Greek we should iv xdpin goes closely with f) doped. have had the art. fj ev xoptrt, but in Hellenistic Greek a qualifying
phrase
is
attached to a subst. without repetition of the
art.
Mey.
however and some others (including Lid.) separate doped and connect it with eTreplaaevo-e.
ev x<*P lTL fr
the Father, and is exhibited in the x dpis is more often applied to God whole scheme of salvation. As applied to Christ it is (1) that active favour towards mankind which moved Him to intervene for their salvation (cf. esp. individual by the 2 Cor. viii. 9) (2) the same active favour shown to the Father and the Son conjointly (Rom. i. 7 q. v.).
;
16.
The absence
: '
of verbs
first
is
thetic style.
With the
clause
another mark of compressed antiwe may supply eW, with the
And not as through one man's sinning, so is the second ryivero but boon. For the judgement sprang from one to condemnation, declarathe free gift sprang from many trespasses (and ended in) a In the one case there is expansion outtion of righteousness.' in the other case there is contraction many to one from wards,
:
V. 16-18.]
ADAM AND CHRIST

all
inwards; the movement originates with many sins which are embraced in a single sentence of absolution
Wâ:
)
declared
A ^? rright
tnTn' to an act p. 31 sup.). 17. ttoXX paXXo,. Here the a fortiori argument nature of the two contrasted forces
Jr*"" m
its
usually the decision, decree, or ordinance by which (that vvhich gives thin ^ the here the decision- or sentence by which persons are t0 , The sense is determined by^he antithels t0 hKaia>(Tls the reIation of an act completed f F process (see
fc5
*J
in the
lies
powerful in
working than man's

. . .
1 God's grace must be more
sin.
naturally recurs to
his share in the
Every g hte ousness here described as man himself, not wrought within him but coming to him, imputed not infused. It has its source in the overflow of God's free favour; it is a gift which man 8 receives see pp. 25, 30 f., 36 above. PooiXcdoouai. The metaphor is present to St. Paul's mind and having used it just before of the prevalence of Death he
*V pwriy
xrjs
Swpeas
P 0mtS t0 th l gift f K f something objective and external
rrjs SiKtuoauVrjs Xap|3<o,Te S.

ri
rTih^
:
to the
a heightened and glorified already in germ.

8ta too
it in the sense more familiar to a Christian of Messianic blessings, of which the foremost was
vitality, that
'eternal life' which
is
his
scale ol blessing in vv. 20, 21.
bfo VoG XpiaToG. The Si here covers the whole mediaSon in reference to man it is through His Death that the sinner on embracing Christianity enters upon the state of righteousness, and through the union with Him which follows that his whole being is vitalized and transfigured through time into eternity. 18. 1 his and the three following verses, introduced by the strongly illative particles apa otv, sum up the results of the whole comparison between Adam and Christ the resemblance is set m vv. 18, 19; the difference and vast preponderance of the
tion of the
: :
Again we have a condensed antithesis the -reat salient strokes confronting each other without formal construction origin, extent issue alike parallel and alike opposed. As then, through one lapse! to all men, unto condemnation so also, through one justifying act to all men, unto justification of life.' There are two difficulties' the interpretation of &' eVAs dtKariparos and of duuWi f,^. 81' ivbs SiKcu^dTos. Does &u'/xa here mean the same thing as ver. 16? If so, it is the sentence by which God declares men righteous on account of Christ's Death. Or is it the merit of that Death itself, the righteous act/ or i^, of Christ ? number of scholars (Holsten, Va. Lips. Lid.) argue that it must be the latter in order to correspond with di' hbs irapmrr&paTos. So too Euthym.-Zig. dt hhs dâicofiaros tov X. Tt]i> &Kp
:
'
<
av
hiKawfrvv^v
142,
[V. 18, 19.
But it seems better, with Mey. Gif. and others, to same sense to SiKa'iwpLa as in ver. 16. We saw that there the sense was fixed by KaraKptpa, which is repeated in the present verse. On the other hand it is doubtful whether biKaiupa can quite = 'a righteous act.' God's sentence and the act of Christ are so inseparable that the one may be used in the antithesis as naturally
ireTT^rjpcoKoTos.
give the
as the other.
It
is
best also to follow the natural construction of the

ivos
and make
Gif.) rather
neut.
'
in
agreement with
Sikcu'oo/a.
Greek (Mey.-W. Va.
than masc. (Lips.). Life is both the immediate and ultimate result of that state of things into which the Christian enters when he is declared righteous or receives his sentence of absolution.
SiKaiwffik wt]s.
'
' '
19. 8ict ttjs irapctKOTJs
Sid
ttjs
u-iraKOTJs.
It is
natural that
this aspect of the Fall as irapaKorj
should be made prominent in a context which lays stress on the effect of law or express command It is natural also that in in enhancing the heinousness of sin. antithesis to this there should be singled out in the Death of cf. Heb. v. 8, 9 Matt. xxvi. Christ its special aspect as vnaKar] 39 Phil. ii. 8. On the word irapaKor] (' a failing to hear/ incuria, and thence inobedientid) see Trench, Syn. p. 234.
:
KaTeaTci0if)aaj' shall KaracrraOrio-orrai: were constituted be constituted/ But in what sense constituted ? The Greek word has the same ambiguity as the English. If we define further, Here the context is the definition must come from the context. sufficiently clear it covers on the one hand the whole result of Adam's Fall for his descendants prior to and independently of their
.
.
'
'
'
'
'
deliberate act of sin; and it covers on the other hand the whole result of the redeeming act of Christ so far as that too is accomplished objectively and apart from active concurrence on the
own
part of the Christian.

the Last
in fact
The
fut. KaTao-TaB^novrai
has reference not to

;
Judgement but
to future generations of Christians
to
all
who
reap the benefit of the Cross.
Paul wrote in Gal. ii. 15 ^/xcfs <pv<rei 'IovSafoi, Kal ovk l tOvwv he implied (speaking for the moment from the stand-point of his countrymen) that Gentiles would be regarded as <pva*i apaprwXoi: they belonged ' to the class ' of sinners just as we might speak of a child as belonging to the criminal class ' before it had done anything by its own act
St.
When
a/xapTcuKoi,
'
to justify its place in that class.
The meaning
of the text
it
is
very similar
so far as
it
relates to the effects of the Fall of

it
Adam
by
vv.
12-14; an d so far as
relates to the effects of the
must be interpreted Death of Christ
parallel to w. I, 2 SiKaiajOivres ovv [kit marews] tlp-qvqv x^ v (contained in Zxwpev) *pbs rbv &ov 8id tov Kvpiov jjpcuv 'I. X., 6V ov Kal rty TTpoaayojyrjv eaxv fca /XV c '* T For the use of KadiX"*P IV * v V karrjKapev. OTaoQai there is a good parallel in Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 9 '70; ovv toxjs pev fiovXopivovs TroX\.a trpdypara ex iu eLS T " vs ap\iKobs KaTaoT-qoaipi, where KaraffT. eh tows dpxiKoiis raTTopw (suj>.) and ip.avruv rdrTw els tovs
it is
(5ov\op.evovs {inf.).
V. 20, 21.]
:
ADAM AND CHRIST
43
&
20. irapeiaijXeeK come in to the side of a state of thugs already Paul re rded Law as a g 'parenthesis' in the DMne ; if" rTn K d nti Moses
!
iv. (cp. iv
, ;6 13-16
it
.? x.
^v
4).
beginning:
,s
a sort of
and jt ended *** Here i however he has in view only

'
Ss
late
its-
after-thought
(see the Paraphrase)
? a TrXeoâr, For the force of Iva comp. r6 r Xoynroysi. 2 o the multiplication of transgression and direct object of law, but its second
Am airoi>
is
<Wo~
only multiplies trangression because

into
it
deliberate sin acts which would not have had that character they had not been so expressly forbidden.
not the first and contingent object: law is broken and so converts
if
I aware
WO &&, SZZt Tr8*

:
of the ecbatic sense of iva ? (see
rovvavnov ov napd rijv rod vopov tpiotv, dXXd riv 4, (ChryS quhe ;^ n te Whkh sh0WS that the ancients were H on xi. 11).
TrWdar,, as Va. remarks, might be transitive, but is more probably intransitive, because of enXeomaeu h dpapr. which follows to TOpdimijia seems expressly chosen in order to remind us that all sins done in defiance of a definite command are as such repetitions of the sin of Adam.
21. iv
Oa^Tw.
its
Sin reigns, as
it
were, over a charnel-house
to die physically (see on vi. 8 below). 8i& SucaioauVrjs. The reign of grace or Divine favour is made possible by the gift of righteousness which the Christian owes to the mediation of Christ, and which opens up for him the prospect F of eternal life.
'
doomed
empire are men as good as dead, dead in every sense of the word, dead morally and spiritually, and therefore
the subjects of
St.
Paul's Conception of Sin and of the Fall.
St. Paul uses Greek words, and some of those which he uses cannot be said to have essentially a different meaning from that which attached to them on their native soil and yet the different relations in which they are placed and the different associations which gather round them, convey what is substantially a different idea to the mind.
;
The word dpapria with its cognates is a case in point. The corresponding term in Hebrew has much the same original sense

[V. 12-21.
144
of 'missing a mark/ Both words are used with a higher and a lower meaning; and in both the higher meaning belongs to the So that the difference between them is not in sphere of religion. the words themselves but in the spirit of the religions with which they are connected. This appears upon the face of it from the mere bulk of literary In classical Greek hpaprla, dpaprdvav are common enough usage. in the lighter senses of ' missing an aim/ of ' error in judgement or in the graver sense of serious wrong-doing they are opinion' and the N.T. When we turn to the Bible, the rare. The words denote nearly alike, this proportion is utterly reversed. always religious wrong-doing, and from being in the background they come strongly to the front ; so much so that in the Concordthis group of words fills some thirteen columns, ance to the averaging not much less than eighty instances to the column. This fact alone tells its own story. And along with it we must take the deepening of meaning which the words have undergone through the theological context in which they are placed. ' How can ? (Gen. xxxix. 9). I do this great wickedness, and sin against God
;
LXX
LXX
'
Against Thee,
evil in
Thee
only, have I sinned,

li.
and done
that
which
is
'Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine the soul that sinneth, it shall die ' (Ezek. xviii. 4). We have travelled a long way from Hellenic religion in such utterances as these. It is impossible to have an adequate conception of sin without
Thy
sight' (Ps.
4).
an adequate conception of God. The Hebrew in general, and and that is why Sin is such an St. Paul in particular, had this It is not a mere defect, the coming short intense reality to them. It is someof an ideal, the mark of an imperfect development.
;
it is a positive quality, calling forth thing more than a negation It is a personal offence against a personal a positive reaction. God. It is an injury or wound if the reaction which it involves may be described in such human terms as injury ' or wound directed against the Holy One whose love is incessantly going forth towards man. It causes an estrangement, a deep gulf of separation,
;
'
<
'
between
God and man.

guilt of sin is proportioned to the extent to
The
which
it
is
Wrong actions 'done without the knowconscious and deliberate. ledge that they are wrong are not imputed to the doer (dpapria 8e ovk AXoyelmt pfj outos vdfiov Rom. v. 1 3 cf. iv. 1 5). But as a matter of fact few or none can take advantage of this because everywhereeven among the heathen there is some knowledge of God and of right and wrong (Rom. i. 19 f.; ii. 12, 14 f.), and the extent of that knowledge determines the degree of guilt. Where there is a written
:
law
like that
at its height.
of the Jews stamped with Divine authority, the guilt is But this is but the climax of an ascending scale in
V. 12-21.]
ADAM AND CHRIST

is
145
which the heinousness of the offence and opportunities.
proportioned to advantages
Why
sin?
did
men
When
break the the act of sin
contain three elements. impulses of human nature. The Law condemned illicit desires, but men had such desires and they succumbed to them (Rom. vii. The reason of this was partly a certain corruption of V ff.). human nature inherited from Adam. The corruption alone would not have been enough apart from the consentient will ; neither would the will have been so acted upon if it had not been for the inherited corruption (Rom. v. 12-14). But there was yet a third element, independent of both these. They operated through the man himself; but there was another influence which operated without him. It is remarkable how St. Paul throughout these chapters, Rom. v, vi, vii, constantly personifies Sin as a pernicious and deadly force at work in the world, not dissimilar in kind to the other great counteracting forces, the Incarnation of Christ and the Gospel. Now personifications are not like dogmatic definitions, and the personification in this instance does not always bear exactly the same meaning. In ch. v, when it is said that Sin entered into the world,' the general term Sin' includes, and is made up of, the sins of individuals. But in chaps, vi and vii the personified Sin is set over against the individual, and expressly distinguished from him. Sin is not to be permitted to reign within the body (vi. 12); the members are not to be placed at the disposal of Sin (vi. 13); to Sin the man is enslaved (vi. 6, 17, 20; vii. 14), and from Sin he is emancipated (vi. 18, 22), or in other words, it is to Sin that he dies (vi. 9, 11); Sin takes up its abode within his heart (vii. 17, 20): it works upon him, using the commandment as its instrument, and so is fatal to him (vii. 8, n). In all this the usage is consistent a clear distinction is drawn at once between the will and the bodily impulses which act upon the will and a sort of external Power which makes both the will and the impulses subservient to it. What is the nature of this Power ? Is it personal or impersonal ? We could not tell from this particular context. No doubt personal attributes and functions are assigned to it, but perhaps only figuratively as part of the personification. To answer our questions we shall have to consider the teaching of the Apostle elsewhere. It is clear enough that, like the rest of his countrymen (see Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 52 f.), St. Paul did believe in a personal agency of Evil. He repeatedly uses the personal name Satan he ascribes to him not only mischief-making in the Church (1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. ii. n), but the direct temptation of individual Christians (1 Cor. vii. 5); he has his followers on whom he is sometimes invited to wreak his will (1 Cor. v. 5
'
In other words, Why did they be analyzed it was found to Proximately it was due to the wicked
Law ?
came
to
'
I46
[V. 12-21.
1 Tim. i. 20); supernatural powers of deceiving or perverting are attributed to him (2 Thess. ii. 9 kut ivtpytiav tov laram eV
men
77-0077
fivvdpei
Ka\
o-qfxziois
Kai
Tepaai
yj/evbovs
cf.
Cor.
XI.
1 4).
The
Power of Evil does not stand alone but has at its disposal a whole army of Subordinate agents (apxal, fovaiai, Koo-poKpdropes tov (tkotovs
Eph. vi. 12; cf. Col. ii. 15). There is indeed a whole hierarchy of evil spirits as there is a hierarchy of good (Eph. i. 21), and Satan has a court and a kingdom just as God has. He is the god of the existing age' (6 0e6s tov al>vos tovtov 2 Cor. iv. 4), and exercises his rule till the final triumph of the Messiah (2 Thess. ii. 8 f 1 Cor. xv. 24 f.).
tovtov
'
.
see therefore that just as in the other books of the N.T. the Gospels, the Apocalypse, and the other Apostolic Epistles, evil is referred to a personal cause. And although it is doubtless true
that in chaps,
this
vi, vii, where St. Paul speaks most directly of the baleful activity of Sin, he does not intend to lay special stress on
We
his language is of the nature of personification and does not ; necessarily imply a person ; yet, when we take it in connexion with other language elsewhere, we see that in the last resort he would have said that there was a personal agency at work. It is at least
clear that
he
is
speaking of an influence external to man, and

in the
acting
upon him
way
in
which
spiritual forces act.
St. Paul regards the beginnings of sin as traceable to the Fall of Adam. In this he is simply following the account in Gen. iii and the question What becomes of that account and of the inferences which St. Paul draws from it, if we accept the view which is pressed upon us by the comparative study of religions and largely adopted by modern criticism, that it is not to be taken as a literal record of historical fact, but as the Hebrew form of a story common to a number of Oriental peoples and going back to a common root ? When we speak of a Hebrew form of this story we mean a form shaped and moulded by those principles of revelation of which the Hebrew race was chosen to be the special recipient. From this point of view it becomes the typical and summary representation of a series of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half-calcined bones can ever reproduce for us. In some way or other as far back as history goes, and we may believe much further, there has been implanted in the human race this mysterious seed of sin, which like other characteristics of the race is capable of transmission. The tendency to sin is present in every man who is born into the world. But the tendency does not become actual sin until it takes effect in defiance of an express command, in deliberate disregard of a known distinction between right and wrong. How men came to be possessed of such a command, by what process they arrived at the conscious distinction of right and wrong, we can but vaguely speculate. Whatever it was we may be sure that it could not have been presented to the imagination of primitive peoples otherwise than in such simple forms as the narrative assumes in the Book of Genesis. The really essential truths all come out in that narrative the recognition of the Divine Will, the act of disobedience to the Will so recognized, the perpetuation of the tendency to such disobedience and we may add perhaps, though here we get into a region of surmises, the connexion between moral evil and physical decay, for the surest pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part of us, the soul,
;
naturally arises,
'
'
V. 12-21.]
ADAM AND CHRIST
I4?
through righteousness to God. These salient principles, which may have been due in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods, are naturally and inevitably summed up as a group of single incidents. Their essential character is not altered, and in the interpretation of primitive beliefs we may safely remember that a thousand years in the sight of God are but as one day.' We who believe in Providence and who believe in the
'
active influence of the Spirit of God upon man, may well also believe that the tentative gropings of the primaeval savage were assisted and guided and so led up to definite issues, to which he himself perhaps at the time could
hardly give a name but which he learnt to call sin ' and disobedience,' and the tendency to which later ages also saw to have been handed on from generation to generation in a way which we now describe as ' heredity.' It would be absurd to expect the language of modern science in the prophet who first incorporated the traditions of his race in the Sacred Books of the Hebrews. He uses the only kind of language available to his own intelligence and that of his contemporaries. But if the language which he does use is from that point of view abundantly justified, then the application which St. Paul makes of it is equally justified. He too expresses truth through symbols, and in the days when men can dispense with symbols his teaching may be obsolete, but not before. The need for an Incarnation and the need for an Atonement are not dependent upon any particular presentation, which may be liable to correction with increasing knowledge, of the origin of sin. They rest, not on theory or on anything which can be clothed in the forms of theory, but on the great outstanding facts of the actual sin of mankind and its ravages. take these facts as we see them, and to us they furnish an abundant explanation of all that God has done to counteract them. How they are in
'
'
We
their turn to be explained
may
but the historical side of interpretation of the N. T.
it
well form a legitimate subject for curiosity, at least has but a very slight bearing on the
History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine
Of
8lKCtU00-l?.
In order to complete our commentary on the earlier portion ol the Epistle, it will be convenient to sum up, as shortly as is possible, the history of the doctrine of Justification, so far as it is definitely connected with exegesis. To pursue the subject further than that would be beside our purpose but so much is necessary since the exposition of the preceding chapters has been shall of course be obliged to almost entirely from one point of view.
;
We
,
confine ourselves to certain typical names. Just at the close of the Apostolic period the earliest speculation on the Clemens Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Romanus subject of Justification meets us. Corinthians, writes clearly guarding against any practical abuses which may He has before him the three writers of the arise from St. Paul's teaching. N. T. who deal most definitely with ' faith and ' righteousness,' and from them constructs a system of life and action. He takes the typical example, that of Abraham, and asks, ' Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed?' The answer combines that of St. Paul and St. James. ' Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith ? ( 31 ovxl Simioavvrjv ko.1 And throughout there is the same coahr)6tiav SicL marecos iroiTjoas ;).
' '
We are justified by works and not 30 epyois 8iko.iovij.cvoi nal ^7) Xoyois). But again ( 32) 'And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning.' But
ordination of different types of doctrine.
(
'
by words'
I48
[V. 12 21.
dangerous theories as to conduct, which arise from holding such beliefs in What then must too crude a manner, are at once guarded against ( 33) we do, brethren ? Must we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love ? We have seen that May the Master never allow this to befall us at least all the righteous were adorned in good works Seeing then that we have let us this pattern, let us conform ourselves with all diligence to His will with all our strength work the work of righteousness.' Clement writes as a Christian of the second generation who inherits the teaching and phraseoFaith,' W'orks,' Righteousness,' are ideas logy of the Apostolic period. which have become part of the Christian life the need of definition has not arisen. The system of conduct which should be exhibited as the result of What St. Paul and the different elements of this life is clearly realized. For the St. James each in his different way arrived at is accomplished. exact meaning of St. Paul, however, and the understanding of his teaching, we get no aid. Bishop Lightfoot, while showing how Clement has caught the spirit of the Pauline teaching,' yet dwells, and dwells rightly, on the defect in the dogmatic statement/ (See Lightfoot, Clement, i. 96, 397.) The question of Justification never became a subject of controversy in the early church, and consequently the Fathers contented themselves as Clement had done with a clear practical solution. We cannot find in them either an answer to the more subtle questions which later theologians have asked or
:
'
'
'
'
'
much
Origen.
assistance as to the exact exegesis of St. Paul's language. little Origen had grasped some points in St. Paul's thought may be operilms igitur legis quod non iustiseen by his comment on Rom. iii. 20
How
Ex
ficabitur omnis caro in conspectu eius, hoc modo intelligendum puto : quia omnis qui caro est et secundum carnem vivit, non potest iustificari ex lege Dei, sicut et alibi dicit idem Apostolus, quia qui in came sunt Deo placere non possunt {in Rom. iii. 6; Opp. torn. vi. 194, ed. Lommatzsch). But in many points his teaching is clear and strong. All Justification is by faith alone (iii. 9, p. 217 et dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem, ita ut credens quis tantummodo iustificetur, etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum). It is the beginning of the Christian life, and is represented as who were followers of the the bringing to an end of a state of enmity. devil, our tyrant and enemy, can if we will by laying down his arms and
We
Chrysostorn.
taking up the banner of Christ have peace with God, a peace which has been purchased for us by the blood of Christ (iv. 8, p. 285, on Rom. v. 1). The process of justification is clearly one of 'imputation {fides ad iustitiam reputetur iv. 1, p. 240, on Rom. iv. 1-8), and is identified with the Gospel teaching of the forgiveness of sins the two instances of it which are quoted being the penitent thief and the woman with the alabaster box of ointment (Luke vii. 37-42). But the need for good works is not excluded: sed fortassis haec aliquis audiens resolvatur et bene agendi negligentiam capiat, ad quern dicemus, quia post si quidem ad iustificandum fides sola sufficiat. iustificationem si iniuste quis agat, sine dubio iustificationis gratiam sprevit indulgentia namque non futurorum sed praeteritorum criminum datur . . Faith without works is impossible (iii. 9, p. 219, on Rom. iii. 27, 28). non ergo rather faith is the root from which they spring (iv. 1, p. 234) ex operibus radix iustitiae, sed ex radice iustitiae fructus operum crescit, ilia scilicet radice iustitiae, qua Deus accepto fert iustitiam sine operibus We (iv. 1, p. 241 ; see also the comment on Rom. ii. 5, 6 in ii. 4, p. 81). may further note that in the comment on Rom. i. 17 and iii. 24 the iustitia Dei is clearly interpreted as the Divine attribute. The same criticism which was passed on Origen applies in an equal or even greater degree to Chrysostom. Theologically and practically the teaching is vigorous and well balanced, but so far as exegesis is concerned St. Paul's conception and point of view are not understood. The circumstances which had created these conceptions no longer existed.
'
V. 12-21.]
ADAM AND CHRIST
I49
For example, commenting on Rom. ii. to he writes: 'it is upon works that punishment and reward depend, not upon circumcision or uncircummaking a distinction which the Apostle does not between the moral and ceremonial law. The historical situation is clearly grasped and is brought out very well at the beginning of Horn, vii < He has accused the Gentiles, he has accused the Jews what follows to mention next is the righteousness which is by faith. For if the law of nature availed not, and the written Law was of no advantage, but both weighed down those' that used them not aright, and made it plain that they were worthy of greater punishment, then the salvation which is by grace was henceforth necessary.' The meaning of biKaioovvq Qeov is well brought out. ' The declaring of His righteousness is not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He doth also make them that are filled with the putrefying scars of sin suddenly righteous' {Horn. vii. on iii. 24, 25). It may be interesting to quote the exposition of the passage which follows. He explains did tt}p ndpeatv rwv irpoycyovoTOJv dfxapTijfxdTajv thus : did ttjv ndpeaiv, rovrkari tt\v vkupuoiv. ovKiji yap iryeias kkms fy, d\\' wairep aw/xa irapa\v$kv rrjs dvco0ev kSeiTo X*tp6s, ovtqj teal ij û X ^ viKpajBeiaa, giving ndpeais the meaning of ' paralysis/ the paralysis of spiritual life which has resulted from sin. Generally SmaiSco seems clearly to be taken as 'make righteous,' even in passages where it will least bear such an interpretation ; for instance on iv. 5 (Horn. yiii.) duvarai 6 0eds rbv iv doepeiq faPiaKora tovtov kai(pvqs oi>xl Kokdatws iKev6epuj(Tcu fiovov, d\\d Kal ditcaiov -noirjoai, ei yap patcdpios ovtojs
cision
' ;
:
\a&wv
is
d<p<Tiv dirb
ix)
knl tovtco
usage^
it is
that forgave our sins, but what is much greater " It is God that justifieth." For when the Judge's sentence declares us just (Bwaiovs d-no<paivu), and such a judge too, what signifieth the accuser?' No purpose would be served by entering further into the views of the Theodoret Greek commentators; but one passage of Theodoret may be quoted as an instance of the way in which all the fathers connect Justification and Baptism. On Rom. v. 1, 2 i^vid. p. 53) he writes: 17 mans p.lv vpuv 180^77aaro rSiv dfxapTTjfxaTOJV rrjv dcptatv Kal d/xwfxovs Kal ScKaiovs did rrjs rod Xovrpov
:
God
xap l s rro\\q> pidWov 6 dataioodeis, and on iv. 25 (Horn. yap nal dirkOave Kal dvkarr) Xva diicaiovs kpydarjrai. Yet his not consistent, for on Rom. viii. 33 he writes He does not say,
: '
traWtyyeveaias dire<pijve' irpoarjKH 5k vfxds tt\v irpos rbv Qebv ytyevrjuivrjv <pV\aTT(lV dpTJVTJV. To sum up the teaching of the Fathers. They put in the very front of everything, the Atonement through the death of Christ, without as a rule
elaborating any theory concerning it this characteristic we find from the very beginning: it is as strong in Ignatius as in any later Father: they all think that it is by faith we are justified, and at the same time lay immense stress on the value, but not the merits, of good works they seem all very definitely to connect Justification with Baptism and the beginning of the Christian life, so much so indeed that as is well known even the possibility of pardon for post-baptismal sin was doubted by some but they have no theory of Justification as later times demand it they are never close and exact in the exegesis of St. Paul and they are without the historical conditions which would enable them to understand his great antithesis of ' Law' and Gospel,' ' Faith ' and ' Works,' ' Merit ' and Grace.' The opinions of St. Augustine are of much greater importance. Although St. Augus he does not approach the question from the same point of view as the tine. Reformation theologians, he represents the source from which came the mediaeval tendency which created that theology. His most important expositions are those contained in De Spiritu et Litera and In Psahnum Enarratio II: this Psalm he describes as Psalmus gratiae Dei et iustificationis nostrae nullis fraecedentibus meritis nostris, sed praeveniente nos misericordia Domini Dei nostri His purpose is to prove .
:
'
'
XXXI
I50
EPtSTLE TO THE ROMANS
[V. 12-21,
as against any form of Pelagianism that our salvation comes from no merits This leads to of our own but only from the Divine grace which is given us. For, (i) three main characteristics in his exposition of the Romans, done those who not in state works by are a of grace are firstly, good nemo computet bona opera sua ante jidem : ubi fides non erat valueless Hence he explains Rom. ii. 5, bonttm opus non erat {Enarratio 4) In ii. 13 the 13 ff. of works done not in a state of nature but of grace. Apostle is referring to the Gentiles who have accepted the Gospel and the 'Law written in their hearts' is the law not of the O.T. but of the N.T. he naturally compares 2 Cor. iii. 3 and Rom. ii. 26 {De Sp. et Lit. 44(2) Then, secondly, St. Augustine's exposition goes on somewhat 49). He makes the whole different lines from those of the Apostle's argument. aim of the early portion of the Romans to be the proof of the necessity of Men have failed without grace, and it is only by means of it that grace. This from one point they can do any works which are acceptable to God. of view really represents St. Paul's argument, from another it is very much removed from it. It had the tendency indeed to transfer the central point in connexion with human salvation from the atoning death of Christ accepted by Faith to the gift of the Divine Grace received from God. Although in this relation, as often, St. Augustine's exposition is deeper than that of the Greek fathers, it leads to a much less correct interpretation. (3) For, thirdly, there can be no doubt that it leads directly to the doctrine of infused ' grace. It is quite true that Chrysostom has perhaps even more definitely interpreted ducaiovoOai of making just,' and that Augustine in one place admits the possibility of interpreting it either as 'making just' or 'reckoning just' {De Sp. et Lit. 45). But although he admits the two interpretations so far as concerns the words, practically his whole theory is that of an infusion of the grace of faith by which men are made just. So in his comment on i. 1 7 he writes haec est iustitia Dei, quae in Testamento Veteri velata, in Novo revelatur: quae ideo iustitia Dei dicitur, ^Wimpertiendo earn iustos and again credenti inquit in eum qui iustificat facit {De Sp. et Lit. 18) imphtm deputatur fides eius ad iustitiam. si iustificatur impius ex impio so non tibi Deus reddit debitam poenam, sed fit iustus {Enarratio 6) donat indebitam gratiam so De Sp. et Lit. f 6 haec est itcstitia Dei, quam non solum docet per legis praeceptum, verum etiam dat per Spiritus
:
;
'
'
donum.
faith is a gift of grace which inSt. Augustine's theory is in fact this fused into men, enables them to produce works good and acceptable to God. The point of view is clearly not that of St. Paul, and it is the source of the mediaeval theory of grace with all its developments. This theory as we find it elaborated in the Summa Theologiae, has so far as it concerns us three main characteristics. (1) In the first place it elaborates the Augustinian theory of Grace instead of the Pauline theory of Justification. It is quite clear that in St. Paul x<*P ls is tne favour of God to man, and not a gift given by God to man but gratia in St. Thomas has evidently this latter signification cum gratia omnem naturae crealae facultate7n excedat, eo quod nihil aliud sit quam participatio quaedam divinae naturae quae omnem aliam naturam excedit {Summa Theologiae, Prima Secundae Qu. cxii. 1 ). So gratiae infusio . infundit donum gratiae iustifialso donum gratiae cantis (cxiii. 3). {2) Secondly, it interprets iustificare to make just,' and in consequence looks upon justification as not only remissio peccatorum, but also an infusion of grace. This question is discussed fully in Qu. cxiii. Art. 2. The conclusion arrived at is quum iustitiae Dei repugnet poenam dimittere vigente culpa, nullius autem hominis qualis modo nascitur, reatus poenae absque gratia tolli queat ; ail culpae quoque hominis qualis modo nascitur, remissionem, gratiae infusionem requiri manifestutn est. The primary text on which this conclusion is based is Rom. iii. 24 iustificati gratis per gratiam
; ;
:
Aquinas.
'
V. 12-21.]
ipsius,
ADAM AND CHRIST
151
which is therefore clearly interpreted to mean ' made just by an infusion of grace and it is argued that the effect of the Divine love on us is grace by which a man is made worthy of eternal life, and that therefore remission of guilt cannot be understood unless it be accompanied by the infusion of grace. (3) The words quoted above, by which a man is made worthy of eternal
life ' (dignus vita aeterna) introduce us to a third point in the mediaeval theory of justification indirectly by its theory of merit de congruo and de condigno it introduced just that doctrine of merit against which St. Paul had directed his whole system. This subject is worked out in Qu. cxiv, where it is argued (Art. 1) that in a sense we can deserve something from God. Although (Art. 2) a man cannot deserve life eternal in a state of nature, yet (Art. 3) after justification he can Homo meretur uitam aetemam ex condigno. This is supported by Rom. viii. 1 7 sifilii et haeredes, it being argued that we are sons to whom is owed the inheritance ex ipso iure adoptionis. However defensible as a complete whole the system of the Summa maybe, there is no doubt that nothing so complicated can be grasped by the popular mind, and that the teaching it represents led to a wide system of religious corruption which presented a very definite analogy with the errors which St. Paul combated it is equally clear that it is not the system of Justification put forward by St. Paul. It will be convenient to pass on directly to the teaching of Luther, and to put it in direct contrast with the teaching of Aquinas. Although it arose primarily against the teaching of the later Schoolmen, whose teaching, especially on the subject of merit de congruo and de condigno, was very much developed, substantially it represents a revolt against the whole mediaeval theory. Luther's main doctrines were the following. Through the law man learns Luther, his sinfulness he learns to say with the prophet, ' there is none that doeth good, no not one.' He learns his own weakness. And then arises the cry 1 Who can give me any help ? ' Then in its due season comes the saving word of the Gospel, 'Be of good cheer, my son, thy sins are forgiven. Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for thy sins.' This is the beginning of salvation ; in this way we are freed from sin, we are justified and there is given unto us life eternal, not on account of our own merits and works, but on account of faith by which we approached Christ. (Luther on Galatians ii. 16; Opp. ed. 1554, p. 308.) As against the mediaeval teaching the following points are noticeable, (1) In the first place Justification is quite clearly a doctrine of ' tustilia imputata': Deus acceptat seu reputat nos iustos solum propter fidem in Christum. It is especially stated that we are not free from sin. As long as we live we are subject to the stain of sin only our sins are not imputed to ns. (a) Secondly, Luther inherits from the Schoolmen the distinction of fides informis and fides formata cum charitate but whereas they had considered that it was fides formata which justifies, with him it is fides informis. He argued that if it were necessary that iaith should be united with charity to enable it to justify, then it is no longer faith alone that justifies, but charity faith becomes useless and good works are brought in. (3) Thirdly, it is needless to point out that he attacks, and that with great vigour, all theories of merit de congruo and de condigno. He describes them thus talia monstra portenta et horribiles blasphemiae debebant propotii Turcis et Iudaeis,
:
non
of
ecclesiae Christi.
teaching of the Reformation worked a complete change in the exegesis Calvin, Paul. condition of practical error had arisen, clearly in many that which St. Paul combated, and hence St. Paul's conceptions are understood better. The ablest of the Reformation commentaries is certainly that of Calvin and the change produced may be seen most clearly in one point. The attempt that had been made to evade the meaning of St. Paul's words as to Law, by applying them only to the ceremonial
St.
The
ways resembling
153
Law, he

;
[V. 12 21.
entirely brushes away (on iii. 20) again, he interprets iustificare as 'to reckon just,' in accordance with the meaning of the Greek word and the context of iv. 5. The scheme of Justification as laid down by Luther is applied to the interpretation of the Epistle, but his extravagant language is avoided. The distinction of fides informis and formata is condemned as unreal and it is seen that what St. Paul means by works being unable to justify is not that they cannot do so in themselves, but that no one can fulfil them so completely as to be 'just.' may notice that on ii. 5 he points out that the words can be taken in quite a natural sense, for reward does not imply merit, and on ii. 13 that he applies the passage to Gentiles not in a state of grace, but says that the words mean that although Gentiles had knowledge and opportunity they had sinned, and therefore would be neces;
We
sarily
condemned.
The Reformation theology made St. Paul's point of view comprehensible, but introduced errors of exegesis of its own. It added to St. Paul's teaching of 'imputation' a theory of the imputation of Christ's merits, which became the basis of much unreal systematization, and was an incorrect interpretation of St. Paul's meaning. The unreal distinction of fides informis and formata, added to Luther's own extravagant language, produced a strong antinomian tendency. Faith' almost comes to be looked upon as a meritorious cause of justification an unreal faith is substituted for dead works and faith becomes idc ntified with personal assurance or self-assurance.' Moreover, for the ordinary expression of St. Paul, 'we are justified by faith,' was substituted 'we are saved by faith,' a phrase which, although once used by St Paul, was only so used in the somewhat vague sense of aw&iv, that at one time applies to our final salvation, at another to our present and the whole Christian scheme of life within the fold of the Church sanctification, rightly separated in idea from justification, became divorced
'
; ;
'
'
in fact
from the Christian
life.
Cornelius a Lapide.
teaching created definitely the distinction between iustitia imputata and iustitia infusa, and the Council of Trent defined Justification thus iustificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed etiam sanctificatio et renovaiio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum (Sess. VI. cap. vii). typical commentary on the Romans from this point of view is that of Cornelius a Lapide. On i. 17 he makes a very just distinction between our justification which comes by faith and our salvation which comes through the Gospel, namely, all that is preached in the Gospel, the death and merits of Christ, the sacraments, the precepts, the promises. He argues from ii. 13 that works have a place in justification and that our justification consists in the gift to us of the Divine justice, that is, of grace and charity and other
:
The Reformation
virtues.
This summary has been made
sufficiently
comprehensive to bring out the
main points on which interpretation has varied. It is clear from St. Paul's language that he makes a definite distinction in thought between three several stages which may be named Justification, Sanctification, Salvation. Our Christian life begins with the act of faith by which we turn to Christ that is sealed in baptism through which we receive remission of sins and are incorporated into the Christian community, being made partakers of then if our life is consistent all the spiritual blessings which that implies with these conditions we may hope for life eternal not for our own merits
:
but for Christ's sake. The first step, that of Remission of sins, is Justification the life that follows in the Christian community is the life of Sanctification. These two ideas are connected in time in so far as the moment in which our sins are forgiven begins the new life but they are separated in thought, and it is necessary for us that this should be so, in order that we may realize that unless we come to Christ in the self-surrender
:
VI. 1-14.]
UNION WITH CHRIST
53
of faith nothing can profit us. There is a close connexion again between Justification and Salvation the one represents the beginning of the process of which the other is the conclusion, and in so far as the first step is the essential one the life of the Justified on earth can be and is spoken of as the life of the saved but the two are separated both in thought and in time, and this is so that we may realize that our life, as we are accepted by faith, endowed with the gift of God's Holy Spirit, and incorporated into the Christian community, must be holy. By our life we shall be judged (see the notes on ii. 6, 13) we must strive to make our character such as befits us for the life in which we hope to share but we are saved by Christ's death; and the initial act of faith has been the hand which we stretched out to receive the divine mercy. Our historical review has largely been a history of the confusion of these three separate aspects of the Gospel scheme.
; ; : :
THE MYSTICAL UNION" OP THE CHRISTIAN WITH CHRIST.

VI. 1-14. If more sin only means more grace shall we go on sinning ? Impossible. The baptized Christian cannot
',
Sin is a direct contradiction of the state of things which baptism assumes. Baptism has a double function. (1) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him. (2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ. Immersion = Death. Submersion Burial [the ratification of Death).
sin.
Emergence
spiritual sense,
=;
Resurrection
to
All these the Christian has
undergo in a moral and
and by means of
his union with Christ.
As
Christ by
His death on
the Cross ceased from all contact with
sin, so the Christian,
united with Christ in his baptism, has

sin,
done once for all with life dedicated to God.
and
lives henceforth
a reformed
zvhatever
[ This at least
is the ideal,
Act then as men who have thrown off the dominion of Sin. Dedicate all your powers Be not afraid ; Law, Sin's ally, is superseded in to God. its hold over you by Grace (vv. 12-14).
may
be the reality.'] (vv. 1-11.)
Objector.
Is
not
this
dangerous doctrine
to
means more
grace, are
we not encouraged
If more ? go on sinning ?
sin
154
2
[VI. 1-14.
took the decisive
St. Paul.
horrible thought
When we
step
and became Christians we may be said to have died to sin, in such a way as would make it fiat contradiction to live any longer
it.
in
Surely you do not need reminding that all of us who were immersed or baptized, as our Christian phrase runs into Christ,' into the closest allegiance and adhesion to Him, were so i. e. immersed or baptized into a special relation to His Death. I mean
8
'
that the Christian, at his baptism, not only professes to Christ but enters into a relation to
obedience
it
Him
so intimate that
may
be described as actual union.
Now
this
union, taken in connexion
with the peculiar symbolism of Baptism, implies a great deal more.
That symbolism
acts of Christ
recalls to us with great vividness the
redeeming
His
Death, Burial, and Resurrection.

shall
And
acts,
our
in
union with Christ involves that we

such sense as we may,
i.
repeat those
e.
in a
moral and
spiritual sense, in
our
own
4
persons.
When we
descended into the baptismal water, that meant that
we
died with Christ
to
we
sin.
When
real.
the water closed over our
heads, that
meant
that
lay buried with
Him,
in proof that
our
the the
death to
sin, like
His death, was
But
this carries
with
it
third step in the process.
As
Christ was raised from

also
among
dead by a majestic exercise of Divine power, so we

henceforth conduct ourselves as
must from
men
in
whom
has been implanted
new
6
principle of
it
life.
For
is
not to be supposed that
we can
join with Christ in

If,
one thing and not join with

a death
like
Him
in another.
in
undergoing
also be
His,
we
are
become one with

which
it
Christ as the graft
becomes one with the

one with
a moral,
tree into
grows,
6
we must
i.
Him by
spiritual,
undergoing a resurrection
like His,
e. at
once
and physical
resurrection.
For
it is
matter of
experience that our Old Self

Christians
it
what
like
we were
before
we became
:
was
nailed to the Cross with Christ in our baptism the Death of Christ and
that
it
was
killed
by a process so
so
wrought
in conjunction with
Him
too
name and
us, prolific
associations of
His Crucifixion.
of
may share in the And the object of
this crucifixion of
our Old Self was that the bodily sensual part of

sin,
home and haunt
might be so paralyzed and
VI. 1-14.]
UNION WITH CHRIST
*55
7 disabled as henceforth to set us free from the service of Sin. For just as no legal claim can be made upon the dead, so one who is
(ethically)
dead
is certified
Not Guilty and exempt from

'
all
the
claims that Sin could

8
But
is
is
this all?
make upon Are we to
him.
stop at the death to sin?
If,
there
tians,
another side to the process.

died with Christ
with
we
No; when we became Chris(morally and spiritually), we believe that

(physically, as well as ethically
for a fact that Christ Himself,
will
we
that
shall also live

9
:
Him
and
spiritually)
because we
know
now
He
has been once raised from the dead,
not have the
process of death to undergo again.
Death has
to
lost its
hold over
Him
state
for ever.
10
For
He
has done with Death,
now
it.
that
He
has
done once
for all with Sin,
by bringing
an end that incarnate

Henceforth
which alone brought

lives in
Him
in contact with
He
11
uninterrupted
communion
with God.
In like manner do you Christians regard yourselves as dead,
inert
instinct with
and motionless as a corpse, in all that relates to sin, but life and responding in every nerve to those Divine claims and Divine influences under which you have been brought by your union with Jesus Messiah.
12
exhort you therefore not to
let
Sin exercise
its
tyranny over
this frail
not,
body of yours by giving way to its evil passions. 13 Do as you are wont, place hand, eye, and tongue, as weapons
but dedicate
all,
stained with unrighteousness, at the service of Sin;
yourselves once for
like
men who
life,
have
to
left
;
the ranks of the
dead and breathe a new
spiritual
tongue be weapons of righteous temper for
God let hand, eye, and Him to wield. 14 You

will
may
rest
assured that in so
for
doing Sin
left
have no claims or
power over you,
you have
the regime of
Law
(which, as
we
shall shortly see, is a
stronghold of Sin) for that of Grace.
1.
The
fact that he
has just been insisting on the function of sin
to act as a provocative of Divine grace recalls to the
mind of
'
the
Apostle the accusation brought against himself of saying Let us do evil, that good may come (iii. 8). He is conscious that his own teaching, if pressed to its logical conclusion, is open to this charge ; and he states it in terms which are not exactly those which would be used by his adversaries but such as might seem to Of course express the one-sided development of his own thought. he does not allow the consequence for a moment he repudiates
'
156
it
[VI. 1-3.
train of
however not by proving a non sequitur, but by showing how this thought is crossed by another, even more fundamental.
is
the Mystical
thus led to bring up the second of his great pivot-doctrines, Union of the Christian with Christ dating from his Here we have another of those great elemental forces in Baptism. the Christian Life which effectually prevents any antinomian conclusion such as might seem to be drawn from different premises. force and the St. Paul now proceeds to explain the nature of this
He
way
in which the Christian
is
related to
it.
The various readings in this chapter are unimportant. There can be no (vaofxcv question that we should read impivwptv for km/xivovfifv in ver. 1 and not qo<ptv in ver. 2 and that t<2 Kvpiw f/fxwv should be omittedat the end of ver. II. In that verse the true position of thai is after kavrovs (N* B C, Cyr.- Alex. Jo.-Damasc.) some inferior authorities place it after E F G, Tert. ; cf. also Pesh. Boh. Arm. the Western text (A vtKpobs txiv
;
; :
:
Aeth.) omits
it
altogether.
' we, Naturally the relative of quality died (in our baptism) to sin,' &c.
:
2. omi'es
3.
dircOdi'OfAei'.
being what we are,

t)
men who
byvoeire
'
Can you deny
this,
or
is it
?
possible that
'
you are
not aware of
like to
all
that
your baptism involves
St.
Paul does not
assume that his readers are ignorant of that which is to him so fundamental. The deep significance of Baptism was universally recognized ; though it is hardly likely that any other teacher would
have expressed that significance in the profound and original argument which follows. 'were baptized unto union It\<tovv 0a-nria0T)fi.y els Xpiordk The act of baptism with' (not merely 'obedience to') 'Christ.' was an act of incorporation into Christ. Comp. esp. Gal. iii. 27
3
:
00-01
yap
(Is
Xpio-Tov 3aiTTLo~6r)T, Xpiarou eveduaaade.
This conception lies at the root of the whole passage. All the consequences which St. Paul draws follow from this union, incor-
On the origin poration, identification of the Christian with Christ. of the conception, see below. to aire 6a.vop.fv els T6f Qdvarov auTou ej3cnrTia6T]|Aei'. This points back The Christian above. The central point in the passage is death.
dies because Christ died, and he is enabled to realize His death through his union with Christ. '? But why is baptism said to be specially 'into Christ's death The reason is because it is owing primarily to the Death of Christ that the condition into which the Christian enters at his baptism We have seen that St. Paul does is such a changed condition. the ascribe to that Death a true objective efficacy in removing carrier which sin has placed between God and man. Hence, as so is it the Death it is Baptism which makes a man a Christian, of Christ which wins for the Christian his special immunities The sprinkling of the Blood of Christ seals that and privileges.
VI. 3-5.]
UNION WITH CHRIST
157
covenant with His People to which Baptism admits them. But this is only the first step the Apostle goes on to show how the Death of Christ has a subjective as well as an objective side for the
:
believer.
4. <tvvt&$i)ii.v OtfyaToi'. strong majority of the best scholars (Mey.-W. Gif. Lips. Oltr. Go.) would connect <h rbv Bavaxov with 81a tov âirrlapaTos and not with avveTdcJirjfiev, because of (i) ificmT. tls t. 6av. air. just before; (ii) a certain incongruity in the connexion of awcTacp. with tU top Bdvarov death precedes burial
.
not a result or object of it. We are not sure that this reasoning is decisive, (i) St. Paul does not avoid these ambiguous constructions, as may be seen by iii. 25 61* npoidtTo bth rfjs niaTcws iv ra avrov ai/ifirt, where iv rta avrov aipan goes with irpoidero and not with ha rfjs mo-rfcis. (ii) The ideas of burial and death are so closely associated that they may be treated as correlative to each other burial is only death sealed and made certain. ' Our baptism was a sort of funeral ; a solemn act of consigning us to that death of Christ in which we are made one with Him,' Va. (iii) There is a special reason for saying here not we were buried into burial,' but ' we were buried into death,' because ' death is the keynote of the whole passage, and the word would come in appropriately to
and
is
'
'
'
'
'
'
the transition from Christ to the Christian. Still these arguments do not amount to proof that the second connexion is right, and it is perhaps best to yield to the weight of authority. For the
mark
idea
compare
esp. Col.
ii.
12
o-vvra<pivres avTto iv tg> f3airTiap.ari iv
u>
Kai o~vvqyipdr)TC.
els tov QdvaTov is best taken as into that death (of His),' the death just mentioned so Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou., but not Mey.-W. Go., who prefer the sense into death ' (in the abstract). In any case there is a stress on the idea of death ; but the clause and the verse which follow will show that St. Paul does not yet detach the death of the Christian from the death of Christ. So^r here practically power ; but 8id ttjs 86|tjs tou irarpos the stress is it is power viewed externally rather than internally laid not so much on the inward energy as on the signal and Va. compares Jo. xi. 40, 23, where thou glorious manifestation. See thy brother shall rise again.' shalt see the glory of God note on iii. 23. 'united by growth'; the word exactly expresses 5. crufi<j>uToi the process by which a graft becomes united with the life of a tree.
:
'
'
'
'
'
'
So the Christian becomes
'
grafted into
'
Christ.
For the metaphor

and Tennyson's
We may compare
avyKoivoivos
'
xi.
I7trv
8i dyptfKaios a>v iveKfvrpio-drjs iv avrois, Kai
ttjs pi't'/*
Kai ttjs TrioTrjTos Trjs iXaias iyivov,
grow
incorporate into thee.'
It is a question whether we are to take avfM<f>. ytydv. directly with ra opotup. k.t.X. or whether we are to supply t Xotory and make
158
[VI.
5, 6.
rw 6/xotco/i. dat. of respect. Probably the former, as being simpler and more natural, so far at least as construction is concerned, though no doubt there is an ellipse in meaning which would be more exactly represented by the fuller phrase. Such condensed and strictly speaking inaccurate expressions are common in
language of a quasi-colloquial kind. St. Paul uses these freer modes of speech and is not tied down by the rules of formal
literary
composition.
:
6. yiywcrKoi/Tes
see Sp.
Comm. on
Cor.
viii.
(p. 299),
'
where
yivwaKco as contrasted with 018a is explained as signifying

tive
is
apprecia-
or experimental acquaintance.' slightly different explanation given by Gif. ad loc, noting this/ as of the idea involved in the fact, a knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding
'
(yovs).
6 iraXaios rjp.wi' a^Gptoiros 'our old self; cp. esp. Suicer, Thes. 352, where the patristic interpretations are collected (r) npoTepa noXiTeiu Theodrt. ; 6 Kareyvoiapevos (ilos Euthym.-Zig., &c).
:
i.
This phrase, with its correlative o icaivbs &v9pa}iros, is a marked link of connexion between the acknowledged and disputed Epp. (cf. Eph. ii. 15; iv. 22, 24; Col. iii. 9). The coincidence is the more remarkable as the phrase wonld hardly come into use until great stress began to be laid upon the necessity for a change of life, and may be a. coinage of St. Paul's. It should be noted however that 6 kvrds avdpwnos goes back to Plato (Grm.
Thay.
s.
v. avBpojiros, i.e.).
cf. Gal. ii. 20 XptcrrS) awtoTavpanai. There is a difference between the thought here and in Imit. Xti. II. xii. 3 ' Behold in the cross all doth consist, and all lieth in our dying thereon for there is no other way unto life, and unto true inward peace, but the way of the holy cross, and of daily mortification.' This is rather the 'taking up the cross* of the Gospels, which is a daily process. St. Paul no doubt leaves room for such a process (Col. iii. 5, &c.) but here he is going back to that which is its root, the one decisive ideal act which he regards as taking place in baptism in this the more gradual lifelong process is anticipated.
<rwa-Tavpu>Br\
For Karapyciv see on iii. 3. The word is approthat the body of sin may be used in this connexion paralyzed/ reduced to a condition of absolute impotence and inaction, as if it were dead. to o-wfjia ttjs djiapTias the body of which sin has taken possession. Parallel phrases are vii. 24 tov o-vnaTos tov Oavarov tovtov
KaTapynQf.
priately
:
Phil.
Svo-ei]
'
iii.
21 to
aa>pui
ttjs
Tarreiuaxrecos r)p<av
Col.
ii.
II
\<fa
rfj
ancic-
tov o-wparos tt)s crapKos. The gen. has the general sense of belonging to/ but acquires a special shade of meaning in each case from the context the body which is given over to death/ the body in its present state of degradation/ the body which is so apt to be the instrument of its own carnal impulses.' Here t6 o-wfia rrjs ap,aprias must be taken closely together, because it is not the body, simply as such, which is to be killed, but the
;
'
'
VI. 6-10.]
body as
its
UNION WITH CHRIST

of sin.
This
is
59
the seat
to be killed, so that Sin
may
lose
slave.
tov with inf. as expressing purpose see 342. r|] afiapTia anapria, as throughout this passage, is personified as a hard^ taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter.
esp. Westcott,
p.
:
too
u.t)K6ti
SouXeuW. Hebrews,
On
7. 6 y&p 6.noQav(i)v du.apTias. The argument is thrown into the form of a general proposition, so that 6 aitoBavvv must be taken in the widest sense, ' he who has undergone death in any sense of the term' physical or ethical. The primary sense is however
. .
.
a dead man has his quittance from any claim can make against him what is obviously true of the physically dead is inferentially true of the ethically dead. Comp.
clearly physical
'
:
that Sin
'
Pet.
iv.
on
6 naOiov aapKi treiravrai dpaprias

'
also the Rabbinical

is
quoted by Delitzsch ad toe. when a from the law and the commandments.'
parallel
man
'
dead he
is
free
Delitzsch goes so far as to describe the idea as an
acknowledged locus
of the literary
communis? which would considerably weaken the coincidence between the two Apostles.
ScSiKaiWTai dir6
:
force
ttjs dfiapTias. The sense of fofiiKaiWai is still declared righteous, acquitted from guilt.' The idea is that of a master claiming legal possession of a slave proof being put in that the slave is dead, the verdict must needs be that the claims of law are satisfied and that he is no longer answerable ; Sin loses its suit.
forensic
'
is
ctut)o-ou.i'. The different senses of life and death always near together with St. Paul, and his thought glides backwards and forwards from one to another almost imperceptibly ; now he lays a little more stress on the physical sense, now on the ethical
8.
'
'
'
'
lie
at
one moment on the present
Here and
ver.
10 stand-point of the present. 9. If the Resurrection opened so also to the Christian.

icupieuei.
its
state and at another on the future. in ver. 9 the future eternal life is most prominent ; but is transitional, and in ver. 11 we are back again at the
up
eternity to Christ
it
will
do
Still the idea of master and slave or vassal. Death dominium over Christ altogether. That which gave Death its hold upon Him was sin, the human sin with which He was brought in contact by His Incarnation. The connexion was severed once for all by Death, which set Him free for ever. 10. o y&P dVn-c'Oavc. The whole clause forms a kind of cognate accus. after the second unedaveu (Win. xxiv. 4, p. 209 E. T.); Euthym.-Zig. paraphrases top Qavarop op dniOave bia tt)v apapriav aivtdavc rfjv Tjp.eTepav, where however 17/ apaprla is not rightly represented by 8td ttju apapriav.
loses
'
l6o
tt)

dfiapTia &TtiOavv.
[VI. 10,
11.
In what sense did Christ die to sin ? phrase seems to point back to ver. 7 above Sin ceased to have any claim upon Him. But how could Sin have a claim upon Him 'who had no acquaintance with sin' (2 Cor. v. 21)? The same verse which tells us this supplies the answer rbv p.t] yvovra ufxapTuiv xmep f]p.a>v afxaprlav fnoirja-fv, the Sinless One for our sake was treated as if He were sinful/ The sin which hung about Him and wreaked its effects upon Him was not His but ours (cp. 1 Pet.
The
ii.
22, 24).
;
It
was
it
in
culminated
decisively
&t>rfira.
but
was
His Death that this pressure of human sin also in His Death that it came to an end,
and
for ever.
The
in
decisiveness of the
insisted
trast
upon
Ep. to Hebrews.
:
with the Levitical sacrifices

(cf.
be repeated
iii.
Heb.
vii.
27;
ix.
Death of Christ is specially This is the great point of conthey did and it did not need to 12, 26, 28; x. 10; also 1 Pet.
18).
rj
forth for
Him
tu 0w. Christ died for (in relation to) Sin, and lives henceGod. The old chain which by binding Him to sin made also liable to death, is broken. No other power Kvpuvei avrov
Cfj
but God. This phrase

to the believer.
to Gfo> naturally suggests
the moral
'
application
his 'self are distinguished. but only that part of the man [It will help us to bear this which lay under the dominion of sin. This part of in mind in the interpretation of the next chapter.] the man is dead, so that sin has lost its slave and is balked of its prey; but his true self is alive, and alive for God, through its union with the risen Christ, who also lives only for God. Xoyi^caOe not indie, (as Beng. Lips.) but imper., preparing the way, after St. Paul's manner, for the direct exhortation of the next paragraph. This phrase is the summary expression of lv XpiaTw 'It)<tou. the doctrine which underlies the whole of this section and forms, as we have seen, one of the main pillars of St. Paul's theology. The chief points seem to be these. (1) The relation is conceived as The Christian has his being in ' Christ, as a local relation. in ' the water, as plants in living creatures ' in ' the air, as fish the earth (Deissmann, p. 84 ; see below). (2) The order of the words is invariably v Xpiarw 'lyo-ov, not ei> 'irjaov Xpio-n5 (Deissmann,
11. Xoyta0 eauTou's.
The man and

self,'
The
'self
is
not the 'whole
'
'
'
88 cp. also Haussleiter, as referred to on p. 86 sup.). We find however eV roi 'irjaov in Eph. iv. 21, but not in the same strict application. (3) In agreement with the regular usage of the words
p.
;
in this order
Xp.
always relates to the glorified Christ regarded
as wvei'pa, not to the historical Christ. (4) The corresponding expi ession Xptarbs Zv nvt is best explained by the same analogy of
VI. 11-14.]
1
UNION WITH CHRIST

lives
l6l
the
air.'
Man
and breathes
p. 92).
in the air/
and the
air is also
'in the
man' (Deissmann,
Deissmann's monograph is entitled Die neutestamentliche Formel in Christo Jesu, Marburg, 1892. It is a careful and methodical investigation of the subject, somewhat too rigorous in pressing all examples of the use into the same mould, and rather inclined to realistic modes of conception. very interesting question arises as to the origin of the phrase. Herr Deissmann regards it as a creation and naturally as one of the most original creations of St. Paul. And it is true that it is not found in the Synoptic Gospels. Approximations however are found more or less sporadically, in I St. Peter (Hi. 16; v. 10, 14; always in the correct text kv Xpiorw), in the Acts (iv. 2 kv ra> 'Irjoov: 9, 10 iv tw ovufiaTi 'Irjaov Xpiorov 12 xiii. 39 kv tovtoi uas o m<TTevwv StKaiovrai), anct in full volume in the Fourth Gospel (kv iyioi, fitveiv kv ifxoi. Jo. vi. 56; xiv. 20, 30; xv. 2-7; xvi. 33; xvii. 21), in the First Epistle of St. John (kv avrw, kv t> via/ elvat, piveiv ii. 5, 6, 8, 24, 27, 28; Hi. 6, 24; v. ii, 20; tx eiv T v V10V v I2 )> an d also in the Apocalypse Besides the N. T. there are the Apostolic (iv 'Irjaov i. 9 kv Kvpia) xiv. 13). Fathers, whose usage should be investigated with reference to the extent to which it is directly traceable to St. Paul*. The phrase kv Xpiorw 'Ir/oov occurs in I Clem, xxxii. 4 xxxviii. 1 ; Ign. Eph. i. 1 ; Trail, ix. 2 ; Rom. i. 1 ; ii. 2. The commoner phrases are kv Xpiorw in Clem. Rom. and kv The distinction between kv 'Irjoov 'Itjoov Xpiorw which is frequent in Ignat. Xp.orw and iv Xpiorw 'Itjoov is by this time obliterated. In view of these phenomena and the usage of N. T. it is natural to ask whether all can be accounted for on the assumption that the phrase originates entirely with
Paul. In spite of the silence of Evv. Synopt. it seems more probable that the suggestion came in some way ultimately from our Lord Himself. This would not be the only instance of an idea which caught the attention of but few of the first disciples but was destined afterwards to wider acceptance
St.
and expansion.
12. paaiXcueTCD
:
cf. v.
21 of Sin
v.
14, 17 of Death.
With this verse comp. Philo, De Gigant. 7 (Mang. i. 266) avmoTrjp.oovvr]s pitytorov r) oap koX t) irpdi aapna olice'twais.
:
Ainov
o\ rr}s
irapiordi'CTe, go on yielding,' 13. Observe the change of tense by the weakness which succumbs to temptation whenever it presses; irapaa-niaaTe, dedicate by one decisive act, one resolute effort/ weapons (cf. esp. Rom. xiii. 1252 Cor. vi. 7 x. 4). oirXa For a like military aSut'as and 8acaioo-vvT)s are gen. qualitatis. metaphor more fully worked out comp. Eph. vi. 11-17. Yo u are not, as you used to be, constantly 14. djxapTia yapharassed by the assaults of sin, aggravated to your consciences by the prohibitions of Law. The fuller explanation of this aggravating and it is effect of Law is coming in what follows, esp. in ch. vii just like St. Paul to set up a finger-post,' pointing to the course his argument is to take, in the last clause of a paragraph. It is like
'
'
:
'
'
'
* It
is
rather strange that this question does not appear to be touched either
by Bp. Lightfoot or by Gebhardt and Harnack. There is more to the point in the excellent monograph on Ignatius by Von der Goltz in Texte u Unters.
xii. 3,
but the particular group of phrases
is
not directly treated.
162
[VI. 1-14.
him too
to go off at the word vo\iov into a digression, returning to the subject with which the chapter opened, and looking at it from
another side.
The Doctrine of Mystical Union with
Christ.
did St. Paul arrive at this doctrine of the Mystical Union ? Doubtless by the guiding of the Holy Spirit. But that guiding, as it usually does, operated through natural and human channels.
How
The channel in this instance would seem to be psychological. The basis of the doctrine is the Apostle's own experience. His conversion was an intellectual change, but it was also something much
more.
Master,
the
life
It
was an intense personal apprehension of Christ, as Redeemer and Lord. But that apprehension was so
persistent
and so absorbing; it was such a dominant element in of the Apostle that by degrees it came to mean little less
than an actual identification of will. In the case of ordinary friendand affection it is no very exceptional thing for unity of purpose and aim so to spread itself over the character, and so to permeate thought and feeling, that those who are joined together by this invisible and spiritual bond seem to act and think almost as if they were a single person and not two. But we can understand that in St. Paul's case with an object for his affections so exalted as Christ, and with influences from above meeting so powerfully the upward motions of his own spirit, the process of identification had a more than common strength and completeness. It was accomplished in that sphere of spiritual emotion for which the Apostle possessed such remarkable gifts gifts which caused him to be singled out as the recipient of special Divine communications. Hence it was that there grew up within him a state of feeling which he struggles to express and succeeds in expressing through language which is practically the language of union. Nothing short of this seemed to do justice to the degree of that identification of will which the Apostle attained to. He spoke of himself as one with Christ. And then his thoughts were so concentrated upon the culminating acts in the Life of Christ the acts which were in a special sense associated with man's redemption His Death, Burial and Resurrection that when he came to analyze his own feelings, and to dissect this idea of oneness, it was natural to him to see in it certain stages, corresponding to those great acts of Christ, to see in it something corresponding to death, something corresponding to burial (which was only the emphasizing of death), and something corresponding
ship
to resurrection.
Here there came in to help the peculiar symbolism of Baptism. An imagination as lively as St. Paul's soon found in it analogies to the same process. That plunge beneath the running waters was like
VI. 1-14.]
UNION WITH CHRIS?
163
a death ; the moment's pause while they swept on overhead was like a burial the standing erect once more in air and sunlight was a species of resurrection. Nor did the likeness reside only in the outward rite, it extended to its inner significance. To what was it that the Christian died ? He died to his old self, to all that he had been, whether as Jew or Gentile, before he became a Christian. To what did he rise again ? Clearly to that new life to which the Christian was bound over. And in this spiritual dea.h and resurrection the great moving factor was that one fundamental principle of union with Christ, identification of will with His. It was this which enabled the Christian to make his parting with the past and embracing of new obligations real. There is then, it will be seen, a meeting and coalescence of a number of diverse trains of thought in this most pregnant doctrine. On the side of Christ there is first the loyal acceptance of Him as Messiah and Lord, that acceptance giving rise to an impulse of strong adhesion, and the adhesion growing into an identification of will and purpose which is not wrongly described as union. Further, there is the distributing of this sense of union over the cardinal acts of Christ's Death, Burial and Resurrection. Then on the side of the man there is his formal ratification of the process by the undergoing of Baptism, the symbolism of which all
;
converges to the same end ; and there is his practical assumption of the duties and obligations to which baptism and the embracing of Christianity commit him the breaking with his tainted past, the entering upon a new and regenerate career for the future. The vocabulary and working out of the thought in St. Paul are his own, but the fundamental conception has close parallels in the writings of St. John and St. Peter, the New Birth through water and Spirit (John Hi. 5), the being begotten again of incorruptible seed (1 Pet. i. 23), the comparison of baptism to the ark of Noah partial (1 Pet. iii. 20, 21) in St. Peter; and there is a certain coincidence even in the dn-fKâev of St. James (Jas. i. 18).
It is the great merit of Matthew Arnold's St. Paul and Protestantism, whatever its defects and whatever its one-sidedness, that it did seize with remarkable force and freshness on this part of St. Paul's teaching. And the merit is all the greater when we consider how really high and difficult that teaching is, and how apt it is to shoot over the head of reader or hearer. Matthew Arnold saw, and expressed with all his own lucidity, the foundation is of simple psychological fact on which the Apostle's mystical language He gives to it the name of faith,' and it is indeed the only kind of based.
'
in giving the process this name, happens, St. Paul has not as yet spoken of faith in this conI"- was nexion, and does not so speak of it until he comes to Eph. iii. 17. of all really faith, the living apprehension of Christ, which lies at the bottom the language of identification and union. power of attach1 If ever there was a case in which the wonder-working righteousment, in a man for whom the moral sympathies and the desire for faith
which he recognizes.
it
Nor
is
he wrong
though, as
'
'
164
EPISTLE TO THE
Paul
ROMANS
;
[VI. 1-14.
here.
employ itself and work its wonders, it was power penetrate him and he felt, also, how by perfectly identifying himself through it with Christ, and in no other way, could he ever get the confidence and force to do as Christ did. He thus found a point in which the mighty world outside man, and the weak world The struggling stream of inside him, secned to combine for his salvation. duty, which had not volume enough to bear him to his goal, was suddenly To this reinforced by the immense tidal wave of sympathy and emotion.
ness were all-powerful, might
felt
this
potent influence Paul gave the name of faith ' {St. Paul and Protestantism, p. 69 f.). ' It is impossible to be in presence of this Pauline conception of faith without remarking on the incomparable power of edification which it contains. It is indeed a crowning evidence of that piercing practical religious sense which we have attributed to Paul. . . The elemental power of sympathy and emotion in us, a power which extends beyond the limits of our own will and conscious activity, which we cannot measure and control, and which in each of us differs immensely in force, volume, and mode of manifestation, he calls into full play, and sets it to work with all its strength and in all its variety. But one unalterable object is assigned by him to this power: to die with Christ to the law of the flesh, to live with Christ to the law of the mind. This is the doctrine of the necrosis (2 Cor. iv. 10), Paul's central doctrine, and the doctrine which makes his profoundness and originality. . Those multitudinous motions of appetite and self-will which reason and conscience disapproved, reason and conscience could yet not This, as we have seen, is what drove govern, and had to yield to them. Paul almost to despair. Well, then, how did Paul's faith, working through In the love, help him here? It enabled ham to reinforce duty by affection. central need of his nature, the desire to govern these motions of unrighteousDie to them I Christ did. If any man be in ness, it enabled him to say that is, if any man identifies himself with Christ by Christ, said Paul,
new and
attachment so that he enters into his feelings and lives with his life, - he is a new creature he can do, and does, what Christ did. First, he suffers with him. Christ, throughout His life and in His death, presented His body a living sacrifice to God every self-willed impulse, blindly trying to assert You, says Paul to itself without respect of the universal order, he died to. his disciple, are to do the same. ... If you cannot, your attachment, your In an ordinary human faith, must be one that goes but a very little way. attachment, out of love to a woman, out of love to a friend, out of love to a child, you can suppress quite easily, because by sympathy you become one with them and their feelings, this or that impulse of selfishness which happens to conflict with them, and which hitherto you have obeyed. All impulses of selfishness conflict with Christ's feelings, He showed it by dying to them all if you are one with Him by faith and sympathy, you can die to them also. Then, secondly, if you thus die with Him, you become trans. You rise with formed by the renewing of your mind, and rise with Him. Him to that harmonious conformity with the real and eternal order, that
; ;
and peace, and God who which grows more and more till it becomes glory' {ibid. pp. 7578). Another striking presentation of the thought of this passage will be found in a lay sermon, The Witness of God, by the philosopher, T. H. Green (London, 1883 also in Works). Mr. Green was as far removed as Matthew Arnold from conventional theology, and there are traces of Hegelianism in what follows for which allowance should be made, but his mind had a natural affinity for this side of St. Paul's teaching, and he has expressed it with great To this the brief extracts given will do but force and moral intensity. imperfect justice, and the sermon is well worth reading in its entirety. ' The death and rising again of the Christ, as [St. Paul] conceived them,
sense of pleasing
trieth the hearts,
which
is life
VI. 1-14.]
UNION WITH CHRIST
165
were not separate and independent events. They were two sides of the same act an act which relatively to sin, to the flesh, to the old man, to all which separates from God, is death ; but which, just for that reason, is the birth of a new life relatively to God, ... God was in [Christ], so that what He did, God did. A death unto life, a life out of death, must then be in some way the essence of the divine nature must be an act which, though exhibited once for all in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, was yet eternal the act of God Himself. For that very reason, however, it was one perpetually re-enacted, and to be re-enacted, by man. If Christ died for all, all died in Him all were buried in His grave to be all made alive in His resurrection ... In other words, He constitutes in us a new intellectual consciousness, which transforms the will and is the source of a new moral life.' There is special value in the way in which the difference is brought out between the state of things to which the individual can attain by his own effort and one in which the change is wrought from without. The first would be a self-renunciation which would be really the acme of self-seeking. On the other hand, presented as the continuous act of God Himself, as the eternal self-surrender of the Divine Son to the Father, it is for us and may be in us, but is not of us. Nay, it is just because not of us, that it may be in us. Because it is the mind of Christ, and Christ is God's, in the contemplation of it we are taken out of ourselves, we slip the natural man and appropriate that mind which we behold. Constrained by God's manifested love, we cease to be our own that Christ may become ours' {The Witness of
:
'
God, pp. 7-10). We may quote lastly an estimate of the Pauline conception in the history of Religion. ' It is in Christendom that, according to the providence of God, this power has been exhibited not indeed either adequately or exclusively, but most fully. In the religions of the East, the idea of a death to the fleshly self as the end of the merely human, and the beginning of a divine life, has not been wanting nor, as a mere idea, has it been very different from that which is the ground of Christianity. But there it has never been realized in action, either intellectually or morally. The idea of the withdrawal from sense has remained abstract. It has not issued in such a struggle with the superficial view of things, as has gradually constituted the science of Christendom. In like manner that of self-renunciation has never emerged from the esoteric state. It has had no outlet into the life of charity, but a back-way always open into the life of sensual licence, and has been finally mechanized in the artificial vacancy of the dervish or fakir' {ibid. p. 21). One of the services which Mr. Green's lay sermon may do us is in helping us to understand not the whole but part of the remarkable conception of 1 The Way in Dr. Hort's posthumous The Way, the Truth, and the Life (Cambridge and London, 1893). When it is contended, 'first that the whole seeming maze of history in nature and man, the tumultuous movement of the world in progress, has running through it one supreme dominating Way and second, that He who on earth was called Jesus the Nazarene is that Way' {The Way, &c. p. 20 f.), we can hardly be wrong, though the point might have been brought out more clearly, in seeking a scriptural illustration in St. Paul's teaching as to the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ. These to him are not merely isolated historical events which took place once for all in the past. They did so take place, and their historical reality, as well as their direct significance in the Redemption wrought out by Christ, must be insisted upon. But they are more than this they constitute a law, a predisposed pattern or plan, which other human lives have to follow. ' Death unto life,' ' life growing out of death,' is the inner principle or secret, applied in an indefinite variety of ways, but running through the history of most, perhaps all, religious aspiration and attainment. Everywhere there must be the death of an old self and the birth of a new. It must be
; ;
'
1 66
EPISTLE TO THE kOMANS
[VI. 15-23.
admitted that the group of conceptions united by St. Paul, and, as it would seem, yet more widely extended by St. John, is difficult to grasp intellectual ly, and has doubtless been acted upon in many a simple unspeculative life in which there was never any attempt to formulate it exactly in words. But the conception belongs to the length and depth and height of the Gospel here, as we see it in St. Paul, it bears all the impress of his intense and prophetand there can be little doubt that it is capable of exercising like penetration a stronger and more dominating influence on the Christian consciousness This must be our excuse for expanding the doctrine at done. than it has rather considerable length, and for invoking the assistance of those who, just by their detachment from ordinary and traditional Christianity, have brought to bear a freshness of insight in certain directions which has led them, if not exactly to discoveries, yet to new and vivid realization of truths which to indolent minds are obscured by their very familiarity.
:
THE TRANSITION FROM LAW TO GRACE. ANALOGY OF SLAVERY.

VI. 15-23.
his business
Take an
illustration
from common life the

zvas
condition of slavery.
The Christian
a slave of sin
has been
another
16
that of Righteousness.
I told
was unc leanness ; his wages, death. But he emancipated from this service, only to enter upon
that
Am
we should
take advantage of our liberty as

to sin
?
subjects of
Grace and not of Law,

that to render service
Impossible
to
16
!
Are
is
you not aware

rendered?
and obedience
any one
to be the slave of that person or
And
so
it
is
here.
;
power to which obedience is You are either slaves of Sin, and

"But, thank God, the at your baptism you and conduct
in
the end before you death
or you are true to your rightful Master,
and the end before you righteousness.

time
is
past
when you were

instructed
slaves of Sin
and
gave cordial assent to that standard of
life
which
you were
first
and
to the guidance of
18
which you were
then handed over by your teachers.
Thus you were emancipated

to the service of
from the service of

Righteousness.
19
Sin,
and were transferred
am
using a figure of speech taken from every-day

If
human
it
relations.
servitude
'
seems a poor and harsh metaphor,
is
one which the remains of the natural

will
man
that
still
cling about
you
at
least
permit you to understand.
Yours must be an un-
divided service.
Devote the members of your body as unreservedly
VI. 15-23.]
LAW AND GRACE

to
167
God,
to the service of righteousness for progressive consecration to
as
you once devoted them

20
Pagan uncleanness and
daily increas-
ing licence.
21
were slaves to
to think of?
you to this. Why ? Because while you you were freemen in regard to Righteousness. What good then did you get from conduct which you now blush
1 exhort
Sin,
Much
indeed
For the goal
death.
22
But now
that, as Christians,
to which it leads is you are emancipated from
Sin and enslaved to
God, you have something

and your
to
show
for
your
!
service closer and

23
fuller consecration,
goal, eternal Life

;
For the wages which Sin pays its votaries is Death while you receive no wages, but the bountiful gift of God, the eternal Life, which is ours through our union with Jesus Messiah, our Lord.
15-23. The next two sections (vi. 15-23 vii. 1-6) might be described summarily as a description of the Christian's release, what it is and what it is not. The receiving of Christian Baptism was a great dividing-line across a man's career. In it he entered into a wholly new relation of self-identification with Christ which was fraught with momentous consequences looking both backwards and forwards. From his sin-stained past he was cut off as it were by death towards the future he turned radiant with the quickening influence of a new life. St. Paul now more fully expounds the nature of the change. He does so by the help of two illustrations,
;
:
one from the
state of slavery, the other

ti
Each
state implied certain
s,
like those
Christianity was bound before his these ties does not carry with it the cessation of all ties ; it only means the substitution of new ties for the old. So is it with the
slave,
from the state of wedlock. by which the convert to conversion. But the cessation of
emancipated from one service only to enter upon with the wife who, when released by the death of one husband, is free to marry again. In the remaining verses of this chapter St. Paul deals with the case of Slavery. Emancipation from Sin is but the prelude to a new service of Righteousness. 15. The Apostle once more reverts to the point raised at the beginning of the chapter, but with the variation that the incentive to sin is no longer the seeming good which Sin works by calling down grace, but the freedom of the state of grace as opposed to the
is
who
another.
So
is it
strictness of the
Law.
St.
Paul's reply in effect

to sin but in
is
that Christian
sin.
freedom consists not in freedom

S|jiapTT|croo(Jiv
:
freedom from
Verbs,^ p. 49). dfiapT-qaofiev.
found in LXX (Veitch, Irreg. Chrys. codd. Theodrt. and others, with minuscules, read
from a
late aor. ^(xaprTjaa,
16.
general proposition
to
which our Lord Himself had
l68
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[VI. 16-19.
appealed in 'No man can serve two masters' (Matt. vi. 24). There passages 2 Pet. ii. 19 are still nearer parallels in John viii. 34 however which do not so much prove direct dependence on St. Paul as that the thought was 'in the air' and might occur to more writers than one.
;
:
tjTot fj these disjunctives state a dilemma in a lively and emphatic way, implying that one limb or the other must be chosen (Baumlein, ParKiihner, Gram. 540. 5). tikeliehre, p. 244
. .
. :
Stands for [yirrjicovcraTe] ti'tto) StSn^s ds expect rather os vyuv Trapedodrj it seems more natural to say that the teaching is handed over to the persons taught than that the persons taught are handed over to the teachThe form of phrase which St. Paul uses however expresses ing. Before baptism they well the experience of Christian converts. underwent a course of simple instruction, like that in the ' Two Ways or first part of the Didachi (see the reff. in Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, p. 314). With baptism this course of instruction ceased, and they were left with its results impressed upon their minds. This was to be henceforth their standard of living. Tu-nw 8i8axT]S. For rwros see the note on ch. v. 14. The third of the senses there given (' pattern/ exemplar,' ' standard ') is by far the most usual with St. Paul, and there can be little doubt that that is the meaning here. So among the ancients Chrys. (tis 8e 6 rvnos rrjs didaxrjs'f opBSas tjv ml fiera noXireias ap'rrqs) Euthym.-Zig.
17. is o>
.
.
.
8i8axt]S
ov 7rapeS66t]Te.
We
'
'
(els tvttov,
rjyovv
all
tuv
kcivovo.
kcu
opov
rrjs
evatftovs
7roXireicry),
and
the English commentators with Oltr. and Lips. To suppose, as some leading Continental scholars (De W. Mey.-W. Go.) have done, that some special type of doctrine/ whether Jewish-Christian or Pauline, is meant, is to look with the eyes of
'
among moderns
the nineteenth century
Rom. and Eph.

Christian
rinroi
and not with those of the first (cf. Hort, 32 'Nothing like this notion of a plurality of tk&axv* occurs anywhere else in the N. T., and it is
p.
quite out of
harmony with the context'). St. Paul uses this form of phrase (cf. 19. avQputnvoy \4y<a. Gal. iii. 15 Kara avdpooTTov Xeyco) where he wishes to apologize for
having recourse to some

'
common
anb
(or as he
carnal
')
illustration to express spiritual truths.

laa-avii
would have called it So Chrys. (first

and twv iv
explanation)
8id
tt)^
eAryei',
av6pamlva>v
\oyicrp,aiv )
(TVPTjQeia yivop,eva)v.
daOeVciai/ tt)s aapicos.
Two
explanations are possible
(1) ' because of the moral hindrances which prevent the practice of Christianity' (Chrys. Theodrt. Weiss and others); (2) 'because
of the difficulties of apprehension, from defective spiritual experience, which prevent the understanding of
its
moderns).
Clearly this
is
more
in keeping with the context.
deeper truths' (most In
VI. 19-21.]
LAW AND GRACE

what has gone
169
before, not (as Orig.
any case the clause refers to Chrys., &c.) to what follows.
<rap = human nature in its weakness, primarily physical and moral, but secondarily intellectual. It is intellectual weakness in so far as this is determined by moral, by the limitations of character cf. <ppovuv rd rfjf aapitos, <ppovi}jxa rfjs aapKos Rom. viii. 5 f. ; oo<pol Kara adpxa I Cor. i. 26. The idea of this passage is similar to that of 1 Cor. iii. 2 yd\a vftas (ironaa, ov
:
Ppu>p.a- ovirai
yap
TjdvvaaOe.
tt]
dKa0ap<ria.
aKaOapala
life (cf.
i.
features of
Pagan
and avofiia fitly describe the characteristic 24 ff.). As throughout the context these
forms of sin are personified; they obtain a mastery over the man; (Is ttjv dvofxiav describes the effect of that mastery 'to the practice of iniquity.' With these verses (19-21) compare especially
and
1
Pet.
iv.
1-5.
dyiao-fios
Mey. (but not Weiss) Lips. Oltr. Go. would make here practically dytcoavvrj, i. e. not so much the process of consecration as the result of the process. There is certainly this
is dyiaajioy.
tendency in language and in some of the places in which the word used it seems to have the sense of the resulting state (e. g. 1 Thess. iv. 4, where it is joined with Tirf 1 Tim. ii. 15, where it is joined with mans and dydnrj). But in the present passage the word may well retain its proper meaning the members are to be handed over to Righteousness to be (gradually) made fit for God's service, not to become fit all at once. So Weiss Gif. Va. Mou. ('course of purification'). For the radical meaning see the note on ayios ch. i. 7, and Dr. A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, p. 206 dyiao-pos the process of fitting for acceptable worship,' a sense which comes OUt clearly in Heb. xii. 14 diaxere t6v dyiaapov ov xwpis ovbds
;
is
'
occurs some ten times (two vv. 11.) in and in Ps. Sol. xvii. 33, but is not classical. 21. tIvo. ouc i-naHTxvveoQe Where does the question end and the answer begin? (1) Most English commentators and critics (Treg. WH. RV. as well as Gif. Va.) carry on the question to inaia\vvea6f. In that case (Ktiucop must be supplied before #' of?, and its omission might be due to the reflex effect of in the sentence following (comp. dnodavovres iv <p KareLxofifBa vii. 6 below). There would then be a common enough ellipse before to ydp reXos,
octroi top Kvpiov.
The word
LXX
eW^
What fruit had ye .? [None :] for the end,' &c. (2) On the other hand several leading Germans (Tisch. Weiss Lips., though not Mey.) put the question at rdn, and make <<p' ots irraiaxyveodc * What part of the answer. fruit had ye then ? Things [pleasures,
' . .
gratifications of sense] of
which you are
now ashamed
for their
:
end
is
death.'
epajTrjaiv
dnoKpiatv
possible,
Cramer) expressly kot dvayvcoo-Tcov to riva ovv ndpnov fiêre Tore, ftra Kara ols vvv ciraiax vvfo~fi f Both interpretations are c(f>' but the former, as it would seem, is more simple and natural
*
So, too, Theod.-Mops. (in
170
(Gif.).
[VII. 1-6.
phrases link together so easily as e$' oh iivaiax. it is a mistake to separate them except for strong reasons ; nor does there appear to be sufficient ground for distinguishing between near consequences and remote.
with what precedes,
When two
There is the usual ambiguity of to Yap to fiiv yap X C readings in which B alone joins the Western authorities. The probability is that the reading belongs to the Western element in B, and that \iiv was introduced through erroneous antithesis to vw\ hk. 23. 6\J/wvia. From a root veir- we get 'irpw, oipov, 'cooked' meat, fish, &c. as contrasted with bread. Hence the compound bxpuviov (ouvtofjiai, ' to buy ') = (1) provision-money, ration-money, or the rations in kind given to troops; The word is said to have come in (2; in a more general sense, ' wages.' with Menander it is proscribed by the Atticists, but found freely in Polybius, 1 Mace. &c. (Sturz, Dial. Maced. p. 187). xdpio-p-a. Teitullian, with his usual picturesque boldness, translates this by donativum (De A'es. Carn.c. 47 Stipendia enim delinquentiae mors, donativum autem dei vita aeterna). It is not probable that St. Paul had this particular antithesis in his mind, though no doubt he intends to contrast dipwua and
: :
BD*EFG.
\apiafia.
THE TRANSITION FROM LAW TO GRACE
ANALOGY OP MARRIAGE.
Take another illustration from the Law of The Marriage Lazv only binds a woman while her husband lives. So with the Christian. He was zvedded, as it were, to his old sinful state ; and all that time he was But this old life subject to the law applicable to that state. the death of through his zvith killed identification his was of Christ ; so as to set him free to contract a new marriage with Christ, no longer dead but risen: and the fruit of that marriage should be a new life quickened by the Spirit.
VII. 1-6.
Marriage.
1 say that
will see
you
are free
from the
Law
of Moses and from Sin.

fact
You
how
unless
you need
to
be reminded of a
which
your acquaintance with the nature of

you, that Law, for the
Law
will readily
suggest to
during his
lifetime.
Thus
man who comes under it, is only in force for instance a woman in wedlock is
But
if
forbidden by law to desert her living husband.
her husband
'
should
the
die,
she
is
3
absolved from the provisions of the statute
Of
Husband/
'
Hence
'
while her husband
is
alive,
she will be
siyled
an adulteress
if
she
marry another
man
but
if
her

VII. 1-6.]
husband
4
LAW AND GRACE

she
is
71
die,
free
from
that statute, so that
no one can
is
call
her an adulteress, though she be married to another man.
We may
apply this in an allegory, in which the wife

first
the
Christian's 'self or 'ego'; the

state,
husband, his old unregenerate

it.
burdened with
then,
all
the penalties attaching to
You
brought
And
this
my
brethren in Christ, had this old state killed in you
to
an abrupt and violent end
by your
identification
with the crucified Christ, whose death you reproduce spiritually.
death of your old self

with
the
marriage
a triumph in
left you free to enter upon a new same Christ, who triumphed over death which you too share that in union with Him you,
and indeed
may be fruitful in good works, to 6 the glory and praise of God. Our new marriage must be fruitful, as our old marriage was. When we had nothing better to guide
all
of us Christians,
us than this
frail
humanity of ours, so
liable to temptation, at that
time too a process of generation was going on.
The
impressions
of sense, suggestive of
sin,
stimulated into perverse activity by their
legal prohibition, kept plying this bodily
organism of ours in such
way
as to engender acts that only went to swell the garners of

6
Death.
But now
all
that has
been brought to an end.

of sin
Law and
the state of sin are so inextricably linked together, that in dying, at
our baptism, a moral death, to that old

the penalties to which sin laid us open.
state
we were absolved
this discharge
or discharged from the Law, which used to hold us prisoners under
And
through
we
are enabled to serve

is Spirit,
God
in a
new
state, the ruling principle
of
which
in place of that old state, presided over
by Written
Law.
this section and indeed of the whole chapter not under Law, but under Grace ' ; and the Apostle brings forward another illustration to show how the transition from Law to Grace has been effected, and what should be its consequences. In the working out of this illustration there is a certain amount of intricacy, due to an apparent shifting of the stand-point in the middle of the paragraph. The Apostle begins by showing how with the death of her husband the law which binds a married woman becomes a dead letter. He goes on to say in the application, not The Law is dead to you,' but You are dead to which looks like a change of position, though a the Law' legitimate one*
1-6.
is
still,
The text of Ye are

'
'
'
tog
[VII.
1, 2.
differently, viz.
'
however may be right in explaining the transition 1 he by means of the iniKaibs fo$p<avos of ch. vi. 6. self and a new self self of the man is double there is an old throughout, but it passes or rather the 'self remains the same
Gif.
' '
rather
through different
find the
states, or phases.
Bearing
this in
mind we
shall
metaphor work out
consistently.
The Wife
all
= the true
Husband
self,
or ego, which
is
permanent through
change.
(first)
The
= the
old
state
before conversion to
Christianity.
The 'law
of the husband'
= the
law which condemned that old

convert enters
The new Marriage

with Christ.
= the union upon which the
According to is t>juU MamrMrrre in ver. 4. the which we explain this will be our explanation of whole passage. See the note ad loc. in with There is yet another train of thought which comes of offspring the suggests naturally marriage vv 4-6. The idea of union with In the case of the Christian the fruit of his
The
crucial phrase
the
way
in
marriage. ,* Christ is a holy life. of Law 1 *H dyroeiTe [' surely you know thisthat the regime superseded it.] Or do you has come to an end, and that Grace has accounts, and therefore that require to be told that death closes all ceased through the death the state of things to which Law belongs death spoken of in the of the Christian with Christ- that mystical
'
...
last
., ,., n ti men yAp npov \a\S>: I speak (lit. am talking ) to article and the -the of absence the once At acquainted with Law/ is meant here is not nature of the case go to show that what that Roman Law (Weiss), of which there is no reason to suppose of yet the Law nor knowledge, detailed any possess Paul would
.
chapter
viirio-Rouai
'
'
St
Moses more
of
all
general principle particularly considered (Lips.), but a
death clears an obvious axiom of political justice that be prosecuted or longer no can man dead a that and all scores, punished (cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 24). of this may be proved by 2. A yap uWSpos yvWj: ['the truth state of wedlock is bound the in woman a For point.] in a case a classical word, found (mavbpos husband/ by law to her living
Law
(lit. Ms completely (perf.) absolved or discharged' Ihe is abolished). wife a as status her 'annulled,' 'nullified' or practically St. Paul as two correlative phrases are treated by the law, and the law convertible: 'the woman is annulled from For Karapyiiv see on 111. 3. annulled to the woman.'
*Wai:
is
VII. 2-4.]
LAW AND GRACE

:
'
1 73
from that section of the statute-book headed The Husband/ the section which lays down his rights and duties. Gif. compares the law of the leper Lev. xiv. 2 'the law of the Nazirite' Num. vi. 13.
diro tou mojaou toC d^Spos

is
which
'
'
Tifa BaaiKevi Polyb. V. lvii. 2); and so simply, as here, 'to be called or styled' (Acts xi. 26 kyivero xPl^^Tioai irpwrov tv 'hvTioxtiq tovs fiaOrjTas Xp anavois) and on the other hand (2) from the notion of 'having dealings with,' 'giving audience to' a person, in a special sense, of the 'answers, communications, revelations,' given by an oracle or by God. So six times in of Jerem., Joseph. Antiq., Plutarch, &c. From this sense we get pass, 'to be warned or admonished' by God (Matt. ii. 12, 22 Acts x. 22 ; Heb. viii. 5; xi. 7). Hence also subst. xPW a fi6s, 'a Divine or oracular response,' 2 Mace. ii. 4 Rom. xi. 4. Burton (M. and T. 69) calls the fut. here a ' gnomic future as stating what will customarily happen when occasion offers.' tov y.x\ dvat = ware thai the stress is thrown back upon lXsv9ipa, 'so as not to be,' * causing her not to be,' not so that she is.' According to Burton tov n-q here denotes conceived result ' ; but see the note on ware SovXevfiv in ver. 6 below. 4. tocrre with indie, introduces a consequence which follows as a matter of fact.
.
3. xpT)\iaTi<rei. The meanings of xmf**rifap ramify in two directions. The fundamental idea is that of transacting business' or 'managing affairs.' Hence we get on the one hand, from the notion of doing business under a certain nnme, from Polybius onwards (1) to bear a name or title' (xPVf**'
LXX
'
'
'
'
Kai u/xets c'6avaTw0T]T6.
We
have said that the exact interpreta'
upon this phrase. It is commonly explained as another way of saying You had the Law killed to yOU. So Chrys. aitoKovdov rju iirlv,4rov vopov TtAevT.rjo-avTos ov Kplveade fioixdas, dv8p\ yevopifvot ere'pa). 'A\V ovk flircv ovtojs, aXXa 7700s; *E8avaTa>6r)Te tw vofiw (cf. Euthym.-Zig.). In favour of this is the parallel KarrjpyrjTai dno rov vo/xov tov dv8pos in ver. 2, and KaTrjpyrjdrjpeu ano tov v6p.ov in ver. 6. But on the other hand it is strange to speak of the same persons at one moment as 'killed' and the next as 'married again.' There is therefore a strong attraction in the explanation of Gif., who makes vp.ds not the whole self but the old self, i.e. the old state of the self which was really 'crucified with Christ' (ch. vi. 6), and the death of which really leaves the man (= the wife in the allegory) free to contract a new union. This moral death of the Christian to his past also does away with the Law. The Law had its hold upon him only through sin; but in discarding his sins he discards also the pains and penalties which attached to them. Nothing can touch him further. His old heathen or Jewish antecedents have passed away ; he is under obligation only to Christ.
tion of the whole passage turns
Kal
vjjicts.
The
force of Kai here
is,
'
You,
my
readers, as well as the wife
in the allegory.'
Sid tou awjmaTos tou XpicrroG.
The way
is
the
'
old
man'
is
brought about
in which the death of through the identification of the
174
[VII. 4,
5.
as
The Christian takes his place, Christian with the Death of Christ. it were, with Christ upon the Cross, and there has his old self
' ' '
The body of Christ here meant is the* crucified body': the Christian shares in that crucifixion, and so gets rid of his sinful past. We are thus taken back to the symbolism of the last chapter (vi. 6), to which St. Paul also throws in an allusion The two lines of symbolism really run in ro> Ik vtK.pa>v cyepdevn. parallel to each other and it is easy to connect them.
crucified.
6 iraXaios avBpconos
Crucifixion of the
Resurrection
j}v
}
8ov\cvfiv rep
= Death of the = Re-Marriage 06W = Kapno(popelv tw 0eo>.

ira\. av6.
1
= The
Husband
Husband:
to Yvo-0at vp,as iTtpw. Lips, takes this not of being married to another husband,' but of 'joining another master, on the ground that there This however (i) is unnecessary, because is no marriage to the Law. marriage to the ' old man carries with it subjection to the Law, so that the dissolution of the marriage involves release from the Law by a step which is close and inevitable (2) it is wrong, because of KapnoQoprjacu, which it is clearly forced and against the context to refer, as Lips, does, to anything but the offspring of marriage.
ts
'
;
The natural sequel to the metaphor of which the Christian, wedded to Christ, is to bear is of course that of a reformed life. This verse develops the idea con5. ot6 Y&p Tjfiti/ Iv ttj aapKi. tained in Kapirocpoprjacopev the new marriage ought to be fruitful, because the old one was. clvai h rfj aapn is the opposite of tZrai the one is a life which has no higher object than iv rw irvevnari. the gratification of the senses, the other is a life permeated by the Although o-dpg is human nature especially on the side of Spirit. its frailty, it does not follow that there is any dualism in St. Paul's conception or that he regards the body as inherently sinful. Indeed this very passage proves the contrary. It implies that it
Kapiro<|>opr)(rwfxei' to>
06w.
Marriage/
The
'fruit'
The in the body ' without being in the flesh/ is possible to be it may be body, as such, is plastic to influences of either kind worked upon by Sin through the senses, or it may be worked upon by the Spirit. In either case the motive-force comes from without. The body itself is neutral. See esp. the excellent discussion in Gifford, pp. 48-52. to, iraGTJfxaTa riav dp.apnwi': 7rd6rjpa has the same sort of ambiguity It means (1) an impression,' esp. a painas our word passion/
'
'
'
'
'
impression' or suffering; (2) the reaction which follows upon some strong impression of sense (cf. Gal. v. 24). The gen. t&v connected with sins/ leading to sins/ afiapTiwv Td Sid tou i>o'fJiou. Here St. Paul, as his manner is, * throws up a finger-post which points to the coming section of his argument. The phrase Sia rod vofiov is explained at length in the next
ful
'
'
'
VII.
5, 6.]
LAW AND GRACE

it
175
in calling
forth
paragraph aggravating
i
refers to the
effect
of
Law
and
sin.
enrjpyeiTo.
The
1
pricks
ii.
and
13;
stings of passion 2 Thess.

ii.
were active in our

2 Cor.
i.
members
Gal.
6.
v. 6,
(cf.
Thess.
6, iv.
12
&c).
: '
dat. commodi, contrasted with Kapnocp, tw Ofw above. uwl oe KaTr\pyr\Or]y.ev diro tou yo'fAou. But as it is we (in our peccant part, the old man) were discharged or annulled from the Law' (i.e. we had an end put to our relations with the Law; by the death of our old man there was nothing left on which the Law could wreak its vengeance we were struck with atrophy in respect to it See On ver. 2). ncos ffpfls Karqpyr]8r)p.ev tov Karex^vov
t<3 0afdT&)
'
'
'
'
napa
rr/s
afiaprias
We
observe
how
dvdpanrov naKaiov airoOavovTos nai ra(peuTos ChryS. Chrys. here practically comes round to the same
side as Gif.
The renderings of Kar-qp^-qd-q^v are rather interesting, and show the difficulty of finding an exact equivalent in other languages: evacuati sumus Tert. ; soluti sumus Codd. Clarom. Sangerm. Vulg. (= ' we were unbounden ' Wic. ; ' we are loosed ' Rhem.) we are delivered Tyn. Cran. Genev. AV. ; 'we are discharged' RV. nous avons ite degagis Oltr. (Le Nouveau Test., Geneva, 1874); nun aber sind wir fur das Gesetz nicht
' ;
'
Test., Freiburg i. B. 1882, ed. 2). airo0avovTS. AV. apparently read diroOavuvTos, for which there is no MS. authority, but which seems to be derived by a mistake of Beza following The Erasmus from a comment of Chrysostom's (see Tisch. ad loc). Western text (D E F G, codd. ap. Orig.-lat. and most Latins) boldly corrects to tou 6a arov, which would go with rod vo/xov, and which gives an easier After anodav6pTts we must supply construction, though not a better sense. 4eiVy, just as in vi. 2 1 we had to supply Ikuvuv.
mehr da Weizsacker {Das Neue
The antecedent of eV < is taken by nearly all Iv <5 KaTeix<5p.e0a. commentators as equivalent to tq> rd/zw (whether tiaivy or tovto> is regarded as masc. or better neutr.). Gif. argues against referring
it
to the 'old state/ 'the old

'
'
man/
that this
'
is
'
not
sufficiently
But wherever death is spoken of it is primarily this old state/ or old man which dies, so that the use It was of the term dnodavovrts alone seems enough to suggest it. this old sinful state which brought man under the grip of the Law ;
suggested by the context.
'
when
the sinful life ceased the Law lost its hold. wore oouXeuciy: not 'so that we serve' (RV. and most com'
mentators), but
stress
is
so as
to
serve/
i.
e.
'
thrown back upon
KaTrjpyrjBrjfiev,
The enabling us to serve.' we were so completely
discharged as to set us free to serve.
The true distinction between &ffre with infin. and Siare with indie, which is not always observed in RV., is well stated by Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, ed. 1889, 584 (with the quotation from Shilleto, De Fals. Leg. App. in the note), and for N. T. by the late Canon T. S. Evans in the Expos, for 1882, i. 3 ff. wore with indie, states the definite result which as a matter of fact does follow ; &ore with infin. states the contemplated result which in the natural
t?6
[VII.
7-25.
course ought to follow, wore with indie, lays stress on the effect ; won with infin. on the cause. Thus in I Cor. i. 7 wore voTepeiodai = 'causing or inspiring you to feel behindhand' (see Sp. Comm. ad loc.) in Matt. xiii. 32 yivtrai StvSpov, wore k\6(iv ra TreTtiva nal KaTaaKrjvovv = ' becomes a tree big enough for the birds to come,' &c. It will be seen that the distinction corresponds to the difference in the general character of the two moods.
;
In each case denotes that in which the newness, or oldness, consists. The essential feature of the new state is that it is one of Spirit'; of the old state, that it is regulated by ' written Law/ The period of the Paraclete has succeeded to the period which took its character from the Sinaitic legislation. The Christian life turns on an inspiration from above, not on an fuller explanation elaborate code of commands and prohibitions. of the kcuvottjs nvevfiaTos is given in ch. viii.
iv KaiMOTrjTi -nrcofiaTos
is
.
iraXaioTTjTi ypdfjijxaTos.
the gen.
what
is
called of
'
apposition
'
it
'
It is perhaps well to remind the reader who is not careful to check the study of the English versions by the Greek that the opposition between ypdnjxa and irvdfia is not exactly identical with that which we are in the habit of drawing between * the letter ' and the spirit as the ' literal and 'spiritual sense' of a writing. In this antithesis ypdfji.ua is with St. Paul always the Law of Moses, as a written code, while irvevp.a is the operation 2 Cor. iii. 6). of the Holy Spirit characteristic of Christianity (cf. Rom. ii. 29
' '
'
LAW
VII. 7-25.
ANT> SIN.
must we then
dormant Sin
itself is evil
If release from Sin means release from Law, No. Law reveals identify Law with Sin ?
to action.
the sinfulness of Sin,
on
and by this very revelation stirs tip the But this is not because the Law
good
the contrary it is
but
that Sin
may
and its guilt aggravated (vv. 7-13). This is what takes place. I have a dotible self. But my better self is impotent to prevent me from doing wrong (vv. 14-17). // is equally impotent to make me do right
be exposed
(w. 18-21).
There
is
thus a constant conflict going on,

deliverance.
I
from God
7
which, unaided,
be
I can hope for no
But,
(vv.
thanked, through
Christ deliverance comes
31-25).
1
spoke a
moment ago
of sinful passions working through Law,

it
and of the death
to Sin as carrying with
a release from the Law.
Does
it
follow that the
Law
itself is
actually a
form of Sin
An
VII. 7-25.]
intolerable thought
else
I
!
LAW AND
On
SIN
it
177
the contrary
through which
I learnt the true nature of Sin.
was the Law and nothing For instance,
knew
'
the sinfulness of covetous or
saying
Thou
shalt not covet.'
illicit desire only by the Law But the lurking Sin within me
started into activity,
and by the help of

it
that express
command,
kinds of conscious and sinful covetousness. For without Law to bring it 9 out Sin lies deadinert and passive. And while sin was dead, I - my inner self was alive, in happy unconsciousness, following
into
all
provoking to that which
prohibited, led
me
my
to
bent with no pangs of conscience excited by Law.

this
;
came
sin,
life,
But then Tenth Commandment and with its coming Sin awoke while I sad and tragic contrast died the living death of
10
precursor of eternal death.

to point
And
to
the
n For Sin took in my case to lead to death. advantage and by the help of the commandment at once confronting me with the knowledge of right and provoking me to do that which was wrong it betrayed me, so that I fell and the comof
it,
was given was found
men
the
way
life,
this
commandment which very commandment
mandment was
that the
the
weapon with which

is
it
slew me.
it
12
The
result i>
Law, as a whole,
single
holy, inasmuch as
proceeds from
God
and each
justice,
commandment
13
has the like character of holiness,

I
and beneficence.
Am
then to
?
say that a thing so
excellent in itself to
rather the
me
proved
fatal
Not
that
for a
moment.
It
was
in
is,
demon
Sin which wrought the mischief.

to
And
the reason
why
its
it
was permitted
fact
do so was
it
might be shown
it
true colours, convicted of being the pernicious thing that

that
it
by the
made
its
use of a good
death.
instrument,
this
Law,
to
work out upon me the doom of

permitted to have
For
reason Sin was

its
way, in order that through

it
perverted
use of the Divine

hideousness.
14
commandment
might be seen
in all its utter
the
The blame cannot attach Law has its origin from

flesh
to the
the
I,
character from that Spirit, while
all know that God and derives its poor mortal, am made of frail
Law.
For we
Spirit
of
human
self,
and blood, sold

15
like
any
slave in the
market into the
servitude of Sin.
It is
not the Law, and not

;
which
is
the cause of the evil
because
my own deliberate my actions are exewill.
cuted blindly with no proper concurrence of the
purpose one

I
178
[VII. 7-25.
way, I act another.
hate a thing, but do
16
it.
And by
this very
fact that I hate the thing that I do,
my
conscience bears testimony

17
to the
Law, and recognizes

this.
its
excellence.
true
self,
So
that the state of the

is
case
is
It is
not
I,
my
who
put into act what

18
repugnant
to
me, but Sin which has possession of me.
For
'
am
aware that
that does
in
me
as I appear to the outer world
in this
body
me
grievous wrong,' there dwells (in any permanent and

is
it
;
predominating shape) nothing that
good.
The
is
will
indeed to do
I
good
I
is
mine, and
19
can
command
but the performance
cannot
command.
wish to do
20
For the actual thing

but
that I
do
not the good that

evil that I
my
if
moral agency appears in the
wish
to avoid.
But
I thus
do what
do not wish
to do, then the
active force in
self
me, the agent that carries out the

rather seen in the wish to
21
act, is
not
my true
(which
is
do
right),
but the tyrant
Sin which holds possession of me.

if
1 find therefore this law
so
it
may
22
be called
without, that
much
I
as I
stem necessity laid upon wish to do what is good, the evil

this
me
from
lies at
self,
my
the
door.
For
2S
am
a divided being.
In
my
innermost
thinking and reasoning part of me, I respond joyfully to the

of God.
Law
But then
I see
a different
organism of mine, and making

takes the
field in
arms against
Law dominating this bodily me do its behests. This other Law the Law of Reason and Conscience,
24
and drags
has such a
me away
fatal grip
captive in the fetters of Sin, the
upon my body.
Power which Unhappy man that I am

!
torn with a conflict from which there seems to be no issue
This
body from which proceed so many sinful impulses makes itself the instrument of so many acts of
;
this
sin
body which this body

its
which
free
is
thus dragging
it ?
me down
to death.
How
shall I ever get
from
What
Deliverer will
come and rescue me from
oppression
26
Deliverer has come.
And
can only thank God, approach-
ing His Presence in humble gratitude, through

deliverance
is
Him
left
to
whom
the
due Jesus
Messiah, our Lord.
Without His intervention

unaided
self
so
long as I
am
I
to
my own
briefly
:
the
In
state that I
this
have been describing
may be
summarized.
with
twofold capacity of mine

I
serve two masters
my
conscience
serve the
Law
of
God;
with
my
bodily
organism the
Law
of Sin.
'
VII.
7.
7, 8.J
LAW AND
SIN
179
So
it
that
far Sin and Law have been seen in such close connexion becomes necessary to define more exactly the relation
between them. In discussing this the Apostle is led to consider the action of both upon the character and the struggle to which they give rise in the soul.
Marcion had this section, as Tertullian turns against him Paul's refusal to listen to any attack upon the Law, which Marcion ascribed to the Demiurge Abominatur apostolus criminationem legis . Quid deo imputas legis quod legi eius apostolus imputare non audet ? Atquin et accumulat Lex sancta, et pi aeceptum eius iustum et bonum. Si taliter
It is evident that
St.
:
veneratur legem creatoris, quomodo ipsum deslruat
nescio.
6 use
i/ofxos dfAap-ria.
It
had
just
been shown
<?/"the
Law
(ver. 5) that
Sin makes
to effect the
destruction
of the sinner.
Does
it
follow that Sin is to be identified with the Law ? Do the two so overlap each other that the Law itself comes under the description of Sin ? St. Paul, like every pious Jew, repels this conclusion with horror.
On
a\\& contradicts emphatically the notion that the Law is Sin. the contrary the Law first told me what Sin was. ouk eyvuv. It is not quite certain whether this is to be taken
hypothetically (for ovk av eyiw, av omitted to give a greater sense of actuality, Kiihner, Gr. Gra?nm. ii. 176 f.) or whether it is simply temporal. Lips. Oltr. and others adopt the hypothetical sense both here and with ovk jj&uv below. Gif. Va. make both ovk
and ovk rjSeiv plain statement of fact. Mey.-W. Go. take eyvw temporally, ovk jjduv hypothetically. As the context is a sort of historical retrospect the simple statement seems most in
eyvav
ovk
place.
yap emOupiav. re yap is best explained as = for also,' for indeed Win. liii. p. 561 E. T. otherwise Va.). The general proposition is proved by a concrete example.
tt|v tc
' '
(Gif.
e-yvwv
TjSeiv
retain their proper
meanings
eyvcw,
more intimate experimental acquaintance; there was such a thing as lust.

m6up,TJ<ris.
'
rfdtiv is
' I learnt,' implies simple knowledge that
The Greek word has a wider sense than our includes every kind of illicit desire. 8. dôpp-V Xapouo-a getting a start,' finding a point dappui, or, as we should say, ' something to take hold of.' In a military sense d<popp,r) a base of operations (Thuc. i. 90. 2, &c). In a literary sense dfopwv hape'iv to take a hint,' adopt a suggestion ; cf. Eus. Ep. ad Carpianum eVe tov novrjfMTos tov Trpoeiprj'
covet
it
'
'
'
'
'
'
fievov
dvdpos
(l\i](pa)s
d<poppds.
exists,
but apart from

guilt.
of producing
rj
And so here in a moral sense Sin Law it has nothing to work upon, no means Law gives it just the opportunity it wants.
:
dp.apTia: see p. 145, sup. Sid ttjs erroXrjs. The prep, did
and the position of the word
N 2

'
l8o
show
Aa/3.

that
pt
it
[VII. 8-13.
is is
better
,\rj
the
single
taken with KaTftpydaaro than with dtyopp. commandment ; v6pos the code as a
whole.
before,
9.
Xwpls y^P iv. 15;
" Kpd.
A
iii.
standing thought which we have had

20.
v.
13:
cf.
e(ow 1 7). St. Paul uses a vivid figurative expression, not of course with the full richness of meaning which He is describing he sometimes gives to it (i. 17; viii. 13, &c). the state prior to Law primarily in himself as a child before the consciousness of law has taken hold upon him but he uses this experience as typical of that both of individuals and nations before The natural man they are restrained by express command. flourishes he does freely and without hesitation all that he has a mind to do; he puts forth all his vitality, unembarrassed by It is the kind of life the checks and thwartings of conscience. which is seen at its best in some of the productions of Greek art. Greek life had no doubt its deeper and more serious side but the frieze of this comes out more in its poetry and philosophy the Parthenon is the consummate expression of a life that does not look beyond the morrow and has no inward perplexities to See the general discussion below. trouble its enjoyment of to-day. Sin at first is sprang into life (T. K. Abbott). avilr)aev there, but dormant ; not until it has the help of the Law does it become an active power of mischief. The language is suggested by the descrip11. eîrdTrjae jxe. tion of the Fall (Gen. iii. 13 LXX; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. ii. In both Sin here takes the place of the Tempter there. 14). acknowledged only to be broken cases the 'commandment' is the instrument which is made use of to bring about the disasewi>
(e (rjv
; ; '
'
'
trous
and
fatal
end.
The pcv expects a following Se. St. Paul had probably intended to write h 8e apapria KaTrjpydo-aTo h ipo\ tov Qdvarov, or something of the kind but he digresses to explain how a good Law can have evil consequences, and so he fails to complete the sentence on the same plan on which he had begun it. On St. Paul's view of the nature and functions of the Law see below.
12. 6 \ikv yojxos.
;
It is hardly safe to argue with Zahn {Gesck. d. K. ii. 517) from the language of Tertullian (given above on ver. 7) that that writer had before him a corrupt Marcionitic text not, Zahn thinks, actually due to Marcion, but
corrupted since his time 77 \vto\t\ avrov Sacaia for -q evr. ayla /cal Simla. in De It is more probable that Tert. is reproducing his text rather freely Pudic. 6 he leaves out teal Sutaia, lex quidem sancta est et praeceptum sanctum et optimum (the use of superlative for positive is fairly common in Latin versions and writers).
:
13.
Why
was
this strange
?
perversion of so excellent a thing as
the
Law
permitted
This very perversion served to aggravate the
'
VII. 13-15.]
:
LAW AND
SIN
l8i
horror of Sin not content with the evil which it is in itself it must needs turn to evil that which was at once Divine in its origin and beneficent in its purpose. To say this was to pronounce its condemnation it was like giving it full scope, so that the whole world might see ($019) of what extremities (taff vncppoXrjv) Sin was capable. 14. The section which follows explains more fully by a psychological analysis how it is that the Law is broken and that Sin works such havoc. There is a germ of good in human nature, a genuine desire to do what is right, but this is overborne by the force of temptation acting through the bodily appetites and
:
'passions.
wcujAaTiicos.
The Law
Rock were
'
is
'
'spiritual/ as
'
the
Manna and
the
Cor. x. 3. 4) in the sense of being Spirit-caused or Spirit-given/ but with the further connotation that the character of the Law is such as corresponds
spiritual
Water from
'
the
(1
to
its
origin.
(<ra P KiK<>s
adpKit'os
^C LP
is
iii.
al.)
denotes simply the material of

'
which human nature

(1 Cor.
iii.
2 Cor.
composed, made of flesh and blood 3), and as such exposed to all the tempta-
tions
which act through the body.
There has been considerable controversy as to the bearing of the antithesis Paul between the o6.p and Trvfvjm. It has been maintained that this antithesis amounts to dualism, that St. Paul regards the oap as inherently evil and the cause of evil, and that this dualistic conception is Greek or Hellenistic and not Jewish in its origin. So, but with differences among themselves, Holsten (,1855, 1868), Rich. Schmidt (1870), Ludemann (1872), and to some extent Pfleiderer (1873). [In the second edition of his Paulinismus (1890), Pfleiderer refers so much of St. Paul's teaching on this head as seems to go beyond the O. T. not to Hellenism, but to the later Jewish doctrine of the Fall, much as it has been expounded above, p. 136 ff. In this we need not greatly differ from him.] The most elaborate reply was that of H. H. Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch unci Geist (Gotha, 1878), which was made the basis of an excellent treatise in English by Dr. W. P. Dickson, St. Paul's Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, Glasgow, 1883. Reference may also be made to the well-considered statement of Dr. Gifford (Aomans,
in St.
pp. 48-52).
Its result is
The controversy may now be regarded as practically closed. summed up by Lipsius in these decisive words The Pauline
:
'
;
anthropology rests entirely on an Old Testament base the elements in it which are supposed to be derived from Hellenistic dualism must simply be denied (sind einfach zu bestreiten).'' The points peculiar to St. Paul, according to Lipsius, are the sharper contrast between the Divine m/tvixa and the human ipvxn, and the reading of a more ethical sense into oap, which was originally physical, so that in Gal. v. 19 ff., Rom. viii. 4 ff. the oap becomes a principle directly at war with the irvevpa. In the present passage (Rom. vii. 14-25) the opposing principle is dfxapria, and the odp is only the material medium (Substrat) of sensual impulses and desires. We may add that this is St. Paul's essential view, of which all else is but the variant
expression. 15. Ka,TpYaoji.<u = perficio ,peipetro; * to carry into effect,' ' put into execution : itpaoaoi = ago, to act as a moral and responsible being voiu =/acio,
' :
8^
[VII. 15-21.
to produce a certain result without reference to its moral character, and simply as it might be produced by inanimate mechanism (see also the notes on ch. i. 32 ii. 9). Of course the specific sense may not be always marked by the context, but here it is well borne out throughout. For a fuller account of the distinction see Schmidt, Lat. u. Gr. Synonymik, p. 294 ff. ov -yivu>o-Ka> appears to describe the harmonious and conscious working of will and motive, the former deliberately accepting and carrying out the promptings of the latter. The man acts, so to speak, blindly he is not a fully conscious agent : a force which he cannot resist takes the decision out
: :
of his hands. The exact distinction between 0(\. On the whole it seems that, especially in disputed, and is difficult to mark. N. T. usage, &ov\o/Aai lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose, deliberation, 9(\q} on the more emotional aspect of will : in this context it is evidently something short of the final act of volition, and practically = ' wish,' desire.' See especially the full and excellent note in Grm.-Thay.
'
17.
wA
Z4: 'as
efxol
it
is,'
'
as the case really lies
'
the contrast
is
logical,
t|
not temporal.
[Read ivoixovaa. with fc$ B, Method. dfxapTta. non autem ap. Epiph.)] This indwelling Sin corresponds to the indwelling Spirit of the next chapter a further proof that the Power which exerts so baneful an influence is not merely an attribute of the man himself but has an objective
oLKoCcm iv
(ap. Phot, cod.,
:
existence.
The part of the man in which 18. lv iu\ol, tout eo-nv, k.t.X. Sin thus establishes itself is not his higher self, his conscience, but his lower self, the flesh,' which, if not itself evil, is too easily made the instrument of evil. -irapdicciTai u.01 lies to my hand,' ' within my reach/
'
'
ov 47 67** al., Edd. ov\ tvpioico, D E F G K L P &c. al. y WH. RV. t ov 6t\a) ey< 20. h oi d\w &c, Tisch. WH. marg.
NABC
BCDEFG
'
NAKLP
con-
21. eupioxw
Spa t6m v6pov
'
I find
then this
rule,'
this
straining principle,' hardly
this constantly recurring experience,'
mentioned is akin not merely the observed fact that the will to do good is forestalled by evil, but the coercion of Lips, seems to be nearest to the the will that is thus exercised. mark, das Gesetz d. h. die objectiv mir auferlegte NoihwendigkeiL Many commentators, from Chrysostom onwards, have tried to but either (i) they read into the make top vo/jlov the Mosaic Law passage more than the context will allow; or (ii) they give to the The sentence a construction which is linguistically intolerable. best attempt in this direction is prob. that of Va. who translates, ' I find then with regard to the Law, that to me who would fain do that which is good, to me (I say) that which is evil is present/ He supposes a double break in the construction (1) tov vo\iov put as if the sentence had been intended to run I find then the
which would be too modern.
to the erepov vSfiov of ver. 23.
The
vopos here
It is
'
VII. 21-24.]
LAW AND
SIN
^3
wish to do good powerless to help me \- and (2) ifxoi repeated for the sake of clearness. It is apparently in a similar sense that Dr. T. K. Abbott proposes as an alternative rendering (the first being as above), With respect to the law, I find, &c. But the anacoluthon after t6v v6hov seems too great even for dictation to an amanuensis. Other expedients like those of Mey (not Mey.-W.) Fri. Ew. are still more impossible. See esp. Gif. Additional Note, p. 145. 22. o-uôojuu t<5 vojxw tou eou what it approves, I gladly and cordially approve. Kcn-d toi/ law S.vQpbntov. St. Paul, as we have seen (on vi. 6), makes great use of this phrase &v6Pvtros, which goes back as far as Plato. Now he contrasts the old ' with the ' new man (or, as we should say, the 'old' with the 'new self) ; now he contrasts the 'outer man,' or the body (6 ew avdpunos 2 Cor. iv. 16), with the 'inner man,' the conscience or reason (2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii.
I
:
Law when
'
'
16).
23. irepov vo\iov

eWpor,
different,'
i.
'
a different law
'
'
(for the di* tinction

'
between
and aXXos, another,' a second,' see the commenon Gal. 6, 7). There are two Imperatives (>o>ot) within the man one, that of conscience; the other, that proceeding from the action of Sin upon the body. One of these Imperatives is the moral law, 'Thou shalt and Thou shalt not ; the other is the violent impulse of
tators
: ' '
'
passion.
For vovs see on i. 28 : it is the rational part of conscience, the faculty which decides between right and
tw
vopta tou ôos fiou.
wrong strictly speaking it belongs to the region of morals rather than to that of intercourse with God, or religion but it may be associated with and brought under the influence of the irvcvpa (Eph. iv. 23 avaveoxxrOai ra> irvivixan tov voos cf. Rom. xii. 2), JUSt as on the other hand it may be corrupted by the flesh (Rom. i. 28). 24. TaXaitrwpos eyu> afOpwiros. A heart-rending cry, from the depths of despair. It is difficult to think of this as exactly St. Paul's own experience as a Christian he seems above it, as a Pharisee
:
below it self-satisfaction was too ingrained in the Pharisaic temper, the performance of Pharisaic righteousness was too well within the compass of an average will. But St. Paul was not an ordinary Pharisee. He dealt too honestly with himself, so that sooner or later the self-satisfaction natural to the Pharisee must give way: and his experience as a Christian would throw back a lurid light on those old days of which he was now ashamed.' So that, what with his knowledge of himself, and what with his sympathetic penetration into the hearts of others, he had doubtless materials enough for the picture which he has drawn here with such extraordinary power. He has sat for his own likeness; but there are ideal traits in the
'
picture as welL
84
[VII. 24, 25.
In construction tovtov might but it is far better to ') take it in the more natural connexion with tiavdrov the body of which already has me in its clutches. Sin and death this death
ck tou acjfxaTOS tou Qavdrov toutou.

