LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, N.J. '^ Purchased by the Mary Cheves Dulles Fund Ccyy I UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.LlTT., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopcedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York ; The Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.LlTT., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford; The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D., S«m*titHe Master of Univirsity College, Durham. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS Rev. W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D. AND Rev. a. C. HEADLAM, B,D. The international Critical Commentary ^N OF mnc^ o-o - 1 1903 A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMAN? BY THE Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LLJ3. LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD AND THE Rev. ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, B..D FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE, OXFORD \T ^ h NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS Printed in the United States of Americ; All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the permission of Charles Scribner's Sons PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION We are indebted to the keen sight and disinterested care of friends for many small corrections. We desire to thank especially Professor Lock, Mr. C. H. Turner, the Revs. F. E. Brightman, and R. B. Rackham. We have also, where necessary, inserted references to the edition of 4 Ezra, by the late Mr. Bensly, published in Texts and Studies, iii. 2. No more extensive recasting of the Commentary has been attempted. W. S. A. C. H. Oxford, Lent,, 1896. PREFACE The commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans w^hich already exist in English, unlike those on some other Books of the New Testament, are so good and so varied that to add to their number may well seem superfluous. Fortunately for the present editors the responsibility for attempting this does not rest with thenL In a series of commentaries on the New Testament it was impossible that the Epistle to the Romans should not be included and should not hold a prominent place. There are few books which it is more difficult to exhaust and few in regard to which there is more to be gained from renewed interpretation by different minds working under different conditions. If it is a historical fact that the spiritual revivals of Christendom have been usually associated with closer study of the Bible, this would be true in an eminent degree of the Epistle to the Romans. The editors are under no illusion as to the value of their own special con- tribution, and they will be well content that it should find its proper level and be assimilated or left behind as it deserves. Perhaps the nearest approach to anything at all dis- tinctive in the present edition would be (i) the distribution of the subject-matter of the commentary, (2) the attempt to furnish an interpretation of the Epistle which might be described as historical. Some experience in teaching has shown that if a difficult Vi r&BFACI Epistle like the Romans b really to be understood and grasped at once as a whole and in its parts, the argumspi should be presented in several different ways and on several different scales at the same time. And it is an advantage when the matter of a commentary can be so broken up that by means of headlines, headings to sections, summaries, paraphrases, and large and small print notes, the reader may not either lose the main thread of the argument In the crowd of details, or slur over details in seeking to obtain a general idea. While we are upon this subject, we may explain that the principle which has guided the choice of large and small print for the notes and longer discussions is not exactly that of greater or less importance, but rather that of greater or less directness of bearing upon the exegesis of the text. This principle may not be carried out with perfect uniformity : it was an experiment the effect of which could not always be judged until the commentary was in print ; but when once the type was set the possibility of improvement was hardly worth the trouble and expense of resetting. The other main object at which we have aimed is th?|l of making our exposition of the Epistle historical, that & of assigning to it its true position in place and iime — on the one hand in relation to contemporary Jewish thought, and on the other hand in relation to the growing body of Christian teaching. We have endeavoured always to bear in mind not only the Jewish education and training of the writer, which must clearly have given him the framework of thought and language in which his ideas are cast, but also the position of the Epistle in Christian literature. It was written when a large part of the phraseology of the newly created body was still fluid, when a number of words had not yet come to have a fixed meaning, when their origin and associations — to us obscure — were still fresh and vivid. The problem which a commentator ought to propose to himself in the first instance Is not what answer PREFACE Vll does the Epistle give to questions which are occupying men's minds now, or which have occupied them in any past period of Church history, but what were the questions of the time at which the Epistle was written and what meaning did his words and thoughts convey to the writer himself It is in the pursuit of this original meaning that we have drawn illustrations somewhat freely from Jewish writings, both from the Apocryphal literature which is mainly the product of the period between loo B.c and loo A.D., and (although less fully) from later Jewish literature. In the former direction we have been much assisted by the attention which has been bestowed in recent years on these writings, particularly by the excellent editions of the Psalms of Solomon and of the Book of Enoch. It is by a continuous and careful study of such works that any advance in the exegesis of the New Testament will be possible. For the later Jewish literature and the teaching of the Rabbis we have found ourselves in a position of greater difficulty. A first-hand acquaintance with this literature we do not possess, nor would it be easy for most students of the New Testament to acquire it. Moreover complete agreement among the specialists on the subject does not as yet exist, and a perfectly trustworthy standard of criticism seems to be wanting. We cannot therefore feel altogether confident of our ground. At the same time we have used such material as was at our disposal, and cer- tainly to ourselves it has been of great assistance, partly as suggesting the common origin of systems of thought which have developed very differently, partly by the striking contrasts which it has afforded to Christian teaching. Our object is historical and not dogmatic Dogmatics arc indeed excluded by the plan of this series of commen- taries, but they are excluded also by the conception which we have formed for ourselves of our duty as commentators. We have sought before all things to understand St. Paul, viii PREFACE and to understand him not only in relation to hit fur- roundiiigs but also to those permanent facts of human nature on which his system is based. It is possible that in so far as we may succeed in doing this, data may be supplied which at other times and in other hands may be utilized for purposes of dogmatics ; but the final adjust- tients of Christian doctrine have not been in our thoughts. To this general aim all other features of the commentary are subordinate. It is no part of our design to be in the least degree exhaustive. If we touch upon the history of exegesis it is less for the sake of that history in itself than as helping to throw into clearer relief that interpretation which we believe to be the right one. And in like manner we have not made use of the Epistle as a means for illustrating New Testament grammar or New Testament diction, but we deal with questions of grammar and diction just so far as they contribute to the exegesis of the text before us. No doubt there will be omissions which are not to be excused in this way. The literature on the Epistle to the Romans is so vast that we cannot pretend to have really mastered it. We have tried to take account of monographs and commentaries of the most recent date, but here again when we have reached what seemed to us a satisfactory explanation we have held our hand. In regard to one book in particular, Dr. Bruce's St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, which came out as our own work was far advanced, we thought it best to be quite independent. On the other hand we have been glad to have access to the sheets relating to Romans in Dr. Hort's forthcoming Introductions to Romans and Ephesians, which, through the kindness of the editors, have been in our possession since December last. The Commentary and the Introduction have been about equally divided between the two editors ; but they have each been carefully over the work of the other, and they desire to accept a joint responsibility for the whole. The PREFACE Ix editors themselves are conscious of having gained much by this co-operation, and they hope that this gain may be set off against a certain amount of unevenness which was inevitable. It only remains for them to express their obligations and thanks to those many friends who have helped them directly or indirectly in various parts of the work, and more especially to Dr. Plummer and the Rev. F. E. Brightmzm of the Pusey House. Dr. Plummer, as editor of the series, has read through the whole of the Com- mentary more than once, and to his courteous and careful criticism they owe much. To Mr. Brightman they are indebted for spending upon the proof-sheets of one half of the Commentary greater care and attention than many men have the patience to bestow on work of their own. The reader is requested to note the table of abbreviations on p. ex ff., and the explanation there given as to the Greek text made use of in the Commentary. Some addi* tional references are given in the Index (p. 444 ff). W. SANDAY. A. C. HEADLAM. Okvokb, WMltwntUi$, 1%^ CONTENTS INTRODUCTION xiii-cu i I. Rome in A. D. 58 . . , , . . . . xiii a. The Jews in Rome . xviii 3. The Roman Church xxv 4. Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose . « ,xx\\\ }. Argument xiiv 6. Language and Style . Iii f. Text . Ixiii 8. Literary History ........ ixx'w 9. Integrity ....... .Ixxxv 10. Commentaries ....... .xcviii Abbreviations ........ cx-cxii COMMENTARY I-436 Dbtached Notes: The Theological Terminolo^ of Rom. 1. I-7 . . . 17 The word SiKaiof and its cognates 28 The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in some Jewish Writings 31 The Righteousness of God 34 St. Paul's Description of the Condition of the Heathen World 49 Use of the Book of Wisdom in Chapter i . . • • $1 The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice ... 91 The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by St James loa Jewish Teaching on Circumcision 108 The Place of the Resurrection ol Christ fan the teaching (rf St Paul 116 li the Society or tbm ladivtdital the {Hoper object of Justificatioa ? 12a CONTENTS The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement . • » . 129 The Effects of Adam's Fall in Jewish Theology , . . 136 St Paul's Conception of Sin and of the Fall .... 143 History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of iiKaiaxris .......*. 147 The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ . . . l63 The Inward Conflict t . 184 St Paul's View of the Law 187 The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit . . . .199 The Renovation of Nature 2Io The Privileges of Israel >3' The Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5 133 The Divine Election 248 The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament . . . 157 The Power and Rights of God as Creator .... 266 The Relation of St Paul's Argument in chap, ix to the Book of Wisdom 267 A History of the Interpretation of Rom. ix. 6-29 . . . 269 The Argument of ix. 30-x. 21 : Human Responsibility . 300 St. Paul's Use of the Old Testament 302 The Doctrine of the Remnant ...... 316 The Merits of the Fathers 330 The Argument of Romans ix-xi 34* St Paul's Philosophy of History 342 The Salvation of the Individual : FreeWill and Predesti- nation . . 347 Sphitual Gifts 358 The Church and the Civil Power ..»•.. 369 The History of the word ayuTTi; ...••• 374 The Christian Teaching on Love 376 The early Christian belief in the nearness of the irmpwwim . 379 The relation of Chapters xii-xiv to the Gospels . . . 381 What sect or party is referred to in Rom. xiv ? , . . 399 Aquila and PrisciU* .....••. 418 INDEX : I Subjects 437 II Latin Words 443 III Greek Words ........ 44J INTRODUCTION § I. Rome in a.d. 58. It was daring the winter 57-58, or early in the spring of the year 58, according to almost all calculations, that St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, and that we thus obtain the first trust- worthy information about the Roman Church. Even if there be some slight error in the calculations, it is in any case impossible that this date can be far wrong, and the Epistle must certainly have been written during the early years of Nero's reign. It would be unwise to attempt a full account either of the city or the empire at this date, but for the illustration of the Epistle and for the comprehension of St. Paul's own mind, a brief reference to a few leading features in the history of each is necessary '. For certainly St. Paul was influenced by the name of Rome. In Rome, great as it is, and to Romans, he wishes to preach the Gospel : he prays for a prosperous journey that by the will of God he may come unto them : he longs to see them : the universality of the Gospel makes him desire to preach it in the universal city '. And the impression which we gain from the Epistle to the Romans is supported by our other sources of information. The desire to visit Rome dominates the close of the Acts of the Apostles : ' After I have been there, I must also see Rome.' ' As thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome'.' The imagery of citizenship has impressed itself upon his language *. And this was the result both of his experience and of his birth. Wherever Christianity had been preached the Roman authorities had appeared as the power which restrained * The main aathoritiet used for this section are Fameanx, Tlu Annah of Tacitus, vol. ii, and Schiller, Gtukithtt dts Romiuhtm Kaisstrreuht umtet der RtgitruHg des Ner», * Rom. l 8-15. * Acts xix. 31 ; xxiiL ti. * Phil. L 37 ; iii. ao; Ei^i. fi. 19; Acts zziii. g. XlV EPISTiJft TO THE ROMANS [§ I the forces of erfl opposed to it *. The worst pereecutioi) of the Christians had been while Judaea was under the rule of a native prince. Eveiywhere the Jews had stirred up persecutions, and the imperial oflScials had interfered and protected the Apostle. And so both in this Epistle and throughout his life St. Paul emphasizes the duty of obedience to the civil government, and the necessity of fulfilling our obligations to it. But also St. Paul wa^ himself a Roman citizen. This privilege, not then so common as it became later, would naturally broaden die view and impress the imagination of a provincial ; and it is significant that the first clear conception of the universal character inherent in Christianity, the first bold step to carry it out, and the capacity to realize the import- ance of the Roman Church should come from an Apostle who was not a Galilaean peasant but a citizen of a universal empire. ' We camiot fail to be struck with the strong hold that Roman ideas had on the mind of St. Paul,' writes Mr. Ramsay, ' we feel compelled to suppose that St. Paul had conceived the great idea of Christianity as the religion of the Roman world ; and that he thought of the various districts and countries in which he had preached as parts of the grand unity. He had the mind of an organizer ; and to him the Christians of his earliest travels were not men of Iconium and of Antioch — they were a part of the Roman world, and were addressed by him as such *.' It was during the early years of Nero's reign that St. Paul first came into contact with the Roman Church. And the period is significant. It was what later times called the Quinquennium of Nero, and remembered as the happiest period of the Empire since the death of Augustus •• Nor was the judgement unfounded. It is ' s Thess. ii. 7 4 anrixv, 6 rb KaT^xov. It is well known that the commonest interpretation of these words among the Fathers was the Roman Empire (see the Cattna of passages in Alford, iii. p. 56 fT.), and this accords most suitably with the time when the Epistle was written {c. 53 A.D.). The only argument of any value for a later date and the unauthentic character of the whole Epistle or of the eschatological sections (ii. 1-12) is the attempt to explain this passage of the return of Nero, but such an interpretation is quite unnecessary, and does not particularly suit the words. St. Paul's experience had taught him that there were lying restrained and checked great forces of evil which might at any time burst out, and this he calls the ' mystery of iniquity,' and describes in the language of the O. T. prophets. But everywhere the power of the civil government, as embodied in the Roman Empire {76 Karixov) and visibly personified in the Emperor (0 narixoiv), restrained these forces. Such an interpretation, either of the eschatological passages of the Epistle or of the Apocalypse, does not destroy their deeper spiritual meaning ; for the writers of the New Testament, as the prophets 01 the Old, reveal to us and generalize the spiritual forces of good and evil which underlie the surfiace of society. ' Ramsay, Tk4 Ckurth in tkt Jtcmam Empirt, pp. 147, 148; cf. also pp. 60, 70, 158 n. See also Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 202-205. • Aur. Victor, Cats. 5, Epit. 12, Unde quidam prodidere. Traianum solitum iktr*,fr$cul distort amctcs principes m Nercnis quinqitennio The ezpressioo § L] ROME IN A.D. 58 XV probable that even the worst excesses of Nero, Uke die wont enielty of Tiberius, did little harm to the mass of the people even in Rome ; and many even of the faults of the Emperors assisted in working out the new ideas which the Empire was creating. But at present we have not to do with faults. Members of court circles might have unpleasant and exaggerated stories to tell about the death of Britannicus ; tales might have been circulated of hardly pardon- able excesses committed by the Emperor and a noisy band of companions wandering at night in the streets; the more respect- able of the Roman aristocracy would consider an illicit union with a freedwoman and a taste for music, literature, and the drama. signs of degradation, but neither in Rome nor in the provinces v\ ould the populace be offended ; more far-seeing observers might be able to detect worse signs, but if any ordinary citizen, or if any one acquainted with the provinces had been questioned, he would certainly have answered that the government of the Empire was good. This was due mainly to the gradual development of the ideas on which the Empire had been founded. The structure which had been sketched by the genius of Caesar, and built up by the art of Augustus, if allowed to develop freely, guaranteed naturally certain conditions of progress and good fortune. It was due also to the wise administration of Seneca and of Burros. It was due apparently also to flashes of gerios and love of popularity on the part of the Emperor himself. The provinces were well governed. Judaea was at this time preparing for insurrection under the role of Felix, but he was a legacy from the reign of Claudius. The diflBculties in Armenia were met at once and vigorously by the appointment of Corbulo; the rebellion in Britain was wisely dealt with ; even at the end of Nero's reign the appointment of Vespasian to Judaea, as soon as the serious character of the revolt was known, shows that the Emperor still had the wisdom to select and the courage to appoint able men. During the early years a long list is given of trials for repeiundae ; and the number of convictions, while it shows that provincial government was not free from corruption, proves that it was becoming more and more possible to obtain justice. It was the corruption of the last reign that was condemned by the justice of the present. In the year 56, Vipsanius Laenas, governor of Sardinia, was condemned for extortion; in 57, Capito, the 'Cilician pirate,' was struck down by the senate 'wiih a righteous thunderbolt.' Amongst the accusations against auinquennium may have been snggested by the ctrtamen fuinqtunnaU which Nero founded in Rome, as Die tells at, \iv\p T171 aatTTjpias r^ re Suz/toi^i to9 Kpdrovs avTov, Dio, £pii. Ixi. 21 ; Tac. Amm. xiv. ao; Soet. N«r» la; CL the coins described, Eckhel, vi. 364 ; Cohen, L p. aSa, 47-6$. CKE. QVIlia aoM. 00. xvl EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ L Suillius in 58 was the misgovernment of Asia. And not only were the favourites of Claudius condemned, better men were appointed in their place. It is recorded that freedmen were never made procurators of imperial provinces. And the Emperor was able in many cases, in that of Lyons, of Cyrene, and probably of Ephesus, to assist and pacify the provincials by acts of generosity and benevolence \ We may easily, perhaps, lay too much stress on some of the measures attributed to Nero ; but many of them show, if not the policy of his reign, at any rate the tendency of the Empire. The police regulations of the city were strict and well executed *. An attack was made on the exactions of pubUcans, and on the excessive power of freedmen. Law was growing in exactness owing to the influence of Jurists, and was justly administered except where the Emperor's personal wishes intervened '. Once the Emperor — was it a mere freak or was it an act of far-seeing political insight? — proposed a measure of free trade for the whole Empire. Governors of provinces were forbidden to obtain condonation for exactions by the exhibition of games. The proclamation of freedom to Greece may have been an act of dramatic folly, but the extension of Latin rights meant that the provincials were being gradually put more and more on a level with Roman citizens. And the provinces flourished for the most part under this rule. It seemed almost as if the future career of a Roman noble might depend upon the goodwill of his provincial subjects *. And wherever trade could flourish there wealth accumulated. Laodicea was so rich that the inhabitants could rebuild the city without aid from Rome, and Lyons could contribute 4,000,000 sesterces at the time of the great fire •. When, then, St. Paul speaks of the ' powers that be ' as being ' ordained by God ' ; when he says that the ruler is a minister of God for good ; when he is giving directions to pay * tribute ' and ' custom ' ; he is thinking of a great and beneficent power which has made travel for him possible, which had often interfered to protect him against an angry mob of his own countrymen, undei which he had seen the towns through which he passed enjoying peace, prosperity and civilization. * For the provincial administration of Nero see Fnrneaiut, op. cit. pp. 56, 57 ; W. T. Arnold, Th* Roman System of Prcmincial AdministratUfH, pp. 135, 137 ; Tac. Ann. xiii. 30, 31, 33, 50, 51, 53-57. * Suetonius, Nero 16. Schiller, p. 420. =• Schiller, pp. 381, 381: * In dem Mechanismus de» gerichtlichen Ver- fiihrens, im Privatrecht, in der Ausbildnng nnd Fordenmg der Rechtswiisen- schaft, selbst anf dem Gebiete der Apoellation konnen gegriindete Vorwiirfe kanm erhoben warden. Die kaiserliche Regienmg liess die Verhaltniise hiei nibig deii Gang gehen, welchea ibnen friihere Regierangen angewiesen luuien.' * Tac Ann. xv. ao, ai. ' Arnold, p. 137. f L] ROME IN A.D. 58 xvii Bnt k was not only Nero, it was Seneca * also who was ruling in Rome when St Paul wrote to the Church there. The attempt to find any connexions literary or otherwise between St. Paul and Seneca may be dismissed ; but for the growth of Christian principles, still more perhaps for that of the principles which prepared the way for the spread of Christianity, the fact is of extreme significance. It was the first public appearance of Stoicism in Rome, as largely in- fluencing politics, and shaping the future of the Empire. It is a strange irony that makes Stoicism the creed which inspired the noblest representatives of the old regime, for it was Stoicism which provided the philosophic basis for the new imperial system, and this was nof the last time that an aristocracy perished in obedience to their own morality. What is important for our purpose is to notice that the humanitarian and universalist ideas of Stoicism were already begin- ning to permeate society. Seneca taught, for example, the equality in some sense of all men, even slaves ; but it was the populace n ho a few years later (a.d. 61) protested when the slaves of the murdered Pedanius Secundus were led out to execution '. Seneca and many of the Jurists were permeated with the Stoic ideas of humanity and benevolence; and however little these principles might influence their individual conduct they gradually moulded and changed the law and the system of the Empire. If we turn from the Empire to Rome, we shall find that just those vices which the moralist deplores in the aristocracy and the Emperor helped to prepare the Roman capital for the advent of Christianity. If there had not been large foreign colonies, there could never have been any ground in the world where Christianity could have taken root strongly enough to influence the surrounding population, and it was the passion for luxury, and the taste for philosophy and literature, even the vices of the court, which demanded Greek and Oriental assistance. The Emperor must have teachers in philosophy, and in acting, in recitation and in flute- playing, and few of these would be Romans. The statement of Chrysostom that St. Paul persuaded a concubine of Nero to accept Christianity and forsake the Emperor has probably little foundation*, the conjecture that this concubine was Acte is worthless ; but it may illustrate how it was through the non-Roman element of Roman society that Christianity spread. It is not possible to estimate the exact proportion of foreign elements in a Roman household, but a study of the names in any of the Columbaria of the imperial period * See Lightfoot, Si. Paul and Seneca, Philippians, p. a68. To this period of his life belong the imoKoKoKvvrojai^, the De dementia, the De Vita Beata, the De Beneficiis, and the De Constantia Sapientit. See Teuffel, History ^ Roman Literature, translated by Warr, ii, 42. * Tac. Ann. xiv. 42-45. * Chrysostooa Horn, in AH. App. 46, 3. ll xviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ L will illustrate how large that element was. Men and women oi every race lived together in the great Roman slave world, or when they had received the gift of freedom remained attached as clients and friends to the great houses, often united by ties of the closest intimacy with their masters and proving the means by which every form of strange superstition could penetrate into the highest circles of society *. And foreign superstition was beginning to spread. The earliest monuments of the worship of Mithras date from the time of Tiberius. Lucan in his Pharsalia celebrates the worship of Isis in Rome ; Nero himself reverenced the Syrian Goddess, who was called by many names, but is known to us best as Astarte ; Judaism came near to the throne with Poppaea Sabina, whose influence over Nero is first traced in this year58; while the story of PomponiaGraecinawho,inthe year 5 7, was entrusted to her husband for trial on the charge of 'foreign superstition' and whose long old age was clouded with continuous sadness, has been taken as an instance of Christianity. There are not inconsiderable grounds for this view; but in any case the accusation against her is an illustration that there was a path by which a new and foreign religion like Christianity could make its way into the heart of the Roman aristocracy *. § a. The Jews in Rome*. There are indications enough that when he looked towards Rome St. Paid thought of it as the seat and centre of the Empire. But he had at the same time a smaller and a narrower object. His chief interest lay in those litde scattered groups of Christians of whom he had heard through Aquila and Prisca, and probably ^ We have collected die following names from the contents of one colnm- barium (C. /. L. vi. a, p. 941). It dates from a period rather earlier than thii. It must be remembered that the proportion of foreigners would really be larger than appears, for many of them would take a Roman name. Amaranthus 5 180, Chrysantus 5183, Serapio {bis) 5187, Pylaemcnianus 5188, Creticus 5197, Asclepiades 5201, Melicus 5217, Antigonus 5227, Cypare 5229, Lezbius 5221, Amaryllis 5258, Perseus 5279, Apamea 5287 a, Ephesia 5299, Alexandrianus 5316, Phyliidianus 5331, Mithres 6.^44, Diadumenus 5355, Philnmenus 5401, Philogenes 5410, Graniae Nicopolinis 5419. Corinthus 5439, Antiochis 5437, Athenais 5478, Eucharistus 5477, Melitene 5490, Samothrace, Mystius 5527, Lesbus 5529. The following, contained among the above, leems to have a Sj ecial interest : 'H5i;«oj Ei)o5oC irpea/SewriJi ^avafopdruv rS/v Kara Buawopof, and 'Aavovpyos Bto^aao* vliJi ipfirjvdis ^ap/iirwv 0waiiopar6t S^Oj. * Tac. Ann xiii. 32 ; Lightfoot, Clement, L 30. * Since this section was written the author ha» had access to Berliner, Geschichte d.Juden in Rom (Frankfurt a. M. 1893^ which has enabled him to correct some current misconceptions. The facte are also excellently put togethf* by Schiirer, Neutest. Zeiigesck. ii. $05 ff. 9 a] THE JEWS IN ROME xix through others whom he met on his travels. And the thought of the Christian Church would at once connect itself with that larger community of which it must have been in some sense or other an oflfshoot, the Jewish settlement in the imperial city. (i) History. The first relations of the Jews with Rome go back to the time of the Maccabaean princes, when the struggling patriots of Judaea had some interests in common with the great Republic and could treat with it on independent terms. Embassies were sent imder Judas * (who died in i6o b.c.) and Jonathan* (who died in 143), and at last a formal alliance was concluded by Simon Maccabaeus in 140, 139*. It was characteristic that on this last occasion the members of the embassy attempted a religious propaganda and were in consequence sent home by the praetor Hispalus *. This wa« only preliminary 'ontact. The first considerable settlement of the Jews in Rome dates from the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey in b.c. 63 •. A number of the prisoners were sold as slaves; but their obstinate adherence to their national customs proved troublesome to their masters and most of them were soon manumitted. These released slaves were numerous and impor- tant enough to found a synagogue of their own *, to which they might resort when they went on pilgrimage, at Jerusalem. The policy of the early emf>erors favoured the Jews. They passionately bewailed the death of Julius, going by night as well as by day to his funeral pyre "* ; and under Augustus they were allowed to form a regular colony on the further side of the Tiber*, roughly speak- ing opposite the site of the modern 'Ghetto.' The Jews quarter was removed to the left bank of the river in 1556, and has been finally done away with since the Italian occupation. ' I Mace. viiL 17-33. * i Mace. rii. 1-4, 16. • I Mace. xiv. 74; XV. 15-24. • This statement is made on the aothority of Valerius Maximns I. ili. 2 (Excerpt. Parid.) : Judaeos qui Sabazi Jovis cultu Romanos injicere mores conati sunt, repetere domos suas coegit. Doubt is thrown upon it by Betliner (p. 4), but without sufficient reason. Val. Max. wrote under Tiberius, and made use of good sources. At the same time, what he says about Jupiter Sabazius it very probably based on a misunderstanding ; nor need we suppose that the action of some members of the embassy affected the relations of the two peoples, • This too is questioned by Berliner (p. 5 S.\ who points out that Philo, Leg. ud Caium 23, from which the statement is taken, makes no mention of Pompey But it is difficult to see what other occasion could answer to the description, as this does very well. Berliner however is more probably right in supposing that there must have been o'her and older settlers in Rome to account for the Umgnage of Cicero so early as B. c 59 (see below). These settlers may have come for purposes of trade. • It was called after them the ' synagogue of the Libertini ' (Acts vi. 10). ' Sneton. Caesar 84. • This was the quarter asnally assigned to prisoners of war {Bsschrtibung d Uadt Rom, III. iil 578). bs XX EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 1. Here the Jews soon took root and rapidly increased in numbers. It was still under the Republic (b.c. 59) that Cicero in his defence of Flaccus pretended to drop his voice for fear of them \ And when a deputation came from Judaea to complain of the mis- rule of Archelaus, no less than 8000 Roman Jews attached them- selves to it '. Though the main settlement was beyond the Tiber it must soon have overflowed into other parts of Rome. The Jews had a synagogue in connexion with the crowded Subura* and another probably in the Campus Martius. There were syna- gogues of AiyovaTfjcrioi and ' Ayptnnrjo-uH (i.e. either of the house- hold or under the patronage of Augustus * and his minister Agrippa), the position of which is uncertain but which in any case bespeak the importance of the community. Traces of Jewish cemeteries have been found in several out-!ying regions, one near the Porta Portuensis, two near the Via Appia and the catacomb of S. Callisto, and one at Portus, the harbour at the mouth of the Tiber '. Till some way on in the reign of Tiberius the Jewish colony flourished without interruption. But in a. d. 19 two scandalous cases occurring about the same time, one connected with the priests of Isis, and ihe other with a Roman lady who having become a proselyte to Judaism was swindled of money under pretence of sending it to Jerusalem, led to the adoption of repressive measures at once against the Jews and the Eg)^tians. Foixr thousand were banished to Sardinia, nominally to be employed in putting down banditti, but the historian scornfully hints that if they fell victims to the climate no one would have cared *. The end of the reign of Caligula was another anxious and critical time for the Jews. Philo has given us a graphic picture of the reception of a deputation which came with himself at its head to beg for protection from the riotous mob of Alexandria. The half-crazy emperor dragged the deputation after him from one point to another of his gardens only to jeer at them and refuse any further * The Jews were interested in this trial u Flaccus had laid hands 00 the money collected for the Temple at Jemsalem. Cicero's speech make* it dear that the Jews of Rome were a formidable body to offend. * Joseph An/. XVII. xi. i ; B./. II. vi. i. ' There is mention of an dpxoir 'SiPovptiolmr, C. /. G. 6447 (Schtirer, Gemeindeverfa^sung d. Juden in Rom, pp. 16, 35 ; Berliner, p. 94). Aa synagognes were not allowed within the pomotriutn {ibid, p. 16) we may snppose that the synagogue itself was withont the walls, bnt that its frequenter* came from the Subura. * Berliner conjectures that the complimentary title may have been giTen at a sort of equivalent for emperor- worship {op. cit. p. Ji). ' Data relating to the synagogues have been obtained from inscriptiona, which have been carefully collected and commented upon by Schvirer in the work quoted above (Leipzig, 1879), also more recently by Berliner {tf. cit. p.46ff.). * Tadtna, AnnaL ii. 85 j/ #j grmoitatim ca$li inttrissent, wiU dammtm. f 1.] THE JEWS III ROME xxl answer to their petition ^ Caligula insisted on the setting up of his own bust in the Temple at Jerusalem, and his opportune death alone saved the Jews from worse things than had as yet befallen them (a.d. 41) In the early part of the reign of Claudius the Jews had friends at court in the two Herod Agrippas, father and son. But a mysterious notice of which we would fain know more shows them once again subject to measures of repression. At a date which is calculated at about a.d. 52 we find Aquila and Prisca at Corinth 'because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome' (Acts xviii. a). And Suetonius in describing what is probably the same event sets it down to persistent tumults in the Jewish quarter 'at the instigation of Chrestus'.' There is at least a considerable possibility, not to say probability, that in this enigmatic guise we have an allusion to the effect of the early preaching of Christianity, in which in one way or another Aquila and Prisca would seem to have been involved and on that account specially singled out for exile. Suetonius and the Acts speak of a general edict of expulsion, but Dio Cassius, who is more precise, would lead us to infer that the edict stopped short of this. The clubs and meetings (in the synagogue) which Caligula had allowed, were forbidden, but there was at least no wholesale expulsion *. Any one of three interpretations may be put upon impuhore ChresU atsidu4 tutnultuantes. (i) The words may be taken literally as they stand. * Chrestus ' was a common name among slaves, and there may have been an individual of that name who was the author of the disturbances. This is the ▼iew of Meyer and Wieseler. (ii) Or it is very possible that there may be a confusion between 'Chrestus' and 'Christus.' TertuUian accuses the Pagans of pronouncing the name ' Christians ' wrongly as if it were Chres- tiani, and so bearing unconscious witness to the gentle and kindly character of those who owned it. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronunciatut a vobis {nam nee nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de suavitate vel benif^i- tate compositum tst {Apol. 3; cf Justin, Apol. i. § 4). If we suppose some such very natural confusion, then the disturbances may have had their origin in the excitement caused by the Messianic expectation which was ready to break out at slight provocation wherever Jews congregated. This is the view of Lange and others including in part Lightfoot {Philippians, p. 169). (iii) There remains the third possibility, lor which some preference has been expressed above, that the disturbing cause was not the Messianic expectation in general but the particular form of it identified with Christianity. It is certain that Christianity must have been preached at Rome as early as this; and the preaching of it was quite as likely to lead to actual violence and riot as at Thessalonica or Antiyos, apxivvvaytayoi). Under him would be the {mrjptTTis {Chazan) who performed the minor duties of giving out and putting back the sacred rolls (Luke iv. ao), inflicted scourging (Matt. x. 1 7), and acted as schoolmaster. The priests as such had no special status in the synagogue. We hear at Rome of wealthy and influential j)eople who were called ' father ' or • mother of the synagogue * ; this would be an honorary title. There is also mention of a wpo- 9TaTi)s or patr onus, who would on occasion act for the synagogue in its relation to the outer world. (3) Social status and condition. There weic certainly Jews of rank and position at Rome. Herod the Great had sent a number genenJ conclusion he is mure right than we might have expected. ' ' The conditions of travelling, for ease, salety, and rapidity, over the greater part of the Roman empire, were such as in part have only been reached again in Europe since the beginning ol the present oeatary' (Friedlaodei, SitUngexhickU Rmms, tt. j). § 8.] THE ROMAN CHURCH xxvlf fiom place to place with the sending of fresh batches of recruits and the retirement of veterans ; the incessant demands of an ever- increasing trade both in necessaries and luxuries ; .the atti-action which the huge metropolis naturally exercised on the imagination of the clever young Orientals who knew that the best openings for a career were to be sought there ; a thousand motives of ambition, business, pleasure drew a constant stream from the Eastern pro- vinces to Rome. Among the crowds there would inevitably be some Christians, and those of very varied nationality and antecedents, St. Paul himself had for the last three years been stationed at one of the greatest of the Levantine emporia. We may say that the three great cities at which he had spent the longest time — Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus — were just the three from which (with Alexandria) inter- course was most active. We may be sure that not a few of his own disciples would ultimately find their way to Rome. And so we may assume that all the owners of the names mentioned in ch. xvi had some kind of acquaintance with him. In several cases he adds some endearing little expression which implies personal contact and interest : Epaenetus, Ampliatus, Stachys are all his ' beloved '; Urban has been his ' helper '; the mother of Rufus had been also as a mother to him ; Andronicus and Junia (or Junias) and Herodion are described as his ' kinsmen ' — i. e. perhaps his fellow-tribesmen, possibly like him natives of Tarsus. Andronicus and Junias, if we are to take the expression literally, had shared one of his imprisonments. But not by any means all were St. Paul's own converts. The same pair, Andronicus and Junias, were Christians of older standing than himself. Epaenetus is described as the first convert ever made from Asia : that may of course be by the preaching of St. Paul, but it is also possible that he may have been converted while on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. If the Aristobulus whose household is mentioned is the Herodian prince, we can easily understand that he might have Christians about him. That Prisca and Aquila should be at Rome is just what we might expect from one with so keen an eye for the strategy of a situation as St. Paul. When he was himself esta- blished and in full work at Ephesus with the intention of visiting Rome, it would at Once occur to him what valuable work they might be doing there and what an excellent preparation they might make for his own visit, while in his immediate surroundings they were almost superfluous. So that instead of presenting any difficulty, that he should send them back to Rome where they were already known, is most natural. In this way, the previous histories of the friends to whom St. Paul sends greeting in ch. xvi may be taken as typical of the circum- stances which would bring together a number of similar groups of Christians at Rome. Some from Palestine, some from Corinth, XXViii BPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ A some from Ephesus and other parts of proconsular Asia, possibly some from Tarsus and more from the Syrian Antioch, there was in the first instance, as we may believe, nothing concerted in their going ; but when once they arrived in the metropolis, the free- masonry common amongst Christians would soon make them known to each other, and they would form, not exactly an organized Church, but such a fortuitous assemblage of Christians as was only waiting for the advent of an Apostle to constitute one. For other influences than those of St. Paul we are left to general probabilities. But from the fact that there was a synagogue specially assigned to the Roman 'Libertini' at Jerusalem and that this synagogue was at an early date the scene of public debates between Jews and Christians (Acts vi. 9), with the further fact that regiilar communication would be kept up by Roman Jews frequenting the feasts, it is equally clear that Palestinian Christianity could hardly fail to have its representatives. We may well believe that the vigorous preaching of St. Stephen would set a wave in motion which would be felt even at Rome. If coming from such a source we should expect the Jewish Christianity of Rome to be rather of the freer Hellenistic type than marked by the narrowness of Pharisaism. But it is best to abstain from anticipating, and to form our idea of the Roman Church on better grounds than conjecture. If the yiew thus given of the origin of the Roman Chnrch is correct, h involves the rejection of two other views, one of which at least has imposing authority ; viz. (i) that the Church was founded by Jewish pilgrims from the First Pentecost, and (ii) that its tree founder was St. Peter. (i) We are told expressly that among those who listened to St. Peter's address on the Day of Pentecost were some who came from Rome, both bom Jews of the Dispersion and proselytes. When these returned they would naturally take with them news of the strange things which were happening in Palestine. But unless they remained for some time in Jerusalem, and unless they attended very diligently to the teaching of the Apostles, which would as yet be informal and not accompanied by any regular system of Catechesis, they would not know enough to make them in the full sense ' Christians ' ; still less would they be in a position to evangelize others. Among this first group there would doubtless be some who would go back predisposed and prepared to receive fuller instruction in Christianity ; they might be at a similar stage to that of the disciples of St. John the Baptist at Ephesus (Acts xix. 2 ff.) ; and under the successive impact of later visits (their own or their neighbours') to Jerusalem, we could imagine that their faith would be gradually consolidated. But it would take more than they brought away from the Day of Pentecost to lay the foundations of a Church. (ii) The traditional founder of the Roman Chnrch is St. Peter. But it is only in a very qualified sense that this tradition can be made good. We may say at once that we are not prepared to go the length of those who would deny the connexion of St. Peter with the Roman Church altogether. It is true that tiiere is hardly an item in the evidence which is not subject to some dedncticm. The evidence which is definite is somewhat late, and the evidence wliich it early ia either too uncertain or too slight and vague to ««.] THE ROMAN CHURCH XXix carry a clear conclosion '. Most decisive of all, if it held good, would be die allnsion in St Peter's own First Epistle if the ' Babylon ' from which he writes (i Pet. v. 13) is really a covert name for Rome. This was the view ol the Early Chorch, and although perhaps not absolutely certain it is in accord- ance with all probability. The Apocalypse confessedly puts ' Babylon * for Rome (Rev. xiv. 8; xvi. 19, &c.), and when we remember the common practice among the Jewish Rabbis of disguising their allusions to the op- pressor *, we may believe that Christians also, when they had once become inspected and persecuted, might have fallen into the habit of using a secret language among themselves, even where there was less occasion for secresy. When once we adopt this view, a number of details in the Epistle (such M the mention of Silvanus and Mark, and the points of contact between I Peter and Romans) find an easy and natural explanation '. The genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome (c. 97 a.d.) couples together St. Peter and St. Paul in a context dealing with persecution in such a way as to lend some support to the tradition that both Apostles had perished there*; and the Epistle of Ignatius addressed to Rome {c. 115 a.d.) appeals to both Apostles as authorities which the Roman Church would be likely to recognire ' ; but at the utmost this proves nothing as to the origin of the Church. When we descend a step later, Dionysius of Corinth {e. 171 a.d.) does indeed couple the two Apostles as having joined in ' planting ' the Church of Rome as they had done previously that of Corinth *. But this Epistle alone is proof that if St. Paul could be said to have 'planted' the Church, it could not be in the sense of first foundation ; and a like considera- tion must be taken to qualify the statements of Irenaeus ^ By the beginning of the third century we get in Tertullian • and Cains of Rome * explicit references to Rome as the scene of the double martyrdom. The latter writer points to the ' trophies ' (rai rpSnaia '•) of the two Apostles as existing in his day on the Vatican and by the Ostian Way. This is conclusive evidence as to the belief of the Roman Church about the year 300. And it is followed by another piece of evidence which is good and precise as Car as it goes. * The summary which follows contains only the main points and none of the Indirect evidence. For a fuller presentation the reader may be referred to Lightfoot, Si. CUment ii. 490 ff., and Lipsius, Apokr. Aposttl^esck. ii. 1 1 ff. ^ On this practice, see Biesenthal, Trostschreiben an du Hebrder, p. 3 ff. ; and for a defence of the view that SL Peter wrote his First Epistle from Rome, Lightfoot, St. Clement ii. 491 f. ; Von Soden in Handcomtnentar III. iL 105 f. &C. Dr. Hort, who had paid special attention to this Epistle, seems to have held the same opinion {Judaistit Christianity, p. 155). * There is a natural reluctance in the lay mind to take iv BafivXmvi in any other sense than literally. Still it is certainly to be so taken in Orac. Sibyll. t. 159 (Jewish) ; and it should be remembered that the advocates of this view include men of the most diverse opinions, not only the English scholars men- tioned above and Dollinger, but Renan and the Tiibingen school generally. * Ad Cor. V. 4 ff. » Ad Rom. iv. 3. * Eus. H. E. II. xxT. «. * Adv. Haer. III. iii. a, 3. * Scarp. 15; £>e Praetcript. 36. » Eus. B. E. II. xxv. 6, 7. " There has been much discussion as to the exact meaning of this word. The leading Protestant archaeologists (Lipsius, Erbes, V. Schultze) hold that it refers to some conspicuous mark of the place of martyrdom (a famous ' terebinth ' near the naumcuhium on the Vatican (Mart. Pet. et Paul. 63) and a * pine-tree ' near the road to Ostia. The Roman Catholic authorities would refer it to the ' tombs ' or ' memorial chapels ' (m4moriae). It seems to ns probable that buildings of some kind were already in existence. For statements of the opposing views see Lipsius, Apokr. Ap»st$lgtS(k. iL ai ; De Waal, Dit Apottelgruft mi Cmtaeumbiu, p. 14 ff. XXX EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ » Two fotuth-centnry docnx&enti, both in texts which have nndeigone lomt corruption, the Martyrologium Hiertnymianum (ed. Duchesne, p. 84) and • Deposits Martyrum in the work of Philocalus, the so-called ' chronographer of the year 354,' connect a removal of the bodies of the two Apostles with the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus in the year 358. There is some ambiguity as to the localities from and to which the bodies were moved ; bat the most probable view is that in the Valerian persecution when the cemeteries were closed to Christiana, the treasured relics were transferred to the site known as Ad Cmtatumbcu adjoining the present Church of St Sebastian ^. Here they remained, according to one version, for a year and seven months, according to another for forty years. The later story of an attempt by certain Orientals to steal them away seems to have grown out of a misunderstanding of an inscription by Pope Damasus (366-384 A.D.)*- Here we have a chain of substantial proof that the Roman Church fiillj believed itself to be in possession of the mortal remains of the two Apostles as far back as the year aoo, a tradition at that date already firmly established and associated with definite well-known local monuments. The tradition as to the twenty-five years' episcopate of St. Peter presents some points of re- semblance. That too appears for the first time in the fourth century with Eusebius (c. 325 A.D.) and his follower Jerome. By skilful analysis it is traced back a full hundred years earlier. It appears to be derived from a list drawn np probably by Hippolytus^. Lipsius would carry back this liat a little further, and would make it composed under Victor in the last decade of the second century*, and Lightfoot seems to think it possible that the figures for the duration of the several episcopates may have been present in the still older list of Hegesippus, writing under Eleutherus {c. 175-190 A.D.)*. Thus we have the twenty-five years' episcopate of St Peter certainly believed in towards the end of the first quarter of the third century, if not by the beginning of the last quarter of the second. We are coming back to a time when a continuous tradition is beginning to be possible. And yet the difficulties in the way of bringing St. Peter to Rome at a date so early as the year 43 (which seems to be indicated) are so great as to make the acceptanof of this chronology almost impossible. Not only do we find St. Peter to all appearance still settled at Jerusalem at the time of the Council in A.D. 51, but we have seen that it is highly improbable that he had visited Rome when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church there. And it is hardly less improbable that a visit had been made between this and the later Epistles (Phil., Col., Eph., Philem.). The relations between the two Apostles and ci both to the work of missions in general, would almost compel some allusion to such a visit if it had taken place. Between the years 58 or 61-63 and 170 there is quite time for legend to grow up ; and Lipsius has pointed out a possible way in which it might arise *. There is evidence that the tradition of our Lord's command to the Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for twelve years after His Ascension, was current towards the end of the second century. The travels of the Apostles are usually dated from the end of this period ' The best account of this transfer is that given by Duchesne, Libtr Pontifi- ttUii i. cri f. " So Lipsius, after Erbes, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 335 f., 391 ff. ; also Light- foot, Clement ii. 500. The Roman Catholic writers, Kraus and De Waal, would connect the story with the jealousies of Jewish and Gentile Christians ia the first century : see the latter's Die Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas, pp. 33 £, 49 ff. This work contains a full survey of the controversy with new archaeo logical details. * Lightfoot, op. n begin by presenting the opposing theories in as antithetical a form as possible. When the different views which have been held come to b« examined, they will be found to be reducible to two main types, which differ not on a single point but on a number of co-ordinated points. ( One might be described as primarily historical, the other primarily dogmatic ; one directs attention mainlyTcTthe Church addressed,' Ihe oUier-mainly to the writer; one adopts the view of a predominance of Jewish-Christian readers, the other pre- supposes readers who are predominantly Gentile Christians. Here again the epoch-making impulse came from Baur. It was Baur who first worked out a coherent theory, the essence of which was that it claimed to be historical. He argued from the analogy of the other Episdes which he allowed to be genuine. The cir- cumstances of the Corinthian Church are reflected as in a glass in the Epistles to the Corinthians ; the circumstances of the Galatian Churches come out clearly from that to the Galatians. Did it not follow that the circumstances of the Roman Church might be directly inferred - from the Epistle to the Romans, and that the Epistle itself was written with deliberate reference to them ? Why all this Jewish-sounding argument if the readers were not Jews ? Why these constant answers to objecdons if there was no one to object? The issues discussed were similar in many respects to those in the Epistle to the Galatians. In Galatia a fierce con- troversy was going on. Must it not therefore be assumed that there was a like controversy, only milder and more tempered, at Rome, and that the Apostle wished to deal with it in a manner correspondingly milder and more tempered? There was truth in all this ; but it was truth to some extent one-sided and exaggerated. A Uttle reflexion will show that the cases of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were not exactly parallel to that of Rome. In Galatia St. Paul was dealing with a perfectly definite state of things in a Church which he himself had founded, and the circumstances of which he knew from within and not merely by hearsay. At Corinth he had spent a still longer Xl EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS l^ ^ time; when he wrote he was not far distant; there had been frequent communications between the Church and the Apostle; and in the case of i Corinthians he had actually before him a letter containing a number of questions which he was requested to answer, while in that of a Corinthians he had a personal report brought to him by Titus. What could there be like this at Rome ? The Church there St. Paul had not founded, had not even seen; and, if we are to beheve Baur and the great majority of his followers, he had not even any recognizable correspondents to keep him informed about it. For by what may seem a strange inconsistency it was especially the school of Baur which denied the genuineness of ch. xvi, and so cut away a whole Hst of persons from one or other of whom St. Paul might have really learnt something about Roman Christianity. These contradictions were avoided in the older theory which prevailed before the time of Baur and which has not been without adherents, of whom the most prominent perhaps is Dr. Bernhard Weiss, since his day. According to this theory the main object of the Epistle is doctrinal; it is rather a theological treatise than a letter ; its purpose is to instruct the Roman Church in central principles of the faith, and has but httle reference to the circum- stances of the moment It would be wrong to call this view — at least in its recent formi — unhistorical. It takes account of the situation as it presented itself, but looks at another side of it from that which caught the eye of Baur. The leading idea is no longer the position of the readers, but the position of the writer ; every thing is made to turn on the truths which the Apostle wished to place on record, and for which he found a fit recipient in a Church which seemed to have so commanding a future before it Let us try to do justice to the different aspects of the problem. The theories which have so far been mentioned, and others <^ which we have not yet spoken, are only at fault in so far as they are exclusive and emphasize some one point to the neglect of the rest. Nature is usually more subtle than art. A man of St. Paul's ability sitting down to write a letter on matters of weight would be likely to have several influences present to his mind at once, and his language would be moulded now by one and now by another. Three factors may be said to have gone to *ihe shaping of this letter of St. Paul's. The first of these will be that which Baur took almost for the only one. The Apostle had soipe- re^^ljtnowledgf; of the^ state, of tbfcChurchto which he was writing. Here we see the importance of his connexion with Aquila and Prisca. His intercourse with them would probably give the first impulse to that wish which he tells OS that he had entertained for many years to visit Rome ia ^ 4.] OCCASION AND PURPOSE xli persoa When first he met them at Corinth they were newly arrived from the capital ; he would hear from them of the state of things they left behind them; and a spark would be enough to fire his imagination at the prospect of winning a foothold for Christ and the Gospel in the seat of empire itself. We may well believe — if the speculations about Prisca are valid, and even with- out drawing upon these — that the two wanderers would keep up communication with the Christians of their home. And now, very probably at the instance of the Apostle, they had returned to prepare the way for his coming. We cannot afford to lose so valuable a link between St. Paul and the Church he had set his heart on visiting. Two of his most trusted friends are now on the spot, and they would not fail to report all that it was essential to the Apostle to know. He may have had other correspondents besides, but they would be the chief. To this source we may look for what there is of local colour in the Epistle. If the argument is addressed now to Gentiles by birth and now to Jews ; if we catch a glimpse of parties in the Church, ' the strong ' and ' the weak' ; if there is a hint of danger threatening the peace and the faith of the community (as in ch. xvi. 17-^20) — ij|_isJiQm-bie-fnends -4n~ Rome that the ApoHtle draws-lM&^knnwlpdgf nf the rnnditinns with wfiichhe is dealmg^ j^L, The second factor which helps in determining the character of the Epistle has more to do with what it is not than with what it is : it prevents it from being as it was at one time described, ' a com- pendium of the whole of Christian doctrine.' The Epistle is not this, because like all St. Paul's Epistles it implies a common basis of Christian teaching, those TTapaSoa-fis as they are called elsewhere (i Cor. xi. a ; a Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6), which the Apostle is able to take for granted as already known to his readers, and which he therefore thinks it unnecessary to repeat without special reason. ge will not ^lay again' a foundation which is already laid. He will not speak of the ' first principles' of a Christian's belief, but will ' go on unto perfection.' Hence it is that just the most fundaX mental doctrines — the Divine Lordship of Christ, the value of His j Death, the nature of the Sacraments — are assumed rather than I stated or proved. Such allusions as we get to these are concerned/ not with the rudimentary but with the more developed forms of the doctrines in question. They nearly always add someihing to the common stock of teaching, give to it a profounder significance, or apply it in new and unforeseen directions. The last charge that could be brought against the Epistle would be that it consisted of Christian commonplaces. It is one of the most original of writings. No Christian can have read it for the first time without feeling that he was introduced to heights and depths of ChrisLianiti? of which he had never been conscious before. Xlii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4 For, lastly, the most powerful !• vation (v. 1-4). (ii.) That hope guaranteed a fortiori by the Love displayed ia Christ's Death for sinners (v. 5-11). A Contrast of these effects with those of Adam's Fall (v. ia-3i) t (i.) like, in the transition from one to all (13-14); (ii.) unlike, in that where one brought sin, condemnation, death, the other brought grace, a declaration of unmerited righteoua- ness, life (15-17). ^) Summary. Relations of Fall. Law, Grace (18-31) [The Fall brought sin; Law increased it; bat Graoc men than cancels die ill effects of Law]. { •.] THE ARGUMENT Xlix B. ProgiMslTe Righteontnets in the Christian (SanctificatioD) (vi-viii). I. Reply to farther casuistical objection : ' If more sin means more frace, why not go on sinning?' The immersion of Baptism carried with it a death to sin. and onion with the risen Christ. The Christian there- fore cannot, mast not, sin (vi. 1-14). ft. Tke Christian's Release : what it ii, and what it is not : shown by two metaphors. ■. Servitude and emancipation (vi. i5-a3). A> The marriage-bond (vii. 1-6). [The Christian's old self dead to the Law with Christ; ao that he is henceforth free to live with Him]. ^ Judftistic objection from seeming disparagement of Law : met by an analysis of the moral conflict in the soul. Law is impotent, and gives an impulse or handle to sin, but is not itself sinful (vii. 7-34). The conflict ended by the interposition of Christ (as). 4. Fenpective of the Christian's New Career (viii). The Indwelling Spirit, a. Failure of the previous system made good by Christ's Incanution and the Spirit's presence (viii. 1-4). fi. The new vgime contrasted with the old — the regime of the Spirit with the weakness of unassisted humanity (viii. 5-9). •fk The Spirit's presence a guarantee of bodily as well as moral resurrection (viii. 10-13); & also a guarantee that the Christian enjoys with God a son's relation, and will enter upon a son's inheritance (viii. 14-17). 4. That glorious inheritance the object of creation's yearning (viii. 18-32); and of the Christian's hope (viii. 13-35). f . Human infirmity assisted by the Spirit's intercession (viii. a6, if) ; $. and sustained by the knowledge of the connected chain by which God works out His purpose of salvation (viii. 28-30). 1. Inviolable security of the Christian in dependence upon God's favour and the love of Christ (viii. 31-39). C. Problem of Israel's Unbelief. The Gospel in history (ix, x, xi). The rejection of the Chosen People a sad contrast to its high destiny and privileges (ix. 1-5). I. Justice of the Rejection (ix. 6-39). «. The Rejection of Israel not inconsistent with the Divine promlsea (ix. 6-13); $. mot with the Divine Justice (ix. 14-39). (L) The absoluteness of God's dioice shown from the O. T. (ix, 14-18). (U.) A necessary dedaction from His position as Creator (ix. 19-23)- (iiL) The alternate choice of Jews and Gentiles expressly reserved and foretold in Scripture (ix. 24-29). ft. Canae of the Rejection. «. Israel sought righteousness by Works instead of Faith, in their owa way and not in God's way (ixl 30-x. 4). And this although God's method was — (i.) Not difl&cult and remote but near and easy (x. 5-10) ; (ii.) Within the reach of all, Jew and Gentile alike (x. 11-13). $, Nor can Israel plead in defence want of opporttmity or wamhig — (i.) The Gospel has heai fully and universally preached (x. I4>i8) I EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6 (tt.) Israel had been warned beforehand by the Prophet that the; would reject God's Message (x. iq-ji). p Mitigating cousiderationg. The purpose of God (xi). «. The Unbelif'f of Israel is now as in the past only partial (id. l-io). fi. It is only temporary — (L) Their fall has a special purpose — the introdnctioD of the Gentiles (xi. 11-15). (H.) That Israel will be restored is vouched for by the holy stock from which it comes (xi. 16-34). y. lo all this may be seen the purpose of God working upwards through seeming severity, to a beneficent result — the final restoration of all (xi. aj-Ji). Doxology (xi. 33-36). in. — Practical and Hortatory. (i) The Christian sacrifice (xii. i, »). (a) The Christian as a member of the Church (xii. 3-4)> (3) The Christian in his relation to others (xii. 9->i). The Christian's vengeance (xii. 19-31). (4) Church and State (xiii. 1-7). (5) The Christian's one debt ; the law of love (xiii. S-IO). The day approaching (xiii 11 -14). (6) Toleration ; the strong and the weak (xiv. i-xv. 6), The Jew and the Gentile (xv. 7-13). IV, — Epilogue. a. Personal explanations. Motive of the Epistle. PropOMd visit ta Rome (xv. 14-33). 0. Greetings to various persons (xvL 1-16). A warning (xvi. 17-30). Postscript by the Apostle's companions and amancfniii (xvL ai-a.^). Benediction and Doxology (xvL i^aj). It is often easiest to bring out the force and strength of an argument by starting from its conclusion, and we possess in the doxology at the end of the Epistle a short summary made by St. Paul himself of its contents. The question of its genuineness has been discussed elsewhere, and it has been shown in the commentary how clearly it refers to all the leading thoughts of the Epistle ; it remains only to make use of it to help us to understand the argument which St. Paul is working out and the conclusion to which he is leading us. The first idea which comes prominently before us is that of * the Gospel' ; it meets us in the Apostolic salutation at the beginning, in the statement of the thesis of the Epistle, in the doxology at the end where it is expanded in the somewhat unusual form ' according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ.' So again in xi. 28 it is incidentally shown that what St. Paul is describing is the method or plan of the Gospel. This idea of the Gospel then is a fundamental thought of the Epistle ; and it seems to mean this. There are two competing systems or plans of life or salvation before St. Paul's mind. The one is the old Jewish system, a know- ledge of which is presupposed ; the other is the Christian tystem, §6.] THE ARGUMENT U « knowledge of which again is presupposed. St. Paul is not expounding the Christian religion, he is writing to Christians ; what he aims at expounding is the meaning of the new system. This may perhaps explain the manner in which he varies between the expressions ' the Gospel,' or ' the Gospel of God,' or ' the Gospel of Jesus Christ/ and ' my Gospel.' The former represents the Christian religion as recognized and preached by all, the latter represents his own personal exposition of its plan and meaning. The main purpose of the argument then is an explanation of the meaning of the new Gospel of Jesus Christ, as succeeding to and taking the place of the old method, but also in a sense as embracing and continuing it. St. Paul begins then with a theological description of the new method. He shows the need for it, he explains what it is — emphasiz- ing its distinctive features in contrast to those of the old system, and at the same time proving that it is the necessary and expected out- come of that old system. He then proceeds to describe the work- ing of this system in the Christian life ; and lastly he vindicates for it its true place in history. The universal character of the new Gospel has been already emphasized, he must now trace the plan by which it is to attain this universality. The rejection of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, are both steps in this process and necessary steps. But the method and plan pursued in these cases and partially revealed, enable us to learn, if we have faith to do go, that ' mystery which has been hidden from the foundation of the world,' but which has always guided the course of human history — the purpose of God to ' sum up all things in Christ' If this point has been made clear, it will enable us to bring out the essential unity and completeness of the argument of the Epistle. We do not agree as we have explained above with the opinion of Baur, revived by Dr. Hort, that chap, ix-xi represent the essential part of the Epistle, to which all the earlier part is but an introduction. That is certainly a one-sided view. But Dr. Hort's examination of the Epistle is valuable as reminding us that neither are these chapters an appendix accidentally added which might be omitted without injuring St. Paul's argument and plan. We can trace incidentally the various difficulties, partly raised by opponents, partly suggested by his own thought, which have helped to shape different portions of the Epistle. We are able to analyze and separate the difierent stages in the argument more accurately and distinctly than in any other of St. Paul's writings. But this must not blind us to the lact that the whole is one great argument; the purpose of which is to explain the Gospel of God in Jesus the Messiah, and to show its ehects on human life, and in the history of the race, and thus to vindicate for it the right to be considered the ultimate and final revelation oi God's purpose for mankind. d ul epistle to the romans [$ a § 6. Language and Style. (i) Language^. It will seem at first sight to the oninitiated reader a rather strange paradox that a letter addressed to the capital of the Western or Latin world should be written in Greek. Yei there is no paradox, either to the classical scholar who is acquainted with the history of the Early Empire, or to the ecclesias- tical historian who follows the fortunes of the Early Church. Both are aware that for fully two centuries and a half Greek was the predominant language if not of the city of Rome as a whole yet of large sections of its inhabitants, and in particular of those sections amonq which was to be sought the main body of the readers of the Epistle. The early history of the Church of Rome might be said to fall into three periods, of which the landmarks would be (i) the appear- ance of the first Latin writers, said by Jerome ■ to be ApoUonius who suffered under Commodus in the year 185, and whose Apology and Acts have been recently recovered in an Armenian Version and edited by Mr. Conybeare ', and Victor, an African by birth, who became Bishop of Rome about 189 a.d. (a) Next would come in the middle of the third century a more considerable body of Latin literature, the writings of Novatian and the corre- spondence between the Church of Rome and Cyprian at Carthage. (3) Then, lastly, there would be the definite Latinizing of the capital of the West which followed upon the transference of the seat of empire to Constantinople dating from 330 a. d. (i) The evidence of Juvenal and Martial refers to the latter half of the first centnry. Juvenal speaks with indignation of the extent to which Rome was being converted into ' a Greek city *. Martial regards ignorance of Greek as a mark of rusticity '. Indeed, there was a double tendency which em- braced at once classes at both ends of the social scale. On the one hand among slaves and in the trading classes there were swarms of Greeks and Greek-speaking Orientals. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was the fashion to speak Greek ; children were taught it by Greek nursei; and in •fter life the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation •. For thr Tewish colony we have the evidence of the inscriptions. Ont of thirty-eight collected by Schurer^ 00 less than thirty are Greek and eight only ' The question of the use of Greek at Rome has been often discnsscd and the evidence for it set forth, but the classical treatment of the subject is by the late Dr. C. P. Caspari, Professor at Christiania, in an Excursus of aoo pages to vol. iii. of his work QntlUn tmr Gesthitht$ d$s Tau/symholt (Chris- tiania, 1875). ^ De Fir. III. liii. Tertullianui pntbyUr uunt dtmum primm fott Vu^mm tt ApoUonium Latinorum ponitur. ^ Monuments of Early Christianity (London, 1894), p. ao ff. * Juv. Sat. iii. 60 f. ; cf. vi. 187 ff • Ep^. riT. 58. • Caspari, QiuUen zum Tauf symbol, iii. J 86 f. ^ Gtnuindeverfassung, p. 33 ff. The inscriptions referred to uc aH froa Roman sites. I'here is also one in Greek from Portus. *«.