ΠΡΟΣΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ Chap. 1:1-7. Address of the Epistle, with an announcement of Paul’ s calling, to be an Apostle of the Gospel of the Son of God. “ Epistola tota sic methodica est, ut ipsum quoque exordium ad rationem artis compositum sit. Artificium quum in multis apparet, quæ suis locis observabantur, tum in eo maxime, quod inde argumentum principale deducitur. Nam Apostolatus sui approbationem exorsus, ex ea in Evangelii commendationem incidit: quæ quum necessario secum trahat disputationem de fide, ad eam, quasi verborum contextu manu ducente, delabitur. Atque ita ingreditur principalem totius Epistolæ quæ stionem, fide nos justificari: in qua tractanda versatur usque ad finem quinti capitis.” Calvin. Paul in the addresses of his Epistles never uses the common Greek formula χαίρειν (James 1:1), but always a prayer for blessing on those to whom he is writing. In all his Epistles (as in both those of Peter, and in the Apocalypse) this prayer is for χάρις and εἰρήνη , except in 1 and 2 Tim., where it is for χάρις , ἔλεος , and εἰρήνη , as in 2 John. In Jude only we find ἔλεος , εἰρήνη , and ἀγάπη . The address here differs from those of most of Paul’ s Epistles, in having dogmatic clauses parenthetically inserted:— such are found also in the Epistle to Titus, and (in much less degree) in that to the Galatians. These dogmatic clauses regard, 1. the fore-announcement of the Gospel through the prophets: 2. the description and dignity of Him who was the subject of that Gospel: 3. the nature and aim of the apostolic office to which Paul had been called,— including the persons addressed in the objects of its ministration. 1. δοῦλοςἸ . χ .] so also Philippians 1:1, and Titus 1:1 (δοῦλοςθεοῦ , ἀπόστ . δὲχ . Ἰ .),— but usually ἀπ . χ . Ἰ . (2 Cor. Eph. Colossians 1:2 Colossians 1:2 Tim.): [κλητὸς ] ἀπ . χ . Ἰ . (1 Cor.),— simply ἀπόστολος (Gal.),— δέσμιοςχ . Ἰ . (Philem.), but in almost all these places the reading varies between χριστοῦἸησοῦ and Ἰησοῦχριστοῦ . The expression answers to the Hebr. ע ֶ ב ֶ ד י ְ ה ו ֹ ה , the especial O. T. title of Israel, and of individuals, as Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, Job, and others, who as prophets, kings, &c., were raised up for the express work of God. See Umbreit’ s note, Der Brief an die Rö mer auf dem Grunde des alten Testaments ausgelegt, p. 153 f. It must not be rendered slave with Schrader, nor pius cultor with Fritzsche: because, as Mehring remarks, the former excludes the element of freewill, while the latter does not express the entire dedication to Christ. κλητὸςἀπόστ .] In naming himself a servant of Jesus Christ, he bespeaks their attention as a Christian speaking to Christians: he now further specifies the place which he held by the special calling of God: called, and that to the very highest office, of an apostle; and even more— among the Apostles, not one by original selection, but one specially called. “ Ceteri quidem apostoli per diutinam cum Jesu consuetudinem educati fuerunt, et primo ad sequelam et disciplinam vocati, deinde ad apostolatum producti. Paulus, persecutor antehac, de subito apostolus per vocationem factus est. Ita Judæ i erant sancti ex promissione: Græ ci, sancti ex mera vocatione, ver. 6. Præ cipuam ergo vocatus apostolus cum vocatis sanctis similitudinem et conjunctionem habebat.” Bengel. ἀπόστολος must not be taken here in the wider sense, of a missionary, as in ch. 16:7, but in its higher and peculiar meaning, in which the Twelve bore the title (οὓςκαὶἀποστόλουςὠνόμασεν , Luke 6:13), and Paul (and perhaps Barnabas), and James the Lord’ s brother. This title was not conferred on Paul by the ἀφορίσατεδήμοι of the Holy Spirit, Acts 13:2, but in virtue of his special call by the Lord in person; compare σκεῦοςἐκλογῆς , Acts 9:15, with ἐξελεξάμην , John 6:70; John 13:18; John 15:16; Acts 1:2. “ Neque enim iis assentior, qui eam de qua loquitur vocationem ad æ ternam Dei electionem referant.” Calvin. ἀφωρισμένος ] not in Acts 13:2, merely, though that was a particular application of the general truth:— but from his birth. “ Idem Pharisæ i etymon fuerat: hoc autem loco Paulus se non solum ex hominibus, ex Judæ is, ex discipulis, sed etiam ex doctoribus segregatum a Deo significat.” Bengel. εἰς ] for the purpose of announcing. εὐαγγέλιονθεοῦ = τὸεὐαγ . τοῦθ ., which (see reff.) is the usual form. Bp. Middleton (on ver. 17) remarks on the anarthrousness of Paul’ s style, and cites from Dion. Hal. de Comp. Verb. c. 22, as a character of the αὐστηρὰἁρμονία , that it is ὀλιγοσύνδεσμος , ἄναρθρος . See the passage cited at length in the Prolegomena, § v. 2,— the good tidings sent by (not concerning) God. The genitive is not, as in τὸεὐαγγέλιοντῆςβασιλείας , Matthew 4:23, one of apposition, but of possession or origin; God’ s Gospel. And so, whenever the expression ‘ the Gospel of Christ’ occurs, it is not ‘ the Gospel about Christ,’ but Christ’ s Gospel; that Gospel which flows out of His grace, and is His gift to men. Thus in the very beginning of the Epistle, these two short words announce that the Gospel is of God,— in other words, that salvation is of grace only. 2. This good tidings is no new invention, no after-thought,— but was long ago announced in what God’ s prophets wrote concerning His Son:— and announced by way of promise, so that God stood pledged to its realization. ἐπειδὴδὲκαὶκαινοτομίανἐνεκάλουντῷπράγματι , δείκνυσιναὐτὸπρεσβύτερονἙλλήνωνὄν , καὶἐντοῖςπροφήταιςπροδιαγραφόμενον . Chrys. Hom. ii. p. 431. γραφ . ἁγ .] not, ‘ in sacred writings,’ — nor ‘ in passages of Holy Writ:’ — but in the Holy Scriptures. The expression used is defined enough by the adjective, to be well understood without the article;— so πνεῦμαἁγιως . below,— πν . ἅγιον passim. See Winer, edn. 6, § 19. 2 (and for nouns in government, Middleton, ch. iii. § 6). But one set of writings being holy, it was not necessary to designate them more particularly. See also above on εὐαγγ . θεοῦ . This expression (εὐαγγ . ὃπροεπηγγ .) is used in the strictest sense. Moses gave the Law: the prophets proclaimed the Gospel. See Umbreit’ s note, p. 159. 3. περὶτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ ] belongs to ὃπροεπ . above,— which he promised beforehand, &c., concerning His Son, i.e. ‘ which (good tidings) He promised beforehand, &c., and indicated that it should be concerning His Son.’ This is more natural than to bind these words to εὐαγγ . θεοῦ which went before. Either meaning will suit ver. 9 equally well. Christ, the Son of God, is the great subject of the good news. γενομένου ] not ὄντος , see John 1:1-3, and notes [nor as in E. V. ‘ was made.’ There is nothing in the word indicating creation, however true that may have been: see John 1:14]. κατὰσάρκα ] On the side of His humanity, our Lord ἐγένετο ; that nature of His begins only then, when He was γενόμενοςἐκγυναικός , Galatians 4:4. σάρξ is here used exactly as in John 1:14, ὁλόγοςσὰρξἐγένετο , to signify that whole nature, body and soul, of which the outward visible tabernacle of the flesh is the concrete representation to our senses. The words ἐκσπέρματοςΔαυείδ cast a hint back at the promise just spoken of. At the same time, in so solemn an enunciation of the dignity of the Son of God, they serve to shew that even according to the human side, His descent had been fixed in the line of him who was Israel’ s anointed and greatest king. 4. The simple antithesis would have been, τοῦμὲνγενομένου … ὄντοςδὲυἱοῦθεοῦκατὰπνεῦμα , see 1 Timothy 3:16. But (1) wonderful solemnity is given by dropping the particles, and taking up separately the human and divine nature of Christ, keeping ὁυἱὸςαὐτοῦ as the great subject of both clauses, and thus making them, not contrasts to one another, but correlative parts of the same great whole. And (2) the Apostle, dwelling here on patent facts,— the announcements of prophecy,— the history of the Lord’ s Humanity,— does not deal with the essential subsistent Godhead of Christ, but with that manifestation of it which the great fact of the Resurrection had made to men. Also (3) by amplifying πνεῦμα into πν . ἁγιωσύνης , he characterizes the Spirit of Christ as one of absolute holiness, i.e. as divine and partaking of the Godhead: see below. ὁρισθέντος ] “ Multo plus dicit quam ἀφωρισμένος , ver. 1: nam ἀφορίζεται unus e pluribus, ὁρίζεται unicus quispiam.” Bengel. See reff. Nor does it = προορισθέντος , as vulg. prœ destinatus, and as Irenæ us (iii. 22. 1, p. 219) and Augustine de Sanctorum, c. 15, vol. x. p. 982:— “ Præ destinatus est ergo Jesus, ut qui futurus erat secundum carnem filius David, esset tamen in virtute Filius Dei secundum Spiritum Sanctificationis: quia natus est de Spiritu Sancto et Virgine Maria.” But this is one of the places where Augustine has been misled by the Latin:— the text speaks, not of the fact of Christ’ s being the Son of God barely, but of the proof of that fact by His Resurrection. Chrysostom has given the right meaning: τίοὖνἔστινὁρισθέντος ; τοῦδειχθέντος , ἀποφανθέντος , κριθέντος , ὁμολογηθέντοςπαρὰτῆςἁπάντωνγνώμηςκαὶψήφου .… Hom. ii. p. 432. That an example is wanting of this exact use of the word, is, as Olsh. has shewn, no objection to such use; the ὁρίζειν here spoken of is not the objective ‘ fixing,’ ‘ appointing’ of Christ to be the Son of God, but the subjective manifestation in men’ s minds that He is so. Thus the objective words ποιεῖν (Acts 2:36), γεννᾷν (Acts 13:33) are used of the same proof or manifestation of Christ’ s Sonship by His Resurrection. So again ἐδικαιώθη , 1 Timothy 3:16. ἐνδυνάμει belongs to ὁρισθέντος ,— not to υἱοῦθεοῦ ,— nor again is it a parallel clause to κατ . πν . ἁγ . and ἐξἀναστ . νεκ . (as Chrys., who interprets it ἀπὸτῶνθαυμάτωνἅπερἔπραττε , Theophyl. &c.) manifested with power (to be) the Son of God. See reff. κατὰπνεῦμαἁγιωσύνης ] ἁγιως . is not = ἅγιον ; this epithet would be inapplicable here, for it would point out the Third Person in the Blessed Trinity, whereas it is the Spirit of Christ Himself, in distinction from His Flesh, which is spoken of. And this Spirit is designated by the gen. of quality, ἁγιωσύνης , to shew that it is not a human, but a divine Spirit which is attributed here to Christ,— a Spirit to which holiness belongs as its essence. The other interpretations certainly miss the mark, by overlooking the κατὰσάρκα and κατὰπνεῦμα , the two sides of the Person of Christ here intended to be brought out. Such are that of Theodoret ,— Chrys. , &c. Calvin and Olshausen seem to wish to include the notion of sanctifying in ἁγιωσύνη ,— which however true, is more than strictly belongs to the words. See by all means, on the whole, Umbreit’ s important note, pp. 164-172. ἐξ ] not ‘ from and after’ (as Theodoret, Luther, Grotius, al.), nor = ἀπό , which could not be used here, but by, as indicating the source, out of which the demonstration proceeds. ἀναστάσεωςνεκρῶν ] not = ἀναστ . ἐκνεκρῶν ,— which, besides the force done to the words, would be a weakening of the strong expression of the Apostle, who takes here summarily and by anticipation the Resurrection of Jesus as being, including, involving (ἐγώεἰμιἡἀνάστασις , John 11:25) the (whole) Resurrection of the dead. So that we must not render as E. V. ‘ the resurrection from the dead,’ but the resurrection of the dead, regarded as accomplished in that of Christ. It was the full accomplishment of this, which more than any thing declared Him to be the Son of God: see John 5:25-29. Thus in these words lies wrapped up the argument of ch. 6:4ff. Ἰης . χρ . τ . κυρ . ἡμ .] Having given this description of the Person and dignity of the Son of God, very Man and very God, he now identifies this divine Person with Jesus Christ, the Lord and Master of Christians,— the historical object of their faith, and (see words following) the Appointer of himself to the apostolic office. 5. δι ʼ οὗ ] as in Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:9, designating the Lord Himself as the Agent in conferring the grace and Apostleship. ἐλάβομεν ] not’ all Christians,’ — but we, the Apostle himself, as he not unfrequently speaks. No others need be here included in the word. Those to whom he is writing cannot be thus included, for they are specially contrasted with the subject of ἐλάβομεν by the following ὑμεῖς . Nor can the aor. ἐλάβομεν refer to any general bestowal of this kind, indicating, as it must, a definite past event, viz. the reception of the Apostleship by himself. To maintain (as Dr. Peile, Annotations on the Epistles, vol. i. Appendix) that the subject of ἐλὰβομεν must be the same as the ἡμῶν which has preceded, is to overlook, not only the contrast just noticed, and the habit of Paul to use indiscriminately the singular or plural, when speaking of himself,— but also the formulary character of the expression, ‘ Jesus Christ our Lord,’ in which the ‘ we’ alluded to in ‘ our’ is too faintly indicated to become the subject of a following verb. χάριν ] Hardly, as Augustine, “ gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus, apostolatum autem non cum omnibus communem habet” (Olsh.): for he is surely speaking of that peculiar χάρις , by which he wrought in his apostleship more than they all; see reff. ἀποστολήν ] Strictly, apostleship, ‘ the office of an Apostle,’ see reff.: not any mission, or power of sending ministers, resident in the whole church, which would be contrary to the usage of the word. The existence of such a power is not hereby denied, but this place refers solely to the office of Paul as an Apostle. Keep the χάρ . κ . ἀποστ . separate, and strictly consecutive, avoiding all nonsensical figures of Hendiadys, Hypallage, and the like. It was the general bestowal of grace, which conditioned and introduced the special bestowal (καί , as so often, coupling a specific portion to a whole) of apostleship: cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10. εἰς ] with a view to,— ‘ in order to bring about.’ ὑπακοὴνπίστεως ] The anarthrous character above remarked (on εὐαγγ . θεοῦ , ver. 1) must be here borne in mind, or we shall fall into the mistake of supposing ὑ . π . to mean ‘ obedience produced by faith.’ The key to the words is found in ref. Acts, πολύςτεὄχλοςτῶνἱερέωνὑπήκουοντῇπίστει , compared with Paul’ s own usage of joining an objective genitive with ὑπακοή , see 2 Corinthians 10:5, εἰςτὴνὑπακοὴντοῦχριστοῦ . So that πίστεως is the faith; not = ‘ the gospel which is to be believed’ (as Fritzsche, citing ch. 10:16), but the state of salvation, in which men stand by faith. And so these words form an introduction to the great subject of the Epistle. ἐνπᾶσιντ . ἔθν .] in order to bring about obedience to the faith among all (the) nations. The Jews do not here come into account. There is no inclusion, and at the same time no express exclusion of them: but Paul was commissioned as the Apostle of the Gentiles, and he here magnifies the great office entrusted to him. ὑπὲρτ . ὀν . αὐτ .] on behalf of His name, i.e. ‘ for His glory:’ see reff. “ In the name of Christ is summed up what He had done and was, what the Christian ever bore in mind, the zeal which marked him, the name wherewith he was named.” Jowett. See also Umbreit’ s note. The words are best taken as belonging to the whole, from δι ʼ οὗ to ἔθνεσιν [as declaring the purpose for which the grace and apostleship had been received]. 6. ἐνοἷς .… ] The whole to χριστοῦ should be taken together: among whom ye also are called of Jesus Christ; otherwise, with a comma at ὑμεῖς , the assertion, ‘ among whom are ye,’ is flat and unmeaning. De Wette and Calvin would take Ἰησοῦχρ . as a gen. of possession, because the call of believers is generally referred to the Father: but sometimes the Son is said to call likewise, see John 5:25; 1 Timothy 1:12:— and with ἀγαπητοὶθεοῦ following so close upon it, the expression can I think hardly be taken otherwise than as called by Jesus Christ. ἐκλεκτοὶαὐτοῦ , Matthew 24:31, cited by De W. is hardly parallel. 7. This verse follows, in the sense, close on ver. 1. ἀγ . θ ., κλητ . ἁγ .] Both these clauses refer to all the Christians addressed: not (as Bengel) the first to Jewish, the second to Gentile believers. No such distinction would be in place in an exordium which anticipates the result of the Epistle— that Jew and Gentile are one in guilt, and one in Christ. ἀπ . θ . πατ . ἡμ . κ . κυρ . Ἰ . χ .] Not, as Erasmus, ‘ from God, the Father of us and of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ — but from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. God is the Giver of Grace and Peace,— Christ the Imparter. 8-17. Opening of the Epistle. His thankfulness for the faith of the Romans: remembrance of them in his prayers: wish to visit them: hindrances hitherto, but still earnest intention of doing so, that he may further ground them in that Gospel, of which he is not ashamed, inasmuch as it is the power of God to all who believe. This leads to the announcement (in a citation from the Scripture) of one great subject of the Epistle,— viz.: Justification by faith. 8. This placing himself in intimate connexion with his readers by mention of and thankfulness for their faith or Christian graces, is the constant habit of Paul. The three Epistles, Gal., 1 Tim., and Titus, are the only exceptions: Olsh. adds 2 Cor., but in ch. 1:3-22 we have an equivalent: see especially vv. 6, 7, 11, 14. μέν ] The corresponding δέ follows, ver. 13. ‘ Ye indeed are prospering in the faith: but I still am anxious further to advance that fruitfulness.’ There is no ἔπειτα to follow to πρῶτον . τῷθεῷμου ] ὅραμεθ ʼ ὅσηςδιαθέσεωςεὐχαριστεῖ . οὐγὰρεἶπε , τῷθεῷ , ἀλλὰτῷθεῷμου · ὃκαὶοἱπροφῆταιποιοῦσι , τὸκοινὸνἰδιοποιούμενοι . καὶτίθαυμαστὸνεἰοἱπροφῆται ; αὐτὸςγὰραὐτὸσυνεχῶςὁθεὸςφαίνεταιποιῶνἐπὶτῶνδούλων , θεὸνἈβραὰμκαὶἸσαὰκκαὶἸακὼβἰδιαζόντωςλέγωνἑαυτόν . Chrys. Hom. iii. p. 436. διὰἸ . χ .] “ Velut per Pontificem magnum: oportet enim scire eum qui vult offerre sacrificium Deo, quod per manus Pontificis debet offerre.” Origen. So also Calvin, “ Hic habemus exemplum, quomodo per Christum agendæ sunt gratiæ , secundum Apostoli præ ceptum ad Hebrews 13:15.” Olshausen says, “ This is no mere phrase, but a true expression of the deepest conviction. For only by the Spirit of Christ dwelling in men’ s hearts are thanksgivings and prayer acceptable to God.” But perhaps here it is better to take the words as expressing an acknowledgment that the faith of the Romans, for which thanks were given, was due to, and rested on the Lord Jesus Christ: see ch. 7:25, and rendering there. περί ] This prep. and ὑπέρ both occur in this connexion, see 1 Corinthians 1:4; Colossians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:4:— and it is impossible to say, in cases of their confusion by the mss., which may have been substituted for the other. The internal criticism which would adopt ὑπέρ as being the less usual, may be answered by the probability that ὑπέρ , being known to be sometimes used by Paul, may have been substituted as more in his manner for the more usual περί . So that manuscript authority in such cases must be our guide; and this authority is here decisive. The difference in meaning would be, that ὑπέρ would give more the idea that thanks were given by Paul on their behalf, as if he were aiding them in giving thanks, for such great mercies: whereas περί would imply only that they were the subject of his thanks,— that he gave thanks concerning them. ἡπίστιςὑμ .] “ In ejusmodi gratulationibus Paulus vel totum Christianismum describit, Colossians 1:3, sqq.,— vel partem aliquam, 1 Corinthians 1:5. Itaque hoc loco fidem commemorat, suo convenienter instituto, vv. 12, 17.” Bengel. καταγγέλλεται ] De Wette notices the other side of the report, as given by the Jews at Rome, Acts 28:22, to Paul himself. This praise was in the Christian churches, and brought by Christian brethren. ἐνὅλῳτῷκόσμῳ ] A popular hyperbole, common every where, and especially when speaking of general diffusion through the Roman empire, the ‘ orbis terrarum.’ The praise would be heard in every city where there was a Christian church,— intercourse with the metropolis of the world being common to all. 9. “ Asseveratio pia, de re necessaria, et hominibus, remotis præ sertim et ignotis, occulta.” Bengel. There could be no other witness to his practice in his secret prayers, but God: and as the assertion of a habit of incessantly praying for the Roman Christians, whom he had never seen, might seem to savour of an exaggerated expression of affection, he solemnly appeals to this only possible testimony. To the Eph., Phil., (see however Philippians 1:8), Col., Thess., he gives the same assurance, but without the asseveration. The thus calling God to witness is no un-common practice with Paul: see reff. in E. V. ᾧλατρ .] The serving God in his spirit was a guarantee that his profession was sincere, and that the oath just taken was no mere form, but a solemn and earnest appeal of his spirit. See also Philippians 3:3 (present text), and John 4:24. “ The LXX use λατρεύω generally for the Heb. ש ׁ ֵ ר ֵ ת , which mostly implies the service of the priests in the temple: e.g. Numbers 3:31; Numbers 4:12; Numbers 18:2, &c. The Apostle means then, that he is an intelligent, true priest of his God, not in the temple, but in his spirit,— not at the altar, but at the gospel of His Son.” Umbreit. ἐντῷεὐαγ .] ἡτοῦεὐαγγελίουπροσθήκητὸεἶδοςδηλοῖτῆςδιακονίας , Chrys. Hom. iii. p. 438. His peculiar method of λατρεία was concerned with the gospel of the Son of God. “ Quidam accipiunt hanc particulam, quasi voluerit Paulus cultum illum, quo se prosequi Deum dixerat, ex eo commendare, quod Evangelii præ scripto respondeat: certum est autem, spiritualem Dei cultum in Evangelio nobis præ cipi. Sed prior interpretatio longe melius quadrat, nempe quod suum Deo obsequium addicat in Evangelii præ dicatione.” Calvin. See εὐαγγελίον , Philippians 4:15. [ὡςἀδιαλείπτως ] how unceasingly: the words may also mean ‘ that without ceasing,’ but the former rendering seems the better of the two.] πάντοτε belongs to the following, not to the preceding words. This latter construction would not be without example,— ἐνπαντὶκαιρῷἀδιαλείπτως , 1 Macc. 12:11, but this very example shews that if so, its natural place would be close to ἀδιαλείπτως . The whole phrase is a favourite one with Paul, see reff. “ πάντοτε vice nominis accipio, ac si dictum foret, ‘ In omnibus meis orationibus, seu quoties precibus Deum appello, adjungo vestri mentionem.’  ” Calvin. αἱπροσευχαίμου must be understood of his ordinary stated prayers, just in our sense of my prayers: “ quoties ex professo et quasi meditatus Deum orabat, illorum quoque habebat rationem inter alios.” Calv. 10. εἴπως ] if by any means. No subject of δεόμενος is expressed, but it is left to be gathered from this clause, as in Simon’ s entreaty, Acts 8:24, δεήθητεὑμεῖςὑπὲρἐμοῦ .… ὅπωςμηδὲνἐπέλθῃἐπ ʼ ἐμὲὧνεἰρήκατε , where ὅπωςκ .τ .λ . is not the contents of the prayer, but the end aimed at by it. ἤδηποτέ ] before long:— lit., ‘ at last, some day or other.’ εὐοδωθήσομαι ] I shall be allowed, prospered: see reff., and Deuteronomy 28:29: and cf. Umbreit’ s note. The rendering, ‘ I might have a prosperous journey’ (Vulg. and E.V.), is etymologically incorrect; the passive of ὁδόω , ‘ to shew the way,’ ‘ to bring into the way,’ must be ‘ to be shewn the way,’ or ‘ brought into the way.’ So Herod. vi. 73, ὡςτῷΚλεομενεϊεὐωδώθητὸἐςτὸνΔημάρητονπρῆγμα . ἐντῷθελ . τοῦθεοῦ ] In the course of,— by, the will of God. ἐλθεῖν belongs to εὐοδωθήσομαι , not to δεόμενος . 11. ἐπιποθῶ ] not ‘ I vehemently desire:’ ἐπί does not intensify, but merely expresses the direction of the πόθος , see Herod. v. 93, and compare such expressions as μὴπροσεῶντοςἡμᾶςτοῦἀνέμου , Acts 27:7. ἵνατὶμεταδῶχάρισμαπν .] That the χάρισμα here spoken of was no mere supernatural power of working in the Spirit, the whole context shews, as well as the meaning of the word itself in reff. And even if χάρισμα , barely taken, could ever (1 Corinthians 12:4, 1 Corinthians 12:9 are no examples, see there) mean technically a supernatural endowment of the Spirit, yet the epithet πνευματικόν , and the object of imparting this χάρισμα , confirmation in the faith, would here preclude that meaning. Besides, Paul did not value the mere bestowal of these ‘ gifts’ so highly, as to make it the subject of his earnest prayers incessantly. The gift alluded to was παράκλησις , as De Wette observes. πνευμ ., spiritual:— springing from the Spirit of God, and imparted to the spirit of man. εἰςτὸστηρ . ὑμ .] Knowing the trials to which they were exposed, and being conscious of the fulness of spiritual power for edification (2 Corinthians 13:10) given to him, he longed to impart some of it to them, that they might be confirmed. “ The Apostle does not say εἰςτὸστηρίζεινὑμ ., for this belongs to God; see ch. 16:25. He is only the instrument: hence the passive.” Philippi. 12. εἶταἐπειδὴκαὶτοῦτοσφόδραφορτικὸνἦν , ὅραπῶςαὐτὸπαραμυθεῖταιδιὰτῆςἐπαγωγῆς . ἵναγὰρμὴλέγωσι , τίγάρ ; σαλευόμεθακαὶπεριφερόμεθα , καὶτῆςπαρὰσοῦδεόμεθαγλώττηςεἰςτὸστῆναιβεβαίως , προλαβὼνἀναιρεῖτὴντοιαύτηνἀντίῤῥησινοὕτωλέγων (ver. 12). ὡςἂνεἰἔλεγε , μὴὑποπτεύσητεὅτικατηγορῶνὑμῶνεἶπον , οὐταύτῃτῇγνώμῃἐφθεγξάμηντὸῥῆμα · ἀλλὰτίποτέἐστιν , ὅπερἠβουλήθηνεἰπεῖν ; Πολλὰςὑπομένετεθλίψειςὑπὸτῶνδιωκόντωνπεριαντλούμενοι · ἐπεθύμησατοίνυνὑμᾶςἰδεῖν , ἵναπαρακαλέσω , μᾶλλονδὲοὐχἵναπαρακαλέσωμόνον , ἀλλ ʼ ἵνακαὶαὐτὸςπαράκλησινδέξωμαι . Chrys. Hom. ii. p. 440. The inf. συμπαρακληθῆναι is parallel with στηριχθῆναι , ἐμέ being understood: that is, that I with you may be comforted among you, each by the faith which is in the other. That the gift he wished to impart to them was παράκλησις , is implied in the συνπαρακλ . See the same wish expressed in different words ch. 15:32, and the partial realization of it, Acts 28:15. ἐνἀλλήλοις , which might otherwise be ambiguous, is explained by ὑμῶντεκαὶἐμοῦ to mean which we recognize in one another: or as above and in A. V. R. The expression “ mutual faith,” of the E. V. should properly mean, faith which each has in the other. πίστις is used in the most general sense— faith as the necessary condition and working instrument of all Christian exhortation, comfort, and confirmation; producing these, and evidenced by them. 13. οὐθέλωδὲὑμ . ἀγ .] A Pauline formula: see reff. καὶἐκωλ . ἄχριτ . δεῦρο is best as a parenthesis, as it is impossible that ἵνα can depend on ἐκωλύθην . So Demosth. p. 488. 7, ἐμοὶδ ʼ , ὦἄνδρεςἈθ ., δοκεῖΛεπτίνηςἢοὐκἀνεγνωκέναιτοὺςΣόλωνοςνόμουςἢοὐσυνιέναι . The reason of the hindrance is given in ch. 15:20-22: it was, his φιλοτιμία to preach the gospel where it had not been preached before, rather than on the foundation of others. καρπόν ] Not, ‘ wages,’ or ‘ result of my apostolic labour,’ for such is not the ordinary meaning of the word in the N. T., but fruit borne by you who have been planted to bring forth fruit to God. This fruit I should then gather and present to God; cf. the figure in ch. 15:16: see also Philippians 1:22 and note. 14. The connexion seems to be this: He wishes to have some fruit, some produce of expended labour, among the Romans as among other Gentiles. Till this was the case, he himself was a debtor to every such people: which situation of debtor he wished to change, by paying the debt and conferring a benefit, into that of one having money out at interest there, and yielding a καρπός . The debt which he owed to all nations was (ver. 15) the obligation laid on him to preach the gospel to them; see 1 Corinthians 9:16. Ἕλλ .— βαρβ .— σοφ .— ἀνοήτ .] These words must not be pressed as applying to any particular churches, or as if any one of them designated the Romans themselves,— or even as if σοφοῖς belonged to Ἕλλησιν , and ἀνοήτοις to βαρβάροις . They are used, apparently, merely as comprehending all Gentiles, whether considered in regard of race or of intellect; and are placed here certainly not without a prospective reference to the universality of guilt, and need of the gospel, which he is presently about to prove existed in the Gentile world. Notice that he does not call himself a debtor to the Jews— for they can hardly be included in βαρβάροις (see Colossians 3:11). Though he had earnest desires for them (ch. 9:1-3; 10:1), and every where preached to them first, this was not his peculiar ὀφείλημα , see Galatians 2:7, where he describes himself as πεπιστευμένοςτὸεὐαγγέλιοντῆςἀκροβυστίας , καθὼςΠέτροςτῆςπεριτομῆς . 15. οὕτως ] “ Est quasi … illatio a toto ad partem insignem.” Bengel. ‘ As to all Gentiles, so to you, who hold no mean place among them.’ 16. The οὐγὰρἐπαισχύνομαι seems to be suggested by the position of the Romans in the world. ‘ Yea, to you at Rome also: for, though your city is mistress of the world, though your emperors are worshipped as present deities, though you are elated by your pomps and luxuries and victories, yet I am not ashamed of the apparently mean origin of the gospel which I am to preach; for (and here is the transition to his great theme) it is,’ &c. So for the most part, Chrysostom, Hom. iii. p. 444. δύναμιςγὰρθ . ἐστίν ] The gospel, which is the greatest example of the Power of God, he strikingly calls that Power itself. (Not, as Jowett, ‘ a divine power,’ nor is δικαιος . θεοῦ below to be thus explained, as he alleges.) So in 1 Corinthians 1:24 he calls Christ, the Power of God. But not only is the gospel the great example of divine Power; it is the field of agency of the power of God, working in it, and interpenetrating it throughout. The bare substantive δύναμις here (and 1 Corinthians 1:24) carries a superlative sense: the highest and holiest vehicle of the divine Power, the δύναμιςκατ ʼ ἐξοχήν . “ It is weighty for the difference between the Gospel and the Law, that the Law is never called God’ s power, כ ֹ ח ַ , but light, or teaching, in which a man must walk, Psalms 36:10; Psalms 119:105; Proverbs 6:23; Isaiah 2:5.” Umbreit. And the direction in which this power acts in the gospel is εἰςσωτηρίαν — it is a healing, saving power: for as Chrysostom reminds us, there is a power of God εἰςκόλασιν , and εἰςἀπώλειαν , see Matthew 10:28. But to whom is this gospel the power of God to save? παντὶτῷπιστεύοντι . The universality implied in the παντί , the condition necessitated in the πιστεύοντι , and the δύναμιςθεοῦ acting εἰςσωτηρίαν , are the great subjects treated of in the former part of this epistle. All are proved to be under sin, and so needing God’ s righteousness (ch. 1:18-3:20), and the entrance into this righteousness is shewn to be by faith (ch. 3:21-5:11). Then the δύναμιςθεοῦ in freeing from the dominion of sin and death, and as issuing in salvation, is set forth (ch. 5:11-8:39). So that if the subject of the Epistle is to be stated in few words, these should be chosen: τὸεὐαγγέλιον , δύναμιςθεοῦεἰςσωτηρίανπαντὶτῷπιστεύοντι . This expresses it better than merely ‘ justification by faith,’ which is in fact only a subordinate part of the great theme,— only the condition necessitated by man’ s sinfulness for his entering the state of salvation: whereas the argument extends beyond this, to the death unto sin and life unto God and carrying forward of the sanctifying work of the Spirit, from its first fruits even to its completion. Ἰουδ . πρῶτονκ . Ἕλλ .] This is the Jewish expression for all mankind, as Ἕλλ . κ . βαρβ . ver. 14 is the Greek one. Ἕλλ . here includes all Gentiles. πρῶτον is not first in order of time, but principally (compare ch. 2:9), spoken of national precedence, in the sense in which the Jews were to our Lord οἱἴδιοι , John 1:11. Salvation was ἐκτῶνἸουδαίων , John 4:22. See ch. 9:5; 11:24. Not that the Jew has any preference under the gospel; only he inherits, and has a precedence. οὐδὲγὰρἐπεὶδὴπρῶτόςἐστι , καὶπλέονλαμβάνειτῆςχάριτος · ἡγὰραὐτὴδωρεὰκαὶτούτῳκἀκείνῳδίδοται · ἀλλὰτάξεώςἐστιτιμὴμόνοντὸπρῶτος . Chrys. Hom. iii. p. 445. 17. An explanation, how the gospel is the power of God to salvation, and how it is so to the believer:— because in it God’ s righteousness (not His attribute of righteousness,— ‘ the righteousness of God,’ but righteousness flowing from, and acceptable to Him) is unfolded, and the more, the more we believe. I subjoin De Wette’ s note on δικ . θεοῦ . “ The Greek δικ . and the Heb. צ ְ ד ָ ק ָ ה are taken sometimes for ‘ virtue’ and ‘ piety’ which men possess or strive after,— sometimes imputatively, for ‘ freedom from blame’ or ‘ justification,’ The latter meaning is most usual with Paul: δικ . is that which is so in the sight of God (ch. 2:13), the result of His justifying forensic Judgment, or of ‘ Imputation’ (ch. 4:5). It may certainly be imagined, that a man might obtain justification by fulfilling the law: in that case his righteousness is an ἰδία (ch.10:3), a δικ . ἐκτοῦνόμου (Philippians 3:9). But it is impossible for him to obtain a ‘ righteousness of his own,’ which at the same time shall avail before God (ch. 3:20; Galatians 2:16). The Jews not only have not fulfilled the law (ch. 3:9-19), but could not fulfil it (7:7ff.): the Gentiles likewise have rendered themselves obnoxious to the divine wrath (1:24-32). God has ordained that the whole race should be included in disobedience. Now if man is to become righteous from being unrighteous,— this can only happen by God’ s grace,— because God declares him righteous, assumes him to be righteous, δικαιοῖ (3:24; Galatians 3:8):— δικαιοῦν is not only negative, ‘ to acquit,’ as ה ַ צ ְ ד ּ ִ י ק Exodus 23:7; Isaiah 5:23; ch. 2:13 (where however see my note), but also positive, ‘ to declare righteous:’ but never ‘ to make righteous’ by transformation, or imparting of moral strength by which moral perfection may be attained. Justificatio must be taken as the old protestant dogmatists rightly took it, sensu forensi, i.e. imputatively. God justifies for Christ’ s sake (ch. 3:22 ff.) on condition of faith in Him as Mediator: the result of His justification is δικαιοσύνηἐκπίστεως , and as He imparts it freely, it is δικαιοσύνηθεοῦ (gen. subj.) or ἐκθεοῦ , Philippians 3:9: so Chrys. &c. (δικ . θεοῦ is ordinarily taken for δικ . παρὰθεῷ , as Luth.: ‘ die Gerechtigfeit die vor Gott gilt:’ compare ch. 2:13; 3:20; Galatians 3:11; but that this is at least not necessary, see 2 Corinthians 5:21). This justification is certainly an objective act of God: but it must also be subjectively apprehended, as its condition is subjective. It is the acquittal from guilt, and cheerfulness of conscience, attained through faith in God’ s grace in Christ,— the very frame of mind which would be proper to a perfectly righteous man,— if such there were,— the harmony of the spirit with God,— peace with God. All interpretations which overlook the fact of imputation (the R.-Cath., that of Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, &c.) are erroneous.” To say, with Jowett, that all attempts to define δικαιος . θεοῦ are “ the after-thoughts of theology, which have no real place in the interpretation of Scripture,” is in fact to shut our eyes to the great doctrinal facts of Christianity, and float off at once into uncertainty about the very foundations of the Apostle’ s argument and our own faith: of which uncertainty his note here is an eminent example. ἐναὐτῷ ] in it, ‘ the gospel:’ not, in τῷπιστεύοντι . ἀποκαλύπτεται ] generally used of making known a thing hitherto concealed: but here of that gradually more complete realization of the state of justification before God by faith in Christ, which is the continuing and increasing gift of God to the believer in the Gospel. ἐκπίστεως ] “ ἐκ points to the condition, or the subjective ground. πίστις is faith in the sense of trust, and that (a) a trustful assumption of a truth in reference to knowledge = conviction: (b) a trustful surrender of the soul, as regards the feeling. Here it is especially the latter of these: that trust reposed in God’ s grace in Christ, which tranquillizes the soul and frees it from all guilt,— and especially trust in the atoning death of Jesus. Bound up with this (not by the meaning of the words, but by the idea of unconditional trust, which excludes all reserve) is humility, consisting in the abandonment of all merits of a man’ s own, and recognition of his own unworthiness and need of redemption.” De Wette. εἰςπίστιν ] ἀπὸπίστεωςἄρχεταικ . εἰςπιστεύονταλήγει (Œ cum.) seems the most probable interpretation, making πίστιν almost = τοὺςπιστεύοντας , see ch. 3:22: but not entirely,— it is still the aspect, the phase, of the man, which is receptive of the δικαιοσύνηθεοῦ , and to this it is revealed. The other interpretations,— ‘ for the increase of faith’ (Meyer),— ‘ that faith may be given to it’ (Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krebs),— ‘ proceeding from faith, and leading to a higher degree of faith’ (Baumg.-Crus.),— do not seem so suitable or forcible. It will be observed that ἐκπ . εἰςπ . is taken with ἀποκαλύπτεται , not with δικαιοσύνη . The latter connexion would do for ἐκπ ., but not for εἰςπ . καθὼςγέγρ .] He shews that righteousness by faith is no new idea, but found in the prophets. The words (ref.) are cited again in Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38, in the former place with the same purpose as here. They are used in Habakkuk with reference to credence given to the prophetic word: but properly speaking, all faith is one, in whatever word or act of God reposed: so that the Apostle is free from any charge of forcing the words to the present purpose. The two ways of arranging them, ὁδίκαιος — ἐκπίστεωςζήσεται , and ὁδίκαιοςἐκπίστεως — ζήσεται , in fact amount to the same: if the former, which is more agreeable to the Heb., be taken, ζήσεται must mean, ‘ shall live on,’ endure in his δικαιοσύνη , by means of faith, which would assert that it was a δικαιοσύνη of faith, as strongly as does the latter. See by all means, on the quotation, Umbreit’ s note: and Delitzsch, der Proph. Habakuk, p. 51 ff. This latter remarks (I quote from Philippi), “ The Apostle rests no more on our text than it will bear. He only places its assertion, that the life of the just springs from his faith, in the light of the N. T.” Chap. 1:18-11:36. The Doctrinal Exposition of the above truth: that the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation to every one that believeth. And herein, ch. 1:18-3:20,— inasmuch as this power of God consists in the revelation of God’ s righteousness in man by faith, and in order to faith the first requisite is the recognition of man’ s unworthiness, and incapability to work a righteousness for himself,— the Apostle begins by proving that all, Gentiles and Jews, are guilty before God, as holding back the truth in unrighteousness. And first, ch. 1:18-32, of the Gentiles. 18. He first states the general fact, of all mankind; but immediately passes off to the consideration of the majority of mankind, the Gentiles; reserving the Jews for exceptional consideration afterwards. ἀποκ . γἀρ ] The statement of ver. 17 was, that the righteousness of God is revealed. The necessary condition of this revelation is, the destruction of the righteousness of man by the revelation of God’ s anger against sin. ἀποκαλύπτεται , not in the Gospel (as Grot.): not in men’ s consciences (as Tholuck, Exo_1, Reiche): ‘ not in the miserable state of the then world (as Kö llner): but (as implied indeed by the adjunct ἀπ ʼ οὐρανοῦ ,— that it is a providential, universally-to-be-seen revelation) in the punishments which, ver. 24, God has made to follow upon sin, see also ch. 2:2 (so De W., Meyer, Tholuck, Exo_5, &c.). So that ἀποκ . is of an objective reality here, not of an evangelic internal and subjective unfolding. ὀργὴθεοῦ is anthropopathically, but with the deepest truth, put for the righteousness of God in punishment (see ch. 2:8; 5:9; Ephesians 2:3; Matthew 3:7; John 3:36). It is the opposite, in the divine attributes, to Love (De W.). ἀπ ʼ οὐρ . (see above) belongs to ἀποκαλύπτεται , not to θεοῦ , nor to ὀργὴθεοῦ (ἡἀπ ʼ οὐρ .). ἀσέβειαν , godlessness; ἀδικίαν , iniquity: but neither term is exclusive of the other, nor to be formally pressed to its limits. They overlap and include each other by a large margin: the specific difference being, that ἀσέβ . is more the fountain (but at the same time partially the result) of ἀδικία ,— which ἀδικ . is more the result (but at the same time partially the fountain) of ἀσέβεια . ἀδικ . is the state of the thoughts and feelings and habits, induced originally by forgetfulness of God, and in its turn inducing impieties of all kinds. We may notice by the way, that the word ἀσέβεια forms an interesting link to the Pastoral Epistles [where it, and its opposite εὐσέβεια are the ordinary terms for an unholy and a holy life]. ἀνθρ . τῶντὴνἀλ . ἐνἀδικίᾳκατεχόντων ] of men who hold back the truth in iniquity: who, possessing enough of the germs of religious and moral verity to preserve them from abandonment, have checked the development of this truth in their lives, in the love and practice of sin. That this is the meaning of κατεχόντων here is plain from this circumstance: that wherever κατέχω in the N. T. signifies ‘ to hold,’ it is emphatic, ‘ to hold fast,’ or ‘ to keep to,’ or ‘ to take or have complete possession of:’ see for the first, Luke 8:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 1 Corinthians 15:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Hebrews 3:6, Hebrews 3:14; Hebrews 10:23: for the second, Luke 14:9 (every other place except the lowest being excluded): for the third, Matthew 21:38; 1 Corinthians 7:30. Now no such emphatic sense will apply here. If the word is to mean ‘ holding,’ it must be only in the loosest and least emphatic sense: ‘ having a half and indistinct consciousness of,’ which does not at all correspond to the κατά , indicating vehemence of purpose, as in καταφιλέω , &c. But the meaning ‘ keeping back,’ ‘ hindering the development of,’ — while it has a direct example in Paul’ s own usage in reff., and in Luke 4:42, and indirect ones in (the spurious John 5:4) Acts 27:40; ch. 7:6; Philemon 1:13,— admirably suits the sense, that men had (see vv. 19 ff.) knowledge of God sufficient, if its legitimate work had been allowed, to have kept them from such excesses of enormity as they have committed, but that this ἀλήθεια they κατεῖχονἐνἀδικίᾳ , i.e. crushed, quenched, in (as the element, conditional medium in which) their state and practice of unrighteousness. It is plain that to take ἐνἀδικίᾳ for ἀδίκως (as Theophyl. and Reiche) is to miss the force of the expression altogether— the pregnant ἐν , ‘ in and by,’ implying that it is their ἀδικία ,— the very absence of δικαιοσύνη for which the argument contends,— which is the status wherein, and the instrument whereby, they hold back the truth lit up in their consciences. 19. διότι , because, may either give the reason why the anger of God is revealed, and thus apply to all that follows as far as ver. 32, being taken up again at vv. 21, 24, 26, 28 (so Meyer): or may explain τῶν .… κατεχ . (so Thol.): which latter seems most probable: the subauditum being, ‘ (this charge I bring against them), because.’ For he proves, first (ver. 20) that they had the ἀλήθεια ; then (vv. 21 ff.) that they held it back. τὸγνωστόν , that which is known, the objective knowledge patent and recognized in Creation:— so Chrys., Theodoret, Luther, Reiche, Meyer, De Wette, al.:— not ‘ that which may be known’ (as , Theophyl., Œ , Erasm., Beza, Grot., al. [and E. V.]), which would assert what, as simple matter of fact, was not the case, that all which could be known of God was φανερὸνἐναὐτοῖς . He speaks now not of what they might have known of God, but of what they did know. Thus τὸγνωστ . τ . θεοῦ will mean, that universal objective knowledge of God as the Creator which we find more or less in every nation under heaven, and which, as matter of historical fact, was proved to be in possession of the great Gentile nations of antiquity. φαν . ἐστ . ἐναὐτοῖς ] is evident in them, i.e. in their hearts: not, to them (as Luth.),— nor, among them (as Erasm., Grot., &c.): for if it had been a thing acknowledged among them, it would not have been κατεχόμενον . Every man has in him this knowledge; his senses convey it to him (see next verse) with the phæ nomena of nature. ὁθ . γ . ἐφ .] gives the reason why that which is known of God is manifest in them, viz. because God Himself so created the world as to leave impressed on it this testimony to Himself. Notice, and keep to, the historic aorist, ἐφανέρωσεν , not ‘ hath manifested it’ (perf.), but manifested it, viz. at the Creation. This is important for the right understanding of ἀπὸκτ . κόσμ . ver. 20. 20. For (justifying the clause preceding) His invisible attributes (hence the plur. applying to δύναμις and θειότης which follow), ἀπὸκτίσεωςκόσμ ., from the time of the creation, when the manifestation was made by God: not = ἐκκτίσεωςκ . ‘ by the creation of the world;’ which would be tautological, τοῖςποιήμασινοούμενα following, besides that κτίσιςκόσμου cannot = ἡκτίσις , in the sense of ‘ the creation,’ i.e. ‘ the creatures.’ Umbreit has here a long and important note on O. T. prophecy in general, which will be found well worth study. τοῖςποιήμ . νοούμ .] being understood (apprehended by the mind, see reff.) by means of His works (of creation and sustenance,— not here of moral government), καθορᾶται , are perceived; not, ‘ are plainly seen,’ — this is not the sense of κατά in καθοράω , but rather that of looking down on, taking a survey of, and so apprehending or perceiving. ἥτεἀΐδ . αὐτ . δύν .] His eternal Power. To this the evidence of Creation is plainest of all: Eternal, and Almighty, have always been recognized epithets of the Creator. κ . θειότης ] and Divinity . The fact that the Creator is divine;— is of a different nature from ourselves, and accompanied by distinct attributes, and those of the highest order,— which we call divine. εἰςτὸεἶναιαὐτ . ἀναπολ .] εἰςτό with an inf. never properly indicates only the result, ‘ so that;’ but is often used where the result, and the intention, are bound together in the process of thought. This is done by a very natural habit in speaking and writing, of transferring one’ s self to the position of the argument, and regarding that which contributed to a result, as worked purposely for that result. And however true it is, that in the doings of the Allwise, all results are purposed,— to give the sense ‘ in order that they might be inexcusable,’ would be manifestly contrary to the whole spirit of the argument, which is bringing out, not at present God’ s sovereignty in dealing with man, but man’ s inexcusableness in holding back the truth by unrighteousness. εἰςτό , then, in this case, is most nearly expressed by wherefore, or so that. See Winer, edn. 6, § 44. 6. οὐδιὰτοῦτοταῦταπεποίηκενὁθεός , εἰκαὶτοῦτοἐξέβη . οὐγὰρἵνααὐτοὺςἀπολογίαςἀποστερήσῃ , διδασκαλίαντοσαύτηνεἰςμέσονπρούθηκεν , ἀλλ ʼ ἵνααὐτὸνἐπιγνῶσιν · ἀγνωμονήσαντεςδὲπάσηςἑαυτοὺςἀπεστέρησανἀπολογίας . Chrys. Hom. iv. p. 450. 21. διότι ] expands ἀναπολογήτους — ‘ without excuse, because … ’ γνόντες ] ‘ with the knowledge above stated.’ This participle testifies plainly that matter of fact, and not of possibility, has been the subject of the foregoing verses. From this point, we take up what they might have done, but did not. οὐχὡςθεὸνἐδόξ .] They did not give Him glory (δοξάζω here principally of recognition by worship) as God, i.e. as the great Creator of all, distinct from and infinitely superior to all His works. Bengel well divides ἐδόξασαν and ηὐχαρίστησαν — “ Gratias agere debemus ob beneficia: glorificare ob ipsas virtutes divinas.” They did neither: in their religion, they deposed God from His place as Creator,— in their lives, they were ungrateful by the abuse of His gifts. ἐματαιώθησαν ] ה ָ ב ַ ל , vanus fuit, is used of worshipping idols, 2 Kings 17:15; Jeremiah 2:5, and ה ֶ ב ֶ ל , vanitas, of an idol. Deuteronomy 32:21; 1 Kings 16:26 al.: and hence probably the word ματαιόω was here chosen. διαλογισμοῖς ] their thoughts: but generally in N.T. in a bad sense: they became vain (idle, foolish) in their speculations. ἐσκοτίσθηἡἀσύν . αὐτ . καρδ .] ἀσύνετος is not the result of ἐσκοτ .,— ‘ became darkened so as to lose its understanding,’ — but the converse,— their heart (καρδία of the whole inner man,— the seat of knowledge and feeling) being foolish (unintelligent, not retaining God in its knowledge) became dark (lost the little light it had, and wandered blindly in the mazes of folly). 22. φάσκοντεςεἶν . σοφ .] Not, ‘ because they professed themselves wise,’ but while they professed themselves wise— professing themselves to be wise. The words relate perhaps not so much to the schools of philosophy, as to the assumption of wisdom by the Greeks in general, see 1 Corinthians 1:22, of which assumption their philosophers were indeed eminent, but not the only examples. 23. ἤλλαξανκ .τ .λ .] quoted from ref. Ps., only τὴνδόξαναὐτῶν , ‘ their glory,’ of the Psalm, is changed to ‘ God’ s glory,’ — viz. His Power and Majesty visible in the Creation. ἐν represents the conditional element in which the change subsisted. ἀφθάρτου and φθαρτοῦ shew by contrast the folly of such a substitution: He who made and upholds all things must be incorruptible, and no corruptible thing can express His likeness. ὁμοιώματιεἰκόνος ] the similitude of the form— εἰκόνος generalizes it to mean the human form, it not being any one particular man, but the form of man (examples being abundant) to which they degraded God,— and so of the other creatures. Deities of the human form prevailed in Greece— those of the bestial in Egypt. Both methods of worship were practised in Rome. 24-32. Immorality, and indeed bestiality, were the sequel of idolatry. 24. The καί after διό may import, As they advanced in departure from God, so God also on His part gave them up, &c.;— His dealings with them had a progression likewise. παρέδωκεν ] not merely permissive, but judicial: God delivered them over. As sin begets sin, and darkness of mind deeper darkness, grace gives place to judgment, and the divine wrath hardens men, and hurries them on to more fearful degrees of depravity. ἐνταῖςἐπιθ .] in the lusts— not by nor through the lusts (as Erasmus and E. V.);— the lusts of the heart were the field of action, the department of their being, in which this dishonour took place. ἀκαθαρσίαν ] more than mere profligacy in the satisfaction of natural lust (as Olsh.); for the Apostle uses cognate words ἀτιμάζεσθαι and ἀτιμία here and in ver. 26:— bestiality; impurity in the physical, not only in the social and religious sense. τοῦἀτιμάζεσθαι ] the genitive may imply either (1) the purpose of God’ s delivering them over to impurity, ‘ that their bodies should be dishonoured,’ or (2) the result of that delivering over, ‘ so that their bodies were dishonoured,’ or (3) the nature of the ἀκαθαρσία , as πάθηἀτιμίας below,— ‘ impurity, which consisted in their bodies being dishonoured.’ The second of these seems most accordant with the usage of the Apostle and with the argument. ἀτιμάζεσθαι is most likely passive (Beza, al. De Wette), as the middle of ἀτιμάζω is not found in use. And this is confirmed by the old and probably genuine reading αὐτοῖς , which has been altered to ἑαυτοῖς from imagining that ‘ they’ was the subject to ἀτιμάζεσθαι . So that their bodies were dishonoured among them. 25. This verse casts light on the τὴνἀλήθ . ἐνἀδικίᾳκατεχόντων of ver. 18. The truth of God (the true notion of Him as the Creator) which they professed, they changed into (see on ἐν , ver. 23) a lie (ψεῦδος = ש ׁ ֶ ק ֶ ר , used of idols, Jeremiah 16:19), thus counteracting its legitimate agency and depriving it of all power for good. σεβάζομαι , of the honour of respect and observance and reverence,— λατρεύω , of formal worship with sacrifice and offering. Both verbs belong to τῇκτίσει ; though σεβάζομαι would require an accusative, λατρεύω , the nearest, takes the government. τῇκτ .] the thing made, the creature— a general term for all objects of idolatrous worship. παρά , beyond— which would amount to the exclusion of the Creator. The doxology expresses the horror of the Apostle at this dishonour, and puts their sin in a more striking light. But we need not supply εἰκαὶοὗτοιὕβρισαν , as Chrys. εὐλογητός is Blessed, κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν : the LXX put for it the perf. part., Ps. 117:24. The adjective is usually of God: the participle, of man. 26. πάθηἀτιμ .,— see above, ver. 24,— stronger than ἄτιμαπάθη , as setting forth the status, ἀτιμία , to which the πάθη belonged. Contrast 1 Thessalonians 4:4, τὸἑαυτοῦσκεῦοςκτᾶσθαιἐντιμῇ . χρῆσιν usum venereum; see examples in Wetstein. This abuse is spoken of first, as being the most revolting to nature. “ In peccatis arguendis sæ pe scapha debet scapha dici. Pudorem præ posterum ii fere postulant qui pudicitia carent … Gravitas et ardor stili judicialis, proprietate verborum non violat verecundiam.” Bengel. 27. τὴνἀσχημ . perhaps, as De W., ‘ the (well-known, too frequent) indecency,’ — ‘ cui ipsa corporis … conformatio reclamat,’ Bengel: but more probably the article is only generic, as in 2 Peter 1:5-8 repeatedly. τὴνἀντιμισθίαν ] The Apostle treats this ἀτιμία into which they fell, as a consequence of, a retribution for, their departure from God into idolatry,— with which in fact it was closely connected. This shame, and not its consequences, which are not here treated of, is the ἀντιμισθία of their πλάνη , their aberration from the knowledge of God, which they received. This is further shewn by ἣνἔδει in the past tense. εἰλὰρκαὶμὴγέενναἦν , μηδὲκόλασιςἠπείλητο , τοῦτοπάσηςκολάσεωςχεῖρονἦν . εἰδὲἥδονται , τὴνπροσθήκηνμοιλέγειςτῆςτιμωρίας . Chrys. Hom. v. p.457. ἐνἑαυτοῖς , in their own persons, viz. by their degradation even below the beasts. 28. The play on δοκιμάζω and ἀδόκιμος can hardly be expressed in any other language. ‘ Non probaverunt’ and ‘ reprobum’ of the Vulgate does not give it. Because they reprobated the knowledge of God, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, is indeed a very inadequate, but as far as the form of the two words is concerned, an accurate representation of it. For ἀδόκιμος is not ‘ judicii expers’ (as Beza, Tholuck, &c.), but reprobate, rejected by God. God withdrew from them His preventing grace and left them to the evil which they had chosen. The active sense of ἀδόκιμος , besides being altogether unexampled, would, in the depth of its meaning, be inconsistent with the assertion of the passage. God did not give them up to a mind which had lost the faculty of discerning, but to a mind judicially abandoned to that depravity which, being well able to exercise the δοκιμασία required, not only does not do so, but in the headlong current of its abandonment to evil, sympathizes with and encourages (ver. 32) its practice in others. It is the ‘ video meliora proboque,’ which makes the ‘ deteriora sequor’ so peculiarly criminal. οὐκἐδοκίμασανἔχειν is not = ἐδοκίμ . οὐκἔχειν (as Dr. Burton): the latter would express more a deliberate act of the judgment ending in rejection of God, whereas the text charges them with not having exercised that judgment which would, if exercised, have led to the retention of God in their knowledge. ἔχεινἐνἐπιγν .] So Job 21:14,— “ they say to God, Depart from us: for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways,” and 22:15-17. 29-31. πεπληρωμένους belongs to the subject of ποιεῖν , understood. The reading πορνείᾳ appears to have arisen out of πονηρίᾳ , and is placed by some mss. after that word, by some after κακίᾳ , omitting πον . The Apostle can hardly have written it here, treating as he does all these immoralities of the heart and conscience as results of, and flowing from, the licentious practices of idolatry above specified. Accurate distinctions of ethical meaning can hardly be found for all these words. Without requiring such, or insisting on each excluding the rest, I have collected the most interesting notices respecting them. Umbreit has illustrated their LXX usage and Hebrew equivalents. ἀδικίᾳ ] Perhaps a general term, comprehending all that follow: such would be according to the usage of the Epistle: but perhaps to be confined to the stricter import of injustice; of which on the part of the Romans, Wetst. gives abundant testimonies. πονηρίᾳ ] Ammonius interprets τὸπονηρόν , τὸδραστικὸνκακοῦ ,— used therefore more of the tempter and seducer to evil. πλεονεξίᾳ ] covetousness (not as 1 Thessalonians 4:6, see there), of which the whole provincial government and civil life of the Romans at the time was full. ‘ Quando | major avaritiæ patuit sinus?’ exclaims Juvenal, soon after this. Sat. i. 87. κακίᾳ ] more the passive side of evil— the capability of and proclivity to evil,— the opposite to ἀρετή :— so Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 3. 6, ὑπόκειταιἄραἡἀρετὴεἶναι .… τῶνβελτίστωνπρακτική · ἡδὲκακία , τοὐναντίον . This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ 1. The address passes gradually to the Jews. They were the people who judged— who pronounced all Gentiles to be born in sin and under condemnation:— doubtless there were also proud and censorious men among the Gentiles, to whom the rebuke might apply, but these are hardly in the Apostle’ s mind. This is evident by comparing τὰγὰραὐτὰπράσσειςὁκρίνων with vv. 21-23, where the same charge is implied in a direct address to the Jew. διό , on account of this δικαίωμαθεοῦ decreeing death against the doers of these things— for thou doest them thyself. Therefore thy setting thyself up as a judge, is unjustifiable. πᾶςὁκρίνων ] The Jew is not yet named, but hinted at (see above): not in order to conciliate the Jews (Rü ckert), but on account of the as yet purposely general form of the argument. This verse is in fact the major of a syllogism, the minor of which follows, vv. 17-20, where the position here declared to be unjustifiable, is asserted to be assumed by the Jew. ἐνᾧ … ] For wherein , as E. V.— i.e. ‘ in the matter in which.’ 2. οἴδ . δέ , ‘ atqui scimus’ — now we know. κατὰἀλ .] according to truth, as E. V., De Wette:— not, ‘ truly,’ ‘ revera’ (as Raphel, &c.)— for οἴδαμεν , on which the emphasis is, implies certain knowledge. Nor does κατὰἀλ . belong to κρῖμα , ‘ judgment according to truth’ (as Olsh.),— but to ἐστίν , is, (proceeds) according to justice (John 8:16). 3. Here he approximates nearer to the Jews. They considered that because they were the children of Abraham they should be saved, see Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:9. τοῦτο , viz. ὅτισὺἐκφ ., following. σύ has the emphasis on it, thou thyself,— ‘ thou above all others.’ 4. ἤ , or (introducing a new error or objection, see ch. 3:29; 6:3; 11:2), ‘ inasmuch as God spares thee day by day (see Ecclesiastes 8:11), dost thou set light by His long-suffering, ignorant that His intent in it is to lead thee to repentance?’ πλούτου ,— a favourite word with the Apostle (see reff.),— the fulness, ‘ abundance.’ χρηστ ., as shewn by His ἀνοχή and μακροθ . (reff.) ἀγνοῶν , not knowing,— being blind to the truth, that … Grot., Thol., al. would render it ‘ not considering:’ but as De Wette remarks, it is a wilful and guilty ignorance, not merely an inconsiderateness, which is blamed in the question. ἄγει , is leading thee: this is its intent and legitimate course, which thy blindness will frustrate, ‘ Malo deducit quam invitat; quia illud plus quiddam significat. Neque tamen pro adigere accipio, sed pro manu ducere.’ Calvin. 5. I am inclined with Lachmann to regard the question as continued. If not, the responsive contrast to the question in ver. 4 would begin more emphatically than with κατὰδὲ … ; it would be σὺδὲκατὰ .… or θησαυρίζειςδὲσεαυτῷκατὰ .… But the enquiry loses itself in the digressive clauses following, and no where comes pointedly to an end. I have therefore not placed a mark of interrogation at ἄγει or at θεοῦ , as Lachm. does,— but have left the construction to explain itself. κατά ] not, ‘ in proportion to’ (Meyer), but as E. V. after, ‘ in consonance with,’ ‘ secundum,’ — describing the state out of which the action springs: see ver. 7, καθ ʼ ὑπομονήν . ἀμεταν .] not admitting that μετάνοια to which God is leading thee. ἐνἡμέρᾳ , not for, nor = εἰςἡμέραν , nor should it be rendered ‘ against the day,’ as E. V. I need hardly remind any accurate scholar, that such an interpretation as ‘ ἐν for εἰς ’ is no where to be tolerated. It belongs to ὀργήν ,— wrath in the day of wrath, ‘ wrath which shall come upon thee in that day,’ — not to θησαυρίζεις , imagining which has led to the mistake. The ἡμέραὀργῆς is the day of judgment, viewed in its relation to sinners: see reff. ἀποκαλ . δικαιοκρ .] the manifestation (public enforcement, it having been before latent though determined) of God’ s righteous judgment. The reading ἀποκ . καὶδικαιοκρ . would mean, ‘ the appearance (reff.) of God, and his righteous judgment,’ — not referring merely to the detection of men’ s hearts, as Origen, Theophyl., Rü ckert. But the reading is not strongly upheld, nor is it according to the mode of speaking in the argument— see ch. 1:17, 18. 6, 7. This retribution must be carefully kept in its place in the argument. The Apostle is here speaking generally, of the general system of God in governing the world,— the judging according to each man’ s works— punishing the evil, and rewarding the righteous. No question at present arises, how this righteousness in God’ s sight is to be obtained— but the truth is only stated broadly at present, to be further specified by and by, when it is clearly shewn that by ἔργανόμου no flesh can be justified before God. The neglect to observe this has occasioned two mistakes: (1) an idea that by this passage it is proved that not faith only, but works also in some measure, justify before God (so Toletus in Pool’ s Syn.), and (2) an idea (Tholuck 1st edn. and Kö llner) that by ἔργουἀγαθοῦ here is meant faith in Christ. However true it be, so much is certainly not meant here, but merely the fact, that every where, and in all, God punishes evil, and rewards good. 7, 8. τοῖςμὲνκαθ ʼ ὑπ .… ὀργὴκ . θυμός ] To those who by endurance in good works seek for glory and honour and immortality (will He render) eternal life: but to those who are (men) of self-seeking, and disobey the truth, but obey iniquity (shall accrue) anger and wrath, &c. The verb ἀποδώσει , ver. 6, should have two accusatives, representing the two sides of the final retribution,— ζωὴναἰών . and ὀργήν , &c. But the second of these is changed to a nominative and connected with ἔσται understood, and made the first member of the following sentence, δόξαδὲκ .τ .λ . being opposed to it. Thus also two datives belong to ἀποδώσει , viz. τοῖς .… ζητοῦσιν ,— and τοῖς … ἀδικίᾳ . To ζητοῦσιν belong δόξ . κ . τιμ . κ . ἀφθ . as its accusatives, and καθ ʼ ὑπομ . ἔργ . ἀγ . as its adverb. This, as De Wette remarks, is the only admissible construction: in opposition to Œ cum. and Beza, who divide ἔργ . ἀγ . from καθ ʼ ὑπομ . (iis quidem qui secundum patientem expectationem quœ runt boni operis gloriam),— Bengel, Knapp, Fritzsche, Olsh., and Krehl, who take τοῖς .… ἀγαθοῦ as meaning ‘ those who endure in good works’ (as Œ does τοῖςκαθ ʼ ὑπομ . those who endure, absol.), and δόξαν .… ζητοῦσιν , as in apposition with it,— Photius (in Œ cum.), Luther, and Estius, who take it, τοῖς .… ζητοῦσινζωὴναἰών .,— δόξανκ .τ .λ .,— Reiche, who takes τοῖςμέν ,— ‘ to the one,’ — alone, and makes καθ ʼ ὑπομ . parallel to κατὰτὰἔργα , representing the rule of judgment, taking the rest as . ἔργου , sing. of moral habitude in the whole, the general course of life and action (see reff.). δόξαν , absolute imparted glory like His own, see Matthew 13:43; John 17:22:— τιμήν , recognition, relative precedence, see Matthew 10:32; Matthew 25:34:— ἀφθαρσίαν , incorruptibility: so the aim of the Christian athlete is described, 1 Corinthians 9:25, as being to obtain στέφανονἄφθαρτον . 8. τοῖςδὲἐξἐριθείας ] as in reff., to be supplied by οὖσιν , those who live in, act from, are situated in and do their deeds from— ἐριθεία as a status, as οἱἐξ spoken of place. ἐριθεία ,— not from ἔρις , from which it is distinguished 2 Corinthians 12:20; Galatians 5:20, but from ἔρῑθος , a hired workman, whence ἐριθεύω or -ομαι , properly ‘ to work for hire,’ but met. and generally, ‘ ambitum exercere,’ used principally of official persons, who seek their own purposes in the exercise of their office, and ἐριθεία , ‘ ambitus,’ ‘ self-seeking,’ ‘ greed.’ It stands opposed to ὑπομονὴἔργουἀγαθοῦ , which requires self-denial and forbearance. There seems to be no reason why this, the proper meaning, should not here apply, without seeking for a more far-fetched one, as ‘ the party spirit of the Jews.’ Rü ckert. The mistake of rendering it ‘ contentiousness,’ and imagining a derivation from ἔρις prevailed universally , Vulg., Erasm., Grot., &c., and even the more recent English Commentators, Bloomf., Slade, and Peile, τοῖςἐξἐριθείας , i.e. τοῖςἐρίζουσι ) according to De Wette, down to Rü ckert, who first suggested the true derivation. It appears to have arisen from ἐρεθίζω being somewhat similar in sound. Aristotle uses it in the sense of ‘ ambitus,’ canvassing for office, in Polit. v. 3,— μεταβάλλουσιδὲαἱπολιτεῖαικαὶἄνευστάσεωςδιάτετὰςἐριθείας , ὥσπερἐνἩραίᾳ · ἐξαἱρετῶνγὰρδιὰτοῦτοἐποίησανκληρωτάς , ὅτιᾑροῦντοτοὺςἐριθευομένους . Fritzsche, who has an excursus on the word, renders οἱἐξἐριθ .,— ‘ malitiosi fraudum machinatores.’ Ignatius, ad Philad. § 8, p.704, opposes ἐριθ . to χριστομαθία . On the whole, self-seeking seems best to lay hold of the idea of the word: see note on Philippians 1:16, Philippians 1:17. ἀπειθ . μ . τῇἀλ .] Hindering (see ch. 1:18) the truth which they possess from working, by self-abandonment to iniquity. ὀργὴκ . θυμός ] According to this arrangement (see var. readd.) the former word denotes the abiding, settled mind of God towards them (ἡὀργὴτ . θεοῦμένειἐπ ʼ αὐτόν , John 3:36),— and the latter, the outbreak of that anger at the great day of retribution. So the grammarians: θυμὸςμένἐστιπρόσκαιρος (excandescentia, as Cicero)· ὀργὴδὲπολυχρόνιοςμνησικακία , Ammon. See the same further brought out by Tittmann, Syn. i. p. 131. 9. θλῖψ . κ . στεν .] An expression from the LXX (see reff.): the former signifying more the outward weight of objective infliction,— the latter the subjective feeling of the pressure. It is possible, in the case of the suffering Christian, for the former to exist without the latter: so 2 Corinthians 4:8, ἐνπαντὶθλιβόμενοι , ἀλλ ʼ οὐστενοχωρούμενοι . But here the objective weight of infliction and the subjective weight of anguish, are co-existent. ἐπὶπᾶσανψ . ἀνθ .] probably a periphrasis for the sake of emphasis and solemnity. Had it been (as Fritzsche and Meyer) to indicate that the soul is the suffering part of the man (nearly so Olsh.), it should have been as De W. observes, ἐπὶψυχὴνπαντὸςἀνθρ ., or ἐπὶπᾶσανψυχὴνἀνθρώπων (see reff.). κατεργ .] κατεργάζομαι and ἐργάζομαι seem to have but this slight difference,— that κατεργάζομαι , answering rather to our ‘ commit,’ is more naturally used of evil, as manifested and judged of by separate acts among men, whereas ἐργάζομαι , answering to our ‘ work,’ is used indifferently of both good and evil. That this is not always kept to, see reff., especially ch. 7:18, and Plato Legg. iii. p. 686, end, in both which places, however, definite acts are spoken of. The pres. part. denotes the status or habit of the man. Ἰουδ . τεπρῶτον ] Because the Jew has so much greater advantages, and better opportunities of knowing the divine will: and, therefore, pre-eminent responsibility. 10. εἰρήνη ] Here in its highest and most glorious sense, see reff. 11. This remark serves as the transition to what follows, not merely as the confirmation of what went before. As to what preceded, it asserts that though the Jew has had great advantages, he shall be justly judged for his use of them, not treated as a favourite of Heaven: as to what follows, it introduces a comparison between him and the Gentile to shew how fairly he will be, for those greater advantages, regarded as πρῶτος in responsibility. And thus we gradually (see note on ver. 1) pass to the direct comparison between him and the Gentile, and consideration of his state. 