(rafxuTos ('
go with
from
this
body of death
'
'
as the body involves me in sin it also involves me : physical death to be followed by eternal, the death of the body by the death of the soul. terse compressed summary of the previous 25. apa ouV k.t.X. paragraph, vv. 7-24, describing in two strokes the state of things prior to the intervention of Christ. The expression is that which
are inseparable
in mortality
;
comes from deep feeling. need further explanation.

i>xapi<rrw t< 0(S.
The
particular phrases hardly
seem
to
The
true reading is probably
xP ls
T<?
e $-
The
evidence stands thus.
tw @(w B, Sah., Orig. semel Hieron. semel. S rw ea> K* C 2 [de C* non liquet) minusc. aliq., Boh. Arm Cyr.Alex. Jo.-Damasc. f) xP s tov &(ov E 38, de Vulg., Orig.-lat. bis Hieron. semel Ambrstr. ^ X&pi-s T v Kvplov F G, f g, cf. Iren.-lat. cvxapioru) tS) 6(2 N* A L P &c., Syrr. Goth., Orig. bis Chrys. Theodrt. al. \_evx a P^ T ^> f Method, ap. Epiph. cod., sed x"Pty T V eS> vel x/> * 5 T f # Epiph. edd. pr. vid. Bonwetsch, Methodius
Xapts-
X a pu
von Olympus,
i.
204.]
It is easy to see how the reading of B would explain all the rest. The reading of the mass of MSS. would be derived from it (not at once but by successive steps) by the doubling of two pairs of letters,
TOYTOY[eY]x A P lc [ TC] TO:) e00
The
descent of the other readings
may be
best represented
by a
table.
X^pic
no 0ea>
eY'xApiCToo tco
Gecp
X*pic he
tw Oecp
x<*P'C
toy Oeo9 (6?)
h x^P lc to y Kyp'ioy (Ky)
The other possibility would be that (vxapicrru) tS> (> had got reduced to Xapis to) (.-)* by successive dropping of letters. But this must have taken place very early. It is also conceivable that x^P 15 *>* preceded x^P 15 only.
The Inward
Conflict.
subjects for discussion are raised, or are commonly treated they were raised, by this section. (1) Is the experience described that of the regenerate or unregenerate man? (2) Is it, or is it not, the experience of St. Paul hhmself ? 1 (a). Origen and the mass of Greek Fathers held that the passage refers to the unregenerate man. (i) Appeal is made to Such expressions as n7rpafiVOs vno ttjp ctpapriav ver. 14, KaTfpyd^n/xai
Two
if
as
VII. 7-25.]
[t6 kok6u] vv.
LAW AND
'
SIN
^5
19 20, rakaincapos f y i> &v 0pco7ro S ver. 24. It is argued like this is nowhere found of the regenerate state. Oi) When other expressions are adduced which seem to make for the opposite conclusion, it is urged that parallels to them may be quoted from Pagan literature, e.g. the video
hat
anguage
(iii) The use of the present tense is explained as dramatic. The Apostle throws himself back into the time which he is describing. (H) Another group of writers, Methodius (ob. 3 10 a.d.V Augustine and the Latin Fathers generally, the Reformers especially
inEuri ides Xenophon, Seneca, Z7r? v K. i \ ul on ver. P see Dr. T. Abbott 15 of this chapter),
S
>
iUgS
meliora of Ovid and Epictetus
Calvimstic-side, refer the passage rather to the regenerate, (i) An opposite set of expressions is quoted, ^r& r& &,] ver. 1* *A. [ woutu to Ka\6u ver. 21, awSjio^ ,o>o) ver. 22. It is said that these are inconsistent with the AnjXXorp^W ml ix 8P oL of Col. i. 21 and with descriptions like that of Rom. viii.
on
the
7, 8.
(ii)
Stress
described
proof that these imply a present experimade to passages like 1 Cor. ix. 27 %ov to acopa Kai 8ov\aycoyS>. That even the regenerate may have this mixed experience is thought to be proved, e.g. by Gal vi 17 Clearly there is a double strain of language. The state of things
:
the present tenses ence, reference is
is
laid
and
on
in
J^
is certainly a conflict in for the mastery.
which opposite forces are struggling 55 6
generate
a lower sense. In the lower sense it is applied to all baptized Christians. In that sense there caji be little doubt that the experience described may fairly come within it. But on the other hand, the higher stages of the spiritual life seem to be really excluded. The sigh of relief in ver. 25 marks a dividing line between a period of conflict and a period where conflict is practically ended. This shows that the present tenses are in any case not to be taken too literally. Three steps appear to be
distinguished, (i) the life of unconscious morality (ver. 9), happy but only from ignorance and thoughtlessness (ii) then the sharp ; collision between law and the sinful appetites waking to activity
(111)
Whether such a state belongs to the regenerate or the unreman seems to push us back upon the further question, What we mean by regenerate.' The word is used in a higher and
<
the
collision
which more
described
is
end which is at last put to the stress and strain of this by the intervention of Christ and of the Spirit of Christ, of
will be said in the next chapter. The state there that of the truly and fully regenerate; the prolonged
struggle which precedes seems to be more rightly defined as inter regenerandum (Gif. after Dean Jackson). Or perhaps we should do better still to refuse to introduce so technical a term as regeneration into a context from which it is wholly absent. St. Paul, it is true, regarded Christianity as
' '
operating
86
[VII. 7-25.
But here, whether the moment described is a change in man. before or after the embracing of Christianity, in any case abstraction Law and the soul are brought face is made of all that is Christian.
to face with each other,
until
and
is
we come
to ver.
25
is
belongs to Christianity. ended.

'
Not there is nothing between them. there a single expression used which And the use of it marks that the conflict
(2) As to the further question whether St. Paul is speaking of himself or of some other man ' we observe that the crisis which is described here is not at least the same as that which is commonly known as his Conversion.' Here the crisis is moral ; there it was in the first instance intellectual, turning upon the acceptance of The decisive the proposition that Jesus was truly the Messiah. point in the conflict may be indeed the appropriation of Christ
'
through His Spirit, but it is at least not an intellectual conviction, such as might exist along with a severe moral struggle. On the other hand, the whole description is so vivid and so sincere, so evidently wrung from the anguish of direct personal experience, It is really that it is difficult to think of it as purely imaginary. It is not a literal photonot so much imaginary as imaginative. graph of any one stage in the Apostle's career, but it is a constructive picture drawn by him in bold lines from elements supplied to
him by
self-introspection.
We may
well believe that the
regretful reminiscence of bright unconscious innocence goes back to the days of his own childhood before he had begun to feel the
The incubus of the Law he had felt most conviction of Sin. Without keenly when he was a 'Pharisee of the Pharisees.' putting an exact date to the struggle which follows we shall probably not be wrong in referring the main features of it especially to It was then that the powerlessthe period before his Conversion. ness of the Law to do anything but aggravate sin was brought home to him. And all his experience, at whatever date, of the
struggle
of the
natural
man
with
temptation
is
here gathered
and concentrated in a single portraiture. It would obviously be a mistake to apply a generalized experience like The process described comes to different men this too rigidly. to one early, to anat different times and in different degrees in one man it would lead up to Christianity, in other later another it might follow it; in one it would be quick and sudden, We cannot lay down any in another the slow growth of years. In any case it is the mark of a genuine faith to be able to rule. say with the Apostle, 'Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ
together
;
;
our Lord.' It is just in his manner to sum up thus in a senThe break tence what he is about to expand into a chapter. ch. viii is the true conclusion to occurs at a very suitable place
:
ch.
vii.
VII. 7-25.J
LAW AND
St. Paul's
SIN
jSy
Vieiv of the
Law.
doubt that his criticism of the Law as a principle of religion dates back to a time before his definite conversion to Christianity.
process described in this chapter clearly belongs to a period when the Law of Moses was the one authority which the Apostle recognized. It represents just the kind of difficulties and struggles which would be endured long before they led to a complete shifting of belief, and which would only lead to it then because a new and a better solution had been found. The apparent suddenness of St. Paul's conversion was due to the tenacity with which he held on to his Jewish faith and his reluctance to yield to conclusions which were merely negative. It was not till a whole group of positive convictions grew up within him and showed their power of supplying the vacant place that the Apostle withdrew
his
of the Law passion the Apostle still lays down expressly holy and righteous and good'; and a little lower down (ver. 14) he gives it the epithet spiritual/ which is equivalent to ascribing to it a direct Divine origin. It was only because of his intense sincerity and honesty in facing facts that St. Paul ever brought himself to give up his belief in the sufficiency of the Law; and there is no greater proof of his power and penetration of mind than the way in which when once his thoughts were turned into this channel, he followed out the whole subject into its inmost recesses. We can hardly
to restrain
be a mistake to suppose that he ever lost that reverence for the Law as a Divine institution in which every Jew was born and bred and to which he himself was still more completely committed b V his early education as a Pharisee (Gal. i. 14 Phil. iii. 5 f.) This old feeling of his comes out in emotional passages like Rom ix 4 (cf. 111. 2 11. 25, &c). And even where, as in the section before ; us, he is bringing out most forcibly the ineffectiveness
;
was in his view of the Mosaic Law that St. Paul must have seemed most revolutionary to his countrymen. And yet it would
It
human
that the
Law
itself is
'
<
The
allegiance, and when he had done so came by degrees to see the true place of the Law in the Divine economy. From the time that he came to write the Epistle to the Romans the process is mapped out before us pretty clearly.
The doubts
began, as
we have
seen, in psychological experience.
With the best will in the world St. Paul had found that really to keep the Law was a matter of infinite difficulty. However much it drew him one way there were counter influences which drew him another. And these counter influences proved the stronger of the two. The Law itself was cold, inert, passive. It pointed severely to the path of right and duty, but there its function
!88
ended
it
;

it
[VII. 7-25.
required.
gave no help towards the performance of that which it Nay, by a certain strange perversity in human nature, seemed actually to provoke to disobedience. The very fact
that a thing
greater
was worse than the The one sentence in which St. Paul sums up his experience first. Its effect of Law is &ia vofxov ar/yyeMW afxaprias (Rom. iii. 20). it multiplied sin therefore was only to increase the condemnation (Rom. v. 20); it worked wrath (Rom. iv. 15); it brought manlast state
:
was forbidden seemed (Rom. vii. 8). And so the
to
make
its
attractions all the
kind under a curse (Gal.
iii.
10).
And
better
this
was equally
fuller the
true of the individual
and of the race
the
law the more glaring was the contrast to the The Jews were at the head practice of those who lived under it. not much of all mankind in their privileges, but morally they were In the course of his travels St. Paul was better than the Gentiles.
and
number of the scattered colonies of Jews, and when he compares them with the Gentiles he can only turn upon them a biting irony (Rom. ii. 17-29). The truth must be acknowledged ; as a system, Law of whatThe breakdown of the Jewish Law was ever kind had failed. most complete just because that law was the best. It stood out
led to visit a
in history as a
monument, revealing the
right
and condemning
wrong, heaping up the pile of human guilt, and nothing more. On a large scale for the race, as on a small scale for the
the
individual, the
imyvmru apaprias. was not with the Law. The fault viii. 3). lay in the miserable weakness of human nature (Rom. The Law, as a code of commandments, did all that it was intended But it needed to be supplemented. And it was just this to do. supplementing which Christianity brought, and by bringing it set evolution of the Law in its true light and in its right place in the exSt. Paul sees spread before him the whole the Divine plan.
same
verdict held, 81a vopov

all this
Clearly the fault of
panse of history. The dividing line across it is the Coming of All previous to that is a period of Law first of the Messiah. such law as was supplied by natural religion and law, imperfect by conscience and then of relatively perfect law, the law given God from Sinai. It was not to be supposed that this gift of law Rather the contrary. increased the- sum of human happiness.
;
there
individual, In the infancy of the world, as in the infancy of the was a blithe unconsciousness of right and wrong; impulse was followed wherever it led the primrose path of enjoyment had no dark shadow cast over it. Law was this dark shadow.
;
If In proportion as it became stricter, it deepened the gloom. with it law had been kept, or where law was kept, it brought St. Paul's a new kind of happiness; but to a serious spirit like as if the law was never kept -never satisfactorily it seemed
VIII. 1-4.]
LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
189
There was a Rabbinical commonplace, a stern which was fatal to peace of mind Whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point he is become guilty of all' (Jas. ii. 10; cf. Gal. iii. 16; Rom! x. 5). Any true happiness therefore, any true relief, must be sought elsewhere. And it was this happiness and relief which St. Paul sought and found in Christ. The last verse of ch. vii marks the point at which the great burden which lay upon the conscience rolls away; and the next chapter begins with an uplifting of the heart in recovered peace and serenity There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.'
all.
kept at
rule of self- judgement,
'
'
thus in connexion with that new order of things into to pass and empty itself, the old order of Law had at last its difficulties cleared away. It remained as a stage of salutary and necessary discipline. All God's ways are not bright upon the surface. But the very clouds which He draws over the
Taken
it
which
was
break in blessings ; and break just at that moment darkness is felt to be most oppressive. St. Paul himself saw the gloomy period of law through to its end (rAo? yhp
will
heavens
when
their
vofiov
Xpicrros (Is
8iicaio(TvvT)v
iravrl
t<5
ntcrrfvovTi
his
own pages
reflect, better
it
energies by which
than any other, the was succeeded.
Rom. X. 4) and new hopes and

;
LIFE IN THE SPIRIT. THE FRUITS OF THE INCARNATION".

VIII.
1-4.
The result of Christ's
interposition
heart,
is
to
dethrone Sin
from
its
tyranny in the
human
instal in its stead the Spirit of Christ.
and to Thus what the
Law
1
of Moses tried
to
do but failed\ the Incarnation has
accomplished.
This being
so,
no
verdict of
'
Guilty
in
'
goes forth any longer
against the
2
Christian.
He
lives
closest
union with
Christ.
The
Spirit of Christ, the
medium
of that union, with

its
all its life-
giving energies, enters and issues
laws from
8
his
its
heart,
dis-
possessing the old usurper Sin, putting an end to

to the fatal results
authority
and
which
it
brought with
it.
For where the old
new system has succeeded. The Law of Moses could not get rid of Sin. The weak place in its action was that our poor human nature was constantly tempted and fell. But now
system
failed, the
God Himself
has interposed by sending the Son of His love to
' ;
190
take

upon
:
[VIII.
all
its
:
1,
2.
Him
that
same human nature with
attributes
except sin
in that nature
it
He
;
died to free us from sin
and
this
Death of His carried with
a verdict of condemnation against Sin

4
and of
acquittal for
its
victims
so that from henceforth what the
Law
lives
lays
down
as right might be fulfilled by us
who
regulate our
not according to the appetites and passions of sense, but at
the dictates of the Spirit.
ff.
This chapter
is,
as
we have
seen, an expansion of
x<*P l * T<?
vii.
Qea> bia 'iqo-oC Xpiarov rov Kvp'uw r)na>v in the last verse of ch.
It
describes the innermost circle of the Christian Life from its beginning to its end that life of which the Apostle speaks elsewhere hid with Christ in God.' (Col. iii. 3) as It works gradually up through the calm exposition and pastoral entreaty of vv. 1-1 7 to the rmore impassioned outlook and deeper introspection of vv. 18-30,
and thence to the magnificent climax of
vv.
31-39.
There is evidence that Marcion retained vv. 1-11 of this chapter, probably with no very noticeable variation from the text which has come down to us (we do not know which of the two competing readii gs he had in ver. 10). Tertullian leaps from viii. 11 to x. 2, implying that much was cut out, but we cannot determine how much.
,,
.
of the formulae of justification KaraKpio-is both sets of Here, however, the phrase toIs phrases being properly forensic.
1.
Kcn-dicpiaa.
One
and
KaraKpipa are correlative to oucauoo-is, ouoMt/ca;
iv X.
'I.
which follows shows that the

is
initial
stage in the Christian
career, which
in the strictest sense the stage of Justification, has
been left behind and the further stage of union with Christ has succeeded to it. In this stage too there is the same freedom from condemnation, secured by a process which is explained more fully The KaraKpia-is which used to fall upon the in ver. 3 (cf. vi. 7-10).
sinner
now
falls
upon
his oppressor Sin.
jLsfJUM^
Fl KaTa o-dpKa ircpnraTotiaiv, dXXd icard irvevu-a. / OASSlfaflZ introduced (from ver. 4) at two steps the first clause pi) d / / V JT'dfi*' b
:
An
interpolation
Kara. capita irepiira;
Vulg. Pesh. Goth. Arm., Bas. Chrys. the second rovaiv in 137, f c E L P &c. clause a\\a Kara, irvtvpa in the mass of later authorities N c the older uncials with the Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions, the Latin Version of Origen and perhaps Origen himself with a fourth-century dialogue attributed to him, Athanasius and others omit both.
AD
2.
6 yofAos tou nycuficiTos
= the
authority exercised by the Spirit.

free use of vofios in the last
:
5
ijj-
We
have had the same somewhat
chapter, esp. in ver.
236
v6p.os rov voos, 6 v6p,os rrjs a/iapTias
it
is
no
code but an authority producing regulated action such as would be produced by a code. tou nfeupxTos rr|s an]s. The gen. expresses the effect wrought the Spirit brings life because it (Gif.), but it also expresses more
longer a
'
'
'
essentially is
life.
VIII.
2, 3.]
LIFE IN
THE
SPIRIT
:
101
the authority of the Spirit operating through the union with Christ, freed me, &c. For the phrase itself see on ch. vi. 1
iv Xpurno'iTjaou goes with tjUvdepaxre
A small group of important authorities ^N B F G, frfltf4L>HA^Mi n. " lesh, Tert. 1/2 vel potius 2/2 Chrys. codd.) has Jj\(v0tpa>aiv oe. The combination of N B with Latin and Syriac authorities shows that this reading must be extremely early, going back to the time before the Western text diverged from the main body. Still it can hardly be right, as the second person is nowhere suggested in the context, and it is more probable that <re is only a mechanical repetition of the last syllable of rjXtvetpcwe (ce). Dr. Hort suggests the omission of both pre nouns (j)/xas also being found), and although the evidence for this is confined to some MSS. of Arm. (to which Dr. Hort would add 'perhaps' the commentary of Origen as represented by Rufinus, but this is not certain), it was a very general tendency among scribes to supply an object to verbs originally without one. We do not expect a return to first pers. sing, after rofy kv X. 'I., and the scanty evidence for omission may be to some extent paralleled, e.g. by that for the
rjkevQipuvi
omission of tvprjKtvai in iv. 1, for d ye in v. 6, or for r V in vii. 25. But we should hardly be justified in doing more than placing ixt in brackets.'
diro tou vo\i.o\) tt)s &u.apTias koi tou Qclv&tou the authority exercised by Sin and ending in Death: see on vii. 23, and on 6 v6fjL. t. irvtvu. above. 3. t6 yap dStfrarov tou yojxou. Two questions arise as to these words. (1) What is their construction? The common view,
x^
adopted also by Gif. (who compares Eur. Troad. 489), is that they form a sort of nom. absolute in apposition to the sentence. Gif. translates, the impotence (see below) of the Law being this that,' &c. It seems, however, somewhat better to regard the words in
'
apposition not as
nom. but
as accus.
most accomplished scholar, the late Mr. James Riddell, in his ' Digest of Platonic Idioms' {The Apology of Plato, Oxford, 1877, p. 122), lays down two propositions about constructions like this: * (i) These Noun-Phrases and Neuter-Pronouns are Accusatives. The prevalence of the Neuter Gender makes this difficult to prove but such instances as are decisive afford an
;
the Adverbs apxrjv, farf", t)v nptvrrjv, &c. (ii) They represent, by Apposition or Substitution, the sentence itself. To say, that they are Cognate Accusatives, or in Apposition with the (unexpressed) Cognate Accus., would be inadequate to the facts. For ( 1 ) in most of the instances the sense points out that the Noun-Phrase or Pronoun stands over against the sentence, or portion of a sentence, as a whole; (a) in many of them, not the internal force but merely the rhetorical or logical form of the sentence is in view. It might be said that they are Predicates, while the sentence itself is the Subject.' [Examples follow, but that from Theaet. given above is as clear as any.] This seems to criticize by anticipation the view of Va., who regards rd aUv. as accus. but practically explains it as in apposition to a cognate ' accus. which is not expressed The impossible thing of the Law . God [effected that is He] condemned sin in the flesh.' It is true that an apt parallel is quoted from 2 Cor. vi. 13 r^v 5e avrriv dvrifuaeiav -nXarvvB-qr* Kai vfxtis but this would seem to come under the same rule. The argument that if rd dSvv. had been accus. it would probably have stood at the end of
:
analogy for the rest: Theaet. 153 C i-nl tovtois tov Ko\o<pu>va, avay/edfa Trpoafripafav k.t.K. Cf. Soph. O. T. 603 ieal tu>i>8' (kty ov tt(v9ov, and X
.
19a
[VIII.
3.
the sentence, like tt/v XoyiK^v Xarptiav tfj.wv in Rom. xii. 1, appears to be refuted by tov KoXwpwva in Theaet. above. Win. Gr. % xxxii. 7, p. 290 E. T. while recognizing the accns. use ( lix. 9, p. 669 E. T.), seems to prefer to take to abvv. as nom. So too Mey. Lips. &c.
Gif., after Fri. (cf. also Win. (2) Is to d8vv. active or passive ? ut sup.) contends for the former, on the ground that if abvv. were Tertullian passive it should be followed by ru v6p<p not tov vopov. (Be Res. Carn. 46) gives the phrase an active sense and retains the But on the other hand if not Origen gen., quod invalidum erat legis. himself, at least Rufinus the translator of Origen has a passive
quod
rendering, and treats tov vopov as practically equivalent to tg> v6pa> Yet Rufinus himself clearly uses impossibile erat Ugi*. impossibilis in an active sense in his comment ; and the Greek of Origen, as given in Cramer's Catena, p. 125, appears to make t6 Saa-mp yap t) aptTi) I8ia (pvcrei lo-\vpd, ovrco leal r) KaKia kcu dhvv. active toiovtov vopov f) (pvais dSvvaTos . tov to, an our?}* aa6(vq kcu abvvara . ion. Similarly Cyr.-Alex. (who finds fault with the structure of the
:
sentence) to dftvvarov, tovtco-ti t6 do6tvovv. Vulg. and Cod. Clarom. are slightly more literal: quod impossibile erat legis. The gen. might mean that there was a spot within the range or domain of Law marked 'impossible/ a portion of the field which it could not control. On the whole the passive sense appears to us to be more in accordance with the Biblical use of dhvv. and also to give a somewhat easier construction if to dbvv. is active it is not quite a simple case of apposition to the sentence, but must be explained as a sort
: :
of
Gif.),
nom. absolute (' The impotence of the which seems rather strained. But
Law being
it
this that,'
&c,
that
must be confessed
the balance of ancient authority is strongly in favour of this way of the natural interpretation of taking the words, and that on a point language where ancient authority is especially valuable.
and N. T. would seem to show that An induction from the use of d&vvaTos masc. and fem. was always active (so twice in N. T., twenty-two times [3 w. 11.] in LXX, Wisd. xvii. 14 tt\v dlvvaTov ovtois vvkto. k<u ! uSwdrov qSov pvxa/v lir(\6ovoav, being alone somewhat ambiguous and peculiar) , while dhvv. neut. was always passive (so five times in LXX, seven It is true that the exact phrase to abvvaTov does not occur, but in N. T.). in Luke xviii. 27 we have tci abivara irapd dvdpumois Sward kan vapd t> 0(a).
LXX
<S
not
'
because
'
(Fri.
Win. Mey.
Alf.),
but
'
in
which
'
or
wherein,' defining the point in which the impossibility (inability) For tjo-8ci did tt)s o-apKos comp. vii. 22, 23. of the Law consisted. The Law points the way to what is right, but frail humanity is tempted and falls, and so the Law's good counsels come to nothing. The emphatic eavrov brings out the community rbv lauTou utoi'.
of nature between the Father and the Son tou viov ttjs dydmjs avrov Col. L 13*
cf.
toO Idiov vloi ver. 32;
* The
text is not free
from suspicion.
VIII.
3.]
LIFE IN
aapKos djiapTias
is
THE
:
SPIRIT
is
'
193
like
'
If 6p.oiojp.a-n,
the flesh of Christ

'
ours
and only like,' because it is not sinful: ostendit nos quidem habere carnem peccati, Filium vero Dei simililudinem habuisse carnis peccati, non carnem peccati (Orig.-lat.). Pfleiderer and Holsten contend that even the flesh of Christ was
it
inasmuch as
flesh
'
like,'
capable of sinning but they are decisively refuted Neither the Greek nor the argument requires that the flesh of Christ shall be" regarded as sinful fleshy though it is His Flesh His Incarnation which brought Him into contact with Sin. Kal ircpl d/xapTias. This phrase is constantly used in the O.T. for the sin-offering ; so more than fifty times in the Book of and it is taken in this sense here by Orig.Leviticus alone (Va.) lat. Quod hostia pro peccato /actus est C/iristus, et oblatus sit pro purgatione peccatorum, omnes Scripturae testantur Per hanc ergo hostiam carnis suae, quae dicitur pro peccato, damnavit peccatum in came, &c. The ritual of the sin-offering is fully set forth in Lev. iv. The most characteristic feature in it is the sprinkling with blood of the horns of the altar of incense. Its object was to make atonement especially for sins of ignorance. It was no doubt typical of the Sacrifice of Christ. Still we need not suppose the phrase irep\ It tyapT. here specially limited to the sense of 'sin-offering.' includes every sense in which the Incarnation and Death of Christ
'
sinful flesh/
i.e.
by
Gif. p. 165.
'
'
'
'
had relation
KaTeKpive
to,
ttjj'
and had
it
for their object to

ttj
remove,
human
sin.
dp.apTiae iv
vi.
aapiu.
The key
to this
difficult
clause
is
supplied by ch.
7-10.
Cross, a death endured in His
By human
the
nature,
Death of Christ upon the He once and for ever
broke off all contact with Sin, which could only touch Him through His Incarnation. Henceforth Sin can lay no claim against Him. Neither can it lay any claim against the believer ; for the believer also has died with Christ. Henceforth when Sin comes to prosecute its claim, it is cast in its suit and its former victim is acquitted. The one culminating and decisive act by which this state of things was brought about is the Death of Christ, to which all the subsequent immunity of Christians is to be referred.
The parallel passage, vi. 6-1 1, shows that this summary condemnation of Sin takes place in the Death of Christ, and not in His Life so that KarUpive cannot be adequately explained either by the proof which Christ's Incarnation gave that human nature might be sinless, or by the contrast of His sinlessness with man's sin. In Matt. xii. 41, 42 ('the men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it,'&c.) Karaicptpeiv has this sense of 'condemn by contrast/ but there is a greater fulness of meaning here.
;
The ancients rather miss the mark in Thus Orig.-lat. damnavit peccatum, hoc O
their
est,
comments on this passage. fugavit peccatum et abstulit
194
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[VIII. 3-5.
(comp. T. K. Abbott, 'effectually condemned so as to expel'): but it does not appear how this was done. The commoner view is based on Chrys., who claims for the incarnate Christ a threefold victory over Sin, as not yielding to it, as overcoming it (in a forensic sense), and convicting it of injustice in handing over to death His own sinless body as if it were sinful. Cyr.-Alex. explains the victory Similarly Euthym.-Zig. and others in part. of Christ over Sin as passing over to the Christian through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and the Eucharist (5<d -nys /jlvctik^s tvkoyias). This is at least right in so far as it lays stress on the identification of the Christian with Christ. But the victory over sin does not rest on the mere fact of sinlessness, but on the absolute severance from sin involved in the Death upon the Cross and the Resurrection.
goes with Karticpive. The Death of Christ has the has because it is the death of His Flesh by means of death He broke for ever the power of Sin upon Him (vi. 10; Heb. vii. 16; x. 10; i Pet. iii. 18); but through the mystical union with Him the death of His Flesh means the death of ours
iv
tt)
o-apici
efficacy
which
it
(Lips.).
4.
after
to oucaiwfia: 'the justifying,'
Wic,
'
'the justification/
Rhem.
of (i. of 8iKala>na is that which force of right hence it

' ' :
Vulg. iustificatio e. by) the lawe/
Tyn.
We
is
the rightewesnes requyred have already seen that the proper sense laid down as right/ that which has the here the statutes of the Law, as righteous
is
better,
'
statutes.
Comp. on
i.
32;
ii.
26.
It is not clear how Chrys. (= Euthym.-Zig.) gets for Zimiwua the sense TO tt\os, 6 CKOTTOS, TO KCLTopdco/m.
' those who walk by the rule toTs fj.T) KciT& oapKa irepuraTouo-n' of the flesh/ whose guiding principle is the flesh (and its gratification). The antithesis of Flesh and Spirit is the subject of the next section.
:
THE LIFE OP THE FLESH ANJD THE LIFE OF THE SPIRIT

VIII. 5-11.
Compare
the
two
states.
The
life
of
selfto
it
indulgence involves the breach of God's law, hostility Him, and death. Submission to the Spirit brings with
true life
and
the
sense of reconciliation.
You
therefore,
if
you are
6
sincere Christians,
have in the presence of the
Spirit a sure pledge of immortality.
These two modes of
life
are directly opposed to
If
any
man
gives
way
to the gratifications of sense, then these
one another. and
nothing else occupy his thoughts and determine the bent of his
character.
And on
the other hand, those
who
let the
Holy
Spirit
VIII.
5, 6.]
their
LIFE IN
fix
THE
SPIRIT
195
guide them
6
They
thoughts and affections on things spiritual. are opposed in their nature they are opposed also in their
;
For the consequence of having one's bent towards the things of the flesh is death both of soul and body, both here and hereafter. Just as to surrender one's thoughts and motives to
the Spirit brings with
it a quickened vitality through the whole man, and a tranquillizing sense of reconciliation with God.
7
consequences.
The
gratifying of the flesh can lead only to death, because
it
implies hostility to
God.
It is
impossible for one
flesh at the same time to obey the law of God. are under the influence of the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you, as Christians, are no longer under the influence of the flesh. You are rather under that of the Spirit, if the Spirit of God (which,
who indulges the 8 And those who
be
it
remembered,
Christ)
is
is
the
really in
medium of personal contact with God and 10 abiding communion with you. But if Christ,
thus keeps touch with your souls, then
through His
Spirit,
is
how
glorious
your condition.
it
Your body
;
it is
true
is
mark doomed to
death, because
is
tainted with sin
but your spirit the highest
part of
you has
life
infused into
life is
it
because of
righteousness to which
Spirit
so nearly allied.
its new state of u In possessing the
Him whom God

able
to
you have a guarantee of future resurrection. It links you to raised from the dead. And so even these perishbodies of yours, though they die first, God will restore through the operation of (or, having regard to) that Holy
human
by
life,
Spirit
whom
:
they are animated.
5. <j>poi/ouc-ii/ 'set their minds, or their hearts upon.' cppovelv denotes the whole action of the <ppr)v, i. e. of the affections and will as well as of the reason; cf. Matt. xvi. 23 oi (ppovrfs rd tov Qeod, aXAa ra rav dvdpd>7rcov Rom. xii. 1 6 ; Phil. iii. 19 ; Cot iii. 2, &c.
:
the content of (ppouelv, the general bent of thought and motive. Here, as elsewhere in these chapters, adp is that side of human nature on which it is morally weak, the side on which
:
6. 4>p6vr]â
man's physical organism leads him into sin. 0dâTos. Not merely is the (ppourjpa t^s crapno? death in effect, inasmuch as it has death for its goal, but it is also a present death, inasmuch as its present condition contains the seeds which by
their
own
inherent force will develop into the death both of body
and
soul.
In contrast with the state of things just described, where l(or\. the whole bent of the mind is towards the things of the Spirit, not
196
only
;

is
[VIII. 6-9.
' life in the sense that a career so ordered will issue in As the Spirit itself is has already in itself the germs of life. in Its essence living, so does It impart that which must live.
there
'
life
it
For a striking presentation of the Biblical doctrine of Life see Hort, Hulsean Lectures, pp. 98 ff., 189 ff. The following may be quoted: 'The sense of life which Israel enjoyed was, however, best expressed in the choice
which grew forth
as a designation of that higher communion with God due time as the fruit of obedience and faith. The psalmist or wise man or prophet, whose heart had sought the face of the Lord, was conscious of a second or divine life, of which the first or natural
of the
name "life"
in
was at once the image and the foundation a life not imprisoned in some secret recess of his soul, but filling his whole self, and overflowing upon the earth around him' (p. 98). Add St. Paul's doctrine of the indwelling Spirit, and the intensity of his language becomes intelligible.
life
;
as we have seen not only (i) the state of reconciliation cip^T) with God, but (ii) the sense of that reconciliation which diffuses a feeling of harmony and tranquillity over the whole man. 7. This verse assigns the reason why the mind of the flesh is death,' at the same time bringing out the further contrast between the mind of the flesh and that of the Spirit suggested by the The mind description of the latter as not only ' life but peace/ of the flesh is the opposite of peace ; it involves hostility to God, This disobedience is the declared by disobedience to His Law.
' ' '
natural
and
:
inevitable
8. ol 8e
not as
AV.
' conclusion from ver. substance of ver. 7 in a slightly different form, no longer abstract but personal. The way is thus paved for a more direct application to the readers. Observe how the thought mounts iv iri'eujjiaTt. 9. iv aapKi, to be under the domination of gradually upwards, elvat iv aapd
'
: . . .
consequence of giving way to the flesh. so these/ as if it marked a consequence or ver. 8 merely repeats the And 7, but
'
'
corresponding to the domination of [the] spirit/

[the] flesh
'
this dvat iv
*'.
7rvei>fiaTi
'
to
be under
e.
in the first instance, the
human
Just as in the one case the man takes his whole bent and bias from the lower part of his nature, so in the other case he takes But that highest part, the it from the- highest part of his nature.
spirit.
what it is by virtue of its affinity to God. It is essentially so that that part of the marl which holds communion with God the Apostle is naturally led to think of the Divine influences which He rises almost imperceptibly through the act upon the Trveifxa.
irvevfia, is
:
Ti-vfvfia
From thinking of the way in of man to the Ilvcvpa of God. which the irvevfia in its best moods acts upon the character he passes on to that influence from without which keeps it in its best moods. This is what he means when he says it-rrep Uvevfia Oeov olKtlv iv denotes a settled permanent penetrative oiKct iv vplv. Such an influence, from the Spirit of God, St. Paul influence. assumes to be inseparable from the higher life of the Christian.

VIII.
9, 10.]
LIFE IN
THE
SPIRIT
to iv Trvevpan, the spirit of
97
the
The way in which iv vapid is opposed way in which iv irvevpan passes from
God, shows
that
and
further
to the
man
Spirit of
we must not
the preposition too closely. varied expressions which the Apostle uses in such a sense as to
infringe
We
press the local significance of must not interpret any of the
the distinctness of the human and Divine personalities. thing which is characteristic of personality is distinctness from all other personalities ; and this must hold good even of the relation of man to God. The very ease with which St. Paul changes and inverts his metaphors shows that the Divine immanence with him nowhere means Buddhistic or Pantheistic absorption. must be careful to keep clear of this, but short of it we may use the language of closest intimacy. All that friend can possibly receive from friend we may believe that man is capable of receiving from God. See the note on iv Xpio-Tco 'tyo-ov in vi. 11; and for the anti-
upon
The one
We
thesis of <rap
tt
and
irvevpa the
small print note
on
vii.
14.
:
when he is characteristic delicacy of expression speaking on the positive side St. Paul assumes that his readers have the Spirit, but when he is speaking on the negative side he will not
4
tis.
say bluntly if you have not the Spirit/ but he at once throws his sentence into a vague and general force, 'if any one has not,' &c.
'
in this verse
There are some good remarks on the grammar of the conditional clauses and in vv. 10, 25, in Burton, M. and T.%% 469, 242, 261.
:
he is no true Christian. This amounts to ouk Ivnv auTou saying that all Christians 'have the Spirit' in greater or less degree. It will be observed that St. Paul uses the 10. el 8c Xpioros.
phrases YLvevpa GeoO, nveZpa Xpicrrov, and Xpioros in these two verses On the significance of this in its as practically interchangeable. bearing upon the relation of the Divine Persons see below. St. Paul is putting forward first to pev awjjia vtupov hi dfwipTw. the negative and then the positive consequences of the indwelling
meaning of
of Christ, or the Spirit of Christ, in the soul. ? the body is dead because of sin
' '
But what
:
is
the
Of many ways
of
taking the words, the most important seem to be these (i) ' the body is dead imputative, in baptism (vi. 2 ff.), as a consequence of sin which made this implication of the body in the Death of Christ
necessary' (Lips.). But in the next verse, to which this clearly points forward, the stress lies not on death imputed but on physical The body is dead mystice, as no longer the instrument (ii) death, of sin ( sans energie productrice des actes charnels), because of sin This is open to the same objection as the to which it led (Oltr.). last, with the addition that it does not give a satisfactory explanation (iii) It remains to take v&cpov in the plain sense of of oY apaprlav,
'
'
198
1

and to go back it would be the
for
St'
[VIII.10,11.
not to
his
vi. 2 ff. but descendants
physical death/
ff.,
d/znpriav
to v. 12
so that
sin of
Adam
and
Go.) perpetuated to the end of time. Oltr. objects that ought to be Ovrjrov, but the use of va<p6v gives a more vivid and pointed contrast to far) a dead thing/ to oe -nveGjAa wt] 8id SiKtuoaunrji'. Clearly the rrvevpa here meant is the human 7n/eu/za which has the properties of life infused into it by the presence of the Divine nvevpa. far) is to be taken in a wide sense, but with especial stress on the future eternal life, bia dacaioavvrjv is also to be taken in a wide sense it includes all the senses in which righteousness is brought home to man, first imputed, then imparted, then practised. 11. St. Paul is fond of arguing from the Resurrection of Christ to the resurrection of the Christian (see p. 117 sup.). Christ is the the same power which raised Him will anapxh (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23 raise us (1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14); Phil. hi. 21; 1 Thess. iv. 14). But nowhere is the argument given in so full and complete a form as here. The link which connects the believer with Christ, and makes him participate in Christ's resurrection, is the possession of His Spirit (cp. I TheSS. iv. 14 tovs KoifxrjOcvras Sid tov 'lrjaov d'fi
(Aug.
Gif.
vtKpav in this case
'
o~vv
avTqn.
8id toC cyoiKoun-os aurou rifeufxaTos. The authorities for the two readings, the gen. as above and the ace. Sid to ivoucovv avrov nvev/xa, seem at first sight very evenly divided. For gen. we have a long line of authorities headed by C, Clem.- Alex. For ace. we have
XA
still
longer line headed by
B D,
is
Orig. Iren.-lat.
In fuller detail the evidence

Sid tov ivoLKovvros k.t.X.
as follows
2 fl/., codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. c. Macedon., Boh. Sah. Hard. Arm. Aeth., Clem. -Alex. Method, {codd. Graec. locorum ab Epiphanio citatorum) Cyr.-Hieros codd. plur. et ed. Did. 4/5 Bas 4/4 Chrys. ad 1 Cor. xv. 45, Cyr.-Alex. ter. al. plur. Sioi to (votKovv k.t.X. &c., codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. c. Macedon.; Vulg. Pesh. (Sah. codd.); Iren.-lat. Orig. pluries; Method. vers. slav. et codd. Epiphanii 1/3 et ex parte 2/j, Cyr.-Hieros. cod. Did.-lat. semel {interp. Hieron.) Chrys. ad loc. Tert Hil.' al plur.
KACP
BDEFGKLP
When these lists are examined, it will be seen at once that the authorities for the gen. are predominantly Alexandrian, and those for the ace. predominantly Western. The question is how far in each case this main body is reinforced by more independent evidence. From this point of view a somewhat increased importance attaches to Harcl. Arm. Hippol. Cyr.-Hieros. Bas. on the side of the gen. and to B, Orig. on the side of the ace. The testimony of Method, is not quite clear. The first place which the passage occurs is a quotation from Origen here the true reading is probably 81a to Ivoikovv, as elsewhere in that writer. The other two places belong to Methodius himself. Here too the Slavonic version has in both cases ace. the Greek preserved in Epiphanius has in one instance ace, in the other gen. It is perhaps on the whole probable that Method, himself read ace. and that gen. is due to Epiphanius, who undoubtedly was in the habit of using gen. In balancing the opposed evidence we remember that there is a distinct Western infusion in both B and Orig. in St. Paul's Epistles, so that the ace.
; '
VIII. 5-11.]
LIFE IN
THE
SPIRIT
199
may rest not on the authority of two families of text, but only of one. On the other hand, to Alexandria we must add Palestine, which would count for something, though not very much, as being within the sphere of Alexandrian influence, and Cappadocia, which would count for rather more ; but what is of most importance is the attesting of the Alexandrian reading so far West as Hippolytus. Too much importance must not be attached to the assertion of the orthodox controversialist in the Dial. c. Macedonios, that gen. is found in all the ancient copies ; the author of the dialogue allows that the reading is questionable.
'
'
On the whole the preponderance seems to be slightly on the side of the gen., but neither reading can be ignored. Intrinsically the one reading is not clearly preferable to the other. St. Paul might have used equally well either form of expression. It is however hardly adequate to say with Dr. Vaughan that if we read the ace. the reference is ' to the ennobling and consecrating effect of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the human body/ The prominent idea is rather that the Holy Spirit is Itself essentially a Spirit of Life,
it is natural that where It is life should be. The gen. brings out rather more the direct and personal agency of the Holy Spirit, which of course commended the reading to the supporters of orthodox doctrine in the Macedonian controversy.
and therefore
The Person and Work of the Holy
Spirit.
doctrine of the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit is taken over from the O.T., where we have it conspicuously in relation to
The
Creation (Gen.
(Ps.
li.
i.
2), in relation to
xix. 20, 23, &c.),
and
Prophecy (1 Sam. x. 10; xi. 6 ; in relation to the religious life of the individual
that the
And
Jo.
i.
11) and of the nation (Is. lxiii. 10 f.). It was understood Messiah had a plenary endowment of this Spirit (Is. xi. 2). accordingly in the N.T. the Gospels unanimously record the
32).
visible, if
symbolical, manifestation of this endowment And it is an expression of the same truth
(Mark
i.
10
when
in this
passage and elsewhere St. Paul speaks of the Spirit of Christ convertibly with Christ Himself. Just as there are many passages in which he uses precisely the same language of the Spirit of God
and of God Himself, so also there are many others in which he uses the same language of the Spirit of Christ and of Christ Himself. Thus the 'demonstration of the Spirit' is a demonstration also of the 'power of God' (1 Cor. ii. 4, 5); the working of the Spirit is a working of God Himself (1 Cor. xii. 11 compared with ver. 6) and of Christ (Eph. iv. 11 compared with 1 Cor. xii.
is the same thing as to live in the Spirit Nay, in one place Christ is expressly identified with the Spirit* the Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 17) a passage which has a seemingly remarkable parallel in Ignat. Ad Magn. xy
28, 4).
'
To
22
be
'
Christ's'
'
(Gal.
v.
ff.).
'
'
tppaaOe 4v
Sfiovola
8eo0
?
KKTr]fxevoi ddidicpiTou jrvevfia,
of eortv
'lrjaoiis
200
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[VIII. 5-11.
XpiaTos (where however Bp. Lightfoot makes the antecedent to os The not 7TVfvfxu but the whole sentence ; his note should be read). key to these expressions is really supplied by the passage before us, from which it appears that the communication of Christ to the soul
communication of His Spirit. And, strange to say, we seems so individual, echoed not only possibly by Ignatius but certainly by St. John. As Mr. Gore puts it {Bampton Lectures, p. 132), 'In the coming of the Spirit the Son too was to come in the coming of the Son, also the Father. " He will come unto you," " I will come unto you," " We will come unto you " are interchangeable phrases (cf. St. John xiv. 16-23). This is the first point which must be borne clearly in mind in their relation to the human soul the Father and the Son act through and are represented by the Holy Spirit. And yet the Spirit is not merged either in the Father or in the Son. This is the complementary truth. Along with the language of identity there is other language which implies distinction.
is
really the
find this language, which
'
It
is
not only that the Spirit of
God
is
related to
God
in the
which the spirit of man is related to the man. In this very chapter the Holy Spirit is represented as standing over against the Father and pleading with Him (Rom. viii. 26 f.), and personal are a number of other actions which we should call
same
sort of
way
in
'dwelling' (vv. 9, 11), leading' (ver. 14), ascribed to Him * In the last verse of witnessing (ver. 16), 'assisting' (ver. 26). 2 Corinthians St. Paul distinctly co-ordinates the Holy Spirit with And even where St. John speaks of the the Father and the Son.
'
'
'
'
Son
as coming again in the Spirit, it is not as the same but as 'other'; 'another Paraclete will He give you' (St. John xiv. 16). The language of identity is only partial, and is confined within Nowhere does St. Paul give the name of Spirit to strict limits. Him who died upon the Cross, and rose again, and will return once more to judgement. There is a method running through the language of both Apostles. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is really an extension, a natural if not necessary consequence, of the doctrine of the Incarnation. As soon as it came to be clearly realized that the Son of God had walked the earth as an individual man among men it was inevitable that there should be recognized a distinction, and such a distinction as in human language could only But if there was be described as personal in the Godhead. a twofold distinction, then it was wholly in accordance with the body of ideas derived from the O. T. to say also a threefold
'
'
'
'
distinction.
It is interesting to
step in
St.
observe that in the presentation of this last is a difference between St. Paul and John corresponding to a difference in the experience of the
the doctrine there
VIII. 12-16.]
two Apostles.
LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
301
In both cases it is this actual experience which gives the standpoint from which they write. St. John, who had
heard and seen and handled the Word of Life, who had stood beneath the cross and looked into the empty tomb, when he thinks of the coming of the Paraclete naturally thinks of Him St. Paul, who had not had the same as another Paraclete/ privileges, but who was conscious that from the moment of his vision upon the road to Damascus a new force had entered into his soul, as naturally connects the force and the vision, and sees in what he feels to be the work of the Spirit the work also of the To St. John the first visible Paraclete and the exalted Son. second invisible could not but be different; to St. Paul the in
which wrought so powerfully in him seemed to stream directly from the presence of Him whom he had heard from heaven call him by his name.
visible influence
SONSHIP AND HEIRSHIP.

VIII. 12-17. Live then as
ascetics as to
men bound for

in
such a destiny,
The you the consciousness of your inheritance. It tells you that you are in a special sense sons of God, and that you must some day share the glory to which Christ, your Elder Brother, has gone.
your worldly
life,
heirs of immortality.
Spirit implanted
and confirms
12
Such a destiny has

13
nothing.
die.
If
But
if
To the flesh you owe would have you, you must inevitably by the help of the Spirit you sternly put an end to
its
obligations.
you
live
as
it
the licence of the flesh, then in the fullest sense

14
you
?
will live.
Why
All
so
Why
that
necessary consequence
The
link
is
here.
who
title
follow the leading of God's Spirit are certainly by
that very fact special objects of
His favour.
privileges.
the highest
16
and the highest

were
first
They do indeed enjoy They are His sons.

communication of the
fold,
When you
Spirit
baptized,
and
the
Holy
sealed
your admission into the Christian
the
energies which
He
imparted were surely not those of a slave.
You had not once more to tremble under the lash of the Law. No: He gave you rather the proud inspiring consciousness of men admitted into His family, adopted as His sons. And the
consciousness
appeal to
of that
relation
unlocks our
l6
lips
in tender
filial
God
as our Father.
Two
voices are distinctly heard
201
one we know
of our
to

be that of the Holy
Spirit
;
[VIII. 12-15.
is
the other
the voice
own consciousness. And both bear witness to the same ]7 fact that we are children of God. But to be a child implies something more. The child will one day inherit his father's
possessions.
So the Christian
his
will
one day enter upon that
glorious inheritance which his Heavenly Father has in store for
him and on which Christ as

Only, be
it
Elder Brother has already entered.

it
remembered, that
in order to share in the glory,
is
necessary
first
to share in the sufferings
which lead to
it.
would unite vv. 12, 13 closely with the foregoing; no doubt it is true that these verses only contain the conclusion of the previous paragraph thrown into a hortatory form. Still it is usual to mark this transition to exhortation by a new paragraph (as at vi. 12); and although a new idea (that
12. Lipsius
and
main argument, the assurance which the Spirit gives of future life. See also the note on ovv in x. 14. 13. wcufAaTi. The antithesis to aapg seems to show that this
is still, as in vv. 4, 5, 9, the human irvevpa, iipfvua in direct contact with the Divine.
of heirship) dinate to the
is
introduced
at
ver.
14, that
idea
is
only subor-
but
it
is
the
human
of wicked doings, as in Luke xxiii. 51. phrases which occur in this section, Uvevpan Geov ayovrai, to Tlvevpa crvppapTvpei t< Trvtvpari f)pu>v are clear proof that the other group of phrases iv avevfum emu, or t6 TlveZpa oUcKjvoucti) iv fip.lv are not intended in any way to impair the essential distinctness and independence of the human personality. There is no such Divine ' immanence as would obliterate this. The analogy to be kept in view is the personal influence of one human being
t&s irpdêis
14.
:
The
'
upon another.
We
know
to
Divine influence may be not different in kind.
still
more
what heights this may rise. The subtle and penetrative, but it is
uloi OeoC. The difference between vlos and tckvov appears to be that whereas rUvov denotes the natural relationship of child to parent, vlos implies, in addition to this, the recognized status and
legal privileges reserved for sons.
Cf.
Westcott on
St.
John
i.
12
and
the parallels there noted.
15. weujia SouXeias. This is another subtle variation in the use of irpevpa. From meaning the human spirit under the influence of the Divine Spirit nvevpa comes to mean a particular state, habit, or temper of the human spirit, sometimes in itself
(-Trvevpa (rjXaxTfcos
Num.
more
(j j
Hos.
iv.
12), but
{ttv.
V. 1 4, 30 ; irv. durjdias Is. lxi. 3 7rv. nopveias often as due to supernatural influence, good
;
Or evil
ao<pias k.t.X. Is.

XXviii.
irv,
Kpipeoas Is.
xi. 2; irv. Tr\aprjo-eoii Is. xix. Karavvgcas Is. xxix. IO (= Rom.
irv.
xi.
8);
VIII. 15-17.]
LIFE IN
Zech.
to
ttv.
THE
xii,
ttjs
SPIRIT
irv.
203
nu. xapiTos Kai olKTipfxov

irv. irv.
10;
dvOevelas
i
Luke
6).
xiii.
II-
SeiXlas 2
Tim.
i.
8ov\eias
= such
TrXdvrjs
Jo.
iv.
So here
'
a spirit as accompanies a state of slavery, such
human irw^ assumes among slaves. This was not the temper which you had imparted to you at your bapservile habit as the
tism
24,
(ikafitr*).
The
:
slavery
is
that of the
Law
cf.
Gal.
iv.
v. 1.
*
so as to relapse into a state of fear/ The candidate for baptism did not emerge from the terrors of the Law only to be thrown back into them again.
vloOeaias a word coined, but rightly coined, from the classical phrase vlos Ti$rdai (Serbs vlos). It seems however too much to say with^ Gif. that the coinage was probably due to St. Paul him:
-n&Xiv cis <f>o0of
more common in Greek inscriptions of the the idea, like the word, is native Greek ' (E. L. Hicks in Studia Biblica, iv. 8). This doubtless points to the quarter from which St. Paul derived the word, as the Jews had not the practice of adoption.
self.
is
'No word
Hellenistic time
'A0pa, 6 Trcmip.
The
is
and then
that
repetition
in
Greek,
repetition of this word, first in Aramaic remarkable and brings home to us the fact
had its birth in a bilingual people. The same occursin Mark xiv. 36 ('Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee ') and in Gal. iv. 6 it gives a greater intensity of expression, but would only be natural where the speaker was
Christianity
:
using in both cases his familiar tongue. Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. on Mark xiv. 36) thinks that in the Gospel the word 'a/3S only was used by our Lord and 6 Uur^p added as an interpretation by
St. Mark, and that in like manner St. Paul is interpreting for the benefit of his readers. The three passages are however all too emotional for this explanation interpretation is out of place in a prayer. It seems better to suppose that our Lord Himself,
:
using familiarly both languages, and concentrating into this word all words such a depth of meaning, found Himself impelled spontaneously to repeat the word, and that some among His disciples caught and transmitted the same habit. It is significant however of the limited extent of strictly Jewish Christianity that
of
we
find
no other
:
original
:
16. auTo to rii'cGjxa

<ru|AfAapTupet
cf.
ii.
examples of the use than these three. on ver. 14 above, There the 'joint-witness' was 15; ix. 2.
see
;
the subjective
^
testimony of conscience, confirming the objective testimony of a man's works or actions here consciousness is
data are referred partly to the man himself, partly to the Spirit of God moving and prompting him. 17. ic\r)pof6*Lioi. The idea of a Kh-qpovopia is taken up and developed in N. T. from O. T. and Apocr. (Ecclus, Ps. Sol., Jt is also prominent in Philo, whp devotes a whole 4 Ezr.).
its
analyzed, and
'
2 o4
treatise to the
[VIII.18,19.
473 if.). Meaning originally (i) the possession Land, it came to mean (ii) its permanent and assured hence (iii) &c.) (Ps. xxv [xxiv]. 13; xxxvi [xxxvii]. 9, 11 (Is. lx. 21 specially the secure possession won by the Messiah and so it became (iv) a symbol of all Messianic blessings lxi. 7 Philo, after his manner, (Matt v. 5; xix. 29; xxv. 34, &c). makes the word denote the bliss of the soul when freed from the
;
; ;
question Quis rerum divinarum heres sit? (Mang. i. simple possession of the Holy
body.
inequalities of usage that whereas It is an instance of the unaccountable KX.Tjpovofj.os KXripovo^Tv, KKTjpovo/xia occur almost innumerable times in LXX, is much greater occurs only five times (once in Symmachus) in N. T. there fifteen). Kkrjpovofxos equality (KKrjpovofxeiv eighteen, KXrjpovofxia fourteen,
;
auyKXripoj'OfiLoi.
Our Lord had
described Himself as
'
the Heir
This xxi. 38). in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matt. would show that the idea of K^povopla received its full Christian (cf. also Matt. xxv. 34). adaptation directly from St. Paul seems here to be reminding his
Him
aufATrdaxoF^. mo-rbs 6 hearers of a current Christian saying: cf. 2 Tim. ii. 11 {mopevopev km crvâo-iAo'yos, Et yap o-vvcnreddvoixev km avCfaoptV This is another instance of the Biblical conception of Xevaopev. ours, but Christ as the Way (His Life not merely an example for which the lives in its main lines presenting a fixed type or law to Hort's Christians must conform); cf. p. 196 above, and Dr.
eiiTcp
of
The Way,
the Truth,
and
the Life there referred to.
For
elVep see
on
iii.
30.
SUFFERING THE PATH TO GLORY.

VIII. 18-25.
What
though the path
to
that glory lies
The suffering through stiffering? parts of a great cosmical movement, in which the irrational As it shared the results of his creation joins with man. Its pangs are his redemption. in share it will fall, so also
pangs of a new birth (vv. 18-22). Like the mute creation, we Christians
for our deliverance.
18
and
the glory alike are
too
wait painfully
Our
attitude is one of hope
and not of
possession (vv. 23-25).
What
of that
For the
sufferings
in this phase of our career I count not
which we have to undergo worth a thought in view
of that
dazzling splendour which will
one day break through

will
the clouds and
dawn upon
us.
lj
For the sons of God
stand
for
forth revealed in the glories of their bright inheritance.
And
VIII. 18.]
that
LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
2o5
consummation not they alone but the whole irrational creation, both animate and inanimate, waits with eager longing; like
spectators straining forward over the ropes to catch glimpse of some triumphal pageant.
20
the
first
The future and not the present must satisfy its aspirations. For ages ago Creation was condemned to have its energies marred and frustrated. And that by no act of its own it was God who fixed this doom upon it, but with the hope 21 that as it had been enthralled to death and decay by the Fall of Man so too the
:
emancipated children.
birth.
Creation shall share in the free and glorious existence of God's 22 It is like the pangs of a woman in child-
This universal frame
feels
up
to this
moment
the throes of
pain.
travail feels them in every part and cries out in
its
But
where there
23
is travail,
there
must needs
also be a birth.
Our own experience
points to the
same conclusion.
True
workings of the Spirit, the charismata with which we are endowed, we Christians already possess a foretaste of good things to come. But that very foretaste makes us long
that in those
and
painfully
longfor
anxiously the final recognition of our Sonship.
We
desire to see these bodies of ours delivered beset them and transfigured into glory.
24
from the
evils
that
Hope
is
the
Christian's
proper attitude.
We
were saved
indeed, the
Christians.
groundwork of our salvation was laid, when we became But was that salvation in possession or in prospect ?
Certainly in prospect.
hope.
For what a
man
Otherwise there would be no room for sees already in his hand he does not hope
25 for as if it were future. But in our case we do not see, and we do hope; therefore we also wait for our object with steadfast
fortitude.
18. XoYiofmi ya'p. At the end of the last paragraph St. Paul has been led to speak of the exalted privileges of Christians involved in the fact that they are sons of God. The thought of these privileges suddenly recalls to him the contrast of the sufferings through which they are passing. And after his manner he does not let go this idea of suffering ' but works
<
it
argument. He first dismisses the thought that the present suffering can be any real counter-weight to the future glory and then he shows that not only is it not this, but that on the contrary it actually points forward to that glory. It does this on the grandest
;
into his
main
; .
206
scale.
EPISTLE TO THK ROMANS

In fact
it is
[VIII. 18,
19.
nothing short of an universal law that suffering
marks the road

all
All the suffering, all the imperfection, the unsatisfied aspiration and longing of which the traces are so abundant in external nature as well as in man, do but point forward be reto a time when the suffering shall cease, the imperfection moved and the frustrated aspirations at last crowned and satisfied
to glory.
and
which this time coincides with the glorious consummation awaits the Christian. True it is that there goes up as it were an universal groan, from sympathizes creation, from ourselves, from the Holy Spirit who with us ; but this groaning is but the travail-pangs of the new sons birth, the entrance upon their glorified condition of the risen
of God.
Xoyttofjuu
1
: ,
here in
its strict
sense, 'I calculate/ 'weigh mentally,
count up on the one side and on the other.' aia .. .irpos. In Plato, Gorg. p. 471 E, we have ovbcvos Z&6s eV irpos ttjv SO that with a slight ellipse ovk am irpos rfjv aki)6eiav not worth (considering) in comparison with the glory/ bnav will Or we may regard this as a mixture of two constructions, (t) ovk
:
.
'
<1ia t?,s
viii.
fio^y,
i.
e.
'
not an equivalent for the glory

xxiii.
'
II irav 8e rifxiov ovk aiov uvt^s (sc. ttjs ovbtvbs Aoyov am npos rfv hoav\ COmp. Jer.
TTpOS TOV &ITOP
\
<ro<pla$)
ior'iv,
comp. Prov. and (2)

ti to
28
fyvpov
The thought has a near parallel in 4 Ezra vii. 3ff. Compare (e.g.) the et following (vv. 12-17): Et facti sunt introitus huius saeculi angusti et More dolentes et Moriosi, pauci autem et mali et periculorum pleni
magno opere fulti ; nam maioris saeculi introitus spatiosi et securi et Si ergo turn ingredientes ingressi fuenntfacientes immortalitatis fructum. que vivunt angusta et vana haec, non pote runt recipere quae sunt reposita Compare also the quotations iusti au'em ferent angusta sperantes spatiosa. from the Talmud in Delitzsch ad loc. The question is asked, What is the way to the world to come ? And the answer is, Through suffering.
.
emphatic, 'is destined to/ 'is certain to.' The fie'Mouaai' position of the word is the same as in Gal. iii. 23, and serves to point the contrast to tov vvv Kaipov. the heavenly brightness of Christ's appearing : see on %6frv
:
iii.
23.
els r||J.as : to reach and include us in its radiance. cf. Phil. i. 20 Kara rrjv anoKapadoKiav ko\ A*rfta 19. diroKapaooKia pov : the verb arrow padoKtlv occurs in Aquila's version of Ps. xxxvii Plutarch (see fxxxvi]. 7, and the subst. frequently in Polyb. and highly expressive Grm.-Thay. s.v., and Ell. Lft. on Phil. i. 20).
:
word
This await with outstretched head.' sense is still further strengthened by the compound, dno- denoting diversion from other things and concentration on a single object.
'
to strain forward/
lit.
'
This passage (especially vv. 17, 22) played a considerable part in the system of Basilides, as described in Hippol. Ref. Omn. Haer. vii. 25-27.
'
VIII. 19.]
ttjs
LIFE IN
see
THE
SPIRIT
20
is given by the with the sons of God/ and from the allusion to the Fall which follows evidently refers to Gen. iii. 17, 18 'Cursed is the ground for thy sake . thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee.' The commentators however are not wrong in making the word include here the whole irrational creation. The poetic and penetrating imagination of St. Paul sees in the marks of imperfection on the face of nature, in the signs at once of high capacities and poor achievement, the visible and audible expression of a sense of something wanting which will
i.
KTto-cws:
;
f]
on
20.
Here the sense

'
context
ktIvis
is
set in contrast
one day be supplied. Oltr. and some others argue strenuously, but in vain, for giving to Kriais, throughout the whole of this passage, the sense not of the world of nature, but of the world of man (similarly Orig.). He tries to get rid of the poetic personification of nature and to dissociate St. Paul from Jewish doctrine as to the origin of death and decay in nature, and as to its removal at the coming of the Messiah. But (i) there is no sufficient warrant for limiting ktiW to humanity; (ii) it is necessary to deny the sufficiently obvious reference to Gen. iii. 17-19 (where, though the 'ground' or 'soil' only is mentioned, it is the earth's surface as the seed-plot of life (iii) the Apostle is rather taken out of the mental surroundings in which he moved than placed in them: see below on *The Renovation of Nature.'
The ancients generally take the passage as above (f) kt'utis f) a\oyos expressly Euthym.-Zig ). Orig.-lat, as expressly, has creaturam ulpote rationabilem ; but he is quite at fault, making rp ixaimoTrjTi = ' the body.' Chrys. and Euthym.-Zig. call attention to the personification of Nature, which they compare to that in the Psalms and Prophets, while Diodorus of Tarsus refers the expressions implying life rather to the Powers (dvvdfieii) which preside over inanimate nature and from which it takes its forms. The sense commonly given to /AaTaioTTjTi is = <p9opd.
TTji/ dTTOKciXuvj/iK T&v uKav tou 0eou. The same word diroicd\v\f/is is applied to the Second Coming of the Messiah (which is also an fm(f)aveia 2 Thess. ii. 8) and to that of the redeemed who accompany
their new existence will not be like the present, but will be glory (8o'a) both reflected and imparted. This revealing of the sons of God will be the signal for the great transformation.
:
Him
'
in
'
The Jewish writings use similar language. To them also the appearing of the Messiah is an airondkv\pi.s 4 Ezra xiii. 32 et erit cumjient haec, et contingent signa quae ante ostendi tibi et tunc revelabitur filius metis quern vidisti ut virum ascendentem Apoc. Bar. xxxix. 7 et erit, cum appropinquaverit tempus finis eius ut cadat, tunc revelabitur principatus A/essiae met qui similis est font i et viti, et cum revelatus fuerit eradicabit multitudinem congregationis eius (the Latin of this book, it will be remembered, is Ceriani's version from the Syriac, and not ancient like that of 4 Ezra). The object of the Messiah's appearing is the same as with St. Paul, to deliver creation from its ills: 4 Ezra xiii. 26, 29 ipse est que/n conservat Altissimus multis
: ;
2o8
[VIII. 19-22.
temporibus qui per semetipsum liberabit creaturam suam et ipse disfonet ecce dies veniunt, quando incipiet Altissimus liberare qui derelicti sunt Apoc. Bar. xxxii. 6 quando futurum est ut Fortis eos qui super terram sunt innovet creaturam suam ( - 4 Ezra vii. 75 [Bensly] donee veniant tempora The Messiah does not come ilia, in quibus incipies creaturam renovare). alone 4 Ezra xiii. J* I non poterit quisque super terram videre filium meum He collects round Him vel eos qui cum eo sunt nisi in tempore diei. a double multitude, consisting partly ot the ten tribes who had been carried
.
away
into captivity,
{ibid. vv. 12,
39
:
ff.,
and partly of those 48 f.).
who were
left in
the
Holy Land
Attk8^xct(U
another strong compound, where

' :
diro-
contains the
same idea of
20.
tt)
.
'
concentrated waiting
fxaTaioTrjs
i.
jiaTaioTTjTi
as in dnoicapaSoKia above. naTautTt'iToov is the refrain of the

cf.
Book
of'Ecclesiastes (Eccl.
[cxliii].
2,
&c;
Ps. xxxix. 5,
is
'
[xxxviii. 6,
without result' (/xar^v), the opposite of 'ineffective/ 'which does not reach its end' reXfios the word is therefore appropriately used of the disappointing character of present existence, which nowhere reaches the perfection
12] cxliv
:
4)
that
is fxaraiou
which
of which
iii.
it is
:
capable.
the Fall (Gen.
uircTdyTj
by the Divine sentence which followed

:
17-19). oux iKouaa

i.
not through
: '
its
own
fault,
but through the fault of
man,
e.
the Fall.
Him who subjected it,' i. e. not nor the Devil nor Adam (Chrys. al) (Go.), but (with most commentators, ancient as well as modern)
8id rbv uiroTdâfTa
by reason of
;
man
in general (Lips.)
God, by the sentence pronounced after the Fall. It is no argument against this reference that the use of 6m with ace. in such a connexion
ctt'
is
rather unusual (so Lips.).

qualifies
xmerdyr}.
vanity
that,'
not simply and

The
eXm'Si
Creation was
made
subject to
'
&c.
at least
Whatever left with the hope of
absolutely and there an end, but in hope the defects and degradation of nature, it was
rising to the ideal intended for
it.
majority of recent commentators make ort(= 'that') define the substance of the hope just mentioned, and not (= * beThe meaning in any case is much cause ') give a reason for it. the same, but this is the simpler way to arrive at it. Kal auTTj Tj KTio-is not only Christians but even the mute creation
21. on.
:
with them.
SouXfiar corresponds to v7TfTay7, the 4>0opas. The or thraldom to dissolution and decay. opposite to this is the full and free development of all the powers which attends the state of 86a. 'Glorious liberty' is a poor 86a, the glorified state,' translation and does not express the idea the leading fact, not a subordinate fact, and eXevOepla is its is characteristic, the liberty of the glory of the children of God.' 22. oioajiei' ydp introduces a fact of common knowledge (though
dir6 tx\s SooXcias
"rijs
state of subjection
'
'
VIII. 22-24.]
LIFE IN
THE
SPIRIT
209
the apprehension of it may not have been so common as he assumes) to which the Apostle appeals. auo-Tc^dêi ica! owwSiVei. It seems on the whole best to take the ' together,' i.e. a-vv- in both instances as in all the parts of which
creation
fiwflu
is
made up
6/Wok,
(so.
Theod.-Mops. expressly:
tovto
iracra.
ff
povXcrai
8e
on
o~vp(p6>vuis eTrifteiKvvTai
KTiats' Iva to irapa 7rdar)s

7rpos
to
avrb yeveadai
rrj
naidevcrij
tovtovs
tjji>
anavras
it
kolvoov'mv
alpela-Bai
t>v \vnr}pa>v Kaprepiq).
Oltr. gets OUt of

it
it
'inwardly'
children of
(= h
God
'
;
iavrois),
which
others, after Euthym.-Zig.
make
the Sense of will not bear: Fri. Lips, and with men ' or ' with the
'
but if these had been pointed to, there would not be so clear an opposition as there is at the beginning of the next verse {oh povov 8e, d\\d ml clvtoC). The two verses must be kept apart.
23. ou p.6vov hi.
also
groan
Not only does nature groan, but we Christians our very privileges make us long for something more.
riccufjiaTos
:
first-fruits, or first instalment Paul evidently means all the phenomena of that great outpouring which was specially characteristic of the Apostolic Age from the Day of Pentecost onwards, the varied charismata bestowed upon the first Christians (1 Cor. xii. &c), but including also the moral and spiritual gifts which were more permanent (Gal. v. 22 f.). The possession of these gifts served to quicken the sense of the yet greater gifts that were to come. Foremost among them was to be the transforming of the earthly or ' psychical ' body into a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44 ff.). St. Paul calls this a * deliverance/ i. e. a deliverance from the ills
rty dirapxT]' Tou of the gift of the
'the
Spirit/
St.
'
that flesh
is
heir to'
for diroXvTpaio-is see
on
iii.
24.
80, also by Tisch.
?xovts T|p.is: ijpeTs is placed here
by
NAC
Here
5. 47.
RV. and
(in brackets)
by
WH.
uioOeo-ia^: see
on
ver.
realized, act of
adoption
'
15 above.
its
vlo&.
the manifested,
public promulgation.
24. Tfj ycip eXmSi eaw0T)fiei/. The older commentators for the most part (not however Luther Beng. Fri.) took the dat. here as dative of the instrument, by hope were we saved.' Most moderns (including Gif. Go. Oltr. Mou. Lid.) take it as dat. modi, in hope were we saved the main ground being that it is more in accordance with the teaching of St. Paul to say that we were saved by
'
'
faith, or
side of
looking at salvation from the by grace (both terms are found in Eph. ii. 8) than by hope. This seems preferable. Some have held that Hope is here only an aspect of Faith and it is quite true that the definition of Faith in Heb. xi. I (ean de nia-ris i\m{opev(0V vnoo-raaris, irpaypdrav eXeyxos ov fiXaroptvcov), makes it practically equivalent to Hope. But
from another point of view
God
that
is
just
one of the points of distinction between Ep. to Heb.

P
2IO
and
in
St. Paul.

In Heb. Faith
is
[VIII. 24, 25.
God and
in the fulfilment of
used somewhat vaguely of belief His promises. In St. Paul it is far

first
more
often Faith in Christ, the
act of accepting Christianity
This belongs essentially to the past, and to the but when St. Paul present as growing directly out of the past comes to speak of the future he uses another term, iknts. No doubt when we come to trace this to its origin it has its root in the strong conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus and its consequences
(see p.
33 above).
but the two terms are not therefore identical, and
it
is
best
to
keep them
distinct.
Germans (Holsten, Weiss, Lips.) take the dat. as But this is less commodi, 'for hope were we saved.' To obtain this sense we should have to personify Hope natural. more strongly than the context will bear. Besides Hope is an attribute or characteristic of the Christian life, but not its end. ' the thing hoped for,' just as e\ms 8e pXeirofjieVT) cXttic here
Some
recent
dativus
/mo-is
'
the thing created

;
'
a very
common
usage.
This terse reading is found only in B 47 marg., 8 vap j3X7T6i, tis c\irCei which adds to iraXaibv cvtojs c'x" it is adopted by RV. text, W H. text. Text. Recept. has [b yap 0\ena tis] t'i ical [4Airi'C], of which rl alone is found in Western authorities (D F G, Vulg. Pesh. al.), and km alone in N*47*. Both RV. and WH. give a place in the margin to ri nal l\mct and ri nal virofxevei [tnrofUvei with N* A 47 marg.'].
:
25. The point of these two verses is that the attitude of hope, so distinctive of the Christian, implies that there is more in store
for
him than anything that is his already. constancy and fortitude under persecution, &c, %C uirofWTis pointing back to the sufferings' of ver. 18 (cf. on ii. 7 ; v. 4 and for the use of bid ii. 27).
:
'
The Renovation of Nature.

have already quoted illustrations of St. Paul's language from the Jewish writings which are nearest to his own in point of time. They are only samples of the great mass of Jewish
We
some of
literature.
idea of a renovation of Nature, the earth is common, as part of the Messianic expectation which was fulfilled unawares to many of The days of the Messiah were those by whom it was entertained. to be the 'seasons of refreshing,' the 'times of restoration of all iii. 19, things',' which were to come from the face of the Lord (Acts
To
all
of
it
this
creation of
new heavens and a new
The expectation had its roots in the O.T., especially in 21). those chapters of the Second Part of Isaiah in which the approaching Return from Captivity opens up to the prophet such splendid The one section Is. lxv. 17-25 might well visions for the future.
VIII. 18-25.]
LIFE IN
THE
SPIRIT
211
be held to warrant most of the statements in the Apocrypha and
Talmud.
earth is based directly found clearly stated in the Book of Enoch, xlv. 4 f. I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal And I will transform the earth and make it blessing and light. a blessing and cause Mine elect ones to dwell upon it (where see
The
idea of the
17,
'
new heavens and new

is
'
upon
Is. lxv.
and
'
Charles' note).
an added feature
vlwv tuv Qeov
:
'
There which
is
also
an application of Ps.
cxiv. 4, with
illustrates exactly St. Paul's dnoKaXvyjfis tS>v
In those days will the mountains leap like rams and the hills will skip like lambs satisfied with milk, and they will all become angels in heaven. Their faces will be lighted up with joy, because in those days the Elect One has appeared, and the earth will rejoice and the righteous will dwell upon it, and the elect will go to and fro upon it {Enoch li. 4 f.). We have given parallels enough from 4 Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch, and
'
there
is
much
380
in the
ff. ;
Talmud
to the
same
effect (cf.
ii.
Theol. p.
Schiirer,
Neutesi.
Zeitgesch.
Weber, Altsyn. 453 ff., 458 f.
Edersheim, Life and Times, &c. ii. 438). It is not surprising to find the poetry of the prophetic, writings hardened into fact by Jewish literalism but it is strange when the products of this mode of interpretation are attributed to our Lord Himself on authority no less ancient than that of Papias of HieraYet polis, professedly drawing from the tradition of St. John. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V. xxxiii. 3) quotes in such terms the following The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand shoots and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five and twenty measures of wine Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads, and every head shall have ten thousand grains, and every
; :
'
grain ten pounds of fine flour, bright and clean ; and the other fruits, seeds and the grass shall produce in similar proportions, and all the animals using these fruits which are products of the soil, It happens shall become in their turn peaceable and harmonious.' that this saying, or at least part of it, is actually extant in Apoc.
Bar. xxix. 5
clearly
(cf.
Orac. Sibyll.
iii.
620-623, 744
fF.),
so that
it
comes from some Jewish source. In view of an instance like this it seems possible that even in the N. T. our Lord's words may have been defined in a sense which was not exactly that originally intended owing to the current expectation which the disciples largely shared.
And
to
yet on the whole, even if this expectation was by some extent literalized and materialized, some of its
the Jews
essential
features were preserved.
Corresponding to the new abode prep 2
1X1
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[VIII. 26, 27.
pared for it there was to be a renewed humanity: and that not only in a physical sense based on Is. xxxv. 5 f. (' Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped,' &c.), but also in a moral sense ; the root of evil was to be plucked out of the hearts of men and a new heart was to be implanted in them the Spirit of God was to rest upon them (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 382). There was to be no unrighteousness in their midst, for they were all to be holy (Ps. Sol. xvii. 28 f., 36, &c). The Messiah was to rule over the nations, but not merely by force Israel was to be a true light to the Gentiles (Schiirer, op. cit.
:
p. 456).
If
we compare
Epistle to the
Romans
these Jewish beliefs with what we find here in the there are two ways in which the superiority
his
is
is most striking. (1) There runs through an intense sympathy with nature in and for itself. He
of the Apostle
words one of
given to read as it to lay his ear to the earth and the confused murmur which he hears has a meaning for him it is creation's yearning for that happier state intended for it and of which it has been defrauded. (2) The main idea is not, as it is so apt to be with the Rabbinical writers, the mere glorification of Israel. By them the Gentiles are differently treated. Sometimes it is their boast that the Holy Land will be reserved exclusively for Israel the sojourner and the stranger shall dwell with them no more' (Ps. Sol. xvii. 31). The only place for the Gentiles is 'to serve him beneath the yoke' {ibid. ver. 32. The vision of the Gentiles streaming to Jerusalem as a centre of religion is exceptional, as it must be confessed that it is also in O. T. Prophecy. On the other hand, with St. Paul the movement is truly cosmic. The ' sons of God are not selected for their own sakes alone, but their redemption means the redemption of a world of being besides themselves.
it
those (like St. Francis of Assisi) to whom were the thoughts of plants and animals.
is
He
seems
'
'
THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
SPIRIT.
itself assists in
VIII. 26, 27. Meanwhile the Holy Spirit our prayers.

26
Nor
are
we
alone in our struggles.

Left to ourselves
to offer them.
ports our helplessness.
The Holy Spirit supwe do not know what

inarticulate
prayers to offer or
how
But in those
groans which
voice of
rise
from the depths of our being, we recognize the

Spirit.
none other than the Holy
He makes
intercession
VIII. 26.]
and His intercession
Spirit's
LIFE IN
is
THE
SPIRIT
27
213
For God
sure to be answered.
Who
own
Its
searches the inmost recesses of the heart can interpret His
meaning.
He knows
that
His own Will regulates
petitions,
and
that they are offered for
men
dedicated to His service.
26. waauTws. As we groan, so also does the Holy Spirit groan with us, putting a meaning into our aspirations which they would All alike converges upon that not have of themselves. Divine event, towards which the whole creation moves/ This view of
'
the connexion (Go., Weiss, Lips.), which weaves in this verse with the broad course of the Apostle's argument, seems
better than that
'
on the whole which attaches it more closely to the words immediately preceding, as hope sustains us so also does the Spirit sustain us (Mey. Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou.).
'
dvTi\ap,(3dve<r0ai to take hold of at the so as to support ; and this sense is further strengthened by the idea of association contained in a-w-. The same of Ps. lxxxviii [lxxxix]. 22, and in compound occurs in
owarri\afx|3di/Tcu
(ai/Ti),
'
side
'
LXX
Luke
Tjfj
x. 40.
daOcpeux
decisively attested for rals dadevelais.
On
the
way
in
which we are taking the verse the reference will be to the vagueness and defectiveness of our prayers on the other view to our weakness under suffering implied in SV vTropovr/s. But as vnonovf) suggests rather a certain amount of victorious resistance, this application of do-diveia seems less appropriate. to -ydp ti Trpoo-uw/i.0a. The art. makes the whole clause object
;
of mdafiev. Gif. notes that this construction is characteristic of St. Paul and St. Luke (in the latter ten times ; in the former Rom. xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14; Eph. iv. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 1). ti irpoaev^. is strictly rather, What we ought to pray than what we ought to pray for,' i. e. how we are to word our prayers,' not what we are But as the object determines to choose as the objects of prayer.' the nature of the prayer, in the end the meaning is much the
' '
'
'
same.
accordIt is perhaps a refinement to take this as proportion to, our need (Mey.-W. Gif.) ; which brings out the proper force of ko.66 (cf. Baruch i. 6 v. 1.) at the cost of putting a sense upon del which is not found elsewhere in the N. T., where Those of the it always denotes obligation or objective necessity. riva rponov Fathers who show how they took it make <a66 del 8el Trpoo-evg., which also answers well to /caret Qe6v in the next
kcx06 oei.
to, in
'
ing
'
verse.
ulrepcvTuyxdvel
e w-vy xdva>
hence
sense
xi.
'
to accost with entreaty,'
means originally and so simply
'
to fall in with,'
'
and
to entreat
'
in this
it is
not
uncommon and
2).
The
verse contains a
occurs twice in this Epistle (viii. 34 statement which the unready of
214
[VIII. 26 29.
speech may well lay to heart, that all prayer need not be formubut that the most inarticulate desires (springing from a right motive) may have a shape and a value given to them beyond anything that is present and definable to the consciousness. This verse and the next go to show that St. Paul regarded the action of the Holy Spirit as personal, and as distinct from the action of the The language of the Creeds aims at taking account of Father. these expressions, which agree fully with the triple formula of
lated, Oltr. however makes t6 nvtvpa in 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Matt, xxviii. 19. the human spirit,' against the natural sense of both verses irrrtpcprvyxdvei and vnip &yia>v, which place the object of intercession
'
outside the Spirit
itself,
and against Kara
Qe6v,
which would be by
no means always
true of the
human
spirit.
virepcvTvyx" * decisively attested has the easier ivrvyxavti vvlp fjpwv.
(N*ABDFG
'
&c.).
Text. Recept.
27. on. Are we to translate this ' because (Weiss Go. Gif. Va.) Probably the latter ; for if we or that (Mey. Oltr. Lips. Mou.) ? take on as assigning a reason for <uSe ti to (ppovrjpa, the reason would not be adequate: God would still 'know' the mind, or intention, of the Spirit even if we could conceive it as not Kara Qe6u and It seems best therefore to make on describe the not vnfp &yia>v. nature of the Spirit's intercession. cf. 2 Cor. vii. 9 II. Kara to deTuipa tov Qeov koto. OeoV
'
'
strong belief in the value of the intercessory prayer of their great saints, such as Moses {Ass. Moys. xi. 11, 17; xii. 6), Jeremiah But they have nothing like the [Apoc. Bar. ii. 2): cf. Weber, p. 287 ff. teaching of these verses
The Jews had a
THE ASCENDING PROCESS OF SALVATION.

With what a chain of Providential care does God accompany the course of His chosen / In eternity the plan laid and their part in it foreseen ; in time, first their call, then their acquittal, and finally their reception
VIII. 28-80.
into glory.
28
Yet another ground of confidence.
The
Christian
knows
that
all
things (including his sufferings) can have but one result, and
that a
good one,
in
for those
who
love
which
29
the
pursuance of His purpose
God and respond to the call He addresses to them.
before them
Think what a long perspective of Divine care and protection lies First, in eternity, God marked them for His own, as special objects of His care and instruments of His purpose.
!
VIII. 28.]
Then,
in the
LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

same
eternity,
2,1$
He
planned that they should share in
the glorified celestial being of the Incarnate
Son
in order that
He, as Eldest Born, might gather round Him a whole family of so Then in due course, to those for whom He had the redeemed.
in store this destiny
lives
He
addressed the
to
call to leave their
worldly they
their
and devote themselves

call
His
service.
And when
obeyed that
past
He
treated
them as righteous men, with
no longer reckoned against them. And so accounted righteous them participate (partially now as they will do more completely hereafter) in His Divine perfection.
He
let
28.
oiSajjiei'
8e passes
on
to another
ground
for looking con-
fidently to the future.
The
Christian's career must have a
good
ending, because at every step in it he is in the hands of God and is carrying out the Divine purpose. B, a small but important group of authorities, iravTa owepyct Orig. 2/6 or 2/7 (cf. Boh. Sah. Aeth.), adds 6 eed? and the insertion lay so much less near at hand than the omission that it must With be allowed to have the greater appearance of originality. this reading o-wfpyd must be taken transitively, 'causes all things
:
to
work/
The Bohairic Version, translated literally and preserving the idioms, is But we know that those who love God, He habitually works with them in every good thing, those whom He has called according to His purpose.' The Sahidic Veision (as edited by Amelineau in Zeitschrift fur Aegypt. Sprache, 1887) But we know that those who is in part defective but certainly repeats &(6s them in every good thing,' &c. From this we gather love God, God
'
:
'
Upper Egypt inserted 6 cos, and that the Version of Lower Egypt omitted it but interpreted awtpyti transitively as if it were present. It would almost seem as if there was an exegetical tradition which took the word in this way. It is true that the extract from Origen's Comthat the Version of
mentary
in the Philocalia (ed. Robinson, p. 226 ff.) not only distinctly and repeatedly presents the common reading but also in one place (p. 229) clearly has the common interpretation. But Chrysostom {ad loc.) argues at some length as if he were taking av epyfi transitively with 6 0eos for subject. Similarly Gennadius (in Cramer's Catena), also Theodoret and Theodorus Monachus (preserved in the Catena). It would perhaps be too much to claim all these writers as witnesses to the reading avvipyfio 0ds, but they may point to a tradition which had its origin in that reading and survived it. On the other hand it is possible that the reading may have grown out of the
interpretation.
For the use of owtpyei there are two rather close parallels in Test. XII Issach. 3 6 tos ovvtpyii tt} d7rA.oT7jTi fiov, and Gad 4 t6 ydp itvtvfia ovvepyei rw ZLaravq kv iraaiv th Oavarov tS/v avOpdjirwv' to Si tov fiiaovs irvevpM. ttjs dydtrrji kv naitpo6vpia owtpyti t vo/xq) tov Qeov ts conrjpiav
Patr.
:
. .
dvdpunrojv.
tois k<it& irpoOeau' kXtjtois ovaiv.
With
this clause St.
Paul
inJus.
troduces a string of what
may be
called the technical terms of
II
theology,
[VIII. 28.
marking the succession of stages into which he divides normal course of a Christian life all being considered not from the side of human choice and volition, but from the side of Divine care and ordering. This is summed up at the outset in the phrase Kara TrpoPeatv, the comprehensive plan or design in accordance with which God directs the destinies of men. There can be no question that St. Paul fully recognizes the freedom of the human will. The large part which exhortation plays in his letters is conclusive proof of this. But whatever the extent of human freedom there must be behind it the Divine Sovereignty. It is the practice of St. Paul to state alternately the one and the other without attempting an exact delimitation between them. And what he has not done we are not likely to succeed in doing. In the passage before us the Divine Sovereignty is in view, not on its terrible but on its gracious side. It is the proof how God worketh all things for good to those who love Him/ We cannot insist too strongly
the
'
upon this but when we leave the plain declarations of the Apostle and begin to draw speculative inferences on the right hand or on the left we may easily fall into cross currents which will render any such inferences invalid. See further the note on Free- Will and
;
Predestination at the end of ch. xi. In further characterizing 'those who love God' St. Paul naturally strikes the point at which their love became manifest by the acceptance of the Divine Call. This call is one link in the chain of Providential care which attends them and it suggests the other
:
back into the past and far forward into the future. By enumerating these the Apostle completes his proof that the love of God never quits His chosen ones.
links
which
stretch far
The enumeration
follows the order of succession in time.
For Trp66c<ns See On ch. ix. II kclt eKXoyfjv npodea-is tov Qeov, which would prove, if proof were needed, that the purpose is that of God and not of man (kot' oliceiav trpoalpccnv Theoph. and the Greek Fathers generally): comp. also Eph. i. n; hi. n; 2 Tim.
i.
9.
It. was one of the misfortunes of Greek theology that it received a bias in the Free- Will controversy from opposition to the Gnostics (cf. p. 269 inf.) which it never afterwards lost, and which seriously prejudiced its exegesis wherever this question was concerned. Thus in the present instance, the great mass of the Greek commentators take Kara -npoQtoiv to mean ' in accordance with the man's own irpoaipeats or free act of choice' (see the extracts in Cramer's Catena 'e cod. Monac' and add Theoph. Oecum. Euthym.-Zig.). The two partial exceptions are, as we might expect, Origen and Cyril of Alexandria, who however both show traces of the influences current in the Eastern Church. Origen also seems inclined to take it of the propositum bonum et bonam voluntatem quam circa Dei cultum gerunt ; but he admits the alternative that it may refer to the purpose of God. If so, it refers to this purpose as determined by His foreknowledge of the characters and conduct of men. Cyril of Alexandria asks the question, Whose purpose is intended? and decides that it would not be wrong to answer tvv Tf tpv
;
VIII. 28, 29.]
LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
317
He comes to this decision however rather on k(k\t)k6tos Kal ttjv iavraiv. dogmatic than on exegetical grounds. It is equally a straining of the text when Augustine distinguishes two kinds of call, one secundum propositum, the call of the elect, and the other of those
Non enim o??ines vocati secundum propositum sunt are not elect. vocati: quoniam multi vocati, pduci electi. Ipsi ergo secundum propositum vocati qui electi ante cotistitutionem mundi (Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. ii. 10. v. In the Cont. idea of a double call, Augustine cf. Julian, 22, 6, 14). seems to have been anticipated by Origen, who however, as we have seen, gives a different sense to Kara -npoQtoiv omnes quidem vocati sunt, non tamen omnes secundum propositum vocati sunt (ed. Lomm. vii. 128;.
who
:
kXtjtoIs
'
called/ implying that the call has been obeyed.
The
KXâis is not
tion,
au salut
(Oltr.), at least in
the sense of final salva-
but simply to become Christians: see on i. 1. on certainly here ' because,' assigning a reason for iravra avvepyfl 6 Qtos els dyadov, not 'that' (= c' est que Oltr.). The meaning of this phrase must be determined 08s irpoeyi'w. by the Biblical use of the word know,' which is very marked and The Lord knoweth (yiyvaxrKt 1) the way of the clear e. g. Ps. i. 6 righteous'; cxliv [cxliii]. 3 'Lord, what is man that Thou takest knowledge of him (on eyvdxrBrjs avT<p LXX) ? Or the son of man Hos. xiii. 5 'I did know that Thou makest account of him?' Am. iii. 2 You only have (iiroiiiaivov) thee in the wilderness.' Matt. vii. 23 I known (cyvwv) of all the families of the earth.' Then will I profess unto them I never knew (Zyvmv) you,' &c. In all these places the word means to take note of,' to fix the regard upon,' as a preliminary to selection for some especial purThe compound irpoyvu> only throws back this taking pose. note from the historic act in time to the eternal counsel which
29.
:
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
it
expresses and executes.

This interpretation (which
approaches, though
it is
is very similar to that of Godet and which not exactly identical with, that of a number of older
commentators, who make irpoeyvo} praediligere, approbare) has the double advantage of being strictly conformed to Biblical usage and of reading nothing into the word which we are not sure is there. This latter objection applies to most other ways of taking the passage e.g. to Origen's, when he makes the foreknowledge a foreknowledge of character and fitness, npoavaTtviffas ovv 6 eds t$ t^/x<2 rwv kaofxhwv, Kal Karavo-qaas poirrjv rov h<p' qpuv Twvoi Tivwv (-nl evaefleiav Kal bpp.r)v km ravrr\v ftera rfjv potrqv k.t.X. {Philocal. xxv. 2. p. 227, ed. Robinson the comment ad loc. is rather nearer the mark, cognovisse suos dicitur, hoc est in dilectione habuisse sibique Cyril of Alexandria sociasse, but there too is added sciens quales essent). (and after him Meyer) supplies from what follows npoeyvwaOrjaav us eaovrai
: ;
o~vfip.op<poi
TTJs
tiKovos tov Tlov ovtov, but this belongs properly only to
Widest from the mark are those who, like Calvin, look beyond the immediate choice to final salvation Dei autem praecognitio, cuius hie sed adoptio qua filios suos Paulus meminit, non nuda est praescientia a reprobis semper discrevit. On the other hand, Gif. keeps closely to the context in explaining, '" Foreknew " as the individual objects of His purpose The only (TrpoOeois) and therefore foreknew as " them that love God." defect in this seems to be that it does not sufficiently take account of the O. T, and N T. use of yiyijuaKu,
irpowpiae.
:
'
21
[VIII. 29, 30.
The Apostle overleaps for the moment intercat Trpocopiac. mediate steps and carries the believer onward to the final consummation of God's purpose in respect to him. This is exactly defined as conformity to the image of His Son/ <7ufi,p.6p<|>ous denotes inward and thorough and not merely super'
ficial
likeness.
cUoVos. As the Son is the image of the Father (2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Col. i. 15), so the Christian is to reflect the image of His Lord, passing through a gradual assimilation of mind and character to an ultimate assimilation of His 86ga, the absorption of the splendour of His presence.
ttjs
eis to etycu
auToy TrpwTOTOKoi' iv ttoXXois
d8e\<J>ois.
As
the final
cause of all things is the glory of God, so the final cause of the Incarnation and of the effect of the Incarnation upon man is that the Son may be surrounded by a multitude of the redeemed. These He vouchsafes to call His 'brethren.' They are a 'family,' As Christ the entrance into which is through the Resurrection. was the first to rise, He is the Eldest-born (npayTOToicos e tS>v
'
'
VKpa>v,
tva yevqrai
ev ira(Tiv
avros
7rpa>Tvcov
all
;
Col.
i.
1 8).
i.
This
IS
different
from the 'first-born of

in Col.
i.
creation' (Col.
15).
npaTu-
the sense of which is determined 15 it is relative to creation, here it is relative to the state to which entrance is through the Resurrection (see Lightfoot's note on the passage in Col.). Having taken his readers to the end 30. 08s 8c irpotopiore k.t.X. of the scale, the 86a in which the career of the Christian culminates, the Apostle now goes back and resolves the latter part of the process into its subdivisions, of which the landmarks are endXeaev, cdiKaiaaep, edogaae. These are not quite exhaustive: fjyiaa-ev might have been inserted after e'6uccuWei> ; but it is sufficiently implied as a consequence of idiKuiaxrtv and a necessary condition of eZotjave: in pursuance of the Divine purpose that Christians should be conformed to Christ, the first step is the call this brings with it, when it is obeyed, the wiping out of past sins, or justification ; and from that there is a straight course to the crowning with Divine glory. (KoXeaev and ibiKalaxrev are both naturally in the aorist tense as pointing to something finished and therefore past ed6ao-fv is not strictly either finished or past, but it is attracted into the same tense as the preceding verbs an attraction which is further justified by the fact that, though not complete in its historical working out, the step implied in e86gao-(v is both complete and certain in the Divine counsels. To God there is neither before nor after,'
tokos is a metaphorical expression
by the context;
'
VIII. 31-39.]
LIFE IN
THE
SPIRIT
219
THE PROOFS AND ASSURANCE OF DIVINE LOVE.

VIII. 31-39.
his
side,
With
the
the proofs
the Christian has nothing to fear.
of God's love before him, God, the Judge, is on

ititei
and
ascended
Christ
cedes
for
him
(vv. 31-34).
The
being
love
of God in Christ
persecutions
sufferings
are powerless
(vv.
and
nay,
is
so
strong that earthly
all
forms and phases of
to intercept
it,
or to bar the Christians
triumph
81
35-39).
are
What
conclusion
strongest possible comfort

side
we to draw from and encouragement.

?
32
this
Surely
the
With God on our

Isaac,
what enemy can we
fear
As Abraham spared not
so
He spared not the Son who Him to die for all believers.
gift
?
shared His Godhead, but suffered

Is not this a sure
proof that along

all
with that one transcendent
His bounty
83
will
provide
that
is
necessary for our salvation

against those
righteous,
34
Where
?
shall
accusers be
found
whom God
shall
has chosen
?
When God
sits
pronounces
;
who
condemn
For us Christ has died

for us.
should
say rather rose again; and not only rose but
enthroned at
35
His Father's
is
side,
and there pleads continually

that love
it.
His love
our security.
And
is
so strong that nothing on earth

sea of troubles that a Christian
can come between us and

86
The
has to face, hardship and persecution of every kind, are powerless

against
it ;
though the words of the Psalmist might well be
applied to us, in which, speaking of the faithful few in his

generation, he described
own
all
them as
'
for
God's sake butchered

37
day long, treated

better than they.
like
sheep in the shambles.'
We
too are
no
the love of Christ
And yet, crushed and routed as we may seem, crowns us with surpassing victory. 38 For I am
or
its
convinced that no form or phase of being, whether abstract or

personal
;
not
life
dimension of time;
space
;
negation not any hierarchy of spirits no no supernatural powers; 39 no dimension of

; ;
no world of being
invisible to
us now,
will
ever
come
between us and the love which

Jesus Messiah our Lord.
God
has brought so near to us in
220
[VIII. 32, 33.
number of emphatic 32. os Y T0 " ft>iou utoo ouk e4>eiWro. os ye, the same expressions are crowded together in this sentence God who ; tov Idlov vlov, His own Son/ partaker of His own nature ; ovk tytitraro, the word which is used of the offering of
:
*
'
'
the Isaac in Gen. xxii. 16, and so directly recalls that offering on record. For the argument comp. v. 6-io. 33-35. The best punctuation of these verses is that which is adopted in RV. text (so also Orig. Chrys. Theodrt. Mey. Ell. There should not be more than a colon between Gif. Va. Lid.). the clauses Qebs 6 fiuftuAv rit 6 mraKpipeov; God is conceived of as Judge where He acquits, who can condemn ? Ver. 34 is then
greatest sacrifice
:
immediately taken up by ver. 35 Christ proved His love by dying who then shall part us from that love ? The Apostle for us clearly has in his mind Is. 1. 8, 9 He is near that justifieth men Behold, the Lord God will help who will contend with me ? This distinctly favours me who is he that shall condemn me ? the view that each affirmation is followed by a question relating to The phrases 6 KaraKpiv&v and 6 biicaiav form that affirmation. a natural antithesis, which it is wrong to break up by putting a full stop between them and taking one with what precedes, the other with what follows.
: ;
'
'
On the view taken above, eos 6 8imtu>v and Xptarbs 'I-qaovs 6 airoOavwu 10 ^ 1 > are both answers to tis iyKa\iaei ; and tis 6 KaraKpivuti/ ; tls fipas X'^p' are subordinate questions, suggested in the one case by di/catcuv, in the other observe also that on this view ver. 35 is closely by (vt. vnep rjpcjv. The rapid succession of thought which is thus obtained, linked to ver. 34. each step leading on to the next, is in full accordance with the spirit of the passage. Another way of taking it is to put a full stop at Sikcmov, and to make tis two distinct questions with wholly distinct lyitaKtoei; tls 6 KaraKptvuiv Others again (RV. marg. Beng. answers. So Fri. Lips. Weiss Oltr. Go. De W. Mou.) make all the clauses questions (&ebs 6 diKaiwv; kvTvyx- vnip jjpxvv ;) But these repeated challenges do not give such a nervous concatenation of reasoning.
We
common
God?'
33. tis eyicaX&ret; another of the forensic terms which are so shall impeach such as are elect of in this Epistle ; '
Who
ckXcktw. We have already seen (note on i. 1) that with Paul kXtjtol and eKXe/croi are not opposed to each other (as they By reading are in Matt. xxii. 14) but are rather to be identified. into KXrjToi the implication that the call is accepted, St. Paul shows that the persons of whom this is true are also objects of God's By both terms St. Paul designates not those who are dechoice.
St.
lected
stined for final salvation, but those who are summoned or for the privilege of serving God and carrying out His
' ' '
'
se-
will-
If their career runs
its
normal course
;
it
must
it
issue in salvation,
the
'
glory
'
reserved for them
this lies as
were
at the
end
ot

VIII. 33-36.]
the avenue;
LIFE IN
THE
SPIRIT
221
way
it ;
to reach
if
but tonero* only shows that they are in the right it. At least no external power can bar them from they lose it, they will do so by their own fault.
FGKL
os
teat.
KOTaicpCvwv : mrafepivuv V. text Mon This is quite possible, but dataiuiv suggests the present. 34. XptoTos Tt]o-os Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Did. Aug. : XP ktt6s (om. 'Jrjaovs) B E &c., Syrr., Cyr.-Jerus. Chrys. al. Another instance of B in alliance with authorities otherwise Western and Syrian. bracket 'I^cr. 1 c-yepOcis 4k vtKpwv al. plur., RV. om. I* veicpwv K C 2 &c, Ti. The group which inserts 4* vetcpSiv is practically the same as that which inserts 'Irjcrovs above.
NACFGL,
D K
WH.
WH
N*AC
.
WH
BDE
Stroke follows stroke, each driving home the last. 'It died nay rather (immo vero) rose from the dead who (kul should be omitted here) is at the right hand of God who also intercedes for us/ It is not a dead Christ on whom we depend, but a living. It is not only a living Christ, but a Christ enthroned, a Christ in power. It is not only a Christ in power, but a Christ of ever-active sympathy, constantly (if we may so speak) at the Father's ear, and constantly pouring in intercessions for His struggling people on earth. A great text for the value and significance of the Ascension (cf. Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 67 f.). 35. d-rro Trjs dyd-mis tou Xpiorou. There is an alternative reading tov eeov for which the authorities are N B, Orig. (1/3 doubtfully in the Greek, but 6/7 in Rufinus' Latin translation) Eus. 4/6 ; Bas.
is
Christ
who
note this reading in marg. But of the authorities B Orig.-lat. 2/7 read in full otto rfs dydiTT)s tov Q(ov rrjs iv Xptorw 'irjaov, which is obviously taken from ver. 39. Even in its simpler form the reading is open to suspicion of being conformed to that verse to which however it may be
;
2/6
Hil. 1/2
and some
others.
RV.
WH.
replied that Xpio-rov
may
also
be a correction from the same source.
On the whole Xpiarov seems more probable, and falls in better with the view maintained above of the close connexion of vv. 34, 35. 1 The love of Christ ' is unquestionably the love of Christ for us/ not our love for Christ cf. v. 5.
'
:
We have here a splendid example of navx 1)* 1 * * v of which St. Paul wrote in ch. v. 3 ff. The passage shows how he soared away in spirit above those sufferings of this present lime which men might inflict, but after that had nothing more that they could do. On GXtyis fj arcvoxopla see ii. 9 for diaynos cf. 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff., 32 f. ; xii. IO, &C. for Xifxbs rj yvfxvoTijs, 1 Cor. iv. 2 Cor. xi. 27 ; for Kivbvvos 2 Cor. xi. 26; 1 Cor. ;
6\ii|hs k.t.X. rats d\fy((Tiu
'
'
xv. 30.^
36.
on
Ii/eicd
ctou.
The
quotation
to
it.
is
exact from
LXX
NAT
of Ps.
xliv [xliii].
heietv
is
23
is
on belongs
decisively attested here
where there
in the Psalm B has evaca, a presumption against the reading of B.