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE Uil Latin and if one of the Greek inscriptions it in Latin charactera, eonvenelj tiiree of the Latin are in Greek characters. There do not seem to be any in Hebrew'. Of Christian inscriptions the proportion of Greek to Latin woald seem to be •bont 1 : a. £at the great mass of these would belong to a period later than that of which we are speaking. De Rossi ^ estimates the number for the period between M. Aurelins and Septimins Severus at about i6o, of which something like half would be Greek. Beyond this we can hardly go. But as to the Christian Church there is a quantity of other evidence. The bishops of Rome from Linos to Elenthems (c. 174-189 a.d.) are twelve in number : of these not more than three (Clement, Sixtus I = Xystns, Pius) bear Latin names. But although the names of Clement and Pius are Latin the extant Epistle of Clement is written in Greek ; we know also that Hermas, the author of ' The Shepherd,* was the brother of Pius *, and he wrote in Greek. Lideed all the literature that we can in any way connect with Christian Rome down to the end of the reign of M. Aurelius is Greek. Besides the works of Clement and Hennas we have still surviving the letter addressed to the Church at Rome by Ignatius ; and later in the period, the letter written by Soter (c. 166-174 A.D.) to the Corinthian Church was evidently in Greek*. Justin and Tatian who were settled in Rome wrote in Greek ; so too did Rhodon, a pupil of Tatian's at Rome who carried on their tradition \ Greek was the language of Polycarp and Hegesippus who paid visits to Rome of shorter duration. A number of Gnostic writers established themselves there and used Greek for the vehicle of their teaching : so Cerdon, Marcion, and Valentinas, who were all in Rome about 140 A.D. Valentinus left behind a considerable school, and the leading representatives of the ' Italic ' branch, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, both wrote in Greek. We may assume the same thing of the other Gnostics combated by Justin and Irenaeus. Irenaeus himself spent some time at Rome in the Episcopate of Eleuthems, and wrote his great work In Greek. To this period may also be traced back the oldest form of the Creed of the Roman Church now known as the Apostles* Creed'. This was in Greek. And there are stray Greek fragments of Western Liturgies which ultimately go back to the same place and time. Such would be the Hymnus angtlicmt (Luke ii. 14) repeated in Greek at Christmas, the Trishagion, Kyrie eUison and Christt eltuon. On certain set days (at Christmas, Easter, Ember days, and some others) lections were read in Greek as well as Latin ; hymns were occasionally sung in Greek ; and at the formal committal of the Creed to the candidates for baptism (the so-called Traditio and Redditio Symboli) both the Apostles* Creed (in its longer and shorttr forms) and the Nicene were 1 Comp. also Berliner, L 54. * Ap. Caspari, p. 303. ' Pius is described in the Liher PontiJtcalU as natione Italm . . . de dvi/mU Aquileia ; but there is reason to think that Hermas was a native of Arcadia. The assignments of nationality to the earliest bishops are of very donbtfol ▼aloe. * It was to be kept in the archini and read on Snndays like the letter of Clement (Eus. H. E. IV. xxiu. 11). » Eus. H. E. V. xiii. i. * It was m pursuit of the origin of this Creed that Caspari was drawn into his elaborate researches. It is generally agreed that it was in nse at Rome by the middle of the second century. The main question at the present moment is whether it was also composed there, and if not whence it came. Caspari would derive it from Asia Minor and the circle of St. John. This is a problem which we may look to have solved by Dr. Kattenbusch lA Giessen, who ii continuing Ca^Mh's labous {Dtu Afattli$tk$ SjmM, Bd. L Leiptig, 1894). Inr EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [^ 6^ redted and the qnestions pat first in Greek and then in latin*. These are all •urvivals of Roman usage at the time when the Church wai bilingual. (2) The dates of ApoUonius and of Bp. Victor are fixed, but rather mort uncertainty hangs over that of the first really classical Christian work in Latin, the Octaviui of Minucius Felix. This has been much debated, but opinion seems to be veering round to the earlier date*, which would bring him into near proximity to ApoUonius, perhaps at the end of the reign ol M. Anrelius. The period which then begins and extends from c. 180-350 A.D. shows a more even balance of Greek and Latin. The two prominent writen, Hippolytus and Caius, still make use of Greek. The grounds perhaps pre- ponderate for regarding the Muratorian Fragment as a translation. But at the beginning of the period we have Minucius Felix and at the end Novatian, and Latin begins to have the upper hand in the names of bishops. The glimpse which we get of the literary activity of the Church of Rome through the letters and other writings preserved among the works of Cyprian shows u at last Latin in possession of the field. (3) The Hellenizing character of Roman Christianity was due in the fin* instance to the constant intercourse between Rome and the East. In the troubled times which followed the middle of the third century, with the decay of wealth and trade, and Gothic piracies breaking up iht pax R omana on the Aegean, this intercourse was greatly interrupted. Thus Greek influences lost their strength. The Latin Church, Rome reinforced by Africa, had now a substantial literature of its own. Under leaders like TertuUian, Cjrprian, and Novatian it had begun to develop its proper individuality. It could stand and walk alone without assistance from the East. And a decisive impulse was given to its independent career by the founding of Constantinople. The stream set from that time onwards towards the Bosphorus and no longer towards the Tiber. Rome ceases to be the centre of the Empire to become in a still more exclusive sense the capital of the West (a) Style. The Epistles which bear the name of St. Paul present a considerable diversity of style. To such an extent is this the case that the question is seriously raised whether they can have had the same author. Of all the arguments urged on the negative side this from style is the most substantial ; and whatever decision we come to on the subject there remains a problem of much complexity and difficulty. It is well known that the Pauline Epistles fail into four groups which are connected indeed with each other, but at the. same tinie stand out with much distinctness. These groups are : .'i, 2 Thesa/; (Gal., I, 2 Cor., Rom.'; Phil., Col., Eph., Philem. ; Past. Epp. Tne four Epistles of the second group hang very closely together; those of the third group subdivide into two pairs, Phil. Philem. on the one hand, and Eph. Col. on the other. It is hard to dissociate Col. from Philem. ; and the very strong presumption in favour of the genuineness of the latter Episde reacts upon the former. The tendency of critical inquiry at the present moment is in favour ol Colossians and somewhat less decidetlly in favour of Ephesians. It is, for instance, significant that Jillicher in his recent Einkilung * More precise and full details will be found in Caspari's Excuma, Ot. at, p. 466 ff. " Kriiger. AUckristl. Lit. p. 88. $ 6.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE Iv (Freiburg L B. and Leipzig, 1894) sums up rather on this side of the question than the other. We believe that this points to what will be the ultimate verdict. But in the matter of style it must be confessed that Col. and Eph. — and more especially Eph. — stand at the furthest possible remove from Romans. We may take Eph. and Rom. as marking the extreme poles of difference within the Epistles claimed for St. Paul ^ Any other member of the second group would do as well ; but as we are concerned specially with Rom., we may institute a comparison with it. The diflference is not so much a difference of ideas and of vocabulary as a difference of structure and composition. There are, it is true, a certain number of new and peculiar expressions in the later Epistle ; but these are so balanced by points of coincidence, and the novel element has so much of the nature of simple addi- tion rather than contrariety, that to draw a conclusion adverse to St Paul's authorship would certainly not be warranted. The sense of dissimilarity reaches its height when we turn from the materials (if we may 80 speak) of the style to the way in which they are put together. The discrepancy lies not in the anatomy but in the surface distribution of hght and shade, in the play of feature, in the temperament to which the two Epistles seem to give expression. We will enlarge a little on this point, as the contrast may help us to understand the individuality of the Epistle to the Romans. This Epistle, like all the others of the group, is characterized by a remarkable energy and vivacity. It is calm in the sense that it is not aggressive and that the rush of words is always well under control. Still there is a rush of words, rising repeatedly to passages of splendid eloquence ; but the eloquence is spontaneous, the outcome of strongly moved feeling ; there is nothing about it of laboured oratory. The language is rapid, terse, incisive; the argument is conducted by a quick cut and thrust of dialectic ; it reminds us of a fencer with his eye always on his antagonist. We shut the Epistle to the Romans and we open that to the Ephesians ; how great is the contrast I We cannot speak here of vivacity, hardly of energy ; if there is energy it is deep down below the surface. The rapid argumentative cut and thrust is gone. In its place we have a slowly-moving onwards-advancing mass, like a glacier working its way inch by inch down the valley. The periods are of unwieldy length; the writer seems to stagger under his load. He has weighty truths to express, and he struggles to express them — not without success, but certainly with little flexibility or ease of composition. The truths unfolded read like abstract truths, ideal verities, ' laid up in the heavens ' rather than embodying themselves in the active controversies of earth, ' The difference between these Epistles on the side we tat considering if (reater (e. g.) than that between Romans and the Pastorala. Ivi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 0^ There is, as we shall see, another side. We ha^e perhaps xaggerated the opposition for the sake of making the difference lear. When we come to look more closely at the Epistle to the Romans we shall find in it not a few passages which tend in the direction of the characteristics of Ephesians ; and when we examine the Epistle to the Ephesians we shall find in it much to remind us of characteristics of Romans. We will however leave the com- parison as it has been made for the moment, and ask ourselves what means we have of explaining it. Supposing the two Epistles to be really the work of the same man, can the difference between them be adequately accounted for ? There is always an advantage in presenting proportion* to the eye and redacing them to some sort of numerical estimate. This can be done in the present case without much difficulty by reckoning up the number ci longer pauses. This is done below for the two Epistles, Romans and Ephe- sians. The standard used is that of the Revisers' Greek Text, and the estimate of length is based on the number of arlxoi or printed lines ^ ll «iU be worth while to compare the Epistles chapter by chapter : — Romans. €Tlx9i. (•) (•) tt CLL 64 >S >4 — i n. «I M 1 • IIL 47 to la If IV. 45 < »4 » V. 47 ( If VI 4» 8 14 "I VII. 49 16 to 1 VIII. 70 »7 *6 H DC. 05 8 »9 10 X 37 « 16 9 XI. i? 16 «7 II trinalport ion 570 130 184 40t w XIL 3« 14 IS ^ XIIL »9 II IS 1 XIV. tl II »7 f XV. 8 t4 a8 XVI. »o _7 — e Epistle 789 181 190 f» 563 Here the proportion of major point* to trrlxot is for the doctrinal chap- ters 402:570 >= (approximately) i in 1.4; and for the whole Epistle not Tcry different, 563 : 789 =« i in I'4i8. The proportion of interrogative sentences is for the whole Epistle, 9a : 789, or i in 8-6 ; for the doctrinal chapters only, 88 : 570, or i in 6-5 ; and for the practical porticm only, 4 : 319, or I in 55. This last item is instructive, beosose it show* how very ' The counting o\ these is approximate, anything over half a line being Kckooed as a whole Une, and anything less than half a line not veolconed 4 a.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE Ivii greatly, even in the tame Epistle, the amount of interrogation rariet with the subject-matter. We also observe that in two even of the doctrinal chap- ters interrogative sentences are wanting. They lie indeed in patches or thick clusters, and are not distributed equally throughout the Epiatl*. Now w« tiUB to Ephesiaoi^ for which the data art as follow*:— ErmsiAMS. ^rlxm (•) O (0 a.! 4S 4 1 «. n. 40 9 •B> m, 36 t • — [111 IS >S -1 IV. SI • H I ▼. 1* n If >v TL M s ■S .«> WW ^m^ •!• »» S8 1 1%W 95 This fiTCi a very different Riiih. The proportion of major points ia Im Eph. i-iii, roughly speaking, i in 4, as against i in 1-4 for R4i8. Th« propoitioB of interrogations is i in 170 compared with i in 8^ or 6<{. In illustrating the nature of the difference in style between Romans and Ephesians we have left in suspense for a time the question as to its cause. To this we will now return, and set down some of the influences which may have been at work — which we may be sure were at work — and which would go a long way to •ccoont for it (i) First would be /At natural variation of style which comes from dealing with different subject-matter. The Epistles of the second group are all very largely concerned with the controversy as to Circimicision and the relations of Jewish and Gentile Christians. In the later Epistle this controversy has retired into the background, and other topics have taken its place. Ideas are abroad as to the mediating agencies between God and man which impair the central significance of the Person of Christ ; and the multiplication of new Churches with the growing organization of intercommunication between those of older standing, brings to the front the conception of the Church as a whole, and invests it with increased impressiveness. These facts are reflected on the vocabulary of the two Epistles. The controversy with the Judaizers gives a marked colour to the whole gronp which includes the Epistle to the Romans. This will appear on the face of the statistics of usage as to the frequency with which the leading terms occur in these Epistles and in the rest of the Pauline Corpus. Of coarse some of the instances will be accidental, but by far the greater number ara significant Those which follow have a direct bearing on the Jndaistie controveny. ' Elsewhere ' means elsewhere in the Paoline Epistles. kriii EPISTLB TO THE ROMANS [§ 6. ' 'AfipaAn Rom. 9, t Cor. i, Gal. 9 ; not elMwhere in St Panl. [owipim 'k^paan Rom. i, 2 Cor. 1, GaL i.] iMpo^varia Rom. 3, i Cor. 2, Gal. 3 ; elsewhere 3. AwocToK^i Rom. i, i Cor. i, Gal. i ; not elsewhere in St. PaaL itKOiovv Rom. 15, I Cor. 2, GaL 3; elsewhere a. iiKcuwfM Rom. 5 ; not elsewhere. tiKaiwcis Rom. a ; not elsewhere. aarapytiy Rom. 6, i Cor. 9, 2 Cot. 4, Gal. 3 ; eliewheri 4. r6ftos Rom. 76, i Cor. 8, Gal. 33 ; elsewhere 6. wffnTOfiT} Rom. 15, i Cor. i, GaL 7 ; elsewhere 8. 0ir(pfia Rom. 9, I Cor. i, a Cor. i, Gal. 5; elsewhere i. Connected with this controversy, though not quite so directly, woold bt »^ daOfvrjs Rom. I, I Cor. 10, a Cor. i, Gal. i ; elsewhere i. iaOtvui Rom. 4, i Cor. a, a Cor. 6 ; elsewhere a. iaOfvtia Rom. a, i Cor. a, a Cor. 6, Gal. i ; elsewheic I. aaOivTjfta Rom. i ; not elsewhere. iXtvOfpos Rom. a, i Cor. 6, Gal. 6 ; elsewheic a. iKfvOtpovy Rom. 4, GaL i ; not elsewhere. 4Xcv5«p«a Rom. i, i Cor. i, a Cor. i. Gal. i ; not elsewhere. KavxaaOai Rom. 5, I Cor. 5 (i v.L), a Cor. ao, GaL a ; elsewhere ^ •ai/x^Ma Rom. I, I Cor. 3, a Cor. 3, Gal. i ; elsewhere t. «ai;X^<^'* Rom. a, 1 Cor. i, a Cor. 6 ; elsewhere I. »aTaKaKxn<^^a' Rom. 2 ; not elsewhere. ieiXT}fia Rom. I ; not elsewhere. vKilivSaXov Rom. 4, I Cor. i, Gal. i ; not elsewhere. [#cer8aX/(iHr I Cor. 2, a Cor. i, Rom. i r. 1.] ixptK IV Rom. I, I Cor. 2, Gal. i : ixpiKtta Rom. 1 ; neither elsewhere. Two other points may be noticed, one in connexion with the large use of the O.T. in these Epistles, and the other in connexion with the idea ol •uccessive periods into which the religious history of mankind is divided : — -fi-ypanrai Rom. 16, i Cor. J, a Cor. 3, GtA. 4; not elsewhere in St. Paul. dx/>'» oil Rom. I, I Cor. a, Gal. a (i v.L) ; not elsewhere. « essay ' On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galatians*' \nJoum. ^ Ckui. amd Satr. Fhilol. ill. (1857) 308 fif. §«.] l^NGUAGE AND STYLB lix drculate more rapidly in the veins, and ghret to the style a liveli- ness and directness which might be wanting when the pressure was removed. Between Romans, written to a definite Church and gathering up the result of a time of great activity, the direct out- come of prolonged discussion in street and house and school, and Ephesians, written in all probability not to a single Church but to a group of Churches, with its personal edge thus taken off, and written too under confinement after some three years of enforced inaction, it would be natural that there should be a difference. (3) This brings us to a third point which may be taken with the last, the allowance which ought to be made for the special tempera- ment of the Apostle. His writings furnish abundant evidence of a highly strung nervous organization. It is likely enough that the physical infirmity from which he suffered, the ' thorn in the flesh ' which had such a prostrating effect upon him, was of nervous origin. But constitutions of this order are liable to great fluctua- tions of physical condition. There will be ' lucid moments,' and more than lucid moments — months together during which the brain will work not only with ease and freedom, but with an intensity and power not vouchsafed to other men. And times such as these will alternate with periods of depression when body and mind alike are sluggish and languid, and when an effort of will is needed to compel production of any kind. Now the physical conditions under which St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans would as naturally belong to the first head as those under which he wrote the Epistle which we call * Ephesians * would to the second. Once more we should expect antecedently that they would leave a strong impress upon the style. The difference in style between Rom. and Eph. would seem to be very largely a difference in the amount of vital energy throwii into the two Epistles. Vivacity is a distinguishing mark of the one as a certain slow and laboured movement is of the other. We may trace to this cause the phenomena which have been already noted — the shorter sentences of Romans, the long involved periods of Ephesians, the frequency of interrogation on the one hand, its absence on the other. In Rom. we have the champion of Gentile Christendom with his sword drawn, prepared to meet all comers ; in Eph. we have ' such an one as Paul the aged, and now a prisoner &lso 0/ Jesuf Christ.' Among the expressions specially characteristic of this aspect of Ep. tO Romans would be the following : — «^a, beginning a sentence, Rom. 9, i Cor. i, a Cor. a, Gal. 5 ; elsewhert Epp. Paul. 3, Heb. a. \oi^ ovv Rom. 8 (or 9 v. 1.), Gal. i ; elsewheit 3 : o^a without oSc Rom. i (or s ▼. L), I Cor. i, GaL 3, Heb. a.] dAAd Xt-fo) Rom. t. Ai7ai S€ Gal. a. X(7(v Ovv Rom. a. X^7a; a rovTO Sri I Cor. S« •dAif Kiyw a Cor. ». Ix EPISTL£ TO THE ROMANS ^ •. v«9r» M Xiyw GtL i. tyii IlavXos Kifv Ifuif 8n GaL I. wav ; wov dv ; Rom. i, i Cor. 8, Gal. I ; not ebenbei*. «( oiy; rlt oZv; Rom. ii, I Cor. 5, GaL i; not elatwhcn. [ri 9h ipovfitv; Rom. 6; ri ipovfitv; Rom i.] rl Xiyu {>^iyu, See.) Rom. 3, Gal. i ; not elsewheni tiar£ Rom. I, I Cor. a, a Cor. i ; not elaewhero. tfip, onusoal compoonds of — {rwtfMKTfivuv a Cor. i. ivtpklay a Cor. a. inrtpyucav Rom. i. twfpvtpiafffvfty Rom. i, s Cor. i. hr*pii. McDfffjt yip ypi««p7 r^y -y^t; 6 Karaffis avrSs <' d^vaaov ; (toCt* «ai i dva^ds vittpavw vayra/y rSiv oiipa- tan, Xptardy iic vfKpSjv avayayuv.) vSiv, Xva vXrjpuaj) tA w&yra.) Koi ovrdt dAAd ri Ktyd ; '£771^9 trov to fiijpuk tSiMf rovt ^ir iwoariKom s.rJL jffriv, ^f Tf( ardpari aov kclI ir r^ KapSi)<* and Neb. A. Cod. Alexandrinus, saec. ▼. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria ; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles I in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete. B. Cod. Vaticanus, saec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly since 1533^ (Batiffol, La Vaticam de Paul Hi a Paul v, p. 86). Complete. The corrector B' is nearly d the same date and used a good copy, though not quite so good as the original Some six centuries later the faded characters were re- traced, and a few new readings introduced by B'. C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, saec. v. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Epistle, with the exception of the following passages : ii 5 ko^o. dc n^v . . . vnh row vd/ww * Dr. Gr^ory would carry back the evidence further, to 1531 {Fr^Ug. p. 360), bat M. Batiffol eould find no trace of the MS. in the earlier ObU. Ixiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 7. iiL SI ; ix. 6 ovy oTov . , . 4ip X. 15 : Zi. 31 ^ti]3riaap Tf . . . nXfipcofia xiii. 10. D. Cod, Claromontanus, sacc. vi Graeco-Latinus. Once at Clermont, near Beauvais (if the statement of Beza is to be trusted), now in the National Library at Paris. Contains the Pauline Epistles, but Rom. i. i, llavXoj . . . dyaTrrjrolt Qtoii L 7> is missing, and i. 27 t^fKavdrja-av . . . «) VnsiOMt. The Tcrsions quoted are the following : The Latin (Latt.). The Vetus Latina (Lat V«t^ The Vulgate (Vulg.). The Egyptian (Aegypt). The Bohairic (Boh.)^ The Sahidic (Sah.). The Syriac (Syrr.). The Peshitto (Pesh.). The Harclean (HarcLy. The Armenian (Arm.). The Gothic (Goth.). The Ethiopic (Aeth.). Of these the Vct«s Latina is rery Imperfectly preserved te M. W« posseu only a imall number of fragments of MSS. Tlieat are : gae. Cod. Gael ferby tanas, saec. vi, which contains fragments of Rom. ll 33-'"»- 5; «>• 17-""- 5 ; »!▼• 9-20; XT. 3-1 J. r. Cod. Frisingensis. saec. ▼ or tI, containing Rom. zIt. io-xt. 1%. tf Cod. Gottvicensis, saec vi or vii, containing Rom. ▼. i^vL 41 ▼i 6-19. The texts of these fragments are, howerer, neither early (relatiyely to the history of the Version) nor of much interest To supplement them we havt Jie Latin versions of the bilingual MSS. D E F G mentioned above, usually quoted as d e f g, and quotations in the Latin Fathers. The former do not strictly represent the underlying Greek of the Version, as they are too much conformed to their own Greek, d (as necessarily e) follows an Old-Latin text not in all cases altered to suit the Greek ; g is based on the Old Latin but is very much modified ; f is the Vulgate translation, altered with the help of g or a MS. closely akin to g. For the Fathers we are mainly indebted to the quotations in Tertullian (saec. ii-iii), Cyprian (saec. iii), the Latin Irenaeus (saec. ii, or more probably iv), Hilary of Poitiers (saea iv), and to the so-called Speculum S. Augustini (cited as m), a Spanish text also of the fourth century isee below, p. 134). One or two specimens are given in the course of the commentary of the evidence furnished by the Old-Latin Version (see on i. 30 ; v. 3-5 ; viii. 36), which may also serve to illustrate the problems raised in connexion with the history of the Version. They have however more to do with the changes in the Latin diction of the Version than with its text. The fullest treat- ment of the Vitus Latina of St. Paul's Epistles will be found in Ziegler, Die lateinischen Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymus, Miinchen, 1879; bat the subject has not as yet t)een sufficiently worked at for a genera] agreement to be reached. For the Vulgate the following MSS. arc occasionally art of the N.T. is now lost A special importance attaches to the readings, sometimes In the text but more often in the margin, which appear to be derived frx>m ' three (v. L two) approved and accurate Greek copies ' in the ■tonastety of the Enaton near Alexandria (WH. Introd. p. 156 f ). The Gothic Version is also definitely dated at about the middle of the fimuth century, and the Armenian at about the middle of the fifth. The dates of the two Egyptian Versions and of the Ethiopic are still uncertain (Scrivener, Introd. ii. 105 f., 154, ed. 4). It is of more importance to know that the types of text which they represent are in any case early, the Egyptian somewhat the older. The abbreviations in references to the Patristic writings are sach as it is hoped will cause no difficulty (but see p. ex). (j) Internal Grouping 0/ Authorities. The most promising and successful of all the directions in which textual criticism is being pursued at this moment is that of isolating comparatively small groups of authorities, and investigating their mutual relations and origin. For the Pauline Episdes the groups most affected by recent researches are J-^B ; ^^cjj, Arm., Euthal., and in less degree a number of minuscules ; D [£] F G. The proofs seem to be thickening which connect these two great MSS with the library of Eusebius and Pamphilus at Caesarea. That is a view which has been held for some time past (e. g. by the late Canon Cook, Rtvised Version of the First Three Gospels, p, 159 ff. ; and Dr. Scrivener, Collation of Cod. Sinaiticus, p. xxxvii f.), but without resting upon any very solid arguments. And it must always be remembered that so excellent a palaeographer as Dr. Ceriani of Milan {ap. Scrivener, Introd. i. 121, ed. 4) thooeht that B was written in Italy (Magna Graeda), and that Dr. Hori Ixviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ % also gives some reasons for ascribing an Italian origin to this MS. We an however confronted by the fact that there is a distinct probability that both MSS. if they were not written in the same place had at least in part the same scribes. It was first pointed out by Tischendorf (JV. T. Vat., Lipsiae, 1867, Ep. xxi xxiii), on grounds which seem to be safficient, that the writer whom e calls the ' fourth scribe ' of N wrote also the N.T. portion of B. And, as it has been said, additional arguments are becoming available for connecting K with the library at Caesarea (see Rendel Harris, Stichonutry, p. 71 ff. ; and the essay of Bonsset referred to below). The provenance of K would only carry with it approximately and not exactly that of B. The conditions would be satisfied if it were possible, or not cUfiicult, for the same Fcribe to have a hand in both. For instance, the view that K had its origiii in Palestine would not be inconsistent with the older vi(;w, recently revived and defended by Bousset, that B was an Egyp- tian MS. There would be so much coming and going between Palestine and Egypt, especially among the followers of Origen, that they would belong ▼irtuully to the same region. But when Herr Bousset goes further and main- tains that the text of B represents the recension of Hesychins ', that is another matter, and as it seems to us, at least prima facie, by no means probable. The text of B must needs be older than the end of the third century, which is the date assigned to Hesychius. If we admit that the MS. may be Egyptian, it is only as one amongst several possibilities. Nothing can as yet be regarded as proved. Apart from such external data as coincidences of handwriting which con- nect the two MSS. as they have come down to us there can be no doubt that they had also a common ancestor far back in the past. The weight which their agreement carries does not depend on the independence of their testi- mony so much as upon its early date. That the date of their common readings is in fact extremely early appears to be proved by the number of readings in which they differ, these divergent readings being shared not by any means always by the same but by a great variety of other authorities. From this variety it may be inferred that between the point of divergence of the ancestors of the two MSS. and the actual MSS. the fortunes of each had been quite distinct. Not only on a single occasion, but on a number of successive occasions, new strains of text have been introduced on one or other of the lines. K especially has received several side streams in the course of its history, now of the colour which we call ' Western ' and now 'Alexandrian'; and B also (as we shall see) in the Pauline Epistles has a clear infusion of Western readings. It is possible that all these may have come in from a single copy ; but it is less likely that all the ' Western ' or all the 'Alexandrian' readings which are found in K had a single origin. Indeed the history of K since it was written does but reflect the history of its ancestry. We have only to suppose the corrections of N* embodied in the text of one MS., then those of K'' first inserted in the margin and then embodied in the text of a succeeding MS., then those of K^ in a third and K**" in a fourth, to form a mental picture of the process by which our present MS. became what it is. It remains for critical analysis to reconstruct this process, to pick to pieces the difTereat elements of which the text or the MS. consists, to arrange them in their order and determine their affinities. This analysis will doubtless be carried further than it has been. K'^H, Arm., Euthal, A number of scholars working on 55 have thrown out suggestions which would tend to group together these authorities, and possibly to bring them ' A similar view is held by Corssen. He regards the modem text based on K B as nur ein Spiegelbild einer willkiirlich jixierten Kuension dei vierttm Jahrhunderts \D*r Cyprianisch€ Textd. Acta Apostolorum, Berlin, 189a, p. 24). ^7.] THE TEXT Ixix into some further connexion with S? B. The MS. H Paul, (unfortunately, as we have said, not extant for Romans) bears upon its face the traces of its connexion with the library of Caesarea, as the subscription to Ep. to Titus states expressly that the MS. was corrected 'with the copy at Caesarea in the library of the holy Pamphilus written with his own hand.' Now in June, 1893, Dr. Rendel Harris pointed out a connexion between this MS. H Paul, and Euthalius {Sfic/uv/ietry, p. 88). This had also been noticed by Dr. P. Corssen in the second of the two programmes cited below (p. 12). Early in 1894 Herr W. Bousset brought out in Gebhardt and Harnack's Tcxtc u. iln- tersuchungen a series of Text-kritische Studien zuin iV. 7'., in the course of which (without any concert with Dr. Rendel Harris, but perhaps with fome knowledge of Corssen) he not wlj addaoed further evidence of this connexion, bat also brought into the gronp the third corrector cf K (K°). A note at the end of the Book of Esther said to be by his band speaks in graphic terms of a MS. corrected by the Hexapla of Origen, com- pared by Antoninus a confessor, and corrected by Pampbilas ' in prison ' (i. e. just before his death in the persecution of Diocletian). Attention had often been drawn to this note, but Herr Bousset was the first to make the fall use of it which it deserved. He found on examination that the presump- tion raised by it was verified and that there was a real and close connexion between the readings of N" and those of H and Euthalius which were inde- pendently associated with Pamphilus*. Lastly, to complete the series of novel and striking observations, Mr. F. C. Conybeare comes forward in the current number of the Journal »/ Philology (no. 46, iSgs") and maintains • farther connexion of the group with the Armenian Version. These researches are at present in full swing, and will doubtless lead by degrees to more or less definite results. The essays which have been mentioned •11 contain tome more speculative matter in addition to what has been mentioned, but it is also probable that they have a certain amount of solid nucleus. It is only just what we should have expected. The library founded by Pamphilus at Caesarea was the greatest and most lamous oi all the book-collections in the early Christian centuries ; it was also the greatest centre of literary and copying activity just at the moment when Christianity received its greatest expansion ; the prestige not only oi Eusebius and Pamphilus, but of the still more potent name (for some time yet to come) of Origen, attached to it. It would have been strange if it had not been consulted from far and wide and if the infinence of it were not felt in many parts of Christendom. D F G, Goth. Not only is E a mere copy of D, but there is a Tery close relation between F and G, especially in the Greek. It is not as yet absolutely determined what that relation is. In an essay written in 1871 (reprinted in Lightfoot Biblical Essays, p. 331 ff.) Dr. Hort states his opinion that F Greek is a direct copy of G, F Latin a Vulgate text partly assimilated to the Greek and with intrusive readings from the Latin of G. Later \Introd. p. 150) he writes that F is 'as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of G as E of D : if not it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar.' This second alterna- tive is the older view, adopted by Scrivener {Introd. p. 181, ed. 3) and maintained with detailed arguments in two elaborate programmes by Dr. P. Corssen (.£//. Paulin. Codd. Aug. Botm. Clarom^ 1887 and 1889). * Since the above was written all speculations on the subject of Euthalius have been superseded by Prof. Armitage Robinson's admirable essay in Texts and Studies, iii. 3. Both the text of Euthalius and that of the Codex Pa/ii- phili are ^ewn to be as yet very Uncertain quantities. Still it is probable that the authorities in question are really connected, and that there are elements in their text which may be traceable to Euthalius on the one hand and the Cae- sarean library on the other. Ixx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [$ 1 We are not rare tbat the question can ctUl bt r^arded m settled in ddi sense, and that Dr. Hort's original view is not to be preferred. Dr. Corssea admits that there are some phenomena which he cannot explain (1887, p. 13). These would fall naturally into their place if F Gk. is a copy of G ; and the arguments on the other sicie do not seem to be decisive. In any case it should be remembered that F Gk. and G Gk. are practically one witness and not two. Dr. Corssen reached a number of other interesting conclnsions. Examining the common element in D F G he showed that they were ultimately derived from a single archetype (Z), and that this archetype was written p«r cola tt (omtnata, or in clauses corresponding to the sense (sometimes called OTi\oi), as may be seen in the Palaeographical Society's facsimile of D (ser. i. pi. 63, 64). Here again we have another coincidence of inde- pendent workers, for in 1891 Dr. Rendel Harris carrying further a suggestion of Rettig's had thrown out the opinion, that not only did the same system of colometiy lie behind Cod. A Ew. (the other half, as we remember, of G Paul.) and D Ew. Act (Cod. Bezae, which holds a like place in the Gospel and Acts to D Paul.), but that it also extended to the other impor- tant Old-Latin MS. k ^Cod. Bobiensis), and even to the Coretonian Syriac — to which we suppose may now be added the Sinai palimpsest If that were so — and indeed without this additional evidence — Dr. Corssen probably puts the limit too late when he says that such a MS. is not likely to have been written before the time of St. Chrysostom, or 407 a. d. Thus Dr. Corssen thinks tliat there arose early in the fifth centnt^ a ' Graeco- Latin edition,* the Latin of which was more in agreement witA Victorinus Ambrosiaster and the Spanish Speculum. For the inter-connexion of this group he adduces a striking instance from i Cor. xiii. i ; and he argues that the locality in which it arose was more probably Italy than Africa. As to the place of origin we are more inclined to agree witli him than as to the date, though the Speculum contains an African element He then points out that this Graeco-Latin edition has affinities with the Gothic Version. The edition did not contain the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and the Epistle to the Romans in it ended at Rom. zv. 14 (see § 9 below) ; it was entirely without the doxology (Rom. xvi. 35-37). Dr. Corssen thinks that this Graeco-Latin edition has undergone tome correction in D by comparison with Greek MSB. and therefore that it is in psot more correctly preserved in G, which however in its turn can only l>e nsed for reconstructing it with caution. Like all that Dr. Corssen writes this sketch is raggestive and likely to bt fruitful, though we cannot express our entire agreement with it We only regret that we cannot undertake here the systematic inquiry which certainly ought to be made into the history of this group. The lines which it should follow would be something of this kind, (i) It should reconstruct as far as possible the common archetype of D and G. (ii) It should isolate the peculiar element in both MSS. and distinguish between earlier and later readings. The instances ia which the Greek has been conformed to tlie Latin will probably be found to be late and of little real importance, (iii) The peculiar and ancient readings in Gg should be carefully collected and studied. An opportunity might be found of testing more closely the hypo- thesis propounded in § 9 oi this Introduction, (iv) The relations of tb* Gothic Version to the group should be determined as accurately as possible. (t) The characteristics both of D and of the archetype of DG should be compared with those of Cod. Bezae and the Old-Latin MSS. of tlM Goq>elf and Acts. (3) Thf Textual Criticism of Epistle t9 Ronuau. The textual criticism of the Pauline Epistles generally is inferior in interest te f 7.] THB TEXT bad diat of the Historical Books of the New Testament When this if said it is not meant that investigations such as those outlined above are not full of attraction, and in their way full of promise. Any- thing which throws new light on the history of the text will be found in the end to throw new Ught on the history of Christianity. But what is meant is that the textual phenomena are less marked, and have a less distinctive and individual character. This may be due to two causes, both of which have really been at work. On the one hand, the latitude of variation was probably never from the first so great ; and on the other hand the evidence which has come down to us is inferior both in quantity and quality, so that there are parts of the history— and those just the most interesting parts — which we cannot reconstruct simply for want of material. A conspicuous instance of both conditions is supplied by the state of what is called the ' Western Text' It is probable that this text never diverged from the other branches so widely as it does in the Gospels and Acts; and just for that section of it which diverged most we have but little evidence. For the oldest forms of this text we are reduced to the quotations in Tertullian and Cyprian. We have nothing like the best of the Old-Latin MSS. of the Gospels and Acts ; nothing like forms of the Syriac Versions such as the Curetonian and Sinaitic ; nothing like the Diatessaron. And yet when we look broadly at the variants to the Pauline Epistles we observe the same main lines of distribution as in the rest of the N.T. A glance at the apparatus criticus of the Epistle to the Romans will show the tendency of the authorities to fall into the groups DEFG; HB; MACLP. These really corre- spond to hke groups in the other Books : DEFG correspond to the group which, in the nomenclature of Westcott and Hort, is called ' Western ' ; N B appear (with other leading MSS. added) to mark the Une which they would call ' Neutral ' ; N A C L P would include, but would not be identical with, the group which they call ' Alexandrian.' The later uncials generally (with accessions every now and then from the older ranks) would constitute the family which they designate as ' Syrian,' and which others have called ' Antiochene,' ' Byzantine,' ' Constantinopohtan,' ot ' Ecclesiastical.' Exception is taken to some of these titles, especially to the term ' Western,' which is only retained because of its long-established use, and no doubt gives but a very imperfect geographical descrip- tion of the facts. It might be proposed to substitute names suggested in most cases by the leading MS. of the group, but generalized so as to cover other authorities as well. For instance, we might speak of the S-text (= ' Western'), the P-text (= ' Neutral'), the m-text ( = * Alexandrian'), and the e-text or Katp^ ZovXfiovTfs D* F G, Codd. Lot. ap. HieroD. ap. Orij^.-lat Ambrstr. : ry Kvplif ^ov\tv::vTtt rel. 13 ToTf fjivdaut Tail' iyiojv D* F G, C»dd. ap. Theod. Mops. ap. Orig.-lat HiL Ambrstr. al.: toTs xpe'i's tou' tiyioiv rtl. lTHcsc two readings were perhaps due in the tirst instaace to accidental triors of transcription.] SV. 13 wKr]po'iar, ir rf twixov^f . . . 3 (tcaarqf At i Ocdt i/iiptat Hirpor vlarfoK. Cf. also Rom. xiiL 11-14; ft-io; rii. 9, 13. to be modelled on St PauTi Rom. ziL 9 4 iyaw^ drvvi- «/)(roi . . . 10 rp p6vifU)i ra^' cavTor?. 17 ftrjStyl ca/rdr drrt xaxov iwoSiSdyres" wpovocyvfuyot «a\d h>diiTioy vavruy AvOpinrav 18 cl 5vi'ar($>', rd l£ biMv, iitri •dyrwr AvOpanroir flp^ytiarrtt. CL also YT. 9, 14. Rom. xiii. i waaa tfvx^ i(ovaUus iircpcxoi/o'ais ivoraaffioSw ov yip iariy i^ovaia tl fxif vwi Btoi, ml Si oZaat irri 9*»5 rtTay/xiyai tUrlr ... 3 ol yiip apxovrti o£« tlal p6$ot r^ iya9^ (pyq>, dX\oi r^ Kam^ . . . 4 6(oG yd,p Zi6,icoy6s iorir, l»- tiKos tls ifyyify t^ ri kuk^p mpia- 9wn . . . 7 iw6Sort wSffi r6$ 6^ttkir r^ rdr 9tov' cf rtf KaXfi, in \6yta @i*»y ^lyn- mSrts ... (It pi\aSt\ports, avfiiraOfis, ^X(i5(A<^0(, tvair\ayxyat of the two the Epistle to the Romans is the earlier. St. Paul works out a thesis clearly and logically; St. Peter gives a series of maxims for which he is largely indebted to St. Paul. For example, in Rom. xiii. 7 we have a broad general principle laid down, St, Peter, clearly influenced by the phraseology of that passage, merely gives three rules of conduct. In St. Paul the language and ideas come out of the sequence of thought; in St. Peter they are adopted because they had already been used for the same purpose. This relation between the two Epistles is supported by other independent evidence. The same relation which prevails between the First Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle to the Romans is also found to exist between it and the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the same hypothesis harmonizes best with the facts in that case also. The three Epistles are all connected with Rome: one of them being written to the city, the other two in all probability being written from it. We cannot perhaps be quite certain as to the date of i Peter, but it must be earlier than the Apostolic Fathers who quote it ; while it in its turn quotes as we see at least two Epistles of St. Paul and these the most important. We may notice that these conclusions harmonize as far as they go with the view taken in § 3, that St. Peter was not the founder of the Roman Church and had not visited it when the Epistle to the Romans was written. In early church history arguments are rarely conclusive ; and the even partial coincidence of diflferent lines of investigation adds greatly to the strength of each. The wriier of the Epistle to the Hebrews again was probably indebted to the Romans, the resemblance between Rom. iv. 17 and Heb. xi. 11 is very close and has been brought out in the notes, while in Rom. xii. 19, Heb. x. 30, we have the same passage of Deuteronomy quoted with the same marked diver- gences from the text of the LXX. This is not in itself conclusive evidence; there may have been an earlier form of the version current, in fact there are strong grounds for thinking so ; but the hypothesis that the author ao>, Xiya Kv/)(ot. Heb. zi. 1 1 , 1 a wia-nt koI airfi TAppa ttiwaftiv tit KaTafioX^v arrfpfiaroi ikafitr Koi Tiapd Kaipov ijX.iHiai, iwti miarbv ^f/jaaro rov iirayyttki' fifvov iid icai d] 6(9) dAA' •! voti;rat ySftov hiKauoQrjaovToi. Rom. ir. i rioZyipoSfuy tvprjxivcu *A0padfA riy mpovdropa i^/ji&r fford adp/ca; $t), cxct gavxijlM. Rom. iy. ao fit Si r^ iimyytXiay rov Btov oi 9ifKpi07} r$ dnffrif, dAA* iytSwafiii0ij ry wlaTtt, Rom. ▼. 3-5 Kavx&iitOa h row Bfdiptaiv, tlh6Tti irt 1) 9\tfit iwo- Hoyify Karfpyd^trat,^ Si iwoftor^ 9oKipii)v, ^ S\ SoKipiif lAir{5a- 1) m tXiris ov «ara«rxiV*<, Srt ^ dYdvy rov 0COV iutixyrai. James ir. II fri^ «oToXaA«rr« iX\^ Xcav, dS(\v, dXAd itpiT^. James i. aa y'lytaOt Si woirjral X6yov, Moi nil n6y»y dxpomral vapa- koyi^d/ityoi iavrovt. James iL ai 'APpaipi i war^p ^ftSiv •iiK i( ipywy iSiMaii)6ij, dytviyicat 'laadK rdy vldy avrov ivl ri OvffiaaTTipioy ; James L 6 alrtirw Si iy wlortt p»l5iv SiaKpiy6fi(V0i' 6 ydp SiaKpiyd- H*yot (oiKf tt\iiSajyt 9a\Aff(Hjt dyapu- iopUr^ KcH fiim^ofUv^. James i. a-4 vaaay X'V*^*' i}7^<^«wtf« irav wttpafffxois vtpiviaijT* ■notKiXois, yivwaKovTft on rd SoKipaov iipmy rrjt niar feat Kartpyd^tTCu vvoftoyifiv. i)5i ivoftoyij ipyoy riktum ixirat, iya ^rc riktiM. * The LXX of Deat oxii. 35 iwds ainh'. Ixxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ a Rom. t{L t3 PKiww Si iTtpttf riiiof Jamea fr. i m69tp w&Ktpm mi w60v 4* Tott niKtal nov, dvTiarpa- fuixoi i" Ifui' ; o^k iyT(v0tv, im rSr Ttv6fitroy r^ v6fi^ rov vooi /tov, ^Soyuy i/uir rSrf ar partvonivmr i* mai alxiMi\aiTi(oyTi fit ty r^ v6fji^ ri^t roTt /liKtaiv vnwr ; Afiaprias tS> cirri iy tois niktal fuv. Rom. xiii. la AwoOatntia olir James L ai Awoii/ttfi weurtm rd Ipya rov aKdrovt, iySvaiifU0a ti ^napiav Kal mtpiaafiay komIiu ir ifpVToy Xoyov rdr tyyi/uyar rSiotu rcb ^x^ biAy. We may be expressing an excessive scepticism, but these resem- blances seem to us hardly close enough to be convincing, and the priority of St. James cannot be proved. The problem of literary indebtedness is always a delicate one; it is very diflBcult to find a definite objective standpoint; and writers of competence draw exactly opposite conclusions from the same facts. In order to justify our sceptical attitude we may point out that resemblances in phraseology between two Christian writers do not necessarily imply literary connexion. The contrast between aKpoarai and iroiijrat was not made by either St. Paul or St. James for the first time ; metaphors like 6r]cravpLt,€t<;, expressions like iv rjfjiepa opyrjs compared with eV ^nfptf as aluyat. dif^y. When we enter the sub-apostolic age the testimony to the use / the Epistle is full and ample. The references to it in Clement of ^lome are numerous. We can go further than this, the discus- bions on wioTit and diKaioirvvri (see p. 147) show clearly that Clement used this Epistle at any rate as a theological authority. Bishop Lightfoot has well pointed out how he appears as reconciling and combining four diflferent types of Apostolic teaching. The Apostles belong to an older generation, their writings have become subjects oi discussion. Clement is already beginning to build up, however madequately, a Christian theology combining the teaching of the 'iiiferent writers of an earlier period. If we turn to Ignatius' letters what will strike us is that the words and ideas of the Apostle have become incorporated with the mind of the writer. It is not so much that he quotes as that he can never break away from the circle of Apostolic ideas. The books of the N.T. have given 'aim his vocabulary and form the source of his thoughts. Polycarp quoies more freely and more definitely. His Epistle is almost a Cento of N.T. passages, and among them are undoubted quota- tions from the Romans. As the quotations of Polycarp come from Roui., I Cor., a Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., i Tim., 2 Tim., it is difficult not to believe that he possessed and made use of a collec- tion j! the Pauline Epistles. Corroborative evidence of this might be found in the desire he shows to make a collection of the letters of Igi.atius. He would be more likely to do this if he already pos- lesseu collections of letters ; and it is really impossible to maintaio Ixxx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§» that the Ignatian letters were fonned into one collection before those of St. Paul had been. Assuming then, as we are entided to do, that the Apostolic Fathers represent the first quarter of the second century we find the Epistle to the Romans at that time widely read, treated as a standard authority on Apostolic teaching, and taking its place in a collection of Pauline letters. The following are quotations and reminiscences of the Epistle in Clement of Rome : Rom. i. 21 iaicorlaBii 4 ^*i- vtrot airwv KapSia, Rom. H. »4 rd fip 5ro/ta tow SeoC Si' v//ay 0\acr(pr] fJ-tirai ir Tofj (dvfaiv, KoOuJs "YtypaiTTat. Rom. iv. 7 " Maffd/xot Sir A uv6pLaTi Kvpiov Bid ri^v vfitTfpav dris irfpnraTriaoifUP. Rom. Ti. { ; viiL 17, S9. Cf. Trail. 8 ^both quote O. T.). Eph. 18 irov Kavx^P-fy TO dnoOavuv (is to aiiroi wiOoi, to ^v ai/Toi) ovk tcTiy kv ffpuv. Trail. 9 KaTci to ufioitufia Si koi f)fms To^t ViaT(iovrai avr^ ovrcus ■:y(per d waTi)p avTov iv X. 'I., o5 X'^P'^ ^^ iMjOivdv ^y oiiu exofifv. Mag. 6 tit Tiiww ical St^ax^f iarr6s. Rom. xii. 10 r^ tpiXadtKfl^ fit dW^Kovs (piKoaTopyoi, t^ Ti/ip AWijKovs wpoijyovfKyoi. Rom. xiii. 8 6 ycLp dyairu/t' rdv irtpoy yiiMV v««Ai^p««iMTm Vfi&y $vy4iatadt voifjaai tpya tpoirit. Test. Dan. 5 Ix"*^*' ▼^c Btip r^t tlprfyijs. Test Aier. "j icai iy i}l« Distvnamct cf the four gnurally rueioed Ewom- g$listt esamined, Ed. i, 179a, pp. 357-261; Ed 2, 1805, pp. 306-313. * Bruno Bauer, Kritik d*r paul. Brief e^ 185a. Ckristus und die Casartm, p. 373. ■ Loman (A. D.), QwusHohu Pauliiuu, TJUckfisch Tijdschrift, i88a, 1883, 1886. * Steck (Rudolf), Dt GaUUerbrief natk seiner Echthtit untertuckt. Berlin, 1888. * Weisse (C. H.\ Beitrdge tur Kritik der Paulinischen Brief e mm die GtdaUr, Komer, Philipper und Kolosstr. Leipzig, 1867. * Verisitnili*, Leueram conditionem Nam Tettamenti exkikteUiei. A. Piettoa, ^ «. A. Naber, Amstelodami, 1886 *•! INTEGRITY Ixxxvii ia letter* which he wrote ia order to make cp for his own povertj* of religioM uid philosophical ideas. An examination of their treatment of a single chapter may be appended. The basis of ch. ti is a Jewish fragment {admodum wumcrabile) which extends from ver. 3 to ver. 11. This fragment Paulus Episcopns treated in his usual manner. He begins with the foolish question of ver. 3 which shows that he does not understand the argument that follows. He added interpolations in ver. 4. /(idem odoratnur tnanum eius ver. 5. If we omit t^ dfioiwftan in ver. 6 the difficulty in it vanishes. Ver. 8 again ia feeble and therefore was the work of Paulus Episcopus : non enim credimut mts esst victttret, ted novimus nos vivere ver. 11). w. 11-23 with the ex- ception apparently of ver. 14, 15 which have been misplaced, are the work of this interpolator who spoiled the Jewish fragment, and in these verses adapts what has preceded to the nses of the Church^. It will probably not be thought necessary to parsue this subject further. Michelsen * basing bis theory to a certain extent on the phenomena of the Uat two chapters considered that towards the end of the second century three recennoni of the Epistle were in existence. The Eastern containing ch. i-xri 94; the Western ch. i-xiv and xvi. 25-37; the Marcionite ch. i-xiT. The redactor who put together these recensions was however also responsible for a considerable number of interpolations which Michelsen undertakes to distinguish. Volter's theory is more elaborate. The original Epistle according to him contained the following portions of the Epistle. i. la, 7; 5,6; 8-17; V. and vi. (except v. 13, 14, 20; vi. 14, 15): xii, xiii; «v. 14-33 ; xri. ai-33. This bears all the marks of originality; its Christology is primitive, free from any theory of pre-existence or of two natures. To the first interpolator we owe i. 18; iii. 20 (except ii. 14, 15); viii. 1, 3-39; L ib-4. Here the Christology is different ; Christ is the pre-existent Son ol God. To the second interpolator we owe iii. 21 — iv. 25; v. 13, 14, 30; vi. 14, 15 ; Tii 1-6 ; ix. X ; xiv. i — xt. 6. This writer who worked about the year 70 wai a determined Antinomian, who could not see anything but evil in the Law. A third interpolator is responsible for vii. 7-25 ; viii. 2 ; a fourth for zi; ii 14, 15; XT. 7-13; a hfth for xvi. 1-20; a sixth for xvi. 34; a seventh for xtL 35-37. Van Manen * is distinguished for his vigorous attacks on his predecessors ; and for basing his own theory of interpolations on a reconstruction of the Marcionite text which he holds to be original. It has been somewhat tedious work enumerating these theories, which will ■eem probably to most readers hardly worth while repeating; so subjective and arbitrary is the whole criticism. The only conclusion that we can arrive at is that if early Christian documents have been systematically tampered with in a manner which would justify any one of these theories, then the study oi Christian history would be futile. There is no criterion of style or of language which enables us to distinguish a document from the interpolations, and wc should be compelled to make use of a number of writings which we could not either trust or criticize. If the documents are not trustworthy, neither is our criticism. But such a feeling of distrust is not necessary, and it may be worth while to conclude this subject by pointing out certain reasons which enable us to feel confident in most at any rate of the documents of early Christianity. » Op. eit., pp. 139-143- • Michelsen (J. H. A.), Tktologisth Tijdschrift, 1886, pp. 37a ft, 473 ft; 1887, p. 163 ff. ' Voelter (Daniel), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1889, p. 365 ff.; and DU Com- position der pcml. Hauptbriefe, I. Dir Romer- und Gakzterbrief, 1890. * Van Manen (W. C.), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1887. Marcion's Brief van Paulus aan dt Galatiis, pp. .^82-404, 451-5^4; and Faultu II, D» Mef mam d» Rimimtm. Leiden, 1891. Ixxxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8t It has been pointed ont that interpolation theories are not as absord as they might prima facU be held to be, for we have instances of the process actually taking place. The obvions examples are the Ignatian letters. But these are not solitary, almost the whole of the Apocryphal literature has undergone the same process ; so have the Acts of the Saints ; so has the Didache for example when included in the Apostolic Constitutions. Nor are we without evidence of interpolations in the N. T. ; the phenomenon of the Western text present! exactly the same characteristics. May we not then expect the same to hare happened in other cases where we have little or no information? Now in dealing with a document which has come down to as in a single MS. or version, or on any slight traditional evidence this possibility must always be considered, and it is necessary to be cautious in arguing from a single passage in a text which may have been interpolated. Those who doubted the genuinenesa of the Armenian fragment of Aristides for example, on the grounds that it contained the word Theotokos, have been proved to be wrong, for that word as was suspected by many has now been shown to have been interpolated. But in the case of the N. T. we have so many authorities going back in- dependently to such an early period, that it is most improbable that any important variation in the text could escape our knowledge. The different lines of text in St. Paul's Epistles must have separated as early as the beginning of the second century ; and we shall see shortly that one displacement in the text, which must have been early, and may have been very early, has influenced almost all subsequent documents. The number, the variety, and the early character of the texts preserved to us in MSS., Versions, and Fathers, is a guarantee that a text formed on critical methods represents within very narrow limits the work as it left its author's hands. A second line of argument which is used in favour of interpolation theories is the difficulty and obscurity of some passages. No doubt there are passages which are difficult ; but it is surely very gratuitous to imagine that everything which is genuine is easy. The whole tendency of textual criticism is to prove that it is the custom of * redactors' or 'correctors' or ' interpolators' to produce a text which is always superficially at any rate more easy than the genuine text. But on the other side, although the style of St. Paul is certainly not always perfectly smooth ; although he certamly is liable to be carried away by a side issue, to change the order of his thoughts, to leap over intermediate steps in his argument, yet no serious commentators of whatever school would doubt that there is a strong sustained argument running through the whole Epistle, The possibility of the commentaries which have been written proves conclusively the improbability of theories implying a wide element of in- terpolation. But in the case of St. Paul we may go further. Even where there is a break in the argument, there is almost always a verbal coimexion. When St. Paul passes for a time to a side issue there is a subtle coniiexioD in thought as in words which would certainly escape an interpolator's observation. This has been pointed out in the notes on xi. lo; xv. so, where the question of interpolation has been carefully examined; and if any one will take the trouble to go carefully through the end of ch. v and the beginning of ch. vi, he will see how each sentence leads on to the next. For instance, the first part of V, 30, which is omitted by some of these critics, leads on immediately to the second (vXtovaari . . . iv\(6vaatv), that suggests vntpcirepiaatvafy, then comes vKfovdaji in vi. i ; bnt the connexion of sin and death clearly suggests the words of ver. 2 and the argument that follows. The same process may be worked ont through the whole Epistle. For the most part there is a clear and definite argument, and even where the logical continuity is broken there is always a connexion either in thought or words. The Epistles of St Paul present for the most part a definite and compact literary unit. If to these arguments we add the external evidence which is given in detail above, w« may feel reasonably confident that ti» historical cooditiona aader fa.] INTEGRITV bcxxix which the Epistk hu cone dww* t* st make fte tfaeoritt af tU> new school »f critics untenable '. We have laid great stress on the complete absence of any textual justifica- tions for any of Uie theories which have been so far noticed. This absence is made all the more striking by the existence of certain variations in the text and certain facts reported on tradition with regard to the last two chapters of the Epistle. These facts are somewhat complex and to a certain extent con- flicting, and a careful examination of them and of the theories suggested to explain them is necessary '. It will be convenient first of all to enumerate these facts : (i) The words tv 'Pw/*p in i. y and 15 are omitted by the bilingual MS. G both in the Greek and Latin text (F is here defective). Moreo\ er the cursive 47 adds in the margin of ver. 7 ri Iv Ti>fx^, oirt iv rrj i^rjyrjnu ovrt iv t Git Gifford. Ga ...... Godet Lft. Lightfoot lid .••••. Liddon. Lipa. ...... Lipsius. Mey. ..,.,, Meyer. Mey.-W Meyer-Weim Oltr. . . . , • . Oltramare. Ya. Vaughan. CXU ABBREVIATIONS CJ.O. • • . , . Corput InxcripHonum Graecarum. CJX,. . • , , . Corpus Inscriptionum Lattnarum. Gnn.-Thay. .... Grimm -Thayer's Ltxi' con. Trench, Sy». .... Trench on Symmymt. Win Winer's Grammar. Exp. ...... Expositor. JBExeg. ..... Journal of the Society <^ Biblical Literature emd Exegesis. Zw7%, . . • , , Zeitschrift fUr wissen- schaftliche Theol^ie. Mdd. addii, addunt, Ike. «/. alii, alibi. cat. (eaten.) catena. codd. ...... codices. edd, .,..,. editcres. edd.pr. ..... editcres priorea (older editors). «m omiitit, omittunt, Jfcc. pauc pauci. pier plerique. phtr plures. proem, ..... praemittit, pnemittimt, &c. rH. reliqui. */3> 4/6> ^^ • • • . twice out of three times, four out of five times, In text-critical notes adverbs {bis, temel, &c.), statistics (V„ */i) and cod. codd., ed. edd., &c., always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows : ' Vulg. codd.' = some MSS. of the Vulgate, Epiph. eod. or Epiph. a/. = a MS. or some printed edition of Epiphanius. BT.B. — The text eonunented upon ia that commonly known aa the Bevl^ers' Qreek Text (i. e. the Greek Text presupposed in the Revised Version of 1881) published by the Clarendon Press. The few instanoes tal wiiiob tb« editors dissent from this text are noted as they ooour. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS THE AFOSTOIilC SAIiTTTATION. 1. 1, 7. * Paul, a divinely chosen and accredited Apostle^ gives Christian greeting to the Roman Church, itself also divinely called. 'Paul, a devoted servant of Jesus Christ, an Apostle called by divine summons as much as any member of the original Twelve, solemnly set apart for the work of delivering God's message of salvation ; 'Paul, so authorized and commissioned, gives greeting to the whole body of Roman Christians (whether Jewish or Gentile), who as Christians are special objects of the Divine love, called out of the mass of mankind into the inner society of the Church, consecrated to God, like Israel of old, as His own peculiar people. May the free unmerited favour of God and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him be yours 1 May God Himself, the heavenly Father, and the Lord Jesus Messiah, grant them to you! I. 2-6. I preach, in accordance with our yewish Scrip- tures, Jesus the Son of David and Son of God, whose commission I bear. *The message which I am commissioned to proclaim is no startUng novelty, launched upon the world without preparation, but rather the direct fulfilment of promises which God had inspired the prophets of Israel to set down in Holy Writ. 'It relates to none other than His Son, whom it presents in a twofold aspect ; on the one hand by physical descent tracing His lineage • In this ^rjTols Ayiois). (iv) Its subject is Jesus, Who is at once the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God (w. 3, 4). (v) From Him, the Son, and from the Father, may the blessedness of Christians descend upon you (ver. 7). This opening section of the Epistie affords a good opportunity to watch the growth of a Christian Theology, in the sense of reflection upon the significance of the Life and Death of Christ and the relation of the newly inaugurated order of things to the old. We have to remember (i) that the Epistle was written about the year 58 a.d., or within thirty years of the Ascension; (a) that in the interval the doctrinal language of Christianity has had to be built up from the foundations. We shall do well to note which of the tei ms used are old and which new, and how far old terms have had a new face put upon them. We will return to this point at the end of the paragraph. I. L] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 5 L touXof *li)aou XpioTou : iovXos Btov or Kvptov is an Old Testa- ment phrase, applied to the prophets in a body from Amos onwards (Am. iil 7; Jer. vii. 35 and repeatedly; Dan. ix. 6; Ezra ix. 11); also with slight variations to Moses {dtpdnau Josh. i. 2), Joshua (Josh. xxiv. 29; Jud. ii. 8), David (title of Ps. xxxvi. [xxxv.J; Pss. IxxviiL [IxxviiJ 70; Ixxxix. [Ixxxviii.] 4, 21; also trais Kvpiov, title of Ps. xviii. [xvii.]), Isaiah \nais Is. xx. 3); but applied also to worshippers generally (Pss. xxxiv. [xxxiii.] 23 ; cxiii. [cxii.] i waiSts; cxxxvi. [cxxxv.] aa of Israel, &c.). This is the first instance of a similar use in the New Testament ; it is found also in the greetings of Phil., Tit., Jas., Jude, 2 Pet., show- ing that as the Apostolic age progressed the assumption of the title became established on a broad basis. But it is noticeable how quietly St. Paul steps into the place of the prophets and leaders of the Old Covenant, and how quietly he substitutes the name of His own Master in a connexion hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah. 'ItjctoO XpicrroO. A small question of reading arises here, which is per- haps of somewhat more importance than may appear at first sight. In the opening verses of most of St. Paul's Epistles the MSS. vary between 'lijaov Xpiarov and XpiffTov 'Irjaov. There is also evidently a certain method in the variation. The evidence stands thus (where that on one side only is given it may be assumed that all remaining authorities are on the other) : — I Thess. i. i 'Irjaov Xpiar^ unquestioned, a Thess. i. I 'Irjaov Xpiar^ Edd. ; Xpiar^ 'Irjaov D E F" G, Ambrstr. (tu ed. Ballerini). GaL i. I 'Irjffov "Kptarov unquestioned. I Cor. i. I XptffTov 'irjaov BDEFG 17 al. paut., Vulg. codd., Chryi. Ambrstr. Aug. setnel, Tisch., WH. marg. t Cor. i. I Xpiarov 'Irjaov N BMP 17 marg., Hard., Euthal. cod. Theodrt Tisch. WH. RV. Rom. i. I TLpiarov 'Irjaov B, Vulg. codd., Grig, iis (contra Orig.-lat. bU) Aug. «OT//Amb. Ambrstr. al. Lat., Tisch. WH. marg, Phil. i. I XpiffTov '\T]aoi N B D E, Boh., Tisch. WH. RV. Eph. i. I XpiOTov 'Irjaov BDEP17, Vulg. codd. Boh, Goth. Hard., Grig, (gx Caten.) Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. Col. i. I XptffTov 'Irjaov KABFGLP17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Hard., Euthal. cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. Hieron. a/.. Tisch. WH. RV. Philem. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov KAD«FGKP {de/. B), &c., Boh., Hieron. («/ vid.) Ambrstr. a/., Tisch. WH. RV. 1 Tim. i. I Xpiarov 'Irjaov NDFGP {de/. B), Vulg. codd. Boh. Hard., Jo -Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. J Tim. i. I Xpiarov 'lijaov NDEFGKP {de/. B) 17 a/., Vulg. codd. Boh. Sah. Hard., Euthal. f^o*/. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. al., Tisch. WH. RV. Tit. i. I Irjaov Xpiarov K D^ E F G &c., Vulg. codd. Goth. Pesh. Arm. Aeth., Chrys. Euthal. cod. Ambrstr. (ed. Ballerin.") a/., Tisch. WH. (sed Xpiarov ['Irjaov'] marg.) RV. ; Xpiarov 'hjaov A minusc. tres, Vulg. codd. Boh. Hard., Cassiod. ; Xpiarov tantum D**. It will be observed that the Epistles being placed in a roughly chrono- logical order, those at the head of the list read indubitably ^IrjTov Xpiaroi (or Xpiar^), while those in the latter part (with the single exception of Tit., which is judiciously treated by WH.) as indubitably read Xpiarov 'lttac\fKT6t see Lft. on Col. iii. I a. There If a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. In the Gospell nXrjToi are all who are invited to enter Christ's kingdom, whether or not they accept the invitation ; the ntXtKToi are a smaller group, selected to special honour (Matt. xxii. 14). In St Paul both words are applied to the same persons; KKriT6s implies that the call has been not only given but obeyed. dir6aToXo«. It is well known that this word is used in two senses ; a narrower sense in which it was applied by our Lord Himself to the Twelve (Luke vi. 13 ; Mark iii. 14 v.l.), and a wider in which it includes certainly Barnabas (Acts xiv. 4, 14) and probably James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 19), Andronicus and Junias (Rom. x\i 7), and many others (cf. i Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11; DidacM xi, xii, &c. ; also esp. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 92flF. ; Harnack m Texte u. Untersuch. ii. 1 1 1 ff.). Strictly speaking St. Paul could only claim to be an Apostle in the wider accepta- tion of the term ; he lays stress, however, justly on the fact that be is rJki^TOf aitoaroko^, i. e. not merely an Apostle by virtue of possessing X. L] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 5 such qualifications as are described in Acts i. 21, a a, but through a direct intervention of Christ. At the same time it should be remembered that St. Paul lays stress on this fact not with a view to personal aggrandizement, but only with a view to commend his Gospel with the weight which he knows that it deserves. dupio-fi^Kos : in a double sense, by God (as in Gal. i. 15) and by man (Acts xiii. 3). The first sense is most prominent here ; or rather it includes the second, which marks the historic fulfilment of the Divine purpose. The free acceptance of the human commis- sion may enable us to understand how there is room for free will even in the working out of that which has been pre-ordained by God (see below on ch. xi). And yet the three terms, 8ov\os, icKt}t6s, d<{j(opi(Tfievos, all scrve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural doctrine that human ministers, even Apostles, are but instruments in the hand of God, with no initiative or merit of their own. This conception is not confined to the Canonical Books : it is found also in Assump. Mays. i. 14 itaque excogitavit et invenit me, qui ai initio orbis ttrrarum praeparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illius. CIS cfioyyAioK ©coO. The particular function for which St. Paul is ' set apart ' is to preach the Gospel of God. The Gospel is sometimes described as ' of God ' and sometimes ' of Christ ' (e. g. Mark i. i). Here, where the thought is of the gradual unfolding in time of a plan conceived in eternity, ' of God ' is the more appro- priate. It is probably a mistake in these cases to restrict the force of the gen. to one particular aspect (' the Gospel of which God is the author,' or * of which Christ is the subject ') : all aspects are included in which the Gospel is in any way related to God and Christ. cuayyAioK. The fundamental passage for the use of this word appears to be Mark i. 14, 15 (cf. Matt. iv. 23). We cannot doubt that our Lord Himself described by this term (or its Aramaic equivalent) His announcement of the arrival of the Messianic Time. It does not appear to be borrowed directly from the LXX (where the word occurs in all only two [or three] times, and once for * the reward of good tidings ' ; the more common form is fvayyeXta). It would seem, however, that there was some influence from the rather frequent use (twenty times) of eiayy^Xifeij/, €i;ayyfXiffo-da», especially in Second Isaiah and the Psalms in connexion with the news of the Great Deliverance or Restoration from the Captivity. A conspicuous passage is Isa. Ixi. i, which is quoted or taken as a text in Luke iv. 18. The group of words is well established in Synoptic usage {tvayytXiov, Matthew four times, Mark eight, Acts two; tvayyf\i^e(T6ai, Matthew one, Luke ten, Acts fifteen). It evidently took a strong hold on the imagination of St. Paul in connexion with his own call to missionary labours {tvayytXiov sixty 6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. l-t. dmes in Epp. Paul, besides in Epp. and Apoc. only twice ; nay- ytXi^taBcu twenty times in Epp. Paul., besides once mid. seven times pass.). The disparity between St. Paul and the other N. T. writers outside Evv. Synopt. Acts is striking. The use of tvayytXiov for a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday, Bamp. Led. p. 3i7«.)» the way is prepared for it by places like Mark i. i ; Apoc. xiv. 6. 2. TrpoeTnrjYYeiXaTO. The words tnayytXia, i-nayyiWtaQai OCCUr several times in LXX, but not in the technical sense of the great ' promises ' made by God to His people. The first instance of this use is Ps. Sol. Xii. 8 Km Saioi Kvpiov Kkrjpovo^ir^daitv (nayytXiat Kvpiov: cf. vii. 9 Tox) (Ktrjaai ritv oiKov 'laKut^ els TjfjLtpav iv rj fTrriyyfCka aiiTois, and xvii. 6 oU ovk tnrjyytika), fifra /3/ar d(j)€iXoyro : a groUp of passages which is characteristic of the attitude of wistful expecta- tion in the Jewish people during the century before the Birth of Christ. No wonder that the idea was eagerly seized upon by the primitive Church as it began to turn the pages of the O. T. and to find one feature after another of the history of its Founder and of its own history foretold there. We notice that in strict accordance with what we may believe to have been the historical sequence, neither (irafyeXia nor iirafyiWeadcu (in the technical •ense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke xxiv. 49, where inay- ytKia is used of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit ; but we no sooner crosg over to the Acts than the use becomes frequent. The words cover (i") the promises made by Christ, in particular the promise of the Holy Spirit (which is referred to the Father in Acts i. 4) ; so iirayytKia three times in the Acts, Gal. iii. 14, and Eph. i. 13 ; ^ii) the promises of the O T. fulfilled in Chris- tianity; so inayytKia four times in Acts (note esp. Acts xiii. 3a, xxvL 6), some eight times each in Rom. and Gal., both inayytXia and ivayye^^taBat repeatedly in Heb., &c. ; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet fulfilled or unfulfilled, e.g. 2 Cor. i. ao oatu 7d/) irrayytXiat e«ot) (cf. vii. i) ; I Tim. iv. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. i ; a Pet iii. 4 ij inayytXia r^i vapovaiat airrov. iv Ypa(f)ais dyiais : perhaps the earliest extant instance of the use of this phrase (Philo prefers itpal ypaai, Upal jSt'/SXoi, 6 Upos \6yos : cf. Sanday, Bamp. Led. p. 72) ; but the use is evidently well estab- lished, and the idea of a collection of authoritative books goes back to the prologue to Ecclus. In ypa(pais Ayiais the absence of the art. throws the stress on iyiais ; the books are ' holy ' as con- taining the promises of God Himself written down by inspired men (8ta tS>v irpo(j)TjTi>¥ avTov). 8. ytvoftivou. This is contrasted with Spia-dfvrot, ynmpxvov denot» ing, as usually, ' transition from one state or mode of subsistence to another ' {Sp. Comm. on i Cor. i. 30) ; it is rightly paraphrased ' [Who] was born,* and is practically equivalent to the Johannean fKd6vTos fls rov Kocrpov. Ik vra>y Kot veKpS>v, and XVii. 3 1 /icXXft Kpivetv , . . iv avbpX a ipi(Tt. The word itself does not determine the meaning either way : it must be determined by the context But here the particular context is also neutral ; so that we must look to the wider context of St. Paul's teaching generally. Now it is certain that St. Paul did not hold that the Son of God became Son by the Resurrection. The undoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; viii. 9 ; cf. Col. i. 15-19). At the same time he did regard the Resurrection as making a difference — if not in the transcendental relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond oiu- cogni< S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [L 4. tance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil. ii. 9 dt6 nal 6 Qt^s avr6p vntpv'^tou't , Koi fX'tploraTO avr^ r^ ivofta rh vntp nap oi/o/ia). This is sufficiently expressed by our word ' designated,' which might perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts. It is true that Christ becomes Judge in a sense in which He does not become Son ; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external creation but by an inherent right. The Divine declaration, as it were, endorses and proclaims that right. The Latin rersions are not very helpfnl. The common rendering WM prtueUstinatus (to expressly Rafinos [Orig.-lat.] ad lot. ; cf. Introd. ( 7). Hilary of Poitiera has destinatus, which Rniinai also prefers. Tertollian reads definitus. uloS ecou. ' Son of God,' like ' Son of Man/ was a recognized tide of the Messiah (cf. Enoch cv. a ; 4 Ezra vii. a8, 29 ; xiii. 3a, 37, 52 ; xiv. 9, in all which places the Almighty speaks of the Messiah as ' My Son,' though the exact phrase * Son of God ' does not occur). It is remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely find it used by our Lord Himself, though in face of Matt, xxvii. 43, John X. 36, cf. Matt. xxi. 37 f. al., it cannot be said that He did not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mark iiL 11, v. 7 j ; the cen- turion, Mark xv. 39 ||), and it is implied by the words of the Tempter (Matt iv. 3, 6 ||) and the voice from heaven (Mark i. II B, ix. 711). The crowning instance is the confession of St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Logia, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' Matt, xvi, 16. It is consistent with the whole of our Lord's method that He should have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims, and that He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spon- taneous working of the minds of His disciples. Nor is it sur- prising that the title should have been chosen by the Early Church to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of Christ : see esp. the common text of the Gospel of St. Mark, L i (where the words, if not certainly genuine, in any case are an extremely early addition), and this passage, the teaching of which is very direct and explicit. The further history of the term, with its strengthening addition novoyf^^qs, may be followed in Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 24 ff., where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed. In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates from the Resurrection: but we have also seen that St. Paul re- garded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation ; and it is as certain that when he speaks of Him as 6 Btof v'lii (Rom. viii. 32), 6 iocurov vloy (viii. 3), he intends to cover the period of pre-existence, as that St. John identifies the \unny*vi\s with the S. 4.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 9 pre-existent Logos. There is no sufficient reason to think that the Early Church, so far as it reflected upon these terms, under- stood them diflferently. There are three moments to each of which are applied with variations the words of Ps. ii. 7 ' Thon art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee.' They are (i) the Baptism (Mark i. 1 1 1) ; (ii) the Transfiguration ^Mark ix. 7 ||) ; (iii) the Resurrection (Acts xiii. 33). We can see here the origin of the Ebio- nite idea of progressive exaltation, which is however held in check by the doctrin; of the Logos in both its forms, Pauline (2 Cor. iv. 4, &c., ut sup.) and Johannean (John L i ff.). The moments in question are so many stepi in the passage through an earthly life of One who came forth from God and returned to God, not stages in the gradual deification of one who began hit career as }fn.