^ • LIBRARY OF THE University of California Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH. Received October, 1894. Accessions No. '^j^y^/ff. Class No. Digitized by tine Internet Archive in 2007 witin funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation ittp://www.archive.org/details/commentabiblicalOOolshrich BIBLICAL COMMENTARY NEW TESTAMENT, ADAPTED ESPECIALLY FOR PREACHERS AND STUDENTS, BY HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, D.D., PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY CLERGYMEN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. CONTAINING THE EPISTLE OF ST PAUL TO THE ROMANS. SeconD (!^i}ttton, GarefuUs iHebto EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. j SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND 00. ; SEELEY AND CO.; WARD AND CO.; JACKSON AND WALFORD. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON; HODGES AND SMITH. MDCCCLIV. Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis, Deus meus. — Augustinus. EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY ANDREW JACK, CLYDE STREET. CONTENTS, GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL. Page § 1 . Of the Life and Ministry of St Paul in general, ... 1 2. The peculiarities of St Paul's character, .... 8 3. Order of succession of St Paul's Epistles, . . . 14 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS — INTRODUCTION. § 1. Of the Genuineness and the Integrity of the Epistle, . . .27 2. Time and place of the composition, . . . . 33 3. Of the Roman Church, ...... 35 4. Argument of the Epistle, . . . . . 48 5. The value and the peculiar character of the Epistle, . . .52 6. Literature, . . . . . . . 56 PART I. THE INTRODXJCTION. (i. 1-17.) § 1. The Salutation (i. 1^7), . . . . . .59 2. Introduction (i. 8-17), • • • . . . 70 PART II. THE DOCTRINAL EXPOSITION, (i. 18— xi. 36.) A. SECTION I. OF THE SINFULNESS OF THE HUMAN RACE. (i. 18— iii. 20.) § 3. Condition of the heathen world (i. 1 8-32), . . . .79 4. Condition of the Jews (it 1-29), . . . . 93 5. Comparison of the Jews and Gentiles (iii. 1-20), . . . i 19 B. SECTION II. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW WAY OF SALVATION IN CHRIST. (iiL 21— V. 11.) § 6. The doctrme of free grace in Christ (iii. 21-31), . . 133 7. Abraham justified by faith (iv. 1-25), . . . . 158 8. Of the fruits of faith (v. 1-1 i), . . . . . 174 C. SECTION III. OF THE VICARIOUS OFFICE OF CHRIST. (v. 12— vii. 6.) § 9. Parallel between Adam and Christ (v. 12, 21), . . .184 10. The believer is dead to sin (vi. 1 — vii. 6), ... 207 Vi CONTENTS. D. SECTION IV. OF THE STAGES OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL OF INDIVIDUALS AS OF THE UNIVERSE. (vii. 7— viii. 39.) Page § 1 1. Of the Development of the Individual until his Experience of Redemption (vii. 7-24), . . . . . .236 1 2. Of the Experience of Redemption until the Perfection of the Individual Life (vii. 25— viii. 17), . . . . . 258 1 3. Of the Perfection of the whole Creation with the Children of God (viii. 18-39), . . . . . . .281 E. SECTION V. THE RELATION OF ISRAEL AND OF THE GENTILE WORLD TO THE NEW WAY OF SALVATION. (ix. 1— xi. 36.) § 14. Of the Election of Grace (ix. 1-29), .... 306 15. Israel's guilt (ix. 30— X. 21), . . . . .342 16. Israel's Salvation (xi. 1-36), ..... 355 PART III. THE ETHICAL EXPOSITION. A. SECTION I. EXHORTATIONS TO LOVE AND OBEDIENCE. (xii. 1 — xiii. 14.) § 17. Of Love (xii. 1-21), 387 18. Of Obedience (xiii. 1-14), ..... 396 B. SECTION II. OF BEHAVIOUR AS TO THINGS INDIFFERENT, (xiv. 1— XV. 13.) § 19. Of bearing with the Weak (xiv. 1-23), . . • .406 20. Christ an Example of bearing with the Weak (xv. 1-13), . 414 C. SECTION III PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, (xv. 14—33, § 21. Apology (xv. 14-21), ...... 418 22. Notice of Journeys (xv. 22-33), . • . . 421 PART IV. SALUTATIONS AND CONCLUSION. (xvi. 1-27.) § 23. Salutations (xvi. 1-20), . . . • • *25 24. Conclusion (xvi. 21-27), ..... 429 NOTE BY TEANSLATOES. A translation of Olsliausen's valuable Commentary on the New Testament was projected by some members of the English Church in the end of the year 1845, and the Epistle to the Romans was selected as the portion which should be first executed. Before this part of the work was completed, however, the whole Commentary was announced for speedy publication in the Foreign Theological Library ; and, as it was evident that a competition between two translations would not be desirable, the translators of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Ro- mans resolved to oifer their version to Messrs Clark, and to abandon the rest of their original design. Hence it is that the contents of the present volume appear as a part of the Pub- lishers' series. If the translators had brought out the work on their own ac- count, and on their own responsibilityj they would have endea- voured to adapt it to English use, by considerable omissions of matter which relates to merely German opinions and controver- sies, by condensation of the language, and by intimating their own occasional diiferences from the respected author. Under the actual circumstances, however, such a process of editing w^ould manifestly be out of place. The book, therefore, is in- tended to represent the original as faithfully as possible, al- though the translators are fully sensible that their task has been very inadequately performed. Their own very few ad- ditions are marked by brackets. Olshausen's Commentary extends to the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephe- sians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. In the following pages there will be found frequent references to portions which the author did not live to execute. It has seemed well to retain VIU NOTE BY TRANSLATORS. these, as tliey may be useful in directing the reader to a com- parison of other commentaries ; and it appears better to men- tion here, once for all, the limits of the actually existing work, than to append to every such reference a statement that the design is incomplete. Four persons have been concerned in the translation ; their respective portions are as follows : — General Introduction, (pp. 1-24), Introduction to the Epistle (25-58), Commentary chap. i. 1, to v. 11 (59-183), V. 12, to viii. 39 (184-304), ix. 1, toix. 30 (304-342), ' „ ix. SO to the end (342-431) A. B. A. C. D. B. April, 1864. GENEEAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL. §. 2. OF THE LIFE* AND MINISTRY OF ST PAUL IN GENERAL. The connected consideration of the Epistles of St Paul calls for a summary view of his personal character in all its grandeur, as well as of the ways in which the Lord of the Church pre- pared this distinguished instrument for the execution of His purposes. For so entirely are St PauFs writings the proper growth of his own mind and spirit, almost, so to speak, living parts of his very self, that it would be most difficult to under- stand their peculiar nature without a clear perception of these points. St Paul was called, for the further spread of the gospel, to form the connecting link between the Roman- Grecian and the Jewish world ; it was necessary, therefore, that both heathen and Jewish habits of life and thought should bear a part in his education, in order that he might be able to understand and sympathise with both. Born of Jewish parents, and in later life brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, in the principles of the Pharisees, Jewish views and feelings certainly formed the ground-work and substance of his education. But, as his birth- place was Tarsus, where Grecian art and science flourished in a * On the life of St Paul, besides the older works of Pearson (Annales Paulini) and Paley (Horae Paulinse), there have more recently appeared the writings of Menken, " Blicke. in das Leben des Apostels Paulus, (Bremen, 1828), of Hemsen (Gottingen, 1830), of Schrader (Leipz. 1830-32, iii. vols.), and of Schott (Jena, 1832), The work of Schrader is rich in new results, which, however, cannot bear A 2 GENERAL INTRODTTCTION. high degree,* this could not fail to exert an immediate eifect upon the outward form which his Jewish principles assumed; indeed, that it did so, is still evident from the quotations made in his writings from Grecian poets. (Acts xvii. 28 ; 1 Cor. xv. 33 ; Tit. i. 12.) So that it is at least more than probahle that, in the later part of his life, when he had escaped from the stern bondage of the narrow-minded system of the Pharisees, the views he had gained in his youth of the nobler aspects of Grecian life rose up again before his mind, and gave him that just ap- preciation of Gentile life, which is discernible in his writings. For just as Philo, and other Jews, who lived entirely amongst Greeks, as well as the earlier Fathers of the Church (as, for in- stance, Justin Martyr), regarded the better men amongst the Gentiles as by no means excluded from the blessings of the Divine Word, the Giver of the heavenly powers of holiness and the knowledge of God ; even so did St Paul recognise within the heathen world a spiritual Israel ; that is, spirits nobler than the rest, who thirsted after truth and righteousness (Rom. ii. 14, J 5); and whom he sought, through the preaching of the gospel, to lead to the covenants of promise. Even the birth, therefore, of the Apostle, and the influences under which he grew up, were all so ordered by the providence of God, as best to train him for the teacher of the Gentiles (Galat. i. 15). For though at first sight it might appear that his connexion with the sect of the Pharisees would not conduce to that freedom of spirit which he afterwards attained to, yet, on closer considera- tion, we shall discern in this very circumstance the wisdom of a directing Providence. In the first place, there were found in this sect many ele- ments of truth, more especially moral earnestness and strictness of life; for it was in many only, but by no means in all, that these became hypocrisy. And, besides this, just such a nature as that of St Paul needed the full experience of all that one system had to offer, before he would become fully conscious of what was erroneous and one-sided in it, and embrace with com- plete devotion, and all the powers of his being, the comple- the test of an impartial criticism. — Very interesting and instructive are the re- marks of Tholuck in the " Studien und Kritiken" of 1835. P. ii. p. 364, &e. * Strabo (Geogr. xiv. p. 991, ed. Almelov.) places Tarsus, in this respect, on a level with Athens and Alexandria. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 3 rneritary truth which that system obscured or denied. The energy and determination of his will made him carry out his principles as a Pharisee to a fanatical extreme against the Christians; and it was not till he had done this, that he was possessed by that deep longing which this system of life could not satisfy, and which led him to perceive the state into which he had fallen. The miraculous vision which was imparted to St Paul, and the startling nature of the announcement that he who was still the raging opposer of the Crucified, was hence- forth to be His messenger to the Grentiles, are of course to be considered as the decisive causes of the sudden change in his spiritual state ; at the same time, we cannot doubt that his sincere striving after righteousness by the mere works of the law had already, though perhaps without his own consciousness, awakened in the depth of his soul the conviction, that his own strength could not attain to the fulfilment of righteousness ; nay, that it might even lead him, when his intention was good, into the most fearful errors. This conviction brought with it that which, though not the cause, was a necessary condition of his passing into the new life; — namely, the longing after something higher, and the power of appreciating such moral phenomena, as the ministry and death of Stephen, in which that for which he longed was presented to him in actual life. Without entering more at length, in this place, into the con- sideration of that event which made St Paul into that great in- strument in the kingdom of Grod, as which we honour him, let us notice, in the next place, the position which he obtained with respect to the Twelve and the Seventy, after his conversion. His relation to the Twelve it is of particular importance to deter- mine; for though the Seventy seem to come nearest him, in respect of their ministry, which, like his, was directed to the Gentile world,* yet these so entirely disappear as a body from the history after the resurrection of the Lord, that no trace of them remains. The separate members of it might indeed have been afterwards actively engaged in preaching the gospel, but no rivalry could have arisen between them as such and St Paul, since no one could doubt that St Paul was at least equal to them. But the case was quite different with respect to the twelve. These formed a strictly defined and limited body ; so * See in this Comm. the Notes to Luke x. 1. 4 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. that, even after the Ascension, the vacancy* which was occa- sioned in their number by the apostacy of Judas Iscariot was immediately filled up by the express command of the Lord. (Acts i. 15, &c.) This body was, in fact, to contain within it- self the pillars and supports of the Church, in proof of which w^e find the twelve Apostles spoken of as the spiritual Fathers of the spiritual Israel. (Matt. xix. 28; Rev. iv. 10, xxi. 14.) So that this question is immediately forced upon us: — in what relation did St Paul stand, according to the mind of the Lord, to this sacred Body of Twelve? Now, if we regard this question entirely apart from the individuals, as a matter determined by outward circumstances, it cannot be denied that the Twelve stand higher than St Paul, as those who had been with the Lord throughout this earthly pilgrimage (which St Peter considers as requisite in a true Apostle, Acts i. 21), and the special wit- nesses of the whole progress of the Redeemer's life on earth. They are, and must continue to be, the real foundations of the New Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. J 4), so to speak, the roots of the whole tree, those who received from the Lord the first-fruits of the Spirit. St Paul might indeed justly call himself a witness of the Resurrection,-|- since he had beheld the crucified Jesus as the risen Lord, and had experienced in his own person His divine power; but he plainly had not the privilege of having seen the whole course of the life of Christ, and in this respect he stood, as it were, one step further from that throne of glory which was immediately surrounded by the Twelve. But if we turn our eyes from this view of the relation as it is in itself, and look at the men themselves as they appear in history, we must confess, on the other hand, that the Apostle Paul left all the Twelve far behind him, in that " he (that is, the grace of God in him) laboured more abundantly than they all." (1 Cor. xv. 10; * It would help us to understand the important position which we find Jamea, the brother of the Lord, afterwards occupying, if we might assume that he was taken into the number of the Twelve in the place of James, who, we learn (from Acts xii. 1), was beheaded. At the same time, we have no distinct historical evidence on this point ; and, besides, he does not appear to have left Jerusalem, whilst the Apostles were to travel. + It would indeed appear probable, from 2 Cor. v. 16, that St Paul had seen our Lord before His resurrection, on the occasion of his presence at the Passover in Jerusalem ; but certainly no nearer connexion had subsisted between him and the Saviour. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 5 2 Cor. xi. 23.) And this arose by no means from his personal devotedness alone, but also in a great measure from circum- stances. For, since the vineyard of God's kingdom was taken away from the Jews, and opened to the Gentiles, and St Paul was called to labour especially amongst the latter, as the Twelve in the first instance amongst the former, it was natural that the ministry of St Paul should bear much richer fruit, and that all the other Apostles should in comparison with him fall into the back-ground. From this we may likewise easily perceive how the relation of the gospel to the outward institutions of the Old Testament, and the admission of the Gentiles into the Church without observing these, should have become plain to the Apostle Paul, at an earlier period, and more completely than to any of the other Apostles — more especially than to St Peter, who was called to labour immediately amongst the Jews, and who was designed to represent, as it were, the element of stability in the Church. In consequence, therefore, of this state of things, the Apostle, whilst standing on a level with the Twelve, was also en- tirely independent of them, and occupied a position of his own, as called immediately by the Lord to be the Apostle to the Gen- tiles. (Acts xxvi. 1 7.) And this is a point on which St Paul often found it necessary to insist in his arguments with his op- ponents, who wished to impugn his authority as an Apostle. (See notes on Galat. ii. 9.) In doing so he laid particular stress upon the fact, that he did not in any way receive his knowledge of the gospel from the Twelve, or from any other Christian, but immediately from the Lord Himself. (See the notes on Galat. i. 12.) Now, as regards the purely spiritual part of the gospel, there is no difficulty in conceiving how St Paul could have made this his own without any instruction from man. For the Holy Ghost, who was imparted to him, filled his inner man as an all- pervading light, and made plain to him, through his belief in Jesus as the Messiah, the whole of the Old Testament, in which all the germs of the New were already laid down. In the Spirit, who is absolute truth (1 John- v. 6), was given the assured con- viction of the truth of the gospel, and insight into its meaning, in details. With regard, however, to the historical side of Chris- tianity, the case appears to be different; and yet there are points connected apparently altogether with this (as, for ex- ample, the institution of the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 23, kc), 6 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. of which the Apostle asserts that he had received them immedi- ately from the Lord. Now, we should undoubtedly be running into an erroneous extreme, if we were to assume that all histori- cal particulars in the life of our Lord were imparted to him by revelation. The general outlines of Christ's outward life, the history of His miracles, of His journeys, and what belongs to them, were no doubt related to him by Ananias or other Chris- tians. But whatever in that life was necessarily connected with the peculiar doctrines of the gospel, as, for instance, the institu- tion of the Sacraments, the Resurrection, and similar points, came, no doubt, to the Apostle in an extraordinary manner, by immediate revelation of the Lord;* so as to accredit him as an independent witness, not only before the world, but also to be- lievers. No one could come forward and say, that what St Paul knew of the gospel had been received through him. For it was from no man, but from the highest Teacher Himself, that he had received as well the commission to preach, as also the essential facts of the gospel, and the Holy Spirit who gives light and life to those facts. By this, however, it is not intended to deny that there was a development in the new Hfe of St Paul; though assuredly (as will be shown more at length in the following paragraphs), no further change of doctrinal views could have taken place in him. But he himself doubtless advanced gradually from child- hood to youth, and then to manhood in Christ. And so, when the Apostle came forward as a teacher at Damascus immedi- ately after his conversion (Acts ix. 1.9), it was but the expres- sion of the true feeling of the necessity which lay upon him at once to bear open witness to the change which, through God's grace, had taken place in him. But he himself, no doubt, soon began to perceive that, before he could labour with a bless- ing, it was very necessary that his inner life should be much deepened, and more thoroughly worked out. In consequence of his perception of this truth, he retired into Arabia for three years — a time which, it is probable, he spent chiefly in a tho- rough study of the Scriptures. *" In the midst of these studies, * According to the account given in the Acts, St. Paul was more than once graciously honoured with a vision of the Lord. (See Acts xxii. 17, xxiii. 