iill illiiil' ■ii;l^ lJii-Hiii;H''lllill!|||hH' ■iniii'! iil mm I; m\ ii"' ■ i !U- 11:1 !IM ' i' t 1 li 1: i; 1 1;: in i 1'', ; fj 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Wi LIBRARY OF TlIK University of California. Mrs. SARAH P. WALS WORTH. Received October, 1894, z/Jccessions No.^2,0.%r" Class No. ^. c '^O:^^" Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/epistlecommentOOstuarich COMMENTARY ON THE < ^^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. BY MOSES STUART, Late Prof, of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Sem. at Andoyer. THIRD EDITION, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED. [UHIVBESITS| PUBLISHED BY WARREN F. DRAPER 1854. 3H^. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1832, by MOSES STUABT, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. tSSri-VEKSITTl PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. I PUBLISH to the world the result of my lal^ours upon the Epistle to the Romans with unfeigned diffidence, and with a trembling sense of the respon- sibility which I incur by so doing. This epistle lias been the grand arena, if I may so express myself, on which theological combatants have been contending ever since the third century, and perhaps still earlier. The turn which the apostle James has given to his discussion respecting justification, makes it probable that even in his time there were some who abused the words of Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, concerning the doctrine of 'justification by faith without the deeds of law.' If so, then it would seem that there has been no period since this epistle was written, in which its meaning has not been more or less a subject of contest. How could this be otherwise, since it discusses the highest and most difficult of all the doctrines which pertain to the Christian system l Men must be more alike in their early education, their illumination, their habits of reason- ing, and their theological convictions, than they have hitherto been, and they must love God and each other better than they have ever yet done, not to differ in their interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans. It strikes at the root of all human pride and vain-glory ; it aims even a deadly blow. And where a passionate attachment to these is rankling in the breast, how is it possible that this epistle should meet with a welcome reception, and the authority of its simple and obvious meaning be admitted 1 Even where the remains of such an attachment are still lurking within, and only now and then developing themselves, because the heart is in some measure unsanctified, there we cannot expect to find an unprejudiced interpretation of the writing in question. An epistle which is, as it were, the very Confession of Faith that a true Christian is to make, must needs receive an interpretation more or less forced, on the part of all who are influenced by pride, by passion, by prejudice, by ill-directed early instruction, or by ignorance. For these reasons, an interpreter of this epistle must expect opposition at the present day, let his views be what they may. Be he Calvinist, Arminian, Pelagian, Antinomian, Socinian, or of any other sect, it is in vain for him to think of escape. Paul is a writer too formidable to be acknowledged as an opponent. Hence, when he is interpreted so that the views of one party in any particular point seem to be favoured, other parties are very apt to unite in condemning the interpretation. Nothing will satisfy them but to have such a writer explained as siding with them. Alas, then, for the interpreter ! While he meets, perhaps, with the approbation of a few, he must of course expect the vehement dissent of many. He must make up his mind, therefore, before he publishes, to bear with all this, and to bear with it patiently and firmly ; or else he had better abstain from publishing. It may appear to him as a very undesirable remuneration for painful and long-protracted labours ; but it is one which others have been obliged to receive, and which he also must expect. The only ofiset for all the pains which this may occasion him, must be the hope, that his labours after all may do some good ; and that, if they do not themselves on the whole directly advance the cause of truth, they may at iv PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITIOX. least be the means of exciting others to piake inquiries, which will result in the accomplishment of such an end. For myself, I do not profess to be free from all prejudices of education and all attachment to system, in such a degree as to make it certain that my views may not sometimes be affected by them. Nor do I profess to be so illuminated in respect to divine things, and so skilled in the original language and criti- cism of the New Testament, as to be certain that all my concluaions respecting the meaning of the epistle before us are correct. Homo sum, et nihil humani a me alienum puto. When, therefore, I speak in the indicative mood, and say that this means thus and so, the reader will not understand that any thing more is intended, than that this is true in my opinion. To be always dealing in the conditioned mood, and filling one's pages with if^ perhaps, probably, possibly, may it not, can it not, &c., &c., would be intolerable in such a writing as a commentary. Besides, it would represent the autlior himself as in a perpetual state of doubt or uncertainty. This I cannot truly say of myself. My convictions, for the most part, have become detinite and full in respect to far the greater portion of the Epistle to the Eomans. To represent them other- wise, would be to misrepresent them. But this does not imply that I am insensible to the weakness of human nature, or to my exposedness to err. If I have any knowledge of my own heart, it is very far from such insensibility. After all, however, a man who is liable to err, may form opinions, and may be satisfied that they are correct. This all men do, and must do ; and all which can be properly demanded of them is, that they should hold themselves open to conviction, whenever adequate rea- sons are offered to convince them of their errors. In this position, I trust and believe, do I hold myself, as to the opinions advanced in the interpretations that follow, I can say truly, that there are no opinions advanced here, which have been hastily taken up. I have been long engaged in the exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, and have studied it much more than any other part of the Bible. I have taken an extensive range in consulting commentators ancient and modern, as well as exegesis contained in theological essays and systems. This, however, I mention for one purpose, and one only, viz., to show that I have not come lightly to the responsible task of writing and publishing a commentary on the epistle under consideration ; and that the opinions, therefore, which are advanced in it, are not the offspring of mere education or hasty conjecture. Dissent, and probably contradiction, are almost of course to be expected. I may be permitted, however, respectfully to solicit those who may see fit to publish any thing of this nature, that they would investigate thoroughly, before they condemn, what I have said. When they have so done, I shall value their opinion, however it may differ from my own. Aiming, as I trust I do, at the development of truth, I shall rejoice to find any of my errors corrected (for errors, no doubt, there are in my work) ; and, if the correction be made in the spirit of love and Christian friendship, so much the more acceptable will it be. If it be made in a different spirit, and is still a real correction, I would fain hope for magnanimity enough to say : Fas est ab hoste doceri. Prom some of those who have never deeply studied the Epistle to the Romans, and who have a traditional and systematic exegesis which answers their purposes in an a priori way, I may probably expect, in regard to some thin^, vehement and unqualified dissent. Such, however, can hardly assert the right of demanding that my views should be accommodated to theirs ; since we procceo/73)ji' iVa uvrriv '}r§offdi^r}a^e, x. r. X. Semler felt the incongruity of this, and referred c7^oj(T^« to re- ceivinq into communion. I)id Phebe, then, living within a couple of hourtf walk from Corinth, and famous as she was for being n crgotf. EPISTLE TO TEIB ROMANS. 17 rang mXXuv (vers. 2), need a written recommendation of Paul, in order that the bearers of his letters might admit her to church com- munion? But besides this, the word -s'&otfSsg^ja^?, in such a con- nection does not admit of such a sense. Comp. Phil. ii. 29, and also (as to general meaning) 3 John v. 6. Thus much for the outset of this journey. Nor is the progress more fortunate. Aquila and Priscilla are next recommended to the letter-carriers. But the last which we know of them, before the writing of this letter, is that they are at Ephesus, Acts xviii. 18, 19, 26. But Semler provides them with a house at Corinth; and this, probably, because it would not be very natural for those who were to travel westward toward Rome, to go some hundreds of miles east- ward, i. e.y to Ephesus, in order to get to the capital of the Roman Empire. But how is the matter helped by this process? What have we now? A letter of introduction (so to speak) from Paul, directing his messengers to greet Priscilla and Aquila on their journey, while these same persons lived in the very town from which they started ! Hug has well expressed his views of this matter. After speaking of the first stay of Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts xviii. 2,) and of a second at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 19,) he thus proceeds : " Whence now this third or Semlerian house at Corinth, I know not," Einleit. II. p. 397, ed. 3. But, lastly, what are we to do with verses 17 — 20, on the ground of Semler? Were the bearers of the letter so divided as is there described; and was their obedience (uTaxo^) so cele- brated as is there hinted? Above all, what is to be done with verses 21 — 24? Would Paul send written salutations from those who were with him at Corinth, to the bearers of his epistle who set out from the same place? Did they not confer with Paul himself, and did not his friends as well as himself see and converse with them? And what shall we say to ver. 16, which directs Paul's messengers to salute one another? But enough of this. Let us briefly examine some of the external evidences which Semler adduces against the genuineness of chap, xvi. {a) ^Marcion, as Origen testifies, excluded chaps, xv. xvi. fi:om the epistle.' But according to Rufin's translation of Origen (the original here is lost), the words of this writer are: "Caput hoc [i. e., xvi. 25 — 27], Marcion, a quo Scriptura3 evangelica3 et apostolicae interpolatce sunt, de hac epistola penitus ahstulit; et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo ubi scriptum est; *Omne autem quod non ex fide est, peccatum est' [Rom. xiv. 23] usque ad finem totius epistolas, cuncta dissecuit" From this nothing more can be gathered, than that Marcion wholly omitted the doxology in xvi. 25 — 27, and separated (dissecuit) chaps. XV. xvi., from the rest of the epistle. There is an evident ^s- tinction here, between penitus ahstulit and dissecuit. This sepa- B 18 IN'TRODUCTION TO TRR ration Marclon might make, as others have done, because of the diverse matter contained in these chapters. And even if Marcion omitted the vrhole, he stands convicted before the world of such notorious falsifications of the sacred writings, that it would weigh nothing. (Z>) ' Euthalius, in his Elenchus capitulorun, leaves out chap, xvi.' True ; but Euthalius, in his Elenchus, mentions only those chap- ters which were publicly read ; and chap. xvi. was usually omitted in the public reading of the epistle. That he did not acknowledge this chapter as a part of the epistle, is altogether improbable, since, in reckoning the ffrlxoi of the whole epistle he includes those of chap. xvi. (c) * Tertullian (cont. Marc. v. 13) cites Rom. xiv. 10 thus : ^ In clausula, tribunal Christi comminari Paulum. But what should hinder Tertullian from saying that chap. xiv. 10 is in the clausula^ i. e., closing part, of the epistle ? Is it not in such a part? Can any thing be satisfactorily proved, moreover, by urging a sense of words strictly and logically exact, in such a writer as Tertullian? As to any alleged discrepancy of manuscripts, with regard to a part of chap, xvi., I shall have occasion to notice this in the sequel. But, very recently, another doubter in the genuineness of chap, xvi., of a more solid cast than Semler, has made his appearance. Schott, in his Isagoge ad Nov. Test., recently published, in a note^ p. 284 seq., has assigned other, and perhaps better, reasons than those of Semler, for his doubts. Let us examine them. (a) ' Paul salutes many persons, in xvi. 5—15, as being at Rome, and in a very familiar way. How could he, who had never been at Rome (Rom. i. 13), do this? The answer is, that several of these persons were his own kins- men ; see § 1 above. With all or most of them he had very pro- bably met, in the course of his travels. Intercourse between the metropolis of the Roman Empire and the large towns of the pro- vinces, was very frequent ; especially with Corinth, the headquarters of Achaia, and Ephesus of Asia Minor. And even if Paul had not seen all the persons whom he salutes, what is easier than to suppose that their character and standing were known to him, and there- fore he sent them salutations? It is plainly a mistake, to sup- pose that none but personal acquaintances are saluted in the Pauline epistles. {h) *But Paul makes no mention of any of the persons here saluted as being at Rome, in his other epistles written there, e. g., m his epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Phile- mon.* The answer is, that in only one of these (that to the Colossians) does he send any thing but a mere general salutation. Moreover, as EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 19 all these epistles must have been written some two )^ears and a halfj and may have been written some four years later, than the Epistle to the Romans, so the state of that church, exposed as it was con- tinually to increase and decrease, may have greatly altered when he wrote the last-named epistles; or the persons named in his Epistle to the Romans may have gone elsewhere in order to propagate the gospel; or they might have deceased; or it might be that they did not happen to pay him a visit while he was writing the above named epistles, and so a greeting from them was not mentioned. A thing of this nature is so accidentally varied, that we cannot make any conclusions which are valid, either from this appearance or from that. (c) ' Aquila and PrisciUa are saluted as being at Rome. In Acts xviii. 19, 26, we find their abode at Ephesus; and in Paul's last stay at Ephesus, when he wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians, we find them still there, 1 Cor. xvi. 19.' All this I concede. But since Aquila and Priscilla had, for some time, been obliged to relinquish their abode at Rome, on account of the decree of Claudius, what is more natural than to suppose, that, as soon as might be, they would return to Rome, at least long enough to adjust their affairs there, which it is more than probable had been embarrassed by the decree of banishment ? {d) 'But 2 Tim. iv. 19, written at Rome, greets PrisciUa and Aquila as residing at Ephesus.' I grant it. But when was this written? Just before the final martyrdom of Paul (iv. 6 — 8) ^. e., probably some ten years after the Epistle to the Romans was written, and also after the persecu- tion by Nero had commenced. What difficulty now in the suppo- sition, that Aquila and Priscilla had fled from Rome when this persecution broke out, and gone back to tlieir former station at Ephesus, where they had spent several years? There Paul salutes them in 2 Tim. iv. 19. Lastly, Professor Schott expresses his belief, that chap. xvi. is made up of fragments of some brief epistle of Paul's, written at Corinth, and addressed to some church in Asia Minor, and added by mistake, piece hy piece as it was discovered, to the Epistle to the Romans. Verses 1 — 16 composed the first fragment; verses 17 — 20, the second; verses 21 — 24, the third; verses 25 — 27, the fourth. But what a series of conclusions is here made out, without a syl- lable of historical evidence? Where is the evidence of the lost epistle to an anonymous church in Asia Minor ? Where that it was lost excepting a few scattered fragments which " sensim sensimque deprehendehanturV^ And the conceit of adding all these fragments to the Epistle to the Romans, which already had a good ending v/ith chap. XV.; how should this have ever entered any one's head? Why add them to this epistle, rather than to some of Paul's shorter 20 INTRODUCTION TO THE epistles? And then the persons themselves named in chapter xvi. ; what a singular phantasy it must have been in the compiler, to have supposed that, if they belonged to some church in Asia Minor, their names could be tacked on to the epistle written to the church at Rome! " How can we admit such gratuitous and improbable hypo- theses as these? Nor can I admit what has frequently been said in respect to chap, xvi., viz., that it is wholly unconnected with the preceding part of the epistle, and may be disjoined from it without injury to it. Thus much is true, indeed, viz., that salutations and expressions of Chris- tian courtesy are not doctrinal discussions nor practical precepts; in a word, the sixteenth chapter, which is principally made up of salutations, must of course be diverse from the preceding part of the epistle. But is it not equally true that chaps, xii. — ^xv. differ as much from the