THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL 
 
 TO THE 
 
 POMANS. 
 
I. 
 
A handbook: 
 
 OF 
 
 THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL 
 
 TO THE 
 
 ROMANS, 
 
 BASED ON Tlin REVISED VERSION AND THE REVISERS* TEXT, 
 
 FOR .THE USE OF STUDENTS AND BIBLE CLASSES. 
 
 BY 
 
 N. BURWASH, S.T.D., 
 
 Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology in Victoria University. 
 
 K 
 
 TORONTO: 
 
 « ■■.--- 
 
 WILLIAM BRIGGS, 78 St 80 KING STREET EAST.. 
 
 1887. 
 
 ; 'ifJii'N ■;, 
 
jr '^J^<^ \\ 
 
 Entered, according to the Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year one thou 
 sand eight hundred and eighty-seven, by William Briggs, Agent for the Pro- 
 prietor, in the Office of the Minister of Agriculture, at Ottawa. 
 
PEE FACE. 
 
 The present work is tlie result oi special studies commenced 
 some seventeen years ago. During that time it has been the 
 duty of the writer to examine the Epistle to the Romans criti- 
 cally with successive classes of students. This class-room work 
 has doubtless left its impress on the form of book which is now 
 offered to the public. In this joint labour of teacher and stu- 
 dents four leading hermeneutical principles have guided us : — 
 
 1. In dealing with the work of an author of the literaiy rank 
 of St. Paul we have assumed that there is no mere verbiage, that 
 every word and every grammatical construction has its reason in 
 the living thought and mental processes of the author. To ascer- 
 tain what that reason is, i. e. , to reproduce to our own conscious- 
 ness this living thought and these mental processes, has been 
 our first aim. For this purpose we have had constant recourse 
 to the Grammar, using Winer, Buttmann and Kuehner ; to the 
 Lexicon, using especially Grimm and Cremer ; and above all, 
 to the Concordance, tracing words, phrases and constructions 
 through the entire writings of St. Paul, and endeavouring thus 
 to secure more exact definition of the thought which such terms 
 connoted in the apostle's mind. We hope that here and there 
 serious difficulties in interpretation have been removed by the 
 ^ light gained in this way. 
 
 - 2. It has further been taken for granted that, especially in St. 
 
 , Paul's writings, a perfect logical sequence is maintained. Per- 
 
 . haps no other writer, either ancient or modern, places us so fully 
 
 under the obligation of this principle as does St. Paul. He is 
 
 pre-eminently a perfect logician. He has also hi« Q|rn forms of 
 
vi ' PREFACE. 
 
 logical connection, with which one must become familiar in order 
 to avoid mistake. His use of connectives is therefore a study 
 of prime importance, and his methods of grouping the various 
 ■elements in his argumentative process must bo carefully noted. 
 His rhetorical methods are also at times of very great importance 
 in following his line of thought. By such helps as these it has 
 been our aim to follow from point to point the logical movement 
 of the thought of the writer; and we feel, after years of study 
 in this direction, fully justified in saying that he is never inco- 
 herent, and that he never palms off upon his readers mysticism, 
 allegory or rabbinical fancies for argument ; in fact, that the 
 demands of the most perfect science are satisfied by his logical 
 method. This especially appears in his use of proofs from the 
 Old Testament scriptures, which he never cites after in an irra- 
 tional, unhistorical, or so-called spiritual fashion. His spiritual 
 meaning is always true philosophy, the elucidation of moral 
 principle. We have therefore proceeded upon the principle 
 that Paul's work admits of a thoroughly rational interpretation 
 throughout, and have sought to find such a sense to every pas- 
 sage. 
 
 3. We take it for granted that a mind of the logical power and 
 matured thought of St. Paul held a perfectly defined conception 
 of the whole sphere of truth with which it had to deal ; that not 
 only were the great fundamental points of truth, such as man's 
 responsibility, the principle of faith, God's sovereignty, etc., 
 clearly defined, but that they were so harmonized and articu- 
 lated as to form in his own mind a self-consistent system of 
 moral and I'eligious truth. While the present Epistle does not 
 formally propound such a system it gives abundant evidence of 
 its existence. Such a mind as St. Paul's, engaged for twenty- 
 five years or more upon the work of making clear to others the 
 great truths of Christianity, could not fail to have framed them 
 into a coherent, systematic conception ; and certainly must have 
 clearly defined to itself the individual elements of truth. We 
 have therefore had recourse at every point to the study of the 
 important parallel passages. In the Epistles to the Galatians, 
 
PREFACE. vli 
 
 Corinthians, Ephoaians, Philippians, etc., wo have found abun- 
 dant materials for the more perfect definition of d(jctrine8, argu- 
 ments, and even illustrations, which have been presented in our 
 present Epistle in more sununary form. The apostle has thus 
 served as his own expositor, and has left us no room to doubt us 
 to his true meaning. Perhaps no hermeneutical principle has 
 been mo^'e fruitful of liglit and help, both in the doHuition and 
 expansion of the apostle's thought, than this. It is a great boon 
 tliat we enjoy in the possession of so many works from the i)en 
 of this great Christian founder, and that so many of them are 
 written from a point of view which throws light upon the con- 
 tents of this his greatest work. 
 
 4. We have taken it for granted that Paul's system of religious 
 truth had its natural genetic relation to antecedent and contem- 
 poraneous thought and religious life ; that it is a part of a histoiy, 
 governed by the laws which obtain in the history of the spiritual 
 life of humanity. In saying this we do not exclude the super- 
 natural. We believe that the supernatural is involved in, or 
 perhaps we should say links itself on to, the very laws of our 
 spiritual being; that ib is not a magical interference operating 
 from without, but a divine i)ower working from within. So we 
 believe revelation itself has its laws of development, in which, as 
 in nature, God hath unfolded his plan, ^xi fact, Paul himself 
 boldly affirms this, and regai'ds himself as a minister in this pro- 
 cess of development. We have therefore felt justified in using 
 to the fullest ex. ent possible the historical method. We are well 
 aware of how vast, how impossible to human knowledge or skill, 
 is the task thus attempted. Who has the power to trace the 
 birth and perfecting of thought in his own mind ? Who then 
 can understand its life-long process in the mind of another? 
 But though a perfect mastery of this science of genetic interpre- 
 tation lies almost infinitely beyond us, yet even its elements are 
 so full of help in the task of apprehending the thoughts of a great 
 mind that we have made what effort in this direction lay in our 
 power. ,. ■. '-' y 
 
 In conclusion, we can assure our readera that the hours spent 
 
vni 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 in communion witli St. Paul in this Epiatle have boon hours of 
 the most blessed .satisfaction. While dealing more dii*ectly with 
 the intellectual aspects of this great book we have not lost sight 
 of the fact that intellect is quickened into its highest life by the 
 profoundest emotion, and that lie who would understand Paul 
 aright must feel with him. Not for ourselves alone but for our 
 readers as well have we prayed for this gift, the gift of perfect 
 sympathy with the clear moral conviction, the lofty faith, the 
 boundless enthusiasm, the unfaltering trust, the patient, conse- 
 crated love of Paul. Without this all attempt at understanding 
 him must fail. May God grant that in this spirit we may all 
 abound yet more and more ! 
 
 N. BURWASH. 
 
 Victoria Univkrsitv, 
 
 CoBOURO, OxT. , March 21st, 1887. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS 
 
 That this Epistle, as stated in its opening sentences, was written 
 by St. Paul has never been seriously doubted in the church. From 
 the days of Irenasus downward there is an uninterrupted consensus 
 of testimony, besides clear references to the Epistle in the apostolic 
 fathers.* The internal evidence also, whether drawn from the 
 tenor of doctrine or from the incidental allusions, is complete. A 
 comparison of ch. xv. 25, etc., with ch. xv' 1 and 23, shows that it 
 was written from Corinth, just before the journey to Jerusalem with 
 the alms o' the churches of Achaia and Macedonia, i.e., in the spring 
 of A.D. 58. It is worthy of note that the Epistles to the Corinthians 
 were written twelve and six months prior, and the Epistle to the 
 Galatians probably within three months of the date of this Epistle. 
 
 Of the origin of the church at Rome, and of its condition at this 
 time, we know but little beyond what is contained or implied in the 
 Epistle itself. It was essentially a Gentile church (ch. i. 13; xi. 13), 
 with some Jews (ch. ii. 17; iv. 1), though this last point is not so 
 clear. Many of its members were personally known to St. Paul 
 (ch. xvi. 4, etc.); some of them former fellow-laborers with him 
 (vv. 4, 9) ; one (v. 5), and it may be more, among the converts of his 
 former ministry. It is not impossible that the church had been 
 founded or largely built up by the labours of these associates and 
 converts of Paul, and was thus founded in that type of Christian doc- 
 trine which Paul preached. But as a whole this church did not 
 
 ♦ See Irenaeus, Adv. Haer, L. v., Clein; Ad. Corinth I. ob. 36, etc. 
 2 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 stand in any such relation to him that he could assume authority 
 over their faith or intermeddle with their internal affairs (ch, i. 
 11, 12). In seeking, therefore, for the historical occasion of this 
 Epistle with a view to determine its scope, we require to study not 
 so much the internal state of the Roman church at this time as the 
 .relation of Paul to the entii'e Christian world at this juncture in his 
 rdnistry. 
 
 THE OCCASION. 
 
 It is evident from the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, 
 as well as from various allusions in the Acts, that, at this time, the 
 character of Paul's work and teaching, and also his apostolic au- 
 thority, were seriously called in question by an active, a large, and 
 a somewhat successful party in the Christian church. Now, the 
 very fact of such a question having been raised must have rendered 
 Paul anxious — 
 
 1. To set himself right with his old friends and fellow- workers by 
 placing his complete doctrine of the gospel fairly before them. 
 
 2. To place his position rightly before the church at Rome, which 
 he intended shortly to visit. 
 
 .3. To anticipate and prevent any injurious influence which the 
 false teachings of his opponents might exert here as already else- 
 where. 
 
 The second of these motives is seemingly most prominent, though 
 all three are secured in the same way, i. e., by a full argumentative 
 exposition of the entire doctrinal system, or, as he calls it, "the 
 gospel," which he preached as opposed to the " other gospel " which 
 taught, " Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye can- 
 not be saved. " This accounts for the peculiar form of controversial 
 style adopted in this Epistle — a form which has led all expositors, 
 ancient and modern, to the. view that Paul has in mind an unnamed 
 or an ideal antagonist in many of the most animated parts of the 
 treatise. 
 
 WHO WAS THIS ANTAGONIST? / 
 
 Three answers have been proposed : 
 
 1. The unbelieving Jew. 
 
 2. The adherent of the original form of Christianity as preached 
 by Peter. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 3. The pseudo-Christian Jew who meets us in the fifteenth of 
 Acts, and in the Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians. 
 
 Tljis last we take to be the true view. In a letter to believing 
 Gentiles why should Paul defend his doctrine against unbelieving 
 Jews? On the other hand, we must consider tlie position of Baur, 
 which identifies the original Jewish church with the pseudo-Chris- 
 tians, " false brethren," referred to, as altogether untenable. Paul's 
 ideal antagonist, whose sceptical question he so frequently voices in 
 this Epistle, is the Jewish Christian, who exalts circumcision above 
 Christ. 
 
 THE SUBJECT 
 
 of this Epistle we thus take to be a complete exposition of Paul's 
 doctrinal system as opposed to the spurious Judaizing form of Chris- 
 tianity ; and we conceive that the most important introductory mat- 
 ter to the right understanding of this Epistle is a review cf the 
 entire controversy between Paul and his Judaizing opponent. In 
 taking this position we do not for a moment admit Baur's theory 
 that Ebionitism was the oi'iginal form of Christianity, and that 
 Paul's was a later antagonistic and supplanting system. On the 
 other hand, the entire history of the case, as well as the study of 
 this Epistle, will furnish evidence that Paul regarded the gospel 
 which he preached as the true, original gospel of Jesus Christ. Nor 
 do we admit, with Baur and the ancient Ebionites, that the preach- 
 ing of Peter was in accord with the teaching of Paul's opponents. 
 On these two points we ask the student to examine carefully such 
 passages as 1 Cor. xi. 23; xv. 3; Gal. i. 6, 7, 11, 12 j ii. 7, 8, 9 (8ee 
 also Acts XV. 9, and x. 43. ) It is further certain that in the days 
 of Justin Martyr there were two schools of Jewish Christians who 
 still I'everenced and observed the Mosaic law. One of these showed 
 no disposition to impose that law on the Gentile church, and these 
 we take to be the genuine successors cf r'eter, James, and the elders 
 and apostles at Jerusalem (see Dialogue with Trypho, 47.) The 
 bthers " strove in every way to persuade other men, I mean those 
 who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the 
 same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved 
 unless they do so." These ve take to be the genuine successors of 
 Paul's opponents. 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE EBIONITES. 
 
 This party, which appears so distinctly in Justin Martyr's time, 
 about a century after the writing of our Epistle, can be traced down 
 to the end of the fourth century with but little variation in their 
 peciiliar tenets. Their separation from the church as external sec- 
 taries dates from the time of Hadrian, about A.D. 130. But their 
 doctrinal peculiarities were not the result but the cause of this. In 
 A.D. 130 Ebionitism was a fully developed system of belief. What 
 was this system ? and to what extent was it already in existence in 
 the time of Paul's conflict with the Judaizei's ? . 
 
 In endeavouring to answer these questions we shall first borrow 
 from Mosheim a synopsis of the doctrine of the Ebionites of the 
 second century. " They supposed Christ to be an ambassador from 
 God endued with divine power, yet they conceived him to be a man 
 born in the ordinary course of nature, the son of Joseph and Mary. 
 They maintained that the ceremonial law of Moses must be observed 
 not by the Jews only but by all who wished to obtain salvation, and 
 therefore St. Paul, that strenuous opposer of the law, they viewed 
 M'ith abhorrence. Nor were they satisfied with the mere rites which 
 Moses appointed, but observed with equal veneration the supersti- 
 tious rites of their ancestors and the customs of the Pharisees which 
 were added to the law." 
 
 From this outline of Ebionitism, with which all our historians 
 agree, we gather the following points : — 
 
 1. The essential principle of Ebionitism was a divergent view of 
 the way of salvation. This was to be attained by observance of 
 moral and ritual law. 
 
 2. This led to their regarding Christ as the prophet or teacher, 
 but not as the priest, of his people, 
 
 3. As such lower faith in Christ did not involve his divinity, this 
 was denied. 
 
 4. This legal view of the way of salvation involved no doctrine of 
 the internal sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 5. It involved no deeply spiritual conviction of the guilt and 
 power of sin. 
 
 6. It maintained in full the Jewish idea of their peculiar right to 
 salvation by virtue of the covsnant of circumcision. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 These six points are, we think, fully borne out by the study of the 
 Clementines, the mc3t important Ebionitish work which has come 
 down to our times, a^ well as by the remarks and references of the 
 ancient historians and church writers. 
 
 Were these fundamental elements of Ebionitish doctrine already 
 developed in the apostolic age ? We think they were. 
 
 1. Three of the Gospels imply in their teachings some such form 
 of opposed teaching: St. John in his entire doctrine of the incarna- 
 tion and deity of the Word ; St. Matthew and St. Luke in their ex- 
 plicit statement of the miraculous conception. 
 
 2. The Epistle to the Hebrews stands in antagonism to this teach- 
 ing point by point. 
 
 (a) Ebionitism denies the divinity and pre-existence of Christ. 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews opens with the most direct assertion 
 and proof of thit. fundamental doctrine. 
 
 (b) Ebi nitism clearly ignores or denies the priestly or mediatorial 
 work of Christ. The " sum " of this Epistle is this: " We have an 
 High Priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty 
 in the heavens." 
 
 (c) Ebionitism sets forth a legal way of salvation. The Epistle to 
 the Hebrews insists that in all ages "without faith it is impossible 
 to please God." 
 
 (d) Ebionitism expiated sin by ritual offerings. This Epistle 
 asserts that it is "impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to 
 take away sin," and everywhere exhibits the most deeply spiritual 
 views of the guilt of sin. 
 
 (e) Ebionitism failed to recognize that deeper intent of the law so 
 fully taught in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, which requires 
 truth in the inward parts and a righteousness only attainable by the 
 regeneration of the Holy Ghost. But the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 sets forth the Word of (iod as " quick and powerful, sharper than a 
 two-edged sword, piercing to the dividing asunder of the soul and 
 spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts 
 
 [ and intents of the heart;" and it exhibits the work of divine grace 
 as a new covenant, in which God " will put his laws into their mind 
 and write them in their hearts, " 
 
 Nor is this strongly marked antithesis of the great lines of thought 
 in this Epistle to the fundamental principles of Ebionitism a mere 
 
U INTRODUCTION. 
 
 accident. This Epistle was written to the Hebrews, but not to the 
 unbelieving Hebrews, for there is no argument to prove that Jesus 
 is the Messiah ; that is taken for granted as a matter alreadj- be- 
 lieved by these Hebrews. But the very fact that the fundamental 
 doctrines regarding the person, office and work cf the Messiah re- 
 quired such extended exposition and demonstration indicates the 
 existence of opposing tendencies. 
 
 3. Let us now fall back twenty years further to the date of the 
 Epistle to the Galatians. This Epistle is not indirectly but directly 
 opposed to the Jewish error of Paul's day, and hence that error is 
 definitely described. 
 
 (a) Ebionitism presented a fundamentally different way of salvation 
 — a legal and ceremonial righteousness. Paul's opponents preached 
 " another gospel," a " perversion," turning men away from the (jrace 
 of Christ. This "other gospel " was justification by works of law 
 and not by faith. 
 
 {h) Ebionitism denied the divinity and mediatorial work of Christ. 
 Paul thought it needful to assert that "in the fulness of time God 
 sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to re- 
 deem them that were under the law. " 
 
 (c) Ebionitism held superficial views of the guilt and inward power 
 of sin, and its idea of religion was external and ceremonial. Paul 
 in this Epistle insists on the spirit of adoption, faith working by 
 love, the fruits of the Spirit, not circumcision nor uncircumcision 
 but a new creature, exposing the deep moral pollution of the works 
 of the flesh. . ir^ - .^^^;^- 'V 
 
 Here, then, we have Paul contending with the essentials of Ebionit- 
 ism, but not yet in their fully developed form. If the central prin- 
 ciple of Ebionitism was a fundamentally wrong view of the way of 
 salvation, then that wrong central principle is here most clearly dis- 
 cussed and opposed. That those who followed this wrong way 
 lacked the deep, heartfelt conviction of sin, and the corresponding 
 experience of the inward work of the Spirit, is likewise evident from 
 the tone of the Epistle. But it would seem that they had not yet 
 so far consciously developed their beliefs as to deny the divinity of 
 Christ and his mediatorial work; hence the apostle touches these 
 points less fully and professedly than the author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. He perhaps merely anticipates that which he saw 
 
; , INTRODUCTION. 16 
 
 clearly involved in the system. Ebionitism may have been as yet 
 practical rather 'han speculative. 
 
 4. Turning next to the Epistles to the Corinthians, we must bear 
 in min(f that this church was quite as much in danger from practical 
 Antinomianism as from legalism, and from philosophical scepticism 
 as from Jewish superstition. But even here, mingled with widely 
 different tendencies, we may trace Ebionitisli principles. Note the 
 following :— 
 
 Christ on a level with Paul, Cephas and Apollos (1 Cor. i. 12, 
 iii. 4, etc.). 
 
 The questions about circumcision (ch. vii. 18, 19), and about idol 
 sacrifices (ch. viii. ). 
 
 The supreme importance of charity (ch. xiii.). 
 
 The gospel that " Christ died for our sins" (ch. xv. 3, and 2 Cor. 
 V. 14-21). 
 
 The contrast of the ministration of the letter with that of the 
 spirit (2 Cor. ch. iii. ^. • •..• ■ 
 
 And especially the underlying references, in 2 Cor. chs. x. and xi., 
 to men who boast in another man's lino of things made ready to their 
 hand ; who preach another Jesus and 6,nother gospel, and boast that 
 they are Hebrews. 
 
 All these particulars go to show that while the principles of 
 Ebionitism were still in a rudimentary state their essential elements 
 were already in existence among those to whom Paul wrote the 
 Pjpistles to the Corinthians, and, indeed, the assertion of Jewish pre- 
 rogatives quite prominent. Twenty years later, when the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews was written, these elements had assumed their full 
 form. And this we might reasonably expect. It was very improb- 
 able that a system so closely allied to Judaism should come into 
 existence after the destruction of the temple and the cessation of the 
 Jewish ritual. History also proves that in the age of new ideas and 
 formations the first stages of growth are rapid, and the new systems 
 quickly reach their full development. It is not at all surprising 
 that, though not yet fully developed, this system should from the 
 beginning be apprehended by Paul in all its bearings and potential 
 deviations from the truth. His religious insight was profound, his 
 inspiration of the highest order, and his intellectual power to dis- 
 cern all logical results seldom equalled. lu dealing, therefore, with 
 
 .oa< 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 this error, while he grappled with its fundamental principle — right- 
 eousness by works of law — we are quite prepared to find him strik- 
 ing at many of its remoter consequences, and demolishing false ideas 
 which became more prominent in after times. 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS WRITTEN IN OPPOSITION 
 
 TO EBIONITISM. 
 
 But admitting that the conflict in which Paul was at this time 
 engaged was a conflict with the essential and germinating principles 
 of Ebionitism, it still remains to be proved that this conflict has en- 
 tered into the Epistle to the Rom"Tis, and has determined both its 
 line of thought and its mode of presentation. We have already 
 mentioned three considerations which would naturally lead to this : 
 Paul's desire that his personal friends at Rome, who could not but 
 hear of the bitter attacks of his opponents, should understand his 
 doctrine as he himself presented it; his wish to visit Rome command" 
 ing the full confidence due to an apostle of Christ ; and his anticipa- 
 tion of danger from this false doctrine, even at Rome. On this last 
 point Baur asserts roundly that in the second century Ebionitism 
 prevailed at Rome. This we think cannot be sustained, yet the 
 evidence goes to show that in some minds there it had gained a foot- 
 hold. That it did not earlier establish itself there may have been 
 due to this very Epistle. It certainly was not due to any lack of 
 zeal or enterprise on the part of its advocates. Those who followed 
 Paul from Jerusalem to Antioch, and from Antioch to Corinth and 
 even to remote Galatia, might be expected to precede or follow him 
 to Rome. 
 
 If it be objected that the Gentile churches could take no interest 
 in and be in no danger from a Judaizing sect, the reply is that Gala- 
 tia and Corinth were Gentile churches, and yet they suffered from 
 Ebionite teachings. The churches of the Gentiles were largely 
 planted by Paul among the adherents of the synagogue, the prose- 
 lytes of righteousness, those who had been already leavened by the 
 monotheistic and ethical teachings of Moses. Paul himself had ha- 
 bitually appealed to Moses and the prophets, so that in all Christian 
 churches they were held in highest honour. At Rome the influences 
 of the elder system may have been still stronger. If the gospel was 
 carried to Rome by the strangers from Rome who listened on the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 day of Pentecost, then it entered the imperial city as scarcely yet 
 distinguished from Judaism, and the church at Rome may have had 
 a very warm attachment not only to the Old Testament Scriptures 
 but also to the religion which they represented. Nor was it the 
 Jew alone who was in danger from Ebionitism, especially in those 
 more ethical and less ritual forms which we find in the Clementines. 
 It is indeed possible that this work was from Rome. It is also 
 against this form of Ebionitism that the Epistle to the Romans espe- 
 cially bears, as the Epistle to the Hebrews meets its more external 
 and ritual form. The fundamental principles of E-bionitism repro- 
 duce themselves in the superficial legalism of every age, even in 
 modern Unitarianism ; and as ioch superficial legalism exists among 
 Gentiles as well as Jews, Ebionitism would attract those thus dis- 
 posed to itself. 
 
 The probabilities in favour of this view are further increased by 
 the fact that Paul was just now full of this subject. The strong 
 language of the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians shows how 
 all the intensity of his nature was aroused by it. That he should 
 write at this time without manifesting this influence would be simply 
 uiuiatural. 
 
 Again, every expositor admits at once the controversial style of 
 the first eleven chapters.. The antagonist or objector is confessedly 
 a Jew. No one can deny this. Is he an unbelieving Jew ? or a 
 l^rofessedly Christian Jew ? The usual mode of exposition assumes 
 the former alternative. But if Paul were contending with a Jew 
 who did not believe in Christ, then his first point must have been to 
 prove that Jesus was the Christ. But not a word of this is to be 
 found in the Epistle. If unbelieving Jews had been the rivals of 
 the apostle in seeking to influence the mind of the Roman church, 
 then this subject must have come under review. But the question 
 which, as we take it, Paul here discusses is this: What is true Chris- 
 tianity ? — a question of most vital interest to all Christians, and the 
 one question of actual conflict at the time. So strongly have the 
 actual facts of the Epistle pressed at this point that many expositors, 
 failing to recognize the relation of the Epistle to the external Ebion- 
 itism which opposed Paul, have been forced to regard the Church at 
 Rome as largely composed of believing Jews, to whom the main argu- 
 ments of the Epistle were addressed in confirmation of their faith. 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 But the true test of this or any view is, after all, the practical 
 one. You take up the key and iispect it, and it looks as if it would 
 fit the lock. But it is only wiien you have turned it completely 
 round tlirough all the wards, and find by the trial that it fits and 
 turns back the bolt perfectly, that you are satisfied that you have 
 the right key. We can give but an outline of the trial here — the 
 details must appear in the work of exposition. 
 
 1. The fundamental idea of Ebionitism is salvation by works of 
 law. This Epistle maintains the doctrine of salvation by faith with- 
 out works of law. 
 
 2. p]bionitism leads to a denial of the divinity of Christ. The 
 author of this Epistle introduces the fact of his divinity twice side 
 by side with the Ebionite truth of his natural relation to Israel. 
 
 3. Ebionitism ignores the mediatorial work of Christ. The writer 
 most clearly presents it as the basis of his doctrine of salvation. 
 
 4. Ebionitism presents low views of the guilt of sin. The writer 
 of this Epistle emphasizes this subject in a most profound discussion 
 of sin, both as guilt and as an inward law of death. 
 
 5. Ebionitism leads to uxternalism in ethics. This Epistle en- 
 forces the most searching spirituality. 
 
 6. Ebionitism clung to a bald literalism in the interpretation of 
 Scripture. St. Paul claims deliverance from the bondage of the law 
 for those who serve " in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the 
 letter." 
 
 7. The ambition of the Ebionites was to maintain the claim of the 
 Jews to be the only elect people of God, in virtue of the covenant of 
 circumcision. In chs. ix., x. and xi. Paul proves, in opposition to 
 t!is exclusive claim, the prerogative, the justice and the wisdom of 
 God in choosing his elect people from all nations upon the basis of a 
 new covenant of grace through faith, 
 
 8. Even the practical parts of the Epistle give examples of the 
 same antagonism of truth to this narrow error. The positive pre- 
 cepts are full of the broad, universal spirit of the Pauline gospel, 
 enjoining especially charity toward the narrowness of the weaker 
 brother; the. negative guard against the self -conceited, critical spirit 
 so easily awakened by controversy. 
 
 We might further show that the objections introduced by Paul's 
 " What thens '' are all the objections of the Ebionite, many of them 
 
«*» 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 of course also objections of the Jew, but not one of them those which 
 would l)e nrged only by an unbelieving Jew. Many other details 
 will appear in the course of the exposition. 
 
 From the foregoing considerations we conclude the following to be 
 the true view of the historical antecedents of this Epistle:— 
 
 HISTORICAL PROLEGOMENA. 
 
 To Paul as the apostle to the (i entiles was committed the gospel 
 of the uncircumcision. This fact is the key to the life and work of 
 Paul and to his relation to the church. Down to the time of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, or even to the time of Hadrian, the dis- 
 tinction between tlie Jewish Christian and the Gentile Christian was 
 somewl at marked. The Jewish Christian received Christ as the 
 Messiah and his Saviour, and rejoiced in the gift of the Holy (ihost 
 received through faith in his name. But he continued none the less 
 zealous for the law, and strict in the observance of its precepts. 
 Many of the Jewish Christians believed that their salvation required 
 tliat they should be literally included in the Abrahamic covenant by 
 circumcision ; and perhaps at first all believed that this was pleasing 
 to (jrod. Thus at first the Pharisees, who were strict observers of 
 the law, were disposed to protect the Christians as against the Saddu- 
 cees. Stephen seems to have been the first to see clearly that the 
 Jewish dispensation was ended and that Christianity, on a universal 
 and spiritual basis, was to take its place. This was, perhaps, the 
 ground of the accusation that he taught that Christ would " destroy 
 the temple and change the customs which Moses delivered." His 
 fidelity to this universal character of gospel salvation led to his 
 death. But as Stephen cried out, " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," 
 one stood by on whom his mantle was to descend. TT.; was, like 
 Stephen, a Grecian Jew, cultivated in intellect, and by the wider 
 sympathies of the Hellenist the better fitted for the apostleship to 
 the Gentiles. While this man, Saul of Tarsus, is being fitted for his 
 work, first by converting grace and subsequently by labours among 
 the Hellenists, God is opening the way for his future course. Peter, 
 a rigid Jewish Christian, is chosen to open the door of the church 
 to the Gentiles ; and the evident command of God in the case puts 
 to silence not only Peter's scruples but also the murmurs of the 
 circumciaion Christians. Almoat immediately afterward Paul is 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 introduced to his great lifework at Antioch by Barnabas. It would 
 seem that from the beginning he preached the gospel of the uncir- 
 cumcision, salvation through faith in Christ without works of law. 
 From his language in writing to the Ualatians it appears that this 
 gospel was directly taught him by the revealing Spirit, and that he 
 was thus freed from those Jewish prejudices which still entangled 
 some even of the apostles themselves. 
 
 But Paul was not permitted to preach this gospel without opposi- 
 tion both within and without the church. First we have the events 
 described in the fifteenth of Acts. Here begins to appear the exist- 
 ence of a distinct party preaching a new gospel — "Except ye be 
 circumcised after the manner of Moses, y<^ cannot be saved." Moses 
 and Christ were conjoined. Christ was but a lawgiver, teacher or 
 revealer of God's will, as was Moses. This party would appear to 
 have arisen in the church during the rest from persecution which 
 followed the conversion of Saul. The churches multiplied in those 
 days, and doubtless there were gathered in some, perhaps not a few, 
 who drank not deeply into the spirit of the new religion, passed not 
 through deep conviction of sin, and as a consequence apprehended 
 Christ only as a teacher of truth surpassing the rabbis of the age. 
 In such minds there was no new leaven to countei-act the old Jewish 
 tendencies to exclusiveness and legality. These wei-e still para- 
 mount, and the faith of Christ was but ^ superficial addition. Here 
 is the great mistake of the system of Baur in failing to recognize 
 that between these men and the teachings of Christ, and between 
 these men and the holy converts of Pentecost, there was as wide a 
 chasm as between them and St. Paul. Paul was one with Jesus in 
 spiritual life and truth, and one with the primitive Christianity of 
 Jerusalem in experience of the renewing power of that i.ruth. He 
 passed beyond them only in discerning that the time had now come 
 to lay off the outward garb of Judaism. This new party was one 
 with the primitive church only in outward forms of faith and ritual. 
 In spirit they were legalists, not Christians. Hence they set to work 
 to make Christianity an instrument for extending their favourite 
 Judaism. And so here in Antioch they came directly into contact 
 with Paul by preaching new conditions of salvation. ^ 
 
 Next we have the visit of Peter to Antioch and his vacillation- 
 described in the Epistle to the Galatians. We have also evidence, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 already referred to, of the same Judaizing opposition at Corinth, 
 and especially in ( lalatia. In fact, there is reason to believe that at 
 the date of the P^pistlo to the Romans there existed a most deter- 
 mined and widespread conflict between Paul and this party. Shortly 
 afterwards this conflict extended beyond the Christian church into 
 the raidts of old Judaism, and I'aul found arrayed against him not 
 only the preaching of -Judaizing Christians but also tlie persecuting 
 zeal of unbelieving Pharisees. His gospel was opposed both to Juda- 
 ism and Judaizing Christianity. Hence a few months later he is 
 obliged to defend his doctrine before the church and his life before 
 the Sanhedrim. 
 
 Thus at the date before us the doctrine of Paul — the gospel of the 
 uncircumcision — had attracted the attention of the whole Jewish 
 and Christian world. A conflict had arisen the issue of which was to 
 decide whether Christianity was to degenerate into a mere Jewish 
 sect or to assert itself as the Cod-given religion of the whole world. 
 Paul felt the full responsibility of the momentous issue at stake, and 
 under these circumstances he pens this Epistle, in which he enters 
 into the full exposition and defence of the entire system of truth 
 which Clod had given bim to preach. 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS AND THEOLOGY. 
 
 Inasmuch as Paul's system of doctrine was the essential doctrine 
 of Ciirisl^ in its divine unfolding under the inspiration of the Holy 
 Spirit, tliis full exposition of Paul's preaching becomes at the same 
 time the most perfect exposition of the entire doctrine of Christianity 
 which the church has received from the pen of inspiration. The 
 Epistle to the Romans is thus the foundation of all theology. The 
 writings of John are necessary for the completion of Christian dogma. 
 Later writings of Paul add to our knowledge of the organization and 
 responsibilities, as well as far-reaching aspirations, of the Christian 
 church. The Epistle to the Hebrews perfects oiir view of the media- 
 torial work, and the catholic Epistles add many precious promises 
 md holy precepts. But this Epistle to the Romans, appearing just 
 bt the time when Christianity had been unfolded to its full and ma- 
 nure form— the form for all nations and all ages — stands alone as the 
 [rand full outline of Christian doctrine for the world. No true sys- 
 im of Chriscian doctrine can be coustructed which does not build 
 
22 . INTRODUCTION. 
 
 from this. It is not a substitute for the original Christianity, but 
 it is the original C^hristianity itself, now first expounded in logical 
 form, Tlie exposition of this Epistle must therefore be chiefly dog. 
 matic. In grammar we shall be especially interested in the logical 
 force of the particles. Occasionally we shall get help from the his- 
 tory of the case. Hut above all else, a clear grasp of the great tlog- 
 matic elements of the Kpistle will enable us to understand every 
 argument and every proposition throughout. We shall often get 
 help outside of tiie P'pistle, also from collateral passages in the Paul- 
 ine Epistles, expanding or illustrating the thoughts presented here. 
 This leads us to an outline of 
 
 TIIK THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Vhe prominent dogmatic elements of this Epistle may be summed 
 up under five heads : — 
 
 1. God's revelation. 
 
 2. Sin. 
 
 3. Christ and his work. 
 
 4. Salvation. 
 
 5. The saved as an elect people in Christ. 
 
 These are followed by ethical teachings, partly growing out of the 
 dogmatic contents of the Epistle, but still more largely out of the 
 historical circumstances under which it was written. 
 
 1 . The divine revelation is treated of in chs. i. -iv. It is pj;'efiented 
 as given in nature (ch. i. 19) ; in the conscience and understaniling of 
 men (ch. ii. 15, 16); in the holy scriptures (ch. i. 2), which are oracles 
 of God (ch. iii. 2); and in the gospe' of God's Son (ch. iii. 21). 
 
 It is the basis of human responsibility (chs. :. 21, 32; ii. 1, 2, 12-16, 
 20, 21, etc.; iii. 3, 20. See also ch. v. 13). 
 It reveals salvation through faith (chs. i. 2, 17; iii. 21, etc.). 
 
 2. Sin is universal, and, upon the basis of universal revelation of 
 moral law, it everywhere exposes to the present and impending 
 wrath of God (chs. i. , ii. and iii. ). 
 
 Sin entered the world through the ofifence of one man, and by a 
 law of the unity of the race in moral responsibility it, together with 
 its penalty (death), has descended to all men. This alone accounts 
 for the fact that all have sinned (ch. v. 12, etc.). This sin is in man's 
 nature a law of sin and death, quickened into conscioua. activity by 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the incoming of divine revelation, and warring against the conscience 
 in which that revelation is manifested (ch. vii. 7-2"). ). 
 
 3. The Christ is not only the seed of David according to the flesh 
 but the Son of (Jod according to the spirit of holiness (ch. i. 3, 4). 
 The shedding of his blood is a propitiation for sins, i.e., a motive in 
 consideration of whicli ( !od may justly forgive (ciis. iii. 25, 26 ; iv, 25 ; 
 V. 5, 8-11). The propitiatory power of his death lies in its being an 
 act of righteousness and obedience parallel to the transgression and 
 disobedience by which sin entered into the world (ch. v. 18, 19). 
 This last point is enlarged in I'hil. ii. 6-9. 
 
 4. Salvation is righteousness or remission of sin (chs. iii. and iv.) ; 
 restoration to peace with God (ch, v.); restoration to new life with 
 Christ (ch. vi.), by the spirit of life in Christ (ch. viii.). 
 
 Its sole condition is faith (chs. iii. and iv.). 
 
 5. The saved in Christ are heirs of (lod and joint heirs with Christ, 
 and so Clod's elect people, the peculiar objects of his favour. They 
 constitute the true election according to the divine foreknowledge 
 and predestination (ch. viii. 18, etc.). This Paul defends by showing 
 the sovereignty of God in his election (ch. ix.), his justice (ch. x.), 
 and his wisdom (ch. xi. ). 
 
 It will be seen from this synopsis that this magnificent thesis o' 
 St. Paul covers almost the entire ground of theology. The most 
 complete system of our day can only prefix to it the Old Testament 
 theistic basis of the existence and attributes of God, and the doc- 
 trines of creati -n and providence, and add, chiefly from Paul's other 
 writings, a few words on the mysterious subject of eschatology. 
 
 If any should be surprised that so vast a field should be travereed 
 in reply to the mere Ebionite heresy, we have only to call to mind 
 that this heresy was a fundamental error, touching the nature of 
 Christ, of his work, and of his salvation. All distinctively Christian 
 truth is involved in these. It was the office of Paul's logical mind, 
 under divine inspiration, to unfold all the truth involved in these 
 great facts as related to the individual experience of salvation, and 
 to place them in opposition to the shallow theories and false views 
 of his opponents. 
 
 This leads us to the consideration of another important topic 
 ; throwing light upon our work of interpretation. 
 
24 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OP THIS DOCTRINAL SYSTEM IN PAUL's 
 
 OWN MIND. 
 
 This difficult problem the mere expositor might well avoid, were 
 it not necessary to the proper exposition of some parts of the Epistle, 
 and these confessedly the most difficult. Paul himself gives us in 
 one passage a statement which must form the basis of our investiga- 
 tion: "For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel 
 which was preached by me, that it is not after man, neither was I 
 taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ " 
 (Gal. i. 12). This passage has often been understood as relegating 
 the whole question of the origin of Paul's gospel to the region of the 
 supernatural. We cannot so understand it. We must recognize 
 the following facts as lying back of the work of the revealing Spirit : 
 
 1. Paul's intimate acquaintance with the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures. ''-^''"\ 
 
 2. His contact with the common synoptic gospel of the apostles, 
 as it was traditionally preached in the synagogues and in the temple 
 by Stephen and others, as well as by the apostles, prior to Paul's 
 conversion. From this ]*aul must have known the main facts of the 
 life of Christ as they are recorded in our three first gospels. 
 
 3. The facts of Paul's own spiritual life under the law, into which 
 we get so clear a glance, as through an opened window, in the sev- 
 enth oi Romans. 
 
 4. The fact of Paul's early contact with the (ireek world, includ- 
 ing some knowledge of Greek literature. 
 
 Now, we have only to study carefully the writings and doctrinal 
 system of Paul to see how the revealing Spirit took up into his divine 
 work in the mind of God's chosen vessel all these antecedent ele- 
 ments of truth, and wrought them out into the completed system of 
 doctrine, "the gospel," which he was to preach. For instance, that 
 his doctrine of sin has its foundation in the Old Testament is clear 
 from Rom. v. compared with Gen. iii., and Rom. iii. compared with 
 the ethical Psalms there quoted. That his own experience entered 
 into it is evident from Rom. vii. In fact this may be regarded as a 
 main part of the revelation to which he refers. 
 
 That even the grand doctrine of justification by fait^^ was not 
 made clear to him apart frona the Old Testament ia evident from 
 
INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 Rom. iv. and x. Here again the personal experience must have 
 been a part of the revelation; and in fact we cannot mistake the 
 voice of that experience in both the fifth and eighth of Romans. We 
 think, in this connection, of the experience of Luther when, on 
 Pilate's stairs at Rome, he heard the voice from heaven, "the just 
 shall live by faith," he sprang to his feet and immediately the whole 
 Word of God was made plain, and he read the same new truth first 
 revealed to Paul on every page from Genesis to Revelation. 
 
 In like manner Paul's doctrine of election is founded on the teach- 
 ing of Isaiah, supported ana illustrated by quotations from the other 
 prophets as well as the Pentateuch. That even the great mystery 
 of the person of Jesus Christ, God's Son, was not revealed apart 
 from an Old Testament basis would seem to be indicated by Rom. 
 i. 2, 3. 
 
 That again Paul was dependent for the knowledge of the facts of 
 Christ's life and teaching upon the apostolic tradition as given in 
 our synoptic gospels we conclude from these facts — . „ 
 
 1. He mentions only the main points in the history. 
 
 2. Whenever he gives detail, except once or twice, the facts and 
 very Words are parallel with our synoptic gospels. 
 
 3. He never opens up that new field, reserved to St. John, which 
 he could have used so powerfully to his purpose had the whole his- 
 tory of Christ's life been supernaturally placed before him. 
 
 4. Luke, his companion and constant hearer, relied upon accurate 
 investigation of the traditions of those "who from the beginning 
 were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word. " What, then, are 
 we to understand when he tells us that the gospel which he preached 
 was taught him by revelation of Jesus Christ ? We think this, that 
 these Old Testament teachings, and these facts of the life and work 
 of Christ, were unfolded to him in their significance as saving truth, 
 the power of God to his own salvation, and also "to the salvation 
 of every one that believeth," both Jew and Gentile. We may thus 
 confidently recognize that Paul's intimate acquaintance with the 
 Old Testament Scriptures, the deep and bitter experience of his 
 heart in the conflict of sin under the law, his wide knowledge of the 
 Bpiritual wants of humanity through contact with the Gentile world 
 
 -all these were in God's providence the preparation, making him 
 meet to be the chosen vessel, needing only the great facts of the 
 
 i 
 
56 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 work and life of Jesus, and then a sadden supernatural opening of 
 the inner eye that God's Son night be revealed, not merely to him, 
 for that light was but exteina), but "in him," giving him the con- 
 scious pprsonal knowleug*" of the perfect system of Christian truth. 
 At the same time we can yet understand that John's more intimate 
 knowledge of special discourses of the Saviour was further needed 
 to give some parts of the system more complete confirmation and 
 emphasis. In fact, had not John followed Paul it might have been 
 claimed that Paul's was not the true gospel of Jesus Chi'ist; that 
 Christ intended only to purify, deepen and give mystic spirituality 
 to the old Judaism ; and that the abrogation of the old sacrifices, the 
 making of Christ's death a universal propitiation, and the conse- 
 quent exaltation of Christ's person, were but fictions of the self- 
 constituted apostle to the Gentiles. It is true that we can see how 
 perfect is the harmony of Paul's doctrine with the wonderful ethical 
 depth of the teaching of Jesus ; how consistent with the idea of pro- 
 pitiation through his death the words of the last supper ; how con- 
 sistent the doctrine of the divinity oj" Jesus with the facts of his life; 
 how perfectly one the experience of Paul in the revelation of Christ 
 in him with that of Pentecost. But all this would not stand out in 
 the clear, unmistakable light in 'vhich we now have it had not John 
 added the topstone to the New Testament revelation in the fourth 
 gospel, the last product of apostolic inspiration. 
 
 In these introductory words we have but outlined our conception 
 of how this Epistle and its contained system of doctrine came to be. 
 We have done this as a basis fi*om which we shall endeavour to ex- 
 pound it. As in the course of our work we meet with special points 
 of doctrine, especially that most abstruse doctrine of election, we 
 shall require to expand at length some of the points here briefly 
 summarized. 
 
 ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 As Paul's method of logical connection is without exception from 
 point to point, i.e., each new thought linked directly to that imme- 
 diately preceding, the grand divisions of the Epistle appear only as 
 culminating points in the progress of the discourse. We shall, there- 
 fore, number the topics throughout in consecutive order, marking 
 ^he grand divisions in Roman numerals, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 27 
 
 1. Into his salutation (ch. i. 1-7) Paul weaves reference to every 
 distinctive point of his doctrine. 
 
 2. He then presents himself personally to his readers, explaining 
 his motives in writing (vv. 8-15). This leads 
 
 3. To the statement of his theme (vv. 17, 18). 
 
 IV. This theme has its reason in the wrath of God against man's 
 sin, the justice of which (a) against the Gentile, (b) against the Jew 
 in spite of his circumcision, Paul proceeds to prove (ch. i. 18-iii. 8), 
 concluding all alike under sin (ch. iii. 9-20). 
 
 V. But to meet this universal sin God reveals his righteousness, 
 provided by the propitiation made by Christ (ch. iii. 21-26), exclud- 
 ing boasting, vindicating the impartiality of God, and establishing 
 the law (vv. 27-31). 
 
 6. l>ut at once the objection is raised that such a view of God's 
 grace, treating Jew and (Tcntile alike, is inconsistent with the pre- 
 rogatives secured to Abraham by the covenant of circumcision. This 
 objection Paul answei's by showing that even Abraham himself was 
 saved by faith before the covenant was yet established, and that 
 through this faith he became heir of the covenant promises which 
 were given him, aot for his own sake only but for the sake of all 
 that believe (c'.. iv. 1-25). 
 
 VII. The triumphant vindication of the doctrine against the main 
 objection of the Judaizers is followed by an exulting exhortation to 
 his readers to possess themselves to the full of the peace and joy 
 which this grand doctrine brings — a joy founded on the love and 
 atoning work of Christ (ch. v. 1-11), which atonement he sets forth 
 in glorious contrast to the fall in Adam (vv. 12-21), leading up to 
 the reign of righteousness in life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 VIII. From the religious side of this doctrine Paul next turns to 
 the ethical (ch. vi.), first pointing out the moral obligations involved, 
 and then following them up by hortatory enforcement, especially 
 contrasting death, the wages of sin, with eternal life, God's gift in 
 Christ. 
 
 9. The ethical view of his doctrine leads Paul to consider the rela- 
 tion of the Christian to the law. This relation is one of freedom. 
 The lav: having served its purpose in quickening the consciousness 
 |r»f ?in, and so bringing condemnation (a sentence of death), we are 
 ;* bj that very death sot free from its right to hold us, and so are law- 
 
 # 
 
28 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fully transferred to Christ (ch. vii. 1-6). To this the objection at 
 once appears that this makes the law a mere minister of sin. To 
 this Paul replies by expounding most clearly the real oflice of the 
 law, and tracing the real source of sin to the law of sin and death 
 within ourselves, which the law can only make evident to conscious- 
 ness but cannot overcome (vv. 7-25). 
 
 X. From this law of sin and death we are set free by the law of 
 the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which spirit is in us creating new 
 spiritual life, giving promise of new life even to the body, and seal- 
 ing us the children of God and joint heirs with Christ (ch. viii. 1-17). 
 
 11. This leads the apostle to describe the privileges secured to 
 the believer in Christ, running parallel with, but far transcending, 
 the prerogatives of God's ancient elect people. In fact, God's elect 
 they are, and from his love nothing can sever them (ch. viii. 18-end). 
 
 XII. But this glorious election of the future has its sad counter- 
 part, its dark background, in the seeming reversal of the election of 
 the past This Paul next proceeds to consider, vindicating 
 
 (a) The prerogative of God to work out his purpose concerning the 
 election according to his own counsel (ch. ix.); 
 
 (6) The justice of God in the course which in actual fact he has 
 pursued (ch. x. ) ; 
 
 (c) The merciful wisdom of God in the final results of that course 
 (ch. xi. ), concluding with a magnificent doxology to that God "of 
 whom, to whom, and through whom, are all things." 
 
 XIII. The covenant "mercies of God" thus established to the 
 elect in Christ become the foundation of all moral obligation (ch. xii.) 
 
 (a) To the high duties of members of the elect people (vv. 3-8) ; 
 
 (h) To the personal duties of the brotherhood of Christ and the 
 brotherhood of humanity (vv. 9-21); 
 
 (c) To the duties of citizenship (ch. xiii. 1-7) ; 
 
 {d) To the duties of civil right (vv. 8-10) ; 
 
 (e) Of universal Christian circumspection (vv. 11-14). 
 
 14. Finally, Paul considers the special duties arising out of the 
 parties into which the Christian church was just then divided, and 
 which had given the occasion for this Epistle. Those having the 
 broad intelligence and freedom from narrow scruples which the true 
 doctrine bestowed are exhorted — 
 
 (a) To refrain from a scornful spirit (ch. xiv. 1-13) ; 
 
INTRODUCTION. 29 
 
 (6) To exercise a charitable condescension to the scruples of others 
 (vv. 13-23); 
 
 (c) To follow 'n all things edification and the unity of the church 
 (ch. XV. 1-13). 
 
 15. As the letter began so it ends, with personal references to his 
 work and his design in writing the Epistle (ch. xv. 14-33). 
 
 16. To the Epistle thus distinctly closed are appended various 
 personal messages, greetings, exhortations, salutations and another 
 concluding doxology (ch. xvi. 1-27). 
 
 The variations in position of this concluding doxology have given 
 rise to critical conjectures as to the closing chapters of the Epistle. 
 The text is all but universally admitted to be genuine to the end of 
 ch. xiv. Here, in a number of MSS. and cursives, is inserted the 
 closing doxology. A very few others insert it both here and at the 
 end of chapter xvi. A few omit the doxology altogether. But in 
 Jj^, B, C, Dj, with a large support from other authority of cursives, 
 versions and fathers, the doxology stands at the end of the Epistle. 
 
 The mere position of the doxology is a matter of minor importance. 
 The grave question at issue is the genuineness of the chapters xv. 
 and xvi. But all our MSS. in which the entire Epistle is preserved 
 have these chapters. The consistency of the argument is also strongly 
 in favour of chapter xv. , while the objections urged against chapter 
 xvi. are altogether insufficient to outweigh the uniform textual evi- 
 dence. We have therefore accepted the Epistle in its usual form, 
 and have made free use of the important data as to the date and 
 purpose of the Epistle furnished by these chapters. 
 
 ''IR. «-fSfl*^l^' 
 
THE EPISTLE TO' THE ROMANS. 
 
 Ctt. I. 1-7. The Salutation. 
 
 1. Paul,] His Roman name. See Acts xiii. 9. 
 
 a servant] "A bondservant." A presentation of himself with 
 unfeigned humility to a people many of whom were bondsmen, as 
 bound with them to the service of Jenus Ghrint, as they with him 
 were the Lord's freemen. (See also Phil. i. 1, Titus i. 1, and 1 Cor. 
 vii. 22. ) 
 
 of Jesus Christ,] i.e., of Jesus, the Messiah. The headship of 
 Christ over his church, over its minist and over its members, is 
 clearly recognized. (See Acts xxvi. 10.) 
 
 called to be an apostle,] "An apostle by call." (Godet.) The 
 use of the adjective instead of the- passive participle is significant. 
 He expands this in Gal. i. 1, and gives minute account of his call in 
 Acts xxii. and xxvi. That he was not an apostle by call of Christ 
 would appear to have been one of the calunmies of his opponents. 
 (See 1 Cor. ix. 1, etc.) On the authority of the apostolic oflBce see 
 also Eph. iv. 11. It would seem to imply the authority, by call of 
 Christ, to lay the foundation of the Christian church by making 
 known to men the mysteries of the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. iv. 1; 
 Gal. i. 15, 16; Eph. i. 9, 10; ii. 20, 21). Evangelists might found 
 churches, and pastors and teachers build them up, but only on the 
 doctrinal foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being 
 the chief corner stone. Paul's apostolic office was therefore matter 
 of the highest importance as authenticating his gospel. 
 
 separated unto the gospel of God,] Set apart by special provi- 
 dential preparation, by supernatural divine call and the gifts of the 
 Holy Ghost, for this oflBce. This separation Paul traces back to his 
 bii'th (Gal. i. 15), recognizing a divine purpose running through his 
 whole life history looking to this end. To such separation is every 
 minister of Christ called (Acts xiii. 2). " Unto the gospel of God " — 
 this preposition everywhere in St. Paul's writings designates purpose 
 or end. This was the gospel of God, not indefinitely, i.e., in any 
 form in which the caprice of men might choose to preach it, but 
 
 2. which he promised afore by his prophets in the holy scrip- 
 tures,] This gospel, for which Paul was thus set apart, was the 
 divine complement of the entire Old Testament dispensation. This 
 seems specially to refer to the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts xv. 16, 16), 
 
 
32 ROMANS, I. [w. 3, 4 
 
 to whom Paul was specifically commissioned. " Promised afore " is 
 too weak to express the full significance of the original. It is the 
 "blessed announcement which he fore announced:" the contents as 
 well as the preaching of the gospel are intimated in " sacred scrip- 
 tures, through his prophets," i.e., forth-tellers, or /ore-tellers, a pecu- 
 liar play upon the three emphatic words of the clause. Paul, as we 
 shall see, finds the great outlines of his gospel in the scriptures, espe- 
 cially in Isaiah. This was his reply to his opponents, that the very 
 form of the gospel which he preached was foreannounced by the 
 prophets. (See Acts xvii. 3, and xxvii. 22, 23.) The designation 
 Holy Writings had probably even in Paul's time come to be used as 
 a proper noun, hence without the article. 
 
 3. concerning his Son,] This may be connected grammatically 
 with either "gospel of God" or "promised afore." The sense is 
 the same, especially bearing in mind the close relationship of the 
 Greek words. The Son of God is not the mere bearer of the gospel ; 
 he is its substance, especially in the two supreme facts of his person : 
 
 who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 
 
 4. who was declared to be the Son of God with power, ac- 
 cording to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead ;] 
 The interpretation of these verses depends mainly on the antithesis. 
 This we take to be threefold: (1) between "was born," or "be- 
 came," and " was declared," or the public recognition of that which 
 already is ; (2) between " the seed of David " and " the Son of God ;" 
 (3) between "the flesh" and "the spirit of holiness." The three 
 antecedent terms are comparatively plain. The first signifies a be- 
 ginning of being, or form of being, which did not before exist. It is 
 thus wider than " was born," and is frequently used of the incarna- 
 tion (John i. 14; Gal. iv. 4). The second denotes, of course, the 
 offspring or descendant of David, whether in the line of his mother 
 or of his reputed father. This was essential to the Messiahship, 
 which was foretold to be of David's line. The third, "according to 
 the flesh," is used repeatedly by Paul to designate the line of human 
 birth or relationship by blood. (See chs. iv. 1; ix. 3, 5, 8; 1 Cor. 
 X. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 18.) That would seem to be the clear reference 
 here. The second set of antithetic terms must then correspond to 
 these: (1) The word translated " was declared " signifies primarily 
 to draw a boundary line about, hence to separate, and so distinguish 
 from other things of like nature and position. The secondary mean- 
 ing of declaration or public installation is also common. But in 
 neither meaning is there implied the communication of the attri- 
 butes or essence so distinguished or declared. The man Christ Jesus 
 was marked out from other men, and before men and angels publicly 
 declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection of the dead. 
 (2) The title Son of God has been interpreted of office, "theocratic 
 king." But this, far from being a contrast to, is almost implied in, 
 the expression "seed of David." It has also been referred to God- 
 likeuesa, purity of moral nature. But this again presents no an- 
 
V. 4.] ROMANS, I. 33 
 
 tithesis to the defiignation "seed of David," A little nearer the 
 truth is the interpretation which refers it to the state of divine dig- 
 nity and glory upon which Christ entered after his resurrection. 
 But a state of dignity and glory is not an antithesis to relationship 
 by birth. Nor was this state declared or marked out so much as 
 conferred in the resurrection. The resurrection, ascension and ses- 
 sion at the right hand of the Father, are the three steps of entrance. 
 upon this glory. There remains, therefore, only the idea of a divine, 
 nature, and relationship in virtue of which Christ assumed this glory. 
 (See John xvii. 5, and Phil. ii. 6-9. ) This presents the true antithesis 
 to the seed of David, and harmonizes with the meaning of the verb 
 " was declared," and with the following adjunct, " by the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead. " But what is this divine relationship ? The answer 
 to this is involved in the third term, "the spirit of holiness." If 
 the term " according to the flesh " expresses the nature of human 
 relationship, then the term "according to the spirit of holiness" 
 should express the nature of the divine relationship. There are but 
 three interpretations: (1) The holy human spirit of Christ. This 
 could only harmonize with the idea that the expression "Son of 
 God " signified the moral perfection of Christ's inner nature which 
 has already been excluded. (2) The Holy Spirit, the third person 
 of the Trinity. This can only fairly harmonize with the idea that 
 the divine relationship lies in the supernatural conception by the 
 power of the Holy Ghost. The interpretations proposed by Moule, 
 that it mtyr mean the operation of the Holy Spirit in the resurrec- 
 tion, or in the prophetic inspiration which announced the Christ, as 
 well as tliat of Godet, that it signifies the operations of the Holy 
 Spirit upon Christ, in consecrating his entire life, are all outside 
 the simple antithetic line of thoughb here presented. Besides, the 
 phrase "spirit of holiness" is never elsewhere used to designate 
 the third person. There remains, therefore, this alternative, that 
 this phrase was expressly chosen to designate that essential nature 
 of Deity in the unity of which, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, 
 Christ is the eternal Son of God — not the second person, but the 
 nature in which the three persons subsist. The phrase "according 
 to the spirit of holiness " thus designates the nature of the eternal 
 divine relationship, as the phrase "according to the flesh" desig- 
 nates the nature of the human relationship in time. If it be objected 
 that this too far anticipates the metaphysical doctrine of the Trinity, 
 on this point we must diflfer. The doctrine of the true Deity of 
 Christ was essentially involved in Paul's system. It was as essen- 
 tially denied in that of his opponents. It is not too much to believe 
 that Paul understood this ; and if so, almost certain that he should 
 embrace it in these sentences in which he contrives to condense 
 almost every great point at issue. (See note following v. 7.) We 
 need now only consider the remaining terms of these two verses 
 and then sum up our interpretation. The phrase "with power" 
 may be connected so as to read " declared with power "or " the Son 
 
 ■"?%!j|«=^n^*^ 
 
84" ROMANS, I. [v. 6. 
 
 of God in power." The Latter would limit the Sonship of Christ as 
 Paul nowhere else limits it. (See Col. ii. 9.) The act of declara- 
 tion is rather one of almighty power (compare Eph. i. 19, 20); not 
 mightily or powerfully declarecf, but declared by an act of power, 
 " by the resurrection from the dead." This designiites the act by 
 which the declaration is made. Tliis declaration or public installa- 
 tion became necessary through the iiumiliation. The resurrection 
 was the first step of the exaltation, and the only one directly visible 
 to men. Tiiat it is the attestation and not the constitution of the 
 8on of (?od is clear from Acts xvii. 31, where the same (ireek word 
 (translated " ordained ") is also used. The plural of " dead persons " 
 is used as including all resurrection in Christ. (See 1 Cor. xv. ) 
 This further confirms the idea of attestation as opposed to constitu- 
 tion in office. We may therefore paraphrase these two verses as 
 follows Who began his existence in the form of man from the 
 
 Messianic line of the seed of David according to the law of human 
 descent ; but was marked out from among men as the Son of God 
 according to the holy, spiritual nature of the godhead, by an act of 
 almighty power in the resurrection of the dead." (Compare for par- 
 allel John xvii. 5 and Phil. ii. 6-10.) 
 
 even Jesus Christ our Lord,] Paul having thus prepared the 
 way now adds the human name and title of God's Son. Both the 
 fulness of the designation — Jeaus, his human name, Christ, the Mes- 
 siah of Jewish hope. Lord of tlie Christian church — and the position 
 at the close of this complete designation of the human and divine 
 nature of God's Son, render these words peculiarly emphatic. No 
 mere Ebionite could utter verses 3 and 4 as thus completed (1 Cor. 
 xii. 3). 
 
 5. through whom we received grace and apostleship,] Paul 
 having thus completely set forth the relation of his office and gospel 
 message to God the Father proceeds to connect it with the media- 
 torial kingdom of Christ. The title " our Lord " furnishes exactly 
 the point of attachment for this new thought — " our Loi-d, through 
 whom " — the preposition governing the genitive exactly expresses 
 mediatorial agency. Paul's specific relation to Christ, as well as 
 the general divine authority of his work, was denied by his enemies 
 (1 Cor. ix. 1). The plural "we" is used as Paul speaks in his offi- 
 cial capacity. This renders the interpretation which refers the word 
 "grace" here to his personal salvation somewhat doubtful. (See 
 Eph. iii. 8. ) The verb is in the historical past tense, designating a 
 definite fact, occurring at a fixed past time. The bestowment of 
 this double gift took place at the time of his conversion. It was 
 grace as given from Christ, apostleship as an authoritative commis- 
 sion to men. 
 
 unto obedience of faith among all the nations,] The preposi- 
 tion here is the usual one to denote purpose — not the result which 
 follows of necessity, but the destination, the result aimed at. This 
 is " the obedience of faith among all the nations." The expression 
 
V. 6.] ROMANS, I. 85 
 
 "obedience of faith " seems to be an example of what Winer calls 
 the genitive of apposition. It is not the obedience which faith pro- 
 duces but the obedience which ia faith itself. It refers to that moral 
 element in faith by virtue of which faith becomes the test of proba- 
 tion. This obedience of faith is thus the exact opposite of the Kbion- 
 ite principle of works of law. Paul's commission was to set forth 
 this principle as the test of human probation and <lestiny among all 
 the nations, an expression designating the whole non- Jewish world. 
 
 for his name's sake :] A peculiarly Old Testament or Hebrew ex- 
 pression, such as we often meet in Paul's writings. It denotes that 
 which is the end of all God's dispensations, the manifestation of his 
 nature to his creatures. The wider this manifestation the more per- 
 fect the accomplishment of the end. The true end of the manifesta- 
 tion of (iod in Christ must be not one people, however favoured, but 
 the whole humanity. (See Acts xv. 14, 17.) 
 
 6. among whom are ye also, called to be Jesus Christ's :] This 
 sentence admits, first of all, two forms of grammatical construction: 
 •' ye also, called to be Jesus Christ's " may be taken as subject, " are 
 among whom " as predicate; or "called to be Jesus Christ's " may 
 be made the principal predicate, "among whom" being adjunct. 
 The first seems to follow most naturally from the position of the 
 verb, which is the same in Greek as in our English version. It is 
 also evidently adopted by the Revised Version, as appears from the 
 punctuation. The "also" would thus seem to refer to the other 
 Gentile churches founded by Paul himself. Though this church was 
 not so founded it was among the number of those gathered from 
 among the Gentiles, and hence in a near relationship to Paul's apos- 
 tolic office. But what are we to understand by the appositive to the 
 subject "called to be Jesus Christ's"? or, as Godet has better para- 
 phrased it, "called ones belonging to Jesus Christ "? (So also Moule, 
 Meyer and Philippi.) The usual interpretation refers this to the 
 gospel invitation to personal salvation. The Calvinistic commenta- 
 tors accordingly find here the effectual call (so Moule and also Riddle, 
 but with a " but"). On the other hand Arminians, like Godet and 
 Beet, refer it to a call obeyed but not irresistible. Notwithstanding 
 the venerable antiquity of this interpretation we feel disposed to 
 question it. First of all, we note that this term " called," and also 
 the verb "calleth" and the noun "calling," as used by Paul desig- 
 nate an abiding state or relationship between God and his people. 
 Hence the verb is sometimes used in the present, as in 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 
 V. 14; the adjective is a permanent characteristic of God's people, 
 and the noun is used in the same way. Hence in 2 Peter i, 10, we 
 read, "give the more diligence to make your calling and election 
 sure," i.e., firm, a strong and abiding thing. This can scarcely 
 apply to a temporary act of God by which man is solicited to accept 
 the oflfer of God's grace. Secondly, the end of this calling is never 
 spoken of as salvation, or pardon, or God's mercy, or acceptance in 
 Christ. It is always saintship, sanctification, holiness, or more 
 
 L. ^Bjj 
 
8tf ROMANS, I. [v. 7. 
 
 generally the kingdom and glory of God (1 Thess. ii. 12). {'2 Thess. 
 ii. 14, in our English version, seems an exception, but it is not so in 
 the Greek, as the antecedent of the relative is certainly not the word 
 salvation. ) Thirdly, the calling thus, in '2 I'im. i. 9, is made appro- 
 priately to follow salvation. It is not "hath called us and saved 
 us," but " hath saved us and called us." Lastly, the general use of 
 the term is in reference to Christians as a body. They are God's 
 called ones in their united spiritual and holy life. We think we 
 find the key to these peculiarities in the use of these words in the 
 fact that they were borrowed from the old dispensation. The com- 
 plete catalogue of such terms, which we know were favourite ones 
 among the Jews of the apostolic age, is to be found in 1 Peter ii. 9, 10, 
 where "an elect race," "a royal priesthood," "a holy nation," "a 
 people of whom God 'as taken possession," are the various desig- 
 nations summed up in the calling, the end of which is the manifesta- 
 tion of (jrod's praises to the world. The term " called ones," in the 
 Old Testament sense, is thus parallel with "election," "God's 
 people," etc., and expresses their permanent reHpoimbility to Ood for 
 holiiiesH of life. Hence in verse 7 we have "called to be saints"; in 
 Titus i. 9, " hath called us with an holy calling"; and in Eph. iv. 1, 
 "I beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were 
 called " There are, of course, passages in the New Testament where 
 the verbs " to call " and " to choose " are not used in this Old Testa- 
 ment sense, especially in the Gospels, where Christ uses them with- 
 out any reference to this meaning. The call is there the gospel call 
 to repentance. Here, on the other hand, it is something very differ- 
 ent—a solemn responsibility as well as glorious privilege which God 
 lays upon his church, in its entire membership, to be his people, ex- 
 hibiting worthily to the world the light of his grace. (See Col. iii. 
 12, etc.) So far, therefore, is this calling from having anything to 
 do with Augustinian predestination that, on the other hand, it in- 
 volves a continuous probation and the constant possibility of our 
 proving unworthy of our calling. This term, here applied to the 
 Gentile Christians, at once instates them in the position and privi- 
 leges claimed by the Jews as their exclusive prei'ogative. They are 
 already "God's called ones," and hence have no need of Ebionitish 
 circumcision to instate them in any higher or more privileged posi- 
 tion. "Of Jesus Christ" is the genitive of possession. The pas- 
 sages already referred to show how the designations "called," 
 "elect," etc., are united with the idea of a people who are God's 
 peculiar possession. Jesus Christ is here the owner and master. 
 
 7. to all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints :] 
 The Greek will equally admit of the following order, which is per- 
 haps preferable : "To all the beloved of God, saints by calling, who 
 are in Rome. " The emphatic designations are thus brought into the 
 foreground. Here the designations of the chosen people are again 
 repeated. There is a peculiarity in Paul's use of these designations. 
 Here and in 1 Cor. he uses the term "called," together with the 
 
V. 8.] ROMANS, I. 87 
 
 terms "saints" ond "sanctified." In the Epistle to the Galatians, 
 written at this time, the term "called " is also used with a state- 
 ment that they are forsaking their call. In all the other Epistles 
 he uses only the term "saints," or "saints and faithful ones," or 
 else the Ghrld'Mn derivative from the same root as the verb "to 
 call," ercl(,sla, i.e., the assembly or body called out. It woultl thus 
 appear to be his design to keep emphatically before the churches 
 addressed at this juncture the fact that they were heirs in the fullest 
 sense to all the privileges and responj-ibilities of the ancient covenant. 
 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. | 'J'he ordinary Greek epistolary salutation was 
 Xaipeiv. (See Acts xxiii. 26.) Here we have the Christian substi- 
 tute, formed on the Old Testament model, where the usual form of 
 address was either s/nilom Iccha, 'peace be unto thee," or "the 
 Lord be gracious unto thee" ((jen. xliii. 2.3, 29). We note here the 
 unity of the Lord Jesus Christ with ( Jod the Father in the giving of 
 grace and peace. Erasmus endeavoured to avoid the force of this 
 by making "the Lord Jesus Christ" a seconc' genitive after Father 
 — "the Father of us and of the Lord," etc. In that case we think 
 it must have read, " the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and of us." 
 Compare the variations of this expression in 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. 
 i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 2; and Titus i. 4. In all these cases the construction 
 is such that there can be no doubt of the ascription to Jesus Christ 
 of the co-ordinate divine authority. 
 
 Note. — The ordinary Greek epistolary salutation consisted of three simple terms 
 — the name of the writer, the name of the correspondent, and the word of (,'reeting. 
 Paul, evidently of design, expands this into seven verses, five of which are the 
 enlartjement of his apostolic office. The character and purpose of the Kpistle as 
 we have traced it in the introduction fully accounts for this. It is the overflowing 
 of the great and important matter of which his mind was full. The divine authority 
 of his apostleship; God's design in its special character; the harmony of this with 
 the Old Testament scriptures ; the not merely Davidic Messiahship but the divine 
 Sonship of the Lord of the gospel which he preached ; the special designation of 
 his apostleship to a gospel of simple faith as the true probational obedience, that 
 so it might reach all the nations, and thus his Lord receive the fullest reward of his 
 work ; the relation of his correspondents to this spiritual and universal gospel, and 
 at the same time their claim to all the glorious privileges and responsibilities of the 
 ancient covenant people, even to the same benediction, now coming from Father 
 and Son— all these are crowded into the very opening words of this letter. 
 
 Ch. I. 8-15. Introduction. 
 
 8. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all,] 
 Such a thanksgiving stands in the forefront of Paul's Epistles to all 
 the churches with the single exception of that to the Galatians, 
 where a sad rebuke takes its place. Such an act of devotion pre- 
 sented to God as his God through the mediation of Jesus Christ ex- 
 presses the spirit in which Paul lived. He could not even write a 
 letter without "Jirst " presenting his thanksgiving to God (1 Thess. 
 V. 18). 
 
 that your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world.] 
 
38" ROMANS, I. [vv. 9, 10. 
 
 Paul's thanksgiving was not a vague generality. In every case it is 
 specifically appropriate. On behalf of the Corinthians, specially 
 gifted with miraculous power, he thanks God for their gifts; and 
 when, in the time of his severest mental troubles, he had received 
 from them a comforting letter, he thanks God for the consolation. 
 Writing to the Ephesians, out of the fulness of an inner life grown 
 exceeding rich with grace during the months of imprisonment, he 
 thanks God for "every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ 
 Jesus." On behalf of the Philippians, who had sent a messenger with 
 their gifts to minister to his wants in prison, he thanks God for their 
 liberality. So here he thanks God for their faith, which, as a beacon 
 light set on the highest eminence, flashes its rays abroad over all the 
 world. Paul well understood the advantage of planting Christianity 
 in the great centres of commercial, political, intellectual and social 
 life. The verb here used cannot properly be translated "is spoken 
 of." Even " proclaimed " scarcely gives the sense. It means rather 
 that from their very position their faith in the gospel becomes a 
 public announcement of that gospel to the whole world. 
 
 9. For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the 
 gospel of his Son,] This sentence admits us to the inmost aspect 
 of Paul's life. His spirit, that realm in which there dwells the con- 
 stant consciousness of the presence of God, in its entire energy is 
 occupied with the service of this God in the gospel of his Son, the 
 service to which Paul was entirely set apart. This service of Paul's 
 spirit was, however, no vague sentiment. It was full of practical 
 ideas, of grand world-wide plans, and of boundless enterprise. Just 
 now it was full of one great thought, to reach Rome and thence con- 
 quer the world for Christ. 
 
 how unceasingly I make mention of you, always in my prayers 
 making request, 
 
 ID. if by any means now at length I may be prospered by 
 the will of God to come unto you.] It is impossible in any trans- 
 lation to imitate the wonderfully skilful and delicately expressive 
 structure of this sentence. " How unceasing " are his prayers God 
 only knows, and "on every occasion" the "remembrance" of the 
 Christian church at Rome is before him, and the subject of his sup- 
 plication is this, that "Ais 1 cay may he opened to come to them." 
 He prays for this "now" because a crisis has come which leaves 
 him no more room to work in those eastern lands (ch. xv. 23); but 
 yet his ceaseless prayers submit all to "the will of God," both as to 
 time — "at some time," rather than " at length " — and as to manner 
 — " by any means." How little did Paul know then what would be 
 the time and way by which he should reach Rome, and how far it 
 would prove from being "a good way," as men would regard it! 
 It may be that even this unceasing aspiration for Rome was directly 
 connected with "his conflict;" and that, finding that Antioch, the 
 original headquarters of the missionary gospel, and Corinth and 
 Ephesus were all too near Jerusalem, the great centre of Judaizing 
 
vv. 11, 12.] ROMANS, I. 39 
 
 influence, he hoped from Rome, the very heart of the civilized world, 
 to propagate among all the nations the universal gospel given him. 
 
 11. For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some 
 spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established ;] Paul's intense 
 earnestness in this matter had reference not solely to his general 
 commission. It contemplated, first of all, the full perfecting of the 
 church at Rome, for only thus could his further designs be effected. 
 (See ch. xv. 23, 24, etc.) The spiritual gift is not mere miraculous 
 endowments, but such an effusion of the Holy (xliost in connection 
 with his ministrations as shall bring to them "the fulness of the 
 blessing of Christ " (ch. xv. 29). Mere miracles could not bring 
 that maturity of Christian grace and character implied in Paul's use 
 of the word "established." This implies that they were already in 
 possession of the true gospel and enjoying its saving power, and 
 needed only to be confirmed or strengthened by more perfect know- 
 ledge of the truth, or richer influence of the Holy Spirit. It was 
 more especially the work of the apostolic office to open up the whole 
 field of Christian truth, after evangelists had laid the foundation by 
 preaching the first principles. (See Acts viii. 14, etc. ; xi. 22, etc. ; 
 and xiv. 22, etc. ) But Paul, immediately feai'ing lest this may be too 
 great a freedom towards a church to whom he was unknown, and 
 which might, in the providence of God, have already attained great 
 maturity in Christian knowledge and character, at once adds — 
 
 12. that is, that I with you may be comforted in you, each 
 of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine.] This is no mere 
 compliment, but an expression of sincere anticipation of mutual ad- 
 vantage, which any evangelical gosp«:>l preacher who goes among a 
 new people, expecting to share with them in the blessedness of a 
 great woVk of grace, will readily understand. At the same time it 
 v/isely forestalls any prejudice wliich might arise from a seeming 
 assumption of authority. The final expression seems to imply that 
 the faith of the church at Rome was in perfect unison with that of 
 St. Paul. If there had been any leaning on their part toward the 
 legalism of the circumcision party Paul could not have so anticipated 
 that perfect harmony which would be productive of mutual edifica- 
 tion. This unity with him in the faith of the simple, universal gospel 
 would be to Paul at this juncture the richest comfort. At the same 
 time they needed that confirmation in this faith which he of all 
 others was best fitted to impart, especially as at any moment they 
 might be exposed to the same subversive teaching which had just 
 invaded Galatia. It was not their mere fervour or strength of reli- 
 gious feeling which needed confirmation. Under the term "faith " 
 we must include the entire religious life, including first of all the 
 truth believed, as well as t;he influence of that truth in building up 
 the new spiritual life. In both respects the faith of an Ebionite was 
 a very diff^erent thing from the faith which Paul preached. When, 
 therefore, he says "both yours and mine" there is clearly Implied 
 the fact that they had received the truth in the same form tu which 
 
40 ROMANS, I. [vv. 13-15. 
 
 it was preached by Paul. If so, then the foundation of the church 
 at Rome by converts of Paul's ministry is very probable 
 
 13. And I would not have you ignorant, brethren,] A Pauline 
 phrase (see ch. xi. 25; 1 Cor. x. 1, etc.), expressing earnestness of 
 feeling. 
 
 that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you] A purpose easily 
 suggested by his proximity at Corinth, Illyricum, etc., as well as 
 by the importance of the imperial city. 
 
 (and was hindered hitherto),] Paul's purposes appear like those 
 of other men — without any claim to infallibility, subject to the varia- 
 tion of providential circumstances (2 Cor. i. 17). The hindrance here 
 was the pressing call of work at hand (ch. xv. 22) 
 
 that I might have some fruit in you also, even as in the rest 
 of the Gentiles.] The first fruits had already been gathered, but 
 the field in Rome was sufficiently ample even for Paul. The doub- 
 ling of the word "also," in "even," might be paraphrased thus: 
 "both among you and likewise among the other Gentiles." This 
 may well be taken as looking forward, the "other Gentiles" being 
 not so much those already gathered as those whom Paul hopes to 
 reach from Rome. 
 
 14. I am debtor] The obligation of divine command ( 1 Cor. ix. 
 16, 17). 
 
 both to Greeks and to Barbarians,] The term Greek now in- 
 cluded the Romans, and Barbarian was applied only to the outlying 
 members of the empire. This would indicate that Paul hoped from 
 Rome to reach the very extremities of the empire, Spain, and per- 
 haps Gaul and Britain. 
 
 both to the wise and to the foolish.] Hitherto not many wise 
 had been called (1 Cor. i. 26). It may be that Paul hoped at Rome 
 to reach even the higher classes. The salutations, perhaps, indicate 
 that this was not an unreasonable expectation. (See ch. xvi. and 
 Phil. iv. 22.) 
 
 15. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to 
 you also that are in Rome.] Of the difficult (J reek phrase which 
 begins this verse there are three proposed constructions : Meyer con- 
 strues thus, " The on-my-part inclination is;" Godet thus, "So far 
 as I am concerned there is the liveliest desire;" others thus, virtu- 
 ally, "All in me is ready." The first makes the Greek phrase Ka-'e/ie 
 an adjective, the second an adverb, the third a substantive and sub- 
 ject of the copulative verb of which the adjective "ready" is the 
 predicate. Meyer condemns this construction as unauthorized by 
 usage, (irotius and others were led to propose it doubtless from 
 feeling the incongruity of the translations proposed for the alternate 
 renderings. They both throw the emphasis on the Kofe/Lie — "on my 
 part " — as if the apostle thereby implied the possibility of a lack of 
 readiness on the part of God's providential orderings or of circum- 
 stances. We cannot see that any such emphasis attaches to the use 
 of this phrase. As Winer points out, it is used in later Creek in- 
 
 
16.] ROMANS, I. 41 
 
 stead of the possessive case of the pronoun, though differing from 
 the simple genitive by some shade of meaning involved in the preposi- 
 tior . If such a shade of distinction must be sought for here we might 
 render it thus: " Hence the earnest desire which presses upon me to 
 preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome." The meaning thus 
 given is in perfect harmony with what Paul had previously said. 
 From the introduction thus completed Paul turns, as is his wont, by 
 a perfectly natural and logical train of thought, to the announce- 
 ment of liis theme. Ke cherishes this desire notwithstanding all 
 the opposition and obloquy which he had lately encountered in the 
 proclamation of the gospel, the mention of which enables him at once 
 to plunge into its exposition. 
 
 Ch. I. 16, 17. Statement of Theme. 
 
 i6. For I am not ashamed of the gospel :] The "not ashamed " 
 has not, we think, so much reference to Rome. The man who had 
 already preached in all the great Greek cities would see nothing in 
 Rome more critical than he had repeatedly encountered elsewhere. 
 But it calls up the tremendous crisis of opposition, the aim of which 
 was to terminate his ministry and destroy his standing as an apostle 
 of Christianity. The gospel is the gospel as he preached it. Not- 
 withstanding all the attacks of his enemies his confidence in it is 
 undiminished. And why ? "* 
 
 for it is the power of God unto salvation] Paul's reason is a 
 practical one. He had tested it in its results and Droved it to be 
 "a divine power " (the article is wanting in the Greek) " unto salva- 
 tion." This salvation, which is the aim and result of this divine 
 power working in the gospel, is one of Paul's important terms. He 
 uses it — 
 
 1. Of the entire work of Christ on our behalf in virtue of which 
 he IS our Saviour and saves us. It is so used some fifteen times. 
 
 2. Of that work as now applied to the sinner by grace, through 
 faith. It is thus used some twenty-three times. 
 
 3. It h also used of the final redemption of God's ancient people 
 from their present reprobation, though this is by individual salvation 
 
 4. It 18 also used of the completed work of Christ for his people as 
 It will a,ppear in the resurrection and final judgment perhaps nine 
 or ten times in all. o i r 
 
 5. It is also used of the work of those who labour in the gospel 
 lor the salvation of men. 
 
 In the present case the reference must be primarily to (2) the 
 moral and religious change wrought in the individual man through 
 the gospel What is implied iu this is fully placed before us in the 
 sequel. J his term is one which comes from the lips of the Master 
 mmsfelt. It was a favourite term in the Old Testament, especially 
 with Isaiah That it should stand, as we have seen it does; in the 
 loictront of 1 aul a gospel, is one proof of his unity with the Master. 
 
 ^k^l^ 
 
4& ROMANS, I. [v. 16. 
 
 to every one that believeth ;] (the subjective condition of salva- 
 tion). This word furnishes us with another of the leading terms of 
 St. Paul's theology. The verb "to believe" and the corresponding 
 noun "faith " are used by Paul, the former fifty-four and the latter 
 one hundred and forty times, and almost exclusively of the gospel 
 condition of salvation. Once or twice the noun seems to signify the 
 body of Christian doctrine, once or twice fidelity, and once or twice 
 historical faith. The words are probably derived from the Greek 
 root signifying to persuade or win over by words, and in the passive 
 to be persuaded, and hence to obey. The derivatives from this root 
 include the various ideas of conviction, confidence, trust, submission 
 and obedience as between a leader and a follower, and finally, the 
 corresponding fidelity in which these result. Hence the words ex- 
 press a personal relation between leader and follower, teacher and 
 pupil, God and man, sinner and Saviour. It does not so much ex- 
 press the mental relation to mere abstract truth as to truth coming 
 from a persuading to a persuaded intelligence. Hence it is not a 
 merely intellectual act but a moral state, and a motive power which 
 is never perfect till it obeys. The verb "to believe" is followed 
 first by the accusative of the subject matter, the truth by which we 
 are persuaded; secondly, by the dative of the personal object of 
 faith, i.e., God or Christ. Instead of the dative the prepositions "in," 
 " upon " or " unto " are also used. The accusative of subject matter 
 is used by Paul only ten times, including nearly all the instances in 
 which the word is used in other than the evangelical sense. The 
 personal object follows the verb sixteen times, always God or Christ. 
 The noun shows the preponderance of the personal object of faith 
 over the mere subject matter, being followed by personal object fif- 
 teen times, while subject matter is mentioned only five times. Thus 
 in Paul's conception of faith the foremost idea is its personal relation 
 to God and Christ. The moral aspect of faith is referred to in such 
 expressions as "obedience of faith," "work of faith," and "faith 
 working by love." In respect to the relation of faith to salvation 
 as righteousness or justification, Paul's favourite method of connect- 
 ing them is by the preposition " out of," expressing origin. This he 
 uses twenty times, and its equivalent genitive, "righteousness aris- 
 ing from faith," twice. He uses the preposition expressing instru- 
 mentality or agency fourteen times, and the two together once 
 (Rom. iii. 30). He uses the dative of instrument and another equiva- 
 lent preposition once. These facts, better than mere definitions, 
 will help us to understand this term as used by Paul. The term 
 "every one," in the sentence before us, expresses at once the free- 
 ness and universality of the salvation as conditioned by faith. 
 
 to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.] A moment before Paul 
 had embraced all men under the terms Greeks and Barbarians. Why 
 does he change his categories here ? The answer may be found in 
 the circumstances under which he writes. The Jews are now claim- 
 ing the exclvsive monopoly of this salvation. Hence Paul says con- 
 
V. 17.] ROMANS, I. 43 
 
 cessively, "to the Jew, I grant you, first, also to the Greek." He 
 concedes to his opponents their priority in the offer of salvation, but 
 denies tiieir monopoly. Only such underlying thought can account 
 for the mention of the Jew here. (Compare tho surprise expressed 
 in Acts xi. 18. ) The Greek is mentioned as also claiming a preroga- 
 tive of his own (ch. ii. 10; iii. 9). 
 