11.) t See, on this point, the remarks on Acts ix. 20, etc. St Paul himself enjoins Timothy (1 Tim. iii. 6) that no new convert shall be a bishop. Ib it, then, likely GENEBAL INTRODUCTION. 7 probably, the enlightening of the Holy Ghost first revealed to him, as a connected whole, the great purpose of the Lord with respect to the human race; and now inwardly ripened, and firmly established in true principles of doctrine and life, he went forth into the great field of labour which the Lord had appointed him. As the waters of a stream are spread abroad, so did he spread abroad, beyond the narrow^ depths in which they had hitherto been gathered together, the quickening powers contained in .the new doctrine; and the whole heathen world, which, left to itself, had come nigh to entire corruption, was made fruitful as by the fresh springs of an heavenly life. Now, as an energetic character, as one whose whole work lay out of himself, the Apostle was in danger of forgetting him- self in his care for others; or, at least, of letting his incessant labours drain and exhaust his inward life. In order to pre- vent this, we perceive, on the one hand, the grace of God effec- tually renewing him with the powers of the higher world (2 Cor. xii.), since the mighty labours in which he was engaged had not been undertaken by him on his own impulse, but had been expressly assigned to him by the Lord. And, on the other hand, God so ordered his circumstances as to afford sea- sons of rest to his spirit; to which belong, for instance, the imprisonments which he had to undergo. In such times of lonely stillness his spiritual life was more fully developed within itself, so that the preacher of the world might not preach to others and be himself a castaway. The last step in the Apostle PauFs progress towards perfec- tion must finally have been taken on the occasion of his mar- tyrdom. That which St John experienced inwardly in the spirit, St Peter and St Paul were to experience also in the body.* It was in the centre of the heathen world, in Rome, during the first great persecution which befel the Church of God, that St Paul died, beheaded, as a Roman citizen, with the sword. The fact itself of his death is established by so many and ancient witnesses, (amongst whom the presbyter Gains, and the bishop Dionysius of Corinth, are the oldest. See Euseb. H. E. ii. 25), that it cannot be questioned. There that he would have acted in opposition to his own rule? or would his wonderful conversion have exempted him from a rule to which even the Twelve weje subject! * See more on this subject in the notes on John xxi. 20, etc. 8 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. remains, however, an uncertainty as to the year of his death, because in this is involved the doubtful question concerning St Paul's second imprisonment at Rome.* This question must not occupy us till later; and I only here remark, in passing, that I think it necessary to assume a second imprisonment of St Paul in Rome, and cannot therefore place his death earher than the last year of the reign of Nero (a. d. 67 or 68.) § 2. THE PECULIARITIES OF ST PAUL's CHARACTER.-(- That St Paul was one of those energetic characters of whom, in different ages of the Church, the Lord has taken so many in some marked manner to Himself, is so evident that no one can well fail to perceive it. Whatever a man may think of the truths tauglit by the Apostle, even the sceptic must confess that a powerful and earnest spirit J breathes through his writings, full of the glow of enthusiasm for that which he held as true, and of burning zeal to communicate what he knew to all. But it is of the greatest consequence to obtain a more accurate knowledge of the peculiarities of St Paul's mind; because the nature of his writings and doctrine will be much more easily comprehended if we keep before our minds a clear image of their author. Now the simplest way of obtaining an insight into the peculia- rities of St Paul's character is by comparing him with St John, the Evangelist. Contemplation (Tvuets), in the highest sense of that word, we found to be the peculiar feature of St John*s life.§ The whole bent of his mind was inward and meditative. His soul was entirely receptive, wholly occupied with gazing upon the * Compare on this point, in Hemsen'a Life of St Paul, the concluding considera- tions on his death. t On the subject of the following paragraphs, compare the essay of Neander on the Apostle St Paul, in his History of the Apostolic Age (Geschichte des Apos- tolischen Zeitalters, vol. ii. pp. 501, sqq.) J We are easily tempted to picture to ourselves St Paul's personal appearance, as very powerful, or even colossal ; but, according to 2 Cor. x. 10, just the contrary was the case: In the dialogue Philopatris (which, however, to be sure, was not written earlier than the fourth century), St Paul is called, "The Galilean with the bald head, and the hooked nose." (See Tholuck's Eemarks, noticed at the beginning of this Introduction, in which he describes the temperament of the Apostle as the cholerico-melancholic. § See the Introduction to the Gospel of St John. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 9 eternal ideas of truth. Thus outward labours were not so pro- minent in his case, and the flower of his life was prophecy. The image presented to us by St Paul is very different from this. He was not, of course, without that living knowledge of the truth which comes by contemplation ; but in his way of treating reli- gion he gives a prominence, as St John never does, to the exer- cise of the intellect, and exhibits the characteristic acuteness of his understanding in working out the ideas received by the spi- ritual sense into distinct conceptions. It was through this talent for reasoning that St Paul became the author of a pre- cisely defined doctrinal language, and the founder of Theology, as a science, in the Cliurch of Christ. In him is represented the necessity of science for the Church, even in the very narrow circle of those on whom the Holy Spirit was first poured forth.* And the same character of mind, which made him express his religious ideas in a scientific form, made him also, in the fruitful labours of his outward life, develop especially the gift of wisdom (1 Cor: xii. 8) In addition to the energy which belonged to him as a man of action, we may discern in his activity the pe- culiar faculty of using the most difficult and complicated worldly relations for the purest and noblest purposes of the kingdom of God, so that we must distinctly recognise in this a distinguish- ing feature of his character. This is very clear, if we compare him with St Peter; for in the latter there was no less energy, but it seems in him to be fettered with a stiffness which hin- dered its adapting itself to circumstances ; and though this was quite in keeping with his character, which was firm as a rock, yet we cannot mistake the contrast it affords to St Paul's. This bent of St Paul's mind influenced, as we might have ex- pected, his whole apprehension of the gospel. While St John * It is in this dialectic character of St Paul's discourse that we may find the reason that Longinus places the Apostle on a level with the famous Greek orators, if, at least, the famous passage of that rhetorician, in which he makes mention of the Apostle, is really genuine. Besides vigorous powers of reasoning, the might of deep conviction, and the glow of enthusiasm, manifest themselves in St Paul's writings, so that Jerome (in his work against Jovinian) declares " quotiescunque Paulum apostolum lego, non verba audire mihi videor, sed tonitura." (See Fladi clav. S.S. Basil, 1567, p. 387, sqq., and the works of Bauer, Philologia Thucydi- deo-Paulina (Halse 1773), Logica Paulina (ib. 1774), Rhetorica Paulina (ib. 1782). Also Tzschirner's treatise in his opusc. acad., edited by Winzer. Leips. 1829. Lastly, Tholuck's Remarks, pp. 387, sqq., as noticed at p. 1 of this Introduction. 10 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. received it more, as it is in itself, as an object of contemplation, and so made what is revealed to us of God and Christ the centre of his doctrine; St Paul, on the other hand, looked at the gos- pel more directly in its bearing upon himself, and so made what is told us of man's nature, and of the method of his salvation, the prominent points of his theology. In the experience of his own life he had seen the sinful state of the human heart, as well as man's inability to deliver himself from it, and the consequent need of a remedy which should come from God, such as was realised in Christ; and from this living source his whole system of doctrine springs forth and spreads itself. The Western cha- racter of St Paul's mind is seen in this conception of the gospel as clearly as in the bent of those two great kindred spirits to his, St Augustin and Luther, in whom indeed his own course of education was repeated. In St John, on the other hand, is shown the Eastern spirit, which loses sight of itself in the con- templation of that which is presented to it of God, and which, through all the developments of doctrine in later ages, ever dwelt by preference on what is revealed to us of God and Christ. So that though there is no specific difference, no actual contra- diction between the teaching of St Paul and St John, yet these two Apostles do already exhibit in themselves the two chief tendencies of the later development of doctrine. As the grain of corn, though one, opens itself into two halves on the unfolding of the germ, or as the magnet, from one middle point, discharges, at the same time, a positive and a negative power ; so the two chief tendencies of the Church, the Eastern and the Western, which mutually complete each other, are represented in the earliest ages by the two great Apostles, St John and St Paul. From the vigorous and decided manner in which the Apostle both taught and acted, we might at once conclude that it was not likely that any considerable change would take place in his convictions, after that first great spiritual conversion, by which the fierce opponent of Jesus Christ became his fearless witness. After his admission into the Church of Christ, he no doubt early formed for himself a consistent view of Christian truth, and therefore expresses himself, even in his latest epistles, in the same way as in his earliest; from the Epistles to the Thessalonians down to those to Timothy and Titus, we find the same fundamen- tal truths ever recurring. In one single point only can we discern GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 1 1 in his later writings a different form of doctrinal statement from that contained in his earlier epistles ; that is, in his views con- cerning the second coming of Christ. In his earliest epistles, St Paul expresses a hope that he may himself live until the time of the Lord's return (see 1 Thess. iv.; 2 Cor. v.), but in the latter he has renounced this hope, and longs to depart and to be with Christ (Phil. i. 23). The modification of his views in this point may, however, be easily explained, if we consider the peculiar nature of the subject. The time of Christ's second coming was, according to our Lord's own teaching, to remain un- certain (see Matt. xxiv. S6, and the remarks on the passage) ; St Paul himself, therefore, neither knew nor could know this time (Acts i. 7). Whilst, therefore, the fervour of his love made him at first regard all things as near, and long after the kingdom of God upon earth as the highest good; at a later period the great crisis of the Advent retreated, in his apprehension, to a greater distance. We cannot therefore say that St Paul's convictions on this point of doctrine underwent any change ; but only that his own individual position with respect to the object presented in this doctrine was altered. If, however, the above observations show that the substance of St Paul's doctrine remained un- changed, yet we may certainly observe a constant progress in the merely formal development of it; for we cannot fail to per- ceive, that his theological language is more full, and his con- ceptions more complete and symmetrical, in the later epistles, especially those to the Philippians and Colossians, than in the earlier. St Paul not only kept aloof from the gnostical tendency (the relative truth of which is represented by St John), and vigor- ously combated the errors into which, as is plain from the epistles to the Colossians, to Timothy, and Titus, it soon led some of its followers; but also from that judaico-materialist tendency, which showed itself in so many of those who had left the sect of the Pharisees to join the Christian Church. As a tree torn from its original soil, and transplanted with all its roots and fibres into other ground, such had been the change effected in St Paul at his conversion ; and he therefore trans- ferred nothing of the one-sidedness and narrowness of the system of the Pharisees into his views of Christian doctrine. The attempts which have been made to explain many leading 12 GENERAL INTIIODUCTION. features of his system from his Jewish views of life,* show just as little knowledge of the human heart, as those which seek to account for Augustin's doctrine by his former Manichsean errors, and for Luther's by his education as a monk. We find, on the contrary, that men of energetic character are generally inclined after such transitions to despise too much the systems from which they have escaped, and to reject even what is true in them, rather than to transfer anything belonging to them into their new line of thought and life. But from this error, into which Marcion and his disciples fell, St Paul was preserved by that fundamental Christian view, of which the Holy Spirit had led him to see the importance, and which regards the Old Tes- tament as divine in its nature, and containing, under a typical and prophetical veil, all the essential truths of Christianity in the germ. He perceived that the error lay entirely in the rigid spirit of the Pharisees, who wished to have the husk of the letter regarded as the substance of the spirit itself. St Paul therefore represented that true and just mean, which lies be- tween the false spiritualism of the Gnostics on the one hand, and the materialism of the Jews on the other, whilst he held the true Scriptural doctrine of the reality and importance of both spirit and matter, in their proper relations to each other; and this in such a manner as fully to maintain his balance, without leaning t either error. In the theology of St John, likewise, the same correct views of the relation of matter and spirit cannot be mistaken, although in his gospel and epistles we find an inclination towards genuine spiritualism, of course without making any concession to Gnostic errors: it was only in the Apocalypse that St John found the opportunity of bring- ing forward in greater prominence that side of the gospel which presents to us the material and spiritual in their connexion ; and therefore any future author who wishes to give a just view of St John's doctrine, must consider the ideas of the Apocalypse as complementary of those of his remaining works. * We need hardly remark that we do not therefore mean to deny that the his- tory of Jewish doctrine furnishes us with a key to the further understanding of many particular statements in St Paul's writings; we only wish to maintain, that the essential points of his system are the results of his own inward experience; the views which he entertained at an earlier period of his life at most only aflfecteti the form in which he presented the truth. QENEBAL INTRODUCTION. 13 This well-balanced character of St Paul's whole disposition, as well as of his theology, is also the reason why the feeling of the Church, guided in this matter also into the truth by the Spirit of Christ working in her, has regarded the collection of his epistles, in which every thought is expressive of that correct mean which he preserved in his doctrine, as the crown of the canon of the New Testament. Whilst every separate gospel found its necessary com- plement in other gospels, and altogether form the roots of the New Testament, whilst the Acts of the Apostles only constitutes, so to speak, the stem, which unites the roots with the crown of the tree, — St Paul, without laying claim to any authority in point of doctrine independent of the rest, stands before us in all the riches of his personal endowments, spreading around on all sides the fruitfulness of his inward life. He was the first, in whom was reflected on all sides, as far as was possible in one man, not of course the person of the Lord himself, but that Spirit which he had bestowed upon the Church; and this universality of character and gifts of grace madehim capable, through thepowers of the same Spirit, of so unfolding the peculiar nature of the principles of Christianity both in his doctrine and in his life, as to represent it to the Gentile world almost in his sole person. Whatsoever, therefore, appeared in the gospels as a bud but par- tially disclosed, and indeed in the synoptical evangelists mani- festly engrafted upon Old Testament principles, — that the Apostle displays before our minds openly and freely, and in some parts of his writings, for instance, in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, in so strictly didactic a form, that it commends itself as much hy the cogency of the arguments to the thoughtful, as to the feeling mind by that glow of enthusiasm which breathes throughout his statements. If, however, we compare the col- lection of the Catholic epistles (with which we must also class the Epistle to the Hebrews, as proceeding to the same starting- point), with the Epistles of St Paul, we shall perceive that the latter are more calculated for the beginning of the spiritual life, whilst the concluding writings of the New Testament tend more directly to the perfection of the fruits of regeneration in holiness and sanctification. Accordingly, if in the epistles of St Paul the central ideas, around which he considers everything to move, Sire faith in opposition to the works of the law, justification and atonement, and we cannot fail to perceive the earnestness with 14 GENERAL INTRODUCTION which he labours to impress these deeply on the minds of his hear- ers and readers; the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Catholic epistles, on the other hand, setting out with these doctrines as their admitted foundation, teach from them how the man is to perfect holiness in the fear of God. The latter epistles, therefore, seem to bear more of a legal character, and on that account found much less access to the mind of the Church than those of St Paul. They demand, however, also for their right comprehension a higher degree of development of the regenerate soul ; and be- cause this was often deficient, a correct perception of the diffi- culties of those writings deterred many expositors from attempt- ing to explain them. The different collections, therefore, which compose the New Testament canon, each proceed from a different point of view, and on this very account mutually complete each other, furnishing satisfaction for every stage of advancement, and excitement to press forward to higher