preceding ones, as chap. xvi. does from all the others? Is it proper, moreover, that Christian salutations should be exchanged, in epistles like that of Paul? This will not be denied. The force of such examples of kindness, and courtesy, and benevolent feeling, is scarcely less than that of direct precept; and in some respects it has evidently the advantage of precept, inasmuch as practice speaks louder than theory. Why, then, should the salutary part of the epistle be thrown away? And would not rejecting it be an injury to the congruity and to the general good effect of the whole? Nor is it correct to say, that there is not an evident relation and connection of some part of chap, xvi., with wlmt precedes, besides that which has just been mentioned. Let any one diligently consider the contents of verses 17 — 20, and he will see plainly that they refer to the divisions and erroneous sentiments which are the subject of particular discussion in chaps, xii. — xv. Let him compare xvi. 19 with i. 8, and he will see the same person expressing himself in the same circumstances. In a word, it would be truly wonderful, if the straggling fragments of an epistle, sent to some unknown church in Asia Minor, should fit the place of conclusion to the Epistle to the Romans so well as its present conclusion fits it. What can we say, moreover, to the ro>.,(irifor£§ov 6s ey^a-^l/s v/tiTv of XV. 15, if Paul does not refer to the ivhole of the preceding epistle ? It would be even ridiculous, on any other ground. And what a singular epistle chaps, xv. xvi. would make out, consisting almost wholly of salutations I Eichhom (Einleit. in das N. Test.) has advanced a hypothesis still more fanciful, if possible, than that of Semlcr or Schott. Chap. xvi. 1 — 20 is, according to him, a letter of recommendation to the Corin- thian church, whicn Paul wrote for Phcbe, the deaconess mentioned in verses 1, 2. This, after it had been read by them, she obtained again, and carried it along with her to Rome; and because the EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 21 church there were unwilling that any thing from the hand of Paul should perish, they tacked it on upon the epistle of Paul to them, so as to make out a conclusion for it I Is it worth the pains to refute such criticism ? Or rather, can the name of criticism be fairly given to such extravagant and incon- gruous suppositions ? One is ready to ask : What sort of a church must it have been, in the metropolis of the world^ and whose fame had gone abroad through the whole empire, that could deal thus with Paul's epistles ? Why was not the letter of Phebe kept by itself, and published by itself, as well as John's letter to the " elect lady ? " But this is only one among the numerous conceits, which are intermingled with the striking and instructive compositions of Eichhom. Finally, as no internal evidence can be made out, that chaps, xv. xvi. are spurious ; so no external evidence of any considerable weight can be adduced in favour of this supposition. The manu- scripts (with some variety as to the position of xvi. 25 — 27, and with the omission of these verses in a few cases) are all on the side of the genuineness of these chapters ; I mean, that all which are of any authority are so. Jerome (Comm. in Eph. iii. 5) mentions that he knew of some manuscripts which omitted xvi. 25 — 27; and Wetstein cites a Codex Latinus which does so. But in regard to all the rest of chaps. XV. xvi., it will not be contended that any authority from manuscripts, Fathers, or Versions, warrants us in suspecting them. Even as to Marcion himself, there is no certain evidence, as we have seen, that he rejected them. Why, then, should we reject them at the present time ? § 6. Different position in Manuscripts o/xvi. 25 — 27. There is a difference in respect to the location of these verses containing a general doxology, which seems to be somewhat difficult of solution. (1) In Cod. J., and in most of the Codd. minusc. ; in the Lection- aries Arab, polyglot, et triglot., in Slav. Ms. and most Codd. Armen. ; also in Chrys., Theod., Damasc, Theoph., and Oecumenius ; they stand only and immediately after chap. xiv. 23. In Cod. A., 17, Armen. edd. quib., they stand both here and at the end. After xiv. 23, they are placed by Beza, Grotius, Mill, Hammond, Wetstein, Semler, Griesbach, Morus, Eichhom, Flatt, Tholuck, Paulus, and some others. This is the sum of the external evidence, in respect to this posi- tion of the verses in question. But in whatever way they may have been transferred thither, it seems difficult to avoid the feeling of in- congruity as to such a position. It is an evident interruption of the tenor of the discourse. The (xpeiXo/Aiv ds of xv. 1, shows that it is 22 INTRODUCTION TO THE a continuation of a preceding discourse ; and so plainly does the matter of verses 1 — 13 itself indicate. Nor am I able to persuade myself, that the matter at the close of chap. xiv. is of such a tenor, as entitles us to believe that Paul here breaks out into an animated doxology. Usually, it is only after the enunciation of some deep, sublime, soul-stirring truth, that he betakes himself to expressions of this nature in medio cursii. What is there in the discussion about eating meats or refraining from them, to move his soul to the sub- lime doxology contained in xvi. 25 — 27 1 I must accord therefore with Knapp, who places these verses at the end of the e-pistle. (2) A few MSS., &c., omit the verses in question. tJerome (on Eph. iii. 5), speaking of the passage in Romans, says, " in plerisque codicibus invenitm-;" which would seem to mean, that in some Codices of his time it was omitted. The verses are omitted by Cod. D., but not a prima manu ; in F., G. (in the latter a space is left for them) ; also in Codd. Vindob. 57, 67, 68, 69, 70, as stated by Koppe ; in an unknown MS. mentioned by Erasmus ; and in Vers. Armen., of some editions. Eichhorn, as usual, has built a singular castle in the air upon this fact. He accounts for all the varieties in the manuscripts in this way: (1) The original piece of parchment on which Paul's epistle was written, was filled when the scribe came to xiv. 23. He then took a small and separate piece of parchment, on one side of which he wrote the salutations in verses 21 — 24; and on the other the doxology in verses 25 — 27. But the letter not being immediately sent, the apostle made additions to it ; first of chap, xv., and then of xvi. 1 — 20. So then the epistle was sent to the church at Rome, on four separate pieces of manuscript. In copying this, some ended the epistle with xiv. 23; others added to this the doxology in xvi. 25 — 27; a third class copied as far as xiv. 23, and then added the postscripts of the apostle (xv. 1 — xvi. 20), and finally the small leaf of parch- ment written with the body of the epistle (which is the usual form of the epistle) ; while a fourth class, copying from these different copies, inserted the doxology both after xiv. 23, and at the end of the whole epistle. Sorry copyists, indeed, they must have been at Rome, to make such mistakes as these ! One is ready to wonder, why the additional parchments were not joined on to the original one, in proper order, and not left in the form of Sybilline leaves; a thing which required nothing more than a little paste or glue, and a moment's attention. Then, supposing them to have been left separately, were there no marks added b^ the writer, to direct the reader's attention and perusal ? Arc unportant documents wont to be made out in such a negligent manner f But (which is directly to our present purpose) how came any copyist to imagine, that the letter ended with chaj). xiv. 23 1 Or why, as so many mistakes were made about the order EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 23 of the small piece of parchment first added, were none made about the order of the two different postscripts, viz., xv. 1 — 33 and xvi. 1—20? I am grieved to add, that Griesbach, in attempting to account for the variations of manuscripts in regard to xvi. 25 — 27, has advanced suppositions not less visionary and gratuitous than those of Eich- horn. This is the more to be wondered at, since Griesbach is not much prone to phantasies of this nature. The reader of Eichhom is not surprised to find such a conceit in him ; for a critic, who could add on the last twenty-six chapters of the book of Isaiah (which he names Pseudo-Isaiah), to the genuine works of that prophet, because the copyist happened to have room to spare in his parchment and wanted to fill it out (Einleit. in das. A. Test. iii. p. 91, ed. 3d), may well be imagined not to be incapable of making suppositions like those above related. But what if we, at the present day, are unable to account for the confusion of manuscripts, with regard to xvi. 25 — 27? Will this oblige us to resort to suppositions altogether incredible in themselves? To say the least, it should not induce us thus to do. We cannot, then, — at least until we come to the persuasion that parchment was as scarce and dear in ancient times as Eichhorn (so often as it suits his critical convenience) makes it, we cannot — admit a supposition which involves such an entire uors^ov 'Tr^on^ov, in a most solemn and important epistle of Paul. And even if we admit that parchment was so scarce and so dear, we are, after all, at our wits' end to know why the concluding piece was hot joined on to the same roU which contained the rest of the epistle. (3) With the Teoctus Meceptus, which places these verses at the end, agree Codd- B., C, D., E., 16, 66; Codd. minusc. 80; also Syr. Erp., Copt., Aeth., Vulg., and the Latin Fathers in general. With Erasmus, Stephens, Bengel, Koppe, Boehme, Hug, Knapp, Bertholdt, De Wette, Eiickert, and others, I am persuaded that this is their genuine place. What shall we say of Jyw Ts^nog, 6 y^d-^ocg rriv hiffroXriv, in xvi. 22 ? Does it not of course imply, that it is near the close of the epistle, and that the epistle is one f And if so, then are chapters xv. xvi. a genuine and original part of it, as Bertholdt has well remarked, Einleit. vi. § 715. ' But how can so many doxologies be accounted for ? ' To which I answer, that no serious difficulty lies in the way of this. It is not natural to suppose, indeed it cannot well be supposed, that the apostle wrote the whole epistle in a single day, or at a single sitting. If, in the midst of his multiplied engagements and his short stay at Corinth, he was several days, or even weeks, in writing it (which we may easily and probably suppose) ; then we can account for the various doxologies and apparent closes of the epistle, in chapters xv., xvi. It is easy to believe, that xv. 33 was the first pause which was made 24 INTRODUCTION TO THE with the probable design, originally, of ending the epistle there. Afterwards, renewed and additional intelligence coming from Rome, with kind greeting of friends there, he was induced to add, in return, the greetings in xvi. 1 — 16 ; to which he subjoined the warnings, and the apparent conclusion in verses 17 — 20. The definiteness with which he here speaks of the divisions and erroneous sentiments in the Church at Rome, in all probability had its origin in the very recent information which he had obtained from that city. Finally, before sending away his epistle, other Christians at Corinth, deeply inte- rested in the affairs of the Church at Rome, visited the apostle and desired him to express their salutations. This done, he adds, as usual, another kind wish and prayer for the Church which headdresses, xvi. 24. And then, in reading over and correcting the copy which Tertius had made of the whole, Paul, at the close of all, subjoined the general doxology which is contained in verses 25 — 27. If you say : ^ Here are almost as many suppositions as those of Eichhorn and Griesbach ;' my reply is, that there are almost as many in respect to number, but still of a totally different character. Here the appeal is made to the internal state of the epistle itself, and to the probable and natural circumstances which accompany the writing of such a letter. Nothing stands in the way of believing the things just suggested to be altogether probable. But when all these phe- nomena are made to depend on odd pieces of parchment, and Sibyl- line leaves, strangely forwarded without juncture or order, and as strangely mistaken in the copying, how can we satisfy ourselves with such suggestions? That the manuscripts differ so much, as to xvi. 25 — 27, is indeed a striking circumstance in the critical history of the epistle to the Romans. But if any one will attentively reflect on the several ap- parent conclusions in the epistle (xv. 13, 23, and xvi. 20, 24), he may easily be induced to believe, that the confusion in the manu- scripts has arisen from tliis circumstance. Copyists supposed there must be some mistake in having a conclusion in xvi. 24, and then another superadded in verses 25 — 27. It was natural for them to find a difficulty in this. Therefore, with the conviction that here was some mistake, they sought an earlier place for these verses ; and they could find none which was not already occupied by something of the like nature, without going back to xiv. 23. Here, then, some of them placed xvi. 25 — 27, and others followed these copies. In the mean time, other copies continued to be taken after the original order of the epistle, and thus a discrepancy arose. Some copyists, perceiving this discrepancv, and also the fact that chapters xv. and xvi. contain 80 many formulas of conclusion, omitted xvi. 25 — 27 ; while others, finding these verses in some copies of xiv. 23, and in others at the end of the epistle, copied them both. In this way we can easily account for all the discrepancies that exist, without resorting to any forced or EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 25 unnatural suppositions. We may add to all this, moreover, the probability that the public lections of the epistle extended only to the end of chap. xiv. ; to which it was altogether natural to add xvi. 25 — 27 as a proper close; and that the practice of reading the epistle in this manner, gradually introduced the writing of manuscripts in the same way. (4) A few critics reject the verses in question as spurious. So Schmidt, and Reiche in his recent commentary on the Epistle to the Komans. The latter has argued at length against their genuinenes^s. His arguments are derived from the alleged style and manner of the doxology. He accuses it of being deficient in simplicity, of bom- bastic and overstrained expression, of a dogmatic manner; of being doubtful and dark and unusual, yea, unintelligible; of a drawling repetition for three times of xam; of a doubtful construction of w near the close ; of expressions not Pauline, not proper, e. g., suayys- Xiov fiov xai K^^vy/m^a I, X^/croD; and finally he says, it is all made up of shreds collected here and there from the writings of Paul, e. g., from Kom. ii. 16; Gal. i. 6; Eph. iii. 3; Col. i. 26; 2 Tim. i. 8; Tit. i. 1; Rom. i. 5; 1 Tim. vi. 16; Rom. ii. 16, i. 9; Hek xiii. 20 — 23 ; in which places, if the reader pleases to turn to them, he will find in succession expressions like those in our text. That most of these accusations are not well founded, the reader may satisfy himself by thoroughly studying the verses under examination. That the expressions here resemble other expressions of P^ul, can surely be no proof of their spuriousness, nor of their being dark and unintelligible. I will not say, that internal evidence can in no case be proof of spuriousness; for this would be an extravagant asser- tion. But we may well say, that when all critics except two have failed to discover the internal evidences just alleged, there cannot be much probability in favour of their existence. The doxology, although it is somewhat diflScult of interpretation on account of its complex nature, seems to me evidently to be in the spirit and man- ner of Paul. § 7. State of feeling and opinion in the Church at Rome, ivhen the epistle was written. That this Church consisted of Jews and Gentiles, we have already seen ; § 2 above. That many of the erroneous views which Paul combats in it, were such as the Hebrews were prone to cherish, there can be no doubt on the part of any one well acquainted with the history of Jewish opinions. That grounds of dissension among its members existed in the Church of Rome, we can hardly refuse to believe, when we consider the general tenor of the epistle. The national pride of the Jew; his attachment to the Mosaic institutes, and especially to the Levitical rites and distinctions of clean and 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE ROMANS. unclean ; his Impatience of subordination in any respect to Gentiles ; his unwillingness to believe that they could be admitted to equal pri- vileges with the Jew, in the kingdom of the Messiah, and particu- larly without becoming proselytes to the Mosaic religion ; his prone- ness to feel indignant to the government of heathen magistrates over him ; all this lies on the face of the epistle, and cannot well be overlooked by any considerate and attentive reader. On the other hand ; the Gentiles disregarded the prejudices of the Jews, especially about circumcision, and meats and drinks, and holi- days ; they were wounded at the claim of superiority which the Jews seemed to make ; and, knowing that the great apostle to the Gentiles was an advocate for their equal rights and privDeges, they no doubt engaged in contest with the Jews with an unyielding spirit. Such a state of things very naturally gave rise to discussions in the Epistle to the Romans, and to all the cautions and precepts contained in the hortatory part of the epistle^ With this general view of the condition of the Church before us, we need not be solicitous to determine whether the apostle had special and local objects in view, when