:
ZvfKfv
2 22
6ai/<xTOuu0a
:

o\t]j>
tyji'
[VIII. 36-38.
XV.
ottoQvwkco
31 naff fjfie'pav Orig. sheep destined for slaughter; cf. Zech. xi. 4 irpoPara aâytis aâyx^v Cod. Marchal. to. Trpojara rrjs o-qbayrjs (cf. Jer. xii. 3 irpofiara eh
r\p.4pav
:
cf.
Cor.
'
tota die, hoc

:
est,
omni
viiae
meae tempore
'
marg.).
Tertullian, Latin texts of this verse are marked and characteristic. Tua causa mortificamur tota die, deputati sumus ut pecora inguCyprian, Test. iii. 18 (the true text; cf. Epist. xxxi. 4) Causa tui lationis. occidimur tota die, deputati sumus ut oves victimae. Hilary of Poitiers, Tract, in Ps. cxviii. (ed. Zingerle, p. 429) Propter te mortificamur tota die, Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. II. xxii. 2 deputati sumus sicut oves occisionis. aestimati sumus cf. IV. xvi. 2) Propter te morte afficimur tota die, {/.atine Speculum Augustini, codd. ML) Clarom ut oves occisionis. (Similarly Cod. Vulgate (Cod. Amiat.) Propter te mortificamur tota die, aestimati sumus ut oves occisionis. Here two types of text stand out clearly that of Cyprian group at one end of the scale, and that of the Vulgate (with which we may Hilary stands Iren.-lat. Cod. Clarom. and the Speculum) at the other. leaning whole between, having deputati in common with Cyprian, but on the The most difficult problem is presented by rather to the later group. Tertullian, who approaches Cyprian in Tua causa and deputati, and the Vulgate group in mortificamur-. in pecora iugulationis he stands alone. This passage might seem to favour the view that in Tertullian we had the primitive text from which all the rest were derived. That hypothesis however would be difficult to maintain systematically; and in any case there
The
Scorp. 13
must be a large element
in Tertullian's text
which
is
simply individual.
The
text before us
may
be said to give a glimpse of the average position of
a problem which
is still
some way from
solution.
37.
uiTpi'iKa)|JLi'.
Tertullian
'
and Cyprian represent

'
this
by the
'
coinage supervincimus (Vulg. Cod. Clarom. Hil. super amus) ; overcome strongly Tyn. ; are more than conquerors Genev., happily
'
adopted in AV.
ota tou dyairiiCTai'TOS TJâs points
in ver. 35.
' And He will call on all the host 38. out6 ayyeXoi ouVe dpxu'. of the heavens and all the holy ones above, and the host of God, the Cherubim, Seraphim, and* Ophanim, and all the angels of power, and all the angels of principalities, and the Elect One, and
back to
t?js
ayairr)s
rov Xpiarov
the other
lxi.
powers on the earth, over the water, on that day Enoch Paul from time to time makes use of similar Jewish designations for the hierarchy of angels: so in 1 Cor. xy. 24;
'
10.
St.
iii.
Eph. i. 21 a >x*l, eovo-la, dvvafxis, IO; vi. 12; Col. i. 16 (Opovoi, The whole world of spirits 15.
t
Kvpiortjs,
irav
Kvpi6rr]Tfs, apxal, cov<r!.cu)
ovopa 6vop.aC6p.fVov: ii. IO, ;
inovpdviot, cmye.ot, Karax66vioi.
It is
is summed up in Phil. ii. 10 as somewhat noticeable that whereas
the terms used are generally abstract, in several places they are made still more abstract by the use of the sing, instead of plur.,
orav KaTapyrjo-T) iraaav ap\h v Kai âaav (ovaiav ko\ 8vvap.tv I Cor. XV. Kpa\q r\ 24; vnepdvoo Trdo-qs apx^ ** fôvaias k.t.\. Eph. L 21 j
Trdo~T]S
6pxv s Ka *
cov<rias
Col.
11.
IO.
VIII. 38, 39.]

It
is
LIFE IN
THE
SPIRIT
223
also true (as pointed out by Weiss, Bill. Theol 104; 1.2) that the leading passages in which St. Paul speaks of angels are those in which his language aims at embracing the whole Koanos. He is very far from a Oprja-Keia tS>v dyyeXcov such as he
Anm.
Church at Colossae (Col. ii. 18). At the which have been given (see also below under dwdpns) are enough to show that the Apostle must not be separated from the common beliefs of his countrymen. He held that there was a world of spirits brought into being like the rest of creation by Christ (Col. i. 16). These spirits are ranged in a certain hierarchy to which the current names are given. They seem to be neither wholly good nor wholly bad, for to them too the Atonement of the Cross extends (Col. i. 20 d7roKaTa\\dtjai ra navra eis avrov eire ra eVi rrjs yrjs eire to. iv rois ovpavois). There is a sense in which the Death on the Cross is a triumph over them (Col. ii. 15). They too must acknowledge the universal sovereignty of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 24; cf. Eph. i. 10); and they form part of that kingdom which He hands over to the Father, that God may
protests against in the
same time the
parallels
'
be
all in all'
(1 Cor. xv. 28).

u.
On
the whole subject see Everling,
Die paulinische Angelologie
Ddmonologie, Gottingen, 1888.
For dyyeXoi the Western text (D E F G, Ambrstr. Aug. Amb.) has ayye\os. There is also a tendency in the Western and later authorities to insert ovtc (ov<riai before or after dpxai, obviously from the parallel passages in which the words occur together.
out
Sui/djuicis.
for placing these
There is overwhelming authority (ÂBCD &c.) words after ovre p.cXXovra. We naturally expect
;
24 Eph. i. 21. one of the earliest copies the word may have been accidentally omitted, and then added in the margin and reinserted at the wrong place. We seem to have a like primitive corruption in ch. iv. 12 (toU aroixova-iv). But it is perhaps more probable that in the rush of impassioned thought St. Paul inserts the words as they come, and that thus ovre Swdpcts may be slightly belated. It has been suggested that St. Paul takes alternately animate existences and inanimate. When not critically controlled,
It is possible that in
them
to be associated with dpxai, as in 1 Cor. xv.
the order of association
is
a very subtle thing.
the word compare 'the angels of power' and 'the other powers on the earth in the passage from the Book of Enoch quoted above also Test. XII Patr. Levi 3 iv tS> rpircp (sc. ovpavcu) tlolv at dwdfxtis tojv Traptfifio\>v, ol TaxOevTts els rjp.epav npiaews, voiijaai e/cditctjoiv Iv rois vvevjxaot tjjs irKdvrjs Kai tov Bi\iap.
For
'
39. out u\j/w(jia out J3<0os. Lips, would give to the whole context a somewhat more limited application than is usually assigned to it. He makes ovre eveo-T. fiddos all refer to angelic powers neither now nor at the end of life (when such spirits were thought to be most active) shall the spirits either of the
.
'
224
[VIII. 39.
height or from the depth bar our entrance into the next world, where the love of Christ will be still nearer to us.' This is also But it is quite in the manner of the view of Origen (see below). St. Paul to personify abstractions, and the sense attached to them cannot well be too large cf. esp. Eph. iii. 18 ri to ttXutos <a\ h^kos Ka\ ttyo? Koi ftddos, and 2 Cor. X. 5 nav vîofia enaipofievov Kara rrjs
:
yvcacrecos
tov Qeov.
'
The common patristic explanation of vipu/Aa is things above the heavens/ and of paOos, things beneath the earth.' Thtod. Monach. fyana fxtv ra ayav km8oa, PdOos 8 rd dyav a8oa. Theodoret PdOos St rr\v yUvvav, Origen (in Cramer's Catena) explains vipwfia of the vif/wixa rty Qacrtkeiav. 'spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places' (,Eph. vi. 12), and The expanded version of Rufinus approaches still (Sddos of ra KaraxOovia. more nearly to the theory of Lipsius Similiter et altitudo et profundum impugnant nos, sicut et David dicit multi qui debellant me de alto sine dubio cum a spiritibus nequitiae de caelestibus urgeretur: et sicut ilerum cum ab his qui in inferno dicit: de profundis clamavi ad te, Domine deputati sunt et gehennae spiritibus impugnaretur.
*
:
:
The use of c'Wpa and not oXXj; seems to outc tis KTtffis ere'pa. favour the view that this means not exactly 'any other created thing but any other kind of creation/ any other mode of being,' besides those just enumerated and differing from the familiar world as we see it.
'
'
He asks this way. not be another creation besides this visible one, in its nature anticipate visible though not as yet seen 'a description which might seem to the discoveries of the microscope and telescope. Comp. Balfour, Foundations that conviction of Belief, p. 71 f. 'It is impossible therefore to resist the which there must be an indefinite number of aspects of Nature respecting must science never can give us any information, even in our dreams. conceive ourselves as feeling our way about this dim corner of the illimitOrigen
there
(in
Cramer) would like to take the passage in
if
may
'
We
able world, like children in a darkened room, encompassed by we know a little better endowed with the machinery of sensation than the not what protozoon, yet poorly provided indeed as compared with a being, if such a one could be conceived, whose senses were adequate to the infinite variety of material Nature.'
;
This is the full <vrr6 ttjs dyd-mis tou 0eou t^s If XpiaTw'lT]aou. The love of Christ is no doubt capable of being Christian idea. Eph. iii. 19), but isolated and described separately (2 Cor. v. 14 the love of Christ is really a manifestation of the love of God. striking instance of the way in which the whole Godhead the love of God co-operates in this manifestation is ch. v. 5-8
;
A
is
our hearts through the Holy Spirit, because Christ died for us ; and God commends His love because Christ died. The same essential significance runs through this section (note
poured out
in
esp. vv.
31-35, 39)-
IX. 1-5.]
THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL
225
THE APOSTLE'S SORROW OVER ISRAEL'S UNBELIEF.

IX. 1-5.
The thought of
this magnificent prospect fills
me with sorrow for those who seem to be excluded from it my ozun countrymen for whom I would willingly sacrifice my dearest hopes excluded too in spite of all their special
privileges
1
and
their high destiny.
How glorious the
prospect of the
life
in Christ
How
mournful
is
the thought of those
who
are cut off from
it!
There
truth
no
shadow of falsehood
one who has
conscience,
Spirit,
in the statement I
am
about to make.
;
As
his life in Christ I affirm a
solemn
and
my
that
speaking under the direct influence of God's Holy-
bears witness to
off,
3
my
sincerity.
There
is
one grief
ever at
cannot shake
one distressing weight that

Could
I
lies for
my
heart.
Like Moses when he came down from the mount, the prayer
has been in
my mind
own
salvation for them, even
by being cut
with Christ, in any
way save
my
by the personal sacrifice of my off from all communion own countrymen ? Are they not
is
my own
brethren,
*
my
kinsmen
far
as earthly relationship
is
concerned ?
Are they not God's own privileged people ?
They
is
iv.
bear the sacred
name
of Israel with
'
all
that
it
implies
it
they
whom He
their
declared to be His
son/ His 'firstborn' (Exod.
22);
temple has been illuminated by the glory of the Divine

they are bound to
;
presence;
peatedly renewed
Sinai
;
to
them
Him by He gave a
a series of covenants re-
system of law on Mount
year after year they have offered up the solemn worship of

;
the temple
8
they have been the depositories of the Divine promises
who were accounted righteous before God from them in these last days has come the Messiah as regards his natural descent that Messiah who although sprung from a human parent is supreme over all things, none other than God, the eternal object of human praise
their ancestors are the patriarchs,
;
IX-XI. St. Paul has now finished his main argument. He has expounded his conception of the Gospel. But there still remains a difficulty which could not help suggesting itself to every thoughtful reader, and which was continually being raised by one class of Christians at the time when he wrote. How is this new scheme of righteousness and salvation apart from law
; ;
226
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[IX.
1.
They had consistent with the privileged position of the Jews? been the chosen race (we find St. Paul enumerating their privileges), through them the Messiah had come, and yet it appeared they would be rejected if they would not accept this new righteousness
How is this consistent with the justice of God ? It question has been continually in the Apostle's mind. has led him to emphasize more than once the fact that the new tiayyeXiov if for both Jew and Greek, is yet for the Jew first (i. 16 It has led him to lay great stress on the fact that the Jews ii. 9).
by
faith.
The
especially
had sinned
directly
(iii.
(ii.
discuss
it
'
1)
'
Once indeed he has begun to 17). What advantage then is there in being
for a time, feeling that
it was necessary has dwelt on the fact that the new way of salvation can be proved from the Old Testament (chap. iv). Now he is at liberty to discuss in full the question How is this conception of Christ's work consistent with the fact of the rejection of the Jews which it seems to imply ? The answer to this question occupies the remainder of the dogmatic portion of the Epistle, chaps, ix-xi, generally considered
Jew
but he postponed
it
first
to complete his
main argument.
He
to be the third of
its
principal divisions.
ix.
The whole
faithfulness
section
may
be subdivided as follows: in
6-29 the
and
justice of
in chap, xi St. Paul
30-x. 2 1 the guilt of Israel is proved is being fulfilled and looks forward prophetically to a future time when Israel will be restored, concluding the section with a description of the Wisdom
God
are vindicated
in ix.
shows the divine purpose which
of
God
as far exceeding
all
human
speculation.
exception of vv. 1J.
Marcion seems to have omitted the whole of this chapter with the possible Tert. who passes from viii. 11 to x. 2 says salio et See hie amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae {Adv. Marc. v. 14). Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Rations p. 518.
1. We notice that there is no grammatical connexion with the preceding chapter. A new point is introduced and the sequence of thought is gradually made apparent as the argument proceeds. Perhaps there has been a pause in writing the Epistle, the amanuWe notice also that ensis has for a time suspended his labours. St. Paul does not here follow his general habit of stating the subject he is going to discuss (as he does for example at the beginning of chap, iii), but allows it gradually to become evident. He naturally shrinks from mentioning too definitely a fact which is It will be only too apparent to what he to him so full of sadness.
refers;
and
tact
and delicacy both forbid him
to define
it
more
exactly.
aXêic^
\<fyw iw XptaTw: 'I

cf. 2
speak the truth in Christ, as one

ii.
united with Christ'; (K GfoC, Kare'vavri Qcov
Cor.
ev XpiaTco XaXovfievl
17 aXX' as ftXucpwfias, dAX' cos St. Paul has just xii. 1 9.
IX.
1, 2.]
227
described that union with Christ which will make any form of sin impossible; cf. viii. 1, 10; and the reference to this union gives solemnity to an assertion for which it will be difficult to obtain full credence.
A Pauline expression. 1 Tim. ii. 7 dXrjdeiav Uy<o, Cor. xi. 31 ; Gal. i. 20. aufijiapTupou<nr]s cf. ii. 15 viii. 16. The conscience is personified so as to give the idea of a second and a separate witness. Cf. Oecumenius ad he. peya &'Aet dnfiv, dio irpaohoiroul rat iTL(TTfv6r)vai,
ou |/eu&ofH.
\f/(vdofiai
: ^
ov
Tpeis Tri(j)(p6fivos fxapTvpas, rbv Xpiarov, to "Aytov Uvevpa,

o-vveidrjo-iv.
Km
ttju
iuvTov
iv rifcu/jiaTi 'Ayiw with 0-vnp.apTvpovo-qs. St. Paul adds further solemnity to his assertion by referring to that union of his spirit with the Divine Spirit of which he had spoken in the previous Chapter. Cf. viii. 16 ovto to Hvevpa o-vp-fiaprvpel tw nuevpaTi rjp,a>v. St. Paul begins with a strong assertion of the truth of his statement as a man does who is about to say something of the truth of which he is firmly convinced himself, although facts and the public opinion of his countrymen might seem to be against him. Cf. Chrys. ad he. TtpoTcpov 8k SiafcftaiovTai irep\ hv p,e\\(t
Xcyeiv'
oircp
noWols
edos iroulv orav /le'XXoxri rt Xeyeiv irapa rols 7to\\ois
ani(TTOvp.evov Kai inrep ov a<p68pa eavrovs elai 7re7mKoYej.
2. on : ' that/ introducing the subordinate sentence dependent on the idea of assertion in the previous sentence. St. Paul does not
mention directly the cause of his grief, but leaves it to be inferred from the next verse. Xu'tttj (which is opposed to x aP" Jn. xvi. 20) appears to mean grief as a state of mind it is rational or emotional 68u^ on the
;
:
other hand never quite loses its physical associations ; it implies the anguish or smart of the heart (hence it is closely connected with rjj Kapdia) which is the result of Xvttt}.
of a
With the grief of St. Paul for his countrymen, we may compare the grief Jew writing after the fall of Jerusalem, who feels both the misfortune
and the sin of his people, and who like St. Paul emphasizes his sorrow by enumerating their close relationship to God and their ancestral pride 4 Ezra viii. 15-18 et nunc dicens dicam, de omni homine tu magis set's, de populo autem tuo, ob quern doleo, et de haereditate tua, propter quam lugeo, et propter Israel, propter quern tristis sum, et de semine lacob, propter quod conturbor. Ibid. x. 6-8 non vides luctum nostrum et quae nobis contigerunt ? quoniam Sion mater nostra omnium in tristitia contristatur, et humilitate humiliata est, et luget calidissime 21-22 vides enim quoniam sanctificatio nostra deserta effecta est, et altare nostrum demolitum est, et templum nostrum destructum est, et psalterium nostrum humiliatum est, et hymnus
.
nosier conticuit, et exsultatio nostra dissoluta est, et lumen candelabri nostri est, et area testamenti nostri direpta est. Apoc. Baruch. xxxv. 3 quomodo enim ingemiscam super Sione, et quomodo lugebo super Ierusalem ? quia in loco isto ubi prostratus sum nunc, olim summus sacerdos offerebat oblationes sanctas.
extinctum
228
[IX. 3.
3. This verse which is introduced by yap does not give the reason of his grief but the proof of his sincerity. 'the wish was in my mind' or perhaps the prayer t]ux<5pji' was in my heart.' St. Paul merely states the fact of the wish without regard to the conditions which made it impossible. Cf. Lft. on Gal. iv. 20 The thing is spoken of in itself, prior to and independently of any conditions which might affect its possibility.' See also Acts xxv. 22, and Burton. M. and T. 33. The word was dpdOepa: 'accursed,' 'devoted to destruction.' originally used with the same meaning as avaBryxa (of which it was a dialectic variation, see below), ' that which is offered or consecrated But the translators of the Old Testament required an to God.' expression to denote that which is devoted to God for destruction, and adopted dvd6cp.a as a translation of the Hebrew O^n see Levit. xxvii. ovk dnobwaerai 28, 29 rrav 8e duddefia 6 cap duadfj avdpcmos t<5 Kvpla (ecu irdv 6 edv dvar(6fj dno tcov dvdpamcov ov \vTpv>6rjovhe \vTpa>(TtTai acrai, dXXci Oavdrcd 6avaTa>6r)0~Tai Deut. vii. 26; Josh. vi. 1 7 ku\ carat And f) ttoKis dvd6*p,a, avrfj <a\ ndvra ova icrriv iv avrrj, Kt/pio> o-aftaooO. with this meaning it is always used in the New Testament Gal. i. The attempt to explain the word to mean 8, 9; 1 Cor. xvi. 22. 'excommunication' from the society a later use of the Hebrew in Rabbinical writers and the Greek in ecclesiastical arose from a desire to take away the apparent profanity of the wish.
:
'
'
There
is
distinction
in
some doubt and has been a good deal of discussion as to the meaning between dvd6ep.a and dvdOrjim. It was originally
being the Attic form (dvdOrjfia dm/cuts, dvdOffxa (Wtjvikws Moeris, p. 28) and dvddf/xa being found as a substitute in non-Attic works (Anth. P. 6. 162, C. I. G. 2693 d and other instances are quoted by the Dictionaries). The Hellenistic form was the one naturally used by the writers of the LXX, and it gradually became confined to the new meaning attached to the word, but the distinction seems never to have become certain and MSS. and later writers often confuse the two words. In the (although Hatch and Redpath make no distinction) our present texts seem to preserve the difference of the two words. The only doubtful passage reads dvd6cp.a where we should expect dvaOrj/xa, is 2 Mace. ii. 13; here but V (the only other MS. quoted by Swete) and the authorities in Holmes and Parsons have dvddrjfia. In the N.T. dvd9rfpa occurs once, Luke xxi. 5, The and then correctly (but the MSS. vary, dvddrjua B L, dvaQepa N D). Fathers often miss the distinction and explain the two words as identical so Ps.-Just. Quaest. et Resp. 121 ; Theod. on Rom. ix. 3, and Suidas; they are distinguished in Chrys. on Rom. ix. 3 as quoted by Suidas, but not in Field's ed. No certain instance is quoted of dvdOr)p.a for dvdOtfia, but dvdOcua could be and was used dialectically for dvdQrjpa. On the word generally see esp. Trench Syn. i. 5 ; Lft. Gal. i. 8 ; Fri. on Rom. ix. 3.
dialectic, dvdOrjpa
LXX
auTos eyw.
The emphasis and
position of these words emphasizes

;
the willingness for personal sacrifice
and they have
still
more
force
when we remember
that St. Paul has just declared that nothing in
heaven or earth can separate him from the love of Christ. ad loc. ri XeyeiSy o> IluOXe f drro rov Xpm-rou rov 7>o6ovfivov
'
Chrys.
f
ov pyre
'
IX
3, 4.]

pyre
to.
229
dXXa Toaavra, dno
fiacriKela are, prjre ytevva e^copiff,
voovpeva,
p,t)Te
tovtov vvv evxn dvdOepa elvai
preposition.
separated from Christ,' a pregnant use of the words as if they were vno t. X. arises from a desire to soften the expression.
utto tou
:
XpiaToC
'
The
:
translation of the
'
ica-rot
crdpKa
cf. iv. 1
spiritually St.
Paul was a
dSeXcpoi
St.
as far as earthly relations are concerned ' member of the spiritual Israel, and his
kinsmen were the
of the Christian society.

:
Paul is similar to that of Moses Exod. xxxii. 32 'Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin and if hot, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.' On this Clem. Rom. liii. 5 Comments as follows a> peydXrjs dydnqs, & TeXeioprayer of
The
ttjtos dvvnepfiXrjTOv, wapprjaidCeTai depd-rrcdv irpos Kvpiou, aiTetreu ncpeaiv

rrXrjOei
fj
ml
iavTou
ei;aXei<p(:r)vai
per
avrcov dioi.
ra In answer tO those
who have found

Prof. Jowett
language
reflection.'
the passage it is enough to say with they arise from 'the error of explaining the of feeling as though it were that of reasoning and
difficulties in
that
There are one or two slight variations of reading in ver. 3, clvtos eyw was placed before dude. eh. by C KL, Vulg., and later authorities with T R, and vno (DEC) substituted for diro &c). Both variations arise from a desire to modify the passage.
(NABC
4. omye's elaiv:
arises not only
inasmuch as they are.' St. Paul's grief for Israel from his personal relationship and affection, but
'
also from economy.
his
remembrance of
:
their privileged position in the Divine
'lcrpaT]\iT<u
the fact that, as descendants of
name
of Israel, a sign. The name therefore implies the privileges of the race; cf. Eph. ii. 12 d-nrjWoTpioipevoL rrjs 7ro\iTeias tov 'laparjX Ka\ (-ivoi twv diaBrjK&p ttjs enayyeXias and as such it could be used metaphorically of the Christians (6 'laparjX tov Qeov Gal. vi. 16 ; cf. ver. 6 inf.) a use which would of course be impossible for the merely national designa:
used of the chosen people in special reference to him who received from God the they are partakers of those promises of which it was
tion 'lovSmot.
'
Israel
'
is
the
title
special relations of the

f)
used in contemporary literature to express the chosen people to God. Ps. Sol. xiv. 3 on
eov eariu
y
pep\s Kai
17
KKirjpovopia tov
:
lcrpar]X
'
Ecclus. xvii.
is
Kvpiov 'lo-pa^X eaTiv
Jubilees xxxiii. 18
For
Israel
1 5 pep\s a nation holy
unto'God, and a nation of inheritance for
its God, and a nation of priesthood and royalty and a possession.' Thus the word seems to have been especially connected with the Messianic hope. The Messianic limes are 'the day of gladness of Israel' (Ps. Sol. x. 7), the blessing of Israel, the day of God's mercy towards Israel
(ib.
xvii.
5j 5 1
H-
aK "P l0t * ywopevoi iv rals fjpepais fKfCvatS ISelv to
23
ayaOa

'\o~par)X iv avvaycoyfj
[IX. 4.
Ta\vvai 6 Geos OTI
(pvXcov,
7roirjo~ei
6 6eoy.
'Io-pcnjX
to eXeos avrov).
When
reminds his readers that it is who all, according to every current idea, the Messiah was to come, when he has come are apparently cut off from all share in the privileges of his kingdom. on the status of an adopted son the adoption/ ulo0<na oiigin of the word and its use in relation to Christian privileges see
: '
therefore St. Paul uses this name he just those for whose salvation above
'
'
Here it implies that relationship of Israel to above, Rom. viii. 15. God described in Exod. IV. 2 2 rdSe Xeyei Kvpios Yl6s irpuTOTOKOS pov Deut. xiv. 1 xxxii. 6 Jer. xxxi. 9 Hos. xi. 1. So Jubilees 'ier/jnqA 'I will be a Father unto them, and they shall be My children, i. 2 1 and they shall all be called children of the living God. And every angel and every spirit will know, yea they will know that these are My children, and that I am their Father in uprightness and
:
in righteousness
tj
and that
is
I love
them/
86a
iii.
'
the visible presence of
God among His

the
people
'
(see
on
nliT
23).
h6a
called
in the
LXX
the translation of the
Hebrew
the
;
*rin?,
bright cloud
cf.
by by which
the
Rabbis
Shekinah
(*??#),
God made His

Hence
r6 moaXos
ix.
presence
ttJs dogrjs
known on
earth
ii.
Exod.
xvi. 10, &c.
avrov Ps. Sol.
5,
otto
10, imply more than the mere Stephen, Acts vii. 2, speaks of n Geos ttjs So^s his words would remind his hearers of the visible presence of God which they claimed had sanctified Jerusalem and the On late Rabbinical speculations concerning the Shekinah temple.
6p6vov 86tjs ib. ver. 20, Wisd. beauty of the temple, and when
St.
see
Weber
at 8ia0T]Kai
Allsyn. Theol. p. 179. the covenants,' see

: '
Hatch Essays on
Biblical
The plural is used not with reference to the two Greek, p. 47. covenants the Jewish and the Christian, but because the original
covenant of (Gen. vi. 18;
God
ix.
with
Israel
was
again
and again renewed
9; xv. 18; xvii. 2, 7, 9 ; Ex. ii. 24). Comp. Ecclus. xliv. 1 1 juera tov o-nepfxaros avrav fhapevei aya6q KXrjpovopia, eityova avrav ev rais diadrjicais; Wisdom xviii. 2 2 Xo'ycf) tov Ko\dovTa vntTagev, opKovs
TTaTepoav
(ed.
According to Irenaeus, III. xi. 1 Kai 8ia8r)Kas vTrop,vl)o-a9. Harvey) there were four covenants koi 81a. toZto Ttao-apes edo:
8r]crav
KaduXiKai diadrjKat
ttj
dvOpconoTrjTi'
pia
fiev
tov KaTanXvapov tov
Na>e, eVi
TpiTt)
tov tcov' SevTepa 8e tov 'Aftpaap, ri tov ar)peiov ttjs TtepiToprjS' be I) vopodfo-ia eVt tov Mcovaecos' TerapTi] 8e 17 tov EvayyeXiov, 81a
rjpcov 'Ir/crov
tov Kvpiov
Xpiorou
bound to God and that God was bound to them by a covenant which would guarantee to them His protection in the future. According to St. Paul it was just those who were not bound to Him by a covenant who would On the idea of the Covenant and receive the Divine protection.
The Jews
believed that they were
* In the Latin version the four covenants are
Adam, Noah, Moses,
Christ.
IX. 4,
its
5.]

bearing on Jewish
:
23
Geschichie,
ii.
practical
life
see
Schurer
p.
388.
'
' T) j'ojxoGeo-ta a classical word, occurring also in Philo. The The dignity and glory of having a law comgiving of the law/ municated by express revelation, and amidst circumstances so full Vaughan. of awe and splendour.' The current Jewish estimation of the Law (6 v6p.os 6 vnapxmv
els
it is unnecessary to illustrate, but the here is brought out more clearly if we remember that all the Messianic hopes were looked upon as the reward of those who kept the Law. So Ps. Sol. xiv. 1 ttiotos Kvpios
t6v alS>va
Baruch
iv.
1)
it
point in the mention of
rols ayairaxriv clvtov iv aXrjBela
-rot?
iropevopevois iv 8tKaioo~vvr) irpovrayfcoqi/ f)pa>v.
paTcav avTov, iv vopca
a>s
iveretXaro rjplv els

it
It
was One of
neglected
the paradoxes of the situation that
was
just those
who
the
Law who
: '
would, according to
the temple service/
St. Paul's
teaching, inherit the

6;
1
promises. rj Xarpcia
Heb.
ix. 1,
Mace.
ii.
19, 22.
Jewish opinion on the temple service may be Shimeon ha-addiq quoted Pirqe Abolh, i. 2 (Taylor, p. 26) was of the remnants of the great synagogue. He used to say, On three things the world is stayed; on the Thorah, and on the Worship, and on the bestowal of kindnesses/ According to the Rabbis one of the characteristics of the Messianic age will be (Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 359.) a revival of the temple services. the promises made in the O. T. with special at eTrayyeXiai These promises were of reference to the coming of the Messiah/ course made to the Jews, and were always held to apply particularly While sinners were to be destroyed before the face of to them. the Lord, the saints of the Lord were to inherit the promises (cf. Ps. Sol. xii. 8); and in Jewish estimation sinners were the
As an
illustration of
'
'
Again therefore the and saints the chosen people. choice of terms emphasizes the character of the problem to be discussed. See note on i. 2, and the note of Ryle and James on Ps. Sol. local.; cf. also Heb.vi. 12; xi. 13; Gal. iii.19; 1 Clem. x. 2.
gentiles
X C L, Vulg. codd. Boh. &c. has been corrected into 17 8ia6f}icr) E F G, Boh. also eirayytKiai into k-rrayyeXia Vulg. codd. pauc. Both variations are probably due to fancied difficulties.
at Siaeij/cai
D F G,
ol
Acts iii. 13, vii. 32. On the of the patriarchs and their importance in Jewish theology see the note on p. 330. Cf. i Clem, xxxii. 2 e avrov 6 ii &v 6 Xpiorc-s to Kcrrd crdpica. Kvpios '1t](tovs to Kara aapm. 6 Xp. is not a personal name, but must Not only have the Jews been united be translated the Messiah/ to God by so many ties, but the purpose for which they have been
5.
iraxepes: 'the patriarchs/
merits
'
'
The Messiah has them, and yet they have been rejected,
selected has been fulfilled.
come
forth from
232
6
u)v

:
[IX.
'
5.
em tt&vtwv cos, k.t.X. with Xpiaros (see below), who is over all blessed for ever.' rrdvTcov is probably neuter, cf. xi. 36. This description of the supreme dignity of Him who was on His human side of Jewish stock serves to intensify the conception of the privileged character of the Jewish race.
God
The Privileges of
this
Israel.
enumeration of the privileges of Israel St. Paul fulfils two By He gives firstly the facts which purposes in his argument. Like the writer of 4 Ezra his grief is intensify his sorrow. heightened by the remembrance of the position which his countrymen have held in the Divine economy. Every word in the long list calls to mind some link which had united them, the Chosen People, with God every word reminds us of the glory of their past history; and it is because of the great contrast suggested between
;
the destiny of Israel
and
their actual condition that his grief is so
profound.
But the Apostle has another and more important thought to emphasize. He has to show the reality and the magnitude of the problem before him, and this list of the privileges of Israel just emphaIt was so great as almost to be paradoxical. It was this. sizes it. Israel was a chosen people, and was chosen for a certain purpose. According to the teaching of the Apostle it had attained this end the Messiah, whose coming represented in a sense the consummation of its history, had appeared, and yet from any share in the glories of this epoch the Chosen People themselves were cut off. All the families of the earth were to be blessed in Israel Israel They were in an especial sense the itself was not to be blessed. They sons of God : but they were cut off from the inheritance. were bound by special covenants to God the covenant had been broken, and those outside shared in the advantages. The glories of the Messianic period might be looked upon as a recompense for the long years of suffering which a faithful adhesion to ihe Law and the blessa loyal preservation of the temple service had entailed The ings were to come for those who had never kept the Law. promises were given to and for Israel: Israel alone would not inherit them. The pious Jew, remembering the Such was the problem. sufferings of his nation, pictured the Messianic time as one when pure and without stain these should all pass away when all Israel should be once more united; when the ten tribes should be collected from among the nations ; when Israel which had suffered much from the Gentiles should be at last triumphant over them. The Messiah had come: and Israel, the All this he expected.
: :
IX.
5.]

own
people,
it
233
Messiah's
seemed
itself
blessings which
had
ii.
problem to be solved? 452 sq.)
to be cut off and rejected from the prepared for the world. How was this (Cf. 4 Ezra xiii; Schurer, Geschichtc,
The Punctuation of Rom.

ical
ix. 5.
l S>v 6
dfirjv.
Xptarbs to Kara aapxa, t wv
lirl
vavraiv, 0cds ev\oyr)T(ls els robs
aluvas'
interpretation of Rom. ix. 5 has probably been discussed at greater Special length than that of any other verse of the N. T. Besides long notes in literature various commentaries, the following special papers may be mentioned: Schultz, in Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie, 1868, vol. xiii. pp. 462-506;
The
Harmsen, ib. 1872, pp. 510, 521 but pp. 311-322 England and America have provided the fullest discussions by Prof. Kennedy and Dr. Gifford, namely, The Divinity of Christ, a sermon preached on Christmas Day, 1882, before the University of Cambridge, with an appendix on Rom. ix. 5 and Titus ii. 13, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge, 1883; Caesarem Appello, a letter to Dr. Kennedy, by Edwin Hamilton Gifford, D.D., Cambridge, 1883; and Pauline Christology, I. Examination of Rom. ix. 5, being a rejoinder to the Rev. Dr. Gifford's reply, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge, 1883 by Prof. Dwight and Dr. Ezra Abbot, in /. B. Exeg. June and December, 188 1, pp. 22-55, 87-154 and 1883, pp. 90-112. Of these the paper of Dr. Abbot is much " the most exhaustive, while that of Dr. Gifford seems to us on the whole to show the most exegetical power. Dismissing minor variations, there are four main interpretations (all of Alternative them referred to in the RV.) which have been suggested interpreta(a) Placing a comma after capita and referring the whole passage to tions.
;
Grimm, Zwth., 1869,
Christ.
(b) all
SoRV.
Placing a full stop after capita and translating ' He who is God over be blessed for ever,' or ' is blessed for ever.' So RV. marg. (c) With the same punctuation translating ' He who is over all is God
'
all.
blessed for ever.' RV. marg. {d) Placing a comma after capita and a full stop at tt&vtojv, God be (or is) blessed for ever.' RV. marg.
It
who
is
over
be convenient to point out at once that the question is one of interpretation and not of criticism. The original MSS. of the Epistles were almost certainly destitute of any sort of punctuation. Of MSS. of the first century we have one containing a poition of Isocrates in which a few dots are used, but only to divide words, never to indicate pauses in the sense in the MS. of the noXireia of Aristotle, which dates from the end of the first or beginning of the second century, there is no punctuation whatever except that a slight space is left before a quotation this latter probably is as close a representation as we can obtain in the present day of the original form of the books of the N. T. In carefully written MSS., the work of professional scribes, both before and during the first century, the more important pauses in the sense were often indicated but lesser pauses rarely or never and, so far as our knowledge enables us to speak, in roughly written MSS. such as were no doubt those of the N.T., there is no punctuation at all until about the third century. Our present MSS. (which begin in the fourth century) do not therefore represent an early tradition. If there were any traditional punctuation we should have to seek it rather in early versions or in second and third century Fathers the punctuation of the MSS. is interesting in the history of interpretation, but has no other value.
;
:
may
The
01
i-
ginal
MSS.
without punctuation.
;;
234
History of the interpretation.
(1)
[IX.
5.
The
The
The history of the interpretation must be passed over somewhat cursorily. For our earliest evidence we should naturally turn to the older versions, but It is however these seem to labour under the same obscurity as the original. the probably true that the traditional interpretation of all of them is to apply
doxology to Christ. About most of the Fathers however there is no doubt. An immense preword ponderance of the Christian writers of the first eight centuries refer the This is certainly the case with Irenaeus, Haer. III. xvii. 2, ed. to Christ. (cf. Harvey ;Tertulli an, Adv. Prax. 13, 15; Hippolytus, Cont. Aoct. 6 Novatian, Trin. 13 Cyprian, Test. ii. 6, ed. Hariel Gifford, op. cit. p. 60) Athanasius, Syn. Ant. adv. Paul. Sam. in Routh, Pel. Sacrae, iii. 291, 292 Oehler; Basil, Cont. Arian. I. iii. 10; Epiphanius Haer. lvii. 2, 9, ed. Chrysostom, Adv. Eunom. iv. p. 282 Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Eunom. 11 Augustine, De Horn, ad Rom. xvi. 3, &c. Theodoret, Ad Rom. iv. p. 100; Ambrosius, De Spintu Hilarius, De Trinitate, viii. 37, 38 Trinitate, ii. 13 Al., Cont. Sancto, i. 3. 46 ; Hieronymus, Ep. CXXL ad Algas. Qu. ix Cyril It is true also of Origen [in Rom. vn. 13) if we may lid. x. pp. 327, 328. discussed at length trust Rufinus' Latin translation (the subject has been Ice.). by Gifford, op. cit. p. 31 ; Abbot,/. B. Exeg. 1883, p. 103 WH. ad Moreover there is no evidence that this conclusion was arrived at on dogmatic eo? was grounds. The passage is rarely cited in controversy, and the word divine given to our Lord by many sects who refused to ascribe to him full fourth. honours, as the Gnostics of the second century and the Arians of the On the other hand this was a useful text to one set of heretics, the Sabellians do and it is significant that Hippolytus, who has to explain that the words any not favour Sabellianism, never appears to think of taking them in
,
Versions.
(2)
Fathers.
The older MSS.

(3)
other way. The strongest evidence against the reference to Christ is that of the leading undoubtedly puts a point Of these N has no punctuation, uncial MSS. The punctuation of this chapter after aapua, and also leaves a slight space. as there is a similar point is careful, and certainly by the original hand ; but and space between Xpiarov and vrtip in ver. 3, a point between aapKa and and wv, there is no reason as far as o'iTLi'is, and another between 'lapar^XiTai much as punctuation is concerned why 6 wv should not refer to Xpiaros as B has a colon after oapica, but leaves no space, oirtvts does to a5(\(pS>v. * colon is while there is a space left at the end ot the verse. The present earlier however certainly not by the first hand, and whether it covers an
The difference stop or not cannot be ascertained. C has a stop after adpica. certainly between the MSS. and the Fathers has not been accounted for and is
. .
curious.
has Against ascribing these words to Christ some patristic evidence persons been found. Origen (Rufinus) ad loc. tells us there were certain Paul who thought the ascription of the word Bto? to Christ difficult, for St. by had already called him vtos 0foC. The long series of extracts made eos cannot be used of etstein ad loc. stating that the words 6 km iravrajv km vavTwv e6s, the Son are not to the point, for the Son here is called not 6 interpret the but cm ndvrcov 0e<5s. and some of the writers he quotes expressly Jul. x. passage of the Christ elsewhere. Again, Cyril of Alexandria (Cont, to the effect that St. Paul never calls p 327) quotes the Emperor Julian this statement, interesting Christ @(6s, but although this is certainly an been overlooked. passage, which Cyril quotes against him, might easily have and two only, Photius (Cont. Man. iii. 14) and Diodorus
.,
Two
writers,
(4) Modern criticism.
tather. (Cramer's Catena, p. 162), definitely ascribe the words to the The modern criticism of the passage began with Erasmus, who pointed
For information on
papyri,
we
are
much
this point and also on the punctuation of the older indebted to Mr. F t G. Kenyon, of the British Museum.
TX.
5.]
*35
out that there were certainly three alternative interpretations possible, and that as there was so much doubt about the verse it should never be used against heretics. He himself wavers in his opinion. In the Commentary
he seems to refer the words to the Father, in the Paraphrase (a later but popular work) he certainly refers them to the Son. Socinus, it is interesting to note, was convinced by the position of evKoyqros (see below) that the sentence must refer to Christ. From Erasmus' time onwards opinions have varied, and have been influenced, as was natural, largely by the dogmatic opinions of the writer and it seems hardly worth while to quote long lists of names on either side, when the question is one which must be decided not by
;
authority or theological opinion but by considerations of language. The discussion which follows will be divided into three heads : (i) Grammar (2) Sequence of thought (3) Pauline usage. The first words that attract our attention are rb Karat, adptca, and a parallel The gramnaturally suggests itself with Rom. i. 3, 4. As there St. Paul describes the mar of the human descent trom David, but expressly limits it Kara oapica, and then passage, in contrast describes his Divine descent Kara nvtdpia dyiwavvrjs so here the d) T b Kara course of the argument having led him to lay stress on the human birth of oapica Christ as a Jew, he would naturally correct a one-sided statement by limiting that descent to the earthly relationship and then describe the true nature of Him who was the Messiah of the Jews. He would thus enhance the privileges of his fellow-countrymen, and put a culminating point to his argument, to Kara adpKa leads us to expect an antithesis, and we find just what we should have expected in 6 wv tnl irdvrwv coy. Is this legitimate ? It has been argued first of all that the proper antithesis to odp is nvev/xa. But this objection is invalid. eds is in a considerable number of cases used in contrast to adp^ (Luke iii. 6 ; 1 Cor. i. 29 Col. iii. 22 Philemon 16; 2 Chron. xxxii. 8; Ps. lv [lvij. 5; Jer. xvii. 5; Dan. ii. 11 ; cf. Gifford, p. 40, to whom we owe these instances). Again it is argued that the expression rb Kara adpKa as opposed to Kard adpKa precludes the possibility of such a contrast in words. While Kara adpKa allows the expression of a contrast, rb Kurd adpKa would limit the idea of a sentence but would not allow the limitation to be expressed. This statement again is incorrect. Instances are found in which there is an expressed contrast to such limitations introduced with the article (see Gifford, p. 39 ; he quotes Isocrates, p. 32 e ; Demosth. cant. Eubul. p. 1200, I.14).
'
But although neither of these objections is valid, it is perfectly true that Kara adpKa nor to Kara adpKa demands an expressed antithesis (Rom. iv. 1 Clem. Rom. i. 32). The expression to Kara adpKa cannot therefore be quoted as decisive but probably any one reading the passage for the first time would be led by these words to expect some contrast and would naturally take the words that follow as a contrast. The next words concerning which there has been much discussion are 6 wv. It is argued on the one hand that d wv is naturally relatival in character and equivalent to 6's kori, and in support of this statement 2 Cor. xi. 31 is quoted d cos ical narf]p rod Kvpiov 'Tqoov oldev, 6 wv tv\oyr)rbs ds rovs alwvas, on ov if/(v8ofMiia passage which is in some respects an exact parallel. On the other hand passages are quoted in which the words do not refer to anything Preceding, such as Jn. iii. 31 6 dvwOtv kpxop.tvos hiravw irdvrwv kariv 6 wv \k T77S 777s rrjs yrjs kori, koi (k rrjs yrjs \a\ei: and oi ovrcs in Rom. viii. 5, 8. The question is a nice one. It is perfectly true that 6 wv can be used in both ways; but it must be noticed that in the last instances the form of the sentence is such as to take away all ambiguity, and to compel a change of subject. In this case, as there is a noun immediately preceding to which the words would naturally refer, as there is no sign of a change of subject, and as there is no finite verb in the sentence following, an ordinary reader would consider that the words d wv knl ndvrwv ed? refer to what precedes unless
neither
;
; :
(2) 6 wv.
236
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[IX.
5.
they suggest so great an antithesis to his mind that he could not refer them
to Christ. But further than this: no instance seems to occur, at any rate in the N.T., of the participle wv being used with a prepositional phrase and the noun which the prepositional phrase qualifies. If the noun is mentioned the Here 6 kirl irdvrwv eos^ would be substantive verb becomes unnecessary.
()
The
position of
tvkoyrjTos.
the correct expression, if @(6s is the subject of the sentence ; if wv is added ' Of os must become predicate. This excludes the translation (.) He who is God over all be (or is) blessed for ever.' It still leaves it possible to translate to as (c.) ' He who is over all is God blessed for ever,' but the reference XpiaTos remains the most natural interpretation, unless, as stated above, the word eos suggests in itself too great a contrast. ascription of It has thirdly been pointed out that if this passage be an blessing to the Father, the word evKoyrjros would naturally come first, just usage An examination of as the word ' Blessed' would in English.
LXX
expressed and thrown forward (as Ps. cxii [cxiii]. 2 etrj to* ovofia Kvpiov ev\oyrjiJ.evov) this is almost inBut the rule is clearly only an empirical one, and in variably its position. cases in which stress has to be laid on some special word, it may be and is irdvrwv cos if it does not refer broken (cf. Ps. Sol. viii. 40, 41). As 6 wv to 6 Xpiaros must be in very marked contrast with it, there would be a special emphasis on the words, and the perversion of the natural order becomes These considerations prevent the argument from the position of possible. tvKoyqros being as decisive as some have thought it, but do not prevent the
shows that except
in cases in
which the verb
is
balance of evidence being against the interpretation as a doxology referring

to the Father.
an examination of the grammar of the passage makes it clear Paul had intended to insert an ascription of praise to the Father we should have expected him to write cvXoyrjrus eh tovs alwvas 6 km -navrwv If the translation (d.) suggested above, which leaves the stop at cos. irdvrwv, be accepted, two difficulties which have been urged are avoided, but the awkwardness and abruptness of the sudden cos evKoyrjrus cts tovs We have seen that the position alwvas make this interpretation impossible. of eiiKoyrjTos makes a doxology {o.) improbable, and the insertion of the The grammatical evidence is in favour participle makes it very unnatural. tirl of (a.), i.e. the reference of the words to o Xpiaros, unless the words o wv irdvrwv 0eos contain in themselves so marked a contrast that they could not
The
result of
that
if St.
The connexion of thought.
possibly be so referred. pass next to the connexion of thought. Probably not many will doubt that the interpretation which refers the passage to Christ (a.) admirably St. Paul is enumerating the privileges of Israel, and as the suits the context. highest and last privilege he reminds his readers that it was from this Jewish stock after all that Christ in His human nature had come, and then in order came to emphasize this he dwells on the exalted character of Him who according to the flesh as the Jewish Messiah. This gives a perfectly clear and intelligible interpretation of the passage. Can we say the same of any
We
interpretation
He that is over all God be blessed for ever,' or He that is God over all be blessed for ever.' A natural criticism that at once arises is, how awkward the sudden introduction of a doxology how inconsistent with
as a doxology,
<
' !
which applies the words to the Father ? Those who adopt this latter interpretation have generally taken the words
Nor do the reasons alleged the tone of sadness which pervades the passage It is quite true in support of this interpretation really avoid the difficulty. and of course that St. Paul was full of gratitude for the privileges of his race his especially for the coming of the Messiah, but that is not the thought in him for necessary mind. His feeling is one of sadness and of failure: it is reference does a again Nor to argue that the promise of God has not failed. It is quite true that there we have to Rom. i. 25 support the interpretation.
!
IX.
5.]

;
237
a doxology in the midst of a passage of great sadness but like 2 Cor. xi. 31 that is an instance of the ordinary Rabbinic and oriental usage of adding an ascription of praise when the name of God has been introduced. That would not apply in the present case where there is no previous mention of the name of God. It is impossible to say that a doxology could not stand here it is certainly true that it would be unnatural and out of place. So strongly does Dr. Kennedy feel the difficulties both exegetical and grammatical of taking these words as a blessing addressed to the Father, that being unable to adopt the reference to Christ, he considers that they occur here as a strong assertion of the Divine unity introduced at this place in order to conciliate the Jews He who is over all is God blessed for ever.' It is difficult to find anything in the context to support this opinion, St. Paul's object is hardly to conciliate unbelieving Jews, but to solve the difficulties of believers, nor does anything occur in either the previous or the following verses which might be supposed to make an assertion of the unity of God either necessary or apposite. The interpretation fails by ascribing too great subtlety to the Apostle. Unless then Pauline usage makes it absolutely impossible to refer the expressions eos and eirl vclvtwv to Christ, or to address to Him such a doxology and make use in this connexion of the decidedly strong word tv\oyr)T6s, the balance of probability is in favour of referring the passage What then is the usage of St. Paul? The question has been to Him. somewhat obscured on both sides by the attempt to prove that St. Paul could or could not have used these terms of Christ, i. e. by making the difficulty theological and not linguistic. St. Paul always looks upon Christ as being although subordinate to the Father at the head of all creation xv. 28 ; Phil. ii. 5-1 1 Col. i. H-20), and this would quite (1 Cor. xi. 3 justify the use of the expression enl irdvTwv of Him. So also if St. Paul can speak of Christ as d/cwv tov @eov (2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15), as Iv /nop(prj &(ov inapxwv, and Taa (S> (Phil. ii. 6), he ascribes to Him no lesser dignity than would be implied by Oe6s as predicate. The question rather is this was cos so definitely used of the 'Father' as a proper name that it could not be used of the Son, and that its use in this passage as definitely points to the Father as would the word iraTrjp if it were substituted? The most significant passage referred to is 1 Cor. xii. 4-6, where it is asserted that eos is as much a proper name as Kvpios or irvtvpia and is used in marked distinction to Kvpios. But this passage surely suggests the answer. Kvpios is clearly used as a proper name of the Son, but that does not prevent St. Paul elsewhere speaking of the Father as Kvpios, certainly in quotations from the O.T. and probably elsewhere (1 Cor. iii. 5), nor of Xpiaros as irvevpia. The history of the word appears to be this. To one (2 Cor. iii. 16). brought up as a Jew it would be natural to use it of the Father alone, and hence complete divine prerogatives would be ascribed to the Son somewhat earlier than the word itself was used. But where the honour was given the word used predicatively would soon follow. It was habitual at the beginning of the second century as in the Ignatian letters, it is undoubted in St. John where the Evangelist is writing in his own name, it probably occurs Acts xx. 28 and perhaps Titus ii. 14. It must be admitted that we should not expect it in so early an Epistle as the Romans but there is no impossibility either in the word or the ideas expressed by the word occurring so early. So again with regard to doxologies and the use of the term ev\oyr]T6s. The distinction between evXoyrjTos and cvKoyr/nivos which it is attempted to make cannot be sustained and to ascribe a doxology to the Son would be a practical result of His admittedly divine nature which would gradually show itself in language. At first the early Jewish usage would be adhered to gradually as the dignity of the Messiah became realized, a change would take piac-3 in the use of words. Hence we find doxologies appearing definitely in later books of the N. T., probably in 2 Tim. iv. 18, certainly in
;
:
Prof.
Kennedy's
interpretation.
<
Pauline
usage,
(1) (6s.
'
(2) Doxologies ad-
dressed to Christ,
238
Rev.
it

v. 13
[IX. 6-13.
and 2 Pet. fii. 18. Again we can assert that we should not expect points out, so early an Epistle as the Romans, but, as Dr. Liddon is no reason 2 Thess. i. 12 implies it as does also Phil. ii. 5-8; and there why language should not at this time be beginning to adapt itself to theoin
Conclusion.
logical ideas already formed. Throughout there has been no argument which we have felt to be quite grammar of the conclusive, but the result of our investigations into the that the sentence and the drift of the argument is to incline us to the belief words would naturally refer to Christ, unless eos is so definitely a proper is not that have seen that name that it would imply a contrast in itself. Even if St. Paul did not elsewhere use the word of the Christ, yet it so.
We
St. Paul's phraseology certainly was so used at a not much circumnever fixed he had no dogmatic reason against so using it. In these first alternastances with some slight, but only slight, hesitation we adopt the
later period.
is
tive
and
all,
translate
'
Of whom
is
the Christ as concerning the flesh,
who
is
over
God
blessed for ever.
Amen.'
THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE DIVINE PROMISES.

IX. 6-13. For
it is
indeed true.
With
all these privileges
Israel is yet excluded from the Messianic promises. Now in the first place does this imply, as has been urged, By no means. that the promises of God have been broken ?
The Scriptures show clearly that physical descent is not The children of Ishmael and the children of Esau, enough. was both alike descendants of Abraham to whom the promise
given, have been rejected.
There
is
then no breach of the

Israelites as
Divine promise, if
rejected them.
6
God
rejects
some
He
has
Yet
in
spite
:
of these privileges Israel

'
is
rejected.
Now
it
has been argued
If this be so, then the Divine word has
failed.
God made
the
that promise
promise
If Israel is rejected, a definite promise to Israel. An examination of the conditions of is broken/ show that this is not so. It was never intended
that all the descendants of
of privilege,
full
no more
in fact than
Jacob should be included in the Israel that all were to share the
Two
they were his offspring. was not the Divine intention. Take first the words used to Abraham in Gen. xxi. 1 2 when he In Isaac shall thy seed be called.' cast forth Hagar and her child there were then two sons of although that These words show
rights of sons of
Abraham because
instances will prove that this
'
Abraham, one
only, Isaac,
was
selected to be the heir, through
IX.
6.1

was to be
inherited.
'
239
whom
the promise
:
And
the general conclu-
i. e. of sharing that adoption of which we spoke above as one of the privileges of Israel, does not depend on the mere accident of human birth, but those
sion follows
the right of being
sons of
God/
born to
to
inherit the
promise are reckoned by

9
God
as the descendants
whom
His words apply.

;
The
salient feature is in fact the pro-
mise, and not the birth
as
is
shown by
the words used
when
the
this
promise was given
at the
oak of
Mamre
(Gen.
xviii.
10)
At
time next year will I come and Sarah shall have a son.' The promise was given before the child was born or even conceived, and the child was born because of the promise, not the promise
given because the child was born.
still more clearly. It might be two were not of equal parentage Ishmael was the son of a female slave, and not of a lawful wife in the second case there is no such defect. The two sons of
10
second instance shows
this
argued
in the last case that the
Isaac and Rebecca had the same father and the same mother: moreover they were twins, born at the same time. ]1 The object was to exhibit the perfectly free character of the Divine action,
that
purpose of
selection not
God in the world which works on a principle of dependent on any form of human merit or any conbirth,
;
vention of
but simply on the Divine will as revealed and so before they were born, before they had done anything good or evil, a selection was made between the two
in the Divine call
human
sons.
12
From Gen.
that
xxv.
23
we
learn
that
it
was
foretold
to
Rebecca
of
13
two nations, two peoples were
in her
womb, and
is is
that
the elder should serve the younger.
God's action
independent
selected.
human
birth
it is
not the elder but the younger that

fulfilled.
And the prophecy has been be summed up in the words

I loved,
6.
Subsequent history
(i.
may
of Malachi
2,
3) 'Jacob have
and Esau have
hated/
The Apostle, after conciliating his readers by a short preface, passes to the discussion of his theme. He has never definitely stated it, but it can be inferred from what he has said. The connexion in thought implied by the word 8 is rather that of passing to a new stage in the argument, than of sharply defined opposition to what has preceded. Yet there is some contrast he sighs over the fall, yet that fall is not so absolute as to imply a break in God's purpose.
now
:
24

:
[IX. 6,
'
7.
the case ou X otoi> 8e on mine for my fellow countrymen
This grief of not as though.' not to be understood as meanThe phrase is unique: it must clearly not be ing/ Lipsius. for the interpreted as if it were ov X ol6v re, it is not possible that in this case is re is very rarely omitted, and the construction
is
is
' ' :
what always with the infinitive, nor does St. Paul want to state happened. not has what but happened, have should impossible it is
The common ellipse ov X on phrase may be supposed to

(Win. lxiv.
ZK-niirTWKev
effect.
i.
: '
affords the best analogy, and the represent ov toiovtov 8<f eVrt olov on.
place,' i.e. perished
6;
KT.p.
from
17
746.)
its
fallen
and become of no
;
James 1. II. Ayatni ovbeirore eWm- (AV) Cor. xiii. 8 of 'the 6 Xoyos tou 0eou: 'the Word of God,' in the sense or a dethreat or a promise whether a God,' of purpose declared consistency. cree looked at from the point of view of the Divine occurs This is the only place in the N. T. where the phrase Cor. ii. 17; this sense; elsewhere it is used by St. Paul (2
So
1
in
iv. 2
xx. 4
to
Tim. ii. 9 Tit. ii. 5), in Heb. xiii. 7, in Apoc. i. 9 vi. 9 and especially by St. Luke in the Acts (twelve times) to mean 'the Gospel' as preached once (in Mark vii. 13), it seems
;
phrase the O. T. Scriptures ; here it represents the O. T. tov Kvpiov) ov 6 Xoyos row Kvpiov : cf. Is. XXxi. 2 km 6 \6yos avrov (i. e.
mean
fir)
ddeTT]6fj.
ot
H 'lapaVjX
is
the offspring of Israel according to the flesh, the
i/tol 'lo-patjX
of ver. 27.
which
Israel in the spiritual sense (cf. ver. 4 on lapa^Xirai G, Vulg., being a gloss to bring read here also by e<ov of Gal. vi. 16, intended for rod 'icrpa^X the out the meaning), But St. Paul does not mean the reception of the Divine promise. Christian Church) here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i. e. the made to Israel promises the that state to but Israel, fleshly from the were shut out micrht be fulfilled even if some of his descendants descendants from them. What he states is that not all the physical promises implied Divine the of inheritors necessarily are of Jacob This statement, which is the ground in the sacred name Israel. has contests the idea that God's word has failed, he
oStoi 'laparjX.
DEF
on which he
now
7.
to prove.
ou&' on.
The grammatical connexion

is
the preceding
nexion is that of from Abraham, could give scriptural proof, in the case of descent and thus of what he had asserted in the case of descent from Jacob, inheritance of the proestablish his fundamental principle that mises is not the necessary result of Israelitish descent. e The word wppa is used in this verse, first ot <nre' P |xa Aj3pa(ip.. to the promise. natural seed or descent, then of seed according
of this passage with that of an additional argument; the logical conSt. Paul a proof of the statement just made.
IX.
7.]
241
and both are
Xpio-rov, apa tov
Both senses occur together in Gen. xxi. 12, 13; found elsewhere in the N. T., Gal. iii. 29 ft 8c vpds
'hfipaap cnxeppa
e'crre
:
Rom.
xi. I
e'-yco
K cnrepfiaTOS 'Aftpadp.
The
The nominative to the whole sentence is ndvres ol eg 'lo-par)\. descendants of Israel have not all of them the legal rights of inheritance from Abraham because they are his offspring by natural descent/ d\X\ Instead of the sentence being continued in the same form as it began in the first clause, a quotation is introduced which completes it in sense but not in grammar: cf. Gal. iii. 11, 12; 1 Cor.
xv. 27.
iv 'lo-a&K ic\T]0^<TTai o-oi aircpfxa:
'in (i.e. through) Isaac will

v uvtco
rt<r0ij
those
plies
who
that
are
to
be your true descendants and representatives

i.
be reckoned.'
eV (as in Col.
16
ra irdvTa) im-
Isaac is the starting-point, place of origin of the descendants, and therefore the agent through whom the descent 1 Cor. vi. 2. takes place ; so Matt. ix. 34 tv -nS Spxovri tS>v 8aip,ovlov aneppa (cf. Gen. xii. 7 tg> anepnart o~ov 8o>o-a> ttjv yijv Gen. XV. 5 ovtoos earai to aneppa aov) is used collectively to express the whole number
:
'.
of descendants, not merely the single son Isaac. The passage means that the sons of Israel did not inherit the promise made to Abraham because they were his offspring there were some who were his offspring who had not inherited them ; but they did so because they were descendants of that one among his sons through whom it had been specially said that his true descendants should be counted. of Gen. xxi. 12, which The quotation is taken from the It also correctly reproduces both the lanit reproduces exactly. guage and meaning of the original Hebrew. The same passage
LXX
is
quoted in Heb. xi. 18. The opinion expressed in

the current opinion
to
that their
by an indissoluble bond.
section.
icX.Y]0ii<xTai
:
of course exactly opposite descent bound Israel to God See the discussion at the end of this
this verse is
(nreppa'
'
; '
'reckoned,' 'considered,' 'counted as the true not as in ver. 11, and as it is sometimes taken here,
called,'
summoned
'
(see below).
are derived from two main significations, name,' hence 'to name.' It may mean (1) to 'call aloud' Heb. iii. 13, to 'summon,' to 'summon to a banquet' (in these senses also in the LXX), so 1 Cor. x. 27 Matt. xxii. 3; from these is derived the technical sense of 'calling to the kingdom.' This exact usage is hardly found in the LXX, but Is. xlii.6 (70; Kvpios 6 eos (Kaktad <T( kv Sinaioovvrj) , Is. li. 2 (on els rjv ml titdkeoa. avrov, In Kal evkoyrjcra avrbv teal r/yamjaa avrbv teal (irKrjOvpa avrov) approach it.
The
uses of the
word
icakia)
(1) to 'call,'
'summon,'
(2) to
'summon by
this sense
it is
the
word hardly occurring
confined to the epistles of St. Paul with Hebrews and St. Peter, at all in St. John and not in this sense elsewhere
242
[IX.
7-9
riva
The full construction is KaXeiv (although KXrjros is so used Matt. xxii. 14). e'is ti, I Thess. ii. 12 tov kclXovvtos vu.as (Is ttjv eavrov fiaaiXeiav tcai kclXwv of God (so $oav but the word was early used absolutely, and so Rom. iv. 17 viii. 30 ix. 11, 24). The technical use of the term comes out most strongly in 1 Cor. vii and in the derived words (see on kXtjtos Rom. i. i, 7'. (2) In the second group of meanings the ordinary construction is with a double accusative, Acts xiv. 12 iitd\6vv re tov Bapvafiav Aia (so Rom. ix. 25, and constantly in LXX), or with ovoân, kirl t> ovofxari as Luke i. 59, 61, although the Hebraism waAeVoucn to ovofia clvtov But to 'call by name' ha3 associations 'EfifxavovfjX (Matt. i. 23) occurs. derived on the one side from the idea of calling over, reckoning, accounting hence such phrases as Rom. ix. 7 (from Gen. xxi. 12 LXX\ and on the other from the idea of affection suggested by the idea of calling by name, so Hos. ii. i[i. 10]).. These derivative uses of the word Rom.ix. 26 (from occur independently both in Greek, where KUXrjfxai may be used to mean little more than to be,' and in Hebrew. The two main meanings can always be distinguished, but probably in the use of the word each has influenced the other when God is said to be ' He that calls us the primary idea is clearly that of invitation, but the secondary idea of 'calling by name,' i.e. of expressing affection, gives a warmer colouring to the idea suggested.
:
;
LXX
'
8. tout
cony.
From
:
this instance
we may deduce a
general
principle.
Fri. quos corporis vis genuerit. all those ties which have been the privilege and characteristic of the chosen race. t& tIkvo. ttjs e-irayYcXias: liberi quos Deipromissum procreavit. Fri. Cf. Gal. iv. 23 dXX 6 pev < ttjs iraibi<TKr]s Kara adpKa yfyeuvrjTai, 6 8e eVc
t&
tIkvo. tt)s crapKos

:
liberi
reKva tou Oeou
bound
to
God by
ttjs
eXevdepas 6V eTrayyeXias
ecrfxeu.
28
fjfJLfls
SV, ddeXcpoi,
Kara
'io-aa/c
7rayyeXias
TKva
All these
expressions (reKva tov Qeov, rlxva
ttjs
irrayyeXlas) are
used elsewhere of Christians, but that is not their meaning in this St. Paul is concerned in this place to prove not that passage. any besides those of Jewish descent might inherit the promises, but merely that not all of Jewish descent necessarily and for that very Physical conreason must enjoy all the privileges of that descent. nexion with the Jewish stock was not in itself a ground for inheritThat was the privilege of those intended when ing the promise. the promise was first spoken, and who might be considered to be born This principle is capable of a far more universal of the promise. application, an application which is made in the Epistle to the Galatians (iii. 29; iv. 28, &c), but is not made here. 9. iirayyekias must be the predicate of the sentence thrown forward in order to give emphasis and to show where the point This word is one of promise,' i. e. if of the argument lies. you refer to the passage of Scripture you will see that Isaac was his birth therefore the child of promise, and not born Kara o-dpica depends upon the promise which was in fact the efficient cause of And hence is deduced it, and not the promise upon his birth. a general law a mere connexion with the Jewish race Kara o-dpKa
'
IX. 9-11.]

it
343
did not
St.
does not necessarily imply a share in the faayytkta, for according to the original conditions.
k<xt& Toy Kaipok toutoi> eXeuao/xai, ical e<rrai tt
Idppa
fjgu)
ulos.
Paul
combines Gen.
Kaipov tovtov
els
xviii. copas,
10
(LXX)
hram<rrpe<f>ta
T)
npds ae Kara t6v

I
ds
Kai egei viov "Zappa

els
yvvtj
aov
and
rfj
tov Kaipov tovtov dvaaTpeyj/aj irpos ae
&pas, Ka\ carat
4 (LXX) Zappa vlos.
The Greek
St.
text is a somewhat free translation of the Hebrew, but Paul's deductions from the passage are quite in harmony with
its
both
to
words and
its spirit.
shown clearly by the passage in Genesis 'at this time in the following year,' i.e. when a year is accomplished ; but the words have little significance for St. Paul
kcitA roy Kaipov toutov is
mean
they are merely a reminiscence of the passage he is quoting, and in the shortened form in which he gives them, the meaning, without reference to the original passage, is hardly clear.
8f: see on v. 3, introducing an additional or even 10. ou stronger proof or example. 'You may find some flaw in the previous argument; after all Ishmael was not a fully legitimate
pW
child like Isaac, and it was for this reason (you may say) that the sons of Ishmael were not received within the covenant ; the instance that I am now going to quote has no defect of this sort, and it will prove the principle that has been laid down still more
clearly/
dXXd k<h 'PepeKKa, k.t.X. the sentence beginning with these words never finished grammatically ; it is interrupted by the parenthesis in ver. 1 1 ptjttco yap yewrjdevTiov koXovutos, and then continued
:
is
with the construction changed cf. v. 1 2, 1 8 ; 1 Tim. i. 3. e ei/6s are added to emphasize the exactly similar birth of the two sons. The mother's name proves that they have one mother, these words show that the father too was the same. There are
;
none of the defective conditions which might be found in the case of Isaac and Ishmael. Cf. Chrys. ad loc. (Bom. in Rom. xvi. p. 610)
rj
yap Pe&KKa
Iaaa.K
Kai povr\ to> 'laaaK yeyoue yvvr], Kai bio reKovaa rraldas, ex
tov
ereKev dp<f)OTpovs'
dW'
ovtcs, Trjs avTtjs p.r)Tpos, Tas avras
opcos 01 Te^^fVrfy tov avTov narpos Xvaaures d>8lvas Ka\ SfMondTpioL ovres Kai
}
opoprjrpioi, Kai 7rpos tovtois Ka\ 8i8vpoi, ov t<ov avToov aTTT]\avaav,

' koittjj/ exouo-a having conceived ' ; cf. Fri. ad loc. ' tou iraTpos Tjp.wi' the ancestor of the Jewish race.' St. Paul is here identifying himself with the Jews, his kinsmen according to
: :
'
the
flesh.'
The passage
has no reference to the composition of the
Roman community.
11. u-rjirw ydp, k.t.X. In this verse a new thought is introduced, connected with but not absolutely necessary for the subject under discussion. The argument would be quite complete without it. St. Paul has only to prove that to be of Jewish descent did not in itself imply a right to inherit the promise. That Esau was re-
244
jected
[IX.
11.
and Jacob chosen is quite sufficient to establish this. But Apostle's the instance suggests another point which was in the mind, and the change in construction shows that a new difficulty, or rather another side of the question the relation of these events has come forward. It is because he desires to the Divine purpose The to bring in this point that he breaks off the previous sentence. yap then, as so often, refers to something latent in the Apostle's
mind, which leads him to introduce his new point, and is explained and this incident shows also the by the sentence tm . it**n was absolute freedom of the Divine election and purpose, for it before the children were born that the choice was made and de'
clared.'
although they were not yet born nor had done fJLTjSe jjiTJiTw The subjective negative shows that the anything good or evil.' not merely as an historical fact but as introduced is time of note one of the conditions which must be presumed in estimating the
.
'
Apostle
Xva
.
The story is so well known that the significance of the event. facts which is able to put first without explanation the
show the point
. .
as he conceives
it.
underlying principle of the expressed as if it were its logical purpose for St. Paul represents the events as taking place in the way they did in order to illustrate the perfect freedom of the Divine purpose. t) KaT ckXoyV Trp60e<ns tou 0eou: 'the Divine purpose which These words are the has worked on the principle of selection.' the problem before of solution the suggest and ix-xi chaps, key to occurring although 7r 66ecTL S is a technical Pauline term St. Paul. P viii. 28 not frequently in the three later groups of Epistles: Rom.
p4rg.
What
is
really the
action
is
ix.
II
QiKyparos avrov 7rp66nv roO ra naura wtpyovvros Kara rf)U pov\r)v tov aluvcov r\v hrwjtrev iv tg> X. 'I. t< Kvpia> r]fia>v iii. 1 1 Kara npodeaiv to>v KXqtrei ayla, ov Kara ra 2 Tim. i. 9 tov <rcoaaVTos J?/xas kcu K<i\eo-avros is^ found %pya rjnw, d\\a kt IdLau TrpocWiv *l x&puH the verb also avrov, tju irpoonce in the same sense, Eph. i. 9 Kara i> tvMa* to Aristotle onwards irpSdecns had been used
:
Eph.
i.
IO, II
avra, ev
a>
kcu eKkrjpaOrjpev, irpoopivOivTes wto.
&io
of God for express purpose ; with St. Paul it is the Divine purpose determined in ages' the of 'purpose the mankind,' of the salvation The idea is world. the Divine mind before the creation of the (Luke vn. 30; apparently expressed elsewhere in the N. T. by fr>v\n Paul (Eph. 1. Acts ii. 23; iv. 28; xx. 27) which occurs once in St. irpoBfo-is in this sense word the of instance previous 11) but no the Apostle seems to be quoted. The conception is worked out by previous writer, and with greater force and originality than by any the longer hence he needs a new word to express it. See further History, 342. "\ri exof p. Philosophy note on St. Paul's itself a new essentially O. T. idea (see below) but was
<
iv
ah.
From
presses an
;'
IX.
11, 12.]
245
word, the only instances quoted in Jewish literature earlier than this Epistle being from the Psalms of Solomon, which often show It means (1) an approach to Christian theological language. Ps. Sol. xviii. 6 KaOaplcrai 6 Qebs the process of choice,' election.'
' '
*l(rpar)\ els fjpepap e'Xeoti
ev evXoyla, els fjpepuv eKXoyrjs
ev avdei
Xpiarov
7; Jos. B.J. II. viii. 14; Acts ix. 15; Rom. xi. 5, 28 In this sense it may be used of man's 2 Pet. i. 10. 1 Thess. i. 4 election of his own lot (as in Josephus and perhaps in Ps. Sol. ix. 7), but in the N. T. it is always used of God's election. (2) As abstract for concrete it means cxXon-cu, those who are chosen,
avrov;
ix.
;
Rom.
xi. 7.
(3) In
tion, Is. xxxvii. 24,
ployed to represent the subjunctive shows jicVt] the opposite to eWeVrcDKei/ (ver. 6) that the principles which acted then are still in force. These words qualify the ouk e epYwy dXV 4k tou kciXouVtos. whole sentence and are added to make more clear the absolute character of God's free choice. We must notice (1) that St. Paul never here says anything about the principle on which the call is made ; all he says is that it is not We have no right either with Chrysostom the result of epya.
:
:
Is. xxii. 7 Symmachus and Theodomeans 'the choicest,' being apparently emthe Hebrew idiom.
Aquila
it
(Jva (pavy
(p-qtri
tov Qeov
fj
e<Xoyr}
rj
Kara
irpi'iQecriv
Kai irpoyi'WCTiJ' yevop.evry\
or to deduce from the passage an argument against Divine foreknowledge. The words And are simply directed against the assumption of human merit. (2) nothing is said in this passage about anything except election The gloss of Calvin dum alios ad or calling to the kingdom. salutem praedestinat, alios ad aeternam damnationem is nowhere implied in the text. So Gore (Studia Biblica, iii. p. 44) 'The absolute election of has the " loving " of Jacob and the " hating " of Esau, Jacob, reference simply to the election of one to higher privileges as head It has nothing to do with their of the chosen race, than the other.
to read into the passage foreknowledge
'
'
eternal salvation.
Esau
is
In the original to which simply a synonym for Edom.'
St.
Paul
is
referring,
<j>av\ov is the reading of the RV. and modern editors with NAB, a few L etc. and F minuscules, and Orig. nanov which occurs in TR. with Fathers after Chrysostom was early substituted for the less usual word. similar change has been made in 2 Cor. v. 10. For the iTp60o-is roii Qeov of the RV. the TR. reads rod &eov itpoBeais with the support of only a few minuscules.
D GK
12. 6
elatu, Kai
jxiui> k.t.X.
The
kol
quotation
Kvpios
is
made
Avo
LXX of Gen.
p. 163).
XXV. 23
T?)ff
elite
avrfj
accurately from the eQvr] ev rfj yaarpi aov

/ecu
bvo Xaol e<
Koikias arov biaaTakrjaovTai'
Xa6s Xaov vnepef-ei,
Kai 6 fieifav 8ov\eva-ei
ra iXdaaovi (cf. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, God's election or rejection of the founder of the race is
246

by which He
[IX. 12, 13.

In
part of the process
elects or rejects the race.
been made independently of merits either of work or of ancestry. Both were of exactly the same descent, and the choice was made before either was born. tw i\a<T<xovi 6 \Lel(av the elder,' the younger/ This use of the words seems to be a Hebraism see Gen. x. 2 1 kcu t<3
either case the choice has
. . . :
'
'
2fjfM ty(vff$t}
dd(\(f)cp 'ldifced
t?i
tov
fjL(i(uvos
lb.
Xxix.
6 ovofia r
[Xfiovi
But the dictionaries quote in support of the use SkittIm 6 fieyas Pol. XVIII. xviii. 9. The instances quoted of yuKpos (Mk. xv. 40; Mt. xviii. 6, 10, 14, &c.)
Aeta,
rat
ovofxa
vewrepq 'Pa^X.
are
all
equally capable of being explained of stature.

y\ydirr)(ra,
13. roy 'laKw|3
to^ 8e 'HcraG
ejucnrjo-a.
St.
Paul con-
cludes his argument by a second quotation taken freely from the of Mai. i. 2, 3 ovk dfte\(pbs rjp 'HaaO tov 'la/cco/3 ; Xeyei Kvpios' fcai
LXX
r)ydirr)(ra
top
is
IaKa>/3,
tov 8e 'HtraO
cp.iarjo'a.
What (1) The

'
the exact object with which these words are introduced? greater number of commentators (so Fri. Weiss Lipsius),
consider that they simply give the explanation of God's conduct. God chose the younger brother and rejected the elder not from any merit on the part of the one or the other, but simply because He loved the one and hated the other.' The aorists then refer to the time before the birth of the two sons ; there is no reference to
the peoples descended from either of them, and St. Paul is represented as vindicating the independence of the Divine choice in relation to the two sons of Isaac.
(2) This explanation has the merit of simplicity, but it is probably too simple, (i) In the first place, it is quite clear that St. Paul throughout has in his mind in each case the descendants as well as the ancestors, the people who are chosen and rejected as
whom the choice is made (cf. ver. 7). necessary for his argument. He has to justify God's dealing, not with individuals, but with the great mass of Jews who have been rejected, (ii) Again, if we turn to the original contexts of the two quotations in vv. 12, 13 there can be no doubt that in both cases there is reference not merely to the children but to their descendants. Gen. xxv. 23 Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated even from thy bowels;' Mai. i. 3 'But Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith,' &c. There is nothing in St. Paul's method of quotation which could prevent him from using the words in a sense somewhat different from the original ; but when the original passage in both cases is really more in accordance with his method and argument, it is more reasonable to believe that he is not narrowing the sense, (iii) As will become more apparent later, St. Paul's argument is to show that throughout God's action there is running a 'purpose
well as the fathers through
this is
In fact
'
IX.
13.]
247
according to election.' He does not therefore wish to say that it is merely God's love or hate that has guided Him. Hence it is better to refer the words, either directly or indirectly, to the choice of the nation as well as the choice of the founder (so Go. Gif. Liddon). But a further question still remains as to the use of the aorist. We may with most commentators still refer it to the original time when the choice was made: when the founders of the nations were in the womb, God chose one nation and rejected another because of his love and hatred. But it is really better to take the whole passage as corroborating the previous verse by an appeal to history. God said the elder shall serve the younger, and, as the Prophet has shown, the whole of subsequent history has been an illustration of this. Jacob God has selected for His love ; Esau He has hated He has given his mountains for a desolation and his heritage to the jackals.'
' :
ejuLio-Tjo-a. There is no need to soften these words some have attempted, translating loved more and loved less.' They simply express what had been as a matter of fact and was always looked upon by the Jews as God's attitude towards the two nations. So Tha?ichuma, p. 32. 2 (quoted by Wetstein, ii. 438) Tu invenies omnes iransgressiones, quas odit Deus S. B. fuisse in Esavo.
TjydiTTjCTa
as
'
'
'
How very telling would be the reference to Esau and Edom an acquaintance with J ewish contemporary literature will show. Although in Deut. xxiii. 7 it was said Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother/ later events had obliterated this feeling of kinship or perhaps rather the feeling of relationship had exasperated the bitterness which the hostility of the two nations had aroused. At any rate the history is one of continuous hatred on both sides. So in Ps. cxxxvii. 7 and in the Greek Esdras the burning of the temple is ascribed to the Edomites (see also Obadiah and Jer. xlix. 7-22). Two extracts from Apocryphal works will exhibit this hatred most clearly. In Enoch lxxxix. 11-12 (p. 233, ed. Charles) the patriarchal history is symbolized by different animals But that white bull (Abraham) which was born amongst them begat a wild ass (Ishmael) and a white bull with it (Isaac), and the wild ass multiplied. But that bull which was born from him begat a black wild boar (Esau) and a white sheep ( Jacob) and that wild boar begat many boars, but that sheep begat twelve sheep.' Here Esau is represented by the most detested of animals, the pig. So in Jubilees xxxvii. 22 sq. (trans. Charles) the following speech is characteristically put into the mouth of Esau And thou too (Jacob) dost hate me and my children for ever, and there is no observing the tie of brotherhood with thee. Hear these words which I declare unto thee if the boar can change its skin and make its bristles as soft as wool or if it can cause horns to sprout forth on its head like the horns of a stag or of a sheep, then I will observe the tie of brotherhood with thee, for since the twin male offspring were separated from their mother, thou hast not shown thyself a brother to me. And if the wolves make peace with the lambs so as not to devour or rob them, and if their hearts turn towards them to do good, then there will be peace in my heart towards thee. And if the lion becomes the friend of the ox, and if he is bound under one yoke with him and ploughs with him and makes peace with him, then I will make peace with thee. And when the raven becomes white as the raza (a large white bird), then I know that
'
; :
'
'
248
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[IX. 6-13.
Thou shalt be rooted out and I shall love thee and make peace with thee. (See also thy son shall be rooted out and there shall be no peace for thee.' Times, vol. i. pp. 67, 68, Testament Hausrath, New ; Jos. Bell. Jud. IV. iv. I, 2 Eng. Trans.)
The Divine
Election.
St. Paul has set himself to prove that there promise made to Abraham, by which God had Israel (Gore, Studia Biblica, iii. 40), and bound those who were Abraham's descendants to inherit
'
'
was nothing in the pledged Himself to Himself to allow all

these promises.
He
was recognized by the Jews themselves, actual descendants from Abraham had been exHence he deduces the general principle, There was from cluded.
proves
this
by showing
that in
two
cases, as
'
the
first
an element of inscrutable selectiveness in God's dealings
within the race of Abraham promise is for those whom privilege of natural descent.
that this choice is further in the following verses.
The inheritance of the (Gore, id.). chooses, and is not a necessary The second point which he raises, independent of human merit, he works out
'
God
On the main argument it is sufficient at present to notice that it was primarily an argumentum ad hominem and as such was absoThe lutely conclusive against those to whom it was addressed. Jews prided themselves on being a chosen race they prided themselves especially on having been chosen while the Ishmaelites and St. Paul the Edomites (whom they hated) had been rejected. analyzes the principle on which the one race was chosen and the other rejected, and shows that the very same principles would God might perfectly justify God's action in further dealing with it. choose some of them and reject others, just as he had originally chosen them and not the other descendants of Abraham. That this idea of the Divine Election was one of the most fundamental in the O. T. needs no illustration. We find it in the Pentateuch, as Deut. vii. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord, thy God: the Lord, thy God, hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself above all peoples that are on the face For the Lord hath in the Psalms, as Ps. cxxxv. 4 of the earth chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure': in But thou Israel, my servant, Jacob the Prophets, as Is. xli. 8, 9
;
'
:
'
'
'
have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend ; thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth and called thee from the corners thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant, And this idea of I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.' Israel being the elect people of God is one of those which were seized and grasped most tenaciously by contemporary Jewish But between the conception as held by St. Paul's conthought.
whom
IX. 6-13.]
349
temporaries and the O. T. there were striking differences. In the O. T. it is always looked upon as an act of condescension and love of God for Israel, it is for this reason that He redeemed them from bondage, and purified them from sin (Deut. vii. 8; x. 15; Is. xliv. 21, 22); although the Covenant is specified it is one which involves obligations on Israel (Deut. vii. 9, &c.) and the thought again and again recurs that Israel has thus been chosen not merely for their own sake but as an instrument in the hand of God, and not merely to exhibit the Divine power, but also for the benefit of other nations (Gen. xii. 3 ; Is. lxvi. 18, &c). But among the Rabbis the idea of Election has lost all its higher side. It is looked on as a covenant by which God is bound and over which He seems to have no control.
:
and God are bound in an indissoluble marriage (Shemoth rabba 1. 51) the holiness of Israel can never be done away with, even although Israel sin, it still remains Israel {Sanhedrin 55) the worst Israelite is not profane like the heathen {Bammidbar rabbaif): no Israelite can go into Gehenna {Pesikta 38 a) all Israelites have their portion in the world to come {Sanhedrin 1), and much more to the same effect. (See Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 51, &c, to whom
Israel
: :
:
most of the above references.) was shared by St. Paul's contemporaries. ' The planting of them is rooted for ever they shall not be plucked out all the days of the heaven for the portion of the Lord and the
are due
And
this belief
inheritance of God is Israel ' {Ps. Sol. xiv. 3) ; Blessed art thou of the Lord, Israel, for evermore' {ib. viii. 41) ; Thou didst choose the seed of Abraham before all the nations, and didst set thy name
'
'
wilt abide among us for ever' {ib. ix. always to enjoy the Divine mercy, sinners, be destroyed before the face of the Lord (ib. xii. 7, 8). So again in 4 Ezra, they have been selected while Esau has been rejected (iii. 16). And this has not been done as part of any larger Divine purpose ; Israel is the end of the Divine action for Israel the world was created (vi. 55) ; it does not in any way exist for the benefit of other nations, who are of no account they are as spittle, as the dropping from a vessel (vi. 55, 56). More instances might be quoted {Jubilees xix. 16; xxii. 9; Apoc. Baruch xlviii. 20, 23 lxxvii. 3), but the above are enough to illustrate the position St. Paul is combating. The Jew believed that his race was joined to God by a covenant which nothing could dissolve, and that he and his people alone were the centre of all God's action in the creation and government of the world. This idea St. Paul combats. But it is important to notice how the whole of the O. T. conception is retained by him, but broadened and illuminated. Educated as a Pharisee, he had held the doctrine of election with the utmost tenacity. He had believed that his own nation had been chosen from among all the
before us,
Lord
and thou
is
While Israel 17, 18). i.e. Gentiles, are to
250
kingdoms of the

earth.
Lias
[IX. 14-29.
He still holds the doctrine, but the given a meaning to what had been a narrow privilege, and might seem an arbitrary choice. His view is now widened. The world, not Israel, is the final end of God's This is the key to the explanation of the great difficulty action. Already in the words that he has used the rejection of Israel. above rj <ar iKhoyr)v irpudeais he has shown the principle which he
Christian revelation
is
working
out.
The mystery which had been hidden from
the
There foundation of the world has been revealed (Rom. xvi. 26). is still a Divine Xoy^, but it is now realized that this is the result of a 7rp6de<ris, a universal Divine purpose which had worked through the ages on the principle of election, which was now beginning to be revealed and understood, and which St. Paul will explain and vindicate in the chapters that follow (cf. Eph. i. 4, 11 ; iii. 11). We shall follow St. Paul in his argument as he gradually works Meanwhile it is convenient to remember the exact point he it out. He has shown that God has not been untrue to any has reached. promise in making a selection from among the Israel of his own day He is only acting on the principle He followed in selecting
;
By the the Israelites and rejecting the Edomites and Ishmaelites. introduction of the phrase t] kot eicXoyrjv npoBeais St. Paul has also suggested the lines on which his argument will proceed.
THE REJECTION OP ISRAEL WOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE DIVINE JUSTICE.

IX. 14-29. But secondly
it
may
be urged:
'
Surely then
God
is
unjust!
No, if you turn

right
to
to the
Scriptures you will
see that
will (as
He has the He did on
confer
to
His favours on whom He
Moses) or
withhold them (as
He
did
from Pharaoh)
If
it is
(vv. 14-T8).
me if I like Pharaoh His will? I reply, It is your part not to cavil but to submit. The creature may not complain against the Creator, any more than the vessel against the potter (vv. 19-21). Still less when God's purpose has been so beneficent, and that to a body so mixed as this Christian Church of ours, chosen not only from the Jews but as indeed was foretold also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24)
further urged,
offer,
Why
blame
reject
Gods
and
thus fulfil
',
(vv. 25-29).
1 :
IX. 14-20.]
14

is
35
raised.
'
But there
a second objection which

true that
may be
If
what you say
is
God
rejects
one and accepts another
human merit, is not His What answer shall we make to this ? Surely there is no injustice with God. Heaven forbid that I should say so. I am only laying down clearly the absolute character 16 of the Divine sovereignty. The Scripture has shown us clearly
conduct arbitrary and unjust?'
the principles of Divine action in two typical
that of
apart from either privilege of birth or
and opposed incidents:
Moses
exhibiting the Divine grace, that of Pharaoh ex-
hibiting the Divine severity.
Take
the case of Moses.
When
he
demanded a
'
sign of the Divine favour, the
17-19) Thou hast found grace in my name ... I will make all my goodness pass
gracious to
Lord said (Ex. xxxiii. sight, and I know thee by

before thee
will
;
I will
be
whom
will
be gracious, and
16
show mercy on
that grace
whom
to
I will
show mercy.'
is
it
These words imply
comes
man
not because he
determined to attain
it,
not because he
exerts himself for
as an athlete in the races, but because he has

sight,
found favour in God's

17
and God shows mercy towards him
they prove in fact the perfect spontaneousness of God's action.
So
in the case of Pharaoh.
The
Scripture (in Ex.
ix.
16)
tells
us
that at the time of the plagues of
Egypt
these words were ad-
dressed to him
I
'
I have given thee thy position
and
place, that
may show
forth in thee
all
my
18
power, and that
my name
might be
declared in
the earth.'
Those very
Scriptures then to which
you Jews so often and so confidently appeal, show the absolute Both the bestowal of mercy or favour and the hardening of the human heart depend alike upon
character of God's dealings with men.
the Divine
19
will.
But
this
leads
to a third
objection.
if
If
man's destiny be
is
simply the result of God's purpose,

a state which
will is
his
hardness of heart
find fault
?
God Himself
causes,
why does God

is
His
being accomplished.
is
There
no
resistance being offered.
Obedience or disobedience
-
equally the result of His purpose.
volved in your position as man.

that
Such questions should never be asked. A man's

whatever
Consider what
relation to
is is
in-
God
such
or reply.
relation
God does the man has no right to complain or object The Scriptures have again and again represented the of God to man under the image of a potter and the
252
vessels that he

makes.
2l
[IX. 20-29.
use the words of
:
'
Can you
conceive
its
(to
the prophet Isaiah) the vessel saying to
maker
of
it
Why
did you
make me
thus?'
The
potter has complete control over the
lump
an
of clay with which he works, he can
make
one vessel
for
honourable purpose, another for a dishonourable purpose. This God has exactly expresses the relation of man to his Maker.
made man, made him from

before
the dust of the earth.
absolute control over His creature as the potter has.
Him
has any
right,
or can complain of
He has as No man He is injustice.

;
22 even This is God's sovereignty But what had been arbitrary we could not complain. becomes of your talk of injustice when you consider how He has Although a righteous God would desire to exhibit the acted? Divine power and wrath in a world of sin ; even though He were dealing with those who were fit objects of His wrath and had
absolutely in God's hands.

if
He
become
fitted for
destruction
23
yet
He
bore with them,
full
of long-
suffering for them,
and with the purpose of showing
all
the wealth
of His glory on those

as
who
all
are vessels deserving His mercy,
whom
that
we have
24
already
shown
He
has
prepared, even
it
from the
beginning,
a mercy
the greater
when
is
remembered
we whom He has
called for these privileges are
chosen not only
from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles, Gentiles who were bound to Him by no covenant. Surely then there has been no
injustice but only
25
mercy.
finally that
And remember
is just
this
Divine plan of which you
complain
what the prophets
foretold.
They prophesied
ii.
the
calling of the Gentiles.
Hosea
(i.
io,
and
23) described
how
it
those
who were
not within the covenant should be brought into

the beloved of the Lord,'
this
and
1
called
by the very name of the Jews under the old Covenant,

' '
the people of God,'

26
the sons of the
wherever throughout the whole world they had been placed in the contemptuous position of being, as he 27 Equally do we find the rejection of expressed it, no people/ Isaiah (x. 22) stated, foretold. all but a remnant of it Israel Israel be as the sand children of the of number the Even though
living God.'
And
'
'
of the seashore, yet
it
is
only a remnant that shall be saved,
28
for
a sharp and decisive sentence will the Lord execute

29
upon
the earth.'
And
similarly in
an
earlier chapter
(i.
9)
he had foretold the com-
IX.
14, 15.]
153
remnant
plete destruction of Israel with the exception of a small

'
Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had
left
us a seed,
like
we should have
been as Sodom, and we should have been
unto Gomorrah.'
purpose of refutation a possible objection. He has just shown that God chooses men independently of their works according to His own free determination, and the deduction is implied that He is free to choose or reject members of the chosen race. The objection which may be raised is, if what you say is true, God is unjust/ and the argument would probably be continued, we know God is not unjust, therefore the principles laid down are not true.' In answer, St. Paul shows that they cannot be unjust or inconsistent with God's action, for they are exactly those which God has declared to be His in those very Scriptures on which the Jews with whom St. Paul is arguing would especially rely. 14. t ouv epoujxey; see on iii. 5, a very similar passage: 8e
St.
14-29.
Paul
now
states
for the
'
'
rj
ddiKia
rjpcov
Qtov
8iKaiocrvi>T]u
;
.
avvia-Trjat,
ri
tpovfuv
prj
',
adiicos
Qeos
6 (Tncpepoiv ttjp opyrjv
fifj
yevoiro.
The
expression
is
always
refuted.
to
introduce an objection which
stated
is used as only to be
pi
implying that a negative answer

o~ti
may be
expected, as in
the instance just quoted. irapd tw ecu. Cf. ii. II ow yap
TrpoormiTokrityia rrapa tg> 0<o
Eph.
{AT)
vi.
Prov.
Cf.
viii.
30, of
Wisdom
dwelling with
God,
rjprjv
nap' avrco appoôvara.
expression is generally used as here an objection which he has stated for the purpose of refutation and which is blasphemous in itself or one that his opponent would think to be such.' 15-19. According to Origen, followed by many Fathers and some few modern commentators, the section vv. 15-19 contains not St. Paul's own words, but a continuation of the objection put into the mouth of his opponent, finally to be refuted by the indignant disclaimer of ver. 20. Such a construction which was adopted in the interest of free-will is quite contrary to the structure of the sentence and of the argument. In every case in which pi) yepoiro occurs it is followed by an answer to the objection direct or indirect. Moreover if this had been the construction the interrogative sentence would not have been introduced by the particle pf) expecting a negative answer, but would have been in a form which would suggest an affirmative reply. 15. tw y<*P Mwot] \4yei. The yap explains and justifies the strong denial contained in ptj yevoiro. Too much stress must not be laid on the emphasis given to the name by its position ; yet it is obvious that the instance chosen adds considerably to the strength
yeVoiTo.
iii.
4.
The
to express St. Paul's horror at
'
254
[IX. 15, 16.
Moses, if any one, might be considered to have of the argument. deserved God's mercy, and the name of Moses would be that most Xey without a nominative for respected by St. Paul's opponents. ee<W Xeyet is a common idiom in quotations (cf. Rom. xv. io; Gal. iii. 16; Eph. iv. 8; v. 14).
eXerjo-w ov b\v eXew, k.t.X I will have mercy on whomsoever have mercy.' The emphasis is on the bv av, and the words are quoted to mean that as it is God who has made the offer of salvation to men, it is for Him to choose who are to be the recipients of
:
His grace, and not for from the LXX of Ex.
man
to dictate to
Him.
The
quotation
is
accurately reproduced. It is a fairly accurate translation of the original, there being only The Hebrew is I am gracious to a slight change in the tenses.
xxxiii.
is
'
19 which
whom
be gracious to whomsoever I am gracious.' But St. Paul uses the words with a somewhat different emphasis. Moses had said, Show me, I pray thee, thy glory.' And He said, I will make all my goodness pass before and thee, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy
I will
be gracious,' the
LXX
'
I will
'
'
on
whom
will
show mercy.'
is
;
The
point of the words in the
original context
rather the certainty of the Divine grace for those
whom God
is
.
has selected
. .
the point which St. Paul wishes to prove
and freedom of the Divine choice. eXerjaw oiKTipiq<ra>. The difference between these words seems to be something the same as that between \vttt) and obvvrj in ver. 2. The first meaning 'compassion,' the second 'distress' or 'pain,' such as expresses itself in outward manifestation. (Cf. Godet, ad loc.) 16. apa o&V introduces as an inference from the special instance given the general principle of God's method of action. Cf. ver. 8 tovt otii>, ver. 1 1 tva, where the logical method in each case is the same although the form of expression is different. too OeXovTos, k.t.X. God's mercy is in the power not of human
the independence
'
desire or
tives are
verse.
ovo~lav
Divine compassion itself.' The genidependent on the idea of mercy deduced from the previous With 8e\ovros may be compared Jo. i. 12, 13 Z&okcv avrols
TtKva Qeov yeuecrdai
. .
.
human effort, but of the
ot
ovk e aindrcov, ov8e en foXrjpaTos
The metaphor of tou Tpe'xorros is a favourite one with St. Paul (1 Cor. ix. Phil. ii. 16; Gal. ii. 2 ; v. 7). 24, 26 In vv. 7-13 St. Paul might seem to be dealing with families or groups of people ; here however he is distinctly dealing with individuals and lays down the principle that God's grace does not necessarily depend upon anything but God's will. Not that I have not reasons to do it, but that I need not, in distributing of mercies which have no foundation in the merits of men, render
aapKos, ovde ck OeXrjftaTos dvdpos, aXX' in Qeov eyeuvrjdrjcrav.
; '
IX.
16, 17.]

will,
255
I
any other reason or motive but mine own what I will with mine own/ Hammond.
whereby
may do
Introd.
curiously in the orthography of t\(t<o, lAcacy. In ver. 16 support t\edw (4aDj/tos), B 3 &c. lAeecu (lAcovrros) ; in ver. 18 the position is reversed, kktaoj (lAca) having only F G in its favour; in Jude 22 kXeaw (!Acot) is supported by N B alone. See WH.
NABDEFG
ii.
The MSS. vary
App.
p. 166.
rj
17. Xeyei
yap
YP<*<M
'and as an additional proof showing
that the principle just enunciated (in ver. 16) is true not merely in an instance of God's mercy, but also of His severity, take the
language which the Scripture tells us was addressed to Pharaoh.' On the form of quotation cf. Gal. iii. 8, 22 there was probably no reason for the change of expression from ver. 15; both were wellknown forms used in quoting the O. T. and both could be used
;
indifferently.
t<5 <t>apaw. The selection of Moses suggested as a natural contrast that of his antagonist Pharaoh. In God's dealings with these two individuals, St. Paul finds examples of His dealings with the two main classes of mankind. eis auT6 touto, k.t.X. taken with considerable variations, which in
:
cases seem to approach the Hebrew, from the of Ex. ix. 1 6 (see below). The quotation is taken from the words which Moses was directed to address to Pharaoh after the sixth plague, that of
some
LXX
For now I had put forth my hand and smitten thee and thy people with pestilence, and thou hadst been cut off from the earth ; but in very deed for this cause have I made thee to stand, for to show thee my power, and that my name may be declared
boils.
'
throughout all the earth/ The words in the original mean that has prevented Pharaoh from being slain by the boils in order that He might more completely exhibit His power ; St. Paul by slightly changing the language generalizes the statement and applies the words to the whole appearance of Pharaoh in the field of history. Just as the career of Moses exhibits the Divine mercy, so the career of Pharaoh exhibits the Divine severity, and in both cases the absolute sovereignty of God is vindicated. i&\y*ipa: 'I have raised thee up, placed thee in the field of history/ There are two main interpretations of this word possible. (1) It has been taken to mean, I have raised thee up from sickness,' so Gif. and others, ' I have preserved thee and not taken thy life as I might have done/ This is in all probability the meaning of the original Hebrew, 'I made thee to stand,' and' certainly that of the LXX, which paraphrases the words diei-i/p^. It is supported also by a reading in the Hexapla duT^prjad at, by the Targum of Onkelos Sustinui te ut ostenderem tibi, and the Arabic
God
'
Te reservavi ut ostenderem tibi. Although t&ytlptiv does not seem to occur in this sense, it is used 1 Cor. vi. 14 of resurrection from
1$6
flX. 17.
the dead, and the simple verb iyeipew in James v. 15 means 'raising from sickness.' The words may possibly therefore have this sense, but the passage as quoted by St. Paul could not be so interpreted. Setting aside the fact that he probably altered the reading of the purposely, as the words occur here without any allusion to the previous sickness, the passage would be meaningless unless reference were made to the original, and would not justify the deduction drawn from it bv 8e diXei oTcArjpwei.
LXX
correct interpretation (so Calv. Beng. Beyschlag Go. is therefore one which makes St. Paul generalize the idea of the previous passage, and this is in accord(2)
The
Mey. Weiss. Lips. Gore)
ance with ihe almost technical meaning of the verb efcytifxi* in the It is used of God calling up the actors on the stage of history. So of the Chaldaeans Hab. i. 6 SidYt l8ov eya ifrytipu tovs Xakdmovs of a shepherd for the people Zech. xi. 6 8i6n Idov iya> fgeyelpai iroipeva iw\ rrjv yrjv of a great nation and kings Jer. xxvii. 41 Idov Xaos epxcTai dno /3oppa, ko\ e8vos peya Kcii (BacriXels 7roXXoi (i-eycpOwovrai an eaxdrov rrjs yijs. This interpretation seems to be supported by the Samaritan Version, subsistere te feci, and cer-
LXX.
by the Syriac, ob id te constitui ut ostenderem and it exjust the idea which the context demands, that God had declared that Pharaoh's position was owing to His sovereign will and pleasure in order to carry out His Divine purpose and plan. The interpretation which makes egeyelpeiv mean call into being,' create,' has no support in the usage of the word, although not inconsistent with the context ; and to rouse to anger (Aug. de W. Fri. &c.) would require some object such as 8vp6v, as in 2 Mace. xiii. 4.
tainly
;
presses
'
'
'
The readings of the Latin Versions are as follows Quia in hoc ipsum excitavi te, d e f, Vulg. ; quia ad hoc ipstim te suscitavi, Ori_f.-lat quia inhoc ipsum excitavi te suscitavi te, g; quia in hoc ipswn te servavi, Ambrstr., who adds alii codices sic habent, ad hoc te suscitavi. Sive servavi sive suscitavi unus est sensus. The reading of the is /cal eveictv tovtov SieTTjprjOrjs iva ev8eia)fAai ev aol 7-7)1/ laxvv pov, ical oiras Siayyehfj to ovopa pov kv ndar) rfj 777. St. Paul's variations are interesting. els avrb tovto is certainly a and better more emphatic representation (1) of the Hebrew than the somewhat weak tovtov tvtittv. The expression is characteristically Pauline (Rom. xiii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 5; Eph. vi. 18, 22; Col. iv. 8). the grammar of the Hebrew, (2) itfyupa at represents better than the ' I made thee to stand,' but not the sense. The variants of the Hexapla (8iTT)pr)ffa) and other versions suggest that a more literal translation was in existence, but the word was very probably St. Paul's own choice, selected to bring out more emphatically the meaning of the passage as he understood it. St. Paul here follows the incorrect translation of (3) kpStiôjpai kv aoi. the LXX. The Hebrew gives as the purpose of God's action that Pharaoh may know God's power, and as a further consequence that God's name may be known in the world. The assimilates the first clause to the second and gives it a similar meaning.
:
LXX
LXX
LXX
IX.
17, 18.]
(4) onus

.
257
Here St. Paul obliterates the distinction which the LXX (following the Hebrew) had made of iva oircos. But this alteration was only a natural result of the change in the LXX itself, by which the two clauses had become coordinate in thought. The reading of St. Paul appears (5) For Uvaniv the LXX reads laxw.
.
.
ottos.
as a variant in the Hexapla.
18. apa o&V. Just as ver. 16 sums up the argument of the first part of this paragraph, so this verse sums up the argument as it has been amplified and expounded by the additional example. <ric\Y]puVei hardens ; the word is suggested by the narrative of Exodus from which the former quotation is taken (Ex. iv. 21 ; vii. 3; ix. 12; x. 20, 27; xi. 10; xiv. 4, 8, 17) and it must be translated in accordance with the O. T. usage, without any attempt at softening or evading its natural meaning.
' :
'
The Divine Sovereignty in
the
Old Testament.
second objection is answered and a second step in the argument laid down. God is not unjust if He select one man or one nation for a high purpose and another for a low purpose, one man for His mercy and another for His anger. As is shown by the Scriptures, He has absolute freedom in the exercise of His Divine sovereignty. St. Paul is arguing against a definite opponent, a typical Jew, and he argues from premises the validity of which that Jew must admit, namely, the conception of God contained in the O. T. There this is clearly laid down the absolute sovereignty of God, that is to say, His power and His right to dispose the course of human actions as He will. He might select Israel for a high office, and Edom for a degraded part: He might select Moses as an example of His mercy, Pharaoh as an example of His anger. If this be granted He may (on grounds which the Jew must admit), if He will, select some Jews and some Gentiles for the high purpose of being members of His Messianic kingdom, while He rejects to an inferior part the mass of the chosen people. This is St. Paul's argument. Hence there is no necessity for softening (as some have attempted to do) the apparently harsh expression of ver. 18, 'whom He will He hardeneth.' St. Paul says no more than he had said in i. 20-28, where he described the final wickedness of the world as in a sense the result of the Divine action. In both passages he is isolating one side of the Divine action and in making theological deductions from his language these passages must be balanced by others which imply the Divine love and human freedom. It will be necessary to do this at the close of the discussion. At present we must be content with
St.
Paul's conclusion, that
God
as sovereign has the absolute right

lives as
and power of disDOsing of men's
He
will.
2,58
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[IX. 18, 19.
We must not soften the passage. On the other hand, we must not read into it more than it contains as, for example, Calvin does. He imports various extraneous ideas, that St. Paul speaks of election to salvation and of reprobation to death, that men were created that they might perish, that God's action not only Hoc efiim vult efficere apud nos, ut might be but was arbitrary in ea quae apparet inter electos et reprobos diversitate, mens nostra contenta sit quod ita visum fuerit Deo, alios illuminare in salutem, Corruit ergo frivolum illud effugium quod alios in mortem excaecare de praescientia Scholaslici habent. Neque enim praevideri ruinam impiorum a Domino Paulus iradit, sed eius consilio et voluntate ordinari, quemadmodum et Solomo docet, non modo praecognitum fuisse impiorum interitum, sed impios ipsos fuisse destinato creatos ut perirent. The Apostle says nothing about eternal life or death. He says nothing about the principles upon which God does act; he never says that His action is arbitrary (he will prove eventually that it is not so), but only that if it be no Jew who accepts the Scripture He never says or implies that God has any right to complaim. What he does has created man for the purpose of his damnation. say is that in His government of the world God reserves to Himself perfect freedom of dealing with man on His own conditions and not on man's. So Gore, op. cit. p. 40, sums up the argument God always revealed Himself as retaining His liberty of choice, as refusing to tie Himself, as selecting the historic examples of His hardening judgement and His compassionate good will, so as to baffle all attempts on our part to create His vocations by our own efforts, or anticipate the persons whom He will use for His purposes of mercy or of judgement.'
: :
.
.
'
pvvei
Hardly are the last words bu 8e de\ei (tkXt)p.01 ovv. out of St. Paul's mouth than he imagines his opponent in controversy catching at an objection, and he at once takes it up and forestalls him. By substituting this phrase for the more usual ri o$v epovfiev, St. Paul seems to identify himself less with his
19. cpcis
opponent's objection.
TR.
ti
P, Orig. 1/3 Jo.-Damasc. ovv poi of the is the reading of N C supported &c, Vulg. Boh., Orig. 2/3 and Orig.-lat. Chrys. Thdrt. It is the substitution of the more usual order.
fioi
ovv
is
byDEFGKL
:
AB
it is God who hardens does he first produce a position of disobedience to His will, and then blame me for falling into it ? The en implies that a changed condition has been produced which makes the continuation of the previous results sur-
In
jjijx<f>T<u
'
why
considering that
me
does
He
still
find
fault?'
Why
prising.
So Rom.
els
ttjv
iii.
ei
8e
17
dXrjdeia tov
ri
Qeov
Iv t<5
epa
y\revo-pari
;
cnepicro-evaev
86av
civtov,
177
en
Kayoa cos
ttcos
apaprooXos npivopcu
J
Rom.
vi.
2 otrives aneOdvopev
apapria,
en
(rjaropev ev avrfj
IX. 19-21.]
ri

read by
059
in
ix(n<pirai is
TR. and RV. with
Boh., and
many
Fathers.
B D E F G,
XAKLP&c, Vulg. Syrr.
Orig.-lat. Hieron. insert ovv after ft.
PouXrjfmTi, which occurs in only two other passages in the N. T. (Acts xxvii. 43 ; 1 Pet. iv. 3) seems to be substituted for the ordinary word OiXrjpa as implying more definitely the deliberate purpose of God. dÔeoTTjice. Perfect with present sense ; cf. Rom. xiii. 2 wore 6 dvTiracrcrofjLfvos tj; ctjovcriq tt) tov Qeov Siarayfj dvdecrTrjKev, Winer,
xl.
4,
p.
'
342, E. T.
resist,'
is
but
what
man
no
resistance being
The meaning is not: 'who is able to who is resisting God's will ? There offered by the man who disobeys he is only
is
there
'
God has willed that he should do. 20. & avQpw-ne. The form in which St. Paul answers this question is rhetorical, but it is incorrect to say that he refuses to argue. The answer he gives, while administering a severe rebuke to his opponent, contains also a logical refutation. He reminds him that the real relation of every man to God (hence 2> dvOpoanf) is that of created to Creator, and hence not only has he no right to complain, but also God has the Creator's right to do what He will with those whom He has Himself moulded and fashioned. nay rather,' a strong correction. The word seems |iei/oGi>Y to belong almost exclusively to N. T. Greek, and would be impossible
doing what
: '
at the
Phil.
Sj
iii.
beginning of a sentence in classical Greek. 8; but probably not Luke xi. 28.
Cf.
Rom.
x.
18;
(but B om. ye as in Phil. iii. 8), nevovvye is read by fifvovvye is omitted by D F G, defg Vulg., 1/4 Jo.-Damasc. and later MSS., Orig.-lat., and inserted before 2> avOpeonc by ND C ri g- 3/4 Chrys. Theod.-mops Thdrt. &c. The same MSS. (F G df g) and Orig.-lat. omit the word again in x. 18, and in Phil. iii. 8 and other authorities read nkv ovv alone The expression was omitted as unusual by many copyists, and when restored in the margin crept into a different position in the verse.
avdpcoire
NAB
Orig.
KLP
BDEFGKL
(xt) cpet to irXaafjia, k.t.X. The conception of the absolute power of the Creator over His creatures as represented by the power of the potter over his clay was a well-known O. T. idea which St. Paul shared with his opponent and to which therefore he could appeal with confidence. Both the idea and the language are borrowed from Is. xlv. 8-IO e-yo> dpi Kvpios 6 KTiaas ae' iroiov fteXrtov prj eptl 6 itt)\6s tg> Kepapet Ti KOT((TK(vao-a <os irr)\bv Kepaptcos dnoKpidqaeTai to Tr\a<rp.a notels, on ovk ipyaiji ovde tx eis X 'P as irpbs rbv n\ao-avTa uvto' and Is. xxix. 16 oi>x is o 7^7X6$ tov Kepapfj epel to 7r\ao~pa ra irXdaavTi airb Ov av pe fj.ea>s \oyio-Or)o-fcrl)
. .
.
>
'
f7rXa(ras
Is. lxiv.
rj
to noirjpa to>
irovrjo-avri
Ov
crvveTcos
pe
('nolrjcras
Cf. also
8; Jer. xviii. 6 ; Eccles. xxxvi. [xxxiii.] 13. if you do not accept this you will be 21 ? r\ ouk 2x t Hwvlav compelled to confess that the potter has not complete control over an absurd idea.' The unusual position of tov irqXov, which his clay
: '
26o

eovo~lav, is
[IX. 21, 22.
should of course be taken with

relations of
intended to emphasize
true
the contrast between Kepapevs and
nrjXos,
as suggesting the
man and God.

: '
lump of clay.' Cf. Rom. xi. 16 ; i Cor. v. 6, 7 ; exact point to which this metaphor is to be pressed may be doubtful, and it must always be balanced by language used elsewhere in St. Paul's Epistles ; but it is impossible to argue that the potter is represented not there is no idea of creation implied merely as adapting for this or that purpose a vessel already made,
<j>upajjiaTos
v. 9.
the
Gal.
The
but as making out of a mass of shapeless material one to which he gives a character and form adapted for different uses, some honourable, some dishonourable. below) cf. Wisd. xv. 7 (see o pkv els TifATji' <7K6uos, k.t.X. 2 Tim. ii. 20 ev fxeyaXrj de oIkio. ovk eon fiovov a<evr) xP va <* Kai
: :
dpyvpd, dX\a
ml v\iva kcu oarpaKiva, Ka\ a fxev els Ttpfjv, a 8e els aripiav. But there the side of human responsibility is emphasized, eav ovv ns
eKKadaprj eavrbv
dnb Tovrav, carat
ctkcvos els
is
Tip,t]V,
k.t.X.
any injustice if hardened Pharaoh's heart and then condemned him, The answer if Israel is rejected and then blamed for being rejected ? is twofold. In vv. 19-21 God's conduct is shown to be right under In vv. 22 sq. it is explained or perhaps rather all circumstances. In vv. 19-21 hinted that He has a beneficent purpose in view. St. Paul shows that for God to be unjust is impossible. As He has made man, man is absolutely in His power. Just as we do not consider the potter blameable if he makes a vessel for a dishonourable purpose, so we must not consider God unjust if He chooses to make a man like Pharaoh for a dishonourable part in history. Postqua?n demonstratum es.t, Deum ita egisse, demonstratum etiam est omnibus, qui Mosi credunt, eum convenienter suae iustitiae egisse. Wetstein. As in iii. 5 St. Paul brings the argument back to the absolute fact of God's justice, so here he ends with the absolute fact of God's power and right. God had not (as the Apostle will show) acted arbitrarily, but if He had done so what was man that he should complain ? but if God, &c, what will you say 22. el 8e 6eW 6 cos, k.t.X. There is no apothen ? like our English idiom What and if.'
point of the argument
first
The
clear.
Is there
God
has
'
'
dosis to the sentence, but the construction, although grammatically cf. Jo. vi. 61, 62 tovto ifias incomplete, is by no means unusual
:
(TKav8(iXlei
r\v
'
eav ovv decopr/Te rbv vlbv tov dvOpanrov
dvafialvovra
onov
to irporepov',
Acts
xxiii.
touto)' el
rjyyiaeV)
8e irvevp,a e\a\r)orev
180)1/ rr]v
9 olbev kokov evpiaKopev ev ru dvopatna) ahrm j) ayyeXos Luke xix. 4 1, 42 Ka\ cos
',
irokiv etkavcrev
tuvttj
koa ai) ra
npos
elprjvrjv.
eV airy \eycov on El eyvas ev ttj rjp.epa There is no difficulty (as Oltramare
seems
to think) in the
structions,
All other conlength of the sentence. such as an attempt to find an apodosis in ml ha
IX. 22.]
yvaplo-y,

oiis
261
ovv
e'povp.ev }
in
Ka\
tmktatv, or even in ver. 31

:
are
needlessly harsh
ovv cf. Jo. vi. 62 ; Acts xxiii. 9), not introducing a strong opposition to the previous sentence, implies a change of thought. Enough has been said to preserve the independence of the Divine will, and St. Paul suggests another aspect of the question, which will be expounded more fully later; one not in any way opposed to the freedom of the Divine action, but showing as a matter of fact how this freedom has been exhibited. But if God, notwithstanding His Divine
The
8e
and unreal. (which differs from
although
'
His actual dealings with mankind shown such unexpected mercy, what becomes of your complaints of injustice?' 8e'W. There has been much discussion as to whether this should be translated 'because God wishes,' or 'although God
sovereignty, has in
In the former case (so de W. and most commentawords mean, 'God because He wishes to show the terrible character of His wrath restrains His hands, until, as in the case of Pharaoh, He exhibits His power by a terrible overthrow. He hardened Pharaoh's heart in order that the judgement might be more terrible.' (2) In the latter case (Mey.-W. Go. Lips. Gif.), God, although His righteous anger might naturally lead to His making His power known, has through His kindness delayed and borne with those who had become objects that deserved His wrath.' That this is correct is shown by the words ev iroMjj aKpop 6vfita, which are quite inconsistent with the former interpretation, and by the similar passage Rom. ii. 4, where it is distinctly stated to xpW'ov tov eeov els fieravuidv o-e ayti. Even if St. Paul occasionally contradicts himself, that is no reason for making him do so unnecessarily. As Liddon says the three points added in this sentence, the natural wrath of God against sin and the violation of His law, the fact that the objects of His compassion were oKevrj opyijs, and that they were fitted for destruction, all intensify the
wishes.'
(1)
tors)
the
'
difficulty of the
Divine restraint.
ivhe.LaaQai rr)v opyrjk k<xi yiwpurai to Sum-rdy auTou are reminiscences of the language used in the case of Pharaoh, iv8el&p<u ev ao\ rfjv 8vvap.lv pov.
' o-kut) dp TJs vessels which deserve God's anger Y ' the previous^ verse is continued. The translation
:
;
'
the image of
destined for
God's anger would require o-nevr) els 6pyi]v and the change of construction from the previous verse must be intentional.
'
:
Ka-njpTio-fxeVa eis
aTrwXeiai'
'
prepared for destruction.'