12-16. The justice of a general judgment of all, but according to the advantages of each. 12. ὅσοιγ . ἀνόμως .… ] For as many as have sinned without (the) law (of Moses): shall also perish without (the) law (of Moses): i.e. it shall not appear against them in judgment. Whether that will ameliorate their case, is not even hinted,— but only the fact, as consonant with God’ s justice, stated. That this is the meaning of ἀνόμως is clear from 1 Corinthians 9:21. That even these have sinned against a νόμος , is presently (ver. 14) shewn. Chrys. says (Hom. vi. p. 466),.… ὁμὲνγὰρἝλληνἀνόμωςκρίνεται · τὸδὲἀνόμωςἐνταῦθαοὐτὸχαλεπώτερον , ἀλλὰτὸἡμερώτερονλέγει · (this is perhaps saying too much, see above) τουτέστιν , οὐκἔχεικατηγοροῦντατὸννόμον . τὸγὰρἀνόμωςτοῦτ ʼ ἐστι , χωρὶςτῆςἐξἐκείνουκατακρίσεως , φησίν , ἀπὸτῶντῆςφύσεωςλογισμῶνκαταδικάζεταιμόνων . ὁδὲἸουδαῖος , ἐννόμως , τουτέστι , μετὰτῆςφύσεωςκαὶτοῦνόμουκατηγοροῦντος · ὅσῳγάρπλείονοςἀπήλαυσενἐπιμελείας , τοσούτῳμείζοναδώσειδίκην . καί (De W.) serves to range ἀπολ ., as well as ἥμαρτ . under the common condition ἀνόμως : As many as without the law have sinned, without the law shall also perish. ἀπολοῦνται , the result of the judgment on them, rather than κριθήσονται , its process, because the absence of the law would thus seem as if it were the rule by which they are to be judged,— whereas it is only an accident of that judgment, which depends on other considerations. ἐννόμῳ , under (in, as a status) the (Mosaic) law; not ‘ a law,’ which would make the sentence a truism: it is on that very undeniable assumption, ‘ that all who have had a law given shall be judged by that law,’ that the Apostle constructs his argument, asserting it with regard to the Mosaic law in the case of the Jews, and proving that the Gentiles have had a law given to them in the testimony of their consciences. As to the omission of the article, no inference can be drawn, as the word follows a preposition: see ver. 23, where ἐννόμῳ unquestionably means ‘ in the law of Moses.’ Besides, these verses are no general assertions concerning men who have, and men who have not, a law revealed (for all have one), but a statement of the case as concerning Jews and Gentiles. νόμος , throughout, signifies the law of Moses, even though anarthrous, in every place, except where the absence of the article corresponds to a logical indefiniteness, as e.g. ἑαυτοῖςεἰσιννόμος , ver. 14: and even there not ‘ a law:’ see note. And I hope to shew that it is never thus anarthrously used as = ὁνόμος , except where usage will account for such omission of the article. διὰνόμ . κριθ .] Now, shall be judged by the law: for that will furnish the measure and rule by which judgment will proceed. 13. This is to explain to the Jew the fact, that not his mere hearing of the law read in the synagogue (= his being by birth and privilege a Jew) will justify him before God, but (still keeping to general principles and not touching as yet on the impossibility of being thus justified) the doing of the law. τοῦ has been apparently inserted in both cases in the later mss. from seeing that νόμος was indisputably the law of Moses, and stumbling at the unusual expression οἱἀκροαταὶνόμου . But the οἱ in both cases is generic, and ἀκροατὴς -νόμου , ποιητὴς -νόμου (almost as one word in each case), ‘ a hearer-of-the-law,’ a ‘ doer-of-the-law.’ So that the correct English for οἱἀκροαταὶνόμου is hearers of the law, and for οἱποιηταὶνόμου , doers of the law. It is obvious, that with the omission of the τοῦ in both places, the whole elaborate and ingenious criticism built by Bp. Middleton on its use, falls to the ground. (See Middleton, Gr. Art. in loc.) His dictum, that such an expression as οἱἀκροαταὶνόμου is inadmissible, will hardly in our day be considered as deciding the matter. 14. ἔθνη , the Gentiles [in general]; see ch. 3:29; 11:13; 15:10, 12. In this place, ἔθνητὰμὴνόμ . ἔχοντα is the only way in which the sense required could be expressed, for τὰἔθνητὰμὴν . ἔχ ., would mean ‘ those Gentiles who have not the law,’ as also would ἔθνημὴνόμονἔχ ., whereas the meaning clearly is, the Gentiles not having the law. νόμον ] Again, ‘ the law,’ viz. of Moses. A law, they have; see below. φύσει , by nature, τοῖςφυσικοῖςἑπόμεναλογισμοῖς , Schol. in Matthaï . τὰτοῦνόμουπ .] do things pertaining to the law [i.e. the things about which the law is concerned], e.g. abstain from stealing, or killing, or adultery. But it by no means follows that the Apostle means that the Gentiles could fulfil the law, do the things, i.e. all the things enjoined by the law (as De Wette): he argues that a conscientious Gentile, who knows not the law, does, when he acts in accordance with requirements of the law, so far set up the (see below on the art.) law to himself. τὰτοῦνόμου is interpreted by Beza, Wetst., and Elsner, ‘ that which the law does,’ i.e. make sanctions and prohibitions: but this can hardly be. The Apostle does not deny certain virtues to the Gentiles, but maintains the inefficiency of those, and all other virtues, towards man’ s salvation. ἑαυτοῖςεἰσιννόμος ] are to themselves (so far) the law, not ‘ a law,’ for a law may be just or unjust, God’ s law or man’ s law: there is but one law of God, partly written in men’ s consciences, more plainly manifested in the law of Moses, and fully revealed in Jesus Christ. The art. could not have been here used without stultifying the sentence by distributing the predicate, making the conscientious heathen to be to himself the whole of the law, instead of ‘ the law, so far as he did the works of the law.’ Cf. Aristot. Eth. iv. 14, ὁδὲχαρίειςκ . ἐλευθέριοςοὕτωςἕξειοἷοννόμοςὢνἑαυτῷ . 15. ἐνδείκν ., by their conduct shew forth,— give an example of. τὸἔργ . τοῦνόμου = τὰτοῦνόμου above: but sing. as applying to each of the particular cases supposed in the ὅταν .… ποιῶσιν . If it had here been τὰἔργατοῦνόμου , it might have been understood to mean the whole works of the law, which the indefinite ὅταν prevents above. γραπτὸνἐντ . κ . αὐτ .] Alluding to the tables of stone on which the law was written: see a similar figure 2 Corinthians 3:3. συμμαρτ . αὐτ . τ . συνειδ .] This is a new argument, not a mere continuation of the ἔνδειξις above. Besides their giving this example by actions consonant with the law, their own conscience, reflecting on the thing done, bears witness to it as good. συμμ ., not merely = μαρτ ., as Grot., Thol., nor = una testatur, viz. as well as their practice,— but confirming by its testimony, the συν signifying the agreement of the witness with the deed, as con in contestari, confirmare:— perhaps also the συν may be partly induced by the συν in συνειδήσεως ,— referring to the reflective process, in which a man confers, so to speak, with himself. καὶμετ . ἀλλ . κ .τ .λ .] and their thoughts (judgments or reflections, the self-judging voices of the conscience, which being corrupted by sinful desires are often divided) among one another (i.e. thought against thought in inner strife) accusing, or perhaps excusing . Notice the similarity of this strife of conscience, and its testimony, as here described, to the higher and more detailed form of the same conflict in the Christian man, ch. 7:16. 16. To what has this verse reference? Hardly to that just preceding, which surely speaks of a process going on in this life (so however Chrys. takes it. See also a fine passage in Bourdaloue’ s Sermons, Vol. i. Serm. ii. p. 27, ed. Paris, 1854): nor, as commonly assumed, to κριθήσονται (ver. 12), which only terminates one in a series of clauses connected by γάρ :— but to the great affirmation of the passage, concluding with ver. 10. To this it is bound, it appears to me, by the τὰκρυπτὰτῶνἀνθρώπων , answering to πᾶσανψυχὴνἀνθρώπου , ver. 9. This affirmation is the last sentence which has been in the dogmatic form:— after it we have a series of quasi-parenthetic clauses οὐγάρ — ὅσοιγάρ — οὐγάρ — ὅτανγάρ ; i.e., the reasons, necessitated by the startling assertion, are one after another given, and, that having been done, the time is specified when the great retribution shall take place. κατὰτὸεὐαγγ . μου ] See reff. according to the Gospel entrusted to me to teach. διὰἸης . χρ .] by Jesus Christ, viz. as the Judge— see John 5:22:— belongs to κρινεῖ . See also Acts 17:31. 17-24. The pride of the Jews in their law and their God contrasted with their disobedience to God and the law. 17. εἰδέ ] This has been in the later mss. changed into ἰδέ , apparently to avoid the anacoluthon, or perhaps merely by mistake originally. The anacoluthon, however, is more apparent than real. It is only produced by the resumption of the thread of the sentence with οὖν , ver. 21. Omit (in the sense) only that word, and all proceeds regularly— ‘ But if thou art denominated a Jew, and &c.… , thou that teachest thy neighbour, dost thou not teach thyself?’ &c. The εἰδὲσύ carries on the apostrophe from ver. 5, since when it has been broken off by reference to the great day of retribution and its rule of judgment; the σύ identifies the person addressed here as the same indicated by the σου and σεαυτῷ there, and by ὦἄνθρωπε in ver. 1. Thus the Apostle by degrees sets in his place as a Jew the somewhat indefinite object of his remonstrances hitherto,— and reasons with him as such. ἐπον .] No stress on ἐπ -,— art named, ‘ denominated,’ — ‘ hast the name put on thee;’ see reff. ἐπαναπ .] Used of false trust, see reff. The τῷ of the rec. has been inserted in the later mss. before νόμῳ , because it here clearly applied to the ‘ law of Moses,’ and the absence of the article gave offence. It is omitted, because ‘ the law’ is not here distributed— it is not the law itself in its entirety, which is meant, but the fact of having or of knowing the law:— the strict way of expressing it would perhaps be, ‘ in the fact of possessing a law,’ which condensed into our less accurate English, would be in one word, in the law: viz. ‘ which thou possessest.’ καυχ . ἐνθ .] viz. ‘ as thy Covenant God:’ ‘ as being peculiarly thine.’ 18. γιν . τὸθέλ .] θεός having been just mentioned, it is left to be inferred that θέλημα refers to Him. δοκιμ . τ . διαφ .] provest (in the sense of sifting and coming to a conclusion on) things which differ,— ἐναντίαἀλλήλοις , δικαιοσύνηνκ . ἀδικίαν , κ .τ .λ . Theod. κρίνειςτίδεῖπρᾶξαικ . τίμὴδεῖπρᾶξαι , Theophylact. The Vulg. ‘ probas utiliora,’ and E. V. ‘ approvest the things that are more excellent,’ is somewhat flat in meaning, and not so applicable. κατηχ . ἐκτοῦνόμ .] being (habitually, not in youth only,— force of pres.) instructed (not merely catechetically but didactically, in the synagogues, &c.) out of the law (τοῦνόμου , though after a preposition— because the law is distributed— it is the book of the law, the law itself, out of which the κατήχησις takes place). 19. πέποιθας , sometimes with ἑαυτῷ or ἐφ ʼ ἑαυτῷ (see Luke 18:9), and sometimes with ὅτι (Luke, ib.; Galatians 5:10; Philippians 2:24; Hebrews 13:18),— regardest thyself as,— art confident in thyself as being. ὁδηγὸντυφλ .] We can hardly say with Olsh., that the Apostle undoubtedly refers to the saying of our Lord, Matthew 15:14— but rather that both that saying and this were allusive to a title ‘ leaders of the blind’ given to themselves by the Pharisees, with which Paul as a Pharisee would be familiar. Similarly, the following titles may have been well-known and formal expressions of Jewish pride with reference to those who were without the covenant. 20. μόρφωσιν , not the mere apparent likeness (Theophylact, &c.), but the real representation. The law, as far as it went, was a reflexion of the holiness and character of God. Hardly so much is here meant (Olsh.), as that the law contained a foreshadowing of Christ,— for the Apostle is speaking now more of moral truth and knowledge, by which a rule of judgment is set up, sufficient to condemn the Jew as well as the Gentile. But after all, this clause is not to be pressed as declaring a fact, but taken subjectively with regard to the Jew, after πέποιθας , and understood of his estimate of the law. ἐντῷνόμῳ , because the book of the law, the whole law, is denoted. [21. “ And now the righteous rebuke may no longer be restrained. Such advantages and such pretensions ought undoubtedly to be followed and justified by a corresponding course of holy conduct.” Ewbank.] 22. ὁβδελ . τὰεἴδ . ἱεροσυλεῖς ] The contrast here must be maintained; which it will not be if we understand ἱεροσυλεῖς of robbing the temple of God of offerings destined for him (Jos. Antt. xviii. 3, Antt. xviii.4). And τὰεἴδωλα leads into the kind of robbery which is meant. Thou who abhorrest idols, dost thou rob their temples? That it was necessary to vindicate Jews from such a charge, appears from Acts 19:37: and Jos.Antt. iv. 8.10 gives as a law, μὴσυλᾷνἱερὰξενικά , μηδ ʼ ἂνἐπωνομασμένονᾖτινιθεῷκειμήλιονλαμβάνειν . 23. ἐννόμῳ , see above (ver. 17) for the omission of the art.— but it is not διὰπαραβάσεωςνόμου , because a παράβασις is τοῦνόμου , the law being broken as a whole (see James 2:10: and on παραβάτηςνόμου below, ver. 25). And τῆςπαρ . τ . νόμ ., is thy breaking of the law. This question comprehends the previous ones. 24. ‘ For what is written in the prophet Isaiah [also in Ezekiel, 36:20, 36:23], is no less true now of you:’ ‘ the fact is so, as it is written.’ 25-29. Inasmuch as circumcision was the especial sign of the covenant, and as such, a distinction on which the Jewish mind dwelt with peculiar satisfaction: the Apostle sets forth, that circumcision without the keeping of the law is of no avail, and that true circumcision and true Judaism are matters of the heart, not of the flesh only. ἀλλ ʼ ἡπεριτομὴμέγα , φησίν . ὁμολογῶκἀγώ , ἀλλὰπότε ; ὅτανἔχῃτὴνἔνδονπεριτομήν . καὶσκόπεισύνεσιν , πῶςεὐκαίρωςτὸνπερὶαὐτῆςεἰσήγαγελόγον . οὐγὰρεὐθέωςἀπ ʼ αὐτῆςἤρξατο , ἐπειδὴπολλὴἦναὐτῆςἡὑπόληψις · ἀλλ ʼ ἡνίκαἔνδειξεναὐτοὺςἀπὸτοῦμείζονοςπροσκεκρουκόταςκαὶτῆςεἰςθεὸνβλασφημίαςαἰτίους , τότελοιπὸνλαβὼντὸνἀκροατὴνκατεγνωκότααὐτῶν , καὶγυμνώσαςτῆςπροεδρίας , εἰσάγειτὸνπερὶπεριτομῆςλόγον , θαῤῥῶνὅτιοὐδεὶςαὐτῇψηφιεῖταιλοιπόν . Chrys. Hom. vii. 474. 25. περιτομή , chosen as an example in point, and as the most comprehensive and decisive example; and μὲνγάρ binds it on to the foregoing reasoning: q. d. ‘ in the same way circumcision, &c.’ νόμον , not τὸννόμον , πράσσῃς ,— because the latter would import the perfect fulfilment of the whole law: whereas the supposition is of acting according to the law, doing the law. παραβάτηςνόμου here, not τοῦνόμου , the παραβάτηςνόμου , like ἀκροατὴς -νόμου and ποιητὴς -νόμου , ver. 13, being a designation generally of a law-breaker, as those of a law-hearer and law-fulfiller. ἀκροβ . γέγ .] counts for nothing: the Jewish transgressor is no better off than the Gentile transgressor. 26. ἡἀκροβ .] i.e. οἱἐντῇἀκροβυστίᾳ . τὰδικαίωμ .] plainly, the moral requirements, not the ceremonial: for one of the very first of the latter was, to be circumcised. The case is an impossible one: nor does the Apostle put it as possible, only as shewing manifestly, that circumcision, the sign of the covenant of the Law, was subordinate to the keeping of the Law itself. The articles shew how completely hypothetical the case is— no less than entire fulfilment of all the moral precepts of the law being contemplated. οὐχὶἡ … ] ‘ In such a case would not he be counted as a circumcised person?’ 27. I prefer with De Wette (and Erasm.), Luth., Bengel, Wetst., Knapp, and Meyer, to regard this verse not as a continuation of the question, but as a separate emphatic assertion, and as leading the way to the next verse. κρινεῖ , ‘ shall rise up in judgment against,’ judge indirectly by his example. See Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42, where κατακρίνω is used in a sense precisely similar. ἡἐκφύσεωςἀκροβ .] ‘ he, who remains in his natural state of uncircumcision.’ ἐκφύς . is contrasted with διὰγράμ . κ . περιτ . below. The position of ἐκφύσεως decides for this rendering and against joining it with τελοῦσα , which would require ἡἀκροβυστία , ἐκφύσεωςτὸννόμοντελοῦσα . τὸννόμ . τελ .] such is the supposition— that an uncircumcised man could fully act up to the (moral) requirements of the law. It is not ἡτὸννόμ . τελ .; because ἀκροβ . is used in the widest abstract sense: no distinction is made between one and another uncircumcised person, but some one man is taken as an example of ἀκροβυστία . So that the omission of the art. does not give a new hypothetic sense, ‘ if it fulfil the law,’ but merely restates the hypothesis: fulfilling (as it does, as we have supposed) the law. σὲτὸν .… παραβάτηννόμου ] Here again the position of διὰγράμματοςκ . περιτομῆς , between τὸν and παραβάτην , sufficiently shews that, as ἐκφύσεως above, it is a qualification of σὲτὸνπαραβάτηννόμου . Bp. Middleton (it appears, Gr. Art. in loc. and compare his ref.) would take σὲτὸνδιὰγράμματοςκ . περιτομῆς , ‘ thee who art a professor of the law and a circumcised person,’ and understand εἶναι after παραβάτην ,— shall adjudge thee to be a transgressor of the law. But this appears exceedingly forced, and inconsistent with the position of παραβ . νόμου , which if it had been thus emphatic, would certainly have been placed either before, or immediately after κρινεῖ . We may well imagine that such an interpretation would not have been thought of, except to serve the supposed canon, that, ‘ if τόν were immediately the article of παραβάτην , νόμου depending on it could not be anarthrous.’ See above on παραβ . νόμ . ver. 25, and on ver. 13. διὰγρ . κ . περ .] διὰ (see reff.) is here used of the state in which the man is when he does the act, regarded at the medium through which the act is done. It is rightly rendered by in E. V. [though this gives too much the idea of the state being the instrument by means of which] (not, ‘ in spite of,’ as Kö llner and al.). γράμματος ] ‘ litera scripta,’ the written word: here in a more general sense than in ver. 29, where it is pressed to a contrast with πνεῦμα : thee, who in a state of external conformity with the written law and of circumcision, art yet a transgressor of the law. In vv. 28, 29, supply the ellipses thus: in ver. 28, fill up the subjects from the predicates,— οὐγὰρὁἐντῷφανερῷἸουδαῖόςἐστιν , οὐδὲἡἐντῷφανερῷἐνσαρκὶπεριτομή ; in ver. 29, fill up the predicates from the subjects,— ἀλλ ʼ ὁἐντῷκρυπτῷἸουδαῖος , καὶπεριτομὴκαρδίαςἐνπνεύματιοὐγράμματι . Thus the real Jew only, and the real circumcision only, are expressed in both verses. This is the arrangement of Beza, Estius, Rü ckert, De Wette: Erasm., Luther, Meyer, Fritzsche, take Ἰουδαῖος , and ἐνπν . οὐγράμ ., as the predicates in ver. 29; but the latter gives a very vapid sense, besides that the opposition of ὁἐντῷφανερῷ , and ὁἐντῷκρυπτῷ is, as De W. observes, also vapid. 29. ἐντῷκρ . as belonging to Ἰουδ . is parallel with καρδίας as belonging to περιτομή , both designating the inner and spiritual reality, of which the name of Jew and the carnal circumcision are only the signs. περ . καρδ . is no new expression:— we have it virtually in Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4: see also Acts 7:51. ἐνπν . οὐγρ .] in [the] spirit, not in [the] letter. Not merely ‘ spiritually, not externally:’ nor does πν . allude to the necessitating cause of circumcision (the uncleanness of the inner man) (Œ c., Grot., Estius, Fritzsche):— nor signify the material (‘ quæ spiritu constat,’ Erasm.): nor the rule (Meyer),— but as De Wette rightly, the living power or element, wherewith that inner sphere of being is filled— ἐν being [used] as in Acts 17:28, of that in which any thing lives and moves,— compare χαρὰἐνπν . ἁγίῳ , ch. 14:17,— ἀγάπηἐνπν ., Colossians 1:8,— δουλεύεινἐνκαιν . πν ., ch. 7:6,— εἶναιἐνπν ., ch. 8:9. So that πνεῦμα here is not man’ s spirit, nor properly the Holy Spirit, but the spirit, as opposed to the letter, of the Jewish law and of all God’ s revelation of himself. οὗ ] viz. Ἰουδαίου ,— of the true Jew. περιτομὴκαρδ . as belonging to him, is subordinate. The ἔπαινος of such a character, (for ἔπαινος it must be,) can only come from him who sees ἐντῷκρυπτῷ (Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:6), and can discern the heart. 3:1-20. Taking into all fair account the real advantages of the Jews, these cannot, by the testimony of scripture itself concerning them, exempt them from this sentence of guiltiness before God, in which all flesh are involved. 1-4. The circumcised Jew did unquestionably possess great advantages, which were not annulled by the rebellion of some. 1. οὖν , ‘ quæ cum ita sint.’ If true Judaism and true circumcision be merely spiritual, what is the profit of external Judaism and ceremonial circumcision? περισσόν ] advantage, profit, pre-eminence,— see reff. It is best to take the question, not as coming from an objector, which supposition has obscured several parts of this Epistle, but as asked by the Apostle himself, anticipating the thoughts of his reader. 2. πολύ answers the first question of ver. 1, but takes no account of the second, as it is virtually included in the first. Nor can it be properly regarded as answered in ch. 4:1 ff. (see there). κατὰπάντατρ .] not merely omnino, but as E. V. (in) every way, i.e. in all departments of the spiritual life. πρῶτον ] The Apostle begins as if intending to instance several of these advantages, but having mentioned the greatest, leaves it to his reader to fill in the rest, and turns to establish what he has just asserted. For πρῶτον can only be first,— ‘ secondly,’ &c., being to follow:— not, ‘ primarium illud’ (as Beza),— nor ‘ præ cipue’ (as Calv.),— nor ‘ id quod præ cipuum est’ (as Calov.), all of which are attempts to avoid the anacoluthon: compare a similar one at ch. 1:8. ἐπιστ .] see reff.— they were entrusted with. τὰλόγιατ . θεοῦ ] These words look very like a reminiscence of Stephen’ s apology, see Acts 7:38. These oracles are not only the law of Moses, but all the revelations of God hitherto made of Himself directly, all of which had been entrusted to Jews only. By these they were received into a special covenant, which advantage is therefore included in their being entrusted with the divine oracles. 3. And this advantage is not cancelled, nor the covenant annulled, by their disobedience. τίγάρ ;] For what? (‘ quid enim?’ Hor. Sat. i. 1. 7.) The γάρ confirms the preceding— the τί indicates some difficulty, or anticipated objection to it. εἰἠπίστ . τινες ] If we place an interrogation at γάρ , we must render this, suppose some were unfaithful; if only a comma, as in E. V., ‘ For what if … ’ The former seems preferable, as more according to usage. See Philippians 1:18. ἠπίστησαν , did not believe. If this seem out of place here, where he is not speaking of faith or want of faith as yet, but of ἀδικία (ver. 5) and moral guilt, we may meet the objection by remembering that unbelief is here taken more on its practical side, as involving disobedience, than on the other. They were ἄπιστοι , unfaithful to the covenant, the very condition of which was to walk in the ways of the Lord and observe his statutes. The word may have been chosen on account of ἐπιστεύθησαν above and τ . πίστιντ . θεοῦ below. μὴἡἀπ . κ .τ .λ .] shall their unfaithfulness cancel (nullify) the faithfulness of God? ‘ Because they have broken faith on their part, shall God break faith also on His?’ 4. μὴγέν ., let it not be: see reff. The Apostle uses this expression of pious horror, when he has supposed or mentioned any thing by which the honour, truth, or justice of God would be compromised, as here by His covenant-word being broken. It is often found in Polybius, Arrian, and the later Greek writers. γινέσθωκ .τ .λ .] ‘ rather let us believe all men on earth to have broken their word and truth, than God His. Whatever becomes of men and their truth, His truth must stand fast.’ The citation which follows goes to the depth of the matter. It is the penitent confession of a sinner, that he is sensible how entirely against God his sin has been, and how clearly his own unworthiness sets God’ s judgment against sin vindicated before him. And to this meaning the objection in the next verses is addressed,— see below. That thou mightest be justified (shewn to be just) in thy sayings (sentences, words of judgment), and mightest conquer when Thou art judged,— ב ּ ְ ש ׁ ָ פ ְ ט ְ ך ָ ‘ in thy judging,’ which cannot well be our rendering of ἐντῷκρίνεσθαίσε ,— i.e. ‘ when thy dealings are called in question by men.’ 5. In the citation, the penitent regarded his sin as having been the instrument of bringing out God’ s justice into clearer light. On the abuse which might be made of such a view, the Apostle founds another question:— It would almost seem as if God would be unjust in inflicting His wrath (the consequences of His wrath) on men whose very impiety has been the means whereby His own righteousness has been shewn forth, and established.’ ἡμῶν ] ‘ of the Jews’ (Grot., De Wette, &c.), not ‘ of all men’ (Fritzsche), for only to the Jews can ver. 7 apply. δικαιοσύνην ] viz. that established by the δικαιοῦσθαι of ver. 4; not His goodness (as Chrys., Theodoret, Grot., al.),— nor His truth (Beza, al.). κατὰἄνθρωπονλέγω ] said, as elsewhere by Paul, to excuse a supposition bearing with it an aspect of inconsistency or impiety:— not implying that he speaks in the person of another, but that he puts himself into the place of the generality of men, and uses arguments such as they would use. 6. He does not enter into the objection and answer it in detail, but rejects at once the idea of God being unjust, alluding probably to Genesis 18:25, by recalling to mind, that the Judge of all the earth must do right. ἐπεί , for . τὸνκόσμον is not the Gentiles (Bengel, Reiche, Olsh., al.), nor is the respondent in ver. 7a Gentile (Olsh., at., not Bengel), but one of the ἡμῶν in ver. 5, only individualized to bring out one such case of pretended injustice more strikingly. 7. This follows upon ver. 6, and shews that the supposition if carried out, would overthrow all God’ s judgment, and (ver. 8) the whole moral life of man. How shall God judge the world? For, if the truth (faithfulness) of God abounded (was manifested, more clearly established) by means of my falsehood (unfaithfulness), to His glory (so that the result has been the setting forth of His glory), why any longer (ἔτι , this being so,— assuming the premises) am I also (i.e. as well as others,— am I to be involved in a judgment from which I ought to be exempt) judged (to be judged,— the pres. expressing the rule or habit of God’ s proceeding) as a sinner? And (why should we) not (in this case rather say) as we (I Paul, or we Christians) are slanderously reported, and as some give out that we (do) say (ὅτι recitantis), “ Let us do evil that good may come?” whose condemnation (not that of our slanderers (Grot., Tholuck), but that of those who so say and act) is according to justice (not only by the preceding argument, but by the common detestation of all men, for such a maxim as doing evil that good may come). The way adopted generally (Calv., Beza, Grot., Bengel, Wolf, Rü ckert, Kö llner, Tholuck) is to connect ver. 7 by γάρ with ver. 5, and to regard κατὰἄνθρ .… κόσμον as a series of parentheses; but I very much prefer that given above, which, in the main, is De Wette’ s. Fritzsche and Schrader strangely enough regard κἀγώ as bona fide the individual Paul, and κρίνομαι as the judgment passed by his adversaries (“ nam si Dei veracitas meo peccatoris mendacio abunde in Dei laudem cessit, cur adhuc ego quoque, Paulus, tanquam facinorosus ab hominibus reus agor,” &c.): Reiche, Olsh., &c. put ver. 7 into the mouth of a Gentile: Bengel, into that of a Jew. Doubtless the main reference of this part of the argument is to Jews: but the reasoning from the introduction of the words τὸνκόσμον (see above) is general, applying both to Jew and Gentile, and shewing the untenableness of any such view as that of the Jewish objection of ver. 5. 9-20. The Jew has no preference, but is guilty as well as the Gentile, as shewn by Scripture; so that no man can by the law be righteous before God. 9. τίοὖν cannot be joined with προεχόμεθα (Œ , &c.), because οὐδέν would then have been the answer. There is considerable difficulty in προεχόμεθα . The meaning of προέχομαι every where else is passive, ‘ to be surpassed,’ and προέχω , act., is to surpass, or have the pre-eminence. So Plut. p. 1038 d (Wetst.), κατ ʼ οὐδὲνπροεχομένοιςὑπὸτοῦΔιός , ‘ cum Jove minores non sint:’ and Herod, i. 32, ὁμὲνδὴμέγαπλούσιοςἀνόλβιοςδέ , δυοῖσιπροέχειτοῦεὐτυχοῦςμόνον , &c. (see Wetst.) Those therefore who have wished to preserve the usage of the word, have variously interpreted it in that attempt: Wetst. would render it passively, and understand it (as spoken by a Jew) ‘ Are we surpassed by the Gentiles?’ But (1) for this inference there is no ground in what went before, but the contrary (vv. 1ff.),— and (2) the question if it mean this, is not dealt with in what follows. Œ cum. (2nd altern.) regards it as said by a Gentile, ‘ Are we surpassed by the Jews?’ but for this question there is no ground in the preceding, for all has tended to lower the Jews in comparison and reduce all to one level. Reiche and Olsh. take it passively, and render, ‘ Are we preferred (by God)?’ but no example of this meaning occurs, the above use in Plutarch not justifying it. Koppe and Wahl render, taking it as the middle voice, ‘ What can we then allege (as an excuse)?’ but this will not suit οὐπάντως . Meyer, ‘ What then, have we an excuse?’ but προεχόμ . has not this meaning. Fritzsche, ‘ What then? do we excuse ourselves (i.e. shall we make any excuse)?’ But (1) προεχ . is put absolutely; and (2) the answer would rather be μηδαμῶς than οὐπάντως , which replies to a question on matter of fact. Besides (3) the argument would then go to shew, not that all are sinners, as it does, vv. 10-20, but that all are liable to God’ s wrath, without excuse, The only way left seems (with Theophyl., Œ c. (1st altern.), Schol. in Matthaï , Pelag., Vulg., Erasm., Luther, Calv., Beza, Grot., Bengel, Tholuck, Kö llner, Schrader, De Wette, al.) to take προεχόμεθα as middle, and understand it as προέχομεν — Have we (Jews) the (any) preference? We have an use of παρέχομαι as active, Acts 19:24, Titus 2:7. See also Winer, edn. 6, § 38. 5. οὐπάντως ] No, by no means. This would more naturally be πάντωςοὐ , see reff. But we have οὐδὲνπάντως for ‘ not at all,’ Herod. v. 34. The meaning ‘ not in every way,’ ‘ not altogether,’ — as 1 Corinthians 5:10 and Theophr. de Caus. Plant. vi.24(Wetst.), ποιεῖγὰροὐπάντως , ἀλλ ʼ ἐὰνοὐλήτιςᾖὑπόκαυστος ,— will not apply, for it does not agree with what follows, where the Apostle proves absolute equality in respect of his argument. προῃτ .… εἶναι ] we have before proved (chs. 1. 2.) both Jews and Gentiles all to be under sin; the construction is not acc. and inf.,— that Jews and Gentiles are under sin,— but Ἰουδ .… πάντας is acc. after the verb, and ὑφ ʼ ἁμ . εἶναι the matter of the charge,— q. d. ‘ we have before brought in guilty Jews and Gentiles all as sinners.’ 10-18. Proof of this universal sinfulness from the Scripture, said directly (ver. 19) of the Jews, but a portion including, and taken for granted of, the Gentiles. Compare throughout the LXX (reff.). 11. In the Psalm,— Jehovah looked down from heaven on the children of men, to see εἰἔστισυνιὼνἢἐκζητῶντ . θ . He found none. This result is put barely by the Apostle as the testimony of Scripture, giving the sense, but departing from the letter. 13. ἐδολιοῦσαν , an Alexandrine form for ἐδολίουν ; see Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 349. The open sepulchre is an emblem of perdition, to which their throat, as the instrument of their speech, is compared. 15. The LXX (Isa l. c.) have οἱδὲπόδεςαὐτῶνἐπὶπονηρίαντρέχουσι , ταχινοὶἐκχέαιαἷμα · καὶοἱδιαλογισμοὶαὐτῶνδιαλογισμοὶἀπὸφόνων · σύντριμμακαὶταλαιπωρίαἐνταῖςὁδοῖςαὐτῶν , καὶὁδὸνεἰρήνηςοὐκοἴδασιν . 19. He proves the applicability of these texts to the Jews by their being found in the Jewish Scriptures: not in any Gentile representation, which might exclude Jews, but spoken universally, in those very books which were the cherished possession of the Jews themselves. ὁνόμος ] Here, the whole O. T., the law, prophets, and Psalms: see John 10:34, where our Lord cites a Psalm as in ‘ the law.’ τοῖςἐντῷν . λαλεῖ ] it speaks (not says,— λαλέω is not ‘ to say,’ see John 8:25, note) to (or for, dat. commodi: i.e. its language belongs to, is true of, when not otherwise specified) those who are in (under) the law. So that the Jews cannot plead exemption from this description or its consequences. ἵνα in order that— not ‘ so that:’ the bringing in all the world guilty before God is an especial and direct aim of the revelation of God’ s justice in the law,— that His grace by faith in Christ may come on all who abandon self-righteousness and believe the gospel. πᾶνστόμαφραγῇ ] If the Jew’ s mouth is shut, and his vaunting in the law taken away, then much more the Gentile’ s, and the whole world (see above ver. 6) becomes (subjective, as γίνεσθω ver. 4) guilty before God. 20. The solemn and important conclusion of all the foregoing argument. But not only the conclusion from it: it is also the great truth, which when arrived at, is seen to have necessitated the subordinate conclusion of ver. 19, the stopping of every mouth, &c. And therefore it is introduced, not with an illative conjunction, ‘ wherefore’ (which διότι will not bear), but with ‘ because.’ Because by the works of the law (God’ s law: whether in the partial revelation of it written in the consciences of the Gentiles, or in the more complete one given by Moses to the Jews,— not, by works of law: no such general idea of law seems to have ever been before the mind of the Apostle, but always the law, emanating from God) shall no flesh be justified before Him (the future as implying possibility,— perhaps also as referring to the great day when πᾶσασάρξ shall stand before God,— perhaps also as a citation from ref. Ps. LXX, οὐδικαιωθήσεταιἐνώπιόνσουπᾶςζῶν . οὐ .… πᾶσα , which we render by nulla, must be kept in the mind to its logical precision: All flesh— subject— shall be— copula— not justified— predicate). The Apostle does not here say either (1) that justification by legal works would be impossible if the law could be wholly kept, or (2) that those were not justified who observed the prescribed sacrifices and offerings of the ceremonial law (of which he has never once spoken, but wholly of the moral): but he infers from his argument on matters of fact, a result in matter of fact: ‘ Mankind, Jew and Gentile, have all broken God’ s law, and are guilty before Him: Man keeps not God’ s law. By that law then he cannot arrive at God’ s righteousness.’ διὰγὰρ .… ] For by [means of] the law (as before, whether partially known to the Gentile or more fully to the Jew) is the knowledge of sin (whatever knowledge each has,— whether the accusing and excusing of the Gentile’ s conscience, or the clearer view of offence against Jehovah granted to the Jew). The reasoning is:— the law has no such office, in the present state of human nature manifested both in history and Scripture, as to render righteous: its office is altogether different, viz. to detect and bring to light the sinfulness of man. Compare Galatians 2:16. 21-5:11. The entrance into God’ s righteousness (ch. 1:17) is shewn to be by faith. 21-26. The Apostle resumes the declaration of ch. 1:17 (having proved that man has no righteousness of his own resulting from the observance of God’ s law): viz. that God’ s righteousness is revealed by Christ, whose atoning Death is, consistently with God’ s justice, sufficient for the pardon of sin to those who believe in Him. 21. νυνί ] Is this of time, ‘ now,’ in contradistinction to ages past, = ἐντῷνῦνκαιρῷ , ver. 26,— or is it merely = ‘ as things are,’ ‘ now we find?’ The former is held by Grot., Bengel, Tholuck, Reiche, Olsh., Rü ckert, al.,— the latter by Fritzsche, Meyer, and De Wette. The former is true in sense, and applicable to the circumstances of the gospel: but the meaning is too strong, where no contrast of time is expressly in view. I therefore prefer the latter, especially as Paul’ s usage elsewhere justifies it; see ch. 7:17; 1 Corinthians 15:20. χωρὶςνόμου ] without the (help of the) law, ‘ independently of the law:’ not ‘ without the works of the law;’ for here it is not the way to the δικ . θεοῦ which is spoken of (which is faith), but that δικ . itself. δικαιος . θεοῦ ] God’ s righteousness: in what sense, see ch. 1:17, and note. πεφανέρωται ] viz. in the facts of the gospel. The perfect sets forth the manifestation of this righteousness in history as an accomplished and still enduring fact— the ἀποκαλύπτεται of ch. 1:17 denotes the continual unfolding of this righteousness in the hearts and lives of faithful believers. μαρτυρουμένηκ .τ .λ .] being borne witness to (pres. because the law and prophets remain on record as a revelation of God’ s will) by the law and the prophets (not merely the types and prophecies, but the whole body of the O. T., see Matthew 22:40). 22. δικαιος . δὲθ .] but that (so δέ in Herod. vii. 8, ἈρισταγόρῃτῷΜιλησίῳ , δούλῳδὲἡμετέρῳ ,— and i. 114, ὑπὸτοῦσοῦδούλου , βουκόλουδὲπαιδός : the contrast being between the general mention which has preceded, and the specific distinction now brought in. See Hartung, Partikellehre i. 168 ff.) the righteousness of God which is (ἡ is not necessary, the art. being often omitted in cases where the ear is reminded of a usage of the cognate verb with a preposition, such as δικαιοῦσθαιδιὰπίστεως . Compare Colossians 1:4, ἀκούσαντεςτὴνπίστινὑμ . ἐνχριστῷἸης ., and Ephesians 3:4, δύνασθενοῆσαιτὴνσύνεσίνμουἐντῷμυστηρίῳ (συνιέντεςἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳ occurs Daniel 1:4 Theod.). See Winer, edn. 6, § 20. 2. b) by the faith in Jesus Christ (gen.: see reff.). εἰςπάντ . [κ . ἐπὶπάντ .] depends on πεφανέρωται ,— (is revealed) unto all [, and upon (‘ over,’ so as to be shed down on,’ but in the theological meaning, no real difference of sense from εἰς ; this repetition of prepositions to give force is peculiar to Paul, see ver. 30, and Galatians 1:1) all] who believe. Probably the repetition of πάντας was suggested by the two kinds of believers, Jew and Gentile, so as to prepare the way for οὐγάρἐστιδιαστολή (but still no essential difference in the interpretations of εἰς and ἐπί must be sought). 23. [ὑστεροῦνται should be rendered fall short, not, as E. V., “ come short,” since this latter may be taken for the past tense, after the auxiliary “ have.” ] τῆςδόξηςτοῦθεοῦ ] Of the praise which comes from God, see reff. (so Grot., Thol., Reiche, Fritz., Meyer, Rü ckert, De Wette): not, ‘ of praise in God’ s sight’ (Luther, Calv., Estius, Kö llner): nor, ‘ of glory with God,’ as ch. 5:2 (Œ c., Beza, al.),— for the Apostle is not speaking here of future reward, but of present worthiness: nor, of the glorious image of God which we have lost through sin (Calov., al., Rü ckert, Olsh.), which is against both the usage of the word, and the context of the passage. 24. δικαιούμενοι agrees with πάντες , without any ellipsis; nor need it be resolved into καὶδικαιοῦνται : the participial sentence is subordinated to the great general statement of the insufficiency of all to attain to the glory of God. It is not necessary, in the interpretation, that the subjects of πάντες and δικαιούμενοι should be in matter of fact strictly commensurate:— ‘ all have sinned— all are (must be, if justified) justified freely, &c.’ δωρεάν ] see reff.: here ‘ without merit or desert as arising from earnings of our own;’ ‘ gratis.’ τῇαὐτοῦχάριτι ] by His grace, i.e. ‘ His free undeserved Love,’ as the working cause (De W.). διὰτῆςἀπολ . κ .τ .λ .] By means of the propitiatory redemption which is in (has been brought about by, and is now in the Person of) Christ Jesus. ἀπολύτρωσις , redemption by a λύτρον , propitiation,— and, as expressed by the preposition ἀπο , redemption from some state of danger or misery: here,— redemption from the guilt of sin by the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ’ s death, see reff. and Matthew 20:28. In Ephesians 1:7 this ἀπολύτρωσις is is defined to = ἡἄφεσιςτῶνπαραπτωμάτων . 25. προέθετο , not here ‘ decreed,’ as in reff. N. T.,— but put forth, set forth, manifested historically in His incarnation, sufferings, and exaltation. Wetst. quotes Thucyd. ii. 34, τὰὀστᾶπροτίθενταιτῶνἀπογενομένων , ‘ they expose the bones of the deceased to public view.’ ἱλαστήριον ] as a propitiatory offering. So we have σωτήρια , Exodus 20:24,— χαριστήριον , 2 Macc. 12:45,— and καθάρσιον , Herod. i. 35, in the sense of thank-offerings and offerings of purification (no subst., as θῦμα , need be supplied,— the words being themselves substantives): and we have this very word in Dio Chrysos. Orat. ii. p. 184 (cited by Stuart), where he says that the Greeks offered an ἱλαστήριοντῇἈθήνᾳ , a propitiatory sacrifice. The ordinary interpretation (Theodoret, Theophyl., Luth., Calv., Grot., Calov., Wolf, Olsh.) is founded on the sense in which the LXX use the word, as signifying the golden cover of the ark of the covenant, between the Cherubim, where Jehovah appeared and whence He gave His oracles. τὸἱλαστήριονπέταλονἦνχρυσοῦν , ἐπέκειτοδὲτῷκιβωτῷ . ἑκατέρωθενδὲεἶχετὰτῶνχερουβὶμἐκτυπώματα . ἐκεῖθεντῷἀρχιερεῖλειτουργοῦντιἐγίνετοδήλητοῦθεοῦἡεὐμένεια .… τὸἀληθινὸνἱλαστήριονὁδεσπότηςἐστὶχριστός · ἐκεῖνοδὲτὸπαλαιὸντούτουτὸντύπονἐπλήρου . ἁρμόττειδὲαὐτῷὡςἀνθρώπῳτὸὄνομα , οὐχὡςθεῷ · ὡςγὰρθεός , αὐτὸςδιὰτοῦἱλαστηρίουχρηματίζει . Theodoret: on which Theophylact further,— ἐδήλουδὲπάντωςτὴνἀνθρωπίνηνφύσιν , ἥτιςπῶμαἦντῆςθεότητος , ἐπικαλύπτουσαταύτην . The expression occurs in full, ἱλαστήριονἐπίθεμα , Exodus 25:17: elsewhere ἱλαστήριον only, as ref. Heb. See also Philo, Vita Mos. iii. 8, vol. ii. p. 150. But De Wette well shews the inapplicability of this interpretation, as not agreeing with εἰςἔνδειξινκ .τ .λ . (which requires a victim, see below), and as confusing the unity of the idea here, Christ being (according to it) one while a victim , and another, something else. The other interpretation (Vulg. propitiationem: so E. V.: Beza, Rü ckert, al.: adj.— Rosenmü ller, Wahl), which makes ἱλαστήριον an adj. agreeing with ὅν , ‘ a propitiator,’ hardly agrees with προέθετο , implying an external demonstration of Christ as the ἱλαστήριον , not merely an appointment in the divine œ conomy. διὰπίστεως ] by faith, as the subjective means of appropriation of this propitiation:— not to be joined with ἐναὐτοῦαἵματι (but the omission of τῆς is no objection to this, see above on ver. 22), as Luth., Calv. al., Olsh., Rü ckert,— for such an expression as πίστις or πιστεύωἐντῷαἵμ . Ἰ . χρ . would be unexampled,— and (which is decisive) the clause ἐντῷαὐτοῦαἵματι requires a primary, not a subordinate place in the sentence, because the next clause, εἰςἔνδ . τ . δικ . αὐτ ., directly refers to it. As διὰπίστ . is the subjective means of appropriation, so ἐντῷαἵμ . αὐτοῦ is the objective means of manifestation, of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. αἷμα does not = θάνατος , but refers to propitiation by blood,— the well-known typical use of it in sacrifice. εἰςἔνδειξινκ .τ .λ .] in order to the manifestation of His righteousness: this is the aim of the putting forth of Christ as an expiatory victim. δικαιοσύνη , not truth (, al.),— not goodness (Theodoret, Grot., Hammond, Koppe, Rosenm., Reiche),— not both these combined with justice (Beza),— not justifying or sin-forgiving righteousness (Chrys., , Estius, Krehl, B.-Crus.),— not the righteousness which He gives (Luther, Elsner, Wolf, al.), which last would repeat the idea already contained in ver. 21 and rob εἰςτὸεἶναιαὐτ . δίκαιον of all meaning,— not holiness, which does not correspond to δίκαιος and δικαιοῦν ,— but judicial righteousness, justice (as , Calov., Tholuck, Meyer, Schrader, Rü ckert Exo_2, al.). This interpretation alone suits the requirements of the sense, and corresponds to the idea of δικαιοῦν , which is itself judicial. A sin-offering betokens on the one side the expiation of guilt, and on the other ensures pardon and reconciliation: and thus the Death of Christ is not only a proof of God’ s grace and love, but also of His judicial righteousness which requires punishment and expiation. (Mainly from De Wette.) διὰτ . πάρεσινκ .τ .λ .] = διὰτὸπαριέναιτὸνθεὸντὰπρογ . ἁμαρτήματαἐντῇἀνοχῇαὐτοῦ , and contains the reason why God would manifest His judicial righteousness; on account of the overlooking of the sins which had passed, in the forbearance of God: i.e. to vindicate that character for justice, which might seem, owing to the suspension of God’ s righteous sentence on sin in former ages in His forbearance, to be placed in question:— to shew, that though He did not then fully punish for sin, and though He did then set forth inadequate means of (subjective) justification,— yet He did both, not because His justice was slumbering, nor because the nature of His righteousness was altered,— but because He had provided a way whereby sin might be forgiven, and He might be just. Observe, πάρεσις is not forgiveness [nor “ remission,” as E. V. erroneously renders it], but [passing over, or] overlooking, which is the work of forbearance (see Acts 17:30), whereas forgiveness is the work of grace,— see ch. 2:4:— nor is τῶνπρογεγ . ἁμ ., ‘ the sins of each man which precede his conversion ‘ (Calov.), but those of the whole world before the death of Christ. See the very similar words Hebrews 9:15. The rendering διὰ , ‘ by means of’ (Origen, Luth., Calv., Calov., Le Clerc, Elsn., Koppe, Reiche, Schrader), is both ungrammatical and unmeaning. 26. πρὸςτὴνἔνδ . κ .τ .λ .] The art. distinguishes this ἔνδειξις from the former, as the fuller and ultimate object, of which that ἔνδειξις was a subordinate part:— with a view to the (or His) manifestation of his righteousness in this present time. The shewing forth that He was righteous throughout His dealings with the whole world, by means of setting forth an adequate and complete propitiation in the death of Christ, was towards, formed a subsidiary manifestation to, His great manifestation of His righteousness (same sense as before, judicial righteousness, justice) under the Gospel. The joining πρὸςτὴνἔνδειξ . κ .τ .λ . with ἐντῇἀνοχῇτ . θεοῦ (Beza, Rü ckert Exo_2, Thol., al.) would draw off the attention from the leading thought of the sentence to a digression respecting the ἀνοχὴτ . θ ., which is not probable. εἰςτὸεἶναικ .τ .λ .] in order that He may be (shewn to be:— the whole present concern is with ἔνδειξις , the exhibition to men of the righteousness of God) just and (yet, on the other side) justifying him who is of (the) faith in Jesus (τὸνἐκπίστ . Ἰης ., him who belongs to, stands in, works from as his standing-point, faith in Jesus: see ch. 2:8, note, and reff.). 27-4:25. Jewish boasting altogether removed by this truth, not however by making void the law, nor by degrading Abraham from his pre-eminence, but by establishing the law, and shewing that Abraham was really justified by faith, and is the father of the faithful. 27. ἡκαύχησις , the boasting, viz. of the Jews, of which he had spoken before, ch. 2, not ‘ boasting’ in general, which will not suit ver. 29. (So Theodoret, τὸὑψηλὸντῶνἸουδαίωνφρόνημα ,— Chrys., Theophyl., Œ c.:— Vulg.: gloriatio tua: Bengel, Rü ckert, Meyer, De Wette, al.) ἐξεκλ .] οὐκἔτιχώρανἔχει , Theodoret. διὰπ . ν . κ .τ .λ .] By what law (is it excluded)? (is it by that) of works? No, but by the law (norma, the rule) of faith. The contrast is not here between the law and the Gospel as two dispensations, but between the law of works and the law of faith, whether found under the law, or the Gospel, or (if the case admitted) any where else. This is evident by the Apostle proving below that Abraham was justified, not by works, so as to have whereof to boast, but by faith. 28. λογιζόμεθα , not ‘ we conclude,’ but we hold, we reckon, see reff.: the former is against N. T. usage; and has probably caused the change of γάρ into οὖν , by some who imagined that this verse was a conclusion from the preceding argument. For we hold (as explanatory of the verse preceding,— on the other supposition the two verses are disjointed, and the conclusion comes in most strangely), that a man is justified by faith [apart from] (without [but more than without— so distinctly without as to be utterly and entirely separate from and independent of]) the works of the law (not works of law); and therefore boasting is excluded. 29. In shewing how completely Jewish boasting is excluded, Paul purposes to take the ground of their own law, and demonstrate it from that. He will shew that God is not (the God) of Jews alone, but of Gentiles, and that this very point was involved in the promise made to Abraham, by believing which he was Justified (ch. 4), and therefore that it lies in the very root and kernel of the law itself. But, as often elsewhere, he passes off from this idea again and again, recurring to it however continually,— and eventually when he brings forward his proof-text (πατέραπολλῶνἐθνῶντέθεικάσε , 4:17), Abraham’ s faith, and not this fact, has become the leading subject. 30. εἴπερ ] if at least (if we are to hold to what is manifest as a result of our former argument) God is One, who shall justify the circumcision (= the Jews, after the analogy of ch. 2:26) by (ἐκ , as the preliminary condition,— the state out of which the justification arises) faith, and the uncircumcision (the Gentiles) through (by means of) their faith. Too much stress must not be laid on the difference of the two prepositions (see ver. 22 and note). The omission of the art. in ἐκπίστ . and its expression in διὰτῆςπίστ . are natural enough: the former expresses the ground of justification, generally taken, ἐκπίστεως , by faith: the latter the means whereby the man lays hold on justification, διὰτῆςπίστεως , by his faith: the former is the objective ground, the latter the subjective medium. Jowett’ s rendering of περιτομὴνἐκπίστεως , ‘ the circumcision that is of faith,’ though ingenious, is hardly philologically allowable, nor would it correspond to the other member of the sentence, which he rightly renders ‘ and the uncircumcision through their faith.’ To understand τῆςπίστεως (as Mr. Green, Gr. p.300) as referring to πίστεως just mentioned ‘ by the instrumentality of the identical faith which operates in the case of the circumcised,’ is to contradict the fact: the faith was not, strictly speaking, identical in this sense, or the two cases never need have been distinguished. See vv. 1, 2. 31. But again the Jew may object, if this is the case, if Faith be the ground, and Faith the medium, of justification for all, circumcised or uncircumcised, surely the law is set aside and made void. That this is not so, the Apostle both here asserts, and is prepared to shew by working out the proposition of ver. 29, that the law itself belonged to a covenant whose original recipient was justified by faith, and whose main promise was, the reception and blessing of the Gentiles. νόμον , not ‘ law,’ but the law, as every where in the Epistle. We may safely say that the Apostle never argues of law, abstract, in the sense of a system of precepts,— its attributes or its effects,— but always of the law, concrete,— the law of God given by Moses, when speaking of the Jews, as here: the law of God, in as far as written in their consciences, when speaking of the Gentiles: and when including both, the law of God generally, His written as well as His unwritten will. Many Commentators have taken this verse (being misled in some cases by its place at the end of the chapter) as standing by itself, and have gone into the abstract grounds why faith does not make void the law (or moral obedience); which, however true, have no place here: the design being to shew that the law itself contained this very doctrine, and was founded in the promise to Abraham on a covenant embracing Jews and Gentiles,— and therefore was not degraded from its dignity by the doctrine, but rather established as a part of God’ s dealings,— consistent with, explaining, and explained by, the Gospel. 4:1-5. Abraham himself was justified by faith. The reading and punctuation of this verse present some difficulties. As to the first (see var. read.), the variation in the order of the words, and the reading προπάτορα seemed to me formerly, however strongly supported, to have sprung out of an idea that κατὰσάρκα belonged to πατέρα . This being supposed, εὑρηκέναι appeared to have been transposed to throw πατέραἡμ . κατὰσάρκα together,— and then, because Abraham is distinctly proved (ver. 11) to have been in another sense the father of the faithful, πατέρα to have been altered to the less ambiguous προπάτορα , ancestor, a word not found in the N. T., but frequent in the Fathers. I therefore in the 3rd edition of this vol., with De Wette, Tholuck, and Tischendorf (in his last [7th, not 8th] edn.), retained the rec. text. Being now however convinced that we are bound to follow the testimony of our best mss., and to distrust such subjective considerations as unsafe, and generally able to be turned both ways, I have adopted the reading of &c., bracketing εὑρηκέναι as of doubtful authority, omitted as it is by B. Grot., Le Clerc, and Wetst. punctuate, τίοὖνἐροῦμεν ; εὑρηκ .… σάρκα :— and Matthaï , τίοὖν ; ἐροῦμ .… σάρκα ; supplying δικαιοσύνην after εὑρηκέναι . But as Thol. well remarks, both these methods of punctuating would presuppose that Paul had given some reason in the preceding verses for imagining that Abraham had gained some advantage according to the flesh: which is not the case. 1. οὖν ] The Apostle is here contending with those under the law from their own standing-point: and he follows up his νόμονἱστάνομεν , by what therefore shall we say, &c. This verse, and the argument following, are not a proof, but a consequence, of νόμονἱστ ., and are therefore introduced, not with γάρ , but with οὖν . εὑρηκέναι [if read]] viz. towards his justification, or more strictly, earned as his own, to boast of. κατὰσάρκα belongs to εὑρ ., not (as Chrys., Theophyl., Erasm.) to προπάτοραἡμ . For the course and spirit of the argument is not to limit the paternity of Abraham to a mere fleshly one, but to shew that he was the spiritual father of all believers. And the question is not one which requires any such distinction between his fleshly and spiritual paternity (as in ch. 9:3, 9:5). This being so, what does κατὰσάρκα mean? It cannot allude to circumcision; for that is rendered improbable, not only by the parallel expression ἐξἔργων in the plural, but also by the consideration, that circumcision was no ἔργον at all, but a seal of the righteousness which he had by faith being yet uncircumcised (ver. 11),— and by the whole course of the argument in the present place, which is not to disprove the exclusive privilege of the Jew (that having been already done, chs. 2. 3.), but to shew that the father and head of the race himself was justified not by works, but by faith. Doubtless, in so far as circumcision was a mere work of obedience, it might be in a loose way considered as falling under that category: but it came after justification, and so is chronologically here excluded. κατὰσάρκα then is in contrast to κατὰπνεῦμα ,— and refers to that department of our being from which spring works, in contrast with that in which is the exercise of faith: see ch. 8:4, 8:5. 2. For if Abraham was [not ‘ were’ as E. V.] justified (assuming, as a fact known to all, that he was justified by some means) by works, he hath matter of boasting . Then, in disproof of this,— that Abraham has matter of boasting,— whatever men might think of him, or attribute to him (e.g. the perfect keeping of the law, as the Jews did), one thing at least is clear, that he has none before God. (πρός , probably as in the second ref., with, in the sense of chez: apud Deum.) This we can prove, (ver. 3) for what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God (God’ s promise) and it was reckoned to him as (ch. 2:26) righteousness. The whole question so much mooted between Protestants on the one hand, and Romanists, Arminians, and Socinians on the other, as to whether this righteousness was reckoned (1) ‘ per fidem,’ being God’ s righteousness imputed to the sinner; or (2) ‘ propter fidem,’ so that God made Abraham righteous on account of the merit of his faith, lies in fact in a small compass, if what has gone before be properly taken into account. The Apostle has proved Jews and Gentiles to be all under sin: utterly unable by works of their own to attain to righteousness. Now faith, in the second sense mentioned above, is strictly and entirely a work, and as such would be the efficient cause of man’ s justification,— which, by what has preceded, it cannot be. It will therefore follow, that it was not the act of believing which was reckoned to him as a righteous act, or on account of which perfect righteousness was laid to his charge, but that the fact of his trusting God to perform His promise introduced him into the blessing promised. God declared his purpose (Genesis 12:3) of blessing all the families of the earth in Abraham, and again (Genesis 15:5) that his seed should be as the stars of heaven, when as yet he had no son. Abraham believed this promise, and became partaker of this blessing. But this blessing was, justification by faith in Christ. Now Abraham could not, in the strict sense of the words, be justified by faith in Christ,— nor is it necessary to suppose that he directed his faith forward to the promised Redeemer in Person; but in so far as God’ s gracious purpose was revealed to him, he grasped it by faith, and that righteousness which was implied, so far, in it, was imputed to him. Some have said (Tholuck, e.g.) that the parallel is incomplete— Abraham’ s faith having been reckoned to him for righteousness, whereas, in our case, the righteousness of Christ is reckoned to us as our righteousness, by faith. But the incompleteness lies in the nature of the respective cases. In his case, the righteousness itself was not yet manifested. He believed implicitly, taking the promise, with all it involved and implied, as true. This then was his way of entering into the promise, and by means of his faith was bestowed upon him that full justification which that faith never apprehended. Thus his faith itself, the mere fact of implicit trust in God, was counted to him for righteousness. But though the same righteousness is imputed to us who believe, and by means of faith also, it is no longer the mere fact of believing implicitly in God’ s truth, but the reception of Christ Jesus the Lord by faith, which justifies us (see vv. 23-25 and note). As it was then the realization of God’ s words by faith, so now: but we have the Person of the Lord Jesus for the object of faith, explicitly revealed: he had not. In both cases justification is gratuitous, and is by faith; and so far, which is as far as the argument here requires, the parallel is strict and complete. 4. τῷἐργαζομ .] (q. d. τῷἐργάτῃ , but the part. is used because of the negative τῷμὴἐργαζ . following)— to the workman (him that works for hire, that earns wages, compare προσηργάσατο , Luke 19:16) his wages are not reckoned according to (as a matter of) grace (favour), but according to (as a matter of) debt. The stress is on κατὰχάριν , not on λογίζεται , which in this first member of the sentence, is used hardly in the strict sense, of imputing or reckoning, but of allotting or apportioning:— its use being occasioned by the stricter λογίζεται below. And the sentence is a general one, not with any peculiar reference to Abraham,— except that after κατὰχάριν we may supply ὡςτῷἈβραάμ , if we will; for this is evidently assumed. 5. But to him who works not but believes on (casts himself in simple trust and humility on) Him who justifies (accounts just, as in ver. 3) the ungodly (‘ impious:’ stronger than ‘ unrighteous:’ — no allusion to Abraham’ s having formerly been in idolatry,— for the sentence following on ver. 4, which is general and of universal application, must also be general,— including of course Abraham: ἀσέβεια is the state of all men by nature),— his faith is reckoned as righteousness. κατὰχάριν is of course implied. 6-8. The same is confirmed by a passage from David. This is not a fresh example, but a confirmation of the assertion involved in ver. 5, that a man may believe on Him who justifies the ungodly, and have his faith reckoned for righteousness. The applicability of the text depends on the persons alluded to being sinners, and having sin not reckoned to them. ἀσεβεῖς and λογίζομαι are the two words to be illustrated. The Psalm, strictly speaking, says nothing of the imputation of righteousness,— but it is implied by Paul, that the remission of sin is equivalent to the imputation of righteousness— that there is no negative state of innocence— none intermediate between acceptance for righteousness, and rejection for sin. 6. λέγ . τὸνμακ .] pronounces the blessedness, ‘ the congratulation:’ in allusion perhaps to the Heb. form, א ַ ש ׁ ְ ר ֵ י ‘ (O) the blessings of,’ .… It is very clear that this righteousness must be χωρὶςἔργων , because its imputation consists in the remission and hiding of offences, whereas none can be legally righteous in whom there is any, even the smallest offence. 8. οὐμὴλογίσηται , as the same construction usually in the N. T., is future (Winer, edn. 6, § 56. 3), and must be referred to the great final judgment. Or we may say with Olsh. that the expression is an O. T. one, regarding sin as lying covered by the divine long-suffering till the completion of the work of Christ, at which time first real forgiveness of sins was imparted to the ancient believers; compare Matthew 27:53; 1 Peter 3:18. In this last view the future will only refer to all such cases as should arise. 9-12. This declaration of blessedness applies to circumcised and uncircumcised alike. For Abraham himself was thus Justified when in uncircumcision, and was then pronounced the father of the faithful, uncircumcised as well as circumcised. μακαρισμός of course includes the fact, on account of which the congratulation is pronounced,— the justification itself. 9. ἐπί ] sc. λέγεται , see reff. The form of the question, with ἢκαί , presupposes an affirmative answer to the latter clause; which affirmative answer is then made the ground of the argumentation in vv. 10, 11, 12:— On the uncircumcision (-cised) also. For we say, &c. The stress is on τῷἈβραάμ , not on ἡπίστις : for we say that to Abraham faith was reckoned for righteousness. 10. πῶς , under what circumstances? The interval between the recognition of his faith (Genesis 15:6) and his circumcision, was perhaps as much as twenty-five, certainly not less (Genesis 17:25) than fourteen years. 11. And he received (from God) the sign (token, or symbol) of circumcision (gen. of apposition, see reff. The reading περιτομήν appears to have been an alteration on account of σφραγῖδα following), a seal (the Targum on Son 3:8, cited by Tholuck, has the expression, ‘ the seal of circumcision,’ and in Sohar, Leviticus 6:21, it is called ‘ a holy sign.’ So also Baptism is called in the Acta Thomæ , § 26, ἡσφραγὶςτοῦλουτροῦ , and elsewhere in the Fathers simply ἡσφραγίς . Grabe, Spicil. Patr. i. 333) of the righteousness (to stamp, and certify the righteousness) of the faith (gen. of apposition (but not in appos. with δικ . by construction),— ‘ of the righteousness which consisted in his faith,’ — not, ‘ of his justification by faith:’ the present argument treats of faith accounted as righteousness) which was (or, ‘ which he had:’ τῆς may refer either to δικ . or to πίστ .,— but better to the former, because the object is to shew that the righteousness was imputed in uncircumcision) during his uncircumcision. In literal historical matter of fact, Abraham received circumcision as a seal of the covenant between God and him (Genesis 17:1-14). But this covenant was only a renewal of that very one, on the promise of which Abraham’ s faith was exercised, Genesis 15:5, Genesis 15:6,— and each successive renewal of which was a fresh approval of that faith. The Apostle’ s point is,— that the righteousness was reckoned, and the promise made, to Abraham, not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. εἰςτὸεἶναι .… ] In order that he might be (not ‘ so that he is;’ see Galatians 3:7) the father of all in uncircumcision that believe. Abraham is the father of the faithful. But the triumph and recognition of that faith whereby he was constituted so, was not during his circumcision, but during his uncircumcision:— therefore the faithful, his descendants, must not be confined to the circumcised, but must take in the uncircumcised also. On πατέρα in this sense, Tholuck compares the expression Genesis 4:20; Gen_1 Macc. 2:54 , and Maimonides, ‘ Moses is the father of all the prophets who succeeded him.’ See also our Lord’ s saying, John 8:37, John 8:39. The Rabbinical book Michlal Jophi on Mal_2. (Thol.) has a sentiment remarkably coincident with that in our text: “ Abraham is the father of all those who follow his faith.” εἰςτὸλογ . κ .τ .λ .] (is in fact parenthetical, whether brackets are used or not; for otherwise the construction from the former to the latter πατέρα would not proceed) in order that the righteousness (which Abraham’ s faith was reckoned as being,— the righteousness of God, then hidden though imputed, but now revealed in Jesus Christ) might be imputed to them also. 12. καὶπατέραπεριτομῆς .… ] And (that he might be) father of the circumcision (the circumcised) to those who are not only (physically) of the circumcision, but also who walk in the footsteps (reff.) of the faith of our father (speaking here as a Jew) Abraham (which he had) while he was in uncircumcision. (The art. would make it ‘ during his uncircumcision,’ — but the sense is better without it, the word being generalized.) 13-17. Not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith, was the inheritance of the world promised to Abraham: so that not only they who are of the law, but they who follow Abraham’ s faith are heirs of this promise. 13. γάρ , strictly for. The argumentation is an expansion of πατέραπάντ . τῶνπιστευόντων above. If these believers are Abraham’ s seed, then his promised inheritance is theirs. διὰνόμου ] not, ‘ under the law,’ — nor, ‘ by works of the law.’ — nor, ‘ by the righteousness of the law:’ but, through the law, so that the law should be the ground, or efficient cause, or medium, of the promise. None of these it was, as matter of historical fact. For not through the law was the promise (made) to Abraham, or (ἤ in negative sentences answers to καί in affirm., see Matthew 5:17) to his seed, viz. that he should be heir of the world, but by the righteousness of faith. This specification of the promise has perplexed most of the Commentators. The actual promise, Gen. (12:2, 3) 13:14-17; 15:18; 17:8, was the possession of the land of Canaan. But the Rabbis already had seen, and Paul, who had been brought up in their learning, held fast the truth,— that much more was intended in the words which accompany this promise, ‘ In thee (or in thy seed) shall all families of the earth be blessed,’ than the mere possession of Canaan. They distinctly trace the gift of the world to Abraham to this promise, not to the foregoing. So Bemidbar Rabb. xiv. 202. 