he wrote it, or more general ones. My answer to this question would be, that he had both in view ; i. e., he meant to establish some great and general principles of Chris- tianity, and also to apply them to the state of the Church at Eome. Nothing can be more natural than this supposition ; and so Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Bucer, Michaelis, Tholuck, and others, have for substance judged. . That Paul intermingles with general truths many things which are local, is almost a matter of course in an epi- stle to a particular church. The contents of the epistle itself, or a brief analysis and synopsis of the whole, I reserve for a separate statement. BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. "Were I to select a motto, which would in a single brief sentence de- signate the substance of what this epistle contains, it should be taken from the apostle Paul himself: XPI2T02 'HMIN AIKAI02TNH TE KAI 'AFIASMOS, CHRIST OUR JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. The first five chapters exhibit Christ as the author and efficient cause of our justification. After an appropriate and affectionate introduction (i. 1 — 16), the apo- stle proceeds to show, that the Gentiles had universally transgressed the law of God which was written on their hearts, because they had indulged in a great variety of sins which they knew to be wrong (i. 17 — 32). He next proceeds to show, that the Jews were even more guilty still, inasmuch as they had sinned against more light and more distinguished privileges (ii. 1 — 3, 19). He now draws the conclusion from these premises, that justification by deeds of law, i. e., on the score of merit or on the ground of perfect obedience, is impossible ; for, inasmuch as all men have sinned against the law of God, all are under its condemnation, and therefore grace or mercy only can save them from perishing. This grace is vouch- safed only through Christ, and has been procured by his sufferings and death in behalf of sinners (iii. 20 — 21). The Old Testament also teaches the same doctrine o^ gratuitous ]\i^ii' fication ; and that this should be extended to Gentiles as well as Jews (iv. 1—25). The happy fruits of such a state of justification — peace with God, sup- port and consolation in the midst of trials and sufferings, a hope which maketh not ashamed, and never can be disappointed — are next described by the writer (v. 1 — 11). And that it is perfectly proper and becoming on the part of God, to extend those blessings to all, both Jews and Gentiles, is strikingly taught by an exhibition of the fact, that all have been made to share in the evils which flowed from the apostasy of our original progeni- tors (v. 12 — 19). Even in those cases where sin has exhibited its greatest power, the grace of the gospel is made to triumph over it (v. 20, 21). Thus is CHRIST OUR JUSTIFICATION set forth by the apostle. He comes next to exhibit CHRIST OUR SANCTIFICATION. This important topic he introduces, by discussing the objection raised against the doctrine of gratuitous justification, viz., that it tends to encourage sin. He shows in the first place; from various considerations, the incongruity and impossibility of this (vi. 1, 23). He then proceeds to contrast a state of grace and the means and motives to holiness which it furnishes, with a legal state; and to show that in the latter, the sinner has no hope of maintaining a holy character, while in the former he is abundantly fur- nished with the means of doing it ; consequently that a state of grace, so far from encouraging men to sin, affords them the only hope of their beijig able to subdue and mortify sin (vii. 1 — 8, 17). 28 ANALYSIS. The apostle then, as he had before done at the close of his discussion respecting justification (v. 1 — 11), goes on to show the consolation which the gospel affords, under the various troubles of the present life (viii. 18 — 27); and in the sequel he concludes, as in the former case, with exultation in the certainty of future and eternal glory to all who truly love God (viii. 28— 39^ The part of the epistle properly doctrinal, concludes with the 8th chapter. Chapter ix. discusses the objection raised against the dealings of God with his creatures, when he makes some of them the distinguished subjects of his mercy, and passes by others. Chap. x. confirms still farther, by various considerations, and particularly by texts cited from the Old Testament, the idea that the Jews who remain in unbelief are and must be cast off; and therefore that this is not a new or strange doctrine. Chap. xi. continues to urge the same subject; but at the close deduces from it the cheering consola- tion, that even the rejection of the Jews will be made a great blessing to the world, as it will be the occasion of salvation being sent to the Gentiles. And if their rejection be attended with consequences so important, then surely their reception again will fill the world with its happy fruits. The rest of the epistle is hortatory, and is adapted specially to warn the Church at Rome against several errors, to which, in their circumstances, they were peculiarly exposed. First, they are exhorted to lay aside all pride, and envious distinctions, and claims to preference on the ground of office, gifts, &c. ; and to conduct themselves in a kind, affectionate, gentle, peaceable manner (xii. 1 — 21). Next, they are exhorted to a quiet and orderly demeanour in regard to the civil power, which the Jews were especially prone to contemn (xiii. 1 — 7). The great law of love is to be regarded and obeyed toward all men, without or within the Church (xiii. 8 — 14). Thirdly, the Gentile Christians are admonished to respect the scruples of their Jewish brethren on the subject of eating meats offered to idols, and admonished that they have no right to interfere either in this matter or in other things of the like tenor (xiv. 1, xv. 7). On the other hand, the Jews are admonished that their Gentile brethren have equal rights and privileges with themselves, under the gospel dispensation (xv. 8 — 13). The writer then expresses his good hopes concerning them all, his kind and tender regard for them, and his purposes in respect to visiting them. Lastly, he subjoins the salutation of the various Christians who were with him ; cautions them against those who seek to make divisions among them ; and concludes with a doxology. Such is the brief sketch of the contents of the epistle before us. It is one, however, which the reader may perhaps not fully understand and ap- preciate, until he shall have attentively studied the whole; but still, one to which he may recur, in order to satisfy himself in some measure respecting the relation which a particular part has to the whole. To make this satis- faction complete, it w important that he should become well acquainted with the general scope and object of the whole epistle. The details of the re.spective parts are given in the introductions to each, which are embodied with the commentary, although distinguished from it by the smaller type in which they arc printed. COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS. CHAP. I. 1—16. The introductory part of the Epistle to tlie Romans, i. 1 — 16, contains, (1) A salutation, vers. 1 — 7. (2) A brief declaration of some personal wishes and concerns, vera. 8 — 16. The apostle, being a stranger in person to the Church at Rome, begins his epistle with exhibiting the nature of his office and of his relation to the Church of God, yer. 1. Having mentioned that he had been set apart for the service of God in the gospel, he hints, in passing, that this same gospel had been before announced by the ancient prophets, ver. 2, and that it has respect to him who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, or in his humbler condition, but the decreed Son of God who dispensed the Holy Spirit with power after his resurrection, vers. 3, 4. From him, who was thus the constituted Lord of all, Paul avers that he had received such grace as made him one of Christ's devoted followers, and also the office of an apostle to the Gentiles, in order to promote the knowledge of a Saviour among them, ver. 5 ; and inasmuch as the Romans were among these Gentiles, and were called to be heirs of the grace of life, ver. 6, he addresses them, wishing them every needed spiritual and temporal blessing. He next passes on to circumstances of a personal nature, which seem to prepare the way for the subsequent addresses that he is to make to them. He thanks God that their Christian faith is so distinguished as to become a matter of universal notice, ver. 8 ; declares the strong desire which he had long cherished of paying them a visit, and that they had been the continual subject of his remembrance when coming before the throne of grace, vers. 9,10; and alleges his wish not only to impart spiritual consolation and joy to them, but to receive the same from them, vers. 11, 12. He then repeats his declaration respecting the desire he had all along cherished, of paying them a visit, and states the reasons why he had not fulfilled it, ver. 13. He expresses a wish to preach among them, as well as among other Gentiles, inasmuch as he considers himself under obligation to preach the gospel to all classes of men among the heathen, vers. 14, 15. Of this gospel he is not ashamed, knowing that by it the mighty power of God is manifested in the salvation of both Jews and Greeks, ver. 16. Here the introdiiction properly ends ; inasmuch as the next verse exhibits one great theme of the epistle, and is the subject which gives occasion to all the remarks that follow, to the end of chap. V. The reader of Paul's writings canDot fail to remark, how different was the mode of writing epistles in ancient times, from that which we now practise, in regard to some things pertaining to address, subscription, &c. Paul prefixes his name, instead of subscribing it at the end of his letters, as we now do. In the like way, and after his example, the letters missivej &c., of churches to each other, are Btill drawn up among us. 30 ROMANS I. 1. (1) UocvXoi, probably a Roman and not a Hebrew name, i. e., Pau- las ; compare the name of the Koman proconsul, Sergius Paulus, Acts xiii. 7, who became a convert to Christianity, through the in- strumentality of Paul. The Hebrew name of the apostle was ''1^^, 2oi.u7.og; and he is first called UavXog in Acts xiii. 9, immediately after the mention of Sergius Paulus. Hence many have thought, that navXog is a name which the apostle took in honour of the procon- sul. The more natural explanation is, that UavXog was a second name of Roman origin, given him in accordance with the custom of the times. While the Jews were subject to the power of Seleu- cidae on the throne of Syria, it was very common among them to adopt a second name of Greek origin ; e. g. Jesus, Jason ; Je- hoiakim, Alkimos, &c. So under the Roman power ; Dostai, Dosi- theus ; Tarphin, Trypho. A comparison of these will show, that in general the second name bore some resemblance in sound to the first. So 2auXog, JJavXog. AovXog means, in itself, one devoted to the service of another, one who is subject to the will or control of another. Of course it may import a station or condition which is in itself high or low, honour- able or dishonourable, according to the state or rank of the master. A servant of a man, i. e., of any common man, is a slave ; at least the word in its strict sense would import this. But the servants of a king may be courtiers of the highest rank, who count this title a matter of honour. (1) Servants of God is an appellation given to the prophets, Moses, Joshua, &c.. Rev. x. 7. xi. 18. xv. 3. Deut. xxxiv. 5. Josh. i. 1. Jer. xxv. 4. Amos iii. 7 ; and in like manner the apostles and primitive preachers of the gospel are called the Ser- vants of Christj Gal. i. 10. Phil. i. 1. Titus i. 1. James i. 1. 2. Peter i. 1. Col. iv. 12. (2) AovXog is also employed as meaning simply or principally a worshipper of Christ or of God, one devot- ed to his service ; for in such a sense we find the word employed in 1 Peter ii. 16. Eph. vi. 6. Rev. vii. 3. Luke ii. 29. Acts iv. 29. Ps. cxiii. 1, al. Docs the word boZXog here, as employed bv Paul in respect to himself, indicate official station, like that of the ancient prophets and messengers of God mentioned under No. 1 ; or is it employed in the second sense, in order to denote the apostle as one devoted to the service of Christ, one ready to obey htm in all things, and to regard the promotion of his interests as the great object of his life^ Interpreted in this way, hoZXog does not anticipate the meaning of acroVroXof. There is also a gradation in the sense. First, Paul is ROMANS I. 1. 31 represented as being devoted to the service of Christ, and then as commissioned with a special office in that service ; which could not be said of every dovXog. So Reiche and Glockler, in their recent Commentaries. 'lri(fou XpiffTov, in the Gen. here, shows the relation in which Paul stood to the Saviour, and that the apostle's business or object (as dcuXog) was to promote the cause of Christ or to forward his work. 'irjGovg is the Greek form of the Hebrew name VJ^'^i^] or of its later abridgment and substitute V^^^^., i. e., Saviour, or he wJio will save. X^Kfrog is properly a participial adjective, formed from ;^^/w, to anoint, and means the anointed one. It is, like xvPiog, which is properly an adjective, usunlly employed by prefixing the article as an appellative, when applied to the Saviour, and commonly it de- signates him as kijig, or possessed of royal dignity. Kings were anointed to their office, among the Jews ; and also high priests. The name Christ D''^P, x^iarog, the Messiah, may refer then to either of these high offices or dignities ; for he is both king and priest for ever. The use of x^'^"^^^ alone in the Gospels, is hardly to be regarded in the light of a proper cognomen, but rather as a mere attributive appellation. In the epistles, it is not unfrequently used in the way of a proper cognomen. KXriTog, lit. called, but the meaning here is chosen, invited, viz.^ chosen to the office of an apostle; see Acts ix. 15, gy-svog IxXoyns fj.oi hriv ouTog, also Acts xxvi. 17, where the xXrirSg here is expressed by s^aioou/xivog cs, I have taken thee out of, I have selected thee from. In Gal. i. 15, it is more fully expressed by 6 a(po^/aag [mz Ix xo/X/ag /■iriT^og fxov, zal %aks(iag dia rljg ;^ag/ro5 avrov, i. e., who set me apart or designated me from my earliest years for the apostolic office, and in due time called me to it by his grace; Jer. i. 5. The word jtX)jro5 sometimes has the sense merely of invited, hidden; e. g., Matt. XX. 16, xxii. 14. Yet in the writings of Paul it is not so used, but always in the sense of efficient calling, as we say, i. e., it means not only that the person designated has been invited or selected, but that he has accepted the invitation ; 1 Cor. i. 1, 2, 24. Rom. i. 6, 7. viii. 28 ; with which collate Gal. i. 15. Jude v. 1. Heb. iii. 1. Eom. xi. 29. Eph. iv. 1. 'AToffroXog may mean a legate of any kind, one sent hy another on any kind of business or message. The word is used in this way, in John xiii. 16. Phil. ii. 25. A divine messenger or prophet it designates in Luke xi. 49. Eph. iii. 5. Rev. xviii. 20. ii. 2 ; and in like manner it also signifies the messengers of Christ, which is 32 EOMA.NS I. 1. the usual meaning of the word throughout the N. Testament. To invest them with this office, an immediate choice by the Saviour in person seems to have been necessary. This is implied in our text ; and more plainly still in Gal. i. 1. — Occasionally the companions of the apostles, or the delegates sent by them, are called apostles ; so in 2 Cor. viii. 23. Acts xiv. 4, 14. Rom. xvi. 7. * A(pu^t(S/Msvoi .... ^sov, lit. separated or set apart for the gos- pel of Gody i, e.y chosen or selected in order to preach the gospel of God, viz., that gospel of which God is the author, SsoD being Geni- tivus auctoris. The word d(pu^i(r,/Msvog seems to be intended as epex- egetical of xXrjrog, i. e., it expresses the same idea in different lan- guage. Hesychius explains apdo^ig/xhog by hXsXsy/ui^Bvo;, chosen, diay.sx^i/jbsvoc, selected. In the same sense a(po^'t6ari occurs in Acts xiii. 2. See the same sentiment in Gal. i. 15, Jer i. 5. The meaning is, that God, who foreknows all things, did set him apart, choose, select him for the w'ork of the gospel, even from the earliest period of his life. Gal. i. 15. So it is said of Jeremiah, that he w^as set apart, selected, for the prophetic office even before he was formed in his mother's womb; by all which expressions is meant, that God who knows all persons and events before they exist or take place, has a definite object in view which he intends to accomplish by them. In classic Greek, the verb a^po^i^nv is more usually em- ployed in a bad sense {in malam partem), meaning to exterminate, excommunicate, repudiate, &c. But in Hellenistic Greek it is more commonly employed in honam partem, as here. E/j ihayyiXtov has the same sense as £/'; ro guayysX/VatrSa/ euayysX/o^, in order to preach the gospel. • This method of using the Ace. (with the preposition u; prefixed) as a nomen actionis, is a frequent idiom of Paul's writinj^s, and resembles the use of the Heb. Inf. (with a < prefixed) as a nomen actionis. 'EvayyeXiov itself is some- times employed to denote the preaching of the gospel; c. g., 1 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 14 — EuayysXiov ^eov Chrysostom understands as meaning the gospel concerning God, viewing SsoD as Genitivus objecti. But this interpretation is plainly erroneous; for the object is supplied in ver. 3, viz. vjayysXiov ^iou .... Tsg/ rou u/oD avrov. Theophylact rightly explains the phrase : w; du^ri^sv rra^oc rou SsoD, [the gospel] as given by God. For the sentiment that the gospel is of God, and that Christ taught it as received from him, let the reader compare John viii. 28, 38. v. 19, 30. xii. 49. xiv. 10, 24. xvii. 4—8. (2) "O rrDoi'XTiyyii'ka.To .... uyiaig, which he formerly, or in for- mer times, declared or published by his prophets, in the holy Scriptui^es, ROMANS r. 3. 