'
The
construction is purposely different from that of the corresponding words a irpor]Tolp.ao-(v. St. Paul does not say whom God pre-
pared for destruction' (Mey.), although in a sense at any rate he could have done so (ver. 18 and i. 24, &c), for that would conflict with the argument of the sentence; nor does he say that they
26a
had
[IX. 22, 23
fitted themselves for destruction (Chrys. Theoph. Oecum. Gioiius Beng.), although, as the argument in chap, x shows, he could have done so, for this would have been to impair the conception of God's freedom of action which at present he wishes to
emphasize but he says just what is necessary for his immediate they were fitted for eternal destruction (anaiKua opp. to purpose aa>Tr)pia). That is the point to which he wishes to attract our
attention.
These words further develop and explain 23. ica! Iva yviapior\. God's action so as to silence any objection. St. Paul states that
has not only shown great long-suffering in bearing with those but has done so in order to be able to show mercy to those whom He has called the Kai therefore couples Iva St. Paul is no longer yimpiajl in thought with iv iroWfj paKpodvpiq. (see ver. 24) confining himself to the special case of Pharaoh, although he still remembers it, as his language shows, but he is considering the whole of God's dealings with the unbelieving Jews, and is laying down the principles which will afterwards be worked that the Jews had deserved God's wrath, but that He out in full had borne with them with great long-suffering both for their own sakes and for the ultimate good of His Church. In these verses, as in the expression f] mr eVcXoyqi/ irpoBeais, St. Paul is in fact hinting at the course of the future argument, and in that connexion they
God
fitted for destruction,
must be understood.
On the exact construction of these words there has been great variety of opinion, and it may be convenient to mention some divergent views. on the authority of B, several minuscules, Vulg. Boh. Sah., Orig.-lat. (1) 3/3 omit Kai. This makes the construction simpler, but probably for that very reviser or person quoting would naturally omit reason should be rejected. Kai : it is difficult to understand why it should be inserted moreover on such a point as this the authority of versions is slighter, since to omit a pleonastic Kai would come within the ordinary latitude of interpretation necessary for their There is some resemblance to xvi. 27. In both cases we find the purpose. same MS. supporting a reading which we should like to accept, but which has much the appearance of being an obvious correction. (2) Calv. Grot,
WH.
de
But Alf. and others make Kai couple GtXojv and Xva yvwpiar). obliges us to take OeKoiv . kvodao9ai as expressing the purpose of the sentence which is both impossible Greek and gives a meaning inconsistent with paKpodvpiq. (3) Fri. Beyschlag and others couple Iva yvwpioy and ds a-nwXtiav ; but this is to read an idea of purpose into KaTrjpTKxpiva which it does not here possess. (4) To make Kai iva give the apodosis of the sentence cl Si freyxw (Ols. Ewald, &c), or to (supposing a second a create a second sentence repeating el, Kai d ellipse), or to find a verb hidden in tKakcatv, supposing that St. Paul meant changed the construction and put . tKakeotv but to write Kai d iva yvaipiari the verb into a relative sentence (Go. Oltramare) ; all these are quite im-
W.
this
"it
possible
and quite unnecessary constructions.

:
TOV TtXouTOy, K.T.X.

avTov.
cf. U.
Eph.
iii.
l6 Kara to nXovros
rrjs Sogrjs
IX. 23-25.]
a
is

:
263
these words
irpoTjToi>a(7K eis %6av

viii.
the best
commentary on
Rom.
28-30.
We may note the very striking use made of this metaphor of the potter's wheel and the cup by Browning, Rabbi ben Ezra, xxvi-xxxii We may especially illustrate the words & TrporjToi/xaafu ds 5oav. But I need now as then, Thee, God, who mouldest men;
So take and use thy work Amend what flaws may lurk, what warpings past the aim My times be in Thy hand
!
! !
What
strain o' the stuff,
Perfect the cup as planned Let age approve of youth, and death complete the
same
even us whom He has called.' The ovs is attracted into the gender of faZs. The relative clause gives an additional fact in a manner not unusual with St. Paul. Rom. I 6 iv uh tor* icai ifiels 2 Tim. i. 10 (fxoTLo-avros 8e faijv ko.1
:
24. ovs koX indXevev fyas
'
drpffapaiav 81a tov dayyeXiov, (Is o eTedrjp eya> nrjpvg.
The
Calling of the
Gentiles
is
introduced not because
it
was a
difficulty St.
Paul was
discussing, but because, as he shows afterwards, the calling of the Gentiles had come through the rejection of the Jews.
There have been two main lines of interpretation of the above (1) According to the one taken above they modify and soften the apparent harshness of the preceding passage (19-21). That this is the right view is shown by the exegetical considerations given above, and by the drift of the argument which
three verses.
it does in a reference to the elect clearly implies mitigation in the severity of the Divine power as it has been described. (2) The second view would make the words of ver.
culminating as
some
22 continue and emphasize this severity of tone And even if God has borne with the reprobate for a time only in order to exhibit more clearly the terror of His wrath, and in order to reveal His mercy to the elect, even then what right have you man that you are to complain ?' Cf. Calvin Ea si dominus ad aliquod tempus patienter sustinet ad demonstranda suae severitaiis iudicia ad virtutem
: '
.praeterea quo inde notior fiat et clarius elucescat suae in electos misericordiae ampliludo : quid in hac dispensation misericordiae dignum ?
. .
suam illustrandam,
the rejection of the Jews and the by the prophet/ St. Paul now proceeds to give additional force to his argument by a series of quotations from the O. T., which are added as a sort of appendix to the first main section of his argument
'
:
25. ws Koi
and
this point,
is
calling of the Gentiles,
foretold
icaXeo-w
TJYcnrT)neVr)i> quoted
with
some
alterations.
to the ten tribes.
from the LXX of Hosea ii. 23 In the original passage the words refer son and daughter of Hosea are named Lo-
264
ammi,

not a people
(cf.
'
[IX. 25, 26.
the fallen condition of the ten tribes

restoration
and Lo-ruhamah, 'without mercy/ to signify and Hosea prophesies their

;
Paul applies the principle which underlies these words, that God can take into His covenant those who were previously cut off from it, to the calling of the A similar interpretation of the verse was held by the Gentiles.
Hosea
i.
6,
8,
9).
St.
Pesachim viii. f. Dixit R. Eliezer : Non alia de causa in Rabbis. exilium et captivitatem misit Deus S. B. lsraelem inter nationes, nisi utfacerent multos proselytos S. D. Oseae ii. 25 (23) et seram earn mihi in terram. Numquid homo seminal satum nisi ut colligat multos coros tritici ? Wetstein.
reads eXerjoco 7-7)1/ ovk rjXcrjuevrjv, teal kpai t> ov Xaw pov Aaos fiov but for the first clause which agrees with the Hebrew the Vatican St. Paul inverts the order of the substitutes uyanrjooj rrjv ovk ârrrjfjiev^v. to clauses, so that the reference to rbv ov Xaov fxov, which seems particularly KaXeoa which naturallysuit the Gentiles, comes first, and for epai substitutes crept in from the eKaXectv of the previous verse, and changes the construcIn the second clause St. Paul seems tion of the clause to suit the new word. for the latter to have used a text containing the reading of the Vatican MS., can hardly have been altered to harmonize with him. St. Peter makes use of the passage with the reading of the majority of MSS. ol ttotI ov Xaos, vvv 5e
The
LXX
el ov,
Xabs @ov,
ol
ovk
rjXerjixivoi,
vvv 8k IXeqOivTts (1 Pet.
ii.
10).
'
KaXeVw with a double accusative can only mean I will name,' although the word has been suggested by its previous occurrence in another sense. St. Paul adds a passage eicct k.t.X. 26. Kal ecrrcu, iv tu tottw with a similar purport from another part of Hosea (i. 10). The meaning is the same and the application to the present purpose The habit had probably based on exactly the same principles.
. . .
arisen of quoting passages to prove the calling of the Gentiles
and
these
would become commonplaces, which
at
a not
much
later date
might be collected together
in writing, see Hatch, Essays in Biblical The only difference between Greek, p. 103, and cf. Rom. iii. 10. this insertion is that he inserts eW St. Paul's quotation and the seems to emphasize the idea of the place, and it is somewhat difficult (1) In the original the place to understand what place is intended. and if that be St. Paul's meaning referred to is clearly Palestine he must be supposed to refer to the gathering of the nations at
LXX
:
and the foundation of a Messianic kingdom there Paul is often strongly influenced by the language and even the ideas of Jewish eschatology, although in his more spiritual (2) If we neglect passages he seems to be quite freed from it. the meaning of the original, we may interpret el of the whole Wheresoever on earth there may be Gentiles, who have world. had to endure there the reproach of being not God's people, in that place they shall be called God's people, for they will become members of His Church and it will be universal/
Jerusalem
(cf.xi. 26).
St.
IX. 27-29.]
26$
St. Paul has supported one side of his statement 27, 28. from the O. T., namely, that Gentiles should be called ; he now passes on to justify the second, namely, that only a remnant of the Jews should be saved.
iay g 6 dpi0|Ao$ . . . hix ttjs ytjs quoted from the of 22, but considerably shortened. The differs considerably from the Hebrew, which the translators clearly did not understand. But the variations in the form do not affect the meaning in any case. St. Paul reproduces accurately the idea of the original
27.
:
Is. x.
LXX
LXX
The context shows that the words must be translated only a remnant shall be saved/ and that it is the cutting off of Israel by the righteous judgement of God that is foretold. Prof.
passage.
*
1884 translated the Hebrew: 'For though thy people, were as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return a final work and a decisive, overflowing with righteousness For a final work and a decisive doth the Lord, Jehovah Sabaoth,
in
Cheyne
Israel,
:
execute within all the land.' 28. \6yov y&p vuvrek&v k<xi (ruvriy-v^v ttoitjo-ci Kupios em ttjs yrjs ovvrt\S>v, 'accomplishing/ o-vvrtpvav, 'abridging/ Cf. Is. xxviii. 22
otori
avvrtTtXtaptva
Kal
avvTtTprjpeva
irpdypaTa
'
rjnovaa
irapa
Kvpiov
2a/3aa>0,
Troirjati
eVi iraaav rr)v yr)v.
the
and abridging it, that is, Lord do upon the earth/

Three
(1)
critical points are
For a word, accomplishing a sentence conclusive and concise, will
of some interest variations in the MSS. of the Gr. Test. For vrroXtippa (vrroXippa of the older MSS. (NAB, Eus.), later authorities read KaraXtipp.a to agree withthe LXX. In ver. 28 Xoyov yap avvTtXwv ml avvrtpvuv noiTjvei Kvpcos eirl ttjs yijs is the reading of X A B a few minusc, Pesh. Boh. Aeth., Eus. 2/3; Western and Syrian authorities add after awTt^vcvv, tv
The
WH.)
on Xoyov (TvvreTfXTjfxivov to suit the LXX. Alford defends the the plea of homoeoteleuton (ovvTtpvwv and awTern-qpevov), but the insertion of yap after \6yov which is preserved in the TR. (where it is ungrammatical) and does not occur in the text of the LXX, shows that the shortened form was what St. Paul wrote. (2) The variations from the LXX. The reads ko.1 kav yivr,Tai 6 Kabs 'lapar)\ ws r) ap.(xos tt)s OaXaoorjs, to KaraXeipfia avra/v acu6r)afTai.
oimtoovvr,-
TR. on
LXX
\oyov ovvTtXwv
iroirjoti
/rat
avvrkp.vo:v Iv diKaioavvr)
on Xoyov
o-WTtTfirj/xtyov Kvptos
ty t?7 olfcovptvr) bXri. St. Paul substitutes api6pbs tuv vlwv 'laparjX, a reminiscence from Hosea i. 10, the words immediately preceding those quoted by him above. The later part of the quotation he considerably
shortens.
from the Hebrew. These appear to arise For a final work and a decisive, overflowing with righteousness,' they wrote 'a word, accomplishing and abridging it in righteousness,' and for a final work and a decisive/ a word abridged will the Lord do/ &c.
(3)
The
variations of the
LXX
from an inability to
translate.
'
'
'
29. irpoepT]Ky : ' has foretold/ corroboration of the preceding.

i
second passage
is
quoted in
g,
pj Kupios
k.t.X.,
quoted from the
LXX
of
Is.
i.
which
266

'
[IX. 19-29.
Even in the again seems adequately to represent the Hebrew. O. T., that book from which you draw your hopes, it is stated that Israel would be completely annihilated and forgotten but for a small remnant which would preserve their seed and name.'
The Power and Rights of God as Creator.

St.
Paul in
this section
(vv.
19-29) expands and
strengthens
He had proved in vv. 14-18 the absolute the previous argument. character of the Divine sovereignty from the O. T. ; he now proves the same from the fundamental relations of God to man
that implied in that fact which all his antagonists must admit God had created man. This he applies in an image which was common in the O. T. and the Apocryphal writings, that of the God has created man, and, as far as the potter and the clay. question of 'right' and 'justice' goes, man cannot complain of his lot. He would not exist but for the will of God, and whether his lot be honourable or dishonourable, whether he be destined for eternal glory or eternal destruction, he has no ground for speaking of injustice. The application to the case in point is very clear. If the Jews are to be deprived of the Messianic salvation, they have, looking at the question on purely abstract grounds, no right or ground of complaint. Whether or no God be arbitrary in His dealings with them does not matter they must submit, and that without murmuring.
:
This is clearly the argument. We cannot on the one hand minimize the force of the words by limiting them to a purely
out of the material of the as Beyschlag, race which is at His disposal as it continues to come into existence to stamp individuals with this or that historical destinaearthly destination
:
'
human
tion,'
implying that
St.
St.
Paul
is
making no reference
either to the
original creation of
man
or to his
final destination, in
both points
It
is
erroneously.
entirely
Paul's argument cannot be thus limited.
based on the assumption that God has created man, and the use of the words tk dogav, ls dnaXeiav prove conclusively that he is looking as much as he ever does to the final end and
destination of man. To limit them thus entirely deprives the passage of any adequate meaning. But on the other side it is equally necessary to see exactly how much St. Paul does say, and how much he does not. He never says, he carefully avoids saying, that God has created men for reprobation. What his argument would bear is that, supposing we isolate this point, the ' rights ' of man against God or of God against man, then, even if God had created man for reprobation, man could have no grounds for complaint.
IX. 19-29.]
%^
method may be
must in fact remember and it is quite impossible to understand St. Paul if we do not that the three chapters ix-xi form one very closely reasoned whole. Here more than anywhere else in his writings, more clearly even than in i. 16 iii. 26, does St.Paul show signs of a definite method. He raises each point separately, argues it and then sets it aside. He deliberately isolates for a time the aspect under discussion. So Mr. Gore (op. cit. p. 37): 'His
:
We
called abstract or ideal that is to say, he makes abstraction of the particular aspect of a subject with which he is immediately dealing, and apparently indifferent to being misunit in isolation giving, perhaps, another aspect of ; subject in equal abstraction in a different place/ He isolates one side of his argument in one place, one in another,
derstoodtreats
the
same
just for that very reason we must never use isolated texts. must not make deductions from one passage in his writings separated from its contexts and without modifying it by other passages presenting other aspects of the same questions. The doctrinal deductions must be made at the end of chap, xi and not
and
We
of chap. ix. St. Paul is gradually working out a sustained argument. He has laid down the principle that God may choose and reject whom
one purpose or another just arbitrary manner. But it is already pointed out that this is not His method. He has shown long-suffering and forbearance. Some there were whom He had created, that had become fitted for destruction as will be shown eventually, by their own act. These He has borne with both for their own sakes, to give them room for repentance, and because they have been the means of exhibiting His mercy on those whom He has prepared for His glory. The Apostle lays down the lines of the argument he will follow in chap. xi. The section concludes with a number of quotations from the O. T., introduced somewhat irregularly so far as method and arrangement go, to recall the fact that this Divine plan, which we shall find eventually worked out more fully, had been foretold by the O. T. Prophets. (The argument of Rom. ix-xi is put for English readers in the most accessible and clearest form by Mr. Gore in the paper often quoted above in Studio, Biblica, iii. 37, 'The argument of Romans
as
He wills, that He may make men for He wills, and if He will in quite an
ix-xi.')
The Relation of
to
St. Paul's
Argtiment in chap, ix
the
Book of Wisdom.
In a note at the end of the first chapter of the Romans the very marked resemblance that exists between St. Paul's language there and certain
268
[IX. 19-29.
ninth passages in the Book of Wisdom has been pointed out. Again in the treatment chapter the same resemblance meets us, and demands some slight The passages referred to occur mostly in Wisdom xi, xu. in this place. There is first of all similarity of subject. Wisdom x-xix form like Rom. ix-xi a sort of Philosophy of History. The writer devotes himself to (influenced exhibiting Wisdom as a power in the world, and throughout contrasts perhaps by associations connected with the place of his residence Moses makes Paul St. the fortunes of the Israelites and Egyptians, just as
)
and Pharaoh
his
two typical
is
instances.
impossibility of resisting the Divine power is more than once dwelt passages in the on, and in language which has a very close resemblance with
And The
this
resemblance
continued in details.
Romans.
Rom.ix. 19, 20 epehfioiovv, Tien yap povXrjfxari avrov /xr) *p to ris aveioTrj/ce; irXaajxa ra> rrXaaavri, Tt Lie eiroino as ovtus;
Liep-fperat; to>
. . .
Wisd.
xi.
21 nal Kparei Ppaxiovos
Gov ris avriorrja erai;

xii. 12 ris yap epet, Tj! eiroirjoas; fj ris avriGTrjaerat t# P M aT ( aov Tt 's ^ eyKaXeaei aoi Kara eQvSiv ano\<oXotojv, a av eiroir/aas; f) ris (Is Karaaraaiv aoi eXevaerat tudinos icara dbi'
kuv avOpojnojv Both writers again lay great stress on the forbearance of God. Wisd. xii. 10 Kpivwv be Rom. ix. 22, 23 el be deXav
;
Hard,
Ppaxv
bpyty Kal yvcopiaai to bvvarov avrov r\vey>tev

Beds
ev
evbeigaaOat
rf]v
ebibovs roirov Lieravoias.

xii. 20 el yap exOpoys ibwv aov Km b<peiXo iievovs Qavary iierd roaavr-qs eripwpqaas rrpoaoxv^ nalbeqaews, bovs XP" V0VS /cat ronov 01 Ziv dnaX-
iroXXrj
LiaKpodviiia
aKevrj
opyfjs
Karrjpr'iaiieva
els
dnuXeiav,
Knl iva yvcopian rbv trXovrov ttjs Sofas avrov eirl GKevrj eXeovs k.t.X.
Xaywai
rrjs
*a*tos, fxerd iroans dxpi-
/Seias enpivas
rovs vlovs aov
So again we have the image of the potter used by both, although neither
the context nor the purpose
is
quite similar.
Rom.
6
ix.
21 ^ ovk cx 1 eovolav
etc
Wisd.
xv. 7 nai
yap /cepaLievs ananXdooci

Trpos:
Kepa/xebs tov -n-qXov,
tov
Xtjv î}" dXifiwv errifxoxOov
avrov
cpvpdiiaros iroifjoai b Liev els rififiv afcevos, b be els driiiiav;
virrjpeaiav tjliwv enaoToV dXX' ex tov avrov irrjXov dveirXaaaro rd re rwv Kadapwv epywv Sou A a OKevrj, ra re
ris
evavria, iravd' bpioiw tovtojv be erepov eKdarov earlv rj XPl aist KP ir V s &
irrjXovpyos.
particular resemblance of special passages and of the general drift of Epistle the argument combined with similar evidence from other parts of the seems to suggest some definite literary obligation. But here the indebtedBook of The contrast is equally instructive. The writer of the ness ceases. Wisdom uses broad principles without understanding their meaning, is often contradictory, and combines with ideas drawn from his Hellenic culture
The
self
crude and inconsistent views.
The problem
is
the distinction between the
Occasionally we positions of Jews and Gentiles in the Divine economy. strong find wide universalist sentiments, but he always comes back to a ' But Thou hast mercy upon At one time he says (xi. 23-26) nationalism. which nothing abhorrest Thou lovest all the things that are, and all . Lord, Thou Thou sparest all for they are Thine, Thou hast made . Thou gavest them Lover of souls.' But shortly after we read (xii. 10) place for repentance, not being ignorant that their cogitation would never soon find in fact that the philosophy of the Book of be changed.'
: . . . .
:
'
We
Wisdom
is strictly
limited by the nationalist sympathies of the writer.
The
IX. 6-29.]
269
slightly, and with the purpose of teaching the Gentiles for their idolatry deserve extreme damnation.' If St. Paul learnt from the Book of Wisdom some expressions illustrating the Divine power, and a general aspect of the question: he obtained nothing further. His broad views and deep insight are his own. And it is interesting to contrast a Jew who has learnt many maxims which conflict with his nationalism but yet retains all his narrow sympathies, with the Christian Apostle full of broad sympathy and deep insight, who sees in human affairs a purpose of God for the benefit of the whole world being worked out.
have been punished, but only

:
Gentiles are to be punished by God for being enemies of His people and for their idolatry. Any forbearance has been only for a time and that largely for the moral instruction thus indirectly to be given to the Jews. The Jews
them
A
The
History of the Interpretation of

difficulties
Rom.
ix.
6-29.
of the ninth chapter of the Romans are so great that few will ever be satisfied that they have really understood it at any rate an acquaintance with the history of exegesis upon it will make us hesitate to be too dogmatic about our own conclusions A survey of some of the more typical lines of comment (nothing more can be attempted) will be a fitting supplement to the general discussion given above on its meaning. The earliest theologians who attempted to construct a system out of Gnostics. St. Paul's writings were the Gnostics. They found the Epistle to the Romans, or to speak more correctly certain texts and ideas selected from the Epistle (such as Rom. v. 14 and viii. 19; cf. Hip. Ref vii. 25) and generally misinterpreted, very congenial. And, as might naturally be expected, the doctrine of election rigidly interpreted harmonized with their own exclusive religious pretensions, and with the key-word of their system <pv<ris. are not surprised therefore to learn that Rom. ix, especially ver. 14 sq., was one of their strongholds, nor do we require to be told how they interpreted it (see Origen De Princ. III. ii. 8, vol. xxi. p. 267, ed. Lomm. = Phi/oc. xxi. vol. xxv. p. 1 70; Covim. in Rom. Praef. vol. vi. p. 1 ; and Tert. Adv. Marcion. ii. 14). The interest of the Gnostic system of interpretation is that it determined Oiigen. the direction and purpose of Origen, who discusses the passage not only in his Commentary, written after 244 vii. 15-18, vol. vii. pp. 160-180), but also in the third book of the De Principiis, written before 231 {De Prin. III. ii. 7-22, vol. xxi. pp. 265-303 = Philoc. xxi. vol. xxv. pp. 164-190), besides some few other passages. His exegesis is throughout a strenuous defence of freewill. Exegetically the most marked feature is that he puts vv. 14-19 into the mouth of an opponent of St. Paul, an interpretation which influenced subsequent patristic commentators. Throughout he states that God calls men because they are worthy, not that they are worthy because they are called and that they are worthy because they have made themselves so. Cf. ad Rom. vii. 17 (Lomm. vii. 175) Ut enim Jacob esset vas ad honorem sanctificatum, et utile Domino, ad omne opus bonum paratum, anima eius emendaverat semet ipsam et videns Deus puritatem eius, et potestatem habens ex eadem massa facere aliud vas ad honorem, aliud ad contumeliam, Jacob quidem, qui ut diximus emundaverat semet ipsum, fecit vas ad honorem, Esau vero cuius animam non ita puram nec ita simPLICEM vidit, ex eadem massa fecit vas ad contumeliam. To the question that may be asked, how or when did they make themselves such, the answer is, ' In a state of pre-existence.' De Princ. II. ix. 7, Lomm. xxi. 225 igitur sicut de Esau et Jacob diligenlius perscrutatis scripturis invenitur, quia non est iniustitia apud Deum ... si ex praecedentis videlicet vitae meritis digne eum electum esse sentiamus a JJeo, ita ut fratri praeponi menretu*
:
We
370
See also III.
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[IX. 6-29
Influence of Origen
Chrysostorn.
i. 21. Lomm. xxi. 300. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart he explains by the simile of rain. The rain is the same for all, but under its influence well -cultivated fields send forth good crops, ill-cultivated fields thistles, &c. (cf. Heb. vi. 7, 8\ So it is a man's own soul which hardens itself by refusing to yield to the Divine grace. The simile of the potter he 'A soul which has not cleansed explains by comparing 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21. itself nor purged itself of its sins by penitence, becomes thereby a vessel for dishonour.' And God knowing the character of the souls He has to deal as with, although He does not foreknow their future, makes use of them for example Pharaoh to fulfil that part in history which is necessary for His purpose. Origen's interpretation of this passage, with the exception of his doctrine of pre-existence, had a very wide influence both in the East and West. In the West his interpretation is followed in the main by Jerome {Epist. 1 20 ad Hedibiam de quaestionibus 12, cap. 10, Migne xxii. 997), by Pelagius (Migne xxx. 687-6^1), and Sedulius Scotus (Migne ciii. 83-93). In the East, alter its influence had prevailed for a century and a half, it became the starting-point of the Antiochene exegesis. Of this school Diodore is unfortunately represented to us only in isolated fragments Theodore is strongly influenced by Origen; Chrysostom therefore may be taken as its best and most His comment is contained in the XVIth homily distinguished representative. on the Romans, written probably before his departure from Antioch, that is before the year 398. Chrysostom is like Origen a strong defender of Freewill. As might be expected in a member of the Antiochene school, he interprets the passage in accordance with the purpose of St. Paul, i.e. to explain how it was the Jews had been rejected. He refers ver. 9 to those who have become true sons of You see then that it is not the children of the flesh that God by Baptism. are the children of God, but that even in nature itself the generation by means of Baptism from above was sketched out beforehand. And if you On ver. 16 tell me of the womb, I have in return to tell you of the water.' he explains that Jacob was called because he was worthy, and was known to be such by the Divine foreknowledge : j) tear kK\oyfjv irpoQeais rod eov is explained as 77 (K\oyr) 77 Kara irpodeaiv Kal vpoyvwaiv ytvofxevrj. On vv. 14-20 Chrysostom does not follow Origen, nor yet does he interpret the verses as expressing St. Paul's own mind ; but he represents him in answer to the objection that in this case God would be unjust, as putting a number of hard cases and texts which his antagonist cannot answer and thus proving that man has no right to object to God's action, or accuse Him of injustice, since he cannot understand * What the blessed Paul aimed at was to show by all that or follow Him. he said that only God knoweth who are worthy.' Verses 20, 21 are not introduced to take away Freewill, but to show up to what point we ought For if he were here speaking of the will, God would be to obey God. Himself the creator of good or evil, and men would be free from all responsibility in these matters, and St. Paul would be inconsistent with himself. What he does teach is that ' man should not contravene God, but yield to His incomprehensible wisdom.' On vv. 22-24 he says that Pharaoh has been fitted for destruction by his own act ; that God has left undone nothing which should save him, while he himself had left undone nothing which would lead to his own destruction. Yet God had borne with him with ' Whence comes great long-suffering, wishing to lead him to repentance. Of their own it then that some are vessels of wrath, and some of mercy ? free choice. God however being very good shows the same kindness to both.' The commentaries of Chrysostom became supreme in the East, and very largely influenced all later Greek commentators, Theodoret (sec. v), Photius
'
(sec. ix),
(sec. xii),
Oecumenius
&c.
(sec. x),
Theophylact
(sec. xi),
Euthymius Zigabenus
IX. 6-29.]
27]
predecessors.
not be troubled and do not admit of the thought tha the Pr mise haS failed but on the contrary f rks 1S g od and ri ht and rest yourselves 7 in I for us unsearchable g > amotion to His wise and destinations and divisions' conc5P tion of the d " ft and purpose of St. Paul's Cn d redes tination teaching makes a complete i f* ,P meaning grasp of the whole of the Apostle's impossible he C mmen tary eaeT& l 8 q noted under the name of* Ambrosiaster has an Augustine, infl . as containing l y interest probably the earliest correct exposition of vv. 14-10 But it is more convenient to pass at once to St. Augustine. His exposition of this passage was to all appearance quite independent of that of any of his J
:
verses concludes thus
more and more harden themselves in their obstinacy and disobedience.' So aeain V G d P reP ared the one to be vessels of mercy, the 3 others fashioned themselves into vessels of wrath.' And the commentary on these
heart of the disobedient like Pharaoh, but that the disobedient character, under the working of God's mercies, themselves according to their evil character do not soften themselves, but
vv "' 12 explained on the grounds of Forey SO S m knowTJL and Pharaoh's p h TJ destruction ascribed knowledge to his own act. On ver 18 ard neth mi ' be understood to mean that God by His nowt^ff J"a\ j power effected hardening m the
,
{tl G eek commentators ^ preserved in the Russian Church Russian i? f Modern Sclavonic theology presents an interesting subject for study, as it is comment derived airecly from Chrysostom and John of Damascus, and has hardly arTs been illuminated or obscured by the strong, although often one-sided, influd CStern Scolasticism. g tlne In the Commentary of Bishop * on f," p Theol fheophanes* the Romans (he died in 1894) published at Moscow in 1890 we find these characteristics very clearly: Just as in Chrysostom we find the passage interpreted in accordance not with * priori theories as to Grace and Predestination, but with what was clearly St Paul's purpose the problem of the Unbelief of the Jews in the presence of Christianity/
toltSSu*
And
Y ^V
*
Do
St
JB, MltZl 5 rL*?m Sf%. aH hl

'
0ir
'
LvZ^t'l
IT^TA
fV T f*Vl
-
The most complete exposition of the ninth chapter of Romans is found in the treatise Simphcianum, i. qu. 2, written about the year 397, and all the leading points in this exposition are repeated in his last work, the Opus imperfectum contra lulianum, i. 141. The main characteristics of the commentary are that ( 1 ) he ascribes vv. 14-19 to St. Paul himself, and considers tnat they represent his own opinions, thus correcting the false exegesis of Origen and Chrysostom, and (2) that he takes a view of the passage exactly opposite to that of the latter. The purpose of St. Paul is to prove that works do not precede grace but follow it, and that Election is not based on foreknowledge, tor it it were based on foreknowledge then it would imply merit. Simplic. 1. qu. 2, 2 JJt scilicet non se quisque arbitretur ideo percepisse gratiam, quia bene operatus est ; sed bene operari non posse, nisi per fide?n perceperit gratiam 3 Prima est igitur gratia, secunda opera bona. The instance ot Jacob and Esau proves that the gift of the Divine grace is quite gratuitous and independent of human merit that grace in fact precedes faith. 7 Nemo enim credit qui non vocatur . Ergo ante omne meritum est gratia. Even the will to be saved must come from God. Nisi eius vocatione non volumus. And again \o Noluit ergo Esau et non cucurrit : sedet si voluisset et cucurnsset, Dei adiutono pervenisset, qui ei etiam velle et currere vocando praestaret msivocationis contemptu reprobus It is then shown that God fieret. can call whom He will, if He only wills to make His grace congruous. then does He not do so ? The answer lies in the incomprehensibility of the Divine justice. The question whom He will pity and whom He will not
Ad
Ad
Why
* For a translation of portions of this Commentary, we are indebted to the kindness of Mr. W. J. Birkbeck, of Magdalen College, Oxford.
2J2
[IX. 6-29.
can measure. depends upon the hidden justice of God which no human standard in mente sobria pietate atque statnli 16 Sit isitur hoc fixum atque immobile
in
apud Deum : atque ita tenacissimefirmissifide, quod nulla est iniquitas quern vultobdurat, mequecredatur, idipsum quod Deus cuius vult miseretur et
est,
_
hoc
tate
just
occultae atque ab
justice. It is not merit pity those whom He does not, He refuses to call out of and knowledge of God or necessity or fortune, but the depths of the wisdom And so it is tor which distinguishes vessels of wrath from vessels of mercy. the punishment of the the sake of the vessels of mercy that He postpones They are the instruments of the safety of others whom vessels of anger.
;
God is always occultissima et ab humanis sensibus remotissima iudicat. calls out of His mercy cannot be understood. Those whom He calls, He
esse alicuius cuius vult miseretur, et cuius ?ton vult non miseretur, modulo investigabilis aequitatis: and so again, aequi-
humano
God
pities.
interpretation. Enough has been said to show the lines of St. Augustine s his views on Although from time to time there might be controversies about sides ot harder the of Grace, and there might be a tendency to modify some compared with that ot Origen his system, yet his exegesis of this passage, as It influenced first the exegesis or Chrysostom, became supreme in the West. and of Calvin and doctrine of the Schoolmen, and then that of the Reformation and For the middle ages it may be sufficient to take Abelard (1079-1142) Augustine Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274). Both were largely influenced by was onV' indirect, in but whereas in the case of Abelard the influence the Augustinian Aquinas we have the clearest and most perfect example of
...
eX Abelard.
strange division of the Abelard (Migne clxxviii. 911) makes a somewhat end of chap. vm. tie Epistle, attaching the exposition of ix. 1-5 to the a vindication of the begins his fourth book with ix. 6. In vv. 6-13 he sees relation to Jacob. freedom of the Divine will in conferring grace, but only in may remain That the election of Jacob,' he says, < that is the predestination, The choice depends solely on the Divine grace. Verses 14-19 he
unmoved.'
ilia promereatur. He does more animals of their position. There is no injustice with God. Quts enim mankind by the impiety of Judas than by the piety of Peter. for impietate Iudae, cuius jidelium nesciat, quam optime tisus sit summa ilia operatus. est exsecrabili perditione totius humani generis redemptwnem complain, Then he argues at some length the question why man should not glory and somewhat inconsistently if he is not called as others are called to gives grace to all, he finds the solution in perseverance. God calls all, He others are slothful but some have the energy to follow the calling, while ojjerente, alius and negligent. Sic et Deo nobis quotidie regnum coelorum operibus, alius in sua regni ipsius desiderio accensus in bonis perseverat On vv. 22, 23 he says God bore with the wickedness of
;
Paul gives an answer explains as the objection of an opponent, to which St. The answer is a rebuke to the man who would art thou?' ver 20, with these whom He has accuse God of iniquity. God may do what He will voluent creaturam suam created imo multo potius Deo licere quocunque modo tenetur debito, antequam quidtractate atque disponere, qui obnoxius nullo Men have no more right to complain than the
Who
quam
torpescit ignavia.
Pharaoh both
Aquinas.
to give
him an opportunity
to repent, and that
He
might use
his crimes for the common good of mankind. inconsistent character ot In contrast with the somewhat hesitating and and clearest comAbelard's exposition, Aquinas stands out as one of the best modern reader must mentaries written from the Augustinian standpoint. The
which each point learn to accustom himself to the thoroughness with few exponents will discussed, and the minuteness of the sub -divisions, but from discussed, or the he gain so much insight into the philosophical questions logical difficulties the solution of which is attempted.
is
IX. 6-29.]
273
The purpose of the section is, he says, to discuss the origin of Grace, to do which the Apostle makes use of the opportunity afforded by the difficulties implied in the rejection of the Jews. Apostolus supra necessitatem et virtutem gratiae demonslravit hie incipit agere de origine gratiae, utrum ex sola Dei electione detur, aut detur ex meritis praecedentium operum, occasione accepta ex eo, quod Iudaei qui videbantur divinis obsequiis mancipati, exciderant a gratia. In vv. 6-13 the errors of the Jews, of the Manichaeans
:
that human actions were controlled by the stars which appeared time of their birth), of the Pelagians, of Origen (the pre- existence of souls) are condemned, and it is shown that God chose men, not because they were holy, but that they might be holy unum alteri praeeligit, non quia sanctus erat, sed ut sanctus esset. In vv. 14-18 St. Paul shows from Scripture God that there is no injustice either in Predestination or in Reprobation. has predestined the just to life for merits which He has Himself conferred on them, the wicked to destruction for sins which come from themselves. Deus proposuit se puniturum malos propter peccata, quae a se ipsis habent non a Deo. Iustos autem proposuit se praemiaturum propter tnerita quae a se we notice indeed that among ipsis non habent. All lies in the will of God other erroneous opinions one, that of merita consequentia gratiam,the view DUributive justice apparently of Abelard is refuted. There is no injustice. has a place in cases of debt, but not in cases of pity.' If a man relieves one beggar, but not another, he is not unjust he is kind-hearted towards one. Similarly if a man forgives only one of two offenders, he is not unjust he is merciful towards one, just towards the other. In the instance of Pharaoh two readings are discussed, servavi and excitavi. If the first be taken it shows that, as the wicked are worthy of immediate destruction, if they are saved it is owing to the clemency of God if the second, God does not cause wickedness, except by permitting it He allows the wicked by His good judgement to fall into sin on account of the iniquity they have committed. Quod quidem non est intelligendum hoc modo quod Deus in homine causat malitiam. sed est intelligendum permissive, quia scilicet in iusto suo iudicio permittit aliquos ruere in peccatum propter praecedentes Deus malitiam ordinat non causat. In vv. 19-24 he says iniquitates. there are two questions. (1) Why, speaking generally, should He choose some men and not choose others? (2) Why should He choose this or that man and to it there is not someone else? The second of these is treated in vv. 19-21 no answer but the righteous will of God. No man can complain of being unjustly treated, for all are deserving of punishment. The answer to the first In ora"er to exhibit both His justice and His is contained in vv. 22-24. mercy, there must be some towards whom He shows His justice, some towards whom He can show His mercy. The former are those who are naturally God has done nothing but allow them to do fitted for eternal damnation what they wish. Vasa apta in interitum he defines as in se habentia aptitudinem ad aetemam damnationem and adds Hoc autem solus Deus circa eos He has in fact borne with agit, quod eos permittit agere quae concupiscunl.
(who believed
at the
'
for their own sakes, and for the sake of those whom He uses to be exhibit the abundance of His goodness a goodness which could not apparent unless it could be contrasted with the fate of the condemned. Signanter autem dicit [ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae] quia ipsa^ condemnatio et reprobatio malorum quae est secundum Dei iustitiatn, manifesiat liberantur. et commendat sanctorum gloriam qui ab ipsa tali miseria The antithesis which was represented among patristic commentators by by Calvin Reformation the at Augustine and Chrysostom was exaggerated
them both
and Arminius. Each saw only his own side. Calvin followed Augustine, of and exaggerated his harshest teaching Arminius showed a subtle power finding Freewill even in the most unlikely places. of freedom The object of St. Paul, according to Calvin, is to maintain the
:
274
Calvin.
[IX. 6-29
This is absolutely gratuitous on God's part, and quite independent of man. In the salvation of the just there is nothing above God's goodness, in the punishment of the wicked there is nothing above His severity the one He predestinates to salvation, the other to eternal damnation. This determination is quite independent of foreknowledge, for there can be nothing in man's fallen nature which can make God show kindness to him. The predestination of Pharaoh to destruction is dependent on a just but secret counsel of God the word ' to harden must be taken not only permissive, but as signifying the action of the Divine wrath. The ruin of the wicked is described not as foreseen, but as ordained by His will and counsel. It was not merely foreknown, but, as Solomon says, the wicked were created that they might perish. There is no means of telling the principle by which one is taken and another rejected; it lies in the secret counsels of God. None deserve to be accepted. The wrath of God against Pharaoh was postponed that others might be terrified by the horrible judgement, that God's power might be displayed, and His mercy towards the elect made more clear. As God is especially said to prepare the vessels of glory for glory, it follows that the preparation of the vessels of wrath equally comes from Him otherwise the Apostle would have said that they had prepared themselves for destruction. Before they were created their fate was assigned to them. They
:
the Divine election.
'
Arminius.
were created for destruction. Arminius represents absolute antagonism on every point to these views. The purpose of the chapter is, he says, the same as that of the Epistle, looked at from a special point of view. While the aim of the Epistle is to prove Justification by Faith,' in this chapter St. Paul defends his argument ' It against Jews who had urged overthrows the promises of God, therefore it is not true.' By the words addressed to Rebecca He signified that He had from eternity resolved not to admit to His privileges all the children of Abraham, but those only whom He should select in accordance with the plan He had laid down. This plan was to extend His mercy to those who had faith in Him when He called and who believed on Christ, not to those who sought salvation by works. The passage that follows (ver. 14 ff.) shows that God has decided to give His mercy in His own way and on His
'
:
own
after
plan, that
it
is
to give
it
not to him
who
it
runs, to
him
that
that
is
who
strives
by works, but to him who seeks
in the
way
He
has appointed.
He has Himself announced this as His method. Then the image of the potter and the clay is introduced to prove, not the absolute sovereignty of God, but His right to do what He will, that is to name His own conditions. He has created man to become something better than he was made. God has made man a vessel man it is who makes himself a bad vessel. God decrees on certain conditions to make men vessels of glory or vessels of wrath according as they do or do not fulfil these conditions. The condition is Justification by Faith. The systems of Arminius and Calvin were for the most part supreme during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the exegesis of this chapter, although there were from time to time signs of historical methods of interpretation. Hammond for example, the English divine of the seventeenth century, in his paraphrase adopts methods very much beyond those of his time. But gradually at the beginning of the present century the defects or inadequacy of both views became apparent. It was quite clear that as against Arminius Calvin's interpretation of chap, ix was correct, that St. Paul's object in it was not to prove or defend justification by faith, but to discuss the question behind it, why it was that some had obtained justification
this is perfectly just, because
:
And
by faith and others had not. But equally clear was it that Calvin's interpretation, or rather much of what he had read into his interpretation, was inconsistent with chap, x, and the language which St. Paul habitually uses elsewhere. This apparent inconsistency then must be recognized.
How
IX.
30 X. 13.] THE
'
UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL
^75
it be treated ? Various answers have been given. Fritzsche asserts Fritzsche. that St. Paul is carried away by his argument and unconsciously contradicts himself. It is evident that what St. Paul writes is not only inconsistent with itself but absolutely contradictory.' If the Jews, it is asserted in chap, ix,
must
first chosen and then rejected, it was the malignity of God and not their perversity which caused their fall. If God had decreed their fall for a time (chap, xi), they could not be blamed if they had fallen and yet in chap, x they are blnmd. Multis saepe accidit ut amicum fortunae fulmine percussum erecturi studio consolandi argumentis cupide uterentur neque ab omni parte^ firniis et quorum unum cum altero parum consistcret. Et
were
own
melius sibi Paulus

fuisset.
consensisset,
si
Aristotelis
non Gamalielis alumnus

'
Meyer admits the discrepancy but explains it differently. As often as we Meyer, one of the two truths, God is absolutely free and all-sufficient, and moral has freedom and is in virtue of his proper self-determination and responsibility a liberum agens, the author of his salvation or perdition, and
treat only
man
carry it out in a consistent theory and therefore in a one-sided method, we are compelled to speak in such a manner that the other truth appears to be ' annulled.' The Apostle has here wholly taken his position on the absolute standpoint of the theory of our dependence upon God, and that with all the boldness of clear consistency.' 'He allows the claims of both modes of consideration to stand side by side, just as they exist side by side within the limits of human thought.' According to Meyer in fact the two points of view are irreconcileable in thought, and St. Paul recognizing this does not attempt to reconcile them. It would be impossible to enumerate all the different varieties of opinion in the views of modern scholars. One more specimen will be sufficient. The solution offered by Beyschlag. He maintains that all interpretations are Beyschlag wrong which consider that St. Paul is concerned with anything either before or after this life. It is no eternal decree of God, nor is it the future destiny of mankind that he is dealing with. It is merely their position in history and in the world. Why has he chosen one race (the Jews) for one purpose, another race (the Egyptians) for another ? He is dealing with nations not individuals, with temporal not spiritual privileges. The above sketch will present the main lines of interpretation of these verses, and will serve as a supplement to the explanation which has been given above. must express our obligations in compiling it to Weber (Dr. Valentin), Kritische Geschichte der Exegese des 9. Kapitels resp. der Verse 14-23 des Rbmerbriefes, bis auf Chrysostomus und Augustinus einschiesslich, and to Beyschlag (Dr. Willibald), Die paulinische Theodicee, Rbmer IXXI, who have materially lightened the labour incurred.
.
.
We
ISRAEL ITSELF TO BLAME FOR ITS REJECTION".

IX. 30 -X.
is that,
13. The reason that God has rejected Israel though they sought righteousness, they sought it in
faith.
zvay by means of works, not in God's way through Hence when the Messiah came they stumbled as had been foretold (vv. 30-33). They refused to give up their own method, that of Law, although Lazv had come to an end
their
own
in Christ (x. 1-4),
and
this in spite
of the fact that
tlie
old
2J6
system was

difficult if
[IX. 30-X.
3.
not impossible (ver.
5),
while the
new
system was easy and within the reach of all universal in its scope (vv. 11-13).
IX.
fact
is
30
(vv. 6-10),
indeed
What
then
is
the position of the
argument so
far
One
it;
clear.
number of
Gentiles
who
did not profess to be
in
pursuit
of righteousness
have unexpectedly
product of
come upon
is
a righteousness however of which the characteristic
that
it
is
not
earned by their
outside them.
own
81
efforts but is the
faith in
a power
Israel
on
the other hand, the chosen people of

efforts after a rule
God, although making strenuous

religious
life
of moral and
that
would win
succeeded in attaining to
82
them righteousness, have not the accomplishment of such a rule.

for
How
has
way, not in
come about ? Because they sought it in their own God's way. They did not seek it by faith, but their aim
this
it
was
that
to pursue
by a
rigid
performance of works.
33
And
hence
happened
foretold
to
them which
the Prophet Isaiah foretold.
He
spoke
(xxviii. 16)
of a rock which the Lord would lay in Zion
and
'
that if a
man
put his trust
in
it,
he would never
14) he calls
it
have cause to be ashamed.
But elsewhere
consider
(viii.
a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence/ implying that those
who have
way.
not this
is,
faith will
it
a stumbling-block in their
you have always been told, the Messiah. The and the Jews through want of faith have come; has Messiah
This rock
as
regarded as a cause of offence that which

the
is
the corner stone of
whole building.
for a
X. *Let me pause
accusation that
I
I
moment,
brethren.
It
is
a serious
am
it
bringing against
repeat that I do
heart's
from
2
my
good
will for
!
my fellow-countrymen. But no feeling of resentment. How great is How earnest my prayer to God them
!
for their salvation
For indeed as a fellow-countryman, as one

full
who was once

for
as they are, I can testify that they are

is
of zeal
;
God.
That
not the point in which they have

their zeal
spiritual
3
failed
it
is
that they
is
have not guided
by that true knowledge which

insight.
the result of genuine
Righteousness they
to
it.
strove after, but there were

:
two ways of attaining
The one
The other of that they remained ignorant. was God's method was their own method: to this they clung blindly and wilfully.
They
refused to submit to God's plan of salvation.
X. 4-12.]
4
277
enactments.
Their own method was based on a rigid performance of legal But that has been ended in Christ. Now there is
a better way, one which has two characteristics
faith,
:
new and
5
it
is
based on the principle of

alike.
and
it
is
universal
and
for all
men
based on the principle of faith. Hence it is that method was difficult, if not impossible, the new is easy and open to all. The old method righteousness by law, that is by the exact performance of legal rules, is aptly described by Moses when he says (Lev. xviii. 5), 'the man who does these
(i) It is
while the old
things shall live/

to be gained
dition
i.
e.
Life in
all its
fulness here
and hereafter was

;
by undeviating
(i.
strictness of
conduct
and
that con-
we have seen
18-iii.
20) was impossible of fulfilment.
"But listen to the proclamation which righteousness by faith makes to mankind. It speaks in well-known words which have become through it more real. There is no need for you to say, Who will go up into heaven ? Heaven has come to you Christ has come down and lived among men. 7 There is no need to
'
search the hidden places of the deep.

is
Christ has risen.
There
no need therefore
8
to seek the living
among
the dead.
You
are
offered something which does not require hard striving or painful

labour.
thy mouth.'
The word of God And that word

'
is
very nigh thee, in thy heart and in
of
God
is
the message of faith, the

'
Gospel which proclaims

this
is
'
shalt be saved and Gospel we preach throughout the world. 9 All it says to you With thy mouth thou must confess J^sus as sovereign Lord,
;
believe
and thou
with thy heart thou must believe that

dead.'
10
God
raised
Him
from the
brings
For
that
change of heart which we
call
faith,
righteousness,
and the path of
salvation is entered
by the con-
fession of belief in Christ which a

11
man makes
at his
baptism.
(xxviii.
(2)
This
is
corroborated by what the Prophet Isaiah said

(ix.
16) in words quoted above
33), the full
meaning of which we
in
now understand
Messiah) shall
'
Everyone that believeth

ashamed.'
Him
(i.
e.
the
his,
not be
12
Moreover
this
word of
everyone,' introduces the second characteristic of the

is
It
universal.
And
and
to
Greek.
We
new method. means that it applies equally to Jew have shown that the new covenant is open for
that
it is
Greeks as well as Jews ;
also true to say that the conditions
demanded
are the
same
for
Jew
as for Greek.
The Jew
cannot
2j8
keep
to
his
so,

old methods
;
IX. 30.
this
he must accept the new.

is
And
must be
because there
for all
men
alike
one Redeemer,
they
fore-
who gives the wealth of His salvation to all those whoever may be who call on His name. 13 And so the prophet Joel,
telling
the times
of the foundation of the

that shall call
Messianic kingdom,
the
says
(i.
(ii.
32)
'
Everyone
on the name of
Lord
e.
of the Messiah) shall be saved.'
When
it
the last days come, in
the times of storm
and anguish,
is
the worshippers of the
Messiah, those
who
are enrolled as His servants
and
call
on His
Name, who
will find
a strong salvation.
passes to another aspect of the considered the rejection of Israel from the point of view of the Divine justice and power, he The is now to approach it from the side of human responsibility.
21.
St.
IX. 30-X.
Paul
now
subject he
is
discussing.
He
has
concluding verses of the ninth chapter and the whole of the tenth It is first sketched out Israel have sought righteousness in the wrong way, in ix. 30-33. Then St. Paul, overin that they have rejected the Messiah. whelmed with the sadness of the subject, pauses for a moment He returns to the discussion by (x. 1, 2) to emphasize his grief. pointing out that they have adhered to their own method instead And this in spite of of accepting God's method (vv. 2, 3). several circumstances (1) that the old method has been done away with in Christ (ver. 4) (2) that while the old method was hard and difficult the new is easy and within the reach of
are devoted to proving the guilt of Israel.
; ;
all
(vv.
5-10);
(3) that the
new method
is
clearly universal
and
At ver. 14 he passes to another intended for all alike (vv. 11-13). it might still be asked aspect of the question Had they full In vv. 14-21 it is shown that both opportunities of knowing? through the full and universal preaching of the Gospel, and through their own Prophets, they have had every opportunity given them. 30. ti ovv epoSjxei'; The t&v, as is almost always the case in St. Paul, sums up the results of the previous paragraph. What then is the conclusion of this discussion ? It is not that God's promise has failed, but that while Gentiles have obtained ''righteousness," the Jews, though they strove for it, have failed.' This summary of the result so far arrived at leads to the question being asked ; Why is it so ? And that introduces the second point in St. Paul's discussion the guilt of the Jews. on 0nfj k.t.X. There are two constructions possible for these rrjv & marecos may contain the 1. The sentence on words. answer to the question asked in tL ovv fpovpev; This interpretation
:
:
'
IX. 30,
is
31.]
right.
379
The difficulty, however, is that nowhere else in where St. Paul uses the expression rt oZv epovncv, does he give it an immediate answer. He follows it by a second question (as in ix. 14) and this is not a mere accident. It is
probably
this Epistle,
;
a result of the sense of deliberation contained in the previous words with which a second question rather than a definite statement seems to harmonize. 2. The alternative rendering would be
take the words on . . tyOaaev, as such a second question. shall we say then ? Shall we say that, while Gentiles who did not seek righteousness have obtained it, Israel has not attained to it?' The answer to this question then would be a positive
to
1
.
What
one, not given directly but implied in the further one Start ; Yes, but why?' The difficulty in this construction, which must tell against it, is the awkwardness of the appended sentence diKaioo-vvqv ' 8e rfjv en nia-Tccos. Lipsius' suggestion that 6Vt because ' is quite impossible.
'
eSnrj heathen,' not ' the heathen ; some, not all nam nonnulli pagani fidem turn Chrisio adiunxerant, to likrjpwpa r&v i6vwv ad Christi sacra nondum accesserat. Fri. SiwKorra Kare'Xape correlative terms for pursuing and overtaking' (Field, Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 96). The metaphor
:
'
'
'
is taken from the racecourse, and probably the words were used without the original meaning being lost sight of: cf. 1 Cor. ix. 24. The two words are coupled together Exod. xv. 9 Ecclus. xi. 10; xxvii. 8; Phil. iii. 12 ; Herod, ii. 30; Lucian, Hermot. 77. diwiceiv is a characteristic Pauline word occurring in letters of all periods: 1 Thess. (1), 1 Cor. (1), Rom. (4),
as in rpexovros (ver. 16)
Phil. (2), 1 Tim. (1), 2 Tim. (1). hiKaioarvvt]v he limits and explains the previous
'
use of the word.
But remember, (and this will explain any difficulty that you may have), that it was in mart cos ' cf. iii. 22 dacaioo-vvrj 5e eeoO: 1 Cor.
:
11.
6 aocpiav 8e XaXovpev
ev
toIs
reXeiois'
aocpiap 8e
ov
tov
alcovos
TOVTOV.
Some small variations of reading may be just noticed. In ver. 31 the second hiKaioovvrjs after ds vofxov of the TR. is omitted by decisive authority, as also is vo/xov (after epyow) in ver. 32, and yap after trpoaiicoipav. In ver. 33 iras read by the TR. has crept in from x. 1 , and Western MSS. read ov pJ) 1 KaraiaxwOri to harmonize with the LXX.
31. 'lo-pcwjX 06 k.t.X. These words contain the real difficulty of the statement, of which alone an explanation is necessary, and is ' given. In spite of the fact that some Gentiles even without
have attained righteousness, Israel has failed.' a rule of life which would produce righteousness' cf. iii. 27 vopos mo-Te<os vii. 21. ouk e<|>0a<T did not attain it ; they are represented as continually pursuing after something, the accomplishment of which
seeking
it
v6\lov
:
SiKcuoaunis
'
'
'
a 8o
[IX. 31-33.
as continually escapes them.
All idea of anticipation has been
lost in <j>ddva> in later Greek, cf. Phil. hi. e(bda.(rv (Is rov ovpavov.
16; Dan.
iv.
19 (Theod.)
32.
on
ouk eK iriaTcws
irpoaeKo\|/av.
Two
: '
constructions are
at epycov
possible for these words.
(1)
We may
put a
comma
and
supply
attain
bi&Kovres.
Then
the passage will run
it ? because pursuing after it not by or (2) we may put a full stop at epyw and supply stumbled/ &c. 'Why did they not attain it? because they pursued after &t$a>. stumbled/ &c. The sentence has it not by faith but by works, they more emphasis if taken in this way, and the grammatical construction is on the whole easier. The cos introduces a subjective idea. St. Paul d\\' <us epY wl';
did they not faith but by works they
Why
wishes to guard himself from asserting definitely that e epyoov was He therea method by which v6p.ov biKaioo-ivrjs might be pursued. they which by way a as of the idea Jews, an it as represents fore
thought they could gain it. So in 2 Cor. ii. 17 akX'tos e d\ucp*ptias represents the purpose and aim of the Apostle; 2 Cor. xi. 17 an aspect 6 XaXw, ov Kara Kvpiov Aa\a>, dXX' a>s eV dcppotrvvr] represents from which his words may be regarded Philem. 14 ha p.f) <$ koto. even the appearance dudyicriv to dya66v aov rj dXkd Kara Uovaiov The <*s (cf. Lightfoot, ad loc). of constraint must be avoided gives a subjective idea to the phrase with which it is placed, but the exact force must be determined by the context. not to stumble over by TTpofTKOTTTeiv Tivl means Trpoo-e Ko\|/cu' The inadvertence/ but to be annoyed with/ show irritation at.' stumbled Jews, in that the cross was to them a a-KiivbaXov, had over Christ, shown themselves irritated and annoyed, and expressed their indignation, see Grm. Thayer, sub voc. a stone which causes men to t<3 Xt0w tou irpo<TK6fjip.aTos
;
:
'
'
'
'
stumble/" Taken from the LXX of Is. viii. 14. The stone at which the Jewish nation has stumbled, which has been to them a cause of offence, is the Christ, who has come in a way, which, owing to their want of faith, has prevented them from recognizing
or accepting Him, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 8. The quotation is taken from the 33. i8ou, Ti0T]fjii iv 2t&r k.t.X. The of Is. xxviii. 16, fused with words from Is. viii. 14. in latter part of the verse is quoted again x. 1 1, and the whole
LXX
1
Pet.
ii.
6.
different variations is interesting.
Oefj.i\ia 'S.iwv.
A
reads
comparison of the
ISoit
(1)
The
LXX
:
470;
k/ipdMco ds rd
TiOrjfii
In both the passages in the
N.T.
the words are l5ov
ev îduv.
fieKe/CTOV dKpoyoJviatov ivrip.ov, St.
(2) For the Peter reads aKpoywvtaiov

/cat
LXX
l/cAe/cToj/
XiOov TToXvTtKrj tvripov
ireTpav o>cav8aXov taken while St. Paul substitutes XiOov Trpooit6p.txa.Tos from Is. viii. 14 ko.1 o\>x &* \i9ov irpooKupLfxari (TvvavTrjaeaOe ovoe ws trirpas
tTTWfxaTi.
Here
St.
Peter
(3)
ii.
8 agrees with St. Paul in writing virpa onavoaXov
{onrerpas irrupaTi.
The
LXX
proceeds
eis
Td
0e/*eAia avTrjs,
which both
1 1
IX. 33.]
St.

LXX
28
/caTaioxvi'Or).
by
Peter and St. Paul omit. proceeds Kat 6 martvuv ov fi^ (4) The Both St. Peter and St. Paul bring out the personal reference inserting lit' airy, while St. Paul reads K<naioxyvQT]<JGTCU and in x. 1
rras.
adds
iir'
Personal, of the Messiah, He that believeth on Him be ashamed.' St. Paul inserts the words, both here and in x. n, to emphasize the personal reference. If the reference were impersonal, the feminine would be required to agree with the
auT<3.
'
shall not
nearest
word
irerpa.
Either an incorrect translation of the Hebrew, or based on a different reading. The RV. of Isaiah reads shall not make haste/ In the O. T. neither of these passages has any direct Messianic reference. In both Jehovah is the rock founded on Zion. In
KaTcuaxui'8TJcTeT<u.
'
as a 'stumbling-block' to the the strength of those that believe in Him. But from the very beginning the word XWo S was applied to Christ, primarily with reference to Ps. cxviii. 22 'the Stone which the builders rejected' (Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10; Luke xx. 17; Acts iv. 11 by St. Peter). The other passages in which
Is.
viii.
14
;
He
is
represented
unbeliever
in Is. xxviii. 16
He
is
word 'Xtfos was used in the LXX came to be applied as here, in Eph. ii. 20 aKpoyavialov is used almost as a proper name. By the time of Justin Martyr \L80s is used almost as a name of the eo-ro) ml ravra ovtcos tyovra a>s \eyeis, koi on 7ra^roy Xpicrros Christ
the
and
TrpnfCprjTevdr]
peWeiv
rfvcu
kcu \160s KtKk-qrai kcu
Otto)
.'
yap XpLcrrbs &acri\evs
Uptvs
Kcii
{Dial. 36. p. 122 C. ed. 6(6s kcu Kvpios kcu ayyeôs
icai (ivdpwiros koi dpxicrTpdTrjyns Ka\ \160s (ib. 34. p. 1 1 2 D.) These quotations seem to imply that \160s was a name for the Messiah among the Jews, and that Justin wishes to prove that Christ fulfils that tide, and this seems to be corroborated by quotations from Jewish writings, not only in later books but even earlier. In Is. viii. 14, Sanhedrin 38. 1 Filius Davidis non venit donee duae domus patrum ex Israele deficiant, quae sunt Aechmalotarcha Babylonicus et princeps terrae Israeliticae q. d. Et erit in Sanctuarium et in lapidem percussionis et petram offensionis duabus domibus
xxviii. 16 is paraphrased by the Targurn Jonathan, constituam in Sion regem, regem fortem, potentem et terribilem ; corroborabo eum et confortabo eum dicit Propheta. Iusti autem qui crediderint haec cum venerit tribulatio non commovebuntur, and some apparently read regem Messias regem potentem. Ps. cxviii. 22 is paraphrased by the same Targum,
Israel.
Is.
Ecce ego
Puerum despexerunt
aedificatores,
qui fuit inter
filios
Israel
reff.
et
meruit constitui rex et dominator. Schoettgen, ii. 160, 606.
For these and other
see
comparison of Romans and

in
Peter shows that both Apostles

together,
agree
quoting th^
same passages
and both have
28^
[IX. 33-X.
1.
a number of common variants from the normal text of the LXX. This may have arisen from St. Peter's acquaintance with the Romans; but another hypothesis may be suggested, which will perhaps account for the facts more naturally. We know that to prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, was the constant practice of the early Christians. Is it not possible that even as early conas this there may have been collections of O. T. texts used for
troversial
purposes arranged according to their subjects, as were the later Testimonia of Cyprian, where one of the chapters is headed: Quod idem et lapis dictus sit ( Test. ii. 1 6) ? See on ix. 25, 26 supra.
X. 1. There is no break in the argument between this chapter and vv. 30-33 of chap, ix but before expanding this part of the subject, the Apostle pauses for a moment, impelled by his own strong feelings and the deep tragedy of his count, y man's rejection, to express his sorrow and affection.
;
Marcion admitted into his text ver. 2-4, which he was able to use as a proof text of his fundamental doctrine that the Jews had been ignorant of follows the higher God.' The whole or almost the whole passage which Marc. v. 13. x. 5-xi. 32, he appears to have omitted, Zahn, p. 518. Tert. Adv.
*
The position increases the emphasis of a word always d8eX<|>oi. used by the Apostle when he wishes to be specially emphatic. The thought of the Christian brotherhood intensifies the contrast
with the Israelites who are excluded. plv without a corresponding V.
:
The
logical antithesis is given
in ver. 3.
euooKia
'
good
will,'
'
good
pleasure,' not < desire,'
which the word
never means.
means 'good pleasure' either (1) in relation to oneself fMKpf Kal fieya\q> to mean 'contentment,' Ecelus. xxix. 23 Thess. ib - xxxv (xxxii). 14 ol bpOpi&vTts cvp-qaovai evdoKiav : 2 evooniav x Ps. iv 8vva.fj.ci marcws cpyov Kal evhoKiav aâeaavvrjs i. II Kal irKrjpojori irdaav benevolence,' Ecelus. Sol. xvi. 12 : or '(2) in relation to others, 'good will,' Phil. i. 15 rivis fiey 81a <p6ovov at ix. 12 fir/ cv8okt}OT)S iv cvSonia aocBuv &' cvSo/ciav top Xpttov nifpiaoovaiv : (3) in this sense it cpiv, rives Se Kal came to be used almost technically of the good will of God to man, Eph.
The word
it
cvoonia
when
comes
:
'
i.
Kara
ttjv
cvootciav
tov
OeX-rffiaTOS
avrov
i.
9 Kara
rrfv cvSotciav
avrov
The above interpretation of the word is different from that taken by Fritzsche Iholuck {adloc), Lft. (ad Phil. i. 15), Grm. Thayer, Lex. (s. v.), Philippi and desire ; the {ad toe.). The word seems never to be used unqualified to mean instance quoted by Lft. does not support it.
'
tj
Set] (us
els owTt\piav
non or asset Paulus si absolute reprobati essent. ha <ra>6a>(ri; cf. ver. 4 els btKaioavvrfv and
Beng.
i.
els
imaKorjv TricrTeas.
the
may have
the been merely an explanatory gloss, or may have arisen through verse being the beginning of a lesson in church services.
The additions 77 before irphs rbv &cov and kffrtv before els aarrrjpiav in TR. are grammatical explanations. The reading rod 'laparfK for avrwv
X. 2-4.]
2.
283
fiapTupw ydp. This gives the reason for St. Paul's grief. had been a Jew irepio-o-orepas (tjXcottjs inapx^v (Gal. i. 14; cf. Acts xxii. 3) and hence he knew only too well the extent both of
He
their zeal
and of
ir\\ov 0oG.
xi.
2).
An
their ignorance. Obj. genitive zeal for God ' (not as in 2 Cor. O. T. expression Judith, ix. 4 e'Cnâ-av t6v 0}XoV a-ov.
:
'
ii. ii.
Ps. lxviii [Ixix]; cxviii [cxix]. 139 6 7X09 T o0 aUov aov. 1 Mace, 58 7X0? vopov. Jowett quotes Philo, Leg. ad Cai'um, 16 (Mang.
'
562) Ready to endure death like immortality rather than suffer the neglect of the least of their national customs.' St. Paul selects the very word which the Jew himself would have chosen to express
just that zeal
on which more than anything
else
he would have
yvSxris,
prided himself.
kcit
em'yi'wo-u'.
The Jews were
destitute,
not of
but of
the higher disciplined knowledge, of the true moral discernment by which they might learn the right way. imyvaxris (see Lft. on Col. i. 9, to whose note there is nothing to add) means a higher
and more perfect knowledge, and hence it is used especially and almost technically for knowledge of God, as being the highest and most
3.
perfect
form
ydp.
cf.
i.
28,
iii.
20.
This verse gives the reason for ov <ar imyvaxriv, and the antithesis to ^v ei>oWa. ayvoovvres means not knowing/ being ignorant of,' not misunderstanding.' St. Paul here states simply the fact of the ignorance of his fellow-countrymen he does not yet consider how far this ignorance is culpable that point he makes evident later (vv. 14 sq.). rr\v toG 0eou 8iKaioo-uVir)i> -rt\v IViav. St. Paul contrasts two methods of righteousness. On the one side there was the righteousness which came from God, and was to be sought in the manner He had prescribed, on the other was a righteousness which they hoped to win by their own methods, and by their own merit. Their zeal had been blind and misdirected. In their eagerness to pursue after the latter, they had remained ignorant of and had not submitted to the method (as will be shown, a much easier one) which God Himself had revealed. uireTdyT]aai/. Middle, submit themselves,' cf. Jas. iv. 7 ; 1 Pet. ii. 13; v. 5 Winer, xxxiv, 2. p. 327 E.T.
dyi'ooCi'Tes
rj
' ' '
'
The second îKaioavvrjv after Uiav of the TR. is supported by K only among good authorities, and by Tiseh. only among recent editors; it is omitted by A B D E P, Vulg. Boh. Arm., and many Fathers.
4. tc'Xos yh.p
v6p.o\i
k.t.X.
St.
Paul has in the preceding verse
been contrasting two methods of obtaining diKawavvrj; one, that ordained by God, as ix. 32 shows, a method TriWfwy; the other that pursued by the Jews, a method 6m vofxov. The latter has ceased to be possible, as St. Paul now proves by showing that, by the coming
of Christ
Law
as
a means of obtaining righteousness had been
384
[X. 4.
brought to an end.
The
yap therefore introduces the reason, not
for the actual statement of ver. 3, that the Jews had not submitted that they were to the Divine method, but for what was implied
wrong
Law as a method or principle of Christ is the righteousness had been done away with in Christ. end of law as death is the end of life.' Gif. Cf. Dem. C. Eubuliden,
'
in so doing. tcXos : ' end,' termination.'
'
1306, 25
Kalroi iraa-iv
eamv
dvdpayrrois reXos tov fiiov
Bavaros (quoted
in later
:
by
Fri.
and by many
writers after him).

is
The
theological idea of this verse
much expanded
connected definitely with the death of Christ Eph. ii. 15 'He abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances'; Col. ii. 14 'Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us and He hath taken it out of the way, This last passage is paraphrased by Lft. nailing it to the cross/ 'Then and there [Christ] cancelled the bond which stood valid against us (for it bore our own signature), the bond which engaged us to fulfil all the law of ordinances, which was our stern pitiless Ay, this very bond hath Christ put out of sight for ever, tyrant. nailing it to His cross, and rending it with His body, and killing And as he points out, a wider reference must it in His death/ be given to the expression; it cannot be confined to the Jews. The ordinances, although primarily referring to the Mosaic law, or social will include all forms of positive decrees in which moral
Epistles,
and
is
'
principles are
is
embodied or
religious duties defined
the moral assent of the conscience which (as

'
it
" and the " bond and signs were)
seals the obligation/
its
Although the moral law is eternal, yet under the Gospel it loses form of external law, and becomes an internal principle of life/
: *
Lid. the
as a principle (so Weiss, Oltramare, Gif.), not It is (so the mass of commentators). here, not possible indeed to lay stress on the absence of the article because the article being dropped before reXos it is naturally also dropped before vofxov (see on ii. 13), and although St. Paul might yap reXos tov vopov, yet this would not exactly have have written thrown suited his purpose, for reXos is the predicate of the sentence But that the application of the term must forward for emphasis. general is shown by the whole drift of the argument (see below),
yofiou
Law
'
Law, the Mosaic Law
be by the words navri
t<5
mo-rtvovri proving that the passage^
cannot be
confined to the Jews, and consequently not to the Mosaic law, and vouov (see critical note). by the correct reading in ver. 5 nj* The interpretation of this verse has been much confused owing confusion of to incorrect translations of re'Xos (fulfilment, aim), the 6 v6po and misapprehension of the drift of the passage.
v 6pos
and
X.
4, 5.]

.
385
men
That the version given above is correct is shown (1) by the meaning of re\o S It is quite true that Christ is the TeAftW* of the Law, that in Him what was typical has its fulfilment; but WXop never means TfAaWis- (as it is taken here by Orig. Erasmus, &c). Again, it is equally true that the Law is the wm8aymy6s that brings
to Christ,
and
by Chrys., other fathers, and Va. amongst English commentators) but \os is only used once m this sense in St. Paul's Epistles (1 Tim. i. 5), x P i* T6 s would become the predicate, reXos would then require the article, and >o f would have to be interpreted of the Jewish Law. The normal meaning of the word, and the correct one here, is that of 'termination (so Aug. De W. Mey. Fri. Weiss, Oltramare) (2) by the meaning of v6fio S (see above). This is interpreted incorrectly of the Jewish Law only by almost all commentators (Orig. Chrys. an all the Fathers, Erasmus, Calv. De W. Mey. Va.) (3) by the context. This verse is introduced to explain ver. 3, which asserts that of two methods of obtaining righteousness one is right, the other wrong. St. Paul here confirms this by showing that the one has come to an end so as to introduce the other. It is his object to mark the contrast between the two methods of righteousness and not their resemblance. But the misinterpretation is not confined to this verse, it colours
: ' ;
1
goal of the
Law
that Christ can be described as the object or
(as the passage is taken
the interpretation of the whole passage. It is not St. Paul's aim to show that the Jews ought to have realized their mistake because the O. T. dispensation pointed to Christ, but to contrast the two methods. It is only later (vv. 14 f.) that he shows that the Jews had had full opportunities and warnings. eis SucaiOCTun^ iram tw moTeuVn ' so that hiKaioavvrj may come
:
to everyone that believes/
'so that everyone by believing
may
iravri,
Obtain
tiKaioavvrj.*
Omni
omni ex
credenti, traciatur to credenti iudaeis et gentibus. Beng.
v.
5 sq., rd
omni
v. 11 sq.
5-10.
St.
SiKaioavvrj in
Paul proceeds to describe the two modes of obtaining language drawn from the O. T., which had become
proverbial.
5.
Mwcttjs
yap
YP^ 61
iii. eVe
k.t.X.
Taken from Lev.
xviii. 5,
which
is
quoted also
in Gal.
12.
The
original (a jwiqaas avOpu-nos
ft'
modified to suit the grammar of this passage, vofxov being made the Object of iroifras. St. Paul quotes the words to mean that the condition of obtaining life by law is that of fulfilment, a condition which in contrast to the other method described immediately afterwards is hard, if not impossible. On this difficulty of obeying the law he has laid stress again and again in the first part of the Epistle, and it is this
iv avrois) is slightly
ttjv biKaioo-vvrjv rijv
286
that he

means by
s
[X. 5-8.
ii.
tov
v6\lov
tS>v
ivroS&p in Eph.
15
(quoted
above). JâeTai
shall obtain
life
in
its
deepest sense both here and
hereafter (see pp. 180, 196).
is
There are a number of small variations in the text of this verse. (1) on D*, Vulg. Boh., Orig.-lat., after vopov placed before rty SiKaioavvrjv by N* C (2) Ik vopov is read &c., Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c. by K C by N B, kit tov vopiov by the mass of later authorities. (3) 6 iroi-qaas is Vulg., Orig.-lat., avrd is added by read without any addition by &c, Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c, earn by d"ef- (4) dvOpwtros is minusc. pane, Vulg. Boh. 5) iv axnri is read om. by F G, Chrys. Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt &c. Orig.-lat., kv airois The original text was on t^v difcaioovvrjv rty kit v6(aov 6 iroirjffas avOpcoiros avroTs came from a desire to The alteration of avrd ftotTai kv airrj. make the passage correspond with the LXX, or Gal. iii. 12 (hence the omission ot dvBptonos), and this necessitated a change in the po-ition of on. tov vo/xov arose from an early misinterpretation. The mixed text of Bypd<pn avTrj and ttjv 8ikcuoovvt)v 7-7)1/ he vofiov on 6 TTOirjaos avTO. avOpwnos ^rjaeTai kv ypcxpci on t\v SneaiotjvvTjv T7> kit tov vofiov 6 iroirjaas dvdpcawos grjaeTai of Boh. Vulg. kv avrois are curious, but help to support X
BD EFGKLP
N*ADE,
BFGKLP
DEFGKLP&c.
byNAB
.
LXX
6-8. The language of St. Paul in these verses is based upon the Moses is enumerating the blessings of of Deut. xxx. 11-14. if thou shalt obey the voice of the Israel if they keep his law Lord thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law if thou turn unto the Lord thy goes on God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul'; he then n [For this (the RV. translation is here modified to suit the LXX) commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard 12 Not in heaven above] saying, for thee, nor is it far from thee. Who shall go up for us into heaven [and receive it for us, and having
: '
; :
heard of
it
we
shall
do
it ?
18
Nor
is
it
beyond the
sea], saying,
of the sea for us, [and receive it u But the for us, and make it heard by us, and we shall do it ?] word is very nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, [and in thy The Apostle selects certain words hands, that thou mayest do it].'
Who
will go over
to the further side
out of this passage and uses them to describe the characteristics of the new righteousness by faith as he conceives it.
the It is important to notice the very numerous variations between In the first place only a few phrases are quotation and the LXX. translation selected : the portions not quoted are enclosed in brackets in the Then in those sentences that are quoted there are very congiven above. siderable changes (1) for the Xt-âiv of the LXX, which is an ungrammatical translation of the Hebfew, and is without construction, is substituted fir) for t/s hairepdau rîv As einfis (V t mpSia aov from Deut. viii. 17, ix.4 : (2) ro 'iripav tt}s daXdaarjs is substituted ns KaTaâtTat us rfv dfrvaaov in order
:
to
make
the passage better suit the purpose for which
it
is
quoted
(3) in
Bohairic Version is quoted incorrectly in support of this reading. read there does not imply a variant, but was demanded by the idiom of the language.
t The The earn
' '
X.
6.]

.
287
ver. 8 the
words acpoSpa . . lv raTs x*/><" aov are omitted (this agrees with the Hebrew", as also iroieiv aiiro.
6.
rj ok ck mo-Tews SiKaioaunf) outo) Xeyei. It is noticeable that Paul does not introduce these words on the authority of Scripture (as ver. 1 1), nor on the authority of Moses (as ver. 5), but merely as a declaration of righteousness in its own nature. On the
St.
personification compare that of Of irapdK\r}<Tis Heb. xii. 5.

tis
Wisdom
;
in Prov.
i.
20; Lk.
xi.
49
dyaPô-eTcu els Toy oupav6v

:
words mean
it
The law which
command you
In the original passage these is not far off, it is
not in heaven, so that you will have to ask, Who will go up to bring down for us ? it is very near and not hard to attain. St. Paul uses the same words to express exactly the same idea, but with a completely different application. The Gospel as opposed to
'
not difficult or hard to attain to/ tout con, Xpiarbv KaT<xYaYii> that is to say, to bring Christ down.' Just as Moses had said that there was no need for anyone
is
:
the
Law
'
into heaven to bring down the law, so it is true far more indeed to say that there is no need to go into heaven to bring down the object of faith and source of righteousness Christ. Christ has become man and dwelt among us. Faith is not a to
go up
true
difficult
matter since Christ has come.

interpretations suggested of this
tovt
Zotiv
The
have been very numerous,
and the following verses occurs three times in this
passage, and we must give it the same force in each place. In the third instance (ver. 8) it is used to give a meaning or explanation to the word to pr)pa, which occurs in the quotation ; it introduces in fact what would be technically known as a Midrash on the text quoted (so Mey. Lid. Lips, and apparently Va. Gif.). That is the meaning with which the phrase has been used in ix. 8, and is also the meaning which it must have here. The infinitive cannot be dependent on tovt' ea-n (for in all the passages where the phrase is used the words that follow it are in the same construction as the words that precede), but is dependent on dvafyo-fTai which it explains so Xen. Mem. I. v. 2 (Goodwin, Greek Moods and Tenses, 97) el fiov\oipt0a tg> eWpeâi iraidas irai8(vo-ai, xPwaTa fiiaowcu. In this and similar cases it is not necessary to emphasize strongly the idea of purpose as do Fri. (nempe ut Christum in orbem terrarum deducat) and Lips, {namlich urn Christum herabzu' :
77
rj
holen), the infinitive is rather epexegetical (so
The
is
LXX here reads
Ws dvaô-tTai
co-tip
ko.1
kcu
changed because tovt
Karat-u
apparently Va. Gif.). Xêrai the construction would hardly have been
;
clear.
Of
other interpretations,
some do not
to say
suit the
grammar.
'
'
That
would be the same thing as would require ris naragd tov
Who
will
bring Christ
down ?
would
Xpio-rov.
Weiss translates
that
288
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[X. 6-3
be the same thing as to bring Christ down,' apparently making Other translations or parathe infinitive dependent on tout eanv. Do not attempt great things, phrases do not suit the context Do not waver and ask, Is Christ really come ? or, only believe The object of the passage is not to exhort to faith only believe.' that has been done in the early or to show the necessity of faith part of the Epistle ; but to prove that the method of faith was one which, for several reasons, should not have been ignored and left on one side by the Jews. nor is it necessary to dvaYayeu' 7. r\, Tis KaTapTJo-eTcu St. Paul search the depth, since Christ is risen from the dead.' substitutes rtt KmaâreTat els ttjv apvaaov for the more ordinary tU bumepdaei falv tit to irtpav tjj? duXdo-o-rjs, both because it makes a more suitable contrast to the first part of the sentence, and because he wishes to draw it harmonizes better with the figurative meaning from it. apvaaos in the O. T. meant originally the deep sea/ the great deep' or 'the depths of the sea,' Ps. cvi (cvii). 26 ava&aivovaiv ecus t>v ovpavwv, koi Karafiaiuovaiu ens t>v d^vacrcov, and the deep
: '
'
'
'
places of the earth, Ps. lxx (lxxi). 20 ko\ e< t<ov dPvo-o-cov ttjs yf)s naXiv avrryayts fie, and so had come to mean Tartarus or the Lower World; t6u 8e Taprapop ttjs dîxraov Job. xli. 23, where the reference cf. Eur. Phoen. 1632 (1605) Taprdpov to Tdprapos is due to the
LXX
afivao-a
used of the abode x d(rp.aTa. Elsewhere in the N. T. it is so of demons (Luke viii. 31) and the place of torment (Rev. ix. 1). This double association of the word made it suitable for St. Paul's purpose; it kept up the antithesis of the original, and it also enabled him to apply the passage figuratively to the Resurrection of Christ after His human soul had gone down into Hades. On the descensus ad inferos, which is here referred to in indefinite and untechnical language, cf. Acts ii. 27 1 Peter iii. 19 iv. 6; and
;
;
Lft.
on Ign. Magn.
pfjjAct ttjs
'
8. to
faith
;
see also Swete, Apost. -creed, p. 57 ff. ' The message, the subject of which m<TTws.
ix
;
_
is
'
not mean ' the faith,' i. e. the Gospel message (Oltramare), but, as elsewhere in this chapter, faith as the principle Nor does the phrase mean the Gospel message of righteousness. which appeals to faith in man (Lid.), but the Gospel which preaches On fan cf. 1 Peter i. 25 to be pSjpa Kvpiov (Urn faith, cf. x. 17. tovto oVf Ion to pr^pa to evayyeTuadh els vpas. els tov alcova. This gives the reason why the new way of o KtjpiWofAci'. to attain, being as it is brought home to every easy is righteousness
wumt does
'
one, and suggests a thought which

ver.
is
worked out more
fully in
'
14 f. ffii. % In what sense does St. Paul use the O. T. in vv. 6-8 ? 1 he of Moses by used are words the T. In the O. difficulty is this. against the the Law: how can St. Paul use them of the Gospel as
Law?
X.
8.]
289
:
The
following considerations will suggest the answer to be given
(1) The context of the passage shows that there is no stress laid on the fact that the O. T. is being quoted. The object of the
argument is to describe the characteristics of diKatoa-vvt] i< marecos, not to show how it can be proved from the O. T. (2) The Apostle carefully and pointedly avoids appealing to Scripture, altering his mode of citation from that employed in the previous verse. Mosen non citat, quia sensum Mosis non sequilur,
sed tantum ab Mo verba muluatur, Vatablus, ap. Crit. Sacr. ad loc. An ordinary reader (3) The quotation is singularly inexact. fairly well acquainted with the O. T. would feel that the language had a familiar ring, but could not count it as a quotation.
Quod omn. 10 (quoted by Gifford), 'And yet what need is there either of long journeys over the land, or of long voyages for the sake of investigating and seeking out virtue, the roots of which the Creator has laid not at any great distance, but so near, as the wise law-giver of the Jews says, " They are in thy mouth, and in thy heart, and in thy hands," intimating by these figurative expressions the words and actions and designs of men ? Bava Mezia, f. 94. 1 (quoted by Wetstein) Si quis dixerit mulieri, Si adscenderis in firmamentum, aut descender is in abyssum, eris mihi desponsata, haec conditio frustranea est) 4 Ezra iv. 8 dicebas mihifortassis : In abyssum non descendi, neque in inferum adhuc, neque in coelis unquam
prob.
lib.
(4) The words had certainly become proverbial, instances of them so used have been quoted. Philo,
and many
'
ascendi ; Baruch
evpev avrrjv (of
iii.
29,
30
;
t'ls
aveftr) els
J
top ovpavbv nai eXafiev avrrjv,

koi
Kai KaT(j3i(3a<Teu avrrju e< tu>v ve(pe\>v
tis diefirj Ttepav rrjs da\d(r(rr)s
'For even if he had ascended to heaven, they would bring him down from there and even if he descends into Sheol, there too shall his judgement be great ; cp. also Amos ix. 2. (5) St. Paul certainly elsewhere uses the words of Scripture in order to express his meaning in familiar language, cf. ver. 18 xi. 1. For these reasons it seems probable that here the Apostle does not intend to base any argument on the quotation from the O. T., but only selects the language as being familiar, suitable, and proverbial, in order to express what he wishes to say.
Jubilees xxiv. 32
.
Wisdom)
'
It is not necessary therefore to consider that St. Paul is interpreting the passage of Christ by Rabbinical methods (with Mey. Lid. and others), nor to see in the passage in Deuteronomy a prophecy of the Gospel (Fri.) or a reference to the Messiah, which is certainly
not the primary meaning. But when we have once realized that no argument is based on the use of the O. T., it does not follow that
Not only has it a its language is without motive. great rhetorical value, as Chrysostom sees with an orator's instinct 1 he uses the words which are found in the O. T., being always at
the use of
39
[X. 8-12.
pains to keep quite clear of the charges of love of novelties and of opposition to it'; but also there is to St. Paul a correspondence between the O. T. and N. T. the true creed is simple whether Law on its spiritual side or Gospel (cf. Aug. De Natura et Gratia,
:
3)9.
on
ihv 6jjLo\oy^(7T]s
k.t.X.
applies the preceding verse.
preached by the Apostles is Kvpios refers to ver. 6, the Resurrection of His Resurrection. The power of Christ (on 6 G(6s avrov fjydpev ck vfKpcov) to ver. 7. lies in these two facts, namely His Incarnation and His ResurWhat rection, His Divine nature and His triumph over death. is demanded of a Christian is the outward confession and the inward belief in Him, and these sum up the conditions necessary
for salvation.
This verse corresponds to and subject of the prjpa which is the person of Christ and the truth
The
The ordinary reading

Kvpiov Kvpios
'Irjaotv,
in this verse is (av opoXoyrjar/s ev ra> ffrSpari aov
WH. substitute to prjpa kv rw ardpxni aov on to prjpa has the authority of B 71, Clem.- Alex, and perhaps The agreement in Cyril, on K. of B, Boh., Clem.- Alex, and Cyril 2/3. the one case of B and Boh., in the other of B and Clem.-Alex. against nearly
for
which
'Irjaovs.
all
the other authorities
is
noticeable.
St. Paul explains and brings words he has last quoted. The has two sides internally it is the
:
10. KapSia yap moTuTcu k.t.X.
out
more
fully the application of the
beginning of the Christian life change of heart which faith implies this leads to righteousness, the position of acceptance before God: externally it implies the confession of Christ crucified which is made in baptism, and this puts a man into the path by which in the end he attains salvation he becomes <ra>6ptvos. Quoted from Is. xxviii. 16 (see 11. Xe'yei yelp *j YP a<l"l k.t.X.
;
'
which emphasis
33) with the addition of iras to bring out the point on is to be laid. St. Paul introduces a proof from Scripture of the statement made in the previous verse that faith is the condition of salvation, and at the same time makes it the occasion of introducing the second point in the argument, namely, the universal character of this new method of obtaining righteousabove,
ix.
ness.
4 he has explained that the old system of biKaioo-vvt) been done away with in Christ to make way for a new one which has two characteristics (1) that it is Zk *wr*w. this has been treated in vv. 5-10; (2) that it is universal: this he now
In
ver.
vopov has
proceeds to develope. St. Paul 12. ou yap cori SiaaroXr) 'louSaiou tc Ka! "eXXtjv'os. first explains the meaning of this statement, namely, the universal character of the Gospel, by making it clear that it is the sole method for Jews as well as for Gentiles. This was both a warning
X.
12, 13.]
391
for the Jews. A warning if they thought that, preaching of the Gospel, they might seek salvation in their own way a consolation it once they realized the burden of the law and that they might be freed from it. The Jews have
and a consolation
;
in spite of the
no special privileges (cf. i. 16; ii. 9, 10; iii. 9; 24; xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11); they must obtain biKaiovlw) by the same methods and on the same conditions as the Gentiles. This St. Paul has already proved on the ground that
in this relation
1
Cor.
i.
they equally with the Gentiles have sinned (iii. 23). He now deduces it from the nature and the work of the Lord. 6 y&P auTos Kupios tt&vtuv, cf. 1 Cor. xii. 5. This gives the reason for the similarity of method for all alike it is the same
: '
Lord who redeemed

as predicate for
it
all
mankind
alike,
and conferred upon

'
all
alike
such wealth of spiritual blessings/
It is better to take Kvpios irdvrap
contains the point of the sentence,

'
The same
is
Lord
Lord of all (so the RV.). Kupios must clearly refer to Christ, cf. vv. 9, Kvpios navrcov Acts x. 36, and cf. ix. 5, and Phil.
is
11.
ii.
He
called
10, 11.
ttXoutw:
'abounding
in
spiritual wealth,'
cf.
esp.
Eph.
iii.
tois edveaiv evayye\io~acr0ai to avei-i-xylaarov ttKovtos tov Xpioroi).
tous emicaXouu.&'ous auToV. tmKaXflo-dai top Kvpiop, or more correctly ciriKaXdo-Oai to ovopa tov Kvpiov, is the habitual translation of a common Hebrew formula. From the habit of beginning
LXX
addresses to a deity by mentioning his name, it became a technical expression for the suppliant to a god, and a designation of his worshippers. Hence the Israelites were ol emKaXo^voi top Kvpiop or to opopa Kvpiov. They were in fact specially distinguished as the worshippers of Jehovah. It becomes therefore very significant when we find just this expression used of the Christians as
the worshippers of Christ, 6 Kvpios, in order to designate them as apart from all others, cf. 1 Cor. i. 2 avv nao-i tois (iriKaXovpepois ovopa tov Kvpiov rjpwp 'irjaov Xpio-rov. There is a treatise on the
by A. Seeberg, Die Anbeiung des Herrn bei Paulus, Riga, 89 1, see especially pp. 38, 43-46. 13. ir&s yap 6s ay TriKa\^r|Tai. St. Paul sums up and clenches his argument by the quotation of a well-known passage of Scripture, Joel ii. 32 (the quotation agrees with both the LXX and the Hebrew texts). The original passage refers to the prophetic conception of the day of the Lord.' The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.' At that time whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. This salvation (a-uBfja-fTai, cf. ver. 9 aa>di]crrj, 10 o-a>TT]piav), the Jewish expectation of safety in the Messianic kingdom when the end comes, is used of that Christian salvation which is the spiritual fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. Kupiou. The term Kvpios is applied to Christ by St. Paul in
subject
1
'
'
292
[X. 14-21.
quotations from the O. T. in 2 Thess. i. 9 ; 1 Cor. ii. 16; x. 21, 2 Cor. iii. 16, and probably in other passages. 26 This quotation, besides concluding the argument of vv. i-i3> suggests the thought which is the transition to the next point discussedthe opportunities offered to all of hearing this message.
;
ISRAEL'S UNBELIEF
NOT EXCUSED BY WANT OP
OPPORTUNITY.
X. 14-21. This unbelief on the part of Israel was not owing to want of knowledge. Fully accredited messengers such a body as is necessary for preaching and for faith There is no land but has heard have announced the Gospel.
the voices
of the Evangelical preachers
(vv.
14-18).
Nor
was it owing to want of understanding. Their own Prophets warned them that it was through disobedience that they
would
reject
God's message
is
(vv. 19-21).
is
"All then that
required for salvation
sincerely
and genuinely
But there are conditions preliminary to this to call on the Lord. which are necessary perhaps it may be urged, that these have not
;
been
is
fulfilled.
Let us consider what these conditions
are.
If a
man
it is
on Jesus he must have faith in necessary that he must hear the call;
to call
Him
to obtain faith
that again
implies that
15
And heralds must have been sent forth to proclaim this call. heralds imply a commission. Have these conditions been fulfilled ?
Yes.
Duly authorized messengers have preached the Gospel. The Isaiah (lit 7) defact may be stated in the words of the Prophet who bring news messengers the of approach scribing the welcome
of the return from captivitythat great type of the other, Messianic, good Deliverance * How beautiful are the feet of them that preach
:
tidings/
of this, all did not give it a This does not imply that the passage message has not been given. In fact Isaiah in the same spoke also of the inin which he foretold the Apostolic message, (liii. 1) 'Lord, who credulity with which the message is received 17 confirms what ? incidentally Which hath believed our message only come from the can Faith ago moment saying a we were
16
But
it
may
be urged, in
spite
patient and submissive hearing.
'
X. 14-21.]

about Christ.
alleged
:
293
message heard, and the message heard implies the message sent
the message, that
18
is,
But
it
may be
We
grant
it
was preached, but
that
does not prove that Israel heard
it.
Is that possible,
when
in the
words of Psalm xix

into
19
'
the voices of God's messengers went forth
all
lands,
and
their
words
: '
to the limits of the
known world
its
Or
another excuse
Israel heard but did not understand.'
Can you
say that of Israel

its
From
the very beginning of
history
a long succession of
Prophets foretold the Divine scheme.

xxxii.
Moses, to begin with, wrote (Deut.
21) 'I will excite you
to jealousy at a nation outside the pale, that does not count as a
nation at
stripped
all.
will
rouse your anger at seeing yourselves out-
by a nation
whom you regard

20
as possessing
no
intelligence
for the things of religion/
Isaiah too
was
full
of boldness.
In
the face of his fellow-countrymen he asserted (lxv. 1) that God's
mercies should be gained by those

(the Gentiles).
21
who had
not striven after them
And
then he turns round to Israel and says that
although
with
all
God had
never ceased stretching out His arms to them
the tenderness of a mother, they
had received His
call
with
disobedience, and
His message with criticism and contradiction.

not because of God's unfaithfulness or in-
The Jews have

justice,
fallen,
not because of want of opportunity, but because they are a
rebellious people
their
people
who
refuse to be taught,
who choose
warning
own way, who
cleave to that
way
in spite of every
and of every message.

14-21. This section seems to be arranged on the plan of sugdifficulties, and giving short decisive answers to each (1) But how can men believe the Gospel unless it has been fully preached ? (v. 14). Answer. It has been preached as Isaiah foretold' (ver. 15). (2) 'Yet, all have not accepted it' (ver. 16). Answer. That does not prove that it was not preached. Isaiah foretold also this neglect of the message' (vv. 16, 17). (3) 'But perhaps the Jews did not hear' (v. 18). Answer. 'Impossible. The Gospel has been preached everywhere.' (4) 'But perhaps they did not understand' (ver. 19). Answer. 'That again is impossible. The Gentiles, a people without any real knowledge, have understood. The real fact is they were a disobedient, selfThe object is to fix the guilt of the Jews by rewilled people.' moving every defence which might be made on the ground of want
gesting a series of
:
'
'
'
of opportunities.
'
294
[X. 14, 15.
'The passage which follows (14-21) is in style one of the most obscure This statement of Jowett's is hardly exaggerated. portions of the Epistle.' ' The obscurity arises,' as he proceeds to point out, ' from the argument These are quoted without of the Old Testament.' passages being founded on explanation, and without their relation to the argument being clearly brought out. The first difficulty is to know where to make a division in
Some put it after ver. 11 (so Go.) making vv. n-21 a proof the chapter. of the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles some after ver. 13 (Chrys. Lips.). The decision of Weiss, Oltr. Gif.) ; some after ver. 15 (Lid. the question will always depend on the opinion formed of the drift of the It may be noticed passage, but we are not without structural assistance. throughout these chapters that each succeeding paragraph is introduced by so ix. 14x1 ovv epov/xev; 30; xi. I, II. a question with the particle ovv And this seems to arise from the meaning of the particle it sums up the conclusion of the preceding paragraph as an introduction to a further step in the argument. This meaning will exactly suit the passage under consideration. ' that is the conclusion The condition of salvation is to call on the Lord of the last section : then the Apostle goes on, if this be so, what then {ovv) ? are the conditions necessary for attaining it, and have they been fulfilled the words forming a suitable introduction to the next stage in the argument. This use of ovv to introduce a new paragraph is very common in St. Paul.
;
WH.
'
'
See especially
Rom.
v. 1, vi. 1, xii.
Eph.
iv. 1
Tim.
ii.
Tim.
ii.
I,
It may be noticed that it is not easy besides other less striking instances. have divided the text of these to understand the principle on which chapters, making no break at all at ix. 29, beginning a new paragraph at chap, x, making a break here at ver. 15, making only a slight break at chap, xi, and starting a new paragraph at ver. 13 of that chapter at what is really only a parenthetical remark.
WH.
The main difficulty of these verses centres round two With what object are they introduced ? And what is the quotation from Isaiah intended to prove ? 1. One main line of interpretation, following Calvin, considers that the words are introduced to justify the preaching of the Gospel
X.
14. 15.
:
points
to the Gentiles
in fact to support the nZs of the previous verse.
have intended His Gospel to go to the heathen, for a duly commissioned ministry (and St. Paul is thinking of himself) has been sent out to preach it. The quotation then follows as a justiThe possification from prophecy of the ministry to the Gentiles. bility of adopting such an interpretation must depend partly on the view taken of the argument of the whole chapter (see the General Discussion at the end), but in any case the logical connexion is wrong. If that were what St. Paul had intended to say, he must have written, Salvation is intended for Gentile as well as Jew, for God a commission has commissioned His ministers to preach to them
God must
'
implies preaching, preaching implies faith, faith implies worship, and worship salvation. The conversion of the Gentiles is the necessary result of the existence of an apostolate of the Gentiles/ It will be seen that St. Paul puts the argument exactly in the
opposite way, in a manner in fact in which he could never prove this conclusion. 2. Roman Catholic commentators, followed by Liddon and
X.
14.]

But
2,$$
Gore, consider that the words are introduced in order to justify an

apostolic or authorized ministry.
this is to introduce into the
it,
passage an idea which for the argument.
is
quite alien to
and which
is
unnecessary
3. The right interpretation of the whole of this paragraph seems to be that of Chrysostom. The Jews, it has been shown, have neglected God's method of obtaining righteousness; but in order, as he desires, to convict them of guilt in this neglect, St. Paul must show that they have had the opportunity of knowing about it, that their ignorance (ayvoovvres ver. 3) is culpable. He therefore begins by asking what are the conditions necessary for calling upon the Lord ? and then shows that these conditions have been fulfilled. There may still be some question as to the meaning of the quotation. (1) It may be introduced merely as corroborative of the last chain in the argument (so most commentators). This need of a commissioned ministry corresponds to the joy and delight experienced when they arrive. Or better, (2) it may be looked upon as stating the fulfilYes, and they have come, a fact that no ment of the conditions. one can fail to recognize, and which was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah.' So Chrysostom, who sums up the passage thus If the
'
'
'
'
being saved, then, came of calling upon Him, and calling upon Him from believing, and believing from hearing, and hearing from preaching, and preaching from being sent, and if they were sent, and did preach, and the prophet went round with them to point them out, and proclaim them, and say that these were they whom they showed of so many ages ago, whose feet even they praised because of the matter of their preaching ; then it is quite clear that And that because the not believing was their own fault only. God's part had been fulfilled completely/ The word ovv, as often in St. Paul, 14. ttws ouV emicaXeowTai. We have discovered the new marks a stage in the argument. system of salvation: what conditions are necessary for its acceptance?' The question is not the objection of an adversary, nor merely rhetorical, but rather deliberative (see Burton, M. and T. 169): hence the subjunctive (see below) is more suitable than the futute which we find in ix. 30. The subject of imKakkvwvrcu. is implied in vv. 12, 13, 'those who would seek this new method of salvation by
'
calling
on
the
name
of the
Lord/
In this series of questions in w. 14, 15 the MSS. vary between the subGenerally the authority for the subjunctive strongly junctive and the future.
preponderates
KT)pvwoiv variation.
tTwcaXtowvTai
latet
1
NABDEKLP.
N c A 2 (A
B and some minuscules

;
XABDEFG, martvawaiv NBDEFGP, a double In the case of tiucovawoiv there read aicovawoiv NDEF
is
;
and some minuscules read dKovaovrai L etc., Clem.- Alex. Ath. Chrys. edd. Theodrt. and theTR. read atcovoovai. Here however the double Although the form anovaovai variant makes the subjunctive almost certain. is possible in N,Tt Greek, it is most improbable that it should have arisen as
GKP
296
[X. 14,
15.
a corruption from aKovaovrai, and

correct reading.
it is too weakly supported to be the aKovawoiv, which will explain both variants and harmonizes with the other subjunctives, is therefore correct. B here alone among the leading MSS. is correct throughout.
how can they believe on Him whom they ou ouk T\Kovorav ov is for els tovtov ov have not heard preaching ? and as aKoveiu rivos means not to hear of some one/ but to hear some one preaching or speaking/ it must be so translated, and what follows must be interpreted by assuming that the preaching of Christ's messengers is identical with the preaching of Christ Himself. This interpretation (that of Mey. and Gif.), although not without difficulties, is probably better than either of the other solutions proposed. It is suggested that ov may be for ov, and the passage is translated 'of whom they have not heard'; but only a few instances of this usage are quoted, and they seem to be all early and poetical. The interpretation of Weiss, ov where, completely breaks the
:
'
'
'
'
continuity of the sentences.

15. KTjpufoMHy.
in KTjpvocrovTos.
The nominative
is ol K^pvao-ovres,
which
is
implied
By means of this series of questions St. Paul works out the conditions necessary for salvation back to their starting-point. Salvation is gained by calling on the Lord; this implies faith. Faith is only possible with knowledge. Knowledge implies an preacher implies a commission. instructor or preacher. If
therefore salvation
is
to be
made
possible for everyone, there

to
must
have been
men
sent out with a
commission
preach
,
it.
'SI (opaioi ot iroSes iw euayy\i t dyaOd. > opli>(i)v introducing this quotation St. Paul implies that the commissioned messengers have been sent, and the conditions therefore necessary for salvation have been fulfilled. ' Yes, and they have been sent: the prophet's words are true describing the glorious character of the Evangelical preachers.' The quotation is taken from Isaiah lii. 7, and resembles the text. Hebrew more closely than our present In the original it describes the messengers who carry abroad the glad tidings But the whole of this section of of the restoration from captivity. Isaiah was felt by the Christians to be full of Messianic import, and this verse was used by the Rabbis of the coming of the Messiah (see the references given by Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. ii. 179). St. Paul quotes it because he wishes to describe in O. T. language the fact which will be recognized as true when stated, and to show that these facts are in accordance with the Divine method. St. Paul applies the exclamation to the appearance of the Apostles of Christ upon the scene of history. Their feet are apaioi in his eyes, as they announce the end of the captivity of sin, and publish tlpyt*) (Eph. vi. 15 to ciiayyeXiov rrjs elprjvrjs) made by Christ, through the
k<x0ws YeypairTai,
By
LXX
'
X.
15, 16.]
397
blood of His Cross, between God and man, between earth and heaven (2 Cor. v. 18-20; Eph. ii. 17; Col. i. 20); and all the blessings of goodness (to dyadd) which God in Christ bestows on the Redeemed, especially dticaioavpr).' Liddon.
There are two critical questions in connexion with this quotation the reading of the Greek text and its relation to the Hebrew and to the LXX. (1) The RV. reads ws wpaxoi ol -nodes tSjv evayyeXiôîvcuv dyoudd: the
:
TR. inserts t&v evay. eiprjvrjv after ol nodes. The balance of authority is strongly in favour of the RV. The clause is omitted by minusc. pane. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Aeth., Clem.-Alex. Orig. and Orig.-lat. it is inserted Sec, Vulg. Syrr. (Pesh. Hard.) Arm. Goth., Chrys. Iren.-lat. Hil. al. The natural explanation is that the insertion has been made that the citation may correspond more accurately to the LXX. This end is not indeed altogether attained, for the reads anor\v elprjvys, and the omission might have arisen from Homoeoteleuton but these considerations can hardly outweigh the clear preponderance of authority. There is a somewhat similar difficulty about a second minor variation. The RV. reads dya$d with Orig. Eus. Jo.-Damasc, the
NABC
byDEFGKLP
LXX
ABCDEFGP,
Clem.-Alex. Chrys. and most later authorities. omits the article, and it is difficult quite to see why it should have been inserted by a corrector; whereas if it had formed part of the original text he could quite naturally have omitted it. translation is here very inexact, irdpeim us &pa eirl twv (2) The opewv, wi nodes evayyeKiôfievov dnoT)v eiprjvqs, ws evayyeXi^Sfievos dyaOd.
etc.
TR. has rd dyadd with N

Here the
LXX
LXX
words approach much more nearly to the Hebrew (RV.) ' beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation.' He shortens the quotation, makes it plural instead of singular to suit his purpose, and omits the words ' upon the mountains,' which have only a local significance.
St. Paul's
How
16. dXV ou ttoVtcs. An objection suggested. ' Yet, in spite of the fact that this message was sent, all did not obey the Gospel/ ov irdvres is a meiosis ; cf. ri yap el f}irio-TT}o-dv ti^cs (Hi. 3).
,'
uiri^Kouo-ai', like
virerdyrjo-av (ver. 3),
seems to imply the idea of

. . .
voluntary submission: cf. vi. 16, 17 dovXol fort g> viraKovere VTrrfKovaare 8e ck napMas els ou 7rape86dt]Te. tw euayYcXiw. The word is of course suggested by the quotation of the previous verse. ' But 'Haafas y^P Xfyei k.t.X. this fact does not prove that no
it is indeed equally in accordance with prophecy, for Isaiah, in a passage immediately following that in which he describes the messengers, describes also the failure of the people to receive the message/ With ydp cf. Matt. i. 20 ff. The quotation is from the Kopie, as Origen of Is. liii. 1. pointed out, does not occur in the Hebrew. dKorf: means (1) 'hearing,' 'the faculty by which a thing is heard'; (2) 'the substance of what is heard,' 'a report, message/ In this verse it is used in the second meaning, ' who hath believed our report?' In ver. 17, it shades off into the first, 'faith comes by hearing/ It is quite possible of course to translate 'report' pr
message had been sent ;
LXX
'
298
'message* there
fifj
EPISTLE TO
also,
THE ROMANS
[X. 16-18.
but then the connexion of idea with ver. 18
ovk fjKovaav is obscured.

It
has been questioned to
the preceding verses

quite general
the Gentiles or the

ff.
whom
St.
Paul
is
referring in this
and
is
Jews.
The language
and equally applicable to either, but the whole drift of the argument shows that it is of the Jews the Apostle is thinking. Grotius makes vv. 14 and 15 the objection of an opponent to which
St.
Paul replies in ver. 16

'
Hence may be inferred (in corroboration of apa rj mans. what was said above) that the preliminary condition necessary for This faith is to have heard, and to have heard implies a message/ sentence is to a certain extent parenthetical, merely emphasizing a fact already stated yet the language leads us on to the excuse
17.
;
suggested in the next verse. Cf. ver. 8 a message about Christ/ 81& prâ-ros XpioroG he pr/fia tt)s 7ti<ttg>s 6 Knpvao-ofxev. St. Paul comes back to the phrase has used before, and the use of it will remind his readers that this message has been actually sent.
for unbelief
: '
Xpiarov is the reading of Aeth. Orig.-lat. 2/2, Ambrst. Clem.- Alex. Chrys. Theodrt.
St. Paul has laid down a Gospel and messengers reminds his readers that this, the Jews have not
NBCDE minusc. pane,bcVulg. Sah. Boh. Arm. pier., Syrr., Aug. Qeov of N AD KLP
c
al.
the conditions
which make
faith possible,
of the Gospel ; the language he has used both these have come. Yet, in spite of He now suggests two possible obeyed.
it
excuses.
18. dXX& Xcyw
that those
:
'
but
'
may be
said in excuse
It
is
possible
whom
:
you accuse of not obeying the Gospel message

'
On prj ov see Burton, M. and T. 468. have never heard of it ? an emphatic corrective, with a slight touch of irony jicôurye
(Lid.)
;
cf. ix.
20.
St.
borrowed from Psalm
Paul expresses his meaning in words which he cites word for word according to the LXX, but without any mark of quotation. What Does he use them stress does he intend to lay on the words? for purely literary purposes to express a well-known fact ? or does he also mean to prove the fact by the authority of the O. T.
cts irao-ai' ri\v yr\v k.t.X.
xix. (xviii.) 5,
which foretold
1.
it ?
Primarily at any rate fact in suitable language.
Paul wishes to express a well-known They have not say ? Why the whole world and the ends of the earth have heard! heard. And have you, amongst whom the heralds abode such a long time, and of whose land they were, not heard ?' Chrys. 2. But the language of Scripture is not used without a point. In the original Psalm these words describe how universally the
St.
'
What do you
; :
X.
18, 19.]

glorify
299
Paul
'
works of nature
God.
By
using them
St.
compares
the universality of the preaching of the Gospel with the universality with which the works of nature proclaim God.' Gif.
second difficulty is raised by older commentators. As a matter of fact the Gospel had not been preached everywhere ; and some writers have inverted this argument, and used this text as a proof that even as early as this Christianity had been universally preached. But all that St. Paul means to imply is that it is universal in its
character. Some there were who might not have heard it some Jews even might be among them. He is not dealing with individuals. The fact remained true that, owing to the universal character of its preaching, those whose rejection of it he is considering had at any rate as a body had the opportunities of hearing
;
of
it.
19. &XX& Xyw, (xt) 'lo-pcujX ouk eyva ; a second excuse is suggested 'surely it cannot be that it was from ignorance that Israel failed?'
meaning of the somewhat emphatic introduction has been suggested that it means a change of subject. That while the former passage refers to Gentiles, or to Gentiles as well as Jews, here the writer at last turns to Israel in particular. But there has been no hint that the former passage was dealing with the Gentiles, and if such a contrast had been implied 'io-pa^X would have had to be put in a much more prominent place, ntpl 8e rod 'la-pafjX Xe'yo), pr) ovk ?yv<o ; The real reason for the introduction of the word is that it gives an answer to the question, and shows the untenable character of the excuse. Has Israel, Israel with its long line of Prophets, and its religious privileges and its Divine teaching, acted in ignorance? When once Israel ' has been used there can be no doubt of the answer. (2) But, again, what is it suggested that Israel has not known? As the clause is parallel with pr) ovk rjKowav, and as no hint is given of any change, the object must be the same, namely prjpa Xpio-rov, the message concerning the Messiah. All such interpretations as the 'calling of the Gentiles' or 'the universal preaching of the Gospel' are outside the line of argument. The (3) But how is this consistent with dyvouvvres ver. 3 ? It is true Israel's zeal contradiction is rather formal than real. was not guided by deep religious insight, and that they clung blindly and ignorantly to a method which had been condemned but this ignorance was culpable if they did not know, they might From the very beginning of their history their have known. whole line of Prophets had warned them of the Divine plan. (4) The answer to this question is given in three quotations from the O. T. Israel has been warned that their Messiah would be rejected by themselves and accepted by the Gentiles. They cannot plead that the message was difficult to understand
(1)
is
What
the
of
'la-parjX?
It
'
300
EPISTLE TO THE
(it
ROMANS
[X. 19-21.
would accept it, and thus again can they plead that it was difficult to find ; for Isaiah with great boldness has stated that men who never sought or asked for it would find it. The real reason was that the Israelites are a disobedient and a stubborn people, and, although God has all day long stretched forth His hands to them, they will not hear Him.
even a foolish people
stir
was
foretold)
up
Israel to jealousy.
Nor
irpw-ros Mwarjs.
fi>6i>s
Mcoarjs.
'
Even
as early in Israel's history as
Moses.'
taken from Deut. xxxii. 2 1 suby& irapa^TjXwo-w u/jias k.t.X. according to the LXX (bfias is substituted for avrovs). In the original the words mean that as Israel has roused God's jealousy by going after no-gods, so He will rouse Israel's jealousy by
:
stantially
snowing His mercy to those who are no-people.