\h$ ivipomo*. iv Sufdfiei : not with vlov Brov, as Weiss, Lips, and others, * Son of God in power,' opposed to the present stale of humiliation, but rather adverbially, qualifying opiaBttnot, ' declared with might to be Son of God.' The Resurrection is regarded as a 'miracle' or ' signal manifestation of Divine Power.' Comp. esp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4 ffTTavpmSr) f^ aadfvfiai, iiXXa (^ (k Bvpafxtws Qfov, This parallel de- termines the connexion of iv 8vv. kotA iTKcCfia dyiw«unf|$ : not (i) = Uv(vfia°Ayioy, the Third Person in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally and some moderns), because the antithesis of oap^ and nixvua requires that they shall be in the same person ; nor (ii), with Beng. and other moderns (even Lid.) as the Divine Nature in Christ as if the Human Nature were coextensive with the adp^ and the Divine Nature were co- extensive with the nvevpa, which would be very like the error of Apollinaris ; but (iii) the human nvfvfia, like the human a-dp^, distinguished however from that of ordinary humduity by an exceptional and transcendent Holiness (cf. Heb. ii. 17; iv. 15 'it behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren . . yet without sin'). 4Y'^'^<'^^i not fotmd in profane literature, occurs three times in LXX of the Psalms, not always in agreement with Heb. (Tss. xcv. 6 [xcvi. 6 'strength']; xcvi. la [xcvii. 12 'holy name,' lit. 'memorial']; cxiiv. 5 [cxlv. 5 'honour']). In all three places it ia used of the Divine attribute; but in a Mace. iii. la we have rj tov rv-nov AyiaiavvT). In Test. XII. Pair. Levi 18 the identical phrase vvtv^i. ifiai|| : om. G g, ScAol. cod. 47 (rA ip 'Pw/i^ oSrt iv rg t^Tiyrjatt oCrt iv T^ prjro) fivrjfiovtvfi, i. e. some commentator whom the Scholiast had before him). G reads navi toU ovaiy iv dydnri etov (similarly d* Vulg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. seem to imply irao-i Toit oZfTiv iv 'Prnfiji iv dyaiij] Qtov). The Same MS. OmitS roit iv 'Pi/iff in ver. 15. These facts, taken together with the fluc- tuating position of the final doxology, xvi 25-27, would seem to give some ground for the inference that there were in circulation in ancient times a few copies of the Epistle from which all local references had been removed. It is however important to notice that the authorities which place the doxology at the end of ch. xiv are quite different from those which omit iv 'Pco^/; here and in ver. 15. For a full discussion of the question see the Introduction, §6. kXt]tois dyiois. KXr;r^ Ayla represents consistently in LXX the phrase which is translated in AV. and RV. * an holy convocation * (so eleven times in Lev. xxiii and Ex. xii. 16). The rendering ap- pears to be due to a misunderstanding, the Heb. word used being one with which the LXX translators were not familiar. Whereas in Heb. the phrase usually runs, * on such a day there shall be a holy convocation,' the LXX treat the word translated convocation as an adj. and make 'day' the subject of the sentence, 'such a day (or feast) shall be KXijn) dyLa, i. e. specially appointed, chosen, distinguished, holy (day).' This is a striking instance of the way in which St. Paul takes a phrase which was clearly in the first instance a creation of the LXX and current wholly through it, appropriating it to Christian use, and recasts its mean- ing, substituting a theological sense for a liturgical. Obviously kXtitoIs has the same sense as KXrjTos in ver. i: as he himself was * called ' to be an Apostle, so all Christians were * called ' to be Christians; and they personally receive the consecration which under the Old Covenant was attached to ' times and seasons.' For the following detailed statement of the evidence respecting «Xi;r^ Ayia we are indebted to Dr. Driver : — kKtjt^ cotresponds to ^^9, trom K*^^ t» emU, a technical term almoat wholly confined to the Priests' Code, denoting apparently a special religiotu meeting, or ' convocation,' held on certain sacred days. It is represented by KKrjrIi, Ex. xii. 16 b; Lev. xxiii. 7, 8, 37, 35, 36; Num. xxviii. 35. Now in all these passages, where the Heb. has '«m such a day there shall be a holy convocation,' the LXX have < snch a day shall be K\rfrii Ayia,' i.e. they alter the form of the sentence, make day subject, aad use sXi}r(i with its proper force w aa adj. 'shall be a calitd (t.e. I. 7.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 1$ a specially appointed, chosen, distinguished*), Aofy (day) ' ; of. cX. in //. is. 165 and Rom, i. i. They read analogously with ^"7?^ in Lev. xxiii. a at iopToi Kvpiov, Ay KoXiffeTf aircis leXriTis dyias (cf. v. 37), 31 «o2 KoXiatrt ravrqv t^v ijnipav kXijttiV ayia tarai vfuv. In Lev. xxiii. 3 (cf. v. 24), uXririi Ayia seems to be in apposition with av&vavais. The usage of kKijHi in Lev. xxiii is, however, such as to suggest that it was probably felt to have the form of a subst (sc. '^iiipa) ; cf. i-nucXriTos. This view of k\. is supported by their rendering of K'JiPl? elsewhere. In Ex. xii. 1 6 a, Lev. xxiii. 4 they also alter the form of the sentence, and render it by a verb, KXr]dr}atTai iyia, and iyias xaXifferf respectively. In Num. xxviii. 18, 26 («ai ry fiiJi(p<} twv veuv .... kiriKXrjTot dyia larax ifuv : similarly xxix. 1, 7, la), they express it by ewiKKrjTos (the same word nsed ()) ■fit'-ipa ^ irpdiTt] eirlKXrjTOi ayid 'iarai {//xiv) ib. i. 16; xxvi. 9, for the ordinary partic. called, summoned), i.e. I suppose in the same sense of specially appointed (cf. Josh. xx. 9 al voXtn at eniv\i]Toi rots vloU lapa^K). Is. i. 13 ' the calling of a convocation ' is represented in LXX by ^ttipai ltfyd\t]v, and iv. 5 ' all her convocations * by ra ittpiKxicKqi airrji. From all this, it occurs to me that the LXX were not familiar with the term JOpD, and did not know what it meant. I think it probable that they pro- nounced it not as a subst. ^i^l?, but as a participU *^ptp (' called *). dyiois. The history of this word would seem to be very parallel to that of Kkr\To\i. It is more probable that its meaning developed by a process of deepening from without inwards than by extension from within outwards. Its connotation would seem to have been at first physical and ceremonial, and to have become gradually more and more ethical and spiritual, (i) The fundamental idea appears to be that of 'separation.' So the word 'holy' came to be applied in all the Semitic languages, (2) to that which was ' set apart ' for the service of God, whether things (e. g. x Kings vii. 51 [37] ) or persons (e, g. Ex. xxii. 31 [29] ). But (3) inasmuch as that which was so ' set apart ' or ' consecrated ' to God was required to be free from blemish, the word would come to denote ' freedom from blemish, spot, or stain' — in the first instance physical, but by degrees, as moral ideas ripened, also moral. (4) At first the idea of 'holiness,' whether physical or moral, would be directly associated with the service of God, but it would gradually become detached from this connexion and denote ' freedom from blemish, spot, or stain,' in itself and apart from any particular destination. In this sense it might be applied even to God Himself, and we find it so applied even in the earliest Hebrew literature (e. g. I Sam. vi. 20). And in proportion as the conception of God itself became elevated and purified, the word which expressed this central attribute of His Being would contract a meaning of more severe and awful purity, till at last it becomes the culminating and supreme expression for the very essence of the Divine Nature. When once this height had been reached the sense so acquired * Bid {L»x, im LXX.) dtes from Phavoriniu the gloss, kK, ^ KoKtor^ moI i 14 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [l. 7, would be reflected back over all the lower uses, and the tendency would be more and more to assimilate the idea of holiness m the creature to that of holiness in the Creator. This tendency is formulated in the exhortation, ' Ye shall be holy ; for I, the Lord your God, am holy ' (Lev. xix. a, *c.). Such would appear to have been the history of the word up to the time when St. Paul made use of it He would find a series of meanings ready to his hand, some lower and some higher ; and he chooses on this occasion not that which is highest but one rather midway in the scale. When he describes the Roman Christians as &yioi, he does not mean that they reflect in their persons the attri- butes of the All-Holy, but only that they are ' set apart ' or ' conse- crated ' to His service. At the same time he is not content to rest in this lower sense, but after his manner he takes it as a basis or starting-point for the higher. Because Christians are ' holy ' in the sense of ' consecrated,' they are to become daily more fit for the service to which they are committed (Rom. vi. 17, 18, aa), they are to be 'transformed by the renewing' of their mind (Rom. xii. a). He teaches in fact implicitly if not explicitly the same lesson as St. Peter, ' As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living (AV. conversation); because it is written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy ' (i Pet. i. 15, 16). We note that Ps. Sol. had already described the Messianic people as Xa6s ayiot (koi (Tvvd^et \a6v dywv, oi a(f>rjyr](r«rai iv hiKaioavvjf xvii. 28; cf. Dan. vii. 18-27; ^"- '4)' Similarly Enoch ciii. a; cviii. 3, where * books of the holy ones = the roll of the members of the Kingdom ' (Charles). The same phrase had been a designa- tion for Israel in O. T., but only in Deut. (vii. 6 ; xiv. a, 21 ; xxvi. 19; xxviii. 9, varied from Ex. xix. 6 (6vos ayiov). We have thus another instance in which St. Paul transfers to Christians a title hitherto appropriated to the Chosen People. But in this case the Jewish Messianic expectation had been beforehand with him. There is a certain element of conjecture in the abore sketch, which it inevitable from the fact that the earlier stages in the history of the word had been already gone through when the Hebrew literature begins. The instances above given will show this. The main problem is how to accomit for the application of the same word at once to the Creator and to His creatures, both things and persons. The common view (accepted also by Delitzsch) is that in the latter case it means * separated ' or ' set apart ' for God, and in the former case that it means 'separate from evil' {sejunctus ai omni vitio, labis expers). But the link between these two meanings is little more than verbal ; and it seems more probable that the idea of holiness in God, whether in the sense of exaltedness (Baudissin) or of purity (Delitzsch'), is derivative rather than primary. There are a number of monographs on the subject, of which perhaps the best and the most accessible is that by Fr. Delitzsch in Heriog's Real-Encyklopddie, ed. a, s. t. ' Ileiligkeit Gottes.' Instruc- tive discussions will be found in Davidson, Ezekitl, p. xxxix. i, ; Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 133 ff., 140 (140 ff., 150 ed. a) ; Schultx, ThioUgy of tht Old Ttstament, ii. 131, 167 ff. A treatise by Dr. J. Agat L 7.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 15 Beet is OB a good method, bat Is somewhat affected bf ctitteal ^aestioM M to the sequence of the docaments. There is an interesting progression in the addresses of St. Paul's £pp. : I, t ThesS. Gal. r^ «(C(tX»7). We have seen how xap« had acquired a deeper sense in N. T. as compared with O. T. ; with cipijw; this process had taken place earlier. It too begins as a phrase of social intercotu-se, marking that stage in the advance of civilization at which the assumption that every stranger encountered was an enemy gave place to overtures of friendship {Etpr)vj) o-ot Jud. xix. 20, &c.). But the word soon began to be used in a religious sense of the cessation of the Divine anger and the restoration of harmony between God and man (Ps. xxix. [xxviii.] 11 Kvpios tiXoyqafi t6i» \a6v airov iv flprjvji : IxXXV. [Ixxxiv.] 8 \cLkriT; ifA wkT/OwOtiT]. diro 6coS irarp^s Vjfiuf ical Kupiou 'ti)(rou Xpiorou. The juxta- position of God as Father and Christ as Lord may be added to the proofs already supplied by w. i, 4, that St. Paul, if not formally enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which cannot really be distinguished from it. The assignment of the respective titles of ' Father ' and ' Lord ' represents the first begin- ning of Christological speculation. It is stated in precise terms and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate prepositions in I Cor. viii. 6 dXX' tjfjUv tls 0«6r 6 narrip, f^ ov ra iravra, Kai fifit'is W» avT6v, KOI fis Kvptos 'irja-ovt XpuTT6s, 8«* oi ra navra, kelL fjfuis di avTOV. The opposition in that passage between the gods of the heathen and the Christians' God seems to show that fjficov = at least primarily, ' us Christians ' rather than * us men. Not only does the juxtaposition of ' Father' and ' Lord ' mark a stage in the doctrine of the Person of Christ ; it also marks an important stage in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is found already some six years before the composition of Ep. to Romans at the time when St. Paul wrote his earliest extant Epistle (i Thess. i. i ; cf. 2 Thess. i. 2), This shows that even at that date (a. d. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. It is well also to remember that although in this particular verse of Ep. to Romans the form in which it appears is incomplete, the triple formula concludes an Epistle written a few months earlier (2 Cor. xiii. 14). There is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difiScult, took its place without struggle and without controversy among accepted Christian truths. iraxpSs t'lfiui'. The singling out of this title must be an echo of its constant and distinctive use by our Lord Himself. The doctrine of the Fatherhood of God was taught in the Old Testament (Ps. Ixviii. 5; Ixxxix. 26; Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixiii. 16; Ixiv. 8; Jer. xxxi. 9; Mai. i. 6; ii, 10); but there is usually some restriction or qualification — God is the Father of Israel, of the Messianic King, of a particular class such as the weak and friendless. It may also be said that the doctrine of Divine Fatherhood is implicitly contained in the stress which is laid on the * loving-kindness ' of God (e. g. in such fundamental passages as Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7 compared with Ps. dii. 13). But this idea which lies as a partially developed germ in I. 1-7.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 1 7 the Old Testament breaks into full bloom in the New. It is placed by our Lord Himself in the fore-front of the conception of God. It takes however a two-fold ramification : 6 Trar^p vixSav [v/xwf, trov, avT&v] (e. g. twenty times in St. Matt.), and 6 n-ai^p fiov [6 narfip] (e. g. twenty-three times in St. Matt.). In particular this second phrase marks the distinction between the Son and the Father ; so that when the two are placed in juxtaposition, as in the greeting of this and other Epistles, 6 nanjp is the natural term to use. The mere fact of juxtaposition suflBciently suggests the varfip tov Kvpim ^fiS>v 'irjcrov Xpiarov (which is expressed in full in 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3; Col. i. 3 ; cf. Rom. xv. 6; a Cor. xi. 31, but not Eph. iii. 14; Col. ii. 2); so that the Apostle widens the reference by throwing in ^fiav, to bring out the connexion between the source of * grace and peace ' and its recipients. It is no doubt true that irarrjp is occasionally used in N. T. in the more general sense of 'Creator' (James i. 17 'Father of lights,' i. e. in the first instance, Creator of the heavenly bodies; Heb. xii. 9 ' Father of spirits ' ; cf. Acts xvii. 28, but perhaps not Eph. iv. 6 jrarijp ndirrav, where nuvrav may be masc). It is true also that A narfip r«v oX kXtitoi &yuu, Kvpios, Qfos irarrjp) ; in Others again we have a term which has ac- quired a significance since the close of the O. T. which Christianity appropriates {^enayyfXia ^TTpofntfyyeiKaToj, ypa(j)ai aytai, dvd(rra(ris ytKpiHv, ayioi) ; in yet others we have a new coinage (dn-ooroXor, tiayyeXiov), which however in these instances is due, not to St. Paul or the other Apostles, but to Christ Himself. ST. PAUIi AND THE ROMAN CHURCH. I. 8-15. God knows hatv long I have desired to see you — a hope which I trust may at last be accomplished — and to deliver to you. as to the rest of the Gentile worlds my message of salvation. 'In writing to you I must first offer my humble thanks to God, through Him Who as High Priest presents all our prayers and praises, for the world-wide fame which as a united Church you bear for your earnest Christianity. • If witness were needed to show how deep is my interest in you, I might appeal to God Himself Who hears that constant ritual of prayer which my spirit addresses to Him in my work of preaching the glad tidings of His Son. *• He knows how unceasingly your Church is upon my lips, and how every time I kneel in prayer it is my petition, that at some near day I. •.] ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH 1 9 I may at last, in the course which God's Will marks out for me, really have my way made clear to visit you. " For I have a great desire to see you and to impart to you some of those many gifts (of instruction, comfort, edification and the like) which the Holy Spirit has been pleased to bestow upon me, and so to strengthen your Christian character. "I do not mean that I am above receiving or that you have nothing to bestow, — ^far from it, — but that I myself may be cheered by my intercourse with you (fV vfilv), or that we may be mutually cheered by each other's faith, I by yours and you by mine. " I should be sorry for you to suppose that this is a new resolve on my part. The fact is that I often intended to visit you — an intention until now as often frustrated — in the hope of reaping some spiritual harvest from my labours among you, as in the rest of the Gentile world, "There is no limit to this duty of mine to preach the Gospel. To all without distinction whether of language or of culture, I must discharge the debt which Christ has laid upon me. " Hence, so far as the decision rests with me, I am bent on delivering the message of salvation to you too at Rome. 8. 8id. Agere autem Deo gratiaSy hoc est sacrificium laudis offerre: et ideo addii per Jesum Christum; velut per Pontificem magnum Orig. ^ irums ojiui'. For a further discussion of this word see below on ver. 17. Here it is practically equivalent to 'your Christianity,' the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian carrying with it the direct consequences of that act upon the character. Much confusion of thought would be saved if wherever * faith ' was mentioned the question were always consciously asked. Who or what is its object? It is extremely rare for faith to be used in the N. T. as a mere abstraction without a determinate object In this Epistle ' faith ' is nearly always ' faith in Christ.' The object is expressed in iii. 22, 26 but is left to be understood elsewhere. In the case of Abraham ' faith ' is not so much ' faith in God ' ag ' faith in the promises of God,' which promises are precisely those which are fulfilled in Christianity. Or it would perhaps be more strictly true to say that the immediate object of faith is in most cases Christ or the promises which pointed to Christ. At the same time there is always in the background the Supreme Author of that whole ' economy ' of which the Incarnation of Christ formed a part. Thus it is God Who justifies though the moving cause of justification is usually defined as ' faith in Christ' And inasmuch as it is He Who both promised that Christ should come and also ■O EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS {I. 8-10. Himself brought about the fulfilment of the promise, even justifying •kith may be described as ' faith in God.' The most conspicuous example of this is ch. iv. 5 T

iy iieT«vfi(} Karpfvov, of. Rom. ix. 4) ; \tiTovprffiv is appropriated to the ministrations of priests and Levites (Heb. x. 11, &c.). Where XftrovpyeTv (\uTovpy6i) is not strictly in this sense, there is yet more or less conscioos reference to it (e. g. in Rom. xiii. 6 and esp. xv. 16). « will = ' I, so far as it rests with me,' i. e. ' under God ' — L'homme propose, Dieu dispose ; cf. » r

is that St. Paul would have written irpoBvfios flfu. Mey. Lips, and others take t6 tear in* irp66v- ftov together as subject of [eoriv] fvayytXiaaadat, ' hence the eager- ness on my part (is) to preach.' In Eph. vi. ai ; Phil. i. la; CoL iv. 7 Tu Kar' ({It s= * my affairs.* THESIS or THE EPISTLE: THE BIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH. I. 16, 17. That message^ humble as it may seem, casts a new light on the righteousness of God: for it tells how His righteousness flows forth and embraces man, when it is met by Faith, or loyal adhesion to Christ. " Even there, in the imperial city itself, I am not ashamed of my message, repellent and humiliating as some of its features may seem. For it is a mighty agency, set in motion by God Himself, and sweeping on with it towards the haven of Messianic security every believer — first in order of precedence the Jew, and after him the Gentile. " Do you ask how this agency works and in what it consists ? It is a revelation of the righteousness of God, manifested in a new method by. which righteousness is acquired by man, — a method, the secret of which is Faith, or ardent loyalty to Jesus as Messiah and Lord ; which Faith is every day both widening its circles and deepening its hold. It was such an attitude as this which the prophet Habakkuk meant when, in view of the desolating Chaldaean invasion, he wrote : ' The righteous man shall save his life by his faith, or loyalty to Jehovah, while his proud oppressors perish.' 16. k-Koxayvvo^ox. St. Paul was well aware that his Gospel was ' unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles foolishness ' (i Cor. i, 23). How could it be otherwise, as Chrysostom says, he was about to preach of One who ' passed for the son of a carpenter, brought up in Judaea, in the house of a poor woman . . . and who died like a criminal in the company of robbers ? ' It hardly needed the contrast of imperial Rome to emphasize this. On the attraction which Rome had for St. Paul see the Introduction, § i ; also Hicks in Studia Biblica, iv. 11. We have an instance here of a corrnption coming into the Greek te«t throogb the Latin : kmvcx- « This root-conception with St. Paul means in the first instance simply the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah and Son of God ; the affirmation of that primitive Christian Creed which we have already had sketched in w. 3, 4. It is the ' Yes ' of the soul when the central proposition of Christianity is presented to it. We hardly need more than this one fact, thus barely stated, to explain why it was that St. Paul attached such immense importance to it. It is so characteristic of his habits of mind to go to the root of things, that we cannot be surprised at his taking for the centre of his system a principle which is only less prominent in other writers because they are content, if we may say so, to take their section of doctrine lower down the line and to rest in secondary causes instead of tracing them up to primary. Two influences in particular seem to have impelled the eager mind of St. Paul to his more penetrative view. One was his own experience. He dated all his own spiri- tual triumphs from the single moment of his vision on the road to Damascus. Not that they were all actually won there, but they were all potentially won. That was the moment at which he was as a brand plucked from the burning : anything else that came to him later followed in due sequence as the direct and inevitable out- come of the change that was then wrought in him. It was then that there flashed upon him the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had persecuted as a pretender and blasphemer, was really exalted to the right hand of God, and really charged with infinite gifts and blessings for men. The conviction then decisively won sank into his soul, and became the master-key which he applied to the solution of all problems and all struggles ever afterwards. But St. Paul was a Jew, an ardent Jew, a Pharisee, who had spent his whole life before his conversion in the study of the Old Testament. And it was therefore natural to him, as soon as he began to reflect on this experience of his that he should go back to his Bible, and seek there for the interpretation of it When he did so two passages seemed to him to stand out above all others. The words n-iWtf, ni ou and learn of Me . . . For My yoke it easy, and My burden is light ' (Matt' xi. 28-30). So the Master ; and then came the disciple. And he too seised the heart of the secret. He too saw what the Master had refrained from putting with a dey;ree of emphasis which might have been misunderstood (at least the majority of His reporters might leave the impression .l!i:.t tliis had been the case, though one, the Fourth Evangelist, makes Hini speak more plainly). The later disciple saw that, if there was to be a real reformation, the first thing to be done was to give it a personal ground, to base it on a personal relationship. And therefore he lays down that the righteousness of the Christian is to be a ' righteousness offaith^ Enough will have been said in the next note and in those on \k mffTfois and Sinaioffvyrj Btov as to the nature of this righteousness. It is sharply contrasted with the Jewish con- ception of righteousness as obedience to law, and of course goes far deeper than any Pagan conception as to the motive of righteousness. The specially Pauline feature in the conception expressed in this passage is that the ' declaration of righteousness ' on the part of God, the Divine verdict of acquittal, runs in advance of the actual practice of righteousness, and comes forth at once on the sincere embracing of Christianity. BiKaioCv, SiKaiovo 9ai. The verb biKaioxiv means properly * to pronounce righteous.* It has relation to a verdict pronounced by a judge. In so far as the person ' pronounced righteous ' is not really righteous it has the sense of ' amnesty ' or ' forgiveness.' But it cannot mean to ' make righteous.' There may be other influences which go to make a person righteous, but they are not contained, or even hinted at, in the word hucatovv. That word means ' to declare righteous,' ' to treat as righteous ' ; it may even mean ' to prove righteous ' ; but whether the person so declared, treated as, or proved to be righteous is really so, the word itself neither affirms nor denies. This rather sweeping proposition is made good by the following con- siderations : — (i) By the nature of verbs in -<5o>: comp. .5^. Comm. on i Cor. vi. 11 •How can ?iKaiovv possibly signify "to make righteous'^" Verbs indeed of this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use e. g. rvif'Xox/v, •' to make blind." But when such words are derived from adjectives of moral meaning, as &^iovv, ooioiv, SiKatovf, they 'io by usage and must from the nature of things signify to deem, to account, to prove, 01 to treat at worthy, holy, righteous.' I. 17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 3I (ii) By the regular nse of the word. Godet (p. 199) makes a bold assertion, which he is hardly likely to have verified, but yet which is probably right, that Ihere is no example in the whole of classical literature where the word = ' to make righteous.' The word however is not of frequent occurrence, (iii^i From the constant usage of the LXX (O. T. and Apocr.), where the word occurs some forty-five times, always or almost always with the forensic or judicial sense. In the great majority of cases this sense is unmistalcable. The nearest approach to an exception is Ps. Ixxiii [Ixxii] 13 apa fxaraiwi iSiKaiwaa t^v «ap5iW /*oi;, where, however, the word seems to =- 'pronounced righteous,' in other words, 'I called my conscience clear.' In Jer. iii. 11 ; Ezek. xvL 51, 53 8««. = ' prove righteous.' (iv) From a like usage in the Pseudepigraphic Books : e. g. Ps. Sol. ii. 16 ; iii. 5 ; iv. 9; viii. 7, 27, 31 ; ix. 3 (in these passages the word is used con- sistently of 'vindicating' the character of God); justifico 4 Ezr. iv. 18; I. 16 ; xii. 7 ; 5 Ezr. ii. 20 {Libb. Apocr. ed. O. F. Fritzsche, p. 643) — all these passages are forensic ; Apoc. Baruch. (in Ceriani's translation from the Syriac) xxi. 9, 11 ; xxiv. i— where the word is applied to those who are ' declared innocent ' as opposed to ' sinners.' » (v) From the no less predominant and unmistakable usage of the N. T. : Matt. xi. 19; xii. 37 ; Luke vii. 39, 3; ; x. 39 ; xvi. 15 ; xviii. 14; Rom. ii. 13; iii. 4; I Cor. iv. 4; i Tim. iii. 16 — to quote only passages which are absolntely unambiguous. (vi) The meaning is brought out in full in ch. iv. 5 ry II n^ epya^o/iivip, wiffrtvovTi Sf (irl ruv ZiKaiovvra tov datlifj, Ao7t([f rai 17 w'kttis ovtov els SiKaio- avvqv. Here it is expressly stated that the person justified has nothing to show in the way of meritorious acts ; his one asset (so to speak) is faith, and this faith is taken as an ' equivalent for righteousness. ' We content ourselves for the present with stating this result as a philo- logical fact. What further consequences it has, and how it fits into the teaching of St. Paul, will appear later ; see the notes on SiKatoffvvT) @(ov above and below. 8iKaiu)(ta. For the force of the termination -/xa reference should be made to a note by the late T. S. Evans in S/>. Comm. on i Cor. v. 6, part of which is quoted in this commentary on Rom. iv. 2. SiKaiwfM is the definite con- crete expression of the act of ZiKwcuais : we might define it as ' a declaration that a thing is Ktitaiov, or that a person is S'lKaios.' From the first use we get the common sense of ordinance,' 'statute,' as in Luke i. 6 ; Rom. i. 32, ii. 36, and practically viii. 4 ; from the second we get the more characteristically Pauline use in R ^P)"7 ^ '^r i'* 5) ^ > a.vanok6f]rot \. 20, ii. I. 6pY^| eeou. (i) In the O. T. the conception of the Wrath of God has special reference to the Covenant-relation. It is inflicted either (a) upon Israelites for gross breach of the Covenant (Lev. X. I, a Nadab and Abihu ; Num. xvi. 33, 46 flf. Korah ; xxv. 3 Baal-peor), or {p) upon non-Israelites for oppression of the Chosen People (Jer. L 11-17; Ezek. xxxvi. 5). (2) In the prophetic writmgs this infliction of * wrath' is gradually concentrated upon a great Day of Judgement, the Day of the Lord (Is. ii. 10-22, &c. ; Jer. XXX. 7, 8 ; Joel iii. 12 ff. ; Obad. 8 flF. ; Zeph. iii. 8 flf.). (3) Hence the N. T. use seems to be mainly, if not altogether, eschatological : cf. Matt. iii. 7; i Thess. i. 10; Rom. ii. 5, v. 9; Rev. vi. 16, 17. Even I Thess. ii. 16 does not seem to be an exception: the state of the Jews seems to St. Paul to be only a foretaste of the final woes. See on this subject esp. Ritschl, Recht/erttgung u. Versoh- nung, ii. 124 ff. ed. a. Similarly Euthym.-Zig. 'KwomaXivrtrtu m.r.X. iv fifii.ipv 6 oparns iKTioB^ aAvfios £uih}m.-Zig.). The idea of knowledge being derived fron: I. 20.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 49 the fabric of the created world is in any case contained in the context. KTi(rcw«: see Lft. Col. p. 214. nrlms has three senses: (i) the act of creating (as here) ; (ii) the result of that act, whether (a) the aggregate of created things (Wisd. v. 18 ; xvi. 24 ; Col. i. 15 and probably Rom.viii. 19 ff.); or (3) a creature, a single created thing (Heb. iv. 13, and perhaps Rom. viii. 39, q. v.). Kadoparai: commonly explained to mean 'are clearly seen* {Kara with intensive force, as in Karafiavdavfiv^ Karavotlv) ; go Fri. Grm.-Thay. Gif. &c. It may however relate rather to the direction of sight, ' are surveyed,' ' contemplated ' (' are under observation * Moule). Both senses are represented in the two places in which the word occurs in LXX : (i) in Job x. 4 ^ Sxrn-tp /Sporos 6pq Kadop^t ; (ii) in Num. ZXiv. S BaKaap. . . . Kadop^ Tov *lv T&v epyuv Otapeirai [o Bfoj] (Lid.). This argument is very fully set forth by Philo, De Praem. et Poen. 7 (Mang. ii. 415). After describing the order and beauty of Nature he goes on: ' Admiring and being struck with amazement at these things, they arrived at a conception consistent with what they had seen, that all these beauties so admirable in their arrangement have not come into being spontaneously {ovk dnavTopaTiadivra yeyovtv), but are the work of some Maker, the Creator of the world, and that there must needs be a Providence {npovoiav); because it is a law of nature that the Creative Power (to nfnoirjKos) must take care of that which has come into being. But these admirable men superior as they are to all others, as I said, advanced from below upwards as if by a kind of celestial ladder guessing at the Creator from His works by probable inference (ola 8id rtvos ovpaviov KkifiaKos dn-i t6i» ((rytof ctKort Xo-ytcr^i^ trroxairapfvoi rbv !iTjpt.ovpy6v), d€i($TT)s : BfOTTjs = Divine Personality, dfiorrjs = Divine nature and properties : dCvafus is a single attribute, ^«idr?;y is a summary term for those other attributes which constitute Divinity : the word appears in Biblical Gk. hrst in Wisd. xviii. 9 rbv ttjs Ofnanjros vo/mp fv ofiovoia biidtvro. Didymus {Trin. ii. 11 ; Migne, P. G. xxxix. 664) accuses the heretics of reading &f6Tr}s here, and it is found in one MS., P. It is certainly somewhat strange that so general a term as 9(i6Ttjs should be combined with a term denoting a particular attribute like Svva/ut. To meet this diiificalty the attempt has been made to narrow down 6ti6Tip to 44 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I, 20, 21 the signification of Wfo, the divine glory or •plendonr. It is fuggested that this word was not used because it seemed inadequate to describe the uniqueness of the Divine Nature (Rogge, Die Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus von d. religids-sittl. Charait. d, Heidentutns, Leipzig, i888, p. lo £,) els T& fivax : th t6 denotes here not direct and primary purpose but indirect, secondary or conditional purpose. God did not design that man should sin ; but He did design that if they sinned they should be without excuse : on His part all was done to give them a sufficient knowledge of Himself. Burton however {Moods and Tenses, § 411) takes tls to here as expressing not purpose but result, because of the causal clause which follows. ' This clause could be forced to an expression of purpose only by supposing an ellipsis of some such expression as kcli ovtws elalv, and seems therefore to require that fh t6 tlvai be interpreted as * expressing result.' There is force in this reasoning, though the use of (U TO for mere result is not we believe generally recognized. 21. ^So^ao-af. 5o|afa) is one of the words which show a deepened significance in their religious and Biblical use. In classical Greek In accordance with the slighter sense of ho^a it merely = ' to form an opinion about ' (So|a^d/tx,€vos aStKos, * held to be unrighteous, ' Plato, Hep. 588 B) ; then later with a gradual rise of signification ' to do honour to ' or ' praise ' [l-rr aperfj 8e8o|acr|U,€vot av8pe<; Polyb. VI. liii. id). And so in LXX and N. T. with a varying sense accord- ing to the subject to whom it is applied: (i) Of the honour done by man to man (Esth. iii. I (86^aa-€v 6 ^aa-iXevs 'Apra^ep^rjs 'A/idv); (ii) Of that which is done by man to God (Lev. x. 3 iv irdayj r^ avvaycoyf] 8o^aa6rj(Tonai) ; (iii) Of the glory bcstowed on man by God (Rom. viii. 30 ots 8« (biKalaa-f, TovTovs km (do^aae) ] (Iv) In a sense specially characteristic of the Gospel of St. John, of the visible manifestation of the glory, whether of the Father by His own act (Jo. xii. 28), or of the Son by His own act (Jo. xi. 4), or of the Son by the act of the Father (Jo. vii. 39; xii. 16, 23, &c.), or of the Father by the Incarnate Son (Jo. xiii. 31 ; xiv. 13 ; xviL i, 4, Ac). ^|jiaTai(f50T|o-ai', ' were frustrated,' ' rendered futile.' In LXX ra naraia = ' idols ' as ' things of nought.' The two words occur together in 2 Kings Xvii. 15 km fnoptidrja-av oiritrm t5>v fiaraltav «u fpaTaidri(Tav. SiaXoyioiJiois : as usually in LXX and N. T. in a bad sense of ' perverse, self-willed, reasonings or speculations ' (cf. Hatch, £ss. in Bibl Gk. p. 8). Comp. Enoch xcix. 8, 9 * And they will become godless by reason of the foolishness of their hearts, and their eyes will be blinded through the fear of their hearts and through visions in their dreams. Through these they will become godless and fearful, because they work all their works in a lie and they worship a stone.' KapSia : the most comprehensive term for the human faculties, I. 21-24.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 45 the seat of feeling (Rom. ix. a ; x. i) ; will (i Cor. iv. 5 ; vii. 37 ; cf. Rom. xvi. 18); thoughts (Rom. x. 6, 8). Physically Kapdia belongs to the anXdyxva (2 Cor. vi. n, 12); the conception of its functions being connected with the Jewish idea that life resided in the blood : morally it is neutral in its character, so that it may be either the home of lustful desires (Rom. i. 24), or of the Spirit (Rom. V. 6). 23. i]XXa|oi' ip : an imitation of a Heb. construction : cf Ps. cvi. (cv.) 20 ; also for the expression Jer. ii. 1 1 (Del ad loc.) &c. %6^(xv = 'manifested perfection.' See on iii. 23. Comp. with this verse Philo, Vit. Mas. iii. 20 (Mang. ii. i6i) ot rbv AXrjOri 6ihv icaTaXin6t>Tes roij if/ivSwvvixovs eSTj^iovpyrjaav, (pdaprais Kal ytvrjTcui ovffiais T^v Tov dyei/riTov Hal d. . . , Kareipydaaro to iyavriov ov irpoa(S6i{rjatv, dvTi uaioTrjTot dai^fiav — ri ydp woKvOfov fv rats raiv dippovaiv if/vxcus dOtdrTjs, Kal 6(ov rifirjs iXoyovffiv ol TCi Oinjrd 9(iwQ6vov, ^6vou, with other kindred vices ; then two forms of backbiting; then a group in descending climax of sins of arro- gance ; then a somewhat miscellaneous assortment, in which again alliteration plays a part. dSiKia : a comprehensive term, including all that follows. rtopveia : om. i<) A B C K ; probably suggested by similarity in sound to novr)piq, irocTjpia : contains the idea of * active mischief (Hatch, Bibl. Gk. p. 77 f. ; Trench, Syn. p. 303). Dr. T. K. Abbott {Essays, p. 97) rather contests the assignment of this specific meaning to irovr)pia ; and no doubt the use of the word is extremely wide : but where definition is needed it is in this direction that it must be sought. KaKia : as compared with novrjpia denotes rather inward vicious ness of disposition (Trench, Syn. p. 36 f.). The MSS. vary as to the order of the three words vovrjplt^ n\tovt(l;crt icarA rd Xty6tuvoy, tl kitA^tit mK^wrf|9^ t. 18-82.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 49 wpfrptx** «ir^. 6 ftir ydp voiwr, fit&imr r^ wA$et, i^arot r^ wfSi^ttK' i 9i ffWivSoMUV, iitris ttv rov niBovt, wotnfpiif xpi)n*woi, vwrfi^ti rf> Kcut^ (Apollinaris in Cramer*! Cttenm). Si. Paul's Description of the Condition of the Heathen World. It would be wrong to expect from St. Paul an investigation of the origin of different forms of idolatry or a comparison of the morality of heathen religions, such as is now being instituted in the Comparative Science of Religion. For this it was necessary to wait for a large and comprehensive collection of data which has only become possible within the present century and is still far from complete. St. Paul looks at things with the insight of a religious teacher ; he describes facts which he sees around him ; and he con- nects these facts ^ith permanent tendencies of human nature and with principles which are apparent in the Providential government of the world. The Jew of the Dispersion, with the Law of Moses in his hand, could not but revolt at the vices which he found prevailing among the heathen. He turned with disgust from the circus and the theatre (Weber, Altsyn. Thiol, pp. 58, 68). He looked upon the heathen as given over especially to sins of the flesh, such as those which St. Paul recounts in this chapter. So far have they gone as to lose their humanity altogether and become like brute beasts {ibid. p. 67 £). The Jews were like a patient who was sick but with hope of recovery. Therefore they had a law given to them to be a check upon their actions. The Heathen were like a patient who was sick unto death and beyond all hope, on whom therefore the physician put no restrictions {ibid. p. 69). The Christian teacher brought with him no lower standard, and his verdict was not less sweeping. 'The whole world,' said St John, ' lieth in wickedness,' rather perhaps, * in [the power of] the Wicked One' (i Jo. v. 19). And St Paul on his travels must have come across much to justify the denunciations of this chapter. He saw that idolatry and licence went together. He knew that the heathen myths about their gods ascribed to them all manner of immoralities. The lax and easy-going anthropomorphism oi Hellenic religion and the still more degraded representations, with at times still more degraded worship, of the gods of Egypt and the 50 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 18-8^ East, were thrown into dark relief by his own severe conception of the Divine Holiness. It was natural that he should give the account he does of this degeneracy. The lawless fancies of men invented their own divinities. Such gods as these left them free to follow their own unbridled passions. And the Majesty on High, angered at their wilful disloyalty, did not interfere to check their downward career. It is all literally true. The human imagination, following its own devices, projects even into the Pantheon the streak of evil by which it is itself disfigured. And so the mischief is made worse, because the worshipper is not likely to rise above the objects of his worship. It was in the strict sense due to supernatural influ- ence that the religion of the Jew and of the Christian was kept clear of these corrupt and corrupting features. The state of the Pagan world betokened the absence, the suspension or with- holding, of such supernatural influence; and there was reason enough for the belief that it was judicially inflicted. At the same time, though in this passage, where St. Paul ia measuring the religious forces in the world, he speaks without limitation or qualification, it is clear from other contexts that con- demnation of the insufficiency of Pagan creeds did not make him shut his eyes to the good that there might be in Pagan characters. In the next chapter he distinctly contemplates the case of Gentiles who being without law are a law unto themselves, and who find in their consciences a substitute for external law (ii. 14, 15). He frankly allows that the ' uncircumcision which is by nature ' put to shame the Jew with all his greater advantages (ii 16-19). We therefore cannot say that a priori reasoning or prejudice makes him untrue to facts. The Pagan world was not wholly bad. It had its scattered and broken lights, which the Apostle recognizes with the warmth of genuine sympathy. But there can be equally little doubt that the moral condition of Pagan civilization was such as abundantly to prove his main proposition, that Paganism was unequal to the task of reforming and regenerating mankind. There is a monograph on the subject, which however doea not add much beyond what lies fairly upon the surface : Rogge, Du Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus vn i. rtligwt-tittiiehm CharakUt d Htideniums, Leipzig, 1888. I. 16-da.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 51 If the statements of St. Panl cannot be taken mt once at supplying the place ef scientific inquiry from the side of the Comparative History of Religion, so neither can they be held to famish data which can be utilized just as they stand by the historian. The standard which St. Paul applies is not that of the historian but of the preacher. He does not judge by the average level of Boral attainment at different epochs but by the ideal standard of that which ought to be attained. A calm and dispassionate weighing of the facts, with due allowance for the nature of the authorities, will be foood in Fhedlander, Sitttmguchuhtt Roms, Leipzig, 1 869-1 871. Uu iftJu B—k of Wisdom in CkafUr I. L 18-39. In two places in Epist. to Romans, ch. i and ch. ix, there are dear indications of the use by the Apostle of the Book of Wisdom. Such indications are not wanting elsewhere, but we have thought it best to call attention to them especially at the points where they are most continuous and most striking. We begin by placing side by side the language of St. Paul and that of Uie earlier work by which it is illustrated. Romans. L SO. n^ 7 ovic rp6ya>y }(i(vaQiy- Tf». xii. I. rb atpSaprSy aov tti'tvitia, xiv. 8. rb it t6 iaOtyit iwinaXHTOif rtpi 9i (oi^t ri wtKpbr d^ (wrtt dyyoiai wo\ift^ ri rooavra Kotcd flp^yfjy irpoffayoptvovffty, 13. ^ yip T(KW0^6yovt rtKtrdt ^ Kpxxpia pkvffrfipia 4 ififtaytit i(aK\uy OtapSiy gdipiovt iyoyrft, 34. ot/Tf /3(0Vt ofirf ^d/ioVT icaOapoiis (rt fia ttjs dfnaprias, ' that the body aS an instrument of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless ' ; (ii) in a figurative sense, ' to render invalid,' ' abrogate,' ' abolish ' {rffv hrayyfkiav Gal. iii. 17 J v6p,ov Rom. iii. 31). 4. (i^ Y^KOiTO : a formula of negation, repelling with horror something previously suggested. ' Fourteen of the fifteen N. 1". instances are in Paul's writings, and in twelve of them it expresses the Apostle's abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be falsely drawn from his argument' (Burton, M. and 7. § 177 ; cf also Lft. on Gal. ii. 17). It is characteristic of the vehement impulsive style of this group of Epp that the phrase is confined to them (ten times in Rom., once in i Cor., twice in Gal.). It occurs live times in LXX, not however standing alone as here, but worked into the body of the sentence (cf. Gen. xliv. 7, 17 ; Josh. ixii. 29, sxIt. 16 ; I Kings xx [xxi]. 3). ywMia : see on i. 3 above ; the transition which the verb denotes is often from a latent condition to an apparent condition. and so here, ' prove to be,' ' be seen to be.' dXT)di]s : as keeping His plighted word. 7a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 4, ft. 4>«i!6rj if aro(f>ia dno rav tpyav (v. 1. rtKvav : cf. Lk. vii. 35) avrrji. Test, XII Pair. Sym. 6 on-ttr iiKaiaOa aiTo ri); ifiaprias r»v y^tvxvv vfiav. Ps. Sol. ii. 16 €ya) iuuuixToi vf 6 Qt6t. The usage occurs repeatedly in this book ; see Ryle and James ad loc. iv Tois X<5yois aou: not ' pleadings' (Va.) but ' sayings,' Le. the Voyio just mentioned. Heb. probably = * judicial sentence.' riKT)(rT)s : like vincere, of ' gaining a suit,' opp. to ^rrmrdot : the full phrase is vKav t^v d«ijv (Eur. El. 955, &c.). vurfjo^s, B G K L &c. ; viitfjattt K A D £, minute, aliq. Probably ruHfOttt is right, because of the agreement of K A with the older types of Western Text, thus representing two great families. The reading viic^a^s in B appa- rently belongs to the small Western element in that MS., which wonld seem to be allied to that in G rather than to that in D. There is a similar ''actuation in MSS. of the LXX : vncrjant is the reading of K B {def. A), 0iiefiffui of some fourteen cursives. The text of LXX need by St Panl differs not aeldom from that of the great oncials. KpiKcaOai : probably not mid. (' to enter upon trial,' ' go to law,' lit. 'get judgment for oneself) as Mey. Go. Va. Lid., but pass, as in ver. 7 (so Vulg. Weiss Kautzsch, &c. ; see the arguments from the usage of LXX and Heb. in Kautzsch, £>e Vet. Test. Ltcit a Paulo allegatis, p. 34 n.). 6. ifj dSiKia iqfjiuK: a general statement, including amarla. In like manner e«ov biKawavvrfv is general, though the particular instance which St Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God to His promises. ffufioTTiai : avvloTujfu {avpurTavm) has in N. T. two conspicuous meanings : (i) ' to bring together ' as two persons, ' to introduce * or ' commend' to one another (e.g. Rom. xvi. i ; a Cor. iii. i; iv. a; V. 13, &C. ; cf. avaraTiiuu fniaroXai a Cof. Hi. l) ; (ii) * tO put together' or 'make good' by argument, 'to prove,' 'establish' in. 6-7.J CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 73 {compositis colUcHsqut quae rem contineant argumentis aliquid docec Fritzsche), as in Rom. v. 8 ; s Cor. vii. 11 ; Gal. ii. 18 (where see LfL and £U.). Both meanings are recognized by Hesych. (crwicrrdveiv iiraivfiv, (pavepovv, fieffatovv, iraparidivai) ; but it is strange that neither comes out clearly in the uses of the word in LXX ; the second is found in Susann. 61 aviaTTjaav iirX rovs Svo irpearfivras, on auv4(Trr}Y<^ (cf. Buttmaon, Gr. ^ N. T. C*- P- 359)- rdr Kt ^\a(T(fir}fiovn(da, Koi Kaddts (f>a(Ti Ttvts tjfuis Xryed* ot* — noirjamfuy k.t.X. There is a very similar con- struction in w. 35, 26, where the argument works up twice over to the same words, tls [rrpos] rfjv (vbti^tv t^j diKaioavvtji avToii, and the words which follow the second time are meant to complete both clauses, the first as well as the second. It is somewhat similar when in ch. ii. ver. 16 at once carries on and completes w. 15 and 13. St. Paul was accused (no doubt by actual opponents) of Anti- nomianism. What he said was, ' The state of righteousness is not to be attained through legal works ; it is the gift of God.' He was represented as saying ' therefore it does not matter what a man does ' — an inference which he repudiates indignantly, not only here but in vi. i flf., 15 ff. WK TO Kpi/io K.T.X. This points back to n' tn Kdya> Kplvofiai ; the plea which such persons put in will avail them nothing ; the judge- ment (of God) which will fall upon them is just. St. Paul does not argue the point, or say anything further about the calumny directed against himself; he contents himself with brushing away an excuse which is obviously onreaL UinVEBSAIi FAHiimB TO ATTATW TO RIOHTEOUSia^EaS. III. 9-20. If the case of us Jews is so bad, are the Gentiles any better ? No. Tlie same accusation covers both. The Scrip tin es speak of the universality of human guilt, which is laid down in Ps. xiv and graphically described in Pss. V, cxl, X, in Is. lix, and again in Ps. xxxvi. And if ni. 0-20.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 75 the yew is equally guilty with the Gentile, still less can he escape punishment ; for the Law which threatens him with punishment is his own. So then the whole system of Law and works done in fulfilment of Law, lias proved a failure. Law can reveal sin, but not remove it. •To return from this digression. What inference are we to draw ? Are the tables completely turned ? Are we Jews not only equalled but surpassed (Trpoexo/*? (9a passive) by the Gentiles ? Not at alL There is really nothing to choose between Jews and Gentiles. The indictment which we have just brought against both (in i. 1 8- 3a, ii. 17-39) proves that they are equally under the dominion of sin. "The testimony of Scripture is to the same effect. Thus in Ps. xiv [here with some abridgment and variation], the Psalmist complains that he cannot find a single righteous man, "that there is none to show any intelligence of moral and religious truth, none to show any desire for the knowledge of God. "They have all (he says) turned aside from the straight path. They are like milk that has turned sour and bad. There is not so much as a single right-doer among them. "This picture of universal wickedness may be completed from such details as those which are applied to the wicked in Ps. v. 9 [exactly quoted]. Just as a grave stands yawning to receive the corpse that will soon fill it with corruption, so the throat of the wicked is only opened to vent forth depraved and lying speech. Their tongue is practised in fraud. Or in Ps. cxl. 3 [also exactly quoted] : the poison-bag of the asp lies under their smooth and flattering lips. " So, as it is described in Ps. X. 7, throat, tongue, and lips are full of nothing but cursing and venom. ** Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX of Is. lix. 7, 8] : They run with eager speed to commit murde' '• Their course is marked by ruin and misery. *^ With smiling paths of peace they have made no acquaintance. " To sum up the character of the ungodly in a word [from Ps. xxxvi (xxxv). i LXX] : The fear of God supplies no standard for their actions. "Thus all the world has sinned. And not even the Jew can claim exemption from tne consequences of his sin. For when the Law of Moses denounces those consequences it speaks especially to the people to whom it was given. By which it was designed 76 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 9 that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse and that all mankind might be held accountable to God. ** This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By works ol Law (i. e. by an attempted fulfilment of Law) no mortal may hope to be declared righteous in God's sight. For the only eflfect of Law is to open men's eyes to their own sinfulness, not to enable them to do better. That method, the method of works, has failed. A new method must be found. 8. tC o8k ; ' What then [follows] ? ' Not with npotx6n*6a, because that would require in reply ovdiv navrat, not oi ndvrwt. Ttpo€x6ii.e9a is explained in three ways : as intrans. in the same sense as the active npotx^, as trans, with its proper middle force, and as passive, (i) npotxoH'fda mid. = npoixoptv {^praecellimus eot Vulg, ; and so the majority of commentators, ancient and modern, kpa irtpKraov ep^o/ieK Trapa tovs "EWijvas", Euthym.-Zig. ?;^o^€v ri nXtov Koi tvdoKipovptv oi 'lovSmot ; Theoph. ' Do we think ourselves better?' Gif.). But no examples of this use are to be found, and there seems to be no reason why St. Paul should not have written npofxoptv, the common form in such contexts, (ii) npoexi/itda trans, in its more ordinary middle sense, ' put forward as an excuse or pretext ' (' Do we excuse ourselves ? ' RV. marg., ' Have we any defence?' Mey. Go.). But then the object must be expressed, and as we have just seen W ovv cannot be combined with npoex6ii(6o because of ov navras. (iii) npotxopeBa passive, ' Are we excelled ? ' ' Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles) ? ' a rare use, but still one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, Oi. Norv. Ill ad he). Some of the best scholars (e. g. Lightfoot, Field) incline to this view, which has been adopted in the text of RV. The prin- cipal objection to it is from the context. St. Paul has just asserted (ver. 2) that the Jew has an advantage over the Gentile : how then does he come to ask if the Gentile has an advantage over the Jew ? The answer would seem to be that a different kind of ' advantage * is meant. The superiority of the Jew to the Gentile is historic, it lies in the possession of superior privileges ; the practical equality of Jew and Gentile is in regard to their present moral condition (ch. ii. 17-29 balanced against ch. i. 18-32). In this latter respert St. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places (ii. 25-29). A few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take npo€x6nt6a as pass., but give it the same sense as npof'xoptp, * Are we (Jews) preferred (to the Gentiles) in the sight of God ? ' Tpofx6nt9a : v. I. vpo«ar^xo/*<*' vtpi9c6v D* G, 31 ; Antiocheae Fathen (Chiryi. [«d. Field] Theodt. Severianns), also Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. (ioine MSS. bat not the best, t$Mtmtu amplius) : a glosa explaining vpotx- in the sama tU. 0, 10.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 77 way M Vnlg. and the later Greek commentators quoted above A L read od itdvTus. Strictly speaking oi should qualify navrat, ' not altogether,' 'not entirely,' as in i Cor. v. lo ov Travras toU nopvois rov K6(Tfiov TovTov : but in some cases, as here, ndvrws qualifies ov, ' altogether not/ ' entirely not,' i. e. * not at all ' {nequaquam Vulg., ovbanas Theoph.). Compare the similar idiom in ov ndw ; and see Win. Gr. Ixi. 5. irpoQTiao-iifi,c9a : in the section i. 18— ii. 39. 4^' &|iapT(av. In Biblical Greek bn6 with dat. has given place entirely to hv6 with ace. Matt. viii. 9 dv6poiir6s dni vird t^ovaiav is a strong case. The change has already taken place in LXX ; e. g DeuL xxxiii. 3 vdyrtt ol ijp/uujub'oi iwi rcLt x*^pdt riar6Tr\Ta and oi8* tjp for ovk tariv ciwc ip6t. In the LXX this clause is a kind of refrain which is repeated exactly in ver. 3. St. Paul there keeps to his text ; but we cannot be surprised that in the opening words he should choose a simpler form of phrase which more directly suggests the connexion with his main argument The BiKaioi ' shall live by faith ' ; but till the coming of Christianity there was no true SiVaior and no true faith. The verse runs too much upon the same lines as the Psalm to be other than a quotation, though it is handled in the free and bold manner which is characteristic of St. Paul. 11. oAk €. the Latlii idiom mf mtmm omntt (Valg. litenlly msfu* md mmum). B 67**, WH. mmrg. omit the second oi* larir [ou/r ianv iroiSar Xpr]OT6Tfira tois ivoi]. The readings of B «nd its allies in these verses are open to some snspicion of assimilating to a text of LXX. In ver. 14 £ 17 add aireiv (Ibw ri aT6fia airwy) corresponding to afiroS in B's text of Ps. x. 7 [ix. 38]. IS. rtf^of . . . ^oXiouvar. The LXX of Ps. v. 9 [10] corre- sponds pretty nearly to Heb. The last clause as rather linguam suam blandam reddunt {poliunf), or perhaps lingua sua blandiuntur (Kautzsch, p. 34) : ' their tongue do they make smooth ' Cheyne ; ' smooth speech glideth from their tongue ' De Witt. jSoXioOcrav : Win. Gr. \ xiii, 14 (ed. 8 ; xiii, if. E. T.). The termina- tion -fav, extended from imperf. and snd aor. of verbs in -/u to verbs in -w, is widely fonnd ; it is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek, bat by no means confined to it ; it is frequent in Boeotian inscriptions, and is called by one grammarian a ' Boeotian ' form, as by others ' Alexandrian.' i&s doiriSwK: Ps. cxl. 3 [cxxxix. 4]. The position of the poison- bag of the serpent is rightly described. The venom is more correctly referred to the bite (as in Num. zxi. 9; Prov. xxiii. 32), than to the forked tongue (Job xx. 16): see art. 'Serpent' in D.B. 14. Ps. X. 7 somewhat freely from LXX [ix. a8]: ol apa* t6 (TTOfia avTov ytfttt Ka\ iriKpiat aal iSkov. St. Paul retains the rel. but changes it into the plural : iymp\. avvrpiftfia xaX rdkainatpla hf rait iHcU avritp Koi 6d6y tlp^piis •ic tlUkurt [ml aim Svn icpimt i» raw 6dolt avr&p], utpn dtndntm Theodotion, and probably also Aqnila and Symmaehnt. [From the Hexapla this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX.] i^()6vtov (for avh <^6vvv) A N : oilaai N' B Q*, &c : iyvaiaay A Q* wiarf, (Q == Cod. Marchalianns, XII Holmes) minttsc. aliq. 10. What is the meaning of this verse ? Does it mean that the passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (o mS^oc sx O. T. ; So EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 19, 20 v6ftov T^F noKaiitv ypaT)v ovo/jid^tt, ^t fiipot rii npo(^t)TiKa EuthyiH.- Zig.), and therefore they are as much guilty before God as the Gentiles ? So most commentators. Or does it mean that the guilt of the Jews being now proved, as they sinned they must also expect punishment, the Law (6 voyios = the Pentateuch) affirming the connexion between sin and punishment. So Gif. Both interpre- tations give a good sense. [For though (i) does not strictly prove that all men are guilty but only that the Jews are guilty, this was really the main point which needed proving, because the Jews were apt to explain away the passages which condemned them, and held that — whatever happened to the Gentiles — they would escape.] The question really turns upon the meaning of 6 v6fi.os. It is urged, (i) that there is only a single passage in St. Paul where 6 ro/iov clearly=0. T. (i Cor. xiv. 21, a quotation of Is. xxviii. 11) : compare however Jo. x. 34 (= Ps. Ixxxii. 6), xv. 25 (= Ps. XXXV. 19) ; (ii) that in the corresponding clause, rois iv r^ p6fuf must = the Law, in the narrower sense ; (iii) that in ver. a i the Law is expressly distinguished from the Prophets. Yet these arguments are hardly decisive : for (i) the evidence is sufficient to show that St. Paul might have used 6 vofios in the wider sense ; for this one instance is as good as many ; and (ii) we must not suppose that St. Paul always rigidly distinguished which sense he was using ; the use of the word in one sense would call up the other (cf. Note on 6 Sdvaros in ch. v. la). Oltr. also goes a way of his own, bnt makes i rS/Mt ^ Law in the abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience, and for the Jew the law of Moses), which is contrary to the use of 6 ¥6ftos. X^ci . . . XaXei : Xtytiv calls attention to the substance of what is spoken, \dXeiv to the outward utterance ; cf. esp. M^Ciellan, Gospels, p. 383 flf. ^payif : cf. dvanoXoyrfrot I. 80, ii. I ; the idea comes np at each step in the argument. dir6SiKo« : not exactly ' guilty before God,' bat ' answerable to God.' vTToSiKo? takes gen. of the penalty; dat. of the person injured to whom satisfaction is due (twv StTrXao-iW vttoSlkos eo-Toi tQ l3Xa(f>6£VTi Plato, Zegg. 846 B). So here: all mankind has offended against God, and owes Him satisfaction. Note the use of a forensic term. 20. Bidri : ' because,' not ' therefore,' as AV. (see on L 19). Mankind is liable for penalties as against God, because there is nothing else to afford them proteciion. Law can open men's eyes to sin, but cannot remove it Why this is so is shown in vii. 7 ff. SiKaiwOTJaeTat : ' shall be pronounced righteous,' certainly not ' shall be made righteous ' (Lid.) ; the whole context (u«o irar ortVsa III. 21-26.J THE NEW SYSTEM Vl payfj, vn6biK0fy Mmu» avrov) has reference to % Judicial trial and verdict. jsaaa adp| '. man in his weakness and frailty (i Cor. L 19 ; i Pet ». a4)- hti^vwrit : 'dear knowledge'; see on I s8, 3a. THE NEW SYSTEM. m. 21-26. Here then the new order of things comes in. In it is offered a Righteousness which comes from God but embraces man, by no deserts of his but as a free gift on the part of God. This righteousness^ (i) though attested by the Sacred Books, is independent of any legal system (ver. 21); (ii) it is apprehended by faith in Christ, and is as wide as mans need (w. aa, 23) : (iii) it is made possible by the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ (w. 24, 25) ; which Sacrifice at once explains the lenient treatment by God of past sin and gives the most decisive expression to His righteousness (vv. a5, 26). " It is precisely such a method which is oflFered in Christianity. We have seen what is the state of the world without it But now, since the coming of Christ, the righteousness of God has asserted itself in visible concrete form, but so as to furnish at the same time a means of acquiring righteousness to man — and that in complete independence of law, though the Sacred Books which contain the Law and the writings of the Prophets bear witness to it. " This new method of acquiring righteousness does not turn upon works but on faith, i. e. on ardent attachment and devotion to Jesus Messiah. And it is therefore no longer confined to any particular people like the Jews, but is thrown open without distinc- tion to all, on the sole condition of believing, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. "The universal gift corresponds to the universal need. All men alike have sinned ; and all alike feel themselves far from the bright effulgence of God's presence. "Yet estranged as they are God accepts them as righteous for no merit or service of theirs, by an act of His own free favour, the change in their relation to Him being due to the Great Deliverance wrought at the price of the Death of Christ Jesus. "When the Messiah suffered upon the 8l EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 22. Cross it was God Who set Him there as a public spectacle, to be viewed as a Mosaic sacrifice might be viewed by the crowds as- sembled in the courts of the Temple. The shedding of His Blood was in fact a sacrifice which had the effect of making propitiation or atonement for sin, an effect which man must appropriate through faith. The object of the whole being by this public and decisive act to vindicate the righteousness of God. In previous ages the sins of mankind had been passed over without adequate punishment or atonement : " but this long forbearance on the part of God had in view throughout that signal exhibition of His Righteousness which He purposed to enact when the hour should come as now it has come, so as to reveal Himself in His double character as at once righteous Himself and pronouncing righteous, or accepting as righteous, the loyal follower of Jesus. 21. ruri 8^ : ' now,' under the Christian dispensation. Mey. De W. Oltr. Go. and others contend for the rendering ' as it is,' on the ground that the opposition is between two states, the state under Law and the state without Law. But here the two states or relations correspond to two periods succeeding each other in order of time ; so that wvi may well have its first and most obvious meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Rom. xvL 25, a6 fivmjpiov . . . vvp . . . irfav(paTai. It may be observed (i) that the N. T. writers constantly oppose the pre-Christian and the Christian dispensations to each other as periods (comp. in addition to the passages already enumerated Acts xvii. 30; Gal. iii. 23, 25, iv. 3, 4 ; Heb. i. i) ; and (ii) that (^awpoOo-^at is constantly used with expressions denoting time (add to passages above Tit. i. 3 mipols Idioit, I Pet. i. 20 cfr' ivxarov Tii> xp^imp). The leading English commentators take this view. An allusion of Tertullian's makes it probable that Marcion retained this rerse ; evidence fails as to the rest of the chapter, and it is probable that he cut out the whole of ch. iv, along with most other references to the history of Abraham (Tert. on Gal. iv. 21-26, AJv. Marc. v. 4). Xupis rtffiov: 'apart from law,' * indeptndently of it,' not at a subordinate system growing out of Law, but as an alternative for Law and destined ultimately to supersede it (Rom. x. 4). SiKaioaun] dcoS : see on ch. i. 17. St. Paul goes on to define his meaning. The righteousness which he has in view is» esser THE NEW SYSTEM 83 tially the righteousness of God ; though the aspect in which it is regarded is as a condition bestowed upon man, that condition is the direct outcome of the Divine attribute of righteousness, work- ing its way to larger reahzation amongst men. One step in this reahzation, the first great objective step, is the Sacrificial Death of Christ for sin (ver. 25); the next step is the subjective appre- hension of what is thus done for him by faith on the part of the believer (ver. 22). Under the old system the only way laid down for man to attain to righteousness was by the strict performance of the Mosaic Law ; now that heavy obligation is removed and a shorter but at the same time more effective method is substituted, the method of attachment to a Divine Person. ire({>ai'epuTat. Contrast the completed f/iffTov]. In quoting this passage Ambrose has sola Dei fulgebit tlaritas ; Dominus enim erit lux omnium (cf. Rev. xxi. 24). The blessed themselves shine with a brightness which is reflected from the face of God : ibid. VY. 97, 98 [Bensly «■ 71, 72 O. F. Fritzsche] quomodo incipiet {n^Wfi) vultus eorum fulgert sicut sol, et quomodo incipient stellarum adsimilari lumini . . .festinant enim videre vultum \eius\ cui serviunt viventes et m quo incipient gloriosi mercedem recipere (cf. Matt. xiii. 43). 24. Siitaioufiei'oi. The construction and connexion of this word are difl&cult, and perhaps not to be determined with certainly. (i) Many leading scholars (De W. Mey. Lips. Lid. Win. Gr. § xlv. 6 b) make hLKaiov^fvoi mark a detail in, or assign a proof of, the condition described by vo-rfpoOvrat. In this case there would be a slight stress on hitptav. men are far from God's glory, because the state of righteousness has to be given them ; they do nothing for it. But this is rather far-fetched. No such proof or further description of iorfpoCiTat is needed. It had already been proved by the actual condition of Jews as well as Gentiles ; and to prove it by the gratuitousness of the justification would be an inversion of the logical order, (ii) vo-rfpoOfTai 8iKaiovfjLevoi is taken as = va-rf- povvTM Koi diKMovvTM (Frl.) Or := v(TTfpovfievoi 8iKaiovvTai (Tholuck). But this is dubious Greek, (iii) SiKaiovnevoi is not taken with what precedes, but is made to begin a new clause. In that case there is an anacoluthon, and we must supply some such phrase as nw Kovxoifieda ; (Oltr.). But that would be harsh, and a connecting particle seems wanted, (iv) Easier and more natural than any of these expedients seems to be, with Va. and Ewald, to make ov yap . . . iartpoiivTai practically a parenthesis, and to take the nom. ^iKaioCfievoi ' as suggested by travrts in ver. 23, but in sense referring rather to rom maTiuovrai in ver. 22.' No doubt such a construcaon would be irregular, but it may be questioned whether it is too M EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS |II1. 24. irregular for St. Paul. The Apostle frequently gives a new turn to a sentence under the influence of some expression which is really subordinate to the main idea. Perhaps as near a parallel as any «'Ould be a Cor. viii. l8, 19 (rvvtnifxyiranfv df t6v a8f\6i> , . ol 5 tlnaivos iv Ty rvayy«Xt« . . . oi itAvov it, dXXa Koi xftpoTovrfSfiT (aS if or fTrnivt'irai had preceded). Swpeai' T^ auTou x'^'P'Ti. Each of these phrases strengthens the other in a very emphatic way, the position of airov further laying stress on the fact that this manifestation of free favour on the part of God is unprompted by any other external cause than the one which is mentioned (8ia r^j diroXvrpmcreoys). diroXuTpuCTcws. It is contended, esp. by Oltramare, (i) that \vTp6a) and dirokvTpom in classical Greek = not * to pay a ransom/ but ' to take a ransom,' ' to put to ransom,' or ' release on ransom,* as a conqueror releases his prisoners (the only example given of dwoXvTpaxTis is Plut. Pomp. 24 iroXt'an' axxpAKcurviv aTrokvrpdxTfts, where the word has this sense of ' putting to ransom ') ; (ii) that in LXX Xvrpoiadai is frequently used of the Deliverance from Egypt, the Exodus, in which there is no question of ransom (so Ex. vi. 6, XV. 13; Deut. vii. 8; ix. a6 ; xiii. 5, Ac: cf. also anoKvrp&trtt Ex. xxi 8, of the * release ' of a slave by her master). The subst. dnokvTpoxTis occurs Only in one place, Dan. iv. 30 [29 or 32], LXX 6 xp^^'o^ P°^ "^^ airo\vTpu>(Tt(iii TjXOt of Nebuchadnezzar's recovery from his madness. Hence it is inferred (cf. also Westcott, He6. p. 296, and Ritschl, Rechtfert. u. VersOhn. ii. 220 fF.) that here and in similar passages anokvrpasfTK denotes * deliverance ' simply without any idea of 'ransom.' "There is no doubt that this part of the metaphor might be dropped. But in view of the clear resolution of the expression in Mark x. 45 (Matt. xx. 28) iovvm rriv V^x^" ovtov Xirpov dvTi rroXXuv, and in I Tim. ii. 6 6 dovs iavrhv dvriXvTpov xmip ndvTutVy and in view also of the many passages in which Christians are said to be * bought,' or ' bought with a price ' (i Cor. vi. ao, vii. 23; Gal. iii. 13; a Pet. ii. i; Rev. v. 9: cf. Acts xx. aS ; I Pet. i. 18, 19), we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea of the Xvrpov retains its full force, that it is identical with the tj/x^, and that both are ways of describing the Death of Christ. The emphasis is on the cost of man's redemption. We need not press the metaphor yet a step further by asking (as the ancients did) to whom the ransom or price was paid. It was required by that ultimate necessity which has made the whole course of things what it has been ; but this necessity is far beyond our powers to grasp or gauge. rfjs i] itTTavpafitvos. But when we tum to the immediate context we find it so full of terms denoting publicity (ir«f>artpttTat, tit fvSfi$iv, irpir Tf)v eviti^iv) that the latter sense seems preferable. The Death of Christ is not only a manifestation of the righteousness of God, but a visible manifestation and one to which appeal can be made. tXav, TtXtarfipiop, xapurri]ptovk This too is Strongly 88 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III 25 supported (esp. by the leading German commentators, De W. Fri Mey. Lips.). But there seems to be no clear instance of tXaor^pto* used in this sense. Neither is there satisfactory proof that tXatrr. (subst) = in a general sense ' instrument or means of propitiation.' It appears therefore simplest to take it as adj. accus. masc. added as predicate to ok. There is evidence that the word was current as an adj. at this date {tXaarripiop fiv^ixa Joseph. AnU. XVI, vii. i • IXacTTTfpiov Bavdrov 4 Macc. xvii. 32 *, and other exx.). The objection that the adj. is not applied properly to persons counts for very little, because of the extreme rarity of Uie sacrifice of a person. Here however it is just this personal element which is most important. It agrees with the context that the term chosen should be rather one which generalizes the character of propitiatory sacrifice than one which exactly reproduces a particular feature of such sacrifice. The Latin TtrsioiM do not help u : they give all three leaderingi, ^r»- fitialorium, firopitiatortm, and propitiationtm. Syr. U also ombiguon*. The Coptic clearly favours the masc. rendering adopted above. It may be of some interest to compare the Jewish teaching on the subject of Atonement. ' When a man thinks, I will just go on sinning and repent later, no help it given him from above to mj^e him repent. He who thinks, I will but just sin and the Day of Atonement will bring me forgive- ness, such an one gets no forgiveness through the Day of Atonement. Offences of man against God the Day of Atonement can atone ; offences of man against his fellow-man the Day of Atonement cannot atone until be has given satisfaction to his fellow-man ' ; and more to the same effect (Mishnah, Tract. Joma, viii. 9, ap. Winter u. Wiinsche, Jiid. Lit. p. 98). We get a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta, Tract. Joma, v : ' R. Ismael said, Atonement is of four kinds. He who transgresses a positive command and repents is at once forgiven according to the Scripture, " Return, ye back- sliding children, I vrill heal your backslidings " (Jer. iii. 23 [2 a]). He who transgresses a negative command or prohibition and repents has the atone- ment held in suspense by his repentance, and the Day of Atonement makes it effectual, according to the Scripture, " For on this day shall atonement be made for yon " (Lev. xvi. 30). If a man commits a sin for which is decreed extermination or capital punishment and repents, his repentance and the Day of Atonement together keep the atonement in suspense, and suffering brings it home, according to the Scripture, " I will visit their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes" (Ps. Ixxiix. 33 [32]). But when a man profanes the Name of God and repents, his repentance has not the power to keep atonement in suspense, and the Day of Atonement has not the power to atone, but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone one third, sufferings on the remaining days of the year atone one third, and the day of death completes the atonement according to the Scripture, " Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by yon till you die " (Is. xxii. 14). This teaches that the day of death completes the atonement. Sin-offering and trespass-offering and death and the Day of Atonement all being no atonement without repentance, because it is written in Lev. xxiii. 