33 In like manner, Paul in his defence before Agrippa says, that he had proclaimed nothing as a preacher of the gospel, which the pro- phets and Moses had not declared should take place, Acts xxvi. 22 That Christ and all his apostles believed and taught, that the Old Testament abounds in prophecies respecting him, there can be no doubt on the part of any one who attentively reads the New Testa- ment ; see Acts x. 43, xviii. 28. 1 Peter i. 10. 2 Peter i. 19. Even the heathen of the apostle's time had become acquainted with the expectations of the J ews, in regard to the appearance of the Messiah ; which expectations were excited and cherished in the He- brews, by the perusal of their own ancient Scriptures. Thus Tacitus speaks of this subject; "Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdo- turn Uteris contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret Oriens, pro- fectique Judae^ rerum potirentur," Hist. V. 13. In the same man- ner Suetonius his contemporary expresses himself: " Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur," in Yespas. c. 4. The first pro- mises respecting the Messiah were merely of a general nature, un- accompanied by peculiar and characteristic declarations; e. g. Gen. iii. 15, xii. 3, xvii. 4, 5, xlix. 10. In later times, it was foretold that the expected King and Deliverer would be of the progeny of David, 2 Sam. vii. 16. Psalm Ixxxix. 35 — 37. In several Psalms, some traits of the life, office, character, and sufferings of this illustrious personage were given; viz. Psalm ii. xvi. xxii. xlv. ex. etc.; still more graphi- cally is the Messiah described in Is. liii. ; and individual occurrences in his history are given in later prophets, e, g., Zech. ix. 9. xi. 13, Mai. iii. 1, seq. iv. 2, seq. It has been observed, that Malachi's de- claration in the last chapter of his prophecy, is homogeneous with the very first annunciation of the gospel in Mark i. 2. Our English version of Tgosvrjjy/g/Xaro, promised of ore, does not give the proper meaning of the word. 'Ev y^acpaTg ayiaig, in the Holy Scriptures, The Jews employed either y^a(pY} the singular, or y^ucpai' the plural, indifferently. The first means the corpus librorum sacrorum ; the second refers to the same collection, as made up of several particular writings. The epithet dy/a/ is given to y^a dvvd/xsi might easily be rendered in the same way as dwarog. My difficulties do not arise from this source, therefore, but from the unsuitableness of the application in this case. Had the apostle meant that h dwd/xsi should qualify o^tcr^hrog, all the usual prin- ciples of Greek construction and syntax would demand that he should have written, rov \v duvdfisi ooiffyivrog u}ouy the place between the article and the participle being the appropriate one, in order to avoid ambiguity of sense or construction, when a noun is thus em- ployed. Then again, no example has beeii produced, and I must doubt, until I see it, whether any can be produced, of the Greeks applying dvmfiig to designate the force or strength of a logical de- monstration made only to the mind. It always, certainly in the New Testament, has reference to the active force or energy of an agenty either corporeal or spiritual, when employed in such a way. The Greeks would characterize the demonstrative force of evidence or logicj in a very different way from this. The objections, there- fore, in point of grammatical construction and propriety of idiom, seem to me to be conclusive against such an exegesis. And the references by the commentators in question to Col. i. 29, r^v svB^r/nocv avrou TYiV svi^yovfJbsvr}v b s,(ioi h dvvd/in and to Mark ix. 1, sojg uv 'ibuidt Trjv SaffiXBiocv rou ^sov sXrjAv^viav sv dvvd/ji^si, do not give any satisfaction as to their application of h hhvaijAi in the case above, because h^rft the b-jvaiMig is that of agents^ and not that of logic or evidence. The kingdom of God, of course means the persons who compose it, and sv owdfj^si the efficiency with which they act, or (at least) with which God himself acts, in building it up. Nor am I convinced, that the resurrection powerfully demonstrated Christ to be the Son of God, by the allegation (in order to remove an apparently formidable difficulty as stated above), that ^ in the ch'- cumstances of the case, after all the special claims that Jesus had made to be considered as the Messiah, his resurrection was a signal 40 EOMANS I. 4. proof that he was the Son of God.' This it would do, however, only in an indirect way, and such an inference could be drawn from it only by virtue of reasoning from consequences. It proved only, that the claims of Jesus were allowed to be just and true. How could the power of God the Father, exerted to raise Christ from the dead, prove the divine or exalted nature of the latter? It proved only that God is Almighty, and he regarded with approba- tion the claims of Jesus. One of these claims was, that he was the Son of God ; but this was only one among many others. How then could the whole force of the evidence to be drawn from the resur- rection, concentre in this sole point ? And when Reiche asserts (p. 119), that " Paul always appeals to the resurrection of Christ as the principal evidence of his divinity," and refers us to Col. xv. 3, 17. Rom. iv. 24. Acts xvii. 23, as proofs of this, one is tempted to ask, what is meant by evidence ? These passages merely show that Christ was raise'd from the dead, in order to complete the work of mediation and redemption, and also to be the future judge of the world; nothing more^ Nor is it in the nature of things, that resur- rection from the dead can prove Godhead? Was it the Godhead that died, and was raised again ; or was it the ma7i Christ Jesus ? How could the raising of the man by the Father, then, prove the Gt)dhead of Christ ? In whatever light I look at this interpretation, I feel constrained to reject it. Neither Paul nor any other New Testament writer makes the evidences of Christ's divine nature, (or higher nature, if you choose so to name it), to depend on the resurrection ; at least this is done nowhere, unless it be in the pas- sage before us. Would it not be strange that this should stand entirely alone, in respect to such an important point as the inter- pretation in question makes it ? Let us now see whether a more defensible meaning than those above produced, can be given. I understand o^irtOiVTOi in its usual (and only defensible) meaning, viz. decreed, appointed^ established by decree, determined by decisioriy viz. of a superior. I find in this sense of the word a most expres- sive meaning in reference to Ps. ii. 7, which, I doubt not, the apostle had in his mind : " I will declare ilie decree, (P'T^? '"^SpN) ; The Ivord hath said unto me. Thou art my Son ; this day have I be- gotten thee." Here then is the decreed, destinated, or appointed Son, to whom Paul refers, the very Messiah promised in one of the most explicit and striking predictions in all the Old Testament ; ROMANS I. 4. 41 comp. ver. 2, h y^%(pa7i ayiaig. And what is the decree of which the Psalmist speaks? It is, that the Son shall be made universal king, and that his enemies shall be dashed in pieces before him, Ps. ii. 8 — 12; and all this not in a temporal but spiritual sense. What is this now but to be the Son of God h bvvdiMii% And when Mr. B. suggests, that he knows of ' no passage where dvva/xig means authority, office, etc.'; he need only to consult Matt. xxvi. 64. Mark xiv. 62. Luke xxii. 69. Luke iv. 36. Acts iv. 7. 1 Cor. v. 4. Rev. xiii. 2, iv. 11. v. 12. vii. 12. xii. 10, in order to correct this im- pression. It is even employed (by metonymy) for those in office and clothed with power, e, g., 1 Cor. xv. 24. Eph. i. 21; so for angels good or bad, who are high in station, Rom. viii. 38. 1 Pet. iii. 22. Matt, xxviii. 18, has -jratfa igobc/a, not duvccfug, as he supposes ; a mistake into which the first edition of my work (p. 68) probably led him. It would be clear enough, then, that we might construe rov o^i(fdsvTog v'/ov Ssoj sv duvd/xsi, as meaning * the Son of God, who by de- cree is possessed of universal authority or dominion.* My only doubt whether sv dwd/xn should be so construed here, arises from its junction with the next words; Kara 'TTviv/xa. uyiMffvvrjg, which, like every other expression in this verse, is contested, some translate, by the Holy Spirit; and some, by a holy spirit, i. e., a divine and miraculous power, which some represent as the miraculous power with which Christ was endowed, and others as that which was shown in raising him from the dead. A third party construe 'ttviZimol here, as designating the higher nature or condition of Christ, i. e., his pneumatic nature or condition, if I may so express it. Schleusner, Flatt, Bengel, and others, find in ayim\)vn a meaning designedly different from that of dyiCrrig or ayta^ixog. Thus Bengel, " ayiorrig sanctitas, ayiad/jjog sanctificatio, ccytugvvi^ sanctimonia." But this seems to be imaginary ; for even in Latin, sanctimonia and sanctitas differ only in form, not in sense. In Greek, as there is no difference between uya^ocvvn and dya^6r7)g, so there appears to be none between dyiucvvrj and dyiorrjg. The Seventy use dyiuavvn for ^'V, strength, in Ps. xcvi. 6 (xcv. 6J; for ^P in Ps. xcvii. 12 (xcvi. 12); and for ^in in Ps. cxlv. 5 (cxliv. 5.). But as '^rvivfia is here joined with dyiudvrig, I cannot well doubt that the word aytugmg is employed in the place of the adjective aym, (like ^ 42 R0MAN8 I. 4. in WJ in^ i. ^.^ ^y ]ioly mountain.) So the Gen. case of nouns is employed in almost innumerable instances. If we may conjecture a reason why the apostle here preferred ayiuGlvrig to oLyiov, we might say that it was because he wished to avoid the dubious meaning dyiov would seem to give to the passage, as the reader might na- turally refer such an epithet to the Holy Spirit as an agent. I cannot but regard it as quite certain, that xara, 'xvsv^u^cc ayiojcvvrji here, is employed in a similar way with xara ffd^xa in the preceding phrase. There xara odoxa, shows in what respect, in regard to what Christ was the Son of David. Here xara crv«D//,a uytuffvvrjg shows in what respect the apostle means to set forth Christ as the decreed Son of God ivith power. Not that the mention of one leading particular in which his power was displayed, excludes the possession of other powers by him. So much only is meant, and so much is altogether true and striking, viz. that power in bestowing the irnxifi.ct dyicaavvrig, i. e., in causing the new moral creation^ is one of the most conspicuous of all proofs that Jesus is indeed the de- creed Son of God, who was promised in ancient times, and predicted in the Holy Scriptures, by a declaration and an oath never to be forgotten. We shall see, in the sequel, more abundant reason for this inter- pretation. But we must first examine the meaning of sx uvaardaio; vsxouv. This is another contested phrase. Many have rendered i^ by. So Chrysostom; who deduces from our verse three proofs which were exhibited in order to show the divine nature of Christ; viz. (1) *Ei/ 6uva//,e/, i. e., the wonderful miracles which Christ wrought. (2) The gift of the Holy Spirit, xara 'rvsu/Mu ayiuevvrn. (3) The resurrection. The difficulty with the first and third par- ticulars of his reasoning, is, that in the same manner prophets, apo- stles, and others may be proved to be divine, for the Saviour says that his disciples will perform ^^ greater works than he," after his ascent to the Father; and many others were raised from the dead as well as Jesus. As to the gift of the Spirit, that will be noticed in the sequel. There can indeed be no doubt, that sx (gj) is, so fiir as this preposi- tion merely is concerned, susceptible of such an interpretation. It is often used in the sense o£ propter, ex, and designates the causa oc- cusionalis; e. ^., John iv. 6, * Jesus being wearied ex rrji odorro^la;,* so in Acts xxviii. 3. Rom. v. IG. Rev. viii. 13; or it designates the caum instrumentaliif 1 Cor. ix. 14. 2 Cor. vii. 9. Rev. iii. 18. But, JR.OMANS I. 4. 43 on the other hand, that Ik signifies after, since, in respect to time, is equally clear and certain ; e, g,j H xoiXiag /x^jr^og, from the time of one's birth ; Matt, xix. 20, Ix ^orrirog, FROM early youth ; Luke viii. 27, sx y^^ovuv ixAvojv, a long time SINCE; xxiii. 8, John vi. 64, vi. 6Q, ix. 1, 32. Acts ix. 33* xv. 21. xxiv. 10. Rev. xvii. 11, ex ruv sr'rrd S6TI, AFTER the seven; 2 Peter iL 8. ; comp. Sept. in Gen, xxxix. 10. Lev. XXV. 50. Deut. xv. 20- — So in the classics ; Arrian Exped. Alex. L 26. 3. ix voruv axXri^uv AFTER vehement south winds. III. 15. 13. V. 25. 3. Hist. Ind. 33. 5. Ix roambi xaxwv, AFTER so many evils. Xenoph. Res Graecae, VI. Ig a^iaroh after dinner. No doubt can be left, then, that Ig dvatfratfewj: vfx^wi/ may be rendered, after the resurrection from the dead, or since his resuri^ection, etc. So Luther, SINT der Zeit er auferstanden ist, since the time when he arose, ' Ava.Grdfii(A)i vsxgwv, moreover, is one of those combinations of the Gen. case with a preceding noun which express great latitude of construction. Here it is equivalent to dva&rddioii sx vsx^ojv. Both phrases, viz. avacrac/g vsx^wv and dvdarcccig Ix vsx^uv, are used by the New Testament writers; e. g., the first, in Matt. xxii. 31. Acts xvii. 32. xxiv. 21. xxvi. 23; and Paul limits himself to this same phraseology, e. g., 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21, 42. Heb. vi. 2 ; the second, in Luke xx. 35, Acts iv. 2. I can perceive no difference whatever in their meaning. In regard to the latitude in which the Genitive is employed, in order to designate relations which might otherwise be expressed by a preposition, see § 99 of my New Tes- tament Grammar. The way is perfectly clear, then, to translate after his resurrec- tion from the dead, so far as philology is concerned. Does the nature of the case admit or demand this I It seems to my mind that it does. The manner in which the outpouring of the Spirit is spoken of, as connected with or following the resurrection and consequent glorification of Christ, appears to render this altogether probable, if not certain. Jesus, in promising a copious effusion of the Spirit, says, that '' out of the belly [of believers] shall flow rivers of living wa- ters," John vii, 38. The evangelist immediately adds, that " he spake this of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive, j^r the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." In entire accordance with this are the representations of the Saviour, in his last conference with his disciples; "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you," John xvi. 7. This 44 ROMANS I. 4. Comforter was to come after the departure of Jesus ; he was then to abide with the disciples (John xiv. 16) ; to teach them all things (John xiv. 26) ; to guide them into all the truth (xvi. 13) ; to tes- tify of him (xv. 2^)\ and to convince the world of sin, of righteous- ness, and of judgment (xvi. 8 — 11). So on the great day of Pen- tecost (which the apostle would seem to have had in his eye when he wrote our text), Peter says, that the notable outpouring of the Spirit then experienced, was a fulfilment of the prophecy in Joel respecting this event; Acts ii. 14 — 21. Is. xliv. 3, refers to the like event. In looking at Acts i. 8, it would seem as if the very thing in our text is specifically designated by the words of Christ to his apostles ; \ri-^i(^i d-jvoc/j^iv sTeX^ovro; rov aylou tvsv/ucctos s;p v/jjug. Here the dum/xig which Christ is to bestow by the sending of the Spirit, is expressly designated ; and, as the sequel of the narration shows, it means an extraordinary and hitherto unknown effusion of the Spirit. All the subsequent history of the churches illustrates this. All the extraordinary revivals of religion that followed, were in con- sequence of the extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit w hich ensued upon the resurrection and glorification of the Saviour. The conclusion which I deduce from the whole is, that rou o^ie- Sevrog wQxj .... vsx^&iv means, that ^Christ was the Son of God, agreeably to the decree in the Holy Scriptures, i. e. (in Psalm ii. 7) ; and Son of God endowed with power, which he displayed by sending the Spirit in an extraordinary and glorious manner after his resur- rection and consequent exaltation.' In this simple way, supported by the testimony of the Scriptures as to facts, and its usus loquendi as to meaning, would I explain this endlessly controverted verse, respecting which scarcely any two commentators of note wholly agree, and in regard to which, I am now persuaded, that I was in some respects mistaken in the first edition of this commentary. The ground of my mistake was, looking to a distance too great for ex- planatory facts and principles, when they lay near at hand. That the sense now given is far more noble and pregnant with meaning, than the simple declaration that Christ was shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, can scarcely fail of be- ing felt by every reader. As now explained, the declaration of the apo- stle respects one of the highest, most striking, and most glorious of all the proofs that Christ was the true son of God. It means no less than to assert, that he was and is the author of the new creation, of the making of all tilings new, by the peculiar dispensation of his Spirit ROMANS I. 4. 