Haatas oe diroToXjia. St. Paul's position in opposing the prejudices of his countrymen made him feel the boldness of Isaiah The citation is in standing up against the men of his own time. from Isaiah lxv. 1 according to the LXX, the clauses of the The words in the original refer to the original being inverted.
20.
apostate Jews.
ix.
c
St.
Paul applies them to the Gentiles; see on
25, 26.
B D* F with perhaps Sah. and Goth, add Iv twice before to??, a Western It does not occur in reading which has found its way into B (cf. xi. 6).
KACD bc ELP
etc.,
and many Fathers.
This citation (Is. lxv. 2) 21. irpos 8c Toy Mo-paT)X X^yei k.t.X. follows almost immediately that quoted in ver. 20, and like it is taken from the LXX, with only a slight change in the order. In the original both this verse and the preceding are addressed
to apostate Israel;
St.
Paul applies the
first
part to the Gentiles,
the latter part definitely to Israel.
The Argument of ix. 30-x. 21 Human Responsibility. We have reached a new stage in our argument. The first step
:
was the vindication of God's

step has
faithfulness
guilt
been
definitely to fix
and justice the second on man. It is clearly laid

:
down that the Jews have been They chose the wrong method.
of accepting
zeal for
rejected through their
own
fault.
When
Him, they were offended.
the Messiah came, instead They did not allow their
And to be controlled by a true spiritual knowledge. All possible the responsibility for this is brought home to them. excuses, such as want of opportunity, insufficient knowledge, inadequate warning, are suggested, but rejected. The Jews are
God
a disobedient people and they have been rejected for
obedience.
their
dis-
IX.'
30-X.
it
21.]

that
301
is
Now
has been argued

ix.
such an interpretation
clearly,
it
in-
consistent with Chap.
That proves
is
asserted, that
grace comes to man, not in answer to man's efforts, but in accordance with God's will. How then can St. Paul go on to prove that the Jews are to blame ? In order to avoid this assumed inconsistency, the whole section, or at any rate the final portion, has
been interpreted differently: vv. 11-21 are taken to defend the Apostolic ministry to the Gentiles and to justify from the O. T. the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews: vv. 14, 15 are used by St. Augustine to prove that there can be no faith without the Divine calling; by Calvin, that as there is faith
among the Gentiles, there must have been a Divine call, and so the preaching to them is justified. Then the quotations in vv. 18-21 are considered to refer to the Gentiles mainly; they are
merely prophecies of the facts stated in ix. 30, 31 and do not imply and are not intended to imply human responsibility. An apparent argument in favour of this interpretation is suggested by the introductory words ix. 30, 31. It is maintained that two propositions are laid down there; one the calling of the Gentiles, the other the rejection of the Jews, and both these have to be justified in the paragraph that follows. But, as a matter
of fact, this reference to the Gentiles is clearly introduced not as a main point to be discussed, but as a contrast to the rejection of Israel. It increases the strangeness of that fact, and with that fact the paragraph is concerned. This is brought out at once by the question asked dia rl ; which refers, as the answer shows, entirely to the rejection of Israel. If the Apostle were not condemning the Jews there would be no reason for his sorrow (x. 1) and the palliation for their conduct which he suggests (x. 2); and when we come to examine the structure of the latter part we find that all the leading sentences are concerned not with the defence of any calling,' but with fixing the guilt of those rejected for example a\\ ov irdvres v7rr)Kovaav (v. 1 6), aXka Aeya>, ovk fjicovcrau', (v. 1 8),
:
/lit)
'la-paf}\ ovk eyva>; (v. 1 9). As there is nowhere any reference to Gentiles rejecting the message, the reference must be to the Jews ; and the object of the section must be to show the reason why
pr)
The answer
(although Gentiles have been accepted) the Jews have been rejected. is given in the concluding quotation, which sums up
the whole argument. It is because the Jews have been a disobedient and gainsaying people. Chrysostom, who brings out the whole point of this section admirably, sums up its conclusion as
'Then to prevent them saying, But why was He not manifest to us also ? he sets down what is more than this, that I not only was made manifest, but I even continued with My hands stretched out, inviting them, and displaying all the concern of an affectionate father, and a fond mother that is set on
follows:
made
303
her child.
to
all

See
[iX-XI.
answer
how he
has brought us a most lucid
the difficulties before raised, by showing that it was from their own temper that ruin had befallen them, and that they are wholly undeserving of pardon/
We must accept the interpretation then which sees in this chapter a proof of the guilt of the Jews. St. Paul is in fact looking at the question from a point of view different from that which he adopted in Chap. ix. There he assumes Divine Sovereignty, and assuming it shows that God's dealings with the Jews are
justified.
he assumes human responsibility, and shows that Two great steps are passed in the Divine Theodicy. We need not anticipate the argument, but must allow it to work itself out. The conclusion may suggest a point of view from which these two apparently inconsistent attitudes can be reconciled.
Now
assuming
it
the Jews are guilty.
St. Paul's
Use of
the
Old Testament.
In Chaps, ix-xi St. Paul, as carrying on a long and sustained argument, which, if not directed against Jewish opponents, discusses a question full of interest to Jews from a Jewish point of view, makes continued use of the O. T., and gives an opportunity for
investigating his
methods of quotation and
interpretation.
The
text of his quotations is primarily that of the
LXX.
Ac-
cording to Kautzsch (De Veteris Tesiamenti locis a Paulo Apostolo allegatis), out of eighty-four passages in which St. Paul cites the O. T. about seventy are taken directly from the or do not vary from it appreciably, twelve vary considerably, but still show signs of affinity, and two only, both from the book of Job (Rom. xi 35 Job v. 13) are definitely inJ ob xli. 3 (i i) ; i Cor. iii. 19 dependent and derived either from the Hebrew text or some quite distinct version. Of those derived from the a certain number, such for example as Rom. x. 15, show in some points a resemblance to the Hebrew text as against the LXX. We have probably not sufficient evidence to say whether this arises from a reminiscence of the Hebrew text (conscious or unconscious), or from an Aramaic Targum, or from the use of an earlier form of a text. It may be noticed that St. Paul's quotations sometimes agree with late MSS. of the as against the great uncials (cf. iii. 4, 15 ff.). As to the further question whether he cites from memory or by reference, it may be safely said that the majority of the quotations are from memory ; for many of them are somewhat inexact, and
LXX
LXX
LXX
LXX
those which are correct are for the most part short and from well-
known books.
and the long
There
is
a very marked distinction between these
literary quotations of the Epistle to the
Hebrews.
IX-XI.]
$0$
In his formulae of quotation St Paul adopts all the various forms which seem to have been in use in the Rabbinical schools, and are found in Rabbinical writings. Even his less usual expressions may be paralleled from them (cf. xi. 2). Another point of resemblance may be found in the series of passages which he strings together from different books (cf. iii. 10) after the manner of a Rabbinical discourse. St. Paul was in fact educated as a Rabbi in Rabbinical schools and consequently his method of using the O. T. is such as might have been learnt in these schools. But how far is his interpretation Rabbinical? It is not quite easy to answer this question directly. It is perhaps better to point out first of all some characteristics which it possesses. In the first place it is quite clearly not historical in the modern sense of the word. The passages are quoted without regard to their context or to the circumstances under which they were written. The most striking instances of this are those cases in which the words of the O. T. are used in an exactly opposite sense to that which they originally possessed. For instance in ix. 25, 26 words used in the O. T. of the ten tribes are used of the Gentiles, in x. 6-8 words used of the Law are applied to the Gospel as against the Law. On the other hand Rabbinical interpretations in the sense St. Paul in which they have become proverbial are very rare. almost invariably takes the literal and direct meaning of the words (although without regard to their context), he does not allegorize or play upon their meaning, or find hidden and mysterious principles. There are some obvious exceptions, such as Gal. iv. 22 ff., but for the most part St. Paul's interpretation is not allegorical, nor in this sense of the term Rabbinical. Speaking broadly, St. Paul's use of the O. T. may be described
' '
There as literal, and we may distinguish three classes of texts. are firstly those, and they are the largest number, in which the
texts are used in a sense corresponding to their O. T.
All texts quoted in favour of
meaning. moral principles, or spiritual ideas, or the methods of Divine government may be grouped under this head. The argument in ix. 20, 21 is correctly deduced from O. T. prinix. 1 7 is not quite so exactly correct, but thoroughly in accordance with O. T. ideas. So again the method of Divine Election is deduced correctly from Controversially these arguments the instances quoted in ix. 6-13. were quite sound ; actually they represent the principles and ideas
ciples
the quotation in
is
the principle evolved
oftheO.T.
second class of passages consists of those in which, without O T., the Apostle uses its language in order to express adequately and impressively the ideas he has to convey. A typical instance is that in x. 18, where the words of the Psalm are used in quite a different sense from that which they have in
definitely citing the
304
the original,
x.
[IX-XI.
and without any definite formula of citation. So in 6-8 (see the note) the O. T. language is used rather than a text from it cited. The same is true in a number of other passages where, as the text of Westcott and Hort exhibits clearly, ideas borrowed from the O. T. are expressed in language which is borrowed, but without any definite sign of quotation. That this is the natural and normal use of a religious book must clearly be 'For [the writers of the N. T. the Scripture], was recognized. They had almost no other books. the one thesaurus of truth. The words of the O. T. had become a part of their mental furniture, and they used them to a certain extent with the freedom with
which they used their own ideas (Toy, Quotations, &c. p. xx). It a use which is constantly being made of the Bible at the present day, and when we attempt to analyze the exact force it is intended Between to convey, it is neither easy nor desirable to be precise. the purely rhetorical use on the one side and the logical proof on the other there are infinite gradations of ideas, and it is never quite possible to say how far in any definite passage the use is purely rhetorical and how far it is intended to suggest a definite argument. But there is a third class of instances in which the words are used in a sense which the original context will not bear, and yet the object is to give a logical proof. This happens mainly in a certain in those in which the Law is used to condemn class of passages the Law, in those in which passages not Messianic are used with a Messianic bearing, and in those (a class connected with the last) in which passages are applied to the calling of the Gentiles which
'
is
do not refer to that event in the original. Here controversially the method is justified. Some of the passages used Messianically by the Christians had probably been so used by the Rabbis before them.
cases the methods they adopted were those of their contempohowever incorrect they may have been. But what of the method in relation to our own times ? Are we justified in using it ?
In
all
raries,
The answer to
justified.
that
must be sought
with that of the Rabbis.

their
We
in a comparison of their teaching have said that controversially it was
The method was the same as, and own time but it was no better. As far
;
Rabbis were equally

fact
justified
in their
good as, that of method goes the There is in conclusions.

as
as
and wrong, when once it is permitted to take words in a sense which their original context will not bear. Anything can be proved from anything. Where then does the superiority of the N. T. writers lie ? In As extheir correct interpretation of the spirit of the O. T. pounders of religion, they belong to the whole world and to all
no standard of
right
'
The essence time as logicians, they belong to the first century. of their writing is the Divine spirit of love and righteousness that filled their souls, the outer shell is the intellectual form in which
;
fX-XI.]
365
the spirit found expression in words. Their comprehension of the deeper spirit of the O. T. thought is one thing the logical method by which they sought formally to extend it is quite another (Toy, Quotations, Sfc. p. xxi). This is just one of those points in which we must trace the superiority of the N. T. writers to its root and take from them that, and not their faulty exegesis. An illustration may be drawn from Church History. The Church inherited equally from the Jewish schools, the Greek Philosophers, and the N. T. writers an unhistorical method of interpretation and in the Arian controversy (to take an example) it constantly makes use of this method. We are learning to realize more and more how much of our modern theology is based on the writings of St. Athanasius ; but that does not impose upon us the necessity of adopting his exegesis. If the methods that he applies to the O. T. are to be admitted it is almost as easy to deduce Arianism from it. Athanasius did not triumph because of those exegetical methods, but because he rightly interpreted (and men felt that he had rightly
: '
interpreted) the spirit of the N. T. His creed, his religious insight, to a certain extent his philosophy, we accept : but not his exegetical
methods. So with the O. T. St. Paul triumphed, and the Christian Church triumphed, over Judaism, because they both rightly interpreted the spirit of the O. T. We must accept that interpretation, although we shall find that we arrive at it on other grounds. This may be
^
illustrated in
It is the
Law
two main points. paradox of ch. x that it condemns the Law out of the that it convicts the Jews by applying to them passages, which
original
in the
accuse them of breaking the Law, in order to
condemn them for keeping it. But the paradox is only apparent. Running through the O. T., in the books of the Law as well as in
those of the Prophets, is the prophetic spirit, always bringing out the spiritual truths and lessons concealed in or guarded by the Law in opposition to the formal adherence to its precepts. This spirit ' the Gospel inherits. The Gospel itself is a reawakening of the
spirit of prophecy. There are many points in which the teaching of St. Paul bears a striking resemblance to that of the old Prophets.
not by chance that so many quotations from them occur in Separated from Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah by an interval of about 800 years, he felt a kind of sympathy with them they expressed his inmost feelings like them he was at war with the evil of the world around. When they spoke of forgiveness of sins, of non-imputation of sins, of a sudden turning to God, what did this mean but righteousness by faith? When they said, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice," here also was imaged the great truth, that salvation was not of the Law Like the elder Prophets, he came not "to build up a temple made with
It is
his
writings.
306

:
[IX-XI.
hands," but to teach a moral truth like them he went forth alone, and not in connexion with the church at Jerusalem like them he was looking for and hastening to the day of the Lord ' (Jowett). This represents the truth, as the historical study of the O. T. will prove or rather one side of the truth. The Gospel is not merely the reawakening of the spirit of prophecy ; it is also the fulfilment of the spiritual teaching of Law. It was necessary for a later writer the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews when controversy was less bitter to bring this out more fully. Christ not only revived all the teaching of the Prophets, righteousness, mercy, peace ; He also exhibited by His death the teaching of the Law, the heinousness of sin, the duty of sacrifice, the spiritual union of
:
of argument will justify the Messianic use of the it historically the reality of the Messianic interpretation remains just as clear as it was to St. Paul. Allegorical and incorrect exegesis could never create an idea. They only illustrate one which has been suggested in other ways. The Messianic interpretation, and with it the further idea of the universality of the Messianic kingdom, arose because they are contained Any incorrectness of exegesis that there may be lies in the O. T. not in the ideas themselves but in finding them in passages which have probably a different meaning. We are not bound, and it would be wrong to bind ourselves, by the incorrect exegesis of particular passages ; but the reality and truth of the Messianic idea and the universal character of the Messianic kingdom, as prophesied in the O. T. and fulfilled in the N. T., remain one of the most Historical criticism real and impressive facts in religious history. does not disprove this ; it only places it on a stronger foundation and enables us to trace the origin and growth of the idea more accurately (cf. Sanday, Bampton Lectures, pp. 404, 405). The value of St. Paul's exegesis therefore lies not in his true interpretation of individual passages, but in his insight into the spiritual meaning of the O. T. ; we need not use his methods, but the books of the Bible will have little value for us' if we are not able In the cause to see in them the spiritual teaching which he saw. of truth, as a guide to right religious ideas, as a fatal enemy to many a false and erroneous and harmful doctrine, historical criticism and interpretation are of immense value but if they be divorced from a spiritual insight, such as can be learnt only by the spiritual teaching of the N. T., which interprets the O. T. from the standpoint of its highest and truest fulfilment, they will become as barren and unproductive as the strangest conceits of the Rabbis or the most unreal fancies of the Schoolmen. [See, besides other works Jowett, Contrasts of Prophecy, in his edition of the Romans; Toy, Quotations in the New Testament,
God and man. The same lines

If
O. T.
we study
XI.
1-5.]
THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL
30?
New York, 1884; Kautzsch, De Veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo Apostolo allegatis, Lipsiae, 1869; Clemen (Dr. August), Ueber den Gebrauch des Allen Testaments im Neuen Testamenle, und speciell in den Reden Jesu (Einladungsschrift, &c, Leipzig, 1891); Turpie
(David McCalman),
1868.]
The
Old Testament in
the
New, London,
THE REJECTION" OP ISRAEL NOT COMPLETE.

XI. 1-10. Israel then has refiised
offered it; is it therefore rejected?
to accept the
salvation
No. At any rate the rejection is not complete. Now as always in the history of Israel, although the mass of the people may be condemned to disbelief, there is a remnant that shall be saved.
The conclusion of the preceding argument is this. It is through own fault that Israel has rejected a salvation which was fully and freely offered. Now what does this imply? Does it mean that God has rejected His chosen people? Heaven forbid that I should say this I who like them am an Israelite, an Israelite
their
!
by
a
birth
and not a
2
proselyte, a lineal descendant of
Abraham,
member
the
of the tribe that with Judah formed the restored Israel

exile.
after
No,
chose them for His
God has own before

If
not
all
rejected
His people.
He
make
time and nothing can
Him change His

it
purpose.
you say
He
has rejected them,
only shows that you have not clearly grasped the teaching of
Scripture concerning the

just such
Remnant.
his
Elijah
an accusation against
countrymen.
on Mt. Horeb brought 3 He complained
that they
God's
at
had forsaken the covenant, that they had overthrown they had slain His Prophets; just as the Jews the present day have slain the Messiah and persecuted His
altars, that
messengers.
Elijah only
was
left,
and
his
life
they sought.
rejected.
The
whole people, God's chosen people, had been

thousand
*So he
thought ; but the Divine response came to him, that there were seven
men left in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal. There was a kernel of the nation that remained loyal. 8 Exactly the same circumstances exist now as then. Now as then the mass
of the people are uniaithful, but there
is
a remnant of loyal ad-
308
[XL. 5-10.
it
herents to the Divine message:
remnant, be
6
:
remembered,
to say those
chosen by
God by an
act of free favour
that
is
whom God
has in His good pleasure selected for that position,

it
who
have in no way earned

merit of their own.
If
by any works they have done, or any that were possible Grace would lose all its
for
meaning
to
7
there
would be no occasion
God
to
show
free favour
mankind.
It is
necessary then at any rate to modify the broad statement
that has been
made.
it
Israel,
it
is
true,
has failed to obtain the
righteousness which
sought;
is
but, although this is true of the
nation as a whole, there
Remnant
of which
it
is
not true.
rest
?
Those whom God
selected have attained
it.
But what of the

find the
Their hearts have been hardened.

10 ;
7
Here again we
same
conditions prevailing throughout Israel's history.

(xxix.
vi. 9,
Isaiah declared
10)
how God had thrown
the people into a state
He had given them eyes which could not see, and ears which could not hear. All through their history the mass 8 And again of the people has been destitute of spiritual insight. in the book of Psalms, David (lxix. 23, 24) declares the Divine
of spiritual torpor.
wrath against the unfaithful of the nation

snare.'
It is just their
'
May their
table be their
it is
position as God's chosen people,

their boast, that are to
the
Law
and the
Scriptures,
9
which are
be the cause of
their ruin.
They
are to be punished
fast to that to
which they have perversely adhered.

light
by being allowed to cleave 10 Let their eyes

'
be blinded, so that they cannot see

let their
when
it
shines
upon them
back be ever bent under the burden to which they have This was God's judgement then on Israel so obstinately clung.' for their faithlessness, and it is God's judgement on them now.
1-36. St. Paul has now shown (1) (ix. 6-29) that God was perfectly free, whether as regards promise or His right as Creator, to reject Israel ; (2) (ix. 30-x. 21) that Israel on their side by neglecting
the Divine
rejection.
method of
salvation offered
them have deserved
this
from which he started, but which he never expressed, and asks, Has God, as might be thought from the drift of the argument so far, really cast away His people ? To this he gives a negative answer, which he proceeds to justify by showing (1) that this rejection is only partial (xi. 1-10), (2) only temporary (xi. 11-25), ancl (3) tnat in a11 this Divine action there has been a purpose deeper and wiser than man can altogether
to the original question
He now comes
understand
(xi.
26-36).
XI.
1.
1, 2.]

oui\
1 1
309
This somewhat emphatic phrase occurring here seems to mark a stage in the argument, the oZv as so often summing up the result so far arrived at. The change of particle shows that we have not here a third question parallel to
Xc'yw
and
in ver.
Is it possible that God has of the question implies necessarily a negative answer and suggests an argument against it. (1) By the juxtaposition of 6 Qeos and rbv Xaov avrov. Israel is God's cannot reject them. Ipsa populi eius appellatio people and so He rationem negandi continet. Beng. (2) By the use made of the language of the O. T. Three times in the O. T. (1 Sam. xii. 22; Ps. XCiii [xciv]. 14; xciv [xcv]. 4) the promise ovk aTraaerat Kvpios top \n6v avrov occurs. By using words which must be so well known St. Paul reminds his readers of the promise, and thus again implies an answer to the question. This very clear instance of the merely literary use of the language of the O. T. makes it more probable that St. Paul should have adopted a similar method elsewhere, as in x. 6 ff., 18. |xt) yeVoiTO. St. Paul repudiates the thought with horror. All his feelings as an Israelite make it disloyal in him to hold it. ica! yo-p k.t.X. These words have been taken in two ways. (1) As a proof of the incorrectness of the suggestion. St. Paul was an Israelite, and he had been saved therefore the people as a whole could not have been rejected. So the majority of commentators (Go. Va. Oltr. Weiss). But the answer to the question does not occur until St. Paul gives it in a solemn form at the beginning of the next verse; he would not therefore have previously given a reason for its incorrectness. Moreover it would be inconsistent with St. Paul's tact and character to put himself forward so promi;
'
the dXAa Xeya) of X. 18, 19. jif) dirwo-aTo 6 cos tov \abv auToC
cast
away His people?'
The form
nently.
(2) It is therefore better to take it as giving ' the motive for his deprecation, not a proof of his denial' (Mey. Gif. Lips.). Throughout this passage, St. Paul partly influenced by the reality of his own sympathy, partly by a desire to put his argument in a form as little offensive as possible, has more than once emphasized his own
(ix. 1-3 ; x. 1). Here for the first time, just going to disprove it, he makes the statement which has really been the subject of the two previous passages, and at once, in order if possible to disarm criticism, reminds his readers that he is an Israelite, and that therefore to him, as much as to them, the supposition seems almost blasphemous. 'lo-pat)XiTT)s k.t.X. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 22 Phil. iii. 5. ov irpot-yvo), which is added by Lachmann after rbv Xabv avrov, has the support of A D Chrys. and other authorities, but clearly came in from ver. 2.
kinship with Israel
when he
is
2. ouk dTrwo-aTo.
St.
Paul gives expressly and formally a negative
3i6
EPISTLE to
THE ROMANS
[XI.
2.
answer to the question he has just asked, adding emphasis by repeating the very words he has used. ov irpoiyvb). The addition of these words gives a reason for the emphatic denial of which they form a part. Israel was the race which God in His Divine foreknowledge had elected and chosen, and therefore He could not cast it off. The reference in this chapter is throughout to the election of the nation as a whole, and therefore the words cannot have a limiting sense (Orig. Chrys. Aug.), that people whom He foreknew,' i. e. those of His people whom He foreknew nor again can they possibly refer to the spiritual Israel, as that would oblige a meaning to be given to Xaos different from that in ver. i. The word npoeyva) may be taken, (i) as used in the Hebrew sense, to mean 'whom He has known or chosen beforehand.' So yivao-Kciv in the LXX. Amos iii. 2 vpas Zyvmv Ik nacriov tchv <f>v\a>v ttjs y^f. And ill St. Paul I Cor. viii. 3 (I
'
8e
tis
dyana rbv Genu, ovtos tyvuxTTai vn avrov.
Gal.
ii.
iv.
9 vvv 8e
Kvpios
yvouTts Qeov,
paWov
6c yvcocrBeiTes
vno
Qtoii.
Tim.
eyi>o)
Although there is no evidence for this use of Tcpoyivioo-Kfiv it represents probably the idea which St. Paul had in his mind (see on viii. 29). (2) But an alternative interpretation taking the word in its natural meaning of foreknowledge, must not be lost sight of, that people of whose history and future destiny God had full foreknowledge.' This seems to be the meaning with which the word is generally used (Wisd. vi. 13; viii. 8; xviii. 6; Dial. 42. p. 261 B.); so too irp6yvao~is is used Just. Mart. Apol. i. 28 definitely and almost technically of the Divine foreknowledge (Acts ii. 23); and in this chapter St. Paul ends with vindicating the Divine wisdom which had prepared for Israel and the world a destiny which exceeds human comprehension. r\ ouk oi&aT: 'You must admit cf. ii. 4; vi. 3; vii. 1; ix. 21. this or be ignorant of what the Scripture says.' The point of the quotation lies not in the words which immediately follow, but in the a contrast which represented contrast between the two passages the distinction between the apparent and the real situation at the
rovs
ovras avrov.
l ;
time
when
the Apostle wrote.

: '
iv 'HXia
in the section of Scripture
of Elijah.'
The O. T.
which narrates the story Scriptures were divided into paragraphs to

;
which were given titles derived from their subject-matter and these came to be very commonly used in quotations as references. Many instances are quoted from the Talmud and from Hebrew commentators: Berachoth, fol. 2. col. 1, fol. 4. col. 2 id quod scriptum est apud Michael, referring to Is. vi. 6. So Taanigoth, ii. 1; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, c. 9 Shir hashirim rabba i. 6, where a phrase similar to that used here, 'In Elijah,' occurs, and the same passage is quoted, I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of Hosts.' So also Philo, De Agricultural p. 203 (i. 317 Mang.) Acyet yap iv rals
;
XI. 2-4.]
dpais,
311
Gen. iii. 15. The phrase cm r^ /Sarov Mark xii. 26; Luke xx. 37; Clem. Horn. xvi. 14; Apost. Const, v. 20, is often explained in a similar manner, but verv probably incorrectly,
referring to
mi being perhaps purely local. The usage exactly corresponds method used in quoting the Homeric poems. As the Rabbis divided the O. T. into sections so the Rhapsodists divided Homer,
the
to the
and these sections were quoted by

ev vtKvla.
their subjects, cp"Ekto os dvaipto-u, P (See Fri. Delitzsch ad loc, Surenhusius, BlfiXos KaTaWayijs
P-
3i)
:
34; 25; or against some one (Kara twos), and so (4) definitely to accuse as' here and I Mace. xi. 25 Kal ivervyxavov Kar avrov rives avopot tu>v ck
' '
' he ivTuyx&vei accuses Israel before God.' The verb ivTvyxavciv means, (1) 'to meet with,' (2) 'to meet with for the purposes of conversation,' have an interview with,' Acts xxv. 24 hence (3) 'to converse with/ 'plead with,' Wisdom viii. 21, either on behalf of some one (vnep twos) Rom. viii. 27, Heb. vii.
tov eduovs:
viii.
32
x. 61, 63.
The TR. adds

omitted by
Fathers.
N C ABCDEFGP
\kycov at the end of this verse with
N*L
al. pier.,
it is
min. pauc, Vulg. Sah. Boh., and most
The two quotations come from 18; the first being repeated twice. Elijah has fled to Mt. Horeb from Jezebel, and accuses his countrymen before God of complete apostasy; he alone is faithful. God answers that even although the nation as a whole has deserted Him, yet there is a faithful remnant, 7,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. There is an analogy, St. Paul argues, between this situation and that of his own day. The spiritual condition is the same. The nation as a whole has rejected God's message, now as then; but now as then also there is a faithful remnant left, and if that be so God cannot be said to have cast away His people.
3.
Ku'pic,
tous irpo^Tcis k.t.X.

10, 14,
Kings
xix.
is somewhat shortened from the LXX, and the order of the inverted, perhaps to put in a prominent position the words tows irpofrjTas aov uirtKTtivav to which there was most analogy during St. Paul's
The
quotation
is
clauses
time (cf. Acts vii. 52 1 Thess. ii. 14). The Kai between the clauses of the TR. is read by E L and later MiS. Justin Martyr, Dial. 39. p. 257 D, quotes the words as in St. Paul and not as in the Kai yap 'HAt'as irtpl vpcov irpus tov tdv kuTvyxâv ovtojs \iytr Kvpit, tow irpocpfjTas aov aiTiKTiivav Kai to. Ovaiao-Trjpid aov KarkaKaâv xlyu i)ire\(i(J)0T]v povos Kal CjjTuvai t^v if/vxTj" pov. Kal diroKpiv(Tai avra, "En flat pot kitraKtax'^ 101 avopts, ol ovk (Kapipav yCvv ttj BdaA.
;
LXX
4. 6 xpTifumtrpos 'the oracle.' An unusual sense for the word, which occurs here only in the N. T., but is found in 2 Mace, ii. 4 ; Clem. Rom. xvii. 5 and occasionally elsewhere. The verb Xpr)pari(uv meant (1) originally 'to transact business'; then (2) to consult/ 'deliberate'; hence (3) 'to give audience,' 'answer after
:
'
: ;
312
deliberation';
[XI. 4,
5.
and so finally (4) of an oracle 'to give a response,' taking the place of the older xp an d so it is used in the N. T. ' of the Divine warning Mat. ii. 12, 22 xpvH- aTia'0 VTS ^^ va P Luke Acts x. 22 Heb. viii. 5 xi. 7 cf. Jos. Antt. V. i. 14 ; X. i. ii. 26 ; From this usage of the verb gpwiarlf* was derived 3 ; XI. iii. 4. See also p. 173. XprjfiaTianos, as the more usual xpwp^s from xP ita> Tfj BdaX: substituted by St. Paul (as also by Justin Martyr, loc. t<5 BdaX, according to a usage common in other at) for the
5 :
;
'
LXX
passages in the Greek Version.
The word Baal, which means 'Lord,' appears to have been originally used as one of the names of the God of Israel, and as such became a part of many Jewish names, as for example Jerubbaal (Jud. vi. 32 vii. 1), Eshbaal But gradually the (1 Chron. ix. 39), Meribbaal (1 Chron. ix. 40), &c. special association of the name with the idolatrous worship of the Phoenician ii. Hosea forbidden. 16, be 17 'and it shall be god caused the use of it to at that day, saith trie Lord, that thou sbalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. For I will take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by their name.' Owing to this motive a tendency arose to obliterate the name of Baal from the Scriptures just as owing to a feeling of reverence ' Elohim' was substituted for Jehovah' This usage took the form of in the second and third books of the Psalms. So Eshbaal (1 Chr. viii. 33, substituting Bosheth, 'abomination,' for Baal. Meribbaal (1 Chr. ix. 40) ix. 39) became Ishbosheth (2 Sam. ii. 8; iii. 8) Mephibosheth (2 Sam. ix. 6ff.); Jerubbaal Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. xi. 21). aiaxvvv See also Hosea ix. 10; Jer. iii. 24; xi. 13. Similarly in the represents in one passage Baal of the Hebrew text, 3 Kings xviii. 19, 25. for the reading in aiaxvvrj substitute to But it seems to have been more usual written BdaA, and as a sign of this Qeri the feminine article was written This just as the name Jehovah was written with the pointing of Adonai. usage is most common in Jeremiah, but occurs also in the books of Kings, It appears not to occur in the Pentateuch. Chronicles, and other Prophets. The plural rah occurs 2 Chr. xxiv. 7 xxxiii. 3. This, the only satisfactory explanation of the feminine article with the masculine name, is given by Dillmann, Monatsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin, 1881, p. 601 ff. and has superseded all others. version is again shortened in the quotation, and for KaraXeiipcu The is substituted KarkXiirov iixavrw, which is an alternative and perhaps more
;
'
LXX
LXX
exact translation of the Hebrew.
The application of the preceding instance to the 5. outws o5V. circumstances of the Apostle's own time. The facts were the St. Paul would assume that his readers, some of whom same. were Jewish Christians, and all of whom were aware of the existAnd if this were so ence of such a class, would recognize this. As then the Jewish people the same deduction might be made. were not rejected, because the remnant was saved ; so now there is a remnant, and this implies that God has not cast away His
people as such. Xelfjâ (on the orthography cf. WH. ii. App. p. 154, who read The word does not occur elsewhere in the \inua), a remnant/ N. T. ; and in the O. T. only twice, and then not in the technical The usual word for that is to Kara\(p6cv. sense of the remnant/
*
'
XI. 5-7.]
313
KaT eKXoyyji/ x<*piTos. Predicate with ylyovev. * There has come be through the principle of selection which is dependent on the Divine grace or favour.' This addition to the thought, which is further explained in ver. 6, reminds the reader of the result of the
to
previous discussion
laid so
that
election
'
on which
the
Jews had always
much stress had operated, but it was a selection on the part of God of those to whom He willed to give His grace, and not an election of those who had earned it by their works.
6.
ei
8e xapn-i k.t.X.
If the election
further explanation of the principles of
had been on the basis of works, then the Jews might have demanded that God's promise could only be fulfilled if all who had earned it had received it St. Paul, by reminding them of the principles of election already laid down, implies that the promise is fulfilled if the remnant is saved. God's people are those whom He has chosen ; it is not that the Jews are chosen because they are His people. lirel rj x^P 1 ? oukcti yiVeTdi this follows from the very x^P l S meaning of the idea of grace.' Gratia nisi gratis sit gratia non est.
election.
:
'
'
St.
Augustine.
The TR. after yivtrai x<fy'* adds d Se ! tpywv, ovk(ti earl x<fys* end to epyov omen karlv Zpyov with N c (B) L and later MSS., Syrr., Chrys. and Thdrt. (in the text, but they do not refer to the words in their commentary). B reads el Se l epywv, ouneTi x<*pis- enel to tpyov ovkIti ead x^P *- The clause is omitted by N* C E F P, Vulg. Aegyptt. (Boh Sah.) Arm.,
1
Orig.-lat. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrst. Patr.-latt. There need be no doubt that it is a gloss, nor is the authority of B of any weight in support of a Western addition such as this against such preponderating authority. This is considered by WH. to be the solitary or almost the solitary case in which B possibly has a Syrian reading (Introd. ii. 150).
result of the discussion in then is the result ? In what way can we modify the harsh statement made in ver. 1 ? It is indeed still true that Israel as a nation has failed to obtain what is its aim, namely righteousness but at the same time there is one portion of it, the elect, who have attained it.'
;
7. ti ouV
'
This verse sums up the
vv. 2-6.
What
rj 8e cicXoy^ i. e. ol e/cXfKroi. The abstract for the concrete suggests the reason for their success by laying stress on the idea rather than on the individuals. ol 8c Xonrol iiro)pu>Qr\<TOLv while the elect have attained what they sought, those who have failed to attain it have been hardened.'
: :
'
They have not failed because they have been hardened, but they have been hardened because they have failed; cf. i. 24 ff., where sin is represented as God's punishment inflicted on man for their rebellion. Here St. Paul does not definitely say by whom, for that is not the point it interests him to discuss at present he has represented the condition of Israel both as the result of God's action (ch. ix) and of their own (ch. x). Here as in KarrjpTiafieva
:
314
ix.
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[XI.
7, 8.
cause
22, he uses the colourless passive without laying stress on the the quotation in ver. 8 represents God as the author, cTrrato-ai/ in ver. 1 1 suggests that they are free agents.
:
The verb ircopoa) (derived from nwpos a callus or stone formed in the bladder) is a medical term used in Hippocrates and elsewhere of a bone or hard substance growing when bones are fractured, or of a stone forming in Hence metaphorically it is used in the N. T., and apparently the bladder. so Mark vi. 52; there only of the heart becoming hardened or callous hi. 14: while the noun Troupwais occurs in Jo. xii. 40; Rom. xi. 7; 2 Cor. Eph. iv. 18. The idea is in all the same sense, Mark iii. 5 Rom. xi. 25 making these places the same, that a covering has grown over the heart, men incapable of receiving any new teaching however good, and making them oblivious of the wrong they are doing. In Job xvii. 7 (TrewwpwvTai of blindness, but again only -ycLp and opyijs oi 6</>0aA./xoi /xov) the word is used over of moral blindness anger has caused as it were a covering to grow There is therefore no need to take the word to mean blind,' as the eyes. do the grammarians (Suidas, irupos, 6 rv<pKos: TtmwpwTai, TtrifXcorai : Hesychius, TTe-noupwfAevoi, TtTv<p\(oixkvoi) and the Latin Versions (excaecati, It is possible that this translation arose from a confusion with obcaecali). occasionally used of irrjpos (s-ee on Karavv^tw below) which was perhaps
:
'
blindness (see Prof. Armitage Robinson in Academy, 1892, p. 305), although probably then as a specialized usage for the more general maimed.' Although the form irqpow occurs in some MSS. of the N. T., yet? the evidence against it is in every case absolutely conclusive, as it is also in the O. T. in the one passage where the word occurs.
St. Paul supports and explains his last \owol eVwpaô-ai/ by quotations from the O. T. The first which in form resembles Deut. xxix. 4, modified by dulness or torpor of Is. xxix. 10; vi. 9, 10, describes the spiritual which the prophet accuses the Israelites. This he says had been
8. Ka0u>s Y^YP airrat

ol
statement
8i
given them by God as a punishment for their faithlessness. These words will equally well apply to the spiritual condition of the Apostle's own time, showing that it is not inconsistent with the position of Israel as God's people, and suggesting a general law of
God's dealing with them.

The following extracts, in which the words that St. Paul has made quotation. use of are printed in spaced type, will give the source of the Kal Deut. xxix. 4 Kal ovk 25cjkV Kvpios 6 0os vfjxv KapSiav eiUvai Is. ravT-qs. 6<pda\fioi)S 0kcirciv Kal S>ra aicovciv ecus rfjs^ rjfiepas vi. Is. cf. Karavvêws : irvfvfJ.aTi 9, 10 xxix. 10 on nerroTiKcv hfias Kvpios idtjre. dop aKovaerc Kal ov pf/ avvrjre Kal PXenovres Pkeif/ert at ov /*?) While the form resembles the words in elrra "Ea>? vdre, Kvpie ; .' Kal Deut., the historical situation and meaning of the quotation are represented
by the passages in Isaiah to which
St.
Paul
is
clearly referring.
of torpor,' a state of dull insensidrunkenbility to everything spiritual, such as would be produced by For the Lord hath poured Is. xxix. 10 (RV.) ness, or stupor. out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, the prophets ; and your heads, the seers, hath He covered.'
weufia KaravuUus
'
'
spirit
'
The word
vvaau
is
used to
The simple verb Karavvîs is derived from Karavva-crofjuu. mean to 'prick' or 'strike' or 'dint.' The compound
XI. 8-10.]
315
verb would mean, (1) to 'strike' or 'prick violently,' and hence (2) to ' stun no instance is quoted of it in its primary sense, but it is common ' of strong emotions, of the prickings of lust Susan. (3) especially in the 10 (Theod.) ; of strong grief Gen. xxxiv. 7 Ecclus. xiv. 1 and so Acts ii. 37 KaTevvyr]<Tav rrj itapMq of being strongly moved by speaking. Then (4) it is used of the stunning effect of such emotion which results in speechlessness Is. vi. 5 S) rd\as kytb on Kmavivvypun Dan. x. 15 ebwita rb irpoawirov /xov kirl t^v yrjv /cat Karivvyqv, and so the general idea of torpor would be derived. Kardvvî^ The notw appears to occur only twice, Is. xxix. 10 irvivfia Karavv^ws, Ps. lix [lx]. 4 olvov fca.Tavv(ais. In the former case it clearly means 'torpor' or deep sleep,' as both the context and the Hebrew show, in the latter case probably so. It may be noticed that this definite meaning of ' torpor or deep sleep which is found in the noun cannot be exactly paralleled in the verb and it may be suggested that a certain confusion existed with the verb wo-rdfa, which means 'to nod in sleep,' 'be drowsy,' just as the meaning of tpiOda was influenced by its resemblance
;
LXX
'
'
'
'
to epis
Ia>s
(cf. ii.
8).
On
the word generally see Fri.

:
ii.
p.
558
ff.
Acts vii. 51 'Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did so do ye.' St. Stephen's speech illustrates more in detail the logical assumptions which underlie St. Paul's quotations. The chosen people have from the beginning shown the same obstinate adherence to their own views and a power of resisting the Holy Ghost and God has throughout punished them for their obstinacy by giving them over to spiritual
tt)s
o^fAcpof ^(xepas
cf.
blindness.
9. Kal Aaf3!8 Xe'yei k.t.X.
[IxiX
|.
23,
24
yevTjdrjTco
rj
quoted from the Tpdneâ ovtcov ivcoinov avTwv

:
LXX
(Is
is
of Ps.
lxviii
nayi8a, Koi (Is
avTcmohocriv koi aicdvdaXow o-KOTio6!)T(oo-av k.t.X.
(which
ascribed in
the
to David) with reminiscences of Ps. xxxiv [xxxv]. 8, and xxvii [xxviii]. 4. The Psalmist is represented as declaring the
title
Divine wrath against those who have made themselves enemies of the Divine will. Those who in his days were the enemies of the spiritual life of the people are represented in the Apostle's days by the Jews who have shut their ears to the Gospel message. tj Tpdircâ au-iw their feast.' The image is that of men feasting in careless security, and overtaken by their enemies, owing to the very prosperity which ought to be their strength. So to the Jews that Law and those Scriptures wherein they trusted are to become the very cause of their fall and the snare or hunting-net in which they are caught. o-KdeSaXok that over which they fall,' ' a cause of their destruc:
'
'
tion.'
drrcnro'Sojxa
Ps. xxvii [xxviii], 4.
'
requital,'
'
recompense.'
The Jews
are to be punished for their want of spiritual insight by being given over to blind trust in their own law; in fact being
given up entirely to their own wishes. May their eyes become blind, so that 10. aKOTia0iiT(oorai' k.t.X. they have no insight, and their backs bent like men who are continu'
31
ally

groping about in the dark
fast
!
[XX. 1-10.
'
They are
:
to
by Plato as
bound
in the cave
even
it,
if
be like those described they are brought to the

will
light they will
only be blinded by
is
and
be unable to
see.
The judgement upon them

their backs.
that they are to be ever bent
down
with the weight of the burden which they have wilfully taken on
It may be worth noticing that Lipsius, who does not elsewhere accept the theory of interpolations in the text, suggests that w. 9, 10 are a gloss added by some reader in the margin after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. Holsten, Z.f. Michelsen, Th. T. 1887, p. 163; Protestanten-bibel, w. T. 1872, p. 455 It is suggested that dtanavrds is inconsistent 1872, p. 589; E. T. ii. 154). with ver. 1 1 fF. But it has not been noticed that in ver. 1 1 we have a change of metaphor, inTaicav, which would be' singularly out of place if it came immediately after ver. 8. As it is, this word is suggested and accounted for by the metaphors employed in the quotation introduced in ver. 9. If we omit vv. 9, 10 we must also omit ver. 11. There is throughout the whole Epistle a continuous succession of thought running from verse to verse which makes any theory of interpolation impossible. (See Introduction, 9.)
;
The Doctrine of
The
' '
the
Remnant.
idea of the Remnant is one of the most typical and in the prophetic portions of the O. T. meet it first apparently in the prophetic narrative which forms the basis of the account of Elijah in the book of Kings, the passage which Here a new idea is introduced into Israel's St. Paul is quoting. history, and it is introduced in one of the most solemn and imThe Prophet is taken into the pressive narratives of that history. desert to commune with God ; he is taken to Sinai, the mountain of God, which played such a large part in the traditions of His people, and he receives the Divine message in that form which has ever marked off this as unique amongst theophanies, the still small voice/ contrasted with the thunder, and the storm, and the earthquake. And the idea that was thus introduced marks a stage in the religious history of the world, for it was the first revelation of the idea of personal as opposed to national consecrasignificant
We
'
to that time it was the nation as a whole that was God, the nation as a whole for which sacrifices were offered, the nation as a whole for which kings had fought and judges legislated. But the nation as a whole had deserted Jehovah, and the Prophet records that it is the loyalty of the individual Israelites who had remained true to Him that must henceforth be reckoned. The nation will be chastised, but the remnant shall be
tion.
Up
to
bound
saved.
from
is a new one, but it is one which we find continuously time onwards spiritualized with the more spiritual ideas We find it in Amos (ix. 8-10), in Micah (ii. of the later prophets.
The
idea
this
XI. 1-10.]
12, v. 3), in
317
Zephaniah (iii. 12, 13), in Jeremiah (xxiii. 3), in Ezekiel (xiv. 14-20, 22), but most pointedly and markedly in Isaiah. The two great and prominent ideas of Isaiah's prophecy are typified in the names given to his two sons, the reality of the Divine vengeance (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) and the salvation of the Remnant (Shear-Jashub) and, through the Holy and Righteous Remnant of the theocratic nation itself (vii. viii. 2, 18; ix. 12; x. 21, 3 24); and both these ideas are prominent in the narrative of the call (vi. 9-13) Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes Then said I, Lord, how long? And He answered, Until cities be waste without inhabitant and homes without men, and the land become utterly waste.' But this is only one side. There is a true stock left. Like the terebinth and the oak, whose stock remains when they are cut down and sends forth new saplings, so the holy seed remains as a living stock and a new and better Israel shall spring from the ruin of the ancient state (Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel, p. 234). This doctrine of a Remnant implied that it was the individual who was true to his God, and not the nation, that was the object of the Divine solicitude ; that it was in this small body of individuals that the true life of the chosen nation dwelt, and that from them would
;
. . .
<
spring that internal reformation, which, coming as the result of the Divine chastisement, would produce a whole people, pure and
undefiled, to be offered to God (Is. lxv. 8, 9). The idea appealed with great force to the early Christians. appealed to St. Stephen, in whose speech one of the main
all
It
currents
of thought seems to be the marvellous analogy which runs through the history of Israel. The mass of the people has ever been
;
unfaithful
it
is
the individual or the small
body
that has
true to
God
in all the
changes of
Israel's history,
remained and these the
And
people have always persecuted as they crucified the Messiah. so St. Paul, musing over the sad problem of Israel's unbelief, finds its explanation and justification in this consistent trait of the
nation's history.
As
in Elijah's time, as in Isaiah's time, so

;
has selected, who have preserved the true life and ideal of the people and thus contain the elements of new and prolonged life. And this doctrine of the Remnant is as true to human nature as it is to Israel's history. No church or nation is saved en masse, it is those members of it who are righteous. It is not the mass of the nation or church that has done its work, but the select few who have preserved the consciousness of its high calling. It is by the selection of individuals, even in the nation that has been chosen, that God has worked equally in religion and in all
'
'
mass of the people have rejected the Divine call but there always has been and still is the true Remnant, the Remnant whom God
now
the
31
[XI. 11-14.
the different lines along which the path of human development has progressed. [On the Remnant see especially Jowett, Contrasts of Prophecy, in Romans ii. p. 290; and Robertson Smith, The Prophets of The references are collected in Israel, pp. 106, 209, 234, 258.
Oehler, Theologie des alien Testaments, p. 809.]
THE REJECTION" OP ISRAEL NOT FINAL.

will
XI. 11-24. The Rejection of Israel is not complete, nor Its result has been the extension of the it be final.
to the Gentiles.
Church
The salvation of
these will stir the
Jews to jealousy ; they will return to the Kingdom, and this will mean the final consummation (vv. 10-1,5). Of all this the guarantee is the holiness of the stock from which Israel comes. God has grafted you Gentiles into that
stock against the natural order
;
far more
easily can
He
is
restore
them
to
a position which by nature and descent
theirs (vv. 16-24).

11
The
:
Rejection of Israel then
is
only partial.
Yet
for
still
there
is
the great
come
this
fall ?
mass of the nation on what of these ? Is there no

It is
whom
further
God's judgement has
hope
a
final
them ?
Is
stumbling of theirs such as
will lead to
and complete
It
By no means.
only temporary, a working out of the

is
Divine purpose.
in the
This purpose
partly
fulfilled.
has resulted
It is
extension of the Messianic salvation to the Gentiles.

;
partly in the future
that the inclusion of these in the
Kingdom
may
rouse the Jews to emulation and bring them back to the place which should be theirs and from which so far they have been
12
excluded.
And
consider what this means.
Even
the transgres-
sion of Israel has brought to the world a great wealth of spiritual blessings ; their repulse has enriched the nations, how much greater
then
will be the result when the chosen people with their numbers 13 In these speculations completed have accepted the Messiah? my proper mission disregarding not about my countrymen, I am
to
you
Gentiles.
it
It is
with you in
I
my mind
can to
that I
I will
put
more
strongly.
do
all I
glorify
am speaking. my ministry
may succeed
w and this in hopes that I as Apostle to the Gentiles,
XI. 14-21.]

some
at
15
319
in bringing salvation to
any
rate of
my
countrymen by thus
this is what have implied just above, that by the return of the Jews the whole world will receive what it longs for. The rejection of them has been the means of reconciling the world to God by the preaching
moving them
I
to emulation.
And my
reason for
their reception into the Kingdom, the gathering together of the elect from the four winds of heaven, will inaugurate the final consummation, the resurrection of the dead, and the
to the Gentiles;
eternal
16
life
that follows.
is
But what ground
there for thus believing in the return of the

?
chosen people to the Kingdom
It
is
the holiness of the race.
dough and Lord as a heave-offering, do you not consecrate the whole mass? Do not the branches of a tree receive life and nourishment from the roots? So it is with Israel. Their forefathers the Patriarchs have been consecrated to the Lord, and in them the whole race from that stock they obtain their spiritual life, a life which must be holy as its source is holy. 17 For the Church
offer
it
When you
take from the kneading trough a piece of
to the
of
God
is
like a
'
green olive
it.
tree, fair
with goodly
fruit,'
as the
its
Prophet Jeremiah described
Its roots are
the Patriarchs;
branches the people of the Lord. Some of these branches have been broken off; Israelites who by birth and descent were members of the Church. Into their place you Gentiles, by a process quite
strange and unnatural, have been grafted, shoots from a wild olive,
into a cultivated stock.
Equally with the old branches which

in the rich sap
still
remain on the
root.
18
tree
you share
which flows from
its
Do
not for this reason think that you
may
insolently boast
of the position of superiority which you occupy.

inclined to
do
so,
remember
that
that
If you are you have done nothing, that all to
the
spiritual
privileges
you possess simply belong
the
stock on which you by no merit of your

19
own have been

is
grafted.
But perhaps you say
'
That
am
the favoured one

in.'
shown by
20
this that others
were cut
off that I
might be grafted
grant
what you say; but consider the reason. It was owing to their want of faith that they were broken off you on the other hand owe your firm position to your faith, not to any natural superiority. 21 It is an incentive therefore not to pride, as you seem to think, but
:
to fear.
For
if
God
did not spare the holders of the birthright,
320
[XI.
11.
no grafted branches but the natural growth of the tree, He certainly privileges will be no more ready to spare you, who have no such M Learn the Divine goodness, but learn and understand to plead. Those who have fallen have exthe Divine severity as well. goodness a goodness which will the you perienced the severity,
;
you cease to be self-confident and simply trust 23 Nor again otherwise you too may be cut off as they were. be grafted can They is the rejection of the Jews irrevocable. give up will they only if grew, they which again into the stock on For they are in God's hands and God's power is their unbelief. He is able to restore them to the position from which not limited.
be continued
if
;
they have fallen.
For consider. You are the slip cut from the olive that grew wild, and yet, by a process which you must admit to be entirely unnatural, you were grafted into the cultivated stock. If God could do this, much more can He graft the natural branches of the cultivated olive on to their own stock from which they were
24
cut.
You
Gentiles have
no grounds
is less
for boasting, nor have
the
Jews
if
for despair.
Your
position
secure than was theirs, and
they only trust in God, their salvation will be easier than was
yours.
11.
St.
rejection of Israel
that
is
Paul has modified the question of ver. i so far: the But yet it is true that the rest, is only partial. They have the majority, of the nation are spiritually blind.
stumbled and sinned. Does this imply their final exclusion from It is St. Paul shows that it is not so. the Messianic salvation ? only temporary and it has a Divine purpose. I ask then as to this Xcyw ovv. A new stage in the argument. The majority whose state the prophets have thus described.' question arises immediately out of the preceding verses, but is a stage in the argument running through the whole chapter, and
'
raised
by the discussion of
Israel's guilt in ix.

'
30-x. 21.
those
hardened, ver. 8) stumbled so as to fall ?' Numquid sic offenderunt, Is their failure of such a character that they will be ui caderent? wa expresses finally lost, and cut off from the Messianic salvation ? is often (which titraurav in metaphor The result. contemplated the used elsewhere in a moral sense, Deut. vii. 25 ; James ii. 10; hi. 2; The 2 Pet. i. 10) seems to be suggested by o-mvdaXov of ver. 9. meaning of the passage is given by the contrast between mfav and Treo-flv a man who stumbles may recover himself, or he may is here used of a complete and Hence fall completely.
;
Iva -nitron p?l iirraitrav,
have they
(i.
e.
who have been
mmw
XI.
11.]

fall.
32
avr^s
jJ
irrevocable
7rco-irai kol
Cf. Is. XXIV.
20
:
Kario-xvve yap
cV
1
dvopia, Ku\
ov
ixf)
8vvt]tcu dvao~Trjvai
Ps. Sol.
:
iii.
3 eneaev
It is
to nrcopa avrov, Ka\ ovk dvacrTrjaeTai
Heb.
is
iv.
II.
vv.
on irovrjpbv no argument
against this that the
22, 23 of a fall which is not irrevocable: the ethical meaning must be in each case determined by the context, and here the contrast with eirraio-av
same word
used in
suggests a
fall
that
is
irrevocable.
There is a good deal of controversy among grammarians as to the admission of a laxer use of 'iva, a controversy which has a tendency to divide scholars by nations; the German grammarians with Winer at their head ( liii. 10. 6, p. 573 E. T.) maintain that it always preserves, even in N. T. Greek, its classical meaning of purpose on the other hand, English commentators such as Lightfoot (on Gal. v. 17), Ellicott (on 1 Thess. v. 4), and Evans (on 1 Cor. vii. 29) admit the laxer use. Evans says ' that iva, like our " that," has three uses (1) final (in order that he may go), (2) definitive (I advise that he go), subjectively ecbatic (have they stumbled that they should fall) and it (3) is quite clear that it is only by reading into passages a great deal which is not expressed that commentators can make 'iva in all cases mean in order that.' In 1 Thess. v. 4 hyuh 5e, &8f\<poi, ovk kari iv okotci, 'iva rj/xepa bfias us k\tttt)s KaraXafiri, where Winer states that there is 'a Divine purpose of God,' this is not expressed either in the words or the context.
;
'
'
-f/
In I Cor. vii. 29 o /caipbs avvearaKfxivos kari, rb Xoiitbv iva kcu ol X 0VTes ' is yvvatnas dis pf) x 0VTS it probable that a state of sitting loose to worldly interests should be described as the aim or purpose of God in curtailing the season of the great tribulation? ' Evans.) Yet Winer asserts that the words iva at 01 (x 0VT(S K.T.X. express the (Divine) purpose for which b Kaipbs avveo~Ta\fj.vos kar'i. So again in the present passage it is only a confusion of ideas that can see any purpose. If St. Paul had used a passive verb such as kncapojB-qaav then we might translate, ' have they been hardened in order that they may fall ? ' and there would be no objection in logic or grammar, but as St. Paul has written l-maiaav, if there is a purpose in the passage it ascribes stumbling as a deliberate act undertaken with the purpose of falling. cannot here any more than elsewhere read in a Divine purpose where it is neither implied nor expressed, merely for the sake of defending an arbitrary grammatical rule.
^h
We
Paul indignantly denies that the final fall of result of their transgression. The result of it has already been the calling of the Gentiles, and the final purpose is the restoration of the Jews also. tw auTw Trapa-nrwjuiaTi by their false step/ continuing the metaphor of eirraiaav. o-wTTjpia toIs edvemv. St. Paul is here stating an historical fact. His own preaching to the Gentiles had been caused definitely by the rejection of his message on the part of the Jews. Acts xiii. 45-48; cf. viii. 4; xi. 19; xxviii. 28. els t6 irapa^Xwaai auTous to provoke them (the Jews) to jealousy/ This idea had already been suggested (x. 19) by the quotation from Deuteronomy 'Eyo) 7rapa^Xo)o-o) vpds in ovk edvet. St. Paul in these two statements sketches the lines on which the Divine action is explained and justified. God's purpose has been to use the disobedience of the Jews in order to promote the calling
jjitj
yeVoiTo.
St.
Israel
was the contemplated
'
if}
'
3^2
[XI.
11, 12.
of the Gentiles, and

their unbelief
to
He
will eventually
arouse the Jews to give up

Eira mtta&iuvdC^, *
by emulation of the Gentiles.
7TraTo-/za avrcav SnrXrjv
km
oiKovopiav ipyd&rai' rd re yap edvrj dvreiadyei civtovs Se TrapaicviCov nai ipe6Lov cnurrptyci, pr) (pcpovras rrjv ToaavTrjv
TLfj.r]v.
tcov 8va>v
Euthym.-Zig.
12. St. Paul strengthens his statement by an argument drawn from the spiritual character of the Jewish people. If an event
which has been so disastrous

ficial
to the nation has
had such a beneinto the Messianic
result,
how much more

full
beneficial will be the result of the
entrance of the
complement of the nation
kingdom ?
ttXoutos koo-jxou
:
to
it
of the
kingdom of
:
navrcov, nXovrcov els
the enriching of the world by the throwing open the Messiah: cf. x. 12 6 yap avrbs Kvpios ndvTas tovs eiriKaXovfievovs avrov.
'
to -rJTTTjfAa auTwi/ their defeat/ From one point of view the unbelief of the Jews was a transgression (Trapdnrapa), from another it was a defeat, for they were repulsed from the Messianic kingdom, since they had failed to obtain what they sought.
7?ttj7/z
occurs only twice elsewhere:
eaovrai
(is
1
in Is. ^tttj/m, irerpa yap TTpi\r)(p0r)<rovTai us
xxxi.
ol
Se
veavioKoi
:
Cor. vi. 7 tjSt] fitv ovv 6\ojs tfrTTj/xa vpuv lanv, otl Kpip-ara Ix^re The correct interpretation of the word as derived from the H(d' kavTwv. verb would be a defeat,' and this is clearly the meaning in Isaiah. It can equally well apply in 1 Cor., whether it be translated a ' defeat in that it lowers the Church in the opinion of the world, or a ' moral defeat,' hence a * defect.' The same meuning suits this passage. The majority of commentators however translate it here 'diminution' (see especially Gif. Sp. Comm. pp. 194, 203), in order to make the antithesis to irXrjpwfia exact. But as Field points out (Otium Now. iii. 97) there is no reason why the sentence should not be rhetorically faulty, and it is not much improved by giving i]TTT]fj.a the meaning of impoverishment as opposed to replenishment.'
in
'
an d
x^Pî
<*i
T}TTT)6r](TovTai
'
'
'
to irX^pwâ auTwi/
'
their
complement/
'
their full
and completed
number/
See on
xi.
25.
The exact meaning of TrKrjpwpja has still to be ascertained. 1. There is a long and elaborate note on the word in Lft. Col. p. 323 ff. He starts with asserting that ' substantives in -pua formed from the perfect passive, appear always to have a passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or a concrete thing they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, or the product of the action but in any case they give the result of the agency involved in the corresponding verb.' He then takes the verb irhrjpodv and shows that it has two senses, (i) to fill,' (ii) < to fulfil or complete and deriving the fundamental meaning of the word irXrjpwpa from the latter usage makes it mean in the N. T. always 'that which is completed.' 2. A somewhat different view of the termination -p:a is given by the late T. S. Evans in a note on 1 Cor. v. 6 in the Sp. Comm. (part of which is quoted above on Rom. iv. 2.) This would favour the active sense id quod implet or adimplet, which appears to be the proper sense of the English word ' complement (see the Philological Society's Eng. Diet. s. v.). Perhaps the term concrete ' would most adequately express the normal meaning of the
;
:
'
'
'
'
'
'
termination.
XI.
13, 14.]

good
323
words vftip 8e Xeyw k.t.A. in argument ? (i) Some ( Hort, WH, Lips.) place here the beginning of a new paragraph, so Dr. Hort writes after a passage on the rejection of unbelieving Israel, and on God's ultimate purpose involved in it, St. Paul turns swiftly round.' But an examination of the context will show that there is really no break in the ideas. The thought raised by the question in ver. 1 1 runs through the whole paragraph to ver. 24, in fact really to ver. 32, and the Again reference to the Gentiles in ver. 17 ff. is clearly incidental. ver. 15 returns directly to ver. 12, repeating the same idea, but in (ii) These verses in their appeal to a way to justify also ver. 13. the Gentiles are therefore incidental, almost parenthetic, and are introduced to show that this argument has an application to Gentiles
the
: '
13, 14. These two verses present a rather a subtle kind. 1. What is the place occupied by the
deal of difficulty, of
as well as Jews.
2. But what is the meaning of ixtv ovv (that this is the correct reading see below) ? It is usual to take ovv in its ordinary sense of therefore, and then to explain \ikv by supposing an anacoluthon, So Gif. or by finding the contrast in some words that follow. St. Paul, with his usual delicate courtesy and perfect mastery of Greek, implies that this is but one part (fieu) of his ministry, chosen as he was to bear Christ's name " before Gentiles and kings and
'
Winer and others find the antithesis in But against these views may be urged two The usage at any rate in the reasons, (i) the meaning of pev ovv. N. T. is clearly laid down by Evans on 1 Cor. vi. 3 (Speaker's
the children of Israel."
ei
ncos irapafrXaio-Qo.
Comm.
the ptv
p. 285),
falls
'
the ovv
may
signify then or therefore only

it
when
back upon the preceding word, because

'
is
expectant
of a coming 8c or drdp,' otherwise, as is pointed out, the fiiv must coalesce with the ovv, and the idea is either corrective and substitutive of a new thought, or confirmative of what has been stated and addititious.' Now if there is this second use of fiev ovv possible, unless the 8e is clearly expressed the mind naturally would suggest it, especially in St. Paul's writings where ptv ovv is generally so
used and as a matter of fact no instance is quoted in the N. T. where ovv in fitv ovv has its natural force in a case where it is not followed by 8e (Heb. ix. 1 quoted by Winer does not apply, see Westcott ad loc). But (ii) further ovv is not the particle required What St. Paul requires is not an apology for referring to here. the Gentiles, but an apology to the Gentiles for devoting so much
:
attention to the Jews. If these two points are admitted the argument becomes much St. Paul remembers that the majority of his readers are clearer. Gentiles ; he has come to a point where what he has to say touches
them nearly ; he
therefore
shows parenthetically how

y a
his love for
324
his
[XI. 13.
countrymen, and his zeal in carrying out his mission to the Do not think combine towards producing the same end. It that what I am saying has nothing to do with you Gentiles. makes me even more zealous in my work for you. That ministry of mine to the Gentiles I do honour to and exalt, seeking in this way if perchance I may be able to move my countrymen to Then in ver. 15 he shows how this again reacts upon jealousy.' And this I do, because their the general scheme of his ministry.
Gentiles.,
'
'
return to the
Church
will
bring on that final consummation for
which we
all
The ft* expresses a slight contrast in But it is to you Gentiles I am thought, and the ifxiv is emphatic Nay more, so far as I am an Apostle of Gentiles, speaking. if thus by any means,' &c. I glorify my ministry 1 Tim. ii. 7. iQvwv diroaToXos comp. Acts xxii. 21 ; Gal. ii. 7, 9
13. up.iv oe
:
look forward/ Xeyu k.t.X.
'
tV
SiciKoiaai' fxou
&oria>.
;
He may
glorify his ministry, either
if he teaches everywhere the duty of (i) by his words and speech preaching to the Gentiles he exalts that ministry or (ii), perhaps better, by doing all in his power to make it successful: comp. I Cor. xii. 26 eiVe 8oaerai fxeXos. This verse and the references to the Gentiles that follow seem to show conclusively that St. Paul expected the majority of his readers Comp. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 22 'Though the to be Gentiles. Greek is ambiguous the context appears to me decisive for taking In all the long vf/lv as the Church itself, and not as a part of it. previous discussion bearing on the Jews, occupying nearly two and a half chapters, the Jews are invariably spoken of in the third
:
person.
In the half chapter that follows the Gentiles are constantly
spoken of in the second person. Exposition has here passed into exhortation and warning, and the warning is exclusively addressed to Christians who had once been Jews not a word is to Gentiles
:
addressed.'
The variations in reading in the particles which occur in this verse suggest For ifuv 5e that considerable difficulties were felt in its interpretation.
vniv ovv; while the bfuv y&p. Again fxev ovv
in
Boh. Arm., Theodrt. cod. Jo.-Damasc. we find &c. Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. has with is read byNABCP, Boh., Cyr.-Al. Jo.-Damasc. piv only by TR with L &c, Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. (so Meyer) while the and some minuscules omit both. Western group ovv or fievovv It may be noticed in the Epp. of St. Paul that wherever plv
Syrr.
;
NABP minusc. pane,

C
TR
DEFGL
DEFG
ye occur there
Rom.
considerable variation in the reading. &c, Syrr. Boh. ; fiev ovv B ; omit alpevovvye F G. together x. 18: pevovvye om. F G d, Orig.-lat. yovv. pev ovv most authorities F I Cor. vi. 4 Boh. &c. (Up tf /lev ovv vi. 7 Boh. fievovvye ^coSi'BDEFGKL&c.; 1 Phil. iii. 8 The Western MSS. as a rule avoid the expression, while B is consistent in
is
ix.
20
KAKLP
D
ABC
NAP
preferring
it.
XI. 14,
15.]

ei
325
7r&>? is used here interrogatively with subjunctive (cp. Phil. iii. 10, 11). The grammarians explain the expression by saying that we are to understand with it (TK<mS)v. (I Iras occurs Acts xxvii. 12 with the optative, Rom. i. 10 with the future. 15. The two previous verses have been to a certain extent
14. ei irws irapa^T)Xcjaw.

aorist
the
argument of a stronger form what he has there said, but in such a way as to explain the statement made in vv. 13, 14, that by thus caring for his fellow-countrymen he is fulfilling his mission The casting away of the Jews has meant to the Gentile world. the reconciliation of the world to Christ. Henceforth there is no more a great wall of partition separating God's people from the This is the first step in the founding of the rest of the world. Messianic kingdom ; but when all the people of Israel shall have come in there will be the final consummation of all things, and this means the realization of the hope which the reconciliation of the world has made possible. the rejection of the Jews for their faithlessness. diroPoXt] The meaning of the word is defined by the contrasted npoo-Xij^ns. KaTaXXayTj koo-jiou cf. vv. 10, 11. The reconciliation was the immediate result of St. Paul's ministry, which he describes elsewhere (2 Cor. v. 18, 19) as a ministry of reconciliation; its final result, the hope to which it looks forward, is salvation (KaraXXayevrfs o-iodrjao/jifda) the realization of this hope is what every Gentile must long for, and therefore whatever will lead to its fulfilment
parenthetical
;
in this verse the Apostle continues the
ver. 12, repeating in
must be part of
Trp6aXifj\|is
:
St.
Paul's ministry.
the reception of the Jews into the kingdom of the Messiah. The noun is not used elsewhere in the N. T., but the meaning is shown by the parallel use of the verb (cf. xiv. 3 ; xv. 7).
wt] Ik veKpG>v.
by that of
KaraXXayfj Koafiov.
much stronger It may either be

Luke
The meaning of this phrase must be determined The argument demands something than that, which may be a climax to the section.
'
(1) used in a figurative sense, cf. Ezek. xxxvii. 3 ff.; XV. 24, 32 6 d8eX<f)6s aov ovtos vficpos rjv, Kai (Cr} <T Kai aTroXcoXois, Kai evpedrj. In this sense it would mean the universal diffusion of
the Gospel
result of
it.
message and a great awakening of
spiritual life as the
general Resurrection' as In this a sign of the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom. The reconsense it would make a suitable antithesis to KaraXXayrj. ciliation of the heathen and their reception into the Church on
(2),
it
Or
may mean
the
'
earth was the

o-vTTjpla.
first step in a process which led ultimately to their gave them grounds for hoping for that which they should enjoy in the final consummation. And this consummation would come when the kingdom was completed. In all contemporary Jewish literature the Resurrection (whether partial or general)
It
; ;
$2,6
is
ii.
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
new
era.
[XI. 15-24.
a sign of the inauguration of the

p.
Schurer, Geschickle, &c.
460; Jubilees xxiii. 29 'And at that time the Lord will heal his servants, and they will arise and will see great peace and will cast out their enemies; and the just shall see it and be thankful and rejoice in joy to all eternity.' Enoch li. 1 (p. 139 ed. Charles) And in those days will the earth also give back those who are treasured up within it, and Sheol also will give back that which it has received, and hell will give back that which it owes. And he for the day will choose the righteous and holy from among them As in the latter part of this of their redemption has drawn nigh.' chapter St. Paul seems to be largely influenced by the language and forms of the current eschatology, it is very probable that the second interpretation is the more correct; cf. Origen viii. 9, p. 257 Tunc enim erit assumtio Israel, quando iam et mortui vitam recipient et mundus ex corruptibili incorruptibilis fiet, et mor tales immortalitate donabunlur; and see below ver. 26. 16. St. Paul gives in this verse the grounds of his confidence in the future of Israel. This is based upon the holiness of the Patriarchs from whom they are descended and the consecration to God which His argument is expressed in has been the result of this holiness. two different metaphors, both of which however have the same
4
:
purpose.
dirapxri
<|>upap.a.
The metaphor
in
the
first
part of the
taken from Num. xv. 19, 20 'It shall be, that when ye eat of the bread of the land, ye shall offer up an heave offering unto the Lord. Of the first of your dough (dmipxh v <pvpdp.aTos LXX) ye shall offer up a cake for an heave offering as ye do the heave By the offering offering of the threshing floor, so shall ye heave it.' of the first-fruits, the whole mass was considered to be consecrated and so the holiness of the Patriarchs consecrated the whole people from whom they came. That the meaning of the dwapxr) is the Patriarchs (and not Christ or the select remnant) is shown by the parallelism with the second half of the verse, and by the explanation of St. Paul's argument given in ver. 28 aycmrjTol did tovs narepas. ayia consecrated to God as the holy nation ' in the technical sense of dyios, cf. i. 7. icXd&oi. The same idea expressed under a different pia Israel the Divine nation is looked upon as a tree; its image. individual Israelites are the branches. roots are the Patriarchs As then the Patriarchs are holy, so are the Israelites who belong to the stock of the tree, and are nourished by the sap which
verse
is
: : ' . . .
,'
flows
up
to
them from those
roots.
in the second part of ver. 16 suggests an image which the Apostle developes somewhat elaborately. The image of an olive tree to describe Israel is taken from the Prophets Jeremiah xi. 16 'The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree,
17-24.
The metaphor used

:
XI. 17-24.]
fair
$2>]
with goodly fruit with the noise of a great tumult He hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken'; Hosea xiv. 6 His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the Similar is the image of the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon.' and (of the Christian Church) in John Ps. lxxx. 8 vine in Is. v. 7
'
xv.
ff.
:
The main points in this simile are the following The olive = the Church of God, looked at as one
body; the Christian Church being the
privileges of the Jewish Church. that stock root or stock (ptfa)
inheritor
continuous of the
The
from which Jews and
Christians both alike receive their nourishment and strength, viz. the Patriarchs, for whose faith originally Israel was
chosen
(cf.
The branches Church who

kinds
vv. 28, 29). (ol *Xd8oi) are the individual
members
of the
derive their nourishment stock or body to which they belong.
and virtue from the These are of two
The
Some have these represent the Jews. original branches been cut off from their want of faith, and no longer derive any nourishment from the stock. The branches of the wild olive which have been grafted in. These are the Gentile Christians, who, by being so grafted in, have come to partake of the richness and virtue of the
;
olive stem.
(1) The first is this simile St. Paul draws two lessons. It is a warning to the heathen to a certain extent incidental. By an entirely unnatural against undue exaltation and arrogance. Any virtue that process they have been grafted into the tree. may have comes by no merit of their own, but by the virtue
From
they
moment of the stock to which they belong ; and moreover at any It will be a less violent process to cut off they may be cut off. branches not in any way belonging to the tree, than it was to cut But (2) and this is the more imoff the original branches.
ver
in portant result to be gained from the simile, as it is summed up 24 if God has had the power against all nature to graft in branches from a wild olive and enable them to bear fruit, how much more easily will He be able to restore to their original place the
.
branches which have been cut off. consolation for Jsrael, but St. Paul thus deduces from his simile Church incidentally also a warning to the Gentile members of the ascribed to a warning made necessary by the great importance them in ver. 1 1 f. Israel had been rejected for their sake,
Tti/c fjirtarrja-av rtvts; 17. Tide's: a meiosis. Cf.iii. 3 tL yap el ttoXX<5 irXeiW ehe, Trapapvdoipfvos avrovs, a>s TroXXckiy dpijKapfU, eWi
dTrto-Tfjo-avre?.
fie
ol
Euthym.-Zig.
$2,8
[XI. 17, 18.
i&Kk&aQ-qvav.
tion,
The same
Enoch
XXvi.
I koi iicfWev e<pa>8evcra els
simile is used, with a different applicato fxecrov r}s yrjs, ko.1 18ov
icai
ronov
TjiXoyrjfxevov, ev a>
8ev8pa eôvra Trapa(f>va8as pepovaas
(SXaorovcras
TOV 8ev8pOV KK07T(VTOS.

dypic'Xaios the wild olive/ The olive, like the apple and most other fruit trees, requires to have a graft from a cultivated tree, otherwise the fruit of the seedling or sucker will be small and The ungrafted tree is the natural or wild olive. It is valueless. often confused with the oleaster {Eleagnus angusiifolius), but quite incorrectly, this being a plant of a different natural order, which however like the olive yields oil, although of an inferior character. See Tristram, Natural Hist, of the Bible, pp. 371-377.
:
'
wert grafted in amongst the branches of is here describing a wholly unnatural Grafts must necessarily be of branches from a cultivated process. olive inserted into a wild stock, the reverse process being one which would be valueless and is never performed. But the whole strength of St. Paul's argument depends upon the process being an unnatural one (cf. ver. 24 koi napa <pvaiv iv<uvrpiir6iit)} it is beside the point therefore to quote passages from classical writers, which, even if they seem to support St. Paul's language, describe a process which can never be actually used. They could only show the ignorance of others,they would not justify him. Cf.Origenviii. 10, p. 265 Sed ne hoc quidem lateat nos in hoc loco, quod non eo or dine Apostolus olivae et oleastri similitudinem posuil, quo apud agricolas habetur. enim magis olivam oleastro inserere, et non olivae oleastrum solent : Paulus vero Apostolica auctoritate or dine commutalo res magis causis, quam causas rebus aplavit. <TMyKo\.v<av6% Phil. i. 7 ; and cf. Eph. iii. 6 clvai ra 1 Cor. ix. 23 edvrj o~vyKKr)povop.a kol\ avacrapa koa (rvp.p.(TO)(a rrjs enayyfXias iv Xoiorei)
eyeicerrpiaOris lv auTois
:
'
the cultivated olive/
St.
Paul
Mi
\r}o~ov
8ta tov dayyeXiov.
ttjs pir)s
fj
rqs
8
6
ttiottjtos ttjs
Aaias
comp. Jud.
.
.
ix.
koi (incv civtoIs

)
eXala,
Mj) airoXcfyaaa rrjv 7rtdT^ra pov

irepiTTOs
is
nopevo-opai
edcoKe
Test.
XII.
Pat. Levi,
genitive
kX6.8ov
poi
iXalas
tti6tt)tos.
The
taken by Weiss as a genitive of quality, as in the quotation above, and so the phrase comes to mean the fat root of the olive/ Lips, explains the root from which the fatness
rfjt iriorrjros
'
'
of the olive springs/
The genitive ttjs morrjTos seemed clumsy and unnatural to later revisers, and so was modified either by the insertion of koul after pifrs, as in N A and later MSS. with Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.. Orig.-lat. Chrys., or by the omission of rfjs p"ir)S in Western authorities D F G Iren.-lat.
Paul seems to be thinking of Jews, both such as had become believers and such as had not. The Church of Corinth could furnish many instances of new converts who were carried
18.
|jlt)
KctTaicauxw
tw
k\c8w\
St.
Gentile
Christians
who
despised
the
'
XI. 18-22.]
329
away by a feeling of excessive confidence, and who, partly on grounds of race, partly because they had understood or though* they had understood the Pauline teaching of i\ev0tpia, were full o. contempt for the Jewish Christians and the Jewish race. Incidentally St. Paul takes the opportunity of rebuking such as them. ou <ru tV pilav k.t.X. 'All your spiritual strength comes from the stock on which you have been grafted/ In the ordinary process it may be when a graft of the cultivated olive is set on a wild stock the goodness of the fruit comes from the graft, but in this case it is the reverse any merit, any virtue, any hope of salvation that the Gentiles may have arises entirely from the fact that they are grafted on a stock whose roots are the Patriarchs and to which the Jews,
;
by
virtue of their birth, belong.
The Gentile Christian justifies his feeling of 19. ipeis ovv. confidence by reminding St. Paul that branches (kXq&h, not ol KXddoi) had been cut off to let him in therefore, he might argue, I am of more value than they, and have grounds for my self:
confidence and contempt. 20. KaXws. St. Paul admits the statement, but suggests that the Gentile Christian should remember what were the conditions on which he was admitted. The Jews were cast off for want of faith, he was admitted for faith. There was no merit of his own, therefore he has no grounds for over-confidence : Be not high-minded ; rather fear, for if you trust in your merit instead of showing faith in Christ, you will suffer as the Jews did for their self-confidence
'
and want of
it
faith/
This explains the reason which made The Jews the natural branches disbelieved and were not spared is it in any way likely that you, if you disbelieve, will be spared when they were not you who have not any natural right or claim to the position you now occupy ?
21. t yelp 6 eos k.t.X.
right that they should fear.
'
ov8 <rov (f>6icrTai is the correct reading (with mm. pauc., Boh., Orig.-lat, &c.) ; either because the direct future seemed too strong or under the influence of the Latin (ne forte nee tibi parcat Vulg. and Iren.-lat.) wwus ovde crnv was read by F L &c, Syrr. Chrys. &c, then (peiaerai was changed into (peiarjTcu (mitt. pauc. and Chrys.) for the sake of the grammar, and found its way into the TR.
NABCP
D G
22. The Apostle sums up this part of his argument by deducing from this instance the two sides of the Divine character. God is full of goodness (xpw T()Trlh c ^- n 4) an d loving-kindness towards mankind, and that has been shown by His conduct towards those That Gentiles who have been received into the Christian society. goodness will always be shown towards them if they repose their
'
-
confidence on
it,
and do not
trust
in their
own
merits or the
privileged position they enjoy.
On
the other
hand the treatment
of the Jews shows the severity which also belongs to the character
330
of

severity exercised against
off as well as the Jew.
[XI. 22-24.
God; a
them
just because they trusted
in themselves.
God can show the same
severity against the Gentiles
and cut them

diroTOfxia
with
and xP r\ aT ^ 1"r\'i should be read in the second part of the verse, Oi ig. Jo.-Damasc. against the accusative of the Western and Syrian text. D has a mixed reading, diroropxav and xPV"r Tr] s the as-
NABC
'
similation
was
easier in the first
XprjffTorrjs is
omitted by later
word than in the second. The 0eou after MSS. with Clem.-Alex., Orig. from a desire
for uniformity.
e&v
girificfrgs.
The
it,
condition of their enjoying this goodness

in their position.
eya>
is
that they trust in
and not
Ka! au: emphatic like the

Jews.'
of ver. 19
'You
too as well as the
23. St. Paul now turns from the warning to the Gentile Christians, which was to a certain extent incidental, to the main subject of the paragraph, the possibility of the return of the Jews to the Divine
Kingdom
their grafting into the Divine stock.

:
' yes, and they too.' If God is so 24. This verse sums up the main argument. powerful that by a purely unnatural process (napa <pv<riv) He can graft a branch of wild olive into a stock of the cultivated plant, so that it should receive nourishment from it ; can He not equally well, nay far more easily, reingraft branches which have been cut off The restoration of the cultivated olive into their own stock? Israel is an easier process than the call of the Gentiles.
Kal inelvoi 8e
The Merits of
In what sense does
St.
the Fathers.
the stock from which they come dyanr]Tol dia rovs narepas (ver. 28)?
Paul say that Israelites are holy because is holy (ver. 16), that they are He might almost seem to be taking up himself the argument he has so often condemned, that the descent of the Jews from Abraham is sufficient ground for
their salvation.
become one of the commonFor them the world was created {Apoc. Baruch, xxh 24). They had been surrounded by a halo of myth and romance in popular tradition and fancy (see the note on iv. 3), and very early the idea seems to have prevailed that their virtues had a power for others as well as for themselves. Certainly Ezekiel
The
greatness of the Patriarchs had
places of Jewish Theology,
in the interests of personal religion has to protest against
some
men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, We know how this had saith the Lord God' (Ezek. xiv. 14). We developed by the time of our Lord, and the cry had arisen
such view
: '
Though
these three
'
XI. 11-24.]

'
331
have Abraham for our father (see note on ii. 3). At a later date the doctrine of the merits of the Fathers had been developed into a system. As Israel was an organic body, the several
closely bound together, the superfluous one part might be transferred to another. Of Solomon before he sinned it was said that he earned all by his own merit, after he sinned by the merit of the Fathers {Kohel rabba 6o c). A comment on the words of Cant. i. 5 'I am black, but comely/ closely resembles the dictum of St. Paul in ver. 18 The congregation of Israel speaks I am black through mine own works, but lovely through the works of my fathers (Shemoth rabba, c. 23). So again: 'Israel lives and endures, because it supports itself on the fathers (ib. c. 44). A very close parallel to the metaphor of ver. 1 7 f. is given by Wajjikra rabba, c. 36 As this vine supports itself on a trunk which is dry, while it is itself fresh and green, so Israel supports itself on the merit of the fathers, although they already sleep.' So the merit of the fathers is a general possession of the whole people of Israel, and the protection of the whole people in the day of Redemption {Shemoth rabba, c. 44 Beresch rabba, c. 70). So Pesikla 153b 'The Holy One spake to
members of which were

merits
of the
'
'
'
'
Israel:
My
f.).
sons,
to
make mention
justified before
if ye will be justified by Me in the judgement, Me of the merits of your fathers, so shall ye be Me in the judgement' (see Weber, Altsyn. Theol.
p.
280
St. Paul lays great stress on the merits of the becomes quite clear that he had no such idea as this in his mind; and it is convenient to put the developed Rabbinical idea side by side with his teaching in order to show at once the resemblance and the divergence of the two views. It is quite clear in the first place that the Jews will not be restored to the Kingdom on any ground but that of Faith; so ver. 23 iav /117 eVt/xeiVcoo-t rfj dmaTiq. And in the second place St. Paul is dealing (as becomes
Now, although
it
Fathers,
quite clear below) not with the salvation of individuals, but with the restoration of the nation as a whole. The merits of the Fathers
upon as the cause of Israel's salvation, but as a guarantee that Israel will attain that Faith which is a necessary condition of their being saved. It is a guarantee from either of two points of view. So. far as our Faith is God's gift, and so far as we can ascribe to Him feelings of preference or affection for one race as opposed to another (and we can do so just as much as Scripture does), it is evidence that Israel has those qualities which will attract to it the Divine Love. Those qualities of the
are not then looked
founders of the race, those national qualities which Israel inherits, and which caused it to be selected as the Chosen People, these it still possesses. And on the other side so far as Faith comes by human effort or character, so far that Faith of Abraham, for which
332
[XI. 25-36.
he was accounted righteous before God, is a guarantee that the same Faith can be developed in his descendants. After all it is because they are a religious race, clinging too blindly to their own views, that they are rejected, and not because they are irreligious. They have a zeal for God, if not according to knowledge. When the day comes that that zeal is enlisted in the cause of the Messiah, and that it will be so enlisted the the world will be won for Christ sanctity and the deep religious instinct of the Jewish stock as exhibited by the Patriarchs is, if not certain proof, at any rate evidence which appeals with strong moral force.
;
MERCY TO ALL THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF GOD.

XI. 25-36. All this
whole world, both
is the
unfolding of a mystery.
The
Jew and
Gentile, shall enter the
Kingdom;
but a passing phase of disobedience has been allowed to the Jews now, as to the Gentiles in the past, that both alike, Jew
as well as Gentile,
(vv. 2.5-32).
may need and receive the Divine mercy What a stupendous exhibition of the Divine
(vv.
mercy and wisdom

26
33-36)
.,
But
must declare
to you,
my
brethren, the purpose hitherto
concealed, but
people.
I
now
revealed in these dealings of
God
with His
I must guard you must not leave you ignorant. That hardening against self-conceit on this momentous subject. of heart which has come upon Israel is only partial and temporary. It is to last only until the full complement of the Gentiles has
entered into Christ's kingdom.
26
When this
who
has come about then the

(lix.
whole people of Israel

the expected
shall
be saved.
So Isaiah
should
20) described
Redeemer
:
as one
come
forth
from the
and should remove impieties from the descendants of 27 he would in fact fulfil God's covenant Jacob, and purify Israel with His people, and that would imply, as Isaiah elsewhere explains This is (xxvii. 9), a time when God would forgive Israel's sins.
Holy
city
our ground for believing that the Messiah who has come will bring salvation to Israel, and that He will doit by exercising the Divine prerogative of forgiveness if Israel now needs forgiveness this only
;
makes us more confident of the
truth of the prophecy.
28
In the
Divine plan, according to which the message of salvation has been preached, the Jews are treated as enemies of God, that room may
XI. 25-36.]
MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE

;-
333
be found for you Gentiles in the kingdom

the fact that
but this does not alter
by the Divine principle of selection, they are still the beloved of the Lord, chosen for the sake of their ancestors, the
Patriarchs.
called
29
God
His
30
has showered upon them His blessings and

privileges,
is
them
to
and
He
never revokes the choice
He
and
has made.
theirs.
There
thus a parallelism between your case
You
Gentiles were once disobedient to God.

;
Now
it
has been Israel's turn to be disobedient
and
that disobedience has
brought
will
to
you mercy.
this result
:
31
In
like
manner
82
their present disobedience
have
that they too will be recipients of the
same
mercy
that
you have
has, as
received.
And
the reason for the disif
obedience
purpose.
may God
be understood in both cases,

it
we look
to the final
were, locked up
all
mankind,
first
Gentiles
and then Jews, in the prison-house of unbelief, that He may be able at last to show His mercy on all alike. 33 When we contemplate a scheme like this spread out before us
in vast
panorama, how forcibly does
it
bring
home
to us the in-
exhaustible profundity of that Divine
mind by which it was planned The decisions which issue from that mind and the methods by which 34 Into the secrets of the' it works are alike inscrutable to man.
Almighty none can penetrate.
whisper words of suggestion.
No
35
counsellor stands at His ear to

in
its
Nothing
Him
is
derived from
36
without so as to be claimed back again by source of

final
all
owner.
things.
Through Him
all
all
things flow.
He He
is
the
is
the
cause to which
!
things tend.
Praised for ever be
His
name
Amen.
St.
He has Paul's argument is now drawing to a close. He has proved that points that are necessary. the rejection of Israel is not contrary to Divine justice or Divine He has convicted Israel of its own responsibility. He promises. has shown how historically the rejection of Israel had been the cause of preaching the Gospel to the heathen, and this has led to
25-36.
treated
all
the
far-reaching speculation on the future of Israel and its ultimate restoration ; a future which may be hoped for in view of the spiritual character of the Jewish race and the mercy and power of God. And now he seems to see all the mystery of the Divine purpose unfolded before him, and he breaks away from the restrained and
formal method of argument he has hitherto imposed upon himself. Just as when treating of the Resurrection, his argument passes into so here revelation, 'Behold, I tell you a mystery* (1 Cor. xv. 51)
:
334
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[XI. 25.
he declares not merely as the result of his argument, but as an authoritative revelation, the mystery of the Divine purpose.
i.
25. ou y&p Ge'^w uf^s tiyvoelv: cf. i. 13 ; 1 Cor. x. 1 ; xii. 1 ; 2 Cor. a phrase used by St. Paul to emphasize ; 1 Thess. iv. 13 something of especial importance which he wishes to bring home to his readers. It always has the impressive addition of brethren.' The ycff) connects the verse immediately with what precedes, but also with the general argument. St. Paul's argument is like a ladder each step follows from what precedes but from time to time there are, as it were, resting-places which mark a definite paint gained towards the end he has in view.
8
:
'
to
y.v(TTf\piov touto.
On
i.
see Lightfoot, Colossians,
the meaning of mystery in 26; Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Gk.

' '
St.
Paul
57
ff.
p.
Just at the time when Christianity was spreading, the mysteries as professing to reveal something more than was generally known,
most popular form Paul borrows much of his phraseology. So in Col. i. 28, 1 Cor. ii. 6 we have rAfiop, in Phil. iv. 12 in Eph. i. 13 (TCppayigfGdai so in Ign. Ephes. 12 HavXov fifivrjfjLai av/xfiva-Tai. But whereas among the heathen fxvar^piov was always used of a mystery concealed, with St. Paul it is a mystery revealed. It is his mission to make known the Word of God, the mystery which has been kept silent from eternal ages, but has now been revealed to mankind (1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii. 3, 4; Rom. xvi. 25). This mystery, which has been declared in Christianity, is the eternal purpose of God to redeem mankind in Christ, and all that is implied in that. Hence it is used of the Incarnation (1 Tim. iii. 16), of the crucifixion of Christ (1 Cor. ii. 1, 7), of the Divine purpose to sum up all things in Him (Eph. i. 9), and especially of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom (Eph. iii. 3, 4 ; Col. i. 26, 27; Rom. xvi. 25). Here it is used in a wide sense of the whole plan or scheme of redemption as revealed to St. Paul, by which Jews and Gentiles alike are to be included in the Divine Kingdom, and all things are working up, although in ways unseen and
especially about the future state, represented the
of religion, and from
them
St.
unknown,
Xva
jxt)
to that end.
:
'
your your
it
that you may not be wise in by imagining that it is in any way through merit that you have accepted what others have refused has been part of the eternal purpose of God.
TJT irap' Iciutois <f>p6Vifioi
own own
conceits,'
i.
e.
kavrois ought probably to be read with B, Jo.-Damasc. instead of Trap' tavTofc &c, Chrys. &c, as the latter would probably be introduced from xii. 16. Both expressions occur in the LXX. Is. v. 21 01 ovvtrol iv kavTois, Prov. iii. 7 A") *0* (ppovifios rrapa otavTcp.
NCDL
a hardening in part' (cf. vepovs 1 Cor. xii. 27). Paul asserts once more what he has constantly insisted on throughout this chapter, that this fall of the Jews is only partial
TTcSpwons k.t.X.:
'
St.
XI. 25, 26.]

,
MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 335
xxi. 24 'and Jerusalem be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. rd irX^pwâ iw I9v$, v: the full completed number, the complement of the Gentiles, i. e. the Gentile world as a whole, just as in ver. 12 to nXrjptona is the Jewish nation as a whole. shall
(cf. vv. 5, 7 I7 ), but here he definitely adds a point to which he has been working up in the previous section, that it is only temporary and that the limitation in time is 'until all nations of the earth come into the kingdom'; cf. Luke
There was a Jewish basis to these speculations on the completed number Apoc. Baruch xxm. 4 quia quando peccavit Adam et decreta fuit mors contra eos qui gignerentur, tunc numerata est multitudo eorum qui gipyierentur et numero illi praeparatus est locus ubi habitarent viventes et ubi custodirentur mortui, nisi ergo compleatur numerus praedictus non vivet creatura fczra . 11. 40, 41 4(5) (where Jewish ideas underlie a Christian work) recipe Sion, numerum tuum et conclude candidatos tuos, qui legem Domini compieverunt: fihorum tuorum, quos optabas, plenus est numerus: rom impenum Domini ut sanctificetur populus tuns qui vocatus est ab initio.
.
6i<rA6T) was used almost technically of entering into the Kingdom or the Divine glory or life (cf. Matt. vii. 21; xviii. 8; Mark ix. 43~47-)> and so came to be used absolutely in the same sense (Matt. vii. 13; xxiii. 13; Luke xiii.
24).
into the
and so,' i. e. by the whole Gentile world coming kingdom and thus rousing the Jews to jealousy, cf. ver. 1 1 f. These words ought to form a new sentence and not be joined
:
26. Kal
06
coordinate with irapcoats ytyoveu and subordinate to art, for if we did so our would be explained by the sentence with which it is coordinated, and this is clearly not St. Paul's meaning. He does not mean that Israel will be saved because it is hardened. (2) The sentence, by being made independent, acquires much greater emphasis and force. iras 'lapai^X. In what sense are these words used? (1) The whole context shows clearly that it is the actual Israel of history
.
make
with the preceding, for the following reasons: (1) the reference of ovtu is^ to the sentence S is <>$ k.tX must not therefore XP
We
ovtco
o-ootfjjo-erai
referred to. This is quite clear from the contrast with iOv&v in ver. 25, the use of the term Israel in the same verse, and the drift of the argument in vv. 17-24. It cannot be interpreted either of the spiritual Israel, as by Calvin, or the
is
that
ir\r)pa>na tS>v
remnant according to the election of grace, or such Jews as believe, all who to the end of the world shall turn unto the Lord. (2) iras must be taken in the proper meaning of the word: 1 Israel as a whole, Israel as a nation,' and not as necessarily including every individual Israelite. Cf. 1 Kings xii. 1 *al etVe
or
ZapovrjX
-irpos
iravra 'laparjk
2
:
Chron.
xii.
eyKaTe\i7rc ras f'uroXas
Kvpiov kcu
iras 'laparjX
per avrov
Dan. ix.
aKovaai
1 1 Ka\ iras 'la-pafjX irapefitjaav
tov vop.ov a-uv kq\ ((ic\tvav tov
ui)
ttjs (fxavfjs crov.
336
:
[XI. 26, 27.
'shall attain the ow^pta of the Messianic age by <ruQr\<rerai being received into the Christian Church': the Jewish conception of the Messianic o-aTT)pia being fulfilled by the spiritual <ra>Tt]pia of
Christianity.
Cf. x. 13.
St.
So the words of
Israel as a nation,
Paul
mean
simply
this.
The
people of
the
and no longer dirb ntpov^, shall be united with Christian Church. They do not mean that every Israelite shall
finally
be saved. Of final salvation St. Paul is not now thinking, nor of God's dealings with individuals, nor does he ask about those who are already dead, or who will die before this salvation of He is simply considering God's dealings with Israel is attained. As elsewhere throughout these chapters, the nation as a whole. He looks St. Paul is dealing with peoples and classes of men. forward in prophetic vision to a time when the whole earth, including the kingdoms of the Gentiles (to irK^pâ tS>u iQvvv) and the people of Israel {nas 'io-parjA), shall be united in the Church of
God.
The quotation is taken from the 26, 27. Ka0o>s Y e 'YP aiTTat of Is. lix. 20, the concluding words being added from Is. The quotation is free the only important change, howxxvii. 9. ever, is the substitution of (k 2t& for the henev "2id>v of the LXX. The Hebrew reads 'and a Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto The variation them that turn from transgression in Jacob.'
-
LXX
apparently comes from Ps.

crosrripiov
xiii.
7, Hi. 7
(LXX)
ris
8o>o-ei
iK Itiov to
tov 'laparjX
The passage occurs in the later portion of Isaiah, just where the Prophet dwells most fully on the high spiritual destinies of Israel and its application to the Messianic kingdom is in accordance with St. Paul the spirit of the original and with Rabbinic interpretation. uses the words to imply that the Redeemer, who is represented by the Prophets as coming from Zion, and is therefore conceived by him as realized in Christ, will in the end redeem the whole of Israel. The passage, as quoted, implies the complete purification of Israel from their iniquity by the Redeemer and the forgiveness of their
sins
by God.
In these speculations St. Paul was probably strongly influenced, The Rabbis conat any rate as to their form, by Jewish thought. cf. Tract. Sanhedrin, f. nected these passages with the Messiah When thou shalt see the time in which 98. 1 R. Jochanan said many troubles shall come like a river upon Israel, then expect the
:
'
tion of Israel
Moreover a universal restoraIs. lix. 19.' was part of the current Jewish expectation. All There was to be a kingdom Israel should be collected together. in in Palestine, and in order that Israel as a whole might share Nor was the belief in this there was to be a general resurrection. the coming in of the fulness of the Gentiles without parallel.
Messiah himself as says
XI. 26-29.]
Although

all
still
$$>]
much
Enoch
later Judaism entirely denied of the Judaism of St. Paul's day
hope
to the Gentiles,
maintained the O. T.
19-21; Dan. ii. 44; vii. 14, 27). So had been destroyed and dispersed and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the heaven assembled in that house, and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced with great joy because they were all good and had returned to his house.' Orac. SfCre, Sibyll. iii. 7 10 f KaL re fy vrja-oi iraarai noXies t epeovcriv
belief (Is. xiv. 2; lxvi.
12,
xc.
33 'And
all
that
7Tcr6vTes
aTravres
tnl
\6ovi
xvii.
Xio-craficada
adavarov
shall
/3a<nXf)a,
Bebv fxeyav
aivaov
re.
Ps. Sol.
33-35 'And he
purge Jerusalem and
make it holy, even as it was may come from the ends of

gifts
in the days of old, so that the nations
the earth to see his glory, bringing as
her sons that had fainted, and wherewith God hath glorified her/
may see the glory of the Lord, The centre of this kingdom
will be Jerusalem (compare the extract given above), and it is perhaps influenced by these conceptions that St. Paul in ix. 26 If this be so, it inserts the word there and here reads eVc 2ia>i>. shows how, although using so much of the forms and language of current conceptions, he has spiritualized just as he has broadened Gal. iv. 26 shows that he is thinking of a Jerusalem which them. is above, very different from the purified earthly Jerusalem of the Rabbis; and this enables us to see how here also a spiritual conception underlies much of his language. Cf. 1 Thess. i. 10. 6 puoficvos: Jesus as the Messiah. and whensoever I forgive their sins then 27. Ka! auTY] k.t.X. shall my side of the covenant I have made with them be fulfilled.' as regards the Gospel order, the 28. Kcrrci per to euayyeXioi/ This principles by which God sends the Gospel into the world.' verse sums up the argument of vv. 11-24. cxfyot treated by God as enemies and therefore shut off from
'
'
'
'
Him.
may
'
for your sake, in order that you by their exclusion ufxas be brought into the Messianic Kingdom.' 'as regards the principle of election:' ico/rot oe rr)v iK\oyr\v: That this is the meaning is because they are the chosen race.' shown by the fact that the word is parallel to dayyeXiov. It cannot
81'
: '
here, as in vv. 5, 6, ' as regards the elect/ i. e. the select It gives the grounds upon which the chosen people were With dyaTrTjToi, cf. ix. 25; the quotation there probably beloved.
mean
remnant.
suggested the word.

' for the sake of the Patricf. ix. 4 ; xi. 16 f. 01& tous iro/repas archs from whom the Israelites have sprung and who were wellpleasing to God. 29. St. Paul gives the reason for believing that God will not desert the people whom He has called, and chosen, and on whom He has showered His Divine blessings. It lies in the unchangeable z
:
:
'
3<$8
[XI. 29-32.
nature of
God
He
:
does not repent

vii.
Him
of the choice that

gifts,
He
has
made.
dfATajjie\ifjTa
2 Cor.
10.
The
Divine
such as have
and such as God has showered upon the Jews, bear the impress of the Giver. As He is not one who will ever do that for which He will afterwards feel compunction, His feelings of mercy towards the Jews will never change.
been enumerated
in ix. 4, 5,
fj
k\t)o-is
the calling to the
Kingdom.
God does not repent for the has given may be gathered from the parallelism between the two cases of the Jews and the Gentiles, in one of which His purpose has been completed, in the other not so. The Gentile converts were disobedient once, as St. Paul has described at length in the first chapter, but yet God has now shown pity on them, and to accomplish this He has taken occasion from the disobedience of the Jews the same purpose and the same plan of providence may be seen also in the case of the Jews. God's plan is to make disobedience an opportunity of showing mercy. The disobedience of the Jews, like that of the Gentiles, had for its result the manifestation of the mercy of God.
30.
The grounds
for believing that
gifts
that
He
The ujxels shows that this verse is written, as is all this chapter, with the thought of Gentile readers prominently before the writer's
mind.
by that same mercy which was shown to Jews had remained true to their covenant God would have been able on His side merely to exhibit fidelity to the covenant. As they have however been disobedient, they equally with the Gentiles are recipients of the Divine mercy. These words tg> vn(Tf)(o e'Xe'ei go with e'Ae?7#G>crf, cf. Gal. ii. io; 2 Cor. xii. 7, as is shown by the parallelism of the two clauses
31. t<3 ufjicTepw i\4ei
:
'
you.'
If the
vvv 8e
rjhr}Br)T
tt}
tovtcov cnreiOeiq
ra
vfifTeptp
e'XeVi
tva Kai avroi vvv eXftjdaxri.
This parallelism of the clauses may account for the presence of the second vvv with eXerjOuo-i, which should be read with nBD, Boh.,
Damasc. It was omitted by Syrian and some Western authorities (A E F G, &c. Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. rell.) because it seemed hardly to harmonize with facts. The authorities for it are too varied for it to be an accidental insertion arising from a
Jo.
repetition of the previous vvv.
32. St. Paul now generalizes from these instances the character of God's plan, and concludes his argument with a maxim which solves the riddle of the Divine action. There is a Divine purpose in the sin of mankind described in i. 18-iii. 20; there is a Divine
XI. 32, 33.]
purpose in the faithlessness of the Jews. The object of both alike is to give occasion for the exhibition of the Divine mercy. If God has shut men up in sin it is only that He may have an opportunity of showing His compassion. So in Gal. iii. 22 d\\a a-w(K\ei(T(v
fj
ypa<pq
to.
travra vno apapTtav, Iva
f]
enayyeXla
is
e'*c
Triorecoy
'li/o'oi!
Xpia-Tov 8o6fj rois 7ri(TTevovai, the result of sin
represented as being
to give the occasion for the fulfilment of the promise and the mission of the Messiah. All God's dealings with the race are in accordance with His final purpose. However harsh they may seem, when we contemplate the final end we can only burst forth into thankfulness to God.
owe'icXciae
ydp 6
:
Oeo's
cf.
i.
24
f.,
and see below,

'
p.
347.
oWicXeio-e
Ps. lxxviii [lxxvii]. 62
He
unto the sword (avvfiiXeurev ds pofKpmav).' sense of giving over so that there can be no escape.
tous
Train-as.
gave his people over Used with the pregnant

all
Not
necessarily every single individual, but
looked
and nag 'io-pa^X. All the classes into which the world may be divided, Jew and Gentile alike, will be The admitted into the Messianic Kingdom or God's Church. reference is not here any more than elsewhere to the final salvation
at collectively, as the ifK^pcopa ra>v e6vS>v
of every individual. He has vindicated 33. St. Paul has concluded his argument. the Divine justice and mercy. He has shown how even the reign of sin leads to a beneficent result And now, carried away by the contrast between the apparent injustice and the real justice of God, having demonstrated that it is our knowledge and not His goodness that is at fault when we criticize Him, he bursts forth in a great ascription of praise to Him, declaring the unfathomable character
of His wisdom. may notice that this description of the Divine wisdom represents not so much the conclusion of the argument as the assumption that underlies it. It is because we believe in the infinite character of the Divine power and love that we are able to argue that if in one case unexpectedly and wonderfully His action has
We
been
justified, therefore in other
cases
we may
await the result,
resting in confidence
on His wisdom.
Marcion's text, which had omitted everything between x. 5 and xi. 34 (see profundurn on ch. x) here resumes. Tert. quotes vv. 32, 33 as follows: divitiarum et sapientiae Dei, et ininvestigabiles viae eius, omitting teat Then follow vv. 34, 35 yvaioecvs and ojs avejjepevvrjTa ret Kpifmra avrov. without any variation. On ver. 36 we know nothing. See Zahn, p. 518.
3 $d8os /cavou, three genitives that follow are probably coordinate ; irkovrov means the wealth of the Divine grace, cf. x. 12 ; aocpias and yvaxreois are to be distinguished as meaning the former, a broad and comprehensive survey of things
Pd0os:
'inexhaustible wealth.'
is
Cf. Prov. xviii.
troubles to which there
no bottom.
The
z 2
;:
3^0
EPISTLE TO THE
what we
ROMANS
Philosophy
;
[XL 33-36.
the latter an
in their special relations,

intuitive penetrating
call
perception of particular truths (see Lft. on
Col.
i.
9).
:
(Field,
Prov. xxv. 3, Sym. ; and perhaps Jer. xvii. 9, Sym. Hexapla, ii. 617), 'unsearchable'; Kpipn-a, not judicial deCf. Ecclus. cisions, but judgements on the ways and plans of life.
dyeScpeuVirjTa
xvii. I 2 ^ladrjKrfv alwvos <TTt]<Tev fxer avra>v, Kai to. Kpifxara avrov imedeiêp
avrols.
ix.
that cannot be traced out,' Eph. iii. 8 ; Job v. 9 dîxftaoToi This passage seems to have influenced 1 Clem. 10; xxxiv. 24. Rom. XX. 5 dftvcrcrcov re avî\v'ia(TTa .... <rvvex Tal 7rpi'(TTdy[xa(riv. 34. tis Y&p eyvu k.t.X. This is taken from Is. xl. 13, varying only very slightly from the LXX. It is quoted also 1 Cor. ii. 16. 35. ^ tis -irpoeSoKci' auTcp ica! arrairoBoGiio-eTai auT<3; taken from Job xli. 1 1 but not the LXX, which reads (ver. 2) tU apTcarrjcreTai poi ml vnopevel The Hebrew (RV.) reads, Who hath first given unto me that I should repay him ? It is interesting to notice that the only other quotation in St. Paul which varies very considerably from the LXX is also taken from the book of Job (1 Cor. iii. 19, cf. Job v. 13), 'So rich seep. 302. This verse corresponds to a> @ddos 7t\ovtov. are the spiritual gifts of God, that none can make any return, and He needs no recompense for what He gives.' 36. God needs no recompense, for all things that are exist in Him, all things come to man through Him, and to Him all return.
:
'
'
He
and
is
the source, the agent,
and
the final goal of
all
created things
all spiritual life.
Many commentators
a reference to the
esp. Liddon,
work of the
have attempted to find in these words different persons of the Trinity (see
who
restates the
argument
in the
most successful
form).
81'
(1) the prepositions do not suit this interpretation ciutoG indeed expresses the attributes of the Son, but eis au-roV
But
can not naturally or even possibly be used of the Spirit. (2) The whole argument refers to a different line of thought. It is the relation of the Godhead as a whole to the universe and to created things. God (not necessarily the Father) is the source and inspirer and goal of all things.
This fundamental assumption of the infinite character of the Divine St. Paul would necessarily inherit from Judaism. It is expressed most clearly and definitely in writings produced immediately after the fall of Jerusalem, when the pious Jew who still preserved a belief in the Divine favour towards Israel could find no hope or solution of the problem but in a tenacious adherence to what he could hold only by faith. God's ways are deeper and more wonderful than man could ever understand or fathom only this was certain that there was a Divine purpose of love towards Israel which would be shown in God's own time. There are many resemblances to St. Paul, not only in thought but in expression. Apoc. Baruch xiv. 8, 9 Sed quis, Dominator Domine, assequetur iudicium tuum ? aut quis investigabit profundum viae tuae ? aut quis supputabit gravitatem
wisdom was one which
lx-xi\] mercy to all god's ultimate purpose 341

semitae tuae? aut guis poterit cogitare consilium tuum incomprehensibilet aut guts unquam ex natts inveniet principium autfinem sapientiae tuae ? ... xx. 4 et tunc ostendam tibi indicium virtutis meae, et vias [in investigabi'le's
10 tu enim solus es vivens immortalis et [in investigabilis et nosti . liv. 12, 13 ecguis enim assimilabitur in miraDens, aut guis compre/iendet cogilationem tuam profundam vitae? Quia tu consilio tuo gubernas omnes creaturas guas creavil dextera tua, et tu omnemfontem lucis apud te constituisti, et t/iesaurum sapientiae subtus thronum tuum praeparasti . lxxv guis assimilabitur, Domine, bonitatt tuae ? est enim incomprehensibilis. Aut guis scrutabitur miserationes tuas, guae sunt infinitae ? aut guis comprehendet intelligentiam tuam ? aut guis poterit consonare cogitationes mentis tuae ? 4 Ezra v. 34 torguent me renes mei per omnem horam guaerentem apprehendere semitam Altissimi et
.
xxi.
numerum hominum
bilibus tuis,
investigare
partem iuduii
eius. et dixit
ad me Non
poles
me Quomodo^ non
invenire indicium
poles facere
unum de his guae dicta sunt, sic non poteris meum autfinem caritatis guam populo protnisi?
40
et dixit
ad
The Argument of Romans IX-XI.