21 (?) "Only," i.e. when he turns from his evil way does he obtain atonement, otherwise he obtains no atonement ' {op. tit. p. 154). * Some MSS. read here did . . . «•« l> aanjpiov rov Aai4rov oirwr (O. F. Fritische met loc.). III. 26.1 THE NEW SYSTEM 8q 9*A Tj)« irloTflwt: &a wtffTtcn KC*D*FG 6j** «/., Tisch. WH. text. The art. seems here rather more correct, pointing back as it would do to Sii wlarton *!. X. in ver. aa ; it is found in B and the mass of later authorities, bat there is a strong phalanx on the other tide ; B ia not infallible in sach company (cfl xi. 6). Ir T^ ouTou atfia-n : not with nitrrttit (though this would be a quite legitimate combination ; see Gif. ad loc), but with npofOero tkaorTjpiov: the shedding and sprinkling of the blood is a principal idea, not secondary. The significance of the Sacrificial Bloodshedding was twofold. The blood was regarded by the Hebrew as essentially the seat of life (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. ii ; Deut. xii. 23). Hence the death of the victim was not only a death but a setting free of life ; the application of the blood was an application of life; and the offering of the blood to God was an offering of life. In this lay more especially the virtue of the sacrifice (Westcott, Ep.Jo. p. 34 flf. ; Heb, p. 293 f.). For the prominence which is given to the Bloodshedding in connexion with the Death of Christ see the passages collected below. CIS 2>'8€i|i»» : e?f denotes the final and remote object, »rpoV the nearer object. The whole plan of redemption from its first conception in the Divine Mind aimed at the exhibition of God's Righteousness. And the same exhibition of righteousness was kept in view in a subordinate part of that plan, viz. the forbearance which God displayed through long ages towards sinners. For the punctuation and structure of the sentence see below. For Iv^ti^w see on ch. ii. 15 ; here too the sense is that of ' proof by an appeal to fact.' CIS cKSei^ir TTis 8iitoiocnJn(j$ aurou. In what sense can the Death of Christ be said to demonstrate the righteousness of God? It demonstrates it by showing the impossibility of simply passing over sin. It does so by a great and we may say cosmical act, the nature of which we are not able wholly to understand, but which at least presents analogies to the rite of sarrifice, and to that particular form of the rite which had for its object propitiation. The whole Sacrificial system was symbolical ; and its wide diffusion showed that it was a mode of religious expression specially appropriate to that particular stage in the world's development. Was it to lapse entirely with Christianity? The writers of the New Testament practically answer, No. The necessity for it still existed; the great fact of sin and guilt remained ; there was still the same bar tc the offering of acceptable worship. To meet this fact and to remove this bar, there had been enacted an Event which possessed the significance of sacrifice. And to that event the N. T. writers appealed as satisfying the conditions which the righteousness 90 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 25, 26 of God required. See the longer Note on ' The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice ' below. Sid -riiK irdpcair: not 'for the remission/ as AV., which gives a somewhat unusual (though, as we shall see on iv. 25, not impossible) sense to 8»a, and also a wrong sense to ndpta-iv, but 'because of the pretermission, or passing over, of foregone sins.' For the difference between Trdpta-it and a(f>ta-it see Trench, Syn. p. iioff. : rrdpea-is = ' putting osi'de,' temporary suspension of punishment which may at some later date be inflicted ; atttjiv : any human being. 29. T] presents, but only to dismiss, an alternative hypothesis on the assumption of which the Jew might still have had something to boast of. In rejecting this, St. Paul once more emphatically asserts his main position. There is but one law (Faith), and there is but one Judge to administer it. Though faith is spoken of in this abstract way it is of course Christian faith, faith in Christ. )i6vov : novw B al. ftur., WH. marg. ; perhaps auimilated to lovSoW . . . KoX iOvwv. 30. «iTr«p : decisively attested in place of Ittflirtp. The old distinction drawn between tl -nip and tl 7* was that tt -ntp is used of a condition which is assnnird without implying whether it is rightly or wrongly assumed, tl y« of a condition which carries with it the assertion of its own reality (Hermann on Viger, p. 831 ; Baumlein, Griech. Partikeln, p. 64V It is doubtful whether this distinction holds in Classical Greek ; it can hardly hold for N.T. But in any case both cf vtp and «! 7f lay some stress on the condition, as a condition: cf. Monro, Homerie Grammar, §§ 353, 354 ' The Particle »f'/) is evidently a shorter form of the Preposition vipi, which in its adverbial use has the meaning beyond, excetdingly. Accordingly iikp is intensive, denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree, in its fullest sense, &c. ... 7* is used like vip to emphasize a particular word or phrase. It does not however intensify the meaning, or insist on the fact as true, but only calls attention to the word or fact. ... In a Conditional Protasis (with os. on, fl, &c.), yt emphasiies the condition as such: hence ti yf if only, always supposing that. On the other hand tl mtf means supposing ever to muth, hence if really (Lat. si quident).' 6K TTiCTTcws . . . Bid TTjs TTitTTcus : (K dcuotcs ' sourcc,' bia ' attend- ant circumstances.' The Jew is justified <« ma-Ttms i«a n-tpiTonTjt : the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is circumcision. The Gentile is justified « rriarfas Koi Sia r^s n-tWcwr : no special channel, no special conditions are marked out ; faith is the one thing needful, it is itself ' both law and impulse.' 8id TTJs irioTcws =: ' the same faith,' ' the faith just men- tioned.' 81. KaTapyoufifr : see on ver. 3 above. »'<5(ioK loTwfAef. If, as we must needs think, oh. iv contains the proof of the proposition laid down in this verse, vo^ov must = ulti- mately and virtually the Pentateuch. But it = the Pentateuch not as an isolated Book but as the most conspicuous and representative expression of that great system of Law which f)revailed everywhere until the coming of Christ. The Jew looked at the O. T., and he saw there Law, Obedience to Law or Works, Circumcision, Descent from Abraham. St. Paul said, Look again and look deeper, and you will see — not Law but Promise, not works but Faith — of which Circumcision is only the seal, not literal descent from Abraham but spiritual descent AU these things are realized in Christianity. IV. 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 97 And then farther, whereas Law (all Law and any kind of Law) was only an elaborate machinery for producing right action, there too Christianity stepped in and accomplished, as if with the stroke of a wand, all that the Law strove to do without success (Rom. xiii. lo wX^pana ovv voitov if oycun; Compared with Gal. v. 6 •ivrtff d»' cyainpf ntfyyovfionj). TES FAITH OF ABBAHAM. rv. 1-8. Take the crucial case of Abraham. He, like the Christian, was declared righteous, not on account of his works — as something earned, but by the free gift of God in response to his faith. And David describes a similar state of things. The happiness of which he speaks is due, not to sinlessness but to God" s free forgivetiess of sins. ' Objectok. You speak of the history of Abraham. Surely he, the ancestor by natural descent of our Jewish race, might plead privilege and merit • If we Jews are right in supposing that God accepted him as righteous for his works — those illustrious acts of his — he has something to boast of. St. Paul. Perhaps he has before men, but not before God. • For look at the Word of God, that well-known passage of Scrip- ture, Gen. XV. 6. What do we find there ? Nothing about works, but ' Abraham put faith in God,' and it (L e. his faith) was credited to him as if it were righteousness. * This proves that there was no question of works. For a work- man claims his pay as a debt due to him; it is not an act of favour. 'But to one who is not concerned with works but puts fciith in God Who pronounces righteous not the actually righteous (in which there would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly — to such an one his faith is credited for righteousness. *Just as again David in Ps. xxxii describes how God 'pro- nounces happy ' (in the highest sense) those to whom he attributes righteousness without any reference to works : ' ' Happy they,' he says, — not *who have been guilty of no breaches of law,' but •whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are veiled from sight. ' A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will not enter in His booL' 98 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. I. Iff. The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure, due as it would seem to the crossing of other lines of thought with the main lines. The proposition which the Apostle sets him- self to prove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch, is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches. But the way of putting this is affected by two thoughts, which still exert some influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to the advantage of the Jew. (ii) the pride or boasting which wa:* a characteristic feature in the character of the Jew but which St. Paul held to be ' excluded.' Hitherto these two points have been considered in the broadest and most general manner, but St. Paul now narrows them down to the particular and crucial case of Abraham. The case of Abraham was the centre and strong- hold of the whole Jewish position. If therefore it could be shown that this case made for the Christian conclusion and not for the Jewish, the latter broke down altogether. This is what St. Paul now undertakes to prove ; but at the outset he glances at the two side issues — main issues in ch. iii which become side issues in ch. iv — the claim of • advantage,' or special privilege, and the pnde which the Jewish system generated. For the sake of clearness we put these thoughts into the mouth of the objector. He is of course still a supposed objector ; St. Paul is really arguing with himself j but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met with in actual controversy (see on iii. i ff.). 1. The first question is one of reading. There is an important variant turning upon the position or presence of eoptju^foi. (i) K L P, &c., Theodrt. and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after ri* wponaTopa rjfiwv. It is then taken with Kara adpKa \ ' What shall we say that A. has gained by his natural powers unaided by the grace of God ? ' So Bp. Bull after Theodoret. jTEuthym.-Zig. however, even with this reading, takes Kara aapKa with naripa : i-ntpliarhv yaft TO Kara adpKo]. But this is inconsistent with the context. The question is not, what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or without it, but whether the new system professed by St. Paul left him any gain or advantage at all. (a) MACDEFG, some cur- sives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place after (povptv. In that case Kara aapxa goes not with «vpt]Kivai but with Tov npondropa fjpoiv which it simply defines, ' our natural pro- genitor.' (3) But a small group, B, 47*, and apparently Chrysostom from the tenor of his comment, though the printed editions give it in his text, omit tvprfKfvm altogether. Then the idea of 'gain* drops out and we translate simply ' What shall we say as to Abraham our forefather ? ' &c. The opponents of B will sar that the sense thus given is suspiciously easy : it is certainly more IT. 1, a.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 99 satisfactory than that of either of the other readings. The point is not what Abraham got by his righteousness, but how he got his righteousness — by the method of works or by that of faith. Does the nature of A.'s righteousness agree better with the Jewish system, or with St. Paul's ? The idea of ' gain ' was naturally imported from ch, iii. i, 9. There is no reason why a right reading should not be preserved in a small group, and the fluctuating position of a word often points to doubtful genuineness. We therefore regard the omission of tvprjKfvai as probable with WH. texi Tr. RV. marg. For the construction comp. John L 15 oJrot 1-5. One or two small qnestions of form may be noticed. In ver. i npoiriTopa (N***' A B C* a/.) is decisively attested for irartpa, which is found in the later MSS. and commentators. In ver. 3 the acute and sleepless critic Origan thinks that St. Paul wrote 'Afipa/x (with Heb. of Gen. xv , cf. Gen. xvii. <;), but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the text of Scripture substituted 'A^poAfi. It is more probable that St. Paul had before his mind the established and significant name throughout : he quotes Gen. xvii. 5 in ver. 17. In ver. 5 a small group (N D* F G) have dat^Tji', on which form see WH. Intrvd. App. p. 157 f. ; Win Gr. ed. 8, § ix. 8 ; Tisch. 00 Heb. vi. 19. In this instance the attestation may be wholly Western, bat not in others. ihv irpoirdTopa ^fifflr. This description of Abraham as ' our fore- father ' is one of the arguments used by those who would make the majority of the Roman Church consist of Jews. St. Paul is not very careful to distinguish between himself and his readers in such a matter. For instance in writing to the Corinthians, who were undoubtedly for the most part Gentiles, he speaks of ' our fathers ' as being under the cloud and passing through the sea (i Cor. x. i). There is the less reason why he should discriminate here as he is just about to maintain that Abraham is the father of all believers, Jew and Gentile alike, — though it is true that he would have added ' not after the flesh but after the spirit.' Gif. notes the further point, that the question is put as proceeding from a Jew ; along with Orig. Chrys. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. Lips, he connects t6v irpondr. f^i. with Kara aapKo, It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort {Rom. and Eph. p. 23 f.) though relegating (vpriKtvtu to the margin, still does not take icara aapKa with t6v irponuTopa fip,cop. 2. Kaux^lf^a: 'Not materies gloriandi as Meyer, but rather gloriatto, as Bengel, who however might have addedyif/a ' (T. S. Evans in Sp. Comtn. on i Cor. v. 6). The termination -pa denotes not so much the thing done as the completed, determinate, act; for other examples see esp. Evans ui sup. It would not be wrong to translate here 'has a ground of boasting,' but the idea of ' ground ' is contained in ex«, or rather in the context. dXX' 06 irp^ Tie ectS^. It seems best to explain the introduction vi this clause by some such ellipse as that which is supplied in the ■ • lOO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 2, 8. paraphrase. There should be a colon after xaixntt'^' St Paul does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a aycl>v ayii . . . oi \oyia6f](TfTai avr^, xvii. 4 \oyi(y6i}(rtT(u tm avdpamtf tKtivtf (Ufia, Ac. The notion arises from that of the ' book of remembrance ' (Mai. iii. 16) in which men's good or evil deeds, the wrongs and suflferinws of the saints, are entered (Ps. Ivi. 8 ; Is. Ixv. 6). Oriental monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the merit or demerit of their subjects (Esth. vi. i flf.), and in like manner on the judgement day Jehovah would have the 'books' brought out before Him (Dan. vii. 10; Rev. xx. la; comp. also ' the books of the living,' ' the heavenly tablets,' a common expres- sion in the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, and Test. XII Pair., on which see Charles on Enoch xlvii. 3 ; and in more modem times, Cowper's sonnet ' There is a book . . . wherein the eyes of God not rarely look '). The idea of imputation in this sense was familiar to the Jews (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 233). They had also the idea of the transference of merit and demerit from one person to another {ibid. p. 280 flf. ; Ezek. xviii. a ; John ix. a). That however is not in question here ; the point is that one quaUty faith is set down, v dvdpiv Tovs dtioTOTovs fiaKaplContv Arist. £th. Nic. I. xii. 4 ; comp. Euthym.- Zig. tTriratrit ii Koi Kopvcprf Tiprjs koI 86^t]s 6 fiaKopicrpos, ' Felicitation is the strongest and highest form of honour and praise '). St. Paul uses the word again Gal. iv. 15. Who is it who thus pronounces 9 man blessed ? God. The Psalm describes how He does so. lOa EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 7, a 7, 8. MaKcJpioi, ILT.X. This quotation of Ps. xxxii. i, » is the same in Heb. and LXX. It is introduced by St. Paul as confirming his interpretation of Gen. xv. 6. paKcipioi is, as we have seen, the highest term which a Greek could use to describe a state of felicity. In the quotation just given from Aristotle it is applied to the state of the gods and those nearest to the gods among men. ^oif^-f^. SoK»ACD«FKL&c.: oJo*^ KBDE(t)G,67*». o8 b also the reading of LXX (^ K«* R»). The authorities for ol are superior M they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission i N B + D) and it if on the whole more probable that ^ has been assimilated to the construction of Koyl((ff9cu in yt. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that o5 has been assimilated to the preceding «r or to the O.T. or that it has been affected by the following ov : ^ natorally esUblished itself as the moie euphonio«i remding. od (1^ XoyicrriTm*. There is a natural tendency in a declining language to the use of more emphatic forms ; but here a real emphasis appears to be intended, ' Whose sin the Lord will in no wise reckon': see EIL on 1 Thess. iv. 15 [p. 154], and Win. $ Ivi. 3, p. 634 t Thi History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by St. Javus. It is at first sight a remarkable thing that two New Testament writers should use the same leading example and should quote the same leading text as it would seem to directly opposite effect. Both St Paul and St. James treat at some length of the history of Abraham ; they both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, as the salient characterization of that history ; and they draw from it the conclusion — St. Paul that a man is accounted righteous n-torct x«»P«« Jpytov (Rom. iiu 38 ; cf. iv. 1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is accounted righteous i^ epyaiv koI oint «'«: jrtoTfwr fiovov ( Jas. ii. 24). We notice at once that St. Paul keeps more strictly to his text. Gen. XV. 6 speaks only of faith. St. James supports his contention of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident in Abraham's life, the offering of Isaac (Jas. ii. 21). St. Paul also appeals to ^)articular incidents, Abraham's belief in the promise that he should have a numerous progeny (Rom. iv. 18), and in the more express prediction of the birth of Isaac (Rom. iv. 19-21). The difference is that Sl Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own spiritual experience confirms the unqualified afiirmation of the Book of Genesis ; and he is therefore able to take it as one of the foi\ndations of his system. St James, occupying a less exceptional IV 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM IO3 Standpoint, and taking words in the average sense put upon them, has recourse to the context of Abraham's life, and so harmonizes the text with the requirements of his own moral sense. The fact is that St. James and Su Paul mean different things by * faith,' and as was natural they inipos* these different meanings on the Book of Genesis, and adapt the .?st of their conclusions to them. When St. James heard speak of ' faith,' he understood by it what the letter of the Book of Genesis allowed him to understand by it, a certain belief. It is what a Jew would consider the funda- mental belief, belief in God, belief that God was One (Jas. ii. 19). Christianity it with him so much a supplement to the Jews' ordinary creed that it does not seem to be specially present to his mind when he is speaking of Abraham. Of course he too believes in the 'Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Gloy ' (Jas. ii. i). He takes that belief for granted ; it is the substratum or basement of life on which are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality (jrpoo-ftwroXf^i'a). If he were questioned about it, he would put it on the same footing as his belief in God. But St. James was a thoroughly honest, and, as we should say, a ' good ' man ; and this did not satisfy his moral sense. What is belief unless proof is given of its sincerity ? Belief must be followed up by action, by a line of conduct conformable to it. St. James would have echoed Matthew Arnold's proposition that ' Conduct is three-fourths of life.' He therefore demands — and from his point of view rightly demands — that his readers shall authenticate their beliefs by putting them in practice, St. Paul's is a very different temperament, and he speaks from a very different experience. With him too Christianity is something added to an earlier belief in God ; but the process by which it was added was nothing less than a convulsion of his whole nature It is like the stream of molten lava pouring down the volcano's ^ide. Christianity is with him a tremendous over-masteriuL!; force. The crisis came at the moment when he confessed his faith in Christ ; there was no other crisis worth the name after that. Ask such an one whether his faith is not to be proved by action, and the question will seem to him trivial and superfluous. He will almost suspect the questioner of attempting to brmg back under a new name the old Jewish notion of rehgion as a round of legal observance. Of course action will correspond with fiiiih. The believer in Christ, who has put on Christ, who has died with Ciirist and risen again with him, must needs to the very utmost of his power endeavour to Uve as Christ would have him live. St. Paul is going on presently to say this (Rom. vi. i, 13, 15), as his opponents compel him to say it. But to himself it appears a truism, which is hardly worth definitely enunciating. To say that a man is a Christian should be enough. I04 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 1-& If we thus understand the real relation of the two Apostles, it will be easier to discuss their literary relation. Are we to suppose that either was writing with direct reference to the other ? Did St. Paul mean to controvert St. James, or did St. James mean to controvert St. Paul? Neither hypothesis seems probable. If St. Paul had had before him the Epistle of St. James, when once he looked beneath the language to the ideas signified by the language, he would have found nothing to which he could seriously object. He would hare been aware that it was not his own way of putting things; and he might have thought that such teaching was not intended for men at the highest level of spiritual attainment ; but that would have been all. On the other hand, if St. James had seen the Epistle to the Romans and wished to answer it, what he has written would have been totally inadequate. Whatever value his criticism might have had for those who spoke of * faith ' as a mere matter of formal assent, it had no relevance to a faith such as that conceived by St. Paul. Besides, St. Paul had too effectually guarded himself against the moral hypocrisy which he was con- demning. It would thus appear that when it is examined the real meeting- ground between the two Apostles shrinks into a comparatively narrow compass. It does not amount to more than the fact that both quote the same verse. Gen. xv. 6, and both treat it with reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith. Now Bp, Lightfoot has shown {Galatians, p. 157 flF., ed. s) that Gen. XV. 6 was a standing thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools. It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: 'Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness ' (i Mace. ii. 5a) ? It is repeatedly quoted and commented upon by Philo (no less than ten times, Lft.). The whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate allegory. The Talmudic treatise Mechilta expounds the verse at length : * Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake and the world was. For as a reward for Israel's having believed in the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in them ... In like manner thou findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world to come solely by the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the Lord ; for it is said, " and he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness " ' (quoted by Lft. ut sup. p. 1 60). Taking these examples with the lengthened discussions in St. Paul and St James, it is clear that attention was being very widely drawn to this particular text : and it was indeed inevitable that it should be so when we consider the place which Abraham held in the Jewish system and the minute study which was being given to every part of the Pentateuch. It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason IV. 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM lOj that the two New Testament writers are discussing independently of each other a current problem, and that there is no ground for supposing a controversial relation between them. We are not sure that we are prepared to go quite so far as this. It is true that the bearing of Gen. xv. 6 was a subject of standing debate among the Jews ; but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of Faith and Works. The controversy connected with this was essentially a Christian controversy ; it had its origin in the special and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. It seems to us therefore that the passages in the two Epistles have a real relation to that controversy, and so at least indirectly to each other. It does not follow that the relation was a literary relation. We have seen that there are strong reasons against this *. We do not think that either St. Paul had seen the Epistle of St. James, or St. James the Epistle of St. Paul. The view which appears to us the most probable is that the argument of St. James is directed not against the writings of St. Paul, or against him in person, but against hearsay reports of his teaching, and against the perverted construction which might be (and perhaps to some slight extent actually was) put upon it. As St. James sate in his place in the Church at Jerusalem, as yet the true centre and metropolis of the Christian world; as Christian pilgrims of Jewish birth were constantly coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts, especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and Greece, the scene of St. Paul's labours ; and as there was always at his elbow the little coterie of St. Paul's fanatical enemies, it would be impossible but that versions, scarcely ever adequate (for how few of St. Paul's hearers had really understood him I) and often more or less seriously distorted, of his brother Apostle's teaching, should reach him. He did what a wise and considerate leader would do. He names no names, and attacks no man's person. He does not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true reports. At the same time he states in plain terms his own view of the matter. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him to be needed, and which the very language of St. Paul, in places hke Rom. vi. i flf., 15 if., shows to have been really needed. And thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths, suited to dififerent types of mind and different circumstances, are stated side by side. We have at once the deeper principle of action, which is also more powerful in proportion as it is deeper, though not such as all can grasp and appropriate, and the plainer • Besides what it laid above, see Introduction § 8. It is a satisfaction to find that the view here taken is substantially that of Dr. Hort, Judatstic Christianity, p. 148, 'it seems more natural to suppose that a misuse ot misunderstanding of St Paal's teaching on the part of others gave liae to St James's care&ly gsarded langoage.' I06 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 9-12. practical teaching pitched on a more every-day level and appealing to larger numbers, which is the check and safeguard against possibla misconstruction. FAITH AKD CXRCTTMCIfilOH. IV. 9-12. The declaration made to Abraham did not depend upon Circumcision, For it was made before he was circumcised ; and Circumcision only came in after the fact, to ratify a verdict already given. The reason being thai Abraham might have for his spiritucd descendants the un- circumcised as well as the circumcised. •Here we have certain persons pronounced 'happy.* It this then to be confined to the circumcised Jew, or may it also apply to the uncircumcised Gentile ? Certainly it may. For there is no mention of circumcision. It is his faith that we say was credited to Abraham as righteousness. **And the historical circumstances of the case prove that Circumcision had nothing to do with it. Was Abraham circumcised when the declaration was made to him ? No : he was at the time uncircumcised. " And circumcision was given to him afterwards, like a seal affixed to a document, to authenticate a state of things already existing, via, the righteousness based on faith which was his before he was circumcised. The reason being that he might be the spiritual father alike of two divergent classes : at once of believing Gentiles, who though uncircumcised have a faith like his, that they too might be credited with righteousness ; *'* and at the same time of believing Jews who do not depend on their circumcision only, but whose files march duly in the steps of Abraham's faith — that faith which was his before his circumcision. 10. Si. Paul appeals to the historic fact that the Divine recognition of Abraham's faith came in order of time before his circumcision : the one recorded in Gen. xv. 6, the other in Gen. xvii. lo ff. Therefore although it might be (and was) confirmed by circumcision, it could not be due to it or conditioned by it XL mi^tor vcpi-rofti)). Circumcision at its institution is said lo be o* trnpnif haBlveitf (Gen. xvii. ii), between God and the IV. U.J THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM lOj circumcised. The gen. ntpirofxris is a genitive of apposition or identity, a sign ' consisting in circumcision/ ' which was circumcision.' Some authorities (AC* al.) read nfpiTo^rjv. v^payiSa. The prayer pronounced at the circumcising of a child runs thus : ' Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved from the womb, and put His ordinance upon His flesh, and sealed His oflfspring with the sign of a holy covenant.' Com p. Targum Can/, iii. 8 ' The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was sealed in the flesh of Abraham'; Shemoth R. 19 'Ye shall not eat of the passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh.' Many other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad loc. (cf. also Delitzsch). At a very early date the same term trcfipayit was transferred from the rite of circumcision to Christian baptism. See the passages collected by Lightfoot on 2 Clem. vii. 6 {Clem. Rom. ii. 226), also Gebhardt and Harnack ad loc, and Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, p. 295. Dr. Hatch connects the use of the term with * the mysteries and some forms of foreign cult ' ; and it may have coalesced with language borrowed from these ; but in its origin it appears to be Jewish. A similar view is taken by Anrich, Das antike Myskrienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum (Gdttingen, 1894), p. 120 if., where the Christian use of the word a^payii is fuUy discussed. Barnabas (ix. 6) seems to refer to, and refnte, the Jewish doctrine which he puts in the month of an objector : dXA' ipitr Kat yLr]v jrtpiTtV^T/Tcu b yjoAt fk fftppnyiSa. dW6, vas ^vpos ical 'Apaifi ical navres oi lepus rSiv tiSwKuy. ipa oZv icaKUvot in riji SiaOrjKTjs avruiv daiv ; dA.Aay Aat tXvok denotes a present state simply as present, but that iiTrd/>x' denotes • present state as a product of past states, or at least a state in present time as related to past time (' vorhandenstin, dastin, Lat. *xisttre, adess«,Pratst4 4SU ' Schmidt 1 1 See esp. T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on i Cor. vii. 30 : ' the last word {{nTapxtw) is difficult ; it seems to mean sometimes " to be origin- ally," "to be substantially or fundamentally," or, as in Demosthenes, "to be stored in readiness. " An idea of propriety sometimes attaches to it : comp. '"'Pf '»! " property " or " substance." The word however asks for further investigation.' Comp. Schmidt, IxU. u. gr. Synonymik, % 74. 4. 20. ovi 8i«Kp(dT) : ' did not hesitate ' (rovriaTw ou8< ivtZoicustr oiSJ ^fPi" fia\t Chrys.). diaKpirttr act. ^diiuduart, (i) to ' discriminate,' or ' distinguish ' between two things vMatt. xvi. 3 ; cf . i Cor. xL 39, 31 ) or persons (Acts xv. 9; 1 Cor. iv. 7); ii) to 'arbitiate' between two parties (i Cor. vi. 51. tut- Mfiv*a6cu mid. (and pasa.) •« ^i) 'to get a decision," litigate," ' dispute,' oe 'contend ' (Acts xi. 2 ; Jas. ii. 4 ; Jude 91 ; (ii ' to 'be divided against one- •elf,' 'waver,' 'doubt." The other senses are all found in LXX (where the w«ttl occurs some thirty times), bat tliia is wanting. It k bowerec well IV. 20.J THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM II5 established for N.T^ where it Appears as the proper opposite of wltnu wiartvct. So Matt, xxt ai iiy txT^* '^tic, Koi nil hiaKpiOrJTf : Mark xi. 33 tt kf flrg , . . Koi fii) S*aHpi6^ If rp aapd'uf airrov dKXd wiartvp : Rom. xiy. 33 d S) lkaicptv6fityoi, Wv i r^t itapaZo9i\.aj)i aa dKrjOdas ^taKpiOrjaji : U. 40 *tpi Tov fiovov Kal ayadov 9(oS StoKpid^vai. It is remarkable that a nse which (except as an antithesis to wiffrtitiy) there is no reason to connect specially with Christianity should thus seem to be traceable to Christian circles and the Christian line of tradition. It is not likely to be in the strict sense a Christian coinage, bat appears to have had its beginning in near Jroiimity to Christianity. A parallel case is that of the word Si^x"* (St. ames, Clem. Rom., Herm., DidatJk/, &&). The two words seem to belong to the same cycle of ideas. lKcSuKap.(26i) rg wiorci. rg frtdrrft is here usually taken as dat. of respect, 'he was strengthened in his faith,' i.e. 'his faith was strengthened, or confirmed.' In favour of this would be n^ dadevrja-as Tji niarti above ; and the surrounding terms (8i.tKpiBi), n\f}po(f)opri6fis} might seem to point to a mental process. But it is tempting to make rj wiarti instrumental or causal, like rg anurritf to which it stands in immediate antithesis : ' (v^r eytyvfjdrfaav, Koi ravra PtptKpafxivov, Kodois ra aarpa tov oipavov tw tr\T)6ei (observe esp. bvyafuy IXajSf, ytvtKpa^Uyov). This sense is also distinctly recognized by £uthym.-Zig. {ivthvyanmSr} «lt naiBoyovlay t^ »r» hnbtian/pfvos 8vvdfM«»t itirat wktinvot. The Talmud lays great stress on the Birth of Isaac. In the name of Isaac was found an indication that with him the history of Revelation began. With him the people of revealed Religion came into existence : with him ' the Holy One began to work wonders' {Beresh. Rabba liii, ap. Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 256). But it is of course a wholly new point when St. Paul compares the miraculous birth of Isaac with the raising of Christ from the dead. The parallel consists not only in the nature of the two events — both a bringing to life from cmiditions which betokened only death — but also in the faith of which they were the object. Sod« %ii%w. a Hebraism: cf. Josh. viL 19; i Sam. vi. 5; 1 Chron. xvi %%, &c. Il6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. Bl-Sft. 21. -irXt|po^opi|9eis: wKt}poopla s ' full assurance/ ' firm conviction, I Thess. i. 5 ; Col. ii. a ; a word especially common amongst the Stoics. Hence iT\r)po(f)op('i>e prospective, as Gif. 'because of our trespasses/ i.e. 'in order tc atone for them.' In any case 3uk t^v {tiKaimviv is prospective, * with a view to our justification/ ' because of our justification ' conceived as a motive, i. e. to bring it about. See Dr. Gifford's two excellent notes pp. 108, 109. The manifold ways in which the Resurrection of Christ is connected with justification will appear from the exposition below. It is at once the great source of the Christian's faith, the assurance of the special character of the object of that faith, the proof that the Sacrifice which is the ground of justification is an accepted sacrifice, and the stimulus to that moral relation of the Christian to Christ in which the victory which Christ has won becomes his own victory. See also the notes on ch. vi. 5-8. Tht Place of the Resumttum of Christ m tht teaching of St. Paul. The Resurrection of Christ fills an immense place in Ae teaching of St Paul, and the &ct that it does so accounts for the emphasis and care with which he states the evidence for it (i Cor. xv. i-ii)^ rV. 17-2«.J THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 117 (i) The Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the Divinity of Christ (Acts xvii. 31 ; Rom. i 4; i Cor. xv. 14, 15). (ii) As proving the Divinity of Christ the Resurrection is also the most decisive proof of the atoning value of His Death. But for the Resurrection, there would have been nothing to show — at least no clear and convincing sign to show — that He who died upon the Cross was more than man. But if the Victim of the Cross had been man and nothing more, there would have been no sufficient reason for attaching to His Death any peculiar efficacy ; the faith of Christians would be ' vain,' they would be * yet in Uieir sins ' (i Cor. XV. 17). (iii) In yet another way the Resturection proved the efficacy of the Death of Christ. Without the Resurrection the Sacrifice of Calvary would have been incomplete. The Resurrection placed upon that Sacrifice the stamp of God's approval ; it showed that the Sacrifice was accepted, and that the cloud of Divine Wrath — the opyi] so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom. iii. 35, a 6)— had passed away. This is the thought which lies at the bottom of Rom. vi. 7-10. (iv) The Resurrection of Christ is the strongest guarantee for ^e resurrection of the Christian (i Cor. xv. ao-ag ; « Cor. iv. 14; Rom. viii. 11 ; Col. i. i8). (v) But that resurrection has two sides or aspects : it is not only physical, a future rising again to physical life, but it is also moral and spiritual, a present rising from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. In virtue of his union with Christ, the close and intimate relation <^ his spirit with Christ's, the Christian is called upcm to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ. And this moral and spiritual sense is the only sense in which he can repeat diem. We shall have this doctrine fiilly expounded in ch. vi. i-ii. A recent monograph on tiie nibject of tbU note (E. Schader, DU Bedeuiung duUbendigen Chritiut fur di$ Rechtftrtigung nach Paulus, Giitersloh, 1893) has worked oat in much carefnl detail the third of the above heads. Hen Schader (who since writing his treatise has become Professor at Konigsberg) insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrought bj Christ ; that which redeems is not merely the act of Christ's Death but His Person (if ^ cx^A**** ^*' aTroXiW-poNTti' Eph. L 7 ; Col. L 14). It is as a Person that He takes the place of the sinner and endures the Wrath of God in his •tead (Gal. iii. 13; a Cor. ▼. ai). The Resurrection is proof that this ' Wrath ' is at an coA. And therefore in certain salient passages (Rom. iv. 35 ; vi. 9, 10 ; viii. 34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ ai th« came of justification. The treatise is well deserving of study. It may be right also to mention, without wholly endorsing, Dr. Hort'i dgnificant aphorism : ' Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemp- tion, and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and resurrection one aspect of life' {Huitiam Lteturtt, p. a 10). This can more readily be accepted if * oae aspect ' in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other aspects. At the same thae snch a saying is useful as a warning, which is especially ■ecded where the attrmpt is being made towards more exact definitions, that Il8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 1-U. •U definitions of great doctrines have a relatiT* rather than an abaolnte valnft They axe paitial symbols of ideas which the human miod cannot grasp ip their entirety. If we could see as God sees we should doubtless find them running up mto large and broad laws of His working. We desire to make this reserve in regard to our own attempts to define. Without it ccael exegesis noay well waam to lead to • rariTed ScholaaticiaB. BLISSFITL CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFIOATION. V. 1-11. TAf state which thus lies before the Christian should have consequences both near and remote. Tht nearer consequences^ peace with God and hope which gives courage under persecution (w. 1-4) : the remoter consequence, an assurance, derived from the proof of God's love, of our final salvation and glory. The first step {our present acceptance with God) is difficult ; the second step {our ultimate salva^ tion) follows naturally from the first (w. 5-11). *We Christians then ought to enter upon oor privilege*. By that strong and eager impulse with which we enroll ourselves as Christ's we may be accepted as righteous in the sight of God, and it becomes our duty to enjoy to the full the new state of peace with Him which we owe to our Lord Jesus Messiah. 'He it is whose Death and Resurrection, the object of our faith (iv. »5), have brought us within the range of the Divine favour. Within the sheltered circle of that favour we stand as Christians, in no merely passive attitude, but we exult in the hope of one day participating as in the favour of God so also in His glory. • Yes, and this exultation of ours, so far from being shaken by per- secutions is actually foimded upon them. For persecution only generates fortitude, or resolute endurance under trials : * and then fortitude leads on to the approved courage of the veteran; and that in torn strengthens the hope out of which k originally sprang. ^ More : our hope is one that cannot prove fllusory ; because (and here a new factor is introduced, for the first time in this connexion) the Holy Spirit, through whom God is brought into personal contact with man — that Holy Spirit which we received when we became Christians, floods our hearts with the conscious- V. 1-11.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION II9 ness of the Love of God for us. 'Think what are the facts to which we can appeal. When we were utterly weak and prostrate, at the moment of our deepest despair, Christ died for as — not as righteous men, but as godless sinners I ' What a proof of love was there ! For an upright or righteous man it would be hard to find one willing to die; though perhaps for a good man (with the loveable qualities of goodness) one here and there may be brave enough to face death. * But God presses home the proof oi His unmerited Love towards us, in that, sinners as we still were, Christ died for us. • Here then is an « fortiori argument The fact that we have been actually declared * righteous ' by coming within the influence of Christ's sacrificial Blood — this fact which implies a stupendous change in the whole of our relations to God is a sure pledge of what is far easier— our escape from His final judgement '• Fot there is a double contrast If God intervened for us while we were His enemies, much more now that we are reconciled to Him. If the first intervention cost the Death of His Son, the second costs nothing, but follows naturally from the share which we have in His Life. ^ And not only do we look for this final salvation, but we are buoyed up by an exultant sense of that nearness to God into which we have been brought by Christ to whom we owe that one great step of our reconciliation. 1-lL Every line of this passage breathes St Paul's personal experience, and his intense hold upon the objective facts which are the grounds of a Christian's confidence. He believes that the ardour with which he himself sought Christian baptism was met by an answering change in the whole relation in which he stood to God That change he attributes ultimately, it is clear throughout this context, not merely in general terms to Christ (dta v. i, a, 11 bis) but more particularly to the Death of Christ {napfbo&fj iv. 25; iiiri6a»t V. 6, 8 ; iv t» tu^utri V. 9 } i*a tov Bavarav v. lo). He con- ceives of that Death as operating by a sacrificial blood-shedding (eV Tf aifuiTi : cf. iiL 85 and the passages referred to in the Note on the Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice). The Blood of that Sacrifice is as it were sprinkled round the Christian, and forms a sort of hallowed enclosure, a place of sanctuary, into which he enters. Within this he is safe, and from its shelter he looks out exultingly over the physical dangers which threaten him ; they may strengthen his firmness of purpose, but cannot shake it. L The word dutaiaHny at the end of the last chapter recalls St Paul to his main topic After expounding the nature of his new I20 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS method of obtaining righteousness in iii. 21-26, he had begun to draw some of the consequences from this (the deathblow to Jewish pride, and the equality of Jew and Gentile) in iii. 27-31. This suggested ^he digression in ch. iv, to prove that notwithstanding there was no breach of God's purposes as declared in the O. T. (strictl) the Legal System which had its charter in the O. T.), but rather the contrary. Now he goes back to 'consequences and traces them out for the individual Christian. He explains why it is that the Christian faces persecution and death so joyfully : he has a deep spring of tranquility at his hear^ and a confident hope of future glory. cxu|xcK. The evidence for this reading stands thus : p ndt^mv napfbtnttp aiirdp : iii. 2 a 8iKau)(Tvvtf it Qtoi> . . , tit ndprat roi/t VKrrtvouras I and the repeated »7M'« in the contexts of three passage* (Comp. Ruht- fert. u, Versohn. ii. a 16 f, 160). In reply the critics of Ritschl appeal to the dist nctly in- dividualistic cast erf* such expressions as Rom. iii. a 6 biKaioivra ro» in ifioTftis 'It/o-ov : iv. 5 fTTi TOV dtKaiovvra tov acfjSij, With the COnteXt : X. 4 tU diKaio'ot were right it would be another example of that broken and somewhat inconsecutive structure which is doubtless due, as Va. suggests, to the habit of dictating to an anuuanensis. Note the contrast between the Jewish «ivx»?o'»f which ' is excluded ' (iii. 27) and this Christian KaixTiinf)r: not merely a passive quality but a 'masculine con- stancy in holding out under trials ' (Waite on s Cor. vL 4), ' forti- tude.' See on ii. 7 above. 4. 8oKifti/| : the character which results from the process of trial, the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit ; cf. James Lis, &c. The exact order of Inonovl} and doKifif) must not be pressed too far : in St. James i. 3 t6 SokIhiov r^r wiaTtan produces vn-ofi*yi|. If St. James had seen this Epistld (which is doubtful) we might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. The con- ception is that of a Tim. iL 3 (in the revised as well as the received text). ij 8j SoKi|fcf| IXirtSo. It is quite Intelligible as a fact of experience that the hope which is in its origin doctrinal should be strengthened by the hardening and bracing of character which come from actual conflict. Still the ultimate basis of it is the overwhelming sense of God's love, brought home through the Death of Christ ; and to this the Apostle returns. 6. o4 Karaiorxi'fci : ' does not disappoint,' ' does not prove illusory.' The text Is. xxviii. 16 (LXX) caught the attention of the early Christians from the Messianic reference contained in it (' Behold, I lay in Zion,' tec), and the assurance by which this was followed ('he that believeth shall not be put to shame') was confirmed to diem by their own experience : the verse is directly quoted Rom. ix. 33 q. V. ; I Pet. ii. 6. ^ i,ydin\ T08 eeou : certainly ' the love of God for us,' not ' our love for God ' (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns) : dyaTn; thus comes to mean, ' our smse of God's love,' just as W/j^mj ss ' our sense of peace with God' iKKixfrrai. The idea o( spiritual refreshment and encourage- ment is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of waUring. Sl Paul seems to have had in his mind Is. xliv. 3 ' I will potu* water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the dry ground : I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed,' &c. %ik nrcuffcaTos 'Ayiou: without the art, for the Spirit as imparted I aft EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 6, « St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges d Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, i. e. from his baptism. 6. ?Ti ydp. There is here a difficult, but not really very im- portant, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus summarized : — frt yap at the beginning of the verse with It* also after ivdnw, the mass of I\ISS. fri at the beginning of the verse only, some inferior MSS. (later stage of the Ecclesiastical text). «r ri yap (possibly representing Ipa ri yap, ut quid enim), the Western text (Latin authorities). •/ yap few authorities, pardy Latin. •? -y. B. It is not easy to select from these a reading which shall account for all the variants. That indeed which has the best authority, the double fTi, does not seem to be tenable, unless we suppose an accidental repetition of the word either by St. Paul or his amanuensis. It would not be difficult to get «rt yap from 'pa W yap, or vice versa, through the doubling or dropping of in from the preceding word HMiN ; nor would it be difficult to explain tin yap from « yap, or vice versa. We might then work our way back to an alternative tl ydp or « yf, ^iiich might be confused with each other through the use of an abbreviation. Fuller details are given below. We think on the whole that it is not improbable that here, as in iv. i, B has preserved the original reading »i ye. For the meaning of e» yt {* so surely as ' Va.) see T. S. Evans in £xp. i88a, i. 176 f.; and the note on iii. 30 above. lo more detail the trldence stands thus : frt yAf here with In alto after iffOeywi' K A C D* «/. : in here only D« E K L P &;c. : tit ri y&p D" F G : mi quid tnim Lat.-Vet. Vulg., Iren.-lat Fanstin : et yap 104 Greg. (= h Scriv. , fuld , Isid.-Pelu8. Aug. bit : tl 7 . . .tn Boh. (' For if, we being still weak,' &c.^ : *l hi Pesh. : *l y* B. [The readings are wrongly given by Lips., and not quite correctly even by CJif., through overlooking the commas in Tisch. The statement which is at once fullest and most exact will be found in WH.] It thus appears: (i) that the reading most strongly supported is In ydp, with double tri, which is impossible tuiless we suppose a lapsus calami between St. Paul and his amanuensis, (a) The Western reading is tU rl ydp, which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original fvo ri yap (Gif., from ut quid enim of Iren.-lat. &c.) : this is no doubt a very early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is »l yap. (4) B alone gives fi yt. So far as sense goes this is the best, and there are not a few cases in N T. where the reading of B alone strongly commends itself (cf. iv. r above) But the problem is, how to account for the other readings? It would not be difhcult palaeographically from *l ydp to get in ydp by dittography ol I (eifAp, €nrAp, eriTAp), or from this again to get cb ri ydp through ditto* graphy of f and confusion with c (tCTirAp) ; or we might take the alternative ingeniously suggested b) Gif., of supposing that the original reading was 'am V. 6, 7.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 127 W fip, ni which the first two letters h«d been absorbed by the prerious ■fipln (NHiN[iN]ATirAp). There wonld thus be no great difiicnlty in accounting for Uie origin either of It« -^ap or of the group of Western readings ; and the primitive variants wonld be reduced to the two, ei f ap and ei r^. Dr. Hort proposed to account for these by a conjectural ci ncp, which would be a con- ceivable root for all the variations — partly through paraphrase and partly through errors of transcription. We might however escape the necessity of neaorting to conjecture by supposing confusion between pt and the abbrevia- tion tfc. [For thia form see T. W. Allen, Notei on Abbreviations in Greek AfSS. (Oxford, 1889), P- 9 *nd P^- >"? Lehmann, Die tachygraphischen Ab- kUrzungtH d. griech. Handschrifttn (Leipzig, 1880), p. 91 f. taf. 9. We believe that the oldest extant example is in the Fragmenlum Mathematicum Bobienst of the seventh century (Wattenbach, Script. Graec. Specim. tab. 8), where the abbreviation appears in a corrupt form. But we know that short- hand was very largely practised in the early centuries (cf. Eus. H. E. VL xxiii. a), and it may have been used by Tertius himself.] Where we have such a tangled skein to unravel as this it is impossible to speak very confidently ; but we suspect that ti 7<, as it makes the best sense, noay also bt tht ori^al reading. «T r« («> *) Vn r*p «•' rif in r«r tid mt fuid mtm 4UT0crAr : ' Incapable ' of working oat any righteousness for our- ■elves. »oTd Kaip6r. St. Paul is strongly impressed with the fitness of the moment in the world's history which Christ chose for His intervention in it. This idea is a strikins? link of connexion between the (practically) acknowledged and the disputed Epistles ; compare on the one hand Gal. iv. 4 ; 2 Cor. vi. 2 ; Rom. iii. 26; and on the other hand Eph. L 10 ; i Tim. il 6 ; vi. 15 ; Tit. L 3. 7. fioXis Y'^P- The ydp explains how this dying for sinners is a conspicuous proof of love. A few may face death for a good man, still fewer for a righteous man, but in the case of Christ there is more even than this ; He died for declared enemies of God. For n6\ii the first hand of M and Orig. read (loyis, which has more attestation in Luke ix. 39. The two wordi were easily confused both in sense and in writing. 6ircp SiKoiou. There is clearly in this passage a contrast between (mtp diKaiov and inip roi dyn6ov. They are not expressions which may be taken as roughly synonymous (Mey.-W. Lips. &c.), but it ia8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 7-8 is implied that it is an easier thing to die for the iya66t than for the i'lKuot. Similarly the Gnostics drew a distinction between the God of the O. T. and the God of the N, T„ calling the one iUaiot and the other aya66s (Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xxvii. i ; comp. other passages and authorities quoted by Gif p. 183). The dtVator keeps to the ' letter of his bond ' ; about the ayaQit there is something warmer and more genial such as may well move to self-sacrifice and devotion. In face of the clear and obvious parallel supplied by Irenaeus, not to speak of others, it should not be argued as it is by Weiss and Lips, (who make roi dyaSov neut.) and even by Mey. and Dr. T. K. Abbott {Essayx, p. 75) that there is no substantial difference between iUaiot and aya66t. We ourselves often use 'righteous' and ' good ' as equivalent without effacing the distinction between them when there is any reason to emphasize it The stumbling- block of the art. before dyaSov and not before Amo/ov need not stand in the way. This is sufficiently explained by Gif., who points out that the clause beginning with /ioXts is virtually negative, so that iiKa'un> is indefinite and does not need the art., while the affirmative clause implies a definite instance which the art. indicates. We go therefore with most English and American scholars (Stuart, Hodge, Gif. Va. Lid.) against some leading Continental names in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural sense of the passage. 8. aoi'iorrjai : see on iii. 5. T^i' ^auToG 6.y&m\¥ : ' His own love,' emphatic, prompted from within not from without Observe that the death of Christ is here referred to the will of the Father, which lies behind the whole of what is commonly (and not wrongly) called the ' scheme of re- demption.' Gif. excellently remarks that the ' proof of God's love towards us drawn from the death of Christ is strong in proportion to the closeness of the union between God and Christ.' It is the death of One who is nothing less than ' the Son.' ri\v lavToO i-ydirriv alt f|^ay h B<6t KACKP &e.: 4 Ocdr •!> |/ift D £ F G L : om. 6 Bt6% B. There it do snbstantud differenoe of metniDg, w *U liiMt in any case goes with cwiartiat, not with dydn^r. 6vjp ^fiuK dWdarc. St. Paul uses emphatic language, i Cor. XV. 1-3, to show that this doctrine was not confined to himself but was a common property of Christians. 9. St Paul here separates bntw to which is usually added dwA etoii in the greetings of the Epistles. (a) In Rom, xL 28 €;(^po« is opposed to ayainjTol, where dyamjroi mutt be passive (' beloved by God '), so that it is hardly possible that t'xdpoi can be entirely active, though it may be partly so : it seems to correspond to our word ' hostile.' (3) It is difficult to dissociate such words as IXao-r^ptov (Rom. iii. 25), iXa iaoy) ' in proportion as,' ' in so far as ' (' all died, in so faros all sinned'), Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) ^ is rightly taken as neut., and the phrase «0' « as conj.=' because' ('for that' AV. and RV.) by Theodrt. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass of modem commentators. This is in agreement with Greek usage and is alone satisfactory. k ^ in dassical writen more often means 'on condition that*: cf. Thuc. i. 113 (TTTOcSat toiTjadfifvoi i(p' ^ rovr dybpas KOfiiovvrai, 'on con- dition of getting back their prisoners,* &c. The plnral kip' oh is more common, as in u.v6' &y, i^ S>v, dt' Siv. In N. T. the phrase occurs three times, always as it would seem ^/ropterta quod, 'because': cf. a Cor. v. 4 vrivd{p\it» Papovufvor i' y ov OeKoptv iKSvaaaOm k.t.X.; Phil. iii. la if' ^ Koi KaT(\'fi'

' ^ as neut. rather than masc, yet give to the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equivalent to that which it has if the antecedent of « is 'AW/u. Beni^el has g^ven this classical expression : omms peccarunt, Adamo pucante, ' all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam,' his sin involved theirs. The objection is that the words supplied are far too important to be left to be unrlerstood. If St. Paul had meant this, why did he not say so? The insertion of iv *A5d/i would have removed all ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part supply nothing, but take tl^aprov in its usual sense : * all sinned in their own persons, and on their own initiative.' So Euthym.- Zig. : hiOTi ivavT*s rjfiapToy aKoXovdrjaavTis r« npoTTaropi Kara yt to d/xapr^o-at. The objection to this is that it destroys the parallelism between Adam and Christ : besides, St. Paul goes on to show in the same breath that they could not sin in the same way that Adam did. Sin implies law ; but Adam's descendants had no law (3) It is possible however to take ^p.apTov xw its ordinary sen< without severing the connexion between Adam and his posterity. If they sinned, their sin was due in part to tendencies inherited from Adam. So practically Stuart, Fricke, Weiss, &c. There still remains the difRculty as to the connexion of this clause with what follows : see the next note. It is a farther argument in favoar of the view taken above that • very similar sequence of thought is found in 4 Ezra. Immediately after laying down that the sin of Adam's descendants is due to that malignitas radicis which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in full below), the writer goes on to describe this sin as a repetition of Adam's due to the fact that ihey too had within them the cor malig>ium as he had : Et deliquerunt qui habitabant civitaUm, in omnibus facientes sicut fecit Adam et omnes gemrationts eius, utebantur enim et if si corde maligna (4 Ezra iii. 25 f. . Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from Apoc. Baruch. which lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin and on the freedom of choice in those who give way to it : see the fuller note below. 13. axpi Y^P •'V®" ••T-X. At first sight this seems to give a reason for just the opposite of what is wanted : it seems to prove not that irdvT€t fipLapTov, but that however much men might sin they had not at least the full guilt of sin. This is really what St. Paul aims at proving. There is an under-current all through the passage, showing how there was something else at work besides the guilt of individuals. That ' something ' is the effect of Adam's Fall. The Fall gave the predisposition to sin; and the Fall linked together sin and death. St. Paul would not say that the absence of written law did away with all responsibility. He has already laid down most distinctly that Gentiles, though without such written law, havt V. 18, 14.] ADAM AND CHRIST I55 law enough to be judged by (iL 12-16); and Jews b«) K« B C D E F G K L P, See, iXXoyarai K<: ivtXoytiro ti*, iWo-^aro A 52 108; imputabatur YxAg. codd. AvixhrstT, al. The imperf. appears to b« a (mistaken) correction due to the context. Al to the form of the verb: *A.Xi>-ya is decisively attested in Philem. 18 ; bat it would not follow that the same form was used here where St. Paul is employing a different amanuensis : however, as the tendency of the MSS. if rather to obliterate vernacular forms than to introduce them, there is perhaps a slight balance of probability in favour ot fWoydrai : see Westcott and Hort, JVofet tn Orthography in Appendix to Introd. p. 166 ff. 14. IpaaiXeotTti' 6 GdcoTos. St. Paul appeals to the universal prevalence of death, which is personified, as sin had been just before, under the figure of a grim tyrant, in proof of the mis- chief wrought by Adam's Fall. Nothing but the Fall could account for that universal prevalence. Sin and death had their beginnings together, and they were propagated side by side. On the certainty and universality of Death, regarded as a penalty, comp. Seneca, Nat. Quatst. ii. 59 l.odem citiiis tardiusve veniendum est . . . In tmtus tonstituttim est capitak supplidum et quidem constitutione iustissima. nam quod maptum soiet esse solatium extrema passuris, quorum eadem eausa et sors eadem est. Similarly Philo speaks of tov avfupva vtKpbv fiixwv, ri aaifia {De Gigant. 3 ; ed, Mang. i. 264). Elsewhere he goes a step further and asserts 5t« ttavrl -f€vvrjTu . . . avficpvii rb dfj-apriytip. For parallels in 4 Ezra and ApM. Baruck. see below. iiri Tovs jiT] afiapTTjo-avTas. A number of authorities, mostly Latn Fathers, but including also the important mari^in of Cod. 67 with three other cursives, the first hand of d, and the Greek of Orig. at least once, omit the negative, making the reign of death extend only over those who had sinned after the likeness of Adam. So Orig.-lat. (Rufinus) repeatedly and expressly, Latin MSS. known to Aug., the 'older Latin MSS.' according to Ambrstr. and Sedulius. The comment of Ambrstr. is interesting as showing a certain grasp of critical principles, though it was difficult for any one in those days to have •nfiicient command of MSS. to know the real state of the evidence. Ambrstr prefers in this case the evidence of the Latin MSS., because those with which he is acquainted are older than the Greek, and represent, as he thinks, ajs older form of text. He claims that thi^ fonit ha» the support of TeJtollian 136 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 14. Cyprian and Victorinns — a statement which we are not at present able to verify- He accouats for the Greek reading by the usual theory of heretical corruption. There is a similar question of the insertion or omission of a negative in Rom. iv. 19 (q. v. , Gal. ii. 5. In two out of the three cases the Western text omits the negative, but in ch. iv. 19 it inserts it. TVTTOs (tvtttcu) : (i) the 'impression' left by a sharp blow (tAt tvwop rwv fiXaiv John xx. 35). in particular the 'stamp' stmok by a die; (a) inasmuch as such a stamp bears the figure on the face of the die, ' ropy,* 'figure,* or ' representation '; (3) by a common transition from effect to caoae, 'mould,' 'pattern,' 'exemplar'; (4) hence in the special sense of the word type, whicn we have adopted from the Greek of the N. T., ' an event or person in historr corresponding in certain characteristic features to another event or person. That which comes first in order of time is properly the type, that which comes afterwards the antitype {avTirvvoi 1 Pet. iii. ai). These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation : fee esp. Cheyue, Iiaiak, ii. 170 ff. 1, Essay III, ' On the Christian Element in th« Book of Isaiah '). Tou jiAXoKTos. (i) The entirely personal nature of the whole comparison prevents us from taking roC |4«XX. as neut. = ' that which was to come ' (Beng., Oltramare). If St Paul had intended this, he would have written mv ^tXXovroc a\.i>vot. (a) Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as i d«w-»pot or i firxarot 'A8a/i (i Cor. XV. 45, 47). If St, Paul had intended this, he would have written tov fx(k\atn-ot 'Abdft.. (3) The context makes it clear enough who is intended The first representative of the human race as such prefigured its second Great Repre- sentative, whose coming lay in the future : this is sufficiently brought out by the expression 'of Him who was to be.' 6 HfXXup thus approximates in meaning to 6 ipx6fi(vct (Matt xi. 3; Luke vii. 19; Heb. x. 37), wliich however appears not to have been, as it is sometimes regarded, a standing designation for the Messiah *. In any case toO fifKXomos = ' Him who was to come' when Adam fell, not 'who is (still) to come' (Fri. De W.). Tke Effects of Adam's Fall in Jrufish Theology. Three points come out clearly in these verses : ( i ) the Fall of Adam brought death not only to Adam himself but to his descendants ; (2) the Fall of Adam also broughi sin and the tendency to sin ; (3) and yet in spite of this the individual does not lose his responsibility. All three propositions receive seme partial illustration from Jewish sources, though the Talmud does * ' The designation " The Coming One " {Habbd), though a most truthfa] expression of Jewish expectancy, was aot one ordinaiily used of the Meanalk' Edersheim. L. ^ T.i. p. 668 V. 12-14.] ADAM AND CHRIST 137 not seem to have had any consistent doctrine on the subject Dr. Edersheim says expressly : * So far as their opinions can be gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original Sin and of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient Rabbis' ij^ife and Times, &c. i. 165). Still there are approxima- tions, especially in the writings on which we have drawn so freeJv akeady, the Fourth Book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch. (i) The evidence i> itrongest as to the connexion between Adam's fin and the introdnction of death. ' There were,' says Dr. Edersheim, * two divergent opinions — the on* ascribing death to personal, the other to Adam's gnilt' (0f. cit. i. 166). It is however allowed that the latter view greatly pre- ponderated. Traces of it are found as far back as the Sapiential Books: e.g. Wisd. iL 93 f. o %t6t ixriaty ror avOpaiitov km' cup6apffiif . . . ip06yqi Si itafiokov B&varoi tlaijKOtv ds rdv it6afiov, where we note the occurrence ol St. Paul's phrase; Ecclns. xiv. 34 [33] 61* airiiy (sc. r^f ywaiKa) iiro6vri- 0KOfitv viiVTK. The doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Ezra and Apet. Banteh. : 4 Ezr. iii. 7 tt huie (sc. Adame) mandasti diligere viam tuam, tt fraeterivit tarn ; tt statim instituisti in turn mortem tt in naiionihu ( = gtntrationibus) eius : Afoc. Baruth. xvii. 3 (Adam) morttm tUtulit tt abscidit annos ttrum qui ab $0 geniti fuerunt : ibid, xxiii. 4 Quando feccavit Adam tt dtcrttafuit mors centra eos qui gigntrentur, (a) We are warned (by Dr. Edersheim in Sf. Comm. Apecr. ad lec^ not to identify the statement of Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] diro "^waiKhi dpx4 &/uifrrias with the N. T. doctrine of Original Sin : still it points in that direction ; we have just seen that the writer deduces from Eve the death of all mankind, and in like manner he also seems to deduce from her {dnd yw.) the initium ptccandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra iii. 2 1 f. Cor tnim malignum baiulans primus Adam transgressus tt vittus est, sed tt tmnes qui de to mati sunt : tt facta tst permatiens infirmitas, et lex cum corde populi, cum malignitate radicis ; et discessit quod bonum est, et mansit malignum : ibid. iv. 30 Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio, et quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc, et generat usque dum veniat area : ibid. vii. 48 (118) 0 tu quid fecisti Adam? Si enini tii peccasti,noit est foetus solius tuus casus, sed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus. (3) And yet along with all this we have the explicit assertion of responsi- bility on the part of all who sin. This appears in the passage quoted above on ver. 13 (ad fin^. To the same eflect are 4 Ezr. viii. 50 f. Non enim AUissimus volutt hominem disperdi, sed ipsi qui creati sunt coinquinaverunt uemen eius qui fecit eos : ibid. ix. 1 1 qui fastidierunt legem meam cum adhtu trant hadentes liberiatem. But the classical passage is Apoc. Baruch. liv. 15, 19 Si tnim Adam prior peccavit, et attulit mortem super omnes immaturam ; ttd etiam illi qui ex et nati sunt, unusquisqut ex eis praepa- ravit animae suae tormentum futurum: tt iterum unusquisque tx tis tlegit sibi gloriam futuram . . . Non est ergo Adam causa, nisi animat sucu tantum; mos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam. The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the Talmud. The latter is thus summarised by Weber {Altsyn. Theol. p. ai6) : *By the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right relation to God is rendered difEcnlt. More than this cannot be said. Sin, to which the bent and leaning had already been planted in man by creation, had become a fact ; the " evil impulse " ( = cer malignum) gained the mastery over mankind, who can only resist it by the greatest efTorts ; before the Fall it had had power over him, but no sudi ascendancy ( Uebermacht)^ Henca when the same writer says a little further oa that according to the Rabbis ^there ia such a thing at transmission of guilt, but not inch a thing as tr«n» 158 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 16-21 miision of Mn {Em gibt tine EritchuU, abtr Mtu Erbtunde)' the negative proposition is due chieflj to the clearness with which the Rabbit (like Af9C, Bmruik.) insist upon free-will and direct Indiyidual responsibility. It seems to us a mistake to place the teaching of St. Paul in too marked opposition to this. There is no fundamental inconsistency between his views and tliose of his contemporaries. He does not indeed either affirm or deny the existence of the cor malignum before the Fall, nor does he use such explicit lanc:uage as not vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam: on the other hand he does define more exactly than the Rabbis the nature of human responsibility both under the Law (ch. vii. 7 flf.) and without it (ii. 12-15). 2ut here, as elsewhere in dealing with this mysterious subject (see p. 267 below), he practically contents himself with leaving the two complementary truths side by side. Man inherits his nature ; and yet he must not be allowed to shift responsibility from himself: there is that within him by virtue of which he is free to choose ; and on that freedom of choice he must stand or £&1L ADAM Ain> CHBIST. ▼. 16-21. So far the parallelism: hut note also thi contrast. How superior t/ie Work of Christ f (i) How different in quality: the one act all sin, the other act all bounty or grcue ! (ver, 15). (2) How different in quantity, or mode of working : one act tainting tJte whole race with sin. and a multitude of sins collected together in one only to be forgiven ! (ver. 16). (3) How different and surpassing in its whole character and consequences : a reign of Death and a reign of Life ! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adam's Fall brought sin : Law increased it: but the Work of Grace has cancelled, and mori tlian cancelled, the effect of Law (w. 18-ai). "In both cases there is a transmission of effects: but there the resemblance ends. In all else the false step (or Fall, as we call it) of Adam and the free gift of God's bounty are most unlike. The fall of tha^ one representative man entailed death upon the many members ol the race to which he belonged. Can we then be surprised if an act of such different quality — the free unearned bvour of God. and the fi^ift of righteousness bestowed through V. 16-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 139 the kindness of that other Representative Man, Jesus Messiah — should have not only cancelled the effect of the Fall, but also brought further blessings to the whole race ? "There is a second difference between this boon bestowed through Christ and the ill effects of one man's sinning. The sentence pro- nounced upon Adam took its rise in the act of a single man, and had for its result a sweeping verdict of condemnation. But the gift bestowed by God inverts this procedure. It took its rise in many faults, and it had for its result a verdict declaring sinners righteous. "Yet once more. Through the single fault of the one man Adam the tyrant Death began its reign through that one sole agency. Much more then shall the Christian recipients of that overflowing kindness and of the inestimable gift of righteous- ness— much more shall they also reign, not in dtath but in life, through the sole agency of Jesus Messiah. ** To sum up. On one side we have the cause, a single Fall ; and the effect, extending to all men, condemnation. On the other side we have as cause, a single absolving act ; and as effect, also extending to all, a like process of absolution, carrying wilh it life. *'For as through the disobedience of the one man Adam all mankind were placed in the class and condition of 'sinners,' so through the obedience (shown in His Death upon the Cross) of the one man, Christ, the whole multitude of believers shall be placed in the class and condition of * righteous.' *• Then Law came in, as a sort of ' afterthought,' a secondary and subordinate stage, in the Divine plan, causing the indefinite multiplication of sins which, like the lapse or fall of Adam, were breaches of express command. Multiplied indeed they were, but only with the result of calling forth a still more abundant stream of pardoning grace. '* Hitherto Sin has sat enthroned in a kingdom of the dead ; its subjects have been sunk in moral and spiritual death. But this has been permitted only in order that the Grace or Goodwill of God might also set up its throne over a people fitted for its sway by the gift of righteousness, and therefore destined not for death but for eternal life — through the mediation of Jesus Messiah, our Lord. 16. irapdiTTUfta : lit. 'a slip or fall tideways,' 'a false step,' ' a lapse ' : hence metaph. in a sense not very dissimilai to iMOfnijitm I40 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 16, 1ft (which is prop, 'missing a mark'). It is however appropriate that wapijrr. should be used for a 'fall' or first deflection from uprightness, just as aftdpr. is used of the failure of efforts towards recovery. On the word see Trench, Syn. p. 237 f. Tou iv6^ : ' the one man,' t. *. Adam. 01 iroXXoi : * the many,' practically = ndvrat ver. la ; ndvrat dvBpiy wovs in ver. 18, 'all mankind.' It is very misleading to translate as AV., ignoring the article, if ' through the offence of one, many be dead, by the obedience of oru shall many be made righteous.' Redemption like the Fall proceeds not from any chance member of the human race, and its effects extend not only to ' many ' but to ' all ' — to ' all,' that is potentially, if they embrace the redemption which is offered them. See Bentley, quoted bv Lft. Ot$ Revitim, p. 97, ' By this accorate Terdon lome hurtful mistakes about partial redrmption and absolute reprobation had been happily prevented. Our English readers had then seen, what several of the Fathers saw and testified, that ol voXXoi, the many, in an anti- thesis to tk4 otu, are equivalent to vdvrfs, all, in ver. ta, and conaprehend the whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusiv* only of tht 0m$* iroXX^ fidXXor. What we know of the character of God as dis- played in Christ makes us more certain of the good result than of the evil. lij Swpcdl is more fully defined below (ver. 17) as 4 *«»p«^ ^ 8iKaio(rvvt)s : the gift is the condition of righteousness into which the sinner enters. 