perfection. (See Comm. P. I. Introd. § 2.) § 3. ORDER OF SUCCESSION OF ST PAUL's EPISTLES. From the thoroughly practical character of St Paul's life, we might at once expect that his productions as an author would have nothing of an abstract form about them. And in fact we neither possess any treatises by him on religious subjects, nor have we any reason to suppose that he ever wrote any. His letters are all suggested by existing circumstances, and are there- fore adapted to the most particular occasions of actual life. On this account, everything in them is individual, marked, traced with strong and definite outlines, and yet, by means of that spiritual principle which animated the Apostle, truths of the most universal bearing are reflected in those special cases, and give to all his remarks and counsel a meaning and importance for every age. In what manner those epistles of the Apostle which have come down to us were formed into one collection, it is now impossible to make out on satisfactory historical grounds. We find, however, in the hands of Marcion the Gnostic, a collec- tion of ten epistles of St Paul, the three pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus being wanting, whilst in the Catholic Church the collection consisted of thirteen epistles (tliat to the Hebrews not being included) : this might then be regarded as the original GENERAL INTRODUCTION. ] 5 neucleus of the collection of epistles, to which the pastoral epistles were added at a later period. And yet if we consider the niatter more closely, this does not appear probable, and we may there- fore suppose that the pastofal epistles were only accidentally omitted from the canon of Marcion. For w^e find that the order of succession of the epistles, according to Marcion's arrangement was an entirely different one from that of the collection sanc- tioned by the Catholic Church ; but if the latter had only inserted the pastoral epistles into Marcior/s collection, the order would have remained unaltered. The cause of the discrepancy of the order was, moreover, occasioned by the adoption of an entirely distinct principle of arrangement ; the Marcionites arranging the epistles, as we shall soon prove, according to their chronological succession ; the Catholics, in the first place, according to the im- portance of the churches to which the writings were addressed, and then according to the dignity of the private persons who had re- ceived them. This appears most plainly in the case of the Epistle to Philemon; this letter would seem, at first sight, to belong to the Epistle to the Colossians, where Marcion has also placed it, but in the collection of the Catholic canon, it followed last of all, as being the shortest epistle directed to a private person. The Marcionite collection was most probably first formed in Asia Minor. In its composition; the framers of it either proceeded on the principle of omitting letters to private persons, and only admitting epistles to whole communities (the letter to Pliilemon finding a place in the collection merely as an appendage to the epistle to the Colossians) or they w^ere unacquainted with the pastoral epistles. On the other hand, the Catholic collection of St Paul's epistles probably had its rise in Rome; and the authors of it followed the order of importance of the communities to which the epistles were addres- sed, and also admitted such private letters as seemed to be of value for the Church at large. The tendency of the Roman community to pay considerable attention to matters relating to the outward constitution of the Church answers remarkably well to this supposition with respect to the pastoral letters, and there- fore also increases the probability that the Catholic canon of St Paul's epistles was formed at this place. In our investigation of the order of succession of St Paul's epistles, we shall, however, not only exclude the Epistle to the He- brews (which does not proceed from the Apostle himself, although 16 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. it was composed under his sanction*), but also the epistles to Ti- mothy and Titus; for in these such complicated relations require to be discussed, that they require a distinct consideration. We liave therefore, in the first place, only to do with the order of suc- cession of those ten epistles of St Paul, which even Marcion in- cluded in his collection. With respect to the years in which these are supposed to have been composed, a great discrepancy doubt- less exists in the dates assigned by the learned, because the chro- nology of the history of the apostles in general, and of St Paul's life in particular, is so very uncertain. But our present subject is properly only the order in which the epistles follow upon one another; and in the determination of this point, the views taken are by no means so widely different, as in deciding the j^ears un- der which every single epistle ought to be arranged, because this last question must always depend upon the chronological system adopted by the particular investigation, a circumstance, however, which aifords much assistance in judging of the accuracy of any theory as to the order of succession of the epistles in general. In order to facilitate our survey of the different views which have been taken on this subject, we give, in the following tabular form, the opinions of three scholars belonging respectively to the earliest, modern, and most recent times. Marcmi.f Galatians I. Corinthians II. Corinthians Romans I. Thessalonians II. Tiiessalonians Ephesians Colossians Philemon Philippians Eickkorn. I. Thessalonians II. Thessalonians Galatians I. Corinthians II. Corinthians Romans Ephesians Colossians Philemon Philippians Schrader. I. Corinthians II. Corinthians Romans I. Thessalonians II. Thessalonians Ephesians Colossians Philemon Philippians Galatians * See the two critical treatises on the subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews in Olshausen's Opuscnla Theologica. — [The author's theory is, that it was written by the clergy in some church in which St Paul was sojourning, and that the Apostle approved it when j&nished. Thus he thinks to account at once for the connexion of St Paul's name with the epistle, and for the difference from the style of his undoubt- ed compositions. (OpusculaBerol., 1834, pp. 91-122.) The reader may be referred to Dr Mill's remarks, Prselectio Theologica, Cantabr., 1843, pp. 6, 7, and note p. 32. B.] t See Epiphanius. hoer. xlii., c. 9. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 17 In the first place, from this table we cannot but perceive that as we have already mentioned above, Marcion could not liave placed the epistles in this order accidentally ; it corresponds too exactly with the results of the most industrious critical researches, not to have proceeded from the design of arranging the epistles according to the date of their composition. The conclusions of the most recent examiner, Schrader, coincide exactly with Marcion's scheme, except with respect to the epistle to the Galatians. Certainly, with respect to this composition, the discrepancy is so much the greater; for whilst Marcion assigns to it tlie first place, Schrader places it last. Eichhorn, in this case, agrees rather with Marcion than with Schrader, in that he places the epistle to the Galatians, in point of time, before those to the Cor- inthians and Romans; at the same time, he differs from both in respect to the epistles to the Thessalonians, for whilst they put these letters immediately after the epistle to the Romans, Eich- horn considers them to have been written first of all , Since more exact information, with regard to the dates ofithe compo^ sition of the separate epistles, may best be prefixed tt>tlxe spe- cial introductions devoted to each, we will only bnefly consider in thisplace the epistles of which the date is questiotiable, those to the Thessalonians and Galatians, in respect of the time of their composition, in order to advance a preliminary justifica- tion of our adoption of the order assigned by Eichhorn, in favour of which Hemsen and the majority of modern scholars have also decided. The peculiarity of Schrader's arrangement of the epistles of St Paul is founded on a theory propounded by this scholar, ac cording to which the Apostle made a journey to Jerusalem after leaving Ephesus, (where, according to Acts xix., he passed more than two years). He thinks that this journey took place in the intei'val between the events recorded in the 20th and 2 1st verses of this chapter. In consequence of this journey, in which he supposes St Paul to have visited Thessalonica, Schrader places the composition of the epistles to the Thessalonians at a period subsequent to that of those to the Romans and Corinthians. Schott has, however, already proved at length,* that nothing * See Schott's Programm, *' Isagoge historico-critica in utramque Pauli ad Thessaloiiicenses epistolara." Jense, 1880. And the same author's " Erorterung einiger wichtigen chronolog. Punkte im Leben Pauli," (Jena, 1832), p. 48, etc. B 18 GENERAL INTRODUCTION, can be found in the epistle to the Thessalonians which speaks of their having been written at this later time, but rather that every thing indicafes that they were written in Corinth immedi- ately after the first visit of Si Paul to Thessalonica (Acts xvii.), on the occasion of the first planting of that church. The epistles to the Thessalonians must, therefore, necessarily be reckoned amongst the earliest, and it is a decided mistake to place them after the epistle to the Romans, if only for this reason, that Paul did not write the latter until he was at Corinth on his third mis- sionary journey. But Schrader's hypothesis, with respect to the epistles to the Galatians, is even more capricious. His assumed journey from Ephesus to Jerusalem is in fact supposed to be that mentioned, Gralat. ii. 1, from which it would no doubt fol- low that the composition of the letter belongs to a much later period, since the Apostle, in tlie course of that chapter, men- tions many other occurrences in his life. But the very circum- stance that Barnabas accompanied the Apostle to Jerusalem, in the journey alluded to, Galat. ii. I, whilst it is certain from the account in Acts xv. 36, etc., that they had parted from one an- other long before St Paul went to Ephesus, is a convincing argu- ment against this wholly unfounded theory; and Schrader's assertion that the difierence between St Paul and Barnabas had previously been made up is likewise founded upon mere hypo- thesis. For though I am very far from accounting for this sepa- ration, as Scholt appears to do (Erorterung, p. 64, etc.) by sup- posing a discrepancy in their views, and am much rather in- clined to assume merely outward reasons as the cause of its con- tinuance, yet the circumstance, that after Acts xv. 36, etc., Barnabas is no more mentioned in connexion with St Paul, is decisive against Schrader's assumption.* But the arguments, which Schrader thinks he can adduce from the contents of the epistle to the Galatians in favour of his hypothesis, are so com- pletely overthrown by Scholt in detail (p. 65, etc.) that it is enough in this place to refer to the latter writer's treatise. Schrader thinks especially that he discovers in the passage, Galat. vi. 17, * The passage 1 Cor. ix. 6, is the only one which appears to support a later coming together of Barnabas and St Paul ; if we are not willing to admit that Barnabas was se'^arated from St Paul in Corinth. He must, however, at all event have visited this city, according to the passage above quoted, after the foun- dation of the Christian community there. I GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 1 9 a declaration of the Apostle, that he is looking forward to the sentence of death, and, therefore, concludes that the composi- tion of this letter must be referred to quite the end of St Paul's life. But how entirely unfounded is such an explanation of t!ie text will appear hereafter from our commentary upon it. Koh- ler* also has made a similar attempt to refer the composition of the epistle to the Galatians to a later period ; but he does not understand the journey to Jerusalem mentioned in Galat. ii. 1, like Schrader, of a separate journey made from Ephesus, but thinks that he discovers in it the journey recorded in Acts xviii. 22. No doubt, as I have already endeavoured to represent as probable in my commentary on the passage, St Paul did visit Jerusalem about that time, (which Scliolt is mistaken in deny- ing, p. 37); but for the assumption that this journey is meant in Galat. ii. 1, there is not a shadow of proof; it is much more more certain that it was that made from Antioch to the council of the Apostles, Acts xv. Much less, however, can we assent to Kdhler's view, that St Paul first preached the gospel in Galatia on his journey through that province mentioned in Acts xviii. 23, since the words added in that passage, sV/cr^jp/^wi/ 'Trdvrag rods ficx.drirdg, plainly express that the Apostle wished to confirm in the faith the churches which he had already founded in Galatia, (See Acts xvi. 6.) Since, moreover, this scholar can only give even a shadow of probability to his pQ§tponement of the com- position of the epistle to the Galatians to the latest period of St Paul's life, by means of a conjecture and hypothesis heaped upon his first assumption, we cannot feel ourselves called upon by his arguments to depart from that order of succession of the epistles of St Paul, which is now almost universally received. This is connected in the following manner with the principal events of St Paul's life, according to the chronology which we have adopted from Hug ; in this account, we must however, as we have already remarked, leave the pastoral epistles again un- touched, because they present peculiar difficulties as regards their insertion into the history of St Paul's life, and on that account demand a separate consideration. After St Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, (about the year 36 after the birth of Christ), he went to Arabia, where * " Uber die Abfassuiigszeit der epistolischen Schriften des N, T." Laipz. ]830. ^0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. he remained three years. (Galat. i. 1 7.) After this he returned to Damascus, but in this city he was persecuted by the Jews, and only escaped to Jerusalem with extreme difficulty (2 Cor. xi. 32. Acts ix. 24, 25). On this visit of St Paul to Jerusalem, Barnabas introduced the Apostle to St Peter and St James (Galat. i. 18, 19); he however only remained there fourteen days. On leaving Jerusalem, the Apostle repaired first to his native city Tarsus (Acts ix. 25, etc.), from whence Barnabas, who it appears was the first to discover his wonderful gift of teaching, fetched him away to Antioch, at which place, in the meantime, Christianity had also begun to spread amongst the heathen. (Acts xi. 19.) This happened about a.d. 42. St Paul and Barnabas had been teaching together about a year in An- tioch when the great famine made its appearance in Palestine, in consequence of which they were both sent to Jerusalem (St Paul for the second time) as the bearers of a contribution to the necessities of the poor brethren at that place. Acts xi. SO. Perhaps, however, Paul himself did not go to Jerusalem, for it is not stated in the Acts that he did, and that difficult passage Galat. ii. 1, would render the supposition probable. After the accomplishment of this business, the people of Antioch expressed a wish that the Gospel might be preached to the Gentiles in other countries also. The elders of the church thereupon chose St Paul and Barnabas^s their messengers to the heathen, and they accordingly entered upon their first missionary journey (about A.D. 45.) Their journey went first by Cyprus, through Pamphylia and Pisidia, and they then returned to Antioch by sea (Acts xiii. 5; xiv. 26.) The time of their return it is just as impossible to determine with any certainty, as the length of their subsequent stay at Antioch (Acts xiv. 28). At the same time, there can be no doubt that the third journey of St Paul to Jerusalem, occasioned by the disputes concerning the recep- tion of Gentile converts into the Church, formed the conclusion of this residence (Galat. ii. 1). The apostles and the presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem examined into this question together, and after hearing the reports of St Paul and Barnabas, decided in favour of the milder course, according to which the heathen were not obliged to submit to circumcision and observe the whole law This important transaction, the so-called apostolic GENERAL INTRODUCTION. , 21 council (Acts xv.), happened a.d. 52 or 53. Immediately after the return of St Paul from Jerusalem to Antioch, about a.d. 58, he entered upon his second missionary journey, which he under- took in company with Silas. On this journey he first of all visited again the churches he had already planted, and then proceeded to Galatia, and by Troas to Macedonia (Acts xvi. 9). Philippi was the first city of this country in which St Paul taught, but this place he was soon obliged to leave in conse- quence of a tumult stirred up against him by the employers of a female ventriloquist, and to betake himself to Thessalonica (Acts xvi. 1 2, etc.) The apostle was only able to preach here a few weeks, yet even in this short time a Christian community was formed there. But a tumult occasioned by the Jews compelled St Paul soon to fly from Thessalonica, and to go to Athens by Berea, to which latter place his enemies continued to follow him (Acts xvii. 1). His companions, Silas and Timothy, he had left behind him at Berea, but soon called upon him to fol' low him to Athens, probably that he might obtain intelligence of the churches in Macedonia (Acts xvii. 15). However, he immediately despatched Timothy to Thessalonica, in order that he might establish in the faith that young and hardly-pressed community (J Thess. iii. 2). In the meantime the Apostle, after the dismissal of Timothy, left Athens, where he does not appear to have laboured long, and repaired to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1). Here he met with the famous Jewish family of Aquila and Priscilla, which had been expelled from Rome by Claudius; and as Aquila practised the same handicraft which St Paul had learnt, the latter undertook to work with him, and since his preaching produced great eifect, remained there a year and a half. By means of the fact here mentioned, the expul- sion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius, we also obtain pretty exact information with respect to the date of St Paul's residence at Corinth; it must have been in the year of our Lord 54 and 55. During this his stay at Corinth, it would appear that the Apostle commenced his labours as a writer, at least nothing remains to us of any letters which he may previously have in- dited. In fact, when Timothy had returned from his mission to Thessalonica, St Paul wrote his Fwst Epistle to the Thessalo- nians, and soon afterwards the Second, likewise from Corinth, 2*2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. All his apostolical epistles belong, therefore, to the later and more mature period of his life, a circumstance which is certainly not to be regarded as accidental. After the lapse of a year and a half St Paul left Corinth in the company of Aquila and Priscilla, in order to go up to Jeru- salem to keep a vow (Acts xviii. 18.) In his voyage he touched at Ephesus, without, however, being able to make any long stay there, as he wished to be at Jerusalem for the feast of Pente- cost. At the same time he promised to return thither as soon as possible ; and, in accordance with this promise, immediately after a brief sojourn in Jerusalem (his fourth visit to that city, see Commentary on Acts xviii. 