45 after his glorification. That glorification was plainly commenced by his resurrection. Paul in his address in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii.) explains the resurrection, indeed, as in part a ful- filment of the prediction in the second Psalm respecting the elevation of Jesus as the Son of God. And so it truly was ; inasmuch as it was the commencement of his glorification. But the interpretation given above abates nothing from this. It is built on the very sup- position, that his resurrection must precede the special duva/Ais which he exercised, in pouring out the Spirit in an extraordinary manner so as to establish his new spiritual kingdom. In a word, as God at the beginning manifested his power and Godhead by creating the world from nothing, so the Son of God exhibited his all-glorious character in the new creation effected by the Spirit of holiness, dis- pensed by him in so peculiar a manner after his glorification. This is the highest evidence we can have of his being indeed the de- creed Son of God, and Saviour of Sinners. The whole expression, rov o^iShrog v'/ou .... vskouv, serves to distinguish what Jesus mani- fested himself to be after his resurrection, in distinction from the development he made of himself befoi^e this period. Before the resurrection "he was anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power" (Acts x. 38); but " the Holy Ghost was not yet given p. e.y bestowed on men], because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John vii. 38). It is in reference to the manifestation of what Jesus was en- dowed with, and in reference to the decree which respected his spiritual kingdom and reign (Ps. ii.), that the apostle speaks in our text. With this view of the subject, I cannot (with some expositors) regard xam ^ra^xa and xara 'x'vsv/xa a-ytu<;\jvr^g as designedly antithetic expressions. This indeed they cannot strictly be; inasmuch as both respect the same person. Nor can I now any longer regard them as a designed contradistinction ; for to make out this, we must suppose that the one relates to his human person, and the other to his divine. It is indeed true, as I formerly maintained, that the higher and glorified nature of Christ (not simply his divine nature), is several times called Tveu/Aa, (but not itnZijja ayiov nor ri, does not make this supposition certain. ROMANS I. 7. 49 * Kyairrirotq ^«oD beloved of God ; an appellation often bestowed on the ancient people of God, or at least implied by what is said concerning them, and which Paul here applies to Christians, the true Israel of God. They are the objects of God's love, because they are his children by a new and spiritual birth, because they bear his image, and also because they possess a filial and obedient spirit. KkriToTg ccyktg, chosen saints, or saints effectually called. So most editions and commentaries unite these words, making xXrjroTo an adjective qualifying ayioig' and so I have translated them. This may be correct, inasmuch as the apostle had just before called them xXjjre/ I. X^igrov. If this union of the two words was intended by him, they mean as much as tosay, called or chosen to be holy or to be consecrated to God, to be devoted to him. In the mean time? it is evident that the words may be pointed thus, TcXvjroTg, aytoig, to those who are called, who are devoted to Christ, The sense is sub- stantially the same, whichever way we choose to interpret the words. As to the appellations aya-xriroTg ^iov, xXrjroTg aykig, the reader may compare the terms of honour and affection given to God's an- cient people, in Exod. xix. 6. Deut. xxxiii. 3. xxxii. 19 ; with these compare also 1 Pet. ii. 9. 1 Tim. iii. 15. Phil. ii. 15. 1 John iii. 1, 2, 10. V. 1. given to Christians in the New Testament. Xd^ig v^Tv, sc. iffru, may grace be imparted to you I Xd^ig I un- derstand as meaning every Christian grace and virtue, which the Spirit of God imparts to the followers of Christ ; divine favour in the most extensive sense, but specially in the sense of spiritual bless^ ings, — Bl^Tjvrj, like the Heb D'vK^ means happiness of every kind, peace with God and man, and so a state of quiet and happinessy The same word (D7K^) is used, down to the present hour, among the oriental nations who speak the Shemitish languages, as an appro- priate expression in their formulas of greeting or in expressing their good wishes. Uar^hg 7i/xuv, i. e., the Father of all Christians, of you and me. So Christ has taught his disciples when they approach God in prayer, to say crars^ yj/j^uv. — Kv^lov, see under ver. 4. One would na- turally expect the article here, before the monadic nouns ^sou and xvpiov. But nothing is more common than to omit it before such nouns, when frequently employed, and where there is no danger of mistake. See N. Test. Gramm. § 89, 2. a. b. More common is it to employ the article before an epexegetical appellative in apposition, like 'rar^hg ^/xwv in the present case. But even here the practice is not uni- D 50 , ROMANS I. 8. form ; and moreover the article before rrar^Cg in the present case miglit be dispensed with also, on the ground that ^^/^wc sufficiently marks its definitive nature ; N. Test. Gramm. § 89. 6, comp. p. 3. It should be remarked here, that in this prayer or wish Paul seems to take it for granted, that the blessings for which he asks, come as really and truly (not to say as much) from the Lord Jesus Christ as from God our Father, To the one then he addresses his prayer, as well as to the other. The reader, in looking back on what he has now read, will find the whole paragraph exceedingly characteristic of the manner in which Paul often writes. With regard to the parenthetic explana- tions or remarks in ver. 3, 4, (see the remarks on the course of thought in these verses, under ver. 3), we have seen that they were occasioned by the association of ideas in the writer's mind, which were connected with the mention of rou viov alrov. So in respect to ver. 5. and 6 again ; they were evidently suggested to the mind by rou xvpiox) r^fLm, in ver. 4. Having expressed the thoughts which 'A\)lio-j thus spontaneously suggested, the writer again resumes the direct address or salutation which he was making : rtasi roT; oocriv X. r. X. The words necessarily connected in the paragraph stand thus: '?tsdI roj v'lou avTou .... Jtjgov X^iffrov rou xvokv tumojv .... -yatf/ roT^ oZm h 'Pw/x?f X. r. \. ; so that the whole seven verses make but one sentence, which is grammatically connected together. In this are three parentheses, if we count • TDei-TrrjyysiXaro Btoc ruv 'roo(prjru)V avroij iv y^apaig ayiaig as onc; which wc may do. This is an unusual num- ber, even for Paul, in one sentence. Yet the characteristic of style developed by it is often to be seen, more or less, in the works of this distinguished apostle. (8) The apostle now proceeds to the expression of his kind feel- ings and wishes toward the Church at Rome, in order to prepare the way, as it was natural for him to do, to be the more kindly listened to by them. U^mtov in the first place^ first of all, viz. before I fipeak of other things. It does not here mean first in point of import- ance, but^rs^ in order of time. — Miv Bretschncider (Lex.) considers as here \A^gc([ absolutely, i. e., without its usual corresponding 3i; for he says : " No divTiPov follows," i. e., no additional clause connected with ds. But in this I think he is mistaken. For the apostle, after two paragraphs in his usual manner, which begin with yue (illustra- ting and confirming first what he had said in ver. 8, and then what ho had said in ver. 10), proceeds to the dturt^ov of his declarations in ROMANS I. 9. 51 ver. 13, viz. ot SsXw ds vfMoig x. r. X. That is, first the apostle thanks God for their faith, &c.; and secondly, he is desirous to tell them how much he has longed to pay them a visit, &c. Reiche denies that fj^h in ver 8 and hs in ver. 13. can stand in relation to each other. But in this he is not supported by the principles of philology. Mh and U stand not only at the head of antithetic and discrepant clauses, but also before those which express a difference of one thought from another, and so in the room of our first, secondly, (fee. See Passow's Lex. [Msv. Tijj ^su) [J.OV, my God; the Christian religion Vv^hich teaches us to say -rarg^ j^/xo/v, allows us to say Sso; /aou. — A/a 'iTjrfoD X^iarov, per Chris- tum, auxilio Christ^, interveniu Christie L e., through, by, or in conse- quence of, what Christ has done or eiFected ; in other words, Chnsto adjuvante, Deo gratias ago respectu vestrum omnium, ut fides ves- tra, 4'C. The meaning seems to be, that as a Christian, as one on whom Chvist has had mercy, and who has now a Christian sym- pathy for others beloved of Christ, he thanks God for the pros- perous state of the Church at Rome. A/a I. x^tcrrov may also be joined with ^sOi /tiov, and the sense be thus given : ^I thank God? who 'is my God through what Jesus Christ has done for me; to him I belong as one of his, through the intervention of Christ.' So Glocklcr. Barnes construes Bia I. X^iarou as pointing out the me- dium through which the thanks of the apostle were offered. This is altogether consonant with the Christian economy ; but it does not seem to me to be the most natural sense of the passage. "T'TTs^ 'xoivTcov vfj^Mv, on account of you all ; not for you in this sense, viz. in your room or stead. — Uigng v/j,mv, your Christian belief, your faith in the gospel. — ^^OXw rQj xoc/aw, i. e,, through the Roman empire. K6ff,u,og and oizov/xsvri are frequently used in a limited sense, like the iT}^ and ^^'d of the Hebrews. Nothing is more natural than to suppose, that the faith of the Church at Rome might have been widely known or reported, in consequence of that great city being frequented by strangers from all parts of the empire. (9) Md^rvg yag .... ^gog, for God is my witness. Td^ explican- tis et confirmantis ; i. e., the apostle unfolds and confirms, in the following sentence, the evidence of his strong sympathies with them^ and of his gratitude to God on their account. The reason why he here makes the appeal to God seems to be, that, as he was a stranger in person to the Church at Rome, they might otherwise think his expressions to be merely those of common civility. 52 ROMANS I. 10. *Cii Xar^ihu .... auroD, whom I serve in my soul (sincerely) in the gospel of his Son. 'JLv rp rrnuiMari /aou I understand as designating sincerity, i. e., real, internal, spiritual decotedness, in distinction from what is merely external or apparent. The apostle means to say, that he was sincerely and really devoted to the cause which he professed to love and to promote: comp. Phil. iii. 3. 2 Tim. i. 3. Eph. vi. 6. Rom. ii. 28, 29. 'Ev ruj iva.yysXiuj rov v}ov alrov may mean, by the preaching of the gospel which has respect to his Son; more probably it means, in the gospel which has respect to his Son, comp. ver. 2; or it may mean the gospel of which his Son is the author, and which he taught me. See, on the various meanings of the Gen. case, New Testament Grammar § 99. That h rip evayyiXlcf) does not here refer to the preaching of the gospel, but to living spiritually according to its precepts, seems rather more probable because of the h rip ■rv£v,u.arl ^i^ov which precedes, and which seems to define the kind of service ren- dered by the apostle. However, the other sense is allowable, al- though Reiche is strenuous against it. — 'rtg Sibix'ksi'rToog .... cro/oD/xa/, how unceasingly I make remembrance of you. This shows the intense zeal which the apostle cherished for the welfare of the Christian Churches; for if he thus constantly interceded with God for the Church at Rome, which he had never visited, we cannot suppose that he forgot other churches which he had been the instru- ment of establishing. How different a phase would the Christian Church speedily assume, if all its ministers were now actuated with the same degree of zeal which Paul exhibited ! ITo/ou/xa/, / make to myself, Midd. voice. (10) Uiivrors .... oio/Msvog, always 'making supplication in my prayers ; which is confirming what he had said before, uhaki'iTrug /Mvsiav If/jUiv Toiov/j^ai, and at the same time pointing out the manner in which he made this /xviiav, viz., in his supplications before God. 'Et^ ruiv rr^osivyjov /-tou means, literally, during my prayers, or when I pray. Glocklcr; 'In addition to my other prayers, I also ask this,' &c. ; vrhich is unnecessary. E/Tw; • . . . 6/xaj, [that] if possible, at some time before long, 1 may {God willing^ make a prosperous journey, and come to pay you a visit. T./tu; expresses a degree of uncertainty vvliich hung over the future, in the writer's own mind, i. e., it means perhaps, if possible, if in some way, if by any means, "lldri, followed by the Future, means inox, brevi, by and by, soon, before long. n«r« ali- ROMANS I. 11. 53 quajido, tandem, at last, at some time, at some future period; {^ort, with the accent on the penult, means when.) Soth the words nhr, and Tore, have often nearly the same meaning when connected with a future tense. They may be here rendered thus : 7]hYi, mox, he- fore long; 'ttotb, at least, at some time, or at some future period ; sa in the version, where I have given to each word its own particu- lar and appropriate meaning, merely reversing the order, because of our English idiom. "E.\)oh'J^7](St)lMai means, to make a pleasant or prosperous journey, A journey to Rome, which the apostle so ardently longed to visit, would in itself of course have been a pleasant one. — 'Ei/ rp ^sX^/xar/ rov 5got, L e., Deo volente, Grotius renders the passage very happily : Si forte Dei voluntas felicitatem mihi indulgeat ad vos veniendi. (11) ra^, in this verse, precedes a sentence designed to illustrate and confirm the declaration which Paul had just made, viz., that he felt a deep interest for the Church at Rome, and hoped yet to enjoy the pleasure of visiting them. — ■'im r/ . . . . cri/g u/^ar/xov, that I may impart to you some spiritual favour or gift. Bengel, Michaelis, and others, interpret y^doiGfjjct '^rnviiartxov, as meaning, miraculous gift, such as the apostles sometimes imparted by the imposition of hands. Augustine understands by the same words, the love of ones neighbour, supposing that the Jewish Christians at Rome were deficient in this virtue. But in ver. 12, the apostle expresses his ex- pectation of receiving on his part a benefit like to that which he bestows on them; so that both of these methods of explanation seem to be fairly out of question. What he expected from them, was o-u/xTa^a- TtXri^rimi hoL rr^i sv dXXr}Xoig 'Trlffriug' consequently this was what he expected to do for thetn, viz., to encourage, animate, and strengthen them in their Christian profession and virtues. He speaks of a spiritual gift, as characteristic of the graces of the gos- pel, of which the Spirit is the efficient author, and as differing from common gifts of a worldly nature, often bestowed by friends who pay visits to each other. So the latter part of our verse: s/g rh arrj^i^^rimi Ifiag, that you may he confirmed, viz., in the manner stated above. Nor does it follow, that the apostle viewed the Church at Rome as weak in faith, because he says this; unless we say that he was himself w^eak in faith, because he expects the like advantage of confirmation from his intercourse with them. Faith that is already strong, and Christian virtue that is conspicuous, are capable of becoming still 54 RO-MANS I. 12. more so; and therefore expressions of this nature are never applied amiss, even to Christians of the highest order. The apostle " did not as yet count himself to have attained" all that elevation of Chris- tian character of which he was capable, and which it was his duty to attain; Phil. iii. 13, seq. (12) Touro di sttri, that is, id esty prefixed to an epexegesis, or an s'xavo^^ueig (correction) as the Greeks named explanatory clauses of such a nature as that which now follows. The apostle, lest the meaning of the preceding declaration might be misconstrued, adds (in ver. 12) the more fall expression of his sentiment. He does not mean to assert, that the consequence of his visiting Rome would be merely their confirmation in the Cliristian faith, and so the advan- tage be all on their side; but he expects himself to be spiritually benefited by such a visit; and this he fully expresses in ver. 12. The remark of Calvin on this passage is very striking and just ; '^ See with what gentleness a pious soul will demean itself ! It refuses not to seek confirmation even fi-om mere beginners in know- ledge. Nor does the apostle use any dissimulation here; for there is none so poor in the Church of Cluist, that he cannot make some addition of importance to our stores. We, unhappily, are hhidered by pride from availing ourselves properly of such an advantage.'* How very different is the spirit and tenor of this remark from that of Erasmus, who calls the expression of the apostle, pia vafiities et sancta adulatio! ^v/M-zapaxXn^rimi .... s/xoD, to be comforted among you by the mutual faith both of you and me, Uu^axXr^rjvai, in Attic Greek, means to call, to invite, to. exhort. But m Hellenistic Greek, it not only means to exhort, but specially to address one in such a way as to administer comfort, encouragement, hope, resolution, &c. I have rendered the word comfort, only because 1 cannot find any English word which will convey the full sense of the original. — 'Ev, among; and so, oftentimes; see the lexicons. — 'Ev aXXr/Xot;, placed between the article and its noun, is of course employed in the manner of an adjective^ i, e,, it means mutual, — 'T/awv n xal i/xoZ seems to be a repetition of the idea conveyed by h uXXriXoii. This repetition is intensive, and denotes the strong desire which the apostle entertained, to be understood by the Church at Home as saying, that he expected good from them, as well as hoped that they might receive good from him. (13) The apostle had already signified his desire to visit Rome, ROMANS I. 13. 