 17. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God by faith 
 unto faith:] The apostle here clearly presents the gospel as a ?ieu; 
 divine revelation, thus placing it on an equality with the whole 
 ancient dispensation. The verb here used and the corresponding 
 noun are constantly employed to designate the unfolding of the suc- 
 cessive steps of God's redeeming purpose towards man. (See Rom. 
 viii. 18, 19; 1 Cor. i. 7, etc.) It is also used to express special com- 
 munications by the Holy Spirit to the individual. (Gal. i. 16 ; 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 30. ) It will bear both significations here. That which is re- 
 vealed in the gospel is a righteousness of God, i.e., a divine or God- 
 given righteousness. Here is presented to us the third of Paul's 
 important terms. It denotes not the absolute attribute or idea of 
 righteousness but the character or state of the man who practises 
 rigliteousness. It is thus distinguished from Aikt/, the absolute idea 
 of right, especially as punitive justice, which is used by Paul only 
 once in its strictly classical sense. It is also distinguished from 
 AtKa/o)/iia, the objective work or act which satisfies the demands of 
 justice (Rom. viii. 4), or the precept which commands such act 
 (Rom. i. 32). The term AiKaioavvt/ is thus subjective in its meaning, 
 and in Paul's use designates a conscious subjective state, a moral 
 condition sensibly manifesting itself in conscience. Its opposite is 
 "condemnation" (Rom. viii. 1), also manifest in conscience, and 
 distinguished from the objective "judgment" which bruigs the con- 
 demnation (Rom. V. 16). The sense in which Paul uses the word is 
 so peculiarly human that we doubt whether he ever applies it except 
 to men. Even Rom. iii. 5 may be better taken in what iseems the 
 otherwise universal sense of the word as employed by Paul thirty- 
 six times in this Epistle and sixty times in all. This subjective 
 sense was fanuliar to the early rabbis. (See Dr. McCaul's "Old 
 Paths," quoted in the appendix of Moule on Romans: "Every one 
 of the children of men has merits and sins. If his merits exceed his 
 sins he is righteous; if his sins exceed his merits he is wicked.") 
 This inward mystic searching of conscience has been common to men 
 of all ages, and was certainly well known to Paul. This righteous- 
 ness is (Jod's gift. The genitive here expresses origin. This idea, 
 which emphatically distinguished Paul's teaching from all forms of 
 legality, we find very clearly foreshadowed in Isaiah. There the 
 Hebrew t>i\l(d-ah corresponds to Paul's term. This is represented 
 as divinely bestowed in such passages as Isaiah xlv. 24, 25; xlvi. 
 12, 13; xlviii. 1, 18; li. 1, 4, 8; liv. 14, 17; Ivi. 1, etc.; Ivii. 12; 
 Ivui. 1, 2, 8; lix. 9, 14, 15, 16; Ix. 21; Ixv. 5, 6. See also liii. 11. 
 (See Appendix. ) This righteousness is "from faith," growing out 
 
 tw^ 
 
 itP*-*!**,* 
 
44 ROMANS, I. [v. 18. 
 
 of faith as its source. This especially distinguishes it from the right- 
 eousness which is " from works. " Both are subjective states, involv- 
 ing the right relation of conscience to God ; the first springing from 
 the act of faith in God, the second from the act of will in harmony 
 with law. Hence one is called pre-eminently " a righteousness of 
 God," the other "a righteousness of law," The sense of the two 
 adjuncts "by or from faith" and "unto faith" will appear more 
 distinctly if we place a comma between them. They are two dis- 
 tinct adjuncts of the verb, and the sense and construction may both 
 be presented thus: " P^or m it a righteousness of God is revealed as 
 being from faith, unto the production of faith. " The very announce- 
 ment of this righteousness out of faith tends to produce this faith in 
 our hearts. 
 
 as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.] This 
 Old Testament quotation (Hab. ii. 4) is intended to illustrate not so 
 much the broad principle of justification by faith, to which it could 
 scarcely be applied without forcing an unhistorical meaning into the 
 words of the prophet, as the special aspect just mentioned by Paul. 
 Just as God's righteous people of old lived in peace in the midst of 
 threatened danger by virtue of faith — confidence in God — so those 
 to whom God grants the righteousness which comes of pardoning 
 grace are called to live by the confidence which that pardoning grace 
 inspires. This same interpretation fits Gal. iii. 11. The apostle 
 having thus stated his theme as the gospel, a divine power unto sal- 
 vation, revealing God's righteousness by faith, proceeds to the expo- 
 sition of this gospel, first of all in the reason for it. Man is univer- 
 sally exposed to the wrath of God on account of sin. This he states 
 (a) of the Gentiles as an admitted fact; (/>) and proves of the Jews 
 that by the same principles they, too, are condemned ; (c) denying 
 them any favoured exemption from God's justice; and (d) summing 
 up the universal situation in words of holy writ. 
 
 Ch. I. 18-32. The Conceded Guilt of the Gentiles. 
 
 i8. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven] "For "here 
 assigns not the mere logical proof but the cause. The revelation of 
 God's righteousness is given because a revelation of wrath already 
 exists. The manner of this revelation is given below, where we 
 shall be able to note the unity of the natural and the supernatural 
 in revelation. The term "wrath," opposed to "righteousness," is 
 chosen to designate our apprehension of the immutable opposition of 
 God's nature to sin. It does not imply either the fickleness or the 
 unreasonableness of human passion; but it does express an awful 
 subjective reality in the divine nature. This wrath is revealed from 
 heaven as God's throne, the seat and centre of his moral government. 
 
 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,] The two 
 great classes of sin are here designated — sin against the order of re- 
 ligion and siu against the order of justice. This is not quite synony- 
 
vv. 19, 20.] ROMANS, I. 45 
 
 mous with sins against God and against man. Note that men are 
 spoken of here without the article — not some particular class of men 
 but of men generally. 
 
 who hold down the truth in unrighteousness;] This is not a 
 limiting but a descriptive adjunct. It characterizes not a particular 
 class of men but men universally (not the men who hold, etc., but 
 men, who hold, or since they hold). The verb here translated "hold 
 down," and in the margin " hold," includes the two ideas of posses- 
 sion and yet repression. They possess and yet abuse the possession. 
 This repression consists in living in unrighteousness in spite of the 
 truth. 
 
 19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in 
 them;] " Because " here introduces the cause as well as the logical 
 proof of the general statement just made. "That which may be 
 known" is literally "the knowable," a direct contradiction to ag- 
 nosticism. This peculiar Oreek form in Plato, etc., signifies not 
 that which is or has been known but what is capable of being krown. 
 (.See Kiihner, p. 291.) Though used by the historical writei's of the 
 New Testament for the past participle it is not improbable that Paul 
 us^s it in the classical sense. This Paul says is manifest, i.e., is open 
 to he seen "in them," or perhaps " by them." Paul does not affirm 
 tliat they did see it but that God placed it before their eyes. 
 
 for God manifested it unto them.] The aorist tense here used 
 expresses either a single historical fact which took place at one par- 
 ticular past time or that which is always a fact. Either sense will 
 apply here. This manifestation is clearly in nature and conscience 
 rather than by supernatural revelation. And yet this is part of 
 God's apocalypse, i.e., progressive opening up to man of the know- 
 ledge of himself. In fact, this universal divine manifestation is the 
 basis of the entire apocalypsis. 
 
 20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the 
 world are clearly seen,] The invisible things are defined at the 
 close of the sentence. Their manifestation began " from the crea- 
 tion." They (the invisible) " are seen," a play upon the words such 
 as is frequent in Isaiah, one of Paul's favourite authors. How is 
 expressed by the participial clause, 
 
 being perceived through the things that are made,] The parti- 
 ciple is from the root which expresses man's higher reason, the noiis. 
 The eye which sees is thus the eye of faith. But the instrumental 
 cause of this vision of the invisible is that which is itself visible, viz., 
 " the things that are made." Godet notes that this Pauline doctrine 
 of a universal revelation in nature, laying the foundation of universal 
 human responsibility, appears in Acts xiv. 17; xvii. 27, 28; 1 Cor. 
 i. 21 ; and Rom. iii. 29, and, we may also add, ii. 14, 15. 
 
 even his everlasting power and divinity ;] These specify the in- 
 visible things more particularly. The power of God stands most 
 prominently revealed in his works. The term " divinity " expresses 
 not so much the absolute essence as the sum total of divine attri- 
 
 4 
 
46 ■ ROMANS, I. [v. 21. 
 
 butts. It is especially the attributes which are revealed in the 
 works of (iO(l. The term "everlasting," belonging to both these 
 nouns, denotes that which is "ever-divine." It is rarely used in 
 the New Testament. 
 
 that they may be without excuse :] The end aimed at by f rod 
 in this manifestation of liimself in nature is to lay the basis of uni- 
 versal responsibility. Responsibility is not a mere result, but it is 
 God's intended result. Paul presents here the darker side of human 
 responsibility, in which we see men tried and found wanting, because 
 this was the actual state of the case. It does not imply that (iod 
 revealed himself in nature to condemn the world, but it does imply 
 that God revealed himself to make the world morally responsible, 
 and so, where they failed to meet that responsibility, to leave them 
 "without excuse." This last term implies the full sufHciency of 
 this divine manifestation for its intended purpose as the basis of 
 moral responsibility. 
 
 21. because that, knowing God,] We have here in the Greek 
 a striking repetition of the formulary of verse 19. The ordinary 
 connection which makes this verse assign the reason or cause of what 
 immediately precedes, "They are without excuse, because that, 
 knowing God," etc., loses sight of the merely hypothetical character 
 of the last clause of verse 20. It is not " they are with'" o excuse " 
 but "to the end that they may be without excuse." We are there- 
 fore inclined to make verse 21 co-ordinate with verse 19. The par- 
 allelism of form is thus fully brought out. They possessed the truth, 
 proven by verse 19, ''because the knorvable things of (iod," etc. ; yet 
 repressed this truth, proven by verse 21, "Ijecause thus knowing 
 God," etc. 
 
 they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks;] The ad- 
 junct " as God " belongs equally to both verbs and may be rendered 
 thus: "They rendered him not, as God, either glory or gratitude." 
 The aorists here express historical facts, hence co-ordinate with the 
 facts stated in verses 19 and 20. This does not imply that they 
 ceased from worship, but that they ceased from the only worship 
 proper to God — a holy and spiritual service. This Paul indicates 
 by the sentence next following. 
 
 but became vain in their reasonings,] This word, used by the 
 LXX. to render the Hebrew machahabah, may well be rendered 
 "imaginations," their fancies, their current of thought. We think 
 the apostle here refers to the mythological fancies of the heathen. 
 It was by the emptiness of these of all moral truth and earnestness 
 that they were led away from the true idea and worship of God; 
 and, giving their poetical fancy full play, they drifted only the far- 
 ther from the truth which God had made manifest. 
 
 and their senseless heart was darkened.] The three terms of this 
 clause are also so peculiarly Hebrew that we must look to that lan- 
 guage rather than to classic Greek for their interpretation. The 
 heart was to the Hebrews the seat of moral discernment, that sensi- 
 
 ■"'''?8S«tS<f' 
 
W. 22-24.] ROMANS, I. 47 
 
 tiveness of tlie moral nature which keenly distinguishes right from 
 wrong, good from evil. The soiiseless heart is therefore the blunted 
 moral discrimination, which is still further emphasized by the verb 
 " was darkened." The best commentary on these verses is the his- 
 torical study of both the poetry and the philosophy of the Greeks. 
 The process of moral decline and of intellectual darkening through 
 tlie influence of both myth-forming fancy and philosophical specula- 
 tion may be clearly traced. The original heritage of truth was still 
 very rich in the days of /Eschylus and of Socrates, but from that 
 time it was rapidly "repressed." 
 
 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,] We 
 cannot in our own day judge of the vast body of Greek culture from 
 what remains to us. The stream of time is a wonderful purifier, 
 and only the noblest and purest products of art and philosophy now 
 remain. The dining halls, baths and dormitories of the Roman 
 cities, buried ten years after the date of this letter, and so sealed 
 up and preserved to our time, show us how culttire was prostituted. 
 Tlie accusation of Paul is not against philosophy merely, though the 
 popular epicureanism justifies his strongest language, but against 
 poetry, painting, sculpture and music "s well. In the glory and 
 pride of their intellectual culture they became, morally speaking, 
 "fools." 
 
 23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God] How fully 
 this glory had been revealed to them appears clearly from the finest 
 passages of the great Greek ti'agedians, and from both Greek and 
 Roman philosophy. Of the opposition of mythology to these con- 
 ceptions they were fully conscious, as testify the following lines of 
 Euripides: — 
 
 •' I deem not of the gods as having formed 
 Connubial ties to which no law assents ; 
 Nor as oppressed with chains. Disgraceful this, 
 I hold ; nor ever will believe that one 
 Lords it o'er others. Of no foreign aid 
 The god who is a god indeed hath need. 
 These are the idle fables of your bards." 
 
 for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, 
 and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.] This charge lies 
 against the whole course of heathen culture, from the first begin- 
 ning of myth formation down to the latest development of their art. 
 It was a debasement, a vilifying, an abominable defilement of the 
 idea of God. Paul here is clearly committed to the view that the 
 religious history of the heathen world is not an advance from fetich- 
 ism, but t, degradation from an original theism. But while this 
 represents the course of downward religious development, there is 
 a collateral downward moral development parallel to and resulting 
 from this to which Paul now turns. 
 
 24. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts 
 
 l*^rif^.,.^'^.y 
 
48 ' ROMANS, I. [w. 26-26. 
 
 unto uncleanness,] Paul here expresses the divinely ordained re- 
 lation of religion to morality, and, conversely, of irreligion to im- 
 morality. The root of immorality is in the lusts of the human heart. 
 The authority to rule and restrain these is the consciousness of the 
 omnipresence of a holy (iod. The men who exchange the idea of a 
 holy (incorruptible) God for that of a lascivious (corruptible) man 
 are, by the very moral law of their being, "given up." God hath 
 appointed no other moral influence by which man can be saved from 
 the tendencies of his fallen nature. We cannot find in this expres- 
 sion "gave them up" anything more positive than that God held 
 them responsible to all the moral and physical sequences of their 
 own actions, both in their own moral nature ajid in their moral 
 environment. Even the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit proceeds 
 according to this law. To affirm anything more positive than this 
 would be to make God the author of sin. 
 
 that their bodies should be dishonoured among themselves:] 
 The genitive of definition, pointing out the special form of moral 
 impurity to which idolatry in all ages leads. The dishonouring of 
 God leads to the deepest dishonouring of man. The very body to 
 the likeness of which he had dishonoured God is itself dishonoured 
 below the level of the beasts. 
 
 25. for that they exchanged the tiath of God for a lie,] The 
 name of God'was retained, but the conception was so changed as to 
 become an utter falsehood. Paul recalls and once more enlarges this 
 thought to impress the heinousness of this sin of idolatry. 
 
 and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Cre- 
 ator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.] The various forms of 
 energy in nature, and especially the productive powers of nature, 
 were made the objects both of reverence (fear and trust) and also of 
 sacrificial and other liturgical worship. But all these, in Paul's 
 view, are but God's creatures, the wonderful mechanism which he 
 has constructed. The charge of creature worship thus lies not merely 
 against the outward and grosser forms but also against the most re- 
 fined forms of heathenism. It is the supreme personal Creator, and 
 not the mysterious processes through which he works, who is the 
 object of the eternal benediction of his creatures. 
 
 26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions :] We 
 have here, with the change of the relative conjunction into the de- 
 monstrative emphasizing the cause as restated in verse 25, a repe- 
 tition of the introductory words of verse 24; and the whole para- 
 graph is a more minute specification of what was referred to there 
 in general terms. These sins are called "passions of dishonour," 
 disgraceful passions. For a picture of the life of wealthy Romans 
 of Paul's time see Farrar's " Early Days of Christianity." 
 
 for their women changed the natural use into that which is 
 against nature:] Paul uses not the noble term " woman " but the 
 merely sexual designation. All womanliness disappeared in these 
 vices. 
 
 " ■'."le^,i.wfr,>iT«^ 
 
vv. 
 
 27-30.] ROMANS, I. 49 
 
 27. and likewise also the men, leaving: the natural use of the 
 woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men 
 working unseemliness,] The same terms are used throughout this 
 verse, men and women alike falling below the level of the brute. 
 
 and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error 
 which was due.] This may refer to these vices as the punishment 
 of their idolatry, or it may look further, to the fearful penal diseases 
 which followed such vices. 
 
 28. And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge,] 
 Paul here turns to another aspect of the sin of the Gentile world. 
 Their heathenism was not only a degradation of the idea of God but 
 a rejection from their minds of the thought of God as a holy God. 
 The moral element lies back of heathenism as well as atheism Men 
 do not like the restraint which the thought of the divine holiness 
 puts upon their sin. 
 
 God gave them up unto a reprobate mind,] There is a j)lay 
 on the words " refused " and " reprobate." *' Reprobate " signifies 
 that which is refused or rejected as bad. But there is another and 
 deeper meaning in both words. The first signifies " to examine or 
 explore." The sentence could thus be paraphrased: "They did not 
 use the power of examination to keep God before their minds. " ' ' The 
 second term would thus signify a mind devoid of this power to ex- 
 plore or discern the divine. " (Godet. ) This seems to fit in well with 
 the next thought. 
 
 to do those things which are not fitting;] Having lost the 
 power to discern moral propriety or right they could easily give 
 themselves up to the most "unfit," or even disgraceful, acts. A 
 rightly constituted mind would revolt from such enormities. But 
 the loss of the moral conception of God has undermined all the moral 
 sense of their reason. The terrible phrase "God gave them up " is 
 repeated in this verse the third time. 
 
 29. being filled with all] The result of this complete ruin of 
 moral nature is the outburst of all immoralities. These Paul enumer- 
 ates under various classes. 
 
 First, four elements of immoral character — " full of all " 
 unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness;] 
 These are cardinal vices : " injustice," disregard of right; " wicked- 
 ness," delight in stirring up evil; "covetousness," the grasping 
 spirit; and "maliciousness," thorough badness, moral rottenness. 
 Then follow five forms of active sin- 
 full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity;] The adjective 
 "full" denotes the complete occupation of these men with these 
 actions. Then follow seven epithets or names of reproach, desig- 
 nating habitual characteristics of the Gentiles — 
 
 30. whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, 
 boastful, inventors of evil things,] Each member of this terrible 
 catalogue is represented in the Greek by a single word, except the 
 last. The first three, if we take the term "godhated" in the 
 
 ^^ 
 
66 ' ROMANS, 1. 11. tvv. .11, .12; 1. 
 
 classical sense of spies or informers, designate as a group the sneak- 
 ing sinners of the age--*' whisperers, backbiters, informers." Tlu; 
 second three form a very diflerent group, the lofty sinners, "inso- 
 lent, haughty, boastful." The final term, " inventors of evil things," 
 may be applied to all, but especially to the wild young spirits re- 
 ferred to in the second group. Next follow five terms eacii begin- 
 ning with the (Jreek privative a, designating the absence or extinc- 
 tion of as many cardinal virtues— 
 
 31. disobedient to parents, without understandingf, covenant- 
 breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:] Something of 
 the peculiar rhythm, both of sound and thought, found in the original 
 may be expressed as follows: "Without reverence to parents, with- 
 out sense of right, without sense of honour, without natural affection, 
 without pity." The "understanding " here referred to is the moral 
 understanding, the discernment of right. "Covenant-breakers" 
 signifies men who cannot be held by their covenants, " without sense 
 of honour." We have in these terrible " withouts " the death-knell 
 of all that is good and noble in man. 
 
 32. who, knowing the ordinance of God,] We have here not 
 the ordinary relative but the indefinite "whoever," which may be 
 paraphrased thus: " Being such as." The term " knowing " is also 
 strengthened — "clearly recognizing." "The ordinance," i.e., the 
 requirement of justice, that which justice demands either to be done 
 as fulfilment of right or to be suffered as penalty of wrong ; in this 
 case the latter. 
 
 that they which practise such things are worthy of death,] 
 The word rightly translated "practise" refers to habitual act. 
 
 not only do the same, but also consent with them that prac- 
 tise them.] The term "consent" is scarcely strong enough to ex- 
 press the original, which implies a mutual enjoyment of each other's 
 wicked doings. In this closing verse Paul sums up the proof of the 
 charge in verse 18: They possess, "knowing," the truth; they re- 
 press it, "doing and delighting in such iniquity." 
 
 Ch. II. 1-16. The Transition: Responsibility for Knowledge. 
 
 I. Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever 
 thou art that judgest:] " The point of difficulty among commenta- 
 tors of all ages, here, has been, who is the man here addressed ? and 
 what, accordingly, is the force of 'wherefore'? Gentile magis- 
 trates, say the old Greek commentators ; the best of the Gentiles, 
 say the Reformers; the Jews, say most of the moderns." (Godet.) 
 The state of the case we take to be this : If our view of the object 
 of this Epistle is correct, then Paul is not aiming at the special con- 
 demnation of the Gentile world but at the proof of a universal 
 necessity for a salvation by grace, through faith, and not by works 
 of law or by prerogative of covenant right. This necessity lies in 
 mail's universal guilt. He begins with a case which all will admit, 
 
 ^, *nTpv j??trWJ^s?'M^-^ 
 
 M 
 
.] tlOMANS, It. rA 
 
 Imt basing their responsibility upon unmistakable evidence of two 
 fuiidaniental facts— (<») they know the right, (//) they did it not. 
 Therefore are they " irH/iouf rjxnur,'^ /.r. , without possibility of 
 escape from condemnation. They are condemned, not as (ientiles, 
 nor as uncircumcised, but as sinners against light and knowledge. 
 Having thus established the true principles of liuman responsibility 
 he proceeds to apply them to all who sin against light and know- 
 ledge, even though they may outwardly acknowledge and make 
 loud professions of respect for the right (ch. ii. 1-16). In this cate- 
 gory he expressly includes both Jews and Greeks. And finally he 
 shows (vv. 17-29) that from this just judgment of (}od no national 
 prerogative such as that boasted of by the .Jews can save them, pro- 
 ceeding in chapter iii. to meet objections to this purely ethical view. 
 The parties addressed in the text, therefore, are all, .lew or (Jreek, 
 wlio xny but do not. The conjunction "wherefore " l)uilds upon the 
 two fundamental principles reasserted in verse 32, knowledge and 
 sin against knowledge. This view is confirmed by the fact that I'aul 
 repeats here tlie term " without excuse," already used in verse 20; 
 that in chapter i. he does not mention the Gentiles as such (because 
 he is laying down general principles which will apjily to Jew and 
 Gentile alike); and that in chapter ii. he first mentions Jew and 
 finch, not Gentile, because next to the Jews the <iieeks were most 
 likely to set themselves up as the moral censors of the world. We 
 take Paul's aim to be, not by an induction of two or three great 
 classes (Heathen, Moralist and Jew, or (irentile and Jew) to prove 
 the fact of universal guilt, but to establish a principle which will of 
 itself prove the universal guilt. This principle, that guilt depends 
 solely upon two factors, knowledge of right and sin against know- 
 ledge, he first establishes in a case about which there will be no con- 
 troversy, next in the case before us, and lastly, against all claims to 
 special exemption on the part of the Jew. "Whosoever thou art 
 that judgest" — Moralist, Satirist or proselyting Jew; for all these 
 classes set themselves up as censors of the age. 
 
 for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself;] 
 giving in this very judgment evidence of the first factor of responsi- 
 bility — knowledge of the right. 
 
 for thou that judgest dost practise the same things.] This is 
 the second factor. Paul states this as a fact. Probably his readers 
 needed no proof of it. 
 
 2. And we know that the judgment of God is according to 
 truth against them that practise such things.] In this verse Paul 
 asserts the general principle already referred to. This constitutes 
 the major premise, of which the minor premise and the conclusion 
 are put rhetorically in the question of verse 3. These two verses 
 thus constitute the expanded proof of the assertion made in the close 
 of verse 1, "thou condemnest thyself." Hence in some ancient 
 MSS. we find the conjunction "for." We may very well, with 
 Godet, translate the present text by "now we know,' etc. The 
 
 %?/fT#%«/>... 
 
52 ' ROMANS, 11. [vv. 3-5. 
 
 " we know " does not refer to Jews or to Christians, but is a general 
 assertion by the author in this common form. The word "truth" 
 here, like the Old Testament mishpat, designates the essential princi- 
 ples of justice. 
 
 3. And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that 
 practise such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape 
 the judgment of God?] The minor premise is, " Thou doest such 
 things;" the conclusion, "God will judge thee according to the 
 ^;ruth." But Paul throws the conclusion into the form of an un- 
 answerable dilemma. By his judgment of others the man addi-essed 
 admits the major premise. He cannot deny the minor prei.use. 
 Therefore he is either reckoning on some impoasiM\ »vay of escape 
 or he is presuming on, and hence despising, the goodiie.-<& of God 
 (v. 4). In either case the argument points against the J 'v, whose 
 case Paul has especially in mind as the opponent of the gospel which 
 he is vindicating. 
 
 4. Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbear- 
 ance and longsuffering,] If the man is no trusting in that wliich 
 God's justice renders impossible then he is wilfully and knowingly 
 sinning against the goodness which has endowed him with the know- 
 ledge of the right, and the forbearance and longsuffering which con- 
 tinue his probation in spite of his sin. All these terms would have 
 special force as applied to the Jew, though the principle which they 
 announce applies universally, 
 
 not knowmg that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repent- 
 ance ?] Literally, '' ignoring that the gentle dealing of God leadeth 
 thee unto repentance;" "unto" designating, as usual, the aim or 
 intention. 
 
 5. but after thy hardness and impenitent heart] The interroga- 
 tive form of the dilemma is here laid aside and the direct assertion 
 of the real state of affairs resumed. The preposition denotes the 
 rule of action, which is here the moral obduracy resulting from sin 
 against light 
 
 treasurest up for thyself wrath] Treasures of wrath, opposeil 
 to the despised riches of (iod's goodness. 
 
 in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment 
 of God ;] This may refer either specifically to the rapidly approach- 
 ing day of divine judgment against the Jewish nation, or more gener- 
 ally to the final and universal judgment of the human race. Such a 
 final judgment of all men, according to principles of absolute justice, 
 was the very foundation stone of Paul's doctri'ae. Compare with 
 the present passage 2 Cor. v. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 17-v. 11 ; 2 Tim. iv. 1. 
 See Acts xxiv. 25 as to the iise Paul made of this doctrine. This 
 doctrine, of which the present passage is Paul's fullest exposition, 
 implies — 
 
 1. That the moral character of each life determines its eternal 
 destiny. 
 
 2. That this destiny is finally fixed by God. 
 
vv. 
 
 6-11.] ROMANS, II. 53 
 
 3, That this act of divine judgment proceeds upon principles of 
 
 absolute justice. 
 
 4. That any arbitrary preference of any one man or of any class 
 of men over others is absolutely excluded. 
 
 As we shall hereafter see, Paul's entire doctrinal system is built 
 upon this foundation and in harmony with it. This doctrine he has 
 in the next six verses thrown into the Hebrew poetic or proverbial 
 form, indicating its importance and the frequency with which he 
 made use of it. 
 
 6. Who will render to every man according to his works : 
 
 7. To them that by patience in welldoing 
 Seek for glory and honour and incorruption, 
 
 Eternal life: 
 
 8. But unto them that are factious, 
 
 And obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, 
 Shall be wrath and indignation, 
 
 9. Tribulation and anguish, 
 
 Upon every soul of man that workcth evil. 
 Of the Jew first, and also of the Greek ; 
 
 10. But glory and honour and peace 
 To every man that worketh good. 
 
 To the Jew first, and also to the Greek: 
 
 11. For there is no respect of persons with God. 
 
 Note (a) the parallelism of the first line with the last; {h) the in- 
 troverted parallelism of the first triplet with the last; and (c) of the 
 middle stanza in its two triplets. This can scarcely be accidental, 
 and may indicate that Paul was quoting either a recognized formula 
 of the ethical teaching of the time, or a formula which he himself 
 had constructed for use in his own teaching. The expression in 
 verse 1() would suggest the latter. If so Paul depends upon the con- 
 science of his readers to recognize its truth, as he makes no attempt 
 to establish it by argument other than to guard against an objection. 
 A few words of these verses, in their general tenor so perfectly clear, 
 are worthy of special note. The " patience " of verse 7 is clearly a 
 probational patience, i.e., perseverance. The term "good work," 
 to denote the right life, is not to be opposed to Paul's doctrine of 
 salvation ^)y faith. He is now laying down the universal and funda- 
 mental principles of moral probation, without reference to the gra- 
 cious means by which the probation of fallen humanity may reach 
 a successful issue. When he comes to that question, and propounds 
 his doctrine of salvation by faith, it is a "faith which worketh by 
 love." Kternal life is not mere endless existence on the one hand 
 nor the life of an aeon on the other, but the fulness of the life of that 
 world which the final judgment will usher in. The three phrases, 
 "factious," "obey not the truth" and "obey unrighteousness," 
 
 «?!'«f?^^-»«»,'*»C5^'^.,«*riE?>^^ 
 
54 " ROMANS, II. [vv. 12-14. 
 
 describe the character of those who reject the gospel. The phrase 
 " respect of persons " is the Hebrew expression for personal favourit- 
 ism, (See 2 Chron. xix. 7 and Deut. x. 17.) 
 
 12. For as many as have sinned without law] Paul here an- 
 ticipates a possible objection to the important docti'ine laid down. 
 How can those be fairly judged according to principles of strict jus- 
 tice who have not enjoyed the light of Uod's law? 
 
 shall also perish without lav/:] Paul's reply is that their final 
 destiny will correspond to their probation. As one was without 
 law, i.e., the revealed and written law^ so will the other be. This 
 he explains more fully in verse 14 when he has completed the an- 
 tithesis of the two great classes of human probation. 
 
 and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by 
 law;] The distinction between "shall perish" and "shall be 
 judged " may indicate the more detailed and definite character of 
 tlie higher probation. Paul, in this and the next following sentence, 
 strikes at the very root of Jewish assumption. They held that the 
 possession of the law, as a mark of God's special favour, assured 
 them of salvation. Paul asserts that it merely involves greater re- 
 sponsibility. 
 
 13. for not the hearers of a law are Just before God,] The 
 mere possession of greater probational advantages does not secure 
 salvation. 
 
 but the doers of a law shall be justified:] Jewish privilege 
 avails nothing except the terms of probation are met. (See v. 25.) 
 Paul is thus surely and clearly approaching the great point required 
 by the scope of his argument. The circumcision party built upon 
 the privileges of a special election; already Paul's doctrine over- 
 turns from the very foundation such assumption by showing that 
 final justification must be according to works. This justification is 
 clearly from the context the justification of the final judgment; this 
 alone completes human probation. But the objection again arises, 
 if only doers of law can be justified how can there be a just proba- 
 tion of those who have no law ? To constitute probation there must 
 be knowledge of right. To this difiiculty, which emerges in verse 12 
 and is continued in verse 13, Paul next replies. 
 
 14. for when Gentiles which have no law do by nature the 
 things of the law,] Paul here evidently means by " law " written 
 law. "The things of the law" are the actions prescribed as right 
 by the written law. These are said to be done "by nature," not 
 as opposed to grace, or a universal inner working of God's Spirit in 
 human conscience, but as opposed to acts performed in view of the 
 express command of a written law. 
 
 these, having no law, are a law unto themselves;] Thus they 
 are not absolutely without law. They have a law sufficient for the 
 purposes of responsibility and of probation. The nature of this 
 law Paul proceeds immediately to explain. In the meantime it 
 should be noted that verse 14 describes not an impossible hypothesis 
 
V. 15, 16.] ROMANS, II. 55 
 
 but a possible case. The Greek construction which is here used 
 clearly implies the actual historical possibility of the condition, and 
 hence he draws his conclusion in the present indicative, "these are 
 a law unto themselves. " He finds in this possibility of their doing 
 right full proof of the universal presence of a law sufficient to estab- 
 lish probational responsibility; and the expression "without law," 
 in verse 12, must be limited by the presence of this inner law of 
 nature. This connection of verse 14 directly with verse 13, and in- 
 directly with verse 12, combining Meyer and Calvin, does not imply 
 a possibility of salvation or justification of the Gentile beyond what 
 is absolutely essential to a true probation. It may be as Calvin 
 would have it, that all the Gentiles perish. But if so they perish 
 justly. The last clause of verse 13 is really negative, and mij;ht be 
 paraphrased "the doers of lavv^ alone shall be justified. " Paul is not 
 here discussing the question of how either Jews oi- Gentiles actually 
 are saved or can be saved. He is proving that final justificatio;n can 
 only depend upon the moral character of life, and that this prin iple 
 is of universal application — to the Jew notwithstanding his peculiar 
 pri\ ileges as poss- ssor of the law, and to the Gentile notwithstand- 
 ing the absence oi those privileges. Presently he will show u?> that, 
 but for grace, the issue of human probation must be universal con- 
 demnation. 
 
 15. in fhat they show the work of the law written in their 
 hearts,] The work of the law may be either that discrimination of 
 right from wrong which a written law produces (see Moule) or, a& 
 we think simpler and better, the course of conduct which the law 
 prescribes. This is v/ritten in their hearts in this sense, that their 
 understanding or moral judgment points out the right act. AVith 
 the Hebrews the heart was the seat of moral government. That 
 this moral judgment is in harmony with the precepts of God's law 
 is shown by their actions, not to themselves but to the world at 
 laige. 
 
 their conscience bearing witness therewith,] i.e., with the moral 
 judgment of the understanding. The conscience thus appears to sig- 
 nify the feeling of obligation to do the right, as distinguished from 
 the understanding which judges that this particular work is right. 
 The conscience attests the truth of the judgment by its response, 
 perhaps especially by the after-feeling of approval or remO)-se. The 
 classical use of the word "conscience," as the witness which a man 
 has within himself and against himself, seems especially to point to 
 this after-feeling. 
 
 and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excus- 
 ing them ;] These " thoughts " are the after-thoughts which either 
 aggravate or endeavour to extenuate the reproaches of conscience. 
 "One with another" thus refers, not to persons with each other, 
 but to the thoughts within the person. 
 
 i6. In the day when God shall Judge the secrets of men, ac- 
 cording to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.] The first difficulty in 
 
 ^rf>-^f«i'!®i*!te«»iS»^^....*^*»^«s«SK 
 
56 - ROMANS, II. [v. 16. 
 
 this verse is the connection of the clause "in the day." Most of 
 those who interpret it as referring to the day of final judgment find 
 it necessary to propose a remote connection with verses 5 or 6, or 
 with verses 11, 12 or 13. Against this is the fact that Paul's gram- 
 matical connection is usually from clause to clause directly. But 
 it may be doubted whether Paul's reference is to the final day of 
 judgment. The verb used here may with equal propriety be con- 
 strued in the present tense. The phrase " judge the secrets of men " 
 is not elsewhere used by Paul for the judgment of the final day. On 
 the other hand, comparing 1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25, we find it used of the 
 judgment which takes place in the conscience of the sinner under 
 the preaching of the gospel. The process described in verses 14 and 
 15, although occasionally realized in the commission of flagrant of- 
 fences, becomes a general experience only under the preaching of 
 the gospel, which by the power of the Holy Spirit brings all men 
 immediately before the bar of God in the presence of their own con- 
 science. (See Lange. ) If this is the meaning of the phrase here 
 then it can only be connected directly with verse 15. 
 
 Ch. II. 17-29. Application of the True Principles op 
 Probation to the Jews. 
 
 We arrive now at the third part and the real culmination of Paul's 
 argument. Beginning with a statement, readily granted by his oppo- 
 nent, that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all un- 
 godliness and unrighteousness of men, he has shown that it is so 
 revealed, not against the Gentiles as Gentiles, but against those who 
 have the truth but sinned against it, and that the very enormity of 
 Gentile sin is the divine penalty for the perversion of their privi- 
 leges. From this position, thus established, he turns unexpectedly 
 upon all who speak of the Gentiles as "sinners," and affirms that 
 this very principle condemns them, asking how they hope to escape 
 the just judgment of God, which he asserts must take place accord- 
 ing to principles of strict equity, rewarding every man according to 
 his work, without respect of persons, justifying, not the mere hear- 
 ers, but the doers of law. Now, in the third part, having thus com- 
 pletely prepared his ground by expounding the true principles of 
 probation, Paul proceeds to attack that main citadel of assumption 
 of privilege which he had from the very outset in view. It is the 
 Jew alone who claims exemption from these rigid principles of jus- 
 tice on the ground of his covenant privileges. The Judaizer or 
 Ebionite built upon this Jewish foundation when he taught, " Except 
 ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved ;" 
 for the whole value of circumcision lay in the fact that it admitted 
 into the charmed circle or covenant of Jewish national life. If these 
 indisputable principles of divine justice in the final judgment of men 
 are to be applied even within this circle, then the foundations of both 
 Jew and Judaizer are destroyed. This Paul now proceeds to do. 
 
 yifSi^r^ff^Jl^^^^' .■-•-.™ „. ,,^^ 
 
vv. 17-22.] ROMANS, II. 57 
 
 17. But if thou bearest the name of a Jew,] Godet proposes 
 to translate the conjunction "now" instead of "but," for there is 
 no real antithesis — only an addition by way of culmination. Paul 
 here catalogues at length the favourite titles by which the Jew dis- 
 tinguished himself from sinners of the Gentiles. He begins with the 
 title Jew. " Salvation is of the Jews " was an aphorism, used in its 
 true sense by Christ, but taken in a very different sense by the 
 Pharisees. 
 
 and restest upon the law,] Compare John vii. 49: "This rabble 
 which knoweth not the law are accursed." 
 and gloriest in God,] as being his favourite people. 
 
 18. and knowest his will,] Probably this, like the other phrases, 
 had passed into the Jewish cant of the time. 
 
 and approvest the things that are excellent,] This is one of 
 tlie blessings solicited by Paul for the Philippians. But it involves 
 a responsibility as well as a privilege. This gift in Paul's time de- 
 generated into the most ridiculous casuistry. (See Godet.) 
 
 being instructed out of the law,] a formal term denoting care- 
 ful religious training, literally catechized. (See Luke i. 4.) This 
 completes the first catalogue of prerogatives, the special advantages 
 enjoyed by the Jews. 
 
 19. and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, 
 a light of them that are in darkness, 
 
 20. a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes,] These were 
 all familiar terms used by Christ and his apostles, doubtless from the 
 current language of the time. Christ calls the scribes and Pharisees 
 "fools " and "blind," and speaks of men as " walking in darkness ;" 
 and Paul calls the Corinthians "babes." They form the second part 
 of the catalogue of prerogatives, indicating the moral and religious 
 authority assumed. 
 
 having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;] 
 The "form " is not the mere outward form as contrasted with the 
 substance, but the exact pattern, the perfect representation. This 
 M'as the foundation of all their prerogatives. They supposed that 
 this law was incapable of change or improvement, and were scandal- 
 ized when told that it was to pass away, and be "changed " and re- 
 placed by that which was more perfect. The protasis we take to 
 end here and not (as Godet) to extend to verse 24. The conjunction 
 "therefore " repeats this protasis in the various adjectives and parti- 
 cipial clauses, "that teachest another," etc. 
 
 21. thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thy- 
 self?] This question is the sum total of the whole apodosis. It is 
 followed by the particulars which are at the same time the proof. 
 These particulars are three : 
 
 thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal ?] 
 The avarice of the Jews made this a common sin. 
 
 22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost 
 thou commit adultery?] This charge was laid against some very 
 
 
 
 Ir 
 
 ^■b- 
 
58 " ROMANS, II. [vv. 23-25. 
 
 eminent rabbis. See also our Lord's teacliing on the subject of 
 divoi'ce. 
 
 thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples ?] On this, a 
 charge against the Jews, see Acts xix. 37. If our view of the scope 
 of Paul's argument is correct then we liave a perfect demonstration. 
 If a single Jew could be cited as a thief, an adulterer, etc., then 
 either the doctrine of God's justice must be abandoned or the as- 
 sumption that a Jew is infallibly saved because he is a Jew is false. 
 The prerogative title "Jew" became responsible for every form of 
 sin committed by any one who held by birth or proselytism the right 
 to wear it ; and the fact that such men were publicly well known to 
 commit such sins was a death-blow to the assumption that the mere 
 fact of being (jod's elect people would or could save them from God's 
 just wrath. On the other hand, the argument is exceedingly weak 
 as an inductive proof that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are sin- 
 ners. We shall see presently how Paul does prove that important 
 fact when, by establishing and applying alike to Gentile and Jew 
 the true doctrine of probation, he has first swept away all the refuges 
 of lies. This argument, already so perfect for its purpose, is com- 
 pleted by a general charge substantiated by scripture itself : 
 
 23. thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of 
 the law dishonourest thou God?] This general charge Paul im- 
 mediately proves by an apposite quotation from Ezek. xxxvi. 20-23. 
 
 24. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles 
 because of you, even as it is written.] Paul in this quotes not 
 the words of a single verse, but in part the words and in full the 
 idea repeated in each of the four verses of the passage referred to. 
 Such a charge, proven against the Jews of Ezekiel's time, was just 
 as apposite to Paul's argument as if it were a fact of the present. 
 The Icjical force of these burning rhetorical questions Paul now 
 asserts as a general principle, affirming or proving the idea conveyed 
 in the interrogative form. This general principle is not "All have 
 sinned, even the Jews;" but "Your assumption of special preroga- 
 tive is of no avail." 
 
 25. For circumcision indeed profiiteth, if thou be a doer of the 
 law:] This thought hinges directly on the conclusion to be drawn 
 from the argument just advanced. That conclusion was, as we have 
 just seen, "assumption of privileges through the covenant of circum- 
 cision is of no avail if God be just." Paul puts it, however, in a 
 more concessive form: "I grant you that the covenant of circum- 
 cision is a great blessing if you are faithful to tlie terms and responsi- 
 bilities of that covenant. " 
 
 but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is 
 become uncircumcision.] If the terms of the covenant be broken 
 then there is no claim to its privileges. Paul thus advances the true 
 doctrine of the ancient covenant. It was in perfect harmony with 
 the justice of God, and provided for the true probation of man by 
 conditioning the blessings on the keeping of the law. The doctrine 
 
 
vv. 26-28.] ROMANS, II. 59 
 
 which Paul is overthro /ing is the false assumption that the blessings 
 of the ancient covenant were infallibly secure to the Jews as Jews. 
 Tlie true doctrine of the ancient covenant was quite as much opposed 
 to this as was Paul's argument from the absolute justice of (lod, and 
 hence is adduced to substantiate that argument. We find in the 
 Rabbis such expressions as these, in perfect keeping with the doc- 
 trine which Paul is opposing: "All the circumcised have part in the 
 world to come." " Cii'cumcision is equivalent to all the command- 
 ments that are in the law." (See Moule, App.) 
 
 26. If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the 
 law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?] 
 Tliis is the converse of the true doctrine of the old covenant which 
 Paul had just announced. It follows logically that if the circum- 
 cised may lose the blessings of the covenant by disobedience the un- 
 circumcised may gain them by obedience. We have here a repetition 
 of the tliought of verses 14 and lii. In both cases the construction 
 used recognizes the perfect possibility of the hypothesis, and presents 
 it as a tiling to be actually expected, though it does not assert that 
 it has actually occurred. Godot's objection that the salvation of the 
 (ientiles would thus be of works proceeds upon the false hypothesis 
 that Paul regards the whole Old Testament dispensation as a cove- 
 nant of works. The very term which he here uses, "reckoned," 
 points to grace. For proof that Paul held that the principle of 
 grace lay back of the Abrahamic covenant see chapter iv. ; also Gal. 
 iii. lo-lS. For the extension of this principle still further see Heb. 
 xi. In fact, the very idea of a covenant is founded 011 grace. Verse 
 20 is, however, but a stepping-stone to something beyond. Paul is 
 not yet dealing with the question of how the Gentiles may be saved ; 
 he is merely demolishing the false assumption of the Jew. Hence 
 he applies the truth thus gained. 
 
 27. and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it 
 fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision 
 art a transgressor of the law?] This is the application to the 
 Jew, placing the worthlessness of his assumptions in the strongest 
 possible light. The very Gentile whom he calls " a sinner " will be 
 his judge, that is, by comparison of conduct in the great day, will 
 place his disobedience under the strongest possible condemnation. 
 The uncircumcision was the Jewish term to designate the whole 
 Gentile world. They are such by nature, i.e., by birth, only. By 
 moral conduct they are worthy to be reckoned as circumcision. On 
 the other hand, his very confidence in the mere physical act of circum- 
 cision — a merely literal fulfilment of the law — is the means of leading 
 the Jew to more flagrant transgressions of the law. This mention 
 of the contrast between the mere accident of birth, or of an outward 
 literal act, and the true spirit of God's holy covenant, Paul next ex- 
 pands more fully. 
 
 28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly;] That is, 
 a true Jew in the highest sense, 
 
 !i(in*»,„r,'-<rfW'''*»-"'-. 
 
60 ROMANS, II, III. [v. 29. 
 
 neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:] 
 In these two sentences the whole ground is taken from the Jew. He 
 is neither a Jew nor circumcised in the true sense ; 
 
 29. but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision 
 is that of the heart,] This was no new thought, and should have 
 been familiar to the Jews. (See Lev. xxvi. 41; Deut. x. 10; Jer. 
 iv. 14; Ezek. xliv. 9, etc.) Paul has thus in this thoroughly pro- 
 phetic declaration arrived at. the culmination of his thesis. This 
 principle includes all that he set out to jwove. 
 
 in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, 
 but of God.] This addition thrusts the argument home. The 
 whole prophetic order insisted on the moral spirit of the law ; the 
 Pharisee, i.e., the formalist, and the legalist, of every age, is satisfied 
 with the letter. The latter especially in Paul's time sought to make 
 a grand display of the vast number of proselytes gained by their 
 Judaistic Christianity. (See Gal. vi. 12, 13.) But Paul holds that 
 for such work there is no credit before God. 
 
 Ch. III. 1-8. Answer to Objections. 
 
 Note.— In studying this short section, acknowledjjed by all coniinentators to be 
 the most difficult in the entire Epistle, it is essential to begin with a correct con- 
 ception of its general purport. It is a reply to obvious objections to the conclu- 
 sion just stated. These objections are such as would naturally suggest themselves 
 to the minds of Paul's readers, and occur to Paul himself, and probably had at 
 times been actually advanced by his opponents. Still we are not to suppose that 
 Paul here adopts the form of a dialogue in which the objector asks the questions 
 and the apostle answers. He does indeed propound the objections in the interroga- 
 tive form, but he also to some extent uses the same form in propounding the answer. 
 This is especially the case where he uses the form of argument known as reductio 
 ad ahsurdum. We must therefore clearly distinfruish the questions which are used 
 to present the objections. All are agreed that in the first verse the double ques- 
 tion presents a main objection which is directly answered in verse 2. To this an- 
 swer a subordinate objection seems to be presented in the first part of verse 3, 
 and answered by reductio ad ahimrdum in the second question of the same verse, 
 the answer being confirmed by the quotations in verse 4. The commentators gener- 
 ally suppose that verse 5 starts an objection arising out of these quotations, and 
 hence in some sense subordinate to the preceding. Rut it is by no means after 
 Paul's manner, nor would it for a moment occur to any Jew, to raise an objection 
 to any direct statement of scripture or to anything plainly implied therein. Besides, 
 verse 4 does not at all speak of the commendation but only of the vindication of the 
 divine equity, or rather faithfulness. To make the cotinection proposed we have 
 to leap over this logical hiatus, and further, to find introduced two entirely new 
 terms — instead of unfaithfulness, unrighteousness; and instead of faithfulness the 
 word which in every other case is used to express God's gift of righteousness to 
 man through the gospel. Further, the conjunction here used connects co-ordinate 
 clauses, sentences or paragraphs. VV^ith what is verse 5 co-ordinate? Either with 
 verse 3 or with verse 1. If with verse 3 then it should supply a second substantia- 
 tion of verse 2 as against a new objection. But the thought presented will not 
 admit of this. We are therefore obliged to co-ordinate it with verse 1, i.e., to regard 
 verse 5 as presenting a new and independent form of objection to Paul's main ai"gu- 
 ment, or to some conclusion which can already be drawn from it. What the nature 
 of this objection is we shall consider under the verse itself. To this we think Paul 
 makes a twofold reply, each in interrogative form, with a reductio ad absurdum— 
 "Surely not God is unjust," and "Surely not 'Let us do evil, that good may 
 QOMe' " (vv. 5, 6 and 8). But how, jn that case, sh^ll we dispose of the latter clause 
 
 .,.J%<^^^V(i^t^^m^':' ' •■^'*"^'^^:'«Wf.**.„ 
 
vv. 1-4.] ROMANS, III. 61 
 
 of verse 6 and vorae 7 ? The latter clause of verse 6 is usually taken as supporting 
 tlie .arffuinent which is involved in the last question of verse 6, and directly aseertert 
 ill the "God fortiid" which inuiiediately precedes. Verw 7 we take to be a second 
 aiul jieraonal argument sustaining' Paul's emphatic "Ood forbid." The extreme 
 ditliculty of this piissago must justify the length of this introductory note. 
 
 1. What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit 
 of circumcision ?j The two terms "Jew " and " circumcision " were 
 the terms which Paul had used above as expressive of the special 
 prerogative claimed by his opponents. Paul's argument sweeps away 
 the unfounded assumption of prerogati^'e, and at first sight might 
 seem to sweep away everything which the Jew was supposed to enjoy 
 more than the Gentile, and to deny that any benefit or moral help 
 accrued to those who were embraced in God's covenant of circum- 
 cision, which would be to deny altogether the divine authority of 
 the Old Testament dispensation. To this Paul replies: — 
 
 2. Much every way: first of all, that they were entrusted with 
 the oracles of God.] This first advantage may also be regarded 
 as tlie root out of which, as ])ranches, all other advantages spring. 
 The oracles of God included, first, God's law, and secondly, God's 
 promises. The whole revelation is embraced in these. These the 
 .lews held not as a possession for their own sole benefit but as a 
 trust to be used as the ancient promises and prophetic declarations all 
 intimate, for the benefit of all nations. To be put in charge of such 
 a trust was indeed a proud privilege as well as an awful responsi- 
 bility. And the keeping of these oracles was not only a privilege 
 but also a moral help, as every member of the covenant had not only 
 all the light of the law but also all the blessed assurance of the 
 promises. 
 
 3. For what if some were without faith? shall their want of 
 faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?] The words 
 translated "faith" and "without faith" here correspond to "en- 
 trusted " of the preceding verse. We think, therefore (Meyer to the 
 contrary), that they should be taken as signifying fidelity and lack 
 of fidelity to trust. The question is also asked in that form which 
 anticipates the strongest negative answer, the very form of asking 
 the ([uestion implying the absurdity of anything but a negative an- 
 swer. We may therefore paraphrase the verse thus: " For what if 
 some proved unfaithful to the trust (dishonouring God by breaking 
 liis covenant)? surelj' you cannot pretend to say that their unfaith- 
 fulness renders God's fidelity of none effect?" The true view and 
 the false view of the covenant privileges are thus placed in striking 
 contrast. The falsely-assumed privileges are completely swept away 
 by the infidelity of even a few. But God's faithfulness maintains 
 all the advantage of the true privileges even to "a very small rem- 
 nant " who alone represent his faithful people. 
 
 4. God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a 
 liar ;] If, instead of some, or even the great body of the nation, being 
 unfaithful, the whole people, every man, had proved so, still God's 
 truth, his fidelity to his covenant promises, would not be impeached. 
 
65i ROMANS, III. [v. 5. 
 
 as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, 
 and mightest prevaU when thou comest into judgment.] This 
 quotation has been interpreted as if it implied that iJavid's sin was 
 committed for the purpose of justifying (iod, etc., or, more mildly, 
 overruled to the glory of Uod. Neither the former i(lea nor yet the 
 latter (however true it may be in some cases) is contained here. l*aul 
 (juotes verbatim from the LXX. Psalm li. 4. For the interpretation 
 of the entire passage we must look to the original psalm. Here the 
 strophical structure of the psalm is strongly in favour of the interpre- 
 tation which connects our quotation directly with verse 3, making 
 4 a parenthetical expression, thus: — 
 
 "For I acknowledge my transgressions, 
 
 And my sin is ever before me ; 
 (Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, 
 
 And done this evil in thy sight;) 
 That thou mightest be justified," etc. 
 
 As Paul quotes only the last couplet of the strophe we have nothing 
 to indicate that his view of the connection differed from this. In 
 fact, this view is most apposite to his purpose. David, in making a 
 public confession of his sin that God's justice may be publicly vindi- 
 cated in having punished him, directly attests the principle here 
 laid down by Paul. God's fidelity to his covenant pi-omises is not 
 impeachable from the fact that he is sometimes obliged to punish for 
 their sins even the greatest of those to whom those promises have 
 been given. Having thi's completed the answer to this the only 
 plausible objection to his _jreat argument, which he really commenced 
 chapter i. 18, the aposti would now seem to be ready to make a 
 formal statement of his conclusion, and to apply it to the final pur- 
 pose which he has in view, as he does presently in verse 9. But 
 that conclusion is so obvious that it is already before his own mind 
 and before that of his readers. Why has he thus swept away the 
 legal righteousness of the Jew? For no other purpose than to " es- 
 tablish the righteousness " which is of God and revealed in the gos- 
 pel. This suggests a new line of objection, which Paul first 8li,tes 
 and answers. 
 
 5. But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness 
 of God, what shall w^e say ?] Unrighteousness would here be used 
 in the sense of lack of righteousness, as Paul had by his argument 
 swept away the righteousness in which they trusted. This lack of 
 nghteousness forms the dark background out of which God's right- 
 eousness stands forth in striking relief. (On this contrast compare 
 ch. X. 3. ) Man's universal lack of a righteousness of his own is the 
 necessary presupposition of God's righteousness, and thus demon- 
 strates it as the only possible righteousness. It is to this fact, or to 
 the conclusions which rraght be drawn from it, that the objection is 
 taken. The fact itself F^ul states in its strongest form in chapter 
 xi. 32. This objection — v'ae antinomian abuse to which Paul's doc- 
 
vv. 6, 7.] ROMANS, III. 63 
 
 trine was exposed — is one to which he reverts again and again in the 
 course of the Epistle. " What shall we say?" i.e., what conclusion 
 shall we draw ? The conclusions are not stated in the question, they 
 are supposed to be apparent, but are presented in the emphatic in- 
 terrogative denials (vv. 5, (5 and 8). 
 
 Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath ?] 'I he form of 
 the question is equivalent to the most emphatic negation, and thus 
 carries refutation on the face of it. God cannot be unjust. It is 
 only by laying aside all the untjuestionable postulates of the divine 
 nature and speaking by the same rule which we apply to men that 
 such a thing could even ])c uttered. 
 
 6. (I speak after the manner of men.)] The expression "who 
 visiteth with wrath" has usually been referred to the day of judg- 
 ment. The evident reference, liowever, back to chapter i., verses 
 17 and 18, etc., as well as the employment of the present tense, seom 
 to favour the reference to the wrath of God as manifest in his provi- 
 dence and in human conscience. The expression may, however, be 
 taken generally of all manifestations of God's wrath against sin. 
 
 God forbid:] God's justice cannot be impeached. 
 
 for then how shall God judge the world?] The conjunction 
 "how then" implies a suppressed protasis. It is equal to "for in 
 that case." But in what case? "In case God were unjust," say a 
 large number of expositors. We prefer to follow those who read, 
 "in case God cannot justly judge any whose sin may be overruled 
 for good." The expression "judge the world" may thus betaken 
 in its widest sense as including the whole course of divine justice 
 both here and hereafter. This would be impossible in case all were 
 exempted whose sin was overruled for good. In fact, one great end 
 of the divine judgment is this very result. 
 
 7. But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his 
 glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner ?] There are two gen- 
 eral lines of interpretation of this very difficult verse. A large num- 
 ber of expositors take verse 7 as a repetition, in another form, of the 
 main objection presented in verse 6. This is in harmony with the 
 view that the apostle there speaks of God's righteousness (justice) as 
 demonstrated by our unrighteousness. The reading of the revised 
 text is against this in some of the forms presented. Still more is the 
 fact that it is separated from that which it is intended to explain by 
 the whole extent of verse 6 and verse 5b. These certainly are not 
 parenthetical. This explanation supposes the " I also " to personate 
 the sinner, upon whom God's wrath rests. The second line of inter- 
 pretation takes the same view of the phrase "I also," but makes 
 the whole verse an explanation of verse 6, showing how in the final 
 judgment almost any sinner might plead for excuse. But if the 
 apostle liad intended to express this thought we cannot understand 
 why he should use the aorist indicative in the conditional and the 
 present indicative in the apodosis. The idea to be expressed would 
 be this : In every possible case of God's glory through man's sin why 
 
64 " ROMANS, ±11. [v. 8. 
 
 should such man also be judged as a sinner? which would be ex- 
 pressed in the strongest way admissible by the combination of the 
 subjunctive with the indicative. The present construction of the 
 Greek states two acknowledged facts — one in the past, historical, the 
 other in the present. It may be paraphrased thus: "If (as you 
 affirm) the truth of God has abounded through my lie unto his glory, 
 why am I any longer judged a sinner (as is actually the case) ? This 
 can scarcely refer to a mere hypothetical case taken from the final 
 day of judgment, nor even to such a case taken from the judgments 
 of Providence in human history. We are therefore disposed to sug- 
 gest the following: The pronoun in the first person singular, wher- 
 ever used by the apostle thus far, refers to himself personally or to 
 himself as opposed to the Judaizing teachers. (See ch. i. 8-17 and 
 ch. ii. 16.) We have Vnit to take it in the same natural sense here 
 and we have a most perfect and apposite aryjitmmtum ad homincm, 
 leaving his opponents without possibility of answer. The connec- 
 tion then runs as follows: Objector — "If our lack of righteousness 
 establish the righteousness of God what conclusion follows?" Paul 
 — "Certainly not the conclusion that the anger of God against sin 
 is unjust, for in that case how will God's judgment of the world be 
 carried on? and further, why, on that principle, do you judge me 
 also to be a sinner if, as you say, God's truth has abounded through 
 what you may call my lie to his glory ? This is in jierfect harmony 
 with the interpretation we have offered of verse 5, and will also form 
 a fitting transition to verse 8. Only a few notes need be added. 
 This explanation is the only one which gives its full emphasis to the 
 expression "I also." The adverb "still" we have paraphrased as 
 equal to "in that case," and co-ordinating the question in verse 7 
 with the question closing verse 6, and taking the place of the ad- 
 verbial conjunction " for then. " The arfjumentum ad hominem im- 
 plies that his adversaries acknowledged the utility of his labours in 
 opening the way for themselves, although they called his gospel a 
 lie. They certainly could not but admit that the great principles 
 of monotheism were widely extended among the heathen through 
 his preaching. This we take to be the meaning of the expression 
 "truth of God." (See ch. i. 18, 25.) On the use of the term " sin- 
 ner " in this connection see Gal. ii. 15-18. 
 
 8. And why not] The word ' ' why " is not found here in the 
 Greek. The revisers, departing from their usual rule, have inter- 
 preted as well as translated by connecting directly with the preced- 
 ing sentence and supplying "why" from that. If, as we propose, 
 this sentence is co-ordinate with v. 5h, then "why " must be omitted 
 and this made a direct question. The force of the Greek particle 
 translated " not " will then be interrogative, implying a strong nega- 
 tive answer. 
 
 (as we be slanderously reported, and as some aflirm that we 
 say),] " Slanderously reported " is literally "blasphemed." This 
 parenthesis evidently refers to misrepresentations of Paul's doctrine 
 
V. d.J ROMANS, 111. 6* 
 
 ("we say ") by his opponents. This is in perfect harmony with our 
 line of exposition which supposes that in verse 7 hia thought is di- 
 rected to such misrepresentations. 
 
 Let us do evil, that good may come ?J Thia is at once a state- 
 ment of the misrepresentation and a statement of answer to the ob- 
 jection; "And certainly not, Let us do evil that good may come." 
 I'aul's reasoning wouhl stand thus: " No man can draw this conclu- 
 sion, so immoral in itself that every person will justly condemn it, 
 altliougJi some are slanderous enough to charge us falsely with teach- 
 ing tins." We should therefore translate the entire verse thus: "And 
 shall we (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we 
 say) do evil that good may come ? whose condemnation is just. " This 
 is a strictly literal translation. 
 
 whose condemnation is just.] That is, the condemnation of all 
 who hold such a principle. It is to be noted that Paul does not 
 liere reply to either of the objections raised. He merely dismisses 
 them for the time being, to return to a full reply hereafter. The 
 objector had said, " If our unrighteousness demonstrates the right- 
 eousness of God may we not draw from that some terrible conclu- 
 sions." Paul says, "No. You cannot conclude that God's wrath 
 against those whose sin is overruled for good is unjust, for this would 
 put an end to all God's judgment of the world, and, moreover, would 
 excuse me in my so-called sinful course in preaching what you call 
 a false gospel ; and you cannot conclude that we may do evil that 
 good may come — a doctrine justly condemned by every right mind, 
 although slanderously attributed to us." A direct answer to the 
 objection in full would require Paul to prove at length, (a) the con- 
 sistency of the divine justice in punishing the Jews with the fact 
 that makes their sin the occasion of establishing a wider gospel of 
 grace for all the nations, which he does at length in chapters ix.-xi. ; 
 and (h) that the rigliteousness of God, which requires as its basis 
 the demonstration of the unrighteousness of man, is not antinomian 
 in its tendency. This he does in chapter vi. To have introduced 
 these lengthened arguments here would have unduly postponed the 
 great conclusion to which he is now hastening. 
 
 Ch. III. 9-20. The Great Conclusion. 
 
 9. What then ?] This formula is used repeatedly by Paul, not 
 only to introduce objections but to call attention to the point reached 
 in the argument. Some suppose that here it introduces a new objec- 
 tion. This interpretation, which has set the American and the Eng- 
 lish revisers at cross purposes in their translation, spoils both Paul's 
 rhetoric and logic, and makes him feebly repeat himself from verse 1 . 
 We take it here as calling specific attention to the great conclusion 
 which he now announces. 
 
 are •we in worse case than they ?] The American revisers trans- 
 late, "are we in better case than they?" Both are interpretations 
 
 ■— '.-'V-V ,^»r,f>. .t*?^-. 
 
66 ROMANS, III. [v. iO. 
 
 rather than translations. The margin, " do we excuse ourselves?" 
 is more nearly correct, though still paraphrastic. The single Greek 
 word translated by the entire phrase above is found in the New 
 Testament only here. Meyer says the only meaning warranted by 
 linguistic usage is " to hold before" or "put forward" something 
 for one's defence as a shield. This meaning fits our line of argument 
 perfectly. The verb in the revised text is present indicative, either 
 middle or passive. Two important M8S., A. and L., read the sub- 
 junctive. We can use either form and translate, "do we hold 
 forth" or "can we bold forth" any shield? i.e., any moral covert 
 ♦from God's wrath, such as the Jews claimed in their covenant of cir- 
 cumcision or the (Treeks in their culture (wisdom). This is the ques- 
 tion of the entire preceding ai'gument, to which Paul now replies in 
 final conclusion: 
 
 No, in no wise:] i.e., in no possible way. This is the conclusion. 
 Any such moral covert in any form is inconsistent with the justice 
 of God. But this is not all. The very sweeping away of all covert 
 leaves all exposed to tlie wrath cf (iod against sin. This Paul has- 
 tens to add, because it is the part of the conclusion which he intends 
 to use. The long train of argument from chapter ii. 1, sweeping 
 away the " refuges of lies," was only to make this more clear. 
 
 for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, 
 that they are all under sin;] The word translated "before laid 
 to the charge " is the exact counterpart of the word " hold forth a 
 shield." If, then, we are not to lose the beautiful force of Paul's 
 form of expression and resolve it into a mere senseless play of sounds, 
 we must render the particle pro in the same way as above, not as 
 expressing time but position. We thus translate: "We have held 
 forth a charge against both Jews and Greeks, that they are all 
 under sin. " The temporal sense of the particle pro would have re- 
 (juired a specific mention of the charge in the preceding context. 
 This moral charge has been held forth against Jew and Greek, not 
 by express mention, nor yet by formal proof, but by the very fact 
 of the demolition of their coverts. If the Jew cannot shield him- 
 self behind his national prerogative, no." the Greek behind his supe- 
 rior knowledge, then there is no escape from the conclusion that, 
 like the rest of mankind, they are under the guilt of their sins. The 
 existence of these sins is too obvious to need proof. Paul assumes 
 it ; and they entirely mistake the unanswerable force of his argument 
 against all moral coverts who suppose that he is in the preceding 
 chapters engaged in an inductive proof of actual sins, first of Gen- 
 tiles and then of Jews. The fact that all have sinned is assumed. 
 The question is, is there any escape from the penal consequences of 
 this sin ? Can the Jew shield himself behind his national covenant ? 
 or the Greek behind his philosophy? Paul says, " No, for we have 
 held forth over every head the aitia, the blame, of their sins." And 
 to this conclusion the words of scripture correspond. 
 
 10. as it is written,] If we have not mistaken the line of Paul's 
 
V. 11-15.] ROMANS, Iti. el 
 
 argument, the (luotations here adduced are not made to prove the 
 fact of universal sin so much as the universal chargeahleness of that 
 sin. This they prove perfectly; the other they would prove only by 
 methods in logic or else in exegesis which we do not think Paul used, 
 and which, not unjustly, have been called rabhlulcaL The passages 
 are taken from various parts of the Old Testament, especially the 
 Book of Psalms, and they unite in charging home against all classes 
 of men the ffuilt of their sins — ^exactly the conclusion which Paul 
 draws from them in verses 19 and 20. The first quotation is taken 
 from Psalm xiv. 1-3. 
 
 There is none righteous, no, not one; 
 
 11. There is none that understandeth, 
 There is none that seeketh after God; 
 
 12. They have all turned aside, they are together become un- 
 
 profitable ; 
 There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one: 
 This quotation is found also in Psalm liii. , where it is unmistak- 
 ably applied to the Gentile world as the persecutors of the chosen 
 people. The reference also to Gen. vi. 5 and 12 is almost beyorid 
 doubt. If so then Paul, in the order of his quotations, follows the 
 same order as in his argument, beginning with the wide extent of 
 the Gentile woi-ld. Evil-doing charged as sin was universal at the 
 time of the deluge, and equally so at the time of the psalmist. Out 
 of the entire psalm the apostle selects such parts as serve his pur- 
 pose, setting forth the fact of universal unrighteousness, lack of moral 
 discernment, alienation from God (compare ch. i.), and hence a giv- 
 ing up to iniquity to the utter extinction of all good. A better sum- 
 mary of chapter i. 18-.32 could scarcely be constructed than we thus 
 have in this quotation. The next group is taken from three psalms 
 (v. 9; cxl. .3; and x. 7). In the original they all refer to personal 
 wrongs between man and man, in the use of the tongue, and are 
 hence of universal application. They fit in very well as parallel 
 Vv-ith chapter ii. 1-16, where the responsibility of those who say and 
 do not, and who are given to passing harsh judgments upon their 
 neighbours, is described. 
 
 13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; 
 
 With their tongues they have used deceit: 
 The poison of asps is under their lips : 
 
 14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 
 
 Psalm V. , from which the first two sentences are taken, treats of 
 universal ethical principles. God "hitth no pleasure in wicked- 
 ness," and "an evil rnan cannot dwell with him." The descrip- 
 tions thus apply to human nature universally. Psalm cxl., from 
 which the next sentence is taken, refers to David's enemies, prob- 
 ably within the theocracy, as does also Psalm x., though in this last 
 case the enemies may be foreign foes. The final (quotations have 
 originally unmistakable application to the sins of Israel. 
 
 15. Their feet are swift to shed blood; 
 
68 ROMAisfS, III. [vv. 16-id. 
 
 i6. Destruction and misery are in their ways; 
 
 17. And the way of peace have they not known: 
 
 18. There is no fear of God before their eyes. 
 
 The first three verses are taken from Isaiah lix. 7, ^ — an address 
 to the chosen people charging home their sins. This quotation thus 
 corresponds to the latter part of chapter ii. , which brings home the 
 guilt of sin to the Jew. Verse 18, taken from Psalm xxxvi. 1, ap- 
 plies to the wicked man as such, describing his wickedness as essen- 
 tially lying in the throwing off of all sense of moral responsibility, 
 and fitting well with Paul's argument, the main aim of which is to 
 assert the universality of man's responsibility, and to prove the guilt 
 of those who, in word or deed, presume upon exemption from such 
 responsibility. 
 
 19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it 
 speaketh to them that are under the law;] Thi? introduces the 
 application of the quotations to the purpose of his argument. We 
 have therefore the advantage of the author's direct statement on that 
 point. He begins by appealing to their "common sense" (Godet): 
 "We know " that these words, being found in the written law (scrip- 
 tures) of the chosen people, were all uttered for their benefit, i.e., to 
 place before them the sin of such things, with the direct intent of 
 holding them, as well as the Gentile world, responsible in the event 
 of committing such things. Paul, however, draws not thit specific 
 conclusion but the universal one — 
 
 that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be 
 brought under the judgment of God:] This universal conclusion 
 Paul was entitled to draw from the fact that his quotations described 
 the sins of Jews as well as Gentiles, and also from t' o fact that his 
 Jewish opponent would at once admit that if he, a Jew, could not 
 foreshield himself the Gentile certainly could not. As Bengel and 
 Morison say, "it is the Jews chiefly who are referred to." The 
 condemnation of the Gentiles he takes for granted, and thus the par- 
 ticular conclusion is made universal. This universal enforcing of 
 responsibility against Jew as well as Gentile Paul represents as the 
 divine intention in the teachings or utterances of the law. This is 
 in harmony with Paul's fundamental doctrine of the great purpose 
 served by the law in (liod's economy of salvation. "Through the 
 law cometh the knowledge of sin (v. 20). (Compare chs. iv. 15 ; vii. 5, 
 etc.; Gal. iii. 19-24.) There can therefore be no valid objection to 
 the idea of design in the conjunction here used — " That evei-y mouth 
 may be stopped," i.e., be silent before the judge through conscious- 
 ness of guilt, and so " all the world," Jew as well as Gentile, " may 
 be brought under the judgment of (iod." The word here used ex- 
 presses the state of the criminal who has been found guilty and 
 awaits sentence for his crime. Tn these two sentences, by a very 
 striking metaphor, Paul presents to us the most profound conscious- 
 ness of guilt as being the intent of the law. This consciousness of 
 guilt he applies both individually, "every mouth," and universally, 
 
vv. 20, 21.] ROMANS, III. 69 
 
 "all the world." This is the final conclusion of the argument by 
 which ^le ^- I applied the principles of moral responsibility, first to 
 the Gi/^iiil'. ind then to the Jewish world, and so swept away all 
 false c<>7erfcf behind which men foreshielded themselves from the 
 convictions of their own conscience. The full force of Paul's argu- 
 ment will not be apparent to any one who loses sight of the postu- 
 lates which conscience is constantly supposed to supply to the minds 
 of his hearers. But to the destruction of the false covert Paul once 
 more refers in a way that opens up to view the next great theme of 
 his discourse. 
 
 20. because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justi- 
 fied in his sight:] "Because" may refer to the divine intention, 
 "It speaketh ... in order that," or to " we know." Either makes 
 excellent sense. We know that God's intention in giving these moral 
 precepts of written law was to produce universal deep conviction of 
 sin, "because " the other alternative, justification by works of law, 
 is an impossibility. This would be the second line of thought. The 
 first, however, we consider preferable, as follows: The law saith 
 these things for the purpose of producing universal deep conviction 
 of sin, because justification by works of law is impossible to man, 
 and the foundation must be laid in the conscious knowledge of sin 
 for a new method of justification. This line of thought leads out 
 more perfectly to Paul's next point. The reason thus assigned for 
 the divine intent of the law in God's economy is announced in one of 
 Paul's grandest postulates, a postulate which he proves only by ap- 
 peal to universal experience and conscience. The postulate is, " By 
 works of law shall no flesh be justified in his sight." The law imme- 
 diately in the apostle's mind is without doubt the Mosaic law (Old 
 Testament), from which he had just quoted. But he puts the prin- 
 ciple in the broadest form, avoiding all specifying articles, and an- 
 nounces a principle equally applicable to any form of moral law apart 
 from grace. If there had been any other form of law by which right- 
 eousness were possible to man it doubtless would have been given. 
 On this fundamental position of St. Paul see verse 28 ; chapters iv. 2, 
 4, 6; ix. 11 ; x. 4, etc.; xi. 0, etc.; and especially Gal. ii. 16. 
 
 for through the law coraeth the knowledge of sin.] This is 
 the proof which Paul offers to his great landamental postulate, an 
 appeal to the conscious experience of his hearers. He made a similar 
 appeal to Peter (Gal. ii. 16). The force of this appeal Peter had pub- 
 licly acknowledged (Acts xv. 10, 11). How deep was Paul's own 
 experience of this consciousness of the effects of law we see in chapter 
 vii. 5, 7, etc. The universally experienced result of revealed law is 
 conscious guilt, "the knowledge of sin." 
 
 Ch. III. 21-31. God's Righteousness. 
 
 21. But now apart from the law] Paul sometimes emphasizes 
 the failure of law to bring forth righteousness (ch. viii. 3), so h^re 
 
 — »-i«5»-.»— rf'-**.ofl:J"^ 
 
70 - ROMANS, III. [v. 22. 
 
 this clause occupies the emphatic place. It corresponds to, and is 
 the opposite of, "out of works of law." It should be noted that it 
 is not "a righteousness apart from law." Tlie Greek text will not 
 permit such a grammatical construction, and tlie idea would be too 
 antinomian for St. Paul. This righteousness does not make void 
 but establishes the law. It fulfils in us the righteousness of the law 
 (ch. viii. 4). 
 
 a righteousness of God hath been manifested,] We have al- 
 ready (ch. i. 17) defined this term "righteousness of ftod. " There 
 is, however, a ditference between that passage, to which we are in 
 thought carried back, and the present. There the righteousness of 
 God is said to be revealed in the gospel, referring to the opening up 
 of a new dispensation of God's dealing with man. Here it is said to 
 be "made manifest apart from works of law," pointing to the exhi- 
 bition of this righteousness to the individual conscience. On the 
 distinction between these two terms see Cremer's Lexicon. The one 
 is the opening up, by divine outward acts or providence, of some 
 new phase or fact of God's great plan of grace. The other is the 
 placing of such revealed fact before man's mind as an object of his 
 conscious apprehension. This divine righteousness can be mani- 
 fested to us only by personal possession or experience, which mani- 
 festation takes place apart from works of the law, and yet 
 
 being witnessed by the law and the prophets;] The law at- 
 tests this righteousness by awakening a consciousness of our need of 
 it; the prophets, by the hopes which are inspired by the promises. 
 But this twofold subjective attestation projects itself far into the 
 past. Men have ever felt the pressure of this moral want, and have 
 longed for tliis hope. And in both law and ])rophets (xod had met 
 these necessities of man by the service of "shadows of the good 
 things to come," as well as by prophetic predictions. Hence the 
 attestation is objective as well as subjective. The unity of Paul 
 with Peter and with Christ in this regard appears from Acts xxviii. 
 23; x. 43; and Luke xxiv. 27, etc. 
 
 22. even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ] 
 An explanatory addition by means of the conjunction here rendered 
 " even," and occasionally used in Greek for this purpose. The defi- 
 nition is, "through faith in Jesus Christ," or literally, "of Jesus 
 Christ" (see margin). For the definition of the term "faith" and 
 its use with the genitive of the object see chapter i. 17. 
 
 unto all them that believe;] The margin reads, " unto all and 
 upon all them that believe." This is a case of conflict between the 
 four oldest MSS. and four versions who read as in the revised text 
 and the great majority of MSS., versions and fathers. The revisers, 
 following the rule of preferring the oldest MSS., have placed the 
 added words in the margin. They were, however, in the text of 
 Theodoret, in the fifth century, when he makes special comment 
 on them, and in the Syriac version, which dates back to the second 
 century. They are therefore retained by many of our best critica 
 
vv. 23, 24.] ROMANS, III. 71 
 
 and commentators. If retained, then, with Meyer, we must construe 
 the first " unto all " absolutely as expressing the intent or purpose 
 of God in manifesting his righteousness. It is " for all." The second 
 adjunct, "upon all that believe," represents the actual result of 
 God's manifestation. "Upon all who believe" it actually rests. 
 "To all who believe" it is applied. (See Morison for a full eluci- 
 dation of this view. It is worthy of note that in the Greek " who 
 believe " is expressed by the present participle, denoting not a mo- 
 mentary act but an abiding activity. The faith by which this right- 
 eousness is enjoyed is not a momentary act once for all. It is a confi- 
 dence held fast to tlie end. 
 
 Note. — If "unto all them that believe" is the true readinjf of this passajje it 
 becouiea almost a repetition of chapter i. 17. "Out of faith " or " by faith " there 
 corresponds to "through faith" here, and "unto faith" there eoirespondin,!,' to 
 " unto all them that believe" here. It is in its very nature a " nj;hteousness," or 
 "conscious state of rightness with God," arisiiif,'' out of faith, and granted "to 
 faith" or "unto all them that believe." This analogy of the two passages would 
 favour the shorter reading. 
 
 for there is no distinction;] i.e., between Jew and Greek. (Com- 
 pare Acts XV. 9 and 11.) This emphasizes the word "all" in the 
 preceding clause. 
 
 23. for all have sinned,] The reason for this abolition of moral 
 distinction. God treats all alike in the bestowal because all stand 
 on the same level as to moral desert — "all have sinned." Paul here 
 for the first time puts in this direct form this corollary of his entire 
 argument from chapter i. 18 to chapter iii. 20. He states it here as 
 an undeniable fact, given upon the testimony of conscience, as cleared 
 of confused notions by the preceding argument. We shall find him 
 returning to the elucidation of this great fact again in chapter v. 
 The universal fact is here expressed by the Greek aorist, rendered 
 by our perfect. 
 
 and fall short of the glory of God;] The popular apprehension 
 of the meaning of this expression is doubtless correct; but to learned 
 meii it givea some difficulty. Perhaps the simplest explanation is 
 that which presents man's probational life as a race, the successful 
 end of which yields to God a tribute of glory, and is rewarded by a 
 crown of glory. Paul at Corinth was familiar with the racers who 
 brought glory to their native city, and were rewarded by their crown 
 of glory in return. (See 1 Cor. ix. 24, etc. ) The righteousness which 
 glorifies God and is glorified by him men, in their moral probation, 
 fall short of. 
 
 24. being justified freely by his grace] The present participle 
 in Greek has here a peculiar significance. It may be represented in 
 English thus : " Being justified when they are justified," or, as Alford 
 renders, "needing to be justified." Beza translates, " being such as 
 are justified freely," etc. (See Winer, xlv. G, b.) We must remem- 
 ber that the subject of discourse is carried through by direct gram- 
 matical as well as logical connection from verse 22, " upon " or " unto 
 all them that believe," among which "all " there is no dift'erence, for 
 
72 ROMANS, III. [v. 24. 
 
 they " all " have sinned, "being all (as believers) justified /rpe^y," etc. 
 The emphasis thus falls on the adjuncts "freely " and ' ' by his grace," 
 etc. We meet the verb "to justify" here for tlie first time in the 
 evangelical sense. In verse 20 it was used in the legal sense. Its 
 primary meaning is to make righteous or just. It is also found in 
 the forensic sense of acquitting of accusation or pronouncing right- 
 eous, and very frequently in the general sense of proving or estab- 
 lishing one's righteousnes?. This is generally supposed to be the 
 basis of the evangelical use of the term. This would be, however, 
 to empty the term of all the positive elements of its significance. 
 Forensic justification is purely negative. It removes the charge of 
 crime. The righteousness of which Paul speaks is positive. It 
 meets and satisfies to the full the equitable demands in conscience of 
 our moral responsibility toward God. It is a moral state or relation 
 in which a man stands consciously right before God in respect to the 
 claims of moral probation or responsibility. A babe would be foren- 
 ^ically just, i.e., free from any imputation of crime. But he could 
 not be said to be righteous in this positive sense of being consciously 
 right in respect to his moral responsibility. This positive righteous- 
 ness can only be attained in one of two ways : by a perfect fulfilment 
 of all moral obligation as it arises, in which case a man is justified, 
 attains to righteousness, by works; or by God's gracious gift of 
 righteousness in Christ. To be justified, then, is to attain, either by 
 works or by grace, that conscious relation to God which satisfies all 
 claims of moral responsibility. It is to be remarked that the verb 
 is used in this sense only in the passive voice when applied to justifi- 
 cation by works. God is not said to justify by works except in the 
 final judgment, where the sense is very different and more properly 
 foi'ensic. But when applied to evangelical justification it is used in 
 both active and passive form, the active voice signifying the bestowal 
 of this state as a gracious gift of God. So far as there is any forensic 
 element in this evangelical use of the verb " to justify " it is purely 
 subjective. The bar of judgment is the conscience (see note on ch. ii. 
 15, 16), and there the justification is pronounced. This justification 
 is more fully defined and distinguished from legal justification by 
 three adjuncts: (a) "freely," i.e., as a matter of gift, as opposed to 
 legal justification claimed or attained as a matter of right or merit; 
 (6) "by his grace," i.e., the compassionate love of God which be- 
 stows this gift, and which provided the means for its bestowal in 
 the work of Christ; and (c), 
 
 through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:] This verse 
 defines the relation of our justification to the work of Christ which 
 Paul liext proceeds to set before us. We must therefore i-'tudy every 
 term used with the most exact care. The preposition here used 
 governing the genitive case signifies the medium or channel through 
 which one acts, something that comes in between the actor and the 
 acted upon as essential to the act, without which the act could not 
 be. It differs thus from the sanie proposition governing the ivccusa- 
 
 _,rf'j?^)r'^fcBi JBtfPfli**-*? 
 
V. 26] ROMANS, III. 73 
 
 tive, "on account of," "for the sake of," which represents an acces- 
 sory motive to act rather than the channel or medium through which 
 the act is performed. This same preposition governing the genitive 
 is also applied to faith, which is thus likewise made the metlium or 
 channel of justification. The work of Clirist is the channel from 
 the (lodward side faith from our side. The work of Christ is, so to 
 speak, the hand in which God extends his gift; faith is the hand 
 which we reach forth to receive. When the two hands meet the 
 communication between God and man is complete. The work of 
 Christ which is the medium of justification is called a " redemption." 
 This term may be applied to Christ's work either in reference to its 
 results, deliverance from a bondage or captivity, or in reference to 
 the manner of reaching the result, the payment of a ransom price. 
 In the former sense it sometimes refers, as here, to the moral de- 
 liverance from sin as a bondage of guilt and depravity bestowed on 
 man through Christ in the present life (1 Cor. i. 80; Eph. i. 7; Col. 
 i. 14; Titus ii. 14). It is also used of the final deliverance at the 
 resurrection (ch. viii. 23; Eph. i. 14; iv. .SO). In all these passages 
 the emphasis would seem to be on the deliverance from the state of 
 captivity or slavery. But that alongside of this there is reference 
 to the method of deliverance, the payment of a ransom price, appears 
 from 1 Tim. ii. 6, and from the use of another similar form of expres- 
 sion in Gal. iii. 1.3. There seems also a clear reference to the ransom 
 price in Eph. i. 7. A comparison of Ihis passage with our text would 
 suggest the view that here the nature of the ransom price is set forti' 
 inverse 25, "a propitiation, through faith, by his blood." As we 
 thus seem justified in taking Paul to use the term "redemption" 
 here in its full import of deliverance from a state of bondage, ob- 
 tained by payment of a ransom price, it may be useful to distinguish 
 this from our modern commercial idea of payment of a debt too often 
 substituted for it. 
 
 1. Payment of a debt is fixed as to amount by the nature of the 
 obligation. The ransom price is fixed by the captor. 
 
 2. Payment of a debt cannot be legally refused. Acceptance of a 
 ransom is optional. 
 
 3. Payment of a debt grants unconditional discharge. A ransom 
 price may be accompanied by conditions, according to the will of the 
 captor. . 
 