3 (Wetst.),— ‘ Hortus est mundus, quem Deus tradidit Abrahamo, cui dictum est, “ et eris benedictio”  ’ (see other citations in Wetst.). The inheritance of the world then is not the possession of Canaan merely either literally, or as a type of a better possession,— but that ultimate lordship over the whole world which Abraham, as the father of the faithful in all peoples, and Christ, as the Seed of Promise, shall possess: the former figuratively indeed and only implicitly,— the latter personally and actually. See ch. 8:17; Matthew 5:5; 2 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 15:24. Another difficulty, that this promise was made chronologically before the reckoning of his faith for righteousness, is easily removed by remembering that the (indefinite) making of the promise is here treated of as the whole process of its assertion, during which Abraham’ s faith was shewn, and the promise continually confirmed. αὐτόν includes his seed. 14. The supposition is now made which ver. 13 denied,— and its consequences shewn. For if they who are of the law (who belong to the law, see reff.: not, ‘ who keep the law,’ nor is δίκαιοι to be supplied) are inheritors (i.e. inherit ‘ ejus rei causâ ,’ by virtue of the law: they may be inheritors by the righteousness of faith, but not quoad their legal standing), faith is (thereby) made empty (robbed of its virtue and rendered useless), and the promise is annulled (has no longer place). How and why so? The Apostle himself immediately gives the reason. 15. For the law works (brings about, gives occasion to) wrath (which from its very nature, excludes promise, which is an act of grace,— and faith, which is an attribute of confidence);— but where (or, for where; but I should regard γάρ as introduced to suit the idea of the second clause rendering a reason for the first) there is no law , neither (is there) transgression. ‘ We should rather expect (says De W.) the affirmative clause, “ And where the law is, there is transgression:” but the negative refers to the time before the Mosaic law, when there was no transgression and therefore also no wrath.’ Yes; but not because there was no transgression then; the purpose of the Apostle here is not to deny the existence of the law of God written in the heart (which itself brings in the knowledge of sin) before Moses, but to shew that no promise of inheritance can be by the law, because the property of the law is, the more it is promulgated, to reveal transgression more,— not to unfold grace. So that comparatively (see notes on ch. 7) there was no transgression before the law of Moses; and if we conceive a state in which the law whether written or unwritten should be altogether absent (as in the brute creation), there would be no transgression whatever. But observe (see ch. 5:12-14) that this reasoning does not touch the doctrine of the original taint of our nature in Adam,— only referring to the discrimination of acts, words, and thoughts by the conscience in the light of the law: for παράβασις is not natural corruption, but an act of transgression: nor does the Apostle here deny the former, even in the imaginable total absence of the law of God. 16. For this (viz. the following) reason it (the inheritance,— not the promise; the promise was not strictly speaking ἐκπίστεως :— nor must we supply they, meaning the heirs, who although they might fairly be said to be ἐκπίστεως (compare οἱἐκνόμου above, and reff.) could hardly be without harshness described as being κατὰχάριν ) was by faith that it might be according to grace (free unmerited favour. As the law bringing the knowledge of guilt, works wrath,— so the promise, awakening faith, manifests God’ s free grace,— the end for which it was given); in order that the promise might be sure (not, ‘ so that the promise was sure:’ this was the result, but the Apostle states this as the aim and end of the inheritance being by faith,— quoad the seed of Abraham,— that they all might be inheritors,— as the manifestation of God’ s grace was the higher aim and end) to all the seed, not only to that (part of it) which is of the law (see ver. 14), but to that which is of the faith (walks in the steps of the faith, ver. 12) of Abraham (it is altogether wrong to make Ἀβραάμ depend on σπέρματι expressed or understood, as Œ cum., Koppe, and Fritzsche). The part of the seed which is of the law here is of course confined to believing Jews; the seed being believers only. This has been sometimes lost sight of, and the whole argument of vv. 13-16 treated as if it applied to the doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law, a point already proved, and now presupposed,— the present argument being an historical and metaphysical one, proceeding on the facts of Abraham’ s history, and the natures respectively of the law and grace, to prove him to be the father of all believers, uncircumcised as well as circumcised. ὅςἐστινπατὴρπάντωνἡμῶν ] By the last declaration, the paternity of Abraham, which is co-extensive with the inheritance, has been extended to all who are of his faith; here therefore it is reasserted: ἡμῶν meaning τῶνπιστευόντων . 17. καθὼςγέγρ .] The words (ref.) are spoken of the numerous progeny of Abraham according to the flesh: but not without a reference to that covenant, according to the terms of which all nations were to be blessed in him. The Apostle may here cite it as comparing his natural paternity of many nations with his spiritual one of all believers: but it seems more probable that he regards the prophecy as directly announcing a paternity far more extensive than mere physical fact substantiated. These words are parenthetical, being merely a confirmation by Scripture testimony of ὅςἐστινπατ . πάντ . ἡμ ., with which (see below) the following words are immediately connected. κατέναντιοὖἐπίστευσενθεοῦ ] The meaning appears to be, ‘ Abraham was the father of us all,— though not physically, nor in actuality, seeing that we were not as yet,— yet in the sight and estimation of God,— in his relation with God, with whom no obstacles of nature or time have force.’ The resolution of the attraction must be κατέναντιθεοῦ , κατέναντιοὗἐπίστευσεν , as in ref. Luke, before God, in whose sight he believed. (Chrysostom’ s interpretation (and similarly Theodoret, al.),— ὥσπερὁθεὸςοὐκἔστιμερικὸςθεός , ἀλλὰπάντωνπατήρ , οὕτωκαὶαὐτὸς .… τὸγὰρ ‘ κατέναντι ’ ὁμοίωςἐστί ,— does not fall in with the context, and is certainly a mistake.) τοῦζωοπ . τ . νεκρ ] Who quickens the dead,— a general description of God’ s almighty creative power (see 1 Timothy 6:13), applied particularly to the matter in hand— the deadness of generative physical power in Abraham himself, which was quickened by God (but νεκρούς is a wider term than νενεκρωμένον , the genus, of which that is a species). The peculiar excellence of Abraham’ s faith, that it overleaped the obstacles of physical incapacity, and nonentity, and believed implicitly God’ s promise. Compare 2 Corinthians 1:9. καὶκαλ . τὰμὴὄνταὡςὄντα ] Much difficulty has been found here: and principally owing to an idea that this clause must minutely correspond with the former, and furnish another instance of God’ s creative Almightiness. Hence Commentators have given to καλεῖν the sense which it has in reff., ‘ to summon into being,’ and have understood ὡςὄντα as if it were εἰςτὸεἶναι . Thus, more or less, and with various attempts to escape from the violence done to the construction, Chrys., Grot., Elsn., Wolf, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Stuart, De Wette, al. I see however in this latter clause not a repetition or expansion of the former, but a new attribute of God’ s omnipotence and eternity, on which Abraham’ s faith was fixed, Who calleth (nameth, speaketh of) the things that are not, as being (as if they were). This He did in the present case with regard to the seed of Abraham, which did not as yet exist:— the two key-texts to this word and clause being, ἐνἸσαὰκκληθήσεταίσοισπέρμα ch. 9:7 (see note there),— and Acts 7:5, ἐπηγγείλατοδοῦναιαὐτῷεἰςκατάσχεσιναὐτὴνκαὶτῷσπέρματιαὐτοῦμετ ʼ αὐτόν , οὐκὄντοςαὐτῷτέκνου . These τέκνα , which were at present in the category of τὰμὴὄντα , and the nations which should spring, physically or spiritually, from him, God ἐκάλειὡςὄντα , spoke of as having an existence, which word Abraham believed. And here, as in the other clause, the καλεῖντὰμὴὄνταὡςὄντα is not confined to the case in point, but is a general attribute of all God’ s words concerning things of time, past, present, and future, being to His Omnipotence and Omniscience, all one. His purposes, when formed, are accomplished, save in so far as that evolution of secondary causes and effects intervenes, which is also His purpose. This also Abraham apprehended by his faith, which rested on God’ s absolute power to do what He had promised (see below). 18-22. A more detailed description of this (Abraham’ s) faith, as reposed on God’ s Omnipotence. 18. Who against hope (where there was nothing to hope) believed in (ἐπί , with dat., in its literal import signifying close adherence, is accordingly used to connect an act with that to which it is immediately attached as its ground or accompaniment. Thus here, the hope existed as the necessary concomitant and in some sense the condition of the faith) hope, in order to his becoming the father of many nations (i.e. as a step in the process of his becoming, and one necessary to that process going forward. He would never have become, &c., had be not believed. To render εἰςτὸγεν . ‘ that he should become,’ and connect it with ἐπίστευσεν (Theophyl., Beza, all., De Wette) is against Paul’ s usage, who never connects πιστεύω with a neut. inf.,— and not justified by Philippians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 3:10. The mere consecutive sense, ‘ so that he became,’ here, as every where, is a weakening of the sense (see however note on ch. 1:20),— and besides, would introduce an objective clause in a passage which all refers subjectively to Abraham). οὕτως ] viz. as the stars of heaven: see l. c.,— and compare Psalms 147:4. 19. The reading (with or without οὐ) must first be considered. Reading οὐ , the sense will be, And not being weak in faith, he paid no attention to, &c. Omitting οὐ , ‘ And not being weak in (his) faith, he was well aware of, &c.— but did not,’ &c. Of these, the second agrees the better with εἰςδὲτὴνἐπ . ver. 20,— but the first very much better suits the context; the object being, to extol Abraham’ s faith, not to introduce the new and somewhat vapid notice of his being well aware of those facts of which it may be assumed as a matter of course that he could not be ignorant. The Apostle does not want to prove that Abraham was in his sound senses when he believed the promise, but that he was so strong in faith as to be able to overleap all difficulties in its way. The erasure of οὐ seems to have been occasioned by the use of καί instead of οὐδέ before τὴννέκρωσιν . And the following δέ , without being strongly adversative, falls well into its place— He took no account of, &c. but.… The rendering, ‘ And he did not, being weak in faith, take account of, &c.’ (omitting οὐ , and making μή the ruling neg. particle of the clause), is ungrammatical: οὐ would be required. Abraham did indeed feel and express the difficulty (Genesis 17:17), but his faith overcame it, and he ceased to regard it. But most probably Paul here refers only to Genesis 15:5, Genesis 15:6, where his belief was implicit and unquestioning. ἑκατοντ .] Abraham’ s own expression in l. c., where he also describes Sarah as being 90. His exact age was 99. Genesis 17:1, Genesis 17:24. 20. On δέ , see above. But with regard to (ref.) the promise of God he doubted not through unbelief— , but was strong in faith (dat. of reference, ‘ with regard to faith.’ τῇἀπ . and τῇπίστ ., because both are here strictly abstract, being set against one another as opposites). δοὺςδόξ . τῷθ .] viz. by recognizing His Almighty power (see reff., especially Luke). 21. πληρ ., see ch. 14:5, being fully persuaded. ἐπήγγελται is not passive (nor ὅ nom.), but middle, and ‘ God’ the subject; that, what He has promised, He is able also to perform. 22. διό , on account of the nature of this faith, which the Apostle has now since ver. 18 been setting forth;— because it was a simple unconditional credence of God and His promise. If we read καί , it imports besides being thus great and admirable, it was reckoned to him for righteousness:— ἐλογίσθη , viz. τὸπιστεῦσαιτῷθεῷ . 23-25. Application of that which is said of Abraham, to all believers on Christ. 23. ἐγράφη , was written, not the more usual γέγραπται , ‘ is written:’ similarly in the parallel, 1 Corinthians 10:11; and in our ch. 15:4. The aorist asserts the design of God’ s Spirit at the time of penning the words: the perfect may imply that, but more directly asserts the intent of our Scriptures as we now find them. Now it was not written for his sake alone (merely to bear testimony to him and his faith) that it was reckoned unto him,— but for our sake also (for our benefit, to bear testimony to us of the efficacy of faith like his. Observe that διὰ in the two clauses has not exactly the same sense,— ‘ for his sake’ being = (1) to celebrate his faith,— and (2) for our sake = for our profit; see on ver. 25), to whom it (i.e. τὸπιστεύειντῷθεῷ , as ver. 22) shall be reckoned (for righteousness:— μέλλειλογ . is a future, as ch. 3:30; 5:19 (Thol.),— not, as Olsh. al., spoken as from the time and standing of Abraham), who believe on (this specifies the ἡμᾶς : and the belief is not a mere historical but a fiducial belief) Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead . 24. ἐκνεκρῶν is almost (see Colossians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:10) always anarthrous, as indeed νεκροί sometimes is in classic writers, e.g. Thucyd. iv. 14; v. 10, end: and see Winer, edn. 6, § 19. 1. The omission may in this phrase be accounted for by the preposition (Middleton, ch. vi. 1): but I suspect Winer is right in looking for the cause of the absence of the article after prepositions rather in the usage of the particular substantive than in any idiom of general application. 25. Here we have another example of the alliterative use of the same preposition where the meanings are clearly different (see above, vv. 23, 24). Our Lord was delivered up (to death) for or on account of our sins (i.e. because we had sinned):— He was also raised up (from the dead) for or on account of our justification (i.e. not because we had been, but that we might be justified). This separate statement of the great object of the death and resurrection of Christ must be rightly understood, and each member of it not unduly pressed to the exclusion of the other. The great complex event by which our justification (death unto sin and new birth unto righteousness) has been made possible, may be stated in one word as the glorification of Christ. But this glorification consisted of two main parts,— His Death, and His Resurrection. In the former of these, He was made a sacrifice for sin; in the latter, He elevated our humanity into the participation of that Resurrection-life, which is also, by union with Him, the life of every justified believer. So that, when taking the two apart, the Death of Christ is more properly placed in close reference to forgiveness of sins,— His Resurrection, to justification unto life everlasting. And thus the Apostle treats these two great events, here and in the succeeding chapters. But he does not view them respectively as the causes, exclusively of one another, of forgiveness and justification: e.g. (1) ch. 5:9, we are said to be justified by His blood, and 2 Corinthians 5:21 God made Him sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him: and (2) 1 Corinthians 15:17, if Christ is not raised, we are yet in our sins. So that, though these great events have their separate propriety of reference to the negative and positive sides of our justification, the one of them cannot be treated separately and exclusively of the other, any more than can the negative side of our justification, the non-imputation of our sin, without the positive, the imputation of God’ s righteousness. It will be seen from what I have said above that I cannot agree with Bp. Horsley’ s view, that as our transgressions were the cause of Jesus being delivered up, so our justification must be the cause of His being raised again. Such a pressing of the same sense on διὰ is not necessary, when Paul’ s manifold usages of the same preposition are considered: and the regarding our justification (in the sense here) as a fact past, is inconsistent with the very next words, δικαιωθέντεςἐκπίστεως , which shew that not the objective fact, but its subjective realization, is here meant.— In these words (of ver. 25) the Apostle introduces the great subject of chaps. 5-8,— DEATH, as connected with SIN,— and LIFE, as connected with . The various ramifications of this subject see in the headings below. Chap. 5:1-11. The blessed consequences of justification by faith. 1. It is impossible to resist the strong manuscript authority for the reading ἔχωμεν in this verse. For indeed this may well be cited as the crucial instance of overpowering diplomatic authority compelling us to adopt a reading against which our subjective feelings rebel. Every internal consideration tends to impugn it. If admitted, the sentence is hortatory. ‘ Being then justified by faith, let us have peace with God.’ (This is the only admissible sense of the first person subjunctive in an affirmative sentence like the present. The usage is an elliptical one: ἴωμεν , ‘ that we go,’ i.e. ‘ it is time,’ or in an address, ‘ permit, &c. that we go.’ Thus Od. χ . 77, ἐλθωμενἀνὰἄστυ : Il. χ . 450. ἴδωμ ʼ , ἅτιν ʼ ἔργατέτυκται . See other examples in Kü hner, Gramm. § 463. The deliberative sense, attempted to be given by Dr. Tregelles (see Kitto’ s Journal of Bibl. Lit. No. xiv. p. 465 ff.) can only have place in an interrogative or dubitative clause, and every example given by Mr. Green, whom he cites for his supposed sense, as well as by Kü hner (§ 464), is of this kind. Besides, to call the sense ‘ we ought to have,’ deliberative, seems a misnomer.) But how can man be exhorted to have peace with God? To be reconciled to God, he may, 2 Corinthians 5:20: but of this there is no mention here, and having (been allowed to believe in and enjoy) peace with God, depends on, not our reconciliation to Him, not any thing subjective in ourselves, but the objective fact of His reconciliation to us. If, as tome say, (ἔχωμεν = κατέχωμεν , Hebrews 10:23, the article would be required before εἰρήνην , and (perhaps) before πρὸς or διὰ . Besides which there are two objections in the form of the sentence to this reading: (1) ἔχ . is coupled by καὶ to ἐσχήκαμεν , and this connexion necessitates, in my view, that the first verb should assert a fact, as the second undoubtedly does. With the former verb in the subjunctive we should hardly have expected the καί where it is. (2) If ἔχωμεν be hortatory, καυχώμεθα , in verse 2, must be so likewise: (for if we were exhorted to the lesser degree of confidence, εἰρήνηνἔχειν , such exhortation can hardly be founded on the existence already of the greater degree, καυχᾶσθαικ .τ .λ .) which, both as to sense and construction, is very improbable. I believe (but see below) an account of the reading may be sought, as in 1 Corinthians 15:49, in a tendency of those who transcribed some of our mss. to give such assertions a hortatory, or, where interrogative, a deliberative form: thus we have σωθησώμεθα in some mss., ver. 10,— ζήσωμεν , ch. 6:2,— πιστεύωμεν or πιστεύσωμεν , and συνζήσωμεν , ch. 6:8,— ὑπακούσατε , ch. 6:17,— προσεύξωμαι (bis), 1 Corinthians 14:15,— πείθωμεν , 2 Corinthians 5:11,— πιστεύωμεν , John 4:42,— συνζήσωμεν and συμβασιλεύσωμεν , 2 Timothy 2:11, 2 Timothy 2:12:— or perhaps the whole ground of the account to be given of the ω is better shifted to a more general habit of the mss. (even the greatest and best, see instances in prolegg. to Vol. I. ch. vi. § 1:36, 37) to confound ο and ω : so that in very many cases, such variation can hardly be called a different reading at all. The whole passage is declaratory of the consequences flowing from justification by faith, and does not exhort, but assert. Nor, would it seem, does the place for exhortation arrive, till these consequences have been in the fullest and freest manner set forth,— indeed so fully and freely, that the objection arising from their supposed abuse has first to be answered. Being therefore justified (‘ having been justified:’ — it is an act past on the Christian, not like sanctification, an abiding and increasing work) by (as the ground) faith, let us (believers in Christ: I render the existing text) have peace (‘ reconcilement;’ the opposite of ὀργή , see ver. 9) with (‘ in regard of,’ see reff.) God through (by means of) our Lord Jesus Christ. With regard to the nature of this peace (= state of reconciliation, ‘ no more condemnation,’ as ch. 8:1) see above, on the reading ἔχωμεν . 2. Through whom we have also had our access (the persons spoken of having come to the Father by Christ,— see Ephesians 2:18,— the access is treated of as a thing past. τῇπίστει and ἐντῇπίστει appear to have been glosses, explanatory of the method of access. The access would normally take place in baptism) into this grace (namely, the grace of justification, apprehended and held fast subjectively (from what follows); not, τὸπάντωνἐπιτυχεῖντῶνδιὰβαπτίσματοςἀγαθῶν (Chrys. al.), which is inconsistent with ἐνᾗἑστήκ .: not, ‘ the Gospel’ (Fritz.), for the same reason; not, ‘ hope of blessedness’ (Beza), for that follows: least of all ‘ the grace of the apostolic calling’ (Semler), which is quite beside the purpose) wherein we Stand (see parallels in reff. 1 and 2 Cor.; i.e. abide accepted and acquitted with God; see also 1 Corinthians 10:12, and ch. 11:20); and (couple to εἰρήν . ἔχωμεν , not to ἐνᾖἑστήκ .) glory in the hope (καυχάομαι is found with ἐπί , ἐν , περί , ὑπέρ , and (Thol.) with an acc. of the object. In Hebrews 3:6 we have τὸκαύχηματῆςἐλπίδος ) of the glory of God (of sharing God’ s glory by being with Christ in His kingdom, John 17:24, see reff.). 3. And not only so (not only must we triumph in hope, which has regard to the future), but glorying in (not amidst; the θλ . is the ground of triumph) [our] tribulations, knowing (because we know) that tribulation works endurance (supposing, i.e. we remain firm under it), and endurance, approval , as Grot.; nor ‘ experience,’ as E. V.,— ‘ δοκιμή est qualitas ejus, qui est δόκιμος .’ Bengel,— the result of proof), and approval (fresh) hope; and hope (but for αὕτηἡἐλπ . as Olsh.) shames (us) not ; because God’ s love (not ‘ the love of God,’ i.e. man’ s love for God,— as Theodoret, and even , misled by the Latin; see reff., and compare the explicit τὴνἑαυτοῦἀγάπηνεἰςἡμᾶς , which answers to this in ver. 8) is (has been) poured out (‘ effusa,’ not ‘ diffusa’ (Vulg.), which latter word perhaps misled Aug., owing to whose mistake the true interpretation was lost for some centuries, although held by , Chrys., and Ambrose. See Trench on St. Augustine, ch. v. p. 89:— i.e. ‘ richly imparted’ ) in our hearts (ἐν may be taken pregnantly, ἐκκέχ . εἰςκαὶμένειἐν ,— or better, denotes the locality where the outpouring takes place,— the heart being the seat of our love, and of appreciation and sympathy with God’ s love) by means of the Holy Spirit (who is the Outpourer, John 16:14; 1 Corinthians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 2:10) which was given to us (Olsh. rightly refers the aorist part. to the Pentecostal effusion of the Holy Spirit). ‘ Prima hæ c est in hac tractatione Spiritus Sancti mentio. Nimirum ad hunc usque terminum quum perductus est homo, operationem Sp. Sancti notanter denique sentit.’ Bengel. 6. The text here is in some confusion,— see var. readd. The whole may perhaps have arisen from an ecclesiastical portion having begun χριστὸςὄντωνἡμῶνἀσθενῶνἔτι … When this found its way into the text, ἔτι was repeated. This offended the transcribers: but the first ἔτι could not be erased, because γάρ followed; it may then have been conjecturally emended to εἰ (and γάρ to γέ as in B, or δέ as in L), or εἰςτί ,— some retaining ἔτι in both places. The place of ἔτι is often, in the case of absolutes, at the beginning of a sentence, with the subject of the senence between it and the word or words to which it applies; so ἔτιαὐτοῦλαλοῦντος , Matthew 12:46,— ἔτιδέαὐτοῦμακρὰνἀπέχοντος , Luke 15:20, &c. On reconsideration, however, seeing that if we follow the most ancient mss., we must either repeat ἔτι , which seems very unlikely to have been originally written, or adopt the reading of B, I have taken the latter alternative. If, that is (on εἴγε , see note, 2 Corinthians 5:3, and Ephesians 3:2), Christ when we were yet weak , in due season (i.e. at the appointed time; compare reff. and Galatians 4:4, and καιρός in the quotation above) Christ died for (‘ on behalf of,’ see reff.) ungodly men (not ὑπὲρἡμῶν , because the Apostle wishes to bring out fully by this strong antithesis, which he enlarges on in the next verses, the greatness of the divine Love to man). 7. The greatness of this Love, of Christ’ s death on behalf of the impious, is brought out by shewing that there is none such among men, nay that such a self-sacrifice,— not unexampled where a good man, one loving his fellow-men and loved by them, is to be rescued,— is hardly found to occur on behalf of the pious and just. For hardly will any one die on behalf of a just man (masc.,— not neuter, ‘ for justice’ or ‘ righteousness sake,’ as , Erasm., Luth., al.: for the matter in hand is Christ’ s death on behalf of persons)— for (this second ‘ for’ is exceptive, and answers to ‘ but I do not press this without exception,’ understood) on behalf of the good man perhaps (τάχα opens a possibility which μόλις closes) one doth even dare (i.e. is even found to venture; the pres. implies habituality— it may occur here and there) to die. The distinction here made between δίκαιος and ἀγαθός , is also found in Cicero, de Of. 3:15, ‘ Si vir bonus is est qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini, recte justum virum, bonum non facile reperiemus.’ The interpretation which makes δίκαιος and ἀγαθός refer to the same man, and the second clause = ‘ I do not say that such a thing may not sometimes occur,’ is very vapid, and loses sight of the antithesis between δἰκαιος , and ἄδικος . 8. But (as distinguished from human examples) He (i.e. God. The omission of ὁθεός , which critical principles render necessary, is in keeping with the perfectly general way in which the contrast is put, merely with τίς , not ἀνθρώπωντίς . The subject is supplied from ἡἀγάπητοῦθεοῦ ver. 5) gives proof of (‘ establishes’ (reff.);— not ‘ commends’ ) His own love (own, as distinguished from that of men in ver. 7) towards us, in that while we were yet (as opposed to νῦν in the next verse) sinners (= ἀσθενῶν = ἀσεβῶν [ver. 6], and opposed to δίκαιος and ἀγαθός , ver. 7) Christ died for us. 9-11. The Apostle further shews the blessed fruits of justification, viz. salvation, both from wrath, and with life. The argument proceeds from the beginning of the chapter: but the connexion, as so frequent with St. Paul, is immediately with the parenthetical sentences just preceding. Much more then (if He died for us when sinners, a fortiori will He save us now that we are righteous by virtue of that His death) having been now justified by His blood (see remarks on ch. 4:25) we shall be saved by Him from the wrath (to come, or of which we know: force of the art.). 10. The same is substantiated in another form: ‘ we were enemies (see below) when He died and reconciled us: much more now that we have been reconciled, and He lives, shall we by His life be saved.’ For if, being enemies (ἐχθροί may either be active, as Colossians 1:21, ‘ haters of God;’ so ἐχθρά , ch. 8:7; Ephesians 2:15: or passive, as ch. 11:28,— ‘ hated by God.’ But here the latter meaning alone can apply, for the Apostle is speaking of the Death of Christ and its effects as applied to all time, not merely to those believers who then lived: and those unborn at the death of Christ could not have been ἐχθροί in the active sense), we were reconciled (καταλλάσσεσθαίτινι also may be taken of giving up anger against any one,— see ref. 1 Cor., and Jos. Antt. vi. 7. 4, οὐγὰρἑώρατὸνθεὸνδιαλλαττόμενον ,— or of being received into favour by any one,— see 1 Kings 29:4, ἐντίνιδιαλλαγήσεταιοὗτοςτῷκυρίῳαὐτοῦ ; and Jos. Antt. v. 2. 8, διαλυσάμενοςτὰςμέμψεις , καταλλάττεταιπρὸςαὐτήν ,— the latter of which meanings, were received into favour with God, must for the reason above given be here adopted) to God by means of the death of His Son (this great fact is further explained and insisted on, in the rest of the chapter), much more, having been reconciled (but here comes in the assumption that the corresponding subjective part of reconciliation has been accomplished, viz. justification by faith: compare 2 Corinthians 5:19, 2 Corinthians 5:20, θεὸςἦνἐνχριστῷκόσμονκαταλλάσσωνἑαυτῷ … δεόμεθαὑπὲρχριστοῦ , καταλλάγητετῷθεῷ . Both these, the objective reception into God’ s favour by the death of Christ, and the subjective appropriation, by faith, of that reception, are included), we shall be saved by means of His Life (not here that which he now does on our behalf, but simply the fact of His Life, so much enlarged on in ch. 6: and our sharing in it). 11. A further step still— not only has the reconciled man confidence that he shall escape God’ s wrath, but triumphant confidence,— joyful hope in God. But (aber) not only so, but (sondern) glorying in God (particip. not as the finite verb, but in every case either the consequence of an anacoluthon, or finding its justification in the construction: so here “ not only shall we be saved,” but that in a triumphant manner and frame of mind. See Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 6 [a]) through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now (not in contrast with the future glory, ‘ even now,’ as Thol., for that would be more plainly expressed,— but as in ver. 9) received (our) reconciliation (to God [not as in E. V. “ the atonement,” at least in the common theological acceptance of the term: for that is not here treated of, but our reconcilement to God]). 12-8:39. The Power of God (ch. 1:16) is set forth as freeing from the dominion of sin and death, and issuing in salvation. 12-19. The bringing in of reconciliation and life by Christ in its analogy to the bringing in of sin and death by Adam. 12. This verse is one of acknowledged difficulty. The two questions meeting us directly are (1) To what does διὰτοῦτο refer? (2) ὥσπερ , ‘ like as,’ may introduce the first member of a comparison, the second being to be discovered; or may introduce the second, the first having to be discovered. I shall endeavour to answer both questions in connexion. (1) I conceive διὰτοῦτο to refer to that blessed state of confidence and hope just described: ‘ on this account,’ here meaning, ‘ quæ cum ita sint:’ ‘ this state of things, thus brought about, will justify the following analogy.’ Thus we must take ὥσπερ , either as beginning the comparison, and then supply, ‘ so by Christ in His Resurrection came justification into the world, and by justification, life;’ or as concluding the comparison, and supply before it, ‘ it was,’ or ‘ Christ wrought.’ This latter method seems to me far the best. For none of the endeavours of Commentators to supply the second limb of the comparison from the following verses have succeeded: and we can hardly suppose such an ellipsis, when the next following comparison (ver. 16) is rather a weakening than a strengthening the analogy. We have example of this use of ὥσπερ , in Matthew 25:14, and of καθώς , Galatians 3:6. Consequently like as by one man sin (as a power ruling over mankind, see ch. 3:9, and ver. 21,— partly as a principle which exists in us all, and developes itself in our conduct, partly as a state in which we are involved; but the idea here must not be confined (Calv.) to original sin, as it reaches much wider, to sin both original and actual: nor to the habit of sinning (as Olsh.): nor is it merely the propensity to sin (as Rö the): nor is sin personified merely as in ch. 7:8, 11) entered into the world , and by means of sin (as the appointed penalty for sin, Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:19) death (primarily, but not only, physical death: as ἁμαρτία , so θάνατος , is general, including the lesser in the greater, i.e. spiritual and eternal death. See ch. 6:16, 21; 7:10; 8:6; 2 Corinthians 7:10), and thus death extended to all men (see reff. De W. well says that πάντ . ἀνθρ . differs from κόσμον , as the concrete part from the abstract whole, and διέρχ . from εἰσέρχεσθαι , as the going from house to house differs from the entering a town. Obs., that although the subject of διῆλθεν is plainly only death, not sin and death, yet the spreading of sin over all men is taken for granted, partly in the οὕτως , partly in the following clause), because (ἐφ ʼ ᾧ , lit. of close juxtaposition: and so ‘ on ground of,’ ‘ on condition that,’ which meaning, if rightly applied, suits the case in hand. Life depended on a certain condition, viz. obedience: Death on another, viz. disobedience. Mankind have disobeyed; the condition of Death’ s entrance and diffusion has been fulfilled: Death extended to all men, as a consequence of the fact, that,— posito, that, = because, all have sinned. Orig., Aug., Beza, and Estius render it as Vulg., ‘ in quo’ (Adam): Chrys., Theophyl., Œ , Elsner, ‘ propter quem:’ Grot., ‘ per quem’ ) all sinned . Observe how entirely this assertion of the Apostle contradicts the Pelagian or individualistic view of men, that each is a separate creation from God, existing solely on his own exclusive responsibility,— and affirms the Augustinian or traducian view, that all are evolved by God’ s appointment from an original stock, and though individually responsible, are generically involved in the corruption and condemnation of their original. 13. How, consistently with ch. 4:15, could all men sin, before the law? This is now explained. For up to (the time of) the law there was sin in the world (‘ men sinned,’ see Genesis 6:5-13; committed actual sin: not, men were accounted sinners because of Adam’ s sin; the Apostle reminds us of the historical fact, that there was sin in the world during this period): but sin is not reckoned (as transgression) where the law is not. ἐλλογεῖται has given rise to much dispute. Very many Commentators (Aug., , Luth., Melanc., Calv., Beza, Rü ckert, Tholuck, Stuart, al.) explain it of consciousness of sin by the sinner himself, as in ch. 7:7: but (1) as De Wette observes, this is not the natural sense of the word, which implies two parties, one of whom sets down something to the account of the other (ref.): (2) this interpretation would bring in a new and irrelevant element,— for the Apostle is not speaking in this chapter at all of subjective human consciousness, but throughout of objective truths with regard to the divine dealings: and (3) it would be altogether inconsistent with the declarations of ch. 2:15,— where in this sense the ἐλλογισμός of sin by the νόμονμὴἔχοντες distinctly asserted. I am persuaded that the right sense of ἐλλ . is, reckoned, ‘ set down as transgression,’ — ‘ put in formal account,’ by God. In the case of those who had not the written law, ἁμαρτία is not formally reckoned as παράβασις , set over against the command: but in a certain sense, as distinctly proved ch. 2:9-16, it is reckoned and they are condemned for it. Nor is there any inconsistency, as Tholuck complains, in this view. Other passages of Paul’ s writings support and elucidate it. He states the object of the law to be, ch. 7:13, ἵναγένηταικαθ ʼ ὑπερβολὴνἁμαρτωλὸςἡἁμαρτίαδιὰτῆςἐντολῆς . The revelation of the law exaggerated, brought into prominent and formal manifestation, the sinfulness of sin, which was before culpable and punishable, but in a less degree. With this view also agree Acts 17:30; ch. 2:12, ὅσοιἀνόμωςἥμαρτον , ἀνόμωςκαὶἀπολοῦνται ,— and 3:25, in so far as they state an analogous case. The objection to taking οὐκἐλλογεῖται relatively, ‘ is not fully reckoned,’ will hardly be urged by those who bear in mind the Apostle’ s habit of constantly stating relative truths as positive, omitting the qualifying particles: see e.g. ch. 7:7, where with ἁμαρτίαν and with οὐκᾔδειν both, we must supply qualifications (see notes there). 14. But (notwithstanding the last assertion that sin is not fully reckoned where the law is not) death reigned (was a power to which all succumbed) from Adam to Moses (μέχριΜωυς . = ἄχρινόμου above): i.e. although the full ἐλλογισμός of sin did not take place between Adam and Moses, the universality of death is a proof that all sinned,— for death is the consequence of sin:— in confirmation of ver. 12. καὶἐπὶτ . μὴἁμ .] even (notwithstanding the different degrees of sin and guilt out of, and under, the law) over those who sinned not according to the similitude (reff.) of the transgression of Adam. (1) ἐπὶτῷὁμ . belongs to ἁμαρτ . and not to ἐβασίλευσεν (as Chrys., Theophyl., Bengel, Elsn., al.),— for that would bring in, in the words τοὺςμὴἁμαρτήσαντας , an absolute contradiction to ἐφ ʼ ᾧπάντεςἥμαρτον , by asserting that there were some who did not sin. (2) The emphasis lies on παράβασις , as distinguished from ἁμαρτία . Photius (in De W.),— ὁμὲν (Ἀδ .) ὡρισμένηνκ . νομοθετηθεῖσανἐντολὴνπαρέβηκ . ἥμαρτεν · οἱδὲἡμάρτανοντὸναὐτοδίδακτοντῆςφύσεωςλόγονἐνυβρίζοντες . They all sinned: but had not, like Adam, transgressed a positive revealed command. (3) There is no reference here, as some Commentators (Beza, al.) have supposed, to the case of children and idiots,— nor (as Grot., Wetst.) to those who lived pious lives. The aim is to prove, that the seed of sin planted in the race by the one man Adam, has sprung up and borne fruit in all, so as to bring them under death;— death temporal, and spiritual;— of these, some have sinned without the law, i.e. not as Adam did, and as those after Moses did: and though sin is not formally reckoned against them, death, the consequence of sin, reigned, as matter of historical fact, over them also. It is most important to the clear understanding of this weighty passage to bear in mind, that the first member of the comparison, as far as it extends, is this: ‘ As by Adam’ s transgression, of which we are by descent inheritors, we have become (not by imputation merely, but by propensity) sinners, and have thus incurred death, so &c.’ … (see below). ὅςἐστιντύποςτ . μέλλ .] who is a figure (or type: not thus used by LXX, see Umbreit’ s note) of the future (Adam [the second Adam, viz. Christ]). This clause is inserted on the first mention of the name Adam, the one man of whom he has been speaking, to recall the purpose for which he is treating of him,— as the figure (ref.) of Christ. τοῦμέλλ ., not ‘ qui futurus erat,’ as Beza [and E. V.], Reiche; but spoken from the Apostle’ s present standing, ‘ who is to come.’ The fulfilment of the type will then take place completely, when, as 1 Corinthians 15:22, ἐντῷχριστῷπάντεςζωοποιηθήσονται . Still less, with Koppe, can ὅς be taken by attr. for ὅ , and τοῦμέλλοντος be interpreted ‘ of that which is to come,’ viz. life and salvation: see 1 Corinthians 15:45. Many suppose these words ὅςἐστ . τύπ . τ . μέλλ . to be the apodosis of ver. 12: but see there. 15-17. Though Adam and Christ correspond as opposites, yet there is a remarkable difference, which makes the free gift of grace much more eminent than the transgression and its consequences, and enhances the certainty of its end being accomplished. But not (in all points) as the act of transgression (of Adam, as the cause inducing sin and death on his race), so also is the gift of grace (i.e. justification: not a direct contrast, as ὑπακοή in ver. 19: the Apostle has more in mind here the consequence of the παραπτ ., and to that opposes the χάρισμα . De W.). 15. εἰγὰρκ .τ .λ .] Distinction the first, in Degree:— and in the form of a hypothetical inference ‘ a minori ad majus.’ For if by the transgression of the one (man) the many (have) died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift abound in (by means of) the grace of the one man Jesus Christ towards the many. (1) The first question regards πολλῷμᾶλλον . Is it the ‘ a fortiori’ of logical inference, or is it to be joined with ἐπερίσσευσεν as quantitative, describing the degree of abounding? Chrys. , Grot., Fritz., Thol., adopt the former, and provided only the same thing is said here as in ver. 17, the usage there would decide it to be so: for there it cannot be quantitative. But I believe that not to be so. Here, the question is of abounding, a matter of degree, there, of reigning, a matter of fact. Here (ver. 16) the contrast is between the judgment, coming of one sinner, to condemnation, and the free gift, of (see note below) many offences, to justification. So that I think the quantitative sense the better, and join πολλῷμᾶλλον with ἐπερίσσευσεν , in the sense of much more abundant (rich in diffusion) was the gift, &c. (2) χάρις , not the grace working in men, here, but the grace which is in, and flows from, God. (3) ἐνχάριτιτῇτοῦ … , not to be joined (Thol.) with ἡδωρεά , as if it were ἡἐνχάρ . (which would be allowable), but with ἐπερίσς . The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (His self-offering love, see 2 Corinthians 8:9) is the medium by which the free gift is imparted to men. (4) The aorist ἐπερίσς . should here be kept to its indefinite historical sense, and not rendered as a perfect, however true the fact expressed may be: both are treated of here as events, their time of happening and present reference not being regarded. 16. Distinction the second, in kind. The former difference was quantitative: this is modal. And not as (that which took place) by one that sinned, so is the gift. It is a question whether any thing, and what, is to be supplied before δι ʼ ἑνὸςἁμαρτ . Rö the, Meyer, and Tholuck (and so E. V.), would supply nothing, and render, ‘ And not as by one having sinned, so is the gift.’ But (De W.) this has against it, (1) that since the γάρ following gives the reason for this sentence, this must contain implicitly all that that next expands in detail; which is not merely the distinction between springing from one man and out of many offences, but much more: and (2) that thus διὰ would = ἐκ or vice versa, whereas διὰ characterizes the bringer in, and ἐκ the occasion. Others have supplied τὸκρῖμα (Bengel, Kö llner): τὸκατάκριμα (Theophyl., Reiche): ὁθάνατοςεἰσῆλθεν (Grot., Estius, Koppe):— but inasmuch as it is purposely left indefinite, to be explained in the next verse, it is better to supply an indefinite phrase which may be thus explained: e.g. τογενόμενον , ‘ that which took place by one,’ [or ‘ (it was) through one,’ ] &c. τὸμὲνγὰρκ .τ .λ .] For the judgment (pronounced by God upon Adam) came of (was by occasion of) one (man having sinned,— supply ἁμαρτήσαντος : παραπτώματος would be hardly allowable, and would not help the sense, inasmuch as many sinners, as well as many sins, are implied in πολλ . παραπτ . below), unto condemnation εἰςπάνταςἀνθρώπους ); but the gift of grace was by occasion of many transgressions (where sin abounded, ver. 20, there grace much more abounded: the existence of the law being implied in παραπτ .) unto justification. The only difficulty here is the sense of δικαίωμα . The ordinary meaning of the word is τὸἐπανόρθωματοῦἀδικήματος , ‘ the amendment of an evil deed:’ so Aristotle, Eth. Nicom. v. 10, διαφέρειδὲτὸἀδίκημακαὶτὸἄδικον , καὶτὸδικαίωμακαὶτὸδίκαιον · ἄδικονμὲνγάρἐστιτῇφύσειἢτάξει · τὸαὐτὸδὲτοῦτοὅτανπραχθῇ , ἀδίκημάἐστι · πρὶνδὲπραχθῆναιοὔπω , ἀλλ ʼ ἄδικον . ὁμοίωςδὲκαὶδικαίωμα · καλεῖταιδὲκαὶτὸκοινὸνμᾶλλονδικαιοπράγημα , δικαίωμαδὲτὸἐπανόρθωματοῦἀδικήματος . But this, which Aristot. insists on as the proper, but not perhaps usual sense of the word, is not to be pressed in the N. T., and does not, though upheld by Calv., Calov., Wolf, and Rö the, suit the context as contrasted with κατάκριμα . Other renderings are, ‘ an absolutory sentence’ (Meyer, Fritz., al.): ‘ a righteous act,’ as in ver. 18; Baruch 2:19; ‘ righteousness,’ as in Revelation 19:8 (where see note): ‘ a righteous cause,’ or plea (LXX, Jeremiah 11:20): ‘ justification’ (E. V., Luth., De Wette, al.). The first seems to me to be right, as standing most exactly in contrast with κατάκριμα ; the use of the -μα being partly perhaps accounted for by the alliteration of the ending marking more strongly the antithesis. Thus as κατάκριμα is a sentence of condemnation, so δικαίωμα will be a sentence of acquittal. This in fact amounts to justification. 17. Distinction the third, also in kind; that which came in by the one sinner, was the reign of death: that which shall come in by the One, Jesus Christ, will be a reigning in life. For (carrying on the argument from ver. 15, but not so as to make parenthetical (Rö the) ver. 16— for δικαιοσύνης presupposes δικαίωμα ) if by the transgression of the one ἑνὶπαραπτώματι goes with ἁμαρτήματος for ἁμαρτήσαντος in ver. 16: both have evidently been corrections) death reigned by means of the one (man), much more (logical— a fortiori) shall they who receive the abundance of the grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life (eternal) by means of the one (Man) Jesus Christ. περισσεία answers to ἐπερίσσευσεν , ver. 15: τῆςχάριτος , to ἡχ . τοῦθεοῦ ; only here, as at ch. 1:5, the word signifies not only the grace flowing from God, but the same grace implanted and working in man:— δωρεᾶς , to δωρεά there, but qualified by τῆδικαιοσύνης , answering to δικαίωμα in ver. 16. The present λαμβάνοντες , instead of λαβόντες , is not merely used in a substantive sense, receptores (as Fritz. and Meyer), but signifies that the reception is not one act merely, but a continued process by which the περισσεία is imparted. (So Rö the, De W., Thol.) ἐνζωῇβας .] “ Antithesis to ὁθάνατοςἐβας . We should expect ἡζωὴβασιλεύσει , but Paul designedly changes the form of expression that he may bring more prominently forward the idea of free personality. ζωή is not only corporeal (the resurrection), but also spiritual and moral,— as also in θάνατος we must include διὰτῆςἁμαρτίας ver. 12. βασιλεύσουσιν is brought in by the antithesis: but it is elsewhere used (see reff.) to signify the state of blessedness, partly in an objective theocratic import (of the reign of the saints with Christ), partly in a subjective moral one,— because reigning is the highest development of freedom, and the highest satisfaction of all desires.” De Wette. 18. Recapitulation and co-statement of the parallel and distinctions. Therefore (ἄραοὖν , see reff., is placed by Paul at the beginning of a sentence, contrary to classical usage) as by means of one trespass it came upon (ἐγένετο , indefinite, being supplied) all men unto condemnation,— so also by means of one righteous act (the Death of Christ viewed as the acme of His Obedience, see Philippians 2:8 = ἡὑπακοὴτοῦἑνός below; not as in ver. 16,— nor Righteousness, as Thol., which would not contrast with παραπτ ., a single act) it came upon all men (in extent of grace,— in posse, not in esse as the other) unto justification of (conferring, leading to) life. 19. For (in explanation of ver. 18) as by the disobedience of (the) one man the many (= πάντεςἄνθρωποι , but not so expressed here, because in the other limb of the comparison πάντ . ἄνθρ . could not be put, and this is conformed to it: see there) were made (not, ‘ were accounted as’ (Grot. al.): nor ‘ became by imputation’ (Beza, Bengel): nor ‘ were proved to be’ (Koppe, Reiche, Fritz.): see reff.) sinners (not ὑπεύθυνοικολἀσει , as Chrys., Theophyl.: ‘ actual sinners by practice,’ is meant, the disobedience of Adam having been the inlet to all this: compare ἐφ ʼ ᾡπάντεςἥμαρτον ver. 12 and the notes, on the kind of sin spoken of in this whole passage, as being both original and actual), so also (after the same manner or analogy likewise) by means of the obedience (unto death, see on last verse) of (the) One (man) shall (future, because, as in ch. 3:30, justification, as regards the many, is not yet completed. De W.) the many (= πολλοί , compare Matthew 26:28; Mark 10:45, but thus expressed because πολλοί would not have answered in the other limb of the comparison. In order to make the comparison more strict, the πάντες who have been made sinners are weakened to the indefinite οἱπολλοί , the πολλοί who shall be made righteous are enlarged to the indefinite οἱπολλοί . Thus a common term of quantity is found for both, the one extending to its largest numerical interpretation, the other restricted to its smallest) be made (see above) righteous (not by imputation merely, any more than in the other case: but ‘ shall be made really and actually righteous, as completely so as the others were made really and actually sinners.’ When we say that man has no righteousness of his own, we speak of him as out of Christ: but in Christ and united to Him, he is made righteous, not by a fiction, or imputation only of Christ’ s righteousness, but by a real and living spiritual union with a righteous Head as a righteous member, righteous by means of, as an effect of, the righteousness of that Head, but not merely righteous by transference of the Righteousness of that Head; just as in his natural state he is united to a sinful head as a sinful member, sinful by means of, as an effect of, the sinfulness of that Head, but not merely by transference of the sinfulness of that Head). See the whole question respecting πάντες and οἱπολλοί treated in Tholuck’ s Comm. in loc. 20. How the law (of Moses) came in, in the divine economy. But (i.e. the two things spoken of ver. 19 did not simply and immediately happen) the law (of Moses: not law, in the abstract, nor ‘ the law of nature,’ as Dr. Peile,— nor even the law of God in its general sense, as often in ch. 1 2;— but here strictly the law of Moses, as necessitated by vv. 13, 14 in this same argument) came in besides (besides the fact of the many being made sinners, and as a transition point to the other result: formed a third term, besides these two, in the summary of God’ s dealings with man: compare προσετέθη , Galatians 3:19: not πρὸςκαιρὸνἐδόθη , Theophyl.: not, came in between Christ and Adam (the fact, but not the interpretation) as Theodoret and Calv.:— not = εἰσῆλθεν merely),— in order that (τελικῶς , its design,— not merely ἐκβατικῶς , its result, as Chrys., al.; here, and every where else. So of ver. 21) the trespass (created by the law; for where no law, no transgression, ch. 4:15:— not merely the knowledge of sin, but actual transgression) might be multiplied (in actual fact: not ‘ be abundantly exhibited,’ or any such evasive sense). No possible objection can be taken to this statement by those who view the Law as a preparation for Christ. If it was so, then the effect of the Law, the creating and multiplying transgression, was an end in the divine purposes, to bring out the necessity of One who should deliver from sin and bring in righteousness. “ Those who weaken this telic ἵνα into ‘ so that,’ in order to guard the Apostle from what seems to them a doctrine unworthy of God, overlook equally his firm standing on the acknowledged ground of historic fact and actuality, as the humility with which here, as ever (ch. 11:33, 34), he bows before the mystery of the οἰκονομίατοῦθεοῦ .” Umbreit. But (this terrible end, the multiplying of transgression, was not, however, God’ s ultimate end: He had a further and gracious one) where sin was multiplied, (God’ s) grace did beyond measure abound . 21. The purpose of this abounding of grace:— its ultimate prevalence and reign, by means of righteousness, unto life eternal. That, as sin reigned (the historic indefinite past, because the standing-point of the sentence is, the restitution of all things hereafter) in death (ἐν , of that in and by which the reign was exercised and shewn: death was the central act of sin’ s reign. He does not here say, ‘ death reigned by sin,’ as in vv. 12-14, because sin and grace are the two points of comparison, and require to be the subjects), so also grace may reign by means of righteousness, unto (leading to) life eternal through (by means of) Jesus Christ our Lord (‘ Jam ne memoratur quidem Adamus, solius Christi mentio viget.’ Bengel). Chap. 6-8. The moral effects of justification. 6:1-14. No encouragement given hereby (see ch. 5:20) to a life in sin: for the baptized are dead to sin, and walk in a new (vv. 1-7) life, and one (vv. 8-11) dedicated to God. 1. What then shall we say?— the introduction of a difficulty or objection arising out of the preceding argument, and referring to ch. 5:20. See ch. 3:5. ἐπιμένωμεν , ‘ must we think that we may persist,’ — the deliberative subjunctive. So εἴπωμενἢσιγῶμεν , Eur. Ion 758: παρέλθωδόμους , Med. 1275. See Kü hner, Gramm. § 464, and note on ch. 5:1. [Are we to continue in (our natural state and commission of) sin, that (God’ s) grace may be multiplied (ch. 5:20)? 2. μὴγέν . (see reff.), used of some inference in itself abhorrent from reverence or piety, or precluded by some acknowledged fact inconsistent therewith. The latter is here the ground of rejection. An acknowledged fact in the Christian life follows, which precludes our persisting in our sin. We who (οἵτινες describing quality, not merely matter of fact) died (historic aorist, not perf. as in E.V. [the true reference is thus most unfortunately lost]: the time referred to being that of our baptism) to sin (reff. and examples in Wetst.:— became as separate from and apathetic towards sin as the dead corpse is separate from and apathetic towards the functions and stir of life: μένεινἀκίνητονὥσπερτὸννεκρόν , Chrys. ‘ Sin,’ τῇἁμ . = as above), how shall we live any longer therein (= περιπατεῖνἐν — but not, as De W., ζῇν with a dative: ζῇνἔντινι is a further step than ζῇντινι , implying introition, and not merely sympathy)? 3. Or (supposing you do not assent to the argument in the last verse, see reff.) are ye ignorant (the foregoing axiom is brought out into recognition by the further statement of a truth universally acknowledged) that all we who were (i.e. all of us, having been [not as E. V., again most unfortunately, “ so many of us as were;” giving it to be understood that some of them had not been thus baptized]) baptized into Christ Jesus (‘ into participation of,’ ‘ into union with,’ Christ, in His capacity of spiritual Mastership, Headship, and Pattern of conformity) were baptized into (introduced by our baptism into a state of conformity with and participation of) His death? The Apostle refers (1) to an acknowledged fact, in the signification, and perhaps also in the manner (see below) of baptism— that it put upon us (Galatians 3:27) a state of conformity with and participation in Christ;— and (2) that this state involves a death τῇἁμαρτίᾳ even as He died τῇἁμαρτίᾳ (ver. 10);— the meaning being kept in the background, but all the while not lost sight of, that the benefits of His Death were likewise made ours by our introduction into the covenant. 4. A further explanation of the assertion in the last verse proceeding on its concession by the reader. We were then buried with Him (καθάπερἔντινιτάφῳτῷὕδατικαταδυόντωνἡμῶντὰςκεφαλὰςὁπαλαιὸςἄνθρωποςθάπτεται , καὶκαταδὺςκάτωκρύπτεταιὅλωςκαθάπαξ , Chrys. on Joh_3. Hom. xxv. 2, vol. viii. p. 151) by means of our baptism into (His) death (τοῦβαπτ . εἰςτὸνθάνατον belong together, not συνετάφ . εἰςτ . θ ., which would hardly bear any sense. The absence of the art. before εἰς is no objection to this;— it is unnecessary, because no distinction from any other baptism is brought out, and τὸβάπτ .-εἰς -τὸν -θάν . is connected as one idea); in order that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory (δόξα and δύναμις are cognate ideas; compare the import of the Heb. ע ֹ ז and the LXX in Psalms 68:35 (67:34 LXX), Isaiah 12:2: and τὸκράτοςτῆςδόξης in Colossians 1:11. The divine δόξα includes all that manifests the Creator to the creature: and hence also his Almightiness. Tholuck. The renderings ‘ in Dei gloriam’ (Beza, Bretschneider), and ‘ because He is the image of the Father’ (Dr. Burton, altern.), are inadmissible for διὰ with a gen.) of the Father (Theodoret makes ἡδόξατοῦπατρός = ἡοἰκείαθεότης of the Son, which is manifestly wrong), thus we also should walk in newness of life (not = ‘ a new life;’ — nor are such expressions ever to be diluted away thus: the abstract καινότητι is used to bring the quality of newness, which is the point insisted on, more into prominence, compare 2 Thessalonians 2:11; 1 Timothy 6:17 [and notes]; Winer, edn. 6, § 34. 3. The comparison is not only (as Stuart) between our Lord’ s physical death and resurrection, and our spiritual; but reaches far deeper: see notes on vv. 10, 11). 5. The Apostle confirms the last verse by a necessary sequence that those who are united to Him in His Death, shall be also in His resurrection. For (confirmatory) if we have become united with the likeness of His Death (σύμφυτος = either (1) ‘ congenital,’ — as διὰτὴνσύμφυτονδικαιοσύνην , spoken of Samuel, Jos. Antt. vi. 3. 3,— or (2) ‘ cognate,’ of like nature,— or (3) ‘ arising simultaneously,’ — or (4) ‘ grown together,’ — or (5) ‘ planted with,’ ‘ consitus.’ The rendering of Syr., Vulg., Luth., E. V., ‘ planted together,’ is inadmissible, -φυτος being not from φυτεύω , but from φύω : as also is that of Erasm. and Calv.,— ‘ insititii.’ The fourth meaning, ‘ grown together,’ ‘ intimately and progressively united,’ — ‘ coaluimus,’ as Grot.,— seems here to apply best. Obs. σύμφ . is to be connected with τῷὁμ ., not with τῷχριστῷ understood, as in ver. 6: in which case we should have to supply τῷὁμοιώματι again before τῆςἀναστάσεως , which would be not only grammatically difficult, but would not correspond to the sense: for Christians, it is true, partake of the likeness only of Christ’ s death, but of His actual Resurrection itself, as the change of construction shews: see below), so shall we be also (ἀλλά after a hypothetical clause serves to strengthen the inference: see reff., and Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 40) with His Resurrection (a change of construction: because it could not well have been said σύμφυτοιτοῦὁμοιώματοςτ . θ . above, the gen. after adjectives compounded with σύν denoting the thing actually partaken (cf. Kü hner, § 519, and Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 171: who cites examples in σύντροφος , Soph. Philoct. 203,— σύννομος , Eur. Hel. 1508,— σύμφωνος , Aristoph. Av. 658,— συμφυής , Plato Legg. iv. p. 721,— συνήθης , ib. v. p. 739,— σύμψηφος , Cratyl. p. 398), and hardly the mere figure or likeness of it,— and similarly it could not well here be said σύμφ . τῇἀναστάσει , because the dat. would not be strong enough to denote the state of which we shall be actual partakers. The future is used perhaps because of the inference, as a logical sequence,— ‘ If, &c., … A shall = B:’ — but more probably with a deeper meaning, because the participation in His Resurrection, however partially and in the inner spiritual life, attained here, will only then be accomplished in our entire being, when we ‘ shall wake up after his likeness’ ). 6. Knowing (recollecting) this, that our old man (former self, personality before our new birth— opposed to καινός or νέοςἄνθρ ., καινὴκτίσις ,— see Colossians 3:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:22-24,— not merely the guilt of sin, nor the power of sin, but the man. The idea is not Jewish, as Tholuck has shewn: the passage quoted from the Sohar-chadasch not bearing the meaning commonly given to it,— and if it did, that book itself being a production probably of the sixteenth century) was (at our baptism) crucified with Him (the great key to our text is ref. Gal. As the death of the Lord Jesus was by crucifixion, the Apostle uses the same expression of our death to our former sinful self, which is not only by virtue of, but also in the likeness of, Christ’ s death,— as signal, as entire, as much a death of cutting off and putting to shame and pain), in order that the body of sin might be annulled (“ τὸσῶμ . τῆςἁμαρτ . belongs together, and τῆςἁμαρτ . is not to be joined with καταργ . as being = ἀπὸτῆςἁμαρτ . (Theodoret, Wahl);— nor is τὸσῶμ . τ . ἁμ ‘ the totality of sin’ ( 2, Theophyl. 1, Grot.); nor ‘ the substance or essence of sin,’ after the Heb. (Rabbinical) usage of ע ֶ צ ּ ֶ ם and ג ּ ו ּ ף (Schö ttg.): nor, ‘ the mass of sin’ (Thol. 1);— nor a mere figure to carry out the idea of being crucified with Christ (Calov., Wolf, Reiche, Olsh., Stuart 2, al.);— nor = ἡσὰρξτ . ἁμαρτ ; but ‘ the body, which belongs to or serves sin,’ in which sin rules or is manifested, = τὰμέλη , ver. 13, in which is ὁνόμοςτῆςἁμαρτίας , ch. 7:23,— τὸσῶματ . θανάτου , ch. 7:24,— αἱπράξειςτοῦσώματος , ch. 8:13,— τὸσῶματῆςσαρκός , Colossians 2:11.” De Wette: with whom agree Orig. 1, Theophyl. 2, Beza, Bengel, Meyer, Tholuck, Stuart 1, al. But as De W. further remarks, we must not understand that the body is the seat of sin, or at all events must no so understand those words as if the principle of sin lay in the body, which is not true, for it lies in the will). καταργηθῇ , might be rendered powerless (annulled as far as regards activity and energy. The word occurs twenty-five times in Paul’ s Epistles (elsewhere, Luke 13:7, Hebrews 2:14 only), and does not appear to signify absolute annihilation, but as above. Gregory of Nyssa has gone into the meaning in his discourse on 1 Corinthians 15:28, vol. i. p. 1325), that we might no longer be in bondage (be slaves to) sin (i.e. that the body should no longer be under the dominion of sin, see below, ver. 12). 7. The difficulty of this verse arises from the Apostle having in a short and pregnant sentence expressed a whole similitude, joining, as he elsewhere does in such cases, the subject of the first limb of the comparison with the predicate of the second. Fully expressed, it would stand thus: ‘ For, as a man that is dead is acquitted and released from guilt and bondage (among men: no reference to God’ s judgment of him): so a man that has died to sin is acquitted from the guilt of sin and released from its bondage.’ I express δεδικ . by this periphrasis in both cases, because I believe that all this is implied in it: ‘ is acquitted,’ ‘ has his quittance,’ from sin, so that Sin (personified) has no more claims on him, either as a creditor or as a master: cannot detain him for debt, nor sue him for service. A larger reference is thus given to δεδικ . than the purposes of the present argument, which is treating of the power, not the guilt of sin, required: but that it is so, lies in the nature of ἁμαρτία , the service of which is guilt, and the deliverance from whose service necessarily brings with it acquittal. 8-11. This new life must be one dedicated to God. 8. Now (continuing the train of argument) if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also (the future as in ver. 5,— because the life with Him though here begun, is not here completed: and the πιστεύομεν used more of dogmatic belief, than of trust, though the latter meaning is not altogether absent) live with Him. 9. This and the following verse explain what sort of a life with Christ is meant, by what we know of the Resurrection-life of Christ himself. The only difficulty here is in οὐκἔτικυριεύει , as implying that Death had dominion over Christ, which we know it had not: see John 10:17, John 10:18; John 2:19; Acts 2:24. But this vanishes, when we remember that our Lord, by submitting to Death, virtually, and in the act of death, surrendered Himself into the power of Death. Death could not hold Him, and had no power over Him further than by his own sufferance: but power over Him it had, inasmuch as He died. 10. For (the proof of the foregoing) the death which He died (not ‘ in that He died,’ as E. V., nor is ὅ for καθ ʼ ὅ , either here or in ref. Gal., but the accus. objective, governed by the verb. So also of ὃδὲζῇ below), unto sin He died (De Wette well remarks that we must in expressing this verse abide by the indefinite reference to sin in which the death of Christ is placed; if we attempt to make it more definite, ‘ for sin,’ or ‘ to that state, in which He suffered the punishment of sin,’ we shall lose the point of comparison, which lies in ‘ to sin,’ and ‘ to God.’ If we are to expand the words ‘ died to sin,’ we must say that our Lord at death passed into a state in which He had ‘ no more to do with sin’ — either as tempting Him (though in vain), or as requiring to be atoned for (this having been now effected), or as met by Him in daily contradiction which He endured from sinners) once for all (so that it is not to be repeated: see reff.); but the life which He liveth (see above) He liveth unto God (indefinite again, but easily filled up and explained: to God,— as being glorified by and with the Father, as entirely rid of conflict with sin and death, and having only God’ s (properly so called) work to do,— as waiting till, in the purposes of the Father, all things are put under Him:— and to (for) God, as being the manifestation and brightness of the Father’ s glory). 11. An exhortation to realize this state of death unto sin and life unto God with Christ. Thus (after the same manner as Christ) do ye also (imperative: Meyer only holds it to be indic.) account yourselves (better than ‘ infer yourselves to be,’ as Chrys. and Beza,— see reff. and on ch. 3:28) dead (indeed) unto sin (as ver. 2 and following), but alive unto God in Christ Jesus Christ Jesus; in this chapter it is not Christ’ s Mediatorship, but His Headship, which is prominent.— ἐνχρ . Ἰης ., is not (Reiche, Meyer, Fritz.) to be joined with both νεκρ . τῇἁμ . and ζῶν . τ . θ ., but only with the latter, next to which it stands, and of which it is literally and positively, whereas of the other it is only figuratively (τῷὁμοιώμ ., ver. 5) and negatively true). 12, 13. Hortatory inferences from ver. 11: from μή to τῇἁμαρτίᾳ , negative, answering to νεκροὺςτῇἁμ .,— then positive, answering to ζῶνταςτῷθεῷ . 12. βασιλευέτω answers to the imagery throughout, in which Sin is a master or lord. It is hardly right to lay a stress on it, and say (as Chrys.) οὐκεἶπεμὴοὖνζήτωἡσὰρξμηδὲἐνεργείτω , ἀλλ ʼ , ἡἁμαρτίαμὴβασιλευέτω . οὐγὰρτὴνφύσινἦλθενἀνελεῖν , ἀλλὰτὴνπροαίρεσινδιορθῶσαι : it is no matter of comparison between reigning and indwelling merely, but between reigning and being deposed. But why τῷθνητῷὑμ . σώματι Orig., al., explain it ‘ dead to sin,’ which it clearly cannot be. Chrys., Theodoret, Grot., and Reiche suppose the word inserted to remind us of the other life, and the shortness of the conflict, or (Theophyl.) of the shortness of sinful pleasures; Kö llner,— to point out that it is dishonourable to us to serve Sin, whose reign is confined to the mortal body; Fritzsche, ‘ quoniam, qui peccato ministrum se præ bet, adhuc in mortali corpore hæ rere nec nisi fragilis vitæ meminisse videtur;’ De Wette, Tholuck, al., that the Apostle, wishes to keep in view the connexion between sin and death on the one hand, and that συνζῆν which is freed from death on the other. This last view seems the most probable. See 2 Corinthians 4:11 and note. There is considerable uncertainty in the reading of the latter part of this verse. That which I have adopted is supported by the primary mss. and has the approval of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, and De Wette. 13. Nor render (see reff.;— as a soldier renders his service to his sovereign, or a servant to his master) your members (more particular than ‘ your bodies;’ the individual members being instruments of different lusts and sins) as instruments (or, ‘ weapons,’ as Vulg., most of the Greek expositors, and Luth., Calv., Beza, Tholuck, which latter defends this rendering by Paul’ s fondness for military similitudes, and by the occurrence of ὀψώνια below, ver. 23;— but as De W. observes, the comparison here is to servitude rather than soldiership) of unrighteousness to sin; but render (the present imperat. above denotes habit,— the exhortation guards against the recurrence of a devotion of the members to sin: this aorist imperat., on the other hand, as in ch. 12:1, denotes an act of self-devotion to God once for all, not a mere recurrence of the habit) yourselves (not merely your members, but your whole selves, body, soul, and spirit) to God, as alive from having been dead (as in vv. 4 ff. and Ephesians 2:1-5), and your members as instruments (see above) of righteousness to God (dat. ‘ commodi,’ as indeed is τῇἁμαρτ . above, the dat. after παριστ . being there left to be supplied, because of τῆ̣ἁμ . following). 