22) and in Antioch, he set oif again to proceed to Ephesus ; this forms the commencement of his ildrd missionary journey (about a.d. 57). The Apostle con- tinued in this important city two years and three months, and wrote from hence in the first place to the Galatians (per- haps as early as a.d. 57, certainly not later than the beginning of 58) ; he had visited them on his journey to Ephesus, and had perhaps, even on this occasion, remarked sundry errors, or at all events had soon after heard of such. Next the Apostle began his correspondence with the Corinthian Church, writing likewise from Ephesus, in consequence of the unfavourable ac- counts which he had received of them also. The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians is lost (1 Cor. v. 9), but after it was sent, new reports arrived from Corinth, which caused the Apostle to send thither Timothy and Erastus (1 Cor. iv. 17, etc., Acts xix. 22), and immediately afterwards he composed that first epistle to the Corinthians which is yet extant. The writing of this letter may be referred to a.d. 59, or the com- mencement of 60. Scarcely, however, had St Paul finished this letter, when the goldsmith Demetrius stirred up a tumult against him in Ephesus, in consequence of which he was obliged to fly. The Apostle proceeded by Troas to Macedonia, full of desire to receive more exact information concerning the state of things in Corinth. When he had received this from Timothy and Titus, who came directly from Corinth, he wrote, about A.D. 60, the second epistle to the Corinthians. Titus conveyed this letter to Corinth; and the Apostle himself journeyed after him slowly, through Achaia, to the same city. During this his second stay in Corinth, St Paul found occasion to write to the GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 23 Romans, wliich he must have done as early as in the year 60, shortly before his departure from Corinth, since, in Romans xv. 25, 26, he makes mention of the charitable collections made for the Christians in Jerusalem, as well as of the journey he had in prospect. This journey to Jerusalem, his fifth, the Apostle accomplished by sailing from Philippi in Macedonia to the coasts of Asia Minor, then proceeding to Syria, and from thence visit- ing Jerusalem (Acts xx. 3, etc.). As early as the tenth day after his arrival there, he was taken into custody, on the oc- casion of an uproar of the people, and remained (from a.d. 60 to 62) two years in prison at Csesarea. When, however, Fortius Festus was made Proconsul of Syria in the room of Felix, he sent the Apostle to Rome, on his appealing to Caesar. On his voyage to Rome, St Paul was shipwrecked upon the island of Malta, and did not reach Rome, in consequence, until the be- ginning of the year 63 (Acts xxv.-xxvii.). Here he remained two years (from 63 to 65) in a mild imprisonment (Acts xxviii. SO), and composed in this period the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and the Philippians.* The question concerning the date of the composition of the three pastoral epistles, as well as the investigation concerning the Apostle's second imprisonment and the time of his death at Rome,-)* wliich is so closely connected with it, we leave here, as al- ready remarked, untouched; inasmuch as the special introduction to these epistles, which form, as it were, a little whole of them- selves, will furnish us with a more suitable opportunity for the dis- cussion of these points. We reserve also the more detailed exposi- tion of our reasons for the place which we have assigned to each of the epistles for the special introductory observations on those epistles; and, finally, we explain them in the order followed by the ordinary editions, since the plan of beginning with the epistle to the Romans affords many advantages towards the * The view which has quite recently been put forward by several scholars, and especially by Bottger (Beitrage, ii.), that those epistles which have hitherto been attributed to the period of St Paul's first captivity at Kome might have been writ- ten during his captivity at Caesarea, we shall consider more at length in our intro- ductions to these epistles, adducing the reasons by which it is supported, and our own objections to it. t Amongst the most recent investigators, Bleek declares himself decidedly for the assumption of a second imprisonment, in his review of MayerhofF's work, in the Studien, 1836. H. iv. p. 1028. 24 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. dogmatical exposition of the rest, and if any one should prefer to study St Paul's epistles in their chronological order, nothing would interfere with his thus submitting them to his more ac- curate consideration, because every composition, with its com- mentary, forms a little whole. If any important changes could be pointed out in the course of St Paul's spiritual advancement, it would certainly be the preferable plan to expound his epistles in their chronological order ; but, as this, as we have already seen, is not the case, it appears to us much better to follow the ordinary arrangement. In observing this order, we have, first of all, the opportunity, in the epistle to the Romans, of consi- dering in their connexion the central ideas of St Paul's doc- trinal system, presented, so to speak, in a dogmatical compen- dium. A number of passages in St Paul's other epistles thus receive their explanation by anticipation, whilst it would be difficult to explain them at all if the epistle to the Romans had not previously been interpreted. On the other hand, in the epistles to the Corinthians St Paul's principles of practice are developed, and the external relations of the apostolical church are discussed with so much accuracy that, by their help, much light is thrown upon many passages in the smaller epistles. Such being the peculiar nature of the larger epistles of St Paul, we are persuaded that every connected exposition of the apos- tolical writings will best begin with them, because only on this plan can the riches of St Paul's ideas be properly unfolded in all their different relations, and without repetition. THE EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS, 27 INTRODUCTION.* § 1. OF THE GENUINENESS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE. The authority of St Paul's Epistle to the Christians of Rome is warranted by such a completeness of evidence, both internal and external, that no one could think of denying, on any system of impartial criticism, its claim to be the composition of the Apostle. Nor, indeed, did any one in all antiquity dispute the genuineness of the Epistle ; for, while it is true that the Judaists and all Judaising sects make no use of St Paul's Epistle to the Romans (as is also the case with his other epistles), the reason is not that they consider it spurious, but, on the contrary, that they see in it a genuine production of that apostle whom they regard as the greatest enemy of Judaism, and ah apostate from the truth. Even the searching criticism of later German theo- logy has left this epistle altogether unassailed ; an Englishman of the name of Evanson alone has, in his work against the Gospels, cursorily expressed his doubts as to the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans also. His grounds, however, are of such a kind that no better testimony in favour of the genuine- ness need be desired than the fact that arguments of this qua- lity are the only ones which can be brought against it. The silence of the Acts of the Apostles as to this Epistle, the exist- ence of a great Christian community at Rome before an apostle had been here, and the numerous greetings to the Church of Rome at a time when St Paul had not yet visited it, — such are the chief points which appear to Evanson to render the genuine- ness of the Epistle questionable. (Compare Reiche's Comm. p. 20, seqq.) * For the Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans, compare, among earlier writers, J. L. Rambach's Introductio Hist. Theologica in Ep. Pauli ad Romanos. Halae, 1730. In the most recent times, it has been most fully and learnedly treated by Reiehe, in his Commentary, pp. 1-1 Ob". 28 INTRODUCTION. The case is diiFerent as to the integrity of the Epistle; while its genuineness has been generally acknowledged, this has been veiy often called in question, and especially in modern times. All the more ancient witnesses, however — fathers of the church, versions, and MSS. — regard the Epistle as a connected whole; for Marcion's copies cannot be made to tell on the other side, inasmuch as he treated the Epistles no less capriciously than the Gospels; and Tertullian's quotation of the passage xiv. 10, as contained in the "clausula epistolse'" (Adv. Marcion v. 14) cannot possibly be used as evidence that he was not acquainted with the loth and 16th chapters, since the expression clausula is so general that it need not be strictly limited to the last two chapters. The scholars of later times, consequently, found themselves altogether restricted to the department of what is styled the higher criticism — a department in which it is not often that any very trustworthy results are to be obtained. Heumann* led the way, by asserting that the Epistle to the Romans properly ends with the xith chapter, and that c. xii. is the beginning of a new letter, which extends to c. xv. This letter he supposes to have been likewise addressed to the Ro- mans, but not to have been composed by St Paul until after the completion of the first and longer epistle, on occasion of reports which had in the meantime reached him as to the moral laxity of the Romans. In the sixteenth chapter, accor- ding to this view, are contained some further postscripts, which had been originally intended to accompany the first letter. These, it is supposed, were written on the same parchment with the two epistles, and thus the various parts came to be united. This hypothesis, however, is so improbable, that it has not been able to make any way. Heumann's process of dividing this epistle might, with equal reason, be applied in separating the doctrinal from the ethical part in every other of St Paul's writings. In the passage xii. 1, the particle oh is evidently a mark of transition from the preceding to the following por- tion ; and so the ^/^^v at the end of c. xi. is clearly not the ter- mination of the epistle, but merely of the doxology with which St Paul very appropriately concludes the doctrinal portion. The antiquity of the epistle was attacked in a different way ' * Comp. Hemnann's Erkl. des N. Test. vol. vii, pp. 537, seqq INTRODUCTION. 29 by J. F. Semler, according to whom it is only in the xvth and xvith chapters that a diversity of subject from the Epistle to the Romans is to be traced.* The grounds on which he relies, however, are, for the most part, of no greater weight than those which had been advanced by Heumann. Still, there is some plausibility in Semler's manner of turning to account the men- tion of Aquila and Priscilla's family (xvi. 8, seqq.) These per- sons, it is observed, were still at Ephesus when the first epistle to the Corinthians was written (1 Cor. xvi. 19); since, then, St Paul wrote to the Romans soon after the date of his Epistle to the Corinthians, there cannot, in Semler's opinion, have been time enough for Aquila first to travel to Rome, and afterwards to send accounts of himself to the Apostle at Corinth, — which he must be supposed to have done, as we find St Paul informed that Aquila had again a church in his house. (Rom. xvi. 6.) The case, however, is quite intelligible, if we only suppose that Aquila left Ephesus suddenly, and that he sent an early report of his^new circumstances in Rome to the Apostle at Corinth; for it is impossible to determine exactly by months the dates of the epistles in question, while, even with the slow means of communication which the ancients possessed, 'a few months would be sufficient for the journey from Ephesus to Rome and back. In any case, a circumstance of this nature cannot be a sufficient argument to justify Semler's theory. But when we find this learned writer go on to make it a difficulty that seve- ral places of Christian assembly are mentioned as existing in Rome (xvi. 4, 14, 15), it appears to us that an exactly opposite inference would be more legitimate; in a vast capital, the resort of all the world, such as Rome was, the necessity of places of assembly in various quarters of the city would surely become manifest on the very first formation of a church ; and, in like manner, the numerous salutations (c. xvi.) to a church which St. Paul had not yet visited, may be easily explained from the character of the city, which was continually receiving visitors from every corner of the world, and in turn sending out tra- vellers into all countries. Hence the Apostle may not have been acquainted, except by reputation, with many of the per- • Semler de duplici appendice epistolse Pauli ad Romanos, Halse, 1767. He sup- poses e. xvi. to be a list of persons to be saluted by the bearer of the letter on his way from Cm-inth to Eome, and c. xv. in like manner to be a separate writing, intended not 80 much for the Romans as for all brethren who might be met with on the way. 30 INTRODUCTION. sons who are named; and yet may have sent his greeting to them, because he felt himself most intimately connected with them by the bond of the same faith. These objections to Semler's hypothesis hold good also against the kindred view of Dr Paulus,* who is of opinion that c. xv. is a special epistle to the more enlightened Christians of Rome^ and that c. xvi. is addressed to the governors of the church only. Ever}^ letter to a church, he observes, would, as a matter of course, in the first instance, be put into the hands of the presbyters, who read it in public, and delivered the greetings which it contained: it could not be at once given to the whole community. But it does not necessarily follow from this remark, that the portion which contains the greetings was addressed to the presbyters exclusively of the church in general^ and that, con- sequently, it cannot be regarded as an integral part of the epistle; and while, in like manner, we allow that in c. xv. the Apostle writes in part with an especial regard to the more ad- vanced members of the Roman church, still this circumstance by no means obliges us to consider that chapter a letter by it- self, inasmuch as the less advanced believers are not excluded from a share in its instruction. In the most recent times, the genuineness of the last two chapters has been again denied by Baur, (Studien, 1836. No. iii.) He supposes that a later writer of St Paul's school attempted to effect a compromise between his party and the Judaizers, who were predominant in Rome; and that, with this view, he endeavours, by annexing these two chapters, to soften what was offensive in the epistle. The only evidence offered for the theory is of the internal kind — e.g., that c. xv. 1-13 contains matter which has already been far better expressed in cc. xii.-xiv. But against this it has already been remarked, by Klinge, (Stud., 1837. No. ii. p. 309,) that, while in c. xv. 1-13 there is a re- currence of ideas similar to some which had before been treated, they are reproduced with ingenious and spirited modifications, in a way which quite accords with the Apostle's usual practice. It is alleged further, that the phrase btdxovo? rra rrs^trof/.rig, (xv. 8), is not in St Paul's manner ; that, in xv. 1 4, seqq., the captatio benevolenticB seems unworthy of an Apostle ; and, lastly, that • First set forth In a programme (Jena 1801) ; afterwards in his Erklarung dea Roiner-und Galaterbriefs, (Heidelberg, 1831.) INTRODUCTION. 31 the mention of Illyria and Spain, in xv. 17-24, must be a spurious insertion. These points I have already discussed at length in my essay against Baur, (Stud. 1838. No. iv.) and they will be more particularly considered in the commentary on the several passages. I shall only observe further, that the first words of c. XV. are of themselves sufficient to render Baur's supposition altogether improbable. The expression rifj^zTg oi dwaroi charac- terizes the Gentile Christians as the more liberal and enlightened party; surely a follower of St Paul, writing for the purpose of conciliating the Judaizers, could not have made choice of a more inappropriate phrase. Moreover, Baur's idea of a Judaizing tendency in the Roman church requires us to assume that the presbyters too were members of the Judaizing party ; but how can it be supposed that, in such circumstances, a disciple of St Paul could add a forged appendage to the Apostle's letter? Baur's hypothesis, then, appears to be nothing else than the work of a misdirected acuteness and an unrestrained hyper- criticism, and will, therefore, never be able to establish itself.* We must notice, in the last place, the attempts of Eichhorn, Griesbach, and Flatt,*]" to explain the different positions of the concluding doxology, and its relation to the various forms of conclusion which occur after xiv. 23, These writers assume, al- though with a variety of modifications, that St Paul ended his epistle on the large parchment at xiv. 23, and that the rest was written on smaller pieces, which were afterwards shifted and ar- ranged in different ways. This hypothesis, it must be allowed — especially as it is stated by Eichhorn — explains all the critical difficulties which occur in the last chapters. Still, it is not to be denied that it has somewhat of a far-fetched and strained character, and therefore we could wish for the means of dispos- ing of these difficulties by some easier and simpler solution. J. E. Chr. Schmidt (in his Introduction) supposed that an easier explanation of this kind might be found by assuming the spuriousness of the doxology ; and this supposition has lately ♦ Bottger, in his Beitrage Supplem. Giittingen 1838, pp. 17 seqq. also declares himself against Baur's theory. + Eichhorn, Einleit. ins N. T. vol. iii. Griesbach, Curse in historiam textus Gr. epistolarum Pauli, p. 45. Flatt, in the appendix to his Erkljirung des Romer- briefs. Schulz has lately maintained that c. xvi. does not properly belong to the Epistle to the Romans, but may have been perhaps intended for Ephesus. (Comp. Stud, und Kriliken, for 1829, No. iii. pp. ?,09 seqq. 32 INTRODUCTION. been stated by Reiclie in a manner which really seems to render it very plausible. If, he observes, the circumstances of the case be closely examined, the difficulties of the last chapters are all in reality to be traced to this doxology. But, in the first place, it is altogether wanting in some MSS. (especially in F) ; while in others, such as D and Gr, it is struck out by a later hand. Then, in the copies which are of critical authorit}^ it is found in three different places; (1) at the end, in B, C, E, and several other critical authorities; (2) after xiv. 23, in the codex J, and in almost all such MSS. as are written in small letters ; and, (3) in both places, as particularly in the codex A. That such differences are very ancient, is remarked by Origen in his commentary on the epistle; only he does not state that he was acquainted with copies which had the doxology in both places. On the other hand, Jerome (on Ephes. iii. 5) knew of copies in which the doxology was altogether wanting. Reiche, then, sup- poses that the reading of the epistle in the public assemblies of the early Christians probably extended only as far as xvi. 23, since little that is of an edifying kind follows in the after part of the epistle. In order that the conclusion in this place might not be without a benediction, he supposes that the doxology was first added in copies which were used in church; that it was originally moulded after the doxology at the end of St Jude's epistle, and was afterwards gradually extended, until at length it was placed, as a full-sounding form, at the conclusion of the whole epistle. In order to give this view additional support, its learned author endeavours to show that the substance of the doxology itself does not point to St Paul as the writer. He considers it inflated, overladen, obscure as to the connexion of the ideas, and merely made up from Pauline forms. But it is precisely this which seems to me to be the weak side of Reiche's theory. The supposition that the doxology is spurious would indeed appear to me probable in the highest degree, if the na- ture of the passage were different from what it is. In tliis opinion Schott agrees (Einl. p. 250), as also Kollner and Fritz- sche in their commentaries; the last-named expositor, in parti- cular, may be considered to have settled the question by his excellent defence of the doxology (vol. i. pp. 38 seqq.). The very commencement, rw ds huvaiJ^h^ bfiag trrrip/^ai xara TO svayysXioi' aov, X. r. X. is enough to make the assumption of its spuriousness I I INTRODUCTION. 