 4. There is no grace in the release oi a debtor when his debt is 
 paid. There may be the richest grace in granting release to a cap- 
 tive upon generous and righteous terms of redemption. 
 
 If in our exposition we look at the ransom price we shall retain 
 the full force of the preposition " in " Christ Jesus; Christ was him- 
 self the " ransom price " (1 Tim. ii. 6). If we look rather at the de- 
 liverance then the preposition takes the force of "by," a usage not 
 uncommon in Greek. 
 
 25. whom God set forth to be a propitiation,] If in the pre- 
 ceding verse the apostle refers to Christ as a ransom price then this 
 
 6 
 
74 ROMANS, III. [r. 25. 
 
 verse sets forth the valency or value of that ransom price. If we 
 confine ourselves to the idea of deliverance then that deliverance 
 comes through Clirist as our propitiation. We are thus from any 
 point of view introduced to the very heart of the great doctrine of 
 the atonement as an essential part of Paul's doctrinal system. The 
 first term here to be considered is the verb. The corresponding noun 
 is everywhere used by Paul of God's purpose or plan for the redemp- 
 tion of the world in Christ (ch3. viii. 28 ; ix. 11 ; Eph. i. 11 ; iii. 11 ; 
 2 Tim. i. 9; iii. 10). The verb occurs in but three passages of St. 
 Paul, viz. : chapter i. 13, of Paul's purpose to visit Rome ; Eph. i. 9, 
 of God's purpose or plan of redemption ; and the text. The Pauline 
 usage is thus without exception in favour of the marginal rendering 
 instead of the text; so Godet, " established beforehand. " The other 
 sense, adopted in the text of the revisers, and by Meyer, Morison, 
 etc., is "to set forth openly" or "publicly." This is sanctioned by 
 various passages in the New Testament outside of the Pauline Epis- 
 tles, and by perhaps the predominance of classical usage. We, on 
 the whole, prefer the first sense, for the following reasons : It is the 
 otherwise uniform sense of the word in Paul's writings. It repre- 
 sents a conception of Christ's work as an eternal purpose of God 
 familiar to Paul ; this v/o cannot say of the idea of the crucifixion as 
 a public exhibition of propitiation. It is in harmony with Paul's 
 thought as viewing the virtue of Christ's work as pertaining not to 
 the present or future alone, but as projected back into the past (v. 26). 
 This naturally leads him to speak of God's purpose of propitiation 
 through the blood of Christ as antedating the entire application of 
 that propitiation in the divine mercy to men in the past. The word 
 "purpose" is, however, scarcely strong enough to express the full 
 thought, which is "something fixed, set down, determined before- 
 hand. " It is an act, or series of acts, fully settled upon. It is usual 
 for Paul thus to speak of the work of Christ. (See especially Eph, i. 
 and Col. i. ) The aorist is not against this, as the same tense is used 
 (Eph. i. 9) where there is no room for doubt as to the meaning. The 
 aorist expresses that which is always fact as well as individual his- 
 torical facts. (lod's purpose was tliat Christ should be a " propitia- 
 tion." The word in Greek is an adjective, and expresses that which 
 serves for "propitiation." It may refer (1) to the mercy-soat where 
 propitiation was made (Heb. ix. .3) ; or (2) to the sacrifice by which 
 propitiation was made; or (3) be taken as an abstract noun, a means 
 of propitiation, or as a predicate adjective referring to "whom." 
 The ditference in result between these various constructions, each of 
 which has its advocates, is very slight. In any case the word cannot 
 be severed from its reference to the sacrifice of the great day of atone- 
 ment, which was said to " make propitiation for ... all the congre- 
 gation of Israel," a reference further manifest in the phrase " in his 
 blood. " We have therefore to deal with the meaning of the word 
 " propitiate," or "propitiation." The mere etymological discussion 
 of this term in its Hebrew, Greek or Latin form gives us very un- 
 
V. 2o.l ROMANS, III. 75 
 
 certain results. But the usage leaves no doubt that the word ex- 
 presses that in sacrificial offering which moves ( Jod to forgiveness. 
 That we should understand ivherviii that power consists is not practi- 
 cally necessary. The word simply asserts a power in the. sacrificial 
 ojfi'riiKj to move God to for(jivenvss. Such a power no Jew would be 
 disposed to deny. Their faith here was implicit. The sacrifices 
 appointed by God must possess power to secure forgiveness. Paul, 
 therefore, in dealing with his Jewish opponent, has no need either 
 to prove or explain the valency of atoning sacrifice. He simply 
 asserts that Christ is the primally appointed propitiatory sacrifice 
 or propitiation, thus transferring to Christ the confidence which the 
 Jew unhesitatingly placed in the valency of expiatory sacrifice ap- 
 pointed by God. The simple fact of such valency is here asserted. 
 The nature of the valency we prefer to consider when Paul himself 
 hereafter touches the question. We shall find more light there than 
 can possibly l)e gained from the study of the natui-e and power of 
 Jewish sacrifices or the etymology of sacrificial terms here. 
 
 through faith, by his blood,] Christ is a propitiation, or pro- 
 pitiatory, only through faith. Here we have the same preposition 
 which in verse 24 was applied to Christ's redemptive work, God's 
 gift of righteousneas comes to us only through the channel of the 
 redemptive work of Christ, who is by divine appointment propitia- 
 tory, i.e., invested with power to secure the forgiveness of sins. Biit 
 this propitiatory efficacy reaches its object only through the human 
 channel of faith. Faith and Christ's redemptive work are not thus 
 co-ordinate channels of God's grace. But God's grace flows to us 
 through Christ: we reach to Christ, and so receive that grace, 
 "through faith." The adjunct "by his blood" is by most of the 
 older commentators joined to faith and rendered literally "through 
 faith in his blood." This makes the blood, i.e., the life given as an 
 expiatory sacrifice, the direct object of justifying faith. It should, 
 however, be remembered that this is the only passage in the New 
 Testament in which the term "faith," either as noun or verb, is 
 found with such an adjunct. The usual form is an adjunct of the 
 ])prKonal object, believe in, ' > or upon, or faith of, in or towards, 
 "God," or more frequently Ohrid." This has led the revisers to 
 separate the adjunct " by " "in his blood " from faith and refer 
 it directly to the preceding term, "propitiation." We have thus 
 two adjuncts of propitiation, "through faith" and "in his blood." 
 The first designates the subjective means by which the propitiation 
 is applied, the other the objective means by which the propitiatory 
 power exists, i.e., the shedding of his blood, or giving his life an ex- 
 piatory sacrifice. So Godet. Or else we have, with Meyer and 
 Kiddle, the adjunct "in his blood" joined with "set forth," i.e., 
 God publicly set forth in the shedding of his blood Christ as a pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice. This last construction seems, however, extremely 
 artificial ; and even Godet's, which is better, seems to make it un- 
 accountable that the phrase "in his blood" should not be joined 
 
 
76 ROMA^iS, III. [v. 25. 
 
 directly with "propitiation." We are therefore disposed to retain 
 the old connection, "through faith in his blood," i.e., in his expi- 
 atory offering of his life. (Compare ch. v. 9 ; Eph. i. 7 ; and Col. 
 i. 20, for Paul's use of the expression "his blood.") The fact that 
 saving faith is thus limited but this once should put us on our guard 
 against fixing faith on theories of atonement. Paul never goes be- 
 yond tlie point of attaching faith to the propitiatory ethcacy of 
 Clirist's blood. If an apprehension of an absolutely correct theory 
 of that efficacy were needful, who could be saved ? Faith in a per- 
 sonal Saviour saves. 
 
 to shew his righteousness,] the object or design of God in his 
 foreappointment of Christ as a propitiation, expressed by the prepo- 
 sition commonly used by Paul to express aim, purpose or intention. 
 But what is the meaning of the noun "shewing"? and of the phrase 
 " his righteousness"? The term " his righteousness " is the expres- 
 sion elsewhere used by Paul of that gift of righteousness which God 
 bestows upon man. The word translated " shew " signifies a " setting 
 forth in open light," a " pointing out," an " exhibiting." This would 
 be parallel with the "manifestation" of verse 21, and with the 
 "revelation" of chapter i. 17. The meaning would thus be: God 
 thus foreappointed Christ a propitiation for the purpose of revealing, 
 or bringing forth to view, his gift of righteousness. This intei i^reta- 
 tion, which we think the right one, is as old as ChrySostom, aad is 
 supported by many able names. The alternative interpretation is 
 given in Godet's translation, "for the demonstration of his justice." 
 To this the objection lies that it requires us to take one if not both 
 words in a forced ineaning. Certainly Paul does not ordinarily use 
 the word translated "righteousness " in this sense, and we may fairly 
 question whether it is ever so used. The word translated " demon- 
 stration " can only bear that meaning as a proof by example, an 
 exhibition in act. However well this might harmonize with one 
 theory of the atonement we fail to tind it in tliis form in Paul's 
 writings, and cannot thrust it in here in the face of his common 
 use of the words employed. The first interpretation gives us a i in 
 sense in harmony with Paul's use of the words and with his line of 
 thought. 
 
 because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime,] This 
 clause we take to be an adjunct of the verb "set forth," or as we 
 should render it, "foreappointed. " The preposition here used desig- 
 nates the Oceanian, the circumstantial cause, of an act, that which 
 renders it necessary. The cause or occasion which made necessary 
 the/oreappointment of Christ a propitiation, for the purpose of bring- 
 ing forth to view a divine righteousness, was "the passing over of 
 the sins done aforetime." The fixed "purpose" of a propitiation 
 must exist from the time sin existed, otherwise there could be no 
 forgiveness, or as Paul here calls it, passing over of sins that were 
 done aforetime, i.e., prior to Christ's coming. The word "preter- 
 mission " — passing over — a term less strong than " remission," which 
 
V. 26.] ROMANS, III. 77 
 
 Paul elsewhere applies to the Christian justification (Fph. i. 7), is 
 used to distinguish the old time exhibition of God's mercy from the 
 full exhibition of God's "righteousness" now bestowed upon the 
 world. Yet that old time "passing over" was based upon (Jod's 
 fixed purpose of the propitiation which was designed to bring to 
 view the perfect righteousness. 
 
 in the forbearance of God;] (jlod's grace to men while he is 
 awaiting the full accomplishment of his purpose of propitiation is 
 called forbearance. 
 
 26. for the shewing, I say, of his righteousness at this present 
 season:] The apostle here repeats the design of (Jod's foreappoint- 
 ment. But he does so with a change of preposition which expresses 
 that design as no longer a mere demjn or intention but an accomplished 
 rei^nlt. This change of preposition is lost in our Englisli versions. We 
 have therefore not a mere repetition but an advance of the thought 
 which may be paraphrased thus: " Looking to the exhibition of the 
 divine gift of righteousness, because of the passing over, etc., and 
 now resulting in the exhibition of his righteousness." The phrase 
 "in this present seasoi" is parallel with Paul's " fulness of time " 
 (Gal. iv. 4) and with his "now" in verse 21. 
 
 that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath 
 faith in Jesus.] We have here the Greek preposition expressing 
 intention followed by an infinitive clause with subject accusative. 
 Tlie whole sentence thus becomes an adjunct expressing intent, aim 
 01 purpose. To what does this adjunct belong ? Not to " set forth," 
 for the purpose of that had been already expressed by the very same 
 preposition, and repeated as a present accomplished result. We 
 cannot suppose it to be here repeated as a future puprose for the 
 third time. We must therefore, with Godet, attach it to the clause 
 i'umediately preceding. But if so then clearly his interpretation of 
 the meaning of that clause is, as we have already seen on other 
 grounds, astray. How could a "demonstration of the justice of 
 God" be made in order "that God might be just"? We therefore 
 take the connection to be as follows : God sets forth his gift of riglit- 
 eousucss to men (a gift founded on the propitiation, etc. ) that thus 
 he himself may be just, i.e., continue to be a just God while he is 
 the justifier, etc. This is what we consider to be Paul's method of 
 stating the truth which our expositors have been searching for in 
 the preceding phrases. We must therefore carefully analyze his 
 statement and endeavour to find its exact bearing on the nature of 
 the atonement. 
 
 We note at once that it says nothing about the demonstration, or 
 public vindication of the divine justice. It does not conceive that 
 justice to have been under a cloud during all the ages before Christ. 
 It touches the reality, not the mere appearance, of the divine justice. 
 God sees to it that he is just, and leaves appearances to care for 
 themselves. And in Paul's view he provides for the maintenance of 
 his justice side by side with justifying grace, not by making a public 
 
78 ROMANS, III. [v. 27. 
 
 spectacle, or exhibition, or proof, of justice, but by setting before 
 men a way of attaining to rigliteousness founded on Clirist's pro- 
 pitiation, in which way (of faith) he can be just and yot the dis- 
 penser of pardon. The real doctrine of I'aul, then, is, that the 
 atonement really maintains (not merely exhibits or proves) the jus- 
 tice, or rather recititude, of God. The word here used is much wider 
 than the idea of mere penal justice. It attirms the perfect rectitude 
 of God in relation to all that bears on man's probation, i.e., in his 
 entire dealings with man. 
 
 It would almost seem that in this magnificent exposition of "the 
 righteousness of (Jod " I'aul had lost sight of Ids opponents. Such, 
 however, is not the case. If our view of his meaning is correct, then 
 every point from verse 21 to verse 20 has been skilfully constructed 
 with a view to commend or defend his doctrine in the presence of 
 the rival gospel. 
 
 The law as a means of righteousness had failed, hence God brings 
 to light "his righteousness apart from law," yet not in opposition to 
 but in harmony with "the law and the prophets." This righteous- 
 ness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, "unto all them that be- 
 lieve," does away with all the assumed distinctions. The (Jentiles 
 are not the only sinners, for "all have sinned." The Jews cannot 
 claim the glory as theirs alone (see ch ix. 4), for all have fallen 
 short of it. Thus righteousness is no longer a matter of merit, or of 
 covenant right, but the free gift of God's grace, bestowed not through 
 the covenant of redemption from P^gypt (Heb. viii. 9) -but through 
 the new covenant of redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God, 
 not now but fr->m the beginning of the world, purposed and promised 
 (Titus i. 3 ; see also 1 Peter i. 20) as the true propitiation through 
 faith in his blood — not the blood of bulls and goats — looking to this 
 bringing to light of the true righteousness all the while that he was 
 passing over the sins committed under the legal dispensation (see 
 Gal. iii. 23, 24), and now bringing forth to light this righteousness 
 (Eph. iii. 4-7), that God may justify all that believe on Jesus and 
 yet be true to all moral right as he could not be true under any 
 arbitrary and exclusive dispensation of his mercy such as the Jews 
 claimed, which claim (iod's justice sweeps away (ch. ii. 25-29). Well 
 may Paul, having brought his opponent to this point by the con- 
 trasted exhibition of the true righteousness, exclaim, 
 
 27. Where then is the glorying ?] i.<'., the national boasted claim 
 of the Jews to exclusive privilege ; and reply. 
 
 It is excluded.] as by a door closed and barred. 
 
 By what manner of law?] Not " by which law ?" but as in the 
 revised version. Law may here be taken as the rule or test of pro- 
 bation by which righteousness is attained. 
 
 of works? Nay: but by a law of faith.] The Greek reads, 
 "of the works," pointing to those works upon which the Jew relied 
 for the attainment of his covenant privileges, e.()., circumcision. 
 "Law of faith," on the other hand, is without the article, as present- 
 
vv. 28-30.1 ROMANS, III. 70 
 
 ing uuinething which had not been pruvioualy spoken of as a law or 
 rule by which a man may be judged " righteous." 
 
 28. We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart 
 from the works of the law.] Instead of tlie conjunction "tiiere- 
 fore," which makes this verse the formal conclusion of an argument, 
 Tischendorf and VVestcott and Hort read, with 5^, A, D, etc., " for," 
 as in the margin. The critical authorities are about equally divided. 
 The commentators therefore largely prefer the reading which main- 
 tains the continuity of the argument. The reading "for" does so 
 perfectly. Justification is the goal of moral probation. " Law " is 
 the rule by which the issues of probation are determined. This 
 mention of faith as a rule or law of probation is explained by the 
 restatement of the great truth xxov! setthd ni mind (" we reckon "), 
 "that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." 
 
 29. Or is God the God of Jews only ?J The revised version rightly 
 translates the Greek particle as a conjuxaction. If it were an inter- 
 rogative it would requiie the affirmative answer. But if a disjunc- 
 tive where is the other term, the alternative? We think, with 
 Morison, it is to be found in the next interrogative. If I'aul had 
 carried tli rough his construction as he begins he would have read, 
 " Whether is God the God of Jews only ? or of Gentiles also ?" But 
 before he arrives at the alternative the strength of his convictions 
 leads him to take up a new form of interrogative implying in the 
 strongest possible way the affirmative answer, which he immediately 
 subjoins. This question, as well as the preceding, shows how com- 
 pletely I'aul has all through kept his opponents in mind. 
 
 is he not the God of Gentiles also?] llus negative form of 
 question in Greek, as in English, implies an affirmative answer, and 
 is thus a very strong rhetorical assertion. The answer to the logical 
 alternative with which Paul opened the verse is thus anticipated, 
 and the second member of the disjunctive alternative converted into 
 this direct rhetorical interrogation followed by words of direct asser- 
 tion. 
 
 Yea, of Gentiles also:] or, as we might render it, "surely" or 
 " verily " "of the Gentiles also." 
 
 30. if so be that God is one, and he shall justify the circum- 
 cision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.] Of the 
 two reatlings of the first word of this verse both make excellent 
 sense, and each is supported by high critical authority. The only 
 difference is in logical form as between the direct and the conditional 
 syllogism. No truth was more fundamental in Judaism than this, 
 " God is one." To say " Yea, of the Gentiles also, if God is truly 
 one," was to signify the utter absurdity of any other position. To 
 say "Yea, of the Gentiles also, since God is one," was to bring to 
 the proof of his thesis the most indubitable of all truths. The rela- 
 tive clause which closes the verse is well rendered in the revised 
 version, "and he shall," etc. This is not, however, to be taken as 
 an additional reason, depending on the initial conjunction, but as an 
 
 .^ jfilfSpSfff'-f 
 
 fTW 
 
80 * ROMANS, III, IV. [vv. 31, 1. 
 
 ndependent proposition, announcing the final conclusion of the entire 
 argument. This explains the use of the future indicative. It states 
 the economy of God's grace for all time to come. "He will (not 
 shall) justify," etc. (On this use oi the relative see Winer, Pt. III. 
 Ix. 7, a, a.) 
 
 The distinction between the two prepositions here used seems to be 
 this: The circumcision under covenant of law will, "out of faith" 
 as a root of obedience, find the principle which fulfils law (Kom. 
 viii. 4), and so justifies. The uncircumcision, outside of law, will 
 find in faith the means through which they will reach justification 
 outside of law. Such is Paul s grand conclusion of the exposition of 
 his universal gospel. He now turns to answer one principal Jewish 
 objection. 
 
 Ch. III. 31-IV. 25. Harmony of the Righteousness of Faith 
 WITH THE Dispensation of the Law, 
 
 31. Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? 
 God forbid: nay, we establish the law.] In this passage the term 
 " law " is used in the Greek without the article. It has accordingly 
 been taken as signifying moral law in general, and regarded as an 
 anticipation of the antinomian objection consii' red in chapter vi. 
 The connection of thought, however, forbids this. The law which 
 has been rejected as a means of attaining righteousness is the Old 
 Tes'ament dispensation, beginning from Abraham in the covenant of 
 circumcision, but fully introduced by Moses. We must therefore so 
 understand it here. The question will then represent an objected in- 
 ference from the preceding argument. " Does not this represent the 
 whole Old Testament dispensation as of no account, valueless ?" Paul 
 answers, " Nay, we establish the law." The real force of the ques- 
 tion lies in the meaning of the two verbs, "make of none efi'ect" 
 and " establish." The question is not one of the repeal, or cessation, 
 of the Old Testament dispensation, but of its success in the accom- 
 plishment of its intended result. This success is not hindered but 
 promoted by the faith. This he now proceeds to prove 
 
 I. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather ac- 
 cording to the flesh, hath found ?] Of this difficult verse we ac- 
 cept the revisers' text as on the whole the best attested. Two 
 general constructions are possiVjle: (1) To make it a new and inde- 
 pendent objection co-ordinate with verse 31. This construction 
 gives us no link by which the objection raised in verse 31 and that 
 supposed to be presented in verse 1 are connected. We shall also 
 find that it presents insuperable difficulty as to the connection of the 
 f jllowing verses. We therefore prefer (2) To make this verse de- 
 l>end immediately on the preceding one. The logical formula here 
 used introduces an argument in the form of an objection, disproving 
 something either directly stated or implied, and to which the word 
 " then " directly points. What this is is the difficulty. It is gener- 
 
V. 2.] ' ROMANS, IV. 81 
 
 ally supposed to be Paul's general line of reasoning by which he has 
 overthrown the Jewish claim to special prerogative. This makes 
 verse 1 voice the objection of Paul's opponent. But this again gives 
 us no link of thought by which we can pass from verse 31 to verse I. 
 We should find the point of our logical "then" in the clause **we 
 establish the law." But this gives no valid ground for tlie objection 
 supposed to be raised in verse 1. The only alternative is to make 
 verse 1 voice Paul's own thought — a refutation of the position im- 
 plied in the question of vcise 31. The objector says, "You then 
 make the law of none effect through faith." Paul replies, first di- 
 rectly, "God forbid," etc. ; then logically. If we do, "What then 
 shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, 
 hath found?" We shall see presently how perfectly this connec- 
 tion harmonizes both with the sense of verse 31, as we have taken 
 it, and also with the true meaning of verse 1 . The question itself 
 may be interpreted in two ways. The great body of expositors con- 
 nect it immediately with what follows, and refer it to Abraham's 
 personal attainment of righteousness, i.e., to a fact occurring during 
 Abraham's life. We think neither the grammatical structure nor 
 the peculiar verb employed warrant this. The verb is in the perfect 
 tense, pointing to something reaching down to the present, and not in 
 the aorist, as would be required for the statement of a fact occurring 
 during Abraham's life. Then the v j " to find" strikes us as in- 
 congruous with the idea of justificati ii, which is never spoken of by 
 Paul as something lighted on by chance, or even by good providence. 
 We have therefore to look for something reaching down to the pres- 
 ent, and something which came to Abraham in the providence of God 
 as his great good fortune. And this we have exactly supplied in the 
 heritage which God promised to him. This high, pre-eminent gift 
 of God to Abraham was that "in hini should all nations be blessed." 
 Paul's question, unanswerable by his antagonist, is this, " What be- 
 comes of Abraham's heritage?" What heritage of blessing for all 
 nations has he ever found, unless the new dispensation of righteous- 
 ness by faith "establishes " or "fulfils " those promises of the old ? 
 The subject thus introduced, a favourite one with Paul, occupies the 
 remainder of this chapter. The answer to the question of verse 1 is 
 practically found in verse 13, etc. ; and a very instructive parallel to 
 the whole line of thought is found in Gal. iii. 7, etc. The argument 
 of these two introductory verses, then, runs as follower "Is the 
 whole aim and hope of the ancient dispensation disappointed and 
 cast aside by the introduction of this new dispensation of faith ? 
 (jiod forbid. It is only in this way carried into effect; for in no 
 other way can we say that Abraham has ever obtained the heritage 
 of blessing which God promised him in the original covenant. 
 
 2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof 
 to glory;] We take the conjunction here as introductory. The 
 two preceding verses are closely compacted together as the state- 
 ment of the new thesis that the dispensation of faith alone carries out 
 
82 ROMANS, IV. [v. 3. 
 
 tht old dispensation of the law. They end in a rhetorical question 
 equivalent to a strong assertion. It is to this assertion that the 
 proof now following attaches itself. "Abraham has found the fulfil- 
 ment oi his promissd heritage only through faith," "for" from the 
 very beginning Abraham's relation to God was based upon faith. 
 This point, however, Paul approaches very skilfully, first conceding 
 to his opponents their claim so far as it exists — "if Abraham were 
 justified by works." The "if" is merely concessive, but does not 
 imply a negative which would require a stronger particle. We may 
 express the meaning thus: "In so far as Abraham may have been 
 justified by works." The force of the subjunctive is thus given. 
 Paul does not grant that he was so justified, nor does he deny it. 
 He supposes it possible, and grants the conclusion, " he has a ground 
 of boasting;" but immediately proceeds to show that such conclusion 
 is limited by the declaration of scripture. His personal justification 
 is here referred to as the first-fruits of Abraham's blessing for all 
 nations, as in Paul's view that blessing is the gift of righteousness 
 to all through faith. 
 
 but not toward God. 
 
 3. For what saith the scripture?] The preposition here uoed 
 is the one used John i. 1, "with God." It expresses immediate or 
 direct contact or relationship. Abraham's ground or subject of 
 boasting does not reach up to God. It may exist as compared with 
 man, but his final relationship to God stands on a different basis, the 
 scripture being witness. 
 
 And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him 
 for rigfhteousness.] This passage (Gen. xv. 6) was probably a fa- ' 
 miliar quotation among the Rabbis of the time. (See Lightfoot on 
 Gal. iii. 8. ) The passage becomes thus one of very great importance 
 as the proof-text upon which Paul grounds his doctrine of "right- 
 eousness by faith." We note (1) That Paul here, like the writer in 
 Heb. xi., presents the general principle of faith as securing justifica- 
 tion before God. (2) That this faith (not the righteousness of Christ ; 
 see verse 5) is "accounted for righteousness." The word "account- 
 ed," says Cremer, signifies " to reckon .any thing to a person, to put to 
 his account, either in his favour or as what he must be answerable 
 for." The preposition " for " docs not signify " in the place of " or 
 "a substitute," but "unto," that to which faith leads, as God gra- 
 ciously " puts it to our account." The " righteousness " is not, how- 
 ever, " holiness," " a right course of action," or of life, but " a right 
 relation to God " in refei'ence to probational responsibility, and hence 
 directly apprehended in conscience. This is Paul's universal use of 
 the word. The idea then is, that God so graciously accepts faith as 
 to place IV in right relation to himself. In these passages note that 
 this important word " count," or " reckon," is used first indefinitely, 
 then of faith, then of any reward of moral conduct, t'..en of righteous- 
 ness as one form of such reward, and finally of sin. In every one of 
 tiiese cases it refers to the settling, or reckoning, or decision of the 
 
vv. 4-6.] ROMANS, IV. 83 
 
 account of man's probational responsibility ; and only that is so reck- 
 oned which belongs to man's probation. "Faith" is so reckoned &b 
 the gracious condition of probation. " Righteousness," or the right 
 state of our probational account, is so reckoned. The " reward," or 
 merit in probation, of good works is so reckoned. " Sin," as ill de- 
 sert in probation, is so reckoned. Beyond this application of the 
 term Paul gives us no right to go. The (/round or basis upon which 
 God makes faith the condition of our gracious probation, and so ac- 
 counts us righteous, lies outside of our ^'personal probation" and so 
 does not come into this " reckoning." 
 
 This great principle of gracious probation through faith, or evan- 
 gelical righteousness, Paul now proceeds to further illustrate by con- 
 trasting it in general with righteousness of works. 
 
 4. Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as 
 of grace, but as of debt.] This is not so much an analogy from a 
 hired labourer as a general statement of the principle of equity which 
 governs all probation. Man's sense of right teaches him that re- 
 sponsibility for duties discharged earns the right to the reward of 
 those duties. Paul is not afraid to recognize probational rujhts as 
 well as obligations. 
 
 5. But to him that worketh not,] i.e., has failed to fulfil the 
 obligations or duties of his probation. This is not an inuendo against 
 gOod works. It does not imply that there is anything commendable 
 in this "not working." 
 
 but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,] His not work- 
 ing, so far from being meritorious, has classed him with the ' ' un- 
 godly." His probation of works ends in failure. But the gracious 
 probation of faith is still open. He can still believe on him that 
 "justifieth," i.e., giveth or accounteth righteousness to even the 
 ungodly, and 
 
 his faith is reckoned for righteousness.] (See note on verse 3.) 
 Through God's grace the probation is fulfilled by faith. And lest 
 che application of this New Testament probation to the old dispensa- 
 tion hhould seem strange Paul summons further witness. 
 
 6. Elven as David also] " I>.'en as" introduces an example of 
 the general principle just stated, from Psalm xxxii. 1, 2. 
 
 pronounceth blessing upon the r^an,] Literally, congratulates, 
 pronounces hnppy. 
 
 unto whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works,] 
 As the term "righteousness" is here not the Greek signifying the 
 acts or works which fulfil law, as m Rom. v. 18, but the word ex- 
 pressing the right relation to God in respect to our probation, Riddle 
 is not justified in identifying the word used here with that used in 
 chapter v. 18, and referring both to Christ's righteousness. While 
 that is the basis of God's gracious act it is never in scripture said to 
 be imputed to us. On the contrary, all objective works of righteous- 
 ness are just here out of view. The only objective works that covid he 
 put to account are our own, and these are wanting. But God rights 
 
84 ROMANS, IV. [vv. 7-9. 
 
 the account without them, not by bringing in some other works, but 
 by forgiveness, cancelling the contra account of sin. On this balanc- 
 ing of man's probational accounts see McCaul (quoted in Moule's 
 Appendix), where it is shown to be a favourite form of Jewish moral 
 teaching. 
 saying, 
 
 7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, 
 And whose sins are covered. 
 
 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. 
 This peculiar view of God's account with man on probation thus 
 
 extends back to the time of the Septuagint version. The three syn- 
 onymous terms here used are worthy of note, as they appear in the 
 original Hebrew — "borne away," referring to the great atonement; 
 *' covered," put out of sight; and " put out of God's thoughts." The 
 afhrmative of which this last is the negative is used in Gen. xv. 6, 
 "God thought it to him" (or "esteemed it to him") "for right- 
 eousness." This Hebrew word was by the LXX. translated by the 
 Greek which we render "reckon" or "impute," though impute i.s 
 rather a translation of the original Hebrew. It is only in the LXX. 
 that this idea of a written account of the merits and demerits of 
 man's piobr^tion first appears. 
 
 9. Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or 
 upon the uncircumcision also?] Paul by the conjunction "then" 
 returns to the points at which he left his main argument in verse 3. 
 He had there asserted that Abraham's "boasting," i.e., ground of 
 confidenceas based on works (i.e., covenant of circumcision), did not 
 reach up to his ultimate relation to God. This he had proven by a 
 passage of scripture in which Abraham's justification or righteous- 
 ness was referred to faith ; and he had pointed out the fundamental 
 difference between this and a righteousness of works, illustrating it 
 by a further conspicuous Old Testament example. He now proceeds 
 to prove that this righteousness of faith on Abraham's part was hy 
 faith only. We will find the force of Paul's argument as against his 
 opponents by bearing in mind that to their minds "circumcision" 
 and " works of law " were identical. The Jew was not contending 
 for righteousness on the basis of the merit of abstract morality, but 
 of the fulfilment of the Mosaic law, of which circumcision was with 
 them the first precept, or as the Rabbis said, " Circumcision is equal 
 to all the commandments." When therefore Paul proves that this 
 righteousness or blessedness comes upon the "uncircumcision" he 
 proves that it is entirely independent of woxks of law in the Jewish 
 sense of the term. The form of his question implies the answer, 
 "Upon the uncircumcision also." And to this implied answer the 
 next clause is linked as proof. 
 
 for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteous- 
 ness.] This carries us back to verse 3, where the case of Abraham 
 was under consideration. From the history of that case Paul estab- 
 
vv. 10-12.] ROMANS, IV. 85 
 
 lishes his new point that Abraham's righteousness was purely of 
 faith, i.e., apart from circumcision, and hence from works of law. 
 
 10. How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, 
 or in uncircumcision ?] This question refers us to the comparative 
 dates of (ien. xv. 6 and xvii. 25. The circumcision was a year be- 
 fore the birth of Isaac, and when Ishmael was thirteen years of age. 
 Gen. XV. 6 dates before the birth of Ishmael. Hence Paul concludes. 
 
 Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision:] This conclusion 
 completely sweeps away the fundamental doctrine of the "circum- 
 cision" party. (For a similar line of argument see Gal. iii. 10, 17, 
 etc.) Paul draws this conclusion here, however, not so much to con- 
 tradict his opponent as to establish his main thesis, that the right- 
 eousness of faith gives its true effect to the old dispensation by ac- 
 complishing to Abraham the promises. To this he now leads us. 
 
 11. and he rec«-ived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the 
 righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in un- 
 circumcision:] Paul here places circumcision in its true place. It 
 was not the cause or condition of righteousness but a seal, i.e., an 
 attesting symbol of a righteousness already independently existing. 
 (See Eph. i. 13 for the seal of the new dispensation; and on the re- 
 lation of this to baptism, Titus iii. 5. We have thus the true doc- 
 trine of a sacrament: it does not save, but is a seal of salvation.) 
 
 that he might be the father of all them that believe, though 
 they be in uncircumcision,] This expresses GocVs purpose. God 
 tirst fully revealed the righteousness of faith to Abraham. Though 
 Abel, Enoch and Noah (see Heb. xi. ) preceded there was not to any of 
 them the explicit revelation of Gen. xv. 6. Abraham thus becomes 
 the "father of the faithful." The universal doctrine of "righteous- 
 ness out of faith " finds its prototype in him. The preposition 
 "through" here governing the genitive expresses, not means or 
 agency, but extent: " through the whole extent of uncircumcision." 
 
 that righteousness might be reckoned unto them;] A second 
 expression, or an enlargement of the divine intention. This com- 
 pletely annihilates the doctrine of those who said, "Except ye be 
 circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved, " The 
 purpose of God's grace as traced back by Paul has no such narrow 
 limits. 
 
 12. and the father of circumcision to them who not only are 
 of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith 
 of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision.] The 
 dispensation of circumcision had its place, but even then only in 
 harmony with the principle of faith. Even the covenant of circum- 
 cision availed only to those who walked in the steps of Abraham's 
 faith. God's purposa was to inake Abraham first the father of all 
 those who believe in every age and dispensation (this was the funda- 
 mental and universal divine idea); then the father of a covenant 
 people who till the fulness of time was come should exhibit to the 
 world the example of this faith. But this special covenant was sub' 
 
 „^«,«.TaS»^*^«^'^ 
 
86 ROMANS, IV. [vv. 13, 14. 
 
 ordinate to the original universal idea, and its whole end was the 
 final bringing in of the everlasting and universal righteousness of 
 faith. For this application of his thesis Paul is now ready. On the 
 peculiar grammatical difficulties of this verse see Meyer. 
 
 13. For not through the law was the promise to Abraham 
 or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world,] This is 
 the negative side of the fiMutamental thesis announced in the open- 
 ing verses of this section (verses 31, 1). In the Greek the verb is 
 wanting, and so commentators supply verb and tense according to 
 their conception of the sense. Moule supplies the verb "came;" 
 Godet (in sense the same), "was made;" Meyer supplies "pro- 
 cured." Riddle and Lange substantially agree with this. But is 
 Paul here speaking of the first (jiving of the promise or of its present 
 fulfilment ? Evidently the latter. Only the common misapprehen- 
 sion of verse 1, which we have already pointed out, could lead to a 
 similar misapprehension here. The next clause makes this evident. 
 
 but througn the righteousness of faith.] How can it be said 
 that the promise was given through the righteousness of faith, as all 
 these commentators make Paul say, when he has just proved or 
 stated at full length that the righteousness of faith was attained by 
 believing this very promise already given ? We cannot take Paul's 
 summary of the Abrahamic promises (" heir of the world ") to refer, 
 as Riddle takes it, merely to the possession of the promised land. 
 That has no particular connection with Paul's line of thought. It 
 refers rather to the promise that he should become " a great nation," 
 that "in him should all families of the earth be blessed," and that 
 his seed should be as "the stars of heaven." These are the promises 
 which Paul evidently has in mind in harmony with his line of thought. 
 (See verse 17.) Now, Paul does not assert that these promises were 
 given " through the righteousness of faith," but that they are to be 
 fulfilled through the righteousness of faith. The promise was of 
 "an heir" (Gen. xv. 4). Paul immediately speaks of this heirship, 
 not in the past tense but in the present perfect (verse 14), showing 
 that he is not speaking of the past act of God in giving, but of the 
 work of God in fulfilling the promise up to the present. This, Paul 
 says, has taken place through the righteousness of faith. All who 
 through faith attain this righteousness are Abraham's seed, and 
 heirs according to the promise (Gal. iii. 7, 9, 14, 29). In this way 
 alone, Paul claims, has the object of the law been attained and 
 Abraham secured ("found") the promised inheritance. This he 
 proceeds further to substantiate. 
 
 14. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made 
 void, and the promise is made of none effect:] The hope of the 
 Jews was that the promised heirship, which was to reach all nations 
 with its blessing, was to come through the legal covenant of circum- 
 cision. Hitherto this covenant had embraced few beyond the natural 
 descendants of Abraham. In their vei y willingness to accept the 
 help of Paul, by building on his foundation and perverting to their 
 
vv. 15, 16.] ROMANS, IV. • 87 
 
 purpose his converts, Paul's enemies had confessed their despair of 
 the old methods of extending the Abrahamic covenant so as to make 
 it embrace all the world. Paul here asserts that if the legal covenant 
 of circumcision is to be the basis of the heirship, then (1) " faith has 
 been made void," i.e., made an "empty," useless, superfluous thing. 
 The real basis of the heritage being the law, faith " counts for noth- 
 ing," and the introduction of the principle of faith has been a useless 
 Superfluity. And if that be the case (2) "the promise has become 
 of none effect," i.e., has failed of fulfilment. The reason of this lies 
 in the fact that even those who have been brought under the cove- 
 nant of the law, whether by birth or by proselytism, instead of find- 
 ing or inheriting a " blessing" have found only a " curse" (Gal. iii. 
 9, 10), or as Paul puts it here, 
 
 15. for the law worketh wrath;] Instead of finding the bless- 
 ing promised to Abraham, and described by David as an inward, 
 conscious righteousness, or rightness with God, the law has only 
 brought the conscious condemnation. In fact, so far as peace of 
 mind was concerned, they would be more blessed without the law, 
 for (read " but " as equivalent to " on the contrary ") 
 
 but where there is no law, neither is there transgression.] The 
 law, instead of bringing the desired blessing, had, on the contrary, 
 multiplied the misery by multiplying the occasions of sin. (See for 
 Paul's reiteration of this thought chs. v. 13 ; vii. 9, 10 ; also Gal. iii. 
 10 and Acts XV. 10, 11.) 
 
 Paul, having thus pointed out both the fact and the cause of the 
 failure of the law to bring the promised inheritance, next proceeds 
 to show why the principle of faith has been introduced. 
 
 16. For this cause it is of faith, that it may be according to 
 grace;] The connecting phrase " for this cause " is usually taken 
 as referring back to the statements just made, and is accordingly 
 sometimes translated "therefore." We think it rather points for- 
 ward to the sentence beginning with (iva) "that." The negative 
 statement of hypothetical failure is not so much or so properly the 
 cause as the positive opposite of the completion of God's purpose 
 which immediately follows. (The Greek 'iva thus becomes appositive 
 to TovTo, giving the most intense emphasis to the clause thus pointed 
 out.) The pronoun "it" supplied in the translation is referred by 
 some to "righteousness," by others to the "promised heritage." 
 But the " promised heritage " is nothing else but " the righteousness 
 of faith." (See verses 22-24 ; compare Gal. iii. 6-9.) They are there- 
 fore identical in Paul's mind ; and doubtless the promised blessing 
 was in Paul's thought both as a heritage and as a gift of righteous- 
 ness when he wrote the words " of faith." The conjunction "that " 
 denotes design. It includes result of cause where intention follows 
 a line of cause and effect, as here. " Of faith " is Paul's usual expres- 
 sion to designate faith as the condition of "righteousness." This, 
 then, is God's intention (Paul would say) in making the promised 
 heritage of righteousness conditional on faith, that it may be accord- 
 
 jtei'^'CilSi^i^fflBlwS^WWBHMfcitwikiiiiiiiii . u nwnr 
 
88 ' ROMANS, IV. [v. 17. 
 
 ing to grace. The preposition "according to" seema here to desig- 
 nate the rule or measure. This is God's grace, i.e., his merciful good- 
 will. To the measure of grace the condition of faith gives full scope, 
 hence (jod's intention to make his loving grace the measure of the 
 fulfilment of the promise includes a further design, 
 
 to the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed;] The 
 promise here referred to (Gen. xii. 3) is one of blessing to all nations. 
 The bringing of all nations to share in the promised blessings of the 
 covenant people is called inheriting all nations, This seems to have 
 been a commou phrase in Paul's day. (So Tacitus, "They should 
 go forth from Judea who should possess the world. ") The Jewish 
 view of this possession or heritage was external and legal ; Paul's, 
 spiritual. And (Jod's design in making the principle of heirship thus 
 spiritual (by faith) was to give the intended extent to the blessing. 
 " All the seed " are evidently all nations; or as Paul puts it, 
 
 not to that only which is of the law,] About these there was 
 no doubt in the minds of Paul's opponents. Paul, however, says the 
 promise becomes sure even to them through faith. 
 
 but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham,] This desig- 
 nates the ttue universal paternity which embraces "all the seed." 
 They become Abraham's children through the same faith which 
 secures to them the promised blessing. Tlie two lines of paternity 
 are thus contrasted and brought into unity. One is natural, "of the 
 law," or of circumcision (verse 12); the other spiritual, "of faith." 
 Both inherit the promise through faith. Only when both are in- 
 cluded has the promise its true fulfilment. 
 
 Note. — The clear contrast of the two classes of paternity in verse 16 increases 
 the doubt raised in our minds by the construction of verse 12. We have only there 
 to read OVK TOiq instead of tolq ovk and the phrase is the exact parallel of verse 16. 
 The nieaninjr of verse 12 will then become entirely different, and may be paraphrased 
 thus : " A father of covenant relation not t<> those only who are naturally or legally 
 in the covenant, but also to those who walk in the steps of the faith which Abraham 
 had even before the covenant was sealed to him." In verse 12 Paul would assert (if 
 the conjectural reading be adopted) the divine intention to bring the believing 
 Gentiles into covenant relation to himself through faith. The abstract noun "cir- 
 cumcision" would then be taken, not for "circumcised people," but for the rela- 
 tion to God of which circumcision was the sign and seal. Abraham himself was 
 taken into the covenant relation of circumcision that as the father of the faithful 
 he might gather them all into covenant relation to God. This interpretation would 
 advance Paul's argument much further than the current reading and explanation, 
 and harmonizes with his line of thought. 
 
 who is the father of us all] i.e., of both the legal and the spiritual 
 seed. 
 
 17. (as it is written, A father of many nations have I made 
 thee)] Paul here quotes (Gen. xvii. 5) another form of the promise, 
 still making prominent the universal extent of God's design in his 
 covenant promises to Abraham. 
 
 before him whom he believed,] i.e., "the father of us all in his 
 sight," as he views Abraham and his spiritual seed. 
 
 even God, who quickeneth the dead,] (Compare verse 9, and 
 
vv. 18, 19.] ROMANS, IV. 89 
 
 also Heb. xi. 12.) The reference is clearly to the miraculous char- 
 acter of the birth of Isaac. 
 
 and calleth the things that are not, as though they were,] 
 (Compare Isa. xlvi. 10; xlviii. 1,3.) It is literally " calling the non- 
 existent a3 existent." The reference is clearly to that almighty 
 power of God which creates, and which in the whole course of his 
 dispensations brings into existence all that is needful for the accom- 
 plishment of his purposes. No doctrine of Paul is more continuously 
 presented than this of God'a purpose of the ages, and his continuous 
 working for its accomplishment (Eph. i. 11). 
 
 i8. Who in hope believed against hope,] A second descriptive 
 sentence attached to Abraham, an example of Paul's method of co- 
 ordinating a number of clauses in similar grammatical and logical 
 connection. Note the play upon the word " hope." This generally 
 implies a distinction in meaning. " In hope," literally " upon hope," 
 probably refers to the basis of hope given in the promise. "Against 
 hope," literally "aside from" or "beyond hope," may refer either 
 to the human standard of hope or to the natural feelings of hopeful- 
 ness or expectancy in such a case, 
 
 to the end that he might become a father of many nations,] 
 The preposition which expresses aim, the result to which a thing 
 moves, is here used. Subjectively it is not intention but hope that 
 is here in question. The meaning is not that* he believed or hoped 
 for the purpose of becoming, but that the object or end upon which 
 his faith and hope were fixed, to which they looked, was "the be- 
 coming a father of many nations. " 
 
 according to that which had been spoken, So shall thy seed 
 be.] This promise was the foundation or ground, and hence also the 
 measure or rule, of Abraham's faith and hope. The preposition is 
 not a mere symbol of quotation; hence Paul does not say "as it is 
 written " but " it had been spoken. " It calls attention to the promise 
 as spoken to Abraham, and hence the basis of his believing hope. 
 The record of this promise is found in Gen. xv. 5. To suppose, 
 with Riddle, that Paul in this verse is describing, not the nature of 
 Abraham's faith — surpassing all human hope, and fixing itself upon 
 the object set before it in God's promise, and measuring its expecta- 
 tion by that promise alone— but is setting forth "God's purpose" 
 in the existence of Abraham's faith, is to introduce an ideji without 
 special relevancy here, and is to deprive Abraham of the merit of 
 the very quality which fitted him for his distinguished position as 
 the example of faith for all ages, making that faith a thing imposed 
 by the divine predestination. There is, indeed, a divine predestina- 
 tion here (verse 16), nob imposing faith upon Abraham but rewarding 
 a faith the pre-eminent character of which this and the following 
 verses describe. 
 
 19. And without being weakened in faith] The two following 
 verses are connected by the copulative conjunction with verse 18, 
 and are thus a part of, or expansion of, the relative clause there in- 
 
90 JiOMANS, IV. [vv. 20, 21. 
 
 troduced. The emphasis of this verse lies on the participial clause 
 "without being weakened in faith," which thus skmds in the fore- 
 front of the sentence. The tcxtun receptus, by introducing a nega- 
 tive between this and the principal verb following, in part removes 
 this emphasis, and so changes, not the sense, but the mode of ex- 
 pressing it, very materially weakening Paul's bold rhetoric. 
 
 he considered his own body now as good as dead (he being 
 about a hundred years old),] "Considered," i.e., clearly recog- 
 nized the fact. The verb expresses, not a process of rellecting, but 
 a full, perfect act of understanding. The Greek predicate is simply 
 " already dead." The mention of his age establishes both the natural 
 fact and also the knowledge of that fact on the part of Abraham. 
 
 and the deadness of Sarah's womb : ] This addition brings out 
 to the full the grandeur of Abraham's faith. It stood firm in the 
 face of all natural impossibilities. We see thus most clearly that 
 the main thought of Paul in verse 18, of which this is the expression, 
 ia, as interpreted above, the greatness of Abraham's faith. 
 
 20. yea, looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not 
 through unbelief,] The increasing fervour of the apostle's mind as 
 he approaches the climax of his argument leads to a rich rhetorical 
 amplitude and force already apparent in verses 18 and 19. In the 
 clause before us these two verses are recapitulated with inte&se 
 energy of expression' impossible to reproduce in any translation. 
 " Looking unto the promise of God " recapitulates verse 18. (There 
 the very same preposition occurs, and might be rendered there as 
 here, " Looking unto his becoming a father of many nations, accord- 
 ing," etc.) " He wavered not through unbelief" recapitulates verse 
 19, and thus fully prepares the way for the final clause in which 
 Paul's thought is completely expressed. 
 
 but waxed strong through faith,] More literally, we think, 
 "in faith," the preposition being compounded with the verb. This 
 is the grand thought in Paul's mind throughout, and he has most 
 perfectly expressed it both by rhetorical preparation and by its final 
 utterance ; but the theme so entrances Paul that he still cannot leave 
 11;, but must linger round it in participial clauses for other varying 
 views. 
 
 giving glory to God,] Such faith honours God. Therein lies 
 its moral value as the test of the new probation. Hodge very prop- 
 erly adds, "The sinner honours God in trusting his grace as much 
 as Abraham did in trusting his power." By sin xre "came short of 
 the glory of God." By faith we "give God glory." In scarcely 
 any of his grand ideas does Paul present a profounder thought than 
 this. It presents to us the supreme moral value of faith as standing 
 over against the supreme demerit of sin. 
 
 21. and being fully assured that, what he had promised, he 
 was able also to perform.] The emphasis of this verse lies on the 
 words "fully assured." As Moule well observes in one of his finest 
 
vv. 25i-24.] ROMANS, IV. 91 
 
 notes, this verse sets before us the true "nature of faith as essen- 
 tially trust." It has as its object somH/diuj to be done; it comes to 
 a pefKon ivho in ah/e to perform; it looks to his promke ; it is fully 
 conscious of the vutijnitadf of the work to be wrou;L,'lit and of the 
 natural impossibilities which intervene; but it glorities Ciocl hy full 
 assurance. 
 
 22. Wherefore also it was reckoned unto him for righteous- 
 ness.] The apostle here most definitely states that it is this moral 
 value of faith, so grandly illustrated in the example of Abraham, 
 which is the ground of its being made the probational condition of 
 justification or righteousness. And mark, it is this faith which I'aul 
 says is "reckoned for righteousness." By this we do not understand 
 Paul to say that this faith is a substitute for good works, or that it 
 dispenses with good works. The word translated " for" here is not 
 avTi, " in the stead of," but eic, " leading to." Again, the righteous- 
 ness here spoken of is not i^Kaiio/ta, "the right works required by the 
 law," but (^KainavfT/, "the right state or relation toward (iod," the 
 sense in which we think Paul everywhere uses this word. What, 
 then, Paul here affirms is that faith is graciously counted in man's 
 probation to instate him in the right moral relation to God, both 
 absolutely or objectively and subjectively or in his own conscience. 
 And he states that the reason for this divine order, by which faith 
 is thus reckoned in moral probation, lies in its supreme moral worth 
 as honoring God, and so being the root from which spring all right 
 works before God. (See Heb. xi. 6 and (ial. v. 6.) The perfect 
 harmony of this doctrine with Jas. ii. 14-26 is apparent. 
 
 23. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was 
 reckoned unto him; 
 
 24. but for our sake also,] Paul sees in the history of Abraham, 
 as recorded in Genesis, not a mere glorification of Abraham, nor 
 even a personal declaration of his acceptance with God, but the 
 primitive revelation of the order of divine grace to prevail in all 
 ages; hence "for our sake also." 
 
 unto whom it shall be reckoned,] We must here supply, from 
 the preceding context, the antecedent of it, or rather in Greek, where 
 there is no pronoun used, the subject of the verb, i.e., " faith," and 
 also the complement of "reckon," i.e., "for righteousness." It is 
 also noteworthy that Paul uses here, not the future indicative, but 
 the present infinitive, "to be reckoned," with the present indica- 
 tive of a verb signifying the introduction of a new order or state of 
 things, or of a new course of action. The gospel was the then present 
 beginning of a new dispensation of faith. This new dispensation, 
 liowever, does not rest upon the temporal promises of the old. Hence 
 Paul must define the basis of the new as distinguished from the old, 
 which he does in the three concluding sentences. The unity of the 
 new with the old, which has been throughout the theme of this sec- 
 tion, thus leads up to the fundamental distinction between the new 
 
92 ROMANS, IV. [v. 25. 
 
 and the old. This distinction lies in the fact that our faith rests in 
 God, not as revealed in temporal promises, or in acts of supernatural 
 creative power, but in the supreme act by which Ood atlestn the aton- 
 ing work of Jesus Christ. 
 
 who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,] 
 We cannot, with Riddle, look upon the raising of Christ from the 
 dead as a mere example of divine power surpassing that to which 
 Abraham's faith looked. The doctrine of the resurrection has every- 
 where in St. Paul a far higher significance. It is the seal of Christ's 
 mediatorial work and authority. (See Acts xvii. 31; Rom. i. 4; 
 1 Cor. XV. 14; Eph. i. 20.) To believe in God who raised up Jesus 
 our Lord from the dead is to believe in God as, in this act of power, 
 setting his seal upon the office and work of Jesus our Lord. That 
 office Paul has already designated by the supreme title "Sou of 
 God"; here he designates it by the equally divine title " our Lord." 
 On the significance of this title in reference to the atoning work of 
 Clirist see chapter xiv. 9 and note there. It is applied to Christ by 
 
 .ul some two hundred and fifty times, and is preferred by him over 
 all other titles to designate the relation of Christ to us as our Saviour. 
 It is not a mere title of honour or majesty, 1/ut enters into the very 
 essence of our faith. As our Lord he hath purchased us to be his 
 own people (Acts xx. 28, where, as in Titus ii. 13, the divinity of tlie 
 Lordship appears). But (as in ch. xiv. 9) Christ becomes our Lord 
 by what he )jas done for us, which Paul now adds as entering into 
 the essen^.ial groundwork of our faith. 
 
 25. who was delivered up for our trespasses,] This is a varia- 
 tion of Paul's formulary of faith. (See 1 Cor. xv. ; 1 Tim. i. 1.').) 
 The same term used here "delivered up" is used again (ch. viii. 32) 
 to designate tliat act of God the Father in which, from his love to 
 man, he surrenders his Son to death. This surrender is said here 
 to take place "on account of our trespasses," i.e., our trespasses are 
 the reason or necessitating cause of the surrender of God's Son to 
 death. The apostle elsewhere employs another preposition for " the 
 sake of" (1 Cor. xv. 3). Here lies another element of I'aul's doc- 
 trine of the work of C'hrist, which we must collate with such passages 
 as chapter iii. 25, 2<i in seeking for a complete view of the atonement 
 as presented by i'aul. 
 
 and was raised for our justification.] The same preposition used 
 in the preceding clause is used here, " on account of our justifica- 
 tion." Our justification made necessary the raising of Christ. The 
 word ^'justifivation" must not, however, be confuHed with *^ right- 
 eouHnfUH," Justification, thKaiufng, isitod'sact; righteousness, ihKuio- 
 (Tvi'r/, ia the gift which we receive. It "lot the (ji/f which rendered 
 the resurrection necessary, but the process of (Jod's (J(7 o/,/»M/»/lrV/<- 
 tion. The foundation of every individual act of juHtification is laid 
 in that supreme act of tl<e Father in which h'* ^"-t his seal upon the 
 office and work of his Son. It ia not merely .directly, as the basis 
 of our faith for justification, that the resurrection ia necessary. The 
 
V. 1.] ROMANS, V. 93 
 
 resurrection is the first and foundation of a series of acts in which 
 God publicly declares his acceptance of sinners in Christ. These 
 acts are — 
 
 1. The resurrection, followed by the ascension and mediatorial 
 glory. This is the justification to the whole universe of the collec- 
 tive body of (iod's elect in Christ (Rom. viii. 34). 
 
 2. The gift of the witnessing Spirit to those who believe (Acts 
 XV. 8). This is the individual justification. That the apostles held 
 in common that this was based on the preceding, and could not take 
 place apart from it, appears from such passages as John vii. 39 ; Acts 
 ii. 32, 33, etc. 
 
 3. The final act, both individual and collective, of the day of judg- 
 ment. The resurrection is therefore the necessary basis of our justifi- 
 cation. No sentences in the J'^pistle sum up to us a more weighty 
 body of doctrine than is to be found in these two concluding verses, 
 which thus posit the foundations of the Christian faith as distin- 
 guished from the yet imperfect faith of all previous <lispensation8. 
 The announcement of these foundations leads the apostle next to 
 break forth into 
 
 Ch. V. 1-21. An Exhortation founded upon the Doctrine 
 OF Righteousness by Faith. 
 
 Part I. The Exhortation, vv. 1-11. Part II. The Grounds, vv. 12-21. 
 
 PART I. the exhortation. 
 
 I. Being therefore justified by faith,] The conjunction here used 
 introduces the apostle s practical conclusion from the entire preced- 
 ing argument, or rather from its great fundamental thesis, to which 
 Paul had once more returned in verses 24, 2.'). This thesis he sums 
 up in the participial claust " being justified by faith." The revised 
 version, following the or.lcr ot the Greek, conveys the impressior* 
 that the participial clause is itself the conclusion — " We are there- 
 fore justified by faith. " But tins conjunction introduces, not so much 
 tlie stivtement of that which has been proven by reasoning, as the 
 statement of that which follows by natural or necessary consequence. 
 I'aul has indeed proved that we are justified by faith, and hence in 
 tlie participial clause he assumes this as no longer capable of ijues- 
 tion. lint thf necfuxarif coiiHei/tifHce of this proven thesis is the ex- 
 hortation which follows with the principal verb. "Therefore" 
 
 let us have peace with God tnrougfh our Lord Jesus Christ;] 
 This is the exhortation. The verb might fairly be translated "let 
 UH hold." It denotes that active effort by which we do not let slip 
 that which we have received. The aurist participle "being justi- 
 fied " designates a definite single historical fact, the act of God by 
 which wo are placed in right relation to himself. " I'eace with God 
 designates the abiding state into which this act has introduced u«. 
 
94 ROMANS, V. [w. 2-4. 
 
 The preposition used is the same used in chapter iv. 2 and John i. 
 1 and 2 to denote ultimate and immediate relationship to God. This 
 " peace with (jod " is " through our Lord Jesus Christ." He is the 
 mediator, not only in the act of justification, but also in the abiding 
 state of peace which we are exhorted to hold fast; or, as Paul puts 
 it in the next verse, not only of the abiding state but also of the 
 door of entrance. 
 
 2. through whom also we have had our access by faith into 
 this grace wherein we stand;] '■'■The access" (translated in the 
 revised version " our access ") points to the fact that to the Gentiles 
 this relationship to (xod, this state of *' grace," was opened by Christ. 
 The aorist (a definite historical fact) may refer either to the opening 
 of the door of faith to the Gentiles at large or to these individual 
 believers in particular. 8o far as the Roman church M'as concerned 
 the two facts were one. 
 
 and let us rejoice in hope of the glory of God.] Throughout 
 we have treated this section as an exliortation expressed by the 
 Greek subjunctive mood. Moule, while admitting that the weight 
 of critical authority is in favour of the subjunctive, thinks that the 
 indicative " ' we have ' exactly fits into the context," while the sub- 
 junctive *' 'let us have' is foreign to it.'" On the other hand, we 
 think the hortatory form perfectly natural here. In favor of this is 
 especially the fact tliat all the assertions thrown into participial and 
 other subordinate clauses are such as would naturally be used to 
 strengthen an exhortation. See especially verses 3-10 and 12-21. 
 "Let us rejoice " is literally " let us make our boast." This, in con- 
 trast to the Jewish glorying in their Abrahamic ancestry, is fixed 
 upon the hope of the glory of God in the bringing in of a universal 
 kingdom of righteousness. (Compare Isa. xl 5. ) The astablishment 
 of the kingdom of right is in Paul's esteem the true manifestation of 
 the divine glory. All the Old Testament scriptures, which his coun- 
 trymen and his age interpreted in a natural or temporal sense, Paul 
 interprets as etliical, spiritual and eternal. 
 
 3. And not only so, but let us also rejoice in our tribulations :] 
 There is here a change of preposition from t~i^ " upon," to f i', " in." 
 This would seem to indicate that Paul does not jjresent the tribula- 
 tions as the subject-matter of boasting, or the ground of boasting, but 
 as the environment or condition in the midst of wliich we may still 
 continutj our boasting, inasmuch us these tribulations do not hinder 
 but rather promote tlie establishment of (Jod 's kingdom and glory 
 in our hearts. 
 
 knowing that tribulation worketh patience;] "patience," that 
 is, persevering endurance, is wrought out, i.<' , net merely exhibited 
 but strengthened and ]>erfected under eircumstiinces of tribulation. 
 
 4. and patience, probation;] This is probably not probation in 
 the wide sense of God's moral proof of men, but our proof in our 
 own experience of the power of God's grace in tribulations. 
 
 Rnd probation, hope;] Our testing experience not only justifies 
 
 mSSKf^ 
 
vv. 5, d.] ROMANS, V. fi5 
 
 our hope in the past but strengthens our present hope for the future. 
 We have only to bear in mind that the object of this hope is the 
 accomplishment of God's kingdom in our own hearts and in the 
 world, to see how each proof of the power of that kingdom works 
 out enlarged hope. 
 
 5. and hope putteth not to shame;] "Putting to shame" is 
 the opposite of boasting, and refers to the confusion experienced by 
 a boaster whose boastings were not made good. The Christian's 
 boasting fails not of verification, 
 
 because the love of God hath been shed abroad in our hearts] 
 As we take the theme of the entire passage to be subjective expe- 
 rience of saving grace, so we must take it here. The manifestation 
 of God's love in our hearts is represented as the pouring of a stream, 
 referring, perhaps, to the pouring of the anointing oil. The heart, 
 the seat of conscience or the moral understanding, is also the seat of 
 religious affections. The love of God denotes, primarily, God's love 
 to as ; but this is at once answered by our love to God (I John iv. 19). 
 Tlie perfect tense indicates that this is not an occasional or isolated 
 experience but continuous up to the present, and yet perfect in itself 
 at each moment. This constant experieuce of G jd's love verifies the 
 hope of God's glorious kingdom being fully revealed within us, on 
 which we boast. The agent of this experience is next set before us, 
 
 through the Holy Ghost which was given unto us.] Here for 
 the rirst time Paul introduces the Holy Spirit as the agent by whom 
 is wrought the work of the inward experience of the Christian. The 
 gift of the Holy (ihost refers us to the promise of Christ recorded in 
 John xiv. and xv. and Acts i. The aorist participle refers to a defi- 
 nite fact in the history of the Roman Christians, as the fulfilment of 
 Christ's promise. Paul's doctrine of the work of the Spirit is most 
 fully 'vpanded in chapter viii., where we may more fully consider 
 the (jiiastion of the personality of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 6. For while we were yet weak, in due time Christ died for 
 the ungodly.] God's love to us is the grand preceding thought to 
 which this verse attaches itself. " For," yap, may here be taken as 
 explicatory, (iodet proposes to translate it "in fact." The object 
 of the writer is to show how God's love assures our hope, and he 
 brings out the full force of his argument only in verses 9 and 10, 
 '' Much more tlu-n." The first adverb "yet" attaches itself to the 
 participial clause " we being yet weak." The second "yet" (omit- 
 ted in the Knglish version) attaches itself to the princiiml clause 
 and lias the force of "nevertheless" — "Christ none the less in due 
 season died for the ungodly." The "due season" was the time 
 which God had prepared for the accomplishment of the atonement, 
 ((/oinpare Gal. iv. 4. ) The characteristic of those for whom Christ 
 died as " ungodly " gives greater emphasis to the argument already 
 implied in the expression " weak," and which expanding in the apos- 
 tle H mind immediately leads to the enlargdd comparative statement 
 of verses 7 and 8. It is not safe to press the preposition " for " her« 
 
96 ROMANS, V. tvv. 7-16. 
 
 as if it meant " in the place of"; its simple force is " for the sake of " 
 or " for the benefit of." 
 
 7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die:] The con- 
 junction is here again the >«p, explicatory, enlarging by a comparison 
 the idea of the previous verse. The term "righteous " is here com- 
 pared on the one hand with the "ungodly " for whom Christ died. 
 Christ died for the " ungodly," man will scarcely die for the " right- 
 eous." On the other hand it is compared with the "good man" of 
 the following clause. 
 
 for peradventure for the good man some one would even dare 
 to die.] This clause, which is somewhat parenthetical, Paul intro- 
 duces as stating the utmost limit to which human self-sacrifice can 
 reach. Righteousness is scarcely sufficient to call out this supreme 
 sacrifice; ",sra/'cr/?/," "for by chance," i.e., on some rare occasion, 
 its highest form, goodness, may call it out In the article there may 
 be the force of the Hebrew superlative, of which it may be an imita- 
 tion equal to " the best of men." 
 
 8. But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, 
 while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.j The verb "com- 
 mendeth," which occupies the emphatic place in the sentence, may 
 be translated "demonstrates" or "proves." The reflexive pronoun 
 "his own" need not be taken as the antithesis to another, but as 
 expressing the divine peculiarity of this redeeming love. It is a love 
 found in God alone ; this is the point of the enlargement and com- 
 parison cont,aiued in thcpe two verses. This peculiar divine love is 
 embodied in the fact which Paul now repeats from verse 6, "that 
 while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Tliis completes the 
 thesis of the argument introduced by "for " (ynp, explicatory) at the 
 beginning of verse 6 — so far the enlargement of the idea of God's 
 love; next follows the conclusion — the enlargement of the idea of 
 assured hope. 
 
 9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall 
 we be saved from the wrath of God through him.] The con- 
 junction "then" or "therefore" (oit) draws a conclusion ; "much 
 more " vindicates the apostle's assurance of hope. The love that 
 sent Christ to die for the witfod/y can surely be trusted to save from 
 
 ' tlie wrath " (the adjunct "of (iod" is not in the original) those 
 A^ho are justified by liis blood. Tiiis sets forth the negative side of 
 the Christian's assured hope. The apostle hastens forward to add 
 the poaitivo. 
 
 10. For 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;] Tliis presents in the hypotiiutical form 
 the argument stated in direct form in verses 8 and 9. liut besides 
 the variation in more logical form there is an advance in the thought. 
 "EuemitiB" is parallel to, but stronger than, the term "sinners." 
 It designates, not tiie mere » ubjective fe.iling of the sinner toward 
 Ood (hater), but rather a state or relationship the exact opposite of 
 
V. li.j Romans, V. 87 
 
 friend; hence it includes the idea of that separation from God which 
 is the consequence of sin, and which is expressed positively as being 
 under God's "wrath." And yet it is not equivalent to "hated of 
 God," for he loves us even in this condition. The term "recon- 
 ciled" is parallel to the term "justified," perhaps not a stronger 
 term, but corresponding to the new designation of our state — the 
 . "enemies " are "reconciled," the "sinners" are "justified." The 
 term "reconciled" is therefore as full in its meaning as the term 
 "enemies." It is not a mere subjective change in our feelings to- 
 ward God ; it is a change in our relation to God. In fact, in the 
 two verses the apostle for the sake of emphasis presents the same 
 idea under two analogies — that of the judge and the criminal, and 
 that of the king and his rebellious subjects. The conclusion A'aries 
 in but a single expression, "in" or "by" his life. This is con- 
 trasted with the expressions "Christ died for us," "by his blood," 
 and "by the death of his Son," which are stated as the means of 
 our justification or reconciliation. Godet's explanation of the ex- 
 pression "saved by his Ufe" transfers us from the standpoint of 
 justification or reconciliation to that of renewal or regeneration. 
 t As there is nothing in the context to suggest such a change in the 
 '■ writer's line of thought, it is perhaps better to explain the present 
 ;»,. clause by the parallel to be found in chapter viii. 34, " Who is he 
 "^X that shall condemn? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that 
 was raised from the dead," etc. Here it is evident that Christ's 
 living as our intercessor is intimately related to his death as the 
 means of our justification. In studying Paul's idea of the valency 
 of Christ's work this must not be forgotten. 
 
 II. and not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ,] In the Greek the verb "rejoice" stands, not 
 in the present indicative, but as a present participle. It is there- 
 fore co-ordinate, not with "shall be saved," but with the preceding 
 Earticiple " being reconciled. " Tins participle is therefore, as Meyer 
 as shown, the ellipsis to be supplied after "not only," and which 
 has been indefinitely supplied by " so " in our English versions. We 
 may therefore render thus: "And not only being reconciled, but 
 also making our boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ." But 
 why does the apostle, after he has seemingly completed his construc- 
 tion and the full sense, append in this way an idea already fully ex- 
 pressed in verses 2 and 3 ? The ordinary interpretation, which brings 
 the paragraph to a complete close at the end of verse 11, gives no 
 answer to this question. We think, however, that Haul calls up 
 again this idea of boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Clirist 
 tliat he may give us the magnificent expouition of the grounds of 
 this boasting which foUovVS (verses 12-21 ). Meanthne the att-achment 
 of this participial clause to the participle "being reconciled" sug- , 
 goats a relative adjunct. 
 
 through whom we have now received the reconciliation.] that 
 is, the reconciliation already expressed in the participle "being recon- 
 
 \ 
 
98 ROMANS, V. [v. 12. 
 
 ciled." The full idea ia thua: " Not only reconciled but alao boaat- 
 ing in God through the aame Lord Jeaus Christ through whom we 
 have been reconciled. " It ia no longer proper to translate the word 
 used here as "atonement." "Atonement" once signified "at-one- 
 ment" or "reconciliation." It is now a theological term denoting 
 the work of Christ by which the reconciliation is efifected. 
 
 12. Therefore,] The Greek phrase thus rendered ia not a con- 
 junction but a prepoaitional adjunct, Sia tovto, " on account of this." 
 Two grammatical questions must be answered preliminary to the in- 
 terpretation — first, to what does the demonstrative pronoun tovto, 
 "this," point? on account of what? Secondly, to what predicate 
 does the adjunct 6ia tovto, " on account of this," belong? What is 
 or is done on account of this ? In answer to the first question it is 
 admitted by all that the demonstrative points to some statement or 
 thought contained in the context. That context is supposed to be 
 the preceding argument. Some find the thought to which tovto 
 points in verse 11 ; others, in the entire preceding argument, extend- 
 ing even as far back aa chapter i. 18. But in verse 11 there ia no 
 onu definite thought to which the demonatrative naturally points and 
 which gives a good point of connection for the grand discourse which 
 follows. The idea of "reconciliation" is supposed to satisfy the 
 requirements of the case. But if this were sufficient then verse 1 1 
 ia superfiuoua, aa verae 12 could be quite as well, if not better, at- 
 tached to verse 10. On the other hand, the singular demonstrative 
 tovto is altogether too definite to point back to a long train of argu- 
 ment extending over several chapters. We know of no example in 
 the New Testament to justify such an explanation of iha tovto aa a 
 connective. The ordinary anawer to our second queation is equally 
 unsatisfactory. It is at once admitted that there is no verb or predi- 
 cate follpwing to which 6il, "on account of," naturally links itself. 
 The attempt, therefore, tj make rf«a tovto link to a predicate follow- 
 ing and point to a logical connection preceding fails at both ends. 
 Giving it the most favourable construction possible it would read 
 thus: " Through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all 
 men to justification of life on account of the reconciliation." This 
 might pass aa good logical connection at first eight, but it will not, 
 bear minute examination ; and in whatever Paul may fail as to per- 
 fection of style he never fails in perfectly accurate definiteneaa of 
 logical connection. We must turn, therefore, to examine the use of 
 iSiii tovto as a logical connective. 
 
 First, doea this connecting phrase invariably introduce a conclu- 
 sion from antecedent premises to which premises tovto points ? While 
 it is true that tovto usually refers to what precedea, it ia not un- 
 frequently used in classical Greek to point to what follows. (See 
 Kilhner, 303, 1 Rem. 1.) May it not then be sometimes used to 
 assign the basis or ground of an antecedent statement, to which basis 
 or ground tovto points forward? The following are examples of 
 Paul's use of the phrase: — 
 
12.] ROMANS, V. 
 
 Rom. iv. 16. — "It is of faith on this account, that it may be ac- 
 cording to grace." Here evidently tovto points forward to a ground 
 or reason for the statement made in the antecedent clause to which 
 TOVTO belongs. 
 
 Rom. xiii. 6. — "For on this account ye also pay tribute, because 
 they are God's ministers," etc. Here again tovto points forward to 
 the reason following for the statement made in the antecedent clause. 
 
 1 Cor. iv. 17. — " On this account I have sent unto you Timotheus, 
 etc., who shall remind you," equivalent to "that he may remind 
 you." Here again the tovto points forward to a reason. 
 
 1 Thess. ii. 13. — "On this account also we give thanks ... be 
 cause having received the word ... ye received it not as the word 
 of man," etc. Here again the tovto points forward to the following 
 statement of the ground or reason of the apostolic thanksgiving. 
 
 In all these cases the following clause may be construed as a sub- 
 stantive in apposition with tovto. These passages, however, differ 
 from the one before us in two respects : first, <^ia tovto stands at the 
 beginning of the clause to which it belongs ; secondly, the substan- 
 tive clause to which tovto points has a specifij introductory particle, 
 as tpa, oTi or yni>. These two diflferences, however, have a nacural 
 explanation in the peculiarities of the individual passages. The fol- 
 lowing are still nearer our present construction : — 
 
 John vii. 21, 22. — " I have wrought one work, (and ye all wonder) 
 on this account : — Moses gave you circumcision, " etc. Here wo have 
 a perfect logical connection if we make (ha tovto, not introductory, 
 but pointing to our Lord's defence, which follows without any intro- 
 ductory particle. 
 
 Matt, xviii. 22, 23. — "I say not unto thee. Until seven times; 
 but, Until seventy timec seven, on this account. " Then follows the 
 parable to which the tovto points, and which assigns here again, 
 without any introductory particle, the ground or reason on which 
 our Lord bases his teaching. On this use of the demonstrative in 
 reference to a following clause see Winer, pp. 200, 201 ; also, for the 
 classical use, Ktihner, § 304, 2. The demonstrative so used always 
 gives special prominence or emphasis to the clause, sentence or para- 
 graph so pointed out. 
 
 We have but to accept this use of (ha tovto here and then the con- 
 nection with verse 11 is perfectly plain, and the writer's object in 
 iutroducing that verse in its participial form becomes clear. We 
 tlien render "And not only being reconciled, but also making our 
 bo.iat in God through Jesus Christ, etc., on this account." We be- 
 lieve this to be the true construction- - 
 
 1. Because it explains the otherwise superfluous introduction of 
 verse 11. 
 
 2. Because it makes a perfect and close connection from clause to 
 clause, as is St. Paul's wont. 
 
 3. It throws, by means of the demonstrative, the entire paragraph 
 following, as the around of Christian boasting, into that distinctioe 
 prominence which its supreme importance requirea. 
 
100 kOMANS, V. tv. 15i. 
 
 PART II. — THE GROUNDS. 
 
 as through one man sin entered into the world,] The particle 
 of comparison here used is the strongest, equal to "just as." Paul 
 proceeds, however, but a little way with the statement of the first 
 term of the comparison before the points of unlikeness begin to 
 appear, and he is forced to suspend the second member until these 
 have been cleared away. It is not, therefore, till verse 18 that the 
 comparison is completed, and then with a weaker particle. The 
 parallel is between Adam and Christ. By this parallel the apostle 
 aims to bring to view the fulness of the ground of our boasting. 
 This presentation by contrast, requiring first a statement of our rela- 
 tion to Adam, gives us thus incidentally the most complete exposi- 
 tion of the doctrine of original sin to be found in Sacred Writ. The 
 " one man " is evidently Adam. Paul touches the same thought in 
 1 Cor. XV. 21. Sin is here used with the article as a generic term; 
 not a sin, but sin as a moral fact, henceforth continuous in human 
 history. (Compare ch. vii. for a similar use of the article before the 
 word sin.) The "world" is here, not the planet, but the world 
 of moral order. 
 
 and death through sin ;] Death, like sin, is generalized by the 
 article. Death entered the world by means of sin. That it did so 
 as a penalty is evident, not only from the history of the case, but 
 also from Paul's own words (ch. vi. 23). But this penalty, in Paul's 
 conception, is attached, not to the sin of each individiial indepen- 
 dently, but to the M'hole race in virtue of the common sin which was 
 introduced by Adam. Death here must be taken in the Pauline 
 sense of (a) conscious separation from God (ch. vii. 9, etc.), and 
 (6) the death of the body (1 Cor. xv. 21, 22). This death has not 
 merely a natural but a moral connection with sin, i.e., a connection 
 ordained by moral law. 
 
 and so death passed unto all men,] That is, by means of the 
 generic sin introduced by the first man. The adverb "so," refer- 
 ring to the fact stated in the previous clause, fixes the ground of the 
 universal extension of death, not in universal individual sin, but in 
 the generic sin introduced by the one man. If we call this the impu- 
 tation of Adam's sin to all the race, such a term must be carefully 
 guarded. Paul neither asserts nor implies the universal extension 
 of Adam's guilt to the race. He simply asserts the universal exten- 
 sion of the penalty without touching the underlying question of the 
 principle under which this extension takes place. 
 
 for that all sinned : — ] According to our revised version this as- 
 signs a second explanation of the universal extension of death, the 
 first explanation being contained in the adverb "so." If our ver- 
 sions are correct then these two explanations must be harmonized, 
 i.e., it must be shown how the universal doom of death is at once the 
 result of the introduction of generic death through Adam's generic 
 sin, and at the same time the result of universal individual sin aa a 
 
V. 12.] ROMANS, V. 101 
 
 fact of history. The aorist tense in the clause before us expresses a 
 historical fact. The tense refuses to accommodate itself to the ren- 
 dering, " all have been treated as sinners " (Hodge, and most Armin-, 
 ians), or "all are sinful" (Calvin, Watson, etc.). "All sinned in 
 Adam " (Bengel, Olshausen, Philippi and Meyer) involves an unjus- 
 tifiable addition. The definite historical character of the expression 
 is clearly recognized by Tholuck, Stuart and Lange, and also by 
 Whedon as a generalization of a historical fact. But how can uni- 
 versal death be founded on universal individual sin in harmony with 
 the statement that it is founded on the original generic sin. Only 
 on the theory that generic sin produces universal individual sin, and 
 this individual sin, death. But if this were Paul's thought he could 
 hardly fail to have stated it directly, thus : " By one man sin entered 
 into the world, and so all have sinned, and so all die." Further, 
 such a statement would be true as fact only by some such explana- 
 tion of the words " all sinned " as we have found above adopted by 
 Calvin and Watson, but excluded by grammatical principles. In- 
 fants who die in infancy cannot be said to have sinned, though they 
 may be said to be sinful. Even Whedon's generalization of the ex- 
 pression "all sinned " as a universal fact does not obviate the diffi- 
 culty, since, if generic sin brings penalty only through individual 
 transgression, it matters not whether that generic sin belongs to the 
 first man or to the race at large, it can, on the theory, touch the 
 individual only through his individual sin. Both the grammatical 
 structure and the logical connection, therefore, compel us to abandon 
 the interpretation which makes this clause assign the ground or rea- 
 son of the universal extension of death. We are therefore driven 
 back to re-examine the connective particle E<p w. It occurs as a con- 
 nective in the New Testament four times, all in the 'vritlngs of St. 
 Paul, viz., here, again in 2 Cor. v. 4, and in Phil. iii. 12 and iv. 10. 
 In the second passage we have in the textus receptus eKeidrf, and the 
 translation is without doubt "because " or "for that " In the re- 
 maining passages, where the reading is uniform, it evidently means 
 " on account of which," i.e., the relative pronoun is used in its simple 
 relative sense, and not as an abbreviation for a demonstrative ante- 
 cedent, pointing to the following sentence, followed by a relative con- 
 junctive — "on account of this that." Schleusner adduces classical 
 passages in which this simp/e relative use obtains. In this case the 
 antecedent of the relative is to be found in some idea contained in 
 the preceding context. Here the relative ^ would be taken as neuter, 
 and refers, not to death, but to the entire fact stated in the two pre- 
 ceding clauses. We may render thus: "By one man sin entered 
 into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed through unto 
 all men; upon which antecedent state of things "all have sinned" 
 (as already stated). If we accept this translation the relative clause 
 before us introduces, not a mere reason of a statement just made, 
 hut a collateral idea which here breaks in upon him, and which he 
 follow up to the end of verse 14, when he returns to advance his 
 
102 ROMANS, V. [v. 13. 
 
 line of thought, not by completing the comparison begun in regular 
 form, but by a new and more indefinite mode of expression. The 
 collateral idea thus introduced Paul had previously repeatedly as- 
 serted (ch. iii. 10, 19), and he introduces it anew here to place it in 
 its true connection, since in the facts of the preceding context we 
 have assigned the reason of the well-known fact of universal sin. 
 Paul's full protasis or first member of comparison thus consists of 
 four elements — the sin of one man, death by sin, universal death, 
 universal sin. These same four elements we shall find in the protasis 
 when in verses 18 and 19 he repeats his comparison in perfect form. 
 But this protasis, especially in its fourth element, requires an expla- 
 nation which will at the same time be a strong proof of the entire 
 thesis. This Paul pauses to insert, thus breaking in on the comple- 
 tion of his comparison. 
 
 13. for until the law sin was in the world :] Paul, having in the 
 preceding verse completed his protasis or first term of comparison, 
 proceeds in verses 13 and 14 to apply it to the solution of one of the 
 most difficult problems of human probation. What the exact case 
 before his mind was is not to us so obvious, and has given rise to not 
 a little diversity of interpretation. Some suppose that the problem 
 which Paul seeks to explain by this interjected paragraph arises 
 from the case of infants, who could not be held to have committed 
 sin as historical fact. It is quite possible that the category which 
 he has in mind may very properly include infants. But he himself 
 defines it as those "from Adam to Moses . . . who had not sinned 
 after the similitude of Adam's transgression. " Again, the peculiar- 
 ity under which Paul views this category is, that they were not 
 under a law by virtue of which sin could be imputed. Both these 
 characteristics may apply to infants. They have not sinned after 
 the similitude of Adam's transgression, and they are not as yet under 
 a law by which sin could be imputed. But that they were not spe- 
 cially before the mind of the apostle seems evident from the protasis 
 "all sinned," which asserts a fact which could not be asserted in 
 this form of infants. We conclude, therefore, that Paul's illustra- 
 tion of his main thesis was made, not with reference to the case of 
 infants (though it may in part apply them, and also to the Gentiles 
 outside the law), but with reference to the case of the entire world 
 before the giving of the law. That " all sinned " none of his readf;rs 
 would be disposed to deny. That death was the penalty of sin they 
 would also admit. That specific penalty can be inflicted, i.e., that 
 a moral agent can be held amenable to specific penalty only where 
 there is specific law, was also an obvious axiom of morals. But in 
 the case of those who lived before the giving of the law, it is impossi- 
 ble to apply and harmonize these acknowledged principles except on 
 the basis of that doctrine of the transmission of sin and penalty which 
 is involved in Paul's fourfold protasis. The fact that God did so 
 apply these principles to these very men (in harmony, as it must be, 
 with his justice) la therefore proof positive, as well as illustration, 
 
V. 13 ] ROMANS, V. 108 
 
 of the truth of the doctrine of the protasis. We may therefore tabu- 
 late Paul's line of thought as follows: — 
 
 1. Protasis or first term of comparison. 
 
 (a) By one man the sin entered into the world, 
 
 (b) and the death by the nin; 
 
 (c) and so the death passed through unto all men, 
 
 (d) Upon which antecedent moral basis all sinned. 
 
 2. Illustration and proof of protasis. 
 
 For (taking the most difficult of all instances of human probation — 
 those who are without specific revelation of moral law) 
 
 (rt) before the Mosaic law sin clearly existed in the world. 
 
 {h) Yet sin is not held for specific penalty where there is not 
 specific law. 
 
 (c) But this sin was held for specific penalty inasmuch as death 
 reigned universally ; and inasmuch as it was not intro- 
 duced by specific transgression, as in the case of Adam's 
 sin, it must (both sin and penalty) have passed through 
 unto all men from the first tranxgressor. 
 