In the summary that has been given (pp. 269-275) of the various opinions which have been held concerning the theology of this section, and especially of ch. ix, it will have been noticed that almost all commentators, although they differed to an extraordinary degree in the teaching which they thought they had derived from the passage, agreed in this, that they assumed that St. Paul was primarily concerned with the questions that were exercising their own minds, as to the conditions under which grace is given to man, and the relation of the human life to the Divine will. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a small number of commentators are distinguished from the general tendency by laying stress on the fact that both in the l.inth and in the eleventh chapter, it is not the lot of the individual that is being considered, nor eternal salvation, but that the object of the Apostle is to explain the rejection of the Jews as a nation ; that he is therefore dealing with nations, not individuals, and with admission to the Christian Church as representing the Messianic aaT^pia and not directly with the future state of mankind. This view is very ably represented by the English philosopher Locke ; it is put forward in a treatise which has been already referred to by Beyschlag (p. 275) and forms the basis of the exposition of the Swiss commentator Oltramare, who puts the position very shortly when he says that St. Paul is speaking not of the scheme of election or of election in itself, but of God's plan for the salvation of mankind, a plan which proceeded on the principle of election.' It is true that commentators who have adopted this view (in particular Beyschlag) have pressed it too far, and have used it to explain or explain away passages to which it will not apply ; but it
'
undoubtedly represents the main lines of the Apostle's argument and his purpose throughout these chapters. In order to estimate
342
his
[iX-XI.
point of view our starting-point must be the conclusion he This, as expressed at the end of ch. xi,'is that God wishes to show His mercy upon all alike j that the world as a whole,
arrives at.
the fulness of the Gentiles and

;
all Israel, will come into the Messianic Kingdom and be saved that the realization of this end is a mystery which has now been revealed, and that all this shows the greatness
of the Divine wisdom

final
a wisdom which is guiding all things to their consummation by methods and in ways which we can only
;
partially follow.
The question at issue which leads St. Paul to assert the Divine purpose is the fact which at this time had become apparent Israel as a nation was rejected from the Christian Church. If faith in the Messiah was to be the condition of salvation, then the mass of the Jews were clearly excluded. The earlier stages of the argument have been sufficiently explained. St. Paul first proves (ix. 6-29) that in this rejection God had been neither untrue to His promise nor unjust. He then proves (ix. 30-x. 1 3) that the Israelites were themselves guilty, for they had rejected the Messiah, although they had had full and complete knowledge of His message, and full warning. But yet there is a third aspect from which the rejection of Israel may be regarded that of the Divine purpose. What has been the result of this rejection of Israel ? It has led to the calling of the Gentiles, this is an historical fact, and guided by it we can see somewhat further into the future. Here is a case where St. Paul can remember how different had been the result of his own failure from what he had expected. He can appeal to his own experience. There was a day, still vividly before his mind, when in the Pisidian Antioch, full of bitterness and a sense of defeat, he had uttered those memorable words from henceforth we will go to the Gentiles.' This had seemed at the moment a confession that his work was not being accomplished. Now he can see the Divine purpose fulfilled in the creation of the great Gentile churches, and arguing from his own experience in this one case, where God's purpose has been signally vindicated, he looks forward into the future and believes that, by ways other than we can follow, God is working out that eternal purpose which is part of the revelation he has to announce, the reconciliation of the world to Himself in Christ. He concludes therefore with this ascription of praise to God for His wisdom and mercy, emphasizing the belief which is at once the conclusion and the logical basis of his argument.
;
'
St.
Paul's Philosophy of History.
then of this section of the Epistle is not a discussion of the principles on which grace is given to mankind, but a philosophy of History. In the short concluding doxology to
The argument
IX-XL] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 343

the Epistle a conclusion which sums up the thought which underlies so much of the previous argument St. Paul speaks of the mystery which has been kept silent in eternal times, but is now revealed, the Counsel,' as Dr. Hort (in Lft. Biblical Essays,
'
325) expresses it, 'of the far-seeing God, the Ruler of ages or periods, by which the mystery kept secret from ancient times is laid open in the Gospel for the knowledge and faith of all nations.' So again in Eph. i. 4-1 1 he speaks of the foreknowledge and plan which God had before the foundation of the world a plan which has now been revealed: the manifestation of His goodness to all the nations of the world. St. Paul therefore sees a plan or purpose in history ; in fact he has a philosophy of History. The characteristics of this theory we propose shortly to sum up. (1) From Rom. v. 12 ff. we gather that St. Paul divides history into three periods represented typically by Adam, Moses, Christ, excluding the period before the Fall, which may be taken to typify an ideal rather than to describe an actual historical period. Of these the first period represents a state not of innocence but of ignorance. Until the Law, i. e. from Adam to Moses, sin was in the world It is a period which but sin is not imputed when there is no law/ might be represented to us by the most degraded savage tribes.
p.
;
'
If sin represents failure to attain
sin represents guilt, they to
an ideal, they are sinful but if cannot be condemned, or at any rate only
;
men
the
a very slight degree and extent. Now in such a condition, how does He do so ?
if
God
deals
with
is,
The answer
by
Revelation of Law; in the case of the Jewish people, by Now this revelation of Law, the Revelation of the Mosaic Law. with the accompanying and implied idea of judgement, has It has in the first place convicted man fulfilled certain functions. of sin ; it has shown him the inadequacy of his life and conduct. For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt
'
It has taught him the difference between right and wrong, and made him feel the desire for a higher life. And so, It secondly, it has been the schoolmaster leading men to Christ. has been the method by which mankind has been disciplined, by which they have been gradually prepared and educated. And The ideal is there thirdly, Law has taught men their weakness. a struggle to attain it begins, and the desire to attain it is there that struggle convinces us of our own weakness and of the power of sin over us. We not only learn a need for higher ideals; we learn This is the also the need we have for a more powerful helper. discipline of Law, and it prepares the way for the higher and
not lust/
fuller revelation of the
Gospel.
for
These three stages are represented
us typically, and most
Even here of clearly in the history of the Jewish dispensation. There was course there is an element of inexactness in them.
: ;'
344
a knowledge
[IX-XI.
of right and wrong before Moses, there was an but yet the stages do definitely increase in knowledge after him And they may be found also running through the whole of exist. The stage of history they are not confined to the Jewish people. primitive ignorance is one through which presumably every race
; ;
of men has passed ; some in fact have not yet passed beyond it but there has been progress upwards, and the great principle which has accompanied and made possible that progress is Law. The idea of Law in St. Paul is clearly not exhausted in the Jewish All law, although that of course is the highest example of it. It is a great holy peoples have been under law in some form. beneficent principle, but yet it is one which may become a burden.
It is
represented by the law of the conscience ; it is witnessed by the moral judgements which men have in all ages passed on one another ; it is embodied in codes and ordinances and bodies of law
it is
right
which distinguishes for men the difference between The principle has worked, or is working, and wrong. among mankind everywhere, and is meant to be the preparation of, as it creates the need for, the highest revelation, that of the Gospel. the first point in St. Paul's (2) These three stages represent scheme of history. A second point is the idea of Election or Purpose of God which worketh Selection, or rather that of the by Selection.' God did not will to redeem mankind by a nod as He might have done, for that, as Athanasius puts it, would be to
that in fact
' '
undo
which
but He accepts the human conditions creation has created and uses them that the world may work out So, as St. Paul feels, He has selected Israel to its own salvation. be His chosen people; they have become the depositary of Divine truth and revelation, that through them, when the fulness of time has come, the world may receive Divine knowledge. This is clearly the conception underlying St. Paul's teaching, and looking back from To use the vantage ground of History we can see how true it is. modern phraseology, an ethical monotheism has been taught the
the
work of
He
'
'
world through the Jewish race and through it alone. And St. Paul's principle may be extended further. He himself speaks of the fulness of time,' and it is no unreal philosophy to believe that the purpose
'
of God has shown itself in selecting other nations also for excellence in other directions, in art, in commerce, in science, in statesmanship ; that the Roman Empire was built up in order to
create a sphere in which the message of the Incarnation might work; that the same purpose has guided the Church in the An historian like Renan would centuries which have followed. Church was only tell us that the freer development of the Christian made possible by the fall of Jerusalem and the divorce from
History tells us how the Arian persecutions occasioned Judaism. the conversion of the Goths, and how the division of the Church
IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 345

schism of East and West, or at the time of the Reformation, occasioned new victories for Christianity. Again and again an event which to contemporaries must have seemed disastrous has worked out beneficially and so, guided by St. Paul's example, we learn to trust in that Divine wisdom and mercy which in some cases where we can follow its track has been so deeply and unexpectedly vindicated, and which is by hypothesis infinite in power and wisdom and knowledge. first, (3) These then are two main points in St. Paul's teaching the idea of gradual progress upwards implied in the stages of Adam, Moses, Christ secondly, the idea of a purpose running through history, a purpose working by means of Selection. But to what end ? The end is looked at under a twofold aspect it is the completion of the Messianic Kingdom, and the exhibition of the Divine mercy. In describing the completion of the Messianic Kingdom, St. Paul uses, as in all his eschatological passages, the forms and phrases of the Apocalyptic literature of his time, but reasons have been given for thinking that he interpreted them, at any rate to a certain extent, in a spiritual manner. There is perhaps a further difficulty, or at any rate it may be argued that St. Paul is mistaken as regards the Jews, in that he clearly expected that at some time not very remote they would return to the Messianic Kingdom ; yet nothing has yet happened which makes this expectation any more probable. We may argue in reply that so far as there was any mistaken expectation, it was of the nearness of the last times,
at the
;
and
that the definite limit fixed
by
St. Paul, 'until the fulness
of the
has not yet been reached. But it is better to go deeper, and to ask whether it is not the case that the rejection of the Jews now as then fulfils a purpose in the Divine plan? The well-known answer to the question, What is the chief argument for Christianity ? the Jews reminds us of the continued
Gentiles
in,'
' '
{
come
'
existence of that strange race, living as sojourners among men, the ever-present witnesses to a remote past which is connected by our beliefs intimately with the present. By their traditions to which they cling, by the O. T. Scriptures which they preserve by
an independent chain of evidence, by
their hopes, and by their highest aspirations, they are a living witness to the truth of that which they reject. They have their purpose still to fulfil in the
Divine plan.
St.
bition of the Divine
the exhiPaul's final explanation of the purpose of God mercy suggests the solution of another class
'
of questions. In all such speculations there is indeed a difficulty, the constant sense of the limitations of human language as applied to what is Divine ; and St. Paul wishes us to feel these limitations, for again and again he uses such expressions as 1 speak as a man/ But yet granting this, the thought does
346
[iX-XI.
Why does God allow sin ? supply a solution of many problems. Why does He shut up men under sin? It is that ultimately He may exhibit the depths of His Divine mercy. We may feel that some such scheme of the course of history as was sketched out above explains for us much that is difficult, but yet we always come back to an initial question, Why does God allow such a state may grant that it comes from the free-will of affairs to exist ? of man ; but if God be almighty He must have created man with that free-will. We may speak of His limitation of His own powers, and of His Redemption of man without violating the conditions of human life and nature; but if He be almighty, it is quite clear that He could have prevented all sin and misery by a single act. What answer can we make ? We can only say, as St. Paul does, that it is that He may reveal the Divine mercy ; if man had not been created so as to need this mercy, we should never have known the
We
Love of God as revealed in His Son. That is the farthest that our speculations may legitimately go. What evidence does St. Paul give (4) But one final question. On It is twofold. for a belief in the Divine purpose in history ? the one hand, within the limited circle of our own knowledge or experience, we can see that things have unexpectedly and wonderThat was St. Paul's fully worked out so as to indicate a purpose. experience in the preaching to the Gentiles. Where we have more perfect knowledge and can see the end, there we see God's purpose working. And on the other hand our hypothesis is a God of If we have faith in this intellectual infinite power and wisdom. conception, we believe that, where we cannot understand, our failure arises from the limitations not of God's power and will, but of our
own
intelligence.
illustration
may serve to bring this home. We can read Jewish books as 4 Ezra or the Apocalypse of Baruch the bewilderment and confusion of mind of a pious Jew at the fall Every hope and aspiration that he had seems of Jerusalem. But looked at from the point of view of Christianity, shattered. and the wider development of Christianity, that was an inevitable and a necessary step in the progress of the Church. If we believe in a Divine purpose in history, we can see it working here quite clearly. Yet to many a contemporary the event must have been We can apply the argument to our time. In the inexplicable. past, where we can trace the course of events, we have evidence of the working of a Divine purpose, and so in the present, where so much is obscure and dark, we can believe that there is still a Divine
An
in such
all the failures and misfortunes and Et dixit rebuffs of the time are yet steps towards a higher end. ad me : Initio terreni orbis et antequam starent exitus saeculi . . ., et
purpose working, and that
antequam investigareniur praesentes anni,
et
antequam abalienarentur
IX-XL] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 347

eorum qui nunc peccant adinventiones
thesaurizaverunt
:
tunc cogitavi
per alium, ut
et finis
per me
et
et consignati essent qui fide facta sunt per me solum et non non per alium (4 Ezra vi. 1-6).
et
The Salvation of
While the
it
the Individual.
.
Free-will
and
Predestina Hon
* '
Nationalist interpretation of these chapters has been has at the same time been pointed out that, although it correctly represents St. Paul's line of argument, it cannot be legitimately used as it has been to evade certain difficulties which have been always felt as to his language. St. Paul's main line of argu-
adopted,
ment
applies to nations
ix.
language of
individuals.
_
and peoples, but it is quite clear that the 19-23 applies and is intended to apply equally to
in the Apostle's
'
Further
there
is
no idea
quite true to say that the election is primarily an election to privilege yet there is a very ; intimate connexion between privilege and eternal salvation, and the language of ix. 22, 23 'fitted unto destruction,' 'prepared unto glory,' cannot be limited to a merely earthly destiny. Two questions then still remain to be answered. What theory is implied
it
is God's purpose being expounded.
impossible to say, as Beyschlag does, that mind of a purpose before time. It before the foundation of the world which is
it is
'
And
again,
is
language concerning the hope and future of individuals whether Christian or unbelievers, and what theory is implied as to the relation between Divine foreknowledge and human free-will ? We have deliberately used the expression 'what theory is implied?'; for St. Paul never formally discusses either of these questions ; he never gives a definite answer to either, and on both he makes statements which appear inconsistent. Future salvation is definitely connected with privilege, and the two are often looked at as effect and cause. If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more being reconciled shall we be saved by His life' (v. 10).
' '
in St. Paul's
Whom He
He
called,
them
'
He
(viii.
also justified
30).
and
whom He justified,
'
is given by the Divine call, it is not irrevocable. By their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will He spare thee' (xi. 20, 21). Nor again is future salvation to be confined to those who possess external privileges. The statement is laid down, in quite an unqualified way, that glory and honour and peace come ' to everyone that
'
'
them hope
also glorified
But, although the assurance of
worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek' (ii. 10). Again, there is no definite and unqualified statement either in
348
EPISTLE TO THE
;
ROMANS
[IX-XI.
on the one side we have support of or against universalism statements such as those in a later Epistle (i Tim. ii. 4) 'God our Saviour, who willeth that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth'; or again, 'He has shut allup to disobedience, On the but that He might have mercy upon all (Rom. xi. 32). other side there is a strong assertion of wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God, who will render unto them that are facto every man according to his works ; tious and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil (ii. 5-9). St. Paul asserts both the goodness and the He does not attempt to reconcile them, nor need severity of God. He lays down very clearly and definitely the fact of the Divine we. judgement, and he brings out prominently three characteristics of it that it is in accordance with works, or perhaps more correctly on that it the basis of works, that is of a man's whole life and career will be exercised by a Judge of absolute impartiality, there is no respect of persons ; and that it is in accordance with the oppor'
' . .
'
tunities
which a man has enjoyed. For the rest we must leave the he would have done, to that wisdom and knowledge and mercy of God of which he speaks at the close of the eleventh
solution, as
chapter.
There is an equal inconsistency in St. Paul's language regarding Divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Ch. ix implies arguments which take away Free-will ch. x is meaningless without the And such apparent inconsistency of presupposition of Free-will. Work out your language and ideas pervades all St. Paul's Epistles. own salvation, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do Contrast again God gave of His good pleasure (Phil. ii. 12, 13). them up unto a reprobate mind,' and wherefore thou art without excuse (Rom. i. 18 ii. 1). Now two explanations of this language
;
' '
'
'
'
are possible.
St.
held (as does Fritzsche, see p. 275) that unconscious of the inconsistency, and that it arises from his inferiority in logic and philosophy, or (as Meyer) that he is in the habit of isolating one point of view, and looking at the This latter view is correct question from that point of view alone. or rather, for reasons which will be given below, it can be held and The antinomy, if we may call it so, of stated more strongly. chaps, ix and x is one which is and must be the characteristic of all religious thought and experience. held it (1) That St. Paul recognized the contradiction, and consciously, may be taken as proved by the fact that his view was shared by that sect of the Jews among whom he had been brought up, and was taught in those schools in which he had
It
may be
Paul
is
been
Josephus tells us that the Pharisees attributed instructed. everything to Fate and God, but that yet the choice of right and
IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 349

Wrong
lay with
men
(Qapio-alot
elfiapfiivrj
p.t),
re Kai 6eS Trpoaairrovvi
iravra Kai to fiev Trpdrreiv to. dUaia, Kai
Kara,
ttju
to ir\eiaTov
elfxapp-evrjv
em
toIs
dvdpatnois Kcicrdai, fiorjdelu 8e
B. J. II. viii. 14; comp. Ant. XIII. v. 9 XVIII. i. 3) and so in Pirqe Aboth, iii. 24 (p. 73 ed. Taylor) 'Everything is foreseen; and free-will is given: and the world is judged by grace; and everything is according to work.' (See also Ps. Sol. ix. 7 and the note on Free-will in Ryle and James' edition, p. 96, to which all the above references are due.) St. Paul then was only expanding and giving greater meaning to the doctrine in which he had been brought up. He had inherited it but he deepened it. He was more deeply conscious of the mercy of God in calling him he felt more deeply the certainty of the Divine protection and guidance. And yet the sense of personal responsibility was in an equal degree intensified. But I press forward, if so be I may apprehend, seeing that also I was apprehended by Christ' (Phil. iii. 12). (2) Nor again is any other solution consistent with the reality of religious belief. Religion, at any rate a religion based on morality, demands two things. To satisfy our intellectual belief the God whom we believe in must be Almighty, i. e. omnipotent and omniscient in order that our moral life may be real our Will must be free. But these beliefs are not in themselves consistent. If God be Almighty He must have created us with full knowledge of what we should become, and the responsibility therefore for what we are can hardly rest with ourselves. If, on the other hand, our Will is free, there is a department where God (if we judge the Divine mind on the analogy of human minds) cannot have created us with full knowledge. We are reduced therefore to an apparently irreconcilable contradiction, and that remains the language of all deeply religious minds. We are free, we are responsible for what we do, but yet it is God that worketh all things. This antithesis is brought out very plainly by Thomas Aquinas. God he asserts is the cause of everything {Deus causa est omnibus operantibus ut
tit
;
:
eKaarov Ka\
but the Divine providence does is interesting Adhuc providentia est multiplicaiiva bonorum in rebus gubernatis. Illud ergo per quod multa bona subtraherenlur a rebus, non pertinet ad providentiam. Si autem liberias voluntatis tolleretur, multa bona subIxvii),
operentur,
Con/. Gent. III.
not exclude Free-will.
The argument
traherenlur.
si
Tolleretur enim laus virtutis humanae, quae nulla est
si
homo libere non agit, tolleretur enim iustitia praemiantis et punieniis, non libere homo ageret bonum et malum, cessaret etiam circumquae de his quae in
necessitate
spectio in consiliis,
aguntur, frustra
tractareniur, esset igitur contra providentiae rationem si subtraheretur voluntatis liberias [ib. lxxiii). And he sums up the whole relation
of
God
to
natural
causes,
principle applies to the
human
elsewhere showing how this same will patet etiam quod non sic idem
:
350
effectus
[IX-XI.
causae naturali et divinae virtuti attribuitur, quasi partim a Deo, partim a naturali agenti fiat, sed totus ad utroque secundum alium modum, sicut idem effectus totus attribuitur instrumento, et See also Summa Theologiae, principali agenti etiam totus (ib. lxx). Pars Prima, cv. art. 5 ; Prima Secundae, cxiii).
This is substantially also the view taken by Mozley, On the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination. The result of his argument is summed up as follows, pp. 326, 327: Upon this abstract idea, then, of the Divine Power, as an unlimited power, rose up the Augustinian doctrine of Predestination and good while upon the abstract idea of Free-will, as an unlimited faculty, Had men perceived, indeed, more clearly and rose up the Pelagian theory. really than they have done, their ignorance as human creatures, and the relation in which the human reason stands to the great truths involved in this question, they might have saved themselves the trouble of this whole controversy. They would have seen that this question cannot be determined absolutely, one way or another that it lies between two great contradictory truths, neither of which can be set aside, or made to give way to the other two opposing tendencies of thought, inherent in the human mind, which go on side by side, and are able to be held and maintained together, although thus opposite to each other, because they are only incipient, and not final the great truths, I mean, of the Divine Power on the and complete truths one side, and man's Free-will, or his originality as an agent, on the other.
'
; ; ;
And this is in fact, the mode in which this question is settled by the practical The plain natural reason of mankind is thus common-sense of mankind. always large and comprehensive ; not afraid of inconsistency, but admitting It is only when minds begin to all truth which presents itself to its notice. philosophize that they grow narrow, that there begins to be felt the appeal to consistency, and with it the temptation to exclude truths.'
. . .
we cannot solve the problem. (3) We can but state the two sides But yet there is one conception in which the solution lies. It is in a complete realization of what we mean by asserting that God is Almighty. The two ideas of Free-will and the Divine sovereignty cannot be reconciled in our own mind, but that does not prevent them from being reconcilable in God's mind. We are really measuring Him by our own intellectual standard if we think And so our solution of the problem of Free-will, and otherwise. of the problems of history and of individual salvation, must finally lie in the full acceptance and realization of what is implied by the infinity and the omniscience of God.
;
THE NEW
XII.
before
LIFE.
With this wonderful programme of salvation 1, 2. you offer to God a sacrifice, not of slaughtered beasts, but of your living selves, your own bodies, pure and free from blemish, your spiritual service. Do not take pattern
;;
XII.
1.]
THE NEW LIFE

live,
351
by the age in which you
but undergo complete moral

standard.
reformation with the will of
God for your
XII-XV. 12. now reach the concluding portion of the Epistle, that devoted to the practical application of the previous discussion. equally marked division between the theoretical and the practical portion is found in the Epistle to the Ephesians
We
An
(chap, iv) and one similar, although not so strongly marked, in Galatians (v. 1 or 2) ; Colossians (iii. 1) ; 1 Thessalonians (iv. 1)
;
2 Thessalonians (iii. 6). comparison with the Epistles of St. Peter and St. John will show how special a characteristic of St. Paul is this method of construction. The main idea running through the whole section seems to be that of peace and unity for
the
Church
in all relations both internal
in the earlier portion of the Epistle,
and external. As St. Paul looking back on the controversies
through which he has passed, solves the problems which had been presented in the interests no longer of victory, but of peace, so in his practical exhortation he lays the foundation of unity and harmony on deep and broad principles. A definite division may be made between chaps, xii, xiii, in which the exhortations are
general in character, and xiv-xv. 12, in which they arise directly out of the controversies which are disturbing the Church. Yet even these are treated from a general point of view, and not in
relation to any special circumstances. In the first section, the Apostle does not appear to follow any definite logical order, but touches on each subject as it suggests itself or is suggested by the previous ideas ; it may be roughly divided as follows (1) a general introduction on the character of the Christian life (xii. 1, 2) ; (ii) the right use of spiritual gifts especially in relation to Church order (3-8) (iii) a series of maxims mainly illustrating the great principle of dydrrr} (9-21); (iv) duties towards. rulers and those in authority (xiii. 1-7) (v) a special exhortation to dydnr), as including all other commandments (8-10) (vi) an exhortation to a spiritual life on the ground of the near approach of the irapovala (11-14).
:
Tertullian quotes the following verses of this chapter from Marcion 9, 10a, 14b, 1 6b, 17a, 18, 19. There is no evidence that any portion was omitted, but ver. 18 may have stood after ver. 19, and in the latter ytypairrai is naturally cut off and a yap inserted. The other variations noted by Zahn seem less certain {Zahn, Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, p. 518; Tert. adv.
:
12,
Marc.
1.
v. 14).
A regular formula in St. Paul Eph. iv. 1 Cor. iv. 16. As in the passage in the Ephesians, the o5V refers not so much to what immediately precedes as to the result of the whole previous argument. As you are justified by Christ, and put in a new relation to God, I exhort you to live in accordance with that relation.' But although St. Paul is giving the
irapaicaXw oSy.
ii.
:
Tim.
'
35*
[XII.
1.
practical results of his
whole previous argument, yet (as often with him, cf. xi. u) the words are directly led up to by the conclusion of the previous chapter and the narration of the wisdom and mercy of God. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 3 6 TTttT^p TQiV ol<TlpfiS>V. 8l& TW OlKTipjXWf TOU 06OU. the plural OlKTipnos in the singular only occurs once (Gol. iii. 12) (Ps. cxviii. 156 oi is a Hebraism directly derived from the
;
LXX
is
obertpixot
aov
ttoXXoi,
Kvpu,
<r(p68pa).
There
a reference to the
preceding chapter, * As God has been so abundantly merciful to both Jews and Greeks, offer a sacrifice to Him, and let that sacrifice be one that befits His holiness.' a tech. term (although not in the O.T.) for presenting Trapaorijcrai bdpaodai cf. JOS. Ant. IV. vi. 4 &<opovs re eiceXevo-ev cnra a. sacrifice
: :
tov fiaoikta,
The WOrd kcli ToaovTOVs ravpovs Ktti Kpioiis 7rapaorTf)vai. place beside,' ' present ' for any purpose, and so is used of the presentation of Christ in the temple (Luke ii. 22), of God presenting the redeemed (Eph. v. 27), or Christ presenting His Church (Col. i. 28), or the Christian himself (cf. Rom. vi. 13 ff.). In all these instances the idea of ' offering (which is one part of
means
to
'
'
sacrifice) is present.
t&
as
is
awjjiaTa
ufxwi/.
To
be taken
literally, like
ixeXrj
hp&v in
vi.
13,
' Just as the the contrast with tov poos in ver. 2. blemish, sacrifice in all ancient religions must be clean and without must offer bodies to God which are holy and free from the
shown by
so
we
Christianity does not condemn the body, but demands that the body shall be purified and be united with Christ. Sea (vi. 1 3) our bodies Our members are to be ottAo biKaioavvr^s
stains of passion.'
(tA tr&para) are to
be p&v Xpiarov
(id. vii.
(1
;
Cor.
vi.
15); they are the
temple of the Holy Spirit (&
ver. 19)
we
are to be pure both in
body and
There
in spirit
is
34).
some doubt
as to the order of the
They occur
in this order in
NBDEFGLand later
NAP,
Vulg.
prevent ambiguity, expression, but St. Paul may have written t<2 ew eb. to comes at the end of the sentence there is some doubt as to
for if to) QeS>
and Fathers;
tS 0<? ev. in
words evapeorov tS> (S>. MSS., Syrr. Boh. Sah The former is the more usual
,
whether'it should not be taken with TrapaaTrjaai.
0f a, awei K wticp&v cf. vi. 1 3 irapaaTrjO-are cavrovs to bodies presented will be those of men to whom newThe Christ. ness of life has been given by union with the risen distinction, partly of relation to the Jewish rite is partly one of The Jewish sacrifice implies slaughter, the Christian analogy. ritual continued activity and life ; but as in the Jewish rite all to requirements must be fulfilled to make the sacrifice acceptable without the Christian sacrifice our bodies must be holy,
Bvo-lav ^wo-ay
:
favras.
The
God, so
in
spot or blemish.
dyta*,
'
pure,' 'holy/
'
free
from
stain,' 1 Pet.
i.
16
Lev. xix.
2.
XII.
1,
2.]
THE NEW LIFE
353
So the offering of the Gentiles (Rom. xv. 16) is fiyiaapivrj iv TLv. 'Ay. (See on i. 7.) eudpeoTW to> 0<o: cf. Phil. iv. 18 8edp.evos irapa 'EwacppodiTov to. Rom. xiv. 1 8 J Trap" vfjLcov, oapfjv eva>8la<;, dvaiav deKTrjv, (vdpea-rov ra Geo) 1 The formal sacrifices of the old covenant Well-pleasing to God/
:
might not be acceptable to

TTji'
cf. Ps. li. 16, 17 Acc. in apposition to the idea of the Winer, lix. 9, p. 669, E. T. cf. 1 Tim. ii. 6 and the sentence. service to God such as befits the reason note on viii. 3 above. (Xo'yos), i.e. a spiritual sacrifice and not the offering of an irrational The writer of Test. XII. Pat. Levi 3 cf. 1 Pet. ii. 5. animal seems to combine a reminiscence of this passage with Phil. iv. 18: speaking of the angels, he says irpoacpipovai de Kvpia 6ap,fjv tvw&las
:
God
XoyiKT)!' Xa,Tpeiai> u|au>i\
XoyiKrjV
ical
dvatpaKTov TTpocrCpopav.
We may notice
language
007x17
:
the metaphorical use St. Paul

Ovcrlq
/cat
makes of
sacrificial
ii.
ri
rfj
Xturovpyiq
rrji iricTTews
vpa>v Phil.
>
(Lev. i. 9) Phil. iv. 18; 007x17 2 Cor. ii. 14, 16; XeiThis language passed rovpyos, Upovpyovvra, npoa-cpopa. Rom. xv. 1 6. gradually and almost imperceptibly into liturgical use, and hence acquired new shades of meaning (see esp. Lightfoot, Clement, i.
eicoSias
p.
386
sq.).
is
a preponderance of evidence in favour of the imperatives (avaxvpeTanofxpovoet) in this verse, B L P all the versions (Latt. Boh. F (N varies). The evidence of the Syrr.), and most Fathers, against Versions and of the Fathers, some of whom paraphrase, is particularly important, as it removes the suspicion of itacism.
There
fiaTt(t<jOe,
AD G
2. owx*ifAaTicr0e
p,Tap.op<|>oua0,
and
fleeting fashion of this world, but
Do not adopt the external be ye transformed in your

'
inmost nature.'
these
the distinction of crxnpa and popcpfj preserved in see Lightfoot, Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, vol. iii. 1857, p. 114, Philippians, p. 125. Comp. Chrys. ad loc, ' He says not change the fashion, but be transformed, to show that the world's ways are a fashion, but virtues not a fashion,
On
compounds
but a kind of real form, with a natural beauty of its own, lacking not the trickeries and fashions of outward things, which no sooner appear than they go to naught. For all these things even before they come to light, are dissolving. If then thou throwest the fashion aside, thou wilt speedily come to the form/ tw alwi/i toutw, 'this world,' 'this life,' used in a moral sense. When the idea of a future Messianic age became a part of the
Jewish Theology, Time, xp vos> was looked upon as divided into a succession of ages, alwes, periods or cycles of great but limited duration; and the present age was contrasted with the age to come, or the age of the Messiah (cf. Schiirer, 29. 9), a contrast very common among early Christians: Matt. xii. 32 ofae iv rovra ra alwvi ovre ev ra xxeAXoj/Tt Luc. XX. 34, 35 oi viol tov aluvos tovtov
:
Aa
354
. . .

ol 8e Karaîu>6evTs
[XII.
2.
tov alcovos (Kfivov Tvxetv.
T<5 aleovi TOUT&)
dXka
kcu iv to> p.i\\ovTi.
Eph. i. 21 ov p.6vov eV So Enoch xvi. I pe'xpis rjpipas
rrjs Kpicrecos rrj$ p,eyd\t]s, iv 6 olwv 6 peyas reXfcr^^CTerai. the distinction between the present period and the future was one between that which is transitory and that which is eternal,
Te\(ia)(Ta>s
As
between the imperfect and the

apXovTfs tov aloovos tovtov
6 PaaiXevs
St.
tS>v ald>va>v
( i
perfect,
ii.
Cor.
6)
between that in which ol have power and that in which

:
[Enoch xii. 3) will rule, ala>v like Koo-pos in to have a moral significance Gal. i. 4 h tov alwvos tov veo~Tu>Tos TTOvrjpov Eph. ii. 2 7repieTraTrjaaT Kara tov alatva tov K6ap.ov tovtov and so in this passage. From the idea of a succession of ages (cf. Eph. ii. 7 iv toU alwo-t roils encpxop.evois) came the expression tU tovs al&vas (xi. 36), or alwvas to>v ala>va>v to express eternity, as an alternative for the older form els tov alava. The latter, which is the ordinary and original O. T. form, arises (like aloovios) from the older and original meaning of the Hebrew 'Slam, 'the hidden time/ 'futurity/ and contains rather the idea of an unending period. tt] &vaKaiv(ao~ei tou yoo$ our bodies are to be pure and free from all the stains of passion our mind ' and intellect are to be no longer enslaved by our fleshly nature, but renewed and purified by
John's writings,
came
:
'
'
the gift of the
Holy
Spirit.
Cf. Tit.
2
iii.
Sict
Xovrpov TraXiyyeveaias
Kai dvaKaivd>o-ea>s Ilvevp-aTos 'Ayiov:
Cor.
iv.
Col.
iii.
IO.
On
the relation of dvaicaivooo-is,
'
renewal/ to
TraXiyyeveo-la
see Trench, Syn.
By this renewal the intellectual or rational principle will no 18. longer be a vovs o-ap<6s (Col. ii. 18), but will be filled with the Spirit and coincident with the highest part of human nature (1 Cor. ii. 15, 16). SoKipltcii' The result of this purification cf. ii. 18 ; Phil. i. 10. is to make the intellect, which is the seat of moral judgement, true and exact in judging on spiritual and moral questions. to 8At)pa tou 0eoG, k.t.X., That which is in accordance with God's will.' This is further defined by the three adjectives which follow. It includes all that is implied in moral principle, in the religious aim, and the ideal perfection which is the goal of life.
:
'
THE RIGHT USE OP SPIRITUAL

place
GIFTS.
XII. 3-8. Let every Christian be content with his proper
and Junctions. The society to which we belong is a single body with many members all related one to another. Hence the prophet should not strain after effects for which
his faith
is
insufficient ;
the
minister,
the
teacher,
the
exhorter, should each be intent on his special duty.
The
XII. 3-5.]
THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS
SS5
almsgiver, the person in authority, the doer of kindness,
should each cidtivate a spirit appropriate
to
what he
does.
3. St. Paul begins by an instance in which the need of an enlightened mind is most necessary namely, the proper bearing of a Christian in the community, and the right use of spiritual gifts. %\.h. tt]s x"P lT s k.t.X. gives emphasis by an appeal to Apostolic authority (cf. i. 5). It is not merely a question of the spiritual progress of the individual, for when St. Paul is speaking of that he uses exhortation (ver. 1), but of the discipline and order of the community; this is a subject which demands the exercise of authority as well as of admonition. An emphatic appeal to every member of the iravTi tw 6Vti.
;
Christian community, for every one (cKoory) has

gift.
jit)
some
spiritual
uirepcf>po'U',
'
to be minded, but to direct one's
not to be high-minded above what one ought mind to sobriety.' Notice the
.
.
.
play on words
as
virepfypovelv
(ppovelv
(ppovelu
(T<o(f)povflv.
The
cppovelv els to o-acppovdv
would be the
fruit of the
enlightened intellect
opposed to the (ppovrjpa tjjs o-apKos (viii. 6). cKdorw is after epepta-e, not in apposition to irawl t<5 ovti, and its prominent position gives the idea of diversity; for the order, cp. 'According to the measure of faith which God has 1 Cor. vii. 17. The wise and prudent man will remember that given each man.' his position in the community is dependent not on any merit of his own, but on the measure of his faith, and that faith is the gift of God. Faith being the sign and measure of the Christian life is used here for all those gifts which are given to man with or as the Two points are emphasized, the diversity Ud<TT<a result of his faith. cf. perpov, and the fact that this diversity depends upon God
'
'
Cor.
vii.
7 ciXX' fKaaros
'tdiov
eêi
X^P L<rlia
*K
fo ^>
"
/"" ovra>s, 6 8e
OVTCOS.
4. 5.
because of the character of the community corporate body in which each person has his
:
Modesty and sobriety and good judgement are necessary it is an organism or
for the well-being of the
own duty to perform whole and therefore of himself. This comparison of a social organism to a body was very common among ancient writers, and is used again and again by
of the Christian community see The use here is based 12; Eph. iv. 15; Col. i. 18. upon that in 1 Cor. xii. 12-31. In the Epistles of the Captivity it is another side of the idea that is expounded, the unity of the Church in Christ as its head. An idiomatic expression found in later Greek. 5. to 8e kci8' ets. John viii. 9 3 Mace. v. 34 6 *a0' els Cf. Mark xiv. 19 us naff ds Lucian Soloecista 9 Eus. H. E. X. iv, &c. &s naff Sc rap (filXav
St.
1
Paul to
xii.
illustrate the character
Cor.
a a
356
eis
[XII.
5, 6.
was probably formed on the model of If naff tvt and then Ka8' eh came to be treated adverbially and written as one word hence it could be used, as here, with a neuter article. 6-13. ex " 1 6 * x a P"7 fJLaTa KT ^ These words may be taken grammatically either (i) as agreeing with the subject of eV/ieV, a comma being put at fielrj, or (2) as the beginning of a new sentence and forming the subject of a series of verbs supplied with the various sentences that follow ; this is decidedly preferable, for in the previous sentence the comparison is grammatically finished, and cxovTts fie' suggests the beginning of a new sentence. Two methods of construction are also possible for the words Either they must eV rfj dtaieoviq, &C. Kara ttjv duaXoylav rrjs iriarecos be taken as dependent on (x ovTes or a vel"b must be supplied with each and the sentences become exhortations. (1) If the first con:
"
>
>
struction be taken the passage will run,

Christ, but individually
are different
So are we all one body in members one of another, having gifts which according to the grace which is given us, whether we
'
have prophecy according to the proportion of faith, or a function of ministry in matters of ministration, or whether a man is a teacher in the exercise of functions of teaching, or one who exhorteth in exhortation, one who giveth with singleness of purpose, one who
zealously provides, one who showeth mercy cheerfully/ (2) According to the second interpretation we must translate 'having gifts
which vary according to the grace given

use
it
us,
be
it
it
prophecy
let
let
us
it
in proportion to the faith given us, be
ministry
us use
in ministry,' &c.
That the latter (which is that of Mey. Go. Va. Gif.) is preferable shown by the difficulty of keeping up the former interpretation few commentators have the hardihood to carry it to the end on as far as ver. 8; nor is it really easier in ver. 7, where the
is
;
" 7"" rfj Suncovlq are very otiose if they merely qualify ex In spite therefore of the somewhat harsh ellipse, the understood. second construction must be adopted throughout. The 6. Kcrrd Ti]V droXoyCor rfjs morcus (sc. 7rpo(pr)Teva>[iev). man's meaning of iriaTeas here is suggested by that in ver. 3. gifts depend upon the measure of faith allotted to him by God, and so he must use and exercise these gifts in proportion to the If he be <4>pd>v and his mind is enlightened faith that is in him.
additions iv
by the Holy Spirit, he will judge rightly his capacity and power if, on the other hand, his mind be carnal, he will try to distinguish himself vain-gloriously and disturb the peace of the community. Liddon, with most of the Latin Fathers and many later com;
The majestic proportion of mentators, takes m<TT<os objectively the (objective) Faith is before him, and, keeping his eye on it, he avoids private crotchets and wild fanaticisms, which exaggerate the relative importance of particular truths to the neglect of others/
:
'
XII. 6-8.]
357
But this interpretation is inconsistent with the meaning he has himself given to wUtis in ver. 3, and gives a sense to dvaXoyiav which it will not bear ; the difficulty being concealed by the ambiguity of the word proportion in English.
'
7. SiaKoeiar,
'
if
we have
the gift of ministry, let us use
it
in
ministering to the community, and not attempt ambitiously to prophesy or exhort.' 8ia<ovia was used either generally of all Christian ministrations (so Rom. xi. 13 1 Cor. xii. 5; Eph. iv. 12, &c.) or specially of the administration of alms and attendance to bodily wants (1 Cor. xvi. 15 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4, &c). Here the opposition to npocprjTcia, didao-KoXia, irapcuikriais seems to demand the
;
more confined
6 SiSdo-Kwj/.
sense.
St. Paul here substitutes a personal phrase because ex.w 8i8aaKa\iav would mean, not to impart, but to receive instruction. 8. 6 [ACTaStSous the man who gives alms of his own substance is to do it in singleness of purpose and not with mixed motives, with the thought of ostentation or reward. With 6 perabidovs, the man who gives of his own, while 6 8ia8Ms is the man who distributes other persons' gifts, comp. Test. XII. Patr. Iss. 7 iravrl
:
dvdponra dbvvopivoi
d-n-XoTTjs.
(rvve<TTevai-a, kcu 7rra))(d> pfTeftwKa
tov aprov pov.
The meaning
of this
word
is illustrated
best
by
Test.
XII. Patr. Issachar, or ire pi dTrXoTTjros. Issachar is represented as the husbandman, who lived simply and honestly on his land. 'And
my
And
father blessed me, seeing that

I
was not
inquisitive in
towards a man's
. .
my
life,
I provided the good The simple of heart. man (6 dn-Xods) doth not desire gold, doth not ravish his neighbour, doth not care for all kinds of dainty meats, doth not wish for diversity of clothing, doth not promise himself (o^x viroypdcpa) length
.
To
neighbour. I but I walked with a single eye every poor and every afflicted man
(drrXoTTjs)
walk in simplicity (dTrXor^?). wicked and envious did not speak evil of any one, nor attack
I
my
actions, nor
(eV dnXoTtjTi 6<p0aXpS>v).
things of the earth, in simplicity
of days, he receiveth only the will of God ... he walketh in uprightness of life, and beholdeth all things in simplicity (d7rXor7jTt).' Issachar is the honourable, hardworking, straightforward farmer; open-handed and open-hearted, giving out of compassion and in
singleness of purpose, not from ambition. The word is used by St. Paul alone in the N. T., and was specially suited to describe the generous unselfish character of
and hence occurs in one or two places almost with the signification of liberality, 2 Cor. ix. 11, 13; just as liberality ' in English has come to have a secondary meaning, and biKaioavvj) in Hellenistic Greek (Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek,
Christian almsgiving;
1
p.
Such specialization is particularly natural in the East, 49). where large-hearted generosity is a popular virtue, and where such words as good may be used simply to mean munificent.
'
'
; :
3$8
[XII.
8.
6 TrpoioTcfcjjici'os, the man that presides, or governs in any position, whether ecclesiastical or other. The word is used of ecclesiastical officials, i Thess. v. 12 1 Tim. v. 17 and Just. Mart. Apol. i. 67 of a man ruling his family (1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12), and need not be any further denned. Zeal and energy are the natural gifts required
; ; ;
of any ruler.
6 i\e5)v.
'
Let any
man
or
woman who
in the church,
do so brightly and
cheerfully.'
performs deeds of mercy The value of bright-
ness in performing acts of kindness has become proverbial, Ecclus. XXXii. (XXXV.) 1 1 ev irao-r] 80'0-et iXdpaxrnp to irpocrcwrrov crov: Prov. xxii. 8 au8pa l\apov Kai dorqv evXoyei 6 Qeos (quoted 2 Cor. ix. 7); but just as
singleminded sincerity became an eminently Christian virtue, so cheerfulness in all the paths of life, a cheerfulness which springs from a warm heart, and a pure conscience and a serene mind set on something above this world, was a special characteristic of the early Christian (Acts ii. 46; v. 41; Phil. i. 4, 18; ii. 18, &c. 1 Thess. v. 16).
Spiritual Gifts.
The word x^P^V^ (which is almost purely Pauline) is used of those special endowments which come to every Christian as the result of God's free favour (xdpw) to men and of the consequent
gift
of
faith.
In
Rom.
v. 15, vi. 13,
indeed,
it
has a wider
signifi-
meaning the free gift on the part of God to man of forgiveness of sins and eternal life, but elsewhere it appears always to be used for those personal endowments which are the gifts of the
cation,
Spirit. In this connexion it is not confined to special or conspicuous endowments or to special offices. There are, indeed, ra xaplvpara ra peiova (1 Cor. xii. 31), which are those apparently most beneficial to the community; but in the same Epistle the word is also used of the individual fitness for the married or the unmarried state (1 Cor. vii. 7); and in Rom. i. 13 it is used of the spiritual advantage which an Apostle might confer on the community. So again, xaP*ffitaTa include miraculous powers, but no distinction is made between them and non-miraculous gifts. In the passage before us there is the same combination of very widely differing gifts; the Apostle gives specimens (if we may express it so) of various Christian endowments; it is probable that some of them were generally if not always the function of persons specially set apart for the purpose (although not perhaps necessarily holding ecclesiastical office), others would not be confined to any one office, and many might be possessed by the same person. St. Paul's meaning is By natural endowments, strengthened with the gifts of the Spirit, you have various powers and capacities in the use of these it is above all necessary for the good of the
:
XII. 3-8.]
359
that you should show a wise and prudent judgement, not attempting offices or work for which you are not fitted, nor marring your gifts by exercising them in a wrong spirit. l(T LaTa and St. Paul's purpose in This being the meaning of x a P' y this chapter, interpretations of it, as of the similar passage (chap, xii) in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which have attempted to connect spiritual gifts more closely with the Christian ministry These are of two characters. One, that of are unfounded. Neander, maintains that in the original Church there were no ecclesiastical officers at all but only xapiâra, and that as spiritual gifts died out, regularly appointed officers took the place of those who possessed them. The other finds, or attempts to find, an ecclesiastical office for each gift of the Spirit mentioned in this chapter and the parallel passage of the Corinthians, or at any rate argues that there must have been npo^Tai, StSuo-xaXot &c, existing as church officers in the Corinthian and Roman communities. Neither of these is a correct deduction from the passages under In dealing with the x a P^H- aTa St. Paul is discussing consideration. a series of questions only partially connected with the Christian Every church officer would, we may presume, be conministry. l(T aTa which would fit him for the fulfilment of sidered to have x a p' ^ such an office; but most, if not all, Christians would also have âpio-The two questions therefore are on different planes which fiara. partially intersect, and deductions from these chapters made in any direction as to the form of the Christian organization are invalid, although they show the spiritual endowments which those
community
prominent in the community could possess. A comparison of the two passages, 1 Cor.
is
xii. and Rom. xii. 3-8, Paul in the Corinthian Epistle is dealing with a definite series of difficulties arising from the He treats special endowments and irregularities of that church.
interesting
on other grounds.
St.
subject very fully, and, as was necessary, condemns In the Roman Epistle he is evidently writing with the former Epistle in his mind he uses the same simile he concludes equally with a list of forms of xap^âra shorter, indeed,
the whole
definite disorders.
:
but there is no sign of that directness which from dealing with special circumstances. The^ letter is written with the experience of Corinth fresh in the writer's mind, but without any immediate purpose. He is laying down directions but instead of a number of different based on his experience moral details, he sums up all that he has to say in one general Prudence and self-restraint in proportion to the gift of principle
but representative
would
arise
faith.
with Just as the doctrinal portions of the Epistle are written laying the memory of past controversies still fresh, discussing and down in a broad spirit positions which had been gained in the course of those controversies, so we shall find that in the practical
360
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[XII.
9.
portion St. Paul is laying down broad and statesmanlike positions which are the result of past experience and deal with circumstances
which may
arise in
any community.
MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN

a love which
LIFE.
XII. 9-21. The general principles of your life should be is perfectly sincere, depth of moral feeling,
consideration for others, zeal, fervour, devoutness, hopefulness,
fortitude under persecutions, prayerfidness, eagerness to help
your fellow- Christians by sharing what you possess with them and by the ready exercise of hospitality. Sympathize with Bless, do not curse, your persecutors.
others.
your aims.
nothing
to
Be united in Be not
feeling, not ambitious but
modest in
self-opinionated or
revengeful.
to
Do
God.
offend the world.
Leave vengeance
Good for
9.
t|
evil is the best requital.
tions
The Apostle comes back from direcdydiTTj, cf. xiii. 8. which only apply to individuals to the general direction to Christian Charity, which will solve all previous difficulties. Euthym.ttcos
8rj
Zig. 8i8daK(0V yap
hv
to.
elprjpiva
KaTopdcoddr), int]yayi rrjv p.r}Ttpa
navToav tovtcov, Xeyco
eh dX\r)\ovs ayimr\v. The sequence of ideas is exactly similar to that in 1 Cor. xii, xiii, and obviously In the section that follows (9-21), dydnrf is the suggested by it. ruling thought, but the Apostle does not allow himself to be confined and pours forth directions as to the moral and spiritual life which crowd into his mind. Wisd. v. 18; xviii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 6 (dyd-nr)); (Wn-oicpiTos.
rfjv
5; 2 Tim. i. 5 (irians); Jas. iii. 17 (tj avadev aucpia); It is significant that the word is not 22 (cpi\a8e\<pui). used in profane writers except once in the adverbial form, and that by Marcus Aurelius (viii. 5). diroaTuyourres sc. (are as earco above, and cf. i Pet. ii. 18 ; iii. 1. An alternative construction is to suppose an anacoluthon, as if The dyairdre avvnoKpiras had been read above; cf. 2 Cor. i. 7. word expresses a strong feeling of horror; the dno- by farther emphasizing the idea of separation gives an intensive force, which is heightened by contrast with KoWvpevoi. to ironrjpoi' tw dyaOw. The characteristic of true genuine love is to attach oneself to the good in a man, while detesting the evil in him. There cannot be love for what is evil, but whoever has love in him can see the good that there is in all.
I
Tim.
i.
1 Pet.
i.
XII. 10,
10.
dydnr],
tt}
11.]
MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

universal, <fri\abe\4>ia represents
is,
361
4>i\a8eX<j>ia,
is
'love of the brethren'; as contrasted with

affection for the
which
Pet.
i.
brethren;
cf.
that
7.
the Christian community, Euthym.-Zig. d8e\(pol icrre Kara tq avTrjv dia tov
for all
81a.
members of
âirriaparos dvayevvrjaiv got

<|>iX6cttopyoi
:
tovto dvdyKTjv ex re <iXa8eX0ia?.
the proper term for strong family affection. Euthym.cniTaais yap (pikias t) Zig. Tovrean 6epp.a>s ku\ dianvpcos (pikovvres.
aropyrj, Kai ttjs o-Topyrjs wavTcos aS^rj&is
rrj Tijxfj k.t.X.
:
r)
<pi\o<TTopyia.
cf.
Phil.
ii.
'
in holiness of
mind each accounting
The condition and the result of true other better than himself.' affection are that no one seeks his own honour or position, and The word TrpoTjyouevery one is willing to give honour to others. naturally it would mean going before/ jj.ei'oi is somewhat difficult preceding,' and so it has been translated, (1) in matters of honour preventing one another,' being the first to show honour so Vulg.
; ' '
' :
invicem praev ententes

actions':
or (2) 'leading the way in honourable 'Love makes a man lead others by the example of
;
'
'
showing respect to worth or saintliness,' Liddon; or (3) 'surpassThere is nothing which makes friends so ing one another : much, as the earnest endeavour to overcome one's neighbour in honouring him,' Chrys. But all these translations are somewhat forced, and are difficult, because irporjyelo-Oai in this sense never takes the accusative. It is, in fact, as admissible to give the word a meaning which it has not
comparison is unparalleled. therefore of 1 Thess. v. 13; Phil. ii. 3 suggests that St. Paul is using the word in the quite possible, although otherwise unknown, So apparently RV. ( AV.) 'in sense of r^yovpevoi vnepexovras.
elsewhere, as a construction which
honour preferring one another,' and Vaughan.

11.
tt)
<tttouStj
jxrj
dicvrjpoi,
'in
zeal
not flagging'; the words
being used in a spiritual sense, as is shown by the following clauses. Zeal in all our Christian duties will be the natural result of our On oKvrjpos cf. Matt. xxv. Christian love, and will in time foster it. of Proverbs (vi. 6, &c). 26 it is a word common in the tw weupiTi Torres: cf. Acts xviii. 25, 'fervent in spirit'; that is the human spirit instinct with and inspired by the Divine Spirit. The spiritual life is the source of the Christian's love * And all things will be easy from the Spirit and the love, while thou art made to glow from both sides,' Chrys. tw Kupi'w SouXeu'orres. The source of Christian zeal is spiritual It is not our service to Christ. life, the regulating principle necessary to find any very subtle connexion of thought between
:
LXX
they came forth eagerly and irregularly from St. Kvpiv may have been suggested by irvevfian, just as below 8iwklv in one sense suggests the same word in another
these clauses,
Paul's mind.
sense,
362
There (N
is
[XII. 11-13.
a very considerable balance of authority in favour of Kvplw &c, Vulg. Syrr. Boh., Gr. Fathers) as against Kcupw (D F G, Mi legant spe gaudentes, Latin Fathers). Cf. Jer. Ep. 27 ad Marcellam tempori servientes, nos legamus domino servientes. Oiig.-lat. ad loc. scio tempori servientes: quod haberi exemplis autem in nonnullis Latinorum non mihi videtur convenienter inserium. The corruption may have arisen from kc5 Kpc3 being confused together, a confusion which would be easier from reminiscences of such expressions as Eph.- v. 16 eâyopa(6fX6voi rbv
ABELP
naipov.
eXmSi x a l P 0VT **- See above on ver. 8. The Christian the cause of that Christian joy and cheerfulness of discf. 1 Cor. xiii. 7 position which is the grace of Christian love hopeth all things/ \ Love Endurance in persecution is naturally tt) OXuJ/ei utto|ji,Wts.
'
12.
tt)
hope
is'
connected with the Christian's hope endureth all things.'

It is interesting to notice
cf. 1
Cor.
xiii.
'
Love
how
strongly, even thus early, perseculife

:
as a characteristic of the Christian's impressed itself on St. Paul's phraseology

tion
3, 7
;
in
1
the world
had
;
see
Thess.
;
i.
iii.
viii. 35. 6 ; 2 Cor. i. 4, &c. ; Rom. v. 3 Acts. i. 14; ii. 42; Col. iv. 2. tt} irpoo-euxfj TrpooxapTcpouyTes Persecution again naturally suggests prayer, for the strength of prayer is specially needed in times of persecution. This verse contains two 13. t<hs xP i ai s v ayiw*' KoivuvovvTt.%. sharing one's goods special applications of the principle of love
Thess.
i.
4,
with fellow-Christians in need, and exercising that hospitality which was part of the bond which knit together the Christian comWith Koivavelv in this sense cf. Phil. iv. 15; Rom. xv. 26; munity. 2 Cor. ix. 13; Heb. xiii. 16.
The
cod.
variation
rat's
fivdais
(D F G, MSS. known
:
to Theod. Mops., Vulg.
(am), Eus. Hist. Mart. Pal., ed. Cureton, p. 1, Hil. Ambrstr. Aug.) is In the translation of Origen we read Usibus sanctorum cominteresting. Memini in latinis exemplaribus magis haberi: memoriis municantes. sanctorum communicantes : verum nos nee comueludinem turbamtts, nee veritati praeiudicamus, maxime cum utrumque conveniat aedificationi. usibus sanctorum honeste et decenter, non quasi stipem indigentibus praebere, sed censum nostrorum cum ipsis quodammodo habere communem, et meminisse sanctorum sive in collectis solemnities, sive pro eo, ut ex recorda-
Nam
tion eorum proficiamus, aptum et conveniens videtur. The variation must have arisen at a time when the holy were no longer the members of the community and fellow-Christians, whose bodily wants required relieving, But this but the 'saints' of the past, whose lives were commemorated. custom arose as early as the middle of the second century: cf. Mart. Polyc. xviii evda cbs Svvarov -qnTv avvayonevois iv ayaWiaaet Kai X a P% pH* 6 Kvpios kmrekeiv rfjv rod fiaprvpiov avrov ^fxepav yeveOXiov, cis re rfjV rwv and the nporiOKrjKOTOjv /xvfjfxrjv kcli toiv /jicKXovtojv aoicrjoiv re real kroipLaaiav variations may, like other peculiarities of the western text, easily have arisen so soon. We cannot however lay any stress on the passage of Origen, as it See Bingham, Ant. xiii. 9. 5. WH. suggest is probably due to Rufinus. that it was a clerical error arising from the confusion of XP an d mn in
' '
a badly written papyrus MS.
XII. 13-16.]
MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE $6$
SiKoêviav. From the very beginning hospitality was recognized as one of the most important of Christian duties (Heb. xiii. 2
1
Tim.
iii.
Tit.
rrjs
i.
1 Pet. iv.
9
:
compare
also Clem.
Rom.
8ta
to (Xya\o7rpe7res
(piKogevias v/mv rjGosl
IO of
Abraham
e
ttio-tiv
Kal <pi\oeviav tdodt] avr<a vlos iv yr]pq
1 1
&a
(piXogevlav kcu evoejeuiv
Ao>t
e<rd>6r]
12 81a ttio-tiv
/cat
<f)i\otvlav
ta&$i)
Paa/3
fj
nopvr) 35).
On
Church see Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 288, 368. The Christians looked upon themselves as a body of men scattered throughout the world, living as aliens amongst strange people, and therefore bound together as the members of a body, as the brethren of one family. The practical realization of this idea would demand that whenever a Christian went from one place to another he should find a home among the Christians in each town he visited. We have a picture of this intercommunion in the letters of Ignatius we can learn it at an earlier period from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians
its
significance in the early
(2 Cor.
iii.
1;
viii.
communion would be
One necessary part of such inter18, 23, 24). the constant carrying out of the duties
It was the unity and strength which this interof hospitality. course gave that formed one of the great forces which supported
Christianity.
The use of the word Sianeiv in one 14. u\<>yit tous Siriicorras. The resemsense seems to have suggested its use in another. But I say unto you, Love blance to Matt. v. 44 is very close your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you.' Emphasis Cf. is added by the repetition of the maxim in a negative form.
:
James
xliii.
iii.
9.
Jf
15. x"P l1'
T "t
x Ctl po
,'
T&),'
kt.X.
On
the infinitive
cf.
Winer,
But it seems more forcible and less 5 d, p. 397, E. T. awkward to take it, as in Phil. iii. 16, as the infinitive used for the emphatic imperative than to suppose a change of construc'But that requires more of a high Christian temper, to tion. rejoice with them that do rejoice, than to weep with them that
weep. For this nature itself fulfils perfectly and there is none so hardhearted as not to weep over him that is in calamity but the other requires a very noble soul, so as not only to keep from envying, but even to feel pleasure with the person who is in esteem. And this is why we placed it first. For there is nothing that ties love so firmly as sharing both joy and pain one with Cf. Ecclus. vii. 34. another,' Chry. ad loc. ^poyoGfTcs, being harmonious in your relations 16. t& auTo
: :
' . . .
cf. xv. 5 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 1 1 ; Phil. ii. 2 ; iv. 2. towards one another The great hindrance to this would be having too high an estimation of oneself: hence the Apostle goes on to condemn such
' :
pride.
pj Td
ui|/Tj\a <J>p<m>G'T$
cf. xi.
20 ;
Cor.
xiii.
'
Love vaunteth
364
not
itself, is

not puffed up/ shows
'
:
[XII. 16-19.
carrying out
how
St.
Paul
is still
the leading idea of the passage. prob. neuter ; tois TaireiyoTs

with, give yourself over to,
thingis,'
allow yourself to be carried along

: ' '
Wic.
humble tasks The verb awandyHv means

'
consentinge to
meke
in the active 'to lead
along with one,' hence in the passive, to be carried away with,' as by a flood which sweeps everything along with it (Lightfoot On Gal. ii. 13; cf. 2 Pet. iii. 17), and hence 'to give oneself up to/ The neuter seems best to suit the contrast with to. v^Xd and but elsewhere in the N. T. raireivos is the meaning of the verb always masculine, and so many take it here: 'make yourselves Conequall to them of the lower sorte,' Tyn. Cov. Genev. That is, bring thyself sentinge to the humble,' Rhen. So Chrys. down to their humble condition, ride or walk with them do not be humbled in mind only, but help them also, and stretch forth thy hand to them.'
;
'
:
'
taken apparently from Prov. iii. Cf. Origen noti potest veram sapiennapa aeavra. tiam Dei scire, qui suam stultitiam quasi sapientia?n colit. Another result of the 17. fjLTjSe/i Kcucdy drri kcikoG diroSiSorres.
}xt)
ylveo-Qe <f>p6Vip.oi imp' Iciutois
/uj)
ladi (j)p6vijxos
Mat. v. 43, 44; 1 Thess. v. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 9 ; taketh not account of evil ; rejoiceth Cor. xiii. 5, 6 Love not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth.' cf. Prov. iii. 4 Trpoi'ooujJiei'Oi KaXd iixoinov iravruiv avOpuiroiv
principle of love.
1
'
2 Cor.
iv.
2;
viii.
21.
'As nothing causes offence so much
as
offending men's prejudices, see that your conduct will commend Euthym.-Zig. ov wpos iiribaîv dXXd itself as honourable to men/
Trpos
This didacrKuXiav, Kai aurre prjêvl dovvai irpo(pa(nv o~Kavdd\ov. seems better than to lay all the emphasis on the ndvrcov, as some would do. 18. el Wcnw, if it be possible, live peaceably with all men, at any rate as far as concerns your part (to eg vpwvy Over what others will do you can have no control, and if they break the peace it is Love seeketh not its own (1 Cor. xiii. 5). not your fault. 19. dYcnnjToi. Added because of the difficulty of the precept not to avenge oneself. 86t tottoi> ttj opyfj, give room or place to the wrath of God.' Let God's wrath punish. Euthym.-Zig. dXXd TrapaxcopelTe rfs endi^'
'
'
'
aecos rrj opyfj roi> Geov,
rfj
Kpi'cret
tov Kvpiov.
The meaning
fim^dXft),
of dore
tottov is
shown by Eph.
iv.
27
prjde
818ot tottov rd\
do not
:
give scope or place to the devil ; 17 opyfj means the wrath of God That this is the right interpretation of the word is cf. Rom. v. 9.
the quotation which follows. But other interpretations have been often held fio're tottov is translated by some, allow space, interpose delay,' i. e. check and restrain your wrath; by others, 'yield to the anger of your
shown by
'
XII. 19-21.]
opponent '
the Greek.
:
ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS
365
neither of these interpretations suits the context or
The quotation which follows comes from Deut. and resembles the Hebrew 'Vengeance is mine and recompense/ rather than the LXX iv fifiepg. ftcducrjo-fas avTairoa>(ra> and the Targum of Onkelos more than either. The words are quoted in the same form in Heb. x. 30. 20. dXXa 'E&y -n-cim 6 e'x0p<5s orou k.t.X. Taken from the LXX ; cf.
Y^Ypairrai ydp.
35,
xxxii.
Prov. xxv. 21, 22, agreeing exactly with the text of B, but varying somewhat from that of An. The term cMpaiccs irupos clearly means terrible pangs or pains/ cf. Ps. cxxxix (cxl). 1 1 (LXX) 4 (5) Ezra
'
non peccasse, quoniam carbones ignis comburet super caput eius qui dicit : Non peccavi coram domino et gloria ipsius. But with what purpose are we to heap coals of fire on his head' ? Is it (1) that we may be consoled for our kind act by knowing that he will be punished for his misdeeds ? This is impossible, for it attributes a malicious motive, which is quite inconsistent with the context both here and in the O. T. In the latter the passage proceeds, And the Lord shall reward thee/ implying that the deed is a good one here we are immediately told that we are not to be overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good/ which clearly implies that we are to do what is for our enemies' benefit. (2) Coals of fire must, therefore, mean, as most commentators since Augustine have said, the burning pangs of
xvi.
54
Non
die at peccaior se
'
'
'
'
shame/ which a man will feel when good is returned for evil, and which may produce remorse and penitence and contrition. Potest enim fieri ut animus ferus ac barbarus inimici, si sentiat
beneficium nostrum, si humanitatem, si affectum, si pietaiem videat, compunctionem cordis capiat, commissi poenitudinem gerat, et ex hoc ignis in eo quidem succendalur, qui eum pro commissi conscientia torqueat et adurat : et isii erunt carbones ignis, qui super caput eius ex nostro misericordiae et pietatis opere congregantur, Origen. 21. p.T) yiicw utto toO kciicoG k.t.X., do not allow yourself to be overcome by the evil done to you and be led on to revenge and injury, but conquer your enemies' evil spirit by your own good remark which applies to the passage just condisposition.' cluded and shows St. Paul's object, but is also of more general
'
application.
ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS.
XIII. 1-7.
functions are
but the wicked.
The
to
civil
power has Divine

to
sanction.
Its
promote well-beings
punish not the good

Obedience
to it is
Hence
it
must
be obeyed.
a Christian duty and deprives
it
of all
its terrors*
3^6
EPISTLE TO THE
too
is
ROMANS
[XIII.
1.
So ment
you pay
tribute because the
God's ordinance.
In
this as in all things
machinery of governgive to all
their due.
XIII. The Apostle now passes from the duties of the individual mankind in general to his duties in one definite sphere, namely towards the civil rulers. While we adhere to what has been said about the absence of a clearly-defined system or purpose in these chapters, we may notice that one main thread of thought which runs through them is the promotion of peace in all the relations of life. The idea of the civil power may have been suggested by ver. 19 of the preceding chapter, as being one of the ministers of the Divine wrath and retribution (ver. 4) at any rate the juxtaposition of the two passages would serve to remind St. Paul's readers that the condemnation of individual vengeance and retaliation does not apply to the action of the state in enforcing law for the state is God's minister, and it is the just wrath of God which is acting through it.
Christian towards
:
have evidence of the use of vv. 8-10 by Marcion (Tert. adv. Marc. Merito itaque totam creatoris disciplinam pHncipali praecepto eius conclusit, Diliges proximum tanqnam te. Hoc legis supplementum si ex ipsa lege est, quis sit deus legis iam ignoro. On the rest of the chapter we have no information.
v. 14)
We
1.
iracra \J*uxrj
see on
ii.
9.
the
idea
of
individuality.
The Hebraism suggests prominently These rules apply to all however

is
privileged,
and the question

:
treated from the point of view of

'
individual duty.
eouo-ais
xii.
abstract for concrete,

iii.
11; Tit.
defining
more
vi. 5.
those in authority'; cf. Luke are in an eminent position,' precisely the idea of e'ovcn'ais cf. 1 Pet. ii. 13;
1.
uircpcxouorais
'who
Wisdom
uTTOTao-o-t'aOw.
Notice the repetition of words of similar sound,

.
vnoracraeoda)
xii. 3.
TiTayjxevai
avTiTaaaofievos
Staray^,
and
cf.
ou yctp
tively
gift
ccttii'
eouaia
k.t.X.
it
this obedience, stating
first
and
specially.
No
The Apostle gives the reason for generally and positively, then negahuman authority can exist except as the
springing from Him, and therefore all constituted powers are ordained by Him. The maxim is common in all
of
God and
Hebrew
literature,
but
is
almost always introduced to show
how
the Divine
greater than that of all earthly sovereigns, or to declare the obligation of rulers as responsible for all they do to
is
power
them.
One above
vpiv kcu
fj
Wisdom
.
vi. 1,
.
fiddfTe diicavTcu Trepdrav ytjs
on
:
3 aKovaare ovv, fiaatXtU, ko2 wren, edodr) napa tov Kvpiov f) KpaTrjais
8vuaareia napa iîorov
down
the kings from their thrones
Enoch xlvi. 5 And he will put and kingdoms, because they do

'
XIII. 1-4.]
367
Hot extol and praise him, nor thankfully acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them' Jos. Bell.Jud. II. viii. 7 to ttkttou
:
wapegav
naa-i, ftaXiara
8e tols Kparovaiu'
ov yap fiiâ Qeov irepiylvf<r8ai
Paul adopts the maxim for a purpose similar to that In which it is used in the last instance, that it is the duty of subjects to obey their rulers, because they are appointed and ordained by God.
tivi to apxeivi
St.
The preponderance of authority and many later MSS., Bas. Chrys.) is decisive for el pfj vno tov. The Western reading dnu &eov was a correction for the less usual expression and many later M.SS., Orig. Jo.-Damasc.). The reading of the end of the verse should be at 8e ovaat vnu &eov Terayfxivai elaiv N B F G.
(NAB LP
(DEFG
A D
2. wore 6 di>TiTa<ro-6|xeyo$ k.t.X. The logical result of this theory as to the origin of human power is that resistance to it is resistance to the ordering of God and hence those who resist will receive xplpa a judgement or condemnation which is human, for it comes through human instruments, but Divine as having its origin and source in God. There is no reference here to eternal punishment.
The plural shows that the Apostle is 3. ol yap apxon-es. speaking quite generally. He is arguing out the duty of obeying rulers on general principles, deduced from the fact that the state exists for a beneficent end he is not arguing from the special condition or circumstances of any one state. The social organism, as a modern writer might say, is a power on the side of good. tw &ya0a> cpyw cf. ii. *] Tols /**" Ka ^ viropovrjv epyov ayaOov. In both passages epyov is used collectively ; there it means the scene of a man's actions, here the collective work of the state. For the subject cf. 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2 we are to pray 'for kings and all in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godli'
'
ness and honesty.'
The singular t< ayadS) epyco dWa tS> ko.k> is read by Boh. Vulg. {boni operis sed malt), Clem.-Alex. Iren.-lat. Tert. Orig -lat. Jo.Damasc. Later MSS. with EL, Syrr. Arm., Chrys. Thdrt. read twv dya9wv epycw kclkwv. Hort suggests an emendation of Patrick Young. t<2 ayaBoipya), which has some support apparently from the Aeth. ei qui facit bonum but the antithesis with Ka.ua> makes this correction improbable.
.
.
NABDFGP,
GeXets 8e
iiouaiw,
The
construction
is
more pointed
if
these
words are made a question.
good end, if you lead a peaceable life have nothing to fear from the civil power. 4. 0oG yelp SkIkoôs can. Fern, to agree with e'govo-la, which throughout is almost personified. <roi, for thee,' ethical, for thy advantage, els to dyaGoV, for the good/ to promote good, existing for a good end. Tr)v jidxaipar. The sword is the symbol of the executive and criminal jurisdiction of a magistrate, and is therefore used of the
the state exists for a
As
you
will
'
'
3^8
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[XIII. 4-7.
power of punishing inherent

Digest,
i.
in the government. So Ulpian, Tac. Hist, hi.. 68 Dio Cassius, xlii. 27. ckSikos cis tyy^, inflicting punishment or vengeance so as to exhibit wrath,' namely the Divine wrath as administered by the ruler who is God's agent (cf. ver. 2 and xii. 19). The repetition of the phrase Qeov duiicovos with both sides of the sentence emphasizes the double purpose of the state. It exists positively for the wellbeing of the community, negatively to check evil by the infliction of punishment, and both these functions are derived from God. 5. 8i<5: rulers, because as God's ministers they have a Divine order and purpose, are to be obeyed, not only because they have power over men, but also because it is right, 6m rf}u wtfttpw (cf.
1
8. 6.
'
ii.
15, ix. 1).^

6.
8id touto yap

also.'
icat,
sc. 81a
rfjv
a-wdbrja-iv
and
it
is
for this
Paul is appealing to a principle which his readers will recognize. It is apparently an admitted rule of the Christian communities that taxes are to be paid, and he points out that the principle is thus recognized of the moral duty of obeying rulers. That he could thus appeal to a recognized practice seems to imply that the words of our Lord (Luke xx. 20-25) had moulded the habits of the early Church, and this suggestion is corroborated by ver. 7 (see the longer note below). XeiToupyoi, God's ministers.' Although the word is used in a purely secular sense of a servant, whether of an individual or of a community (1 Kings x. 5; Ecclus. x. 2), yet the very definite meaning which \ttrovpyhs etav had acquired (Ecclus vii. 30; Heb. viii. 2 see especially the note on Rom. xv. 16) adds emphasis to
St.
' ;
reason
St. Paul's
expression.
irpoaKapTcpourrcs
must apparently be taken absolutely

'
(as in
persevering faithfully in their office,' and cis cwto touto gives the purpose of the office, the same as that ascribed above to the state. These words cannot be taken immediately with npoaKapTepovvTfs, for that verb, as in xii. 13, seems
v. 14),
Xen. Hell. VII.
always to govern the dative. 7. St. Paul concludes this subject and leads on to the next by a general maxim which covers all the different points touched Pay each one his due/ upon tw rbv <f>6poe, sc. atraiTovvrt. <p6po<: is the tribute paid by a subject nation (Luke xx. 22 1 Mace. x. 33), while reXos represents the customs and dues which would in any case be paid for the support
:
of the
in his
ii.
<t>o|3os is
government (Matt. xvii. 25 1 Mace. x. 31). the respectful awe which is felt for one who has power hands ; nprjv honour and reverence paid to a ruler cf. 1 Pet.
civil
;
:
7 tov
Qcdv
0o/3Io-#e*
tov fkurikea ripare.
strange
interpretation
of this verse
p.
Gnostic book entitled nt'cmr 2o0ia,
may be seen 294, ed. Schwartze.
in
the
' ;
XIII. 1-7.]
369
The Church and
the Civil
Power.
St. Paul to write this section of the other questions) been discussed at great length with the object of throwing light on the composition of the Roman Church. If the opinion which has been propounded already in reference to these chapters be correct, it will be obvious that here as elsewhere St. Paul is writing, primarily at any rate, with a view to the state of the Church as a whole, not to the particular circumstances of the Roman community: it being recognized at the same time that questions which agitated the whole Christian world would be likely to be reflected in what was already an important centre of Christianity. Whether this opinion be correct or not must depend partly, of course, on our estimate of the Epistle as a whole but if it be assumed to be so, the character of this passage will amply support it. There is a complete absence of any reference to particular circumstances: the language is throughout general there is a studied avoidance of any special terms direct commands such as might arise from particular circumstances are not given but general principles applicable to any period or place are laid down. As elsewhere in this Epistle, St. Paul, influenced by his past experiences, or by the questions which were being agitated around him, or by the fear of difficulties which he foresaw as likely to arise, lays down broad general principles, applying to the affairs of life the spirit of Christianity as he has
The
motive which impelled
Epistle has (like so
many
elucidated
it.
But what were the questions that were in the air when he wrote ? There can be no doubt that primarily they would be those
current in the Jewish nation concerning the lawfulness of paying taxes and otherwise recognizing the authority of a foreign ruler. or
our Lord was asked, Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar Luke xx. 22 f.), a burning question no?' (Matt. xxii. 18 f. was at once raised. Starting from the express command thou
'
When
'
mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother (Deut. xvii. 15), and from the idea of a Divine theocracy, a large section of the Jews had refused to recognize or pay taxes to the Roman government. Judas the Gaulonite, who said that 'the census was nothing else but downright slavery (Jos. An/. XVIII.
'
or Eleazar, who is represented as saying that ' we have long since made up our minds not to serve the Romans or any other man, but God alone (Bell. Jud. VII. viii. 6), may all serve as instances of a tendency which was Nor was this spirit confined to the Jews of very wide spread. Palestine ; elsewhere, both in Rome and in Alexandria, riots had
i.
1),
or
Theudas
(ibid.
XX.
v. 1),
occurred.
Nor again was
it
unlikely that Christianity would be
Bb
37
affected

by
[XIII. 1-7.
it. A good deal of the phraseology of the early was derived from the Messianic prophecies of the O. T., and these were always liable to be taken in that purely material sense which our Lord had condemned. The fact that St. Luke records the question of the disciples, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ? (Acts i. 6) seems to imply that such ideas were current, and the incident at Thessalonica, where St. Paul himself, because he preached the kingdom/ was accused of preaching another king, one Jesus/ shows how liable even he was to misinterpretation. These instances are quite sufficient to explain how the question was a real one when St. Paul wrote, and why it had occupied his thoughts. It is not
Christians
'
'
'
'
necessary to refer
it
either to Ebionite dualistic views (so Baur),
which would involve an anachronism, or to exaggerated Gentile ideas of Christian liberty we have no record that these were ever
;
perverted in this direction. Two considerations may have specially influenced St. Paul to discuss the subject in his Epistle to the Romans. The first was the known fact of the turbulence of the Roman Jews ; a fact which
would be brought before him by his intercourse with Priscilla and Aquila. This may illustrate just the degree of local reference in the Epistle to the Romans. We have emphasized more than once the fact that we cannot argue anything from such passages as this as to the state of the Roman community; but St. Paul would not write in the air, and the knowledge of the character of the Jewish population in Rome gained from political refugees would be just sufficient to suggest this topic. A second cause which would lead him to introduce it would be the fascination which he felt for the power and position of Rome, a fascination which has been already
illustrated (Introduction, i).
this Epistle was written the the character of a persecutor. Persecution had up to this time always come from the Jews or from popular riots. To St. Paul the magistrates who represented the Roman power had always been associated with order and
It
must be remembered
that
when
Roman Empire had never appeared in
persecution of Stephen had probably taken place Roman governor it was at the hands of the Jewish king Herod that James the brother of John had perished at Paphos, at Thessalonica, at Corinth, at Ephesus, St. Paul had found the Roman officials a restraining power and all his experience would support the statements that he makes The rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil He is a minister of God to thee for good He is a minister of God, an avenger for
in the absence of the
:
:
restraint.
The
'
'
<
'
'
wrath to him that doeth evil/ Nor can any rhetorical point be made as has been attempted from the fact that Nero was at this time the ruler of the Empire. It may be doubted how far the vices
XIII. 1-7.]
of a ruler like
Nero
seriously affected
3?1
of
the
the well-being
any rate when these words were written the world was enjoying the good government and bright hopes of Nero's Quinquennium. The true relations of Christianity to the civil power had been laid down by our Lord when He had said My kingdom is not of this world/ and again Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's and to God the things that be God's.' It is difficult to believe that St. Paul had not these words in his mind when he wrote ver. 7, especially as the coincidences with the moral teaching of our Lord are numerous in these chapters. At any rate, starting from this idea he works out the principles which must lie at the
provincials, but at
:
'
'
basis of Christian politics, that the State is divinely appointed, or permitted by God ; that its end is beneficent ; and that the spheres of Church and State are not identical. It has been remarked that, when St. Paul wrote, his experience might have induced him to estimate too highly the merits of the Roman government. But although later the relation of the Church In to the State changed, the principles of the Church did not. 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2 the Apostle gives a very clear command to pray for those in authority I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men: for kings and all that are in high place ; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity ; so also in Titus iii. 1 ' Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities.' When these words were written, the writer had to some extent at any rate experienced the Roman power in a very different aspect. It was certainly Still more important is the evidence of 1 Peter. written at a time when persecution, and that of an official character, had begun, yet the commands of St. Paul are repeated and with
:
'
'
even greater emphasis
(1 Pet.
ii.
13-17).
The sub- Apostolic literature will illustrate this. Clement is writing to the Corinthians just after successive periods of persecution, yet he includes a prayer of the character which he would himself deliver, in the as yet Give unsystematized services of the day, on behalf of secular rulers. while we concord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth render obedience to Thine Almighty and most excellent Name, and to our Thou, Lord and Master, hast given rulers and governors upon the earth. them the power of sovereignty through Thine excellent and unspeakable might, that we, knowing the glory and honour which Thou hast given them, may submit ourselves unto them, in nothing resisting Thy will. Grant unto them therefore, O Lord, health, peace, concord, stability, that they may administer the government which Thou hast given them without failure. For Thou, O heavenly Master, King of the ages, givest to the sons of men Do glory and honour and power over all things that are upon the earth. Thou, Lord, direct their counsel according to that which is good and wellpleasing in Thy sight.' Still more significant is the letter of Polycarp, which was written very shortly after he had met Ignatius on his road to martyrdom in it he emphasizes the Christian custom by combining the command to pray
' .
.
B b 2
37
[XIII. 1-7.
' Pray also for kings and powers for rulers with that to love our enemies. and princes and for them that persecute and hate you and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest among all men that ye may be
(Clem. Rom. lx, lxi Polyc. ad Phil, xii.) not necessary to give further instances of a custom which prevailed It became a commonplace extensively or universally in the early Church. of apologists (Just. Mart. Apol. i. 1 7 Athenagoras, Leg. xxxvii Theophilus, ap Eus. H. E. VII. xi Alex, Scap. 2 Dion. ad i. ii ; Tertullian, Apol. 30, 39, Arnob. iv. 36) and is found in all liturgies (cf. Const. Ap. viii. 12). One particular phase in the interpretation of this chapter demands a passing In the hands of the Jacobean and Caroline divines it was held to notice. This doctrine has taken a variety support the doctrine of Passive Obedience. Some held that a Monarchy as opposed to a Republic is the only of forms. scriptural form of government, others that a legitimate line alone has this A more modified type of this teaching may be represented by divine right. a sermon of Bishop Berkeley {Passive Obedience or the Christian Doctrine of not resisting the supreme power, proved and vindicated upon the principles of the law of nature in a discourse delivered at the College Chapel, 171 2.
perfect in Him.'
It is
; ; ; ;
Works, iii. p. 101). He takes as his text Rom. xiii. 2 'Whosoever resisteth He begins ' It is not my design the Power, resisteth the ordinance of God.' to inquire into the particular nature of the government and constitution of He then proceeds by assuming that ' there is in every civil these kingdoms.' community, somewhere or other, placed a supreme power of making laws, and enforcing the observation of them.' His main purpose is to prove that 'Loyalty is a moral virtue, and thou shalt not resist the supreme power, a rule or law of nature, the least breach whereof hath the inherent stain of moral turpitude.' And he places it on the same level as the commandments which St. Paul quotes in this same chapter. Bishop Berkeley represents the doctrine of Passive Obedience as expounded But he does not notice the main difficulty. in its most philosophical form. St. Paul gives no directions as to what ought to be done when there is a conflict of authority. In his day there could be no doubt that the rule of Caesar was supreme and had become legitimate: all that he had to condemn was an incorrect view of the ' kingdom of heaven ' as a theocracy established on earth, whether it were held by Jewish zealots or by Christians. He does not discuss the question, 'if there were two claimants for the
Empire which should be supported?' for it was not a when he wrote. So Bishop Berkeley, by his use of the
practical difficulty
where or other,' equally evades the difficulty. a rebellion or a civil war the question at issue is, Who is the rightful governor ? which is the power ordained by God ? But there is a side of the doctrine of Passive Obedience which requires emphasis, and which was illustrated by the Christianity of the first three The early Christians were subject to a power which required centuries. them to do that which was forbidden by their religion. To that extent and within those limits they could not and did not obey it but they never encouraged in any way resistance or rebellion. In all things indifferent the Christian conformed to existing law he obeyed the law ' not only because of He only disobeyed when it was the wrath, but also for conscience sake.' The point of importance is the necessary to do so for conscience sake.
; ;
expression someAlmost always when there is
detachment of the two spheres of activity. The Church and the State are looked upon as different bodies, each with a different work to perform. To designate this or that form of government as Christian,' and support it on these grounds, would have been quite alien to the whole spirit of those days. The Church must influence the world by its hold on the hearts and consciences of individuals, and in that way, and not by political power, will the Kingdom of God come.
> '
XIII.
8, 9.]
LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW
373
LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW.

XIII. 8-10. There is one debt which the Christian must always be paying but never can discharge, that of love. All particular precepts are summed up in that of love, which makes injury to any man impossible.
8. St. Paul passes
principle
xii.
from our duties towards superiors to that one which must control our relations towards all men, love. In
is
introduced as the true solution of all rivalry in the community; here it is represented as at the root of all regulations as to our relations to others in any of the affairs of life. piSeia jxrjSei' 6<|>ei\T must be imperative as the negatives show. It sums up negatively the results of the previous verse and suggests the transition, Pay every one their due and owe no man anything/ ' ei (jltj to dya-iray dXX^Xous Let your only debt that is unpaid be that of love a debt which you should always be attempting to discharge in full, but will never succeed in discharging.' Permanere tamen et nunquam cessare a nobis debitum caritatis : hoc enim et quotidie solvere et semper dehere expedit nobis. Orig. By this pregnant expression St. Paul suggests both the obligation of love and the impossibility of fulfilling it. This is more forcible than to suppose a change in the meaning of fydXcre : Owe no man anything, only
9 the principle of love
difficulties
which
may
arise
from
'
'
ye ought to love one another.'

if
6 y&p dyairwi' k.t.X. gives the reason why love ' is so important man truly loves another he has fulfilled towards him the whole law. vofiov is not merely the Jewish law, although it is from it that
'
the illustrations that follow are taken, but law as a principle. Just as in the relations of man and God maris has been substituted for
vofios,
so between
legal relations.
is
man and man aydirrj takes the place of definite The perfect 7rf7r\r}pcoKeu implies that the fulfilment
already accomplished simply in the act of love. 9. St. Paul gives instances of the manner in which ' love ' fulfils law. No man who loves another will injure him by adultery, by murder, by theft, &c. They are all therefore summed up in the one maxim thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' as indeed they were also in the Old Covenant.
'
The AV. adds after ov K\t\peis in this verse ov xptvônapTvprjafu from the O. T. with K P &c., Boh. &c, as against A B D E F G L &c, Vulg. codd. and most Fathers^ iv tS> before dyairrjaeis is omitted by B F G. For aeavrov of the older MSS. (XABD E), later MSS. read kavrov, both here and elsewhere. In late Greek kavrov became habitually used for all persons in the reflexive, and scribes substituted the form most usual to them. The order of the commandments is different from that in the Hebrew text
374
[XIII.
9, 10.
both in Exodus xx. 13 and Deut. v. 17, namely, (6) Thou shalt do no murder, The MSS. (7) Thou shalt not commit adultery, (8) Thou shalt not steal. of the vary; in Exodus B reads 7, 8, 6, A F 6, 7, 8 in Deut. B reads The order of Romans is that also of 7, 6, 8 (the order here), A F 6, 7, 8. Luke xviii. 20 James ii. 1 1 Philo De Decalogo Clem -Alex. Strom, vi. 16.
LXX
Kal i rts eTc'pa shows that St. Paul in this selection has only taken instances and that he does not mean merely to give a summing up of the Jewish law. dmKe<|>aXaiouTai a rhetorical term used of the summing up of a speech or argument, and hence of including a large number of separate details under one head. As used in Eph. i. 10 of God summing up all things in Christ it became a definite theological term, represented in Latin by recapitulatio (Iren. III. xxii. 2). 'Aya-irô-eis tok tt\t]<uoj' aou a>s eairroV. Taken from Leviticus xix. 18 where it sums up a far longer list of commandments. It is quoted Matt. xxii. 39; Mark xii. 31 Luke x. 27; Gal. v. 14;
:
James
ii.
f)
8 where
. .
it is
.
called fiaaiXncos
vofios.
dyd-n-Tj ouk epydXeTcu. 10. Love fulfils all law, because no one who loves another will do him any ill by word or deed. These words sum up what has been said at greater length in 1 Cor. xiii.
4-6.
irXifawjia,
'
complete
'
fulfilment.'
The meaning
neighbour has
(ir\ripa>pa)
of
?rX.
here
is
given by ver. 9
He
that loveth his
fulfilled
(7^X9-
patKep) law, therefore
love
is
the fulfilment
of law.
The History of
There are three words
'
the
all of
word
ayanr].
which may be translated by the English love,' kpdcu, (piXioj, dyandco. Of these Ipdca with its cognate form tpofiat was originally associated with the sexual passion and was thence transferred to any strong passionate affection (piXfco was used rather of warm domestic affection, and so of the love of master and servant, of parents and children, of husband and wife in Homer, of the love of the gods for men. ipav is combined with kmOvpuv and contrasted with <pi\tiv as in Xen. Hier. xi. 1 1 wort ov (xovov <pt\oto av <l\\d Kal kp&o. One special use of tpo^s and kpdeo must be referred to, namely, the Platonic. The intensity and strength of human passion seemed to Plato to represent most adequately the love of the soul for higher things, and so the philos'ophic (pus was used
in
Greek
for the highest immortality.
human
desire, that for
true knowledge, true virtue, true
The
distinction of <pi\iaj
and dyandoj much resembled that between amo
and diligo. The one expressed greater affection, the other greater esteem. So Dio Cassius xliv. 48 ifpiK-qaaTt avibv cbs -narkpa Kal T/yair-qcraTe d/y tvepyirijv; and John xxi. 15-17 \iyei avrcp irdKiv Sevrepov, 'SXpaiv 'loidvov, dyarras p.( \eyei avrw, Nat, Kvpic ov oiSas on <pi\w ae k.t.K. (see Trench, Syn. xii). It is significant that no distinction is absolute but <pi\eu occasionally, still more rarely dyaTtdca, are both used incorrectly of the sexual passion. There is too close a connexion between the different forms of human affection to allow any rigid distinction to be made in the use of
;
;
words.
When
these
words were adopted into Hellenistic Greek, a gradual change
XIII. 8-10.]
was made
LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW
375
cpacj and its cognates are very rarely used, and in their use. almost invariably in a bad sense. In the N. T. they do not occur at all. the employed word imOv/xtoj being instead. Yet occasionally, even in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek, the higher sense of the Platonic f/xus finds a place (Prov. iv. 6 Wisdom viii. 2 Justin, Dial. 8, p. 225 B Clem.-Alex. Coh. 11, p. 90; see Lightfoot, Ignatius ad Rom. vii. 2). Between dya-ndai and (pikia a decided preference was shown for the former. It occurs about 268 times (Hatch and Redpath) in a very large proportion of cases as a translation of the Hebrew QilN <pi\ico about twelve times (Trommius), ex;
;
cluding its use as equivalent to osculor. This choice was largely due to the use of the Hebrew word to express the love of God to man, and of man to God (Deut. xxiii. 5; xxx. 6; Hosea iii. 1) ; it was felt that the greater amount of intellectual desire and the greater severity implied' in uyairdw fitted But while it was elevated in meaning it better than (piXioj for this purpose. it is used not only of the love of father and son, of it was also broadened husband and wife, but also of the love of Samson for Delilah (Jud. xvi. 4) and of Hosea's love for his adulterous wife (Hos. iii. 1). Nor can there be any doubt that to Hebrew writers there was in a pure love of God or of righteousness something of the intensity which is the highest characteristic of human passion (Is. lxii. 5). dyandoj in the corresponds in all its characteristics to the English love.' use modify the meaning of dyairdai, it created But not only did the a new word dydmj. Some method was required of expressing the conception which was gradually growing up. "Epajs had too sordid associations. $t\ia was tried (Wisdom vii. 14; viii. 18), but was felt to be inadequate. The language of the Song of Solomon created the demand for dydnrj. (2 Kings 1 or 2 times ; Ecclesiastes 2 ; Canticles 11 ; Wisdom 2 ; Ecclus. 1 ; Jeremiah 1
;
LXX
'
LXX
Ps. Sol. 1.)
The N.T. reproduces the usage of the LXX, but somewhat modified. While ayavda) is used 138 times, <pi\(a> is used in this sense 22 times (13 in generally when special emphasis has to be laid on the St. John's Gospel) But the most marked change is in the use of relations of father and son.
;
used in the Classical writers, only occasionally in the early Christian writers its use becomes habitual and general. clearly that a new principle has been created than this creation of a new word. In the Vulgate ayanr) is sometimes rendered by dilectio, sometimes by to this inconsistency are due the variations in the English caritas Authorized Version. The word caritas passed into English in, the Middle Ages (for details see Eng. Diet, sub voc.) in the form * charity,' and was for some time used to correspond to most of the meanings of dydirtj ; but as the English Version was inconsistent and no corresponding verb existed the ' usage did not remain wide. In spite of its retention in 1 Cor. xiii. ' charity became confined in all ordinary phraseology to ' benevolence,' and the Revised Version was compelled to make the usage of the New Testament
ayairt).
It is never
LXX
in
Nothing could show more
consistent.
Whatever loss there may have been in association and in the rhythm of well-known passages, there is an undoubted gain. The history of the word dyandco is that of the collection under one head of various conceptions which were at any rate partially separated, and the usage of the N. T. shows that the distinction which has to be made is not between <pt\(aj, dyairdoj and The English language makes this Ipdcw, but between dydmj and iwt&v/jua. distinction between the affection or passion in any form, and a purely animal desire, quite plain ; although it may be obliterated at times by a natural euphemism. But setting aside this distinction which must be occasionally present to the mind, but which need not be often spoken of, Christianity does not shrink from declaring that in all forms of human passion and affection
376
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[XIII. 8-10.
which are not purely animal there is present that same love which in its highest and most pure development forms the essence and sum of the This affection, however perverted it may be, Christianity Christian religion. does not condemn, but so far as may be elevates and purifies.
The Christian Teaching on Love, The somewhat

lengthy history just given of the word dydnr)
is
a suitable introduction to the history of an idea which forms a fundamental principle of all Christian thought. The duty of love in some form or other had been a commonplace of moral teaching in times long before Christianity and in many different places. Isolated maxims have been collected in its
favour from very varied authors, and the highest pagan teaching approaches the highest Christian doctrine. But in all previous philosophy such teaching was partial or isolated, it was never Maxims almost or quite on a level elevated to a great principle. with those of Christianity we find both in the O. T. and in Jewish The command * Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thywriters.
of course taken directly from the O. T., and is there used Sayings in one general principle a long series of rules. Hillel said, of great beauty are quoted from the Jewish fathers. Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and bringing them nigh to the Torah' \Pirqe Aboth i. 13); or again, 'What is hateful to thyself do not to thy self
to
is
sum up
is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary; go It is however true in all cases that ascribed to Hillel. these maxims, and all such as these, are only isolated instances, that they do not represent the spirit of earlier institutions, and that they form a very insignificant proportion compared with much of
fellow; this
study,' also
different character.
In Christianity this principle, which had been only partially understood and imperfectly taught, which was known only in isolated examples, yet testified to a universal instinct, was finally put forward as the paramount principle of moral conduct, uniting A new our moral instincts with our highest religious principles. virtue, or rather one hitherto imperfectly understood, had become recognized as the root of all virtues, and a new name was demanded for what was practically a new idea. In the first place, the new Christian doctrine of love is universal. Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and hate thine enemy ; and a very definite reason is pray for them that persecute you of God. This universalism which Fatherhood given, the universal underlies all the teaching of Jesus is put in a definite practical form by St. Paul. * In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile,
1
: '
XIII.
11.]
THE DAY
free,
:
IS
AT HAND
As
it
377
bond nor
all
male nor female/
known work
The
first
law, then, of the
r summed up in a wellk'ngdom of God is that
men, however divided from each other b, blood or language, have certain mutual duties arising out of their c mmon relation to God {Ecce Homo, chap. xii). But secondly, the Christian doctrine of love was the substitution of a universal principle for law. All moral precepts are summed up in the one command of love. What is my duty towards others ? Just that feeling which you have towards the persons to whom you
'
If
are most attached in the world, just that you must feel for every one. you have that feeling there will be no need for any further
command.
Love
fulfilment of the
devoted state ' passion, capable of existing in all men alike, deem our nature and make laws superfluous.
is a principle and a passion, and as such is the Law. Christ declared an ardent, passionate, or of mind to be the root of virtue ; and this purifying
'
will
be able to repossible?
It
is
And
thirdly,
how
it
is
is
this
new
Christian
spirit
possible because
intimately
a characteristic of the I give to you, that ye should love one another as I have loved you/ It is possible also because men have learnt to love mankind in Christ. ' Where the precept of love has been given, an image must be set before the eyes of those who are called on to obey it, an ideal or type of man which may be noble and amiable
bound up with that love which is Godhead. 'God is love.' 'A new com-
mandment
enough
it
to raise the whole race, and make the meanest member of sacred with reflected glory/ This is what Christ did for us. These three points will help to elucidate what St. Paul means by
It is in fact
ayimr}.
is
in the religious
life.
the correlative in the moral world to what faith Like faith it is universal ; like faith it is
'
a principle not a code; like faith it is centred in the Godhead. Hence St. Paul, as St. John (1 John iii. 23), sums up Christianity in Faith and Love, which are finally, united in that Love of God,
which
is
the
end and root of both.
THE DAY
IS
AT HAND.
XIII. 11-14. The night of this corrupt age is fiying. The Parousia is nearing. Cast off your evil zvays. Gird yourselves with the armour of light. Take Christ into your
hearts.
11.
life,
Shun
sin
and self indulgence.
The
Apostle adds a motive for the Christian standard of

:
the nearness of our final salvation. k<h touto, ' and that too ' cp. 1 Cor.
vi. 6,
Eph.
ii.
8,
&c.
it
; 3
378
[XIII. 11-13.
resumes the series of exhortations implied in the previous sections there is no need to supply any special words with it. rbv KcupoV used of a definite, measured, or determined time, and so almost technically of the period before the second coming of Mark i. 15; and Christ: cf. i Cor. vii. 29 6 tempos avvearaXfxevos SO 6 Kaipos 6 eVeo-rco? (Heb. IX. 9).
:
The time of trial on earth <3pa -qSrj k.t.X. rfdrj with cyrpApa, looked upon as a night of gloom, to be followed by a bright morning. We must arouse ourselves from slumber and prepare
on
is
ourselves for the light. vuv yap iyyvrepov k.t.X.

that
for us
ore
For our completed salvation, no longer hope of salvation which sustains us here, is appreciably nearer
'
than when we first accepted in faith the Messianic message.' imarevaapev refers to the actual moment of the acceptance of Christianity. The language is that befitting those who expect the actual coming of Christ almost immediately, but it will fit the circumstances of any Chrisrian for whom death brings the day.
(SABCP, Clem.-Alex.) has been corrected (XC &c, Boh. Sah.). In ver. 1 a variant of B, Sah., Clem.-Alex. Amb. In ver. 14 B, and Clem.-Alex. read rbv Xpiardv 'Irjaovv, which may very likely be the
In ver. 11 the original vpas
for the sake of uniformity into 17/xas
DEFGL,
hv tpiai Kal CÂojs is
correct reading.
12.
Trpo^Ko\|/ej',
Gal.
i.
14
The many illustrations in Christian and in all religious literature. diro0w/ie0a. The works of darkness, i. e. works -such as befit
kingdom of darkness, are represented uncomely garments of the night, for
befits the Christian
'has advanced towards dawn.' Cf. Luke ii. 52; Jud. IV. iv. 6 Just. Dial, p. 277 d. contrast of virvos, vvg, and (tkotos with fjpepa and <f>a>s finds
;
Jos. Bell.
the
as being cast
the bright
off*
like the
armour which
of the kingdom of light. This metaphor of the ChrisLian armour is a favourite one with St. Paul (1 Thess. v. 8; 2 Cor. vi. 7; Rom. vi. 13; and especially Eph. vi. 13 f.); it may have been originally suggested by the Jewish conception of the last great fight against the armies of
soldier as a
member
Antichrist (Dan. xi
xc.
16), but in St.
Orac. Sib. iii. 663 f. ; 4 Ezra xiii. 33 ; Enoch Paul the conception has become completely
spiritualized.
TTpiTraTiicra>p,ei\ The metaphor Trepiirare'iv of very common in St. Paul's Epistles, where it occurs thirty-three times (never in the Past. Epp.); elsewhere in the N. T. sixteen times. Kwjxois, 'rioting,' 'revelry' (Gal. v. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 3). ft&r} the
13. uax^p-6'S
is
conduct
drunkenness which would be the natural result and accompaniment of such revelry.
koitcus Kal daeXyciais,
*
"Opu
6e
ttjv
rdi-tv'
KO)pd(0v
unlawful intercourse and wanton acts.' p.eu yap rty pedvei, peOvav 8f Koird&Tai,
XIII. 13, 14.]
THE DAY
IS
AT HAND
tt}
379
irvpTTokovvros Ka\
Koiraôpevos 8e ao-eXycuWi, rov oiuov tovtov

8iepe0iovTos.
77X7707x01/17
Euthym.-Zig.
'lr\<ro\jv XpioroV. Christ is put on first in 3; Gal. iii. 27), but we must continually renew that life with which we have been clothed (Eph. iv. 24 ; Col. iii. 12). the word is thrown forward in order to ttjs aapK<5s with rcpovoiav emphasize the contrast between the old nature, the flesh of sin, and
14. ci'SuaaaSe tov Kupioi/

(vi.
baptism
the new, the
life
in Christ.
passage most commentators compare St. Aug. Con/ess. quo priviii. 12, 23 Arripui, aperui et legi in silentio capiiulum mum coniedi sunt oculi mei: Non in conversationibus et ebrietatibus, non in cubilibus et impudicitiis, non in contentione et sed induite Dominum Iesum Christum, et carnis aemulatione Nee ultra volui providentiam ne feceritis in concupiscentiis. Statim quippe cum fine huiusce sententiae quasi legere, nee opus erat. luce securitatis infusa cordi meo, omnes dubitationis tenebrae diftuthis
y :
On
gerunt.
The early Christian
belief in the nearness of the
napovaia.
There can hardly be any doubt that in the Apostolic age the was that the Second Coming of the Lord was an event to be expected in any case shortly and probably in the lifeprevailing belief
time of
belief
many
of those then living;
it
is
also probable that this
was shared by the Apostles themselves.
For example, so
strongly did such views prevail
among
the Thessalonian converts
that the death of some members of the community had filled them with perplexity, and even when correcting these opinions St. Paul speaks of we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of our Lord ; and in the second Epistle, although he corrects the
'
'
erroneous impression which still prevailed that the coming was immediate and shows that other events must precede it, he still Similar passages may be quoted from contemplates it as at hand. all or most of the Epistles, although there are others that suggest that it is by his own death, not by the coming of Christ, that St. Paul expects to attain the full life in Christ to which he looked forward (1 Cor. vii. 29-31; Rom. xiii. 11, 12; Phil. iv. 5; and on the other side 2 Cor. v. 1-10; Phil. i. 23; iii. 11, 20, 21 see
;
Jowett, Thessalotiians, &c, i. p. 105, who quotes both classes of passages without distinguishing them). How far was this derived from our Lord's own teaching? There is, it is true, very clear teaching on the reality and the suddenness of the coming of Christ, and very definite exhortation This teaching to all Christians to live as expecting that coming.
is
couched largely
in the current
language of Apocalyptic
literature
380
[XIII. 11-14.
which was often hardly intended to be taken literally even by Jewish writers; moreover it is certainly mingled with teaching which was intended to refer to what was a real manifestation of the Divine power, and very definitely a coming of the Lord in the
'
'
All this sense of the term, the destruction of Jerusalem. language again is reported to us by those who took it in a literal The expressions of our Lord quoted as prophetic of His sense. speedy return are all to a certain extent ambiguous ; for example, This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulThere be some of them here who shall not taste of filled,' or again
O.T.
'.
death until they see the Son of God coming with power/ On the other side there is a very distinct tradition preserved in documents of different classes recording that when our Lord was asked deActs i. 7 finitely on such matters His answers were ambiguous. 1 Father It is not for you to know times and seasons, which the hath set within His own authority/ John xxi. 23 ' This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should not die yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die ; but, Moreover If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee V he affirmed that He Himself was ignorant of the date Mark xiii. 32 ; But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not Matt. xxiv. 36 even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only/
:
'
In the face of these passages it is reasonable to believe that ignorance of the Early Church was permitted and that with a purpose. If so, we may be allowed to speculate as to the service
this
it
was intended
to
fulfil.
In the first place, this belief in the nearness of the second coming quickened the religious and moral earnestness of the early Christian. Believing as intently as he did that the fashion of this world passeth away/ he set his affection on things above ; he lived in the world and yet not of the world. The constant looking forward to the coming of the Lord produced a state of intense spiritual zeal which
' '
braced the Church for its earliest and hardest task. And secondly, it has been pointed out very ably how much the elasticity and mobility of Christianity were preserved by the fact that the Apostles never realized that they were building up a Church It became the fashion of which was to last through the ages. a later age to ascribe to the Apostles a series of ordinances and Any such theory is quite inconsistent with the real constitutions. They never wrote or legislated except so far spirit of their time. They founded such institutions as as existing needs demanded. were clearly required by some immediate want, or were part of our But they never administered or planned with Lord's teaching. Their writings were occasional, a view to the remote future. suggested by some pressing difficulty; but they thus incidentally laid down great broad principles which became the guiding principles
XIII. 11-14.]
THE DAY
IS
AT HAND
381
of the Church. The Church therefore is governed by case law, not by code law by broad principles, not by minute regulations. It may seem a paradox, but yet it is profoundly true, that the Church
:
is adapted to the needs of every age, just because the original preachers of Christianity never attempted to adapt it to the needs of any period but their own.
The
There
is
relation
of Chaps.
XII-XIV
to the Gospels.
a very marked resemblance between the moral teaching of St. Paul contained in the concluding section of the Epistle to the Romans, and our Lord's own words ; a resemblance which, in some cases, extends even to language.
Rom.
(vKoyeire
xii. 14.
Matt
vfids'
tovs
Si&kovtcls
dyaitdre
roiis
v. 44. ix&povs v/jujv,
ko.1
irpoa-
v\oyuT( f Kal
pî KCLTapaaOe.
xiii. 7.
fixeoOe vnip twv dtwtcovTcw

Matt.
xxii. 21.
vp.ds.
Rom.
dir6dore vdai rds cxpuX&s k.t.\.
dndSore ovv rd Kaiaapos Kaicrapi, not rd TOV @(0V T #.
Rom.
xiii. 9.
Matt.
xxii. 39, 40.
Kal ? tis irepa ivroX-q, iv rotirqi T dvaKe<pa\aiovTat, iv tg> 'Ayawrjaeis rbv ir\r]oiov aov &s
iavrhv
Stvripa 8 opioid avrrj, 'Ayarrqaas rbv irkrjaiov aov ws aeavrov. iv ravrats rats Svalv ivroKais 6\os 6 vofxos Kpkparai Kal 01 rrpo(prJTai,
To these verbal resemblances must be added remarkable identity of teaching in these successive chapters. Everything that is said about revenge, or about injuring others, is exactly identical with the our duty towards rulers exactly spirit of the Sermon on the Mount reproduces the lesson given in St. Matthew's Gospel; the words concerning the relation of love ' to law might be an extract from the Gospel the two main lines of argument in ch. xiv, the absolute indifference of all external practices, and the supreme importance of not giving a cause of offence to any one are both directly derived This from the teaching of Jesus (Matt, xviii. 6, 7, xv. 11-20). resemblance is brought out very well by a recent writer (Knowling, Indeed it is not too much to add Witness of the Epistle, p. 312) that the Apostle's description of the kingdom of God (Rom. xiv. 17) reads like a brief summary of its description in the same Sermon
;
*
'
'
'
the righteousness, peace, and joy, which formed the ; contents of the kingdom in the Apostle's conception are found side by side in the Saviour's Beatitudes ; nor can we fail to notice how both St. Matthew and St. Luke contrast the anxious care for meat and drink with seeking in the first place for the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Nor must it be forgotten that Paul's fundamental idea of righteousness may be said to be rooted in the
on the Mount
teaching of Jesus/
382
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[XII-XIV.
It is well known that there are definite references by St. Paul to Matt. xxiv. 31 1 Cor. the words of our Lord: so 1 Thes. iv. 15 Luke x. 7 as also in the case Mark x. 9 1 Cor. ix. 14 vii. 10 of the institution of the Last Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 24. Reminiscences also of the Sermon on the Mount may be found in other Epistles, Matt. v. 33 ; 1 Pet. Matt. v. 4 ; James v. 12 e. g. James iv. 9
Matt. v. 11, la, and elsewhere. 39 ; 1 Pet. iv. 14 The resemblances are not in any case sufficient either to prove the use of any document which we possess in its present form, or but they do to prove the use of a different document (see below) show that the teaching of the Apostles was based on some common source, which was identical both in substance and spirit with those words of our Lord contained in the Gospels. They suggest further that even in cases where we have no direct evidence that Apostolic teaching is based on the Gospel narrative did not originate it. it does not follow that our Lord Himself The books For Christianity is older than any of its records. of the N. T. reflect, they did not originate, the teaching of early It was Moreover, our Lord originated principles. Christianity. some of the words these principles which inspired His followers which are the product of and which taught those principles are preserved, some are not but the result of them is contained in the words of the Apostles, which worked out in practical life the principles they had learnt directly or indirectly from the Christ.
iii.
= Matt.
v.
much more exact and definite conclusion is supported with very great industry by Alfred Resch in a series of investigations, the first of which is
Agrapha, Aussercanonische Evangelien-fragmente in Texte und Untersuchungen, v. 4. He argues (pp. 28, 29) that the acquaintance shown by St. Paul with the words and teaching of Jesus implies the use of an Urcanonische Quellenschrift, which was also used by St. Mark, as well as the other N. T. writers. It would be of course beside our purpose to examine this theory, but so far as it concerns the passages we are considering it may be noticed (1) That so far as they go there would be no reason why all St. Paul's teaching should not have been derived from our present Gospels. He does not profess to be quoting, and the verbal reminiscences might quite well represent the documents we possess. (2) That it is equally impossible to argue against The only legitimate conclusion is that there the use of different Gospels. must have been a common teaching of Jesus behind the Apostle's words which was identical in spirit and substantially in words with that contained Some stress is laid by Resch (pp. 245, 302 ff.) in our Synoptic Gospels. on passages which are identical in Romans and 1 Peter. So Rom. xii. 17 = The resemblance is un1 Pet. iii. 9; Rom. xiii. 1, 3 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. doubted, but a far more probable explanation is that 1 Peter is directly indebted to the Romans (see Introduction 8). There is no reason to cite yet it is very probable that much more of the these as ' Words of the Lord common teaching and even phraseology of the early Church than we are back goes to the teaching of Jesus. imagine accustomed to
' ;
XIV. 1-XV.
7.]
ON SCRUPULOUSNESS
383
ON FORBEARANCE TOWARDS THOSE WHO ARE

SCRUPULOUS.
XIV.
Do
1 XV. 13. Receive a scrupulous Christian cordially. not be continually condemning him. Some of you have
grasped the full meaning of Christian faith, others whose conscience is too tender lay undue stress on particular practices, on rules as to food or the observance of certain days. Do not you whose faith is more robust despise such scruples;
nor should they be censorious (vv. 1-5). Every one should make up his own mind. These things are indifferent in themselves. Only whatever a man does he must look to Christ. In life and death we are all His, whose death and resurrection have made him Lord of all. To
Him
as
to
no one
else shall
we
be called upo7i to give account
(w. 6-12).
We must avoid censoriousness. But equally must we avoid placing obstacles before a fellow-Christian. I believe
firmly that nothitig
the person
is
harmful
it
in itself but
it
becomes so
to
who
considers
harmful.
The
obligation of love
charity is paramount. Meats are secondary things. Let us have an eye to peace and mutual help. It is not worth while for the sake of a little meat to undo God's work in a brother s soul. Far better abstain from flesh and wine altogether (vv. 13-21).
and
Keep
yourself
the
robuster faith with
which you are
blest to
and God.
To
hesitate
and
then eat is to incur
guilt ; for it
is not prompted by strong faith (vv. 22, 23). This rule offorbearance applies to all classes of the community. The strong should bear the scruples of the weak. We should not seek our ozvngood, but that of'others ; following
the example of Christ as
those Scriptures
expounded to us in the Scriptures which were written for our eticouragement
comes,
be
and consolation. grant you
May
all
weak and strong, Jew and Gentile
God, from
whom
this
encouragement
to
of one mind, uniting in the praise of God (xv. 1-7).
384
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[XIV.
1.
To both Jew and Jews to exhibit God's veracity, to the Gentiles to reveal His mercy ; that Gentile might unite with Jew, as Psalmist and Prophet May God foretold, in hymns of praise to the glory of God. the giver of hope send it richly upon you (vv. 8-13).
Gentile
For Christ has received you all alike. He has a special mission. To
the
XIV.
1 XV.
The
13.
The
Apostle
now
passes on to a further point
the proper attitude to adopt towards matters in themselves indifferent,
the community might have one which naturally connects itself with what we have seen to be the leading thought which underlies these concluding chapters, and in fact the whole Epistle, namely, the peace and unity of the Church, and may have been immediately suggested by the words just preceding: St. Paul has been condemning excessive indulgence; he now passes to the opposite extreme, excessive scrupulousness, which he deals with in a very different way. As Augustine points out, he condemns and instructs more openly the strong who can bear it, while indirectly showing the error of the weak/ The arguments throughout are, as we shall see, perfectly general, and the principles applied those characteristic of the moral teaching of the Epistle the freedom of Christian faith, the comprehensiveness of Christian charity and that duty of peace and unity on which St. Paul never wearies of insisting.
but concerning which

scruples.
some members of
is
subject
'
'
'
Tertullian {Adv. Marc. v. 15) refers to ver. 10, and Origen (Comm. in Of Marcion's use of the rest of the x. 43, Lomm. vii. p. 453) to ver. 23. chapter we know nothing. On chaps, xv, xvi, see Introduction, 9.
Rom.
1.
TOf oe aaQevovvra
;
ttj
&rm:
cf.
Rom.
iv.
19
Cor.
viii.
7, 9,
10, 11
ix.
22.
'Weakness
in faith/
means an inadequate grasp
of the great principle of salvation by faith in Christ; the consequence of which will be an anxious desire to make this salvation more certain by the scrupulous fulfilment of formal rules.
-npoaXapfi&veaQe, 'receive
fellowship.'
into
full
Christian
intercourse
and
The word
npoaeXdêTo
is
used (1) of
so
God
t)
man:
6
de
Ps. XXVI (xxvii) IO 6 naTrjp pov kcu