14. An assurance, confirming the possibility of the surrender to God commanded in the last verse, that sin shall not be able to assert and maintain its rule in those who are not under the law but under grace. The future κυριεύσει cannot be taken as a command or exhortation, which use of the future would if not always, yet certainly here, require the second person,— and would hardly suit a personification like ἁμαρτία . The second part of the verse refers back to ch. 5:20, 21, where the law is stated to be the multiplier of transgression,— and accords with 1 Corinthians 15:56, ἡδύναμιςτῆςἁμαρτίας , ὁνόμος . The stress is on κυριεύσει : q. d. ‘ Your efforts to live a life of freedom from the tyranny of sin shall not be frustrated by its after all tyrannizing over you and asserting its dominion: for ye are not under that law which is the strength of sin, but under that grace (here in the widest sense, justifying and sanctifying,— grace in all its attributes and workings) in which is no condemnation,’ ch. 8:1. It will be seen from the above, that I interpret κυριεύσει rather of the eventual triumph of sin by obtaining domination over us, than of its reducing us under its subjection as servants in this life. This is necessary, both to fit this verse into the context, and to suit the question which arises in the next. See Calvin’ s masterly note. So also Tholuck and De Wette. The discussions (in Stuart and al.) as to whether νόμ . is the moral or ceremonial law, and as to whether we are bound by the former, are irrelevant here: the assertion being merely that of the general matter of fact, about which there can be no question, that we (Christians) are not under the law, placed in a covenant of legal obedience, but under grace,— placed in a covenant of justification by faith and under the promise of the indwelling Spirit— subjects of a higher law— even the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, ch. 8:2. Whether we are bound by the law, and how far, depends on how far the law itself spoke the immutable moral truth of God’ s government of the world, or was adapted to temporary observances and symbolic rites now abolished,— the whole of which subject is not under consideration here. I make these remarks to justify myself for not entering into those long and irrelevant discussions with which many of our commentaries are interrupted, and the sense of the Apostle’ s argument confounded. 15-23. The being under grace (free from the condemnation of sin) and not under the law, is no encouragement to sin: for (vv. 16-19) we have renounced the service of sin, and have become the servants of righteousness: and (vv. 20-23) the consequences of the service of sin are terrible and fatal, whereas those of the service of righteousness are blessed and glorious. 15. τίοὖν ; = τίοὖνἐροῦμεν ; ver. 1. ἁμαρτήσωμεν ] Must we imagine that we may sin? may we sin?— the aor. because he is speaking of committing acts of sin [not of a habit of living in sin, although that would be induced by such acts]: on the deliberative subjunctive, see ver. 1. This question is not, any more than that of ver. 1, put into the mouth of an objector, but is part of the Apostle’ s own discourse, arising out of what has preceded, and answered by him in the following verses. 16. ‘ You are the servants either of God or of sin,— there is no third course.’ The former part of the verse as far as ὑπακούετε reminds them merely of an universal truth,— that the yielding ourselves servants for obedience to any one, implies the serving, being (in reality) the servants of such person. Then this is applied in the form of a dilemma, implying that there is no third service, q. d. ‘ Now this must be true of you with regard either to sin or to God.’ Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants with a view to obedience, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, (and in this case) either (ἤτοι — ἤ only occurs here in N. T. ἤτοι in alternatives is exclusive, cf. Herod. i. 11, δίδωμιαἵρεσιν , ὁκοτέρηνβούλεαιτραπέσθαι … ἤτοικεῖνόνγετὸνταῦταβουλεύσανταδεῖἀπόλλυσθαι , ἢσὲτὸνἐμὲ .… Isocr. ἀντιδ . p. 317, ἦλθενἄνἤτοικατηγορήσωνἢκαταμαρτυρήσων , and see Hartung, Partikellehre, 2:355 f.) (servants) of sin, unto death (‘ with death as the result,’ — not physical death merely, nor eternal death merely, but death (by sin) in its most general sense, as the contrast to (life by) righteousness,— the state of misery induced by sin, in all its awful aspects and consequences:— and so throughout this passage and ch. 7), or of obedience (τοῦθεοῦ , sc.— obedience to Him who alone ought to be obeyed) unto righteousness (with righteousness as its result; not imputed merely, nor implanted merely, but righteousness in its most general sense as the contrast to death,— the state of blessedness induced by holiness, and involving in it, as a less in a greater, eternal life: and so throughout this passage)? 17, 18. The dilemma solved for them by reference to the matter of fact: that they were once servants of sin, but on receiving the gospel, obeyed its teaching: and consequently were freed from the service of sin, and became the servants of righteousness:— and this in the form of a thanksgiving to God (1 Corinthians 1:14) whose work in them it was. There is a stress on ἦτε as referring to a state past. So Ephesians 5:8: on account of which stress apparently the μέν , which would naturally follow it, is omitted. 17. ὑπ .… διδαχῆς ] Attr.: the simple construction would be ὑπηκούσατετῷτύπῳτῆςδιδ . εἰςὃνπαρεδόθητε ), ye obeyed (ὑπ . on account of ὑπακοή above) from the heart (reff.) that form of teaching (so μόρφωσις ch. 2:20: see examples in Fritzsche, vol. i. p. 418; most probably used of the practical norma agendi accompanying the doctrine of the gospel; so Calv., Luth., Beza, Reiche:— De W. thinks it is the Pauline form of teaching, of justification by faith, distinguished from the Judaistic) to which ye were delivered ([not as E. V., ‘ which was delivered you’ ] this inversion to the passive agrees admirably with τύπος , as a mould, exemplar, or pattern after which they were to be fashioned: so κατὰτὰδόγματατυποῦσθαι , Arrian. Enchir. ii. 19 (Thol.): and Beza,— ‘ hoc dicendi genus magnam quandam emphasin videtur habere. Ita enim significatur evangelicam doctrinam quasi instar typi cujusdam esse, cui veluti immittamur, ut ejus figuræ conformemur, et totam istam transformationem aliunde provenire.’ (Thol.) And Chrys. remarks, τὸπαραδοθῆναι , τὴντοῦθεοῦβοηθείαναἰνίττεται . See on the construction, Winer, edn. 6, § 24. 2. b). 18. ἐλενθ … δικαιοσ .] And (this verse is closely united with the foregoing; Rü ckert, Reiche, and Meyer think that it might be stated as a syllogistic conclusion, of which the dilemma is the major, and the fact of ver. 17 the minor) being freed from sin, ye were enslaved (see on next verse) to righteousness. 19. For the expression ἐδουλώθητε the Apostle apologizes: ‘ it is not literally so; the servant of righteousness is no slave, under no yoke of bondage; but in order to set the contrast between the former and the new state better before you, I have used this word:’ I speak as a man (according to the requirements of rhetorical antithesis) on account of the (intellectual, as De W. and Thol.: not moral, as Meyer and Olsh.) weakness of your flesh : for (explanatory of ἐδουλώθ .) like as ye (once) rendered up your members (as) servants to impurity and to lawlessness (two divisions of ἁμαρτία — impurity, against a man’ s self,— lawlessness against God), unto lawlessness (both which, ἀκαθ . and ἀνομ ., lead to ἀνομία , result in it: ‘ qui justitiæ serviunt, proficiunt: ἄνομοι , iniqui, sunt iniqui, nihil amplius.’ Bengel: not ‘ from one ἀνομία to another,’ as Œ cum., Theophyl., Luth., Grot., Erasm., al.: because (De W.) ἀνομία is not an act, but a principle), so now render up your members (as) servants to righteousness (see ver. 16) unto (leading to, having as its result, perfect) sanctification (contrast to ἀνομία , and both embracing their respective consequences). 20-23. As a further urging of the above exhortations, the Apostle contrasts the end of their former life with that of their present. 20. γάρ introduces a motive for the foregoing: but the verse [properly] belongs to the following: for ver. 22 is the contrast to it. Meyer and Fritz. think it to be an explanation of ver. 19, but are certainly mistaken. For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in relation to (dat. of regard or reference, Winer, edn. 6, § 31.1) righteousness. There is doubtless a latent irony in the use of ἐλεύθεροι here; but it must not be brought out too strongly: it does not appear, till the end of that freedom is declared. 21. ‘ Well, then, ye were free: and what was the benefit?’ οὖν concedes and assumes. There are two ways of pointing: (1) that of E. V., carrying on the question to ἐπαισχύνεσθε , and supplying ἐπ ʼ ἐκείνοις before ἐφ ʼ οἷς , adopted by Chrys., Œ , Vulg., Beza, Grot., Estius, Bengel, Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Stuart, al. But this though good as far as construction is concerned, is inconsistent with the N. T. meaning of καρπός , which is ‘ actions,’ the fruit of the man considered as the tree, not ‘ wages,’ or ‘ reward,’ the fruit of his actions: see below, ver. 22, and ch. 1:13, note. So even Philippians 1:22 (see note). So that I much prefer (2) the punctuation of Theod. , Theodoret, Theophyl., Luth., Melancth., Koppe, Flatt, Tholuck, Rü ckert, Kö llner, Olsh., Lachm., Griesb., De Wette, al., placing the interrogation at τότε , and making ἐφ ʼ οἷςν . ἐπαισχ . the answer. What fruit then had ye at that time? (Things, deeds) of which ye are now ashamed. τὸμὲνγὰρτέλ . ἐκ . θ .] the reason of their present shame. For the end (= virtually ὀψώνια , ver. 23, and would be a mere repetition of καρπός on the first method of punctuation above) of those things (those καρποί consisting of sinful acts) is death (death in the widest sense, see note on ver. 16,— physical, which has been the end of sin, in which we are all involved,— and spiritual and eternal, which will be the end of actual sin if followed out). 22. Contrast of your present state to that former one: freedom from sin as a master,— servitude (compare ἀνθρώπινονλέγω , ver. 19) to God (a higher description than merely δικαιοσύνη , the actual antithesis to ἁμαρτία , ver. 18. The devil would be the corresponding antithetical power: and not unfrequently appears in the teaching of Paul: but usually in casual expressions, as Ephesians 4:27; Ephesians 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:26, not as the principal figure in a course of argument),— fruit unto (leading unto perfect) sanctification,— and the end life everlasting. 23. The ends of the two courses placed pointedly and antithetically, and the inherent difference, that whereas death (see above) is the wages (ὀψ . = pay, or ration, of soldiers; compare the similitude in ver. 13, and remarks there) of sin, earned and paid down,— eternal life is no ὀψώνιον , nothing earned, but the free gift of God to His soldiers and servants;— and that in (not ‘ through,’ — true enough, but not implied in ἐν , see above on ver. 11) Christ Jesus our Lord. 7:1-6. The explanation and proof of the assertion ch. 6:14, οὐγάρἐστεὑπὸνόμον , ἀλλὰὑπὸχάριν : the answer to the question of 6:15 having occupied 6:16-23. 1-4. The Christian is dead to the law by being dead with Christ, and has become His. 1. Connect with ch. 6:14, which is in fact the sentence immediately preceding. Reiche and Meyer connect with 6:23; ‘ The gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord: this you can only doubt by being ignorant,’ &c. Krehl believes ch. 7 to be the expansion of ‘ Death is the wages of sin,’ — and ch. 8, of ‘ the free gift of God is eternal life.’ But not only does this division not hold, for much of ch. 8 regards the conflict with sin and infirmity,— but the prominence of νόμος as the subject here forbids the connexion with ὀψώνιατῆςἁμαρτθάνατος . The steps of the proof are these: The law binds a man only so long as he lives (ver. 1):— e.g. a married woman is only bound to her husband so long as he lives (vv. 2, 3):— so also the Christian being dead with Christ and alive to Him is freed from the law (ver. 4). ἀδελφοί ] Not addressed particularly to Jewish Christians: see below: but generally to the Roman church. γινώσκουσινγ . νόμ . λαλ .] For I am speaking (writing) to men acquainted with the law; i.e. the persons to whom I address this epistle are such as know the law: not ‘ I speak to those who know the law,’ as if he were now addressing a different class of persons,— which would require τοῖςγὰργινώσκουσιντὸννόμοντοῦτόφημι , see Galatians 4:21. Nor does the knowledge of the law here affirmed of the Romans prove that the majority of them were Jewish Christians: they may have been Gentile proselytes. ὅτιὁνόμ . κυρ . τοῦἀνθρ .… ] that the (Mosaic: for of that, and not of any other law, is the whole argument) law hath power over a man (not ὁνόμ . τοῦἀνθρώπου , ‘ a man’ s law,’ and κυριεύει absolute, ‘ has dominion,’ — as Hamm. and Dr. Burton, which is very questionable Greek and still worse sense) as long time as he (the man, see vv. 4 and 6:— not the law, as Origen, Erasm., Grot., Estius, al., which would introduce the irrelevant question of the abrogation of the law, whereas the whole matter in argument is the relation of the Christian to the law) lives. 2. For (not merely = e.g., but, as Thol., the example is itself the proof) the married (ref.) woman is bound by the law to the living husband: but if the husband die, she is set free from (lit. annulled from) the law of (‘ regarding,’ compare reff. and ὁνόμοςτοῦλεπροῦ . Leviticus 14:2) the husband (no hypallage). 3. And accordingly while her husband lives she shall be called (see ref.— and on this use of the future, as declaring what shall follow on a condition being fulfilled, Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 6) an adulteress, if she attach herself to (become the wife of) another man: but if her husband die, she is free from the law , so that (it matters little whether τοῦμή is the result or the purpose: it is better always to keep the latter in view, and to regard the result in such sentences as for the moment spoken of as the purpose to which its constituents contributed) she is not an adulteress, though she have attached herself to another man. So far all is clear. But when we come to the application of the example, this must carefully be borne in mind, as tending to clear up all the confusion which has here been found by Commentators:— that the Apostle is insisting on the fact, that death dissolves legal obligation: but he is not drawing an exact parallel between the persons in his example, and the persons in his application. The comparison might be thus made in terms common to both: (1) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between man and wife: therefore the wife is at liberty to be married to another:— (2) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between the law and us: therefore we are at liberty to be married to another. So far the comparison is strict. Further it will not hold: for in the example, the liberated person is the survivor,— in the thing treated, the liberated person is the dead person. And so far from this being an oversight or an inaccuracy, it is no more than that to which, more or less, all comparisons are liable; and no more can be required of them than that they should fit, in the kernel and intent of the similitude. If it be required here to apply the example further, there is no difficulty nor inconsistency in saying (as Chrys. al.) that our first Husband was the Law, and our second is Christ; but then it must be carefully borne in mind, that we are freed, not by the law having died to us, (which matter here is not treated,) but by our having died to the law. It is not necessary with Calv. and Tholuck, to suppose that in ver. 4 there is an euphemistic inversion, ‘ we are dead to the law,’ instead of ‘ the law is dead to us;’ indeed such a supposition would, from what is said above, much weaken the argument, which rests on our being slain with Christ, and so freed from the law. 4. So then (inference both from ver. 1, the general fact, and vv. 2, 3, the example), my brethren, ye also (as well as the woman in my example, who is dead to the law of her husband) were slain to the law (crucified, see Galatians 2:19, Galatians 2:20. The more violent word is used instead of ἀπεθάνετε , to recall the violent death of Christ, in which, and after the manner of which, believers have been put to death to the law and sin,— and the historic aorist to remind them of the great Event by which this was brought about) by means of the (crucified) Body (compare διὰτῆςπροσφορᾶςτοῦσώματοςτοῦἸης . χρ ., Hebrews 10:10) of Christ, that you should become attached to another, (even) to Him who was raised from the dead (alluding both to the comparison in vv. 2, 3, γένηταιἀνδρὶἑτέρῳ , and to ch. 6:4, 5, ἵναὥσπ . ἠγέρθηχριστὸςκ .τ .λ .), that we should (here strictly final, as Thol., Meyer, De W., &c. Not merely ecbatic, as Fritzsche) bring forth fruit (alluding to καρπόν , ch. 4:22, and at the same time (Luke 1:42) carrying on the similitude of marriage. Not that this latter must be pressed, for there is only an allusion to it: nor on the other hand need the least objection be raised to such an understanding of the words, as any one conversant with St. Paul’ s way of speaking on this subject will at once feel: compare 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:30-32) to God. 5, 6. In the fleshly state (before we died with Christ) sinful passions which were by the Law worked in us and brought forth fruit to death: but now that we are dead to the law, we are no longer servants in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit. The Law (ch. 5:20, alluded to again 6:14) was the multiplier of sin To this thought, and the inferences from it, the Apostle now recurs, and contrasts the state under the law in this respect, with that of the believer in Christ. For when we were in the flesh σαρκὶ ,— not even 2 Corinthians 10:3: nor, I may add, Philippians 1:24) the stirrings (‘ passions of sins,’ objective gen., which led to sins: not by hendiadys for παθήμ . ἁμαρτωλά , which, as always, destroys the force) of sins, which were by means of the law (the incitements,— not the sins, in this place, though ultimately it was so, the incitement leading to the sin. The full meaning of διὰτοῦνόμου must be kept, ‘ which were by means of the law:’ i.e. the law occasioned them. Locke argues for the rendering, ‘ under the law,’ ‘ in the time of the law,’ which would destroy the force of the argument connecting the law with sin, here put so strongly as to require the question of ver. 7) wrought (‘ energized:’ not pass., but middle: see note on Galatians 5:6) in our members (the instruments of sin, ch. 6:13) to the bringing forth of fruit (see on τοῦμή ver. 3: the καρποφ . was the final object of their energizing, not the mere result. In καρποφ . here, the allusion to progeny is very distant, if it exists at all. Meyer makes it refer to an adulterous state, and personifies θάνατος ; but this can hardly be) unto death : 6. But now (opposed to ὅτε , ver. 5) have we been delivered (annulled) from the law, having died (to that) wherein we were held (the reading ἀποθανόντος cannot even be brought into discussion, as it appears to be only a conjecture of Beza’ s, arising from a misunderstanding of the text (and of Chrysostom’ s commentary, who did not read it),— see the analogy explained on ver. 1: the other reading, τοῦθανάτου , is a correction to suit ver. 5. So that ἐνᾧ either refers directly to νόμου , ἀποθανόντες being absolute and parenthetic, or we must understand ἐκείνῳ aft. ἀποθ . I prefer the latter, as suiting better the style of the Apostle and the whole connexion. The omission of the demonstrative pron. probably is occasioned by a desire to give especial prominence to the fact of ἀποθανόντες , or perhaps on account of the prepos. ἀπό in composition, as in ch. 10:14, πῶςοὖνἐπικαλέσωνταιεἰςὃνοὐκἐπίστευσαν ;), so that we serve (not ‘ should serve,’ as E. V.: the pres. describes the actual state:— understand ‘ God’ after serve) in the newness of the Spirit (i.e. of the Holy Spirit of God, who originates and penetrates the Christian life:— the first mention of the Spirit so much spoken of in ch. 8) and not in the oldness of the letter (the law being only a collection of precepts and prohibitions, but the Gospel a service of freedom, ruled by the Spirit, whose presence is liberty), καινότης and παλαιότης are not as in ch. 6:4, καινότητζωῆς , attributes of the genitives which follow them, but states in which those genitives are the ruling elements. 7-25. An explanation of the part which the law has in bringing out sin, by example of the Apostle’ s own case. In this most important and difficult passage, it is of the first consequence to have a clear view of the form of illustration which the Apostle adopts, and of the reason why he adopts it. The former has been amply treated of by almost all Commentators: the latter, too generally, has escaped their enquiry. But it furnishes, if satisfactorily treated, a key to the other. I ask then first, why St. Paul suddenly changes here to the first person? And the answer is, because he is about to draw a conclusion negativing the question (ὁνόμοςἁμαρτία ;) upon purely subjective grounds, proceeding on that which passes within, when the work of the law is carried on in the heart. And he is about to depict this work of the law by an example which shall set it forth in vivid colours, in detail, in its connexion with sin in a man. What example then so apposite, as his own? Introspective as his character was, and purified as his inner vision was by the Holy Spirit of God, what example would so forcibly bring out the inward struggles of the man which prove the holiness of the law, while they shew its inseparable connexion with the production of sin? If this be the reason why the first person is here assumed (and I can find no other which does not introduce into St. Paul’ s style an arbitrariness and caprice which it least of all styles exhibits), then we must dismiss from our minds all exegesis which explains the passage of any other, in the first instance, than of Paul himself: himself indeed, as an exemplar, wherein others may see themselves: but not himself in the person of others, be they the Jews, nationally or individually, or all mankind, or individual men. This being done, there arises now a question equally important,— Of what self is it that he speaks throughout this passage? Is it always the same? If so, is it always the carnal, unregenerate self? or always the spiritual, regenerate? Clearly not the latter always; for to that self the historical account of vv. 7-13 will not apply, and still less the assertion, in the present, of ver. 14. Clearly not the former always: for to that the assertion of ver. 22 will not apply, nor that of ver. 25. Is it always the complex self, made up of the prevailing spiritual-regenerate, with the remains of the carnal-unregenerate? Not always this: although this seems nearer to satisfying the conditions: for in the description ver. 9, ἐγὼἔζωνχωρὶςνόμουποτέ , and in ἐγὼσὰρκινόςεἰμικ .τ .λ . ver. 14, there is no complexity, but the ἐγώ is clearly the carnal man. Therefore not always the same. If not always the same, where is the distinction? If we look carefully, the Apostle himself will guide us to it. Having carried on the ἐγώ unqualified and unexplained till ver. 18, he there has occasion to say οὐκοἰκεῖἐνἐμοὶἀγαθόν . But he is conscious that, as he had written to the Cor. (1 Corinthians 3:16), τὸπνεῦματοῦθεοῦοἰκεῖἐνὑμῖν : he therefore finds it necessary to correct himself by an explanation, what ἐγώ he meant, and adds to ἐνἐμοί ,— τουτέστινἐντῇσαρκίμου . So that ἐγώ there is equivalent to ἡσάρξμου , i.e. ‘ myself in my state of life to the law and sin, and acting according to the motions of sin.’ Again, when the approval of the law of God is affirmed (not the mere θέλω , which I will treat by and by), it is not barely ἐγώ , but to avoid confusion, in ver. 22 the Apostle adds κατὰτὸνἔσωἄνθρωπον , and in ver. 25, prefixes αὐτός ; in both cases shewing that (see notes below) he speaks of the complex man, himself made up of an ἔσω , and an ἔξωἄνθρωπος , of ὁνοῦς and ἡσάρξ . Are we then justified in assuming, that up to ver. 22 the carnal-unregenerate self is spoken of, but after that the complex self? Such a supposition would not be consistent with the assertion of the θέλω from ver. 15 onwards: no such will existing in the carnal-unregenerate man. I believe the true account will be nearly as follows:— from ver. 7-13 incl. is historical, and the ἐγώ there is the historical self, under the working of conviction of sin, and shewing the work of the law; in other words, the carnal self in the transition state, under the first motions towards God generated by the law, which the law could never have perfected. Then at ver. 14, Paul, according to a habit very common to him, keeps hold of the carnal self, and still having it in view, transfers himself into his present position,— altering the past tense into the present, still however meaning by ἐγώ (in ver. 14), ἡσάρξμου . But, having passed into the present tense, he immediately mingles with this mere action of the law upon the natural conscience, the motions of the will towards God which are in conflict with the motions towards sin in the members. And hence arises an apparent verbal confusion, because the ἐγώ e.g. in ver. 17, of whom it is said, οὐκἔτιἐγὼκατεργάζομαιαὐτό , being the entire personality, the complex self, is of far wider extent than the ἐγώ of whom it is said οὐκοἰκεῖἐνἐμοί , τουτέστινἐντῇσαρκίμου , ἀγαθόν . But the latter ἐγώ , in this part of the chapter, is shewn to be (vv. 17, 20) no longer properly ἐγώ , but ἡοἰκοῦσαἐνἐμοὶἁμαρτία ,— and so it passes altogether out of sight after ver. 20, and its place is taken by the actual then existing complex self of Paul, compounded of the regenerate spiritual man, sympathizing with God’ s law, serving God’ s law, in conflict with the still remaining though decadent carnal man, whose essence it is to serve the law of sin, to bring captive to the law of sin. This state of conflict and division against one’ s self would infallibly bring about utter ruin, and might well lead to despair (ver. 24), but for the rescue which God’ s grace has provided by Jesus Christ our Lord. And this rescue has been such, that I, the αὐτὸςἐγώ of ver. 25, the real self, the nobler and better part of the man, serve, with the νοῦς (see there), the law of God: whereas it is only with the flesh, according to which (ch. 8:4) I do not walk, but overcome and mortify it, that I serve (am still subject to) the law of sin. Then this subjection of the flesh to the law of sin, to the δουλείατῆςφθορᾶς , is fully set out, in its nature,— consequences to the carnal,— and uses to the spiritual,— in ch. 8. Any thing like a summary of the exegesis of this passage would be quite beyond my limits. I must refer the student to commentaries on this epistle alone,— and especially to that of Tholuck, where a complete and masterly history is given. It may suffice here to say, that most of the ancients suppose ἐγώ to represent mankind, or the Jews generally, and the whole to be taken chronologically,— to ver. 9 as before the law, after ver. 9 as under the law. This was once Augustine’ s view, Prop. 44 in Ep. ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 2071, but he afterwards changed it (Retract. i. 23, vol. i. p. 620) and adopted in the main that advocated above. The default of a history of the exegesis will be found to be in some measure compensated by the account of opinions given under the separate verses below. 7. τίοὖνἐρ ., see note, ch. 6:1. ὁν . ἁμαρτία ;] Is the law (not, as Jowett, ‘ conscience,’ but in our case, the revealed law of God, which awoke the conscience to action) sin?— not ‘ the cause of sin,’ which in one sense the Apostle would not have denied,— but sin, abstract for concrete, sinful, or, as Bengel, ‘ causa peccati peccaminosa.’ ὁνόμος itself being abstract, that which is predicated of it is abstract also. The contrast is, ὁνόμοςἅγιος , ver. 12. The question itself refers back to ver. 5, τὰπαθήματατῶνἁμαρτιῶντὰδιὰτοῦνόμου . It is asked, not by an objector, but by the Apostle himself, in anticipation of an objection. ἀλλά ] Is but here in contrast to ὁνόμ . ἁμαρτ ., meaning, ‘ so far from that,’ — or is it a qualification of μὴγένοιτο , meaning ‘ but still it is true, that … ?’ Neither explanation exactly suits the context, which is, by a proper elucidation of the law’ s working as regards sin, to prove it to be holy. I would rather understand ἀλλά , but what I mean is … ,— I say not that, but … There surely is no contrast to ὁνόμ . ἁυαρτία , see ver. 8. οὐκἔγνων ] ‘ non cognoscebam, ni … ,’ — I was living in a state of ignorance of sin, were it not … This construction comprehends in it οὐκἂνἔγνων as a consequence, and is therefore often said to be put for it; but it has its propriety, as here, where a historical state is being described, and the unconditional indicative is more appropriate. Tholuck makes it = ‘ non cognoveram, ni … ’ in which case the indic, expresses more plainly than the conjunctive the absolute dependence of the fact on the condition. There is some difficulty in understanding the mutual relation of the clauses, τὴνἁμ . οὐκἔγνων , and τήντεγὰρἐπιθ . οὐκᾔδειν . It is well known that τε differs from καί , in not coupling things co-ordinate, but attaching things subordinate, to a former. Thus Thucyd. i. 9 begins Ἀγαμέμνωντέμοιδοκεῖ … , on which Poppo remarks (cited by Thol.), ‘ Sequitur exemplum auctæ Græ corum opulentiæ … ductum ex rebus Agamemnonis et causis expeditionis Trojanæ ;’ an example being a subordinate verification of a general categorical statement. The γάρ also shews that the second clause is subordinated to, and aileged in substantiation of the first. Then what is ἁμαρτία Is it sin in act, or sin in principle,— the principle of sin? Not sin in act, so that ἁμ . οὐκἔγν . should mean, ‘ I had not entered into contact with sin,’ i.e. ‘ had not sinned:’ as Fritz.: for then the law would have truly and actually been the cause of sin: nor, sin in act, so that the meaning were, ‘ I had not known the nature of a sinful act:’ for this would not agree with the subordination of ἐπιθυμία below: the ἐπιθ . being more general (πᾶσανἐπιθ .) than the particular acts which it induced. But the reference must be to sin in principle, the principle of sin: I had not recognized such a thing as sin, but by means of the law. So Calv., Melancth., Calov., Rü ckert, Kö lln., Olsh., Thol., De Wette. The law here is in the full sense of the Mosaic law as regarded himself,— not excluding the wider sense on which I have insisted in the former part of the Epistle when applied to others. τήντεγὰρ … ] For neither had I known coveting (the motions of the flesh towards sin,— whether acted on or not,— whether consented to or not:— this motion he would not have perceived, because he was simply moving with it) if the law had not said, Thou shalt not covet (reff. Exod. Deut.). ‘ Covet,’ in the above sense. The Apostle omits all the objects there specified, and merely lays hold of the idea contained in ἐπιθυμήσεις . And it may well be said and strictly, that the ‘ coveting’ there spoken of would lead to all kinds of sin— therefore murder, adultery, &c., if carried out: and that the prohibition of desire there serves as an example of what the law actually forbids elsewhere. 8. But (proceeding with the development of sin by means of the law) sin (the sinful principle or propensity, but without any conscious personification on the part of the Apostle,— see some excellent remarks on personification in Tholuck) having found occasion (ἀφορμή , as its derivation shews, means more than mere opportunity,— it indicates the furnishing the material and ground of attack, the wherewith and whence to attack. The words here are not to be joined, as Luth., Olsh., Meyer, with διὰτ . ἐντολῆς [which belongs to κατηργάσατο , see below]:— for (1) ἀφορμ . λαβεῖνδιὰ would not express whence the ἀφορμή is taken, as παρά or ἐκ , but only by what means some ἀφ . is taken from some source,— which would not here suit the Apostle’ s meaning, seeing that the source itself was the commandment,— and (2) ver. 13, διὰτοῦἀγ . κατεργ ., decides the matter here,— but absolutely, as frequently, see Wetst.) by means of the commandment (not = τοῦνόμου , but the tenth commandment, the prohibition in question) wrought in me (not ‘ wrought out,’ ‘ brought into action,’ but ‘ originated’ [using this commandment as its instrument]) all (manner) of coveting; for without the law sin is (not ‘ was:’ the omission of the verb substantive shews the sentence to be a locus communis,— and compare ch. 4:15) dead . This deadness of sin without the law must not be understood as meaning that sin was committed but not recognized, the conscience being not informed nor awakened: such a statement would be true, but would not touch the matter argued here. Erasmus (Thol.) well explains the νεκρά ,— ‘ Quum ante legem proditam (but see below) quæ dam peccata nescirem, quæ dam ita scirem, ut mihi tamen licere putarem, quod vetita non essent,— levius ac languidius sollicitabatur animus ad peccandum, ut frigidius amamus ea, quibus ubi libeat potiri fas sit. Cæ terum legis indicio proditis tot peccati formis, universa cupiditatum cohors irritata prohibitione cœ pit acrius ad peccandum sollicitare.’ Compare also Proverbs 9:17, and (Wetst.) Ovid. Amor. ii. 19. 3, ‘ Quod licet ingratum est, quod non licet acrius urit:’ and ib. iii. 4. 17, ‘ Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata:’ and Seneca, de Clem. i. 23 (Thol.), ‘ Parricidæ cum lege cœ perunt, et illis facinus pœ na monstravit:’ and a remarkable passage from Cato’ s speech in Livy xxxiv. 4, ‘ Nolite eodem loco existimare, Quirites, futuram rem, quo fuit, antequam lex de hoc ferretur. Et hominem improbum non accusari tutius est, quam absolvi, et luxuria non mota tolerabilior esset, quam erit nunc, ipsis vinculis, sicut fera bestia, irritata, deinde emissa.’ 9. It is a great question with Interpreters, of what period Paul here speaks. Those who sink his own personality, and think that he speaks merely as one of mankind, or of the Jews, understand it of the period before the law was given: some, of Adam in Paradise before (?) the prohibition: those who see Paul himself throughout the whole think that he speaks,— some, of his state as a Pharisee: this however would necessitate the understanding the legal death which follows, of his conversion, which cannot well be: some, of his state as a child, before that freedom of the will is asserted which causes rebellion against the law as the will of another: so Meyer, Thol., al. Agreeing in some measure with the last view, I would extend the limits further, and say that he speaks of all that time, be it mere childhood or much more, before the law began its work within him,— before the deeper energies of his moral nature were aroused (see on ἐλθούσης below). But (ἔζων opposed, but only formally, to νεκρά , and so having δέ : so Meyer and De W.) I was alive (not merely ‘ lived,’ ‘ went on,’ but emphatic, ‘ vivus eram,’ as , i.e. ‘ lived and flourished,’ — contrasted with ἀπέθανον below) without the law (the law having no recognized place in my moral existence) once; but when the commandment (above, ver. 8) came , sin sprung into life (not ‘ revived:’ however true it may be that sin was merely dormant, the idea insisted on here, is, that it was dead and came to life, began to live and flourish:— but this is not to be compared with ἀνέβλεψα in John 9:11; see note there), 10. but I died (ceased to live-and-flourish as before,— fell into that state of unhappiness, which even afterwards under the gospel he calls θάνατος , ver. 24, ch. 8:2): and the commandment which was for (tending to) life (compare ch. 10:5, ὁποιήσαςαὐτὰἄνθρωποςζήσεταιἐναὐτοῖς , and reff. there: the life is one of prosperity primarily, but capable of, and indeed requiring (10:5) a higher interpretation), this (very commandment) (αὕτη directs attention in a marked way to the antecedent subject: so frequently αὐτός and ἐκεῖνος : see Matthew 24:13: Winer, edn. 6, § 23. 4) was found , Chrys.) by me (to be) unto (tending to) death (explained on ἀπέθ . above). 11. For (explanatory how ver. 10 happened) sin (the sinful principle within me) having found occasion (absol. as in ver. 8, where see note),— by means of the commandment deceived me (there is a plain reference to the Tempter deceiving Eve, which was accomplished by means of the commandment, exciting doubt of and objection to it, and lust after the forbidden thing: see reff. 2 Cor., 1 Tim.), and by it slew me (i.e. brought me into the state of misery and death, mentioned in ver. 10;— but there is an allusion again to the effect of the fall as the act of the Tempter). 12. So that the law (indeed) is holy (μέν , as understanding a δέ to fellow— ‘ but it was sin,’ &c.: which does follow in an expanded form, in ver. 13), and the commandment (οὐκἐπιθυμήεις , ver. 8) holy and just and good (Theodoret thus accounts for the epithets: ἀγίανπροσηγόρευσενὡςτὸδέονδιδάξασαν · δικαίανδέ , ὡςὀρθῶςτοῖςπαραβάταιςτὴνψῆφονἐξενεγκοῦσαν · ἀγαθὴνδέ , ὡςζωὴντοῖςφυλάττουσινεὐτρεπίζουσαν . See also 1 Timothy 1:8). 13. Did then the good (= ‘ that which was good,’ i.e. ἡἐντολή , but made abstract for the sake of greater contrast) become death (so ὁνόμ ., ἁμαρτια , ver. 7) to me? Was it, after all, the commandment itself that became to me this death of which I speak? Far from it: but (it was) sin (that became death to me. The construction adopted by Vulg., Luth., al., ἀλλὰἡἁματρία , ἵναφανῇἁμ ., διὰτ . ἀγ . μοικατεργαζομένη [ἧν ] θάνατον , is hardly admissible);— that it might appear (be shewn to be) sin, (by) working death to me by means of the good (that which was good: see above. The misuse and perversion of good is one of the tests whereby the energy of evil is detected; so that sin, by its perversion of the (good) commandment into a cause (evil) of death, was shewn in its real character as sin. That this is the rendering is evident by the following clause, which is parallel with it. Erasm., Valla, Elsner, Dr. Burton, al., make ἁμαρτία the subject: ‘ that sin might appear to be working death, &c.’ (‘ so that sin appears to have effected my death,’ &c. Dr. Burton, most ungrammatically): there is no objection to this on the ground of ἁμαρτ . being anarthrous, as even Bp. Middleton himself reluctantly acknowledges;— the objection lies in the context, as above), that by means of the commandment sin might become exceeding (above measure) sinful: i.e. that sin, which was before unknown as such, might, being vivified and brought into energy by (its opposition to) the commandment, be brought out as being exceedingly sinful (sinful in an exaggerated degree— prominent in its true character as the opponent of God). 14. On the change into the present tense here, see above in the remarks on the whole section. Hitherto has been historical: now the Apostle passes to the present time, keeping hold yet of the carnal ἐγώ of former days, whose remnants are still energizing in the renewed man. For (by way of explaining and setting in still clearer light the relative positions of sin and the law, and the state of inner conflict brought about by their working) we know (it is an acknowledged principle amongst us, see reff.) that the law is spiritual (sprung from God, who is a Spirit, and requiring of men spiritual purity. These meanings, which have been separately held by different Commentators, may, as Thol. and De W. observe, well be united): but I (see beginning of section) am carnal ([subject to the law of the flesh, and in bondage to it, see below] σάρκινος , stronger than σαρκικός ; carneus rather than carnalis, but it is doubtful whether the two endings were not used indiscriminately: see Tholuck), sold (into slavery, see reff.; but the similitude must not be exacted in all particulars, for it is only the fact of slavery, as far as its victim, the man, is concerned, which is here prominent) under (to, and so as to be under the power of) sin. Tholuck (who differs from the view of this section advocated above, yet) adds here: “ The ἐγώ appears here in its totality as sinful, while in vv. 16, 20 it is distinguished from sin. That Paul does not here bear in mind this distinction, may be justified by the maxim, ‘ à potiori fit denominatio;’ the ἐγώ is a slave, and has not his own will: as ver. 23 shews, the ἐγώ which is hostile to sin, the νόμοςτοῦνοός , is under coercion, and the man is a captive. So Arrian in Epict. ii. 22: ὅπουγὰρτὸἐγὼκαὶτὸἐμόν , ἐκεῖἀνάγκηῥέπειντὸζῶον , εἰἐνσαρκἰ , ἐκεῖτὸκυριεῦονεἶναι , εἰἐνπροαιρέσει , ἐκεῖνο (qu. ἐκεῖ) εἶναι .” The latter clause of the verse is the very strongest assertion of man’ s subjection to the slavery of sin in his carnal nature. 15. For (a proof of this πεπράσθαι under sin, viz. not being able to do what I would, vv. 15-17) that which I perform (am in the habit of doing) I know not (act blindly, at the dictates of another: which is proper to a slave. σκοτοῦμαιφησί , συναρπάζομαι , ἐπήρειανὑπομένω , οὐκοἶδαπῶςὑποσκελίζομαι , Chrys. The meaning, ‘ I approve not,’ introduced by Aug. and held by Erasm., Beza, Grot., Estius, Semler, al., is not sanctioned by usage,— see note on 1 Corinthians 8:3,— and would make the following clause almost a tautology): for (explanation of last assertion, shewing how such blind service comes to pass) not what I desire, that do I (this θέλω is not the full determination of the will, the standing with the bow drawn and the arrow aimed; but rather the inclination of the will,— the taking up the bow and pointing at the mark, but without power to draw it:— -we have θέλω in the sense of to wish, 1 Corinthians 7:7, 1 Corinthians 7:32; 1 Corinthians 14:5; 2 Corinthians 12:20), but what I hate , that I do (no distinction here between πράσσω and ποιῶ , as apparently in John 3:20, John 3:21, where see note: for they are interchanged in vv. 19, 20). The Commentators cite several parallel passages from profane writers: e.g. Seneca, Hippol. 604, ‘ Vos testor omnes cœ lites, hoc quod volo, me nolle;’ — Epictetus, Enchiridion ii. 26, ἐπεὶγὰρὁἁμαρτάνωνοὐθέλειἁμαρτάνειν , ἀλλὰκατορθῶσαι , δῆλονὅτιὃμὲνθέλειοὐποιεῖ , καὶὃμὴθέλειποιεῖ :— the well-known lines of Ovid, Met. 7:19, ‘ aliudque cupido, Mens aliud suadet: video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor:’ — Plautus, Trinummus iii. 2. 31, ‘ Scibam ut esse me deceret, facere non quibam miser:’ — &c. 16. But if (= ‘ now seeing that;’ takes up the foregoing and draws an inference from it) what I wish not, that I do, I agree with (bear witness to) the law that it is good . 17. Now however it is no longer (not a chronological, but a logical sequence, ‘ it can no more be said, that;’ see reff.) I that perform it (κατεργ . as recalling vv. 8-15), but sin that dwelleth in me. Here the ἐγώ is not the complex responsible self, by which the evil deed is wrought, and which incurs the guilt of working it: but the self of the will in its higher sense, the ἔσωἄνθρωπος of ver. 22. The not bearing this in mind has led to error in interpretation and doctrine: e.g. when it is supposed that the Christian is not responsible for his sins committed against his spiritual will and higher judgment; whereas we are all responsible for the ἔργα of the sin that dwelleth in us, and it is in this very subjection to and involution with the law of sin in our members, that the misery consists, which leads to the cry in ver. 24. 18. An explanation of the οἰκοῦσαἐνἐμοὶἁμαρτία of the last verse. For I know (by experience, detailed in the next verse) that there dwells not in me, that is, in my flesh, (any) good (thing). I said, sin that dwelleth in me, because I feel sure, from experience, that in me (meaning by ‘ me’ not that higher spiritual self in which the Spirit of God dwells, but the lower carnal self: see on this important limitation the remarks at the beginning of the section) dwells no good thing. And what is my proof of this? How has experience led me to this knowledge? For (the proof from experience) the wish (to do good) is present with me (παρ ., not metaphorical, see reff., but, as προκεῖμαι in Homer, used commonly of meats served up to, lying before, any one); but to perform that which is good, is not (the absence of εὑρίσκω in , and the variations of γινώσκω and ἔχω in one or two mss. and versions,— and besides, the somewhat unusual termination of the sentence with οὐ ,— are too strong presumptions of its being an interpolation, to allow of its retention) (present with me). 19. And this οὐπαρακεῖσθαι of the doing good is shewn by my acts, in that I do not the good that I wish (to do), but the evil which I do not wish, that I do. 20. The inference of ver. 17 restated, with the premiss of ver. 16 in the place of νυνὶδέ :— but its meaning is now clearer and deeper than then; we know now that the ἐγώ which in the present verse does not the evil thing, is the better ἐγώ of the ἔσωἄνθρωπος ,— whereas the ἐμοί in which sin dwells and rules, though included in the complex self, is the lower ἐγώ , ἡσάρξμου . And so the way is now prepared for at once setting forth the conflict within us between these two. 21. I find then (i.e. as appears from what has been detailed) the (this) law (presently to be defined as the law of sin in my members, and exemplified in the following words: so τοῦῥήματοςτοῦκυρίου , ὡςἔλεγεν , Acts 11:16:— τῶνλόγωντοῦκυρίουἸησοῦ , ὅτιαὐτὸςεἶπεν , Acts 20:35 (De W.). This is the view of Calv., Beza, Grot., Estius, Wolf, Winer, Meyer (Exo_1, but in subsequent editions he has altered his view more than once), De Wette, al. It cannot well be referred to the Mosaic law, as, with various forced arrangements and constructions, Chrys., Theophyl., Theodoret, Tholuck, Olsh., Fritz., Kö llner; the great objection being, that all these do violence to the context. Tholuck’ s remark, that had νόμον meant as above, it would have been anarthrous, or τοῦτοντὸννόμον , is sufficiently answered by the above examples: and the dative after εὑρίσκω , to which he also objects as inadmissible in any language, is justified by Soph. Œ d. Col. 966, οὐκἄνἐξεύροιςἐμοὶ | ἁμαρτίαςὄνειδοςοὐδέν ,— and by Plato, Rep. iv. p. 421, ἕτερα … τοῖςφύλαξινεὑρήκαμεν , ‘ alia invenimus nostris custodibus observanda,’ Ficin.) to me (for myself) wishing to do good, that (consisting in this, that) evil is present with (see above, ver. 18) me. 22, 23. Explanation of the conflict above alleged to exist. For I delight in (σύν not signifying participation with others, but as perhaps in συνλυπούμενος , Mark 3:5, and in the phrase σύνοιδάμοι ; denoting ‘ apud animum meum.’ Thol. συνήδομαι is a stronger expression than σύμφημι , ver. 16) the law of God after the inner man (= νοῦς , ver. 25,— see reff.— and compare Peter’ s ὁκρυπτὸςτῆςκαρδίαςἄνθρωπος , ref. 1 Pet. But not merely the mental and reasoning part of man:— for that surely does not delight in the law of God:— it is absolutely necessary to presuppose the influence of the Holy Spirit, and to place the man in a state of grace before this assertion can be true. And it is surprising to find Commentators like Tholuck and De Wette, while they acknowledge that συνήδομαι is stronger than σύμφημι , yet denying the gradual introduction of the spiritual man in the description of this conflict. True, the Spirit is not yet introduced, because purposely kept back until treated of as the great deliverer from this state of death; the man is as yet described as compounded of the outer and inner man, of ἡσάρξ and ὁνοῦς , and the operations of the two are detailed as if unassisted,— even the term πνεῦμα for the human spirit being as yet avoided,— but all this is done, because the object is to set the conflict and misery, as existing even in the spiritual man, in the strongest light, so that the question in ver. 24 may lead the way to the real uses and blessed results of this conflict in ch. 8); but I see (= ‘ find:’ — as if he were a spectator of that which is going on within) a different law (differing in kind and aim, not = ἄλλος merely) in my members (= ἐντῇσαρκίμου , ver. 18), warring against the law of my mind (the consent viz., to the law of God, which my mind yields; not = the law of God, any more than the different law in my members = the law of sin,— but both meaning the standard or rule set up, which inclination follows:— the one in the νοῦς , in harmony with the law of God,— the other in the μέλη or σάρξ , subservient, and causing subservience, to the principle or law of sin), and bringing me (the whole complex self— the ‘ me’ of personality and action) into captivity with (ἐν , not exactly ‘ by means of,’ but pointing out the department in which, the investiture with which, the taking captive has place. Nor would the simple dative be ‘ by means of,’ as Chrys, Theodoret, Theophyl.,— but merely ‘ to:’ the dat. commodi aft. αἰχμαλ .) the law of sin (the sinful principle, of resistance to God’ s law, ἡἁμαρτία as awakened and set energizing, ver. 9, by that law) which is in my members. Commentators have much disputed whether the ἔτεροςνόμος , and the νόμοςτῆςἁμαρτ ., both ἐντοῖςμέλεσίνμου , are different, or the same. The former view is held by Calv., Beza, Kö llner, Rü ckert, De W.: the latter by Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Tholuck. It appears to me (see above) that the identity cannot be maintained without introducing great confusion into the sentence. 24. The division of the man against himself,— his inward conflict, and miserable state of captivity to sin in the flesh, while with the mind he loves and serves the law of God. From this wretched condition, which is a very death in life, who shall deliver him? σώματος cannot well be figurative, ‘ universitas vitiorum,’ or ‘ mortifera peccati massa,’ but must, on account of the part which ἡσάρξ and τὰμέλη have hitherto borne, be literal. Then how is τούτου to be taken? Some (Syr., Erasm., Calv., Beza, Olsh., Winer) join it with σώματος , and (not Winer) justify the construction as a Hebraism: but Winer has refuted the notion (edn. 6, § 34. 3. b) of a Hebraism, and the arrangement has no Greek example. It can only be joined with θανάτου ;— and that most fitly, as the state which he has been describing is referred to by τοῦθανάτουτούτου . Then the body of this death will mean, ‘ the body whose subjection to the law of sin brings about this state of misery,’ compare σῶματῆςἁμαρτίας , ch. 6:6. From this body, as the instrument whereby he is led captive to the law of sin and death, he cries out for deliverance: i. e to be set free, as ch. 8:2, from the law of sin and death. Some Commentators, misled by the notion of a Hendiadys , a most fruitful source of error in exegesis, have imagined that the verse implies a wish to be delivered from the body (by death), and expresses a weariness of life. The cry is uttered, as De Wette well observes, in full consciousness of the deliverance which Christ has effected, and as leading to the expression of thanks which follows. And so, and no otherwise, is it to be taken. 25. The rec. εὐχαριστῶ has but slender authority, and in the great variety of readings, it is not easy to determine, ἡχάριςτοῦθεοῦ is evidently a correction to answer to τίς above; so that our choice lies between χάριςτῷθ . and χάριςδὲθ . The sentence is (not, of course, constructionally, as the var. readg. ἡχάριςτοῦθεοῦ , but logically) an answer to the preceding question: Thanks to God (who hath accomplished this) by means of Jesus Christ our Lord. This exclamation and thanksgiving more than all convince me, that Paul speaks of none other than himself, and carries out as far as possible the misery of the conflict with sin in his members, on purpose to bring in the glorious deliverance which follows. Compare 1 Corinthians 15:56, 1 Corinthians 15:57, where a very similar thanksgiving occurs. ἄραοὖνκ .τ .λ .] These words are most important to the understanding of the whole passage. We must bear in mind that it had begun with the question, Is the law sin? The Apostle has proved that it is not, but is holy. He has shewn the relation that it holds to sin, viz. that of vivifying it by means of man’ s natural aversion to the commandment. He has further shewn, that in himself, even as delivered by Christ Jesus, a conflict between the law and sin is ever going on: the misery of which would be death itself, were not a glorious deliverance effected. He now sums up his vindication of the law as holy; and at the same time, sums up the other side of the evidence adduced in the passage, from which it appears that the flesh is still, even in the spiritual man, subject (essentially, not practically and energetically) to the law of sin,— which subjection, in its nature and consequences, is so nobly treated in ch. 8 So then (as appears from the foregoing), I myself ; 9:3; 15:14; 2 Corinthians 12:13, in all which places (see on ch. 15:14) it has the same force) with my mind (indeed) (ὁνοῦς = ὁἔσωἄνθρ . as in ver. 23) serve the law of God (cf. συνήδομαι , ver. 22), but with my flesh (the ἐγώ of ver. 18; and the σάρξ throughout of ch. 8) the law of sin. It remains to be seen how this latter subjection, which in the natural man carries all with it, is neutralized, and issues only in the death of the body on account of sin, in those who do not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Chap. 8:1-39. In the case of those who are in Christ Jesus, this divided state ends in the glorious triumph of the Spirit over the flesh: and that (vv. 1-17), though incompletely, not inconsiderably, even here in this state,— and (vv. 18-30) completely and gloriously hereafter. And (vv. 31-39) the Christian has no reason to fear, but all reason to hope; for nothing can sever him from God’ s love in Christ. 1-17. Although the flesh is still subject to the law of sin, the Christian, serving not the flesh, but walking according to the Spirit, shall not come into condemnation, but to glory with Christ. 1. There is therefore (an inference from ch. 7:25, because with their mind, and that mind dwelt in and led by the Spirit of Christ, they serve, delight in, the law of God) now (this νῦν is emphatic, and follows upon the question and answer of 7:24, 25,— rebus sic stantibus,— now that a deliverance has been effected from the body of this death, by Christ. This is certain from the γάρ which follows, setting forth the fact of the deliverance) no condemnation (reff.; = the penal consequence of sin original and actual) to those (who are) in Christ Jesus. The expression ἐνχρ . Ἰης . refers particularly to the last place where God’ s gift of life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord was spoken of, ch. 6:23,— and generally to all that was said in that chapter of our incorporation into and union with Him. The words μὴκατὰσάρκαπεριπατοῦσιν , ἀλλὰκατὰπνεῦμα , ‘ walking as they do not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit,’ are probably a gloss introduced from ver. 4, right enough in sense (see there), but out of place here, because this moral element of ‘ those in Christ’ is not yet brought in: the present assertion is general, and is made good in detail by and by. See digest. 2. For (a reason why there is no condemnation) the law (norma, method = influence, as in ἕτεροννόμον , ch. 7:23,— used here perhaps for sharper contrast to the νόμοςἁμαρτ . below) of the Spirit of life (the Lord and Giver of life— life used in an incipient higher sense than ἔζων in ch. 7:9,— see below) freed me (aor., referring to the time of his conversion. There is no stronger proof to my mind of the identity of the speaker in the first person throughout with the Apostle himself, than this extension of that form of speaking into this chapter: nothing more clearly shews, that there he was describing a really existing state within himself, but insulating, and as it were exaggerating it (as so often), to bring out more clearly the glorious deliverance to follow. If σε be read, the address is a general one to the reader, leading on to the ἡμῖν below: and the foregoing argument does not apply) in Jesus Christ (I follow the more regular grammatical arrangement in taking ἐνχρ . Ἰης . with the verb. Thus also Thol. and De Wette. It may be taken (notwithstanding the absence of the art., at which indeed only tiros will stumble) with ζωῆς , as Luther, which seems to suit ch. 6:23,— or with τοῦπν . τ . ζ ., as Piscator and Flatt,— or with ὁνόμ . τ . π . τ . ζ ., as Calv.) from the law of sin (7:25) and death (death again here bears a higher meaning than in ch. 7. We are now on higher ground:— κατάκριμα having been mentioned, which is the punishment of sin, death now involves that, and is not only temporal misery, but eternal ruin also. This ‘ law of the Spirit of life’ having freed him from the law of sin and death, so that he serves another master, all claim of sin on him is at an end— he is acquitted, and there is no condemnation for him). 3. For (explanation of ver. 2, shewing the method of this liberation) that which was not in the power of the law (the construction is a nominativus pendens, as in ref. Heb., in apposition with the following sentence, ὁθεὸςκ .τ .λ .: so Rü ckert, Meyer, Fritz., De W., Tholuck: Winer, § 32. 7, makes it an acc. governed by ἐποίησεν understood (stating however in edn. 6, the nom. pendens as an alternative; see also § 63. I. 2. d): Olsh. al., make it an acc. absol. or supply κατά : Camerarius and Beza, διὰ ;— but the above seems the simplest. τὸἀδύνατ . τοῦνόμου may mean either, ‘ that part of the law which was impossible,’ — ‘ could not be obeyed,’ — as τὸγνωστὸντοῦθεοῦ , ch. 1:19;— or, ‘ the inability of the law’ = ἡἀδυναμίατ . ν ., as τὸχρηστὸντοῦθεοῦ , ch. 2:4;— or, ‘ that which was unable to be done by the law.’ Of these, the first is out of the question, because νόμος must be the subject of ἐνᾧἠσθ . κ .τ .λ .:— the second would give the first clause the meaning, ‘ that wherein the inability of the law shewed itself,’ viz. its powerlessness διὰτ . σαρκός . The third yields by far the best meaning: see below on διὰτ . ς .) in that (this clause gives a reason and explanation of the ἀδύνατον , see however the note on ref. Heb.) it was weak (the Apostle keeps in mind his defence of the holiness of the law undertaken in ch. 7, and as Chrys. observes, δοκεῖμὲνδιαβάλλειντὸννόμον , εἰδέτιςἀκριβῶςπροσέχοι , καὶσφόδρααὐτὸνἐπαινεῖ … οὐδὲγὰρεἶπετὸπονηρὸντοῦνόμου , ἀλλὰτὸἀδύνατον · καὶπάλινἐνᾧἠσθένει , οὐκ , ἐνᾧἐκακούργει , ἐνᾧἐπεβούλενε . Hom. xiv. p. 563) through the flesh (i.e. in having to act through the flesh: not, ‘ on account of the flesh,’ i.e. of the hostility, or weakness of the flesh, which would be διὰτὴνσάρκα . The flesh was the medium through which the law,— being a νόμοςἐντολῆςσαρκίνης , Hebrews 7:16,— wrought, and οἱἐνσαρκί the objects on which. So the gen. here is similar to that in 2 Corinthians 2:4, ἔγραψαὑμῖνδιὰπολλῶνδακρύων , and 1 Peter 5:12, δι ʼ ὀλίγωνἔγραψα , indicating the state in or medium through which, the action is carried on),— God (did) sending His own Son (the stress is on ἑαυτοῦ , and the word is pregnant with meaning:— His own, and therefore like Himself, holy and sinless. This implication should be borne in mind, as the suppressed antithesis to ἁμαρτ ., three times repeated afterwards. Another antithesis may be implied— ἑαυτοῦ , and therefore spiritual, not acting merely through the flesh, though in its likeness, but bringing a higher spiritual life into the manhood) in the likeness of the flesh of sin (the flesh whose attribute and character was sin. The gen. is not = ἁμαρτωλοῦ , but implies far more— [not merely the contamination by, but] the belonging to and being possessed by. De Wette observes, ‘ The words ἐνὁμοιώμ . σαρκ . ἁμ . appear almost to border on Docetism; but in reality contain a perfectly true and consistent sentiment. σὰρξἁμαρτ . is flesh (human nature, John 1:14; 1 John 4:2; Hebrews 2:14) possessed with sin: the Apostle could not then have said ἐνσαρκὶἁμ . without making Christ partaker of sin: nor could he have said merely ἐνσαρκί , for then the bond between the Manhood of Jesus, and sin, would have been wanting: he says then, ἐνὁμοιώμ . σαρ . ἁμ .,— meaning by that, He had a nature like sinful human nature, but had not Himself a sinful nature,— compare Hebrews 4:15: οὐγὰρἔχομενἀρχιερέαμὴδυνάμενονσυνπαθῆσαιταῖςἀσθενείαιςἡμῶν , πεπειρασμένονδὲκατὰπάντακαθ ʼ ὁμοιότηταχωρὶςἁμαρτίας . The likeness must be referred not only to σάρξ , but also to the epithet τῆςἁμ .:— it did not however consist in this, that He took our sins (literally) on Himself, and became Himself sinful (as Reiche), which would not amount to likeness of nature,— but in this, that He was able to be tempted, i.e. subjected to sensuous incitements, e.g. of pain, which in other men break out into sin, but in Him did not.’ See Philippians 2:7, and note. σάρξ is not = σῶμα , but as in John 1:14, the material, of which man is in the body compounded),— and on account of sin (to be joined with πέμψας , not as Chrys. al. Vulg., with κατέκρινεν : least of all as Luther, “ und verdammete die Sü nde in Fleisch durch Sü nde.” The ‘ for,’ or ‘ on account of,’ sin, is at present indefinite, and not to be restricted to Christ’ s death as a sin-offering, which is not just now the subject. ‘ On account of sin’ then, = to put away sin, as reff. Heb.), condemned sin in the flesh (not ‘ the sin which was in the flesh,’ which would probably (not certainly) have been τὴνἐντ . ς ., and which is against the context, in which ἁμ . is throughout an absolute principle. κατέκρινεν is allusive to κατάκριμα ver. 1. Hence it has been taken to mean that God condemned, punished, sin in the flesh by the death of Christ: so , Erasm., Calv., Melancthon, Calov., Olsh., al. But that can hardly be the meaning here, for several reasons. 1. The Apostle is not speaking of the removal of the guilt, but of the practice of sin, and of the real fulfilment of the law in those who are in Christ. It is this which even in ver. 1 is before him, grounding as he does the οὐδὲνκατάκριμα on the δουλεύωνόμῳθεοῦ — on the new and sanctifying power of the Spirit by Christ, in spite of the continued subjection of the flesh to the law of sin. 2. The context shews that the weakness of the law was, its having no sanctifying power;— it could arouse sin, but it could not condemn and cast it out. This indeed is the burden of ch. 7. The absence of justifying power in the law has already been dealt with. 3. The following verse clearly makes the fulfilling the δικαίωμα of the law no matter of mere imputation, but of περιπατεῖνκατὰπνεῦμα . We must then look for the meaning of κατακρίνειν in the effects and accompaniments of condemnation,— victory over, and casting out of sin. See, for example, John 12:31, where κρίσιςτοῦκόσμουτούτου is explained by ὁἄρχωντοῦκόσμουτούτουἐκβληθήσεταιἔξω , and ib. 16:11. As early as Irenæ us (Hæ r. iii. 20. 2, p. 214) this was seen to be the sense: ‘ ut condemnaret peccatum, et jam quasi condemnatum projiceret illud extra carnem:’ — so Chrys., ἐνίκησεναὐτήν , τὴνδύναμιναὐτῆςἐξέλυσε ,— Œ cum. 2, πῶςἐξῆρε ; κατακρίναςαὐτὴν — καὶδείξαςἁλοῦσαν . πῶςοὖνἑάλωκαὶἥττηται ; ἐντῇσαρκὶαὐτοῦ . προσιέναιγὰρβουληθεῖσακ . μὴἰσχύσασαἑάλωκ . ἥττηται ,— and Theophyl. ἡγίασεκ . ἐστεφάνωσε , κατακρίναςτὴνἁμαρτίανἐντῇσαρκὶπροσληφθείσῃκαὶδείξαςὅτιοὐφύσειἁμαρτωλὸςἡσάρξ . And so, in modern times, Beza, Vitringa, Bengel, the Schmidts, Rosenm., Meyer, De Wette, Tholuck, Locke, Stuart, al., and mainly Grot., Reiche, and Fritz., who however render it ‘ interfecit’ or ‘ supplicio affecit,’ and understand the occasion to have been the Death of Christ,— though the condemnation of sin is owing to His sinlessness, not to His sacrifice. I have dwelt at length on this question, as being very important to the right apprehension of the whole chapter, in this part of which not the justification, but the sanctification, of Christians is the leading subject. It is a strong confirmation of the above view, that God’ s condemnation of sin in the flesh by Christ is stated in ver. 3 as the ground of (ver. 2) my being freed from the law of sin and death: because, viz. Christ’ s victory over sin is mine, by my union with Him and participation in His Spirit. ἐντῇσαρκί is not ‘ in His flesh,’ or ‘ by means of His flesh,’ as Orig., Syr. (Peschito), Beza, Grot., Reiche, Olsh., al., but ‘ in the flesh,’ which Christ and ourselves have in common), 4. in order that (the purpose of God’ s condemning sin in the flesh) the righteous demand (or, requirement) of the law (= all its requirements (statutes), but here combined in one for the sake of more distinct objectivity. The variations in interpretation of ver. 3 have given rise to corresponding ones here. But here the matter has been more complicated still by the Vulg. rendering δικαίωμα , ‘ justificatio,’ which has thrown the weight of the Romanist interpreters on the side of ‘ justitia imputata.’ The usage of the word itself would preclude any such reference here, besides the considerations urged in the note above) might be fulfilled in us (find its full accomplishment;— not merely = ‘ be performed by us,’ — for the Apostle has a much deeper meaning, viz. that the aim of God in giving the Law might be accomplished in us, in our sanctification, which is the ultimate end of our redemption, Ephesians 2:10; Colossians 1:22. The passive is used, to shew that the work is not ours, but that of God by His grace, Olsh., Thol., De Wette) who walk (not ‘ walking as we do,’ which would be anarthrous,— but a description of all those of whom the above is true) not after the flesh but after the Spirit (who, notwithstanding that we are bound up with a σὰρξἁμαρτίας , do not walk in our daily life according to, or led by, the νόμοςτῆςἁμαρτίαςὁἐντοῖςμέλεσινἡμῶν , but according to and led by the νόμοςτοῦπνεύματοςτῆςζωῆς , in Christ Jesus— members of Him, and participating in that victory over sin which He obtained, by which the power of sin in our flesh is broken). 5. For (explanation of the last) those who live according to the flesh mind (‘ think of,’ ‘ care for, and strive after,’ see reff.) the things belonging to the flesh (its objects of desire): but those (who live) according to the Spirit (= οἱπνευματικοί , see above), (mind) the things belonging to the Spirit (the higher aims and objects of desire of the spiritual life). 6. For (the spiritual man cannot seek the things of the flesh, because) the mind (thoughts, cares, and aims as above) of the flesh is (ends in— the copula (=), as when it joins the two signs of an algebraic operation;— ‘ amounts to, being worked out’ ) death (not merely physical, nor mere unhappiness, as sometimes in ch. 7, but as in ver. 2, in the largest sense, extending to eternity); but the mind (thoughts, cares, and aims) of the Spirit, is (see above) life and peace (in the largest sense, as above). In this argument there is a suppressed premiss, to be supplied from ver. 2; viz. ‘ The Spirit is the Spirit of life.’ Hence it follows that the spiritual man cannot mind the things of the flesh, because such mind is death. The addition καὶεἰρήνη seems to be made to enhance the unlikelihood of such a minding,— the peace of the Spirit being a blessed contrast to the tumult of the fleshly lusts, even in this life. 7. Because (reason why the mind of the flesh is death) the mind of the flesh is enmity (contrast to εἰρήνη above) against God (it being assumed that God is the source of ζωή , and that ἔχθρα against Him is the absence of all true peace): for it does not submit itself (better [than the passive of the E. V.]) to the law of God,— for neither can it (this was proved in ch. 7): 8. but (takes up the other and inferential member of the proposition, answering to a suppressed μέν preceding,— τὸμὲνφρόνημακ .