 3. Apodosis, or second term of comparison, but in irregular form. 
 
 " VVho is the figure of him that was to come." 
 Verses 13 and 14 become thus at once the illustration and proof of 
 i-'ue apostle's doctrine of the "passing through " of sin and its penalty 
 of death tinto all men. In the light of this illustration we are now 
 in a position to define this doctrine. It must be carefully discrimi- 
 nated from what we regard as the Augustinian exaggeration of impu- 
 tation on the one hand, and from the Pelagian doctrine of mere ex- 
 ample on the other. The Pelagian doctrine is at once excluded by 
 Paul's statement that in the absence of specific law sin cannot origi- 
 nate, or be charged with specific penalty. From Adam to Mosea 
 men did not sin after the likeness (nor example) of Adam's trans- 
 gression. Godet thinks that if this were the thought before the 
 apostle's mind he would have introduced the "law written on the 
 heart " as the basis of responsibility. But the apostle is not here 
 discussing the case of ordinary responsibility for sin. He doubtless 
 would have admitted that these men were individually responsible 
 for their sins according to the light which they pos8es.ied. That is 
 an entirely separate question from the one now before the apostle's 
 mind, and to confuse the two will lead to serious error. Ordinary 
 individual responsibility may exist either under general principles 
 of moral law in the heart or conscience, or under a specific positive 
 law. It may exist in an estate of innocency or under a fallen estate. 
 But if we read Paul's axiom aright specific sin, involving specific 
 penalty, can only originate under specific law. However, there'-ire, 
 the men from Adam to Moses might be amenable to the general law 
 of conscience, they could not, like Adam, originate sin against a 
 specific law involving specific penalty, and hence death could not be 
 considered the personal penalty of their individual transgressions 
 The law written on the heart does not therefore apply here. Th 
 
104 ROMANS, V. [v. 13. 
 
 Pelagian theory, that sin passes through by the force of example, 
 etc., is thus excluded by Paul's statement that at least to this part 
 of mankind individual sin could not be charged for specific penalty. 
 Paul's doctrine, therefore, clearly implies some link between the 
 first sinner and all men by which probaUonat reHpondhUity ^'passes 
 throu(/h." From Augustine downward the Christian world has recog- 
 nized this as Paul's teaching in this passage ; and to Augustine be- 
 longs the great merit of having first clearly understood the inspired 
 teacher on this point. But we must be very careful not to make 
 Paul say more than he fairly implies. This link may be easily mag- 
 nified into a chain which so binds us to Adam as to leave no freedom 
 for individual responsibility. Confining ourselves strictly to the 
 work of exegesis, and avoiding questions which belong to systematic 
 theology, we find in the words of Paul that this " passing through " 
 pertains to two points — 
 
 1. Directly " death," the penalty of sin, " passes through unto all 
 men." This death, as we have seen, involves in J^aul's teaching 
 (rt) physical death (1 Cor. xv. 21, 22); (b) conscious separation of the 
 Boul from God (Rom. vii. 9, 10). 
 
 2. The original basis of responsibility under which the first man 
 sinned, and so originated sin, so reaches down to us, that though we 
 could not without specific law originate sin, yet from the original 
 moral platform of the race we are chargeable with our sins just as if 
 they had been committed in Eden. " Upon which basis all sinned." 
 
 To sum up both points in one view. Paul's doctrine implies a 
 unity of the race in moral responsibility, in virtue of which they share 
 in the common penalty of that sin which was introduced into the 
 world by the first sinner to the extent of being subje6t to physical 
 death and conscious moral separation from God, and in virtue of 
 which they are responsible, not merely for the moral light individ- 
 ually enjoyed, but also for the original heritage of moral light given 
 to the race. But we must mark carefully the fact that Paul does 
 not here discuss the limits of this probational unity. He however 
 afiirms it only of the Koa/inc, i.e., the present world or moral order 
 into which sin has V)een introduced, and in which we pass our proba- 
 tion — the same world into which Christ came to save sinners. It is 
 not asserted nor implied that our relation to Adam directly deter- 
 mines eternal dcatiny. It founds the probation of a fallen creature 
 under penal disabilities, under which probation, comes our responsi- 
 bility to the law of conscience. 
 
 It now only remains to add a few notes on the verses before us. In 
 verse l.S the adverb " until " designates the termination of a period 
 possessing in Paul's view a peculiar moral character. On Paul's 
 view of the relation of revealed law to human probation see chapters 
 iii. 20, iv. Ifj, v. 20, vii throughout, also (iai. iii. 19, etc. During 
 the period prior to this intervention man's ain was chargeable in 
 virtue of his general relation to the first man, on the h&mH of the 
 light of conscience. In the axiom, " ain is not imputed when there 
 
vv. 14, 15.] ROMANS, V. 105 
 
 is no law," we meet once more the word which designates the moral 
 equutiou of man's probational account. This axiom applies to the 
 absohite or original probation, whether of the race or of the indi- 
 vidual. Without a specific or revealed law sin could never have 
 been charged to the race, and there could have been no probation. 
 Without such law sin cannot be charged to the individual tor specific 
 individual punishment, even though in consequence of the common 
 probation of the race he may be amenable to the common penalty, 
 inchiding a personal consciousness of his individual sinfulness. The 
 expression " when there is no law " must not be confused with the 
 term *' without " or *' apart from law." The case in question is that 
 of the entire absence of a revelation, not that of its absence from the 
 consciousness of the individual acting. A man may be amenable to 
 an existing law even when he neglects to recognize it. 
 
 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even 
 over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's trans- 
 gression,] The expression " the likeness of Adam's transgression " 
 here opens up Paul's meaning. That transgression was a defiidte 
 sin against a positive law, to which was annexed a deKnite penalty. 
 Such a transgression could only occur under a positive law, and was 
 not possible prior to the giving of such law. The phrase "those 
 who had not sinned," etc., thus designates, not some part of the 
 \vorld before Moses (as infants), but the whole world of that period. 
 
 who is a figure of him that was to come.] This represents for 
 the present Paul's apodosis, or the second term of his comparison. 
 He began with a strong particle of comparison, "Just as by one man 
 sin entered into the world;" and perfect form would have required 
 liim to complete it thus, "even so by one man righteousness came 
 anil life," etc. But as he expanded the first term of the comparison 
 the points of unlikeness came into view, as well as those of resem- 
 l)lance. He therefore drops for the moment the perfect and strong 
 form of parallel and contents himself with merely saying, in this 
 inilefinite rel itive clause, that Adam was tlie figure of Christ. Alter 
 lie has, in the three following verses, pointed out the limitations of 
 tills resemblance, he then returns to the parallel in verse 18, whenj 
 it is presented in perfect logical form. The type is literally the ir.- 
 pression produced by the blow (as of the seal in stamping). The 
 typical resemblance m.ist not, however; be extended beyond the 
 point here under consideration. On these parallel doctrines of sin 
 and grace, see excursus at the end of this chapter. 
 
 15. But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift.] This intro- 
 duces the first limitation to tlie analogy. The two terms use*! to 
 tU'signate the beginning of sin and of grace are worthy of note. The 
 first is called a "fall," literally, the fall caused by stumbling against 
 some obstruction. The term is used by Longinus to denote an age 
 of decadence in literature. The second is a " free gift. " IJoth terms 
 refer to man— in one tlie agent, in the other the recipient. Sin is a 
 fall, hence his own; salvation is God's gracious gift. 
 
106 ROMANS, V. [v, 16. 
 
 For if by the trespass of the one the many died,] " For " intro- 
 duces or explains the divergence. Of this divergence Paul makes a 
 thrfeefold statement. The divergence touches a single point in each 
 of the three statements. But the main fact of parallelism so occupies 
 Paul's mind that even in the statement of these three points of differ- 
 ence he repeatedly presents the full parallel. This parallel is the 
 same which he afterwards presents directly in verses 18 and 19. Its 
 terms are: 1. One man, Adam, and one man, Christ. 2. The fall 
 and the grace. 3. The many sinning, dying, condemned, and the 
 many saved, justified, reigning in life. In rhetorical variation Paul 
 does indeed repeat this parallel not less than five times between 
 verses 15 and 19 — first, three times incidentally, while pointing out 
 divergences; then twice directly, i.e., as his main assertion, but 
 with important variation of point of view. In fact, the five several 
 statements give us each a new point of view of the same grand anal- 
 ogy. We cease to wonder that Paul should so repeat this thought 
 and dwell so long around it when we remember that in it lies the 
 deepest essence of the profoundest doctrine of the Christian religion, 
 the doctrine of the atonement. In the exposition of verses 15, 16 
 and 17, we must first define Paul's three points of divergence, and 
 then note the varied views of the fundamental parallel which he has 
 at the same time incidentally given us. In the clause before us the 
 point of divergence is the quantity or extent of the infiuence of grace. 
 It far surpasses the power of sin. This is expressed by the verb 
 "did abound " and by the adverb " much more. " This quantity or 
 extent is not, however, numerical. It does not mean hath abound- 
 ed unto a "much greater many." This would not be true. The 
 apostle sees the objects of grace and the subjects of the fall each a 
 countless number. He does not compare numbers. We think his 
 point of view is such that here the number and the individuals com- 
 posing that number are identical as subjects of the fall and objects 
 of grace, i.e. , all mankind. He is contemplating simply the relative 
 
 Eower of influence. The influence of the fall is definitely measured 
 y its result, death ; that of grace, Paul says simply, is far greater. 
 We take it that Paul is here speaking of these influences from the 
 standpoint of prthational admntaye or disadvantage. We think this 
 because he uses the aorist tense pointing to a general historical fact 
 of the past. Prcs<;ntly we shall find him using the future tense and 
 pointing, not to the equation of probational advantages which have 
 occurred in human life, but to the final results which are yet to 
 occur. Whatever the universal benefits of the atonement are, as 
 they come to us, they arc something far greater than the disadvan- 
 tage of spiritual and physical death which conies to us through the 
 fall. And Paul says " they abound," i.e., thev flow forth to us with 
 the most lavish freeness. They are such gifts as light of divine 
 truth, inHuences of the Holy Spirit, quickening of conscience, ex- 
 ample, love of Christ constraining us, eto. We have Paul's authority 
 for saying that, terrible as is the power of sin by which we are dead, 
 
 '^'■■9:,.*.tMiti«i,i M.A.. 
 
V. 16.] ROMANS, V. . 107 
 
 the power of these influences is far greater, even sufficient to aviike 
 t he dead. The incidental point of view of the parallel is correspon- 
 oent. The two moral forces out of which our probation is made up 
 — sin from Adam, grace from Christ — correspond one to the other in 
 nature of influence, each touching our probational relation to God, 
 but not in extent, Christ's grace to save surpassing. 
 
 much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of 
 the one man, 'Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.] In the first 
 clause of this verse Paul uses the term, ;^;op/<T//a, " free gift." In the 
 present clause he seems to analyze that term. It includes " grace," 
 Xnpig, that in the divine nature which leads God to give, and "the 
 gift," 6o)p£a, that which divine grace gives in Christ. Both these 
 "abound," i.e., overflow toward the sinner. 
 
 i6. And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift:] In in- 
 troduciu;; his second point of divergence Paul repeats his formula 
 with a slight variation. The first touched the extent of influence ; 
 this touches the source or state of afl'airs out of which the influence 
 flows. Hence the introduction of th« expression " through one that 
 sinned" instead of "through the fall of the one." The one that 
 sinned is not viewed now as the author of moral evil, but simply* as, 
 in his single sin, the occasion, the starting point from which the 
 intervention of judgment began its work. 
 
 for the judgment came of one unto condemnation,] The inter- 
 vention of judgment required but one single oflence from which to 
 set forth toward its final result, condemnation. 
 
 but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification.] 
 As if Paul had said, "One oflence was suflicient to originate con- 
 demnation, but a great many are not suflicient to prevent justifica- 
 tion." This is the evident meaning; how does the construction ex- 
 press it ? Simply by taking the Greek preposition ek in a quasi-topical 
 sense here. The condemnation is a force starting from (f«) the point 
 of the first sin and pressing man towards final condemnation. Gract* 
 is a force meeting this and opposing it, and overcoming not it alone 
 but also the condemning force of many other transgressions, and so 
 bearing man back toward the goal of "that which fulfils the demands 
 of law." The word "justification," though not a true translation, 
 expresses the sense. AiKaiufia is the act which law requires, which 
 fulfils law, and hence justifies, as mTaKpifia, to which it is here op- 
 posed, is the sentence of the judge which pronounces condemnation. 
 " Unto that which fulfils law, and so justifies," is equivalent in 
 effect to " nnto juntification." Godet goes further and supposes that 
 (hKaiufta here signifies " the sentence of justification," instead of the 
 act or conduct upon which that sentence is based. The second point 
 of divergence becomes thus a proof of the first; i.e., the fact that the 
 act of grace wipes out many ofiences, any one of which was autlicient 
 to have deserved the original penalty, proves how nuich more abuti- 
 dant is the graue than the fall, The incidental parallel again corrn* 
 
108 . ROMANS, V. [v. 17. 
 
 ponds. Judgment against sin and pardoning grace, condemnation 
 and justification, are antithetically parallel, 
 
 17. For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through 
 ■the one ;] This is the third point of divergence. It is, like the first 
 point, a difference in extent of influence ; but uot, as there, influence 
 measured in relation to the probatiou of man in the present life, but 
 influence measured by its final results in the future. The three 
 verses may therefore be summed up as follows: — 
 
 C4race differs from the fall — (1) in tliat its gifts of saving help to 
 man in his moral probation far exceed his loss through the fall, 
 which is seen (2) in that while the fall entails the penalty of one 
 transgression, grace removes the penalty of many ; and (3) in that 
 the future kingdom of life will far surpass even the terrible extent 
 of the present kingdom of death. 
 
 much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and 
 of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even 
 Jesus Christ.] We have interpreted " much more," both here and 
 in verse 15, as referring to extent of ivfliwnce, not numerically (the 
 number of persons reached), but potentially, the power of help 
 bought to each (verse lo), or the "weight of glory" accruing to 
 each (verse 17). Meyei*, Godet and others interpret "much more" 
 of logical certainty, *^ much more aurely." Tliis might hold in verse 
 17, where the verb is in the future tense. But it can hardly apply 
 to verse 15, with its verb in the aorist. IJut if, in verse 15, " much 
 more " refers to the surpassing potency of grace as compared with 
 sin, then in verse 17 we can scarcely give tlie very same phrase an 
 entirely different meaning. "Much more" must be taken here, as 
 in verse 15, of extent of influence, md tliat measured potentially 
 and not numerically, since un<ler no possible conception could it be 
 said that the number saved in Christ exceeded the number who fell 
 through Adam. The peculiar statement of the pai-allelism again 
 corresponds to the point of difference. One man (Adam) is twice 
 mentioned to throw into more emphatic contrast the very full desig- 
 nation "the one, Jesus Christ." The trespass is again placed over 
 against the grace; but mark, it is "the abundance of grace and of 
 the gift of righteousness" — "abundance of grace" (potontipl extent 
 of grace in this life, verse 15), and "abundance of the gift of right- 
 eousness " (wiping out many offences, verse 10). This clause of verse 
 17 thus sums up the ideas of both 15 and 10. Again, the rf>ign of 
 death over uh is contrasted with onr reiifn in life. 
 
 The relation of the entire verse 17 to verses 15 and 10 has given 
 rise to great diversity of opinion. The apostle introduces the verse 
 by "for." The second clause of verses 15 and 10 is likewise intro- 
 duced by "for;" but in each of the cases the conjunction attaches 
 directly to the flrst clause of the same verse — " Not as the trespass, 
 so also is the free gift. For,'' etc. Hut here the introductory clause 
 is not repeated to form the point of attachment to this third " for." 
 But is it not clearly to be understood? A series of co-ordinate 
 
 ^V'jfji^, */» 
 
V. 18.] ROMANS, V. 109 
 
 clauses, introduced by the same conjunction and all attached to the 
 one leading clause or thought, is quite in Paul's style. Verse 17 is 
 thus the third expansion (with j'ap explicatory) of the leading theme, 
 "Not as the ofFenco, so also is the free gift," which having been 
 twice expressed is not here repeated. Godet's history of the case, 
 and his own attempt to account for the conjuncticn 'for" by at- 
 taching it directly to verse IG, prove the utter uselessness of all at- 
 tempts to construct a logical connection otherwise. But while the 
 grammatical connection is as stated, the thought doubtless moves 
 forward in a natural order from verse 16 to verse 17 as from verse 
 15 to verse 16. We have seen already that verse 16 not only ad- 
 vances a new thought beyond verse 15, but at the same time sup- 
 plies further proof of the thought* already advanced. And so verse 
 17, especially by combining, as we have seen, in one of its parallel 
 terms the ideas of both verses, advances to a climax. Grace is 
 mightier than sin, for it in this life stems the tide not of one sin but 
 of many, and in the life to come will raise us from being slaves under 
 the kingdom of death to being partners of the throne in the kingdom 
 of life. The ascent of this climax follows the line of potential influ- 
 ence, while numerical extent is narrowed down to the finally saved. 
 First to the many, i.e., to the all who are under spiritual death, 
 comes a richdt gift of grace reinstating them in probation. Then 
 under that probation comes a further gift of justification from many 
 trespasses; and finally, to those who have received (in Greek, "laid 
 hold of") both the grace and the gift of justification (righteousness) 
 there comes the "reign in life." 
 
 i8. So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto 
 all men to condemnation;] The apostle having thus completed his 
 "not as," i.e., the limitations or (lualifications of the parallel be- 
 tween sin and grace, resumes the uirect and full statement of the 
 parallel by two expressive particles of connection, "«o then." The 
 first of these, apa, "so," signifies "under these circumstances." 
 The circumstances are the (jualifying thoughts just expressed. The 
 second, ovv, "then," is resumptive. It takes "J}» a ime of thought 
 dropped for a time, and i"ay be represented by onr phrase, "as I 
 was saying." The two may be expanded thus: " With these qualifi- 
 cations, as I was saying." This gives us immediate ci^se connection 
 with the preceding verses, and avoids the reference back to (hn tovto. 
 The particle translated "as " is not quite so strong as that first used 
 by Paul in verso 12. While the parallel is still clear the points of 
 difference have come into view, and the more common term of like- 
 ness is sufiicient. We have already (verse 15) defined the word 
 here translated "trespass." It certainly refers to a definite fact 
 and act. But "trespass" limits our thought too much to the act, 
 while "fall" would turn our attention a little too exclusively to the 
 couaoquences of the act. The Greek word includes both the sinful 
 act and its immediate consequence in the change of relation of man 
 to God. The word "judgment" is supplied in our version from 
 
no ROMANS, V. [v. 18 
 
 verse 16. But this too much limits the broad scope of the original. 
 That consists of two clauses each denoting tendency or result, and 
 each governed by the preposition "unto," which, as we hava seen, 
 is Paul's favourite preposition *",c> denote the historical terminus to- 
 ward which a thing moves, but at which it may not yet have arrived. 
 By "the one fall'' there exist j a moral power or influence moving 
 out from the first man " toward all men, and moving " toward con- 
 demnation" in every individual case. The word "condemnation," 
 opposed in verse 16 to "that work which justifies," is here opposed 
 to the act of justification, SiKaiumg. This is a little wider than our 
 term "sentence of justification." It refers to the whole process by 
 which the judge brings forth to light the righteousness of the man 
 who is upon his trial. But this forensic sense fails, as it always 
 must, to bring out f" 3 full evangelical meaning. Both words, "con- 
 demnation" and "justification," are more than a process at law. 
 They include that moral power in sin and right-doing which places 
 a man in wrong relation to God on the one hand, or in right relation 
 on the othci"; i.e., the condemning power of sin and the meritorious 
 power of right- doing. The one fall or act of transgression puts forth 
 a condemnatory influence reaching out toward all men. So the one 
 grand act or work of righteousness puts forth a power to justify 
 reaching out toward all men. * 
 
 even so throu|^h one act of riehteousness the free gift came 
 unto all men to justification of life.] First, what is this " one act 
 of righteousness"? Evidently the work of Jesus Christ, and pre- 
 eminently his giving himself unto death for our sins. We shall 
 refer to an important parallel passage when we come to the next 
 verse. Meantime let us here observe that the justifying power or 
 value of Christ's work, or, as in chapter iii. 25, its propitiatory effi- 
 cacy, lies in its being a diKaiufia, that which fulfils the law of right. 
 Some have held that this refers to the demand of the law for penalty, 
 and that Christ's diKaiufia is his suffering of the penalty, and so 
 satisfying law. It is not clear, however, that the word will ever 
 bear the meaning thus put upon it. We think rather that the par- 
 allel in the next verse and in the passage there referred to indicate 
 that it was not the mere negative suffering of penalty, but the aupreme 
 moral worth of the act of love and sacrifice in which he bowed to 
 suffer penalty, which constitutes the valency, or justifying or pro- 
 pitiatory efficacy, of Christ's death. This would give its natural 
 ordinary meaning to rf^/co/w^ua, "an act of right-doing." But leaving 
 Paul in the next verse to explain the full meaning of this word we 
 find him here asserting that from this one act of right-doing there 
 goes forth " toward all men " that which leads toward or works to- 
 ward justification of life. The supplying of the terms "judgment" 
 and "free gift" from verse 16 is scarcely admissible. Still less so 
 is Godet's rendering, which makes condemnation and justification 
 the respective subjects of a substantive verb. "There was unto all 
 men condemnation," etc. This implies an immediate imputation not 
 
V. 19.] R0MAN8, V. Ill 
 
 to be proven from this passage or to be found in any other. "By 
 one act of transgression (or fall) it is unto all men unto condemna- 
 tion, even so by one act of right-doing it is unto all men unto justifi- 
 cation of life." Paul's words are most carefully chosen. He does 
 not describe nor even give a name to this condemnatory or justifica- 
 tory outgoing which reaches toward all men. It is not condemna- 
 tion itself but a something moving toward condemnation ; not justifi- 
 cation itself but something moving toward justification. This prepo- 
 sition etf is very carefully chosen. If the noun without the preposi- 
 tion were used then our thoughts would revert to the idea of a direct 
 imputation. It is not condemnation on the one hand nor justification 
 on the other which goes forth from the *' one act," but that which 
 leads toward these results, though each may fall short of Us end. 
 Individual probation is thus maintained. Neither the fall nor the 
 atonement supersedes it. But the second eiq introduces another 
 guard, "unto all men" — not the simple dative "for all men," nor 
 fTTi, "upon all men," but "towards all men." Here again the 
 
 Eower of both the fall and the atonement are universal in thdr rangr; 
 ut the eig gives room for individual probation and precludes that 
 form of universalism which has its foundation in a Calvinistic view 
 of the nature and application of the atonement. The advocates of 
 the Calvinistic view can scarcely escape from universalism with this 
 
 Eassage before them. But both Calvinistic limitation on the one 
 and and universalism on the other ai^e precluded by the true force 
 of the preposition etg. 
 
 19. r or as throueh the one man's disobedience the many were 
 made sinners,] "For" (yap) is here epexegetical, i.e., it explains 
 as well as proves the preceding proposition. There are three inter- 
 pretations of this explicatory clause: — (1) That they are identical, 
 and that "all" is expoimded by "many." (2) That they are iden- 
 tical, and that "many" equals "all." (3) That the present verse 
 presents a particular case, well understood, of the general category 
 set forth in the previous verse, and therefore at once explains and 
 proves it. 
 
 The first two interpretations are mutually destructive. They both 
 interpret KaOiar^fii as "imputation." In the first, if the imputation 
 of sin is universal the imputation of righteousness must be equally 
 universal. In the second, if the imputation of righteousness is but 
 conditionally universal, how can we affirm otherwise of sin ? Besides, 
 such an identical reiteration would neither explain nor prove verse 
 18. We must therefore study the terms of verse \9 and ascertain 
 whether they yield a sense in accord with the third line of interpre- 
 tation. The verbs are in historical tenses, aorist and future. If the 
 second refers to future historical fact the first must so refer to past. 
 The case presented is therefore historical, past or future. The verb 
 KadioT^fii signifies to place or establish in an office, e.tj., in a place of 
 trust or responsibility. But when applied to a term denoting moral 
 character or affection it signifies, both in classical and in New TestA* 
 
112 ROMANS, V. [v. 20. 
 
 ment Greek, to make one, i.e., to produce in one, such character or 
 emotion. (See (Jodet in loco. ) Such force here would ilnply, not the 
 imputation of guilt nor yet the transmission of depravity — neither 
 of these need be distinctly before the apostle's mind — but simply the 
 more general fact that as a result of Adam's one act (without any 
 assertion or theory of how this took place) a vast number of men, 
 i.e., the "all men" of verse 12, have actually become sinners. So 
 the one work of Christ shall result in a vast number becoming right- 
 eous. If this interpretation, which seems to be the simple, natural 
 sense of the words apart from dogmatic theories, be correct, then 
 we have a perfect connection of thought on the basis of the third 
 Hue of interpretation. The fact that so many have actually become 
 sinners proves and illustrates the fact that from the one act of the 
 first man there went forth toward all men that which moves toward 
 a universal condemnation. 
 
 even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be 
 made righteous.] This must be interpreted in the same way as the 
 protasis just considered, and so would mean, that without expanding 
 or asserting theories there shall be actual results of many righteous 
 from the obedience of the one. The antecedent and consequent 
 clauses in each of these two verses (18 and 19) have thus peculiar 
 logical relations. Verse 18 affirms three things — the influence of 
 sin, the influence of grace, and the analogy between tliese. But the 
 analogy is the logical link by which the fact of the influence of grace 
 is deduced from the fact of tlie influence of sin. In versfl 19 there 
 are also three propositions in precisely similar relations. But verse 
 19 is likewise the proof of verse 18, not as proving the logical pro- 
 cess or fact of analogy, but as proving from actual and well-known 
 historical fact the expressed premke of the argument from analogy, 
 and so proving pari paxsu the truth of the conclusion, "many shall 
 be made righteous." At the same time the apostle takes occasion, 
 by variation of the terms of his thesis, to make each of his proposi- 
 tions more clear in itself. The general "fall" or "act of stum- 
 bling " is made more definite, and its moral desert brought to light, 
 by the term "disobedience." So the term " act of righteousness " 
 or " fulfilment of right " is set forth as " obedience." This makes it 
 clear that Paul has b'^fore him, not at all the substitutionary suffier- 
 ing of penalty, bnt the supreme moral worth of Christ's sacrifice of 
 himself as the source of the valency of the atonement. Precisely 
 the same view is presented in Phil. ii. 5-8, which is our best parallel 
 to and comment on this verse. It there appears that the obedience 
 includes, not merely what is called our Lord's active righteousness, 
 but extends to his death and to the very for-n of tl.at death. 
 
 20. And the law came in beside, ^hat the trespass might 
 abound;] We must bear in mind that the sole object which Paul 
 has in view in this wonderful presentation of grace in contrast to 
 i|in is, to magnify the ground of our "rejoicing in God through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ." This he has done by comparing the working 
 
20.] • ROMANS, V. 118 
 
 out of grace with the working out of sin. But there is a still further 
 comparison which conduces to the same effect, the comparison of the 
 results of the law with those of grace. This Paul now introduces 
 with a (k continuative which may be translated by "moreover" or 
 "still further." "Moreover the laio" — "law" here occupies the 
 emphatic place; "came in beside," i.e., beside the power of sin and 
 the already active influence of grace whicli Paul has already carried 
 back into the region of "past sin"; "in order that" — final cause, 
 purpose, or design of God in bringing the law alongside of this an- 
 tagonistic relation of grace to sin; "the trespass" ("the fall") 
 "might abound," "be made to grow," i.e., be brought out in its 
 full natural increase or growth, as the blade, ear, anil full fruit in 
 the ear, all springing from the seed. The object of the introduction 
 of the law is to bring out of the seed of sin its full natural fruition. 
 This Pauline teaching in regard to the peculiar office and work of 
 the law we hava already touched in chapters iii. 20; iv. 15; v. 13. 
 It is still further unfolded from another point of view in chapter vii. 
 5, 7, etc., and with especial fulness in Gal. iii. 19-25, a passage quite 
 parallel to the present, and by which we may expound it. In that 
 passage we find that God's design is to bring sin out distinctly as sin, 
 and so shut us up to the faith of Christ, or to act as " our tutor to 
 bring us to Christ." This tutorial office is accomplished by bringing 
 sin out to light. The various passages referred to give us a clear 
 view of Paul's entire thought on this subject. We cannot agree 
 with Moule that Paul here speaks of a subsidiary aim of the law. 
 From his standpoint of God's economy of grace this represents the 
 one purpose of the law, not in the old time alone, but through all 
 ages. See Wesley's sermon on " The Nature, Origin, Properties and 
 Uses of the Law." 
 
 but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly:] 
 The translation of two distinct Greek words by the same English 
 term, "abound," does not give the full force of the apostle's lan- 
 guage. The first denotes simple increase, not necessarily beyond 
 measure or bound ; the second denotes overflow, measure surpassed. 
 What is the measure which grace thus surpasses? Evidently the 
 measure which the moral government of God assigns to sin. Paul's 
 teaching is that God permits sin to express itself up to full measure. 
 This measure the law, in its variety of precepts, defines by marking 
 the limits of responsibility for knowledge of right and wrong. The 
 more perfect the law the wider the range of responsibility, and 
 hence the more frequent possibility of sin. The full measure of sin 
 is greatly extended by the giving of a high form of moral law. But 
 the justification of this increasiiig responsibility, and so extending 
 tlie possibility, and in like manner the occurrence, of sin, is that 
 with its extension the measure of grace is more aburulantly extended. 
 Here lies the foundation of the duty of the church to the heathen 
 world. Send them the gospel and greater responsibility will result, 
 and even greater sin in neglecting or rejecting the gospel be commit- 
 
114 ROMANS, V. [v. 21. 
 
 ted ; but the superabounding of grace will compensate, and more, for 
 these incidental and temporary evils. This superabounding of grace 
 is the occasion of ou: glorying in God through our Lord Jesus Clirist. 
 If the Jew "resting in the law made his boast in God," much more 
 may the Christian ''boast ia God through our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 The law served only to develop the fall and the transgression, and 
 so " wrought wrath," The grace of God in Christ, on the contrary, 
 brings, not only life, but life far exceeding in extent of saving power 
 the wrath brought in by the law. Such is one aspect of the conclu- 
 sion which Paul has held steadily in view from verse 1 1 , and which 
 he has thrown into this parenthetical verse 20. But it is not in its 
 antithesis to the law, but to sin that the true glory of grace lies. 
 Hence to this tjroader ground of our glorying the apostle immediately 
 returns. 
 
 21. that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign 
 through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord.] The conjunction "that," denoting purpose, refers us back, 
 but to what? Most commentators say, where at all explicit, to the 
 clause immediately preceding, " grace did abound more exceedingly 
 in order that, as sin reigned in death," etc. But this seems almost 
 a tautology. But if verse 20 is a parenthesis thrown in by the 
 apostle because where he touches the grounds of the Christian boast- 
 ing there comes up to his mind the Jewish boasting (ch. ii. 17), then 
 the connection of verse 21 is to be found iu verse 19. Verse 21 thus 
 completes the final summary which was commenced at verse 18. 
 Verses 12-17 expounded the statement in its full form, with its 
 various incidental limitations and relations, beginning with the 
 entrance of sin by one ard ending with the reign in life through one, 
 Jesus Christ. Verses lo-21 summarize and repeat this important 
 statement in more concise and logical form, beginning with one 
 man's fall and ending with the reign of grace through Jesus Christ. 
 The points of analogy from verses 12 to 18 are thus: entrance of sin, 
 entrance of death, universality of sin and universality of death on 
 the one hand ; and on the other, the more abundant provision or gift 
 of probational grace, the more abundant forgiveness of many tres- 
 passes, and tke final reign in life through Jesus Christ. In this first 
 statement the apostle has before him more particularly the indi- 
 vidual probational agent. All these (one by one) have sinned. All 
 these, even where they did not sin after the similitude of Adam's 
 transgression, died. But to each came the more abundant gift by 
 grace and the opportunity of justification from their many trespasses ; 
 and to those who lay hold of these gifts comes the reign in life through 
 Christ. In the reaam6 beginning with verse 18 the points of analogy 
 are more general, and presented in more perfect logical order. On 
 the one hand we have the one fall, and disobedience and its universal 
 penal consequence, looking to final condemnation; or, from the 
 standpoint of moral probation, the disobedience which made many 
 sinners, resulting in a reign of sin in death. On the other hand we 
 
21.] ROMANS, V. 115 
 
 have the one grand work of righteousness, with its universal grace 
 looking to final justification; or, from the standpoint of moral pro- 
 bation, the obedience which makes many righteous, resulting in the 
 reign of grace through righteousness unto eternal life. It should be 
 noted that in this last verse the contrast is made, not between sin 
 and grace, nor yet between sin and righteousness, but between sin 
 and grace working out its kingdom through righteousness. Sin is 
 not only a controlling power in human life but a cause of guilt ; and 
 so grace brings not only redemption from the power of sin but also 
 from its guilt. 
 
 Having thus arrived at the conclusion of Paul's statement of the 
 occasion of the Christian's boasting in God through Jesus Christ we 
 may recapitulate his argument from verse 1 1 as follows : — 
 
 We shall be saved by the life of Christ, not only having been 
 reconciled but also making our boast in God through this Christ (by 
 whose death we were reconciled) on this account: that as by one 
 man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of 
 one shall many be made righteous, in order that as sin reigned in 
 death, even so may grace reign through righteousness unto eternal 
 life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 Excursus on the Dogmatic Teachings of this Chapter. 
 
 The doctrinal statements concerning sin and salvation which Paul 
 thus brings into antithesis as the foundation of the Christian's boast- 
 ing or supreme confidence in God are the most fundamental in the 
 Christian system, differentiating it from all other theistic religions. 
 The chapter before us furnishes us the most complete statement to 
 be found in scripture of the doctrine of the fall iu*Adam, and one of 
 the most explicit of the doctrine of the atonement in Christ. These 
 important doctrines are not based upon this chapter alone, inasmuch 
 as they are clearly presupposed in many other passages not only of 
 Paul's writings but also of other New Testament authors. Nor 
 would this passage, taken by itself alone, suffice for the full state- 
 ment of either one of these important doctrines. For the doctrine 
 of sin we must at least add the important statements of chapters i. , 
 ii. and vii. ; and for the doctrine of the atonement we require im- 
 portant assistance from chapter iii. , as well as from the second chap- 
 ter of the epistle to the Philippians. But these facts do not diminish 
 the claim of the present chapter to the foremost place in the exposi- 
 tion of the Biblical doctrines of sin and of the atonement. It be- 
 comes, therefore, important to distinguish clearly what is and what 
 is not implied in the statements of this chapter. First as to the 
 doctrine of sin, it is clearly set forth that Adam's sin is not an iso- 
 lated historical fact, but bears a potential relation to the universal 
 sinfulness of the race. This idea lies in two statements — verse 12, 
 "upon which antecedent condition of things all have sinned;" and 
 still more directly verse 19, "through one man's disobedience many 
 
lie ' ROMANS, V. 
 
 were made sinners. " But in neither of these statements is there to 
 be found the idea of imputation of Adam's sin, nor indeed any ex- 
 pressed reference to any other theory of the transmission of sin from 
 the first man to the whole race. We may fairly call in the doctrine 
 of the hereditary transmission of depravity found in other scrip- 
 tures, but we cannot quote the present passage as proof of that doc- 
 trine. Again, it is very clearly stated that the first sin is the cause 
 of universal death. The interpretation of this term '* death " as 
 " conscious separation from (Jod," as well as " separation of the soul 
 from the body," we may fairly deduce from Paul's teaching in chap- 
 ter vii., where see notes. Still, the foremost idea here seems to be 
 physical death (verse 14). The statements in verse 12, *' death passed 
 through unto all men;" verse 14, "death reigned from Adam to 
 Moses;" verse 15, "by the trespass of the one the many died;" verse 
 17, " by the trespass of the one death reigned," all point to the well- 
 known fact of universal physical death, though the expression in 
 verse 21, "sin reigned in death," would seem better interpreted nf 
 spiritual death. There is perhaps implied in this second dogmatic 
 position at least a degree of imputation of Adam's sin, or of what is 
 technically called hereditary guilt. If all men die in consequence of 
 Adam's sin, then so far all men are held amenable to the penal conse- 
 quences of Adam's sin. But because they are held amenable to some 
 penal consequences, such as physical death, conscious separation 
 from God, and a depraved nature, it by no means follows that they 
 are held amenable to all penal conaequences, still less that the cvlpa 
 as well as the poena — the blame as well as the penal consequences — 
 can be carried forward to all the race. We are therefore by no 
 means authorized to deduce from the passage before us an unlimited 
 imputation of Adatn's sin. But there appears a third point in the 
 apostle's doctrine of sin contained in verses 16 and 18. " The judg- 
 ment came of one unto condemnation," and "through one trespass 
 unto all men to condemnation." This has been supposed by many 
 to contain the f.^ctrine of an absolute and universal imputation of 
 Adam's sin. We have seen that it can do so only by teaching an 
 equally absolute and universal doctrine of justification in Christ. 
 If it does not teach the one it cannot teach the other. And if Paul 
 uses Eig here in its usual meaning of tendency or result, then in that 
 little particle there lies the whole field of probation to be traversed 
 between Adam's sin and the final condemnation. How the impulse 
 from Adam's sin moves across the field of human probation towards 
 a universal condemnation Paul does not say, nor even imply. He 
 deals with facts, not with theories. If the impulse toward condem- 
 nation is carried through a genuine individual probation, the theory 
 that hereditary depravity is the medium of its transmission seems 
 much more probable than that it reaches the end at once by a law of 
 hereditary guilt. It is, besides, much more in harmony with Paul's 
 idea of the valency or power of sin over and among the human race, 
 which is the prominent thought of this passage. If this be the true 
 
ROMANS, V. 117 
 
 interpretation of Paul's thought, then the word "judgment," in 
 verse 17, points to the penal consequences of Adam's sin, including 
 "depravity," and conscious separation from God, as well as physical 
 death ; and these penal consequences come upon all men with a 
 mighty power, leading to tinal condemnation, which would render 
 equitable personal probation impossible were not the free gift still 
 mightier in its moral force. Beyond what is implied in these three 
 statements we cannot assume to read into this passage a theory of 
 original sin. The laws of historical interpretation justify us in in- 
 terpreting the ideas of any w"iter in the light of opinions or thoughts 
 expressed by him in othei parts of his works ; but beyond this we 
 have no right to go. With the doctrine of heart sin Paul was cer- 
 tainly familiar; it is a specially Pauline doctrine. With the doc- 
 trine of birth sin he could not be unacquainted ; and though he does 
 not make it as prominent as St. John, it is, we think, the doctrine 
 of Eph. ii. 3. We may therefore fairly call in both here. But the 
 doctrine of hereditary guilt, in its modern form of an absolute impu- 
 tation, is so strange to the writings of Paul (and to the Old Testa- 
 ment as well as to the New, in all which the supremacy and reality 
 of individual responsibility are so clearly taught) that we dare not 
 • force it in here beyond the plain facts of the text. 
 
 But besides laying the foundation for the Pauline doctrine of sin 
 the passage before us contributes largely to the doctrine of the atone- 
 ment. In fact, the fall in Adam and the atonement in Christ are 
 the main themes of the passage. We have already obtained sei^eral 
 important elements of the Pauline view of the atonement from chap- 
 ter iii. We have there learned that he views it as a " redemption " 
 or deliverance by payment of a ransom price, and that this ransom 
 price is a propitiatory offering of his blood, ? e., his life, and that in 
 virtue of this offerini; God is (not merely is seen or proved to be) just 
 while the justifier of him that believeth on Jesus. Propitiation is 
 that in sacrifice which moves God to forgiveness, and in virtue of 
 which he can justly exercise forgiveness. Wherein this propitiatory 
 efficacy consists is the deepest and most difficult question of the doc- 
 trine of the atonement. The passage ]>efore us seems to touch this 
 difficult point. It compares the work of Christ to the work of Adam. 
 That in Adam's act which makes it the source of penal consequence 
 to the whole race is its guilt or n^oral desert as a transgression or 
 disobedience. That in Christ's work wtiich makes it the source of 
 grace to the whole race is its merit or moral desert as an act of right- 
 eousness or obedience. In constructing the doctrine of the atone- 
 ment we might very fairly make further use of this passage and 
 press the analogy to the extent of finding a common principle of 
 race unity in probation in virtue of which the penal consequences of 
 Adam's sin reach all the race, and the gracious results of Christ's 
 righteousness reach all the race. This would lead to very important 
 results touching the nature of the atonement in itself — its relation 
 to the forgiveness of sin on the one hand and to the conditions of 
 
118 ROMANS, VI. [w. 1, 2. 
 
 individual probation on the other. But this would lead us out of 
 the field of Biblical into that of systematic theology. We need 
 therefore only call attention once more to the full expansion of 
 Paul's idea of the merit of Christ's act of obedience given us in Phil, 
 ii. 6-8. This passage fully justifies the position we assign to our 
 present passage in relation to the doctrine of atonement. 
 
 Ch. VL 1-23. The Ethical Side of the Christian Doctrine. 
 
 1. What shall we say then?] What practical conclusion shall 
 we draw ? Paul is here directing the thoughts of his readers to the 
 line of duty arising out of the great truth which he has just pre- 
 sented. This truth was the duty of making our boast in God, not 
 through the law, but through our Lord Jesus Christ; because where 
 sin abounded through the law grace did much more abound through 
 Christ. The law, by the abounding of sin, brought us to spiritual 
 death ; but the grace of Christ, through God's gift of righteousness, 
 brings us to eternal life. We are therefore called upon to choose 
 between continuing under the law, which means continuing in dn, 
 and placing ourselves fully and forever upon the ground of grace.* 
 Which shall it be ? What shall we say ? 
 
 Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ?] This ques- 
 tion is not, we think, the boldly antinomian one usually supposed 
 by the commentators. They have ignored the fact that Paul is ad- 
 dressing men who are being pressed oy his opponents with the claims 
 of the law. He has just put the grand scheme of grace before them 
 in its relations to the whole race from Adam down, and in verse 20 
 has pointed out the transitory design and effect of the law as bring- 
 ing the sin out to the surface, and so working wrath or death (ch. iv. 
 15). To those who are being pressed to commit themselves to this 
 temporary dispensation of the law by being circumcised he puts the 
 incisive logical question, "Shall we continue in sin," i.e., by con- 
 tinuing under the law, or, by embracing the law instead of the right- 
 eousness of God as our hope of salvation ; or, as the alternative read- 
 ing is, "il/av we continue in sin?" Is it at all permissible to con- 
 tinuo in sin by continuing under the dispensation of law ? or bv 
 placing ourselves under it? That this is the real point of Pauls 
 question will, we think, be proven by the whole following context. 
 This question, which is a magnificent combination of rhetoric and 
 logic, condenses a volume of argument in the simple substitution of 
 the word ffin for that which can only multiply sin, i.e., the law, and 
 thus enables the apostle to answer with a decisive 
 
 2. God forbid.] Such a thought cannot be for a moment enter- 
 tained ; not even the possibility of grace :.bounding can justify con- 
 tinuance in sin when deliverance from it is secured ov grace through 
 faith. We were indeed shut up under the law and under the no 
 minion of lin until jgraoe oame ; out now God forbid that w« ihould 
 
V. 3.] ROMANS, VI. 119 
 
 for a moment longer remain in that position. And the reason of 
 this is clear : 
 
 We who died to sin, how shall we any long^er live therein?] 
 Here again we have an alternative subjunctive reading, which we 
 may render " how should we any longer live therein ?" In this ex- 
 pression, "We who died to sin," Paul brings up before his readers 
 a definite and well-known fact in their religious life. What this 
 was is made clear in the next verse, in his exposition of the signifi- 
 cance and obligations of baptism. In Col. iii. 3, and in some other 
 passages, Paul uses this same phrase and in the same sense. Prob- 
 ably iu the administration of baptism the candidate was admonished 
 tliat as this was to be a new birth to a new life, so now to the old 
 life of sin he was to become at once and forever dead. This includes 
 more than the mere breaking of the will with sin (Godet), and differs 
 also from the extinction of the moral power of sin in our nature. It 
 is the end of all let/al relation to sin, and so of its power over us both 
 in will and in deed. Moule and Riddle have one part of the idea, 
 Godet another. On the various interpretations of this phrase see 
 Godet in loco. Its full meaning will become apparent as we follow 
 the apostle's own explanation of it in the verses which follow, espe- 
 cially verses 6, 9 ana 1 1 , 
 
 3. Or are ye ignorant that all we who wevc baptized into Christ 
 Jesus were baptized into his death ?] This clause introduces a very 
 mtricate line of thought, which is only completed in verse 11. First 
 of all, we must determine the relation of this question, and of the 
 line of thought which it introduces, to the question immediately pre- 
 ceding. It is introduced by the disjunctive "or," which seems here 
 to present the alternative to an evasion of the preceding question. 
 If they do not admit that in no way can they continue in sin after 
 baptismal death to sin, then they are ignorant of the full significance 
 of their baptism, which he now proceeds to explain. The force of 
 the disjunctive may thus be paraphrased: "Either ye must admit 
 that all we who died to sin can no longer in any way live therein, or 
 ye must be ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus 
 were baptized into his death." Both these questions are rhetorical 
 and equivalent to a very strong assertion 01 the expected answer. 
 But the second is put in such a form as opens up a proof of the first. 
 The only possible alternative to admitting the force of the first is 
 ignorance of the ground upon which it rests, and which the apostle 
 now proceeds to set forth. That ground lies in the obligation of 
 baptism as a "baptism into Christ s death." Out of this peculiar 
 phrase, which we think was by no means so unfamiliar and difficult 
 to understand in Paul's day as it is now, he proceeds to elaborate 
 his argument, showing how it leads up to the idea of the death of 
 all our old life, and so of our death with Christ to all relation to sin. 
 We must first ascertain what is the meaning of the phrase " baptized 
 into his death." In answering this question we must bear in mind 
 the fact that this preposition "into, or "unto," is the one oca- 
 
126 ROMANS, VI. [vv. 4, 6. 
 
 jstantly used in the baptismal formula. (See Matt, xxviii. 19; Acts 
 viii. 10; xix. 3, 5; 1 Cor. i. 13; x. 2; xii. 13; Gal. iii. 27.) Bap- 
 tism was an ordinance expressive of sanctification, scttivg apart. 
 Tills setting apart was from sin to God, to Christ, to the one body 
 of his clmrch, to repentance (John's baptism), to follow Moses (the 
 baptism in the Red Sea), but not "to Paul," etc. The preposition 
 thus retains its significance of the end or aim to be reached. By 
 baptism we are made one with Christ in his death, i.e., in all that is 
 implied in Christ's death. What this is and how it leads to the end 
 in view we shall leave Paul himself to state in the next verse. All 
 that we need deal with here is, that baptism implies such a yielding 
 of ourselves " m«<o " Christ as implies unity and fellowship with him 
 in every point, even in his death. This doctrine of Paul as to bap- 
 tism appears very clearly in Gal. iii. 26-28, "Ye are all sons of God, 
 through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were bap- 
 tized into Christ did pxit on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor 
 Greek," etc., "for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus." Here there 
 cannot be the slightest doubt as to Paul's idea of baptism as the 
 symbol of a perfect unity with Christ, such as does away with all 
 old distinctions, and makes all that belongs to Christ ours. 
 
 4. We were buried therefore with him through baptism into 
 death:] The phnsc "baptism into death" is literally "baptism 
 into the death," where we think the article, as frequently, takes the 
 place of the personal pronoun. "The death" is "his death" just 
 mentioned. " Biptism into the death" is thus to be taken as one 
 united phrase. The connection of thought then runs as follows^ " If 
 by baptism into Jesus Christ we become so one with him as to be 
 united to him in his death, 'then'" (on) "wo enter into the grave 
 with him through this baptism into his death." 
 
 that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory 
 of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. ] Bap- 
 tism is not the process of burial or ontondjinent l)ut the process of 
 union with Christ in his death. But this implies as a necessary con- 
 sequence that we, in a figurative way, go down with C-hrist into the 
 grave, that so we may rise with him in the new life. The going 
 into the grave and the rising with Christ into tiio new life are not 
 baptism itself, and hence have no necessary reference to the mode of 
 baptism. They are merely the sequence (ovv) of that unity with 
 Christ in his death which is expressed in "baptism into his death." 
 Baptism into Christ's death implies, therefore, as a necessary sequence, 
 our rising to newness of life, and hence the utter impossibility of uur 
 continuance in sin or under its power. This argument he now pro- 
 ceeds ti) put in a condensed form. 
 
 5. For if we have become united with him by the likeness of 
 his death, we shall be also by the likeness of his rt.>urrection ; J 
 Hero the intermediate step of burial is left <nit, and tD.i .tecisive 
 point alone stated. " Union with Christ in his dtwth " ,vhich took 
 place »t our baptism) implies "union with him in his resurrection," 
 
V. 6.] • - ROMANS, VI. 1« 
 
 and hence forbids "continuance in sin." The word here translated 
 in the revised verson " united " has been the cause of no little diffi- 
 culty. "United" translates only one-half the word, the preposi- 
 tional prefix ovfi. In the other part of the word it is supposed that 
 the writer brings in an altogether new metaphor to express our unity 
 with Christ, and passes altogether away from the idea of baptism. 
 This line of interpretation has resulted from the form of translation 
 following the Vulgate complautati. As the word occurs here only 
 in the New Testament we must depend on the classical usage. The 
 verb signifies to make to grow, applied either to plants or animals, 
 hence frequently "to beget" or "to bear." The verbal adjective 
 may thus very naturally bear the meaning of "begotten "or " born." 
 It occurs generally only in combination (once alone of a statue pro- 
 duced by nature), and where combined with aw signifies either 
 "inborn," that which one has by nature or birth, or ^'ijrowing tO' 
 gi'thn-" as the lips of a wound. With this classical usage why 
 should we call in the idea of a tree or plant. Baptism gives in itself, 
 according to the Jewish manner of speaking of the rite at the time, 
 the idea of new birth. The idea of this birth making tw one in being 
 with Christ is quite naturally suggested by this. VVe might thus 
 translate, or rather paraphrase, the verse before us thus: "If we 
 have grown to be one by our baptismal new birth with Christ in the 
 likeness of his death, on the other hand also we shall be in the like- 
 ness of his resurrection." The idea of burial is thus quite dropped 
 out. We have ventured to render the (ireek a?.7>.a as "on the other 
 hand." It sets forth the necessary contrast, the antithesis to the 
 first member of the sentence. O'lr baptismal union by the new 
 birth thus places us in a relation to Christ's death which implies ai 
 its necessary sequence or antithesis the new life of separation from 
 sin corresponding to Christ's resurrection. But this line of thought 
 suggests a further development of the idea of our unity with Christ 
 by our baptismal new birth. 
 
 6. knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him,] In 
 this verse I'aul takes up further the idea of dying with Christ, and 
 makes it the foundation of an argument for cessation from sin. The 
 first question is, what are we to understand by the "old man"? 
 Tlie apostle uses a variety of somewhat similar expressions— the 
 "old man," the "new man," the "inward mart," the "outer man." 
 It by no means follows tliat the "old man" and the "outer man" 
 are identical, nor yet the " new man " and the "inward man." Nor 
 can we fairly identify either the " old man " or the " outward man " 
 with " the flesh " or " the members in M'hich dwells the law of sin." 
 The most explicit passage in which Paul uses this term is Kph. iv. 
 22-24, "That ye put away, an concfming your former ni'mn^r oflife^ 
 the old man, wliioh waxoth corrupt after tlie lusts of deceit; and 
 that ye be renewed in the spirit of y^ur mind, and put on the new 
 man, which after (i^od hath been created in righteousness and holt* 
 QeM of truth." Here the "old man" is evidently distinguished 
 
 9 
 
122 ROMANS, VI. « [v. 6. 
 
 from the lusts or sinful nature, through which it has become corrupt. 
 So the renewal of the spirit of our minds precedes the putting on of 
 the " new man. " We think the " old man " is defined by the phrase 
 "concerning your former manner of life," The preposition Kara is 
 used of detinition or description. It would thus signify the entire 
 "old life" in its outward manifestations and works, as well as in 
 its moral spirit and nature. To put oflF the old man would be thus 
 to break away from the whole "old life," and to put on the new 
 man would be to enter into an entirely new mode of life. This 
 would be quite in harmony with Paul's use of the metaphor of put- 
 ting on or otf a garment. This, then, explains what Paul means by 
 "dying with Christ." It is on our part the entire putting off of 
 the old life — a much wider meaning than the simple extinction of 
 the corrupt principle of sin within. This certainly was fully implied 
 in baptism (see 1 Peter iii. 21), not merely promised or partially en- 
 tered upon as an act of will, but expected to be carried into effect in 
 the most thorough manner. It is not the " old man was being cruci- 
 fied" but "was crucified" in this baptismal sacrament, "died" 
 (aorist) once and forever. The whole old manner of life came to an 
 end. This definite act of crucifixion on our part took place for a 
 distinct purpose : 
 
 that the body of sin might be done away,] What this body of 
 sin is will appear clearly from the latter part of the seventh chapter, 
 where it is also called the " body of death." It is much more accu- 
 rate to designate this as the corrupt nature or sinful nature, a mean- 
 ing which most of our commentators assign to the " old man." Paul 
 says that in baptism we put an end to the entire old life, crucified 
 it then and there with our crucified Lord; "in order that" — the 
 conjunction expressing design or purpose — the corrupt nature "might 
 be done away. ' The verb used here and frequently elsewhere does 
 not signify an abrogation (as when applied to the law, ch. iii. 31) 
 but a doing away with the power, efiFect or proper result of the law. 
 (See notes on ch. iii. .31. ) So here the body of sin is a power (ch. vii. 
 24) the effect of which over us (its hold upon us) is to be destroyed 
 by this (leatli of our old manner of life. But this breaking of the 
 
 Eower of sin is itself the cause of a further result, expressed in (ireek 
 y the genitive case of the infinitive mood (see Winer, 409), 
 that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin ; ] Under this 
 term " bondage to sin " Paul has in view not alone the moral power 
 of the corrupt nature by whicli we are driven to do the things that 
 we would nut, but also, as appears immediately in the next verse, 
 the legal right by which we are thus consigned to slavery to sin. 
 This explains why this death of our old life must be in unity with 
 Christ's death Christ's expiatory death alone can break the legal 
 as well as the moral bond by which we are held in the service of sin. 
 It is thus impossible for our old life to die except with Christ. But 
 now with Christ our old life is crucified, the power of sin is broken, 
 and from the bondage of sin we are lawfully aelivered. 
 
vv. 7-11.] ROMANS, VI. 123 
 
 7. for he that hath died is justified from sin.] This is evidently 
 a legal maxim supposed to be perfectly plain to his readers. If it was 
 an aphorism of law quoted by Paul, then, as Godet supposes, its orig- 
 inal application would be to physical death, which, so far as the in- 
 dividual is concerned, disciiarges him from all legal obligations, pains 
 and penalties. Its application here would thus be, that when, by 
 baptism, we become united to Christ in his expiatory death, the 
 legal claim of sin to hold us in bondage is cancelled. Paul thus inti- 
 mately relates our moral renewal to our freedom from the claims of 
 justice which hitherto has been his principal theme. 
 
 8. But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live 
 with him ;] By the conjunction "but" we are at once transferred from 
 the negative aspect of the death of our old life, and the consequent 
 breaking of the power of sin, from whose service we are legally dis- 
 charged, to the positive point of view of a new life with Christ. Bap- 
 tism represented especially the dying of the old life. But Paul has 
 full faith that more must follow. A new life must take the place of 
 the old. The gr lunds of this faith he now proceeds to set forth. 
 
 9. knowing that Christ bein^ raised from the dead dieth no 
 more; death no more hath dommion over him;] The legal claim 
 of death upon him, through sin, not his own but ours, is satisfied. 
 To this Paul's readers must at once assent, though to make it per- 
 fectly clear he adds pv. explanation. 
 
 10. For the df^r.th that he died, he died unto sin once:] Margin, 
 "once for all." The evpression "died unto sin" cannot be identi- 
 fied in meaning with the crucifixion of our "old man." It is moro 
 general in meaning even when applied to us. It signifies the end of 
 all living relation to sin. When Christ took upon him our nature 
 he became related in life to our sin (ch. viii. 3; 2 Cor. v. 21). He 
 was made sin for us. With his death this relation to sin came to 
 an end once and forever. " He died to sin once for all." 
 
 but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.] This relation is 
 eternal, abiding. It is the life of our Mediator and Head, and so 
 ours. (See Col. iii. .*{, 4, where this same idea of baptismal death 
 and new life with Christ in God is presented.) Hence here as there 
 the exhortation, 
 
 11. Even so reckon jre also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but 
 alive unto God in Christ Jesus] "Ileckon," i.e., nut it down to 
 voiir account as a matter fully and finally settled. 1 his would not 
 be the case if, seeking to be justified by the law, they fell away from 
 the grace of Christ. This exhortation sums up the practical scope of 
 Paul's entire argument in this Kpistle, which was to establish the 
 Roman church in the faith of Christ as opposed to the legal system 
 of the Judaizers. They are to settle it forever in their minds that 
 henceforth their life is consecrated to God in (/hrist Jesus, no more 
 a slavery to sin throuah the law. " Dead unto sin," i.e., free from 
 all living relation to it — the reassertion of what he had implied in 
 the question of verse 2, which he has now fully proved. But more 
 
124 ROMANS, VI. [vr. 12, IS. 
 
 than that, as he took care to develop in his line of proof, "alive 
 unto God through Jesus Christ, inasmuch as unity with Christ in 
 his death must be followed by unity with him in his resurrection. 
 The practical outcome or expansion of this we next turn to consider 
 (verses 12-14). 
 
 12. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye 
 should obey the lusts thereof:] The conjunction "therefore " pre- 
 sents this exhortation as the outcome o. the positions already ad- • 
 vanced, proved, and finally summed up in verse 11. The entire sec- 
 tion must, however, bo read in close connection with the last clause 
 of verse 14. This entire discussion was introduced by the mention 
 of the law in chapter v. 20 ; it returns to the mention of the law in 
 verse 14. Taking chapter v. verses 20 and 21 together, we see the 
 point to which Paul is thus coming back. Then through the coming 
 in of the law the trespass abounded and Kin reujned in death. " Let 
 not sin thus reign in your mortal bodies." Under the dominion of 
 death they still are, but not under that of sin. To see what this 
 means in Paul's mind, and its relation to the law, compare 1 Cor. 
 XV. 56: " The sting of death is sin ; and the power of sin is the law." 
 
 " Let not sin reign in your mortal (or dying) bodies, for ye are not 
 under the law but under grace." Godetwell says the word "mortal" 
 must have some logical connection with the line of thought here, and 
 such connection we thus find in Paul's own words. We need not thus 
 import into the exhortation ideas which deprive it of all its power. 
 The "mortal body " is not the body as the field of the power of sin, 
 or as not yet fully delivered, and so still under the power of sin. 
 This is exactly what the apostle says must not be. Nor is the reign 
 contrasted with the occaaional outbreak of sin as an abnormal thing. 
 "Let not sin reign" equals "ye are dead to sin." The apostles 
 exhortation is not a loose generality admitting unlimited exceptions, 
 but an ahsolnte atamlard of hoUneHS. Paul holds that our will, our 
 reckoning, must place sin in fact just where our new gracious rela- 
 tion to Christ places it in right, i.e., in complete separation from us. 
 Nor is there any covert for the hiding of sin in the phrase "that ye 
 should obey the lusts thereof. " Even this expression does not imply 
 the continued " presence of sin in the mortal body of the justifietl." 
 It may be true that such is the case, but that is quite outside the 
 line of Paul's thought here; and he is so very far from affirming its 
 necessary continuance that his words demand its instant and com- 
 plete cessation. The lusts of the body are those desires and appe- 
 tites which sin has so long used as its servants. When we obeyed 
 the servants we obeyed their master. But all this is now to cease- 
 not only our slavery to sin, our obedience to the servants or instru- 
 ments of sin in the desires of our own bodies, but the very relation 
 of those appetites and desires to pin. Hence Paul immediately adds, 
 
 13. neither present your members unto sin as instruments of 
 unrighteousness;] Sin is clearly to be put out of the body aa well 
 M out of the will. These n'temoers aa instruments of eiu are the 
 
vv. 14, 15.] ROMANS, VI. 125 
 
 Beat of the lusta, i.e., sinful desires. They become the instruments 
 of sin by their power over the will — not in a merely external way. 
 This is implied in the Greek word for instruments, in the margin 
 and literally, "weapons." Sin, by these members warring against 
 the soul, conquers the will, and so enslaves us. Paul's point of view 
 is, that in the past, under the law, before we died to sin, "sin 
 reigned," making our members, through the lusts of the body, the 
 weapons by which it took us captive. But far from comtemplating 
 this state of things as necessarily continuing even in part, he com- 
 mands it all to cease. God's command implies the power to obey ; 
 and if in faith we reckon ourselves thus fully and forever dead to 
 sin, even in the members of our "mortal body," dead we surely 
 shall be. 
 
 but present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead,] This 
 is the positive sequence of Paul's argument. We are dead with 
 Christ and raised to new life with him, and hence with him are 
 called to live to God. This presentation to God is not the mere will 
 to do good while evil is still present. It goes far beyond that. The 
 very " members " in which sin reigned as a law of sin and death are 
 to be included in the presentation. 
 
 and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.] 
 The mortal body, far from continuing to be the seat of sin, hence- 
 forth is itself to be the seat of righteousness. Its members, ie., 
 its natural desires, now sanctified to the new service, are to be the 
 weapons of righteousness as they once were the weapons of sin. No 
 higlier ideal of holiness can be presented than this, that the very 
 desires (members) which once led to sinful acts now, changed under 
 the new life, lead to holy acts of God's service — " become the instru- 
 ments of righteousness unto God." 
 
 If it be asked how Paul can speak of all this as at the command 
 of our will the reply is, 
 
 14. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not 
 under law, but under grace.] The legal claim of sin is broken, and, 
 as Paul takes for granted, with the legal claim the moral power. It 
 is henceforth in our own will, for we are "not under the law, but 
 under grace." Were we under the law sin would necessarily reign, 
 as Paul will show presently ; but under grace we are delivered from 
 its power, and hence free to will ourselvep from sin and unto God. 
 
 15. What then?] This formula, as in chapter vi. 1, marks a new 
 direction in the argument. In verse 1 that direction was determined 
 by the mention of the purpose of the intervention of the law and its 
 relation to the reign of sin and the reign of grace. Here the direc- 
 tion of the argument is determined by the statement which closes 
 verse 14, " Ye are not under law, but under grace." " What then ?" 
 i.e., what follows from this? 
 
 shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace?] 
 " Shall we sin " must not be taken as identical with " shall we con- 
 tinue in sin." Were it so there would really be no advance in thought. 
 
126 ROMANS, Vt tw. 16, 17. 
 
 " Shall we continue in sin " refers to our general moral position, our 
 status before God, which must be either under grace, dead to sin, or 
 under the law, servants to sin. That question Paul has settled : " Sin 
 shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law, but 
 under grace." But out of this very new relation, which delivers us 
 from the dominion of sin by transferring us from the law to grace, 
 there arises a new danger, the danger of yielding to individual acts 
 of sin. Paul doubtless was well aware of the tendency, so often 
 since his day marked in human nature, to feel satisfied with the 
 gracious assurance that we are delivered from the bondage of sin, 
 especially in regard to guilt, and so to be less watchful against occa- 
 sional transgressions. To the question he therefore replies, 
 
 God forbid. 
 
 i6. Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as ser- 
 vants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey;] "Know 
 ye not " equals "are ye ignorant," of verse 3 — a repetition of logical 
 formulae peculiar to Paul, and introducing here, as there, the grounds 
 for his strong assertion. The dominion of sin is not a mere ideal 
 matter, a legal fiction or hypothesis; it is a matter of practical life. 
 It is determined by our actions — we are the servants of the master 
 whom we obey in (he ads, the living service of our lives. An anti- 
 nomian carelessness of life, under a supposed privilege of grace, in 
 reality returns us to the bondage of sin. 
 
 whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness ?] 
 These individual sins must end in death. Grace covers no wilful 
 persistence in sin. On the other hand, if we are to maintain the 
 right relation to God, obedience alone leads to righteousness. Mark 
 the contrast between "death," separation from God, and "right- 
 eousness," right relation to God. We are instated in that right rela- 
 tion by faith, but that relation can only be maintained by obedience, 
 by a "faith which works by love." What the nature of that obe- 
 dience is Paul proceeds at once to state. Meantime the principle is 
 laid down here in the most absolute manner, that grace will not snield 
 us from the result of sin in death, nor dispense with the necessity of 
 " obedience unto righteousness." 
 
 17. But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of 
 sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching 
 whereunto ye were delivered;] Notwithstanding the uncompro- 
 mising fidelity and seeming severity with which Paul maintains the 
 ethical obligations of religion against a morally inefficient legalism 
 on the one hand, and against an antinomian abuse of grace on ^ihe 
 other, he is not unmindful of the truly gracious and sincere char- 
 acter of his readers. This moves his heart, for Paul was a man of 
 strong feelings, of stern zeal against sin, but of tenderly loving ap- 
 preciation of all that is good. Hence this outburst, " Thank God." 
 " That ye were. " The emphasis is on the verb in the imperfect (past 
 historical) tense, hence implying that they are no longer " servants 
 of Bin." This does not imply a legal or Jewish state preceding their 
 
w. 18, 19.] ROMANS, Vl. 127 
 
 conversion. Paul is here dealing with practical bondage to sin in 
 any form, not with that particular type of doctrine which only serves 
 to make that bondage more sorely felt. He frequently refers to the 
 complete practical slavery to sin from which the Gentile converts 
 were delivered (1 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 2,3; Col. i. 21). 
 "But ye obeyed from the heart." the aorist pointing to the definite 
 time of their conversion. This was not a superficial change likely 
 to degenerate into antinomian indifference, but obedience "from the 
 heart," hence full of the true holy spirit of the gospel. " That type 
 of doctrine unto which ye were consigned," i.e., in the order of God's 
 providence. " Type of doctrine "' is quite Pauline, both as a rule of 
 faith and also of life. It doubtless refers to the Pauline form of che 
 gospel as distinguished from the gospel of the circumcision given to 
 Peter (Gal. ii. 7). To this type of doctrine God had in the dispensa- 
 tion of his grace assigned the Gentiles — "unto which ye were de- 
 livered." The Roman Christians were still further and more par- 
 ticularly "given over" to this type of doctrine by its being in the 
 providence of God the form of the gospel under which they were 
 converted. (See Introduction. ) 
 
 z8. and being made free from sin, ye became servants of right- 
 eousness.] This was the sequence of their hearty obedience to the 
 gospel. The obedience of the heart to the gospel is everywhere with 
 Paul synonymous with true and "saving faith." (See Rom. i. 6; 
 X. 16; xvi. 26; 2 Thess. i. 8.) "Being made free from sin" thus 
 implies the full saving power of the gospel, that justifying as well 
 as sanctifying grace which Paul has just expounded. This includes, 
 as we have seen, the new life to God, "servants of righteousness," 
 as well as the death of the old life in sin. Of the reality of such an 
 experience on the part of his readers Paul entertains no doubt. He 
 sincerely thanks God for it. But the reality and sincerity of their 
 religious experience does not deliver these Roman Christians from 
 that moral weakness which Paul designates as " the flesh." 
 
 19. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of 
 your flesh:] This exhortation is rendered necessary in this human 
 form because of the infirmity of the flesh. What is " the manner of 
 men " in which Paul says he here speaks ? and what is the " infirm- 
 ity of the flesh " M'hich renders this manner of speech necessary ? 
 Philippi, Meyer and Godet all refer this to the expression "ye be- 
 came slaves of righteousness. " Godet goes so far as to explain how 
 the service of righteousness was to some extent a slavery, through 
 opposition and weakness of the flesh, which ho regards as moral 
 weakness, the flesh in the sense of the corrupt nature. Meyer 
 thinks the " weakness of the flesh " intellectual weakness, and that 
 the very strong metaphor of slavery is employed in condescension to 
 mental weakness. But both of these explanations are unsatisfactory. 
 Meyer's is especially so. Paul elsewhere compliments the Roman 
 Christians on their knowledge ; and if he accommodated himself to 
 their intellectual weakness he would not be very likely to tell them 
 
128 tlOMANS, Vl. tvv. 20, 2l. 
 
 of it, though fidelity would demand that he should not spare a moral 
 weakness. Godet's idea of the service of righteousness being really a 
 slavery through moral weakness takes away the point of the phrase 
 "I speak humanly," and is, besides, out of harmony with raul's 
 universal doctrine of the glorious liberty of God's children from the 
 law of sin and death in the members (ch. viii. 2, 3). But is this 
 form of expi-ession " bondservant," which Paul repeatedly applies to 
 himself (see ch. i. 1), so objectionable that it needs an apology '! Does 
 it not express Paul's idea of the ethical spirit of Christianity — the 
 complete subjection of our whole nature to the new spirit of right- 
 eousness. If so then the use of this metaphor is not "the human 
 manner of speaking " to which Paul refers. We think it rather lies 
 in the stern, forceful manner of exhortation which he had just used 
 (verses 15, 16) and which he is now about to repeat (verses 19-21), 
 and in the use- of an appeal to human considerations. This severe 
 method of legal precept might well be called the human method, 
 rendered necessary by the moral weakness of the flesh. 
 
 for as ^e presented your members as servants to uncleanness 
 and to iniquity unto iniquity,] "For" here, as frequently, intro- 
 duces the explanation or statement of this human manner of speech. 
 So the ancients, although they thought the humanness lay in the 
 lowering of the demands of holy law rather than the childlike pre- 
 ceptual manner of enforcing it. On the members as servants of sin 
 see verses 12 and 13. The terms "uncleanness" and "iniquity" 
 designate the positive and the negative side respectively of the oppo- 
 sition of the flesh to right. The end of this service is " lawlessness," 
 used by John as the definition of sin. 
 
 even so now present your members as servants to righteousness 
 unto sanctification.] Even on "human" principlrj this is only a 
 fair thing. The service of righteousness demands "„:o more than did 
 the service of sin. Not that thereby the Christian law of righteous- 
 ness is lowered, for sin, as a taskmaster, exacted the full tale of 
 brick. Sanctification is the sanctified state, the state of saints, con- 
 secrated to God. This lower human method of enforcing the obliga- 
 tion to Christian holiness is still further expanded by yap in the next 
 verse : 
 
 20. For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in regard of 
 righteousness.] " For " — a reason, more humano, for the exclusive 
 service of righteousness. Sin obtained exclusive service. It ex- 
 cluded all claims of righteousness. Give now the same measure to 
 the new master. You are justly called upon to do so, for what were 
 your wages under that former master ? 
 
 21. What fruit then had ye at that time in the things whereof 
 
 ?re are now ashamed ? The conjunctive "then," ow, is not equiva- 
 ent to therefore, but serves, as Grimm states (Lex. sub voce), to at- 
 taah this question in a general way to the preceding statement. It 
 might be rendered " furthermore.'* The adverb " at that time " must 
 not be dropped out of sight. It distinguishes the fruit from the final 
 
Vv. ^,23; 1.] ROMANS, VI, Vlt 129 
 
 result, "the end," to be mentioned presently. The fruit is the im- 
 mediate benefit. The interrogative used is not "What kind of ?" but 
 simply " What?" This would require as answer either a direct nega- 
 tive, "none," or a specification of the fruits. The former alterna- 
 tive Meyer adopts, rendering the final clause as a part of the ques- 
 tion, as in both our English versions. A large number of translators 
 and expositors adopt the latter alternative. (See Godet. ) This we 
 think more in harmony with the strong thought at which Paul has 
 now arrived. The answer to the question is then in the middle 
 clause, " Those things of which you are now ashamed," or to imitate 
 more closely Paul's sententious style, "What you are now ashamed 
 of." The next clause then presents the reason for this shame. 
 
 for the end of those things is death.] It is now evident to their 
 enlightened conscience that the end of every sinful pleasure or indul- 
 gence is death, therefore they are ashamed of them. Tliis is in har- 
 mony with Paul's customary use of the word " fruit " to denote the 
 acts flowing from a principle or spirit of life (Gal. v. 19-23). 
 
 22. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to 
 God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end eternal 
 life.] From the new position of life the fruits, i.e., all the actions, 
 tend— the usual force of the preposition — to holiness, the passive 
 form of this word, hence denoting the state, not the active principle, 
 of sanctification. These fruits do not sanctify us, but constitute the 
 sanctified state into which we are led and in which we are maintained 
 by them. The end n# less than the fruits is in contrast with sin; it 
 is not " death " but " eternal life. " 
 
 23. For the wages of sin is death;] "Wages " signifies origin- 
 ally, as Godet observes, payment in kind. It includes both "fruit" 
 and "end," the whole outcome of sin. 
 
 but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.] 
 Salvation, summe'd up as eternal life, is not a payment in kind of 
 aught that we can do ; hence the term "free gift of God " is expressly 
 chosen. "Eternal life" is in Christ Jesus, reminding ua of our 
 Lord's words (John x. 28 and xiv. 6). In this magnificent concluding 
 sentence Paul sums up the two fundamental ethical axioms of Chris- 
 tianity: the first excludes all antinomianism, the second opens the 
 way to the true eternal righteousness. The present chapter thus 
 enforces the ethical obligations of Christianity, first as against an 
 unethical legalism (compare the Augustinian doctrine that the Chris- 
 tian must necessarily continue to sin), and secondly against an anti- 
 nomian interpretation of grace. Against both the one and the other 
 the twofold aphorism of the last verse is conclusive. 
 
 Ch. VII. 1-4. Thk Relation of the Believer to the Law. 
 
 I. Or are ye ignorant, brethren] This formula has before occurred 
 (ch. vi. 3 and 16). In each case it follows a logical question, " What 
 then ?" And in each case it introduces the proof of Paul's answer to 
 
130 ROMANS, Vtt. [v. i. 
 
 this question as a thing of which they cannot possibly be ignorant. 
 Here our " What then?" is to bo found in verse 21, "What fruit 
 then had ye at that time ?" To this Paul answers directly, " Things 
 whereof ye are now ashamed, for the end of these things is death ;" 
 but adds immediately in contrast, " But now being made free from 
 sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto sanctifica- 
 tion, and the end eternal life." It is to this obverse of the answer 
 to his question that the present verse attaches itself— or if ye do not 
 acknowledge this, if ye are disposed still to plead Tor continuance iu 
 sin by clinging to the law, "are ye ignorant, brethren?" We have 
 already seen, in the logical attachment of chapter vi. 1 to chapter 
 V. 20, that when Paul speaks of continuance in sin it is in his mind 
 connected with continuance under the law ; and we have called at- 
 tention to the passages in which his doctrine on that point is expand- 
 ed at full length. This same idea — continuance in sin results from 
 continuance under the law, and deliverance from sin can only be 
 efifected by release fiom the law — we meet with in chapter vi. 14. 
 Here again it is the mentally-supplied link which joins chapter vii. 1 
 to chapter \i. 22. 
 
 (for I speak to men that know the law),] This parenthetical 
 clause does not imply that the address is to Jewish Christians. It 
 is not to "that part of you that know the law," but "to you all as 
 knowing the law." The Gentile Christians were generally those 
 who had already a "devout regard" for the Old Testament scrip- 
 tares. Even where that was not the case, a% Christians they could 
 not have failed after their conversion to make themselves acquainted 
 \7ith the Old Testament. 
 
 how that the law hath dominion over a man for so long^ time as 
 he liveth ?] This is the proposition upon which Paul is about to 
 found his argument in support of the thesis propounded in verse 22. 
 Its force for this purpose is not immediately obvious. It must be 
 explained. This explanation consists of an example, a particular 
 case in point, and is introduced in the following verse by yap, " for." 
 
 2. For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the 
 husband while he liveth;] The relative clause "that hath a hus- 
 band " scarcely fully represents the force of the single Greek word 
 which it translates. It might be somewhat awkwardly rendered 
 " the hii-tbanded " woman, it implies the present actual existence of 
 the relation. The same thing is implied in the predicate, where the 
 
 Phrase "while he liveth" is represented by the present participle, 
 'he clause "so long time as he liveth," in the first verse, fixes atten- 
 tion and emphasis all the way through upon the element of time in 
 all these adjective words. The example before us ia thus to be taken 
 as an example of the time limit to the binding power of the law. 
 That time limit is life. If the law binds two parties to mutual obli- 
 
 {Rations, then the limit is the life of the party to whom the obligation 
 s to be performed, or of the party by whom the obligation is to be 
 performed. Which of these mutually related parties is mentioned 
 
V. 3.] ROMANS, Vll. 131 
 
 as dying makes no difference to Paul's argument. His point is, death 
 is the time limit of the binding power of the law. He passes indiffer- 
 ently or as may suit his analogy from the death of the person bound 
 (verse 1) to the death of the person to whom bound (verse 2), and 
 again to the death of the person bound (verse 4). The principle is 
 the same throughout — death end.i the binding power of the law. But 
 we must carefully distinguish what Paul asserts in this proposition. 
 It is not that death ends obligation to moral principles, to holiness, 
 or to righteousness, or to godliness. It is to "the law," i.e., to that 
 code of precepts introduced into human probation for a definite moral 
 purpose, "that the transgression might abound." This law it is 
 which binds only so long as life lasts. Many precepts or moral prin- 
 ciples might extend to eternity, but the law as a whole, as a code, as 
 a rule of life by which man is to serve God, ends with human life. 
 The illustration selected by Paul in proof of this proposition is there- 
 fore taken from a field in which it is self-evident, the relation of 
 husband and wife. The law itself was specific on that point (Deut. 
 XXV. 5); marriage was clearly permitted to a widow. The law 
 claimed to regulate human conduct only within the limits of human 
 life. The aptness of Paul's illustration will appear from the manner 
 in which this very question had been handled by the Sadducees, who 
 projected this law into the future life (Matt. xxii. 24). His illustra- 
 tion is, however, chosen with another purpose in view, i.e., to illus- 
 trate by the marriage relation itself the relation of the human spirit 
 both to the law and to Christ. Were it not for this he might have 
 selected some other legal precept the legal obligation of which evi- 
 dently ends with life. But he selects this particular precept of the 
 law that it may serve both as an example to prove the general thesis 
 of verse 1, and as an analogy to confirm the particular conclusion of 
 verse 4. It is the necessity arising from this peculiar logical combi- 
 nation which forces the apostle to pass from one form of statement 
 to another in verses 1, 2 and 4. Verses 1 and 4 correspond in form, 
 each speaking of the death of the person uound ; but verses 2 and 3 
 vary from both in order to be true to fact as a particular instance of 
 verae 1, and in order to select that particular fact which serves for 
 analogy in verse 4. The apostle makes no attempt to obviate this 
 awkwardness of expression, but sacrifices perfect form to the line of 
 thought. His logic is perfect even where the rhetorical form fails. 
 Pr.ul's mode of argument may be compared to the argument from 
 precedent in law. The precedent must involve the general principle, 
 and the cases must be clearly analogous. 
 
 but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the 
 husband.] This is the special point of this illustrative example aa 
 
 ftroof of the general thesis of verse 1. The law which governs human 
 ife continues to bind only while that life continues. It ceases with 
 the cessation of the life which it governs. 
 
 3. So then if, while the husband Uveth, she be joined to another 
 man, she shall be called an adulteress : but if the husband die, she 
 
in nOMAKS, VII. tv. 4. 
 
 is free from the law, so that slie is no adulteress, though she be 
 Joined to another man.] Thiti is a full statement of the precedent 
 ni its double form. In its positive form it concedes the limited claim 
 of the law. In its negative form it denies the indefinite extension 
 of that claim. The last clause looks especially to the analogy of the 
 precedent to the case in hand. This analogy covers more than the 
 general principle. It covers the peculiarities of its application to 
 which Paul now proceeds. 
 
 4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law 
 through the body of Christ;] The form of the conclusion is not 
 governed by the deductive argument, i.e., from the general principle 
 of verse 1, which would require ovp, "therefore," nor yet by the 
 simple analogy which would require ovru^ kui, "so also," but ia 
 stated as a (divine) purpose in a past event, which purpose governed 
 the event in harmony with both the general principle and the anal- 
 ogy. " So that " ye died to the law, or rather " ye were made dead 
 to the law" (passive voice), " to the end that," etc. Uote co-ordi- 
 nates what follows with what precedes, and represents it, not as an 
 effect in the rigid sense, but as proceeding in a general way from it. 
 Hex'e the ordinance of (Jod wliich unites us to Clirist and makes us 
 dead to the law is based on the principles and analogy stated. " Ye 
 also were made dead to the law" signifies, as in chapter vi. 5s, 11, 
 etc., tile cessation of all living relation. This takes place "through 
 the body of Christ." This is supposed to be synonymous with the 
 death of Christ in chapter vi. 3, 5, etc. This is on the supposition 
 that our death to the law is identical with our death unto sin. But 
 is there not a distinction? Is not our death to the law necessary 
 to our death to sin — the means by wiiich it is practically effected? 
 Then -here is a marked difference in the apostle's mode of expression 
 (ch. vi. 2) and that used here. There the form is active, here purely 
 passive. There reference is maile to the voluntary covenant of bap- 
 tism, here to God's purpose in something which has taken place 
 seemingly without our consent. The death of Christ's body on the 
 cross ended his relation to sin as the bearer of its penalties. It like- 
 wise ended his relation to the law. During his enrthly life he " wai» 
 made" not only "in the likeness of sinful tlesh," but also "under 
 the law." Both those are Pauline ideas. At death he ceased from 
 both the one and the other. When, therefore, in baptism we died 
 with Christ to sin, we were at the samo time made dead to the law. 
 This was Cod's order for a most important purpose. 
 
 that ye should be joined to another,] In Paul's conception union 
 with Christ and witfi the law as a means of salvation are as incum- 
 
 Eatible as that a woman should rightly be the wife of two men while 
 oth are living. (Compare (jal. v. 4.) Cod had therefore to make 
 us dead to the law that we might so be united to t'hrist. 
 
 even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring 
 forth fruit unto God.] The reference is very slight, if at all, to the 
 fruits of marriage union. The apostle is not governed by the meta- 
 
V. 6.] ROMANS, VII. 133 
 
 phor but by the line of spiritual things which he is considering. 
 This severance from the law was demanded by the statement of 
 chapter vi. 22. The circle of thought there suggested is here com- 
 pleted, calling in once more the resurrection of Christ, as in chapter 
 vi. 4, 8, 9, 11. The fruit unto God is the fruit unto holiness. But 
 why should we be tlius severed from the law in order to be united 
 to Christ? Why are the two so incompatible? This leads Paul to 
 enunciate once more the doctrine of the practical effect of the law, 
 and to elucidate its working in God's economy of salvation. 
 
 Ch. VII. 5-25. The Relation of the Law to Man's Moral 
 Nature under the Fall. 
 
 S. For when we were in the flesh,] This and the following verse 
 belong to the preceding, and at the same time to the following, con- 
 text. Tliey complete the preceding line of thought by assigning a 
 reason for our severance from the law in order to our union with 
 Clirist. But that reason lies in the very relation of the law to our 
 fallen moral nature. The statement of that relation in general terms 
 we have (in verse 5) thrown into contrast to the new relation of our 
 moral nature to grace in verse fi. But as that statement is liable to 
 two very important misconceptions tlie apostle opens up theae mis- 
 conceptions l)y "what then" in verses 7 and I'A respectively, fol- 
 lowed in each case by the full presentation of the truths involved. 
 The remaining part of the chapter is thus only an expansion and ex- 
 planation of whul is stated ir. verse 5. This verse therefore forms 
 the most natural point of departure for the new subsection. 
 