55 vers. 10, 11. But here he proceeds to show how definitehj oxidi fre- quently he had cherished such a desire ; which gives intensity to the whole representation. Oh SeXw h'i . . . . v/j^ag, moreover^ I am desirous^ brethren, to have you know J that I have often purposed to come to you. As in this pas- sage I regard as corresponding to [Xiv in ver. 8, and so making the TO dsuTi^ov or apodosis of the apostle's discourse ; see the note on ver. 8. Ou ^sXw bjuboig uyvosTv is the same in sense as ^sXw vju^ag yivMaxuv ; but the first form of expression (in a negative way), is what the Greeks call Xirorrig, i. e., a softer or milder form of expression than direct affirmation. UoXXd'yiig 'Tr^oi^s^u.Tjv, I have often purposed; comp. Acts xix. 21. Rom. XV. 23, 24. How often the apostle had purposed this, we have no means of ascertaining. But one thing is clear from this and many other like passages, viz., that the apostles were not uni- formly and always guided in all their thoughts, desires, and pur- poses, by an infallible Spirit of inspiration. Had this been the case, how could Paul have often purposed that which never came to pass? Those who plead for such a uniform inspiration, may seem to le zealous for the honour of the apostles and founders of Christianity ; but they do in fact cherish a mistaken zeal. For if we once admit, that the apostles were uniformly inspired in alt which they purposed, said, or did ; then we are constrained of coiu'se to admit, that men acting under the influence of inspiration, may purpose that which will never come to pass or be done ; may say that which is hasty or incorrect. Acts xxiii. 3; or do that which the gospel disapproves. Gal. ii. 13, 14. But if this be once fully admitted, then it would make nothing for the credit due to any man, to affirm that he is inspired ; for what is that inspiration to be accounted of, which, even during its continuance, does not guard the subject of it from mistake or error? Consequently those who maintain the uniform inspiration of the apostles, and yet ad- mit (as they are compelled to do) their errors in purpose, word, and action, do in effect obscure the glory of inspiration, by reducing in- spired and uninspired men to the same level. To my own mind nothing appears more certain than that inspira- tion in any respect whatever, was not abiding and uniform with the apostles or any of the primitive Christians. To God's only and well-beloved Son, and to him only, was it given to have the Spirit d/Air^ojg or ou U /oostpo'j, John iii. 34. All others on whom was be- 56 ROMANS I. 14. stowed the precious gift of inspiration, enjoyed it only Jx /nsr^ov. The consequence of this was, that Jesus "knew no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth ;" but all his followers, whenever they were left without the special and miraculous guidance of the Spirit, committed more or less of sin and error. This view of the subject frees it from many and most formidable difficulties. It assigns to the Saviour the pre-eminence which is justly due. It accounts for the mistakes and errors of his apostles. At the same time, it does not detract in the least degree from the certainty and validity of the sayings and doings of the apostles, when they were under the special influence of the Spirit of God. Ka/ £xw>.ii^?ji/ . . . biv^o, hut have been hindered until now. — Ka/ al- ilwugh or but ; Bretschn. Lex. xa/, III. " ex Hebraismo, xa/ set par- ticula adversativa, sed, vero, at ;" of which he gives many exam- ples. The weU-known power of 1 to stand before a disjunctive clause, throws light on this usage; which is very unfrequent in classic Greek. It cannot be truly said, in cages of this nature, that xa/ (or 1) properly signifies but ; yet it may be truly said, that xa/ (?.) connects sen- tences, or clauses of sentences, whose meaning is adversative or dis- junctive. The conjunctive office consists in connecting the sen- tences, or parts of them ; the disjunctive sense lies in the nature of the propositions. We may lawfully translate ad sensum, in such cases, and so render xa/ (]) hut, although, "ivartva .... 'i&viciv, that I may have some fruit even among you, as also among other Gentiles ; i. e., that I might see my labours to promote the gospel crowned with success even at Home, the capi- tal of the world, as well as in all other places where I have preach- ed. Comp. John xv. 16, iv. 36—38. Phil. i. 11. Col. i. 6. (14) "exXtjo/ rg . . . . g/>/, / ajn indebted both to Greeks and Barbarians, to the learned and the ignorant ; i e., oipciXirris fifj^i ihayyi* >j^i(^cci, I am under obligation to preach the gospel; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 16. 2 Cor. ii. 6. iv. 5. In classic usage, ^do^upot means all who spoke a language foreign to the Greek ; 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Acts xxviii. 2, 4. Of course, the Romans themselves, by this usage, would be named ^dofiaoor and so Philo constantly names them ; and Plautus himself calls the Latin language barbara lingua^ and Italy barbaria. But here the question witli the apostle seems not to be in respect to language, but only in regard to circumstances and state of kiiowludgc. "EXXTjtf/, therefore, appears to be equivalent to c^foTi, and /3af/3a^o/f to dvoriroii. Conaidercd in this way, "iSXKriGt xa/ /3ag/3a. ROMANS I. 15. 57 ^0/; mean the polished or unpolished, or the learned and ignorant, or (to use the idiom of the present day) ' the civilized and the savage/ l.o(poTs rs xai avorjroig should be regarded here as characterizing the state of knowledge, rather than the state or measure of the facul- ties of men thus designated. Learned and unlearned is a version ad sensum. Still if any one choose to consider the two couplets here as designa- ting, the first those who spoke Greek and those who did not, the second the learned and the ignorant, be they of whatever nation they might be; and so the whole to be designed simply as expressing with force and by specific language the general idea of obligation to preach to all nations and classes of men without distinction, he will not wander far from the mark. This is the most simple and natural view of the subject. Glockler joins '^EXX^jc/ rs xa/ Ba^/3«go/g with the preceding s^vscr/ ; invita Minerva. (1 5) Tholuck finds much difficulty in the outm of the clause which follows ; and after discussing it at some length, comes to the con- clusion, that the apostle has here " fallen out of his construction," inasmuch as the nature of his sentence requires that Ko^ujg should be placed before ''EXXri^i, in order to make out the comparison. But I do not feel this difficulty. Surely ovroo or ovirug often stands alone, without a preceding xaSoJs or wccrs^- as any one may see by opening a lexicon or concordance. oSrw is often employed in this way, in the sense of similiter, simili modo, eodem modo, in the like way, in such a way, in a similar manner, in the same manner. Thus in Matt. v. 16. vii. 17. xviii. 14. Mark xiii. 29. xiv. 59. Luke xiv. 33, et saepe alibi. What hinders now that we should understand it,' in the verse before us, in the same way ? ' I am under obligation,' says the apostle, ' to preach the gospel [for ihayyiXieas&cci is implied in the first clause] to all classes of men.' What then ? ' So, i. e., circumstances being thus, I am ready (ro x,aT s/jls rr^60ufji,ov) to preach the gospel even to you who are at Rome.' If the reader does not think that the above references go so far as to give to ouru the sense here assigned to it, viz., matters being thus or circumstances being thus, or / being in this condition, he may turn to John iv. 6, where it is said : " Jesus being weary on account of his journeying, hadil^sTo o-jTug lor/ rfj T'nyfi^'' he sat down in this condition upon the well, viz., in a state of weariness. All the attempts that I have eeen to give ourwj any other sense, seem to be in vain. Compare 58 ROMANS I. 15, 16. also Rev. iil. 16, "I would thou wert either cold or hot ! o'jrw^, so," i, e., the raatter being thus, " since thou art neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." In like manner in the text before us ; o'Jroj, ' the matter being thus, viz., it being true that I am under obligation to preach to aU classes of men, I am ready to preach at Rome;' or, ^ since I am bound in my duty to preach to all, in ac- cordance with this (o'-jtm) I am ready to preach the gospel at Rome. If xa^wg were placed before "EXXrigi, as Tholuck and others judge it should be, the sentiment would be thus : ^ In proportion to my obligation to preach to all men, is my readiness to preach at Rome ;* a sentiment which, although doubtless true, does not seem to me to be the one which the apostle means here to convey. It is more simple to understand him as saying : ' Since I am bound to preach to all, in accordance with this obligation I am ready to preach even at Rome (xa/ v/mTv), formidable and difficult as the task may seem to be.' Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 16. In this view of ourw I find Reiche, in his recent work, fully to agree. T» xar l/A£ rr^Ov/MoVf [lit. there is,] a readiness in respect to myself, q. d.y I am ready. Or it may be interpreted in this way : ' Tliere is a readiness so far as it respects me,' namely, to the extent of my ability, so far as it depends on me ; meaning to intimate, that the actual disposal of the matter is to be wholly committed to God. As to rh T^oOv/iov (an adjective of the neuter gender) being used for a noun, nothing is more common, than for the Greeks to employ adjectives in this way. Ka^ v/mTv has an emphasis in it, L e., even to you, at Rome, the metropolis of the world. In other words : ^ I shun not to preach the gospel any where ; to the most learned and critical, as well as to the most unlearned and unskilled in judging.' 'Ev, at ; and so often times before nouns o^ place, (16) Ou ya^ .... Xf/tfroD, for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ ; a reason or ground of his readiness to preach it, wliich he had just before asserted ; and therefore it is introduced by yda. The apostle Paul gloried in the gospel; in fact, he gloried in nothintr else. Although Christ crucified was " to the Jews a stum- bling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," he shunned not to preach it on this account, but was willing, even in presence of the learned and the sophists at Rome, to proclaim the truth as it is in Jesus. The reading roD Xg/^roD, is maikcd by Knapp as wanting an ade- ROMANS I. 16, 7. 59 quate support, and is rejected by Mill, Bengel, Koppe, Griesbach, and Lachmann. In respect to the sense of the passage, its insertion or rejection will make no important diiFerence. If retained roD X^/croy must be construed as Genitivus ohjecti, i, e., the gospel respecting Christ, or of which Christ is the object. Here ends the first or salutatory part of this epistle. The remain- der of verse 16 (with verses 17, 18) constitutes the leading subject or theme of the epistle; which the writer here as it were formally proposes, and which he in the .sequel proceeds to confirm, illustrate, and fortify. CHAP. L 16—18. These four verses contain four propositions, which lie at the basis of all that may be appro- priately called the gospel of Christ. (1) To gospel truth is imparted a divine energy, in saving the souls of men. (2) Those only can be saved by it, who believe it and put their confidence in it. (3) The pardon of sin, or the justification which God will bestow only on sinners who believe in Christ, is revealed from heaven, and proposed to all men for their reception. (4) From the same source a revelation is made, that the unbelieving and ungodly will be the subject of divine indignation and punishment. The apostle does not proceed, formally and in order, to illustrate and establish these propositions separately and successively ; but now one part of these respec- tive truths, and then another, comes into view as he proceeds, and the whole is fully developed by him in the course of the epistle. Avvajujig yag .... -xicrirnvri^ for it is the power of God, unto the salvation of every one who believes ; L e., it is the efficacious instiTi- ment, by which God promotes or accomplishes the salvation of all believers. A-jm/j^ig '^zov means, that in and by it God exerts his power, that it is powerful through the energy which he imparts ; and so it is called tJie power of God, The yd^ serves to introduce the reason why the apostle is not ashamed of the gospel. It is mighty through God s/g (SMTYi^iav, to salvation, i. e., to the accomplishment or attain- ment of salvation. E/g vrith the Accusative is, in a multitude of cases, used in the like manner. — Uavrl rw ri(STivovriy Uativus corn- modi : the gospel brings salvation to every believer, or it is the means of imparting it to him. 'Iovdai(jj .... "EXXrivi, to the Jew first, and also to the Greeh In proclaiming the gospel, the primitive preachers of it, themselves being Jews, were directed first to proclaim the offers of mercy through a Saviour to the Jews, wherever they went, and then to the Gentiles ; which was the order usually followed, and to which the clause before us seems to advert. That the -r^wroi/ here merely relates to the order in which the gospel was proposed, and not to 60 ROMANS I. 17. any substantial preference of the Jew over the Greek, the sequel of this epistle most abundantly shows. So Chrysostom : rajswj iffn 'TT^uTov, i. e.y T^uTov relatcs merely to order. (17) AixaioffivT} yap ^sov. Td§ illustrantis, as lexicographers say. In the preceding verse the apostle has said, that the gospel is, through divine power accompanying it, an efficacious instrument of salvation cravr/ rui 'xiffrsvovri, to every believer. On this last expression an emphasis is to be laid ; inasmuch as the great object of Paul, in the epistle before us, is to show that salvation is gratuitously be- stowed on the believer in Christ, but never conferred in any case on the ground of merit. The design of verse 1 7 is to suggest, that faith or belief is the appointed means or conditio sine qua non of justification, i. e., of obtaining pardoning mercy from God ; that the Old Testament Scriptures confirm this idea ; and consequently, that salvation is granted to believers j and to them only ; all which goes to illustrate and establish the affirmation in ver. 16. It is in this way that /a^ connects the fine and delicate shades of thought and processes of reasoning, in the Greek language; a circumstance which has, un- happily for the criticism of the New Testament, been quite too much overlooked by the great body of interpreters. Ar/.aioffvvri ^lov is a phrase among the most important which the New Testament contains, and fundamental in the right interpretation of the epistle before us. To obtain a definite and precise view of its meaning, we must betake ourselves; in the first place, to the verb bi7.cct6u- for from the meanings which this verb conveys, come nearly aU the shades of meaning that belong to dijiaiogvvri and bixaiuaig, so often employed (especially the former) in the writings of Paul. The Greek sense of the verb br/.ai6ui differs, in one respect, from the corresponding Hebrew verb Pl^ ; for this (in Kal) means to be just, to be innocent, to be upright, and also to justify ones self, to be justified, thus having the sense of either a neuter, reflexive, or pas- sive verb. In the active voice, bixaiou in Greek has only an active sense, and it is used in pretty exact correspondence with the forma P^.V and P^IVn (Pel and Iliphil) of the Hebrews, i e,, it means to declare just, to pronounce just, to justify) i.e., to treat as just; con- sequently, as intimately connected with this, to pardon^ to acquit from accusation, to free from the consequences of sin or transgression, to set free from a deserved penalty. This hist class of meanings is the one in which Paul usually employs this word. As a locus classi- ciiH to vindicate this meaning, we may appeal to Rom. viii. 33, * Who ROMANS I. 16. Gl shall accuse the elect of God? It is God 6 dtxaiuv, who acquits them,^ viz. of all accusation, or ^ who liberates them from the penal consequences of transgression.' Exactly in the same way is it said, in Prov. xvii. 15, ^ He who justijieth (P^'^.^P) the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord.' So in Ex. xxiii. 7, ' I will not justify (P''1Kt^ ^) the wicked.' In the same manner Is. v. 23 speaks: ' Who justify the wicked ^p ''1^^ ^V?}) foi* a reward.' In these and all such cases, the meaning of the word justify is altogether plain, viz. it signifies to acquit^ to free from the penal consequences of guilty to pronounce just, i. e., to ab- solve from punishment, it being directly the opposite of condemning or subjecting to the consequences of a penalty. In this sense Paul very often employs the verb ; e. g. Kom. v. 1, 3/xa/w^svrsg, being freed from punishment, being acquitted, being pardoned .... iJ^r/v/iv s^o/asi' 'rfog rhv Ssov. Rom. v. 9, diKuioj'^hrsg, being acquitted j pardoned .... Goj9r}(f6(Ms^a 8/ aurou d'rrh r^g o^yni* which salvation is the opposite of being subjected to punishment^ or of not being justified. In Gal. ii. 16, 17, 5/xa/ow is four times employed in the sense of absolved, acquitted, or treated as just, i. e,, freed from penalty and admitted to a state of reward. So Gal. iii. 8, 11, 24. V. 4. Tit. iii. 7. In Romans iv. 5, rh bix,aiovvra. rh dgsjStj is plainly susceptible of no other than the. above interpretation ; for those who are ungodly, can never be made innocent in the strict and literal sense of this word; they can only be treated as innocent, i, e., absolved from the condemnation of the law, pardoned, deliveredj from the penalty threatened against sin. That the idea of pardon, or remission of the penalty threatened by the divine law, is the one substantially conveyed by dtxaiou and dixaiocfuvri, as generally em. ployed in the writings of Paul, is most evident from Romans iv. 6, 7 ; where the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes dixaioffvvr}, i. e., whom he reckons, counts, treats as 5/xa/og, is thus described: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord im- putes not sin" i. e., whom he does not treat or punish as a sinner. This passage is a fundamental explanation of the whole subject, so far as the present class of meanings attached to dixaiou and biTtaicaiivn is concerned. In the same sense we have the word hxaim in Rom. iii. 24, 26, 28, 38. iv. 2, et al. saepe. So Acts xiii. 38, 39. Luke xviii. 