τ .λ . [bringing in a further consequence: if the mind of the flesh cannot be subject to God’ s law, then they who are in the flesh, and are led by that mind, cannot please God]. Calv., Beza, al. render it ‘ therefore,’ and so E. V., ‘ so then,’ erroneously) they who are in the flesh cannot please God. Melancthon remarks (Thol.),— ‘ Hic locus maxime refutat Pelagianos et omnes qui imaginantur homines sine Spiritu Sancto legi obedire.’ 9. But ye are not in the flesh (see above), but in the Spirit, if so be that (‘ provided that;’ not ‘ since,’ as Chrys., Olsh., al., which would be ἐπείπερ : Chrys. tries to prove εἴπερ = ἐπείπερ here by adducing ref. 2 Thess., where, however, as here, the meaning is, ‘ if so be that,’ ‘ if at least.’ That this is the meaning here is evident by the exception which immediately follows). But (this must be rightly understood: for) if any man has not ([not ‘ have not,’ as E. V.; the case is put as an existent one] οὐκ , and not μή , because it belongs to the verb and not to εἰ . De W. See Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 2. d) the Spirit of Christ (= πν . θεοῦ above. Obs. here that πν . θεοῦ , πν . χριστοῦ , and χριστός , are all used of the Holy Spirit indwelling in the Christian), he is not His (belongs not to Him, in the higher and blessed sense of being united to Him as a member of Him). 1. Now ([in slight] contrast to the last verse [he brings out one point, which might seem to be an exception to the blessed consequences of the life-giving power of Christ indwelling in us]) if Christ is in you (= πν . θεοῦοἰκεῖἐνὑμ ., see 2 Corinthians 3:17), the (your) body indeed is dead on account of sin (still remains dead, see 2 Corinthians 4:11-14, under the power of death physical (and eternal?) because of sin which it, per se, stands in, and serves), but the (your) spirit (τὴνψυχὴνλέγει , ὡςπνευματικὴνἤδηγεγενημένην . Schol. ap. Matthæ i (Thol.): or rather perhaps he [now] uses πνεῦμα , regarding our spirits as possessed and penetrated by God’ s Spirit) is life (this would hardly be said if only our human spirits were meant, but the description would be in the adjectival form) on account of righteousness (not here the imputed righteousness of justification, which is not now under treatment, but the implanted righteousness of the sanctification of the Spirit. This appears not only from the context, but also from the διὰἁμαρτίαν , which answers to it). 11. But (δέ takes up and continues the supposition in the former verse, with which in fact this is nearly identical, but with the important additional particular (whence the contrast) τοῦἐγείραντ . κ .τ .λ .) if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead, dwells in you (which Spirit is therefore powerful over death, and besides renders you partakers of Christ’ s Resurrection), He who raised Christ from the dead (the personal name, Jesus, reminds more of the historic fact of the resurrection of the one Person, Jesus: the official and mystical name, Christ, of the body of which He is the Head and we the members,— all raised with Him by the one Spirit dwelling in all) shall quicken (not merely ἐγερεῖ , because it is not merely the resurrection of the body which is in the Apostle’ s view,— see below) even your mortal bodies (the higher phase of the ζωοποιεῖν takes place in the spirit of man: and even of that which takes place in the body, there are two branches— one, the quickening it from being a tool of unrighteousness unto death (eternal),— the other, the quickening it out of death (physical) to be a new and glorified body. And the καί joined with θνητά , here, signifies that the working of the πνεῦμαζωοποιοῦν shall not stop at the purely spiritual resurrection, nor at that of the body from dead works to serve the living God, but shall extend even to the building up the spiritual body in the future new and glorious life), on account of His Spirit which dwells in you. Here the reading is much disputed, whether it be the acc. or gen.: see var. readd. The gen. can only mean, ‘ by means of,’ ‘ through,’ His Spirit, &c.: this the acc. may include, (it not being specified for what reason it is on the Spirit’ s account, and leaving it open to be His presence, or His agency,) but must be rendered ‘ on account of,’ or ‘ because of,’ His Spirit, &c. Thus both may imply that the Holy Spirit is the agent in the quickening; but the gen. cannot bear the other meaning, that God will quicken, &c. because of His Spirit, &c. Hence in dispute with the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the gen. reading was important to the orthodox, as expressing agency, and that alone. But it seems pretty clear that the variation was older than the time of this heresy, and, however it may then have been appealed to, its origin cannot be assigned to any falsification by either of the then disputant parties. As to how far the Holy Spirit is the direct Agent in the resurrection of the body, see note on πνεῦμαζωοπ ., 1 Corinthians 15:45, and on 2 Corinthians 5:5. Here, His direct agency cannot be in any way surprising, for it is the whole process of bringing from death to life, extending even to the mortal body, which is here spoken of— and unquestionably, ‘ the Lord and Giver of Life’ is the agent throughout in this quickening. ‘ Non de ultima resurrectione, quæ momento fiet, habetur sermo, sed de continua Spiritus operatione, quæ reliquias carnis paullatim mortificans, cœ lestem vitam in nobis instaurat.’ Calv.:— but perhaps ‘ non solum de ultima resurrectione,’ would have been more correct: for it certainly is one thing spoken of. 12, 13. So then, brethren, we are (inference from the assurance in the last verse) debtors (we owe fealty: to what or whom, he leaves the reader to supply from ver. 11), not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh (Chrysostom well explains the qualification, τοῦκατὰσ . ζ .,— καὶγὰρπολλὰαὐτῇὀφείλομεν , τὸτρέφειναὐτήν , τὸθάλπειν , τὸἀναπαύειν , τὸθεραπεύειννοσοῦσαν , τὸπεριβάλλειν , καὶμυρίαἕτεραλειτουργεῖν . ἵν ʼ οὖνμὴνομίσῃςὅτιταύτηνἀναιρεῖτὴνδιακονίαν , εἰπὼνοὐκἐσμ . ὀφ . τῇσαρ ., ἑρμηνεύειαὐτὸλέγωντοῦκ . σ . ζῇν · … τουτέστιμὴποιῶμεναὐτὴνκυρίαντῆςζωῆςτῆςἡμετέρας . Hom. xiv. p. 576): for if ye live according to the flesh, ye [must (or,] will, μέλλετε of the certain end of your present course) die : but if by the Spirit ye slay (abolish, annul) the deeds (hardly as Thol. ‘ sensu obscœ no,’ but as Colossians 3:9, the whole course of habits and action which has the flesh for its prompter) of the body (= τῆςσαρκός , but here concrete to give more vivid reality: compare τὰἔργατῆςσαρκός , Galatians 5:19), ye shall live (not μέλλετεζῆν , this Life being no natural consequence of a course of mortifying the deeds of the body, but the gift of God through Christ: and coming therefore in the form of an assurance, ‘ ye shall live,’ from Christ’ s Apostle. On ζῆν , see above). 14. For as many as are led by (reff.;— the slaying the deeds of the body by the Spirit, implies the being under the Spirit’ s guidance) the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. νἱὸςθ . differs from τέκνονθ . in implying the higher and more mature and conscious member of God’ s family, see Galatians 4:1-6, and note on 6. Hence our Lord is never called τέκνον but always νἱὸςθεοῦ . This latter, applied to a Christian, signifies ‘ one born of God’ in the deepest relation to him,— and hence a partaker of His nature, 1 John 3:9; 1 Peter 1:23 (Tholuck, similarly Olsh.). 15, 16. Appeal to the consciousness of the Christian to confirm the assertion (assumed for the moment that he is led by God’ s Spirit) that he is a son of God. For (confirmantis) ye did not receive (at your becoming Christians) the spirit of bondage (= ‘ the Spirit which ye received was not a spirit of bondage.’ πν . is not merely a spirit, a disposition, but evidently refers to the same πν . which afterwards is πν . νἱοθες ., and αὐτὸτὸπν . The Apostle seems however in this form of expression, both here and elsewhere, see reff., to have combined the objective Πνεῦμα given to us by God with our own subjective πνεῦμα . In the next verse they are separated) [leading back (or,] again [; but the latter word is undesirable, as] it has been imagined here that the πάλιν must refer to a former bestowal of the πνεῦμαδουλείας , and consequently that the reference is to the O. T. dispensation. In this two different sets of Commentators have found difficulties; (1) those, as Chrys.,— who would hold from John 7:39, that the Holy Spirit was absolutely not given under the O. T., and (2) those, as Cocceius, who holding Him to have been given, deny that His character was πν . δουλείας . But there seems to me to be no occasion to go back for the reference of πάλιν to the O. T. The state of the natural man is δουλεία : the Holy Spirit given to them, the agent of their birth into, and sustainer of, a new state, was not a πν . δουλείαςπάλινεἰςφ ., a spirit merely to retain them in, or take them back into their old state, viz. a state of slavery:— to whom, or whether to different masters, is not here in question, but the state merely— the object of the gift of the Holy Spirit was not to lead them back into this) towards fear (so as to bring about or result in fear, see ch. 6:19. πάλιν can hardly, as De W., be taken with εἰςφόβ .), but ye received the Spirit of (the Spirit whose effect was, see above) adoption (this stricter meaning, and not that of mere sonship, is plainly that intended by the Apostle, both here and in reff. So Fritz., Meyer, Olsh., Harless on Ephesians 1:5, Tholuck: on the other hand Luther, Winer, Rü ckert, De Wette, al., see on ver. 23. Of course, the adoption to be a son involves sonship, but not the converse), in whom (compare ἐνπνεύματι ch. 2:29, and ver. 9. Luth. and Tholuck, ‘ through, by means of, whom:’ but τὸπνεῦμα = Him in whom, not merely Him by whom, not being merely an external agent, but an indwelling and pervading power) we cry (the earnest expression of supplicating prayer, see reff. LXX) Abba, Father . See on the whole, the strictly parallel place, ref. Gal. 16. And this confidence is grounded on the testimony of the Spirit itself. So Chrys.: οὐγὰρἀπὸτῆςφωνῆςἰσχυρίζομαιμόνον , φησίν , ἀλλὰκαὶἀπὸτῆςαἰτίαςἀφ ʼ ἧςἡφωνὴτίκτεται .… οὐγὰρτοῦχαρίσματόςἐστινἡφωνὴμόνον , ἀλλὰκαὶτοῦδόντοςτὴνδωρεὰνπαρακλήτου · αὐτὸςγὰρἡμᾶςοὗτοςἐδίδαξεδιὰτοῦχαρίσματοςοὕτωφθέγγεσθαι . Hom. xiv. p. 579. This verse being without copula, is best understood to refer to the same as the preceding, and the assertion to concern the same fact as the last verb, κράζομεν ,— as if it were αὐτοῦτοῦπν . συμμαρτυροῦντοςκ .τ .λ ., grounding that fact on an act of the indwelling Spirit Himself. See again Galatians 4:6. The Spirit itself (not ‘ idem Spiritus,’ as Erasm. and similarly Luth., Reiche, al.: the αὐτό expresses the independence, and at the same time, as coming from God, the preciousness and importance of the testimony) testifies to our spirit that we are children of God. What is this witness of the Spirit itself? All have agreed, and indeed this verse is decisive for it, that it is something separate from, and higher than, all subjective inferences and conclusions. But on the other hand it does not consist in mere indefinite feeling, but in a certitude of the Spirit’ s presence and work continually asserted within us. It is manifested, as Olsh. beautifully says, in His comforting us, His stirring us up to prayer, His reproof of our sins, His drawing us to works of love, to bear testimony before the world, &c. And he adds, with equal truth, “ On this direct testimony of the Holy Ghost rests, ultimately, all the regenerate man’ s conviction respecting Christ and His work. For belief in Scripture itself has its foundation in this experience of the divine nature of the (influencing) Principle which it promises, and which, while the believer is studying it, infuses itself into him.” The same Commentator remarks, that this is one of the most decisive passages against the pantheistic view of the identity of the Spirit of God and the spirit of man. However the one may by renovating power be rendered like the other, there still is a specific difference. The spirit of man may sin (2 Corinthians 7:1), the Spirit of God cannot, but can only be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), or quenched (1 Thessalonians 5:19), and it is by the infusion of this highest Principle of Holiness, that man becomes one spirit with the Lord Himself (1 Corinthians 6:17). τέκναθεοῦ ] Here, because the testimony respects the very ground and central point of sonship, likeness to and desire for God: the testimony of the Spirit shewing us by our yearnings after, our confidence in, our regard to God, that we are verily begotten of Him. 17. Consequences of our being children of God. But if children, also heirs (which is the universal rule of mankind: but κληρ . here must not be carried to the extent of the idea of heir in all directions: it is merely the one side of inheriting by promise, which is here brought out: the word referring back probably to ch. 4:13, 14, the promise to Abraham); heirs of God (as our Father, giving the inheritance to us), and joint-heirs with Christ (whom God has made κληρονόμονπάντων , Hebrews 1:2. Tholuck remarks: “ It is by virtue of their substantial unity with the father, that the children come into participation of his possession. The Roman law regarded them as continuators of his personality. The dignity of the inheritance is shewn (1) by its being God’ s possession, (2) by its being the possession of the Firstborn of God. By the Roman law, the share of the firstborn was no greater than that of the other children,— and the N. T. sets forth this view, making the redeemed equal to Christ (ver. 29), and Christ’ s possessions, theirs; 1 Corinthians 3:21-23; John 17:22. In the joint-heirship we must not bring out this point, that Christ is the rightful Heir, who shares His inheritance with the other children of God: it is as adoptive children that they get the inheritance, and Christ is so far only the means of it, as He gives them power to become sons of God, John 1:12” ); if at least (see above on ver. 9) we are suffering with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him: i.e. ‘ if (provided that) we are found in that course of participation in Christ’ s sufferings, whose aim and end, as that of His sufferings, is to be glorified as He was, and with Him.’ But the εἴπερ does not regard the subjective aim, q. d. ‘ If at least our aim in suffering is, to be glorified,’ — but the fact of our being partakers of that course of sufferings with Him, whose aim is, wherever it is found, to be glorified with Him. Thol. takes the ἵνα as dependent on συγκληρ . , and εἴπερσυνπ . as quasiparenthetical; but the above seems to me more satisfactory. The connexion of suffering with Christ, and being glorified with Him is elsewhere insisted on, see 2 Timothy 2:11; 1 Peter 4:13; 1 Peter 5:1. This last clause serves as a transition to vv. 18-30, in which the Apostle treats of the complete and glorious triumph of God’ s elect, through sufferings and by hope, and the blessed renovation of all things in and by their glorification. 18. For (= this suffering with Him in order to being glorified with Him is no casting away of toil and self-denial, seeing that) I reckon that the sufferings of this present period (of trial and sorrow, contrasted with the period of triumph following the παρονσία of Christ) are insignificant (οὐκἄξια = ἀνάξια ,— no gen. or verb understood. ἄξιος and ἀνάξιος are found in the sense of ‘ worthy (or unworthy) to be compared with’ in the classics: so Hom. Π . θ . 234, νῦνδ ʼ οὔθ ʼ ἑνὸςἄξιοιἐσμὲνἝκτορος , and Plato, Protag. (Wetst.), ἀνάξιάἐστιτ ʼ ἀγαθὰτῶνκακῶν , and again τίςἄλληἀναξίαἡδονὴπρὸςλύπηνἐστίν ;) in comparison with the glory which is to be revealed (μέλλ . put first, as in reff., but apparently not, as De W., for the sake of emphasis. Thol. cites Demosth., p. 486. 10, ἐντοῖςοὖσινόμοιςκυρίοις , in which there is no emphasis, as neither in ref. 1 Cor. ἀποκαλ ., at the ἀποκάλυψις of Christ. On the sentiment, see 2 Corinthians 4:17) with regard to us (not merely ἡμῖν , as spectators, but εἰςἡμᾶς , as the subjects of the revelation; the E. V. is not far wrong, ‘ in us,’ taking the εἰς in a pregnant sense as ἦνκηρύσσωνεἰςτὰςσυν ., Luke 4:44 [but it must not be understood as meaning within us, in our hearts]). Bernard amplifies this— de Convers. ad Cleric. c. xxi. 37 (30), vol. i. p. 494,— ‘ non sunt condignæ passiones hujus temporis ad præ teritam culpam quæ remittitur, non ad præ sentem consolationis gratiam quæ immittitur, non ad futuram gloriam quæ promittitur nobis.’ 19 ff.] The greatness of this glory is shewn by the fact that all creation, now under the bondage of corruption, shall be set free from it by the glorification of the sons of God. For (proof of this transcendent greatness of the glory, not, as De W., of the certainty of its manifestation, though this secondary thought is perhaps in the background) the patient expectation (hardly = ἡσφόδραπροσδοκία , as Chrys., whom Luther and E. V. follow; but better προσδοκίαεἰςτὸτέλος ,— the ἀπό denoting, as also in ἀπεκδέχεται , that the expectation continues till the time is exhausted, and the event arrives) of the creation (= all this world except man, both animate and inanimate: see an account of the exegesis below) waits for (see above) the revelation of the sons of God (‘ revelatur gloria: et tum revelantur etiam filii Dei.’ Beng. νἱῶν , not τέκνων , because their sonship will be complete, and possessed of all its privileges and glories). ἡκτίσις has been very variously understood. There is a full history of the exegesis in Tholuck. De Wette sums it up thus: “ The Creation,— i.e. things created,— has by many been erroneously taken in an arbitrarily limited sense; e.g. as applying only, I. to inanimate creation, as Chrys., Theophyl., Calv., Beza, Aret., ‘ mundi machina,’ Luther, the Schmidts, al., Fritz., ‘ mundi machina, cœ li sidera, aer, terra:’ — against this are the words οὐχἑκοῦσα and συνστενάζεικ . συνωδίνει , implying life in the κτίσις ,— for to set these down to mere personification is surely arbitrary:— and one can imagine no reason why bestial creation should be excluded. II. to living creation: (1) to mankind; , Turret., all., take it of men not yet believers: (2) Locke, Lightf., Hammond, Semler, of the yet unconverted Gentiles: (3) Cramer, Gersdorf, al., of the yet unconverted Jews: (4) Le Clerc, al., of the converted Gentiles; (5) al., of the converted Jews; (6) al., of all Christians:” — “ but,” as he proceeds, “ against (II.) lies this objection, that if the Apostle had wished to speak of the enslaving and freeing of mankind, he hardly would have omitted reference to sin as the ground of the one and faith of the other, and the judgment on unbelievers. But on the other hand we must not extend the idea of κτίσις too wide, as Theodoret, who includes the angels, Kö llner, who understands the whole Creation, animate and inanimate, rational and irrational, and Olsh., who includes the unconverted Gentiles: nor make it too indefinite, as Koppe and Rosenm.: ‘ tota rerum universitas.’ The right explanation is, all animate and inanimate nature as distinguished from mankind: so Irenæ us, Grot., Calov., Wolf, Rü ckert, Reiche, al., Meyer, Neander, Schneckenburger, Thol.” The idea of the renovation and glorification of all nature at the revelation of the glory of our returned Saviour, will need no apology nor seem strange to the readers of this commentary, nor to the students of the following, and many other passages of the prophetic word: Isaiah 11:6 ff.; Isaiah 65:17 ff.; Rev_21; 2 Peter 3:13; Acts 3:21. 20. Explanation of the reason why all creation waits, &c. For the creation was made subject to vanity (= ה ֶ ב ֶ ל , Psalms 39:6,— where (38:5) the LXX have τὰσύμπανταματαιότης . So also Ecclesiastes 1:2 and passim. It signifies the instability, liability to change and decay, of all created things) not willingly (‘ cum a corruptione naturâ res omnes abhorreant.’ Bucer in Thol.) but on aocount of (διὰ is so far from losing its proper meaning by the reference of τὸνὑποτάξαντα to God, as Jowett affirms, that it gains its strictest and most proper meaning by that reference: see ver. 11. He is the occasion, and His glory the end, of creation’ s corruptibility) Him who made it subject (i.e. God. Chrys., al., interpret it of Adam, who was the occasion of its being subjected; and at first sight the acc. with διὰ seems to favour this. But I very much doubt whether this view can be borne out. For (1) does not ὑποτάξαντα imply a conscious act of intentional subjugation, and not merely an unconscious occasioning of the subjugation? Thus we have it said of God, ref. 1 Cor., πάνταγὰρὑπέταξενὑπὸτοὺςπόδαςαὐτοῦ · ὅτανδὲκ .τ .λ ., δῆλονὅτιἐκτὸςτοῦὑποτάξαντοςαὐτῷτὰπάντα . And (2) the acc. aft. διὰ is in reality no reason against this. He is speaking of the originating cause of this subjection, not of the efficient means of it. He says that creation was not subjected ἑκοῦσα , i.e. διὰτὸθέλημαἑαυτῆς , but διὰτὸνὑποτάξαντα . At the same time such a way of putting it, removing as it were the supreme will of God to a wider distance from corruption and vanity, and making it not so much the worker as the occasion of it, as well as this indefinite mention of Him, is quite intelligible on the ground of that reverential awe which so entirely characterizes the mind and writings of the Apostle. If the occasion pointed at by ὑποτάξαι be required, I should hardly fix it at the Fall of man, but at his creation, in the eternal counsels,— when he was made capable of falling, liable to change. The explanation of ὁὑποτάξας as meaning ‘ the devil’ (Locke, al.), hardly needs refutation. See Matthew 10:28, and note),— in (‘ on condition of,’ ‘ in a state of,’ see ch. 4:18, and note on ἐφ ʼ ᾧ , ch. 5:12) hope , because (not ‘ that,’ after ἐλπίς ,— for then it is not likely that αὐτὴἡκτίσις would be so emphatically repeated: the clause now announces a new fact, and thus the emphasis is accounted for. To suppose the whole clause subjective to the ἐλπίς , would be to attribute to the yearnings of creation, intelligence and rationality,— consciousness of itself and of God) the creation itself also (not only we, the sons of God, but even creation itself) shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption (its subjection to the law of decay, see Hebrews 2:15) into (pregnant: shall be delivered from, &c., and admitted into) the freedom of the glory (beware of the fatal hendiadys: ‘ the freedom of the glory’ is not in any sense = ‘ the glorious freedom;’ in the latter, ‘ glorious’ is merely an epithet whereby the freedom is characterized, as in ‘ His rest shall be glorious:’ in the former the freedom is described as consisting in, belonging to, being one component part of, the glorified state of the children of God: and thus the thought is carried up to the state to which the freedom belongs) of the children (τέκνων and not νἱῶν here, perhaps as embracing God’ s universal family of creation, admitted, each in their share, to a place in incorruptibility and glory). 22. For we know (said of an acknowledged and patent fact, see ch. 2:2; 3:19; 7:14) that the whole creation groans together and travails together (not, groans and travails with us or with mankind, which would render the οὐμόνονδὲἀλλά of the next verse superfluous. On the figure in συνωδίνει see John 16:21, note) [until now (i.e.] up to this time = from the beginning till now: no reference to time future, because οἴδαμενγάρ expresses the results of experience). 23. The text here is in inextricable confusion (see var. read.), but the sense very little affected. But (moreover) not only (the creation), but even ourselves, possessing the firstfruit of the Spirit (i.e. the indwelling and influences of the Holy Spirit here, as an earnest of the full harvest of His complete possession of us, πνεῦμα and σάρξ and ψυχή , hereafter. That this is the meaning, seems evident from the analogy of St. Paul’ s imagery regarding the Holy Spirit: he treats of Him as an earnest and pledge given to us, Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5, and of His full work in us as the efficient means of our glorification hereafter, ver. 11; 2 Corinthians 3:18. Various other renderings are,— (1) ‘ the first outpouring of the Spirit,’ in point of time,— Wetst., Reiche, Kö lln., Mey., al.,— which would be irrelevant: (2) ‘ the highest gifts of the Spirit,’ as the Schmidts, al. The gen. πν . may be partitive or subjective:— the firstfruit of the Spirit,— which Spirit is the harvest,— or the firstfruit of the Spirit,— which the Spirit gives:— or even in apposition, the firstfruit of the Spirit, i.e. which consists in (the gift of) the Spirit. I prefer the first, from analogy— the Spirit being generally spoken of as given, not as giving,— and God as the Giver), even we ourselves (repeated for emphasis, and ἡμεῖς inserted to involve himself and his fellow-workers in the general description of the last clause. Some (Wolf, Kö lln.) have imagined the Apostles only to be spoken of: some, that the Apostles are meant in one place, and all Christians in the other) groan within ourselves, awaiting the fulness of [the (or,] our) adoption (ἀπεκδ ., as above, ver. 19, but even more strongly here, ‘ wait out,’ ‘ wait for the end of.’ Our adoption is come already, ver. 15, so that we do not wait for it, but for the full manifestation of it, in our bodies being rescued from the bondage of corruption and sin. This which in Gr. is expressed by the verb, in Eng. must be joined to the substantive. The omission of the art. before νἱοθ . is probably on account of its preceding its verb,— νἱοθ . ἀπεκδ . = ἀπεκδ . τὴνυἱοθ ., for emphasis’ sake) the redemption of our body (not, ‘ rescue from our body,’ as Erasm., Le Clerc, Reiche, Fritz., al.,— which though allowable in grammar,— see Hebrews 9:15,— is inconsistent with the doctrine of the change of the vile and mortal into the glorious and immortal body,— Philippians 3:21; 2 Corinthians 5:2-4,— but the (entire) redemption,— rescue,— -of the body from corruption and sin). 24, 25. For (confirmation of the last assertion, proving hope to be our present state of salvation)— in hope were we saved: i.e. our first apprehension of, and appropriation to ourselves of, salvation which is by faith in Christ, was effected in the condition of hope: which hope (Thol.) is in fact faith in its prospective attitude,— that faith which is ὑπόστασιςἐλπιζομένων , Hebrews 11:1. The dat. ἐλπίδι is not a dat. of reference,— ‘ according to hope,’ — but of the form or condition. Now hope that is seen (the object or fulfilment of which is present and palpable) is not hope: for that which any one sees, why does he [also (or, at all)] hope for? If καί is to stand in the text, it conveys, after an interrogative word, a sense of the utter superfluity of the thing questioned about, as being irrelevant, and out of the question. ‘ Qui interrogat τίχρὴπροσδοκᾷν ; exspectat aliquid, sed dubius est quid eveniat. Qui interrogat τίχρὴκαὶπροσδοκᾷν ; desperat de salute, nec eam usquam exspectari posse existimat.’ Bremi in Demosth. Phil. i. 46, cited in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 137. 25. But if that which we do not see, we hope for, with patience we wait for it. Patience (endurance) is the state, in which,— through which as a medium,— our waiting takes place: hence δι ʼ ὑπομονῆς , as ἔγραψαὑμ . διὰπολλῶνδακρύων , 2 Corinthians 2:4. 26. Likewise (another help to our endurance, co-ordinate with the last— our patience is one help to it, but not the only one) the Spirit also (the Holy Spirit of God) helps our weakness (not, helps us to bear our weakness, as if the weakness were the burden, which the Spirit lifts for and with us,— but, helps our weakness,— us who are weak, to bear the burden of ver. 23. And this weakness is not only inability to pray aright, which is only an example of it, but general weakness. This has been seen, and the reading consequently altered to the plural, which was at first perhaps a marginal gloss). For what we should pray as we ought (two things;— what we should pray,— the matter of our prayer;— and how we should pray it,— the form and manner of our prayer) we know not: but the Spirit itself (Thol. remarks,— αὐτό brings into more prominence the idea of the πνεῦμα , so as to express of what dignity our Intercessor is,— an Intercessor who knows best what our wants are) intercedes (ὑπέρ here does not intensify the verb, as in ὑπερνικᾷν and the like, and as Œ , Erasm., Luth., Bengel, render it,— but implies the advocacy,— ‘ convenire aliquem super negotio alterius,’ as Grot.,— to express which the ὑπὲρἡμῶν of the rec. has been inserted) with groanings which cannot be expressed:— i.e. the Holy Spirit of God dwelling in us, knowing our wants better than we, Himself pleads in our prayers, raising us to higher and holier desires than we can express in words, which can only find utterance in sighings and aspirations: see next verse. So De W., Thol., Olsh. Chrys. (Hom, xiv., p. 586) interprets it of the χάρισμα of prayer— and adds ὁγὰρτοιαύτηςκαταξιωθεὶςχάριτος , ἑστὼςμετὰπολλῆςτῆςκατανύξεως , μετὰπολλῶντῶνστεναγμῶντῶνκατὰδιάνοιαντῷθεῷπροσπίπτων , τὰσυμφέρονταπᾶσινᾔτει :— similarly Œ c. and Theophyl. Calv. understands, that the Spirit suggests to us the proper words of acceptable prayer, which would otherwise have been unutterable by us: and similarly Beza, Grot. ἀλαλήτοις may bear three meanings— 1, unspoken: 2, that does not speak,— mute (see LXX, Job 38:14; Sir. 18:33 compl.): 3, that cannot be spoken. The analogy of verbals in -τος in the N. T. favours the latter meaning: compare ἀνεκδιήγητος , 2 Corinthians 9:15,— ἄῤῥητος , 2 Corinthians 12:4,— ἀνεκλάλητος , 1 Peter 1:8 (Thol.). Macedonius gathered from this verse that the Holy Spirit is a creature, and inferior to God, because He prays to God for us. But as Aug. Tract. vi. in Joan. 2, vol. iii. p. 1425, remarks, ‘ non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso apud semetipsum in illa Trinitate gemit, sed in nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit.’ No intercession in heaven is here spoken of, but a pleading in us by the indwelling Spirit, of a nature above our comprehension and utterance. 27. But He who searcheth the hearts (God) knoweth what is the mind (intent, or bent, as hidden in those sighs) of the Spirit. A difficulty presents itself in the rendering of the next clause. If ὅτι be causal, because He (the Spirit) pleads for the saints according to the will of God, it would seem that οἶδεν must bear the meaning ‘ approves,’ otherwise the connexion will not be apparent; and so Calv. and Rü ckert have rendered it. Hence Grot., Reiche, Meyer, Fritz. render ὅτι , ‘ that,’ and construe,— ‘ knows what is the mind of the Spirit,’ — that He pleads with God (so Reiche and Fritz., and Winer, edn. 6, § 49. d, for κατὰθ .) for the saints: justifying the repetition of θεόν , implied before, by 1 John 4:8, ὁμὴἀγαπῶνοὐκἔγνωτὸνθεόν , ὅτιὁθεὸςἀγάπηἐστίν . But I must confess that the other rendering seems to me better to suit the context: and I do not see that the ordinary meaning of οἶδεν need be changed. The assurance which we have that God the Heart-Searcher interprets the inarticulate sighings of the Spirit in us, is,— not strictly speaking, His Omniscience,— but the fact that the very Spirit who thus pleads, does it κατὰθεόν ,— in pursuance of the divine purposes and in conformity with God’ s good pleasure. So that, as its place before the verb would suggest, κατὰθεόν is emphatic, and furnishes the reason of the οἶδεν . A minor objection against the explicative ὅτι is, that we have οἴδαμενὅτι immediately following. All these pleadings of the Spirit are heard and answered, even when inarticulately uttered; we may extend the same comforting assurance to the imperfect and mistaken verbal utterances of our prayers, which are not themselves answered to our hurt, but the answer is given to the voice of the Spirit which speaks through them, which we would express, but cannot. Compare 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, for an instance in the Apostle’ s own case. 28. Having given an example, in prayer, how the Spirit helps our weakness, and out of our ignorance and discouragement brings from God an answer of peace, he now extends this to all things— all circumstances by which the Christian finds himself surrounded. These may seem calculated to dash down hope, and surpass patience; but we know better concerning them. But (the opposition seems most naturally to apply to ver. 22, the groaning and travailing of all creation) we know (as a point of the assurance of faith) that to those who love God (a stronger designation than any yet used for believers) all things (every event of life, but especially, as the context requires, those which are adverse. To include, with Aug. de Corrept. et Grat., c. ix. (24), vol. x. pt. i. p. 930, the sins of believers in this πάντα , as making them ‘ humiliores et doctiores,’ is manifestly to introduce an element which did not enter into the Apostle’ s consideration; for he is here already viewing the believer as justified by faith, dwelt in by the Spirit, dead to sin) work together (συνεργεῖ , absolute, or ἀλλήλοις implied: not, ‘ work together for good with those who love God,’ — ‘ loving God’ being a ‘ working for good:’ which, though upheld by Thol., seems to me harsh, and inconsistent with the emphatic position of τοῖςἀγ . τ . θ . Surely also in that case πάντα would have been τὰπάντα , all things, as one party working, set over against οἱἀγαπῶντεςτ . θ ., the other party working: whereas πάντασυνεργεῖ gives rather the sense of all things co-operating one with another. If the reading of be adopted, we should understand either (1) that God causeth all things to work, &c.: taking συνέργει as from συνέργω , concludo: or (2) that, as Syr. renders it, “ in every thing He helpeth them for good.” But in this last case, we should require τὰπάντα ) for (towards, to bring about) good (their eternal welfare;— the fulfilment of the purpose of the ἀγάπητ . θεοῦἡἐνχριστῷἸησοῦτ . κυρ . ἡμῶν , ver. 39),— to those who are called (not only invited, but effectually called— see below) according to (His) purpose. In this further description the Apostle designates the believers as not merely loving God, but being beloved by God. The divine side of their security from harm is brought out, as combining with and ensuring the other. They are sure that all things work for their good, not only because they love Him who worketh all things, but also because He who worketh all things hath loved and chosen them, and carried them through the successive steps of their spiritual life. The calling here and elsewhere spoken of by the Apostle (compare especially ch. 9:11) is the working, in men, of “ the everlasting purpose of God whereby before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation.” Art. X. of the Church of England. To specify the various ways in which this calling has been understood, would far exceed the limits of a general commentary. It may suffice to say, that on the one hand, Scripture bears constant testimony to the fact that all believers are chosen and called by God,— their whole spiritual life in its origin, progress, and completion, being from Him:— while on the other hand its testimony is no less precise that He willeth all to be saved, and that none shall perish except by wilful rejection of the truth. So that, on the one side, God’ s sovereignty,— on the other, man’ s free will,— is plainly declared to us. To receive, believe, and act on both these, is our duty, and our wisdom. They belong, as truths, no less to natural than to revealed religion: and every one who believes in a God must acknowledge both. But all attempts to bridge over the gulf between the two are futile in the present imperfect condition of man. The very reasonings used for this purpose are clothed in language framed on the analogies of this lower world, and wholly inadequate to describe God regarded as He is in Himself. Hence arises confusion, misapprehension of God, and unbelief. I have therefore simply, in this commentary, endeavoured to enter into the full meaning of the sacred text, whenever one or other of these great truths is brought forward; not explaining either of them away on account of possible difficulties arising from the recognition of the other, but recognizing as fully the elective and predestinating decree of God where it is treated of, as I have done, in other places, the free will of man. If there be an inconsistency in this course, it is at least one in which the nature of things, the conditions of human thought, and Scripture itself, participate, and from which no Commentator that I have seen, however anxious to avoid it by extreme views one way or the other, has been able to escape. See, for a full treatment of the subject, Tholuck’ s Comm. in loc. 29, 30. The Apostle now goes backward from κλητοῖς , to explain how this calling came about. It sprung from God’ s fore-knowledge, co-ordinate with His fore-determination of certain persons (to be) conformed to the image of His Son, that Christ might be exalted as the Head of the great Family of God. These persons, thus foreknown and predetermined, He, in the course of His Providence actually, but in His eternal decree implicitly, called, bringing them through justification to glory;— and all this is spoken of as past, because to Him who sees the end from the beginning,— past, present, and future are not, but all is accomplished when determined. Because whom He foreknew (but in what sense? This has been much disputed: the Pelagian view,— ‘ eos quos prœ sciverat credituros,’ is taken by Orig., Chrys., Œ c., Theophyl., Augustine (prop. 55, in Ep. ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 2076), , Erasm. in paraphrase, Calov., Reiche, Meyer, Neander, and others; the sense of fore-loved, by Erasm. in commentary, Grotius, Estius, the Schmidts, &c.: that of fore-decreed, by Thol. edn. 1, and Stuart,— which however Thol. in subsequent editions suspects to be ungrammatical without some infinitive following, and prefers a sense combining foreknowledge and recognition-as-His:— that of elected, adopted as His sons, by Calvin,— ‘ Dei autem præ cognitio, cujus hic Paulus meminit, non nuda est præ scientia, ut stulte fingunt quidam imperiti, sed adoptio qua filios suos ab improbis semper discrevit,’ — Rü ckert, De Wette, al. That this latter is implied, is certain: but I prefer taking the word in the ordinary sense of foreknew, especially as it is guarded from being a ‘ nuda præ scientia’ by what follows: see below and Galatians 4:9), He also fore-ordained (His foreknowledge was not a mere being previously aware how a series of events would happen: but was co-ordinate with, and inseparable from, His having pre-ordained all things) conformed (i.e. to be conformed) to the image of His Son (the dat. and gen. are both found after words like σύμμορφος ; compare σύμφυτος , ch. 6:5. The image of Christ here spoken of is not His moral purity, nor His sufferings, but as in 1 Corinthians 15:49, that entire form, of glorification in body and sanctification in spirit, of which Christ is the perfect pattern, and all His people shall be partakers. To accomplish this transformation in us is the end, as regards us, of our election by God; not merely to rescue us from wrath. Compare 1 John 3:2, 1 John 3:3; Philippians 3:21: and on the comprehensive meaning of μορφή , Philippians 2:6, Philippians 2:7,— where it expresses both ‘ the form of God’ in which Christ was, and ‘ the form of a servant’ in which He became incarnate), that He might (or may, as Calv., but the reference in the aorist is to the past decree of God) be firstborn among many brethren (i.e. that He might be shewn, acknowledged to be, and glorified as the Son of God, pre-eminent among those who are by adoption through Him the sons of God. This is the further end of our election, as regards Christ: His glorification in us, as our elder Brother and Head): 30. but whom He fore-ordained, those he also called (in making the decree, He left it not barren, but provided for those circumstances, all at His disposal, by which such decree should be made effectual in them. ἐκάλεσεν , supply, εἰςτὴνἑαυτοῦβασιλείανκαὶδόξαν 1 Thessalonians 2:12; other expressions are found in 1 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:14; 1 Timothy 6:12; 1 Peter 5:10): and whom He called, these He also justified (the Apostle, remember, is speaking entirely of God’ s acts on behalf of the believer: he says nothing now of that faith, through which this justification is, on his part, obtained): but whom He justified, them He also glorified (He did not merely, in His premundane decree, acquit them of sin, but also clothe them with glory: the aorist ἐδόξασεν being used, as the other aorists, to imply the completion in the divine counsel of all these, which are to us, in the state of time, so many successive steps,— simultaneously and irrevocably. So we have the perfect in John 17:10, John 17:22). 31-39. The Christian has no reason to fear, but all reason to hope; for nothing can separate him from God’ s love in Christ. 31. What then shall we say to these things (what answer can the hesitating or discouraged find to this array of the merciful acts of God’ s love on behalf of the believer)? If God is for us (and this He has been proved to be, vv. 28-30,— in having foreknown, predestinated, called, justified, glorified us), who (is) against us? 32. (God) Who even (taking one act as a notable example out of all) did not spare His own Son (His own,— His υἱὸςμονογενής , the only one of God’ s sons who is One with Him in nature and essence, begotten of Him before all worlds. No other sense of ἰδίου will suit its position here, in a clause already made emphatic by γε , in consequence of which whatever epithet is fixed to υἱοῦ must partake of the emphasis), but delivered Him up (not necessarily εἰςθάνατον only, but generally, as ἔδωκεν , John 3:16: ‘ largitus est, quem sibi retinere poterat,’ as Tholuck, from Winer) on behalf of us all (so that every one of us believers, even the most afflicted, has an equal part in Him. Of others, nothing is said here), how shall He not (how can it be that He will not) also with Him give freely to us all things (all that we need or hope for; or even more largely, all created things for ours, to subserve our good, and work together for us: compare 1 Corinthians 3:22)? 33. The punctuation of these verses is disputed. Many (Aug., Ambr., Reiche, Kö llner, Olsh., Meyer, De Wette, and Griesb., Knapp, Lachmann) follow, in vv. 33, 34, the undoubted form of ver. 35, and place an interrogation after each clause, as in the text; while Luther, Beza, Grot., Wolf, Tholuck, al., make θεὸςὁδικ . and χριστὸςὁἀποθ . κ .τ .λ . the reply to and rejection of the questions preceding them. The former method is preferable, as preserving the form of ver. 35, and involving no harshness of construction, which the other does, in the case of χριστός followed by the two participles. Who shall lay any charge against the elect of God (ἐγκαλέω usually with a dat. see reff.)? Shall God , who justifies them (Chrys. strikingly says, οὐκεἶπε “ θεὸςὁἀφεὶςἁμαρτήματα ,” ἀλλ ʼ ὃπολλῷμεῖζονἦνθεὸςὁδικαιῶν . ὅτανγὰρἡτοῦδικαστοῦψῆφοςδίκαιονἀποφήνῃ , καὶδικαστοῦτοιούτου , τίνοςἄξιοςὁκατηγορῶν ; Hom. xv. p. 597)? Who is he that condemns them ? (Is it) Christ who died, yea who rather is also risen, who also is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us? “ All the great points of our redemption are ranged together, from the death of Christ to His still enduring intercession, as reasons for negativing the question above.” De W. 35. Who (i.e. what: but masc. for uniformity with vv. 33, 34) shall separate us from the love of Christ? Is this (1) our love to Christ, or (2) Christ’ s love to us, or (3) our sense of Christ’ s love to us? The first of these is held by Origen, Chrys., Theodoret, Ambr., Erasm., al. But the difficulty of it lies in consistently interpreting ver. 37, where not our endurance in love to Him, but our victory by means of His love to us, is alleged. And besides, it militates against the conclusion in ver. 39, which ought certainly to respond to this question. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 9-11] The Gospel being now established, in its fulness and freeness, as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,— a question naturally arises, not unaccompanied with painful difficulty, respecting the exclusion of that people, as a people, to whom God’ s ancient promises were made. With this national rejection of Israel the Apostle now deals: first (9:1-5) expressing his deep sympathy with his own people: then (vv. 6-29) justifying Good, Who has not (vv. 6-13) broken His promise, but from the first chose a portion only of Abraham’ s seed, and that (vv. 14-29) by His undoubted elective right, not to be murmured at nor disputed by us His creatures: according to which election a remnant shall now also be saved. Then, as to the rejection of so large a portion of Israel, their own self-righteousness (vv. 30-33) has been the cause of it, and (10:1-12) their ignorance of God’ s righteousness,— notwithstanding that (vv. 13-21) their Scriptures plainly declared to them the nature of the Gospel, and its results with regard to themselves and the Gentiles, with which declarations Paul’ s preaching was in perfect accordance. Has God then cast off his people (11:1-10)? No— for a remnant shall be saved according to the election of grace, but the rest hardened, not however for the purpose of their destruction, but (11:11-24) of mercy to the Gentiles: which purpose of mercy being fulfilled, Israel shall be brought in again to its proper place of blessing (11:25-32). He concludes the whole with a humble admiration of the unsearchable depth of God’ s ways, and the riches of His Wisdom (11:33-36). In no part of the Epistles of Paul is it more requisite than in this portion, to bear in mind his habit of insulating the one view of the subject under consideration, with which he is at the time dealing. The divine side of the history of Israel and the world is in the greater part of this portion thus insulated: the facts of the divine dealings and the divine decrees insisted on, and the mundane or human side of that history kept for the most part out of sight, and only so much shewn, as to make it manifest that the Jews, on their part, failed of attaining God’ s righteousness, and so lost their share in the Gospel. It must also be remembered, that, whatever inferences, with regard to God’ s disposal of individuals, may justly lie from the Apostle’ s arguments, the assertions here made by him are universally spoken with a national reference. Of the eternal salvation or rejection of any individual Jew there is here no question: and however logically true of any individual the same conclusion may be shewn to be, we know as matter of fact, that in such cases not the divine, but the human side, is that ever held up by the Apostle— the universality of free grace for all— the riches of God’ s mercy to all who call on Him, and consequent exhortations to all, to look to Him and be saved. De Wette has well shewn, against Reiche and others, that the apparent inconsistencies of the Apostle, at one time speaking of absolute decrees of God, and at another of culpability in man,— at one time of the election of some, at another of a hope of the conversion of all,— resolve themselves into the necessary conditions of thought under which we all are placed, being compelled to acknowledge the divine Sovereignty on the one hand, and human free will on the other, and alternately appearing to lose sight of one of these, as often as for the time we confine our view to the other. 9:1-5. The Apostle’ s deep sympathy with his own people Israel. The subject on which he is about to enter, so unwelcome to Jews in general, coupled with their hostility to himself, and designation of him as a πλάνος (2 Corinthians 6:8: compare also 2 Corinthians 1:17; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 4:1, 2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 7:2 al.), causes him to begin with a προπαραίτησις or deprecation, bespeaking credit for simplicity and earnestness in the assertion which is to follow. This deprecation and assertion of sympathy he puts in the forefront of the section, to take at once the ground from those who might charge him, in the conduct of his argument, with hostility to his own alienated people. I say (the) truth in Christ (as a Christian,— as united to Christ; the ordinary sense of the expression ἐνχριστῷ , so frequent with the Apostle. It is not an oath, ‘ by Christ,’ — for though ἐν with ὄμνυμι bears this meaning, we have no instance of it where the verb is not expressed),— I lie not (confirmation of the preceding, by shewing that he was aware of what would be laid to his charge, and distinctly repudiating it),— my conscience bearing me witness of the same (the σύν in composition, as in reff., denoting accordance with the fact, not joint testimony) in the Holy Spirit , that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. The reason of this grief is reserved for a yet stronger description of his sympathy in the next verse. 3. For I could wish (the imperf. is not historical, alluding to his days of Pharisaism, as Pelag. and others, but quasi-optative, as in reff. ‘ I was wishing,’ had it been possible,— ηὐχόμηνεἰἐνεχώρει , εἰἐνεδέχετο , The sense of the imperf. in such expressions is the proper and strict one (and no new discovery, but common enough in every schoolboy’ s reading): the act is unfinished, an obstacle intervening. So in Latin, ‘ faciebam, ni … ,’ the completed sentence being, ‘ faciebam, et perfecissem, ni … ’ ) that I myself were a curse (a thing accursed, ἀνάθεμα in the LXX = ח ֵ ר ֶ ם , an irrevocable devotion to God, or, a thing or person so devoted. All persons and animals thus devoted were put to death; none could be redeemed, Leviticus 27:28, Leviticus 27:29. The subsequent scriptural usage of the word arose from this. It never denotes simply an exclusion or excommunication, but always devotion to perdition,— a curse. Attempts have been made to explain away the meaning here, by understanding excommunication, as Grot., Hammond, Le Clerc, &c.; or even natural death only, as Jerome, al.: but excommunication included cursing and delivering over to Satan:— and the mere wish for natural death would, as Chrys. eloquently remarks, be altogether beneath the dignity of the passage. Perhaps the strangest interpretation is that of Dr. Burton: “ St. Paul had been set apart and consecrated by Christ to His service; and he had prayed that this devotion of himself might be for the good of his countrymen:” — it is however no unfair sample of a multitude of others, all more or less shrinking from the full meaning of the fervid words of the Apostle) from Christ (i.e. cut off and separated from Him for ever in eternal perdition. No other meaning will satisfy the plain sense of the words. ἀπό in the sense of ὑπό , making Christ the agent of the curse, would be hardly admissible: still less the joining,— as Carpzov and Elsner,— ἀπό with ηὐχόμην . On this wish, compare Exodus 32:32) in behalf of (in the place of; or, if thus I could benefit, deliver from perdition) my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. The wish is evidently not to be pressed as entailing on the Apostle the charge of inconsistency in loving his nation more than his Saviour. It is the expression of an affectionate and self-denying heart, willing to surrender all things, even, if it might be so, eternal glory itself, if thereby he could obtain for his beloved people those blessings of the Gospel which he now enjoyed, but from which they were excluded. Nor does he describe the wish as ever actually formed; only as a conceivable limit to which, if admissible, his self-devotion for them would reach. Others express their love by professing themselves ready to give their life for their friends; he declares the intensity of his affection by reckoning even his spiritual life not too great a price, if it might purchase their salvation. 4. Not only on their relationship to himself does he ground this sorrow and this self-devotion: but on the recollection of their ancient privileges and glories. Who are Israelites (a name of honour, see John 1:48; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians 3:5); whose (is) the adoption (see Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 1:2 al.), and the glory (perhaps their general preference and exaltation, consequent on the υἱοθεσία ,— but far more probably, as all the other substantives refer to separate matters of fact,— the Shechinah or visible manifestation of the divine Presence on the mercy-seat between the cherubims: see reff.), and the covenants (not, the two tablet of the law,— as Beza, Grot., al.,— which formed but one covenant, and are included in νομοθεσία ; nor, the Old and New Testament Covenants,— as , , Galov., Wolf,— see Galatians 4:24 ff.: but the several renewals of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and finally with the whole people at Sinai:— see Genesis 15:9-21; Genesis 17:4, Genesis 17:7, Genesis 17:10; Genesis 26:24; Genesis 28:13; Exodus 24:7, Exodus 24:8 al.), and the law-giving (‘ si alii Solonibus et Lycurgis gloriantur, quanto justior est gloriandi materia de Domino!’ Calv. νομοθ . is both the act of giving the Law, and the Law thus given), and the service (ordinances of worship: see ref. Heb.), and the promises ,— whose are the fathers (probably to be limited to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:— so De W., but Stephen gives οἱπατ . a much wider meaning in Acts 7:11, Acts 7:12, Acts 7:19, Acts 7:39, Acts 7:44, and so apparently Paul himself, Acts 13:17. In all those places, however, except Acts 7:19, ἡμῶν follows, whereas here the word is absolute: so that the above limitation may be true),— and of whom is Christ, as far as regards the flesh (τό ,— acc., as also in ch. 12:18,— implies that He was not entirely sprung from them, but had another nature: q. d. ‘ on his human side,’ — ‘ duntaxat quod attinet ad corpus humanum,’ as Erasmus), who is God Over all (prob. neuter; for τὰπάντα , not οἱπάντες , is the equivalent nominative in such sentences: see ch. 11:36) blessed for ever. Amen. The punctuation and application of this doxology have been much disputed. By the early Church it was generally rendered as above, and applied to Christ,— so , , h. 1., Athan., , Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Œ Wetstein has, it is true, collected passages from the fathers to shew that they applied the words ὁἐπὶπάντωνθεός to the Father alone, and protested against their application to the Son; but these passages themselves protest only against the erroneous Noetian or Sabellian view of the identity of the Father and the Son, whereas in Ephesians 4:5, Ephesians 4:6, εἷςκύριος , and εἷςθεὸςκ . πατὴρπάντων , ὁἐπὶπάντων , are plainly distinguished. That our Lord is not, in the strict exclusive sense, ὁἐπὶπάντωνθεός , every Christian will admit, that title being reserved for the Father: but that He is ἐπὶπάντωνθεός , none of the passages goes to deny. Had our text stood ἐξὧνὁχρ . τὸκατὰσάρκα , ὁἐπὶπάντωνθεὸςὁεὐλογητὸςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας , it would have appeared to countenance the above error, which as it now stands it cannot do. The first trace of a different interpretation, if it be one, is found in an assertion of the emperor (Cyril, p. 321. Wetst.) τὸνγοῦνἸησοῦνοὔτεΠαῦλοςἐτόλμησενεἰπεῖνθεόν , οὔτεΜατθαῖοςοὔτεΜάρκος , ἀλλ ʼ ὁχρηστὸςἸωάννης . The next is in the punctuation of two cursive mss. of the twelfth century (5 and 47), which place a period after σάρκα , thus insulating ὁὢνἐπὶπάντων .… ἀμήν , and regarding it as a doxology to God over all, blessed for ever. This is followed by Erasm., Wetst., Semler, Reiche, Kö llner, Meyer, Fritzsche, Krehl, al. The objections to this rendering are, (1) ingenuously suggested by Socinus himself (Thol.), and never yet obviated,— that without one exception in Hebrew or Greek, wherever an ascription of blessing is found, the predicate εὐλογητός precedes the name of God. (In the one place, Ps. 67:19 LXX, κύρ . ὁθ . εὐλογητός , εὐλογητὸςκυρ . ἡμέρανκαθ ʼ ἡμέραν , which seems to be an exception, the first εὐλ . has no corresponding word in the Heb. and perhaps may be interpolated. So Stuart, and even Eichhorn, Einleit. ins A. T. p. 320. In Yates’ s vindication of Unitarianism, p. 180, this is the only instance cited. Such cases as 3 Kings 10:9; 2 Chronicles 9:8; Job 1:21; Psalms 112:2, are no exceptions, as in all of them the verb εἴη or γένοιτο is expressed, requiring the substantive to follow it closely.) And this collocation of words depends, not upon the mere aim at perspicuity of arrangement (Yates, p. 180), but upon the circumstance that the stress is, in a peculiar manner, in such ascriptions of praise, on the predicate, which is used in a pregnant sense, the copula being omitted. (2) That the ὤν , on this rendering, would be superfluous altogether (see below). (3) That the doxology would be unmeaning and frigid in the extreme. It is not the habit of the Apostle to break out into irrelevant ascriptions of praise; and certainly there is here nothing in the immediate context requiring one. If it be said that the survey of all these privileges bestowed on his people prompts the doxology,— surely such a view is most unnatural: for the sad subject of the Apostle’ s sympathy, to which he immediately recurs again, is the apparent inanity of all these privileges in the exclusion from life of those who were dignified with them. If it be said that the incarnation of Christ is the exciting cause, the τὸκατὰσάρκα comes in most strangely, depreciating, as it would on that supposition, the greatness of the event, which then becomes a source of so lofty a thanksgiving. (4) That the expression εὐλογητὸςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας is twice besides used by Paul, and each time unquestionably not in an ascription of praise, but in an assertion regarding the subject of the sentence. The places are, ch. 1:25, ἐλάτρευσαντῇκτίσειπαρὰτὸνκτίσαντα , ὅςἐστινεὐλογητὸςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας . ἀμήν ,— and 2 Corinthians 11:31, ὁθεὸςκ . πατὴρτ . κυρ . Ἰησοῦοἶδεν , ὁὢνεὐλογητὸςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας , ὅτιοὐψεύδομαι : whereas he twice uses the phrase εὐλογητὸςὁθεός as an ascription of praise, without joining εἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας . (5) That in the latter of the above-cited passages (2 Corinthians 11:31), not only the same phrase as here, but the same construction, ὁὤν , occurs, and that there the whole refers to the subject of the sentence. I do not reckon among the objections the want of any contrast to τὸκατὰσάρκα , because that might have well been left to the readers to supply. Another mode of punctuation has been suggested (Locke, Clarke, al.), and indeed is found in one ms. of the same date as above (71): to set a period after πάντων and refer ὁὢνἐπὶπάντων to Christ, understanding by πάντων all the preceding glorious things, or the πατέρες only, or even ‘ all things.’ This lies open to all the above objections except (5), and to this in addition, that as Bp. Middleton observes, we must in that case read ὁθεός . Variety of reading there is none worth notice: the very fathers [ Cypr-ed. Hil-ed. ] generally cited as omitting θεός , having it in the best manuscripts and editions. Crell (not Schlichting, see Thol. p. 484, note, edn. 1842) proposed (and is followed by Whiston, Whitby, and Taylor) to transpose ὁὤν into ὧνὁ ;— but besides the objection to the sense thus arising, εὐλογητός would probably in that case (not necessarily, as Bp. Middleton in loc.) have the art.: not to mention that no conjecture arising from doctrinal difficulty is ever to be admitted in the face of the consensus of mss. and versions. The rendering given above is then not only that most agreeable to the usage of the Apostle, but the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement. It also admirably suits the context: for, having enumerated the historic advantages of the Jewish people, he concludes by stating one which ranks far higher than all,— that from them sprung, according to the flesh, He who is God over all, blessed for ever. ἀμήν implies no optative ascription of praise, but is the accustomed ending of such solemn declarations of the divine Majesty; compare ch. 1:25. 6-13. God has not broken His promise: for He chose from the first but a portion of the seed of Abraham (6-9), and again only one out of the two sons of Rebecca (10-13). 6. Not however that (οὐχοἷονδέ , ὅτι = οὐτοῖονδὲλέγω , οἷονὅτι .… , ‘ but I do not mean such a thing, as that.… ,’ or ‘ the matter however is not so, as that.… ’ De W. cites from vi. p. 244, οὐχοἷονβαδίζει , and from Phrynich. p. 332, οὐχοἷονὀργίζομαι , in a similar sense. The rendering, ‘ it is not possible that,’ would require ordinarily οἷόντε with an infinitive,— and St. Paul is asserting, not the impossibility, however true, of God’ s word being broken, but the fact, that it was not broken) the word (i.e. the promise) of God has come to nothing (see refif., so Lat., excidit); viz. by many, the majority of the nominal Israel, missing the salvation which seemed to be their inheritance by promise. For not all who are sprung from Israel (= Jacob, according to Tholuck: but this does not seem necessary: Israel here as well as below may mean the people, but here in the popular sense, there in the divine idea), (these) are Israel (veritably, and in the sense of the promise). 7. Nor, because they are (physically) the seed of Abraham, are all children (so as to inherit the promise), but (we read), “ In Isaac shall thy seed he called” : 8. that is (that amounts, when the facts of the history are recollected, to saying) not [they which are] the children of the flesh (begotten by natural generation, compare John 1:13, and Galatians 4:29) are the children of God; but the children of the promise (begotten not naturally, but by virtue of the divine promise (Galatians 4:23, Galatians 4:28), as Isaac) are reckoned for seed. 9. For this word was (one) of promise (not, ‘ For this was the word of promise,’ i.e. οὗτοςγὰρὁλ . τῆςἐπαγγ . The stress is on ἐπαγγελίας : the children of promise are reckoned for seed: for this word, in fulfilment of which Isaac was born, was a word of promise), According to this time (כ ּ ָ ע ֵ ת ח ַ י ּ ָ ה , ‘ when the time (shall be) reviviscent,’ — as De W., Thol., al.:— i.e. next year at this time. The citation is a free one; the LXX has ἐπαναστρέφωνἥξωπρόςσεκατὰτὸνκαιρὸντοῦτονεἰςὥρας , κ . ἕξειυἱὸνΣάῤῥαἡγυνήσου . The change into ἔσταιτῇΣάῤῥᾳυἱός is probably made for the sake of emphasis— the promise was to Sarah) I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. 10, 11. And not only (i.e. not only have we an example of the election of a son of Abraham by one woman, and the rejection of a son by another, but also of election and rejection of the children of the same woman, Rebecca, and that before they were born. οὐμόνονδέ introduces an à fortiori consideration. In the construction supply τοῦτο only), but when Rebecca also had conceived (see ref. Num. and ch. 13:13, where the meaning is not exactly the same though cognate) by one man (in the former case, the children were by two wives; the difference between that case and this being, that there, was diversity of parents, here, identity. The points of contrast being then this diversity and identity, the identity of the father also is brought into view. This is well put by Chrys.: ἡγὰρῬεβέκκακαὶμόνητῷἸσαὰκγέγονεγυνή , καὶδύοτεκοῦσαπαῖδας , ἐκτοῦἸσαὰκἔτεκενἀμφοτέρους · ἀλλ ʼ ὅμωςοἱτεχθέντεςτοῦαὐτοῦπατρὸςὄντες , τῆςαὐτῆςμητρός , τὰςαὐτὰςλύσαντεςὠδῖνας , καὶὁμοπάτριοιὄντεςκαὶὁμομήτριοι , καὶπρὸςτούτοιςκαὶδίδυμοι , οὐτῶναὐτῶνἀπήλαυσαν . Hom. xvi. p. 610), our father Isaac ,— for (not answering to ‘ furnishes us an example’ supplied after ἔχουσα , but elliptically put, answering to the apprehension in the Apostle’ s mind of the force of the example which he is about to adduce. For this use of γάρ see John 4:44, note; Herod. i. 8, Γύγη , οὐγὰρ .… ; 30, ξεῖνεἈθ . παρ ʼ ἡμέαςγὰρ .… Thucyd. i. 72, τῶνδὲἈθ . ἔτυχεγὰρ … ; and other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 467) without their having been yet born (the subject, the children, is to be supplied partly from the fact of her pregnancy just stated, partly from the history, well known to the readers. μή instead of οὐ is frequently used by later Greek writers in participial clauses: Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 5; so Acts 9:9, ἦν … μὴβλέπωνκ . οὐκἔφαγεν … , and Luke 13:11, μὴδυναμένηἀνακύψαι . See Schä fer, Demosth. iii. 395, and Hartung, ii. 130-132) or having done anything good or ill (φαῦλ . an unusual word with Paul = properly ἁπλοῦν , ῥᾴδιον , εὐτελές , as Timæ us in Lex. to Plato, with whom it is a very common word in this sense. Ruhnken, on the word in Timæ us, gives from the Lex. Rhetor. MS., τὸφ . σημαίνειδέκα · ἐπίτεπροσώπουκαὶπράγματοςτὸκακόν . τὸμικρόν , κ . τὸεὐκαταφρόνητον , κ . τὸἀσθενές . κ . τὸἄδοξον . κ . τὸἀνόητον , κ .τ .λ . This will shew the connexion of the strict and the wider meaning), [to the end] that the purpose of God according to (purposed in pursuance of, or in accordance with, or (Thol.) with reference to His) election may (not might; the purpose is treated as one in all time, which would be nullified if once thwarted) abide (stand firm; the opposite of ἐκπίπτειν , see reff. 1 Pet., Isa.),— not [depending on] works (ch. 3:20; 4:2) but on Him that calleth,— (this clause does not seem to depend on any one word of the foregoing or following, as on ἐῤῥέθη , Calv., Luth.;— or μένῃ , Rü ckert, Meyer;— or κατ ʼ ἐκλογήν , Fritz.;— but to be a general characteristic of the whole transaction; see a similar ἐκ in ch. 1:17. Thol., De W. Thus viewed, or indeed however taken, it is decisive against the Pelagianism of the Romanists, who by making our faith as foreseen by God the cause of our election, affirm it to be ἐξἔργων . See the matter discussed in Thol.),— it was said to her , “ The elder shall serve the younger” (this prophecy is distinctly connected in Gen_25 with the prophetic description of the children as two nations,— λαὸςλαοῦὑπερέξει , καὶὁμείζωνκ .τ .λ . But the nations must be considered as spoken of in their progenitors, and the elder nation = that sprung from the elder brother. History records several subjugations of Edom by the kings of Judah; first by David (2 Samuel 8:14);— under Joram they rebelled (2 Kings 8:20), but were defeated by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7), and Elath taken from them by Uzziah (2 Kings 14:22); under Ahaz they were again free, and troubled Judah (2 Chronicles 28:16, 2 Chronicles 28:17, compare 2 Kings 16:6, 2 Kings 16:7),— and continued free, as prophesied in Genesis 27:40, till the time of John Hyrcanus, who (Jos. Antt. xiii. 9. 1) reduced them finally, so that thenceforward they were incorporated among the Jews): as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated . 14-29. This election was made by the indubitable right of God, Who is not therefore unjust. 