 " When we wore in the flesh " defines the characters of whom the 
 apostle speaks. It has been a matter of very earnest discussion as 
 to whether this seventh chapter of Romans describes the condition 
 of the regenerate or of the unregenerate. The Calvinistic interpre- 
 ters, following Augustine after the Pelagian controversy, maintained 
 the former; the Arminians and otiiers, the latter. The apostle's 
 words here are, however, so definite that there is no longer any dis- 
 pute as to the application of the passage as far as verse 13. It de- 
 scribes the action of the law upon our moral nature " when we were 
 in the flesh." The terms tliroughout correspond with verse 5. A 
 few, however, still hold tliat from verse 14 onward, where the apos- 
 tle changes to the present tense, he is describing his own present 
 regenerate exj)erience. (So Moule. On the contrary, compare Rid- 
 dle's intermediate and much more tenable positicni. ) The probabili- 
 ties are certainly in favour of the view that Paul is throughout de- 
 scribing the effect of tiie law upon our unregenerate moral nature. 
 His statement in verse 5 is unmistakable. His argument from verse 
 7 to ver.se 12 is intended directly to guard that statement from mis- 
 conception, und maintains throughou the same fundamental line 
 of thought. That, however, again involves a position liable to be 
 misconstrued to the disparagement of God's law. That misconstrue- 
 
134 ROMANS, VII. [v. 6. 
 
 tion is anticipated and prevented in verse 13, and the whole argu- 
 ment from 14 to the end is the proof of what is there advanced. The 
 line of argument is thus continuous from verse 5 throughout, and so 
 important a change as that implied in the Augustinian view is not 
 to be supposed except on clear evidence. We may note here that 
 already in verse 5 the apostle passes from the second to the first 
 person plural, thus identifying himself in this common experience of 
 the effect of the law. In verse 7 he passes from the plural to the 
 singular as clearly the vividness of the subject in its relation to per- 
 sonal experience grows upon him. This, however, by no means 
 makes it an exclusively personal experience. He still describes the 
 common experience of the eflfects of the law. It may be that he here 
 adopts the first person singular inasmuch as the experience of the 
 effects of the law was peculiarly his own. His Gentile readers, while 
 to some extent sharers, could but partially understand what was the 
 legal state of those who, like Paul, had tested the power of the law 
 to the utmost. So in verse 14, when enunciating a general principle 
 (the law is spiritual), he is obliged to use the present, the same m- 
 creasing force of vivid conception carries him forward in the use of 
 the present to the end. His whole discourse from this point onward 
 is also the enunciation of general facts in fallen human nature, hence 
 expressed in the present tense. This vividness of conception on the 
 part of the apostle may well be explained by the fact that few men 
 had more profound experience of the effect of the law on fallen moral 
 nature than he. But it by no means follows that because we recog- 
 nize the apostle's reference to his own experience Me should there- 
 fore, in opposition to the clear requirements of his argument, transfer 
 that experience from his unregenerate state under the law to his 
 new position under grace. In fact, so clear is the incompatibility 
 of this position with the unity of the argument that Hodge, Barnes 
 and others are obliged to construct at verse 14 an entirely new sec- 
 tion of the Epistle, extending from verse 14 to verse 25, ana supposed 
 to describe "the effect of the law upon the mind of a believer. To 
 this there are the following weighty objections: — 
 
 1. The section thus introduced is without logical or grammatical 
 connection with the preceding or following discourse. The apostle 
 has been replying to an objection taken to his statement that in his 
 unregenerate state the law, i.e., the Mosaic law, excited '.lis sinful 
 nature, and thus led to death. What is the connection of this with 
 the effect of the law on the mind of a believer? Again, how can the 
 
 f;lorious regenerate experience of chapter viii. be logically deduced 
 rom the forlorn regenerate experience of chapter vii.? But the 
 grammatical structure presses still moie strongly .".guinst such a con- 
 struction. The introductory " for " directly demands a close gram- 
 matical and logical connection with the context directly preceding. 
 
 2. The doctrine thus extorted from this supposed distinct section 
 of the Epistle is out of harmony with Paul's entire conception of the 
 true moral relations of the believer, 
 
V. 5.] ROMANS, VII. 135 
 
 Barnes gives the following summary of arguments in favour of the 
 position which he takes that here is described the experience of the 
 believer: — 
 
 1. "Because it seems to me to be the most obvious." This may 
 be true of one who has embraced the Augustiniau theology; but the 
 best answer to such an assumption is the fact that this passage was 
 read and expounded in the church for three hundred years uefore 
 this interpretation occurred to anyone, and then only under the 
 pressure of controversy. 
 
 2. " Because it agrees with the design of the apostle." The apos- 
 tle's design can only be gathered from his own words, which all 
 point, as we have seen, to the other interpretation. 
 
 3. "Because the expressions which occur (verses 15, 22) are siich 
 as cannot be understood of the impenitent sinner." Very true, but 
 still such as can be understood of the convicted sinner struggling for 
 freedom from sin by the help of God's law. 
 
 4. " Because it accords with parallel expressions in regard to the 
 state of conflict in a Christians miud." The passage referred to 
 seems to be Gal. v. 17. Iho expression iva fir/ av Oehjre ravra Troi^re 
 denotes something very difl'erent from tlie statement of actual /acta 
 in Rom. vii. 14, etc. Im, followed by the subjunctive mood, denotes, 
 not the actual consequence or result, but the intended result, the 
 purpose which exists as yet in thought. But as the preceding part 
 of the verse makes mention of a double conflict in which the op- 
 posing powers have directly opposite purposes in view, both these 
 purposes may be included in ivn ft?/, etc. Tlius the entire verse 
 but pictures to us the inward conflict without stating how it termi- 
 nates. But the apostle does not leave us in doubt as to the side on 
 which he expects the victory to turn in the case of these regenerate 
 Galatians. " Walk in the Spirit, and so ye shall surely not fulfil the 
 desires of the flesh," is Aleyer's emphatic translation of verse 16. 
 And in like manner vcse 18 says, "If ye are led by the Spirit" 
 (indicative mood, imp'ying actual fact) " ye are not under the law." 
 Certainly the apost'd here expects the Spirit and not the flesli to be 
 conqueror. On the other hand, in Horn. vii. "the flesh" and not 
 the law of tlie mind is conqueror. This we take (with Wesley) to 
 be the ijharauteriatic difllerence between the awakened sinner and 
 ti-.o regenerate believer. The parallel passage referred to does not 
 thus lead to the opinion that Paul here speaks of the regenerate. 
 
 5. "Because tliere is a change here from the past to the present 
 tense." If, as Barnes asserts, this chunue were inexplicabio on any 
 otiicr supposition than that the writer nere passes from his post to 
 his nresent experience, then this argument would be conclusive. But 
 we have already seen that this change occurs by a natural form of 
 expression under very vivi(' thought, the present tense being flrsk 
 introduced by the absolute necessity of expressing the idea con- 
 tained in the first clause of verse 14, and continued as an expreasioo 
 of what ii universally true of fallen human nature. 
 
136 ROMANS, VII. [v. 6. 
 
 6. "Because it agrees with the experience of Christians and not 
 of sinners." Here we must take direct issue with Barnes. Even 
 Riddle (an Augustinian) admits that in so far as it applies to be- 
 lievers it applies to them only as living under the law and not under 
 grace, i.e., in so far as they are not yet believers in the full evan- 
 gelical sense. 
 
 We may therefore accept the conclusion of Riddle, that the entire 
 seventh chapter treats of the legal state, a state influenced by God's 
 Spirit, it is true, but not tl<e normal condition of those who believe 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ lo/ justification. The phrase "when we 
 were in the flesh " therefore fixes the point of view of this entire 
 discussion. It treats of the relation of the law to man's moral nature 
 under the fall. On the term " flesh " see below. 
 
 the sinful passions, which were through the law,] "The sinful 
 passions " are the impulses or desires towards sin. These were 
 through the law, i.e., were not originated hy the law, but were quick- 
 ened iuto activity by its agency. The preposition indicates, not the 
 author, but the instrument. 
 
 wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.] The 
 members are here, as in chapter vi. 13, the natural capacities and 
 powers of our being. In our unregenerate state these are tlie seat 
 of sinful passions, i.e., impulses to transgression excited by the re- 
 strictions of the law. These " wrouaht," put forth active energy, in 
 our members. " The fruit unto death " are the acts of transgression 
 by which the sinful pa:>8ions break through the fetters of law. Death 
 is the conscious separation of the soul from (iod, the sentence of 
 which appears in the conscience. In this verse we have the compre- 
 hensive statement of the relation of the law to our moral nature 
 under the fall. Tliis is fully expanded in verses 7-11. 
 
 6. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died 
 to that wherein we were holden;] The "now " is the new life in 
 Chri'?t. " We have been <lischargod." The verb here is a favourite 
 one with Paul, previously used chapter iii. 31, where it is said the 
 law is not made of none eflect. It signifies the ending or cessation 
 of power, eflect, claim, etc. The law is not a))ulished, but we have 
 come to the end of its claim upon us. By the death of Christ we 
 died to it. Until then it held us. It must be borne in mind that 
 the law here is not moral princi])le or obligation— we cannot die to 
 that — but tiiat code of moral and positive })recept8 by which the 
 Jew sought his salvation, the law ns an instrument for the regenera- 
 tion of humanity and as a means of acceptance with (>od — from this 
 " we are discharged." 
 
 SO that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness 
 of the letter.] Literally translated this would be "so as to serve;" 
 tMTFf, with the infinitive, denotes the object or end aimed at, the 
 purpose to be etlected. Moral obligation, holiness of life, is still the 
 purpose aimed at; but aimed at, not by the old letter of the law, 
 " thou shalt " and " thou shalt not," but by the " new apirit," or m 
 
vv. 7-8.] ROMANS, VII. 137 
 
 Paul phrases it when, after his explanations, he brings us back again 
 to this point, "the lato of the Spirit of life " (ch. viii. 2). This verse 
 is the text of chapter viii. 1-11 as verse 5 is the text of chapter vii. 
 7-25. In these two verses we have the contrast of the ethical foun- 
 dations of the old dispensation and of the new as the reason for which 
 God hath made us dead to the old that we might be united forever 
 to the new. But the old dispensation, the law, was still of God. 
 What Paul hath said, therefore, as a reason for our release from it, 
 must be guarded against possible misapprehension. 
 
 7. Wnat shall we say then? Is the law sin?] The introduc- 
 tory question is the apostle's usual method of calling special atten- 
 tion to a difficulty. The difficulty is here stated in the second ques- 
 tion, "Is the law sin?" i.e., is the law immoral in its nature.^ He 
 does hold that it results in the increase of transgressions. Does this 
 prove that it is wrong in its nature ? To this he replies decisively, 
 
 God forbid.] This Old Testament dispensation of religion Paul 
 recognized as of God. To insinuate that it was immoral would be 
 to impugn the holiness of its author. 
 
 Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law:] While 
 Paul denies the false inference from the general statement of verse 5, 
 he at once, by the adversative conjunction, proceeds to place before 
 ua the true explanation of what he had there stated in general terms. 
 Sin here is "the sin," i.e., sin an a moral force, opposing itself to 
 right. Sin as a course of evil conduct, of individual transgression, 
 he might know, with all its attendant misery. But the sin, the 
 moral power of evil in our nature, is only known, brought out into 
 distinct consciousness, by the opposition of law. Of tliis he instances 
 an example : 
 
 for \ had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou 
 shalt not covet : ] (Coveting is one of the passions of sin referred to 
 in verse 5. These are excited through the prohibitions of the law, 
 and thus we become aware of " the sin " of whicli they are the out- 
 come. "The sin" is conceived as a personal being wlio makes his 
 presence and power felt in these lusts. " Lust," sinful desire, must 
 .lere, in Paul's conception, be distinguished from mere natural desire. 
 Lust is natural desire opponiixj itnelf to Go(Vn Imv. Sin is not mani- 
 fest in mere natural desire. Only when law sets before us the re- 
 straints to be imposed upon natural desire does "the sin" which 
 lurks there appear a« rebellion against law. 
 
 8. but sin, nnding occasion, wrought in me through the com- 
 mandment all manner of coveting : ) Tliu personiiication of sin here 
 becomes very distinct, and is carried through the discussion. " Find- 
 ing occasion "--in the relation of the law to tlie various circumstances 
 of life in which natural desire might arise. The words signify " seiz- 
 ing a point from which to push foi th for attack " a military figure. 
 "All manner of coveting." Every form of natural desire breaks out 
 into sinful desire, through the commandment- not merely the law 
 but the particular form of law as command (" thou shalt " and " thoo 
 
 10 
 
138 ROMANS, VII. [vv. 9-11. 
 
 shalt not") which places direct restraint upon all natural desire. 
 That element in natural desire which makes it sinful is its refusal 
 to submit to law, its insubordination. This can only be known 
 through the commandment. 
 
 for apart from the law sin is dead.] In the Greek here the arti- 
 cle is wanting, and we are disposed to interpret the sentence in har- 
 mony with this as an axiom of our moral nature. The change to the 
 present tense, or rather to the simple universal predicate, favours 
 this view. This axiom may have been a common dictum of the 
 schools in Paul's time. If so it here asserts, in general form, what 
 Paul has just presented in detailed example. "Dead" is not thus 
 to be taken in the absolute sense, nor even in the strong sense in 
 which Paul has used it in the preceding discussion, but as a prover- 
 bial metaphor. (Compare ch. iv. 15.) 
 
 9. And I was alive apart from the law once:] This life can- 
 not be interpreted of carnal or Pharisaic security, but must refer to 
 the innocence of the young of conscious transgression. This period 
 was clearly marked to the young Jew. At twelve years of age he 
 became de'I'^itely responsible for the observance of ' ' the law. " Such 
 a definite peri:^d well within his personal recollection is implied in 
 the historical tense and the advert "once," "He was alive," i.e., 
 free from the conscious sentence of death which transgression brings. 
 
 but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died;] 
 This points to the time of probational maturity. At twelve years 
 of age the young Jew was brought face to face with the precepts of 
 the law. Then sin " rose up to life," the form of expression used of 
 a rising from the dead, and also of the springing into life of a seed, 
 aptly describing the first consciousness of "the sin," i.e., the natural 
 opposition to God's law. "I died," then and there passed into a 
 state of conscious separation from God. 
 
 10. and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to 
 be unto death :] The pronoun translated "this " is emphatic, "the 
 very commandment," "which was unto life." There is no verb in 
 the original, simply the attributive article with the adjunct " unto 
 life." This preposition denotes, as usually in St. Paul, aim or ten- 
 dency, without implying that the intended result is or is not reached. 
 The old version " was ordained " is scarcely too strong ; we may ren- 
 der "which aims at life." To this intended result is opposed the 
 actual result, " was found by me (in my experience) to lead to death." 
 
 zz. for sin. finding occasion,] (See note on verse 8.) The oppo- 
 sition of the law to natural desire gives added force or impulse, oy 
 its reaction, to the natural desire for the forbidden object. 
 
 throug^h the commandment begfuiled me,] The reference here is 
 evidently to the temptation of Eve. The woman "was deceived" 
 (1 Trm. li. 14). There is a momentary deception in every tempta- 
 tion. For the moment the strength of the excited passion blinds to 
 all else; and thus indirectly the very command which excites the 
 passidn blinds us. But it is only for a moment, for there follows in 
 swift sequence, 
 
vv. 12-14.] ROMANS, VII. 139 
 
 and through it slew me.] No sooner is the sin committed than 
 the same command speaks (in conscience) the sentence of death. 
 
 12. So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and 
 righteous, and good.] This conjunction sets forth (as in verse 4) 
 the result, not as springing from the efficient cause, but as deter- 
 mined by circumstances. It draws a conclusion from the varied dis- 
 cussion of many facts which lead up to it, but no one of which deter- 
 mines it. The conclusion is the answer to the question of verse 7, 
 holy, not sinful, both law and commandment; and further, "right- 
 eous and good " in its intent, i.e., promotive of justice and of man's 
 highest well-being. The mention of this last point starts a new 
 objection. 
 
 13. Did then that which is good become death unto me ? God 
 forbid.] How can the beneficence of the law be reconciled with the 
 actual result? Only by a clear understanding that the law was 
 merely the occasion, not the efficient cause, of the malign result. 
 The efficient cause is to be sought elsewhere. 
 
 But sin,] This is the real efficient cause, and the law is made the 
 innocent occasion of its action for a definite purpose, 
 
 that it might be shewn to be sin, by working death to me 
 through that which is good ; — ] The malignant character of sin is 
 shewn in the very perversion of that which is good in itself. The 
 very law which provokes by resisting sin exhibits sin's real nature. 
 This is God's design in the givmg of the law, to unmask sin. 
 
 that through the commandment sin might become exceeding 
 sinful.] This second statement of the intention of the law is more 
 specific and emphatic. By the commandment each outbreak of sin 
 not only appears as sin but becomes more guilty, " exceeding sinful." 
 This is the true statement, in general terms, of the office of the law 
 in (iod's economy. (Compare Kom. iii. 20; v. 20; Gal. iii. 19, 23, 24.) 
 But the ground of this order of God lies in the nature of sin as dwell- 
 ing in me, its relation to the spiritual elements of my natiire, and 
 the relation of tiie law to those same spiritual elements. That is, 
 God hath appointed the law to this office in harmony with what may 
 be called the moral psychology, or as we should perhaps rather say, 
 the pneumatology of human nature. From verse 14 to verse 25 we 
 have an exposition of those grounds in general terms applying to 
 fallen human nature universally, as it is brought into full moral de- 
 velopment in contact with the law of God. This is perhaps the most 
 profoundly metaphysical passage in St. Paul's writings, involving in 
 itself a complete system of psychology. He is no longer discussing 
 definite historical experiences either of himself or of his readers, but 
 general principles applying to fallen human nature as such ; hence, 
 while as himself the representative of humanity he retains the first 
 person, he passes from tne aorist to the present. 
 
 14. For we know that the law is spiritual ; ] " We know " intro- 
 duces an admitted truth, one which the apostle expects his readers 
 »t once to recognize. " The law is spiritual. " Here we meet the fint 
 
140 ROMANS, VII. [v. 15. 
 
 of Paul's psychological terms, "spiritual," in its source or nature be- 
 longing to the spirit ; but what spirit ? Most commentators say to 
 the Spirit of God. Some, holding the doctrine of the trichotomy, 
 say the spirit of man. But is it not better to say that Paul here uses 
 the term in a generic sense, including both. The spirit of man which, 
 whatever else it may include, at least includes conscience, the under- 
 standing of the Old Testament, that which discerns right, is made 
 in the image of God. Thus we have a genua spirit, a type of spirit- 
 ual nature sharply contrasted with the somatic by Plato, and with 
 the psychical by Paul, and here directly opposed to the carnal. The 
 sense of right is an attribute of this nature. It is this nature in God 
 which founds and maintains the right, and this nature in man dis- 
 cerns and approves the right. Out of this divine type of nature 
 came the law of God, and wherever this type of nature is to be 
 found in man or angel that law commands its assent. 
 
 but I am carnal,] not "fleshlike " but "of flesh," the better read- 
 ing. The "I" is the person which consciously embraces both na- 
 tures, and of which the spiritual nature is the most important part. 
 (See verses 17 and 20.) The word corresponds exactly to "the 
 spir' .al" just used. Both te^ms are used in a moral sense. Both 
 defi: e a moral character. This moral character lies not in the physi- 
 cal constitution of mind or of matter, but in their relation. The 
 flesh as the servant of the spirit is holy ; as controlling the spirit and 
 subjecting it to bondage, unholy. Moral character is always deter- 
 mined by relation. The terms, therefore, "flesh" and "spirit," 
 or "carnal" and "spiritual," as applied to moral character, derive 
 their signiflcance from the relation of each to our personality. The 
 ruling element determines the designation ; and as the reign of the 
 flesh is sin, i.e., breach of God's law, so "carnal" signifies sinful, 
 and vice versa. This ethical signiflcance dates back beyond the New 
 Testament age. (See 4 Mace. vii. 28.) The " flesh " in this ethical 
 signiflcance must be distinguished from "the outer man," "the old 
 man " and "the natural man," though related to each of these. It 
 is to be remarked that Paul never uses the word " flesh " alone as 
 designating the principle of evil in man. This is always expressed 
 by adjectival forms derived from or including the noun, e.(j., "car- 
 nal," "in the flesh," "after the flesh," "the mind of the flesh." All 
 this is in harmony with the idea that evil is not either in the organi- 
 zation of the body or in matter, but in the relation of the body to 
 the personality, the I. It is upon this relation that Paul fastens at- 
 tention when he says, "I am carnal." 
 
 sold under sin.] a bondslave under sin. This Paul himself fully 
 explains in verse 23. Here ho is sold into this slavery; there taken 
 captive in war. The variation of metaphor is unimportant; the 
 slavery is the point to which our attention is directed. 
 
 15. For that which I do I know not :] The word here translated 
 "do" should be more fully rendered "am working out." "For 
 what I am working out I know not." The verb "know," which 
 
VV. 16-18.] ilOMAJfS, VII. l4l 
 
 seems never to bear the meaning of "allow" or *'ap» ove," here 
 has its proper significance. The slave knows only the "k of the 
 hour, the master alone understands what is being ivrou Ht — a 
 
 life-like picture of the sinner, who acts with no intelligent . li- 
 tion (if the ends of life, but under the momentary commands of his 
 masters, the sinful passions. 
 
 fur not what I would, that do I practise ; but what I hate, that 
 I do.] The distinction of the revised version here between "prac- 
 tise," the habitual act, and " do," the act of the moment, is well 
 taken. The apostle does not assert that man never does what he 
 would, but that he does not steadfastly follow it. It is not even 
 frequent enough to be called his practice, his habit of life. On the 
 contrary, his actions are isolated doings of things which he hates. 
 The " would " here includes both the approval of conscience and the 
 etfort of the will, such as it is. The hatred is the moral hating of 
 a wounded conscience. We cannot, with Moule, so interpret the 
 teaching of Paul as to exclude the possibility of such activity of con- 
 science as is here described on the part of the still unregenerate man. 
 
 i6. But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law 
 that it is good.] We should express the idea of the first clause in 
 English idiom by making the relative clause the principal. This is 
 indicated in Greek by its emphatic position. "If I will not" (in 
 the sense of " approve " and "aim at ") "that which I do," " I as- 
 sent" (emphatic assent, implying full agreement) "unto the law 
 that it is good." Here we meet for the first time that term so often 
 employed by the Greek philosophers to express their admiration of 
 moral excellence. To Kalov was a designation of moral beauty, and 
 K(i7iOKaya6og a title of the perfect man. The clause thus expresses 
 the strong feeling of righteous approval which the law extorts in 
 that very act by which, in our conscience, we condemn our own 
 conduct. 
 
 17. So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelieth in 
 me.] The particles here are not temporal but logical in their force. 
 "Now," under these circumstances; "no longer," i.e., "not any 
 more." The conjunction (h is not adversative but continuative, and 
 we may paraphrase the whole clause thus: "And in this case it is 
 therefore not I." Here again the word " work out " is introduced — 
 "Not I who am working out this course of conduct, but sin which 
 dwelieth in me." He does not deny personal responsibility, for the 
 conscious agent is responsible with the principal. But he proves 
 the existence of a stronger personality within, whose law rules and 
 works out de&th. The proving of the existence of this inner person- 
 ality of sin, not the denial of his own responsibility, is the end at 
 which he aims. This conclusion he proceeds to present in another 
 form. 
 
 18. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelieth no 
 g^ood things :] This reproduces verse 14 in the additional light gained 
 at the conclusion of 17. He had there said, "I am carnal. But 
 
142 ROMANS, Vll. [vv. Id, ^. 
 
 meantime he had learned to distinguish the impelling power of sin in 
 his flesh from the personality which it controls ; hence the present 
 form of expression, "in me, that is, in my flesh" (the lower nature 
 which controls me). He does not retract the " in me," but explains 
 it by fixing attention on that part of the personality which rules. 
 "There dwelleth no good thing." Looking through this lower na- 
 ture he finds in it no impulse free from the taint of sin — no voice of 
 good. This again does not imply the denial of the power of con- 
 science in the higher nature. The "will" attests that; but inas- 
 much as the lower nature rules, it is that which dwells in this lower 
 nature which determines moral character. Even the form of denial 
 is peculiar. It is not the absolute " nothing good " {ovdev ayadov). It 
 is not even " the good " (to ayaOov, goodness), but simply "a good." 
 According to ordinary grammatical principles this could only mean 
 "some good," i.e., some part of the universal good. This may sig- 
 nify, as below, "a good act," o** it may be that the article is omitted 
 here as before the names of virtues and vices, the neuter adjective 
 being treated as if a substantive. It would thus be equivalent to 
 "the good," and the force of the sentence would be, "in me the 
 ideally good, or the principle of goodness, does not dwell." We do 
 not think that the Greek will bear a stronger rendering than this. 
 The exact sense will appear more clearly from the next clause. 
 
 for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is 
 not.] The will, which includes approval, choice, and at least pur- 
 pose, though not necessarily immediate putting forth of eflFort or act, 
 is present, literally lies right beside me, quite at hand, but "to do 
 the good " not so, i.e., "to work out the good." By " good," there- 
 fore, in the preceding clause, Paul must mean that sympathy or har- 
 mony with goodness which is needed to give eff'ect to our good pur- 
 pose or choice. This dwells not in me, i.e., not in my flesh, not in 
 that lower nature through which every purpose must be carried into 
 eff'ect, i.e., wrought out. 
 
 19. For the good which I would I do not : but the evil which I 
 would nol, that I practise.] This is very far from being a mere repeti- 
 tion of verse 15. We may paraphrase thus: " For what I approve 
 and purpose, a good thing (as approved by conscience), I do not," 
 i.e., do not perform; "but what I neither approve nor purpose, an 
 evil thing, I practise." Here "good" and "evil" are used again 
 without the article, not of abstract goodness or evil, but of individual 
 acts of goodness and evil. If we take this same sense in verse 18a, 
 then we should translate thus: "I know that in me, that is, in my 
 flesh, a good act (the performance of the good) does* not dwell;" 
 186 becomes then the explanation : " for though the first part of the 
 act (to approve and purpose) is ready enough at hand, the full per- 
 formance is not. For this good act which 1 approve and purpose I 
 never accomplish; but some evil act wliich I neither approve nor 
 purpose I find myself continually practising." 
 
 20. But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do 
 
V. 21.] ' ' ROMANS, VII. 143 
 
 it, but sin which dwelleth in me.] Here again we arrive at the 
 conclusion already announced in verse 17. But there it is reached 
 in view of his habit, "practice," which proves that he is "carnal, 
 sold under sin." In verses 18, 19, 20, the same conclusion is reached 
 by following up a single act. " A good act (i.e., the power to per- 
 form it) does not dwell in me." This corresponds to the general 
 statement, verse 14, "I am carnal," etc. This specialization of the 
 individual act, followed through its stages as above, again demon- 
 strates what he had already deduced from the general character of 
 his practice. "But if what I do not approve or purpose, that I 
 actually do, it is no longer I who work it out, but the principle of 
 sin which dwelleth in me." He has thus, by two distinct lines of 
 thought — the one following the general character of his actions, and 
 the other tracing up the failure in each particular act — brought out 
 into distinct consciousness the personified principle of indwelling 
 sin, by which this failure of good and practice of evil is effected. 
 This he now proceeds to set before us, not as a separate personified 
 will, but as a general authority or power controlling the will — a law. 
 21. I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is 
 present.] This verse has presented almost insurmountable difficul- 
 ties to the commentators from the fathers downwards. The difficul- 
 ties arise both from the construction and as to the meaning of the 
 word "law " here. Heretofore it has borne the one meaning, "the 
 Mosaic law." But immediately afterward it is used in a new sense, 
 "another law," "the law of sin." A large body of modern com- 
 mentators, from Luther down, understand here this "other law." 
 But the fathers, with Meyer, Olshausen and others of late, held to 
 the meaning "Mosaic law." Their reasons are, not that it gives 
 a better sense, but that the principles of sound exegesis require that 
 we adhere to the established meaning of a term unless there be some 
 specifying adjunct or other evidence that the author uses it in a new 
 sense. But in the construction which they adopt they find no such 
 adjunct. Again, they contend that the article prefixed to the word 
 " law," without any specifying adjunct, requires that it be taken as 
 the law so often before spoken of. To obviate this very strong ob- 
 jection we must find a simple, natural, grammatical construction of 
 the sentence which will specify the new sense of the word "law," 
 and account for the use of the article. The construction adopted by 
 Godet and by the revised version is liable to the objection urged by 
 Meyer. We therefore (with difiidence) propose the following : ( 1 ) We 
 make tov vofiov the subject accusative of etvai understood. (2) We 
 make OeTmvti efioi ■koieiv to Ka'k ov an adjunct of tov vofiov. ( For example 
 of similar adjunct in the dative aKo?.oip tj; aapKi see 2 Cor. xii. 7). 
 (3) We take oti efxoi to kokov TrapaKtiTai as the predicate after Eivai 
 understood. By the adjunct and by the predicate clause the new 
 sense of vofiov is clearly specified, and the presence of the article is 
 accounted for by the fact that vofxov is the subject limited by an ad- 
 junct. The sense of this construction may be expressed as follows : 
 
144 ROMANS, Vll. [vv. 22, 23. 
 
 " I find then that the law which governB me when I wish to do good 
 is, that evil lies at hand to me." This sense, which is virtually the 
 same as that of the revised version and Godet, seems much more in 
 Paul's line of thought than either of the following given by Meyer, 
 and all taking "the law" in the sense of the Mosaic law: — (1) "I 
 find then in me, who am desirous of doing the law (namely, the 
 good), that evil lies before me." (2) "I find therefore the law for 
 me, who am disposed to do good, because evil lies before me." (3) 
 " I find therefore the law, when I desire to do what is beautiful, how 
 it (the law) lies at hand to me as evil." (4) (which Meyer adopts) 
 •• It results to me that while my will is directed to the law in order 
 to do the good, that evil lies before me." 
 
 22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:] 
 There 'are two expressions in this verse which have been held to 
 apply only to the regenerate man, and hence to determine against 
 us the proper application of this entire passage. The first is, "I 
 delight in." This word {avvrjdoiiai) corresponds to avn<pTj^i in verse 
 16, "I consent with" and "I rejoice with." With what? Some 
 say "with the law"; others, "with other good men, to or in the 
 law." Better Godet, who interprets the preposition aw of the in- 
 wardness of the assent or feeling of joy. The words are thus after 
 the analogy of avveidriaig, con-science. If this is the correct signifi- 
 cance, then this word is but an expanded term for what we have 
 already in conscience ; and to deny the possibility of this to the un- 
 regenerate man would be to deny the existence and activity of con- 
 science prior to regeneration. The second term, "the inner man," 
 is supposed to be equivalent to " the new man " or " the regenerate 
 man." It is found in one other passage, Eph. iii. 16, and a similar 
 expression, "the inward man," in 2 Cor. iv. 16. Both these passages 
 present the inward man, not as the result of regeneration, but as the 
 sphere in which regeneration is wrought. The strengthening is not 
 of the inward man but unto the inward man, reaching to our inward 
 nature. Again, it is this inward man which undergoes the process 
 of renewal day by day. In the very next sentence Paul calls this 
 the "mind," i.e.y that higher part of our nature in which moral law 
 makes itself manifest. Both terms, therefore, apply to man as such 
 without implying a previous regeneration. 
 
 23. but I see a different law in my members, warring against 
 the law of my mind,] We have seen, in chapter vi. 13, that "the 
 members " constitutetl the weapons by which sin maintains dominion 
 over us. They are therefore to be taken as those passions by the 
 aid of which sin is strong. The law in the members is therefore the 
 force or power of the passions. This is opposed to the " law of my 
 mind." The mind {vovq) translates the Hebrew "understanding," 
 that power of our nature which discerns moral right and wrong, the 
 moral judgment. The law of the mind is the conscience, that which 
 gives constraining power or force to the moral judgment. 
 
 and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in 
 
vv. 24, 25.] ROMANS, VII. 146 
 
 my members.] We have in the verse before us four laws. The 
 term "law" is in each case used to denote a ruling or controlling 
 power. These laws are contrasted two and two, and allied two and 
 two: — (1) The law of God opposed to the law of sin. (2) The law 
 of my mind opposed to the law of my members. 
 
 The law of God is allied to, but not to be identified with, the law 
 of my mind; the one being objective, the other subjective; one the 
 outward moral rule of life, and the other the inward moral motive 
 of life. 
 
 Again, the law in my members, the controlling power of passion, 
 is not identical with the law of sin, but is so closely allied to it that 
 the members (the passions) are the seat of the law (controlling power) 
 of sin. These distinctions are of the greatest importance in tracing 
 the psychological process here described by Paul, and deducing from 
 it the materials for a doctrine of depravity. The law of sin takes 
 possession of the captive, but the law in the members does the fight- 
 ing and furnishes the weapons. The law of God furnishes the true 
 standard of right; the law of my mind assents to, yea, delights in 
 this. 
 
 Logically, verse 25 should follow here, and must be so interpreted ; 
 but ere he completes the argument he gives voice to the feelings of 
 the heart, contrasting the vivid remembrance of the past with the 
 blessed experience of the preswit. 
 
 24. O wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me out of the 
 body of this death ?] Literally, " O worn-out man," worn out and 
 ready to sink in the conflict — " Who shall rescue me ?" still keeping 
 up the military figure — "Out of the body," not without reference 
 to the members in which the law of sin resides. As these members 
 belonging to the physical body are now members of sin, so they are 
 considered as belonging to a body of sin and "of death." Death is 
 here clearly the spiritual death which directly follows sin. "The 
 body " which he would have called a body of sin (ch. vi. 6) he now 
 calls a body of death, as the full result of sin is plainly before him. 
 
 25. I thank God throug'h Jesus Christ our Lord.] A momentary 
 anticipation of the glorious doctrine of chapter viii. As the whole 
 passage is the expression of deep emotion the best attested reading 
 is in every way to be preferred. This sentence is of itself sufficient 
 proof that the apostle has been describing, not his present personal 
 experience as a Christian, but the universal relation of the law to 
 man's moral nature as he had tested it in his own experience. To 
 this he now returns, summing up all in a single sentence — 
 
 So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God ; but with 
 the flesh the law of sin.] The two conjunctions with which this 
 sentence opens express — the first, the resuming or summarizing of 
 the preceding discourse; the second, the conclusion. Of the term 
 "I myself" (American revisers, "I by myself") three constructions 
 or renderings have been proposed: (1) "Even I," i.e., "I, Paul," 
 hence how much more other or all Christians (so Philippi). (2) " The 
 
146 ROMANS, VII. 
 
 same I" (Olshausen). (3) "I, of myself" (Meyer, Godet). The 
 second is not grammatically tenable, and the first is out of harmony 
 with the line of thought as we have followed it. The last is both 
 grammatical and pertinent. In the preceding sentence the apostle 
 had returned to the standpoint of his freedom "in Christ Jesus." 
 When therefore in this final sentence he returns to sum up, the con- 
 scious contrast of the old life in himself with the new life in Christ 
 Jesus brings out this avrog, "myself." The mind is, as before, the 
 inner, or, as we would say, the higher nature, the moral principles. 
 He here uses the strongest term of the relation of this nature to God's 
 law. He had said (1) that it assents to the law, (2) that it delights 
 in the law; now (3) it serves the law. The antithesis is " but with 
 the flesh," evidently contrasted with "the mind," hence pointing, 
 not to depravity (which is none other than the sin which dwelleth 
 in me), but to that nature in which depravity, the i<in, has its special 
 seat, just as the law of God has its special relation to the mind, the 
 moral nature. If this distin'-tion is valid then the apostle clearly 
 recognizes a basis of moral iwe and of the influence of truth and of 
 the Holy Spirit even in the unregenerate man. It is to be espe- 
 cially marked that it is with this lower nature that the law of sin 
 is served. The relation of sin to the higher nature is represented by 
 death, blindness, sleep, etc. 
 
 '^Excursus on the DocTRiNEa of Chapter VII. 
 
 It only remains to summarize the very important dogmatic teach- 
 ings of this passage. They relate (1) to the moral constitution of 
 man; (2) to his responsibility, in relation to the law of (lod; and 
 (3) to his depravity, in relation to moral law. In the moral consti- 
 tution of man Paul everywhere distinguishes two fundamental ele- 
 ments. These are variously named as they are considered in various 
 forms of activity, or in various moral relations. The broadest dis- 
 tinction is expressed by the terms "flesh" and "spirit" employed 
 in the next chapter. These are not merely two opposed moral states 
 but two fundamental elements of human nature. As we have seen 
 in the present uiiapter, they designate moral states only as they con- 
 trol the ego, the personality. The jnieumn, or spirit, is that element 
 in man's nature by which he is related to ( iod ; the flesh ie that ele- 
 ment by which lie is related to nature. The flesh is more than the 
 body. It is tiic body with all its living powers, and rspecially the 
 desires, pa'*si«ms, etc., by which its activities are controlled. In 
 their relation to man's moral nature those desires and passions make 
 up the flesh. Hence it is, in this moral relation, thut the flesh is 
 the seat of sin. Not that sin is confined to the flesh, but that its 
 
 Srimary impulses are here first felt. The control or dominion of the 
 esh is always sinful; so are the lusts, i.e., the inordinate, or insub- 
 ordinate, desires of the flesh. 
 
 1. The spirit, as the power of mural discernment, distinguishing 
 
ROMANS, Vn. 147 
 
 right from wrong, is called the mind ; the acta of the mind are auneais, 
 understanding, or su7mde»is, conscience. That which this understand- 
 ing apprehends is to ayaOov, the good, or to koXov, the moral beauty. 
 This whole spiritual nature of man is the seat of the operations of 
 the Holy Spirit, and is intimately related t J the regenerate nature 
 as its natural basis. The new nature finds its possibility in the spirit 
 of man, just s,s sin finds its possibility in th ) natural antithesis of 
 the ilesh to the spirit. A very careful study of the use of these two 
 tei"in« by Paul will, we think, make it evident that he does not iden- 
 tify the uew nature with the spirit, nor the old evil nature with the 
 flesh, though they are respectively so intimately related that terms 
 derived from the one are applied to the other. But we shall con- 
 sider this more fully under the third head. 
 
 2. As to man's responsibility, the apostle does not fall into the line 
 of our modern psychology and base this upon free will. He does 
 not abstract the act of willing, as we are accustomed to do it. With 
 him there are, in fact, two wills — the will of the flesh, and the will of 
 the spirit or the true self. Will is simply the outgoing of the nature 
 toward action, and is supposed to be the free expression of the nature 
 which wills. It is the moral character of the nature which wills 
 that determines the moral character of the will. Man is responsible 
 in virtue of his nature as a spiritual being. The subjective basis of 
 his responsibility lies in his power to know, approve, and choose or 
 will the right. In other words, it lies in conscience, in its twofold 
 power of moral understanding and moral motive to action. Paul 
 takes it for granted that wherever conscience exists there is responsi- 
 bility, or at least the subjective basis for it. But while he recognizes 
 this higher will power in conscience as the basis of responsibility, he 
 at the same time recognizes a will power, an impulse to action, from 
 the lower nature. Sin seems to lie in the antagonism of this lower 
 will to the higher, which we shall consider presently. 
 
 The objective basis of responsibility is, according to Paul, the 
 presence of law. *' Sin is not imputed where there is no law." Law 
 IS the revelation to man of moral principles in the form of positive 
 commands. The presence of law lifts man out of the state of mere 
 instinctive action, which has in itself no moral character, i.e., it may 
 be good, but it is not virtuous; or it may be bad, but it is not sin. 
 With the presence of law comes the conflict of the two wilU, or rather, 
 natures, and the distinct consciousness of the spirit or conscience as 
 opposed to the flesh. Our subjective basis of esponsibility becomes 
 etHcient only through the presence of law. Two conditions are thus 
 necessary to responsibility— the possession of a nature capable of the 
 moral activities, and the presence of a law calling for the regulation 
 uf tile lower nature, and thus calling this higher nature into con* 
 scions exercise. 
 
 3. We are thus prepared to defliie Paul's vinw of depravity, or the 
 sin of our nature, as tiistinguishiMl from the sin of act. It is such a 
 state uf the lower nature as refuses to obey law, and carries its lower 
 
148 ROMANS, VII. 
 
 will into act in the face of the higher will of conscience. The origin 
 of this abnormal state (this warfare in ourself ) is stated in chapter v. 
 12, etc. In the present chapter Paul deals with its nature, its mani- 
 festation and its extent. As to its nature, he calls it eniftv/uia (lust), 
 he fixes its ^eat in the flesh (the lower nature) and in the members 
 (the natural passions, etc., of that nature). Hence we may safely 
 infer that " the sin " of our nature lies primarily, or in part at least, 
 in the undue strength of all those lower desires and appetites which 
 conscience should control. In other passages Paul goes further, and 
 shews us that the mind and conscience may be darkened (Eph. iv. 18) 
 and the sensitive feeling of obligation blunted (1 Tim. iv. 2). Per- 
 haps Paul refers to a moral state even mgre terrible than this in 
 Titus i. 15, 16, where the higher nature is not only enfeebled but 
 actually prostituted to sin. It may, however, be questioned whe- 
 ther Paul contemplates it as an actual fact, or even a possible case, 
 that any man should be born in this deeper form of depravity. In 
 the passages referred to it is presented rather as the result of a course 
 of personal transgression. On the other hand, in the present chapter 
 we have depravity described as it manifests itself in one .nan from 
 the beginning of his moral development, he being taken as a type of 
 all others. We may thus take the depravity here described as the 
 measure of the extent of that depravity which is conmion l)y birth 
 to all. This measure of extent we find in the fact, the will of the jifnh 
 mien. The true self constantly fails to maintain its prerogative. The 
 apostle does not directly say that it cannot. He does not say, *' The 
 good that I would I am not able to perform," but simply, *' I do not." 
 He does, on the other hand, affirm a "cannot" on the part of the 
 will of the flesh (ch. viii. 7, 8). This mind of the flesh has in itself 
 no self-regulating power. It has lost its original subordination to 
 law. It cannot please CJod, nor can those do so who are in the flesh, 
 i.e., who resign themselves to its power. If, therefore, Paul does 
 not assert a moral inability on the part of that higher nature which 
 ** approvea," '* delights in," and " serves " (Jod's law, he seems f'urly 
 to imply as much, as also in the expressions "sold under sin " and 
 "making me captive." The moral inability is, however, to com- 
 plete action, to the " working out " of the goo<l, not to the eff"ort or 
 even struggle towards it. Kut here again we must remember that 
 the case described is that of an actual man under the law, not of a 
 fallen being left absolutely to himself. Paul never discusses such a 
 theoretical fiction. Hut the ((uestion now arises, How far does this 
 natural bondage to sin affect responsibility ? In answering this (pies- 
 tion we must hrst note that I'aul is here discussing the oase of a man 
 who is in full possession of both reciuisites to responsibility. He has 
 a moral nature and he is under the law. Prior to tho coming of the 
 law Paul does not say that he is respoupib'o. Yet he does recognize 
 responsibility arising from even the lower forms of law in the (jen- 
 tilia world (ch. ii. 14, 15). But (tod'a law is never a mere objective 
 condition of reiponaibility, It is not a mere rule by which a man 
 
vv. 1,2.] ROMANS, VIII. UO 
 
 may measure the extent of his obligations. It is spirit and life. It 
 awakens conscience, removes its blindness, increases its sympathy 
 with the right, and adds moral force to its mandates, and thus 
 changes the subjective conditions of our moral nature. On the other 
 hand, it creates a moral crisis in the other direction as well. As 
 conscience was mere latent moral capacity till the law came, so also 
 with sin. Not that it did not previously exist, but it needed this 
 opposing force to react against, and so render sensible, its activity. 
 If it be said tliat all this implies a redemptive interference, and so 
 does not answer the (juestion as to what is man's condition under 
 the fall prior to redemption, we can only reply again that Paul 
 knows no such abstract fiction. He takes man as he is and traces 
 his development under the fourfold law — (1) of his mind, his higher 
 nature; (2) of his memSers, his lower nature; (3) of God; and (4) of 
 sin. Such a man, under existing conditions of moral development, 
 he certainly holds to be responsible m the presence of tht hope of re- 
 dempiion. 
 
 But Paul leaves room for degrees of responsibility. His typical 
 man is a Jew in whose case the obj» ctive conditions of responsibility 
 are most perfectly satislied. Still, he recognizes the responsibility 
 of the (ientiles, leaving room for Christ's supplementary teaching, 
 " It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon," etc. His view of 
 the pro<;e8s of moral development would also lead us to the conclusion 
 that wlicre tlic external conditions are favourable moral development 
 may take place very early in life. On tlie other liand, under less 
 favourable conditions the process may be dow as well as imperfect. 
 
 Cu. VIII. I-ll. — Thk Tkidmph ok the .Spirit over the Law of 
 Sin and ultimately over the Law ok Death, 
 
 1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in 
 Christ Jesus.] The conjunction "therefore" points back to a pre- 
 ceding statement of tacts from which it draws a conclusion. These 
 facts are not contained, as Meyer thinks, in vii. 2r)/>, but are called 
 up again in 25a from vii. 6. The present section is a contitient on 
 vii. (>, as the preceding section was on vii. r>. The "newness of the 
 spirit " in vii. <J is the " spirit of life " in Christ Jesus of viii. 2. But 
 to this 2r>a adds tlie i*lea of deliverance from the bondage of the law 
 of sin. Tiiese are the facts which our conjunction gathers up in the 
 conclusive statement of this verse, and which are stated in the way 
 of explication by the }«/> (" for ") of the verse following. The " now " 
 of this verse is opposed to the " when " of chapter vii. 6. The con- 
 demnation is the sentence of God's law against sin, spoken in the 
 conscience, and finally executed in the day of judgment. 
 
 2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free 
 from the law of sin and of death.] U our view of the connection 
 bo right then the " law of the Spirit of life " must l)e defined in accord 
 with the idea already presented in verse 6 supplemented by verse 'i5i 
 
150 ROMANS, VIII. [v. 3. 
 
 I 
 
 In verse 25 we find a "law " (a regulative power) of the mind, i.e., 
 of the higher moral nature, but insufficient to set free. In verse 6 
 we find a reference to "newness of the spirit." In this same Epistle 
 (oh. xii. 2) the author speaks of "the renewing of the mind," and in 
 Eph. iv. 23 of being " renewed in the spirit of your minds." This 
 by no means excludes the office and work of the Holy Spirit, but it 
 shews us that Paul regards the Holy Spirit, not as working by an 
 outward constraint, but through the spiritual basis of our nature, 
 renewing it and making it the regulative power of the new life. 
 " This law set me free," a clearly defined historical experience at a 
 definite past time. "From the law of sin and death." This is 
 clearly defined as the law of sin in chapter vii. It is at the same 
 time the law of death as working death (eh. vii. 13). The expres- 
 sion " hath set me free " turns the thought back to the question of 
 verse 24. 
 
 3. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through 
 the flesh,] We have here in the Greek a peculiar, suspended con- 
 struction. It might be rendered "the impossibility of the law." It 
 may be taken as a substantive in apposition with the entire sentence 
 following, especially verse 4. It thus prefixes an important state- 
 ment concerning the great fact there mentioned. It was a thing im- 
 possible to the law. This had been fully proven in chapter vii. , and 
 the reai?on for it fully explained, which Paul here briefly recapitu- 
 lates, "in that it was weak through the flesh." The governing im- 
 pulses of the lower nature, constituting the law of sin in the mem- 
 bers, are here presented as the cause of the failure of the law. 
 
 God, sending; his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as 
 an oftering' for sin,] The participial clause here, as frequently, sets 
 forth the means by which the act of the principal verb is accom- 
 plished, i.fi., in the case before us the redemption of man from sin. 
 This consists of three elements— ( I) " God sends hin own Son." Here 
 the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord are clearly recognized. 
 Here also Paul unites with John in ascribing the fundamental and 
 initial act of human redemption to the love of the Father. (Compare 
 oh. V. 8; John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 9.) (2) " In the liksness of sinful 
 flesh." This is the second step in the accomplishment of thb re- 
 deeming work. The redeemer must be one of the race to be re- 
 deemed, as was the author of their sin. The same law of probational 
 unity governs both. (See oh. v. 12-19 and Phil. ii. 6-8.) In the 
 present clause, however, Paul goes further than usual. He nays 
 not merely " in the likenesn of men," or " was made flesh," but "of 
 sinful flesh " — literally of this very flesh possessed by sin—" of flesh 
 of sin." The senitive is not, we think, here properly rendered by 
 an adjective wliich would imply attributes or (luality. That would 
 be to attribute to our Lord's human nature sinnilness, in opposition 
 to Paul's own teaching (2 Cor. v. 21). We cannot, with Ruhlle, 
 escape from this through the word "likeness." There is in that 
 word no docetic idea. Paul everywhere uses it to express the spe- 
 
V. 3.] ROMANS, VIII. 161 
 
 cific form of the nature itself, not a mere resemblance to the nature. 
 But if we adopt the marginal rendering we have the idea that the 
 very flesh which sin had made its stronghold, and which on account 
 of sin was under the curse and subject to death, was the flesh which 
 Christ entered. This justifies our definition of the word " flesh " in 
 the last chapter. It cannot here mean, and we think it does not 
 anywhere mean, "sinful nature," or depravity as such, but that ele- 
 ment of our nature through means of which sin rules, and the pre- 
 dominance of which over the mind and spirit constitutes depravity. 
 Christ took upon him this very nature under its law of sin and pen- 
 alty, thotiffh specially sanctified for him by the operations of the Holy 
 Ohost. The nature is not in itself sin — it is capable of being the ser- 
 vant of God and the instrument of righteousness. Christ then took 
 this nature sanctified from personal sin, but still the very nature of 
 fallen man, and subject, as also his sanctified followers still are, to 
 all the pains and penalties, trials and temptations, which its relation 
 to sin has imposed. (Compare Heb. ii. 14-18.) (3) "And as an 
 offering for sin." This is an interpretation rather than a translation. 
 The original reads, concerning sin, ttf/k auapnaq. This expression 
 is used in the LXX. in reference to sin offering. (See Lev. xvi. 6, 
 11, etc.; Num. viii. 8.) It is similarly used in the New Testament, 
 especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews. (See Heb. v. 4; x. 6.) 
 The use of the phrase in this form is so distinct that — especially as 
 Paul uses it only here, and as where he wishes to express the more 
 general idea he uses the preposition ifrep — we feel inclined to take 
 it in that more limited sense of expiation. If it bears the broader 
 meaning of "on account of," ana includes "all the relations of 
 (Christ's work to sin," then this of expiation is certainly the most 
 fundamental. 
 
 Out of the three integral elements of the redemptive work thus 
 presented, viz., (1) the divine person of the Redeemer, (2) his unity 
 with the sinful humanity to be redeemed, and (3) his expiatory offer- 
 ing, we have finally the result of this work from the (iodward side, 
 " condemned sin in the flesh." This predicate is capable of two con- 
 structions. The adjunct "in the flesh " may be taken in immediate 
 relation to "sin." The article would favour this — "The sin in the 
 flesh." Or it may be taken directly with the verb— "In the flesh 
 condemned sin." "The sin " will thus be generic, sin as a power in 
 the moral world. The first construction, though in harmony with 
 the particular line of thought l)efore us, is more restricted, and fails 
 to bring out so fully the idea that the triumph over sin is in that 
 very nature through which and in which sin triumphed. This be- 
 comes more important when we ask, as we must, what is the mean- 
 ing of the expression "condemned sin." It cannot be taken as a 
 more variation in expression for conquered or overcome sin, nor for 
 destroyed sin. Paul is too precise and direct in the use of language 
 to admit of any such interpretation. We find, however, a precise 
 meaning attached to this form of expression in two passages of the 
 
152 ROMANS, VIII. [v. 4. 
 
 New Testament. The first is in Matt. xii. 41, and is repeated in 
 Luke xi. 31, etc. The second is in Hebrews xi. 7. A parallel to 
 these is found in John iii. 19. The same idea is applied by our Lord 
 to his own work in John ix. 39. The thought in all these passages 
 is, that sin is judged and condemned in the light of righteousness. 
 If Christ's work is a supreme act of righteousness whereby it comes 
 unto all men unto justification, then that act of righteousness is of 
 itself a supreme condemnation of sin. That act of righteousness is 
 wrouglit out in the very nature which had sinned, yea, by the very 
 submissive obedience of that nature " even unto death." The flesh 
 which had by arrogantly ruling over the spirit made itself the instru- 
 ment of sin, in Christ yielded itself to the "willing spirit" that 
 "God's will might be done." Here again the apostle touches the 
 deepest mystery of the atonement. (Compare Heb. v. 7, etc.) As 
 this supreme act of righteousness includes the suffering of death as 
 the penalty of sin, the condemnation of sin, i.e., its judicial sentence 
 of judgment before the whole universe, became complete when the 
 Son of God himself submits the flesh wliich he had made his own to 
 suffer the penalty of God's law, but which as our sinful flesh was held 
 to suffer this penalty. (Compare I Peter ii. 24.) 
 
 4. that the ordinance of the law mig^ht be fulfilled in us,] This 
 is the central point of this entire sentence. This is "the impossi- 
 bility of the law." It is here introduced as the final purpose of the 
 great redemptive work set before us in the preceding verse. That 
 redemptive work is contrasted with the law ; this glorious result 
 with the failure of the law. The word "ordinance" is as far aside 
 from the meaning of (StKaiufia in the one direction as is the word 
 "righteousness' in the other. It signifies that which law requires; 
 not the statute which makes the requirement on the one hand, nor 
 the character acquired by fulfilling law on the other, but the manner 
 of doing the right acts which the law recjuires. This very manner 
 of doing which the law demanded and which bur minds approved, 
 but which we failed under the law to "do," is now filled out to the 
 full, not only in letter but in spirit, by the same itn. 
 
 who walk not after the l!esh, but after the spirit.) Here, if at 
 all, the word " flesh " is used in a purely ethical sense, i.e., as a desig- 
 nation of sinful human nature as such. We think, however, that 
 even here the contrast is not so much between " the flesh " and " the 
 spirit" as between "the walking accordiiK/ (j the flesh" and "rrc- 
 cortlinij to the spirit." The " walk according to the spirit " is God's 
 order; the " walk according to the flesh " is the subversion of (iod's 
 order. The flesh as ruler of the man is the minister of sin and cor- 
 rupt; the same flesh as the instrument of righteousness is the holy 
 temple of the Holy (J host. We doubt, therefore, whether even here 
 iVul uses the word " flesh " as the designation of an ethical state. 
 It is rather the adjectival expression derived from it, "after the 
 flesh." The corresponding expression, Kara irvni/ia, is likewise adjec- 
 tival. We have b«fore seen that al recognizes a spiritual nature 
 
vv. 5-7.] ROMANS, VIII. 153 
 
 in which God and man unite. "After the spirit" describes a life 
 controlled by this nature. In bringing this about the Spirit of God 
 works, but through and in the spirit of man. 
 
 5. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the 
 flesh;] "They that are after the flesh" are the persons ruled by 
 the flesh, and who have thus reversed God's order of their being. 
 The word "mind " is a peculiar one. It is derived from the Greek 
 name for the diaphragm, and like heart, reins and bowels, is used as 
 a psychological term. It designates a peculiar mental state, includ- 
 ing intellectual elements as well as desire and will. It is to apply 
 the thoughts to a thing with strong emotional elements, usually of a 
 lower moral character, though not always so — the eagerness of nat- 
 ural desire or passion. This very eagerness, however, may, like all 
 natural things, be sanctifled. (Compare Col. iii. 2. ) It is used by 
 Paul in this passage to denote the great end of life. This with those 
 who are governed by the flesh is to gain the things of the flesh. 
 
 but they that are after the spirit the things of the spirit.] Com- 
 pare Phil. iv. 8, where the things of the spirit are presented as an ob- 
 jective course of life. In Gal. v. 22 they are given as an inward char- 
 acter. In Col. iii. 1-4 we have them as hoped for in the future. We 
 have thus designated two classes of men, two distinct sets of ruling 
 aims of life, representing two distinct moral states, and having their 
 starting point in the right or wrong relation to will and conduct of 
 the two fundamental elements of man's nature. He now adds the 
 two final results to which they respectively lead. 
 
 6. For the mind of the flesh is death;] The aim of life which is 
 based upon the flesh, the lower nature, leads to death, inasmuch aa 
 the very fact of ruling the life makes the flesh a breaker of law. 
 God's law 8ubordina^>es the flesh to the spirit. If the beginning of 
 depravity lies in the imuhordination of the flesh (its lusts, see on 
 ch. vii. ), then the apostle has carried this idea consistently through, 
 making depravity and sin everywhere moral and not physical in 
 their nature. The mind of the flesh is the moral impulse which is 
 governed by the flesh. Moral impulse, i.e., impulse governing the 
 will, should always be spiritual. To resign this high prerogative to 
 the flesh is death. 
 
 but the mind of the spirit is life and peace :] Because in harmony 
 with God's order and law of our being. All moral law is natural 
 law, as duty. All natural law which guides the conscious acts of a 
 moral being becomes moral law through his intelligence and con- 
 sci»jnce. Hence Paul adds at once aa the reason, 
 
 7. because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God;] Paul 
 does not say that the "flesh" is "enmity against (Jod "; but "the 
 motive," that entire aim or direction of life which springs from the 
 flesh, is enmity, i.e., is a warlike opposition to God. It must be so, 
 inasmuch as it is directly contrary to God's order. 
 
 for it is not subject to the law of God,] That is this " mind " or 
 direction of life which springs from the flesh. It is, as we have be- 
 ll 
 
154 ROMANS, VIII. [vv. 8, 9. 
 
 fore seen, this insubordination which constitutes its sinfulness. The 
 word translated " subject " signifies to reduce to order under author- 
 ity or law. <jod's law prescribes the order and limits of the flesh, 
 its true office as the servant of the spirit. But by presuming to 
 direct the life it has broken loose from this order. 
 
 neither indeed can it be:] Even the revisetl version neglects the 
 force of the particle yap, "for," which is found in this clause. We 
 should render thus, supplying the ellipsis in full from the preceding 
 clause: "For indeed it cannot possibly be subject to God's law." 
 What cannot possiljly be subject? Not the "flesh," but " the mind 
 of the flesh. " In its very nature it is a breach of God's law. 
 
 8. and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.] The ex- 
 pression "in the flesh " is here repeated from chapter vii. 5; but as 
 it has now become a familiar term the article is dropped. It corres- 
 ponds to "after the flesh " in verse 4; but the preposition there used 
 and repeated in verse 5 is suited to the idea of " direction of the con- 
 duct according to a rule prescribed by the desires of the flesh," which 
 idea is found in both these verses. The present preposition points 
 rather to the permanent moral condition of those whose life is gov- 
 erned " accoriling " to the flesh. These are said to be " in the flesh," 
 a term corresponding to the adjective "carnal" (ch. vii. 14). On 
 the expression "please God " connnentators are divided, some taking 
 it as a mild way of saying "are under God's wrath "; others regard- 
 ing it as equivalent to "cannot acceptably serve God." The first 
 sense requires ua to connect tliis clause with the first clause of verse 
 7, thus, "t)ie mind of tlie flesh is death," etc., "because the mind 
 of the flesh is hostile toward (Jod ; and on the other hand, those that 
 are in the flesh cannot be pleasing to him," i.e., are the objects of 
 his displeasure. So Meyer and Godet. The decidedly active signifi- 
 cance of the word, as signifying eff'ort or active desire to please, is, 
 however, rather in favour of the other interpretation, which would 
 connect tliis clause with the middle clause of verse 7 (making the 
 last clause a parentli'>sis), as follows: " The carnal mind is hostile to 
 God, for it is not subject to (iod's law, and they that are in tlie flesh 
 cannot please him." There may be a "will of the mind " to do so, 
 but it is never carried into effect, " wrought out. " Verses 5, and 7 
 become thus a rcsunir of chapter vii. 
 
 9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, ] By means of 
 the adversative conjunction contrasting the condition of his readers 
 with that just described, the autlior returns to the point which he 
 had reached at the end of verse 4, in which he was expanding the 
 text already given (ch. vii. 6). The expression " in t le spirit " here 
 i8 equivalent to in " newness of the spirit " there, ana to the adjec- 
 tive "spiritual" elsewhere; and as the phrase "in flesh" describes 
 the permanent moral condition of the unregenerate, so the phrase 
 " in spirit " <lescribes the permanent moral state of believers. 
 
 if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you.] With these 
 important words the !4postle opens up a new aspect, before untouched 
 
V. 10.] ROMANS, VIII. 155 
 
 in this Epistle, of the process of our moral regeneration in Christ. 
 This is nothing less than the personal agency of the Holy Ghost, who 
 "abideth with us and shall be in us" (John xiv. 17). The distinct 
 personality of the Holy Spirit is scarcely less prominent in this pas- 
 sage than in the later writings of St. John. We may note, further, 
 the expressions " the Spirit of God dwelleth in you," "the Spirit of 
 him that raised up Jesus from the dead," "as many as are led by 
 the Spirit of God," " the Spirit himself beareth witness." All these, 
 in the light of parallel passages of St. Paul as well as of St. John, 
 the church has interpreted of the Third Person of the Trinity. (See 
 Gal. iv. 6; 1 Cor. iii. 16; Eph. iv. 30, etc.) 
 
 But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.] 
 The Spirit of Christ is not the Christ-like spirit, but the Holy Spirit, 
 the Comforter promised by Christ. This designation of the Holy 
 Ghost is common with Paul and Peter. (See Gal. iv. 6; Pliil. i. 19; 
 1 Peter i. 11). The reference to the promise of the Spirit (Eph i. i3) 
 and the fact that our Lord's promise was recorded by Luke (Acts i. 
 4, 8), and that its fulfilment was clearly recognized on the day of 
 Pentecost, make it almost certain that the Holy Spirit is called the 
 Spirit of Christ in all these passages, as promised by our Lord and 
 proceeding from him. The possession of this promised Comforter is 
 absolutely essential to the Christian. No stronger form of language 
 can be found in the New Testament than this : "This one is not his," 
 i.e., Christ's. He may be a servant of God under the law; he is not 
 Christ's. 
 
 10. And if Christ is in you,] This passing from the Spirit of 
 Christ to Christ himself is iu harmony with the language of the 
 promise. (Compare John xiv. 16-18.) Christ manifests himself 
 unto us and in us by his Spirit (John xiv. 25, 26, etc.) 
 
 the body is dead because of sin;j Our two English versions 
 omit the corresponding conjunction fiev, which, with <5f following, 
 connects this clause with the next. It may be rendered thus: " «'<! 
 t8 tnie that the body is dead because of sin, but." (See Liddell and 
 Scott's Lex- ) The reference here is clearly to physical death as the 
 penalty of sin. How, even from that, we shall be finally delivered 
 he will tell us presently. Meantime the body is still subject to 
 death on account of sin, i.e., the sin reacliing the race from Adam. 
 
 but the spirit is life because of righteousness.] " The spirit " is 
 our spirit as contrasted witli our body. This becomes life, i.e., our 
 true life, controlling our whole living being. While the spirit is 
 here clearly the regenerate nature, yet the word does not bear this 
 meaning taken alone. It is as the subject of this predicate " life " 
 that it designates the new nature. " On account of righteousness " — 
 not on account of Christ's righteoiisness, as the procuring cause of 
 this life; nor for the sake of working righteousness, as the final 
 cause of this gift of life — but on account of our new right relation to 
 God, in connection with the bestowment of which (i.e., our pardon 
 or justification) God'a Spirit bestows this life. The two thiugB^> 
 
156 ROMANS, VIII. [v. 11. 
 
 the gift of righteousness, or justification, and the new life of our spirit, 
 or regeneration — are inseparable concomitants. The second is given 
 on account of the first and with the first. 
 
 II. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead 
 dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall 
 (juicken also your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth 
 in you.] The concessive clause in verse 10, "the body, it is true, 
 is dead," had called up to Paul's mind the great doctrine of the 
 resurrection. On Paul's view of this subject see 1 Cor. xv. The 
 present passage is important as bringing the regenerating work of 
 the Holy Ghost into direct relation to the resurrection of the body 
 as a forepromise of that final deliverance (compare verse 23 and Eph. 
 i. 14), and also as indicating a still more intimate connection between 
 the regenerating work of the Spirit and the glorification of the resur- 
 rection body which will be a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44). The 
 alternate reading, ** for the sake of his Spirit that dwelleth in you," 
 is not so well attested. It would favour the identification of the 
 Spirit of God with that of man, the body being raised again for the 
 sake of this spirit, i.e., to be its eternal habitation. This reading 
 is as old as the Macedonian Controversy, and was used by the here- 
 tics of that time. The reading of the text represents the Holy Spirit 
 as the agent of the resurrection of the saints in glory. 
 
 Excursus on the Doctrines of Depravity and Regeneration. 
 
 In the larger section of the Epistle here completed, extending from 
 chapter vii. 5 to chapter viii. 11, and embracing two subsections — 
 the first on the relation of the law to our fallen moral nature, and 
 the second on the relation of grace to th^kt same fallen nature — we 
 have incidentally presented the moral nature of man in the light of 
 the two dispensations, (1) of the law, and (2) of the gospel. We may 
 therefore here supplement the data as to the doctrine of man's fallen 
 nature or condition derived from chapter vii. That which in chapter 
 vii., in contrast to God's law, was there designated as a law of sin 
 and death, is here, in contrast to the new governing principle of the 
 spiritual life, called " the mind of the flesh," i.e., an aim or control- 
 ling principle of life derived from the flesh, i.e., from our lower na- 
 ture. The persons governed by this impulse are said to be " after the 
 flesh " and " in the flesh." This impulse or controlling motive of life 
 is not only opposed to God's law but is further hostile to God himself, 
 and insubordinate to his revealed will in his law; and in its very 
 nature must be so. And as a result it is not possible for those who 
 are in this moral condition to please God, i.e., to work out a course 
 of life acceptable to him. And the end of this impulse is death, as 
 was the end of the law of sin. The process of regeneration is the 
 quickening into new life of man's spiritual nature. This nature, 
 even under the flesh, existed as the law of the mind, assenting to, 
 delighting in, and eveu willing to serve the good; but now, under 
 
vv. 12, 13.] ROMANS, Vllt l5t 
 
 the regenerating grace of God, it becomes the mind of the Spirit, 
 i.e., a governing power of life founded in our spiritual nature. This 
 spiritual nature is restored to life in harmony with God's gift of 
 righteousness, i.e., pardon as received in the conscience, delivering 
 us from condemnation or tlie sentence of death against sin. So that 
 the emancipation of the conscience from the sense of guilt is at the 
 same time the restoration of its power to govern the life, i.e., not 
 any emancipation, such as a delusive carnal security, but the emanci- 
 pation which God gives us in Christ. Regeneration is thus the resto- 
 ration to man's spiritual nature of its power t control the whole 
 man, wiJch thus in all its activities becomes a new man in Christ 
 Jesus. But this regeneration is effected by the indwelling of God's 
 Holy Spirit, the promised Comforter, whose office it is to reveal to 
 us the things of God (1 Cor. ii. 9-12). Hence the harmony of Paul's 
 doctrine with that of Peter, who says that we are born of the word 
 of God (1 Peter i. 23; see also James i. 18). In the immediate con- 
 text Paul calls especial attention to the revelation by this Spirit of 
 God's adopting love, the testimony of God's Spirit that we are the 
 children of God. The communication of this testimony is thus most 
 intimately associated with the work of regeneration. 
 
 Ch. VIII. 12-17. Concluding Statement of our high Obliga- 
 tions, CULMINATING IN THE PRIVILEGES OF CHRISTIAN SONSHIP. 
 
 12. So then, brethren, we are debtors,] The two conjunctions 
 here used sum up and resume the preceding argument. " So," i.e., 
 under these circumstances; "then," resuming the discourse and 
 carrying us back to the main line of thought. But what is the main 
 line of thought ? and to what point are ve carried back ? The word 
 " debtors " gives us the clue. It carries us directly back to chapter 
 vii. 5, 6, and thence to chapter vi. 21-23. The whole intervening 
 discourse, as we have seen, is but the expansion and demonstration 
 of chapter vii. 5, 6. The conjunction "so" sums up this entire ex- 
 pansion of the main thesis of chapter vii. 5, 6, to which the deduc- 
 tive " then " directly attaches the present practical conclusion. 
 
 not to the flesh, to live after the flesh:] The constant thought 
 of the apostle is to guard his readers against return to that Jewish 
 legality which will place them once more under the dominion of the 
 flesh. He does not say that we have no debt to the flesh ; we owe 
 it food and raiment, but we do not owe it the rule of our lives. 
 
 13. for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die ;] This was the cen- 
 tral thought which the apostle's "30 " (verse 12) summed up, and to 
 which his " then " carried us back, already placed before us in chap- 
 ters vi. 23 and vii. 5, and subsequently repeated at the conclusion of 
 each subordinate line of argument. 
 
 but if by the spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall 
 live.] The adversative conjunction advances the apostle's thought 
 to the new step toward which he is now leading us, the blessed privi- 
 
i58 ROMANS, Vlli. [v. 14. 
 
 lege of living in the spirit. The " spirit " is here probably our spirit- 
 ual nature quickened into new life by God's Spirit. The deeds of 
 the body which, by the authority of the spiritual nature, are to be 
 put to death, i.e., put out of existence, are enumerated in Gal. v. 21. 
 Theee t-re the "deeds "or " works " of the flesh, i.e., the acts which 
 result from its control over the will. The substitution of the word 
 "body" for the "flesh" shews us that in the apostle's vocabulary 
 the word " flesh " is not identical with depravity. The life promised 
 is the real life with Christ in God, which the apostle proceeds to set 
 forth in the verses following, 
 
 14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons 
 of God.] We have already seen that at various points in his dis- 
 course the apostle opens up a new field of thought by a " for," mak- 
 ing it the reason or expansion of something going before. Here the 
 whole doctrine of Christian sonship is opened up in illustration of 
 the promise, "ye shall live." The idea of sonship comes directly 
 out of the idea of new " life " now before the apostle's mina ; though 
 Paul presents the sonship rather as an "adoption" than as a "re- 
 generation. " (Compare ch. ix. 4 ; Gal. iv. 5 ; Eph. i. 5. ) The idea 
 of new birth is with him, as in the Jewish mind generally, connected 
 with baptism (Titus iii. 5). The proselyte who sought admission 
 among the covenant people was first baptized, which was reckoned 
 a new birth. Then by circumcision he was instated in all the privi- 
 leges of the covenant, i.e., adopted as a son. This term, received by 
 Paul from Roman law, designated, not so much an individual relation 
 between father and adopted son, as with us, as a tribal or family re- 
 lation. In the case of the Jews, a national relationship, in which 
 all shared in common in the covenant promise, " Ye shall be my 
 sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty," is presented before 
 us. This verse therefore constitutes the turning point at which the 
 apostle passes from the great question of "righteousness," in its re- 
 lations to the law and the gospel, and in its moral obligations and 
 the helps afforded by the two dispensations, to the covenant privi- 
 leges of those who are accepted as righteous before (Jod. In chapter 
 ix. 4 Paul acknowledges that the adoption belongs to the ancient 
 covenant people ; and it is there placed at the head of the catalogue 
 of the covenant privileges. As up to this point he has, by comparison 
 of the law and the gospel, vindicated for believers the claim to right- 
 eousness before God, such as could never be attained by works of 
 law, so now he quietly proceeds to claim for them all the covenant 
 privileges of the ancient people. We may therefore paraphrase the 
 verse before us thus: ' For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
 thene (and not mere natural descendants of Abraham, or those who 
 are outwardly under the law), these are the true sons of God. On 
 the title " son," as designating the chosen people, compare Ex. iv. 22; 
 applied to their anointed heod, 2 Sam. vfl. 14; 1 Chron. xvii. 13. 
 (See also Hosea xi. 9; i. 10; Isaiah xlv. 11 ; Jer. xxxi. 9.) The text 
 is therefore the announcement of a most important principle, putting 
 
V. U.] ^ ROMANS, VIII. 150 
 
 the whole catalogue of covenant privileges upon the basis of inward 
 character, of spiritual (not mere legal or external) relationship to 
 God. The carrying out of the position which Paul takes in the verse 
 before us fills out the rest of this chapter and calls for chapters ix.-xi. 
 Sons, heirs, partakers of sufiFering, sharers of glory, to which we are 
 predestinated and called, and toward which all things work, and so 
 instated in a relationship to God from which nothing in time nor 
 eternity can move us — these are the golden links of the covenant 
 privileges which are ours in Christ, and of which we have the first 
 now before us. The fully expanded thought of Paul in this connec- 
 tion we have in Gal. iii. 26-iv. 7, where our interpretation as related 
 to the ancient covenant and its sonship is fully borne out. Paul 
 summarizes here what is given in full there. 
 
 15. For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear;] 
 "The spirit of bondage" is the spirit of a mere servant, as distin- 
 guished from that of a son. The word " spirit " here designates our 
 spiritual nature in its relation to God, This nature may stand to- 
 wards God in a relation of servitude, "unto fear," i.e., leading to 
 the fear of God, reverential dread of God as a holy God". This was 
 not the relation in which they were placed by faitli in Christ Jesus. 
 The reference is to a definite experience on the part of his readers at 
 a particular point of their religious history. But the adverb " again " 
 implies that they had previously received the spirit of servitude to 
 fear. The attempt to restrict the adverb to the phrase "to fear" 
 does not invalidate this conclusion, unless it can be shown that there 
 is such a thing as religious fear apart from this spirit of the servant. 
 But does this spirit of bondage refer to the law ? Our present passage 
 taken by itself alone would not warrant such a reference, although 
 the entire scope of the Epistle, as everywhere throwing the law into 
 contrast with the gospel, might strongly suggest it. But in the light 
 of Gal. iv. 23, etc., such a reference becomes unavoidable. Thera 
 we are told that the old sonship under the law was only the .lonship 
 of children in ward, which differs nothing from the condition of the 
 bondservant so far as the present is concerned (Gal. iv. 1, 2). Thus 
 the condition of God's people under the law was also one of bondage 
 until, " in the fulness of time, God sent forth his Son," etc. (Ga.1. iv. 
 4, 5). In the light of this parallel passage we must therefore inter- 
 pret the adverb as follows: " Ye received not the spirit of servitude 
 again (as those under the law formerly received it) to fear.'* 
 
 but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, 
 Father.] The spirit of adoption is here beautifully defined as that 
 relation to God out of which our spirits "cry, Abba, Father." In 
 the parallel passage in Galatians this act is represented as that of 
 the Spirit of God's Son crying in our hearts, i.e., in the seat of our 
 moral judgment and affections, Abba, Father. The next verse will 
 bring the two into harmony. It is, however, to be noted that Paul 
 everywhere uses the expression " spirit of adoption, and not the term 
 "spirit of sonship." Even in the case of ancient Israel, who wer^ 
 
i60 ROMANS, VIII. [vv. 16, ll 
 
 sons in virtue of birth from Abraham, he uses the same term. The 
 term is therefore chosen, not so much in view of the fact that these 
 Gentiles received the adoption in a way differing from the "Israel 
 after the flesh," as that this sonship is everywhere God's gift, a privi- 
 lege conferred under the covenant. The spirit of adoption ij there- 
 fore not the spirit or disposition which characterizes a son, though 
 it may include that, but the spiritual relation to (iod conferred in 
 the very act of adoption, by the gift of the Spirit of God's Son in our 
 hearts. 
 
 i6. The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we 
 are children of God:] Paul does not say "the same spirit," i.t., 
 the aforesaid spiritual state or relation growing out of God's act of 
 adoption, but the Spirit himself. The pronoun is emphatic, and 
 leaves us without possibility of doubt as to the distinction between 
 our own spiritual nature and the personal Spirit of God who dwell- 
 eth in us. " The Spirit himself " can be no other than the personal 
 Spirit of God's Son referred to in Gal. iv. 6. This Spirit beareth 
 testimony with our spirit that we are children of God. Our spirit 
 receives the testimony which this Spirit gives. How this testimony 
 is given Paul does not say ; but its outcome is that we cry Abba, 
 Fatlier. This cry is at once the cry of our spirit, and of God's Spirit 
 in and with our spirit. Like every other truth given directly in our 
 spiritual nature, this cannot be defined ; it can only be known in 
 conscious experience, and to their own conscious experience Paul 
 refers his readers — "ye received." 
 
 17. and if children, then heirs ; heirs of God,] This was another 
 title of God's people. (Compare cli. ix. 4 with Gal. iii. 29.) This 
 was one of the great truths specially revealed to Paul. (See Eph. 
 iii. 6.) This heirship makes us heritors of all the promises of the 
 ancient covenant. But these promises were given not only to the 
 covenant people but especially to their covenant head, the Messiah. 
 (See Isaiah xl.-liii., and compare 1 Peter i. 11.) That this was a 
 thoroughly Pauline conception appears from Eph. i. iii., where Paul 
 has fully expanded this suliject, setting forth Ciirist's heritage in the 
 saints (ch. i. M, 18, 20 '2.S) and our inheritance with him (ch. ii. 7), 
 and tinally the unity of the (i entiles with the Jews in this inherit- 
 ance (chs ii. 11-iii. 11). Hence he adds, 
 
 and joint heirs with Christ ;] Elsewhere he puts it, " All things 
 are yours, and ye are Ciirist's, and Christ is God's (1 Cor. iii. 23). 
 On our Lord's inheritance sep Phil. ii. 9-11. But Christ inherited 
 through suffering, and so must we. 
 
 if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified 
 with him.] On this Pauline idea of fellowship witii Christ s suffer- 
 ings coujpare Phil. iii. 10, 2 Cor. iv. 10-18— where, as here, it is fol- 
 lowed by fellowship in glory — and 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12. This presents 
 the theme of the next subsection of the Epistle. 
 
vv. 18-20.] ROMANS, VIIL i6l 
 
 Ch. VIII. 18-30. The Contrast op the Sufferings and the 
 Glory of our Heirship as Sons. 
 
 i8. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not 
 worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to 
 US-ward.] The theme thus announced — " the sufferinga of thia pres- 
 ent time " and " the glory to be revealed " — may be compared with 
 Luke xxiv. 26, 27, and with 1 Peter i. 11. From both these passages 
 we learn that the mind of the whole infant church was cognizant of 
 the fact that the ancient prophecies depicted, both for the Messiah 
 and for his people, a course of suffering, to be followed by glory. 
 How fully Paul had apprehended this great prophetic thought ap- 
 pears as well from the passage before us as from others to which we 
 liave already referred. The conjunction "for" here expands the 
 thought of verse 17 into the new section upon which we are now 
 entering, and of which th«) present verse states the theme. The ex- 
 pressioa " I reckon " is us^d by Paul when about to present a great 
 general statement of truth. (Compare chapter iii. 28.) There it pre- 
 sents the truth founded upon preceding investigation. Here the 
 reckoning follows, being introduced by '* for " in the next verse. 
 
 19. For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the 
 revealing of the sons of God.] This verse contains the first proposi- 
 tion upon which l*anl founds his reckoning — the universal suffering 
 of creation, wliich, of course, must mean sentient creation, as it alone 
 is capable of suffering. This universal suffering leads all creation 
 to watch with "head uplifted," as the animals are accustomed to do 
 when attracted by a coining object. The creation here we take to 
 be the sentient physical world, of which man's body, referred to 
 presently, is a part. This gives us the necessary contrast between 
 the sono of God aiul the creation. It fits the predicates of verses 20, 
 21 and 22, and gives the needed point of connection for verse 23. 
 The revealing of the sons of (Jod is the glory that shall bo revealed 
 in us. (Compare 1 John iii. 2, and for a similar Pauline view Col. 
 iii. 4.) 
 
 20. For the creation was subjected to vanity,] This expression 
 "subjected" designates, in Paul's use of it, a dispensation or ar- 
 rangement of Uod. The vanity is presently designated as a " bond- 
 age of corruption" and a " groanmg and travailing in pain." It 
 would thus seem to inchulo all physical suffering in nature as a dis- 
 pensation or ordering of (<od. 
 
 not of its own will, but b^ reason of him who subjected it,] AH 
 agree here that tlic expressioii "not of its own will ' must signify 
 not by any act of its own, nor even by consent to or conscious impli- 
 cation in the act of another. We should therefore look in the anti- 
 thetic clause for the mention of the one by whose act or on whose 
 account it was subjected. The preposition used (<'<f with accusa- 
 tive) is iu hurutouy with this, and both would puiut to mau (Adam) 
 
M ROMAICS, VIII. tvv. 21-2^. 
 
 aa referred to. But the relative clause makes the one referred to 
 the subject of the verb, and it can only be said of man indirectly 
 that he "subjected it." The dispensation is undoubtedly of (iod. 
 The moral cause is in man ; and as the moral cause of an act is often 
 said to do it, we may perhaps be most safe in accepting this inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 21. in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from 
 the bondage of corruption] On the foregoing construction of verse 
 20 "in hope" must be made an adjunct of the first clause of that 
 verse, "was subjected in hope." "The bondage of corruption" 
 seems to signify physical death and the decay which leads up to it 
 an.' which follows it. Deliverance from this does not imply a resur- 
 rection of the lower life, which lives in the species rather than in the 
 individual. 
 
 into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.] The liberty 
 here referred to must correspond to tlie bondage ; and as that in- 
 cluded suffering, decay and d'^ath, so is this lil)erty at least deliver- 
 ance from these. It is the liberty of the glory of God's children be- 
 cause attained at the time of their glorification, and also in itself a 
 part of that glorification. (.See 1 Cor, xv.; Pliil. iii. 11.) Hut does 
 this apply to the whole sentient physical creation? So it would 
 seem unless the word " creation " is here to be limited to the physical 
 nature, i.e., the bodies, of believers. There are not wanting intima- 
 tions of tliis universal glorification of nature elsewhere. (See Isaiah 
 Ix. 17, etc.) 
 
 22. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travail- 
 eth in pain together until now. ] This is Paul's proof from an open 
 fact of his first propo8e<l pn ,i of the greatness of the glory that sliall 
 be revealed in us. It contains a most nuignificent generalization and 
 interpretation of the fact of suffei'ing in nature. Thid suffering is 
 unirerHdl ; it takes place in virtue of tlie uiiili/ of nature (togetiier); 
 it is the presage of a new birth into a higher good. Every one of 
 these conclusions is substantiated by the l)est conclusions of biologi- 
 cal science. On tlie scientific ditlicultiea of this view see (iodet. 
 And as the sufleriiig still exists the higher good which it portends is 
 still to come, and lience it is the first grouiul of our hope. 
 
 23. And not only so, but ourselves also, which have the first- 
 fruits of the Spirit,] The first ground of assurance of the great hope 
 announced in verso 18 lay in the plienomciia of universal suirering 
 in nature, which all point to the, to them, unconscious hope of a 
 higher goo 1. We now turn to tlio second ground -tlie phenomena 
 of our own conscious experience as tiie children of (Jod. 
 
 even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our 
 adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.] Our adoption Paul 
 himself explains as the redemption, i.e., the resurrcirtion, of tite 
 bo»ly. Ho repeatedly uses redemption In this sense of the final con- 
 summation of C'hrist's work at his second coming, in the resurrection 
 glory (Kph. iv. .'}0; i. 17), ultlxmgh at other times, of the work ao- 
 
vv. 24-26.] ROMANS, VIII. . 163 
 
 coinplished on the cross. Our sonship and adoption is only complete 
 when the body is "inally redeemed. But now " we groan, waiting,' 
 especially in our share of this universal dispensation of suffering. 
 This suffering hope is proof number two. 
 
 24. For by hope were we saved:] The word "hope" here, 
 occupying the emphatic position in the sentence, sums up the expe- 
 rience just referred to. This hope is equivalent to faith. It is the 
 permanent faith by which we are saved, looking out of present suffer- 
 ing into the promised future. 
 
 but hope tnat is seen is not hope : for who hopeth for that which 
 he seeth?] This interjected parenthesis serves the same purpose 
 as the "until now" of verse 22, i.f., in this second proof it demon- 
 strates that the good, which corresponds to our groaning, is not 
 already attained, but still in the future, and hence he adds, 
 
 25. But if we hope for that which we see not, then do we with 
 patience wait for it.] The strength of our hope is measured by our 
 pitience. This repeated reference of the Christian hope to the eter- 
 nal future and to the things unseen (2 Cor. iv. '8) may well be taken 
 in contrast to the purely temporal and material hopes of those under 
 the old dispensation. 
 
 26. And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity:] 
 The " in like manner " we take as referring to the two lines of hope 
 already describe<l as each pointing to the glory to be revealed. Of 
 this glory the physical creation is only unconsciously hopeful in its 
 suffering. We are consciously hopeful, but with very infirm percep- 
 tions of our needs. But (Jod's Spirit, in revelation to us of the future, 
 helps this mtirmity The infirmity is specifically mentioned in the 
 next clause, as also the specific cluiracter of the help afforded. 
 
 for we know not how to pray as we ought ; ] The old version, 
 " what we should pray for as we ought," is nearer the original. The 
 reference is not to the manner of prayer, but t'j its subject matter — 
 " what wo should ask, according to that which it is proper to ask." 
 
 but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings 
 which cannot be uttered;] Ins.toad of referring this to mystic, un- 
 intelligible desires, we think the best comment upon it is to be found 
 ill Paul's own words (I Cor. ii. 9, 10, etc.), " Things which eye saw not, 
 and car heard not, "etc., " what (Jod hath prepared for them that love 
 him. Uut(iod hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit," etc. Note 
 tliat in this passage Paul has specially before his mind "the glory" 
 which (lod had "foreordained' (1 Cor. ii. 7) for "them that love 
 him " (I Cor. ii. 1>) -expressions which he here repeats in this imme- 
 diate text and context. " The sean^hing," the "mind of the Spiiit," 
 etc., are all ideas present in both passages. The apostle is speaking, 
 not of the immediatf wantu or prayers arising out "f our auffurings, 
 but of their final result, "the glory that shall be revealed." This 
 which the revealing Spirit has unveiled only in syndnds, and which 
 we see now only in a mirror darkly, is the object of our hope and 
 the subject of the unutterable desires prompted by the Spirit. On 
 
i64 ROMAICS, Vlll. tvv. 2l, 28. 
 
 this term " unutterable," as applied to the unseen world, see 2 Cor. 
 xii. 4, where a similar form is used. The Spirit then has helped our 
 infirmity (lack of knowledge) by this revelation of the future which, 
 though literally *' inexpressible " in human language, is " mirrored " 
 to us 80 as to be the object of our desires and the subject of our 
 prayers. 
 