83 exceedingly questionable. If the passage had originated in the way which Reiche points out, we might expect to find it a simple doxology, and in all likelihood a short one; but here the personal circumstances of St Paul and of his readers are distinctly marked. He addresses them, speaks of himself in the first per- son, expresses ideas peculiar to himself exactly in the manner usual with him, and yet so that the doxology as a whole appears altogether new, and without a parallel in the Pauline epistles. Such an addition would hardly have been ventured on by one of the clergy who had no other object than to supply a good conclusion for the public reading. I am, therefore, unable to determine that the doxology is spurious, and am rather disposed to adopt Eichhorn's view,* although not insensible to its partly far-fetched character; it has, however, the merit of solving the difficulties, and on this account is to be adhered to until something more deserving of commendation shall be discovered. But in any case it is estab- lished that the various position of the doxology is the only sub- ject to be discussed, and that this subject has no connexion with any question as to the matter of the last two chapters. The Epistle to the Romans, consequently, is not only genuine, but it has also descended to us in a state of completeness, without mutilation or addition. § 2. TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION. The Epistle to the Romans, dictated by St Paul to a person of the name of Tertius (xvi. 21), and sent by the hands of the deaconess Phoebe (xvi. 1), contains such decisive indications as to the time and the place of its composition, that there has been little difference of opinion on these points, whether in earlier or more modern times. The only diiFerence which can be properly said to affect the subject, is that as to the general chronology of the Apostle's life. Dr. Paulus, of Heidelberg, indeed, has (in • The opinion of Koppe and Gabler, that the transposition of the concluding doxology is to be traced to the ecclesiastical use of the epistle, would not be un- deserving of attention, if only a sufficient probability could be made out for the annexation of the doxology to c. xiv. While c. xv. has a good termination, it must still be vei'y forced to suppose the final doxology transferred from the end of the epistle, not to c. xv. but to c. xiv. If c. xvi. wei'e once omitted, it is most likely that the doxology would also have been given up with it. 34 INTRODUCTION, the two publications already referred to) proposed the novel opinion, that the epistle must have been written in Illyria, be- cause the writer states in c. xv. 19, that he had travelled " from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum;'' but it is very evident that the Apostle, in that passage, intends to name llly- ricum only as the furthest point westward to which he had at the time penetrated, and not as the country in which he was at the moment of writing. An equally extravagant view as to the time when the epistle was written has been proposed by Tobler,* wdio maintains, on the ground of the Apostle's extensive a'c- quaintance with the Christians of Rome, that it ought probably to be referred to a date later than his first imprisonment. But it is at once manifest what a violent construction this supposi- tion would require us to put on such passages as i. 9, and xv. 23, in which the Apostle plainly declares that he had not yet been at Rome. The ordinary view, then, — according to w^iich the epistle was written from Corinth, during the visit which St Paul paid to that city after having been driven from Ephesus, and having travelled through Macedonia, — is the only one which has the advantage of accounting easily and naturally for all the passages in which he speaks of himself, his journeys, and his undertakings. Thus, in 1 Cor. xvi. 1, he mentions an intention of going from Corinth to Jerusalem with a collection ; and we find from Rom. xv. 25, that he purposed to set out on this journey immediately after dispatching his epistle to Rome. Aquila and Priscilla, who were still at Ephesus w^hen St Paul thence wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, had, at the date of the present epistle, again arrived at Rome. (1 Cor. xvi. 19 ; Rom. xvi. 8.) We find from Acts xix. 21, that the Apostle in- tended to visit Rome after he should have accomplished his journey to Jerusalem about the business of the collection; and in Rom. xv. 28, he speaks of the same design, only with the difference, that his plan had been extended to the extremity of the west (rg^^a rrig dvffsug), SO as to embrace a visit to Spain. If, in addition to these chief grounds, we take into consideration some coincidences in detail witli what we know otherwise of St Paul's history, e. g., that he sends greetings to the Christians of Rome from Caius (xvi. 23), a person mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 14, • Compare Tholuck's Comment. Introd. p. x. Tobler's view is refuted by Flatt in a programme which is inserted in Pott's Sylloge Comment, vol. ii. 1 i INTRODUCTION. 85 as then resident at Corinth ; that Erastus, from whom he in like manner conveys greetings (xvi. 23), and whom he styles o/xo- vofAog rrjg mXiug (i. e. of the city in which he was writing) is also mentioned elsewhere as an inhabitant of Corinth, (2 Tim. iv. 20) ; that Phoebe, the bearer of the epistle, was a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, the port of Corinth — and other circum- stances of a like kind — there can be no further doubt that the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans was written from Corinth during his second visit to that city. And consequently, ac- cording to the system of chronology which we have adopted, the time of its composition is to be referred to about a.d. 59. The circumstance that the epistle was written in Greece, and in an entirely Greek city, would at once render it highly pro- bable that it was composed in Greek ; and this idea is confirm- ed by the universal tradition of the ancient church, and by the style of the composition, which throughout appears to in- dicate an original. Indeed, both earlier and later writers have been almost unanimous in the opinion that it was originally written in Greek, since St Paul, as a native of Tarsus, must have had the command of that language, while in Rome it was suffi- ciently diffused to be generally intelligible. (Comp. Sueton. Claud, c. 4. Dialog, de Orator, c. 29. Juvenal, Satyr, iv. 185, seqq.) Bolton, however, (whose views have been adopted by Bertholdt), has here, as in other cases, misapplied his acuteness with a view of shewing that St Paul probably composed the epistle in Aramean — a notion which is surely, from the nature of the case, the most improbable that could well be conceived. We might even rather suppose with Hardouin, that it was ori- ginally written in Latin, and that it is still preserved to us in this ancient form in the Vulgate, if it were not too evident that this supposition is intended merely to enhance the glory of the version received in the [Roman] Catholic Church. So manifest is this, that the futility of the opinion has been shown even by some more liberal members of the author's own communion. § 3. OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. The circumstances under which the Roman church was formed and the date of its origin, are involved in a darkness which could only be dissipated by the discovery of ancient documents hitherto unknown — a discovery which we can now hardly venture to hope 36 INTRODUCTION. for. At the time vvlien St Paul wrote to the Romans, there al- ready existed in the capital of the world which then was, a church so considerable that it was spoken of throughout the world (i. 8.) and required several places of assembly in the vari- ous quarters of the city, (xvi.) The Church of Rome cannot have been founded by an apostle ; for in that case St Paul would neither have addressed it by letter nor have visited it in person, since it was a general principle with him, and is expressly stated as such in this very epistle (xv. 20), to avoid interference with the work which had been already begun by another apostle : and when, in addition to this, we find in the Acts no mention of an apostle's having been at Rome, we may fairly reject the assertion, which originated early, and has long been maintained, by the [Roman] Catholic Church, that St Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome.* On the other hand, the presence of St Peter in Rome at a later time, and his martyrdom there, are facts so well attested by historical evidence that they ought never to have been questioned."|- In the first place, Caius, the well-known Roman presbyter and zealous opponent of the Mon- tanists, states that in his time (towards the end of the second century ) the graves of the apostles were pointed out at Rome. When it is considered that he wrote in Rome itself, and that he is particular in mentioning the localities (viz., on the Vatican, and on the road to Ostia), it is inconceivable that tliere should be a mistake in this statement, since thousands must at once have confuted him. If the apostles died at Rome, and that by public execution, their death, and the place where their bodies rested, could not possibly have remained concealed ; if they did not die there, it is impossible to account for so early an origin of the tradition that they died there, unless we suppose the whole church to have consisted of mere deceivers ; and, moreover, * It is surprising that even some Protestant writers, such as Bertholdt and Mynster can have acquiesced in this altogether unsupported notion of the founding of the Romish Church by Peter. t The question has lately been again raised by Baur, in his essay on the party "of Christ " at Corinth {Tubing Zeitschr. 1831, No. iv.), and even Neander appears to have been shaken by his reasoning, (Apost. Zeitalter, ii. 4.59 seqq.) To me, however, Baur's grounds seem altogether insufficient, and I consider the death of St Peter at Rome a fact not to be denied. In this judgment Bleek agrees {Stud. for 1836, No. iv. pp. 1061, seqq.) I have examined the matter more fully in a separate essay against Baur's hypothesis, (.SVi/rf. 1838, No. iv.) Winer, on the other hand {Real lexicon, new ed. Art. Pclrus) considers the accounts to be at least doubtful. INTRODUCTION. 37 there must, in that case, have been some other discoverable state- ment as to the place of St Peter's death, since it is not to be sup- posed tliat the most celebrated of the apostles could disappear without leaving some trace. But even allowing Caius to be no valid witness, because he was a Roman presbyter, and might have been desirous to enhance the lustre of his church by the alleged fact, no such exception can be taken to Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who lived half a century earlier; and, although interested in like manner for the church of Corinth, yet plainly witnesses that the two great apostles died, not in his own city, but in Rome. (Comp. the passages of both authorities in Euseb- Hist. Eccl. ii. 25.) To these testimonials are to be added those of Irenseus {adv. Haer. iii. 1, in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 8), Clement of Alexandria (in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 14, 15 ; vi. 14), and of the critical Origen, who, like the others, refers the martyrdom of St Peter and St Paul to Rome.* (Euseb. H. E. iii. 1.) As, then, the apostles must have died somewhere, and no other city of antiquity claims the honour of their death, there is really no sufficient ground for doubting the account which is thus accredited. Still, however, we do not from this get any light as to the origin of the Roman church. For, even although the Apostle Peter be styled by Caius and Dionysius the founder of the church of Rome, it will naturally be understood that the ex- pression is not to be referred to the original foundation of the community, but to its enlargement and more complete establish- ment by him ; and in this sense St Paul also is always named with him as joint founder of the church in Rome. We are, therefore, wholly left to conjecture on this point ; and perhaps the most likely way of accounting for the formation of the com- munity may be, to suppose that a knowledge of Christianity was early conveyed to the capital by travellers, if not even by the Romans who were present at the feast of Pentecost (Acts ii. ] 0), and that through the influence of these persons a church was gradually formed there. For if any one strongly prominent individual had been the only agent in the foundation of the • Reiche, (loc. cit. p. 40,) Note 8, doubts whether the account in Eusebius ought to be referred to Origen; but the concluding words of the chapter, TKUTce, ^Cl^tyhu Ku.To. k'i^iv K. T. k. evidently apply to the whole relation. We could at the utmost, only doubt, with Valesius, whether the words from QufAut f^iv, k- t- X- be Origen 's ; from Uir^oi Vi K. r. X. they are certainly his. / "d8 INTRODUCTION. Roman church, it is more than probable that his name would have been preserved. And, again, the lively intercourse which Rome kept up with all parts of the empire, renders it equally inconceivable that Christians should not early have come to the capital from Antioch or Jerusalem ; and if they came, their zeal would have also led them to preach the word there. We have not, however, any certain trace of the existence of a Christian community in Rome earlier than the present epistle. For whether (as many have supposed, and as appears to myself probable) Aquila and Priscilla were already Christians at the time of their banishment from Rome by the edict of Claudius, is a point incapable of proof, since the passage. Acts xviii. 1-3, does not expressly state it ; although, if we consider that other- wise their conversion would surely have been related, it can hardly be well doubted that this family brought its belief in Christianity from Rome with it. But even if it were not so, still it is evident that a community so considerable as that of Rome appears from St Paul's epistle to have been, could not have come into existence all at once, but required some time for its formation ; and for this reason, if for no other, we must refer the foundation of the church to a period much earlier than the date of the epistle. There is, however, a difficulty in reconciling this supposition (which the contents of the epistle to the Romans oblige us to adopt,) with the narrative of St Luke at the end of the Acts, where it is stated that St Paul, on arriving in Rome, sent for the elders of the Jews who lived there, and related to them the cause of his being a prisoner ; to which they are represented as answering, that they had not received any letters concerning him ; but that, as to the sect of the Christians, they begged him to give them some information, since they had heard no more of it than it was everywhere spoken against (Acts xxviii. 17-22.) From this it would appear that no church could then have ex- isted in Rome, since otherwise it would seem inconceivable that the Jews should not have been aware of its existence. This conclusion was actually drawn by Tobler (Theol. Aufs., Zurich 1796), who, in consequence of it, referred the composition of the epistle to the latest period of St Paul's life — an opinion which is, of course, altogether untenable, as has already been observed), but which has some excuse in the INTRODUCTION. 39 difficulties of this yet unexplained passage, since it is certainly sufficient to remove them. If it be said (as Tholuck and Reiche suppose) that the Jews may have concealed their knowledge of tlie matter, it is impossible to see why they should have done so. A man so dangerous as St Paul must have appeared from the Jewish point of view, would surely have at once been met by them with open opposition. But this supposition becomes yet more improbable on a more particular consideration of the se- quel, as related in the Acts. For we find that at their next meeting with St Paul, the chiefs of the Roman Jews appear really unacquainted with the subject of the gospel ; it is evident that they hear it for the first time, and the announcement of it raises, as was usual, a contention among their own number — some assenting to it, and others opposing it ; and surely it is impossible to suppose this contention feigned. Hence we might suppose that the church may have been entirely broken up by the persecution of Claudius (Sueton. Claud, c. 25), and that its subsequent gathering may have been so gradual that the few Christians who were at Rome when St Paul arrived there were unknown to the Jews of the capital.* I had myself formerly declared in favour of this opinion (Comm. on Acts xxviii. 17 seqq., 1st ed.) ; but it cannot well serve as a way of escape from the difficulty, since the date of the epistle to the Romans falls in the interval between the persecution of the Jews under Clau- dius, and St Paul's visit to Rome, and the epistle supposes the existence of a flourishing church ; it is, therefore, impossible that at the later period there can have been but a small number of Christians in Rome, as the community was already so numer- ous at an earlier time. There is, however, the greater reason for desiring a solution of the difficulty, because thus light would be thrown on the relative circumstances of the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in Rome — a subject which is of so great importance for the ex- planation of the whole epistle. For that there were Christians in Rome when St Paul arrived there, appears (if indeed it yet require any proof), from Acts xxviii. 15, where it is related • There had been an expulsion of the Jews from Rome as early as the reign of Tiberius. (Cf. Sueton. Tib. c. 36". Tacit. Ann. ii. 85; Joseph. Arch, xviii. 4, 15.) Perhaps the passage of Suetonius about the expulsion of the Jews in the time of Claudius may indicate also an expulsion of the Christians, who would not at fix'st b« sufficiently distinguished from the Jews. 40 INTRODUCTION. that brethren went as far as Forum Appium and Tres Tabernae to meet the Apostle ; nor is there any conceivable reason why the Christians of Rome should have become fewer at the time of St Paul's arrival than they were at the date of the epistle, since (in so far as we know) nothing had happened in the mean- time to disturb them ; and yet it would appear that the chiefs of the Jewish community in Rome knew nothing of the Chris- tians. This indicates a peculiar relation between Gentiles and Jews, Gentile and Jewish Christians, in Rome, and so leads to the important question — What was the nature of the Church of Rome, or what may have been the tendencies existing in it when St Paul wrote ? a question closely coinciding with the in- quiry as to the occasion and object of the epistle, since the epistle is the only source from which we can derive our information as to the tendencies which, in the earliest times, were prevalent in that church. Now in the epistle to the Romans itself there is no special cause assigned for its being written.