14. What then shall we say (anticipation of a difficulty or objection, see reff.,— but not put into the mouth of an objector)? Is there unrighteousness (injustice) with (in) God (viz. in that He chooses as He will, without any reference to previous desert)? Let it not be: 15. for He saith to Moses, “ I will have mercy on whomsoever I have meroy, and [I] will have compassion on whomsoever I have compassion.” The citation is from the LXX, who insert the indefinite ἄν , the Heb. being … ח ַ נ ּ ֹ ת ִ י א ֶ ת ־ א ֲ ש ׁ ֶ ר א ָ ח ֹ ן ; the meaning apparently being, ‘ whenever I have mercy on any, it shall be pure mercy, no human desert contributing;’ which agrees better with the next verse than the ordinary rendering, which lays the stress on the ὃνἄν ; and is not inconsistent with ver. 18, ὃνθέλει , ἐλεᾷ : because if God’ s mercy be pure mercy without any desert on man’ s part, it necessarily follows that he has mercy on whom He will, His will being the only assignable cause of the selection. 16. So then (inference from the citation) it is not of (God’ s mercy ‘ does not belong to,’ — ‘ is not in the power of,’ see reff.) him that willeth (any man willing it) nor of him that runneth (any man contending for it, see reff. and Philippians 3:14. There hardly can be any allusion to Abraham’ s wish for Ishmael, Genesis 17:18, and Esau’ s running to hunt for venison, as Stuart, Burton, al.), but of God that hath mercy. I must pause again here to remind the student, that I purposely do not enter on the disquisitions so abundant in some commentaries on this part of Scripture, by which it is endeavoured to reconcile the sovereign election of God with our free will. We shall find that free will asserted strongly enough for all edifying purposes by this Apostle, when the time comes. At present, he is employed wholly in asserting the divine Sovereignty, the glorious vision of which it ill becomes us to distract by continual downward looks on this earth. I must also protest against all endeavours to make it appear, that no inference lies from this passage as to the salvation of individuals. It is most true (see remarks at the beginning of this chapter) that the immediate subject is the national rejection of the Jews: but we must consent to hold our reason in abeyance, if we do not recognize the inference, that the sovereign power and free election here proved to belong to God extend to every exercise of His mercy— whether temporal or spiritual— whether in Providence or in Grace— whether national or individual. It is in parts of Scripture like this, that we must be especially careful not to fall short of what is written: not to allow of any compromise of the plain and awful words of God’ s Spirit, for the sake of a caution which He Himself does not teach us. 17. The same great truth shewn on its darker side:— not only as regards God’ s mercy, but His wrath also. For (confirmation of the universal truth of the last inference) the Scripture (identified with God, its Author: the case, as Thol. remarks, is different when merely something contained in Scripture is introduced by ἡγραφὴλέγει : there ἡγρ . is merely personified. The justice of Thol.’ s remark will be apparent, if we reflect that this expression could not be used of the mere ordinary words of any man in the historical Scriptures, Ahab, or Hezekiah,— but only where the text itself speaks, or where God spoke, or, as here, some man under inspiration of God) saith to Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up (LXX διετηρήθης , ‘ thou wert preserved to this day:’ Heb. ה ֶ ֽ ע ֱ מ ַ ד ְ ת ּ ִ י ך ָ from ע ָ מ ַ ד , stetit, in Hiph. stare fecit; hence taken to signify (1) ‘ constituit, muneri præ fecit,’ as 1 Kings 12:32; Isaiah 21:6 ; Esther 4:5,— (2) ‘ confirmavit,’ as 1 Kings 15:4 al.,— and (3) ‘ prodire fecit, excitavit,’ Daniel 11:11; Nehemiah 6:7: the meaning ‘ incolumem prœ stitit,’ given in the Lexicons, seems to be grounded on the following of the LXX in this passage, who apparently understood it of Pharaoh being kept safe through the plagues. This has been done by modern interpreters [perhaps] to avoid the strong assertion which the Apostle here gives, purposely deviating from the LXX, that Pharaoh was ‘ raised up,’ called into action in his office, to be an example of God’ s dealing with impenitent sinners. The word chosen by the Apostle, ἐξεγείρω , in its transitive sense, is often used by the LXX for ‘ to rouse into action:’ see besides reff. Psalms 56:8; Psalms 79:2; Son 4:16 al. So that the meaning (3) given above for the Heb. verb— ‘ prodire fecit, excitavit,’ was evidently that intended by ἐξήγειρα ), that I may shew in thee my power (τ . ἰσχύνμου LXX-B: δύν . (which is read in A) is perhaps chosen by the Apostle as more general, ἰσχύς applying rather to those deeds of miraculous power of which Egypt was then witness), and that my Name may be proclaimed in all the earth (compare as a comment, the words of the song of triumph, Exodus 15:14-16). 18. Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will (ref. to ver. 15, where see note), and whom He will, He hardeneth. The frequent recurrence of the expression σκληρύνειντὴνκαρδίαν in the history of Pharaoh should have kept Commentators (Carpzov, Ernesti, al., and of Lexicographers, Wahl and Bretschneider) from attempting to give to σκληρύνω the sense of ‘ treating hardly,’ against which the next verse would be decisive, if there were no other reason for rejecting it. But it is very doubtful whether the word can ever bear the meaning. The only passage which appears to justify it (for in 2 Chronicles 10:4 it clearly has the import of hardening, making severe) is Job 39:16, where ἀπεσκλήρυνετὰτέκναἑαυτῆς (αὑτῆς A) the LXX version of the Heb. ה ִ ק ְ ש ׁ ִ י ח ַ , is supposed to mean, ‘ treats her offspring hardly.’ But the LXX by this compound seem to have intended, ‘ casts off her offspring in her hardness;’ the E. V. has, ‘ She is hardened against her young ones.’ Whatever difficulty there lies in this assertion, that God hardeneth whom He will, lies also in the daily course of His Providence, in which we see this hardening process going on in the case of the prosperous ungodly man. The fact is patent, whether declared by revelation or read in history: but to the solution of it, and its reconciliation with the equally certain fact of human responsibility, we shall never attain in this imperfect state, however we may strive to do so by subtle refinements and distinctions. The following is the admirable advice of Augustine (ad Sixtum, Ep. 194:6. 23, vol. ii. p. 882), from whom in this case it comes with double weight: “ Satis sit interim Christiano ex fide adhuc viventi, et nondum cernenti quod perfectum est, sed ex parte scienti, nosse vel credere quod neminem Deus liberet nisi gratuitâ misericordiâ per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, et neminem damnet nisi æ quissimâ veritate per eundem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Cur autem illum potius quam ilium liberet aut non liberet, scrutetur qui potest judiciorum ejus tam magnum profundum,— verumtamen caveat præ cipitium.” 19. Thou wilt say then to me (there seems no reason to suppose the objector a Jew, as Thol. after Grot., Calov., Koppe, al.:— the objection is a general one, applying to all mankind, and likely to arise in the mind of any reader. The expression ὦἄνθρωπε seems to confirm this), Why then doth He yet find fault (ἔτι as ch. 3:7, assuming your premises,— ‘ if this be so:’ at the same time it expresses a certain irritation on the part of the objector: ‘ exprimit morosum fremitum,’ Bengel. μέμφομαι has a stronger sense than mere blame here: interprets it αἰτιᾶται , ἐξουθενεῖ , καταγινώσκει : see the apocryphal reff. Thol.)? For who resists (not, ‘ hath resisted:” ἀνθέστηκεν , like ἕστηκεν , is present, see Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 4. b, and compare ἐφέστηκεν , 2 Timothy 4:6) His will (i.e. if it be His will to harden the sinner, and the sinner goes on in his sin, he does not resist but goes with the will of God)? Yea rather , O man (perhaps without emphasis implying the contrast between man and God,— for this is done by the emphatic σύ following, and we have ἄνθρωπε unemphatic in ch. 2:1), who art thou that repliest against God?— implying, ‘ thou hast neither right nor power, to call God to account in this manner.’ Notice, that the answer to the objector’ s question does not lie in these vv. 20, 21, but in the following (see there);— the present verses are a rebuke administered to the spirit of the objection, which forgets the immeasurable distance between us and God, and the relation of Creator and Disposer in which He stands to us. So Chrys.,— καὶοὐδὲτὴνλύσινεὐθέωςἐπάγει , συμφερόντωςκαὶτοῦτοποιῶν · ἀλλ ʼ ἐπιστομίζειπρῶτοντὸνζητοῦντα , λέγωνοὕτωμενοῦνγε … θεῷ ; ποιεῖδὲτοῦτο , τὴνἄκαιροναὐτοῦπεριεργίανἀναστέλλων , κ . τὴνπολλὴνπολυπραγμοσύνην , κ . χαλινὸνπεριτιθείς , κ . παιδεύωνεἰδέναιτίμὲνθεὸςτίδὲἄνθρωπος , κ . πῶςἀκατάληπτοςαὐτοῦἡπρόνοια , κ . πῶςὑπερβαίνουσατὸνἡμέτερονλογισμόν , κ . πῶςἅπαντααὐτῷπείθεσθαιδεῖ · ἵναὅταντοῦτοκατασκευάσῃπαρὰτῷἀκροατῇ , κ . καταστείλῃκ . λεάνῃτὴνγνώμην , τότεμετὰπολλῆςεὐκολίαςἐπάγωντὴνλύσιν , εὐπαράδεκτοναὐτῷποιήσῃτὸλεγόμενον . Hom. xvi. p. 614. Similarly Calvin: ‘ Hac priori responsione nihil aliud quam improbitatem illius blasphemiæ retundit, argumento ab hominis conditione sumpto. Alteram mox subjiciet, qua Dei justitiam ab omni criminatione vindicabit.’ Shall the thing formed (properly of a production of plastic art, moulded of clay or wax) say to him who formed it, “ Why madest thou me thus?” These words are slightly altered from Isaiah 29:16 LXX,— μὴἐρεῖτὸπλάσματῷπλάσαντιαὐτό , Οὐσύμεἔπλασας ; ἢτὸποίηματῷποιήσαντι , Οὐσυνετῶςμεἐποίησας ; Or (introduces a new objection, or fresh ground of rebuke, see ch. 2:4; 3:29; 6:3; 11:2) hath not the potter power over the clay (the similitude from ref. Isa. In Sir. 36 (33) 13, we have a very similar sentiment: ὡςπηλὸςκεραμέωςἐνχειρὶαὐτοῦ .… οὕτωςἄνθρωποιἐνχειρὶτοῦποιήσαντοςαὐτούς . And even more strikingly so, Wisd. 15:7: καὶγὰρκεραμεὺςἁπαλὴνγῆνθλίβωνἐπίμοχθονπλάσσειπρὸςὑπηρεσίανἡμῶνἕκαστον , ἀλλ ʼ ἐκτοῦαὐτοῦπηλοῦἀνεπλάσατοτάτετῶνκαθαρῶνἔργωνδοῦλασκεύητάτεἐναντίαπάνθ ʼ ὁμοίως · τούτωνδὲἑκατέρου (ἑτέρου Bא 3a, ἑτέρων א 1) τίςἑκάστουἐστὶνἡχρῆσις , κριτὴςὁπηλουργός . See also Jeremiah 18:6), out of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour (honourable uses) and another unto dishonour (dishonourable uses. See ref. 2 Tim. The honour and dishonour are not here the moral purity or impurity of the human vessels, but their ultimate glorification or perdition. The Apostle in asking this question, rather aims at striking dumb the objector by a statement of God’ s undoubted right, against which it does not become us men to murmur, than at unfolding to us the actual state of the case. This he does in the succeeding verses; see above, from Chrys. and Calv.)? 22. But what if (by the elliptical εἰδέ the answer to the question of the objector, ver. 19, seems to be introduced; ἐὰνοὖν occurs in a similar connexion John 6:62; and ἀλλ ʼ εἰ , Soph. Œ d. Col. 590,— ἀλλ ʼ εἰθέλοντάςγ ʼ οὐδὲσοὶφυγεῖνκαλόν ; See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 212. 6) (1) God, purposing to shew forth His wrath, and to make known His power (that which He could do), endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted [prepared, made complete and ready] for destruction; and (what if this took place) (2) that He might make known the riches of His glory on (not to, as De Wette, who joins it with γνωρίσῃ ,— but ‘ toward,’ on, ‘ with regard to,’ dependent on πλοῦτον , as πλουτῶνεἰς , ch. 10:12) the vessels of mercy, which He before prepared for glory? I have given the whole, that my view of the construction might be evident: viz. that (1) and (2) are parallel clauses, both dependent on εἰδέ ; θέλων giving the purpose of the 1st, and ἵναγν . that of the 2nd. They might be cast into one form by writing the 1st ὁθ ., ἵναἐνδείξηται .… κ . γνωρίσῃ ,— or the 2nd, καὶθέλωνγνωρίσαι . Only I do not, as Calv., Beza, Grot., Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, and Winer, understand the same ἤνεγκεν .… ἀπώλ ., as belonging to both, but only to the 1st, and supply before the 2nd, ‘ What if this took place,’ viz. this ὃνθέλει , ἐλεεῖ . Other constructions have been,— to make ἵνα depend on κατηρτισμένα — ‘ prepared to destruction for this very purpose, that &c.’ So Fritz. and Rü ckert, Exo_2; but this seems to overlook καί , or to regard it as = καὶτοῦτο :— to take ver. 23 as a new sentence, supplying ἐκάλεσενἡμᾶς , as Tholuck. Stuart supplies θέλων before ἵναγν ., and ἠλέησεν before οὓςἐκάλεσενἡμᾶς . This in fact amounts to nearly the same as my own view, but appears objectionable, inasmuch as it joins ver. 24 to ver. 23: see below. The argument is, ‘ What if God, in the case of the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, has, in willing to manifest His power and wrath, also exhibited towards them long-suffering (to lead them to repentance, ch. 2:4,— a mystery which we cannot fathom), and in having mercy on the vessels of mercy prepared for glory, has also made manifest the riches of His glory?’ Then in both these dispensations will appear, not the arbitrary power, but the rich goodness of God. The theological difficulties in κατηρτισμένα and προητοίμασεν are but such as have occurred repeatedly before, and, as Stuart has well observed, are inherent, not in the Apostle’ s argument, nor even in revelation, but in any consistent belief of an omnipotent and omniscient God. See remarks on ver. 18. σκεύηὀργῆς and σκεύηἐλέους are vessels prepared to subserve, as it were to hold, His ὀργή and ἔλεος : hardly, as Calvin, instruments to shew forth: that is done, over and above their being σκεύη , but is not necessary to it. The σκ . ὀργ . and σκ . ἐλ . are not to be, with a view to evade the general application, confined to the instances of Pharaoh and the Jews: these instances give occasion to the argument, but the argument itself is general, extending to all the dealings of God. 24. Of which kind He also called us, not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles. It being entirely in the power of God to preordain and have mercy on whom He will, He has exercised this right by calling not only the remnant of His own people, but a people from among the Gentiles also. 25, 26. It is difficult to ascertain in what sense the Apostle cites these two passages from Hosea as applicable to the Gentiles being called to be the people of God. That he does so, is manifest from the words themselves, and from the transition to the Jews in ver. 27. In the prophet they are spoken of Israel; see ch. 1:6-11, and ch. 2 throughout: who after being rejected and put away, was to be again received into favour by God. Two ways are open, by which their citation by the Apostle may be understood. Either (1) he brings them forward to shew that it is consonant with what we know of God’ s dealings, to receive as His people, those who were formerly not His people— that this may now take place with regard to the Gentiles, as it was announced to happen with regard to Israel,— and even more,— that Israel in this as in so many other things was the prophetic mirror in which God foreshowed on a small scale His future dealings with mankind,— or (2) he adduces them from mere applicability to the subject in hand, implying, ‘ It has been with us Gentiles, as with Israel in the prophet Hosea.’ I own I much prefer the former of these, as more consonant with the dignity of the argument, and as apparently justified by the καί ,— as He saith also in Hosea, implying perhaps that the matter in hand was not that directly prophesied in the citation, but one analogous to it. Chrys. takes the same view: εἰγὰρἐπὶτῶνἀγνωμονησάντωνμετὰπολλὰςεὐεργεσίας , καὶἀλλοτριωθέντων , καὶτὸλαὸςεἶναιἀπολωλεκότων , τοσαύτηγέγονενἡμεταβολή , τίἐκώλυεκαὶτοὺςοὐμετὰτὴνοἰκείωσινἀλλοτριωθέντας , ἀλλ ʼ ἐξἀρχῆςἀλλοτρίουςὄντας , κληθῆναι , κ . ὑπακούσανταςτῶναὐτῶνἀξιωθῆναι ; Hom. xvi. p. 618. The fem. τήν is used because the Jewish people was typified by the daughter of the prophet, Hosea 1:6, who was called Lo-ruhamah, ‘ not having obtained mercy.’ The sense, not the words of the LXX, is quoted. By ἐντῷτόπῳ … ἐκεῖ must not I think be understood, in any particular place, as Judæ a, nor among any peculiar people, as the Christian Church: but as a general assertion, that in every place where they were called ‘ not His people,’ there they shall be called ‘ His people.’ 27. A proof from Scripture of the fact, that a part of Israel are excluded. Here again the analogy of God’ s dealings, in the partial deliverance of Israel from captivity, and their great final deliverance from death eternal, is the key to the interpretation of the prophecy cited. The words are spoken by Isaiah of the return from captivity of a remnant of Israel. 28. The reference of this latter part of the citation is not very plain. It is almost verbatim from the LXX, the γάρ (which is found in Aא but not in B) being perhaps adopted by the Apostle as continuing the testimony, = ‘ for the prophet proceeds,’ — and the LXX having κατάλειμμα for ὑπόλειμμα (see digest), and ἐντῇοἰκουμένῃὅλῃ for ἐπὶτῆςγῆς . The literal rendering of the Heb. is, “ The consummation (or consumption) decided, overfloweth with righteousness: for a decision (or consumption) and a decree shall the Lord Jehovah of Sabaoth make in the midst of all the land.” As it stands in the LXX, the meaning seems to be, the Lord will complete and soon fulfil His word in righteousness (viz. his denunciation of consuming the Assyrian and liberating the remnant of His people): for the Lord will make a rapidly accomplished word in the midst of all the land. The E. V., Calv., and others, render λόγον , ‘ work,’ a signification which it never has. If the above interpretation be correct, and the view which I have taken of the analogy of prophecy, it will follow that this verse is adduced by the Apostle as confirming the certainty of the salvation of the remnant of Israel, seeing that now, as then, He with whom a thousand years are as a day, will swiftly accomplish His prophetic word in righteousness. 29. Another proof of a remnant to be saved, from a preceding part of the same prophecy. (Such seems to be the sense of προείρ . here,— and so Beza, Calv., Grot., al.; De W., Thol., al., prefer ‘ prophesied;’ but surely there is no necessity for affixing an unusual sense to the word, where the ordinary one (see all the reff.) suits much better.) “ ὁμοιοῦσθαιὡς is a construction in which two ideas, ‘ to become as,’ and ‘ to become like to,’ are mingled, as in Heb. נ ִ מ ְ ש ׁ ַ ל כ ּ ְ , Psalms 49:13, 21; compare Mark 4:30.” Tholuck. On ‘ Jehovah Sabaoth,’ Bengel remarks, “ Pro Hebraico צ ְ ב ָ א ֹ ת in libro 1 Sam. et Jesaia σαβαώθ ponitur; in reliquis libris omnibus παντοκράτωρ .” (This is not strictly the case: δυνάμεων is found in several places: and σαβαώθ occurs in Zechariah 13:2 Bא .) The citation is verbatim from the LXX, who have put σπέρμα for the Heb. ש ׂ ָ ר ִ י ד , ‘ residuum,’ — implying a remnant for a fresh planting. 30-33. The Apostle takes up again the fact of Israel’ s failure, and shews how their own pursuit of righteousness never attained to righteousness, being hindered by their self-righteousness and rejection of Christ. These verses do not contain, as Chrys., Œ c., Theophyl., the τοῦχωρίουπαντὸςλύσις — this λύσις is simply in the creative right of God, as declared ver. 18;— but they are a comment on ver. 16, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth: the same similitude of running being here resumed, and it being shewn that, so far from man’ s running having decided the matter, the Jews who pressed forward to the goal attained not, whereas the Gentiles, who never ran, have attained. If this is lost sight of, the connexion of the whole is much impaired, and from doctrinal prejudice, a wholly wrong turn given to the Apostle’ s line of reasoning,— who resolves the awful fact of Israel’ s exclusion not into any causes arising from man, but into the supreme will of God,— which will is here again distinctly asserted in the citation from Isaiah (see below). What then shall we say? This question, when followed by a question, implies of course a rejection of the thought thus suggested— but when, as here, by an assertion, introduces a further unfolding of the argument from what has preceded. I cannot agree with Flatt, Olsh., al., that ὅτικ .τ .λ . is to be regarded as a question: for, as Rü ckert has observed, (1) Paul could not put interrogatively, as a supposition in answer to τίοὖνἐροῦμεν , a sentiment not intimated in nor following from the foregoing; (2) there would be no answer to the question thus asked, but the διὰτί , ver. 32, would ask another question, proceeding on the assumption of that which had been before by implication negatived; and (3) the answer, ὅτικ .τ .λ . ver. 32, would touch only the case of the Jews, and not that of the Gentiles, also involved, on this supposition, in the question. That the Gentiles , which pursue not after (see especially reff. Phil.) righteousness (not justification, which is merely ‘ the being accounted righteous,’ ‘ the way in which righteous ness is ascribed:’ not this, but righteousness itself, is the aim and end of the race) attained to (the whole transaction being regarded as a historical fact) righteousness, even (δέ brings in something new, different from the foregoing, but not strongly opposed to it, see Winer, edn. 6. § 53. 7. b:— the opposition here, though fine and delicate, is remarkable: righteousness— not however that arising from their own works, but the righteousness, &c.) the righteousness which is of faith: 31.— but Israel, pursuing after the law of righteousness (what is the νόμοςδικαιοσύνης Certainly not = δικαιοσύνηνόμου , as Chrys., Theodoret, Œ cum., Calv., Beza, Bengel, by the so-called, but as Thol. observes, unlogical figure of Hypallage:— it may mean either (1) as Meyer, Fritz., Thol., an ideal law of righteousness, a justifying law,— or (2) as Chrys., al.,— see above,— the Iaw of Moses, thus described: or (3) which I believe to be the true account of the words, νόμοςδικαιος . is put regarding the Jews, rather than merely δικαιος ., because in their case there was a prescribed norm of apparent righteousness, viz. the law, in which rule and way they, as matter of fact, followed after it. The above, as I believe, mistaken interpretations arise from supposing νόμονδικαιος . to be = δικαιος ., which it is not. The Jews followed after, aimed at the fulfilment of ‘ the law of righteousness,’ thinking by the observance of that law to acquire righteousness. See ch. 10:3, 5, and note; and compare John’ s coming ἐνὁδῷδικαιοσύνης , Matthew 21:32), arrived not at [notice the change in the verb] the law (fell far short even of that law, which was given them. It is surprising, with ch. 10:3-5 before them, how De Wette and Tholuck can pronounce the reading νόμον without δικαιοσύνης to be without sense. The Jews followed after, thinking to perform it entirely, their νόμοςδικαιοσύνης : which δικαιος . ἐκτοῦνόμου the Apostle defines, ch. 10:5, to be ὁποιήσαςαὐτὰἄνθρωποςζήσεταιἐναὐτοῖς , but they did not attain to— not in this case κατέλαβεν , but ἔφθασενεἰς — the law— they therefore never attained righteousness. It is surely far more easy to imagine how a transcriber should have inserted δικαιοσύνης , than how he should have omitted it. It probably was a marginal gloss to explain the second νόμον , and thence found its way into the text (I may notice, that ch. 10:3 is not a case in point, the νόμον here having an independent and exceptional meaning of its own, which introduces an element not belonging to ἰδίαν there)). Wherefore? because (pursuing it) not by faith, but as (used subjectively, as ‘ if about to obtain their object by:’ see Winer, edn. 6, § 65. 9, and compare 2 Peter 1:3) by [the] works [of the law (the evidence for and against νόμου is about equally balanced. On the one side we have the Apostle’ s usage, see ch. 3:28 reff.,— and the possibility of a transcriber omitting νόμου , either as having twice occurred already, or for more complete antithesis,— and on the other we have the temptation to correct ἔργων to ἔργωννόμου to suit that very usage. On the whole I incline to omit νόμου , but do not regard the evidence as sufficiently clear to justify its exclusion from the text)], they stumbled at the stone of stumbling (the similitude of a race is still kept up. The insertion of γάρ has arisen from a period being placed at νόμου . It confuses the sense, making it appear as if the stumbling was the cause of, or at all events coincident with, their pursuing οὐκἐκπ . κ .τ .λ ., whereas it was this mistaken method of pursuing which caused them to stumble against the stone of stumbling. Thus we have instances in the Greek chariot races, of competitors, by an error in judgment in driving, striking against the στήλη round which the chariots were to turn, see Soph. Elect. 730 f. There is a close analogy between our text and the exhortation in Hebrews 12:1 f. There, after the triumphs of faith have been related, we are exhorted to run with patience the race set before us, looking to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith: where notice, that the sacred Writer seems to have had in his mind the same comparison of Him to the pillar or goal, to which the eyes of the runners would be exclusively directed). 33. Appeal to the prophecy of Isaiah, as justifying this comparison of Christ to a stone of stumbling. The citation is gathered from two places in Isaiah. The ‘ stone of stumbling and rock of offence,’ mentioned ch. 8:14, is substituted for the ‘ corner-stone elect, precious,’ of ch. 28:16. The solution of this is very simple. Isaiah 8:14 was evidently interpreted by the Jews themselves of the Messiah: for Simeon, Luke 2:34, when speaking of the child Jesus as the Messiah, expressly adduces the prophecy as about to be fulfilled. Similarly Isaiah 28:16 was interpreted by the Chaldee Targum, the Babylonish Talmud (Tract Sanhedrin, fol. xxxviii. 1, Stuart), &c. What was there then to prevent the Apostle from giving to this Stone, plainly foretold as to be laid in Zion, that designation which prophecy also justifies, and which bears immediately on the matter here in hand? The translation of Isa 8:14 is after the Heb.,— the LXX having apparently read differently. See 1 Peter 2:6-8, where the same two texts are joined, and also Psa_118 (117) 22. οὐκαταισχυνθήσεται , LXX (Isaiah 28:16), οὐμὴκαταισχυνθῇ , gives a secondary meaning of the Heb. ל ֹ א י ָ ח ִ י ש ׁ , ‘ shall not make haste.’ i.e. shall not fly in terror, shall not be confounded. Chap. 10:1-13. The Jews, though zealous for God, are yet ignorant of God’ s righteousness (1-3), as revealed to them in their own Scriptures (4-13). 1. Brethren (‘ nunc quasi superata præ cedentis tractationis severitate comiter appellat fratres.’ Bengel), the inclination of my heart (εὐδοκία is seldom, if ever, used to signify the motion of desire, but imports the rest of approving satisfaction. Possibly there is here a mixture of constructions: the Apostle’ s εὐδοκία would be their salvation itself,— his δέησιςπρὸςτὸνθ . ὑπὲραὐτ . was εἰςσωτ . The μέν requires a corresponding δέ , not expressed, but implied in the course of vv. 2, 3, where the obstacle to their σωτήρ . is brought out), and my supplication to God on their behalf , (is) for (their) salvation (lit. ‘ towards salvation.’ The insertion of the art. after δέησις has apparently been an overcareful grammatical correction: it is by no means universal in the N. T., even where the Greek writers insert it,— and here, seeing that there could be no δεήσεις to any other than God, the omission would be more natural. τοῦἸσραήλ has been substituted by the adoption of a gloss: ἐστίν to complete the sense). The Apostle’ s meaning seems to be, to destroy any impression which his readers may have received unfavourable to his love of his own people, from the stern argument of the former chapter. 2. For (reason why I thus sympathize with their efforts, though misdirected) I bear witness to them that they have a zeal for God (for this meaning of the gen. see reff., especially 2 Corinthians 11:2, and note there), but not according to (in accordance with, founded upon, and carried on with) knowledge (accurate apprehension of the way of righteousness as revealed to them). 3. For (explanation of οὐκατ ʼ ἐπίγν .) not recognizing (‘ being ignorant of’ is liable to the objection, that it may represent to the reader a state of excusable ignorance, whereas they had it before them, and overlooked it) the righteousness of God (not, the way of justification appointed by God, as Stuart, al.: but that only righteousness which avails before God, which becomes ours in justification; see De Wette’ s note, quoted on ch. 1:17), and seeking to set up their own righteousness (again, not justification, but righteousness: that, namely, described ver. 5; not that it was ever theirs, but the Apostle speaks subjectively. Notwithstanding the ms. authority against δικαι . after ἰδίαν , it would seem as if it had been written for emphasis’ sake by the Apostle, and omitted on account of the word occurring thrice in the sentence), they were not subjected (historical: implying, but not itself bearing, a perfect sense. The passage,— not in a middle sense, as De Wette and Thol.,— expresses the result only; it might be themselves, or it might be some other, that subjected them,— but the historical fact was, that they were not subjected) to the righteousness of God (the δικ . τ . θ . being considered as a rule or method, to which it was necessary to conform, but to which they were never subjected as they were to the law of Moses). 4-13. The δικαιοσύνητ . θ . is now explained to be summed up in that Saviour who was declared to them in their own Scriptures. For (establishing what was last said, and at the same time unfolding the δικ . τ . θ . in a form which rendered them inexcusable for its non-recognition) Christ is the end of the Law (i.e. the object at which the law aimed: see the similar expression 1 Timothy 1:5, τὸτέλοςτῆςπαραγγελίαςἐστὶνἀγάπη . Various meanings have been given to τέλος . (1) End, finis, chronological: ‘ Christ is the termination of the law.’ So the latt., Augustine, Luther, al., Olsh., Meyer, Fritz., De Wette, al. But this meaning, unless understood in its pregnant sense, that Christ, who has succeeded to the law, was also the object and aim of the law, says too little. In this pregnant sense Tholuck takes the word ‘ end,’ the end in time and in aim. It may be so; but I prefer simply to take in the idea of Christ being the end, i.e. aim of the law, as borne out by the following citations, in which nothing is said of the transitoriness of the law, but much of the notices which it contains of righteousness by faith in Christ. (2) Alex.,— πλήραμαγὰρν . χρ . εἰςδικ . π . τῷπιστ ., De Div. Serv. § 9, p. 940 P. Theodoret, Calv., Grot., al., take τέλος for ‘ accomplishment,’ a sense included in the general meaning, but not especially treated here,— the following quotations not having any reference to it. (3) The meaning, end in the sense of object or aim, above adopted, is that of the Syr., Chrys., Theophyl., Beza, Bengel, al. Chrys. observes: εἰγὰρτοῦνόμουτέλοςὁχριστός , ὁτὸνχριστὸνοὐκἔχων , κἂνἐκείνηνδοκῇἔχειν , οὐκἔχει · ὁδὲτὸνχριστὸνἔχων , κἂνμὴᾖκατωρθωκὼςτὸννόμον , τὸπᾶνεἴληφε . καὶγὰρτέλοςἰατρικῆςὑγιεία . ὥσπεροὖνὁδυνάμενοςὑγιῆποιεῖν , κἂνμὴτὴνἰατρικὴνἔχῃ , τὸπᾶνἔχει . ὁδὲμὴεἰδὼςθεραπεύειν , κἂνμετιέναιδοκῇτὴντέχνην , τοῦπαντὸςἐξέπεσεν · οὕτωἐπὶτοῦνόμουκαὶτῆςπίστεως , ὁμὲνταύτηνἔχων , καὶτὸἐκείνουτέλοςἔχει · ὁδὲταύτηςἔξωὤν , ἀμφοτέρωνἐστὶνἀλλότριος . Hom. xvii. p. 622. νόμου is here plainly the law of Moses: see Middleton in loc.) unto righteousness (i.e. so as to bring about righteousness, which the law could not do) to (dat. commodi) every one that believeth. “ Had they only used the law, instead of abusing it, it would have been their best preparation for the Saviour’ s advent. For indeed, by reason of man’ s natural weakness, it was always powerless to justify. It was never intended to make the sinner righteous before God; but rather to impart to him a knowledge of his sinfulness, and to awaken in his heart earnest longings for some powerful deliverer. Thus used, it would have ensured the reception of the Messiah by those who now reject Him. Striving to attain to real holiness, and increasingly conscious of the impossibility of becoming holy by an imperfect obedience to the law’ s requirements, they would gladly have recognized the Saviour as the end of the law for righteousness.” Ewbank. 5. For (proof of the impossibility of legal righteousness, as declared even in the law itself) Moses describes (reff.) the righteousness which is of (abstr.— not implying that it has ever been attained, but rather presupposing the contrary) the law, that the man who hath done them (the ordinances of the law) shall live in (in the strength of, by means of, as his status) it (the righteousness accruing by such doing of them). As regards the life here promised, the Jewish interpreters themselves included in it more than mere earthly felicity in Canaan, and extended their view to a better life hereafter: see Wetst. in loc. Earthly felicity it doubtless did impart, compare Deuteronomy 30:20; but even there, as Thol. observes, ‘ life’ seems to be a general promise, and length of days a particular species of felicity. “ In the N. T.,” he continues, “ this idea (of life) is always exalted into that of life blessed and eternal:— see Matthew 7:14; Matthew 18:8, Matthew 18:9; Luke 10:28.” 6-8. The righteousness which is of faith is described, in the words spoken in Scripture by Moses of the commandment given by him,— as not dependent on a long and difficult process of search, but near to every man, and in every man’ s power to attain. I believe the account of the following citation will be best found by bearing in mind that the Apostle is speaking of Christ as the end of the law for righteousness to the believer. He takes as a confirmation of this, a passage occurring in a prophetic part of Deut., where Moses is foretelling to the Jews the consequences of rejecting God’ s law, and His mercy to them even when under chastisement, if they would return to Him. He then describes the law in nearly the words cited in this verse. Now the Apostle, regarding Christ as the end of the law, its great central aim and object, quotes these words not merely as suiting his purpose, but as bearing, where originally used, an à fortiori application to faith in Him who is the end of the law, and to the commandment to believe in Him, which (1 John 3:23) is now ‘ God’ s commandment.’ If spoken of the law as a manifestation of God in man’ s heart and mouth, much more were they spoken of Him, who is God manifest in the flesh, the end of the law and the prophets. This view is, it is true, different from that of almost all eminent Commentators, ancient and modern,— who regard the words as merely adapted or parodied by the Apostle as suiting his present purpose. Thus, with minor shades of difference, Chrys., Beza, Grot., Vatabl., Luther, Wolf, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Rü ckert, De Wette, Thol., Stuart, Hodge, al. But we must remember that it is in this passage Paul’ s object not merely to describe the righteousness which is of faith in Christ, but to shew it described already in the words of the law. The Commentators who have taken more or less the view that the Apostle cites the words as bearing the sense put on them, are Calvin, Calovius, Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Olsh. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise (personified, as Wisdom in the Prov.), Say not in thine heart (i.e. ‘ think not,’ a Heb. idiom. The LXX has merely λέγων , ל ֵ א מ ֹ ר . The Apostle cites freely, giving the explanation of λέγων , viz. thinking), who shall go up to heaven εἰςτ . οὐρ ., see Proverbs 30:4)?— that is (see note above:— that imports in its full and unfolded meaning), to bring down Christ:— or who shall go down into the abyss (LXX, τίςδιαπεράσειἡμῖνεἰςτὸπέραντῆςθαλάσσης ; The Apostle substitutes τίςκατ . εἰςτ . ἄβ . as the direct contrast to τίςἀν . εἰςτ . οὐρ ., as in ref. Ps.; see also Amos 9:2:— and as better suiting the interpretation which follows)?— that is, to bring up Christ from the dead. There is some difficulty in assigning the precise view with which the Apostle introduces these questions. Tholuck remarks, “ The different interpretations may be reduced to this, that the questions are regarded either (1) as questions of unbelief, or (2) as questions of embarrassment, or (3) as questions of anxiety.” The first view is represented by De Wette, who says, “ In what sense these questions, from which the righteousness which is of faith dissuades men, are to be taken, is plain from ver. 9, where the Resurrection of Christ is asserted as the one most weighty point of historical Christian belief:— they would be questions of unbelief, which regards this fact as not accomplished, or as now first to be accomplished. Thus also, probably, are we to understand the first question, as applying to the Incarnation of Christ.” This is more or less also the view of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Œ , Erasm., Estius, Semler, Koppe, Meyer, al., Rü ckert (who refers the doubt or the unbelief to the full accomplishment of redemption by the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ), Reiche, and Kö llner (who refer καταγ . to the ascended Saviour, thereby destroying the symmetry of the whole,— because the latter question undoubtedly refers to bringing Christ not from a present but from a past state, from which He has historically come). (2) The second view, that they are questions of embarrassment, is taken by L. Capellus, Wolf, Rosenm., and Stuart, which last says, “ The whole (of Moses’ s saying) may be summed up in one word, omitting all figurative expression: viz. the commandment is plain and accessible. You can have, therefore, no excuse for neglecting it. So in the case before us. Justification by faith in Christ is a plain and intelligible doctrine. It is not shut up in mysterious language.… It is like what Moses says of the statutes which he gave to Israel, plain, intelligible, accessible.… It is brought before the mind and heart of every man: and thus he is without excuse for unbelief.” (3) The third view, that they are questions of anxiety, is that of Calv., Beza, Pisc., Bengel, Knapp, Fritz., and Tholuck:— by none perhaps better expressed than by Ewbank, Comm. on the Ep. to the Rom., p. 74: “ Personifying the great Christian doctrine of free justification through faith, he represents it as addressing every man who is anxious to obtain salvation, in the encouraging words of Moses: ‘ Say not in thine heart, (it says to such an one) &c.… ’ In other words, ‘ Let not the man, who sighs for deliverance from his own sinfulness, suppose that the accomplishment of some impossible task is required of him, in order to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel. Let him not think that the personal presence of the Messiah is necessary to ensure his salvation. Christ needs not to be brought down from heaven, or up from the abyss, to impart to him forgiveness and holiness. No. Our Christian message contains no impossibilities. We do not mock the sinner by offering him happiness on conditions which we know that he is powerless to fulfil. We tell him that Christ’ s word is near to him: so near, that he may speak of it with his mouth, and meditate on it with his heart.… ’ Is there any thing above human power in such a confession, and in such a belief? Surely not. It is graciously adapted to the necessity of the very weakest and most sinful of God’ s creatures.” [I will now take up the three views afresh, and state the objections.] (1) The objection to this view, as alleged by Tholuck, is, that in it, the contrast with ver. 5 is lost sight of. And this is so far just, that it must be confessed we thus lose the ideas which the Apostle evidently intended us to grasp, those of insuperable difficulty in the acquisition of righteousness by the law, and of facility,— by the gospel. Also,— it puts too forward the allegation of the great matters of historical belief, which are not here the central point of the argument, but introduced as the objects which faith, itself that central point, apprehends. (2) The last objection has some force as against this view. The regarding the questions as mere questions of difficulty and intellectual bewilderment does not adequately represent the ζῆλοςθεοῦ predicated of the Jews, on the assumption of which the whole passage proceeds. Here, however, it seems to me, we have more truth than in (1): for the plainness and simplicity of the truth to be believed is unquestionably one most important element in the righteousness which is of faith. (3) Here we have the important element just mentioned, not indeed made the prominent point of the questions, but, as it appears to me, properly and sufficiently kept in view. The anxious follower after righteousness is not disappointed by an impracticable code, nor mocked by an unintelligible revelation: the word is near him, therefore accessible; plain and simple, and therefore apprehensible; and, taking (1) into account, we may fairly add,— deals with definite historical fact, and therefore certain: so that his salvation is not contingent on an amount of performance which is beyond him, and therefore inaccessible: irrational, and therefore inapprehensible: undefined, and therefore involved in uncertainty. Thus, it seems to me, we satisfy all the conditions of the argument: and thus also it is clearly brought out, that the words themselves could never have been spoken by Moses of the righteousness which is of the law, but of that which is of faith. 8. But what says it? The word is near thee, in thy mouth (to confess), and in thine heart (to believe): that is (see above), the word of faith (which forms the substratum and object of faith, see Galatians 3:2; 1 Timothy 4:6) which we (ministers of Christ: or perhaps, I Paul) preach. This verse has been explained in dealing with vv. 6 and 7. 9. Because (explanation of the word being near thee: so Thol., De Wette, Stuart, al. Others take ὅτι here as in ver. 5, merely recitantis, making ἐὰνκ .τ .λ . the ῥῆμα preached. But as Thol. observes, (1) the duty of confessing the Lord Jesus can hardly be called part of the contents of the preaching of faith, but the prominence given to that duty shews a reference to the words of Moses: (2) the making ὅτι render a reason for ἐγγύςσουκ .τ .λ . suits much better the context and form of the passage: (3) the fact of the confession with the mouth standing first, also shews a reference to what has gone before: for when the Apostle brings his own arrangement in ver. 10, he puts, as natural, the belief of the heart first), if thou shalt confess with thy mouth (same order as ver. 8) the Lord Jesus (not, I think, ‘ Jesus as the Lord’ (see the readg of al.): this might very well be,— and κύριον might, as Thol., be the predicate placed first for emphasis, did not Paul frequently use κύριοςἸησοῦς for ‘ the Lord Jesus,’ — see (ch. 14:14 after a prep.) 1 Corinthians 1:3 al.; Phil. (2:19) 3:20; Colossians 3:17 (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:1). 1 Corinthians 12:3 is hardly an example on the other side: see not there, but 2 Corinthians 4:5 is, cf. note there), and believe in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead (here, as in 1 Corinthians 15:14, 1 Corinthians 15:16, 1 Corinthians 15:17, regarded as the great central fact of redemption), thou shalt be saved (inherit eternal life). Here we have the two parts of the above question again introduced: the confession of the Lord Jesus implying his having come down from heaven, and the belief in His resurrection implying His having been brought up from the dead. 10. For (refers back to ver. 6, where the above words were ascribed to ἡἐκπίστεωςδικαιοσύνη , and explains how πιστεύς . ἐντῇκαρδ . refer to the acquiring of righteousness) with the heart faith is exercised (πιστεύεται , men believe) unto (so as to be available to the acquisition of) righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Clearly the words δικ . and σωτ . are not used here, as De W., al., merely as different terms for the same thing, for the sake of the parallelism: but as Thol. quotes from Crell., σωτ . is the ‘ terminus ultimus et apex justificationis,’ consequent not merely on the act of justifying faith as the other, but on a good confession before the world, maintained unto the end. 11. For (proof of the former part of ver. 10) the Scripture saith, Every one who believeth on Him shall not be ashamed. πᾶς is neither in the LXX nor the Heb., but is implied in the indefinite participle. The Apostle seems to use it here as taking up παντὶτῷπιστεύοντι , ver. 4. See ch. 9:33. 12. For (an explanation of the strong expression πᾶςὁπιστεύων , as implying the universal offer of the riches of God’ s mercy in Christ) there is no distinction of Jew and Greek (Gentile. See ch. 3:22); for the same Lord of all (viz. Christ, who is the subject here: vv. 9, 11, 13 cannot be separated. So , Chrys., Œ c., Calov., Wolf, Bengel, Rü ck., Meyer, Fritz., De Wette, Tholuck, al. So πάντωνκύριος of Christ, Acts 10:36. Most modern Commentators make ὁαὐτός the subject, and κύριος the predicate. But I prefer the usual rendering, both on account of the strangeness of ὁαὐτός thus standing alone, and because this Apostle uses the expression ὁαὐτὸςκύριος , 1 Corinthians 12:5, and even ὁαὐτὸςθεός , ib. 6, for ‘ the same Lord,’ and ‘ it is the same God.’ Stuart supplies, ‘ (there is) the same Lord:’ but this is harsh,— and unnecessary, if the participle πλουτῶν be taken as συντελῶνκ . συντ . in ch. 9:28) is rich towards all (‘ by εἰς is signified the direction in which the stream of grace rushes forth.’ Olsh.) who call upon Him. 13-21. Proof from Scripture of this assertion, and argument thereon. 13. For every one, whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord (Jehovah,— but used here of Christ beyond a doubt, as the next verse shews. There is hardly a stronger proof, or one more irrefragable by those who deny the Godhead of our Blessed Lord, of the unhesitating application to Him by the Apostle of the name and attributes of Jehovah) shall be saved. 14, 15. It has been much doubted to whom these questions refer,— to Jews or to Gentiles? It must, I think, be answered, To neither exclusively. They are generalized by the πᾶςὃςἄν of the preceding verse, to mean all, both Jews and Gentiles. And the inference in what follows, though mainly concerning the rejection of the unbelieving Jews, has regard also to the reception of the Gentiles: see below on vv. 19, 20. At the same time, as Meyer remarks, “ the necessity of the Gospel ἀποστολή must first be laid down, in order to bring out in strong contrast the disobedience of some.” How then (i.e. posito, that the foregoing is so) can they (men, represented by the πᾶςὃςἄν of ver. 13) call on (I have followed the majority of the chief mss. in reading the aor. subjunctive instead of the future indic. So also ch. 6:1) Him in whom they have not believed (i.e. begun to believe: so ch. 13:11)? But how can they believe (in Him) of whom they have not heard (construction see reff.)? But how can they hear without a preacher? But how can men preach unless they shall have been sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who [publish glad tidings of peace, who] publish glad tidings of (τά is excluded by the strong manuscript testimony against it) good things. The Apostle is shewing the necessity and dignity of the preachers of the word, which leads on to the universality of their preaching, leaving all who disobey it without excuse. He therefore cites this, as shewing that their instrumentality was one recognized in the prophetic word, where their office is described and glorified. The applicability of these words to the preachers of the Gospel is evident from the passage in Isaiah itself, which is spoken indeed of the return from captivity, but in that return has regard to a more glorious one under the future Redeemer. We need not therefore say that the Apostle uses Scripture words merely as expressing his own thoughts in a well-known garb;— he alleges the words as a prophetic description of the preachers of whom he is writing. 16. In this preaching of the Gospel some have been found obedient, others disobedient: and this was before announced by Isaiah. The persons here meant are as yet kept indefinite,— but evidently the Apostle has in his mind the unbelieving Jews, about whom his main discourse is employed. But not all hearkened to (historic: during the preaching) the glad tidings (οὐπάντες , because πάντες , see vv. 11-13, were the objects of the preaching, and must hearken to it if they would be saved):— (and this too was no unlooked-for thing, but predetermined in the divine counsel) for Esaias saith, Lord (κύριε is not in the Heb.), who believed the hearing of us [(i.e. as in our Version,] our report)? 17. Faith then is from hearing (the publication of the Gospel produces belief in it), and the hearing (the effect of the publication of the Gospel) is by means of (not, ‘ in obedience to,’ but ‘ by,’ as its instrument and vehicle) the word of Christ (θεοῦ has probably been a rationalizing correction, to suit better the sense of the prophecy. ῥήματος is used possibly, as De Wette suggests, as a preparation for τὰῥήματααὐτ . in ver. 18). 18. But (in anticipation of an objection that Israel, whom he has especially in view, had not sufficiently heard the good tidings) I say, Did they not hear (ἤκουσαν partly founded on the cognate ἀκοή of the last verse, partly recalling the ἤκουσαν of ver. 14)? nay rather (ch. 9:20, note) into all the earth went forth their voice, and to the ends of the world their words. It is remarkable that so few of the Commentators have noticed (I have found it only in Bengel, and there but faintly hinted: Olsh., who defends the applicability of the text, does not even allude to it) that Psa_19 is a comparison of the sun, and glory of the heavens, with the word of God. As far as ver. 6 the glories of nature are described: then the great subject is taken up, and the parallelism carried out to the end. So that the Apostle has not, as alleged in nearly all the Commentators, merely accommodated the text allegorically, but taken it in its context, and followed up the comparison of the Psalm. As to the assertion of the preaching of the Gospel having gone out into all the world, when as yet a small part of it only had been evangelized,— we must remember that it is not the extent, so much as the universality in character, of this preaching, which the Apostle is here asserting; that word of God, hitherto confined within the limits of Judæ a, had now broken those bounds, and was preached in all parts of the earth. See Colossians 1:6, Colossians 1:23. 19. But (in anticipation of another objection, that this universal evangelizing and admission of all, had at any rate taken the Jews by surprise,— that they had not been forewarned of any such purpose of God) I say, Did Israel (no emphasis on Israel— they are not first here introduced, nor have the preceding verses been said only of the Gentiles; but they have been during those verses in the Apostle’ s mind, and are now named for distinctness’ sake, because it is not now a question of their having heard, which they did in common with all, but of their having been aware from their Scriptures of God’ s intention with regard to themselves and the Gentiles) not know (supply, not ‘ the Gospel,’ τὴνἀκοήν , as Chrys., Estius, Rü ckert, Olsh., al.,— but, the fact that such a general proclamation of the Gospel would be made as has been mentioned in the last verse, raising up the Gentiles into equality and rivalry with themselves— so Meyer, Fritz., Thol., De Wette, Stuart, al.— Others supply variously:— Calv. and Beza, ‘ the truth of God,’ — so as to have an advantage over the Gentiles:— Bengel, ‘ justitiam Dei:’ — Bretschneider and Reiche take Ἰσραήλ for the object of ἔγνω , and understand ὁθεός as its subject: ‘ Did not God know,— acknowledge, regard with love,— Israel?’ But surely the context will not allow this)?— First (in the order of the prophetic roll; q. d. their very earliest prophet: compare Matthew 10:2, πρῶτοςΣίμωνκ .τ .λ . Thol., after Rü ckert, observes, “ The Apostle has in his mind a whole series of prophetic sayings which he might adduce, but gives only a few instead of all, and would shew by the πρῶτος , that even in the earliest period the same complaint (of Israel’ s unbelief) is found” ) Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy against (those who are) no nation (the Gentiles, as opposed to the people of God), against a nation that hath no understanding (נ ָ ב ָ ל , the spiritual fool of Psa 14:1; Psalms 53:1; Proverbs 17:21) will I anger you. The original reference of these words, as addressed to Israel by Moses, is exactly apposite to the Apostle’ s argument. Moses prophetically assumes the departure of Israel from God, and his rejection of them, and denounces from God that as they had moved Him to jealousy with their ‘ no-gods’ (idols) and provoked Him to anger by their vanities,— so He would, by receiving into his favour a ‘ no-nation,’ make them jealous, and provoke them to anger by adopting instead of them a foolish nation. On the interpretation of De Wette, al., that the meaning is, God would deliver the children of Israel, as a prey to the idolatrous nations of Canaan, the parallels will not hold; nor do the following verses in Deut. (22-25) justify it. 20. But (even more than this: there is stronger testimony yet) Esaias is very bold and says , I was found by (or among) those who sought me not, I became manifest to those who asked not after me. The clauses are inverted in order from the LXX. De Wette and other modern Commentators have maintained that Isaiah 65:1 is spoken of the Jews, and not of the Gentiles; their main argument for this view being the connexion of ch. 64 and 65 But even granting this connexion, it does not follow that God is not speaking in reproach to Israel in ch. 65:1, and reminding them prophetically, that while they, His own rebellious people, provoke Him to anger, the Gentiles which never sought Him have found Him. The whole passage is thoroughly gone into and its true meaning satisfactorily shewn, in Stier’ s valuable work, “ Tesaias, nicht Pseudo-Tesaias,” pp. 797 ff., who remarks that ‘ the nation which was not called by my Name,’ in 65:1, can only primarily mean the Gentiles. 21. But of (not ‘ to,’ but ‘ with regard to:’ see reff. The words are not an address) Israel (evidently emphatic;— the former words having been said of the Gentiles) he saith (ibid. ver. 2), All the day (after μου in LXX) I stretched forth my hands (the attitude of gracious invitation) to a people disobedient and gainsaying (rebellious; the same word ס ֹ ר ֵ ר occurs Deuteronomy 21:18). Chap. 11:1-10. Yet God has not cast off His people, but there is a remnant according to the election of grace (1-6),— the rest being hardened (7-10). 1. I say then (a false inference from ch. 10:19-21,— made in order to be refuted), Did (μή , it cannot surely be, that) God cast off His people (as would almost appear from the severe words just adduced)? Be it not so: for I also am an Israelite (ἐκγένουςἸσρ ., Philippians 3:5), of the seed of Abraham (mentioned probably for solemnity’ s sake, as bringing to mind all the promises made to Abraham), of the tribe of Benjamin (so Philippians 3:5). There is some question with what intent the Apostle here brings forward himself. Three ways are open to us: either (1) it is as a case in point, as an example of an Israelite who has not been rejected but is still one of God’ s people: so almost all the Commentators— but this is hardly probable,— for in this case he would not surely bring one only example to prove his point, when thousands might have been alleged— it would be hardly consistent with the humble mind of Paul to put himself alone in such a place,— and μὴγένοιτο does not go simply to deny a hypothetical fact, but applies to some deprecated consequence of that which is hypothetically put:— or (2) as De Wette, al., he implies, ‘ How can I say such a thing, who am myself an Israelite, &c.?’ ‘ Does not my very nationality furnish a security against my entertaining such an idea?’ — or (3) which I believe to be the right view, but which I have found only in the commentary of Mr. Ewbank,— as implying that if such a hypothesis were to be conceded, it would exclude from God’ s kingdom the writer himself, as an Israelite. This seems better to agree with μὴγένοιτο , as deprecating the consequence of such an assertion. But a question even more important arises, not unconnected with that just discussed: viz. who are ὁλαὸςαὐτοῦ In order for the sentence καὶγὰρἐγὼκ .τ .λ . to bear the meaning just assigned to it, it is obvious that ὁλαὸςαὐτ . must mean the people of God nationally considered. If Paul deprecated such a proposition as the rejection of God’ s people, because he himself would thus be as an Israelite cut off from God’ s favour, the rejection assumed in the hypothesis must be a national rejection. It is against this that he puts in his strong protest. It is this which he disproves by a cogent historical parallel from Scripture, shewing that there is a remnant καὶἐντῷνῦνκαιρῷ according to the election of grace: and not only so, but that that part of Israel (considered as having continuity of national existence) which is for a time hardened, shall ultimately come in, and so all Israel (nationally considered again, Israel as a nation) shall be saved. Thus the covenant of God with Israel, having been national, shall ultimately be fulfilled to them as a nation: not by the gathering in merely of individual Jews, or of all the Jews individually, into the Christian church,— but by the national restoration of the Jews, not in unbelief, but as a Christian believing nation, to all that can, under the gospel, represent their ancient pre-eminence, and to the fulness of those promises which have never yet in their plain sense been accomplished to them. I have entered on this matter here, because a clear understanding of it underlies all intelligent appreciation of the argument of the chapter. Those who hold no national restoration of the Jews to pre-eminence, must necessarily confound the ἐντῷνῦνκαιρῷ remnant according to the election of grace, with the οἱλοιποί , who nationally shall be grafted in again. See this more fully illustrated where that image occurs, ver. 17 ff. 2. God did not cast off his people which he foreknew (προέγνω as in reff.: ‘ which, in His own eternal decree before the world, He selected as the chosen nation, to be His own, the depositary of His law, the vehicle of the theocracy, from its first revelation to Moses, to its completion in Christ’ s future kingdom.’ It is plain that this must here be the sense, and that the words must not be limited, with , , Chrys., Calv., al., to the elect Christian people of God from among the Jews, with Paul as their representative: see on ver. 1. On this explanation, the question of ver. 1 would be self-contradictory, and this negation a truism. It would be inconceivable, that God should cast off His elect). Or (see ch. 9:21 al.:— introduces a new objection to the matter impugned) know ye not what the Scripture saith in (the history of) Elias (better thus than ‘ with regard to,’ as Luth., Erasm., Calv., Beza, al. Tholuck gives examples: from Pausan. viii. 37. 3,— ἔστινἐνἭραςὅρκῳτὰἔπη ,— i.e. in that part of the Iliad (ξ . 278) where Hera swears by the Titans: from Thucyd. i. 9,— καὶἐντοῦσκήπτρουἅματῇπαραδόσειεἴρηκεναὐτὸνπολλῇσινήσοισικ . Ἄργεϊπαντὶἀνάσσειν , i.e. in that part of the Iliad (β . 108) where the transmission of the sceptre is related)? how he pleads with see reff.— and note, ch. 8:26) God against Israel, &c. The citation is a free one from the LXX. The clauses τοὺςπροφ ., and τὰθυσιαστ . are inverted, ἐνῥομφαίᾳ is omitted, and κἀγὼὑπελείφθ . μόνος is put for καὶὑπολέλειμμαιἐγὼμονώτατος . The altars, as De W. observes, were those on the high places, dedicated to God. 4. But what saith the divine response to him (χρηματισμός , see reff. and reff. to the verb, Acts 10:22)? I have left to myself (here the Apostle corrects a mistake of the LXX, who have for κατέλιπον — καταλείψεις ,— in the Complut. ed. κατλείψω . He has added to the Heb. ה ִ ש ׁ ְ א ַ ר ְ ת ּ ִ י ,— ‘ I have left,’ ‘ kept as a remainder,’ — ἐμαυτῷ , a simple and obvious filling up of the sense) seven thousand men, who (the sense of the saying, as far as regards the present purpose, viz. to shew that all these were faithful men; in the original text and LXX, it is implied that these were all the faithful men,— ἑπτὰχιλιάδαςἀνδρῶν , πάνταγόναταἃοὐκὤκλασανγόνυ (om. γόνυ A) τῷ B. κ . πᾶνστόμαὃοὐπροσεκύνησεν (προσκυνήσει A) αὐτῷ . But this was not necessary to be brought out here) never bowed knee to Baal. “ Here the LXX, according to the present text, have τῷ , not τῇΒάαλ : but elsewhere (see reff.) they write the fem.: and probably the Apostle read it so in his copy.” Fritz. According to this Commentator, they wrote the fem., taking Baal for a female deity; according to Beyer, Addit. ad Seld. de diis Syr., Wetst., Koppe, Olsh., Meyer,— because Baal was an androgynous deity;— according to Gesenius, in Rosenmü ller, Rep. i. 39, to designate feebleness, compare the Rabbinical א ֱ ל ו ֹ ה ו ֹ ת , ‘ false gods,’ and other analogous expressions in Tholuck. “ The regarding τῇΒάαλ as put for τῇτοῦΒάαλ , scil. εἰκόνι or στήλῃ , as Erasm., Beza, Grot., Estius, al., and Bretschneider, is perfectly arbitrary.” De Wette. In Tobit 1:5 , we have, πᾶσαιαἱφυλαὶαἱσυναποστᾶσαιἔθυοντῇΒάαλτῇδαμάλει ,— where the golden calves of the ten tribes seem to be identified with Baal, and where a curious addition in (in this part published by Tischdf. as Codex Friderico-Augustanus) refers expressly to their establishment by Jeroboam. 5. Thus then (analogical inference from the example just cited) in the present time also (or, even in the present time, scil. of Israel’ s national rejection) there is a remnant according to (in virtue of,— in pursuance of) the election (selection, choice of a few out of many) of grace (made not for their desert, nor their foreseen congruity, but of God’ s free unmerited favour). 6. ‘ And let us remember, when we say an election of grace, how much those words imply: viz. nothing short of the entire exclusion of all human work from the question. Let these two terms be regarded as, and kept, distinct from one another, and do not let us attempt to mix them and so destroy the meaning of each.’ So that the meaning of the verse is to clear up and remove all doubt concerning the meaning of ‘ election of grace,’ — and to profess on the part of the Apostle perfect readiness to accept his own words in their full sense, and to abide by them. This casts some light on the question of the genuineness of the bracketed clause (see authorities in var. readd.). The object being precision, it is much more probable that the Apostle should have written both clauses in their present formal parallelism, and that the second should have been early omitted from its seeming superfluity, than that it should have been inserted from the margin. Besides which, as Fritz. has remarked, the words do not correspond sufficiently with those of the first clause to warrant the supposition of their having been constructed to tally with it: we have for χάριτι in the first, ἐξἔργων in the second,— for γίνεταιχάρις , ἐστὶνἔργον ;— and the plur. ἔργα would probably have been retained in the inference of clause 2. But if by grace (the selection has been made), it is no longer (when we have conceded that, we have excluded its being) of (arising out of, as its source) works: for (in that case) grace no longer becomes (i.e. becomes no longer— loses its efficacy and character as) grace (the freedom and ‘ proprio motu’ character, absolutely necessary to the idea of grace, are lost, the act having been prompted from without):— but if of (arising out of, as the cause and source of the selection) works, no longer is it (the act of selection) grace; for (in that case) work no longer is work (the essence of work, in our present argument, being ‘ that which earns reward,’ and the reward being, as supposed, the election to be of the remnant,— if so earned, there can be no admixture of divine favour in the matter; it must be all earned, or none: none conferred by free grace, or all). These cautions of the Apostle are decisive against all attempts at compromise between the two great antagonist hypotheses, of salvation by God’ s free grace, and salvation by man’ s meritorious works. The two cannot be combined without destroying the plain meaning of words. If now the Apostle’ s object in this verse be to guard carefully the doctrine of election by free grace from any attempt at an admixture of man’ s work, why is he anxious to do this just at this point? I conceive, because he is immediately about to enter on a course of exposition of the divine dealings, in which, more than ever before, he rests all upon God’ s sovereign purpose, while at the same time he shews that purpose, though apparently severe, to be one, on the whole, of grace and love. 7. What then ? That which Israel is in search of (viz. δικαιοσύνη , see ch. 9:31; 10:1 ff.), this it (as a nation) found not (on ἐπιτυγχάνω w. an acc., see Matthiæ , Gr. Gr. § 363 obs.), but the election (the abstract, because Israel has been spoken of in the abstract, and to keep out of view for the present the mere individual cases of converted Jews in the idea of an elected remnant) found it: 8. but the rest were hardened (not ‘ blinded;’ see note on Ephesians 4:18:— σκληροτέρανἡἀπιστίατὴνκαρδίαναὐτῶνἀπειργάσατο . Theodoret. It is passive, and implies God as the agent. This for the sake of the context, ἔδωκεναὐτοῖςὁθεὸςκ .τ .λ ., not necessarily for the meaning of the word itself, which might indicate ‘ became hard,’ but certainly does not here),— as it is written (if we are to regard these passages as merely analogous instances of the divine dealings, we must remember that the perspective of prophecy, in stating such cases, embraces all analogous ones, the divine dealings being self-consistent,— and especially that great one, in which the words are most prominently fulfilled), God gave to them a spirit (see reff.) of stupor (there is at the end of Fritzsche’ s commentary on this chapter an elaborate excursus on κατάνυξις , in which he has thoroughly investigated its derivation and meaning. He comes to the conclusion that it is derived from κατανύσσω , ‘ compungo,’ and might signify any excitement of mind, pity, sadness, &c.,— but in the few places where it occurs, it does import stupor or numbness:— so ref. Ps. ἐπότισαςἡμᾶςοἶνονκατανύξεως ,— which Hammond explains to mean the stupifying wine given to them that were to be put to death. Hamm. also cites from Marcus Eremita, νουθες . ψυχ . p. 948, a passage where he describes πόνοντῆςκατανύξεως as the consequence of οἰνοποσίαι . Tholuck compares the similar meanings of ‘ frappé ,’ struck, betroffen),— eyes that they should not see (such eyes that they might not see: in the Heb. and LXX the negative is joined with the verb, καὶοὐκἔδωκενκύριοςὁθ . ὑμῶνκ .τ .λ .) and ears that they should not hear unto this present day. These last words are not, as Beza, E. V., Griesb., Knapp, to be separated from the citation, and joined to ἐπωρώθησαν : they belong to the words in Deut. and are adduced by St. Paul as applying to the day then present, as they did to the day when Moses spoke them: see 2 Corinthians 3:15. 9. And David saith, Let their table be for a snare and for a net (θήρα more usually ‘ a hunt,’ or the act of taking or catching,— but here and in ref. a net, the instrument of capture. It is not in the Heb. nor in the LXX, and is perhaps inserted by the Apostle to give emphasis by the accumulation of synonymes), and for a stumbling-block and for a recompense to them (the LXX have εἰςπαγίδακ . εἰςἀνταπόδοσινκ . εἰςσκάνδαλον . The Heb. of εἰςἀνταπόδοσιν , as at present pointed, is ל ִ ש ׁ ְ ל ו ֹ מ ִ י ם , ‘ to the secure.’ It has been supposed that the LXX pointed ל ִ ש ׁ ִ ל ּ ו ּ מ ִ י ם or ל ְ ש ׁ ִ ל ּ ו ֹ מ ִ י ם , ‘ for retributions.’ See Psalms 91:8: but qu.?): 10. let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and their back bow thou down always. “ Instead of bending the back, the Heb. text speaks of making the loins to tremble, מ ָ ת ְ נ ֵ י ה ֶ ם ה ַ מ ְ ע ַ ד . This elsewhere is a sign of great terror, Nahum 2:10; Daniel 5:6: and the darkening of the eyes betokens in the Psalm, a weakened, humbled, servile condition, just as in Deuteronomy 28:65-67. It is plain from διὰπαντός , that we must not suppose the infirmities of age to be meant. The Apostle might well apply such a description to the servile condition of the bondmen of the law, see Galatians 4:24.” Tholuck. 11-24. Yet this exclusion and hardening has not been for their destruction, but for mercy to the Gentiles, and eventually for their own restoration. 11. I say then (see on ver. 1), Did they (who? see below) stumble in order that they should fall (not ‘ sic, ut caderent’ — as Vulg.,— so Orig., Chrys., Grot., al., denoting the result merely: neither the grammar nor the context will bear this: the Apostle is arguing respecting God’ s intent in the παράπτωμα of the Jewish nation. He here calls it by this mild name to set forth that it is not final. The subject of ἔπταισαν is the αὐτοί of the following verses, i.e. the Jews, as a people: not the unbelieving individuals, who are characterized as πεσόντες , ver. 22. He regards the λοιποί as the representatives of the Jewish people, who have nationally stumbled, but not in order to their final fall, seeing that God has a gracious purpose towards the Gentiles even in this πταῖσμα of theirs, and intends to raise them nationally from it in the end. This distinction, between the πταίσαντες , the whole nation as a nation, and the πεσόντες , the unbelieving branches who have been cut off, is most important to the right understanding of the chapter, and to the keeping in mind the separate ideas, of the restoration of individuals here and there throughout time, and the restoration of Israel at the end. The stress is on πέσωσιν , and it is the fall which is denied: not on ἵναπέσωσιν , so that the purpose merely should be denied, and the fall admitted)? God forbid: but (the truer account of the matter is) by their trespass (not fall, as E. V.) salvation (has come) to the Gentiles, for to provoke them (Israel) to jealousy. Two gracious purposes of God are here stated, the latter wrought out through the former. By this stumble of the Jews out of their national place in God’ s favour, and the admission of the Gentiles into it, the very people thus excluded are to be stirred up to set themselves in the end effectually to regain, as a nation, that pre-eminence from which they are now degraded. 12. Then the Apostle argues on this, as Meyer well says, ‘ a felici effectu causæ pejoris ad feliciorem effectum causæ melioris;’ — But (‘ posito, that’ — as in last verse— taking for granted the historical fact, that the stumble of the Jews has been coincident with the admission of the Gentiles) if their trespass is the world’ s wealth (the occasion of that wealth,— the wealth itself being the participation in the unsearchable riches of Christ), and (this latter clause parallel to and explanatory of the less plainly expressed one before it) their loss, the wealth of the Gentiles, how much more (shall) their replenishment (be all this)? On ἥττημα and πλήρωμα much question has been raised. I have taken both as answering strictly to the comparison here before the Apostle’ s mind, viz. that of impoverishing and enriching,— and the genitives αὐτῶν [&c.] as subjective: q. d. ‘ if their impoverishment be the wealth of the Gentiles, how much more shall their enrichment be!’ But several other interpretations are possible. (1) ἥττημα may mean as in ref. 1 Cor., degradation, and πλήρωμα would then be fulness, re-exaltation to the former measure of favour,— or perhaps, as where Herod. iii. 22 says ὀγδώκονταἔτεαζόηςπλήρωμα , ‘ their completion,’ ‘ their highest degree of favour.’ (2) If we regard the meaning of πλήρωμα in ver. 25, we shall be tempted here to render it, ‘ full number,’ and similarly ἥττημα , ‘ small number.’ So the majority of Commentators: Chrys., Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, Bucer, Grot., Bengel, Reiche, De W. (but only as regards πλήρ .:— he renders ἥττ . with Luther, Schade) and Olsh. (see below). Thus the argument will stand: ‘ If their unbelief (i.e. of one part of them) is the world’ s wealth, and their small number (i.e. of believers, the other part of them), the wealth of the Gentiles, how much more their full (restored) number!’ i.e. as Olsh. explains it, ‘ If so few Jews can do so much for the Gentile world, what will not the whole number do?’ But thus we shall lose the ‘ a minori ad majus’ argument— ‘ if their sin has done so much, how much more their conversion?’ unless indeed it be said that τὸἥττημα implies a national παράπτωμα . Besides, it can hardly be shewn that ἥττημα will bear this meaning of ‘ a small number.’ (3) Tholuck, from whom mostly this note is taken, notices at length the view of Olsh., after Origen, that the idea of a definite number of the elect is here in the Apostle’ s mind,— that the falling off of the Jews produces a deficiency in the number, which is filled up by the elect from the Gentiles, as ver. 25: understanding by πλήρωμα both there and here, if I take his meaning aright, the number required to fill up the roll of the elect, whether of Jews, as here, or Gentiles, as there. Tholuck, while he concedes the legitimacy of the idea of a πλήρωματῶνσωζομένων , maintains, and rightly, that in this section no such idea is brought forward: and that it would not have been intended, without some more definite expression of it than we now find. I have thought it best as above, considering the very various meanings and difficulty of the word πλήρωμα , to keep here to that which seems to be indicated by the immediate context, which is, besides, the primitive meaning of the word. It must be noticed, that the fact, of Israel being the chosen people of God, lies at the root of all this argument. Israel is the nation, the covenant people,— the vehicle of God’ s gracious purposes to mankind. Israel, nationally, is deposed from present favour. That very deposition is, however, accompanied by an outpouring of God’ s riches of mercy on the Gentiles; not as rivals to Israel, but still considered as further from God, formally and nationally, than Israel. If then the disgrace of Israel has had such a blessed accompaniment, how much more blessed a one shall Israel’ s honour bring with it, when His own people shall once more be set as a praise in the midst of the earth, and the glory of the nations. 13. ‘ Why, in an argument concerning the Jews, dwell so much on the reference to the Gentiles discernible in the divine œ conomy regarding Israel? Why make it appear as if the treatment of God’ s chosen people were regulated not by a consideration of them, but of the less favoured Gentiles?’ The present verse gives an answer to this question. But (apology for the foregoing verse:— if γάρ be read, the sense will be much the same— For (i.e. let it be understood, that), &c.) I am speaking to you the Gentiles. Inasmuch therefore (μὲνοὖν is surely not to be rejected as yielding no sense,— as De Wette and Tholuck, who object to it as proceeding from those who hold a new sentence to begin at ἐφ ʼ ὅσον , and ὑμῖν .… ἔθνεσιν to refer to the foregoing:— but the usage of μὲνοὖν in 1 Corinthians 6:4 seems strictly analogous to that in our text, where no new sentence is begun in any sense which may not be true here. ἐφ ʼ ὅσον , not ‘ as long as,’ as Orig. and Vulg.) as I am Apostle of the Gentiles, I honour mine office (by striving for their conversion and edification at all times,— by introducing a reference to them and their part in the divine counsels, even when speaking of mine own people), if by any means I may (regarding it as a real service done on behalf of Israel, thus to honour mine office by mentioning the Gentiles, if this mention may) provoke to jealousy mine own flesh (the Jews) and may save some of them. 15. For (a reason for my anxiety for the salvation of Israel: not merely for the sake of mine own kinsmen, but because their recovery will bring about the blessed consummation of all believers. Vv. 13, 14 should not then be in a parenthesis) if the rejection of them (not ‘ their loss,’ as Luth. and Beng., by which the antithesis to πρόσλημψις is weakened) be (the occasion of) the reconciliation of the world (of the Gentiles, viz. to God), what (‘ qualis,’ ‘ of what kind,’ in its effect) (will be) their reception, but (the occasion of) life from the dead! ξωὴἐκνεκρ . may be variously taken. (1) it may be metaphorical, as in ch. 6:13, and may import, that so general a conversion of the world would take place, as would be like life from the dead. So, more or less, Calv., Calov., Estius, Bengel, Stuart, Hodge, al., and Theophyl., , who explain it of a joy like that of the resurrection. But against this interpretation lies the objection, that this is already involved in καταλλαγὴκόσμ ., and thus no new idea would be brought out by the words, which stand in the most emphatic position. (2) it may mean that ‘ life from the dead’ literally should follow on the restoration of the Jewish people; i.e. that the Resurrection, the great consummation, is bound up with it. So Chrys., Orig. , Theodoret, Reiche, Meyer, Fritzsche, Rü ckert Exo_2, Tholuck, al. The objection to this view seems to be, that the Apostle would hardly have used ζωὴἐκνεκρῶν thus predicatively, if he had meant by it a fixed and predetermined event;— but that, standing as it does, it must be qualitative, implying some further blessed state of the reconciled world, over and above the mere reconciliation. This might well be designated ‘ life from the dead,’ and in it may be implied the glories of the first resurrection, and deliverance from the bondage of corruption, without supposing the words ζωὴἐκνεκρῶν = ἡἀνάστασιςτῶννεκ . Stuart well compares Ezekiel 37:1-14, which was perhaps before the mind of the Apostle:— but he gives a mere ethical interpretation to it. 16-24. Such a restoration of Israel was to be expected from a consideration of their destination and history. This is set forth in similitudes, that of the root and branches being followed out at some length,— and their own position, as engrafted Gentiles, brought to the mind of the readers. But (a further argument for their restoration following on ἀλλά , ver. 11) if the firstfruit be holy, so also the Iump (not here the firstfruit of the field, as Grot., Rosenm. (nor is φύραμα the cake made by the priests out of the firstfruits which fell to them, Deuteronomy 18:4, as Estius, Koppe, Kö llner, Olsh., al.);— but the portion of the kneaded lump of dough , which was offered as a heave-offering to the Lord, and so sanctified for use the rest: see ref. Num. where the same words occur);— and if the root be holy, so also the branches. Who are the ἀπαρχή and the ῥίζα First of all, there is no impropriety in the two words applying to the same thing. For though, as Olsh. remarks, the branches being evolved from the root, it rather answers to the φύραμα than to the ἀπαρχή , and, as Rü ckert, the firstfruit succeeds the lump in time, while the root precedes the branches,— yet, as Thol. replies, the ἁγιότης is the point of comparison, and in ἁγιότης the ἀπαρχή precedes and gives existence to the φύραμα . This being so, (1) the ἀπαρχή and ῥίζα have generally been taken to represent the patriarchs; and I believe rightly (except that perhaps it would be more strictly correct to say, Abraham himself). The ἀγαπητοὶδιὰτοὺςπατέρας of ver. 28 places this reference almost beyond doubt. Origen explains the ῥίζα to be our Lord. But He is Himself a branch, by descent from Abraham and David (Isaiah 11:1; Matthew 1:1), if genealogically considered; and if mystically, the whole tree (John 15:1). De Wette prefers to take as the firstfruit and root, the ideal theocracy founded on the patriarchs,— the true, faithful children of the patriarchs, and as the branches, those united by mere external relationship to these others. This he does, because in the common acceptation, the κλάδοι who are cut off ought to be severed from their physical connexion with Abraham, &c., which they are not. This objection I do not conceive applicable here: because, as we see evidently from ver. 23, the severing and re-engrafting are types, not of genealogical disunion and reunion, but of spiritual. Meanwhile, De W.’ s view appears less simple than the ordinary one, which, as I hope to shew, is borne out by the whole passage. (2) Then, who are indicated by the φύραμα and the κλάδοι Israel, considered as the people of God. The lump, which has received its ἁγιότης from the ἀπαρχή , = Israel, beloved for the fathers’ sakes: the assemblage of branches, evolved from Abraham, and partaking of his holiness. But one thing must be especially borne in mind. As Abraham himself had an outer and an inner life, so have the branches. They have an outer life, derived from Abraham by physical descent. Of this, no cutting off can deprive them. It may be compared to the very organization of the wood itself, which subsists even after its separation from the tree. But they have, while they remain in the tree, an inner life, nourished by the circulating sap, by virtue of which they are constituted living parts of the tree: see our Lord’ s parable of the vine and the branches, John 15:1 ff. It is of this life, that their severance from the tree deprives them: it is this life, which they will re-acquire if grafted in again. See a very ingenious but artificial explanation in Olsh., who agrees in the main with De W.:— and the whole question admirably discussed in Tholuck. The ἁγιότης then here spoken of, consists in their dedication to God as a people— in their being physically evolved from a holy root. This peculiar ἁγιότης renders their restoration to their own stock a matter, not of wonder and difficulty, but of reasonable hope and probability. I may notice in passing, that those expositors who do not hold a restoration of the Jewish people to national preeminence, find this passage exceedingly in their way, if we may judge by their explanations of this ἁγιότης . E.g. Mr. Ewbank remarks: ‘ Holy they are, inasmuch as there is no decree against their restoration to their place of life and fruitfulness.’ Surely this is a new meaning of ‘ holy:’ the same would be true of a Hottentot: in his case, too, there is no decree against his reception into a place (and in Mr. E.’ s view, the restoration of the Jew is nothing more) of life and fruitfulness in the Church of God. 17. But (introduces a hypothesis involving a seeming inconsistency with the ἁγιότης just mentioned) if some of the branches (the τινες , as Thol. remarks, depreciates the number, in order to check the Gentile pride) were broken out (from the tree), and thou (a Gentile believer) being a wild olive (ἀγριέλαιος , the tree, spoken of a sprout or branch of it. Better so than, as Fritz., Meyer, to make ἀγρ . an adj., ‘ of wild olive,’ which can only be used of that which is made out of the wood, as ἀγριέλαιοςσκυτάλη . Thol.) wast grafted in ( Alex. Strom. vi. [15] § 119, p. 799 P., enumerates four different kinds of ἐγκεντρισμός , using it as a general term for grafting and budding. The difficulty here is, that the Apostle reverses the natural process. It is the wilding, in practice, which is the stock, and the graft inserted is a sprout of the better tree. I believe that he does not here regard what is the fact in nature: but makes a supposition perfectly legitimate,— that a wilding graft on being inserted into a good tree, thereby becomes partaker of its qualities. No allusion can be intended to a practice mentioned by Columella, de Re Rust. v. 9, of inserting a wilding graft into a good tree to increase the vigour and growth of the tree: for this would completely stultify the illustration— the point of which is, a benefit received by the wilding from the tree, not one conferred by the wilding on it) among them (i.e. among the branches,— τοῖςκλάδοις : or perhaps αὐτοῖς may imply the remnants of the branches broken off. The renderings, ‘ in their stead,’ ‘ in locum,’ as De W. after Chrys., Theophyl., Beza,— and ‘ in their place,’ ‘ in loco,’ Meyer, Olsh., are surely inadmissible), and becamest a fellow-partaker (with the branches: or perhaps simply ‘ a partaker,’ σύν not implying fellows in participation, but merely the participation itself) of the root of the fatness (of that root, on union with which all the development of life and its fertility depend: which is the source of the fatness. With καί , it will mean, of the source of life, and also of the development of that life itself in all richness of blessing) of the olive-tree, 18. do not boast against the branches (which were broken off): but if thou boastest against them (know that … or let this consideration humble thee, that … Similarly 1 Corinthians 11:16, εἰδέτιςδοκεῖφιλόνεικοςεἶναι , ἡμεῖςτοιαύτηνσυνήθειανοὐκἔχομεν , κ .τ .λ . See Winer, edn. 6, § 66.1 a) it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee. The ground of humiliation is— “ Thou partakest of thy blessings solely by union with God’ s spiritual church, which church has for its root that Father of the faithful, from whom they are descended. Regard them not therefore with scorn.” This is expanded further in ver. 20. 19. Thou wilt then (posito, that thou boastest, and defendest it) say, Branches (it would look as if the art. had been erased, to square this sentence with ver. 17, where τινὲςτ . κλάδων only were broken off. Or we might think, as Matthä i has remarked (Thol.), that, ‘ Gentilis loquitur arrogantius,’ using οἱκλ . in his pride, to signify that the branches, generically, have now become subject to excision on his account. But the fact, now ascertained by Tischdf., that B omits the art., makes nearly the whole manuscript authority against it) were broken off that I (emphatic) might be grafted in. 20. Well (the fact, involving even the purpose, assumed in ἵνα , is conceded. When Thol. denies this, he forgets that the prompting cause of their excision, their unbelief, is distinct from the divine purpose of their excision, the admission of the Gentiles, and belongs to a different side of the subject):— through their unbelief (or perhaps, ‘ through unbelief,’ abstract. There is often a difficulty in distinguishing the possessive from the abstract (i.e. generic) article. Thol. observes that the instrumental use of the dat. and that of διὰ with the gen. differ in this, that the latter expresses more the immediate cause, the former the mediate and more remote. The explanation of this would be, that the dative only acquires its instrumental use through another, more proper attribute of the case, that of reference to, form or manner in which: see Bernhardy, Syntax, ch. iii. 14, pp. 100-105) they were broken off, but thou by thy faith (see above:— ‘ through’ indicates better the prompting cause of a definite act,— ‘ by,’ the sustaining condition of a continued state. Thus we should always say that we are justified through, not by, faith,— but that we stand by, not through, faith) standest (in thy place, in the tree, opposed to ἐξεκλάσθησαν . Thol. prefers the sense in ch. 14:4, and certainly the adoption of πεσόντες ver. 22, seems to shew that the figurative diction is not strictly preserved).— Be not high-minded, but fear: 21. for if God did not spare the natural branches (the branches which grew according to natural development, and were not engrafted),— (supply ‘ I fear,’ or ‘ it is to be feared,’ or simply ‘ fear,’ or ‘ take heed,’ as in ref.) lest He shall also not spare thee. The fut. ind. with μήπως , the apparent incongruity of which has probably caused the variety of reading, implies, as Herm., Soph. Aj. 272, observes with regard to the ind. pres., ‘ μὴἐστὶ verentis quidem est ne quid nunc sit (futurum sit), sed indicantis simul, putare, se ita esse (futurum esse), ut veretur.’ See Winer, edn. 6, § 56. 2. b. β , and 64. i. 7. a, also Colossians 2:8; Hebrews 3:12. 22. The caution of the preceding verse is unfolded into a setting before the Gentile of the true state of the matter. Behold therefore (posito, that thou enterest into the feeling prompted by the last verse) the goodness and the severity (no allusion to ἀποτέμνω in its literal sense) of God:— towards those who fell (see on ver. 11). Here the πεσόντες are opposed to σύ , the figure being for the moment dropped: for πίπτειν can hardly be used of the branches, but of men) severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God , θεοῦ may have been a marginal gloss to guard against this mistake, and may have found its way into the text, misplaced. But this is hardly probable: θεοῦ is much more likely to have been erased as unnecessary), if thou abide by (reff.) that goodness; for ([supply otherwise:] assuming that thou dost not abide by that goodness) thou also shalt be cut off (ind. fut. The placing only a comma at ἐκκοπήσῃ , as Meyer,— not Lachm. (Exo_2) and Tischend.(Exo_7 [and 8]),— prevents the break evidently intended between the treatment of the case of the Gentile and that of the Jews). 23. And they moreover, if they continue not (not exactly the same meaning as before: the χρηστότης before being external and objective, this, as in ch. 6:1, a subjective state) in their (see on ver. 20) unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. Some, e.g. Grot., represent this last clause as implying, that God’ s power to graft them in again has always been the same, but has waited for their change of mind, to act: ‘ Nihil est præ ter incredulitatem quod Deum impediat eos rursum pro suis assumere et paterne tractare:’ — but surely De W.’ s interpretation is far better:— ‘ The Apostle obscurely includes in the ἐγκεντρ . the removal of their unbelief and the awakening of faith, and this last especially he looks for from above:’ — for, as he observes, the power of God would not be put forward, if the other were the meaning. 24. For (proof that, besides God’ s undoubted power to re-engraft them, the idea of their being so re-engrafted is not an unreasonable one) if thou wast cut off from the olive-tree which is by nature wild, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree, how much more shall these, the natural branches, be engrafted in their own olive-tree? It is a question, as Tholuck remarks, whether κατὰφύσιν and παρὰφύσιν denote merely growth in the natural manner and growth (by engrafting) in an unnatural (i.e. artificial) manner,— or that the wild is the nature of the Gentile, and the good olive that of the Jew, so that the sense would be— ‘ If thou wert cut out of the wild olive which is thine naturally, and wert engrafted contrary to (thy) nature into the good olive, how much more shall these, the natural branches,’ &c. But then the latter part of the sentence does not correspond with the former. We either should expect the οἱ to be omitted (as is done in some mss.), or must, with Fritz., place a comma after οὗτοι , and, taking οἱ as the relative, construe, ‘ How much more these, who shall, agreeably to (their) nature, be grafted,’ &c. Tholuck describes the question as being between a comparison of engrafting and not engrafting, and one of engrafting the congruous and the incongruous: and, on the above ground, decides in favour of the former,— κατὰφύσιν signifying merely natural growth, παρὰφ ., unnatural growth, i.e. the growth of the grafted scion. But however this may fit the former part of the sentence, it surely cannot satisfy the requirements of the latter, where the κατὰφύσιν are described as being engrafted into their own olive-tree. We must at least assume a mixture of the two meanings, the antithesis of κατὰ and παρὰφ . being rather verbal than logical,— as is so common in the writings of the Apostle. Thus in the former case, that of the Gentile, the fact of natural growth is set against that of engrafted growth: whereas in the latter, the fact of congruity of nature is set against incongruity,— as making the re-engrafting more probable. 25-32. Prophetic announcement that this re-engrafting shall actually take place (25-27), and explanatory justification of this divine arrangement (28-32). 25. For (I do not rest this on mere hope or probability, but have direct revelation of the Holy Spirit as to its certainty) I would not have you ignorant, brethren (see reff.,— used by the Apostle to announce, either as here some authoritative declaration of divine truth, or some facts in his own history not previously known to his readers), of this mystery (μυστ . Tholuck in his 4th edition classifies the meanings thus: (1) such matters of fact, as are inaccessible to reason, and can only be known through revelation: (2) such matters as are patent facts, but the process of which cannot be entirely taken in by the reason. He adds a third sense,— that, which is no mystery in itself, but by its figurative import. Of the first, he cites chap. 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7-10; Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:4; Ephesians 6:19; Colossians 1:26, al., as examples: of the second, 1 Corinthians 14:2; 1 Corinthians 13:2; Ephesians 5:32; 1 Timothy 3:9, 1 Timothy 3:16: of the third, Matthew 13:11; Revelation 1:20; Revelation 17:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:7. The first meaning is evidently that in our text:— ‘ a prophetic event, unattainable by human knowledge, but revealed from the secrets of God’ ) that ye be not wise in your own conceits (that ye do not take to yourselves the credit for wisdom superior to that of the Jews, in having acknowledged and accepted Jesus as the Son of God,— seeing that ye merely ἠλεήθητετῇτούτωνἀπειθείᾳ , ver. 30),— that hardening (not ‘ blindness:’ see above on ver. 7, and Ephesians 4:18 note) has happened in part (Calvin explains it ‘ quodammodo.… qua particula voluisse mihi duntaxat videtur temperare verbum alioqui per se asperum,’ — but there is no trace of such a desire above, ver. 7;— the τινες ver. 17 establishes the ordinary acceptation, that a portion of Israel have been hardened. ἀπὸμ . may be joined with πώρωσις , or with γέγονεν : from the arrangement of the words, best with the former) to Israel, until (ἄχριςοὗ has been variously rendered by those who wish to escape from the prophetic assertion of the restoration of Israel. So Calv.: “ donec non infert temporis progressum vel ordinem, sed potius valet perinde ac si dictum foret, ut plenitudo gentium;” — al., “ while … shall come in:’ but Thol. well observes that ἄχρ . οὗ with an ind., if any thing actually happening is spoken of, may have the meaning of ‘ while,’ even with an aor.: but with a subj. of the aorist, a possible future event is indicated, which when it enters puts an end to the former: see reff.) the completion of the Gentiles shall have come in (scil. to the Church or Kingdom of God, where we, the Apostle and those whom he addresses, are already: as we use the word ‘ come in’ absolutely, with reference to the place in which we are. Or the word may be used absolutely, as it seems to be in Luke 11:52, of entering into the Kingdom of God. In order to understand τὸπλήρ . τ . ἐθν ., we must bear in mind the character of the Apostle’ s present argument. He is dealing with nations: with the Gentile nations, and the Jewish nation. And thus dealing, he speaks of τὸπλήρ . τ . ἐθν . coming in, and of πᾶςἸσραήλ being saved: having no regard for the time to the individual destinies of Gentiles or Jews, but regarding nations as each included under the common bond of consanguinity according to the flesh. The πλήρωματῶνἐθνῶν I would regard then as signifying ‘ the full number,’ ‘ the totality,’ of the nations, i.e. every nation under heaven, the prophetic subjects (Matthew 24:14) of the preaching of the gospel. Stuart denies that πλήρωμα will admit of this meaning. But the sense which he allows to it of “ completion, i. q. πλήρωσις ” (?), amounts in this case to the same thing: that completion not arriving till all have come in: the πλήρωματῶνἐθνῶν importing that which πληροῖτὰἔθνη . The idea of an elect number, however true in itself (‘ plenitudo gentium in his intrat, qui secundum propositum vocati,’ Aug. cited by Tholuck), does not seem to belong to this passage). 26. And thus (when this condition shall have been fulfilled) all Israel shall be saved . This prophecy has been very variously regarded. Origen, understanding by the ‘ omnis Israel qui salvus fiet,’ the ‘ reliquiæ quæ electæ sunt,’ yet afterwards appears to find in the passage his notion of the final purification of all men,— of the believing, by the word and doctrine: of the unbelieving, by purgatorial fire. Chrysostom gives no explanation: but on our Lord’ s words in Matthew 17:11, he says, ὅτανεἴπῃὅτιἨλίαςμὲνἔρχεταικ . ἀποκαταστήσειπάντα , αὐτὸνἨλίανφησί , κ . τὴντότεἐσομένηντῶνἸουδαίωνἐπιστροφήν ,— and shortly after calls him τῆςδευτέραςπαρουσίαςπρόδρομος . Similarly Theodoret and Gregory of Nyssa (in Thol.); so also Augustine, de Civ. Dei xx. 29, vol. vii. p. 704,— ‘ ultimo tempore ante judicium (per Eliam, exposita sibi lege) Judæ os in Christum verum esse credituros, celeberrimum est in sermonibus cordibusve fidelium.’ Similarly most of the fathers (Estius), and schoolmen (Thol.);— Jerome, however, on Isaiah 11:11, vol. iv. p. 162, says, ‘ Nequaquam juxta nostros Judaizantes, in fine mundi quum intraverit plenitudo gentium, tunc omnis Israel salvus fiet: sed hæ c omnia de primo intelligamus adventu.’ Grotius and Wetst. believe it to have been fulfilled after the destruction of Jerusalem, when μυρίοιἐκπεριτομῆς became believers in Christ ( H. E. iii. 35). But Thol. has shewn that neither could the number of Gentiles received into the Church before that time have answered to the πλήρωματ . ἐθνῶν , nor those Jews to πᾶςἸσραήλ , which expression accordingly Grotius endeavours to explain by a Rabbinical formula, that “ all Israel have a part in the Messiah;” which saying he supposes the Apostle to have used in a spiritual sense, meaning the Israel of God, as Galatians 6:16. The Reformers for the most part, in their zeal to impugn the millenarian superstitions then current, denied the future general conversion of the Jews, and would not recognize it even in this passage:— Luther did so [recognize it], at one time, but towards the end of his life spoke most characteristically and strongly of what he conceived to be the impossibility of such national conversion (see extract in Tholuck’ s note, p. 616):— Calvin says: ‘ Multi accipiunt de populo Judaico, ac si Paulus diceret instaurandum adhuc in religionem ut prius: sed ego Israelis nomen ad totum Dei populum extendo, hoc sensu, Quum Gentes ingressæ fuerint, simul et Judæ i ex defectione se ad fidei obedientiam recipient. Atque ita complebitur salus totius Israelis Dei, quem ex utrisque colligi oportet: sic tamen ut priorem locum Judæ i obtineant, ceu in familia Dei primogeniti.’ Calovius, Bengel, and Olshausen, interpret πᾶςἸσρ . of the elect believers of Israel:— Beza, Estius, Koppe, Reiche, Kö llner, Meyer, Tholuck, De Wette, al., hold that the words refer, as I have explained them above, to a national restoration of Israel to God’ s favour. I have not mixed with the consideration of this prophecy the question of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, as being clearly irrelevant to it: the matter here treated being, their reception into the Church of God. καθὼςγέγρ .] This quotation appears to have for its object to shew that the Redeemer was to come for the behoof of God’ s own chosen people. For ἐκΣιών , the LXX have ἕνεκενΣιών , the E. V. ‘ to Zion.’ The Apostle frequently varies from the LXX, and a sufficient reason can generally be assigned for the variation: here, though this reason is not apparent, we cannot doubt that such existed, for the LXX would surely have suited his purpose even better than ἐκ , had there been no objection to it. It may be that the whole citation is intended to express the sense of prophecy rather than the wording of any particular passage, and that the Apostle has, in ἐκΣιών , summed up the prophecies which declare that the Redeemer should spring out of Israel. ὁῥυόμ . is in the Heb. ‘ a deliverer’ — the Apostle adopts the LXX, probably as appropriating the expression to Christ. ἀποστρ . κ .τ .λ .] Heb. and E. V. ‘ and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.’ ὅτανἀφέλ . from another place in Isa.(ref.),— hardly from Jer_31 (LXX, 38.) 34, as Stuart;— and also containing a general reference to the character of God’ s new covenant with them, rather than a strict reproduction of the original meaning of any particular words of the prophet. “ How came the Apostle, if he wished only to express the general thought, that the Messiah was come for Israel, to choose just this citation, consisting of two combined passages, when the same is expressed more directly in other passages of the Old Testament? I believe that the ἥξει gave occasion for the quotation: if he did not refer this directly to the second coming of the Messiah, yet it allowed of being indirectly applied to it.” Tholuck. 28. With regard indeed to the gospel (i.e. ‘ viewed from the gospel side,’ looked on as we must look on them if we confine our view solely to the principles and character of the Gospel), they (the Jewish people considered as a whole) are enemies (θεοῦ : not μου , as Theodoret, Luther, Grot., al.— scil. in a state of exclusion from God’ s favour: not active, ‘ enemies to God,’ as Grot., Bengel) for your sakes; but with regard to the election , they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes (i.e. not for the merits of the fathers, but because of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so often referred to by God as a cause for His favourable remembrance of Israel). 29. For (explanation how God’ s favour regards them still, though for the present cast off) the gifts (generally) and calling (as the most excellent of those gifts. That calling seems to be intended ‘ qua posteros Abrahæ in fœ dus adoptavit Deus,’ Calv. A very similar sentiment is found ch. 3:3, where the same is called ἡπίστιςτ . θεοῦ . But the words are true not only of this calling, but of every other. Bengel says, ‘ dona, erga Judæ os: vocatio, erga gentes:’ similarly of κλῆσις , De W., ‘ die Berufung durch das Ev.’ But thus the point of the argument seems to be lost, which is, that the Jews being once chosen as God’ s people, will never be entirely cast off) [of God cannot be repented of, i.e.] are irretractable (do not admit of a change of purpose. The E. V., ‘ without repentance,’ is likely to mislead. Compare Hosea 13:14). 30. For (illustration of the above position) as ye (manuscript evidence is too decided against the καί to allow of its being retained: but we may suspect that it has been struck out as superfluous, in ignorance (Thoh) of the Greek usage which often doubles καί in two parallel clauses) in times past were disobedient to God (nationally— as Gentiles, before the Gospel) but now have (lit. ‘ were compassionated,’ historical) received mercy (scil. by admission into the church of God) through (as the occasion; the breaking off of the natural branches giving opportunity for the grafting in of you) the disobedience of these (i.e. unbelief, considered as an act of resistance to the divine will: see 1 John 3:23), so these also have now (under the Gospel) disobeyed (are now in a state of unbelieving disobedience), in order that through the mercy shewed to you (viz. on occasion of the fulness of the Gentiles coming in) they also may have mercy shewn them (‘ the objective view corresponding to the subjective εἰςτὸπαραζηλῶσαιαὐτούς , ver 11.’ De W.). Some place the comma after ἐλέει instead of ἠπείθησαν , and construe, either, as Erasm., Calv., al., ‘ they have disobeyed through (upon occasion of) the mercy shewn to you,’ or as Vulg., Luth., Estius, al., ‘ they have become disobedient to the mercy shewn to you.’ But thus the parallelism is weakened, and the μυστήριον of ver. 25 lost sight of. Examples of the emphatic word being placed before ἵνα are found in reff. 32. For (foundation of the last stated arrangement in the divine purposes) God shut up (not shut up together; σύν , as in so many cases, implying, not cο -participation on the part of the subjects of the action, but the character of the action itself: so in ‘ concludere.’ The sense is here as in the examples, which might be multiplied by consulting Schweig. hæ user’ s Index to Polyb., ‘ to involve in,’ ‘ to subject to.’ The aor., which should be kept in the rendering, refers to the time of the act in the divine procedure) all (the reading τὰπάντα has probably been introduced from Galatians 3:22) men in (into) disobedience (general here,— every form, unbelief included), that He may have mercy on all. No mere permissive act of God must here be understood. The Apostle is speaking of the divine arrangement by which the guilt of sin and the mercy of God were to be made manifest. He treats it, as elsewhere (see ch. 9:18 and note), entirely with reference to the act of God, taking no account, for the time, of human agency; which however, when treating of us and our responsibilities, he brings out into as prominent a position: see as the most eminent example of this, the closely following ch. 12:1, 2. But there remains some question, who are the οἱπάντες of both clauses? Are they the same? And if so, is any support given to the notion of an ἀποκατάστασις of all men? Certainly they are identical: and signify all men, without limitation. But the ultimate difference between the all men who are shut up under disobedience, and the all men upon whom mercy is shewn is, that by all men this mercy is not accepted, and so men become self-excluded from the salvation of God. God’ s act remains the same, equally gracious, equally universal, whether men accept His mercy or not. This contingency is here not in view: but simply God’ s act itself. We can hardly understand the οἱπάντες nationally. The marked universality of the expression recalls the beginning of the Epistle, and makes it a solemn conclusion to the argumentative portion, after which the Apostle, overpowered with the view of the divine Mercy and Wisdom, breaks forth into the sublimest apostrophe existing even in the pages of Inspiration itself. 33-36. Admiration of the goodness and wisdom of God, and humble ascription of praise to Him. 33. There is some doubt whether σοφίας and γνώσεως are genitives after πλούτου , as in E. V., or parallel with it. The former view is adopted by Thom. Aquin., Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Reiche, and al. The grounds on which Reiche supports it are thus given and refuted by Tholuck: (1) “ If these three genitives are co-ordinate, καί must stand either before all, or before the last only.” But in the case of three nouns placed co-ordinately in this manner, καί is prefixed to the two latter only, see ch. 2:7; 12:2; Luke 5:17. (2) “ πλοῦτος is no qualitative idea, but only a quantitative idea.” But wherein the riches consist, is ordinarily indicated by the context; and here there can be but little doubt on the matter, if we compare ch. 10:12; in Philippians 4:19 we also read of the πλοῦτος of God. This also answers (3) “ that πλοῦτος without an adjunct expresses no definite attribute of God.” (4) “ in the following citation, vv. 34, 35, two only of these, σοφία and γνῶσις , are mentioned.” But this may be doubted. Chrys. says, on ver. 36, αὐτὸςεὗρεν , αὐτὸςἐποίησεν , αὐτὸςσυγκροτεῖ . καὶγὰρκαὶπλούσιόςἐστι , καὶοὐδεῖταιπαρ ʼ ἑτέρουλαβεῖν · καὶσοφόςἐστι , καὶοὐδεῖταισυμβούλου . τίλέγωσυμβούλου ; οὐδὲεἰδέναιτιςδύναταιτὰαὐτοῦ , ἀλλ ʼ ἢμόνοςαὐτὸςὁπλούσιοςκ . σοφός . Hom. xix. p. 653. Perhaps this latter is altogether too finedrawn: but it is favoured by Bengel, Olsh., and Tholuck. I prefer therefore the view of Chrys., Theodoret, Grot., Bengel, Tholuck, Kö llner, and Olsh.,— to take πλούτου , σοφίας , γνώσεως , as three co-ordinate genitives: πλ . denoting the riches of the divine goodness, in the whole, and in the result just arrived at, ver. 32: σοφ ., the divine wisdom of proceeding in the apparently intricate vicissitudes of nations and individuals: γνώσ . (if a distinction be necessary, which can hardly be doubted) the divine knowledge of all things from the beginning,— God’ s comprehension of the end and means together in one unfathomable depth of Omniscience. How unsearchable are His judgments (the determinations of His wisdom, regarded as in the divine Mind; answering perhaps to γνῶσις . So Thol.: De W. however denies this meaning to κρίματα , and renders it decrees, referring it to the blinding of the Jews) and His ways unable to be traced out (His methods of proceeding, answering to σοφία , Thol. But this is perhaps too subtle). 34. For (confirmation of ἀνεξερ . and ἀνεξιχν . by a citation from Scripture. It is made from two separate places in the LXX, more perhaps as a reminiscence than as a direct quotation) who hath known the mind (γνῶσις , but see above) of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor (σοφία)? 35. or who hath previously given to Him, and it shall be repaid to him?— from Job 41:3 (11 E. V.), where the LXX (41:2) have τίςἀντιστήσεταίμοι , κ . ὑπομενεῖ ; But the Heb. is מ ִ י ה ִ ק ְ ד ּ ִ י מ ַ נ ִ י ו ַ א ֲ ש ׁ ַ ל ּ ִ ם , ‘ who hath anticipated (i.e. by the context, conferred a benefit on) me, that I may repay him?’ And to this the Apostle alludes, using the third person. We can hardly doubt that this question refers to the freeness and richness of God’ s mercy and love. 36. For (ground of vv. 33-35. Well may all this be true of Him, for) of Him (in their origin:— ‘ quod dicit, “ ex ipso,” hoc ipsum, quod sumus indicat:’ Orig. Chrys. somewhat differently: see above on ver. 33), and through Him (in their subsistence and disposal:— ‘  “ per Ipsum,” quod per ejus providentiam dispensamur in vita:” Orig.), and unto Him (‘  “ in Ipso,” (so Vulg. and some other vss.) quod perfectio omnium et finis in Ipso erit tunc, cum erit Deus omnia in omnibus:’ Orig.) are all things (not only, though chiefly, men,— but the whole creation). Origen remarks, ‘ Vides, quomodo in ultimis ostendit, quod in omnibus quæ supra dixit signaverit, mysterium Trinitatis. Sicut enim in præ senti loco quod ait, “ quoniam ex Ipso, et per Ipsum, et in Ipso sunt omnia:” convenit illis dictis, quæ idem Apostolus in aliis memorat locis, cum dicit (1 Corinthians 8:6): “ Unus Deus Pater ex quo omnia, et unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia:” et item in Spiritu Dei dicit revelari omnia, et per hæ c designat, in omnibus esse providentiam Trinitatis: ita et cum dicit “ altitudo divitiarum,” Patrem, ex quo omnia dicit esse, significat: et sapientiæ altitudinem, Christum, qui est sapientia ejus, ostendit: et scientiæ altitudinem, Spiritum Sanctum, qui etiam alta Dei novit, declarat.’ And, if this be rightly understood,— not of a formal allusion to the Three Persons in the Holy Trinity, but of an implicit reference (as Thol.) to the three attributes of Jehovah respectively manifested to us by the three coequal and coeternal Persons,— there can hardly be a doubt of its correctness. The objection of De Wette, that not εἰς , but ἐν , would be the designation of the Holy Spirit and His relation to the Universe, applies to that part of Origen’ s Commentary which rests on the Vulg. in ipso and to the idea of a formal recognition: but not to Tholuck’ s remark, illustrated from ὁἐπὶπάντωνκ . διὰπάντωνκ . ἐνπᾶσινἡμῖν , Ephesians 4:6, as referring to εἷςθεός , εἷςκύριος , ἓνπνεῦμα . Only those who are dogmatically prejudiced can miss seeing that, though St. Paul has never definitively expressed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in a definite formula, yet he was conscious of it as a living reality. 12:1-15:13. Practical exhortations founded on the doctrines before stated. And first, ch. 12 general exhortations to a Christian life. 1. οὖν may apply to the whole doctrinal portion of the Epistle which has preceded, which, see Ephesians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:1, seems the most natural connexion,— or to ch. 11:35, 36 (so Olsh., Meyer), or to the whole close of ch. 11 (so Tholuck.) Theodoret remarks: ὅπερἔστινὀφθαλμὸςἐνσώματι , τοῦτοτῇψυχῇπίστις , καὶτῶνθείωνἡγνῶσις . δεῖταιδὲὅμωςαὕτητῆςπρακτικῆςἀρετῆς , καθάπερὁὀφθαλμὸςχειρῶνκαὶποδῶνκαὶτῶνἄλλωνμορίωντοῦσώματος . τούτουδὲχάρινὁθεῖοςἀπόστολοςτοῖςδογματικοῖςλόγοιςκαὶτὴνἠθικὴνδιδασκαλίανπροστέθεικε . διὰ ] introduces, as in reff., an idea which is to give force to the exhortation. οἰκτιρμῶν ] viz. those detailed and proved throughout the former part of the Epistle. δι ʼ αὐτῶνοὖντούτων , φησί , παρακαλῶ , δι ʼ ὧνἐσώθητε · ὥσπερἂνεἴτιςτὸνμεγάλαεὐεργετηθένταἐντρέψαιβουλόμενος , αὐτὸντὸνεὐεργετήσανταἱκέτηνἀγάγοι . Chrys. Hom. xx. p. 656. παραστῆσαι ] the regular word for bringing to offer in sacrifice (reff.). τ . σώματαὑμ .] Most Commentators say, merely for ὑμᾶςαὐτούς ,— to suit the metaphor of a sacrifice, which consisted of a body: some (Thol., al.), because the body is the organ of practical activity, which practical activity is to be dedicated to God: better with Olsh. and De Wette,— as an indication that the sanctification of Christian life is to extend to that part of man’ s nature which is most completely under the bondage of sin. θυσίαν ] Chrys. strikingly says, πῶςἂνγένοιτοτὸσῶμα , φησί , θυσία ; μηδὲνὀφθαλμὸςπονηρὸνβλεπέτω , καὶγέγονεθυσία · μηδὲνἡγλῶσσαλαλείτωαἰσχρόν , καὶγέγονεπροσφορά · μηδὲνἡχεὶρπραττέτωπαράνομον , καὶγέγονενὁλοκαύτωμα . μᾶλλονδὲοὐκἀρκεῖταῦτα , ἀλλὰκαὶτῆςτῶνἀγαθῶνἡμῖνἐργασίαςδεῖ , ἵναἡμὲνχεὶρἐλεημοσύνηνποιῇ , τὸδὲστόμαεὐλογῇτοὺςἐπηρεάζοντας , ἡδὲἀκοὴθείαιςσχολάζῃδιηνεκῶςἀκροάσεσιν . ἡγὰρθυσίαοὐδὲνἔχειἀκάθαρτον , ἡθυσίαἀπαρχὴτῶνἄλλωνἐστί . καὶἡμεῖςτοίνυνκαὶχειρῶνκὰποδῶνκαὶστόματοςκαὶτῶνἄλλωνἁπάντωνἀπαρχώμεθατῷθεῷ . Hom. xx. p. 656 f. ζῶσαν ] In opposition to the Levitical θυσίαι , which were slain animals. Our great sacrifice, the Lord Jesus, having been slain for us, and by the shedding of His Blood perfect remission having been obtained διὰτῶνοἰκτιρμῶντοῦθεοῦ , we are now enabled to be offered to God no longer by the shedding of blood, but as living sacrifices. This application of the figure of a sacrifice occurs in Philo, who (‘ quod omnis probus liber,’ § 12, vol. ii., p. 457) describes the Essenes as οὐζῶακαταθύαντες , ἀλλ ʼ ἱεροπρεπεῖςτὰςἑαυτῶνδιανοίαςκατασκευάζεινἀξιοῦντες . See also Jos, Antt. xviii. 1. 5. τῷθεῷ belongs to εὐάρεστον , not to παραστῆσαι . τὴνλογικὴνλατρ . ὑμ .] “ This may certainly be in apposition with θυσίαν (Reiche, Meyer), the acc. denoting the result and intention,— θυσία however alone can hardly be called a λατρεία , but παραστῆσαιθυσίαν may: therefore it is preferable to take the acc. as in apposition with the whole sentence, and supply some verb of exhorting: see 1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Thessalonians 1:5.” Tholuck. λογικήν (reff.) is opposed to σαρκικήν , see Hebrews 7:16. So Chrys.,— οὐδὲνἔχουσανσωματικόν , οὐδὲνπαχύ , οὐδὲναἰσθητόν . Theodoret, Grot., al., take it as ‘ having reason,’ ‘ rational,’ opposed to sacrifices of animals which have no reason: Photius, Basil, and Calvin, ‘ rational,’ as opposed to superstitious. But the former meaning is far the best, and answers to the πνευματικὰςθυσίας of 1 Peter 2:5. 2. συνσχηματίζεσθαι is not Imperative in sense, but dependent on παρακαλῶ . (Of course, in all such questions betwen ε and αι , the confusing element of itacism comes in: but in no case where both forms are equally admissible in the text, can the mere suspicion of itacism be allowed to decide the question.) ὁαἰὼνοὗτος , here, the whole world of the ungodly, as contrasted with the spiritual kingdom of Christ. The dat. ἀνακαινώσει is not the instrument by which, but the manner in which the metamorphosis takes place: that wherein it consists: compare περιετμήθητεπεριτομῇἀχειροποιήτῳ , Colossians 2:11. εἰςτὸδοκιμάζειν , that ye may prove, viz. in this process and the active Christian life accompanying it, compare reff. Eph., Phil.: not ‘ that ye may be able to prove,’ ‘ acquire the faculty of proving,’ as Bucer, Olsh., Rü ckert: the Apostle is not speaking of acquiring wisdom here, but of practical proof by experience. τὸἀγαθ . κ . εὐάρ . κ . τέλ . are not epithets of τὸθέληματ . θεοῦ as in E. V., for in that case they would be superfluous, and in part inapplicable: but abstract neuters, see ver. 9, that ye may prove what is the will of God (viz. that which is) good and acceptable (to Him) and perfect. The non-repetition of the art. shews that the adjectives all apply to the same thing. 3-21. Particular exhortations grounded on and expanding the foregoing general ones. This is expressed by the γάρ , which resumes, and binds to what has preceded. And first, an exhortation to humility in respect of spiritual gifts, vv. 3-8. 3. λέγω , a mild expression for ‘ I command:’ enforced as a command by διὰτ . χ .… ‘ by means of my apostolic office,’ of the grace conferred on me to guide and exhort the Church:’ reff. παντὶτῷὄντιἐνὑμ .,— a strong bringing out of the individual application of the precept. οὐχὶτῷδεῖνικαὶτῷδεῖνιμόνον , ἀλλὰκαὶἄρχοντικ . ἀρχομένῳ , κ . δούλῳκ . ἐλευθέρῳ , κ . ἰδιώτῃκ . σοφῷ , κ . γυναικὶκ . ἀνδρί , κ . νέῳκ . γέροντι . Chrys. Hom. xx. p. 603. μὴὑπερφρ . κ .τ .λ .] There is a play on the words φρονεῖν , ὑπερφρονεῖν , and σωφρονεῖν , which can only be clumsily conveyed in another language: ‘ not to be highminded, above that which he ought to be minded, but to be so minded, as to be soberminded.’ Wetst. quotes from Charondas in Stobæ us, Sentent. xlii., προσποιείσθωδὲἕκαστοςτῶνπολιτῶνσωφρονεῖνμᾶλλονἢφρονεῖον ,— and from Thucyd. ii. 62,— ἰέναιδὲτοῖςἐχθροῖςὁμόσε , μὴφρονήματιμόνον , ἀλλὰκαὶκαταφρονήματι . But φρονεῖν must not be taken, with Calvin, ‘ admonet ut eatantum cogitemus et meditemur, quæ nos sobrios et modestos reddere potuerunt:’ — the thoughts implied in it being, thoughts of one’ s self. ἑκάστῳὡς ] = ὡςἑκάστῳ (reff.), not ἑκάστῳ , ὡς .… μέτρονπίστεως is the receptivity of χαρίσματα , itself no inherent congruity, but the gift and apportionment of God. It is in fact the subjective designation of ἡχάριςἡδοθεῖσαἡμῖν , ver. 6. But we must not say, that (Ewb.) “ faith, in this passage, means those gifts or graces which the Christian can only receive through faith:” this is to confound the receptive faculty with the thing received by it, and to pass by the great lesson of our verse, that this faculty is nothing to be proud of, but God’ s gift. 4. γάρ , elucidating the fact, that God apportions variously to various persons: because the Christian community is like a body with many members having various duties. See the same idea further worked out, 1 Corinthians 12:12 ff. 5. τὸδὲκαθ ʼ εἷς ] But [severally, i.e.] as regards individuals. A solœ cism for τὸδὲεἷςκαθ ʼ ἕνα , as ἓνκαθ ʼ ἕν in ref. Rev. Wetst., on ref. Mark, gives many examples of it. Members of one another = fellow-members with one another,— members of the body of which we one with another are members. 6. The δέ = ‘ and not only so, but’ .… χάρις , see above, ver. 3, on μέτρ . πίστ . These χαρίσματα are called, 1 Corinthians 12:7, ἡφανέρωσιςτοῦπνεύματος . “ These χαρίσματαδάφορα are next specified. The two first accusatives are grammatically dependent on ἔχοντες : by degrees the Apostle loses sight of the construction, and continues with the concrete ὁδιδάσκων , which still he binds on to the foregoing by εἴτε ,— but at ὁμεταδιδούς , omits this also, and, at ver. 9, introduces the abstract ἡἀγάπη .” Thol. εἴτεπροφητείαν ] There is some dispute about the construction of these clauses. The ordinary rendering regards them as elliptical, and supplies before κατὰ and ἐν , χρησάσθωαὐτῇ or ὥστεεἶναιαὐτήν or the like. But Reiche, Meyer, De Wette, suppose no ellipsis, joining κατὰτὴνἀναλ ., &c. to the foregoing substantives, as κατὰτὴνχάριν to χαρίσματα . This construction must however be dropped at ἐνἁπλότητι , which is manifestly to be rendered with a verb supplied: and (2) it reduces the four first mentioned gifts to a bare catalogue, and deprives the passage of its aim, which is to keep each member of the body in its true place and work without any member boasting against another. Tholuck quotes a passage of very similar construction from Epictet. Dissert. iii. 23. 5. He is speaking of reading and philosophizing from ostentation, and says that every thing which we do, must have its aim, its ἀναφορά ;— λοιπόν , ἡμὲντίςἐστικοινὴἀναφορά , ἡδ ʼ ἰδία . πρῶτον , ἵν ʼ ὡςἄνθρωπος . ἐντούτῳτίπεριέχεται ; … ἡδ ʼ ἰδίαπρὸςτὸἐπιτήδευμαἑκάστουκαὶτὴνπροαίρεσιν · ὁκιθαρῳδός , ὡςκιθαρῳδός · ὁτέκτων , ὡςτέκτων · ὁφιλόσοφος , ὡςφιλόσοφος · ὁῥήτωρ , ὡςῥήτωρ . See also the same construction in 1 Peter 4:10, 1 Peter 4:11. On προφητεία , the gift of the προφῆται , see note, Acts 11:27. κατ . τ . ἀναλ . τ . πίστ .] (let us prophesy) according to the proportion of faith. But what faith? Objective , or subjective ? the faith, or our faith? The comparison of μέτρονπιστεως above, and the whole context, determine it to be the latter; the measure of our faith: ‘ quisque se intra sortis suæ metas contineat, et revelationis suæ modum teneat, ne unus sibi omnia scire videatur.’ To understand ἀναλογίατ . π . objectively, as ‘ the rule of faith,’ as many R.-Cath. expositors, and some Protestant, e.g. Calvin, ‘ fidei nomine significat prima religionis axiomata,’ — seems to do violence to the context, which aims at shewing that the measure of faith, itself the gift of God, is the receptive faculty for all spiritual gifts, which are therefore not to be boasted of, nor pushed beyond their provinces, but humbly exercised within their own limits. 7. διακονίαν ] any subordinate ministration in the Church. In Acts 6:1 and 4, we have the word applied both to the lower ministration, that of alms and food, and to the higher, the διακ . τοῦλόγου , which belonged to the Apostles. But here it seems to be used in a more restricted sense, from its position as distinct from prophecy, teaching, exhortation, &c. ἐντῇδιακ .] Let us confine ourselves humbly and orderly to that kind of ministration to which God’ s providence has appointed us, as profitable members of the body. ὁδιδάσκων ] The prophet spoke under immediate inspiration; the διδάσκαλος under inspiration working by the secondary instruments of his will and reason and rhetorical powers. Paul himself seems ordinarily, in his personal ministrations, to have used διδασκαλία . He is nowhere called a prophet, but appears as distinguished from them in several places: e.g. Acts 11:27; Acts 21:10, and apparently 13:1. Of course this does not affect the appearance of prophecies, commonly so called; in his writings. The inspired διδάσκαλος would speak, though not technically προφητείας , yet the mind of the Spirit in all things: not to mention that the apostolic office was one in dignity and fulness of inspiration far surpassing any of the subordinate ones, and in fact including them all. ἐντῇδιδασκαλίᾳ ] as before: he is to teach in the sphere, within the bounds, of the teaching allotted to him by God,— or for which God has given him the faculty. 8. The παρακαλῶν was not necessarily distinct from the προφητεύων ,— see 1 Corinthians 14:31. ὁμεταδιδούς appears to be the giver of the alms to the poor,— either the deacon himself, or some distributor subordinate to the deacon. This however has been doubted, and not without reason: for a transition certainly seems to be made, by the omission of the εἴτε , from public to private gifts. We cannot find any ecclesiastical meaning for ἐλεῶν ,— and the very fact of the three preceding being all limited to their respective official spheres, whereas these three are connected with qualitative descriptions, speaks strongly for their being private acts, to be always performed in the spirit described. Add to all, that, as Vitringa remarks, διαδιδόναι is more properly to distribute (Acts 4:35), μεταδιδόναι to impart of one’ s own to another. I would therefore render it: He that bestoweth. ἐνἁπλότητι ] ordinarily, ‘ with simplicity.’ But seeing that ἁπλότης , referred to alms-giving, bears another and an objective meaning, this hardly satisfies me, because σπουδή and ἱλαρότης designate not so much the inward frame of mind, as the outward character of the superintendence and the compassion: as might be expected, when gifts to be exercised for mutual benefit are spoken of. In 2 Corinthians 8:2; 2 Corinthians 9:11, 2 Corinthians 9:13, Jos. Antt. vii. 13. 4 , the word signifies ‘ liberality:’ so perhaps ἁπλῶς also, James 1:5, but see note there. This meaning is not recognized by Wahl, Lex., but defended by Tholuck, who connects it with the phrase found in Stobæ us, Eclog. Phys. i. p. 123, ἁπλοῦντὰςχεῖρας , ‘ to open the hands wide:’ — and I would thus render it here. ὁπροϊστάμενος ] He that presides— but over what? If over the Church exclusively, we come back to offices again: and it is hardly likely that the rulers of the Church, as such, would be introduced so low down in the list, or by so very general a term, as this. In 1 Timothy 3:4, 1 Timothy 3:5, 1 Timothy 3:12, we have the verb used of presiding over a man’ s own household: and in its absolute usage here, I do not see why that also should not be included. Meyer would understand it of ‘ patronage of strangers’ (ch. 16:2). Stuart in his Excursus on this place, appended to his Commentary, takes up and defends the same view. But, not insisting on the general usage of the word being preferable where it occurs absolutely, will ἐνσπουδῇ apply to this meaning? Of course so far as σπουδή is applicable to every employment, it might, but more than this is required, where words are connected in so marked a manner as here. Giving προϊστάμενος the ordinary meaning, these words fit admirably: implying that he who is by God set over others, be they members of the Church or of his own household, must not allow himself to forget his responsibility, and take his duty indolently and easily, but must προΐστασθαισπουδαίως , making it a serious matter of continual diligence. ὁἐλεῶν ] See above: He that sheweth mercy, is the very best rendering: and I cannot conceive that any officer of the Church is intended, but every private Christian who exercises compassion. It is in exhibiting compassion, which is often the compulsory work of one obeying his conscience rather than the spontaneous effusion of love, that cheerfulness is so peculiarly required, and so frequently wanting. And yet in such an act it is even of more consequence towards the effect,— consoling the compassionated, than the act itself. κρείσσωνλόγοςἢδόσις , Sir. 18:16. 9-21. Exhortations to various Christian principles and habits. 9. Olsh., De Wette, al., would understand ἐστίν ,— not ἔστω ,— the ellipsis of the imperative being unusual. But I cannot see how this can be here. Clearly the three preceding clauses are hortative; as clearly, those which follow are so likewise. Why then depart from the prevalent character of the context, and make this descriptive? ἀποστυγ .] This very general exhortation is probably, as Bengel says, an explanation of ἀνυπόκριτος :— our love should arise from a genuine cleaving to that which is good, and aversion from evil: not from any by-ends. 10. in brotherly love (dat. of the respect or regard in which), affectionate. φιλόστ .] properly of love of near relations; agreeing therefore exactly with φιλαδελφία . προηγούμενοι ] “ invicem præ venientes,” latt. μὴμένεφιλεῖσθαιπαρ ʼ ἑτέρου , ἀλλ ʼ αὐτὸςἐπιπήδατούτῳκαὶκατάρχου , Chrys.: similarly Syr., Theophyl., Erasm., Luther:— or, = ἀλλήλουςἡγούμενοιὑπερέχονταςἑαυτῶν , Philippians 2:3; so Origen, Theodoret, Grot.: or, as in ref. 2 Macc. ‘ setting an example to,’ ‘ going before,’ which however does not seem to apply here, unless we render τῇτιμῇ , ‘ in yielding honour:’ ‘ in giving honour: anticipating one another’ (so Stuart). 11. in zeal (not ‘ business,’ as E. V., which seems to refer it to the affairs of this life, whereas it relates, as all these in vv. 11, 12, 13, to Christian duties as such: as ‘ fervency of spirit,’ ‘ acting as God’ s servants,’ ‘ rejoicing in hope,’ &c.) not slothful. ζέωντῷπν . is used of Apollos, in ref. The Holy Spirit lights this fire within: see Luke 12:49; Matthew 3:11. τ . κυρίῳδουλ .] The external authorities, as will be seen in the var. read., are strongly in favour of this reading. The balance of internal probability, though not easy at once to settle, is I am persuaded on the same side. The main objection to κυρίῳ has ever been, that thus the Apostle would be inserting here, among particular precepts, one of the most general and comprehensive character. So Hilary (in Wetst.) and al. But this will be removed, if we remember, of what he is speaking: and if I mistake not, the other reading has been defended partly owing to forgetfulness of this. The present subject is, the character of our zeal for God. In it we are not to be ὀκνηροί , but fervent in spirit,— and that, as servants of God. A very similar reminiscence of this relation to God occurs Colossians 3:22-24: οἱδοῦλοι , … ὃἐὰνποιῆτε , ἐκψυχῆςἐργάζεσθεὡςτῷκυρίῳκαὶοὐκἀνθρώποις , εἰδότεςὅτιἀπὸκυρίουἀπολήμψεσθετὴνἀνταπόδοσιντῆςκληρονομίας . τῷκυρίῳχριστῷδουλεύετε . The command, τῷκαιρῷδουλεύειν , would surely come in very inopportunely in the midst of exhortations to the zealous service of God. At the same time, it is not easy to give an account of the origin of the reading. The ἐξαγοραζόμενοιτὸνκαιρόν of Ephesians 5:16 may have led to the filling up of the contracted κυρίῳ with this word: and the notion that σπουδῇ referred to worldly business, may have favoured the sense thus given. For examples of the phrase τῷκαιρῷδουλεύειν and ‘ tempori inservire,’ see Wetst. As to its applicability at all to Christians, De Wette well remarks, “ The Christian may and should certainly employ (Ephesians 5:16) τὸνκαιρόν (time and opportunity), but not serve it.” Athanas. (in Wetst.) ad Dracont. says, οὐπρέπειτῷκαιρῷδουλεύειν , ἀλλὰκυρίῳ . 12. The datives here are not parallel. τῇἐλπίδι is the ground of the joy in χαίροντες ,— but τῇθλίψει the state in which the ὑπομονή is found. 13. The reading μνείαις is curious, as being a corruption introduced, hardly accidentally, in favour of the honour of martyrs by commemoration. τ . φιλοξδιώκ .] οὐκεἶπενἐργαζόμενοι , ἀλλὰδιώκοντες , παιδεύωνἡμᾶςμὴἀναμένειντοὺςδεομένους , πότεπρὸςἡμᾶςἔλθωσιν , ἀλλ ʼ αὐτοὺςἐπιτρέχεινκ . καταδιώκειν . Chrys. Hom. xxi. p. 676. 14. “ The Sermon on the Mount must have been particularly well known; for among the few references in the N. T. Epistles to the direct words of Christ there occur several to it: e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:10. James 4:9; James 5:12 (we may add 4:3; 1:2, 22, 2:5, 13; 5:2, 3, 10). 1 Peter 3:9, 1 Peter 3:14; 1 Peter 4:14.” Tholuck. 15. Inf. for imperative: see Philippians 3:16: and Winer, edn. 6, § 43. 5. d. 16. Having (the participial construction is resumed, as in ver. 9) the same spirit towards one another, i.e. actuated by a common and well-understood feeling of mutual allowance and kindness. μὴτὰὑψ .] It is a question, whether τοῖςταπεινοῖς is neuter or masc. Certainly not necessarily neuter, as De W.: the Apostle’ s antitheses do not require such minute correspondence as this. The sense then must decide. In τὰὑψηλὰφρονοῦντες , the ὑψηλά are necessarily subjective, the lofty thoughts of the man. But in τοῖςταπεινοῖςσυναπαγόμενοι the adj. is necessarily objective; some outward objects with which the persons exhorted are συναπάγεσθαι . And those outward objects are defined, if I mistake not, by the τὸαὐτὸεἰςἀλλήλουςφρονοῦντες . This spirit towards one another is not to be a spirit of haughtiness, but one of community and sympathy, condescending to men of low estate, as E. V. admirably renders it. For συναπ ., see reff. and compare Zosimus, Hist. v. 6, cited by Tholuck, καὶαὐτὴἡΣπάρτησυναπήγετοτῇκοινῇτῆςἙλλάδοςἁλώσει . The insertion of the seemingly incongruous μὴγίνεσθε … ἑαυτοῖς is sufficiently accounted for by reference to ch. 11:25, where he had stated this frame of mind as one to be avoided by those whose very place in God’ s church was owing to His free mercy. Being uplifted one against another would be a sign of this fault being present and operative. 17. The construction is resumed. The Apostle now proceeds to exhort respecting conduct to those without. προνοούμ . καλὰ .… ] from ref. Prov., which has ἐνώπιονκυρίουκαὶἀνθρώπων . 18. The εἰδυνατόν , as well remarked by Thol. and De Wette, is objective only— not ‘ if you can,’ but if it be possible— if others will allow it. And this is further defined by τὸἐξὑμῶν : all your part is to be peace: whether you actually live peaceably or not, will depend then solely on how others behave towards you. 19. So Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40. ἀγαπητοί ] ‘ The more difficult this duty, the more affectionately does the Apostle address his readers, with this word.’ Thol. δότετόπον ] allow space, i.e. ‘ interpose delay,’ to anger. So Livy viii. 32, “ Legati circumstantes sellam orabant, ut rem in posterum diem differret, et irœ suæ spatium, et con-silio tempus, daret.” So that we must not understand τῇὀργῇ , ‘ your anger,’ nor [exactly, though it comes to that,] ‘ God’ s anger,’ but ‘ anger,’ generally;— ‘ give wrath room:’ ‘ proceed not to execute it hastily, but leave it for its legitimate time, when He whose it is to avenge, will execute it: make not the wrath your own, but leave it for God.’ So in the main, but mostly understanding [exclusively] τ . ὀρ . τοῦθεοῦ , Chrys., , Theodoret, and the great body of Commentators. Some Fathers interpret it, ‘ yield to the anger (of your adversary);’ but this meaning for δότετόπον is hardly borne out. The citation varies from the LXX, which has ἐνἡμέρᾳἐκδικήσεωςἀνταποδώσω ;— and is nearer the Heb.,— ל ִ י נ ָ ק ָ ם ו ְ ש ׁ ִ ל ּ ֵ ם , “ mine is revenge and requital.” It is very remarkable, that in Hebrews 10:30 the citation is made in the same words. 20. The οὖν would mean ‘ quod cum ita sit;’ — carrying on the sentence with the assumption of the last thing stated. This perhaps may not have been understood, and hence may have arisen the alteration or omission of οὖν in the mss. But the evidence is very strong for its omission. What is meant by ἄνθρακαςπυρὸςσωρεύσεις The expression ἄνθρ . πυρ . occurs more than once in Psa_18, of the divine punitive judgments. Can those be meant here? Clearly not, in their bare literal sense. For however true it may be, that ingratitude will add to the enemy’ s list of crimes, and so subject him more to God’ s punitive judgment, it is impossible that to bring this about should be set as a precept, or a desirable thing among Christians. Again, can the expression be meant of the glow and burn of shame which would accompany, even in the case of a profane person, the receiving of benefits from an enemy? This may be meant; but is not probable, as not sufficing for the majesty of the subject. Merely to make an enemy ashamed of himself, can hardly be upheld as a motive for action. I understand the words, ‘ For in this doing, you will be taking the most effectual vengeance;’ as effectual as if you heaped coals of fire on his head. 21. If you suffered yourselves to be provoked to revenge, you would be yielding to the enemy,— overcome by that which is evil: do not thus,— but in this, and in all things, overcome the evil (in others) by your good. Chap. 13:1-7. The duty of cheerful obedience to the powers of the state. It has been well observed (Calv., Thol., De Wette. See Neander, Pflanzung u. Leitung, &c. 4th ed. p. 460 ff.) that some special reason must have given occasion to these exhortations. We can hardly attribute it to the seditious spirit of the Jews at Rome, as their influence in the Christian Church there would not be great; indeed, from Act_28 the two seem to have been remarkably distinct. But disobedience to the civil authorities may have arisen from mistaken views among the Christians themselves as to the nature of Christ’ s kingdom and its relation to existing powers of this world. And such mistakes would naturally be rifest there, where the fountain of earthly power was situated: and there also best and most effectually met by these precepts coming from apostolic authority. The way for them is prepared by vv. 17 ff. of the foregoing chapter. 