 27. and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind 
 of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints ac- 
 cording to the will of God.] "The mind of the Spirit" in this 
 verse nmst be taken as in verse 6, where it dtnotes the moral im- 
 pulse or aim which springs from the Spirit — there our renewed 
 spiritual nature ; here the promptings and revelation of God's Spirit. 
 God sees in our hearts the (ppovr/fia (desire and aspiration) given us 
 through his Spirit's outward and inward revelation of the things un- 
 speakable; he understands its full significance, though we do not 
 (we "know in part;" see also 1 John iii. 2), "that" (rather than 
 "because") "it is according to God," i.e., "God's purpose" or his 
 working. This he proceeds to expand in the next verse. 
 
 28. And we know that to them that love God all things work 
 together for good,] See 1 Cor. ii. 9, " Whatsoever things God pre- 
 pared for them that love him." We may in our text read, "he 
 worketh," or with some very weighty authorities, "God worketh." 
 The things work, not of themselves, but (iod worketh them. We 
 think even the revisers' text is better translated with " he " (God) as 
 subject rather than the plural "all." 
 
 even to them that are called according to his purpose.] For the 
 meaning of this word "called" see chapter i. 7. If, as we have 
 there argued at length, it signifies that abiding relation of God's 
 people to himself in virtue of which they are responsible for holiness 
 of life, then it is synonymous with the "saint " of verse 27, and with 
 the expression " them that love God " in the clause preceding. The 
 "purpose" according to which this calling takes place is explained 
 by the verse following. In its general meaning this word " purpose " 
 is applied ( 1 ) to the " calling " of God's people (here and 2 1 im. i. 9) ; 
 (2) to their heritage in and with Christ (Kph. i. 9-11); (3) to their 
 election (Rom. ix. 11); and perhaps in a still wider sen&e (4) to the 
 dispensation of divine grace in Christ (Kph. iii. 1 1 ), and to the atone- 
 ment (H'Mn. iii. 2*)). Now, in all these passages there is express 
 reference to the method or principle upon which God from age to 
 age designated the chosen people as his church upon earth; c.f/., in 
 chapter ix. 11 it is said to beof (iod's purpose that Jacob was chosen 
 to be the head of the chosen people rather than Ksau; in Kph. i. 9, 
 and presumably 11, it points to the extension of these privileges to 
 the Gentiles. (Compare verse 9 with ch. iii. .3 U, the same idea 
 being carried forward to versH 11.) Now, the call to be a holy 
 
 f>eople, i.e., a peonlo separate to God's service, was one of the pecu- 
 iar distinctions of the ancient people. Hence the call according to 
 God's purpose would soem to have distinct reference to this plan of 
 
V. 29.] ROMANS, VIII. 165 
 
 God regarding the continuity of his church, or his separated people, 
 as through Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Israel redeemed from Egypt, 
 and finally by a church gathered from Jews and Gentiles alike, he 
 carries forward his purpose of grace for the world's salvation. We 
 must, however, carefully distinguish what is and what is not included 
 in this purpose. We cannot tind that this purpose extends back of 
 the mission of Christ. The pur >ose is "in Christ "—Christ includes 
 the purpose. When God so loved the world that he gave his only 
 begotten Son, the gift included a purpose as to when and how his 
 work should be carried into effect. But the gift of his Son, even 
 Christ, is beliind the purpose. God's love is behind the purpose as 
 it was behind the Christ. The purpose, therefore, cannot be held 
 to limit either God's love or Christ's atoning work, both which are 
 declared to be as wide a'» the world (Rom. v. ; 2 Cor. v. 19). On the 
 other hand, the purpose (fines effect both to God's love and Christ's 
 mission. Thus in Paul's conception the purpose includes all the 
 means and agencies by which the grace which is in Christ Jesus is 
 to be administered, or as he phrases it, "the dispensations." Nor 
 can we find, on the other hand, that the purpose of God covers the 
 salvation of the individual. It does cover everything that lies be- 
 tween God's love in Christ and individual salvation. But we can 
 find no passage which makes the purpose intrude beyond the line of 
 individual ethical 7-esponsibilUy which, as we have seen all along, is the 
 very essence of Paul's doctrine. The Jewish idea of salvation by 
 covenant privilege diil so intrude. Paul has overthrown that doc- 
 trine for the very purpose of putting Jew and Gentile alike upon the 
 ground of personal responsibility before God. It is inconceivable that 
 after he has done this he should overthrow his own work by re-estab- 
 lishing a conception of salvation upon a basis of metaphysical pre- 
 rogative quite as unethical in its tendencies as was the old Jewish 
 idea of national prerogative. Such a conception made its first ap- 
 pearance in the cnurch in the teaching of Augustine, who was led to 
 it by the logical necessities of the thoroughly Jewish doctrine of 
 sacramental salvation. And once introduced it has been maintained 
 in tlie church by n, i lisconception of the scope of chapters ix.-xi., 
 with which we shall deal presently. God's purpose defines the aton- 
 ing work of C^hrist (Ilom. iii. 25); defines the dispensations through 
 which (lod prepared the world for his coming (Eph. i. iii.); defines 
 the fulness of times in which all the privileges of the separate and 
 covenant people are opened to Jew and Gentile alike, on the proba- 
 tional condition of faith ; and finally defines the holy work or holy 
 discipline by which all who believe are fully and finally glorified 
 with Christ after having suffered with him. It is this last element 
 of the divine purpose to which the apostle now specially calls atten- 
 tion, as he proceeds to explain in the next verse, connecting by 6u, 
 " because," or as it might be fairly rendered, " that." 
 
 39. For who:r. he foreknew, tie also foreordained to be con- 
 formed to the image of his SonJ If " the called according to God'i 
 
166 ROMANS, VIII. [v. 29. 
 
 {mrpose " are the body of God's people separated from the world, 
 loly to the Lord, for his service in the salvation of those who are 
 not so called, then those "whom he foreknew" must be this same 
 body. If the purpose according to which they are called does not 
 collide with individual responsibility neither does the divine fore- 
 knowledge. We need not at all limit that foreknowledge to the 
 foresight of faith and good works. It must include all the general 
 facts upon which God's purpose was based as well as the particular 
 facts which directed that purpose along particular lines in the divine 
 predestination. And it guards both the purpose and the predestina- 
 tion from being arbitrary. It does not interfere with God's sover- 
 eignty, as we shall see in chapter ix. But that which is founded 
 upon knowledge is founded upon reason, and cannot be arbitrary. 
 That which is founded upon God's knowledge is founded in perfect 
 reason, and perfect reason violates no truth, principle or fact. Hence 
 this word "foreknew " secures both the universality and impartiality 
 of God's love on the one hand, and the fulness of human responsi- 
 bility on the other. It is this divine foreknowledge which directs 
 the purpose of God to this, that or the other body of men. But as 
 the divine purpose was not directed toward them irrespective of 
 foreknowledge of what they were as fit instruments of God's pur- 
 pose, so neither does it compel their individual salvation even when 
 it reaches them. But on this point see further below. But these 
 who are thus foreknown " he also foreordained." This word " fore- 
 ordained" includes two ideas: first, of the persons included within 
 the boundaries; secondly, of the boundaries within which t'..tiy are 
 included. The boundaries or " marked out limits " here are defined 
 in the next clause, " to be conformed to the image of his Son." This 
 is the emphatic idea of the text. (See Cremer on ni)oa(nC,ti.v. ) The 
 persona are not dcHujnated by '■* predestination" but by "foreknow- 
 ledi/e." The dixcipline in predestinated, i.e. , " conforuiity to the image 
 of his Son." This is in harmony with Paul's idea ut the purpose. 
 The purpose is the divine method of carrying Christ's saving work 
 to its full completion for the world's salvation. Individual men or 
 bodies of men are included in that purpose, not merely with refer- 
 ence to their own salvation (they are rather included as themselves 
 already foreknown as sawd), but as co-workers with Christ as his 
 body the church, whether patriarchal, Mosaic or Christian, as those 
 who are his representatives or agents, set apart, i.e., sanctified or 
 holy, to (iod for his loving purpose toward the sons of men. It is 
 therefore fitting that, like their master who was made a perfect 
 Saviour through sutt'ering, they should share in his sutfurings. (F'or 
 this Pauline idea see besides ch. viii. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11; 2 Tim. 
 ii. 10-12; I'hil. iii. 10; and especially Col. i. 24, 25, where these 
 auflierings are peculiarly presented as part of the dispensations of God 
 in the mystery of the gospel.) On the relation of our Lord's own 
 HuflferingB see tieb. ii. 11-18 and v. 8. (Compare the excellent essay 
 of the B^iv. J. 8. Kvani), D.D., on this subjeut.) "Conformed to 
 
V. 30.] ROMANS, VIII. 167 
 
 the image of his Son " is thus not to be taken solely in its widest 
 sense, but with special reference to ^' the fellowship of his sufferings." 
 Riddle, Moule and the Calvinistic expositors generally, by making 
 the predestination unto individual salvation, make this conformity 
 refer to tiie purity of Christ's character, or to partaking of his final 
 glory. The latter is pertinent to the apostle's line of thought, but 
 we are predestinated unto suffering with him that we may be sharers 
 with him in glory, or as Paul puts it here, 
 
 that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:] The 
 reference here is probably to the glory of the resurrection. (1) In 
 the immediate context (verse 23) he has spoken of this as " the adop- 
 tion"; (2) in Col. i. 18 our Lord is called "the first begotten from 
 the dead." The association of our resurrection glory and of our 
 Lord's resurrection with the idea of Sonship of God is thus clearly 
 established as a Pauline idea. In fact, this is the only Sonship com- 
 mon to us with our Lord, unless it be eitlier the sense in which all 
 men are sons of God, who is the Father of Spirits, or the sense pre- 
 sented by Godet, that the eternal Son is the type after which we 
 were originally created, and to which we are to be conformed in 
 renewal. But we fail to find evidence that this idea is Pauline. In 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews we become his brethren by virtue of the 
 fact that he unites himself to us in our human nature. In reference 
 to the eternal Sonship it is said, " My Father and your Father," im- 
 plying a distinction rather tiian unity. This idea that those who 
 are sharers in the toils and sufferings of ('hrist's kingdom ujion earth 
 shall be in a special sense partakers of liis resurrection glory and 
 exaltation (throne) is frequent in the New Testament, and especially 
 in the Apocalypse, where Christ is also called the first begotten from 
 the dead (Rev. i. 5). 
 
 30. and whom he foreordained, them he also called:] It does 
 not follow that all the finally saved are either thus foreordained or 
 called. If tlie calling is unto special responsibilities and suflerings 
 it does not at all belong to infants, nor (unless in a subordinate sense) 
 to those who may be saved luuler the dispensation of the Cientiles. 
 But the chosen people, Israel of old, and the church now, are " chosen 
 in the furnace of atllictiou," We sliall see more of this in the study 
 of Isaiali's doctrine of the Lord's chosen servant, upon which Paul 
 has so largely founded his evangelical conceptions. 
 
 and whom he called, them he also justified:] As this is the 
 justification of (Jod's called ones, who, as M'e h»ive*Heen, are the samfi 
 with the " saints " wlm " love (Jod," it canviot he identified with the 
 "justification of the ungodly " of the preceding chapters. It is rather 
 the justification of (Jod's elect of verso 33. It is to this same final 
 justification that I'aul refers in I Cor. iv. l-f), where again it is 
 closely associated with tlie suffering of (iod's called ones — (verso 9) 
 justification before "the world, angels and men." If thij be taken 
 of the pruueM of salvation then w^ have the anomalv that the nro- 
 
168 ROMANS, VIII. [v. 31. 
 
 cess of sanctification is provided for before the call and before justife- 
 cation. 
 
 and whom he justified, them he also glorified.] (See verse 17, 
 " That we may be also glorified together.") This glorification is not 
 entrance into heaven, or final salvation. It is more than that. It 
 is reward — a reward which even a Paul struggled to attain (Phil, 
 iii. ]*2). The aorist is used throughout this exposition of God's pur- 
 pose. This brings the whole matter into the field of history. It 
 cannot be arbitrarily transferred to the sphere of the eternal. But 
 why not use the future to the last step, glorification ? Because the 
 apostle is looking at past history, and especially at the whole past 
 history of the chosen people as summed up in Christ the head. The 
 historical facts of the past, already realized in the body of the people 
 of God in part, and in full, even to the glory, in their Head, is the 
 pledge to those who still remain that so it shall still be. That Paul 
 regarded the ancient covenant people as having been glorified in the 
 past is clear from such passages as chapter ix. 4. But the glorifica- 
 tion of the chosen people of each dispensation was the entrance into 
 that which followed. The patriarchal was glorified in the promised 
 land, the Mosaic in the Messiah, the Christian shall be in the resur- 
 rection. Paul thus takes up the Christian believers as a body into 
 the line of God's chosen ones of all the ages, and in these two verses 
 marks out the law which governs their life as God's elect, a law 
 ordained of God beforehand, but lighting down on such as in the 
 foreknowledge of God were the fit instruments to receive this call 
 and bear its responsibilities, and so to share its glory. The law 
 is, first suffering, then glory — the sufierings of Egypt, the glory of 
 Canaan; the sufferings of Babylon, etc., the glory of the Christ; the 
 sufferings of the Christ and his glory ; our sufferings and the glory 
 that "shall yet be revealed." The last Paul has already anticipated 
 in verse 18, and has here only finally decisively proved by this his- 
 torical r('sum6 of ♦■he law of God's elect. The ' ' we know " of verse 
 28 is the " we know " of a historical induction, and thus introduces 
 the fourth of Paul's magnificent inductive proofs of the great thesis 
 set forth in verse 18. This proof thus complete he turns to a tri- 
 umphant hymnal recapitulation of the blessed truths which must 
 follow. 
 
 • 
 
 Ch. VIII, 31-39. The Triumphal Hymn of tub Christian 
 
 Church. 
 
 31. What then shall we say to these things?] This form of 
 question is Paul's device for fixing special attention upon a salient 
 point, whether the demolition of some objection of his opponent, or 
 as here, the culmination of his own argument. 
 
 If God is for us, who is against us ?] *' We," that is, the Chris- 
 tian church, are thus assumed to be the called and chosen people, 
 the heritors of the Abrahamic promise. " God is for us " inasmuch 
 
vv. 32, 33.] ROMANS, VIII. 169 
 
 as his " plan " (TrpoOemg), unfolded in his promises, " works all things 
 together for good " to the people whom he loves and who love him. 
 And that being so, '■'■who is a<jainst uss"' Men may seem to be so, 
 but they cannot foil God's purpose. It shall stand, and the very 
 wrath of man shall praise him. At the time when this Roman church 
 was just about to enter the furnace of persecution how precious this 
 encouragement ! 
 
 32. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for 
 us all, J The writer opens this clause with the emphatic form of the 
 relative, " Who indeed," equal to " The very God who." The great 
 gift of this God to man he puts in both its negative and positive 
 forms, "spared not" and "gave him up." The greatness of God's 
 love and gift are presented in a startling atithropopathism which 
 throws into the divine nature the intense parental emotion of man, 
 and correspondent to which is the expression "his own Son." The 
 mystery of these words, "spared not but delivered up his own vSon," 
 who can fathom? Paul is perfectly one with John in making the 
 infinite love of God the sole source of tlie atonement. " For us all," 
 the " all " extends the " us " to the whole race to which we belong. 
 There is no contrast among the called people which could suggest a 
 need for this word " all." It must therefore have been suggested by 
 the apostle's thought embracing, with the mention of God's gift, the 
 whole race for whom the gift was given. We cannot therefore say 
 with Riddle, "all believers." Paul never imagined it necessary to 
 say that Christ died for all believers ; but he asserts, in opposition 
 to Jewish exclusiveness, that Christ died ' ' for all men " (2 Cor. v. 
 14, 15). 
 
 how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?] This 
 was a favourite idea of Paul's. Because we are Christ's all things are 
 ours. The love that embraces all the persons takes cognizance of 
 all the circumstances and wants, and giving the greatest gift will 
 not withhold the less, 
 
 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?] 
 One's thoughts readily turn here, with Moule, to the case of Job 
 and "the great accuser" (Rev. xii. 10). The various accusations 
 suggested by Godet seem scarcely apposite, "conscience," "the 
 law," "persecutors," etc. On the other hand, we find it a common 
 conception with Paul that misfortunes are God's judgments on the 
 ungo<lly world (1 < ' xi. 30-32). The very afflictions which to God's 
 people are a me of glory, or at most chastisements, are God's 
 judgments on the ungodly. It is this idea of God's judgment in 
 atliictions which leads Paul to use tlie technical term for accusation. 
 He probably has no special accuser in mind ; in fact, he affirms that 
 none can be found, since 
 
 It is God that justifieth;] This justification is not the initial 
 justification of the ungodly attained by faith, but the continuous 
 justification of "God's elect," a justification finally completed in 
 tlie great day. This idea of a continuous judgment of men by God, 
 
 12 " 
 
170 ROMANS, VIII. [v. 34. 
 
 an abiding state of conrlemnation of all who believe not, a reiterated 
 declarative justiKcation of God's people, throughout their probation, 
 finally consummated in the great judgment, runs through both Old 
 and New Testaments. It is more especially associated with the ap- 
 plication of the truth to the conscience, and with God'a providen- 
 tial afflictions (John iii. 17-21; ix. 39; xii. 48. See also 1 Cor. xi. 
 31, 32). It is this question of the afflictions of life as a divine pro- 
 cess of judgment that Paul has before his mind. In them God justi- 
 fies his people, ij'., declares their righteousness. It is God's elect 
 who are thus justified. This election belongs to the body. (See be- 
 low, preliminary excursus to ch. ix.) Each individual is affected as 
 sharing in the common privileges of the body. But the collective 
 justification in God's providence of the despised, calumniated and 
 persecuted body of Christians is perhaps even more in the apostle's 
 mind than the individual justification of any one member. 
 
 34. who is he that shall condemn ?] If they cannot even be ac- 
 cused before God, much less shall they be condemned. The parti- 
 ciple here used may be either present or future, the diflference being 
 a matter of accent. If the justification is the continuous justification 
 of God's people through the whole course of their probationary dis- 
 cipline, then the condemnation must be parallel and the present 
 participle used. (So the American Com. of Rev.) If the apostle 
 had reference to the single act of final condemnation 'at the great 
 day, then the future indicative wouM seem to be the proper tense. 
 God is to the wicked every day a condemning judge. But "there 
 is no such condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." The 
 apostle's " who " is therefpre not to imply that he had a condemning 
 judge before his mind, but that no such judge is to be found, because 
 
 It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from 
 the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh inter- 
 cession for us.] This is not an enunferation of "the four great 
 saving facts " (Kiddle). That would be pertinent if the apostle M'ere 
 speaking of the initial justification of the ungodly, and not of the 
 declarative, continuous justification of il's people. As this is de- 
 clarative it requires not so much a basis or procuring cause as a proof. 
 The four facts enumerated are therefore four proofs of our righteous- 
 ness. "Christ died for us," proving that our sins are expiated. " He 
 was raised from the dead," Ciod's seal of acceptance of this expiation 
 and liis public declaration of acceptance of sinners in Christ. (See 
 note on ch. v. 25.) " He is at the right hand of God " — glorified as 
 our representative and forerunner — proving that we shall be glori- 
 fied with him. "He also maketh intercession for us," giving still 
 freater emphasis to the fact that our acceptance in him is secure, 
 'here is thus but one great saving fact, the death of Christ. But 
 the resurrection (God's seal), the ascension to glory (the reward), 
 and the intercession (the ortcnme or application), form with the 
 death a fourfold climax of proofs of our righteousness, and are in 
 themselves a continuous justification of God's people. On Paul's 
 
vv. 35-39.] ROMANS, VIII. 171 
 
 doctrine of the exaltation compare p]ph. i. 19-23; Phil. ii. 9-11 ; 
 Col. i. 15-20. On the intercession see the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 vii. 25 and ix. 24; 1 John ii. 1, and John xiv. 16. These passages 
 are the full expansion of tiie gr> at doctrine here mentioned. 
 
 35. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?] Not our 
 love to Christ, nor our sense of Christ's love to us, but Christ's love 
 to us, iioiinj forth in hemjicent actimti/ - Christ's love as blessing us. 
 Christ's love is not a mere subjective feeling in his mind toward us, 
 to be delightfully recognized by us, but it is the fountain from which 
 flows forth all the wondrous provision of grace, securing our present, 
 eternal aad perfect well-being. Nothing can bar the way of this active 
 love as \t COMICS forth to bless us. 
 
 shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or 
 nakedness, or peril, or sword?] Each of these had been a matter 
 of actual experience, and tliat repeatedly (2 Cor. vi. 4, etc.; xii. 23, 
 etc.). Nay more, they had been the experience, as scripture records, 
 of (jrod's people in the past as well. 
 
 36. Even as it is written, 
 
 For thy sake we are killed all the day long ; 
 We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 
 The quotation is from Psalms xliv. 22, a psalm descriptive of some 
 one of the many attiictions of the ancient chosen people, but of the 
 afflictions which came not as judgments (see verse 17) but for the 
 Lord's sake, or "for the love of him." It illustrates, therefore, the 
 kind of suffering which Paul has in mind — not penal sudering but 
 holy suffering. 
 
 37. Nay, m all these things we are more than conquerors 
 through him that loved us.] The strong adversative '• but " of the 
 Greek is very well translated "nay," an implied "j(o," followed by 
 "but ou the contrary, in every one of these things we (vnepviKUfiev) 
 are more tlian conquerors," a word perhaps invented by Paul and 
 used by the later ecclesiastical writers to designate the triumph of 
 the martyrs over deatli and suffering. It calls to nund Paul's "far 
 more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." The figure may not 
 be niilitai-y but, perhaps rather agonistic, the victory in conflict for 
 a prize, or forensic, victory in vindication of innocence "Through 
 him that loved us" looks back to "the love of Christ" in verse 35. 
 That love, far from being hindered by the intervention of these afflic- 
 tions, carries us triumphantly through them, more than vindicating 
 our cause 
 
 38. For I am persuaded,] The conviction of a perfect faith 
 founded on the great facts adduced in verse 34, confirmed by his 
 own experience, and that of God's people in every age (verses 35-37), 
 and now looking out with assured confidence to every contingency of 
 the future. 
 
 that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor 
 things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 
 
 39. nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,] An enumera- 
 
172 ROMANS, VIII. [v. 39. 
 
 tion of all possible contingencies of opposition beyond that hitherto 
 experienced. The terms are therefore chosen in logical pairs which 
 form, taken together, uniwrsally exhautitive cateijories. Death and 
 life include all forms of our own existence ; angels and principalities, 
 all forms of unseen creation, lower or higher ; things present, things 
 to come, and powers inclutle all historical circumstances through 
 which we may pass, however powerful or influential; height and 
 depth include every contingency of position or station in which we 
 may be placed; and finally, to include all else, he adds, nor "any 
 oi-her created thing. " We may then paraphrase Paul's enumeration 
 thus : No changes of our existence, no opposition of spiritual beings, 
 no variation of surrounding circumstances, no power which can all'ect 
 us, no position in which we can be placed, in fact no created thing — 
 shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in 
 Christ Jesus our Lord.] Note that "the love of Christ'" (verses 
 35, 37) is here " the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." 
 To Paul's conception the Father and Son are perfectly identified 
 in the loving motive toward redemption. "Separate us" must be 
 understood as in verte 35. It is not "make God cease to love us," 
 which implies a thought so monstrous in itself that it could not occur 
 to Paul to mention it. Nor is it, on the other hand, " cause us to 
 cease to love God," an idea which would lie right athwart Paul's 
 entire teaching as to personal responsibility. But it must be taken 
 in reference to that of which Paul has been treating throughout, the 
 providential orderings and outgoing of God's love in Christ towards 
 his people. Nothing can bar that, "God worketh all things for 
 good." Out of them all comes "a far more exceeding and eternal 
 weight of glory." And nothing in God's created universe can be so 
 evil in itself, so obdurate or intractable, so powerful in counteracting 
 influence, as to thwart (Jod's love, or prevent its reaching us with its 
 exceeding weight of glory. But it must ever be borne in mind that 
 the " us " is the body of the people of God, the church, the elect, the 
 called, the saints, the sepaiated possession. P^rom this body we indi- 
 vidually, by unfaithfulness, may become reprobates, and then the 
 promises of the elect are no longer ours. As a supplement, therefore, 
 to the glorious teaching,' of this chapter, as well as an introduction 
 to the sad case of reprobation which Paul turns next to consider, we 
 must pause to study Paul's doctrine of election. 
 
 Excursus on the Doctrine of Election. 
 
 While in the preceding Epistle St. Paul has been discussing the 
 terms of individual probation, he has throughout tacitly assumed 
 that to those who, upon these terms, are admitted into God's favour 
 there accrue all the prerogatives of the covenant people. The doc- 
 trine of the rights and privileges of the covenant people had at this 
 period assumed a very definite form. The people of God, in the 
 Jewish idea, were exactly defined by the ciicumcmoii and th^ observ- 
 
ROMANS, VIII, 17^ 
 
 ance uf the laio. They were the seed of Abraham, called of God to 
 be a separate or holy people, an elect race, a royal priesthood, a 
 people for God's own possession, to whom belonged the adoption or 
 soiiship, the manifestation of the divine glory, the covenant, the 
 giving of the law, the worship of God, thff promises, who, descended 
 from the fathers, were to be the progenitors of the Messiah. It will 
 be seen at once that these prerogatives belong, not to any one indi- 
 vidual, but to the nation or body, and to the individuals only through 
 the body. As they are enumerated by Paul (Rom. ix. 4, 5), and fur- 
 ther by Peter (1 Peter ii. 9, 10), Paul makes no objection against 
 their scriptural character. 
 
 But associated with the scriptural claim to these prerogatives of 
 the covenant people were certain fundamental errors most fatal in 
 their influence upon the moral and religious character of the cove- 
 nant or chosen people. These were — 
 
 1. The belief that they possessed, as a nation, an indefectible right 
 to these covenant privileges. This right they based upon the cove- 
 nant and promises given to Abraham. 
 
 2. That membership in this covenant body was based solely upon 
 the natural descent from Abraham, the only exception being the 
 proselyte who, by baptism and circumcision, was born again into 
 this covenant family. 
 
 3. That the covenant was purely a covenant of exclusive privilege 
 or prerogative, ignoring entirely the very important duties or respon- 
 sibilities involved therein. 
 
 4. That one of these prerogatives was the absolutely assured sal- 
 vation of every individual member of the body, it being considered 
 impossible that any child of Abraham should perish. This preroga- 
 tive they seem to have held to be exclusive as well as inclusive. Sal- 
 vation was of the Jews. Only by incorporation with the chosen 
 people could a Gentile be saved, while the chosen people could not 
 fail of salvation whatever might be their moral character. Only the 
 utter apostasy of worshipping false gods could imperil this security. 
 
 Through these false conceptions of the election the Judaism of our 
 Lord's time had become extcnal and formal, pharisaic, and antino- 
 mian in its entire spirit, the very antipodes, in one respect, of the 
 idolatrous proclivities against which the old prophets contended, 
 and yet scarcely less immoral in its results than that outward un- 
 godliness. John the Baptist was the first to attack this state of 
 things, "laying the axe to the root of the corrupt tree" by his 
 preaching repentance and saying, " Think not to Kay tvUhin yoiirxehes. 
 We have Abraham to our father," etc. Our Lord's life-work as a 
 teacher was largely the uprooting of this corrupt antinomian doc- 
 trine. The ministry of the twelve in the Jewish Christian church 
 was for the time so gloriously full of the positive factors of the Chris- 
 tian faith, remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, that this 
 preparatory work of overturning the false in order to build up the 
 true seemed almost to drop out of sight till Paul once more took up 
 
174 ROMANS, VIII. 
 
 the work and aet forth both the pasitive spiritual and new truth and 
 tlie negation of all corrupt forms of error. One of the most important 
 parts of Paul's work was the correction of the ohl doctrine of elec 
 tion. The fundamental error of Judaism was the building of per- 
 sonal salvation upon the covenant of election. This Paul completely 
 overturned by shewing that even Abraham, the first of God's elect, 
 the very father of the elect race, was not justified by virtue of the 
 covenant, bvit received the sign and seal of the covenant in virtue of 
 the rightousness of faith Paul thus entirely separates the matter 
 of individual righteousness before (iod, i.e., personal probation, and 
 salvation, at least in its initial stage of justification, from the privi- 
 leges of electi'jn. These do not in any way dispense with or super- 
 sede the persmal prol)ation and righteousness l)y faith. This he 
 further intiinates in the fact that membership in the true body of 
 the chosen people implies more ^han outward circumcision or uitural 
 descent, even the circumcision of the heart and the inward character 
 of the Israelite indeed. Instead, therefore, of making the outward 
 election supersede tiie individual probation, he makes the individual 
 probition the foundation of the true election. That individual pro- 
 bation he founds upon faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and the renew- 
 ing of the H<dy (ihost. Up to this point the work of Peter and of 
 Paul was one. It was the " purification " of the outward and visible 
 election "through faith" in Je^nis Christ But Paul sees further 
 that there is to be a new outer and visible election ; that (lod's people 
 can no longer be limited to natural descent and the circumcision. 
 Peter himself recognized this great truth (Acts xv. 8, etc.), but does 
 not seem to have felt calleil to work beyoml the sphere of the old 
 election ((lal. ii. 7-9). This extended view of Paul it was which 
 brought him im contact with Jewish preju'lice. It contradicted not 
 only the antinomian position of the infallible salvaticm of every 
 member of the elect body, but also the proud national conceit of the 
 Jew that the election was forever to be the exclusive monopoly of 
 his ra'je. Nay more, it implied thf rcji'i'tinn of thr old elect hoily, 
 inasmuch as the great body of them had rejected Christ, and the 
 substitution of a new election founde I on the personal probation 
 of faith. These positions constitute what we may call the unex- 
 pressed postulates of Paul's teaching in this Knistle. The great 
 body of the Kpistle treats of personal righteousness, and only indi- 
 rectly touches the (juestion of the election which relates, not to the 
 individual i)rol)ation, l)ut to tliu ))rivilcgcs of tlic collective body. 
 Hut when, in chapter viii., he would establish the believer in all the 
 full privile.;es of his new personal relation to (Jod as one justified by 
 faith, he leads up to all the prerogatives of the collective l»odv, such 
 A8 their being "sons of (Jod," " heritors of (Iod " and "with Christ" 
 of the "coming glory." and directed in all things by a divine p'an 
 leading up to that glory. It is along this line, where the collectively 
 elect and the individually justified by faith coincide in the nev: 
 Christiar order, or rather are so parallel as to appear as the two 
 
ROMANS, VIII. 175 
 
 opposite sides of one and the samt; line, that u-e require the most accu- 
 rate defuition of the interrelations and distinctions of the personal 
 probation and the collective election. In Paul's day the sfdidarity 
 of the collective elect body was in danger of completely concealing, 
 and leading men to ignore, the personal respons-ibility Hence Paul 
 bends all hia energy to the work of bringing out into full light the 
 personal responsibility, especially in chapters i. to vii. In our day 
 again the idea of the election has been niagnilled, not to the destruc- 
 tion of individuality, but as an individual and no longer a collective 
 prerogative. Paul's opponents never dreamed of an indefectible in- 
 dividual election. They thought only of an indefectible national or 
 collective electicm, which so swallowed up the individual responsi- 
 bility as infallibly to secure salvation, one sin only excepted, that of 
 utter apostasy from the true God. P>nt this lalse idea landed them 
 in pharasaic pride and aiitinomian immorality, which, as Paul saw, 
 was only to be cured by the calling of a new people and the rejection 
 of the old tlection. But to suppose that Paul would have built up 
 a new elv-^^tion of a personal character, lih- the old comphtchj dentroy- 
 ing the conception of pergonal rexpoiisUtliiti/, is utterly untenable. He 
 overturned the false assumptions attached to the old election by 
 bringing to light the true universal doctrine of personal responsi- 
 bility as illustrated by good men of all ages. The doctrine of per- 
 sonal responsiliility uuist therefore be laid down as the fundamental 
 plank in the platform of the new election. First, men are personally 
 justified Aid thus are of the elect in Clirist Jesus; his idea of elec- 
 tion ne\ V losing its concept of solidarity so familiar to the Jewish 
 mind and so difficult to ours. (Is it this concept which led to the 
 ■rrav, ne'.y^ev singular, of John vi. ,37, etc.?) The ndstake of our age 
 lies, we think, in supposing that because Paul iiulividuali/ed per- 
 sonal responsibility he therefore individualized the election. He 
 separated the individual in personal probation to make him the unit 
 out of wi>:<;h the elect people should be built up, but it still con- 
 tinued to be iiie elect people, tlie body of Christ, nssinil/atituf new 
 unitx wherever J'outnl avd njecthiij (tin/ old that hicnnte unfit, But 
 this entire concej^tion of the election as ba.sed upon individual jiroba- 
 tion was so different from the old conception l)a8ed upon natural 
 descent that, especially when taken into connection with the fact 
 that the (ientiles were admitted without circumcision, i* was eijuiva- 
 lent to the rejection of the old ]>ody and the creation of a new. This 
 Paul fully understood and this is the thonie of the next Ihne chap- 
 ters. We nuiy sui>imari/,e Paul's doctrine of the election as follows : — 
 
 1. The election was a solidarity, the body of (iod's jjcople. 
 
 2. It was originally constituted and continuon.^ly puvihed and ra- 
 built on the basis of personal reHponHil)ility. 
 
 3. This election involved a collective responsibility of the entire 
 body as well is an individual responsibility of the units. 
 
 4. The Christian dispensation inv(»lved, not only a widening, but, 
 on account of the unfaithfiilncas of the olil body, an entire recoa- 
 struction of the election. — . _- 
 
176 ROMANS, VIII. 
 
 It is of interest to note that the same view of the election is found 
 in the writings of Isaiah, from whom Paul quotes in his defence of 
 the divine procedure in regard to the election which we are now 
 about to study. In Isaiah's first commission the purified election is 
 represented by "the remnant," who are "the holy seed," the "vital 
 substance " of the tree, the main trunk of which has been felled 
 (Isaiah vi. 13). This remnant alone saves the people, the body, from 
 utter destruction (ch. i. 9). Out of this reuuiant or still living root, 
 represented in David its Messianic head, there is to spring a new 
 "shoot," through which God's purposes are to be accomplished in 
 the universal establishment of righteousness and overthrow of wick- 
 edness (ch. xi. 1-5). This is in harmony with the original promise 
 of the election covenant (Gen. xii. 3), and points out clearly the re- 
 sponmbilify of the election. It is not a monopoly or a prerogative 
 but a sacred trust which, far from excluding all nations from a share 
 in its blessings, is constituted for the very ))urpose of hlenHtiuj them. 
 This appears more clearly in the second part of Isaiah, where "the 
 remnant" or "root of the holy seed," with its Messianic "shoot," 
 becomes "the Lord's servant," "elect" and "called." (Compare 
 Isaiah xli. 8, 9; xlii. 1-4; xlix. 3-9, etc.) Even Paul's doctrine o/ /Ac 
 sujf'f'riiuj of the elect people jrith their Meiisianu, Ift'ad runs through this 
 part of Isaiah, culminating in the well-known fifty-third chapter. 
 The term " servant " is tlie key to Isaiah's conception of the election. 
 Tlie elect people is Jehovah's servant, and under its ^.lessianic 
 Head is to be "for God's salvation unto the ends of the earth." 
 The elect are elected /or the nake of the non-elect, that thei/, too, mai/ he 
 saved. The only reprobation wliich this election knows is tlie repro- 
 bation of tliose who have proved unfaithful to the responsibilities of 
 their election. Only by ( iod's mercy has it luippened that the ancient 
 Israel have been saved at this very time from this rejection (Isaiah 
 xli. 9; 1. 1; liv. (5, 7). It is vory interesting to compare with this 
 teaching of Isaiah Paul's faith that tlie present rejection of the an- 
 cient people will in like niaiiner be but for a time (Rom. xi. 2(5, etc.). 
 In studying the part of the Kpistle upon which we now enter we 
 must therefore keep steadily before us the concept of the election in 
 the apostle's mind, as a solidarity, an elect body of people the indi- 
 vidual members of whicli are still amenable to all the laws of personal 
 responsibility. What he says in regarc' to the election or rejection 
 of this liody be'ongs to their collective responsibility, and neither 
 ensures nor barn their individual salvation. The reprobation of the 
 Jewish people does not prevent the salvation of individual Jews any 
 more than the reprobation of Ksau prevented his salvation. He was 
 apparently a much better man than perhaps the majority of the elect 
 race, yet was aot found _/// for (ioiVn fturfmxe. It is this purpose of 
 God in the election, viz., the woihl's salvation, which lays the foun- 
 dation of Paul's first thought (in ch. ix.), that in the election God is 
 Hovere'ujn. It is the faihire to fulfil that purpose on the part of the 
 Jews which forms the basis of Paul's second thought (in clt. x.), that 
 
vv. 1-3.] ROMANS, IX. 177 
 
 in their rejection God iajmt. And it is the final success of this pur- 
 pose in the ultimate salvation of both Jews and (i entiles which lays 
 the foundation of his third thought (in ch. xi.), that in this whole 
 work of carrying forward his purpose concerning the election God is 
 infinitely ivise and good. 
 
 Ch. IX. 1-29. — (tOd's Soverkigntv in the Election of His 
 
 People. 
 
 1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing 
 witness with me in the Holy Ghost,] The apparent al)ruptnes8 of 
 this introduction is only seeming. The apostle could not call up be- 
 fore his mind, as he has just done, all the privileges of the election, 
 and so claim them for the Christian church, without remembering 
 those who were losing those privileges. The alternative to this, the 
 elevation and widening of the old Israel into the new Christian 
 church, he sees now to be clearly impossible. Perhaps it was to this 
 that the church of the circumcision clung so long. Haul had already 
 abandoned it as hopeless, but with great sorrow of heart. This sor- 
 row he asserts, not as a matter of mere pretence, but as a part of 
 "the truth in Christ," revealed by the Holy Ghost in hia inmost 
 spirit. The apostle here stands before us in the very position of the 
 old prophets. The revealing Spirit of Christ has opened up before 
 him the clear intuition of the moral and spiritual relati >ns of dew 
 and (ientile in Christ, and that not as a mere intellectual conception 
 but as an overwhelmiiig tide of feeling, filling him now with joy and 
 again with sorrow; and the feelings and the truth by which they are 
 excited are alike a part of the revelation "in Christ" given by the 
 "Holy Ghost." 
 
 2. that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.] 
 The apostle has chosen the strongest terms in the language to desig- 
 nate his feelings. On the inexpressible painfulness of the divine 
 revelations of wrath conij)Are Isaiah vi. and Lam. v. 
 
 3. For I could wish tnat I myself were anathema from Christ 
 for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh : ] "I 
 could wish" (the imperfect indicative) expresses that which is im- 
 
 f)088ii)le of realization (Winer, .So.S). It thus means that were it possi- 
 )lc the apostle would himself bear their penalty, if so bo they might 
 receive t! '."■ fulness of his blessing in Christ. This identification of 
 himself with the sinning and miserable people is again tbomuuhly in 
 the pr«)phetic spirit. The expression " anathema away from Christ " 
 can scarcely be reduced to any mild signiticaiico, and the force of the 
 imperfect tense obviates the necessity for this. Hut it expresses, 
 not the state of hardness and unbelief, but the penal conbe<juence8 of 
 that state. This he could even aufier for their sakes if their unbelief 
 could be removed. This love is grounded mi his relationship to them. 
 In the mind uf all Hebrews the ties of kin were very strong; but 
 with Paul this feeling Aas sanctified and deepened by God's grace. 
 
178 ROMANS, IX. [w. 4, 5 
 
 4. who are Israelites ;] This is the beginning of Paul's enumera- 
 tion of the prerogatives which are now passing away from the ancient 
 people. The title " Israel " included all else. It signified " prince " 
 or " prevailer with God." This title was given, not as a personal 
 or national prerogative, hut as the seal of God's covenant with Jacob 
 in virtue of which he was to be the "father of a people "that could 
 not be numbered for multitude." When he was brought face to face 
 with Esau it was not his own merits but the covenant promise which 
 he pleaded ((Jen. xxxii. 12), and this name was God's answer to 
 his prayer establishing the covenant with him. It became therefore 
 the covi-naiit minif of his descendants. 
 
 whose is the adoption,] This prerogative also appears first on a 
 most memorable occasion (Ex. iv. 22). God called hix son out of 
 Egypt. This was a fact recognized by the elder prophets (Hosea 
 xi. 1); and the later prophets claimed the same prerogative for the 
 new covenant (compare Jer. xxxi. .Sl-.'i4), recalling the deliverance 
 from Etjypt in connection witli the first covenant. 
 
 and the glory,] The shekinah or manifested presence of God. A 
 symbol of special relation to (iod, both in regard to his providence 
 and his grace. On tlie liigh value placed on this manifestation see 
 1 Sam. iv. 21 and 1 Kings viii. 10; and on its relation to the Messi- 
 anic future see Isaiali iv. f) and Haggai ii. 9 The absence of the 
 visible shekinah in the second temple led to the more spiritual con- 
 ception of the later prophets, who find in the glory the revdation of 
 Go(/\'i lutturi'. 
 
 and the covenants,] They were the heritors of all the covenants. 
 Those recorded were with Noah, Abraham (repeated to Isaac and 
 Jacob). Moses for all Israel, and firally David. All these from the 
 beginning followed the line of the chosen people. These again tlie 
 prophets projected into tlie Messianic age in a new and more perfect 
 lorm. (See as above Jer. xxxi. HI, etc., and also Ezekiel xxxvii. 2i'). ) 
 
 and the giving of the law,] This in its widest sense included the 
 whole trust of divine revelation, which Paul regarded as the greatest 
 of all their advantages (ch. iii. 2). Paul, however, regards this as a 
 sacied trust. 
 
 and the service of God,] This word included the whole outward 
 form of divine worsliip according to the Levitical ritual established 
 among the chosen people. Tiu-y are thus spoken of as (Jctd's priests, 
 a royal priesthood ; and in tlie age of universal conceptions of the 
 mission of Israel this pricsthocd was conceived of as exercised on 
 behalf of the whole world, and all n tions were called to join in the 
 worship of ({(Ill's people. (See pHalius -ujvi., c, etc.) 
 
 and the promises;] These promises were ve y familiar to the 
 Jewish mind. (See Acts xxvi. (5.) Tiiey were tiie covenant heritage 
 from Adam, Noah, Abraham anl David downward, and fully ex- 
 panded in the prophets. It is these nromises of which Paul says 
 that tlu\v " are all yea and anion " in Christ Jesus (2 ('or. i. 20). 
 
 5. whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning 
 
V. 5.] ROMANS, IX. 179 
 
 the flesh,] These two facts occupy a peculiar place. This people 
 sprang from the fathers with whom God first formed this covenant 
 and inaugurated this wonderfcd process of his grace; and from them 
 sprang the Clirist in whom the manifestations of God's grace culmi- 
 nated. From the fathers to the Christ represents the history and 
 course of two thousand years, in which God prepared his work for 
 the world's salvation. Such is Paul's catalogue of the prerogatives 
 of the elect people of old. It will he seen that they do not in any- 
 wise cross the matter of individual responsibility. They are pre- 
 rogatives belonging to the body, not to the individual, except as a 
 member of the body ; and they all have respect to the office which 
 that body was chosen to fulfil in the economy of the world's salva- 
 tion. The greatest of these is the Christ, over whose pre-eminent 
 dignity Paul dwells 
 
 who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.] Of this famous 
 passage there are four renderings, varying not in text but in meie 
 punctuation. Tiiese are (1) the text; (2) placing a period after 
 " flesh," " He who is (iiod over all be blessed for ever"; or (.3) " He 
 who is over all is God blessed for ever"; (4) placing a period after 
 "all," "Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all. God be 
 blessed for ever. Amen. " The only guide in choosing between these 
 constructions is the connection of thought, After the preceding 
 enumeration of the privileges of the ancient Israel the only concciv- 
 al)le reason for the introduction of such a thought as is expressed in 
 No. 2 as a benediction, or in No. 3 as a direct assertion, is. that Paul 
 stands confounded in the presence of tlie sovereignty of (Jod, which 
 conferred such peculiar jirivileges on this people to the disregard of 
 others, and so feels called upon to explain by the assertion that (iod 
 is over all and must be blessed for ever. But we do not conceive 
 that Paul felt himself face to face with any such difficulty If, as 
 we believe, Paul viewed the ancient election as the preparation of 
 God's purpose of grace for all the nations, and for every man, then 
 there was no modern doctrine of reprobation to be defended, or cov- 
 ere(^ over by an assertion of (Jod's sovereignty. Paul's only repro- 
 bates were the unfaithful elect, or those who, by a long course of re- 
 bellion, had made themselves vessels of -wrath fltted for destruction. 
 The assertion of God's sovereignty seems, therefore, here (piite out 
 of the line of the apostle's thought. So also is the benediction in- 
 cluded in both (2) and (4). First of all, this is not the (Jreck form 
 everywhere usod to c.vpie»»« l)enediction or doxology. liut even 
 more striking is the f.ict that the man here 8j)eaking is not exulting 
 and praising (Jod for the gifts of his grace to his people, but mourn- 
 ing with broken heart over their loss. We are therefore led to full 
 back, with all the ancient and the large majority of modern exposi- 
 tors, upon the first remleriug as both apposite uud giatnmatical. 
 Tiie mention of the flesh in antithesis to the Godhoar aa in John i. 
 14 (Godet), prepares tlie way for the prcneutation of the higher na- 
 ture of the Chriat. This is in Paul's mind familiarly associated with 
 
180 ROMAICS, IX. [vv. 6-8. 
 
 his descent from the fathers (Rom. i. 4). And it was this higher 
 dignity which gave its glory to the Messianic descent as " God with 
 UH.'^ The common association of Pauline ideas and the requirements 
 of his present argument thus combine to point to the old rendering 
 which for fifteen hundred years alone held place in the church. For 
 a very able and exhaustive discussion of the arguments see (iodet 
 in loco. The true idea of the text may be paraphrased with Godet 
 thus; " Who is exalted over all thinjrs as' Hod, to be blessed (or wor- 
 shipped) for ever. Amen. So let it be." Christ is thus piesented 
 to us as the divine Head of the M»;ssianic kingdom. The text is thus 
 parallel in thought with Phil. ii. 6, 9, 10. 
 
 6. But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought.] 
 With these words Paul striken into the very heart of liis subject. 
 They imply the terrible fact which he leaves unspoken: "All these 
 privileges they have lost, but still the case is not such an one that 
 God's word hath fallen to the ground. " It was absolutely incum- 
 bent on St. Paul to prove this in order to vindicate the divine right 
 of the new gospel of salvation by faitii. This gospel, if true, practi- 
 cally resulted in the rejection of the Jews. Its opponents urged 
 that very fact in proof that this gospel was at variance with God's 
 word, and hence untenable. Hence the pertinence, in a letter ad- 
 dressed to the (ientiles for the confirmation of their faith in this 
 universal gospel of the uncircunicisio i, of a demoustration of the 
 harmony of this gospel, and of t/ilx 'special result of it, with the Old 
 Testament promises to the ancient Israel. Even this fact of the re- 
 jection of the Jews does not involve the failure of (iod's covenant 
 word of promise. 
 
 For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel : 
 
 7. neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all chil- 
 dren: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.] This reason strikes 
 at the root of the main deception of Judaism They "thought to 
 themselves that they had Abraham to their father. " Their trust for 
 salvation was in the mere carnal descent from Abraham. But Ish- 
 mael was so descended, and yet tliey helil him to be on a level with 
 sinners of the (Jentiles. This was an unanswerable argument, liut 
 Paul proceeds at once to evolve the principle contained in this clearly 
 acknowledged fact. 
 
 8. That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of 
 God ;] The direct contradiction of the Jewish false confidence. By 
 " the chihlren of (Jod " we are here to understand the children whom 
 God recognized as his elect people. It would ()e a fatal mistake here, 
 if we took this phrase in its modern or (yhri.«tian significance of per- 
 sonal adoption into the family of (iod'u regenerate children. The 
 apostle is speaking?, not of the rejection of indit^iduiv', Jews as Jews, 
 but of the rejection of the peoph' as a people. We must therefore 
 takf^ f\\v term children here in the sense of the national adoption of 
 verse 4. This is clear in tlie antithesis of the last clause, 
 
 but the child "en of the promise are reckoned for a seed.] Here, 
 
vv.9-11.] ROMANS, IX. 181 
 
 instead of the ambiguous term " children," he uses the term "seed," 
 a term exactly fitted to his purpose. This was the term of the prom- 
 ise to Abraham ((ien. xv. 5, etc. ), and used by Isaiah to designate 
 the body of (rod's elect (Isaiah vi. 13). This seed, God's adoption, 
 was marked out by the promise ((len. xvii. 21 and xviii. 10). 
 
 9. For this is n word of promise, According' to this season will 
 I come, and Sarah shall have a son.] IJut what are we to under- 
 stand by P; d's expression, "the children of the promise." The 
 simplest explanation would be, the children pointed out or desig- 
 nated by the promise. Hut several expositors (Riddle, Hodge, 
 (iodet) take it to mean the children born in virtue of the promise, 
 i e., through faith in it. But this fails to apply to the very next ex- 
 ample addu'ied by Paul. And this calling in of Abraham's faith in 
 the promise, about which Paul here says not a word, destroys all the 
 force of Paul's argument. In chapter iv., where he treated of Abra- 
 ham's personal responsibility and justification, the subject of Abra- 
 ham's faith was pertinent. But here, where lie is justifying (Jod's 
 sovereignty in the election of his people, it has nothing to do with it. 
 We therefore take the term "children of the promise" to mean the 
 children pointed out by the promise. Now, in giving a promise God 
 is perfectly free. He can give it such form and limitations or ex- 
 tensions as in his wise and beneficent sovereignty may seem to him 
 best. If those not embraced in the promise were excluded from 
 salvation, if there were in the promise anything which traversed the 
 rights of their personal probation, ob'<>ction could at once be made 
 to the limitations of the elect seed to ^.le promise. But the promise 
 simply points out tlie body of men througli whom God is about to 
 reveal liimself for the salvation of all the world. This outside world, 
 therefore, who in them are to be blessed, cannot complain because 
 God so directs Ins promises as to secure the very end which the prom- 
 ise contemplates, i.e., the blessing, not of this or that individual and 
 specially privileged man, but of "all luitions." When Paul there- 
 fore uses the term "children of the promise" he virtually athrms 
 the just, wise and beneficent sovereignty of God in designating by 
 promise the chosen seed. The next example is to the same point. 
 
 10. And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by 
 one, even by our father Isaac— ^j Tliis peculiarity is introduced to 
 cut away the last refuge of tiiose who trusted in the descent after 
 the flesh. They might say, these were the children of the bond- 
 woman. But in Paul's next example both father and mother are 
 the same. Tiie natui.il descent of the twins is identical. The elec- 
 tion is absolutely independent therefore of natural descent; and not 
 only so, but also of everything else that unght prejudice the freedom 
 of God's choice, and so he adds in a parentlietical clause — 
 
 n. for the children being not yet born, neither having done 
 any'-hing good or bad,] This is introduced to obviate another sub- 
 terfuge. It might be said that the action of Ksau in selling his birth- 
 right excluded him. Paul aian at maintaining the absolute sover- 
 
182 ROMANS, IX. [vv. 12, 13. 
 
 eignty of God in this matter. The responsibility of the Judge of all 
 the earth to do ri^ht admits of no personal claim which may bias his 
 action by the influence of personal favour. He therefore represents 
 the designating promise as prevenient to every act and even to the 
 birth itself. 
 
 that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not 
 of works, but of him that calleth,] We beg first of all to submit to 
 the judgment of our readers a modification of this translation. The 
 Greek phrase 7'/ kut EKAoyiiv Tzpoheaiq admits equally well of two dis- 
 tinct translations, "the purpose according to election" and "the 
 purpose concerning election." The first translation makes the elec- 
 tion precede the purpose as the rule or norm according to which the 
 purpose is consti-ucted. The second makes tlie |)urpose stand first 
 as the norm or rule by which the e'ection is directed. The election, 
 like the calling, is according to God's purpose. We submit that this 
 ia the true Pauline conception. (.See Rom. viii. 28; Eph. i. 4-11; 
 2 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Tim. i. 9.) On the grammatical propriety of this 
 version see Winer, p. .'300, on the genei-al figurative use of nara to de- 
 note " relation "or " influence " or " more exact (lefiniti<m." Again, 
 the verb of this sentence signifies, not to stand fast or strong, but 
 simply to continue, to remain <is it had been. This quality or attribute 
 in which it is to continue is defined to be, "not of works," i.e., not 
 directed by the obligation of justice or merit which works mii^ht 
 create, "but of him that calleth," i.e., directed by the will of liim 
 that calleth. The preposition ek here signifies the voot or source out 
 of which a thing springs, and which so determines its nature and 
 form. We may therefoie paraphrase as follows : "In order that the 
 purpose of God concerning election might continue to be directed as 
 it was at first, not by any claim of any individual man, l)ut simply 
 out of the wise, holy and beneficent will of God, who calls this or 
 that bodj' of men as his chosen instrument. 
 
 12. it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.] 
 This was a clear designation of the line of (Jod's election, confirmed 
 ever after, as appears from the further declaration of scripture. 
 
 13. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.] We 
 need not adopt any doubtful interpretation of " I loved less, 'etc. 
 The passage (Mai. L 2. 3) is a plain historical statement of God's 
 election between the two nations as represented by their progenitors 
 in the two brother.**. In regard to this choice God "loved .Jacob 
 and hated Esau." This by no means implies that Esau was person- 
 ally, as an individual, excluded from (Jod's grace and saving love. 
 Paul is not here considering God's election of imlividuals unto per- 
 sonal salvation (we shall consider the bearing of election upon this 
 presently), but the determination of the line of election of his sepa- 
 rate people. In this deternunation Esau was refused. Paul has 
 thus demonstrated from the facts of the cjise the sovereignty of God 
 in his election as free from every trammel of persf)nal obligation to 
 man. But if God so determines the line- of election without regard 
 
vv. 14-16] ROMANS, IX. 183 
 
 to personal rights or claims, is he not unrighteous ? This is Paul's 
 next question. 
 
 14 What shall we say then ?] The question with which he calls 
 attention especially to his discussion of an objection. 
 
 Is there unrighteousness with God?] This is the natural objec- 
 tion of those who regard election as a matter of personal claim and 
 preroga.tive securing bidiv'ulual salvation. It is a perfectly pertinent 
 question on the part of one who believes that election is a matter of 
 personal salvation, when told that election is of (iod's sovereignty. 
 We must therefore carefully consider Paul's answer. 
 
 15. God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on 
 whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have 
 compassion.] Paul's indignant denial is supported by a quotation 
 from Ex. xxxiii. 18. In this passage God asserts to Moses his right, 
 not to save whom he will and leave to perish whom he will, but 
 tn Hclfct ax he will the objects of a special, mercy. This mercy was what 
 Moses had requested — a special, revelation of th' divine nature, such 
 as the Jews held no man could see and live. Such a mercy God says 
 he will confer on whom he will. But few are such as God chooses 
 for such a purpose. This case is therefore perfectly analogous to 
 the election of a line in v/hich God should accomplish his great Mes- 
 sianic purpose for the world's salvation. In regard to both these 
 matters God is in bis election sovereign, that is, the principles upon 
 which he determines them lie beyond the personal or individual 
 claims or merits of any one man or set of men. They affect the re- 
 ward of Christ, the highest and eternal welfare of the whole human 
 race, the interests and well-being of all (ilod's moral creatures, and 
 the final perfect manifestation of the divine glory, (lod therefore 
 holds these matters in his own hand to be wisely, rigiiteously and 
 beneficently determined as he sees best. Paul's quotation of this in- 
 stance of this very special revelation to Moses proves this, that these 
 matters are too high to be determined by any will or desire of man, 
 even such a man as Moses; or as Paul puts it, 
 
 16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, 
 but of God that hath mercy.] Isaac willeil this prerogative to Flsau, 
 Esau ran to obtain it, but God directed as seemed him best. Had 
 it been the matter of the personal salvation of Jacob and the perdi- 
 tion of Esau, this riddle of God's permitting the duplicity of Jacob 
 to succeed would have been a hard one indeed, liut in reference to 
 the wilier and no longer personal question of the election God could 
 overrule his sinful deception of . his father for final good, and yet 
 punish him for his personal sin. The matter here in question, that 
 is, of being the elect progenitor of the chosen Messianic people, is 
 not of man's willing or seeking but of God's compassionate will or 
 purpose. To draw from these words the inference of Kidille, "that 
 the participation in any or all the eflfects of (Jod's mercy ami com- 
 passion docs not depend on human will or effort, but on the will of 
 God," is to draw from a particular premise a universal conclusion. 
 
184 ROMANS, IX. [vv. 17, 18. 
 
 It is not correct to say that "neither the preceding context nor the 
 scope of the argument suggests any limitations " of the application 
 of the quoted words of Exodus. The original context clearly applies 
 them to a particular matter ; and with equal clearness does the scope 
 of the argument limit their application here, and more than that, the 
 limitations are analogous in both cases. But Paul has another eijually 
 clear example at hand to prove the same principle, i.e., the sover- 
 eignty of God in the selection of his instruments for the accomplish- 
 ment of his great providential purposes. 
 
 17. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose 
 did I raise thee up, that I might shew in thee my power, and that 
 my name might be published abroad in all the earth.] This is a 
 case taken from the opposite side of God's providential purpose, i.e., 
 his revelation of righteous judgment against sin. First of all, the 
 passage quoted requires careful attention. The quotation is from 
 Ex. ix. 16. The Hebrew text of verses 15 and 16, which belong to- 
 gether, may be rendered as follows : " For now indeed had I stretched 
 forth my hand and had smitten thee and thy people with the pesti- 
 lence from the earth. But peradventure for this very purpose have 
 I let thee stand, to show in thee my power, and to proclaim my 
 name in all the earth." With the revised version before us it is 
 scarcely necessary to justify the foregoing translation by reference 
 to Ewald, Driver and other modern grammars. (See Driver, p. 184, 
 sec. 141. ) The meaning of the original Hebrew text is therefore not 
 that God created Pharaoh for this purpose of judgment, but that 
 after he had repeatedly sinned against God's M'arning, and had de- 
 served immediate destruction, God had still continued him in exist- 
 ence upon the earth to make him a more conspicuous example of his 
 power to punish the sinner, and to make him a means of revealing 
 his holy name in all the earth. Now many a wicked man as bad 
 as Pharaoh is not selected by God for this purpose. God reserves, 
 with reference to these examples in his providence of the punishment 
 of sin, the right to choose from among all obstinate sinners those 
 whom he thus will make conspicuous examples of his judgment; but 
 our Lord guards us against supposing that the final destiny of such 
 is worse than that of others. " I tell you nay ; but except ye repent, 
 ye shall all likewise perish." The final personal penalty determined 
 by individual probation is not affected by the use which God may 
 thus make of the sinner in time for the revelation of his righteous 
 judgments among men. Here then again is the proof of the sover- 
 eignty of God in the selection of those whom he makes conspicuous 
 in human history, by choosing in them to reveal his justice. The 
 reasons for this again are above the question of personal merit, but 
 at the same time do not contravene the rights of personal probation. 
 And hence Paul safely concludes that along both lines God exercises 
 his sovereign wisdom. 
 
 18. So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will 
 he hardeneth.] The mercy and the hardening must be interpreted 
 
V. 19.] ROMANS, IX. 185 
 
 in harmony with the history of the case. The mercy is clearly the 
 gracious dispensation of the gifts of the election, including in the 
 case of Moses an extraordinary revelation of God. As to the harden- 
 ing, there are two terms used in the Hebrew text, each translated 
 by the English " harden." The first is used where it is said that the 
 Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, eight times in all. It signifies to 
 make strong or bold and courageous. Tlie second is usid, with one 
 excejDtion, where it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, 
 and signifies to make heavy or dull and obtuse. It is the Septuagint 
 translation of the first of tliese terms which Paul uses in our text. 
 In the case before us the meaning is clear God could have broken 
 the courage of the obdurate sinner at a single blow. That would be 
 of no moi'al benefit whatever to him, for a forced submission is no 
 submission ; it would merely have ended the contest. But it was 
 God's will that the true disposition of Pharaoh should be manifested 
 and openly punished, and therefore he so tempers his judgments 
 that they do not break the courage of the obdurate sinner. And 
 thus it is said that God strengthened his heart. But meantime he 
 was bluntinjj; all his own moral sense by his repeated refusals to do 
 the right. This proci ss is indeed once attributed to God, as the re- 
 sult of the moral law of our nature which he has ordained. But in 
 that process, while God has ordained the law which punishes sin by 
 moral obduracy, min is the respcmsible author of liis own hardening, 
 and to this the scriptural use of the terms corresponds. But courage 
 is something which is not altogether under our control. We can 
 wilfully lose it but not regain it, and hence it is attributed more 
 directly to God. But in the communication of this ci»urage (even 
 taking the strongest aspect of the case) did God interfere with Pha- 
 raoh's personal probation ? Far from it. He really placed him in 
 the position of responsibility. The man whose courage is utterly 
 broken is hardly a responsible being. He is under a compulsion 
 which deprives him of moral freedom. His acts are the acts of the 
 man with the loaded pistol at his head. In Paul's affirmation of the 
 sovereignty of (iod in the choice of those through whom he will re- 
 veal either his mercy or his judgments we thus find nothing to con- 
 travene the law of personal probational responsibility. But while 
 Paul has established the fact of the sovereignty of God in election, 
 and has shewn that there is no unrighteousness with God in this, 
 inasmuch as this is not a matter of personal probation, but of much 
 wider consequences, and hence to be determined on a wider basis, 
 tliere still remains the objection, that if this is a matter of sovereignty 
 then the nation cannot be blamed for the loss of that which Cfod hath 
 taken from them. The removal of the privileges of the election is 
 not their fault but is God's sovereign will. It is to this question 
 that Paul next addresses himself. 
 
 19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault ? 
 For who 'withstandeth his will?] We may paraphrase these ques- 
 tions thus: " If we have no right to find fault with God in his dis- 
 
 13 
 
186 ROMANS, IX. . vv. 20-22. 
 
 pensation of the privileges of the election according to his own sov- 
 ereign will, then certainly he has no right to find fault with us, be- 
 cause he has taken those privileges from us. We have not resisted, 
 nay, are utterly helpless to resist, his will. " This question opens up 
 the exceedingly difficult subject of the relation of the privileges of 
 the election to national and individual responsibility. This question 
 Paul deals with to the end of the chapter, affirming, first, the sover- 
 eignty of God in assigning to each man or body of men their proba- 
 tional position : and secondly, the responsibility of man for his use 
 or abuse of that probational position. 
 
 20. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God ? 
 Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou 
 make me thus?] This confirms our interpretation of verse 19, for 
 these questions clearlj relate to i\ itters which (Jtod hath held in hia 
 own power and hath :iot assigned to human responsibility. It is 
 therefore to interpret Paul in the face of the whole purport of his 
 teaching to make this "forming" the decision of eternal destinies. 
 These, he has expressly declared, depend upon personal probation 
 (ch. ii. 6-10). The "forming," or creative sovereignty, must there- 
 fore be that which precedes personal probation, and lays the founda- 
 tion for it, i.e., the assigning to each man the sphere of his life and 
 his individual gifts and endowments. This is of God's sovereignty. 
 No man has a right to say unto God, Why hast thou made me thus ? 
 but should thankfully make the most of that which God has given 
 him. This broad creative sovereignty includes the special sover- 
 eignty of the election. This broad principle Paul illustrates from 
 the analogy of the potter. 
 
 21. Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same 
 lump to make one part a vessel unto honour, and another unto 
 dishonour?] This simile is at once an argument from analogy for, 
 and an illustration of, the creative sovereignty. It does not suppose 
 that the potter acts with an arbitrary disregard of the qualities of 
 the clay. The question is of the choice of the purpose for which it is 
 fitted, or which he may desire to accomplish by means of it. But the 
 Greek terms are scarcely fairly represented by our words " honour " 
 and "dishonour." "Costly" and "cheap" would be nearer the 
 original. This is the general significance of these words when ap- 
 plied, as here, to articles of commerce. Applied to men or to the 
 gods they signify honour or dignity and dishonour or indignity. 
 Although Paul does not here quote from Jeremiah, yet Jeremiah 
 xviii. may be very well compared. 
 
 22. What if God, willing- to shew his wrath, and to make his 
 power known, endured with much longsuifering vessels of wrath 
 fitted unto destruction:] Tliis is Paul's application if the general 
 principle of creative sovereignty to the instances of election already 
 referred to. In the first case Paul is careful to put forward the just 
 reason of God's choice of "the vessels of wrath." They are "fitted 
 to destruction. " His whole teaching protests against the idea that 
 God fitted them for destruction, They fitted themselves; here ap- 
 
w. 23-26.] ROMANS, IX. 187 
 
 pears their responsibility. God endured them with much longsuffer- 
 ing ; here is their distinct proljation. But side by side with this God 
 determined to make them an example of his wrath and power to 
 punish the wicked ; ' ere is God's sovereignty. He does not make 
 all men such examples. But at the great final judgment there will 
 be "no respect of persons," and "every man shall receive according 
 to his works." Such is Paul's doctrine according to fair interpreta- 
 tion, allowing Paul to explain himself. 
 
 23. and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon 
 vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,] On this 
 side of the question we see at once 1 hat Paul speaks much more abso- 
 lutely. In the dispensation of the privileges of the election man has 
 not the same probational rights. The preparations needed are not 
 within the reach of any individual. They run through the ages, and 
 can only be accomplished by the superintending providence of God. 
 All that is included in the " riches of glory " to be revealed, and in 
 the prepai-ation of the vessels of mercy to receive that glory, Paul 
 alone could unfold. He calls it elsewhere (Eph. i. ) " the mystery of 
 God's will" and "the mystery of Christ." The riches of the glory 
 are the successive revelations of God to man. The preparation runs 
 through ages of moral, religious and intellectual discipline, within 
 the chosen people, and collateral to them, and finally expands into 
 the universiri dispensation which offers these privileges to all alike. 
 
 24. Even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but 
 also from the Gentiles?] This final objective point, in which the 
 line of God's electing purpose culminates in the ofter to Jew and 
 Gentile alike of the privileges of the election upon the basis of per- 
 sonal faith in Christ, is to Paul's mind the solution of the mystery 
 involved in the election. For all through the ages there was a mys- 
 tery. Why should God thus favour one little people with privileges 
 withheld from all the rest? The answer is, for thi^ final bfuefit of all. 
 Because " preparation " was needed before the full glory could be 
 revealed. The free and full expansion of the privileges to embrace 
 the whole world is the solution of the mystery. If the world, while 
 waiting for this solution, is dealt with on fair terms of moral proba- 
 tion (Acts xvii. 30), and if when "the fulness of times" Las come 
 the result is a richer moral glory for all (Eph. i. and ii.), then cer- 
 tainly no longer is there any dark shadow hanging over God's deal- 
 ings with man. The unbounded enthusiasm with whioh this idea 
 filled the mind of Paul is manifest in the frequency with which he 
 returns to it. And such was God's design from the beginning, as is 
 clear from the prophets. 
 
 25. As he saith also in Hosea, 
 
 I will call that my people, which was not my people ; 
 And her beloved, which was not beloved. 
 
 26. And it shall be, that in the place where it was said unto 
 
 them. Ye are not my people, 
 There shall they be called sons of the living God. 
 These (quotations (Hosea i. 10 and ii, 23) refer originally to the ten 
 
188 ROMANS, IX. [w. 27, 28. 
 
 tribes. Paul clearly regards them as in the same position as the 
 Gentiles, inasmiiuh as the line of the election followed the house of 
 David. Other (jlentilea had long before been left behind as through 
 Noali, Abraham, Jacob, etc., the chosen seed was marked out by 
 •'the promises." But those thus left behind Paul by no means con- 
 signs to perdition. Their personal probation continues, and intima- 
 tions of further provisions of God's mercy will meet us presently. 
 Meantime Paul calls attention to the fact that the sifting of proba- 
 tion was part of God's purpose, side by side with the extension of 
 the privileges. 
 
 27. And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the 
 children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that 
 shall be saved:] la this passage (Isaiah x. 22, 23) Isaiah is speak- 
 ing of the judgment and sifting of the chosen people. This is God's 
 "decreed consumption," which (as is evident from the whole course 
 of Isaiah's writings) is no arbitrary matter, but the result of the pro- 
 bation of Giod's people. With regard to Israel this probation will 
 reduce the number saved, who are here identified with the Christian 
 election, to a very small remnant. Isaiah is thus perfectly in har- 
 mony with Paul in combining the idea of personal responsibility and 
 probation with the election. However the outward election, i.e., 
 the nation, might increase, God would sift it down to the righteous 
 remnant. And as by the election of Israel the Gentiles were by no 
 means to be considered as debarred from their rights of probation, 
 80 by the election Israel is by no means freed from the re-ponsibili- 
 ties of probation. But more than that, the question of verse 19 is 
 thus answered. "Why doth he still find fault?" Because the 
 chosen people have been unfaithful to their responsibilities. Paul's 
 answer to the question of verse 19 therefore consists of two parts: 
 (1) God's sovereign right to assign man's probational sphere as seem- 
 eth him best, and to use him in that sphere as may best serve his 
 purposes; and (2) God's right in all ages to hold even the chosen 
 people responsible for their privileges, and to cut them oflf from those 
 privileges for unfaithfulness. And this is in harmony with God's 
 general law of probation. 
 
 28. for the Lord will execute his v7ord upon the earth, finishing 
 it and cutting it short.] This part of the quotation presents pecu- 
 liar difficulties both of text and of relation to the original. The 
 shorter text adopted by th3 revisers has the strongest authorities in 
 its favour, but omits a sentence of the original, which may be ren- 
 dered as follows : — 
 
 " The decisive end is overflowing with righteousness. 
 For a decisive end is Jehovah the Lord making in the midst of 
 the land." 
 It is the first line which is omitted in the revised text and combined 
 with the second in the texlm rcceptus. Whether Paul quoted the 
 whole in condensed form, or only the last sentence, we may fairly 
 accept the original as expressing his meaning. This is the proclanta- 
 
vv. 29, 30.] ROMANS, IX. 189 
 
 tion through the land of a final short, and yet righteous, "ending 
 up " as between God and his people. The revised text embodies this 
 sense as follows: " The Lord will execute his word " (i.e., his threat- 
 ened judgments) " upon the earth, making it final and short." The 
 final, summary and righteous judgments of God, therefore, fall alike 
 upon the world and the elect, i.e., both are held to full probational 
 responsibility. This fact of God's probational judgment of the elect 
 appears in Isaiah from the very beginning. 
 
 29. And, as Isaiah hath said before, 
 
 Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed. 
 We had become as Sodom, and had been made like unto 
 Gomorrah. 
 There is in thi& verse again a slight variation from the Hebrew in 
 the substitution of the word "seed" for "remnant," The words 
 are used by Isaiah a3 equivalent titles of the sifted elect body. Here 
 again we find the same doctrine of the probational sifting of the 
 elect body adduced by Paul from Isaiah in proof of his position. 
 The quotation is from Isaiah i. 9. The proof from reason and scrip- 
 ture of the two elements of Paul's answer to the question of verse 19 
 is thus complete. Why doth he still find fault ? Because he hath a 
 sovereign right to assign to each one, even the elect, their proba- 
 tional position, and to hold them to account for their fulfilment of 
 its responsibilities. This conclvdes Paul's first point — the demon- 
 stration of God's sovereignty in tl;e election, vindicating his fidelity 
 under the universal gospel to his covenant obligations on the one 
 hand, and maintaining probational responsibility on the other. He 
 now turns to prove, upon this basis, the justice of the resulting re- 
 jection of the great body of the ancient people. 
 
 Ch. IX. 30-X. 21. Application of the Responsibilities of the 
 
 Election to the Case of the Rejected Jews; ob, 
 
 The Vindication of the Divine Justice. 
 
 30. What shall we say then?] Paul's formula for directing spe- 
 cial attention to a particular point. He has in the main body of the 
 preceding chapter vindicated both the sovereignty of God and the 
 responsibility of man in regard to the election. In verses 22-24 he 
 has put forward the historical result of these two principles in a ten- 
 tative, hypothetical form, supported by quotations from the Old 
 Testament prophecies (verses 25-29). Fortified by these prefaces he 
 now states the historical outcome directly, making it tli< basis for a 
 full vindication of the divine justice in regard to the rejection of the 
 Jews Pkud the perdition of so large a number of them. 
 
 That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, at- 
 tained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith :] 
 Paul, with nice delicacy of feeling, to make the subject as little pain- 
 ful as possible, puts the side of God's grace first, and then the side 
 of judgment. ' ' That Gentiles " or " nations. " The article is want- 
 
190 ROMANS, IX. [vv. 31, 32. 
 
 ing in the Greek, and the term may well be taken indefinitely. 
 "Which followed not after righteousness." We take "righteous- 
 ness " here, as everywhere in St. Paul's writings, as " rightness with 
 God. " Paul here speaks generally. The Greeks, Romans, and other 
 nations to whom God's call came, were not seekers after God as na- 
 tions, although there were among them some such. "Attained to 
 righteousness" — have grasped it as a prize or precious treasure found 
 lying in their way. When God's electing grace turned to seek his 
 new people among them they eagerly embraced the precious offer. 
 " But the righteousness which is of faith." The Greek conjunction 
 here is not " even " or "also," but the mildest adversative, and may 
 be rendered " but," as there is a slightly antithetic force in the added 
 clause. "They attained to righteousness (not legal righteousness), 
 but the righteousness of faith." 
 
 31. but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, ] Perhaps 
 Paul here puts the zeal of Israel for the law, i e., the outward Mo- 
 saic form or code of ritual and service, into the foreground of pur- 
 pose. This was indeed a law of righteousness, i.e., intended to lead 
 to right relation to God. But they followed the means rather than 
 the end, and lost the spirit in the letter, and therefore 
 
 did not arrive at that law.] Paul here uses a peculiar word which 
 in classical Greek signifies " to come in first " (prcevenire), but in the 
 New Testament "to go through with," "to follow out to the end," 
 {pervenira). The old version is nearer this than the revised. The 
 application of the word here is very clear Tht'y did not follow the 
 law out to its true result, else as their schoolmaster it would have led 
 them to Christ. 
 
 32. Wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it 
 were by works.] Paul has repeatedly shewn that the true spirit 
 even of the old dispensation was " faith," not " works." Faith repre- 
 sents the moral principle, the spiritual life; "works," merely the 
 outward form. This was the great mistake of the Jews. They were 
 80 engrossed in the outward form that they missed all the spirit. 
 Their works (outward forms) filled them with supercilious pride and 
 vain conceits. The spirit of faith is childlike, teachable. Hence 
 
 They stumbled at the stone of stumbling;] The stone of stum- 
 bling was Christ. In his humble garb and spiritual teachings they 
 knew him not. Had he appeared on David's throne, or even as a 
 great leader of a national party against foreign domination, or per- 
 haps as a great Rabbi teaching the law — in any shape that fitted 
 to the outward forms which they worshipped — they might have re- 
 ceived him. But God must sift the true followers of the truth from 
 all who selfishly follow outward and temporal things. So although 
 Christ brought the heavenly kingdom of (Jod's truth, and was indeed 
 the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, 
 " he came unto his own, and his own received him not." And this 
 again was in accord with ancient prophecy. 
 
vv. 33;1.] ROMANS, IX, X. ,l9l 
 
 33. ev^n as it is written, 
 
 Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of 
 
 offence : 
 And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame. 
 
 The first of these quotations is taken from Isaiah viii. 14. The 
 sense there is precisely apposite to Paul's purpose. The chosen peo- 
 ple then "refused the waters of Shiloah that go softly," i.e., the 
 quiet, unworldly policy dictated by God's prophets, who exhorted 
 them to leave the worldly policy of confederation with the heathen 
 alone, and make the Lord their " sanctuary." To the worldly man 
 and self-conceited statesman of that day this was a stone of stum- 
 bling and a rock of offence, and they stumbled over it, and were as a 
 consequence broken in pieces by the Assyrian invasion. The case 
 was in every respect parallel to the one which Paul has in hand. 
 And so was the other side of the picture which Paul takes from an- 
 other passage in Isaiah (xxviii. 16). The tried foundation of Isaiah 
 was trust in God and adherence to righteousness and equity, in oppo- 
 sition to all covenants and leagues against death, or t-ie overflowing 
 scourge of the Assyrian invasion, such as the leaders of Israel were 
 trusting in. Faith in that foundation should not be ashamed, nor 
 be required to flee away in haste. 
 
 I. Brethren, my heart's desire and my supplication to God is 
 for them, that they may be saved.] Paul, having thus gently but 
 explicitly stated the case of the ancient people, pauses a moment to 
 give expression to his prayerful desire on th<iir behalf. This is 
 usually taken as the beginning of a new section of the Epistle. But 
 that verse 1 is actually, if not in form, parenthetical, is evident from 
 the fact that verses 2-4 fall back on chapter ix. 30, 31 — the word 
 •' zeal " repeating the idea of "following after "; "the law of right- 
 eousness " now appearing as " their awn righteousness "; and the end 
 of the law which they "did not attain" here appearing as " Christ, 
 the end of the law for righteousness." The connection of thought is 
 thus continuous, and verse 1 is but the passing expression of a desire 
 ■»vhich Paul has told us (ch. ix. 1) is the continual burden of his heart. 
 This is in harmony with the revised text, which, following the great 
 majority of MSS., reads, "on their behalf," instead of "on behalf 
 of IsiMel. " The noun would be appropriate in the formal beginning 
 of a new section ; the pronoun is required in a mere parenthesis. It 
 refers back to the subject of "stumbled " in chapter ix. 32. " They 
 stumbled ; but my prayer still ascends on their behalf, that they may 
 be saved. They have as a nation lost the election ; but individually 
 they may yet be saved, and find a place in the new election, " We 
 do not therefore need, with Prof. Chambers (translation of Godet), 
 to call in Paul's ignorance of their reprobation. He was not so 
 ignorant. Nor need we, with Godet, transfer Paul's prayer to the 
 future. A hopeful reason for this prayer Paul finds in a fact already 
 partially expressed in chapter ix. 31, but which he now expandfj 
 more fully. 
 
192 ROMANS, X. [vv. 2-4. 
 
 2. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but 
 not according to knowledge.] Paul was personally cognizant of 
 the nature of this zeal, knowing at once how sincere and yet how 
 blind it was, and how far it was of the nature of that invincible 
 ignorance which places men below the level of responsibility. (Com- 
 pare 1 Tim. i. 13.) 
 
 3. For being ignorant of Goci's righteousness, and seeking to 
 establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the right- 
 eousness of God.] This is at once the proof of verse 2, and a full 
 expansion of chapter ix. 31. For this ignorance they were responsi- 
 ble, inasmuch as the law produced that knowledge of sin which leads 
 at least to a negative knowledge of the true righteousness. He who 
 feels himself a sinner, if he has not positive knowledge of the true 
 righteousness, k'jows it at least as an object of hope and desire. But 
 of all this they were so totally ijinorant that they sought to establish 
 a righteousness of their own. How fundamentally opposed any such 
 idea was to the true conception of righteousness Paul has shewn in 
 chapters ii. and iii. They had not only failed to learn the great 
 lesson which it was tlie province of the law to teach (see note on 
 ch. vii. 13), but they had further made this very law, which, by 
 awakening the knowledge of their own lack of righteousness, was 
 designed to lead to God's righteousness, a means of building up their 
 self-righteous confidence, and therefore the occasion of their refusal 
 to accept God's righteousness. A more complete perversion of God's 
 purpose cannot well be conceived. Observe that to this point Paul 
 has used the historical tense, because so far he is simply stating the 
 facts of the case. He now proceeds to explain those facts on gen- 
 eral principles. 
 
 4. For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every 
 one that believeth.] The "end" is that to which (in ch. ix. 31) 
 Paul says the Jews " did not come through." The end is the point 
 to which that which prepares the way leads, and at the same time 
 the point in which it terminates. The work or office of the law leads 
 to Christ; it also terminates in Christ. This was true in the rela- 
 tions of the dispensations to each other. It is likewise true in tiie 
 moral development of each spiritual life. Paul's application here 
 may include both. He asserts the principle in its most universal 
 form as a universal predicate ; but as he speaks at the point at whioh 
 two dispensations meet, it may not be without reference to the futile 
 efforts of the Judaistic party to perpetuate the old dispensation in 
 opposition to God's new order. Bnt his very introduction of the 
 term "righteousness" (the right probational relation of the indi- 
 vidual to God) shews that his thought is now fixed, not on the rela- 
 tion of the dispensations to each other, but upon the personal results 
 to the individual Jews in regard to their probation. The reproba- 
 tion of the nation, ia which Paul held that God was sovereign, is at 
 the same time the condemnation of the vast ))ody of individuals 
 through whom this reprobation took place. We are therefore now 
 
vv. 5, 6 ] ROMANS, X. 193 
 
 distinctly on the ground of the personal relation of the Jews to God ; 
 and liere I'uul vindicates no longer the sovereignty but the justice of 
 God. The election was taken from the Jewish nation because, in 
 God's sovereign purpose, the full time for the extension of its privi- 
 leges to the Gentiles had now come. In this God was sovereign. 
 The Jewa were not saved as individuals because they "did not sub- 
 mit themselves to the righteousness of God." In this God was just. 
 Had they so submitted themselves they would have been embraced 
 in the new election, and so have retained all its privileges. Their 
 reprobation was therefore entirely of themselves. The election is 
 entirely of God. But this consequence of their refusal to submit 
 themselves to God's righteousness was not a result of an arbitrary 
 arrangement on God's part. This very principle, so contrary to their 
 Pharisaic spirit, was to be found even in the Mosaic law itself. The 
 words of Moses shall condemn them for refusing to submit to God's 
 righteousness. 
 
 5. For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteous- 
 ness which is of the law ?»hall live thereby.] This quotation, which 
 is from Lev. xviii. 5, is not materially altered in sense by the varia- 
 tions of the MSS. It represents the genuine spirit of the Mosaic 
 dispensation— a dispensation of tutelage : " Do this and live." This 
 
 Sassage may have been quoted by Paul's opponents as against his 
 octrine of faith. If so he is quite willing to concede its full force. 
 This doing, even there, was not the self-righteous doing of the Phari- 
 see, but the humble doing of God's servant. Even there the idea of 
 mercy and the principle of faith existed, as witness the following 
 (also from Moses): — 
 
 6. But the righteousness which is of faith saith thus,] This 
 quotation, from Deut. xxx. 11-14, is introHuced by a peculiar form 
 of expression. Godet notes that Paul no longer says " Moses writes," 
 but "The righteousness which is of faith saith thus." This can 
 scarcely bear any other meaning than that the principle of God's 
 gracious gift of righteousness to obedient and trusting faith runs 
 through the law as well as through the gospel, and that we find it 
 expressing itself in such passages as the following: — 
 
 Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven ? (that is, 
 to bring Christ down:)] This quotation is part of an address of 
 Moses, urging obedience to the law. An argument for this is, that 
 it is not an impossibility. " It is not in heaven," " neither is it be- 
 yond the see,," i.e. , it is not a thing far otF and difficult or impossible. 
 But Paul puts the words of Moses with his own running comment. 
 " Saj' not in thy heart. Who shall ascend into heaven ? (i.e., to bring 
 down to earth that perfect righteousness which cannot be found on 
 earth)." (Compare our Lord's "Thy will be done on earth as it is 
 in heaven. ") But Paul expresses this idea of Moses in terms familiar 
 to the Christian mind, i.e., "to bring Christ down" Christ per- 
 fectly fulfilled God's will on our behalf. The object, therefove, of 
 bringing down the Christ is to bring to man that which he alone has 
 accomplished. 
 