14 Comp, Sept. in Gen. xxxviii. 26. Job xxxiii, 32. Is. xliii. 26. ^2 ROMANS I. 17. The way is now open for an easy and intelligible explanation of the nouns, which stand intimately and ctymologically connected with the verb dixaiou. These are three, viz. dixaioffvvrj, dixaioj/ia, and bixaiudig, all employed occasionally in the very same sense, viz. that of justification, i. e., acquittal, pardon, freeing from condemnation, accepting and treating as righteous. All three of these nouns are employed occasionally by the Seventy in rendering the Hebrew word ^^fp ; which I mention merely to show that the usus loqucndi could employ all of them in the same sense ; e, g., bfx.atosbvn for ^scp; in Prov. xvi. 11. xvii. 23. Is. Ixi. 8. Ezek. xviii. 17, 19, 21, &Q. ; bixaiufj^a for ^S^P, Ex. xxi. 1, 9, 31. xxiv. 3, et saepissime; hixaicicig for ^P^C'D, Lev. xxiv. 22. In like manner all tlu'ce of these nouns are employed in Paul's epistles : e. g.y dixaiu/ia in the sense o£pa7xlon, justification, Rom. v. 16, where it stands as the antithesis of xaraxoiij^a' dixaiucig in Rom, iv. 25, where it glumly means justification ; and so in Romans v. 18, where it is the antithesis of xardx§i/Ma. But the word dixaiocvvri is the usual one employed by Paul to designate gospel-justification, i. e., the pardoning of sin, and accepting and treating as righteous. So we find this word plainly employed in Rom. iii. 21, 22 (comp. ver. 24), 25, 26. iv. 11, 13. v. 17, 21. ix. 30, 31. X. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10. 2 Cor. v. 21 (abstract for concrete). Phil, iii. 9. lieb. xi. 7. et alibi sa^pe. With these facts before us, we now return to our text. Aixaioovvij 3eoD seems very plainly to have the same meaning here that it has in Rom. iii. 21, and in the other passages just referred to in this epistle, viz. the justification or pardoning mercy bestowed on sinnei*s who are under the curse of the divine law; or the state or condition of being pardoned, i. e., justified or treated as just. In this sense it is allied to, but is not altogether the same as, the Hebrew •"'i?1V, which often means kindness, benignity, favour, deliverance from evil ; e, g.. Is. xlv. 8, 24. xlvi. 13. xlviii. 18. li. 6, 8. liv. 17. Ivi. 1, and often in the Psalms. The reader must be careful to note, however, the simple idea of pardon, unattended by any thing else, i. e,, the mere deliverance from punitjhmcnt is not all which is comprised in the meaning of hixatm and bixatooln,. The idea is more fidly expressed by accepting and treating as righteous. Now, when this is done by a benefactor, he does not stop witli the simple remission of punishment, but ho bestows happiness in the same manner as though the offender had ROMANS I. 17. G3 been altogether obedient. As there are but two stations allotted for the human race, i. e., heaven or hell ; so those who are delivered from the latter, must be advanced to the former. All is now plain. A/xa/otriv^ ^soD is the justification which God bestows, or the justification of luhich God is the author ; or if any one prefers, he may call it that state of pardon and acceptance which is the result of mercy proiFered in the gospel and dispensed on account of the atonement made by Christ. That Paul should call it di'/caioevvrj ^soD, was very natural, when he wished to distinguish it from that righteousness which the Jews supposed themselves to possess in consequence of legal obedience, and which entitled them (in their own view) to divine acceptance. The justification which God allows, or that kind of righteousness which he now admits as a condition of acceptance, is 1% criarsug, ovx Ig s^/wv, and therefore alto- gether a matter ofgratuitg, and not of merit or desert. This general view is made altogether clear, by comparing Rom. iii. 21 — 24; and indeed the whole tenor of the discussion in the epistle to the Eo- mans, seems imperiously to demand this sense. Having thus explained my own view of the meaning of dixai^avvri ^eov, which is for substance the same as that defended by Luther, Wolf, Heumann, Limborch, Flatt, Macknight, Usteri, Reiche, and many others, it may be proper, considering the importance of the sub- ject, briefly to review some of the leading opinions that have been advanced and defended by others. I. The first class are those vfho regard dixaioevvri ^sov here as de- signating an attribute of God ; in which case ^soi; is regarded not as Gen. auctoris, but as Ge7i. possessionis. Yet those who hold to such an opinion are by no means agreed in ^the mode of special explanation, (a) Some regard diKu/odvyi as de- signating the perfect holiness and uprightness of the Saviour'' s charac- ter, which is imputed to believers. So Chemnitz, Hoepfner, Schroe- der, and many others. But how can this buaioavvri in Christ be Ix 'Tr/ffrscog, and especially dtoc 'Tricrsug X^tfroD ? Phil. iii. 9. Is Christ righteous, then, by hav- ing faith in himself? And in what part of the Bible are we to find the doctrine, that his righteousness and perfect holiness is actually transferred or imputed to us ? In such a case, our pardon would no more be of grace ; and our claims would no more depend on mercy, but on justice; a sentiment the very opposite of gospel-doctrine. If a friend gives me, who am a debtor, a sum of money suflficient to pay (^i , ROMANS I. 17. off my debt, my creditor is bound as much on the score of justice to give up my bond of payment when I deliver to him this money, as if it had been all earned by my own industry. It is no concern of his, how I obtain the money. (b) Aiy.aioavvr) ^sov means G od'' s fidelity or veracity in the bestow- ment of grace according to the promises of the gospel. So Beza, Pis- cator, Turretin, Locke, Bohme, and others. But how can God's fidelity or veracity^ or any other of his attri- butes, be £X TiGreojg, or dia, cr/orsug, or s-rl rfj rrkru ? (c) God's vindictive justice. So Origen, Theodoret, Grotius, Wet- stein, Marckius, Bretschn. (Lex.), Fritsche, and some others. But vindictive justice is manifested in the punishment of sinners, not in their pardon. The dizaioffvvri here is that which pardons, (d) Rewarding justice, i. e., that which bestows favours on the virtuous. So Calov, Storr, and others. But how can this attribute of God be hy faith, and by faith in Christ ? {e) Goodness of God, So Schoettgen, Morus, Yoorst, and others. Bat here again, goodness, considered simply in the light of a divine attribute, cannot be regarded as what the apostle means to desig- nate; for how can this be tx cr/Vrewg? II. Aixatoff-jvrj ^sou is regarded as something which belongs to men; either as an attribute, quality, &c., or else as a state, condition, &c., of which God is the author or giver; so that SeoD is construed as Gen, auctoris. But here again, there is some variety of opinion; for, (a) Some hold that dr/.aioffvvr) means internal righteousness ^ virtue, or holiness such as the gospel requires. So Ammon, Schleusner, Tholuck, Paulus, Schultz, Winer, Wahl, Glockler, and others. But some of them explain this, as meaning the way and manner of ob- taining this holiness. So far as Rom. i. 17 is concerned, this is a possible sense. But the phrase dixaioavvt] is so often employed by Paul to designate pardon, forgiveness, or at least a state o£ pardon or of being forgiren, that it cannot well be supposed it is here employed in a dittbuent sense, in proposing the theme which the apostle afterward discusses. That 6ix.aioauv7i ^iov .... ex Tiffriu; had a direct reference, in the writer^s mind, to liberation from punishment and the obtaining of salvation, seems to be clear from the quotation which he immediately makes from the Old Testament, in order to sanction the sentiment which he had uttered, viz. dUatos U irigrtut ^ti.r,hia is here, then, that truth which the light of nature taught respecting the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator ROMANS I. 19. 73 When the apostle says In ver. 18, ruiv-ryjv dXyiki(x,v h ahr/,ia xanyovrMV, in his own mind he singles out of the av6^u)-7ruv {all men) whom he has just mentioned, the heathen or Gentiles, whose vicious state he immediately proceeds to declare. This is the theme for the remain- der of the first chapter. 'Ev ddr/Ja may mean bij iniquity, Iv standing before the means or instrwmmt, as usual ; or else it is used adverbially = ddUug' Relche prefers the latter sense; which is agreeable to idiom. To fill out ver. 18 completely, the reader must supply, in his own mind, \_l-xl Tacav dcBiSnav Kai dbr/Jav^ ruv rr\y dXrj^nixv x. r. X. CHAP. I. 19—32. The apostle, having intended in his OAvn mind to designate the heathen or Gentiles, by mentioning those ' who hinder the truth through unrighteousness,' now proceeds to illcistrate and confirm his charge against tliem. God, says he, has disclosed in the works of creation his eternal power and Godhead ; and this so clearly, that they are without excuse for failing to recognize it, verses 19, 20. And since they miglit have known him, but were ungrateful, and refused to glorify him, and darkened their minds by vain and foolish disputations ; since they represented the eternal God to be like mortal man, and even like the brutes which perish ; God gave those up to their own base and degrading lusts, who thus rendered to the creature the honour that was due to the Creator, verses 21 — 25. Yea, he gave them up to the vile and unnatural passions which they cherished, verses 29, 30; and these they not only commit themselves, although they know them to be worthy of death, i. e., of condemnation on the part of the Divine lawgiver, but by their approbation they encourage others to commit the like offences. Such being the state of facts in regard to the heathen world, it follows of course that they justly lie under the condemning sentence of the divine law. It is not the object of the apostle to prove that every individual heathen is guilty of each and all the sins which he enumerates; much less does he intend even to intimate that thei-e are not other sins, besides those which he enumerates, of which the Gentiles are guilty. It is quite plain, that those which he does mention, are to be regarded merely in the light of a speciincn. Kor will the charges which he here makes, prove that every individual of the Gentile world v»'as, at the moment when he was writing, guilty of all the things preferred against the heathen. If we suppose that there might then have been some virtuous heathen, (a supposition apparently favoured by Rom. ii. 14), such persons must have abstained from the habitual practices of the vices named, and from others like them. But it suuices for the apostle's purpose, to show that they once had been guilty of them ; which of course was to show their absolute need of salvation by a Re- deemer, L e., of gratuitous pardon procured through him. The case may be the same here, as that which is presented in chap. ii. iii., where a charge of nniversal guilt is brought against tlie Jews. Certainly this was not designed to prove that there then existed no jjious Jews, who were not liable to such charge in its full extent, at the moment wlion the apostle was writing. Nay, it was of course true to some extent, even of the pious, at the time when Paul was writing, that they daily committed sua in some form or other; and the same was true of 74 ROMANS I. 19. pious Gentiles, if indeed there were any such. All men, then, were guilty before God, al- though all men might not practise the particular vices which the apostle named, when he was writing. It matters not for his purpose to prove this. All who could sin, had sinned, and did then sin, in some way or other ; all this is now, and always has been true. Of course, all have fallen under the condemnation of the divine law, and salvation by the grace proffered in the gaspel, is the only salvation which is possible for them. The question wlien men begin to sin, it is not the object of the apostle here to discuss. Nor is it even the degree of their depravity, which is his main design to illustrate and prove. The universalUy of it is the main point ; and it is all which is essential to his argument. To this universality Paul admits of no exception ; but then we are of course to understand this, of tliose who are capable of sinning. It is thus that we interpret in other cases. For example, when it is said: " He that believeth not, shall be damned," we interpret this of those who are ca- pable of believing, and do not extend it beyond them. With the question, lohen individuals are capable of believing or of sinning, I repeat it, Paul does not here concern himself. Nei- ther mere infancy, nor entire idiocy, is the object of his present consideration. He is plainly speaking of such, and only of such, as are capable of sinning; and these, one and all, he avers to be sinners, in a greater or less degree. Such beirig the fact, it follows, that as " the soul which sinneth must die," so, if there be any reprieve from this sentence, it must be obtained only by pardoning mercy through a Redeemer. I add merely, that the clause ^Mv Tt]v aXijOetav kv uSik/^ KaTexovrav, properly belongs to that di- vision of the discourse which we are now to examine ; but the connection of it with the gene- ral proposition in the preceding part of ver. 18, is made so intimate by the present grammati- cal structure, that I deemed it best not to disjoin them in the commentary. (19) But how is it to be made out, that the heathen keep back the truth respecting the only living and true God, by their unrighteous- ness ? I answer, by showing that to all men is made, in the works of nature, a revelation so plain of the eternal power and Godhead of Jehovah, that nothing but a wilful and sinful perversion of the light which they enjoy, can lead them to deny this great truth. So the apostle : A/oV/ .... ahroTg, because that which might he hiovjn con- cerning God was manifest to them, A/oV/ = dia rouro on and equiva- lent in logical force here to ydg, stands before a clause which assigns a reason why the apostle asserts that the heathen hinder the truth by iniquity. The amount of the proof which follows is, (1) That the truth was knowable. (2) That nothing but base and evil passions keep men from acknowledging and obeying it. To yvui.rh rou 0£oD, literally the knowledge of Gody or that concern- ing God which is knowable or known. That the neuter adjective is used for a noun, is in accordance with a well-known and common Greek idiom. The meaning that which is knowable, seems on the whole to be best ; and that rh yvMorov may be thus rendered we can have no doubt, when we compare rh vortTov intelligible, rh aisCriTov qxiod perceptum sity rh ao^arov quod nan visum sit, i. e., invisible, &c. Erncsti denies that yvuarov can be rendered, iliat which is to be known, or thai KOMANS I. 19. 75 which is knowahhy (N. Theol. Bibliotli. X. 630) ; and this has been greatly contested among critics. Buttraann (Gram. § 92. Anra. 3, comp. my N. Test. Gramm. § 82, Note 1.) seems to have decided this point, however, beyond any reasonable doubt. He says, indeed, that verbals m-rog frequently correspond to the Latin participles m-tus; so irXiXTog stricken, ffr^s'Trrog perverted, ToirirSg made, factus, &c. But " more commonly," he adds, " they have the sense of possibility/, like the Latin adjectives in -His, or the German ones m-bar; as ffr^sTrSg versatilis, o^arog visibilis, axoxxsrog audibilisr This appears more fully when sot/ is joined with these adjectives or verbals ; e. g., ^turov i(Sri, one can live, {quasi 'it is live-able'); ro7g ovk s^irov kri, they can- not go out, {quasi ' to them it is not go-able '). It is strange, indeed, that this should so long and so often have been called in question ; especially as Plato frequently uses the very word under examination, in connection with do^agrov, e. g., rh yvcaarh %cx,t TO do^a&Tov, that which is knowable and that ivhich is supposable, de Repub. Lib. v. Toy Qsov concerning God, ^sov being Genitivus objecti, as gramma- rians say. For an extended statement of the latitude of the Geni- tive, in regard to the many various relations which it expresses, see N. Test. Gramm. § 99. Examples in point are Matt. xiii. 18, ':raga- ^oXrj TOO ff-TTsiPovTog, the parable CONCERNING the sower; 1 Cor. i. 18, Xoyog 6 ro\J ffrav^ov, the declaration CONCERNING the cross. So Xoyog rmg a report CONCERNING any one, Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3. 10. viii. 5. 28. Comp. Luke vi. 12. Rom. xiii. 3. John xvii. 2. Heb. ix. 8, et alibi. 'El/ auro/'j may be construed among them. So h often means ; e. g., Matt. ii. 6, hrotg YiyifjjUiv, among the leaders; Luke i. 1, h ^fj^iv, among us; Rom. i. 6, Iv oTg among whom; Rom. xi. 17. 1 Cor. iii. 18, &c. The sense would then be : ' What may be known "[by the light of nature] concerning God, was manifest among them,' i. e., in the midst of them, or before their eyes. The more probable sense, however, seems to be in them, i. e., in their minds or consciences ; comp. Rom. ii. 15. Acts xiii. 15. Some prefer to render h ahroTg as they would the simple Dative abroTg, Viz., to them-, and appeal to such examples as 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Matt. xvii. 22. Luke xxiii. 31. xii. 8, and even to Acts iv. 12. 