1 Peter 2:13 ff. is parallel: compare notes there. 1. ὑποτασσέσθω , see 1 Corinthians 16:16, is reflective, subject himself, i.e. ‘ be subject of his own free will and accord.’ For there is no authority (in heaven or earth— no power at all) except from God: and (so δέ , 2 Corinthians 6:15, 2 Corinthians 6:16. It introduces a second clause as if μέν had stood in the first) those that are (the existing powers which we see about us), have been ordained by God. We may observe that the Apostle here pays no regard to the question of the duty of Christians in revolutionary movements. His precepts regard an established power, be it what it may. It, in all matters lawful, we are bound to obey. But even the parental power does not extend to things unlawful. If the civil power commands us to violate the law of God, we must obey God before man. If it commands us to disobey the common laws of humanity, or the sacred institutions of our country, our obedience is due to the higher and more general law, rather than to the lower and particular. These distinctions must be drawn by the wisdom granted to Christians in the varying circumstances of human affairs: they are all only subordinate portions of the great duty of obedience to law. To obtain, by lawful means, the removal or alteration of an unjust or unreasonable law, is another part of this duty: for all authorities among men must be in accord with the highest authority, the moral sense. But even where law is hard and unreasonable, not disobedience, but legitimate protest, is the duty of the Christian. 2. ἀντιτασσ ., see above on ὑποτασς . ἑαυτοῖςκρῖμαλ .] shall receive for themselves (the dat. incommodi) condemnation, viz. punishment from God, through His minister, the civil power. 3. And the tendency of these powers is salutary: to encourage good works, and discourage evil. It is not necessary to set a note of interrogation after ἐξουσίαν : the clause may be treated as hypothetical,— see 1 Corinthians 7:18. Tholuck observes, that this verse is a token that the Apostle wrote the Epistle before the commencement of the Neronian persecution. Had this been otherwise, the principle stated by him would have been the same; but he could hardly have passed so apparent an exception to it without remark. 4. τὴνμάχαιραν , perhaps in allusion to the dagger worn by the Cæ sars, which was regarded as a symbol of the power of life and death: so Tacitus, Hist. iii. 68, of Vitellius, “ adsistenti Consuli exsolutum a latere pugionem, velut jus necis vitæ que civium, reddebat.” Dio Cassius also, xlii. 27, mentions the wearing of τὸξίφος on all occasions by Antony, as a sign that he τὴνμοναρχίανἐνεδείκνυτο . In ancient and modern times, the sword has been carried before sovereigns. It betokens the power of capital punishment: and the reference to it here is among the many testimonies borne by Scripture against the attempt to abolish the infliction of the penalty of death for crime in Christian states. εἰςὀργήν seems to be inserted for the sake of parallelism with εἰςἀγαθόν above: it betokens the character of the ἐκδίκησις ,— that it issues in wrath. The ὀργή is referred to in τὴνὀργήν , ver. 5. 5. διό , because of the divine appointment, and mission of the civil officer. ἀνάγκη — ye must needs submit yourselves— there is a moral necessity for subjection:— one not only of terror, but of conscience: compare διὰτὸνκύριον , 1 Peter 2:13. 6. διὰτοῦτο … καί is parallel with διό , ver. 5,— giving another result of the divine appointment of the civil power;— not dependent on ver. 5. τελεῖτε is indicative, not imperative: the command follows ver. 7. For they are ministers of God, attending upon this very duty, viz. λειτουργεῖν ,— hardly (as Koppe, Olsh., Meyer) φόρουςτελεῖν , for in ver. 7 the Apostle has evidently in view the whole official character of these λειτουργοί . Reiche, al., construe, “ For those who wait upon this very thing are ministers of God,” which would require οἱεἰςαὐτ . τ . προσκ .:— Koppe, ‘ For λειτουργοί are of God:’ — but this again would require οἱγὰρλειτ .— Tertullian remarks, Apolog. xlii. vol. i. p. 494, that what the Romans lost by the Christians refusing to bestow gifts on their temples, they gained by their conscientious payment of taxes. 7. Before the accusatives supply αἰτοῦντι , as the correlative of ἀπόδοτε . φόρος is tax, or tribute,— direct payment for state purposes: τέλος , custom, toll, vectigal. φόβος , to those set over us and having power: τιμή , to those, but likewise to all on whom the state has conferred distinction. 8-10. Exhortation to universal love of others. 8. ὀφείλετε is not indic. (as Koppe, Reiche, al.), which would require οὐδενὶοὐδέν ,— and would be inconsistent with the ὀφειλαί just mentioned,— but imperative: ‘ Pay all other debts: be indebted in the matter of love alone.’ This debt increases the more, the more it is paid: because the practice of love makes the principle of love deeper and more active. , Ep. 192 (62), ad Cœ lest. vol. ii. p. 868, says: “ Redditur enim (caritas), cum impenditur, debetur autem etiam si reddita fuerit; quia nullum est tempus quando impendenda jam non sit. Nec cum redditur amittitur, sed potius reddendo multiplicatur.” πεπλήρωκεν , hath (in the act) fulfilled: compare the perfects, John 3:18; ch. 14:23. νόμον is not the Christian law, but the Mosaic law of the decalogue. “ This recommendation of Love has, as also the similar one, Galatians 5:23, κατὰτῶντοιούτωνοὐκἔστιννόμος ,— an apologetic reference to the upholders of the law, and depends on this evident axiom,— ‘ He who practises Love, the higher duty, has, even before he does this, fulfilled the law, the lower.’  ” De Wette. 9. ἀνακεφαλ ., brought under one head,— ‘ united in the one principle from which all flow.’ 10. All the commandments of the law above cited are negative: the formal fulfilment of them is therefore attained, by working no ill to one’ s neighbour. What greater things Love works, he does not now say: it fulfils the law, by abstaining from that which the law forbids. 11-14. Enforcement of the foregoing, and occasion taken for fresh exhortations, by the consideration that the day of the Lord is at hand. 11. καὶτοῦτο , and this, i.e. ‘ and let us do this,’ viz., live in no debt but that of love (see reff.), for other reasons, and especially for this following one. ὥραἤδηἐγερθῆναι ] “ The Inf. Aor. here, as after verbs of willing, ordering, &c., betokens the completion of the act in question. See Winer, § 45. 8 (edn. 6, § 44. 7).” De Wette. ὕπνος here = the state of worldly carelessness and indifference to sin, which allows and practises the ἔργατοῦσκότους . The imagery seems to be taken originally from our Lord’ s discourse concerning His coming: see Matthew 24:42: Mark 13:33, and Luke 21:28-36, where several points of similarity to our vv. 11-14 occur. ἐγγύτ . ἡμ . ἡσωτ . ἢὅτεἐπιστ .] σωτηρία , as ἀπολύτρωσις Luke 21:28, and ch. 8:23, of the accomplishment of salvation. ἡμῶν [is best] taken with ἐγγύτερον , ‘ nearer to us,’ see ch. 10:8, [though] ἐγγίζειἡἀπολύτρωσιςὑμῶν , Luke 21:28, seems [at first sight] to favour the usual connexion with σωτηρία . ἐπιστ .] we first believed;— see reff. Without denying the legitimacy of an individual application of this truth, and the importance of its consideration for all Christians of all ages, a fair exegesis of this passage can hardly fail to recognize the fact, that the Apostle here as well as elsewhere (1 Thessalonians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 15:51), speaks of the coming of the Lord as rapidly approaching. Prof. Stuart, Comm. p. 521, is shocked at the idea, as being inconsistent with the inspiration of his writings. How this can be, I am at a loss to imagine. “ Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels in heaven, nor [even] the Son: but the Father only.” Mark 13:32. And to reason, as Stuart does, that because Paul corrects in 2Th_2 the mistake of imagining it to be immediately at hand (or even actually come, see note on ἐνέστηκεν there), therefore he did not himself expect it soon, is surely quite beside the purpose. The fact, that the nearness or distance of that day was unknown to the Apostles, in no way affects the prophetic announcements of God’ s Spirit by them, concerning its preceding and accompanying circumstances. The ‘ day and hour’ formed no part of their inspiration:— the details of the event, did. And this distinction has singularly and providentially turned out to the edification of all subsequent ages. While the prophetic declarations of the events of that time remain to instruct us, the eager expectation of the time, which they expressed in their day, has also remained, a token of the true frame of mind in which each succeeding age (and each succeeding age a fortiori) should contemplate the ever-approaching coming of the Lord. On the certainty of the event, our faith is grounded: by the uncertainty of the time our hope is stimulated, and our watchfulness aroused. See Prolegg. to Vol. III. ch. v. § iv. 5-10. 12. ἡνύξ , the lifetime of the world,— the power of darkness, see Ephesians 6:12: ἡἡμέρα , the day of the resurrection, 1 Thessalonians 5:4; Revelation 21:25; of which resurrection we are already partakers and are to walk as such, Colossians 3:1-4; 1 Thessalonians 5:5-8. Therefore,— let us lay aside (as it were a clothing) the works of darkness (see Ephesians 5:11-14, where a similar strain of exhortation occurs), and put on the armour of light . 13. κοίταις , in a bad sense: the act itself being a defilement, when unsanctified by God’ s ordinance of marriage. See reff. ἀσελγείαις , plural of various kinds of wantonness: so ὑποκρίσεις , φθόνους , καταλαλιάς , 1 Peter 2:1. 14. Chrys. says, on Ephesians 4:24, οὕτωκαὶἐπὶφίλωνλέγομεν , ὁδεῖνατὸνδεῖναἐνεδύσατο , τὴνπολλὴνἀγάπηνλέγοντες , κ . τὴνἀδιάλειπτονσυνουσίαν . See examples in Wetst. The last clause is to be read, τῆςσαρκὸςπρόνοιανμὴποιεῖσθε | εἰςἐπιθυμίας ,— not τῆςσαρκὸςπρόνοιαν | μὴποιεῖσθεεἰςἐπιθυμίας ,— and rendered, Take not (any) forethought for the flesh, to fulfil its lusts, not ‘ Take not your forethought for the flesh, so, as to fulfil its lusts’ (Wartet des Leibes, doch also, daß er nicht geil werde, Luth.). This latter would be τὴνπρόνοιαντ . σαρκ . μὴπ . εἰςἐπιθ .,— or τῆςσ . πρόν . ποιεῖσθεμὴεἰςἐπιθ .: see construction of the next verse. Chap. 14:1-15:13. On the conduct to be pursued towards weak and scrupulous brethren. There is some doubt who the ἀσθενοῦντεςτῇπίστει were, of whom the Apostle here treats; whether they were ascetics, or Judaizers. Some habits mentioned, as e.g. the abstinence from all meats, and from wine, seem to indicate the former: whereas the observation of days, and the use of such expressions as κοινόν [ver. 14], and again the argument of ch. 15:7-13, as plainly point to the latter. The difficulty may be solved by a proper combination of the two views. The over-scrupulous Jew became an ascetic by compulsion. He was afraid of pollution by eating meats sacrificed or wine poured to idols: or even by being brought into contact, in foreign countries, with casual and undiscoverable uncleanness, which in his own land he knew the articles offered for food would be sure not to have incurred. He therefore abstained from all prepared food, and confined himself to that which he could trace from natural growth to his own use. We have examples of this in Daniel (Dan_1), Tobit (Tob. 1:10, 11), [and in] some Jewish priests mentioned by Josephus, Life, § 3, who having been sent prisoners to Rome, οὐκἐξελάθοντοτῆςεἰςτὸθεῖονεὐσεβείας , διετρέφοντοδὲσύκοιςκαὶκαρύοις . And Tholuck refers to the Mishna as containing precepts to this effect. All difficulty then is removed, by supposing that of these over-scrupulous Jews some had become converts to the gospel, and with neither the obstinacy of legal Judaizers, nor the pride of ascetics (for these are not hinted at here), but in weakness of faith, and the scruples of an over-tender conscience, retained their habits of abstinence and observation of days. On this account the Apostle characterizes and treats them mildly: not with the severity which he employs towards the Colossian Judaizing ascetics and those mentioned in 1 Timothy 4:1 ff. The question treated in 1Co_8 was somewhat different: there it was, concerning meat actually offered to an idol. In 1 Corinthians 10:25-27, he touches the same question as here, and decides against the stricter view. See the whole matter discussed in Tholuck’ s Comm. in loc., De Wette’ s Handbuch, and Stuart’ s Introd. to this chap. in his commentary. 1-12. Exhortation to mutual forbearances, enforced by the axiom, that every man must serve God according to his own sincere persuasion. 1. The general duty of a reconciling and uncontroversial spirit towards the weak in faith. The δέ binds this on to the general exhortations to mutual charity in ch. 13: q. d. ‘ in the particular case of the weak in faith,’ &c.: but also implies a contrast, which seems to be, in allusion to the Christian perfection enjoined in the preceding verses,— ‘ but do not let your own realization of your state as children of light make you intolerant of short-coming and infirmity in others.’ ἀσθ ., see reff.: the particular weakness consisted in a want of broad and independent principle, and a consequent bondage to prejudices. πίστις therefore is used in a general sense, to indicate the moral soundness conferred by faith,— the whole character of the Christian’ s conscience and practice, resting on faith. τῇ , better the faith, than ‘ his faith:’ ‘ weak in his (subj.) faith’ would be opposed to ‘ strong in his (subj.) faith, ‘ his faith,’ remaining in substance the same: whereas here the (subj.) faith itself is weak, and ‘ weak in the faith’ = holding the faith imperfectly, i.e. not being able to receive the faith in its strength, so as to be above such prejudices. προσλαμβ .] ‘ give him your hand,’ as Syr. (Thol.): ‘ count him one of you:’ opposed to rejecting or discouraging him. μὴεἰς ] but not with a view to: ‘ do not adopt him as a brother, in order then to begin’ … διακρίς . διαλ .] discernments of thoughts, lit.: i.e. disputes in order to settle the points on which he has scruples.’ In both the reff., διάκρισις has the meaning of ‘ discernment of,’ ‘ the power of distinguishing between.’ And διαλογισμοί in the N. T. implies (ordinarily in a bad sense), ‘ thoughts:’ what kind of thoughts, the context must determine. Here, evidently, those scruples in him, in which his weakness consists,— and those more enlightened views in you, by which you would fain remove his scruples. Do not let your association of him among you be with a view to settle these disputes. The above ordinary meanings of the words seem to satisfy the sense, and to agree better with εἰς than ‘ ad altercationes disputationum,’ as Beza, or ‘ ad certamina cogitationum,’ as Estius:— and are adopted by most of the ancient and modern Commentators. 2. The ὃςμέν , the strong in faith, so indicated by what follows, is opposed to ὁδὲἀσθενῶν (not to be taken ὁδὲ , ἀσθενῶν , κ .τ .λ .), by which τὸνἀσθενοῦντα of ver. 1 is resumed. πιστεύειφαγεῖν , either believes that he may eat,— or ventures to eat. The latter is favoured by ref. Acts, πιστεύομενσωθῆναι , ‘ we trust to be saved;’ though that also may be expanded into ‘ we believe that we shall be saved,’ as E. V. λάχ . ἐσθ .] See remarks introductory to this chapter. 3. There is no need to supply πάντα after ἐσθ . and μὴἐσθ . I would rather take ὁἐσθ . as the eater, and ὁμὴἐσθ . the abstainer. ἐξουθ ., for his weakness of faith,— κρινέτω , for his laxity of practice. For God has accepted (adopted into his family) him (i.e. the eater, who was judged,— his place in God’ s family doubted: not the abstainer, who was only despised, set at nought,— and to whom the words cannot, by the construction, apply. 4. Who art thou (see ch. 9:20) that judgest the servant of another (viz. as De W., of Christ,— for a κύριος in this passage is marked, vv. 8, 9, as being Christ,— and the Master is the same throughout. ὁθεός before is unconnected with this verse)? to his own Master he stands (‘ remains in the place and estimation of a Christian, from which thou wouldest eject him;’ not, as Calv., Grot., Estius, Wolf, al., ‘ stands hereafter in the judgment,’ which is not in question here: see 1 Corinthians 10:12) or falls (from his place, see above): but he shall be made to stand (notwithstanding thy doubts of the correctness of his practice): for the Lord (or, his Lord, in allusion to τῷἰδίῳκυρίῳ above) is able to make him stand (in faith and practice. These last words are inapplicable, if standing and falling at the great day are meant). Notice, this argument is entirely directed to the weak, who uncharitably judges the strong,— not vice versâ . The weak imagines that the strong cannot be a true servant of God, nor retain his steadfastness amidst such temptation. To this the Apostle answers, (1) that such judgment belongs only to Christ, whose servant he is: (2) that the Lord’ s Almighty Power is able to keep him up, and will do so. 5. One man (the weak) esteems (one) day above (reff.) (another) day; another (the strong) esteems every day. Let each be fully satisfied in his own mind. It is an interesting question, what indication is here found of the observance or non-observance of a day of obligation in the apostolic times. The Apostle decides nothing; leaving every man’ s own mind to guide him in the point. He classes the observance or non-observance of particular days, with the eating or abstaining from particular meats. In both cases, he is concerned with things which he evidently treats as of absolute indifference in themselves. Now the question is, supposing the divine obligation of one day in seven to have been recognized by him in any form, could he have thus spoken? The obvious inference from his strain of arguing is, that he knew of no such obligation, but believed all times and days to be, to the Christian strong in faith, alike. I do not see how the passage can be otherwise understood. If any one day in the week were invested with the sacred character of the Sabbath, it would have been wholly impossible for the Apostle to commend or uphold the man who judged all days worthy of equal honour,— who as in ver. 6 paid no regard to the (any) day. He must have visited him with his strongest disapprobation, as violating a command of God. I therefore infer, that sabbatical obligation to keep any day, whether seventh or first, was not recognized in apostolic times. It must be carefully remembered, that this inference does not concern the question of the observance of the Lord’ s Day as an institution of the Christian Church, analogous to the ancient Sabbath, binding on us from considerations of humanity and religious expediency, and by the rules of that branch of the Church in which Providence has placed us, but not in any way inheriting the divinely-appointed obligation of the other, or the strict prohibitions by which its sanctity was defended. The reply commonly furnished to these considerations, viz. that the Apostle was speaking here only of Jewish festivals, and therefore cannot refer to Christian ones, is a quibble of the poorest kind: its assertors themselves distinctly maintaining the obligation of one such Jewish festival on Christians. What I maintain is, that had the Apostle believed as they do, he could not by any possibility have written thus. Besides, in the face of πᾶσανἡμέραν , the assertion is altogether unfounded. 6. The words in brackets were probably omitted from the similar ending φρονεῖ of both clauses having misled some early copyists; but perhaps it may have been intentionally done, after the observation of the Lord’ s Day came to be regarded as binding. φρονῶν , taking account of, ‘ regarding.’ εὐχαριστεῖ , adduced as a practice of both parties, shews the universality among the early Christians of thanking God at meals: see 1 Timothy 4:3, 1 Timothy 4:4. The εὐχαριστία of the μὴἐσθίων was over his ‘ dinner of herbs.’ κυρίῳ is Christ. 7. This verse illustrates the κυρίῳ of the former, and at the same time sets in a still plainer light than before, that both parties, the eater and the abstainer, are servants of another, even Christ. ἑαυτῷ and κυρίῳ are datives commodi: ζῇν and ἀποθνήσκειν represent the whole sum of our course on earth. 8. The inference,— that we are, under all circumstances, living or dying (and a fortiori eating or abstaining, observing days or not observing them), Christ’ s: His property. 9. And this lordship over all was the great end of the Death and Resurrection of Christ. By that Death and Resurrection, the crowning events of his work of Redemption, He was manifested as the righteous Head over the race of man, which now, and in consequence man’ s world also, belongs by right to Him alone. The rec. text here, ἀπέθ . κ . ἀνέστηκ . ἀνέζησεν , may have arisen by the insertion (1) of ἀνέζησεν as clearer than ἔζησεν , and (2) of ἀνέστη from the margin, where it was a gloss (1 Thessalonians 4:14) explaining ἀνέζησεν or ἔζησεν . Or, on the other hand, supposing it to have been the original, ἀνέζησεν may have been altered to ἔζησεν and κ . ἀνέστη left out, to conform it to vv. 7 and 8. In such a case of doubt, the weight of early authority must decide. ἔζησεν , lived, viz. after His death; = ἀνέζησεν . The historical aorist points to a stated event as the commencement of the reviviscence, viz. the Resurrection. κ . νεκρ . κ . ζώντων ] here, for uniformity with what has gone before: in sense comprehending all created beings. 10. He returns to the duty of abstaining,— the weak, from judging his stronger brother; the strong, from despising the weaker. It seems probable that χριστοῦ has been substituted for θεοῦ in the later mss. from 2 Corinthians 5:10. The fact of Origen once citing it, decides nothing, in the presence of the expression βήματοςτοῦχριστοῦ in 2 Cor. 11. The citation is according to the present Alexandrine text, except that our ζῶἐγώ = κατ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦὀμνύω . ἐξομ .] shall praise, see reff. LXX-1.3a following the Heb. has ὀμεῖται (ὀμνῖται א 1) πᾶσαγλῶσσατὸνθεόν . 12. The stress is on περὶἑαυτοῦ : and the next verse refers back to it, laying the emphasis on ἀλλήλους . ‘ Seeing that our account to God will be of each man’ s own self, let us take heed lest by judging one another (κρίνομεν here in the general sense of ‘ pass judgment on,’ including both the ἐξουθενεῖν of the strong and the κρίνειν of the weak) we incur the guilt of ἀπολλύειν one another.’ 13-23. Exhortation to the strong to have regard to the conscientious scruples of the weak, and follow peace, not having respect merely to his own conscience, but to that of the other, which is his rule, and being violated leads to his condemnation. 13. See above. The second κρίνατε is used as corresponding to the first, and is in fact a play on it: ‘ pulchra mimesis ad id quod præ cedit,’ Bengel: see James 2:4 for another instance:— but determine this rather. πρόσκομμα (see ver. 21), an occasion of stumbling, in act: σκάνδαλον (ib.), an occasion of offence, in thought. 14. The general principle laid down, that nothing is by its own means,— i.e. for any thing in itself (φύσει , Chrys.),— unclean, but only in reference to him who reckons it to be so. πέπεισμ . ἐνκυρ . Ἰησ .] These words give to the persuasion the weight, not merely of Paul’ s own λογίζομαι , but of apostolic authority. He is persuaded, in his capacity as connected with Christ Jesus,— as having the mind of Christ. 15. The reading γάρ , besides the overwhelming authority in its favour, is the more difficult and characteristic. It can hardly (as Meyer and Tholuck) depend on the εἰμὴκ .τ .λ ., for thus an awkwardness would be introduced into the connexion of the clauses: but I believe it to be elliptical, depending on the suppressed restatement of the precept of ver. 13: q. d. ‘ But this knowledge is not to be your rule in practice, but rather, &c., as in ver. 13: ‘ for if,’ &c. βρῶμα , barely put, to make the contrast greater between the slight occasion, and the great mischief done. The mere λυπεῖν your brother, is an offence against love: how much greater an offence then, if this λυπεῖν end in ἀπολλύειν — in ruining (causing to act against his conscience, and so to commit sin and be in danger of quenching God’ s Spirit within him) by a meal of thine, a brother, for whom Christ died! “ Ne pluris feceris tuum cibum, quam Christus vitam suam.” Bengel. See an exact parallel in 1 Corinthians 8:10, 1 Corinthians 8:11. 16. Your strength of faith is a good thing; let it not pass into bad repute: use it so that it may be honoured, and encourage others. 17. For it is not worth while to let it be disgraced and become useless for such a trifle; for no part of the advance of Christ’ s gospel can be bound up in, or consist in, meat and drink: but in righteousness (ὁἐνάρετοςβίος , Chrys., but of course to be taken in union with the doctrine of the former part of the Epistle— righteousness by justification,— bringing forth the fruits of faith, which would be hindered by faith itself being disturbed), and peace (ἡπρὸςτὸνἀδελφὸνεἰρήνη , ᾗἐναντιοῦταιαὕτηἡφιλονεικία , id.) and joy (ἡἐκτῆςὁμονοίαςχαρά , ἣνἀναιρεῖαὕτηἡἐπίπληξις , id.) in the Holy Ghost: in connexion with, under the indwelling and influence of, as χαίρετεἐνκυρίῳ (Philippians 4:4) and the expressions ἐνκυρ ., ἐνχριστῷ , generally:— not, as De W., ‘ joy which has its ground in the Holy Ghost,’ though this is true. So, on the other hand, a man under the influence of, possessed by an evil spirit, is called ἄνθρωποςἐνπνεύματιἀκαθάρτῳ , Mark 1:23. 18. The reading τούτῳ is too strongly supported to be rejected for the rec. τούτοις , as is done by Thol. and De Wette, because the latter is the easier reading, and might refer to δικ . εἰρ . and χαρ . I have therefore adopted it. But I do not understand it (as Orig., al.) of πνεύματιἁγίῳ . It would be unnatural that a subordinate member of the former sentence, belonging only to χαρά , should be at once raised to be the emphatic one in this, and the three graces just emphatically mentioned, lost sight of. I believe τούτῳ to express the aggregate of the three, and ἐντούτῳ to be equivalent to οὕτως , as Baumg.-Crusius. δόκ . τ . ἀνθρ ., as a man of peace and uprightness: οὐγὰροὕτωσεθαυμάσονταιτῆςτελειότητος , ὡςτῆςεἰρήνηςκ . τῆςὁμονοίαςπάντες · τούτουμὲνγὰρτοῦκαλοῦπάντεςἀπολαύσονται , ἐκείνουδὲοὐδὲεἷς . Chrys. Hom. xxvi. p. 713. 19. Inference from the foregoing two verses— οἰκοδ . τ . εἰςἀλλ ., edification towards one another, i.e. the work of edification, finding its exercise in our mutual intercourse and allowances. So τῇἀγάπῃεἰςἀλλ ., 1 Thessalonians 3:12. 20. τὸἔργοντ . θεοῦ has been variously understood: by Fritz. and Baumg.-Crusius, as = δικαιος . εἰρήνη , κ . χαρά : by Meyer and Krehl, as = the Christian status of the offended brother, so as to be parallel to ver. 15: by Theodoret and Reiche, as = the faith of thy fellow-Christian: by Morus, Rosenm., al., as = ἡβασιλείατοῦθ ., ‘ the spread of the Gospel.’ But I believe the expression οἰκοδομή having just preceded is the clue to the right meaning: and that τὸἔργον = τὴνοἰκοδομήν in the Apostle’ s mind. He calls Christians in 1 Corinthians 3:9, θεοῦγεώργιον , θεοῦοἰκοδομή . Thus it will mean, thy fellow-Christian, as a plant of God’ s planting, a building of God’ s raising. So, nearly, De Wette and Tholuck. All things indeed are pure, but (it is) evil to the man who eats with offence (i.e. giving offence to his weak brother, as Theodoret, Calv., Beza, Grot., Estius, Bengel, Thol., De Wette, al. That this is the right interpretation is shewn by the sentence standing between two others both addressed to the strong who is in danger of offending the weak. But Chrys., Theophyl., Œ , Meyer, al., take the sense of ‘ receiving offence,’ and understand it of the weak). 21. It is good not to eat meats nor to drink wine, nor τοῦτοἐνᾧκ .τ .λ ., as Grot. Meyer, &c. Præ fero illud, quoniam per totum hunc locum de cibo potuque agitur.” But why should not the Apostle, as so often, be deducing a general duty from the particular subject?) in (by) which thy brother stumbles, or is offended (see on ver. 13), or is weak (Thol. remarks that the three verbs form a climax ad infra). 22. The faith which thou hast have (it) to thyself (reff.) before God. Chrys., who does not read the last words (ἐν . τ . θ .), says, πίστινἐνταῦθαοὐτὴνπερὶδογμάτων , ἀλλὰτὴνπερὶτῆςπροκειμένηςὑποθέσεωςλέγει … , ἐκείνημὲνγὰρμὴὁμολογουμένηκαταστρέφει , αὕτηδὲὁμολογουμένηἀκαίρως . Hom. xxvi. p. 714. ‘ Before God,’ — because He is the object of faith: hardly, as Erasm., “ comprimens inanem gloriam quæ solet esse comes scientiæ ,” — for there is no trace of a depreciation of the strong in faith in the chapter,— only a caution as to their conduct in regard of their weaker brethren. With μακάριος begins the closing and general sentence of the Apostle with regard to both: it is a blessed thing to have no scruples (the strong in faith is in a situation to be envied) about things in which we allow ourselves : 23. but he that doubteth (the situation just described not being his), incurs condemnation if he eat (the case in point particularized), because (he eats) not from faith (i.e. as before,— see Chrys. above,— from a persuasion of rectitude grounded on and consonant with his life of faith. That ‘ faith in the Son of God’ by which the Apostle describes his own life in the flesh as being lived (Galatians 2:20), informing and penetrating the motives and the conscience, will not include, will not sanction, an act done against the testimony of the conscience): but (introducing an axiom, as Hebrews 8:13) all that is not from (grounded in, and therefore consonant with) faith (the great element in which the Christian lives and moves and desires and hopes), is sin. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, al., have taken this text as shewing that ‘ omnis infidelium vita peccatum est.’ Whether that be the case or not, cannot be determined from this passage, any more than from Hebrews 11:6, because neither here nor there is the ‘ infidelis’ in question. Here the Apostle has in view two Christians, both living by faith, and by faith doing acts pleasing to God: and he reminds them that whatever they do out of harmony with this great principle of their spiritual lives, belongs to the category of sin. In Heb_11 the Writer is speaking of one who had the testimony of having (eminently) pleased God: this, he says, he did by faith; for without faith it is impossible to please Him. The question touching the ‘ infidelis,’ must be settled by another enquiry: Can he whom we thus name have faith,— such a faith as may enable him to do acts which are not sinful? a question impossible for us to solve. Chap. 15:1-13. Further exhortations to forbearance towards the weak, from the example of Christ (1-3),— and unanimity (4-7) as between Jew and Gentile, seeing that Christ was prophetically announced as the common Saviour of both (8-13). 1. By ἡμεῖςοἱδυν . the Apostle includes himself among the strong, as indeed he before indicated, ch. 14:14. τὰἀσθ . are general, not merely referring to the scruples before treated. ἀρέσκειν (reff.) to please or satisfy as a habit or motive of action. Tholuck quotes from the Schol. on Æ sch. Prom. 156, παρ ʼ ἑαυτῷδίκαιονἔχωνΖεύς ,— πάνταδικαίωςοἰόμενοςποιεῖν , αὐτὸςἑαυτῷἀρέσκωνκαὶδίκαιοννομίζωνεἶναιὅπερἂνβούληταιπράττειν . 2. The qualification, εἰςτὸἀγ . πρὸςοἰκ ., excludes all mere pleasing of men from the Christian’ s motives of action. The Apostle repudiates it in his own case, Galatians 1:10. Bengel remarks, ‘ bonum, genus, æ dificatio, species:’ — to a good end, and that good end his edification. 3. ἐξῆναὐτῷμὴὀνειδισθῆναι , ἐξῆνμὴπαθεῖνἅπερἔπαθεν , εἴγεἤθελετὸἑαυτοῦσκοπεῖν · ἀλλ ʼ ὅμωςοὐκἠθέλησεν , ἀλλὰτὸἡμέτερονσκοπήσαςτὸἑαυτοῦπαρεῖδε , Chrys. Hom. xxvii. p. 721 The citation is made directly, without any thing to introduce the formula citandi, as in ch. 9:7, where even the formula itself is wanting:— there is no ellipsis. The words in the Messianic Psalm are addressed to the Father, not to those for whom Christ suffered: but they prove all that is here required, that He did not please Himself; His sufferings were undertaken on account of the Father’ s good purpose— mere work which He gave Him to do. 4. The Apostle both justifies the above citation, and prepares the way for the subject to be next introduced, viz. the duty of unanimity, grounded on the testimony of these Scriptures to Christ. The ὅσαπροεγρ . applies to the whole ancient Scriptures, not to the prophetic parts only. ἡμετ . viz. of us Christians,— προεγρ . implying πρὸἡμῶν . ἵναδιὰτ . ὑπ . κ .τ .λ .] τουτέστιν , ἵναμὴἐκπέσωμεν · ποικίλοιγὰροἱἀγῶνεςἔσωθεν , ἔξωθεν · ἵνανευρούμενοικ . παρακαλούμενοιπαρὰτῶνγραφῶνὑπομονὴνἐπιδειξώμεθα · ἵναἐνὑπομονῇζῶντεςμένωμενἐπὶτῆςἐλπίδος . ταῦταγὰρἀλλήλωνἐστὶκατασκευαστικά , ἡὑπομονὴτῆςἐλπίδος , ἡἐλπὶςτῆςὑπομονῆς · ἅπερἀμφότεραἀπὸτῶνγραφῶνγίνεται , Chrys. ubi supra. As in this comment, ὑπομονῆς , as well as παρακλήσεως , is to be joined with τῶνγραφῶν ,— otherwise it stands unconnected with the subject of the sentence. The genitives then mean, the patience and the comfort arising from the Scriptures,— produced by their study. 5, 6. Further introduction of the subject, by a prayer that God, who has given the Scriptures for these ends, might grant them unanimity, that they might with one accord shew forth His glory. In the title given to God, the ὑπομονή and παράκλησις just mentioned are taken up again: q. d. “ The God who alone can give this patience and comfort.” The later form of the opt., δῴη , is also found 2 Timothy 1:16, 2 Timothy 1:18; Ephesians 1:17 al., in LXX Genesis 27:28; Genesis 28:4 al. See Winer, edn. 6, § 14.1. g. κατὰχρ . Ἰησοῦν , according to (the spirit and precepts of) Christ Jesus,— see reff. 6. τὸνθεὸνκ . πατ .] De Wette regards τὸνθεὸν as independent of Ἰησοῦχρ .,— ‘ God, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ The usage of the article will not decide the matter, because on either rendering, the accusatives both refer to the same Person: but the ordinary one, the God and Father … is preferable on account of its simplicity. 7. Wherefore (on which account, viz. that the wish of the last verse may be accomplished) receive (see ch. 14:1) one another, as Christ also received you,— with a view to God’ s glory . The Apostle does not expressly name Jewish and Gentile converts as those to whom he addresses this exhortation, but it is evident from the next verse that it is so. 8. For I say, that Christ hath been made (has come as: the effects still enduring. It can hardly be that the usual historical aorist γενέσθαι (see var. readd.) was altered to the unusual perfect γεγενῆσθαι . The tendency of correction was entirely the other way) a minister (He came διακονῆσαι , Matthew 20:28) of the circumcision (an expression no where else found, and doubtless here used by Paul to humble the pride of the strong, the Gentile Christians, by exalting God’ s covenant people to their true dignity) on account of the truth of God (i.e. for the fulfilment of the Divine pledges given under the covenant of circumcision) to confirm the promises of (made to, gen. obj.; cf. ἡεὐλογίατοῦἈβραάμ , Galatians 3:14) the fathers (i.e. Christ came to the Jews in virtue of a long-sealed compact, to the fulfilment of which God’ s truth was pledged): but (I say) that the Gentiles glorified God (or ‘ should glorify God:’ Winer, in his former editions, § 45. 8, took it as a perfect, and co-ordinate with γεγενῆσθαι : I would regard it (and so, apparently, Winer now, edn. 6, § 44. 7. c) as the historic aorist, and understand ‘ each man at his conversion.’ Least of all can it be subordinated to εἰςτό , as is done in E. V.) on account of (His) mercy (the emphasis is on ὑπὲρἐλέους : the Gentiles have no covenant promise to claim,— they have nothing but the pure mercy of God in grafting them in to allege— therefore the Jew has an advantage), &c. The citations are from the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. The first, originally spoken by David of his joy after his deliverances and triumphs, is prophetically said of Christ in His own Person. It is adduced to shew that among the Gentiles Christ’ s triumphs were to take place, as well as among the Jews. 10. καὶπάλ . λέγει , viz. ἡγραφή , or ὁθεός , which is in substance the same: not impersonal: see ref. 1 Cor., note. The present Heb. text of Deu 32:43 will not bear this, which is the LXX rendering. But Tholuck remarks, “ According to the present text the difficulty arises, that we must either take ג ּ ו ֹ י ִ ם of the Jewish tribes, or construe ה ִ ר ְ נ ִ י ן with an accus., instead of with ל ְ (Gesen.): the reading of the LXX may therefore be right.” There is however a reading א ֶ ת ־ ע ַ מ ּ ו ֹ found in one and perhaps another of Kennicott’ s mss. which will bear the rendering of our text. In several passages where the Gentiles are spoken of prophetically, the Hebrew text has apparently been tampered with by the Jews. See Kitto’ s Journal of Sacred Literature for January, 1852, pp. 275 ff. 11, 12. The universality of the praise to be given to God for His merciful kindness in sending His Son is prophetically indicated by the first citation. In the latter a more direct announcement is given of the share which the Gentiles were to have in the root of Jesse. The version is that of the LXX, which here differs considerably from the Heb. The latter is nearly literally rendered in E.V.: “ And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people: to it shall the Gentiles seek.” 13. The hortatory part of the Epistle, as well as the preceding section of it (ver. 5), concludes with a solemn wish for the spiritual welfare of the Roman church. The words τῆςἐλπίδος connect with ἐλπιοῦσι of the foregoing verse, as was the case with τῆςὑπομονῆςκ . τῆςπαρακλήσεως in ver. 5. χαρᾶςκ . εἰρήνης , as the happy result of faith in God, and unanimity with one another; see ch. 14:17. 15:14-16:27. OF THE EPISTLE. Personal notices, respecting the Apostle himself (15:14-33),— respecting those greeted (16:1-16), and greeting: together with warnings against those who made divisions among them (16:16-23);— and concluding doxology (16:24-27). 14-33. He first (14-16) excuses the boldness of his writing, by the allegation of his office as Apostle of the Gentiles. 14. αὐτὸςἐγω , I myself, = ‘ idem,’ Lat.,— ‘ notwithstanding what I have written:’ see ch. 7:25, note. Meyer understands it, ‘ without information from others:’ Bengel and Olsh., ‘ I myself, as well as others:’ Rü ckert, ‘ I not only wish it (ver. 13), but am persuaded for myself that it is so.’ καὶαὐτοί , ye also yourselves, i.e. without exhortation of mine. 15. ἀπὸμέρους restricts the τολμηρότερον to certain parts of the Epistle, e.g. ch. 11:17, ff. 25; chaps. 13 and 14. ἔγραψα , the dabam or scribebam of the Latins in epistolary writing. ὡςἐπαν . ὑμ ., as putting you anew in remembrance. διὰτ . χάριν … , because of the grace, &c.; i.e. ‘ my apostolic office was the ground and reason of my boldness:’ — not = διὰτῆςχάριτος ch. 12:3. 16. That I might be a ministering priest of Christ Jesus for (in reference to) the Gentiles, ministering in the Gospel of God , that the offering [up] of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The language is evidently figurative, and can by no possibility be taken as a sanction for any view of the Christian minister as a sacrificing priest, otherwise than according to that figure— viz. that he offers to God the acceptable sacrifice of those who by his means believe on Christ. “ Facit se antistitem vel sacerdotem in Evangelii ministerio, qui populum, quem Deo acquirit, in sacrificium offerat, atque hoc modo sacris Evangelii mysteriis operetur. Et sane hoc est Christiani pas-toris sacerdotium, homines in Evangelii obedientiam subigendo veluti Deo immolare: non, quod superciliose hactenus Papistæ jactarunt, oblatione homines reconciliare Deo. Neque tamen ecclesiasticos pastores simpliciter hic vocat Sacerdotes, tanquam perpetuo titulo: sed quum dignitatem efficaciamque ministerii vellet commendare Paulus, hac metaphora per occasionem est usus. Hic ergo finis sit Evangelii præ conibus in suo munere, animas fide purificatas Deo offerre.” Calvin. 17-22. The Apostle boasts of the extent and result of his apostolic mission among the Gentiles, and that in places where none had preached before him. I have therefore (consequent on the grace and ministry just mentioned) my boasting in Christ Jesus (there is no stress on ἐνχρ . Ἰης .,— it merely qualifies τὴνκαύχησιν as no vain glorying, but grounded in, consistent with, springing from, his relation and subserviency to Christ) of (concerning) matters relating to God (my above-named sacerdotal office and ministry). 18. The connexion is: ‘ I have real ground for glorying (in a legitimate and Christian manner);’ for I will not (as some false apostles do, see 2 Corinthians 10:12-18) allow myself to speak of any of those things which (ὧν for ἐκείνων , ἅ , attr.) Christ did not work by me (but by some other) in order to the obedience (subjection to the Gospel) of the Gentiles (then, as if the sentence were in the affirmative form, ‘ I will only boast of what Christ has veritably done by me towards the obedience of the Gentiles,’ he proceeds) by word and deed, 19. in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the [Holy] Spirit (the signs and wonders (reff.) are not spiritual, but external miraculous acts,— see 2 Corinthians 12:12), so that from Jerusalem (the eastern boundary of his preaching) and the neighbourhood (κύκλῳ is not to be joined with μέχριτ . Ἰλλ . as Calov., al., but refers (reff.) to Jerusalem, meaning perhaps its immediate neighbourhood, perhaps Arabia (?), Galatians 1:17,— but hardly Damascus and Cilicia, as De W. suggests, seeing that they would come into the route afterwards specified, from Jerusalem to Illyricum), as far as Illyricum (Illyricum bordered on Macedonia to the S. It is possible that Paul may literally have advanced to its frontiers during his preaching in Macedonia; but I think it more probable, that he uses it broadly as the ‘ terminus ad quem,’ the next province to that in which he had preached), I have fulfilled (ref.:— ‘ executed my office of preaching,’ so that εὐαγγέλιοντοῦχρ . = τὸεὐαγγελίζεσθαιτὸνχρ .) the Gospel of Christ. 20. But (limits the foregoing assertion) thus (after the following rule) being careful (reff.: the word in the Apostle’ s usage seems to lose its primary meaning of ‘ making a point of honour.’ The particip. agrees with με , ver. 19) to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was (previously) named, that I might not build on the foundation of another, but according as it is written (i.e. according to the following rule of Scripture: I determined to act in the spirit of these words, forming part of a general prophecy of the dispersion of that Gospel which I was preaching), &c. The citation is from the LXX, περὶαὐτοῦ referring to ὁπαῖςμου , ver. 13, but being unrepresented in the Heb. Our E. V. renders: “ That which had not been told them, shall they see: and that which they had not heard, shall they consider.” 22. διό , not, because a foundation had been already laid at Rome by another: this would refer to merely a secondary part of the foregoing assertion: διό refers to the primary, viz. his having been so earnestly engaged in preaching elsewhere. τὰπολλά , these many times: ot [‘ for the most part,’ or], as Meyer, Fritz., ‘ the greater number of times,’ — which would suggest the idea that there had been other occasions on which this hindrance had not been operative. 23. μηκ . τόπ . ἔχων , I have no more occasion, viz. of apostolic work. The participial construction prevails throughout, the participles standing as direct verbs. This not having been seen, the words ἐλεύσομαιπρὸςὑμᾶς have been inserted to fill up what seemed an aposiopesis. Now, however, I have no longer any business in these parts, but have had for many years past a desire to see you, whenever (as soon as) I journey into Spain. Respecting the question whether this journey into Spain was ever taken, the views of Commentators have differed, according to their conclusion respecting the liberation of the Apostle from his imprisonment at Rome. I have discussed this in the Prolegg. to the Pastoral Epistles, § ii. The reader may see, on the side of the completion of the journey, Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., Exo_4, pp. 527-552,— and on the other side, Dr. Davidson, Introd. to N. T. vol. ii. pp. 96-132, and Wieseler, Chron. der Apost. Zeitalt., Excursus I., where a copious list of books on both sides is given. 24. ἀπὸμέρους is an affectionate limitation of ἐμπλησθῶ , implying that he would wish to remain much longer than he anticipated being able to do,— and also, as Chrys. οὐδεὶςγάρμεχρόνοςἐμπλῆσαιδύναται , οὐδὲἐμποιῆσαίμοικόροντῆςσυνουσίαςὑμῶν . 25. See Acts 19:21; Acts 24:17; 2 Corinthians 8:19. διακονῶν , not the future, because he treats the whole action as already begun; see reff. 26. See 2 Corinthians 9:1, ff. κοινων .] See reff. Olsh. remarks, on τοὺςπτωχοὺςτ . ἁγίων , that this shews the community of goods in the church at Jerusalem not to have lasted long: cf. Galatians 2:10. 27. The fact is re-stated, with a view to an inference from it, viz. that the εὐδόκησαν was not merely a matter of benevolence, but of repayment: the Gentiles being debtors to the Jews for spiritual blessings. This general principle is very similarly enounced in 1 Corinthians 9:11. It is suggested by Grot., al., that by this Paul wished to hint to the Romans the duty of a similar contribution. 28. καρπόν , hardly, as Calv., al., “ proventum quem ex Evangelii satione ad Judæ os redire nuper dixit:” more probably said generally,— fruit of the faith and love of the Gentiles. σφραγισ ., ὡςεἰςβασιλικὰταμιεῖαἐναποθέμενοςὡςἐνἀσύλῳκ . ἀσφαλεῖχωρίῳ , Chrys. Hom. xxx. p. 739. δι ʼ ὑμῶν , through your city. 29. The fulness of the blessing of Christ imports that richness of apostolic grace which he was persuaded he should impart to them. So he calls his presence in the churches a χάρις , 2 Corinthians 1:15. See also ch. 1:11. 30-32. τ . ἀγάπ . τ . πνεύμ ., the love shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost;— a love which teaches us to look not only on our own things, but on the things of others. συναγων .] “ Ipse oret oportet, qui alios vult orare secum. Orare, agon est, præ sertim ubi homines resistunt.” Bengel. 31. Compare Acts 20:22; Acts 21:10-14. The exceeding hatred in which the Apostle was held by the Jews, and their want of fellow-feeling with the Gentile churches, made him fear lest even the ministration with which he was charged might not prove acceptable to them. 32. διὰθελ . θεοῦ = ἐὰνὁκύριοςθελήσῃ , 1 Corinthians 4:19: otherwise in reff. [κ . συναν . ὑμ ., and may refresh myself together with you;— i.e. ‘ that we may mutually refresh ourselves, I after my dangers and deliverance, you after your anxieties for me.’ But the text is in some confusion.] Chap. 16:1-16. Recommendation of Phœ be: greetings. 1, 2. In all probability Phœ be was the bearer of the Epistle, as stated in the (rec.) subscription. διάκονον ] Deaconess. See 1 Timothy 3:11, note. Pliny in his celebrated letter to Trajan says, “ necessarium credidi, ex duabus ancillis quæ ministræ dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenta quæ rere.” A minute discussion of their office, &c., in later times may be found in Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce; and in Bingham, book ii. chap. 22, § 8. Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., Exo_4, pp. 265-267, shews that the deaconesses must not be confounded with the χῆραι of 1 Timothy 5:3-16, as has sometimes been done. Kenchrë æ , the port of Corinth (τῶνΚορινθίωνἐπίνειον , Philo in Flacc. § 19, vol. ii., p. 539: κώμητιςτῆςΚορίνθουμεγίστη , Theodoret, h. l.) on the Saronic gulf of the Æ gean, for commerce with the east (Acts 18:18): seventy stadia from Corinth, Strabo viii. 380. Pausan. ii. 2, 3. Livy xxxii. 17. Plin. iv. 4. The Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 46, p. 1053, Migne) make the first bishop of the Cenchrean church to have been Lucius, consecrated by Paul himself (Winer, Realw.). The western port, on the Sinus Corinthiacus, was Leche (Paus.), Lecheæ (Plin.), or Lecheum (Strab., Ptol.). 2. ἐνκυρίῳ , in a Christian manner,— as mindful of your common Lord: ἀξίωςτ . ἁγίων , ‘ in a manner worthy of saints;’ i.e. ‘ as saints ought to do,’ — refers to προσδέξησθε , and therefore to their conduct to her;— not, ‘ as saints ought to be received.’ παραστῆτε ] Her business at Rome may have been such as to require the help of those resident there. προστάτιςπολλῶν ] This may refer to a part of the deaconess’ s office, the attending on the poor and sick of her own sex. κ . ἐμοῦαὐτοῦ ] when and where, we know not. It is not improbable that she may have been, like Lydia, one whose heart the Lord opened at the first preaching of Paul, and whose house was his lodging. 3, 4. The form Prisca is also found 2 Timothy 4:19. On Prisca and Aquila see note, Acts 18:2. They must have returned to Rome from Ephesus since the sending of 1 Cor.:— see 1 Corinthians 16:19: and we find them again at Ephesus (?), 2 Timothy 4:19. Their endangering of their lives for Paul may have taken place at Corinth (Acts 18:6 ff.) or at Ephesus (Act_19). See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 441. “ ὑποτιθέναι est pignori opponere. Demosth. in Aphobum: ἀπέτισατὴνλειτουργίαν , ὑποθεὶςτὴνοἰκίανκαὶτἀμαυτοῦπάντα . Æ schines: ὑπέθησαναὐτῷτοῦταλάντουτὰςδημοσίαςπροσόδους .” Wetst. The ‘ churches of the Gentiles’ had reason to be thankful to them, for having rescued the Apostle of the Gentiles from danger. It seems to have been the practice of Aquila and Priscilla (ref. 1 Cor.) and some other Christians (reff. Col., Philem.) to hold assemblies for worship in their houses, which were saluted, and sent salutations as one body in the Lord. Some light is thrown on the expression by the following passage from the Acta Martyrii S. Justini, in Ruinart, cited by Neander, Church Hist. i. 330, Rose’ s trans. “ The answer of Justin Martyr to the question of the prefect (Rusticus) ‘ Where do you assemble?’ exactly corresponds to the genuine Christian spirit on this point. The answer was; ‘ Where each one can and will. You believe, no doubt, that we all meet together in one place; but it is not so, for the God of the Christians is not shut up in a room, but, being invisible, He fills both heaven and earth, and is honoured every where by the faithful.’ Justin adds, that when he came to Rome, he was accustomed to dwell in one particular spot, and that those Christians who were instructed by him, and wished to hear his discourse, assembled at his house. (This assembly would accordingly be ἡκατ ʼ οἶκοντοῦἸουστίνουἐκκλησία .) He had not visited any other congregations of the Church.” 5. Epæ netus is not elsewhere named. ἀπαρχή , the same metaphor being in the Apostle’ s mind as in ch. 15:16,— the first believer. On Ἀσίας see var. readd. εἰςχρ ., elliptical: the full construction would be τῆςπροσφορᾶςεἰςχρ . 6. None of the names occurring from ver. 5-15 are mentioned elsewhere (except possibly Rufus: see below). De Wette remarks, that, notwithstanding the manuscript authority, εἰςἡμᾶς is perhaps the more likely reading, (1) because the Apostle would hardly mention a service done to themselves as a ground of salutation from him, and (2) because κοπιᾷν without being expressly followed by λόγῳ (1 Timothy 5:17: see Philippians 2:16; Colossians 1:29), said of women, most likely implies acts of kindness peculiar to the sex. 7. Ἰουνιᾶν may be fem. , from Ἰουνία (Junia), in which case she is probably the wife of Andronicus,— or masc., from Ἰουνιᾶς (Junianus, contr. Junias). It is uncertain also whether συγγενεῖς means fellow-countrymen, or relations. Aquila and Priscilla were Jews: so would Maria be, and probably Epæ netus, being an early believer. If so, the word may have its strict meaning of ‘ relations.’ But it seems to occur vv. 11, 21 in a wider sense. συναιχμ .] When and where, uncertain. ἐπίσημοιἐντ . ἀποστ .] Two renderings are given: (1) ‘ of note among the Apostles,’ so that they themselves are counted among the Apostles: thus the Greek ff. (τὸἀποστόλουςεἶναι , μέγα · τὸδὲκαὶἐντούτοιςἐπισήμουςεἶναι , ἐννόησονἡλίκονἐγκώμιον , Chrys.), Calv., Est., Wolf, Thol., Kö lln., Olsh., al.: or (2) ‘ noted among the Apostles,’ i.e. well known and spoken of by the Apostles. Thus Beza, Grot., Koppe, Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., De W. But, as Thol. remarks, had this latter been the meaning, we should have expected some expression like διὰπασῶντῶνἐκκλησιῶν (2 Corinthians 8:18). I may besides remark, that for Paul to speak of any persons as celebrated among the Apostles in sense (2), would imply that he had more frequent intercourse with the other Apostles, than we know that he had; and would besides be improbable on any supposition. The whole question seems to have sprung up in modern times from the idea that οἱἀπόστολοι must mean the Twelve only. If the wider sense found in Acts 14:4, Acts 14:14; 2 Corinthians 8:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:6 (compare 1:1) be taken, there need be no doubt concerning the meaning. οἳκαὶ … ] refers to Andr.and Jun., not to the Apostles. In the use of γέγοναν , there is a mixed construction— “ who have been longer than me,” and “ who were before me.” 8 ff.] Ampliatus = Amplias: see v. r. ἀγ . ἐνκυρ . beloved in the bonds of Christian fellowship. συνεργ . ἐνχρ ., fellow-workman in (the work of) Christ. Origen and others have confounded Apelles with the well-known Apollos, but apparently without reason. Cf. Hor. Sat. i. 5. 100. δόκιμ . ἐνχρ ., approved (by trial) in (the work of) Christ. It does not follow that either Aristobulus or Narcissus were themselves Christians. Only those of their familiœ are here saluted who were ἐνκυρίῳ : for we must understand this also after Ἀριστοβούλου . συγγ ., see above. Grot., Neander, al., have taken Narcissus for the well-known freedman of Claudius. But this can hardly be, for he was executed (Tac. Ann. xiii. 1) in the very beginning of Nero’ s reign, i.e. cir. 55 a.d., whereas (see Prolegg. § iv. 4, and Chronol. Table) this Epistle cannot have well been written before 58 a.d. Perhaps, as Winer (Realw.) suggests, the family of this Narcissus may have continued to be thus known after his death (?). 13. Rufus may have been the son of Simon of Cyrene, mentioned Mark 15:21: but the name was very common. ἐκλεκτόν — not to be softened, as De W., al., to merely ‘ eximium,’ a sense unknown to our Apostle;— elect, i.e. one of the elect of the Lord. καὶἐμοῦ the Apostle adds from affectionate regard towards the mother of Rufus: ‘ my mother,’ in my reverence and affection for her. Jowett compares our Lord’ s words to St. John, John 19:27. 14. These Christians of whom we have only the names, seem to be persons of less repute than the former. Hermas (= Hermodorus, Grot.) is thought by Origen , Eus.H. E. iii. 3, and Jerome, Catal. script, eccl., c. x., vol. ii., p. 846, to be the author of the ‘ Shepherd.’ But this latter is generally supposed to have been the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, about 150 a.d. The σὺναὐτοῖςἀδελφοί of ver. 14, and σὺναὐτοῖςπάντεςἅγιοι of ver. 15, have been taken by De W. and Reiche to point to some separate associations of Christians, perhaps (De W.) assemblies as in ver. 5: or (Reiche) unions for missionary purposes. 16. The meaning of this injunction seems to be, that the Roman Christians should take occasion, on the receipt of the Apostle’ s greetings to them, to testify their mutual love, in this, the ordinary method of salutation, but having among Christians a Christian and holy meaning, see reff. It became soon a custom in the churches at the celebration of the Lord’ s Supper. See Suicer under ἀσπασμός and φίλημα , and Bingham, xv. 3.3. ἀσπάζ . ὑμ . αἱἐκκλ . π .] This assurance is stated evidently on the Apostle’ s authority, speaking for the churches; not implying as Bengel, “ quibuscum fui, c. xv. 26. His significarat, se Romam scribere,” but vouching for the brotherly regard in which the Roman church was held by all churches of Christ. The above misunderstanding has led to the exclusion of πᾶσαι . 17-20. Warning against those who made divisions among them. To what persons the Apostle refers, is not plain. Some (Thol., al.) think the Judaizers to be meant, not absolutely within the Christian pale, but endeavouring to sow dissension in it: and so, nearly, Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 452. De W. thinks that Paul merely gives this warning in case such persons came to Rome. Judging by the text itself, we infer that these teachers were similar to those pointed out in Philippians 3:2, Philippians 3:18; 1 Timothy 6:3 ff.; 2 Corinthians 11:13, 2 Corinthians 11:20: unprincipled and selfish persons, seducing others for their own gain: whether Judaizers or not, does not appear: but considering that the great opponents of the Apostle were of this party, we may perhaps infer that they also belonged to it. 17. σκοπεῖν = βλέπειν , Philippians 3:2. The διδαχή here spoken of is probably rather ethical than doctrinal; compare Ephesians 4:20-24. 18. χρηστολογία , κολακεία , Theophyl. Wetstein cites from Julius Capitolinus, in Pertinace, 13, “ omnes, qui libere conferebant, male Pertinacem loquebantur, chrestologum eum appellantes, qui bene loqueretur et male faceret.” εὐλογίας , fairness of speech: so Plato, Rep. iii. 400 d, εὐλογίαἄρακ . εὐαρμοστίακ . εὐσχημοσύνηκ . εὐρυθμίαεὐηθείᾳἀκολουθεῖ — or perhaps ‘ eulogies’ (flatteries), as Pind. Nehemiah 4:8, οὐδὲθερμὸνὕδωρτόσον | γεμαλθακὰτεύχει | γυῖα , τόσσονεὐλογίαφόρ | μιγγισυνάορος . 19. See ch. 1:8. Their obedience being matter of universal notoriety, is the ground of his confidence that they will comply with his entreaty, ver. 17. Some slight reproof is conveyed in χαίρω , θέλωδὲκ .τ .λ . They were well known for obedience, but had not been perhaps cautious enough with regard to these designing persons and their pretended wisdom. See Matthew 10:16, of which words of our Lord there seems to be here a reminiscence. 20. ἐπειδὴγὰρεἶπετοὺςτὰςδιχοστασίαςκ . τὰσκάνδαλαποιοῦντας , εἶπενεἰρήνηςθεόν , ἵναθαρσήσωσιπερὶτῆςτούτωνἀπαλλαγῆς . Chrys. Hom. xxxii. p. 755: and so most Commentators. De W. prefers taking ὁθ . τῆςεἰρ . more generally as ‘ the God of salvation;’ and the usage of the expression (see reff.) seems to favour this. συντρ . τ . σατ . is a similitude from Genesis 3:15. συντρίψει , not as Stuart, ‘ for optative,’ nor does it express any wish, but a prophetic assurance and encouragement in bearing up against all adversaries, that it would not be long before the great Adversary himself would be bruised under their feet. ἡχάριςκ .τ .λ .] It appears as if the Epistle was intended to conclude with this usual benediction, but the Apostle found occasion to add more. This he does also in other Epistles: see 1 Corinthians 16:23, 1 Corinthians 16:24; similarly Philippians 4:20, and vv. 21-23 after the doxology,— 2 Thessalonians 3:16, 2 Thessalonians 3:17, 1 Timothy 6:16, 1 Timothy 6:17 ff.:— 2 Timothy 4:18, 2 Timothy 4:19 ff. 21-24. Greetings from various persons. 21. Lucius must not be mistaken for Lucas (= Lucanus),— but was probably Lucius of Cyrene, Acts 13:1, see note there. Jason may be the same who is mentioned Acts 17:5, Acts 17:7, as the host of Paul and Silas at Thessalonica. A ‘ Sopater (son) of Pyrrhus of Berœ a’ occurs Acts 20:4, but it is quite uncertain whether this Sosipater is the same person. οἱσυγγενεῖς , see above, ver. 7. These persons may have been Jews; but we cannot tell whether the expression may not be used in a wider sense. 22. There is nothing strange (as Olsh. supposes) in this salutation being inserted in the first person. It would be natural enough that Tertius the amanuensis, inserting ἀσπάζεταιὑμ . Τέρτ . ὁγρ . τ . ἐπ . ἐνκυρ ., should change the form into the first person, and afterwards proceed from the dictation of the Apostle as before. Beza and Grot. suppose him to have done this on transcribing the Epistle. Thol. notices this irregularity as a corroboration of the genuineness of the chapter. On the supposed identity of Tertius with Silas see note on Acts 15:22. 23. Gaius is mentioned 1 Corinthians 1:14, as having been baptized by Paul. The host of the whole church probably implies that the assemblies of the church were held in his house:— or perhaps, that his hospitality to Christians was universal. Erastus, holding this office (οἰκονόμος , the public treasurer, ὁἐπὶτῆςδημοσίαςτραπέζης , arcarius, Wetst., who quotes from inscriptions, ΝείλῳοἰκονόμῳἈσίας ,— Secundus, arkarius Reip. Armerinorum), can hardly have been the same who was with the Apostle in Ephesus, Acts 19:22. It is more probable that the Erastus of 2 Timothy 4:20 is identical with this than with that other. ὁἀδελφός , our brother [see 1 Corinthians 1:1],— the generic singular; one among οἱἀδελφοί , ‘ the brethren.’ The rest have been specified by their services or offices. [24. The benediction repeated; see above on ver. 20. The omission (see var. read.) has perhaps been by the caprice of the copyists.] 25-27. Concluding doxology. The genuineness of this doxology, and its position in the Epistle have been much questioned. The external evidence will be found in the var. readings;— from which it is plain, that its genuineness as a part of the Epistle is placed beyond all reasonable doubt. Nor does the variety of position militate here, as in some cases, against this conclusion. For the transference of it to the end of ch. 14 may be explained, partly from the supposed reference of στηρίξαι to the question treated in ch. 14 , partly from the supposed inappropriateness of it here after the benediction of ver. 24, in consequence of which that verse is omitted by mss. which have the doxology here,— partly from the unusual character of the position and diction of the doxology itself. This latter has been used as an internal argument against the genuineness of the portion. Paul never elsewhere ends with such a doxology. His doxologies, when he does use such, are simple, and perspicuous in construction, whereas this is involved, and rhetorical. This objection however is completely answered by the supposition (Fritz.) that the doxology was the effusion of the fervent mind of the Apostle on taking a general survey of the Epistle. We find in its diction striking similarities to that of the pastoral Epistles:— a phæ nomenon occurring in several places where Paul writes in a fervid and impassioned manner,— also where he writes with his own hand;— the inferences from which I have treated in the Prolegg. to those Epistles (vol. iii. Prolegg. ch. vii. § i. 30-33). That the doxology is made up of unusual expressions taken from Paul’ s other writings, that it is difficult and involved, are facts, which if rightly argued from, would substantiate, not its interpolation, but its genuineness: seeing that an interpolator would have taken care to conform it to the character of the Epistle in which it stands, and to have left in it no irregularity which would bring it into question. The construction is exceedingly difficult. Viewed superficially, it presents only another instance added to many in which the Apostle begins a sentence with one construction, proceeds onward through various dependent clauses till he loses sight of the original form, and ends with a construction presupposing another kind of beginning. And such no doubt it is: but it is not easy to say what he had in his mind when commencing the sentence. Certainly, ᾧἡδόξαεἰςτ . αἰῶνας forbids us from supposing that δόξα was intended to follow the datives,— for thus this latter clause would be merely a repetition. We might imagine that he had ended the sentence as if it had begun ὁδὲδυνάμενος , κ .τ .λ . and expressed a wish that He who was able to confirm them, might confirm them: but this is prevented by its being evident, from the μόνῳσοφῷθεῷ , that the datives are still in his mind. This latter fact will guide us to the solution. The dative form is still in his mind, but not the reference in which he had used it. Hence, when the sentence would naturally have concluded (as it actually does in B: see digest) μόνῳσοφῷθεῷ , διὰἸησοῦχριστοῦ , ἡδόξαεἰςτ . αἰῶνας ,— a break is made, as if the sense were complete at χριστοῦ , and the relative ᾧ refers back to the subject of the sentence preceding, thus imagined complete,— viz. to ὁδυνάμενος — μόνοςσοφὸςθεός . The analogy of the similar passage Acts 20:32 would tempt us to supply with the datives παρατίθεμαιὑμᾶς , or the like, as suggested by Olsh.;— but as De W. remarks, the form of a doxology is too evident to allow of this. After all, perhaps, the datives may be understood as conveying a general ascription of praise for the mercies of Redemption detailed in the Epistle, and then ᾧἡδ . as superadded, q. d., To Him who is able &c.… be all the praise: to whom be glory for ever. 25. κατά , in reference to, i.e. ‘ in subordination to,’ and according to the requirements of. κήρυγμαἸησοῦχρ . can hardly mean, as De W. and Meyer, ‘ the preaching which Jesus Christ hath accomplished by me’ (ch. 15:18),— nor again as Chrys., ὃαὐτὸςἐκήρυξεν ,— but the preaching of Christ, i.e. making known of Christ, as the verb is used 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:12 al. fr. So Calv., and most Commentators. κατὰἀποκ .] This second κατά is best taken, not as co-ordinate to the former one, and following στηρίξαι , nor as belonging to δυναμένῳ , which would be an unusual limitation of the divine Power,— but as subordinate to κήρυγμα ,— the preaching of Jesus Christ according to, &c. The omission of τό before κατὰἀποκ . is no objection to this. μυστ .] The mystery (see ch. 11:25, note) of the gospel is often said to have been thus hidden from eternity in the counsels of God— see Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:26; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8. 26. See ch. 1:2. The prophetic writings were the storehouse out of which the preachers of the gospel took their demonstrations that Jesus was the Christ: see Acts 18:28;— more especially, it is true, to the Jews, who however are here included among πάντατὰἔθνη . κατ ʼ ἐπιταγ . may refer either to the prophetic writings being drawn up by the command of God,— or to the manifestation of the mystery by the preachers of the gospel thus taking place. The latter seems best to suit the sense. αἰωνίου refers back to χρ . αἰωνίοις [the word should have been kept scrupulously the same in English, not as here and in Matthew 22:46 rendered by two different English terms]. The first εἰς indicates the aim— in order to their becoming obedient to the faith:— the second, the local extent of the manifestation. 27. διὰἸης . χρ . must by the requirements of the construction be applied to μόνῳσοφῷθεῷ , and not (as Aug.[and E. V.]) to δόξα , from which it is separated by the relative ᾧ . The quantity of intervening matter, especially the datives μόνῳσοφῷθεῷ , prevent it from being referred (as Œ c., Theophyl.) to στηρίξαι . It must then be rendered to the only wise God through Jesus Christ, i.e. Him who is revealed to us by Christ as such. On the construction of ᾧ see above. It cannot without great harshness be referred to Christ, seeing that the words μόνῳσοφῷθεῷ resume the chief subject of the sentence, and to them the relative must apply.