194 ROMANS, X. [vv. 7-11. 
 
 7. or, Who shall descend into the abyss ? (that is, to bring 
 Christ up from the dead.)J The original words of Moses are, " Who 
 shall go over the sea?" This Paul changes to " Who shall desoend 
 into the abyss?" This is an exactly identical figure and form of ex- 
 pression, and can be applied again to the Christian idea, as Paul 
 immediately does in hie comment. To bring Christ up from the 
 dead is to accomplish that for which he. arose, viz., "our justifica- 
 tion." Paul's thought may therefore be expressed thus: "I grant 
 you that Moses speaks of the righteousness of the law as a living by 
 doing, but not in the absolute self-righteous sense in which you in- 
 terpret it; for in that same Moses we find the spirit of the right- 
 eousness which is of grace by faith speaking, and bidding us not to 
 despair because we cannot do the things which Christ came from 
 heaven and rose from hades to accomplish." 
 
 8. But what saith it?] That is, this same spirit of the righteous- 
 ness which is of faith. 
 
 The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart : that is, 
 the word of faith, which we preach:] The mouth assenting to 
 God's commands and the heart understanding and willing to do 
 them. This Paul identifies with the faith of the gospel, and again 
 by a running comment applies the very words of Moses to the gospel 
 faith as probably professed in baptism. 
 
 9. because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, 
 and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, 
 thou shalt be saved:] Confessing Jesus as Lord involved the full 
 surrender of the whole self to him. It was outward separation from 
 the world, or as the gospels put it, "taking up the cross to follow 
 him." When this outward act, in those days so significant in its 
 consequences, was the result of sincere faith of the heart, the whole 
 essence of Christianity was involved in it. It could only be the out- 
 come of the new spiritual life. No man could so " call Jesus Lord 
 but by the Holy Ghost." Paul thus finds a perfect identity between 
 the inner spiritual principle of the new dispensation and that of the 
 old. The fact upon which faith lays hold is this, "that God hath 
 raised him from the dead." On the relation of this fact to the 
 Christian faith see note on chapter iv. 25. 
 
 ID. for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and 
 with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.] In this gen- 
 eral statement, which is given as a Christian axiom, the whole pro- 
 cess of individual salvation is set forth in its historical order. The 
 foundation is laid, the right relation to God attained, by faith: 
 " With the heart man believeth unto righteousness." And then the 
 Christian life follows in the consistent acknowledgment of Christ 
 as the Lord. The man who to the end holds fast this confession is 
 saved. To this axiom he puts a climax by adding the words of scrip- 
 ture already quoted (ch. ix. 33) from Isaiah xxviii. 16. 
 
 II. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall 
 not be put to shame.] Here again Paul quotes to the sense. In- 
 
vv. 12-14.] ROMANS, X. 195 
 
 stead of the simple "He that believeth " of the original, he brings 
 out its universality by adding an " every " — " Whosoever " Faith 
 , thus appears everywhere from Moses to the prophets as the spirit 
 of the Old Tes'oament dispensation. 
 
 12. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek:] The 
 connection of this verse lies in the "whosoever" which Paul had 
 inserted on purpose to introduce once more Ins universal gospel. The 
 general proposition that faith is the groundwork of salvation in both 
 dispensations, growing out of the discussion of the personal responsi- 
 bility of the Jew& for their unbelief, has opened the way for this 
 grand, broad enunciation of the universality of God's grace What- 
 ever may have been tlie distinctions of the old election there is no 
 difference or distinction here. 
 
 for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call 
 upon him :] The first part of this proposition no Jew would dispute. 
 It was their boast that Jehovah is Lord of all the earth. But the 
 second follows from it ; and although it might strike him as new, 
 yet even a Jew would not be disposed to deny it. If he hesitated 
 raul has scripture at hand to prove his point. 
 
 13. for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall 
 be saved.] This passage is taken from Joel ii. .32 Peter had already 
 quoted this prophecy on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii 17). He had 
 taken it as Messianic and universal in its character. In the original 
 connection it can hardly be otherwise interpreted. It predicts in 
 the last days a universal gift of God to man, prior to God's great 
 and f).n&l judgment, and an opening up of deliverance in Zion and 
 Jerusalem, and "in the remnant whom God shall call." And with 
 that deliverance, " Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord 
 shall be delivered," Paul's quotation is therefore perfectly apposite, 
 and would be so acknowledged by a Jew^ish Cliristian; and tlie 
 "whosoever" of the prophet is as universal as that of the apostle, 
 and therefore proves his point. Paul has therefore fully established 
 his position. Faith is the test of probation. Only by calling upon 
 the name of the Lord can salvation be found either by Jew or Greek. 
 The privileges or prerogatives of the election put no difference in 
 this respect. He now turns to apply all this to the responsibility, of 
 the Jew. 
 
 14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not be- 
 lieved?] Calling upon God or Christ as Lord is an act of worship 
 involving faith. (Compare Heb. xi. 6.) Without faith the true 
 calling upon the name o* the Lord for salvation is impossible. 
 
 and how yhall they believe in him whom they have not heard ?] 
 There is no faith without living contact with Christ, either listening 
 to his own voice or to him through his ambassadors. Faith is not 
 speculative assent to truth about GhrUf. Hence we are not at liberty 
 to translate Paul's accusative by "of whom." It is obedience to his 
 call to be reconciled to God. Rejt'ction of this call is unbelief in 
 Christ. To hear this call is to heu. Christ. To obey this call is to 
 believe in Christ. 
 
196 • ROMANS, X. [vv. 15, 16. 
 
 and how shall they hear without a preacher?] Literally, with- 
 out a herald, the atnbassador of 2 Cor, v. 20, who therefore apeaka 
 as the voice or mouthpiece of his Master. 
 
 i^. and how shall they preach, except they be sent ?] Holding 
 to trie Greek terma we see more clearly the force of the syllogism. 
 "How shall they make proclamation, except they be sent?" The 
 office of the herald implies an authority by which he is pent and 
 whose voice he utters. A universal proclamation by a universal 
 apostolate is the necessary outcome of a universal gospel. And this, 
 too, has been anticipated by the prophets of old. 
 
 even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that 
 bring glad tidings of good things I ] Quoted freely from Isaiah lii. 7, 
 but in harmony with the prophet's meaning. There, as here, the 
 messenger is an ambassador or herald sent by God. 
 
 But while the meaning of this series of questions in verses 14 and 
 15 is thus clear in itself, we must define its relation to Paul's argu- 
 ment. In verse 3 he asserted that the Jews were missing salvation 
 by their refusal to submit to God's righteousness, in this they were 
 missing the great end of the law, which should have led them to 
 Christ. This he proves by shewing that the spirit of the law is the 
 spirit of the righteousness of faith, and that, so, man's individual re- 
 sponsibility, whether he be Jew or Greek, can only be di charged by 
 faith. " Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be 
 saved." The argument by which Paul establishes this universal 
 basia of human responsibility is, from the Jewish standpoint, abso- 
 lutely unanswerable, confirmed as it is by his many quotations from 
 the Old Testament scriptures. This being made clear and put in 
 its final form in verse 13, he proceeds to apply it by a very skilful 
 series of rhetorical questions from verse 14 to the end of the chapter. 
 These are linked to the preceding demonstration by a "then" — 
 " how then." We think that in each of these questions the persons 
 referred to are the Jews. But Paul approaches the terrible conclu- 
 sion regarding them by gentle and, as it were, hesitating steps. The 
 great truth at which he has arrived from the Old Testament implies 
 just the provision made in the gospel, as set forth in verses 14 and 
 15, and this itself was predicted by Isaiah. Now, the form of this 
 provision — a preaching to be responded to by faith — was what the 
 Jews objected to. They wanted some form of outward doing, or at 
 least some outward sign, instead of the inward spiritual faith of the 
 gospel. The preaching of Christ was to them a stumblingblock ; 
 but inexcusably so, since both the faith and the preaching were in 
 such perfect harmony with the Old Testament. When therefore 
 Paul adds, 
 
 i6. But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. P'or Isaiah 
 saith, Lord, who hath beUeved our report?] he pronounces their 
 condemnation on the ground of a fact which is as old as the time of 
 Isaiah, who complains of a similar disbelief of God's glad tidings 
 (Isaiah liii. 1). This is, we think, the first point to which Paul 
 
w. 17-19.] ROMANS, X. 197 
 
 brings his conclusion as the result of his series of questions, and 
 should form the end of a minor paragraph. 
 
 l^ So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of 
 Christ.] Paul bases hia second point of application upon a repetition 
 in this verse of the principle of verses 14 and 15. This is usually 
 construed as a parenthesis. But why should a writer repeat in the 
 foi-m of a parenthesis what he had just set forth in the boldest rhet- 
 oric ? Besides, the conjunction here used is not such as would intro- 
 duce a parenthesis, but one whoso office it is to sum up the conclu- 
 sion of a point already discussed. The conclusion here stated can 
 only be drawn from verses 14 and 15; and if the conclusion were 
 drawn for its own sake it would naturally find place at the end of 
 these verses. But Paul there places, not this logical conclusion, but, 
 what was to his purpose, the moral application. When therefore he 
 here appends the conclilsion we think he does it solely as the intro- 
 duction to another application founded upon it. The conclusion 
 itself was so obvious from the rhetorical questions of verses 14 and 
 15 that Paul only weikens it by stating it formally; and he would 
 not have done so except in this new paragraph, where it is made the 
 basis of a further important factor in his application, which he at 
 once appends. 
 
 i8. But I say, Did they not hear ? Yea, verily, 
 Their sound went out into all the earth, 
 And their words unto the ends of the world. ' 
 
 This is the second application. Firat, they did not hearken, i.e., 
 did not believe or obey. Secondly, they did fipar, i.e., the proclama- 
 tion of the gospel was so fully presented to them that their outward 
 ear was reached, and thus the unwilliiigness of unbelief was left 
 without excuse. The quotation here is pu rely literary. Paul adopts 
 the beautiful language of the nineteenth psalm, not as a proof-text, 
 but as an elegant and suitable expression of his present thought, 
 which is, that the gospel had been so publicly and extensively 
 preached as to have reached the outward ear t>f the whole Jewish 
 nation even in their wide dispersion over the face of the earth. Paul 
 has but one point more to add in the way of application, i.e., that 
 this unbelief or disregard of God's proclamation of mercy existed in 
 the face of a clear knowledge of what its result must be. 
 
 19. But I say, Did Israel not know?] The adversative conjunc- 
 tion " but" with which this third application is introduced does not 
 throw it into antithesis with either the first, in verse 16, or the 
 second, in verse 18. The connection is, we think, rather this : each of 
 the three applications (verses 16, 18 and 19) is introduced by a " but," 
 which throws it independently into contrast with the broad position 
 stated in the rhetorical questions of verses 14 and 15. In verse 16 
 the first application is made directly—" How shall they hear without 
 a preacher?" "but" to the preacher of the good things "they did 
 not all hearken." In verse 17 the central part of the platform iis 
 throwu into the form of a, couclusion, " So belief conjeth of hearing," 
 
*■- 
 
 198 ROMANS, X. [w. 20, 21. 
 
 and then the antithetic application follows (verse 18), "iw<" they 
 did hear, without faith. Finally, in still stronger contrast to all 
 that was needed for their salvation, i.e., to the whole position set 
 forth in verses 14 and 15, Paul adds, "But I say, Did Israel not 
 know?" What he means by "knowing" here is clear from what 
 follows. It is the understan<ling of the consequences of their con- 
 duct. If they refused to listen to God's offer, and that in the face 
 of the fullest provision that they should hear that offer, and still 
 further, in the face of the knowledge of what the consequence of such 
 refusal would be, then their responsibility was complete. Their 
 blood must be upon their own head. This last point, which most of 
 all aggravated their guilt, Paul forbears to put as a direct assertion, 
 but simply recites three passages from the Old Testament which 
 leave no. possibility of ndstake as to what the fact was. 
 
 First Moses saith, 
 I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, 
 With a nation void of understanding will I anger you. 
 
 This quotation, from Deut xxxii. 21, is the iirst Old Testament 
 proof that Israel possessed the requisite knowledge. A simple refer- 
 ence to the original passage shews that these words describe the first 
 result of the unfaithfulness of the chosen people to their God. They 
 are not therefore a mere piediction " that the gospel would go forth 
 inho all the earth," but that the election would be taken away from 
 God's once elect and given to those who have been "no people," and 
 this in punishment for their sin. What they ought to have known, 
 therefore, was this very result of their unbelief. 
 
 20. And Isaiah is very bold, and saith, 
 
 I was found of them that sought me not ; 
 I became manifest unto them that asked not of me. 
 This quotaticm, from Isaiah Ixv. 1, is of the same purport as the 
 preceding one from Deuteronomy. The second part of the verse, 
 "I said. Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called 
 by my name," shews clearly that the prophet is speaking of the 
 transfer of the election to a new people. The following verse, which 
 Paul immediately quotes and applies to Israel (as it properly applies 
 in the original), shews that this transfer is the penalty of the pro- 
 longed unfaithfulness and disobedience of God's ancient people. The 
 boldness which Paul here ascribes to Isaiah is the peculiar emphasis 
 with which ha sets forth this course of the divine judgment. This 
 manifestation of himself on God's part to those that asked not of 
 him was on account of what Paul now adds, also from the very same 
 prophecy of Isaiah : 
 
 21. But as to Israel he saith, All the da^ long did I spread out 
 my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaymg people. ] The proof 
 of their responsibility, and hence of God's justice in taking from 
 them the privileges, is thus complete. In closing up this proof, 
 however, Paul has once more brought them back fmm the stand- 
 point of their personal salvation to that of their national election. 
 
ROMANS, X. 199 
 
 Before proceeding with the exposition of Paul's final theme we must 
 prepare the way by the consideration of the relation of these two 
 important matters (so interwoven by Paul) to each other. ; , 
 
 Excursus on the Relation of the Election to Individual 
 Salvation and Responsibility. 
 
 First of all we must bear in mind that the fundamental error of the 
 Jew lay in the idea that (total apostasy perhaps excepted) the elec- 
 tion absolutely secured personal salvation, so diminishing the sense 
 of personal responsibility. John the Baptist attacked this idea in 
 his preaching (Matt, iii. 9). Several generations before his time we 
 may find the beginning of this doctrine in the second book of Macca- 
 bees. There all the Jews who are dead are "dead under God's cove- 
 nant of everlasting life" (2 Mace. vii. 36), "and to them alone be- 
 longs the hope of the resurrection " (vii. 14). If they sin they shall 
 be chastened for their sins, but not forever, for God " will yet be at 
 one again with his servants." In the days of our Lord this doctrine, 
 which in its Maccabean form somewhat resembles the doctrine of the 
 Roman Catholic church, had degenerated into the antinomianism 
 of the Pharisee, so keenly exposed in the second chapter of our 
 Epistle. But it will be seen at once that the doctrine of election, 
 which thus contravenes the idea of personal probational responsi- 
 bility, is not a secret counsel of God in regard to the bestowal of his 
 grace on individuals, but a declared counsel of God in reference to 
 certain privileges conferred upon a people. The error of the Jews 
 did leave room for personal responsibility in one direction, i e., for 
 the observance of outward conditions of the national covenant, the 
 badges of their national prerogatives. The foundation of all these 
 was circumcision, and to despise this ordinance was the most heinous 
 of all sins, and the prime accusation against St. Paul (Acts xxi. 21). 
 This led, as elsewhere, to a complete reversal of God's order of moral 
 law, exalting the ceremonial and ritual far above the moral and 
 spiritual. As the maintenance of ethical principles and of a sense 
 of personal responsibility in opposition to the antinomian tendencies 
 of this .Jewish doctrine is Paul's great design in writing this Epistle, 
 it would be extremely improbable that we should find him introduc- 
 ing a doctrine still more thoroughly antinomian as a substitute for 
 that which he has overthrown. A secret, irreversible personal elec- 
 tion could scarcely be more conducive to the sense of personal re- 
 sponsibility than the old Jewish idea of the national election. And 
 we cannot find that Paul anywhere objects to the national idea of 
 the election, or proposes to substitute for it a personal election in 
 the secret counsel of God. He everywhere speaks of the national 
 election as a fact. The election belonged to Israel. But he main- 
 tains, in opposition to two false views of the Jews, (I) that in that 
 national election God is sovereign, and can reverse or change it as it 
 pleaseth him; (2) that even under the election God holds men to 
 
200 ROMANS, X. 
 
 strict personal account, and that failure to meet this responsibility 
 renders the election void so far as the individuals are concerned, 
 and may even result in the complete reversal of the election or its 
 transfer to others so far as concerns the body. This establishes per- 
 fectly both individual and national responsibility, side by side with 
 the election. An election which is not an immutable decree binding 
 both Uod and man, but a wise and benevolent choice of such instru- 
 ments as may be best fitted for God's gracious purpose, is perfectly 
 consistent with the idea of probation and responsibility. And when 
 there is added to this the idea that personal probation absolutely 
 determines the benefits of the election as to the individual, and that 
 conditional or collective probation decides the question of the con- 
 tinuance of the election as to the body, then the election becomes 
 a mighty motive to the highest moral earnestness. We may thus 
 gather from the teachings of Paul the following propositions as to 
 the relation of the election to probation : — 
 
 1. The election does not supersede probation by absolutely secur- 
 ing individual or personal salvation. 
 
 2. Unfaithfulness to the responsibilities of the election may result 
 in the loss of individual salvation. 
 
 3. Election is not immutably, but only probationally, assured to 
 the body. 
 
 4. Unfaithfulness of the great body of the elect may result in the 
 transfer of the election to a new body. 
 
 From these four propositions we mt,y deduce a fifth — 
 
 5. The election itself thus involve': a. personal as well as a collective 
 probation. 
 
 Two questions thus remain to be answered — 
 
 1. Is there a distinct moral probation in virtue of which the great 
 end of their being may be secured or lost by those who are not in- 
 cluded in the election ? 
 
 2. How far is the probation of the election identical with that per- 
 sonal probation in the case of the elect ? 
 
 The first of these questions Paul doea not touch in the present dis- 
 cussion, but the answer of it is plain from the first th ee chapters of 
 the Epistle. " These, having not the law, are a law unto themselves " 
 (ch. ii. 14). "The law" was the distinctive privilege of the elect 
 people (ch. iii. 2). Responsibility therefore continues in virtue of a 
 universal form of law, i.e., of test or condition of probation, even 
 with the non-elect; and in chapter ii. 14 Paul assumes, to say the 
 least of it, that some, of them may meet the requirements of that proba- 
 tion and attain its results. That a large part of the world was with- 
 out the pale of the election did not therefore discharge them from 
 responsibility or preclude their salvation. 
 
 The second question must be considered under two categories — 
 (1) The ol«l election of Israel. The basis of this was descent from 
 Abraham along the chosen line of Isaac and Jacob. The immediate 
 personal condition was circumcision, to which was added, on the 
 
V. 1.] ROMANS, XI. 201 
 
 exodus from Egypt, the full Mosaic law or covenant Now, the 
 essential ditference between Paul and the Pharisees lay in tl e inter- 
 pretation of the terms of this Mosaic covenant, and furthei , of the 
 circumcision which lay behind it. He extends circumcision to the 
 heart, and finds even in the law of Moses the spiritual principle of 
 the righteousness of faith. Tlie conditions of God's covenant with 
 his elect, as Paul interpreted them, covered the whole ground of 
 man's moral probation, and lifted that probation to an altitude of 
 ethical obligation unknown in all the outside world. All thone who 
 finally stood in the election under thene condith'' . were without doubt 
 saved in PauVn estimation. He thus does not quarrel with the Jewish 
 belief that all the finally elect were saved, but only with that cast- 
 iron and external view of the election which made it a matter of out- 
 ward prerogative, and which disregarded God^n probational .sifting of 
 the election until only the holy remnant remained. 
 
 (2) As regards the Christian election Paul wiiaout doubt regarded 
 its one condition as being that faith in Christ in virtue of which im 
 are accepted as righteous before God. He found the spirit of that 
 faith speaking even in the Mosaic law. The condition of personal 
 salvation and that of the probation of election are, under the Chris- 
 tian dispensation, perfectly one, and entirely inward and spiritual. 
 It might be supposed that baptism, as an outward form of initiation 
 into the visible elect body, would take the place of the old covenant 
 sign of circumcision But Paul speaks comparatively little of bap- 
 tism, except as the renunciation of sin, and regards the elect body as 
 the body of believers, united to each other by common faith in Christ 
 Jesus. The true probational conditions of the election thus include, 
 under the Christian dispensation, the entire ground of man's moral 
 probation in the highest form yet assigned to the human race. 
 
 As regards individual probation the election becomes thus one 
 phase of that varieil distribution of probational advantages which a 
 wise God has seen fit to make to men. 
 
 Ch. XI. 1-10. God's Continuous Faithfulness in the Election. 
 
 I. I say then, Did God cast off his people?] In this question 
 and in that of verse 11 we have the two final theses of Paul on this 
 subject. The present question raises the point of God's continuous 
 fidelity to his covenant. This Paul vindicates by explanation of the 
 present crisis in the history of Israel as a sifting rather than a repro- 
 bation. This was the peculiar doctrine of Isaiah, to which we have 
 already been referred in chapter ix. 27. There he introduces it for 
 the purpose of proving the responsibility of the elect people, and 
 hence the justice ot God in rejecting such as were unfaithful. Here 
 it is introduced for the purpose of distinguishing between the faith- 
 ful election who constitute the body to whom Gcd's covenant be- 
 longed, and the unfaithful who alone are cast off, This doctrine of 
 
 14 
 
202 ROMANS, XI. [vv. 2, 3. 
 
 probational sifting explains both difficulties— God's justice in rejec- 
 tion and God's faithfulness in saving the remnant. 
 
 God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abra- 
 ham, of the tribe of Benjamin.] The '* God forbid " is Paul's answer. 
 This makes the question equal to " Has God utterly or arbitrarily 
 cast off his people?" Had that been the case Paul himself must 
 have been reprobated. The present is not a ' se of any absolute 
 arbitrary rejection of the ancient people. La ^e numbers of them 
 were saved and included in the new election, of whom Paul himself 
 was an example. 
 
 2. God did not cast off his people which he foreknew.] The 
 point of difficulty here lies in the phrase " which he foreknew." Is 
 it a limiting adjunct ? or is it a condensed syllogism ? As a limiting 
 adjunct it would admit that the nation w?s cast oflfas a nation, but 
 that the secret election of God was saved out of it. This secret elec- 
 tion was designated as the "people which God foreknew," as dis- 
 tinguished from the outward people who appeared to the eye of man. 
 This view might be harmonized with a certain interpretation of the 
 verses immediately following, but does not fall in with the scope of 
 Paul's complete view which finally identifies the nation, all Israel, 
 with the elect, and predicts their restoration and salvation. As a 
 condensed syllogism the clause "which he foreknew" may be ex- 
 panded thus: "When God chose this nation he chose them with a 
 perfect knowledge of their entire history. To suppose that now he 
 casts them off entirely as a nation would argue fickleness in God's 
 plan. Therefore we cannot suppose that God has cast them oflT." 
 
 Or wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he 
 pleadeth with God against Israel,] The disjunctive conjunction 
 with which this question begins always implies an alternative ques- 
 tion. (See note on ch. iii. 29.) The alternative here is, we think, 
 to be found in the preceding part of the verse. That thrown into 
 the form of a disjunctive question would run thus: "Whether is 
 this a case of God's casting off his people, whose whole history he 
 foreknew ? or is it a case of there still being a remnant to represent 
 them, as in the time of Elijah ?" The force of the Greek disjunctive 
 may thus be given as equal to " on the contrary." The phrase " in 
 Elias" may be paraphrased as "in the history or record concerning 
 Elias " "when he pleadeth with God against Israel." (See 1 Kings 
 xix.) This last clause defines the particular occasion referred to. 
 With this construction the verb " saith " is to be taken indefinitely 
 as equal to "what lesson the scripture teacheth." This seems best 
 to harmonize with the summary way in which Paul has reproduced 
 the leading points of the passage referred to, using sometimes the 
 words, sometimes the thought, and condensing a lengthy narrative 
 into a few sentences. 
 
 ^. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digg^ed down 
 thine altars: and I am left alone, and they seek my life.] The 
 analogy in tlie present case is very complete. From Paul's point of 
 
vv. 4, 6.] ROMANS, XI. 203 
 
 view, as he saw the Jewish nation, including many who called them- 
 selves Christians, united in fierce opposition to himself as a repre- 
 sentative of the universal gospel, he might well feel as did Elijah of 
 old. But God had given him a faith to see further. Hence he adds, 
 
 4. But what saith the answer of God unto him ?] "The answer 
 of (jrod " is literally the divine or oracular respoLse, a word used only 
 here in the New Testament. 
 
 I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed 
 the knee to Baal.] The verb here used by Paul corresponds in tense 
 and person to the Hebrew, and represents in the active voice of the 
 Greek the "hiphil" of the Hebrew. The root is that of Isiaiah's 
 chosen term "remnant." It might be translated, "I have caused 
 there to be a remnant of," etc. But was this divine causing, as 
 Moule supposes, "a sovereign act of grace " withholding them from 
 idolatry ? Does not the context rather plaiidy point to God's provi- 
 dence in protecting and saving his faithful worshippers from the 
 persecuting rage of Jezebel? Thede God had left, i.e., caused to re- 
 main for himself as his witness fn Israel. They are known as ones 
 "who have not bowed the knee to Baal," literally "to the Baal," 
 which is probably an abbreviation for "the image of Baal," or else 
 an expression of contempt, the article being feminine. 
 
 5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant 
 according to the election of grace.] Pauls combination of the 
 adverb and conjunction expresses the argument from example or 
 analogy. We might expand it thus: "In like manner we conclude 
 that there has been at this present time a remnant according to the 
 election of grace. " The phrase " according to the election of grace " 
 has, we think, been misapprehended. First of all, we note .that in 
 the Greek the article is wanting. Paul has not therefore used the 
 phrase here as a title or definition of the election at large, as it is 
 generally taken to be. Again, the phrase is used but in this one 
 passage It has not thus acquired by frequency of use the force of 
 a titular phrase. We think therefore that there is no justification 
 for departing from the precise rendering, and that we should trans- 
 late "a remnant on the basis of election of grane." While the ad- 
 junct is not so unmistakably attached to the noun as in chapter ix., 
 yet we think that gives the clearest sense, especially as the verb is 
 not the substantive verb. Paul therefore we tiike to affirm that 
 God's remnant now existing is defined or described as "according to 
 election of grace," i.e., are elected "of grace." Paul's use of the 
 term "of grace" is so frequent in the former part of the Epistle and 
 elsewhere that its meaning is very clear. It signifies that mercy 
 which God bestows on man through faith in Christ Jesus. " Elec- 
 tion of grace " thus describes the Christian phase or form of election 
 which is determined, not on the basis of national lineage, but of (he 
 calling of all who are of the faith of Christ Jesus to the privileges of 
 God's elect. On this basis, Paul says, the elect remnant now exists, 
 and of this number he was one. This renmaut, consisting of all 
 
204 ROMANS, XI. [vv. 6, 7. 
 
 Jews who believed, Paul regards as now representing the ancient 
 chosen people. 
 
 6. But if it is by g^race, it is no more of works : otherwise grace 
 is no more grace.] His Christian readers would readily agree with 
 Paul that there was a remnant, and that these consisted of sucli Jews 
 as had been saved by grace through faith in Christ. These continued 
 the election instead of the entire body of the circumcised seed, and 
 hence were called, as distinguished from the old election, "the elec- 
 tion of grace. " But it the election is thus no longer defined by the 
 outward circumcision, but by the saving grace of God in Christ 
 through faith, then it is " no more of works." But what wo/ks are 
 here referred to? Most certainly the old works of the law which 
 were the signs, seals and conditions of the old covenant. These works, 
 foremost among which stood circumcision, were what the Judaizing 
 party maintained to be essential to God's elect and to salvation. If 
 now, says Paul, the election is marked out by the operation of the 
 grace of Christ through faith, and includes only those so distin- 
 guished, then the old principle of the works of the law (such as cir- 
 cumcision and all its attendant obligations) has become worthless. 
 If this is not so, if election is still on the basis of the legal works, 
 and only personal salvation of grace, then there is no grace even in 
 personal salvation, since the election itself includes as a matter of 
 covenant right all that belongs to salvation. In this line of interpre- 
 tation we take Paul to use the phrases "of works " and " by grace " 
 as abbreviated expressions already well understood by his readers. 
 "Of works" expresses the sum total of the old conditions of the 
 Jewish covenant, by the observance of which they maintained their 
 rightful place as God's elect people. " By grace " expresses the gospel 
 condition of salvation through Christ, which has been so fully vindi- 
 cated as God's truth in chapters i.-v. that Paul takes it now as in- 
 disputable truth. His argument is that this work of grace now 
 marks out the election, since, if they are still marked out as the elect 
 by the old conditions or badges of works, even their salvation is no 
 more of grace since it is included in their election. This seems to us 
 the obvious meaning of Paul's language in the light of .his previous 
 use of these terms and in view of the entire historical circumstances 
 under which he writes, being engaged in conflict with an external 
 and immoral legalism against which he has introduced the principle 
 of grace in the interests of true morality. This interpretation of the 
 ver.se is in harmony with the rejection of the latter half, which has 
 been done by the revisers on the best critical authority. It is alto- 
 gether unnecessary, and indeed unsuitable, if our interpretation be 
 correct. 
 
 7. What then ? That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained 
 not;] The form of introductory ques'-ion gives emphasis to this new 
 thesis. The conjunction "then" marks it as a conclusion from the 
 preceding discussion. "That which Israel seeketh for, that he ob- 
 tained nut." This is merely the introductory part of the conclusion, 
 
vv. 8-10.] ROMAKS, XI. 205 
 
 and in fact a repetition of what he had before stated as a main propo- 
 sition (ch. ix. 31). "They sought a law of righteousness," i.e., a 
 rule or covenant condition by which they might be accepted before 
 God. And they did not " light upon it," or, as Paul previously put 
 it, did not make their xoay through to it. Nor must we here lose sight 
 of Paul's reason, not any decree of God, but because "they sought 
 it not by faith." 
 
 but the election obtained it,] How ? By virtue of their election ? 
 Paul nowhere says so. They, like the Gentiles, attained to right- 
 eousness, the thing sought for, " by grace through faith." And tneir 
 election was founded on this very grace, and so was an " election of 
 grace." 
 
 and the rest were hardened :] Not by any arbitrary decree of God 
 but by their own acts. Paul has put it elsewhere (ch. ix. ,32), " They 
 stumbled at the stone of stumbling." (See notes in loco.) In the 
 past history of Israel there had been repeated examples of judicial 
 hardening as the penalty of sin even among the ohosen people. To 
 these our attention is now called in attestation o>' the conclusion just 
 drawn. 
 
 8. according as it is written, God gave them a spi it of stupor, 
 eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, 
 unto this very day.] This passage sums up in one the expressions 
 of two Old Testament passages. In Deut. xxix. 4 Moses laya it to 
 the charge, o/ Israel that to this day God had not given them eyes to 
 see nor ears to hear, notwithstanding the wonderful works wrought 
 before their faces. This charge implies responsibility on their part. 
 The withholding of this grace was because of some fault of theirs. 
 In Isaiah xxix. 10 the prophet represents God as " pouring out upon 
 his peo4)le the spirit of deep sleep," and this again evidently as the 
 penalty of their sins. Both quotations are thus in perfect harmony 
 with Paul's well-defined doctrine of probational responsibility. 
 9. And David saith, 
 
 Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, 
 
 And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them : 
 
 zo. Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, 
 And bow thou down their back alway. 
 
 This quotation is taken from Psalm Ixix. 22, 23, following in part 
 the variations of the Septuagint. The precise historical interpreta- 
 tion of the psalm is not easy, but the most probable reference is to 
 some period such as that of Isaiah, in which (iod's poor but holy 
 people were shamefully entreated by their brethren, and cry out to 
 God for judgment. If so then the purport of the quotation will be. 
 Let the very gifts of thy bounty be turned into means of punishment 
 for their sins. This quotation shews how thoroughly the idea of 
 moral recompense was before the mind of Paul, for such a quotation 
 would be a monstrous thing if applied to men on any other basis 
 than that of the recognition of perfect probational responsibility. 
 
■■f^;- 
 
 206 ROMANS, XI. [vv. 11, 12. 
 
 Ch. XI. 11—32. God's Universal Porposk of Mercy in the 
 
 ELE<mON. 
 
 zi. I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall?] This 
 question iutroducea Paul's second concluding thesis on this great 
 cubject. The question here put inquires into the divine purpose. 
 First, mark the force of the two verbs used. The first, rendered 
 **to stumble," expresses an act which is the result of carelessness 
 or wilfulness, hence an act of responsibility; the second, "to fall," 
 desiirnates an involuntary act, the consequence of the stumbling, and 
 here, we think, denotes, not the tall of individuals into perdition, 
 but the fall of these people from the proud position of God's chosen 
 people. The conjunction " that" is the word which designates pur- 
 pose. Pail's argument clearly defines this to be God's purpose. The 
 stumbling of the Jews was occasioned by God's change in the terms 
 of salvation. " The preaching of the cross " was the stumblingblock 
 of the Jews. When therefore God placed the new election upon the 
 basis of grace through faith he caused a universal stumbling of un- 
 believing Jews. Was God's purpose in thus causing this stumbling 
 merely judicial, i.e., to remove his unfaithful people from their an- 
 cient position of exaltation ? To this Paul answers, 
 
 God forbid:] God does not order the terms of his covenant of 
 election for purposes of judgment, bu^ of mercy and salvation. Those 
 terms ever work out probational justice toward individuals, and the 
 good are saved and the bad are cast away. But the end of the elec- 
 tion both to the body and to the whole world is mercy and salva- 
 tion. This Paul now proceeds to shew. 
 
 but by their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles,] A tempo- 
 rary fall from their high privileges is here conceded, not as God's 
 purpose, but as incidental to that purpose. Their temporary fall is 
 their own fault, but through it God's purpose of salvation to the 
 Gentiles, and finally of the restoration of the Jews themselves, is 
 being accomplished. This final purpose of God toward the Jews ap- 
 pears even in the previous purpose regarding the Gentiles. 
 
 for to provoke them to jealousy.] From the very outset the in- 
 gathering of the Gentiles must have had a strong moral effect upon 
 the mind of the Jew, and Paul evidently counts on it as a powerful 
 chastening influence to bring them to reflection and repentance. 
 Here is God's mercy even in judgment. 
 
 12. Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss 
 the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?] The 
 first two clauses are parallel with verse 11 : "by their fall salvation 
 is come unto the Gentiles." The idea presented in these three par- 
 allel forms of expression may be conceived of in three ways: (1) 
 Their fall has turned out to the incidental enriching, etc., as if God, 
 requiring to fill up the number of his elect, turned to the Gentiles. 
 (2) That it was the necessary preliminary to the enriching, etc., as 
 
vv. 13-15.] ROMANS, XI. 207 
 
 if before the Gentiles could be admitted the Jews must be excluded. 
 Both these points of view must, we think, be rejected, and therefore 
 (3) we take it that Paul's true idea is, that if out of the circum- 
 stances which brought about their temporary fall and their reduc- 
 tion to a mere remnant God has brought salvation and riches to the 
 Gentiles, what might have been the result, and what may we yet 
 expect, when the whole body are found working into God's purpose ? 
 This idea Paul now proceeds ♦■ , expand, but in such a way as directly 
 to profit his Gentile readers. 
 
 13. But I speak to jrou that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I 
 am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry : 
 
 14. if by any means I may provoke tc jealousy them that are 
 my flesh, and may save some of them, j In the first clause of verse 
 13 the word "Gentiles " is in apposition to the pronoun " you," not 
 as a limiting epithet but as a descriptive epiUiet. It does not mean, 
 "to those of you who are Gentiles," as if a part were Jews. But 
 for a logical purpose which appears immediately, the apostle calls 
 the attention of his readei's to their Gentile nationality. It is as if 
 he had said, " Now (6e continuative), you (to whom I speak) are 
 Gentiles, and hence to you I may say what follows." The "what 
 follows," i.e., the special communication which he has to make to 
 the Gentiles, as if whispered in their own private ear, is contained 
 in the balance of verse 13 and in verse 14, and may, wc think, be 
 rendered and punctuated as follows: " To whatever extent I am an 
 apostle of the Gentiles I magnify mine office, if by any means I may 
 provoke to emulation my brethren in the flesh and may save some 
 of them." That is, Paul took pains to place before the Jewinh nation 
 the full success of his ministry as apostle of the Oent'dcs, for the pur- 
 pose of bringing to bear upon them this spirit of emulation, hoping 
 thus to turn their earnest attention to the claims of Christ, and so 
 win them to saving faith. This intention of his he could f^ommuni- 
 cate to his Gentile brethren, but to have even hinted it to the Jews 
 would have foiled his very purpose. As an example of his thus 
 magnifying his office see ch. xv. 17, etc.; Acts xv. 12; 1 Cor. iii. 10; 
 Gal. ii. 8, 9. This interpretation accords with the readings i:nd 
 punctuation of the revised version, except in placing a comma at the 
 end of verse 13, bringing verse 14 into immediate connection. The 
 two verses have thus somewhat of the nature of a parenthesis for the 
 private ear of the Gentile church, but at the same time form an in- 
 genious device by which he introduces, in continuance of his main 
 theme, some very wholesome lessons for those very Gentiles to whom 
 he is thus speaking in confidence. This second phase of this confi- 
 dential communication is suggested by fiev in verse 13, and intro- 
 duced by a corresponding 6e in verse 16. But before introducing 
 this second point he glances once more at the grateful idea presented 
 in verse 12, introducing it as an additional reason for his earnest de- 
 sire and effort for their salvation. 
 
 15. For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the 
 
208 ROMANS, XI. [v. 16. 
 
 world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead ?] 
 
 A temporary rejection of the Jews is thus taken for granted as having 
 already taken place, but that it is only temporary appears from the 
 confidently expressed hope of their reception again. Both parts of 
 this question are predicated without an expressed verb — the indica- 
 tive mood must be supplied, and the conjunction "if" taken as in- 
 troducing the premise of an argument, equivalent to "since their 
 rejection has proved to be, etc., their reception will surely be," "but 
 life from the dead," i.e., a more glorious spiritual life and power of 
 the church than any heretofore experienced. This sense is in har- 
 mony with the apostle's line of thought, and with the increasing glow 
 of his feeling which is already rising to the sublime utburst with 
 which he closes this chapter. The literal interpretation, "resuiree- 
 tion from the dead," does not seem so apposite. 
 
 i6. And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump : and if the root is 
 holy, so are the branches.] We have already suggested that the 
 introductory (k of this verse should be rendered by " but " to corres- 
 pond with the fiev of verse 13. To translate the conjunction here by 
 " and " (continuative) necessitates that we interpret what follows as 
 an expanaiou or confirmation of verne 15. We must thus seek what 
 is a somewhat far-fetched sense for the apostle's figures of "first- 
 fruits " and " lump," " root " and " branches." Bnt Paul elsewhere 
 uses the term " firstfruits " of the ^firnt converts, except in 1 Cor. xv., 
 where it is used of Christ the firstfruits of the resurrection. (See 
 ch. xvi. 5 and 1 Cor. xvi. 15. ) This would be the most natural mean- 
 ing here. If the little remnant of saved, of whom Paul himself was 
 one, are holy, so is the entire -mass of the whole people from whom 
 it is taken. This little remnant still holds the whole body for God, 
 and prevents entire rejection. (See verse 1 and also Isaiah i. 9. ) So 
 also this term "root" turns our thoughts back to Isaiah vi. 13 and 
 xi. I, where the " holy seed " is the living root or "substance " which 
 preserves the whole organism from utter extinction, and is the living 
 root out of which new branches may spring, or into which they may 
 be grafted. This gives a scriptural and Pauline idea. The little 
 salt saves the whole mass. The branches may be ready to die; but 
 while the root to which they belong lives they may still live, or even 
 if cut otF may yet be grafted in again. On the other hand, the in- 
 terpretation which makes the patriarchs the roots and firstfruits 
 gives U3 the very idea which Paul is combatting, i.e., of hereditary 
 claim or birthright holines/i. But why does Paul thus affirm the still 
 continued holiness of the entire body of the Jewish people in virtue 
 of their connection with a sanctified first-offering and a living root ? 
 Not, we ti.ink, to confirm his hope of the glorious results of their 
 final restoration, but as the basis of a gentle admonition to his Gen- 
 tile readers, and which constitutes the second part of what he has to 
 say to them apart, ana vraich by this " but " he throws into the an- 
 tithesis, delicately couching it in the figurative language which he 
 has just adopted. 
 
vv. 17, 18.J ROMANS, XI. 209 
 
 17. But if some of the branches were broken off,] "But" — 
 better, with Godet, "now," as tlie autithesis has already been com- 
 menced in verse 16, of which this is the continuation. *' If some of 
 the branches M'ere broken off" — Paul puts the case in the gentlest 
 form, partly to promote the right spirit among the (Gentiles, and 
 partly to avoid needlessly wounding the Jews. But this " breaking 
 off" is a real reprobation of some individuals, as not these same 
 individuals, but those who may hereafter represent them, are the 
 ones restored. But mark that the reprobation is only of those who 
 once, externally at least, belonged to the elect. 
 
 and thou, being a wild olive, was grafted in among them, and 
 didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the 
 olive tree;] "A wild olive" — better "being wild olive," as the 
 word in the original is without the article, and hence adjective in 
 function. But what does Paul mean by saying that the Gentiles 
 were " wild olive "? The expression certainly cannot be taken as 
 equivalent to the dead branches cut off and gathered for the burning. 
 The Gentiles were not, b^' natural position, reprobates. The term 
 does not imply any fauch idea. It denotes nothing beyond the ab- 
 sence of those covenant advantages possessed by the chosen people 
 which, while increasing their privilege, increased their responsibility. 
 The " wild olive " was capable of faith and salvation, and in virtue of 
 that faith was graciously grafted in among the natural branches, 
 j.e., those who had previously enjoyed the covenant privileges, and 
 so "made a joint partaker of the root of the fatness of the olive 
 tree." If the root is the living body of the church or chosen people 
 of God, then the fatness of which the Gentiles become joint partakers 
 is nothing else than the privileges and promises of the covenant (Eph. 
 iii. 6). This is Paul's own explanation of this grafting, and it drops 
 out of sight the fact that the scion ingrafted is usually of a kind to 
 bear better fruit, and emphasizes the fact that the stock chosen is 
 always vigorous, full of fat young life. This transition from the low 
 plane of moral probation of the heathen world to the lofty responsi- 
 bilities, privileges and hopes of the covenant peopl-^ was indeed a glo- 
 rious transfer; but it did not place them beyond probation, although 
 it brought them a present assurance of salvation. Therefore 
 
 18. glory not over the branches :] i.e. , " Despise not the branches. " 
 (Godet.) The branches certainly are primarily the rejected body of 
 the Jewish people. This is clear from veise 19. Even the omission 
 of the article there in the revised text doeu not make it any less evi- 
 dent that in the apostle's mind the " breaking off" was likely to lead 
 to this despising. 
 
 but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the 
 root thee. J Ihe form in which Paul puts his hypothetical clause 
 implies a possible if not an actual case. He throws into sharp juxta- 
 position with this possible or actual contempt the fact which made 
 it unreasonable. "Thou bearest not the root." If the root were 
 the patriarchs how could such a supposition be entertained ? But if 
 
210 ROMANS, XI. [vv. 19-21 
 
 the root be the living church of (Jod the Gontilea might easily begin 
 to feel aa if they were now the very root, or at least as if their accea- 
 sion maintained its vitality, as if they "bare up the pillars of it." 
 But Paul reminds them that tliis is not so ; that the church is still 
 the Jewish root, as thcits are the covenant, and the promises, and 
 the divine revelation, and the Messiah ; and that the Gentiles are, 
 to change the figure for another of St. Paul's, built in upon their 
 foundation (Kph. ii. 19, 20). 
 
 19. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might 
 be grafted in.] Tlie apostle, by omitting the article, makes it clear 
 that only xonic branches were broken off. The conjunction "that" 
 denotes purpose. The Gentiles might be disposed to say that the 
 »very object of the e.xclusion of the Jews was the admission of the 
 Gentiles. To this Paul replies Ka^ug, "truly," or "granted," but 
 with a limiting clause : 
 
 20. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off,] This limit- 
 ing clause at once puts the cutting oti' on the basis of responsibility. 
 "Truly, they were cut off by unbelief that thou mightest be grafted 
 in." This limitation of the apostle, therefore, admits only this and 
 no more, that the exdunion of the unbeUevintj Jewn was necessary that 
 the Oentiles mvjht come in. Why ? Because the admission of the (ien- 
 tiles required that the covenant should be placed on the new principle 
 of faith. Only thus could the door be freely opened to the Gentiles 
 (Acts xiv. 27). But once this new basis was adopted all unbelieving 
 Jews imist be cat off. The cutting off of the unbelieving Jews was 
 thus the necessary accompaniment of the admission of the Gen- 
 tiles, but necessary only upon probational, and not upon arbitrary, 
 grounds. Against the latter Paul has carefully guarded us by this 
 interjected clause. But this implies also the probational t^iure of 
 the Gentiles. 
 
 and thou standest by thy faith.] The new election is universally 
 and solely dispensed on principles of probation ; therefore 
 
 Be not highminded, but fear:] The probational principle of faith 
 makes it of pure grace, and therefore excludes boasting; but still 
 conditional grace, and therefore excludes antiuomiaa security. 
 
 21. for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he 
 spare thee.] This fact is at once a demonstration and a warning of 
 the justice with which God's judgment will determine every indi- 
 vidual probation, national or personal, Jew or Greek. The natural 
 branches are the birthright members of the church in its old form. 
 As Paul maintains the unity and continuity of the church, he sees 
 the new elements not built into a new body but into the old. 
 
 22. Behold then the goodness and severity of God:] "Then" 
 sums up the special address to the Gentiles ; and " behold " calls em- 
 phatic attention to the conclusion. It is twofold and in both direc- 
 tions. The goodness is God's grace; the severity is his judgment. 
 The judgment has fallen upon the Jews, but is without respect of 
 pr. jons, and so may light on the Gentiles either individually or col- 
 
vv. 23. 24.] ROMANS. XI. 211 
 
 lectively. The grace has come to the Gentiles but will yet find out 
 the Jews, for all are still under probation. 
 
 toward them that fell, seventy;] I'his word "severity" is the 
 act of the execution of justice, literally the "cutting of!'." Those 
 that fell are those who have fallen away from their ancestral privi- 
 leges. It seems to denote, not so much the moral act which deter- 
 mines probation, as the result of that act, though the two can scarcely 
 be separated. But in the term a probation is implied, and also that 
 the probation has been terminated by such an act as necessitated the 
 intervention of judgment, and the "cutting off" is the execution of 
 that judgment. 
 
 but toward thee, God's gfoodness, if thou continue in his good- 
 ness : otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.] The term in antithesis 
 to "cutting ol" here used signifies mercy or goodness in the sense 
 of " helpfulness." It is therefore as appropriate to the beginning of 
 probation as the "cutting off" is to the end. This same benignity 
 had been extended to the Jews at the outset and all through their 
 national probation, and was no othur than the chesed of the Old 
 Testament. But then as now it m as probational. They continued 
 not in his goodness, and so were "cut off"; and so, if thou continue 
 not in his goodness, "thou also shalt be cut off." This absolute 
 statement by Paul of the probational conditions both of the old elec- 
 tion and of its new christian form should prevent all possibility of 
 misunderstanding his doctrine. 
 
 23. And they also, if r.hry continue not in their unbelief, shall 
 be grafted in: for God is ible to graft them in again.] The con- 
 junction might be translated "but." It is not a strong antithesis, 
 but there is a contrast in the new thought thus introduced. The 
 cutting off is not yet final. The change in the dispensations, great 
 as it was— implying the ending up of one great world age, and thus 
 in itself a foreshadowing of the final judgment — still left room in the 
 coming age for renewal of national, as well as continuance of indi- 
 vidual, probation. The terms here used may apply to either. The 
 individual Jews, from their lower probational position outside of the 
 covenant, may regain the privileges of the covenant through faith, 
 just as the Gentiles have received them. Nay, more, their past pro- 
 bational training favours them, 
 
 24. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild 
 olive tree, and wast grafr^-d contrary to nature into a good olive 
 tree : how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, 
 be grafted into their own olive tree ?] Paul is not afraid to recog- 
 nize the moral forces of nature in this matter. The long history of 
 the Jews as God's chosen people had given them a natural relation 
 to, and fitness for, God's moral purposes in the election. It was 
 only their unbelief that excluded them. This unbelief removed they 
 could, even more readily than the Gentiles, be incorporated in the 
 chosen body. Meyer, on the other hand, makes the "how much 
 more " refer, not to the congruity, but to the certainty of the restora- 
 
212 ROMANS, XI. [w. 25, 26. 
 
 tion. But this certainty must arise either from the congruity of the 
 case or out of an idea of persistence of God's love, as if they had a 
 special right to it. This latter idea seems so contrary to Paul's well- 
 established doctrir 3 of the universality and impartiality of both the 
 love and the justice of God that we prefer the other line of interpre- 
 tation. The "much more" in any case must refer to man, for so 
 far as God is concerned there is nothing easier or more difficult, more 
 certain or less certain, in his purposes. We can therefore read it 
 only as "how much more readily may we conclude that the nat- 
 ural branches," etc., or "how much more readily may the natural 
 branches. " If we adopt the first method of supplying the evident 
 ellipsis, our " more ready " conclusion can only be drawn from the 
 fact that for God's purposes the long history of the chosen people 
 had given them special advantages over the Gentiles, adv^antages 
 which their unbelief alone had made of no avail. And this is one of 
 God's purposes still in the future, as Paul proceeds now to shew. 
 
 25. For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mys- 
 tery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits,] A mystery with Paul 
 is something now being or still to be revealed. The mystery here 
 is God's purpose touching his ancient people. This, while yet not 
 fully unfolded, was, even in Paul's day, in part clear, at least to him- 
 self, from the ancient prophets as he read them in the light of the 
 New Testament inspiration. This he unfolds for the benefit of the 
 Gentiles as a safeguard against the supercilious spirit already re- 
 ferred to. 
 
 that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of 
 the Gentiles be come in;] As to the nature and method of this 
 judicial hardening see note on verse 7. The expression in part is, as 
 Godet observes, defined by "the rest" in verse 7, and by "some" 
 in verse 17. It is therefore numerical and in contrast with the ' ' all " 
 of the next clause. As to the time of this hardening, its continuance 
 is clearly defined in the adjunct " until the fulness of the Gentiles," 
 etc. But here two difficulties present themselves. First, as to the 
 force of the conjunction, we think it means, not "as long as," but 
 "up to the time at which." The term "fulness of the Gentiles" 
 will thus mean " the full complement of the Gentile church. " What 
 this will be, whether a majority of all nations or what might be called 
 practically all men, Paul does not here define; and the word "ful- 
 ness," meaning simply the full measure, i.e., God's full measure, 
 measured on just and merciful conditions of probation, does not de- 
 fine it. Until then the times are " the times of the Gentiles " (Luke 
 xxi. 24); but this does not imply that God hath let't his ancient people 
 "without a witness." Their blindness has thrown them into a lower 
 plane of probation, in which they will be "judged every man accord- 
 ing to his works." But at the end of these times of the Gentiles the 
 ancient people are to be restored to a position of at least equal glory. 
 This Paul now adds. 
 
 26. and so all Israel shall be saved :] The word " so " expresses 
 
V. 07.] ROMANS, XI. 213 
 
 manner and not time, and it would seem that it here indicates an in- 
 strumental relationship of the fulness of the Gentiles to the salvation 
 of the Jews. Godet conjectures that they may be brought to faith 
 in Christ by the fulfilment of the ancient universal prophecies in the 
 Christian church. This it was which convinced the Rabbi Jacob 
 Freshman. The "all Israel" must mean Israel as a people; still, it 
 is worthy of attention that the '* all " is distributive, as if " every one 
 of Israel " (like the Hebrew k6l with the construct state). This glo- 
 rious consummation at the end of the times of the Gentiles is con- 
 firmed tofPaul's mind by prophecy, 
 even as it is written, 
 
 There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; •- v 
 
 He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob : 
 27. And this is my covenant unto them. 
 When I shall take away their sins. 
 This is generally taken to be a quotation from Isaiah of two dis- 
 tinct passages, the first, as far as the word " them," from Isaiah lix. 
 20; the last line fron> Isaiah xxvii. 9. But we doubt the correctness 
 of the latter reference. It seems quite as probable that the quota- 
 tion refers but to the one passage, the latter part of which Paul has 
 abridged in part in words borrowed from Isaiah. If so we must in- 
 terpret the whole passage as one ; whereas if there were two distinct 
 quotations each must be interpreted in its own historical connection. 
 The quotation of the main passage is exact from the LXX. , with the 
 exception of the substitution of " out of " for "on account of. " This 
 may have arisen from the mistake of an early transcriber misunder- 
 standing an abbreviation. But in a very essential point our present 
 Hebrew text differs from the LXX. It reads "and to those who 
 turn away from iniquity in Jacob." The whole passage in the He- 
 brew stands thus: "There shall come a Deliverer to Zion, and to 
 those who turn from iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord. And as for 
 me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lv>rd ; My spirit which 
 is upon thee, and my words which I have placed in thy mouth, shall 
 not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor 
 out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from this time 
 and to the world age." In the first place, we see that the prediction 
 is clearly Messianic. Again, it implies a perpetual relationship of 
 God's ancient people to himself. But so far as the Hebrew text goes 
 there is no prolonged interruption of the covenant relation. The 
 Deliverer comes to a people who are turning away from iniquity, and 
 to them the covenant is perpetual. In the Septuagint, on the con- 
 trary, the Deliverer comes " for the sake of Zion," or as Paul has it, 
 " out of Zion "; and, finding Jacob in iniquity, one great work which 
 he surely will accomplish will be to turn away this iniquity, and so 
 the covenant of God with them will be perpetual. Now, the point 
 of Paul's argument requires the adoption of the reading of the LXX. 
 instead of the Hebrew text; and there is no reason that the LXX. 
 may not be correct. According to that reading the Deliverer shall 
 
214 ROMANS, XI. [vv. 28-30. 
 
 accomplish his work, and will yet make the covenant perpetual. 
 The whole passage so admirably suits Paul's purpose that we think 
 he has summed up the latter part of it in the words "this is my 
 covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins," only because 
 ho Knew the passage to be perfectly familiar to his readers, and that 
 a summary reference was quite sufficient. 
 
 28. As touching the g^ospel, they are enemies for your sake : but 
 as touching t- 1 election, they are beloved for the fathers' sake.] 
 We have in this verse three pairs of contrasted terms: the "gospel '* 
 and the "election"; " Jor your sake " and " for the fathers' sake"; 
 and " enemies " and " beloved." The terms must be interpreted in 
 harmony with each other. The gospel is a dispensation or method 
 in which God deals with men for their salvation. The election must 
 therefore be takea as the divine dispensation in which God chooses a 
 body of men for the maintenance and dissemination of his saving 
 grace among men. It cannot therefore, with Moule, be taken to 
 mean " the elect body or people." The preposition Kara would here 
 seem to designate the rule or principle by which the ancient chosen 
 people were tested. According to the gospel standard they are 
 enemies, i.e., condemned. "He that believeth not is condemned 
 already." But according to the scope of God's election purpose, in 
 which he chose their fathers as the vessels of honour through whom 
 salvation was to come to the world, they are beloved, i.e., still within 
 the reach and purpose of God's mercy. The new universal proba- 
 tional terms of the gospel by which the Jews are condemned, and 
 for the time being their privileges forfeited, were introduced into 
 God's purpose to meet the wants of the Gentiles. But the far-reach- 
 ing promises of the ancient covenant were given to the fathers, and 
 for their sakes will yet surely be fulfilled. 
 
 29. For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.] 
 It must be first of all remembered that these words are spoken, not 
 of an individual, but of a people. We have no right, therefore, to 
 transfer them from their original application. The gifts of God con- 
 sisted in that prominent position of moral and religious advancement 
 to which, at an early period in the world's history, the Hebrew peo- 
 ple were raised. Paul referred to them in the beginning of the third 
 chapter, and again more fully in chapter ix. The calling was to the 
 responsibility of holding these gifts in trust both for their own salva- 
 tion and for that of the whole world. As Paul has shewn in verse 2, 
 these gifts and calling were bestowed with the whole history of the 
 world in view, and as part of a purpose of the ages which never 
 moves backwards. For a time, while the Gentile line is being brought 
 up, the old Hebrew line may stand still; but God will take it up 
 again. God's order of progress in his work is ever upwards. 
 
 30. For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now 
 have obtained mercy by their disobedience,] These are historical 
 facts the meaning of which Paul has already thoroughly explained 
 (verses 11, 12, 19, 20, 28). They are here adduced anew with an 
 
vv. 31, 32.] ROMANS, XL • 216 
 
 e iphasis on the order, Jirst disobedience, then mercy, toward the Gen- 
 tiles. They are also presented from a special aspect, that of disobe- 
 dience and mercy. The term "disobedience " has reference to pro- 
 bational requirement. It is sometimes rendered "disobedience" 
 and sometimes "unbelief." Its special nature is determined by the 
 nature of the probation. The Gentiles were disobedient to moral 
 law, but not without an element of unbelief. The Jews were unbe- 
 lieving towards the gospel, but not without an element of moral dis- 
 obedience. But the end in view in both is mercy. 
 
 31. even so have these also now been disobedient, that by the 
 mercy shewn to you they also may now obtain mercy.] The con- 
 junction "that," expressing a purpose or end to be reached, implies 
 that there is something in the disobedience which prepares the way 
 for the mercy. It may not be a necessary way to the end, and yet 
 actually prove to be the way by which the end is reached. The 
 Jews, without this preliminary experience of disobedience, with its 
 accompanying judgment of rejection and humiliation, might have 
 obediently accepted God's mercy; but they did not do so. Hence 
 the gospel conditions, which put them on a level with the Gentiles, 
 and which served to bring their proud disobedience to the light. 
 Bye-and-bye, when, under the protracted discipline of separation 
 from God which this disobedience entails, their pride is subdued, 
 then will they be prepared to accept of the Gentile way of mercy, i.e., 
 will obtain mercy through the very same mercy which (iod has shewn 
 to us. We may therefore paraphrase verses 30 and 31 thus: "As 
 when the Jews by disobedience placed themselves on a level with 
 the Gentiles, (iod made their disobedience the occasion for opening, 
 even to the disobedient Gentiles, the doors of his mercy on the same 
 conditions as to the Jews, so now God has brought into manifest 
 light the disobedience of the Jews, humbling them to the level of 
 the Gentiles, that they may accept the same merciful way of salva- 
 tion." Paul has thus at last brought side by side the dispensation of 
 the Gentiles, the dispensation of the Jews, and the comtnon dispen- 
 sation of the gospel. He has pointed out the end of each of these. 
 The dispensation of the Gentiles has proved all to be under sin. The 
 Jews, by circumcision and the law, have proved to be but trans- 
 gressors of the law. The earlier dispensations both brought univer- 
 sal condemnation. To meet the common moral want thus clearly 
 manifest God hath offered a free salvation through grace in the gos- 
 pel. This has proved a ministry of mercy to the Gentiles, but still 
 of condemnation to the Jews. But as the previous ministry of con- 
 demnation finally resulted in mercy, so will this. Hence at last the 
 universal law of God's dealing with sinful man, whether Jew or 
 Gentile. 
 
 32. For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might 
 have mercy upon all.] In these words we reach the grand culmina- 
 tion of Paul's argument. This is the ifocU of the dispensations, the 
 ultimate result 01 God's purpose in the ages, to which the succes- 
 
216 ROMANS, XI. [v. 33. 
 
 sive elections of Jew and Gentile are all subordinate, and to which 
 the historical reprobations and moral distinctions of mercy and judg- 
 ment are also subordinate. But we must bear in mind that Paul 
 has here in view the race relations rather than the individual — the 
 solidarity of man. In the progress of the world towards this goal, 
 in which "the fulness of the Oentiles " and "all Israel" shall unite 
 in the common mercy of God, each man of all the generations shall 
 be judged according to his works. He may have been one of the 
 elect, an Hebrew of the Hebrews, but he cannot escape the judgment 
 of God. He may have been one of the Gentiles without law, but 
 still God's judgment measures his righteous deserts. Paul has made 
 it abundantly clear that all men are equal in this one thing, that 
 " We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, 
 that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to 
 what he hath done, whether it be good or bad." This is the theme 
 of all his opening chapters. But when he touches the broader ques- 
 tion of why, in the course of human history, there has been a differ- 
 ence in God's dealing with this common humanity — a difference as 
 between the people of the same generation ; exalting some and pass 
 ing others by, dealing out to some wrath and to others mercy ; a dif- 
 ference as between successive generations: visiting a people, once 
 highly favoured and chosen, with long ages of reprobation and wrath- 
 ful judgment, and exalting those who once were suffered to walk in 
 their own ways to the chosen place of privilege — Paul sees running 
 through this mystery a golden purpose of final universal mercy, in 
 the course of human history meting out to each people and each 
 generation that which best serves their present moral condition, and 
 which in the far-off result will best serve the accomplishment of the 
 grand design. And one principle governs the direction which this 
 
 f olden purpose takes as it leads us now here, now there — all munt 
 now their sin that they may receive the meroy. This law governs 
 the solidarity as well as the individuality, and is the key to solve 
 the mysteries of the moral inequalities of human life. The discipline 
 of law which worketh wrath must first come to all that the way of 
 mercy may be opened. This Paul had previously applied to the 
 individual. And now to the two great classes of Jew and Gentiie, 
 both aiike^ the same principle must be applied by which they are 
 shut up to the consequences of their own courses until the discipline 
 of judgment brings them humbly to receive the glorious universal 
 mercy. 
 
 Once more, in view of this wondrous thought, the apostle breaks 
 forth into a hymn of ecstatic praise. 
 
 Ch. XI. 33-36. The Hvmnt of the Dispensations of the Ages. 
 
 33. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the know- 
 ledge of God 1 ] The exclamation of the text shews that it was with 
 the mystery of the problem of the divine dispensations that the 
 
vv. 34-36.] ' ROMANS, XI. 217 
 
 apostle had been struggling. As we shall see presently, he does not 
 boast of a solution. He sees unfathomable depths yet beyond him. 
 But as far as the wondrous light given him carries his thoughts into 
 the mysteries of God's purpose he finds only riches of wisdom and 
 knowledge — a knowledge which has provided for every eveni Jity 
 of human freedom in the course of the world's history, and a wisdom 
 which surmounts every difficulty in the accomplishment of God's 
 merciful design. Note that Paul's exclamation of wonder is not at 
 the amazing fulness of the divine mercy. Nothing could enhance 
 the view of that mercy which he had already long since attained, 
 and which in the closing verses of chapter v. he has pictured as 
 triumphing over all sin. But here his entire attention is rapt in the 
 contemplation of the wisdom and knowledge by which that saving 
 love reaches its end. 
 
 how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing 
 out I ] Mark the Hebraistic poetic parallelism which runs through 
 to the end of the chapter. God's judgments are beyond our search- 
 ing or criticism ; only the divine result already experienced or fore- 
 seen to prophetic faith can enable us to understand them. , And the 
 ways of his mercy, especially when they pass down through the 
 darker and moie perplexing mysteries of judgment, are past our 
 tracing out. 
 
 34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath 
 been his counsellor?] A quotation from Isaiah xl. 13, where these 
 words are used to describe the same divine wisdom and knowledge 
 upholding and directing all things in hid providence to the well-being 
 of his chos3n servant. The questions magnify the greatness of the 
 divine wisdom and knowledge. These are such as could be derived 
 from no finite being. They therefore should be taken as pointing, 
 not to the secret mystery of inscrutable decrees, but to the unfold- 
 ing light of an infinite mercy which, with a purpose illimitably rich 
 in resources of wisdom and knowledge, is working out its end. 
 
 35. or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed 
 unto him again?] Again a quotation (Jobxli. 11). It should, how- 
 evor, be interpreted after the Hebrew idiom, in which the second 
 clause in the imperfect tense is subjunctive in force. " Who hath 
 first given unto him, that it should be repaid," etc. It seems incon- 
 sistent with the intensity of Paul's emotion, filled as he is with ador- 
 ing wonder at the wisdom and knowledge of God, to make him turn 
 round to summarize his whole doctrine of grace. It is too sudden a 
 transition from the rapture of the poet to the sharp logic of the con- 
 troversialist. We should therefore take it rather as a continuation, 
 in words borrowed from Job, of the thought which Isaiah expands 
 at length in the passage just quoted. Of such wisdom and know- 
 ledge human mind could not conceive ; it is due to no finite coun- 
 sellor; none hath lent it unto God. It cometh only from the im- 
 measurable fulness of his own nature. 
 
 36. For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things.] 
 
 15 
 
218 ROMANS, XII. [vv. 1,2. 
 
 •• Of him are all things," and so are these riches of wisdom. "Through 
 him are all things," and so shall be the execution of this divine plan. 
 •* Unto him are all things," and so its final issue is the unveiling of 
 hit universal mercy. 
 
 To him be the glory for ever. Amen.] And let all God's people, 
 joining in this sublime contemplation, say also. Amen! 
 
 Ch. XII. 1, 2. (Jeneral Exhortatiok based upon the Covenant 
 
 Mercies of God. 
 
 1. I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God,] 
 Paul, having thus established to the Gentile Christian church the 
 right to all the mercies of the covenant, in two comprehensive state- 
 ments sums up the obligations flowing from their possession. This 
 gives us, not in distinct terms, but in the entire point of the preced- 
 ing chapters, a basis for the "therefore " of this verse. The expres- 
 sion "the mercies of God " sums up that which the preceding discus- 
 sion had vindicated as the right of the Christian church. That the 
 term "mercy" was in the Greek that which represented the "chesed" 
 or " chanan " of the Hebrew, a designation of the grace of the cove- 
 nant promises, appears from Luke i. 54, 55, 72, 78. 
 
 to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to 
 God, vvhich is your rei: onable service.] This is the first duty im- 
 posed by the obligations of the covenant. The chosen people were 
 an holy priesthood, and therefore must offer sacrifice; they were 
 God's peculiar possession, and therefore that sacrifice must be them- 
 selves. On the body as the instrument of all righteousness compare 
 chapter vi. 13. The presentation of the body is thus the presenta- 
 tion of the whole outer life. The sacrifice is an offering of living 
 "energies" (Moule), holy, i.e., set apart to God, and cleansed from 
 all defilement of sin by the sprinkled blood of Christ (compare the 
 corresponding use of the terms " holy " and " cleansed " in the Epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews), and so "acceptable to God." This constitutes 
 the true "service" or "worship" which God delights to receive 
 from his chosen priesthood. Further, this worship or service is not 
 of outward forms or ceremonial offerings, but is a worship of a spirit- 
 ual God in spirit and in truth. The Greek word TioyiKTiv denotes, not 
 so much what is fair and just in the judgment of reason, as what 
 reason, or spiritual intelligence, renders. The holy work of the 
 Christian life is the true and highest worship which can be offered 
 by rational intelligence. The presentation of all the active energies 
 of our bodies is thus the outward expression of the worship of the 
 spiritual being who dwells in the body. 
 
 2. And be not fashioned according to this world:] This consti- 
 tutes the second and negative side of the covenant obligation — sepa- 
 ration from the world. This was the most prominent idea of the 
 Mosaic dispensation (Luke xx. 24). On Paul's projection of this 
 characteristic of the ancient people into the Christian dispensation 
 
V. 3.] ROMANS, XII. ' 21* 
 
 see 2 Cor. vi. 17. The separation is, however, not "out of the 
 world," but from the sinful customs and habits of the world, the 
 fashion of their godless life. The world from which the Christian 
 chosen people are thus called to be separate is "this age," which, 
 however, is not merely the present godless generation in the midst 
 of which Paul wrote, but it includes the whole course of human his- 
 tory outside the sanctifying influence of the chosen people. The 
 kingdoms of this world are, however, to become the kingdoms of our 
 Lord and of his Clirist. Then shall the church and the world be one. 
 Till then the church must maintain bei separation as the bearer of 
 God's vessels of service. But such separation is possible only by an 
 inward transfiguration of the church itself. 
 
 but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,] The word 
 used to denote worldly conformity points to the outward life ; the 
 one used here rather to the inward ideal, that which shapes the out- 
 ward life from within, the organic or organizing form. It is an inner 
 power of new life which makes the fashion of our outer life to differ. 
 There is hei*e no prescription of a puritan fashioning from without. 
 This inward power of Christianity manifests itself through a renew- 
 ing of the mind, i.e., that moral and religious understanding which 
 directs the life aright. (Compare the law of the mind, ch. vii. ) This 
 mind, however, must be renewed, i.e., restored to its original power 
 to discern and "approve of" and "delight in" the right, and so 
 " serve " God. By nature it is weak through the flesh ; but through 
 grace it is renewed, 
 
 that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect 
 will of God.] This clause depends directly upon the word " renew- 
 ing " — "renewing of the mind so as to prove," or " for the proving " 
 — Eig of purpose. "The will of God, the good, the well-pleasing 
 and the perfect," is thus the sum total and perfection of all moral 
 obligations from the Christian standpoint. The "proving" of this 
 is not the putting of it into practice but the clear discernment of it, 
 its exploration and verification. This is the purpose of the renewal 
 of the mind, and the renewed mind so transforms all the outward 
 life. The practical result of regeneration thus lies in the power of 
 the Christian conscience or moral judgment to apprehend with clear- 
 est certainty every aspect and the full extent of moral obligation. 
 Such is the grand foundation which Paul lays down for the ethics of 
 God's people. 
 
 Ch. XII. 3-21. Special Exhortatioxs to Particular 
 Christian Duties. 
 
 3. For I say, through the grace that was given unto me, to 
 every man that is among you,] "For" is here explicatory, the 
 unfolding in particular precepts of the general ethical exhortation. 
 This Paul does "through the grace given unto him" as the apostle 
 of the Gentiles. (See ch. xv. 15, and compare 1 Cor, xv, 10; Eph. 
 
220 ROMANS, XII. [vv. 4-6. 
 
 iii. 8; Gal. ii. 7-9.) In virtue of this apostolic authority to the Gen- 
 tiles — an authority peculiar to Paul, as at the time at which he 
 writes even Barnabas falls out of sight — Paul can thus address the 
 whole Roman church as being throughout a Gtiutile church. 
 
 not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think ; but 
 so to think as to think soberly,] Paul begins, as was to be expect- 
 ed, in the very heart of the religious duties and exercises devolving 
 upon the covenant people. As God's people they had received the 
 wonderful gifts of God's Spirit. The very possession and exercise 
 of these gifts exposed them to the moral danger of pride, already re- 
 ferred to as against the now rejected Jew (ch. xi. 18), and of unholy 
 rivalry as between themselves. That the tendency here referred to 
 was a common accompaniment of the charismata would appear from 
 1 Cor. xiv. 26, etc. In opposition to such tendencies Paul urges 
 humility and a sober mind. This expression, already used by Paul 
 in chapter viii. to designate the practical aim or aspiration of life 
 (see note, ch. viii. 5), does not denote mere pride or ambition, but 
 rather an aiming at things too great for us, beyond our measure. 
 Our aim in our individual Christian work must be regulated by so- 
 briety, or as Paul puts it in the next clause, 
 
 according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith.] 
 The aim or eflfort of each |nan is to be directed by a sober estimate 
 of God's gift to him of faith. It is very evident that the apostle is 
 thus not speaking of self-conceit or self-confidence, but of the too- 
 fjreat-attempts which arise out of overweening confidence in our gifts 
 or powers. Our attempts must be moderated to the measure of God's 
 gift of/tdth. The true God-given faith, which is ever humble and 
 sober-minded, and not the carnal self-couriuence, which is ever proud, 
 and headstrong, and rash, is to be the measure of our aspiration to 
 work for God. The man to whom God has given the gift of faith 
 which may make him mighty in prayer, may not have the gift which 
 will make him mighty in preaching. This Paul proceeds to illustrate. 
 
 4. For even as we have many members in one body, and all the 
 members have not the same ofnce:] For the very full Pauline ex- 
 pansion of this illustration compare 1 Cor. xii. 4-31. 
 
 5. so we, who are many, are one body in Christ,] The glory of 
 the one body in Christ is thus compatible with the most perfect hu- 
 mility and sobriety of the members. 
 
 and severally members one of another.] The mutual interde- 
 pendence and the mutual sharing in the common honour and joy 
 which this /elation implies are beautifully expanded in the passage 
 of the Epistle to the Corinthians already referred to. 
 
 6. And having gifts differing according to the grace that was 
 given unto us,] The older commentators make this the beginning 
 of a new sentence, with a hortatory ellipsis as in our English ver- 
 sions, and, as Meyer has shewn, rightly so. These gifts in the apos- 
 tolic church were sharply defined a* to the time of reception, hence 
 the aorist. This manifestation of the gifts at the time of conv^r- 
 
vv. 7, 8.] ROMANS, XII. 221 
 
 sion does not, however, exclude the natural basis, which was also a 
 prior gift of God. 
 
 whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion 
 of our faith;] Prophecy was a speaking from the depths of the 
 inner consciousness of the things or God. Tts value depended upon 
 the clearness with which faith apprehended the unseen and spiritual. 
 Prophecy beyond this became wild raving. The faith is the God- 
 given intuition ol moral and religious truth. Faith apprehended 
 what prophecy uttered. The prophet must speak out of the full 
 assurance of this faith. (Compare 1 Cor. ii. and xiii. 8, 9, etc.) 
 
 7. or ministry, let us give ourselves to our ministry;] The min- 
 istry referred especially to the care of the poor, the sick and the 
 afflicted. This required a peculiar gift. It was the least ambitious 
 of the services of the church ; and to give one's self entirely up to it 
 indicated a noble perfection of Christian character. It often takes 
 the spirit ot a hero to be faithful, kind, patient and self-forgetful in 
 the sick room. 
 
 or he that teacheth, to his teaching;] This was also a very im- 
 portaut function in the early church, as it is to-day, and not as at- 
 tractive to the natural mind as some others. Hence the exhortation 
 •* to his teaching." If that is your gift from God faithfully and pa- 
 tiently use it. 
 
 8. or he that exhorteth, to his exhorting:] This exhortation 
 was especially the giving of comfort to those in distress and to all 
 the feeble-minded. This duty was discharged, not in large public 
 assemblies, as at present, but in private, and in the humble and 
 almost private gatherings of the Christians. It is to be distinguished 
 from such an address as that of the day of Pentecost ; hence, as in 
 the case of ministering and teaching, the apostle contents himself 
 with urging its faithful discharge. 
 
 he that giveth, let him do it with liberality;] We here see that 
 the gifts had a natural basis. The charism of giving was founded in 
 the possession of means. The call to such was to " singleness," which 
 seems to imply that motive which seeks only to accomplish the good. 
 To such a motive there will be no lack of liberality. 
 
 he that ruleth, with diligence ;] The term here used refers to the 
 oversight or direction of any part of the work of the church. The 
 duty here is whole-souled devotion, and perhaps the force of the 
 word here is that energetic earnestness in the work which the leader 
 may impress upon all who labour under him. 
 
 he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.] Some duties already 
 touched, such as ministering, comforting and giving, may reappear 
 under this head. We see that thus the apostle has not in view spe- 
 cific offices so much as classes of work which may fall to the lot of 
 any Christian. The cheerful spirit often blesses more than the out- 
 ward gift. 
 
 This closes the apostle's first specialization of dutv —duties arising 
 out of the functions of the church as a body, and ivhich were di8« 
 
222 ROMANS, XII. tvv. 9-15. 
 
 tributed by the variety of God's gifts. He next turns to duties com- 
 mon to all Christians as individuals. 
 
 9. Let love be without hypocrisy.] This love *' unfeigned," out 
 of a " pure heart," is the foundation of all mutual discharge of duty. 
 
 Abhor that which is evil ; cleave to that which is good.] Truly 
 sincere love is pure. It compromises none of its fidelity in its love. 
 Such a foundation of love, sincerity and fidelity can alone sustain 
 the perfect Christian character. 
 
 ID. In love of the brethren be tenderly affectioned one to an- 
 other;] Implying the thouglitful, self-sacrificing consideration of 
 members of a perfect family circle or brotherhood. 
 
 in honour preferring one another;] This translation doubtless 
 gives the spirit, if not the literal sense, of the apostle's words. The 
 honour, however, is probably not that which we seek but that which 
 we pay; the verb thus has its ordinary meaning of "taking the 
 lead" — "Taking the lead of each other in rendering to each other 
 loving honour and respect. " The most perfect brotherly afifection is 
 impossible without such honour of each other. 
 
 11. in diligence not slothful;] The "diligence" is the earnest- 
 ness of spirit with which we address ourselves to work. In this we 
 are not to be slack. 
 
 fervent in spirit;] The warm glow of spiritual life sustains the 
 ardour of Christian toil. And so 
 
 serving the Lord;] With the devotion and fervent spirit just 
 expressed. 
 
 12. rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing stead- 
 fastly in prayer ; ] These three are again united. That blessed hope 
 was the only abiding source of the Christian's joy, while the frequent 
 tribulations demar.d patience and perseverance in prayer. (Compare 
 1 Thess. V. 17.) 
 
 13. communicating to the necessities of the saints ; given to 
 hospitality.] The mention of the tribulations calls up these needed 
 duties. In times of persecution the chur-^hes free from the scourge 
 were often called to send to the relief of their suflFering brethren; 
 while it became a sacred duty to open their doors to those of them 
 who were driven from home. It is easy to see the association of 
 thought which leads to the next verse. Persecution may also fall 
 to their own lot, and hence he adds, 
 
 14. Bless them that persecute you; bless, and curse not.] The 
 words of our Lord are probably here before the apostle's mind. 
 Christ's precept he leaves without further expansion, as probably 
 the Roman church had not yet passed into the furnace of persecu- 
 tion, and turns to other forms of Christian sympathy easily associated 
 with his line of thought. 
 
 15. Rejoice with them that rejoice ; weep with them that weep.] 
 A beautiful antithesis, implying, as Chrysostom has it, the highest 
 nobility of soul. The highest joys and the deepest sorrows were 
 the portion of the church in those days of the martyrs ; and the bond 
 
vv. 16-19.] ROMANS, XII. 223 
 
 of Christian fellowship made these the common heritage of all. This 
 perfect unity of Cliristian feeling leads to the next precept: 
 
 i6. Be of'^the same mind one toward another.] That is, " Have 
 the same aspirations," or as Godet puts it, "Aim at the same things 
 for each other as for yourselves." This follows from the perfect fel- 
 lowship in their joys and sorrows. But even here humility reigns. 
 
 Set not your mind on high things, but condescend to things 
 that are lowly.] The verb in the first clause is still the same, and 
 designates the ambition, aspiration or aim of life — that which attracts 
 our earnest thoughts and desires. The " high things " are the high 
 things of the world, which we are to covet neither lor ourselves nor 
 for our brethren. But on the contrary, we should let our sympa- 
 thies follow out with the lowly, whether persons or things. Paul 
 Bees in these the line in which God's will is most frequently found. 
 
 Be not wise in your own conceits.] The pride of superior wis- 
 dom was a natural outcome — in fact, one form — of the spirit against 
 which Faul is here guarding (1 Cor. viii. 1, etc.). 
 
 17. Render to no man evil for evil.] The participles and infini- 
 tives so frequently used in these exhortations belong to the gnomic, 
 or aphoristic, form, and hence may be rendered as principal verbs. 
 The humble and tlie forgiving spirit are near akin. Hence the juxta- 
 position, though we have here the introduction of a new line of 
 thought — the duties that "make for peace." 
 
 Take thought for things honourable in the sight of all men.] 
 The first clause and the last belong co each other. " Provide in the 
 siglit of all men, for things morally noble." We have already found 
 Paul using this grand old Greek word to express that in virtue which 
 commands our admiration. The class of duties upon which Paul is 
 dwelling — the cultivation of unity between man and man — would be 
 naturally promoted by the spirit of this last precept. 
 
 18. If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with 
 all men.] This adds a third to the duties of peace. The first is 
 negative, counteracting the worldly spirit of "an eye for an eye, a 
 tooth for a tooth," etc., the spirit which breeds endless contention. 
 The second takes away all occasion to the world for offence as against 
 us. If everywhere the honourable is maintained before all men they 
 have no just cause of quarrel with us. This third precept contem- 
 plates the possibility of olFence even where not intended, and that 
 some unreasonable and ungodly men will not suffer peace. Hence 
 " if it be possible " is expressed as a condition. The second clause, 
 however, is not of the nature of a condition. "As much as in you 
 lieth " is not " to the extent of your ability " to restrain yourself, but 
 " to the extent of your ability " to^ake away or obviate all occasion 
 for quarrel. It calls out on our part every effort and every sacrifice 
 in the way of conciliation except the sacrifice of truth and right. But 
 notwithstanding all this the offences will come, and hence the ten- 
 derly pressed exhortation which follows — 
 
 19. Avenge not yourselves, beloved,] When all conciliatory 
 
224 ROMANS, XII, XIII. [vv. 20, 21; 1. 
 
 efforts fail still the Christian must maintain the passive spirit of 
 meekness, possessing his soul in patience. 
 
 but give place unto wrath:] Not our own wrath but the wrath 
 of God, which will surely visit those who sin against the unoffending, 
 and who proudly trample upon all those who meekly seek to main- 
 tain peace. For this divine wrath we are to " leave room," not fore- 
 stalling it by taking our cause into our own hands. 
 
 for it is written. Vengeance belongeth unto me ; I will recom- 
 pense, saiih the Lord.] In this quotation, from Deut. xxxii. 35, 
 Paul gives at once the reason for, and the confirmation of, the precept 
 just advanced, •' Avenge not yourselves." 
 
 20. But if thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him 
 to drink:] The " but" is equivalent to our " on the contrary." It 
 is not merely negatively but positively opposed to the course for- 
 bidden. This precept ia likewise in the form of a quotation from 
 Prov. XXV. 21, 22, the quotation extending through the following 
 clause — 
 
 for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.] 
 Neither in the original nor as here quoted by Paul is this to be taken 
 as describing the spirit in which we are to return good for evil, but 
 as simply stating its result. But what result? Some say a fiercer 
 divine wrath ; others, the burning shame and confusion which must 
 at last conquer the evildoer ; others carry this result up to true peni- 
 tence. But are not all included? If the "coals of fire" work not 
 a truly penitent shame they surely will bring the fiercer burning of 
 divine wrath in an eternal remorse. 
 
 31. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.] 
 Wherever our meekness of spirit, our love and our Christ-like com- 
 passion are displaced by the spirit of wrath, there are we overcome. 
 But the steady, manly maintenance of the Christian spirit of well- 
 doing, of calm, patient love within, and of active beneficence with- 
 out, IS the most sublime of all moral victories. 
 
 Cii. XIII. 1-10. FuBTHER Presentation of Christian Dutt, 
 
 INCLUDING Duties to Civil Authority and to 
 
 OUR Fellowmen generally. 
 
 I. Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers:] In 
 this one precept is enforced the whole duty of civil obedience. The 
 grounds of this duty are, however, expanded at length in the very 
 important ethico- dogmatic statements which follow. The connec- 
 tion of this precept with the preceding would seem to lie, as Tholuck 
 points out, in the fact that the civil power was soon to be the perse- 
 cuting power. Paul perhaps already anticipated the danger oi this ; 
 and when pressing upon the church the importance o? guarding 
 against every possible ground of offence, he could scarcely fail to 
 warn them on tne point where their Christian principles were shortly 
 to be tested to the utmost. The phrase " higher powers " may be 
 
vv. 2, 3.] ROMANS, XUI. 226 
 
 ■omewhat misleading. It might well be rendered ** the powers exer- 
 cising sway. " It includes all proper civil authority, higher or lower, 
 and the qualifying adjunct refers simply to the exercise of that 
 authority. 
 
 for there is no power but of God ; and the powers that be are 
 ordained of God.] This is the universal ground of Christian sub- 
 mission, and is twofold, in relation to each of the two words used iu 
 the preceding clause to describe the power: (1) All power or civil 
 authority is of God. This refers to the general institution of govern- 
 ment. Paul recognizes government in human society as a law insti- 
 tuted of God. This has reference to the noun or common term e^ovoia. 
 (2) This general authority of government is specifically represented 
 to us by that particular form which at present exists over us {virepE- 
 Xovaacg). And this Paul says "has been ordered of God," i.e., his 
 overruling providence has brought these particular men, or this par- 
 ticular form of government, into power at the present time and over 
 us. Therefore ooth in the general institution of civil government 
 and in the existing forms we are to recognize the hand and authority 
 of God. 
 