8a>ptdy ' boon,' like 8apov contrasted with dd/ta, is reserved for the highest and best gifts; so Philo, Leg. AUeg. iii 70 ffKfxurtP fuytdovs rtXtiatu iya6iv brfKovatv (Lft. ReV. p. 77) i ^omp^ also the ascending scale of expression in Jas. i. 17. iv x<^iTi goes closely with ^ b»pta. In classical Greek we should have had the art. 9 ^^^ ^^ Hellenistic Greek a qualifying phrase is attached to a subst. without repetition of the art. Mey. however and some others (including Lid.) separate «» x'^P"* from 4 btiptd and connect it with intpiaatvat. xiptt it mort often applied to God the Father, and is exhibited in the whole scheme of salvation As applied to Christ it is (i) that active favour towards mankind which moved Him to intervene for their salvation (of. esp. s Cor. viii. 9) ; (a) the same active favour shown to the individual by th« Fatiier and the Son conjointly (Rom. L 7 q. v.). 16. The absence of verbs is another mark of compressed anti- thetic style. With the first clause we may supply *(jMTos. So too £uthjrm.-Z3g. it ^v6r dtttMunaros rov X. ryy Sitpaif duuuoiripqf 14a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 18, 1». trwTrXijponKOTot. But it seems better, with Mey. Gif. and others, to give the same sense to diKaiana as in ver. 16. We saw that there the sense was fixed by Karaicpifxa, which is repeated in the present verse. On the other hand it is doubtful whether 8iKa(a)na can quite z='a righteous act.' God's sentence and the act of Christ are so inseparable that the one may be used in the antithesis as naturally as the other. It is best also to follow the natural construction of the Greek and make i neut. in agreement with Sikoiw/x. (Mey.-W. Va. Gif.) rather than masc. (Lips.). SiKaiuair lanjs. ' Life ' is both the immediate and ultimate result of that state of things into which the Christian enters when he is declared * righteous ' or receives his sentence of absolution. 10. Si& rqs irapaKOTJs . . . 8id -rfjs u-iraK0T)9. It is natural that this aspect of the Fall as napaxoT] should be made prominent in a context which lays stress on the effect of law or express command in enhancing the heinousness of sin. It is natural also that in antithesis to this there should be singled out in the Death of Christ its special aspect as virwcor} : cf. Heb. v. 8, 9 ; Matt. xxvi. 39 ; Phil. ii. 8. On the word napaKoi) (' a failing to hear,' incuria, ind thence inobedientid) see Trench, Syn. p. 234. KaT€crT<£9T]crai' . . . KaraaTaOiiCTOKToi: ' were constituted ' . . . 'shall be constituted.' But in what sense ' constituted ' ? The Greek word has the same ambiguity as the English. If we define further, the definition must come from the context. Here the context is sufficiently clear : it covers on the one hand the whole result of Adam's Fall for his descendants prior to and independently of their own deliberate act of sin; and it covers on the other hand the whole result of the redeeming act of Christ so far as that too is accomplished objectively and apart from active concurrence on the part of the Christian. The fut. KaTa(jcu n6vov, dWA Hoi Siicaioy irotTJaai, . . , tl yap /xuKapios oirait 6 \a^uv dcptmy dir6 xd to mm; but gratia in St. Thomas has evidently this latti^r signification : cum gratia omnem natura* crtatae fcuuUatem excedat, 00 quod nihil aliud sit quam participano quaedam divinae natureu quae omttem aliam naturam excedit {Summa Theologiat, Prima Secundae Qn. cxii. i ). So also : donum gratiae . . . gicUiae infusio . . . infundit donum graiiae iustifi- cantis (cxiii. 3). (a^i Secondly, it interprets iustificare to ' make just,' and in consequence looks upon jvistincation as not only remissio peccatorum, but also an infusion of grace. This question is discussed fiiUy in Qu. cxiii. Art. a. The conclusion arrived at is: quum iustitiae Dei repugnei poenam dimtttert vigente culpa, nullius autem hominis qualis mode nascitur, reatut poena* absque gratia tolli queai ; ad culpcu quoque hominis qualis modo nascitur^ Temissionem. gratiae infusionem requiri mani/estum est. The primary text Qo which this conclusion is based is Rom. iii. 24 iusti/itcUi gratis fn grmtiam V. ia-21.J ADAM AND CHRIST 1$1 ipHut, which is therefore clearly interjireted to mean ' madt jt st by an inftision of grace ' ; and it is argued that the effect of the Divine love on us is grace by which a man is made wo "thy of eternal life, and that thereibie lemissiou of guilt cannot be understood unless it be accompanied by the infusion oi grace. (.^) The words quoted aboT";, ' by which a man is made worthy of eternal lif ■ ' idignus vita aeterna int 'oduce us to a third point in the mediaev al th . ory of justification : indirectly by its theory of merit ae co,,^ and de condi-^nt It introduced just that doctrine of merit against which St. Pnul had directed his whole system. This subject is worked out in Qu. cxiv, where it is argued (Art I) that in a sense we can deserve something from God. Although (Art a) a man cannot deserve life eternal in a state of nature, yet Art. ^) after justification he can : Homo meretur uitam aetemam ex condigno. This is supported by Rom. viii. 17 sifilii tt haeredes. it being argued that we are sons to whom is owed the inheritance ex ipso iure adoptionis. However defensible as a complete whole the system of the Summa maybe, there is no doubt that nothing so complicated can be grasped by the po] ular mind, and that the teaching it represents led to a wide system of religious corruption which presented a very definite analogy with the errors which St. Paul combated ; it is equally clear that it is not the system of Justifica- "\ tJon put forward by St. Paul. It will be convenient to pass on directly tc the teaching of Luther, and to put it in direct contrast with the teaching of Aquinas. Although it arose primarily against the teaching of the later Schoolmen, whose teaching, especially on the subject of merit de congruo and de condigno, was very much developed, substantially it repi4sents a revolt against the whole mediaeval theory. Luther's main doctrines were the following. Through the law man learns Loth^ his sinfulness : he learns to say with the prophet, ' there is none that doeth good, no not one.' He learns his own weakness. And then arises the cry : * Who can give me any help ? ' Then in its due season comes the saving word of the Gospel, 'Be of good cheer, my son, thy sins are forgiven. Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for thy sins.' This is the beginning of salvation ; in this way we are freed from sin, we are justified and there is given unto us life eternal, not on account of our own merits and works, but on account of faith by which we approached Christ (Luther on Galatians ik 16; 0pp. ed. 1554, p. 308.) As against the mediaeval teaching the following points are noticeable, (1) In the first place Justification is quite clearly a doctrine of 'iustitia imputata' : Deus acctptat seu reputat nos iustos solum propter Jidem in Christum. It is espei ia!!)' .'^tated that we are not firee from sin. As long as we live we are subject to tlie stain of sin : only our sins are not imputed to as. (2) Secondly, Luther inherits from the Schoolmen the distinction of fides informis and Jides fonnata cum charitatt ; but whereas the f had con- sidered that '\\.\i2& fides formata which justifies, with him it \%fideii informis. He argued that if it were necessary that laith should be united with charity to enable it to justify, then it is no longer faith alone that justifies, but charity: faith becomes useless and good works are brought in. (3) Thirdly, it is needless to point out that he attacks, and that with great vigour, all theories of merit de congruo and de condigno. He describes them thus : talia monstra portenta et horribiles blasphemiae debtbani proponi Turcis et ludaeis, uon ecclesiae Christi. The teaching of the Reformation worked a complete change in the exegesis CalTlA of St. Paul. A condition of practical error had arisen, clearly in many ways resembling that which St Paul combated, and hence St. Paul's con- ceptions are understood better. The ablest of the Reformation commentaries is certainly that of Calvin ; and the change produced may be seen most clearly in one point. The attempt that had been made to evade the meaning of St Paul's words as to Law, by applying them only to the ceremoniaJ l$» EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-81. Law, h« entirely brashes away (on ill. ao) ; again, he Interprets iustijiear* u 'to reckon just,' in accordance with the meaning of the Greek word and the context of iv. 5. The scheme of Justification as laid down by Luther ii applied to the interpretation of the Epistle, but his extravagant language is avoided. The distinction ol fides informU and formata is condemned as unreal ; and it is seen that what St. Paul means by works being unable to justify is not that they cannot do so in themselves, but that no one can fulfil them so completely as to be ' just.' We may notice that on ii. 6 he points out that the words can be taken in quite a natural sense, for reward does not imply merit, and on ii. 13 that he applies the passage to Gentiles not in a state of grace, but says that the words mean that although Gentiles had knowledge and opportunity they had sinned, and therefore would be neces- sarily condemned. The Reformation theology made St. Paul's point of view comprehensible, but introduced errors of exegesis of its own. It added to St. Paul's teaching of ' imputation ' a theory of the imputation of Christ's merits, which became the basis of much unreal systematization, and was an incorrect interpreta- tion of St. Paul's meaning. The unreal distinction ol fides informis and farmata, added to Luther's own extravagant language, produced a strong antinomian tendency. * Faith' almost comes to be looked upon as a meritorious cause of justification ; an unreal faith is substituted for dead works ; and fiuth becomes identified with ' personal assurance ' or ' self-assurance.' More- over, for the ordinary expression of St. Paul, 'we are justified by faith,' was substituted 'we are saved by faith,' a phrase which, although once used by St. Paul, was only so used in the somewhat vague sense of adj^ur, that at one time applies to our final salvation, at another to our present life within the fold of the Church; and the whole Christian scheme of sanctification, rightly separated in idea from justification, became divorced in fact from the Christian life. The Reformation teaching created definitely the distinction between iustitia imputata and iustitia infusa, and the Council of Trent defined Justification thus : iustificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed etiatn tanctificatio tt rtnovatio interioris hominis p$r voluntariam susceptionem graiiat *t donorum (Sess. VI. cap. vii). A typical commentary on the Romans from this point of view is that of Cornelius a Lapide. On L 17 he makes a very just distinction between our justification which comes by faith and our salvation which comes through the Gospel, namely, all that is preached in the Gospel, the death and merits of Christ, the sacraments, the precepts, the promises. He argues from ii. i| that works have a place in justification ; and that our justification consists in the gift to us of the Divine justice, that is, of grace and charity and other ▼irtnes. This summary has been made sufficiently comprehensive to bring ont the main points on which interpretation has varied. It is clear from St. Paul's language that he makes a definite distinction in thought between three several stages which may be named Justification, Sanctification, Salvation. Our Christian life begins with the act of faith by which we turn to Christ ; that is sealed in baptism through which we receive remission of sins and are incorporated into the Christian community, being made partakers of all the spiritual blessings which that implies : then if our life is consistent with these conditions we may hope fur life eternal not for our own merits I but for Christ's sake. The first step, that of Remission of sins, is Justi- ' fication : the life that follows in the Christian community is the life of Sanctification. These two ideas are connected in time in so far as the moment in which our sins are forgiven begins the new life ; but they are separated in thought, and it is necessary for us that this should be so, io order that we may realize that unless w« come to Christ in the salf-aoirendo VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST I53 of faith nothing can profit ns. There is a close connexion again between Justification and Salvation ; the one represents the beginning of the proces* of which the other is the conclusion, and in so far as the first step is the essential one the life of the justified on earth can be and is spoken of as the life of the saved ; but the two are separated both in thought and in time, and this is so that we may realize that our life, as we are accepted by faith, endowed with the gift of God's Holy Spirit, and incorporated into the Christian community, must be holy. By our life we shall be judged (see the notes on ii. 6, 13) : we must strive to make our character such as befits as for the life in which we hope to share : but we are saved by Christ's death ; and the initial act of faith has been the hmid which we stretched out to receive the divine mercy. Our historical review has largely been a history of the confusion of thes# three separate aspects of the Gospel scheme. THE MYSTIOAI. UNIOIT OV THB CHBISTIAS WITH CHHIST. VI. 1-14. If more sin only means more grace, shall wt go on sinning f Impossible. The baptized Christian cannot sin. Sin is a direct contradiction of the state of things which baptism, assumes. Baptism has a double function. {i) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him. (2) // expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding tfi the redeeming acts of Christ Immersion as Death. Submersion = Burial [the ratification of Death). Emergence = Resurrection All these the Christian has to undergo in a moral and spiritual sense, and by means of his union with Christ. As Christ by His death on the Cross ceased from all contact with sin^ so the Christian, united with Christ in his baptism, has done once for all with sin, and lives henceforth a reformed life dedicated to God. [ This at least is the ideal: whatever may be the reality.'] (w. i-ii.) Act then as men who have thrown off the dominion of Sin. Dedicate all your powers to God. Be not afraid ; LaWy Sins ally, is superseded in its hold over you by Grace (w. ia-14). * Objector. Is not this dangerous doctrine? If more sis means more grace, are we not encouraged to go on sinning ? 154 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 1-14. •St. Paul. A horrible thought ! When we took the decisive step and became Christians we may be said to have died to sin, in such a way as would make it flat contradiction to live any longer in it •Surely yon do not need reminding that all of us who were immersed or baptized, as our Christian phrase runs, ' into Christ,' i. e. into the closest allegiance and adhesion to Him, were so immersed or baptized into a special relation to His Death. I mean that the Christian, at his baptism, not only professes obedience to Christ but enters into a relation to Him so intimate that it may be described as actual union. Now this union, taken in connexion with the peculiar symbolism of Baptism, implies a great deal more. That symbolism recalls to us with great vividness the redeeming acts of Christ — His Death, Burial, and Resurrection. And our union with Christ involves that we shall repeat those acts, in such sense as we may, i.e. in a moral and spiritual sense, in our own persons. • When we descended into the baptismal water, that meant that we died with Christ — to sin. When the water closed over our heads, that meant that we lay buried with Him, in proof that our death to sin, hke His death, was real. But this carries with it the third step in the process. As Christ was raised from among the dead by a majestic exercise of Divine power, so we also must from henceforth conduct ourselves as men in whom has been implanted a new principle of life. " For it is not to be supposed that we can join with Christ in one thing and not join with Him in another. If, in undergoing a death like His, we are become one with Christ as the graft becomes one with the tree into which it grows, we must also be one with Him by undergoing a resurrection hke His, i. e. at once a moral, spiritual, and physical resunection. • For it is matter of experience that our Old Self — what we were before we became Christians — was nailed to the Cross with Christ in our baptism : it was killed by a process so like the Death of Christ and so wrought in conjunction with Him that it too may share in the name and associations of His Crucifixion. And the object of this crucifixion of our Old Self was that the bodily sensual part of na, prolific home and haunt of sin, might be so paralyzed and VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST I55 disabled ae henceforth to set us free from the service of Sin. 'For just as no legal claim can be made upon the dead, so one who is (ethically) dead is certified * Not Guilty ' and exempt from all the claims that Sin could make upon him. 'But is this all? Are we to stop at the death to sin? No; there is another side to the process. If, when we became Chris- tians, we died with Christ (morally and spiritually), we believe that we shall also live with Him (physically, as well as ethically and spiritually) : ' because we know for a fact that Christ Himself, now that He has been once raised from the dead, will not have the process of death to undergo again. Death has lost its hold over Him for ever. '° For He has done with Death, now that He has done once for all with Sin, by bringing to an end that earthly state which alone brought Him in contact with it. Henceforth He lives in uninterrupted communion with God. " In like manner do you Christians regard yourselves as dead, inert and motionless as a corpse, in all that relates to sin, but instinct with life and responding in every nerve to those Divine claims and Divine influences under which you have been brought by your union with Jesus Messiah. " I exhort you therefore not to let Sin exercise its tyranny over this frail body of yours by giving way to its evil passions. " Do not, as you are wont, place hand, eye, and tongue, as weapons stained with unrighteousness, at the service of Sin; but dedicate yovu-selves once for all, like men who have left the ranks of the dead and breathe a new spiritual life, to God ; let hand, eye, and tongue be weapons of righteous temper for Him to wield. '*You may rest assured that in so doing Sin will have no claims or power over you, for you have left the r/gime of Law (which, as we shall shortly see, is a stronghold of Sin) for that of Grace. L The fact that he has just been insisting on the function of sin to act as a provocative of Divine grace recalls to the mind of the Apostle the accusation brought against himself of saying ' Let us do evil, that good may come ' (iii. 8). He is conscious that his own teaching, if pressed to its logical conclusion, i? open to this charge ; and he states it in terms which are not exactly those which would be used by his adversaries but such as might seem to express the one-sided development of his own thought. Of course he does not allow the consequence for a moment ; he repudiates 156 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 1-a It however not by proving a non tequitur, but by showing how this train of thought is crossed by another, even more fundamental. He is thus led to bring up the second of his great pivot-doctrines, the Mystical Union of the Christian with Christ dating from his Baptism. Here we have another of those great elemental forces in the Christian Life which effectually prevents any antinomian con- clusion such as might seem to be drawn from different premises. St. Paul now proceeds to explain the nature of this force and the way in which the Christian is related to it The various readings in this chapter are nnimportant. There can b« no question that we should read iTttfxivoinfv for imixtvoviitv in ver. i ; (riaofttr and not (riawntr in ver. 3 ; and that t^) Kvpiq) ^fxaiv should be omitted at the end of ver. 11. In that verse the true position of thai is after iavrovt (N* B C, C)T.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc.) : some inferior authorities place it after vfKpovs (xiv : the Western text (A D £ F G, Tert ; d. also Fesh. Boh. Ann. Aeth.) omits it altogether. 2. oiTii'es direGai'Ofjici'. Naturally the relative of quality : ' we, being what we are, men who died (in our baptism) to sin,' Ac. 3. ^ dycoeiTe : ' Can you deny this, or is it possible that you are not aware of all that your baptism involves ? ' St. Paul does not like to assume that his readers are ignorant of that which is to him so fundamental. The deep significance of Baptism was universally recognized ; though it is hardly likely that any other teacher would have expressed that significance in the profound and original argument which follows. €Pa7rTia0T)|jiei' €is Xpiffxii' *lijaooi» : ' were baptized unto anion with' (not merely ' obedience to') 'Christ' The act of baptism was an act of incorporation into Christ Comp. esp. GaL iii. 27 wroi yap fls XpKTTov fl3aTrTia6>]Te, Xpiarov ivebvaairOe, This conception lies at the root of the whole passage. All the consequences which St. Paul draws follow from this union, incor- poration, identification of the Christian with Christ On the origin of the conception, see below. els Toi' 0df aroK auroG e^airriaOrjixer. This points back to dntddvofttp above. The central point in the passage is deafh. The Christian dies because Christ died, and he is enabled to realize His death thiough his union with Christ But why is baptism said to be specially ' into Christ's dea/h ' ? The reason is because it is owing primarily to the Death of Christ that the condition into which the Christian enters at his baptism is such a changed condition. We have seen that St Paul does ascribe to that Death a true objective efficacy in removing the barrier which sin has placed between God and man. Hence, as it is Baptism which makes a man a Christian, so is it the Death of Christ which wins for the Christian his special immunities and privileges. The sprinkling of the Blood <^ Christ seals that VL 8-6.] UNION WITH CHRIST l57 covenant with His People to which Baptism admits them. But this is cnly the first step : the Apostle goes on to show how the Death of Christ has a subjective as well as an objective side for the believer. 4. aui'CT(iuToi : ' united by growth ' ; the word exactly expresses the process by which a graft becomes united with the life of a tree. So the Christian becomes ' grifted into ' Christ. For the metaphor we may compare xi. 17 o-w d« dypUXaios £>v fvtKfvrpiaSrjs (v avrois, KBu (TvyKoivavhi r^f p«'C'/f *"• ^' TrtdnjTos Tijr ikaias tyii/ov, and TennySOn's 'grow incorporate into thee.' It is a question whether we are to take (Tvy,<\>. ytyiv. directly with ry iiumiti^ cr.X. or whether we are to supply r^ Xpurr^ and make 15* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 6, d r^ 6fwia)fi, dat. of respect. Probably the former, as being simple! and more natural, so far at least as construction is concerned, though no doubt there is an ellipse in meaning which would be more exactly represented by the fuller phrase. Such condensed and strictly speaking inaccurate expressions are common in language of a quasi-colloquial kind. St. Paul uses these freer modes of speech and is not tied down by the rules of formal literary composition. 6. Yi»'«^<^'«o»^«s • see Sp. Comm. on i Cor. viii. i (p. 299), where yti/owTKO) as contrasted with olda is explained as signifying ' apprecia- tive or experimental acquaintance.' A slightly different explanation is given by Gif. ad be, ' noting this,' as of the idea involved in the fact, a knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding {vols). i iraXaids ilJjiciK ai^pwvo« : 'our old self'; cp. esp. Suicer, Tlut. i. 352, where the patristic interpretations are collected {ji wponpa KciXiTfla Theodrt. ; 6 Karfyvwafiivos /9ior Euthym.-Zig., &c.). This phrase, with its correlative i icaivdt HvOpofwos, is a marked link of eonnexion between the acknowledged and dispnted Epp. (cf. Eph. iL 15; iv. 33, 34; Col. iii. 9). The coincidence is the more remarkable as the phrase would hardly come into use until great stress began to be laid upon the necessity for a change of life, and may be a coinage of St Paul's. It should be noted however that 6 iyrit ivOpuwos goes back to Plato (Gnn. Thay. s. v. dyOfxuwos, i.e.). «ruv€OTavpioOt) : cf. Gal. iL 30 X/xar^ erwtaraipwfuu. There is a differ- ence between the thought here and in /mit. XH. II. xii. 3 ' Behold I in the cross all doth consist, and all lieth in our dying thereon ; for there is no other way unto life, and unto true inward peace, but the way of the holy cross, and of daily mortification.' This is rather the 'taking up the cross' of the Gospels, which is a daily process. St. Paul no doubt leaves room for such a process (Col. iii. 5, &c.) ; but here he is going back to that which is its root, the one decisive ideal act which he regards as taking place in baptism : in this the more gradual lifelong process is anticipated. KOTapYTjOf. For Korapytiv see on iii. 3. The word is appro- priately used in this connexion : ' that tfie body of sin may be paralyzed,' reduced to a condition of absolute impotence and inaction, as if it were dead. ri ffwfxa ttis dfiaprios : the body of which sin has taken posses- sion. Parallel phrases are vii. 24 roC aifiaros rov dapdrov rovrov : Phil. iii. 2 1 TO a&fta t^j ranuvaxTtas fifiStu : Col. ii. 1 1 [*V t§ areic- Svcret] Tou (TUfiuTos r^t aapK6s. The gen. has the general sense of ' belonging to,' but acquires a special shade of meaning in each case from the context ; ' the body which is given over to death/ ' the body in its present state of degradation,' ' the body which ia so apt to be the instrument of its own carnal impulses.' Here t6 crci>fia r^r dftaprla^ must be taken closely together, because it is not the body, hmplj> ox tuch, which is to be killed, but th« VI. 6-10.] ONION WITH CHRIST 159 body as the seat of sin. This is to be killed, 80 that Sin may lose its slave. Tou fATiK^Ti SooXciJen'. On Tov with inf. as expressing purpose see esp. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 342. TTJ d|jiapTia : ofiapria, as throughout this passage, is personified as a hard taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter. 7. A ydp d'iro0ai'J»K . . . d|iapTias. The argument is thrown into the form of a general proposition, so that 6 dnoOavav must be taken in the widest sense, ' he who has undergone death in any sense of the term' — physical or ethical. The primary sense is however clearly physical: 'a dead man has his quittance from any claim that Sin can make against him ' : what is obviously true of the physically dead is inferentially true of the ethically dead. Comp. I Pet. iv. I ort 6 7Ta6d)v aapKi neiravrai Afiaprtas : also the Rabbinical parallel quoted by Delitzsch ad loc. ' when a man is dead he is free from the law and the commandments.' Delitzsch goes so far as to describe the idea as an * acknowledged Ipou communis,'' which would considerably weaken the force of the literuy coincidence between the two Apostles. ScSiKOiUTai Airi ttjs djiapTios. The sense of idtKalarcu is Still forensic : ' is declared righteous, acquitted from guilt.' The idea is that of a master claiming legal possession of a slave : proof being put in that the slave is dead, the verdict must needs be that the claims of law are satisfied and that he is no longer answerable ; Sin loses its suit. 8. (£Tra|. The decisiveness of the Death of Christ is specially insisted upon in Ep. to Hebrews. This is the great point of con- trast with the Levitical sacrifices : they did and it did not need to be repeated (of. Heb. vii. 27; ix. is, 26, 28; x. 10; also i Pet iii. 18). JfJ Tw ©eu. Christ died for (in relation to) Sin, and lives hence- forth for God. The old chain which by binding Him to sin made Him also liable to death, is broken. No other power Kvpuiti avrov but God. This phrase ^ ry Sea naturally suggests ' the moral ' application to the believer. IL \oYiteCT0e iaoToos. The man and his ' self ' are distinguished. The 'sejjf' is not the 'whole self,' but only that part of the man which lay under the dominion of sin. [It will help us to bear this in mind in the interpretation of the next chapter.] This part of the man is dead, so that sin has lost its slave and is balked of its prey; but his true self is alive, and alive /or God, through its union with the risen Christ, who also lives only for God XoYiS«4* IVitness 4^ Gtd, pp. 7-10). We may quote lastly an estimate of the Pauline conception in the history of Religion. ' It is in Christendom that, according to the providence of God, this power has been exhibited ; not indeed either adequately or exclusively, but most fully. In the religions of the East, the idea of a death to the fleshly self as the end of the merely human, and the beginning of a divine life, bias not been wanting ; nor, as a mere idea, has it been very different from that which is the ground of Christianity. But there it has never been realized in action, either intellectually or morally. The idea of the with- drawal from sense has remained abstract. It has not issued in such a struggle with the superficial view of things, as has gradually constituted the science of Christendom. In like manner that of self-renunciation has never emerged from the esoteric state. It has had no outlet into the life of charity, but a back-way always open into the life of sensual licence, and has been finally mechanized in the artificial vacancy of the dervish or fakir' {ibid. p. 31). One of the services which Mr. Green's lay sermon may do us is in helping OS to understand — not the whole but part of the remarkable conception of • The Way ' in Dr. Hort's posthumous Tht Way, the Truth, and the Life (Cambridge and London, 1893). When it is contended, 'first that the whole teeming maie of history in nature and man, the tumultuous movement of the world in progress, has running through it one supreme dominating Way; and second, that He who on earth was called Jesus the Nazarene is that Way' {The Way, &c. p. aof.), we can hardly be wrong, though the point might have been brou<;ht out more clearly, in seeking a scriptnrjd illustration In St. Paul's teaching as to the Death, Burial, and Resuirection of Christ. These to him are not merely isolated historical events which took place once for all in the past. They did so take place, and their historical reality, as well as their direct significance in the Redemption wrought out by Chiist, must be insisted upon. But they are more than this : they constitute a law, a predisposed pattern or plan, which other human lives have to follow. ' Death imto life,' ' life growing out of death,' is the inner principle or secret, applied in an indefinite variety of ways, but running through the history of most, perhaps all, religious aspiration and attainment. Everywhere there must be the death of aa old vM and the birth of a new. It must b« l66 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 16-28. admitted that the group of conceptions anited by St. Panl, and, h it wooM •ecm, yet more widely extended by St. John, is difficult to grasp intellectnally, and has doubtless been acted upon in many a simple unspeculative life is which there was never any attempt to formulate it exactly in words. Eut tba conception belongs to the len<^th and depth and height of the Gospel : here, as we see it in St. Paul, it bears all the impress of his intense and prophet- like penetration : and there can b* little doubt that it is capiable of exercising a stronger and more dominating influence on tht Christian consciousnesi than it has done. This must be our excuse for expanding the doctrine at rather considerable length, and for inToking the assistance of those who, just by their detachment from ordinary and traditional Christianity, have brought to bear a freshness of insight in certain directions which has led them, if not exactly to discoveries, yet to new and vivid realizatioa of truths which to indolent minds are obscored by their vety familiarity. THE TRANSITIOH FROM ULW TO OBACS. ANALOGY OF SLAVERY. VI. 16-23. Takg an illustration from common life — tk* condition of slavery. The Christian was a slave of sin; his business was unc leanness ; his wages, death. But h$ has been emancipated from this service, only to tnter upon another — that of Righteousness. "Am I told that we should take advantage of oor liberty at subjects of Grace and not of Law, to sin ? Impossible ! *• Are you not aware that to render service and obedience to any one is to be the slave of that person or power to which obedience ia rendered? And so it is here. Yon are either slaves 7 to the service of righteousness for progressive consecration to God, as you once devoted them to Pagan uncleanness and daily increas- ing licence. •• I exhort you to this. Why ? Because while you were slaves to Sin, you were freemen in regard to Righteousness. " What good then did you get from conduct which you now blush to think of? Much indeed ! For the goal to which it leads b death. " But now that, as Christians, you are emancipated from Sin and enslaved to God, you have something to show for your service — closer and fuller consecration, and your goal, eternal Life I •• For the wages which Sin pays its votaries is Death ; while you receive — no wages, but the bountiful gift of God, the eternal Life, which is ours through our union with Jesus Messiah, our Lord. 16-28. The next two sections (vi. 15-23 ; vii. 1-6) might be described summarily as a description of the Christian's release, what it is and what it is not The receiving of Christian Baptism was a great dividing-line across a man's career. In it he entered into a wholly new relation of self-identification with Christ which was fraught with momentous consequences looking both backwards and forwards. From his sin-stained past he was cut off as it were by death : towards the future he turned radiant with the quickening influence of a new life. St. Paul now more fully expounds the nature of the change. He does so by the help of two illustrations, one from the state of slavery, the other from the state of wedlock. Each state implied certain ties, like those by which the convert to Christianity was bound before his conversion. But the cessation of these ties does not carry with it the cessation of all ties ; it only means the substitution of new ties for the old. So is it with the slave, who is emancipated from one service only to enter upon another. So is it with the wife who, when released by the death of one husband, is free to marry again. In the remaining verses of this chapter St Paul deals with the case of Slavery. Emancipation from Sin is but the prelude to a new service of Righteousness. 16. The Apostle once more reverts to the point raised at the beginning of the chapter, but with the variation that the incentive to sin is no longer the seeming good which Sin works by calling down grace, but the freedom of the state of grace as opposed to the strictness of the Law. St. Paul's reply in effect is that Christian freedom consists not in freedom to sin but in freedom from sin. &fiaprosition to which oqr Lord Himself had l68 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 16-19. appealed in 'No man can serve two masters' (Matt. vi. 14). There are still nearer parallels in John viii. 34 ; a Pet. ii. 19 : passages however which do not so much prove direct dependence on St Paul as that the thought was 'in the air' and might occur to more writers than one. fJTOi . . . f| : these disjnnctlret state a dilemma In a lively and emphatic way, implying that one limb or the other mnst bt chosen (Baomlein, Pmt- tiktlUhr*, p. 344 ; Kiibner, Grmm. § 540. 5). 17. els 8r . . . SiSaxfjt : Stands for [imrfKovvaTt^ rvna fii^axlft tU iv naptd66r]T: We expect rather tt iftlv naptdodrj : it seems more natural to say that the teaching is handed over to the persons taught than that the persons taught are handed over to the teach- ing. The form of phrase which St. Paul uses however expresses well the experience of Christian converts. Before baptism they underwent a course of simple instruction, like that in the ' Two Ways' or first part of the Dt'dacA/ (see the reff. in Hatch, Ht'iberi Lectures, p. 314). With baptism this course of instruction ceased, and they were left with its results impressed upon their minds. This was to be henceforth their standard of living. TuiroK SiSaxTJs. For Tvnos see the note on ch. ▼. 14. The third of the senses there given (' pattern,' ' exemplar,' ' standard ') is by far the most usual with St Paul, and there can be little doubt that that is the meaning here. So among the ancients Chrys. (m fit i Tvnos Tfjs iiiaxrjsl 6p6a>t (rjv xol fttrii noiKiTtiat dp't(Trf]s) Euthym.-Zig, (fit rviroy, ijyovp rov Kav6va Ktti opov rrjs tia-f^nvs noXiTtias), and among moderns all the English commentators with Oltr. and Lips. To suppose, as some leading Continental scholars (De W. Mey.-W. Go.) have done, that some special ' type of doctrine/ whether Jewish-Christian or Pauline, is meant, is to look with the eyes of the nineteenth century and not with those of the first (cf. Hort, Jiom. and Eph. p. 3a 'Nothing like this notion of a plurality of Christian two* ii^axrjs occurs anywhere else in the N. "r., and it is quite out of harmony with the context '). 19. dvOpwiTiKOK X^y». St Paul uses this form of phrase (ct Gal. iii. 15 Kara avBpanov Xryw) where he wishes to apologize for having recourse to some common (or as he would have called it • carnal ') illustration to express spiritual truths. So Chrys. (first explanation) i>p6yt)fia riji aapKos Rom. viii. 5 f. ; ao^pol tcaraL odpna 1 Cor. i, 26. The idea of this passage is similar to that of i Cor. iii. a -^AKa iifios iv6riaa, oi rfi AKaOapvi^. oKaffapata and avofua fitly describe the characteristic features of Pagan life (cf. i. 24 ff.). As throughout the context these forms of sin are personified; they obtain a mastery over the man; and tis T^v dvofiioM describes the effect of that mastery — 'to the practice of iniquity.' With these verses (19-ai) compare especially I Pet. iv. 1-5. CIS dyiao-|ji6r. Mey. (but not Weiss) Lips. Oltr. Go. would make Ayia(rn6s here practically = Ayiojavvri, i. e. not so much the process of consecration as the result of the process. There is certainly this tendency in language ; and in some of the places in which the word Is used it seems to have the sense of the resulting state (e. g. i Thess. iv. 4, where it is joined with rififj; i Tim. ii. 15, where it is joined with irttTTjr and dydnri). But in the present passage the word may well retain its proper meaning : the members are to be handed over to Righteousness to be (gradually) made fit for God's service, not to become fit all at once. So Weiss Gif. Va. Mou. ('course of purification'). For the radical meaning see the note on dyios ch. i. 7, and Dr. A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, p. ao6 : dyiavixos = ' the process of fitting for acceptable worship/ a sense which comes out clearly in Heb. xii. 14 St must be supplied before e<^' oU, and its omission might be due to the reflex effect of fKfipav in the sentence following (comp. dnodavovrtt iv ^ KaT€ix6fieSa vii. 6 below). There would then be a common enough ellipse before ri yap reXos, ' What fruit had ye ... ? [None :] for the end,' &c. (a) On the other hand several leading Germans (Tisch. Weiss Lips., though not Mey.) put the question at Tore, and make (cj)' Tr)ai9 dvayvwrriov ri riva ovv rndpnov tlx«Tt T«Jr«, tira Kara anoKpuruf icp' off vv9 inanrxvpta^t. Both interpretations are possible, but the former, as it would seem, is more simple and natural I TO BPISTLK TX> THE ROMANS |^VII. l-« (Gif.). When two phrases link together so easily as i(l>' ols tfmtax. with what precedes, it b a mistake to separate them except for strong reasons ; nor does there appear to be sufficient ground for distinguishing between near consequences and remote. tA Y<)^p : ri nhr yip K« B D* E F G. There is the nsxuA ambignity of readings in which B alone joins the Western authorities. The probability ii that the reading belongs to the Western element im B, and that /utf was introduced through erroneous antithesis to rvvl Si. 83. 6«)f(dVia. From a root new- we get iipai, oif/ov, 'cooked' meat, fiih, dec as contrasted with bread. Hence the compound dtf/wnov (iiviontu, * to buy *) — (i^ provision-money, ration-money, or the rations in kind given to troops; (j) in a more general sense, 'wages.' The word is said to have come ia with Menander : it is proscribed by the Atticists, but fomnd freely in Polybius, I Mace. &c. (Sturt, Dial. Mactd. p. 187). \(uf\.TT} no MS. authority, but which seems to be derived by a mistake of Beza following Erasmus from a comment of Chrysostom's (see Tisch. md lot.). The Western text (D E F G, £odd. ap. Orig.-lat, and most Latins) boldly corrects to ToC 6a- arov, which would go with rov vofiov, and which gives an easier construction, though not a better sense. After anQ9s dcpopftds. And SO here in a moral sense : Sin exists, but apart from Law it has nothing to work upon, no means of producing guilt. Law gives it just the opportunity it wants. \ dfuipria: see p. 145, sup. t(4 T% 4inroX^f. The prep. Bti and the position of the woid l8o EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 8-U show that it is better taken with Kontpyaaaro than with a^>op^ \a$. fiToXf is the single commandment ; v6ftos the code as a whole. X»pis y&p . . . rtRpd. A standing thought which we have had before, iv. 15; v. 13: cf. iii. 20. 9. il(av {etv B ; ((mv 1 7). St. Paul uses a vivid figurative expression, not of course with the full richness of meaning which he sometimes gives to it (i. 17; viii. 13, &c.). He is describing the state prior to Law primarily in himself as a child before the consciousness of law has taken hold upon him ; but he uses this experience as typical of that both of individuals and nations before they are restrained by express command. The ' natural man flourishes ; he does freely and without hesitation all that he has a mind to do; he puts forth all his vitality, unembarrassed by the checks and thwartings of conscience. It is the kind of life which is seen at its best in some of the productions of Greek art. Greek life had no doubt its deeper and more serious side ; but this comes out more in its poetry and philosophy : the frieze of the Parthenon is the consummate expression of a life that does not look beyond the morrow and has no inward perplexities to trouble its enjoyment of to-day. See the general discussion below. &yiit](jtv : ' sprang into life ' (T. K. Abbott). Sin at first is there, but dormant ; not until it has the help of the Law does it become an active power of mischief. 11. ii:i\TTiTf\. The exact distinction between Oi\w and ^tiXonni has been mndi disputed, and is difficult to mark. On the whole it seems that, especially in N. T. usage, ^ovXoixcu lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose, delibera- tion, 9i\a} on the more emotional aspect of will : in this context it ii eridently something short of the fmal act of volition, and practically — ' wish,' ' desire.' See especially the fall and excellent note in Grm.-Thay. 17. rwrl %i: ' as it is/ ' as the case really lies ' ; the contrast it logical, not temporal. ^ oiKoGoa iv i^oX dftapnou [Read IviKovam with M B, Method. (ap. Phot, cod., non auiem ap. Epiph.)] This indwelling Sin cor- responds to the indwelling Spirit of the next chapter : a further proof that the Power which exerts so baneful an influence is not merely an attribute of the man himself but has an objectiYe existence. 18. iv l^oi, toot' ?v = the Mosaic Law : but either (i) they read into the passage more than the context will allow; or (ii) they give to the sentence a construction which ii hng^istically intolerable. The best attempt in this direction is prob. that of Va. who translates, * I find then with regard to the Law, that to me who would fain ao that which is good, to me (I say) that which is evil is present' He supposes a double break in the construction : (i) rhv y6fior pot as if the sentence had been intended to run ' I find then the VU. 21-24.] LAW AND SIN l8? Law— when I wish to do good— powerless to help me ' ; and (i. «>t repeated for the sake of clearness. It is apparently in a similar sense that Dr. T. K. Abbott proposes as an alternative rendering (the first being as above), 'With respect to the law, I find,' &c. But the anacoluthon after t6v v6fiov seems too great even for dictation to an amanuensis. Other expedients like those of Mey. (not Mey.-W.) Fri. Ew. are still more impossible. See esp. Gif. Additional Note, p. 145. 22. auin/jSojioi ry fiJfif too e€oO : what it approves, I gladly and cordially approve, KOTd r6y law ayipntKOK St. Paul, as we have seen (on vi. 6), makes great use of this phrase Hvdpconos, which goes back as far as Plato. Now he contrasts the 'old' with the 'new man' (or, as we should say, the 'old' with the 'new self) ; now he contrasts the 'outer man,' or the body (6 f$& !■ To8 o4ffcaros toG iwdrwi toJtou. In construction rovrov might go with o-M/iarof (' from this body of death ') : but it is far better to take it in the more natural connexion with 6avarov ; ' the body of this death ' which already has me in its clutches. Sin and death are inseparable : as the body involves me in sin it also involves me in mortality ; physical death to be followed by eternal, the death of the body by the death of the soul. 25. 4po ooK II.T.X- A terse compressed summary of the previous paragraph, w. 7-84, describing in two strokes the state of things prior to the intervention of Christ. The expression is that which comes from deep feeling. The particular phrases hardly seem to need further explanation. «vxapi @e^ N» C* (dt C* fum liquet) minust. sUf., Boh. Arm., Cyr- Alex. Jo.-Damasc 1) xip't rov e vel x<^/>" S^ Tf) ^f^v £piphu tdd. pr. ; mid. Bonwetsch, Methodius von Olympus, i. 204.] It is easy to see how the reading of B wonld explain all the rest The reading of the mass of MSS. wonld be derived from it (not at once bot by successive steps) by the doubling of two pairs of letten, TOYTOY[€Y]x*P'c[T 6€<{> cfxApiCTce T^ 6e^ |ipK Ac T^ 6c<^ N x^pic TOY 6eoY (6?) M x*P'C TOY Kypioy (Ky) The other possibility would be that (vxafxtrrA r^ •cf* had got reduced t« X(ip<» f^ ^*v ^y successive dropping of letters. But this must have taken place very early. It is also conceivable that x^' '^ pnceded x^' only. The Inward Conflict. Two subjects for discussion are raised, or are commonly treated as if they were raised, by this section, (i) Is the experience described that of the regenerate or unregenerate man? (a) Is it, or is it not, the experience of St. Paul himself? I (a). Origen and the mass of Greek Fathers held that the passage refers to the unregenerate man. (i) Appeal is made to such expressions as irm-poficKOf imh ri\w ifjMprlaf ver. 14, KOTfpyaCcfuu VII. 7-26.1 LAW AND SIN 1 85 [rA KaK6»] w. 19, 20, ToXaijrwpof fyi> a^^pawror ver. 24. It is argued that language like this is nowhere found of the regenerate state, (ii) When other expressions are adduced which seem to make for the opposite conclusion, it is urged that parallels to them may be quoted from Pagan literature, <.g. the video meliora of Ovid and many other like sayings in Euripides, Xenophon, Seneca, Epictetua (see Dr. T. K. Abbott on ver. 15 of this chapter), (iii) The use of the present tense is explained as dramatic. The Apostle throws himself back into the time which he is describing. (3) Another group of writers, Methodius (ob. 310 a.d.), Augustine and the Latin Fathers generally, the Reformers especially on the Calvinistic side, refer the passage rather to the regenerate, (i) An opposite set of expressions is quoted, /xto-i [ri KaK6v'\ ver. 15, 6k\,i> noitly t6 «aXo'»' ver. 21, irvvi^bofxai ra vontf ver. 22. It is Said that' these are inconsistent with the anriWoTprntuvoi koL ix6poi of Col. i. 21 and with descriptions like that of Rom. viii. 7, 8. (ii) Stress is laid on the present tenses : and in proof that these imply a present experi- ence, reference is made to passages like i Cor. ix. 27 vn-amdf* ^mv TO ff&fM Koi 8ov\aya,yS>. That even the regenerate may have this mixed experience is thought to be proved, e.g. by Gal. vi. 17. Clearly there is a double strain of language. The state of things described is certainly a conflict in which opposite forces are strueslina for the mastery. ^^ ^ Whether such a state belongs to the regenerate or the unre- generate man seems to push us back upon the further question, What we mean by ' regenerate.' The word is used in a higher and a lower sense. In the lower sense it is applied to all baptized Chnstians. In that sense there can be little doubt that the experience described may fairly come within it. But on the other hand, the higher stages of the spiritual life seem to be really excluded. The sigh of relief in ver. 25 marks a dividing hne between a period of conflict and a period where conflict is practically ended. This shows that the present tenses are in any case not to be taken too literally. Three steps appear to be distmguished, (i) the life of unconscious morality (ver. 9), happy, but only from ignorance and thoughtlessness; (ii) then the sharp collision between law and the sinful appetites waking to activity ; (iii) the end which is at last put to the stress and strain of this colhsion by the intervention of Christ and of the Spirit of Christ, of which more will be said in the next chapter. The state there described is that of the truly and fully regenerate; the prolonged struggle which precedes seems to be more rightly defined as tn/er regenerandum (Gif after Dean Jackson). Or perhaps we should do better still to refuse to introduce so technical a term as ' regeneration ' into a context from which it is wholly absent. Sl Paul, it is true, regarded Christianity as operating l86 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 7-28. a change in man. But here, whether the moment described is before or after the embracing of Christianity, in any case abstraction is made of all that is Christian. Law and the soul are brought face to face with each other, and there is nothing between them. Not until we come to ver. »5 is there a single expression used which belongs to Christianity. And the use cf it marks that the conflict is ended. (a) As to the further question whether St. Paul is speaking of himself or of ' some other man ' we observe that the crisis which is described here is not at least the same as that which is commonly known as his * Conversion.' Here the crisis is moral ; there it was in the first instance intellectual, turning upon the acceptance of the proposition that Jesus was truly the Messiah. The decisive point in the conflict may be indeed the appropriation of Christ through His Spirit, but it is at least not an intellectual conviction, such as might exist along with a severe moral struggle. On the other hand, the whole description is so vivid and so sincere, so evidently wrung from the anguish of direct personal experience, that it is difficult to think of it as purely imaginary. It is really not so much imaginary as imaginative. It is not a literal photo- graph of any one stage in the Apostle's career, but it is a con. structive picture drawn by him in bold lines from elements sup- plied to him by self-introspection. We may well believe that the regretful reminiscence of bright unconscious innocence goes back to the days of his own childhood before he had begun to feel the conviction of Sin. The incubus of the Law he had felt most keenly when he was a 'Pharisee of the Pharisees.' Without putting an exact date to the struggle which follows we shall prob- ably not be wrong in referring the main features of it especially to the period before his Conversion. It was then that the powerless- ness of the Law to do anything but aggravate sin was brought home to him. And all his experience, at whatever date, of the struggle of the natural man with temptation is here gathered together and concentrated in a single portraiture. It would obviously be a mistake to apply a generalized ex^ierience like this too rigidly. The process described comes to different men at different times and in different degrees; to one early, to an- other later ; in one man it would lead up to Christianity, in another it might follow it; in one it would be quick and sudden, in another the slow growth of years. We cannot lay down any rule. In any case it is the mark of a genuine faith to be able to say with the Apostle, 'Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' It is just in his manner to sum up thus in a sen- tence what he is about to expand into a chapter. The break occurs at a very suitable place : ch. viii is the true conclusion t» ch. vii VJI. 7-86.] LAW AND SIM i$j St. Paul's Vuw of the Law, It was in his view of the Mosaic Law that St. Paul must have Beemed most revolutionary to his countrymen. And yet it would be a mistake to suppose that he ever lost that reverence for the Law as a Divine institution in which every Jew was born and bred and to which he himself was still more completely committed by his early education as a Pharisee (Gal. i. 14 ; Phil. iii. 5 f.). This old feeling of his comes out in emotional passages like Rom. ix. 4 (cf. iii. a; ii. 25, &c.). And even where, as in the section before us, he is bringing out most forcibly the ineffectiveness of the Law to restrain human passion the Apostle still lays down expressly that the Law itself is ' holy and righteous and good ' ; and a little lower down (ver. 14) he gives it the epithet ' spiritual,' which is equivalent to ascribing to it a direct Divine origin. It was only because of his intense sincerity and honesty in feeing facts that St Paul ever brought himself to give up his belief in the sufficiency of the Law ; and there is no greater proof of his power and penetration of mind than the way in which, when once his thoughts were turned into this channel, he followed out the whole subject into its inmost recesses. We can hardly doubt that his criticism of the Law as a principle of religion dates back to a time before his definite conversion to Christianity. The process described in this chapter clearly belongs to a period when the Law of Moses was the one authority which the Apostle re- cognized. It represents just the kind of difficulties and struggles which would be endured long before they led to a complete shift- ing of belief, and which would only lead to it then because a new and a better solution had been found. The apparent suddenness of St. Paul's conversion was due to the tenacity with which he held on to his Jewish faith and his reluctance to yield to con- clusions which were merely negative. It was not till a whole group of positive convictions grew up within him and showed their power of supplying the vacant place that the Apostle withdrew his allegiance, and when he had done so came by degrees to see the true place of the Law in the Divine economy. From the time that he came to write the Epistle to the Romans the process is mapped out before us pretty clearly. The doubts began, as we have seen, in psychological experience. With the best will in the world St. Paul had found that really tc keep the Law was a matter of infinite difficulty. However much it drew him one way there were counter influences which drew him another. And these counter influences proved the stronger of the two. The Law itself was cold, inert, passive. It pointed severely to the path of right and duty, but there its function , \ 1 88 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 7-26. ended ; it gave no help towards the performance of that which it required. Nay, by a certain strange perversity in human nature, it seemed actually to provoke to disobedience. The very fact that a thing was forbidden seemed to make its attractions all the greater (Rom. vii. 8). And so the last state was worse than the first The one sentence in which St. Paul sums up his experience of Law is diA v6fiov fwlyvma-it afiaprlat (Rom. iii. ao). Its effect therefore was only to increase the condemnation : it multiplied sin (Rom. V. ao); it worked wrath (Rom. iv. 15); it brought man- kind under a curse (Gal. iii. 10). And this was equally true of the individual and of the race ; the better and fuller the law the more glaring was the contrast to the practice of those who lived under it. The Jews were at the head of all mankind in their privileges, but morally they were not much better than the Gentiles. In the course of his travels St. Paul was led to visit a number of the scattered colonies of Jews, and when he compares them with the Gentiles he can only turn upon them a biting irony (Rom. ii. 17-29). The truth must be acknowledged ; as a system, Law of what- ever kind had failed. The breakdown of the Jewish Law was most complete just because that law was the best. It stood out in history as a monument, revealing the right and condemning the wrong, heaping up the pile of human guilt, and nothing more. On a large scale for the race, as on a small scale for the individual, the same verdict held, dia v6fiov imyvuxris dfiafn-iat. Clearly the fault of all this was not with the Law. The fault lay in the miserable weakness of human nature (Rom. viii. 3). The Law, as a code of commandments, did all that it was intended to do. But it needed to be supplemented. And it was just this supplementing which Christianity brought, and by bringing it set the Law in its true light and in its right place in the evolution of the Divine plan. St. Paul sees spread before him the whole ex- panse of history. The dividing line across it is the Coming of the Messiah. All previous to that is a period of Law — first of imperfect law, such law as was supplied by natural religion and conscience ; and then of relatively perfect law, the law given by God from Sinai. It was not to be supposed that this gift of law increased the sum of human happiness. Rather the contrary. In the infancy of the world, as in the infancy of the individual, there was a blithe unconsciousness of right and wrong ; impulse was followed wherever it led ; the primrose path of enjoyment had no dark shadow cast over it. Law was this dark shadow. In proportion as it became stricter, it deepened the gloom. II law had been kept, or where law was kept, it brought with it a new kind of happiness; but to a serious spirit like St. Paal'i it seemed as if the law was never kept— never satisfactorilr VTII. 1-4.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT I«9 kept — at all There was a Rabbinical commonplace, a stern rule of self-judgement, which waa fatal to peace of mind : ' Who- soever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all' (Jas. ii. lo; cf Gal. iii. i6; Rom. X. 5). Any true happiness therefore, any true relief, must be sought elsewhere. And it was thia happiness and refief whicii St. Paul sought and found in Christ. The last verse of ch. vii marks the point at which the great burden, which lay upon the conscience rolls away; and the next chapter begins with an uplifting of the heart in recovered peace ahd serenity ; ' There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.' Taken thus in connexion with that new order of things into which it was to pass and empty itself, the old order of Law had at last its difficulties cleared away. It remained as a stage of salutary and necessary discipline. All God's ways are not bright upon the surface. But the very clouds which He draws over the heavens will break in blessings; and break just at that moment when their darkness is felt to be most oppressive. St. Paul him- self saw the gloomy period of law through to its end {rikot yap 96fiov Xpiarrbs fit iucaioarvvriv navri rm trttrrevovTi Rom. X. 4) ; and his own pages reflect, better than any other, the new hopes and energies by which it was succeeded. UFE IN TEH SPIRIT. THE FBUITS OP THE INCABNATIOW. VIII. 1-4. Tke result of Christ's interposition is to dethrone Sin from its tyranny in the human heart, and to instal in its stead the Spirit of Christ. Thus what the Law of Moses tried to do but failed, the Incarnation has accomplished. *This being so, no verdict of 'Guilty' goes forth any longer against the Christian. He lives in closest union with Christ. " The Spirit of Christ, the medium of that union, with all its life- giving energies, enters and issues its laws from his heart, dis- possessing the old usurper Sin, putting an end to its authority and to the fatal results which it brought with it • For where the old system failed, the new system has succeeded. The Law of Moses could not get rid of Sin. The weak place in its action was that our poor human nature was constantly tempted and fell. But now God Himself has interposed by sending the Son of His love to I90 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 1, S, take upon Him that same human nature with aU its attributes except sin : in that nature He died to free us from sin : and thife Death of His carried with it a verdict of condemnation against Sin and of acquittal for its victims ; * so that from henceforth what the Law lays down as right might be fulfilled by us who regulate our lives not according to the appetites and passions of sense, but at the dictates of the Spirit 1 ft. This chapter is, as we have seen, an expansion of x^P*' ^ S«a> 8ta 'irjaov Xpiarov rov Kxiplnv rjuSiv in the last verse of ch. vii. It describes the innermost circle of the Christian Life from its begin- ning to its end — that life of which the Apostle speaks elsewhere (Col. iii. 3) as ' hid wiih Christ in God.' It works gradually up through the calm exposition and pastoral entreaty of w. 1-17 to the more impassioned outlook and deeper introspection of vv, 18-30, and thence to the magnificent climax of w. 31-39. There is evidence that Marcion retained vr i-i i of this chapter, probably with no very noticeable variation from the text which has coitie down to us (we do not know which of the two competing readii gs he had in ver. 10). Tertullian leaps from viii. 11 to x. a, implying that mncb wm cat oat, bat we caanot determine how much. 1. KaTdKpijma. One of the formulae of Justification : KoriKpint and KaraKpuxn are correlative to ^iKaima-K, HiKaltofta ; both sets of phrases teing properly forensic. Here, however, the phrase rolt eV X. 'I. which follows shows that the initial stage in the Christian career, which is in the strictest sense the stage of Justification, has been left behind and the further stage of union with Christ has succeeded to it. In this stage too there is the same freedom from condemnation, secureci by a process which is explained more fully in ver. 3 (cf. vi. 7-10). The KaraKpifrit which used to fall upon the sinner now falls upon his oppressor Sin. p,tj KaTcl ordpKa ircpiiraTovcnv, dXXd tcard mrrOfta. An interpolation introdnced (from vei. 4) at two steps: the first clause fif) /card aipua wtpim- Tovaiv in A D*" 137, f m Vulg. I'esh. Goth. Ann., Bas. Chrys. ; the second clause dAAd xarcL irvtC/^a in the mass of later authorities {<• D* E K L P «Scc. ; the older uncials with the Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions, the Latin Vcnion of Origen and perhaps Orij^en himsf If with a fourth-century dialogue attri- buted to him, Athanasins and others omit both. 8. 4 y6\i.o% TOO n»'cufiaTos = the authority exercised by the Spirit, We have had the same somewhat free use of vofwt in the last chapter, esp. in ver. 236 yofn-s roi i>o6i, 6 vofios rffs ifiaprlas : it is no longer a ' code ' but an authority producing regulated action such as would be produced by a code. Tou n»'«ofiaTos rfj-; Iwtjs. The gen. expresses the ' eflfect wrought ' (Gif.), hut it also expre^es more : the Spirit brings life because it essentially u life. VUl. 2, 8.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 191 ip Xpipriv, i. e. of the affections and will as well as of the reason ; cf. Matt. xvi. 23 ow p<$ini)|ia : the content of (^povdv, the general bent of thought and motive. Here, as elsewhere in these chapters, a-dp^ is that side of human nature on which it is morally weak, the side on which man's physical organism leads him into sin. OdfaTos. Not merely is the (ppovrjua Trjs \ 81& ToG ^KoiKouKTos ofiroC ncEufiaros. The authorities for the two readings, the gen. as above and the ace. BUi t6 (voikovv airrov Uvtvfm, seem at first sight very evenly divided. For gen. we have a long line of authorities headed by t^ A C, Clem.-Alex. For ace. we have a still longer line headed by B D, Orig. Iren.-lat Id fuller detail the evidence is as follows : 8(d rod ivoiKovvToi «.t.a. N A C P" o/., cadd. a/>. Ps.-Ath. Dial. t. Mcuedtn., Boh. Sah. Hard. Arm. Aeth., Clem.-Alex, Method, {codd. Graec. locorum ab Epiphanio citatorum) Cj r.-Hieros codd. plur. tt «d. Did. 4/5 Bas 4/4 Chrys. see on iii. 30. suppERnra thb path to olobt. VIII. 18-26. What though the path to that glory lies through sufferi:rg ? The suffering and the glory alike are parts of a great cosntical movetnent, in which the irrational creation joins with man. As it shared the results of his fall, so also will it share in his redemption. Its pangs are pangs of a new birth (w. iS-aa). Like t/ie mute creation, we Christians too wait painfully for our deliverance. Our attitude is one of hope and not of possession (vv. 23-25). ** What of that ? For the sufferings which we have to imdergo in this phase of our career I count not worth a thought in view of that dazzling splendour which will one day break through the clouds and dawn upon us. '^ For the sons of God will stand forth revealed in the glories of their bright inheritance. And for VIIL 18.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT ao^ that consummarion not they alone but the whole irrational creation, both animate and inanimate, waits with eager longing; Hke spectators straining forward over the ropes to catch the first glimpse of some triumphal pageant. "•The future and not the present must satisfy its aspirations. For ages ago Creation was condemned to have its energies marred and frustrated. And that by no act of its own : it was God who fixed this doom upon it, but with the hope " that as it had been enthralled to death and decay by the Fall of Man so too the Creation shall share in the free and glorious existence of God's emancipated children. ^ It is like the pangs of a woman in child- birth. This universal frame feels up to this moment the throes of travail — feels them in every part and cries out in its pain. But where there is travail, there must needs also be a birth. ""Our own experience points to the same conclusion. True that in those workings of the Spirit, the charismata with which we are endowed, we Christians already possess a foretaste of good things to come. But that very foretaste makes us long — anxiously and painfully long — for the final recognition of our Sonship. We desire to see these bodies of ours delivered from the evils that beset them and transfigured into glory. •*Hoj)e is the Christian's proper attitude. We were saved indeed, the groundwork of our salvation was laid, when we became Christians. But was that salvation in possession or in prospect ? Certainly in prospect. Otherwise there would be no room for hope. For what a man sees already in his hand he does not hope for as if it were future. " But in our case we do not see, and we do hope; therefore we also wait for our object with steadfast fortitude. 18. Xoyi^ofMu ydEp. At the end of the last paragraph St Paul has been led to speak of the exalted privileges of Christians in- volved in the fact that they are sons of God. The thought of these privileges suddenly recalls to him the contrast of the sufTerings through which they are passing. And after his manner he does not let go this idea of ' suffering ' but works it into his main argument. He first dismisses the thought that the present suffer- ing can be any real counter-weight to the future glory ; and then he shows that not only is it not this, but that on the contrary it actually points forward to that glory. It does this on the grandest ACM EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIIL 18, 18. scale. In fact it is nothing short of an universal law that suffering marks the road to glory. All the suflFering, all the imperfection, all the unsatisfied aspiration and longing of which the traces are so abundant in external nature as well as in man, do but point forward to a time when the suffering shall cease, the imperfection be re- moved and the frustrated aspirations at last crowned and satisfied; and this time coincides with the glorious consummation which awaits the Christian. True it is that there goes up as it were an universal groan, from creation, from ourselves, from the Holy Spirit who sympathizes with us; but this groaning is but the travail-pangs of the new birth, the entrance upon their glorified condition of the risen sons of God. Xoyilofiai : here in its strict sense, 'I calculate/ 'weigh mentally,' ' count up on the one side and on the other.' a|ia . . . •jrp- ' the body.' Chrys. and Euthym.-Zig. call attention to die personification of Nature, which they compare to that in the Psalms and Prophets, while Diodoms of Tarsus refers the expressions implying life rather to the Powers (Svfd/xctt) which preside over inanimate nature and from which it takes its forms. The sense commonly given to /tarcuorifri is » f9opa. i^¥ d-iroKdXuiliii' TUK vltav toC Gcov. The same word diroKciXv^ic is applied to the Second Coming of the Messiah (which is also an fni(pca>tia 2 Thess. ii. 8) and to that of the redeemed who accompany Him : their new existence will not be like the present, but will be in ' glory * {d6^) both reflected and imparted. This revealing of die sons of God will be the signal for the great transformation. The Jewish writings use similar language. To them also the appearing of the Messiah is an diroKi\vfis : 4 Ezra xiii. 3a */ trit cumJUnt kaec, »t ctm- Hngent signa qua* ante osUndi tibi tt tunc revelabitur filius meus qutm mdisti ut virum '"c^.^denttm ; Apoc. Bar. xxxix. 7 et erit, cum appropinqua- writ te"i^%u finis eius ut cadat, tunc revelabitur principatus Messicu met qui similis est fonti et viti, et oum revelatus fuerit eradicabit multitudinem earn- gregationis eius (the Latin of this book, it will be remembered, is Ceriani's version from the Syriac, and not ancient like that of 4 Ezra). The object t tKtyyos ov ^Xenopivcop), makes it practically equivalent to Hope. Bui that is just one of the points of distinction between Ep. to Heb aiO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. S4, Mi and St. Paul. In Heb. Faith is used somewhat vaguely of belid in God and in the fulfilment of His promises. In St. Paul it is fai more often Faith in Christ, the first act of accepting Christianity (sec p. 33 above). This belongs essentially to the past, and to the present as growing direcily out of the past ; but when St, Paul comes to speak of the future he uses another term, Awt'r. No doubt when we come to trace this to its origin it has its root in the strong conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus and its consequences ; but the two terms are not therefore identical, and it is best to keep them distinct. Some recent Germans (Holsten, Weiss, Lips.) take the dat. as daiivMS commodi, ^for hope were we saved.' But this is less natural. To obtain this sense we should have to personify Hope more strongly than the context will bear. Besides Hope is an attribute or characteristic of the Christian life, but not its end. (kn\% 8c pXcTrofi^KT) : fXTrt's here = ' the thing hoped for,' just as KTWii = ' the thing created ' ; a very common usage. t ydp (3X«Tr», t{« A.irC5« ; Thii terse reading is fonnd only in B 47 wtarg^ which adds to iraAativ owtcw ?x*' ^ it is adopted by RV. text, WH. ttxt. Text. Recept. hag '\h 7p Tov Gtoi I * In those days will the mountains leap like rams and the hills will skip like lambs satisfied with milk, and they will all become angels in heaven. Their faces will be lighted up with joy, because in those days the Elect One has appeared, and the earth will rejoice and the righteous will dwell upon it, and the elect will go to and fro upon it' {Enoch li. 4f). We have given parallels enough from 4 Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch, and there is much in the Talmud to the same effect (cf Weber, Alisyn. Theol. p. 380 ff. ; Schflrer, Neutest. Zeitgesch. iL 453 ff., 458 f. ; Edersheim, Lt/t and Times, ftc. ii. 438). It is not surprising to find the poetry of the prophetic writings hardened into fact by Jewish literalism ; but it is strange when the products of this mode of interpretation are attributed to our Lord Himself on authority no less ancient than that of Papias of Hiera- polis, professedly drawing firom the tradition of St. John, Yet Irenaeus {Adv. Haer. V. xxxiii. 3) quotes in such terms the follow- ing : ' The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand shoots and on each shoot ten thousand branc^ies, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five and twenty measures of wine . . . Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads, and every head shall have ten thousand grains, and every grain ttn pounds of fine flour, bright and clean; and the other fruits, seeds and the grass shall produce in similar proportions, and all the animals using these fruits which are products of the soil, shall become in their turn peaceable and harmonious.' It happens that this saying, or at least part of it, is actually extant in Apoc. Bar. xxlx. 5 (cf. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 620-623, 744 ff.), so that it clearly comes from some Jewish source. In view of an instance like this it seems possible that even in the N, T. our Lord's words may have been defined in a sense which was not exactly that originally intended owing to the current expectation which the dis- ciples largely shared. And yet on the whole, even if this expectation was by the Jews to some extent literalized and materialized, some of its essential features were preserved. Corresponding to the new abode pre- Alt EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 26, aTs pared for h there was to be a renewed humanity: and that not only in a physical sense based on Is. xxxv. 5 f. (' Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be un- stopped,' &c.), but also in a moral sense ; the root of evil was to be plucked out of the hearts of men and a new heart was to be im- planted in them : the Spirit of God was to rest upon them (Weber, Allsyn. Theol. p. 382). There was to be no unrighteousness in their midst, for they were all to be holy {Ps. Sol. xvii. a 8 f., 36, &c.). The Messiah was to rule over the nations, but not merely by force ; Israel was to be a true light to the Gentiles (Schttrer, op. lii. p. 456). If we compare these Jewish beliefs with what we find here in the Epistle to the Romans there are two ways in which the superiority of the Apostle is most striking, (i) There runs through his words an intense sympathy with nature in and for itself. He is one of those (like St. Francis of Assisi) to whom it is given to read as it were the thoughts of plants and animals. He seems to lay his ear to the earth and the confused murmur which he hears has a meaning for him : it is creation's yearning for that happier state intended for it and of which it has been defrauded. (2 ) The main idea is not, as it is so apt to be with the Rabbinical writers, the mere glorifica- tion of Israel By them the Gentiles are differently treated. Sometimes it is their boast that the Holy Land will be reserved exclusively for Israel : ' the sojourner and the stranger shall dwell with them no more' {Px. Sol. xvii. 31). The only place for the Gentiles is ' to serve him beneath the yoke ' {ibid. ver. 32). The vision of the Gentiles streaming to Jerusalem as a centre of religion is exceptional, as it must be confessed that it is also in O. T. Prophecy. On the other hand, with St. Paul the movement is truly cosmic. The ' sons of God ' are not selected for their own sakes alone, but their redemption means the redemption of a world of being besides themselves. THE ASSISTANCE OP THE SPIRIT. Vni. ae, av. MeanwhiU the Holy Spirit itself assists m our prayers. "Nor are we alone in our struggles. The Holy Spirit sup- ports our helplessness. Left to ourselves we do not know what prayers to offer or how to offer them. But in those inarticulate groans which rise from the depths of our being, we recognize the voice of none other than the Holy Spirit He makes intercession , VIIL 26.