Kvptos
xlix.
receiving or helping pr)Tt]p pov iyKar&inov pe,
6 also used of
ship
:
Rom.
iv ayairr) TrpocriKaêro tjpas 6 BeairoTrjs.
men
below and in Clem. But (2) it is receiving others into fellowship or companionpe:
in ver.
MaCC.
Viii.
I tovs pcpevrjKOTas iv tg>
'iouoaioyxcS npoa'Xafiopevoi
These two uses are combined in xv. 7 awriyayov els egaKiaxikiovs. 1 All whom Christ has willed to receive into the Christian community, whether they be Jews or Greeks, circumcised or uncircumcised,
every Christian ought to be willing to receive as brothers.' jat) els oiaicptacis SiaXoyiajAWK, 'but not to pass judgements on their thoughts.' Receive them as members of the Christian
XIV.
1-4.]
ON SCRUPULOUSNESS
385
community, but do not let them find that they have been merely received into a society in which their somewhat too scrupulous thoughts are perpetually being condemned. oWpiWy, from 8iai<piva>
to 'judge/ 'decide/ 'distinguish/
means
the expression of judge-
ments or opinions, as Heb. v. 14 'judgement of good or evil/ 1 Cor. xii. 10 'judgement or discernment of spirits.' 8iakoyi<rfiS>u
hesitation
means thoughts/ often, but not necessarily, with the idea of doubt, (Luke xxiv. 38), disputes (Phil. ii. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 8), or
'
generally of perverse self-willed speculations. The above interpretation of SidKplo-eis is that of most commentators (Mey.-W. Oltr. Va.) and is most in accordance with usage. An equally good sense
could be gained by translating (with Lips.) 'not so as to raise doubts in his mind/ or (with Gif.) not unto discussions of doubts but neither interpretation can be so well supported. 2. The Apostle proceeds to describe the two classes to which he is referring, and then (ver. 3) he gives his commands to both
' '
sides.
os
xii.
\ikv
8-10; Mark
6 81 d(j0evwv. With the variation in construction cf. 1 Cor. iv. 4; Luke viii. 5. The second 6 is not for os, but is to be
taken with daOevaiv.
moreuci, hath faith to eat all things ' ; his faith, i. e. his grasp and hold of the Christian spirit, is so strong that he recognizes how indifferent all such matters in themselves really are. \d\ava CT0ici, 'abstains from all flesh meat and eats only vegetables/ Most commentators have assumed that St. Paul is
'
describing
the
practice
of
some
definite
party in the
Roman
discussed, with great divergence of opinion, But St. Paul is writing quite the motive of such a practice. generally, and is merely selecting a typical instance to balance the
community and have
first.
faith,
the
He takes, on the one side, the man of thoroughly strong who has grasped the full meaning of his Christianity; and on other side, one who is, as would generally be admitted, over-
and therefore is suitable as the type of any variety of To both these classes scrupulousness in food which might occur. he gives the command of forbearance, and what he says to them will apply to other less extreme cases (see the Discussion on p. 399). St. Paul uses these expressions 6 8e pi loQuav. 3. 6 ioQLoiv to express briefly the two classes with which he is dealing (see ver. 6). Pride and contempt would be the natural failing of the one ; a spirit
scrupulous,
.
. .
of censoriousness of the other. See ver. I. God through Christ 6 06s yap a"T6i> irpoaeXdpeTo. has admitted men into His Church without imposing on them minute and formal observances; they are not therefore to be has criticized or condemned for neglecting practices which God
not required. 4. au 7is et;
St.
Paul
is still
rebuking the 'weak.
The man
cc
386

he
to
is
[XIV.
4, 5.
whom
God
t<3
;
condemning
is
not a household slave, but the servant of

is
God
therefore he
responsible.
:
loiw Kupiw.
Dat. of reference
cf.
it is
vv.
5-8.
'
It is to his
own master
he must show whether he has used or misused his freedom, whether he has had mirrci the strength to fulfil his work or whether he has failed, (xi. 11, 22) of moral failure; aT^Ket (1 Cor. xvi. 13; Phil. i. 27) of moral stability. In 1 Cor. x. 12 the two are contrasted, wore 6
that he is responsible.'
to
8okcov iardvai j3Xe7TT<B
fir)
He
whom
near).
he
In spite of your censoriousness be held straight, for the same Lord who called him on conditions of freedom to His kingdom is mighty to hold him
<rra8r]aTai 8^: cf. Matt. xii. 25.
will
'
upright.
The Lord
will give
grace and strength to those
whom He
has called.
For Swarf? (X A B C D F G), which is an unusual word, later MSS. kanv (T R with L Swards (P, Bas. Chrys.), or Swarbs and later MSS.). For 6 Kvpios (NABCP, Sah. Boh., &c.) 6 0eos was introduced from ver. 3 (DEFGL, &c, Vulg., Orig.-lat. Bas. Chrys., &c),
substituted
. .
perhaps because of the confusion with

5.
r> Kvpia>
above.
Apostle turns to another instance of similar scrupulousIn Galatia he has superstitious observance of days. already had to rebuke this strongly ; later he condemns the ColosGal. iv. 10, 11 'Ye observe days, and sians for the same reason. months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labour upon you in vain/ Col. ii. 16,17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come ; but the body is Christ's.' St. Paul
ness,
the
The
'
does not in the Romans condemn any one for adherence to this practice, but simply considers the principles which underlie the question, as illustrating (hence yap) the general discussion of the The fundamental principle is that such things are in chapter. themselves indifferent, but that each person must be fully assured in his own conscience that he is doing right. Various commentators have discussed the relation of these directions to Ecclesiastical ordinances, and have attempted to make
which are condemned and (So Jerome, Contra Iovinian. ii. 16, quoted by Liddon adloc: non inter ieiunia et saluriiaiem aequalia mente dispensat ; sed contra eos loquitur, qui in Christum No such distinction is possible. The credentes, adhuc iudaizabant.) Apostle is dealing with principles, not with special rites, and he lays down the principle that these things in themselves are indifa distinction between the Jewish
rites
Christian rites which are enjoined.
ferent; while the
lousness in
whole tenor of his argument is against scrupuany form. So these same principles would apply equally to the scrupulous observance of Ecclesiastical rules, whether
XIV.
as in
5, 6.]
ON SCRUPULOUSNESS
'
387
Fast
spirit
days.
some places of Sunday, or as in others of Saints days or Such observances if undertaken in a scrupulous are opposed to the very essence of Christian freedom.
to
once this principle has been grasped a loyal free adhesion The Jew and the rules of the Church becomes possible. the scrupulous Christian kept their rules of days and seasons, because they believed that their salvation depended on an exact
adherence to formal ordinances.
When
The
Christian
who
has grasped
the freedom of the Gospel recognizes the indifference in themselves of all such ordinances ; but he voluntarily submits to the rules of
his
Church out of respect for its authority, and he recognizes the The Apostolical Constitutions, of an external discipline. which representing an early system of Christian discipline, seem to
value
recognize these principles, for they strongly condemn abstinence from food if influenced by any feeling of abhorrence from it, although not if undertaken for the purpose of discipline.
Vulg. Boh. (which he Tisch. (ed. 8) reads here hs n\v yap with quotes incorrectly on the other side), Bas. Ambrstr. Jo.-Damasc. The yap is omitted by N c B E F G, Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. Thdrt. TR. RV. and inserted between brackets by WH. Lachmann. The insertion is probably right; the balance of external evidence being in its favour, for B here is clearly
NACP,
Western
Kplvei,
in character.
irapd,
'
'estimates/ 'approves of: Plat. Phil. passing by ' and so in preference to.'
'
p.
57
is
quoted,
ir\T)po<|>opei(x0w.
The
difference
Jew or the heathen, between

the
the
man whose
between the Christian and the rule is one of faith and
man
subject to law,
is,
that while for the latter there are definite
and often minute regulations he must follow, for the former the He has the guidance of only laws are great and broad principles. the Spirit ; he must do what his vois, his highest intellectual faculty, On the word ir^poôpda-Qai see on iv. 21 tells him to be right. and cf. Clem. Rom. xlii Tr'hr)po<poprj6evTfs 8ia T/79 dvaardaeoa.
6.
The reason
both the
is
for
indifference in
alike,
man who
these matters is that both has grasped the Christian principle and
the
to
man who
to render service to
scrupulous, are aiming at the one essential thing, God, to live as men who are to give account
'
Him.
6 fypov&v
: '
esteem,'
estimate,'
'
observe.
'
Kupi'w,
emphatic,
is
Dat.
of reference as above, ver. 4. Both alike make their see ver. 3. 6 eo-0tw/ ... 6 fit] ia&Lw meal an occasion of solemn thanksgiving to God, and it is that which consecrates the feast. Is there any reference in u X api<rri to
:
the Christian vx aP l(7Tia
TR. with later authorities (LP &c, Syrr., Bas. gloss Chrys. Thdrt'.) add teal 6 rf <ppovwv ttjv -quepav Kvpiy ov (ppovti, a which seemed necessary for completing the sentence on the analogy of the C C 2
After Kvpia eppovet the
3#8
last half
[XIV. 6-0.
of the verse. The addition of this clause caused the omission of Kai before 6 kaOiajv (TR. with some minuscules). That the words teal 6 fxr) <ppovS)v were not parts of the original text omitted by homoeoteleuton is
fact that many authorities which insert them still preserve the Various superfluous Kai (Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt. and many minuscules). instances of homoeoteleuton occur, as might be expected, in these verses, but they are in all cases confined to a single or very slight authority. L omits /cat 6 fir) kaOiajp . . . evx- t$ 0*$ : 66 omits r)fi(pav to rjfiepav ; minusc. 3 omit iaOUi to kadUi.
shown by the
Paul proceeds to develop more fully, and as a general the thought suggested in ver. 6. To God we are responsible whether we live or die before His judgement-seat we shall appear; therefore we must live as men who are to give account of our lives to Him and not to one another. &iro0fY)o-Ki. In life and in death we are not 7. ou&cis yap It is not by isolated, or solitary, or responsible only to ourselves. our own act we were created, nor is our death a matter that concerns us alone. but it is to Christ, as men living in Christ's sight 8. t<3 Kupiw : and answerable to Him, that we must live; in Christ's sight we shall die. Death does not free us from our obligations, whether we live or die we are the Lord's/ Wetstein compares Pirqi Adofh, iv. 32 Let not thine imagination assure thee that the grave is an asylum; for perforce thou wast framed, and perforce thou wast born, and perforce thou livest, and perforce thou diest, and perforce thou art about to give account and reckoning before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed is He.'
7-12.
St.
rule of
life,
'
'
It may be noticed that in these verses St. Paul describes the Christian life from a point of view other than that which he had adopted in chap. viii. There it was the higher aspects of that life as lived in union with Christ, here it is the life lived as in His sight and responsible to Him.
reason for this relation of all men to Christ as servants is that by His death and resurrection Christ has established His Divine Lordship over all alike, both dead and living. Responsibility to Him therefore no one can ever escape. els touto is explained by tva Kvpievo-rj. &Tr9ave Kai câee must refer to Christ's death and resurrection. Zfraev cannot refer to the life of Christ on earth, (1) because of the order of words which St. Paul has purposely and deliberately varied from the order C^y- V Kai d7rudvr)aKa>iitv of the previous verses (2) because the Lordship of Christ is in the theology of St. Paul always connected with His resurrection, not His Hie, which was a period of humiliation (Rom. viii. 34; 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11); (3) because of the tense the aorist eCrjtrev could be used of a single definite act which was the beginning of a new life, it could not be used of the continuous life on earth. The inversion of the usual order is owing to veicpwi' Kai Iwvtwv.
9.
The
to their master
XIV.
9-12.]
ON SCRUPULOUSNESS
389
the order of words in the previous part of the sentence, aired. <a\ cr)<r. For the KvpioTtjs of Christ (ha Kvpuvarj) see Phil. ii. 9, 11.
For Xptoros the TR. with later MSS., Syrr., Iren.-lat. reads nal Xpuxros. dniBavev ical e&aev, the older and most difficult reading (NABC, Boh., Arm. Aeth. Orig.-lat. Chrys. 1/2) has been explained in various ways by dniO. /cal avearr) F G, Vulg. Orig. and other Fathers by drtiO. teal dvkar. teal dvkfyatv TR. with minusc. (perhaps conflate); by dnid. teal dvkar. teal efrotv, LP. and some Fathers by ifacr. ml dirk$. ual dvkar. DE. Iren. Sec, Harkl.
; ;
:
Paul applies the argument pointedly to the questions he We are responsible to Christ; we shall appear is discussing. there is no place for uncharitable judgements or before Him censorious exclusiveness between man and man. ad 8e t icpiyeis refers to 6 prj icr6i<av, ^ icai au to 6 iaOloav. irapaaTtjaofxeOa tw |3rj|j.a.Ti tou 0cou. Cf. Acts xxvii. 24 Kaiaapi For &rjp.a, in the sense of a judge's official seat, ae 6>Z rrapaarfivai. God is here mentioned as see Matt, xxvii. 19; Jo. xix. 13, &c. Judge because (see ii. 16) He judges the world through Christ. In 2 Cor. V. IO the expression is rovs yap ndvras fjpas (pavepa>6rjvat del
10.
St.
:
cpnpoo-dev tov
/Sjj/xotos
toO XpioroO.
It is quite
impossible to follow
;
Liddon
in taking GeoO of Christ in his Divine nature

:
that
would
be contrary to all Pauline usage but it is important to notice how The Father and the easily St. Paul passes from Xptaros to Q(6s. Son were in his mind so united in function that They may often be interchanged. God, or Christ, or God through Christ, will judge the world. Our life is in God, or in Christ, or with Christ The union of man with God depends upon the intimate in God. union of the Father and the Son.
latter reading arose
Qeov must be accepted as against Xpiarov on decisive authority. from a desire to assimilate the expression to 2 Cor.
The
v. 10.
11. St. Paul supports his statement of the universal character of God's judgement by quoting Is. xlv. 23 (freely ace. to the LXX). In the O. T. the words describe the expectation of the universal character of Messianic rule, and the Apostle sees their complete fulfilment at the final judgement. ojj,o\oyV T(U t<? 0c<?> sna U gi ye P ra i se to God/ according to the usual LXX meaning ; cf. xv. 9, which is quoted from Ps. xvii
'
(xviii).
50.
xiv.
w kyou, Xiya Kvpios is substituted for Kar kpavrov dpvva), cf. Num. &c. ; for irdaa yXwaaa k.t.K. the LXX reads opeiTcu v. y. rbv eov.
:
28
it is to God and not to man that each of 12. The conclusion is us has to give account. If etw be read (see below), it may again be noted how easily St. Paul passes from Kvpios to Beds (see on ver. 10 and cf. xiv. 3 with xv. 7).
There are several minor variations of text, ovv is omitted by and perhaps the Latin authorities, which read itaque. For Soktci of the TR.
BDFGP
39
EPISTLE TO
rS> ta> at the
THE ROMANS
[XIV. 12-14.
WH. read airobwaei with

(but Cyprian da bit).
BDFG Chrys., the Latin authorities reading reddit
end of the sentence is omitted by B F G Cypr. Aug. In all these cases B is noticeable as appearing with a group which is almost entirely Western in character.
The Apostle now passes to another aspect of the question. has laid down very clearly the rule that all such points are in themselves indifferent ; he has rebuked censoriousness and shown
13.
He
responsible to God alone. Now he turns completely the question from the other side. All this is true, but higher than all is the rule of Christian charity, and this
that a
is
man
round and
treats
demands, above
of others.
Mtjk^ti quv
. .
all,
consideration for the feelings and consciences
Kpii/u>jAi>
marks the
transition to the
second ques-
tion
by summing up the
for the play
first.
on words cf. xii. 3, 14, xiii. 1. 'Do not one another, but judge this for yourself, i. e. determine this as your course of conduct' cf. 2 Cor. ii. 1. t6 fir) TiOeVcu tw doe\<f><3 o-Kcti'SaXoi'. nOkvai is suggested by the literal meaning of o-Kavhakov, a snare or stumbling-block which is laid in the path. St. Paul has probably derived the word (rmvSaXov and the whole thought of the passage from our Lord's words reported in Matt, xviii.^6 f. See also his treatment of the
therefore judge
: .
.
icpiWre:
same question
irpoo-KOfifxa
in
.
1
.
Cor.
r\
viii.
f.
should perhaps be omitted with B, Arm. Pesh. As Weiss points out, the fact that 77 is omitted in all authorities which omit ok. proves that the words cannot have been left out accidentally. irpocKopifxa would come in from 1 Cor. viii. 9 and ver. 20 below.
.
14. In order to emphasize the real motive which should influence Christians, namely, respect for the feelings of others, the indifference of all such things in themselves is emphatically stated. tv Kupiw 'Irjaou. The natural meaning of these words is the same as that of h Xp. (ix. 1) to St. Paul the indifference of all meats in themselves is a natural deduction from his faith and life in Christ. It may be doubted whether he is here referring expressly to the words of Christ (Mark vii. 15; Matt. xv. n); when doing SO his formula is irapekafiov airb tov Kvpiov. Koiyoi'. The technical term to express those customs and habits, which, although 'common' to the world, were forbidden to the pious Jew. Jos. Ant. XIII. i. 1 tov koivov filov rrporjp^vovs: I Mace. 1. 47, 62; Acts X. 14 oti ovderrore eCpayov itav koivov nai
;
anadapTov.
%C eauTou,
That
St'
'
in itself,'
'
in its
own
nature/
kavTov is the right reading is shown by (1) the authority of N B C also of y (Cod. Patiriensis, see Introduction, 7) supported by many later MSS., the Vulgate, and the two earliest commentators Orig.-lat. In Domino ergo Iesu nihil commune per semetipsum, hoc est natura sui diciiur, and Chrys. 777 <pvaei iprjolv ovdev aKadaprov and (2) by the contrast with to>
XIV.
14-17.]
Si'
ON SCRUPULOUSNESS
avrov, 'through Christ' (so Theodrt. and later
391
comm.)
is
Xoyi^n/ifvcp.
a correction.
ct jxT] tw XoyiôjAeVw k.t.X. Only if a man supposes that the breach of a ceremonial law is wrong, and is compelled by public opinion or the custom of the Church to do violence to his belief, he for example, if at the common Eucharistic is led to commit sin meal a man were compelled to eat food against his conscience it would clearly be wrong. The yap (which has conclusive manuscript authority) 15. el ydp. implies a suppressed link in the argument. 'You must have respect therefore for his scruples, although you may not share them, for if,' &c. XuTreiTcu. His conscience is injured and wounded, for ht wiirully and knowingly does what he thinks is wrong, and so he is in danger
;
of perishing (arroXXve). uirep ou Xpioros atriQave.

to save this
Cf. 1 Cor.
viii.
10, 11.
Christ died
man from
his sins,
and
will
you
for his sake not give
up some favourite food ?

16. (At) f3\ao-<f>T)fA<x0a> k.t.X. Let not that good of yours, i. e. your consciousness of Christian freedom (cf. 1 Cor. x. 29 fj i\ev6epia p.ov), become a cause of reproach. St. Paul is addressing the strong, as elsewhere in this paragraph, and the context seems clearly to point, at least primarily, to opinions within the community, not to the The above reputation of the community with the outside world. interpretation, therefore (which is that of Gifford and Vaughan), is better than that which would refer the passage to the reputation of the Christian community amongst those not belonging to it
(Mey-W.
17.
Lips. Liddon).
not lay such stress on this freedom of yours as to cause a breach in the harmony of the Church ; for eating and drinking are not the principle of that kingdom which you hope to inherit. The coO. An echo of our Lord's teaching. tj pacriXeia tou phrase is used normally in St. Paul of that Messianic kingdom which is to be the reward and goal of the Christian life; so
especially
shall
1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, where it is laid down that certain classes have no part in it. Hence it comes to mean the principles or ideas on which that kingdom is founded, and which are already The term is, of course, exhibited in this world (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 20). derived through the words of Christ from the current Jewish conceptions of an actual earthly kingdom; how far exactly such conceptions have been spiritualized in St. Paul it may be difficult
Do
to say.
ppwais Kal ttoctis. If, as is probable, the weak brethren are conceived of as having Judaizing tendencies, there is a special point If you lay so much stress on eating and drinking in this expression.
'
as to
make a
point of indulging in what you will at
all
costs,
you are
39^
in
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS
[XIV. 17-20.
danger of falling into the Judaizing course of interpreting the Messianic prophecies literally, and imagining the Messianic kingdom to be one of material plenty (Iren. V. xxxiii. 3). These words are often quoted as condemning any form of scrupulousness concerning eating and drinking; but that is not He means that 'eating and drinking' are in St. Paul's idea. themselves so unimportant that every scruple should be respected, and every form of food willingly given up. They are absolutely insignificant in comparison with righteousness ' and ' peace ' and
' '
'joy.'
SiKdioo-unf) k.t.X. This passage describes man's life in the kingdom, and these words denote not the relation of the Christian to God, but his life in relation to others. biKatoaivq therefore is not used in its technical sense of the relation between God and man, but means righteousness or just dealing ; elptjvr) is the state of peace with one another which should characterize Christians x aP a is the joy which comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the community; cf. Acts ii. 46 p,eTe\dpf3avov rpo^rjs iv dyaWidafi koX
;
d<pe\oTr)Tt KapoYay.
18.
The same
i.
statement
is
generalized.
The man who, on
the
principle implied
servant,
e.
by these
virtues (iv touto>, not iv rourots), is Christ's

others, not
who
serves Christ
and charitable towards

Christian freedom, is the approval of men.
by being righteous and conciliatory by harshly emphasizing his not only well-pleasing to God, but will gain
Sokijxos tois d^fxuTrois. The contrast to &\a<T<pr)p.el<r6(a of ver. 16. Consideration for others is a mark of the Christian character which SoKipop, able to stand will recommend a man to his fellow-men. the test of inspection and criticism (cf. 2 Tim. ii. 15). 19. OiKoSofJi/fjs cf. I Cor. Xiv. 26 Trdvra irpos 01*080/01771/ yivicrdoa, I Thess. V. 1 1 olKobopelre tls tov eva.
:
Sid/xo/xev (X B F L P 2) is really more expressive than the somewhat obvious correction SiwK<op.v (C E F who add (pvkd^wfxev E, Latt).
after dAAiJXovs.
20. KardXue ... epyoi' keeps up tne metaphor suggested by 'Build up, do not destroy, that Christian community which God has founded in Christ.' Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 9 0eo6 ydp iapw crvvepyoL. Qeov yed>pyiov Qeov oiKoSopfj tare. The words clprjvr) and oiKo8opfj both point to the community rather than the individual
ohoSoprjs.
}
Christian.
KaOapd: cf. I Cor. X. 23 Trdvra ci-eo-nv, dXX' ov irdvra 7mr, dXX' ov Trdvra oi/coSo/nct. dXXd KdicdV the subject to this must be supplied from irdvra. It is a nice question to decide to whom these words refer. (1) Are they addressed to the strong, those who by eating are likely to give offence to others (so Va. 01tr and the majority of commentaries) ?
(1,61'
mJuTa
(rvp<pepei.
Trdvra
:
XIV. 20-23.]
ON SCRUPULOUSNESS
393
or (2) are they addressed to the weak, those who by eating what they think it wrong to eat injure their own consciences (so Gif. Mey.-W.
In the former case 6m Trpoo-KOfiparos (on the 8id cf. ii. ? 11) means 'so as to cause offence/ in the latter 'so as to take offence' (Tyndale, 'who eateth with hurt of his conscience').
27,
iv.
and others)
ver. 21 is slightly better if we take (1). thing in itself indifferent may be wrong if it injures the consciences of others ; on the other hand, to give up what will injure others is a noble act.
Perhaps the transition to

21.
ica\6Vj cf.
el ftpa>pa
/i?)
Cor.
vii.
and
for the
thought
prj (payee
Cor.
viii.
13
bionep,
aKav8a\iei rbv d8eX(pov pov, uv

o~Kav8a\icra>.
Kpea eh rbv
alu>va, tva
the situation implied did not arise from the existence of a party who habitually abstained from flesh St. Paul was merely taking the strongest instance he could think of. It is equally incorrect therefore to argue from this verse that there was
in the Corinthian Epistle,
rbv d8e\<p6v pov
We know
it
and
that
a sect of vegetarians and total abstainers in Rome. St. Paul merely takes extreme forms of self-deprivation, which he uses as instances. I would live like an Essene rather than do anything to
'
offend
my
brother.'
The TR. adds after itpoaKo-mei the gloss f) CKavZaXi^trai fj daOevet with B Western and Syrian authorities (N C &c, Vulg. Sah., Bas. Chrys.). They are omitted by N A C 2, Pesh. Boh., Orig. and Orig.-lat. This is a very clear instance of a Western reading in B ; cf. xi. 6.
BDEFGLP,
22.
<ru
mai-iy
it is
it,
rjf
e\is.
Your
faith is sufficient to see that all
these things are a matter of indifference.
Be content
with that
knowledge,
not boast of
a matter for your own conscience and God. or wound those not so strong as yourself.
,
Do
The preponderance of authorities (NABC, Vulg. codd. Boh Orig.-lat.) compels us to read 171/ ex (S The omission of fy (DEFGLP2, Vulg. codd. Syrr. Boh., Chrys. &c.) is a Western correction and an improvement.
-
jxaitdpios k.t.X.
faith is the
Blessed (see on
iv. 6,
7) because of his strong
that he
man who can courageously do what his reason tells him may do without any doubt or misgiving Kpivwv, to 'judge
'
ii.
censoriously so as to condemn,' cf. ii. 1, 3, 27). SoKipdfri (i. 28, 18) to approve of after testing and examining/ If a man doubts or 23. 6 8e SiaKpi^jxcKos see on iv. 20. hesitates and then eats, he is, by the very fact that he doubts, condemned for his weakness of faith. If his faith were strong he
:
would have no doubt or hesitation. iray 8c o ouk ck morews, d/iapTia Iotiv. irla-ns is subjective, the strong conviction of what is right and of the principles of salvation. Weakly to comply with other persons' customs without being convinced of their indifference is itself sin.' This maxim (1) is not concerned with the usual conduct of unbelievers, (2) must not \>e
'
; :
394
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 23-XV.
1.
extended to cases different in character from those St. Paul considering. It is not a general maxim concerning faith.
is
This verse has had a very important part to play in controversy. How important may be seen from the use made of it in Augustine Contra Iulianum iv, one passage of which ( 32) may be quoted: Ex quo colli gitur, etiam ipsa bona opera quae faciunt infideles, non ipsorum esse, sed illius qui bene utitur mails. Ipsorum autetti esse peccata quibus et bona male faciunt quia ea non fideli, sed infideli, hoc est stulta et noxia faciunt voluntate quails voluntas, nullo Christiano dubitante, arbor est mala, quaefacere non potest nisi fructus malos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, velis noils, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. Since this time it has been used to support the two propositions that works done before justification are sin and consequently that the heathen are unable to do good works. Into the merits of these controversies it will be apart from our purpose to enter. It is sufficient to notice that this verse is in such a context completely misquoted. As Chrysostom says, ' When a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing is clean, how can he do else than sin? Now all these things have been spoken by Paul of the object in hand, not of everything.' The words do not apply to those who are not Christians, nor to the works of those who are Christians done before they became such, but to the conduct of believing Christians and faith is used somewhat in the way we should speak of a ' good conscience ' < everything which is not done with a clear conscience is sin.' So Aquinas, Summa i. 2, qu. xix, art. v. omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est, id est, omne quod est contra conscientiam. On the doxology (xvi. 25-27), which in some MSS. finds a place here, see
; ;
the Introduction,
8.
XV. 1. The beginning of chap, xv is connected immediately with what precedes, and there is no break in the argument until ver. 13 is reached; but towards the close, especially in vv. 7-13, the language of the Apostle is more general. He passes from the special points at issue to the broad underlying principle of Christian unity, and especially to the relation of the two great sections of the Church the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. 6(|>i\o|Xi' 8e. Such weakness is, it is true, a sign of absence of faith, but we who are strong in faith ought to bear with scruples weak though they may be. ol SuVa-rot not, as in 1 Cor. i. 26, the rich or the powerful, but as in 2 Cor. xii. 10, xiii. 9, of the morally
strong.
PaffTdScii'
:
cf.
Gal.
vi.
2 aX\r)\oav
to. jSdpr;
<f)epeii>,
/3aoTaeTf.
In classical
but fiavTafriv seems to have gradually come into use in the figurative sense. It is used of bearing the cross both literally (John xix. 17), and figuratively (Luke xiv. 27). We find it in later versions of the O. T. In Aq.,
Greek the ordinary word would be
Symm. and Theod.

Is. lxiii.
in Is. xl.
viii.
n,
lxvi.
Is.
12;
liii.
in the
two
latter in
9; in Matt.
is
17 quoting
in the
passages
the
word used
LXX.
1,
in Christian literature, Ign.
Ad Polyc.
I
3: in none of these It became a favourite word Epist. ad Diog. 10 (quoted
by
Lft.).
|XT)
lauTOis
fiij
dpeWeiy:
cf.
ape'o-Ko),
fyiT&v to ifiavTov avfMptpov,
Cor. X. 33 KaOcos Kayo) navra ncKriv where St, Paul is describing his
XV.
2-4.]
'
ON SCRUPULOUSNESS
simi,ar circumstances.
395
strikes at the root
nduct m very
or Christian disunion,
He
which is selfishness. 2. els to dyaeoy Trpos oucooop^ cf. xiv. 16 ty&p t6 dyaMv, 19 T a rrjs tHKodow rrjs els dMfaovs. The end or purpose of pleasing them must be the promotion of what is absolutely to their good, further defined by olKoforf, their edification. These words limit and explain what St. Paul means by 'pleasing men.' In Gal. i 10 (cf. Eph. vi. 6 ; 1 Thess. ii. 4) he had condemned it. In 1 Cor. ix 20-23 h e had made it a leading principle of his conduct.
;
is
that
we are
(F
to please
men
The
rule
for their
own good and
not our own.

For fouv some
The ydp
authorities
after
G P 2,
Uaoros of the TR. should be omitted.

Vulg.,
many
Fathers) read vpwv.
3. koi ydp 6 Xpiaros k.t.X. The precept just laid down is enforced by the example of Christ (cf. xiv. As Christ bore 15). our reproaches, so must we bear those of others.
Ka9(bs yeypaTTTai.
St.
Paul, instead of continuing the sentence,
changes the construction and inserts a verse of the O. T. [Ps. lxviii (lxix). 10, quoted exactly according to the LXX], which he
Christ. For the construction cf. ix. 7. describes the sufferings at the hands of the ungodly of the typically righteous man, and passages taken from it are often in the N. T. referred to our Lord, to whom they would apply as being emphatically 'the just one.' Ver. 4 is quoted John xv. 25, ver. 9 a in John ii. 17, ver. 9 b in Rom. xv. 3, ver. 12 Matt, xxvii. 27-30, ver. 21 in Matt, xxvii. 34, and John xix. 29, ver. 22, f. in Rom. xi. 9, ver. 25 a in Acts i. 20. (See Liddon,
puts into the
mouth of
The Psalm quoted
ad
loc.)
In the original the righteous man is represented as addressing God and saying that the reproaches against God he has to bear. St. Paul transfers the words to Christ, who is represented as addressing a man. Christ declares that in suffering it was the reproaches or sufferings of others that He bore.
01 dêtSiCT/xoi k.t.X.
is justified by the enduring value of the O. T. 'were written before/ in contrast with rjperepav: cf. Eph. iii. 3 Jude 4, but with a reminiscence of the technical meaning of ypdfciu for what is written as Scripture. 8i8ao-Ka\i'ai>, 'instruction': cf. 2 Tim. iii. 16 irdaa ypacpr) 6(6-
4.
The
quotation
Trpoeypd<|>r],
TTVCVCTTOS
KCl\
(O(f)(\ip0S 7Tp6s 8l8ci(TKa'\laV.

:
tt)v
eWoa
i.
the specifically Christian feeling of hope.
It is the
supreme confidence which arises from trust in Christ that in no circumstances will the Christian be ashamed of that wherein he trusteth
20); a confidence which tribulation only strengthens, for certain his power 01 endurance and his experience of consolation. On the relation of patience to hope cf. v. 3 and 1 Thess. i. 3.
it
(Phil.
makes more
396

2
[XV. 4-6.
Tim.
iii.
This passage, and that quoted above from
16, lay
very clearly the belief in the abiding value of the O. T. which underlies St. Paul's use of it. But while emphasizing its The Scriptures are to be read for our value they also linvt it.
down
moral instruction,
is
'
'
for reproof, for correction, for instruction

'
;
which
in righteousness
for the perfection of the Christian character,
that the
man
of
God may be
complete, furnished unto every good
work'; and because they

Christ.
establish the Christian
hope which
is
in.
points then St. Paul teaches, the permanent value of the great moral and spiritual truths of the O. T., and the witness of the O. T. to Christ. His words cannot be quoted to prove more
Two
than
this.
There are in this verse a few idiosyncrasies of B which. may be noted but Vulg. Orig.-lat.) for vpoejpd<pr] iypa<pTj (^with need not be accepted navra before els ttjv rip. (with P); rrjs iropaKX-qffeojs repeated after exoj^v C ALP3, &c. substitutes irpo^pd^rj for (with Clem.-AL). The TR. with N cor D E F G P, &c, Vulg. Boh. Hard, kypdipr] in the second place, and with C
; ;
omits the second
Sid.
5. After the digression of ver. 4 the
ject of vv. 1-3,
and sums up
his teaching
Apostle returns to the subby a prayer for the unity

:
of the community. 6 oe cos ttjs uirofjioi/TJs Kal

(ver. (ver.
ttjs TrapaKX'qcrcws
cf. o
xiii.
Geo?
20),
rrjs elprjvrjs
riys
(
33;
Phil. iv. 9 ; 1 Thess. v. 23; 13), ndarjs irapaK\r)(recos (2 Cor. i.
Heb.
iXnidos
l
3), irdarjs
x"P lT0S
ttjv
P et
"
v. 10).
t6 ciuto Qpoveiv
avro (ppourjre
XaXci: Col.
.
.
cf.
Phil.
ii.
2-5 Tr^paxrare pov

Xp.
6
I.
x aP^ v y
iva
tovto
</>poveire iv vp.lv 6 Kal iv

cf.
:
Kara Xpurrbv
ii.
'Irjaoui':
oil
2 Cor. xi.
17
XaAa>,
ov Kara Kvpiov
Eph. iv. 24 tov kclivov avOpoiirov rbv Kara. Qeov KTiaBivra (Rom. viii. 27, which is generally quoted, is not These examples seem to show that the expression must in point). mean in accordance with the character or example of Christ.'
8
Kara Xp.
'
ii. 25; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18 a later form, cf. 2 Thess. iii. 16 with variant 8wy in the last two cases. Xp. 'I??<r. (B D E G L, &c, Boh. Chrys.),not 'Irja. Xp. N A C F P 3 Vulg., Orig.-lat. Theodrt.
dwrj for Soiri,

i.
1
Eph.
7 (but
6.
Unity and harmony of worship

'with unity of mind.'
will
be the result of unity
of
(i.
life.
ou-oOufJiaooe,
A common
word
in the
Acts
14,
&c).
Toy Oebv Kal iraT^pa tou Kupiou r\\iQ>v 'Itjctou XpioTou. This expresIn sion occurs also in 2 Cor. i. 3 ; xi. 3 1 ; Eph. i. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 3. Col. i. 3, which is also quoted, the correct reading is t<5 Geoi rtarp\ X. Two translations are possible (1) ' God even toC Kupiou I]p5)v
the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ (Mey.-W.

'
Gif. Lid., Lips.).
In favour of this correlative word,
it
is
Geo's
is
pointed out that while irar^p expects some naturally absolute; and that 6 ee6s ko.\
XV.
stiTtyo
6-8.]
ON SCRUPULOUSNESS
1-171/
397
1 Cor. xv. 24 orav vapa&t&oi paai6ew Km rrarpi), an argument the point of which does not seem clear, and which suggests that the first argument has not much weight. (2) It is better and simpler to take the words in their natural meaning, The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Va. Oltr. Go. and others), with which cf. Eph. i. 1 7 6 6e6s tov Kvplov fjfiSiv 'I. x. Matt, xxvii. 46 ; Jn. xx. 17 Heb. i. 9.
occurs absolutely (as in
\eiav t<
<
'
7.
The
principles laid
down
in
this section of the Epistle are
now
any
generalized.
distinction,
All
whom
main
Christ has received should, without
be accepted into His Church.
This
is
intended
to apply especially to the
division existing at that time in the

Christians.
community, that between Jewish and Gentile

810 irpo<rXa(ij3 dfeo-06 dXXrjXous k.t.X.
:
is no longer admit the weak, but to all sections of the community alike to receive and admit those who differ from them so St. Paul probibly said vpas, not was. The latter he uses in ver. 1, where he is identifying himself with the strong,' the former he uses here, where he is addressing the whole community. On 816 cf. Eph. ii. 11 1 Thess. v. 11 on TrpoaXapfiaveade see xiv. 1, 3.
the
command
to the strong to
'
read by N A C E F G L, Vulg. Toh. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. rjfxas by B P3. B is again Western, and its authority on the distinction between Tinas and vpas is less trustworthy than on most other points (see WH. ii.
v/xas is
;
pp. 218, 310).

eis
86ai'
OeoG with
glory of
God/
As
moned both Jews
' 7rpoo-eAa/3tTo in order to promote the the following verses show, Christ has sumand Greeks into His kingdom in order to
:
promote the glory of God, to exhibit in the one case His faithfulness, in the other His mercy. So in Phil. ii. 11 the object of Christ's glory is to promote the glory of God the Father. 8. St. Paul has a double object. He writes to remind the Gentiles that it is through the Jews that they are called, the Jews that the aim and purpose of their existence is the calling of the Gentiles. The Gentiles must remember that Christ became a Jew to save them; the Jew that Christ came among them in order that all the families of the earth might be blessed both must realize that the aim of the whole is to proclaim God's glory. This passage is connected by undoubted links (8t6 ver. 7 A/y<a yap ver. 8) with what precedes, and forms the conclusion of the argument after the manner of the concluding verses of ch. viii. and ch. xi. This connexion makes it probable that the relations of Jew and Gentile were directly or indirectly involved in the relations of the weak and the strong.' (Hort. Rom. and Eph. p. 29.)
:
'
not a minister -n-epiTOjXTJs minister of the true circumcision of be introducing an idea quite alien to the of circumcision (so Gifford, who has an
8icikoi/ok
'
. . .
'
of the circumcised,'
'
still
less a
the spirit/ which would context, but a minister

excellent note),
i.
'
e.
to
39 8
[XV. 8-10.
carry out the promises implied in that covenant the seal of which was circumcision so 2 Cor. iii. 6 Sigkovovs Kaivrjs diad^s. In the Ep. to the Galatians (iv. 4, 5) St. Paul had said that Christ was born of a woman, born under the law, that He might redeem them
;
'
which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.' On the Promise and Circumcision see Gen. xii. 1-3, xvii.
1-14.
Jews which St. Paul dwells on are as folHimself fulfilled the condition of being circumcised: the circumcised therefore must not be condemned. (2) The primary object of this was to fulfil the promises made to the Jews (cf. Rom. ii. 9, 10). (3) It was only as a secondary result of this Messiahship that the Gentiles glorified God. (4) While the blessing came to the Jews vnep d\r)0(ias to preserve God's consistency, it came to the Gentiles vnep eXeovs for God's loving-kindness.
privileges of the
The
:
lows
(1) Christ has
yeyevrjoOcu, which should be read with X E L P 2 (yfytvurjaOe) ; it was altered into the more usual aorist ycviaOai (BC DFG), perhaps because it
was supposed
to be co-ordinated with 8odaai.
t&s eirayyeXias
9. to, 8e
I0nr)
.
tw
.
-naTepuiv
cf. ix. 4, 5.
constructions are possible for these words: (1) they may be taken as directly subordinate to Aeya> ydp (Weiss, Oltr. Go.). The only object in this construction would be to contrast irnep iXeovs with vnep uXrjBdas. But the real antithesis Of the passage is between j3f/3uo-ai ray i-nayyekias and ra %Bvr] 8ogdaai: and hence (2) ra 8e Wvr) dogdaai should be taken as subordinate to els to and co-ordinate with pepaiaxrai (Gif. Mey.
. .
. . .
8o|daai.
Two
Lid., Va.). With this construction the point of the passage becomes much greater, the call of the Gentiles is shown to be (as
it certainly was), equally with the fulfilment of the promise to the Jews, dependent on the covenant made with Abraham (iv. 11, 12,
16, 17).
KaOws YeypaiTTai.
The
Epistle, to support his thesis
Apostle proceeds, as so often in the by a series of passages quoted from
theO.T.
81A touto
(xviii).
k.t.X.
taken almost exactly from the

:
LXX
of Ps. xvii
In the original David, as the author of the Psalm, is 50. celebrating a victory over the surrounding nations in the Messianic
represented as declaring that among the Gentiles, i. e. in the midst of. and therefore together with them, He will praise God. i{-opokoyr)aop.ai, 'I will praise thee cf. xiv. 11. 10. Eu<{>pdj'0T)T k.t.X. from the of Deut. xxxii. 43. The Hebrew, translated literally, appears to mean, Rejoice, ye nations, His people.' Moses is represented as calling on the nations to rejoice over the salvation of Israel. St. Paul takes the words as interpreted by the to imply that the Gentiles and chosen
application
Christ
is
'
: :
LXX
LXX
people shall unite in the praise of God.
XV.
11.
11-13.]
ON SCRUPULOUSNESS
i.
399
Alrcfa k.t.X.: Ps. cxvi (cxvii). nations to praise the Lord.

There are
slight variations in the
LXX.
and
An
anneal to PP
all
* to, a description of the Messianic kingdom, which is to take the place of that Jewish kingdom which is soon to be destroyed. The quotation follows the n a P ara P hrase of *e Hebrew; the latter runs Jpva u ,7 V ) And it shall (K come to pass in that
the LXX. f *cuw<tw is read by K BC atâa7a,(rav) eTra^We by late MSS. with later w 12. E<rro* k.t.X. : from Is. xi.
-
& i&* r-
F G L hav
i*SX&*5* v- k - A D E Chrvs. LXX A S

t
Greek
text
in rhp
TYY
v~
LXX MSS.
(so
â
7TZ?
1
1,
'
""
6nS, gn
' Gentiles seek 13 he P stle concludes by invoking on his hearers a blessing-that their faith may give them a life full of joy and peace, that in the power of the Holy Spirit they may abound in hope. 6 66s Ttjs &m'8oS cf. ver. 5. The special attribute, as in fact the whole of the benediction, is suggested by the concluding words or the previous quotation.
*
day, that the root of Tesse
Pe PleS Unt him sha the "
Tratnjs X pas koI elpVjnfjs. The joy and rieace with God which is the result of true faith in the Christian's heart. On dp{F r, see i. 7.
For
nkijp&ffat
reads
iraor,
liarities of this iV TO) m(TT(V(lV.
(most MSS.) have the curious variant n\ o<popt<rcu. VP X apa K al tip-fry and omits ds rd ittpiaoiiHv the pecuMS. in the last lew verses are noticeable. omit
:
BFG
DEFG
The general question of the genuineness of these last two chapters is discussed in the Introduction It will be convenient to mention in ( 9 \ the coarse of the Commentary some few of the detailed objections that have been made to special passages. In xv. 1-13 the only serious objection is that which was first raised by Baur and has been repeated bv others since, the statements in this section are supposed to be of too 'conciliatory a character; especially is this said to be the case with ver. 8. can we imagine, writes Baur, 'that the Apostle, in an Epistle of such a nature and alter all that had passed on the subject, would make such a concession to the Jewish Christians as to call Jesus Christ a minister of circumcision to confirm the promises of God made to the Fathers?' To this it may be answered that that is exactly the point of view of the Epi*tle. It is brought out most clearly in xi. 17-25 it is implied in the position of priority always given to the Jew ^1. 16 ii. 9, 10) ; it is emphasized in the stress continually laid on the relations of the new Gospel to the Old Testament (ch. iv, &c), and the importance of the promises which were fulfilled (i. 2 ; ix. 4). Baur's difficulty arose from an erroneous conception of the teaching and position of bt. Paul. For other arguments see Mangold, Der Romerbrief, pp. 81-100.
'
How
What
sect or
party
is
referred
to in
Rom.
XIV?
diversity of opinion as to the persons referred to in this section of the Epistle to the Romans, but all
There has been great

to
commentators seem
agree
in
assuming that the Apostle
is
400
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[XIV-XV.
18.
dealing with certain special circumstances which have arisen in the Church of Rome, and that the weak and the strong represent two
parties in that
i.
Church.
oldest explanation appears to be that which sees in these disputes a repetition of those which prevailed in the Corinthian Church, as to the same or some similar form of Judaizing practices
The
In favour of this may be (Orig. Chrys. Aug. Neander, &c). quoted the earlier portion of the. fifteenth chapter, where there is clearly a reference to the distinction between Jewish and Gentile But against this opinion it is pointed out that such Christians. Jewish objections to things offered to idols/ or to meats killed in any incorrect manner, or to swine's flesh, have nothing to do with the typical instances quoted, the abstinence altogether from flesh meat and from wine (vv. 2, 21). 2. A second suggestion (Eichhorn) is that which sees in these Roman ascetics the influence of the Pythagorean and other heathen sects which practised and taught abstinence from meat and wine and other forms of self-discipline. But these again will not satisfy
'
the circumstances. These Roman Christians were, it is said, in the habit of observing scrupulously certain days : and this custom did not, as far as we know, prevail among any heathen sect. 3. Baur sees here Ebionite Christians of the character repreall
sented by the Clementine literature, and in accordance with his general theory he regards them as representing the majority of the Roman Church. That this last addition to the theory is tenable seems impossible. So far as there is any definiteness in St. Paul's language he clearly represents the strong as directing the policy
'
'
of the community.
faith'; they
They
to
are told to receive
'
him
that
is
weak
in
All that
seem he on his
first
have the power to admit him or reject him. side can do is to indulge in excessive criticism.
Of part of the theory really more satisfactory. we have very considerable knowledge derived from the Clementine literature and from Epiphanius (Haer. xxx), but it is an anachronism to discover these developments in a period Nor again is it conceivable that nearly two centuries earlier.
Nor
is
the
the later Ebionites
manner
Paul would have treated a developed Judaism in the lenient in which he writes in this chapter. 4. Less objection perhaps applies to the modification of this theory, which sees in these sectaries some of the Essene influence which probably prevailed everywhere throughout the Jewish world This view fulfils the (Ritschl, Mey.-W. Lid. Lft. Gif. Oltr.). The Essenes were Jewish, they were three conditions of the case. If the theory is put in the ascetic, and they observed certain days. form not that Essenism existed as a sect in Rome, which is highly improbable, but that there was Essene influence in the Jewish community there, it is possible. Yet if any one compares St. Paul's
St.
XIV.-XV.
13.]
ON SCRUPULOUSNESS
401
language in other Epistles with that which he uses here, he will it difficult to believe that the Apostle would recommend compliance with customs which arose, not from weak-minded scrupulousness, but from a completely inadequate theory of religion and life. Hort {Rom. and Eph., p. 27 f.) writes The true origin of these abstinences must remain somewhat uncertain but much the most probable suggestion is that they come from an Essene element in the Roman Church, such as afterwards affected the Colossian Church/ But later he modified his opinion {Judaislic Christianity, p. 128)- 'There is no tangible evidence for Essenism out of Palestine.' All these theories have this in common, that they suppose St. Paul to be dealing with a definite sect or body in the Roman Church. But as our examination of the Epistle has proceeded, it has become
find
: ' :
more and more

the arguments.
or no special reference in portion and in the admonitory portion, we find constant reminiscences of earlier situations, but always with the sting of controversy gone. St. Paul writes throughout with the remembrance of his own former experience, and not with a view to special difficulties in the Roman
is little
clear that there
Both
in
the
controversial
community. He writes on all these vexed questions, not because they have arisen there, but because they may arise. The Church of Rome consists, as he knows, of both Jewi: h and heathen Christians. These discordant elements may, he fears, unless wise counsels prevail produce the same dissensions as have occurred in Galatia or Corinth.
Hort (Judaisiic Christianity, p. 126) recognizes this feature in ' the doctrinal portion of the Epistle It is a remarkable fact/ he
:
respecting this Epistle to the Romans that while it discusses the question of the Law with great emphasis and mlness, it does so without the slightest sign that there is a reference to a controversy then actually existing in the Roman Church.' Unfortunately he has not applied the same theory to this practical portion of the Epistle if he had done so it would have presented
writes,
'
. .
just the
solution required by all that he notices. ' reference,' he writes, ' to a burning controversy.' dealt with simply as one of individual conscience.'
'
There
is
no
is
The
matter
He
contrasts
tone with that of the Epistle to the Colossians. All these features find their best explanation in a theory which supposes that St. Paul's object in this portion of the Epistle, is the same as that which has been suggested in the doctrinal portion.
the
is
If this theory be correct, then our interpretation of the passage somewhat different from that which has usually been accepted,
is,
and
ver.
we
2 'the
is
there
When St. Paul says in eateth vegetables,' he does not mean that a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes
venture to think, more natural.
weak man
Dd
43
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV.-XV.
13.
a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness. When again he says one man considers one day better than another,' he does not mean that this sect of. vegetarians were also strict Sabbatarians, but that the same scrupulousness may prevail in other matters. When he speaks of 6 cppov&v rffv ^/xe'pnv, 6 firj c'o-eicov he is not thinking of any special body of people but rather of special types. When again in ver. 2 1 he says It is good not to eat flesh, or drink wine, or do anything in which my brother is offended/ he does not mean that these vegetarians and Sabbatarians are also
'
:
'
total
he merely means even the most extreme act of selfdenial is better than injuring the conscience of a brother.' He had spoken very similarly in writing to the Corinthians Wherefore, if
abstainers
; ' : '
brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I make not my brother to stumble' (1 Cor. viii. It 13). is not considered necessary to argue from these words that absti-
meat maketh
my
nence from flesh was one of the characteristics of the Corinthian sectaries nor is it necessary to argue in a similar manner here. St. Paul is arguing then, as always in the Epistle, from past experience. Again and again difficulties had arisen owing to different forms of scrupulousness. There had been the difficulties which had produced the Apostolic decree there were the difficulties in Galatia, 'Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years'; there were the difficulties at Corinth. Probably he had already in
; ;
his
experience
come
across instances of the various ascetic tenden-
which are referred to in the Colossian and Pastoral Epistles. We have evidence both in Jewish and in heathen writers of the wide extent to which such practices prevailed. In an age when
cies
is much religious feeling there will always be such ideas. ferment which the spread of Christianity aroused would create them. Hence just as the difficulties which he had experienced with regard to Judaism and the law made St. Paul work out and systematize his theory of the relation of Christianity to personal righteousness, so here he is working out the proper attitude of the Christian towards over-scrupulousness and over-conscientiousness. He is not dealing with the question controversially, but examining
there
The
it
from
all sides.
he lays down certain great principles. There is, first of all, the fundamental fact, that all these scruples are in matters quite
And
Man is justified by 'faith'; that is have not strong, clear-sighted faith they do not really think such actions indifferent, and if they act against their conscience their conscience is injured. Each man must act as he would do with the full consciousness that he is to appear before God's judgement-seat. But there is another side
indifferent
sufficient.
in
themselves.
all
But then
to the question. By indifference to external observances we may injure another man's conscience. To ourselves it is perfectly
XV.
14.]
APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS
403
whether we conform to such an observance or not. Then for the sake of our weak brother. We are the We are conscious of our strength. Therefore we must strong. yield to others: not perhaps always, not in all circumstances, but
indifferent
we must conform
certainly in
many
cases.
Above
all,
the salvation of the individual
and unity of the community must be preserved. Both alike, weak and strong, must lay aside differences on such unimportant matters for the sake of that church for which Christ
soul
and
the peace
died.
APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS.

XV. I am unacquainted
knowledge.
fulfilling
14-21. These admonitions of mine do not imply that

zuith
In
writing
your goodness and deep spiritual to you thus boldly I am only

to
my
duty as Apostle
the Gentiles
to
the priest
who stands
Churches
before the altar
and presents
God
the Gentile
(vv. 14-17).
ground of my boldness. For I can boast of my spiritual labours and gifts, and of my wide activity in preaching the Gospel, and that, not where others had done so
And
this is the
before me, but
where Christ was not yet named
(vv.
8-21).
14. The substance of the Epistle is now finished, and there only remain the concluding sections of greeting and encouragement. St. Paul begins as in i. 8 with a reference to the good report of the This he does as a courteous apology lor the warmth of church. but a comfeeling he has exhibited, especially in the last section parison with the Galatian letter, where there is an absence of any such compliment, shows that St. Paul's words must be taken to have a very real and definite meaning. Though I have spoken so strongly it Tnhrcicrncu 8c cf. viii. 38, does not mean that I am not aware of the spiritual earnestness of your church.' Kal auTos cyw ircpl v\iS)v, on k<x! auToi notice the emphasis gained by the position of the words. And not I inquire of others to know,
;
'
'
but
/ myself,
that
is,
I that rebuke, that

i.
accuse you.'
is
Chrys.
ftcoToi: cf.
fifVOt.
Rom.
29,
where also
it
combined with nen^pu)in its entirety.'
ird(TT]s
I
yfwo-ews: 'our Christian

2
knowledge
Cf.
<ai
Cor.
xiii.
Kai eav exco irpo(pr)T([av Ka\ (I8a> ra fivarTrjpta iravra

ttjv it'mttlv k.t.X.
used for the true knowledge which consists in a deep and comprehensive grasp of the real principles of Christianity. d d 2
r.aaav tt)v yvwaiv, koi eav e\a> iraaav
yvwais
is
404
rrjs
is
EPISTLE TO
read by
THE ROMANS
Jo.-Damasc.
It
[XV.
is
14, 15.
ACDEFGL,
NBP,
&c...
Clem.- Alex. Chrys. Theodrt.
omitted
by
a,yaQo)(rvvr\s : cf. 2 Thess. i. ri ; Gal. v. 22 Eph. v. 9; used only in the LXX, the N. T. and writings derived from them. Generally it means 'goodness' or 'uprightness' in contrast with KaKi'a, as in Ps. li. (Hi.) 5 T)yd7ri]aas KUKtav vjrep dyadcoavvr]v defined more accurately the idea seems to be that derived from dyados of active beneficence and goodness of heart. Here it is combined with yvacris, because the two words represent exactly the qualities which are demanded by the discussion in chap. xiv. St. Paul demands on the one side a complete grasp of the Christian faith as a whole, and on the other 'goodness of heart,' which may prevent a man from injuring the spiritual life of his brother Christians by disregarding their consciences. Both these were, St. Paul is
; :
fully assured, realized in the
Roman
community.
almost all late and mostly confined to Hellenistic writers. In the N. T. we have kKcrjôavvij, aaxnpoavvq, ayiaovvrj, Upaovvq, fj.(ya\a<rvvr) see Winer, xvi. 2 /3 (p. 118, ed. Moulton).
in -avvrj are
:
Forms
aMrjXous vovQerelv. Is it laying too much stress on compliment to suggest that these words give a hint of St. Paul's aim in this Epistle? He has grasped clearly the importance of the central position of the Roman Church and its moral qualities, and he realizes the power that it will be for the instruction of others in the faith. Hence it is to them above all that he writes, not because of their defects but of their merits.
Suydjxevoi kcxI
the language of
any reader will find an inconsistency between 11 or the exhortations of chap, xiv, whatever view he may hold concerning St. Paul's general attitude towards the Roman Church. It would be perfectly natural in any case that, after rebuking them on certain points on which he felt they needed correction, he should proceed to compliment them for the true knowledge and goodness which their spiritual condition exhibited. He could do so because it would imply a true estimate of the state of the Church, and it would prevent any offence being taken at his freedom of speech. But if the view suggested on chap. xiv. and throughout the Epistle be correct, and these special admonitions arise rather from the condition of the Gentile churches as a whole, the words gain even more ' I point. am not finding fault with you, I am warning you of dangers you may incur, and I warn you especially owing to your prominent and
It is difficult to believe that
this verse
and
i.
important position.'
15. To\fAT)poTepoi'. The boldness of which St. Paul accuses himself is not in sentiment, but in manner. It was and pepovs, in part of the Epistle'; vi. 12 ff., 19; viii. 9; xi. 17 ff. ; xii. 3; xiii. 3 ff., 13 ff., xiv.; xv. 1, have been suggested as instances. iirava[lillVY\<JK(i)V. WetStein quotes enacrTOv vpcov, Kainep dicpificos floorer, Spas iiravapvriaai j3ov\opai Demosthenes, Phil. 74, 7* The eni seems to soften the expression suggesting to your memory.' St. Paul is not teaching any new thing, or saying anything which
'
'
XV.
15-17.]
405
a properly instructed Christian would not know, but putting more and definitely the recognized principles and commands of the Gospel.
clearly
8id
cf.
1.
ZoQeladv jioi. tV X&P On St. Paul's Apostolic grace 5 6Y ov cUpofieu xapiv Ka\ ottoo-toX^ xii. 3 Xeyco yap 81a rfs
/V
XapiTos
rrjs
8o$(lar]s pot.
probably preferable to read roX^poripws (A B, WH.) for ro\ mp 6k * dds a5(X(P oi after fypaâ vpuv against the best authorities f, T lg Chr y s -) the Position of the word varies even in g iVco in 1 t?Z'' I Mbb. which it does occur, vrro is a correction of the TR. for dno (K BF v Jo.-Damasc).
It is
VJTt> r
"
'
'
16. XeiToup Y 6V
the Upevvi
LXX
Lord, who is apxi(p(vs and t5>v aylov Xeuoupyd? see the note on i. 9. Generally in the LXX the word seems used of the Levites as opposed to the priests as in 2 Esdras xx. 39 (Neh. x. 40) m\ oi lepels ko.1 ol Xeirovpyoi, but there is no such idea here. UpoupyoGrra, being the sacrificing priest of the Gospel of God.' St. Paul is standing at the altar as priest of the Gospel, and the offering which he makes is the Gentile Church.
:
seems to be used definitely and technically as in of a priest. See^ esp. 2 Esdras xx. 36 (Neh. x. 37) rols rots XuTovpyovaiv iv oXkco Qeov rjpwv. So in Heb. viii. 2 of Our
'
to
Upovpyuv means (1) to^ perform a sacred function/ hence (2) especially sacrifice and so rd ItpovpyrjOtvTa means the slain victims and then
' ;
' '
(3) to be a priest, to be one who performs sacred functions. Its construction is two-fold : (1) it may take the accusative of the thing sacrificed ; so Bas. in Ps. cxv koX hpovpy-qaai aoi ttjv ttjs alviatm Ovaiav ; or (2)
Upovpyuv
p'twv
ri may be put for Upovpyuv tivos etvm (Galen, de Theriaca pvarr\Upovpyov), so 4 Mace. vii. 8 (v. 1.) tow Upovpyovvras rdv vofiov. Greg.
Naz. Upovpyuv
r\
aajTrjpiav tivos (see Fri. adloc.
from
whom
this note is taken).

cf. xii.
Trpo<7<J>opd.
With
this use of sacrificial
language,
1, 2.
The sacrifices offered by the priest of the New Covenant were not the dumb animals as the old law commanded, but human beings,
the great
body of the Gentile Churches.

i
which were no longer pleasing

(cvnp6o-8eKTos,
Pet.
ii.
5).
blemish;
these are
made
in
Unlike the old sacrifices were acceptable Those were animals without spot or a pure and acceptable offering by the
to the Lord, these
10 ir. tov aoaparos 'I. Xp. should be omitted (see below). 1 have therefore my proper pride, and a feeling of confidence in my position, which arises from the fact that I am a servant of Christ, and a priest of the Gospel of God/ St. Paul is defending his assumption of authority, and he does so on two grounds: (1) His Apostolic mission, 6m rfjv x"P lv T h v 8<>fci<rav poi, as proved by his successful labours (vv. 18-20); (2) the sphere of his labours, the Gentile world more especially that portion of it in which the Gospel had not been officially preached. The emphasis
npoacpopa
cf.
Holy Spirit which dwells For the construction of

1
them
(cf. viii. 9,
n).
Heb.
x.
17. e'xw ou^ TTjf Ka6yy\cnv.
The
rf]v
406
therefore
iii.

is
[XV. 17-19.
With Kai>xw LV
cf.
on
iv Xp.
'I.,
and
.
rd
trp\<:
rbv 6e6v.
27, 1 Cor. xv. 31 ; with the whole verse, 2 Cor. x. 13 r)p.eU 8e oii\\ els ra ciperpa Kav\rjcr6p.f6a .17 6 be Kav%a>pevos iv Kvpia> Kav\dcr6(i),
.
The RV. has not improved the text by adding rr)v before Kaiixqaiv. The combination N A LP, Boh., Arm., Chrys., Cyr., Theodrt. is stronger than that of B D E F G in this Epistle. C seems uncertain.
For I will not presume to mention 18. ou y^P ToXjjLrjaw k.t.X. any works but those in which I was myself Christ's agent for the conversion of Gentiles/ St. Paul is giving his case for the assump'
tion of authority (covgipm).
It is
only his
own
labour or rather
works done through himself that he cares to mention. But the value of such work is that it is not his own but Christ's working in him, and that it is among Gentiles, and so gives him a right to exercise authority over a Gentile Church like the Roman. Boh. Hard., etc.) cf. 2 Cor. With roXô-o) x. 12; there seems to be a touch of irony in its use here; with
(NACDEFGLP,
xii.
KaTeipyaaaro 2 Cor.
'
12,
Rom.
vii.
1 3,
&C.
with 12
to.
Xo'yo)
Kai epyw,
in
speech or action,'
Cor. x. 11.
k.t.X.:
cf.
19. iv SuydjJiei
ftwdp-eai
orrjjxeiwi'
Cor.
xii.
pev
o-rjp.ela
tov
aftoaToXov Kareipydafrj iv vpuv iv

:
nucri] tHtopovjj, o-rjpelois
re Kai repaai Kai
Heb.
1
ii.
ko\ 7roiKi\uis
6i\r)(Tiv:
ftvvupeai
xii.
4 (Xvvf7npapTvpoiiuTos tov Qeov arjpciois re Kai ripaai Ayiov p.epiap.ols Kara, rfjv ovtov Ka\ Tlvevp-aroi
28.
used throughout the
Cor.
The combination
arip.ua koX rtpara is that habitually
N. T. to express what are popularly called miracles. Both words have the same denotation, but different connotations, rkpas implies anything marvellous or extraordinary in itself, ar/puov represents the same event, but viewed not as an objectless phenomenon but as a sign or token of the agency by which it is accomplished or the purpose it is intended to fulfil. Often a third word ovvapus is added which implies that these works are the Here St. Paul varies the expresexhibition of more than natural power. sion by saying that his work was accomplished in the power of signs and wonders they are looked upon as a sign and external exhibition of the Apostolic xnpis. See Trench, Miracles xci Fri. ad loc. There can be no doubt that St. Paul in this passage assumes that he possesses the Apostolic power of working what are ordinarily called miracles. The evidence for the existence of miracles in the Apostolic Church is twofold on the one hand the apparently natural and unobtrusive claim made by the Apostles on behalf of themselves or others to the power of working miracles, on the other the definite historical narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. The two witnesses corroborate one another. Against them it might be argued that the standard of evidence was lax, and that the miraculous and non-miraculous were not sufficiently distinguished. But will the first argument hold against a personal assertion ? and does not the
'
' ; ;
:
narrative of the Acts
make
it
clear that miracles in a perfectly correct sense

?
of the
word were
definitely intended
iv SumjJtei ni/eujxaTos 'Ayi'ou
cf.
ver. 13,
and on the reading here
Paul's Apostolic labours are a sign of commission because they have been accompanied by a manifestation of more
see below.
St.
XV.
19.]

is
407
the
than natural gifts, and the source of his power with which he is filled.
Holy
Spirit
unfinished expression.
This seems one of those passages in which the value of the text of B where it is not vitiated by Western influence is conspicuous (cf iv 1) It reads (alone or with the support of the Latin Fathers) vve vparos without any addition. N L P &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c, add Oeov, A C D F G Boh \ ulg. Arm., Ath. &c. read ayiov. Both were corrections of what seemed an
dird 'kpouo-aXrjfi Kal kukXw jxe' These words xp! To0 'iWuptKoO. have caused a considerable amount of discussion. 1. The first question is as to the meaning of kvk\co. (1) The majority of modern commentators (Fri! Gif. Mey-W.) interpret it to mean the country round Jerusalem, as if it were k<x\ rod ku/cAw, and explain it to mean Syria or in a more confined sense the immediate neighbourhood of the city. But it may be
,
pointed out that kvkXco in the instances quoted of it in this sense (Gen. xxxv. 5 xli. 48) seems invariably to have the article. (2) It may be suggested therefore that it is better to take it as
;
do the majority of the Greek commentators and the AV. 'from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum.' So Oecuinenius kCkXv tva firj ttjv /tar tvdclav odbv evdvpr)djjs, dX\a Kara ra irtp-g and to the same effect Chrys. Theodrt. Theophylact. This meaning is exactly supported by Xen. Anab. VII. i. 14 Ka norcpa 8ca toO Upov opovs 8em -nopeveaOai, tj kvkXoi 81a pearjs ttjs Qpa<is, and substantially by Mark
\
vi. 6.
has also been debated whether the words 'as far as Illyria' or exclude that country. The Greek is ambiguous; certainly it admits the exclusive use. pcxpi QaXdaar/s can be used clearly as excluding the sea. As far as regards the facts the narrative of the Acts (to pepr) entlva Acts xx. 2 ; cf. Tit. iii. 12) suggests that St. Paul may have preached in Illyria, but leave it uncertain. perfeclly tenable explanation of the words would be that if Jerusalem were taken as one limit and the Eastern boundaries of Illyria as the other, St. Paul had travelled over the whole of the intervening district, and not merely confined himself to the direct route between the two places. Jerusalem and Illyria in fact
2.
It
include
represent the limits. If this be the interpretation of the passage it is less important to fix the exact meaning of the word Illyria as used here but a passage in Strabo seems to suggest the idea which was in St. Paul's mind when he wrote. Strabo, describing the Egnatian way from the Adriatic sea-coast, states that it passes through a portion of
;
Illyria before it reaches Macedonia, and that the traveller along it has the Illyrian mountains on his left hand. St. Paul would have followed this road as far as Thessalonica, and if pointing Westward he had asked the names of the mountain region and of the peoples
4 o8
inhabiting
[XV. 19-21.
-The it, he would have been told that it was 'Illyria/ term therefore is the one which would naturally occur to him as fitted to express the limits of his journeys to the West (Strabo vii.
7-4).
period in two senses, be used for what was otherwise called Dalmatia, the province on the Adriatic sea-coast north (2) Ethnically it would mean the of Macedonia and west of Thrace. country inhabited by Illyrians, a portion of which was included in the Roman it is used in Appian, Illyrica 1, 7; this sense In Macedonia. of province Jos. Bell. Iud. II. xvi. 4 ; and the passage of Strabo quoted above.
(i)
The word Ulyria might apparently be used at this As the designation of a Roman province it might
irir\T]pwKei'ai to
eyca 8uikovos
Kara
ttjv oiK.ovoyi.iav
euayYeXior tou XpicrroG cf. Col. i. 25 tov Qenv ttjv dodelaruv fici els
:
rjs
eyevofxrjv
vfxas, ir\r)-
imo-at tov \6yov tov Oeov.
In both passages the meaning
is
to
'fulfil,'
In 'carry out completely/ and so in the AV. 'to fully preach.' what sense St. Paul could say that he had done this, see below. 20. outw 8e <fn\oTifJiou|m,ei'ov k.t.X. introduces a limitation of the Within that area there had been statement of the previous verses.
places where he had not been eager to preach, since he cared only ovrco is exto spread the Gospel, not to compete with others. fyikoTifiovnevov ( 1 Thess. iv. 1 1 ; 2 Cor. plained by what follows.
v.
means to strive eagerly,' having lost apparently in late Greek See Field, Olium Norv. iii. p. 100, primary idea of emulation. who quotes Polyb. i. 83 Diod. Sic. xii. 46 ; xvi. 49 ; Piut. Vit.
9)
'
its
Caes.
liv.
:
uivo^dvQr]
Isa. xxvi.
'so
named
vi.
as to be worshipped.'
aXXo'rpioi> cf. 2
Cf. 2
Tim.
ii.
19;
St. Paul Cor. x. 15, 16. 10) as laying a 'foundation stone': oocpos apxireKTcov 6e[xeXinv e6r}K.a' a\\6s fie eVotKoSoêi and SO cos generally the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. ii. 20). St. Paul describes the aim of his 21. dXXd Ka0ws yiyparrrai.
13; Amos dXXoTpioK Oep&ior.
10.
For
describes his
work
(1 Cor.
iii.
mission (the limitations of which he has just mentioned) in words chosen from the O. T. The quotation which follows is taken verbally from the of Isa. Iii. 15, which differs but not es-
LXX
from the Hebrew. The Prophet describes the astonishment of the nations and kings at the suffering of the servant of That which hath not been told them they shall see.' Jehovah. The LXX translates this those to whom it was not told shall see,' and St. Paul taking these words applies them (quite in accordance with the spirit of the original) to the extension of the knowledge of the true Servant of Jehovah to places where his name has not been mentioned.
sentially
'
'
Verses 19-21, or rather a portion of them (&<tt pe . . . dWd), are still objected to by commentators (as by Lipsius) who recognize the futility of
XV.
19-21.]
409
the objections to the chapter as a whole. In a former case (xi. 8-10) the clumsiness of an excision suggested by Lipsius was noticed and here he has not been any happier. He omits ver. 20, but keeps the quotation in ver. 21, yet this quotation is clearly suggested by the preceding words ovx oirov uvofxaaOr] Xpiaros. It would be strange if an interpolator were to make the sequence of thought more coherent. The general objections to the passage seem to be (1) It is argued that St. Paul had never preached in Jerusalem, nor would have been likely to mention that place as the starting-point of his mission that these words therefore are a 'concession made to the Jewish Christians,' and hence that the chapter is a result of the same conciliation tendency which produced the Acts. Most readers would probably be satisfied with being reminded that according to the Acts St. Paul had preached in Jerusalem (Acts ix. 28, 29). But it may be also pointed out that St. Paul is merely using the expression geographically to define out the limits within which he had preached the Gospel; while he elsewhere (Rom.xi. 26) speaks of Sion as the centre from which the Gospel has gone forth. (2) It is asserted that St. Paul had never preached in Illyricum. There is some inconsistency in first objecting to the language of this passage because it agrees with that of the Acts, and then criticizing it because it contains some statement not supported by the same book. But the reference to Illyricum has been explained above. The passages of the Acts quoted clearly leave room for St. Paul having preached in districts inhabited by Illyrians. He would have done so if he had gone along the Egnatian way. But the words do not necessarily mean that he had been in Illyria, and it is quite possible to explain them in the sense that he had preached as far as that province and no further. In no case do they contain any statement inconsistent with the genuineness of the passage. (3) It is objected that St. Paul could in no sense use such a phrase as TteTrXrjpwuhai to evayyiXiov. But by this expression he does not mean that he had preached in every town or village, but only that everywhere there were centres from which Christianity could spread. His conception of the duties of an Apostle was that he should found churches and leave to others to build on the foundation thus laid (1 Cor. iii. 7, 10). As a matter of fact within the limits laid down Christianity had been very widely preached. There were churches throughout all Cilicia (Acts xv. 42), Galatia, and Phrygia (Gal. i. 1 ; Acts xviii. 23). The three years' residence in Ephesus implied that that city was the centre of missionary activity extending throughout all the province of Asia (Acts xix. 10) even to places not visited by St. Paul himself (Col. ii. 1). Thessalonica was early a centre of Christian propaganda (1 Thess. i. 7, 8 iv. 10), and later St. Paul again spent some time there (Acts xx. 2). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians contains in the greeting the words aw rofs ayiois Tract rots ovaiv iv 0A77 ttj 'Axaiq, showing that the long residence at Corinth had again produced a wide extension of the Gospel. As far as the Adriatic coast St. Paul might well have considered that he had fulfilled his mission of preaching the Gospel, and the great Egnatian road he had followed would lead him straight to
; ;
Rome.
found in the words ' that I may not build on another Paul has just expressed his desire to go to Rome, that in fact he expresses this desire constantly (i. 5, 13; xii. 3 xv. 15), but that here he states that he does not wish to build on another man's foundation how then it is asked could he wish to go to Rome where there was already a church ? But there is no evidence that Christianity had been officially or systematically preached there (Acts xxviii. 22), and only a small
(4)
difficulty is
man's foundation.'
It is said that St.
community was in existence, which had grown up chiefly as composed of settlers from other places. Moreover, St. Paul specially says that it is for the sake of mutual grace and encouragement that he wishes to go there; he
; ;
410
westward
[XV. 22, 23.
implies that he does not wish to stay long, but desires to press on further
(ver. 24).
THE APOSTLE'S
XV.
coming
22-33.
to
PLAT5TS.
/ have
been these
many
times hindered from
Noiv it. I hope I may accomplish my wish in the course of a journey But not immediately. I must first take to Jeruto Spain. salem the contributions sent tliither by Macedonia and Achaia a generous gift, and yet but a just recompense for
yon, although I have long eagerly desired
the spiritual blessings the Gentile Churches
have received
from the Jews. When this mission is accomplished I hope I may come to you oit my way to Spain (vv. 22-29). Meantime I earnestly ask your prayers for my own personal safety and that the gifts I bear may be received by I shall then, if God zvill, come to you with the Church. a light heart, and be refreshed by your company. May the God ofpeace make His peace to light upon you (vv. 30-33).
22. 816 k<xi. The reason why St. Paul had been so far prevented from coming to Rome was not the fear that he might build on another man's foundation, but the necessity of preaching Christ in the districts through which he had been travelling now there was no region untouched by his apostolic labours, no further place for eveKonTo^v : Gal. v. 7; 1 Th. ii. 18; action in those districts.
;
Pet.
iii.
7.
'
t& TroXXd, these many times,' i. e. all the times when I thought of doing so, or had an opportunity, as in the R V. not, as most commentators, for the most part (Vulg. plerumque). -naWaKis, which is read by Lips, with B D E F G, is another instance of Western influence in B. 23. vuvl 8e p)icri totto^ e^v, seeing that I have no longer
; ' ' *
opportunity for work in these regions.'
ro-nov,
'
as in
xii.
19, q.v.
kA^kwi, Gal. i. 21 regions (2 Cor. xi. 10 often in Polybius). bnm&iay does not occur elsewhere; but inmoBtlv (Rom. i. 11; 2 Cor. v. 2.; ix. 14; Phil. i. 8; ii. 26; 1 Th. iii. 6 2 Tim. i. 4; James iv. 5; 1 Pet. ii. 2) and emwodrja-is (2 Cor. vii. 7, 11) are not uncommon. On its signification, 'a longing desire,' see on i. 11. tKtiv&v a very favourite word in the Acts of the Apostles (ix. 23
iv.
Eph.
1
27
Heb.
xii.
17,
'
opportunity,'
;
scope for action.'

;
tracts
'
or
'
'
xviii. 18,
&c).
'It
is
likely
enough
at
that St. Paul's special interest

his
in the
Christian
community
Rome, though hardly perhaps
XV.
23, 24.]
it,
THE APOSTLE'S PLANS
411
dates from his acquaintance with Aquila and This was somewhere about six years before the writing of the Epistle to the Romans, and that interval would
Priscilla at Corinth.
knowledge of
perhaps
suffice to justify his

irSjv
irStv,
Uavau the dno roAX&*

a7r6
them
(a rather
language about having desired to visit vague phrase, but not so strong as
easily substituted for it)' Hort,
which was
Rom. and Eph.
p. 11.
>
For kwnroeiav Se exav Western authorities (D F G) read ex w an attempt to correct the grammar of the sentence, ixavuv, read by B C 37. 59. 71, Jo.-Damasc, is probably right for tto\?Jv, which is supported by all other authorities and is read by R.V.
e'Xeuo-o/xat npos vpas, which are inserted must be omitted on conclusive manuscript evidence, while yap must as certainly be inserted after ekniCco. These changes make the sentence an anacolouthon, almost exactly resembling that in v. 12 ff., and arising from very much the same
24. In this verse the words

after Snavlav,
by the TR.
St. Paul does not finish the sentence because he feels that he must explain what is the connexion between his visit to Spain
causes.
Rome, so he begins the parenthesis {\nifa yap. he must explain the reason why he does not start at once ; he mentions his contemplated visit to Jerusalem and the purpose of it. This leads him so far away from the original sentence that he is not able to complete it; but in ver. 28 he resumes the main argument, and gives what is the logical, but not the grammatical, apodosis (cf. v. 18). ws &v Tropcu'cjjjKH. The cos av is temporal cf. Phil. ii. 23 ; 1 Cor. xi. 34 on this latter passage Evans, in Speakers Comm. p. 328, writes : When I come rather according as I come the presence of the av points to uncertainty of the time and of the event for this USe COmp. Aesch. Elim. 33 pavrevopai yap cos av f)y?)Tai decs.' Trpoirefi<|>0T)i/ai: 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 11 2 Cor. i. 16; need not mean more than to be sent forward on a journey with prayers and good
his desire to visit
feels
and
Then he
'
wishes.
els
The best commentary on this verse is ch. i. 1 1 ff. Lipsius again strikes out vv. 23, 24 and below in ver. 28 SV
1-1)1/
vp.cov
most arbitrary and unnecessary proceeding. The construction of the passage has been explained above and is quite in accordance with St. Paul's style, and the desire to pass further west and visit Spain is not in any way inconsistent with
Snaviav
Rome. The existence of a community there preclude him from visiting the city, or from preaching in it but it would make it less necessary for him to remain long. On the other hand, the principal argument against the genuineness of the passage, that St. Paul never did visit Spain (on which see below ver. 28), is most inconclusive ; a forger would never have interpolated a passage in order to suggest a visit to Spain which had never taken place, But all such criticism fails
the desire to did not at
visit
all
;
4 12
[XV. 24-27-
absolutely to realize the width and boldness of St. Paul's schemes. He must carry the message of the Gospel ever further. Nothing will stop him but the end of his own life or the barrier of the
ocean. 25.
Spain.
ttjs els
St.
Paul
now mentions
some delay
in his visit to
dytois
Rome, and
a further reason which will cause his missionary journey to
2 Cor. viii. 4 ttjv Koivaviav ttjs 8iaKovlas expression ministering to the saints has become almost a technical expression in St. Paul for the contributions made by the Gentile Christians to the Church at Jerusalem. 26. eu%oKr\(rav implies that the contribution was voluntary, and made with heartiness and good-will see on Rom. x. 1 (evdoKia)
SiciKoyoji' tois
:
cf.
tovs aylovs.
The
'
'
Gal. i. 15. Koivwviav: of a collection or contribution 2 Cor. &tt\6ttjti rrjs koivoovuis eh avrovs xa\ eh Ttavras and
1
Cor.
i.
21
viii.
4;
ix.
13
Koivcovelv
Rom.
Oil
XH. 13 TCUS XP e ^ alS T V 4yMl KOlV(x)VO VVTS. TTTWXOUS : cf. Gal. ii. IO fxovov ra>v ttto>x^ v the poor Christians at Jerusalem see James
des Origines, &c. vol. iv. ch. 3. were the wealthy aristocracy,
1va
ii.
p-vr)povevcop.eu.
ff.
Renan, Hist,
In Jerusalem the Sadducees, who were the determined opponents of Christianity, and there must have been in the city a very large class of poor who were dependent on the casual employment and spasmodic alms which are a characteristic of a great religious
The existence of this class is clearly implied in the There narrative at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles. was from the very first a considerable body of poor dependent on
centre.
and hence the organization of the Christian community tov (1 Tim. v. 19) and common Church fund (dno koivoO Ign. Ad Polyc. iv. 3) and officers for distributing alms (Acts vi. 1-4) must have sprung up very early.
the Church,
with
its
lists
St. Paul emphasizes the good-will with 27. euSoKTjaai' k.t.X. this contribution was made by repeating the word evboKtjaav ; he then points out that in another sense it was only the repayment of a debt. The Churches of the Gentiles owed all the spiritual blessings they enjoyed to that of Jerusalem, from whom is Christ according to the flesh/ and they could only repay the debt by
which
'
ministering in temporal things.

iryeufjiaTiKois
words.
Tj/xels
Both are characteristically Pauline aapKiKois. Cor. IX. II n rjp-eh byt* to. irvevp-ariKa ianeipafxev, peya el vfxav to aapKim deplaofiev; aapKiKois is used without any bad
. . .
association.
be a sharer or participator
;
of which the meaning is of course ' to be used either of the giver or of the receiver. The giver shares with the receiver by giving contributions, so Rom. the receiver with the giver by receiving contrixii. 13 (quoted on ver. 26) The normal construction in the N. T. is as here with the butions, so here.
KOiva>vT)<rav.
The word
tcoivauea),
in,'
may
XV.
27, 28.]
:
THE APOSTLE'S PLANS
413
is
dative
common
once (Heb. ii. 14) it is used with the genitive, and this construction in the O. T. (lit. on Gal. vi. 6).
The contributions for the poor in Jerusalem are mentioned in Rom. xv. 26, 27 1 Cor. xvi. 1-3 2 Cor. ix. 1 ff; Acts xxiv. 17, and
; ;
form the subject of the ablest and most convincing section in Paley's Horae Paulinae. Without being in any way indebted to one another, and each contributing some new element, all the different accounts fit and dovetail into one another, and thus imply that they are all historical. For the singular evidence which this passage affords of the genuineness of the Epistle, and what is more important, as it has been impugned, of this chapter in particular, see Paley's Horae Paulinae, chap. ii. No. i.' Jowett, ad loc, and
'
for
some
further
reff.
.
see Introd. 4.
ff^payiadfjiei'os.
St.
28. eirtTeXeaas
Paul resumes his argu-
ment and states his plans after the digression he has just made on what lies in the immediate future. With eWeXeVa? (a Pauline word), cf. Phil. i. 6 it was used especially of the fulfilment of religious rites (Heb. ix. 6 and in classical authors), and coupled with XeiTovpytjaai. above, suggests that St. Paul looks upon these
;
contributions of the Gentile communities as a solemn religious offering and part of their eux a P l0 r H for the benefits received. o-^payio-dfjievos, having set the seal of authentication on.' The seal was used as an official mark of ownership hence especially the expression 'the seal of baptism' (2 Cor. i. 22; Eph. i. 13; see on iv. 11). Here the Apostle implies that by taking the con"
'
'
and presenting them to the Church, he puts mark on them (as a steward would do), showing that they are the fruit to the Church of Jerusalem of those spiritual blessings (nvevnciTiKd) which through him had gone forth to the Gentile
tributions to Jerusalem,
the
world.
els tV Z-naviav. It has been shown above that it is highly probable that St. Paul should have desired to visit Spain, and that therefore nothing in these verses throws any doubt on the authenticity of the
chapter as a whole or of any portions of it. further question Was the journey ever carried out? Some fresh light is perhaps thrown on the question by Professor Ramsay's book The Church and the Empire. If his arguments are sound, there is no reason to suppose that if St. Paul was martyred at Rome (as tradition seems to suggest) he must necessarily have suffered in what is ordinarily called the Neronian persecution. He might have been beheaded either in the later years of Nero's reign or even under Vespasian. So that, if we are at liberty to believe that he survived his first imprisonment, there is no need to compress, as has been customary, the later years of his missionary activity.
arises,
It is
journey.
on these assumptions easier to find room for Have we evidence for it ? dismissing later
the Spanish
writers
who
4T4
seem
[XV. 28-30.
to have had no independent evidence, our authorities are reduced to two, the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, and Clement of Rome. We cannot lay much stress on the former it is possible perhaps that the writer had independent knowledge, but it is certainly more probable that he is merely drawing a concluthe words are sion, and not quite a correct one, from this Epistle The sed et profecfionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spania?n proficiscentis. passage in Clement ( 5) runs as follows Tlai/Xos vnopov^ fipafltlov
;
Vlttbtlfap, eTTTaKis 8((Tfxa. (poptcras, (pvyaSevdcis, \16aa6ei9, Kr)pv ytvofxfvos
%v re
rfi
dvaroXfj Kai iv
Tij
dvaei,
to yevvalov
tj}?
7ri<TTea>s
avrov
rrjs
icXeos
TKafiev, biKaioavvqv di8das
6\ov tov Koauov kcu ri to Teppa
dvatcas
iX6u>v, Kai fxapTvprjaas eVi tu>v rjyovpevaiv, ovtcos dirrpWayr] tov

fls
Koapov kcu
tov ayiov tottov inoptvBt].
This passage
;
is
much
words
stronger,
and
Lightfoot's note in favour of interpreting the

dvo-fos as
r6 T(pp,a t^?
that a Jew, as
relatively to
meaning Spain is very weighty but is it quite certain Clement probably was (according to Lightfoot himself), speaking of St. Paul another Jew would not look upon Rome
Jerusalem as the
for
re'pjua ttjs Suo-ews,
'the western limit'?
example speak of Athens as being in the There is also some force in Hilgenfeld's Eastern Mediterranean. argument that i\6dv and paprvprio-as should be taken together. For these reasons the question whether St. Paul ever visited Spain must remain very doubtful. St. Paul feels confident that his 29. irXTjpwfxaTi see on xi. 12.
in
:
We
England might
visit to
He a special gift of Christ's blessing. confer on the Church a x (*f n 'iJ a mnvftartKov, and will in his turn be comforted by the mutual faith which will be exhibited. Cf. i.
Rome
will result in
will
-
11, 12.
It
has been pointed out
how
strongly these words
make
for the
authenticity
and early date of
this chapter.
No
one could possibly
write in this
manner
St.
under which
iv
at a later date, knowing the circumstances Paul actually did visit Rome. See also ver. 32 ha
vplv.
\apa e\6cov npos vpds Sia deXrjparos GeoC avvavanavo-copat
The TR. reads with N c ev\oyias tov evayy(\iov tov decisive authority.
L &c,
X/>.
The words tov
Vulg.-clem. Syrr. Arm., Chrys. Theodrt. ev. tov should be omitted on
30. The reference to his visit to Jerusalem reminds St. Paul of the dangers and anxieties which that implies, and leads him to conclude this section with an earnest entreaty to the Roman Chris-
Hort {Rom. and Eph. in prayers on his behalf. pp. 42-46) points out how this tone harmonizes with the dangers that the Apostle apprehended (cf. Acts xx. 17-38, xxi. 13, &c.) 'We cannot here mistake the twofold thoughts of the Apostle's
tians to join
mind.
full
He is full of eager anticipation of visiting Rome with the blessing of the accomplishment of that peculiar ministration.
'
XV.
30-32.]
is
THE APOSTLE'S PLANS

43).
415
But he
no
less full
of misgivings as to the probability of escaping
with his
life' (p.
81& ttjs dydTTT)s tou nêufjiaTos. That brotherly love which is one fruits of the Spirit working in us (cf. Gal. v. 22). That irvevna is personal is shown by the parallelism with the first clause. auvayotvivaaQcu. He breaks off afresh in an earnest entreaty to
of the
'
an intense energy of prayer, wrestling as it were (Hort, op. cit. p. 43). They will as it were take part in the contest that he must fight by praying on his behalf to God, for all prayer is a spiritual wrestling against opposing powers. So of our Lord's agony in the garden: Luke xxii. 44; Matt. xxvi. 42. Cp. Origen ad loc. Vix enim invenies, ut oranti cuiquam non aliqaid inanis et alienae cogita Horn's occur ra', et intentionem, qua in Deum mens dirigiiur, declmet ac frangat, atque earn per ea quae non compeiit, rapiat. Et ideo agon magnus est orationis, ut obsistentibus mimic is, et oraiionis sensum in diversa rapientibus, fixa ad Deum semper mens stabili
to join in
:
them
him
intentione
contendat,
ut merito possit etiam ipse dicere:
certamen
bonum
certavi,
cursum consummavi.
31. The Apostle's fear is double. He fears the attacks upon himself of the unbelieving Jews, to whom more than any other Christian teacher he was ah object of hatred and he is not certain whether the peace-offering of the Gentile Churches which he was bearing to Jerusalem would be accepted as such by the narrow
:
Jewish Christians at Jerusalem. How strong the first feeling was and how amply justified the Acts of the Apostles show (Acts xx. 3, 22; xxi. n).
correctly.
In ver. 30 dSt\(poi In ver. 31
is
17
omitted by
5cvpo(popia lor SiaKovia,
76, Aeth., Chrys. alone, but perhaps and iv 'UpovaaXrj/x for els 'I.
are instances of Western paraphrase shared by
B (BDFG).
32. But the prayer that the Roman Christians offer for St. Paul will also be a prayer for themselves. If his visit to Jerusalem be successful, and his peace-offering be accepted, he will come to Rome with stronger and deeper Christian joy. After the personal danger and the ecclesiastical crisis of which the personal danger formed a part' (Hort) he hopes to find rest in a community as yet untroubled by such strife and distraction. auyai/airauo-Gj/jiai, I may rest and refresh my spirit with you.' Only used here in this sense (but later in Hegesippus ap. Eus. H. E. IV. xxii. 2). Elsewhere it is used of sleeping together
'
'
(Is. xi. 6). The unusual character of the word may have been the cause of its omission in B and the alteration in some Western MSS. (see below).
some
There are several variations of reading in this verse (rvvavanavawnai with (1) NAC, Boh. Arm., Orig.-lat. read kK6wv after variation in the position of t\Qwv (after iva N, Boh., Orig.-lat. Xapy A C agreeing in this with other authorities). All later MSS. with the
:
416
[XV. 32-XVI.
1.
Western group read tXOa) and insert Kai before ovvavanavawixai. B is alone in having tKOai and omitting ovvavairauowixai vfiiv, but receives support in the reading of some Western authoiities D E read avoif/vco fitO' vnaiv, F G avav., agreeing with most Latin authorities, refrigerer vobiscum. ipvxoj (2) For Sid OeX-qixaros @ov (A CLP, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm., Orig.-lat. (with defg), Chrys. Thdrt.), N Ambrst. have 5. 0. 'lrjffov Xpicrod, Lightfoot (On afresh Revision, &c., fuld. Xpiorov 'It]<xov, B Kvpiov 'Irjaov. pp. 106 ff.) suggests that the original reading was 6e\r)fiaros used absolutely See also his note on of the Divine will: cf. Rom. ii. 18; 1 Cor. xvi. 12. Ign. Eph. % 20, Rom. 1 (where some authorities add rov eov, others domini), Smyrn. 1, II. Elsewhere in St. Paul the expression always is 0t\r]fia Qfov, except once, Eph. v. 17 to OiXT^xa tov Kvpiov.
; ijl.
DEFG
cf. ver. 5. 33. 6 8e 0e6s ttjs elprji'ns request for a prayer with a prayer of his
:
St.
own
for them.
Paul concludes his Peace/

'
a keynote of the Epistle,
is
one of
his last thoughts.
AFG
this
and some minuscules omit apr/v. On the importance ascribed to word by some commentators see the Introduction, 9.
PERSONAL GREETINGS.
XVI.
1-16.
/ commend
to
you Phoebe our
sister.
Receive
her as becometh members of a Christian Church. For she has stood by many others, and myself as well (vv. 1, a).
Greet Prisca and Aquila.

or persons
(vv.
1.
Greet all those whose names
I know, who
are members of your community
3-16).
<ruia<rn)fu.
iii.
' '
see
The ordinary word for to commend/ introduce ' ; a derivative of which appears in the phrase ava-TanKal imoToXai (2 Cor. iii. i ; for its use in the later ecclesiastical writings These letters played a very large part in see Suicer, Thesaurus). the organization of the Church, for the tie of hospitality (cf. xii. 13), implying also the reception to communion, was the great bond which united the separate local Churches together, and some protection became necessary against imposture. <*>otj3r]i>. Nothing is otherwise known of Phoebe, nor can we She was presumably the bearer of learn anything from the name.
on
5,
this letter.
SidKOMo^,
ferred to
quoted).
The only place in which this office is rea deaconess.' byname in the N. T. (for 1 Tim. iii. 11, v. 3 ff. cannot be The younger Pliny (Ep. X. xcvi. 8) speaks 01 mmisirae:
'
quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis, quae minisirae They do not dicebanlur, quid esset veri el per tormenia quaerere. appear elsewhere to be referred to in any certain second-century writing; but constant reference to them occurs in the Apostolic
XVI.
1,
2.]
PERSONAL GREETINGS
books under the name of
(viii.
'
417
biaicovos
(ii.
Constitutions, in the earlier

Hi. 15), in
26
the later of SmKoWo-a

'
19, 20, 28).

'
Of
the exact
deaconess' to the widows (1 Tim. v. 3) it is not necessary to speak, as we have no sufficient evidence for so early a date it is quite clear that later they were distinct as bodies, and that the widows were considered inferior to the deaconesses (Apost. it is probable however that the deaconesses were for Const, iii. 7) That the reference to the most part chosen from the widows. a deaconess is in no sense an anachronism may be inferred both
relation of the
; ; ' '
from the importance of

clearly
8iaKvia in the early
Church, which had quite
necessary for special male officials to be appointed, and from the separate and secluded life of women. From the very beginning of Christianity more particularly in fact at the beginning there must have been a want felt for women to perform for women the functions which the deacons performed for men. Illustrations of this need in baptism, in visiting the women's part of a house, in introducing women to the deacon or bishop, may be found in the Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 15, &c). So much is clear. An office in the Church of this character, we may argue on a priori grounds, there must have been ; but an order in the more ecclesiastical sense of the term need not have Mkovos is technical, but need hardly be more so than is existed. (The arguments of Lucht against the auTrpoaruTis in ver. 2. thenticity of portions of these two verses are examined very fully
it
made
by Mangold, Der Romerbrief und pp. 136 ff.)
seine geschichtlichen Vorausselzung,
tt)s ckkXtjcticis Ttis ci' Keyxpe^s- Cenchreae was the port of Corinth on the Saronic Gulf. During St. Paul's stay at Corinth that city had become the centre of missionary activity throughout all Achaia where there (cf. 2 Cor. i. 1), and the port towards Ephesus, a place must have been many Jews living, could easily be a centre of the Its position would afford particularly an opporChristian Church. tunity for the exercise by Phoebe of the special duties of hospitality. in a manner worthy of the saints,' i. e. of 2. diws iw dyiW, Not only to provide for her wants, but to admit her the Church.'
' '
to every spiritual privilege as

irpocrrdns,
'
in the Lord.'
a 'succourer' or 'helper'; this almost technical word is suggested by TtapaaT^re. It is the feminine form of nporepresentative of (TTdTrjs, used like the Latin patronus for the legal
In Jewish communities it meant the legal repreassee Schurer, Die Gemeinde- Verf or wealthy patron sung feC, InS. 31: N0Ake K6IT6 TAIC TipOCTATHC OCIOC 6ZHC6N 6TH OB We also find the word koimhcic coy, cf. also C. I. G. 5361. e N ei P H see used of an office-bearer in a heathen religious association, line 34 (= C.I. G. Ins. 20, 202, Religieuses, p. Associations Foucart,
the foreigner.
sentative
:
|
126) 8oKipu&T<o
de 6 TrpoardTrjs kiu 6 dp X pauiarrjs Ka\ 6 ypap.pa.rtvs
m\
B e
4i
of
[XVI. 2-4.
Here the expression suggests that Phoebe ra/unt Ken avvbiKoi. was a person of some wealth and position who was thus able to act as patroness of a small and struggling community. So the MSS. here by preponderating 3. npi<ncai> Kal 'AkuW. authority for npiWAAa k. 'a. Priscilla is a diminutive for Prisca, and
both are
Roman
xviii. 2
names.
the reading
is
in ver. 18 UpiffKiXXa Kal
UpiaKiXXav fwatica avrov, . . . Kal Cor. xvi. 19 'AwXas Kal UpiffKa (so C E F G, &c., Vulg. Syrr. UpiaiciXXa) ; in 2 Tim. iv. 19 Boh., but The fact that Prisca is Upiaicav Kal 'AwXav (by preponderating authority). the two. so often mentioned first suggests that she was the more important oi
In Acts
'AKvXav
in
i
'AwXas;
KBMP,
4.
omres
rbv iavrwv TpdxrjXoi' k.t.X. probably refers to
some
It may have been great danger which they had run on his behalf. recent. the great tumult at Ephesus, although this was somewhat that they If so the danger then incurred may have been the reason had left that city and returned for a time to Rome. The special the reference to the Churches of the Gentiles perhaps arises from were well that, owing to their somewhat nomadic life, they
fact
known
to
many
Christian Churches.
Aquila and
Priscilla.
The movements of Aquila and Priscilla have been considered to be so complicated as to throw doubts on the authenticity of this section of the Rome, but Epistle, or to suggest that it was addressed not to the Church at to the Church ol Ephesus. He and Pontus. From Acts xviii. 1, 2 we learn that Aquila was a Jew of the decree his wife Prisca had been compelled to leave Rome in 52 A.D. by acquainted of Claudius. They retired to Corinth, where they first became some with St. Paul. With him they went to Ephesus, where they remained time ; they were there when the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written, 'AwXas and had a church in their ho*use {aa-na^rai vp.as iv Kvprn; iroXXa This Epistle Kal IlpiaKa avv rrj icar' oTkov avrwv iKitXrjoiq I Cor. xvi. 19). was written probably about twelve months before the Epistle to the In 2 Tim. iv. 19, written in all probability at least eight years
Romans.
later,
they appear again at Ephesus. And is not the is not the life ascribed to them too nomadic? is that coincidence of the church in their house remarkable? The answer certainly a nomadic life was the characteristic of Jews at that day, and was Essays, Biblical p. 299, and a characteristic of Aquila and Priscilla (Lightfoot, know that although Renan, Les Apotres, pp. 96, 97, Zahn, Skizzen, p. 1 69). of Aquila was a Jew of Pontus, yet he and his wife lived, within the space extremely a few years, at Rome, at Corinth, and at Ephesus. Is it then of improbable that they should travel in after years, probably for the sake And if it were so, would they not be likely to make their their business? together? meet could house, wherever they were, a place in which Christians On a priori grounds we cannot argue against the possibility of these them with the changes. Are there any positive arguments for connecting Roman Church ? De Rossi, in the course of his archaeological investigations, investisuggested two traces of their influence, both of which deserve
Now,
We
has
gation.
XVI.
(i)
4.]
PERSONAL GREETINGS
419
the
considerable evidence for connecting this with the names of In the Liber Pontijicalis , in the life of Leo III (795-816), it is described as the ' titulus Aquilae et Priscae' (Duchesne, Lib. Pont. II. p. 20) in the legendary Acts of St. Prisca (which apparently date from the tenth century) it is stated that the body of St. Prisca was translated from the place on the Ostian road where she had been buried, and transferred to the church of St. Aquila and Prisca on the Avenline {Acta Sanctorum, Jan. Tom. ii. p. 187 et deduxerunt ipsam ad urbem Rotnam cum hytnnis et canticis spiritualibus, iuxta Arcum Romanttm in ecclesia sanctorum Marty rum Aquilae et Priscae), and the tradition is put very clearly in an inscription apparently of the tenth century which formerly stood over the door of the church (C. Lns. Christ, ii. p. 443) :
is
Now
Amongst the older churches of Rome is one on the Aventine bearing name of St. Prisca, which gives a title to one of the Roman Cardinals.
there
Priscilla.
Aquila and
Haec domus
est
Aquilae sen Priscae Virginis Almae
Quos lupe Paule tuo ore vchis domino Hie Petre divini Tribuebas fercula verbi
Sepius hocce
loco sacrificans
domino.
Many
be
cited.
later testimonies are referred to
by
De
Rossi, but they need not here
For the theory that this church is on the site of the house of Prisca and Aquila, De Rossi finds additional support in a bronze diploma found in 1776 in the garden of the church bearing the name of G. Marius Pudens Cornelianus : for in the legendary Acts of Pudens, Pudenziana, and Praxedis, Priscilla is stated to have been the mother of Pudens (Ada Sanct. Mai. Tom. iv. p. 297), and this implies some connexion between the names of Aquila and Priscilla and the family of Pudens. The theory is a plausible one, but will hardly at present stand examination. In the first place the name of Aquila and Priscilla (or Prisca) is not the oldest borne by the church from the fourth to the eighth century it seems always to have been the titulus S. Priscae (see Liber Pontijicalis, ed. Duchesne, i. 501, 517 45 ), and although the origin of this name is itself doubtful, it is hardly likely that if the locality had borne the name of Aquila and Priscilla, that name would first have been lost and then revived. It is much more probable that the later name is an attempt to connect the biblical account with this spot and to explain the origin of the name of Prisca. Nor is the second piece of evidence of any greater weight. The acts of Pudens and his daughters, supposed to be narrated by the person called St. Pastor, who was a contemporary of Pius the bishop and addressed his letters to Timothy, are clearly legendary, and little or no s-tress can be laid on the mention of Priscilla as the mother of Pudens. The object of the Acta is in fact to invent a history for martyrs whose names were known, and who were for some reason grouped together. But why were they thus grouped ? The reason probably is given in the statement at the end, that they were buried in the cemetery of Priscilla. These names would probably be found in the fourth century in that cemetery, attached to graves close to one There may still be another, and would form the groundwork of the Acta. some connexion between the names, which may or may not be discovered, but there is not at present any historical evidence for connecting the titulus St. Priscae with the Aquila and Priscilla of the N. T. (see de Rossi, Bull.
;
Arch. Christ. Ser. i. No. 5 (1867), p. 45 ff.) The explorations of (ii) A second line of argument seems more fruitful. De Rossi in the Coemcteiium Priscillae, outside the Porta Salaria, have resulted in the discovery that as the Coemeterium Domitillae starts from a burying-place of Domitilla and her family, it in like manner originates in the burying-place of Acilius Glabrio and other members of the Acilian gens. This seems to corroborate the statement of Dio Cassius (lxvii. 14) that the
e 2
420
[XVI.
4, 5.
Acilius Glabrio who was consul with Trajan in A. D. 91 was a Christian and died as such, and implies that Christianity had penetrated into this as into other leading Roman families. Now the connexion with the subject immediately before us is as follows. The same researches have shown that a name of For instance, in one the females of the Acilian gens is Priscilla or Prisca. inscription we read m' acilius v
c. v.
PRISCILLA
Aquila was a Jew of Pontus
he himself, bore a
:
C
it
how
then does
happen that
his wife, if not
these discoveries. as Clemens the Roman bishop was very probably the freedman of Flavius Clemens. The name Prisca or Priscilla would naturally come to an adherent of the family. The origin of the name Aquila is more doubtful, but If this suggestion be correct, it too might be borne by a Roman freedman. then both the names of these two Roman Christians and the existence of Christianity in a leading Roman family are explained. Two other inscriptions may be quoted, as perhaps of interest. The first
is clearly
The answer seems to be suggested by They were freedmen of a member of the Acilian gens,
Roman name?
Christian
AQUILIAE PRISCAE IN PACE
The second
that
it is
C. J. L. vi. 12273 may be so. but also might be Mithraic

:
The term Renata might suggest
D. M.
AQUILIA
QVAE
SE
RENATA A N
SIBI POSVIT CVRANTE AQVILIO IVSTO ALVMNO ET AQVILIO FRATRE PRISCO
VIVA
The argument
is
not demonstrative, but seems to
make
the return of
Aquila and Priscilla to Rome, and their permanent connexion with the Roman Church, probable. See De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser. iv. No. 6 (1888-9), p. 129 Aquila e Prisca et gli Acilii Glabrioni. Dr. Hort {Rom. and Eph. pp. 12-14), following a suggestion made by Dr. Plumptre {Biblical Studies, p. 417), points out that it is a curious fact that in four out of the six places in which the names occur that of the wife is the first mentioned. He connects the name with the cemetery of St. Prisca, and suggests that Prisca was herself a member of some distinguished Roman family. He points out that only Aquila is called a Jew from Pontus, not his wife. There is nothing inconsistent in this theory with that of the previous argument and if it be true much is explained. It may however be suggested that for a noble Roman lady to travel about with a Jewish husband engaged in mercantile or even artisan work is hardly probable and that the theory which sees in them freed members of a great household is perhaps
;
the most probable. 5. Kal

ttjj'
kcit'
oiko^
auiw
eKKXTjaiaf.
There
is
no
decisive
evidence until the third century of the existence of special buildings used for churches. The references seem all to be to places in In private houses, sometimes very probably houses of a large size. the N.T. we have first of all (Acts xii. 12) the house of Mary, the mother of John, where many were collected together and praying.
Col.
iv.
15 dairdaraadf rovt
iv AaobiKtiq d8(\(}>ovs, Kai Nvjxfrav, Kal rfju
XVI.
5.]
PERSONAL GREETINGS
:
4^1
:
Kar oIkov ovtg>v eKK^rjaiau
Philemon
kcu
T77
kut oikov aov (KKKrjaiq
At a later date we have Clem. Recog. x. 71 besides i Cor. xvi. 19. Theophilus, domus suae ingentem basilicam ecclcsiae nomine consecraret De Rossi, Roma Sott. i. p. 209 Collegium quod est in domo Sergiae So in Rome several of the oldest churches appear to Paulinae. have been built on the sites of houses used for Christian worship.
So perhaps San Clemente is on the site of the house of T. Flavius Clemens the consul (see Lightfoot, Clement, p. 94). There is no reason to suppose that this Church was the meetingsimilar bodies seem to be place of all the Roman Christians We may compare Acta Iustini Marty ris 2 implied in vv. 14, 15. (Ruinart) where however the speaker is of course intentionally
;
vague
Quaesivit Praefectus, querh in locum Christiani convenirent.
Cui respondit lus/inus, eo unumquemque convenire quo vellet ac posset. An, inquit, existimas omnes nos in eumdem locum convenire solitos ? Tunc praefectus : Age, inquit, dicas, Minime res ita se habet
. .
.
quern in locum convenialis, et discipulos tuos congreges.
Respondit
cogno-
Iustinus
Ego prope domum Martini
cuiusdam,
ad balneum
mento Timiolinum, hactenus mansi. Of him nothing is known the name is not an un'Eircu^-ros. common one and occurs in inscriptions from Asia Minor, C. I. G. The following in2953 (from Ephesus), 3903 (from Phrygia). man scription from Rome is interesting, C.I.L. vi. 171 71 dis PRIST MVNIVS EPHESIO EPAENETI F (sic)
:
EPAENETI CIANVS AMICO SVO.

|
I
dirapxri
tt]s
'Aaias
Trjs
i.
:
e.
one of the
1
Roman
on
((tt\v
province of Asia
airapxh
cp.
converts made in the Cor. xvi. 15 oUare ttjv oIk'mv 2rpava,

first
On
eh diaKoviav row ayiois eraa> iavroii. converts see Clem. Rom. xlii mrh xp 8oiapd(ravT(S r<5 ouv Kin TroXets Krjpiuo-ovres Ka8iaTavov ras dnapxas avrmv, mortvfiv. fieWovTcov twv bicucoonvs Kai enLO-Koirovs itpkvpart, els
'Amnios, koi
first
the importance of
all the This name caused great difficulty to Renan, What had analyzed is Church of Ephesus assembled at Rome ?' 'All' when residents at found to mean three persons of whom two had been but is Rome, and the third may have been a native of Ephesus
'
!
(cf. Lightfoot only said to have belonged to the province of Asia How probable it was that there should Biblical Essays, p. 301). may be illustrated be foreigners in Rome attached to Christianity note on an from the Acts of Justin which were quoted in the These give an account of the earlier portion of the verse. Cnantana, martyrdom of seven persons, Justin himself, Charito, Justin we these Of Paeon. and Liberianus, Euelpistus, Hierax, to Rome know was a native of Samaria, and had probably come Emperor was from Ephesus, Euelpistus who was a slave of the of Iconium in Phrygia. a native of Cappadocia, and Hierax was later. years This was about 100
423
[XVI. 5-7.
Vulg.
'Aoias is supported by preponderating authority Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Jo.-Uamasc. Ambist.) against 'Aâ/'as
Syrr., Chrys. Theodrt.).
(NABCDFG,
(LP &c,
For the idea of illustrating this chapter from inscriptions we are of course indebted to Bishop Lightfoot's able article on Caesar's household {Philippians, Since that paper was written, the appearance of a portion of vol. vi. p. 169A of the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions, that, namely, containing the inscriptions of the city of Rome, has both provided us with more extensive material and also placed it in a more convenient form for reference. have therefore gone over the ground again, and either added new illustrations or given references to the Latin Corpus for inscriptions quoted by Lightfoot from Where we have not been able to identify these we have older collections. not, except in a few cases, thought it necessary to repeat his references. large number of these names are found in Columbaria containing the monuments and ashes of members of the imperial household during the first century: these special collections are' kept together in the Corpus (vi. 3926There is also a very large section devoted to other names belong8397). ing to the domus Augusti (vi. 8398-9101). complete use of these materials will not be possible until the publication of the Indices to vol. vi. For a discussion of the general bearing of these references, see Introduction,
We
96.
Mapiai' (which
is
the correct
reading)
may
like
Mapia/i
be
In favour of the latter alterJewish, but it may also be Roman. native in this place it may be noticed that apparently in other cases where St. Paul is referring to Jews he distinguishes them by calling
them
his
Rome
hold,
unites
I
kinsmen (see on two names
ver. 7).
The
list,
following inscription from
in
;
this
C.
1.
L.
vi.
22223 d-m-|
mariae
ib.
ampliatae cet. the next inscription is from the 4394 MARIAE M L XANTHE NYMPHE FEC DE
houseSVO.
tjtis
iroXXoi eKomcujci' els
sake of the
herself.
Roman
upas. This note is added, not for the Church, but as words of praise for Maria
is read by B C P, Boh. Arm. Mapin^ &c, Chrys. evidence for els t/fxas, whioh is a difficult reading, is preponderating (NABCP, Syrr. Boh.), and it is practically supported by the Western group (D E F G, Vulg.), which have kv vjxii'. The correction th rjixas is read by L, Chrys. and later authorities.
Uap'iav
byNDEFGL,
The
Greek name found among members of the The following inscription contains the names of two persons mentioned in this Epistle, both members of the household, C. I. L. vi. 5326 dis manibvs c vlivs hermes VIX ANN XXXIII M V DIEB XIII C IVLIVS ANDRONICVS conlibertvs fec bene merenti de se see also 5325 and
7. 'AySpoVncoi/ a imperial household.
:
1626 where
y
it is
the
is
name
of a slave.
as to whether this
\owiav
there
some doubt
name
is
mas-
a contraction of Junianus, or feminine Junia. Junia is of course a common Roman name, and in that case the two would probably be husband and wife ; Junias on the other hand is less usual as a man's name, but seems to represent a form of contraction common in this list, as Patrobas,
culine, 'lowias
or
'lovpias,
'
XVI.
7.]
PERSONAL GREETINGS
If,
423
and Junias are
Hennas, Olympas.
included
as
is
probable, Andronicus
among the Apostles (see below) then it is more probable that the name is masculine, although Chrysostom does not appear to consider the idea of a female apostle impossible And indeed
:
a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle tous auyyevels jaou. St. Paul almost certainly means by kinsmen/ fellow-countrymen, and not relations. The word is used in this sense in ix. 3, and it would be most improbable that there should be so many relations of St. Paul amongst the members of a distant Church (vv. 7, 11) and also in Macedonia (ver. 21); whereas it is specially significant and in accordance with the whole drift of the Epistle that he should specially mention as his kinsmen those members of a Gentile Church who were Jews. Kal owcuxp-ciXwtous jmou. Probably to be taken literally. Although St. Paul had not so far suffered any long imprisonment, he had certainly often been imprisoned for a short time as at Philippi, 2 Cor. xi. 23 iv (jivXaKah nepiaaoTepas ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. v tTTTaKts dfafxa cpnpeaas. Nor is it necessary that the word should mean that Andronicus and Junias had suffered at the same time as St. Paul ; he might quite well name them fellow-prisoners if they had like him been imprisoned for Christ's sake. Metaphorical explanations of the words are too far-fetched to be probable.
all
is
1 !
to be apostles at
'
iv -rots diroaToXois may mean either (1) to the Apostolic body, or (2) distinguished as Apostles. In favour of the latter interpretation, which is probably correct, are
oiTiyes eio-if em<7T]|moi
well
known
(i) The passage was apparently so commentators, (ii) It is in accordance with the meaning of the words, marked/ would iniarjuos, lit. stamped/ be used of those who were selected from the Apostolic body as 'distinguished.' not of those known to the Apostolic body, or looked upon by the Apostles as illustrious it may be translated those of mark among the Apostles.' (iii) It is in accordance with the wider use of the term dn6aro\os. Bp. Lightfoot pointed out (Gala/tans, p. 93) that this word was clearly used both in a narrow sense of the twelve and also in a wider sense which would include many others. His views have been corroborated and strengthened by the publication of the Didache. The existence of these 'Apostles/ itinerant Christian Evangelists, in Rome will suggest perhaps one of the methods by which the city had been evangelized. 01 Kal Trpo IfxoG yeyoi'acrii' iv Xpiorw. Andronicus and Junias had been converted before St. Paul they therefore belonged to the earliest days of the Christian community ; perhaps even they were.
the
following arguments.
all patristic
taken by
'
'
'
'
'
424
of those
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS who
[XVI.
7, 8.
during the dispersion after the death of Stephen

in
began almost immediately to spread the word

-'Acts xi. 19).
As
Dr.
Weymouth
points out
{On
the
Cyprus and Syria Rendering into
English of the Greek A oris t and Perfect, p. 26) the perfect should here be translated 'were.'
It is utterly amazing,' he writes, ' that in Rom. xvi. 7 ot ml irpb ifiov ytyovaaiv \v Xp. is rendered in the RV. " who also have been in Christ before me." The English idiom is here simply outraged. What officer in our Navy or Army would not stare at the (Sapflapos who should say of a senior " He was in the Navy officer, " He has been in the Service before me"? before me " is the only correct English form. . . The English mind fastens on the idea of time defined by " before me," and therefore uses the simple The Greek Perfect is correctly employed, because it is intended to Past. . . convey, and does convey, the idea that they are still in Christ, while the " English have been " suggests precisely the contrary.'
. .
8. 'AjATrXiaTos
is
the
more
correct reading for the abbreviated
which occurs in the TR. This is a common Roman slave name, and as such occurs in inscriptions of the imperial household. C. I. L. vi. 4899 ampliatvs restitvto fratri SVO FECIT MERENTI FIRMVS C VIBIO 5 1 54 C. VIBIVS ampliato patrono svo, &c, besides inscriptions quoted by Lft. But there is considerable evidence for connecting this name more closely with the Christian community in Rome. In the cemetery of Domitilla, now undoubtedly recognized as one of the earliest of Christian catacombs, is a chamber now known by the name of Ampliatus owing to an inscription which it contains. This chamber is very early pre-Christian in character if not in origin. The cell over which the name of Ampliatus is inscribed is a later insertion, which, from the style of its ornament, is ascribed to the end of the first or beginning of the second century. The inscription
form
'A/i7rA(as
'
'
well-formed letters of the same date. Not far off is another not earlier than the end of the second century, to members of apparently the same family. The two inscriptions are
is
in bold,
inscription,
ampliat[i] PARABILI
1
and avreliae
bonifatiae
|
conivgi
incom
VERAE CASTITATIS FEMINAE QVAE VIXIT ANN XXV M II DIEB IIII HOR VI AVREL AMPLIATVS CVM gordiano The boldness of the lettering in the first filio. inscription is striking. The personal name without any other
Why then should any one in these circumstances receive the honour of an elaborately painted tomb ? The most plausible explanation is that he was for some reason very prominent in the earliest Roman Church. The later inscription clearly suggests that there was a Christian family bearing this name; and the connexion with Domitilla seems to show that here we have the name of a slave or freedman through whom Christianity had penetrated into a second great Roman household. See de Rossi, Bull. 4rch. Christ. Ser. 3 and 6 (188 1), pp. 5774 ; Athenaeum
distinction suggests a slave.
XVI.
March
9.
8-11.]
4,
PERSONAL GREETINGS
;
4*5
referred to
1884, p. 289
i.
the inscription
is just
by Light-
foot, Clement,
p. 39.
:
Oup|3cu/6s
common Roman
members of
the household, C. I. L.
Murat. 920. i)
VRBANVS
DAT
and
HERMAE
FRATRI
name found among 4237 (quoted by Lft. from LYDES AVG L DISPENS INMVNIS ET CILICAE PATRI cf. 5604, 5605,
slave
vi.
1070. 1). speaking of personal friends he uses the singular t6v dycmrjTov nov: here he uses the plural because Urbanus was a fellow-worker with all those who
rdy o-uyepydi'
T)fjuoi/.
others,
quoted by
Lft. (Grut. p. 589. 10, p.
Where
St.
Paul
is
worked
for Christ.
:
a rare Greek name, but found among members of the imperial household C. I. L. vi. 8607 d. m. m. vlpio avg L
lTdxui'
:
|
|
AB EPISTVLIS GRAECIS EPAPHRODITVS ET STACHYS CAESAR N SER FRATRI KARISSIMO ET CLAVDIA formiana fecervnt cf. also inscriptions quoted by Lft. 10. 'AireXXt]!/. Again a name borne by members of the houseEROTI

|
hold and by Jews: amongst others by the famous tragic actor. See the instance quoted by Lft. and cf. Hor. Sat. I. v. 100 Credat Iudaeus Apella, non ego. to^ 86Kip>i>: cf. 1 Cor. xi. 19; 2 Cor. x. 18 ; xiii. 7. One who has shown himself an approved Christian. tous K rdv 'ApiaTo|3ou\ou. The explanation of this name given by Lft. bears all the marks of probability. The younger Aristobulus was a grandson of Herod the Great, who apparently lived and died in Rome in a private station (Jos. Bell. Iud. II. xi. 6 Antiq. XX. i. 2) ; he was a friend and adherent of the Emperor Claudius. His household would naturally be ol 'ApiorojSorAoi;, and would presumably contain a considerable number of Jews and other orientals, and consequently of Christians. If, as is probable, Aristobulus was himself dead by this time, his household would probably have become united with the imperial household. It would, however, have continued to bear his name, just as we find servants of Livia's household who had come from that of Maecenas called Maecenatiani (C.I. L. vi. 4016, 4032), those from the household of Amyntas, Amyntiani (4035J cf. 8738): so also Agrippiani, Germaniciani. We might in the same way have Aristobuliani (cf.
mention of the household of at once suggests the Herod family, and is specially stated to have been that of a Jew. This seems to corroborate the argument of the preceding note. tous ck twc NapKiao-ou, Narcisthe household of Narcissus,' siani.' The Narcissus in question was very possibly the wellknown freedrhan of that name, who had been put to death by Agrippina shortly after the accession of Nero some three or four
p-ou.
Lft. Phil. pp. 172, 3). c 11. Hpo8iWa Toy cruYveyT)

is
Aristobulus
followed by a
name which
'
'
'
v,
426
EPISTLE TO
THE ROMANS
[XVI.
11-13.
His slaves years before (Tac. Ann. xiii. i ; Dio Cass. lx. 34). would then in all probability become the property of the Emperor,
and would help
to
swell the imperial household.
The name
is
and freedmen, cf. C. I. L. vi. 4123 (in the household of Livia), 4346, 5206 heliconis narcissi avgvstiani 22875 narcissvs avg lib. Lft. quotes also ihe two names Ti. Claudius Narcissus (see below), Ti. lulius Narcissus from Muratori, and also the form Narcissianus, ti clavdio sp f narcissiano (Murat. p. 1 1 50. 4). The following inscripC.I. L. vi. 9035 d. m. tion belongs to a somewhat later date T FLAVIVS AVG LIB NARCISSVS FECIT SIBI ET COELIAE and lower down T sp filiae ieriae conivgi svae FLAVIVS AVG LIB FIRMVS NARCISSIANVS RELATOR AVCtionvm monvmentvm refecit. See also 9035 a. (Lightfoot,
especially
slaves
|
common,
among
Phil. p. 173.)
Dr. Plumptre {Biblical Studies, p. 428) refers to the following interesting It may be found in C. I. L. v. 154* being reputed to have come clavdiae dicaeosynae ti clavdivs narfrom Ferrara. d. m. cissvs LIB. AEID. COIV PIENTISSIMAE ET FRVGALISSI B. M. Tiberius Claudius suggests the first century, but the genuineness of the Ins. is not sufficiently attested. The editor of the fifth volume of the Corpus writes Teslimonia auctorum aut incerlorum aut fraudulentonwi de loco cum parum defendant titulum eum exclusi, quamquam fieri potest ut sit genuinus nee multum corruptus. The name Dicaeosyne is curious but is found elsewhere C.I.L. iii. 2391 ; vi. 25866 : x. 649. There is nothing distinctively Christian about it.
inscription.
|
12. Tpuâifai/ k<u Tpu^waaj' are generally
supposed to have been
Amongst inscriptions of the household we have 4866 D. M. VARIA TRYPHOSA PATRONA ET M. EPPIVS CLEMENS TRYPHAENA 5035 D. M. TRYPHAENA VALERIA MATRI B M F ET VALERIUS FVTIANVS (quoted by Lft. from Ace. di Archeol. xi. p. 375) 5343 telesphorvs et tryphaena, 5774, 6054 and other inscriptions quoted by Lft. Attention is drawn to the contrast between the names which imply
two
sisters.
| |
I
'
'
delicate/
'
dainty/ and their labours in the Lord.
The name Tryphaena has some

as being that of the queen
who
is
Paul and Thecla, and

ricporioa.
who
interest in the early history of the Church plays such a prominent part in the story of known to have been a real character.
23959 DIS
It
does not
The name appears as that of a freed woman, C. I. L. vi. MANIB PER SIDI L VED VS MITHRES VXORI. appear among the inscriptions of the household.

|
|
one of the commonest of slave names. This Rufus commonly identified with the one mentioned in Mark xv. 21, wnere Simon of Cyrene is called the father of Alexander and Rufus. St. Mark probably wrote at Rome, and he seems, to speak of Rufus as some one well known.
13. 'PoGôy
:
is
tpk (icXfKTiv %v Kupiw.
'
Elect
'
is
probably not here used in the
XVI.
13-15.]
'
PERSONAL GREETINGS
427
technical sense chosen of God/ this would not be a feature to distinguish Rufus from any other Christian, but it probably means eminent,' distinguished for- his special excellence,' and the addition of iv Kvpim means eminent as a Christian ' (2 Jo. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 6). So in English phraseology the words a chosen vessel ' are used of all Christians generally, or to distinguish some one of marked
'
excellence from his fellows.
Paul means that she had the care of a mother, and that therefore he felt for her all the affection of a son. 14. 'AauyicpiToi> the following inscription is of a freedman of
TTji'
Kal
pjWpa
auT-oG
xal ipod.
St.
showed him on some occasion

:
all
Augustus who bore this name, C. I. L. vi. 1 2565 d. m. asyncreto AVG LIB FECIT FL AVIA SVCCESSA PATRONO BENE MErenti. The name Flavia suggests that it is somewhat later than
|
St. Paul's time.
Xeyoira. The inscriptions seem to throw no light on this name. The most famous person bearing it was the historian of the second century who is referred to by Origen, and who gave some information concerning the Christians.
slave names, occurring conof the imperial household. An abbreviated form of Patrobius. This name was riaTpoPay. borne by a well-known freedman of Nero, who was put to death by Galba (Tac. Hist. i. 49 ; ii. 95). Lft. quotes instances of other freedmen bearing it: ti cl avg l patrobivs (Grut. p. 610. 3), and ti clavdio patrobio (Murat. p. 1329). e Epp,as is likewise an abbreviation for various names, Hermagoras,
Epjjuji>
:
one of the commonest of
stantly
among members
Hermerus,
slaves, but not so
Hermodorus, Hermogenes. It is common among much so as Hermes. Some fathers and modern
'
writers have identified this
an
Hermas with the author of the Shepherd,' almost certainly wrong. Kal tous <rw auTots dSeXôus- This and the similar expression in the next verse seem to imply that these persons formed a small
identification
which
is
Christian
community by themselves.
15. iXoXoyos.
A common
slave
name.
Numerous
:
|
are quoted from inscriptions of the imperial household
instances C. I. L. vi.
41 16
Lft.
3,
DAMA LIVIAE L CAS PHOEBVS PHILOLOGI quoted by from Gorius, Mon.Liv. p. 168 he also quotes Murat. p. 1586. He is generally supposed to be Grut. p. 630. 1. p. 2043. 2
. . .
|
the brother or the

sister Nerias,
'louXfcur.
husband of Julia, in the latter case Nereus, and Olympas may be their children.
all
his
Probably the commonest of
Roman
female names,
certainly the
commonest among
is
slaves in the imperial household.
The
following inscription
interesting:
C. I. L.
vi.
20416
D. M.
ivliae nerei f- clavdiae. 20715-7 in one case apparently
The name Julia Tryphosa occurs

in a Christian inscription.
428
Ntjp&x.