 2. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the 
 ordinance of God :] The two verbs chosen by Paul for this sentence 
 are emphatic. The first might be rendered "he that is insubordi- 
 nate to the power. " It points not only to organized rebellion but 
 also to individual disobedience or transgression. The second might 
 be rendered "stands opposed to God's ordinance." Such an one is 
 guilty, not only of disobedience as towards the authority, but of pre- 
 sumption in setting himself against the order which God's providence 
 has permitted or established. 
 
 and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgement.] 
 This judgment is that both of God and man. The man who puts 
 himself into opposition to established, or existing, authority, chal- 
 lenges the judgment of human society and the judgment of God's 
 providence. He may be claiming what he regards as his personal 
 rights. But society and God's providence in the final event will de- 
 termine whether it is right or best that order should be disturbed or 
 that individual rights should suffer. It is to be noted that Paul does 
 not use the strong term KaraKpifia (condemnation), but Kptfia, which 
 signifies a moral or a legal judgment and its results, whatever these 
 may be. The judgment may thus be that of the rulers, or it may be 
 that judgment with which the laws of society and God's providence 
 visit all who sin against the common order. 
 
 3. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil.] 
 If the two clauses of verse 2 are co-ordinate, and both alike depen- 
 dent on uare (so that), then the " for " with which this verse begins 
 may be best referred to the latter part of verse 1. It assigns the 
 reason for, or the proof of, the statement that civil power is an ordi- 
 nance of God. The logical connection is thus much clearer than 
 when it is joined with the last clause of verse 2. " Rulers " (which 
 
^6 ROMANS, Xlll. [vv. 4-6. 
 
 in the Greek has the article) is to be taken thus as generic. The 
 class of x'ulers are a terror, not to the good, but to the evil. This is 
 the general principle upon which civil authority is established by 
 God. From this general principle our general course of conduct to- 
 ward them is clear. 
 
 And wouldest thou have no fear of the power ? do that which 
 is g^ood, and thou shalt have praise from the same:] This is the 
 logical duty arising from the principle upon which God's ordinance 
 is based. " Do that which is good " is the universal rule. This en- 
 titles us to the praise of the power. 
 
 4. for he is a minister of God to thee for good.] Paul recognizes 
 even in the case of the Christian the necessity and advantages of this 
 ministry. The world has not yet seen the people capable of living 
 without external law and its ministry for good. 
 
 But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth not 
 the sword in vain:] This is the other alternative. Instead of say- 
 ing " thou shalt be punished," as the correlative to " thou shalt have 
 praise," Paul says "be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain." 
 The meaning is the same (" expect thy just desert "), though couched 
 in an elegant phrase which has passed into the literature of all 
 Christian lands. 
 
 for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that 
 doeth evil.] The ministry is thus two-fold — a ministry for the pro- 
 motion of all good, and a ministry for the suppression and punish- 
 ment of all evil. This last point is of special importance. In Paul's 
 theory of civil penalty the consideration of absolute moral desert 
 had a place. He was not a mere utilitarian, even in the administra- 
 tion of civil law. 
 
 5. Wherefcre ye must needs be in subjection, not only because 
 of the wrath, but also for conscience sake.] This is the final pre- 
 cept on civil obedience, founded on a full consideration — (1) of the 
 divine institution of government ; (2) of its twofold office of the pro- 
 motion of virtue and the punishment of crime. Paul has thus given 
 us both a juccinct Christian theory of civil government and a three- 
 fold precept of duty in relation to it: (1) The general duty of sub- 
 mission ; (2) the duty of aspiring to the honour of good citizenship ; 
 and (3) the duty of doing this, not from the common or lower motive 
 of fear, but from a high sense of right. The sanctions of religion 
 guard the duties of citizenship. To the important circle of precepts 
 thus completed Paul adds a reference to a supplementary duty. This 
 he appends, not as a command — for the tax gatherer does not wait 
 for moral considerations — but as founded upon the broad doctrine of 
 government already announced. What to the world was an exaction 
 or a necessity he thus elevates to the dignity of a conscientious act, 
 without putting it as a direct command. 
 
 6. For for this cause ye pay tribute also;] The conjunction 
 '* for " (yap) may here be taken, not as adducing a reason or proof of 
 what goes before, but in its primary meaning {ye apa) " yea further " 
 
vv. 7, 8.1 ROMANS, XIIl. 227 
 
 or " in fact " (see Winer, p. 558 (a) ), adducing a supplementary fact 
 of the same purport. If the duty of paying tribute is thus supple- 
 mentary to the duty of subjection to civil authority, being a fact 
 which further affirms that duty, then the adjunct "for this cause" 
 points back to the same ground as lies at the foundation of that 
 duty. This ground, however, is repeated in the next clause with a 
 yap, which repeats the ^la tovto (for this cause), and with such varia- 
 tions as suits its new application. 
 
 for they are ministers of God's service, attending continually 
 upon this very thing.] The fulness of this clause, as well as what 
 follows, shews clearly that in the f^ 'st clause there was implied a 
 new precept, and that it is not to be taken merely as a dependent 
 adjunct of verse 5. The Greek word translated "ministers of God's 
 service " is very emphatic as expressing Paul's high estimate of the 
 moral and even religious dignity of the duties referred to. They are 
 ministers, as priests in the temple. 
 
 7. Render to all their dues:] The last implied precept suggests 
 this, which opens up before us one of the grandest summaries of 
 relative duty as between man and man to be found even in the New 
 Testament, being only surpassed by those which our Lord himself 
 has left in the golden rule and the second great commandment. 
 This last it embraces, expands, and finally generalizes in verse 10. 
 The best authorities favour the rejection of the conjunction "there- 
 fore. " The argument which Meyer bases on this conjunction, against 
 the view we have taken of the preceding verse, thus disappears, and 
 we have here the distinct independent beginning of Paul's final re- 
 sunU of general duty to our fellowman. "Render to all their dxies " 
 recognizes the social duties of the varied ranks which in the provi- 
 dence of God may exist among men. These are next presented in 
 detail. 
 
 tribute to whom tribute is due ;] Tribute was a direct tax levied 
 on the whole country or upon each individual or property, and repre- 
 sented an external power or authority. 
 
 custom to whom custom;] This was a toll upon goods or other 
 commerce passing through some point over which others were sup- 
 posed to hold rights. These may not be our superiors, but their 
 rights are to be respected. 
 
 fear to whom fear;] This is the reverence due especially to magis- 
 trates, but generally to all superiors. "Tribute where tribute was 
 due " was a corresponding outward duty. He had already fully ex- 
 panded the idea of submission. 
 
 honour to whom honour.] This was the respect due to our fellow- 
 men in every station in life. In chapter xii. 10 Paul had enjoined 
 the same feeling as between the members of the Christian church. 
 (Compare 1 Peter ii. 17 for a. striking parallel in which this honour 
 is enjoined, not only toward the king, out toward all men.) 
 
 8. Owe no man any thing,] This is the exact counterpart of 
 " Render to all their dues," And there seems no good reason why the 
 
228 ROMANS, XIII. [w. 9, 10. 
 
 first should be limited to the state and its officers while the latter is 
 taken as universal. We think that already, in verse 7, Paul has ex- 
 tended his thought from the authorities of the state to the whole ex 
 tent of society which they represent. "Render to all their dues," 
 and thus *• owe no man any thing " except that universal debt which 
 can never be paid in full, i.e., 
 
 save to love one another :] That this was a debt universally due, 
 and in its very nature ever due, Paul shews in the next clause. It 
 might be thought that the duty of the church to the outside world 
 was purely defensive, as already set forth in chapter xii. But not 
 so, for even negative duties are only fulfilled in the spirit of love. 
 
 for he that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law.] Paul 
 thus, in enjoining this spirit of charity, incorporates the whole moral 
 law into Christianity, not in an external legal way, but as the essen- 
 tial spirit of Christianity. 
 
 ?. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, 
 ou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet,] Here are four com- 
 mands of the second table rehearsed, three in order, then the last, 
 followed by an expression including all else — 
 
 and if there be any other commandment,] i.e., " whatsoever other 
 commandment there is. " These clauses from the beginning of verse 9 
 constitute the subject of which the remainder of the verse is the pre- 
 dicate. The reproduction of the subject in the neuter pronoun in 
 the middle of the sentence obscures the sense and breaks Paul's con- 
 struction, which may be represented thus (beginning with the article 
 TO, which takes as its substantive the whole collection of clauses to 
 evTo?^T/, which entire substantive expression is the subject of avaKt^a- 
 Tuaiovrai)'. — "For the precepts. Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou 
 shalt not .... and whatsoever other commandment there is, are 
 summed up," etc. This assertion proves Paul's thesis, that "he that 
 loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law. " 
 
 it is summed up in this word, namely. Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour as thyself.] There is no pronominal subject expressed or 
 understood in the Greek, the subject of the verb "summed up " being 
 the entire substantive rehearsal contained in the preceding part of 
 the verse and thrown into the substantive form by the neuter article 
 preceding. This construction could not be imitated by an English 
 translation, but is paraphrased above. The Greek verb is scarcely 
 expressed by our term "summed up." The verb signifies to bring 
 aider a general head or category, a comprehensive expression, form- 
 ula or principle which includes all individual details. Paul therefore 
 affirms that in that which our Lord had already pointed out as the 
 focond great command there is contained the fundamental principle 
 of all duty to our fellowmen. Nor is this true as a philosophical 
 formulary merely ; it is true in practical life and morals as well. 
 
 ID. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour :] The negative is con- 
 tained in the positive as the less in the greater. The life filled out 
 
V. 11.] ROMANS, XIII. 229 
 
 with the blessed activities of love finds neither time nor place for 
 evil. The good excludes the evil. 
 
 love therefore is the fulfilment of the law.] The law of the Old 
 Testament was largely in the negative form, " Thou shalt not. " Thia 
 was suited to the world's infancy, and was likewise suited to the de- 
 sign for which the law was given, i.e., to give to man the knowledge 
 of his sin. But for the advanced work of filling the world with right- 
 eousness a higher and positive moral principle was needed. And this 
 positive principle fulfils even the negative law, i.e., accomplishes all 
 required by its precepts. With this universal principle Paul closes 
 up his general presentation of Christian ethics, and adds 
 
 Cii. XIII. 11-14. An Exhoktation to all Duty, based upon the 
 New Relation of the Christian to his Moral Environment. 
 
 II. And this,] That is, "And do all this." The demonstrative 
 points back to the entire presentation of Christian duty in these two 
 chapters. It recapitulates every imperative, and adds the common 
 incentive to them all. 
 
 knowing the season,] This word "season" always signifies a 
 passing period of opportunity and of consequent obligation. It here 
 designates the season pre-eminently of Christian probation. The 
 ordinary interpretation refers that probation to the church as ex- 
 tending to the second advent. Paul has, however, been expounding 
 personal duties; the season, therefore, of which he speaks must 
 apply to the individual. It is therefore either the entire season of 
 their Christian probation as individuals or some peculiar crisis of that 
 probation then upon them. But we must let Paul define his own 
 meaning. 
 
 that now it is high time for you to awake out of sleep :] In ac- 
 cordance with the classical idiom this sentence may be rendered thus : 
 " It is now time that ye awoke out of sleep. " But this is capable of 
 a twofold interpretation. According to the ordinary classical use 
 of the aorist infinitive depending upon upa, the infinitive is to be 
 taken conceptually, not as that which has already been done, but as 
 that which ought to have been done already or should be done at 
 once. But in this idiom the infinitive is generally used without the 
 subject accusative. The other interpretation would take the infinitive 
 with its subject accusative historically as implying what had already 
 actually taken place. The use of the subject accusative favours this, 
 as the infinitive with the accusative is usually used in accordance 
 with the historic force of its tense. There are several considerations 
 which point to that signification here: Paul has used this form of 
 exhortation in two other passages closely resembling the present. 
 In 1 Thess. v. 5 he says, " Ye are all the children of light, and the 
 children of the day : we are not of the night, nor of darkness. There- 
 fore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." 
 Here it is clearly expressed that the awakening had already taken 
 
230 ROMANS, XITI. [v. 12. 
 
 place, and the obligation is to the watchful, wakeful attitude of mind 
 suitable to the day. In Eph. v. 8, etc., the illustration is expanded 
 at still greater length : ' ' For ye were sometimes darkness, but now 
 are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light." Then follow 
 warnings against the licentious works of darkness, ending up, as he 
 here begins, with the injunction to "redeem the time." It is evi- 
 dent, therefore, that in Paul's use of this, to him, familiar illustra- 
 tion, he conceives of the Christian church as already awake from 
 sleep, and out of darkness into the light, and that his injunction is 
 to that watchful, wa^^pful moral earnestness which is intent upon 
 making the most of th j light while it is day. And this same concep- 
 tion here gives us the best interpretation of the clauses following. 
 
 for now is salvation nearer to us than when we first believed.] 
 The word " now " is a different one from that used in the preceding 
 clause. That designates time fully up, equal to our " already "; this 
 designates the time now passing, and in contrast with or dated from 
 a time past. The meaning thus may be paraphrased as follows : " We 
 have not to wait for the time of our earnest, wakeful Christian life, 
 for already it is here ; for even at the present time ' our salvation is 
 nearer than when we believed.' " A part of our "season," or proba- 
 tional opportunity, 4s thus already over. But what are we to under- 
 stand by " our salvation nearer than when we believed "? The last 
 words clearly denote that act of faith by which we first became ac- 
 cepted in Christ. Of this faith salvation is the end, and with Paul 
 includes, not only the spiritual blessings received in this life, but also 
 the resurrection and the final glory. Salvation is already in part 
 realized in the initial act of faith, so that, as here it is regarded as 
 coming nearer from the day of believing onwards, it must mean the 
 f ixlness of salvation which shall be revealed in the resurrection. We 
 are moving forward to meet it, and hence are already in the region 
 of the light and of wakeful watchfulness. There is nothing in this 
 which implies the speedy approach of the second advent. In Paul's 
 conception each man reached the goal of his full salvation at tlie end 
 of his life ; and if the Lord hath not already come, the crown of life 
 which the Lord will give at his coming is thenceforth laid up for 
 him (2 Tim. iv. 8). 
 
 12. The night is far spent, and the day is at hand :] This is not 
 a translation but a paraphrase or interpretation. The verb in the 
 first clause signifies to move forward to its fulness. But the tense is 
 not present or perfect but aorist. The period of the night's thus 
 spending itself is a past time, and may be rendered ' ' the night was 
 spent, and the day has come near," the present perfect tense. The 
 present perfect tense of this verb is indeed used in the sense of "is 
 now on." What is this night and this day? In each of the other 
 passages in which Paul has used the same illustration the night is 
 the old heathen life, to which belonged the works of darkness. This 
 corresponds with the use of the aorist; tense here. And the day is 
 the light of the Christian life which has shined already upon these 
 
vv. 13, 14.] ROMANS, XIII. 231 
 
 Roman Christians. This is also in accord with the tense here used. 
 The passage is thus parallel with Eph. v. 8 and 1 Thess. v. 4, 5, and 
 hence is followed by the same exhortation. 
 
 let us therefore cast ofT the works of darkness, and let us put 
 on the armour of light.] Here all acknowledge that the darkness 
 is moral darkness, as in verse 11 the slumber was moral torpor. It 
 seems, therefore, the more inconsistent to take the night of verse 12 
 as the night of sorrow of human life, and the Hay as the day of 
 Christ's glorious second coming. The casting off is that of an old 
 garment that we may be clothed in the armour of light. But why 
 bhould we put on armour for the day of Christ's second coming? 
 The day of Christian life with its moral light is a day of conflict ; 
 the other is the day when our warfare is over. (Compare the refer- 
 ence to the armour in 1 Thess. v. 8, where it is the armour required 
 for the day of Christian life, as contrasted with the darkness and 
 moral slumber of the heathen life. See also the fuller reference to 
 the armour and conflict in Eph. vi. 10, etc., in continuation of the 
 preceding chapter. ) 
 
 13. Let us walk honestly, as in the day;] The word " honestly " 
 is here used in the old sense of seemly or honourable, equivalent to 
 the " good report " of Phil. iv. 8. The contrast is with the works of 
 darkness which immediately follow. 
 
 not in revelling and drunkenness, not in chambering and wan- 
 tonness, not in strife and jealousy.] Here are three pairs of sins, 
 each pair inseparable, and all characteristic of the heathen life, and, 
 alas, too common fruits of fallen human nature in every age, and 
 even in Christian civilization. On the extent to which the Greco- 
 Roman civilization was at this time given up to all these vices, 
 drunken brawls, carousals and midnight orgies, shameful, abandoned 
 sensuality, and social, political and personal jealousy, and envenomed 
 bitterness, compare the not always obscure references of Horace and 
 the Satirists. (See also Eph. v. 3, etc.) 
 
 14. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ,] As the "works of 
 darkness," the old habit of life, was a garment put off and forever 
 cast aside, so here " the Lord Jesus Christ " is the new habit of life 
 which Christ enjoins, of which his own life was the most perfect 
 exemplar, and into which his Spirit leads all his believing followers. 
 This same idea is spoken of as tjie "new man" (Eph. iv. 24), i.e., 
 the new course of life, which we are exhorted to put on as a garment. 
 
 and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.] 
 It might be supposed that this last injunction was but a repetition 
 of the preceding. But in reality it is much more. It enjoins a moral 
 principle which strikes at the very root of all forms of sensual sin. 
 It forbids, not proper provision for the wants of the body, but all 
 provision for the mere gratification of our lower nature. It is the 
 utter abnegation of our lower nature as an end of life. It is this 
 making the flesh and its gratification in any way and to any extent 
 an end of life which brings the flesh into conflict with the spiritual 
 
232 ROMANS, XIV. [vv. 1, 2. 
 
 life. The flesh is but the servant, and must never be the master. 
 With this sweeping precept Paul closes this part of his exhortation. 
 On the relation of this passage to the spiritual life of 8t. Augustine 
 see Confessions viii. 12. 
 
 Ch. XIV. 1-XV. 7. Discussion of the Duties abisino out of 
 
 THE EXISTENCE OF PaKTIES IN THE ChURCH. 
 
 1. But him that is weak in faith receive ye,] The rendering of 
 the conjunction 6e by our distinct adversative " but " is, we think, a 
 mistake. The 6e serves simply to mark the transition to a new sub- 
 ject. But who are designated by the phrase " him that is weak 
 in faith"? • It certainly cannot be fairly applied to the adherents 
 of any Jewish or heathen sect. Nor does it, we think, properly 
 apply to the Judaizing party. They were certainly very far from 
 being of weak faith ; and Paul would be just as far from encouraging 
 the church at Rome to receive them. There is therefore no fair par- 
 allel between the present passage and the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 That deals with subverters of the Christian faith and with those who 
 had been subverted ; this, with persons of weak or not yet fully en- 
 lightb.:ed or established faith. The remaining alternative is, that 
 Paul here deals with a class who have been unsettled by the teach- 
 ings of the Judaizers, and affected by their superstitions, but not 
 wholly subverted. They still retain true though weak faith. Paul 
 says receive such, i.e., admit them to the fellowship and privileges 
 of brethren in Christ. Contrast this with his language in regard to 
 the Judaizers (Gal. i. 8. 9). It is not necessary to suppose that the 
 persons here referred to were members of the church at Rome, as 
 does Meyer; nor even to suppose that they were Jewish Christians. 
 The word "receive" implies, perhaps, that they were visitors, and 
 we know that Gentiles as well as Jews were affected by these scruples. 
 
 yet not to doubtful disputations,] Better with the margin, "to 
 decisions of doubts." The preposition " unto " has its usual meaning 
 of " design " or "end ": they were not to be received by the Church 
 for the purpose of discussing the questions of doubt. The original 
 meaning of the words, as well as the connection of thought, seems to 
 suggest this interpretation. By this we do not understand that the 
 officers, especially the teachers of the church, were not to seek to 
 enlighten and strengthen these brethren ; but that when they were 
 welcomed into the assemblies of the church their entrance was not 
 to be made the occasion for a wrangling controversy. For the spirit 
 which would easily fall into this sin see 1 Cor. viii. 1, etc. 
 
 2. One man hath faith to eat all things:] Compare 1 Cor. viii. 
 4-6, which fully sets forth the apostle's meaning here. The verb 
 translated " hath faith " might be translated " hath confidence." 
 
 but he that is weak eateth herbs.] That is, so strong are his 
 scruples that rather than eat any thing unclean, especially any thing 
 oflFered to idols, he abstains from animal food entirely. 
 
vv. a-5 ] . KOMANS, XIV. nS 
 
 3. Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not;] 
 This would be tlfe natural result of the pride of superior knowledge, 
 referred to in 1 Cor. viii. 1. But conscience is a grander thing than 
 any mere enlightenment of the understanding, and should be hon- 
 oured even when associated with narrow intelligence. 
 
 and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth :] This is 
 the opposite danger, the disposition to narrow the standard of moral 
 obligation to our own conscientious scruples, and judge our fellows 
 by our own subjective standard. True chaiity distinguishes between 
 essentials in morals and matters of opinion. But for this class Paul 
 has an argument the force of which they »vill feel more readily — 
 
 for God hath received him.] The verb is in the aorist, and points 
 to a definite historical fact and to something about which there could 
 be no dispute. We take this to be the divine testimony of the Spirit 
 given at conversion, the extraordinary manifestations of which were 
 evident to all men. The argument is therefore that to which Peter 
 appealed in the case of Cornelius (Acts xi. 17), and to which he sub- 
 sequently refers (Acts xv. 8). The fact that Ood received men who, 
 according to Jewish scruples, were unclean, is in these instances in- 
 disputable. To refuse to fellowship with them is thus to put our 
 judgments above that of God. Such a feeling Paul rebukes, and 
 that even sharply. 
 
 4. Who art thou that judgest the servant of another ? to his 
 own lord he standeth or falleth.] The man who has no scruples 
 and who freely eats all things is God's servant. The scrupulous 
 brother who presumes to judge him is not his master; and in passing 
 his narrow judgments upon him is transcending both propriety and 
 equity. 
 
 Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to 
 make him stand.] The " standing" here is the standing of the pre- 
 ceding clause as contrasted with the "falling," and would there be 
 most readily taken as " stands in, or falls from, his master's favour." 
 But what then is the meaning of the present verse? The difficulty 
 thus raised induces Meyer to interpret both verses of "standing fast 
 in the Lord — perseverance in the Christian life and character. " But 
 the dirticulty is solved by remembering that the one who makes him 
 stand is tha Lord (not God, as in the Text. Rec). It was needful to 
 remind these persons afflicted with Jewish scruples that they stood 
 in the merits of Christ, and not by ritual observances. If they, the 
 Jews, stood in God's favour only through faith in Christ Jesus, this 
 same Lord Jesus could place even the uncircumcised in the same 
 position of favour. (Compare Gal. ii. 15, 16.) 
 
 15. One man esteemeth one day above another : another esteem- 
 etn every day alike.] This constituted another point on which 
 scruples arose. This point was probably not so prominent as the 
 preceding, as it is not referred to in Acts xv., and is oTJenly con- 
 demned by Paul (Gal. iv. 10) as representing the extreme folly of 
 the Jewish error. With the scruple touching things ofiFered to idoli 
 
 16 
 
234 ROMANS, XIV. - [vv. ft-8. 
 
 he deals more gently, except where it is forced upon those whose 
 enligliteretl conscience rises superior to it. However, here even this 
 Bcrnplu he does not coiuleiini, but places it along with the other 
 tiiidur a broad general luIu which should guide us as regards our- 
 selves. 
 
 Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.] This is the 
 uuivetsul rule as to all niatlcrs of mere opinion. Let each man seek 
 for the cleirest li;;ht and tlic most perfect assurance possible, and 
 act accortliiigly. I'liis precept at once corrects unnecessary scruples 
 and guards the sacredness ot conscience. It is to be a matter of 
 rational intelligence (vovg). Hence all possible light must be sought. 
 Yet it must bo a matter of full assurance. Hence, as -*aul points 
 out presently, if doubt remains conscience must have the benefit of 
 the <loubt. Thus conscience is kept sacred. 
 
 6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it imto the Lord:] It 
 is for the Lord's sake (as God's command) that he regardeth it. This 
 was too clear to need proof. 
 
 and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God 
 thanks;] This second example required proof, which was ready at 
 hand, i'he act of thanksgiving which accompanied every meal made 
 it an act of worship (1 Cor. x. 31), as indeed the old heathen meals 
 frequently had bien. 
 
 and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth 
 God thanks.] It is quite clear that his refusal to eat i^for God's 
 sake, supposing that such food is displeasing to God, and hcice Paul 
 adds, "and giveth God thanks," not as a proof but as an accoinpani- 
 ment of his good conscience. That he is acting in the fear of God 
 and in the name of Christ is confirmed to us by the thanksgiving 
 which goes up to (xod over his meal of herbs. 
 
 7. For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself.] 
 The "of us" is of the members of Christ's church. Paul does not 
 assert of the wide humanity that none liveth to himself. That may 
 be true as a social law, but it is not true of their aim or intention of 
 life, which is often supremely selfish. But of the true Christian it 
 can be said that he does not live to himself. This general principle 
 which governs the Christian life Paul adduces as a ground of that 
 charity which recognizes religious motives even in the scruples of 
 our weak brethren. As we act out of regard to God, so should we 
 credit others with the same motive. But at the same time this prin- 
 ciple is recited for its own sake. 
 
 8. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord ; or whether we 
 die, we die unto the Lord : whether we live therefore, or die, we 
 are the Lord's.] This expansion of the foregoing precept shews 
 that, introduced apparently incidentally, it has its independent im- 
 portance, and is thus emphatically repeated as a broad principle 
 governing all inward motive of Christian life. We live, act and feel 
 as those who, in every contingency of our being, in life, in death, are 
 the Lord's property. This is not a command, to regulate our inward 
 
w.9-12.] ROMANS, xrv. S8(( 
 
 state, since inward feelings cannot be regulated by commands. But 
 it has for our inner life the force which a command hua for our out- 
 ward life. It describes that which ought to be, and which actually 
 exists wherever the great foundation truth of redemption has its 
 proper effect upon us. 
 
 9. For to this end Christ died, and lived again, that he might 
 be Lord of both the dead and the living.] Here we have the fact 
 upon which the state of mind described is founded. This is not to 
 be taken that Christ died to become the Lord of the dead, and lived 
 again to become the Lord of the living ; nor even in the more general 
 form of Godet, " that by traversing all the domain of existence liim- 
 self he has so won them that, in passing through them in our turn 
 as believers, we never cease to be his." Such an interpretation lays 
 too much stress upon the mere play of v'e words, which is not as 
 prominent in the original as in our version The death and resurrec- 
 tion of Ciirist have been repeatedly refer d to by Paul as the essen- 
 tial elements of his redeeming work. ^ irtue of that work he 
 claims the lordship of all, living and dead. 
 
 10. But thou, why dost thou judge thy . icr?] The "but" 
 throws into contrast with this common relation to our Lord the 
 spirit which judges, on the one hand, and the spirit which despises, 
 on the other. In this first clause the scrupulous man is addressed, 
 who applies in adverse judgment his own scruples to his brother's 
 life 
 
 or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother ?] Here 
 the other party, the man of broad, advanced freedom of thought, is 
 addressed. To each his own error is brought home, both alike op- 
 posed to the spirit which lives to Christ. 
 
 for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.] God, 
 not man, is the judge who hath authority; and as we are to be 
 judged we should abstain from judging others. 
 
 11. For it is written. 
 
 As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, 
 And every tongue shall confess to God.] (Isaiah xlv. 23.) 
 This passage in the original does not imply on the part of the pro- 
 phet a clear knowledge of a final judgment such as Paul here speaks 
 of. But it does imply that God brings every man into pi'obational 
 account with himself. Both the "submission" of tlie first clause 
 and the " confession " of the second clause imply that, if not at the 
 bar of the great final day, yet at the bar of our own conscience, we 
 must answer and submit. This Paul sums up accordingly. 
 . 12. So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God.] 
 This verse summarizes that which was proved by the quotation. The 
 "bowing" and "confessing" of Isaiah Paul interprets as "giving 
 an account," In this passage he leaves it as Isaiah does, undecided 
 as to when and where this account is to be rendered. But he empha- 
 sizes Isaiah's affirmation of universality — " each one of us " — of him- 
 "self individually. 
 
Me ROMANS, XIV. , [vv. 13, 14. 
 
 13. Let us not therefore judge one another any more:] A con- 
 cluding exhortation commending itself to any mind fully impressed 
 by the great truth just uttered. A due sense of the omnipresent 
 divine judgment excludes the carping, fault-finding spirit towards 
 others. 
 
 but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in 
 his brother's way, or an occasion of falling.] The word "judge" 
 in Greek expresses the act of moral discrimination between right and 
 wrong. This may be exercised upon the acts of others or upon our 
 own. It may be exercised after the act or in anticipation of it. 
 Here the right moral judgment of our own conduct in advance, dis- 
 criminating our true duty, is contrasted with the wrong moral judg- 
 ment passed upon the conduct of others. This jiart of the precept is 
 for both the strong and the weak, but especially for the strong, as 
 appears from what immediately follows. The "stumblingblock," 
 or " occasion of falling," refers to the weak. The two Greek words 
 seem to be nearly synonymous, though in the first may lie the idea 
 of accident, in the second that of intention. The result is tli same 
 in both cases — a fall into sin. The second term applied to the cause 
 of the sin presents it as wrong in more forcible language. The 
 "stumblingblock" is the free conduct of the strong brother. The 
 application to this of the somewhat strong word "scandal" leads 
 Paul into explanation as follows: — 
 
 14. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing 
 is unclean of itself:] By this very full enunciation of Christian 
 liberty Paul guards against all misapprehension. He is not encour- 
 aging superstitious scruples. He agrees with the strong in their 
 judgment. A touch of reason and common sense sweeps away all 
 artificial distinction of a supposed moral character. Moral distinc- 
 tion has its foundation, not in arbitrary or artificial prescriptions, 
 but in immutable principles. The phrase "in the Lord Jesus" re- 
 veals the fact that Paul arrived at this clear cognizance of the true 
 moral discrimination by virtue of the Spirit of Christ. As a Jew he 
 once was bound by "ordinances " as firmly as any. 
 
 save that to him who accounteth any thing to be unclean, to 
 him it is unclean.] Tlie exception which Paul here makes to his 
 general principle is of the highest moment, both practically and as 
 throwing light upon the whole question of subjective ethics. His 
 general principle has asserted that moral distinction belongs to the 
 spiritual, not to the external or material. It is therefore appre- 
 hended by the inner, and not by the outer, eye. Its discernment is 
 by that moral understanding which Paul has designated as the (vovc) 
 mind. It cannot be apprehended by touch, taste or smell ; by eye 
 or ear. It is not, therefore, uncertain. No man held to the reality 
 of moral distinctions more firmly than Paul. But moral distinctions 
 reveal themselves to the inner eye in that subjective sphere which 
 we call conscience. And in the passage now before us Paul asserts 
 that for each individual his conscience is for the moment the final 
 
vv. 15-17.] ROMANS, XIV. 237 
 
 appeal. If conacience is violated, not this, thjit or the other par- 
 ticular precept is broken, but the authority of all right is rejected. 
 Paul grants that conscience may at times be mist^'^ken. But still, as 
 conscience represents the authority of all moral obligation it must 
 always be obeyed. The individual mistake is a matter of trifling 
 moment ; the authority of moral law is life. The practical rule must 
 therefore be universally observed — "Obey your conscience." To 
 you your conscience is the expounder of moral l.-iw. Disobedience 
 to conscience is rejection cf moral law as such, and hence is sin even 
 where conscience may l)e mistaken as to the particular act. 
 
 15. For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest 
 no longer in love.] According to the reading adopted in the revised 
 version verse 14 is to be taken as a parenthesis, explaining why the 
 somewhat harsh term " scandal " has been applied to the free acts of 
 some of the Gentiles. Verse 15 then connects directly with verse 13, 
 giving a reason for the precept in the second clause : " Make it a mat- 
 ter of conscience not to put a stumblingblock in the way of thy bro- 
 ther, for it is a breach of charity to grieve another for the sake of 
 meat." The grief here refers to the wound to his conscience. This 
 follows if he imitates your example. It follows in another form if 
 he resists that example, and so in his own mind condemns you. 
 
 Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.] Even 
 Meyer admits that the danger against which this warning is directed 
 is that of final perdition. Hodge, too, admits that this is "more 
 consistent with the common meaning of the original word." To 
 those who have followed the thoroughly ethical drift of Paul's entire 
 doctrine no argument on this point is needed. The heart of Paul's 
 gospel is individual prohational respoimbility. Sin against conscience 
 may therefore bring destruction even to those for whom Christ died. 
 This last phrase is here introduced as a contrast to the selfish lack 
 of charity which will not even forego its favourite moats for the sake 
 of a brother's soul. Christ gave up his life. 
 
 i6. Let not then your good be evil spoken of:] That is, do not 
 so thrust furward your liberty (a good thing in itself, as Paul will 
 again shew presently) as to give rise to reproach. The evil report 
 would be that arising from unseemly contentions between brethren 
 in Christ. (Compare 1 Cor. iii. 3. ) 
 
 17. for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but 
 righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.] " The king- 
 dom of God " is here clearly the kingdom within, the rule of grace 
 in the heart. " Eating and drinking " renresent the ritual precepts 
 of the old law. These are excluded, and the true fruits of the king- 
 dom are " righteousness," right relation of the individual conscience 
 to God; " peace " with our fellowman, and especially with our breth- 
 ren in the church; and "joy in the Holy Ghost" as the outcome of 
 these right relations to God and man. This conforms at once to the 
 context, and to the use of the word "righteousness " throughout the 
 Epistle. These three comprehensive terms summarize the entire ex- 
 tent of Christian life, inward and outward. 
 
238 ROMANS, XIV. [vv. 18 20. 
 
 x8. For he that herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing^ to God, 
 and approved of men.] " Herein " according to the revised text is 
 "in this" (singular). In what? Dirticulties present themselves in 
 regard to all the answers, liut the phraao " in tlie Holy (Jhost " just 
 preceding, and Paul's doctrine of the Holy (ihost in relation to the 
 entire Cliriatian life, incline us to refer to that. "As many as are led 
 by the Spirit of (iod, these are the sons of God," *' Serving Christ" 
 expresses the practical relation of the believer to his Lord. Every 
 man who in his daily life serveth Christ in the Holy (ihost io " well- 
 pleasing to (iod, and approved of men." ((y'ompare ch ix. 1.) The 
 "well-pleasing'^ and "approved" thus correspond to "righteous- 
 ness " and " peace." The "service of Christ in the Holy Ghost " is 
 presented, not as the ground, but the proof, of the relation to God 
 and man. 
 
 19. So then let us follow after things which make for peace, 
 and things whereby we may edify one another. J Another exhorta- 
 tion deducod from the principles just t-nunciated. Throughout this 
 ciiapter the apostle proceeds by the enunciation of great moral or 
 religious trutlis, deducing from them his practical precepts as he 
 proceeds. The principles thus incidentally presented as the founda- 
 tion of the precepts are of great value both in Christian ethics and 
 dogmatics. 
 
 20. Overthrow not for meat's sake the work of God.] The edi6- 
 cation of the preceding verse suggests this form of the exhortation. 
 It is not, we think, a repetition of verse 13. The apostle has moved 
 on to the thought of peace in the church. The edification is thus 
 best taken in the sense of building up —strengthening the church by 
 the unity of its m«nilDers. (Compare Eph. i v. 12.) The pulling down 
 of God's work is then the distracting and weakening of the church 
 by these divisions. Paul takes it that the strong Christian is quite 
 at liberty to abstain for the sake of charity. If he does not do so it 
 is because of appetite ; and to put his appetite for a particular form 
 of food above the interests of Christ's church is indeed a sin. 
 
 All things indeed are clean;] The fiev is here concessive: "I 
 grant you all things are clean." This should, we think, be taken as 
 the beginning of a new and final paragraph in which are stated the 
 conclusions of the whole discussion. The ^ev corresponds to 6e in 
 chapter xv. 1, where the proposition is concluded. The broad state- 
 ment here made, however, needs a guard, which is immediately in- 
 troduced as a parenthesis with o/lAa. 
 
 howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.] If our 
 interpretation of the clause preceding is correct, then this statement 
 must refer to the case of the strong brother. It is not an explana- 
 tion of how the weak brother may be destroyed, as Meyer argues, 
 for that would give us a mere repetition of verses 13 and 14, but a 
 parenthetical assertion of the moral wrong of the sin against the 
 unity of the church, introduced to limit and guard the general state- 
 ment preceding. Even the use of clean things may become evil or 
 
7 V. 2123.] ROMANS, XIV. 2S9 
 
 iiinful if we use them so as to give occasion of sin to others. We 
 think this interpretation is also more suitable to the peculiar phrase* 
 ology of the original; (ha with the genitive would thus express the 
 formal cause, the manner of eating — eating in such wise as to prove 
 a stumblingblock. Compare the phrase "speaking in parables," 
 where the same Greek form is used. "It is evil" may be para- 
 phrased " It is an evil thing." 
 
 21. It is g^ood not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do any 
 thing whereby thy brother stumbleth.] The " good " is here placed 
 in direct contrast with the evil. Tlie evil course gives offence. The 
 noble (beautifully good) course abstains from all cause of offence. 
 The nobility of our moral nature is seen, not in the freedom or im- 
 punity with which we can trample under foot unfounded prejudices 
 ftnd scruples, but in the self-denial with which we can meet the 
 weaknesses of others. It is scarcely right to put the question of 
 total abstinence, with the fearful moral dangers with which it seeks 
 to grapple, on the footing oi the question here discussed. It cannot 
 be said that alcohol is clean. 
 
 22. The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God.] 
 This is not mere permission. The verb expresses active, not mere 
 passive, possession. An enlightened conscience is a great blessing. 
 We should beware of allowinjjf it to fall under the bondage of super- 
 stitious scruples. Therefore " hold fast before (jod, as respects thy- 
 self, the faith which thou hast." This verse introduces a second 
 part of the parenthesis, extending to the end of the chapter, and 
 guarding against an incidental danger arising out of the very duty 
 which Paul is enforcing. This interpretation, which is required by 
 the revised reading, is, we think, quite in harmony with this para- 
 graph as a parenthetical admonition. (See on the contrary Godet 
 tn loco. ) 
 
 Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approv- 
 eth.] This follows up the idea just presented, "keep hold of thy 
 faith," because " Blessed is he," etc. The word "judge " must here 
 be taken of a condemning judgment, or at least of a judgment that 
 questions. The "approval" is equal to our word "sanction," and 
 may be rendered " judgeth to be right," or " esteemeth right." Such 
 clear moral discernment as leaves no room for doubting judgment ia 
 indeed a great blessing, and should be prized accordingly. • 
 
 23. But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he 
 eateth not of faith; J The word translated "doubteth" signifies 
 hesitation in judgment, uncertainty. It is not unbelief as opposed 
 to faith, but the absence of clear moral conviction. To such an one 
 " if he eat " there is " condemnation." This word cannot mean less 
 than condemnation in his own conscience. But why positive con- 
 demnation when the wrong is still doubtful? "Because he eateth 
 not of faith." Many expositors take " faith " here as in the sense of 
 saving faith. In this entire discussion, however, beginning with the 
 first verse, Paul has used the word faith in a broader sense of clear 
 
210 ROMANS, XV. [w. 1-3. 
 
 conviction of truth. The "weak in faith" of the first verse ia not 
 one lacking justifying faith, but one who has not yet embraced with 
 full assurance all the truth of tlie gospel. The perfected faith of 
 Christ sets a mai.^ fully free from these Jewish scruples. We can 
 scarcely understand the word " faith " in a different sense here. It 
 is also in this sense that Paul says, 
 
 and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.] As this is one of the broad- 
 est ethical j: -inciples set forth by Paul it becomes necessary to ex- 
 amine it ver carefully. Faith, as we have just seen, is a full assur- 
 ance of moral conviction, grounded upon the principles of the gospel 
 of Christ. It is not mere natural subjective confidence, but the 
 assurance arising from the moral illumination of the gospel of O.rist. 
 The gospel enlightens conscience. It places it in the true rela'iion 
 of Tightness with God. It restores it to that moral confiden "e before 
 God through which alone it can discriminate the genuine right. 
 And to the man whose conscience is placed in this new relation duty 
 claims the whole life. Nothing can pass without its verdict, mid to 
 act without its clear verdict of approval is sin. " Whether ye eat or 
 drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." No higher 
 moral standard than this is conceivable : and yet this is the standard 
 to which Paul holds all Christians. Having completed this inci- 
 dental but most important explanation of ethical principles Paul 
 now returns to his main theme. 
 
 1. Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the 
 weak, and not to please ourselves.] The conjunction (k with which 
 this verse begins naturally carries us back to the /itv of verse 20 ; and 
 this gives an excellent connection: "All things, I grant you, are 
 pure," "but we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the 
 weak," etc. The parenthesis thus begins with a^.hi (verse 20). The 
 objection to this connection is the lengtli, the variety and the im- 
 portance of the parenthetical matter. But we are not without ex- 
 amples of similar construction in the earlier part of the Epistle. (See 
 ch. V. 15-17, where the parenthetical matter needed to guard a pre- 
 ceding s*.aten jnt is also introduced by aXAa. ) ' ' To please oni'.solves " 
 refers to the indulgence of appetite for meats, etc., and maii\tains 
 the continuity of thought. The words, like the clause of verse 20 
 with which we have immediately connected them, are addressed to 
 the strong, and certainly imply what we have found indicated every- 
 where through the Epistle, that the readers were Gentiles, free from 
 Jewish scruples. 
 
 2. Let each one of us please his neighbour for that which is 
 good, unto edifying.] We have here defined the limits and result 
 of this acquiescence in the scruples of our neighbours. It must be 
 for individual good, and it must be suck as builds up the church. 
 
 3. For Christ also pleased not himself;] The full extent of the 
 self-abnegation of Christ we may learn from such passages as Phil. 
 ii. 1-8. (Compare Matt. xx. 28 and 2 Cor. viii. 9. ) 
 
 11)ut, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached 
 
vv. 4-7.] ROMANS, XV. jSHf-: 
 
 thee fell upon me.] This passage, taken from Psalms Ixix. 9, is part 
 of an inspired complaint, many quotations from which are applied to 
 the Messiah. It is one of the psalms of God's afflicted servant. The 
 indications are that it was written during the captivity, and like 
 Isaiah liii. belongs to that period of prophecy in which, out of the 
 sufferings in which the chosen people were but the type of their Mes- 
 sianic Head, they were given a glimpse of the glory that should fol- 
 low. Paul qixotes it here, not to prove the fact of our Lord's self- 
 sacrifice, but to give expression to his appreciation of it. He quotes 
 it, also, not without a reference to its original historic application to 
 a people or a person who for God's sake endured affliction. 
 
 4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written 
 for our learning^, that through patience and through comfort of the 
 scriptures we might have hope.] This idea of the object of the 
 scripture record Waa a favourite one with St. Paul. (See 1 Cor. x. 
 11.) There is a vein of pathos running through these last words of 
 the apostolic admonition. The words "patience," "comfort" and 
 "hope," and the need of these (which is so plainly intimated), point, 
 as in chapter viii., to the time when these Roman Christians will 
 share with their Master and with the chosen people of old in the 
 cup of suflering. So strong i.s this presentiment in the mind of the 
 apostle that it converts his naxt words of admonition into a prayer. 
 
 5. Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be 
 of the same mind one with another according to Christ Jesus:] 
 Every word of this precious scripture grows rich with the tenderness 
 of Paul's heart. God is the God of patient endurance and of com- 
 fort. His grace is to give perfect unity of spirit to the church, and 
 that unity is to be based upon the perfect truth of Christ ; for this 
 is, we think, the meaning of this last clause. And the blessed result 
 of this is as follows: — 
 
 6. that with one accord ye may with one mouth glorify the God 
 and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.] The "one accord " is the 
 perfect unity of loving desire, and the "one mouth" is the final 
 unity of faith and opinion. Paul pi'ays for both. He is not satis- 
 fied with the unity of charity alone. He desires also that they all 
 "speak the same things." (Compare 1 Cor. i. 10.) This will be one 
 blessed result of the perfecting of the saints (Eph. iv. 12, 13). Did 
 Paul foresee how long patience, and how many words of comfort, 
 and what ages of hope, would be needed before this glorious result 
 should be reached? We are here, too, reminded that the unity of 
 the church is the glory of God, especially before the world. (Com- 
 pare John xvii.) 
 
 7. Wherefore receive ye one another, even as Christ also re- 
 ceived you, to the glory of God. This closes Paul's admonition 
 and opens the way for another brief but most important passage 
 bearing upon, and in some sense summarizing, the whole theme of 
 the Epistle. "Receive ye one another" refers to the mutual rela- 
 tions of Gentile Christians with their scrupulous Jewish brethren, 
 
242 !> ROMANS, XV. [vv. 8, 9. 
 
 In no case was the spirit of Christian unity to be violated by refusal 
 or failure to give them full cordial recognition as brethren in Christ, 
 and this to the glory of God and after the example of Christ, for he 
 *^alno rcxnvad you," i.e., you Gentiles, into the fellowship of God's 
 people. This had been the one great central theme of Paul through- 
 out this entire Plpistle. He began with the decliration of grace and 
 apostleship for the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, and he 
 here ends by thus introducing a brief but remarkable section on the 
 same great subject. No stronger motive to the duty enjoined of 
 cordial friendliness to their Jewish brethren could be presentee' than 
 this. What follows is usually taken as a part of the present section, 
 but its great importance and its independent dogmatic character lead 
 us to treat it separately, as closing the didactic portion of the Epis- 
 tle, to which Paul appends only personal explanations, salutations, 
 and the bmedictlon. 
 
 Ch. XV. 8-13. Conclusion of the Didactic Epistle by Emphatic 
 Assertion of the Reception of the Gentiles. 
 
 8. For I say] The conjunction does little more than hinge this 
 short paragraph to the phrase immediately preceding. " As Christ 
 also received you, for I assert," etc. " I can une this argument, inas- 
 much as I assert that." On the use of the phrase " I say " to intro- 
 duce a new proposition with special emphasis compare ch. xi. 1, 11. 
 
 that Christ hath been made a minister of the circumcision] This 
 was perhaps a point urged by Paul's opponents. That Christ was 
 made a minister of the circumcision Paul grants, but not with em- 
 phasis either upon the word " minister " (Riddle) or upon the phrase 
 ''minister of the circumcision." This entire phrase occupies the 
 unemphatic place. The emphasis is first upon "Christ," then upon 
 the plirase with which the sentence ends. 
 
 for the truth of God,] ^'^ Christ was made a minister of the circum- 
 cision for the truth of God." So the sentence should read if we found 
 our idea of the emphasis upon the order of the Gicok text. What 
 this special truth was which required that our Lonl should come as 
 a minister of the circumcision is set forth in the two clauses which 
 are in virtual apposition with, and so explanatory of, the phrase 
 "truth of God." 
 
 that he might confirm the promises given unto the fathers, 
 
 9. and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy;] 
 These clauses governed by eig of result attach direct ly to the main 
 predicate " was made a minister of tlie circumeisiop for the truth," 
 etc. The preceding preposition vKFp (for the sake of) gives us the 
 motive of tlie mission of Christ; the present prf position tig points 
 out the direction to which this motive leads, and by which as a re- 
 sult it is satisfied. It therefore explains the motive. The truth of 
 God is maintained by confirming, literally * ' making strong " (a He- 
 braism for "giving effect to"), the promises given to the fathers. 
 
vv. 10, 11.] ROMANS, XV. 243 
 
 But what were those promises ? No other than those which Paul pro- 
 ceeds to quote, and which he first summarizes in the next clause — 
 "and tbat the Gentiles might glorify God for his meicy. " Tliis is 
 the Hebraistic parallelism to the preceding. The giving of effect to 
 the promises, the very foundation of whicli was that in Abraham all 
 nations should be blessed, led directly to their glorifying God. Paul's 
 idea then is that Christ was made a minister of the circumcision, and 
 not sent directly to the Gentiles, because the Gentiles were to be re- 
 ceived under the promise given to the fathers. They wei-e to come 
 in as brethren with the chosen people, and so the Messiah should 
 praise God among the Gentiles, and the Gentiles would rejoice with 
 God's people. It was thus for the very unity of Jew and Gentile in 
 the fellowship of Christ, which Paul seeks to pi'omote, that our Lord 
 was made a minister of the circumcision and wrought out his great 
 work from that basis. The tenor of ti)e passages quoted, however, 
 emphasizes the privileges of the Gentiles. The unity with the an- 
 cient people is implied, and in one passage expressed. But the quo- 
 tations impress us with the thought that Paul is here not so much 
 emphasizing a reason for kindly reception of their Jewish brethren 
 by the Gentiles, as giving his last emphatic expression to the great 
 thought of the Epistle that the Gentiles are "fellow-heirs, and fellow- 
 members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ 
 Jesus through the gospel" (Eph. iii. C). 
 
 as it is written. 
 Therefore will I give praise unto thee among the Gentiles, 
 And sing imto thy name. 
 
 A quotation frcm Psalm xviii. 49, shewing that even in David's 
 day the Lord's Anointed called the Gentiles to be partakers of the 
 joy of God's people. 
 
 ID. And again hfj saith, 
 
 Rejoice, y\! Gentiles, with his people. ' 
 
 Quoted from Deut. xxxii. 43, where again the world of the Gen- 
 tiles is called to share in the joy of deliverance of God's people, im- 
 plying that they have an interest therein, and so a right to this joy. 
 This implies the reading of the LXX. and of Kennicott's variation. 
 
 II. And ap^ain, 
 
 Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles ; 
 
 And let all the peoples praise him. (Psalm cxvii. 1.) 
 
 This short psalm of two verses is of precisely the same tenor as 
 the passages already quoted. The occasion is the deliverance of 
 God's people, and in their joy the Gentiles are called to share. From 
 all these three passages th.e inference which Paul draws is clear, that 
 where the Gentiles are thus invited to praise God for the deliverance 
 of his people, the future of that people has an interest for them. The 
 spirit of the olden time, which offered such an invitation to the Gen- 
 tiles, was the very spirit of Paul's gospel, and in striking contrast to 
 the oxclusiveneas of the later Judaism. 
 
244 ROMANS, XV. [vv. 12-15. 
 
 • 12. And again, Isaiah saith, v / ' 
 
 There shall be the root of Jesse, 
 And he that ariseth to rule over the Gentiles ; « 
 On him shall the Gentiles hope. (Isaiah xi. 10.) 
 This passage brings out more clearly the conception already im- 
 plied in the three preceding quotations. The quotation is from the 
 LXX. The variation from our present Hebrew text is rather in form 
 of expression. Instead of " standing for an ensign," i.e., the banner 
 of a leader, the Septuagint has "ariseth to rule over" the Gentiles. 
 The idea is the same, though the variation from the present Hebrew 
 text sounds like the gloss of the later Judaism, with its idea of sub- 
 jugating the world, rather than of marshalling it under the banner of 
 the Messianic King. If, however, the Septuagint made a mistake, 
 Paul has not thought it of sufficient importance to require correction. 
 The last clause, "on him shall the Gentiles hope," gives Paul his re- 
 quired resting place. It asserts in direct terms the right of the Gen- 
 tiles to the same hope which the twelve tribes, serving God day and 
 night, laboured to attain. To the rest of this ho);e he now commits 
 his readers in a beautiful closing benediction. 
 
 13. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in be- 
 lieving, that ye may abound in hope, in the power of the Holy 
 Ghost.] The interrelation of faith, peace, joy and hope are here 
 beautifully presented. Faith is the foundation. This faith produces 
 " peace with God " and "joy in the Holy Ghost." Out of tliis peace- 
 ful, joyous state of mind "hope" abounits. And all is the blessed 
 work of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Ch. XV. 14-33. A Brief Personal Eri.sTLK. 
 
 14. And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that 
 ye yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able 
 also to admonish one another.] This concluding personal address 
 corresponds both in tone and thought with the personal introduc- 
 tion (ch. i. 8-13). Both are designed to obviate any idea of Paul's 
 being unduly pressing of himself in sending this Epistle to a church 
 to him as yet unknown. With the appreciation of the goodness, 
 knowledge and pastoral ability of the Roman church here expressed, 
 we may very well compare his appreciation of their faith (ch. i. 8). 
 
 15. But I write the more boldly unto you in some measure,] 
 This should be rendered "I wrote," as the tense is first aorist, and 
 there is no conceivable reason for departing from the historical sense. 
 This certainly implies that the Epistle had been written some time 
 before. It might almost suggest the thought that the Epistle as just 
 closed had been transmitted to Uome, and that after the lapse of 
 some interval this brief note was forwarded to explain the delay of 
 his intended visit (verse 22), and to indicate his present intentions 
 and difficulties (verses 24 and 28, and verses 30 and 31). It may, 
 however, be that this Epistle had not been transmitted through lack 
 
vv. 16-18.] ROMANS, XV. 245 
 
 of opportunity ; and that after his apustolic journey through lUyri- 
 cum, returning to Corinth just prior to his departure for Jerusalem, 
 he adds this appendix, the opportunity for transmission now present- 
 ing itself. The comparative degree points back to the preceding 
 verse, " ' more boldly ' than might be needful in view of your know- 
 ledge," etc. The phrase "in some measure" would indicate that 
 Paul's excessive earnestness appears only here and there. For the 
 great part of his Epistle he needs no apology. This qualifying ex- 
 planation retracts or weakens nothing of the matter of the Epistle ; 
 it touches only the personal relations of the writer to his readers. 
 
 as putting you again in remembrance,] An elegant and delicate 
 method of presenting this grandest of written treatises to his readers, 
 as if they but needed to be reminded of its contents. 
 
 because of the grace that was given me of God, 
 
 i6. that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gen- 
 tiles,] The break is best made here, as here the sense is complete, 
 and in the next word is taken up again for fuller expansion. Paul 
 frequently refers to his commission to be the apostle to the Gentiles 
 in similar terms, (See especially Eph. iii. 8. ) This commission justi- 
 fies his assumed boldness. (See also a hint of this in ch. i. 5, 6.) 
 
 ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gen- 
 tiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy 
 Ghost.] The word here used is not the ordinary word denoting 
 public or religious service or worship, but signifies the work of the 
 priest. It might be paraphrased, "Fulfilling the priestly office in 
 the gospel of (iod." The word "gospel" denotes, not the subject 
 matter of the preaching, but the entire work of preaching, especially 
 the final result in the salvation of those to whom he preached. It is 
 here that the priestly function appears. These souls, saved through 
 the preaching of the gospel, are so presented to God as an offering 
 acceptable to him, because sanctified, not by ritual ceremonies, but 
 by the Holy Ghost. This verse, as Riddle observes, is not an au- 
 thorization of a priestly theory of the ministry. It is simply an ele- 
 gant metaphorical presentation of Paul's evangelistic work. 
 
 17. I have therefore my glorying in Christ Jesus in things per- 
 taining to God.] Our version does feeble justice to the sanctified 
 modesty of this sentence. There is no possessive pronoun in the 
 original, and the article can scarcely be rendered thus when followed 
 by a limiting adjunct. "I have therefore the boasting which is in 
 Christ Jesus, the things which are with God," "The boasting" is 
 not matter for boasting but the act itself. " Glorying in the Lord " 
 is the only glorying suitable to man, and this is Paul's glorying. 
 The matter of this glorying is the precious oblation made to God of 
 saved souls, a matter laid up "in the presence of God " as an holy 
 and acceptable ofi'ering. 
 
 18. For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which 
 Christ wroughi through me,] But of what other thin^ could he 
 speak? Meyer says, "things not done through me as if the Lord 
 
246 . ROMANS, XV. [vv. 19, 20. 
 
 had brought them about through me." To this Godet objects, as if 
 it meant that Paul needed to tell his readers that he did not invent 
 his facts. The true idea will, I think, be found by comparison with 
 2 Cor., chs. X., xi. and xii. In this passage the subject here merely 
 touched is treated at length. Tliis glorying of Paul is the assertion 
 of hix apostolic anfhorily. It was the mention of this in verse 15 
 which called it up here. On this point Paul was continually placed 
 on his defence by his enemies. The "glorying in Christ Jesus " was 
 the seal of his apostolic authority given him by Christ, the precious 
 oflFering of souls to God. In saying "I will not dare to speak of any 
 thing which Christ hath not wrouglit through me " he gives a pass- 
 ing allusion to his maligners, who boasted in "another man's line of 
 things made ready to their hand" (2 Cor. x. 12-16). He will not 
 dare to do as they did, in Galatia and elsewhere — pervert the con- 
 verts of others, and then claim them as his own. The broad seal of 
 the Master on his commission shall be what Christ hath wrought 
 through him; and that is amply sufficient. 
 for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, 
 
 19. in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the 
 Holy Ghost;] This was the summary of what Christ had wrought 
 through him. The end and result of all was, the obedience of the 
 Gentiles to the faith. This was effected through the word of his 
 preaohing and by work, the toilsome variety of which he describes 
 in 2 Cor. xi. 23, etc. ; but the efficient power of this word and work 
 lay in the signs and wonders by which God accompanied this word 
 and work, and in the Holy Ghost. (Compare 1 Thess. i. 5.) ■' 
 
 so that from Jerusalem, and round about even unto Illyricum, I 
 have fully preached the gospel of Christ;] That Paul did deliver 
 his testimony at Jerusalem would appear from Acts xxii. 18. " Round 
 about " may be taken to signify the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, in- 
 cluding Palestine and Syria. (See Acts xxvi. 20 and Gal. i. 17-21.) 
 From this his labours had already ranged to Illyricum on the north- 
 west, i.e., to the present western l)oundarie3 of the Austrian empire. 
 By the highways of those days this was a range of some two thou- 
 sand miles from south-east to north-west, much of it traversed re- 
 peatedly, and for hundreds of miles in lateral extent. Over this ex- 
 tent he had "fulfilled the gospel," by which we may fairly under- 
 stand, not had perfectly made known the gospel, but had extended 
 the gospel toward what, in God's purpose, was its full measure. 
 
 20. yea, making it my aim so to preach the ^^ospel, not where 
 Christ was already named,] Literally, "making it my pride," my 
 ambition, not to occupy the comfortable, well-tilled fields, but to 
 take up new ground, 
 
 that I might not build upon another man's foundation;] Paul's 
 foundations were the doctrines which he preached (1 Cor. iii. 10). 
 He was fully aware of the special natur. of these doctrines, and pre- 
 ferred that his v/ork should stand out distinctly by itself, and be 
 tested by its power to endure (1 Cor. iii. 13). This ambition of his 
 
w. 21-25.1 ' ROMANS, XV. ,. 247 
 
 he sets forward in the beautiful words which Isaiah used of the min- 
 istry of the Lord's servant, 
 
 21. but, as it is written, 
 
 They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came, 
 And they who have not heard shall understand. 
 Quoted from Isaiali lii. 15, where tliey clearly refer to the exten- 
 sion of the Messiah's kingdom. Paul thus regards his work as a ful- 
 filment of the purport of thi.s prophecy. 
 
 22. Wherefore also I was hindered these many times from com- 
 ing to you :] Paul thus nitturally hinges on the second topic to which 
 he wished to call attention in this personal Epistle, i.e., his proposed 
 visit to Rome, which occupies his thought as far as verse 29. This 
 he had also referred to in his personal introduction (ch. i. 10, etc.). 
 The present passage explains the cause of the delay, possibly of the 
 delay which had occurred since he wrote chapter i. If so the visit 
 to Illyricum may l:ave occupied the interval. 
 
 23. but now, having no more any place in these regions,] The 
 expression "any place" evidently signifies any room for extension, 
 any new opening. We are thus brought into contact with Paul's 
 spirit and manner of work, ever watchful for the calls of God. Possi- 
 bly such a call led him to Illyricum, as previously to Macedonia. 
 
 and having these many years a longing to come unto you,] On 
 Paul's desire to visit Rome compare chapter i. 11 and 15, where see 
 notes. 
 
 24. whensoever I go unto Spain] The repetition of this inten- 
 tion in verse 28 renders interpolation of the full clause here improb- 
 able. At the same time there has been serious disturbance of the 
 text. Some texts have inserted " I will come to you." Others have 
 omitted "for" in the next clause. Either of these changes makes 
 the grammatical construction easy (and hence both have been re- 
 jected by the critics, though Meyer adopts the latter, and so solves 
 the difficulty). Accepting the revised text we have a broken gram- 
 matical construction of which the only solution is that ofiered by the 
 revised, version. Godet and the Syriac version agree with Meyer 
 and render thus, "whensoever I go unto Spain, I hope to see you 
 in my journey." This makes the grammatical structure complete, 
 making clmCu the principal verb, and does not change the sense, 
 even if not representing the exact form of the primitive text. The 
 verb " I go " is subjunctive, expressing uncertainty, not removed by 
 the subjective phrase which follows. 
 
 (for I hope to see you in my Journey, and to be brought on my 
 way thitherward by you, if first in some measure I shall have been 
 satisfied with your company) — ] Godet and Meyer, as above, make 
 this the principal clause, omitting the conjunction "for," and thus 
 removing the long and awkward parenthesis. The pleasure which 
 Paul anticipated from this visit he has already set forth in ch&pter i. 
 11, 12. 
 
 25. but now, I say, I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the 
 
248 ROMANS, XV. [vv. 26-HO. 
 
 saints.] The conjunction "but now" is taken as repeated from 
 verse 2,3 to complete the construction there interrupted. This is ex- 
 pressed in the translation by adding the phrase " I say "; but see 
 above on verse 24. On the ministration in which Paul was now 
 engaged see Acts xxiv. 17; 1 Cor. xvi. 1-4. 
 
 26. For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia 
 to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that 
 are at Jerusalem.] This contribution would seem to have been a 
 systematic part of Paul's organization of his work. (See 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; 
 (jial. ii. 10.) Yet it came from a cheerful spirit, and so Paul here 
 speaks of it as the voluntary offering of the churches (2 Cor. viii. 
 1, 2, etc.; ix. 2, etc.). Yet a duty as well as a gift. 
 
 27. Yea, it hath been their good pleasure; and their debtors 
 they are.] Paul had already touched this point (ch. xi. 18), wliich 
 he now expands more fully. 
 
 For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual 
 things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal 
 things. ] The presence of these two verses in the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans may well be taken as suggesting the performance of a similar 
 duty on their part. The reasons presented are more than a sugges- 
 tion ; they have the force of a moral imperative. 
 
 28. When therefore I have accomplished this, and have sealed 
 to them this fruit, I will go on by you unto Spain. ] This carries 
 us back to the thought suspended at verse 25. The ow sums up 
 verses 26 and 27 in the two participles. The verb "to seal" has 
 been variously understood in this passage. Most expositors take it 
 in the general sense of confirming or making sure. Some say, ' ' when 
 I have officially deliv< red," and find a reference to a sealed discharge. 
 Paul's use of the word looks, we think, in another direction. He 
 speaks of the foretaste, or firstfruits, as the seal of the fulness. This 
 gift was the seal to the Hebrew church of all fruits of goodness and 
 brotherly love in the time to come. It was that which was, so Paul 
 hoped, to ratify the bond which had been so strained by the diver- 
 sity of oj^inion which existed. Paul and the Gentile churches were 
 sealed to them as brethren, or sealed themselves to them as loving 
 brethren, the seal being this fruit of their love. The force of the 
 middle voice may lie here, " When I have made this fruit a seal to 
 them on my behalf. " 
 
 29. And I know that, w^hen I come unto you, I shall come in 
 the fulness of the blessing of Christ.] Paul, as we have already 
 seen in chapter i. 11, anticipated benefit to the church at Rome from 
 his visit. He is confident that no other apostle can bring to them 
 gifts beyond what the Lord has ministered through him. 
 
 30. JJow I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and by the love of the Spirit,] In these words, indicative of deep 
 emotion and of a great burden of anxiety, Paul opens the last of 
 these personal thoughts. "The Lord Jesus Christ " and " the love " 
 which the Spirit works in the hearts of all God's children, are the 
 
vv. Sl-33;1.1 ROMAXS XV\ XVI. 1>49 
 
 motives by which the apostle seeks to n^ove his readers. Had he 
 used the word "entreat," or "beg," or "ask," then he would say, 
 "for the sake of." But with the verb here used, often translated 
 " exhort," " by " is the appropriate preposition. 
 
 that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me ; ] 
 Paul believed in the power of earnest prayer — "strive." He be- 
 lieved in unity of faith and prayer — "together with me." And he 
 believed in interccdsory prayer — "on my behalf." There were four 
 topics (in pairs) which lay upon his heart — 
 
 31. that I may be delivered from them that are disobedient in 
 Judaea,] The disobedience here referred to was clearly the disobe- 
 dience of unbelief, the rejection of the gospel. How deeply this 
 burden was laid on Paul's heart in this journey appears from Acts 
 XX. 22. 
 
 and that my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be 
 acceptable to the saints;] Even Paul's fond hope that his oflFering 
 might be the seal of a covenant of love with the Hebrew church has 
 its misgivings. These coiild not have been less trying to his heart 
 than the direct opposition of the unbelieving Jews. As Moule well 
 observes, they give us an insight into the lifelong struggle of this 
 noble man. He worked for Christ under the cold distrust of what 
 was, apart from his own labours, the whole Christian world. 
 
 32. that I may come unto you in joy through the will of God,] 
 All through there is the shadow of what voiced itself at Ephesus, 
 "not knowing the things that shall befall me there." But he has 
 high hopes of Rome. To that church, so thoroughly in sympathy 
 with his own faith in Christ, he can turn with joy. 
 
 and together with you find rest. ] In their sympathy and love he 
 hopes at last to find rest from false accusers and false brethren. How 
 little could he foresee that the rest would be in the cold vault of the 
 Mamertine prison, and at last on the headsman's block and in the 
 tomb by the Ostian Way ! 
 
 33. Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.] The brief 
 benediction, the outpouring of a loving heart, closes this minor 
 epistle. 
 
 Ch. XVI. 1, 2. A Letter of Commendation. 
 
 I. I commend unto you Phoebe our sister,] From 2 Cor. iii. 1 
 we learn that such letters of commendation, or as we wouid say, in- 
 troduction, were common, and that the verb here used supplied the 
 formulary with which they opened. Of Phoebe we know nothing 
 except what is here stated She may have been, as the later tradi- 
 tion states, the bearer of this Epistle. The title of " sister " here 
 used by Paul was an honour indeed. 
 
 who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchres:] The title 
 " servant " may very well be here taken in the official sense — a dea- 
 DonesB. This ofHce was probably still, as in its origin, one of mini«< 
 
 17 
 
230 R0xVlAN8 XVI. [vV. 2-5- 
 
 tering to the sick and the poor. It was therefore quite appropriate 
 for a woman. The letter of introduction of course implies that she 
 was travelling from Cenchreoe, the port of Corinth, to Rome. It 
 gives us thus internal evidence of the place from which this Epistle 
 was written, and so of its date. 
 
 2. that ye receive her in the Lord,] On the meaning of this term 
 "receive " see note on chapter xiv. 1. To the Christian society only 
 accredited members were admitted. They were received "in the 
 Lord," i.e., welcomed into the fellowship of the household of Christ. 
 
 worthily of the saints,] Paul bespoke for this sister a right royal, 
 as well as a right hearty, welcome. 
 
 and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need 
 of you:] This was a draft at sight, and to unlimited extent, upon 
 the liberality, hospitality and kindly aid of the church at Rome, in- 
 dicating the full confidence of Paul in this holy woman. It illus- 
 trates the brotherhood of the early church, and that the spirit of the 
 period immediately following the Pentecost had extended with the 
 spread of the gospel. The clause which follows rather discounte- 
 nances the idea that the assistance was in a legal matter. 
 
 for she herself also hath been a succourer of many, and of mine 
 own self.] The word " succourer " here used is cognate to the verb 
 rendered "assist" above. As it would be out of the question to 
 refer it to legal assistance here, such application becomes unlikely 
 above. She had been at her own home, where she had means and 
 influence, a patroness of many a needy Christian, and even of Paul 
 himself. Now, in the great strange city, Paul places her under the 
 protecting care of the church of Christ. 
 
 Ch. XVI. 3-16. Salutations. 
 
 3. Salute Prisca and Aquiia my fellow- workers in Christ Jesus,] 
 Our information regarding these saints is found in Acts xviii. ; in 
 1 Cor. xvi. 19, where we find them apparently at Ephesus (compare 
 Acts xviii. 18); and in the present passage, where, a little later, we 
 find them at Rome, whence they came at first. In Corinth and 
 Ephesus they had been Paul's fellow- workers in the gospel. Per- 
 haps when Paul left Ephesus they returned to Rome, 
 
 4. who for my life laid down their own necks ;] Both in Corinth 
 and in Ephesus Paul's life had been in danger (Acts xviii. 12; xix. 
 26; 1 Cor. xv. 32; 2 Cor. i. 8, 9). When and how these friends had 
 thus shewn their love we know not. 
 
 unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of 
 the Gentiles :] Paul feels that had his work been cut short it would 
 have be6n a loss to the whole Gentile world. The Jewish world was 
 otherwise provided for, but the cause of Christianity among the Gen- 
 tiles was bound up with the life of Paul, 
 
 5. and salute the church ;hat is in their house.] The Christian 
 assemblies of a great city were as yet without a public place of con- 
 
 in, ■■■fflfciiPniii 
 
vv. 6-12.1 ROMANS XVI. 251 
 
 gregation, and hence must have inei; in dutdchinentB, which is prob* 
 ably the meaning of the expreasion used liere. 
 
 Salute Epsenetus my beloved, who is the firstfruits of Asia unto 
 Christ.] A convert either during Paul's short visit to Ephesus or 
 during the subsequent labours of Prisca and Aquila. If the latter, 
 he may, as Godet suggests, have accompanied them to Rome. Paul 
 plays lovingly with the names, " the praised one " and " my beloved 
 one." The reading of "Asia" instead of "Achaia" is supposed to 
 point to Ephesus as the destination of this part of tlie Epistle. It is 
 not, however, sufficient, even in connection with the third verse, to 
 establish the probability of such a theory. 
 
 6. Salute Mary, who bestowed much labour on you.] The use 
 of the aorist tense and the reading "you," well-established instead 
 of "us," suggest that this woman had occupied an important place 
 in the work of evangelization at Rome, in fact, in founding the 
 church. In reference to works of charity the aorist tense would 
 scarcely be used. It would not stand out as a fact of the past. 
 
 ^. Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow- 
 prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have 
 been in Chust before me.] Few passages are more tantalizing to 
 mere curiosity than this. What was the relationship of these per- 
 sons to Paul ? When and where were they his fellow-prisoners ? 
 How comes it that men so well known are not elsewhere mentioned ? 
 We only learn from the whole the fragmentary character of our 
 knowledge of the apostolic age. 
 
 8. Salute Ampliatus my beloved in the Lord.] This, as a defi- 
 nite Latin name, brings us nearer to Rome. 
 
 9. Salute Urbanus our fellow-worker in Christ, and Stachys 
 my beloved.] The designation points to evangelistic work, in which 
 Stachys may have been an assistant, as Mark With Paul and Barnabas. 
 
 ID. Salute Apelles the approved in Christ.] A Christian who 
 had passed through the furnace of trial. 
 
 Salute them which are of the household of Aristobulus.] Slaves 
 or freedmen in the household of a man of wealth who himself is not 
 saluted, either because dead or because not a Christian. The whole 
 house seem included as all Christian. 
 
 11. Salute Herodion my kinsman.] This personal designation 
 tells us less than either of the others. Kinsman or countryman. 
 
 Salute them of the household of Narcissus, which are in the 
 Lord.] Here the Christian portion of the household is distinguished. 
 It can only be conjecture as to whether this Narcissus was the freed- 
 man of Claudius, executed before this date, or the bad favourite of 
 Nero. 
 
 12. Salute Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. 
 Salute Persis the beloved, which laboured much in the Lord.] 
 The mention of these three women, with Mary and Prisca and Phoebe 
 preceding, shows us how prominent was the part taken by women in 
 the work of the gospel, and how fully their work was sanctioned by 
 
2.')2 - ROMANS XVT. fvv. 13-17. 
 
 Paul. Meyer notes the delicacy indicated by the fact that Paul does 
 not say ' ' my beloved," as of the men, Hera was the universal esteem 
 of the church. Her work was now finished, and the fruit of it re- 
 mained in this precious title. 
 
 13. Salute Rufus the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and 
 mine.] A Rufus is mentioned in Mark. xv. 21. Was this the same? 
 The intimate acquaintance of Paul with so many at Rome may be ex- 
 plained by the fact that to the great capital the stream of travel and 
 commerce converged from all parts of the world. See also the greet- 
 ing of Paul at Appii Forum (Acts xxviii. 15). 
 
 14. Salute Asyncritus, Phlegmon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, 
 and the brethren that are with them. ] A group, perhaps, forming 
 one of the divisions of the Christian church at Rome, as the assembly 
 in the house of Prisca and Aquila was another. 
 
 15. Salute Philologfus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and 
 Olympas, and all the saints that are with them.] Here is another 
 group, the fifth so meutioned. If each of these represented a church 
 or assembly of Christians, then we may perhaps regard them as 
 branches of the central assembly to which the Epistle was more 
 especially directed, and to which the next and final salutation is 
 presented. 
 
 16. Salute one another with a holy kiss.] A custom observed 
 in the primitive church. See TertuUian, De Oratioue, xiv. : "Hav- 
 ing fasted, and prayer being offered, they bring in the kiss of peace 
 with the brethren, which is the seal of prayer, since the more peace 
 prevails among the brethren the more acceptably does prayer ascend." 
 
 All the churches of Christ salute you.] That is, return in spirit 
 the kiss of peace just given to each other. This final clause thus be- 
 comes, not a message from all the churches to that at Rome (these 
 are delivered further on), but an expression of the universal brother 
 hood expressed by the kiss of charity. 
 
 Ch. XVI. 17-20. Final and Specific Warning against the 
 
 False Teachers. 
 
 17. Now I beseech you, brethrein, mark them which are causing 
 the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine 
 which ye learned:] We must first of all define the parties here re- 
 ferred to. They were teachers, inasmuch as their work is here con- 
 trasted with the didactic form of teaching or doctrine which the 
 church at Rome had learned. We have already seen good reason to 
 believe that the church at Rome had been evangelized under the 
 Pauline form of doctrine. The teaching of the Jadaizers would 
 therefore answer to this part of the description. The application to 
 their work of the term "scandal," so prominently used in chapters 
 xiv. and xv. of the results of the Jewish perversion of the gospel, 
 also points in the same direction. The term " divisions " is also used 
 in 1 Cor. iii. 3 of the dissensions there sown by the Judaizing teach- 
 
vv. 18, 19.] ROMANS XVI. 253 
 
 ers; and although the word does not occur in chapter xiv., yet the 
 fact itself is there. Further, in our text the article is used without 
 a limiting phrase. "The divisions and the scandals " can only mean 
 some well-known divisions, etc. And as the apostle refers to these 
 in general terms, and does not say that they existed at Rome (among 
 you), we must take tliem of a widespread schism and otience in the 
 church. The Judaizing faction alone corresponds to this descrip- 
 tion. If so then the short section now before us is a specific, almost 
 personal, warning of the believers at Rome against the danger of 
 these Jewish teachers. It does not imply tliat they were as yet at 
 work in Rome. It does imply that they were at work in the church 
 at large ; the present participle, used without limitation of time or 
 place, would indicate this. In the preceding Epistle Paul had laid 
 bare every possible aspect of this great error, but had done so with- 
 out reference to the })ersons who taught. He kept his great exposi- 
 tion and defence of the universal ethical gospel free from all compli- 
 cation with personal controversy, such as appears in the Epistle 
 to the (Jalatians. The personal warning against the false teachers 
 (needful in itself) is therefore thrown into this brief appendix amid 
 personal matters. The verb which Paul here uses, ''look out for," 
 implies that they had not yet come to Rome. It is the vigilance of 
 the sentinel. 
 
 and turn away from them.] The very opposite of the " receive " 
 of chapter xiv. 1. It implies refusal to admit them to the freedom 
 and courtesies of the Christian assembly, where, as in the synagogue, 
 a visiting brother was iVee and even invited to speak. 
 
 i8. For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their 
 own belly;] But how could this be said of the Judaizers? To 
 answer this we have only to remember that their doctrine maintained 
 the old sacrificial feasts, which had been the delight of the well-fed 
 priest in every age. On Paul's rigid self-restraint in this matter see 
 1 Cor. ix. and 2 Cor. xi., etc., where there are not obscure hints that 
 others made gain of the Corinthian church. 
 
 and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of 
 the innocent.] Compare 1 Cor. ii. 1 ; 2 Cor. vii, 2; x. 10, 11 ; xi. 1.3. 
 
 19. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men.] Compare 
 chapter i. 8. "Obedience" expresses the ready faith with which 
 they had received the gospel. This clause should, we think, be con- 
 nected directly with KopaKnTiu, verse 17, "I exhort thus because 
 your obedience to the pure faith of the gospel is so well known. " 
 
 I rejoice therefore over you:] "as partakers with me in the full 
 liberty and privileges of the gospel." This rejoicing would thus ex- 
 liress the fellowship and unity of the church at Rome with Paul in 
 his doctrine, as the next expresses his desire that it should not be 
 broken in upon by false teaching. 
 
 but I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple 
 unto that which is evil.] Se here, without a fiev preceding, may be 
 rendered "and." It is continuative. "'I exhort yovi,' for your 
 
254 ROMANS XVI. [w. 20-23. 
 
 obedience has come abroad to all. I therefore rejoice over you, and 
 would have you," etc. The play upon the word "simple," in the 
 authorized version, is not found in the Greek, and has tended to 
 mislead as to the connection. There may be in the word " wise " a 
 reference to the assumed wisdom of the false teachers. They alone 
 possessed the knowledge of the true teaching of Christ and of the 
 true apostles. The word translated " simple " signifies " unmixed," 
 hence pure, unmixed with evil. Paul desires his readers to be pos- 
 sessed of all true wisdom, but uncontaminated by the admixture of 
 false teaching. 
 
 20. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet 
 shortly.] Literally, " shall bruise the Opposer under your feet in a 
 little time." The God of peace is opposed to those who cause dis- 
 sension. On the reference to Satan here compare 2 Cor. xi. 13-15, 
 where the same false teachers are called the "ministers of Satan." 
 "Shortly" is not to be taken, we think, of date, as if the day of 
 judgment were near at hand, but of manner. A speedy victory will 
 be gained over such opposing power of Satan. It is perhaps the 
 thought with which this brief warning concludes which calls in here 
 the shortest form of benediction. 
 
 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.] See a similar 
 brief benediction at the close of the longer personal postscript (ch. 
 XV. 33). 
 
 Ch. XVI. 21-23. Salutations from Paul's Associates. 
 
 21. Timothy my fellow-worker saluteth you;] See Acts xx. 4. 
 The same term is applied to Prisca and Aquila, and to Urbauus. 
 
 and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen.] These names 
 appear in Acts xiii. 1; xvii. 5; and a similar one in xx 4, but we 
 cannot aflirm the identity. 
 
 22. I Tertius, who write the epistle, salute you in the Lord.] 
 The aorist participle may be taken substantively as equal to "the 
 writer," i.e., the amanuensis usually employed by Paul. (See 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 21 and Gal. vi. 11.) 
 
 23. Gains my host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. ] We 
 meet this name four times elsewhere in the New Testament: Acts 
 xix. 29, Gaius of Macedoni-*.; Acts xx. 4, Gains of Dei-be ; 1 Cor. i. 14, 
 almost certainly the same as here; and 3 John 1. He was distin- 
 guished for hospitality in that age of ( hristian hospitality. 
 
 Erastus the treasurer of the city saluteth you, and Quartus the 
 brother.] The mention of this important officer gives us an idea of 
 the influence of Christianity in this great Greek city. 
 
 The textuH receptm inserts a brief benediction after this verse as 
 verse 24, which is omitted in the revised text. 
 
vv. 25, 26.] * rU)MANS XVI. 265 
 
 Ch. XVI. 25-27. DoxoLOGY. 
 
 25. Now to him that is able to stablish you according to my 
 gospel] This closing doxology resembles the opening address in the 
 skilful condensation of an epitomized argument into a series of ad- 
 juncts and relative clauses. The doxology itself is contained in the 
 opening article and participle and in the concluding line, in which 
 there is a broken grammatical construction, caused by the introduc- 
 tion of the relative. AH else is the epitome of a grand argument in 
 adjuncts of the opening participle. 
 
 " To him that is able to stablish you." This was, in fact, the pur- 
 pose of the fjpistle. The word denotes the perfect settlement of the 
 religious life on the foundation of truth. This truth was the gospel 
 which Paul preached, and of which he has just given us so full an 
 exposition. 
 
 and the preaching of Jesus Christ,] " The preaching " generally 
 signifies the truth preached, and is used by Paul with "gospel" 
 to designate the entire form of truth for the world's salvation with 
 which he was put in trust (1 Cqr. ii. 4 and xv. 14). This gospel and 
 preaching is to be the rule according to which they are to be estab- 
 lished. But this itself has had an antecedent rule with which it 
 accords. 
 
 according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept 
 in silence through times eternal, ] Of the various constructions of 
 this adjunct we prefer on the whole to connect it directly with to 
 KTjpvyfia. We should then translate and punctuate as follows: "Ac- 
 cording to my gospel, and to the preaching of Jesus Christ which ia 
 according to the revelation of the mystery," etc. " My gospel " is a 
 definite phrase needing no further definition. But by describing it 
 by the parallel expression, " the preaching of Christ which is accord- 
 ing to the revelation of the mystery, " Paul at once opens out the full 
 grandeur of this gospel. It is the line of God's clevtlopment of hia 
 great design. In this word airomhiijjig Paul anticipated the true doc- 
 trine of religious development. For the full expansion of this thought 
 consult the Epistle to the Ephesians in the first three chapters. 
 
 26. but now is manifested,] In emphatic contrast with "the 
 silence of the ages." On the relation of the " manifestation " to the 
 "revelation" compare chapter i. 18, etc. The manifestation is the 
 culmination and result of the long revealing process which fills the 
 ages. The mystery is the truth still in part concealed in God's 
 silence, but in part revealed. 
 
 and by the scriptures of the prophets,] Better the margin, 
 "through means of." We have had abundant illustration of Paul's 
 use of the prophetic scriptures in bringing to light his gospel. Thia 
 adjunct modifies " made known." 
 
 according to the commandment of the eternal God,] A second 
 adjunct of "made known." No point was clearer in Paul's mind 
 than this,' that in this proclamation of the universal gospel he acted 
 
ifii* ■?■* .^. 
 
 256 ROMANS XVI. [v. 27. 
 
 under a divine commission, by divine command. This command is 
 that of the eterncd God, who through the eternal ages hath unfolded 
 his design. 
 
 is made known unto all the nations] "Unto" is not the mere 
 dative of "to " or " for." It expresses destination, purpose. God's 
 purpose as to extent reaches " all nations." 
 
 unto obedience of faith;] The same preposition of purpose, but 
 now purpose of efficiency. But in both purposes God commits the 
 accomplishment of his will to man. 
 
 27. to the only wise God,] A parting glance at the theme of the 
 of tlie hymn of the ages (ch. \i. 33). 
 
 through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen.] 
 The ancient authorities who omit "to whom" are at least right in 
 interpretation. In the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ Paul has 
 shewn us the wisdom of God, as he had proved in experience the 
 power of God ; and now he calls upon the church of all ages to join 
 with him in ascribing " to the only wise God the gloiy " ( ' this great 
 salvation. And to the end of the ages the chur». h w.i; still say, 
 "Amen!"