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT aij and His intercession is sure to be answered. "For God Who searches the inmost recesses of the heart can mterpret His own Spirit's meaning. He knows that His own Will regulates Its petitions, and that they are offered for men dedicated to His service. 26. AaauTws. As we groan, so also does the Holy Spirit groan with us, putting a meaning into our aspirations which they would not have of themselves. All alike converges upon that 'Divine event, to which the whole creation moves.' This view of the connexion (Go., Weiss, Lips.), which weaves in this verse with the broad course of the Apostle's argument, seems on the whole better than that which attaches it more closely to the words im- mediately preceding, ' as hope sustains us so also does the Spirit sustain us ' (Mey. Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou.). (ruKamXaiiPd^cTai : avTt^afi^dvfo-dai = ' to take hold of at the side {ami), so as to support ; and this sense is further strength- ened by the idea of association contained in aw-. The same compound occurs in LXX of Ps. Ixxxviii [Ixxxix]. a a, and in Luke X. 40. Tjj daOcKciiji : decisively attested for rait aadtpuait. On the way in which we are taking the verse the reference will be to the vague- ness and defectiveness of our prayers ; on the other view to our weakness under suflfering implied in di* vTroftovfjs. But as imonovii suggests rather a certain amount of victorious resistance, this appli- cation of atrdivfia seems less appropriate. rh Ydp Ti irpoo-cu^ufjieOa. The art, makes the whole clause object of oibafuv. Gif. notes that this construction is characteristic of St. Paul and St. Luke (in the latter ten times ; in the former Rom. xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14; Eph. iv. 9; i Thess. iv. i). W npotrtvi. is strictly rather, ' What we ought to pray ' than ' what we ought to pray for,' i. e. ' how we are to word our prayers,' not * what we are to choose as the objects of prayer.' But as the object determines the nature of the prayer, in the end the meaning is much the same. naQh Set. It is perhaps ft refinement to take this as == ' accord- ing to, in proportion to, our need ' (Mey.-W. Gif.) ; which brings out the proper force of ita06 (cf. Baruch L 6 v. 1.) at the cost of putting a sense upon del which is not found elsewhere in the N. T., where it always denotes obligation or objective necessity. Those of the Fathers who show how they took it make Kad6 J« = riva Tp6Trov iti vpoatv$., which also answers well to Kara eUp in the next verse. iTr«p*vrvY)(dvu : imvyxdvtt means originally * to fall in with,' and hence ' to accost with entreaty,' and so simply ' to entreat ' ; in this sense it is not uncommon and occurs twice in this Epistle (viii. 34 ; XL «V The verse contains a statement which the unready oi 114 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 26 28. speech may well lay to heart, that all prayer need not be formu. lated, but that the most inarticulate desires (springing from a right motive) may have a shape and a value given to them beyond anything that is present and definable to the consciousnesg. This verse and the next go to show that St. Paul regarded the action of the Holy Spirit as personal, and as disiinct from the action of the Father. The language of the Creeds aims at taking account of these expressions, which agree fully with the triple formula of 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Matt, xxviii. 19. Oltr. however makes to nvevfia in both verses = ' the human spirit,' against the natural sense of tmeptvTvyx^^*^ ^^^ ^^*P Vin. 28, 29.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 21 9 KtK\i]K6Tot mai T^ Imn-Sgr. He comes to this decUon however nther oo dogmatic than on exegetical grounds. It is equally a straining of the text when Augustine distinguishes two kinds of call, one secundum propositum, the call of the elect, and the other of those who are not elect. Non enim omnes vocati secundum propositum sunt vocati: quoniam multi vocati, pauci eltcti. Ipsi ergo secundum propositum vocati qui electi ante constitutionem mundi {Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. ii. lo. § 3 3, cf- Cont. Julian, v. 6, § 14). In the idea of a double call, Augustine seems to have been anticipated by Origen, who however, as we have seen, gives a different sense to Ko-rh irp66((nv: omnes quidem vocati sunt, nontamen pmtut secundum propositum v»cati sunt (ed. Lomm. vil. 13S). KXt|Tois : ' called,' implying that the call has been obeyed. The (tX^trtt is not au salut (Oltr.), at least in the sense of final salva- tion, but simply to become Christians : see on i. i. 29. 8Tt : certainly here ' because,' assigning a reason for Kovra a6r)s aira LXX) ? Or the son of man that Thou makest account of him?' Hos. xiii. 5 ' I did know {(iroifMatvoy) thee in the wilderness.' Am. iii. 2 'You only have I known (tyvav) of all the families of the earth.' Matt. vn. 23 ' Then will I profess unto them I never knew (fyi/wj/) you,' &c. In all these places the word means * to take note of,' ' to fix the regard upon,' as a preliminary to selection for some especial pur- pose. 'The compound npotyva only throws back this * taking note ' from the historic act in time to the eternal counsel which it expresses and executes. This interpretation (which is yery similar to that of Godet and which approaches, though it is not exactly identical with, that of a number of older commentators, who make npoeyvoi = p7atdiligere, approbare) has the double advantage of being strictly conformed to Biblical usage and of reading nothing into the word which we are not sure is there. This latter objection applies to most other ways of taking the passage : e.g. to Origen's, when he makes the foreknowledge a foreknowledge of character and fitness, npoava- Tfviffas ovv 6 Qeot t^ tlpfxZ rS/v kaofihtav, Koi Karavo-qaas fioirrjf rov k(f>' tjiiiv rwvbi Tivojy iirl tiae^eiay Kal opfii^v im ravrrfv fitri rrjy poinjv «.t.X. {Fhilocal. xxv. 3. p. 327, ed. Robinson ; the comment ad loc. is rather nearer the mark, cognovisse suos diciiur, hoc est in dikctione habuisse sibiqut sociasse, but there too is added sciens quaUs essent). Cyril of Alexandria (and after him Meyer) supplies from what follows upocyvitad-qoav Cm taovrai avnnop(poi T^s tlie6vot rov tiov abrov, but this belongs properly only to wpoupifff. Widest from the mark are those who, like Calvin, look beyond the immediate choice to final salvation : Dei autem praecogniiio, cuius hie Paulus meminit, non nuda est praescientia . . . sed adoptio qua Jilios suos m reprebis semper discrevit. On the other hand, Gif. keeps closely to the context in explaining, ' " Foreknew " as the individual objects of His purpose {irp69fais) and therefore foreknew as "them that love God."' The only defect in this seems to be that it does not soffidently take •ccoont oi the O. T. and N. T- use of ytyvi>atcm. tl8 BPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 20, 80 ■al wpo^pi is both cotnplete and certam in the Divine counsels. To God there is neither ' before nor after.' Fill. 31-39.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT SI 9 THS FBOOFS AND ASSUBANCB OF BIVINB XiOTB. VIII. 81-30. Wiik the proofs of God's lovi before hint^ the Christian has nothing to fear. God, the Judge, is on his side, and thi ascended Christ intercedes for him (w. 31-34). The love of God in Christ is so strong that earthly sufferings and persecutions — nay, all forms and phases of being — are powerless to intercept »'/, or to bar the Christians triumph (w. 35-39). " What conclusion are we to draw from this ? Surely the strongest possible comfort and encouragement. With God on our side what enemy can we fear ? *■ Ag Abraham spared not Isaac, so He spared not the Son who shared His Godhead, but suffered Him to die for all believers. Is not this a sure proof that along with that one transcendent gift His bounty will provide all that is necessary for our salvation ? " Where shall accusers be found against those whom God has chosen P When God pronounces righteous, ** who shall condemn ? For us Christ has died ; I should say rather rose again ; and not only rose but sits enthroned at His Father's side, and there pleads continually for us. ** His love is our security. And that love is so strong that nothing on earth can come between us and it The sea of troubles that a Christian has to face, hardship and persecution of every kind, are powerless against it ; ** though the words of the Psalmist might well be applied to us, in which, speaking of the faithful few in his own generation, he described them as ' for God's sake butchered all day long, treated like sheep in the shambles.' " We too are no better than they. And yet, crushed and routed as we may seem, the love of Christ crowns as with surpassing victory. " For I am convinced that no form or phase of being, whether abstract or personal ; not life or its negation ; not any hierarchy of spirits ; no dimension of time ; no supernatural powers ; ** no dimension of space; no world of being invisible to us now, — will ever come between us and the love which God has brought so near to as in Jesus Messiah oor Lord. S30 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 82, 88 82. is v« Tou ISiou ulou O0K f^ciaaro. A nnmber of emphatic expressions are crowded together in this sentence : it ye, ' the same God who ' ; tov Idlov vloi, ' His own Son,' partaker of His own nature ; ovk ((^titraro, the word which is used of the offering of Isaac in Gen. xxii. i6, and so directly recalls that offering — the greatest sacrifice on record. For the argument comp. v. 6-io. 33-35. The best punctuation of these verses is that which is adopted in RV. text (so also Orig. Chrys. Theodrt. Mey. EU. Gif. Va. Lid.). There should not be more than a colon between the clauses e«or 6 iMaimv ris i KoraKpipav ; God is coHceived of as Judge : where He acquits, who can condemn ? Ver. 34 is then immediately taken up by ver. 35 : Christ proved His love by dying for us ; who then shall part us from that love ? The Apostle clearly has in his mind Is. 1. 8, 9 ' He is near that justifieth men ; who will contend with me ? . . . Behold, the Lord God will help me ; who is he that shall condemn me ? ' This distinctly favours the view that each affirmation is followed by a question relating to that affirmation. The phrases 6 KaraKpivHv and 6 diKiu»v form a natural antithesis, which it is wrong to break up by putting a full stop between them and taking one with what precedes, the other with what follows. On the view taken above, Oc^ 6 Siicat&v and X^ffrdt ItjooSt 6 iwo§arim are both answers to ris iyxaXftTti ; and ris 6 KaroKpivuiv ; rit ijitas x^P^*^*^ i are subordinate questions, suggested in the one case by SiKoicDi', in the other by (vr. inip fifxuv. We observe also that on this view ver. 35 is closely linked to ver. 34. The rapid succession of thought which is thus obtained, each step leading on to the next, is in fiill accordance with the spirit of the passage. Another way of taking it is to put a full stop at iiicaiSiv, and to make Wt iyKoKiau ; ris i xaraKpticDv ; two distinct questions with wholly distinct answers. So Fri. Lips. Weiss Oltr. Go. Others again (RV. marg. Beng. De W. Mou.) make all the clauses questions (©«^r 6 biKaiSiv ; kvTVfX' inrif ilfjuuv ;) But these repeated challenges do not giva sack a aerrou coaeateoa- tioD of reasoning. 88. Tis ^KaX^o-ci; another of the forensic terms which are so common in this Epistle ; ' Who shall impeach such as are elect <^ God?' ^kXcktuk. We have already seen (note on i. i) that with St. Paul KkijToi and fKAtrro* are not opposed to each other (a« they are in Matt. xxii. 14) but are rather to be identified. By reading into icX»;7-ot' the implication that the call is accepted, St. Paul shows that the persons of whom this is true are also objects of God's choice. By both terms St. Paul designates not those who are de* stined for final salvation, but those who are ' summoned ' or ' se- lected ' for the privilege of serving God and carrying out His will If their career runs its normal course it must issue m salvation, the ' glory ' reserved for them ; this lies as it were at the end aYtis : sheep destined for slaughter; cf. Zech. xi. 4 ra np6,ia.Ta ri^s ayris (cf. Jer. xii. 3 itp6iiaTa tit vcpayi'/v Cod. Marchal. marg.). The Latin texts of thii Terse are marked and characteristie. Tertnllian, Scorp. 13 Tua causa wtortificamur tota dU, dtputati sutnui ut ptcora iugu- lationis. Cyprian, Test. iii. 18 (the true text; cf. Epist. xxxi. 4) Causa tut occidimur tota die, deputati sumus ut oves victimae. Hilary of Poitiers, Tract, in Pt. cxviii. (ed. Zingerle, p. 439") Propter tt nutrtificamur tota die, deputati sumus sicut oves occisionis. Irenaens, Adv. Haer. II. xxii. a [J.atine; cf. IV. xvi. 2) Propter te mort* afficimur tota die, aestimati sumus ut eves occisionis. (vSimilarly Cod. Claxom Speculum Augustini, codd. ML) Vulgate (Cod. Ainiat.) Propter te mortificamur tota die, aestimati sumus tit oves occisionis. Here two types of text stand out clearly : that of Cyprian at one end of the scale, and that of the Vulgate (with which we may group Iren.-lat. Cod. Clarom. and the Speculum) at the other. Hilary stands between, having deputati in common with Cvprian, but on the whole leaning rather to the later group. The most difficult problem is presented by TertuUian, who approaches Cyprian in Tua causa and deputati, and the Vulgate group in mortificamur : in pecorm iugulationis he stands alone This passage might seem to favonr the view that in TertuUian we had the primitive text from which all the rest were derived. That hypothesis how- ever would be difficult to maintain systematically; and in any case there mnst be a large element in Tertullian's text which is simply individual. The text before us may be said to give a glimpse of the average position oi a problem which is still some way &om solution. 87. flirepi'iitwfjiei'. TertuUian and Cyprian represent this by the coinage supervinctmus (Vulg. Cod. Clarom. Hil. superamus) ; ' over- come strongly ' Tyn. ; ' are more than conquerors ' Genev., happily adopted in AV. Sid ToG i.yaiir\: xii. 1 9. St. Paul haS jUSt IX. 1, 1.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 937 described that anion with Christ which will make any form of sin impossible; cf. viii. i, lo; and the reference to this union gives solemnity to an assertion for which it will be dijQBcult to obtain full credence. ofi 4'eu^of<^ Jn* zvi. 20) appears to mean grief as a state of mind ; it is rational or emotional : dSunr) on the other hand never quite loses its physical associations ; it implies the anguish or smart of the heart (hence it is closely connected with fg Kopdtfi) which is the result of Xvinp. With the grief of St Paal for his eoantiymen, we mnj compate the grief of a Jew writing after the fall of Jernsalem, who feels both the misfortune and the sin of his people, and who like St. Paul emphasizes his sorrow bj enumerating their close relationship to God and their ancestral pride : 4 Ezra viii. 15-18 tt nutu duens duam, d* omni komins tu magis sets, de populo amttm tuo, ob qutm doUo, tt de haertditate tua, propter quam lugeo, et propUr ItraH, propter qu$m tristis sum, et de semine Jacob, propter quad conturbor. Ibid. x. 6-8 non vides luctum nostrum et quae nobis contigerunt ? quoniam Sion mater nostra omnium in tristitia centristatur, et humilitate humiliata est, et luget ualidissime . . . 21-33 vides enim quoniam sanctifi- catio nostra deserta effecta est, et altare nostrum demolitum est, et templum nostrum destructum est, et psalterium nostrum humiliatum est, et hymnus master conticuit, et exsultatio nostra dissoluta est, et lumen candelabri nostri uctinctum est, et area testamenti nostri direpta est. Apoc. Baruch. xxxv. 3 quomodo enim ingemiscam super Sione, et quomode lugebo super lerusalemt quia in loco isto uH prostratus turn nmmc, olim summus saterdos offerebed tiflotioMi! jMnttttt. 22$ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. & 8. This verse which is introduced by ydp does not give the reason of his grief but the proof of his sincerity. tjoxtJiAUK : 'the wish was in my mind' or perhaps 'the prayer was in my heart,' St. Paul merely states the fact of the wish without regard to the conditions which made it impossible. Cf. Lft. on Gal. iv. 20 'The thing is spoken of in itself, prior to and independently of any conditions which might aflFect its possibility.' See also Acts xxv. 2 a, and Burton, Af. and 7! § 33. d»' Uaikt ; itro rov X^motov rov mtBovftipoVf oi fu/n IX. 3, 4.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 229 TO^TOV vOv eijxv CLvadefia eivat.; dirb ToO XpLo-ToO: 'separated from the Christ,' a pregnant use of the preposition. The translation of the words as if they were ivb T. X. arises from a desire to soften the expression. /card ffdpKa: cf. iv. I 'as far as earthly relations are concerned'; spiritually St. Paul was a member of the spiritual Israel, and his kinsmen were the dde\(poi of the Christian society. The prayer of St. Paul is similar to that of Moses: Exod. xxxii. 32 'Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin — ; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.' On this Clem. Rom. hii. 5 comments as follows : & fjLeydXrjs dydir-qs, w riKeib- rtp-ot dvvnfpP\r)Tov, wappi]6ijvai fttr avT&v d^toi. In answer to those who have found difficulties in the passage it is enough to say with Prof. Jowett that they arise from 'the error of explaining the language of feeling as though it were that of reasoning and feflection.' There aie one or two slight variations of reading in Tcr. 3, airds iyu was placed before ivi$. tTv. by C K L, Vnlg., and later anthorities with T R, and VnS (D E G) snbstitnted for dv6 (K A £ C &c.). Both Tariations arise from a desire to modify the passage. 4u oZrir^s claiK : ' inasmuch as they are.' St. Paul's grief for Israel arises not only from his personal relationship and affection, but also from his remembrance of their privileged position in the Divine economy. *lcrpaT)\rTai : used of the chosen people in special reference to the fact that, as descendants of him who received from God the name of Israel, they are partakers of those promises of which it was a sign. The name therefore implies the privileges of the race; cf. £ph. ii. IS dnrjWoTpimiJLfPOi t^s noXireias roii ^lirpaijX Kcti ^tvoi twv iia6T]KS>v TTjs fTTayyfXiac : and as such it could be used metaphorically of the Christians (6 'IvpafjX rov Qtoi Gal. vi. 16 ; cf. ver. 6 inf.) ; a use which would of course be impossible for the merely national designa- tion 'lovSatot. * Israel ' is the title used in contemporary literature to express the special relations of the chosen people to God. Ps. Soi. xiv. 3 on If ft(p\s Ktu 7) KkrjpovofUa rov Qfov fOTiv 6 'IcrparjX : Ecclus. Xvii. 1 5 fifpts Kvpiov 'lapaijX eoriV : Jubilees xxxiii. 18 ' For Israel is a nation holy unto God, and a nation of inheritance for its God, and a nation of priesthood and royalty and a possession.' Thus the word seems to have been especially connected with the Messianic hope. The Messianic times are 'the day of gladness of Israel' {Ps. Sol. x. 7), die blessing of Israel, the day of God's mercy towards Kia' 1 (ib. ZViL 5O1 5' ItaKoptot o yiM^ftcwM W rait fifitpais iitfivaii ISfiv to ftJO EPISTLE TO THE ROMAMS [IX C iyoBk 'IvpaiiK hr mymrymy^ v\ip, A irot^ovt i Gror. Tayvvtu A Bt6t M laparjX ri tKtot avrov). When therefore St. Paul use« this name he reminds his readers that it is just those for whose salvation above all, according to every current idea, the Messiah was to come, who when he has come are apparently cut ofif from all share in the privileges of his kingdom. utoOcffia : ' the adoption,' ' status of an adopted son ' : on the origin of the word and its use in relation to Christian privileges see above, Rom. viii. 15. Here it implies that relationship of Israel to God described in £zod. iv. 22 radt Xf-yct Kvpiot Yi6t nparoTOKOi fto» 'lapnfjk : Deut. xiv. i ; xxxii. 6 ; Jer. xxxi. 9 ; Hos. xi. i. %o Jubilees i. 31 'I will be a Father unto them, and they shall be My children, and they shall all be called children of the living God. And every angel and every spirit will know, yea they will know that these are My children, and that I am their Father in uprightneM and in righteousness and that I love them.' ij 8<5|o : ' the visible presence of God among His people ' (see on iii. 23). W^a is in the LXX the translation of the Hebrew nin^ Il23, called by the Rabbis the Shekinah (W^af), the bright cloud by which God made His presence known on earth ; cf. Exod. xvi. 10, &c. Hence rh kolWo^ rf;? 80^75 avroO Ps. Sol. ii. 5, aitit 6p6vov Ho^t ib. ver. ao, Wisd. ix. 10, imply more than the mere beauty of the temple, and when St. Stephen, Acts vii. 2, speaks of i Otis TTjs io^tjt his words would remind his hearers of the visible presence of God which they claimed had sanctified Jerusalem and the temple. On late Rabbmical speculations concerning the Shekinah see Weber AUsyn. Theol. p. 179. at 8i«di)Kai : ' the covenants,' see Hatch Essays oh Biblical Greek, p. 47. The plural is used not with reference to the two covenants the Jewish and the Christian, but because the original covenant of God with Israel was again and again renewed (Gen. vi. 18; ix. 9; xv. 18; xvii. a, 7, 9 ; Ex. ii. 24). Comp. Ecclus. xliv. 1 1 fura rov anipftaTos aiirStv buxfitvt'i ayc^i) nXrjpovofiia, ficyova avrmp iv rait diaSrjKMS', Wisdom XViii. 2 2 Xoyy Tor mdXa^oi'Ta vntra^fy, opKovs nartpuv Koi iia6r)Kas vnofivrjaat. According to Irenaeus, III. xi. ii (ed. Harvey) there were four covenants : nui dta toOto rivaapts ibo- Srjtray Ka$o\iKa\ iiadrJKCU r^ avBpttnorrjn' fiia nfv rov KaTaKkwfiov rov N»(, iirl rov ro^ov' dtvrtpa ii rov 'A/3padfi, rr< rov tnjfjitiov TTJt rrtpiTOfirjs' TpiTtj Si ^ vopo6«ria nrt rov Mmvcrimt' Ttrdprrf di if rov EvayycXuw, dwk Toi) Kvplov fjpMP 'itjaov Xpiaroi *, The Jews believed that they were bound to God and that God was bound to them by a covenant which would guarantee to them His protection in the future. According to St. Paul it was just those who were not botind to Him by a covenant who would receive the Divine protection. On the idea of the Covenant and * Ib the Latin venian the kmt covenants ai* Adam, Noah, Mows, Christ IX. 4. 5.J THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL J)l its practical bearing on Jewish life see SchQrer Gtschickky ii p. 388. ^ KO)to0c(ria : a classical word, occurring also in Philo. * The giving of the law.' ' The dignity and glory of having a law com- municated by express revelation, and amidst circumstances so full of awe and splendour.' Vaughan. The current Jewish estimation of the Law {6 v6ftot 6 xmapxw tit ToK alava Baruch iv. i) it is unnecessary to illustrate, but the point in the mention of it here is brought out more clearly if we remember that all the Messianic hopes were looked upon as the reward of thdse who kept the Law. So Ps. Sol. xiv, i m6ftta a>« rrcrctXaro i}piu tls (utfjv {]pS»v. It was one of the paradoxes of the situation that it was just those who neglected the Law who would, according to St. Paul's teaching, inherit the promises. ^ XarpcCa: 'the temple service.' Heb. ix. i, 6; 1 Mace. ii. 19, 28. As an illustration of Jewish opinion on the temple service may be quoted Pirqe Aboth, i. a (Taylor, p. a6) ' Shimeon ha-^addiq was of the remnants of the great synagogue. He used to say, On three things the world is stayed; on the Thorah, and on the Worship, and on the bestowal of kindnesses.' According to the Rabbis one of the characteristics of the Messianic age will be a revival of the temple services. (Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 359.) ol ^irayycXiai : ' the promises made in the O. T. with special reference to the coming of the Messiah.' These promises were of course made to the Jews, and were always held to apply particularly to them. While sinners were to be destroyed before the face of the Lord, the saints of the Lord were to inherit the promises (cf. Pt. Sol. xii. 8) ; and in Jewish estimation sinners were the gentiles and saints the chosen people. Again therefore the choice of terms emphasizes the character of the problem to be discussed. See note on i. a, and the note of Ryle and James on P$.Sol.loc.cit.\ cf. also Heb. vi.ia; xi. 13; Gal. iii.19; 1 Clem. x. a. ai hiaQxiKtu K C L, Vnlg. codd. Boh. &c. has been corrected into ^ h Fatiiers. ponderance of the Christian writers ot the first eight centuries refer the word to Christ. This is certainly the case with Irenaens, Natr. III. rvii. », ed. Harvey; Tertnllian, j4dv. Prax. 13, 15; Hippolytus, Cont. Noct. 6 (ct Gifford, op. (it. p. 60) ; Novatian. Trin. 13 ; Cyprian, Tut. ii. 6, ed. Hartel ; Syn. Ant. adv. Paul. Sam. in Ronth, Pel. Saerae, iii, 391, 293 ; Athanasius^ C»nt. Arimn. L iii. 10; Epiphanius. Ha^. Irii. a, 9, ed. Oehler; Basil, Adv. Eumm. iv. p. aSa ; Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Eutum. 11 ; Chrysostom, Horn, ad Rom. ivi. 3, t Bt6s, but although this is certainly an interesting statement, thk passage, which Cyril quoies against him, might easily have been overlooked. Two writers, and two only, Photius {Cont. Man. iii. 14) and Diodrnw (Cramer's Catena, p. 162), definitely ascribe the words to the FatJier. The modem criticism of the passage began with Erasmus, wbo poiated * For information oa this pcJat and also 00 the panctnation of the olda paoyri, we are mtich fcidrbtod to Mr. F. G. KenTon, «f th» Britiah Moaetua. •:X)Tlie 4 Modem 71 'dtm. ex. S.] THK UNBEUEF OF ISRAEL «35 oat that thert were certainly three altematiTe interpretationi possibk, and that as there was so mach doabt about the Terse it shonld nerer be used •gainst heretics. He himself wavers in his opinion. In the Commentary he seems to refer the words to the Father, in the Paraphrase (a later bat popular work) he certainly refers them to the Son. Socinus, it is interesting to note, was convinced by the position of (i\oyt)Tit (see below) that the soitence must refer to Chnst. From Erasmus' time onwards opinions have varied, and have been influenced, as was natural, largely by the dogmatic opinions of the writer ; and it seems hardly worth while to quote long lists of names on either side, when the question is one which must be decided not bf authority or theological opinion but by considerations of language. The discussion which follows will be divided into Uirec heads: — (l) Grammar ; (a) Sequence of thought ; (3) Pauline usage. The first words that attract onr attentioB are ri tcard aapica, and a parallel The gram oaturally suggests itself with Rom. t. 3, 4. As there St Paul describes the mar of thin human descent from David, bat expressly limits it xari a&pKa, and then passage. in contrast describes his Divine descent tcari wtxifia iyiwaivrji ; so here the (i) r^Karc course of the argument having led him to lay stress on the human birth of ffifma. Christ as a Jew, he would naturally correct a one-sided statement by limiting that descent to the earthly relationship and then describe the true nature of Him who was the Messiah of the Jews. He would thus enhance the privileges of his Cellow-conntrymen, and put a culminating point to his argument. r6 «ard aipga leads us to expect an antithesis, and we find just what we should have expected ia i i/v Iwl vdyrvr S(6s. Is this legitimate? It has been argued first of all that the proper anti- thesis to aip( is wvtS/im. But this objection is invalid. @t6s u in a coih siderable number of cases used in contrast to aip( (Luke iii. 6 ; i Cor. i. 39 ; Col. iii. 32; Philemon 16; a Chron. xxxii. 8; Ps. Iv [Ivi]. 5; Jer. xrvL 5; Dan. iL 1 1 ; cf. Gifford, p. 40, to whom we owe these instances). Again it is argued that the expreuion ri icarci aipxa as opposed to Mori aapita precludes the possibility of such a contrast in words. While ttard odpKa allows the expression of a contrast, ri «ard aipita would limit the idea of a sentence but would not allow the limitation to be expressed. This statement again is incorrect. Instances are found in which there is as expressed contrast to such limitations introduced with the aiticle (see Gifford, p. 39 ; he quotes Isocrates, p. 33 e ; Demosth. C0ti/. Eubul. p. 1399, L14). Bat although neither of these objections is valid, it is perfectly true tha^ neither card c&pKa nor r6 ««rd 9&pKa demands an expressed antithesis (Rom. iv. I ; Clem. Rom. L 33). The expression rb Kara aapna cannot therefore be quoted as decisive ; but probably any one reading the passage for the first time would be led by these words to expect some contrast and would naturally take the words that follow as a contrast. The next words concerning which there has been much discussion are b &y. s) i t^ It is argued on the one hand that 6 &v is naturally relatival in character and equivalent to 01 can, and in support of this statement 3 Cor. xi. 31 is quoted : b ©€tfj Kol iTOT^p Tov Kvpiov 'iTjaov oTdtr, b iiv (iXoyr/rbs (Is roiii odaivas, Sn ov ifxiiiofuu — a passage which is in some respects an exact parallel. On the other hand passages are quoted in which the words do not refer to anything preceding, such as Jn. iii. 31 0 avouffty ipxofievos iirdyw itdvrwv iariv b iav iu TTJs yijs fK rijs yrjs iart, icai i» r$» 7^1 A.aA«f : and ol bvm in Rom. viii. 5, 8. The question is a nice one. It is perfectly true that b &v can be used in botk ways; but it must be noticed that in the last instances the form of the sentence is such as to take away all ambiguity, and to compel a change of subject In this case, as there is a noun immediately preceding to which the words would naturally refer, as there is no sign of a change of subject, and ■s there is no finite verb in the sentence following, an ordinary reader would oiBsider that the words i im M miarrw 9t6t refer to what pieoedes odear •36 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS |^IX. 1. they suggest m great an antithesis to his mind that he co&ld not refer then to Christ. But further than this: no instance seems to occur, at any rate in the N.T., of the participle Siv being used with a prepositional phrase and the noun which the prepositional phrase qualifies. If the noun is mentioned the substantive verb becomes unnecessary. Here t M nivruv Scor would be the correct expression, if &f6t is the subject of the sentence ; if (Jf is added ©«5i must become predicate. This excludes the translation (J>.) ' He who is God over all be (or is) blessed for ever.' It still leaves it possible to translate as (^.) ' He who is over all is God blessed for ever,' but the reference to Xp<(rT(5r remains the most natural interpretation, unless, as stated above, the word Q(6i suggests in itself too great a contrast. It has thirdly been pointed out that if this passage be an ascription of blessing to the Father, the word tvXoyqrot would naturally come first, just as the word ' Blessed * would in English. An examination of LXX usage shows that except in cases in which the verb is expressed and thrown forward (as Ps. cxii [cxiii]. a ttrj rh ovofta Kvpiov (iXoyrjfiiyov) this is almost in- nuriably its position. But Ae rule is clearly only an empirical one, and in cases in which stress has to be laid on some special word, it may be and is broken (ct Ps. Sol. viii. 40, 41). As 6 i/v iirl vavraiv 0f6t if it does not refer to 6 XfHorSt must be in very marked contrast with it, there would be a special emphasis on the words, and the perversion of the natural order becomes possible. These considerations prevent the argument from the position of ti)Koyr]T6s being as decisive as some have thought it, but do not prevent the balance of evidence being against the interpretation as a doxology referring to the Father. The result of an examination of the grammar of the passage makes it clear that if St. Paul had intended to insert an ascription of praise to the Fathei we should have expected him to write (vKoyrjTos fh roiis alwvas d iwl nirram 9t6s. If the translation (d.^ suggested above, which leaves the stop at wAvToiv, be accepted, two difficulties which have been urged are avoided, bat the awkwardness and abruptness of the sudden Sds *v\oyT)T6t (Is roxit tlSiyat make this interpretation impossible. We have seen that the position of *v\ofr]r6i makes a doxology (b.) improbable, and the insertion of the participle makes it very unnatural. The grammatical evidence is in favour of (a.), i.e. the reference of the words to 6 Xpiaros, unless the words i irv *« mAvToiv 06(5r contain in themseWes so marked a contrast that they could not possibly be so referred. We pass next to the connexion of thought. Probably not many will doubt that the interpretation which refers the passage to Christ (a.) admirably suits the context. St. Paul is enumerating the privileges of Israel, and as the highest and last privilege he reminds his readers that it was from this Jewish stock after all that Christ in His human nature had come, and then in ordef to emphasiie this he dwells on the exalted character of Him who came according to the flesh as the Jewish Messiah. This gives a perfectly clear and intelligible interpretation of the passage. Can we say the same of aay interpretation which applies the words to the Father ? Those who adopt this latter interpretation have generally taken the woids as a doxology, ' He that is over all God be blessed for ever,' or ' He that is God over all be blessed for ever.' A natural criticism that at once arises is, how awkward the sudden introduction of a doxology ! how inconsistent with the tone of sadness which pervades the passage ! Nor do the reasons alleged in support of this interpretation really avoid the difficult); It is quite true of course that St. Paul was full of gratitude for the privileges of his race and especially for the coming of the Messiah, but that u not the thought in his Bind. His feeling is one of sadness and of failure: it is necessary for him to argue that the promise of God has not failed. Nor again does a rciereaee Id Rom. L 35 snpport the intcrpretatio&. It is qvite tHM that there we ha?* IX. 6.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL »$f a doxology in tiie midst of a passage of great sadness ; bat like » Cor. ti. 3I that is an instance of the ordinary Rabbinic and oriental asage of adding an ascription of praise when the name of God has been introdnced. That wonld not apply in the present case where there b no previous mention of the name of God. It is impossible to say that a doxology conld not stand here ; it te certainly true that it would be unnatural and out of place. So strongly does Dr. Kennedy feel the difficulties both exegetical and Prot grammatical of taking these words as a blessing addressed to the Father, Kennedy's that being unable to adopt the reference to Christ, he considers that they interpreta> occur here as a strong assertion of the Divine unity introdnced at this tioo. place in order to conciliate the Jew8 : * He who is over all is God blessed for ever.' It is difficult to find anything in the context to support this opinion, St. Paul's object is hardly to conciliate onbelieving Jews, but to solve the difficulties of believers, nor does anything occur in either the previous or the following verses which might be supposed to make an assertion of the unity of God either necessary or apposite. The inter* pretation fails by ascribing too great subtlety to the Apostle. Unless then Pauline nsnge makes it absolutely impossible to refer the Pauline expressions B(6$ and inl ndvTwv to Christ, or to address to Him such uag& a doxology and make use in this connexion of the decidedly strong word (i) 9t6k *i\oyr}T6s, the balance of probability is in favour of referring the passage tp Him. What then is the usage of St. Paul? The question has been somewhat obscured on both sides by the attempt to prove that St. Paul could or could not have used these terms of Christ, i. e. by making the difficulty theological and not linguistic. St. Paul always looks upon Christ as being although subordinate to the Father at the head of all creatioa (i Cor. xi. 3 ; xv. a8 ; Phil. ii. 5-11 ; CoL L i.^-ao), and this would quite justify the use of the expression iirl mvroiy of Him. So also if St. Paul caa speak of Christ as tlKwv rod 6cot) (2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15), as iv fiopcp^ &eo3 ivapX'^t *°d laa %i^ (Phil, ii 6), he ascribes to Him no lesser dignity than would be implied by B(6t as predicate. The question rather is this : eras 9(6t so definitely used of the ' Father ' as a proper name that it could not be used of the Son, and that its use in this passage as definitely points to the Father as would the word ■aarqp if it were substituted? The most significant passage referred to ii I Cor. xii. 4-6, where it is asserted that 0c<$9 is as much a proper name as Kvptos or vytOfta and is used in marked distine- tion to Kvptos. But this passage surely suggests the answer. Kipiot if clearly used as a proper name of the Son, but that does not prevent St. Pad elsewhere speaking of the P'ather as Kifiot, certainly in quotations from thft O.T. and probably elsewhere (i Cor. iii. 5), nor of XpiorSs as irvcv/Oi (a Cor. iii. 16). The history of the word appears to be this. To one brought up as a Jew it would be natural to use it of the Father alone, and hence complete divine prerogatives would be ascribed to the Son somewhat earlier than the word itself was used. But where the honour was given the word used predicatively wonld soon follow. It was habitual at the beginning of the second century as in the Ignatian letters, it is undoubted in St John where the Evangelist is writing in his own name, it probably occurs Acts XX. a8 and perhaps Titus ii. 14. It must be admitted that we should not expect it in so early an Epistle as the Romans ; but there is no impossibility either in the word or the ideas expressed by the word occurring so early. So again with regard to doxologies and the use of the term (iXoyT]r4t. (j) Doxo* The distinction between tiXoftjTSs and tiXoyrju^yos which it is attempted to logies ad* make cannot be sustained : and to ascribe a doxology to the Son wonld be dressed ttt a practical result of His admittedly divine nature which would gradually Christ show itself in language. At first the early Jewish usage would be adhered to ; gradually as the dignitr of the Messiah became realized, a change wonld take piacs in the nse of words. Hence we find doxologies appearing dcfinitelvia later bodu of llie N.T., probably in a Tin. iv. it^ttrtsinlyia i^S BPISTLI TO THE ROMAN5 [IX. 6-18. fUv. V. 1 1 and a Pet ih. i8. Again we can auert that we ahotild not expect k in to earlj an Epistle as the Romani, bat, as Dr. Liddoa points ont, t Thess. i. i a implies it ai docs also PhiL ii. 5-8 ; and there is no reason why language should not at this time be b^inning to adapt iUelf to thecK logical ideas already formed. CooQrfa Thronghont there has been n* argnment which we hare felt to be qnite rioB. coQclnsive, bnt the resalt of oar investigations into the grammar of the sentence and the drift of the argnment is to incline us to the belief that the words would natarally refer to Christ, unless B(6s is so definitely a proper name that it wonld imply a contrast in itself. We have seen that that is not •o. Even if St. Paul did not elsewhere use the word of the Christ, yet it certainly was so used at a not much later period. St. Paul's phraseology is ■ever fixed ; he had no dogmatic reason against so using it. In these circum- stances with some slight, but only slight, hesitation we adopt the first alterna- tive and translate ' Of whom is the Christ as concerning the flesh, wh» U •rer all, God blessed for ever. Amen.' TH2S EBJECTION O^' ISBABL WOT IITCOITSISTEWT WITH THE DIVINE PEOMISES. IX. 6-18. For it is indeed true. With all these privileges fsrael is yet excluded from the Messianic promises. Now in the first place does this imply ^ as has been urged, that the promises of God have been broken f By no meant. The Scriptures show clearly that physical descent is net enough. The children of Ishmael and the children of Esau, both alike descendants of Abraham to whom the promise was given, have been rejected. There is then no breach of the Divine promise^ if God refects some Israelites as He has rejected them. •Yet in spite of these priTfleget Israel b rejected. Now it lias been argued : ' If this be so, then the Divine word has failed. God made a definite promise to Israel. If Israel is rejected, that promise is broken.' An examination of the conditions of the promise show that this is not so. It was never intended that all the descendants of Jacob should be included in the Israel v6iJMri, im\ ry 6v6ijuari as Luke i. 59, 61, although the Hebraism KaXiaovai rh Svofia airrov 'EiifiavovqX. (Matt. i. 33) occurs. But to 'call by name' has associations derived on the one side from the idea of calling over, reckoning, accounting ; hence such phrases as Rom. ix. 7 (from Gen. xxi. la LXX), and on the other from the idea of aflection suggested by the idea of calling by name, so Rom. ix. a6 (from LXX Hos. iL i [i. 10]). These derivative n^es of the word occur independently both in Greek, where iteKKrjfuu may be used to mean little more than 'to be/ and in Hebrew. The two main meanings can always be distinguished, but probably in the use of the word each has influenced the other; when God is said to be ' He that calls us' the primary idea is clearly that of invitation, but the secondary idea of 'calling by name,* L«. of expressing affection, gives a warmer colouring to the idea suggested. 8. TOUT* i ©fov, rewa TTJs iirayy(\iat) are used elsewhere of Christians, but that is not their meaning in this passage. St Paul is concerned in this place to prove not that any besides those of Jewish descent might inherit the promises, but merely that not all of Jewish descent necessarily and for that very reason must enjoy all the privileges of that descent. Physical con- nexion with the Jewish stock was not in itself a ground for inherit- ing the promise. That was the privilege of those intended when the promise was first spoken, and who might be considered to be bom of the promise. This principle is capable of a far more universal application, an application which is made in the Epistle to the Galatians (iii. 29; iv. j8, &c.), but is not made here. 0. iirayyeXia^ must be the predicate of the sentence thrown forward in order to give emphasis and to show where the point of the argument lies. ' This word is one of promise,' i. e. if you refer to the passage of Scripture you will see that Isaac was tlie child of promise, and not born Kara adpKa ; his birth therefore depends upon the promise which was in fact the eflBcient cause of h, and not the promise upon his birth. And hence is deduced a general law : a mere connexion with the Jewish race «n^ vapm tSL 9-lL] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL X45 does not necessarily imply a share in the arayytXta, for it did not according to the original conditions. Kara toc Kaip^K toutok ^Xeucrofiai, Kol Jorai tf Zdppa ul6%, St. Paul combines Gen. ZViii. lO (LXX) fnavaarpfCpaiv rj^o) rrp6s 6T]fi€p, npoopurOtvrtt mrJk irp66«nv Tov rk rravra ivfpyovvrot kotA T^r ^ovkifv rov 6t\r}ftaros avrev: iii. 1 1 Kara np60f(Tip rStv alayatv tjy inoirjwn iv r^ X. 'I. r^ Kvpt«> iiliAp '. 2 Tim. i. 9 roC aaxravTos tjfMs xai KaXtaavros KXfjtrti iyia, ov Kara ra ipya fificov, dk\a Kor Idiav rrpoBfatv Ka\ X'^P*" • the verb also is found once in the same sense, Eph. i. 9 xark i^r ridoKiap airrov, ^r wpr i6(To fv avT^. From Aristotle onwards np6d(a-is had been used to express purpose ; with St. Paul it is the ' Divine purpose of God for the salvation of mankind,' the ' purpose of the ages ' determined in the Divine mind before the creation of the world. The idea is apparently expressed elsewhere in the N. T. by /SowXij (Luke vii. 30; Acts ii. 23 ; iv. 28; xx. 27) which occurs once in St, Paul (Eph. i. 11), but no previous instance of the word np66(tns in this sense seems to be quoted. The conception is worked out by the Apostle with greater force and originality than by any previous writer, and hence he needs a new word to express it. See further the longer note on St. Paul's Philosophy of History, p. 342. cVXoyiJ ex- presses an essentially O. T. idea (see below) but was itself a neti IX. U^ 12.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 345 word, the only instances quoted in Jewish literature earlier than this Epistle being from the Psalms of Solomon, which often show an approach to Christian theological language. It means (i) ' the process of choice,' ' election.' Ps. Sol. xviii. 6 Kadaplaai 6 Qf6s 'lapafjX tls ^nipav t'Xtov iv tiiXoyiq, ds ^fxtpav eKkoytjs iv ava^ei Xpiarov airroi; ix. 7; Jos. £./. II. viii. 14; Acts ix. 15; Rom. xi. 5, 28; I Thess. i. 4 ; a Pet. i. 10. In this sense it may be used of man's election of his own lot (as in Josephus and perhaps in Ps. Sol. ix. 7), but in the N. T. it is always used of God's election. (2) As abstract for concrete it means «Xe»trot, those who are chosen, Rom. XL 7. (3) In Aquila Is. xxii. 7 ; Symmachus and Theodo- tion, Is. xxxvii. 34, it means ' the choicest,' being apparently em- ployed to represent the Hebrew idiom. fkirQ : the opposite to fKiriirT»Ktv (ver. 6) : the subjunctive shows that the principles which acted then are still in force. oAk ii SpyuK dXX* eK tou Ka\ourro$. These words qualify the whole sentence and are added to make more clear the absolute character of God's free choice. We must notice (i) that St. Paul never here says anything about the principle on which the call is made ; all he says is that it is not the result of Jpya. We have no right either with Chrysostom («'a avji v which occurs in TR. with D F G K L etc. and Fathers after Chrysostom was early substituted for the less usual word. A similar change has been made in a Cor. v. 10. For the iTp6e€u> 'lacfxd tov ftfi(ovos : ib. Xxix. 1 6 oyofia rg fiei^om Atia, Kai ovofta rfj vtoaripa 'VaxrjK, But the dictionaries quote in support of the use ZKini<^v i (liyai Pol. XVIII. xviii. 9. The instances quoted of ^iKp6s (Mk. xv, 40; Mt xviii. 6, 10, 14, Ac.) are all equally capable of being explained of stature. 13. TOf 'laKup ^yoTTpo-o, tov Sc 'Haou ^)j,i(rr)aa. SL Paul con- cludes his argument by a second quotation taken freely from the LXX of Mai. i. 2, 3 ovk iibt\(j>bt Tjv 'Herat! t9v 'I(uo)/9 \ Xryft Kvpuif* maX rjyaTrrjva tov 'laKO)^, tAv di 'Htrav €fiicrT}(ra. What is the exact object with which these words are introduced? (i) The greater number of commentators (so Fri. Weiss Lipsius), consider that they simply give the explanation of God's conduct. ' God chose the younger brother and rejected the elder not from any merit on the part of the one or the other, but simply because He loved the one and hated the other.' The aorists then refer to the time before the birth of the two sons ; there is no reference to the peoples descended from either of them, and St. Paul is repre- sented as vindicating the independence of the Divine choice in relation to the two sons of Isaac. (2) This explanation has the merit of simplicity, but it is proN ably too simple, (i) In the first place, it is quite clear that St. Paul throughout has in his mind in each case the descendants as well as the ancestors, the people who are chosen and rejected as well as the fathers through whom the choice is made (cf. ver. 7). In fact this is necessary for his argument. He has to justify God's dealing, not with individuals, but with the great mass of Jews who have been rejected, (ii) Again, if we turn to the original contexts of the two quotations in w. 12, 13 there can be no doubt that in both cases there is reference not merely to the children but to their descendants. Gen. xxv. 23 * Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated even from thy bowels;' Mai. i. 3 'But Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness. Whereas £dom saith,' &c. There is nothing in St. Paul's method of quotation which could prevent him from using the words in a sense somewhat different from the original; but when the original passage in both cases is really more in accordance with his method and argument, it is more reasonable to believe that he is not narrowing the sense (iii) As will become more apparent later, St. Paul's argument is to show that throughout God's action there it running a 'purpoae IX. 13.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 247 according to election.' He does not therefore wish to say that h is merely God's love or hate that has guided Him. Hence it is better to refer the words, either directly or in- directly, to the choice of the nation as well as the choice of the founder (so Go. Gif. Liddon). But a further question still remains as to the use of the aorist. We may with most commentators still refer it to the original time when the choice was made: when the founders of the nations were in the womb, God chose one nation and rejected another because of his love and hatred. But it is really better to take the whole passage as corroborating the previous verse by an appeal to history. ' God said the elder shall serve the younger, and, as the Prophet has shown, the whole of sub- sequent history has been an illustration of this. Jacob God has selected for His love ; Esau He has hated : He has given his moun- tains for a desolation and his heritage to the jackals.' i^yiTn\ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 0-lS. I shall loTe thee and make peace with thee. Thon shalt be rooted out antt thy ton shall be rooted out and there shall be no peace for thee.' (See also Jot. Bill. Jud. IV. IT. I, a ; Haiurath, Ntw Tutamtmt TitudS, toL L pp. 67, 68, Et^. Tnmt.) Tkt Divint BlecHom, St. Fanl has set himself to prove that there was nothing in the promise made to Abraham, by which God had ' pledged Himself to Israel ' (Gore, Siudia Biblica, iii. 40), and bound Himself to allow all those who were Abraham's descendants to inherit these promises. He proves this by showing that in two cases, as was recognized by the Jews themselves, actual descendants from Abraham had been ex- cluded. Hence he deduces the general principle, ' There was from the first an element of inscrutable selectiveness in God's dealings within the race of Abraham ' (Gore, ii5.). The inheritance of the promise is for those whom God chooses, and is not a necessary privilege of natural descent. The second point which he raises, that this choice is independent of human merit, he works out further in the following verses. On the main argument it is sufficient at present to notice that it was primarily an argumenium ad hominem and as such was abso- lutely conclusive against those to whom it was addressed. The Jews prided themselves on being a cho.sen race ; they prided them- selves especially on having been chosen while the Ishmaelites and the Edomites (whom they hated) had been rejected. St. Paul analyzes the principle on which the one race was chosen and the other rejected, and shows that the very same principles would fjerfectly justify God's action in further dealing with it God might choose some of them and reject others, just as he had originally chosen them and not the other descendants of Abraham. That this idea of the Divine Election was one of the most funda- mental in the O. T. needs no illustration. We find it in the Pentateuch, as Deut. vii. 6 ' For thou art an holy people unto the Lord, thy God: the Lord, thy God, hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself above all peoples that are on the face of the earth : ' in the Psalms, as Ps. cxxxv. 4 ' For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure': in the Prophets, as Is. xli. 8, 9 ' But thou Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend ; thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth and called thee from the corners thereof, and said unto thee. Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.' And this idea of Israel being the elect people of God is one of those which were seized and grasped most tenaciously by contemporary Jewish thought. But between the conception as held by St Paul's 000- IX. a-18.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 149 temporaries and the O. T. there were striking differences In the O. T. it is always looked upon as an act of condescension and love of God for Israel, it is for this reason that He redeemed them from bondage, and purified them from sin (Deut. vii. 8 ; x. 15; Is. xliv. 21, 22); although the Covenant is specified it is one which involves obligations on Israel (Deut. vii. 9, &c.) : and the thought again and again recurs that Israel has thus been chosen not merely for their own sake but as an instrument in the hand of God, and not merely to exhibit the Divine power, but also for the benefit of other nations (Gen. xii. 3 ; Is. Ixvi. 18, &c.). But among the Rabbis the idea of Election has lost all its higher side. It is looked on as a covenant by which God is bound and over which He seems to have no control. Israel and God are bound in an indissoluble marriage {Shemoih rabba 1. 51): the holiness of Israel can never be done away with, even although Israel sin, it still remains Israel {Sanhedrin 55) : the worst IsraeUte is not profane like the heathen (Bammidbar rabba 1 7): no Israelite can go into Gehenna {Pesikta 38 a) : all Israelites have their portion in the world to come {^Sanhedrin i), and much more to the same effect. (See Weber Alisyn. Theol. p. 51, &c., to whom are due most of the above references.) And this belief was shared by St, Paul's contemporaries. ' The planting of them is rooted for ever : they shall not be plucked out all the days of the heaven : for the portion of the Lord and the inheritance of God is Israel ' {Ps. Sol. xiv. 3) ; ' Blessed art thou of the Lord, O Israel, for evermore' {}b. viii. 41) ; ' Thou didst choose the seed of Abraham before all the nations, and didst set thy name before us, O Lord : and thou wilt abide among us for ever ' {ib. ix. 17, i8). While Israel is always to enjoy the Divine mercy, sinners, i. e. Gentiles, are to be destroyed before the face of the Lord [lb. xii. 7, 8). So again in 4 Ezra, they have been selected while Esau has been rejected (iii. 16). And this has not been done as part of any larger Divine purpose ; Israel is the end of the Divine action ; for Israel the world was created (vi. 55) ; it does not in any way exist for the benefit of other nations, who are of no account ; they are as spittle, as the dropping from a vessel (vi 55, 56). More instances might be quoted {Jubilees xix. 16 ; xxii. 9 ; Apoc. Barttch xlviil 20, 23 ; Ixxvii. 3), but the above are enough to illustrate the position St, Paul is combating. The Jew believed that his race was joined to God by a covenant which nothing could dissolve, and that he and his people alone were the centre of all God's action in the creation and government of the world. This idea St. Paul combats. But it is important to notice how the whole of the O. T. conception is retained by him, but broadened and illuminated. Educated as a Pharisee, he had held the doctrine of election with the utmost tenacity. He had believed that his own nation had been chosen bom among all the »50 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 14-29 kingdoms of the earth. He still holds the doctrine, but the Christian revelation has given a meaning to what had been a nar- row privilege, and might seem an arbitrary choice. His view is now widened. The world, not Israel, is the final end of God's action. This is the key to the explanation of the great difficulty the rejection of Israel. Already in the words that he has used above 17 kot eK\oyf)v irpodfcris he has shown the principle which he is working out. The mystery which had been hidden from the foundation of the world has been revealed (Rom. xvi. 26). There is still a Divine cVXoyjj, but it is now realized that this is the result of a Trp6d(ais, a universal Divine purpose which had worked through the ages on the principle of election, which was now beginning to be revealed and understood, and which St. Paul will explain and vindicate in the chapters that follow (of. Eph. i. 4, ii ; iii, ii). We shall follow St. Paul in his argument as he gradually works it out. Meanwhile it is convenient to remember the exact point he has reached. He has shown that God has not been untrue to any promise in making a selection from among the Israel of his own day ; He is only acting on the principle He followed in selecting the Israelites and rejecting the Edomites and Ishmaelites. By the introduction of the phrase ^ 'f"^' fKXoytjv npofifmi St. Paul has also suggested the lines on which his argument will proceed. THE EEJECTIOIT OP ISHAEIi NOT nTCONSISTETTT WITH THE DrVIlTB JUSTICE. IX. 14-29. But secondly it may be urged: • Surely then God is unjust! No^ if you turn to the Scriptures you will see that He has the right to confer His favours on whom He will {as He did on Moses) or to with/wld them {as He did from Pharaoh) (w. 14-18). If it is further urged^ Why blame me if I like Pharaoh reject Gods offer ^ and thus fulfil His willt I reply, It is your part not to cavil but to submit. The creature may not complain against the Creator, any more than the vessel against the potter (w. 19-21). Still less when God^ s purpose has been so beneficent, and that to a body so mixed as this Christian Church of ours^ chosen not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24) ; — as indeed was foretold (w. 25-29). IX. 14-20.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL a^I **But there is a second objection which may be raised. 'If what you say is true that God rejects one and accepts another apart from either privilege of birth or human merit, is not His conduct arbitrary and unjust?' What answer shall we make to this ? Surely there is no injustice with God. Heaven forbid that I should say so. I am only laying down clearly the absolute character of the Divine sovereignty. ** The Scripture has shown us clearly the principles of Divine action in two typical and opposed incidents: that of Moses exhibiting the Divine grace, that of Pharaoh ex- hibiting the Divine severity. Take the case of Moses. When he demanded a sign of the Divine favour, the Lord said (Ex. xxxiiL 17-19) ' Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name ... I will make all my goodness pass before thee ; I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.' *• These words imply that grace comes to man not because he is determined to attain it, not because he exerts himself for it as an athlete in the races, but because he has found favour in God's sight, and God shows mercy towards him : they prove in fact the perfect spontaneousness of God's action. " So in the case of Pharaoh. The Scripture (in Ex. ix. 16) tells us that at the time of the plagues of Egypt these words were ad- dressed to him : ' I have given thee thy position and place, that I may show forth in thee my power, and that my name might be declared in all the earth.' ** Those very Scriptures then to which you Jews so often and so confidently appeal, show the absolute character of God's dealings with men. Both the bestowal of mercy or favour and the hardening of the human heart depend alike upon the Divine will. " But this leads to a third objection. If man's destiny be simply the result of God's purpose, if his hardness of heart is a state which God Himself causes, why does God find fault ? His will is being accomplished. There is no resistance being offered. Obedience or disobedience is equally the result of His purpose. ''•Such questions should never be asked. Consider what is in- volved in your position as man. A man's relation to God is such that whatever God does the man has no right to complain or object or reply. The Scriptures have again and again represented the relation of God to man under the image of a potter and ihe S52 KPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX 20-28 vessels that he makes. Can you conceive (to use the words of the prophet Isaiah) the vessel saying to its maker : ' Why did you make me thus?' "The potter has complete control over the lump of clay with which he works, he can make of it one vessel for an honourable purpose, another for a dishonourable purpose. This exactly expresses the relation of man to his Maker. God has made man, made him from the dust of the earth. He has as absolute control over His creature as the potter has. No man before Him has any right, or can complain of injustice. He is absolutely in God's hands. "This is God's sovereignty; even if He had been arbitrary we could not complain. But what becomes of your talk of injustice when you consider how He has acted? Although a righteous God would desire to exhibit the Divine power and wrath in a world of sin ; even though He were dealing with those who were fit objects of His wrath and had become fitted for destruction ; yet He bore with them, full of long- suffering for them, ** and with the purpose of showing all the wealth of His glory on those who are vessels deserving His mercy, whom as we have already shown He has prepared even fi'om the beginning, '* a mercy all the greater when it is remembered that we whom He has called for these privileges are chosen not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles, Gentiles who were bound to Him by no covenant Surely then there has been no injustice but only mercy. *• And remember finally that this Divine plan of which you complain is just what the prophets foretold. They prophesied the calling of the Gentiles. Hosea (i. lo, and iL 23) described how those who were not within the covenant should be brought into it and called by the very name of the Jews under the old Covenant, ' the people of God,' ' the beloved of the Lord,' * the sons of the living God.' "And this wherever throughout the whole world they had been placed in the contemptuous position of being, as he expressed it, ' no people.' ^ Equally do we find the rejection of Israel — all but a remnant of it — foretold. Isaiah (x. a a) stated, ' Even though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the seashore, yet it is only a remnant that shall be saved, "• fw a. sharp and decisive sentence will the Lord execute upon the earth.' * And similarly in an earlier chapter (i. 9) he had foretold the com- UL 14, 16.] THE UNBEUEF OF ISRAEL 253 plete destruction of Israel with the exception of a small remnant - * Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.' 14-20. St Paul now states for the purpose of refutation a possible objection. He has just shown that God chooses men independently of their works according to His own free determina- tion, and the deduction is implied that He is free to choose or reject members of the chosen race. The objection which may be raised is, ' if what you say is true, God is unjust,' and the argument would probably be continued, ' we know God is not unjust, there- fore the principles laid down are not true.' In answer, St. Paul shows that they cannot be unjust or inconsistent with God's action, for they are exactly those which God has declared to be His in those very Scriptures on which the Jews with whom St Paul is arguing would especially rely. 14. Ti o8k ipoOiur; see on iii. 5, a very similar passage: «t de 9 adiKia fffinv 6cov ducauxrvvriv «rv»i(rTt)vt, ri tpovfitv', fi^ adiKos 6 Qt6i 6 (iTi, ovhi fx 6*\TjfiaToi (rapKoi, oiSf « deXrjfxaTos dvbpos, aXX' «cTai : ' why considering that it is God who hardens me does He still find fault?' Why does he first produce a position of disobedience to His will, and then blame me for falling into it ? The tn implies that a changed condition has been pro- duced which makes the continuation of the previous results sur- prising. So Rom. iii. 7 *' ^< ^ dXrjdtia roi Qtov iv r^ (/i«p ^nxTftari iTiffUOTtvatv fit nyp So^av avrov, ri tn Kayit its 6ftapra>k6t itpumiuUp Rom. vi. t omMc aurtdofoiup r^ iftaprifj wat m (^aofttp i» ovry ; IX. 10-21.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL »59 Tf In nifupmu i» read by TR. and RV. with K A K L P &c., Vnlg. Syrr. Bob. , and many Fathers. B D E F G, Orig.-lat. Hieron. insert oZv after tL ^owkrutan, which occurs in only two other passages in the N. T. (Acts xxvii. 43 ; i Pet iv. 3) seems to be substituted for the ordinary word BiKtfua as implying more definitely the deliberate purpose of God. dkd^oTTjKC Perfect with present sense; cf. Rom. xiii. a Sxrrt i avTvrawofUVOt ttj t^ovtriq rg rov Qtov biarayfi dv6e] (xXavo-cf ««•' aifT^ Xcyra dKovtiv iws rijs ^fxipat ravriji. li. xxix. 10 oTi TTfjTuTiKfv vfids Kvpios ■Bv*v nan Karavv^tais : cf. Is. vi. 9, to 0*05 oLKOvafTf Kcu oil fiij avvifTf nai ^Ktrrovrfs ^\€t//tT( Kal oil fii) tSijTf. . . Koi eiTTa "Ecur nurt, Kvptf ; While the form resembles the words in Deut., the historical situation and meanmg of the quotation are represented by the passages in Isaiah to which St. Paul is clearly referring. ■irfeujjia itoTavoleus : ' a spirit of torpor,' a state of dull insensi- bility to everything spiritual, such as would be produced by drunken- ness, or stupor. Is. xxix. 10 (RV.) ' For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, the prophets ; and your heads, the seers, hath He covered.' The word maToyv^u is derired from tcaravvaffofuu. The simple verb witam it used to mean to 'prick' or 'strike' or 'dint' TLe coir.pound XI. 8-10.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL $1$ verb wotM mean, (l) to 'strike* or 'prick violently,* and hence («) to ' stun ' ; no instance is quoted of it in its primary sense, but it is common (3) especially in the LXX of strong emotions, of the prickings of lust Susan. 10 (Theod.) ; of strong grief Gen. xxxiv. 7 ; Ecclus. xiv. i ; and so Acts ii. 37 KaTtvvyriacw rrj napSiq. of being strongly moved by speaking. Then (4) it is used of the stunning effect of such emotion which results in speechlessness : Is. vi. 5 A rdXat ifi) 5ti Kajavivv^fjun : Dan. x. 15 IScu/ta rd Tfp6ao)ir6v fiov M T^v T^c Kal icaT(viyr]v, and so the general idea of torpor would be derived. The noun Karaw^tt appears to occur only twice, Is. xxix. 10 wvfvfui Karavv^fois, Ps. lix [Ix]. 4 ohov Karavv^(aj%. In the former case it clearly means ' torpor ' or ' deep sleep,' as both the context and the Hebrew show, in the latter case probably so. It may be noticed that this definite meaning of ' torpor ' or * deep sleep ' which is found in the noun cannot be exactly paralleled in the verb ; and it may be suggested that a certain con- fiision existed with the verb vvaTa^o), which means 'to nod in sleep,' 'be drowsy,' just as the meaning of ipiOda was influenced by its resemblance to ipis (c£ ii. 8). On the word generally see Fri. ii. p. 558 ff. lus rfjs trqiiepov ^Jfi^pos: cf. Acts vii. 51 'Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did so do ye.' St Stephen's speech illustrates more in detail the logical assumptions which underlie St Paul's quotations. The chosen people have from the beginning shown the same obstinate adherence to their own views and a power of resisting the Holy Ghost ; and God has throughout punished them for their obstinacy by giving them over to spiritual blindness. 9. KOI AoPlS X^yti 11.T.X. : quoted from the LXX of Pb. Ixviii flxix]. 23, 34 yfVt}6r]To» ^ TpaTTffn avT&v ivmntov avT&v ds jrayt'Sa, Koi (It dyranoSoa-tv Ka\ iTKdvdaXov' *i, pfi TJTTr)|ia auTUK : ' their defeat.' From one point of view the unbelief of the Jews was a transgression (wapaTrTcD^ia), from another it was a defeat, for they were repulsed from the Messianic kingdom, since they had failed to obtain what they sought. llrnjiM occurs only twice elsewhere : in It. xxzi. 8 ot 9i vtarlffKoi laovrai (h f]TTT]/M, iriTpc^ ydp 7rtpi\i](p6r)(To>. But against these views may be urged two reasons, (i) the meaning of /iiv ovv. The usage at any rate in the N. T. is clearly laid down by Evans on i Cor. vi. 3 {Speaker's Comm. p. 285), ' the ovv may signify then or therefore only when the fiiv falls back upon the preceding word, because it is expectant of a coming bi or aTdp, otherwise, as is pointed out, the ^iv must coalesce with the olv, and the idea is either ' corrective and substi- tutive of a new thought, or confirmative of what has been stated and addititious.' Now if there is this second use of /xev oiv possible, unless the hi is clearly expressed the mind naturally would suggest it, especially in St. Paul's writings where yiiv ovv is generally so used : and as a matter of fact no instance is quoted in the N. T. where oZv in /lev oZv has its natin^al force in a case where it is not followed by bi (Heb. ix. i quoted by Winer does not apply, see Westcott ad loc). But (ii) further ovv is not the particle required ^ere. What St. Paul requires Is not an apology for referring to the Gentiles, but an apology to the Gentiles for devoting so much attention to the Jews. If these two points are admitted the argument becomes much clearer. St. Paul remembers that the majority of his readers are Gentiles ; he has come to a point where what he has to say touches them nearly ; he therefore shows paienthetically bow his love fof t s 3*4 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. U his countrymen, and his zeal in carrying out his mission to th« Gentiles, combine towards producing the same end. 'Do not think that what I am saying has nothing to do with you Gentiles. It makes me even more zealous in my work for you. That ministry of mine to the Gentiles I do honour to and exalt, seeking in this way if perchance I may be able to move my countrymen to jealousy' Then in ver. 15 he shows how this again reacts upon the general scheme of his ministry. ' And this I do, because their return to the Church will bring on that final consummation for which we all look forward.' 13. {i\uv 8e \4y(o k.t.X. The 8« expresses a slight contrast in thought, and the vfi'if is emphatic : ' But it is to you Gentiles I am speaking. Nay more, so far as I am an Apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry : if thus by any means,' &c. iQvC)v diroaxoXos : comp. Acts xxii. ai ; Gal. ii. 7, 9; i Tim. ii. 7. T^v SittKoi'iai' fiou Solaju. He may glorify his ministry, either (i) by his words and speech ; if he teaches everywhere the duty of preaching to the Gentiles he exalts that ministry : or (ii), perhaps better, by doing all in his power to make it successful: comp. « Cor. xii. 26 UTf 8o^a(eTai fifXos. This verse and the references to the Gentiles that follow seem to show conclusively that St. Paul expected the majority of his readers to be Gentiles. Comp. Hort, liom. and Eph, p. 22 'Though the Greek is ambiguous the context appears to me decisive for taking \)\jl'iv as the Church itself, and not as a part of it In all the long previous discussion bearing on the Jews, occupying nearly two and a half chapters, the Jews are invariably spoken of in the third person. In the half chapter that follows the Gentiles are constantly spoken of in the second person. Exposition has here passed into exhortation and warning, and the warning is exclusively addressed to Gentiles : to Christians who had once been Jews not a word is addressed.' The variations in reading in the particles which ocear in this verse suggest that considerable difficulties were felt in its inicrpretation. For h^ Si K A B P mmusc. patu., Syrr. Boh. Arm., Theodrt. itd. Jo.-Damasc ; we find in C vfuy oiu ; while the TR with D E F G L Sec Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. has v/uv ydp. Again /iiv oZv is read by M A B C P, Boh., Cyr.-AL Jo.-Damasc. ; fifv only by TR with L Sec, Orig.-lat Chrys. &c (so Meyer) ; while the Western group D E F G and some minuscules omit both. It may be noticed in the Epp. of St. Pan! that wherever >iir oSf or fta^mm yt occur there is considerable variation in the reading. Kom. ix. ao : luvovvyf K A K L P ftc, Syrr. Boh. ; #Ur «Sr B ; onit al- together D F G. X. 18: ntvovvff om. FGd, Orig.-lat I Cor. vi. 4 : ^h' oCv most authorities ; F G ym/f. vi. 7 : fiiv owi' A B C &c. ; fiiv HT> Boh. I Phil. iii. 8: ^Jr o5v BD EFGKL &c. ; Mo-oCi^f K A P Boh. The Western MSS. as a mle avoid the expressioo, while B is consistent b preferring it XI. 14, 15.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL $2^ 14. cZ -irws irapa(T]X«So'w. «t tras is used here interrogatively with the aorist subjunctive (cp. Phil. iii. lo, ii). The grammarians explain the expression by saying that we are to understand with it a-Koir&v. ft wms occuTS Acts xxvii. 12 with the optative, Rom. i. lo with the future. 15 The two previous verses have been to a certain extent parenthetical ; in this verse the Apostle continues the argument of ver. I a, repeating in a stronger form what he has there said, but in such a way as to explain the statement made in w. 13, 14, that by thus caring for his fellow-countrymen he is fulfilling his mission to the Gentile world. The casting away of the Jews has meant the reconciliation of the world to Christ. Henceforth there is no more a great wall of partition separating Gk)d's people from the rest of the world. This is the first step in the founding of the Messianic kingdom ; but when all the people of Israel shall have come in there will be the final consummation of all things, and this means the realization of the hope which the reconciliation of the world has made possible. d-iroPoXi^ : the rejection of the Jews for their faithlessness. The meaning of the word is defined by the contrasted np6&krp\tK. KaraXXayfi K6(r|i,ou : cf. w. 10, 11. The reconciliation was the immediate result of St. Paul's ministry, which he describes elsewhere (2 Cor. V. 18, 19) as a ministry of reconciliation ; its final result, the hope to which it looks forward, is salvation [KaTaKkayivrts vmBrjtToufda) : the realization of this hope is what every Gentile must long for, and therefore whatever will lead to its fulfilment must be part of St. Paul's ministry. irp(S(rXT]t|ns : the reception of the Jews into the kingdom of the Messiah. The noun is not used elsewhere in the N. T., but the meaning is shown by the parallel use of the verb (cf. xiv. 3 ; xv. 7). lu^ Ik i^cKpuK. The meaning of this phrase must be determined by that of (taraXXoy^ Koafiov. The argument demands something much stronger than that, which may be a climax to the section. It may either be (i) used in a figurative sense, cf. Ezek. xxxvii. 3 fF.; Luke XV. 24, 32 6 aSeAc^ds aov ovtos vtKpos t)v, koi (Crjat' Kal dnoXwXws, xaii fvptdr}. In this sense it would mean the universal diffusion of the Gospel message and a great awakening of spiritual life as the result of it. Or (2), it may mean the 'general Resurrection' as a sign of the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom. In this sense it would make a suitable antithesis to (faraXXayij. The recon- ciliation of the heathen and their reception into the Church on earth was the first step in a process which led ultimately to their troynfpia. It gave them grounds for hoping for that which they should enjoy in the final consummation. And this consummation would come when the kingdom was completed. In all contempo- rary Jewish literature the Resurrection (whether partial or general) 526 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 16-2^ is a sig^n of the inauguration of the new era. Schttrer, Geschichie, Ac. ii. p. 460 ; Jubilees xxiii. 