1 Cor. ii. G. 2 Cor. iv. 3. But the preceding method of construction is plainly the more certain and simple one. Tho- luck and Reiche accordingly prefer to render h ahroTg in thetn; and they interpret it as referring to their moral sense, by which they may come to discern and judge of the evidences of divine power and God- head. That Iv before the Dative, can never be projjerly considered 70 ROMANS I. 20. the same thing as the simple Dative, seems to be conclusively shown bj AYiner, N. Test. Gramm. p. 177, ed. 3. The yup in 6 0&og yug avroTg s]f, both or even his eternal power and Godhead, This clause is epexe- getical of ra ao^ara ahrou. Auva/A/g must here have special reference to the creative power of God ; and this seems to be called aihiog, be- cause it must have been possessed antecedently to the creation of the world, or before time began. Still, although dr}/MiGv^yla. (cre- ative power), as Theodoret says, is here specially meant, I appre- hend that the sense of dvmjuig is not restricted to this. He who had power to create, must of course be supposed to have power to wield and govern. 0si6rrig is distinguished by Tholuck and others, from Qsorrig' for they represent the latter as signifying the Divinity or the Divine na- ture, while the former is represented as meaning the complexity of the divine attributes, the sum or substance of divine qualities. I can- not find any good ground, however, for such a distinction. ©goV^jg is the abstract derived from ^s6g' and from this latter word is formed the concrete or adjective derivate Ss/o^, divirie. Th ^ehv of course means divinity; and from this comes another regular abstract noun 5£/6V?3?, with the same signification. SoPassow: Ss/oV^jg, Gottlichkeit, gottliche Natur, i. e., divinity, divine nature. He then adds : " In particular, divine greatness, power, excellence, eminence," &c.; i. e., "^itoTYig designates the divinity with special reference to these quali- ties — the identical manner in which the word is employed in our text. The same lexicographer defines SgoV^jg the Godhead, the divine Being, divine excellence. In the same sense, viz., that of Godhead, Divinity, is rh ^g/bv plainly used in Acts xvii. 29. So ^ziorrig Wisd. xviii. 9. So Clemens Alex. (Strom. Y. 10), rh (xn d€xovr(i e/Mu^dvCr,ffav, professinq themselves to be wise, they became fools. The antithesis of the sentiment here is strong. ROMANS I. 23. 81 The pretensions of many heathen philosophers to wisdom, are well known. From these sprung the names (piXoao^oi, (pi'ko(Sotsv avrovg 6 0£o$] /jbsffroug %. r. X. — ^66vog, envy, seems to be a widely spread passion of the human breast. It exists at al- most all times and in all places, where one part of the community is, or is thought to be, more happy or distinguished than another. This passion was in the highest degree predominant at Rome. — ^ovog, mur- der or manslaughter, both public and private, legalized and forbid- den, was extremely frequent at Rome ; e. g., the gladiatorial fights, the destruction of slaves, the executions by the Roman emperor's orders, and deaths by poison, assassination, &c. — "B^ig of course fol- lowed on in such a train. — AoXog is strikingly exemplified by a verse of Juvenal: " Quid Romae faciem? Mentiri nescio," Sat. III. 41. — Ka'/.07]$iia means malevolence, particularly that species of it which perverts the words and actions of another, and puts a wrong con- struction on them in order to gratify a love of mischief, when it was easy and proper to put a good construction upon them. It differs specifically, therefore, from 'xov^ia. (30) YidvoigTTjg means a slanderer in secret, — KardXaXog, a slanderer in public. — QscffrvysTg, haters of God. Grotius says, it should be written ^soarvysig, i. e., with the tone or accent on the penult, in order to have an active sense. But this is not necessary; for Suidas de- fines ^io»ov, xara ymiiv, &c. — -"Efyou here has the epithet ROMANS II. 7. 103 dyK6ov, in order to distinguish it from the generic zpya used in the preceding verse. Aogav zal rifcnv Ttai acp&oL^ciav is cumulative or intensive; i. e., it expresses happiness or glory of the highest kind. We may trans- late the phrase thus: immortal glory and honour, making d(pda^(riav an adjective to the other nouns ; or we may render it, glorious and honourable immortality, or honourable and immortal glory. I prefer the first. The idea is, indeed, substantially the same in all; but all do not seem equally congruous as to the method of expression. The joining of r//x^ and bo^a in order to express intensity, is agreeable to a usage which is frequent in the New Testament; e. g., 1 Tim. i. 17. Heb. ii. 7, 9. 2 Pet. i. 17. Apoc. iv. 9, 11. So the Hebrew, TCI ^^^. The interpretation given above is the usual one, for substance, adopted by the great body of the commentators. But Reiche strenu- ously contends for the following arrangement: roTg i^h [a'jrohuxsii], %a&* VTo/j^sv^v s^yov dyadov, d6t,oi.v xal n/xriv xai d(pSaPfflav, ^^jroDc/ ^wr^v aJdjviov, i. e., * to those [will he render], according to their perseverance in well- doing, glory and honour and immortality, [even to those who] seek eternal life.' But when he says, in defence of this, that it is incon- gruous to speak of seeking glory, and honour, and immortality, and therefore ^rirovffi must be joined with ^uriv aJoJviov, I acknowledge my- self incapable of perceiving the weight of his argument. What is glo7y, but future happiness? What is honour, but the divine appro- bation? And what is immortality, but the perpetuity of these? And what is there more incongruous in seeking these, than in seek- ing ^ur,v aJdJviov? ^r,TsTv, means to labour for, earnestly to desire, to strive for with effort ; and all this the Christian certainly may and must do, in respect to glory, and honour, and immortality. The suggestion, that ' to seek after immortality would have no sense, be- cause we are and must be immortal,' does not apply in this case; for it is not after immortality simply considered that we are to seek, but after an immortality of glory and honour. Besides, there is such an unnatural chasm between roTg and ZriroZsi, in case we adopt the inter- pretation of Reiche, as should be admitted only from 7iecessity ; which does not here exist. The /xlv at the beginning of the verse is the [jjh 'Tr^ordciug, i. e., /msv designating the protasis in a sentence; the d'^Sduaig here is verse 8, which commences with ds apodotic, i. e., marking the apodosis, and standing as the counter-part of /mbv in verse 7. 104 ROMANS II. 8. (8) ToTg ds JJ i^iOeiccg, but to those who are contentious, 'Ex (sj) be- fore the Genitive of a noun, is often employed as an adjective in de- signating some particular description of persons or things. Thus 6 e^ o-j^avoZ ■==! ohodviog' ij sx (p{j/j xai oTgvop/wo/a are words which correspond to doyn xai ^v/iog, and designate the effect of the latter. The meaning is, intense anguish, great suffering. The literal sense of the words, according to their etymology, would be pressure and narrowness or want of room ; but the literal sense is abandoned, and the tropical one here employed. It is evident, at first sight, that the ninth verse is a repetition of the general sentiment contained in verse 8 ; while the 10th verse repeats the sentiment of verse 7. This repetition, how- ever, is evidently introduced with the design of making a specific application of the threatening, and of showing definitely whom the apostle means to include in what he had said. The construction in verse 8 is followed in verse 9; inasmuch as 'i(S6vrai is plainly implied after ^XZ-vJ/z^ xal cnvoy^opia. These two words, used in the way of expressing intense suffering, are often joined by classic writers : and so in Hebrew we have "^i^^^l "TJ^ Is. xxx. 6. 'E-r/ -racav -^vyjiv avd^cL'TTov, [great distress shall be] 7/pon every soul of man, i. e., upon every man. In Hebrew, the soul of the righteotis, of the wicked, of the poor, of the rich, of the hungry, of the thirsty, &c., means the righteous, the wicked, &c. So here, the soul of man means man ; i. e., by metonymy, a leading or conspicuous part of man, is put for the whole person. — ^lovdalov .... " EXXrjvog, ^rst of the Jew, and then of the Greek; i. e., the Jew, to whom a revelation has been imparted, shall be judged and punished first in order, be- cause he sustains a peculiar relation to revealed truth which calls for this; compare i. 16. Here the apostle comes out and openly shows, that what he had been thus far saying only in general terms, is applicable to Jews as well as to Greeks. 106 ROMANS II. 10—12. ('10) Aoga Sg . . . . "EXKtivi, but f/lori/, and honour, and peace, to every one who doeth good, first to the Jew, and then to the Greek, T4iat is, both threatenings and rewards are held out to the Jews and Greeks, in the same manner, and on the same condition. With God there is no 'Tr^offwroXTj-^ioc. This verse is a repetition of verse 7, with the addition of ^lovdaiov n cr^wrov xa/ "'EXkn^og. But here ilorivri is substituted for uipda^alav there. The meaning of ii^Tjvr} can be best made out by considering it as the opposite of that enmity and dis- quietude in which unsanctified men are involved, as it respects God. We might translate, hut happiness glorious and honourable, &c. The meaning of the whole is plain. Intensity of affirmation is intended. (11) oh ya^ .... (di'2, for with God there is no partiality, or no respect of persons. The Hebrew Q"*^^ ^^^ means to deal partially, to look not at things, but at persons, and pass sentence accordingly. The phrases 'Tr^SgojTrov Xa/M^dvuv or ^Xs'^rsiv, and also crgo(rwTo>.>j'4//a, arc entu'ely Hebraistic in their origin; the classic writers never employ them. The apostle here explicitly declares, that there is no differ- ence in regard to the application of the general principle which he had laid down, the Jew as well as the Greek being the 2^i'oper subject of it. The yup at the beginning of the verse is ydg conjir- mantis ; i. e,, ' it will be that the one shall be punished and the other rewarded according to divine declaration, /or {yd{) there is no par- tiality, &c.' (12) A confirmation or explanation of what he had just said in the preceding verse; for if God judges every man according to the advantages which he has enjoyed, then there is no partiality in his proceedings ; and that he does, the present verse explicitly de- clares. " Otfo/ ya^ .... dirokovvrai, since as many as have sinned without a revelation^ shall perish icithout a revelation. 'So/Mog, like the Hebrew nnhn^ often means the Scriptures^ the revealed law ; e. g.. Matt. xii. 5. xxii. 36. Luke x. 26. John viii. 5, 17. 1 Cor. xiv. 21. Gal. iii. 10. Matt. V. 18. Luke xvi. 17. John vii. 49, ct alibi. Here most plainly it means the revealed law, revelation, or the Scriptures; for verse 15 asserts directly that the heathen were not destitute of all law, but only of an e.rpress revelation. The chissical sense of di/o>wf would be unlawfully, = 'xa^a.v6iMUi But plainly this meaning is here out of qnestiozL ' A^o^w; d^oXoDjra/ means, that, when adjudged to be punished, they ROMANS II. 13, 14. 107 shall not be tried by the precepts of a revealed law with which they have never been acquainted, but by the preempts of the law of nature which were written on their own hearts ; see verse 15. Ka^ offoi .... x^idriffovrai, and SO many as have sinned under revela- tion, ivill be condemned by revelation. Here ve^og is employed in the sense pointed out in the preceding paragraphs. 'E» vofj^t*) in a state of law, i. e.i of revealed law or revelation, with sv conditionis, as we may call it ; for h is often put before nouns designating the state, con- dition, or relation of persons or things; see Bretschn. Lex. sv, No. 5. It is equivalent to swo/jloi, 1 Cor. ix. 21, v6/j.ov s^ovra, Rom. ii. 14. The sentiment is, that those who enjoyed the light of revelation (as the Jews had done) would be condemned by the same revelation, in case they had been transgressors. The offoi employed in this verse is of the most general signification = quicunque ; omvsg would have a rela- tive and limited sense. (13) This declaration is followed by another which is designed to illustrate and confirm it, and which is therefore introduced with ano- ther ydo (yap illustrantis et confirmantis). Ov ya^ .... dr/.ai. u^Tjcfovrat, for not those loho hear the law are just with God, hut those who obey the law shall be justified; i. e., not those to whom a revela- tion has been imparted, and who hear it read, are counted as righteous by their Maker and Judge, but those who obey the law shall be counted righteous. The apostle here speaks of oi az^oarai rov vofiov, because the Jews were accustomed to hear the Scriptures read in public, but many of them did not individually possess copies of the sacred volume which they could read. The sentiment is: ^ Not those who merely enjoy the external privilege of a revelation, have any just claim to divine approbation ; it is only those who obey the precepts of such a revelation, that have any ground to expect this. (14) To this sentiment the apostle seems to have anticipated that objections would be made. He goes on to solve them, or rather to prevent them by anticipation. He had said that Jew and Gentile, without distinction, would come under condemnation for disobedience to the divine law, and also be rewarded for obedience (verses 9, 10); he had declared that there is no partiality with God, and that all would be judged by the precepts of law (verses 11, 12); he had in- timated that those who were the hearers of the law (the Jews) would not on that account be accepted, but only those who obey it. It was natural now for some objector to say : ' The Gentiles have no reve- lation or law; and therefore this statement cannot be applied to them, 108 ROMANS II. 14. or this supposition cannot be made in relation to them.' The answer to this is, that the Gentiles have a law as really and truly as the Jews, although it is not written on parchment, but on the tablets of their hearts. That verse 14 is designed to illustrate the fact, that the Gentiles are under a law, in the same manner as verse 13 (o/ axsoara/ rau v6[mo\j) is designed to show that the Jews are under a law, there seems to be no good reason to doubt. The yd^ then in verse 14. is yd^ illustrantis et confirmantis. An objection to this has often been made, viz. that in this way we may represent the apostle as affirming, that there were some of the heathen who did so obey the law as to be just before God. But this is a mistake. The apostle no more represents the heathen as actually attaining to this justification here, than he represents the Jew as ac- tually attaining to it in verse 13. Surely he does not mean to say in verse 13, that there are any Jews who are actually cro/»jra/ tou v6fio\) in the sense which he attaches to this phrase: compare chap. iii. 19, 20, 23, 27, 30, 31. He is merely illustrating a principle, in both cases. The Jew expected justification on account of his external advantages. ' No,' says the apostle, ^ this is impossible; nothing but entire obedience to the divine law will procure justification for you, so long as you stand merely on your own ground. And here the heathen may make the like claims. If you say that a heathen man has no law, because he has no revelation ; still I must insist that he is in as good a condition with respect to actual justification, as you Jews are ; for although he has no Scripture (and in this respect, no law), yet he has an internal revelation inscribed on his heart, which is a rule of life to him, and which, if perfectly obeyed, would confer justification on him, as well and as truly as entire obedience to the iciitten law could confer it upon you. The prin- ciple is the same in both cases. You can claim no pre-eminence in this respect.* It is plain, then, that the apostle is only laying doicn, or illus- trating a principle here^ NOT relating a historical fact ; and this being duly apprehended, all difficulty about the sentiment of the passage is removed. Certainly there is no more difficulty in ver. 14, than must arise in regard to the ToirjTai rov v6/mov of ver. 13. The writer means to say neither more nor less, tlv.in tliat fhr Gentiles waj/ have the same hind of claims to be actually justijird before God as the Jews (which of course haa an important bearing on ver. 11) ; but, as the sequel shows most fully, neither Jew nor Gcidile has any ROMANS II. 15. 109 claim at all to justification^ since both have violated the law under which they have lived. ^\j6it .... 'XQifi, do in their natural state such things as revelation requires, ^vgig, in a classical sense, means the nature or natural state of a thing, the natural condition of any thing ; just in the same way as we use the word nature in our own language ; e. g., the Greeks said o xara j, more formal and Bolemn than ovo/Mu^ri. It is appropriate also; inasmuch as ^loubaTo; is a sumamCf which may be added to the individual name of cverj' Hebrew. ^ETavaTavp rip >()[j.(^, thou restest vpon the law, or thou leanest upon the law, ^RTuvuTavu corresponds to the Hebrew, HH^l, to lean ROMANS II. 18. 115 Upon, to restore, to prop up one^s self hij ; see in the Sept. 2 Kings vii. 2, 17. s'TravsTavsro rfj yji^i avrou. This verb is also used in the sense of adhering to; see 1 Mace. viii. 12. Either meaning gives a good sense in the verse before us. I prefer the first, as being the more usual sense of the word, and altogether apposite. The Jew leaned upon the law, as defending his claims to precedence and to acceptance with God. — No/xw of course means here the Mosaic law, or the Jewish Scnptures. Ka/ . . . . 0£gD, and gloriest in God; i. e., dost claim to thyself honour or glory, because Jehovah, the only living and true God, is thy God; compare Deut. iv. 7. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. 2 Sam. vii. 23. It was on this account that the Jew felt himself so far elevated above the Gentile, and so disdained all comparison with him. As to the construction of xai/p/aca/ with h and the Dative case, see Wahl on the word. The form yLaMya