* St Paul merely mentions (i. 9 seqq. ; xv. 15 seqq.) his desire to preach the gospel, as to the Gentiles in general, so especially to the inhabitants of Rome, as being the capital of the heathen world; whence it would simply appear that his object in writing his epistle was of quite a general kind. Notwithstanding this, it has often been attempted to point out particular causes, and particular objects in connexion with these, for the sending of the epistle to the Romans. It has been supposed by many writers, and some of them highly distinguished, that the only, or, at least, the most important, object was to mediate between contending parties in Rome, especially the Gentile and the Jewish Christians. Others find in the epistle a controversial design against Jews or Jewish Christians; while others again suppose that St Paul wished to guard against the abuse of his doctrine as to grace, or that he meant to oppose the Jewish spirit of insurrection. All these views, however (as to which more particular informa- tion may be gathered from Reiche, pp. 75 seqq.), on closer con- • Dr Paulus takes a naif view of the matter, inferring from xv. 1 9 that the beautiful appearance of Italy from the high coast of Illyria awakened in the Apostle's mind a longing for Rome. The aesthetic motive, however, is very problematical, inasmuch as (not to mention other objections) it is well known that Italy cannot be seen across the Adriatic. INTRODUCTION. 41 sideration, appear untenable; the whole exhibition of doctrine* in the epistle is purely objective in its character, nor -is there, except in passing, any intentional and conscious regard to any- thing save the truth of the gospel. But it is, of course, in tlie very nature of truth that it forms oppositions against all errors, and thus far such oppositions appear in the epistle to the Romans as elsewhere; and, moreover, it was a part of the Apostle's wisdom as a teacher, that he all along represents the doctrine of the gospel in such a manner that the statement it- self may be a safeguard against the errors which could not but fall in the way of the Christians ; but besides the endeavour to exhibit the gospel to the Christians of Rome in its natural rela- tion to the law, and in its practical results on life, it is quite impossible to discover in the epistle to the Romans a further design to oppose the Jews, and to keep differences with them in view, such as is clearly expressed in the epistle to the Galatians. The idea of differences between the Gentile and the Jewish Christians at Rome, for the appeasing of which it is supposed that the Apostle's letter was intended, is, however, so widely prevalent, that it is necessary for us to go into a more particu- lar inquiry as to this point.*|" This opinion may probably have at first been occasioned by the obvious parallel between the • [Darstellung.] f It has very recently been again proposed in a peculiar form by Baur (Stud. 1836, No. 3), and Kling (Stud. 1837, No. 2) partly agrees with him. I have more fully considered the treatises of these two writers in an essay (Stud. 1838, No. 4), to which I must here refer the reader, contenting myself with shoi'tly characterising the views of Baur and Kling. Baur supposes the main part of the epistle to be, not cc. iii.-viii., but the section cc. ix.-xi. This portion, he argues, is intended to assert against the Jewish Christians the uni- versality of the Christian dispensation; and he supposes that cc. iii.-viii. were intended to lead to this conclusion, the object of those chapters being to quench the jealousy of the Jews at the influx of Gentiles into the church, by showing that Jews and Gentiles stand in the same relation with respect to Christianity. Thus it is supposed that a Judaizing spirit, opposed to St Paul, had prevailed in Rome. Baur had previously endeavoured to prove this in the Tubinger Zeitschrift, 1831, No. 4, and he now attempts to bring further evidence of it from the Acts, which book he supposes to have been composed at Rome, for the purpose of defending St Paul's course of operation against the antipauline party; a view of which I have already given my opinion in commenting on the Acts. Kling is inclined to adopt Baur's views, to the extent of recognising in the epistle a contro- versial design against Jewish opinions; but finds fault with him for considering the mass of the Roman Church as Judaistic, instead of regarding the Judaizers as only one element in it. In the mass, he says (p. 320), the Roman Church might rather be considered as animated by a Gentile-Christian tendency. 42 INTRODUCTION. epistle to the Romans and that to the Galatians; and next by the idea, that on account of the large body of Jews in Rome, there must also have been there a great number of Jewish Christians; and that if so, it is not to be supposed but that the Roman community came in for a share of the all- pervading contentions between Gentile and Jewish Christians. But plau- sible as this conclusion may appear, it is evident that it ought in the first place to be capable of historical proof; not only, however, is there an utter absence of such proof, but there are very important reasons to the contrary. In the whole epistle to the Romans there is not a syllable which mentions disputes as to the relations of the law and the gospel, such as those which prevailed in Galatia. In xv. 7 seqq., there is a faint hint that in the case of the ascetics, towards whom the Apostle had re- commended a tender course of dealing (c. xiv.), the difference of Jewish Christians also came into question; and again, in xvi. 17- 18, there is a warning against such as might cause divisions; but in V. 19 the Romans are plainly described as yet free from such errors, so that it is only the possibility of a disturbance of their peace that is contemplated. All that could be said, therefore, is this, that, while the Apostle's argument is not openly directed to the subject of divisions, it is yet so managed as to make us feel through it that he has a covert regard to the two oppo- site systems. If, however, the matter be so understood, it must also be allowed that this feeling may very easily deceive, and by so much the more because these possible divisions are not expressly represented as originating with the Judaizing party. Where such differences actually existed, as in Galatia, St Paul speaks out plainly respecting them; why then should he not do so in this case? If he wished, independently of any possible or existing errors, to set forth the nature of the evangelical doctrine of salvation, he could not do so otherwise than by representing the relation of this new element to the two old systems of the Gentile and the Jewish life; both must, of course, fall into the background in comparison with the gospel, and therefore his view* appears to be polemical. But that it is not so, even in a covert intention- ally-concealed manner, is shown by the notice in the Acts of St • [Auffassung.] INTRODUCTION. 43 Paul's appearance at Rome, whicli has not been at all suffi- ciently brought to bear on the inquiry as to the object of the epistle to the Romans. If we conceive the state of the church in Rome at the date of the epistle according to the common view, the history of St Paul in that capital is utterly incompre- hensible. It is supposed that the Roman Church was divided into two parties ; that the strict Jewish-Christians wished still to observe the Law of Moses even outwardly, with circumcision, keeping of the Sabbath, and the like; that the Gentile Chris- tians, on the other hand, had freed themselves from it. Must we not, on this supposition, necessarily assume that the Roman Jewish Christians adhered to the synagogue in Rome ? As the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem remained attached to the Temple, and did not renounce the Jewish polity, so, too, the Jewish Christians of Rome could not have separated themselves from the Synagogue. But now let us read the narrative in Acts xxviii. 17, seqq., which represents the Christians as quite unknown to the rulers of the Roman synagogue, and let us ask whether, according to this, the supposition just stated has any appearance whatever of probability ? There is in that passage (as has already been remarked) no ground at all for supposing an intentional concealment; and if this cannot be assumed, there remains nothing else but to say that the chiefs of the Jews really knew nothing of the Christians in Rome. The speech of St Paul (Acts xxviii. 17-20) is evidently reported in an abridged form ; he had spoken in it of his belief in Christ, as is still indicated by the mention of the sW/g rov lepotrjX. On this, then, the Jews declare Tspl rrjg aipidiu? ravrr} g yvcaffrov hriv i][jjTy on TccvroL'xoxj avriXiyiTai. Do people speak thus of a sect which is before their eyes — on whose struggles and contentions they are looking? This can hardly be made to seem likely. And to this is to be added the discussion which follows with St Paul (xxviii. 23 seqq.), in which for a whole day he expounds the Scriptures to them, in order to prove the Messiahship of Jesus, whereupon there arises a contention among the Jews them- selves : — all which would, according to the common view, have been a mere mockery,* since by that view the Jews must be supposed to have known of Christ long before, and to have de- • [Gaukelspiel.] 44 INTRODUCTION. cided against Him.* It is only in the towns where there were not as yet any churches that we find the Jews so free from pre- judice as they here appear in Rome; where, on the other hand, they were ah-eady acquainted with the Gospel through the formation of a church, they do not admit of any expositions of doctrine by Christians. As, however, there must yet have been a church in Rome, the question is, how we are to explain this remarkable position of the Jews towards it ? The only possible explanation of this phenomenon — and it is one which at the same time indicates the origin of the tendency which we afterwards find in the Roman Church — appears to be this.*f* It must be assumed that the Christians of Rome were induced, by the persecutions directed against the Jews under Claudius in the ninth year of his reign, to make their differences from the Jews clearly and strongly apparent — perhaps in con- sequence of the influence which even at that early time some disciples of St Paul already exercised on the Roman Church ; exactly as at a later date the Christians of Jerusalem separated themselves from the Jews, tliat they might not be confounded * This is decisive against the supposition of Meyer, that the Jews spoke only as officials, and in this capacity showed an official reserve — that they merely meant to say that nothing had been officially announced to them. But — besides that this is an evident transferring of modern circumstances to the ancient world — the dis- putes which arose among the Jews themselves in consequence of St Paul's preach- ing will not allow us to explain the phenomena before us by the character of the official body of the Roman Jews. f For the further establishment of this view, and the justification of it against the attacks of Baur, I refer to my essay, already cited above, in the Studien for 1838, No. 4. This only I remark here, that his appeal to Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 44), by way of proof that the Christians were quite well known in Rome, is by no means adapted to decide the question before us, since it is the Jews who are here spoken of as unacquainted with the Christians, while Tacitus speaks of heathens; moreover, it was only by means of the rack that the heathens extorted the names of the members of the Christian community in Rome: which evidently speaks for their concealed and retired condition. Kling (Stud. 1837, No. 2, pp. 307, seqq.) refutes, indeed, the capricious fancies of Baur, but himself reverts to the old unte- nable view, that the Jews of Rome only pretended to know nothing of Christians there, in order to avoid disputes with them. That they wished to hear St Paul, is explained by Kling merely from the forward curiosity* of Jews, which led them to seek for an opportunity of heai'ing a discourse from a famous rabbi. But it is un- necessary to show how unsatisfactory this representation is. The Jews of Rome evidently hear of Christ for the first time; they fall into disputes among them- selves; this, surely, cannot be pretence! Unless we suppose the Acts of the Apos- tles to be tinged with fictionf (as Baur maintains), there remains no other explana- tion than that here proposed, Bottger's explanation of the case is also extremely unsatisfactory. He supposes that the difficulties are all of my own creation, and that in reality there are none. Comp. Beirage, Supplem. pp. 27 seqq.) ♦ Vorwitz. + [Soil die Apostelgcschichte keine romanhafte Farbe tragen.] INTRODUCTION. 45 with tlienij and might be allowed to live in Aelia. If disciples of St Paul early acquired a decisive influence in Rome, we shall also understand how it was that the Apostle could regard the Roman Church as his own, and could open his correspondence witli it without invading another's Held of labour. In conse- quence of this persecution of the Jews, Aquila and Priscilla took refuge at Corinth ; and there they were found by the Apostle Paul (Acts xviii. 2), who, without doubt, became even at that time acquainted, by means of these fugitives, with the Roman Church and its circumstances. On this knowledge St Paul, four or five years later, at the beginning of Nero's reign, on his third missionary journey, wrote from Corinth his epistle to Rome. There is little likelihood that any great number of Jews can have ventured so early to return to Rome ; those who returned were obliged to keep themselves in concealment, and it was naturally the interest of the Christian community there to remain as far as possible from them. Even three years later, when St Paul himself appeared in Rome, the body of Jews there may still not have been considerable, — in part, too, it may not have been com- posed of its old members, who had lived there before the perse- cution by Claudius, but of altogether new settlers, who were unacquainted with the earlier existence of a Christian commu- nity. And thus it might come to pass within eight or ten years that the Christian community at Rome appears entirely sepa- rated from the body of Jews in that city; and in such a state of separation we find it, according to the notice at the end of the Acts. As, according to the same narration, the Jews did not receive St Paul, so that here also he found himself obliged to turn to the Gentiles, this separateness continued to subsist, and thus by degrees there was developed at Rome a directly anti-Judaic tendency, which caused a prohibition of celebrating the Sabbath, and of everything Jewish.* According, then, to this representation, it is altogether unlikely that there should have been Jewish Christians in Rome from whom contentions * The latest expositor of the epistle, Dr Kollner, supposes that St Paul, during his imprisonment, sent for the chief of the Jews for the purpose of gaining them, and that St Luke did not intend to give an account of his intercourse with the Christians. This, however, is but an evasion of the difficulty; the real point is, — how the behaviour of the Jews, which is in question, can be conceivable, if in Rome itself there existed a Christian community, in which there were Judaizing Chris- tians. Kollner has not advanced anything towards the solution of the difficulty. 46 INTRODUCTION. with the Gentile Christians could proceed. Christians of the former kind were in the habit of keeping up the connexion with the synagogue, and if so, the chief persons of the syna- gogues could not be unacquainted with the existence of a community which declared Him who was crucified to be the Messias. There might still have been Jews by birth or pro- selytes among the members of the Roman Church, but these would, in that case, have altogether taken up the freer Pauline view of the law, and have detached themselves from the con- nexion of the synagogue. If, indeed, there were any decided testimony for the fact, that in Rome, as in Gralatia, there existed within the Church itself a party of gross Jewish Christians, the view which has just been given, and which rests on the evidence of history, might still be combated with some appearance of justice; but there is no such testimony whatever. There is, as has been observed, an utter absence of clear statements on the subject in the epistle to the Romans ; for (as I have above re- marked) xvi. 1 7 seqq. points only to a possible danger, and the proper doctrinal body of the epistle (chap, iii.-viii.) treats the relation between law and Gospel in a purely objective way, without any reference to differences in the bosom of the church itself. Chapters ix.-xi. are evidently intended for Gentile Christians only, who also are throughout exclusively addressed, and, lastly, chapters xii. and xiii, contain wholly objective ad- monitions. There remain, consequently, only the first and last chapters; and in these very chapters the hints of such conten- tions have been supposed to be found. In c. ii., it is said, the subject is quite clearly the Jews, who are expressly addressed (ii. 17, 27), so that the epistle must also necessarily be supposed to have been written to Jewish Christians; in iii. 1, seqq. the advantages of the Jews are discussed, and ^though in c. xiv. the mistaken freedom of Gentiles is reproved, yet it is in con- trast with Jewish scrupulousness, which must, therefore, neces- sarily be also supposed to have had certain representatives in the Roman church. To the observations from the opening chapters, however, it is to be answered, that still St Paul assur- edly did not write to Jews, and yet it is Jews, and not Jewish Christians, who are addressed in the passages ii. 17, 27; the address, therefore, is evidently not to be used as a foundation for inferences as to the character of the readers, but is rather INTRODUCTION. 47 to be regarded as merely a rhetorical figure. St Paul's object in the first chapters is only to prove of both Gentiles and Jews that they had need of Christ the Saviour; but into these two elements the whole world was divided, when regarded from the theocratic point of view; and thus, in as far as St Paul has an universal purpose in writing his epistle, in so far was he obliged to contemplate Christianity in its relation to the previously- existing systems,* without giving us a ground for thence deduc- ing anything as to the composition of the Roman Church. Hence it was quite necessary that the advantages of the Jews also should be discussed, (iii. 1, seqq.,) inasmuch as it was neces- sary for the Gentiles, even if they embraced Christianity with- out any intermediate step, to know how they stood with rela- tion to the Old Testament economy and to the people of Israel; and, consequently, from a discussion on these points nothing can be inferred for the existence in Rome of Jewish Christians in the proper sense of the term, — i. e. of persons who not only were of Jewish descent, (for in that sense St Paul himself would be a Jewish Christian,) but who attached an exaggerated value to Jewish views, and adhered to the connexion with the syna- gogue and the temple. A more plausible evidence for the ex- istence of such a party at Rome is c. xiv., — according to which, undoubtedly, there must have been in Rome a class of persons scrupulous as to the law. It is, however, extremely improbable that these were Judaizers of the ordinary kind, such as were found in Galatia ; for the latter had no scruple as to the eating of flesh in general, but only as to the flesh of unclean animals; whereas the Roman ascetics, on the other hand, disapproved of all use of animal food, and lived wholly on herbs and fruits Cxiv. 2). The whole question as to the character of these per- sons, therefore, requires a closer examination, which we shall institute in the exposition of the passage ; in any case, however, we must say that c. xiv. is not adapted to prove the existence of Judaizers in Rome, since the description is not at all suitable to them. We regard, consequently, the hypothesis of an intended settle- ment of dispute between Gentile and Jewish Christians in Rome as wholly untenable; and we find in the epistle to tlie Romans * [LebensBtufen, degrees of life.] 48 INTRODUCTION. a purely objective statement of the nature of the Gospel, grounded only on the general opposition between Jews and Gentiles, and not on the more special opposition existing in the church itself, between Judaizing and non-Judaizing Christians.'