This name
vi.
[XVI.
15. 16.
is
found in inscriptions of the imperial house
4344 nerevs nat German pevcennvs germanici anvs neronis caesaris. It is best known in the Roman Church in connexion with the Acts of Nereus and Achilleus, the eunuch chamberlains of Domitilla (see Acta Sanctorum May. iii. p. 2 Texte und Untersuchungen, Band xi. Heft 2). These names were, however, older than that legend, as seems to be shown by the inscription of Damasus (Bull. Arch. Christ. 1874, C. Ins. Christ, ii. p. 31) which represents them as p. 20 sq. The origin of the legend was probably that in the catasoldiers. comb of Domitilla and near to her tomb, appeared these two names very prominently; this became the groundwork for the An inscription of Achilleus has been found in the later romance. cemetery of Domitilla on a stone column with a corresponding column which may have borne the name of Nereus both date from the fourth or fifth century (Bull. Arch. Christ. 1875, p. 8 sq.). These of course are later commemorations of earlier martyrs, and it may well be that the name of Nereus was in an early inscription (like In any case the name is one connected that of Ampliatus above). with the early history of the Roman Church; and the fact that Nereus is combined with Achilleus, a name which does not appear in the Romans, suggests that the origin of the legend was archaeological, and that it was not derived from this Epistle (Lightfoot,
hold,
C. I. L.
|
Clement,
i.
p.
:
'OXupras
Lipsius Apokr. Apgesch. ii. 106 ff.). 51 an abbreviated form like several in this list, apparently
;
for 'OXvfi7Ti68a>pos.
xiii.
16. iv 4>i\TJfjum dyad: so 1 Thess. v. 26 12; I Pet. V. 14 do-ndaaaOe dWfjXovs

'
Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor.
(piXrjfiaTi dydirrjs.
The
earliest reference to the
kiss of peace
'
as a regular part of the
Christian service
d(rna(6fxe0a navo-dp.evoi
Mart. Apol. i. 65 aWfaovs (popart It is mentioned in Tert. de Oral. tmv evx&v. became 14 (osculum pact's) ; Const. Apost. ii. 57. 12 ; viii. 5. 5 and it hoc sermone, Cf. Origen ad loc. : a regular part of the Liturgy.
is
in Just.
Ex
aliisque nonnullis similibus,
mos
ecclesiis traditus est,
ut post oraiiones
osculo se invicem suscipiant fratres.
Hoc autem osculum sanctum

this
al
appellat Apostolus.
at eKKXrjaiai iraaai toG XpicrroG
phrase
is
unique in the
17
N.T.
Phrases used by
St.
Paul are
eWô-icu
r<bv dylmv,
(kkKtjo-Lci
tov 6eov, al eKKXrjalai tov deov, rais (KKXrjalais ttjs 'lovSaias reus ev Xpurra (Gal. i. 22), r)v fKKkrja-icov tov 6eov tcou otacov ev rfj 'lovdaiq ev Xpi0T<5
'iqo-oO,
we have the uncertain passage rfjv eVor tov Seov, where 6e<k must, if the correct It is a habit of St. Paul to speak on reading, be used of Xpio-ros. behalf of the churches as a whole cf. xvi. 4 ; 1 Cor. vii. 17 ; xiv.
and
in
Acts xx. 28
KXrjo-lav
tov Kvplov
33;
2 Cor.
is
phrase
28; and Hort suggests that this unique used to express the way in which the Church of Rome
viii.
18;
xi.
'
XVI.
16, 17.]
WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS

to
429
alike'
was an object of love and respect {Rom. and Eph. i. 52).
Jewish and Gentile Churches
WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS.

mischief-makers
taught.
their
XVI. 17-20. Beware of those breeders of division and who pervert the Gospel which you were
Men
such as these are devoted not

aims.
to
Christ but to
own unworthy
By
their plausible
and flattering
speech they deceive the unzvary.
because your loyalty is well known,
free from every taint of evil. beneath your feet.
I give you this warning, and I would have you God will speedily crush Satan
May
the grace
of Christ be with you.
warning against evil teachers probably of a Jewish character. Commentators have felt that there is something unusual in a vehement outburst like this, coming at the end of an Epistle so completely destitute of direct controversy. But after all as Hort points out {Rom. and Eph. pp. 53-55) it is not unnatural. Against errors such as these St. Paul has throughout been warning his readers indirectly, he has been building up his hearers against them by laying down broad principles of life and conduct, and now just at the end, just before he finishes, he gives one definite and direct warning against false teachers. It was probably not against teachers actually in Rome, but against such as he knew of as existing in other churches which he had founded, whose
17-20.
advent to Rome he dreads. It has been suggested again that St. Paul finds it difficult to finish/ There is a certain truth in that statement, but it is hardly one which ought to detain us long. When a writer has very much to say, when he is full of zeal and earnestness, there must be much which will break out from him, and may make his letters somewhat formless. To a thoughtful reader the suppressed emotion implied and the absence of regular method will really be proofs of authenticity. It may be noted that we find in the Epistle to the
'
Philippians just the
same
characteristics
there also in
iii.
1,
just
apparently as he is going to finish the Epistle, the Apostle makes a digression against false teachers. The same word is used in 17. otkottcTi', 'to mark and avoid.' Phil. iii. 17 o-vpfUfirjTai (MW ylveade, d8e\(f)oi kcu 07C07mre tovs ovtu> irtpnraTovuras in exactly the opposite sense, 'to mark so as to
f
follow.'
430
8iXo<rrao-iai
:

cf.
[XVI. 17-19.
which are the and which
Gal.
v.
20.
Those
divisions
result of the spirit of strife
and
rivalry (fpts
and
CÂos)
eventually
relations.
if
persisted in lead to alpeaas.
The
aKavdaka are the
hindrances to Christian
progress
caused
by these embittered
-ri)v SiSax^y, not 'Paulinism,' but that common basis of Christian doctrine which St. Paul shared with all other teachers (1 Cor. xv. 1), and with which the teaching of the Judaizers was in his
opinion inconsistent.
eKKXiVaTe: cf. Rom. iii. 11. The ordinary construction is with ano and the genitive (a) of the cause avoided diro kqkov (i Pet. iii. 11), or (6) of the person. 18. These false teachers are described as being self-interested Cf. in their motives, specious and deceptive in their manners.
Phil.
iii.
19
$>p
to reXos dnooiKfia,
Ztv
6 dtos
fj
icoiXia, kcu
r)
doga iv
rfj
alax^vu avTwv,
ttj
ol
tu iiriyaa (ppopovprcs.
mean
These words do not in this case appear to and epicurean, but that their motives are interested, and their conceptions and objects are inadequate. So Origen Sed et quid causae sit, qua iurgia in ecclesiis suscitantur,
KoiXia.
lainw
that their habits are lax
et Hies,
est,
divini Spiritus instinctu aperit.

Phil.
p.
Ventris, inquit, gratia

is
hoc
in
4.
quaestus et cupiditatis.
The meaning
iii.
the
124) explains rairtipocppoo-vvr) to mean a grovelling habit of mind, choosing lower things as the primary sphere of religion, and not to ai/o>, the region in which Christ is seated at God's right hand.' In XpTjoroXoyias Kal cuXoyias, 'fair and flattering speech.' illustration of the first word all commentators quote Jul. Capitolinus, Pertinax 13 (in Hist. August): xpr)o-To\6yop eum appellantes qui bene loqueretur et male facer et. The use of evXoyia which generally means 'praise,' 'laudation,' or 'blessing' (cp. xv. 29), in a bad sense as An instance is here of 'flattering' or 'specious' language is rare. quoted in the dictionaries from Aesop. Fad. 229, p. 150, ed. Av. cap av (vkoyias V7ropjjs eytoyc <rov oi Krjdofiai. ' I exhort and warn you because your 19. tj y&p ufiwK uiraKof}. excellence and fidelity although they give me great cause for
'
somewhat parallel passages So Hort (Judaistic Christianity,
same probably 17-21; Col. ii. 20iii.

the
These words seem definitely anxiety.' were not as yet any dissensions or erroneous They are (as has been noticed) quite teaching in the Church. inconsistent with the supposed Ebionite character of the Church. When that theory was given up, all ground for holding these words spurious was taken away. 6<?Xu> 8e ujids. St. Paul wishes to give this warning without He at the same time saying anything to injure their feelings. gives it because he wishes them to be discreet and wary, and
rejoicing
increase
my
to imply that there
XVI. 19-23.] WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS

therefore
<f)p6uifj.oi
431
to
blameless.
aKepaioi:
In
Matt.
x.
ii.
16
15.
the
disciples
are
be
and
see also Phil.
20. 6 8e 0e6s ttjs eipTjnfjs. See on xv. 13. It is the 'God of peace who will thus overthrow Satan, because the effect of these divisions is to break up the peace of the Church. <rurrp\|/t 'will throw him under your feet, that you may trample
' :
upon
him.'
tok laravav. In 2 Cor. xi. 14 St. Paul writes 'for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness.' The ministers of Satan are looked upon as impersonating Satan himself, and therefore if the Church keeps at peace it will trample Satan and his wiles under foot.
as at the
^ X^P 1 ? KT ^- St. Paul closes end of an Epistle.
this
warning with a salutation
There is very considerable divergence in different authorities as to the benedictions which they insert in these concluding verses. (1) The TR. reads in ver. 20 -q x<*P iS T v Kvpiov qpSiv 'Iqoov [XpiaToG]
peO' vpuiv.
is supported by omitted by In ver. 24 it reads (2)
This
It is
DEFG Sedul.
17
N A B C LP, &c,
X"/" s
Vulg. &c, Orig.-lat.

ijpxuv 'I.
T v Kv/mov
X. perci itavraiv vpwv.
aprjv.
This
is
omitted by
NABC,
Vulg. codd. (am. fuld. harl.) Boh. Aeth.
Orig.-lat.
It is inserted
F GL
by D E F G L, &c, Vulg. Hard. Chrys. &c. Of these omit vv. 25-27, and therefore make these words the end of the
:
and smaller group puts these words at the end of ver. 27 (3) P. 17. 80, Pesh. Arm. Ambistr. Analyzing these readings we find Orig.-lat. have a benediction at ver. 21 only.
:
Epistle. third
24 only. L, Vulg. clem., Chrys., and the mass of

places.
DEFG have one at ver.

has
NABC,
later authorities
have
it
in
both
it at ver. 21, and after ver. 27. correct text clearly has a benediction at ver. 21 and there only; it was afterwards moved to a place after ver. 24, which was very probably in some MSS. the end of the Epistle, and in later MSS., by a natural conflation, appears in both. See the Introduction, 9.
The
GREETINGS OP
ST.
PAUL'S COMPANIONS.
XVI. 21-23. A II my companions Timothy, Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater greet you. I Tertius, the amanuensis, also give you Christian greeting. So too do Gains, and Erastus, treasurer of Corinth, and Quartus.
21-23. These three verses form a sort
01 postscript,
added
after
43^
[XVI. 21-27.
St. Paul's
the conclusion of the letter
and containing the names of
companions.
21. Tip>0eos had been with St. Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. i. 1) of his movements since then we have no knowledge. The pov with (Twepyos is omitted by B. Aoukios might be the Lucius of Cyrene mentioned Acts xiii. 1. *Id(ra>v is probably the one mentioned in Acts xvii. 5-7, 9 as
St.
Paul's host,
4,
and
^coa-inarpos
may be
the
same as the
2a>naTpos
of Acts xx.
who was a
native of Berea.
If these identifications
are correct, two of these three donia, and this connexion is by
names are connected with Maceno means improbable. They had
Paul as his regular companions, or In any case they were Jews (ol avyyevels pov cf. ver. 7). It was natural that St. Paul should lodge with a fellow-countryman. St. Paul seems generally to have employed an 22. 6 ypd\|/as. amanuensis, see 1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; Col. iv. 18 ; 2 Thess. iii. 17, and
attached themselves to
St.
come
to visit
him from Thessalonica.
cf.
Gal.
vi.
1 1
i'8-e tttJXIkois vp.lv
ypdppacriv eypa^ra
rfj epfj
\eipi.
described as the host of St. Paul and of In all the whole Church is possibly the Gaius of 1 Cor. i. 14. Erastus probability the Christian assembly met in bis house. (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 20) who held the important office of olnovopos rqs 7rdXeo)s, the city treasurer/ is presumably mentioned as the most influential member of the community.
23. rdi'os
is
'
who
THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY.

XVI. 25-27. And now let me give praise to God, who can make you firm believers, duly trained and established according to the Gospel that I proclaim, the preaching which
announces Jesus the Messiah; that preaching in which God^s eternal purpose, the mystery of his ivorking, kept
silent since
world began, has been revealed, a purpose which the Prophets of old foretold, which has been preached now by God's express command, which announces to all the
the
Gentiles the message of obedience in faith
to
God,
I say,
to
Him who
Messiah.
is etlone wise, be the
glory for ever through Jesus
Amen.
25-27. The Epistle concludes in a manner unusual in St. Paul with a doxology or ascription of praise, in which incidentally all Although the great thoughts of the Epistle are summed up.
'
XVI.
25.]
THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY
433
xi.
doxologies are not uncommon in these Epistles (Gal. i. 5 ; Rom. but 36), they are not usually so long or so heavily weighted Eph. iii. 21 ; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17 offer quite sufficient parallels; Ascriptions of praise at the two former at a not much later date. the conclusion of other Epp. are common, Heb. xiii. 20, 2 1 ; Jude 24, 25; Clem. Rom. lxv; Mart. Polyc. 20. The various questions bearing on the genuineness of these
;
verses
and
their positions in different
MSS., have been
sufficiently
Here they are commented discussed in the Introduction, 9. upon as a genuine and original conclusion to the Epistle exactly harmonizing with its contents. The commentary is mainly based on the paper by Hort published in Lightfoot, Biblical Essays,
p.
321
ff.
25. tw 8e SumjxeVw
<TTa6r)(reTai
fie'*
ufjias
(rnjpifcu
6 Kvpios
iii.
cf.
Rom.
fie
xiv.
arrjKei
rj
iriwrei'
dvvarei yap
(rrrjaai
avrov.
A
. .
more exact
.
parallel is furnished
by Eph.
is
20
t<
8wap,evco
iroirjaai
avra
rj
fio'a.
i.
a-TrjpiCco
confined in
St.
Paul to the
earlier Epistles
(Rom.
an
that in
Ii;
and TheSS.).
are
dvpapai, Swards, SvvaTeco of
God, with
infinitive,
common
in this group.
We
are at once reminded
one of the purposes of his i. 11 St. Paul had stated that contemplated visit was to confer on them some spiritual gift that they might be established. Rom. ii. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 8; cf. also KciT& to euayyekiov fiou Rom. xi. 28 Kara to cvayyekiov. One salient feature of the Epistle he is at once alluded to, that special Gospel of St. Paul which desired to explain, and which is the main motive of this Epistle.
:
St.
faith
it.
Paul did not look upon this as antagonistic to the common of the Church, but as complementary to and explanatory of
To expound
to
this
would
especially lead to the

it
'
establishment
of a Christian Church, for if rightly understood, the harmony of Jew and Gentile within it.
K<x!
would promote
Krjpixraav
KTJpuyjACi 'iTjcroG
Xpiorou.
The words
;
KTjpvyfia,
occur throughout St. Paul's Epp., but more especially in this ii. 4 ; 2 Cor. i. 19 1 Cor. i. 21, 23 second group. (Rom. x. 8
; ;
iv.
4 ; Gal. ii. 2, &c.) the preaching ' about Christ' ;

5
;
xi.
The
x.
genitive
is
clearly objective,
and the thought of St. Paul is 8-12, which seems to be here summed up. St. Paul's life was one of preaching. The object of his preaching was faith in Jesus the Messiah, and that name hand implies the two great aspects of the message, on the one salvation through faith in Him, on the other as a necessary
most
clearly indicated in
Rom.
is
consequence the universality of that salvation. clearly to just the thoughts which run through
K(XT& &iroK&\vtyiv p.ucrrT]piou
fie
The
reference
this Epistle,
and
which marked the period of the Judaistic controversies.

XaXovuei;
toIs reXeiois
Cf. I Cor. ii.,6, 7, IO ao(plav k.t.X. OeoO aocpiav iv pvaTtjpia, ttju dnoKeicpvp.-
Ff
434
fievrjv, fjV

Trpo&piaev 6 Qtbs irpb tcov ala>vcov
.
[XVI.
25, 26.
rjp.1v
i.
8e dnfK(Ti\vyj/-ev 6 Qeos
Sta tov UvevfxaTos.
Eph.
iii.
3, 5,
i.
Tit.
;
2,
;
3
xi.
and
for separate phrases,
thought which underlies of the argument of chaps, ix-xi, and is indirectly implied in the first eight chapters. It represents in fact, the conclusion which the Apostle has arrived at in musing over the difficulties which the problems of human history as he knew them had suggested. God who rules over all the aeons or periods in time, which have passed and which are to come, is working out an eternal purpose in the world. For ages it was a mystery, now in these last days it has been revealed and this revelation explains the meaning of God's working in the past. The thought then forms a transition from the point of view of It is not unknown in the the Romans to that of the Ephesians. Epp. of the second group, as the quotation from Corinthians shows; but there it represents rather the conclusion which is being arrived
:
Rom. much
16
iii.
21
25.
Tim. i. This
9, 10,
is
the
by the Apostle, while in the Epp. of the Captivity it is assumed and as the basis on which the idea of the Church is developed. The end of the Epistle to the Romans is the first place where we should expect this thought in a doxology, and coming there, it exactly brings out the force and purpose of the
at
as already proved,
previous discussion. The passage Kara diroKakvtyiv down to yveopio-QevTos goes not with o-TTjpigai but with Kfjpvyfxa. The preaching of Christ was the revelation of the mystery which had been hidden/ and explained God's purpose in the world. 26. In this verse we should certainly read 5td re ypa<pS>v npo<PT)tikS>v. The only Greek MSS. that omit re are DE, and the Moreover, authority of versions can hardly be quoted against it. It couples together the sentence is much simpler if it be inserted.
'
(pavepwOevTos
to
and yvapiadevTos, and all the words from 8id re ypatficbv word should be taken together, ds irdvra ra %6vr) probably goes with eis viraKorjv niarfcos and not with yvwpiadtvros.
the
latter
All the ideas in hid re ypcufwi' irpo^TjTiKwi' . . yixopioGeVTOs. sentence are exactly in accordance with the thoughts which run through this Epistle. The unity of the Old and New Testaments, the fact that Christ had come in accordance with the
.
this
Scriptures (Rom. i. 1, 2), that the new method of salvation although apart from law, was witnessed to by the Law and the Prophets {jp.apTvpovp.evt} vrrb tov vopov kclI tchv 7rpo<pr]Ta)V Rom. 111. 2 1 ), the
constant allusion esp. in Scriptures; all these are

irpo(pr)TiKcbv.
chaps,
ix-xi
in
to
the
summed up
the phrase
Old Testament &a ypacpav

cVtray$>
The same
altoplov
is
is
true of the idea expressed
by
/car
tov
mission given to the preachers of the Gospel brought out generally in Rom. x. 15 ff., the special command
Qeov.
The
XVI.
26, 27.]
THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY
435
to the Apostle
is dwelt on in the opening vv. 1-5, and the sense With regard of commission is a constant thought of this period. to the words, alaviov is of course suggested by xP" V0ls aiamW:
cp.
Baruch
iv. 8,
Susanna (Theod.) 42 (LXX) 35.

i
;
The
formula
kut
eiriTayrjv
occurs
Tit.
i.
a different
1
meaning
1
;
2 Cor. viii. 8, but with quite 6 in the sense of this passage it comes again in
Cor.
vii.
Tim.
i.
3.
tls v7raKof)v
We
The
find the phrase
wUmtu
in
Rom.
i.
5.
As Hort
points out, the enlarged sense of vnaKof) and vttukovo

the earlier Epistles.
last
is
confined to
phrase els rrdvra rh (Bvt} yvapiaBevTos hardly requires In this passage it is a commonplace of the Epistle. still carrying on the explanation of aypvypa, four main ideas of the continuity of the the Apostolic preaching are touched upon Gospel, the Apostolic commission, salvation through faith, the
illustrating
;
preaching to the Gentiles. p6iw <ro<)>w 0ew: a somewhat similar expression may be found in 1 Tim. i.17, which at a later date was assimilated to this, aocpa But the idea again sums up another line of being inserted. God is one, therefore He is God of both thought in the Epistle Jews and Greeks; the Gospel is one (iii. 29, 30). God is infinitely wise (S> fiiiQos ttXovtov Ka\ <ro(plas Kai yvo>(Tfa>s Qeov xi. 33) J even when we cannot follow His tracks, He is leading and guiding us, and the end will prove the depths of His wisdom. The reading here is very difficult. 27. w tj 86a k.t.X. of 1. It' would be easy and simple if following the authority B. 33. 72, Pesh., Orig.-lat. we could omit $, or if we could read ai> with P. 31. 54 (Boh. cannot be quoted in favour of this reading; Wilkins' translation which Tisch. follows is wrong).
But both these look very much

to see
like corrections,
it
The Apostle's mind is so full of the is it inexplicable. text. thoughts of the Epistle that they come crowding out, and have produced the heavily loaded phrases of the doxology the structure of the sentence is thus lost, and he concludes with a wellknown formula of praise < rj 86ga k.t.X. (Gal. i. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 18;
;
how Nor
a>
came
to be inserted if
and it is difficult was not part of the original
Heb.
2.
were the only difficulty caused would probably be right to retain it. But there are others more serious. How are the words Sta 1. X. to be taken? and what does <? refer to ? solution is to suppose, with (1) Grammatically the simplest Lid., that <5 refers to Christ, and that St. Paul has changed the He had intended to construction owing to the words 81a '1. X.
by reading
,
it
xiii. 21). If the involved construction
finish
'to the
only wise
p.6v<a
God
F
through Christ Jesus be Glory,'

X. tov Kvpiov
f]pS>r,
as in Jude 25
6e< owijpi
r)nu>v, 81a 'I.
86a,
f 2
43<$
licyakaxrvvr),
is
[XVI.
27.
k.tX, but the words 'Ij/gtoC Xpiarov remind him that through the work of Christ that all this scheme has been developed; he therefore ascribes to Him the glory. This is the only possible construction if w be read, but it can hardly be correct; and that not because we can assert that on a priori grounds a doxology cannot be addressed to the Son, but because The whole purpose such a doxology would not be in place here. of these concluding verses is an ascription of praise to Him who is the only wise God. (2) For this reason most commentators attempt to refer the J to Qca>. This in itself is not difficult it resembles what is the probable construction in 1 Pet. iv. 11, and perhaps in Heb.
it
:
But then 81a 'I. X. becomes very difficult. To take it would be impossible, and to transfer it into the relative clause would be insufferably harsh. There is no doubt therefore that it is by far the easiest course We have however the alternative of supposing that to omit a. it is a blunder made by St. Paul's secretary in the original letter.
xiii.
21.
with
ao<f><a
We
have seen that some such hypothesis

iv.
1 2.
may
explain the im-
possible reading in
tls
tovj alaivas should be read with
B C L,
t>v aluvcov
was added
influence of
in
1
XADEP,
Tim.
i.
Harcl., Chrys. Cyr. Theodrt. Vulg. Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat. &c.,
owing to the
17.
The doxology sums up all the great ideas of the Epistle. The power of the Gospel which St. Paul was commissioned to preach; the revelation in it of the eternal purpose of God; its
contents, faith
;
its
sphere,
all
the one wise God,
whose wisdom
the nations of the earth ; is thus vindicated
its
author,
these
all
so at the end feeling how unfit a conclusion would be the jarring note of vv. 17-20, and wishing to 'restore the Epistle at its close to its tone of serene loftiness/ the Apostle adds these verses, writing them perhaps with his own hand in those large bold letters which seem to have formed a sort of authentication of his Epistles (Gal. vi. 11), and thus gives an eloquent conclusion to his great
thoughts had been
continually dwelt
on.
And
argument.
INDEX TO THE NOTES

I.
Subjects.
Aquinas, Thomas, pp. cii; 272 f.; 349; 394. Anstides, p. lxxxii.
;
Abbot, Dr_ Ezra, p. 233. Abbott, Dr. T. K., pp. 128 185, &c. Abelard, pp. cii; 272. Abraham, Descent from, p. 55. Faith of, p. 97 ff. History of, in St. Paul and St. James, p. 102 ff. Promise to, pp. 109 ff. 248. Righteousness of, p. 1 00 ff. Accusative case, vi. 10 viii. 3. Acilius Glabrio, p. 420. Acte, p. xvii. Adam, pp. 130 ff.; 343 ff. Fall of, p. 136 ff. Adrian, p. 45.
;
;
;
150
f.j
Aristobulus, xvi. 10; pp. xxiii xxvii; xxxiv ; xxxv. Armenian Version, pp. lxvii lxviii f. Arminius, pp. civ; 274.
;
Arnold, Matthew, pp. xliv; 163

Article,
12,
f.
;
Use
;
of, ii. 12,
13
iii.
11
iv.
24
viii.
26
ix. 4.
Asia, Province of, xvi. 5. Astarte, p. xviii. Asyncritus, xvi. 14 p. xxxv. Athanasius, St., p. 305.
;
Atonement, pp. 88
149.
91
ff.
Agrippesii, pp. xx
117; 129;
xxiii.
Alexandrian text, p. lxxi. Alexandrinus, Codex, p. lxiii. Alford, Dean, p. cviii.

Aliturus, p. xxii.
pp. 85 92 ; 122 ff. Attraction, Grammatical, iv. 17;

of,
; ;
Day
vi.
Amanuensis, xvi. 22 pp. lx; 127. Ambrosiaster, pp. xxv ci. Amiatinus, Codex, pp. lxvi xc. Ampliatus, xvi. 8 pp. xxvii xxxiv. Andronicus, xvi. 7 pp. xxvii xxxiv. Angelicas, Codex, p. lxv. Angels, pp. 146 222 f. Aorist tense, ii. 13 iii. 27. Apelles, xvi. 18 p. xxxiv. Apollonius, p. Iii. Apostle, pp. 4 f. 423.
; ;
;
17 ix. 24; x. 14. Augiensis, Codex, pp. lxiv ; Ixix. Augustesii, pp. xx xxiii. Augustine, St., pp. 149 f.; 185; 217; 2 7i f-; 379; 394, &c.
;
Babylon, as a name of Rome, p. xxix. Balfour, Mr. A. J., p. 224.

Baptism, pp. 107; 153 Barmby, Dr. J., p. cix.
ff.
Baruch, Apocalypse 207, &c.
of,
pp. 33
137
Aquila
and
Priscilla
xviii; xxvii;
(Prisca), pp. xxxiv; xl; 370; 411;
414
ff.
Basileides, p. lxxxii. Batiffol, The Abbe P., p. Ixv. Baumlein, W., pp. 20, &c. Baur, F. C, pp. xxxii ; xxxix
xci
titulus of, p. 419. the church in their house, p. xxxv. Aquilia Prisca, p. 420.
400.
Beet, Dr. J. Agar, p. cvii.
Benediction,
The
concluding, p. xci.
;; ; ; ;
;;
438
Bengel, J. A., p. cv.
INDEX TO THE NOTES

Covenant, pp. 230
;
249.
Berliner, p. xviii. Beyschlag, Dr. W'illibald, p. 275.
Critici Sacri, p. civ.
Beza, Theodore, p. civ. Blood-shedding, Sacrificial, pp. 89 91 f. ; 119. Boernerianus, Codex, pp. lxiv ; Ixix. Bohairic Version, viii. 28; p. lxvii. Bousset, W., p. lxviii f. Browning, Robert, p. 263. Burton, Prof. E. De Witt, p. 20 and
Cyprian, p. lii. Cyrene, p. xvi. Cyril of Alexandria, p. 216
f.
Damascenus, Johannes, p. c. Damasus, the Roman Bishop, Date of the Epistle, pp. xxxvi
Dative case,
viii.
p. xxx.
ff.
;
2.
iv.
20
vi.
vii. 4,
24.
i.
passim.
Caius. p. xxix. Caliguia, p. xx. Call, Conception of, pp. 4; 217. Callistus, the Roman Bishop, p. xxiii. Calvin, pp. ciii; 151 f. ; 273.
David, Descent of Messiah from, 3 xi. 9. as author of Psalms, iv. 6 Days, Observance of, p. 386 f. Death, Idea of (see 'Jesus Christ,
;
Death of
Oavaroi), vi.
8.
;
Capito, p. xv. Caspari, Dr. C. P., p. Hi. Catacumbas, ad, p. xxx. Cenchieae, xvi. 1 p. xxxvii.
;
Deissmann, Herr G. A., pp. 160 f. 444 ff. Delitzsch, Dr. F., p. 45 and passim.
Depositio Martyrum, p. xxx. De Rossi, Cav. G. B., p. 418
ff.
Ceriani, Dr., p. lxvii. 326, &c. Charles, R. H., pp. 145 Chrestus, p. xx. Chrysostom, St., pp. xcix 148 ; 270
; ;
Wette, p. cvi. Dickson, l>r. W. P., p. cvi. Dionysius of Corinth, p. xxix. Domitilla, p. xxxv. Doxologies, pp. 46 237 f.
;
De
295, &c. Churches, the earliest (buildings for worship), xvi. 5.
xvi. 25-27), lxxxix ; xcv; 432 ff. Dwight, Dr. T., p. 233.
Doxology, The (Rom.

pp. lxxix
;
Cicero, p. xx. Circumcision, p. 106 ff. Civil Power, pp. 365 ff. ; 369 ff. Claromontanus, Codex, pp. lxiv lxix. Clemen, Dr. A., pp. xxxvii xxxviii
; ;
Ebionite, p. 400.
3o7-
Clemen, Dr. C, pp. xxxvii f. lxxxix. Clemens Romanus, pp. xxix lxxix 147; Clemens, Flavius, p. xxxv.
; ;
Edersheim, Dr. A., pp. xxiii Egyptian Versions, p. lxvii. Election, pp. 244 f. 248 ff. Epaenetus, xvi. 5 p. xxvii.
; ;
136
344.
ff.
m-
Coislinianus, Codex, pp. lxiv

lxxii.
lxviii
Ephesians, Epistle to the, p. Iv. Ephesus, pp. xvi; xciii. Ephraemi, Codex, p. lxiii. Epistles of St. Paul, Addresses
p. 15.
of,
Colet, John, p. cii. Collection for the saints in Jerusalem,
Erasmus,
Esau,
p. cii.
Erastus, p. xxxvii.
ix. 13.
f.
pp. xxxvi
xcii.
Columbaria,
p. xvii.
p.
Essenes, p. 400
Commandments, The Ten,

Communication
p. xxvi f. Conflict, The
in
Roman
373 Empire,
f.
Estius, p. civ.
Ethiopic Version, p. lxvii. Euthalius, p. lxix.
Inward, p. 184 Conversion, p. 186. Conybeare, F. C, p. lxix.
f.
Euthymius Zigabenus, p. c. Evans, Dr. T. S., pp. 99; 126; 321

322.
Cook, Canon,
p. lxvii.
Corbulo, p. xv. Corinth, p. xxxvi. Corinthians, First Epistle to, pp. xxxvii 418. Corssen, Dr. P., pp. lxviii lxix xcviii.
;
Evanson, E., p. lxxxvi. Everling, Dr. O., p. 223.

Evil,
Power
of, p.
145
f.
Ewald, Dr. P., p. 61. Ezra, Fourth Book

passim.
of,
p.
33
and
; ;;
; ; ;;
I.
SUBJECTS
Hebrews, Epistle to 32; 92; 115.
Heirship, p. 201
ff.
439
the,
Fairbaim, Dr. A. M., Faith, pp. 19; 31 ff.
p. ciii.
;
pp. lxxvi
83
f.
94
flf.
97
ff.
ff.
and Works, pp. 57; 105. Fall, The, pp. 85; 130 ff.; 136
Hennas, Hermes,
xvi. 14.
xvi. 14.
; ;
143 ff.; 205. Felix, p. xv. Forensic terms, pp. 30 f. ; 190; 220. Free-Will, pp. 216; 347 f. Fricke, Dr. G. A., p. 131. Friedlander, Dr. L., p. 51. Fritzsche, C. F. A., pp. cvi ; 275,
Fuldensis, Codex, pp. lxvi
;
Herodion, xvi. 1 1 pp. xxvii Herods, The, p. xxi f. Hesychius, p. lxviii.

Hilary, p. ci. Hispalus, p. xix. History, St. Paul's
p.
xxxiv.
&c
xc.
Gaius, xvi. 23 p. xxxvii. Galatia, Churches of, p. xxxviii. Galatians, Epistle to the, p. xxxvii. Genitive case, iii. 22; iv. 11; v. 5;
vii.
Philosophy of, 342 ff. Hodge, Dr. C, p. cvi. Hort, Dr. F. J. A., pp. lxvi; lxix; lxxxix; xcv; 165; 401; 414 f 420; 429; 433.
.
Hugh
of St. Victor, p.
cii.
5 ; viii. 20, 25.
36
xv. 5, 13, 33
xvi.
Ignatius, pp. xxix; lxxix Illyria, Illyricum, p. 407
161
200.
ff.
Gentiles (see tOvrf), i. 5, 13, 18-32 ; ii. 14 f, 26 iii. 9, 23, 29 f. ; ix. 30; xv. 9 ff., 16 f. ; xvi. 26. x. 12 Call of the, ix. 24 ff. Gentile-Christians, i. 6; iv. 17; xi.
; ;
Immanence, The Divine,

Imperfect tense,
Infinitive (cf.
xii.
p. 197.
ix. 3.
ds
to),
i.
10;
ii.
21;
15.
ff.; xv. 9 ff., 27. in Church of Rome, pp. xxxii Gifford, Dr. E. H., p. cvui.
13
Iii
Gnostics, pp. 269 368. God, as Creator, pp. 259 266 f. as Father, pp. 16 f. 201
;
;
Integrity of the Epistle, pp. lxxxi ; 399Interpolations in ancient writers, p. lxxvi f. Interpretation, History of, pp. 147 ff.
269
ff.
ff.
396
f.
Irenaeus, p. xxix. Isaac, pp. 112 ff.; 238

Isis,
ff.
Love
of,
pp.
18
f. ;
125
219
ff.
Worship
of,
224.
Israel (see Jews,

of, p.
pp. xviii ; xx. &c), Privileges
of,
332 ff. Sovereignty of, pp. 216 250 ff. f. 257 Godet, Dr. F., p. cviii, &c. Gore, Canon, pp. 200; 267, &c. Gospel, The, pp. xliii 1. Universality of the (see 'Gentiles'), p. 298 f. Gospels, The, pp. 8; 17; 30; 32; 36 f. 91; 381 f.; 431. Gothic Version, The, pp. lxvii lxix.
; ;
;
Mercy
pp. 24; 53 ff.; 68 ff.; 232; 398. Rejection of, pp. 238 ff. ; 307 ff. 318 ff. ; 341 f. Restoration of, p. 318 ff.
Unbelief
Jacob,
ix. 13.
of, p.
225
ff.
James,
St.,
pp. 32; 102

of, p. lxxvii.
ff.;
125.
Epistle
Grace (see xP' s )> The state of,

Grafe, Dr. E., p. 52.
p. 2
8 ff.
Greek Commentators, pp. xcix

216.
207
Jason, p. xxxvii. Jerusalem, Fall of, pp. 227; 346; 380. Collection for poor saints in, pp. xxxvi ; xcii.
St. Paul's visit to, p.
414
f.
Greeks in Rome, p. xvii. Green, T. H., pp. 42 164 f. Grimm, Dr. Willibald, p. 233.
;
Jesus Christ
Xpiards
(see
'tyoovs XpiarSs,
ff.
'lrjaovs, iv Xpiar^>). of,
Death
pp. 91
160.
Grotius,
Hugo,
p. civ. p. lxvii.
Grouping of MSS.,
Hammond, Henry,
Heathen
(see
'
p. cv. Gentiles,' iBvrf), p.
Descent of, p. 6 f. Teaching of (see Gospels), p. 37, &c. Jewish Teaching (see 'Messianic In-
49
f.
terpretation').
; ;
; ;
440
Jewish Teaching on p. 136 ff.
INDEX TO THE NOTES

Adam's
Fall,
Life,
Idea
;
of, vi. 8
vii.
9
;
viii.
x. 5
f.
xii. 1.
on on on on on
Atonement,
p. 88.
f.
Lightfoot, Bp., pp. lxxxix
xcv and
Circumcision, p. 108
Election, p. 248
passim.
Lipsius, Dr. R. A., p. cix and passim. Literary History of Epistle to the
Relation to Civil Power, p. 369. Renovation of Nature, p.

2ioff.
p.
Romans,
p. lxxiv.
on Restoration of Israel, Jews (see 'Israel'). as critics, p. 53 ff. Failure of the, p. 63 ff.
in
336
f.
Locke, John, p. cv. Loman, A. D., p. lxxxvi. Love, pp. 373 ff. ; 376 f.
Lucius, xvi. 21. Luther, Martin, pp.
ciii
;
42
151.
Rome,
p. xviii
f.
Lyons,
p. xx.
f.
p. xvi.
banished from
Rome,
their organization, p. xxii their social status, p. xxv.
Maccabees, The, p. xix. Mangold, Dr. W., pp. xxxii
xciii
influence onRoman Society ,p.xxv.

their migratory character, p. xxvi. their turbulence, p. xxxiii.
399;417Manuscripts, p. lxiii f. Marcion, pp. lxxxiii xc xcvi 28 55; 83; 179; 180; 190; 226; 339 366 384.
; ; ; ; J ;
John, St., pp. 91 f. 163. Jowett, Dr. B., p. cvii. Judaistic Controversy, p. lvii. Judaizers, p. 400. Jude, St., p. 32.
;
Mark,
St., p. xxix.
of, p. 1
Marriage, Law Martial, p. lii.

ff.
70
ff.
Epistle of, p. lxxix. Judgement, The Final, p. 53 Julia, xvi. 15 ; p. xxxiv.
Martyrologium Hieronymianum
XXX.
p.
Mary (Miriam),
Mayor, Dr. J. Melanchthon,
Merit, pp. 81
;
pp. xxxiv
xxxv.
Jiilicner, on Ephesians, p. lv. Julius Caesar, relation to the Jews,
B., p. lxxvii. Philip, p. ciii.
p. xix.
86
94
ff.
97
ff.
245
Junia (or Junias), xvi. 17

xxxiv.
pp. xxvii
330
ff.
;
Justification (see diKatoavvrj &tov, dikcliovv, SiKaicoais, ducaicofjia),
36 ff.;
pp. 30 f. 57 ; 1 i8ff. 122 51285152 5190.

;
and Sanctification, p. 38. Justin Martyr, p. lxxxiii.

Juvenal, p.
lii.
Messiah, Coming of the, pp. 62 188 207 287 f. 296 336 f. 379 f. Messianic Interpretation of 0. T., 287 f. 296; 306; 336. pp. 281 f Meyer, Dr. H. A. W., p. cvi and passim. Michelsen, J. H. A., p. lxxxviii.
; ; ; ;
.
Minucius Felix,
Kautzsch, Dr. E., pp. 72 307. Kelly, W., p. cvii. Kennedy, Dr. B. H., p. 233. Kenyon, Dr. F. G., p. 234. Klopper, Dr. A., p. 62.
;
p. liv.
Mithras, p. xviii. Mosquensis, Codex, p. lxv. Moule, H. C. G., p. cviii.

Naasseni, p. lxxxii. Naber, S. A., p. lxxxvi. Narcissus, xvi. 1 1 ; p. xxxiv f. Natural Religion, pp. 39 ff. ; 54. Nereus, xvi. 5.
Knowling, R.
J., p. lxxxix.
Laodicea, p. xvi. Lapide, Cornelius a, pp. civ 152. Latin Version, The Old (Lat. Vet.), i. 30; iii. 25 v. 3-5, 14; viii. 36; ix. 17; pp. lxvi; 273. Law, Conception of, pp. 58 ; 109 ff. 161 343 fand Grace, pp. 166 ff. 176 ff.; 187 ff.
; ; ;
;
Nero, The Quinquennium of, p. xiv. Character of his reign, p. xv. Law and Police under him, p. xvi. Neutral Text, p. lxxi. Novatian, p. lii.
Objections,
Libertini, pp. xix
xxviii.
Liddon, Dr. H.
P., p. cviii
and passim.
Treatment of, 98 253 293 ; 295. Oecumenius, p. c.

74
; ; ;
pp.
69
; ; ;
; ; ;
I.
SUBJECTS
Pharaoh,
Peter, First Epistle of, p. lxxiv ff. ix. 17. Rome, p. xx.
;
441
Oehler, Dr. G. F., p. 318. Old Testament, Use of the, pp. 77 264; 288 f. ; 302 ff. 396. Collections of extracts from, pp. 264 ; 282.
;
Philo, Embassy to Philologus, xvi. 15
p. xxxiv
f.
Phlegon, xvi. 14.
Oltramare, Hugues, p.
cviii.
Phoebe,
Olympas,
xvi. 15.
Origen, p. xcix and passim. Original Sin, p. 137. Ostian way, The, p. xxix.
xvi. 1 ; p. xxxvi. Pierson, A., p. lxxxvi. Plumptre, Dean, pp. 420 ; 426. Polycarp, Epistle of, pp. lxxix; 371.
Pompeius Magnus, p. xix. Pomponia Graecina, pp.
xviii
xxii
Paganism, p. 49 ff. Paley,W., p. 413. Parousia, The, p. 377 Participle, Force of,
ix.
ff.
iv.
18
v.
22.
Passive Obedience, p. 372. Patiriensis, Codex, p. lxv. Patriarchs, Testaments of the Twelve,
p. lxxxii.
xxxv. Poor, Contributions for the, pp. xxxvi xcii ; 41 2 f. Poppaea Sabina, p. xviii. Porphyrianus, Codex, p. lxv. Porta Portuensis, Jewish cemetery at,
p. xx.
Patrobas, xvi. 14. Patron, p. 417 f.

Pattison, Mark, p. 60. Paul, St. (see < St. James,' ' St. John,' 'St. Jude,' 'St. Peter')Collection of his Epistles, p. lxxix. Conversion of, p. 186.
Portus, Jewish cemetery at, p. xx. Predestination (see ' Election,' ' Responsibility '), p. 347 ff. Prisca (Priscilla see Aquila '), xvi. 3.
: '
Priscillae coemeterium, p. 419.
Promise, Conception of, pp. 6; 18; 109 ff. Propitiation, pp. 92; 94; 129^
Proselytes, p. xxv.
Courtesy
of,
pp. 21; 403.

xxxi.
Death
Grief
227.
of, p.
Provinces under Nero, Pythagoreans, p. 400.
p. xv.
of,
over Israel, pp.
225
Quinquennium of Nero,
;
p. xiv.
Jerusalem visits, p. xlii. Journeys of, pp. xxxvi ff. 413 ff.
;
407
ff.
Penetrating insight of, pp. 26 f. 103 186. Philosophy of History of, p
pp. xiv; xxviii; xxxi. Reconciliation, Idea of, p. 1 29 f.
Ramsay, W. M.,
Reformation Theology, The, pp. 152; 27 3 f.
cii
342 Plans
ff.
of,
ff.
pp. xxxvi
ff.
19
ff.
410
Regeneration, p. 185 f. Reiche, p. xcv. Remnant, Doctrine of the, pp. 308

xcii; 421. Rendall, F., p. xxxviii. Resch, Dr. A., p. 382.
Roman citizenship, p. xiv. Rome and its influence on, pp. xiii
xviii.
316 ff. Renan, E., pp.
Style
of, p. liv.
Temperament and chai acter,p.lix.

Paulus Episcopus, p. lxxxviii. Pedanius Secundus, p. xvii.
Pelagius, p. ci. Perfect tense, v. 2
Persis, xvi.
1 2
; ;
Resurrection, p. 325 f. of Christ, pp. 112 ff.
116
f.
159.
ff.;
Revelation
7.
(cf. airoKaXvif/is),
pp. 39
p.
ix. 19; xvi. xxxv.
42. Riddell, Mr. James, p. 191.
Peshitto Version, The, p. lxvii. Peter, St.
Righteousness, p. 28 ff. of God, pp. 24 ff. ; i34ff. Roman Church, pp. xxv ; 18 ff.
;
370
Death
of, p. xxxii.
Roman Church
lxxvi.
and, pp. xxviii
ff.
His twenty-five
p. xxx.
years' episcopate,
401 f. 404. Composition of, p. xxxi. Creed of, p. liii. Government, pp. xxxv 370
;
f.
Greek character
of, p.
lii.
;;
442
Roman Church
Mixed character
INDEX TO THE NOTES

(continued*)
of, p.
;
xxxiv.
Origin of, pp. xxv lxxvi. Status and condition of, p xxxiv.
Roman Roman
citizenship, St. Paul's, p. xiv.
Empire,
p. xiv.
Romans, Epistle
Analysis
to the.
Spiritual gifts, pp. 21 358 Stachys, xvi. 9 p. xxvii. Steck, Rudolph, p. lxxxvi. Stichi (orixoi), p. lvi f. Stoicism, p. xvi. Stuart, Moses, p. cvi. Suetonius, p. xxi.
;
;
ff.
of, p. xlvii.
of, p. xliv.
Suillius, p. xvi.
p. lv.
Argument
Integrity
Ephesians compared with,

of, p.
Swete, Dr. H. B., p. 7 17 Syriac Versions, p. lxxi ff.

;
221.
lxxxv.
of, Hi.
Language and Style

Literary History
Terminology, Theological,
p.
7.
of, p. lxxiv.
Occasion of, p. xxxviii. Place of, in Pauline Epistles,

p. lxxxiv.
Tertius, xvi. 22. Tertullian, p. xxix. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,

p. lxxxii and passim. Text of the Epistle, p. lxiii. New nomenclature suggested,
Purpose of, p. xxxix. Text of, p. lxii. Time and place of, p. xxxvi.
p. lxxi.
Rome
in a.d. 58, p. xiii ff. Influence of, on St. Paul, pp. xiii xxvi.
; ;
Rufus, xvi. 13 pp. xxvii Ruskin, Mr., p. 93.

Sacrifice of Christ,
xxxiv.
pp. 91
ff.;
119;
;
122.
Sacrifices, the Levitical, pp. Sahidic Version, p. lxvii.
92
122.
Salvation, pp. 23 f. ; 152 f. Sanctification, pp. 38; 152.
Sangermanensis, Codex, p.
.Satan, p. 145.
lxix.
Theodoret, pp. c 149 and passim. Theophanes, p. cix. Theophylact, p. c. Thessalonians, Epp. to, p. lxii. Tholuck, F. A. G., p. cv. Timotheus, xvi. 21 p. xxxvii. Toy, Prof. C. H., p. 306 f. Trent, Council of, p. 152. 16; Trinity, Doctrine of the, pp 200 340. Tryphaena, xvi. 12 p. xxxv. Tryphosa, xvi. 12 p. xxxv. c Calman, p. 307. Turpie, Mr. D Tyndale, pp. 65 175; 194; 393.
; ;
; ;
M
;
Schader, Dr. E., p. 117. Schaefer, Dr. A., p. cix. Scholasticism, pp. 37 ; 118; 123. Schultz, Dr. H., p. 14. Schurer, Dr. E., p. xviii and passim Scrivener, Dr. F. H. A., p. lxvii. Sedulius Scotus, p. lxiv. Seneca, p. xvii. Septuagint, passim.
Silvanus, p. xxix.
Union with Christ, pp. 117; 153

162
ff.
ff.;
Urbanus,
xvi.
pp. xxvii
xxxiv.
Valentinians, p. lxxxii.
Van Manen, W. C,
p. lxxxvii.
lxviii
Vatican Hill, The, p. xxix. Vaticanus, Codex, pp. lxiii

lxxiii.
ff.
i3off ; 136 ff I43ff. ; 176 Sinaiticus, Codex, pp. lxii ; lxvii.

Sin, pp.
;
Slavery in Rome, p. xviii. Smend, Dr. R., p. 29. Smith, Dr. W. Robertson, pp. 14; 317 fSociety, the Christian, pp. 122 f 355. Sohm, Dr. R., p. 15. Sonship, p. 201 ff.
. ;
Vaughan, Dr. C. J., p. cvii. Vegetarians, pp. 385 ; 401 f. Versions, p. lxvi. Vicarious suffering, p. 93. Victor, Bishop, p. lii. Vipsanius Terenas, p. xv. Voelter, Dr. D., p. lxxxvii.
Weak, The,
Weber, Dr. Weber, Dr.
pp. 383
ff.
399
ff.
Sosipater, p. xxxvii.
Spain, xv. 24, 28.
Speculum, The, p. 124. Spirit, The Holy, pp. 1898". 199 ff.
196
f.
F., p. 7 and passim. V., p. 275. Weiss, Dr. Bernhard, pp. xl ; cvi. Weisse, C. H., p. lxxxvi.
Westcott, Bishop, pp. 93; 129.
II.
LATIN WORDS
Works, pp. 57; 102; 275 ff. Wrath of God, pp. 47 117.
;
443
Western Text, The,

Wetstein,
p. lxxi
ff.
J. J., p. cv.
Weymouth, Dr. R.
Wiclif, pp. 9
;
F., p. 424.
;
175 194. Wordsworth, Dr. Christopher, p.
Zahn, Dr. Theodor,

cvii.
p. lxxxv.
Ziegler, L., p. lxvi.
II.
angustia, p. 57. caritas, pp. 124; 375definitus, p. 8.
Latin Words.
iugulatio, p. 222. mortificari, p. 222.
perficio, pp.
deputatus, p. 222. destinatus, p. 8.

dilectio,
pp. 124; 375.
58; 124. perpetro, p. 58. pressura, pp. 57; 124, victima, p. 222.
III.
Greek Words.
[This is an Index to the Notes and not a Concordance ; sometimes however, where it is desirable to illustrate a particular usage, references are given to passages which are not directly annotated in the Commentary. The opportunity is also taken to introduce occasional references to two works which appeared too late for use in the Commentary, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul from unpublished Commentaries (including the first seven chapters of the Romans) by Bp. Lightfoot, and Bibelstudien by G. Adolf Deissmann (Marburg, 1895). Some especially of the notes on words in the former work attain to classical value (dyaOos and di/ccuos, dvaKpa\aiovo0ai, dif/oiptov), and the latter brings to bear much new illustrative matter from the Flinders Petrie and other papyri and from inscriptions. In some instances the new material adduced has led to a confirmation, while in others it might have led to a modification of the views expressed in the Commentary. We cannot however include under this latter head the somewhat important differences in regard to dt/caiovv and KaraWdaativ. Bp. Lightfoot's view of tititaiovv in particular seems to us less fully worked out than was usual with him.]
A0/35,
viii.
15.
(
ayiwffvvr],
1.
4.
;
afivaaos, x. 7.
dyaOos, v. 7
= Lft.)
dyvofiv, x. 3
;
xi. 25.
rb dyaOov,
xiii.
dypU\aios,
d5(\<pos, x.
dStKia,
i.
xi. 1 7.
I
:
4 ; xiv. 16 ; xv. 2. ayaOojavvt], xv. 14. -a/rxrch**44

aya-ndv,
xiii. 8, 9.
;
cf.
Deissmann, p. 82
iii.
f,
dSo/ci/xos,
xii.
ff.
:
18, 29; i. 28.

viii. 3.
5.
dydmj, v. 5, 8 xv. 30 ; pp. 374

p.
9
cf.
xiii. 10 Deissmann,
ddvvaros,
dfSjor,
i.
20.
;
80
f.
ayy(\os, viii. 38. dyiaapos, vi. 19. 0710$, i. 7 ; xi. 16;
atfM, iii. 25 alwv, xii. 2.
pp. 91
f.,
119.
aKaOapoia,
xii. 1,
vi. 1 9.
13
xvi. 2,
dtcofj, x.
16.
ii. 1
dtfpoar^s,
3.
444
a/cpofivffTia,
ii
;
INDEX TO THE NOTES

27.
iii.
dcA/yem,
6.
xiii.
13.
viii.
a\r}0ua,
d\770J7?,
i.
25
4.
dadevcia,
do'061'efj',
vi.
19;
26.
iii.
xiv. I.
dAAd \4yco, x. 18, 19. dWaaaeiv kv, i. 23.

dWdrpios, xv. 20.
apa, iii. 12. dpaprdveiv, v. 12, 13; vi. 15; P- 144. dpdprrjpa, iii. 25dpapria, iii. 2 5 v p- 143 f. vii. 8. #, v. 12; vi. 6, 7, 10 dptTapeXyros, xi. 29.
; -
do-fonfc, v. 6.
'Aorta, xvi. 5.
dairovbos,
i.
i.
daiverot,
avros,
aTt^tdfeo-flai,
31 (v. 31. i. 24.
1.).
ix. 3 ; xv. 14. i. 24 avroO (emphatic), iii. 24.

;
[avrov,
i.
24.]
i.
dcpopifav,
p. 18.
dva&aiveiv, x. 6. dvdyctv, x. 6.
dâfî', vii. 9.
dipoppvq, vii. 8.
'Axaia, xvi. 5 (v.
1.).
dxpdovadai,
iii.
12.
dvdQtpa, ix. dvaKaivaois,
3.
xii. 2.
BaaX,
xiii.
ii,
xi. 4.
dva,KC<pa\aiova9ai,
9:
cf.
Lft.
/3d0os, viii.
39
xi. 33.
vi. 3.
Notes, p. 321
f.
fiavTi&oOai ds,
Qdpfiapos,
;
di/a\07ta, xii. 6. dya7roAo7?7Tds, i. 20
i.
14.
1 7. vi. 12.
ii.
fSaffiXcia
tov &eov, xiv.

;
dvdaraais,
i.
p. 18.
dv(fpcvvT}Tos, xi. 33. dvOpa, xii. 20.
PacriXcvfiv, v. 1 4, 1 7 0a<TTaeiv, xv. 1
QdeAvaaeadai,
fir)
ii.
22.
dvdp&mvov
Xiyo), vi. 19. dvdpcuvos, ix. 20.
pa, xiv. 10.

ix. 19.
0\a<T<pT)peicrdai, xiv. 16.
6 c<ra>, vii. 22. 6 7raA.cuos, vi. 6 dvopia, vi. 19.
0ov\r)pa,
;
pp. 172, 174.
[/3ouXoîa(, p. 182.]
[ipwois, xiv. 17.
dvoxh,
4. dvTa7roSo/ia, xi. 9. dvTiTdo'(70'0cu, xiii. 2.
ii.
ytyvrjcr6ai, xv. 8.
dwirdxptTos,
dtos
.
xii. 9.
yiyova, yivono,
ii.
25
3
;
xvi. 7.
pr\,
i.
iii.
4;
iii.
xi. I, II. 4.
vi.
irpos, viii. 18.
yiveadai,
xvi. 5.
[viii.
di<vs, xvi. 2.
yivdj(TKtv,
ii.
vii.
7,
15
dwapxn,
viii.
23
xi.
16
3.
d7T/fSxfo'0ai, viii. 19.
29]. yvuxxts, xv. 14.
dmaria, dmarciv,
a7rA.0T?7s, xii. 8.
iii.
yvajordv, to,
ypd/jpa,
ypa<prj,
i.
i.
19.
p.
vii. 6.
diro,
i.
20;
dirb pipovs, xv. 1 5.
18
cf.
Deissmann,
dwo&oKr}, xi. 14. dno9vT]GKtv , vi. 7> IO.

d7ro*aA.ujTTe(70a(,
i.
p. 109.
84,
iii.
8.
22
8
ix.
30
27
;
xi. 13.
dnoKakvif/ts, viii. 19.
Sef, viii. 26.
dnoKapaSoKia, viii. 19. diroXapfidvuv, i. 27.

dnoXvrpcvois,
iii.
Std,
i.
ii.
iii.
25, 29
iv.
II,
25; xiv. 20; p. 119.

cf.
24
Lft. arf /0.
cV cavTov, xiv. 14.

SiadfifCT], ix.
p. 316. aTToo-roAos, i. 1
and
4.
xvi. 7 diroTiOtaOat, xiii. 12.

;
p. 18.
StcucoveiV, xv. 25.
SiaKovia, xii. 7.
Sid/fopo?, xv.
diroToA/idV, x. 20.
d7ra>A.ea, ix. 2 2.
xvi. I.
diaicpivtoOai, iv.
vii.
20
;
xiv. 23.
apa ovv, v. 18
dpiaxeiv, xv.
d/>xi7, viii. 38.
25
ix. 16, 18.
didxpiais, xiv. I.
1.
5ia\oyiap6s,
i.
21
xiv. 1.
daiPtia,
i.
18.
dorcjSifc, iv.
hiaoroXii, x. 12. 5ia<pepovra, rd, ii. 1 8 [ 8i5aona\ia, xv. 4.
= Lft.].
;;
III.
GREEK WORDS
cKK\T)aia, xvi. 5, 16 (KK?UV(IV, xvi. 17.
;
44.
p. 15.
SiSaxv, vi. 17 ; xvi. 17. SiipxeoOai, v. 12. SiKatoKpioia, ii. 5.
k\(kt6s,
viii.
33; xvi. 13
ix.
p. 4.
;
17 ; iii. 26 ; v. 7 ; p. 28 f. pp. 28 ff., 392. SlKCUOffVVT) cov (J) 8ik. tov &ov),
biKcuos,
i.
iieXoyfi, xi. 7, 28.
Si/caiocrvvT},
wot'
i.
K\oyr/v,
ix. 6.
ii
xi.
5:
p. 250.
17 ; iii. 15, 31, 25 Sixaiovv, SiKaiovaOai,

26,
; ;
x. 3
p.
iii.
34
ff.
atmnreiv,
iXaaocov,
lAai>, ix.
ii.
13
;
4, 20,
l/fX^vctv, v. 5.
ix. 12.
vi. 7 viii. 30 iv. 5 28 see howpp. 30 f. (otherwise Lft. ever his remarks on aiovv, Notes,
;
15
xii. 8.
ihevOtpia,
viii.
21.
p. 105). StKaiwfia, i.
"EWrjv,
i.
14.
32;
v.
16,
18;
viii.
4;
31,
A.A.O7f<r0cu
lAir/s, v.
p. 31 (cf. Lft p. 292). Stmiuais, iv. 25; v. 18;
4;
(iWoyaodat), v. 13. xii. 12; xv. viii. 24

;
4,
pp.
13.
iv,
i.
147
8i6ti,
ff.
S16, xiii.
i.
19;
xv. 22. iii. 20.
2,
18 (otherwise Lft.), 19, 23 ; xi. cf. Deissmann, p. 25 ; xv. 6

:
115
ff.
SixoOTaaiai, xvi. 17. StwKfiv, ix. 30 ; xii. 14. doKifiafav, i. 28; ii. 18
SoKlfXT], v. 4.
iv Kvpiq>, xvi. 1 3.
xii. 2.
8oa,
i.
23;
;
iii.
18, 21
8oaa>,
i.
ix.
21
23; v. 2 vi. 4 viii. 4; xv. 7; xvi. 27. viii. 30 xi. 13 ; xv. 9.

; ; ;
iv iv v iv iv
Kvpicp 'Irjaov, xiv. 14.
Xpiarw,
ix. 1
xvi. 7.
iii.
XpiarS
'Irjaov,
24
vi. II.
aapiei, viii. 9.
nvtvuari,
viii. 9.
Sovktia,
viii.
i. 1 i.
;
SovKos,
Suvajus,
15, 21. p. 18.
ir w, viii. 3. ivSeiKvvaOai, ii. 15; ix. 17, 22. evdeiis, iii. 25, 26.
fj'Swa/iouo'tfai, iv. 20.
4, 16 ; viii. 38. fivvaaOcu, xvi. 25.

Suj/ctTftV, xiv. 4.
ivoiKtlv, vii. 17 ivrohi), vii. 8.
viii.
II.
$vvo,t6s, xii. 18.

ty'i7,
ivTvyxo-vuv,
xi.
cf.
Deissmann,
xv. 5. duped, v. 15.
Jl lârraTav,
P- ll
..
7/ttiA.tV, viii. 33. iy/ctvTpuv, xi. 17. CyKOTTTttV, XV. 2 2. ISoXtoCcav, iii. 13.
vii. II. itye!puv, ix. 17. iop.o\oyuodat, xiv. II. xiii. I. iovoia, ix. 21
;
inayye\ia,
(cf. Lft.
iv.
13;
ix.
4,
8; p. 18
on
iv. 21).
0prj,
i.
ii.
14
;
ix. 30.
[iii.
ii. 29. iiraioxvveoOai,
tiratvos,
i.
16.
1 7.
Jye,
v.
(v. 1.)
30].
liravap.ipvriOK(iv , xv. 1 5.
cIkwv, viii. 29.

e?7r/>, iii.
<Trava7raUta0a,
7Tt, iii.
ii.
30.
6.
;
uncus,
tiprjvii,
i.
10;
i
xi.
;
-
14.
;
iiri, i.
9, 11
iv.
18
iii.
v. 2
viii.
20.
xv
s,
els
J 3>
v T 33 ; xv >
7
;
v "i- 6
;
x * v>
;
i<p' cp, v.
12.
;
2
;
p-
8. xi.
iniyvcocris,
i.
28
20
x. 2.
ii.
26
iv.
viii.
18
36
xv. 26 (cf.
Deissmann, p. 113 ff.). r6 with inf., i. 11, 20 (otherwise

;
(ts, 6, v.
Lft.); iv. 11, 16, 18. ix. 10. 15, 17

xi. 25.
ii.
imOvpiUv, (mOv/iia, vii. 7 ; p. 375imtca\tio9at, x. 12, 13, 14. impiivtiv, xi. 22. imiroOfiv, i. II. imiro6ia, xv. 23.
iiriarjpios, xvi. 7.
eioipXTOai,
he,
8
;
(cf.
Lft);
16;
iii.
26,
30
(cf.
eirtreXefj',
xv. 28.
iii.
Lft.)
iv. 14,
xi.
36;
xii. 18.
iirupipttv,
5.
1
tieSiieos, xiii. 4.
l/cci, ix.
Irroi'o/xafeffdat, ii.
7.
26.
|/>7ov,
rd lôv,
p. 102.
ii.
15;
xiii.
xiv-
ixiekav, xi. 17.
20
446
ipeiv
INDEX TO THE NOTES
eptis ovv, ix.
Ovpios,
ii.
8.
19
xi. 19.
Ovaia, xii. I.
vii.
ri kpovfxev,
viii.
iii.
5.
1
;
ri oZv ipovptv, iv.
vi.
tStos,
viii.
32
x.
1
3
f.
see
howevei
7
Ipi6(ia,
31
ix. 14.
ii.
8.
Deissmann, p. UpoavKuv, ii. 22.
20
kaOiuv, xiv. 2, 3, 6. Tpos y vii. 23.
lepovpyeiv, xv. 16.
fn,
iii.
v.
ix. 19.
'UpovaakrjP; xv. 19. 'Irjffovs Xpioros, i. 1
pp. 3
f.,
83
f.,
cvayye\ieo9ai, x. 15; p. ,>f. cvayyiXiov, i. 1 ; x. 16 ; xi. 28 evayyiXiov p.ov, ii. 16; xvi. 25. (vaptaros, xii. I.
euSoKfiV, xv. 26
evSoicia, x. I.
cuA-o-yetV, xii. 14.
f.
160
;
f.
p. 18.
iitavus,
xv. 23 (v.
iii.
1.).
Ikaar-qpiov,
25;
pp.
92,
130:
1
comp. Lft. and Deissmann, 'IWv piKov, xv. 19.

tva, v.
p. 12
ff.
20;
1 3.
ii.
xi. 11.
Ut,
ix.
iii.
evXoyrjrSs,
i.
25;
p.
236:
cf.
'iovSafos,
17,
29; p. 229.
Lft., p. 310. 11X07/0, xv. 29; xvi. 18.
'laparjK, ix. 6.
'loparjKiTTjs, ix.
4
;
p. 64.
(vodvvaOai,
i.
IO
I
= Lft.).
1.
;
to-rawzi,
iii.
31
xiv. 4.
fvpianeiv, iv.
(v.
on the reading
KaOfjKOvra, rd,
i.
see also Lft.). evXtoOat, ix. 3.

t<paira(, vi. IO.
<f>
28.
KaOiffrnvai, v. 19. *a0o, viii. 26.
<, v.
12.
; ;
KaQopav,
v. I, a (
i.
20.
!x">
28 iv. 2 X 0/>oy,p. 129 f.
= Lft.).
Kdipos,
iii.
26
xii.
11 (v.
1.)
xiii. 1 1.
Hard 6
Katcia,
i.
tcaipov,
ix. 9.
Kara rbv Kaipov,
v.
fW,
C77V,
xii. 11.
29.
i.
KaKo-qOtia,
(rj\os, x. 2.
vii.
29.
;
9 6
;
(cf.
Lft.)
x.
xii.
/mA-eii/, iv. 1 1
7 na\u>s, xi. 20.

Kapfiia,
i.
viii.
30
ix. 7.
xiv. 9.
(an], viii.
xi. 15.
21.
Kapiro(f>op(iv, vii.
(ojoiroietv, iv. 17.
4 (otherwise
27
;
Lft.).
KaTa,
ii.
viii.
xi.
28
xv. 5.
Kaff
17, iii.
ets, xii. 5.
29
xi. 2.
vi.
/car' oTkov, xvi. 5.
^ dTrofire ,
ij teat, ii.
vii. I
KaTaYfti/, x. 6.
15.
fj,
iJTOi
77817, i.
vi. 16.
KaraiaxvvfiVy v. 5 ; ix. 33. KaraKavxôOai, xi. 18.

Karaiepipxi, viii. I.
10;
xiii.
11.
'HAet'as, xi. 2.
77/if'pa, ii. 5.
Karaiepivciv, viii. 3.
tfTTT)p.a, xi. 12.
tfaraXaAos, i. 30. Kardkapfiavtiv, ix. 30. KaraWayf], v. 11 ; xi. 15.

12,
fldWros,
6,
;
v.
21;
vi.
3,
/faTaAAd<ro-ii>, v. 10.
(=Lft.)
OtlOTTjS,
i.
vii. 24.
vii. 4.
KaraKvfiv, xiv. 20.
0avaToO(T0eu,
Karavouv,
Karavvgis, Karapyciv,
;
iv. 1 9.
xi. 8.
iii.
20.
xii. 2.
0i\fiv, vii. 15 ; ix. 16. eikrjua, t6, i. 10 ; ii. 1 8 fle/ifAtoi', xv. 20.
KaTaprifav,
HaTa<f)poveTv,
3, 31 ix. 22.
ii.
vi.
vii. 2, 6.
4.
vii. 15.
i.
0eos, p. 237. ^ eo? narrip,

teoo-Tuyifc,
0i7pa, xi. 9.
i.
30
v.
7 5 p. *8. (cf. Lft.).

i.
0\fyis,
ii.
g;
viii.
35
xii. 13.
KarcvavTi, iv. 17* Ka.Tepyaeo6ai, ii. 9 ; iKaTf'xttj/, aTX0-0cu, Lft.); vii. 6. Karrjyopdv, ii. 15.
18 (otherwise
III.
GREEK WORDS
Pmtcu6tt)s, viii. 20.
447
21.
Karri x(tv, " 1 8.
Kavx&aOai, v. 3, II. Kavxaaai, ii. 17.

navxrjfMi, iv. 2.
/MTcuovoOai,
/*X a Vw,
viii.
35.
p.tlfav, ix. 12.
Kaux^tftt, v. 3 ; xv. 17. KeyxptaL xvi. I.

KTfpvyfta, xvi. 25.
Krjpvfffffiv, x.
pekXuv,
pi Wow,
viii. 18.
6, v. 14.
ftfr, x. 1.
14, 15.
35.
viii.
pip
Kiviwos,
Aa5o?,
viii
GUI', xi. 13 ; p. 324. fitvovvye, ix. 20; x. 18.
xi. 16.
;
fiivuv, ix. II.

17.
p. 18.
K\t]pov6fws, iv. 13, 14 \^<rtj, xi. 29.

k\ijt6s,
i.
fifOTos,
i.
29
xv. 14.
/ieraStSopou, xii. 8.
1, 6,
viii.
28
f.
KXrjrr) ayia, p. 1 2
H(rap.op<pova6ai, xii. 2. p.trav d\\t)\o}V, ii. 15.
KAt/xa, xv. 23.
M,
13
;
ii.
14;
iii.
5;
iii.
iv.
19;
ix.
ix.
14;
i,
KoiXia, xvi. 18.

koiv6s, xiv. 14.
tfoji/aêiV, xii.
x. 19.
pdi yivoiro,
14
xi.
xt. 27.
p.T)TTOJ,
11.
ix. II.
fivcia, xii.
Koivwvia, xv. 26.

/KMT17, xiii. 13.
'
13
ii.
(v. 1.).
Koirrfv ix tiV> xx Koiriav, xvi. 6.
IO
'
p.6vos, xvi. 26.

p.6p<p<uois,
20.
icSapos, 6, iii. 6 ; v. 12. Kpivttv, KpivtoOai, iii. 4
fivcrrrjpiov, xi.
;
25
xvi. 25.
xi. 15.
xiv. 5, 13.
Tns,
i.
20;
viii.
19, 21, 39.
kvk\, xv. 19.
v(Kp6s, i. 4 (cf.Lft.) ; viii. 10 viKpSiv, vi. 13 (cf. Lft).

;
jrv/Mcvciv, vi. 9.
vt)mos,
x.
ii.
iii.
20.
Ku/hos,
xiv. 8
i.
;
4,
7;
12,
13;
xii.
11;
vtav,
vo/xos,
4;
xii.
21.
of,
iii.
xv. 6; p. 18. itwixoe, xiv. 14.
vofioOtaia, ix. 4.
metaphorical use
;
27
vii.
21, 23; viii. 2
x.
\a\civ, iii. 19. Aaus, xi. I. \arpeia, ix. 4;

Aarpcufti',
v6/Aos (sine artic),

iii.
ii.
31. 12, 13, 14, 25

iv.
31
;
(cf.
Lft.);
;
13;
iii.
v.
13;
xii. I.
vii. 1
ix.
31
ii.
x. 4.
Xaxava,
kiytiv,
i. 9. xix. 2.
v6fios, 6,
13, 14;
19
vii. 2,
12.
vovs,
i.
iii.
I a.
28
vii.
23
xii. 2.
dXAd
\iyco ovv,
A.t>/ia, xi. 5.
X7ty, x. 18, 19. xi. I , II.
vvv't, iii.
21.
ii.
ii.
6Sijy6s,
19.
2
;
XiiTovpyeTv,
p.
so
cf.
Deissmann,
otSafitv,
viii.
22, 28.
P ,37 /'
-
XciTovpyus, Ao7<a ra, iii.
mi.
2.
oiKoSofirj, xiv. 19.
* o; xv. 10.
otKTfipeiv, ix. 15.
oIkt ip nus,
xii. I.
Xo7Cff^<", viii. \oyi(t<j6tu

\0y11e6s, xii. I.
18; xiv. 14. (Is, ii. 26 ; iv.
otos, ix. 6.
3.
oKvrjpds, xii. II.
okos,
\0ytap16s,
A($7os,
iii.
ii.
15.
;
viii. 36. 6p.o0vp.a56v, xv. 6.
ix. 6.
Avirefrlat, xiv. 15. \vmrj, ix. 2.

pxucapios, iv. 7
viii. 3. 6p.oiwpa, vi. 5 (5fu>\o7V, ix. 9. 6v(i6iap6s, xv. 3.

;
ovopa,
i.
p.
18.
8; xiv. 22.
4.
1.).
fo/ieii', xv. 20.
na.1tapiop.6s, iv. 6.
oirhov, vi. 13.

57r<us
puwpoOvpla,
fULprvpetv,
ii.
dv,
iii.
Ma/)(a (Maptd/i), xvi. 6 (v.

iii.
om,
xii.
^
19
W.
;
4.
i-
l8
5> 8; Hi.
5;
21; x. 2.
xiii. 4.
44 8
6pi$uv,
i.
INDEX TO THE NOTES

4.
n\eoveia,
ii.
i.
29.
iv.
os 76, viii. 32. oaris, i. 25, 32 ; on, viii. 21, 27,
15
;
vi. 2
ix. 4.
irXrjpovv, xv. 1 9. irKrjpotpoptiv, rrKrjpocpopeiaOai,
21
29
ix. 2.
ou
/7, iv. 8.
ov
oil
fjLovov Se, viii.
23;
1.)
;
ix. 10.
xv. 13 (v. 1.). nkr)pwpa, xi. 12, 25 ; xv. 29. TrAovrfii', x. 12.
xiv. 5
;
iravTws,
iii.
9.
(v. x.
ttAoStos, ix.
23
xi. 12.
;
o3v,
1
ii.
;
21
iii.
28
;
14
xii.
nvevpia, viii. 9, 10, 11

Ii.vevp.a
xii.
;
11
ix.
xv. 30.
1
;
p. 294.
"Ayiov, v. 5
xiv.
5<pu\eiv, xiii. 8
tyijviov, vi. 23
xv. 1.
:
cf.
Lft.
and Deiss-
xv. 13, 16, 19. vvevpia &(ov, viii. 9, 14.
17
mann,
p.
145
f.
rrvtvfia
Xpiarov,
viii. 9.
irae-qua, vii. 5.
TraiStvTTjs,
ii.
20.
urev/za dyuaavvqs, i. 4. itvevpa oovXtias, viii. 15. irvev/M Karavv^toos, xi. 8.

irvevpia vio9eaias, viii. 15. Ip irvevfiari, iv t<2 rrvevp-aTi,
ii.
i.
rraXaids avOpconos, vi. 6.
iravTws,
7ra/;d, i.
iii.
9.
xii.
25. nap kavTOis,
29
viii.
ix. I.
16.
irapafiaais, iv. 1 5. TrapaStSoVcu, i. 24 ; iv. 25 ; vi. 1 7. itapafyjXovv, x. 19 ; xi. 11.
TrvevftariKos,
Kara nvevpa, i. i. Ii;
4 ; viii. 4, 5. v. 14; vii.
14;
xv. 27. itoitiv, i. 32.
irapaKetoOat, vii. 18, 21.

TrapaKOTj, v. 1 9. napdnrcofia, v. 1 5
v. 20).
iroWoi,
(cf.
of, v.
15.
iroWa, rd, xv. 23.

;
xi.
II
Lft.
on
itovqpia,
iropveta,
i.
i.
29.
29
(v. 1.).
napa.K\r}0~is, xv. 5.
7ro peioepx*o~Q<Uj v.
irpoyivojateeiv, viii.
29
xi. 2.
20.
irpoypcupeiv, xv. 4.
napeais,
iii. 25. Ttapiaravax, irapiaravetv, vi.
13
xii. I.
7r/)oStooVai, xi. 35. irpoeiprjicevai, ix. 29.
rrapovaia, pp.
iras, ix. 5
;
379
16
;
f.
TrpoenayyiWcadai,
"viii.
i.
2.
x.
xi. 26, 32.
TrpoTOipuxciv, ix. 23.

cf.
irarrip, >
i- 7 ? varrjp (<= patriarch), xv. 8.
v i 4
15
xv. 6.
irpoex eff ^ at >
ix. 5,
10;
xi.
28
9* rrporjycioOai, xii. 10.

;
iii-
npodeais, viii. 28
irpoOv/ios,
i.
ix. 11
p. 350.
viiroida,
ii.
19.
15.
irepl dp-aprias, viii. 3.
irpoiffTaaOai, xii. 8.
jrpoitoTrreiv, xiii. 12."
ircpirraTfiv, xiii. 1 3.
wepiaaeia, v.
irtpiaaos,
iii.
1 7.
irpovoeioOai, xii. 1 7.
1.
vpoopifav,
;
viii.
29.
irepiTopit), ii.
irj;A.6s, iv.
29
xv. 8.
Trpoirdrcop, iv. I.
vporr4p.rretv,
7T/>os, iii.
21.
14.
xiv. 4.
iii.
iriKpia,
iii.
26;
xv. 24. viii. 18.
moTrjs, xi. 17. irimeiv, xi. II, 22

irioTuii>,
irpoaayojyr), v. 2.
;
TrpooKaprepeiv, xii. 12.

2
;
m<TTveo9ai,
x.
IO
npoaKomna,
ix.
32
xiv.
13
(v.l.).
xiv. 2.
vpoa\ap.l3at>eadai, xiv. I.
vians, iii. 22 ; pp. 31 ff. maris, r), i. 8, 17;
iii.
3.
;
25;
xii.
iv.
irp6a\r}\pis, xi. 15. TrpoaraTis, xvi. 2.
20;
v.
x. 8, 17
irpoacpopa, xv. 1 6.
irpoao}TToXr)\f/ia, ii.
xiv. 1.
II.
marts
'It/coC
XptaToO,
17.
iii.
22.
TrpoTideaOat,
/0t., cf.
iii.
25 (otherwise Lft. aa?
els viariv, i.
* TriaTtws,
rr\6.o~fxa, ix.
i. 17 ; iii. 26, 30 (cf. Lft.); ix. 30, 32; x.6; xiv. 23.
p. 318). irpocpTfTeia, xii. 6.

TTpoiprjTiKos, xvi. 26.
20.
TTpUtTOV,
i.
l6
(V. 1.).
nAcoydfeti', v. 20.
irpuiros, x. 19.
III.
GREEK WORDS
avvrpipLpia,
iii.
449
16.
vi. 6.
irparrSroKos, viii. 29.
vraUiv,
xi. 11.
ovvtofiiveiv, viii. 22.
vtojxos, xv. 26. vcopovv, xi. 7. ircbpwGis, xi. 25.
ovoTavpovoBai,
77^, x.
/$td, xi.
8, 17.
<TvaxVtiaTl Cea ^ ai > xii. 2. acpayq, viii. 36. (T(Ppayt(iv, xv. 28. o(ppayis, iv. II.
xv. 12.
acyfc"',
i6ff.
awâOai,
v.
9;
;
viii.
24;
xi.
fivofievos, 6, xi. 26.

'PuifiT], i.
7.
26 : cf. Lft. p. 288. ccDâ, vi. 6; vii. 4, 24 'S.woiira.Tpos, xvi. 21.

cajTTjpia,
i.
xii. 1.
aapKiicos, xv. 27.
16
x. I
xi. 11.
adpKivos, vii. 14.

<rd/>, iii.
20;
vi.
19
Tj7
s
ix.
xiii.
14
viii.
Ta7Ttvos, xii. 16.
p. 181. kv oapici, iv
aapKi,
vii.
T yap, TtKvov,
vii. 7.
viii.
14,
17; 4;
ix.
(cf.
Deiss-
89jcard
(Tap/cci)
i.
;
mann,
3
p.
;
iv.
1
ff.
viii.
4,
WAos
p. 164). end), x.
iii.
;
= toll),
15
;
xiii. 7.
ix. 3, 5
;
233
rt epodfjiev, t
5.
vi.
;
Saravay, xvi. 20
aefia.$to6ai,
aijpieiov, iv.
i.
p. 145.
II
25. xv. 19.

;
oSv iii. 9 ; rt ovv epovpiev

7
rifxr/, xii.
;
xi. 7.
;
iv. I ix.
vi. I
vii.
viii.
31
14, 30.
;
o'Kai'SaXoi', xi.
fficcvos, ix.
xiv. 13.
dWci
nvt's,
iii.
ri
\iya
xi.
i.
1
x. 8
xi. 4.
21, 22. 0K\rjpvv(iv, ix. 18.
IO.
7.
OKoneiv, xvi. 17. "Sitavia, xv. 24, 28.

a-nepfia, ix. 7. airovh-q, xii. 8, 11.
t^
/car' 4//e,
15.
roXfJiav, v. 7>
TO\fiT)p6TpOV, XV. 15.
t<Wos,
xii.
arevoxojpia, ii. 9. ar^Kfiv, xiv. 4.
row with
infin., vi.
19; xv. 23. 6 ;
vii. 3.
11 ; xvi. 25. orotxi', iv. 12 (on rofs arotx.

(TTrjpifav,
i.
see
rpairtfa, xi. 9. Tpdxrj\os, xvi. 4. TV7ros, V. 14 ; vi. 17.

vPpiaTTjs,
i. 30. vloOeoia, viii. 15. vtos (of Christ; cf. i.
Lft.).
avyyevrjs, ix. 3
<ri7*Xtj', xi.
xvi. 7, IO, 21.
32.
avyK\T)poi>6fxos, viii. 17.
Deissmann,p.i66f.),
viii.
ovyicotvowos, xi. 17.
cvfifMpTvpuv,
ii.
15;
viii.
16;
ix. 1.
29; (of man), vfiirepos, xi. 31.

4,
viii.
14.
avfjtfiop<pos, viii. 29. ovpLTrapaitaXtioOai, i.
vrra/eoTjy
1 2.
i.
v.
19
xvi. 19.
vira/eoveiv, x. 16.
cvpLiiaffxetv, viii. 17.
viravdpoSy vii. 2.
virdpxfiv, iv. 19.
avfjupvros, vi. 5.
cwayofl'/ô'flai, xv.
30
vTrtpevTvyx^ V(tv i
viii.
26.
awaixô\ojTos, xvi. 7 OwavairavtaOai, xv. 32.

ovvavrtXatifSavtoQai, viii. 26. owa7ra7<r0cu, xii. 16.
(TweiSTjaii,
ii.
virepix tiv > x "i- ' vwfprnpavos, i. 30.

virtpviKau, viii. 37.
{nTpireptffoeveiv } v. 20.
15
ix. I.
virtptppovfiVf xii. 3.
utt(5, iii.
avvfpyttv, viii. 28. owcuSoKefj/, i. 32.

aw0a7rTe<rf?at, vi. 4. avviaidvm, iii. 5 ; xvi. I.
9. inr6diK0Sy iii. 1 9.
vn6\(tftfjLa, ix. 27.
vnopiiveiv, xii. 12.

vironovfjy V. 3.
ovviwv,
iii.
11.
ix. 28.
owreWi',
virordaaeiv, vnoi&oatoOcu,
viii.
20
x.
ai'VTffxvtiv, ix. 28.
xiii. 1.
iii.
OLvrpifiuv, xvi. 20.
varcptioOai,
23.
45
vif/T)\6s, xii.
tiif/copa, viii.
INDEX TO THE NOTES

16.
X<fy>'*
ai
ft
flprjVT), i. 7.
i.
39.
Xapifffxa,
II
vi.
23;
xii.
6;
p.
358
(paivtodai, vii. 13. <pavfpova6ai, iii. 21
;
xvi. 26.
<pav\os, ix. 11.

iptiSeoOai, viii. 32.
<p9dvtiv, ix. 31.
X/Kia, xii. 13. XpTjiMTifriv, viii. 3. XpTuxaTiapLos, xi. 4. XprjffToXoyia, xvi. 18.
XPT}<tt6tt]s,
ii.
4;
iii.
12
xi. 22.
<pi\ad(\<pia, xii. 10.

</mAjV, p.
X/hct^s
'It/o-oOs, viii.
34
(v. 1.),
39
pp.
374
f.
3f., x6of.
<pi\T)IM, XVi. l6.
<pi\oevia, xii.
1 3.
r Xpi<TT$ 'Irjaov, iii. 24; vi. II. 4y Xpi<TT$, ix. 1 ; xvi. 7.
<pi\6oTopyos,
xii.
10.
rpeitiopai, ix. I.
<pi\oTifitT<rOai, xv. 20.
(popos, xiii. 6.
Kpp&TTttv,
iii.
19.
;
+po*&
viii. 5
xii.
16
xiv.
6 ; xv.
^vSoy, i. 25. ipevopa, iii. 7.

5.
\pevoT-qs,
iii.
4.
xiii - *
<pp6vrjpn, viii. 6.
<pp6vt/xos, xi.
25
;
xii. 16.
^*x4
i}>v\aaot iv,
ii.
26.
xi. 16.
<pvpapa, ix. 21
4>v<ris, ii.
14.
&v, 6, ix. 5 us, ix. 32.
p. 235.
ws av, xv. 24.
17; xv. *3Xaps, 1. 5 ; v. 2, 15 ; xi. 5, 6 tR. 18. xv. 15; xvi. 20 p.

X/xi, xiv.
r
wffavrojs, viii. 26.

;
xn. 3
d&trrc
(with indie),
vii.
(with infin.),
vii. 6.
Sbe
Unternational
Sbeologkal
lib rary
Edited by Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D., and Professor Stewart D. F. Salmond, D.D.
EDITORS' PREFACE
Theology has made great and rapid advances
in recent years.
New
lines
of investigation have been
opened up, fresh
light
upon many subjects of the deepest interest, and the historical method has been applied with important results. This has prepared the way for a Library of Theological Science,
has been cast
and has created the demand for it. It has also made it at once opportune and practicable now to secure the services of specialists in the different departments of Theology, and to associate
an enterprise which will furnish a record of Theo logical inquiry up to date.
in
them
This Library
tian Theology.
at
is
designed to cover the whole

is
field of Chris-
Each volume
it
to be
complete
in itself, while,
the
same time,
will
form part of a carefully planned

is
whole.
One
of the Editors
to
prepare a volume of Theo-
logical Encyclopaedia
which
will give the history
and literature
of each department, as well as of
Theology
as a whole.
The Library The Authors,

of statement.
is
intended to form a series of Text-Books for
Students of Theology.
therefore, aim at conciseness
and compactness
view that large
At the same time, they have

class
in
and increasing
inquiry,
of
students,
in
other departments of
who
desire to have a systematic and thorough ex-
position of Theological Science.

fore be
Technical matters
notes,
will there-
thrown into the form of
and the
text will
be
made as readable and attractive as possible. The Library is international and interconfessional.
be conducted
in a catholic spirit,
It will
and
in the interests of
Theo-
logy as a science.
Its
aim
will be to give full
and impartial statements both of
Zbc
are
still
International
at issue in the different
theological
departments.
Xibrar?
the results of Theological Science and of the questions which
The Authors
will
be scholars of recognized reputation

to
in the
several branches of study assigned
them.
They
will
be
associated with each other and with the Editors in the effort
to provide a series of
volumes which may adequately represent
the present condition of investigation, and indicate the

for further progress.
way
CHARLES A. BRIGGS. STEWART D. F. SALMOND.
NOW READY
An
Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. By Prof. Crown 8vo, 558 S. R. Driver, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
pages, $2.50 net.
Christian Ethics.
$2. 50 net.
By
Newman Smyth, D.D.
Crown
8vo,
508 pages,
Apologetics. By A. B. Bruce, D.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. Crown Svo, 528 pages, $2.50 net.
The
prices of these books being net are not subject to the usual clergy-
man's discount.
The following Volumes are in preparation:
THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Professor of Hebrew,
By
A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D.,
New
College, Edinburgh.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. By S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., Professor ment Exegesis, Free Church College, Aberdeen.
Brown, D.D.,
nary,
of Systematic Theology
and
New TestaFrancis
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Professor of
By
Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Semi-
New York.
HISTORY
OF
CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE. By G.
By
A.
P. Fisher, D.D., LL.D., Pro-
fessor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University.
COMPARATIVE RELIGION.
College, Oxford.
M. Fairbairn, D.D.,
Principal of
Mansfield
SYMBOLICS. By
Philit- Schaff,
D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History, Union
Theological Seminary,
New York.
By Robert
Flint,
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.
D.D..
LL.D.,
Professor of
Divinity in the University of Edinburgh.
CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. By
cal History,
A. V. G. Allen, D.D., Professor of Ecclesiasti-
Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Mass.
THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
By Arthur
C. McGiffert, Ph.D., Professor of Church
History, Lane> Theological Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio.
ffbe
International
A
ftbeological
Xibrarg
NEW VOLUME
JUST READY
APOLOGETICS
Or, Christianity Defensively Stated
By ALEXANDER BALHAIN BRUCE,
D.D.
Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church Co' lege, Glasgow Author of " The Training of the Twelve." " The Humiliation of Christ" The Kingdom of God," etc.
volume, 528 pages, crown 8vo, $2.50 net

is
This price being net
not subject to the usual clergyman's discount
Charles Scribners Sons,

PROFESSOR BRUCE'S
Publishers
work is not an abstract treatise on Apologetics, but an apologetic presentation of the Christian faith, with reference to whatever in our intellectual It environment makes faith difficult at the present time. addresses itself to men whose sympathies are with Christianity and discusses the topics of pressing concern, the burning questions of the time, and is offered as an aid to faith rather than a buttress of received belief and an armory of weapons for the orthodox defender of the faith.
CONTENTS
Introduction.
of Apologetic.
I.
Historical Sketch.
II.
The Functions and Method
Theories of the Universe, Christian and Anti-Christian. Book I. The Christian Facts. II. The Christian Theory of the Universe. III. The V. The Deistic Theory. IV. The Materialistic Theory. Pantheistic Theory. VII. Agnosticism. VI. Modern Speculative Theism. Book II. The Historical Preparation for Christianity. I. The Sources. III. The Prophetic Idea of Israel's II. The Religion of the Prophets.
I.
Vocation and
History.
IV.
Mosaism.
V.
Prophetism.
of Legalism.
VI.
Prophetic
Optimism.
its
"
VII. Judaism.
VIII.
The Night
IX.
The Old
Testament Literature.
Literature.
X. The Defects of the Old Testament Religion and
II. Jesus as the Christ The Christian Origins. I. Jesus. III. V. Jesus IV. Jesus Risen. Jesus as Founder of the Kingdom of God. VIII. The Synoptical Primitive Christianity VII. VI. Paul. Lord. X. The Light of the World. IX. The Fourth Gospel Gospels
Book
III.
ffbe
Unternational
{Theologic al
Xibrarp
AN INTRODUCTION TO
The Literature
By
Canon
of the Old
of Christ
Testament
Prof. S. R.
DRIVER, D.D.
Church, Oxford
Crown
8vo,
558 pages,
$21.50 net
Dr. Driver's volume is not in the sphere of history or of theology, but is a critical account of the contents and structure of the several books of the Old Testament, considered as Heorew literature, pre-supposing their inspiration, but seeking to determine the precise import
and scope of the several writings by the means of critical research and inductive evidence and in this way to reach definite conclusions as far as possible, with regard to the structure and relations of the different parts of the Old Testament.
The character
of this discussion
is
in
its
accord with the general
more modern aspects, but Prof. Driver's treatise is in every regard reverent and in harmony with the spiritual, but at the same time soundly philosophical, views of the
nature of scientific critical research in
best Christian scholars of our day.
literature of the
and critical work in the English language on the Old Testament, and fully up to the present state of research in Germany." Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D.
"It
is
the most scholarly
"Canon Driver has arranged his material excellently, is succinct without being hurried or unclear, and treats the various critical problems involved with admirable fairness and good judgment." Prof. C. H. Toy.
" His
judgment
is
singularly
. .
fair,
.
calm, unbiassed, and independent.

service,
It
is
also thoroughly reverential.
present confusion of mind on this
which his book will render in the great subject, can scarcely be overestimated " The London Times.
The
English language equal to this Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament for the student who desires to understand what the modern criticism thinks about the Bible."
whole, there
is
"Asa
probably no book
in the
'
'
Dr. LYMAN ABBOTT,
in the Christian Union.

its
"The book
its
is
one worthy of
its
its
subject, thorough in
its
treatment, reverent in
difficulties,
tone, sympathetic in
estimate, frank in
its
recognition of
conserv-
ative (in the best sense of the word) in
Prof.
HENRY
statement of results." P. SMITH, in the Magazine of Christian Literature.
method our author takes up each book in order and goes Every verse, every clause, word through it with marvelous and microscopic care. by word, is sifted and weighed, and its place in the literary organism decided upon." The Presbyterian Quarterly.
" In working out his
Gbe International
for
Gbeological
Xibrar?
.
. .
" It contains just that presentation of the results of Old Testament criticism which English readers in this department have been waiting. The whole book is excellent it will be found helpful, characterized as it is all through by that scholarly poise of mind which, when it does not know is not ashamed to present degrees of probability." New World.
;
is
" While my opinions differ widely from his, I am delighted with the book. It a full and compact presentation of the views now held by many able scholars. Alike for them and for their opponents it is desirable to have just such a clear presentation of the matter placed within reach." Prof. Willis J BEECHBR, Auburn Theological Seminary.
".
in the
Canon
Driver's
book
is
characterized throughout by thorough Chris-
tian scholarship, faithful research, caution in the expression of
mere opinions, candor
statement of facts and of the necessary inferences from them, and the devout recognition of the divine inworking in the religious life of the Hebrews, and of the
tokens of divine inspiration in the literature which records and embodies
it."
Dr.
"
A.
P.
PEABODY,
in the
Cambridge Tribune.
To
faith in
divine revelation and profound reverence for the Bible as the
record of that revelation he joins a broad, general scholarship, a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew language, an intimate familiarity with every part of the Old Testament, a well balanced judgment that knows how to discriminate between
the certain
setting
it
forth."
and the merely probable, a strong love of Reformed Quarterly Review.
truth,
and a calm courage
in
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
By
NEWMAN
Crown
SMYTH,
D.D.,
New Haven
8vo,
508 pages, $2.50 net
Dr. Smyth's volume
aims
to give a scientific
fills a gap in English ethical literature, as it and complete account of the ethics of the Chris-
tian consciousness
duties
and
social
and life. The application of ethics to the individual problems of modern life and the authority of the
aspects of the
Driver's
initial
Bible are among the specially interesting The volume is a worthy successor of Prof.
Library.
discussion.
Old Testament," the remarkably successful
" Literature of the volume in this new
by no means a dry disquisition on ethics in general, presenting those and duty which the heathen might share with the Christian, but it recognizes Christianity as a power in the world, having its own standard of right, and using means for the realization of its ideal in human souls and in
"It
is
views of
life
human conduct."
The Journal and Messenger.
be Unternational Gbeological
Xibrarp
"As this book is the latest so it is the fullest and most attractive treatment of the subject that we are familiar with. Patient and exhaustive in its method of inquiry, and stimulating and suggestive in the topic it handles, we
are confident that
it
will
be a help to the task of the moral understanding and

life."
interpretation of
11
human
The Living Church.
This work of Dr. Smyth is worthy of careful perusal, while it is comIt is also thoroughly, often prehensive, it is developed from a central idea.
practically, finished in the details.
Part Second
is
a very able discussion of

time,
practical Christian duties, furnishing, at the

to devotional
same
many pages adapted

%
Sunday reading." Extract from a
letter
of Rev. George N. Boardman D.D.

is
11
This book of Dr.
Newman Smyth
of extraordinary interest
and value.
It is It is
an honor to American scholarship and American Christian thinking.
a work which has been wrought out with remarkable grasp of conception, and power of just analysis, fullness of information, richness of thought, and affluence of apt and luminous illustration. Its style is singularly clear, simple,
facile,
and strong.
lifts
Too much
gratification can hardly
be expressed
at the
way
the author
the whole subject of ethics up out of the slough of mere naturalism into its own place, where it is seen to be illumined by the Christian
revelation and vision."

'
'
The Advance.
Far from narrowing the subject by the apparant limitation of the title, Christian Ethics, Dr. Smyth has broadened it as one broadens his landscape
by ascending
to the highest possible point of view.
The
subjects treated cover
the whole field of moral and spiritual relations, theoretical and practical, natural
and revealed, individual and

is
social,
civil
and
ecclesiastical.
To
enthrone
this
the personal Christ as the true content of the ethical ideal, to

ideal
show how
and how applied in the varied de" partments of practical life these are the main objects of the book and no The Congregationalist. objects could be loftier."
realized in Christian consciousness
"It
of the
tive.
is
a noble book.
So
far as I
know
it
Ethics have hitherto been treated
exclusively from a philosophical point of view, as though there were
no prophet
Moral
Law whose
interpretation of
we
accept as final and authorita-
In treating Ethics from the Christian point of view Professor Smyth His has made a notable contribution both philosophically and practically.
well-balanced statement of the Christian sociological principles, his moderate
and well-balanced statement of the relations of the Church to sociological evolution, and his exposition of the duties of an agnostic toward the God who is unknown to him, and yet whose existence is not denied, strike me as among the most admirable features of a book admirable throughout, which I hope may find its way into our Christian schools and seminaries as a text-book." Extract from a letter of Dr. Lyman Abbott.
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS,
Publishers
743-745 Broadway, New York

Epistlecommentar00sanduoft BW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Epistlecommentar00sanduoft BW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Epistlecommentar00sanduoft BW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

mm

Dr. Robert Dobbie

Inttrnational Critical Cammenlarg

UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF

The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.

SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER,

Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford;

M.A., D.D. Durham.

Cambridge Bible for

the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Student's,

and other similar

But they do not enter into

the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such

Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes

Handbuch zum A. T.; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes

that will be abreast of

Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of

York, and Messrs.

Alfred Plummer, D.D.,

the original texts of the Bible, and

are designed chiefly for students and

and discussing impartially the questions

details of criticism will

proper place in the body of the Commentary.

be introduced with a paraphrase, Technical details of textual and

philological criticism will, as a rule,

be kept distinct from

matter of a more general character

be serviceable to students not acquainted The History of Interpretation of the Books

be dealt with, when necessary,

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D.D.,

Oriel Professor of the

Holy Scripture, Oxford.

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

White, M. A., Fellow

B.A., Lecturer in Hebrew, MansOxford.

S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready.

The Rev. George Adam Smith, D.D.,

The Rev. George Moore, D.D.,

Professor of Hebrew, Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.

The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Lane Theologic Seminary,

The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D.,

and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

The Rev. Edward

brew, Yale University,

Curtis, D.D., Professor of HeNew Haven, Conn.

Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, School, Philadelphia.

The Rev. The Rev.

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

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

Edward Robinson Union Theological

Toy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Har-

vard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY continued.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.

[In the Press.