29 ' And at that time the Lord will heal his servants, and they will arise and will see great peace and will cast out their enemies; and the just shall see it and be thankful and rejoice in joy to all eternity.' Enoch li. i (p. 139 ed. Charles) ' And in those days will the earth also give back those who are treasured up within it, and She61 also will give back that which it has received, and hell will give back that which it owes. And he will choose the righteous and holy from among them : for the day of their redemption has drawn nigh.' As in the latter part of this chapter St Paul seems to be largely influenced by the language and forms of the current eschatology, it is very probable that the second interpretation is the more correct; cf. Origen viii. 9, p. 257 Tunc entm erit assumito Israel, quando iam el mortui vilam recipient el mundus ex corruptibili incorruptibilis fiel, et morialts immorlalilate donabuntur; and see below ver. 26. 16. St. Paul gives in this verse the grounds of his confidence in the future of Israel. This is based upon the holiness of the Patriarchs from whom they are descended and the consecration to God which has been the result of this holiness. His argument is expressed in two different metaphors, both of which however have the same purpose. diropx^ . . . 4'"P«t"*« The metaphor in the first part of the verse is taken from Num. xv. 19, 20 'It shall be, that when ye eat of the bread of the land, ye shall offer up an heave offering unto the Lord. Of the first of your dough {airapxiiv (pvpdfiaros LXX) ye shall offer up a cake for an heave offering : as ye do the heave offering of the threshing floor, so shall ye heave it.' By the offering of the first-fruits, the whole mass was considered to be consecrated ; and so the holiness of the Patriarchs consecrated the whole people from whom they came. That the meaning of the dnapxri is the Patriarchs (and not Christ or the select remnant) is shown by the parallelism with the second half of the verse, and by the explanation of St. Paul's argument given in ver. 28 dyanriToi 3ta tovs nartpas, dyia : ' consecrated to God as the holy nation ' in the technical sense of ayios, cf. i. 7. pi(a . . . icXdSoi. The same idea expressed under a diflFerent image. Israel the Divine nation is looked upon as a tree; its roots are the Patriarchs; individual Israelites are the branches. As then the Patriarchs are holy, so are the Israelites who belong to the stock of the tree, and are nourished by the sap which flows up to them from those roots. 17-24. The metaphor used in the second part of ver. 16 suggests an image which the Apostle developes somewhat elaborately. The image of an olive tree to describe Israel is taken from the Prophets ; Jeremiah xi. 16 ' The Lord called thy name, A green olive bee. XI. 17-24.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 3*7 fair with goodly fruit : with the noise of a great tumult He hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken ' ; Hosea xiv. 6 ' His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon.' Similar is the image of the vine in Is. V. 7 ; Ps. Ixxx. 8 ; and (of the Christian Chi"-'^h^ in John XV. I ff. The main points in this simile are the following : — The olive = the Church of God, looked at as one continuous body; the Christian Church being the inheritor of the privileges of the Jewish Church. The root or stock {piC<^) = that stock from which Jews and Christians both alike receive their nourishment and strength, viz. the Patriarchs, for whose faith originally Israel was chosen (cf. w. 28, 29). The branches (oJ /fXaSot) are the individual members of the Church who derive their nourishment and virtue from the Btock or body to which they belong. These are of two kinds: The original branches ; these represent the Jews. Some have been cut off from their want of faith, and no longer derive any nourishment from the stock. The branches of the wild olive which have been grafted in. These are the Gentile Christians, who, by being so grafted in, have come to partake of the richness and virtue of the olive stem. From this simile St. Paul draws two lessons, (i) The first is to a certain extent incidental. It is a warning to the heathen against undue exaltation and arrogance. By an entirely unnatural process they have been grafted into the tree. Any virtue that they may have comes by no merit of their own, but by the virtue of the stock to which they belong ; and moreover at any moment they may be cut oflf. It will be a less violent process to cut off branches not in any way belonging to the tree, than it was to cm off the original branches. But {2) — and this is the more im- portant result to be gained from the simile, as it is summed up in ver. 24 — if God has had the power against all nature to graft in branches from a wild olive and enable them to bear fruit, how much more easily will He be able to restore to their original place the branches which have been cut oflf. St. Paul thus deduces from his simile consolation for Israel, but incidentally also a warning to the Gentile members of the Church — a warning made necessary by the great importance ascribed to them in ver. 1 1 f. Israel had been rejected for their sake. 17. Tivi^: a meiosis. Cf. iii. 3 rt yap tl t]Tri(TTricrdv Tivfs', Tti/ft 8« tint, napaftvOovfjitvot avrovs, «»c woKkdias tlpifKOfUP, iwti vsXX^ irXctovt d amarria-iunts. £uthym.-Zig. 5«8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 17, 18. ii€K\da9i\vdSas ftfvovaat Km ffKourrovtrat roC iivbpov fKKonfVTos. dypiAaios : ' the wild olive.* The olive, like the apple and most other fruit trees, requires to have a graft from a cultivated tree, otherwise the fruit of the seedling or sucker will be small and valueless. The ungrafted tree is the natural or wild olive. It is often confused with the oleaster {Eleagnus angusft/olius), but quite incorrectly, this being a plant of a different natural order, which however like the olive yields oil, although of an inferior character. See Tristram, Natural Hist, of the Bible, pp. 371-377. payi(((r6ai ; SO in Ign. Ephes. la TLavkav avfifjivaTai. But whereas among the heathen fivcrrfjpiov was always used of a mystery concealed, with St. Paul it is a mystery revealed. It is his mission to make known the Word of God, the mystery which has been kept silent from eternal ages, but has now been revealed to mankind (i Cor. ii. 7 ; Eph. iii. 3, 4 ; Rom. xvi. 25). This mystery, which has been declared in Christianity, is the eternal purpose of God to redeem mankind in Christ, and all that is im- plied in that. Hence it is used of the Incarnation (i Tim. iii. 16), of the crucifixion of Christ (i Cor. ii. i, 7), of the Divine purpose to sum up all things in Him (Eph. i. 9), and especially of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom (Eph. iii. 3, 4; Col. i. 26, 27 ; Rom. xvi. a5). Here it is used in a wide sense of the whole plan or scheme of redemption as revealed to St. Paul, by which Jews and Gentiles alike are to be included in the Divine Kingdom, and all things are working up, although in ways unseen and unknown, to that end. Ika pf) ^Tc irap* jaurois ^p6¥i\un : ' that you may not be wise in your own conceits,' i. c. by imagining that it is in any way through your own merit that you have accepted what others have refused : it has been part of the eternal purpose of God. ir lavToTi ought probably to be read with A B, Jo.-Damasc initead of «ap' tavroU K C D L &c., Chrys. &c., as the latter would probably be intrainced from xii. 16. Both expressioni occur In the LXX. Ii. v. ai ol owtroi tr iavraStf ProT. iii. 7 ^^ iaOi (ppovifiOi wapd atavr^. irtSpuxns 11.T.X.: * a hardening m part' (cf. »V p*povs i Cor. xii. a 7^ St. Paul asserts once more what he has constantly insisted on throughout this chapter, that this fall of the Jews is only partial XI. 25, 26.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 335 (cf. w. 5, 7, 17), but here he definitely adds a point to which he has been working up in the previous section, that it is only tem- porary and that the limitation in time is 'until all nations of the earth come into the kingdom'; cf. Luke xxi. 34 'and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.' rh vXi^pufia twc ^Oi'wi' : the full completed number, the comple- ment of the Gentiles, L e. the Gentile world as a whole, just as in ver. la Ti rrXrjpafia is the Jewish nation as a whole. There was a Jewish basis to these specnlations on the completed niunber. A/0£. Baruch xxiii. 4 quia quando petcavit Adam tt dtcreta juit mors contra e»t qui gignerentur, tunc nnmerata est multitado eomtn qui gignerentur, tt numero illi praeparatus tst lotus ubi hahitarent viventts it ubi eusto- dirtntur mortui, nisi ergo compleattir numerus praedictus tion vivet creatura ... 4(6) Ezra ii. 40, 41 (where Jewish ideas underlie a Christian work) rtcipe, Sion, numemm taum et conclude candidatos tuos, qui legem Domini compleverunt : Jiliorum tuorum, quos optabas, plenns est numerus : roga imperium Domini ut scMctificetur populus tuus qui vocatus est ai initio. cla^XOT) was used almost technically of entering into the Kingdom or the Divine glory or life (cf. Matt. vii. 2 1 ; xviii. 8 ; Mark ix. 43-47.), and so came to be used absolutely in the same sense (Matt. vii. 13; xxiii. 13; Luke xiii. 24). 26. Kol ouTu : ' and so/ i. e. by the whole Gentile world coming mto the kingdom and thus rousing the Jews to jealousy, cf. ver. 1 1 f. These words ought to form a new sentence and not be joined with the preceding, for the following reasons: (i) the reference of ovrm is to the sentence axptt ot k.tX. We must not therefore make ovr* . , . o-od^o-erat coordinate with irmpttxrit . . . yiyovtv and subordinate to on, for if we did so ouro» would be explained by the sentence with which it is coordinated, and this is clearly not St. Paul's meaning. He does not mean that Israel will be saved because it is hardened, (a) The sentence, by being made in- dependent, acquires much greater emphasis and force. irfis 'lapaiiX. In what sense are these words used? (i) The whole context shows clearly that it is the actual Israel of history that is referred to. This is quite clear from the contrast with tA ukiipafm tS)v i6va)v in ver. 2$, the use of the term Israel in the same verse, and the drift of the argument in w. 17-24. It cannot be interpreted either of the spiritual Israel, as by Calvin, or the remnant according to the election of grace, or such Jews as believe, or all who to the end of the world shall turn unto the Lord. (a) iras must be taken in the proper meaning of the word: ' Israel as a whole, Israel as a nation,' and not as necessarily in- cluding every individual Israelite. Cf. i Kings xii. i km «fir« SafiovijX itpos wdvra 'icrpaijX : 2 Chron. xii. I iyKOTtkint rhs tvrohhi Ykvpiov Koi was 'lo-paijX /ler* avrov : Dan. ix. 1 1 Koi vas ^IcrpcajK wapi^trqf ritp tt^Mv (Tov Kot i^kXuKW rov u^ axovaau Trjs 0mi>qc vov. 33^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 26, 27. ffuO^orcTOi : ' shall attain the (rmrnpia of the Messianic age bj being received into the Cliristian Church': the Jewish conception of the Messianic o-wn^/jta being fulfilled by the spiritual (rmrrjpia of Christianity. Cf. x. 13. So the words of St. Paul mean simply this. The people of Israel as a nation, and no longer ano fifpow, shall be united with the Christian Church. They do not mean that every Israelite shall finally be saved. Of final salvation St. Paul is not now thinking, nor of God's dealings with individuals, nor does he ask about those who are already dead, or who will die before this salvation o( Israel is attained. He is simply considering God's dealings with the nation as a whole. As elsewhere throughout these chapters, St. Paul is dealing with peoples and classes of men. He looks forward in prophetic vision to a time when the whole earth, including the kingdoms of the Gentiles (t6 n-Xi^pw^a tS)v i6vS>v) and the people of Israel inas 'lapaifk), shall be united in the Church of God. 26, 27. Ko6us yfypoTrroi, The quotation is taken from the LXX of Is. lix. 20, the concluding words being added from Is. xxvii. 9, The quotation is free : the only important change, how- ever, is the substitution of (k Stwi/ for the fvtKtv Sjwi^ of the LXX. The Hebrew reads ' and a Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.' The variation apparently comes from Ps. xiii. 7, lii. 7 (LXX) Wt fia,(Tti tx liitu t6 iTwr-qpiov Tov laparjK ; The passage occurs in the later portion of Isaiah, just where the Prophet dwells most fully on the high spiritual destinies of Israel ; and its application to the Messianic kingdom is in accordance with the spirit of the original and with Rabbinic interpretation. St. Paul uses the words to imply that the Redeemer, who is represented by the Prophets as coming from Zion, and is therefore conceived by him as realized in Christ, will in the end redeem the whole of Israel. The passage, as quoted, implies the complete purification of Israel from their iniquity by the Redeemer and the forgiveness of their sins by God. In these speculations St. Paul was probably strongly influenced, at any rate as to their form, by Jewish thought. The Rabbis con- nected these passages with the Messiah : cf. Tract. Sanhedrin, f. 98. I * R. Jochanan said: When thou shalt see the time in which many troubles shall come like a river upon Israel, then expect the Messiah himself as says Is. lix. 19.' Moreover a universal restora- tion of Israel was part of the current Jewish expectation. All Israel should be collected together. There was to be a kingdom in Palestine, and in order that Israel as a whole might share in this there was to be a general resurrection. Nor was the belief in the coming in of ^e fulr^ess of the Gentiles without parallel XI. 26-29.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 33; Although later Judaism entirely denied all hope to the Gentiles, much of the Judaism of St. Paul's day stiU maintained the O. T. belief (Is. xiv. 2; Ixvi. 12, 19-21; Dan. ii. 44; vii. 14, 27). So Enoch xc. 33 ' And all that had been destroyed and dispersed and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the heaven assembled in that house, and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced with great joy because they were all good and had returned to his house.' Orac. Sibyll. iii. 710 f. kcX rort ifj vrjiroi naa-ai noKus r fpiovariv . . . dfvrt, nttrovrts iiravrtt f?rt x^""* Xto-ffi/iecr^a dddvarov ^acrtX^a, 6e6v fityav dfvaov Tt. Ps. Sol. xvii. 33-35 * And he shall purge Jerusalem and make it holy, even as it was in the days of old, so that the nations may come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, bringing as gifts her sons that had fainted, and may see the glory of the Lord, wherewith God hath glorified her.' The centre of this kingdom will be Jerusalem (compare the extract given above), and it is perhaps influenced by these conceptions that St. Paul in ix. 26 inserts the word ' there ' and here reads «'« Stwv. If this be so, it shows how, although using so much of the forms and language of current conceptions, he has spiritualized just as he has broadened them. Gal. iv. 26 shows that he is thinking of a Jerusalem which is above, very different from the purified earthly Jerusalem of the Rabbis; and this enables us to see how here also a spiritual conception underlies much of his language. 6 ^u'os : Jesus as the Messiah. Cf. i Thess. i. 10. 27. ical ooTTj K.T.X. : ' and whensoever I forgive their sins then shall my side of the covenant I have made with them be fulfilled.' 28. KarA ^iv to iuay^ikvov : 'as regards the Gospel order, the principles by which God sends the Gospel into the world.' This verse sums up the argument of w. 11-24. ^X^poi : treated by God as enemies and therefore shut oflf from Him. 81* fljAas : ' for your sake, in order that you by their exclusion may be brought into the Messianic Kingdom.' kotA 8i T^K IkXoyti»' : ' as regards the principle of election : ' ' because they are the chosen race.' That this is the meaning is shown by the fact that the word is parallel to tiayyiXiov. It cannot mean here, as in w. 5, 6, ' as regards the elect,' i. e. the select remnant. It gives the grounds upon which the chosen people were beloved. With dyainiTOi, cf. ix. 25; the quotation there probably suggested the word. 8id ToOs iroWpos : cf. ix. 4 ; xi. 16 f. : ' for the sake of the Patri- archs ' from whom the Israelites have sprung and who were well- pleasing to God. 29. St. Paul gives the reason for believing that God will not desert the people whom He has called, and chosen, and on whom He has showered His Divine blessings. It lies in the unchangeable .^3^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 29-8%. nature of God : He does not repent Him of the choice that He hai made. d|jieTajjiAi(|To : a Cor. vii. lo. The Divine gifts, such as have been enumerated in ix. 4, 5, and such as God has showered upon the Jews, bear the impress of the Giver. As He is not one who will ever do that for which He will afterwards feel compunction. His feelings of mercy towards the Jews will never change. ^1 KXfjais : the calling to the Kingdom. 80. The grounds for believing that God does not repent for the gifts that He has given may be gathered from the parallelism between the two cases of the Jews and the Gentiles, in one of which His purpose has been completed, in the other not so. The Gentile converts were disobedient once, as St. Paul has described at length in the first chapter, but yet God has now shown pity on them, and to accomplish this He has taken occasion from the disobedience of the Jews : the same purpose and the same plan of providence may be seen also in the case of the Jews. God's plan is to make dis- obedience an opportunity of showing mercy. The disobedience of the Jews, like that of the Gentiles, had for its result the manifesta tion of the mercy of God. The ufxets shows that this verse is written, as is all this chapter with the thought of Gentile readers prominently before the writer's mind. 8L Tw 6}i.tTipif i\iu : ' by that same mercy which was shown to you.' If the Jews had remained true to their covenant God would have been able on His side merely to exhibit fidelity to the covenant. As they have however been disobedient, they equally with the Gentiles are recipients of tne Divine mercy. These words ru viuTtptf (Xc» go with t\€T)6oi(ri, d. Gal. ii. 10; a Cor. xiL 7, as ia shown by the parallelism of the two clauses This parallelism of the clauses may account for the presence of the second tniv with «'X*ij^w(rt, which should be read with N B D, Boh., Jo. Damasc. It was omitted by Syrian and some Western authorities (A E F G, &c. Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. rell.) because it seemed hardly to harmonize with facts. The authorities for it are too varied for it to be an accidental insertion arising from a repetition of the previous pvv. 82. St. Paul now generalizes from these instances the character ol God's plan, and concludes his argument with a maxim which solves the riddle of the Divine action. There is a Divine purpose in the sin of mankind described in i. iS-iiL ao; there is a DfrsM XI. 82, 83.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 339 purpose in the faithlessness of the Jews. The object of both alike is to give occasion for the exhibition of the Divine mercy. If God has shut men up in sin it is only that He may have an oppor- tunity of showing His compassion. So in Gal. iii. a a aikXa trvv- ikKtiaev ^ ypaf^h ^^ ir^vra tnro anapriav, tva ^ inayytXia tK iritrrtat Irftrov Xpurrov do^g rols vurrtvovai, the result of sin is represented as being to give the occasion for the fulfilment of the promise and the mission of the Messiah. All God's dealings with the race are in accordance with His final purpose. However harsh they may seem, when we contemplate the final end we can only burst forth into thankfulness to God. vwiKktKQt Ydp h 6cos : cf. L 14 f., and see below, p. 347. auK^KXciffc : Ps, Ixxviii [Ixxvii]. 6a 'He gave his people over unto the sword (awiKkuvtv tls pofiv and was 'lo-pa^X. All the classes mto which the world may be divided, Jew and Gentile alike, will be admitted into the Messianic Kingdom or God's Church. The reference is not here any more than elsewhere to the final salvation of every individual. 88. St. Paul has concluded his argument He has vindicated the Divine justice and mercy. He has shown how even the reign of sin leads to a beneficent result. And now, carried away by the contrast between the apparent injustice and the real justice of God, having demonstrated that it is our knowledge and not His goodness that is at fault when we criticize Him, he bursts forth in a great ascription of praise to Him, declaring the unfathomable character of His wisdom. We may notice that this description of the Divine wisdom re- presents not so much the conclusion of the argument as the assump- tion that underlies it. It is because we believe in the infinite character of the Divine power and love that we are able to argue that if in one case unexpectedly and wonderfully His action has been justified, therefore in other cases we may await the result, resting in confidence on His wisdom. Marcion't text, which had omitted eyoything between z. 5 end zL 34 (tee on ch. x) here resumes. Tert. quotes w. 33, 33 as follows: t profundum divitiantm tt tapientiat Dti, «t imnotstigabiUi via4 eius, omitting icaL •fvdiaton and iis Mx^tptvvrjTa rd Kpi/iara ainov, Tlxen follow tt. 34, 35 without any Tariation. On ver. 36 we Icnow nothing. See Zahn, p. 518. PdOos: 'inexhaustible wealth.' Cf. Prov. xviiL 3 ^ados naKStv, troubles to which there is no bottom. The three genitives that follow are probably coordinate ; vXovrov means the wealth of the Divine grace, cf. z. la ; o-o(^ias and yvnattas are to be distinguished as meaning the former, a broad and comprehensive survey of things 1 • 340 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 88-86, in their special relations, what we call Philosophy ; the latter aa intuitive penetrating perception of particular truths (see Lft. on Col. i. 9). dvelepeuinrjTo : Prov. xxv. 3, Sym. ; and perhaps Jer. JiviL 9, Sym. (Field, Hexapla, ii. 617), 'unsearchable'; Kpi|AaTa, not judicial de- cisions, but judgements on the ways and plans of life. Cf. Ecclus. XVll. I 2 BiadijKTjv al&vot ftrnjan* ft«T avrav, Koi ri xplfiara ovrov irridti^ avToiii. Ave^ixylatrroi : ' that cannot be traced out/ Eph. iil 8 ; Job v. 9 ; be. 10 ; xxxiv. 24. This passage seems to have influenced i Clem. Rom. XX. 5 d^vacrav rt avt^ixviavra .... 0VPf](tTat npnarayfiaariv, 84. Tis Y^P ^V'* K.T.X. This is taken from Is. xl. 13, varying only very slightly from the LXX. It is quoted also i Cor. ii. 16. 85. f{ Tis Trpoe'SwKiK auTu. (cal drrairoSodi^veTai aurw; taken from Job xli. 1 1, but not the LXX, which reads (ver. a) tU dvrttrr^o-crai ^i km vrronivfi ; The Hebrew (RV.) reads, ' Who hath first given unto me that I should repay him ? ' It is interesting to notice that the onlj other quotation in St. Paul which varies very considerably from the LXX is also taken from the book of Job (i Cor. iii. 19, cf. Job v. 13), seep. 30a. This verse corresponds to i> ^ddos nXovrov. 'So rich are the spiritual gifts of God, that none can make any return, and He needs no recompense for what He gives.' 86. God needs no recompense, for all things that are exist in Him, all things come to man through Him, and to Him all return. He is the source, the agent, and the final goal of all created things and all spiritual life. Many commentators have attempted to find in these words a reference to the work of the diflferent persons of the Trinity (see esp. Liddon, who restates the ajgument in the most successful form). But (i) the prepositions do not suit this interpretation : 81* auTou indeed expresses the attributes of the Son, but els ootiJi' can not naturally or even possibly be used of the Spirit (2) The whole argument refers to a different line of thought. It is the relation of the Godhead as a whole to the universe and to created things. God (not necessarily th« ^ather) is the source and inspirer and goal of all inings. This fundamental assumption of the infinite character of the Divine wisdom was one which St. Paul would necessarily inherit from Judaism. It is expressed most clearly and definitely in writings produced immediately after the fall of Jerusnlem, when the pious Jew who still preserved a belief in the Divine favour towards Israel could find no hope or solution of the problem but in a tenacious adherence to what he could hold only by faith, God's ways are deeper and more wonderful than man could ever understand or fathom : only this was certain — that there was a Divine purpose of love towards Israel which would be shown in God's own time. There are many resemblances to St. Paul, not only in thought but in expression. j4/>oc. Baruck xiv. 8, 9 Sed quis, Dominator Domine, assequetur iudicium tuum f mut quis inveitigabit profundutn via* tutu ? aui quu supptitaUt gratntaUm IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 34I ftmiiat tumtt aut quis foterit cogitart coiuiUum tuum incomprehensibiUi ant quit unquam tx natis inveniet principium autfintm iapientiae tuae ? . .. zx. 4 tt tunc ostendam tibi iudicium virtutis meat, »t vias [in]tnvesttgabila . . . xxi. 10 tu tuim solus $s vivtns immortalis »t [in utvestigabilis et nunurum hominum nosti . . . liv. la, 13 eequis enim assimilabitur in mira- hilibus tuis, Deus, aut quis comprehtndet cogitationem tuam profundam vitae t Quia tu tonsilio tuc gubtmas omnes creaturas quas creavii dextera iua, et tu omnemfontcm lucis apud t$ tonstituisti, *t thesaurum sapientiat subtus throHum tuum praeparasti . . . Ixxr quis assimilabitur, Domine, boni- tati tuast est enim incomprehensibilis. Aut quis scrutabitur miseratients tuas, quae sunt infinitat ? aut quis comprehendet intelligentiam tuam ? aut quis poterit consonart cogitationts mentis tuae ? 4 Ezra v. 34 torqutnt me rents mei per tmnem horam quatrentem apprehendere semitam Altissimi et investigate partem iudicii tius. et dixit ad me Non poles . . . \o et dixit ad AM Quomodo non potes facere unum de his quae dicta sunt, sic non poteris imemre iudicium meum autfiuem caritatis quam popule promisi t Tki Argument of Romans IX-XI. In the summary that has been given (pp. 269-275) of the various opinions which have been held concerning the theology of this section, and especially of ch. ix, it will have been noticed that almost all commentators, although they differed to an extraordinary degree in the teaching which they thought they had derived from •:he passage, agreed in this, that they assumed that St. Paul was primarily concerned with the questions that were exercising their own minds, as to the conditions under which grace is given to man. and the relation of the human life to the Divine will. Throughom the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a small number of com- mentators are distinguished from the general tendency by laying stress on the fact that both in the ninth and in the eleventh chapter, it is not the lot of the individual that is being considered, nor eternal salvation, but that the object of the Apostle is to explain the rejection of the Jews as a nation ; that he is therefore dealing with nations, not individuals, and with admission to the Christian Church as representing the Messianic o-tonypt'a and not directly with the future state of mankind. This view is very ably represented by the English philosopher Locke ; it is put forward in a treatise which has been already referred to by Beyschlag (p. 275) and forms the basis of the exposition of the Swiss commentator Oltramare, who puts the position very shortly when he says that St. Paul is speaking not of the scheme of election or of election in itself, but * of God's plan for the salvation of mankind, a plan which proceeded on the principle of election.' It is true that commentators who have adopted this view (in particular Beyschlag) have pressed it too far, and have used it to explain or explain away passages to which it will not apply ; but it undoubtedly represents the main lines of the Apostle's argument and his purpo»<^ throughout these chapters. In order to estimate S4t EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX-XI his point of view our ftarting-point must be the conclusion h« arrives at. This, as expressed at the end of ch. xi, is that God wishes to show His mercy upon all alike ; that the world as a whole, the fulness of the Gentiles and all Israel, will come into the Messianic Kingdom and be saved ; that the realization of this end is a mystery which has now been revealed, and that all this shows the greatness of the Divine wisdom ; a wisdom which is guiding all things to their final consummation by methods and in ways which we can only partially follow. The question at issue which leads St Paul to assert the Divine purpose is the fact which at this lime had become apparent ; Israel as a nation was rejected from the Christian Church. If faith in the Messiah was to be the condition of salvation, then the mass erf the Jews were clearly excluded. The earlier stages of the argu- ment have been sufficiently explained. Sl Paul first proves (ix. 6-29) that in this rejection God had been neither untrue to His promise nor unjust. He then proves (ix. 30-x. 13) that the Israelites were themselves guilty, for they had rejected the Messiah, although they had had full and complete knowledge of His message, and full warning. But yet there is a third aspect from which the rejection of Israel may be regarded — that of the Divine purpose. What has been the result of this rejection of Israel? It has led to the calling of the Gentiles, — this is an historical fact, and guided by it we can see somewhat further into the future. Here is a case where St. Paul can remember how different had been the result of his own failure from what he had expected. He can appeal to his own experience. There was a day, still vividly before his mind, when in the Pisidian Antioch, full of bitterness and a sense of defeat, he had uttered those memorable words ' from henceforth we will go to the Gentiles.' This had seemed at the moment a con- fession that his work was not being accomplished. Now he can see the Divine purpose fulfilled in the creation of the great Gentile churches, and arguing from his own experience in this one case, where God's purpose has been signally vindicated, he looks forward into the future and believes that, by ways other than we can follow, God is working out that eternal purpose which is part of the revelation he has to announce, the reconciliation of the world to Himself in Christ. He concludes therefore with this ascription of praise to God for His wisdom and mercy, emphasizing the belief which is at once the conclusion and the logicail basis of kii argument St. PauVs Philosophy 0f History. The argument then of this section of the Epistle it not % dis* cuftsion of the principles on which grace is given to mankind, but a philosophy of History. In tlv; short concluding doxology te IX-ZI.] MERCY TO ALL GODS ULTIMATE PURPOSE 343 the Epistle — a conclusion which sums up the thought which underlies so much of the previous argument — St. Paul speaks of the mystery which has been kept silent in eternal times, but is now revealed, ' the Counsel,' as Dr. Hort (in Lft. Biblical Essays, p. 335) expresses it, ' of the far-seeing God, the Ruler of ages or periods, by which the mystery kept secret from ancient times is laid open in the Gospel for the knowledge and faith of all nations.' So again in Eph. i. 4-1 1 he speaks of the foreknowledge and plan which God had before the foundation of the world ; a plan which has now been revealed: the manifestation of His goodness to all the nations of the world. St. Paul therefore sees a plan or purpose in history ; in fact he has a philosophy of History. The characteristics of this theory we propose shortly to sum up. (i) From Rom. v. la flF. we gather that St. Paul divides history into three periods represented typically by Adam, Moses, Christ, excluding the period before the Fall, which may be taken to typify an ideal rather than to describe an actual historical period. Of these the first period represents a state not of innocence but of ignorance. ' Until the Law, i. e. from Adam to Moses, sin was in the world ; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.' It is a period which might be represented to us by the most degraded savage tribes. If sin represents failure to attain an ideal, they are sinful ; but if sin represents guilt, they cannot be condemned, or at any rate only to a very slight degree and extent. Now if God deals with men in such a condition, how does He do so ? The answer is, by the Revelation of Law; in the case of the Jewish people, by the Revelation of the Mosaic Law. Now this revelation of Law, with the accompanying and implied idea of judgement, has fulfilled certain functions. It has in the first place convicted man of sin ; it has shown him the inadequacy of his life and conduct. ' For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shall not lust' It has taught him the diflference between right and wrong, and made him feel the desire for a higher life. And so, secondly, it has been the schoolmaster leading men to Christ. It has been the method by which mankind has been disciplined, by which they have been gradually prepared and educated. And thirdly. Law has taught men their weakness. The ideal is there , the desire to attain it is there ; a struggle to attain it begins, and that struggle convinces us of our own weakness and of the power of sin over us. We not only learn a need for higher ideals ; we learn also the need we have for a more powerful helper. This is the discipline of Law, and it prepares the way for the higher and fuller revelation of the Gospel. These three stages are represented for us typically, and most clearly in the history pL0vs rt (KeXtvarty inra Sflpaadat Tov ^aaiXea, Koi Toaovrovs ravpovs Kai koiovs irapa(rrfjvai. The WOrd means to ' place beside,' * present ' for any purpose, and so is used of the presentation of Christ in the temple (Luke ii. 22), of St. Paul presenting his converts (Col. i. 28), or Christ presenting His Church (Eph. v. 27), or of the Christian himself (cf. Rom. vi. 13 ff.). In all these instances the idea of ' offering ' (which is one part of sacrifice) is present. T& atSfiara ifiwr. To be taken literally, like ra fiiXfi vfi&p in tL 13, as is shown by the contrast with tov vo6i in ver. a. ' Just as the sacrifice in all ancient religions must be clean and without blemish, so we must offer bodies to God which are holy and free from the stains of passion.' Christianity does not condemn the body, but demands that the body shall be purified and be united with Christ. Our members are to be oTrXa iiKaioa-vvris r^ e*y (vi. 13) ; our bodies {ra troifiaTa) are to be n«\r] Xpurrov (i Cor. vi. 1 5); they are the temple of the Holy Spirit (;'3. ver. 19); we are to be pure both in body and in spirit {tb. vii. 34). There it tome doubt as to the order of the wordi tvApttrrw r^ 6«^. They occur in this order in K'BDEFGLand later MSS., Syir. Boh. Sah., and Fathers; tw 0tM ti. in KAP, Vulg. The former is the more usual expression, but St. Paul may have written ry ©«y tv. to prevent ambiguity, for if Tq> 8(f) comes at the end of the sentence there is aome doubt as to whether it should not be taken with itapaarrjaai. Guo'ioi' IficKxv : cf. vi. 1 3 irapauTTjaaT* tavrovs rto &f^, «>fpovv Phil. ii. 17 J oafjLTi evaStar (Lev. i. 9) Phil. iv. 18; ocr/i^ 8 Cor. ii. 14, 16; Xfe- Tovpy6s, Upovpyovvra, 7rpotr(popd Rom. XV. 16. This language passed gradually and almost imperceptibly into liturgical use, and hence acquired new shades of meaning (see esp. Lightfoot, Clement, L p. 386 sq.). There is • preponderance of eridence in faronr of the imperatives (avaxt- ftari^taOi, (UTap-ofxpovaOi) in this verse, B L P all the versions (Latt. Boh. Syrr.), and most Fathers, against AD F G (X varies 1. The evidence of the Versions and of the Fathers, some of whom paraphrase, is particolarly important, as it removes the suspicion of itacism. 2. auorxTifiaTiteffOc . . . |jicTa|xop<|>oGa9e, ' Do not adopt the external and fleeting fashion of this world, but be ye transformed in your inmost nature.' On the distinction of trxnyM and popf^ii preserved in these compounds see Lightfoot, Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, vol. iii. 1857, p. \\\,Philipptans, p. 125. Comp. Chrys. ad loc, * He says not change the fashion, but be transformed, to show that the world's ways are a fashion, but virtue's not a fash- ion, but a kind of realy^^r/;/, with a natural beauty of its own, not needing the trickeries and fashions of outward things, which no sooner appear than they go to naught. For all these things, even before they come to light, are dissolving. If then thou throwest the fashion aside, thou wilt speedily come to the form.' Tw oiciKi toJt^, 'this world,' 'this life/ used in a moral sense. When the idea of a future Messianic age became a part of the Jewish Theology, Time, xp°^°^i was looked upon as divided into a succession of ages, aitoi/e?, periods or cycles of great but limited duration; and the present age was contrasted with the age to come, or the age of the Messiah (cf Schtirer, § 29. 9), a contrast very common among early Christians: Matt. xii. 32 ovn iv tovt^ T^ cuMPi oSn iv Tf fiiXkoPTi : Luc. XX. 34, 35 o( viaH rov alavos rovrov 354 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. S . . . el it Kara^KinBivTtt rav cuSivos tKtivav tvx*^* ' Eph. L 1 1 •£ fu(wM> if ra alwvi tovtu) dWa Koi iv roJ fiikkovru So Enoch XVi. I fn'xp^t flfitaat TtXtioorTKos TTJs Kpivos TOV fpf aTorros irovT]fjnv: Eph. ii. 2 wtpunaT^iTort koto top aluva TOV Koap-nv tovtov : and 80 in this passage. From the idea of a succession of ages (cf. Eph. ii. 7 4v roU alairi roii firfp^ofjifi/ois) came the expression tls tovs atavas (xi. 36), or alwvas tS>v alavou to express eternity, as an alternative for the older form fls t6v ali>va. The latter, which is the ordinary and original O. T. form, arises (like aiwwoj) from the older and original meaning of the Hebrew '^/am, 'the hidden time/ 'futurity,' and contains rather the idea of an unending period. TTj df oKaivwaei toC vo6^ : our bodies are to be pure and free from all the stains of passion ; our ' mind ' and ' intellect ' are to be no longer enslaved by our fleshly nature, but renewed and purified by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Tit. iii. 5 Bia XovrpoC Trdkiyytytaias Koi dvaKmvai(r((as IIvfvpLaTos 'Ayiov: 2 Cor. iv. 16: Col. iii. lO. On the relation of dvaicaivaxTtc, ' renewal,' to TraXiyytwa/a gee Trench, Syn. § 18. By this renewal the intellectual or rational principle will no longer be a voiit a-apKos (Col. ii. 18), but will be filled with the Spirit ind coincident with the highest part of human nature (i Cor. ii. 15, 16). 8oKi|ji<£t€H' : cf. ii. 18 ; Phil. i. 10. The result of this purification is to make the intellect, which is the seat of moral judgement, true and exact in judging on spiritual and moral questions. TO eArjfia TOO 0eou, k.t.X., ' That which is in accordance with God's will.' This is further defined by the three adjectives which follow. It includes all that is implied in moral principle, in the religious aim, and the ideal perfection which it the goal of Ufe. THE KIGHT USE OP 8PIKITUAI. GITTa XII. 3-8. Let every Christian be content with his proper place and functions. The society to which we belong is a single body with many members all related one to another. Hence the prophet should not strain after effects for which his faith is insufficient; the minister, the teacher, the ex/iorter, sliould each be intent on his special duty. The XII. 3-6] THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 355 almsgiver, the person in authority, the doer of kindness^ should each cultivate a spirit appropriate to what he does. 8. St. Paul begins by an instance in which the need of an enlightened mind is most necessary; namely, the proper bearing of a Christian in the community, and the right use of spiritual gifts. 8id rfjs x^^P^Tos K.T.X. gives emphasis by an appeal to Apostolic authority (cf. i. 5). It is not merely a question of the spiritual progress of the individual, for when St. Paul is speaking of that he uses exhortation (ver. 1), but of the discipline and order of the community; this is a subject which demand* the exercise of authority as well as of admonition. irarrl t« okti. An emphatic appeal to every member of the Christian community, for every one (cVdaTO)) has some spiritual gift. (1^ fiirep(t>povciK, ' not to be high-minded above what one ought to be minded, but to direct one's mind to sobriety.' Notice the play on words vntpcppovtlv . . . i^povtiv . . . (fypovelv . . . cra)povtlv tls TO (r«0pomv would be the fruit of the enlightened intellect as opposed to the (Pp6p7]p,a rrjs aapKds (viii. 6). iKdarm is after (pepiat, not in apposition to wavA ry Svn, and its prominent position gives the idea of diversity; for the order, cp. I Cor. vii. 17. 'According to the measure of faith which God has given each man.' The wise and prudent man will remember that his position in the community is dependent not on any merit of his own, but on the measure of his faith, and that faith is the gift of God. Faith ' being the sign and measure of the Christian life ' is used here for all those gifts which are given to man with or as the result of his faith. Two points are emphasized, the diversity iKdarf , . . pttrpow, and the fact that this diversity depends upon God : cf. I Cor. vii. 1 «XX* ckairrot (dter f^'* X'^P^I'^ '"^ Qtovp i ftiw ovrtas, i 6i WTt»g. 4, 6. Modesty and sobriety and good judgement are necessary because of the character of the community : it is an organism or corporate body in which each person has his own duty to perform for the well-being of the whole and therefore of himself. This comparison of a social organism to a body was very common among ancient writers, and is used again and again by St Paul to illustrate the character of the Christian community : see I Cor. xii. 12; Eph. iv. 15; Col. L 18. The use here is based upon that in i Cor. xii. 12-31. In the Epistles of the Captivity it is another side of the idea that is expounded, the unity of the Church in Christ as its head. 6. ri 8e Kad* cTs. An idiomatic expression found in later Greek. Cf. Mark xiv. 19 «tr Kaff tU : John viii. 9 : 3 Mace. v. 34 6 koB" tit M riuf ikmv : Lucian Soloecista 9 ; £u«. H. E. X. iv, &c *Xi koIB A a a 55* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XH. 5, & its was probablj formed on the model of h Ka& «', and then maJf %Xi came to be treated adverbially and written as one word : hence it could be used, as here, with a neuter article. 6-13. ?xo»^«5 S^ ■fo.fxa^o.ti^, it.T.X. These words may be taken grammatically either (i) as agreeing with the subject of «ir<0 6dvvofievv). . . . To every poor and every afflicted man I provided the good things of the earth, in simplicity (&ifk6rrjs) of heart. . . . The simple man (6 iiikovs) doth not desire gold, doth not ravish his neighbour, doth not care for all kinds of dainty meats, doth not wish for diversity of clothing, doth not promise himself (ov^ vnoypac^u) length of days, he receiveth only the will of God ... he walketh in up- rightness of life, and beholdeth all things in simplicity (dirXdri^Ti).' Issachar is the honourable, hardworking, straightforward farmer ; open-handed and open-hearted, giving out of compassion and in singleness of purpose, not from ambition. The word is used by St. Paul alone in the N. T., and was specially suited to describe the generous unselfish character of Christian almsgiving; and hence occurs in one or two places almost with the signification of liberality, a Cor. ix. 11, 13; just as ' liberality ' in English has come to have a secondary meaning, and iuiaiovvvr) in Hellenistic Greek (Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 49). Such specialization is particularly natural in the East, where large-hearted generosity is a popular virtue, and where such words as ' gpod ' may be used simply to mean munificent $$B EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. a A irpoioTiificros, the man that presides, or governs in any position, whether ecclesiastical or other. The word is used of ecclesiastical officials, I Thess. v, la ; i Tim. v. 17 ; Just. Mart. Apvl. i. 67 ; and of a man ruling his family (i Tim. iii. 4, 5, 13), and need not be any further defined. Zeal and energy are the natural gifts required of any ruler. 6 IKedv. ' Let any man or woman who performs deeds of mercy in the church, do so brightly and cheerfully.' The value of bright- ness in performing acts of kindness has become proverbial, Ecclus. XXXii. (XXXV.) 1 1 eV Trdaj) ioati 'iXdpmaoy to np6t\a8eXcfi(.a). It is si.f^nifi':^ant thnt th" Avord is not used in profane writers except once in the adverbial form, and that by Marcus Aurelius (viii. 5). dTToaTuyourres : sc. (art as f(TTu> above, and cf. I Pet. ii. 18 ; iii. i. An alternative construction is to suppose an anacoluthon, as if ayairoTf avvnoKpiTas had been read above; cf. 2 Cor. i. 7. The word expresses a strong feeling of horror; the otto- by farther emphasizing the idea of separation gives an intensive force, which is heightened by contrast with KoWayfifvoi. ri TTorrjpoK . . . ry dyaOw. The characteristic of true genuine love is to attach oneself to the good in a man, while detesting the evil in him. There cannot be love for what is evil, but whoevei has love in him can see the ^rood that there is in sU. Zn. 10, IL] MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 361 10. TQ ^tXo8e\4»i^, Move of the brethren'; as contrasted with dyaiTT), which is universal, (f)iKabf\iX(5. 37 ad Marcellam : iV/» /^•^aw/ spe gaudente*, tempori servientes, nos legamut domino servientes. Oiig.-lat. tui Uc. tcit auttm in nonnullis Latinorum extmplis habtri tempori servicntea: quod non mihi videtur convenUnttr insertum. The corruption may have arisen from iMJS tjpo) being confused together, a confusion which would be eaiier from reminiscences of snch expressions as £ph. ▼. 16 J£a7o/>a((S/x«'ci h-Ko^ivQvtvi. Endurance in persecution is natnrallj connected with the Christian's hope : cf. i Cor. xiii. 7 ' Love . . . endureth all things.' It is interesting to notice how strongly, even thus early, persecu- tion as a characteristic of the Christian's life in the world had impressed itself on St. Paul's phraseology : see i Thess. i. 6 ; iii. 3, 7 ; 2 Thess. i. 4, 6 ; a Cor. i. 4, Ac. ; Rom. v. 3 ; viii. 35. T^ irpoo-cuxt) irpoo-KapTcpouKTcs : Acts. i. 14; ii. 4s; Col. iv. 9. Persecution again naturally suggests prayer, for the strength of prayer is specially needed in times of persecution. 13. Tois xp'ittis TUK dyiui' KOiKdJcoGn-cs. This verse contains two special applications of the principle of love — sharing one's goods with fellow-Christians in need, and exercising that hospitality which was part of the bond which knit together the Christian com- munity. With Kowfitvtiv in this sense c£ Phil. iv. 15; Rom. xv. a6; t Cor. ix. 13; Heb. xiii. 16. The variation toTj p»tiai% (D F G, MSS. known to Theod. Mopt., Vulg. cod. (am), Ens. Hist. Mart. Pal., ed. Cnreton, p. i, Hil. Ambrstr. Aug.) it interesting. In the translation of Origan we read : Usibus sanctorum com- municantes. Memini in latinis extmplaribus magis haberi: memoriia sanctorum comii/unicantes: verum nos nee consueiudimm turbamus, mte veritati praeiudicamus, maxime cum utrumqiu conveniat cudificationi. Nam usibus sanctorum honeste et decenter, non quasi stipem indigentibut praebere, sed censum nostrorum cum ipsis quodammodo habere commumm, et meminisse sanctorum sive in collectis solemnibus, sive pro eo, ut ex recorda- tione eorum proficiamus, aptum et conveniens videtur. The variation most have arisen at a time when the ' holy ' were no longer the members of the community and fellow-Christians, whose bodily wants required relieving, but the 'saints' of the past, whose lives were commemorated. But this custom arose as early as the middle of the second century : cf. Mart. Polyc. xviii iv6a dn dwaT'jv fj^iiv cvvayo/ityoK iv ayaXKiAau ital xap^ trapt^fi 6 Kvpios irriTtKftv ri^y rov puiprvpiov avrov f)n(pay ytpiOXiov, «is t« rtjv tup wporj6\TjK6Twv fivTjfnjv Koi rSh' pitWSvrosv anKrjaiy rt koI iroifiaaiav : and the rariations may, like other peculiarities of the western text, easily have arisen •o soon. We cannot however lay any stress on the passage of Origen,.«« it is probably dne to Rufinus. See Binghun, Ant. xiii. 9. 5. WH. suggest that it was a clerical error arising fxcp% the coofusioa of XP *^'^ *"* ^ • badly written papyroi M.S. SII. 18-16.] MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 3O3 ^iXoCcKiar. From the very beginning hospitality was recognized as one of the most important of Christian duties (Heb. xiii. a I Tim. iii. 2 ; Tit. i. 8 ; i Pet. iv. 9 ; compare also Clem. Rom. § i r4 fitydkonpenfs T^t , do not give scope or place to the devil ; 17 6pyr) means the wrath of God : cf. Rom. v. 9. That this is the right interpretation of the word is shown by the quotation which follows. But other interpretations have been often held: Wr« Trfn-w is translated by some, ' allow space, interpose delay,' i.e. check and restrain your wrath; by others, 'yield to the anger (A your XII. 18-21.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 365 opponent ' : neither of these interpretations suits the context or the Greek. Yfypavrai ydp. The quotation which follows comes from Deut xxxii. 35, and resembles the Hebrew ' Vengeance is mine and recompense, rather than the LXX «V fjnep toe you pay tribute because the machinery of govern- ment is God's ordinance. In this as in all things give to all their due. XIII. The Apostle now passes from the duties of the individual Christian towards mankind in general to his duties in one definite sphere, namely towards the civil rulers. While we adhere to what has been said about the absence of a clearly-defined system or purpose in these chapters, we may notice that one main thread of thought which runs through them is the promotion of peace in all the relations of life. The idea of the civil power may have been suggested by ver. 19 of the preceding chapter, as being one of the ministers of the Divine wrath and retribution (ver. 4) : at any rate the juxtaposition of the two passages would serve to remind St. Paul's readers that the condemnation of individual vengeance and retaliation does not apply to the action of the state in enforcing law ; for the state is God's minister, and it is the just wrath of God which is acting through it. We have evidence of the ase of tt. 8-10 by Marcion (Tert. adv. Mare. ▼. 14) Merita itaque totam crtatoris disciplinam principali praecepto tins eonclusit, Diliges proximum tanquam te. Hoc legis supplcmtntum si ex ipsa lege est, quis sit deus legis iam ignore. Oq the rest of the chapter we have no information. 1. iraao <|»uxi^ : cf. ii. 9. The Hebraism suggests prominently the idea of individuality. These rules apply to all however privi- leged, and the question is treated from the point of view of indi- vidual duty. ifouaiais: abstract for concrete, * those In authority'; cf. Luke xii. II ; Tit. iii. i. dircpcxouaais 'who are in an eminent position,' defining more precisely the idea of i^owriait : cf. i Pet. ii. 13 ; Wisdom vi. 5. uiroTaaacaOw. Notice the repetition of words of similar sound, vnoTa nape^eiv naTtoixovriv tpyov dyadou In )0th passages ipyov is used collectively; there it means the sum of a man's actions, here the collective work of the state. For the subject cf. I Tim. ii. i, a : we are to pray 'for kings and all in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable hfe in all godli- ness and honesty.' The singular ry iiyaOS tpy(p &KKA t^ kolk^ is read by R A B D F G P, Boh. Vulg. i^boni optris sed mali), Clem.-Alex. Iren.-lat. Tert. Orig -lat. Jo.- Damasa Later MSS. with E L, Syrr. Arm., Chrys. Thdrt. read ruiv dyaOuv Ipywv . . . KaKow. Hoit suggests an emendation of Patrick Young, ry i,yadoipiy ftf the^jChuTch- Ji»-a-whole, not to the particular circumstances of the Roman community : it being recognized at ^e same~"tTme: that questions which agitated the whole Christian world^ would be likely to be reflected in what was already an "TnipOrtaiit centre of Christianity. Whether this opinion be correct • or hgr mustniepend-partly, of course, on our estimate of the Epistle as a whole ; but if it be assumed to be so, the character of this passage will amply support it. There is a complete absgnce o" .any reference to particular circumstances: the language is tErougS out general : there is a stuHied avoidance of any special terms direct commands such as might arise from particular circumstances are not given : but general principles applicable to any period or place are laid down. As elsewhere in this Epistle, St. Paul, influenced by his past experiences, or by the questions which were being agitated around him, or by the fear of difficulties which he foresaw as likely to arise, lays down broad general principles, applying to the affairs of life the spirit of Christianity as he has elucidated it But what were the questions that were in the air when he wrote ? There can be no doubt that primarily they would be those current in the Jewish nation concerning the lawfulness of paying taxes and otherwise recognizing the authority of a foreign ruler. When our Lord was asked, ' Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or no?' (Matt. xxii. 18 f.; Luke xx. %% f.), a burning question was at once raised. Starting from the express command ' thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother ' (Deut xvii. 15), and from the idea of a Divine theocracy, a large . .^section of the Jews had refused to recognize^,or-^)ay^taxes to-ihfL. Roman goverrgnentrjnda^the^aulonite, who said that 'the census was nothing else but downright slavery ' (Jos. AnL XVIII. i. i), or Theudas (ibid. XX. v. i), or Eleazar, who is represented as saying that 'we have long since made up our minds not to serve the Romans or any other man but God alone ' {Bell. Jud. VII. viii. 6), may all serve as instances of a tendency which was very wide spread. Nor was this spirit confined to the Jews of Palestine ; elsewhere, both in Rome and in Alexandria, riots had occurred. Nor again was it unlikely that Christianity would be ot 370 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIH. 1-9- affected by it A good deal of the phraseology of the early Christians was derived from the Messianic prophecies of the O. T., and these were always liable to be taken in that purely material sense which our Lord bed condemned. The fact that St. Luke records the question of the disciples, ' Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ? ' (Acts i. 6) seems to imply that such ideas were current, and the incident at Thessalo- nica, where St. Paul himself, because he preached the ' kingdom,' was accused of preaching ' another king, one Jesus,' shows how liable even he was to misinterpretation. These instances are quite sufficient to explain how the question was a real one when St. Paul wrote, and why it had occupied his thoughts. It is not necessary to refer it either to Ebionite dualistic views (so Baur), which would involve an anachronism, or to exaggerated Gentile ideas of Christian liberty ; we have no record that these were ever perverted in this direction. Two considerations may have specially influenced St. Paul to discuss the subject in his Epistle to the Romans. The first was the known fact of the turbulence of the Roman Jews; a fact which would be brought before him by his intercourse with Priscilla and Aquila. This may illustrate just the degree of local reference in the Epistle to the Romans. We have emphasized more than once the fact that we cannot argue anything from such passages as this as to the state of the Roman community ; but St. Paul would not write in the air, and th;^ knowledge of the character of the Jewish population in Rome gained from political refugees would be just sufficient to suggest this topic. A second cause which would lead him to introduce it would be the fascination which he felt for the power and position of Rome, a fascination which has been alr«u)y illustrated (Introduction, § i). It must be remembered that when this Epi8tle_wag writtcji-ihe Roman Empire had never appeared in the character of a persecutor- Persecution had up to this time always come from the Jews or from popular riots. To St. Paul the magistrates who represented the Roman power had always been associated with order and restraint. The persecution of Stephen had probably taken place in the absence of the Roman governor ; it was at the hands of the Jewish king Herod that James the brother of John had perished : at Paphos, at Thessalonica, at Corinth, at Ephesus, St Paul had found the Roman officials a restraining power and all his experience would support the statements that he makes : ' The rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil : ' * He is a minister of God to thee for good : ' ' He is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.' Nor can any rhetorical point be made as has been attempted from the fact that Nero was at thii time *he ruler of the Empire. It may be doubted how far the vioet sin 1-7.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 57I oi a ruler like Nero seriously affected the well-being of the provincials, but at any rate when these words were written the world was enjoying the good government and bright hopes of Nero's Quinquennium. The true relations of Christianity to the civil power had been laid down by our Lord when He had said : ' My kingdom is not of this world,' and again : ' Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's and to God the things that be God's.' It is difRcult to believe that St. Paul had not these words in his mind when he wrote ver. 7, especially as the coincidences with the moral teaching of our Lord are numerous in these chapters. At any rate, starting from this idea he works out the principles which must lie at the basis of Christian politics, that the State is divinely appointed, or permitted by God ; that its end is beneficent ; and that the spheres of Church and State areTiot idenlical. It has been remarked that, when St. Paul wrote, his experience might have induced him to estimate too highly the merits of the Roman government. But although later the relation of the Church to. the State changed, the principles of the Church did not. In I Tim. ii. I, 2 the Apostle gives a very clear command to pray for those in authority : ' I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men: for kings and all that are in high place ; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity ' ; so also in Titus iiL i ' Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities.' When these words were written, the writer had to some extent at any rate experienced the Roman power in a very different aspect Still more important is the evidence of 1 Peter. It was certainly written at a time when persecution, and that of an oflRcial character, had begun, yet the commands of St. Paul are repeated and with even greater emphasis (i Pet. ii. 13-17). The sob- Apostolic literature will illustrate this. Clement is writing to the Corinthians just after snccessivc periods of persecation, yet he includes • prayer of the character which he would himself deliver, in the as yet unsystematized services of the day, on behalf of secular rulers. ' Give concord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth . . . while we render obedience to Thine Almighty and most excellent Name, and to our rulers and governors upon the earth. Thou, Lord and Master, hast given them the power of sovereignty through Thine excellent and unspeakable might, that we, knowing the glory and honour which Thou hast given them, may submit ourselves unto them, in nothing resisting Thy will. Grant unto them therefore, O Lord, health, peace, concord, stability, that they may administer the government which Thou hast given them without failuie. For Thou, O heavenly Master, King of the ages, givest to the sons of men glory and honour and power over all things that are upon the earth. Do Thou, Lord, direct their counsel according to that which is good and well- pleasing in Thy sight.' Still more significant is the letter of Polycarp, which was written very shortly after he had met Ignatius on his road to martyrdom ; '• k h* emphasises the Christian custom by combining the command to pray ■ lit 573 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZIU. 1 7 for nUn with Aat to lav* our enemiet. ' Pray alio for kings and powen and princes and for them that persecute and hate jron and for the enemies vi the cross, that your frait may be manifest among all men that ye may be perfect in Him.' (Clem. Rom. Ix, Ixi ; Polyc. ml Pkil. xii.) It is not necessary to give further instances of a custom which prevailed emtensively or universally in the early Church. It became a commonplace of apologists 1 Just. Mart. Apol. i. 1 7 ; Athenagoras, Leg. xxrvii ; Theophilus, i. 1 1 ; Tertullian, Apol. 30, i%ad Scap. a ; Dion. Alex, ap Eus. H. E. VII. xi ; Amob. iv. 36) and is found in all liturgies (cf. Cotut. Ap. viii. 1 a). One particular phase in the interpretation of this chapter demands a passing ootice. In the hands of the Jacobean and Caroline divines it was held to support the doctrine of Passive Obedience. This doctrine has taken a variety of forms. Some held that a Monarchy as opposed to a Republic is the only scriptural form of government, others that a legitimate line alone has this divine right. A more modified type of this teaching may be represented by a sermon of Bishop Berkeley {Passiv* Odedumt or tht Christian Doctrine of not resisting the aupreme power, proved and vindicated upon the principles if tht law of nature in a discourse delivered eU the College Chapel, 171 a. Works, iii. p. loi). He takes as his text Rom. xiii. a 'Whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the ordinance of God.* He begins ' It is not my design to inquire into the particular nature of the govemmeat and constitution of these kingdoms." He then proceeds by assuming that ' there is in every civil community, somewhere or other, placed a supreme power of making laws, and enforcing the observation of them.' His main purpose is to prove that 'Loyalty is a moral virtue, and thou shalt not resist the supreme power, • rule or law of nature, the least breach whereof hath the inherent stain of moral turpitude.' And he places it on the same level as the commandments which St. Paul quotes in this same chapter. Bishop Berkeley represents the doctrine of Passive Obedience as expounded in its most philosophical form. But he does not notice the main difficulty. St. Paul gives no directions as to what ought to be done when there is a conflict of authority. In his day there could be no doubt that the rule of Caesar was supreme and had become legitimate: all that he had to con- demn was an incorrect view of the ' kingdom of heaven ' as a theocracy established on earth, whether it were held by Jewish realots or by Christians. He does not discuss the question, ' if there were two claimants for the Empire which should be supported?* for it was not a practical difficulty when he wrote. So Bishop Berkeley, by his use of the expression ' some- where or other,' equally evades the difficulty. Almost always when there is a rebellion or a civil war the question at issue is, Who is the rightful governor ? which is the power ordained by God ? But there is a side of the doctrine of Passive Obedience which requires emphasis, and which was illustrated by the Christianity of the first three centuries. The early Christians were subject to a power which required them to do that which was forbidden by their religion. To that extent and within those limits they could not and did not obey it ; but they never encouraged in any way resistance or rebellion. In all things indifferent the Christian conformed to existing law ; he obeyed the law ' not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience sake.' He only disobeyed when it was necessary to do so for conscience sake. The point of importance is the detachment of the two spheres of activity. The Church and the State are looked upon as different bodies, each with a different work to perform. To designate this or that form of government as ' Christian,' and support it on these grounds, would have been quite alien to the whole spirit of those day*. The Church must influence the world by its hold oa tht btarts and consdencei >itkal powv, will tiM Kingdom of God come. XIII. 8, 9.] LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW 373 LOVE THE PUIiPrLMBNT OP ALL LAW. XIII. 8-10. There is one debt which the Christian must always be paying but never can discharge, that of love. All particular precepts are summed up in that of lovi, which makes injury to any man impossible. 8. St. Paul passes from our duties towards superiors to that one principle which must control our relations towards all men, love. In xii. 9 the principle of love is introduced as the true solution of all difiiculties which may arise from rivalry in the community; here it is represented as at the root of all regulations as to our relations to others in any of the affairs of Ufe. litlScfi |iT)Sei' d(j>ei\€Tf must be imperative as the negatives show. It sums up negatively the results of the previous verse and suggests the transition, ' Pay every one their due and owe no man anything.' tl |if| th dvoirav dXXi^Xout : * Let your only debt that is unpaid be that of love — a debt which you should always be attempting to discharge in full, but will never succeed in discharging.' Permanere (amen et nunguam cessare a nobis dehiium caritatis : hoc entm et quO' tidie solvere ei semper debere expedit nobis. Orig. By this pregnant expression St. Paul suggests both the obligation of love and the impossibility of fulfilling it. This is more forcible than to suppose a change in the meaning of o^ciXcr* : ' Owe no man anything, only ye ought to love one another.' 6 Y&p dyairwK k.t.X. gives the reason why ' love ' is so important : if a man truly loves another he has fulfilled towards him the whole law. v6tLov is not merely the Jewish law, although it is from it that the illustrations that follow are taken, but law as a principle. Just as in the relations of man and Gcd irlans has been substituted for voyMs, so between man and man iyami takes the place of definite legal relations. The perfect vtit\ripaKtv implies that the fulfilment is already accomplished simply in the act of love. 9. St. Paul gives instances of the manner in which ' love ' fulfils law. No man who loves another will injure him by adultery, by murder, by theft, &c. They are all therefcwe summed up in the one maxim ' thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' as indeed they were also in the Old Covenant. The AV. adds after ob itXiifitit In this verse oh tpivSoimprvpffirtit from the O. T. with K P &c., Boh. &c., ai against A B D E F G L &c., Vulg. eodJ. and most Fathers, iv ry before dyanrjaen is omitted by B F G. For atavroy of the older MSS. (K A B D E), later MSS. read iavT6v, both here and elsewhere. In late Greek iavroy became habitually nsed for all persons in the reflexive^ and scribes substituted the form most usual to them. Th« order of the commandmenta is different &om that in the Hebrew text S74 IPISTLI TO THE ROMANS [XIO. 0, 10k both in Exodna xs. 13 and Dent. t. i^, namely, (6) Thon ahalt do no mnrder, (7) Thou shalt not commit adultery, (8) Thou shalt not steal. The MSS of the LXX vary ; in Exodu* B reads 7, 8, 6, A F 6, 7, 8 ; in Deut. B readi 7, 6, 8 (the order here), A F 6, 7, 8. The order of Romans is that also ol lAkezviii. ao; James ii. 11 ; Philo Dt Dtcalogo; Clem. -Alex. Strom, vi. 16^ Kai ci Tis IWpa shows that St. Paul in this selection has only taken instances and that he does not mean merely to give a sum- ming up of the Jewish law. dKaxc^JaXaiouTai : a rhetorical term used of the summing up of a speech or argument, and hence of including a large number of separate details under one head. As used in Eph. i. 10 of God summing up all things in Christ it became a definite theological term, represented in Latin by recapitulatio (Iren. III. xxii. a). 'AYaTn^ccis T&i' irXT)o'ioi' much resembled that between mm0 and diligo. The one expressed greater affection, the other greater esteem. So Dio Cassius xliv. 48 (^i^rjaart avriv in naripa xai i^yaTrjcart As tvtp- yirrjv; and John xxi. 15-17 ^iyu air^ wikiy dtvrtpow, j^ficor "lativov, dyawq.t fit ; A.«7«< avT^, Na«, Kvpif vv oldas Srt (pt\S> at tc.r.X. (see Trench, Sjm. § xii). It is significant that no distinction is absolute; but ^Xiv occasionally, still more rarely dyairdoi, are both used incorrectly of the sexual passion. There is too close a connexion between the different forma of human affection to allow any rigid distinction to be made in the use ol trords. When these words were adopted into Hellenistic Gredc, « gradual ebanfe XIII. 8-10.] LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW 375 wms made in their use. tpiot and its cognates are very rarely nsed, and almost invariably in a bad sense. In the N. T. they do not occur at all. the word tiriOv/xfOj being employed instead. Yet occasionally, even in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek, the higher sense of the Platonic t'/xus finds a place (Prov. It. 6; Wisdom viii. 2 ; Justin, JDia/. 8, p. 225 B ; Clem.- Alex. Cok. II, p. 90; see Lightfoot, Ignatius ad Rom. vii. 3). Between dvaTratu and ^iXlot a decided preference was shown for the former. It occurs about a68 times (Hatch and Rcdpath) in a very large proportion of cases as a translation of the Hebrew 3nK ; , it created a new word d7d»i7. Some method was required of expressing the conception which was gradually growing up. 'Epous had too sordid associations. 4>(Aia was tried (Wisdom vii. 14; viii. 18), but was felt to be inadequate. The language of the Song of Solomon created the demand for a-^airT]. (2 Kings I or a times ; Ecclesiastet 3 ; Canticles 1 1 ; Wisdom 3 ; Ecclus. i ; Jeremiah i ; Pi. Sol. I.) The N.T. reproduces the usage of the LXX, but somewhat modified. While ar^anao) is used 138 times, (piKtoi is used in this sense 23 times (,13 in St. John's Gospel) ; generally when special emphasis has to be laid on the relations of father and son. But the most marked change is in the use of ovdm;. It is never used in the Classical wTiters, only occasionally in the LXX ; in early Christian writers its use becomes habitual and general. Nothing could show more clearly that a new principle has been created than this creation of a new word. In the Vulgate dfim] is sometimes rendered by dileciio, sometimes by taritat; to this inconsistency are due the variations in the Enr;lish Authorized Version. The word caritas passed into English in the Middle Ages (for details see Eng. Diet, sub vac.) in the form 'charity, and was for some time used to correspond to most of the meanings of d-^dnr] ; but as the English Version was inconsistent and no corresponding verb existed the usage did not remain wide. In spite of its retention in i Cor. xiii. 'charity' became confined in all ordinary phraseology to ' benevolence,' and the Revised Version was compelled to make the usage of the New Testament consistent. Whatever loss there may have been in association and in the rhythm of well-known passages, there is an undoubted gain. The history of the word ifavdat is that of the collection under one head of various conceptions which were at any rate partially separated, and the usage of the N. T. shows that the distinction which has to be made is not between blood or language, have certain mutual duties arising out of their common relation to God ' {Ecct HomOt chap. xii). But secondly, the Christian doctrine of love was the substitution of a universal principle for law. All moral precepts are summed up in the one command of love. What is my duty towards others ? Just that feeling which you have towards the persons to whom you are most attached in the world, just that you must feel for every one. If you have that feeling there will be no need for any further command. Love is a principle and a passion, and as such is the fulfilment of the Law. Christ ' declared an ardent, passionate, or devoted state of mind to be the root of virtue ' ; and this purifying passion, capable of existing in all men alike, will be able to re- deem our nature and make laws superfluous. And thirdly, how is this new Christian spirit possible? It is possible because it is intimately bound up with that love which is a characteristic of the Godhead. «God is love.' 'A new com- mandment I give to you, that ye should love one another as I have loved you.' It is possible also because men have learnt to love mankind in Christ * Where the precept of love has been given, an image must be set before the eyes of those who are called on to obey it, an ideal or type of man which may be noble and amiable enough to raise the whole race, and make the meanest member ot it sacred with reflected glory.' This is what Christ did for us. These three points will help to elucidate what St. Paul means by oyaffjy. It is in fact the correlative in the moral world to what faith is in the religious life. Like faith it is universal ; like faith it is a principle not a code; like faith it is centred in the Godhead. Hence St Paul, as St. John (1 John iii. 23), sums up Christianity in Faith and Love, which are finally, united in that Love of God, which ii the end and root of both. THB DAY 18 AT HAinO. XIII. 11-14. The night of this corrupt agi is flying. The Parousia is nearing. Cast off your evil ways. Gird yourselves with the armour of light. Take Christ into your hearts. Shun sin and self-indulgence. 11. The Apostle adds a motive for the Christian standard ot life, the nearness of our final salvation. Ral TOOT©, ' and that too ' : cp, i Cor. vi. 6, 8 ; i.ph. it 8, &c. : it I? 8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIII. Il-IA resumes the series of exhortations implied in the previous 8ection« ; there is no need to supply any special words wiih it. Tof Koip<5j' : used of a definite, measured, or determined time, and so almost technically of the period before the second coming of Christ: cf. I Cor. vii. 2g 6 Kaipis in/vcaraXftcW ; Mark i. 15; and so 6 Kaioos 6 ivtaras (Heb. ix. 9). oTi <3pa r\hi\ K.T.X. ^5^7 with fyepdrjvtu. The time of trial on earth is looked upon as a night of gloom, to be followed by a bright morning. We must arouse ourselves from slumber and prepare ourselves for the light. yuv ydp eyyuTcpov k.t.X. ' For our completed salvation, no longer that hope of salvation which sustains us here, is appreciably nearer for us than when we first accepted in faith the Messianic message.' oTf (TTKTTfvaafifv refers to the actual moment of the acceptance of Christianity. The language is that befitting those who expect the actual coming of Christ almost immediately, but it will fit the circumstances of any Christian for whom death brings the day. In ver. 11 the original vfidi (N A BC P, Clem.-Alex.) has been corrected for the sake of uniformity into v^aj (K« D E F G L, &c., lioh. Sah.). In ver. 1 3 iy fpitJi Kal (t]\ois is a variant of B, Sah., Clem.-Alex. Amb. In ver. 14 B, and Clem.-Alex. read riv Xptcrir l^aovv, which may very likely be the correct reading. 12. irpoeKovJ/ei', ' has advanced towards dawn.* Cf. Luke ii. 52 ; Gal. i. 14 ; Jos. Bell. Jud. IV. iv. 6 ; Just. Dial. p. 277 d. The contrast of xinvos, vv^, and (r«t<5ror with ij/i/pa and <^ut finds many illustrations in Christian and in all religious literature. diro6c5jx€0a. The works of darkness, 1. e. works such as befit the kingdom of darkness, are represented as being cast off like the uncomely garments of the night, for the bright armour which befits the Christian soldier as a member of the kingdom of light. This metaphor of the Christian armour is a favourite one with St. Paul (i Thess. v, 8; a Cor. vi. 7; Rom. vi. 13; and especially Eph. vi. 13 f.) ; it may have been originally suggested by the Jewish conception of the last great fight against the armies of Antichrist (Dan. xi; Orac. Sib. iii. 663 f. ; 4 Ezra xiii. 33; Enoch xc. 16). but in St. Paul the conception has become completely spiritualized. 