^ g 4. ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE. With respect to the plan of the epistle to the Romans, two extremes are to be avoided: first, the view which represents the Apostle as having written according to a most exactly elaborated logical scheme; and, secondly, the supposition that, without having any settled design, he merely abandoned himself to his inward impulses. Betw^een the two view^s, the following appears to come out as the true and correct idea — that certainly St Paul had designed a general plan for the epistle, but without having carried it into detail. His epistle, consequently, has not the precision of a theological treatise, but preserves the freer form of a letter ; still, there is expressed in it so determined and clear a train of thought that St Paul cannot have written it without any plan, and in mere obedience to the current of his feelings. For how different a shape such an absolutely free and unpre- meditated effusion takes, we see, among other instances, in the epistle to the Ephesians. One leading idea, the relation of Law and Gospel, is carried out so carefully by the Apostle, with the necessary preliminaries for understanding it, and the most im- portant consequences which result, that nothing whatever of essential importance can be pointed out as missing in his state- ment.*!* • It were to be desired that the terms Jewish and Gentile Christians were more carefully distinguished than they usually are from Judaizing and 7ion-Judaizing Christians It is, indeed, certainly to be supposed that most of those who were Jews by birth continued, even as Christians, to keep up a great attachment to the Jewish law, and that most of those who were Gentiles by birth remained free fi'om it as Christians; yet doubtless, there were also many Jews by birth (and conse- quently Jewish Christians) who, as Christians, did not Judaize; and, in like man- ner, many of Gentile birth might have already, as pi'oselytes, been so strongly im- plicated in Judaism, that, even after becoming members of the Christian chui'ch, they continued to follow a Judaizing tendency. The names of Jewish and Gentile Christians, therefore, ought to be used only to signify descent, and the erroneous spiritual tendency to be denoted by the epithet Judaizing. + The view proposed by Baur, (Stud. 1836. No. 3,) that the main part of the epistle consists, not of the section cc. iii.-viii., but of cc. ix.-xi., has been already noticed above. The xmtenable character of this supposition has been shown in my essay, already more than once cited, (Stud. 1838. No. 4,) to which I now refer the reader. INTRODUCTION. 4.9 The whole epistle falls under four divisions. The first part contains the opening^ (i. 1-17,) in which, after the salutation^ (1-7,) is given the Introduction to the following discussion, (8-1 7,). The last two verses expressly state the theme for the whole epistle, viz., that the Gospel is a power of God, and in it the righteousness from faith is revealed* This idea is developed in the Second Part (i. 18 — xi. 36), which, as being the doctrinal portion of the epistle, is that which gives it its great importance. It falls into five sections, of which i\iQ first, (i. 18 — iii. 20,) is a preparation for the deduction pro- perly so called; being devoted to proving the universal sinfulness of all mankind, in order to manifest the insufficiency of the law, both moral and ceremonial, and the necessity of another way of salvation, the righteousness of faith. First of all, the Apostle proves the sinfulness of the Gentile world, (i. 18-32); next, he treats of the Jews more especially, (ii. 1-29); lastly, he further considers the relation of the Jews to the Gentiles, and allows to the former great advantages in their calling, but declares that they have forfeited these by their unfaithfulness, wherefore there is now no difference between Jews and Gentiles in their position with respect to the gospel, (iii. 1-20.) With the second section (iii. 21 — v. 31), the Apostle then enters on the doctrinal exposition itself. Since the law, whether ceremonial or moral, was not sufficient to render men righteous and holy before God, He has opened another way, namely this, that men should become righteous and blessed through faith in Jesus, who is set forth as a mercy-seat, + (iii. 21-3 J.) St Paul indicates the germs of this righteousness by faith in the Old Testament, as far back as the life of Abraham, who pleased God, not by works of the law, but by faith, which was imputed to him for righteousness, (iv. 1-25.) This holy way, then, by which alone man in his sinful state can attain to peace with God, has, through the love of Christ, been manifested to all men; for which cause we may not now glory save in Christ only, (ver. 1-11.) The third section indicates the internal necessary connexion of ^his way of faith with the nature of man. As from Adam * It will be seen in the commentary that the author takes the words differently fi*oni the English version. t 'IXairWf/ay, ver. 25. Propitiation, Eng. version. 50 INTRODUCTION. the stream of sin poured itself forth over mankind, and hence every one who is descended from him has fallen under sin, — so from Christ does righteousness proceed, which He imparts to the faithful in the new birth The law, therefore, is intended only to make sin powerful, in order that grace may become more powerful, (ver. 12-21.) The same, therefore, which took place in Christ, has been accomplished in his people also, seeing that all are in him, as they were in Adam. For this cause, also, must not any one who has been incorporated into Christ any longer serve sin ; for he has died in the old man, and, like a woman who has been set free by the death of her husband, he has become married to another husband, even Christ, (vi. 1 — vii. 6.) After this follows, in the fourth section, the description of the course of conversion in man, (vii. 7 — viii. 39.) From the first movements of grace and the quickening of sin, the Apostle proceeds to depict the process by which the inner life is evolved, to the fully developed contest between light and darkness in the soul, which at last is triumphantly ended by experience of the power of the grace of Christ, (vii. 7-24.) With this is con- nected the description of the life in grace itself, and in the con- tinual growth therein, to the consummation of the whole per- sonality in God, (vii. 25 — viii. 17.) Lastly, the Apostle passes from the consummation of the individual to the consummation of the whole, which is represented and assured in it ; and with this is attained the purpose of the course of the world, since thus all that was corrupted by the fall will be restored to its original purity, (viii. 18-39.) In the fifth section, (ix. 1 — xi. 36,) the Apostle leads back his readers to the peculiar relation in which the Jews stand towards the Christian system of salvation. It is primarily intended for them; and, nevertheless, they appear as if expressly shut out from it, and the Grentiles as if called before the Jews. In con- sequence of this relation, the Apostle first unfolds the doctrine of election in general, agreeably to the indications in the Old Testament, and shows that the holiness and blessedness of the creature are solely the work of God's gracious election, ^nd that the unholiness and damnation of the creature are no less to be regarded as solely his own work (ix, 1-29). He then shows that it is the unfaithfulness of the Jews which has bin- INTRODUCTION. 51 dered them from laying hold on the righteousness which is by faith ; they had obstinately clung to the law as the way of sal- vation, whereas Christ is the end of the law, and in Him alone dwelleth peace for Jews and Gentiles (ix. 30 — x. 21). And, lastly, St Paul opens the prospect, that even for the Jews a conversion to Christ is yet to be expected. He points to the fact that a holy seed has yet remained in the people, which will not be lost; and then, in bold prophetic glances, he passes on to the end of days, when Israel shall again be engrafted into the olive tree, in whose roots the Gentiles only have at first been set as wild shoots. This contemplation incites the Apostle at last to an enthusiastic* glorification of God, with which he concludes this second and most important part of the epistle (xi. 1-36.) The third part, the hortatory (xii. 1 — xv. 33), may be divided into three sections. In i)iQ first (xii. 1 — xiii. 14), St Paul gives general admonitions to brotherly love, and to obedience. In the second section (xiv. 1' — xv. 13), he treats of the regard to be paid to such as are weak in faith, and suppose themselves obliged to an exact observance of some altogether unessential practices or precepts. The Apostle exhorts the stronger mem- bers of the Church to treat these with a forbearing considera- tion, and prays them rather, after their Lord's example, to re- frain from using their liberty than to offend a brother. In the third section, St Paul communicates notices respecting himself and his intended journeys. The fourth and concluding part forms the epilogue, and con- tains greetings and good wishes for the readers (xvi. 1-27.) According to this summary of the contents, the nine chapters from the third to the eleventh form unquestionably the most essential part of the epistle. They furnish a careful doctrinal exposition of the nature of the Christian scheme of salvation,t by no means, as Reiche says, (p. ^Q), apologetico-polemical con- siderations on it. But the peculiar character of the epistle still requires a special consideration, on which we enter in the fol- lowing paragraphs. • [Begeisterteu.] t So, with substantial correctness, Hopfner, De consecutione sententiarum in Pauli epistola ad Romanos; Lips. 1828. Compare also Fuhrman's Essay De Coa- ciunitate in Ep. ad Rom. in Velthusen, &c., Syltoye, vol. i. 461 seqq. 52 INTRODUCTION. § 5. THE VALUE AND THE PECULIAR CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE. Among the epistles of St Paul, three classes may be distin- guished; first, epistles of doctrinal instruction ; next, epistles of practical instruction; and, lastly, friendly outpourings of the heart. To the last class belong the Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon. All these pre- suppose the common faith as known, and aim only at perfecting of believers in it, and" confirming them in brotherly love. Those which I have styled epistles of practical instruction are especially occupied with the external side of the ecclesiastical life. The Epistles to the Corinthians, to Timothy, and to Titus, are those which, while they touch on individual points of doctrine, set especially-before our view the ecclesiastical circumstances of the apostolic age. But the Epistle to the Romans, with those to the Galatians and Thessalonians, belongs, beyond the possibility of mistake, to the first class — the epistles of doctrinal instruction. In respect of subject, it is most nearly akin to that of the Gala- tians ; both treat of the relations of law and gospel : while, however, as has been shown above, this relation is treated alto- gether objectively in the Epistle to the Romans, the Epistle to the Galatians represents it 'polemically, in opposition to the Judaizing Christians. The Epistle to the Galatians, moreover, limits itself exclusively to this relation, and discusses it more briefly than is the case in the Epistle to the Romans. In this, on the other hand, the relation of law and gospel is set forth didactically, in the proper sense of the word, nay, scientifically, so that the doctrine of the sinfulness of human nature, which is essential to its foundation, and the doctrine of the divine decree, which furnishes the key to the passing of the gospel from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, are also set forth in connection with it* Hence we may say that in the Epistle to the Romans is con- tained, as it were, a system of Pauline doctrine, inasmuch as all * That in the Epistle to the Galatians the relation between law and gospel alone is treated, while in that to the Romans the doctrine of election is also considered, may be regarded as the reason why Luther commented on the Galatians only; he wifched undoubtedly to avoid declaring himself on predestination. INTRODUCTION. 53 tlie essential points which tlie Apostle was accustomed to bring- forward with essential prominence, in treating of the gospel, are here unfolded in detail. It is very appropriate that he, the Apostle of the Gentiles, set forth this in an epistle of instruc- tion to the Cliristians of Rome in particular, since that city represented, as it w^ere, the whole Gentile world, in like manner as Jerusalem represented the Jewish. The Epistle to the Romans is thus far a letter to all Gentiles and Gentile- Christians collectively (as the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed to all Jews and Jewish-Christians, with a view of bringing them nearer to the more comprehensive Pauline position); — -and in consequence of this significancy, its contents have also, in perfect accordance with the process of the Church's development, become the basis of all the doctrinal development of the Western Church. There is in human nature an inclination to deviate ever again and again from the essential character of the gospel, and to sink back into the law. The difficulty of overcoming the law, and of enforcing the gospel truth in its peculiarity, showed itself, even as early as during the foundation of the Church. Even those who had experienced the power of the gospel, like the Christians of Galatia, might be again led astray, and drawn back to the Old Testament position of the law. Afterwards, during the medieval period, a new legal character was developed in the bosom of the Church itself, and the righteousness of faith, without the works of the law, was altogether misappre- hended. By the light of the Word of God, and especially by . the careful, profound, and experimental statement of the doc-/ trine in the Epistle to the Romans, the Reformers ^gain dis- covered the original doctrine of the righteousness which comes of faith, and so they built the church anew on its eternal, inde- structible foundation. Since the middle of the eighteenth century, lastly, the Church again sank down to tRe legal posi- tion, in the rationalistic-neological tendency which, from that period, became prevalent ; and if the most recent time has been able once more to find the jewel of faith under the ruins of the demolished Church, it is mainly indebted for this to the com- prehensive, and, to every yearning heart, convincing statement, of the Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans.* And as * That after this the Apostle's fundamental suppositions are the only part of the epistle to which lleiche (vol. i. p. 91) is even now able to attach a value, is intelli- 54 INTRODUCTION. the Church, altogether, has always been in danger of losing tlie evangelical truth, and sinking back to the position of the law, so is the same to be observed in the development of the life of the individual also. Every awaking of sin, and of the striving after deliverance from it, proceeds from the endeavour to fulfil the law of God, whether the inward law of the conscience, or the outwardly given law of revelation. The vanity of the struggle which arises from this striving is the first thing which brings to the conviction that there must be another way which leadeth unto life. From this feeling of the need of salvation, arises, by means of the preaching of Christ, faith, and in it re- generation, the changing of the whole inward man, and the filling with the power of divine life. As, however, the old man, in whom sin dwells, still remains alive in the individual after this has taken place, there remains also for him the danger of relapsing into the law, which becomes so much the more threat- ening, if he is obliged to own that he has not avoided the oppo- site extreme, relaxing in the struggle against sin, and falsely taking comfort from the merits of Christ. And as this danger of relaxing in the struggle threatens the individual, so again does it threaten the aggregate also, and to the avoiding of it are directed (as has been already observed) the catholic epistles, with the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, in this respect, form a necessary complement to the body of St Paul's epistles in gene- ral, and to the Epistle to the Romans in particular.* A writing of such penetrative significancy — which in the course of centuries has been the regulating authority for the Church in the most critical moments of her development — which has already been, is, and to the end of time will continue to be, the regulating authority for persons without number, as to the training of their individual life — must have had the deepest founcfation in the life of its author. It was only from lively experience that the Apostle could treat a relation of such uncommon difficulty in such a manner that his words still, after thousands of years, tell as profoundest truth in the hearts of gible from this learned writer's doctrinal position. Kbllner (p. 58) considers it necessary to extract the kernel from the husk before we can get at abiding truths in the epistle; he, too, regards its significance as a whole as only temporary, • [Olshausen's views as to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews have already been mentioned in a note on the General Introduction, § 3.] INTRODUCTION. 55 millions, and in the collective consciousness of great ecclesiasti- I cal communities. Indeed the whole substance of the vast expe- riences through which St Paul had passed in his own life may i be traced back to the relation between law and gospel. Before his conversion, he knew no other way than that of fulfilment of the law, and with all the ardour of his noble soul he threw him- \ self on the mass of inward and outward precepts which the Mosaic law and the tradition of the Pharisees presented to him, with the intention of fulfilling them all. His zeal was honest, and he advanced far; for he was regarded by those around him as pious and God-fearing. In the depth of his soul, however, the Divine Spirit testified the contrary to him; the life of the believers, whom in his zeal for the law he persecuted unto blood, showed him something in which he was lacking. To the stirrings of this inward craving the power of grace attached itself, and the appearance of the Lord near Damascus darted like a ray from a higher world into his darkness. He was now pene- | trated by a feeling at once of the infinite impotence of man, and ' of the abounding power of grace. All his exertion in fulfilment of the law had resulted in a fighting against God and His holiest working ; him, the fighter against God, grace in a moment changed into an instrument for His purposes. Hence the/ Apostle, after this experience, knew not how to preach any- 1 thing save the grace of God in Christ, whereby man is enabled' to accomplish whatever the rigid law can require, and still infi- nitely more, without becoming high-minded, void of love, or contemptuous towards the weak, inasmuch, namely, as it is grace that works all in him, not he himself by his own might. The words of Augustine — La quod juhes, Deus mens, et juhe quod vis, — contain, therefore, the whole system of the Apostle Paul. Such being the nature of the contents of the Epistle to the Romans, it may be understood why it is usually regarded as very difficult. Indeed it may be said that where there is want- ing in the reader's own life an experience analogous to that of the Apostle, it is utterly unintelligible. Everything in the epistle wears so strongly the impress of the greatest originality, liveliness, and freshness of experience ; the Apostle casts so sure and clear a glance into the most delicate circumstances of the inward life in the regenerate; he contrives with such genius to 56 INTRODUCTION. place all that is individual in connexion with that which is most general, that the reader who stands on the limited, inferior ground of natural knowledge of the world, must at one time become dizzy at the vast prospects into the periods of develop- ment of the universe which St Paul discloses, and at another lose sight of these, in order as it were to look into the, as it were, microscopically exhibited circumstances which the Apostle unveils with respect to the most secret processes in the depth of the soul. Where, however, analogous inward experience, and the spiritual eye sharpened thereby, draw near, the esssential purport of the epistle makes itself clear, even to the simplest mind, as Luther has shown in the most popular manner in his celebrated preface to the Epistle to the Romans. It is not, however, my intention by this to deny that, even where expe- rience is pre-supposed, there still remain considerable difficulties in the execution and form of the statement, and likewise in particular parts of the epistle — e.g., in the dissertation on elec- tion ; but these are still only the subordinate parts of the epistle, as compared with the leading main ideas respecting law and gospel. It would, however, be a great mistake to suppose from what has been said that it is intended to represent the study of the Epistle to the Romans as useless in cases where the transition from law to gospel has not yet been experienced; rather the thorough and laborious study of its profound contents is often the very means by which a yet defective experience trains itself. My intention is much more to warn against the employment of guides who, without a glimmering of the true sense of the Apostolic letter, can only hinder the beneficial effect of the study of it by their erroneous explanations. § 6. LITERATURE. There is hardly any book of the New Testament which has been so frequently and fully treated as the Epistle to the Ro- mans — a circumstance which is sufficiently explained by the significance of its contents. A comprehensive survey of the literature connected with this epistle is furnished by Reiche (pp. 95 seqq.); the following appear to be the principal works. First, as to the Fathers of the Church — we have no commen- tary from that doctor who would have been qualified above all INTRODUCTION. 57 others for a deeply-gi'ounded exposition of the epistle — Augus- tine. We possess by him only a fragmentary exposition of some passages, under the title, Expositio quorundam proposi- tionum ex Epistola ad Romanes, and the commencement of a work on too extensive a plan, and therefore left incomplete. This does not embrace mOre than the greeting (i. 1-7), and is entitled Inchoata expositio epistolae ad Romanes. On the other hand, a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans by his celebrated opponent Pelagius is preserved among the works of Jerome and in the revision of Cassiodorus. The work of Origen on this book we possess only in Rufinus' translation, by which it has lost much of its value for us. Besides these, we have commentaries by Chrysostom and Theodoret, executed in their usual manner. The exposition by the so-called Ambrosiaster is peculiar ; but his exposition of St Paul's Epistles is of more im- portance with reference to history than to doctrine. In later times Oecumenius and Theophylact employed themselves on the Epistles of St Paul, and also on the Catholic Epistles; their commentaries, however, contain but little of their own. But the Greek Fathers altogether have, in consequence of their Pelagianizing tendency, been very far from successful in the exposition of the Epistle to the Romans ; the w^hole purport of the epistle was too remote from them to admit of their master- ing it. The middle ages were especially unfitted by the prevailing tendency to a legal system for the profitable illustration of the Epistle to the Romans. It was not until the Reformation that a new period for the interpretation of it commenced. Luther, indeed, was in the same case with Augustine; he left no com- mentary on this epistle. On the other hand, besides Calvin's profound work, the most intimate associate of Luther, Melanch- thon, has presented us with an exposition in which we clearly trace the spirit of the great reformer. He published in 1522 a shorter exposition, under the title of Annotationes in Epistolam ad Romanes, Viteb. 1522, 4to. A more detailed commentary afterwards appeared under the title of Commentarii in Epist. ad Romanes, 1548, 8vo. Expositions of the Epistle to the Romans also appeared by Bugenhagen, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Musculus, Bucer, in all which, however, as is easily accounted for, controversy against the Romish Church predominates. In 58 INTRODUCTION. the seventeenth century, and in the earlier half of the eigh- teenth, many additional commentaries appeared, in which the same polemical reference was prominent. Among the better of the expositors who took this direction is Sebastian Schmidt, (Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, Hamburg, 1644); Abraham Calov, in his Biblia Illustrata, combats Grotius, and his often (especially in the exposition of the Epistle to the Romans) very shallow views. Among the [Roman] Catholics, Cornelius a Lapide wrote in the seventeenth century a com- mentary on this, and also on all the rest of St Paul's Epistles, which is still, at this day, not wholly without use. (Antwerp, 1614.) From the middle of the last century until near its end, special expositions of the Epistle to the Romans were written by Baum- garten, (Halle, 1747.) Mosheim (whose work was edited by Boysen, 1770), Koppe (first in 1783, the latest edition, under the care of Yon Ammon., appeared in 1824), Andr. Cramer, (Kiel, 1784), and Morus (edited by Holzapfel, 1794). After this, for about a quarter of a century,* no labour of any importance was bestowed on the epistle, until since 1820 the activity of literary men has again been directed to it. The latest expositions*!- are by Bockel, (Greifswalde, 1821), Tholuck (first edition, 1824; third edition, 1830), Flatt, (edited by HoiFmann, Tubingen, 1825), Stier, in the second Sammlung der Andeu- tungen (Leipzig, 1828, pp. 205-451) Klee ([Roman] Catholic in his view, Mainz, 1830), Ruckert (Leipzig, 1831), Benecke (Heidelberg, 1831), Dr Paulus, (Heidelberg, 1831), Reiche, (2 vols., Gottingen, 1833-4), Glocker, (Frankfort, 0. M., 1834) Kollner, (Gottingen, 1834), and Fritzsche, (Halle, 1836, vol. i.). A work very important for the doctrinal part of the exposition is Leonhard Usteri's Entwicklung des Paulinischen Lehrbe- griflf's (Zurich, 1833, fourth edition), Dahne's Paulinischer Lehr- begriff, (Halle, 1835), mry also be compared. Earlier works of this kind, such as Meyer's Entwicklung der Paulinischer Lehr- begriifs, (Gottingen, 1801), are but little adapted for use accord- ing to the present standard of theological science. * [Mehrere Decennien hindurch.] t Compare Kling's essay, Der Brief an die Romer und dessen neuere Bearbei- tungen, in Klaiber's Stud. vol. iv., No. 2, pp. 59 seqq.; vol. v., No. i., 1 seqq., and his review of Reiche and Kollner in the Stud, for 1836, No. 3. fi9 EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE. I PART I. (I. 1— I. 17.) THE INTRODUCTION. The Apostle opens the first part of his great doctrinal epistle, according to his usual practice in all his epistles, with a saluta- tion (i. 1-7); but the fulness of the ideas which he brings before his readers even on his first address, is such as he seldom (and perhaps never in such a degree) thus early presents to them, and shows how entirely full his heart was with his sub- ject; he hastens as it were even in the salutation to give a sketch of the whole contents of the composition which is to fol- low. "With the salutation is immediately connected some intro- ductory matter, concluding with the introduction of the theme, of which he designs to treat, (ver. 8-17.) We shall, therefore, consider the first part of the epistle, according to these two divisions. § 1. THE SALUTATION. (1. 1-7.) We find an entirely distinct character impressed upon the forms of salutation in St Paul's Epistles, in that they contain, instead of the x'^'P^'^ (James i. 1) customary amongst the Greeks, a benediction accompanying the name, the calling, and the designation of those to whom the letter is addressed. The blessing thus added has the same tenor in all the epistles, except that in those to Timothy, besides x^P'i ^'^^ ^fpmi e>^««^ is 60 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. also mentioned: the same phrase is used in the Second Epistle of St John, and a similar in the Epistle of St Jude — viz., ^a/?/?, sJprivn Kul dyd<7rri <7rXr]dvvdstri, which last word is also found in the two Epistles of St Peter. Peculiar, however, to the salutation of the present epistle is the addition of intervening doctrinal statements, by means of which it is converted into a small self- contained whole; in the Epistles to the Galatians and to Titus a similar peculiarity may be observed, but existing in a very inferior degree. In three parentheses, which may be distin- guished by the usual marks, the Apostle directs attention in the salutation of his Epistle to the Romans — 1, To the pre-announce- ment of the gospel by the prophets; 2, to the dignity of the Re- deemer; and, 3, to his own calling to the office of apostle; by means of these he would lead his readers to remark the nature of the gospel, as well as its historical connection with the Old Testament, and the personal relation in which the Apostle him- self stood to it. Ver. ] . St Paul generally calls himself at the beginning of his epistles simply a-roVroXog 'I/j^oD xpiarov, only in this place and Phil, i. 1, doZXog 'Irjffov xpiffTov, and in Tit. i. 1, dovXog Qeou. The term dovXos designates here the spiritual condition of the Apostle in general, whilst u'TrogroXog defines it more exactly. He had been overcome by the Redeemer, conquered and subdued by His higher d{jm/ji.ig, (i. 4.) But as one not merely outwardly conquered and still disposed to resist, but inwardly subdued, St Paul had at the same time become a willing instrument for executing the pur- poses of his Lord, as an Apostle. Since the article is wanting both to this word and to dovXog,yve may observe that St Paul places himself upon a level with other servants and apostles of Christ, without, however, in this place (as in Galat. i. 1) defending his apostolical dignity with especial emphasis, since it had never been impugned by the Roman Christians. Only the epithet xXrirog designates his office as not chosen by his own will, but one to which he was ordained by the will of God, (cf. Acts xxii. 21.) KXriTog has not, therefore, here the general meaning (Matt. xxii. 14), according to which every member of the Christian Church, to whom in any way the divine ytXriaig has come, is so designated, (as in ver. 6 below,) but that special meaning, according to which it is synonymous with hXsKTog. From the general number of the xXyyTo/, a new and more exclusive KXrjtfig {i.e. the UXoyrj), CHAPTER I. 1. 61 called St Paul to be an Apostle. Consequently a'TroaroXos can- not here mean any itinerant teacher of the gospel whatsoever (as in Acts xiv. 4, 1 4, Rom. xvi. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 29), but it denotes (as Galat. i. 1 , where the Apostle himself lays stress upon the word) a teacher chosen by Christ himself, and standing upon a level with the body of the Twelve. Besides St Paul, the only one whom we find in this high position, standing entirely paral- lel with the Twelve, is St James, the brother of the Lord, the Bishop of Jerusalem (cf. Notes on Galat. i. ] 9. ii. 9), who filled up that vacancy which occurred by the death of St James, the son of Zebedee (Acts xii. 1), without, however, having been formally elected, as St Matthias. In xX^jroj, therefore, the same thought is implied, as is expressed, 2 Cor. i. 1, by dta dsXyju^arog &SOV, or negatively in Galat. i. 1, by ovx, ai: av^p^Tcav. The words d At the same time this also was but a partial avuffratris, and it was therefore necessary to distinguish the iytca-Tatrif vtx^u* once more from the uvaffracrts r u v it%K^uv. CHAPTER I. 4, 5. C)7 pretations would be inadmissible, according to the context, wliich must here alone decide. The opposition to xard ffdpxa requires it to refer to the Person of the Redeemer Himself, and therefore the third Person of the Godhead cannot here be meant, though certainly the divine nature of Christ may be. In order to denote this, the expression Tveu/^a is chosen on ac- count of the irapg which has gone before, just in the same way as in 1 Pet. iii. 18, compared with Rom. ix. 5. The divine nature of the ith? Qsov is therefore here very properly said to consist in the 'rrvsvij^a, which is the substance of God (John iv. 24), and forms an opposition to the (fdp^, in which the eternal Word veiled Himself (John i. J 4). (See also 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 John iv. 2, 2 John ver. 7, Heb. ii. 14.) But this Spirit, as the absolute Spirit, is not only in Himself the Holy One, but also the Sanctifier of collective humanity, i.e., He who communi- cates His nature to the creatures; this last sense, however, does not come prominently forward in this place, which is occupied more particularly with the description of the person of the Lord himself. Ver. 5. At the naming of the holy name of Jesus Christ, the common Lord of all believers, the Apostle feels himself con- strained to expatiate in another parenthesis on that which this bountiful Lord had done for him, who was so undeserving of it. We must not think that any polemical allusion is intended (as in Galat. i. 1), and therefore suppose an implied contrast of ov 5/' dv^po^rrm with dt' ov. St Paul mentions this grace of the Lord out of a pure feeling of thankfulness for the mercy which had been shown to him. Xdpi? xai d'lroaroXri is not to be taken as h bid duoTv, but as a designation of the general grace (that of call- ing and forgiveness of sins), and of the particular grace (his election to be an Apostle), Augustin says justly, "gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus, apostolatum non cum omnibus comriiunem habet." On account of the drroaroXr}, and the nearer definition added to it, hxdSofnv can only refer to the Apostle. The whole following sentence, g/g vfraKonv -T/Vrewg Iv Tac/ roTs" Uvsfftv vTrsp Tov 6v6- fjLurog avrov is Hebraistic, and answers to the words ^*'t3??n^ V2W hv D'^lnn hb^, ny^T^^n- I" pure Greek this must have : - • - : T v: T run, i'va ocraxOL/wfi'/ 5/ Ifiov ^dvra rd 'i6vri rfj rriffrst x. r. X. St Paul often uses the word vTruKcrj (the opposite to -ra/^axo;?, " neglect of 68 EPISTLE TO THE llOMANS. lieariiig, the turning a deaf ear," 2 Cor. x. 6), for instance, Rom. XV. 18, xvi. 19, (also found 1 Pet. i. 2), in the sense of " obedience to the influences of divine grace," properly the listening to anything, giving earnest heed to it. n/or/s (see this subject treated more at length in the Notes on Rom. iii. 21) does not mean the doctrines of the faith, but the disposition of faith which necessarily supposes the v'Traxorj. But the opera- tions of the Apostle were to extend to the whole Gentile world, and therefore the Romans could not be excluded from them, since their city was the centre of all Gentile life (cf ver. 11). Of the words v'rsp rou ovS/jbarog aurov we must certainly regard the most important meaning to be "for the honour and glory of His name'' (cf Acts xv. 26, xxi. 18), where oi/o/^a = q^, stands for the being, the personality itself (cf. Comm. on Matt, xviii. 21, 22, John xiv. 11-14). At the same time we must not overlook the fact, that in the language of St Paul, as in the discourse of all persons of comprehensive minds, especially when their style is not perfectly formed, sentences often occur which are loosely and indeterminately connected, and therefore allow of manifold applications. Such instances of grand in- definiteness a considerate expositor will not dare to sweep away with a single hasty explanation ; he will take them just as they present themselves. The wide range and bearing of single thoughts gives, in fact, a peculiar charm to the language; it enables us to take a view of the world of the author's ideas, even though it did not permit him, on account of its very riches, to express at one time all that filled his mind as he desired. Thus, in this very instance, it cannot be denied that the connexion, which Tholuck has defended, of these words with I'ffaxon '^rlffTsug, so as to give the meaning, "ut obediatur fidei ob ejus nomen," is just as unstrained as the above ; all things in all both are and shall be for God and for the execution of His will, whether it be St Paul's apostoHcal office, or the faith of the whole heathen world, or that of every individual member of the Church. Vers. 6, 7. The Christians in Rome therefore are also members of that great Gentile world which was committed to him; and in that place the Gentile element from the very beginning assumed considerable prominence in the Church. The glory of their call- CHAPTER I. 5 — 7. 69 ing to be members of the kingdom of God, the Apostle represents by means of several commendatory epithets; he styles them called, beloved of God, holy. The name dyaa/, furnished by D.E.G., is perhaps to be preferred, because the alteration of so common a form of expression is scarcely to be expected. This is the only passage in the N. T. in which dsvpo denotes time, it is elsewhere constantly used of place. The reading Tivd xapTov is by all means to be preferred, as well on account of its MSS. authority, as for the sake of the sense; xapvov riva would imply a doubt whether any fruit of his labours would • According to Act xxiii. 11, the Apostle St Paul had a vision of Christ, in which it was expressly said to him, '• Thou must bear witness of me at Rome also." L)ut this vision did not take place until nfter the composition of the Epistle to the Romans. 7i EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. ever be seen, and to doubt this were to doubt the power of Christ. The image of the sower lies at the bottom of the ex- pression xa^^og in the Apostle's mind. Ver. 14. St Paul regards his relation to the Gentile world as that of a debtor who has to pay his creditors. In the gospel an infinite treasure had been committed to him, out of which he considered himself bound to impart to all Gentiles without exception. The expression, "EXX»j(r/ rs xai (3af>l3dpoig signifies, therefore, nothing more than the universal heathen w^orld; tlie Jews, whom even Philo {vit. Mos. p. 685) reckons amongst the barbarians, are not mentioned at all here, since St Paul did not consider himself as their debtor. (See Notes to Galat. ii. 7.) The Romans, however, inasmuch as they partook of the general civilization of the world at that time, are naturally to be reck- oned amongst the Greeks, which expression in the Apostle's time had lost, to a certain degree, its merely national applica- tion, and had obtained this wider meaning, merely because the culture of the old world had proceeded from the Greeks. The second contrast, ao(poTg rs xai avorjroig is not, however, by any means parallel to the first; amongst the Greeks there were many dvoriroi, and amongst the barbarians were to be found indi- vividual co