13. iuay^r[^6vu>% irepiiroT^awjitr. The metaphor ittpinartiw ol conduct is very common in St. Paul's Epistles, where it occurs thirty-three times (never in the Past. Epp.); elsewhere in the N.T. sixteen times. KtdiJiois, 'rioting,' 'revelry' (Gal. v. ti; i Pet iv. 3). ni&tf the drunkenness which would be the natural result and accompaniment ftf such revelry. KoiTait Kol dacXyciait, 'unlawful intercourse and wanton acts. *Opa bi rqy rafty* mmjta^ttv ftip yip rtt iu6\m^ fuOvrnv ii Ko^Ta^^Ttu^ Xm. 18, 14.] THE DAY IS AT HAND 379 MMTof o/xcvw it AfftXyaivri, rov ouwv rovrov t§ it\ti I Pet. iii. 9; Rom. xiii. i, 3 « i Pet. ii. 13, 14. The resemblance ia un- doubted, but a far more probable explanation is that i Peter is directly indebted to the Romans (see Introduction § 8). There is no reason to cite these as ' Words of the Lord ' ; yet it is very probable that much more of the eommon teaching and even phraseology of the early Church than w« an accsatomed to imagine goes back to the teaching of Jeaa» JOV. l-XV. 7.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 383 Oir FOBBEABAKOE TOWABDS THOSE WHO ABE SCBUFUIiOUS. XIV. 1 — XV. 18. Receive a scrupulous Christian cordially. Do not be continually condemning him. Some of you have grasped the full meaning of Christian faith, others whose conscience is too tender lay undue stress on particular prac- tices, on rules as to food or the observance of certain days. Do not you whose faith is more robust despise such scruples, nor should they be censorious (w. 1-5). Every one should make up his own mind. These things are indifferent in themselves. Only whatever a man does he must look to Christ. In life and death we are all His, whose death and resurrection have made him Lord of all. To Him as to no one else shall we be called upon to give account (w. 6-12). We must avoid censoriousness. But equally must we avoid placing obstacles before a fellow- Christian. I believe firmly that nothing is harmful in itself, but it becomes so to the person who considers it harmful. The obligation of love and charity is paramount. Meats are secondary things. Let us have an eye to peace and mutual help. It is not worth while for the sake of a little meat to undo God's work in a brother s soul. Far better abstain from flesh and wine altogether (w. 13-ai). Keep the robuster faith with which you are blest to yourself and God. To hesitate and then eat is to incur guilt ; for it is not prompted by strong faith (w. 22, 23). This rule of forbearance applies to all classes of the com- munity. The strong should bear the scruples of the weak. We should not seek our own good, but that of others ; following the example of Christ as expounded to us in the Scriptures ; those Scriptures which were written for our encouragement and consolation. May God, from whom this encouragement (onus, grant you all — weak and strong, Jew and Gentile — to h* of one mind, uniting in the praise of God (xv. 1-7). ^84 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 1. For Christ has received you all alike. To both yew and Gentile He has a special mission. To the Jews to exhibit God's veracity, to the Gentiles to reveal His mercy ; that Gentile might unite with Jew, as Psalmist and Prophet foretold, in hymns of praise to the glory of God. May God the giver of hope send it richly upon you (w. 8-13). XTV. 1 — XV. 13. The Apostle now passes on to a further point ; the proper attitude to adopt towards matters in themselves indifferent, but concerning which some members of the community might have scruples. The subject is one which naturally connects itself with what we have seen to be the leading thought which underlies these concluding chapters, and in fact the whole Epistle, namely, the peace and unity of the Church, and may have been immediately suggested by the words just preceding : St. Paul has been con- demning excessive indulgence; he now passes to the opposite extreme, excessive scrupulousness, which he deals with in a very different way. As Augustine points out, he condemns and instructs more openly the * strong ' who can bear it, while indirectly showing the error of the ' weak.' The arguments throughout are, as we shall see, perfectly general, and the principles applied those characteristic of the moral teaching of the Epistle — the freedom of Christian faith, the comprehensiveness of Christian charity and that duty of peace and unity on which St Paul never wearies of insisting. Tertullian {Adv. Mart. r. 15) refers to ver. 10, tnd Origen {Cemm. Im Rom. X. 43, Lomni. vii. p. 453) to vtt. %%. Of Marcicn's ose of the rest of ths chapter we know nothing. On chapa. xv, xri, see Introduction, § 9. 1. thv %\ dafieKoon-a t^ moTci: cf. Rom. iv. 19; I Cor. viii. 7, 9, 10, II ; ix. 2%. 'Weakness in faith,' means an inadequate grasp of the great principle of salvation by faith in Christ; the conse- quence of which will be an anxious desire to make tiiis salvation more certain by the scrupulous fulfilment of formal rules. irpoaXafi^dt'caOc, 'receive into full Christian intercourse and fellowship.' The word is used (i) of God receiving or helping man : Ps. XXVi (xxvii) 10 a nati\p (utv ml ^ Mfrjp fum iyKOTfkurov fUy 6 8« Kvpios irpodikdHtTo fit: so in ver. 3 below and in Clem. Rom. xlix. 6 «V dydirp npo(Tf\a0{T9 iffMt 6 fieaironys. But (a) it is also used of men receivmg others into fellowship or companion- ship : 3 Mace. viii. I tovs fttpevTfK&ras iv r^ 'lovbeuafi^ npoaXaffdfitvot avvriyayov (Is i^aKia-^iXiovs. These two uses are combined in xv. 7 ' All whom Christ has willed to receive into the Christian community, whether they be Jews or Greeks, circumcised or uncircumcised, every Christian ought to be willing to receive as brothers.* (if) els SiaKpiaeis SiaXoyiofiuK, 'but not to pass judgement! on their thoughts.' Receive them as members of the QiristiaB znr. 1-4.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 385 community, but do not let them find that they have been merely received into a society in which their somewhat too scrupulous thoughts are perpetually being condemned. dioKpivtis, from diaKpivm to 'judge,' 'decide/ 'distinguish/ means the expression of judge- ments or opinions, as Heb. v. 14 'judgement of good or evil/ I Cor. xii. lo 'judgement or discernment of spirits.' diaXoyiarnap means ' thoughts,' often, but not necessarily, with the idea of doubt, hesitation (Luke xxiv. 38), disputes (Phil. ii. 14; i Tim. ii. 8), or generally of perverse self-willed speculations. The above interpre- tation of duiKpiaeit is that of most commentators (Mey.-W. Oltr. Va.) and is most in accordance with usage. An equally good sense could be gained by translating (with Lips.) 'not so as to raise doubts in his mind/ or (with Gif.) ' not unto discussions of doubts * ; but neither interpretation can be so well supported. 2. The Apostle proceeds to describe the two classes to which he is referring, and then (ver. 3) he gives his commands to both sides. St |tjv . . . A 82 ivHvAv. With the variation in constmction cf. i Cor. siL 8-10 ; Mark iv. 4 ; Lake viii. 5. The second 6 is not for it, hot is to be taken with da$(v&y. vurrcJci, ' hath faith to eat all things ' ; his faith, i. e. his grasp and hold of the Christian spirit, is so strong that he recognizes how indifferent all such matters in themselves really are. Xdxai'a 4a6ici, ' abstains from all flesh meat and eats only vegetables.' Most commentators have assumed that St. Paul is describing the practice of some definite party in the Roman community and have discussed, with great divergence of opinion, the motive of such a practice. But St. Paul is writing quite generally, and is merely selecting a typical instance to balance the first. He takes, on the one side, the man of thoroughly strong faith, who has grasped the full meaning of his Christianity ; and on the other side, one who is, as would generally be admitted, over- scrupulous, and therefore is suitable as the type of any variety of scrupulousness in food which might occur. To both these classes he gives the command of forbearance, and what he says to them will apply to other less extreme cases (see the Discussion on p. 399). 8. 6 iadlm . . . 6 82 fif| cadiW. St. Paul uses these expressions to express briefly the two classes with which he is dealing (see ver. 6\. Pride and contempt would be the natural failing of the one ; a spint of censoriousness of the other. 6 eefts Y^P ""TaK irpoaeXcipeTO. See ver. i. God through Christ has admitted men into His Church without imposing on them minute and formal observances ; they are not therefore to be criticized or condemned for neglecting practices which God has not required. 4. orA Tis ct; St. Paul is still rebuking the 'weak.' The man 386 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZTV. 4, & whom he is condemning is not a household slave, bat the servant of God ; to God therefore he is responsible. Tw iSi'w Kupi^. Dat. of reference: cf. w. 5-8. 'It is to his own master that he is responsible.' He it is to whom he must show whether he has used or misused his freedom, whether he has had the strength to fulfil his work or whether he has failed, mirrci (xi. II, 2 a) of moral failure; opeiad(i). The difference between the Christian and the Jew or the heathen, between the man whose rule is one of faith and the man subject to law, is, that while for the latter there are definite and often minute regulations he must follow, for the former the only laws are great and broad principles. He has the guidance of the Spirit ; he must do what his vois, his highest intellectual faculty, tells him to be right. On the word ■nXr^po^opdcrda see on iv. 21 and cf. Clem. Rom. xlii Tr^rjpocpopr/dfVTts 6ia t^s dvaa-Tda-tios. 6. The reason for indifference in these matters is that both alike, both the man who has grasped the Christian principle and the man who is scrupulous, are aiming at the one essential thing, to render service to God, to live as men who are to give account to Him. 6 4>pot'fli' : ' esteem,' ' estimate,' ' observe. ' Kupiw, emphatic, is Dat. of reference as above, ver. 4. 6 eaOiwK ... 6 (i^ iaQimv: see ver. 3. Both alike make their meal an occasion of solemn thanksgiving to God, and it is that which consecrates the feast. Is there any reference in coxapiaxei to ibe Christian tixapiarlai After Kvp(> (pporu the TR. with later anthorities (LP &c., Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt.) add ttai 6 /i^ v Tyv ^fiipav Kvpiqi ov 7<''> For the Kvpt6rris of Christ {'va mpitiag) see Phil. ii. 9, 11. For XfiarSt the TR. with later MSS., Syrr., Iren.-lat. reads itai Xpiarit. A'wiewtv Koi. (Cv^ty, the older and most difficult reading (K A B C, Boh., Ann. Aeth. Orig.-lat. Chrya. i/a) has been explained in various ways ; by avid. Koi iifioni F G, Vnlg. Grig, and other Fathers ; by dviO. Kal dviar. xal wi^rjafp TR. with mitmte. (perhaps conflate^ ; by avle. Kal iviar. itdt iCtjatry LP. Bee., HarkL and some Fathera : by iitia. mal dwi$. mal ofitrr. DE. Ireo. 10. St Paul applies the argument pointedly to the questions he is discussing. We are responsible to Christ; we shall appear before Him : there is no place for uncharitable judgements or censorious ezclusiveness between man and man. •d U Tt spirCit refers to i ^^ faBiav, {| xal v6 to i tardlcav. vopoonio'tfficSa t^ ^Vifiart tow 6eou. Cf. Acts xxvii. 24 JLalvofA 9* d«t tra/KKTr^vou. For |3^/mi, in the sense of a judge's official seat, see Matt. zxviL 19; Jo. zix. 13, &c. God is here mentioned as Judge because (see ii. 16) He judges the world through Christ. In fl Cor. ¥.10 the expression is rovr yap iravrat fipas (paytpad^vai JWt tpnpooBtp rov fitjfiaros rov Xpiarov. It is quite impossible to follow Liddon in taking Qtov of Christ in his Divine nature ; that would be contrary to all Pauline usage : but it is important to notice how easily St. Paul passes from Xpiards to e(6s. The Father and the Son were in his mind so united in function that They may often be interchanged. God, or Christ, or God through Christ, will judge the world. Our life is in God, or in Christ, or with Christ in God. The union of man with God depends upon the intimate nnion of the Father and the Son. •cov mtut be accepted as against ILpiarov on decisive authority. The latter reading arose from a desire to assimilate the expression to 2 Cor. y. 10. 11. St Paul supports his statement of the universal character of God's judgement by quoting Is. xlv. 23 (freely ace. to the LXX). In the O. T. the words describe the expectation of the universal character of Messianic rule, and the Apostle sees their complete fulfilment at the final judgement. ^loiAoXoyVjacTai t^ 06«, ' shall give praise to God,' according to the usual LXX meaning ; cf. xv. 9, which is quoted from Ps. xvii (xviii). 50. (Si iyi/, Xiyat Kipiot is snbstitiited for gar' tftavrov hpa^iu, cf. Nam. xiy. a8 ftc ; for maa, y\waaa c.r.X. the LXX reads ifiurcu 9. 7. riy 8cw . . , aKd^SaXoK riOevai is suggested by the literal meaning 01 aKavSaXov, a snare or stumbling-block which is laid in the path. St. Paul has probably derived the word (TKavbaXov and the whole thought of the passage from our Lord's words reported in Matt, xviii. 6 f. See also his treatment of the same question in i Cor. viii. 9 f. irp6(rK0|i|i.a . . . t| should perhaps be omitted with B, Arm. Pesh. As Weiss points out, the fact that jj is omitted in all authorities which omit irp. proves that the words cannot have been left out accidentally. vpoanofi/M would come in from i Cor. viii. 9 and ver. ao below. 14. In order to emphasize the real motive which should influ- ence Christians, namely, respect for the feelings of others, the indifference of all such things in themselves is emphatically stated. iv Kopiw 'Itjctou. The natural meaning of these words is the same as that of tv Xp. (ix. i) ; to St. Paul the indifference of all meats in themselves is a natural deduction from his faith and life in Ciirist. It may be doubted whether he is here referring expressly to the words of Christ (Mark vii, 15; Matt. xv. 11); when doing so his formula is TrapfXa^ov diro tov Kvpiov. Koiv6v. The technical term to express those customs and habits, which, although 'common' to the world, were forbidden to the pious Jew. Jos. An/. XIII. i. I roy KOIVov ^iov nporjprjpfvovsl I Mace. L 47, 62; Acts X. 14 in 9v8fvoTa fvati 4>riaiv ovUy i/taOapror and fa) by the contrast with t^ ZIV. 14-17.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 39] K9-ii(onir^. Si' alrriA, * through Oirirt' (to Theodxt and later oomm.) fa a correction, cl )jif| Tu XoyitoiA^fu K.T.X. Only if a man supposes that the breach of a ceremonial law is wrong, and is compelled by public opinion or the custom of the Church to do violence to his belief, he is led to commit sin ; for example, if at the common Eucharistic meal a man were compelled to eat food against hi» conscience it would clearly be wrong. 16. fi ydp. The ydp (which has conclusive manuscript authority) implies a suppressed link in the argument. 'You must have respect therefore for his scruples, although you may not share them, for if,' &c. XoireiToi. His conscience is injured and wounded, for hfc wiftully and knowingly does what he thinks is wrong, and so he is in danger of perishing (an-oXXue). Air^p oS XpioTos &niBa¥M. Cf. I Cor. viii. 10, 11. Christ died to save this man from his sins, and will you for his sake not give up some favourite food ? 16. fit) pXaa(j>if)fic ia0w a.T.X. Let not that good of yours, I e. your consciousness of Christian freedom (cf. i Cor. x. 29 fi fXfvSfpla fiov), become a cause of reproach. St. Paul is addressing the strong, as elsewhere in this paragraph, and the context seems clearly to point, at least primarily, to opinions within the community, not to the reputation of the community with the outside world. The above interpretation, therefore (which is that of Gifford and Vaughan), is better than that which would refer the passage to the reputation of the Christian community amongst those not belonging to it (Mey-W. Lips. Liddon). 17. Do not lay such stress on this freedom of yours as to cause a breach in the harmony of the Church ; for eating and drinking are not the principle of that kingdom which you hope to inherit ii ^aaiXcia toO eeoO. An echo of our Lord's teaching. The phrase is used normally in St. Paul of that Messianic kingdom which is to be the reward and goal of the Christian life ; so especially i Cor, vi. 9, 10, where it is laid down that certain classes shall have no part in it. Hence it comes to mean the principles or ideas on which that kingdom is founded, and which are already exhibited in this world (cf. i Cor. iv. ao). The term is, of course, derived through the words of Christ from the current Jewish con- ceptions of an actual earthly kingdom ; how far exactly such conceptions have been spiritualized in Sl Paul it may be difficult to say. Ppucrit Rol v6(7if. If, as is probable, the weak brethren are conceived of as having Judaizing tendencies, there is a special point m this expression. * If you lay so much stress on eating and drinking as to make a point oi indulging in what you will at all costs, you are 393 BPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 17-2a in danger oX falling into the Judaizing course of interpreting the Messianic prophecies literally, and imagining the Messianic kingdom to be one of material plenty * (Iren. V. zxxiii. 3). These words are often quoted as condemning any form of scrupulousness concerning eating and drinking; but that is not St Paul's idea. He means that 'eating and drinking' are in themselves so unimportant that every scruple should be respected, and every form of food willingly given up. They are absolutely insignificant in comparison with ' righteousness ' and ' peace ' and •joy.' BiKaiovJinr) ict.X. This passage describes man's life in the kingdom, and these words denote not the relation of the Christian to God, but his life in relation to others. i^K(uo ^s the joy which comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the community; of. Acts ii. 46 funXaftfiafop Tfoyor keeps up tne metaphor suggested by •tKoionTft. 'Build up, do not destroy, that Christian communi^ which God has founded in Christ.' Cf. i Cor. iii. 9 Qfov yap iafuv avvtpyoL 6(ov ytatpyiov, Qtov MKoiofiTf itrrt. The words tip^yf and •iKoiofjifl both point to the community rather than the individual Christian. vdfTa |Ur ita9ap, aXX' ov warra otKoiofUi. &XX& KOK^r : the subject to this must be supplied from rdyra. It b a nice question to decide to whom these words refer, (i) Are they addressed to the strong, those who by eating are hkely to give ofifence to others (so Va. Oltr., and the majority of commentaries) } XIV. 20-aa] ON scrupulousness 393 or (a) are they addressed to the weak, those who by eating what they think it wrong to eat injure their own consciences (so Gif. Mey.-W. and others) ? In the former case 6ia npoaKSiiftaros (on the 8td cf. ii. S7, iv. 11) means 'so as to cause offence/ in the latter 'so as to take offence' (Tyndale, 'who eateth with hurt of his conscience'). Perhaps the transition to ver. ai is slightly better if we take (i). SI. A thing in itself indifferent may be wrong if it injures the consciences of others; on the other hand, to give up what will injure others is a noble act. caXJr : cf. i Cor. vii. i and for the thought i Cor. viii. 13 iiAirtp, •I Pp&iia aitavidki(iit rhv uSt\ fiov, oi fi^ va, iva ft^ rir ditX£iXo|iCf 8^. Such weakness is, it is true, a sign of absence of faith, but we who are strong in faith ought to bear with scruples weak though they may be. 01 SukaTot not, as in i Cor. i. 36, the rich or the powerful, but as in s Cor. xii. 10, xiii. 9, of the morally strong. Pao-Td^eif : cf. Gal. ri. a ak\f)\»v rh /Sdpjj ^a(peiv, but /Saordffiv seems to have gradually come into use in the figurative sense. It is used o^ bearing the cross both literally (John xix. 17), and figuratively (Luke xiv. 27V We find it in later versions of the O. T. In Aq., Symm. and Theod. in Is. xl. 11, Ixvi. 12; in the two latter in Is. Ixiii. 9; in Matt. viii. 17 quoting Is. liii. 3: in none of these passages is the word used in the LXX. It became a favourite word in Christian literature, Ign. Ad Polyc. i, Epist. ad Diog. § 10 (quoted by Lft.). fiT) ^auTois dp^aKcir: cf. I Cor. X. 33 Kada>r Koyo) itavrtL. matra ipfaKu, fth CnTQ>v TO €fimiTov (Tv^cpifMv, where St. Paul is describing his ZV.2-4.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 395 own conduct in very similar circumstances. He strikes at the root of Christian disunion, which is selfishness. 2. CIS t6 dyadoK irpos oiKoSofii]i> : cf. xiv. 16 vfx&v t6 dya66v, 19 rd f^t olKoSonfjt rfis tls aAXijXovf. The end or purpose of pleasing them must be the promotion of what is absolutely to their good, further defined by oUoBon^, their edification. These words limit and explain what St. Paul means by ' pleasing men.' In Gal. i. lo (cf. Eph. vi. 6 ; i Thess. ii. 4) he had condemned it. In i Cor. ix. 30-23 ^^ ^^^ made it a leading principle of his conduct. The rule is that we are to please men for their own good and not our own. The y6p after ticaarot of the TR. should be omitted. For ijfuar •ome authorities (F G P 3, Valg., many Fathers) read ifiSv. 8. Kol yAp 4 Xpiaros b.t.X. The precept just laid down is enforced by the example of Christ (cf. xiv. 15). As Christ bore our reproaches, so must we bear those of others. KaGus y^YP**''"'**' St. Paul, instead of continuing the sentence, changes the construction and inserts a verse of the O. T. [Ps. Ixviii (Ixix). 10, quoted exactly according to the LXX], which he puts into the mouth of Christ. For the construction cf. ix. 7. The Psalm quoted describes the sufferings at the hands of the ungodly of the typically righteous man, and passages taken from it are often in the N. T. referred to our Lord, to whom they would apply as being emphatically 'the just one.' Ver. 4 is quoted John XV. 25, ver. 9 a in John ii. 17, ver. 9 b in Rom. xv. 3, ver. 12 in Matt, xxvii. 27-30, ver. 21 in Matt, xxvii. 34, and John xix. 29, ver. 22, t in Rom. zL 9, ver. 25a in Acts i. ao. (See Liddon, ad loc.) ot dKciSiafioC R.T.X. In the original the righteous man is repre- sented as addressing God and saying that the reproaches against God he has to bear. St. Paul transfers the words to Christ, who is represented as addressing a man. Christ declares that in suifering it was the reproaches or sufferings of others that He bore. 4. The quotation is justified by the enduring value of the O. T. •irpo€Yp<£<|>r], 'were written before,' in contrast with fjfitTfpav: cf. Eph. iii. 3 ; Jude 4, but with a reminiscence of the technical meaning of ypdcfxiv for what is written as Scripture. SiSoaKaXiaf, 'instruction*: cf. a Tim. iii. 16 ndaa ypa(f)ii 6f6- vvtvoTos Koi ct>0cX(/L(Of rrpos diSaaKoXiav. T^K AttiSo : the specifically Christian feeling of hope. It is the supreme confidence which arises from trust in Christ that in no cir- cumstances will the Christian be ashamed of that wherein he trusteth (Phil. i. 20) ; a confidence which tribulation only strengthens, for it makes more certain his power oi endurance and his experience of consolation. On the relation of patience to hope cf. ▼. 3 and I Thess. L 3. 196 SPISTLK TO THE ROMAKft [XV. A-^ This passage, and that quoted above from i Tim. iii. i6, lay down very clearly the belief in the abiding value of the O. T, which underlies St Paul's use of it But while emphasizing its Talue they also limit it The Scriptures are to be read for our moral instruction, ' for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness ' ; for the perfection of the Christian character, ' that the man of God may be complete, furnished unto every good work ' ; and because they establish the Christian hope which is in Christ Two points then St Paul teaches, the permanent value of the great moral and spiritual truths of the O. T., and the witness of the O. T. to Christ His words cannot be quoted to prove more than this. There ai« in thla Ten* • few IdloeyBcrMiet of B which muij be noted b«t need not be accepted; iypi^ (with Volg. Orig.-lat.) for wpotypitp^ i wiyra before ^ (ver. 33; PhiL iv. 9; i Thess. v. •3; Heb. xiii. so), r^t fkwidot (ver. 13), ndoTjt napaKX^vtmt (s Cor. L 3), wd Pct. V. 10). rh oM ^porctr : cf. Phil. ii. S-5 wXtipmvart fum r^v K^P^^t ^ *^ airh povrJT€ . . . rovro (ppovtiTt iv ifup & Koi tp Xp. 'I. KarA Xpiorir 'ItiaoGr: cf. S Cor. xi. 17 i XaX«», ov cari \.vpum XaX« : Col. ii. 8 ov xor^ X/>. : £ph. iv. S4 ritv Kaivbp ipOpinrop rbit warii Qthp KriaOtvra (Rom. viii. 87, which is generally quoted, is not in point). These examples seem to show that the expression must mean ' in accordance with the character or example of Christ' 9^ for 80(9, a later form, cf a Thest. iii. 16 ; a Tim. 1. 16, 18 ; ii. »$ ; Eph. L 1 7 (bat with variant Sii^ in the last two cases). Xp. 'Itjo. (B D £ G L, &C., Boh. Chrys.), not 'Iijff. X/). K A C F P 3 Vulg., Orig.-lat Theodrt. 6. Unity and harmony of worship will be the result of unity of life. A)iio0ufAa8i$r, ' with unity of mind.' A common word in the Acts (L 14, Ac). ■thv Qihv Kal waWpa tow Kupiow ^^w *li|(ro8 XpioroG. This expres- sion occurs also in a Cor. i. 3 ; xi. 3 1 ; Eph. i. 3 ; i Pet. i. 3. In Col. i. 3, which is also quoted, the correct reading is r^ efw naTp\ Tov Kvpiov fip.i>v *l. X. Two translations are possible : (i) ' God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ' (Mey.-W. Gif. Lid., Lips,). In favour of this it is pointed out that while warrip expects some correlative word, B«6t is naturally absolute; and that i &'ot tuH XV. 6-8.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 597 warffp occurs absolutely (as in I Cor. XV. 24 irav wapaiifltH ri/w fiam- \tiav Ty e€^ Kai troTpi), an argument the point of which does not seem clear, and which suggests that the first argument has not much weight. (2) It is better and simpler to take the words in their natural meaning, ' The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' ; (Va. Oltr. Go. and others), with which cf. Eph. i. 17 6 eeAs tov Kvplov ^ji&v *l. X. : Matt, xxvii. 46 ; Jn. xx. 17 ; Heb. i. 9. 7. The principles laid down in this section of the Epistle are now generalized. All whom Christ has received should, without any distinction, be accepted into His Church. This is intended to apply especially to the main division existing at that time in the community, that between Jewish and Gentile Christians. %ih irpoaXafi^ciKcaOc dXXi^Xous k.t.X. : the command is no longer to the strong to admit the weak, but to all sections of the com- munity alike to receive and admit those who differ from them ; so St. Paul probably said vfiat, not fjfias. The latter he uses in ver. i, where he is identifying himself with the ' strong,' the former he uses here, where he is addressing the whole community. On duJ cf. Eph, ii. II ; I Thess. v. 11 : on irpoaXafi^avtadt see xiv. i, 3. l/Ms is read by K A C E F G L, Vulg. Eoh. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. ; H/uit by B D P3. B is again Western, and its authority on the distinction between ^fxas and vfias is less trostwortiiy than on most other points (see WH. tt. pp. ai8, 310). CIS SiJfoK 0605 with frpoo-eXajS"-© : *in order to promote the jlory of God.' As the following verses show, Christ has sum- moned both Jews and Greeks into His kingdom in order to promote the glory of God, to exhibit in the one case His faithful- ness, in the other His mercy. So in Phil. ii. 11 the object of Christ's glory is to promote the glory of God the Father. 8. St. Paul has a double object. He writes to remind the Gen- tiles that it is through the Jews that they are called, the Jews that the aim and purpose of their existence is the calling of the Gentiles. The Gentiles must remember that Christ became a Jew to save them ; the Jew that Christ came among them in order that all the families of the earth might be blessed : both must realize that the aim of the whole is to proclaim God's glory. This passage is connected by undoubted links {816 ver. 7 ; Xry«» yap ver. 8) with what precedes, and forms the conclusion of the argument after the manner of the concluding verses of ch. viii. and ch. xi. This connexion makes it probable that ' the relations of Jew and Gentile were directly or indirectly involved in the rela- tions of the weak and the strong.' (Hort, Jiom. and Eph. p. 29.) SidKOfoi* . . . ircpiTO(tTis : not ' a minister of the circumcised,' still less a * minister of the true circumcision of the spirit,' which would be introducing an idea quite alien to the context, but ' a minister of circumcision' (so Gifibrd, who has an excellent note), Le. ta 39^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZV. 8-ia cany out the promises implied in that covenant the seal of which was circumcision ; so a Cor. iii. 6 diaK6t>ovt Kaiinjt iiadrjKrjg, In the Ep. to the Galatians (iv. 4, 5) St. Paul had said that Christ wai ' born of a woman, bom under the law, that He might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.' On the Promise and Circumcision see Gen. xii. 1-3, xviL 1-14. The privileges of the Jews which St. Paul dwells on are as fol- lows : (i) Christ has Himself fulfilled the condition of being circum- cised: the circumcised therefore must not be condemned, (a) The primary object of this was to fulfil the promises made to the Jews (cf Rom. ii. 9, 10). (3) It was only as a secondary result of thig Messiahship that the Gentiles glorified God. (4) While the bless- ing came to the Jews i/nip aXr]dfias to preserve God's consistency, it came to the Gentiles imip eXeowt for God's loving-kindness. ytftvTJaOai, which should be read with K A E L P 3 (ytytnnjffSt) ; it WM altered into the more usual aorist ytviaOai (B C D F G), perhai>s bMaoM it was supposed to be co-ordinated with So^iaai. tAs iiroYY^^io? f^y iroT^pwK '. cf. ix. 4, 5. 0. rh 8i lOt'T) . . . Soldaai. Two constructions are possible for these words: (i) they may be taken as directly subordinate to X«y» yap (Weiss, Oltr. Go.). The only object in this construction would be to contrast imep Aeowr with inip aXrideias. But the real antithesis of the passage is between /3f/3atw itpo({)T)Tfia9 xai ctdc0 ra fivar^pta wavra laA niaav Tfjv yvSxnv, xai iav c^tt naaap r^v viarw K.r.X. yvims is USed for the true knowledge which consists in a deep and comprehensive grasp of the real principles of Christianitj. 404 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 14, 1& «^ ft read by KBP, Clem.-Alez. Jo.-Daouuc. It It omlttad hj AC DEFGL, &C.: Chry*. Theodn. dyaObKruKiis : cf. a Thes3. i. ii; Gal. v. f i ; Eph. v. 9; nsed only in the LXX, the N. T. and writings derived from them. Generally it means 'goodness' or 'uprightness' in contrast with KtKta, as in Ps. li. (lii.) 5 fjynmja-at Kcuciav tmip ayaduxTvyrjp : defined more accurately the idea seems to be that derived from aya06s of active beneficence and goodness of heart. Here it is combined with yvSxTis, because the two words represent exactly the qualities which are demanded by the discussion in chap. xiv. St. Paul demands on the one side a complete grasp of the CLrislian faith as a whole, and on the other 'goodness of heart,' which may prevent a man from injuring the spiritual life of his brother Christians by disregarding their consciences. Both these were, St. Paul is fully assured, realized in the Roman community. Forms in -ffivrj are almost all late and mostly confined to Hellenistic writers. In the N. T. we have i\(Tj)^oavvr), &axqnoaiivrj, dyiataivi), Uptxxvv^, fifya\aiavvri : see Winer, § xvi. a /9 (p. 118, ed. Moulton). SuK^ficcot Kal &XXi]Xous coudeTciK. Is it lajing too much stress on the language of compliment to suggest that these words give a hint of St. Paul's aim in this Epistle? He has grasped clearly the importance of the central position of the Roman Church and its moral qualities, and he realizes the power that it will be for the instruction of others in the faith. Hence it is to them above all hat he writes, not because of their defects but of their merits. It is diflicQlt to believe that any reader will find an inconsistency between this verse and i. 11 or the exhortations of chap. xiT, whatever view he may hold concerning St. Paul's general attitude towards the Roman Church. It would be perfectly natural in any case that, after rebuking them on certain points on which he felt they needed correction, he should proceed to com- pliment them for the true knowledge and goodness which their spiritual condition exhibited. He could do so because it would imply a true estimate of the state of the Church, and it would prevent any offence being taken at his freedom of speech. But if the view suggested on chap. xiv. and throughout the Epistle be correct, and these special admonitions arise rather from the condition of the Gentile churches as a whole, the words gain even mors point ' I am not finding fault with you, I am warning yon of dangers you may incur, and I warn yon cspecudly owing to your prominent and important position.' 16. ToX|iT]pv iyiwv XfiTovpyoi : see the note on i. 9. Generally in the LXX the word seems used of the Levites as opposed to the priests as in a Esdras xx. 39 (Neh. x. 40) ml ol Upt'is Koi ol XuTovpyoi, but there is no such idea here. UpoupYourra, ' being the sacrificing priest of the Gospel of God.' St Paul is standing at the altar as priest of the Gospel, and the offering which he makes is the Gentile Church. Upovpyttv means (i) to 'perform a sacred function,' hence (a^ especially to * sacrifice ' ; and so rd UpovpyfiOtvja means ' the slain victims ; and then (3) to be a priest, to be one who performs sacred functions. Its con- ■traction is two-fold : (i) it may take the accusative of the thing sacrificed ; so Bas. im Ps. txv *ai Upovprp^am aoi riiv r^; alvlatcas Ovaiav ; or (a) Upovpyuv ri may be put for hpovpySy rivos (tvou (Galen, dt Thtriaea lanjnf fio/y UpovpySy), so 4 Macc. vii. 8 (v. 1.) tovi Upovprfovvras t6v y6noy : Greg. Naz. Upovpytty ooirrjpiay nvos (see Fri. mdlec. from whom this note is takoi). ^ irpo(r(f>opd. With this use of sacrificial language, cf. xii. i, a. The sacrifices off"ered by the priest of the New Covenant were not the dumb animals as the old law commanded, but human beings, the great body of the Gentile Churches. Unlike the old sacrifices which were no longer pleasing to the Lord, these were acceptable (rurrpoo-SeKTot, I Pet ii. 5). Those were animals without spot or blemish; these are made a pure and acceptable offering by the Holy Spirit which dwells in them (cf. viii. 9, 11). For the construction of irpoacpopa cf. Heb. x. 10 r. to» o-M/tarot*I. X^ 17. Ixw oSv T^v RauxTjaii'. The ttiv should be omitted (see below). * I have therefore my proper pride, and a feeling of confidence in my position, which arises from the fact that I am a servant of Christ, and a priest of the Gospel of God.' St Paul is defending his assumption of authority, and he does so on two grounds: (1) His Apostolic mission, 8ia Tfjv x^P'" "?" ^oBt'ia-av iun, as proved by his successful labours (w. 18-20); (a) the sphere of his labours, the Gentile world, more especially that portion of it in which the Gospel had iM>t been officially preached. The emphasis 4^6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 17-10. therefore is on iv Xp. 'I,, and to irp'x: t6v Sf6v. Wiih KaCxrja-iv cf. iii. 27, I Cor. xv. 31; with the whole verse, 2 Cor. x. 13 Tifxe'Lc fie oix.'i fls TO nfifrpa KavxTjai'iifda ... 17 6 fie Kavxo^lJ-fvoi iv Kvpico KavxaaSa. The RV. has not improved the text by adding r-qv before Kavxqatv. The combination N A LP. Boh., Arm., Chrys., Cyr., Theodrt. is stronger than that of B D E F G in this Epistle. C seems uncertain. 18. ou \Ap ToXfiiio-w K.T.X. ' For I will not presume to mention any works but those in which I was myself Christ's agent for the conversion of Gentiles.' St. Paul is giving his case for the assump- tion of authority {KnCxwn). It is only his own labour or rather works done through himself that he cares to mention. But the value of such work is that it is not his own but Christ's working in him, and that it is among Gentiles, and so gives him a right to exercise authority over. a Gentile Church like the Roman. With 7-SKixfiira> (XACDEFGLP, Boh. Hard., etc.) cf. 2 Cor. X. 12; there seems to be a touch of irony in its use here; with KareipyiiaaTo 2 Cor. xii. 12, Rom. vii. 13, &C. ; with \6yia Kai epya, 'in speech or action,' 2 Cor. x. 11. 19. i/ Zuvd'xei o-r]p,eta>i' k.t.X. : cf. 2 Cor. xii. 12 to /leV a-rjfiua tov uTtocTToXov KaTcipyacrfr} iv vfiiv iv jracri; vwofiitvfj , crij/jifiois re Koi ripacri Kai Svvaixecri: Heb. ii. 4 crvvfTTipapTvpovvTOs rdv Q(ov arjixflots re Koi repavi Kai TTOiKi'Kms dvvnpfat Kai Uvevfiaroi 'Ayiov fifpKrp.ois Kara rrjv avTOV 6(\r]aiv: I Cor. xii. 28. The combination arip.(Ta kol rlpara is that habitually used throughout the N. T. to express what are popularly called miracles. Both words have the same denotation, but different connotations, repa's implies anything mar- vellous or extraordinary in itself, arjueiov represents the same event, but viewed not as an objectless phenomenon but as a sign or token of the agency by which it is accomplished or the purpose it is intended to fulfil. Often a third word Swa/xdi is added which implies that these 'woiks' are the exhibition of more than natural power. Here St. Paul varies the expres- sion by saying that his work was accomplished in the power of signs and wonders ; they are looked upon as a sign and external exhibition of the Apostolic xapis. See Trench, Miracles xci ; Fri. ad loc. There can be no doubt that St. Paul in this passage assumes that he possessps the Apostolic power of working what are ordinarily called miracles. The evidence for the existence of miracles in the Apostolic Church is two- fold : on the one hand the apparently natural and unobtrusive claim made by the Apostles on behalf of themselves or others to the power of working miracles, on the other the definite historical narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. The two witnesses corroborate one another. Against them it might be argued that the standard of evidence was lax, and that the miraculous and non-miraculous were not sufficiently distinguished. But will the first argument hold against a pergonal assertion ? and does not the narrative of the Acts make it clear that miracles in a perfectly coi rect sense of the word were definitely intended ? ^i' SofdjAei rivcufjiaTos 'Ayio" : cf. ver, 13, and on the reading here see below. St. Paul's Apostolic labours are a sign of commission because they have been accompanied by a manifestation of more TV. 10.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 407 thaii natural gifts, and the source of his power is the Holy Spirit with which he is filled. This seems one of those passages in which the valne of the text of B where it is not vitiated by Western influence is conspicuons (cf. iv. 1). It reads (alone or with the support of the Latin Fathers) wfVfMTos without any addition. K L P &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c., add etod, A C D F G Boh. Valg. Arm.. Ath. &e. read iylov. Both were corrections of what seemed an imfinished expression. dwd 'UpoiNraX?))ft sal rJhX^ I^^XP^ "^^ 'iXXupiRoS. These words have caused a considerable amount of discussion. I. The first question is as to the meaning of kCkK^. (i) The majority of modern commentators (Fri. Gif. Mey-W.) interpret it to mean the country round Jerusalem, as if it were Koi rev KUKkf, and explain it to mean Syria or in a more confined sense the immediate neighbourhood of the city. But it may be pointed out that kvkX^ in the instances quoted of it in this sense (Gen. zxxv. 5 ; xli. 48) seems invariably to have the article. (a) It may be suggested therefore that it is better to take it as do the majority of the Greek commentators and the AV. 'from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum.' So Oecumenius «v*cXw in ftq T^y Kar tiidtiav 686v (v6vnr]6§s, dWa Kara to nepi$ and tO the same effect Chrys. Theodrt. Theophylact. This meaning is exactly supported by Xen. Anab. VII. i. 14 xal n6T(pa dm roi Iffjov opovs 8ioi 9optv(a6aiy % avaXy dta ^'» row etov. In both passages the meaning is to * fulfil,' ' carry out completely/ and so in the AV. ' to fully preach.' In what sense St. Paul could say that he had done this, see below. 20. ouTO) Se ({>iXoTifxoufi6i'oi' K.T.X. introduces a limitation of the statement of the previous verses. Within that area there had been places where he had not been eager to preach, since he cared only to spread the Gospel, not to compete with others, ovr** is ex- plained by what follows. (piKoTifiovufpov (i Thess. iv. 11; a Cor. V. 9) means to ' strive eagerly,' having lost apparently in late Greek its primary idea of emulation. See Field, Olium Norv. iii. p. 100, who quotes Polyb. i. 83; Diod. Sic. xii. 46; xvi. 49; Plut. Vit. Caes. liv. ifojidaevi : 'so named as to be worshipped.' Cf. t Tim. iL 19; Isa. xxvi. 13; Amos vi. 10. dXXoTpioi/ OcfiE'Xioi'. For aXXoVptov cf. a Cor. x. 15, 16. St. Paul describes his work (i Cor. iii. 10) as laying a 'foundation stone*: if aos &v T)y^Tai 6f6s. 'irpoire|ji6t]i'(u : I Cor. xvi. 6, 11 ; a Cor. L 16; need not mean more than to be sent forward on a journey with prayers and good wishes. The best commentary on this verse is ch. L 11 flf. Lipsius again strikes out vv. 23, 24 and below in ver. 28 St* vftaip tie rrjif Siraviav — a most arbitrary and unnecessary proceeding. The construction of the passage has been explained above and is quite in accordance with St. Paul's style, and the desire to pass fiirther west and visit Spain is not in any way inconsistent with the desire to visit Rome. The existence of a community there did not at all preclude him from visiting the city, or from preaching in it ; but it would make it less necessary for him to remain long. On the other hand, the principal argument against the genuineness of the passage, that St Paul never did visit Spain (on which see below ver. a 8), is most inconclusive ; a forger would never have interpolated a passage in order to suggest a visit to Spain which had never taken place. But all such criticism lails 4ia EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 24-87 absolutely to realize the width and boldness of St. Paul's schemes. He must carry the message of the Gospel ever further. Notliing will stop him but the end of his own life or the barrier of the ocean. 25. St. Paul now mentions a further reason which will cause some delay in his visit to Rome, and his missionary journey to Spain. SiaitOfUK TOis dyiois : cf. 9 CoT. viii. 4 r^v Koivavlav r^c huutovlat T^f *U Tovs iylovs. The expression ' ministering to the saints ' has become almost a technical expression in St. Paul for the contribu- tions made by the Gentile Christians to the Church at Jerusalem. 26. cuS^KTjo-aK implies that the contribution was voluntary, and made with heartiness and good-will : see on Rom. x. i {ndoida) ; I Cor. i. 81 ; Gal. i. 15. Koivwiav: of a collection or contribution t Cor. viii 4; iz. 13 ink&njTi r^r Koivatvlas tis axirovs kcu *ts wdvrmt and moumpttp Rom xii. 13 rats xp<'(i'( ^<^'' Ayiav Koivttvovvrts. itTu\o6s : cf. Gal. ii. 10 fi6vov rav frrwx*" t*^ ftrrjfusvtvmfuw, Ot the poor Christians at Jerusalem see James iL a ff. ; Renan, Ifist des Origines, &c. vol iv. ch. 3. In Jerusalem the Sadducees, who were the wealthy aristocracy, were the determined opponents of Christianity, and there must have been in the city a very large class of poor who were dependent on the casual employment and spasmodic alms which are a characteristic of a great religious centre. The existence of this class is clearly implied in the narrative at the beginning of the Acts of the Aposdes. There was from the very first a considerable body of poor dependent on the Church, and hence the organization of the Christian community with its lists (i Tim. v. 19) and common Church fund (d»r* tw Ktuvov Ign. Ad Polyc. iv. 3) and officers for distributing alms (Acts vL 1-4) must have sprung up very early. 27. cu8iu9\ vapuxcHs is used without any bad association. |icotvtt>vT)7av. The word Koivonita, of which the meaning u of coorte ' to be • sharer or participator in,' may be used either of the giver or of the receiver. The giver shares with the receiver by giving contributions, so Rom. xii. 13 (quoted on ver, 36) ; the receiver with the giver by receiving contri- ImtioaB, so here. The aormal coattiaction in the N. T. it w here with the XV. 87, 28.] THE APOSTLB'S PLANS 413 dative : paYi(rdfi,6i'os. St Paul resumes his argu- ment and states his plans after the digression he has just made on what lies in the immediate future. With mntKeaas (a Pauline word), cf. Phil. i. 6; it was used especially of the fulfilment of religious rites (Heb. ix. 6 and in classical authors), and coupled with X*iToupy^, iirraKis dfcr/xa (poptaai, (f>vyaitvdtit, \i6aadtlt, XTJpv^ yfv6fuvot !v T€ T.7 dvaroX.^ Koi (t> rfj iva€i, ri ytvvaiov rijs •nlartms ainov itKios fXa^ep, iiKaiocrvvTjv ii^d^as Skov top Kocrfiov Ka\ iiri tA ripfia t^s Svatms f\6(M)v, Koi (jLaprvprfcras eirl rwi/ tjyovufvuv, ovrws dnrjWdyTf rov Koafiov Koi tis Tov dyiov T&trov ('noiHvdrj. This passage is much stronger, and Lightfoot's note in favour of interpreting the words t6 ripiia rfft iv(Tfa)i as meaning Spain is very weighty ; but is it quite certain that a Jew, as Clement probably was (according to Lightfoot him- self), speaking of St. Paul another Jew would not look upon Rome relatively to Jerusalem as the reppa rijs Sva-tas, 'the western limit'? We in England might for example speak of Athens as being in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is also some force in Hilgenfeld's argument that tXdav and fiaftrvpfia-at should be taken together. For these reasons the question whether St. Paul ever visited Spain must remain very doubtful. 29. irXT)pu)iaTi : see on xi. I a. St. Paul feels confident that his visit to Rome will result in a special gift of Christ's blessing. He will confer on the Church a xap"^Ma irvfvuarMou, and will in his turn be comforted by the mutual faith which will be exhibited. Cf. L II, 12. It has been pointed out how strongly these words make for the authenticity and early date of this chapter. No one could possibly write in this manner at a later date, knowing the circumstances under which St. Paul actually did visit Rome. See also ver. 3a Im fV x°P9 tk^^*' T^pis v/xar dta 6(\f)paTos Qtov wwavajravatifuii vfiip. The TR. read* with K* L &c., Vnlg.-clem. Syrr. Ann., Chrys. Theodrt. tiXoyias rov (vayytXiov roS Xp, The words rov ti. rov should be omitted on decisive authority. 80. The reference to his visit to Jerusalem reminds St. Paul of the dangers and anxieties which that implies, and leads him to conclude this section with an earnest entreaty to the Roman Chris- tians to join in prayers on his behalf. Hort {Horn, and Eph. pp. 42-46) points out how this tone harmonizes with the dangers that the Apostle apprehended (cf. Acts xx. 17-38, xxi. 13, Ac); 'We cannot here mistake the twofold thoughts of the Apostle's mind. He is full of eager anticipation of visiting Rome with the full blessing of the accomplishment of that peculiar ministratioa XV. 80-82.] THE APOSTLE'S PLANS 415 But he is no less full of misgivings as to the probability of escaping with his life ' (p. 43). 8id Tiis Aydmfjs toO rircJfiaTot. That brotherly love which is one of the fruits of the Spirit working in us (cf. Gal. v. as). That wt^vfta is personal is shown by the parallelism with the first clause. vwayuviuaaBai. ' He breaks off afresh in an earnest entreaty to them to join him in an intense energy of prayer, wrestling as it were ' (Hort, op. at. p. 43). They will as it were take part in the contest that he must fight by praying on his behalf to God, for all prayer is a spiritual wrestling against opposing powers. So of our Lord's agony in the garden : Luke xxii. 44 ; Matt. xxvi. 43. Cp. Origen ad loc. : Vix enim invenies, ui oranti cuiquam non aliquid inanis et alienae cogitationis occurrai, tt intentionem, qua in Deum mens diri- gitur, declinet ac/rangat, atque earn per ta quat non compettt, rapiat. Et ideo agon magnus est orationis, ut obsistentibus tnimicis, et ora- tionis sensum in diver sa rapientibus, fixa ad Deum semper mens stabili intentione contendat, ut merito possit etiam ipse dicere: ceriamen bonum certavi, cursum consummavi. 31. The Apostle's fear is double. He fears the attacks upon himself of the unbelieving Jews, to whom more than any other Christian teacher he was an object of hatred : and he is not certain whether the peace-offering of the Gentile Churches which he was bearing to Jerusalem would be accepted as such by the narrow Jewish Christians at Jerusalem. How strong the first feeling was and how amply justified the Acts of the Apostles show (Acts xx. 3, as; xxi. 11). Iq ver. 30 iXiK^ it omitted by B76, Aeth., Chryt. alone, bot perhapa correctly. In ver. 31 ^ iwpocpopia for SiOKotia, and if 'Itpovaak^it for tit 1. are instances of Western paraphrase shared by B (B D F G). 82. But the prayer that the Roman Christians offer for St. Paul will also be a prayer for themselves. If his visit to Jerusalem be successful, and his peace-offering be accepted, he will come to Rome with stronger and deeper Christian joy. ' After the personal danger and the ecclesiastical crisis of which the personal danger formed a part' (Hort) he hopes to find rest in a community as yet untroubled by such strife and distraction. auraKairai5(rfiei, 'I may rest and refresh my spirit with you.' Only used here in this sense (but later in Hegesippus ap. Eus. ff. E. IV. xxii. 2). Elsewhere it is used of sleeping together (Is. xi. 6). The unusual character of the word may have been the cause of its omission in B and the alteration in some Western MSB. (see below). There ore aeveral variations of reading in this verse : (i) MAC, Boh. Arm., Orig.-Iat. read iKQmv . . . ^wmaimivmyMi with some variation in the position of iKQinv (after Iva K, Boh., Orig. -lat ; aftei y(fi^ A C agreeing in this with other authorities). All later MSS. with tha 4l6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZV. 82-XVL L Western gronp read i\0o) and insert col before evrarawaiffwfieu. 6 U alone in having (\0qj and omitting arwavarravacj/Mt ifuv, but receives support in the reading of some Western authoiities ; D E read &va\pv^o) fitd' ifiSiv, F G 4i«- ^X*" A"- ^-f agreeing with most Latin authorities, rtfrigerer vobiscum. (a) For 6j(i 6t\rnta.T0\ etoC (A CLP, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm., Orig.-lat Chrys. Thdrt.), K Ambrst. have 8. 9. 'Irjaov Xptarov, DEFG (with defg), fnld. Xpiarov 'It]coVtap (uWovtup tturrfidv. This name caused great difficulty to Renan, ' What ! had all the Chiu-ch of Ephesus assembled at Rome ?' 'AH' when analyzed is found to mean three persons of whom two had been residents at Rome, and the third may have been a native of Ephesus but is only said to have belonged to the province of Asia (cf. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 301). How probable it was that there should be foreigners in Rome attached to Christianity may be illustrated from the Acts of Justin which were quoted in the note on an earlier portion of the verse. These give an account of the martyrdom of seven persons, Justin himself, Charito, Charitana, Euelpistus, Hierax, Liberianus, and Paeon. Of these Justin we know was a native of Samaria, and had probably come to Rome from Ephesus, Euelpistus who was a slave of the Emperor was a native of Cappadocia, and Hierax wag of lamium in Phrygia This was about 100 years later. 4aa EPISTLE TO THE ROMANg [ZVl. I^-T 'Arlea it fnpported by preponderating anthoiity (KABCDFG, Vulg. Boh. Ann. Aeth., Orig.-Iat. Jo.'Damasc. Ambrat) againit 'Axatas (LP &&, Syrr., Chrys. Theodrt.)- For the idea of illnstratinp this chapter horn inscriptions we are of coarse indebted to bishop Lightfoot s able article on Caesar's household {PhilippianSf p. 169^. Since that paper was written, the appearance of a portion of vol. vL of the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions, that, namely, containing the inscriptions of the city of Rome, has both provided as with more extensive material and also placed it in a more convenient form for reference. We have therefore gone over the ground again, and either added new illustrations or given references to the Latin Corpus for inscriptions quoted by Lightfoot from older collections. Where we have not been able to identify these we have not, except in a few cases, thought it necessary to repeat his references. A large number of these names are found in Columbaria containing th* monuments and ashes of members of the imperial household during the first century : these special collections are kept together in the Corpus (vi. 3926- 8397)- There is also a very large section devoted to other names belong- ing to the eUmus Augusti (vi. 8398-9101). A complete use of these materials will not be possible until the publication of the Indices to vol. ▼». For a discussion of the general bearing of these references, see Introduction, 6. Mapiac (which is the correct reading) may like Mapta^ be Jewish, but it may also be Roman. In favour of the latter alter- native in this place it may be noticed that apparently in other cases where St. Paul is referring to Jews he distinguishes them by calling them his kinsmen (see on ver. 7). The following inscription from Rome unites two names in this list, C.l.L. vi. 22223 D'M'j MARIAE I AMPLIATAE ctt. ; the next inscription is from the house- hold, ib. 4394 MARIAE • M • L • XANTHE | NYMPHE • FEC • DE • SVO. t|tis iroXXd ^KOTriaacK cis u^a$. This note is added, not for the sake of the Roman Church, but a« words of praise for Maria herself. Mapi'av is read by A B C P, Boh. Arm. ; Mapta>4 by K D E F G L, &c., Chrys. The evidence for tU vfidt, which is a difficult reading, is preponderating (NABCP, Syrr. Boh.), and it is practically supported by the Western group (D £ F G, Vulg.), which have h ifur. The correction «Is ^fta$ is read by L, Chrys. and later aathorities. 7. 'Av%p6viKov: a Greek name found among members of the imperial household. The following inscription contains the names of two persons mentioned in this Epistle, both members of the household, C.I. L. vi. 5326 Dis • manibvs | c jvlivs • hermes I VIX • ANN • XXXIII • M • V I DIEB • XIII | C • IVLIVS • ANDRONICVS j CONLIBERTVS • FEC | BENE • MERENTI • DE • SE : See alsO 5325 and 11626 where it is the name of a slave. 'looi'iai' : there is i^ome doubt as to whether this name is mas- culine, lovviai or 'lovwa?, a contraction of Junianus, or feminine Junia. Junia is of course a common Roman name, and in that case the two would probably be husband and wife ; Junias on the other hand is less usual as a man's name, but seems to re- present a form of contraction common in this list, as Patrobaa v\aKais itfpuTfTorripms ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. v iKToKii dtv/ia opftras. Nor is it necessary that the word should mean that Andronicus and Junias had suffered at the same time as St. Paul ; he might quite well name them fellow-prisoners if they had hke him been imprisoned for Christ's sake. Metaphorical explanations of the words are too far-fetched to be probable. omi'^s fiffir 4-iriaT]fioi iv Tois diroirroXois may mean either (i) well known to the Apostolic body, or (2) distinguished as Apostles. In favour of the latter interpretation, which is probably correct, are the following arguments, (i) The passage was apparently so taken by all patristic commentators, (ii) It is in accordance with the meaning of the words, iniarinoi, lit. ' stamped,' ' marked,' would be used of those who were selected from the Apostolic body as 'distinguished,' not of those known to the Apostolic body, or looked upon by the Apostles as illustrious ; it may be translated 'those of mark among the Apostles.' (iii) It is in accordance with the wider use of the term ajrocrroXof. Bp. Lightfoot pointed out (Gala/tans, p. 93) that this word was clearly used both in a narrow sense of ' the twelve ' and also in a wider sense which would include many others. His views have been corroborated and strengthened by the publication of the Didache. The existence of these 'Apostles,* itinerant Christian Evangelists, in Rome will suggest perhaps one of the methods by which the city had been evangelized. ot Kai irpo Ifikou '^v^ovo.oy.v kv Xpiaru. Andronicus and Junias had been converted before St Paul : they therefore belonged to the earliest days of the Christian community ; perhaps even they were 434 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVL 7, & jf those who during the dispersion after the death of Stephen began almost immediately to spread the word in Cyprus and Syria Acts xi. 19). As Dr. Weymouth points out {On tht Rendering tn/« English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect, p. s6) the perfect should icre be translated ' were.' 'It it ntterly amazing,' he writes, 'that in Rom. zri. 1 A mX w/4 IfioS •■^Vf6vaoii'o>' KOI TpotJjaJCTOK are generally supposed to have been two sisters. Amongst inscriptions of the household we have 4866 D. M. I VARIA • TRYPHOSA | PATRONA • ET | M. EPPIVS • CLEMENS I : 5035 D. M. | TRYPHAENA | VALERIA • TRYPHAENA I MATRI • B • M • F • ET I VALERIUS • FVTIANVS (quoted by Lft. from Ace. di Archeol. xi. p. 375): 5343 telesphorvs • ET • TRY- PHAENA, 5774, 6054 and other inscriptions quoted by Lft, Atten- tion is drawn to the contrast between the names which imply • delicate,' ' dainty,' and their labours in the Lord. The name Tryphaena has some interest in the early history of the Church as being that of the queen who plays such a prominent part in the ttoiy ol Paul and Theda, and who is knows to have been a real character. riepaiSo. The name appears as that of a freedwoman, C. I. L. vL 23959 DIS ■ MANIB I PER • SIDI • L • VED | VS • MITHRES | VXORI. It does not appear among the inscri})tions of the household. 13. 'PoGo»' : one of the commonest of slave names. This Rufus is commonly identified with the one mentioned in Mark xv. ai, wnere Simon of Cyrene is called the father of Alexander and Rufus. St. Mark probably wrote at Rome, and he seems to speak ol Rufus as some one well known. T^ litXcKT&r iv Kwpiy. ' Elect ' is probably not here used in the XVI. 18-16.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 497 technical sense ' chosen of God/ — this would not be a feature to distinguish Rufus from any other Christian, — but it probably means ' eminent,' * distinguished for his special excellence,' and the addition of cV Kvpt'w means ' eminent as a Christian ' (2 Jo. i ; i Pet. ii. 6). So in English phraseology the words ' a chosen vessel ' are used of all Christians generally, or to distinguish some one of marked excellence from his fellows. Kal t^v )&t|Wpa auTou km i^ov. St. Paul means that she had showed him on some occasion all the care of a mother, and that therefore he felt for her all the aflFection of a son. 14. 'AaoYKpiToi' : the following inscription is of a freedman ot Augustus who bore this name, C. I. Z. vi. 1 2565 d. m. | asyncreto 1 AVG • LIB • FECIT • FL | AVIA • SVCCESSA | PATRONO BENE | ME- RENTi. The name Flavia suggests that it is somewhat later than St. Paul's time. ♦Xeyorro. The inscriptions seem to throw no light on this name. The most famous person bearing it was the historian of the second century who is referred to by Origen, and who gave some informa- tion concerning the Christians. 'Epfk^v : one of the commonest of slave names, occurring con- stantly among members of the imperial household. narpoPaf. An abbreviated form of Patrobius. This name was borne by a well-known freedman of Nero, who was put to death by Galba (Tac. Jits/, i. 49 ; ii. 95). Lft. quotes instances of other freed- men bearing it: Ti • CL • avg • L • patrobivs (Grut. p. 610. 3), and Ti • CLAVDio • patrobio (Murat. p. 1329). 'Epfias is likewise an abbreviation for various names, Hermagoras, Hermerus, Hermodorus, Hermogenes. It is common among slaves, but not so much so as Hermes. Some fathers and modem writers have identified this Hermas with the author of the ' Shepherd,' an identification which is almost certainly wrong. Kal Toi^s 9iiy auTois dSeXt^ous. This and the similar expression in the next verse seem to imply that these persons formed a small Christian community by themselves. 15. ^iXtiXoyos. A common slave name. Numerous instances are quoted from inscriptions of the imperial household : C. I. L. vi. 41 16 OAMA • LIVIAE • L • CAS . . . | PHOEBVS • PHILOLOGI | qUOted by Lft. from Gorius, Mon.Liv. p. 168 ; he also quotes Murat. p. 1586. 3, p. 2043. 2 ; Grut. p. 630. I. He is generally supposed to be the brother or the husband of Julia, in the latter case Nereus, hia sister Nerias, and Olympas may be their children. 'louX^af. Probably the commonest of all Roman female names, certainly the commonest among slaves in the imperial household. The following inscription is interesting: C. I. L. vi. 20416 d. M. | IVUAE NEREi * P • | CLAVDIAE. The name Julia Tryphosa occun •0715-7 in one case apparently in a Christian inscription. 4a8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 16, 18 Ni|p^«. This name is found in inscriptions of the imperial house- hold, C. I. L. XL 4344 NEREVS • HAT • GERMAN | PEVCENNVS GERMANici I ANVS • NERONis • CAESARis. It ts best known in the Roman Church in connexion with the Acts of Nereus and Achilleus, the eunuch chamberlains of Domitilla (see Acta Sancto- rum May. iiL p. a ; Texte und Untertuchungen, Band xi. Heft a). These names were, however, older than that legend, as seems to be shown by the inscription of Damasus {Bull. Arch. Christ. 1874, p. ao sq. ; C. Ins. Christ. IL p. 31) which represents them as soldiers. The origin of the legend was probably that in the cata- comb of Domitilla and near to her tomb, appeared these two names very prominently; this became the groundwork for the later romance. An inscription of Achilleus has been found in the cemetery of Domitilla on a stone column with a corresponding column which may have borne the name of Nereus : both date from the fourth or fifth century {Bull. Arch. Christ. 1875, p. 8 sq.). These of course are later commemorations of earlier martyrs, and it may well be that the name of Nereus was in an early inscription (like that of Ampliatus above). In any case the name is one connected with the early history of the Roman Church; and the fact that Nereus is combined with Achilleus, a name which does not appear in the Romans, suggests that the origin of the legend was archaeo- logical, and that it was not derived from this Epistle (Lightfoot, Clement, i. p. 51 ; Lipsius Apokr. Apgetch. iL 106 flf.). 'OXufiirds : an abbreviated form like several in this list, apparently for '0\vnnt6i(iipoi. 16. iv (^iXi^piTi dyiif : so I Thess. t. a6 ; i Cor. xvi. ao ; a Cor. xiii. la; I Pet. v. 14 avndaaa-dt a\\f]\ovt iv ^iKrjfiaTi aydin;;. The earliest reference to the ' kiss of peace ' as a regular part of the Christian service is in JusL Mart. Apol. i. 65 dX\rj\ovs ^tXiy/xari a(Tna(6fi*6a nava-dfitvoi r&v tix&v. It is mentioned in Tert. dc Oral. 14 {osculum pcuis) ; Const. Apost. ii. 57. la ; viii. 5, 5 ; and it became a regular part of the Liturgy. Cf. Origen ad loc. : Ex hic sermont, aliisque nonnullis similibus, mot eccUsiis iraditus est, ui post orationtf osculo se invicem suscipiant fratrts. Hoc auUm osculum sanctum appellat Apostolus. al 4KKXT)\tia, hv i ^(^ ^ 'O'Xta, aoi ^ dd^ A» rf alaxvi'D aiirip, 01 ra iniytia OBEETINaS OP ST. PAUL'S C0MPAin01l& ZVI. 21-23. All my companions — Timothy^ Lucius, yason, and Sostpater — greet you. I Tertius, the amanuensis, also give you Christian greeting. So too do Gaius, and Erastus, treasurer of Corinihy and Quartus. 21-28. These three verses form a sort oi postscript added aftei 43* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 21-27 the conclusion of the letter and containing the names of St Paul's companions. 21. Ti|i<59eos had been with St Paul in Macedonia (» Cor, I i) : of his movements since then we have no knowledge. The /io» with v. The only Greek MSS. that omit t« are DE, and the authority of versions can hardly be quoted against it Moreover, the sentence is much simpler if it be inserted. It couples together avtp(o6iVTot and yvapiadfin-nt, and all the words from did « ypa(f)Ap to the latter word should be taken together, fit wapra to t6pti probably goes with tls vnaKorjv wiarfms and not with ypaptadevros. hid TC ypa^CiP -n-po({>i]TiKWK . . . yvupiaQitnos. All the ideas in this sentence are exactly in accordance with the thoughts which run through this Epistle. The unity of the Old and New Testa- ments, the fact that Christ had come in accordance with the Scriptures (Rom. i. i, a), that the new method of salvation although apart from law, was witnessed to by the Law and the Prophets (fiapTvpovpivri vno rov vopov Ka\ riv irpocprjrip Rom. iiL ai), the constant allusion esp. in chaps, ix-xi to the Old Testament Scriptures; all these are summed up in the phrase dia ypa(f)mt wpo ^dOoi nXovTov Koi ao(f)ias Koi yvaxTtat &tov xi. 33) J even when we cannot follow His tracks. He is leading and guiding us, and the end will prove the depths of His wisdom. 27. Y ^ ^^i°- ttX The reading here is very difficult. I. It would be easy and simple if following the authority of B. 33. 7a, Pesh., Orig.-lat. we could omit «, or if we could read avry with P. 3 1. 54 (Boh. Cannot be quoted in favour of this reading; Wilkins' translation which Tisch. follows is wrong). But both these look very much like corrections, and it is difficult to see how 4 came to be inserted if it was not part of the original text. Nor is it inexplicable. The Apostle's mind is so full of the thoughts of the Epistle that they come crowding out, and have produced the heavily loaded phrases of the doxology ; the struc- ture of the sentence is thus lost, and he concludes with a well- known formula of praise ^ ^ d6$a k.tA. (Gal. i. 15; a Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. ai). a. If the involved construction were the only difficulty caused by reading y, it would probably be right to retain it But there are others more serious. How are the words dm 'L X. to be taken? and what does w refer to ? (1) Grammatically the simplest solution is to suppose, with Lid., that a refers to Christ, and that St. Paul has changed the construction owing to the words dta *I. X. He had intended to finish *to the only wise God through Christ Jesus be Glory/ aa in Jude 05 /m(iy ^'f tf'ur^pt '}/****', ^ '!• 3L rw Kvpiov iiftrnp, do^ i3fi KPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZVI. IT itryahmvvpif, crX, but the words *liyr. J., p. cix. Baruch, Apocalypse of, pp. 33 ; i|7 • 307, (Sec. Basileides, p. Ixxxii. Batiffol, The Abb^ P., p. bnr. Biumlein, W., pp. ao, &c. Baor, F. C, pp. xxxii; xxxix; aai; 400. Beet, Dr. J. Agar, p. cviL BcnedictioD, The eoadnding^ p. adl 43« IMDBX TO THE NOTES Bengel, J. A-, jp. m. Berliner, p. xviiL Beyichlag, Dr. Willibald, p. #75. Beta, Theodore, p. civ. Blood-shedding, Sacrificial, pp. 89; 91 f. ; 119. Boenurianus, Codex, pp. Ixiv ; bdz. Bohairic Version, viiL a8; p. IzriL Bousaet, VV., p. Ixviii f. Browning, Robert, p. 263. Bnrton, ProL £. D« Witt, p. M ttd passim. Cains, p. xxix. ' Caligula, p. ix. Call, Conception of, pp. 4; fiy. Callistus, the Roman Bishop, p. zziii. Calvin, pp. ciii; 151 f , ; 373. Capito, p. XV. Caspari, Dr. C. P., p liL Catacumbas, ad, p. xxx. Cenchieae, xvi. I ; p. xzxviL Ceriani, Dr., p. Ixvii. Charles, R. H., pp. 145; 326, &c. Chrestus, p. xx. Chrysostom, St, pp. xcix ; 148; 370; 395, &c. Churches, the earliest (buildings fox worship), xvi. 5. Cicero, p. xx. Circumcision, p. 106 flF. Civil Power, pp. 365 ff. ; 369 ff. Claromontanus, Codex, pp. Ixiv ; Ixix. Clemen, Dr. A., pp. xxxvii ; xxxviii ; 307- Clemen, Dr. C, pp. xxxvii f. ; Ixxxix. Clemens Romanus, pp. xxix ; Ixxix ; 147; 371- Clemens, Flavins, p. xxxv. Coislinianus, Codex, pp. Ixiv ; IzviH ; Ixxii. Colet, John, p. cii. Collection for the saints in Jerusalem, pp. xxxvi ; xcii. Columbaria, p. xviL Commandments, The Ten, p. 373 f. Communication in Roman Empire, p. xxvi f. Conflict, The Inward, p, 184 i. Conversion, p. 186. Conybeare, F. C, p. Ixix. Cook, Canon, p. IxviL Corbulo, p. XV. Corinth, p. xxxvi. Corinthians, First Epistle to, pp. xxxrii ; 418. Corsseo, Dr. P., pp. Ixviii ; Ixix ; xcviiL Covenant, pp. 330; t^ Critici Sacri, p. da, Cyprian, p. liL Cyrene, p. xvi. Cyril of Alexandria, p. ai6 1 Damascenus, Johannes, p. & Damasus, the Roman Bishop, p zs& Date of the Epistle, pp. xxxvi ff. ; a. Dative case, iv. ao; vi 5 ; viL 4, f , viii. 34. David, Descent of Messiah from, L }] as anthor of Psalms, iv. 6 ; xL 9. Days, Observance of, p. 386 f. Death, Idea of (see 'Jesns Christ, Death of ; Bin/aroi)^ vi. 8. Deissmann, Hen G. A., pp. 160 £ j 444 ff. Delitzsch, Dr. F., p. 45 «tA passim. Depositio Martyrum, p. xxx. De Rossi, Cav. G. B., p. 418 fL De Wette, p. cvi. Dickson, Dr. W. P., p. cvL Dionysins of Corinth, p. «»»». Silvanus, p. xxix. Sin, pp. 130 ff ; 136 ff. ; I43ff. ; 176 ff. Sinaiticus, Codex, pp. Ixii ; Ixvii. Slavery in Rome, p. xviii. Smeiid, Dr. R., p. 39. Smith, Dr. W. Robertaon, pp. 14; 317 f- Society, the Christian, pp. laa f. ; 355. Sohm, Dr. R., p. 15. Sonship, p. 30I ff. Sosi pater, p. xxxviL Spain, XV. 34, 38. Speculum, The, p. ia4. Spirit, The Holy, pp. i89ff. ; 196 L; 199 C Spiritual gifts, pp. si ; 358 ft Stachys, xvi. 9 ; p. xxvii. Steck, Rudolph, p. IxxxvL Stichi {arixoi), p. Ivi L Stoicism, p. xtL Stuart, Moses, p. ctL Suetonius, p. xxL Suillins, p. xvi. Swete, Dr. H. B., p. 7 ; 17 ; ssi. Syriac Versions, p. Ixxi f. Terminology, Theological, p. 17. Tertius, xvi. a a. TertuUian, p. xxix. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs p. Ixxxii and/oJxiM. Text of the Epistle, p. Ldii. New nomenclature saggested, p. Ixxi. Theodoret, pp. c ; i\^ waA fassim. Theophanes, p. cix. Theophylact, p. c. Thessalonians, Epp. to, p. bdL Tholuck, F. A. G., p. cr. Timotheus, xvi. 3i ; p. xxzriL Toy, Prof C. H., p. 306 1 Trent, Council of, p. 153. Trinity, Doctrine of the, pp. i( , aoo ; 340. Tryphaena, xvi. la ; p. xxxr. Tryphosa, xvi. i a ; p. xxxr. Turpie, Mr. D M'^Calnun, p. 307. Tyndale, pp. 65 ; 175; 194; 393. Union with Christ, pp. 117; 153 ff.; 163 ff. Urbanus, xtL 9 ; pp. xxvii ; xxxir. Valentinians, p. IxxxiL Van Manen, W. C, p. IxxxrlL Vatican Hill, The, p. xxix. Vaiicaniu, Codex, pp. Ixiii ; Ixviii , Ixxiii. Vaughan, Dr. C. J., p. criL Vegetarians, pp. 385 ; 401 £ Versions, p. Ixvi. Vicarious suffering, p. 93. Victor, Bishop, p. lii. Vipsanins Terenas, p. Xf. Voelter, Dr. D., p. Ixxxrtt. Weak, The, pp. 383 ff. ; 399!. Weber, Dr. F., p. 7 and passim, Weber, Dr. V., p. 375. Weiss, Dr. Bemhard, pp. zl ; cr'* Wcisse, C. H., p. Ixxxvu Westcott, Bishop, pp. 93 ; i S9. II. LATIN WORDS 443 Western Text, The, p. Ixxi ff. Wctstein, J. T., p. cr. Weymouth, Dr. R. F., p. 414. Wiclif, pp. 9; 175; 194. Wordsworth, Dr. Christopher, p. eviL Works, pp. 57 ; loa ; 175 f. Wrath of God, pp. 47 ; 117. Zahn, Dr. Theodor, p. IzJOCV. Ziegler, L., p. Ixvi. II. Latin Words. amguttia, ^ tf. cari/as, pp. 114; 37f. definitut, p. 8. deputatus, p. sat. dtstinatuSf pw 8. diisctiSt pp. 114; 17^ iugulatiCf p. a at. mcrti/uari, p. aat. perficio, pp. 58; ia4. perpetro, p. 58. pressura, pp. 571 I S^ vutiwia, p. a 2 a. III. Greek Words. [This if m Index to the Notes and not a Concordance ; sometimes however, where it is desirable to illustrate a particular usage, references are given to passages which are not directly annotated in the Commentary. The oppor- tunity is also taken to introduce occasional references to two works which appeared too late for use in the Commentary, N^otes on Epistles of St. Paul from unpublished Comnuntaries (including the first seven chapters of the Romans) by Bp. Lightfoot, and Bibelstiidien by G. Adolf Deissiiiann (Mar- burg, 1895). Some especially of the notes on worda in the former work attain to classical value (070601 and St'/fotoj, dva/ft^aAatoCaSai, hipwviov), and the latter brings to bear much new illustrative matter from the Flinders Petrie and other papyri and from inscriptions. In some instances the new material adduced has led to a confirmation, while in others it might have led to a modification of the views expressed in the Commentary. We cannot however include under this latter head the somewhat important differences in regard to ^iHMovv and KaraWdafftiv. Bp. Lightfoot 's view of SiKoiovy in particular seems to ns less folly worked oat than was usual with him.] •Aj3/3a, viii. 15. afivaaot, x. 7. ir^oBoSf T. 7 (-Lft.) ; ri dYotfdr, xiiL 4 ; xiv. 16 ; xr. a. ir^/aJ&aiawrf, xr. 14. difaTTaVf xiii. 8, 9. ir^-rr), ▼. 5, 8; xiL 9; xiiL 10; XV. 30 ; pp. 374 ff. : c£. Deissmann, p. 8of. SiYffXoi, viii 38, ayia.(yM, yL I9. ayOpomos. ix. ao. 6 < 147 ft 9i6, ziiL 5 ; xt. »t. ttiri, i. 10 ; iii. aa SiXOirraauu, xvL 17. Stimuy, ix. 30; zii. 14. 8o«i/((iC«r, i. a8; iL 18 ; siL t. «0««M, T. 4. 86£a, L S3 ; ill. S3 ; T. a ; tL 4 ; viii. 18, SI ; ix. 4; XT. 7| svL a7. So(i(a), L ai ; viii. 30; sL I}; a?. 9. tovXtiOf viii. 15, ai. SovAoff, L I ; p. 18. 96raiut, i. 4, 16 ; viii |t. SfuraaOcUj xvL a|. Swarui', xiT. 4. Svcar^, zii. 18I Scaped, T. If. fYMrrpcff, xi. 17. iyxSirrtty, xv. as. ISoAiovffar, iii. 13. I0v% i. 5 ; ii. 14 ; Ix. 30. tlyt, V. 6 (▼. 1.) ; [iii 30]. tlKiw, viii. a9, rfvcp, iii. 30. cfiwf , i. 10 ; xi. 14. flp'fivij, i ?; V. I ; viii. 6; xiT. 17; »▼• i3» 33 ; xvi. ao; p, 18. •b, ii. 36 ; iv. 3 ; viii. 18 ; xi. 36 ; XV. a6 (cf. Deissmaim, p. 113 ff.). dt T<5 with inf., i. 11, ao (otixerwise Lft.); iv. II, 16, 18. •&. o, T. 15, 17 ; ix. 10. U, ii. 8 (cf. lit); iii. a6, 30 (cf. lit.) ; iv. 14, 16; si. 36; xiL 18. imbiKos, xiii. 4. ivci, ix. 36. btrnKSff xi. 17. l«/rXi7L 5 p. 350. ttcviwrtir, ix. 6. iicxvvuv, V, 5. lA.a Ttjffov, xiv. 1 4. Ik XpiffT^, ix. I ; xvi. 7. iy Xpiar^ 'Iriaov, iii. 34 ; vi. II. jy (rap/ic/, viii. 9. iv itvtvuari, viii. 9. ky ^, viii. 3. IvSctxi'vcrdai, iL 15: ix. 17, St. iyi(i(ts, iii. 35, 36. ifSvca/iovcr&oi, iv. 30. ivoiKeiv, vii. 17 ; viii. 11. iyroK^i, viL 8. irrvyx&vfiy, xL s : cf. Deismumn, p. 117 f. I^avarav, vii. II. i(ffflpuy, ix. 17. ((oftoXoffiaOcu, xiv. II. i(ovffla, ix. 31 ; xiii. i. lva77(X{a, iv. 13; ix. 4, 8} p> ll (cf. Lft. on iv. ai). fwcuvoi, ii. 39. 4iraia^\, ix. 6. *lapariXlTtp, ix. 4 ; p. 64. lar&vai, iii. 31 ; idT. 4. KaS^Kom, Tti, i. slL MaOiardyai, v. 1 9. «a0o, viii. a6. sadopaf, i. ao. Kaip6s, iii. a6 ; xiL II (t. L); xiiL it, Kard Kcup6r, card rii^ »up6ff v, 6; ix. 9. Kaxia, i. 39. Kaxo>7d(ia, L 39. «oA€r»', iv. 17 ; vliL 30; ix. y. Kci\m, xi. ao. Kap^la, i. ai. Kapwo(pop(iv, vii. 4 (otherwiae Lft.). carci, ii. 5 ; viii. 37 ; xL aS; xr.f. Ka0' tis, xii. 5. car' otKoy, xvL §. car£it, xL 8. «arap7»'V, iii. 3, 31 | vL ( ; vfl. t* 4, Karapri^fiy, ix. aa. Karacppovfiv, ii. 4. caTcVavrj, iv. It. icaTfpya((aOi* xvl. I. K^ipvyfta, xvL Sf. Kt)fwff4(ix C wiyrott, iii. 9. •B/xi, L 85. ««!/>' ^irroTt, xiL i€. •a/xi/SatTiT, iy. 15. «apaSi8(Srai, L 34 ; It. 35 ; tL 17. tapa(i]Xovy, z. 19 ; zL II. wapaKftaOtu, rii. 18, 31. wapatco^, T. 19, wapiwrojfui, ▼. 15 ; sL II (c£ Lft. on ▼. 3o). wmpAKkijffit, ZT. f. wapfiaipxtodcu, ▼. JO. tiptcts, m. as. Mi/H(rr(i>^ vapi^TirttPf vL 1} ; ziL I. wapovff/a, pp. 379 f. vcb, iz. 5 ; z. 16 ; zL 36, 3s. wari^p, i, L 7 ; ▼!. 4 ; viiL 15 ; cf. zr. C nr^p (-ipatri«rch), iz. 5, 10; zL aS ; ZT. 8. wiwotBa, ii. if. *cp2 ifiafyrlas, riil. |, vc/KiraTcry, zilL l^ 9*ptffa(ia, ▼. 17. v(/>c(rff($t, liL I. mtpiToitfi, iL 39 ; a«, 1. wi7X<5j, ir. a I. wutpla, iii. 14^ vi^n;t, xi. 17. wlnrtiv, xi. II, tt ; xir. 4. wtaT«vu¥f wi0Tvittd^(tr, iz. a). vpoixtoOai, iii. 9. rpoi^cTadai, xii lO. «p<$df<(f, iii. 36 ; Tiii it. vpoffayety^, r. a. wpocKoprtpfly, ziL It. wp6x<5i> XV. 26. woipow, xi. 7> wAptMit, zi. 15. ^/lo, ». 8, 17. fl(a, xL 16 ff.; XT. It. ivifitvot, 6, zi. a6. W»?, i. 7. 0apMiii6t, XV. 3J. gipmwos, vii. 14. 9ip(, iii. so; Ti. 19 ; is. 8 ; xiiL 14 ; p. 181. ir oofMi, If rp tfa/Mr(, vii. 5 ; viii. «aT(i tft, viii. 17. wyweowrds, xi. 17. rvfiftofiTvpttv, ii. 15; viiL i(; iz. i. mififiopfpos, Tiii. 29. ffv/iira/xuRxAcrff^, i. IS. 0Vfi«tUrx<*>'i viii. 17. ffvfi^vrof, vi. 5. 0«ra7etfvi(ca0a(, zt. 30 ««raix/, zvi. 7* vvyayamvta&at, xv. 3a. ffvoavrtXa/i^dvcatfoi, viiL §4. ffvyav&ftaOai, zii. 16. ffwflSrjau, ii. 15 ; is. I. ffwtpytii', viiL aS. ffvrtvioicfty, i. 3a. ffvt^ffTccrtfai, vi. 4. tnmiirriyai, iii. 5 ; zvi. I. mmwy, iii. 11. ffvrrcXcrK, iz. a8. gvyrifiytiy, iz. a8. 9wr(ifitv, zvi. aa (rivrpiixiia, iii. 16. «rt;i/ou5iV«ii', viii. aa. cvaravpovaSai, vi. 6. ffipdyrj, viii. 36. a^«>'» viiL flC {m'(p«x<"'i ^'^ I* imtp^ipayoi, i. 30. inrcpvt/vai', viii. 37. virc^cpi(7(7(i;(i»', v. M. v*(ptiS(a9aif Tiii. 31. ^$dvny, ix. 31. i\aStK«A.«V, p. 374 £ iplKrjfta, xvi. 16. tptXo^tvia, xiL 13. ^t\6aTopyot, xiL 10^ piXoTiUHodfu^ XT. to. ^po%, xiii. 6. i^pdrrur, iiL 19. ^ofcry, Till. 5 ; siL 16 ; alv. € ) ^fv. f. ff6rr)i*a, riii. 6. if>p6vtfiot, xi 95 ; xiL 161. «( if. At, ix. 3a. dU if, XT. >« . A««rr«f, Tiii. a6. &#T( (withindlc. ,tIL4; («dWl TiL6. A \J si^ vJ( i DATE DUE *:"v->-